# commentaries

text:
<p><em>A certain man found him, and behold, he was wandering delirious in the field. The man asked him, What are you looking for?</em>-</p><p> The life of Jesus was a life of outgiven grace and seeking the salvation of men, after the pattern of Joseph going to seek the welfare of his brethren. Even when he was delirious (AV “wandering”) he told the stranger that he was seeking his brethren (who hated him); seeking them was his dominant desire. And so it was in the life of the Lord. Like His Father, He was willing to be incredibly patient, in order to win people. The man may well have been an Angel. The incident functioned to remind Joseph later that his life had been preserved at this point; and this would have encouraged him when in the pit and in prison that God had preserved his life before. His purpose with Joseph was therefore far from over. The question "What are you looking for / seeking?" was thereby so strongly engrained in Joseph's mind, so that in all decisions and situations he would be asking himself this crucial question. But the Hebrew translated here "delirious" is usually used in a negative context, or erring or going astray. Perhaps his resolve to seek and find his brethren spiritually&nbsp; (see on :16) had weakened, and he needed this Angelic encounter to encourage him to go forward to what he rightly guessed could be death or suffering, for the sake of his brethren who hated him.</p>


text:
<p><em>He said, I am searching for my brothers- </em>The Hebrew for "searching" is also used in the sense of asking / enquiring of God in prayer. As noted above, both Jacob and Joseph had premonitions that there would be trouble, and Joseph's mission involved taking the coat of many colours for some religious rite, and seeking the peace of those who would not give "peace" to him. The incident with the man / Angel who found Joseph was likely to focus him upon his mission, to get him to verbalize it. And we have similar encounters in our lives, to make us realize our mission. The way Joseph talks about "my brothers" could imply that he felt the man knew him and his brothers, strengthening the suggestion that this was an Angel.</p><p><em>Tell me, please, where they are feeding the flock-</em></p><p> The record speaks often of "the flock" in the singular. It was specifically Jacob's flock, so large that it needed all his adult sons and probably others to feed it. </p>


text:
<p><em>The man said, They have left here, for I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Dothan’. Joseph went after his brothers, and found them in Dothan</em>-</p><p> About eight miles further. This all points forward to the Lord Jesus seeking and finding His Father's wayward children. In the incidents with his brethren later regarding the cup, Joseph likewise chases after his brethren and 'finds' them. His whole work with them was to seek and find them, for God. From youth to middle age, this was his very gracious mission toward them.</p>


text:
<p><em>They saw him afar off, and before he came near to them, they conspired against him to kill him</em>-</p><p> &nbsp;There are steep hills near Dothan which would have enabled them to see Joseph approaching across the plain. The leaders of first century Israel initially recognized Jesus of Nazareth coming to them as the Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 37:20'>Gen 37:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>). They saw (i.e. understood, recognized) him, but then they were made blind by Christ (<em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>). It was because they "saw" Jesus as the Messiah that the sin of rejecting him was counted to them (<em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em>). "When the husbandmen saw&nbsp; the son, they said among themselves (i.e. conspired), This is the heir; come, let us kill him" (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em>). <em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em> is quoting the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 37:18'>Gen 37:18</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>They said one to another, Behold, this dreamer comes</em>-</p><p> Heb. '<em>baal / </em>master of dreams'. They perhaps meant that he considered himself the <em>baal</em>, their master as the one having the status of the firstborn, on account of his dreams. Jealousy over the status of being the designated firstborn is a major theme in the record. Isaac replaced Ishmael, Jacob replaced Esau, Jacob wanted Joseph to replace Reuben, and even at the end of his life, Jacob wants to replace Manasseh with Ephraim (<em><a href='B:10 48:14'>Gen 48:14</a></em>). The lesson was never learnt, an yet by grace, Jacob and his sons will be saved. This is comfort to us as we come to realize that both we and others shall go to their graveplanks with some areas of our lives and thinking still not subdued by the Spirit as they should have been.</p>


text:
<p><em>Come now therefore and let’s kill him, and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say, ‘An evil animal has devoured him’- </em>They never 'said' this; Jacob was led by them to wrongly deduce it (:33). But such misleading and deception is tantamount to telling the lies. Giving false impressions, even without speaking a word, is therefore the same as lying. This legalistic, but vain, attempt to avoid guilt for the sin is all prophetic of the Jewish attitude to the Lord's crucifixion.</p><p><em>We will see what will become of his dreams</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; Likewise the Lord's inspired prophecies of His death and resurrection must have motivated the Jews' slaying of Him. &nbsp;The brothers failed to appreciate that the dreams were not so much talking about this life as about some future point, when Rachel would be resurrected. So murdering Joseph would not disprove the dreams. </p>


text:
<p><em>Reuben heard it, and delivered him out of their hand, and said, Let’s not take his life</em>-</p><p> Reuben had slept with his father's concubine, and yet despite that awful sin, he still had a better side to him. And we should remember this in considering our feelings about those who have committed what are without doubt serious sins. He still considered himself the firstborn, despite his demotion from that as a result of the incest of <em><a href='B:10 35:22'>Gen 35:22</a></em>. He points forward to the efforts of the unspiritual Pilate to save the Lord (<em><a href='B:500 19:12'>Joh 19:12</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Reuben said to them, Shed no blood. Throw him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but lay no hand on him-that he might deliver him out of their hand, to restore him to his father</em>-</p><p> Joseph and Nicodemus were inspired with that sense which we possess all too fleetingly: that in the light of the Lord's death, <em>nothing else matters. </em>They were both typified in some way by Reuben and Judah, who when confronted with the reality of murdering Joseph, spoke out unashamedly in front of their unspiritual brethren (<em><a href='B:10 42:22'>Gen 42:22</a></em>). They pointed forward also to Pilate, who wanted to chastise and then release the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 23:16'>Luk 23:16</a></em>). Like the Jews who crucified the Lord Jesus, these men clearly had a conscience even in the midst of their sin. In our outreach to the world, we must never conclude that some people have no religious conscience. All are made in the image of God and somewhere, there is a conscience toward Him which we can connect with through the message. </p>


text:
<p><em>It happened, when Joseph came to his brothers-</em></p><p>Just as the Lord came to His brothers and was rejected, betrayed for pieces of silver and slain (<em><a href='B:500 1:11'>Joh 1:11</a></em> "he came to his own"). The camera, as it were, is showing Joseph walking across the plain towards them (:18), and now is zoomed in close-up as Joseph comes to them, and they grab his coat.</p><p><em>That they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colours that was on him</em>-</p><p> Just as the Lord was stripped of a specially made coat (<em><a href='B:500 19:23'>Joh 19:23</a></em>). Was Joseph naked in the pit? The same LXX word is used in <em><a href='B:470 27:28'>Mat 27:28</a></em>; was the Lord naked on the cross? See&nbsp;on <em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em> "open shame". Joseph came to them wearing the special coat, the sign of the firstborn, as if he came to them with some religious message and wanted to perform some religious ritual. We recall how Jacob dressed in Esau's coat of the firstborn when deceiving Isaac. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they took him and threw him into the pit. The pit was empty-</em></p><p> "Dothan" means 'two wells'. Perhaps he was thrown into one of these which was dry.</p><p><em>There was no water in it</em>-</p><p> Representing death and the grave (<em><a href='B:450 9:11'>Zec 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 40:2'>Psa 40:2</a></em>). When Zedekiah called Jeremiah out of the prison house to meet him and show him the word of God, he ought to have perceived that he was going through the very experience of Pharaoh with Joseph (<em><a href='B:300 37:17'>Jer 37:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 37:20'>Jer 37:20</a></em>). Jeremiah’s desperate plea not to be sent back to prison to die there surely echoes that of Joseph to his brethren; for Jeremiah was let down like Joseph had been into a pit with no water in, so reminiscent of Joseph. But Zedekiah didn’t want to see all this; he should’ve listened to Jeremiah, as Pharaoh had listened to Joseph and saved himself. It was all potentially set up for him; but he refused to take note. </p>


text:
<p><em>They sat down to eat bread- </em>Ignoring Joseph's screams for mercy (<em><a href='B:10 42:21'>Gen 42:21</a></em>), as the soldiers sat down and watched the Lord on the cross, eating their army rations. The callousness of the brothers reminds us of what they did in the massacre at Shechem. Every one of them would receive multiple life sentences in high security prison if they were alive today. And yet these harsh, wicked men... became the foundation pillars of God's people. Even though there is little record of their transformation in this life. They were saved by the grace of their wonderful brother and heavenly Father.</p><p>"And they sat down" after killing the Lord Jesus- <em><a href='B:470 27:36'>Mat 27:36</a></em>.</p><p><em>And they lifted up their eyes and looked, and saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing spices and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt</em>-</p><p> Jacob later sent such balm, made from fragrant gum trees which grew in Canaan, called ladanum (<em><a href='B:10 43:11'>Gen 43:11</a></em>). The brothers were intended by the hand of providence to reflect that in going to Egypt with such gum balm, they were retracing the steps of Joseph and those merchants. </p><p>Throughout the records of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his children there is continual repetition in the manner in which the record is written. This repetition is of both experiences and of the language used to describe those experiences. The repeated language about going down to Egypt is an example. Thus <em><a href='B:10 39:1-8'>Gen 39:1-8</a></em>: "Joseph was brought down to Egypt... the Ishmeelites, which had brought him down thither... down to Egypt" (37:25). There are other examples: "The Lord was with Joseph... and his master saw that the Lord was with him". "His master the Egyptian... his master". "Joseph... was a prosperous man... the Lord made all that he did to prosper". Potiphar "made him overseer over his house...from the time that he had made him overseer in his house". "All that he had he put into his hand... over all that he had... the blessing of the Lord was upon all that he had... he left all that he had in Joseph's hand". "His hand... into his hand... Joseph's hand... to my hand". This kind of linguistic device suggests that the Spirit in Genesis is inviting us to observe the development of theme and to note emphasis. The above example from Joseph's life is one of many such sets of evidence. &nbsp;The repetition of certain descriptions and common experiences in the lives of Abraham's family members is&nbsp;to enable us to build up a very clear picture of what they were like as people. We are being enabled to get to know them as a family. This is necessary for us if we are to realistically obey the New Testament commands to see Abraham and the patriarchs as our spiritual fathers, to model our daily walk upon them, to see in them the examples which should dominate our lives and thinking. The way the record repeats their similar experiences reveals certain family traits; the majority of which are <em>negative</em>. This takes some appreciating. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Judah said to his brothers, What profit is it if we kill our brother- </em>At least two of his ten persecutors were unhappy about what they were doing , and said so (:22). Perhaps the whole group egged each other on to adopt an attitude none were totally happy with in their conscience- Ditto for first century Israel? But the motivation of Judah may simply have been "profit", and we note that "Judah" is effectively the same word as "Judas". The Hebrew for "profit" is usually used of wealth unjustly obtained. Judah reasons that there is no cash value in just murdering Joseph. Later, Joseph was to shower them with silver in the mouths of their sacks, and even his silver cup; to show them that he repaid this evil with good, and that silver was immaterial when compared to grace.</p><p><em>And conceal his blood?</em>-</p><p> Blood is a symbol of both life and also death (also in <em><a href='B:40 35:19'>Num 35:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:33'>Num 35:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:9'>Lev 20:9</a></em>). Both the Lord’s death and His life form a covenant / testament / will for us to obey- in both baptism and then in living out the death and life in our daily experience. We cannot be passive to it. Judah means that there is no cash advantage if they just kill Joseph and conceal or cover their (responsibility for) his blood (as in <em><a href='B:220 16:18'>Job 16:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 24:8'>Eze 24:8</a></em>). The same word is soon to be used twice of how Judah in turn will be deceived by Tamar covering / concealing herself (<em><a href='B:10 38:14-15'>Gen 38:14-15</a></em>). This is not simply an example of 'what goes around, comes around'. God makes such circumstances repeat because He wants to help people to repent, to realize the effect of what they have done to others in the hope it will elicit sensitivity and repentance. </p>


