GENESIS 29-50: THE CONTEXT
The background of this story begins with Jacob's great love for Rachel-and Laban's deception-and Jacob's marriage to Leah and Rachel-and Laban's marriage gifts to his daughters, the handmaids Zilpah and Bilhah-and Jacob's fathering 12 children by all four women (chapters 29-30). In situations such as this, there are always tensions among the women for the attention of the man, and those tensions are directly transferable to the children. As we will see below (v. 2b), the tensions in this story are quite high.
The story of Joseph proper begins with chapter 37 and continues until his death in chapter 50. Chapter 38 digresses to tell the story of Judah and Tamar.
What we have in the reading for this week, then, is just the beginning of an extended account of God's providence. Through Joseph, a young and flawed man, God chooses to save Jacob and his family-and thereby to set the stage for the founding of the nation Israel. It is also a story of God redeeming his people-a story that must have given the Israelites comfort during their many trials-and a story that should give us comfort when things are going badly for us. It tells us that God is at work behind the scenes shaping the lives of his people (and we are, after all, God's people)-and thereby shaping history. When the night is darkest, this story holds out the promise of the dawn.
GENESIS 37:1-4. THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
1 Now Jacob lived in the land where his father had sojourned, in the land of Canaan. 2 These are the records of the generations of Jacob. Joseph, when seventeen years of age, was pasturing the flock with his brothers while he was still a youth, along with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives. And Joseph brought back a bad report about them to their father. 3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a varicolored tunic. 4 His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers; and so they hated him and could not speak to him on friendly terms.
"Jacob lived in the land of his father's travels, in the land of Canaan" (v. 1). Because of a famine, Isaac settled in Gerar, a city near Gaza in the southern reaches of Canaan (26:1-6; see also 10:19). He later moved to Beer-sheba, a few miles east of Gerar (26:23). He spent the rest of his life in that area.
"This is the history (toledot) of the generations of Jacob" (v. 2a). This word toledot recurs a number of times in Genesis, in each occasion introducing a major figure (Adam, 5:1; Noah, 6:9; Shem, 11:10; Terah, 11:27; Ishmael, 25:12; Isaac, 12:19; and Esau, 36:1) and initiating a transition into a new chapter of Hebrew life.
This verse speaks of the toledot of Jacob, but it really introduces the story of Joseph, who will be the key figure from this point forward.
"Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brothers" (v. 2b). Joseph was the eleventh of Jacob's twelve sons (only Benjamin was younger, 35:16-20). This mention of "seventeen years old" raises at least two issues. First, seventeen is a sophomoric age (sophomore means "wise fool"). Seventeen year old boys are often know-it-all's. As we will see, that is how Joseph's brothers experience him. Second, as the youngest of the brothers who are shepherding this flock, Joseph is clearly a junior partner-the kind of young man who is expected to be seen but not heard.
Older brothers are often protective of younger brothers, but only if the younger brothers are careful to acknowledge their subordinate status. Joseph will prove quite indiscreet in this regard.
"He was a boy with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father's wives" (v. 2c). As noted above, Bilhah was Rachel's handmaiden and Zilpah was Leah's handmaiden. Bilhad was the mother of Dan and Naphtali. Zilpah was the mother of Gad and Asher. While each of these four sons will father a tribe of Israel, none of those tribes will be especially distinguished (except that Jesus will grow up in Nazareth in the land of Naphtali).
Jacob loved Rachel (29:18). He married Leah first as a result of Laban's trickery, but continued to love Rachel more than Leah (29:21-30), which caused Leah a good deal of pain (29:32). Leah's ability to bear children caused barren Rachel a good deal of envy (30:1). We don't know whether Jacob loved Bilhah and Zilpah more than Leah, but he clearly loved them less than Rachel. This is a family fraught with jealousy and striving. We should expect that the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah would have little use for the younger but more-favored Joseph.
"Joseph brought an evil report of them to their father" (v. 2d). We know nothing of the specifics of this report. We don't know if Joseph accused his brothers of poor shepherding practices-or wasting money-or dalliances with young women from neighboring tribes. Nor do we know if his report was warranted. If Joseph had observed genuine malfeasance on the part of his brothers, he was probably duty-bound to report it to Jacob. However, given his immaturity and insensitivity (which we will soon see manifested when he tells his dreams to his brothers), it seems possible-perhaps even likely-that his report exaggerated any shortcomings that he might have observed.
Whether his bad report was warranted or not, we can be sure that Joseph's brothers would regard him as tattler and a nuisance.
"Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children" (v. 3a). Jacob and Israel are two names for the same man, and the two names are used interchangeably in this account.
Jacob loved Joseph because he was the son of Jacob's beloved Rachel. Rachel had another son, Benjamin, but she died in childbirth with Benjamin (35:16-18). That probably accounts for the fact that Jacob loved Joseph more than Benjamin.
"because he was the son of his old age" (v. 3b). As noted above, Joseph was the eleventh of Jacob's twelve sons. Only Benjamin was younger. Younger children often receive less discipline than older children and are often favored.
