Gen 37:2 a

“This is the family history of Jacob.”

This verse is extremely important as establishing that ‘toledoth’ means family history. It is clearly a colophon identifying the tablet to which it refers and in our view equally clearly refers backwards. The following narrative begins with ‘Joseph’ and contains his story in a continuous narrative.

JOSEPH

The Life of Joseph ( Gen 37:2 to Gen 50:26 )

In this section we have the life of Joseph from beginning to end. It quite clearly bears within it the stamp of a deep knowledge of Egypt, its customs and its background, and could not have been written by anyone who did not have that deep knowledge, and who was not familiar with things at court. The correct technical terms are used for court officials. And the whole of Joseph’s stay in Egypt is clearly written against an Egyptian background without the artificiality which would appear if it was written by an outsider.

The Betrayal and Selling into Egypt of Joseph ( Gen 37:2-36 )

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 Gen 37:2 a 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 covenant records were taken and compiled into one narrative to provide background history to this great man.

Gen 37:2 b

‘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 (Gen 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 (Gen 37:4). 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.

Gen 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 father’s clear favourite. A long sleeved or many-coloured coat was a symbol of luxury (see 2Sa 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 (Gen 37:4). Later Benjamin is called ‘the child of his old age’ where his father’s special love for him is stressed (Gen 44:20).

“Israel.” Jacob is now again called by his new name Israel. But until Genesis 42 ‘Israel’ is only used twice (Gen 37:3; Gen 37:13) and ‘Jacob’ is only used once (in Gen 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.

Gen 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

Gen 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. Perhaps he did not recognise what the dream meant. Or perhaps 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, for they recognised that it was suggesting his superiority. Perhaps they even thought that he was making it up so as to make them look small..

“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.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

11. THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB (GENESIS 37:2-50:26).

EXPOSITION

1. HAVING disposed, in the preceding section, of the line of Esau by a brief sketch of its historical development during the two and a half centuries intervening between the founding of the Edomite empire by Esau’s withdrawing to Mount Seir, and the days of Moses, the narrative reverts to the fortunes of the house of Jacob, the story of which, after having suffered a temporary interruption, it likewise carries forward to the same point of rest, viz; to the period of the sojourn in Egypt. Commencing with a glance at the inner family life of the patriarch at Mature in the vale of Hebron, where, on returning from Padanaram, he had finally established himself beside his aged and bedridden father Isaac, it recites the tragic incidents connected with the sale of Joseph by his brethren, after which, first rehearsing the further wickedness of Jacob’s sons in the matter of Tamar, it pursues his eventful career from the moment of his entering Egypt as a Slave in the household of Potiphar to the time when, arrayed in fine linen and decorated with a golden necklace, he rode in the second state chariot as Pharaoh’s prime minister and ruler over all the land. Then, detailing the various circumstances arising from the famine which led to his discovery of his brethren, it ends by describing the descent of Jacob and his sons into Egypt and their settlement in Goshen, the death of Jacob after delivering his last prophetic blessing to his sons, and finally the decease of Joseph himself at the age of 110 years, when, as we learn from the subsequent narrative in Exodus, having lost their protector at the Court, and a dynastic change having taken place upon the throne, of Pharaoh, the sons of Israel gradually sank into oppressive and exhausting bondage.

2. By those who repudiate the Mosaic authorship of Genesis the present section is variously distributed among the alleged candidates for the honor of its composition. Beyond the ascription of Gen 38:1-30; to the Jehovist, there is the most complete absence of unanimity among partitionists as to whom the different portions are to be assigned. Gen 37:2-36, which Tuch declares to be the work of the Elohist, Bleek affirms to have been tampered with by the Jehovist, while Davidson divides it between a younger Elohist, the Jehovist, and a subsequent redactor. Gen 39:1-23, is, according to Davidson, almost exclusively the composition of the Jehovist; while, according to Bleek, it has proceeded nearly entire from the pen of the Elohist, and Tuch divides it pretty evenly between the two. Tuch again thinks that Genesis 40-50, have been supplied by the fundamental document, and Bleek recognizes alterations by the hand of the supplementer; but Davidson apportions most of them to the Jehovist, giving the fragments that remain to the younger Elohist and the late redactor. The insufficient character of the grounds on which such assignments are made will be noted in the opposition; in the mean time the ,remark is pertinent that their very diversity is one of the strongest indirect proofs of the Mosaic authorship of the entire composition.

Gen 37:2

These are the generations of Jacob. The opening of a new section (cf. Gen 2:4; Gen 5:1 &c.). Joseph, the son of Rachel, and born in Padan-aram (Gen 30:24)being seventeen years old,literally, a son of seventeen years, thus making Jacob 108was feeding the flock with his brethren;literally, was shepherding; not his brethren (Bush), but with his brethren, in, or among, the flockand the lad wasliterally, and he a lad, aetate, moribus et innocentia (Lyra), non tantum aetate sed et ministerio (Poole), but most probably designed simply as a note of his age. Pererius, following the Vulgate, connects the clause with what precedes; Calvin, Dathius, Lange, Murphy, Kalisch, and others conjoin it with the words that follow; the LXX; Willet, Rosenmller, Keil, Ainsworth, Bush, &c. regard it as a parenthetical statementwithnot in the capacity of a servant (Vatablus) or of a ward (Kalisch), but of a companionthe sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives. With these rather than the sons of Leah, as being less supercilious and haughty than the children of the first wife (Lawson), or as being less opposed to him than they (Lange), or more probably as being nearer to his own age than they (Keil), or perhaps as having been brought more into contact with the handmaids’ children, and in particular with those of Bilhah, Rachel’s maid, who may have been to him as a mother after Rachel’s death (Rosenmller). And Joseph brought unto his (rather, their) father their evil report. Not accusavit fratres suos apud patrem crimine pessimo (Vulgate), or (LXX.), as if Joseph drew down upon himself their calumnious reports, but carried to his father an evil report concerning them (Kalisch); not informed him of what he himself saw of their evil deeds (Lawson), though this need not be excluded, but repeated the , or fama, always of a bad character (Rosenmller), which was circulating in the district respecting themtunics rumores qui subinde de iis spargebantur (Dathius);the noun being derived from an onomatopoetic root, , signifying to go slowly, or to creep about.

