My chronological Bible study now takes me to Genesis 37.
(Genesis 37:1) And Jacob dwelt in the land where his father was a stranger, in the land of Canaan.
After a ten-year detour after God told him to leave Laban and Padan Aram and return to the land of his father, Jacob finally made it back there and now dwelled in the land of Canaan, "where his father was a stranger". Canaan was the land of promise to his father Isaac and Isaac's father Abraham before him, but at this time they were still "sojourners" in this land.
(2a) These are the generations of Jacob.
Rather than a mere genealogy of names, this begins a history of events of the children of Jacob.
(2b) Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brothers; and the lad was with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives; and Joseph brought to his father their evil report.
Joseph, Jacob's son by Rachel, was now 17 years old and was feeding the flock with his brothers. It appears he was specifically with Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher, the sons of Jacob's concubines Bilhah and Zilpah. Joseph brought to his father his brothers' "evil report". The original word "ra" that was transcribed as "evil" can mean a whole range of bad from disagreeable to mischievous to downright evil. The word transcribed as "report" is "dibbah" and means "whispering, slander, defamation, evil report". I believe boys may have just been boys and said things in the fields that they would not have said in the presence of their father, but Joseph told on them. It appears that this was an ongoing practice and not just one isolated event.
(3) Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a coat of many colors.
Israel, or Jacob, loved Joseph more than all his children. The scripture tells us it was because he was the son of his old age, and so was Benjamin special we are later told for the same reason (Gen. 44:20). At this stage, Joseph may have been the favorite because he was the firstborn son of his beloved Rachel. Also Joseph confided "secrets" to his father, as we were told in verse 2, so they probably had a closer relationship than the others did. For whatever reasons, Joseph was Jacob's favorite and the father evidently treated this son specially and made him a coat of many colors.
(4) And when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him.
When Joseph's brothers saw that their father loved Joseph more than he did the rest of them and was so open and visible about it, they hated their brother and couldn't even speak amicably to him. It's really no wonder. Perhaps Jacob couldn't help his feelings for Joseph, but he certainly could have been less transparent about the lopsided love he had for one over the others. I suppose Jacob learned this parenting trick honestly as his parents also played favorites, but remember the trouble that caused!
(5) And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they hated him even more. (6) And he said to them, "Please hear this dream which I have dreamed: (7) For, behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and, lo, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright; and, behold, your sheaves stood round about and bowed down to my sheaf."
Joseph dreamed a dream which he told his brothers and they apparently hated him even more because of it. Again it's no wonder; I believe this is a dream he could have kept to himself. He told his brothers that he had dreamed that they were all binding sheaves in the field, when Joseph's sheaf stood upright and all his brothers' sheaves stood around his sheaf and even bowed down to it. Telling them that dream certainly should have endeared his brothers to him!
(8) And his brothers said to him, "Shall you indeed reign over us? Or shall you indeed have dominion over us?" And they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.
Obviously, his brothers were not happy with Joseph's dream in which it appeared they would come to bow down to him. They hated him even more for his dreams, but I believe it was mostly because of his words. He could have kept his dreams to himself and they couldn't have hated him for that reason, but because he told his dreams to his brothers, that really fueled their hate for him.
(9) And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, "Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars bowed down to me." (10) And he told it to his father and his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, "What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow down ourselves to the earth before you?"
Joseph had another dream that he told his brothers and his father. Even his father rebuked him as it seemed the dream meant that he and Joseph's mother and Joseph's eleven brothers were indicated by the sun, moon, and stars in Joseph's dream. That might be, but it also may be, since Joseph referred to "the eleven stars", that Joseph was one of the twelve stars of the zodiac (not an unnatural thought for the times) and all the other heavenly bodies, the sun, moon, and the other eleven stars, bowed down to him. After all, his mother was dead by this time, but then again, any remaining wife of Jacob could have been indicated by this dream. The dream was prophetic and representative of a time when Joseph would have dominion over not only his family but a whole people.
(11) And his brothers envied him, but his father observed the saying.
His brothers hated Joseph all the more because of the dreams and were jealous of him. Even though his father had rebuked him, he kept the matter in mind. He may have rebuked Joseph for his own good, not so much because he found the dream to be a silly idle dream, but because Joseph might appear to be boasting of it to his brothers. It appears that Jacob felt in his heart that there might be something to these dreams.
