# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man brought the men into Joseph’s house, and gave them water, and they washed their feet. He gave their donkeys fodder</em>- These were all signs of acceptance into a family; we recall the actions of Laban to Abraham's servant when he first arrived. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They prepared the present for Joseph’s coming at noon, for they heard that they should eat bread there</em>- "<em>For</em> Joseph's coming" is literally as AV "against". Their paltry present, of just "a little" (see on :11), is set "against" Joseph's coming to them with a huge meal and then great grace, unspeakable in its largesse. All this speaks of the dwarfing of all human strength and attempts to atone, compared to the total grace of the Father and Son.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Joseph came home- </em>The scene is so reminiscent of Potiphar's house; there is a steward, and a nervous waiting for the master of the house to return and throw Joseph to death or imprisonment. Perhaps Joseph wanted them to know how he had felt; for that is also why he had put them in prison for three days, so that they could come to know all the experiences which they had been responsible for. We could of course reason that it was not their fault that Joseph was cast into prison; the fault was with Potiphar's wife. But they are being taught, as we are, the various long term dimensions of our sins. We may do wrong against a person in our youth, a girl may unkindly jilt a boy or vice versa, which leads them to addictions and a life of suffering. The misfortunes and sufferings are in a sense the fault of others; but the path was set by the person who first forced them to it. Only God judges righteously, perceiving the implications and corollaries of human actions. But in this case, it seems Joseph on God’s behalf wanted the brothers to perceive that Joseph's time in prison and his nervous wait for Potiphar's return home... was all stuff brought upon Joseph by the brothers' actions. They would have internally justified it all, by saying they hadn't killed him, it was the group, the others, "not me", it was hard to not go along the path chosen by the group... And yet clearly God through Joseph accepted none of that. They were "verily guilty" as they confessed in prison. Although to blame them for Joseph's time in prison and suffering due to Potiphar's wife might seem extreme- the grace and mercy shown to them was extraordinary. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They brought him the present which was in their hand into the house, and bowed themselves down to him to the earth</em>- This was a primary fulfilment of Joseph's dream, where in the field they bowed to the earth, the soil- even though they were inside a house. They as tent dwellers would have been in awe of a house such as Joseph had. They were starving to death, and their present of "a little" of the few nuts and bits of gum they could extract from their scorched vegetation must have seemed so paltry compared to the opulence of Joseph. "Present" is a word used for offering; their bloodless sacrifice is compared to Joseph slaying an animal for them (:16). The situation of Cain and Abel is recalled; Cain murdered Abel and brought a bloodless sacrifice. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He asked them of their welfare, and said, Is your father well, the old man of whom you spoke? Is he yet alive?</em>- "Well" and "welfare" are both <em>shalom</em>, "peace", continue the assurance of :23; that Joseph wished them peace, with God and himself. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They said, Your servant, our father, is well. He is still alive. They bowed down humbly</em>- This may have been to represent Jacob bowing to Joseph, with Jacob here called Joseph's servant. The double bowing (cp. :26) was a primary fulfilment of the double dreams Joseph had revealed, of their bowing to him. "Bowed down humbly" is literally 'bowed down to the earth / soil / ground', not to the 'floor'. It was as if they were on soil; whereas they were inside an opulent Egyptian home. This further emphasizes the similarity with Joseph's dream of his brothers in a field, on soil, bowing before him. But Rachel was not present; which is why I insist that this was but a primary fulfilment of the dream, which spoke ultimately of the resurrection and the Kingdom age.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>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? He said, God be gracious to you, my son</em>- The reference to one God was again a prod; an encouragement to perceive that he and they worshipped the same one God. And again the concept of grace is introduced, which was so strange for the brothers to accept. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph hurried- </em>He didn’t want to reveal himself yet, and he knew that his tears would mean they recognized him. He wanted them to make the recognition, rather than him having to tell them. They never got there; but still he accepted them by grace. There is in fact no record of their repentance, no statement made. Joseph left that as unspoken; and we likewise may long for those who abused us to express regret in words, but it sometimes doesn't come. All we can hope is that they will accept our forgiveness of them, as Joseph did; and if we can persuade them of that, then the relationship is restored. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For his heart yearned over his brother; and he sought a place to weep. He entered into his room, and wept there</em>- The evil heart of mankind troubled the heart of God (<em><a href='B:10 6:5-6'>Gen 6:5-6</a></em>). This "heart to heart" between God and man is amazing. As Joseph's heart was 'warm' for his younger brother Benjamin, so the same word is used about how the heart of God is 'warm' in yearning for His ungrateful people (<em><a href='B:350 11:8'>Hos 11:8</a></em>). Kneel down and pray; pray long and / or hard enough till you 'get the feeling' of heart to heart contact with God Almighty. Exactly because God is God and not man, He will not punish His people according to what He had said He would do. His “repentings were kindled together” (<em><a href='B:350 11:8'>Hos 11:8</a></em> AV), alluding through the same Hebrew words to how Joseph’s innermost being “ yearned over his brother”, in prophecy of how God would accept Israel in the last days. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder why Joseph so yearned for his brother. Benjamin had been only four years old when Joseph disappeared, and Joseph was now 39 or 40. Ask a 40 year old if they have passionate feelings about their kid brother who they last saw when he was only four years old... and you won't get many who have such strong emotions as the Hebrew text here suggests. The fact Joseph felt like this indicates a love for his brothers and his family; when most men who suffered as he did would have forgotten about them and moved on, developing their own family. So Joseph's passion for Benjamin is reflective of his passionate love for those who had so hurt and damaged him. It is a huge example to us, as well as a most encouraging window onto the love of the Lord Jesus for us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He washed his face, and came out. He controlled himself, and said, Serve the meal</em>- He "refrained himself" (AV). Both God and the Lord Jesus only delay, so that they might be the more gracious (<em><a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a></em>). Their passionate desire is to save and accept us anyway, without our expression of repentance; they only try to elicit it from us for our sakes, not because it satisfies their own personal desire for apology an the humiliation of those who did them wrong. For from the example of Joseph, it seems they have nothing of these things. The desire for repentance to be elicited and verbalized is purely for our eternal good and not to satisfy any need of theirs. Finally Joseph could not 'control himself' any longer (<em><a href='B:10 45:1'>Gen 45:1</a></em> s.w.). His desire to simply save them overrode his desire for their specific, verbalized repentance. And this should be our pattern; yet all too often, repentance is demanded before any love, care or forgiveness can be shown.</p><p>We clearly sense that Joseph wanted to just end the charade and reveal himself. He only brought about the further trial for the brothers because he wanted their spiritual growth. Or it could be that as with Esther's losing her nerve when she was supposed to ask the king for mercy towards the Jews, so with Joseph. In the sense that he, like Esther, had no very clearly defined game plan, and his emotions and humanity got in the way. And yet as with Esther, this was used by God to the advancement of His purpose, which was finally the repentance of the brothers. We may well enquire whether Joseph's intention was in fact achieved. Did they repent? There is never a word of formal repentance from them. We are left to conclude that surely they did get there, but deep within their hearts and perhaps only as they themselves faced their graveplanks. And this becomes helpful to us, in not as it were waiting for formal repentance from others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians, that ate with him, by themselves, because the Egyptians don’t eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians</em>- Joseph was showing that that he was not an Egyptian, but he was also somehow separate from them his brethren. It was another enigma which he used to try to get them to join the dots and see him for who he was. <em><a href='B:10 39:6'>Gen 39:6</a></em> notes that Potiphar, who is specifically called an Egyptian, only concerned himself with his own food. This confirms what we later learn here, that Egyptians would not eat with Hebrews. The Biblical record meshes together perfectly.</p><p>The "abomination" of the Hebrews was that they were shepherds; "for all shepherds are an abomination to Egyptians" (Gen. 46:34) because of their association with the Hyksos / shepherd kings who had overrun Egypt a generation before. And this was why Joseph could not eat together with Hebrews, because they were an abomination to the Egyptians (Gen. 43:32). We find this confirmed in Ex. 8:22, where Moses tells Pharaoh that the Hebrews cannot do as he says and sacrifice in Egypt, because they would be attacked by the Egyptians when they saw the Hebrews offering bulls and calves to Yahweh. For these were symbols of Egyptian gods, and people who ate them were an abomination to them."Abomination" is a word which also means 'idols'. They ate abominations / idols, in that the animals they ate and sacrificed were seen as the gods of Egypt. For the Jacob family to be accepted into the best land of Egypt was therefore grace indeed. Just as is our salvation into God's Kingdom, brought about by Joseph-Jesus. For with reputation as cattle herders ["shepherds"] and bull sacrificers, the Jacob family were going to be last on the list for getting food, let alone being allowed to emigrate to Egypt, let alone to be given land in Goshen, the favoured area. It was all of grace, as it is with us, all the way through. </p> <p> We note that the Egyptian abomination of Hebrew shepherds is alluded to in the command to Israel: "You should not abhor [treaat as an abomination] an Egyptian, for you were a stranger in his land" (Dt. 23:8). It is normal between peoples and individual persons that they treat each other as they were treated by that person or people. Here Yahweh is teaching that His people were to break that cycle. To not abhor those who abhor you. And this is really what the spirit of the Lord Jesus is about, breaking the cycles of human dysfunction and misbehaviour.</p> <p> Joseph is such a detailed type of the Lord that one wonders whether his eating together with the brothers looks ahead to the breaking of bread meeting. The distance between Joseph and the brothers was on one hand, huge. The cultural differences, differing perceptions of food, social caste, ethnicity. There is the obvious distance between the Lord and us, a distance as great as that between Heaven and earth. But He looks across that at us, with a heart bursting with love, even if we don't quite perceive it. And He knows us, to our great surprise and wonder, just as He showed the brothers that He knew them by seating them in their birth order.</p> <p> Joseph appeared neither Egyptian nor Hebrew. Just as the Lord appears to us. But His heart was clearly with the Hebrews and in the moment of glorious revelation, he revealed himself as totally their brother.  The same will be at the Lord's return.  </p> <p> Benjamin was 16 years younger than Joseph. According to Genesis 46, he had ten sons when the family moved to Egypt. If by 23, he had 10 sons, he likely had had 10 daughters as well. They would have been from a number of women. So we get the impression that he, the favoured spoilt son of the favourite wife Rachel, with a very wealthy father, became a playboy from a young age. Joseph knew this, or guessed it. For he too had once held the same status with Jacob. What he did to Benjamin was therefore to lead that young man to spiritual maturity. And yet Joseph did it whilst having assured him of his special love, giving him five times larger portions of food. And Benjamin was open to this leading. The names of his ten sons often reflect his obsession with his absent older brother,  whom Jacob had clearly described to him in heroic terms. The rabbis offer the following definitions of their names in Gen. 46:21: Ahi, he was my brother; Bela, the one who disappeared,  Rosh, my elder or leader; Becher, the firstborn of his mother (as Joseph was); Ashbel, sent by God to captivity; Gera, dweller in a foreign land; Ard, he went down amongst the nations. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They sat before him, the firstborn according to his birthright- </em>Reuben had had the birthright removed from him even before Joseph left Canaan; but perhaps Joseph didn’t recognize that, as he didn’t consider birthrights to be significant. Or it could be read the other way; Judah, or whoever had been given the birthright, was placed by Joseph as the firstborn. Whatever, Joseph was seeking to demonstrate that although he ate with them at a distance, as the Lord does from us at His table, He is all the same very much with us and knows our situations intimately, both collectively and intimately. And in the case of Reuben's sin that led to losing the birthright, he as it were forgave it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And the youngest according to his youth, and the men marvelled one with another</em>- The Hebrew for "marvelled" is only ever used of people 'marvelling' in response to God’s rebuke or judgment of them (<em><a href='B:220 26:11'>Job 26:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 48:5'>Psa 48:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 13:8'>Isa 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 29:9'>Isa 29:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:9'>Jer 4:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 1:5'>Hab 1:5</a></em>). But they had not received Divine judgment, but the grace of being accepted at Joseph's table. It was this grace poured out which functioned in the same way as Divine rebuke or judgment. And this has so often been observed; that showing grace to an offender reforms them in a similar but more profound way than rebuke or judgment would. Hence Paul says that coming to Corinth with a rod of punishment in his hand was the same as coming to them with a gentle, forgiving spirit of grace&nbsp; (see on <em><a href='B:530 4:21'>1Co 4:21</a></em>). This marvelling one with another recalls how in Gen. 42:1 they silently looked at each other rather than risk going to Egypt; and how when imprisoned the first time in Egypt, they all spoke to each other at the same time, confessing guilt over Joseph.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He sent portions to them from before him, but Benjamin’s portion was five times as much as any of theirs. They drank, and were merry with him</em>- The desperate desire of Joseph for them to relax with him and accept his forgiveness led him to make them drunk so as to ease their relationship (43:34 AVmg.). This otherwise unethical act reveals the earnestness of his desire for them to be relaxed with him and open themselves to him. The Lord will have the same basic desire with us at the judgment. It was usual for the host or master of the house to have portions five times those of the guests; even if he didn’t eat all the food, it was a sign of his superiority. Joseph therefore wished to demonstrate that the youngest was as the master; he wanted them to realize that he had radically inverted all values. </p><p>One reason Joseph did this to the brothers may have been in order to test whether they would get jealous about a daughter of Rachel getting more blessing than them. And they apparently got through that test. All Joseph did to the brothers was to test and teach them and lead them to repentance.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He commanded the steward of his house, saying, Fill the men’s sacks with food, as much as they can carry, and put each man’s money in his sack’s mouth</em>- Again, Joseph (like the Lord Jesus) used every opportunity to shower them with grace; simply because he loved them, and yet also with the hope that as Paul puts it, the goodness of God would lead to repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). There was obviously a set price for grain, but he gave them more than what they had paid for, seeking to teach them that his grace was not proportionate to their works or what materially they could give him. They had tried to shrug off Joseph's previous grace to them concerning the money in the sacks' mouths by imagining it was "an oversight". But the fact it happened a second time was meant to underline to them Joseph's grace. Joseph showers them with grace and love before falsely accusing Benjamin over the cup. The Lord likewise operates with us, assuring us of His love at the same time as testing us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Put my cup, the silver cup, in the sack’s mouth of the youngest, with his grain money. He did according to the word that Joseph had spoken</em>- "Silver" and "money" are the same word in Hebrew. Perhaps Joseph wanted to teach Benjamin and all of them about the fact that silver is so often the path to spiritual ruin. The brothers had sold Joseph for twenty pieces of silver, and there was probably far more than twenty pieces of silver in the sacks. I suggested on <em><a href='B:10 37:26'>Gen 37:26</a></em> that the attraction of silver was a significant factor in the decision to sell Joseph into slavery. He was repaying evil with good, in the same terms as it had been paid out to him, as it were. Silver was thus demonstrated by Joseph to be utterly immaterial compared to Divine grace, and the issues of life and death. For without Joseph's wisdom and generosity, silver of itself could not save them from death by starvation. 
It seemed that despite having been given their money back, and extra grain, they had abused Joseph's grace by stealing his cup. But as noted earlier, the false accusation of abusing his grace would have elicited the response: 'No we didn't... in this matter. But have we done so in the past? Will we do so in future?'.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away, they and their donkeys</em>- The Divine camera enables us to imagine them, leaving with donkeys laden down with a heavier load than intended ("as much as they can carry", :1), made heavier by the silver; we see the men and their donkeys silhouetted against the rising sin. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When they had gone out of the city, and were not yet far off, Joseph said to his steward, Up, follow after the men. When you overtake them, ask them, ‘Why have you rewarded evil for good?'</em>- See on :6. They would naturally feel 'But we didn’t reward this man evil for good'. Indeed they had not, in the immediate context. But they had done evil to Joseph (<em><a href='B:10 50:15'>Gen 50:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 50:17'>Gen 50:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 50:20'>Gen 50:20</a></em> "You meant it for evil"). The purpose of false accusations is to provoke self examination and perhaps to reveal to us that in other contexts, those accusations against us are true in their essence. For as soon as they started to protest that they had not done evil to Joseph... they surely would realize deep in their subconscious that indeed they had done so. We can infer that Joseph had only done them "good" before they did him "evil". And the good he had done them was to attempt to be their spiritual leader, although he was only 17.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isn’t this that from which my lord drinks, and by which he indeed divines? You have done evil in so doing’</em>- Joseph's steward was aware that Joseph knew a lot about these men. He set them to eat in order of their birth, etc. Joseph had to give some credible explanation to his steward as to how he knew. So perhaps he just gave the impression that he had this knowledge through his cup which he used as a divining cup. But the use of such divination was strongly condemned by God (Lev. 19:26; Dt. 10:10 s.w.). So here we have another example of where Joseph appeared as an Egyptian when in his heart he was very different. Just as we appear on some external counts to be indistnguishable from the world, when our hearts are elsewhere. The brothers surely knew that the cup had been planted, and they were being falsely accused of doing "evil" in return for good. Likewise they would have probably disbelieved that this cup was the source of Joseph's knowledge about them. They didn't believe in "divination". So the question would have been provoked within them: "From where, then, does this man know all about us?". They were being led closer to the recognition that this man was Joseph their brother. God doesn't force us to repentance, but neither does He leave us totally to our own device. He nudges us, with a gentleness of the perfect force- not too hard so as to gaslight or railroad us, nor too soft so as to be unperceived. The nudging towards repentance can involve very round about methods, as we see here. And this explains our impression at times that life is very random and bizarre. It isn't, because what we see as so bizarre is in fact a leading or nudging of us to repentance. </p> <p>  They likely realized that all the myths of divination through cups were bunk; and yet this man with whom they had to do could indeed "divine" them, setting them according to their ages. So they would have realized that somehow their attitude to this cup incident was going to be how Joseph 'divined' them; but it was their response to it which was going to make the answer. Would they rally around their brother Benjamin, and be prepared to suffer for and with him, this son of Rachel (as Joseph was)- or would they seek to justify themselves and leave him to his fate? Would they care about their father’s grief, or not? Would the false accusation make them realize that although they had not stolen Joseph's cup whilst enjoying his huge grace to them over the meal table, they had in another context all rewarded evil for good?</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And so the incident points forward to the table of the Lord Jesus, the grace of which we too have all in some way abused. Our spirit / attitude is the candle of the Lord, with which He searches us. Our thoughts when confronted by the cross reveal us to Him who died on it. Likewise Joseph (one of the most detailed types of the Lord) knew / discerned his brethren by his cup (<em><a href='B:10 44:5'>Gen 44:5</a></em>). <em><a href='B:530 11:31-32'>1Co 11:31-32</a></em> further suggests that our self-judgment at the breaking of bread is in fact the Lord’s judgment of us; just as Joseph's discernment of them was really their discernment of themselves.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The divining may be a reference to his interpreting the butler's dream involving the cup; see on <em><a href='B:10 40:11'>Gen 40:11</a></em>. The Hebrew for “divines" means literally ‘to make trial’; their taking of the cup was their trial / judgment. Thus we drink either blessing or condemnation to ourselves by taking the cup. The word used by the LXX for “divines" in <em><a href='B:10 44:5'>Gen 44:5</a></em> occurs in the NT account of the breaking of bread service: ‘everyone should <em>examine </em>himself, and then eat the bread and drink from the cup’ (<em><a href='B:530 11:28'>1Co 11:28</a></em>). The Lord examines us, as we examine ourselves. There is a mutuality here- the spirit of man is truly the candle of the Lord (<em><a href='B:240 20:27'>Pro 20:27</a></em>). He searches us through our own self-examination. He knows all things, but there may still be methods that He uses to gather than information. Our hearts are revealed to God through our own self-examination. And is it mere co-incidence that the Hebrew words for “divination" and “snake" are virtually identical (<em>nahash</em>)? The snake lifted up on the pole (cp. the crucified Jesus) is the means of trial / divination. Through the cross, the thoughts of many hearts are revealed (<em><a href='B:490 2:35'>Luk 2:35</a></em>), just as they will be at the last day. Thus the breaking of bread ceremony is a means towards the sort of realistic self-examination which we find so hard to achieve in normal life. </p><p>The implication could be that they thought Joseph had information about them because of this magic cup, and they had therefore stolen it. Because they thought this would stop him knowing about them. This was to probe their conscience. They of course denied the theft. But their conscience would have prodded them- they were indeed aware that Joseph strangely knew all about them, and they were indeed uncomfortable with that fact, and would do all in their power to keep him from knowing more about them. All this was again a nudge towards their acceptance of the simple truth; the vizier was indeed Joseph and he knew all about them. The implication was also that Joseph would have already divined through the cup that they were going to steal it. The message was: 'He knows your past and future. Any attempt to avoid that is desperate and can never work. Just accept He knows all about you'. And this is what every man is faced with who seeks to deny the Lord's total knowledge of him. And as we take His cup at the communion service,  we are powerfully reminded of this and led towards self examination, knowing and seeing ourselves as He sees us.</p> <p> The Hebrew for “divines" means literally ‘to make trial’; their taking of the cup was their trial / judgment. Thus we drink either blessing or condemnation to ourselves by taking the cup. The word used by the LXX for “divines" in Gen. 44:5 occurs in the NT account of the breaking of bread service: ‘everyone should examine himself, and then eat the bread and drink from the cup’ (1 Cor. 11:28). The Lord examines us, as we examine ourselves. There is a mutuality here- the spirit of man is truly the candle of the Lord (Prov. 20:27). He searches us through our own self-examination. He knows all things, but there may still be methods that He uses to gather than information. Our hearts are revealed to God through our own self-examination. And is it mere co-incidence that the Hebrew words for “divination" and “snake" are virtually identical [nahash]? The snake lifted up on the pole [cp. the crucified Jesus] is the means of trial / divination. Through the cross, the thoughts of many hearts are revealed (Lk. 2:35), just as they will be at the last day (1 Cor. 11). Thus the breaking of bread ceremony is a means towards the sort of realistic self-examination which we find so hard to achieve in normal life.</p> <p> You have done evil in so doing’- They are falsely accused of doing evil. The accusation was false, but their psychological reaction was intended to lead them to realise that they had in fact done another evil, to Joseph (50:20).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He overtook them, and he spoke these words to them</em>- Jacob's sons had been pursued and overtaken once before; the same word is used of Laban doing so to the Jacob family (<em><a href='B:10 31:25'>Gen 31:25</a></em>). And Laban had likewise accused them of rewarding him evil for good, and he had made an accusation against them- that they had stolen his idols. That accusation was true, but it was turned into a false accusation by God’s grace saving them from being "overtaken" and Rachel hiding the idols and lying to her father. And they would have been intended to make the connection; that they then had been saved by grace, they who were liars. And now they had been "overtaken" again, and a false accusation was made, that they had rewarded good with evil. But their consciences would have been pricked; for they had indeed done evil, and they would only be saved from this 'overtaking' by Divine grace. All these things were carefully planned to elicit their repentance. How many of the prods they felt and responded to, we do not know; but somewhere in their deep subconscious, surely something was stirred. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They said to him, Why does my lord speak such words as these? Far be it from your servants that they should do such a thing!</em>- As I have often mentioned, the Divine purpose of the experience of false accusation is in order to elicit from us the recognition that although we didn’t do what we were accused of, we have in essence done the same in other areas. Whilst they had not stolen the cup, it was not so far from them to reward evil for good. But the brothers begin to show signs that they will not abandon Benjamin; for the pronouns vary: "<em>They</em> said... <em>My</em> Lord... <em>your servants</em>... that <em>they...</em>". So they are beginning to have a very different attitude to that which they had toward Joseph years earlier.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, the money, which we found in our sacks’ mouths, we brought again to you out of the land of Canaan. How then should we steal silver or gold out of your lord’s house?</em>- They begin however by parading their own righteousness and integrity. Yet the cup incident made them realize their guilt and made them acceptive of the judgment they deserved. And it made them quit their attempts at parading their own righteousness, no matter how valid it was in the immediate context. The cup made them realize their real status, and not just use empty words. Behold the contradiction in <em><a href='B:10 44:9'>Gen 44:9</a></em>: “With whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die, and we also will be my Lord’s bondmen / servants". The Hebrew words translated “servants" and “bondmen" are the same. Their mere formal recognition that they were Joseph’s servants was to be translated into reality. Thus they say that Joseph had “found out the iniquity of thy servants; behold, we <em>are </em>my Lord’s servants". Describing themselves as His servants had been a mere formalism; now they wanted it in a meaningful reality. And the Lord’s cup can do the same to us. The way they were “searched" (<em><a href='B:10 44:12'>Gen 44:12</a></em>) from the oldest to the youngest was surely the background for how the guilty men in John 8 pined away in guilt from the Lord Jesus, from the eldest to the youngest. The whole experience would have elicited self-knowledge within them. The same word is found in <em><a href='B:450 1:12'>Zec 1:12</a></em>, describing how God Himself would search out the sin of Jerusalem. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joseph was trying to tell them: ‘What you did to the cup, you did to me. That cup is a symbol of me’. And inevitably the mind flies to how the Lord solemnly took the cup and said that this was Him. Our attitude to those emblems is our attitude to Him. We have perhaps over-reacted against the Roman Catholic view that the wine turns into the very blood of Jesus. It doesn’t, of course, but all the same the Lord did say that the wine <em>is</em> His blood, the bread <em>is</em> His body. Those emblems are effectively Him to us. They are symbols, but not mere symbols. If we take them with indifference, with minds focused on externalities, then this is our essential attitude to Him personally. This is why the memorial meeting ought to have an appropriate intensity about it- for it is a personal meeting with Jesus. “Here O my Lord, I see thee face to face". If it is indeed this, then the cup will be the means of eliciting within us our own realization of sin and subsequently, of our salvation in Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>With whoever of your servants it is found, let him die, and we also will be my lord’s bondservants</em>- Their emotional words reflect a lack of sensitivity to their father Jacob's feelings. They ought at least to have excluded Benjamin from their promises. There is a strange repeat here of the situation with Rachel, the mother of Benjamin and Joseph. Her husband Jacob, their father, had rashly said that whoever had stolen Laban's idols should due. Now they make the same mistake. And Benjamin is found guilty of stealing and hiding the idolatrous valuable cup. His mother had done the same, but been saved by grace. We wonder whether Joseph was trying to get his brother to see how their mother had sinned, and yet been saved by grace.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Here, being dead is paralleled with being a slave- that is the force of "die... we also will be bondservants". And there appears a parallel between being a bond slave and dying in :17. Indeed, Romans 6 draws the same parallel- death to sin is part of being a slave of Christ. The very fact we are baptized means we should not continue in sin, seeing we are dead to it (<em><a href='B:520 6:2'>Rom 6:2</a></em>). This is one of the most basic implications of a first principle which we live in ignorance of most of our days. Baptism is a change of masters- but we are still bond slaves, not of sin, but of God. The implications of this figure may not be immediately apparent to the modern mind. We are totally committed to the Master- this is who we are, bond slaves. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Now also let it be according to your words: he with whom it is found will be my bondservant; and you will be blameless</em>- They should have sensed the grace shown in turning down their offer. Nobody would die, nor would they all become slaves. Yet the steward says that this is "according to your words". But his offer was <em>not </em>according to their words. The grace in it all is that their own self condemnation was turned around to something far more generous, and put back in their own mouths. They were intended to marvel at the grace, and to see that although there was going to be judgment, there was an extraordinary grace with the judge. We note too that this steward appears to have full authority to speak for Joseph, note "my bondservant". They would be blameless if only one of them had done it; the fact they plead a common, joint guilt ("the iniquity of your servants", :16) is therefore to be taken as not simply unity with their brother, but an expression of some other guilt, namely concerning Joseph.</p><p>The punishment for stealing the goblet of a man like Joseph was death, and the brothers offered this as the just desert. In the midst of their confusion, they are offered grace. They will not all be punished, as would be normal in such circumstances as they appeared jointly responsible. And the punishment for the guilty would not be death but servitude. They like us are being asked to see that the darkest clouds of circumstance are lined with amazing grace. If we perceive it. And they were being hereby encouraged to throw themselves upon that grace. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then they hurried, and each man took his sack down to the ground, and each man opened his sack</em>- Their speed was to demonstrate their eagerness to show themselves innocent. As they opened their sacks, they would have again found their money in the sack mouth. So as they prepared to face judgment, they did so knowing that there was an amazing grace in the man with whom they had to do.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He searched, beginning with the eldest, and ending at the youngest. The cup was found in Benjamin’s sack</em>- As noted on :12, Benjamin would have seen the cup nestled amongst his returned money. It was a powerful visual symbol of how judgment and guilt was to be covered with the message of grace and passionate love toward him, and all of them. Again they would have noticed that Joseph and his steward knew their ages (as when he sat them by birth order at the table); for the search was made from eldest to youngest. We recall how the Lord Jesus likewise convicted the Jews in John 8 from the eldest to the youngest. So the specter of judgment hanging over them was again ameliorated by the awareness that their judge knew them intimately.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then they tore their clothes, and each man loaded his donkey, and returned to the city</em>- "Each man..." signals that they all felt united with Benjamin; they didn’t leave him to his fate. They had indeed moved on a long way from their attitude to Joseph. The repetition of circumstance in our lives is not only to teach us, but to make sure that we learnt the lesson- for what teacher doesn't give pupils exercises to practice the theory they've learnt? It seems that Joseph, acting on God’s behalf and as a type of Christ, manipulated circumstances so that his brothers would have <em>deja vu</em> experiences. Thus he sets things up to tempt them with freedom if they again betray their younger brother (Benjamin) and are thoughtless to their father’s pain. The united, frank and open response of the brothers (:16,17) showed how they had indeed learnt their lesson. Their tearing of clothes is what Jacob did because of their treatment of Joseph (Gen. 37:34). So it is not so much a case of measure for measure, but rather their being led by circumstance to appreciate what they had put their father through.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Judah and his brothers came to Joseph’s house, and he was still there- </em>Judah now takes the lead amongst the brothers. He comes over as responsible and genuine in his care for Benjamin.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They fell on the ground before him</em>- Joseph's dream was having multiple primary fulfilments as they all bow to him. The fact the dreams are not presented as having one clear fulfilment (for they bow before him on several occasions) shows that all the recorded bowing of the brothers was only primary fulfilment; and in any case, Rachel was not present as required. And we wonder whether this bowing was anyway the fulfilment of the 'bowing before Joseph' of his dreams. Because to bow before someone has the sense of gratitude and thankfulness in Gen. 23:7,12, where Abraham bows to the sons of Heth in gratitude for a burial place for his wife. Perhaps that is the final fulfilment- bowing before Joseph, not in fear and subservience, but in gratitude. And it seems that is yet to come.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph said to them, What deed is this that you have done?- </em>"What deed is this?" was to elicit their memory of the deed done to Joseph. He addresses them in the plural- trying to elicit from them the recognition that they had all returned evil for good with respect to himself. The Hebrew for "deed" is not the word that would be used if Joseph simply meant 'What have you done?' or 'What thing have you done?'. It's the same word translated "occupation" or 'trade' in <em><a href='B:10 46:33'>Gen 46:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 47:3'>Gen 47:3</a></em>. The idea is of trading, and he is trying to elicit from the memory of their trading of him for 20 pieces of silver.  The "you" is "you" plural. He accuses them as a group of theft. And they had as a group stolen Joseph (Gen. 40:15).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole story of Joseph is one of the clearest types of Jesus in the Old Testament. The way His brethren come before His throne and are graciously accepted is one of the most gripping foretastes we have of the final judgment. The rather strange way Joseph behaves towards them was surely to elicit within them a true repentance. He sought to bring them to self-knowledge through His cup. Joseph stresses to the brethren that it is through his cup that he “divines" to find out their sin. He also emphasizes that by stealing the cup they had “done evil" (<em><a href='B:10 44:4-5'>Gen 44:4-5</a></em>). And yet they didn’t actually steal the cup. The “evil" which they had done was to sell him into Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 50:20'>Gen 50:20</a></em>). They had “stolen" him (<em><a href='B:10 40:15'>Gen 40:15</a></em>) in the same way they had “stolen" the cup. This is why he says that “you" (you plural, not singular, as it would have been if he was referring merely to Benjamin’s supposed theft) had stolen it (<em><a href='B:10 44:15'>Gen 44:15</a></em>). And the brethren in their consciences understood what Joseph was getting at- for instead of insisting that they hadn’t stolen the cup, they admit: “What shall we say unto my lord? What shall we speak? Or how shall we clear ourselves? God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants" (<em><a href='B:10 44:16'>Gen 44:16</a></em> AV). Clearly their minds were on their treatment of Joseph, the sin which they had thought would not be found out. And this was why they were <em>all </em>willing to bear the punishment of becoming bondmen, rather than reasoning that since Benjamin had apparently committed the crime, well he alone must be punished. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Don’t you know that such a man as I can indeed divine?</em>- The idea was 'I know that you have committed a great, evil deed'- concerning Joseph. The divining may be a reference to his interpreting the butler's dream involving the cup; see on <em><a href='B:10 40:11'>Gen 40:11</a></em>. But "divine" is translated "I have learned by experience" in <em><a href='B:10 30:27'>Gen 30:27</a></em>. Joseph is saying that he has seen them, knows them, has experienced them. This is about the clearest statement so far that 'I am Joseph'. They never got to quite the point Joseph wanted, for in the end he has to spell it out for them, although they were surely 'there' in their subconscious. "Such a man as I" may allude to his title Zaaphnath Paaneah, which can mean 'The knower of that which is secret'. This was the message all along,  that Joseph like the Lord, knows all about us. And we are to come to that same realisation, to know even as we are known. Paul says that day is yet future, but we are led towards it now.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Judah said, What will we tell my lord? What will we speak?-</em>  Joseph's brothers’ words are exactly those of Daniel in Dan. 10:15-17, where in another death and resurrection experience, he feels just the same as he lays prostrate before the Angel. Our attitude to the Lord in the last day will be our attitude to Him at the breaking of bread- just as our “boldness" in prayer now will be our “boldness" in the day of judgment. In the same way as the brothers had to be reassured by Joseph of his loving acceptance, so the Lord will have to ‘make us’ sit down with Him, and encourage us to enter into His joy. There will be some sort of disbelief at the extent of His grace in all those who are truly acceptable with Him (“When saw we thee…?"). The brothers grieved and were angry with themselves in the judgment presence of Joseph (Gen. 45:5)- they went through the very feelings of the rejected (cp. “weeping and gnashing of teeth" in self-hatred). And yet they were graciously accepted, until like Daniel they can eventually freely talk with their saviour Lord (Gen. 45:15). And so the sheep will feel rejected at the judgment, they will condemn themselves- in order to be saved ultimately. The same words occur in Neh. 8:10,11, when a repentant Israel standing before the judgment bema (LXX) are given the same assurance. </p> <p> </p> <p> This spirit influenced David when he likewise says: "What can I say to you? For you Lord know your servant" (<em><a href='B:100 7:20'>2Sa 7:20</a></em>). "What shall we say unto my lord? what shall we speak? or how shall we clear ourselves?" strikes a chord with <em><a href='B:340 10:17'>Dan 10:17</a></em>, where even righteous Daniel in his figurative judgment finds it hard to speak. Our awareness of our sinfulness at the day of judgment will doubtless have a like effect upon us. The moral desperation of the brethren ("how shall we clear ourselves?") will then be seen in us. Speechlessness is a characteristic of the rejected (<em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em>); the brothers slunk away from Joseph's physical presence (45:4), as the rejected will (<em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em> Gk.). This all suggests that those accepted at the judgment seat will go through all the emotions of the rejected; they will realize that rejection is what they deserve. Those who judge (condemn) themselves now in their self-examination will not be condemned then.</p><p>In the Hebrew, the "What can we [do]?" is clearer. It is repeated three times: "What can we say... what can we speak... what can we say to justify ourselves?". This is everyman before the Lord Jesus, unable to justify ourselves, as Paul stresses in Romans. What can we say or do? Nothing, but cast ourselves upon His grace. Judah's recognition of their position is the more commendable because it was based upon his inner conscience of their sin with Joseph. For he stood falsely accused before Joseph, and innocent of stealing the cup. This absolute contrition was therefore based upon repentance over the sin with Joseph, and not because of any sin regarding the cup, which they were falsely accused of. We can be sure Benjamin protested his innocence, but Judah doesn't go down the path of as it were demanding a retrial. Rather, he acts as genuinely guilty- because he knows that they are guilty of major sin against Joseph. This can help us cope with midjudgment; indeed we have been falsely accused and misjudged, but we are in fact utterly guilty of other sin before God and worthy only of death.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Or how will we clear ourselves?-</em> This is the word usually translated "righteous". How can a man be just / right with God? This is the question of all the faithful, from the book of Job to Paul in Romans. Job uses precisely the same Hebrew phrase, translated "How shall a man be just (with God)?" (<em><a href='B:220 9:2'>Job 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 15:14'>Job 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 25:4'>Job 25:4</a></em>). These are the only other occurrences of the phrase, and so clearly Job was influenced by Judah's words. No words, no silver, no works. We each come to this point. We just have to accept that we have sinned and cast ourselves upon the Lord, being willing to die or be His eternal servants. This ideally is the attitude we should have at baptism and then throughout our lives.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God has found out the iniquity of your servants- </em>They had agreed that with whomsoever the cup was "found", he should die (s.w. :9). And it had been "found" with Benjamin. But Judah says that all of them had sinned and their sin had been "found". He therefore has in mind their sin against Joseph. There is a direct parallel with their admission of this sin in <em><a href='B:10 42:21'>Gen 42:21</a></em> "We are verily guilty concerning our brother" Joseph. God and not Joseph nor his steward had found out this singular "iniquity" of them all; so Judah refers to the iniquity with Joseph and not of stealing the cup. So Judah is speaking on two levels; he is saying what Joseph apparently wants to hear, that they are guilty. But Judah knew that actually they as a group were not guilty of stealing Benjamin's cup, as Benjamin had apparently acted alone in stealing it. But he makes the confession of guilt because of his now deep awareness of "the iniquity" of the brothers regaring Joseph earlier. They had “stolen" him (Gen. 40:15) in the same way they had “stolen" the cup. They were guilty of theft- but of Joseph, not of the cup. And Judah accepts this and therefore chooses not to argue back with Joseph that they were innocent of the accusation about stealing the cup. And this was why they were all willing to bear the punishment of becoming bondmen, rather than reasoning that since Benjamin had apparently committed the crime, well he alone must be punished. The cup was “found" and they realized that God had “found out" their joint iniquity (Gen. 44:10,12,16). The cup was perceived by them as their “iniquity" with Joseph. They had used the very same Hebrew words years before, in telling Jacob of Joseph’s garment: “This have we found…" (Gen. 37:32). So we see here that there was some repentance and spiritual growth in Judah and the brothers. It is shown for all time that reconcilliation can be based upon the pure grace of one party, even if the other parties can never bring themselves to express repentance and apology in so many words to the offended party. But, there was deep within them a recognition of their sin with Joseph. This may possibly be in some contexts a pattern for how we deal with false accusation; to let it go, because we are guilty of the essence of the sin of which we are falsely accused.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, we are my lord’s bondservants, both we, and he also in whose hand the cup is found</em>- Judah doesn't plead innocent about stealing the cup, but agrees that Joseph has rightly perceived that they have a great hidden sin. Judah speaks of them as "servants" in the plural who have sinned, rather than in the singular, which he would've done if he only had Benjamin's behaviour in view. As noted on :10, the position was that they would all be held "blameless" if only one of them had stolen the cup. This joint plea was therefore a confession of some other joint sin- that concerning Joseph. This is why Judah says that despite the offer of only Benjamin being a slave, they would all accept this judgment.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The cup was “found" and they realized that God had “found out" their joint iniquity (<em><a href='B:10 44:10'>Gen 44:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 44:12'>Gen 44:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 44:16'>Gen 44:16</a></em>). The cup was perceived by them as their “iniquity" with Joseph. They had used the very same Hebrew words years before, in telling Jacob of Joseph’s garment: “This have we found…" (<em><a href='B:10 37:32'>Gen 37:32</a></em>). </p><p>
They who had sold their brother into slavery in Egypt were now offering to become slaves in Egypt. Joseph's plan had worked, in that they were willing to experience what they had subjected him to. But still there never comes the specific statement of repentance and apology which we the story leads us to expect at the end.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Far be it from me that I should do so- </em>Evidence has been found that there was an Egyptian law which stated that if one of a group of men stole something from the ruling class, then the whole group were to be likewise punished. Judah has stated that they would all be slaves because of their "sin", which Judah understood as referring to their sin against Joseph and Jacob. Joseph reads his mind, and assures him that he will not "do so", even though that is Egyptian law. All he wants is that Benjamin remain with him. Later, the brothers would have rehearsed every word of Joseph, and understood he was speaking with the utmost grace and love. But at the time, his words and actions appeared so harsh. And so it shall be at the last day, when the Lord is no longer understood as a hard man at all, but we shall know that He was always bursting with passionate love and grace and desire for us. We can make that realisation even now. </p> <p> Joseph alludes to God’s words and Abraham's plea regarding Sodom, that the righteous will not be destroyed with the wicked (<em><a href='B:10 18:25'>Gen 18:25</a></em>). See on :18. Joseph is saying that they are now righteous. They have just said that there is no way they can be cleared or righteous (see on :16), but through this allusion, Joseph on God’s behalf declares them righteous. This is an Old Testament version of Paul's teaching of imputed righteousness, by grace.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man in whose hand the cup is found, he will be my bondservant; but as for you, go up in peace to your father</em>- "Peace" carries the idea of peace with God. Joseph is saying that they are forgiven. Despite their statement that there is no way they can now be righteous and their confession of collective sin- with the sin against Joseph in their minds. Why then does Joseph want to keep Benjamin? Perhaps because Benjamin was the one who had not sinned against Joseph, and yet needed to be taught the same lessons of imputed righteousness. Or maybe Joseph wanted to see their response; he has said they are forgiven and at peace. Yet will they now abandon their brother? Have they learnt in practice what loyalty to your brother is all about? Will there be works appropriate to their faith in Joseph's forgiveness? And there will be.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Judah came near to him- </em>The same word used of Abraham coming near to God to speak, continuing the allusion noted on :17.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And said, Oh, my lord, please let your servant speak a word in my lord’s ears, and don’t let your anger burn against your servant; for you are even as Pharaoh</em>- Judah's recorded words in this chapter begin as broken sentences, and now become more lengthy an eloquent. This is psychologically as we would expect; we can be sure that we are reading the actual words spoken, thousands of years ago. It's hard to know whether Judah feels Joseph's anger is already burning, or is asking that this not be the case. If the former, then we have the wonderful picture of men thinking that Joseph like God is burning with anger against them, when in fact He is full of passionate, saving love toward us. And many will learn that wonderful lesson at the day of judgment. But if Judah means ' Do not be provoked to anger by what I am going to beg of you', then we have yet another connection with Abraham's words in pleading for Sodom (<em><a href='B:10 18:30'>Gen 18:30</a></em>).</p><p>
"Don't let your anger burn" could imply that as the Hebrew says, Joseph's face was glowing with wrath. But that was in fact only a mask. Behind that apparent wrath, there was a heart bursting with love, tenderness and blanket forgiveness even when no repentance was proferred. And that, finally, at the end of all things, is how we shall understand our present apparent experience of God's wrath.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>My lord asked his servants, saying, ‘Have you a father, or a brother?’</em>- The question "Do you have a brother?" was intended to elicit their memories of what they had done to Joseph. Although Joseph had kindly accepted their confession of sin in :16 as good enough for him to forgive them, it was not really complete. Because they had failed to openly confess their sin with Joseph. And here we have a powerful lesson in not demanding repentance according to our terms before we forgive, nor judging the quality of others' forgiveness. For it seems God’s eagerness to forgive and save means that whilst He seeks total repentance, He apparently settles for less, as Joseph did. </p><p>Judah mentions his father a total of fourteen times in his speech. Perhaps this was because he correctly sensed in Joseph a fondness for this old man of whom they had previously spoken. And perhaps on a deeply subconscious level, he knew he was talking with Joseph and that the feelings of their father would be the critical point at which Joseph might be persuaded.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>We said to my lord, ‘We have a father, an old man, and a child of his old age, a little one; and his brother is dead, and he alone is left of his mother; and his father loves him’</em>- Benjamin was in his 20s and had ten sons at this point, and presumably daughters too (<em><a href='B:10 46:21'>Gen 46:21</a></em>). Judah cites their previous words to Joseph, with Benjamin standing there- perhaps now he is admitting that they had exaggerated Benjamin's youth. And yet the lie about Joseph, that he had been killed, was so ingrained in Judah that now in this moment of ultimate truth he still repeats it: "He alone is left of his mother". This is the problem with lying- the lie really becomes perceived truth if it is repeated long enough, and takes a lodgment in our entire worldview and self-understanding. Even at this point, Judah could not admit what surely his subconscious was telling him- that Joseph was standing in front of him. And we see that Judah was still not totally truthful- he paints the picture of  a family in perpetual mourning for the loss of a younger brother, lovingly united in care for their elderly, ever grieving and now hungry old father. That is so psychologically credible; the most dysfunctional of families can keep repeating positive narratives about themselves until they believe them to be true. So even here, Judah is still not completely truthful. And we never actually see the brothers confessing in detail what happened, neither to Jacob nor Joseph. And yet they were still accepted by Joseph even though their repentance was 'only' deeply internal, and not to the extent he hoped for. We have to accept the repentance of others when it is of a similar low quality; because so much of our repentance toward God is likewise of low quality. We again note that repentance or impenitence is not a binary state; like forgiveness, it has many shades  and hues. They didn't get to the depth of repentance they ought to have done, but Joseph just so loves them that he cuts short the entire attempt to educate them, and reveals himself to them. Just as the Lord will do at His return to an immature brotherhood. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You said to your servants, ‘Bring him down to me, that I may set my eyes on him’</em>- This Hebrew phrase to set eyes upon is used in <em><a href='B:370 9:4'>Amo 9:4</a></em> ("for evil") and <em><a href='B:300 24:6'>Jer 24:6</a></em> ("for good"). It implies Joseph was going to do something with him, rather than just wanting to literally see him. The Hebrew could mean "I will keep my eye on him". And this was to elicit from the brothers the impression that this vizier of Egypt had a special interest in Benjamin. It was another nudge towards perceiving that this vizier was in fact Joseph, the only blood brother of Benjamin.</p><p>We note that in Judah's long speech here [long in the sense that few speeches of this length are recorded in Genesis], he is constantly quoting the words of others- of Joseph earlier, of his father, of his brothers to their father etc. Of the entire speech in :18-29, Judah says 42 words of his own and 84 words reporting the words of others. This is a window onto the extent to which they had carefully mulled over every word spoken and remembered it all. This was just as Joseph had intended- because that reflection on those words, over a period of time, was intended to elicit truthfulness and repentance and self understanding. Joseph, on God's behalf, was indeed the master psychologist.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>We said to my lord, ‘The boy can’t leave his father: for if he should leave his father, his father would die’</em>- As noted on :20, Benjamin was a man in his 20s with ten sons. Jacob was clearly psychologically obsessed with Benjamin; his love for Rachel and Joseph was all channeled into this man. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You said to your servants, ‘Unless your youngest brother comes down with you, you will see my face no more’</em>- Joseph could believe the reported obsession of Jacob with Benjamin, and perhaps that was why he wanted Benjamin and Jacob to individuate from each other. For he had suffered the same problem with Jacob, and now realized that in God’s plan, he had had to separate from Jacob in order to stand on his own feet before God. Joseph had threatened that if they saw his face again without their brother, then they would die. This is exactly how Pharaoh later threatened Moses (<em><a href='B:20 10:28'>Exo 10:28</a></em>). Moses had made this threat "even as Pharaoh" (:18). Moses would have seen the connection, and realized that God’s providence would likewise make this threat of no final reality. This is the advantage of familiarity with the text of Scripture; we see that our situations are not unique and have Biblical precedent, which encourages our faith and helps us realize that we are not alone and no situation is unprecedented. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened when we came up to your servant my father, we told him the words of my lord</em>- The continual emphasis upon Jacob as Joseph's servant and "lord" was all a primary fulfilment of Joseph's dreams. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Our father said, ‘Go again, buy us a little food’</em>- Judah is careful to report the conversations exactly as they were. Truthfulness was being elicited, but they still had not quite confessed as they needed to their sin with Joseph, the lie of their lives.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>We said, ‘We can’t go down. If our youngest brother is with us, then we will go down: for we may not see the man’s face, unless our youngest brother is with us’</em>- Although as noted on :25 Judah is being strictly accurate in reporting the conversations, he omits the death threat Joseph had twice made to them. He obviously didn’t want to remind Joseph of that; he therefore still was not being totally open, and still hoping that by dint&nbsp; of his own word choice he might secure a slightly better deal for them all.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your servant, my father, said to us, ‘You know that my wife bore me two sons</em>- Again, Judah is effectively bowing before Joseph in the name of Jacob, just as Joseph's dreams had required, by talking of "Your servant, my father". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And the one went out from me- </em>True enough to any psychological reconstruction, Jacob remembered the last time he had seen Joseph, walking out of the family encampment with Jacob watching his receding figure as he went towards Dothan. The same words are used of how as a younger man, Jacob had gone out from <em>his</em> father Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 27:30'>Gen 27:30</a></em>), never to see him for many years, apparently lost in Mesopotamia. The patterns in the life of Jacob are amazing, and they are too in our lives, if we perceive them. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And I said, Surely he is torn in pieces; and I haven’t seen him since</em>- This could be taken as meaning 'This is what I thought at the time, I was sure of it; although it's true that since then, I never saw him again'. As noted on <em><a href='B:10 37:33'>Gen 37:33</a></em>, the story of Joseph's death begged many questions and Jacob would never have been satisfied as to what actually happened. At this point in Judah's speech, the brothers would all have internally hung their heads. Judah really ought to have said something like: 'This is what your servant our father thought, but actually it was because we lied to him and deceived him; although we didn’t steal your cup, we committed a greater sin that this experience with you has reminded us of- we nearly killed our brother, and then sold him down here into Egypt as a slave. We are therefore sure that God has found out this sin and are willing to take whatever punishment He, through you, thinks appropriate'. But Judah didn’t say that. He ought to have done, and he had been set up now to say it- but he doesn't. And still Joseph loves them and accepts them. Our forgveness of others and personal repentance is likewise nearly always a case of "Yes... but...", and the quality of it is not always great.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you take this one also from me, and harm happens to him, you will bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol’</em>- The brothers taking this one also from Jacob suggests that he suspected they had killed Joseph, or were responsible for his disappearance. Judah faithfully reports Jacob's words; and again, as suggested on :28, he now had the chance to say in so many words what they had done. But he doesn't. </p><p>We recall that Judah had been terrified at the prospect of losing his own son Shelah, and that was why he wouldn't let him marry Tamar, whom he considered a femme fatale. But although Judah was spiritually weak at that time, he learned the lesson; and he therefore doesn't want his father to again go through the loss of a son, in this case Benjamin. So we do see great growth in Judah at this point, far beyond the self centered man of 22 years ago in Gen. 38. Then, he had separated or "gone down from" his brethren; now he leads them and is willing to effectively die for one of them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore when I come to your servant my father, and the boy is not with us; since his life is bound up in the boy’s life</em>- The idea was that if Benjamin did not return, then Jacob would lose his life because he would assume that a son who had not returned, even if he was a slave and alive in Egypt, was effectively dead. This ought to have made the brothers realize that by selling Joseph into Egypt, so that he did not return to Jacob, they had effectively taken Joseph's life from him. They had murdered him, and their careful legalistic plan to not spill his blood themselves was not effective in taking away their guilt for his blood.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It will happen, when he sees that the boy is no more, that he will die. Your servants will bring down the gray hairs of your servant, our father, with sorrow to Sheol</em>- See on :30. For a son to remain alive in Egypt as a slave was still tantamount, in Jacob's perception, to the son dying. The brothers had therefore effectively killed Joseph by selling him as a living slave into Egypt. This therefore was why Joseph raised the whole idea of Benjamin remaining as a slave in Egypt. He wanted the brothers to realize that this was effectively murder, a killing of Benjamin. And that is what they had done to Joseph. It is hard to find any other explanation as to what Joseph's intentions were by telling the brothers that Benjamin must remain as a slave in Egypt, and they were to return to their father. They didn’t want that outcome, because, as Judah now explains, it would be effectively the death of Benjamin.</p><p>The jealousy of the brothers against Joseph was based around the fact that he was the favoured son of the favoured wife, Rachel. They earlier cared nothing for the pain of their father over the apparent loss of Joseph. But now we see that Joseph's efforts to retrain them have paid off. Because they are driven to play the card of their father's feelings as a desperate last ditch attempt to appeal for Joseph's understanding and mercy. And in fairness to the brothers, their love for their father is greater now than it was when they deceived him over the apparent gruesome death of his favourite son Joseph... their half brother. In their own way, they are presented as having repented in their hearts, and are desperately concerned for the feelings of their father, even though he apparently has not long left to live. And yet the point of the story is that they never say sorry in so many words. The entire Joseph novella leads us on to expect some famous final scene where they confess their sins, and Jacob and Joseph graciously forgive them and they live happily ever after. But that scene, expected as it is by us, never comes. Instead we have these more subtle implications that they did in fact repent of what they had done, and they now really did love their old father. But they never said so in so many words. It is our wisdom to realize that we have people in our lives who are similar. And we are to perceive the unwisdom of treating repentance as a binary yes / no status, witnessed by external words and actions. For repentance is a re-thinking, it is a state of the heart. And that is why it is for us to forgive rather than seeking to judge whether or not a person is penitent.  For only God sees the heart and He alone can judge penitence.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For your servant became collateral for the boy to my father, saying, ‘If I don’t bring him to you, then I will bear the blame to my father forever’</em>- As explained on :30,31, to be a slave in Egypt was effectively death. Judah was willing to accept this 'death' for the sake of Benjamin his brother; and perhaps he was motivated by the realization that he deserved it anyway for having sold Joseph into this death. This was why all the brothers were willing to be slaves in Egypt. We note that Benjamin was also a son of Rachel, the favoured wife; and Judah as Leah's son had been jealous of Rachel's sons. But now he is willing to become a slave, even to die, for the sake of a son of Rachel. And yet Judah never in so many words repents nor apologizes to Joseph for his jealousy.  Instead we have these more subtle implications that he did in fact repent of it; see on :31. So Joseph's very complex and roundabout test of the brothers revealed that now, they were willing to suffer for their brother and their father. </p><p>Judah gives a pledge in Gen. 38:17 in connection with his immorality. It cannot be incidental that he later offers his life as a pledge to his father to guarantee the return of Benjamin (Gen. 43:8-10). We are surely meant to detect Judah's spiritual growth between these two "pledge" incidents. We note Judah offers to "bear the blame / sin" if Benjamin doesn't return (Gen. 43:9). He has matured from seeking to hide his blame / sin in his behaviour with Tamar. Likewise the Judah who had caused his father so much grief over the loss of Joseph, becomes the Judah who is so careful to avoid causing his father such grief over Benjamin.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore, please let your servant stay instead of the boy, a bondservant to my lord; and let the boy go up with his brothers</em>- As noted on <em><a href='B:10 38:1'>Gen 38:1</a></em>, Judah was somewhat separated from the other brothers and lived apart from them. But he is willing to accept a living death for the sake of one of his brothers. He was thereby coming closer to the spirit of Joseph, the one separate from his brothers who would sacrifice all to save them. But as when Moses later offered to eternally die instead of Israel, God doesn't accept substitutionary atonement in this sense. And here too, Joseph doesn't accept it.</p><p>Judah's spiritual growth is evident. He recognized he had made Joseph a slave in Egypt, and he was willing now to suffer the same fate, from love for his younger brother and a desire not to make his father suffer again as he had over Joseph. As discussed on Gen. 38, this transformation all began with his repentance concerning his bad attitude and sins concerning Tamar. We see too how Judah came very close to the spirit of the later atonement in Christ. He, the innocent [regarding the stealing of Joseph's cup], was willing to suffer for the sake of the guilty [Benjamin], for the sake of the Father's feelings. This willingness to suffer for the sake of others was perhaps what most impressed Joseph. For his life had been all about suffering for the sake of his brethren. Judah is also tacitly accepting his father's preference for the sons of Rachel. He knew that for Jacob, the loss of Judah would be less painful than the loss of Benjamin. And so Judah was willing to spare his father that pain, even though it meant his effective death in prison.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For how will I go up to my father, if the boy isn’t with me? Lest I see the evil that will come on my father</em>- Again we see real spiritual progress from the time when Judah and the others didn’t care for the evil that they had brought upon their father. At any time, they could've sat down with him and confessed and put him out of some of his misery. But they hadn't. Perhaps now Judah was vowing that if he ever saw his father again, he would tell him the truth about the Joseph incident. And so at this point, Joseph decides that they had all got as far as they were going to get in terms of confession and repentance, and calls an end to the process.</p><p>The brothers were now faced with the choice of once again returning to their father Jacob, bearing the news of the loss of one of his sons. They had done this 23 year previously; but now their conscience has developed. It was now something which Judah would rather die than do. So there is indeed a growth of care for Jacob, and a deepening of conscience; although it stops short at the full blooded, specific confession of sin to Jacob and Joseph which the novella sets us up to expect. And the powerful lesson is that some people don't get to that level of repentance they might or ought or we feel they should. But this is not to say they are impenitant or conscienceless.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Joseph couldn’t refrain himself before all those who stood before him, and he cried, Cause everyone to go out from me! No one else stood with him, while Joseph made himself known to his brothers</em>-&nbsp; "Then Joseph couldn't refrain himself..." implies he planned to drag out the process of spiritually refining his brothers, but his love for them caused him to cut it short- "For the elects sake the days shall be shortened" by Christ (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>).The same Hebrew word is used in <em><a href='B:290 42:14'>Isa 42:14</a></em> about how God can no longer refrain Himself in the last days. We see Joseph's defence of his brothers in his desire that nobody else be present at this time; he suspected there may be confession and apology regarding what they had done to him, and he didn’t want the world to know about it. This is the love that seeks to cover and save, whilst facing up to the issues.</p><p>"Refrain" is the word used of Joseph refraining himself before his brothers at their first meeting. The Hebrew means to force oneself, to force against one's own nature and will (s.w. 1 Sam. 13:12 "I forced myself and offered a burnt offering"). And this is how it is with the apparently harder side of God. Just as Joseph's actions towards his brothers were apparently harsh, so with God's harder side- the death of children, all the suffering in our lives, the cruel nature of life. But when God is finally revealed, we shall see that in fact this was His forcing Himself against His own nature. For His nature is "love". We get a glimpse of this at times, but only a fleeting glimpse. All too soon eclipsed by present realities and sufferings. We see it again when we truly reflect upon the cross, the gift of His Son for us. All the rest of our necessary suffering, incomprehensible and random as it appears to us, is in fact God pushing against His own nature. Finally like Joseph He will not refrain Himself any longer: "I have long time held My peace... and refrained Myself. Now will I cry out like a travailing woman" (Is. 42:14). And we urge Him towards this: "Will You refrain Yourself, O Lord?" (Is. 64:12), asking Him whether His love is restrained (Is. 63:15). We have a choice- to consider God a "hard man" as the one talant man of the parable does. Or to see that His apparent hardness is only the same mask as Joseph wore to his brothers, talking another language, interlacing grace and love with apparently hard and unreasonable behaviour. But all that is to lead us to the final conclusion when God removes the mask and we understand what we now cannot: God is love and salvation itself. Those who see only the hard mask are failing to perceive the frequent glimpses behind it, which Joseph so often afforded the brothers  [giving them their money back, dining them, not demanding they all die nor be punished for their theft of his cup etc.]. In this life, we behold both the goodness and severity of God. But that is what Paul says "we behold". And we see only in a darkened mirror, but then face to face. The message of the Joseph story is that actually behind what we see, God is pure goodness and love alone. But He forces Himself to act as Joseph did, in ways which appear random and cruel to us- in order to achieve the aim of His love, which is our eternal salvation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joseph as a type of Christ means that his brothers also have significance. The brethren meeting Joseph at the end has many echoes of the judgment seat of Christ. The whole purpose of the painful process which led up to that meeting was for the benefit of the brethren, to make them realize the enormity of their sin and the greatness of Joseph's grace. Likewise the judgment is for our benefit; the outcome is known to God beforehand. Does the (emphasized) emotionalism of Joseph at this time indicate anything about the Lord's attitude then?&nbsp; </p><p>We observe that one moment, the brothers were condemned, or at least Benjamin was. But that sentence was very suddenly commuted to amazing blessing. The suddeness of the change of 'fortune' was of course what Joseph had experienced; one moment imprisoned, the next, the second most powerful man on planet earth. He was perhaps seeking again to help them enter into his experiences, just as the Lord tries to get us to enter into His. That we might "know" Him, understand Him, enter relationship with Him.</p> <p> Joseph's self revelation was through his meal with the brothers and then the drama with his cup. It looks forward to how the Lord Jesus revealed himself in the breaking of bread: "And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Lk. 24:30-32). This is matched in how the hearts of Joseph's brothers "burned within them" when they were sat down at his table in order of birth (Gen. 43:33).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He wept aloud. The Egyptians heard, and the house of Pharaoh heard</em>- The pressure release must have been huge. The implication could be that Pharaoh lived within Pharaoh's court, and his household heard the noise. This would mean that the opulence of everything would have been overpowering for the tent dwelling cattle herding brothers. That this powerful man could show such grace to them... was so hard to believe. And they are in exactly our position. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph said to his brothers, I am Joseph! Does my father still live?- </em>Joseph had twice asked them this. He asks again; perhaps indicating that whilst he accepted them and forgave them, he did so by grace and not because he thought they were now totally truthful or totally repentant. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>His brothers couldn’t answer him; for they were terrified at his presence</em>- Literally, at his face, a face full of tearful passionate love and forgiveness. This reveals the deep human tendency to not believe in grace. They expected punishment, and were thinking only of how they could now cut the best deal for themselves. They make no confession, and Joseph doesn't need to verbalize his forgiveness because that is now so apparent.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph said to his brothers, Come near to me, please. They came near. He said, I am Joseph, your brother, whom you sold into Egypt</em>- Joseph's brothers slink away from him, and he has to encourage them: "Come near to me, please". They absolutely knew that they ought to be punished and killed by him, and they thought he would do it. They had moved away from him as if they felt they were condemned. This will be the feature of all those finally accepted by the Lord; they will know they are rightly condemned, and yet they are to be saved eternally. Even years later, Joseph <em>wept</em> in frustration at their lack of full acceptance of his total forgiveness (<em><a href='B:10 50:17'>Gen 50:17</a></em>). These scenes are so evidently typical of the future judgment seat of Joseph / Jesus. There is even the suggestion in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:15'>Rev 7:15</a></em> that after the judgment process, the Lord will come down off His throne and mix with us, after the pattern of Joseph.&nbsp; <em><a href='B:230 36:8'>Psa 36:8</a></em> says that God will "make us" partake of the blessings of the Kingdom of God. It reminds me of how the Lord Jesus said that in His Kingdom, He will "make us" sit down at a table, and He will come and serve us (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>), knowing full well that he who sits at meat is greater than he who serves (<em><a href='B:490 22:27'>Luk 22:27</a></em>). It isn't so difficult to imagine this scene: the Lord of glory wanting us to sit down to a meal, and then <em>He</em> comes and serves us. He <em>will</em> have to "make us" sit down and let ourselves be served. Perhaps "<em>Come</em>, you blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>) likewise suggests a hesitancy of the faithful to enter the Kingdom, seeing they have had such doubt about salvation. Perhaps this is typified here by Joseph's revelation to his brethren; they slink away from him, and he has to encourage them: "Come near to me".&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now don’t be grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life</em>- The only other time this Hebrew phrase for "grieved and angry" occurs is again about the brothers, when they are grieved and angry for what was done to their sister Dinah (<em><a href='B:10 34:7'>Gen 34:7</a></em>). But now they are grieved and angry for what had been done to their brother Joseph, and they are grieved with themselves as the perpetrators. They were seeing themselves from outside of themselves, angry with the side of them that had done such wrong to their brother. They were as bad as the Shechemites whom they had judged so harshly. This was indeed a move toward spiritual maturity. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "life" that was preserved was primarily the lives of Israel- them and their families- so that the Abrahamic covenant with them might be fulfilled and they would not die out. The "life" that was preserved was primarily the lives of Israel- them and their families- so that the Abrahamic covenant with them might be fulfilled and they would not die out (:7). "Preserve life" is parallel with "preserve a remnant" (:7). The remnant, the minority of humanity whom God deals with, is the "life" He sees and has relationship with on earth.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sin, both our own and the sins of others against us, is actually used by God in a wonderful way. Not that this of course justifies sin. But it is a fact that through our experience of the sin-repentance-forgiveness process, we grow hugely. Here we have the answer to those who cannot forgive themselves for past sins. God works out His plan of salvation actually through man’s disobedience rather than his obedience. As Paul puts it again, we are concluded in unbelief, that God may have mercy (<em><a href='B:520 11:32'>Rom 11:32</a></em>). It was and is the spirit of Joseph. And again, speaking about the sin of Israel in rejecting Christ: “Their trespass means riches for the (Gentile) world” (<em><a href='B:520 11:12'>Rom 11:12</a></em>). The whole plan with the brothers resulted in the world's salvation. Or yet again, think of how Abraham’s lie about Sarah and unfaithfulness to his marriage covenant with her became a source of God’s blessing and the curing of&nbsp; Abimelech’s wife from infertility (<em><a href='B:10 20:17'>Gen 20:17</a></em> - I read her infertility as a state that existed prior to the incident with Abraham). The righteousness of God becomes available to us exactly because we have sinned and come short of the glory of God (<em><a href='B:520 3:23-24'>Rom 3:23-24</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Judah's words and his brothers' feelings are exactly those of Daniel in <em><a href='B:340 10:15-17'>Dan 10:15-17</a></em>, where in another death and resurrection experience, he feels just the same as he lays prostrate before the Angel. Our attitude to the Lord in the last day will be our attitude to Him at the breaking of bread- just as our “boldness" in prayer now will be our “boldness" in the day of judgment. In the same way as the brothers had to be reassured by Joseph of his loving acceptance, so the Lord will have to ‘make us’ sit down with Him, and encourage us to enter into His joy. There will be some sort of disbelief at the extent of His grace in all those who are truly acceptable with Him (“When saw we thee…?"). The brothers grieved and were angry with themselves in the judgment presence of Joseph (<em><a href='B:10 45:5'>Gen 45:5</a></em>)- they went through the very feelings of the rejected (cp. “weeping and gnashing of teeth" in self-hatred). And yet they were graciously accepted, until like Daniel they can eventually freely talk with their saviour Lord (<em><a href='B:10 45:15'>Gen 45:15</a></em>). And so the sheep will feel rejected at the judgment, they will condemn themselves- in order to be saved ultimately. The same words occur in <em><a href='B:160 8:10-11'>Neh 8:10-11</a></em>, when a repentant Israel standing before the judgment <em>bema </em>(LXX) are given the same assurance. </p><p>It is significant that Joseph never formally pronounces forgiveness, but shows by his actions that he has forgiven. Likewise, the brothers never make a statement of repentance, nor even "sorry". But we are possibly left to deduce that they were sorry. We may have here an example of how human relationships and psychological interactions are often on the level of the unspoken. The whole story is so psychologically credible. So many petty domestic upsets go this way- there is no "sorry" in so many words, nor is there the grant of forgiveness in words. But all is to some extent "good" and the relationship continues. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For these two years the famine has been in the land, and there are yet five years, in which there will be neither ploughing nor harvest</em>- Again we see Joseph's firm faith that prophetic dreams come true. Joseph stood before Pharaoh at 30 years old, so he was now 39. He had reached a spiritual maturity which few ever reach in their lives. Joseph tells the Egyptians, "Here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land", and give a fifth of the harvest to Pharaoh (Gen. 47:23). But he comments in Gen. 45:6 that throughout the seven year famine, there would be neither ploughing nor harvest. We could read Gen. 47:23 as an agreement for the longer term future; but that appears disallowed by "Here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land". We could therefore conclude that Joseph knew God well enough to know that the seven year period of famine was negotiable; perhaps he was praying in faith that the days might be shortened. The Bible is full of such Divine accommodation to human prayers.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant in the earth, and to save you alive by a great deliverance</em>- The "great deliverance" is alluded to in <em><a href='B:650 2:3'>Heb 2:3</a></em> "that great salvation<em>". </em>Israel saved, all the surrounding world also blessed with deliverance from the famine- Ditto for the last days; the nations around Israel blessed materially to overcome the problems of the latter day judgments. These judgments are to make Israel repent, but in that time of trouble the whole world suffers. The "life" of :5 that was preserved was primarily the lives of Israel- them and their families- so that the Abrahamic covenant with them might be fulfilled and they would not die out. Joseph so often sees things in terms of the implications of the promises to the fathers, just as we should- for they are the basis of the new covenant we are also in. The Jacob family were nearly dying of starvation after only two years of the seven year famine; and they had money and transport to go to Egypt and buy food. Many others in Canaan must have died. For subsistence farmers cannot survive more than one failed harvest, let alone seven. God’s plan was that they should be preserved as the remnant in the <em>eretz</em>, the land promised to Abraham. His intention therefore was that they should return from Egypt to Canaan once the famine ended. See on :10; <em><a href='B:10 46:4'>Gen 46:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 46:27'>Gen 46:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 47:1'>Gen 47:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 47:4'>Gen 47:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 47:15'>Gen 47:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 47:18'>Gen 47:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 47:20'>Gen 47:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 47:27'>Gen 47:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 48:16'>Gen 48:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 48:21'>Gen 48:21</a></em>. This was why the brothers stated that they only wanted to "sojourn" temporarily in Egypt during the famine (see on <em><a href='B:10 47:4'>Gen 47:4</a></em>). But they remained in the soft life of Egypt, when they could have become the sole inheritors of Canaan. And so God’s saving purpose was delayed by 430 years until they were forced to leave Egypt. The situation is directly analogous with Judah in captivity in Babylon, called to return, but preferring to remain there. They were "the remnant that escaped" (<em><a href='B:150 9:8'>Ezr 9:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 10:20'>Isa 10:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 14:22'>Eze 14:22</a></em>; cp. <em><a href='B:290 37:31'>Isa 37:31</a></em>), where "escaped" is the same word here translated "deliverance". This explains why the remnant who returned are called "the remnant of Jacob" in allusion to his historical situation (<em><a href='B:400 5:7-8'>Mic 5:7-8</a></em>), using the same word as here for "remnant". "The remnant of Israel (Jacob) shall not (on repentance) speak lies (any more)" (<em><a href='B:430 3:13'>Zep 3:13</a></em>).   The "remnant of Israel and... survivors of the house of Jacob" (Is. 10:20) clearly refer to this experience of a remnant being survivors: "to preserve for you a remnant... to make sure that you and your descendants survive" (GNB). Joseph's mixed up brothers, saved by his pure grace, therefore represent all the true remnant who shall be saved.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So now it wasn’t you who sent me here, but God- </em>'Not this but that' in Semitic (and other) languages means 'Not <em>so much</em> this, as that'. Paul's statement that he had been sent not to baptize but to preach must be read like this. We have here for all time the wonderful proof that God works through human sin and dysfunction to His greater glory, rather than turning away in disgust from it and leaving us to our own devices and their consequences. 
Joseph is clear that "You sold me into Egypt" (:4), but he repeatedly explains that "You sold me [but in fact] God sent me" into Egypt. You sold me, but God sent me. This is the key to coping with life, to perceive that what happens to us on one level is used by God on another. Likewise in Gen. 50:19,20: "You
planned evil for me, but God planned it for good". We note too that reconciliation involves our own full recognition of the evil done to us by others, and not negotiating it down.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And He has made me a father to Pharaoh, lord of all his house, and ruler over all the land of Egypt</em>- <em>Lord of all Pharaoh's house</em>- Joseph's experience of something similar in Potiphar's "house" and the prison house meant that he wouldn't have become proud because of it, and would've experienced it all thinking 'And this too, knowing my life, will likely soon come to an end. Worldly advantage comes and goes...'. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joseph was 'father' to Pharaoh, and it has been commented that "There is no title "father to Pharaoh" in Egyptian; and the closest parallel <em>it-ncr</em>, "god's father", is something of an embarrassment... being an appellative granted... to the progenitor of a dynasty"- Donald Redford, <em>The Biblical Story of Joseph </em>(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970) p. 191. Thus the title "Father" used about the Lord Jesus shouldn't lead us to think that Jesus "is" God the Father. "Father" is used in <em><a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a></em> ("everlasting father") in a manner consistent with other Old Testament usage to denote a leader, a great one- but not God Himself in person.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joseph's dreams had predicted that he was to "have dominion" (<em><a href='B:10 37:8'>Gen 37:8</a></em>), and here the Hebrew word is used of how Joseph ruled over all Egypt and those who came to buy corn from him such as his brothers (<em><a href='B:10 45:8'>Gen 45:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 45:26'>Gen 45:26</a></em>). His words here are therefore not proud, but pointing out how his dreams had come true.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Hurry, and go up to my father, and tell him, ‘This is what your son Joseph says, God has made me lord of all Egypt. Come down to me. Don’t wait</em>- The usage of "father" is in contrast to how he was "father to Pharaoh" (:8); but he considered Jacob his true father and senior to him. Joseph's love and respect for Jacob was immense; even though he had only lived with him until 17 years old, and Jacob's favouritism towards him had not really helped him in his early life. The twice expressed urgency (and again in :13) was not only because Joseph feared his father could die at any moment; but perhaps also because he sensed that the wonder of what had happened could wear off, and the brothers might cease to believe it. For believing in such wonderful grace is actually difficult. We would rather procrastinate, than accept it for what it is and act zealously on the implications of it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall dwell in the land of Goshen, and you will be near to me, you, your children, your children’s children, your flocks, your herds, and all that you have</em>- "Near to me" connects with how Jacob had needed to urge his brothers to come near to him (:4). He wanted to live permanently with them with that same close relationship he had in that first moment when he revealed himself, in the magnificence of his grace and saving love toward them. And so there will be no decline in intensity after we too meet our Lord at judgment day, in the greatness of all His passion toward us. We shall live eternally in the spirit of that moment. There will be no entropy, no fading of intensity. Everlasting joy shall be upon our heads. Goshen, "land of rain", was the only area of Egypt as it then was which experienced rain, rather than depending upon the flooding of the Nile for irrigation. It was near the border with Canaan, which confirms the suggestion made on :7 that they were intended to live there until the famine was over, and then return to Canaan.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There I will nourish you; for there are yet five years of famine; lest you come to poverty, you, and your household, and all that you have’</em>- Joseph seems to have sensed that they might prefer not to believe his interpretation of dreams, and think that surely next year there will be a harvest... and therefore remain in Canaan, away from him and the challenge of living with his grace. There really is something within us which shies away from grace. Even by the time of <em><a href='B:10 50:21'>Gen 50:21</a></em>, the brothers still feared that Joseph might not continue to "nourish" them. Faith in grace must continue; it is not the realization of a moment. To abide in grace is not so easy. There tendency would be to return to Canaan, indeed awed by their brother's grace, but just get back on with their lives, living admittedly somewhat better than they had previously, but just doing their own thing. To engage continually with his grace would demand so much from them. And so he repeats that the famine is going to last another five years (:6). The Hebrew translated "poverty" really has the idea of being possessed by another, or being disinherited (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 34:24'>Exo 34:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:46'>Lev 25:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:12'>Num 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:32'>Num 21:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:21'>Num 32:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:39'>Num 32:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:52-55'>Num 33:52-55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:12'>Deu 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:21-24'>Deu 2:21-24</a></em> etc.). All those passages speak of Israel dispossessing the land of Canaan; if Israel's sons now tried to remain in Canaan, then they would be dispossessed and would fall out of the covenant promises. Again Joseph is reasoning in terms of the promises to the fathers. They would not be able to inherit the land as promised if they returned there without Joseph; they had to live in Egypt (the world) nourished by Joseph's bread of life, engaged continually with him and confronted by his grace, so that finally they could eternally inherit the land. This all speaks to us; for we likewise have the same promises made to us. We too might foolishly seek to grab "the land" for ourselves without&nbsp; the necessary confrontation with the Lord's grace and care for us, all of which provokes in us a continual awareness that we are far from worthy of such grace and have sinned grievously.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth that speaks to you</em>- He now spoke without an interpreter (cp. <em><a href='B:10 42:23'>Gen 42:23</a></em>). His accent and language were proof enough that he was indeed their brother; although he had not spoken Hebrew all his adult life, for the last 22 years. But his heart had always been with them, and so he remembered it. It was by his words and speech that he was known to them; and this is true of the convicting power of the Lord's word to us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall tell my father of all my glory in Egypt, and of all that you have seen. You shall hurry and bring my father down here</em>- Again the stress is on acting quickly, as twice in :9. This was not only because Joseph feared his father could die at any moment; but perhaps also because he sensed that the wonder of what had happened could wear off, and the brothers might cease to believe it. For believing in such wonderful grace is actually difficult. We would rather procrastinate, than accept it for what it is and act zealously on the implications of it. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is no statement from the brothers. No confession of sin, no begging for forgiveness. Clearly the forgiveness had been granted. But as I noted throughout Genesis 44, they didn’t fully get to where they ought to have. The long speech from Joseph reminds us of the father of the prodigal, who was so consumed with his own joy at the prodigal's return that the sinner has hardly a chance to say anything.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He fell on his brother Benjamin’s neck, and wept, and Benjamin wept on his neck</em>- Only Benjamin is recorded as weeping on Joseph's neck (cp. :15). He was the one who had not sinned against Joseph; the other brothers seem to still be struggling to really believe in Joseph's grace, because prolific weeping would be the natural outcome of the pressure release which would have come from accepting that really, the past was scribbled, and they could be at peace- as Joseph had assured them as early as <em><a href='B:10 44:17'>Gen 44:17</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He kissed all his brothers, and wept on them. After that his brothers talked with him</em>- Perhaps at this point they did confess sin, but if they did, it was only after Joseph had so strongly assured them of his total acceptance of them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The report of it was heard in Pharaoh’s house, saying, Joseph’s brothers have come. It pleased Pharaoh well, and his servants</em>- Again evidence that Joseph's house was nearby, or part of the palace complex. "Report" translates the same word as "aloud" in :2. The sound of joyful weeping was heard, and the reason was soon given- Joseph's brothers had come. I suggested earlier that Potiphar was somehow around in Joseph's life. He and his family would have recalled buying Joseph and may well have been aware of his background history from the merchants, even if Joseph had not told them his story. So it is likely that it was known that they had done him evil, and now he was rewarding them with good. And Pharaoh was eager to be part of that grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pharaoh said to Joseph, Tell your brothers, ‘Do this. Load your animals, and go, travel to the land of Canaan</em>- Pharaoh wants Joseph to tell the brothers what Joseph has already told them. Here we see the similarity between Pharaoh's thinking and that of Joseph. Their relationship enables us to understand how the Lord Jesus can function as God, taking His own initiatives, and yet thinking the same as God; whilst not being God Himself in a Trinitarian sense.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take your father and your households, and come to me, and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and you will eat the fat of the land’</em>- As noted on :17, this was exactly what Joseph had already told them. <em><a href='B:50 6:11'>Deu 6:11</a></em> promised the returning Israelites, who were the first audience of Genesis, that they would be given the good things (s.w.) of the land of Canaan; and the returning exiles were promised the same (<em><a href='B:150 9:12'>Ezr 9:12</a></em>). This again was all of grace; they would have felt awkward, as cattle farmers, eating what they had not worked to produce. It spoke of the grace of God’s Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now you are commanded: do this. Take wagons out of the land of Egypt for your little ones, and for your wives, and bring your father, and come</em>- There was not to be any reason for remaining in Canaan; wagons, which were perhaps unknown in Canaan and the highest transport technology in the world, were sent to Canaan. Absolutely no barrier was to be allowed to stand in the way of their entering a prefigurement of God’s Kingdom. This all speaks of the passion of the Father and Son for our salvation, despite our sins. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Also, don’t concern yourselves about your belongings, for the good of all of the land of Egypt is yours</em>-&nbsp; The grace received meant that all petty materialism, all grasping on to what little they had and were fond of, was now dwarfed by the nature and extent of what they were to be given. The news that Joseph was alive and glorified was received rather like that of the Lord's resurrection: initial disbelief, but then the family of Jacob who believed it rose up and left all they had to go to be with Joseph; Israel in AD70 and the last days are likewise bidden leave their stuff and go to be with Christ (cp. <em><a href='B:490 17:31'>Luk 17:31</a></em>). "Concern" is literally 'to eye with pity'; they were not to take pity on their belongings, not allowing sentimentality and the human desire to just stick with the old and familiar to stop them from inheriting the grace of this new kingdom. So many people prefer to stay with the old and familiar, even if it means death. Again and again in the whole story we see the struggle to accept grace. Again and again in the whole story we see the struggle to accept grace. Although Joseph urged them not to bring their belongings (Gen. 45:20), the record emphasizes that they did bring them (Gen. 46:1,6,7). The record stresses how Jacob and his sons all struggled to believe the good news of Joseph, they resisted grace, just as we do.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Israel did so- </em>As just noted on :20, there was a strong tendency to remain in Canaan. So they are to be commended for accepting the challenge.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph gave them wagons, according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and gave them provision for the way</em>- As noted on :19, there was absolutely no excuse for them to not now accept the gracious salvation prepared for them. Food for the journey, wagons, clothes, everything was provided. As it is for us. We see again how circumstances repeated; the brothers had earlier brought an untrue report about Joseph to their father, with the blood stained coat as evidence. Now they bring another report to him about Joseph, again with evidence- the wagons. They were being led to repentance and truthfulness by this higher hand of God structuring their situations. And we experience the same.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He gave each one of them changes of clothing, but to Benjamin he gave three hundred pieces of silver and five changes of clothing</em>- The wilderness generation were likewise provided with the wealth of Egypt, clothing and food for their journey in the opposite direction- to inherit Canaan. They must have seen the similarities. The gift of clothing was to replace the clothing they had torn in grief. Joseph is eager to assure them that his forgiveness has restored things. They had stolen and ripped his garment, but he now gives them garments. And yet, like us with the Lord Jesus, they struggled to believe assurance upon assurance.  

