Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: March 27
Today is: Friday, April 19th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of March: (Show All Months)
Gen_41:38-43
Before proceeding to notice the circumstances of the investiture, it may be as well to indicate that Joseph’s high and sudden promotion arose not merely from the conviction of his wisdom, and of the singular political sagacity and administrative judgment which his counsel indicated, but from the conviction that he enjoyed the special favor of God, and was therefore likely to prosper in whatever he undertook. What God thus favored him, none were probably very solicitous to inquire. It was enough that it was the powerful God who was able to impart to the king important warnings—and to afford his servant the interpretations which the most renowned of the wise men of Egypt had been unable to produce. This is clearly indicated in the words of the king: “Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the spirit of God is?” And again in his words to Joseph: “Forasmuch as God hath showed thee this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art.” This was a great thing for the king to say to a foreigner, for Egypt was so famous of old time for its knowledge and learning, that the wisest in other lands thought it not beneath them to repair thither in search of wisdom.
In looking into the terms of this appointment to high office, we see that the authority conferred is of the most absolute kind that even an ancient eastern king could confer. It made him, in fact, vizier of Egypt, or what in Europe is termed “prime minister.” “At thy word,” said the king, “shall my people be ruled: only on the throne will I be greater than thou.” And again: “See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.” The utmost authority the king could give was indeed necessary to enable Joseph to carry out with effect the large and comprehensive scheme that he had shadowed forth. The fact is, however, of great interest, as showing that the practical administrative functions of royalty were, even at this early period of the world’s history, entrusted to a chief minister.
The first ceremonial act of the king, in conferring this high honor, is very significant. “He took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph’s hand,” a circumstance which suggests to one of our elder commentators Note: Parker, in Bibliotheca Biblica. that the “honors conferred upon Joseph partly resembled those of a Lord Privy Seal with us.” The ring was no doubt the signet of sovereignty with which the royal acts were to be sealed, and which rendered them authentic and authoritative. It empowered the person who held it to enforce his measures by the royal authority; he remaining responsible to the sovereign for the manner in which he used the high powers thus entrusted to him. In modern European states, the royal signet is used only under the direction of the sovereign or his council; but in the ancient East the possession of the royal signet—which was equivalent to the sign manual with us—gave to him who held it a power only less than sovereign, in that it was a responsible authority, which might at any time be taken away. The king, doubtless, contained the name or insignia of the king; and we are not to imagine that it was, as with us, employed in sealing with wax. Nothing of that sort can be used in so warm a climate as that of Egypt. It must have been employed in impressing the royal name, with ink, upon the documents to which it was applied. In this employment of the signet ring, the thick ink, which resembles that used by printers, is rubbed over the whole surface, so that the body of the impression therefrom is black, while the engraved characters are blank, or white. We are well acquainted with the signet and other rings of the ancient Egyptians, as many specimens have been found. They are usually of gold. The form of the scarabæus, or sacred beetle, was that usually preferred for this purpose. In some cases the stone, flat on both faces, turned on pins, like many of our seals at the present day; and the ring itself was bound round at each end, where it was inserted into the stone, with gold wire. Sir J. G. Wilkinson states, that one of the largest signets he had ever seen was in the possession of a French gentleman at Cairo, which contained twenty pounds worth of gold. “It consisted of a massive ring, half an inch in its largest diameter, having an oblong plinth, on which the devices were engraved, one inch long, six tenths in its greatest, and four tenths in its smallest breadth. On the face was the name of a king, the successor of Amunoph III., who lived about B.C. 1460; Note: Not long after the death of Joshua. on the other a lion, with the legend ‘lord of strength,’ referring to the monarch: on one side a scorpion, on the other a crocodile.” Here we have an undoubted specimen of a royal signet, little more than three centuries posterior to the time under consideration.
