JOSEPH

The Life of Joseph (Genesis 37.2b - 51.26)

The Betrayal and Selling into Egypt of Joseph (Genesis 37.2b - 36)

We note here a remarkable change in the narrative. Up to this point each section has been relatively brief. Covenant narrative has followed covenant narrative. This was because the records were written down in order to preserve the words of the covenant which were then, as regularly in the ancient world, put in the context of the history behind them. Thus up to Genesis 37.2a we continually have typical examples of covenant records.

But now all changes. Instead of short sections we have a flowing narrative that goes on and on, portraying the life of Joseph. And this remarkable fact is exactly what we would expect if these records were written in the first part of the 2nd Millennium BC. For Joseph was a high official in Egypt where papyrus (a writing surface made from the papyrus plant) was plentiful and the recording of information about such officials was common practise. A good case could indeed be made for suggesting that it was at this time that the earlier written records were compiled into one narrative to provide background history to this great man.

37.2b ‘Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brothers, and he was a lad with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives. And Joseph brought the evil report of them to their father.’

It would appear from this narrative that at this time the six Leah brothers kept some of their father’s flocks and herds in a separate place from the others. Perhaps his policy of dividing his possessions into two companies (32.7) had become permanent (although subsequently changed). Or it may simply be that the herds were so large that to remain together was impossible due to the sparsity of good grazing land. Thus Joseph works with the sons of the concubines.

But he made himself decidedly unpopular by tale-telling. He told his father about their bad behaviour. Possibly he felt some superiority as the son of Rachel, but more probably it was because he was spoiled as the next verse shows, and because he felt bitter at their unfriendly treatment of him (verse 4).. This is a strong warning against parents having favourites among their children. Yet in this case God would use it for good. But that does not justify the spoiling or the favouritism, both of which are destructive.

37.3 ‘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 colours (or ‘a long sleeved coat’).’

Here we learn that Joseph was his clear favourite. A long sleeved or many-coloured coat was a symbol of luxury (see 2 Samuel 13.18). It was not a working garment but one for wearing to make an impression.

‘The son of his old age.’ Joseph was not much younger than his brothers. This phrase must therefore mean that in his old age Jacob had made him his special favourite, as old men can tend to do, the one on whom he leaned (verse 4). Later Benjamin is called ‘the child of his old age’ where his father’s special love for him is stressed (44.20).

‘Israel.’ Jacob is now again called by his new name Israel. But until chapter 42 ‘Israel’ is only used twice (37.3, 13) and ‘Jacob’ is only used once (in 37.34) thus we cannot speak of a preponderance of either. Then they are interspersed freely. This use of two names of the same person in the same context is evidenced in ancient literature in both Egypt and elsewhere.

37.4 ‘And his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and they hated him and were unable to speak to him in a friendly way.’

This is the other side of the story. Because, quite inexcusably, Jacob had let his favouritism be seen his brothers were rough with Joseph. Thus the tale-telling may have been his method of getting his own back

37.5-7 ‘And Joseph dreamed a dream and he told it to his brothers and they hated him even more. And he said to them, “Listen, I beg you, to this dream that I have dreamed. For behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold your sheaves came round about and made obeisance to my sheaf.’

To dream such a vivid dream was looked on as of special significance. It was not the kind of thing you kept to yourself for it contained portents of the future. Joseph was not on such bad terms with his brothers that he could keep such a thing from them. He was so filled with wonder that he did not consider the consequences. But when they thought of its meaning they hated him even more.

‘Binding sheaves in the field.’ The dream is interesting in confirming yet again that the family tribe grew crops as well as herding cattle and sheep.

37.8 ‘And his brothers said, “Will you indeed reign over us? Or will you indeed have dominion over us?” And they hated him yet even more.

The brothers recognised the significance of the dream. As sons to the slave wives (verse 2) they took it very badly. Joseph was even dreaming of his superiority over them. The idea that they should bow down to him was preposterous.

37.9 ‘And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it to his brothers and said, “Behold I have dreamed yet a dream, and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars made obeisance to me.”

Again he dreams and again he cannot keep it to himself. The meaning of the dream is made clear in the next verse.

37.10 ‘And he told it to his father and to his brothers, and his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream that you have dreamed. Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves down to you to the earth?” ’

This time he not only told it to his brothers with whom he worked but also to his father and his other brothers. Possibly he was even troubled by the dreams. But his father too takes it amiss. How dare he suggest that they would all bow down to him?

‘And your mother.’ This does not mean that his natural mother was necessarily alive. In days when women regularly died in childbirth some other of the family would adopt a child and become its mother. Probably Leah is in mind here.

37.11 ‘And his brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the saying in his mind.’

There is here an interesting contrast. Quite understandably his brothers, who were already on bad terms with him, took his dreams badly. If they signified anything they signified his feeling of superiority over them. The suggestion of jealousy indicates that they felt that the dreams did somehow thrust him into further undeserved prominence. But his father was uneasy. While damping down any pretentiousness, he could not get the dreams out of his mind. Somehow he felt that they must have special significance, although he did not know how.

We notice from these previous verses how the hatred of his brothers is steadily growing from strength to strength (verses 4, 5, 8, 11). Preparation is being made for their final act of betrayal. This is a warning to us all that if we let evil thoughts build up in our minds and do nothing about it they will grow and fester and can lead to dreadful consequences. We need to learn to forgive.

37.12 ‘And his brothers went to feed their father’s flock in Shechem.’

Over the years things and circumstances change. It may be that Joseph was now not sent with them because of how they felt about him, but it is equally likely that he was kept at home simply because of his father’s needs (he was ‘the son of his old age’) and possibly even for the very purpose of maintaining communication between home and herd. Jacob, as is the case with those who show favouritism, does not appear to be aware of how much Joseph was hated. He thought Joseph was wonderful and assumed everyone else did as well.

It is clear that any unpleasantness resulting from previous happenings at Shechem (chapter 34) is now forgotten. It may well be that the inhabitants were just unaware of the connection of the brothers with the previous incident and they appeared peaceable enough now. Most eyewitnesses were dead or had been absorbed into the family tribe.

The land at Shechem was clearly good pasture for there is now no suggestion of separation of the flocks. Perhaps famine or raids by bandits had diminished them. There were many ups and downs in life at that time. Or perhaps Shechem was seen as fertile enough for all.

37.13-14 ‘And Israel said to Joseph, “Aren’t your brothers feeding the flock in Shechem? Come, and I will send you to them.” And he said to him, “Here I am.” And 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 Vale of Hebron and he came to Shechem. ’

Jacob sends Joseph to find out how things are not knowing that they are no longer at Shechem but have moved to Dothan. Constant changes of pasturage were needed for the large flocks. This reminds us that in the lives of all the patriarchs, while they themselves settled down at various places, their herds and flocks often had to be on the move.

‘He sent him out of the Vale of Hebron.’ Is there a hint of something ominous here? He was going never to return. The city of Kiriath-arba or Hebron was over a thousand feet above sea level but may or may not have existed at this time. It was ‘built seven years before Zoan in Egypt’ (Numbers 13.22) possibly around 1720 BC. The valley may, however, already have been called the Vale of Hebron (‘confederacy’) because a confederacy was formed or met there, later giving its name to the city. (Otherwise it could be a scribal updating, a common feature of ancient manuscripts).

37.15-17a ‘And a certain man found him, and lo, he was wandering in the countryside, and the man asked him, saying, “What are you looking for?” And he said, “I am looking for my brothers. Tell me, I beg you, where they are feeding the flock.” And the man said, “They have departed elsewhere, for I heard them say, “Let us go to Dothan.”

Joseph is unable to find his brothers in Shechem and while searching for them rather helplessly is at a loss what to do. However, fortunately he meets a man who knows where they have gone. He may have received hospitality from the brothers or met them at a well, where people tended to gather, and heard their conversation.

This piece of reminiscence suggests that Joseph remembers vividly little incidents about his last days in Canaan. They were imprinted on his mind. This almost irrelevant incident given in detail bears all the marks of an involved eyewitness.

35.17b ‘And Joseph went after his brothers and found them in Dothan.’

Joseph is not disturbed at the thought of meeting his brothers, otherwise he could have made not finding them an excuse to go back. He sets out determinedly for Dothan where at last he spots them.

The fertile plain of Dothan lies between the hills of Samaria and the Carmel range. It was on the trade route to Egypt. Dothan itself is known from inscriptions and excavation.

35.18-20 ‘And they saw him in the distance, and before he came near to them they conspired against him to kill him. And they said to one another, “See, the lord of dreams comes.” Come now therefore, let us kill him and throw him into one of the cisterns, and we will say, ‘An evil beast has devoured him’, and we shall see what will become of his dreams.” ’

Joseph’s behaviour and attitude, and especially his dreams of superiority, have so filled his brothers with hatred that they decide to get rid of him once and for all. When they see him approaching, wearing his coat of many colours which emphasises his favoured position (it also showed he had not come to work), they felt bitter. There were a number of cisterns nearby, holes three metres or so deep widening underneath the surface, whose purpose was to catch and store rainwater for the dry season. Remains of such cisterns have been found near Dothan. They could easily hide a man’s body. So they decided to murder him and throw him into a cistern. It would be easy to suggest he had met with an accident, for who would ever know?

‘The lord of dreams.’ A bitter statement that demonstrates their feelings. The dreams had clearly affected them deeply, as their final comment shows.

37.21-22 ‘And Reuben heard it and he delivered him out of their hand. And he said, “Let us not take his life.” And Reuben said to them, “Shed no blood. Throw him into this cistern which is in the wilderness but lay no hand on him.” (This was so that he could deliver him from their hand and restore him to his father).’

The repetition ‘and Reuben said’ bears all the marks of ancient literature. Reuben may not be as strong and fierce as his brothers but he has more compassion and common sense. He thinks of his father’s feelings and he thinks of the stain of fratricide and determines to save Joseph, but the roundabout route is typical of him, although may have also been wise in the circumstances.

‘Let us not take his life.’ In other words let us not be directly responsible for his death.

‘Shed no blood.’ Is he thinking here of Cain who shed his brother’s blood? He knows how deeply the world of his day felt about fratricide. Such bloodguilt was a terrible crime which demanded vengeance.

But Reuben’s intent was to save Joseph. As the eldest brother he may not have felt the indignity of Joseph’s position as deeply as the others and he felt a certain responsibility because of his status.

37.23-24 ‘And it happened when Joseph had come to his brothers that they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colours that he was wearing, and took him and threw him into the cistern. And the cistern was empty. There was no water in it.’

The foul deed is done, although not as foul as it would have been without Reuben’s intervention. The stripping him of his coat was a sign of their intense jealousy, although later they would have a use for it. Fortunately for his well being it was the dry season and there was no water in the cistern.

37.25a ‘And they sat down to eat food.’ To eat heartily after an evil act is always the sign of men who lack conscience. For a time their anger made them feel justified, but no doubt through the years their consciences will not remain so peaceful. In the end conscience makes us pay for what we do. It is interesting that Reuben is not there (verse 29). Perhaps his conscience was stronger than his brothers and he could not eat. It may well be that he was sickened by his brothers’ attitudes and wanted to be on his own. Or it may be that he was watching the sheep.

37.25b ‘And they lifted up their eyes and looked, and behold, a travelling company of Ishmaelites came from Gilead with their camels, bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down into Egypt.’

The trade route went from Damascus, through Gilead, crossed the Jordan and joined the easy coastal route to Egypt. This then was directly in the line of the trade route along which caravans of traders constantly passed carrying goods between lands to the north and east and Egypt in the south.

‘A travelling company of Ishmaelites.’ They spot the gold earrings and recognise them as Ishmaelites. Later Joseph will realise that there are also Medanites among them, for it is they who arrange his sale. By this time Ishmaelites, Midianites and Medanites had become intermingled and could be seen as one. In the story of Gideon he fights ‘the Midianites’ and we learn that ‘they had gold earrings because they were Ishmaelites’ (Judges 8.24). Thus Ishmaelites are now seen as a grouping within the Midianite confederation, and regularly called Midianites. It seems that once Ishmael was dead Midian took over the pre-eminence in the confederate tribes linked with them. Midian and Medan are brothers, sons of Keturah by Abraham so that Medanites (37.36) are also within the confederation and are unknown in external sources for this very reason. They also are seen as Midianites.

Peoples like the family tribe of Jacob despised such people and the different terms may well have been intended to be disparaging.