The 300 shekels may allude to 30 shekels being the price of a slave as taught in the law of Moses. They had sold Joseph cheaply for 20. The ten brothers needed to redeem their brother, making a total of 300 shekels. But Joseph paid this for them. Just as we will note on :23 that he effectively did their repentance for them to Jacob, by sending him the gifts of penitence.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He sent the following to his father: ten donkeys loaded with the good things of Egypt, and ten female donkeys loaded with grain and bread and provision for his father by the way</em>- This was to give a foretaste of the life in Egypt; just as we have a foretaste of the Kingdom life now. Jacob would have been met, as it were, by successions of caravans. The droves of gifts, then his sons, and then the wagons. It was all rather similar to what he had sent to Esau his brother. Yet again, Jacob was being enabled to enter into the feelings of others, and to feel how they felt at what he had done to them. And if we discern it, this happens to us too.</p><p>Joseph sent a massive gift carried by many donkeys. This was in order to remind his father of how he had sent a gift in a similar manner to his brother Esau. Jacob would have seen the similarity. Immediately he would have perceived that this was a request for grace, forgiveness and reconciliation. Who had sinned against Jacob? Not Joseph, but the brothers. The gift was therefore as if Joseph was doing the brothers' repentance for them. Just as the Lord at times goes more than the extra mile in bringing us to repentance. We also get this sense when Joseph glosses over their sin by saying it had all been used by God. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So he sent his brothers away, and they departed. He said to them, See that you don’t quarrel on the way</em>- The brethren went forth on this journey to effectively inherit this new Kingdom by grace with the admonition not to fall out with each other by the way. The wonder of the grace received and that which was ahead of them should have made petty differences disappear. But although Joseph had forgiven them and knew they were to some extent repentant, he clearly perceived that they were not very spiritual, although he had accepted them. The self-sacrificial spirit of one for all, all for one which they had displayed before him... was, he realized, the devotion of a moment. On the long hard journey through the desert, that was likely to fade. All that is within us seems to struggle against grace. Twice Joseph pleads with his brothers not to be angry, after he had so graciously accepted them (<em><a href='B:10 45:5'>Gen 45:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 45:24'>Gen 45:24</a></em> Heb.). He imagines that they will be tempted to become angry (Heb.) as they travelled the long way home, reflecting inevitably upon the grace of Joseph. Their anger and bad conscience with themselves personally was likely to become transferred onto each other. Joseph was indeed the master psychologist. Joseph understood that having received such grace, the brothers were actually likely to become angry with each other, who had received it. The Lord foresaw this in His parable about the workers who become angry at His grace to those who worked little; and also in His matchless story about the elder brother who became angry at his younger brother’s acceptance. In many families, the child grows up with the feeling that enjoyment is only legitimate if it is somehow merited, and is a reward for some form of ‘work’. And the child within, in the person of the convert to Christ in later life, then tends to view the Kingdom as a ‘reward’ which likewise somehow has to be merited. And yet we cry out with Paul, that the good which we would do, we somehow can’t achieve. And so faith in being in the Kingdom becomes weak. And so instead we must try to recall our response as children, or view the response in children around us, to the receipt of unearned pleasures or gifts. These are the ones most joyfully received and appreciated and remembered. And this is how it is with salvation, the only thing which in our hearts any of us is truly worried about in any ultimate sense. A salvation that is so great, so free, given by a loving Father who rejoices in His children’s happiness and squeals of delight.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>T<em>hey went up out of Egypt, and came into the land of Canaan, to Jacob their father</em>- There is no mention that they explained to Jacob how they had lied to him, and what they had done to Joseph. This fits with how there is no record of any confession and apology to Joseph after he has revealed himself to them. Again we get the impression that although they were forgiven and accepted, and there were indeed some positive spiritual changes in their attitudes, they were far from being as repentant and spiritually minded as they might have been, and as Joseph had sought to elicit from them. This is comfort to all of us who feel that our response to the Lord's grace is too small and our transformation not as it might have been.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They told him, saying, Joseph is still alive, and he is ruler over all the land of Egypt. His heart fainted, for he didn’t believe them</em>- There is no record of them admitting their wrongdoing and deception; see on :25. It seems Joseph's heart stopped beating, and he fainted, only to revive when he sees the wagons arrive (:27). As they watched him lying there, perhaps for days until the wagons came, they would naturally have feared that he would die without seeing Joseph. And they would have realized that this was all their fault. The lie of their lives, the sin of their soul, had effectively killed their father, whom they clearly loved and cared for. His bad medical reaction may have been used by the Father to try to provoke in them an open confession of their sin; but still we never read of it.</p><p>Did all Joseph's efforts to bring the brothers to repentance actually succeed? We conclude that yes, but only in their deepest hearts. Words of repentance and contrition are never really recorded, and even what they say to Joseph after Jacob dies in Gen. 50 appears motivated by fear of consequence rather than contrition. We reflect that Jacob met his brother Esau after 20 years, and achieved a similar kind of reconcilliation between brothers; yes it was reconcilliation on one level, but not really on another. And now again in the Jacob family, brothers have been separated 20 years but their reconcilliation was never total. And they all went to their graveplanks in that state; and yet are all set to rise again in glory at the last day. And so it is with so many believing families. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said to them-</em> But again we note that they did not tell him what they had said, nor do we read of any confession or apology from them. The silence, repeatedly, at every point in the narrative when we would expect this... is quite deafening. We could translate this: "They told him all the words which Joseph had instructed them to say". In this case, we see his sensitivity in sparing making them tell their father what they had done to him earlier.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob, their father, revived</em>- It has been suggested that wagons / chariots were unknown in Canaan; and for desert dwellers like Jacob's family, there were no good roads for them to travel over. And there is the possibility that the manufacture of wheels was not well developed in Canaan. The sudden appearance of Egyptian wagons was what persuaded Jacob; in terms of technology, it was perhaps similar to an airplane landing in a jungle amongst people who have never got close to one, even if they had seen them flying far overhead and heard of them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Israel said, It is enough. Joseph my son is still alive. I will go and see him before I die</em>- "It is enough" shows the triumph of the value of relationships over wealth- a lesson our world is ever failing to learn. The gifts and opulence were nothing compared to the simple fact that Joseph was still alive. </p>


