Commentaria in Exodum
THEY FILLED THE LAND.—understand fittingly, their own or that assigned to them, namely the land of Gessen. You will ask, whence came so great a multiplication of the Hebrews, from nature or from miracle? I answer first, that it is not properly to be ascribed to a miracle: for naturally 70 men, if they continually beget, and these others, and those others, always for 215 years, will produce an immense number of children. Whence Diodorus Siculus teaches, book 3, chap. 2, that Ninus, who began to reign about the year 250 after the flood, led out against the Bactrians seventeen hundred thousand footmen. See how much in 250 years men were propagated from only three sons of Noe. In like manner, therefore, the same could happen here; and first, because it could naturally happen that all the Hebrew women were fruitful and bore every year. Secondly, it could be that they began early to bear and ceased very late. Thirdly, the Hebrews relate, and Abulensis does not deny, that they bore two, three, nay four children at a birth; nay Aristotle, book 7 of the History of Animals, chap. 4, asserts that this is common in Egypt, for thus he says: “Since some animals bear singly, others many, the human race is in doubt; for generally women bear one at a time. But often, and in most places, they also bear twins, as is certain to happen in Egypt;” “…they bear. For in Egypt they bear both three and four at a birth; and this often happens in some places; but most commonly five are born, and a certain woman bore twenty children, five at each birth, and the greater part of them could be nourished and grow up.” So Aristotle. I answer secondly, that this fruitfulness and propagation of the Hebrews is not to be ascribed to nature’s fruitfulness, but to the singular providence of God, his help and concurrence, by which he assisted nature, fostered it, and made it more vigorous and fruitful. It is proved, because the Hebrews so increased though they were in extreme and continual labours and afflictions both of body and of mind; nay, the more they were oppressed, the more they increased; but this oppression and affliction is contrary to fruitfulness and brings sterility, and this is what St. Augustine says, book 18 On the City of God, chap. 7: “The Hebrews increased, their multiplication being made fruitful by God.” Allegorically, Jacob entering Egypt with his twelve sons signifies Christ entering the world with the twelve Apostles, and preaching the Gospel through the whole of it, from which, after the death of Joseph, that is, of Christ, an innumerable multitude of believers has been propagated. So St. Augustine, serm. 48 On the Time.
8. THERE AROSE UP IN THE LAND A NEW KING.—Who was he? First, Cajetan thinks he was by origin not an Egyptian but an Assyrian. He proves it from what Isaias says, 52:4: “My people went down into Egypt, and the Assyrian hath oppressed them without any cause.” But the sense of that place is another, as I said there. Secondly, others with Eusebius think he was Mephres, whom Eusebius makes the fourth king of the 18th dynasty, which is that of the Politani; and he adds that in the first year of his reign Joseph died and the affliction of the Hebrews began. But this is repugnant to Scripture here, which asserts that this affliction began after the death of Joseph and of all his brethren and nephews. Levi and the other brethren and nephews lived long after Joseph: therefore this affliction of the Hebrews began long after Joseph’s death. Thirdly, others think he was Ramesses, because the city Ramesse was, as it seems, called after him, which the Hebrews built by his order in this affliction. But Eusebius, Cyril and others relate that Ramesses reigned long after Moses. Fourthly, Gerard Mercator calls this king Armesesmianus, who he says reigned 66 years and began to reign five years before the birth of Moses. Fifthly, Abulensis, Pererius, Tornielus, and others, more probably think it was Amenophis, who was the seventh of the 18th dynasty of the Politani, whom some think to be that Memnon the speaking stone, since his statue gave forth a voice down to the time of Christ: for when the ray of the sun about its rising touched this statue and reached its mouth, then it spoke after the manner and fashion of men: for in the 18th year of his reign Eusebius relates that Moses was born; and this affliction of the Hebrews began a little before the birth of Moses. He is called a new king, not because he was of another dynasty, but because he was of another family than the former kings who had honoured Joseph, says Josephus; or he is called a new king by reason of his different and new disposition, custom, manners and government: different, I say, from the preceding kings, who had treated Joseph and the Hebrews kindly.
Allegorically, the old king is God, the new king is the devil, who afflicted the faithful in three ways: first, violently, by the persecutions of ten Roman Emperors; secondly, wisely, by philosophers and heretics; thirdly, craftily and smoothly by enticements and pleasures, as he now does, peace having been won for the Church.