"and he made him a coat of many colors" (Hebrew: ketonet passim) (v. 3c). The NRSV says "a long robe with sleeves." The KJV translated ketonet passim, "a coat of many colors," and that translation has been embedded in our minds ever since. That translation was based on the LXX (the Septuagint-the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures) and the Vulgate (the Latin translation that took its cue from the LXX). We know that ketonet is a long robe with sleeves. The meaning of passim in this context is uncertain.
What we know of this robe is established more by the context than by a study of the Hebrew words. The context makes it clear that it is a special robe-a robe that bespeaks Jacob's special love for Joseph and the special status that Joseph enjoys with their father. It is almost certainly a dressy robe, unsuitable for the kind of manual labor that Joseph's brothers are doing. While Jacob is obligated by custom to bestow a special measure of inheritance and a blessing on his firstborn, Reuben, the gift of this robe shows his true affections.
Jacob should be wise to the potential for disaster created by his favoritism. His father loved Esau best and his mother loved Jacob best-and the favoritism of the parents contributed to a great deal of tension in the family.
"His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and they hated him" (v. 4a). The brothers had other reasons for hating Joseph as well. He had given a bad report of them to Jacob. Jacob had given Joseph a special robe. As we will see shortly, Joseph will have two dreams that suggest that he will rule over his brothers (vv. 5-11). But they can trace all their hatred to a single source-Jacob's favoritism toward Joseph.
The fact that his brothers hate Joseph is repeated in verses 5 and 8. They really, really hate him.
"and couldn't speak peaceably to him" (Hebrew: salom) (v. 4b). There can be no peace in this family as long as the brothers hate Joseph.
5 Then Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him even more. 6 He said to them, "Please listen to this dream which I have had; 7 for behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf rose up and also stood erect; and behold, your sheaves gathered around and bowed down to my sheaf." 8 Then his brothers said to him, "Are you actually going to reign over us? Or are you really going to rule over us?" So they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words. 9 Now he [c]had still another dream, and related it to his brothers, and said, "Lo, I have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me." 10 He related it to his father and to his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, "What is this dream that you have had? Shall I and your mother and your brothers actually come to bow ourselves down before you to the ground?" 11 His brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the saying in mind.
In Joseph's first dream, he sees eleven sheaves bowing to his sheaf. The symbolism is obvious, and his brothers understand it immediately. The eleven sheaves represent Joseph's eleven brothers and the single sheaf represents Joseph. The dream depicts the brothers (the older, more mature brothers) bowing down to the young whippersnapper Joseph. When Joseph tells his brothers of this dream, they are amazed and offended.
In his second dream, Joseph sees the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowing down to his star. Again the symbolism is obvious. The sun and moon represent Jacob and Leah (Rachel has already died), and the eleven stars represent the eleven brothers. The dream, then, pictures the whole family constellation bowing down to Joseph.
Joseph describes this dream, not only to his brothers, but also to Jacob. Even Jacob, who loves Joseph above all his sons, is deeply offended by Joseph's dream. He rebukes Joseph for suggesting that he (Jacob) would have to bow down to Joseph. (We have no account of Jacob ever bowing down to Joseph, but Joseph will clearly have the power of life or death over Jacob and his brothers when he comes to power in Egypt.)
GENESIS 37:12-14a. SEE WHETHER IT IS WELL WITH YOUR BROTHERS
12 Then his brothers went to pasture their father's flock in Shechem.13 Israel said to Joseph, "Are not your brothers pasturing the flock in Shechem? Come, and I will send you to them." And he said to him, "I will go." 14 Then he said to him, "Go now and see about the welfare of your brothers and the welfare of the flock, and bring word back to me." So he sent him from the valley of Hebron,
"His brothers went to feed their father's flock in Shechem" (v. 12). As we will see in verse 14, Jacob and Joseph are near Hebron, approximately 34 miles (55 km.) south of Shechem, so Joseph will have to travel north at least one day-perhaps two.
Jacob passed through Shechem (the city) when fleeing Laban and returning to Gerar/Beer-sheba. While there, Shechem (a young man) raped Dinah, Jacob's only daughter. Shechem loved Dinah and wanted to marry her, and Shechem's father, Hamor appealed to Jacob to allow Shechem and Dinah to marry. Jacob's sons agreed to the marriage provided that "every male of you be circumcised." Hamor and Shechem complied with that requirement, but Jacob's sons had no intention of honoring their agreement. While the men of Shechem were still hurting from their circumcisions, Simeon and Levi killed all the men of Shechem and Jacob's other sons joined Simeon and Levi in looting the city of Shechem (chapter 34). It seems strange, then, that Jacob's sons would be pasturing their father's flock near Shechem, because there would be lingering animosities there against them.
"Israel said to Joseph, 'Aren't your brothers feeding the flock in Shechem? Come, and I will send you to them'" (v. 13a). Jacob is apparently oblivious to the hatred of the older brothers for Joseph-or, if he is aware of the tension, he cannot imagine that the older brothers would harm Joseph. Jacob would never knowingly send Joseph into a dangerous situation.