text:
<em>Israel travelled with all that he had- </em>This could be read as disobedience to the commandment of <em><a href='B:10 45:20'>Gen 45:20</a></em> not to take their belongings with them because they would be given everything in Egypt. The power of petty materialism, clinging on to the old and familiar, is very strong, and with Jacob it got no easier with age. See on :6. Again and again in the whole story we see the struggle to accept grace. Although Joseph urged them not to bring their belongings (Gen. 45:20), the record emphasizes that they did bring them (Gen. 46:1,6,7). The record stresses how Jacob and his sons all struggled to believe the good news of Joseph, they resisted grace, just as we do.<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And came to Beersheba, and offered sacrifices to the God of his father, Isaac</em>- If these were in gratitude, then they were offered on the basis of faith in the word of Joseph. For he had not yet seen him himself. Jacob is still thinking in terms of God as being his father’s God; only in his final blessing of his sons does he freely speak of this God as his personal God. We see therefore that the drive to spiritual maturity can take a lifetime, even a life as long as Jacob's. Those brought up believing in their parents' God may take a lifetime to make it real for themselves.</p>


text:
<em>God spoke to Israel in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob! He said, Here I am</em>- Jacob's old name was used because this was still how Jacob perceived himself- a liar, a twister, a grabber, rather than a ruler with God. And although the inspired commentary mentions his name Israel from God’s perspective, he was addressed as Jacob. And with us likewise, God wishes us to believe in and identify with the new name and identity which He by grace has given us. And yet He so seeks relationship with us that He relates to us in more immature terms if that is still where we are, rather like the Lord using the language of demons in order to communicate with people. It's similar to Joseph's acceptance of his brethren despite them not quite getting there in terms of the repentance and spirituality which his plan had potentially enabled.


text:
- see on <em><a href='B:10 31:54'>Gen 31:54</a></em>. &nbsp;<em>He said, I am God- </em>This is in response to Jacob's "Here I am" (:2). We see here something of the mutuality between God and man. The human "I am here" is met with the Divine "I am".<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The God of your father- </em>Jacob is still thinking in terms of God as being his father’s God; only in his final blessing of his sons does he freely speak of this God as his personal God. And yet as noted on :2, God relates to people in the immature terms and at the immature positions they are at. He could have said "I am your personal God, the God of Jacob", but He instead goes along with Jacob's immature perceptions. Or perhaps the idea is that Jacob had offered sacrifices to the God of his father, and God is trying to insist that He, the God of Jacob's father, was also Jacob's God.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Fear not to go down into Egypt, for there I will make of you a great nation</em>- This continues a theme noted throughout Genesis 45 - the wonderful good news was almost too good to believe and accept. The brothers were warned not to give in to the temptation to try to remain in Canaan, but to come to Egypt. It seems Jacob too struggled with the degree of grace and even feared it. This is why people disbelieve the good news of the Gospel of grace. It's in a way too good to believe.</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>Yet Jacob's nervousness of going down into Egypt was doubtless also due to his recollection of Abraham and Isaac's tales of spiritual woe concerning it. The double repetition of a name ("Jacob, Jacob") is usually a rebuke; but for what? Possibly for still being influenced in his spirituality by the specter of his forefathers, rather than personally reflecting on the implications of God’s word to Abraham, that his seed would have to live in a Gentile land for a period before they could be led into the promised land (<em><a href='B:10 15:13'>Gen 15:13</a></em>). He is here assured that the prophetic purpose contained in the Abrahamic covenant was going to come true in the end- even if Jacob left the promised land. But the large seed Jacob would ultimately sire (and the genealogy in this chapter shows it had already had primary fulfilment) would inherit the promised land; they would have to come up out of Egypt. It was apparent that Jacob would not live to see this in his life, and so again he was driven to the hope of bodily resurrection.</p>


text:
<em>I will go down with you into Egypt. I will also surely bring you up again- </em>It was an Angel who led Israel back from Egypt, and so it was an Angel who was speaking to Jacob at this point, assuring him that he would go with Jacob into Egypt. But the words may be true of Jacob on a personal level; he was to be taken into Egypt and back up out of it by the Angel. There could also be a hint here at resurrection, a bringing up again, so that the dream of Jacob and Rachel bowing before Joseph could finally be fulfilled. See on:30.<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph will close your eyes</em>- The suggestion could be that Jacob would be brought back up again from Egypt to Canaan, and then he would close his eyes in death with Joseph next to him. But this didn’t happen- because Israel chose to remain in Egypt, and suffered for it. See on <em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 47:4'>Gen 47:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 47:15'>Gen 47:15</a></em>. So often potentials are enabled, but are not realized because of human dysfunction and conservatism. The possibility of restoration from Babylon and the building of a temple complex as outlined in such detail in Ezekiel 40-48 would be another example. This suggested explanation would give an appropriate flow to the argument- the death of Jacob would then be associated with the Angel leading him back to Canaan, rather than introducing Jacob's death out of context. The LXX here has "Joseph shall put his hands on thine eyes", which was a form of blessing. This would be confirmation of the dream in which Jacob bowed before his son.</p>


text:
<em>Jacob rose up from Beersheba, and the sons of Israel carried Jacob, their father, their little ones, and their wives, in the wagons which Pharaoh had sent to carry him</em>- The impression is that it was Jacob who wanted to make a sacrifice at Beersheba, and when dad was done with his religious ritual, the rest of the family got him back in the wagon. This would be another indication of weakness in the brothers of Joseph, and evidence of their salvation and forgiveness by his grace alone. Perhaps there is significance in the idea that the wagons were sent to "carry him", but the rest of his family were carried in them; as if they were saved as Noah's family were, by association with the faithful, rather than necessarily being themselves very faithful. This impression is confirmed in :7 (see note there).<p style='margin-left:1em'>Their wives and little children, not just their sons but their daughters too, came into Egypt; further reason for thinking that the 66 or 70 counted as going down into Egypt refers to the heads of clans, large families, rather than being an exhaustive list of everyone who went down. </p>


text:
<em>They took their livestock, and their goods, which they had gotten in the land of Canaan, and came into Egypt--Jacob, and all his seed with him</em>- As noted on :1, they took "their goods" with them, in disobedience to the commandment of <em><a href='B:10 45:20'>Gen 45:20</a></em> not to take their belongings with them because they would be given everything in Egypt. They desperately wanted to cling on to what they "had gotten", rather than accept the grace of all things being given to them.


text:
<em>His sons, and his sons’ sons with him, his daughters, and his sons’ daughters, and he brought all his seed with him into Egypt</em>- The mention of Jacob's daughters and granddaughters going with them confirms my comment on :26, that the list of 70 or 66 people here is not a total list but rather of those who later founded large family clans within their tribes. As noted on :5, the family were brought by Jacob into Egypt, they were saved by association with him, as Rahab's family were, rather than by their own faithfulness to the covenant. The large company were "all his seed" which had indeed become multitudinous, showing yet again that the promises which form the basis of the new covenant have a primary fulfilment.


text:
<em>These are the names of the children of Israel, who came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons: Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn</em>- We wonder why Reuben is still mentioned as the firstborn when it had been given to Joseph (<em><a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a></em>), who wore the robe of the firstborn, the coat of many colours, which provoked so much jealousy. Perhaps this had been cancelled when Joseph disappeared. I have suggested at several points in this chapter that the list we now have is not of all who came into Egypt (see on :26,27) but of those who became heads of large family clans within the tribes.


text:
<em>The sons of Reuben: Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi</em>- Hanoch (s.w. Enoch) was the son of Cain (<em><a href='B:10 4:17'>Gen 4:17</a></em>) and means "initiated", rather hinting at unspirituality and paganism. At the time of <em><a href='B:10 42:37'>Gen 42:37</a></em>, Reuben only had two sons. He may have produced two sons straight afterwards if he had other women in his life; but probably as noted on :18 and :21, there were unborn children included in this list because they were counted as still being "in the loins of" their ancestors.


text:
<em>The sons of Simeon: Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanite woman</em>- "The sons of Simeon were Nemuel and Jamin... and Shaul" (<em><a href='B:130 4:24'>1Ch 4:24</a></em>); but <em><a href='B:10 46:10'>Gen 46:10</a></em> shows that Shaul was Simeon's son by a wrong, casual relationship. Yet this is not recorded in Chronicles, even though so many other weaknesses are. Surely this is to demonstrate how if God imputes righteousness for a repented of sin, there really is no record of this kept by Him. This and other such lessons from Chronicles only come from digging under the surface. The fact Simeon's relationship with a local Canaanite is mentioned may be because this was the exception rather than the rule amongst Jacob's sons. In this case, we are left to conclude that they like Isaac and Jacob had taken their wives from the monotheists amongst Abraham's distant relatives in Mesopotamia, and the women had been expected to follow Rebekah's example and leave their land and come and live in the land of promise. "Shaul" means 'asked for' and so it could be that Simeon had some particular desire for that son, and for all his failures at Shechem, he had asked God for a child and received it, although through a less than ideal relationship.</p> <p> It seems fair to assume that all the brothers married Canaanite women. So perhaps this is a reference to some child from a passing sexual encounter with a Canaanite woman, possibly implying she was a prostitute. See on :12. Or it could be that the brothers had all married women from Mesopotamia, repeating the weakness of Isaac and Jacob in refusing to break with Abraham's land of origin. But was that right? Abraham's seed were to separate from Abraham's homeland. Which meant that they should have taken local wives and converted them to Yahweh's ways. Instead, they took wives from pagan Mesopotamia, idolatrous women like Rachel.</p>


text:
<em>The sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari</em>- "Gershon" means 'expelled', maybe meaning that like Reuben he was expelled from the role of firstborn (he is mentioned first as if he was the firstborn). This is a theme of the Genesis record. "Merari" means "bitter"; from these rather unpromising beginnings were to arise those who gave their lives to the service of God and His people. And we see similar transformation in the lives of so many.


text:
<em>The sons of Judah: Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez, and Zerah; but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan-</em> "Shelah" means 'requested'; as observed with Shaul on :10, prayers for the child's existence were answered through a less than ideal relationship. Here we have another impression of the kind of weakness discussed on :10, as Judah's sons Er and Onan are mentioned when they were already dead. Yet they are mentioned whilst writing a list of those who went down into Egypt. Seeing they were dead in Canaan (Num. 26:19 is specific about Er and Onan dying in Canaan), why mention them? I suggest it is all to build up an impression that this embryo people of God were indeed sinners saved by grace, at the initiative of God through Joseph. This all supports the argument that Israel needed to go into Egypt and multiply there as a singular people. As otherwise, their tendency to intermarriage and relations with Canaanites would mean they would never become a distinct people.<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul</em>- "Hamul" means 'The one who was spared', which rather suggests he too had sinned like Er and Onan, but was spared by grace. Again, we hardly get a very positive spiritual impression of Jacob's family. They were saved by grace. There is a chronological query as to whether Judah was old enough to have had these two grandchildren whilst still in Canaan. I have suggested on :18 and :21 that there were unborn children included in this list because they were counted as still being "in the loins of" their ancestors.</p>


text:
<em>The sons of Issachar: Tola, Puvah, Iob, and Shimron</em>- "Iob" is LXX "Jashub", as in <em><a href='B:40 26:24'>Num 26:24</a></em>.


text:
<em>The sons of Zebulun: Sered, Elon, and Jahleel</em>- "Elon" means "oak", and this surely had idolatrous connections. Yet his brother Jahleel means "waiting upon God". So we have here an example of where spirituality can still flourish despite the culture, family and society of origin being unspiritual. Because spirituality is unique and the outcome of our personal relationship with God; we are not doomed to unspirituality because of our background or environment.


text:
<em>These are the sons of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob in Paddan Aram, with his daughter Dinah. All the souls of his sons and his daughters were thirty-three</em>- 33 excluding Dinah, which raises the question as to why she is mentioned here at all. Maybe because she went on to have some special significance in the family, despite her sins and faults of youth at Shechem. Perhaps she took over as the matriarch of the family after the deaths of Rachel and Leah.


text:
<em>The sons of Gad: Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi, and Areli</em>- "Arodi" is "wild ass man", a similar idea to the description of Ishmael in <em><a href='B:10 16:12'>Gen 16:12</a></em>, who chose to go away from covenant relationship with God. We simply do not get a great impression of the family; and that is the point.


text:
<em>The sons of Asher: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, Beriah, and Serah their sister. The sons of Beriah: Heber and Malchiel</em>- The mention of women in this list is unusual, and I have suggested that the names are of those who became heads of family clans within the tribes. So the mention of Serah would mean that she became a head of family; although rare or unknown in the world around them, this was not totally unheard of in the Jacob family and we see in this the respect of women amongst them.


text:
<em>These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah, his daughter, and these she bore to Jacob, even sixteen souls</em>- Zilpah did not bear 16 children, but rather the grandchildren are counted to her, on the basis that a person is seen as existing "in the loins of their father" even if they have no actual existence at that point; see on :21.


text:
<em>The sons of Rachel, Jacob’s wife: Joseph and Benjamin</em>- Again we have the fact that Joseph is mentioned in this list of those who came down with Jacob into Egypt, when Joseph was already there in Egypt. See on :20,21,26.


text:
<em>To Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, whom Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, bore to him</em>- The LXX adds: "There were sons born to Manasses, whom the Syrian concubine bore to him, even Machir. And Machir begat Galaad. And the sons of Ephraim the brother of Manasses, Sutalaam and Taam. And the sons of Sutalaam, Edom". This explains the LXX figure of 75 in :27 which Stephen quotes in <em><a href='B:510 7:14'>Act 7:14</a></em>, so the LXX addition may be correct. However, we are left with the problem of how sons born in Egypt could be counted amongst those who came with Jacob into Egypt. I will suggest on :21 and :26 that we are not reading a literal list of everyone who came, but rather a list of those who developed into clans within the tribes. And some were counted as "in" those who came down into Egypt. This is what it is to be "in" a person; the person is counted as more than themselves personally. And this is the background for the idea of being "in" Christ by baptism into Him. We are counted as Him, and He as us.</p>


text:
<em>The sons of Benjamin: Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim, and Ard</em>- As noted on Genesis 44, Benjamin was hardly a child when the brothers came to buy corn. He was in his 20s, and according to the Hebrew text he had ten sons already, and presumably some daughters; perhaps suggesting that his father’s favouritism and obsession with him had not been helpful morally, and had resulted in him having multiple relationships from a young age. However, the LXX lists only three sons, and makes the rest of the list the sons of Bela. And yet Benjamin would not have been old enough to have been a grandfather. So it could be that he had married a woman who had children of her own who became Benjamin's, or that he somehow adopted these children. There would have been a very large extended family around Jacob, and maybe these children were simply under the care of Benjamin. However, the genealogy in <em><a href='B:40 26:40'>Num 26:40</a></em> appears to support the LXX text here, with Ard and Naaman given as grandsons of Benjamin and not sons. We must remember that genealogies, numbers and dates are not used in Semitic languages in the strictly literalistic way in which they are in European languages. <em><a href='B:650 7:10'>Heb 7:10</a></em> can therefore argue that Melchizedek blessed Levi because he blessed Abraham, and Levi was a descendant of Abraham, "yet in the loins of his father". And this establishes Melchizedek as greater than Levi, and in turn, the priests descended from him. That argument may appear very stretched and even technically inaccurate to European ears. But it had absolute validity in Hebrew thought. And so the grandchildren of Benjamin, yet unborn, could be listed as being in existence when Benjamin went into Egypt, and even be numbered amongst the group at that time. This is why the grandchildren of the maids are counted as if they are the direct children of the maids; see on :9 and :18. We likewise read that Jacob brought his twelve sons out of Mesopotamia, including Benjamin (<em><a href='B:10 35:24'>Gen 35:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 35:26'>Gen 35:26</a></em>). But Benjamin was born later, in Canaan. But on this basis of being counted as "in the loins of" an ancestor, Benjamin could also be presented as having come out of Mesopotamia. If this kind of thing were better appreciated by Bible readers, it would be better understood that there was no personal pre-existence of the Lord Jesus in actuality, although He is spoken of as existing prior to His birth.<p style='margin-left:1em'>The simple truth is that Benjamin, the "little one" (<em><a href='B:10 44:20'>Gen 44:20</a></em>), has more descendants listed to his name than any of the brothers. <em><a href='B:290 60:22'>Isa 60:22</a></em> clearly alludes to this- "a little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation". It is the theme of the patriarchal family; the firstborns are deposed, the elder serves the younger, the weak become strong, the little one becomes mighty.</p><p>Benjamin was 16 years younger than Joseph. Benjamin had ten sons when the family moved to Egypt. If by 23, he had 10 sons, he likely had had 10 daughters as well. They would have been from a number of women. So we get the impression that he, the favoured spoilt son of the favourite wife Rachel, with a very wealthy father, became a playboy from a young age. Joseph knew this, or guessed it. For he too had once held the same status with Jacob. What he did to Benjamin was therefore to lead that young man to spiritual maturity. And yet Joseph did it whilst having assured him of his special love, giving him five times larger portions of food. And Benjamin was open to this leading.</p> <p> The names of his ten sons often reflect his obsession with his absent older brother,  whom Jacob had clearly described to him in heroic terms. The rabbis offer the following definitions of their names in Gen. 46:21: "Ahi, he was my brother; Bela, the one who disappeared,  Rosh, my elder or leader; Becher, the firstborn of his mother (as Joseph was); Ashbel, sent by God to captivity; Gera, dweller in a foreign land; Ard, he went down amongst the nations". This obsession with his unknown, mysteriously disappeared older brother is absolutely psychologically credible. And for me, the psychological credibility of the Biblical record is one of the greatest reasons I believe it to be what it claims to be- the word of God.</p>


text:
<em>These are the sons of Rachel, who were born to Jacob: all the souls were fourteen</em>- Yet this includes Ephraim, Manasseh and Joseph, who were already in Egypt. This supports my suggestion on :26 that we do not have here a list of every individual who came from Canaan to Egypt, but rather a list of the family clans which would later develop.


text:
<em>The son of Dan: Hushim</em>- "Hushim" means "hasty", not a particularly spiritual characteristic. As noted earlier, Hebrew names are not necessarily birth names, but the names by which people came to be known, reflective of their personalities or experiences. However he is called "Shusham" in <em><a href='B:40 26:42'>Num 26:42</a></em>, "humble". So maybe his over hasty actions humbled him in due course.


text:
<em>The sons of Naphtali: Jahzeel, Guni, Jezer, and Shillem</em>- "Jezer" means "image", "Guni" means "painted with colours", both suggestive of idolatry, bearing in mind as noted on :23 that Hebrew names are how the person came to be known according to his personal history.


text:
<em>These are the sons of Bilhah, whom Laban gave to Rachel, his daughter, and these she bore to Jacob: all the souls were seven</em>- The Biblical record is very careful to draw a distinction between Jacob's proper wives, and Bilhah and Leah, even though they were understood as his wives even by Rachel and Leah, as well as society (<em><a href='B:10 30:4'>Gen 30:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 30:9'>Gen 30:9</a></em>). Jacob cared for them, had children by them, and had a lifelong relationship with them. But still the inspired record sees a difference between that, and marriage. We need to bear that in mind as we consider what Biblical marriage means in our world.


text:
<em>All the souls who came with Jacob into Egypt, who were his direct descendants, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, all the souls were sixty-six</em>- The manuscripts differ, from 66 to 70 to 75. Some of this can be accounted for by various inclusive or exclusive reckonings of the wives, or the LXX adding in some children of Manasseh to the list in :20, which Stephen quotes in <em><a href='B:510 7:14'>Act 7:14</a></em>. However, "all the souls" is clearly not a literal reference to 'all the people' because nearly all of the people mentioned are males, and we know from:7 that Jacob's daughters and granddaughters came with them too. We therefore conclude that those listed are those who went on to have independent families, which in turn became clans within the tribes of Israel.&nbsp; <p style='margin-left:1em'>"His direct descendants" is literally as AV "who came out of his loins", or his thigh. This is the same word used of how Jacob was touched and wounded in his thigh the night he wrestled with the Angel, and therefore he limped on his thigh (<em><a href='B:10 32:25'>Gen 32:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 32:31-32'>Gen 32:31-32</a></em>). And here we have the consistent paradox developed in this whole record- out of weakness and inferiority comes blessedness. The blessing of a large seed were fulfilled through many children as it were coming out of his injured loin- a reminder for the rest of his life of God’s grace and his weakness. All the attempts to count up the direct descendants of Jacob and make them match 66 are in my view failing to see the more essential point- that they all came from his injured, delicate thigh.</p>


text:
<em>The sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two souls. All the souls of the house of Jacob, who came into Egypt, were seventy</em>- See on :20; if the LXX addition in :20 is accepted then we have 75; Stephen in <em><a href='B:510 7:14'>Act 7:14</a></em> and the LXX say 75. This could also be because the 75 includes the wives of Jacob's sons. Judah's wife was dead (<em><a href='B:10 38:12'>Gen 38:12</a></em>). Joseph was already in Egypt, making 65 who went into Egypt "besides Jacob's sons' wives" (:26). This plus ten wives would make 75. Again we note that these children of Joseph were not those who came with Jacob into Egypt- for they were born in Egypt. But they appear to be counted within the various figures of 66,70 or 75. Because of the principle of being "in" someone meaning that that person's actions and status were counted to all "in" him. Which is how we are to understand being "in Christ".<p style='margin-left:1em'>The figure of 70 is not, it seems to me, strictly literal. It is to match the 70 Gentile nations of the <em>eretz</em> listed in Genesis 10; their bounds were set according to the number of Israel's children (<em><a href='B:50 32:8'>Deu 32:8</a></em>). The potential plan at this time was that they would all die out during the famine, and be replaced by the 70 clans of Jacob's family; who having been miraculously preserved from death in Egypt would then re-enter Canaan and possess it. See on <em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 45:10'>Gen 45:10</a></em>.</p>


text:
<em>He sent Judah before him to Joseph, to show the way before him to Goshen, and they came into the land of Goshen</em>- We wonder why this was necessary, seeing that Judah and the brothers had twice made this journey. Why the need to as it were send a herald before him? It rather recalls how Jacob had sent such messengers before him to make peace with Esau. We wonder if Jacob feared meeting Joseph, seeing he had disbelieved his dreams, and insisted he would never bow down to him. Indeed almost his last words to Joseph had been of rebuke concerning his dreams. This unnecessary fear of Joseph is quite a theme of the record; it reflects the difficulty we have in believing in grace, forgiveness and salvation. This is the essential, subconscious reason why people do not believe the Gospel of grace; not because of any real intellectual barriers. Such barriers are but excuses, a making respectable of our inner lack of faith and barrier against grace, our pride in refusing to resign our trust in our strength and works as a basis for salvation.


text:
<em>Joseph prepared his chariot, and went up to meet Israel, his father, in Goshen. He presented himself to him, and fell on his neck, and wept on his neck a good while</em>-  We note that Jacob doesn't weep on Joseph's neck, just as the brothers also didn't when Joseph wept upon them. And again we sense the difficulty in believing Joseph's grace. For Jacob's last words to Joseph had been of rebuke for his dreams. But Jacob is never recorded as apologizing to Joseph for this, nor does he bow to Joseph in fulfilment of the dreams as we might like to see; as with the brothers, his repentance is implicit but not explicit, and therefore of a rather low grade. At the end, Jacob as it were had come to repentance. Joseph falls on his neck and weeps for him, just as the Father does to the repentant prodigal. Jacob's neck had once been covered with animal skin in the deceit of his father Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 27:16'>Gen 27:16</a></em>), and Esau too had wept on that same neck, the neck which had been used to deceive and rob Esau (<em><a href='B:10 33:4'>Gen 33:4</a></em>). And now Joseph weeps upon it too, after Jacob has again sent an ambassage ahead of him to Joseph as he did to Esau (see on :28). These otherwise strange connections with Jacob's neck would have served to show him that through his acceptance of the spiritual seniority of his great son Joseph, he had indeed been forgiven of all this miserable past.


text:
<em>Israel said to Joseph, Now let me die, since I have seen your face- </em>Jacob's desire to die at that point is rather a denial of the possibility presented in :4 (see note there) that Jacob could survive the famine in Egypt and then return to Canaan to die. Jacob was focused upon Joseph and now he had seen him, he felt prepared to die in peace, rather than from a broken heart as he had imagined he would earlier. His attitudes to death were governed by the status of Joseph. If Joseph was dead or consumed by a wild animal, he would die broken hearted; but if Joseph were alive, as he demonstrably was, he would die in peace. Whether or not his other sons fessed up to him about their sins was not relevant to him, compared to his focus upon the 'resurrection' of Joseph. And our hang ups over whether others have or have not fully repented and set the record straight is utterly obscured by the joy of knowing and seeing the risen Lord Jesus. Jacob at this point and in this sense represents us all. He feels that "I never thought I would see your face, and behold, God has let me see your seed also" (Gen. 48:11). Paul seems to allude here by saying that God does for us  exceeding abundantly above all we ask or think; making Jacob representative of every believer.  <p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That you are still alive</em>- It may be that Jacob considered Joseph to be the special Messianic seed (which he was, in type), and this would explain his profound joy on seeing Joseph alive <em>and his children</em>, for this would have meant that the promises concerning the seed, as he understood them, had been proved true (46:30; <em><a href='B:10 48:11'>Gen 48:11</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:650 11:21'>Heb 11:21</a></em>. There are many <em>echoes</em>&nbsp; of Christ which seem to have no specific purpose apart from to confirm us in our enthusiasm to constantly see the spirit of Christ in this record (here with <em><a href='B:490 2:29-30'>Luk 2:29-30</a></em>).</p><p>The brothers had told Jacob that Joseph was "still alive", but he disbelieved them until he had seen Joseph himself. He clearly doubted their integrity. Joseph likewise had been told by the brothers that their father was still alive, but when he makes himself known to them, he immediately asks as to whether his father really is still alive. Likewise Jacob clearly suspects them of potential foul play with Benjamin, and accuses them of having bereaved him of Joseph. They were known for their lack of integrity- as the massacre at Shechem revealed. This all leads to the significance of our suggestion on :34 that the brothers now devoted themselves to absolute truthfulness. Although at the end, they seem to falsely claim that Jacob had asked Joseph to forgive them and not punish them. Their struggle to be honest was not, therefore, totally won. Basic honesty, with ourselves and others, is a natural outflow of feeling ultimately secure in the knowledge of God's love and our future salvation. </p>


text:
<em>Joseph said to his brothers, and to his father’s house, I will go up, and speak with Pharaoh, and will tell him- </em>"Tell" is better 'to disclose / tell him frankly and openly'; and the information in view was that of :32, that the family were the shepherds whom Egypt despised.<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘My brothers, and my father’s house, who were in the land of Canaan, have come to me</em>- "Come (to me)" is the same word used by Jacob in objecting to the interpretation of Joseph's dream as meaning that he must "come" to his son and bow before him (<em><a href='B:10 37:10'>Gen 37:10</a></em>). There is no record of Jacob bowing to Joseph, although indeed he does "come" to him; perhaps here Jacob didn’t do quite as he should have done. Or maybe Joseph's weeping on his neck made it impossible for him to immediately do so. See on <em><a href='B:10 47:5'>Gen 47:5</a></em>.</p>


text:
<em>These men are shepherds, for they have been keepers of livestock, and they have brought their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have’</em>- As noted on :31, Joseph was advocating absolute honesty about the awkward situation in front of Pharaoh. The shepherds had a reputation for dishonesty and being of the lowest caste, according to Egyptologists. But Joseph thinks that total honesty to Pharaoh personally is best. And that was the policy he had sought to elicit from his brothers, through all his questions to them about their family. The Egyptians considered goats and sheep to be divine animals and unfit for sacrifice; hence Moses later says that the Hebrews can't sacrifice sheep within Egypt lest the Egyptians will stone them. Shepherds were an "abomination" to them, a word often used about idolatry. The sheep were seen as symbols of the idols which Egypt worshipped. Yet Jacob's large family were coming with herds of these very things, appearing for all the world some reincarnation of the Hyksos shepherd kings who had entered Egypt by the same route in a previous generation. Again, the Pharaoh was being asked to invert all his former prejudices and religious beliefs, and accept these newcomers. And he does so, to his credit, and even asks these despised people from the lowest Egyptian caste to be the managers of his cattle. It seems Joseph privately told Pharaoh that his brothers were shepherds, but at the formal audience with Pharaoh, where other Egyptians would be present, Joseph advises them to describe themselves more vaguely as 'cattle men'.