‸See Rupert and St. Augustine, serm. 84 On the Time. So that Abbot in John Moschus, Spiritual Meadow, chap. 129, used to say: “Let us not desire to serve the Egyptians in pleasures, which make us subject to Pharao the destructive tyrant.” He therefore who serves pleasure subjects himself to Pharao, that is, to the demon.
WHO KNEW NOT JOSEPH.—The Chaldee renders, “who kept not the decrees of Joseph,” but brought in new laws and customs, according to the saying: A new king, a new law.
10. COME, LET US WISELY OPPRESS THEM.—The Hebrew has, “come, let us deal wisely against him”; the Septuagint, “let us deal craftily against them”: for there is one wisdom and prudence from above, of God, and another earthly and devilish, of the world (such as this was), James 3:15. Certainly not on this condition, to this end, and with this mind, had Pharao admitted the Hebrews into his kingdom.
You will ask, when did this oppression of the Hebrews begin? First, Eusebius in the Chronicle thinks it began immediately from the death of Joseph, and consequently lasted 144 years; for so many are there from the death of Joseph to the departure out of Egypt; but this is an error: for Moses says here that it began after the death of Levi and of all the brethren and of the whole kindred, of whom many lived long after Joseph. Secondly, the Hebrews in the Seder Olam think it began at the death of Levi and lasted 116 years; but these err both in the first point and in the second: for from the death of Levi to the departure out of Egypt not 116 but 191 years passed. Thirdly, Tornielus thinks it began at the beginning of the reign of Amenophis, and lasted 106 years. Fourthly, Pererius thinks it lasted 87 years.
I answer and say that it began a little before the birth of Moses, and lasted 90 years more or less, namely 10 years before Moses and 80 while Moses lived; for in the 80th year of his life Moses led the Hebrews out of it and out of Egypt. This is plain first from the fact that it began after the death of Joseph, of his brethren and of all that first generation; and it is established that Levi, who was only 4 years older than Joseph, lived 137 years, as is plain from chap. 6, verse 16. Levi therefore lived 23 years after the death of Joseph; but from the death of Joseph to the birth of Moses 64 years passed: from the death of Levi, therefore, to Moses 41 years passed. Again, Caath, son of Levi, lived 133 years, as is plain from chap. 6, verse 18. If he be supposed born in the 20th year of Levi, it follows that he outlived his father Levi by 16 years, so that from the death of Caath to Moses only 25 years passed. Again, after Caath, Phares and the others who were boys when they entered Egypt seem to have lived and died; but this affliction began after the death of Levi, Caath and the rest of the 70 who had come down from Chanaan with Jacob into Egypt; nay, after their death began that first multiplication of the Hebrews of which verse 7 speaks, which stirred up this envy and hatred of the new king, so that he afflicted them. After Caath, therefore, about 15 years seem to have passed, in which partly the remainder of the first 70 died and partly the Hebrews were increased by many offspring: so that the envy and persecution of the Egyptians against the Hebrews began about ten years before the birth of Moses. This is proved, secondly, from the fact that this persecution began about the birth of Mary, the sister of Moses, who was therefore called Mary, that is, bitterness, as the Hebrews relate; and Mary was about ten years older than Moses. For she watched the exposed infant Moses and took care that he should be nursed and brought up, as will appear in chap. 2. She was therefore then easily ten years old.
See here how quickly forgetfulness and ingratitude creep upon mortals. The king and the Egyptians owed to Joseph that Egypt was saved in the famine: and again Joseph had bought up for the king a fifth part of the produce of all Egypt, by perpetual right, in feeding the people in the famine; but quickly “out of sight, out of mind, and (as Pindar says) an old benefit is given over to oblivion and as it were to sleep”: for men write benefits in dust, injuries in marble, nay, engrave them, as Blessed Thomas More used to say. How often even today we experience in cities, kingdoms and communities that saying: “There arose a new king who knew not Joseph!” Learn therefore what the same More said: “This world is neither wont to be ungrateful in requiting well and laudably done deeds according to their merit, nor can it be grateful.” You, then, who seek the favour of princes, hear the saying of Wolsey, who was the cause of the divorce of Henry VIII, king of England, from Catharine, and afterwards incurred the king’s extreme displeasure: “I,” he said, “because I sought not the favour of God but of the king, have thereby lost the grace of God and have not gained the king’s.”