text:
<p><em>Come, let’s sell him to the Ishmaelites, and not let our hand be on him; for he is our brother, our flesh. His brothers listened to him</em>-</p><p> This recalls "We are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones" (<em><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a></em>). "Let not our hand be on him" may mean that they thought that the rigours of slavery would be enough to kill him, and in the same spirit, the Jews handed Jesus over to the Romans. Does the antitype indicate some of the brothers thought this fact would absolve them of guilt? Like the Jews, they were very eager to minimize their guilt through legalistic manouevre; but they end up, like we do, realizing that they had to throw themselves upon the grace of the one who had effectively died and been resurrected. They likely held some belief that a special curse would come upon them if they themselves killed their own flesh brother; I suggest this is how we should read this verse, rather than seeing any softness toward Joseph on their part. </p>


text:
<p><em>Midianites who were merchants passed by- </em>These Ishmaelites lived in Midian.</p><p><em>And they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver- </em>The Lord Jesus was “him… whom they priced on the part of the sons of Israel” (<em><a href='B:470 27:9'>Mat 27:9</a></em> RVmg.). The reference to “the sons of Israel” is surely an allusion to the sons of Jacob selling Joseph for his value. Twenty pieces of silver was the price of redemption for a teenager (<em><a href='B:30 27:5'>Lev 27:5</a></em>); the Lord was sold for thirty pieces, the price of a slave (<em><a href='B:20 21:32'>Exo 21:32</a></em>). </p><p><em>They brought Joseph into Egypt</em>-</p><p> According to some reconstructions of the geography, their route would have taken them through Mamre and Hebron, where Jacob was and from where Joseph had just come from. It would've all been so terribly painful for him, as it was for the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>Reuben returned to the pit; and saw that Joseph wasn’t in the pit; and he tore his clothes</em>-</p><p> Reuben wasn't present; perhaps he had gone somewhere in order to try to arrange some release of Joseph. The Divine camera of inspiration invites us to view Reuben alone at the pit, and then returning to his brothers (:30) who were nearby but not directly at the pit. Maybe he had gone to the pit alone in order to get Joseph out of it. I suggest on :30 that Reuben may not have been totally sincere in all this. He tore his coat because he wanted Joseph's coat, the sign of the firstborn.</p>


text:
<p><em>He returned to his brothers and said, The child is no more; and I, where will I go?</em>-</p><p> Such an outburst would be appropriate for Reuben as the firstborn who was responsible for his brothers. But he had been stripped of that position after the incest of <em><a href='B:10 35:22'>Gen 35:22</a></em>. So his words may not have been completely sincere, but rather an insistence that he was in fact the firstborn.</p>


text:
<p><em>They took Joseph’s coat, and killed a male goat, and dipped the coat in the blood</em>-</p><p> This is full of reference to atonement rituals; the point being that their sin could not be covered by any such ritual of animal sacrifice, but only by the gracious forgiveness of Joseph (cp. the Lord Jesus). To make it realistic, the dipping may not have been complete immersion. And yet the blood soaked garment becomes the visual characteristic of the Lord Jesus (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:13'>Rev 19:13</a></em>). Their father would now have to make a new coat and designate another firstborn. </p>


text:
<p><em>They took the coat of many colours, and they sent it to their father, and said, We have found this. Examine it, please, whether it is your son’s coat or not</em>-</p><p> They sent it by messengers before they themselves arrived. This was so cruel to Jacob. The brothers implied that they did not know for sure whether it was Joseph's coat or not; even though it was the object of their intense jealousy. Their language has credibility. Even when trying to deceive, they couldn't but call Joseph "your son" rather than "our brother"; and likewise they pretended not to know very much about the coat. The whole story must have had less and less credibility as the years went by; and yet the brothers would have continued the lie all the more insistently.</p>


text:
<p><em>He recognized it, and said, It is my son’s coat. An evil animal has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn in pieces</em>-</p><p> "Joseph is... rent&nbsp; in pieces. And Jacob rent&nbsp; his clothes" (:34); Jacob shared in Joseph's death. This is a fine prefigurement of the (sadly ignored) pain of God, as well as another example of the record having absolute psychological credibility. Jacob is pretended as falling completely ("without doubt...") for their story. And yet he must have had his doubts. He was being placed precisely in the position of his father Isaac when he had deceived him regarding the birthright blessing. Jacob's later words about the matter are pregnant with the hint that he guessed something was wrong with the story: "(Joseph) went out from me, and I said, Surely he is torn in pieces; and I haven’t seen him since" (<em><a href='B:10 44:28'>Gen 44:28</a></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'. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob tore his clothes, and put sackcloth on his waist, and mourned for his son many days</em>-</p><p> As Joseph's coat was torn, so his father tore <em>his</em> clothes. This sense of identity with the deceased is natural and is another example of where these ancient records have every psychological credibility, adding to our faith that what we are reading really did happen as stated. </p>


text:
<p><em>All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. He said, For I will go down to Sheol to my son mourning. His father wept for him</em>-</p><p> The Syriac says: "I will go down into the grave on account of my son mourning". He felt suicidal and wanted to die with his 'dead' son. As noted on :34, his recorded reaction is absolutely psychologically credible. His refusal to accept their comfort could reflect his skepticism about the whole story. We note too that he had "daughters", as well as Dinah. And one lie led to others. It was this which all contributed to Jacob's sense of loneliness, suspecting all around him were deceiving him. </p><p>Jacob's love for Rachel is reflected and acknowledged by the inspired record when we read of <em>Rachel</em> weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted "because they are not" (<em><a href='B:470 2:18'>Mat 2:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 31:15'>Jer 31:15</a></em>). But these ideas are more relevant surely to <em>Jacob</em> weeping for Rachel and especially for Joseph- for Jacob wept for Joseph and refused to be comforted (<em><a href='B:10 37:35'>Gen 37:35</a></em>). This was after the death of Rachel (<em><a href='B:10 35:19'>Gen 35:19</a></em>). Surely the record is reflecting the unity which there was between Jacob and Rachel; even after her death, Jacob wept as it were with her kind of weeping. And yet she was not a very spiritual woman. Martin Buber notes that "womenfolk bring the household gods to the homes of their husbands from the homes of their fathers" (<em>Moses</em> (Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1947) p. 205). By doing this, Rachel showed both her loyalty to her husband and yet also her attachment to idolatry; a classic case of mixed motivation arising from not having wholly given herself to the one true God. </p><p>Both good and bad people go to<em> sheol, </em>‘hell’, i.e. the grave. Thus Jesus “made his grave with the wicked” (<em><a href='B:290 53:9'>Isa 53:9</a></em>). In line with this, there are other examples of righteous men going to hell, i.e. the grave. Jacob said that he would “go down into the grave (hell)... mourning” for his son Joseph.</p>


text:
<p><em>The Midianites sold him into Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard</em>-</p><p> "Officer" is 'eunuch', which would explain his wife's sexual frustration. "Captain of the guard" is Heb. 'captain of the slaughterers'; he was in charge of execution. This raises the question as to why Potiphar didn't immediately have Joseph executed for trying to rape his wife; the fact he didn't makes us think that actually, he suspected she was lying and didn't want to kill Joseph, although he had to be seen as punishing him. The LXX gives "chief cook", which would mean that the presence of the butler and baker in prison was likewise at the hands of Potiphar. They would've all known each other, and surely the butler and baker knew Joseph to be innocent. There is also the possibility that the keeper of the prison was in fact Potiphar, if "captain of the guard" is correct. </p><p>The words Potiphar and Pharaoh are very similar; they both mean "the sun". As Joseph was subject to these men, he would have remembered his dream- that ultimately the sun would bow down to him. But his faith in that prophetic word was to be sorely tested.</p>


text:
<em>It happened at that time- </em>Judah was intended to be in the line of Messiah. And yet he married an unbeliever. It would seem that he married young, and he made his sons marry young likewise. Note that his sons are recorded as dying “in Canaan”, before Judah left Canaan to emigrate to Egypt. This requires that the events of Genesis 38 occurred whilst Joseph was suffering in Egypt, and are typical of the sin of Israel / Judah in the Gentile world before their repentance and acceptance by Joseph / Jesus. As discussed on :6, there is a chronological issue with this chapter, and the Hebrew may mean that these events happened at the time that Judah went down from his brothers sometime earlier, rather than "that time" connecting with Genesis 37. <p><em>That Judah went down from his brothers- </em>See on <em><a href='B:10 44:33'>Gen 44:33</a></em>. He separated himself from God's people, associated with Gentiles and was led into sin. But the point of the story is that God still worked through him, because Tamar was directly in the line of Messiah. God's purposes were not stopped by human failure. There were only 22 years from this time to the emigration of the family to Egypt, and it is noted that Judah's adult sons died in Canaan. Therefore we can conclude that this separation was immediately after the attempted murder of Joseph (:1), so perhaps the result of the sin was a disagreement between the brothers, so that Judah went off on his own.</p><p><em>And visited a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah-</em></p><p> "Visited" is AV "turned in<em>"-</em></p><p> Heb. 'to bend away', the language of apostasy. </p>


text:
<em>Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua. He took her, and went in to her</em>-</p><p> Shua was the name of her father, according to the LXX and also :12. "Saw... took... went in to her<em>" </em>is the language of David's sin with Bathsheba; note the use of messengers to try to get themselves out of the consequences of their action. Judah took a Canaanite woman and shamefully treated her. Esau took (s.w.) Canaanite women, but married them and treated them responsibly (<em><a href='B:10 36:2'>Gen 36:2</a></em>). But by grace, it is Jacob's line and not Esau's who were chosen. There is a theme in the record that the sons of Jacob were not better than the sons of Ishmael and Esau who chose not to continue in God's covenant purpose, indeed they were often worse; the only difference was that they chose to hand in with God's grace.


text:
<em>She conceived, and bore a son; and he named him Er</em>-</p><p> He was slain for his wickedness (:7) and yet Judah's son Shelah had a son of the same name, to as it were replace him rather than leave this wicked man unremembered in the family (<em><a href='B:130 4:21'>1Ch 4:21</a></em>). This chapter emphasizes the deep unspirituality of Judah; and yet from him was to come the Messiah and future people of God. The function of the chapter is to show "that the pre-eminence of Judah in the patriarchal family was due exclusively to grace". We may also be left to perceive that unless God had providentially moved the family into Egypt, they would have intermingled with the Canaanites and lost their covenant relationship with Yahweh. Which again is an example of grace.


text:
<em>She conceived again, and bore a son; and she named him Onan</em>-</p><p> Judah was probably only a few years older than Joseph, who was 17 at this time (:1); perhaps he was 21 (<em><a href='B:10 29:35'>Gen 29:35</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 30:25'>Gen 30:25</a></em>). See on :6.


text:
<em>She yet again bore a son, and named him Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bore him</em>-</p><p> Chezib means 'falsehood'. Why else mention the place? Maybe the idea is that Judah wasn't present at the birth of his third child because he was away at 'falsehood', perhaps implying he was involved in an illicit relationship there.


text:
<em>Judah took a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar</em>-</p><p> Er would have been very young at this time; for there were only 22 years from the this time when Joseph was 17 (:1) to when the family moved to Egypt. The 22 years can be calculated from <em><a href='B:10 30:31'>Gen 30:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:41'>Gen 31:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 37:2'>Gen 37:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 37:25'>Gen 37:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 41:46'>Gen 41:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 46:5'>Gen 46:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 46:12'>Gen 46:12</a></em>. Judah was keen to see his sons married and to build up his family; Isaac and Jacob married much older. So perhaps Judah, like his fathers, was trying to force through the fulfilment of God's promises of a multitudinous seed, although his attempts failed. Indeed for the history to fit, it has been argued by Adam Clarke that Judah would have married as a teenager and Er likewise. An alternative is to think that this chapter is out of historical sequence and has been placed here for some narrative purpose, and the "at that time" of :1 refers to some time other than the events of Genesis 37. But the record may be demonstrating Judah's manic desire to have children and force the fulfilment of the promises of fruitfulness. Another possibility is that :1 should mean "It had come to pass at the time that Judah went down from his brethren...". The incident would then refer to an earlier incident; but if Joseph was 17 at the time of chapter 37, then it would still mean that Judah was very young when he married and these events happened.