text:
<em>It will happen, when Pharaoh summons you, and will say, ‘What is your occupation?’</em>- Just as Joseph had fired questions at his brothers when they first came to Egypt, so it would be normal for the king to ask them such questions. The similarity between this and their earlier interviews with Joseph was to give them a chance to demonstrate that they had indeed learnt the lesson- of the need for absolute truthfulness, however much it might seem to risk upsetting our material and secular intentions.


text:
<em>That you shall say, ‘Your servants have been keepers of livestock from our youth even until now, both we, and our fathers:’ that you may dwell in the land of Goshen- </em>Joseph can see that out of apparent evil, again, good would come. If they were truthful- and the very existence of their flocks of sheep and goats would mean that truth would out in the end anyway- then they would be allowed to live in Goshen, which was somehow separate from the rest of Egypt. </p> <p> We naturally enquire why the brothers chose to honestly tell Pharaoh that they were herdsmen rather than shepherds. Could it be that they were now so totally devoted to the doctrine of absolute honesty that they chose to disobey him and just tell the truth, rather than play with words as Joseph had suggested they do? Total honesty with ourselves, "speaking the truth in your heart", with others and with God is a litmus test of true spirituality. The Lord Jesus placed radical, total honesty high up in His Kingdom message in Mt. 5:37: "But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one". Perhaps the Divine execution of Ananias and Sapphira was in order to emphasize the need for total honesty in spiritual matters. It is this radical honesty which will be so unusual in our world that we thereby commend God's truth to others: "But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God" (2 Cor. 4:2-4). Paul seems to argue that indeed "every man is a liar" and only putting on the new man in Christ will empower us to be honest: "Put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness. Therefore, putting away lying, ‘Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,’ for we are members of one another” (Eph. 4:24,25). Such honesty only comes from having put on Christ, who is the ultimate truth: “Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have
put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him” (Col. 3:9,10). This is why lying is grouped together with what may appear to be more major sins in Rev. 21:8: "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and
all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone". This is why Yahhweh said He would condemn Jerusalem in Jeremiah's time, because He could not find even one person who spoke and lived "truth" (Jer. 5:1). It is a total commitment to the principle of absolute honestly which will guide our life path: "The integrity of the upright guides them" (Prov. 11:3). It is that principle which will automatically mean we come out with truthful words. Hence the otherwise apparently 'obvious' statement of Prov. 12:17, “A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies". Someone who is committed to the principle of total honesty will come out with true words. This is what it is, to be a Christian. It is to be real, to be honest about our own position before God, our utter desperation, and to believe, to be true, to the ultimate truth- that we really will be saved. We really are forgiven. This is the ultimate truth to live by.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians</em>- This may have been a reaction against the Hyksos invaders, or shepherd kings, who had come like Jacob from the north and done much damage to Egypt in the previous generation. But shepherds were in any case culturally despised by Egyptians. Seeing one tended to be born and raised in or for a certain occupation, this was a significant factor in how society defined people in the ancient world. People were stereotyped according to occupation. Remember how the sailors asked of Jonah: "What is your occupation? And whence do you come? What is your country? Of what people are you?" (<em><a href='B:390 1:8'>Jon 1:8</a></em>). Hence it is recorded that <em>every</em> shepherd was despised by the Egyptians. Silversmiths and tent makers (leather workers?) tended to club together in community (<em><a href='B:510 18:3'>Act 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:24-27'>Act 19:24-27</a></em>). In the first century Mediterranean, shepherds were especially despised- and again, this stereotype was overturned by shepherds being chosen to receive news of the birth of God’s Son and being the first to come and offer homage; Jesus describing Himself as the good shepherd, in a society where no shepherd could be "good"; and the leaders of the early church being described as spiritual "shepherds". Pharaoh came to learn this; for he is eventually keen to make these despised "shepherds" the pastors of his own flocks.</p><p>The "abomination" of the Hebrews was that they were shepherds; "for all shepherds are an abomination to Egyptians" (Gen. 46:34). And this was why Joseph could not eat together with Hebrews, because they were an abomination to the Egyptians (Gen. 43:32). We find this confirmed in Ex. 8:22, where Moses tells Pharaoh that the Hebrews cannot do as he says and sacrifice in Egypt, because they would be attacked by the Egyptians when they saw the Hebrews offering bulls and calves to Yahweh. For these were symbols of Egyptian gods, and people who ate them were an abomination to them."Abomination" is a word which also means 'idols'. They ate abominations / idols, in that the animals they ate and sacrificed were seen as the gods of Egypt. For the Jacob family to be accepted into the best land of Egypt was therefore grace indeed. Just as is our salvation into God's Kingdom, brought about by Joseph-Jesus. For with reputation as cattle herders ["shepherds"] and bull sacrificers, the Jacob family were going to be last on the list for getting food, let alone being allowed to emigrate to Egypt, let alone to be given land in Goshen, the favoured area. It was all of grace, as it is with us, all the way through.</p> <p> We note that the Egyptian abomination of Hebrew shepherds is alluded to in the command to Israel: "You should not abhor an Egyptian, for you were a stranger in his land" (Dt. 23:8). It is normal between peoples and individual persons that they treat each other as they were treated by that person or people. Here Yahweh is teaching that His people were to break that cycle. To not abhor those who abhor you. And this is really what the spirit of the Lord Jesus is about, breaking the cycles of human dysfunction and misbehaviour.</p> <p> The brothers were later made herdsmen over Pharaoh's cattle in Goshen because this was the priestly land, where such cattle were bred and kept only for sacrifice; and the brothers, having experience with those animals, were put in charge of them.</p>


text:
<em>Then Joseph went in and told Pharaoh, and said, My father and my brothers, with their flocks, their herds, and all that they own, have come out of the land of Canaan; and behold, they are in the land of Goshen</em>- Joseph was clearly setting things up so that Israel remained just over the border of Canaan, in Goshen. This worked well for everyone. They were shepherds with herds of sheep, which were abomination to the Egyptians; so it was a good thing that they were located in a limited area. This would also keep them more spiritually separate from Egypt, if they just lived alone. Joseph would have supported the idea of Israel returning to Canaan as soon as the famine was over, having been amazingly blessed by God during the famine years with fertility and increase (see on <em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em>). As Goshen was just across the border, this was the best place for them to be. And it happened, under God’s providence, that Goshen was the best land in Egypt.


text:
<em>From among his brothers he took five men, and presented them to Pharaoh</em>- We think of the Lord Jesus presenting us faultless before the presence of God’s glory (<em><a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a></em>). But "presented" can be translated 'left with' (<em><a href='B:10 33:15'>Gen 33:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 10:24'>Exo 10:24</a></em>), and carries the idea of establishing or setting up. Egypt was governed by a politburo of five ministers. So it could be that Pharaoh wanted to replace his five top ministers with Joseph's brothers- men who were shepherds, of the lowest caste, and foreigners. Pharaoh was indeed inverting all the expectations and norms of Egypt, realizing that it was by doing so that they had all been saved. This makes good sense of why Joseph took five of his brothers; otherwise the number seems arbitrary, and we wonder why the other brothers were not also presented. I suggest this verse is a summary of what happened, and now :3-6 will explain how it came about, leading to the point in :6 when Pharaoh asks: "If you know any able men among them, then put them in charge of my livestock". This is what led to the situation of the five viziers or leaders of Egypt being Joseph's brothers.


text:
<em>Pharaoh said to his brothers, What is your occupation? They said to Pharaoh, Your servants are shepherds, both we, and our fathers</em>- They had been warned by Joseph to be totally honest in saying who they were, just as he had tried to teach them this lesson when they first came to Egypt. He had warned them that shepherds are abominable to Egyptians, and yet encouraged them to accept they were in one sense the lowest of the low, to not hide the fact nor place some more acceptable gloss upon it; see on <em><a href='B:10 46:32-34'>Gen 46:32-34</a></em>. And they were hugely blessed for this by Pharaoh exalting them; see on :2 and :6.</p> <p> We naturally enquire why the brothers chose to honestly tell Pharaoh that they were herdsmen rather than shepherds. Could it be that they were now so totally devoted to the doctrine of absolute honesty that they chose to disobey him and just tell the truth, rather than play with words as Joseph had suggested they do? We must remember that they were men fully used to twisting things and being dishonest.</p>


text:
<em>They said to Pharaoh, We have come to live as foreigners in the land, for there is no pasture for your servants’ flocks. For the famine is severe in the land of Canaan. Now therefore, please let your servants dwell in the land of Goshen</em>- They applied to "sojourn", "to live as foreigners", temporarily. This was in line with God’s intended plan that Israel stay in Egypt until the famine was over, and then return to Canaan along with Jacob, who would die there (see on <em><a href='B:10 46:4'>Gen 46:4</a></em>) and experience further fulfilment of the promises to Abraham there. I explained on <em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em> that this plan was set up to come true potentially, but as with Judah in Babylon, they preferred the soft life of Egypt, the kingdom now, and remained in Egypt, with Jacob dying there rather than back in Canaan as intended. Even if their words here in :4 mean that they wanted to live permanently in Goshen, which bordered Canaan and was arguably part of the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham, we note that they saw even permanent dwelling as 'sojourning', living "as foreigners", just passing through- which should be the spirit of our lives, even if we live in the same house or location all our days.


text:
<em>Pharaoh spoke to Joseph, saying, Your father and your brothers have come to you</em>- This may appear to be stating the obvious. But the significance is in the phrase "come to you". I noted on <em><a href='B:10 46:31'>Gen 46:31</a></em> that "Come (to me)" is the same word used by Jacob in objecting to the interpretation of Joseph's dream as meaning that he must "come" to his son and bow before him (<em><a href='B:10 37:10'>Gen 37:10</a></em>). Perhaps Joseph had shared his dreams with Pharaoh, who now perceived their wonderful fulfilment, and may well have come very close to Israel's God himself. Pharaoh had been told of Joseph's dreams and is saying that they have now been fulfilled. Pharaoh was surely a believer by now in Israel's God. We see how the most unlikely of men are called and can respond. Not many mighty are called, but a few are. 

We note the brothers came to Joseph, but they had been invited to come to Pharaoh. Just as the Lord Jesus works on God's behalf.


text:
<em>The land of Egypt is before you. Make your father and your brothers dwell in the best of the land. Let them dwell in the land of Goshen. If you know any able men among them, then put them in charge of my livestock</em>- I suggested on :2 that :3-6 are an explanation of how the situation in :2 came about, that five of the brothers became senior officials in Egypt. The climax of :3-6 is therefore this invitation to Joseph's brothers to become managers of Pharaoh's own cattle. The interpretation of Pharaoh's dreams was a radical affront to the Egyptian belief system, as I noted many times on Genesis 40, 41. But Pharaoh had the humility to accept this. And he is being tested again here; his whole culture was geared to despise shepherds, to consider sheep and goats as unworthy even to be sacrificed, and to stereotype shepherds as the lowest of the low. There is no lack of evidence for this provided by Egyptologists. But faced with an influx of people who would have reminded him and his people of the hated Hyksos shepherd kings, he welcomes them, and their flocks, and gives them the best of his land. And his humility and rejection of stereotypes is displayed yet more profoundly in that he invites those whom he once despised to be in charge of his own cattle, which presumably meant replacing his local staff with these despised Hebrew shepherds. The brothers were made herdsmen over Pharaoh's cattle in Goshen because this was the priestly land, where such cattle were bred and kept only for sacrifice; and the brothers, having experience with those animals, were put in charge of them. See on Gen. 46:34.


text:
<em>Joseph brought in Jacob, his father, and set him before Pharaoh, and Jacob blessed Pharaoh</em>- He does so again in :10. Pharaoh had learnt from his own double dream that a think happening twice meant that God really intended it. Again, the promises had a primary fulfilment, in that Abraham's seed were a blessing to the Gentile world. It was a principle of the times that the lesser was blessed by the greater, a principle repeated in Heb. 7:7. But here, the most powerful man on earth is blessed by Jacob, the head of a very small tribe of 70 people. It has been observed: "the irony is impossible to miss. The hope for the world comes from Israel and not from Egypt. Blessing comes from a decrepit and broken Israel and not from a dominant and strong Egypt". I suggest Jacob only did this on the basis that he felt as the seed of Abraham, he was now being a blessing to the Gentile nations. We too, insignificant as we are in secular terms, have the Abrahamic covenant, and on account of this we are to bless the mighty of this world.


text:
<em>Pharaoh said to Jacob, How many are the days of the years of your life?</em>- The idea is that every day had been significant. It was a question of how many days had been lived; and so it is for us too, even though there are periods of life when it seems every day is the same old scene.


text:
<em>Jacob said to Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are one hundred thirty years. Few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and they have not attained to the days of the years of the life of my fathers- </em>At 130, Jacob seems to have felt that the fact he had not lived as long as his father and grandfather had, indicated that he had not received so much blessing as they had; he saw length of years <em>in this life</em> as being significant, rather than allowing the prospect of future eternity make present longevity fade into insignificance. And yet in his final 17 years, he grew quickly; he was not spiritually idle in those last 17 years of retirement. For at the very end he could say that his blessings had exceeded "the blessings of my progenitors" (<em><a href='B:10 49:26'>Gen 49:26</a></em>).</p> <p> Jacob presents as ungrateful for his long life. Instead of just answering the question about his age, he seems to be saying that he looked very old only because of his awfully hard life. There is no sense in him that much of that hardness had been from his own bad decision making. He complained that he had not lived as long as his father Isaac who died at 180. Jacob was to die 33 years younger than Isaac, and his speech here contains 33 words in Hebrew. It's as if he was punished for saying this, a year off his lifespan for every complaining, ungrateful word he spoke. He had received his children Dinah and Joseph back from apparent death, had been saved by grace from Laban and Esau, and his favourite wife Rachel saved by grace from death for stealing the teraphim. And he had been given the Abrahamic blessings. We see here how looking at the glass half empty is displeasing to the God who has blessed us with so much so that our cup overflows with blessing. We take the cup of blessing at the communion service to remind and warn us against the cup half empty worldview. Which is the Spirit of our ever dissatisfied and complaining age. "That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God" (Eph.3:14-19). And we are in fact overflowing, not just half full. This cuts right across the idea that some are simply wired to be half full or half empty. It is the Spirit which makes us 'full' in mentality. We have all things and abound. "I have come so that they may have life and have it in abundance” (Jn. 10:10). “You prepare a feast for me in the presence of my enemies [a projected allusion to the breaking of bread service?]. You honor me by anointing my head with oil. My cup overflows with blessings. Surely your goodness and unfailing love will pursue me all the days of my life, and I will live in the house of the LORD forever” (Ps. 23:5,6).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the days of their pilgrimage</em>- At the close of his life, Jacob was still emotionally attached, consciously and unconsciously, to his father and grandfather (consider the way he unconsciously imitates his father by feeling he is about to die years before he does, <em><a href='B:10 47:9'>Gen 47:9</a></em> cp. 28 cp. 27:2 cp. 35:28). But he had made their faith his own. We note that Isaac still had a "pilgrimage" although he was the only one of the patriarchs who was born in the land of promise and spent the vast majority of his life there and died in it. Even if a man never travels more than 10 miles from his birthplace, life with the Lord is still a pilgrimage, a journey.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob speaks of his life as a "pilgrimage", using the same word used about Abraham and Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 17:8'>Gen 17:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:4'>Gen 28:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 36:7'>Gen 36:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 37:1'>Gen 37:1</a></em>). Thus he showed his connection with them; they became <em>in spiritual not just emotional terms</em> the centre of his thinking. See on <em><a href='B:10 49:31'>Gen 49:31</a></em>. Jacob speaking of how his life had been a "pilgrimage" shows that he realized that this life was only a series of temporary abodes. The same word is translated "stranger" with reference to the patriarchs' separation from the tribes around them (<em><a href='B:10 17:8'>Gen 17:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:4'>Gen 28:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 36:7'>Gen 36:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 37:1'>Gen 37:1</a></em>). Jacob's attitude that the things of this life were only temporary, that we are only passing through, is identified in <em><a href='B:650 11:10-16'>Heb 11:10-16</a></em> as an indicator that Jacob shared the faith of Abraham and Isaac. The commentary of <em><a href='B:650 11:14'>Heb 11:14</a></em> upon this word of Jacob's is clear: “Now they who say such things declare plainly that they seek a country—that they long for a better country". </p>


text:
<em>Jacob blessed Pharaoh, and went out from the presence of Pharaoh</em>- Again, the promises had a primary fulfilment, in that Abraham's seed were a blessing to the Gentile world. We must be on the look out for such primary fulfilments in our lives too.


text:
<em>Joseph placed his father and his brothers, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Raamses, as Pharaoh had commanded</em>- Raamses was built later, by the Hebrews when they were enslaved (<em><a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a></em>). But Moses is reporting this history well after the event, and is seeking to explain to Israel the historical background to their experiences in Egypt. It was "the best of the land", the same word used when God had earlier promised Jacob that quite simply, "I will do you <em>good</em>", literally, 'the best' (<em><a href='B:10 32:12'>Gen 32:12</a></em>). As Jacob lay friendless and ashamed with a stone for his pillow in the desert scrub near Bethel that lonely night, he would have had no idea how extensively this promise was going to be fulfilled even in his lifetime. He was going to live in Goshen, the best of the land of opulent Egypt, at a time when the rest of Canaan and Egypt was on their knees facing starvation. Truly God knows the plans He has for us, to bless us and do us good at our latter end.</p> <p> Joseph gave his brothers freehold possessions of land in the best of Egypt, which could be passed on after death. Whereas the Egyptians lost their land. Perhaps this is one of Joseph's few mistakes. His family should have left Egypt when the famine finished. But he set them up in such a strong position that they remained. And inevitably this caused jealousy from the landless Egyptians in the longer term, resulting in the Egyptians wanting to enslave the Hebrews just as Joseph the Hebrew had enslaved them and taken their land from them</p>.


text:
<em>Joseph nourished his father, his brothers, and all of his father’s household, with bread, according to their families</em>- I suggested throughout Genesis 46 that the list of those who came with Jacob are in fact those who were heads of families. This was how they were organized, and "bread" would have been given to them on a family basis. The idea of nourishing suggests that Joseph was a fatherly figure to the rest of his family, although they were older than him. This was all implied in his dreams.


text:
<em>There was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very severe, so that the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine</em>- The fact Joseph gave them bread (:12) therefore points up the fact he was literally their saviour. Without his grace, the seed of Abraham would have died out in their current form, and God would have made the promises to Abraham come true through the seed of Joseph. Joseph must have thought about this possibility but rejected it; for after all, his brothers were worthy to die for what they had done, and were in any case not wholly committed to Yahweh. Moses was placed in a similar position, when God wished to destroy Israel and make of him a new nation, and thereby fulfil the Abrahamic promises through him as the channel chosen. But Moses had learnt the grace of Joseph, and refused this scenario. God accepted Joseph's grace toward his brothers, and therefore promised them that "I will there make of you a great nation" (<em><a href='B:10 46:3'>Gen 46:3</a></em>). He says the same words to Moses: "I (will) consume them, and make of you (Moses) a great nation" (<em><a href='B:20 32:10'>Exo 32:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:12'>Num 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:14'>Deu 9:14</a></em>). And Moses is effectively asking God to treat Israel with the same grace Joseph had done, and make of <em>them</em> and not him personally "a great nation". This was just as Joseph had wished and enabled to happen, rather than the great nation being made just from him. <p style='margin-left:1em'>Joseph's policies with regard to the famine would have not been without their critics. The obvious objection of the Egyptian people would have been: 'This is our grain. We stored it. If we give or sell it to foreigners, there will be none left for us! Who knows how many years this famine will continue!'. Joseph was operating according to a policy which expected there to be seven years of famine, and then a planting of seed, and then a harvest. But this was structured according to faith in the dreams, in God’s prophetic word. Like us, he was surrounded by secular people who only saw the immediate and reasoned from selfish motives.</p>


text:
<em>Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the grain which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house</em>- "Money" is literally "silver". Egyptians had bought Joseph for pieces of silver, and now all the silver in the land was being given to Joseph, who with integrity gave it to Pharaoh, who turned his own personal house into the bank vault. Joseph "gathered" it up, the word for gleaning grain after the harvest (s.w. <em><a href='B:30 19:9'>Lev 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:22'>Lev 23:22</a></em>). They got the grain, and all their money was just as the gleaning of it. The play of ideas is to demonstrate how little money was worth compared to corn. It was merely the few dropped grains compared to the full harvest. All those in Canaan gave Joseph their money, as well as all the Egyptians, until nobody in Canaan had any money left, it "failed" or 'was ended' (:16). And Joseph then gave it to Pharaoh. Jacob and his sons had worried about money, and I suggested that there was a strong financial motive in wanting to sell Joseph into Egypt. But now, in this situation which clearly points forward to the things of the Lord Jesus, money was no longer significant; all that was important was the bread of life given by Joseph. Even Pharaoh could do little with the silver, because nobody had much left to sell any more.


text:
<em>When the money was all spent in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came to Joseph, and said, Give us bread, for why should we die in your presence? For our money fails</em>- As explained on :14, in this situation, money lost its meaning, and they had none left now (:16). What was all important for the Canaanites was the bread of life given by Joseph. They would have heard the story, surely; the descendants of the Shechemites whose men had been massacred, the Canaanites who were aware of how Judah slept with their prostitutes... would now coming bowing to Joseph, throwing themselves upon his grace in order to live. For the bread of life was all important now, and not money. They were desperate; they felt they would die in his presence if he didn’t give them food. Their money was finished (:16) and had lost meaning anyway. The whole situation was potentially set up for the Canaanites to praise Israel's God for the grace and saving wisdom of his wonderful son. If Israel had returned to Canaan once the famine ended, they could have set up something similar to the Kingdom of God on earth. See on :18 and <em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em>.


text:
<em>Joseph said, Give me your livestock; and I will give you food for your livestock, if your money is gone</em>- The animals may have remained with the people; the idea was that they had no legal title to them any more. "Give me your livestock" is an example of Joseph speaking on behalf of Pharaoh, very intensely manifesting him, and functioning as him. This is all valid insight into the relationship between the Father and Son.


text:
<em>They brought their livestock to Joseph, and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for the horses, and for the flocks, and for the herds, and for the donkeys; and he fed them with bread in exchange for all their livestock for that year</em>- There was a progressive surrender of self and all wealth to Joseph and Pharaoh, just as there is for all those who accept the bread of life from the Lord Jesus. Even if they as it were maintained the usage of the things they had, such as their land, animals and bodies, they recognized that they owned nothing now, all was Joseph's. And this is exactly the picture of how we should be before the Lord Jesus.


text:
<em>When that year was ended, they came to him the second year, and said to him, We will not hide from my lord how our money is all spent, and the herds of livestock are my lord’s. There is nothing left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands</em>- Remember that the people in view are those of Canaan as well as Egypt. They were totally open before him, hiding nothing, which is how Joseph had wished his brothers to be before him. They openly admitted their desperation. And this is what is so necessary for us too if we are to partake in that great deliverance / salvation which is in the Lord. The Canaanites were willing to give their lands to Joseph, and to give him their bodies as slaves. If Israel had returned to Canaan after the famine as God intended (see on <em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em>), the whole land could have been theirs. But they were too short term in their vision, and preferred the soft life of Egypt which they had become familiar with. This is the awful power of conservatism in human nature.


text:
<em>Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants to Pharaoh. Give us seed, that we may live, and not die, and that the land won’t be desolate</em>- Death before Joseph's eyes meant that if he didn’t feed them, then they would die there and then. Joseph had been trained for this by having his brothers equally desperate before him, knowing they were facing the death sentence, desperate for his grace. Likewise he had been trained by the experiences of running things in Potiphar's household and then in the prison, in order to manage the affairs of all Egypt and Canaan. "That we may live and not die" was precisely the attitude of Israel in Canaan as they faced the implications of the famine (<em><a href='B:10 42:2'>Gen 42:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 43:8'>Gen 43:8</a></em>). Now all the peoples of Canaan and Egypt were being led through that same process, to the end that potentially they too might throw themselves upon Israel's God. The only occurrence of the Hebrew phrase here translated "the land (soil)... desolate" is in <em><a href='B:330 12:19'>Eze 12:19</a></em>, where the land / soil of Israel is to be desolate "because of the violence of all them that dwell in it". In God’s complex ecology, the land of Canaan was made desolate because of the violence of the brothers against their brother, against Shechem and perhaps others too. Ezekiel's word for "violence" is that used about what the brothers did to Shechem (<em><a href='B:10 49:5'>Gen 49:5</a></em>). Their request for seed to sow ["give us seed"] could reflect their total belief in Joseph's prophecy that the famine would last seven years. </p>


text:
<em>So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, for every man of the Egyptians sold his field, because the famine was severe on them, and the land became Pharaoh’s</em>- The desperate people coming before Joseph were from Canaan as well as Egypt (:14,15). Yet here we read that Joseph only bought the land of Egypt for Pharaoh. Did he accept the offer of the Canaanites for himself? This would have meant that he as Abraham's seed ended up effectively inheriting the land of Canaan. This is why Israel ought to have returned from Egypt after the famine to the land which the Canaanites had already deeded over to Joseph; see on <em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em>. All this was great encouragement for the wilderness generation to focus upon going into Canaan with faith, believing that likewise it had all been providentially arranged for them to inherit it.


text:
<em>As for the people, he moved them to the cities from one end of the border of Egypt even to the other end of it</em>- These cities were the store cities where Joseph had stored the grain. The population was moved to be in those areas so that they could be fed. They had to abandon their land for the sake of being near the bread of life.


text:
<em>Only he didn’t buy the land of the priests, for the priests had a portion from Pharaoh, and ate their portion which Pharaoh gave them. That is why they didn’t sell their land</em>- The fact Joseph was married to the daughter of a priest may have been relevant to this decision. The people were given their portion of food by Joseph, and yet he acts on Pharaoh's behalf, functioning as him. And we have here an insight into the way the Lord Jesus functions as God without being God Himself in a Trinitarian sense. See on :23.


text:
<em>Then Joseph said to the people, Behold, I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh. Behold, here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land</em>- Joseph like the Lord Jesus bought / redeemed the people <em>so that</em> they might go forth and sow the seed (cp. the Gospel; <em><a href='B:10 47:23'>Gen 47:23</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:530 6:20'>1Co 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:19'>1Co 7:19</a></em>).&nbsp; If we are properly responding to our great salvation, we will be playing our part in bringing forth the next generation of harvest. As noted on :22, Joseph does everything "for Pharaoh", functioning as him without being him personally; exactly as the Lord Jesus is functionally as God, without being God. Function and essential nature or identity are different ideas. Joseph and now all Egypt were confident that the dreams of Pharaoh really were of God and would come true; therefore in this last year of the famine, when the stored grain was depleted, they did what was counter-instinctive because of their faith in the prophetic word: they sowed seed in the parched ground which had not seen water for seven years. This would have been the harder to do knowing that their grain stocks were seriously depleted.</p> <p> Joseph tells the Egyptians, "Here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land", and give a fifth of the harvest to Pharaoh (Gen. 47:23). But he comments in Gen. 45:6 that throughout the seven year famine, there would be neither ploughing nor harvest. We could read Gen. 47:23 as an agreement for the longer term future; but that appears disallowed by "Here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land". We could therefore conclude that Joseph knew God well enough to know that the seven year period of famine was negotiable; perhaps he was praying in faith that the days might be shortened. The Bible is full of such Divine accommodation to human prayers.</p>


text:
<em>It will happen at the harvests, that you shall give a fifth to Pharaoh, and four parts will be your own, for seed of the field, for your food, for them of your households, and for food for your little ones</em>- A fifth is a double tithe. It was usual to give a tenth to the ruler, but the Egyptians were to be doubly generous to Pharaoh over the subsequent generations, in memory of how he through Joseph had saved their lives. And this should be a motivation for our generosity too. Joseph speaks again with calm confidence that "harvests" would be coming regularly. The Egyptians likely felt that the end of their world had come, and probably came up with all kinds of paganic explanations for this within their cosmology; and as in every primitive society, there would have been all manner of conspiracy theories as to who was to blame for the catastrophe, and what rituals should be performed to end it. But the Divine prophetic word took them far above such speculations. Harvests would surely come; and Joseph was so sure of this that he even commands them how to manage their domestic affairs once the harvests come, explaining how they were to use a fifth of their harvest for future planting, etc.


text:
<em>They said, You have saved our lives! Let us find favour in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants</em>- To be servants of such a King was felt to be grace or favour. Their desire to be servants was motivated by the reality of personal salvation. Because he had saved their lives, they eagerly agreed to be servants. Our response to the great salvation / deliverance in the Lord Jesus is to be the same; motivation for true servanthood arises from gratitude for salvation, and not because we think so lowly of ourselves that we consider servanthood is all we are worthy of.</p> <p> Critics like to claim that Joseph manipulated the Egyptians to lose firstly all their money, then all their animals, then their properties, and then they were sold into slavery and agreed to be taxed heavily going forward. But having lost all things, the people were happy and deeply grateful to Joseph. This is the significance of  "You have saved our lives!" and their willing entry into servitude. And so it is with all under the authority of the Lord Jesus. We progressively "suffer the loss of all things" and find His service is joy.</p>


text:
<em>Joseph made it a statute concerning the land of Egypt to this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth. Only the land of the priests alone didn’t become Pharaoh’s</em>- "To this day" would refer to when Moses wrote Genesis. The wilderness generation had lived in Egypt, and would have been aware of the social structure and taxation system there; and Moses was now explaining to them so that they understood, perhaps for the first time, how it had originated. The Mosaic law was to teach that Yahweh's priests had no land inheritance and that they must tithe what was given to them; which was in sharp contrast to the cushy life of the Egyptian priests, who kept their land as their own and apparently didn’t have to pay a fifth of their harvest to Pharaoh.


text:
<em>Israel lived in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen; and they got themselves possessions therein, and were fruitful, and multiplied exceedingly</em>- The birth rate amongst the general population would have dropped sharply after years of this kind of intense famine. But the promises to Abraham and Jacob of a multitudinous seed surged forward in their primary fulfilment, in the face of every reason to think that they could not. The promise to make Israel a great nation was fulfilled during the famine; it was the Divine intention that once the famine was over, they should return to Canaan (see on <em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em>. But they wanted their kingdom in Egypt rather than Canaan, and not to be disturbed from what they had become accustomed to. This power of conservatism is so dominant in the human psyche. It is only careful and sensitive attention to the implications of the promises that can make us rise above it.


text:
<em>Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years. So the days of Jacob, the years of his life, were one hundred forty-seven years</em>- Israel were intended to return to Canaan once the famine ended. There were five years of famine after they entered, and during those five years they increased greatly and Joseph was given the property deeds to the land of Canaan (see on :18,20; <em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em>). So the final 12 years of Jacob's life were intended to be lived back in Canaan. But as so often happens, although believers will be ultimately saved, they don't actualize in this life the potentials possible for them.</p> <p> Jacob cared for Joseph for the first 17 years of his life, and now Joseph cares for Jacob for the last 17 years of his life. Clearly some are intended to requite their parents, motivated by realising that old age is a return to childhood, a time for repaying them for what they did for us as children. This is a humbling process for all concerned.  </p>


text:
<em>The time drew near that Israel must die, and he called his son Joseph, and said to him, If now I have found favour in your sight- </em>The way Jacob recognizes the greatness of Joseph (as representative of the future Messianic seed, the Lord Jesus Christ) reflects a maturing of attitude since the day when he refused to accept that he would ever bow down to Joseph (<em><a href='B:10 37:10'>Gen 37:10</a></em>). The way he speaks to Joseph at the end shows his deeper respect of him: "If now I have found favour / grace in your sight" was the same way in which he had addressed Esau, when crawling before him in <em><a href='B:10 33:8'>Gen 33:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 33:10'>Gen 33:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 33:15'>Gen 33:15</a></em>. His appreciation of the greatness of Joseph reflected his appreciation of the greatness of the future Christ, and his salvation by grace.<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Please put your hand under my thigh- </em>This was the thigh which had been wounded by the Angel and was so weak, the thigh upon which Jacob limped, the reminder to him of his salvation by God’s grace (<em><a href='B:10 32:25'>Gen 32:25</a></em> s.w.). In response to that grace, Jacob didn’t want to be buried in Egypt but to identify with the things of the Kingdom and the hope of resurrection.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And deal kindly and truly with me- </em>The phrase often refers to the promises to Abraham and the fathers; "mercy and truth" is to be performed to Abraham and Jacob at the resurrection (<em><a href='B:400 7:20'>Mic 7:20</a></em>). The implication of them was that Jacob didn’t want to be identified with Egypt but with the patriarchs and the things of God’s Kingdom. So the receipt of this "truth", the true promises, elicited action in practice. Truth is not therefore merely a set of doctrines; it refers to an obedient and responsive life. The LXX uses the phrase 'to do truth', which John uses in the New Testament, in passages like <em><a href='B:290 26:10'>Isa 26:10</a></em> and <em><a href='B:140 31:20'>2Ch 31:20</a></em> (about Hezekiah's obedience to commandments), or here in <em><a href='B:10 47:29'>Gen 47:29</a></em> to describe arranging a burial in faith. The fact truth must be <em>done</em> indicates it is <em>not</em> merely correct academic interpretation of doctrine. To commit violence to others' persons is to live a lie (<em><a href='B:350 12:1'>Hos 12:1</a></em>), and 'to truth' is to live in love to others.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Please don’t bury me in Egyp</em>t- Despite the opulence and easy life, Jacob wanted to use even his own death to demonstrate that this was not to be the resting place for God’s true people. </p>


text:
<em>But when I sleep with my fathers, you shall carry me out of Egypt, and bury me in their burying place. He said, I will do as you have said</em>- Jacob's heart was in the land of promise, despite living in Egypt in opulence compared to his tent dwelling, cattle rancher life. Our hearts too must be in the things of the Kingdom rather than in the passing comforts of this life. Jacob's desire to be buried with his fathers may well imply his hope of resurrection, although burial place is irrelevant to experience of resurrection. God had promised Jacob that he would come up out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 46:4'>Gen 46:4</a></em>), and he seems to have never quite lost his tendency to try to bring about God’s promises by his own device; for he asks Joseph to ensure that he is carried up from Egypt when he dies. God had promised Jacob that "<em>I </em>will bring you up", but Jacob wanted to as it were ensure this would happen within his own strength. More generously to Jacob, it could be argued that the promises of salvation do require us to play our part in them.</p> <p> Jacob spoke of sleeping with his fathers, and then his body being taken to Canaan. So he doesn't refer to being buried in the same tombs as his fathers. Just as David slept with his fathers, but was buried in Jerusalem- whereas his literal fathers were buried elsewhere. Rather did he see death in Egypt as all the same sleeping with his fathers. Because his heart was with them and not with the world / Egypt around him. For all his weakness, it is clear what his essential self identification was and where his heart was.</p>


text:
<em>He said, Swear to me, and he swore to him-</em>As explained on :30, God had promised or sworn to Jacob that <em>He</em> would bring up Jacob from Egypt&nbsp; (<em><a href='B:10 46:4'>Gen 46:4</a></em>). Jacob making Joseph swear to do this is therefore somewhat lacking in faith in God’s swearing to him. Even at the end of our lives, we like Jacob will not have developed spiritually as we might have done, and yet even though we die in spiritual weakness, we shall be raised in power by His grace (see on <em><a href='B:530 15:43'>1Co 15:43</a></em>).<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Israel bowed himself on the bed’s head</em>- LXX: "And Israel worshipped leaning on the top of his staff", which is how the New Testament quotes it in <em><a href='B:650 11:21'>Heb 11:21</a></em>. "Staff" and "bed" are the same consonants, and would easily have been confused before vowel points were added in Hebrew. This is one of many reasons to reject the "King James only" school; the translators simply do not always have it right, as the New Testament quotations from the LXX make clear. <em><a href='B:650 11:21'>Heb 11:21</a></em> is part of the wider argument in Hebrews 11, which appeals for Hebrew faith in Jesus and the Kingdom because all the Old Testament heroes had this same faith in Jesus and the Kingdom. So we are invited to imagine Jacob praising God for the things of the Lord Jesus, his future seed so strongly typified in Joseph; and the things of the Kingdom.</p><p>One translation is "He bowed upon the cushion of the bed", seeing that beds in those times didn't have head boards. That "head of the bed" may therefore have been the stone which he used as a cushion for his head at Bethel. The LXX of Gen. 28:22 suggests "This stone... shall be a divine house to me". It was as if Jacob had taken that stone with him, or perhaps gone and recovered it at some point. Instead of building a temple at Bethel, he had taken that stone with him and worshipped God upon it, even placing it at the had of his bed. In this case we see the triumph of personal spirituality, the praise and worship of a bedridden man in his thoughts and quiet words, over mere religion- the idea of building a shrine on a literal foundation stone.</p> <p> I noted earlier that Jacob had some reticence about actually meeting Joseph, sending a messenger ahead of him to meet Joseph just as he had done in meeting Esau. I suggested that this was because almost his last words to Joseph at 17 had been rebuke for his dreams, and a refusal to accept he would ever bow to his son. We are set up to expect Jacob bowing to Joseph and apologizing, but he never does. Perhaps now, facing death, he finally gets there- bowing before Joseph in an act of worship, thus fulfilling the dream he had so struggled with. And perhaps this is why Heb. 11:21 focuses upon this incident as an act of faith by Jacob, as he perhaps looked ahead to the day when that dream would be fulfilled when Rachel too would be resurrected and would also bow down to Joseph. And we note that it was only at the very end of his life that Jacob really got there. We are all works in progress, and must cut a lot of slack to each others' immaturities.</p>


text:
<em>It happened after these things, that someone said to Joseph, Behold, your father is sick. He took with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim</em>- The implication could be that Joseph and his sons weren't living near to Jacob. This just possibly might be a factor in Jacob apparently not recognizing the sons; but see on :8. The implication seems to be that it was not the brothers who told Joseph that their father was on his death bed. We could translate "someone or other told Joseph...". There is no record of any communication between Joseph and his brothers in the 17 years they were in Goshen before Jacob died. And we note in Gen. 50 how after Jacob's death, they send a message to Joseph claiming their father had said things to them outside of Joseph's presence. But Joseph's dream had been that the brothers and Jacob would come to Egypt and live near him. Likewise when he reveals himself to them, he begs them to come near him. The impression is that his dream for reconcilliation in this life was never realized. And so many live and die with a dream for reconcilliation unfulfilled. Be it unrequited love, a desperate desire to be understood by those you are unreconciled with, unity within a church or denomination... unrequited desire for reconcilliation and, in a word, relationship... is the stuff of every man's life path. "Please understand me, please accept me" is written large on every man, and we die like it. And really that is a reflection of God's largely unfulfilled desire for intimacy with His creatures now. This approach explains why the dreams of Joseph's brothers and parents bowing down to him await a yet future fulfilment- not least because his mother was dead before his brothers bowed before him. And there is no time when the brothers and Jacob bow together before Joseph. We must be realistic and hopeful enough to realize that ultimate reconcilliation will only be in the Kingdom, and that is one of the many joys ahead of us.