"He said to him, 'Here I am'" (v. 13b). Joseph appears as oblivious to the danger as Jacob.
"He said to him, 'Go now, see whether it is well with your brothers, and well with the flock; and bring me word again.' So he sent him out of the valley of Hebron" (v. 14a). Perhaps Jacob considers this to be a routine status check-or he might be concerned that the populace of Shechem will turn against his sons.
GENESIS 37:14b-17. JOSEPH WENT AFTER HIS BROTHERS
14a and he came to Shechem. 15 A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field; and the man asked him, "What are you looking for?" 16 He said, "I am looking for my brothers; please tell me where they are pasturing the flock."17 Then the man said, "They have moved from here; for I heard them say, 'Let us go to Dothan.'" So Joseph went after his brothers and found them at Dothan.
"and he came to Shechem. A certain man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. The man asked him, 'What are you looking for?'" (vv. 14b-15). When Joseph arrives in Shechem, his brothers are nowhere to be found. We don't know who the mysterious man is. Jewish tradition considered him an angel (Mathews, 695). In any event, the mysterious man initiates the conversation.
"He said, 'I am looking for my brothers. Tell me, please, where they are feeding the flock'"(v. 16). Joseph states his mission-the mission that Jacob assigned him-and asks for help finding his brothers.
"The man said, 'They have left here, for I heard them say, "Let us go to Dothan"'" (v. 17a). The mysterious man (or angel) tells Joseph that the brothers have gone to Dothan, a town that is approximately 14 miles (22 km.) north of Shechem. This requires that Jacob travel even further from home-approximately 48 miles (77 km.) from Hebron.
GENESIS 37:18-24. THE DREAMER COMES
18When they saw him from a distance and before he came close to them, they plotted against him to put him to death. 19 They said to one another, "Here comes this dreamer! 20 Now then, come and let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; and we will say, 'A wild beast devoured him.' Then let us see what will become of his dreams!" 21 But Reuben heard this and rescued him out of their hands and said, "Let us not [c]take his life." 22 Reuben further said to them, "Shed no blood. Throw him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but do not lay hands on him"-that he might rescue him out of their hands, to restore him to his father. 23 So it came about, when Joseph reached his brothers, that they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the varicolored tunic that was on him; 24 and they took him and threw him into the pit. Now the pit was empty, without any water in it.
"They saw him afar off" (v. 18a). How do they recognize him from a distance? Almost certainly by his distinctive robe. It is not the kind of garb that working shepherds wear.
"and before he came near to them, they conspired against him to kill him" (v. 18b). The brothers reach their decision as a group. We won't hear any dissent until verse 21 when Reuben hears of the scheme. They make a quick decision to kill Joseph. Probably one brother suggests murder and the others quickly accept his proposal. The fact that the proposed action is so extreme and there is no dissent tells us the depth of animosity that the brothers feel toward Joseph.
"They said one to another, 'Behold, this dreamer comes'" (v. 19). A literal translation is "master of dreams."
"Come now therefore, and let's kill him, and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say,'An evil animal has devoured him'"(v. 20a). The brothers move to the next step-developing a plan to carry out the murder. They decide to kill Joseph, throw him in a pit, and blame his death on a wild animal. It seems like a foolproof plan-assuming that all of the brothers can keep their mouths shut.
"We will see what will become of his dreams" (v. 20b). It isn't just the dreamer that the brothers want to kill, but also the dream. The dream points to a future that they don't want, but the dream can't come true if Joseph is dead.
"Reuben heard it, and delivered him out of their hand, and said, 'Let's not take his life'" (v. 21). Reuben is the oldest brother and is therefore responsible to Jacob for the welfare of his younger brothers-and also for their actions. It is Reuben who will have to break the news of Joseph's death to Jacob. It is Reuben who will have to explain what happened. It is Reuben who will have to tell Jacob why none of the brothers could have saved Joseph. It is Reuben who will have to help Jacob make funeral plans. It is Reuben who will have to help Jacob through his grief. It is no wonder that Reuben balks when he learns of the plan to kill Joseph.
Reuben's ploy might also have something to do with the guilt that he bears by virtue of sleeping with Bilhah, his father's concubine-something of which his father is aware (35:22). Reuben might be trying to make up for his grievous sin-or to avoid sinking further in his father's esteem.
We have no indication here that Reuben loves Joseph-or even that he hates Joseph less than the others. Nor do we have any indication that Reuben's protest arises out of ethical concerns. As we will see in verse 22b, Reuben does intend to rescue Joseph, but we cannot know for sure whether Reuben cared about Joseph or was just trying to avoid the difficult position that he would find himself in if Joseph died.
"Reuben said to them, 'Shed no blood. Throw him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but lay no hand on him'" (v. 22a). When Cain slew Abel, God said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries to me from the ground" (4:10).
God said to Noah:
"Whoever sheds man's blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in his own image " (9:6).
Later, the Ten Commandments will prohibit murder, but long before these brothers determine to kill Joseph, God has made himself clear on this subject.