The use of different terms for the same peoples in the same context is witnessed elsewhere in ancient literature, e.g. the stela of Sebek-khu (also called Djaa) in Manchester University Museum exemplifies the use of three names for one Palestinian populace: Mntyw-Stt ("Asiatic Bedouin"), Rntw hst ("vile Syrians") and ‘mw ("Asiatics"). The ancients liked variation and were not so particular about exactness, especially when they despised people.

‘Spicery and balm and myrrh.’ ‘Spicery’ is probably tragacanth, a gum that exudes from the stem of the astragalus gummifer, a small prickly plant which grows on the arid slopes of Iran and Turkey and is a member of the pea family. ‘Balm’ is possibly gum mastic and ‘myrrh’ possibly ladanum obtained from rock roses. These were resinous products used for healing purposes (Jeremiah 46.11).

37.26-27 ‘And Judah said to his brothers, “What profit do we gain if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him for he is our brother, our flesh.” And his brothers listened to him.’

There is still disagreement about what is to be done to Joseph. The more belligerent (Simeon and Leah especially? - compare on chapter 34. They were bloodthirsty enough) still want to kill him while others, like Judah, are probably siding with Reuben’s idea. But the sight of the caravan combines the two parties. They can not only get rid of Joseph for good without killing him, but also make a profit out of it as well by selling him to the traders.

‘Conceal his blood.’ That is, conceal his violent death. But they are all aware that spilled blood, especially of a brother, ‘cries from the ground’ (4.10).

‘Let not our hand be upon him for he is our brother, our flesh.’ Judah does not like the idea of killing a person of his own flesh and blood. It would be looked on by all decent people as a heinous crime. Instead they will sell him.

37.28 ‘And the Midianites, merchantmen, passed by and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the cistern and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. And they brought Joseph to Egypt.’

The ‘they’ is the brothers. They had seen the caravan in the distance and now it approaches to pass them by. So they draw Joseph from the cistern and sell him for twenty pieces of silver, the price of a man. As we have seen above Ishmaelites were known as Midianites, but distinguished by their gold earrings from other Midianites.

‘Twenty pieces of silver.’ The price of Joseph as a slave at 20 shekels of silver is correct for that period. We know from external sources that in the late 3rd millennium BC the price of a slave was 10-15 shekels, but by 1800-1700 BC it was 20 shekels. In 15th century Nuzu and Ugarit it was 30 shekels (compare Exodus 21.32) and by the 8th century BC it was up to 50-60 shekels (2 Kings 15.20). This is remarkable confirmation of the accuracy of the narrative.

37.29-30 ‘And Reuben returned to the cistern, and behold, Joseph was not in the cistern, and he tore his clothes, and he returned to his brothers and said, “The child is not, and as for me, where shall I go?

Reuben has quite clearly been away for some unknown reason. It may that he was sickened by their desire for blood and wanted to be on his own, or it may be that as the eldest he went to keep an eye on the sheep while the traders were passing. It was not unknown for a few sheep to disappear when a caravan passed by. But afterwards he goes privately to the cistern which his brothers have now left, in order to release Joseph. However, to his shock and dismay he finds that Joseph has gone. The tearing of clothes was a sign of great distress especially expressing sorrow and grief.

He comes to his brothers and expresses his dismay. He clearly feels he has the responsibility for Joseph’s welfare as his eldest brother. What is he going to say to Jacob? Then they no doubt tell him what they have done.

37.31-33 ‘And they took Joseph’s coat and killed a he-goat and dipped the coat in the blood. And they sent the coat of many colours and they brought it to their father and said, “We have found this. Decide now whether it is your son’s coat or not.” And he recognised it and said, “It is my son’s coat. An evil beast has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn in pieces.”

The dreadful deed has been done but now Reuben’s words stir them into action. How can they best cover it up? The answer is simple. They will take Joseph’s coat, cover it in blood and then pretend they have found it. And that is exactly what they do. And Jacob is completely taken in. But what they had not considered was the effect on their father. How easily we do things without thinking how many people might suffer as a consequence. Each wrong action can produce a chain of suffering.

‘Sent --- and brought.’ Is there here an indication of the wrestling already taking place within their minds? Do they ‘bring’ it by sending it by the hands of servants who pass their words on? One can understand why they would not wish to touch the coat themselves.

37.34 ‘And Jacob tore his clothes and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his son for many days. And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted, and he said, “For I will go down to the grave (sheol) to my son mourning.” And his father wept for him.’ And the Medanites sold him into Egypt, to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, the captain of his bodyguard.’

The contrast is striking and deliberate. On the one hand the grief-stricken father mourning for the dead son for a long time, unable to be comforted, and on the other the son sold without thought, in moments, into the hands of an Egyptian officer. So does the writer bring out the evil of what was done.

‘Tore his clothes -- put sackcloth on.’ A regular method of demonstrating great grief and emotion. The writer stresses the prolonged grief of the father. This must surely have torn at the hearts of even the hardest of the sons. For try as they will they cannot comfort him. They had not known not what they did. How many times did they wish that they could bring Joseph back again? We may do things in the emotion of a moment that we regret for a lifetime.

‘Daughters’. Probably, along with Dinah, mainly the wives of his sons.

‘I will go down to sheol with my son mourning.’ Sheol is the world of the departed, connected with the grave. It is always a shadowy world, a vague world of semi or non existence in shadowy form. There is no doctrine of the afterlife in the Pentateuch.

So do we say goodbye to Jacob for some long time. We leave him grieving and recognise that he will continue grieving and broken hearted while the story goes on.

‘Medanites.’ Part of the Midianite confederation (see on verse 25). It was probably Joseph who became aware of the different skeins in the Midianite group, a mixture of Ishmaelites and Medanites. He had the chance to communicate with them and knew exactly which of them had sold him. He had cause to know.

‘Potiphar.’ Possibly an abbreviation of Potiphera (compare 41.45) but not the same person. The latter means ‘he whom Re has given’, which would be a popular name. It is quite clearly Egyptian.

‘An officer of Pharaoh, captain of his bodyguard.’ The word for ‘officer’ is ‘saris’. It eventually came to mean eunuch (LXX has eunouchos here), but is here used in its earlier use as a court officer. As ‘captain of his bodyguard’ he is someone in close touch with the Pharaoh. Very few were in close touch with Pharaoh for he saw himself as a god and stood aloof and unapproachable.

‘Pharaoh.’ The title of the king of Egypt. It derives from the Egyptian term for ‘great house’ and originally signified the palace and court of the king. The first use of it for the king himself is around 1450 BC, but without an individual name attached, as here and in Exodus. Thus we may see the use here as being probably the work of Moses, changing an original ‘king of Egypt’ into the more modern title. It was only in the early first millennium BC that an individual name began to be attached to the title. This minor detail helps to authenticate the narrative.

Judah Falls Further Into Sin (38.1-30).

The compiler’s purpose in the insertion of this separate account of Judah’s private life her is to demonstrate that Judah, having betrayed Joseph (and Jacob) by instigating the selling of him to the Midianites, now as a consequence continues on a downward path. Thus the one who suggested selling Joseph to the Midianites demonstrates even more clearly his unworthiness by his subsequent behaviour which the compiler possibly sees as the fruit of his primary sin against Joseph.

It is interesting that all the oldest sons of Leah have now been discredited in Jacob’s eyes. Reuben because of his taking of his father’s concubine (35.22), Simeon and Levi because they slew the men of Shechem (34.30), and now Judah for marrying a Canaanite woman and breaking his oath to Tamar.

But why should the account have been written in the first place? It is not a covenant narrative and it is not part of the story of Joseph. The answer may well be that it is a kind of covenant narrative in the sense that it is a record of Tamar’s vindication after trial, a record necessary to maintain her position in the tribe. She would want it in writing for it is her vindication before all.

38.1 ‘And it happened at that time that Judah went down from his brothers and turned in to a certain Adullamite whose name was Hirah. And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he took her and went in unto her. And she conceived and bore a son and he called his name Er. And she conceived again and bore a son and called his name Onan. And she yet again bore a son and called his name Shelah, and he was at Chezib when she bore him.’

‘Went down from his brothers.’ He goes to see a friend, Hirah an Adullamite. Adullam was a Canaanite city, later in the territory of Judah (Joshua 12.15). This emphasises his Canaanite associations. Then he compounds his position by marrying a Canaanite woman. This could only add to Jacob’s grief of heart, for he would undoubtedly have looked on this as going against the covenant. The lesson is that if we follow sin it will lead us and our children deeper and deeper into trouble.

It is not necessary to see this as signifying separation from the family tribe. There is no suggestion that he takes flocks and herds with him. It is a private friendship. And his visits to Shua to meet his daughter, under the guise of visiting his friend Hirah, may well have been in secret.

Nor does he necessarily lead a separate life from his brothers when he is married. While the marriage would be a shock to Jacob (compare 26.34-35) it was not a reason for his son leaving the family tribe. There is nothing to suggest that Judah did not bring his wife into the tribe. The point is rather stressed that he begets three sons, for this explains the following narrative. It is only when it comes to the third birth that we are told where he was. Chezeb is probably the same as Achzib, later a town of Judah, in the lowland hills. And there is nothing in this to cast doubt on the fact that he continued to work alongside his brothers. If they took the herds and flocks to Shechem they could also take them to Chezeb.

Later, however, we do read of ‘his sheep shearers’ (38.12) which may suggest a level of independence. But we might expect the sons as they grow older to exert their authority independently, even establishing sub-groups within the tribe. (But not necessarily. These sheep shearers may simply represent the group he was in charge of at the time. The flocks were very extensive). Yet if this is so it is many years later when his wife has died after two of his children have grown up.

But what is significant is that the name of his wife is never mentioned, she is only ‘Shua’s daughter’ (verse 12). It is as though what follows puts her beyond the pale in the eyes of the writer. This may have been because she was seen as such an evil influence on her sons (see following).

38.6-10 ‘And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. And Er, Judah’s firstborn was wicked in the sight of Yahweh, and Yahweh slew him. And Judah said to Onan, “Go into your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her, and raise up seed to your brother.” And Onan knew that the seed would not be his. And it happened that when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled it on the ground lest he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of Yahweh and he slew him also.’

We find here the fruit of the difference between the culture of the family tribe and the culture of the Canaanites. It is clear that the family tribe practised the custom of Levirate marriage. According to this custom, which is described later in Deuteronomy 25.5-10 and illustrated in the Book of Ruth, a brother of a man who dies childless has a duty to marry his brother’s wife and go in to her to produce children on his brother’s behalf, and those children are seen as his brother’s. It was a law known and practised elsewhere. But Onan refused to accept the custom, possibly because his mother has brought him up in the Canaanite religion, and he took steps to ensure it did not work. No faithful member of the family tribe would have dared to refuse in that way. (Outwardly Onan would have to conform to the traditions of the tribe. But his mother’s influence may well have had a counter-effect).

‘Er was wicked in the eyes of Yahweh.’ Er may also have been brought up by his mother in the Canaanite religion, and even been taken secretly to some of their festivals, thus his experience of the Canaanite religion may have meant that he indulged in sexual practises that could only be seen as an abomination by the family tribe. So when he dies it is put down to his moral and sacrilegious behaviour. Note the reintroduction of the name of Yahweh. It is clear that Er’s crime is seen as going against the covenant.

‘Yahweh slew him.’ His early death, possibly through venereal disease exacerbated by some other disease, is seen as the judgment of Yahweh.

‘And Judah said to Onan.’ Onan dared not disobey the head of his sub-tribe. He carried out the motions of what he was required to do. But when he was about to ejaculate he withdrew and let the seed fall on the ground. This has nothing to do with birth control. His sin is that he refused to ‘give seed to his brother’ and it was a kind of fratricide. He has disobeyed the laws of the tribe which are seen as part of the covenant (Genesis 26.5). Thus he too comes under Yahweh’s disapproval and his subsequent early death is seen as the judgment of Yahweh.

But why should someone behave in this way? It may well be that he too had been brought up in the Canaanite religion and despised the tribal customs. Thus he may have seen the demand made on him as repugnant. Alternately it may have been just stubbornness and unwillingness to do his dead brother a good turn. Indeed inheritance was also involved. Er’s inheritance would go to the child. It may have been mainly the idea of this that Onan did not like. And indeed it may have been a combination of all three. Whatever it was it made him refuse to comply.

(Some have cast doubt on the chronology. We know from 37.2 that Joseph was probably about eighteen when he was sold as a slave, making Judah possibly about twenty two, and say twenty three when he married and bore Er. Then in 41.46 Joseph is thirty, although we may see this as a round number indicating that he has completed his period of preparation (three for completeness times ten for intensity), and this is followed by nine years (seven good years and two bad years) at which point Joseph seeks to persuade the family to come to Egypt. Thus at this point Joseph may be roughly forty and Judah roughly forty four. Then not too long afterwards they do make for Egypt and at this point Judah seemingly has grandchildren by Perez whom he begets after his third son has grown up (46.12), when he must be at the earliest say forty (which assumes Er married when still quite young. But this could well be so. It may be that Canaanites with their ‘advanced’ sexual attitudes did marry much younger than those in the family tribe - as Judah’s wife presumably did ). This say some is impossible.