text:
<em>Someone told Jacob, and said, Behold, your son Joseph comes to you, and Israel strengthened himself, and sat on the bed</em>- This blessing on the bed was given in faith (<em><a href='B:650 11:21'>Heb 11:21</a></em>); on the surface, it seemed that Israel were established and prosperous in Egypt. Yet by faith Jacob envisaged the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant in Joseph's sons in a quite different context of time and place. And by faith we too must see beyond the immediate to the things of the new covenant, remembering that the promises to Abraham are that new covenant with us too.


text:
<em>Jacob said to Joseph, God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me</em>- The next verse quotes from Genesis 35, so out of the two appearances of God to Jacob at Luz, it seems the second one is in view. Jacob's perception of the power of God, this one Almighty <em>El</em>,&nbsp; is growing. <em><a href='B:20 6:3'>Exo 6:3</a></em> says that Yahweh appeared to Jacob "by the name of God Almighty", so presumably this Name was declared to Jacob at the vision in Bethel; for this, Jacob says, was when God primarily "appeared" to him. And yet he is only recorded as using this name 50 years later. It took 50 years for the fact that God really is <em>all</em> mighty to sink in, and for him to come out with this publicly. And yet despite having arrived at this correct theoretical understanding, Jacob now goes on to try to fulfil God's promises of fruitfulness, of El Shaddai, the God of fruitfulness [shad = breast], God Almighty, in his own strength- by forcibly adopting Joseph's sons as his own sons, to increase his number of children.


text:
<em>And said to me, ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful, and multiply you, and I will make of you a company of peoples, and will give this land to your seed after you for an everlasting possession’</em>- Jacob’s <em>personal</em> grasp of the wonder of the promises at the end is revealed here. God never actually said all this to Jacob; Jacob is quoting the promise to Abraham of <em><a href='B:10 17:8'>Gen 17:8</a></em> <em>and applying it to himself</em>. And with us too, a personal grasp of the wonder of it all, that it really applies to <em>me</em>, is a mark of that final maturity we fain would achieve. &nbsp; He seems to have perceived the spiritual danger his children were in, living in the luxury of Egypt. The promises of being fruitful and being given a land were being fulfilled, in a primary sense, in Israel's experience in Egypt (cp. <em><a href='B:10 47:27'>Gen 47:27</a></em>). Joseph was <em>given</em> the <em>land</em> of Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 41:41'>Gen 41:41</a></em>), using the same words as in <em><a href='B:10 45:18'>Gen 45:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 48:4'>Gen 48:4</a></em> concerning how the true <em>land</em> -of Canaan- had been <em>given</em> to Abraham's children. Jacob's children were given a <em>possession</em> in Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 47:11'>Gen 47:11</a></em>), and therefore Jacob emphasized that their <em>real</em> possession was the eternal inheritance of Canaan, not Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 49:30'>Gen 49:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 50:13'>Gen 50:13</a></em>). Thus Jacob at the end realized the importance of warning God’s people against the world, against the temptation of feeling that God’s present material blessing of us with a foretaste of His Kingdom means that in fact we lose our enthusiasm for the <em>true</em> Kingdom, in its real, material sense. Like Paul in his final flourish of 2 Timothy, Jacob saw the need to warn God’s people, to point them away from the world, and towards the future Kingdom. Jacob saw that his people, like him in his earlier life, would be tempted to see God’s promises on an altogether too human and material level. &nbsp; <p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob didn’t want them to think that their multiplication and prosperity in Goshen was the total fulfilment of the promises. It was only a primary fulfilment, a foretaste of so much to come. "A company of peoples", <em>laqahal amim</em>, has the idea of a company or<em> ecclesia</em> gathered out of the peoples, or as in <em><a href='B:10 35:11'>Gen 35:11</a></em> "a company / <em>ecclesia</em> of gentiles". The true Israel was going to incorporate gentiles; they were to share their blessings with them, and be a light to the gentile world, welcoming believers into the covenant, sharing it with them. But in this Israel failed miserably, and do to this day. The 70 families who went down with Jacob into Egypt were supposed to represent the 70 nations of the <em>eretz </em>listed in Genesis 10 (cp. <em><a href='B:50 32:8'>Deu 32:8</a></em>). And the inheritance was to be "an everlasting possession", understood in the New Testament as implying eternal life on an individual level. But we all tend to be like Israel, satisfied with what we have, and not looking to these longer term implications of the covenant. </p><p>But more negatively, it seems that Jacob justifies claiming Joseph's sons as his own on the basis that God had promised to multiply him. For this is the context of his comments about the promises. So he is still trying to fulfil God's promises for Him in his own strength and  not perceiving the grace implicit in God's promises. And yet God worked through this- because Ephraim and Manasseh did indeed become part of the Israel of God.</p>


text:
<em>Now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you into Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh, even as Reuben and Simeon, will be mine</em>- He carefully mentions Ephraim first, because he intended to make him the firstborn although he was the youngest. Reuben and Simeon were Jacob's first two sons, and he is saying that they are to be replaced by Joseph's sons. At the very end, Jacob's blessing of Joseph's sons as the firstborn is seen as an act of faith (48:5; <em><a href='B:650 11:21'>Heb 11:21</a></em>). Yet on another level, Jacob was taking the blessings away from the firstborn (Reuben) who was the son of the wife he disliked, and giving those blessings to Joseph (via his sons) the son of his favourite wife, who was not the firstborn. This was quite contrary to the will of God as expressed in <em><a href='B:50 21:17'>Deu 21:17</a></em>. At best we can say that God allowed one principle to be broken to keep another (although what other?). At worst, Jacob was simply showing rank favouritism, and yet at the same time he foresaw in faith the Messianic suggestions in Joseph's experience, and therefore made Joseph's sons the firstborn. God saw the good in Jacob at this time, and counted this to him, and recognized and worked with Joseph's decision to make "the son of the hated" the firstborn (<em><a href='B:130 5:1-2'>1Ch 5:1-2</a></em>), even though this may have been contrary to God’s highest intentions. Likewise God worked through Jacob's paganic use of poplar rods and mandrakes. The way Jacob insisted on blessing Ephraim as the firstborn again seems to show some kind of favouritism and a desire to see his grandson living out his own experience, i.e. the younger son who fought his way up and received the blessings as opposed to the rightful heir. Ephraim becomes a code-name for apostate Israel throughout the prophets. And yet God accepted Jacob's preferential blessing of Ephraim and repeated this in <em><a href='B:50 33:17'>Deu 33:17</a></em>. &nbsp; <p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems that the sons of Rachael, Jacob’s favourite wife, were favoured by Jacob. Ephraim and Manasseh (the sons of Joseph, counted as Jacob’s personal sons) and Benjamin marched in front of the ark (hence <em><a href='B:230 80:2'>Psa 80:2</a></em>), and these three tribes were represented in the second row of the breastplate by the three most precious stones. Could it be that God so identified with Jacob even in his weakness, that He too reflected this perspective of Jacob’s, in treating these three sons as somehow especially favoured? Such was and is the extent of God’s identity with His wayward children.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>"Even as Reuben..." would suggest that Jacob was confirming that Reuben, his biological firstborn, had indeed been removed from firstborn status, and he was now giving this not to Judah nor Joseph, as he had previously attempted, but to Ephraim, with Manasseh after him. The confusion is reflected in 1 Chron. 5:1-3: "The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn; but, because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. For Judah prevailed above his brothers, and of him came the prince; but the birthright was Joseph’s. The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel..."(Reuben is also called this in Num. 26:5). This choice of Ephraim was however done by Jacob on a quite arbitrary whim, as there is no evidence for Ephraim's qualification. We see him obsessed, still, with birthright and firstborn status- when he ought to have learned from the night of wrestling in Genesis 32 that these things are nothing. There is no very clear Divine comment on whom He considered Jacob's firstborn- because the issue is totally irrelevant in spiritual terms. Jacob had grasped all this so clearly in Gen.32, but he returns to his old obsessions and human weakness. Just as we shall all come to our graveplanks imperfect, having learnt some lessons but failed to retain them to the end.</p> <p> The firstborn inherited a double portion. Clearly Jacob wanted Joseph to be his firstborn, although he was only firstborn of Rachel, not Jacob's absolute firstborn. By demoting Reuben from firstborn status and adopting Joseph's two sons, it worked out that Joseph received a double portion- because each of his sons received one portion. So the whole things seems to me to be Jacob cunningly trying to make Joseph inherit the firstborn's double portion, through giving a portion to each of Joseph's children, whom Jacob adopts as his sons. So the blessing upon Joseph, which is ostensibly what Jacob is doing here, involves Jacob adopting Joseph's two sons as his own. He blesses Joseph with a double portion through adopting Joseph's two sons as his own. Although God works through this, and accepts Ephraim and Mannaseh as inheritors of land and tribes of Israel / Jacob, I suggest Jacob's initial reasoning and motivation was completely human. And a total failure to learn the lessons from his experience with Esau over the firstborn. The way he just tells Joseph that his two sons are now his... hardly comes over as very spiritual, and seems manipulative and domineering over the son whom he was supposed to fall down and worship and respect as his saviour. Yet God graciously works through these things. And I would like to add that here again, we have an example of the absolute psychological credibility of the Biblical pictures of people; an old man, suffering from Anno Domini, but absolutely mentally sharp, cunning and acute as he had ever been.</p>


text:
<em>Your issue, whom you become the father of after them, will be yours. They will be called after the name of their brothers in their inheritance</em>- If Joseph was to have any more sons, they would not become separate tribes, but numbered amongst Ephraim and Manasseh.


text:
<em>As for me, when I came from Paddan, Rachel died by me- </em>Literally, 'upon me', as if she died in his arms. But the plain meaning of the text is that she died by or on account of Jacob. Jacob's cursing of whoever had taken the idols actually came true (Gen. 31:32). For Rachel died soon afterwards. Hence Jacob later reflects that Rachel died by or because of him. This is one of many Biblical warnings that what we say, especially in wishing evil, has a way of coming true. We think of David's cursing of Saul and Absalom in his Psalms, and how bitterly he wept when his cursings came true. Again we see the importance of life and living, and the significance of words, even if said in anger. We enquire why Jacob raises this issue in the context of telling Joseph that Jacob is going to count Joseph's sons as his personal sons. It could be that he is reasoning that the fruitfulness promised to him in Gen. 35:11 had not happened because of this sin, and that was why he was taking Joseph's sons as his own sons, seeing they were in the line of Rachel. But that would reflect a very poor understanding of the promise of fruitfulness; it referred to his seed multiplying in Egypt, and in the future seed, the Lord Jesus. But Jacob apparently understood it as meaning simply that he would have many more children, which didn't come true after that point. And so he felt he must force the fulfilment of it by taking Joseph's sons as his own. Again, we see him trying to force through the fulfilment of [his perception of] God's promises, in his own strength.  <p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the land of Canaan in the way, when there was still some distance to come to Ephrath, and I buried her there in the way to Ephrath (the same is Bethlehem)</em>- Jacob's tendency to have an over-physical view of the promises was still with him at the end. He seems to speak as if he saw the fact that Rachel was buried in Canaan as a proof that therefore in that sense he had&nbsp; possessed the land of Canaan. Yet the NT says that the fact Jacob <em>didn’t</em> own the land meant that he hadn't received the fulfillment of the promises, but would do so in the future.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Another possible weakness of Jacob is that to his deathbed, he continued his obsession with the unspiritual Rachel. Although he didn’t realize the significance of it at the time, he stresses that she didn’t make it to Bethlehem, the Lord's birthplace.</p>


text:
<em>Israel saw Joseph’s sons, and said, Who are these?</em>- Or, "whose". He knew who and whose they were- although see on :1. This is part of a way of saying 'You think they are such and such, that they belong to this one; but I am telling you that they are now such and such and belong to me'. It could be that Jacob literally could not see them because of his blindness (:10), and yet we are told that he indeed "saw Joseph's sons". Jacob was surely aware that he was now in the position of his blind father Isaac whom he had deceived. And he was determined that by his own wit he would not be likewise deceived, and wished to emphasize that unlike Isaac, he understood exactly what he was doing.


text:
<em>Joseph said to his father, They are my sons, whom God has given me here. He said, Please bring them to me, and I will bless them</em>- There was a unity, a mutuality, between Jacob and God at the end. No longer did he see God as someone else's God, not even just his father’s God. The lessons of Jacob's name change were finally learnt. Thus he asks Joseph to bring his sons to him, so that <em>he</em> may bless them; but when he gives the blessing, he states that this is God blessing them (48:8,9,15,16); he saw God working through him. See on <em><a href='B:10 49:33'>Gen 49:33</a></em>.


text:
<em>Now the eyes of Israel were dim for age, so that he couldn’t see. He brought them near to him; and he kissed them, and embraced them</em>- <em><a href='B:10 27:26'>Gen 27:26</a></em> has the same scene, when Jacob deceitfully 'came near' to his father Isaac to fraudulently obtain the blessing of the firstborn. That sin of Jacob was to be remembered by him to his very deathbed. Not that it wasn't forgiven; but we are providentially enabled to understand how others feel, whom we sinned against.


text:
<em>Israel said to Joseph, I never thought I would see your face, and behold, God has let me see your seed also</em>- see on <em><a href='B:10 49:8'>Gen 49:8</a></em>. This is Jacob's final appreciation of God’s grace, the way He does far above what our works should deserve. "Thought" is 74 times translated "pray", and only once "thought" ; the idea is surely: 'I never prayed to see you again, I didn’t therefore have the faith in the resurrection which I should have done, just as I didn’t believe your mother could be resurrected when you spoke of her coming to bow before you (<em><a href='B:10 37:10'>Gen 37:10</a></em>); but God in His grace has done exceeding abundantly above all I asked or didn’t ask for, and shewed me not only your face in this life, but also your children'.&nbsp; <p style='margin-left:1em'>There seems an allusion to this scene in the Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 49:21'>Isa 49:21</a></em>: "Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, and removing to and fro? and who hath brought up these? Behold, I was left alone; these, where had they been?" (AV).</p><p>Paul seems to allude here by saying that God does for us  exceeding abundantly above all we ask or think; making Jacob representative of every believer.  Jacob was focused upon Joseph and now he had seen him, he felt prepared to die in peace, rather than from a broken heart as he had imagined he would earlier. His attitudes to death were governed by the status of Joseph. If Joseph was dead or consumed by a wild animal, he would die broken hearted; but if Joseph were alive, as he demonstrably was, he would die in peace. Whether or not his other sons fessed up to him about their sins was not relevant to him, compared to his focus upon the 'resurrection' of Joseph. And our hang ups over whether others have or have not fully repented and set the record straight is utterly obscured by the joy of knowing and seeing the risen Lord Jesus. Jacob at this point and in this sense represents us all.  </p>


text:
<em>Joseph brought them out from between his knees- </em>They would have been around 18 and 20 years old. To come out from between the knees was a euphemism for giving birth, although usually applied to women rather than men (<em><a href='B:10 30:3'>Gen 30:3</a></em>). However the same idiom is used for Joseph's grandchildren being raised upon his knees (<em><a href='B:10 50:23'>Gen 50:23</a></em>), as if to emphasize that they were 'his'. So the idea may not be of toddlers hiding shyly between daddy's knees, but rather that these sons who were really biologically Joseph's... were now to become Jacob's.<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And he bowed himself with his face to the earth</em>- The grammar is unclear as to whom bowed to whom. We are inclined to think that Jacob was bowing to Joseph, in fulfilment of the dream which he had so objected to in <em><a href='B:10 37:10'>Gen 37:10</a></em>. At the end of our spiritual paths we may come to accept some realities which we have struggled against all our lives. The man who rejects his gay son as a brother in Christ comes to accept him, the forgiveness which was unthinkable to grant is given, and the impossible reconciliations achieved. We think of how Paul accepted John Mark as his co-worker, when Paul was on his death bed (see on <em><a href='B:620 4:11'>2Ti 4:11</a></em>). </p>


text:
<em>Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel’s left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel’s right hand, and brought them near to him</em>- Jacob himself was the younger who had been more blessed than his elder sibling Esau. But whilst on one hand he was correct to continue the theme of the second born being as the first born, he also was missing the point- that all this angst about the blessing of the firstborn was irrelevant. He had himself recognized that at the acme of his spiritual perception when he met Esau again, as he effectively handed back to him the blessing of the birthright, feeling that being in receipt of God’s grace was the only blessing worth anything (see on <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>). But what we may grasp at one point in our lives, we sadly don't always take with us. And even on his deathbed, Jacob was still wanting to play games over this issue of the blessing of the firstborn. He apparently paid no attention to how Manasseh was going to feel and subsequently carry with him in life, stripped of the coveted status of firstborn by the apparent caprice of a cranky old grandfather. And Joseph also might have learnt the lesson and not been concerned about the issue. I suggest Jacob's highest level response to the boys coming to him for blessing would have been to say to the effect: 'All that blessing of the firstborn stuff... I got over that years ago. Focus on getting the blessing of God’s grace, that's all you need, boys. And Joseph, you too, don't sweat all that stuff, you too like me should know better by now'. And reviewing the subsequent history of Israel's sons, the whole issue of which son had the birthright was insignificant. It was only an item in their minds and cultural patterns at the time. See on :14.</p> <p> In Gen. 32 and 33, Jacob resigned his material blessing, and gave up his struggle to be the firstborn. He collapsed upon grace. “Blessing” (brkh), “firstborn” (bekhor) and “birthright” (bekhora) are all related words. But despite that peak of appreciation, which having slipped from he apparently reached again in Gen. 35 (see notes there), even on his grave planks, Jacob was still conniving in his own strength about blessings and firstborns. And yet he will be saved ultimately; along with all of us who likewise are still immature at the end of our mortal path.</p>


text:
<em>Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it on Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands knowingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn</em>- <em><a href='B:230 78:67'>Psa 78:67</a></em> comments that God did not chose Ephraim- whereas Jacob did. The implication could well be that even at the end of his life, Jacob's choice of Ephraim over Manasseh reflected some sort of weakness, a being out of step with God. This attitude that <em>he</em> could bring about the fulfillment of God’s promises through his own efforts was the outcome of Jacob's self-righteousness. See on :13. The firstborn was known as the son of the right hand. I note on :19 that Jacob had changed the firstborn several times, and had even named Benjamin "son of my right hand", effectively shifting the firstborn to his youngest son. Jacob was quite obsessed with the issue of who was the firstborn; at different times Reuben, Joseph, Benjamin and Judah had it, and now he wants Ephraim to have it. Even at the end of his days, he had not quite learnt the lesson taught him earlier, that it is God’s blessing of grace and not being the firstborn which is the important thing.


text:
<em>He blessed Joseph, and said, The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has fed me all my life long to this day</em>- At age 130, Jacob had mumbled to Pharaoh: "Few and <em>evil </em>have the days of the years of my life been", as if every day had dragged (<em><a href='B:10 47:9'>Gen 47:9</a></em>). But at the very end, 17 years later, he more positively speaks of the Angel that had redeemed him from all <em>evil</em> (48:15). He felt that he was but a sheep, and God had "fed" or 'shepherded' him. He says this fully aware of the Egyptian way of despising sheep and shepherds, and yet he states here that God Himself is Israel's shepherd, despised of men, but clearly perceived by His people. If we read this as meaning 'fed' in a literal sense, Jacob’s all too physical view of the promises is suggested. He wanted to make Yahweh his God because He had fed him all his life long. Earlier he had promised to do this, if Yahweh would indeed provide him with daily food (<em><a href='B:10 28:20'>Gen 28:20</a></em>). That bargain he struck with God would surely have been best repented of rather than carried through.<p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob’s reference to how Abraham and Isaac 'walked before' his God is a reference back to <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:40'>Gen 24:40</a></em>. Jacob had&nbsp; meditated upon these records, in whatever form they were preserved, and now bubbled out with reference to them. Those same promises concerning the Lord Jesus and his Kingdom should become the centre of our thought as we reach spiritual maturity. "Let my name be named upon them (Joseph's children), and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac" (48:16) indicates that he saw an equivalence between Abraham and Isaac and himself; he saw they were "heirs of the same promise" (<em><a href='B:650 11:9'>Heb 11:9</a></em>). Jacob finally came to graduate from mere Sunday School Christianity, the faith of mum and dad, to realize that those promises made to them were the very basis of <em>his</em> faith too, as well as theirs, and he knew therefore that he would be resurrected with them into the glory of God’s Kingdom. And so he wanted to be buried with them; he didn’t reject them, but he came to understand that the promises were gloriously true for him on a personal level.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Almost on his deathbed, Jacob speaks of how the God of Abraham and Isaac is his God (48:15,16); he speaks of being gathered to his people, to them, just as they too had been gathered to their people (<em><a href='B:10 49:29'>Gen 49:29</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 25:8'>Gen 25:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 35:29'>Gen 35:29</a></em>). He really stresses his desire to be buried in Canaan along with Abraham and Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 47:29-30'>Gen 47:29-30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 49:29'>Gen 49:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 50:5-6'>Gen 50:5-6</a></em>), alongside his dad and grandfather, remembering how they had lived together in the same tents in his childhood (Hebrews 11), speaking together of the promises. The fact he had prepared his grave there years before shows that this was not only the sentimental feeling of a dying man. This repeated emphasis on his connection with Abraham and Isaac shows that at the end, Jacob saw the supreme importance of being a member of God’s people. He didn’t just fix on his own personal hope, but on the fact he was connected with all the heirs of the promise. Paul also focused on this aspect when he came to his time of departing. And so with us, we will come to see (if we haven't already) that our association with Christianity is not just a part of our social structure. We aren't just Christians because of parental expectation. Our association with God’s people is eternal, the consequences of being baptized into the body of Christ (the believers) are related to our salvation. Thus the believers are joint-heirs together of the same Abrahamic promises (<em><a href='B:520 8:17'>Rom 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:7'>1Pe 3:7</a></em>), just as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived together as joint heirs of the same promises (<em><a href='B:650 11:9'>Heb 11:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<em>The Angel who has ever redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads, and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac- </em>The Angel who redeemed Jacob from evil may specifically refer to the Angel with whom Jacob wrestled, who then blessed Jacob in response to his begging for blessing. And he wishes that blessing of grace upon his grandsons. Yet Jacob appears to see that gracious blessing of him as ongoing, because his wrestling with the Angel for blessing and grace was a cameo of his entire life. </p> <p> See on <em><a href='B:20 23:27'>Exo 23:27</a></em>. It is so easy to under-estimate the amount of work the Angels are doing in our lives; Jacob recognized that his Angel physically fed / shepherded him all his days, and that it was not just at the crises in his life that the Angel had been present; he describes the Angel as "ever redeeming me" (Heb.), as if the whole process of life is one continual redeeming process by the Angel, as He designs trials for us which will perfect us in order to gain redemption, as well as physically redeeming us more times than we realize. Subsequent generations were to take comfort in the fact that God had redeemed Jacob / Israel; Isaiah is full of this idea, encouraging the Jews of the restoration, and all of us, that the same God who redeemed Jacob is our God, to no lesser an extent. Jacob had primarily in view his deliverance from Esau and Laban by the Angel with whom he wrestled; but he realized that those incidents were but examples of an ongoing redemption which was ongoing even as he spoke.<p style='margin-left:1em'>At the end, Jacob spoke of God as his redeemer, which is the first Biblical reference to the concept of redemption. Joseph was the one who had redeemed Jacob from all evil, but Jacob realizes that it was ultimately God working through this great seed of Abraham, and thereby he looks ahead to the Messianic seed, who was the ultimate redeemer (<em><a href='B:550 3:11'>Gal 3:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 2:14'>Tit 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:18'>1Pe 1:18</a></em>). This was not the only area in which Jacob was a paradigm breaker (consider how he coined the word <em>abiyr</em> to describe God’s mightiness). The Hebrew for "redeem" is taken from the idea of the nearest kinsman. Jacob at the end of his days is surely saying that now he saw God as closer than his family. We really have a lot to learn here. God comes before family- although increasingly this isn't appreciated by Anglo-Saxon believers. The new convert who sacrifices family ties for allegiance to Christ realizes this full well. But in my observation, second and third generation believers aren't so committed. The majority of the divisions and bitterness which plague the body of Christ are largely a result of believers wanting to stay with their family, rather than follow Divine principles. Time and again brethren and sisters change fellowships, with all the disruption this causes, simply because of family, not for any genuine Biblical conviction. Effectively they will throw others out of fellowship, throw new converts into turmoil and disillusion, just to stick with a dogmatic family member, even though they may not share his or her convictions. And so God’s Truth becomes a social and family affair rather than a candlestick burning with the fire of the Spirit. Christians tend to follow parental expectation and the norms of their social network rather than God’s word.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth</em>- The "land" in view was that promised to Abraham. Jacob's dying wish was that his children would hurry up and return to Canaan as originally intended and made potentially possible at the end of the famine (see on <em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em>); and <em>there</em> and not in Egypt would they become a multitude, in fulfilment of the promises given to Abraham and Jacob. </p>


text:
<em>When Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him. He held up his father’s hand, to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head</em>- As noted on :13, Joseph ought to have learnt from history, that this whole angst about the blessing of the firstborn was irrelevant. It is true that Genesis has repeatedly recorded how the second born or younger was more blessed than the older: Abel, Seth, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph; and the Old Testament history continues the theme, with Moses over Aaron, David over his brothers etc. But that blessing was not by human device, but by Divine blessing and the operation of His Spirit in human life.


text:
<em>Joseph said to his father, Not so, my father; for this is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head</em>- See on <em><a href='B:10 17:18'>Gen 17:18</a></em>. Joseph was wrong to have so much angst about who got the blessing of the firstborn; see on :13 and :17.


text:
<em>His father refused, and said, I know, my son, I know. He also will become a people, and he also will be great. However, his younger brother will be greater than he, and his seed will become a multitude of nations</em>- Although Jacob maybe favoured Judah on a human level, he certainly favoured Joseph spiritually. It seems that he made up his mind that Messiah would come from Joseph (when in fact Christ came through Judah). He said that Ephraim's seed would become a multitude of nations (48:19)- he was applying the Messianic promise to Ephraim. Likewise he stated that from Joseph (Ephraim's father) would come the Shepherd / Stone / Messiah (see on <em><a href='B:10 49:24'>Gen 49:24</a></em>); presumably, Jacob thought, through Ephraim. Yet Jacob was wrong in this. Thus whilst Jacob showed his spiritual maturity by an enthusiasm for the Lord Jesus Christ, even right at the very end of his life, he still had an old flaw: a desire to fulfill God’s promises in the way <em>he</em> wanted them fulfilled, a desire to turn God’s word round to fit in with <em>his</em> preferred way of thinking (in this case, that Messiah would come through Joseph / Ephraim). The way the prophets continually describe sinful Israel as "Ephraim" is perhaps God’s way of showing that Jacob's way was not His way. <p style='margin-left:1em'>And yet despite these wrong perceptions by Jacob, it is true that at the first census in the wilderness, Ephraim numbered 40,500 and Manasseh only 32,000; and later, when in the land, Ephraim became the most numerous tribe in the ten tribe kingdom, to the point that it was often called "Ephraim" just as the two tribe kingdom was called "Judah". Jacob was almost repeating the prophetic word spoken about himself (<em><a href='B:10 25:23'>Gen 25:23</a></em>). It is natural to want our own experience to be replicated in others, especially our offspring. But although Jacob was not completely mature in his reasoning about this whole blessing of the firstborn, God still worked through it. He had removed Reuben from being firstborn (<em><a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a></em>), replaced him with Joseph, and then when he disappeared, he decided that Benjamin should be the firstborn, renaming him "Son of my right hand", another title of the firstborn; again wanting the youngest to be as the eldest. And now Joseph is back on the scene, he seems to want to change things around so that Ephraim and Manasseh become his adopted sons, and out of them, Ephraim (the youngest) is as it were his firstborn; the very youngest of his 'sons' treated as the eldest. But all this chopping and changing about the firstborn had no ultimate meaning in Israel's subsequent history. </p><p>"Will become a multitude of nations" alludes to the promises to Abraham (Gen. 17:6,20). It was as if Jacob in his immaturity wanted the line of Abrahamic descent to go specifically through Ephraim. But there is no evidence God respected that. Rather, all who showed themselves to be the seed of Abraham through faith, receive an equal share in the Abrahamic blessings. Again we see Jacob's stubborn immaturity even at the end of his days.</p>


text:
<em>He blessed them that day, saying, In you will Israel bless, saying, ‘God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh’. He set Ephraim before Manasseh</em>- "Bless" is literally 'to bow the knee'. "In you" is you singular, and refers to Joseph. Jacob is accepting what at the time he had refused to- that the dreams of Joseph would indeed come true, and his brothers ("Israel") would bless or bow to him.


text:
<em>Israel said to Joseph, Behold, I am dying, but God will be with you, and bring you again to the land of your fathers</em>- As explained on <em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em> and elsewhere, the people were supposed to return to Canaan once the famine finished; see on :16. Jacob wished they had done that whilst he was still alive; but he knew that God would work in their experiences so that He would bring them back to the land. They should have returned there themselves; but God would "bring" them there, just as Abraham ought to have left Ur for Canaan and broken with his family immediately, but he didn’t, and so God brought him there and made him separate from his father’s house (see on <em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>). Jacob sensed an analogous situation was going to happen to get them out of Egypt; and the same was to occur centuries later in getting them to leave Babylon. In our days too, we don't make the moves we are supposed to make, or to the extent intended; and God’s Spirit works to bring about those moves. This is His saving grace. And Joseph quotes these words of his father on his own deathbed (<em><a href='B:10 50:25'>Gen 50:25</a></em>), as he too retained the perspective that Israel out to leave Egypt and return to Canaan, but he believed that if they didn’t, then God would structure situations to ensure that they did- by His grace.


text:
<em>Moreover I have given to you Shechem, one portion above your brothers, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow</em>- This indicates that Jacob's old self-reliance was still not totally gone; his sense that through his own effort he could bring about the fulfillment of God’s promises for him. He appears to be referring to some unrecorded military conflict in which he captured Shechem; perhaps he refers specifically to the burial ground which Abraham had bought in the area, which perhaps he had had to forcibly recapture (<em><a href='B:10 33:19'>Gen 33:19</a></em>). And he wanted the family tomb to specifically be Joseph's inheritance, as he more than any appreciated the significance of resurrection to fulfil the Abrahamic covenant. But the reference to having taken it by how own strength shows that the weakness of Jacob remained, in thinking that his own strength was so significant. These very words are alluded to in <em><a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 44:1-6'>Psa 44:1-6</a></em>, where the Spirit says that the land was given to Israel <em>not</em> on account of their bow and sword. The more closely we analyze the Bible heroes, the more apparent it is that they were shot through with weakness; and some of those weaknesses it seems they unsuccessfully battled with until the day of their death. Jacob, right at the end of his life, still hadn't completely overcome that besetting weakness of self-reliance. This is, of course, a dangerous road to go down. In no way can we be complacent about our urgent need for spiritual growth. But on the other hand, we will never reach the stature of Christ without righteousness being imputed to us. In this sense, true Christian believers aren't good people, but people who know and believe in God’s grace.</p> <p>It seems on balance that Jacob was referring to how his sons Simeon and levi had massacred the men of Shechem; and it seems Jacob joined in with his sword and bow. He later criticizes his sons for having done this, and he and his tribe only survived revenge from the surrounding tribes by God's grace. And yet, so true to human thought and behaviour, he now later glories in his part in the massacre, whilst later cursing his sons for their part in it. God destroyed the Amorite before Israel, Am. 2:9, but He worked through their quite wrong behaviour towards the Shechemites. Jacob seems proud of capturing Shechem when he ought to have been ashamed of how it was done, and had forgotten that he was saved from the consequences by grace alone. </p> <p style='margin-left:1em'>However it could be that just as "I have given" is a prophetic perfect, speaking of the future (he means 'I will give') as if it has happened because of his faith, so he speaks of taking Shechem as already having been achieved by him when it was yet future. Yet another alternative is that Jacob is again showing weakness by recalling the massacre at Shechem and proudly claiming that this was his victory, and he wanted Shechem to be Joseph's. And another option is that the inheritance at Shechem was the parcel of land bought by the patriarchs for burials, which Jacob gave to Joseph (Jn. 4:5), and where Joseph's bones were buried. But in this case, we enquire how Jacob took that land from the hand of the Amorite with sword and bow.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob called to his sons, and said: Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which will happen to you in the days to come</em>- This follows right on from the blessing of Joseph, in which Jacob had attempted to give the blessing of the firstborn to Ephraim as his son. I commented throughout Genesis 48 that he might have better learnt from his earlier handing back of Isaac's paternal blessing (see on <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>). On the acme of spiritual perception, he confessed that paternal blessings are not worth anything compared to the blessings of God’s grace. But now Jacob is still thinking in human terms, concerned about final blessings of children, when he should have realized that these are meaningless. And so we find that as many of the paternal blessings uttered by his father never came particularly true, so not everything he says here to his sons had fulfilment. </p><p>The order of the blessings is not strictly according to birth order. But it is according to how the tribes were geographically located in Israel, from the South to the North. He has the same time in view when he speaks of Levi being scattered in Israel, and Judah being the kingly tribe. So although there are elements in these blessings which appear to be Jacob reasoning as a cranky old man, clearly the higher hand of Divine inspiration was also present working through his weakness. And that is the story of how God works with all men through His Spirit. But the structure of the blessings is poetic in form, and Joseph is clearly at the center of the poetry. Many of the sons leave their father's deathbed with no real blessing, some only with a curse. But they were all blessed, each son individually had a blessing (:28). Blessed on account of the blessing upon Joseph, which is why he and his blessings, which were their blessings, are at the center of the poetry. For the men would have departed from their father's deathbed bewildered; Joseph and Judah got the blessings, and the three first born sons were cursed not blessed, with the remaining sons getting vague and abstract blessings usually mixed with some negative predictions about them. Reuben would have naturally speaking been irrate that he was cursed for his sexual misbehaviour, whereas Judah's sexual misbehaviour was apparently overlooked and he was blessed. The whole episode appears bizarre, until we realize that Jacob was doing this intentionally- to highlight that their blessings were through the blessings to be shared with them from Joseph and to some extent Judah.</p> <p> In fact, blessing within curses is the theme with which Genesis starts in Gen. 3, especially because it led to the promise of the Saviour and His victory in Gen. 3:15. The woman is cursed, but "she shall be saved through the childbearing" (1 Tim. 2:15). Adam was cursed with sweat and toil in labour, but there is some blessing within those things ("In all labour there is profit", Prov. 14:23; "that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God... to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God", Ecc. 3:13; 5:19). Even the curse of death can be seen as a blessing, as it provides rest from a meaningless life, under the sun. And as 1 Cor. 15 explains, unless we die we cannot rise again to new and glorious eternal life. Even the curse on Cain has some blessing in it: "And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him" (Gen. 4:15). Or as Paul put it during the shipwreck, "You have gained this harm and loss". Loss is gain, in the spiritual ecosystem. In talking about his own death, Paul could say that "to live is Christ, and to die is gain". It's win-win. We can't lose, in Christ. Death is swallowed up in victory.</p> <p> And another theme of Genesis is that the blessing of one person brings blessing upon another; hence the Gospel is all about the blessing given to Abraham's seed through whom many will be blessed. And so the 'curses' given some sons in place of blessings do not mean that those sons are without blessings; because they share in the blessings of Joseph and Judah, both looking ahead to the Lord Jesus. In this sense, all the sons were "blessed" (:28) because of the blessings upon Joseph and Judah, even though their own behaviour led to them being cursed, or at least, not having much blessing of their own. As the sons crowded around their father on his deathbed, they would have all expected blessing. How he spoke was most unusual, and only the reflective would have understood that they went away blessed- because of the blessing upon Joseph.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Assemble yourselves, and hear, you sons of Jacob. Listen to Israel, your father</em>- He parallels his old and new names, in order to demonstrate that he has accepted God’s grace in changing his name. The gathering of his sons may point forward to the last judgment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength; excelling in dignity, and excelling in power</em>- The way Jacob rebukes and effectively rejects Reuben, Simeon and Levi, the sons who had flaunted their natural strength and prowess, reflects the right perspectives which Jacob attained at the end. The language here sounds as if Jacob associated his natural strength with Reuben, and yet now he rejected it. Doubtless these men gathered round their father expecting to hear some sweet fatherly blessing mixed with a few gentle reproofs for past behaviour. The whole process of Israel's sons being "gathered" to him and receiving their blessing and judgment is typical of the final judgment, showing how Jacob was a type of Christ at this time. The surprise of the sons we are left to imagine, but it would point forward quite accurately to the surprise which will be a feature of the rejected (<em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Boiling over as water, you shall not excel; because you went up to your father’s bed, then defiled it. He went up to my couch</em>- The evident problem the Abraham family had with women s emphasized in the record. One man, one woman was the declared standard of God at this time. Adam, Noah, Noah's sons, Aaron, Moses were all one man: one woman cases. The patriarchs having more than one wife at a time sticks out. Abraham's apparently casual relationship with Hagar, Judah's use of a harlot (apparently the sort of thing he often did), Esau's many carnal wives, Dinah's love affair, Reuben's incest... all this creates a certain impression of weakness in this area. Joseph's evil report regarding his brothers may well have featured news of their playboy escapades while far away from usual family life (<em><a href='B:10 37:2'>Gen 37:2</a></em> = <em><a href='B:90 2:23-24'>1Sa 2:23-24</a></em>). The repeated way in which they lied about their wives also indicates that they didn’t take their marital responsibilities as they should have (<em><a href='B:10 12:13'>Gen 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 20:3'>Gen 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 26:7'>Gen 26:7</a></em>).</p><p>AV "unstable as water" may mean that just as water goes downhill naturally and apparently irresistibly, so Reuben had given in to sexual temptation as if it were irresistible. Whereas Jacob has said that Reuben was the beginning of his strength, his firstborn, perhaps claiking to have been sexually self controlled until be made his wife conceive his first child. The argument that sin is irresistible looms large in our minds in the moments of decision as we face temptation. Sin is not inevitible, although in reality there is none who sins not, apart from the Lord.</p><p>But we note that Reuben's sexual sin is maximized by Jacob, whereas Judah is blessed despite having sinned concerning Tamar over a protracted period. This would've seemed "unfair" to the men who stood around the deathbed. But the point is, that although some are more blessed than others in this life, the real blessing is through the work and blessing of Joseph / Jesus. We can contrast Jacob's attitude here with how King David would not punish Amnon for his incest “because he loved him for he was his firstborn (2 Sam. 13:21, LXX).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Reuben's incest, twice lamented, meant that he was stripped of the title of firstborn (<em><a href='B:130 5:1-2'>1Ch 5:1-2</a></em>). I suggested on <em><a href='B:10 35:22'>Gen 35:22</a></em> that the incest may not have been due to simple lust, but rather anger. So the statement that he had boiled over like water would refer to his anger problem rather than sexual lust. He 'went up' to his father’s bed and bedroom, perhaps suggesting that he wanted to become the head of the family in place of Jacob. He had 'excelled in dignity' (:4), but now he did not 'excel'. The two words are related in Hebrew as they are in English. And yet despite all this, Reuben is presented as having more genuine concern for Joseph and Jacob than most of the other brothers. But clearly even on his deathbed, Jacob couldn't forgive Reuben for what he had done. He offers no blessing, only a statement that he remembers Reuben's sin and abiding shame. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Simeon and Levi are brothers. Their swords are weapons of violence</em>- The reference is to their massacre of the Shechemites. Jacob seems to speak as if this is not forgiven, for he says that their swords <em>are</em>, not "were", weapons used to do violence to others. Jacob again offers them no blessing, but just wants them to know he remembers what they did and retains his sense of separation from them. In Christian terms, of forgiveness and grace, Jacob seems remarkably lacking, despite all the grace shown to him. He died not quite 'getting it'; and yet will be saved. And we noted on Gen. 48:22 that it seems Jacob himself joined in the violence against Shechem. The sword is of course a "weapon of violence" so perhaps they used their circumcision knives as weapons of slaughter- the classic case of religious abuse. Jacob leaves no possibility for future blessing for Levi for doing this; and yet God used Levi's seed, as the priestly tribe, to do countless circumcisions. The words of curse are in fact later described as a blessing. God is kinder than man, and has a far greater future Hope for people than we tend to. We tend like Jacob to judge people for what they did in the past and refuse to move on from that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>My soul, don’t come into their council. My glory, don’t be united to their multitude; for in their anger they killed men. In their self-will they hamstrung cattle</em>- Although Jacob’s seed had become a "multitude" as promised, he says that he refuses to unite himself with the "multitude" of Simeon and Levi, as if he now saw this physical fulfilment of the promises in his lifetime as worth little. His appreciation of the promises absolutely fills his thinking at the end. The promised Kingdom was "the pride of Jacob" (<em><a href='B:230 47:4'>Psa 47:4</a></em> NIV; <em><a href='B:370 6:8'>Amo 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:410 2:2'>Nah 2:2</a></em>), his chiefest joy. There are aspects of Jacob's blessings of his sons which evidently have not been fulfilled. Presumably they will be fulfilled in the Kingdom, which shows how Jacob's mind was not dwelling on his children receiving physical blessings from God in the short term (cp. how Isaac blessed his sons), but rather the promised eternal blessings of the Kingdom. It is quite likely that the sons, in their humanity, expected blessings of a more immediate sort, such as a dying father of those times would have shared out between his sons. But instead, Jacob's talk is not of the things of this brief life, but of the Kingdom. And yet Jacob does come over as bitter, refusing to associate his honour ("glory") with their extended families, their "council" (group) or "multitude" or AV "assembly", their community. It is really a deathbed disassociation from his own sons, when he himself had many sins which had been dealt with by grace alone. &nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob's reflection on Joseph's sufferings gave him a clearer picture of those of the future Messiah. His complaint that they "hamstrung cattle" can be understood as prophetic of the murder of God’s son. It can be translated in the singular, as if referring to one individual, namely Joseph: "houghing the ox" (RV), or bullock (Concordant Version), i.e. the Lord Jesus Christ (<em><a href='B:50 33:17'>Deu 33:17</a></em> RV), the bullock of the sin offering (<em><a href='B:650 13:11-13'>Heb 13:11-13</a></em>). <em><a href='B:10 49:6'>Gen 49:6</a></em> can also be rendered 'murdering the prince' (Adam Clarke's Translation), referring initially to the murder of Shechem but looking ahead to that of the Lord Jesus. The Roman historian Hippolytus says that "From Simeon came the Scribes, and from Levi the priests"; it was these groups who murdered the Lord, and Jacob seems to have foreseen this, through his reflection on their hatred of Joseph. He may mean that they took counsel against Joseph, as the scribes and priests would do against Christ (<em><a href='B:230 2:2'>Psa 2:2</a></em>). &nbsp; </p><p>The conspiracy or counsel was in their counselling the men of Shechem to also be circumcised- so that they could attack and slay them whilst they were incapacitated after the circumcision procedure. "May my soul not enter their conspiracy" is surely hypocritical when Jacob had earlier boasted in Gen. 48:22 of taking Shechem with his own sword and bow. "Hamstrung cattle" can be "and at their pleasure they destroyed leading citizens".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel. I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel</em>- Several times at the very end of his life (<em><a href='B:10 49:2'>Gen 49:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 49:7'>Gen 49:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 49:24'>Gen 49:24</a></em>) Jacob mentions his old and new names ('Jacob' and 'Israel') together, as if to show that now he finally accepted and believed the wondrous change that God had wrought in him. First of all, he doesn't seem to have accepted his name change, and needed God to remind him of it again (<em><a href='B:10 32:28'>Gen 32:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 35:10'>Gen 35:10</a></em>). To accept, really accept, the Name we called upon ourselves at baptism (<em><a href='B:510 2:21'>Act 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:14'>Act 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:16'>Act 22:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:12-14'>Rom 10:12-14</a></em>) is difficult. To believe that God really does see us as His people, bearing His Name, with all the moral glory this implies... it took Jacob no less than 50 years to realize the implications of Jacob's name change (Jacob's name was changed when he was 97, and he only uses it freely of himself just before his death at 147). It's unusual for a man to repeatedly mention his own name when talking to others; and yet this is exactly what Jacob did in <em><a href='B:10 48:20'>Gen 48:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 49:2'>Gen 49:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 49:7'>Gen 49:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 49:24'>Gen 49:24</a></em>; it was as if he was playing with a new toy, reflecting his grasp of that basic, wondrous truth he had been taught 50 years ago; that in <em>God’s</em> eyes, his name had changed. In God’s eyes, he was not the Jacob, the liar, the supplanter, the deceiver; but Israel, the prince with God. But it took 50 years for the wonder of it all to come home to him. &nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And yet the immediate meaning of his words here are to call his sons for the expected deathbed blessing, and then curse them. When Jacob himself closed his eyes covered by grace for many failures in his life; his repeated recollection of their massacre of the Shechemites decades previously is perhaps because it did him shame, and he could never quite live it down.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob's desire to "divide" them uses a word which can mean to divide out a portion with others; it is thus used in :27, and frequently about the dividing up of spoil or the promised land. The idea could be that their part of the inheritance Jacob wished to be taken by others, or divided up between the other sons. His idea of 'scattering' them in Israel can too easily be applied to the scattering of the Levites throughout Israel; but this is uttered as a curse, and it was intended to affect both Simeon and Levi.&nbsp; Scattering throughout the <em>eretz</em> is the language of judgment upon the Babel builders (<em><a href='B:10 11:9'>Gen 11:9</a></em> s.w.) and Israel's scattering among the nations is associated with God disinheriting them of their land (<em><a href='B:50 28:64'>Deu 28:64</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 9:16'>Jer 9:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 18:17'>Jer 18:17</a></em> s.w.). It may be that this is what Jacob intended; that they would be scattered amongst the other tribes and their share of the inheritance was to be divided amongst them. There is no record of this happening; and God turned the curse into a blessing in that the scattering of the Levites around Israel was to be a blessing for all. And in a strange way, the curse upon Simeon had at least some fulfilment. Simeon became the smallest of the twelve tribes (<em><a href='B:40 26:14'>Num 26:14</a></em>); it is given no blessing by Moses in Deuteronomy 33; and is given no independent territory in Canaan, just a few cities&nbsp; within the borders of Judah (<em><a href='B:60 19:1-9'>Jos 19:1-9</a></em>); and eventually Simeon was absorbed into Judah. </p>