Gen 37:3

Now (literally, and) Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (literally, sons), because he was the son of his old ageliterally, a son of old age (was) he to him; not a son possessing the wisdom of advanced years (Onkelos), but a son born in his old age (Rosenmller, Keil, Kalisch, et alii), which was literally true of Joseph, since he was born in his father’s ninety-first year. Yet as Joseph was only a year or two younger than the children of Bilhah and Zilpah, and as Benjamin was still later born than he, the application of this epithet to Joseph has been explained on the ground that Benjamin was at this time little more than a child (Keil), and had not much come into notice (Murphy), or perhaps was not born when this portion of the narrative was originally written (‘Speaker’s Commentary); or that Joseph had obtained the name before Benjamin’s birth, and that it had clung to him after that event (Inglis). Josephus (‘Ant.,’ 2.2, 1) gives another reason for Jacob’s partiality which is not inconsistent with the statement in the text, viz; the beauty of his person and the virtue of his mind, . And he made him a coat of many colorsliterally, a coat (kithoneth, from kathan, to cover; vide Gen 3:21) of ends (Keil, Lange), i.e. a tunic reaching to the ancles, and with sleeves reaching to the wrists, and commonly worn by boys and girls of the upper ranks (Josephus, ‘Ant.,’ 7.8, 9; 2Sa 13:18), or a coat of pieces (Kalisch, T. Lewis, Wordsworth); hence a variegated garment, (LXX.), tunica polymita (Vulgate), a coat of many colors (Murphy, ‘Speaker’s Commentary’). “Such garments are represented on some of the monuments of Egypt. At Beni-Hassan, for example, there is a magnificent excavation forming the tomb of Pihrai, a military officer of Osirtasen I; in which a train of foreign captives appears, who are supposed to be Jebusites, an inscription over one person in the group reading, “The Chief of the Land of the Jebusites. ‘The whole of the captives are clad in parti-colored garments, and the tunic of this individual in particular may be called “a coat of many colors”. It has been supposed that Jacob’s object in conferring this distinction on Joseph was to mark him out as the heir to whom the forfeited birthright of Reuben (1Ch 5:1) was to be transferred (Kurtz, Lange, Gerlach, Bush, Wordsworth, ‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ &c.); but the historian only mentions it as a token of affection, such as was customary in those times for princes to bestow upon their subjects, and parents on their children. Roberts says the same thing is still done among the Hindoos, crimson, purple, and other colors being often tastefully sewed together for beautiful or favored children.

Gen 37:4

And when (literally, and) his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they (literally, and they) hated him,as Esau hated Jacob (Gen 27:41; cf. Gen 49:23)and could not speak peaceably unto himliterally, they were not able to speak of him for peace, i e. they could not address him in such a way as to wish him well; they could not offer him the customary salutation of Shalom, or Peace.

Gen 37:5

And Joseph dreamed a dream (in which, though, as the sequel shows, intended as a Divine communication, there was nothing to distinguish it from an ordinary product of the mind), and he told it to his brethren:not in pride, since there is no reason to suppose that Joseph as yet understood the celestial origin of his dream but in the simplicity of his heart (Kalisch, Murphy), though in doing so he was also guided, unconsciously it may be, but still really, by an overruling providence, who made use of this very telling of the dream as a step towards its fulfillment (Lawson)and they hated him yet the moreliterally, and they added again to hate him.

Gen 37:6

And he said unto them, Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed. Though Joseph did not certainly know that his dream was supernatural, he may have thought that it was, the more so as dreams were in those times commonly regarded as mediums of Divine communication; and in this case it was clearly his duty to impart it to the household, and all the more that the subject of it seemed to be for them a matter of peculiar importance. In the absence of information to the contrary, we are warranted in believing that there was nothing either sinful or offensive in Joseph’s spirit or manner in making known his dreams. That which appears to have excited the hostility of his brethren was not the mode of their communication, but the character of their contents.

Gen 37:7

For (literally, and), behold, we were binding sheavesliterally, binding things bound, i.e. sheaves, alumim, from alam, to bind; the order of the words and the participial form of the verb indicating that the speaker describes the vision as it appeared to his mindin the field,literally, in the middle of the field; from which it would appear that Jacob was not a mere nomad, but carried on agricultural operations like his father Isaac (Gen 26:12)and, lo,”the , as repeated in his narration, shows that he had a presentiment of something great” (Lange)my sheaf arose, and also stood upright (literally, stood, i.e. placed itself upright, and remained so); and, behold, your sheaves stood round about, and made obeisancei.e. bowed themselves down (cf. Gen 23:7, Abraham bowing to the Hethites)to my sheaf. The fulfillment of this dream occurred in Egypt (vide Gen 42:6; Gen 43:26; Gen 44:14).