Joseph was next “arrayed in vestures of fine linen,” which was not only a high distinction, as coming from the king—thereby constituting it a dress of honor, still conferred as a mark of high favor by the sovereigns of the East—but denoted the rank and station to which he was exalted, as it appears that dresses of this fine fabric were only allowed to be worn by persons of the highest rank and distinction in Egypt. We shall not here inquire whether the word rendered “fine linen,” really does denote linen or cotton. The general impression seems to be, that cotton was not so early known, even in Egypt, and that therefore the alternative chosen by our translators is correct. It is certain that the more delicate textures of the Egyptian looms were costly and highly prized. An unfavorable impression has been formed of the Egyptian cloths from the comparatively coarse texture of the specimens in which the mummies are enfolded, and which have been ascertained to be commonly, if not universally, of linen. But it would not, at the present day, be considered right to seek the finest specimens of textile manufactures among the vestments of the dead, and we know not that the case was formerly different. Among the Egyptians, it was very possible that the finer cloths were regarded as unsuited to form any part of the cerements in which the dead were enveloped. Nevertheless, some very fine and delicate specimens have been occasionally found; and in the paintings which represent the dresses of the living, it is seen from their transparency, and from their folds, that they were, among the higher ranks of people, of very fine and delicate texture. Sir J. G. Wilkinson declares, that he has in his possession actual specimens of Egyptian “fine linen, the quality of which fully justifies all the praises of antiquity, and excites equal admiration at the present day—being to the touch comparable to silk, and not inferior in texture to our finest cambric.”
The dress of persons of rank in Egypt consisted of a kind of apron or kilt, sometimes simply bound round the loins and lapping over in front, but generally secured by a girdle, or by a sort of sash, tied in front in a bow or knot. It was sometimes folded over, with a center-piece falling down in front, beneath the part where it overlapped. Over this was worn a loose upper robe of the “fine linen,” with full sleeves, secured by a girdle around the loins. Or else the dress consisted of the mere apron, and a shirt with short close sleeves, over which was thrown a loose robe, leaving the right arm exposed. The dress of the king himself seems to have differed only in the apron and head-dress, which were of peculiar form, and belonged exclusively to his rank as king. Note: Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, iii. 119, 347-351; Cyclop. of Biblical Literature, Art. Shesh.
Besides these vestures, Pharaoh put a chain of gold around the neck of Jacob’s son. In reference to this mark of distinction, the existing monuments of Egypt afford us abundant information. In the tombs at Beni-Hassan many slaves are represented, each of whom has in his hand something that belongs to the dress or ornaments of his master. The first carries one of the necklaces with which the neck and breast of persons of high rank are generally adorned. Over it stands, “necklace of gold.” At the same place there is also a similar representation, in another tomb, of a noble Egyptian. By the form of the necklace, the distinction of individuals, with regard to rank and dignity, was probably denoted. Men of the common order seldom wear such ornaments, while the pictures of the kings and of the great are constantly adorned with them. Note: Hengstenberg’s Egypt and the Books of Moses, pp, 31, 32. American edition.
In fact, the use of gold chains among ourselves, as marks of civic, judicial, knightly, and courtly honors, leaves little need for remote or foreign illustration of the subject. It seems to us highly probable that among the articles of dress with which Joseph was invested, we are to seek in the necklace and the signet-ring the special insignia by which the high office to which he was appointed might be recognized.
It was necessary that his recognition should be public, and that it should therefore be openly proclaimed throughout the city. We ensure adequate publicity by announcements in the Gazette. But the Egyptians, with all their wonderful advances in civilization, possessed not this valuable organ of publicity, and therefore the general expedient of a public parade and proclamation through the streets became necessary—an expedient still kept up partially in our own court, and in our civic ceremonies, though no longer exacted by the conditions in which it originated. This was also done at the court of Persia, in the case of Mordecai. Est_6:9. In the procession of Mordecai, however, the object of honor appeared on horseback—on the king’s own horse; but in Egypt—where men rode rather in chariots than on horseback—Joseph appears in the second state chariot of the realm. The Egyptian chariots were a species of gig, drawn by two horses. They were of light and elegant construction. On grand occasions the horses were decked with fancy ornaments; a rich striped or checkered housing, trimmed with a broad border, and large pendent tassels, covered the whole body, and two or more feathers, inserted in lions’ heads, or some other device of gold, formed a crest upon the summit of the head-stall. But this display was confined to the chariot of the monarch or high military chiefs. And as Joseph rode in the monarch’s chariot the horses were no doubt thus decorated.
In this high state was Joseph paraded through the chief streets of the royal city, while the heralds that went before him cried Abrech!—an Egyptian word, the meaning of which is not well known. The English version renders it by “Bow the knee!” some by “Bow the head!” while others, of no mean authority, apprehend that it proclaimed him to be “a native Egyptian,” notwithstanding his foreign extraction. At all events that he should be publicly recognized as a naturalized subject, must, however effected, have been a consideration of no small weight with a people so jealous of foreigners as the Egyptians.