text:
The three older brothers of Judah have just been as it were trashed by Jacob in his preceding discussion of Reuben, Simeon and Levi. He overlooks Judah's disgraceful behaviour with Tamar, but focuses upon that of Reuben. We get the impression that he has made his mind up to present positively those whom he once wished to be his firstborn. Judah was blessed that his brothers would bow down to him. But they were all acutely aware that God had blessed Joseph with this blessing. The idea may therefore be that Judah would be blessed only in that some of Joseph's blessing would come to him. Which is the basis upon which all the brothers were to be blessed (:28).</p> <p> "May your father's sons bow down to you" is the same phrase as used in the blessing of Isaac upon Jacob (Gen. 27:29), which blessing Jacob had stolen from Esau. Likewise the blessings of Gen. 27:28 are now given by Jacob to Joseph [“May God give you of
heaven’s dew and of earth’s richness—an abundance of grain and new wine”]. In Gen. 32, Jacob had resigned all interest in that blessing; but in this final deathbed moment, he has returned to an obsession with such blessings of the father. Like us, he died imperfect, returning to weaknesses he had once momentarily overcome. The art of spiritual growth is to retain the level we reach at some intense moment of need, rather than slouch back into our previous ways.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Judah is a lion’s cub- </em>Jacob saw himself as the lion, and Judah as his cub. But likening himself to a lion hardly seems appropriate humility in a man who had been forgiven so much and who was now facing his grave planks. But still he will be saved, by grace.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From the prey, my son, you have gone up- </em>This could be a reference to some unrecorded military conflict Judah had been involved in; there may be another reference to such a conflict in <em><a href='B:10 48:22'>Gen 48:22</a></em>.</p><p>But "the prey" is literally 'the tearing', and is the same word used by Jacob when he thought that Jacob was without doubt torn in pieces. "Gone up" is also translated 'depart'. And quite legitimately we could translate this: 'From the torn in pieces son of mine [Joseph], you departed'. This would then reference Judah's refusal to be associated with the plan to kill Joseph, urged the brothers to save his life, and later was the clear leader in the plans to save Benjamin's life. Judah was like the young lion who refused to close in on the kill of the torn prey, allowed it to live, and then grew up to become a truly mighty lion. Jacob is here recognizing Judah's growth in responsibility from the days of his sin to Tamar to his lengthy and persuasive speech before Joseph.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He stooped down, he crouched as a lion, as a lioness. Who will rouse him up?</em>- Jacob may be using the prophetic perfect here, talking about future things as if they have happened, and having in mind a great Messianic descendant of Judah, the Lord Jesus. Jacob twice describes this Messianic descendant as devouring the prey in the morning of the second coming (49:9, 27); he foresaw an aggressive tension between Messiah and other beasts, i.e. the nations of the surrounding world, which would end in the glorious victory of Christ's coming in glory. This image of devouring the prey after the battle against the world in this life is the basis of other latter day prophecies (<em><a href='B:330 39:18-20'>Eze 39:18-20</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:17-20'>Rev 19:17-20</a></em>). The faithful will eat the carcass of the beast at Christ's coming (<em><a href='B:470 24:28'>Mat 24:28</a></em> cp. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:17-20'>Rev 19:17-20</a></em>), sharing in the victory of the lion of Judah who has slain his prey and now devours it. This was all foreseen by Jacob, although he would have seen the beasts which the Messiah / lion devoured as the nations surrounding his people (<em><a href='B:300 15:3'>Jer 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 28:14'>Jer 28:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 5:17'>Eze 5:17</a></em> and many others). &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sceptre will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs. To him will the obedience of the peoples be</em>- This could be a reference to Judah's great Messianic descendant, the one to whom the Kingdom belongs, and that is how these words are alluded to in <em><a href='B:330 21:25-27'>Eze 21:25-27</a></em>. The alternative reading, "until Shiloh comes", would then name Messiah as "Shiloh", 'the sent one (cp. <em><a href='B:290 8:6'>Isa 8:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:7'>Joh 9:7</a></em>). The nations would be obedient to this figure, as Egypt and the neighbouring peoples had been to Joseph. The preaching of the Gospel is a gathering together of God’s people to Christ (<em><a href='B:10 49:10'>Gen 49:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:30'>Mat 12:30</a></em>). We are now being gathered together, and yet the final gathering together will be at the day of judgment; therefore our response to the calling together of the Gospel now, is a foretaste of the gathering unto the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em> cp. 13:30).&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But Jacob envisaged Judah as having an unbroken line of descendants ("from between his feet", an idiom for childbirth) who would be the kingly rulers (with sceptre and staff) until the Messiah figure came. But this didn’t come true. And <em><a href='B:330 21:25-27'>Eze 21:25-27</a></em> clearly alludes to this passage and adjusts it, saying that the kingly dynasty of Judah had been overthrown and would remain so "until he comes whose right it is". It could be that Jacob was uttering a conditional prophecy, what could have been true, but Judah's later failure precluded it. Or maybe whilst the inspired record of these last words is accurate, the fact that Jacob's predictions didn’t come true (as <em><a href='B:330 21:25-27'>Eze 21:25-27</a></em> seems to emphasize) is in demonstration of the fact that he had failed to learn the lesson that paternal blessings and cursings were not that important. Rather should the emphasis be upon God’s blessing and cursing, which is all anyway about grace (see on <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The alternative rendering "Until Shiloh come", or "Until he come to Shiloh" could connect with the Divine intention that Israel leave Egypt and return to Canaan, to establish His Kingdom. I have explained this idea on <em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em>. In this case we would have here a prophecy of what could potentially have happened; Judah was to be the kingly ruler, until he led Israel out of Egypt to Canaan and they arrived at Shiloh, where the tabernacle was later established. There a king in the line of Judah would be established, and the Gentiles would be obedient to him.</p><p>I suggest that the events predicted by Ahijah the Shilonite (the family of David and the tribe of Judah losing kingship over all Israel) are the fulfilment of Gen. 49:10 “The scepter will not depart from Judah” [he will not be banished from his kingdom] “until he comes to Shiloh”. When Judah came to Shiloh to crown Rehoboam there, and there the “peoples [of Israel] will gather to him” to crown him, there the kingship or scepter over the ten tribes was lost. Shechem and Shiloh are close to each other and mentioned together twice: “Behold, there is a sacrifice before the Lord in Shiloh... on the east side of the highway that goes up from Beth-El to Shechem” (Jud. 21:19). Likewise in Jer. 41:5: “from Shechem (and) from Shiloh”. The one who comes to Shiloh, the one from Shiloh, may refer not to Messiah but to Ahijah the Shilonite, the one from Shiloh, who prophesied how the kingship would depart from Judah. Ahijah is called "the Shilonite", the man from Shiloh, five times in the record. Quite some emphasis. If "until Shiloh come" refers to the Lord Jesus, it is hard to understand how the kingship departs from Judah when He comes, seeing He Himself is the lion from Judah. And it is hard to understand why He should be called "Shiloh" and the passage never apparently applied to Him in later scripture. The diadem / sceptre did depart from Judah, as Ezekiel 21:25-27 makes clear- and well before the Lord Jesus came. So to make "Shiloh" simply equal to Messiah just doesn't work.
</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Binding his foal to the vine, his donkey’s colt to the choice vine- </em>Literally, "the vine of Sorek", a valley in Canaan (<em><a href='B:70 6:4'>Jdg 6:4</a></em>). Jacob's thoughts were back in Canaan, envisaging an ideal situation of peace being enjoyed in the land once Judah had led Israel back there from Goshen.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He has washed his garments in wine, his robes in the blood of grapes</em>- He saw Judah's great Messianic descendant as being associated with the ass, the Hebrew for which essentially means 'patience'; he foresaw the Lord's patient endurance in the struggle, and even foresaw his garments as dipped in blood (cp. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:14:18'>Rev 14:18</a></em>), eyes bloodshot with the struggle, and yet with teeth white as milk from a true assimilation of God’s teaching (49:12 cp. <em><a href='B:290 55:1'>Isa 55:1</a></em>); through his personal experience and extensive reflection on the basic need of man and the promised blessing of forgiveness, Jacob really went deeply and accurately into a personal knowledge of the future Christ. Blind as he was (<em><a href='B:10 48:10'>Gen 48:10</a></em>), Jacob meditated upon the Lord Jesus. His mind was filled with him. He perhaps contrasted his own dim eyes with the burning, bloodshot eyes of his zealous Lord, visualizing the suffering&nbsp; which he knew He would endure for his sake. The blessings of Genesis 49 are in well planned poetic form; it may be that Jacob composed these poems about the Lord Jesus as the crystallization of his extended reflection on the Lord. Would that we would rise up to the Messianic perception of the blind poet Jacob. Likewise David foresaw the Lord Jesus always before his face, and therefore his heart was never ruffled. Jacob evidently saw in Joseph's experience a type of Christ's future sufferings and resurrection (49:11,23).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord’s death is described as His washing “his garments in wine, and his vesture in the blood of grapes" (<em><a href='B:10 49:11'>Gen 49:11</a></em> RV). Treading out the grapes is a Hebraism for judgment, and yet it is used here and in <em><a href='B:290 63:1-3'>Isa 63:1-3</a></em> regarding the Lord’s treading of the winepress alone in His death. Indeed, the Isaiah passage is clearly applicable to both the crucifixion and the final judgment of the Lord Jesus. The reason being, that in His death was the judgment of this world. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But despite all these cryptic references to the future Messiah, we must remember that Jacob spoke these words to Judah. Judah had deceived Jacob by washing Joseph's clothes in blood to make it appear that he had been slain by a wild animal. But now, in allusion to that, Jacob graciously projects this image as part of a Messianic prophecy of Judah's final greatness. But Jacob is far less gracious to some of his other sons, whose sins he remembers with bitterness and curses them concerning them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>His eyes will be red with wine, his teeth white with milk</em>- See on :11. Whilst this blessing can be understood as prophetic of Messiah, the Lord Jesus, we must remember that it was also in its first instance the blessing of the man Judah who stood in front of Jacob at this time. Isaac had blessed his firstborn, as he thought, with "plenty of corn and wine" (<em><a href='B:10 27:28'>Gen 27:28</a></em>), as well as dominance over his brother. Jacob messed up his life by desperately trying to win this paternal blessing; when he got it, it never really came true for him, and he handed it back to Esau because he then considered that the blessing of God’s grace was all sufficient (see on <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>). But now Jacob seems to have taken a step backwards, and is expressing this blessing in the same kind of terms, to Judah- who was not the firstborn, but the favourite of a moment, it seems. He has just tried to declare Ephraim as his firstborn, the son of his right hand, in Genesis 48. "Eyes... red with wine" seems a crude way of wishing Judah much wine, for this is the language of drunkenness (GNB "His eyes are bloodshot from drinking wine"); the whole feeling of these last words of Jacob is that he was not at his spiritual best, and much of what he said never really came true. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea seems to be that good wine makes eyes go red, and milk gives you white teeth. Milk doesn't make teeth white; but as with the language of demons in the New Testament, we have here an example of where wrong ideas are recorded as true, with no footnote pointing this out; because the Bible is written for people at their time, and some issues God doesn't see necessary to correct at the time.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Zebulun will dwell at the haven of the sea. He will be for a haven of ships. His border will be on Sidon</em>- If we insist that Jacob's words all were to come true, then this appears an unreconciled expositional problem. Zebulun was to dwell along the sea coast (LXX), where ships unload (a "haven"), "beside the sea" (GNB), until Sidon. But this wasn't the case. The canton of Zebulun even in Ezekiel's prophecy of the restored Kingdom was to be nowhere near Sidon, and Zebulun never had a border unto Sidon. According to Josephus (Ant. 19:10,16), Zebulun was never even bounded by the sea, being cut off by Asher. Could it be that at times Jacob's enthusiasm carried him away, and what he said was more his own wishing than the direct revelation of God? Until a satisfactory explanation can be come up with, it seems this is what we must accept. In this case, we see that even in this flurry of faith in the future Kingdom and Messiah, Jacob's interest in the physical aspect of the promises still remained with him, and carried him away in a way which God refused to work with. Perhaps this is why his old name "Jacob" and his new name "Israel" are used together so much at the time of his death, because he was still not totally transformed; and yet shall be saved, by grace. David’s spiritual enthusiasm for Solomon needs to be read in a similar light; he makes statements concerning him which reflect a Messianic zeal, but also a desire to see his physical son more blessed than he was worthy of.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Issachar is a strong donkey, lying down between the saddlebags</em>- "Issachar has desired that which is good; (i.e.) resting between the inheritance. And having seen the resting place that it was good... he subjected his shoulder to labour" (49:14 LXX). The Apostle alludes to this Greek text in <em><a href='B:650 4:1'>Heb 4:1</a></em>: "Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest". Jacob imputed righteousness to his son Issachar at the end. Imputing righteousness to others, seeing the good and the potential in them, was something Jacob only reached at the end; he saw Issachar as seeing the future Kingdom, and devoting himself to labour now to attain that future rest. And the writer to the Hebrews bids us follow that man's example. Jacob's judgment of his Issachar was with regard to how keenly he perceived the future rest of the Kingdom, and laboured now to attain it. For this reason, Jacob commended him; he judged Issachar according to how keenly he desired the Kingdom.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob's achievement of a true humility is evident in his last words. The way he blessed his sons in Genesis 49 indicates this; note how he saw Issachar's greatness in the fact he was a humble servant (49:14). He learnt the lesson of that night of wrestling; his natural strength was not to be gloried in, neither was this to be his true greatness. And yet in Jacob's words to some of his other sons at this time, and in <em><a href='B:10 48:22'>Gen 48:22</a></em>, he is back to his old pride and trust in human strength. This is why the old name "Jacob" is juxtaposed with "Israel" at this time. And yet he died in faith and hope of salvation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And again, we can read these words to Issachar more negatively; because to compare someone to a donkey was an insult and not seen as a compliment. Hence GNB: "Issachar is no better than a donkey". And it was a lazy donkey, who collapsed under its load. This fits with the generally terse and negative attitude which Jacob has to several of his sons. It's so sad that a man who had been shown such grace, and realized it, could not show it to others by the end of his life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He saw a resting place, that it was good, the land, that it was pleasant. He bows his shoulder to the burden, and becomes a servant doing forced labour</em>- Jacob may have particularly remembered Issachar's donkeys loaded with the good things of Egypt, coming in to the pleasant land of Goshen. But Jacob was prophetically aware that Issachar, along with all Israel, would end up "doing forced labour" in that pleasant land, which is what happened after new Pharaohs arose. We may enquire what was the "blessing" in this (:28). It is as ever a case of a curse having a silver lining; for one of the great themes of the Bible is that we must humble ourselves to be exalted. And perhaps that is the implication here; that the good land would be his resting place, exactly because he became a servant. And this happened on a national level- the Hebrews did "forced labour" in Egypt to prepare them to inherit the "rest" of Canaan, the good and pleasant land.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Dan will judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel</em>- The idea may be that Dan would be independent of the other tribes, and would judge / lead his own tribe. Or the idea could be that Dan would be the judge of all Israel- but this never happened. We note that the sons of Jacob's slave women [whom we now read of] are blessed on the same level as the sons by his wives. He recognized on one hand the equality of all his children; and yet on the other, he still retains his obsession with blessing the second born in the way he treats Joseph's sons.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Dan will be a serpent in the way, an adder in the path, That bites the horse’s heels, so that his rider falls backward</em>- Again we have the theme of blessing out of curse. Dan was called a serpent- but he would thereby come to victory. This is to be connected with <em><a href='B:450 10:5'>Zec 10:5</a></em>, which speaks of how in the last days, the invaders of Israel will be toppled from their horses by the men of Israel / Jacob. Again, Jacob's mind was on the far distant glory of his sons in the day of the Kingdom. There is also reference here to <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>, but with an unexpected twist; Dan as the snake (not the woman) would bite his enemies, and thereby subdue them. Is there a hint here that Jacob had so meditated on the Lord Jesus, the future Messiah, that he realized that he must have our sinful, snake-like, Jacob-like nature, and yet through that very fact the final victory against sin would be won? 'Jacob' meaning 'heel-catcher' associates him with the seed of the snake, who would bruise the seed of the woman in the heel. He saw how he would somehow be rescued from his own ‘Jacob-ness’, saved from himself, by the Saviour to come. It turned out that Jacob, who in some ways was the seed of the snake, became the seed of the woman. And yet his Messianic blessing of Dan indicates that he saw these two aspects in his Saviour Lord; he was the one who had the appearance of the seed of the snake (cp. how the bronze snake symbolized him), and yet was in fact the seed of the woman. I really believe that Jacob had so deeply reflected on his own life and sinfulness, on the promise in Eden, and on the promises of Abraham's saviour-seed, that he came to as fine an appreciation of the representative nature of Christ's sacrifice as any believer has today. Thus a lifetime of reflection on the promises (rather than thinking 'Yes, we know all about them') and sustained self-examination will lead to a deep grasp of the fact that Christ really represented <em>you</em>, he had exactly your nature, and thereby he is your very own saviour.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I have waited for Your salvation, Yahweh</em>- Jacob's hope of Messiah was the hope of his life; "I have waited for Your salvation", 'Your Jesus', he commented, perhaps in desperation at the way his sons generally did not perceive this. This is commented upon by the Jerusalem Targum with the suggestion that Jacob was expressing a very definite Messianic expectation: "My soul waiteth not for the deliverance of Gideon, the son of Joash, for it was only temporal; nor for that of Samson, for it was but transient; but for the redemption by the Messiah, the Son of David, which in thy word thou hast promised to send to thy people, the children of Israel; for this, thy salvation, my soul waiteth"</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh is a saviour God, not just a provider of children, cattle and land for the present; and now, at long last, Jacob associates Yahweh with himself; Yahweh has become his God, as he promised 70 years before. <em><a href='B:20 6:3'>Exo 6:3</a></em> says that Jacob knew the Yahweh Name from the time God appeared to him; but it took him a lifetime to make Yahweh his very own God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A troop will press on Gad, but he will press on their heel</em>- This continues the idea that apparent curses are in fact blessings (:28), once the silver lining is perceived and believed. The principle of Gen. 3:15 is recalled through the reference to "their heel"- blessing out of curse. Or as AV, Gad "shall overcome <em>at the last</em>", which reflects how Jacob's mind was focused on the final victory of his people, "at the last" .&nbsp; Again the idea is of temporary defeat or curse, leading to long term blessing. At the end of his life, Jacob had come to terms with his earlier idolatry. 'Gad' was the name of a Babylonish deity which presided over chance; Israel were condemned for believing in him in <em><a href='B:290 65:11'>Isa 65:11</a></em> AVmg. Leah using this name reflected the sentiment of 'Good fortune at the hand of the god Gad'. The way she effectively accuses Jacob’s God of treating her like a prostitute who gave her “hire” because she let her maid sleep with her husband… doesn’t indicate that she was a great believer in Yahweh. Yet when Jacob blessed Gad, he seems to change this: "Gad, a troop (Heb. <em>gedud</em>, not <em>gad</em>) shall overcome (<em>guwd</em>, related to <em>gad</em>) him: but he shall overcome". These word plays would suggest that the god Gad would be overcome, would be 'Gad-ed', by the troop of warriors that would come from the tribe of Gad. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Asher’s food will be rich. He will yield royal dainties</em>- Asher "shall yield royal dainties", or 'dainties fit for a king' suggests Jacob imagining how in the Kingdom, the Lord Jesus would eat food grown in Asher? In the restored Kingdom, the tribes of Israel would each bring their royal dainties to the Messiah (<em><a href='B:330 45:16'>Eze 45:16</a></em>).&nbsp;But in the shorter term, it seems Jacob envisioned Israel as being led by a king who came from Judah; and Asher would be supportive of that king. Yet it was not God’s will that His people should have a human king. So again we see how Jacob even at his end was not completely in step with the Father; and yet shall be saved. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Naphtali is a doe set free, who bears beautiful fawns</em>- Or as AV "a hind let loose: he giveth goodly (lit. 'gracious') words"; this is another Messianic hint. Psalms 22 (title) likens the Lord to a hind at the time of his death; and again, Jacob's appreciation of the quality of grace as it would be manifested in Christ comes out. The LXX says that Naphtali is "a tree trunk let loose". With all the other Messianic insights in Jacob's words, this cannot be accidental. Jacob even foresaw something of&nbsp; the physical manner of the Lord's death. The idea of being let loose has day of atonement connections (<em><a href='B:30 16:21'>Lev 16:21</a></em>). Did Jacob see that far ahead? One Chaldee text reads for this verse: “Naphtali is a swift messenger like a hind that runneth on the tops of the mountains bringing glad tidings”. </p><p>GNB gives "Naphtali is a deer that runs free, who bears lovely fawns". This would imply Naphtali was to be captured, but would break free afterwards. Which fits the theme of cursings having a silver lining of blessing in the end, rather like :19 "Gad will be attacked by a band of robbers, but he will turn and pursue them" (GNB).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a spring. His branches run over the wall</em>- This speaks of the descendant of Joseph as a fruitful vine, with branches. The Lord Jesus seems to have quarried his description of himself as a vine with branches from this very passage (<em><a href='B:500 15:5'>Joh 15:5</a></em>). Joseph is only recorded as having two sons, so he was not so fruitful in his lifetime; but Jacob spoke by faith, anticipating how Ephraim would become very fruitful and the largest tribe in the ten tribe kingdom.  I have noted above that most of the sons are not much blessed and some are cursed, yet they are all blessed (:28). I suggest this was because the huge blessings upon Joseph, the blessings promised to Abraham in the covenant (:26), would be shared by Joseph. And this is intimated by this statement that his branches run over the wall, i.e. his fruitful vine branches bring fruit and blessing to people outside his own house. This is confirmed by :26 LXX; the huge blessings of the covenant, the blessings given to the fathers, "shall be upon the head of Joseph, and upon the head of the brothers of whom he took the lead". This means that the blessings upon Joseph would be mediated to the brothers. It was because of his exaltation over them, which they had so resisted when his dreams first described it, that they would also be blessed.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But the Hebrew is difficult here. The GNB offers: "Joseph is like a wild donkey by a spring, A wild colt on a hillside". The image then would be of Joseph's loneliness, separate from his brothers, silhouetted alone on a hillside. "A fruitful bough" (AV) is literally 'son of a fruit tree', thereby again elevating Jacob's own importance; he was the tree, and Joseph a branch only. When Jacob was to bow to Joseph, according to the dreams. It's rather like Jacob praising Judah as a cub- suggesting Jacob was the great lion.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The archers have severely grieved him, shot at him, and persecuted him</em>- The figure of archery seems slightly inappropriate compared to what the brothers did to Joseph. Perhaps the brothers never reached the ideal level of repentance in telling Jacob what really happened; and Joseph didn’t tell Jacob because he had forgiven the brothers. The brothers' abuse of Joseph "severely grieved him", he took it very much to heart. There were likely serious incidents against Joseph before he was finally put in the pit, and Jacob may be alluding to them. However, Genesis 49 is poetry, and perhaps we are to interpret their arrows as their words, which is common enough symbology in the Bible (Jer. 9:7). Joseph was deeply hurt by their words, but (:24), God placed His hands upon those of Joseph so that the arrows he shot back, the words he spoke in response, were of grace. Jacob was marvelling at this, as we also do.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ecclesia in the time of Amos "chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of musick, like David; That drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments: but they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph” (<em><a href='B:370 6:5-6'>Amo 6:5-6</a></em>). They drunk wine and anointed their faces with oil- rejoicing in Gods blessings. They looked back to the heritage of their spiritual ancestors (David), and on a surface level appeared to follow them. They chanted the temple songs, and yet there was no grief within them for the affliction of Gods people. The archers were to surely grieve Joseph, but they chose to ignore the terrible import of those prophecies of Messiahs suffering. There was the appearance of religion and worship, but no grief nor passion for the tragedy of Messiahs forthcoming death, no grieving for the tragedy of Gods people, who were about to be afflicted for their sins. And in this we must take our warning.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But his bow remained strong- </em>As in :23, Jacob is using the imagery of archery. But he is also handing out blessings which sound very similar to those given to him by Isaac. Those blessings were supposed to have been received because the firstborn had taken his bow and arrows and caught wild game (<em><a href='B:10 27:3'>Gen 27:3</a></em> s.w.). All this allusion to human strength, and Jacob himself boasts of how he used his bow to take Shechem (<em><a href='B:10 48:22'>Gen 48:22</a></em>), is quite inappropriate for a man made to limp so as not to trust in his own strength. And he had earlier resigned the blessing of the firstborn which he had received, awed instead by the blessing of God’s grace (see on <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>). But now he returns to the scene of Isaac his father blessing him and Esau, and he starts to make conscious and unconscious allusion to it. Hence this imagery of bows and arrows.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob- </em>The archery allusion continues. The idea is that Joseph placed his hands on a bow, and God placed His hands on Joseph's hands, so that he was able to pull the string back further and take perfect aim. David uses this analogy about himself in <em><a href='B:100 22:35'>2Sa 22:35</a></em>, and it is precisely acted out in <em><a href='B:120 13:15-17'>2Ki 13:15-17</a></em>. The idea is that God would be behind whatever Joseph did. But bows and arrows also speak of children, and the thought may be that God would make Ephraim and Manasseh go far, perhaps leading up to a Messiah figure, "the shepherd". So we could translate: "The masters of archery hated him. But his bow remained in strength, and the arms of his hands were agile by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob".</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob coins a new name for God: the <em>abiyr</em>, translated here "the mighty (God)". This word occurs only in five other places, and each time it is in the phrase "the mighty one (<em>abiyr</em>) of Jacob" (<em><a href='B:230 132:2'>Psa 132:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 132:5'>Psa 132:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 1:24'>Isa 1:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:26'>Isa 49:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:16'>Isa 60:16</a></em>). Likewise, the Lord used new titles of God in his time of ultimate spiritual maturity as he faced death (<em><a href='B:500 17:11'>Joh 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:25'>Joh 17:25</a></em>). Many of the Messianic Psalms refer to God as " my God" , and it was one of the phrases in the Lord's mind in His final, glorious maturity (<em><a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a></em>). Moses in his final speech of Deuteronomy often encouraged Israel that God was <em>thy </em>(singular, personal) God<em>. </em>Jacob knew God’s mightiness for himself in a very special way; he knew His gentle forgiveness of all his pride and self-will, that mighty forgiveness, that mighty patience with him, that Almighty salvation of him which had been made possible. In the same way we will each be given the name of God, and yet this Name will be known only to us (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:3:12'>Rev 3:12</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:14:1'>Rev 14:1</a></em>); it will be God’s Name, but in a form entirely personal to us. In dim foreshadowing of that glorious relationship with God, Jacob reached something of this even in his mortal life.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel</em>- This describes "the mighty one of <em>Jacob</em>" as the shepherd and rock of <em>Israel</em>. Again Jacob is finally acceptant of the name change. Jacob recognizes that God through His Angel had shepherded him all along (<em><a href='B:10 48:15'>Gen 48:15</a></em>), and He would do likewise to Joseph's seed. The references in Deuteronomy to God being the rock that Israel forsook therefore refer to the Angel (<em><a href='B:50 32:15'>Deu 32:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:18'>Deu 32:18</a></em>). It is worth noting that the shepherd and rock ("stone" of <em><a href='B:10 49:24'>Gen 49:24</a></em>) are both clear titles of Christ- implying that this Angel specifically represented Jesus? Hence "that rock (Angel) was Christ" (<em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob describes the future Messianic seed as "the stone of Jacob / Israel". Jacob's physical stone had been overturned, rested upon, set up and anointed (<em><a href='B:10 28:13-15'>Gen 28:13-15</a></em>); perhaps now at the end, Jacob thought back to that incident and saw in that stone a prophecy of the death and resurrection of the Lord. Perhaps he even saw that the anointing, the 'Christ-ing' of the Stone would be after its raising up; he foresaw that the Lord Jesus would be made the Christ, the anointed, in the fullest sense by the resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 2:36'>Act 2:36</a></em>). "The hope of Israel", or (see modern versions), "he for whom Israel / Jacob hopes" is another title of Christ (<em><a href='B:510 28:20'>Act 28:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:300 14:8'>Jer 14:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 17:13'>Jer 17:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 3:16'>Joe 3:16</a></em>); he was the one for whom Jacob / Israel hoped. And his hope is the hallmark of all the Israel of God. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob's reflection on the Lord Jesus must have been deep indeed, for he reaches some quite advanced and deep conclusions concerning him. Thus he describes God as the God from whom is "the shepherd, the stone of Israel / Jacob", both evidently Messianic titles. Yet "the rock of Israel" is later understood to be a reference to the God of Jacob (<em><a href='B:100 23:3'>2Sa 23:3</a></em>). Therefore we may conclude that Jacob saw his God as manifest in the future Messiah, who would come out of the Father, i.e. be the Son of God. To understand God manifestation in Christ and the necessity for his Divine Sonship could have come from direct Divine revelation, but my sense is that it came instead from his deep appreciation of the promised blessing of forgiveness through Abraham's Messianic seed. Jacob's ever deepening appreciation of this and his progressive appreciation of God’s grace led him to deeply meditate on the Lord's role. Jacob himself was a shepherd (<em><a href='B:10 46:34'>Gen 46:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 12:12'>Hos 12:12</a></em>), and yet he gave the Christ the title of "<em>the</em> shepherd", as if he recognized that although the Lord Jesus would come out of God, he would also be exactly like Jacob, of his nature. He saw on a completely personal level the way in which Christ truly was his very own representative. He therefore saw in himself a type of Christ, indicated by the way in which he asks his sons to gather themselves unto him, and then goes on to say that ultimately, his people will gather themselves together unto Messiah (<em><a href='B:10 49:1-2'>Gen 49:1-2</a></em> cp. 10). See on <em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 48:19'>Gen 48:19</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses' hands being upheld by the hands of others can be seen as a type of the Lord Jesus being sustained by Angelic hands on the cross, connecting with this Messianic prophecy concerning the hands of Messiah being strengthened for His mediation by the hands of God. Throughout Scripture, God’s hands are associated with His creative work in the natural creation (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 8:6'>Psa 8:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 95:5'>Psa 95:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 1:10'>Heb 1:10</a></em>)- work which was and is performed through the Angels. The Lord Jesus was aware of the Angels in His final agony; He was painfully aware that they were at His command to lessen the physical torment (<em><a href='B:470 26:53'>Mat 26:53</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob stated that from Joseph (Ephraim's father) would come the Shepherd / Stone / Messiah (49:24); presumably, Jacob thought, through Ephraim. Yet Jacob was wrong in this; indeed, he uses Messianic imagery about Judah's seed as well. Thus whilst Jacob showed his spiritual maturity by an enthusiasm for the Lord Jesus Christ, even right at the very end of his life, he still had an old flaw: a desire to fulfill God’s promises in the way <em>he</em> wanted them fulfilled, a desire to turn God’s word round to fit in with <em>his</em> preferred way of thinking (in this case, that Messiah would come through Joseph / Ephraim). The way the prophets continually describe sinful Israel as "Ephraim" is perhaps God’s way of showing that Jacob's way was not His way. See on <em><a href='B:10 48:19'>Gen 48:19</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Even by the God of your father, who will help you; by the Almighty, who will bless you, with blessings of the sky above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb</em>- <em>Finally</em>, at long last, Jacob got there. In this section, he says three times the same thing; God is my God, Yahweh- Messiah will be the my rock, my stone, yes, He is the God of your father Jacob, He is ALL-MIGHTY to save. That promise to make Yahweh his God, made 70 years previously in semi-belief, he had now fulfilled. He had made Yahweh his God. He was not only the&nbsp; God of his father and grandfather. The God who can do all things, not only physically but more importantly (as Jacob now realized) <em>spiritually</em>, was with his very own God. No wonder he dies repeating this three times over. And remember, he's our pattern. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word "help" used here frequently occurs in the context of military help. Again Jacob's thoughts seem to be circling around the material and physical, when his whole life's lesson was surely that the spiritual must dominate over the material. The blessings he wishes Joseph again recall those uttered by Isaac, Jacob's father (<em><a href='B:10 27:28'>Gen 27:28</a></em>); and God had taught Jacob that His spiritual blessings are far more important than these kinds of material blessings. In a moment of spiritual desperation and perception, Jacob had grasped this, and handed them all to Esau (see on <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>); but as with us, over the years, that perspective had become eroded. </p><p>We note that Jacob blesses Joseph with blessings of the heaven and the deep, or, the earth. This was exactly the blessing which Isaac had given Jacob when he stole the birthright blessings from Esau. Jacob had been taught many times that these blessings were immaterial, and had at one point in Gen. 32 resigned them back to Esau. But here he considers such blessings significant- he has still not learned that these material paternal blessings are irrelevant. His behaviour with Ephraim and Manasseh likewise reflects his failure to have really learned his lessons about the irrelevancies of being the firstborn. He thus died imperfect spiritually, like all of us, and yet secure in God's salvation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The blessings of your father have prevailed above the blessings of your ancestors, above the boundaries of the ancient hills- </em>Jacob had lamented that he had not been blessed with as long a life as his ancestors Isaac and Abraham (see on <em><a href='B:10 47:9'>Gen 47:9</a></em>). But he finally feels he has been blessed far more than them. He certainly had more children, but materially it would seem they had more. So the "blessings" he perceives are spiritual rather than material; even though, as pointed out throughout this commentary, he still had the material and the spiritual too mixed up in his perceptions. And he now realizes that the huge blessings of the covenant have all been placed upon Joseph, and have as it were run off from his head onto the heads of his brothers (see LXX). This implies they were kneeling before him with heads bowed, exactly what Joseph had dreamed at 17.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob's progression from perceiving the promises as concerning physical blessing to seeing their essential relevance to forgiveness and future salvation is made explicit here: "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of the ancient mountains, the delight, glory or loveliness of the hills of eternity" (this rendition is supported by the LXX, Gesenius, RVmg.). Remember that in the wrestling incident, Jacob realized that the blessing of God essentially refers to His forgiveness, and he had therefore given away his material blessing because he was so thrilled with his spiritual blessing (see on <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>). This connection between blessing and forgiveness / salvation is widespread throughout Scripture: <em><a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 5:12'>Psa 5:12</a></em>&nbsp; (blessing = grace) <em><a href='B:50 30:19'>Deu 30:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 3:8'>Psa 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 24:5'>Psa 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 28:9'>Psa 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 133:3'>Psa 133:3</a></em> (= salvation); <em><a href='B:20 12:32'>Exo 12:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:29'>Exo 32:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:1'>Num 24:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 21:3'>2Sa 21:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 67:1'>Psa 67:1</a></em> (cp. context); <em><a href='B:490 6:28'>Luk 6:28</a></em> (cp. ) <em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:7-8'>Rom 4:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:14'>Gal 3:14</a></em> (= forgiveness). Surrounded by his sons clamouring, one can imagine, for physical, immediate blessings, just as he did in the first half of his life, Jacob says that the spiritual blessings he had received, the grace, the forgiveness, the salvation, were infinitely higher than the blessings of rock-solid hills and mountains, things which seemed so permanent and tangible. His intangible blessings were, he finally realized,. much higher than his intangible ones.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob no longer saw the promised blessings as solely referring to him personally having a prosperous time in the promised land; he joyfully looked forward to the future Kingdom. He says that he now realizes that his blessings (of forgiveness and the subsequent hope of the Kingdom) are greater than the blessings of the everlasting mountains (49:26 RV mg.); he saw the spiritual side of his blessings as more significant than the material aspect. Despite the fact that the promises were primarily fulfilled in the peace and prosperity he and his seed enjoyed at the end (<em><a href='B:10 48:4'>Gen 48:4</a></em> "multitude" s.w. 47:27; 35:11; 28:3), Jacob doesn't emphasize this fact as he could have done; instead, he looks to the future, ultimate fulfilments. He looked back on his life as a "pilgrimage", a series of temporary abodes on the way to something permanent, i.e. the future Kingdom (<em><a href='B:10 47:9'>Gen 47:9</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They will be on the head of Joseph, on the crown of the head of him who was separated from his brothers</em>- This may not simply be a statement to the effect that Joseph was separate from his brothers. He was literally 'Nazirited', consecrated, from among his brothers; this could be a reference to how he was the family priest, wearing the coat of many colours; and how he was clearly consecrated by God as well to be the family's saviour.</p><p>LXX "shall be upon the head of Joseph, and upon the head of the brothers of whom he took the lead". As discussed on :22, the idea is that the brothers were each individually blessed (:28) because they partook in the blessings upon Joseph. Even though many of them were 'blessed' with curses.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Benjamin is a ravenous wolf. In the morning he will devour the prey. At evening he will divide the spoil</em>- "In the morning he shall devour the prey" (49:27) connects with the promises that Messiah's second coming would be the true morning (<em><a href='B:290 60:1'>Isa 60:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 4:1-2'>Mal 4:1-2</a></em>); this was the day when Benjamin would have his true blessing.&nbsp;Many of Jacob's blessings of his sons contain some reference to Christ's future work, e.g. "he shall divide the spoil" (49:27); "he whom thy brethren shall praise" (49:8 = <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:5'>Rev 5:5</a></em>). Jacob describes Judah's Messianic descendant as "my son"; he eagerly looked ahead to the Lord Jesus as fulfilment of the promised Messianic seed. He perhaps saw that the multitudinous seed he had been promised was in fact an intensive plural, referring to the one great Messianic seed.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or perhaps Jacob was angry with Benjamin, the 'son of my right hand' who had become firstborn after Joseph disappeared. The GNB translates more bluntly: "Benjamin is like a vicious wolf. Morning and evening he kills and devours". Maybe this is some reference to an unrecorded military encounter (as in :9 and <em><a href='B:10 48:22'>Gen 48:22</a></em>) where Benjamin, although young, had acted with great brutality. Jacob would be raising this issue as a reason for not now seeing him as the firstborn.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All these are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father spoke to them and blessed them. He blessed everyone according to his blessing</em>- GNB has it about right: "These are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father said as he spoke a suitable word of farewell to each son". And yet only Judah and Joseph got any real blessing; Jacob's attitude with most of the other sons was to raise issues from the past and curse them because of them, being quite insolent to some of them, e.g. "Issachar is no better than a donkey". And he tells Simeon and Levi that he is nothing to do with them. What was intended to be a time of blessing, he turned into cursing. When God had graciously turned his cursings into blessings for him, and Jacob himself realizes that he has been so amazingly blessed himself. It was a sad end, and yet Jacob still shall be saved, and God is still the God of Jacob. None of us will attain moral perfection by the time we die, and so in essence we are like Jacob, dying in hope of grace, in immaturity, not having got as far as we ought to have done. </p><p>Or perhaps we are to understand that in the curses and noted consequences for disobedience, there is a silver lining. There is blessing, for those who respond and humble themselves; judgment and consequence become a magnificent defeat. Thus the scattering of Levi was fulfilled through their becoming the priestly tribe, intended to bring blessing to the rest of Israel through their scattering.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He instructed them, and said to them, I am to be gathered to my people. Bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite</em>- Although the rather rambling, bitter and bizarre statements so far in this chapter could give us the impression that Jacob had dementia, he speaks of his funeral and the location of the burial cave with great accuracy. His heart was truly on the things of the Kingdom and the promises. We note that he saw his fathers as lying in the grave; if he had believed in an immortal soul, surely he would have spoken otherwise.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the land of Canaan, which Abraham bought with the field from Ephron the Hittite as a burial place</em>- That this spot was bought, when it was their eternal inheritance, is cited as an example of the faith of the patriarchs (<em><a href='B:510 7:5'>Act 7:5</a></em>). They had not inherited the land eternally, yet God keeps His promises- and therefore they were forced to look ahead in faith to the day of resurrection and eternal inheritance. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There they buried Abraham and Sarah, his wife. There they buried Isaac and Rebekah, his wife, and there I buried Leah</em>- In his penultimate sentence, Jacob makes the perhaps strange comment that "they buried Isaac" (his father; 49:31). The "they" meant him and Esau (<em><a href='B:10 35:29'>Gen 35:29</a></em>), but perhaps Jacob wanted to show his separation from Esau by describing the funeral in this way. Separation from the world is thus an aspect of spiritual maturity, and also a result of sustained appreciation of the covenant promises. &nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems that Jacob came to see his beloved parents in spiritual, not emotional terms, at the end. Consider the pronouns he uses: "There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; there they (i.e. he and his brother, <em><a href='B:10 35:29'>Gen 35:29</a></em>) buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried Leah" (49:3 AV1). He doesn't talk in the first person about "my father" or "I" buried. He sees himself as their friend in faith, more than their son. These words were said in Jacob's last breath. It shows to me how at last he had won this battle, he had shed the crutch of his father’s faith, he stood alone before <em>his</em> God, at the very end he wasn't leaning on his parents spiritually any more, all the scaffolding had been removed, and he stood alone, on his own deep foundation. His final words are full of conscious and unconscious reference to the fathers and the promises. See on <em><a href='B:10 47:9'>Gen 47:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 48:15'>Gen 48:15</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The field and the cave that is therein, which was purchased from the children of Heth</em>- Jacob’s final words reflect his resentment against the children of Heth; he saw that they were the world, the children of this world which now possess the land of promise, covenanted to be God’s Kingdom, not theirs. He realized that the time was not yet ripe, and his very last words were a reminder of this. His mind was centred on the promises and the future ownership of the land, and on his connection with Abraham and Isaac; the fact that the land was not inherited during the patriarch's lifetimes (the land had to be bought from the children of Heth) is seen by the Spirit as an indication that the Kingdom had not yet come, but surely would do (<em><a href='B:510 7:5'>Act 7:5</a></em>). And Jacob died with exactly the same perception. In doing so, he was reflecting the view of his dear mother, who detested the ways of the Godless children of Heth (<em><a href='B:10 27:46'>Gen 27:46</a></em>). So in his time of dying, Jacob was not divided from the spiritual views of his parents. Their Hope was his Hope, but he had made it his own. He was not just living out their expectations of him. The way he got there in the end&nbsp; is just marvellous to behold.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Jacob made an end of charging his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the spirit, and was gathered to his people</em>- At the very end, Jacob gathered himself up into his bed to die, and then God gathered him up (this comes out very clearly in the Hebrew text). That desire of God for mutuality with His servant Jacob had always been there. See on <em><a href='B:10 48:8'>Gen 48:8</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idiom of Jacob being “gathered to his people” is used, despite the fact that many Bible readers will misunderstand this as meaning that he therefore joined them in some disembodied existence. The idiom is used but not corrected. God is not so primitive as to keep on as it were tripping over Himself to defend and define what He has said and the way He has chosen to say it. He speaks to us in our language, and at various times over history has dealt with men in terms they can cope with. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph fell on his father’s face, wept on him, and kissed him</em>- As noted through Genesis 49, Jacob cursed rather than blessed many of his sons. It is Joseph who comes over as the most affectionate for Jacob, and is in charge of his burial; see on :10. To fall on the face was a sign of inferiority; Joseph did so knowing that the next time he would see Jacob, in the resurrection, Jacob and Rachel would fall before him. So he did this realizing that it was in the flesh, as part of this fallen state. The same phrase "wept on and kissed" is used of what Jacob did to his brothers, to assure them that all was forgiven (<em><a href='B:10 45:15'>Gen 45:15</a></em>). We wonder if Joseph felt he had things to forgive Jacob for; not least Jacob's reprimand of Joseph for his dreams, and never apologizing about it later.  Jacob's favouritism towards Joseph had been the root of so many problems for Joseph. In the end, we all have to come to forgiving others, and we may as well do it immediately rather than needing time to do it. And perhaps the way Jacob had removed Joseph from being the firstborn and effectively given it to Benjamin, then Ephraim and then Judah... all felt like it was something he had to forgive, as he finally accepted that all this talk about the paternal blessing was really nothing. </p><p>We note that only Joseph is recorded as weeping over his dead father. The brothers are not mentioned as doing so, when we would rather expect them to. This perhaps indicates again that the human ending of the story of Joseph was not ideal. The brothers realized they had deceived their father over Joseph and made him suffer terribly. But they never once admitted it nor apologized to him for it. And when he dies, they do not weep over him. Joseph's dream of restored relationships between them, on account of his great wisdom and grace, was unfulfilled. But his dreams will have their fulfilment in the Kingdom, when Rachel his mother shall also arise to bow before him as he prophesied. For this was never fulfilled in the story fo Joseph in this life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph commanded his servants, the physicians, to embalm his father; and the physicians embalmed Israel</em>- The Hebrew for "physicians" is literally the healers, those who make whole. It was not the job of physicians to embalm. But Joseph makes them do it, perhaps to teach them that all their Egyptian myths about prolonging life were incorrect. They had not kept his father alive, and so he made them embalm him, dealing personally with the body which they had failed to cure or keep alive. This fits in with a wider theme in the Joseph story- that the ways of the true God demonstrated the errors of Egyptian thinking. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Forty days were fulfilled for him, for that is how many the days it takes to embalm. The Egyptians wept for him for seventy days</em>- Jacob's sons wept for a shorter period (:10), perhaps again demonstrating (as noted on :2) that the Egyptian ways were inferior to those of the Hebrews; for such lengthy weeping was but a formalism compared to the true grief of the family. We note that Jacob was embalmed; the body was not divided into parts, perhaps in reflection of the hope of resurrection by Joseph. Hence Joseph commands the servants specifically to embalm the body. And the word translated "embalm" also means "to ripen". Death is as Paul explains, the sowing of a seed, which then ripens into the resurrection body.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the days of weeping for him were past, Joseph spoke to the house of Pharaoh, saying, If now I have found favour in your eyes, please speak in the ears of Pharaoh, saying</em>- We wonder why Joseph did not directly speak to Pharaoh. Perhaps a new Pharaoh had arisen, and already there was a distance between Joseph and the new ruler. For the rigours of famine were now 12 years in the past. There may be far more implied in the statement "If now I have found favour in <em>your</em> eyes". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘My father made me swear, saying, Behold, I am dying. Bury me in my grave which I have dug for myself in the land of Canaan. Now therefore, please let me go up and bury my father, and I will come again’</em>- The burial place was therefore not simply a cave, from where bodies could be stolen, but involved digging. This was unusual for the Egyptians, who preferred to build structures over the bodies and keep the bodies above the ground; but we can understand it given the Hebrew hope in resurrection. It is not clear when exactly Jacob had this grave "dug"; perhaps he did it when leaving Canaan, so distinct was his sense of association with the promised land. Yet Jacob himself, despite so often asking to be buried in Canaan, had never spoken of having dug a grave. We wonder if Joseph threw this in at the last moment to underline the need to do it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pharaoh said, Go up, and bury your father, just like he made you swear</em>- Joseph now needs Pharaoh's permission to leave Egypt. This is different to the relationship he had with the Pharaoh earlier, when he could do what he wanted. And the record is pregnant with connection with how Israel were to ask a later Pharaoh to leave Egypt and were not allowed to. The winds of change were already blowing, and the tide of history was turning against Israel in Egypt.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, all the elders of the land of Egypt</em>- Clearly the elderly Jacob had become a senior figure in Egypt in the 17 years he lived there. These "elders" of Egypt were those to whom Joseph had taught "wisdom" (<em><a href='B:230 105:22'>Psa 105:22</a></em> s.w. "senators"). Perhaps they had come to share the hope of Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the house of Joseph, his brothers, and his father’s house. Only their little ones, their flocks, and their herds, they left in the land of Goshen</em>- Again this points us forward to how a later Pharaoh insisted that Israel's flocks must remain in Goshen if they wanted to leave (<em><a href='B:20 10:24'>Exo 10:24</a></em>). And <em><a href='B:20 10:10'>Exo 10:10</a></em> could imply that Pharaoh had tried to bargain that Israel could temporarily leave Egypt to sacrifice in the desert, but their "little ones" must remain. We are being prepared for the Pharaohs getting more controlling and demanding of the Hebrews.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There went up with him both chariots and horsemen. It was a very great company</em>- I explained on <em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em> that it was the Divine intention that Israel leave Egypt and return to Canaan once the famine ended; Jacob was intended to die in Canaan with Joseph next to him, and the blessings on the tribes in Genesis 49 would have had their primary fulfilment in the land of Canaan at that time. Israel were to become a great company in the land of Egypt during the famine, and then return to Canaan. And now indeed they were a great company, and were returning to Canaan- but temporarily. They ought to have gone permanently. We too face so many problems in our lives because we do not follow the Plan A which God intended for us. It's not that He rejects us for not following it; but the other plans involve so much suffering for us which would be otherwise needless, and so much human damage.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They came to the threshing floor of Atad, which is beyond the Jordan- </em>That they crossed the Jordan is twice mentioned (:11). We wonder why they took the more circuitous route to Mamre from Goshen; for there was a direct highway, that didn’t require them to cross the Jordan river. Whatever the reason, it was perhaps to help Israel in the wilderness (the first audience of the book of Genesis) to see that their route was not in fact without precedent. And this is the whole purpose of Biblical history; to help us see that man is not alone, no situation is essentially unique, others have passed this way before. With God’s grace ever with them.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And there they lamented with a very great and severe lamentation. He mourned for his father seven days</em>- We notice a separation between "they (the other sons) lamented", and Joseph's mourning ("he mourned"). They wept in different ways. Joseph clearly led the funeral but we get the impression that the brothers were still not OK with their father at his burial, whereas Joseph was because he had forgiven him. The last words many of the sons had heard from their father were his ranting at them and effective cursing of them when he was supposed to be giving them a blessing. Presumably they forgave this, or humbled themselves to accept that although he was unreasonable to them in his demented state, yet indeed they had done wrong and deserved his words. For otherwise it is hard to understand how they could apparently so genuinely mourn their father’s passing. Perhaps they now 'got it'; that their blessing, given to each of them (Gen. 49:28), was on account of their connection with Joseph.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the mourning in the floor of Atad, they said, This is a grievous mourning by the Egyptians. Therefore its name was called Abel Mizraim, which is beyond the Jordan</em>- The Hebrews appeared as Egyptians, just as Moses was later to appear as an Egyptian. We too may be perceived as the people of this world, our Egypt; we look the same, wear the same clothes, pass through the same general experiences, speak the same language. And in moments of weakness, this can lead us to think that perhaps there is really nothing of substance to our religion. But we are different; circumcision is of the heart, in the hidden, inner man, as the New Testament describes it. For the significance of them taking the route over the Jordan, see on :10.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>His sons did to him just as he commanded them</em>- This is laboured (:13). The record wishes all to see how "Israel" were centred around identity with the promises made to the patriarchs, with the patriarchs personally, and with the associated hope of the resurrection of the body. And that is just as true for the new Israel; for the new covenant was expressed in the promises made to the patriarchs. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field, for a possession of a burial site, from Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre</em>- Again the point is repeated, that the patriarchs had to buy land in which to bury their dead, when God had promised them the land as an eternal inheritance. They had to buy a possession; whereas God had <em>given</em> them the land as an eternal possession. God keeps His promises, and thus is necessitated the resurrection of the dead and the establishment of God’s eternal Kingdom in the land promised. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph returned into Egypt - he, and his brothers, and all that went up with him to bury his father - after he had buried his father</em>- As noted on :9, there is a tragedy to this. They ought to have taken their children and flocks, and remained in Canaan. But it is emphasized that not one of them remained in Canaan; they all returned to what seemed the softer life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said- </em>As always with the inspired record, this has the ring of psychological credibility. The 'seeing' or perception of another's death sinks in some time after the burial. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It may be that Joseph will hate us, and will fully pay us back for all of the evil which we did to him</em>- "It may be" can as well be translated "certainly". They were sure Joseph was now going to punish them. Likewise there are some convinced of their certain condemnation who will have an eternal surprise. Why did they have this fear of him, when all the evidence was of his utter love, grace and forgiveness? It is the same question as to why God's people today doubt their acceptance with the Lord Jesus. Perhaps they had been subconsciously pricked in their conscience by passing by the pit into which they had thrown Joseph so long ago. For there was only one main route from Canaan to Egypt. And they had Joseph with them on this journey, indeed he is presented as leading the return procession. They had not fully believed his forgiveness and salvation of them . Just as we too doubt it. And so when the memory if past failure is restimulated, we too can fall into a spiritual panic attack. We are reminded in the communion service of the utter certainty of our salvation and His love. And we are to meet all our restimulations calm in that knowledge. </p> <p> They recognized that the apparently single act of selling Joseph into Egypt had led to "all of the evil" which had come upon Joseph. He had clearly explained to them what had happened. And they accepted, as we should, that one bad act spawns many others for which we are responsible. The man who abuses a young child has some blame for the life of theft, drug addiction and self harm which resulted from actions which may have summed up to "just" a few hours. This is the nature of all sin- it has rolling consequences. See on :17.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The brothers still needed education in their faith in grace. The same word is used of how they had "hated" Joseph (<em><a href='B:10 49:23'>Gen 49:23</a></em>). So they proceeded to tell a lie, to show a lack of faith, on the basis of a 'What if...' logic. And it is 'What if...?' which drives so much of our lack of faith. It drives the need to undermine others, to pursue ever more wealth, to be untruthful. God does at times pay back evil- the same words are used of Him doing this elsewhere (<em><a href='B:70 9:56-57'>Jdg 9:56-57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 25:39'>1Sa 25:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 54:5'>Psa 54:5</a></em> etc.). Joseph does not just gloss over their evil; he agrees with them that they had done evil (:20), but he tells them that he is not God (:19); although that is possible of an alternative explanation. It will not be for him to have any part in any possible repayment of them for the evil done. He doesn't rule out the possibility of God doing so; but it is for him to show grace and to only repay evil with good. This is a profound lesson which Christians have struggled to learn over the centuries. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They sent a message to Joseph, saying, Your father commanded before he died, saying- </em>As noted on :15, this was a lie, told on the basis of fear of possible futures. It is those same fears which lead us to so much poor behaviour. The Hebrew word for "message" can mean either a message or a messenger- hence <em><a href='B:10 50:16'>Gen 50:16</a></em> AV "messenger", RV "message". In the Divine thinking which is so often reflected in the Hebrew language, the man is his message, the messenger is the message. “What the Soviet cosmonaut wanted when he looked for God in the dark void outside his spacecraft window is... the hungering desire of our age. We want proof, evidence, a personal appearance, so that the God we have heard about becomes the God we see” (Philip Yancey, <em>Disappointment With God</em> (Zondervan, 1997) p. 46). And the only evidence is in you and me. People are interested, they are hungering and searching for Him; and the evidence they seek is in our radically transformed lives. They won’t get a voice out of a whirlwind or sight of a Heavenly form; they just get a glimpse of you and me. In this sense the (human) medium <em>is</em> the (Divine) message.  The word is to be made flesh in us, as it was in the Lord.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘You shall tell Joseph, Now please forgive the disobedience of your brothers, and their sin, because they did evil to you’. Now, please forgive the disobedience of the servants of the God of your father- </em>We wonder why the emphasis upon "disobedience". The sin of selling Joseph into Egypt was the summation of much "disobedience"; and they recognized that this apparently single act of selling Joseph ("their sin") had much more to it (see on :15). They did it because they were disobedient to Joseph as the family priest, and were disobedient to the implications of his dreams. This would be why they go on to say that they are indeed his servants, as shown in the dreams by their bowing before him. We note that they like their father Jacob are still talking about the God of their father, rather than their personal God.  This is the closest we get to any famous final scene of repentance. We are set up to long for and expect some amazing human breakthrough in relationship and dramatic moment of transformation. It doesn't come, or at least, not very dramatically. And even this confession from the brothers is a very long time coming, and as noted earlier, the brothers clearly did repent in their hearts and re-think their past actions and attitudes. But only now, years after Joseph had accepted them anyway, do they move to a formal statement of repentance. And even then, it is expressed in general terms and is not specific, nor is there any specific acceptance that his dreams had come true. And it seems motivated by fear of him rather than being from the heart. And there is never any word of repentance from them to their father for lying to him and distressing him over what they did to him and Joseph. We are left wondering why exactly Joseph wept on hearing these words. This is one of those intentionally open questions which we are left to think about. Was it from joy that all his efforts to lead them to repentance had worked? Or was it from sorrow that they had still not really got there and their words were rooted in fear of him, a fear based on still misunderstanding and not accepting the greatness of his grace and patience?</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph wept when they spoke to him</em>- He wept as God must weep, at the slowness of men to believe His wonderful grace. The good news of the Gospel is disbelieved so often because it is in fact too good news. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joseph's brothers had slink away from him, and he had had to encourage them: "Come near to me, I pray you" (<em><a href='B:10 45:4'>Gen 45:4</a></em>). They absolutely knew that they ought to be punished and killed by him, and they obviously thought he would do it. And now even years later, Joseph <em>wept</em> in frustration at their lack of full acceptance of his total forgiveness. These scenes are so evidently typical of the future judgment seat of Joseph / Jesus. There is even the suggestion in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:15'>Rev 7:15</a></em> that after the judgment process, the Lord will come down off His throne and mix with us, after the pattern of Joseph.&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:10 45:4'>Gen 45:4</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>His brothers also went and fell down before his face- </em>They recognized that they had been disobedient to the implication of Joseph's dreams (see on :17), and so again they fall down before him.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And they said, Behold, we are your servants</em>- In :18 they say that they are servants of God; here, that they are Joseph's servants. They perceived Joseph as God manifest, hence his comment in :19 "Am I in the place of God?". Or it could be that Joseph is encouraging them that he is indeed in the place of God (the Hebrew can be translated "I am in the place of God"); and he could therefore assure them that his grace towards them was indeed a reflection of God’s grace to them. And God to this day arranges things and encounters in our lives to elicit repentance from us, and to help us perceive that others' grace to us is indeed God’s grace to us reflected through them. "We are your servants" is what they had said to Joseph around 20 years before (Gen. 44:16). They had not moved on from this attitude to experiencing open fellowship, friendship and communion with Joseph. And this is indeed a level of relationship with the Lord Jesus which is beyond simply accepting him as our Master. For He wishes to call us friends, not servants.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph said to them, Don’t be afraid, for am I in the place of God?</em>- Joseph doesn't point out their lie; he doesn't say 'I don't believe you, it makes no sense to say this, surely he would've told me himself as I am the one to do the forgiveness; see, again, you are back to your dishonest ways'. Rather he doesn't confront them but lets his own example of grace speak for itself, setting us a great example. See on <em><a href='B:10 40:8'>Gen 40:8</a></em>. He might be saying that indeed "I am in the place of God" (Heb.), not acting according to my own gut feelings; and God is full of grace and forgiveness, so they need not fear him, as he was manifesting God’s saving grace to them. I noted on <em><a href='B:10 41:19'>Gen 41:19</a></em> that Joseph was an intense manifestation of God, and the vehicle through whom God was working.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps there is a purposeful ambiguity in the Hebrew, implying both "I am in the place of God" and "Am I in the place of God?", implying he was not. So this could also be read as Joseph telling them not to fear him, because evil is repaid only by God and not himself; see on :15. ‘God manifestation’ doesn’t mean playing God. Joseph held himself back from being vindictive against his brothers by saying that he could not do so, because if he did, he would be acting ‘in God’s place’. His fear of ‘playing God’ meant that he wouldn’t presume to judge them. All too easily, a too simplistic view of ‘God manifestation’ can lead us to assume that we are to judge and condemn others, thus arrogating to ourselves what is only and rightly God’s personal prerogative. </p><p>This can as well be translated "Fear not, for I am in God's place". Because they had just described themselves as God's servants and now they say they are Joseph's servants. His reasoning is that because he has forgiven them, so has God. Or because God has forgiven them, so has he and he will therefore not punish them. This is how what is bound on earth by us is bound in Heaven. Of course God can forgive us whether or not man forgives us, but the point is that if we forgive then God is eager to match that with His forgiveness. This gives us great power over those who abuse us. In this sense we hold the keys of the Kingdom. And this is the huge significance with which our forgiveness is freighted.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day- </em>When Paul wrote that all things work together for our "good" (<em><a href='B:520 8:28'>Rom 8:28</a></em>), he was echoing how in all the grief of Joseph's life, the rejection by his brethren, the cruel twists of fate (as they seemed at the time)... <em>God meant it for good</em>. This same wonderful process will come true in our lives- for they too are equally directed by a loving Father. Joseph is clear that "You sold me into Egypt" (Gen. 45:4), but he repeatedly explains that "You sold me [but in fact] God sent me" into Egypt. You sold me, but God sent me (Gen. 45:8). This is the key to coping with life, to perceive that what happens to us on one level is used by God on another.</p><p>The wonder of it all is not simply that good triumphs over evil, but that good triumphs /through /evil. And this is finally the message of the Gospel, of the cross of Christ, of the Kingdom, that even death itself becomes a magnificent defeat. Christus Viktor, Jesus Christ as victor, Lord, Master and Saviour. And this is the message we take to a world where evil appears to triumph over good, and where even children's fairytales seem to have evil triumphing. And we have a part in the cross; the Lord's victory there is ours, ultimate and eternal good shall triumph through the evil we experience now.