Gen 37:8

And his brethren (who had no difficulty in interpreting the symbol’s significance) said to him (with mingled indignation and contempt), Shalt thou indeed reign over us?literally, reigning, wilt thou reign? i.e. wilt thou actually reign over us? the emphasis resting on the action of the verbor shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? The form of expression is the same as that of the preceding clause. And they hated him yet the more (literally and they added again to hate him) for (i.e. on account of) his dreams, and for (or, on account of) his words.

Gen 37:9

And he dreamed yet another dream,the doubling of the dream was designed to indicate its certainty (cf. Gen 41:32)and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun (, the minister, from Chaldee root , the pael of which occurs in Dan 7:10) and the moon, probably, if the word be not a primitive, the circuit-maker, from the unused root , = , to go about (Furst); or the yellow one, from = , to be yellow, and being interchanged (Gesenius)and the eleven starsrather, eleven stars, , globes, or bails, from , to roll up in a ball (vide Gen 1:10)made obeisance to meliterally, bowing themselves to me, the participles being employed ut supra, Gen 37:7. It is apparent that Joseph understood this second dream, even more plainly than the first, to foreshadow, in some way unexplained, his future supremacy over his brethren, who were unmistakably pointed out by the eleven stars of the vision; and this remarkable coincidence between the number of the stars and the number of his brethren would facilitate the inference that his parents were referred to under the other symbols of the sun and moon. In the most ancient symbology, Oriental and Grecian as well as Biblical (Num 24:17), it was customary to speak of noble personages, princes, &c; under such figures; and the employment of such terminology by a nomadic people like the Hebrew patriarchs, who constantly lived beneath the open sky, may almost be regarded as a water-mark attesting the historic credibility of this page at least of the sacred record (vide Havernick, ‘Introd.,’ 21), in opposition to Bohlen, who finds in the symbolical character of Joseph’s dreams an evidence of their unreality, and De Wette, who explains them as the offspring of his aspiring mind.

Gen 37:10

And he told it to his father, and to his brethrenwhom it manifestly concerned, as, for the like reason, he had reported the first dream only to his brethren. That he does not tell it to his mother may be an indication that Rachel was by this time dead. And his father rebuked him,either to avoid irritating his brethren (Calvin), or to repress an appearance of pride in Joseph (Lange, Murphy, Inglis), or to express his own surprise (Candlish) or irritation (Keil), or sense of the absurdity of the dream (Lawson), which he further demonstrated when he addedand said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed! Shall I and thy mother

(1) “Rachel, who was neither forgotten nor lost” (Keil), who may possibly have been living at the date of the dream (‘Speaker’s Commentary’), though then Joseph could not ‘have had eleven brothers; who, being dead, was referred to in order to show the impossibility of its ever being fulfilled (Kalisch, Pererius); or

(2) Leah, as the chief mistress of Jacob’s household (Willet, Hughes, Inglis); or

(3) Bilhah, Rachel,s maid, who had probably acted as Joseph’s mother after Rachel’s death (Jewish interpreters, Grotius, and others); or, what seems more probable,

(4) the term “mother” is here introduced simply for the sake of giving completeness to the symbol (Kurtz, Murphy)and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to theeJoseph’s brethren ultimately did so in Egypt (Gen 41:6); Joseph’s father practically did so when he recognized Joseph’s greatness and depended on him for support (Gen 47:12). It is certain that Leah died before the immigration to Egypt (Gen 49:31), and it cannot be determined whether Bilhah or Zilpah went to Egyptto the earth. Jacob seems here, by intensifying Joseph’s language, to resent the claim which it conveyed.

Gen 37:11

And his brethren envied him. The verb (unused in Kal), to become red in the face, seems to indicate that the hatred of Joseph’s brethren revealed itself in scowling looks. But his father observed the sayingliterally, kept the word, (LXX.). Cf. Dan 7:28; Luk 2:51.

HOMILETICS

Gen 37:2-11

Joseph in his father’s house.

I. JOSEPH EMPLOYED WITH HIS BRETHREN.

1. With them in the sense of as well as them. That is to say, Joseph no more than the other sons of his father was trained to indolence. It is the duty of parents to educate their children in some useful and honorable calling. Even when not required for procuring daily bread, it is of advantage as a means of withdrawing one from temptations which would otherwise beset him, while it largely enhances the enjoyment of existence, and enables one to contribute more or less directly to the sum of human happiness. Adam. Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and even Laban, all brought up their sons to honest toil.

2. With them in the sense of like them. That is, he was, as they had been before him, instructed in the business of a husbandman and shepherd. There is evidence that Jacob combined the callings of an agriculturist as well as sheep-farmer, and trained his boys to sow and reap and bind sheaves as well as tend the flocks and herds on his estate. From this, however, it were wrong to argue that all the children in a family should be trained alike, or put to learn the same craft or profession. In Jacob’s day and Joseph’s there was little choice of openings for young men who had aspirations above the crook or the plough. But in these times the avocations of men are as diverse as their gifts; and in all respects it is bettermore beneficial to society at large, and more advantageous for the individual-that a wise discrimination be exercised by parents and guardians in selecting spheres of labor for those dependent on or entrusted to them that shall be suited to their gifts and tastes.

3. With them in the sense of beside them. Joseph accompanied his brethren when they tended the flocks or reaped the ripened grain, and in particular associated himself, for reasons suggested in the Exposition, with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. It was a privilege which Joseph enjoyed that he did not need to go from home to learn his trade; and doubtless Joseph’s amiable disposition would make the society of his father’s sons more agreeable to him than the company of strangers.