text:
<em>Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of Yahweh. Yahweh killed him</em>-</p><p> Despite his youth (see on :6). We may think that behaviour in our late teens or early 20s can be as it were scribbled because we were young. But human behaviour counts to God, at whatever age. We note that Yahweh killed wicked people at this time. And yet the sons of Jacob had committed major wickedness in the effective murder of Joseph and the massacre of Shechem. And yet Yahweh didn't kill them. This note about Er demonstrates not only that once again, being the literal firstborn was not related to spirituality; but also that the founding fathers of Israel were preserved by pure grace. See on :10. "Wicked in the sight of Yahweh" is the phrase used about the sins of Sodom (<em><a href='B:10 13:13'>Gen 13:13</a></em>).


text:
<em>Judah said to Onan, Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her, and raise up seed to your brother</em>-</p><p> As noted on :6, Judah was desperate to generate a multitudinous seed in his own strength and by his own devices. The Levirate laws in the later law of Moses were clearly in existence before Moses' time. Some argue that we should keep the Sabbath because it was in existence before Moses' time; but on that basis, so should we keep this principle of raising up seed, and also the separation between clean and unclean animals which was clearly known at the time of the flood.


text:
<em>Onan knew that the seed wouldn’t be his; and it happened, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother</em>-</p><p> The sin was not masturbation as such, as has wrongly been supposed, but not loving his brother and being selfish. The same Hebrew phrase is used repeatedly of how the world's population in Noah's time <em>corrupted</em> God's way <em>in the earth</em>, and how God in appropriate response <em>destroyed the earth </em>(<em><a href='B:10 6:11-13'>Gen 6:11-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 6:17'>Gen 6:17</a></em>). There is therefore the implication that Judah wasn't interested in raising up a seed for God, but rather just wanted his own seed on the terms he wished. The phrase is repeatedly used in the prophets for how the earth / land of Judah was to be 'destroyed'. Judah were destroyed because like the historical Judah, they didn't want to raise a Godly seed. Ewald suggests the Hebrew suggests that Onan did this 'whenever he went in...' to her, taking sexual gratification from her without consummation. He therefore treated her as a prostitute, for his own pleasure; and was slain for it. And yet Judah his father used a prostitute at least once (and we could infer that he often used prostitutes, as Tamar knew his behaviour to be predictable) and was not slain. Again we see that Judah, one of the prominent founders of Israel, was saved by grace.&nbsp;


text:
<em>The thing which he did was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and He killed him also</em>-</p><p> Even in the darkness of a tent or inner room, God's eyes noticed every detail. Time and again Biblical history demonstrates that sins of silence and omission are just as fatal as sins of public, physical commission. Onan omitted to raise up seed to his brother, and was slain. Given the serious sins of the family, this judgment may appear severe. But as noted on :7, the function of this chapter is to underline that the development and preservation of the people of God was by grace alone. They had done far worse things than these young men who were punished so severely, and yet they were preserved by grace.


text:
<em>Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, Remain a widow in your father’s house, until Shelah, my son, is grown up; for he said, Lest he also die, like his brothers. Tamar went and lived in her father’s house</em>-</p><p> Judah saw Tamar as some kind of <em>femme fatale</em>, responsible for the deaths of his two sons when clearly they died for their own sins. And yet she was to become the source of fruitfulness (<em><a href='B:80 4:12'>Rth 4:12</a></em>) and directly in the line of Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 1:3'>Mat 1:3</a></em>). Judah is again portrayed as totally wrong in his judgments and attitudes.


text:
<em>After many days, Shua’s daughter, the wife of Judah, died. Judah was comforted, and went up to his sheepshearers to Timnah, he and his friend Hirah, the Adullamite</em>-</p><p> One wonders if Judah was in an illicit homosexual relationship with this man. The word for "friend" is also translated "lover". Having lost his wife early, Judah was in the mood for living as a single man; and Tamar knew this meant using prostitutes and capitalized upon that. We see here how so many factors worked together, including serious human sin and dysfunction, to result in a pregnancy given by God which led to the Messianic seed (<em><a href='B:80 4:12'>Rth 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 1:3'>Mat 1:3</a></em>). It is all an example of how God never gives up with human weakness amongst His covenant people, but seeks to work His purpose out despite it and through it. &nbsp;<p><em><a href='B:10 38:13'>Gen 38:13</a></em> <em>It was told Tamar, saying, Behold, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep</em>-</p><p> Sheep shearing was associated with immorality and alcohol abuse. Tamar knew that Judah was the type who would sleep with prostitutes at such a time- again indicating his low moral character at this time. </p>


text:
<em>It was told Tamar, saying, Behold, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep-</em><p> Sheep shearing was associated with immorality and alcohol abuse. Tamar knew that Judah was the type who would sleep with prostitutes at such a time- again indicating his low moral character at this time.</p>


text:
<em>She took off of her the garments of her widowhood, and covered herself with her veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in the gate of Enaim, which is by the way to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she wasn’t given to him as a wife</em>-</p><p> The camera is trained as it were directly upon her, so that we imagine her wrapping herself and sitting in the gate, in the shadows. <p>There is a connection with how Rachel was not given (s.w.) to Jacob to wife when she ought to have been (<em><a href='B:10 29:26'>Gen 29:26</a></em>). Circumstances repeated within the lives of the Abraham family, just as they do within and between our lives, that we might learn the lessons. Given the chronological issues discussed on :6, she was expecting to marry Shelah when he was just a teenager, which seems to mean that Judah had given her other reasons to think that he would not let her marry Shelah. Her motives may well have been simply revenge against Judah, whom she rightly considered a hypocrite. And yet from these poor motives came the one who would be in the direct line to the Messiah. We wonder if she did in the end marry Shelah, because he had children, who became respected within Judah (<em><a href='B:40 26:20'>Num 26:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 4:21-23'>1Ch 4:21-23</a></em>). </p>


text:
<em>When Judah saw her, he thought that she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face</em>-</p><p> There may be a connection with how Jacob didn't know he had slept with Leah rather than Rachel. Perhaps there was such a culture of shame about sex that women covered their faces during intercourse; and we can understand a prostitute in those shame based societies wishing to do that. Again we see the strange continuities within the Abraham family, the same experiences passing from father to son. A different word for "prostitute" is used in :21,22; that word means a cult prostitute. It could be that Judah thought nothing of sleeping with cult prostitutes as part of idol worship, which makes his spirituality appear at an all time low.<p>In <em><a href='B:10 37:26'>Gen 37:26</a></em> Judah argued that there would be no cash advantage if they just killed Joseph and concealed or covered their (responsibility for) his blood. The same word is now used twice of how Judah in turn is deceived by Tamar covering / concealing herself (:14,15). This is not simply an example of 'what goes around, comes around'. God makes such circumstances repeat because He wants to help people to repent, to realize the effect of what they have done to others in the hope it will elicit sensitivity and repentance. </p>


text:
<em>He turned to her by the way, and said, Please come, let me come in to you, for he didn’t know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said, What will you give me, that you may come in to me?</em>-</p><p> Tamar's plan was based upon the assumption that Judah on returning from a sheep shearing celebration would likely want a prostitute. And she was correct. Judah later sees her as "righteous" for what she did (:26). He presumably was felt to have a legal duty to get her pregnant even if Shelah refused.


text:
<em>He said, I will send you a young goat from the flock. She said, Will you give me a pledge, until you send it?</em>-</p><p> The fact Judah was apparently unprepared for sleeping with a prostitute, having nothing of value upon him to pay her apart from his personal identity items, all suggests that he was drunk and just looking for opportunistic sex under the influence of alcohol and lust.


text:
<em>He said, What pledge will I give you? She said, Your signet and your cord, and your staff that is in your hand. He gave them to her, and came in to her, and she conceived by him</em>-</p><p> These sound like large demands, from a woman who was anonymous behind her veil. Judah perhaps only agreed because he was drunk at the time, and felt desperate to have sex at any cost.


text:
<em>She arose, and went away, and put off her veil from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood</em>-</p><p> The camera is as it were close in now upon her, as we see her removing the veil and returning to who she was.


text:
<em>Judah sent the young goat by the hand of his friend, the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman’s hand, but he didn’t find her</em>-</p><p> The connections within the record continue; for Judah had been party to using a goat to deceive his father (<em><a href='B:10 37:31'>Gen 37:31</a></em>) just as his father Jacob had used goat skin to deceive his father. Yet this family who apparently 'never learnt', never 'got it', were the family God chose from which to build His covenant people- in order to display His grace and sovereign choice. The way Judah sent the payment through another person reflects his desire for anonymity, and we note his subsequent fear of shame over the issue. The fact he parted with his personal identity documents, as it were, is therefore confirmation of my earlier suggestion that he was a drunk man desperate to have sex at that moment at whatever personal cost to his reputation.


text:
<em>Then he asked the men of her place, saying, Where is the prostitute, that was at Enaim by the road? They said, There has been no prostitute here</em>-</p><p> The word for "prostitute" differs from that in :15; this one means a cult prostitute. Again the implication is that Judah thought nothing of such idolatry.


text:
<em>He returned to Judah, and said, I haven’t found her; and also the men of the place said, ‘There has been no prostitute here’</em>-</p><p> All this enquiry would have meant that everyone knew what had happened. Rotherham gives "devotee" for "prostitute", confirming the idea that Judah slept with her on the basis of idolatry.


text:
<em>Judah said, Let her keep it, lest we be shamed. Behold, I sent this young goat, and you haven’t found her</em>-</p><p> The fear of shame confirms my earlier suggestion that he must have been drunk to behave like this, giving his personal identification to an anonymous prostitute.


text:
<em>It happened about three months later, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar, your daughter-in-law, has played the prostitute; and moreover, behold, she is with child by prostitution- </em>The person who told Judah this was presumably part of Tamar's plot. Because she was technically free to marry. The reason given for the death penalty was that she was a prostitute; and only Tamar or those party to her plan knew that she had acted as one only for Judah.<em>Judah said, Bring her out, and let her be burnt</em>-</p><p> This may not necessarily mean to be burnt to death, but rather to be branded in the cheek or forehead so that she would be stigmatized as a prostitute. If burning to death, this was a more extreme punishment than death by stoning. We note the obvious hypocrisy in Judah- it's a classic. He transferred his own guilt for immorality and usage of prostitutes onto another, namely a prostitute. And this is why religious people often condemn others in the strongest terms for what they themselves do. They subconsciously transfer their own sense of guilt and need for punishment onto another, whom they punish. And they at times do this by slandering and then punishing another person for the very sins which they themselves commit.<p>Burning to death for adultery was stipulated only for the wife of a priest (<em><a href='B:30 21:9'>Lev 21:9</a></em>). Judah perhaps considered himself or Shelah to be the family priest, again showing his deep unspirituality and the tragic state of affairs within Jacob's family.</p><p>Judah didn't give Shelah to Tamar because he clearly feared that he would lose his son, just as he had lost two other sons and his daughter by Tamar. He was concerned about preserving his own inheritance, and assumed that Tamar was somehow cursed by God and would be the source of death rather than the continuation of his line. Whereas God worked through that woman, by utter grace, to ensure that Judah would have children through Tamar who would be in the line of Messiah. God works through human sin, in order to show His grace, as it comes to a climax in Jesus.</p>


text:
<em>When she was brought out, she sent to her father-in-law, saying, By the man, whose these are, I am with child. She also said, Examine, please, whose these are- the signet, and the cords, and the staff </em>-</p><p> Just as Judah had said to his father, "See, is this your son's coat" (<em><a href='B:10 37:32'>Gen 37:32</a></em>); so it was now said to him, in order to try to bring him to repentance for what he had done to Joseph and Jacob. We see similar repetition of circumstance in the brothers' encounters with Joseph- to try to lead them to repentance. It's not merely some poetic justice; but these things were worked through by the Spirit to bring people to realize how others felt when we sinned against them.