"To bring it to pass" is vague. What is the referrent of the "it"? Perhaps Joseph's dreams, seeing that Joseph may have seen those double dreams as he did Pharaoh's double dreams, as being "one". He was explaining that they were not about his power over his brethren, but rather their gratitude to him for grace and salvation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joseph held no grudge against his brethren, and would not be vindictive to them, because he understood something of predestination: “You <em>meant </em>evil against me; but God <em>meant</em> it for good”. And because he understood that God’s good intentions were worked out through the evil intentions of others, Joseph was content to leave all in God’s hands, and on <em>this basis</em> he assures his brothers that given his understanding of this ‘predestination’, he wouldn’t hit back at them for what they’d done to him. This can be a helpful perspective for us in our struggles to forgive. "Meant" is literally to weave, to fabricate. Their weaving of evil plans and lies were more than matched by God’s incredible weaving through the whole situation to bring about good from evil- He doesn't just walk away from evil and sin, but weaves through it. It is the word used of the "cunning work" of the tabernacle tapestry and the breastplate of judgment, where the threads of colours representing God are woven through the scarlet threads of human sin (<em><a href='B:20 26:1'>Exo 26:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 26:31'>Exo 26:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 28:15'>Exo 28:15</a></em>). The cherubim were made likewise; through all this, God’s absolute glory shines (<em><a href='B:20 36:35'>Exo 36:35</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same words and ideas of good and evil are found in <em><a href='B:90 20:17'>1Sa 20:17</a></em>, where Saul does David evil, but David repays that evil with good. David was inspired by Joseph; as we should be. So often he laments that Saul and his men 'mean evil' ("devise... my hurt"), and yet God will preserve him as He did Joseph, for good (<em><a href='B:230 35:4'>Psa 35:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 41:7'>Psa 41:7</a></em> etc.). For these records are for our learning, that we too like David might slot ourselves into Joseph's place.</p><p>This verse is clearly alluded to in Rom. 8:28: “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” We therefore have a part in all this. This is not mere history, but an actual pattern for us, and the living word speaking to us personally.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To save many people alive-</em> God’s abundant grace is revealed in the way that they devised evil against one man, and yet God through that devised good not for one man, Joseph, but to save not only him but "many people". They devised death; but through that God devised life. Paul catches this spirit when he draws up the contrasts between the death which came from the one man Adam, and the life which comes through the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore don’t be afraid. I will nourish you and your little ones. He comforted them, and spoke kindly to them</em>- Joseph alludes to his words of 17 years before, when he had first promised to "nourish" his brothers and their families in Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 45:11'>Gen 45:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 47:12'>Gen 47:12</a></em> s.w.). He assures them yet again that he is a man of his word, no matter how long the consequences of that word go on for. He was in this sense manifesting God to them (see on :19). The 'comfort' he gave them was really comfort in their slowness to believe in his grace. The same words are found in the prophecy of how the Elijah ministry will speak to the heart ("comfortably", s.w.) of latter day Israel, assuring them that their sin is past and forgiven (<em><a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a></em>).</p><p>He "spoke to their heart" (Heb.), so perhaps the story does have a happy ending in that they did finally believe in his love, forgiveness and salvation. And their names will be inscribed eternally upon the new Jerusalem, so we can assume they will indeed be saved by Joseph's grace.</p> <p> However we would be mistaken if we were to conclude that this is a story of forgiveness and reconcilliation. Joseph indeed forgave his brothers and did so on God's behalf. But there is no blissful picture of reconcilliation, with the brothers and Joseph living happily together. Just as there is rarely any truly happy ending in this life. Forgiveness may be granted, and we may avoid judging those who sinned against us, and our grace may indeed lead to the final salvation of those who sinned against us. But as with Joseph and his brothers, there is often no happy reconciliation in this life; that is one of the joys of the Kingdom which awaits us all. The final fulfilment of Joseph's dream of his brothers and parents bowing together before him in gratitude will only then be fulfilled. And we therefore are wise not to join the vast majority who live and die in unfulfilled hope that there will be such interpersonal reconciliations in this life. People, even believers, live and die divided and distrusting of each other. But the final reconcilliation will come, if we on our part truly forgive. In all these situations, somebody around here has to be the Christian, and that person happens to be you. And really this is the spirit of all God's dealings with us. He forgives and saves, right now. But that doesn't achieve the intimacy with us which it should and could and ought to. But it will, finally, in the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph lived in Egypt, he, and his father’s house. Joseph lived one hundred ten years</em>- After the flood, lifespans slowly decreased. We have quite a lot of data in the Bible regarding this; my friend Dr. John Thatcher once analyzed it and found that the recorded ages decline precisely in line with the decay function of entropy.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph saw Ephraim’s children to the third generation. The children also of Machir, the son of Manasseh, were born on Joseph’s knees</em>- Ephraim and Manasseh themselves had been taken from Joseph's knees and made the sons of Jacob. But these children of Machir and thence Manasseh, the rejected firstborn, were counted to him; see on <em><a href='B:10 48:12'>Gen 48:12</a></em>. If he died at 110 he would have presumably seen many grandchildren and great grandchildren, but these of Machir are mentioned as born on his knees because they were counted as his.  He may have wanted this to as it were compensate for his "loss" of his sons Ephraim and Manasseh, who were adopted by his father Jacob. Or maybe as he too faced his death, Joseph was acting in the same way as his father Jacob; even though in this issue of adopting grandsons as his own children, there are a range of moral and ethical problems. Joseph clearly alludes to his father's death bed scene when he commands his bones to be buried in Canaan and not Egypt (:24). The same idiom is used for Bilhah bearing children on the knees of Rachel, making them effectively Rachel's children. But it could be that because Machir's mother was a concubine as well as a Syrian and therefore non-Hebrew (1 Chron. 7:14; Gen. 46:20 LXX), Joseph wanted to ensure that the children with non-Hebrew or non-standard associations were still counted as his children. For he himself had married a non-Hebrew. And in this case we again see Joseph's grace and desire to include the rejected.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph said to his brothers, I am dying, but God will surely visit you, and bring you up out of this land to the land which he swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob</em>- In his time of dying, Joseph speaks and wishes just like his father Jacob in his time of death; and he said these words in faith, seeing the future as if it is now (<em><a href='B:650 11:22'>Heb 11:22</a></em>). The implications of the promises which comprised the covenant were identical for every man, as they are for us this day. He emphasizes three times (:25 also) that Egypt, this world, is not the resting place of God’s people Israel. They should have returned to Canaan of their own volition (<em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em>); but they did not, and so God would 'bring them up', taking the initiative to bring about the fulfilment of the Gospel's promises- by His grace, rather than just abandoning them to their own choice, which at the time was Egypt over Canaan. Earlier, the brothers had been 'brought up out of' Egypt to Canaan when Joseph had released them from the burden of their sins by his grace (<em><a href='B:10 45:25'>Gen 45:25</a></em> uses the same Hebrew phrase). And on a collective level, Israel were to be brought to the same level of desperation and repentance before they could be brought up from Egypt to Canaan. But like the brothers, it seemed they never really got to the required level of repentance; but they were saved by grace all the same.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here</em>- Like Jacob, Joseph's heart was in the land of promise. Joseph's bones&nbsp; were 'carried up' with them when Israel left Egypt.&nbsp;The Hebrew word here is elsewhere translated 'to rise up', 'lift up', 'spring up', clearly hinting of the resurrection which will come at the Lord's return. I explained on <em><a href='B:10 45:7'>Gen 45:7</a></em> that it was God’s intention that Israel leave Goshen and return to Canaan; and they had failed to do so. Joseph probably wanted to do so, but his brothers didn’t. He perhaps envisaged that the generation contemporary with him would do so, as he asks them to take his bones with them. So he foresaw a special intervention of God in Israel's collective life, God 'visiting' then, so that they would leave Egypt. That could all have been avoided if they had been obedient and quit the soft life and returned to Canaan immediately.</p><p>These words were fulfilled in Ex. 13:19: "Moses took the bones of Joseph with him, for he had made the children of Israel swear, saying, God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones away from here with you". And so we enquire whether Joseph's words were prophecy, or command. We have the same question about the prophecy / command to rebuild the temple in Ez. 40-48. Ex. 13:19 seems to present the carrying up of Joseph's bones as a fulfilment of Joseph's prophecy. But Moses and Israel had the freewill choice as to whether to take his bones with them. There was surely an inconvenience factor in locating, preparing and transporting Joseph's bones as they fled Egypt "in haste" on Passover night. So the 'prophecy' was in this sense dependent upon man to fulfil it, and in the case of human failure to obey, then the 'prophecy' would have been rescheduled or reinterpreted into some other form of fulfilment, or not fulfilled at all. And this is a principle applicable to various apparent prophecies which are in fact more command than prophecy, and obedience to command depends upon human freewill.</p> <p> This could imply Joseph expected his brothers to leave Egypt very soon, and so he asked them to take his bones with them. If they had done this as God intended, the sufferings of Israel in Egypt could have been avoided. We note too that here he emulated his father's attitude, focusing upon the positives in his father rather than the negative.</p> <p> We note that Joseph's bones were finally buried in Shechem (Josh. 24:32), the specific inheritance given to him by Jacob. Yet it was from Shechem that the 17 year old Joseph had gone to "seek" his brothers. And finally he returns there. It's as if his amazing work in seeking and saving his brothers was finally fulfilled; for their names will be written on the new Jerusalem, and we can assume that his work in seeking and saving them, through so much hurt, grace, wisdom, patience and forgiveness, was finally done and achieved.    </p> 


text:
<p><em>So Joseph died, being one hundred and ten years old, and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt</em>- To remain in power for 80 years in the cut throat politics of Egypt was a huge testament to his integrity. We note again that he was embalmed and put in a coffin; the body was kept intact in reflection of the hope of resurrection. See on :2,3. 'Embalm' also means 'to ripen'.&nbsp; Death is as Paul explains, the sowing of a seed, which then ripens into the resurrection body. </p>Duncan Heaster is open to receive your comments and questions at Carelinks. For a full list of Duncan Heaster’s books, see www.heaster.org .