But this is to ignore the artificial nature of chapter 46 (which see), for there the writer is seeking to bring the number of Jacob and his direct descendants to seventy by any means possible in order to indicate the divine perfection of the number who went up to Egypt - intensified seven (he also includes the two sons of Joseph who were born in Egypt). He is not counting them but expressing an idea. Thus it may well be that he includes the grandchildren, even though they have not yet been born, as being as it were ‘in Perez’s loins’).

38.11 ‘Then Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law, “Remain a widow in your father’s house until Shelah my son is grown up”, (for he said, ‘Lest he also die like his brothers’). And Tamar went and lived in her father’s house.’

Having lost two sons through premature death Judah is concerned for the safety of his third, who is also under obligation to raise up seed for his brother. But he is not yet of age for marriage. Thus he promises Tamar that as soon as he is (and it would not presumably be too long) he will carry out his duty with her.

‘Remain a widow in your father’s house.’ It was the custom among many that a widow returned to the protection of her parents, although it was not necessarily required (Ruth 1.8; Leviticus 22.13). But the thought is that she remain there only until she can marry Shelah. Judah is here telling her not to marry again until Shelah is of age. Thus he puts himself under even deeper obligation, and his future conduct is inexcusable.

‘Lest he also die like his brothers.’ It may be that Judah felt she was under some evil influence that had caused the death of his sons (compare the Jewish book Tobit 3.7-17 in the Apocrypha for such an idea). Alternately he may simply have feared that if Shelah did not fulfil his duty to his brother’s wife he also would die. But his later actions would not support this latter.

‘And Tamar went and lived in her father’s house.’ She was separated from the tribe and returned home where she could not be a danger.

38.12 ‘And in process of time Shua’s daughter, the wife Judah, died, and Judah was comforted and went up to his sheep shearers to Timnah, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.’

In the meanwhile Judah’s wife also dies. This is what makes what follows possible. Had she still been alive Tamar might not have done what she did. But once she learns of the death of her mother-in-law her mind turns in that direction.

‘Judah was comforted.’ The period of mourning comes to an end and Judah begins to live life again. It may be or not be that Judah genuinely grieved for her loss, either way the mourning ritual must be carried through. Until that had happened he could not join the sheep shearers in their celebrations at the time of sheep shearing which was a time of feasting (see 1 Samuel 25.11; 2 Samuel 13.23 on).

‘Went up to his sheep shearers.’ He takes with him his old friend Hirah, who has possibly helped him through his difficult time, and joins his sheep shearers to watch over the work and join in the celebrations.

38.13 ‘And Tamar was told saying, “Look, your father-in-law goes up to Timnah to shear his sheep.’

It would appear that Tamar was not invited to the funeral and mourning for her mother-in-law and realises that she has been ostracised. He has completely ignored her. This brings home to her that he has no intention of carrying out his promise in giving her to Shelah, for she knows that Shelah is now of age. So when she hears that he is coming to nearby Timnah she decides to act.

38.14 ‘And she put off from her the garments of her widowhood, and covered herself with a veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in the gate of Enaim which is by the way to Timnah, for she saw that Shelah was grown up and she was not given to him to wife.’

When we consider Tamar’s actions we must recognise that she has been grievously wronged. Basically she has been deserted. She had a right to marriage to Shelah, and the children that would result, because Judah had given her a promise. Shelah, of course, would not be limited to one wife. He had merely to fulfil his duty to Tamar and take her into his household and then he could proceed with his own life as he would.

So she takes the situation into her own hands. It may well be that if all else fails she has a right under the Levirate law to marry and have a child by Judah now that her mother-in-law is dead, for it is clear that the Levirate law reaches beyond just a brother (in the Book of Ruth Naomi is the wife whose husband has died, but Ruth expects to be able to bear children for her and uses the Levirate law to marry a ‘near-kinsman’ of Naomi).

‘She put off from her the garments of her widowhood.’ Widows were expected to dress to demonstrate their status. We do not know of what this consisted but it seems that widows did not need to be veiled in public.

‘And covered herself with a veil and wrapped herself.’ She was not offering herself as a common prostitute but as a religious devotee. In many ancient religions a married woman would dedicate herself to the goddess of love, in this case Astarte, and would then be required to make love to a stranger, acting out that love. This may well have been a common practise to the Canaanites from whose background Judah’s wife, and probably Tamar, had come. But it was repulsive to such as the family tribe of which Judah was a part (compare Deuteronomy 23.17). However, Tamar is only pretending to be available to strangers. She has only one person in mind. She wants to be impregnated with the seed of a near-kinsman of her husband as is her right.

‘Sat in the gate of Enaim which is by the way to Timnah.’ She sat where such women would commonly sit knowing that Judah must pass by that way to reach his destination. Compare Jeremiah 3.2; Ezekiel 16.25).

38.15 ‘When Judah saw her he thought her to be a prostitute for she had covered her face.’

Here the common word for prostitute is used (zonot) but in verse 21 the word is kedesha, a ‘holy one’, one dedicated to the service of a goddess. It is possible that he had realised the difference while in the act of intercourse, or it may be that in cases like these either word could be used. Both are used in Hosea 4.14.

38.16a ‘And he turned unto her by the way, and said, “Go to, I beg you, let me come in unto you.” For he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law.’

It is typical of the hypocrisy of men that Judah has no compunction about going in to a prostitute while he would himself condemn the woman for her act. It was quite probably normal behaviour for him. He did not mind taking advantage of ‘pious’ Canaanite women. But this time his sin will catch him out.

38.16b ‘And she said, “What will you give me that you may come in unto me?” ’

The sacred prostitute was normally paid for her services so that this would come as no surprise to him.

38.17-18 ‘And he said, “I will send you a kid of the goats from the flock.” And she said, “Will you give me a pledge until you send it?” And he said, “What pledge shall I give you?” And she said, “Your signet, and your cord, and your staff which is in your hand.” And he gave them to her and came in unto her and she conceived by him.’

Judah now offers the payment of a kid (compare Judges 15.1). But clearly with no certainty that he will fulfil his promise a prostitute would want some guarantee. And Tamar has even more reason for her request. She asks for something as a pledge, an earnest. And the pledge she seeks is his signet, his cord and his staff, which he willingly gives in return for her services.

‘Your signet and your cord.’ The signet would be a cylinder carried on a cord round the neck and would be rolled over soft clay documents to authenticate them. It would be of no use to anyone else. Here we have clear evidence of the use of such writing materials by the family tribe. His staff would be personal to him identifying him in some way. While Judah does not realise it he is giving this woman a hold over him, but it indicates how common taking advantage of such prostitution was for he does not even consider the danger of blackmail.

‘And she conceived by him.’ Her aim is achieved. She has received effective seed from a near-kinsman of her husband. In the eyes of the people of that day she would be seen as perfectly justified. She is honouring the memory of her dead husband.

38.19 ‘And she rose and went away and put her veil off from her and put on the garments of her widowhood.’

Having hopefully achieved her aim Tamar goes back to her previous respectability. No one would be aware of anything different about her unless her plan worked.

38.20-23 ‘And Judah sent the kid of the goats by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman’s hand, and he did not find her. Then he asked the men of her place, “Where is the sacred prostitute who was at Enaim by the way side?” And they said, “There has been no sacred prostitute here.” And he returned to Judah and said, “I have not found her, and the men of the place also said, ‘There has been no sacred prostitute here’.” And Judah said, “Let her take it to her lest we be made ashamed. See, I did send this kid and you have not found her.” ’

It is an indication of his discretion that Judah sends his close friend and not a servant to find the prostitute. Such activities while common should not be publicised. But as we know the woman was not to be found. So Judah decides to let her keep the pledge. He does not want to make a great stir and bring shame on himself. Most men may behave like he had but it was not a thing you publicised. And his friend can witness that he kept his part of the bargain. As far as he was concerned the matter was finished.

38.24 ‘And it happened about three months after that it was told to Judah, saying, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has behaved as a prostitute, and what is more, she is with child by harlotry.” And Judah said, “Bring her out and let her be burned.”

Once her pregnancy became apparent Tamar was sure to be stigmatised. What possible explanation could there be? It was clear that she had behaved immorally. No doubt her father was horrified and immediately informed Judah. It was one thing for men to visit prostitutes, it was another for a daughter of the house to behave in that way. A lesson had to be taught.

It is possible that Judah was pleased to find a way of getting rid of Tamar. He probably had a conscience about her but was fearful lest she brought bad luck on his son. Thus what she had done gave him the perfect opportunity to dispose of her. As head of the household it was his to pass judgment on her. And his judgment is that she should die by burning.

She was only a dependent. She had no right to public trial. As widow of his first son and proposed wife to his third son, at least theoretically, it was his to pass the sentence. Her fate was in his hands. And there is no doubt that his sentence was severe, which brings home emphatically the strength of his conscience about her. Later burning was only utilised in the severest cases of prostitution (Leviticus 21.9), the more usual sentence was stoning so that all could partake in the punishment (Deuteronomy 22. 22-24).

Nor seemingly did he question her about what had happened, as he should have done, for had she been forced in the open country she would not be punishable (Deuteronomy 22.25-27). Thus the hardness of Judah’s heart is brought out again. The result is that she is brought out to face her punishment, while Judah looks on mercilessly and probably even pleased that things have turned out this way. But it was then that he received a great shock.

38.25 ‘When she was brought out she sent to her father-in-law, saying, “I am with child by the man whose these things are.” And she said, “Discern, I beg you, whose these things are, the signet and the cords and the staff.”

The mound for the fire has probably already been prepared, and the tribe will be gathered to watch the sentence carried out. Then the woman is dragged out into the centre of the crowd and faces her judge, probably being given final moments in which she can express her contrition and even name the culprit. And to her judge she says that the guilty man can be known for she possesses his signet and cords, and his staff of identification. And on this she asks him to identify them.

38.26 ‘And Judah acknowledged them and said, “She is more righteous than I inasmuch as I did not give her to Shelah my son.” And he knew her again no more.’

To his credit Judah acknowledges the truth of the situation and recognises that she is not guilty after all. She has only done what she had a right should be done, to bear a son to her late husband by a near kinsman. Had it not been for his failure to fulfil his promise it would have been, as it should have been, through his son. It is he who is the more guilty for he had failed in his duty to his late son.

Thus he accepts that she is now his wife by right of the levirate law although a wife with whom he feels he can no longer have sexual relations because she is also his daughter-in-law. This brings out the unusualness of the situation. It was not usual for the father to be the near kinsman. But Tamar’s innocence is made clear, and we can have no doubt, for her sake and for the sake of her sons, that the verdict was made clear in written form. That is why the compiler later knew of this event.

And for Judah it was a time of shame and open admission of guilt. He cannot deny that he has behaved very badly. What began with the cruel suggestion for the sale of Joseph into slavery results in this time of great shame for himself and his family.

38.27-30 ‘And it happened that in the time of her labour pains, behold, twins were in her womb. And it happened that when she was enduring her suffering one put out his hand, and the midwife took and bound on his hand a scarlet thread, saying, “This came out first.” And it happened, that as he drew back his hand, behold his brother came out. And she said, “Why have you made a breach for yourself?” That is why his name was called Perez. And afterwards his brother came out, he who had the scarlet thread on his hand. And his name was called Zerah.’

The happenings at the birth of her children were as confusing as the story of their conception, and it was so unusual that it was remembered in detail. It was no doubt looked on as significant for the future.

‘Perez’, that is ‘made a breach.’ From him were descended the Perezites (Numbers 26.20). He was the father of Hezron and Hamul (Genesis 46.12) who were numbered among ‘the seventy’ (Genesis 46.27) replacing Er and Onan.

‘Zerah’, that is ‘coming forth (especially of the sun)’. From him were descended the Zerahites (Numbers 26.20) among whom was Achan who withheld the ‘devoted’ thing (Joshua 7).

So after his betrayal of Joseph, Judah is shown to have gone from sin to sin. Truly if we sow the wind we will reap the whirlwind.

Joseph Is Sold Into Slavery, Resists Temptation and Strangely Prospers in Prison (Genesis 39.1-23).

That what now happens to Joseph is in the hands of Yahweh is abundantly made clear (verse 2-3, 21). He is with him there in that strange land able to bring about His will.