Reuben's proposal is a halfway measure. He doesn't propose giving Joseph a chance to live. He instead asks only that his brothers avoid killing Joseph violently. Throwing him into a pit and leaving him to die is just a slower way of achieving the same purpose. However, it will avoid bloodshed in a technical sense.
"that he might deliver him out of their hand, to restore him to his father" (v. 22b). Reuben' proposal is devious. He has given his brothers the impression that he supports the idea of killing Joseph by leaving him to die, but his true purpose is to delay Joseph's death so that he can rescue Joseph from the pit later and bring him home to Jacob.
Years later, when Joseph has risen to a position of power in Egypt, Reuben will speak thusly to his brothers, unaware that Joseph can understand him:
"Didn't I tell you, saying, 'Don't sin against the child,' and you wouldn't listen? Therefore also, behold, his blood is required" (42:22-23).
To the best of our knowledge, Joseph did not know until that time of Reuben's efforts on his behalf.
"It happened, when Joseph came to his brothers, that they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him" (v. 23). Upon Joseph's arrival, they strip him of his robe-the symbol of his special status-the symbol of Jacob's favoritism-the hated robe. We aren't told whether they give him an ordinary robe to cover his nakedness. In that climate-hot during the day and cold at night-proper clothing can literally be a matter of life and death.
"and they took him, and threw him into the pit" (v. 24a). We aren't told what kind of pit this is. If it is a cistern, cut into rock to gather water, it is bottle-shaped with a narrow neck. There is no way for Joseph to escape.
"The pit was empty. There was no water in it" (v. 24b). If this is a cistern, it would be usable (would contain water) only on a seasonal basis. The fact that the pit is dry is both good and bad news. The good news is that Joseph won't drown. The bad news is that he will die of thirst after a few days-a truly miserable way to die.
The willingness of Joseph's brothers to throw him in the pit rather than to kill him outright suggests that they think the pit to be escape-proof.
GENESIS 37:25-28. WHAT PROFIT IS IT IF WE KILL OUR BROTHER?
25 Then they sat down to eat a meal. And as they raised their eyes and looked, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing aromatic gum and balm and myrrh, [e]on their way to bring them down to Egypt. 26 Judah said to his brothers, "What profit is it for us to kill our brother and cover up his blood? 27 Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay our hands on him, for he is our brother, our own flesh." And his brothers listened to him. 28 Then some Midianite traders passed by, so they pulled him up and lifted Joseph out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. Thus they brought Joseph into Egypt.
"They sat down to eat bread" (v. 25a). This small detail reveals their hate and cold-bloodedness. Most people, having participated in an act that would result in another person's death, would be sufficiently disturbed that they would have little appetite for food. These men are completely unaffected by the impending death of their brother.
"and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and saw a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead" (v. 25b). Gilead is a region to the east of the Jordan River and to the south of what will later be known as the Sea of Galilee. Later, when the twelve tribes of Israel occupy that area, Gad and either Reuben or Manasseh will occupy that area. Gilead is known for plants from which valuable incense and medicines are made. The caravan is traveling from Gilead to Egypt.
There is a textual problem here. The people of the caravan are called Ishmaelites here and in verse 27. Ishmaelites are also mentioned in verse 28, as are Midianites. They are called Midianites again in verse 36.Ishmael, of course, was Abraham's son by Hagar, Sarah's maid (chapter 16). Midian was Abraham's son by Keturah (25:1-6).The mixing of these two names, Ishmaelites and Midianites, has caused scholars to believe that the person who wrote or edited this account intermixed material from two sources, J and E. This possibility is reinforced by the fact that Reuben is named as trying to save Joseph in verses 21-22, but Judah is named as doing the same in verses 26-27. Other scholars have suggested that Ishmaelites and Midianites are interchangeable words for the same people-or that one is a subset of the other. That seems less likely, given the separate histories of Ishmael and Midian. However, Judges 8:22-28 also intermixes Ishmaelites and Midianites, so it is possible that these are interchangeable words.
"with their camels bearing spices and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt" (v. 25c). Gum, balm, and resin are materials that would be associated with Gilead. They are products of various plants, and are valuable as incense or medicine.
"Judah said to his brothers, "What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?" (v. 26). When Reuben persuaded his brothers to throw Joseph into a pit instead of killing him outright, he had an ulterior motive-to rescue Joseph so that he could return him to Jacob. It is possible that Judah has a similar motive-to sell Joseph into captivity so that he won't die in the pit. However, the narrative mentions only the prospect of profit as Judah's motive, which makes it appear that Judah's motive is selfish rather than altruistic.
"'Come, and let's sell him to the Ishmaelites, and not let our hand be on him; for he is our brother, our flesh.' His brothers listened to him" (v. 27). The two parts of Judah's proposal reveal the tension under which the brothers are operating. On the one hand, selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites is engaging in slave trade. On the other hand, selling Joseph into slavery is less terrible than leaving him to die in the pit. The fact that he is "our brother, our flesh" heightens the tension.