II. JOSEPH PREFERRED ABOVE HIS BRETHREN.

1. By his father.

(1) The ground of Jacob’s partiality for Joseph. He was the son of Jacob’s old age. However this expression may be explained (vide Exposition), the amount of it seems to be that Joseph had come to gladden Jacob’s heart after a considerable period of waiting, and at a time when Jacob was beginning to feel himself an old man. Hence more than to any of his other children Jacob’s affections went out to the firstborn of Rachel, and this affection could not fail to strengthen after Rachel’s death. It is just possible also that it was kept alive and fostered by a reminiscence of Rachel’s beauty, which he saw reproduced in the well-proportioned frame and finely-cut features of the growing lad. Anyhow, Jacob’s fondness for Joseph was palpable; and without affirming that it was right, it may at least be contended that it was natural, the more especially when Joseph’s piety is contrasted with the notorious wickedness of Jacob’s other sons.

(2) The exhibition of Jacob’s partiality for Joseph. Many parents who find themselves in Jacob’s Situation, drawn to one child more than another in their families, make an effort at least to conceal a preference which in their inmost hearts they cannot but feel to be justifiable. But Jacob, with a sad lack of prudence, displayed his superior estimation of Rachel’s son by presenting him with a rich and valuable coat of ends or pieces (vide Exposition). As might have been expected, such a mark of preference was distasteful to his other children, and, had it not been for Joseph’s superior character, might have been morally hurtful to Joseph himself. As it was, it was no kindness to Joseph, but only a foolish gratification to Joseph’s father.

2. By God. Joseph was honored to receive dreams prophetic of his future greatness. The first, the dream of the bowing sheaves, was a Divine foreshadowing of his advancement above his brethren; and the second, the dream of the nodding orbs, of his elevation above all the members of his family. Even had they not concerned himself at all, to have been made the recipient of Divine communications was an honor; much more when these communications related to his own exaltation. This preference of Joseph was unquestionably gracious, but it was also natural (1Sa 2:30)

III. JOSEPH HATED BY HIS BRETHREN.

1. The cause of their hatred. This was

(1) The superior place which he enjoyed in their father’s affection (Gen 37:4). Parents may here observe the danger of cherishing, and especially of manifesting, a preference of one member of the family above another. Unless in very exceptional circumstances, all are equally entitled to a father’s care and a mother’s love.

(2) The superior piety he displayed above themselves. It is difficult to credit the actors in the Shechemite and Dothan tragedies with anything in the shape of religion. Certainly they were not looked upon as exemplary characters by those who had the misfortune to live beside them. Out of their father’s sight they shook off any little restraint which his presence may have inspired. Their scandalous behavior became the talk of every neighborhood they chanced to visit; and Joseph hearing it, as in duty bound, reported it to Jacob. Not that the mere reporting of it at home would much concern these reckless youths. Possibly it would exasperate their minds against their brother. But the thing which would incense them most would be the disinclination which he showed to run with them into the same excess of riot.

(3) The superior honor he received from God. The brethren clearly enough understood the dreams to contain a prognostication of Joseph’s future, else why did they allow themselves to become inflamed with anger on account of a foolish boy’s fancies? At least they believed Joseph regarded them in this light, and they hated him on that account.

2. The progress of their hatred.

(1) They omitted to give him the customary salutation of Shalem. It is a bad sign when a man declines to exchange friendly greetings with his neighbor, and much more with his brother.

(2) They passed on to deep and bitter hatred. They hated him yet the more for his dreams and Iris words. Evil passions have a tendency to grow, and should be nipped in the bud. Obsta principiis.

(3) They envied him; the fierce malignity of their enraged spirits burning in their bosoms, suffusing their countenances with ominous looks and angry scowls, and generally expressing itself in dislike, irritation, and annoyance.

3. The end of their hatred. It was impossible that the gathering storm should continue long without bursting. All things mundane, evil as well as good, strive after completeness. “Lust, when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin: sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death” (Jas 1:15). Hence, “whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer” (1Jn 3:15); initially in thought, and ultimately, granting time and opportunity, in deed. The murderous feeling of Joseph’s brethren very speedily found occasion to become the fratricidal act.

HOMILIES BY J.F. MONTGOMERY

Gen 37:1-36

The representative man.

Jacob may be said to fall into the background from this time until his parting benediction. The kingdom of God is represented in Joseph and his history. The main points in this chapter are

I. GOD‘S DISTINGUISHING GRACE TO JOSEPH, separating him from his brethren in character, in his father’s affection, in the method of his life, in’ the communications of the Spirit. Joseph is the type of the believer, faithful to the covenant, amongst both the Canaanitish heathen and the unfaithful children of the covenant, the patriarchs.

II. THE WORKING OF EVIL PASSIONS AND MORAL IMPURITY BROUGHT TO A CLIMAX THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF GOD‘S GRACE IN THE INDIVIDUAL. Joseph brought the evil report to Jacob. Joseph dreamed. Joseph was evidently both in himself superior to his brethren and more favored by God. That is the old storythe Cain spirit developed by contact with the Abel spirit. A time of special grace is always a time of special wickedness and judgment. Witness the advent of the Lord, the Reformation period, the revival of religion in the last century, leading on to the outburst of both wickedness and judgment at the end.

III. THE DREAMS OF THE PIOUS LAD WERE THEMSELVES STEPS IN THE COURSE OF REVELATION. The dominion which was foreshadowed was that of the spiritual kingdom over the unspiritual.