39.1. ‘And Joseph was brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hand of the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there.’

This verse basically repeats 37.36 to update us on the situation after the detour of chapter 38. It may well have been written by the compiler with verse 2 continuing on from 37.36. He describes him as sold by the Ishmaelites because that is how Judah had described it in 37.27, to remind us of Judah’s part in the ‘tragedy’.

39.2 ‘And Yahweh was with Joseph and he was a man who prospered, and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian.’

In these next few verses Yahweh’s part is emphasised. Joseph may be in Egypt (and notice the stress on the fact that his master was an Egyptian (verses 1, 2 and 4)) but he is not forsaken by Yahweh. The name Yahweh is used to stress that what is happening is within the terms of the tribal covenant. Yahweh is at work.

‘He was a man who prospered.’ Things went well with him because Yahweh was with him.

‘In the house.’ He was a domestic servant.

‘His master the Egyptian.’ The constant repetition of this fact may indicate an intention to bring out a feeling of familiarity in others who have also been slaves in Egypt. If Moses is the compiler this is full understandable and explicable. On the other hand it may have the purpose of emphasising that even an Egyptian can be prospered by Yahweh.

39.3-6a ‘And his master saw that Yahweh was with him and that Yahweh made all he did to prosper in his hand, and Joseph found favour in his sight and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand. And it happened that from the time that he made him overseer in his house and over all that he had Yahweh blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake, and the blessing of Yahweh was on all that he had, in the house and in the field. And he left all that he had in Joseph’s hand, and with him he knew nothing except the food that he ate.’

What a different Joseph we have here from the tale-bearing, consciously superior Joseph we have known. His captivity has already done him good. And while his prospering is stressed to be due to Yahweh’s watch over him it also includes the fact that he works hard and wisely.

‘Made him overseer over his house.’ In all periods in the second millennium BC we know that Semites were often placed in places of favour and authority in Egyptian households, from Pharaoh’s house downwards. Thus his being made overseer of the house (imy-r pr, a common Egyptian title) is not unusual. The result is that his master puts him in control of everything he has which results in increased prosperity as a result of the blessing of Yahweh.

The Egyptologist K. Kitchen states: “Joseph was but one of many young Semites who became servants in Egyptian households between 1900 and 1600 B.C. Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446, part of a prison-register, bears on its reverse a list of 79 servants in an Egyptian household around 1740 B.C. of whom at least 45 were not Egyptians but "Asiatics", i.e. Semites like Joseph. Many of these have good North-eastern Semitic names linguistically related to those of Jacob, Issachar, Asher, Job (Ayyabum) and Menahem. Some were "domestics" (hry-pr) just like Joseph in Genesis 39:2 ("in the house").”

Thus Yahweh is seen not only to prosper Joseph but also to prosper an important high official in the Egyptian court. Where now are the gods of Egypt?

‘With him he knew nothing except the food that he ate.’ This may mean that Joseph was so efficient that he simply left him to it and his only exertion was to eat his food, or it may suggest that that was the one sphere which was not left to Joseph, possibly for reasons of ritual separation (consider 43.32).

39.6b ‘And Joseph was good looking and well favoured. And it happened after these things that his master’s wife cast her eyes on Joseph, and she said, “Lie with me.” But he refused and said to his master’s wife, “Look, with me my master does not know what is in his house, and he has put all that he has into my hand. There is none greater in this house than I, neither has he kept anything back from me except you because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” ’

The sad story that follows is not unusual. Well favoured slaves were regularly pursued by over-sexed mistresses. And to yield was often the path to even more favours, while to resist was to court revenge. But Joseph shows his worthiness by refusing to countenance her suggestion. His master has been ultra-good to him and trusted him with everything he has apart from her. How then can he fail him? And he has also God to answer to. To sin so would be to sin against God.

It has often been suggested that this story is based on ‘The Tale of the Two Brothers’, but a comparison between the two reveals little similarity. They differ on nearly every point. The only parallels are the sexual pursuit by the woman and the revenge sought by the woman and of these the one quite naturally follows the other and both are common features of life through the ages. In background and every detail the stories are different. We attach a copy of the story so that you may judge for yourselves.

39.10-20 ‘And it happened as she spoke to Joseph day by day that he would not listen to her to lie by her or to be with her. And it happened about this time that he went into the house to do his work, and there were none of the men of the house there within, and she caught him by his garment, saying, “Lie with me.” And he left his garment in her hand and fled, and got himself out. And it happened, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand and had fled out, she called to the men of her house and spoke to them, saying, “See, he has brought in a Hebrew to us to insult us. He came in to me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice, and it happened that when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, he left his garment by me and fled and got himself out. And she kept his garment by her until his master came home. And she spoke to him in with similar words, saying, “The Hebrew servant whom you brought to us came in to me to seduce me, and the result was that as I lifted up my voice and shouted , he left his garment by me and fled out.” And it happened when the master heard the words of his wife which she spoke to him saying, “Your servant treated me in this way,” that his anger was kindled, and Joseph’s master took him and put him into the prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were bound, and he was there in prison.’

The wife of Potiphar tries again and again to seduce Joseph but he continually resists her. But one day when he found himself alone in the house with her she grabs his clothing, and when he flees into the outer courtyard, probably quite naked, leaving the clothing in her hand she uses it as false evidence to condemn him, first to the servants and then to her husband, with the result that he is thrown into prison.

‘See he has brought in a Hebrew to insult us.’ The word almost certainly means Habiru. These were known to the Egyptians as ‘prw. The general idea in men’s minds about them was of wild, independent people of no specific race who were not quite respectable and who went their own way. Thus by calling him a ‘Hebrew’ she was cleverly suggesting this of him to servants who probably looked down on such people so that they were likely to believe her story.

Then to her husband she spoke accusingly as though her husband was to blame for bringing such a wild man among them, and spoke of him as ‘your servant’, almost certainly in a derisory and emphatic tone, making it quite clear whom she expected him to believe. And naturally he accepted her side of the story. Unless he was going to condemn her he had no option. So his anger was kindled against Joseph and he put him in the king’s prison ‘where the king’s prisoners were bound’.

Adultery was not seen as quite the grave personal offence among other nations as it would later be by Israel (Exodus 20.14; Leviticus 18.20; Deuteronomy 22.22 on). The offence was more of taking a man’s chattel, what belonged to him, and thus the death penalty would not necessarily be applied. But Joseph had no means of recompense and therefore must be punished. It may be that he was seen as still awaiting trial and left there. The captain of the bodyguard may have had some doubts about his guilt, and would not necessarily want the affair publicised.

Egyptian prisons were highly organised. Each prisoner’s record was filed under seven separate headings from initial arrest to the completion of the sentence. And the prison into which Joseph was put was no ordinary prison, but a special prison for those who were guilty of serious political offences as well as for criminals (‘where the king’s prisoners were bound’), which demonstrates how seriously Joseph’s supposed offence was taken. It may have been that in the well-known fortress Saru, which was on the borders of the Palestinian frontier. This prison is mentioned a number of times in the writings of Thutmosis III, some considerable period after the time of Joseph. It is also mentioned in the edicts of Pharaoh Haremheb, about the middle of the 14th century B.C. But 40.3,7 may suggest a more private prison.

‘Insult us ---- seduce me.’ The Hebrew is the same. The word means to play, to sport and thus to mock and insult and to play with sexually, therefore seduce.

39.21-23 ‘But Yahweh was with Joseph and showed kindness to him and gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison. And the keeper of the prison committed to Joseph’s hand all the prisoners who were in the prison, and whatever they did he was the doer of it. The keeper of the prison did not look to anything that was under his hand because Yahweh was with him. And what he did Yahweh made it prosper.’

Joseph was one of those people who have the ability to make people have confidence in him. He had failed abysmally with his brothers, but to them he was only ‘younger brother’. But he had succeeded with Potiphar, and now, an even more difficult task, with the keeper of the prison (parallel to the Egyptian title s’wty n hnrt which has the same meaning)

The day to day running of the prison was clearly in the hands of certain of the trusted inmates under the keeper of the prison. Joseph gained his confidence over a period and was eventually put in over-all charge of the general day to day running of the prison.

But it is stressed that all this was due to Yahweh. Yahweh had prospered him in the house of the king’s officer, now he prospers him in his prison. The writer does not let us forget that Joseph is there under the protection of Yahweh for the fulfilment of His purposes. What is happening is all part of the covenant between Yahweh and the patriarchs. And the unseen presence of Yahweh must be recognised in the following narrative.

Joseph Comes In Contact With Important Court Officials And Interprets Their Dreams (40.1-23).

40.1-2 ‘And it happened after these things that the cup-bearer of the king of Egypt, and his baker, offended their lord the king of Egypt. And Pharaoh was angry against his two officers, against the head of the cupbearers and the head of the bakers.’

We note here the old title ‘the king of Egypt’ and the new title ‘Pharaoh’, the latter probably an updating by Moses. We do not know how the two ‘officers’ (saris as with Potiphar) offended but it may be that something made Pharaoh ill and the blame fell equally on the two responsible for his food and drink. Later investigation may then have vindicated the butler and put the blame on the baker.

‘The head of the cup-bearers.’ The word ‘masqeh’ (EV ‘butler’) corresponds approximately to the Egyptian wdpw (which has a wider meaning), and is the exact equivalent of the later wb’ (c1600 BC onwards). It means cupbearer. The king’s cupbearer had an extremely important and high ranking position. It was he who handed the cup to the king after tasting it to check for poison, and he was thus the only one who could slip something into the drink after it had been tested. He was therefore a highly trusted officer. In 13th century BC one such was actually called wb’ dp irp - ‘the cupbearer who tastes the wine’.

‘The head of the bakers.’ Bakers are well known in Egypt but there is no exact equivalent to ‘head of the bakers’ as far as we know. However there would clearly be someone who was in charge of the bakers at the various palaces. He too would be responsible to guard against the king being poisoned. He may be the equivalent of ‘the Royal Table Scribe’ - ss wdhw nsw.

40.3-4 ‘And he put them in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, into the prison, the place where Joseph was bound. And the captain of the guard charged Joseph with them and he served them. And they continued for a time in custody.’

Such important prisoners were treated with special dignity, and the captain of the guard (note not the keeper of the prison) put them in Joseph’s special charge. He took a personal interest in the care of these important men for he knew their influence and that they may well be released and be in a position to do him good or harm.

He ‘served them’. Joseph took his charge seriously and made sure they were well looked after, often attending to their needs himself. The fact that he is entrusted with this task by the captain of the guard may point to the fact that the latter had had second thoughts about his previous guilt. Alternately he may have recognised the special qualities of Joseph and accepted that he had simply forgotten himself for a moment with regard to his wife. After all nothing had actually happened to her and by this time tempers had cooled. Or he may even have forgotten who Joseph was and relied on the recommendation of the keeper of the prison.

‘In the house of the captain of the guard.’ Not his private house but the prison over which he had responsibility. This may well have been located near his house, which would be grand and in its own grounds, probably more like a small palace.

40.5 ‘And they dreamed a dream, both of them, each man his dream, in one night, each man a dream with its own interpretation, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt who were bound in prison.’

The scene is now set. Both officers have dreams on the same night, dreams which, we are informed, were significant for they had their own meaning. It would appear that they both discussed them in the morning and were deeply troubled by them, for they both knew that such dreams could be a portent of something serious and could have an important meaning. The interpretation of dreams was a ‘science’. Men studied and learned the techniques for interpreting them and much had been written on the subject. But because they were in prison they could not consult them.

40.6-7 ‘And Joseph came in to them in the morning and saw them, and behold, they were sad. And he asked Pharaoh’s officers who were in custody with him in his master’s house, “Why are you looking so sad today?” ’

When Joseph saw them it was clear to him that something was wrong. And he recognised that it was his responsibility to cheer them up. So he asked them what it was.

We note in the narrative the constant reminders that all this was taking place in prison. These accounts would be read out and it was necessary to keep in the hearer’s mind the solemnity of the situation. It may also be that the writer is trying to bring home to us emphatically what Joseph’s position was.

40.8a ‘And they said to him, “We have dreamed a dream, and there is no one who can interpret it.” ’

Their reply demonstrates the confidence they had built up in Joseph. They felt he was important enough and friendly enough to discuss the matter with (you do not tell such important things to just anyone). Thus they explain that they have had dreams which appeared to be important but that they had no means of obtaining their interpretation. They were no doubt filled with a sense of foreboding. Such portents were often a warning.

40.8b ‘And Joseph said to them, “Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell it to me please.”