"Midianites who were merchants passed by, and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. They brought Joseph into Egypt" (v. 28). Once again, we are presented with the intermixing of Ishmaelites and Midianites. Whoever they are, they pay twenty pieces of silver for Joseph-the going price for a slave in that time and place.
Gen. 37 Notes - Bible.org - Deffenbaugh
Genesis 36: Observations
I have chosen to briefly pass over the details of Genesis 36 because the primary purpose of this chapter has already been realized. You see, the first readers of this chapter were the Israelites who were about to cross over the River Jordan to possess the land of Canaan and to annihilate the Canaanites (cf. Deuteronomy 1:8; 20:16-18). There were, however, some people who were not to be attacked or annihilated, among whom were the Edomites, the descendants of Esau: And the LORD spoke to me, saying, "You have circled this mountain long enough. Now turn north, and command the people, saying, 'You will pass through the territory of your brothers the sons of Esau who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. So be very careful; do not provoke them, for I will not give you any of their land, even as little as a footstep because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession'" (Deuteronomy 2:2-5). Lest this command be violated, it was most essential for those Israelites of Moses' day to know who the Edomites were and to have a carefully documented record of the generations of Esau. That record is the substance of chapter 36. As you can see, this has no direct bearing upon Christians in our age, while it was indispensable for the first readers of this account.
This last section is an account of God's working in the life of Jacob and of his sons through the instrumentality of Joseph. Joseph is certainly the central figure in these chapters, but he is not the only figure. God is forming a nation out of all the sons of Jacob. Joseph's sojourn in Egypt and his ultimate elevation to the post of prime minister under Pharaoh makes possible the preservation of Jacob and his sons, as well as teaching all of them some valuable spiritual lessons.
The Generations of Jacob and the Jealousy of His Sons (37:1-11)
There is a tendency to regard the remaining chapters of Genesis as the "story of Joseph," but this is not technically accurate. Moses referred to chapter 36 as the "records of the generations of Esau" (36:1,9). In Genesis 37:2 Moses entitled this section "the records of the generations of Jacob." We must not forget that Jacob will not pass off the scene until Genesis 49, where we find the account of his death. This last section, then, is an account of God's working in the life of Jacob and of his sons through the instrumentality of Joseph. Joseph is certainly the central figure in these chapters, but he is not the only figure. God is forming a nation out of all the sons of Jacob. Joseph's sojourn in Egypt and his ultimate elevation to the post of prime minister under Pharaoh makes possible the preservation of Jacob and his sons, as well as teaching all of them some valuable spiritual lessons.
One of the great disservices we do to this text is to fail to grasp the fundamental cause of the animosity of Joseph's brothers toward him. Generally we tend to think of Joseph as a small lad 8-10 years of age who is a tattletale on his big brothers. That is hardly a crime which deserves death, and it does not fit the details of the account. Joseph is not 7 years old, but 17 (37:2). Now in some senses this is young, but in the Ancient Near East girls of this age were often already married (for example, Dinah 34:lff.), and young men were not infrequently kings at this age (cf. II Kings 11:21).
It is my contention that Joseph was rejected by his brothers because of the authority he exercised over them, even though he was their younger brother. Seventeen was not necessarily young for such authority, but it was younger than his older brothers, and this was indeed a bitter pill for them to swallow. Several convincing lines of evidence converge to document this assertion:
(1) Grammatically, Joseph's authority is not only permissible, but it is preferable. George Bush, author of the classic commentary on the book of Genesis, strongly holds to the most literal and normal rendering of verse 2, of which he writes, ... literally was tending, or acting the shepherd over, his brethren in the flock. However uncouth to our ears the phraseology, this is undoubtedly the exact rendering and the import of the words we take to be that Joseph was charged with the superintendence of his brethren, particularly the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.24
(2) After the sin of Reuben, Joseph was given the rights of the firstborn: Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn, but because he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; so that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright. Though Judah prevailed over his brothers, and from him came the leader, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph), ... (I Chronicles 5:1-2). While it is not until chapter 49 that this transfer is formally stated by Jacob, the sin which precipitated it has already been recorded in Genesis 35:22. It is not unlikely that Jacob expressed his intentions much sooner than this to his sons and even began to give Joseph preeminence over his brothers by this time. Further details seem to demonstrate this.
(3) Joseph's coat was a symbol of the authority he was granted over his brothers. Jacob's preference for Joseph was no secret (37:2,3). The coat his father gave him was regarded as evidence of Jacob's greater love for Joseph above his other sons. Furthermore, this coat indicated more than preference; it symbolized preeminence and superiority of rank. No one really knows exactly what this coat looked like. Some have suggested that it differed from the coats of Joseph's brethren in that it had long sleeves,26 in which case it would mark out Joseph as a "white collar worker" while his brothers were mere "blue collar workers." Just as supervisors are marked out today by the fact that they wear suits, so, we are told, Joseph was set apart by his long-sleeved coat. While there is considerable conjecture on this matter of the coat, one thing is certain. The term which is used for Joseph's coat in this chapter occurs elsewhere only in II Samuel 13:18-19. There it is employed for the coat which was worn by Tamar, the daughter of David. While other things may have been symbolized by this garment (such as virginity), the coat was an evidence of royalty. In the context of our passage I believe that Joseph's coat was considered to be symbolic of his authority in the same manner as stripes on the sleeve of a military uniform. Joseph's brothers hated this garment and what it symbolized, for their first act of violence was to strip his coat from him (37:23).