IV. THE PROVIDENTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE PROMISE. Partly through the personal character of Joseph, partly through the evil passions of his brethren, partly through the apparently casual incidents of the neighborhood, partly through the Spirit of righteousness working in the heart of Reuben, partly through the weakness and fondness of Jacob. How strangely “all things work together” in God’s hands 1 He weaves the web composed of many single threads into one united, orderly pattern as a whole in which we are able to trace his own thought and purpose.

V. Joseph in the pit while his brethren sit down to eat bread represents THE BELIEVER SUFFERING IN THE MIDST OF AN UNBELIEVING WORLD. A type of Jesus cast into the pit of his humiliation, while the Jewish people despised and rejected claims, his prophetic words, his evident favor with God, and by their transactions with Gentiles, the Romans, gave him up to what seemed to them ruin, but what was the crowning of his head with glory. We begin to see at this point that, as the Psalmist sang, “the word of the Lord tried him.”

VI. THE DELIVERANCE Of Joseph and his transference to the sphere of his future triumph are EFFECTED THROUGH JUDAH IMMEDIATELY, THROUGH THE OTHER BRETHREN AND THE ISHMAELITES OR MIDIANITES SECONDARILY. These names of Judah, Ishmael, Midian remind us that the fleshly links which bind the descendants of Abraham together are not lost sight of by God, are called in to serve the purposes of grace, but not to take the place of the true spiritual work, which goes on in its own appointed channel. So in the history of the Church, while there are many secondary influences at work, still there is a remnant according to the election of grace in which there is the real continuity of Divine dealings.

VII. The genuine grief of Reuben, the barbarous inhumanity towards their father of the fallen sons, THE OVERWHELMING SORROW OF THE AGED, HEART–BROKEN JACOB, the rising up of all his sons and daughters to comfort him, are all beautiful and significant touches of nature in this history, which remind us that we are not “following cunningly-devised fables, and that God’s gracious kingdom of truth and love does not annihilate the human in order to reveal the Divine, but puts its rainbow on the cloud.

VIII. THE INTRODUCTION OF EGYPT again into the history. Egypt is the type of the world, as built upon the foundation of fallen humanity alone, without the special grace of God, Into that bulk of the unrenewed race the leaven of the kingdom must be put. The connection between the covenant family and Egypt, which we trace in the history of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as afterwards in their descendants, represents at once

(1) the thoroughly human character of the kingdom that God would set up in the earth, for the people of God found much in Egypt which they carried away with them afterwards, and assimilated to their own specially-communicated faith;

(2) the breadth of the promises of Godthe separation of the one people was for the sake of all the families of the earth.R.

HOMILIES BY F. HASTINGS

Gen 37:2-4

Joseph at home.

“Joseph, being seventeen years old,” &c. Picturesque scene is the encampment of Jacob. How well the dark camel-hair tents harmonize with the general character of the spots in which they are pitched. Peace and purity should dwell there. Ten men of the tribe of Jacob are most depraved, but their characters only threw into brighter prominence that of Joseph. It is probable that Jacob gave greater attention to the training of Joseph than to that of his brethren. He showed favoritism also. His act of giving him a garb of varied color may not altogether have been so foolish and weak as sometimes it has been supposed to be. It was simply an ordinary Eastern way of indicating that Joseph was to be the future leader and sheik of the encampment. Think of Joseph’s home life, and learn

I. THAT AT HOME WE SHOULD, LIKE JOSEPH, LEARN TO PREPARE FOR FUTURE LIFE. Doubtless Jacob would tell Joseph of the promises of God to Abraham, of the tradition of the Deluge and the Fall; probably also of his own fleeing from home, and his dream in the desert, when he saw “the great altar-stair sloping through darkness up to God,” and the angels ascending and descending. Joseph always afterwards has great faith in dreams. No book had he. The Bible was not written. Traditions and oral teaching formed his mental training.

II. AT HOME WE SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE SOME EMPLOYMENT. His father loved him too dearly to allow him to grow up in habits of idleness. He learned to handle the crook and to become a faithful messenger. No work is to be despised, for all may be a preparation for future usefulness.

III. AT HOME WE SHOULD NOT WILLINGLY BE WITNESSES OF WRONGDOING. The lives of Joseph’s brethren were sinful, and their doings deceitful. Some things he is obliged to know about of which it is dangerous to keep silence. The welfare of the whole tribe was being risked by the elder brothers, and Joseph, fearing that, tells his father, or seeks counsel that he may be strengthened to resist evil influence.

IV. AT HOME WE MAY HAVE GLOWING VISIONS OF THE FUTURE. The two dreams concerning the sheaves, and the sun and moon and stars, brought hate from his brethren, but they had an influence on Joseph’s after life. They were remarkably fulfilled. We all have some such visions. We build “castles in the air.” The stern realities of life tone down our dreams. It is well to have some such dreams. Without them few make any advance in life. We are not to be like mere senseless stones, but growing plants. Better is it to bear fruit than to wait to become only the sport of circumstances.H.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Gen 37:2. These are the generations of Jacob i.e.. These are the things which befel Jacob, the transactions of him and his family. As nothing is here said of genealogy, or beget-ting children, it is plain that the original word here, as in some other passages of Scripture, should be rendered the history. Two reasons are generally assigned, why Moses is more full in relating the adventures of Joseph, than of any other of Jacob’s children. The one, because his life is a bright example of piety, chastity, meekness, and prudence: the other, because it was by the means of Joseph that Jacob went down into AEgypt. And as his going down gave occasion to the wonderful departure of the children of Israel thence, so the history of the Jews would have been imperfect, and indeed altogether unintelligible, without a longer account than ordinary of Joseph’s life and transactions there.

