Study

17. And Jacob journeyed to Succoth. In the word Succoth, as Moses shortly afterwards shows, there is a prolepsis. It is probable that Jacob rested there for some days, that he might refresh his family and his flock after the toil of a long journey; for he had found no quiet resting-place till he came thither. And therefore he gave to that place the name of Succoth, or “Tents,” because he had not dared firmly to plant his foot elsewhere. For though he had pitched tents in many other places; yet on this alone he fixes the memorial of divine grace, because now at length it was granted to him that he might remain in some abode. But since it was not commodious as a dwelling-place, Jacob proceeded farther till he came to Sichem. Now, whereas the city has its recent name from the son of Hamor, its former name is also mentioned, (Genesis 32:18;) for I agree with the interpreters who think Salem to be a proper name. Although I do not contend, if any one prefers a different interpretation; namely, that Jacob came in safety to Sichem.¹¹⁴¹¹⁴     To understand the above passage the English reader will require to be informed that the word שלם, (Shalem,) which our translators, with Calvin, regarded as a proper name, means also “peace,” or “safety;” and therefore the 18th verse may be read “Jacob came in safety to the city of Sichem.” And this is the translation given in Calvin’s own version, Et venit Iahacob incolumis in civitatem Sechem Thus his own text is, singularly enough, at variance with his Commentary. — Ed But though this city may have been called Salem, we must nevertheless observe, that it was different from the city afterwards called Jerusalem; as there were also two cities which bore the name of Succoth. As respects the subject in hand, the purchase of land which Moses records in the nineteenth verse, may seem to have been absurd. For Abraham would buy nothing all his life but a sepulcher; and Isaac his son, waiving all immediate possession of lands, was contented with that paternal inheritance; for God had constituted them lords and heirs of the land, with this condition, that they should be strangers in it unto death. Jacob therefore may seem to have done wrong in buying a field for himself with money, instead of waiting the proper time. I answer, that Moses has not expressed all that ought to come freely into the mind of the reader. Certainly from the price we may readily gather that the holy man was not covetous. He pays a hundred pieces of money; could he acquire for himself large estates at so small a price, or anything more shall some nook in which he might live without molestation? Besides, Moses expressly relates that he bought that part on which he had pitched his tent opposite the city. Therefore he possessed neither meadows, nor vineyards, nor stable land. But since the inhabitants did not grant him an abode near the city, he made an agreement with them, and purchased peace at a small price.¹¹⁵¹¹⁵     “For a hundred pieces of money.” The word rendered pieces of money, קשיטה, (Kisitah,) means also lambs; and the price given might have been one hundred lambs; the probability, however, is, that the coin itself was called a lamb, as we have a coin called a sovereign. It is supposed that the coin bore the image of a lamb, perhaps because it was the conventional price at which lambs were generally valued. The testimony of St. Stephen (Acts 7:16) is decisive as to the fact that money was in use. — Ed This necessity was his excuse; so that no one might say, that he had bought from man what he ought to have expected as the free gift of God: or that, when he ought to have embraced, by hope, the dominion of the promised land, he had been in too great haste to enjoy it.