(4) The greatest antagonism toward Joseph was from the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah (verse 2), while the two brothers who attempted to release him (Reuben and Judah) were sons of Leah (37:21,26). In verse 2 Joseph was said to have pastured the flocks of Jacob "along with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah." Reuben, and later Judah, sons of Leah, attempted to prevent or at least to modify the plan of the others to kill Joseph. A footnote on verse 2 in the margin of the Berkeley Version27 suggests that the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah would be less disciplined since they were the sons of pagan mothers, while Leah and Rachel would reflect the relatively more godly training of Laban. There is little doubt that both Bilhah and Zilpah would be on a socially lower plane than Leah and Rachel since the former were mere concubines, while the latter were full-fledged wives. This social stratification would naturally be reflected in the sons of these women, and so it is not difficult to believe that Jacob would have put Joseph in charge of the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.
(5) Joseph's report to his father would be a logical and necessary part of his function and authority as a supervisor. Joseph at 17 was no tattletale. This can hardly be the case. Surely this kind of sibling rivalry would be expected but undeserving of such harsh counter-measures by Joseph's brothers. If Joseph had been placed in a position of authority (a "white collar" job) by his father, then what could be more logical than a report to Jacob on the performance, efficiency, and reliability of those under him? When Jacob asked Joseph to go to Shechem to check up on his sons and on his flocks (verses 12-14), he was not sending Joseph around the corner to spy upon and then tattle on his brothers. It was 50 miles or more to Shechem and about 70 miles to Dothan! Since Shechem had been the scene of the slaughter of the men of that city years before (34:25ff.), Jacob would not have taken such an assignment lightly. It was the kind of responsibility that he would give only to one who had proven his capabilities as a leader. A sensitive and potentially dangerous mission would not be given to a son without reliability and authority.
(6) The intensity of Joseph's brothers' reaction to his dreams indicates that there must have been some substance to their fears of Joseph assuming such great power and prominence. Joseph's brothers were deeply distressed by his two dreams (verses 8, 11). And when the plot to kill him is first conceived, the dreams are a prominent part of their hostility and motivation: And they said to one another, "Here comes this dreamer! Now then, come and let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; and we will say, 'A wild beast devoured him.' Then let us see what will become of his dreams!" (Genesis 37:19-20). Idle or fanciful dreams provide an occasion only for laughter. Under most circumstances the worst that might be considered would be that Joseph needed to be put into a padded cell for his own protection. But if there were already evidence of Joseph's authority, leadership, and capabilities, fear of even greater status and power would be acted upon with grim determination and zeal.
(7) As a type of Christ, the cause of Joseph's rejection would most accurately be a refusal to submit to the authority of one who threatened personal power and prestige. Joseph, I have maintained, was rejected by his brethren because they deeply resented the authority his father had granted him over them, especially when they reasoned that it should be theirs. Was this not the very root reason for the rejection of Jesus by the religious leaders of His day? When Jesus taught the people, the response of the masses was significant: The result was that when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes (Matthew 7:28-29). What a blow this must have been to the pride of Israel's leaders. This is the reason why they resisted the Master with the challenge, "By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?" (Matthew 21:23). All of these lines of evidence lead me to the same conclusion: Joseph was rejected by his brethren because he, the youngest of these men (save Benjamin, of course), was placed in a position of authority over them. This rejection of Joseph's authority, coupled with the specter of even greater preeminence as foreshadowed by his dreams, led them to conclude that they must do away with him in order to protect their own position.
An Evil Plot, An Empty Pit, and an Egyptian Purchase (37:12-36)
Animosity toward Joseph had continued to build up until the situation was explosive. Now it was only a matter of time and opportunity. That opportunity finally arrived when Jacob sent Joseph to Shechem. Then his brothers went to pasture their father's flock in Shechem. And Israel said to Joseph, "Are not your brothers pasturing the flock in Shechem? Come, and I will send you to them." And he said to him, "I will go." Then he said to him, "Go now and see about the welfare of your brothers and the welfare of the flock; and bring word back to me." So he sent him from the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem. And a man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field; and the man asked him, "What are you looking for?" And he said, "I am looking for my brothers; please tell me where they are pasturing the flock." Then the man said, "They have moved from here; for I heard them say, 'Let us go to Dothan.'" So Joseph went after his brothers and found them at Dothan (Genesis 37:12-17). Jacob's concern for the welfare of his family and his flocks was not unfounded. Shechem was the city where Dinah had been taken by force and where Jacob's sons, especially Simeon and Levi (34:30), had slaughtered all of the men. Since Jacob had purchased land there (33:19), it would not be unusual for him to make use of it by sending his flocks there to feed on its rich pastureland under the care of his sons. But there was always the danger of some angry relative of one of those Shechemites who were killed or captured seeking vengeance. This seems to be what Joseph was sent to look into. Only a man with proven skill and wisdom would ever be sent to handle a task as sensitive and volatile as this.