Was with the sons of Bilhah, &c. Hence it is plain, that the sons of Jacob fed their flocks separately; the sons of Leah were not with those of the concubines: this remark may be of use in the conclusion of the chapter. There were three great sources of hatred and envy towards Joseph, from his brethren; the first, springing from his superior piety and virtue, his disapprobation of their evil conduct, and his acquainting his father with it; the second, from his father’s partial love to him; and the third, from his dreams.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Gen 37:2 These [are] the generations of Jacob. Joseph, [being] seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad [was] with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives: and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report.

Ver. 2. These are the generations. ] That is, Events, begotten of time, after he came to live with his father Isaac, who also wept for Joseph, Gen 37:35 as Junius.

With the sons of Bilhah, &c. ] It is thought that these sons of the handmaids, for the baseness of their birth, were more modest than the rest; and that Joseph therefore, out of his humility, sorted himself with them. Probable it is, they were more unruly than the rest, and ill conditioned, – as such are, commonly, – whereof Joseph made complaint, and was therefore hated. Veritas odium parit. Truth is a good mistress; but he that follows her too close at heels, may hap to have his teeth struck out. An expectas ut Quintillanus ametur? said he. Those that are wakened out of sleep are usually unquiet, ready to brawl with their best friends. So here.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 37:2-4

2bJoseph, when seventeen years of age, was pasturing the flock with his brothers while he was still a youth, along with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives. And Joseph brought back a bad report about them to their father. 3Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a varicolored tunic. 4His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers; and so they hated him and could not speak to him on friendly terms.

“Joseph, when seventeen years of age” The age of Joseph at the time of his being sold by his brothers into slavery is significant when we later compare his age at the time that he stands before Pharaoh in Gen 41:46 (30 years old). His final age is given in Gen 50:26 (110 years old).

“while he was still a youth” This term (BDB 654 II) can be used in the sense of “trainee” or “apprentice” (cf. Exo 33:11, where it is used of Joshua’s relationship to Moses). It is also possible that the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah were apprentices as well. Although they were in the field and acted as shepherds, they did not have sole responsibility for the flocks.

“Bilhah” This is Rachel’s maid. Some see Joseph as being identified with her sons because she probably continued to raise him after Rachel’s death. From Gen 30:5-7 we find that the other two sons of Bilhah are Dan and Naphtali.

“the sons of Zilpah” This is Leah’s maid and her sons are listed in Gen 30:9-13. They are Gad and Asher.

“And Joseph brought back a bad report about them to their father” The exact nature of this report and who it referred to is uncertain (same word used of the ten spies’ report in Num 14:37), but the naivety of Joseph is foreshadowed here. There is a series of acts which cause his brothers to hate him.

1. the bad report of Gen 37:2

2. the special coat of Gen 37:3-4, given to him by Jacob

3. his ostentatious dreams recorded in Gen 37:5-10

Gen 37:3 “Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons” Jacob’s name was changed to “Israel” after he wrestled with the angel at the brook Jabbok (cf. Gen 32:22-32). The name has several possible etymologies. I think the one that fits the context of Genesis 32 is, “may El preserve.” See Special Topic: Names for Deity .

Jacob should have learned the problems associated with favoritism from his own childhood, but he was apparently oblivious to this. His favoritism sets the stage for the rejection of Joseph by his brothers.

“because he was the son of his old age” This is a somewhat unusual phrase because Benjamin was the youngest son of Rachel. It may mean after he had many other sons. Western literalism is a great danger in interpreting ancient Semitic texts. The rabbis and the Targums see this discrepancy and translate it as “a son having wisdom of advanced age.” The following context will show that this is certainly not the case.

NASBa varicolored tunic”

NKJVa tunic of many colors”

NRSV, REB”a long robe with sleeves”

TEVa long robe with full sleeves”

NJBa decorated tunic”

LXX”a coat of many colors”

Peshitta”a rich robe with long sleeves”

JPSOA”an ornamental tunic”

The etymology of this Hebrew term (BDB 509 CONSTRUCT 821) is uncertain. Usually a tunic was a short-sleeved work garment which extended to the knees of men and women. It seems that this special tunic was either full-length, from the palms to the ankles (BDB 821), or multi-colored (LXX). Either way, it was obviously not a work garment. The only other reference to this tunic is in 2Sa 13:18, where Tamar wore the same type of garment, which is described as being appropriate for the virgin daughters of the king, therefore, implying royalty. It is possible that Joseph felt that his father knew he was to be the son of Promise because Reuben had been disqualified due to his sexual impropriety with Jacob’s concubine and Simeon and Levi for the slaughter of Shechem (Genesis 34, cf. Gen 35:22).

From The IVP Bible Background Commentary (p. 68):

“Egyptian paintings of this period depict well-dressed Canaanites as wearing long-sleeved, embroidered garments with a fringed scarf wrapped diagonally from waist to knee.”

Gen 37:4 “His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers” This sets the stage for the brothers’ rejection of Joseph.

“hated” This VERB (BDB 971, KB 1338, Qal INFINITIVE CONSTRUCT) is used in Gen 37:4-5; Gen 37:8; also note Exo 18:21; Exo 20:5; Exo 23:5; Lev 19:17; Lev 26:17; Deu 5:9; Deu 7:10; Deu 7:15; Deu 12:31; Deu 16:22; Deu 19:11; Deu 30:7; Deu 32:41.