To speak of Yahweh would have been meaningless to the men. Thus Joseph speaks of God. Let them tell him the dreams and the implication is that his God will help him to interpret them.

40.9-11 ‘And the head cupbearer told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, “In my dream, behold, a vine was in front of me, and in the vine were three branches, and it was as though it budded and its blossoms shot forth, and its clusters brought forth ripe grapes. And Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand, and I took the grapes and pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand.”

Thus in his dream the cupbearer saw a vine which magically budded and came to full fruitfulness in a short time from which he was able to fill Pharaoh’s cup (the wine magically fermenting) and give it to Pharaoh. The cupbearer probably went into more detail when speaking to Joseph but the writer is summarising the essential parts.

40.12-15 ‘And Joseph said, “This is the interpretation of it. The three branches are three days. Within yet three days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your office, and you will give Pharaoh’s cup into his hand in the same way as when you were his cupbearer. But remember me when it is well with you, and show me kindness and mention me to Pharaoh, and bring me out of this house. For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews, and here also I have done nothing that warrants them putting me into prison.”

Joseph gives the king’s cupbearer good news. He is to be restored to favour in three days time. And this gives Joseph himself hope. He knows how influential this great man is and he asks him to act to secure his relief. His suggestion that Pharaoh may be approached on the matter is possibly naive, but he may well have been right that the Chief Cupbearer himself is influential enough to be able to do it.

‘Will lift up your head.’ This simply means that he will be brought out of prison to face Pharaoh (the head of the chief baker is also lifted up (verse 20). Then he is to be restored to his duties again.

‘For I was stolen out of the land of the Hebrews.’ It is somewhat naive to suggest that Joseph should have given a full explanation. It would certainly not help his case to suggest that his brothers had actually chosen to sell him, for that would imply some kind of guilt, and his statement was factually correct. He had not been sold legitimately, but dishonestly. His statement said all that needed to be said, and gave the right indication of innocence and misfortune.

‘From the land of the Hebrews.’ As we saw on 39.17 Joseph was seen in Egypt as ‘a Habiru’, for he came from no identified people In the Amarna letters (two hundred years or so later) the king of Jerusalem refers to ‘the Habiru’ as enemies of his and of Pharaoh, clearly expecting Pharaoh to understand. Others in the same letters refer to the SA.GAZ who are the equivalent (see Hebrews. In both cases the idea they are trying to express is of a wild, unidentified people. Thus Canaan being made up of a multiplicity of tribes and city states was looked on in Egypt as a land full of many unidentified and lawless people, and was thus thought of as ‘the land of the Habiru’. There is no reason to doubt that his also applied earlier. Besides Potiphar may well have said to them that Joseph was ‘a Hebrew’. Thus Joseph uses the phrase they will understand.

‘Here also I have done nothing --’. He adds to the plea that he is imprisoned unjustly.

So Joseph, having given this powerful man good news, hopes that it may contribute to his being freed.

40.16-17 ‘When the head baker saw that the interpretation was good, he said to Joseph, “I also was in my dream and behold three baskets of white bread were on my head, and in the top basket there were all manner of baked foods for Pharaoh, and the birds ate them out of the basket on my head.” ’

Again we have a summary of the dream. At such times men tend to be verbose. But the central point was that bread and food meant for Pharaoh was eaten by birds.

40.18-19 ‘And Joseph answered and said, “This is its interpretation. The three baskets are three days. Within yet three days will Pharaoh lift off your head from you and will hang you on a tree, and the birds will eat your flesh from off you.” ’

Will Pharaoh lift off your head.’ There is a play on words here contrasting this lifting off of the head with the lifting up of the head of the cupbearer. ‘And will hang you on a tree and the birds will eat your flesh.’ The death described is probably an indication that the baker is to be seen as guilty of a heinous crime (compare Deuteronomy 21.22 for a similar death).

In interpreting the dreams Joseph was probably well aware that in three days time it was Pharaoh’s birthday. Thus with God’s guidance he recognised the significance of the threes. The remainder of the dreams he was able to work out fairly easily, and the writer certainly intends us to recognise that again he enjoyed the guidance of God (verse 8). The answers may seem obvious once explained but it is not something on which Joseph could afford to be wrong.

40.20-23 And it happened on the third day, being Pharaoh’s birthday, that he made a feast for all his servants and he lifted up the head of the chief cupbearer and the head of the chief baker among his servants, and he restored the chief cupbearer to his cupbearing again and he gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand. But he hanged the chief baker as Joseph had interpreted to them. Yet the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, but forgot him.

It was commonplace for prisoners to be released on the birthday of some great monarch. It was thus a time of much hope for many prisoners. But Joseph was in prison for a private ‘crime’ and may thus have been unknown to those who decided such things. However, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker were taken from the prison and brought before the king. The one was fully restored, suggesting either that his innocence had been proved or that his offence had been a minor one, but the chief baker was hung, possibly after being decapitated. ‘Hung’ may be a shortened form to cover the whole of what Joseph had forecast.

‘His servants.’ These would be the highest officials in the land who were ‘the slaves of Pharaoh’.

Joseph probably lived in hope for some time but eventually his hopes died. He was not to know that God yet had a purpose in it. It would be another two years before anything further happened, and meanwhile he went on with his life in prison without much hope of release. The darkest hour often comes before the dawn.

Joseph Is Called Before Pharaoh and Interprets His Dreams - He Is Made Vizier (41.1-57)

41.1-4 ‘And it happened at the end of two full years that Pharaoh dreamed, and behold he stood by the River Nile, and behold there came up out of the Nile seven cows, well-favoured and fat-fleshed, and they fed in the reed grass. And behold seven other cows came up after them out of the Nile, gaunt and thin and bony, and stood by the other cows on the brink of the Nile. And the gaunt, thin and bony cows ate up the seven well-favoured and fat-fleshed. So Pharaoh awoke.’

Pharaoh, the great king of Egypt, was looked on as a god by the people of Egypt. To them he was Horus, son of Osiris the sun god, and on his death would indeed become Osiris, as his successor became Horus. He was relatively unapproachable except by his high officials, and had despotic powers.

We do not know which Pharaoh this was. There are indications which suggest that he must have reigned before the Asiatic Hyksos, the ‘rulers of foreign lands’, took over the Lower part of Egypt including the Nile delta (c. 1720 BC), ruling there for well over a hundred years. We shall refer to these as we come to them in the narrative. Others, however, feel that the account is best explained by assuming that this Pharaoh was one of the Hyksos rulers, in which case the above comments will not apply. The Hyksos were not worshippers of Ra.

Pharaoh dreams a dream. First seven fat cows come out of the Nile and they eat the reed grass. Then seven thin and bony cows come out of the Nile and they eat the seven fat cows for there is no reed grass. Seven is the number of divine completeness. Such dreams were considered to portend good or evil and he would be somewhat disturbed and determined to discover the meaning of the dream. But before morning came he dreamed a second time.

‘The River Nile.’ This translates ye’or which is an Egyptian loan word for river and is almost always used, and rarely otherwise, when the River Nile is in mind. We have thus translated ‘the Nile’.

41.5-7 ‘And he slept and dreamed a second time, and behold, seven ears of corn came up on one stalk, fat and good, and behold, seven ears sprung up after them, thin and blasted with the east wind, and the thin ears swallowed up the seven fat and full ears. And Pharaoh woke up and behold it was a dream.’

Pharaoh’s second dream is of the growth of good sevenfold corn and then of the growth of thin and wind-blasted corn, and as can happen in dreams the thin corn swallowed up the good corn. Pharaoh clearly found himself very involved in this dream for ‘then he woke up and behold, it was a dream.’

41.8 ‘And it happened in the morning that his spirit was troubled, and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt, and all Egypt’s wise men, and Pharaoh told them his dream, but there was no one who could interpret them for Pharaoh.’

Pharaoh was very disturbed by his dream. So he sent for the specialists, the magicians (chartummim - a word borrowed from the Egyptian hry-tp) and wise men. The greatest magicians were the lector priests, learned men who had studied the sacred writings, rituals and spells taught in the House of Life, the temple schools where literature was composed, copied and taught. Thus the parallel between magicians and wise men is apposite. Dreams were considered so important in Egypt that they and their interpretations were gathered into manuals of dream interpretation.

But nothing in their learning or in the manuals could enable them to interpret Pharaoh’s dream. They were, of course, partly hindered by the fact that any unfavourable interpretation might well invoke the Pharaoh’s wrath. So Pharaoh went further and sought out the lesser magicians and wise men, but they too could not interpret the dream.

41.9-13 ‘Then the chief cupbearer spoke to Pharaoh saying, “I do bring to mind my faults this day. Pharaoh was angry with his servants and put me in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, me and the chief baker. And we dreamed a dream in one night, I and he, we dreamed each one a dream having its own interpretation, and there was with us there a young man, a Hebrew, slave to the captain of the guard, and we told him and he interpreted to us our dreams. To each man according to his dream he interpreted. And it happened that as he interpreted to us, so it was. I was restored to my office and he was hanged.’

Somewhat belatedly the chief cupbearer, as he witnesses all that goes on, remembers his own dream and the young man who had interpreted it. We notice that he knows and remembers something of Joseph’s background. Joseph had not been some background figure to him, an unknown slave, but someone of whom he was well aware, a relatively important person in his own right. For while the chief cupbearer was an extremely important man, prison is a great leveller. And he wants Pharaoh to know that this was not just some charlatan, but the servant of another man of importance in the royal court. To be a slave was not necessarily looked on as demeaning. Slaves held very important positions, and indeed all men were slaves to Pharaoh.

“I remember my faults this day.” A necessary humility before Pharaoh who must not be made to feel blameworthy. Whether he had really committed faults we do not know. He then continues in the third person for the same reason. He must not be thought of as accusing Pharaoh.

So Pharaoh learns of this young man who interprets dreams correctly.

41.14 ‘Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the prison, and he shaved himself and changed his clothing and came in to Pharaoh’s presence.’

Egyptian custom demanded that a man be specially prepared before he was brought before Pharaoh. Access to Pharaoh was limited and to approach him, for he was seen as a god, was both a unique privilege and a dangerous thing, and required ritual cleanness. It is constantly apparent that the writer takes the Egyptian background in his stride in all sorts of ways (as well as the Canaanite background, as we shall see later) strengthening the view that this is written by someone familiar with the events and their background.

41.15 ‘And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I have dreamed a dream and there is no one who can interpret it. And I have heard it said of you that when you hear a dream you can interpret it.”

Pharaoh acknowledges that here is a man who is somewhat different from his magicians and wise men. He does not need to consult books and dream manuals. He has the ability to interpret a dream immediately on hearing it.

‘When you hear a dream you can interpret it.’ Literally ‘you hear a dream to interpret it.’ This use of ‘hear’ corresponds to the Egyptian use of sedem - "to hear" meaning "to understand", a meaning which is most clearly shown by its use in the phrase "he hears the speech of Egypt", i.e. "understands the language". This use is found again in Genesis 42:23 where ‘heard’ means "understood" their language. So Pharaoh is saying ‘as you hear you understand’.

41.16 ‘And Joseph answered Pharaoh saying, “It is not in me. God will give Pharaoh an answer of peace.” ’

Joseph firmly declares that the gift is not in him. It is God who can reveal the meaning of dreams, and it is He Who will gave Pharaoh an answer that will bring him peace of mind, that is, a true interpretation.

41.17-24 ‘And Pharaoh spoke to Joseph saying, “In my dream, behold I stood on the bank of the Nile, and behold there came out of the Nile seven cows, fat-fleshed and well favoured, and they fed in the reed grass. And behold, seven other cows came up after them, poor and very thin such as I never saw in the land of Egypt for scrawniness, and the thin and scrawny cows ate up the first fat cows. And when they had eaten them up it could not be known that they had eaten them, but they were still thin as at the beginning. So I awoke. And I saw in my dream and behold, seven ears came up on one stalk, full and good. And behold, seven ears, withered, thin and blasted with the east wind sprung up after them, and the thin ears swallowed up the seven good ears, and I told it to the magicians but there was not one who could explain it to me.”

Added features to the earlier description are both the vividness and the fact that once the thin cows had eaten the fat cows they did not look any fatter.

Pertinent to the dream are a number of factors. First and foremost, of course, was the fact that the Nile was basically responsible for the fact that Egypt suffered less from famine than other countries. As it swelled over its banks each year it produced fertile soil around it that was the breadbasket of Egypt and on which the cattle flourished. It was only rarely when the river failed that famine came to Egypt. Nevertheless long periods of famine at other times were known and written about there. Moreover the Nile was looked on as a god whose good or evil pleasure could reward or punish the people.