Joseph wandered about the fields of Shechem in search of his brothers. It just so happened28 that a man found him who had further happened to see Joseph's brothers and overhear them saying they were going on to Dothan. Not willing to give up his search and return to his father without completing his task, Joseph went on to Dothan. While at a considerable distance Joseph was recognized by his brothers. They immediately conspired in a violent and daring plot which would rid them once and for all of their brother:
When they saw him from a distance and before he came close to them, they plotted against him to put him to death. And they said to one another, "Here comes this dreamer! Now then, come and let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; and we will say, 'A wild beast devoured him.' Then let us see what will become of his dreams!" But Reuben heard this and rescued him out of their hands and said, "Let us not take his life." Reuben further said to them, "Shed no blood. Throw him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but do not lay hands on him"-that he might rescue him out of their hands, to restore him to his father. So it came about, when Joseph reached his brothers, that they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the varicolored tunic that was on him; and they took him and threw him into the pit. Now the pit was empty, without any water in it (Genesis 37:18-24).
It was probably Joseph's coat that made it possible to identify him so quickly from such a distance. It may also have been that coat which triggered the pent-up feelings of jealousy and hostility toward the beloved son of their father. They saw the great distance from their father and the remoteness of this spot as the ideal opportunity to do away with the threat which Joseph posed. The opportunity for a perfect alibi was also at hand, for wild animals were a threat to life and limb in the open field. They need not even produce a body if they blame Joseph's absence on his being devoured by a wild beast. Only a bloody robe need be presented to Jacob. His imagination would take care of the rest.
Reuben had good reason to hate his brother, for it was Joseph who would obtain the birthright that could have belonged to him. But it seems that Reuben feared facing his father more than he hated Joseph. He was still the oldest of the family. Whether or not he had the rights of the first-born, he was still saddled with the responsibilities. This may be the explanation for Reuben's suggestion and his intention to spare the life of Joseph.
Reuben's actions were hardly heroic. I must admit, however, that I would not have wanted to stand up against these fellows either. They were mean, really mean. These men would make the "nickel defense" of the Dallas Cowboys look like a Boy Scout troop. The slaughter of the Shechemites was only one evidence of their brutal natures. Reuben therefore suggests that they kill Joseph without the shedding of blood. Throw the boy in a cistern and let nature do him in. The idea had some definite advantages, and so the plan was agreed to.
When Joseph arrived, his reception was far from friendly. They tore off his coat, the symbol of all that they rejected, and threw the defenseless young man into a pit. It is significant that this pit was empty, for normally it would have contained water.29 If this had been the case, Joseph would have drowned before the Ishmaelite caravan had arrived. Even the empty pit was a part of God's providential care of Joseph and his brothers. The callousness and cruelty of Joseph's brothers is almost unbelievable.
Then they sat down to eat a meal. And as they raised their eyes and looked, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing aromatic gum and balm and myrrh, on their way to bring them down to Egypt. And Judah said to his brothers, "What profit is it for us to kill our brother and cover up his blood? Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay our hands on him; for he is our brother, our own flesh." And his brothers listened to him. Then some Midianite traders passed by, so they pulled him up and lifted Joseph out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. Thus they brought Joseph into Egypt. Now Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit; so he tore his garments. And he returned to his brothers and said, "The boy is not there, as for me, where am I to go?" So they took Joseph's tunic, and slaughtered a male goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood; and they sent the varicolored tunic and brought it to their father and said, "We found this; please examine it to see whether it is your son's tunic or not" (Genesis 37:25-32).
Having thrown Joseph into the pit, they sat down to eat a meal. There is no loss of appetite, no sense of guilt or remorse. And there is no pity, for they eat their meal probably well within hearing of the cries that were continuing to come from the bottom of the pit. I can almost hear one of the brothers raise his voice over the petitions of Joseph and say to one of the others, "Want to trade a mutton sandwich for a cheese?" Only later would these cries haunt the sons of Jacob: Then they said to one another, "Truly we are guilty concerning our brother, because we saw the distress of his soul when he pleaded with us, yet we would not listen; therefore this distress has come upon us" (Genesis 42:21).
While they were eating, a caravan of Ishmaelites approached them on their way to Egypt from Gilead (verse 25). This gave Judah an idea which would prevent the shedding of Joseph's blood altogether. Rather than leaving Joseph to die of starvation and exposure, why not sell him into slavery to these traders? This would dispose of their problem, avoid the messy matter of murder, and get rid of any evidence of wrongdoing. Perhaps most appealing, it would provide them with a profit.