text:
<em>Judah recognized them and said, She is more righteous than I, because I didn’t give her to Shelah, my son-</em></p><p> Her motives may have been partly revenge against the hypocritical Judah who had purposefully tried to leave her in her father's house without children. But perhaps she believed in the promises of the Messianic seed and believed that Judah should produce Messianic ancestors; and indeed, the Lord's line is traced through their son Perez (<em><a href='B:470 1:3'>Mat 1:3</a></em>). And this was her 'righteousness' in the matter. <p><em>He knew her again no more</em>-</p><p> This could suggest that he had used her several times as a prostitute. Pregnancy after one act of intercourse is unusual, although clearly God's hand was in it. Her whole plan depended upon her getting pregnant by Judah so it would be unsurprising if she had played her trick several times.</p>


text:
<em>It happened in the time of her travail that, behold, twins were in her womb</em>-</p><p> The similarities are clear with Rebekah bringing forth Esau and Jacob, and we are going to read a similar tension over the matter of the firstborn. By now we are fully prepared for the firstborn not to be the most blessed; and we are not disappointed. This was something which God kept trying to teach the family over the generations, but like us in some areas, they were very resistant to it.


text:
<em>When she travailed, one put out a hand, and the midwife took and tied a scarlet thread on his hand, saying, This came out first</em>-</p><p> Scarlet seems a strange colour to use, seeing that there is plenty of red blood flowing anyway at childbirth. Scarlet is the colour of kings and rulers; they all realized that there was going to be tension over the issue of which child emerged first from the womb, as in that culture, this was so important. What now happens is God's way of trying again to teach the family that the firstborn was not so significant, because the ultimate firstborn was the promised Messianic seed of the future.


text:
<em>It happened, as he drew back his hand, that behold, his brother came out, and she said, Why have you made a breach for yourself? Therefore his name was called Perez</em>-</p><p> The theme of the second born being the chosen one continues. It was accepted that Perez was the one in the line of the Messianic seed and that this pregnancy was of God (<em><a href='B:80 4:12'>Rth 4:12</a></em>), even though he was not technically the firstborn. "Made a breach" is literally 'to spread abroad', and is the word used in the promises of how the Messianic seed was to break forth or spread abroad (<em><a href='B:10 28:14'>Gen 28:14</a></em>).


text:
<em>Afterward his brother came out, that had the scarlet thread on his hand, and his name was called Zerah</em>-</p><p> As noted above, the firstborn was to come "after" the younger. But the entire family struggled to learn this. Although Jacob had made Joseph firstborn instead of Reuben by giving him the priestly robe of many colours, at the end of his life, Jacob still seems to bless Judah as the firstborn. They just would not learn that order of birth was irrelevant to the only blessing that really mattered. We too can be blind to some whole area of thinking or behaviour, despite the Father's continual efforts to help us get our priorities right.


text:
<em>Joseph was brought down to Egypt. Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites that had brought him down there</em>-</p><p> "Officer" is 'eunuch', which would explain his wife's sexual frustration. "Captain of the guard" is Heb. 'captain of the slaughterers'; he was in charge of execution. This raises the question as to why Potiphar didn't immediately have Joseph executed for trying to rape his wife; the fact he didn't makes us think that actually, he suspected she was lying and didn't want to kill Joseph, although he had to be seen as punishing him. The LXX gives "chief cook", which would mean that the presence of the butler and baker in prison was likewise at the hands of Potiphar. They would've all known each other, and surely the butler and baker knew Joseph to be innocent. There is also the possibility that the keeper of the prison was in fact Potiphar, if "captain of the guard" is correct. <p>The words Potiphar and Pharaoh are very similar; they both mean "the sun". As Joseph was subject to these men, he would have remembered his dream- that ultimately the sun would bow down to him. But his faith in that prophetic word was to be sorely tested.</p><p>Throughout the records of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his children there is continual repetition in the manner in which the record is written. This repetition is of both experiences (e.g. lying concerning their wives: <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>) and of the language used to describe those experiences. <em><a href='B:10 39:1-8'>Gen 39:1-8</a></em> provides an example of this: "Joseph was brought down to Egypt... the Ishmealites, which had brought him down thither... down to Egypt" (<em><a href='B:10 37:25'>Gen 37:25</a></em>). "The Lord was with Joseph...and his master saw that the Lord was with him". "His master the Egyptian... his master". "Joseph... was a prosperous man... the Lord made all that he did to prosper". Potiphar "made him overseer over his house... from the time that he had made him overseer in his house". "All that he had he put into his hand...over all that he had... the blessing of the Lord was upon all that he had... he left all that he had in Joseph's hand". "His hand... into his hand... Joseph's hand... to my hand". This kind of linguistic device suggests that the Spirit in Genesis is inviting us to observe the development of theme and to note emphasis, realizing that God likewise works according to patterns in our lives.</p>


text:
<em>Yahweh was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man. He was in the house of his master the Egyptian</em>-</p><p> "The Egyptian" (:1) is stressed because if the Hyksos dynasty were then ruling Egypt, they were not Egyptian but closer to the Semitic peoples of Canaan; and it was an unusual for an Egyptian to be in such a position of power. But the idea is that the promises to Abraham began to be fulfilled in a primary sense, in that a Gentile family was blessed for the sake of the seed of Abraham. "Prosperous" is s.w. used about Daniel and his friends prospering in captivity in Babylon (Dan. 3:30 6:28); and there are clearly intended parallels between Joseph and Daniel, both being called to interpret dreams and then suddenly promoted. Again we see a continuity in God's dealings with men, which we should also discern between our lives and those of Biblical characters or other contemporary believers we know.


text:
<em>His master saw that Yahweh was with him, and that Yahweh made all that he did prosper in his hand</em>-</p><p> All this is language appropriate to the Lord Jesus, whom Joseph pointed forward to. For Yahweh was "with" Him supremely and prospered His "hand" (<em><a href='B:500 16:32'>Joh 16:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:38'>Act 10:38</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 7:9'>Act 7:9</a></em>). It is really stressed that Yahweh "was with" Joseph (:2,3,21,23; <em><a href='B:510 7:9'>Act 7:9</a></em>). Yahweh was likewise "with" Abraham through making a covenant "with" him (<em><a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a></em> s.w.); Yahweh being personally "with" Abraham's seed is a major part of the promise (<em><a href='B:10 28:20'>Gen 28:20</a></em>).


text:
<em>Joseph found favour in his sight- </em>Just as the Lord grew in grace or favour with God and man (<em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>).<p><em>He ministered to him, and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand</em>-</p><p> "Overseer" is s.w. <em><a href='B:10 40:4'>Gen 40:4</a></em>, where in prison Joseph is given the oversight of the other prisoners. I suggested on <em><a href='B:10 37:2'>Gen 37:2</a></em> that when he was a teenager, Jacob had put his entire flock under Joseph and made him the religious head of the family with status of the firstborn after Reuben's demotion. He was to have the situation repeat when in prison, and then under Pharaoh. Situations repeat within our lives too, each one preparing us for another. With Jacob, Potiphar and in prison, each exaltation led to a dramatic demotion or a sudden end; and this prepared Joseph not to be proud when exalted under Pharaoh. He would've thought "And how long is <em>this</em> exaltation going to last?". Because he was humble, that final exaltation lasted for the rest of his life. But each exaltation was so that he might serve others (or the sheep, in the first case). </p>


text:
<em>It happened from the time that he made him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that Yahweh blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake; and the blessing of Yahweh was on all that he had, in the house and in the field</em>-</p><p> This blessing was a primary fulfilment of the promise of blessing through the seed of Abraham, who would "be a blessing" (<em><a href='B:10 12:2-3'>Gen 12:2-3</a></em>). Joseph may have reflected that the same had happened to Laban's house due to the presence there of his father Jacob. The same Hebrew words are used: "Yahweh has blessed me for your sake" (<em><a href='B:10 30:27'>Gen 30:27</a></em>). We should be on the look out for the primary fulfilment of the new covenant blessings in our lives too.


text:
<em>He left all that he had in Joseph’s hand. He didn’t concern himself with anything, except for the food which he ate- </em>This confirms what we later learn in the history, that Egyptians would not eat with Hebrews (<em><a href='B:10 43:32'>Gen 43:32</a></em>). The Biblical record meshes together perfectly.<p><em>Joseph was well-built and handsome</em>-</p><p> "Joseph was a goodly person, and well favoured" clearly means he was good-looking (like his mother, <em><a href='B:10 29:17'>Gen 29:17</a></em> s.w., grandmother and great-grandmother). The record seems to stress that the family was good looking. Perhaps this gives another angle on an old chestnut: Was the Lord Jesus Christ good looking and handsome as the Son of God, or weak and ugly as the suffering servant? On the cross, "his visage was so marred more than any man... there is no beauty that we should desire him... despised... we hid as it were our faces from him" (<em><a href='B:290 52:14'>Isa 52:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 53:2-4'>Isa 53:2-4</a></em>). Yet Joseph was strong and good looking, pleasing in the eyes of men (and women). So may we suggest that the Lord too was naturally strong and attractive, but he lost this due to the mental trauma of his life, resulting in his repulsive physical appearance as he hung on the cross.</p><p>There is an undoubted link between sexuality and spirituality (witness the typical meaning of the Song of Solomon). The Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:10 39:6-7'>Gen 39:6-7</a></em> suggests that it was Joseph's spiritually attractive personality that mesmerized Potiphar's wife; and what good living, socially aloof Christian office worker has not experienced the attention this attracts from colleagues of the opposite sex?</p>


text:
<em>It happened after these things- </em>Joseph came to Potiphar when 17, and was 30 when he was exalted before Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:10 41:46'>Gen 41:46</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 41:1'>Gen 41:1</a></em>), so he may have been in his early or mid 20s. He contrasts favourably with Judah, who at that age married a Canaanite and lived immorally (see on <em><a href='B:10 38:6'>Gen 38:6</a></em>).<p><em>That his master’s wife cast her eyes on Joseph; and she said, Lie with me</em>-</p><p> The Egyptian tale of Anat tempting Aqhat is similar in outline terms to Potiphar's wife tempting Joseph; as the god Khnum hides a precious object in grain, so does Joseph; the Egyptian fertility deities were gods of dreams and associated with the stars; they are at times slain by wild animals and their blood stained clothes presented as evidence (Documented in Donald Redford, <em>The Biblical Story of Joseph </em>(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970) p. 100; W.F. Albright, <em>From the Stone Age to Christianity</em> (Oxford: O.U.P., 1957) p. 241; A. Jeremias, <em>The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East </em>(London: Williams & Norgate, 1911) Vol. 2 p. 64). Having lived several generations in Egypt, the Israelites for whom Moses was composing Genesis would've been aware of these myths. And Moses is clearly referring to them- and applying them to a real, historical person, an Israelite, who had lived 400 years previously. </p>


text:
<em>But he refused, and said to his master’s wife, Behold, my master doesn’t know what is with me in the house, and he has put all that he has into my hand</em>-</p><p> There may be a play on the word "know" being a euphemism for the sexual act. And Joseph may have had in mind that although his earthly master didn't know what was going on, God as his heavenly master did.


text:
<em>He isn’t greater in this house than I, neither has he kept back anything from me but you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?</em>-</p><p> David confessed that he had sinned against God (<em><a href='B:230 51:4'>Psa 51:4</a></em>), using the very language of faithful Joseph who refused ongoing temptation with these words (<em><a href='B:10 39:9'>Gen 39:9</a></em>). Could this not imply that Bathsheba wife of Uriah was similar to Potiphar’s wife?&nbsp; Joseph is unashamed to tell this secular woman that he believes in God, and that it is axiomatic to being a believer in God that he would not do "great wickedness"; and sin against&nbsp; another person is sin against God. Such a view of the gods was unheard of amongst the idolaters, who had little concept of sin in a moral sense. This same phrase is used about the "great wickedness" of marriage to unbelievers in <em><a href='B:160 13:27'>Neh 13:27</a></em>; and yet we will soon read that Joseph does this.