Secondly, there was a goddess Hathor who was worshipped in the form of a cow, and in the tomb of Nefretiri, the beautiful wife of Rameses II, seven cows are to be seen accompanied by the bull god as if they were marching in a solemn procession. In the Book of the Dead seven cows appear in an offering scene, and on the mural reliefs of the Temple of Hatshepsut in Dair-al-Bahri, are to be seen seven cows feeding in a meadow under trees. In another picture, the cow is seen looking out of a grove of papyrus reeds. She was often called ‘the mother of Pharaoh’. Thus the seven cows would probably bring to mind for the Egyptians Hathor, the cow goddess, who would also be seen as affecting the situation.

But the essence of the dream for practical purposes, and that was what mattered here, was as outlined by Joseph. For whatever reason the gods and goddesses of Egypt would fail them.

41.25-32 ‘And Joseph said to Pharaoh, “The dream of Pharaoh is one. What God is about to do he has declared to Pharaoh. The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years. The dream is one. And the seven thin and scrawny cows which came up after them are seven years, and also the seven empty ears blasted with the east wind. They will be seven years of famine. That is the thing that I spoke to Pharaoh. What God is about to do he has shown to Pharaoh. Behold there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt. And there will arise after them seven years of famine, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt, and the famine will consume the land. And the plenty will not be known in the land by reason of that famine which follows, for it will be very grievous. And in that the dream was doubled to Pharaoh twice it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it about.” ’

The first essence of Joseph’s words is that the great God is over all and brings the Nile and Hathor to His will. What He has established He will do. He is sovereign over all. But far from this leading to inaction it should lead to action. Because His ways are certain men can prepare for them.

The second is in the detail. First seven good, prosperous years when the corn will flourish and the cows grow fat, and then seven disastrous years when there will be no corn worth speaking of and the cattle will starve unless some form of provision is made.

The third is that the repetition of the dream in two forms proves that the thing is certain to happen.

41.33 “Now therefore let Pharaoh look out a man discreet and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt. Let Pharaoh do this. And let him appoint overseers over the land and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years. And let them gather all the food of these good years that come and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh for food in the cities, and let them keep it. And the food shall be for a store to the land against the seven years of famine which shall be in the land of Egypt, that the land perish not through famine.”

As all are listening to his words Joseph now brings his organisational powers to work. Firstly Pharaoh should appoint one man to take over the whole operation. He will need to be discreet and wise because he will need to obtain people’s cooperation and will need to plan wisely.

Then he should appoint overseers throughout the land. The ‘him’ could be either Pharaoh or the appointed man, but it makes little difference as Joseph hardly expected Pharaoh himself to appoint the overseers directly. But he wants Pharaoh to feel that what is done is done by him.

Then these overseers should gather up all the corn produced in the land of Egypt and lay up a fifth part in silos for the coming bad years. They are to ‘take a fifth part’ to be put to one side. And they are to do this by gathering all the food of the good years and laying up part under Pharaoh’s control for food in the cities. This food will be a store against the seven years of famine.

‘Lay up corn.’ This is clearly to be understood in terms of what went before, the fifth part. (It is quite clear that under no circumstance would anyone suggest that all the food of the good years should be stored for the future as that would leave the Egyptians without food for the present). In Egypt the storing of grain in public silos by the government was quite customary, and such silos have been discovered, but what is required here is the same measure on a vast scale. One inscription from c 100 BC recalls a seven year famine in the reign of Zoser, a thousand years before the time of Joseph, and at another time one civic authority is quoted as saying, “when famine came for many years I gave grain to my town in each famine” This on a larger scale was what would now be required. Various other Egyptian writings speak of famines and at least two officials, proclaiming their good deeds on the walls of their tombs, tell of distributing food to the hungry ‘in each year of want’.

41.37 ‘And the thing was good in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of all his servants.’

Pharaoh consults with his high officials and they agree that the interpretation seems sound and that Joseph’s plan is good.

41.38 ‘And Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom is the spirit of God?’

Pharaoh has been impressed and accepts that the interpretation has come from ‘God’ (Joseph’s God) through Joseph. He recognises that the spirit of this God, Who is able to interpret when all others have failed, must be working through him. What better man then to take charge of operations.

41.39 ‘And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Inasmuch as God has shown you all this there is none so discreet and wise as you. You shall be over my house and my people shall be ruled in accordance with your word. Only in the throne will I be greater than you.” ’

Egypt had many gods, and they were aware that there were gods of other nations. There is then no reason why Pharaoh should not acknowledge that this great God Who has revealed the significance of his dream has special powers which can help Joseph.

‘You shall be over my house.’ The office of ‘Lord of Pharaoh’s house’ was a recognised and very important one in Egypt. It represented wide authority and power for ‘Pharaoh’s house’ was the land and people of Egypt.

‘My people shall be ruled according to your word.’ He would have absolute authority under Pharaoh. Whatever he decreed would be done.

‘Only in the throne will I be greater than you.’ This office can only be that of Vizier, the highest office in the land. He alone held such authority and power as the representative of the king himself. Without his permission no one could approach Pharaoh and all officials were responsible to him.

Others have seen him as the Superintendent of the Granaries, another high Egyptian post. In fact it is probable that he combines the two positions.

41.40-43 ‘And Pharaoh said, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” And Pharaoh took off his signet ring from his hand, and put it on Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck, and he made him to ride in the second chariot that he had , and they cried before him “Look out” (’avrek), and he set him over all the land of Egypt.’

This is the appointment ceremony. It may have taken place immediately or it may have taken place later. The fact that the signet ring is being worn by Pharaoh may indicate that the office of Vizier was at present vacant, for the Vizier would need to have the signet ring so that he could seal his decrees as from Pharaoh. Now Joseph has that authority.

The arraying with fine linen and the conferring of a golden chain are also typical of Egyptian appointments to office. The whole scene is clearly based on intimate knowledge of Egyptian ceremonies.

‘And he made him ride in the second chariot that he had.’ The chariot as a general weapon of warfare was, along with the general use of horses, introduced by the Hyksos, and this has caused some to see this as indication that this was during their rule. But the impression given is that the chariot was a rare thing here, ‘the second chariot that he had’, and a sign of great importance, which would not be so under the Hyksos. Given the amount of trade with other nations possession of a few ceremonial chariots must be seen as a real possibility. Certainly there is limited evidence that horses were known in Egypt before the Hyksos for remains of horses just before the Hyksos period have been discovered near Wadi Halfa.

‘And they cried before him “ ’avrek ”. This is probably an Egyptian loan word. Its meaning is uncertain. It could mean ‘look out’ (Egyptian) or possibly ‘to your knees’ (Hebrew). The former seems more likely.

‘And he set him over all the land of Egypt.’ This may be emphasising that he is set over both Upper and Lower Egypt, for Egypt was split into two parts symbolised in the twofold crown of the Pharaoh. The Hebrew for Egypt is ‘mizraim’ and this has been argued to be a plural stressing the duality of Egypt. But its meaning is disputed. If so it cannot be under the Hyksos for they only ruled over Lower Egypt.

41.44-45a ‘And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh and without you no man will lift up his hand or his foot in all the land of Egypt.’ And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphenath-paneah, and he gave him to wife Asenath, daughter of the priest of On.’

‘I am Pharaoh.’ Stressing the total authority of the one who has appointed Joseph. The succeeding words stress in turn Joseph’s total power and authority. All in Egypt are responsible to him. This can really only mean that he is the Grand Vizier.

‘Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphenath-panea.’ Joseph is to be thoroughly Egyptianised. The giving of the new name signifies his new status and situation. Interestingly the name Zaphenath-panea has actually been discovered on an inscription of later date designating the priestly leader of the Sed festival, although not relating to Joseph. It could mean ‘he who is called ’Ip‘ankh’, the latter being a common name in Egypt. Other possible alternatives have been offered such as ‘head of the sacred college’, ‘revealer of secrets’ or ‘sustainer of life’, but none have received general acceptance.

‘Asenath, daughter of the priest of On.’ The name Asenath is good Egyptian. It possibly means ‘she belongs to (the goddess) Neit’ or ‘she belongs to father’. Her position as daughter of the priest of On (or Heliopolis), a leading priest (possibly even the high priest) of the sun god Re, would enhance Joseph’s status and reputation. But he would have no choice in the matter. It was by the order of Pharaoh. His later statement that he was appointed ‘father to Pharaoh’ (45.8) (equivalent of ‘father to the gods’) demonstrates that he was also given priestly rank.

The writer was quite clear as to the hierarchic significance of such a union, and of the high position occupied by the priests of On (Egyptian ’Iwnw). To the Egyptians On was a holy city par excellence. It was the great centre of the most powerful of cosmic gods, namely of Re and Atum, and was occupied by a numerically large and important body of priests who were known for their wealth. The marriage of Joseph to the daughter of the priest of On, therefore, signified the reception of the foreigner into the highest priestly caste. His elevation to the rank of "father", too, meant that he was included among the most eminent sacerdotal dignitaries of ancient Egypt. How far he had actually to participate in the worship we do not know but he would undoubtedly be present at the great ceremonies. But, like Naaman later, he worshipped Yahweh while he stood in the house of Re (2 Kings 5.18).

All these changes are unlikely to have taken place under the Hyksos. They would have no reason to give him an Egyptian name, and they supported the worship of Amun, not Re, seeking to destroy the power of the priests and undermine the worship of the sun god. They would not thus tie someone they wished to honour to such connections.

41.45b ‘And Joseph went out over the land of Egypt.’ Having been appointed for such a vital task it was necessary for him to make himself acquainted with the situation throughout Egypt. Large silos would have to be built in many cities and arrangements made for the appointment of the overseers who would control the collection of all the produce and arrange for the storage of the one fifth and the distribution of the remainder.

41.46 ‘And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and Joseph went out from the presence of Pharaoh and went throughout all the length of Egypt.’

Joseph had thus been in servitude and then in prison for about twelve years (37.2). The thirty years may be a round number signifying that he had come to a point of completeness and was of full age for the task facing him (three intensified), but is probably approximately correct.

‘Went out from the presence of Pharaoh.’ He not only left Pharaoh but carried with him his authority.

‘Went throughout all the land of Egypt.’ This repetition of verse 45b is typical of ancient literature which loved repetition for the sake of the hearers.

41.47-49 ‘And in the seven plenteous years the earth brought forth by handfuls, and he gathered up all the food of the seven years which was in the land of Egypt and laid up the food in the cities, the food of the field which was round about every city laid he up in the same. And Joseph laid up corn as the sand of the sea, very much, until he left numbering for it was without number.’

What he had dreamed began to happen. There were seven years when the corn flourished, and he began to lay up food in each city from round about that city, and of this one fifth would be stored away permanently to prepare for the seven bad years to come. And so flourishing was the harvest that after a time they began to stop keeping records because there was too much to record.

41.50-52 ‘And to Joseph were born two sons before the year of famine came, which Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, bore to him. And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh, for he said, “God has made me forget all my labour and all my father’s house.” And the name of the second he called Ephraim, “for God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.”

Not only was the land fruitful, but Joseph and his wife were fruitful as well, and they had two sons ‘before the year of famine came’.

‘Potiphera’, a similar name to Potiphar. They were probably two renderings of the same not uncommon Egyptian name.

‘Manasseh.’ This means ‘making to forget’. This was because the joy of having a firstborn son, added to the privileged position he now enjoyed, enabled him to forget what had gone before.

‘All my father’s house.’ He has also been able to forget the treatment at the hands of his brothers. But this does not mean that he totally forgot his home for, as we discover later, he had fond memories of his father and of Benjamin.

‘Ephraim.’ From the root ‘to be fruitful’. This demonstrated his joy in the fruitfulness of the land and in his own fruitfulness.

41.53 ‘And the seven years of plenty that were in Egypt came to an end, and the seven years of famine began to come in the way that Joseph had said, and there was famine in all lands, but in all the land of Egypt there was bread. And when all the land of Egypt was becoming hungry the people cried to Pharaoh for bread and Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians, “Go to Joseph. Do what he says to you. And the famine was over the face of the whole earth, and Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold to the Egyptians, and the famine was severe in the land of Egypt, and all countries came to Egypt, to Joseph, to buy corn because the famine was severe in all the earth.’

As predicted seven years of plenty passed and the particularly severe famine eventually came, and it was clearly very widespread. But everything was ready. The storehouses were opened and the people were able to buy corn to meet their needs, and many in the surrounding area, hearing there was corn in Egypt, came too to buy corn.