NASB “on friendly terms”

NKJV, NRSV,

LXX”peaceably”

TEVin a friendly manner”

NJBa civil word”

REB”harsh words”

JPSOA”a friendly word”

This is the Hebrew NOUN shalom (BDB 1022, see Special Topic: Peace [shalom ]). His brothers could not even use the culturally typical greeting. They did not want him to have ease, health, and prosperity!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Joseph

While it is nowhere asserted that Joseph was a type of Christ, the analogies are too numerous to be accidental. They are:

(1) both were especial objects of a father’s love Gen 37:3; Mat 3:17; Joh 3:35; Joh 5:20.

(2) both were hated by their brethren Gen 37:4; Joh 15:25.

(3) the superior claims of both were rejected by their brethren Gen 37:8; Mat 21:37-39; Joh 15:24; Joh 15:25.

(4) the brethren of both conspired against them to slay them Gen 37:18; Mat 26:3; Mat 26:4.

(5) Joseph was, in intent and figure, slain by his brethren, as was Christ Gen 37:24; Mat 27:35-37.

(6) each became a blessing among the Gentiles, and gained a Gentile bride Gen 41:1-45; Act 15:14; Eph 5:25-32.

(7) as Joseph reconciled his brethren to himself, and afterward exalted them, so will it be with Christ and His Jewish brethren Gen 45:1-15; Deu 30:1-10; Hos 2:14-18; Rom 11:1; Rom 11:15; Rom 11:25; Rom 11:26.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

the generations: Toledoth, the history, narrative, or account of the lives and actions of Jacob and his sons; for in this general sense the original must be taken, as in the whole ensuing history there is no genealogy of Jacob’s family. Gen 2:4, Gen 5:1, Gen 6:9, Gen 10:1

wives: Gen 30:4, Gen 30:9, Gen 35:22, Gen 35:25, Gen 35:26

evil report: 1Sa 2:22-24, Joh 7:7, 1Co 1:11, 1Co 5:1, 1Co 11:18

Reciprocal: Gen 29:29 – Bilhah Gen 30:24 – And she Gen 41:46 – years Gen 46:32 – shepherds Gen 47:28 – seventeen Ecc 4:4 – every Ecc 4:13 – is a poor Mat 18:31 – and came

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Section 1. (Gen 37:2-36).

God’s counsel and man’s rebellion.

The first section shows us God’s counsel as to Joseph and man’s rebellion against it. The first view we have of Joseph is, at seventeen years, feeding the flock along with his brethren. The typical ruler for God is ever the shepherd. But He is with the children of the bondmaid, -a significant expression of Israel’s condition, perhaps politically as well as spiritually, when our Lord came in the flesh. Separated too, Joseph is from them morally far, as with the Lord, the ground of the after-separation upon their side, not on his. “Me the world hateth, because I testify of it that its deeds are evil.”

He is hated too as the special object of his father’s love, of which the embroidered coat is the expression. It is not precisely “of many colors,” nor a seamless robe of one piece such as characteristically the Lord wore. It is a “tunic of pieces,” implying variety, and I think would refer to the manifold powers which showed themselves in the Lord in those mighty works which He spoke of as “from the Father” (Joh 10:32; Joh 14:11), and for which His brethren after the flesh pursued Him with hatred.

The dreams come as a third incitement to hatred, -in which God makes known the future supremacy of the beloved of the father. This is easily read. Together, these three signs give us the Holy One, object of the Father’s love, hated for His holiness, hated for His glorious works, hated for the announcement of His coming glory.

Being, then, such as He is, His love-mission to His brethren, as sent of the Father, puts Him into their hands. He goes out of the “vale of Hebron” (“company”), the place of participation with the Father, to find them, not in Shechem (“shoulder”), in subjection to God, taking His yoke; but in Dothan, which some (rightly, I think,) take as meaning “laws;” not in the sense, however, of “precepts” -moral, spiritual guidance, such as the divine law (the thorah) was, -but of imperial “decrees.” To Israel after the flesh, away from God and from the true spirit of obedience, such had the divine word become.

At Dothan, then, Joseph’s brethren are found, and at once they counsel to slay him. In fact, they cast him into a pit, but it holds no water -“It is not lawful for us,” the Jews said to Pilate, “to put any man to death;” and out of this they draw him, to sell him to the Ishmaelites. So by Israel was the Lord transferred to the Gentiles.

How striking is that touch in this terrible picture, “And they sat down” -with Joseph in their pit -“to eat bread”! How much more terrible the case of the Pharisee-persecutors, who “would not go into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover”! History does indeed repeat itself, because each generation is but the repetition of the one before it: as Ahab, Israel’s worst king, was but after all, what his name signifies, his “father’s brother.”

Thus Joseph is “separated from his brethren.” In the individual application, though the details are less plain, the general thought is easy. “Elect of God, holy and beloved,” in the world through which we pass, all is hostile to the development of that which is of God. He that separateth himself from evil maketh himself a prey;” and separation from evil is a fundamental principle of the divine nature. Hence, persecution for righteousness should be accepted as the necessary result for the people of God in a world such as the present.