text:
<em>As she spoke to Joseph day by day, he didn’t listen to her, to lie by her, or to be with her</em>-</p><p> This is the more commendable as Joseph was in his mid 20s (see on :7) and so far as we know had not had the chance of sexual experience although being so handsome. The preceding Genesis 38 has recorded the various sexual sins of Judah and his family; Joseph is presented here as the parade example of avoiding and resisting sexual temptation whatever the consequences. "day by day". The contrast is intentional; and Joseph's attitude is the more outstanding because he came from a family where these values were not modelled to him by his older siblings.


text:
<em>About this time- </em>Heb. 'On that day', or 'On this day'. The impression is given that this was not a fateful day, as many would see it; but rather the day chosen by God in His wider, longer plan. Only by reading the Joseph story to the end do we appreciate this.<p><em>He went into the house to do his work, and there were none of the men of the house inside</em>-</p><p> Doubtless set up by the woman. </p>


text:
<em>She caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me! He left his garment in her hand, and ran outside</em>-</p><p> Joseph running for the door is the visual image picked up in the New Testament and held before us as an example: "Flee fornication" (<em><a href='B:530 6:18'>1Co 6:18</a></em>); "flee youthful lusts" (<em><a href='B:620 2:22'>2Ti 2:22</a></em>). Potiphar's wife is therefore set up as the embodiment of our own lusts. To have done this she must have been totally obsessed and infatuated. As with the likes of Delilah, we wonder what a miserable life she lived after this incident until she came to her Godless, bitter and unfulfilled last breath.


text:
<em>When she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and had run outside</em>-</p><p> Joseph lost his garment before he went into the pit and before he went to prison; Pharaoh dressed him in one, just as Jacob had done, and probably this garment was a sign of his being the house manager and had been given him by Potiphar. Situations repeated, as they do in our lives.&nbsp;


text:
<em>She called to the men of her house, and spoke to them, saying, Behold, he has brought in a Hebrew to us to mock us. He came in to me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice</em>-</p><p> The record has the ring of truth to it- for infatuation turns to hatred in a moment (as in <em><a href='B:100 13:14-15'>2Sa 13:14-15</a></em>). The way she speaks of her husband as "he", and suggests Potiphar had intentionally sought to mock her by putting a handsome young man under her nose... all suggests she did not have a good relationship with him. And again, there is a psychological credibility to the entire record, of a kind which is not found in uninspired histories of the time, all of which feature gross exaggerations which are not credible if they are a strictly accurate retelling of history. The Hebrew for "mock" is used in a distinctly sexual sense in <em><a href='B:10 26:8'>Gen 26:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:20 32:6'>Exo 32:6</a></em>. "To mock<em> us</em>" may imply she claimed Joseph had sexual designs on others too<em>.</em>


text:
<em>It happened, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment by me, and ran outside</em>-</p><p> She repeats her statement word for word in :18. This repeating a story word for word is a clear indication that it has been fabricated. Her story lacked credibility anyway. If there were no other men in the house at the time, he need not have run outside. He was still on the premises when Potiphar came home and there is no record of him seeking to flee. To leave his garment with her would seem foolish of him, if he were guilty. And what evidence is an outer garment anyway, in this context? On examination, her story was fake. But it is perfectly credible that this is the kind of thing an infatuated woman would do when firmly turned down. The whole account has the ring of truth and credibility to it; these words were indeed spoken by this woman, and the whole thing is no myth nor garbled folklore, but the specifically inspired and recorded word of God.


text:
<em>She laid up his garment by her, until his master came home</em>-</p><p> We are left to imagine Joseph's feelings as he awaited the return of his master. The record draws us in to the events so that we enter into the feelings.


text:
<em>She spoke to him according to these words, saying, The Hebrew servant, whom you have brought to us, came in to me to mock me</em>-</p><p> She cannot resist putting the blame upon her husband; see on :14. This fits exactly with the situation of the frustrated wife in a dead marriage which the record describes. And so we can confidently believe that we are reading words which were actually spoken in a house in Egypt millennia ago. The Hebrew for "mock" is used in a distinctly sexual sense in <em><a href='B:10 26:8'>Gen 26:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:20 32:6'>Exo 32:6</a></em>.


text:
<em>And it happened, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment by me, and ran outside</em>-</p><p> She repeats word for word her prepared statement which she first made to the other male servants; see on :15. This exact word for word repetition of the statement is exactly what we would expect from someone who has fabricated a story.


text:
<em>It happened, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spoke to him, saying, This is what your servant did to me, that his wrath was kindled</em>-</p><p> It may be significant that it is not stated that his wrath was with Joseph. He could have been angry at her statement that<em> your</em> servant did this<em> to me</em>, putting so much guilt upon Potiphar. Perhaps it was with his wife, as he could see through the whole story. This would explain why Joseph was not killed but "only" imprisoned, when death would have been the usual punishment. Indeed a case can be made that this Potiphar was also the captain of the guard who managed the prison, and it was his daughter whom Joseph later married (see on <em><a href='B:10 41:45'>Gen 41:45</a></em>. There was therefore this man Potiphar who was hanging around in Joseph's life, clearly used by providence. And why do we have to as it were read between the lines of the record to make this connection? Because that is how providence works, subtle rather than direct and 'in your face'. Joseph would have realized that clearly God's hand was at work with him. As he stood as a nervous 17 year old in a slave market in Egypt... it was all of God's grace and plan that he was bought by Potiphar or one of his servants. But it took him many years to perceive this. And the same can be said of events in our lives.<p>Joseph was being encouraged to see that the butler and baker were in a similar position to himself. They too had been thrown into prison and suffered the wrath of their lord for no reason (<em><a href='B:10 40:1-2'>Gen 40:1-2</a></em>); both Potiphar and Pharaoh are called 'Lord' (<em><a href='B:10 39:16'>Gen 39:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 40:1'>Gen 40:1</a></em>). They too were given dreams which came true, and one of them was exalted as promised in his dream- to encourage Joseph that his dreams would likewise ultimately come true.</p>


text:
<em>Joseph’s master took him, and put him into the prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were bound, and he was there in custody</em>-</p><p> Heb. "the round house", perhaps the Tower of Heliopolis. Joseph in prison was typical of the Lord's death. <em><a href='B:230 105:17-23'>Psa 105:17-23</a></em> is the Spirit's commentary upon the sufferings of Joseph: "He (God) sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant; whose feet they hurt with fetters; he was laid in iron: until the time that his word came: the word of the Lord tried him... Israel also came into Egypt". In the context of the Psalm, God is comforting Israel that all their sufferings had been experienced by Joseph. His descent into prison, just like our humiliations, was part of being Divinely "sent", although it would hardly have appeared like that at the time. Our tendency is to focus on the injustice, rather than to accept the Divine hand, even if we cannot immediately attach meaning to event. Israel as a nation are often spoken of as being in prison in a Gentile world (<em><a href='B:230 79:11'>Psa 79:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 102:20'>Psa 102:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 42:7'>Isa 42:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 42:22'>Isa 42:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:9'>Isa 49:9</a></em>); just as Joseph was. Prison and death are often associated because a spell in prison was effectively a death sentence, so bad were the conditions. Israel being in prison is therefore a symbol of a living death. On the cross, the Lord was the great, supreme prisoner (<em><a href='B:230 69:33'>Psa 69:33</a></em> - this is an intensive plural, referring to a singular great prisoner). Like Joseph, He went through all the emotions of the prisoner; the shame, depression, introspection, struggle with issues of injustice and the removal of freedom. As Israel were comforted in their living death by the fact that there was an individual in the past who had gone through all they were going through as a group; so the new Israel ought to take comfort together in contemplating the experiences of the Lord. He bore our communal sorrows, injustices, griefs and sins; this is why we as a community rather than purely as individuals need to be bound together in remembering Him. <p>"In custody" could suggest a temporary holding until the case was considered; the fact he remained there some years without trial would again indicate that Potiphar (who perhaps was also the chief of the prison) chose as it were not to prosecute. We see the similarities with Joseph being in the pit in limbo, whilst Reuben and Judah sought to rescue him; and we wonder whether Potiphar was doing the same.</p>


text:
<em>But Yahweh was with Joseph, and showed kindness to him, and gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison</em>-</p><p> <em>Chesed</em>, "kindness", is a term often associated with the fulfilment of the promises to the fathers. It was on account of them that even in prison, Joseph was sustained. This favour in the eyes of the prison manager was what he had experienced with Potiphar, and we again wonder whether the keeper of the prison was in fact Potiphar. The way God made the eyes or view of the prison keeper gracious toward Joseph is a reflection of how God showed Joseph grace or favour; the Hebrew words for "kindness" and "favour" are related. We see here how the gift ('grace') of God can be revealed through giving people an attitude of mind, a new pair of eyes; and this is the gift of the Spirit in the New Testament.


text:
<em>The keeper of the prison committed to Joseph’s hand all the prisoners who were in the prison. Whatever they did there, he was responsible for it</em>-</p><p> The similarities are clear with how Potiphar had treated him, and how Pharaoh would later treat him. Joseph had to pass through these two experiences and see them come to an abrupt end, so that he was prepared for the responsibility given him by Pharaoh, and to accept it with humility, suspecting all his life that this period would likewise come to an end in a Divinely controlled moment. We think of how Moses led a flock of sheep in the Sinai desert for 40 years to prepare him to lead Yahweh's flock of people in that same desert 40 years. We too can discern phases in our lives, preparing us for ever heavier responsibilities, and always seeking to educate us against pride and to make us totally dependent upon the Father rather than the flesh.


text:
<em>The keeper of the prison didn’t look after anything that was under his hand, because Yahweh was with him; and that which he did, Yahweh made it prosper</em>-</p><p> As noted on :22, this is exactly the language used of his prospering under Potiphar and later under Pharaoh. The Hebrew for "prosper" is used several times in the record of God prospering the plan to take a believing wife for Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 24:21'>Gen 24:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:40'>Gen 24:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:42'>Gen 24:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:56'>Gen 24:56</a></em>). If our heart is set on the things of the covenant, the Abrahamic promises, then somehow all will prosper. The ultimate prospering of that purpose is through the work of the Lord Jesus on the cross and in our final salvation (s.w. <em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:15'>Isa 48:15</a></em>). But there is continually the evidence that that final prosperity is experienced to some degree now, even whilst we suffer injustice and the loss of freedom in life which Joseph did at this time.


text:
<p><em>It happened after these things, that the butler of the king of Egypt and his baker offended their lord, the king of Egypt</em>-</p><p> The obvious accusation against the butler and baker was that they had tried to poison the king. Most likely they hadn't, but the paranoia which goes along with absolute power led the king to suspect this. Stalin was similar, falsely accusing his butlers and cooks and often having them murdered. So they would have had an immediate bond with Joseph, who was likewise totally innocent. The force of "here also" in :15 may mean that Joseph "also", like the butler and baker, was imprisoned under false accusation. The death of one and release of the other was arranged to remind Joseph of what could have happened to him, and yet of the possibility too of his total rehabilitation. Commonality of experience is a bond we too can use in relationship building and sharing God's word. There seems a parallel between their sin against "their lord" and Joseph's apparent sin against his "lord" Potiphar. He is consistently called Joseph's "lord" throughout Genesis 39.</p><p>But the Hebrew for "offended" can as well mean "sinned against". The butler later comments: "I remember my sins today" (<em><a href='B:10 41:9'>Gen 41:9</a></em>). Perhaps they were in prison for real offences; and one was saved by grace, and the other rightly condemned. The type is of the Lord's suffering together with two such thieves, on the cross. It would have made Joseph realize what grace means, in this case- for he would have seen a guilty man saved by grace, and even then be ungrateful for it. And this was really the story of his father's life.</p>


text:
<p><em>Pharaoh was angry with his two officers, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker-</em></p><p> Perhaps these two, one saved and one condemned, point forward to the two criminals with whom the Lord was crucified. Again the similarity with Joseph continues, as he was in the same prison because of his "lord's" anger (<em><a href='B:10 39:19'>Gen 39:19</a></em>). It was this commonality of experience which enabled Joseph to reach out to those men, and this is the same basis for our appeal. </p>