‘There was famine in all lands.’ ‘The famine was over the face of the whole earth’. ‘All countries came to Egypt to buy corn.’ ‘The famine was severe in all the earth.’ Notice the stress on ‘all’. As far as their knowledge reached there was severe famine. But these universal sayings are not to be taken literally. They speak of the world from Egypt’s point of view. As far as Egypt was cognisant there was famine and people and requests for corn seemed to come from everywhere. This was the meaning of the words to the Egyptians who did not have a concept of the whole earth as we know it. But Canaan, which was close by and which was totally dependent on rain, would suffer grievously.

The First Visit of the Brothers to Egypt to Buy Corn (42.1-38).

42.1-4 ‘Now Jacob saw that there was corn in Egypt, and Jacob said to his sons, “Why do you look one on another?” And he said, “Behold, I have heard that there is corn in Egypt. Get yourselves down there and buy for us from there, that we might live and not die.” And Joseph’s ten brothers went down to buy corn from Egypt, but Jacob did not send Benjamin, Joseph’s brother, with his brothers, for he said “In case mischief befalls him.”

At this stage, of course, they did not know that there were years of famine to come. But things were clearly bad. The rain had not come and their stores of corn were getting low and there was little prospect of renewing it locally, for everyone was suffering in the same way. But then came the news that Egypt had a sufficiency of corn and was willing to sell it to foreigners.

Through the centuries Egypt, with its usually unfailing water source in the Nile, was famed for its agricultural prosperity, and would regularly welcome Canaanites who would come in times of famine, and provide for them in return for reward. They were regularly welcomed into the areas across the borders, where they were allowed to stay until the situation improved and they could return to their own place. On one ancient grave relief ‘Asiatics who did not know from what they would live’ are depicted as bowing before the general Haremhab (c1330 BC).

So he had no hesitation in sending his sons to buy corn there. But he refused to let Benjamin go because he still remembered what had (in his own mind) happened to Joseph.

42.5 ‘And the sons of Israel came to buy among those who came, for the famine was in the land of Canaan.’

As they travelled to Egypt they found themselves in company with many travelling the same route, for all had been hit by the famine. They would probably have a number of servants with them for much corn would be needed. Others would tend what remained of the once abundant flocks and herds. But the fact that they had ‘money’ (silver and gold - there were no coins in those days) demonstrated that they were not yet poor.

‘The sons of Israel.’ The narrative switches easily between the two names Jacob and Israel. While the use of two names for the same person in one narrative was not unusual it is probable that the writer wants to make sure that we connect these events both with the patriarchs of the past and with the future Israel. It is a fulfilling of the covenant promises and a preparation for the future.

42.6 ‘And Joseph was the governor over the land, he it was who sold to all the people of the land, and Joseph’s brothers came and bowed themselves to him with their faces to the earth.’

It is probable that Joseph had arranged things in such a way that all Canaanites coming to buy food had to approach him. He would not of course be actually selling the food but would be on a seat of honour and approached by those who came, who would abase themselves to him before passing on to those who actually handled the transactions.

42.7 ‘And Joseph saw his brothers, and he knew them, but he made himself a stranger to them and spoke harshly to them. And he said to them, “From where have you come?” And they said, “From the land of Canaan to buy food.”

When Joseph saw his brothers he knew them immediately, but he did not make himself known. Rather he signalled to his underlings to bring them forward so that he could speak with them. They were probably quite apprehensive at being selected out to speak to this great Egyptian overlord, and were even more so when he addressed them harshly. They must have wondered why they should be picked out. All they could do was answer his questions and hope for the best.

42.8 ‘And Joseph knew his brothers but they did not know him.’

There was no way in which they would have recognised him. He was dressed in the dignity of his office, with his hair and sumptuous clothing in the Egyptian style, and he was now a mature man changed by the course of years and what he had been forced to go through. Moreover he spoke to them through interpreters and they would not dare to look at him closely but would do so with bowed heads.

42.9 ‘And Joseph remembered the dreams which he had dreamed about them and said to them, “You are spies. You have come to see the nakedness of the land.”

He had lessons which he wished to teach them. He remembered the dreams of them bowing down to him and was determined they would do it in full measure, for as they spoke with him through the interpreters they would constantly abase themselves to him. He accuses them of being spies come to spy out conditions in the land so as to report back to prospective invaders. The words must have brought a chill to their hearts. The Egyptians could be very severe on their enemies and this man clearly had the power of life and death.

42.10-12 ‘And they said to him, “No, my lord. It is to buy food that your servants have come. We are all sons of one man. We are true men. Your servants are no spies.” And he said to them, “No, but to see the nakedness of the land you have come.”

They desperately seek to assert their innocence and integrity, but to no avail. The great man does not believe them and again accuses them through the interpreters of coming to find out the weaknesses of the land. So with fear in their hearts they try again.

42.13 ‘And they said, “We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan. And behold, the youngest is this day with our father, and one is not.”

They try to present a full picture of themselves so as to allay suspicion. They still think of their family in terms of twelve sons a sign that they have not just been able to dismiss Joseph from their minds. This would suggest a sense of guilt and regret.

42.14-16 ‘And Joseph said to them, “It is as I said to you, you are spies. You will prove yourselves in this way. By the life of Pharaoh you shall not go forth from here unless your youngest brother comes here. Send one of your number and let him fetch your brother, and you shall be put in custody so that your words may be proved, whether there is truth in you. Or else by the life of Pharaoh you are surely spies.” ’

Joseph intends that just as he went into slavery and then into custody they too will experience the same. He wants them to taste something of what he had known to see how they will come out of it. Thus he proposes that one should go and return with this supposed youngest son while the remainder are held in custody.

‘You shall be put in custody.’ Literally, ‘you shall be bound’. But in chapter 40 ‘being bound’ is mentioned frequently where men clearly had some freedom (verses 3, 4, 5 compare 39.20). Therefore it may or may not include being restricted with ropes.

To swear by the life of Pharaoh was a solemn oath for the life of Pharaoh was the life of a god. Perhaps he is ensuring that they realise he is a true Egyptian.

42.17 ‘And he put them all together into custody for three days.’ This may well have been in the same prison where he himself had been held. Certainly it would give them a taste of the terror he had known.

42.18 ‘And the third day Joseph said to them, “Do this, and live, for I fear God. If you are true men let one of your brothers be put in custody in your prison house, but you go and carry corn for the famine of your houses, and bring your youngest brother to me. So shall your words be proved right and you will not die.” And they did so.’

On the third day they are brought out of the prison and led before the great Egyptian official. The news was not as bad as they had feared. One brother was to be retained as a hostage, the others would be allowed to return home. But they must return with Benjamin to prove the truth of their words. Then all would live.

‘On the third day.’ A relatively short time. It was two nights and one day and two part days, regularly called ‘three days’ (42.17) and even at times ‘three days and three nights’.

‘Do this and live.’ He is offering them a chance to save their lives. Thus they realise that the possibility of their execution had been very close.

‘For I fear God.’ They would not suspect the use of ‘God’ (elohim) for they would consider it the work of the interpreter in explaining the meaning of Joseph’s words.

‘Your prison house.’ Hinting that it might now have been their permanent abode until their execution.

‘For the famine of your houses.’ There were not just the ten but their households to feed, and this would involve much corn.

‘And they did so.’ meaning ‘they did as they were told’. A way of saying that they began to make preparation for departure. They do not yet go for the following words occur in the presence of Joseph.

42.21-22 ‘And they said to one another, “We are truly guilty in respect of our brother, for we saw the distress of his soul when he pleaded with us and we would not listen. This is why this distress has come on us.” And Reuben answered them saying, “Did I not speak to you saying, ‘Do not sin against the child’, but you would not listen? See, that is why his blood is now required of us.” ’

This living nightmare that is happening to them brings to their minds the day when their younger brother had pleaded for his life and they had refused to listen. At least it demonstrates that they continually carried it on their consciences. Now they realise that judgment for what they had done is coming on them. And Reuben bitterly forces it home. ‘I warned you,’ he says. ‘And now his blood is being required of us.’ They all thought that by now Joseph was dead.

42.23 ‘And they did not know that Joseph understood them for there was an interpreter between them.’

Had it not been for this twist in the story we would never have known that Joseph had deliberately been speaking through an interpreter. This reminds us that behind these homely stories is more detail than we are aware of. The ancients were not so much interested in background detail as in the pith of the story. They went to the centre of things and ignored the detail. We have seen this constantly in the stories of the patriarchs.

42.24 ‘And he turned himself away from them and wept, and he returned to them and spoke to them and took Simeon from among them and bound him before their eyes.’

Joseph overhears what they are saying and it brings tears to his eyes. Whether he actually goes out prior to speaking to them again through the interpreter we are not specifically told. Then he acts promptly. Simeon is placed in custody (‘bound’) and they are made to watch. Whether ‘bound’ includes being tied up with ropes we do not know, although as Joseph wanted to make the greatest possible impression it is quite possible.

42.25-26 ‘Then Joseph commanded that their vessels be filled with corn, and to restore every man’s silver into his sack, and to give them provision for the way, and this was done to them. And they loaded their asses with their corn and went on their way.’

Joseph now makes sure they are well provided for. Abundance of corn, provisions for the journey and their silver returned, hidden in their sacks.

‘Their vessels.’ This must refer to their sacks but usually means a vessel. It may, however, signify that anything that could carry corn was filled.

42.27 ‘And as one of them opened his sack to give his ass provender in the lodging place he saw his silver and behold, it was in the mouth of his sack.’

It is stressed that at this stage only one of them finds the silver. It is probable that they would all feed their asses from the one opened sack and they would not dream for one moment that this would be true for them all. It had every sign of being a plant so that they could be accused of theft. There were probably also a number of servants who also bore sacks on their asses, and they would have no silver in them. Jacob had a large household to feed with many retainers.

42.28 ‘And he said to his brothers, “My silver has been handed back, and see, it is in my sack.” And their heart failed them and they turned to one another trembling, saying, “What is this that God has done to us?”

The sight of the silver terrifies them and they were filled with fear. This was the worst possible thing that could have happened. It had looked as though things might be resolved reasonably satisfactorily and now this. It was clear things were still as bad as ever. They were clearly marked down as victims.

42.29-34 ‘And they came to Jacob their father to the land of Canaan, and told him all that had befallen them, saying, “The Man, the lord of the land, spoke roughly to us and took us for spies of the country. And we said to him, ‘We are true men, we are no spies. We are twelve brothers, sons of our father. One is not, and the youngest is this day with our father in the land of Canaan.’ And the Man, the lord of the land, said to us, ‘By this I will know that you are true men. Leave one of your brothers with me and take corn for the famine of your houses and go your way. And bring your youngest brother to me. Then I will know that you are no spies, but that you are true men. Then I will set your brother free and you shall trade in the land’.” ’

Jacob has no doubt noted the absence of Simeon and he listens with failing heart to the story unfolded. His problem will be what to do next.

‘The Man.’ This is an unusual use when used before a further description. It has been suggested from other evidence that the second in command in Egypt was so called in contrast with Pharaoh ‘the god’ (verses 29 and 33 here and compare 43.3, 5, 6, 7, 11,14 and especially 44.26 when we might expect ‘the lord’ or something similar).

42.35 ‘And it happened as they emptied their sacks that, behold, every man’s bundle of silver was in his sack. And when they and their father saw the bundles of silver they were afraid.’

All the other sacks are now opened as they store the corn, and the remaining silver is found. Their silver has been returned. This could only mean one thing. Their status as traders was rejected. They were marked for destruction.

42.36 ‘And Jacob their father said to them, “You have bereaved me of my children. Joseph is not, and Simeon is not. And you would take Benjamin away. All these things have come on me.” ’

To Jacob this is the end of hope for Simeon. Now he has lost two sons. And yet they expect to be able to take Benjamin as well! ‘All these things have come on me.’ Tragedy has piled up on tragedy as a great burden to be borne and it is all too much for him.

42.37 ‘And Reuben spoke to his father, saying, “You may kill my two sons if I do not bring him to you. Hand him over to me and I will bring him back to you again.” ’

Reuben is concerned to go straight back to obtain Simeon’s release. He reveals here something very admirable in his character. Things may look foreboding but he is prepared himself to take the risk in order to obtain, if at all possible, his brother’s release, and he is prepared to die in the attempt. But he realises how his father is feeling. So he uses the strongest argument he can. If he does not bring Benjamin back then his father can kill his two sons. He will then fully share in the sufferings of his bereaved father. But his father will have none of it.

