Study

22. I have given to thee one portion. In order to increase the confidence of his son Joseph, Jacob here assigns him a portion beyondhis proper lot. Some expound the passage otherwise; as if he called him a double heir in his two sons, thus honoring him with one portion more than the rest. But there is no doubt that he means a certain territory. And John, (John 4:5,) removes all controversy; for, speaking of the field adjoining Sychar, which before was called Shechem, says, it was that which Jacob gave to his son Joseph. And, in the last chapter of Joshua, (Joshua 24:32,) it is said to have come into the possession of the sons of Joseph. But in the word שכם(shechem,) which among the Hebrews signifies a part, allusion is made to the proper name of the place. But here a question arises; how can he say that he had obtained the field by his sword and by his bow, which he had purchased with money, as is stated before, (Genesis 33:19,) and is again recorded in the above mentioned chapter of Joshua? Seeing, however, that only a small portion of the field, where he might pitch his tents, was bought, I do not doubt that here he comprised a much greater space. For we may easily calculate, from the price, how small a portion of land he possessed, before the destruction of the city. He gives, therefore, now to his son Joseph, not only the place of his tent, which had cost a hundred pieces of silver, but the field which had been the common of the city of Sychar. But it remains to inquire how he may be said to have obtained it by his sword, whereas the inhabitants had been wickedly and cruelly slain by Simon and Levi. How then could it be acquired by the right of conquest, from those against whom war had been unjustly brought; or rather, against whom, without any war, the most cruel perfidy had been practiced? Jerome resorts to allegory, saying that the field was obtained by money, which is called strength, or justice. Others suppose a prolepsis, as if Jacob was speaking of a future acquisition of the land: a meaning which, though I do not reject, seems yet somewhat forced. I rather incline to this interpretation: first, that he wished to testify that he had taken nothing by means of his two sons Simon and Levi; who, having raged like robbers, were not lawful conquerors, and had never obtained a single foot of land, after the perpetration of the slaughter. For, so far were they from gaining anything, that they compelled their father to fly; nor would escape have been possible, unless they had been delivered by miracle. When, however, Jacob strips them of their empty title, he transfers this right of victory to himself, as being divinely granted to him. For though he always held their wickedness in abhorrence, and will show his detestation of it in the next chapter Genesis 49:1; yet, because they had armed his whole household, they fought as under his auspices. Gladly would he have preserved the citizens of Shechem, a design which he was not able to accomplish; yet he appropriates to himself the land left empty and deserted by their destruction, because, for his sake, God had spared the murderers.¹⁹³¹⁹³     Perhaps this interpretation of a confessedly obscure passage, will be deemed rather ingenious than solid. It is supposed by many, that Jacob refers to some transaction of which no record is preserved. He may, like Abraham, on some occasion, have armed his household to recover from the hands of the Amorites the field of Sheehem, which he had previously purchased. But the whole must be left in hopeless obscurity. Ainsworth thinks that Jacob is speaking proleptically, and representing the future conduct of his children under Joshua, whose sword and bow he here calls his own. But this seems far-fetched. The Chaldee interpretation, that the sword and bow are figuratively used for prayer and supplication, is still more improbable. — Ed.