(12) And his brothers went to feed their father's flock in Shechem.
I found it interesting that they were still going to Shechem. I guess Jacob had bought a parcel of land there (Gen. 33:19), and I suppose they might have full reign of the place since they killed all the men off there, but I would think it might be a hostile environment in the midst of the surrounding cities, considering what they had done to Shechem and his father. Anyway, it seems it was a usual custom back then to move flocks from place to place for good pasturage, and Jacob apparently still owned a perfectly good field in Shechem, so that is where his flocks were at this present time.
(13) And Israel said to Joseph, "Are not your brothers feeding the flock in Shechem? Come, and I will send you to them." And he said to him, "Here I am." (14) And he said to him, "Please go see if it is well with your brothers and well with the flocks, and bring back word to me." So he sent him out of the valley of Hebron, and he went to Shechem.
I have read that it could have been sixty miles from the valley of Hebron to Shechem, so Joseph's brothers could have been gone a long time, and Jacob may have sincerely been concerned about their well-being, especially at Shechem which may have been considered the center of hostile territory for them. However, if that is the case, it seems odd that he would send his beloved Joseph there all alone, but it appears that is what he did.
(15) And a certain man found him, and there he was, wandering in the field; and the man asked him, saying, "What are you seeking?"
It appears that Joseph made it to the field at Shechem and was wandering around in it looking for his brothers when a man saw him and asked what he was seeking. I have read that the early Jewish writers supposed this was an angel. I don't doubt that Joseph may have been protected on this journey, especially if it was dangerous territory, but then again, it is perfectly reasonable to think a mortal man saw him if he was just wandering around a field because he thought his brothers would be there.
(16) And he said, "I seek my brothers; please tell me where they are feeding their flocks." (17) And the man said, "They have departed from here, for I heard them say, 'Let us go to Dothan.'" And Joseph went after his brothers and found them in Dothan.
Joseph asked the man where he might find his brothers, if he should know, and the man indeed told him that he had heard them say they were going to Dothan, and that is where Joseph found them.
(18) And when they saw him afar off, even before he came near to them, they conspired against him to kill him. (19) And they said one to another, "Look, this dreamer is coming! (20) Come now therefore, and let us kill him and cast him into some pit; and we will say, 'Some evil beast has devoured him,' and we shall see what will become of his dreams!"
I can't help but notice how the fact is written in two different ways--"when they saw him afar off" and "even before he came near to them". It is obvious that Joseph's brothers sought to kill him in cold blood by premeditated murder. They would murder him and then lie about it, but then I guess lying is what murderers always have to do. I also find their statement that they will see what will become of his dreams interesting, because in fact, they will indeed see that in the future.
(21) And Reuben heard it, and he delivered him out of their hands, and said, "Let us not kill him." (22) And Reuben said to them, "Shed no blood, but cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness, and do not lay a hand on him", that he might rid him out of their hands to deliver him to his father again.
When Reuben heard the plan of his other brothers, he saved Joseph from their schemes. He told them not to kill him, but to just throw him into a pit that was there in the wilderness. He planned to go back and retrieve him from the pit and return him to their father.
(23) And it came to pass, when Joseph had come to his brothers, that they stripped Joseph out of his coat, his coat of many colors that was on him. (24) And they took him and cast him into a pit, and the pit was empty; there was no water in it.
What a reception Joseph received when he came up to his brothers! Again we have redundancy in the words that they stripped Joseph of "his coat, his coat of many colors". While it might be the second part more fully explained the first, Biblical scholars say it meant they stripped off more than his outer coat of many colors, but also his other clothing. They stripped him naked or nearly so and threw him into the pit. It is pointed out that there was no water in it. This might be mentioned for different reasons. Perhaps it was purposely a dry pit so that he would not drown and Reuben would be able to retrieve him later. It also may be that the brothers were content to have no water in it so that Joseph would thirst and starve to death. Chilling thought that brothers could do such a cruel thing!
(25) And they sat down to eat bread, and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and there a company of Ishmaelites came from Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, carrying it down to Egypt.
Wow, they have just purposely left their brother to die, and obviously felt no remorse, as they sat down to eat. While they were eating, they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites bearing spices from Gilead and taking them to Egypt.
(26) And Judah said to his brothers, "What profit is there if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? (27) Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother and our flesh." And his brothers were content.