42.38 ‘And he said, “My son shall not go down with you, for his brother is dead and he alone is left. If mischief befalls him in the way in which you go, then you will bring my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave,” ’

His father refuses the offer. His words reveal how much Rachel had meant to him. She had had only two natural born sons. One is dead. He cannot bear to lose the other. Under no circumstances will he let Benjamin go. He is all of Rachel he has left. Thus is Simeon left to his fate. But if we think of blaming Jacob we must remember that he has every cause for thinking that Simeon’s fate has already been sealed as is witnessed by the return of the silver. It is clear the Egyptian lord had evil intent towards them and so as far as he is concerned Simeon is now dead as well. And this is how things would have remained had it not been that the famine went on and on and forced the issue.

‘My grey hairs in sorrow to Sheol.’ Men desired to full a full life and die content. To die in this way was seen as a tragedy, they would surely not want him to die in unrest?

The Second Visit of the Brothers - Joseph Makes Himself Known (43.1 - 45.28)

The Brothers Again Meet the Egyptian Vizier (43.1-34)

43.1-2 ‘And the famine was sore in the land. And it happened that when they had eaten up the corn which they had brought out of Egypt their father said to them, “Go again. Buy us a little food.” ’

The famine continued and grew worse. No crops grew, those water holes which had survived the first onslaught now dried up, the cattle and sheep grew thin and scrawny. And the corn store became emptier and emptier. Meanwhile Simeon was mourned as Joseph had been for they knew they would see him no more. Jacob’s intransigence had seen to that.

At length it had to be accepted that there would be no possibility of even the most meagre of harvests and as the corn store became depleted Jacob took the only possible course. He had no choice. He asked his sons once more to take silver to Egypt to buy corn. But he had not met the proud and stern Vizier of Egypt, and his sons had, and a fierce argument ensues.

43.3-5 ‘And Judah spoke to him, saying, “The Man did solemnly declare to us, saying, ‘You shall not see my face except your brother be with you.’ If you will send our brother with us we will go down and buy you food. But if you will not send him we will not go down, for the Man said to us, ‘You shall not see my face except your brother be with you.’ ” ’

Judah speaks up for his brothers. It is all right for Jacob, he does not have to face the Man. But they know what he is like and the terror he induces. And they know what he is likely to do with them if they return without Benjamin. There are no circumstances in which they will go unless Benjamin goes with them. They do not want to share Simeon’s fate.

The fact that Simeon is not mentioned is deliberate on the part of the writer. He wants his readers to recognise that as far as the family is concerned Simeon’s fate is now irrelevant. He has previously been sacrificed to Jacob’s obstinacy and obsession with his youngest son.

Reuben takes no part in all this. His father had previously rejected his offer and he has given up. Indeed something appears to have happened to him. Trying circumstances bring leaders to the fore and the reaction to the famine seems to have brought Judah into a position of leadership. He may well have proved the most resilient when everyone else was despairing. Everyone now looks to him.

‘See his face.’ They will not be able to approach the great man but will instead be arrested.

43.6-7 ‘And Israel said, “Why did you treat me so badly as to tell the Man whether you had yet a brother?” And they said, “The Man asked us firmly (lierally - ‘asked us asking’) about ourselves and about our relatives, saying, ‘Is your father yet alive? Have you a brother?’ And we told him according to the tenor of these words. Could we possibly have known that he would say, ‘Bring your brother down’?”

In his grief and fear Jacob is being quite unreasonable. They had had no reason to withhold the information and they knew that to have given even a hint of deceit would have been their downfall. The only significance they had seen in the close questioning was the suspicion that they were spies.

‘They said’ - now the other brothers are joining in. They are all agreed that they cannot face the Man without having Benjamin with them. They would immediately be killed as spies.

43.8-10 ‘And Judah said to Israel his father, “Send the lad with me, and we will arise and go, that we may live and not die, both we and you and also our little ones. I will be surety for him. At my hand you will require him. If I do not bring him to you and set him before you I will have sinned against you for ever. For unless we had lingered surely we would now have returned a second time” ’

Judah realises how difficult it is for his father and he offers himself as the guarantee of Benjamin’s return. It is clear that the position is desperate. Unless they do go only death awaits them and their families.

‘The lad.’ Benjamin is probably about thirty, but in the eyes of his far older brothers he is still ‘a lad’, the baby of the family.

‘I will have sinned against you for ever.’ Clearly a powerful oath basically taking all guilt on himself with all that that would mean for his future.

‘Unless we had lingered - .’ They have already waited longer than they should have because of Jacob’s obstinacy. By now their case was so desperate that they should have been to Egypt and back again with further corn. The non-mention of Simeon may suggest that they have now practically given up hope for him, or alternately the certainty that his fate will not affect his father’s decision one way or another. In this incident Simeon is irrelevant. Jacob does not come well out of it. Meanwhile Simeon has been lingering and languishing in an Egyptian prison.

43.11 ‘And their father Israel said to them, “If it is so now, do it. Take of the choice fruits of the land in your vessels, and carry the Man down a present, a little balm and a little honey, spicery and myrrh, nuts and almonds. And take double the amount of silver in your hand, and carry again in your hand the silver that was returned in the mouth of your sacks. Perhaps it was an oversight. Take also your brother and arise, go again to the Man, and El Shaddai (God Almighty) give you mercy before the Man that he may release to you your other brother and Benjamin. And if I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved.” ’

‘If it is so, now do it.’ We would say, ‘if it must be so’. Jacob is very reluctant but accepts the inevitable. The prospect of starvation leaves them with no alternative. He suggests they take with them a gift. This was a normal courtesy when approaching a high official and a sign of good breeding.

‘The choice fruits (literally ‘strength’) of the land.’ These have not been quite so badly affected by the famine. They grow on bushes and trees which are less susceptible. The honey is wild bees’ honey which was used then instead of sugar (see Ezekiel 27.17).

They must also take double the silver so as to replace that which was sent back as it must surely have been an oversight. That is all they can hope. The alternative would leave them with no hope anyway.

‘El Shaddai give you mercy before the man -.’ He prays that the One Who promised they would become a company of nations protect them before the high official of that great nation Egypt.

The meaning of ‘El Shaddai’ is not yet apparent to us but the LXX translates it as ‘the Almighty’. Whenever God is mentioned under the name of El Shaddai it is in relation to many nations, not just to the family tribe. To Abraham in chapter 17 ‘you shall be the father of a multitude of nations (hamon goyim)’, and Ishmael is a part of that covenant, to Isaac as he blesses Jacob in 28.3 ‘that you may be a company of peoples’ (liqhal ‘amim), to Jacob at Bethel in 35.11 ‘a nation and a company of nations (uqhal goyim) shall be of you’, and again to Jacob in 48.4 reference is made to ‘a company of peoples’ (liqhal ‘amim). It is in recognition of this fact that Jacob now speaks of El Shaddai when he sends his sons back to Egypt to obtain the release of Simeon and entrusts them with Benjamin (43.14). It is Yahweh as El Shaddai, the sovereign God over the whole world, who has the power to prevail over the great governor of Egypt. This may also be why Isaac used this title of Yahweh when he sent his son into a foreign land.

‘That he may release to you your other brother and Benjamin.’ How little the other brothers mean to him compared with Benjamin is made clear here. He does not even mention Simeon’s name. His release is of secondary importance. What matters is that Benjamin is not held. We can see now why the brothers had not mentioned the release of Simeon as an argument. They knew their father’s thoughts.

‘And if I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved.’ A final note of resignation. His hand has been forced by the famine. He may even lose all his children but he can do nothing about it. The choice is to risk that or death for all.

43.15 ‘And the men took that present, and they took double silver in their hand, and Benjamin, and rose up and went down to Egypt and stood before Joseph.’

They took what was necessary, the present, double silver --- and Benjamin, the one whose value had delayed things for so long. The long and fearful journey is passed over in a sentence. The tension, the fears, the apprehension, and then the arrival. But at least they were brought into the Man’s presence and that was something.

43.16-18 ‘And when Joseph saw Benjamin with them he said to the steward of his house, “Bring the men into the house, and kill and make ready, for the men will dine with me at noon.” And the men were afraid because they were brought into Joseph’s house, and they said, “We have been brought in because of the silver that was returned in our sacks the first time, that he may seek occasion against us and fall on us and take us for bondmen, and our asses.” ’

When Joseph sees Benjamin his heart is full and he tells his steward that he will eat with the men at noon and that he must prepare a feast. His steward is, of course, an important person in his own right. Meanwhile Joseph must continue ‘overseeing’ the sale of the corn.

But when they are brought to his splendid house, well guarded by Egyptian soldiers and magnificent beyond their dreams, they are fearful as to what it means. Their minds return to the silver that had mysteriously appeared in their sacks and they remember how they had thought it was a plant. Now they are sure of it. It has been planted on them so that an excuse can be found to enslave them and take their possessions.

‘Fall on us.’ They have a vision of the Egyptian guards suddenly pouncing on them and carrying them off to prison.

43.19 ‘And they came near to the steward of Joseph’s house and they spoke to him at the door of the house.’

Coming up to the great house they are filled with fear and as they approach the door they catch up with the steward and try to speak up on their own behalf, probably through an interpreter.

43.20-22 ‘And said, “Oh my lord. We did indeed come down at the first time to buy food, and it happened that as we came to the lodging place that we opened our sacks and behold every man’s silver was in the mouth of his sack, our silver in full weight. And we have brought it again in our hand. And we have brought other silver down in our hand to buy food. We do not know who put the money in our sacks.”

The brothers are trying to summarise the story as quickly as possible before they are brought into the house, thus they have to abbreviate what happened. They remember vividly the moment that they first found the silver in one of the sacks and telescope what happened into a few scared, hurried words. Thus the finding of the silver in all the sacks is described as happening at the same time, although we know from earlier that that happened later when they arrived home. It is the primary point that they want to get home. They found the silver in their sacks. They have only a few moments, so detail is of secondary importance. Then they assure him earnestly that they have brought it back with other silver for new purchases.

43.23 ‘And he said, “Peace be to you. Don’t be afraid. Your God and the God of your father has given you treasure in your sacks. I had your money.” And he brought Simeon out to them.’

The reply suggests that the steward has been well coached by Joseph. He has been told exactly what to say when the obvious questions come up.

‘Peace be to you.’ ‘Shalom’ - a standard greeting put in Hebrew form, possibly by the interpreter, although it may be that Joseph’s steward was familiar with their language and thought forms, being chosen by Joseph for that very reason.

‘Your God and the God of your father.’ Let them be assured that it is their God Who has provided for them. ‘The God of your father’ was also the way in which Laban described Jacob’s God (31.29). It is a way of being courteous when details of Who the God is are not well known. Let them be assured that their own tribal God is looking after them.

‘Has given you treasure.’ He is suggesting that he does not know what was exactly involved in the ‘treasure’ they found. It was not the silver they had paid over, for he had received that.

‘And he brought Simeon out.’ The steward had Simeon waiting to greet his brothers just inside the gate, and he is brought out to welcome the brothers. What relief must have flooded their souls when they saw him alive and well. Things were beginning to look up.

43.24-25 ‘And the man brought the men into Joseph’s house and gave them water, and they washed their feet. And he gave their asses provender. And they made ready the present for when Joseph came at noon, for they learned that they would eat bread there.’

Suddenly, to their bewilderment, everything has changed. They are being treated as welcome guests. Water is provided for them to wash their feet. (The steward no doubt ‘brings’ it through servants). Their tired and thirsty asses are taken and well looked after. They are told that they would be eating with the great lord. This especially must have given them strength for to eat with someone was a sign of peace. With some hopes that things might not be so bad after all they get their present ready for when the great lord arrives.

43.26 ‘And when Joseph came home they brought him the present which was in their hand into the house and bowed themselves down to him to the earth.’

On Joseph’s arrival they bring their present and present it, bowing down to the ground, for they are still greatly in awe of him and aware that the slightest failure to show him honour could change the situation against them. So again are Joseph’s dreams fulfilled.

43.27 ‘And he asked them of their welfare, and said, “Is your father well, the old man of whom you spoke? Is he still alive?”

The question, put through an interpreter, would be recognised as simply a formal courtesy. They could not know with what eagerness Joseph awaited their reply. It has now been some long time since he has seen them.

43.28 ‘And they said, “Your servant, our father, is well, he is still alive.” And they bowed the head and made obeisance.’

The writer is stressing the fulfilment of the dreams. As they give a positive but deferential reply they make full obeisance.

43.29 ‘And he lifted up his eyes and saw Benjamin his brother, his mother’s son, and said, “Is this your youngest brother of whom you spoke to me?” And he said, “God be gracious to you, my son.”

The writer is deliberately prolonging the welcome. He wants us to feel what Joseph felt. He is seeing his own blood brother after so long a time. And he gives him his blessing. The words come through an interpreter so that they are not aware of which god he refers to. L