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now these are the names of the sons of Israel, who came into Egypt (every man and his household came with Jacob)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Now these are the names" is the phrase used towards the end of Genesis (<em><a href='B:10 46:8'>Gen 46:8</a></em>). Clearly the records are by the same editor / author, who is clearly Moses, according to how these writings are quoted in later scripture.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although Reuben was demoted from being firstborn, the list here seems to be in order of birth. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sons of Leah and Rachel are listed first. The sons of the concubines come secondly, perhaps reflecting how this was not God’s ideal intention. What Jacob did was not right, but still God worked through his dysfunction to build up the foundation of His people. I suggested in commentary on Genesis that God’s ideal intention was that Jacob marry Leah and have his children by her. But he insisted on also marrying Rachel, and had relations with his servant girls. He didn’t act in marital life as God intended, but all the same God worked through it all. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Eleven sons are listed because these listed in :2-4 are those who came into Egypt; Joseph and his sons Ephraim and Manasseh were already in Egypt (:5). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the souls who came out of Jacob’s body were seventy souls, and Joseph was in Egypt already- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "seventy five". The Canaanite explanation of the family of the gods was that it contained a total of 70 gods – Ugaritic Tablet II AB 6:46 speaks of the “seventy sons of Asherah”. This is re-focused by the record of Genesis 10 – which speaks of 70 nations of men. Likewise <em><a href='B:10 46:27'>Gen 46:27</a></em> and <em><a href='B:20 1:5'>Exo 1:5</a></em> speak of the 70 sons of Jacob – and <em><a href='B:50 32:8'>Deu 32:8</a></em> says that the number of the Gentile nations was fixed “according to the number of the sons of God” or, “Israel” (according to some texts). The belief in the 70 gods of the Canaanite pantheon is therefore re-focused down to earth – where there were 70 sons of Jacob, 70 nations in the world around Israel, and <em><a href='B:50 32:8'>Deu 32:8</a></em> may imply that each is cared for by a guardian Angel in Heaven.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joseph died, as did all his brothers, and all that generation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He lived 110 years, which was not as long as his father Jacob, although he appears to have been more spiritual than his father. Length of life was not and is not the ultimate indicator of Divine blessing. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly and multiplied, and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The suffering of Israel at the time of the first Assyrian invasion of <em><a href='B:120 15:29'>2Ki 15:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 9:1'>Isa 9:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 9:3-4'>Isa 9:3-4</a></em> is spoken of in terms of their experience in Egypt, which is clearly typical of the last days: "Thou hast multiplied the nation (as God did in Egypt - <em><a href='B:20 1:7'>Exo 1:7</a></em>), and not increased the joy... thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder (the language of Israel in Egypt), the rod of his oppressor" (same word translated "taskmaster" in <em><a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a></em>). Biblical history continually interconnects, demonstrating that the same Divine hand has worked throughout history, and likewise works in our lives according to the same style. See on <em><a href='B:20 14:25'>Exo 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:21'>Exo 15:21</a></em>. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The situation was also a primary fulfilment of the promises to Abraham about the multiplication of the seed. Those same promises are made to us, and likewise have an element of fulfilment in this life, as well as in the Kingdom to come on earth at the last day. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who didn’t know Joseph- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Know" seems used here in the sense of respecting Joseph- who had after all saved Egypt and done so much to establish the power of Pharaoh over the nation. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more numerous and mightier than we are- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Clearly God had poured out His blessing upon Abrahams seed, until it seems there were more of them in Egypt than there were Egyptians- or at least, more than the members of the ethnic group then in power in Egypt.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Come, let us deal prudently with them, in case they multiply yet more and it happens that when any war breaks out, they also join themselves to our enemies, and fight against us, and escape out of the land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Fear of possible consequence has led men to do the most awful things. So may crimes and murders are rooted in fear. And this horrific abuse of the Hebrews arose from this too. And we are to learn from this, and through faith live without fear, and all the bad things which fear leads to.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The taskmasters 'afflicted' Israel in their forced labour, the Hebrew meaning to browbeat/depress. These were exactly the tactics of Hitler's bully boys in the death camps. The Hebrew word translated "taskmasters" in the record of their persecutions is also used concerning Nebuchadnezzar (<em><a href='B:290 14:4'>Isa 14:4</a></em>) and peoples like Damascus, Tyre, Gaza etc. Concerning Israel's latter day deliverance from them, <em><a href='B:450 9:8'>Zec 9:8</a></em> reads, "I will encamp about mine house... because of him that passeth by (Passover language)... and no oppressor (same word "taskmaster") shall pass through them... for now have I seen" (cp. <em><a href='B:20 3:7'>Exo 3:7</a></em>). Like the Nazis, the Egyptians seem to have excused their abuse of Israel with a concocted ideology. Stephen says that they "dealt subtly" with Israel, using the Greek word from which "sophistry" comes. Militant Islam has already developed an equivalent to this.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They built storage cities for Pharaoh: Pithom and Raamses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Seeing that all ultimately belongs to God, it is an utter delusion to think that we totally own anything. But the possession of wealth leads to just that illusion; because wealth is of itself a delusion. The very possession of wealth tempts us to amass more of it- it truly is potentially addictive of itself. The Hebrew word translated "treasure" is also that used for "store"- hence <em><a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a></em> AV "treasure cities", RV "store cities". The rich fool is a visual presentation of this fact; the more wealth is possessed, the stronger is the desire to store it, amass it- but not use it. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and the more they spread out. They were grieved because of the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I will argue throughout Exodus 1-15 that God’s intention was that Pharaoh and Egypt should convert to Him. Israel at this time were worshipping the idols of Egypt and were far from Yahweh. But He blessed them by grace, and the more the Egyptians cursed them, the more the Israelites prospered. This was all from God, as part of His wider appeal to the Egyptians to accept Him by perceiving how Yahweh was with His people by grace- even if His own people had effectively rejected Him at the time. The same theme recurs in <em><a href='B:20 1:20'>Exo 1:20</a></em>, where the attempt to slay the Hebrew babies results in the Hebrews growing even more. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Egyptians ruthlessly made the children of Israel serve-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must remember that all the criticisms and denunciations of 'Israel' are denunciations of Jacob, who <em>primarily</em> was the man Jacob, whose children shared his characteristics. Therefore in some ways we can feed back from the failures of Israel as a people and see the weakness of Jacob as a man. Thus the way Israel were made to "serve with rigour" in Egypt reflected the way Jacob served in the same way with Laban (<em><a href='B:20 1:13-14'>Exo 1:13-14</a></em>), and thereby implies that Jacob was suffering for his sins and was also idolatrous as they were at that time (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>), while he served Laban.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and they made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and in brick, and in all kinds of service in the field; they ruthlessly made them serve in all their service- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Passover, as the prototype breaking of bread, featured bitter herbs to remind Israel of their bitter experience in Egypt. The breaking of bread should likewise focus our attention on the fact that return to the world is a return to bondage and bitterness, not freedom. Israel didn’t learn this lesson, they forgot the bitterness of Egypt, and longed to return to it. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Slime" is the same word as "mortar" in <em><a href='B:20 1:14'>Exo 1:14</a></em>, and "mortar" in <em><a href='B:10 11:3'>Gen 11:3</a></em> is the word translated "pitch" concerning how Moses' bulrush basket was made (<em><a href='B:20 2:3'>Exo 2:3</a></em>). This conjures up the picture of Amram bringing home some mortar from the building site in order to make that ark. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The plan to slay the Israelite baby boys didn’t apparently get too far, because there were six hundred thousand Hebrew men who left Egypt. So these midwives may have been very local to Pharaoh, perhaps amongst his servants. The command to kill the baby boys may therefore have just been quite localized. Puah, "one who cries out", would be representative of the Israelites as they cried out to Yahweh in their affliction. "Shiphrah" is LXX Zipporah.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he said, When you perform the duty of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birth stool; if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One Egyptologist claims that "two or three days before the expected time of delivery, the midwife conveys to the house a chair of a peculiar form, upon which the patient is to be seated during the birth". The idea that they 'did the duty to the Hebrew women' could suggest these women were Egyptians, who came to fear Israel's God. <em>&nbsp;</em><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the midwives feared God, and didn’t do what the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the baby boys alive- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :19. Apparently they didn’t kill a single child. This suggests that the plan to kill the babies was very localized and didn’t work; see on :15. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said to them, Why have you done this thing, and have saved the boys alive?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We do well to ask ourselves questions as we read the Biblical narrative. What should they have said? What could they have said? What were their options as they stood there, in fear for their lives? We sense if it were Daniel and his friends, the answer may have been a blunt statement that they feared God more than the king. But they flunked that and came out with a lie, in that what they said may have been partly true but was a lie in that it wasn't the full truth. And God blessed them for that. We see here the eagerness of God to respond to any sign of faith or movement toward Him, even if it is far less than ideal.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The midwives said to Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women aren’t like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous, and give birth before the midwife comes to them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is possible that the midwives were in fact Egyptians who were told to take responsibility for the Hebrew births. But midwives were generally not used in primitive societies, as they aren't today. So these women may have been telling more or less the truth, although it was an untruth insofar as it was not the complete truth; for the women "feared God" (:17) and therefore disobeyed the king. As with the lie of Rahab being quoted in the New Testament as an act of faith, and the lies of the Gibeonites enabling them to enter the people of God, we see how morality and ethics are not all so black and white in reality. As discussed on :12,20, this statement that the Hebrew women were more vigorous than the Egyptians was another nudge of the Egyptians towards recognizing that there was something special about the Hebrews; their God was so gracious that He blessed them, even though they were patently unfaithful to them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied, and grew very mighty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was all from God, as part of His wider appeal to the Egyptians to accept Him by perceiving how Yahweh was with His people by grace- even if His own people had effectively rejected Him at the time. The same theme recurs in <em><a href='B:20 1:12'>Exo 1:12</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, because the midwives feared God, that He made them families- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The natural reading of this would be that the midwives were barren but had children after his incident. But the Hebrew phrase "made them families" isn't usually used to mean 'to give children / conception'. If that were the intention, another phrase would have been used. This is the phrase translated "provide for my own family" (<em><a href='B:10 30:30'>Gen 30:30</a></em>), "establish a family" (<em><a href='B:90 25:28'>1Sa 25:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 7:11'>2Sa 7:11</a></em>). The sense is that their families were established. And yet there is no Biblical record of the families of these two women. Perhaps this potential blessing was disabled by subsequent failure within the families.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, You shall cast every son who is born into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :15, this appears to be rather localized. For there was no "river" in Goshen where most of the Hebrews lived. We will read of how the family of Moses lived near to Pharaoh's palace, near the River Nile, to which Pharaoh and his daughter went regularly. The command was now given to all Pharaoh's people, i.e. his own ethnic group who were in power. But this too failed to stop the growth of God’s people.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A man of the house of Levi went and took a daughter of Levi as his wife- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was God’s intention that the people married within their tribes so as to keep inheritances within the tribes. Such commands had not yet been formally given, but perhaps this faithful couple perceived the truth of the principle ahead of time. Usually the record says that a man takes a wife, she conceives and they have their firstborn child. But the child to be mentioned in :2 is not the firstborn- for Aaron and Miriam were older than Moses. <em></em></p><p>This may be to show that the focus of the record is upon Moses; just as we are not told the names of Moses' parents and siblings until much later in the story. Indeed, the story in Ex. 2 is full of people, but none of them are named apart from Joseph. His parents ["a man of the house of Levi and a daughter of Levi"], sister, the Pharaoh, the taskmaster, the Israelite men fighting each other... none are named. Perhaps this is to highlight the name "Moses"; or to give some feel of the depersonalization that was experienced under the Egyptian tyranny. All these anonymous people stand out the more in the Hebrew text, once we recall that the Hebrew name for the book of "Exodus" is Shemot, "The names". </p><p>But it's also possible that Amram separated from Jochebed because if they lived together, she would likely become pregnant, and any pregnant woman would be watched by the Egyptians and her child immediately destroyed at birth. Right on the birthing stool, as we learnt in Ex. 1. So we get the impression that Amram remarried Jochebed and they had a child as an act of faithful defiance against the Egyptian policy of murdering every newborn Hebrew baby. The term translated "good" or "fair to God" in :2 can simply mean "healthy" and that is how the word is sometimes translated. So it could be that she gave birth prematurely; and when she saw the child was healthy, she hid him three months. It would've appeared to the watching Egyptian "police" that she had miscarried. Amram's conscious having of a male child by Jochebed can be read as an act of defiance against the regime, just as the preceding passage has recorded such an act by the midwives. And the next part of the story shows Pharaoh's daughter likewise defying her father's regime. They were hoping for a saviour, and so God blessed their plans. We note that Moses' father Amram married his own aunty, a relationship Moses was later to define as incestuous [Ex. 6:20 "Amram took Jochebed his father’s sister to himself as wife; and she bore him Aaron and Moses"]. Moses' beginnings were therefore rooted in weakness and his survival as a healthy child was spiritually and physically against all odds.   </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The woman conceived, and bore a son. When she saw that he was a child fair to God, she hid him three months- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Every faithful mother perceives that her child is "fair to God", so we are to surely read this as meaning that she perceived him as having some particular role in God’s purpose. And yet she would have died whilst Moses was apparently lost in the court life of Pharaoh, not making any move towards saving his family nor his people. For only at the age of 40 did it "come into his mind to visit his people". She would have died very disappointed; and will arise at the last day to such a wonderful surprise, when she realizes how Moses turned to God in later life. <em></em></p><p>Likewise Bithiah [see on :5] may well have died of breast cancer in a neglected corner of a Hebrew slave camp, her body covered with sand anonymously. Lamenting that her adopted child had got caught up in the soft life of Egypt, and that her Hebrew husband had married a woman of Judah in addition to her (1 Chron. 4:18 ESV). Bithia is indeed the unsung heroine of the Old Testament. Perhaps her story is hidden away in the scriptures in reflection of how her amazing heroism likewise was hidden away, and was not generally perceived at the time. Just as the heroism of so many believers isn't perceived now, and they die obscure and unappreciated. But it was Bithiah and Jochebed whose examples and initiatives paved the way for Moses at 80 to become Yahweh's greatest servant after the Lord Jesus. We do not know the way the seeds we sow will later flourish after our time in this world. It may be that only after our death, our 80 year old children will serve God. In my many years pastoring the soup kitchen church in Riga, I baptized so many older folks who commented that they first came to faith through faithful grandmothers or mothers in the Soviet years, although it took them a lifetime to personalize it for themselves. And there are examples of older men and women giving the final part of their lives to stellar service of the Lord. So this is indeed reality, and not just a flimsy peg of hope for disappointed Christian parents to hang their desperate desires upon. And the principle is wider than children. This life is a time of sowing seed; but we reap the results of that seed not now, but in the Kingdom. In secular life, there is so much depression and disappointment from realizing that the seeds sown didn't produce a great harvest; be it in children, career, business, relationships. But for us, the harvest is in the Kingdom, and it will be a harvest of eternal moment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When she could no longer hide him, she took a papyrus basket for him, and coated it with tar and with pitch. She put the child in it, and laid it in the reeds by the river’s bank-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on 2:10. Moses is set up as example and representative of his people Israel. Israel is likened in <em><a href='B:330 16:5'>Eze 16:5</a></em> to a child rejected at birth, but miraculously found and cared for, and brought up with every pampered blessing. Just as Moses was. Stephen described the ‘putting out’ of Moses with the same word used in the LXX for what happened to Israel in Ezekiel 16 (<em><a href='B:510 7:21'>Act 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 2:3'>Exo 2:3</a></em> LXX). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Slime" is the same word as "mortar" in <em><a href='B:20 1:14'>Exo 1:14</a></em>, and "mortar" in <em><a href='B:10 11:3'>Gen 11:3</a></em> is the word translated "pitch" concerning how Moses' bulrush basket was made (<em><a href='B:20 2:3'>Exo 2:3</a></em>). This conjures up the picture of Amram bringing home some mortar from the building site in order to make that ark. <em></em></p><p>She made the ark of bulrushes and placed it amongst bulrushes. So it was invisible by such camouflage to someone passing along the banks of the river; but :5 informs us that the maids walked by the riverside, didn't notice it, but when Pharaoh's daughter went in to the river, she noticed it. And then, to cap it all, the baby cried. The whole story is so imaginable; a plan works well, but then it fails from another angle, and then the baby cries... and all seems to come crashing down. But we see here a classic example of how every cloud has a silver lining; from this apparent crash arose the salvation of both Israel and Moses personally. Even though Moses' parents would likely have died in disappointment whilst Moses was still apparently forgetting about them and enjoying the cool court life of Egypt. We too must realize that the fruits of our sacrifices may only be seen well after we have fallen asleep. The Lord's babyhood was so similar; very nearly dying as a result of Herod's command to murder all baby boys.   </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>His sister stood far off, to see what would be done to him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Standing afar off is associated in the Bible with mourning. She stood afar off out of morbid fascination as to the fate of her baby brother, feeling utterly powerless to help him. It seems they placed him in the ark and placed him in the river in technical obedience to Pharaoh's command, and yet desperately prayed that God would save the child, seeing they had done all that was humanly possible. And indeed He did. We recall the ministering women standing afar off from the crucifixion; the classic case of apparent failure turning into the magnificent defeat, the cloud with the ultimate silver lining.<em></em></p><p>I have often noted that the Pentateuch often alludes to contemporary myths, deconstructs them, and shows the true perspective and narrative. Israel in Egypt had been exposed to centuries of such mythology which they had come to believe; and the task of the Torah was to debunk those myths and reveal God's truth. So the account of Moses' birth and babyhood deliverance is very similar to mythical stories of how many heroes were abandoned soon after birth, almost died of exposure in babyhood, experienced a miraculous rescue, were moved into a totally different environment from what they were born into etc. But the deconstruction of these myths is in that presentation of the "abandoning family" as lowly rather than noble, as they are in the myths; and the family who found and raised him are a royal family in Ex. 2, whereas in the myths they are always poor. Thus Sargon of Agade (2296–2240 BC) supposedly had a noble, wealthy mother who puts her baby son in a basket and then into a river, where he is saved by a poor water drawer, who raises him to become a gardener who is then ennobled by the goddess Ishtar. But God's way is different; all is inverted. The roles of the poor and the noble / wealthy are reversed. For this is typical of Yahweh God of Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pharaoh’s daughter came down to bathe at the river. Her maids walked along by the riverside. She saw the basket among the reeds, and sent her handmaid to get it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The account of Moses being found by Pharaoh’s daughter is a classic Bible story- but it begs many questions. Why did this young woman risk disobeying her father? Given Moses’ age, how did she manage to survive in Pharaoh’s court with an adopted child who looked like a Hebrew and ought to have been killed in babyhood? What kind of relationship did she have with her father? Did he tolerate her sympathy and “compassion” for the Hebrews?<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Where else do we read about Pharaoh’s daughter? Searching through the Bible, perhaps with the help of a concordance, we come to the references to Solomon marrying Pharaoh’s daughter. No great answers there to our questions. Sometimes in Bible study we do draw a blank. And that’s a blank. And there’s only one other reference to Pharaoh’s daughter, hidden away in the obscure genealogies of Chronicles, which we likely skip reading in our daily Bible readings. But there… is the answer. “The sons of Ezrah: Jether, Mered, Epher, and Jalon. These are the sons of Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered married; and she conceived and bore Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah, the father of Eshtemoa” (<em><a href='B:130 4:17'>1Ch 4:17</a></em> ESV). Who was Mered? A prince of the tribe of Judah. And yes, he lived around the time of Moses. So… a daughter of Pharaoh married a Hebrew. A slave. And she was the daughter of Pharaoh. Now we’re onto something. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We eagerly look up the meaning of “Bithiah”. And we find that Bithiah means ‘daughter of Yah’- there is an intended tension therefore in the way in which she is called ‘Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh’, especially considering that Pharaoh was thought to be God in Egyptian culture. It cannot be an undersigned coincidence that Bithiah is recorded as having a daughter, whom she called Miriam. It’s not very common for the names of daughters to be recorded in the genealogies, so it seems a point is being made. Miriam was of course the name of Moses’ sister, who had first introduced Bithiah to Moses’ family. Her name in Hebrew is almost the feminine form of her father’s name, Mered. Mered had another wife who was from the tribe of Judah: “And his Judahite wife bore Jered … Heber… and Jekuthiel” (<em><a href='B:130 4:18'>1Ch 4:18</a></em> ESV). Egyptologists have various theories as to who the Pharaoh of the Exodus was. One of them is that it was Amunhotep II. His coffin decorations appear to show that he had a skin condition- perhaps the boils from the plagues? One stele that was discovered shows that two of Amunhotep II's sons have been "erased". Perhaps one of them was Moses? <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems likely that many Egyptians became proselytes, because many of them left Egypt with Israel. So Bithiah became attracted to God’s people, and decided to forego all she could’ve had in order to save just one Hebrew life. If nothing else we learn that to sacrifice all for the sake of the salvation of ‘just’ one person is perhaps what we are called to. The woman who could’ve been one of the most powerful women in the world sacrificed it all, to marry a Hebrew slave- who already had a wife. And presumably she changed her name. She was Yah’s daughter now, and not that of ‘god’ Pharaoh. What motivated her? Surely her experience with raising Moses. From the mouth of a child, who may well have been with his Godly parents for up to five years, she learnt more of Yahweh’s ways. And she must’ve got to know the family of origin and been impressed by Moses’ big sister Miriam… for she named her own daughter after her. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We too face choices. To take a second job, rise early and stay up late… to advance in our careers. To get more income, to dispose of upon expensive coffees, the latest gadgets. Or in the spirit of Bithiah and Moses to realize, and realize finally and once for all, that nothing else matters now. The hope of the Kingdom and fellowship of the rejected Son of God is worth so infinitely more than any of Egypt’s temporary glory. Moses rejected it for the sake of his service of God’s people- who for the most part never appreciated him, and turned their backs on “this Moses”. Bithiah likewise, gave it all up… just to be identified with God’s people. Being the second woman in Mered’s life, a Gentile compared to the other wife being a true blue blooded Judahite, couldn’t have been much fun. For all we know, Bithiah died alone and feeling rejected in the corner of a Hebrew slave camp, lamenting how Moses was apparently caught up in the good life of Pharaoh’s court which she had given up, buried in the hot sand without a grave, a far cry from the glory girl of her teens. But she did it all so as to be connected with God’s people, just as Moses chose to suffer affliction with a people of God who didn’t want him. There are brethren who set us a great example in these things. They lost their families because they married a believer and not the one expected for them. Married someone of another race or colour because of their spiritual connection with that person, thus losing the status they might have had within their own culture. They declined promotion in their career because… they wanted to get home each day in time to read Bible stories to their kids. Didn’t take out a court case but suffered the loss of so much, didn’t answer slander, left God to judge… Spent their spare time and cash going to the Post Office and mailing Bibles to people rather than… tropical beach holidays. Spent their evenings emailing or visiting old, sick, suffering, depressed, difficult or plain awkward brethren… instead of watching a screen. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She opened it, and saw the child, and behold, the baby cried. She had compassion on him, and said, This is one of the Hebrews’ children!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew is specifically 'male children'. She unwrapped him and saw he was circumcised. The woman presumably figured in a moment what had happened. The child had been placed in the basket in technical obedience to her father’s command, and the family were just hoping and praying that their God would save him. And she wanted to be a part of that desperate hope and faith. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, Should I go and call a nurse for you from the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for you?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As with the blessing of the midwives for their telling of untruth through not telling the whole truth, so Miriam does likewise. And is blessed for it. She gives a false impression. And yet through this deception, as with the Gibeonites, life is saved and God’s purpose moved forward. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go. The maiden went and called the child’s mother- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The record is presented here from the perspective of Pharaoh's daughter. The girl went and called the woman mentioned, who was (as we know) the child's mother. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Take this child away, and nurse him for me, and I will give you your wages. The woman took the child, and nursed it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God records Moses being found by Pharaoh’s daughter, who then (unknowingly) asks his mother to be his nurse: “The maid went and called the child’s mother. And Pharaoh’s daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me… and <em>the woman </em>took the child and nursed it” (<em><a href='B:20 2:8-9'>Exo 2:8-9</a></em>). Why not say<em> ‘And Moses’ mother</em> (not “the woman”) took him (not “it”) and nursed him (not “it”)’? The answer seems to be that the record adopts the incorrect and ignorant perspective of Pharaoh’s daughter– although with no explicit statement that this is so. And again, as with the midwives, we see God working through somewhat unethical dishonesty. We wonder at what point Pharaoh's daughter realized what had happened. She surely would have perceived the hand of God; in that a Hebrew mother ended up getting paid for nursing her own baby, when she was supposed to have killed the child. An alternative is that she knew full well all along what the situation was, and acted out of random, gracious pity towards the family.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The child grew, and she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. She named him Moses, and said, Because I drew him out of the water-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact she names the child is a sign that she considers himself his mother. But Moses is a Hebrew name. It's as if she wanted Moses to retain his Hebrew identity, and herself knew Hebrew; and we can read her actions as another act of defiance against her father's regime. This continues the theme of the midwives and their acts of defiance in Ex. 1, and Amram and Jochebed intentionally having a baby boy in hope he would be Messiah, defying the king's edict. The fact she went away from the palace and bathed, possibly went swimming, in a part of the Nile accessible to Hebrew slaves would suggest of itself that she wanted at best some 'time out' from Palace life. </p><p>The very name 'Moses' meaning 'drawn out' suggests he is the prototype for every saint- a called out one. Indeed, mosheh in Hebrew and Egyptian could carry the idea of 'drawn out of / born of water', making Jn. 3:3-5 alludes to it- every believer must be born of water ['Moses'] and of the Spirit. The same basic word is used in Ps. 18:17 "He drew me out of mighty waters". But as with Moses, so for each of us- as we were drawn out, so we are to draw others out. This is why when at the burning bush he is called to 'draw out' Israel, he is addressed as "Moshe! Moshe!", 'drawn out!'. His life's work was to reflect to others what had been done to him. As he was drawn out from death in Egypt at Pharaoh's hands, so he was to draw God's people out from a similar fate. And he does this also to the women at the well, and also at age 40 to the suffering Israelite. But his drawing out had been by a Gentile woman, and God was clearly manifest in her. As Moses was drawn out of the Nile and saved, so he later drew Israel out of Egypt. He could exactly enter into their feelings when they emerged from the Red Sea, as the Lord Jesus exactly knows ours after baptism- better than we appreciate ourselves. Moses was saved by being surrounded by water in an "ark" (<em><a href='B:20 2:3'>Exo 2:3</a></em>)- the only other time this word is used is concerning Noah's ark, which is a type of our salvation through baptism. God even worked through Moses' weakness to make him even more representative of his people; as he drew back from the theophany of the burning bush through a bad conscience, so did Israel at the foot of Sinai; as they were excluded from the land for inattention to Yahweh's word, so was Moses. He was touched with the very feeling of their sinfulness. In a marvellous way, the Lord Jesus achieved the same, yet without sin; He really felt like a sinner in His death.<em></em></p><p>Although Bithia uses the Hebrew word "Moses" to name the child, this is also a common Egyptian word. The suffix "moses", "meses" or "mose" means "son of" or "descendant of" in Egyptian. It is often found in the names of the Pharaohs like Ahrmose, Thutmoses, Rameses. But in Egyptian, the name would have begged the question: 'Son of whom?'. Bithia had changed her name to Bithia, meaning 'daughter of Yah', instead of 'daughter of Pharaoh'. So it was understandable that she would name Moses in this enigmatic way.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened in those days, when Moses had grown up, that he went out to his brothers, and looked at their burdens. He saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew, one of his brothers-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses' 120 years of life split clearly into three sections of 40 years- being trained to be a leader in Egypt, able to handle literacy; then 40 years as a humble shepherd in the wilderness, and then 40 years leading and shepherding God's people in humility towards the promised land. Only in the Kingdom, perhaps, will we be able to attach meaning to event. But for sure, our lives are playing out according to a pattern and Divine intention, all from a God who wishes only to do us good in our latter end.</p><p>The Hebrew seems to mean that 'at the time that Moses had grown up, he went out to his brothers'. This would be stating the obvious, unless we interpret the growing up as referring to spiritual maturity. Care for others, and the desire to save them, is indeed the acme of spiritual maturity.</p><p>As Moses "looked on their burdens" at age 40 (<em><a href='B:510 7:23'>Act 7:23</a></em>), so at the start of his ministry, our Lord assessed the weight of ours. His concern for our burdens in <em><a href='B:470 11:30'>Mat 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em> is perhaps a conscious allusion back to Moses' awareness of Israel's burdens, and his desire to deliver them, even though it cost him all that he had in this world.&nbsp; See on <em><a href='B:650 11:24'>Heb 11:24</a></em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses manifested / represented both God and Israel, superbly prefiguring the nature of the Lord's work and mission far later. As God "saw" the oppression of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 2:25'>Exo 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:7'>Exo 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:9'>Exo 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:31'>Exo 4:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 5:19'>Exo 5:19</a></em>), so did Moses (<em><a href='B:20 2:11'>Exo 2:11</a></em>). He looked on God’s people with the eyes / perspective of God- just as we should. Moses 'struck' the Egyptian who was persecuting the Hebrew just as God would strike Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 2:11'>Exo 2:11</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 12:12-13'>Exo 12:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:29'>Exo 12:29</a></em> etc.). See on 2:17.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>At age 40, Moses came to a crisis. He had a choice between the riches of Egypt, the pleasures of sin for a season, and choosing rather to suffer affliction with God’s people and thereby fellowship the reproach of Christ (<em><a href='B:650 11:24-26'>Heb 11:24-26</a></em>). He probably had the chance to become the next Pharaoh, as the son of Pharaoh's daughter; but he consciously refused this, as a pure act of the will, as an expression of faith in the future recompense of the Kingdom. There are a number of&nbsp;passages which invite us to follow Moses' example in this. Paul was motivated in his rejection of worldly advantage by Moses'&nbsp; inspiration. And as in all things, he is our example, that we might follow Christ, who also turned down the very real possibility of temporal rulership of the world- for the sake of living the life of the cross, and thereby securing our redemption.&nbsp; The description of Moses' rejection of Egypt for the sake of Christ is shown to be our example: "Esteeming the <em>reproach of Christ</em> greater riches than the treasures (i.e. Pharaoh's treasures, which he could have had if he succeeded as Pharaoh) in Egypt... let us go forth therefore unto (Jesus) without the camp, <em>bearing his reproach</em>" (<em><a href='B:650 11:26'>Heb 11:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>). We should be even eager to bear 'reproach for the name of Christ' as Moses did (<em><a href='B:670 4:14'>1Pe 4:14</a></em>), knowing it is a surety of our sharing his resurrection. &nbsp;For Moses, "the reproach of Christ" was his&nbsp; having "respect unto the recompense of the reward". He therefore must have understood in some detail that there would be a future Saviour, who would enable the eternal Kingdom promised to Abraham through his bearing the reproach of this world. Such was Moses' appreciation of this that it motivated him to reject Egypt. His motivation, therefore, was based upon a fine reflection upon the promises to Abraham and other oblique prophecies of the suffering Messiah contained in the book of Genesis. Moses knew he could have a share in the sufferings of the future saviour and thereby share his reward, because he saw the implication that Messiah would be our representative. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"When Moses <em>was grown</em>, he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens...when he was <em>full forty years old</em> it came into his heart to visit his brethren... by faith Moses, <em>when he was come to years</em>, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter" (<em><a href='B:20 2:11'>Exo 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:23'>Act 7:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:24'>Heb 11:24</a></em>). The implication seems to be that Moses reached a certain point of maturity, of readiness, and then he went to his brethren. God looked on the sorrows of His people through the sensitivity of Moses, He <em>saw and knew</em> their struggles, their sense of being trapped, their desire to revive spiritually but their being tied down by the painful business of life and living; and He sent Moses to deliver them from this. But these very words are quoted about our deliverance through the 'coming down'&nbsp; of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:20 3:7'>Exo 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:31'>Exo 4:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:490 1:68'>Luk 1:68</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p><p>Going out to "his brothers" shows how after all his adult life in Pharaoh's court, Moses self identified as a Hebrew. This Hebrew self identification is a major theme. The Midianite shepherd girls think that he looks like an Egyptian, but in his heart he was totally identified with God's people. Likewise, the suffering Hebrews had no idea that they had a man with a heart bleeding for them, right inside Pharaoh's court. Just as we can forget the strong identification of the Lord with us in Heaven, to the point that the exalted Lord of Heaven and earth is still called "the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).</p><p>Israel said they wanted salvation from this world, but like man generally, when offered it they refused it. They in their hearts anyway turned back to Egypt. This is the power of conservatism, the desire to stay put whatever and not bravely step out to Divine salvation. A case can be made that only a fifth of Israel left Egypt anyway (Ex. 13:18 Heb.), most didn't keep the Passover as required. That's why the number of firstborns that needed redeeming was very low- because there weren't as many firstborns as we would expect had all Israel been obedient. The number of firstborn males after Israel left Egypt was remarkably small (around 20,000, Num. 3:43). Women in most primitive societies have an average of 7 births. this would mean that given a total population of around 2,800,000 on leaving Egypt (Ex. 12:37), there should have been around 400,000 firstborn males. But instead, there is only a fraction of this number. Why? Did Israel eat the Passover?</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no one, he killed the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This little incident is typical of how Christ was to destroy the devil, the power of sin, on the cross. The common translation of this passage can give them impression that Moses was very nervous. Yet it does not say that when he saw no man <em>was looking</em> he slew the Egyptian. There was at least one man looking- the suffering Israelite. And there must have been others looking for news to get round that Moses had killed the Egyptian. So I would suggest that Moses saw the Israelite suffering, and looked round in wonder to see if any other Israelite was going to go to his rescue. Because he saw there was no man, he himself got involved. This is an eloquent essay in the humility of Moses and the Lord he typified. This is exactly the same picture which we find in <em><a href='B:290 59:16'>Isa 59:16</a></em> concerning Christ's decision to achieve our redemption: "He saw that there was no man (quoting the words of <em><a href='B:20 2:11'>Exo 2:11</a></em>), and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation" (God saved Israel from Egypt by the <em>arm</em> of Moses, manifesting His arm: <em><a href='B:20 6:6'>Exo 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:34'>Deu 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 63:12'>Isa 63:12</a></em>). <em><a href='B:290 63:4-6'>Isa 63:4-6</a></em> also contain allusions to Moses and the exodus (the rest of the chapter speaks explicitly about this): "The day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year (time) of my redeemed (the one I will redeem) is come. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation". The implication of these passages is that he was surprised, he "wondered", that there was no one else to save Israel. He looked round for someone else to do it, but he found none- exactly after the pattern of Moses. This is not only an eloquent essay in our Lord's humanity, and the monstrosity of the 'trinity'; it indicates the true humility which he manifested in his work of redemption.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p>'Looking this way and that way' gives the impression of a nervous Moses. His murder of the Egyptian was done, it seems, rashly. His native anger boiled over and then he seeks to cover it up, and flees in fear when he perceives that he has been discovered. This is typical of Moses' character, but he develops from this to be a confident deliverer of Israel. Acts 7:24,25 says that his attempt to deliver Israel by killing the Egyptian was done at the same time as he “reckoned that his kin would understand that God, through his hand, was giving salvation to them” (Acts 7:25). So killing the Egyptian represents the Lord's conquest of sin; but Israel rejected it, as Moses did. They complained that he wanted to be a ruler and judge over them, but they didn't want that- just as they didn't want the Lordship of Jesus over them (:14; Acts 7:27,28). The one man who said "Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?" is to be seen as representative of all Israel: "This is the Moses whom they denied, saying, “Who appointed you ruler and judge?” (Acts 7:35).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He went out the second day, and behold, two men of the Hebrews were fighting with each other. He said to him who did the wrong, Why do you strike your fellow?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"He came unto his own, and his own received him not" (<em><a href='B:500 1:11'>Joh 1:11</a></em>). Moses in John's Gospel is an opening theme. "When he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren... he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them" (<em><a href='B:510 7:23'>Act 7:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:25'>Act 7:25</a></em>). Therefore Moses in the court of Pharaoh = Jesus working in Nazareth until age 30. Was Moses' "surprise" at Israel's lack of response reflected in Christ (cp. <em><a href='B:290 50:2-7'>Isa 50:2-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 59:16'>Isa 59:16</a></em>)? Despite his own righteousness, did Christ think too highly of the potential spirituality of Israel (<em><a href='B:490 13:9'>Luk 13:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em> cp. his high regard of others' spirituality: <em><a href='B:470 8:10'>Mat 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:11'>Mat 11:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:28'>Mat 15:28</a></em>)? If the Lord respected others so much- shouldn't we have deep respect for each other? The pain of Moses' rejection was Christ's; although he was rich, Moses had become poor for their sakes. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 21:22'>Exo 21:22</a></em> may have some relevance to this historical situation: "If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely...". Perhaps Moses had been asked to judge (:14) a situation like this at the time of <em><a href='B:20 2:13'>Exo 2:13</a></em>. <em></em></p><p>Acts 7:26 interprets Moses' words here as appealing for unity between the Hebrews, the people of God, as a result of his killing of the Egyptian: “reconciling them to peace, [Moses] said, ‘Men, you are brothers. Why are you mistreating one another?’”. But this too was rejected; and Stephen was witnessing Hebrew society again failing to unite despite the Messiah's killing of sin on the cross. Unity between God's people is an outcome of the Lord's victory; but those who don't truly accept reconciliation with God will not therefore be reconciled with each other. </p><p>The beating of the Hebrew by the Egyptian is parallel with the Hebrew beating his Hebrew brother. To beat our brother is to act as an Egyptian and to merit Moses' judgment. This is the OT equivalent of NT teaching about losing your brother. The Lord surely had the incident in mind when He spoke of the servant beating his fellow slave.</p>