I don't know if Judah literally meant there was no monetary profit in merely killing their brother and hiding the fact, or if he meant "what good is it" because it would be difficult to hide and surely they would be found out and would have trouble to pay if and when Joseph was discovered. I can't believe that he suddenly had an attack of conscience and didn't want to kill his own flesh and blood. Maybe if there was another way, he'd just as soon not have to kill him, but was happy to get rid of him just the same. Perhaps seeing that they could profit from getting rid of him, he used a pretense of conscience to justify why they should do it this way. The brothers agreed to this plan.
(28) Then Midianite merchantmen passed by, and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver; and they took Joseph to Egypt.
The Midianites and Ishmaelites were considered one and the same; they were neighbors and often intermingled and the names are interchanged by the author (Moses) to mean the same group of people. John Wesley points out something interesting about this event. It was Judah's idea to sell Joseph for twenty pieces of silver just as Judas would betray our Lord for thirty; even the betrayers' names are almost the same. I think there will be many more similarities between Joseph and Jesus as I know Joseph will come to save his people.
(29) And Reuben returned to the pit, and, behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he tore his clothes. (30) And he returned to his brothers and said, "The child is no more; and I, where shall I go?"
Apparently Reuben was not with his brothers when the others saw the Ishmaelite caravan and decided to sell their brother. He had probably purposely separated from them so he would not arouse suspicion when he went back to get Joseph out of the pit. Reuben tore his clothes which was a sign of distress and anguish. He went back to his brothers very distraught exclaiming that the child was "no more" and wondered where he could go then. Usually "no more" was a phrase meaning "dead"; how could he possibly return to his father to tell him Joseph was gone? Maybe he meant the child was gone from the pit and where would he go to look for him? Either way, he was greatly distressed over it.
(31) And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood. (32) And they sent the coat of many colors, and they brought it to their father and said, "We have found this; do you know whether it is your son's coat or not?"
I would assume all the brothers, Reuben included, jumped into action to cover their cruel deed. They killed a kid and dipped the coat in its blood; they obviously wanted their father to believe Joseph was dead so that it would end the matter and he wouldn't be looking for him. It appears they couldn't even face their father and they sent the coat by messenger to him.
(33) And he knew it and said, "It is my son's coat; an evil beast has devoured him; Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces." (34) And Jacob tore his clothes and put sackcloth on his waist, and mourned for his son many days.
Of course, Jacob knew the coat and he assumed, as his other sons had planned, that Joseph had been killed by a wild animal. He tore his clothes and also put on sackcloth, which was not only a sign of distress, but also mourning, and he mourned for his son for many days.
(35) And all his sons and all his daughters arose to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted, and he said, "For I will go down into the grave to my son mourning." Thus his father wept for him.
Jacob only had one daughter that we know of, unless she was the only one mentioned because of the note-worthy events in her life, and there were others we don't know about. Perhaps daughters-in-law were included, although I believe there was only one of those at this time. The sense is that all his family tried to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. How hypocritical of his sons to try to comfort their father when they were the ones who unnecessarily put him through this! Jacob mourned and cried for his son, saying surely he would die of grief and join his son in death.
(36) And the Midianites sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh and captain of the guard.
Meanwhile, the Midianites sold Joseph to Potiphar in Egypt, whom this scripture says was an officer and captain of the guard of Pharaoh. The word translated as "officer" is "saris" which usually meant "eunuch". Quite often officers were eunuchs, so perhaps the meanings came to be interchangeable, as later scriptures tell that Potiphar had a wife. But then again, I have read that eunuchs often had wives; they just obviously didn't have children, and that that might be the reason for Potiphar's wife's discontent with her husband. Wow, "captain of the guard" appears to mean "chief of the butchers"! Have I seen that phrase before now in scripture and not seen its meaning? "Tabbach", the word translated as "guard" means "butcher" or "executioner". Strong's extrapolates that because a guard would be called upon to execute, the word naturally means "guard", as well. Come to find out, it is also translated as "cook", a butcher of animals to be cooked, in other places in scripture. It's interesting to me that the image of an officer and captain of the guard of Pharaoh paints a different picture than does a eunuch butcher, but then again, a frustrated eunuch butcher of men sounds pretty terrible! And that is where 17-year-old Joseph finds himself, in the hands of Potiphar.
No comments:
Post a Comment