text:
<p><em>He put them in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, into the prison, the place where Joseph was bound</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:230 105:18'>Psa 105:18</a></em> says that Joseph's feet were hurt with iron fetters, but presumably this was only initially; so we should read this as "where Joseph had been bound". He was able to relate to how they were on the basis that he too had been through it when he was first incarcerated. At this time he was actively running the prison and not "bound" (:6). </p>


text:
<p><em>The captain of the guard assigned them to Joseph, and he took care of them. They stayed in prison many days</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; "Assigned" is s.w. <em><a href='B:10 39:4'>Gen 39:4</a></em>, where in Potiphar's house Joseph was given the charge or oversight of everything. See note there. He served them (Heb.) in that they were senior officials and were in custody awaiting trial, and therefore had the right to be served. The ancient world didn't practice long prison sentences; rather was the death sentence carried out, and people remained in prison relatively short periods or whilst awaiting trial. Joseph's extended stay in prison therefore points to something unusual- the captain of the guard maybe preserved him, or Potiphar was against the death penalty, as he disbelieved his wife, but felt he had to keep Joseph there. In all this there was Divine providence.</p>


text:
<p><em>They both dreamed a dream, each man his dream, in one night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt-&nbsp; </em>"Each man according to the interpretation of his dream" is hard to understand. It could be intended to mean "and the interpretation of those dreams came true to each of the men", but that is not quite what the text says. The LXX simply omits the phrase. The GNB repoints the Hebrew to offer "and the dreams had different meanings", but that appears to be stating what is surely axiomatic; although it may be preparing us for the contrast with <em><a href='B:10 41:25'>Gen 41:25</a></em> when the two dreams of Pharaoh had the same one interpretation. The two men assumed their dreams were saying the same thing (see on :8). Joseph likewise had had a double dream in his youth. He must have wondered whether each dream had a different meaning, or whether they were saying one and the same thing. And these recurrences of double dreams would have reminded him of his own double dreams, lest he forget them. For there in prison, the temptation would have been to shrug them off as bizarre and obviously irrelevant to his life.</p><p><em>Who were bound in the prison</em>-</p><p> Joseph had previously been "bound" with harsh fetters (<em><a href='B:230 105:18'>Psa 105:18</a></em>) but was now free enough to serve them. So he could relate to them and empathize with their suffering. This was going to be an important feature of his life; and the reason for many of our negative experiences is likewise so that we can relate to others in similar sufferings. Indeed <em><a href='B:540 1:4-8'>2Co 1:4-8</a></em> says that this is the purpose of suffering. The Lord's empathy with our suffering was achieved through His own suffering and tasting death for every man.</p>


text:
<p><em>Joseph came in to them in the morning, and saw them, and saw that they were sad</em>-</p><p> We note Joseph's sensitivity to others and desire to help them, instead of being lost in his own bitterness and sense of injustice. This feature was taught by his sufferings; because he clearly had grown up the favourite and spoilt child, and such a background would militate against such characteristics. </p>


text:
<p><em>He asked Pharaoh’s officers who were with him in custody in his master’s house, saying, Why do you look so sad today?</em>-</p><p> "Sad", <em>ra</em>, has the sense of evil. They knew Pharaoh's birthday was in three days, and there would be decisions made in connection with it which would affect them; they had a presentiment of something significant and probably evil that was to happen to them. </p>&nbsp;<p>The sensitive reader will perceive that Joseph had a strong fatherly image, even from a young age (also <em><a href='B:10 41:43'>Gen 41:43</a></em> mg.; 45:8). The Lord Jesus likewise; hence He referred to the disciples as His children when they were in the same peer group. This is understandable in that He is the supreme manifestation of <em>the</em>&nbsp; sovereign Father.</p>


text:
<p><em>They said to him, We have dreamed a dream- </em>They assume that their two dreams are one dream, and the interpretation will be identical. See on :5.</p><p><em>And there is no one who can interpret it. Joseph said to them, Don’t interpretations belong to God?-</em></p><p> Joseph is so sure dreams come true- and he likewise must have lived in faith that his would too. He would therefore have been looking for the day when his brothers came to him and knelt before him. <em><a href='B:230 105:19'>Psa 105:19</a></em> says that at this time, Joseph was tested by the word of God; he was tested as to whether he would continue to believe that God's word would come true for him, and his experience of these other dreams coming true would have encouraged him. </p><p>Another example of Joseph being tested by repeating circumstances was in the matter of playing God. In interpreting the dreams in prison, Joseph twice said that interpretations of dreams belong to God; "it is not in me; God will give Pharaoh an answer..." (<em><a href='B:10 40:8'>Gen 40:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 41:16'>Gen 41:16</a></em>). Thus twice Joseph resisted the temptation to claim Divine power to himself. Some years later, however, I fear he failed a similar temptation, when he says to his brothers: "Such a man as I can indeed divine" (<em><a href='B:10 44:15'>Gen 44:15</a></em>). He seems to be claiming for himself the power that earlier he had ascribed solely to God. But at the end of his life, when his brothers express their fear that Joseph will judge them harshly now that Jacob has died, Joseph assures them that he will not, as he is not going to play God: "Fear not, for am I in the place of God?" (<em><a href='B:10 50:19'>Gen 50:19</a></em>). Significantly, these were the very words of Joseph's father to his mother in <em><a href='B:10 30:2'>Gen 30:2</a></em> - showing how temptations and the essence of situations repeat across the generations and within the collective experience of groups of believers. We can discern what happened to Joseph going on in our own lives, if we will only take time to examine ourselves and the patterns of our experiences. A specific temptation or situation may, in essence, occur once, and we respond rightly; again it happens, and again we get it right; then again some years later, and we fail; and then some years later still, and we get it right. Constantly our understanding and obedience is being tested, developed, expanded, confirmed... by the Divinely controlled, providential structure of our lives and the situations and persons we encounter. Whether we travel the world each day meeting new people and apparently "new" situations all the time, or we sit in the same room confined by illness and with a limited pool of interaction... all the same, God is equally at work with us all, every moment. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Joseph stands as a pattern for us all. </p><p><em>Please tell it to me</em>-</p><p> This is the same word used of how Joseph told his dreams to his family, resulting in all his suffering (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 37:9-10'>Gen 37:9-10</a></em>). He was further seeing the similarities between himself and these men. If indeed they were both guilty and one was to be exalted by grace (see on :1), then Joseph would have perceived that his promised exaltation was by grace alone, as although he was innocent of what he had been accused of, he was still a sinner deserving death.</p>


text:
<p><em>The chief cupbearer told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, In my dream, behold, a vine was in front of me</em>-</p><p> The critics claim that the Egyptians didn't drink wine. The chronology of Egyptology is open to much academic debate, and so this criticism is far from solid. But I wonder if this dream is not intended to encourage Joseph as to the fulfilment of his dreams, which were about a future time, when Israel would engage in agriculture and not pasturing cattle, and when his mother would be resurrected. Joseph's dream had only a primary fulfilment when his brothers bowed to him. Likewise it could be that Joseph perceived this dream of the butler to refer to some long distant point; it would come true in a primary sense, however. And this would have guided Joseph towards correctly understanding his own dreams- they would indeed have a primary fulfilment but the main fulfilment was at a time and culture yet to come. </p>


text:
<p><em>And in the vine were three branches. It was as though it budded, it blossomed, and its clusters produced ripe grapes</em>-</p><p> The budding of the branch is elsewhere a symbol of resurrection. At this time, Joseph was being tested as to whether he would believe that God's word to him would come true (<em><a href='B:230 105:19'>Psa 105:19</a></em>), and that word involved the resurrection of his mother to one day bow before him. The way this symbol came true for the butler was an encouragement to him. The budding and blossoming of the branch is a symbol of righteousness and Divine acceptance (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 17:5'>Num 17:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 72:7'>Psa 72:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 92:12'>Psa 92:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 11:28'>Pro 11:28</a></em>). If the butler was righteous, he was still saved by grace according to this dream; and yet he failed to be grateful in saving another. This would have been a great lesson for Joseph; that although he was innocent of what he was accused of, he was still to realize that his salvation and predicted exaltation was all of grace, and he needed to learn the lesson of the butler and seek to save and be gracious to others. And indeed this was to be true of all Israel / Jacob's seed, who finally were to blossom and bud (<em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand; and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand</em>-</p><p> Joseph was to later use a cup, perhaps even Pharaoh's cup, in order to try to convict his brothers of their sin. He comments that he can "certainly divine" (<em><a href='B:10 44:15'>Gen 44:15</a></em>) because of the cup through which he divines (<em><a href='B:10 44:5'>Gen 44:5</a></em>). Joseph may be referring back to how he had correctly interpreted or divined this dream about the cup; and so the cup would be used in bringing about the fulfilment of his own dreams of exaltation above his brothers.</p>


text:
<p><em>Joseph said to him, This is its interpretation: the three branches are three days</em>-</p><p> Joseph was confident that he had the right interpretation of dreams, and his confidence was strengthened by his interpretation of these men's dreams being proven right. He therefore was being encouraged that God's word for him too would come true.</p>


text:
<p><em>Within three more days, Pharaoh will lift up your head- </em>The Hebraism had a double meaning- to lift up in glory, or lift up ones head in execution and crucifixion. </p><p><em>And restore you to your office. You will give Pharaoh’s cup into his hand, the way you did when you were his cupbearer</em>-</p><p> The language here so emphasizes restoration, "to your place... after the former manner" (AV). This is the language of the restoration from Babylon. Maybe Joseph reflected that what he had been promised in his dreams was so much greater; not an exaltation in order to be restored, but an exaltation far higher than he had ever been. </p>


text:
<p><em>But remember me when it will be well with you, and please show kindness to me, and make mention of me to Pharaoh- </em>To hold a plan in one's own mind is to have it ‘with’ them. The Hebrew text here bears this out, when Joseph is begged: “Remember me with yourself”. So for the essential purpose of God in His Son to be ‘with’ Him does not in any sense imply that a person was literally ‘with’ God in Heaven. "Remember me with thee" (AVmg.); Joseph perceived that the exaltation of the butler was intended to look forward to his own exaltation. He realized that his dreams would have their final fulfilment at the resurrection when his mother would arise; but he confidently expected a primary fulfilment in his own life. We ought to have that same confidence for this life as well as that which is to come. But Joseph also realized that the fulfilment of the Divine plan requires some volition from men; and so he begged the butler to play his part. "Show kindness" is a term elsewhere associated with the fulfilment of the Abrahamic promises; Joseph believed that those promises would have a primary fulfilment in his life, in his exaltation from prison. And he urged the butler to play his part in fulfilling them. And yet as with us, and all the Abraham family, especially his father Jacob, there is here a very human desire to force through the fulfilment of the promises by dint of human device.</p><p>"Remember me..." is almost a pathetic plea, recalling his desperate pleas for help when in the pit (<em><a href='B:10 42:21'>Gen 42:21</a></em>). Joseph learnt what it felt like to beg for assistance, and not find it. Instead of getting bitter about it, he surely vowed to be different, and he was given the opportunity to do so when made the manager of the world's greatest famine relief program.</p><p>Doubtless the thief on the cross had in mind the desperate plea of Joseph: “Have me in remembrance when…" you come into your position of power (<em><a href='B:10 40:14'>Gen 40:14</a></em> RV). The thief had perhaps meditated upon the implications of the Lord’s prayer: “Your kingdom come". He saw it as now being certain because of the cross- “when you come in your Kingdom…". And yet he felt as if he was in prospect already there before the coming King, as he hung there before Him on the cross. The thief’s words “Remember me when you come in your Kingdom" is almost certainly reference to <em><a href='B:10 40:14'>Gen 40:14</a></em>, where Joseph desperately and pathetically asks: “But think on me when it shall be well with you..". Joseph went on to say “...here also have I done nothing that they should put me into the dungeon" (<em><a href='B:10 40:15'>Gen 40:15</a></em>). This is very much the spirit of “This man has done nothing amiss...". </p><p><em>And bring me out of this house</em>-</p><p> The same&nbsp; words are often used by Moses in describing how Israel had been brought out of the house of Egyptian bondage (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 13:5'>Deu 13:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:10'>Deu 13:10</a></em>). The primary audience of Genesis was Israel in the wilderness, and they would have clearly seen the connection. Just as it seemed Joseph was suffering unfairly in that house of bondage at the hands of the Egyptians, so had Israel been. But they too had been brought out, through the Red Sea. </p>