But for those true Josephs in whom is developed the soldier-“virtue,” which with inflexibility of purpose presses on through whatever difficulties in the path of faith, separation will be found (not invited) from those who are not the world, but, though chosen out of it, still practicing conformity to its ways. Nay, one’s brethren are, alas! often in this case more hostile than the very world, just because their consciences are more awake to a testimony which condemns themselves. Thus, within the circle of professed Christian fellowship, the Josephs have still to be disciples of the cross. Their path is not merely individual, as the path of true faith must always be, but solitary also, save only for the God with whom they walk, and indeed because they have chosen to walk with Him. Yet it is thus a path of deepest blessing.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

Gen 37:2. These are the generations of Jacob The events or occurrences which happened to Jacob in his family and issue; as the word is used, chap. Gen 6:9, and Num 3:1. The genealogy of Esau, which was brought in by way of parenthesis, being finished, Moses returns to the family of Jacob, and proceeds in his narration of their concerns. And it is not a barren genealogy like that of Esau, but a memorable, useful history. Joseph brought to his father their evil report Jacobs sons did that when they were from under his eye, which they durst not have done if they had been at home with him; but Joseph gave his father an account of their ill carriage, that he might reprove and restrain them.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

37:2 These [are] the generations of Jacob. Joseph, [being] seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad [was] with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives: and Joseph brought unto his father their evil {b} report.

(b) He complained of the evil words and injuries which they spoke and did to him.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

E. What Became of Jacob 37:2-50:26

Here begins the tenth and last toledot in Genesis. Jacob remains a major character throughout Genesis. Moses recorded his death in chapter 49. Nevertheless Joseph replaces him as the focus of the writer’s attention at this point. [Note: For some enriching insights into the similarities between the stories of Jacob and Joseph, see Peter Miscall, "The Jacob and Joseph Stories As Analogies," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (February 1978):28-40.] These chapters are not entirely about Joseph, however. The writer showed interest in all the sons of Jacob and among them especially Judah. [Note: See Bryan Smith, "The Central Role of Judah in Genesis 37-50," Bibliotheca Sacra 162:646 (April-June 2005):158-74.]

"The emphasis now shifts from Jacob’s personal struggles to receive the blessing promised to Abraham and Isaac, to the events in Jacob’s life that lead up to the formation of Israel as a nation." [Note: Aalders, 2:179.]

The story of Joseph also links the history of the patriarchs with their settlement in Egypt.

"The Joseph story . . . develops the theme of the Pentateuch by showing the gradual fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham in Gen 12:1-3. In particular, it shows how God blesses the nations through the descendants of Abraham [cf. Gen 50:20]." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 344.]

"The theme of the Joseph narrative concerns God’s hidden and decisive power which works in and through but also against human forms of power. A ’soft’ word for that reality is providence. A harder word for the same reality is predestination. Either way God is working out his purpose through and in spite of Egypt, through and in spite of Joseph and his brothers." [Note: Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 293.]

One writer concluded that the genre of the Joseph story in chapters 37-50 is a court narrative. He provided many observations on the narrative features of the story. [Note: Richard D. Patterson, "Joseph in Pharaoh’s Court," Bibliotheca Sacra 164:654 (April-June 2007):148-64.]

"The Joseph story, though different in style from that of the patriarchs, continues the theme of the patriarchal narratives-God overcomes obstacles to the fulfillment of the promise." [Note: Longman and Dillard, p. 60.]

"Rarely has God’s providence been so evident in such an extended passage." [Note: Wolf, p. 121.]

The books of Ruth and Esther also emphasize divine providence. Human responsibility is as much a revelation of this section as divine sovereignty.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

1. God’s choice of Joseph 37:2-11

Joseph faithfully served his father even bringing back a bad report of his brothers’ behavior to him for which Jacob expressed his love by giving Joseph preferential treatment. However his brothers envied and hated him. God confirmed His choice of Joseph as leader, an event that perplexed Jacob and infuriated Joseph’s brothers.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Joseph was tending his father’s flock with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. This description prefigures Joseph’s later shepherding role in relation to his brothers, after they became dependent on him. David also tended sheep in preparation for his role as a leader of people.

Joseph’s "bad report" implies that the brothers were participating in serious wicked behavior. This is not hard to believe in view of their former treatment of the Shechemites and their later treatment of Joseph and Jacob.

The use of the name Israel (Gen 37:3) suggests that Jacob’s special love for Joseph had a divine origin and was part of God’s plan for the chosen family. However, Jacob’s favoritism of Joseph over his other sons was wrong and fueled the brothers’ hatred of Joseph. Favoritism had a long history in Jacob’s family (Isaac’s preference for Esau, Rebekah’s for Jacob, and Jacob’s preference for Rachel). In every case it created major problems. Leah was hated, and her sons hated (cf. Gen 29:31; Gen 29:33).

"Son of his old age" means wise son, or son of wisdom. Joseph was old for his years; he had the wisdom of age in his youth. Joseph was born when Jacob was 91 years old, but he was not Jacob’s youngest son. One of Joseph’s brothers was younger than he: Benjamin.

The "varicolored tunic" was probably also a long robe. The sons of nobles wore long robes with long sleeves and ornamentation, like Joseph’s, as did Tamar, King David’s daughter (2Sa 13:18).

"It was a mark of distinction that carried its own meaning, for it implied that exemption from labor which was the peculiar privilege of the heir or prince of the Eastern clan." [Note: Thomas, p. 356.]

Such a garment identified the possessor of the birthright. This sign of Jacob’s love for Joseph constantly irritated the jealous brothers.

"Jacob’s partiality for Rachel and for her two sons doomed his family to the same strife he had experienced in his father’s household." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p, 689.]

"The story of Jacob features rocks; that of Joseph features robes (Gen 37:3; Gen 37:23; Gen 39:12; Gen 41:14). These palpable objects symbolize something of the characters’ social and/or spiritual situations." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 499.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)