I do not see any virtue in Judah's proposal to his brothers. While Reuben sought to return Joseph to his father, Judah is not said to have any such intention. He did not question the ethics or desirability of Joseph's murder, only the benefits. Profit was the one word which best summarizes Judah's motivation. While slavery may seem to be a more humane fate than death, some who lived in such a state of slavery might challenge this fact. Selling a brother as a slave was hardly more commendable than putting him to death. In the end, Joseph was sold to the Midianite30 traders for twenty shekels of silver, the price which Moses later fixed for a young slave boy (Leviticus 27:5).
Reuben had been gone during the time his brothers sold Joseph to the traders. Very likely this was to distract their attention from Joseph in the hope of their leaving him quickly, so that he could return to rescue Joseph. What a shock it must have been for him to return to the dry cistern and find Joseph gone. Reuben, as the oldest son, is the one who must face his father, and that to him is not a very pleasant thought.
Not only were Joseph's brothers completely aloof to his suffering, but also they almost seemed to delight in the suffering that their report would bring to Jacob. There is no gentle approach, no careful preparation for the tragic news, only the crude act of sending the bloody coat to him and letting him draw the desired conclusion. It was a heartless deed, but one that accurately depicted their spiritual condition at the time.
Like most of us, Jacob jumped to a conclusion, assuming the very worst had happened: Then he examined it and said, "It is my son's tunic. A wild beast has devoured him; Joseph has surely been torn to pieces!" So Jacob tore his clothes, and put sackcloth on his loins, and mourned for his son many days. Then all his sons and all his daughters arose to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. And he said, "Surely I will go down to Sheol in mourning for my son." So his father wept for him (Genesis 37:33-35).
It was, of course, his son's tunic, for there was none other like it. And it was covered with blood. Such a blood-stained garment without a body led Jacob to the conclusion his sons desired: Joseph must have been attacked and devoured by a wild animal. Perhaps the brothers of Joseph prided themselves in the fact that they never said Joseph was dead. They simply "deceived" their father into believing this. Isn't it ironic that this deception involved the killing of a goat, just as the deception of Isaac had (cf. 27:9,16-17,19).
Jacob seemed to have handled the death of Deborah (35:8) and Rachel (35:16-19) with a fair degree of composure, but the death of Joseph simply overcame him. There was no way that his children could comfort him. How hypocritical these efforts must have been anyway. Life for Jacob seemed hardly worth living any longer. The only thing Jacob could look forward to was the grave. For many years Jacob would live with the lie that his son was dead.
In one sense believing this was a gracious thing. Can you imagine the mental torment it would have been for Jacob to know what was actually happening to his son? We have just seen the dramatic conclusion to the hostage crisis in Iran, which lasted less than two years. We know something of the agony of the relatives and friends of these captives, but Jacob would have had to endure such suffering and anguish for over twenty years.31 How his soul would have been troubled by the knowledge of Potiphar's wife pursuing Joseph day after day (cf. 39:10). What heartache would have been Jacob's had he known of Joseph's imprisonment (cf. 39:19ff.). Ignorance, in this case, was not bliss, but it was better than a blow-by-blow account of Joseph's status.
While Jacob was crying, "Woe is me," God was working all things together for the good of Jacob, Joseph, and his wayward brothers: "Meanwhile, the Midionites sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, Pharaoh's officer, the captain of the bodyguard" (Genesis 37:36).
Joseph, in fact, was not dead, nor was he outside of the providential care of God. By no accident Joseph ended up in the home of one of the most responsible officers of Pharaoh's administration. While years would pass by before God's purposes would become known, the process was under way.
Conclusion
Contextually and historically the sale of Joseph into slavery explains how Joseph (and ultimately the entire nation of Israel) ended up in Egypt, from whence the exodus commenced. More importantly, this chapter tells us a good part of the reason why it was necessary for the 400 years of bondage to occur. The fact that this bondage would take place was no mystery, for God had revealed it to Abraham:
And God said to Abram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve; and afterward they will come out with many possessions" (Genesis 15:13-14).
Spiritually, the state of the sons of Israel was at an all-time low. Nowhere have we yet seen any kind of relationship with God such as that of their forefathers. Internally, there was no unity among these brothers. They were simply the sons of four different mothers perpetuating the strife which existed between them (cf. 29:21-30:24). There was no brotherly love, only the seeking of self-interest. There is no better way to stimulate unity than through persecution. A brotherly quarrel is quickly forgotten and family unity is intensified when outside opposition is introduced. Four hundred years spent among Egyptians, who despised Hebrews (46:34), developed and strengthened the cohesiveness of these tribes of Israel.
Gen. 37 BLB Commentary - Joseph Is Sold Into Slavery
A. Joseph's dreams.
1. (Gen 37:1-4) Jacob favors Joseph.
2. (Gen 37:5-8) Joseph's first dream.
3. (Gen 37:9-11) Joseph's second dream.
B. Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery.
2. (Gen 37:18-22) Joseph's brothers plot to kill him.
3. (Gen 37:23-28) Joseph is cast into an empty cistern and sold into slavery.
4. (Gen 37:29-35) They cover their sin and lie to Jacob concerning Joseph's fate.
5. (Gen 37:36) Joseph ends up in the court of a high Egyptian official.