text:
<p><em>For indeed, I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews- </em>Joseph wasn't "stolen", he was sold by his brothers; but he had so often generously told the story that way that he spoke of it as "indeed" true. Just as his brothers repeated the lie about Joseph being dead to the point that they believed it. His generosity of spirit is revealed also in how he doesn't talk in detail about his suffering at the hand of Potiphar's wife. The same words are found in <em><a href='B:10 44:8'>Gen 44:8</a></em>, where the brothers are accused of having stolen things out of the house of Joseph's house. Perhaps the idea was that Joseph felt they had stolen him, in that they had stolen the best years of his life; and he wanted them to know how it feels to be a convicted thief, because they had in this sense stolen him. </p><p><em>And here also- </em>The force of "here also" here may mean that Joseph "also", like the butler and baker, was imprisoned under false accusation; see on :1.</p><p><em>Have I done nothing that they should put me into the dungeon</em>-</p><p> The shame of Joseph in the dungeon was that this was for the lowest of the low, according to <em><a href='B:20 12:29'>Exo 12:29</a></em> - a type of the supreme degradation of Christ on the cross. "Dungeon" is s.w. "pit", the grave, in <em><a href='B:450 9:11'>Zec 9:11</a></em>. We sense Joseph's deep internal outcry against the cruel injustice of what had happened to him. He remains for all time an encouragement to those tempted to lose their faith through the experience of bitter injustice.</p>


text:
<p><em>When the chief baker saw that the interpretation was good, he said to Joseph-</em></p><p> This again has the ring of psychological, imaginable truth to it. We are led by the text to correctly imagine his eagerness to hear something good about himself too.</p><p><em>I also was in my dream, and behold, three baskets of white bread were on my head</em>-</p><p> White bread would be leavened bread. Just as the things in the butler's dream represented good spiritual things elsewhere in the Bible, so the things in the baker's dream have generally negative associations.</p>


text:
<p><em>In the top basket- </em>If this means the third basket, then the idea is that the baker's death would be on the third day. Or maybe the idea was that his body would be pecked by birds on the third day. &nbsp;</p><p><em>There was all kinds of baked food for Pharaoh, and the birds ate them out of the basket on my head</em>-</p><p> The works of the baker came to represent him personally; for it was his flesh which was to be eaten by birds (:19). Birds devouring the works of the hands of sinners is the language of the final judgment (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:21'>Rev 19:21</a></em>), suggesting that this is all encouragement to Joseph that judgment day would come and all injustice will be then finally resolved; see on :19. </p>


text:
<p><em>Joseph answered, This is its interpretation. The three baskets are three days</em>-</p><p> We wonder if the three days look forward to the Lord's death and resurrection, which is the basis upon which men shall be judged, and thereby saved or condemned.</p>


text:
<p><em>Within three more days, Pharaoh will lift up your head from off you, and will hang you on a tree; and the birds will eat your flesh from off you</em>-</p><p> It could be that the baker really was guilty. The language here is used of the sinner whom God curses (<em><a href='B:50 21:22-23'>Deu 21:22-23</a></em>). The whole situation looks forward to the day of final judgment. Maybe Joseph was being encouraged that judgment would indeed come, and the wicked condemned and the innocent restored. For he would have struggled so much with a sense of injustice, of judgment / justice not being done for him. And this situation encouraged him that finally, it would be done. </p>


text:
<p><em>It happened the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, that he made a feast for all his servants, and he lifted up the head of the chief cupbearer and the head of the chief baker among his servants</em>-</p><p> We can imagine how Joseph felt when the message came that these two men who were in bonds, fed and perhaps washed by him as their servant (:4), were suddenly to go into Pharaoh's presence. He would have seen the power of the prophetic word in the dreams, and reflected that his dreams required a like exaltation. This is why when the call came, he would have been expecting it; the experience of the butler was to show him the path he was to tread.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>He restored the chief cupbearer to his position again, and he gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand</em>-</p><p> The final salvation of Israel is often described in terms of restoration (<em><a href='B:510 3:21'>Act 3:21</a></em>). It is a theme which began with the cursing of Eden, in hope of restoration in terms of the Kingdom of God coming on earth. But even in this life there is a sense of restoration; restored to how God intended us to be for Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>But he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph had interpreted to them</em>-</p><p> The point is made that Joseph's interpretation of dreams came true. It was to encourage him that his own dreams would likewise. </p>


text:
<p><em>Yet the chief cupbearer didn’t remember Joseph, but forgot him</em>-</p><p> Joseph was "forgotten" in prison, just as Judah later felt the same. Joseph therefore did this to him, knowing his brothers would leave Judah in prison feeling 'forgotten', so that Judah would enter into his sufferings. Our trials likewise are lovingly orchestrated so that we might identify with the sufferings of Christ. Joseph's pleas for mercy were ignored when he was in the pit; and now likewise in the dungeon. Later Israel were condemned for not being "grieved for the affliction of Joseph" (<em><a href='B:370 6:6'>Amo 6:6</a></em>). This experience of being ignored and forgotten didn't make Joseph bitter and self-centred; rather it made him the more sensitive to others.</p>


text:
<p><em>It happened at the end of two full years</em>-</p><p> Joseph would have been expecting that the butler would get him out of prison, and thus his own dreams would have their primary fulfilment. But that didn't seem to happen, for two years. Perhaps at this time particularly, Joseph was tested by God's word (<em><a href='B:230 105:19'>Psa 105:19</a></em>), i.e. his faith in it was tested. Each day would have dragged... "two years of days", as the Hebrew is literally.</p><p><em>That Pharaoh dreamed: and behold, he stood by the river</em>-</p><p> In consort with the gods, for the Nile was thought to be the god Hapi. And yet Joseph will go on to speak of one singular God, the God of Joseph, who is responsible for both good and bad, famine and fertility.</p>


text:
<p><em>Behold, there came up out of the river seven cattle, sleek and fat, and they fed in the marsh grass</em>-</p><p> A hymn to the Nile now in the British Museum describes the Nile as "overflowing the gardens created by Ra giving life to all animals … watering the land without ceasing … Lover of food, bestower of corn … Bringer of food! Great Lord of provisions! Creator of all good things!". Pharaoh imagined that such prosperity came up out of the Nile; but his pagan ideas were overturned by <em>evil</em> and famine coming up out of the Nile. And then Joseph explains that his God, the one God, is the One responsible for all things, not the god of the Nile. Pharaoh was being challenged deeply, and he does well to resign his whole belief system in a moment. </p>


text:
<p><em>Behold, seven other cattle came up after them out of the river, ugly and thin, and stood by the other cattle on the brink of the river</em>-</p><p> As noted on :2, this was a radical inversion of the Egyptian paganic worldview, whereby only good and fat things came from the Nile. The Nile played a huge part in the thinking and belief structure of Pharaoh. Yet he stood by the river, on its banks (:1), and now the cattle appear on its banks. Presumably we are meant to understand that he was looking across the river to the opposite bank. He was being encouraged not to 'stand before' the Nile as a man stands before an idol, but to look over it, beyond it, to new possibilities and realities. Consistently, the nature and symbolism of the dreams and Joseph's repeated talk about one God... was all designed to uproot his whole belief system and bring him to Israel's God.</p>


text:
<p><em>The ugly and thin cattle ate up the seven sleek and fat cattle. So Pharaoh awoke</em>-</p><p> He may have seen the two types of cattle merge into each other. "Sleek and fat" is AV "well favoured", the very Hebrew phrase used of Joseph (<em><a href='B:10 39:6'>Gen 39:6</a></em>). He may well have been called or nicknamed that term. Joseph may have perceived that those good cattle were him. He therefore was inspired to assume he would be the man through whom the effect of evil, the seven thin cattle, would be resolved. He would later realize that all meant for evil in his life was turned to good through his remaining a part of God's saving plan (<em><a href='B:10 50:20'>Gen 50:20</a></em>). "The ugly" is s.w. "evil"; and the same words are used of the false suggestion that an "evil beast" had "eaten up" Joseph (<em><a href='B:10 37:33'>Gen 37:33</a></em>). See on :20. The dreams showed that evil was not going to prevail ultimately- because Joseph was going to be faithful to the Abrahamic covenant, and God would work through him, therefore, to the blessing and salvation of Israel and the world around them.</p>


text:
<p><em>He slept and dreamed a second time: and behold, seven heads of grain came up on one stalk, healthy and good</em>-</p><p> The corn of the Nile valley, the <em>triticum compositum</em>, was famed for bearing seven ears upon one stalk; and it was exactly that which was to be offered to the gods. The paintings of the Thebaid show stalks with seven heads of grain being specifically offered to the gods, and other stalks being eaten by the people. Joseph's suggestion was that it not be offered to the gods, but be stored up by a man acting on behalf of God, and given to hungry people. This was all a request to Pharaoh and the Egyptians to invert their whole belief system.</p>


text:
<p><em>Behold, seven heads of grain, thin and blasted with the east wind, sprung up after them</em>-</p><p> There is an element of unreality in this, because as the miserable critics correctly point out, a wind directly east is rare in Egypt. But this was the point- a new thing was to arise in Egypt. And it was an east wind which destroyed a later Pharaoh at the Red Sea, and was used by God in bringing the plagues. The dreams, like Joseph's about his dead mother bowing to him, all have this element of unreality which speaks of something Divine.</p>


text:
<p><a href='B:10 41:7'>41:7</a> The thin heads of grain swallowed up the seven healthy and full ears. Pharaoh awoke, and behold, it was a dream- The swallowing up of good by evil was perceived by the Egyptians as a sign the gods were either dead or had turned against them. And they were intended to think that- and come to realize that Yahweh was the only God, responsible for good and 'evil' (<a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Is. 45:5-7</a>).</p>


text:
<p><em>It happened in the morning that his spirit was troubled, and he sent and called for all of Egypt’s magicians and wise men. Pharaoh told them his dreams, but there was no one who could interpret them to Pharaoh</em>-</p><p> The situation repeated at least twice in Daniel's time (<em><a href='B:340 2:1'>Dan 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 4:5'>Dan 4:5</a></em>). These similarities are in order to teach us that our situations are not unique, but rather are in line with the Father's previous activities with men. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then the chief cupbearer spoke to Pharaoh, saying, I remember my sins today</em>-</p><p> I discussed on <em><a href='B:10 40:1'>Gen 40:1</a></em> the question of whether the butler really had sinned. But all the same, he felt he had committed a very serious sin in allowing the busyness of daily life and his demanding job to make him simply forget Joseph’s need and tragedy. Perhaps an intensive plural is being used here- as if to mean ‘my very great sin’. To forget others’ need due to the busyness of our lives is a great sin.</p>


text:
<em>Pharaoh was angry with his servants, and put me in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, me and the chief baker</em>-</p><p> I suggested earlier that the butler may not have sinned and, like Joseph, was at the whim or "anger" of others. Therefore he became an example to Joseph of how Divine dreams could really change destiny. For Joseph too was placed in prison due to the "wrath" of Potiphar.</p>


text:
<em>We dreamed a dream in one night, I and he. We dreamed each man according to the interpretation of his dream</em>-</p><p> The idea is that the interpretations came true.</p>


text:
<em>There was with us there a young man, a Hebrew, servant to the captain of the guard, and we told him, and he interpreted to us our dreams. To each man according to his dream he interpreted</em>-</p><p> I suggested that Potiphar was in fact the manager of the prison, and also the father of Joseph's future wife. In this case we have this confirmed, for even in prison Joseph was known as the servant of the captain of the guard, who was Potiphar.</p>


text:
<em>It happened, as he interpreted to us, so it was: he restored me to my office, and he hanged him</em>-</p><p> The implication was that Joseph's interpretations were what had restored him.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon. He shaved himself, changed his clothing, and came in to Pharaoh</em>-</p><p> " They made him run hastily out of the dungeon...and changed his raiment" (AVmg.)- This speaks of the energy of Christ's resurrection; the change of clothing would then speak of the Lord's change of nature, <em><a href='B:450 3:3-4'>Zec 3:3-4</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Pharaoh said to Joseph, I have dreamed a dream, and there is no one who can interpret it. I have heard it said of you, that when you hear a dream you can interpret it</em>-</p><p> Perhaps Paul alludes here in saying that no man can know the things of the Spirit of God, apart from the man to whom the Spirit reveals them (<em><a href='B:530 2:10-11'>1Co 2:10-11</a></em>). In this case, Joseph like Daniel is being set up as our pattern.</p>


text:
<p><em>Joseph answered Pharaoh, saying, It isn’t in me. God will give Pharaoh an answer of peace</em>-</p><p> I have developed the point throughout this chapter that the nature of the dreams and their interpretation was a direct attack on Pharaoh's belief system; God was seeking to convert him, as He was the Pharaoh at the time of the exodus. The LXX brings this out here: "Without God an answer of safety shall not be given to Pharaoh". The one God alone could give the king peace. </p><p>Joseph at this point was clearly the role model chosen by Daniel in similar situations, centuries later. And this is how the Biblical record should function for us too. This is the advantage of knowing the Biblical text; we see our own situations are not without precedent, but are repetitions of the same Divine hand in earlier human history.</p>


text:
<p><em>Pharaoh spoke to Joseph, In my dream, behold, I stood on the brink of the river</em>-</p><p> Literally, on the lip of the river; this apparently is an Egyptian term and is found in the papyri discovered from that time. It has been observed that the text here was written by one who was fluent in both Egyptian and Hebrew, which would fit Moses, who was educated in all the learning of Egypt. </p>


text:
<p><em>And behold, there came up out of the river seven cattle, fat and sleek. They fed in the marsh grass</em>-</p><p> 'Coming up' is a major theme. The ears of corn 'came up' (5), as the cattle came up from the river. The word is used of how blossom 'came up' on the vine in the butler's dream (<em><a href='B:10 40:10'>Gen 40:10</a></em>), of how Joseph 'came up out of' the pit (<em><a href='B:10 37:28'>Gen 37:28</a></em>); and of how finally the brothers came up to Joseph (<em><a href='B:10 44:33'>Gen 44:33</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And behold, seven other cattle came up after them, poor and very ugly and thin, such as I never saw in all the land of Egypt for ugliness</em>-</p><p> There is an element of the unreal in all the dreams in the Joseph story; this is not simply seven years of famine, but famine such as had never been known, whereby animals ate each other (:20).</p>


text:
<p><em>The thin and ugly cattle ate up the first seven fat cattle</em>-</p><p> Animals only eat each other in extreme famine. The dreams of Pharaoh at the time of Joseph were a clear inversion of the surrounding pagan ideas. One of the foremost Egyptian gods, Osiris, had seven cows; it must have taken some courage for Joseph to comment on the fact that the seven fat cows were to be eaten up by the seven thin ones (possibly representing Israel in the long term, cp. <em><a href='B:350 4:15-16'>Hos 4:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 4:1'>Amo 4:1</a></em>). The pagan ideas of Pharaoh were not explicitly corrected; instead, the supremacy of Yahweh and His people over them was taught by implication. </p><p>"Ate up" is the same word used in <em><a href='B:10 43:2'>Gen 43:2</a></em> of Joseph's brothers eating up the corn of the good years. They then are presented as the "ugly" (s.w. "evil") cattle in Joseph's life who meant evil to him (<em><a href='B:10 50:20'>Gen 50:20</a></em>), who was described with the same term as the handsome sleek cattle; see on :4. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had eaten them up, it couldn’t be known that they had eaten them, but they were still ugly, as at the beginning. So I awoke</em>-</p><p> This was not simply a prediction of seven years of plentiful harvest followed by seven years of famine. The idea was that the evilness (s.w. "ugly") of the famine years would be neutralized. But as Joseph explained, that was in fact conditional upon wise management and strong leadership in the first seven years. This conditional aspect to the fulfilments would have made him reflect that his own dreams likewise depended partly upon his sheaf standing up, of his own volition.</p>


text:
<p><em>I saw in my dream, and behold, seven heads of grain came up on one stalk, full and good</em>-</p><p> "Heads of grain" translates a single Hebrew word which has no reference to grain; it means a stream, a branch, something which comes off something else. And "stalk" likewise translates a Hebrew word usually translated "branch"; it is the word used for the seven branches of the candlestick. The picture may not necessarily have been of grain, although we shall later read of grain being gathered in abundance; but of seven branches coming out of one branch, the impression being of fecundity. The idea could be that the goodness of the Israelite candlestick was to bring blessing on the world to neutralize the evil. </p>


text:
<p><em>And behold, seven heads of grain, withered, thin, and blasted with the east wind, sprung up after them</em>-</p><p> The same word for "blasted" is repeatedly used as a figure for Divine judgment (<em><a href='B:50 28:22'>Deu 28:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:37'>1Ki 8:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 19:26'>2Ki 19:26</a></em> "corn blasted"; <em><a href='B:370 4:9'>Amo 4:9</a></em> etc.). Seeing that Egypt doesn't usually get an east wind, Pharaoh was surely intended to understand that this spoke of superhuman judgment from one almighty God. </p>


text:
<p><em>The thin heads of grain swallowed up the seven good heads of grain. I told it to the magicians, but there was no one who could explain it to me</em>-</p><p> Dream interpretation was a major science with the Egyptians. There were "dream books" which were consulted to give the meaning of the various things dreamt, and provided guidelines for interpretation. None of these had the ring of truth for Pharaoh. "Explain" is s.w. "declared" in :25; <em>God</em> explained / declared it whereas the magicians could not. Yet it was Joseph who in contrast to the magicians declared it. Joseph knew that he was God's man in this situation, the manifestation of God, although as he clarifies in <em><a href='B:10 50:19'>Gen 50:19</a></em> "Am I in the place of God?". However that sentence could as well be translated "I am in the place of God", and therefore, in the context, his brothers need not fear that he would condemn them as God didn't.</p>


text:
<p><em>Joseph said to Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one- </em>This is in contrast to the two dreams of the butler and baker, which they assumed were one singular dream, but had different interpretations. See on <em><a href='B:10 40:5'>Gen 40:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 40:8'>Gen 40:8</a></em>.</p><p><em>What God is about to do, He has declared to Pharaoh</em>-</p><p> See on :24. Speaking within a society where there were multiple gods, Joseph gives no opening statement to the effect that he believes in only one God. He simply speaks from that assumed position, and our witness likewise has power from speaking from assumed positions about God and His Son, rather than seeking to offer some apologetic argument for those positions. As noted on :38, Joseph's language of only one God rubbed off on Pharaoh and he too started reasoning likewise.</p><p>The Hebrew is literally 'what He is doing'. Joseph so believed in the dreams that for him, it was as if the whole sequence of events was already in motion. He adopted the Divine perspective, as we should; see on :32.</p>


text:
<p><em>The seven good cattle are seven years; and the seven good heads of grain are seven years-</em></p><p> Seven was understood as a Divine number. That it would be associated with good years was understandable for the Egyptians, but not that it should be associated with evil. The belief system of Pharaoh was being challenged- the one God of Joseph and Israel was responsible for both good and evil (<em><a href='B:290 45:5-8'>Isa 45:5-8</a></em>).</p><p><em>The dream is one</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:10 40:5'>Gen 40:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 40:8'>Gen 40:8</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>The seven thin and ugly cattle that came up after them are seven years, and also the seven empty heads of grain blasted with the east wind; they will be seven years of famine</em>-</p><p> Several studies have revealed the similarities between Moses' account of Joseph and the Gilgamesh Epic and other Mesopotamian writings. World-wide famines of seven years' duration are a common theme in many of the Epics. But they are usually explained as arising from the death or anger of a demon / god (See documentation in Donald Redford, <em>The Biblical Story of Joseph </em>(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970) p. 98; C.H. Gordon, <em>The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations</em> (New York: Norton, 1965) pp. 69,88). Gilgamesh 6:104 describes Ishtar as preparing for the seven year famine in an almost identical way to Joseph. Ishtar is being deconstructed, and brought down to a human level- a faithful human being, Joseph, rather than any god or Ishtar, was who prepared for and staved off the effects of the famine through his obedience to God. And it was the one God of Israel who brought the seven year famine, rather than any demon or Satan figure. The similarities between Joseph and Osiris, the Egyptian fertility god, 'the provider of food', also can't be lightly dismissed. Like Osiris, Joseph was confined until the word of his prediction came true, and afterwards he taught wisdom to the elders of Egypt (<em><a href='B:230 105:19'>Psa 105:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 105:22'>Psa 105:22</a></em>). The allusion is surely intended to rid the Israelites of any hankering to still believe in Osiris, within whose cult they had lived for 400 years, and instead to believe that it is Yahweh who provides fertility and the blessing of food through His obedient servants here on earth like Joseph. The pagan fantasies are alluded to but brought down to more human, earthly terms, with Yahweh being presented as the only true God.</p><p>In a dated but fascinating book entitled <em>The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian </em>(Oxford: O.U.P., 1933), A.S. Yahuda demonstrated that the syntax and vocabulary of the Joseph story is very similar to Egyptian idiom. This would strengthen my suggestion that Moses is consciously seeking to engage with and deconstruct the Egyptian stories, amongst whose influence Israel had lived for four centuries. Moses is writing what could be termed 'The<em> Israelite</em> epic', in response to the 'stories' and epics of the surrounding peoples amongst whom they lived and through whom they travelled. But Moses paints this picture, constructs the true, Divinely inspired version of the story, through engagement with and allusion to the incorrect stories and epics of the Gentiles. And in linguistic terms, Yahuda shows at depth how Moses is writing with allusion to Egypt and Egyptian in a manner which only the Israelites who had lived in Egypt would have perceived- e.g. Moses records how the cows in Pharaoh's dream represented years, but the hieroglyphic symbol for "year" was a cow. And Moses, trained in the learning of Egypt whilst being a native Hebrew speaker, would have been the appropriate person for the Spirit to inspire to write in this way.</p>


text:
<p><em>That is the thing which I spoke to Pharaoh. What God is about to do, He has shown to Pharaoh</em>-</p><p> Joseph invites Pharaoh to perceive him as speaking for God; and Pharaoh agrees, stating that God's Spirit is in Joseph (:38). Joseph mixes the ideas of present and future in saying that this thing "is" and yet is "about" to be done; hence GNB: "It is just as I told you- God has shown you what he is going to do". The weather pattern was already working out. And God through Joseph had shown it to Pharaoh. </p>


text:
<p><em>Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt</em>-</p><p> The Hebrew for "plenty" is used many times in the record here, but only twice elsewhere; <em><a href='B:240 3:10'>Pro 3:10</a></em>, as so many Proverbs, alludes to this historical incident in saying that if Yahweh is honoured with substance (a reference to the tithe), "so shall your barns be filled with plenty". Pharaoh's acceptance of Joseph's interpretations was tantamount to rejecting his paganic belief system, and so effectively Yahweh was being honoured with Egypt's substance. The emphasis upon "all the land of Egypt" may mean a more radical change in weather than we immediately imagine. For the Egyptians only cultivated along the banks of the Nile, and a good harvest was a result of the Nile flooding the river plains to a high level. But good harvest throughout "all the land of Egypt" seems to imply far more than that; there would be abundant harvest not only along the Nile flood plain.</p>


text:
<p><em>There will arise after them seven years of famine, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt. The famine will consume the land</em>-</p><p> The same word is used of how the butler forgot Joseph (<em><a href='B:10 40:23'>Gen 40:23</a></em>). Joseph had spent two years (:1) reflecting how blessing was so easily forgotten, and he imagined how this would be the case. People want to enjoy blessing now, and then they forget it. Joseph knew that the way of wisdom, seeing both good and evil as from God, meant that in time of blessing one must remember the evil and seek to negate it. He could of course have become swamped with bitterness, but he didn't.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the plenty will not be known in the land by reason of that famine which follows; for it will be very grievous</em>-</p><p> "Which follows" translates two Hebrew words which together can mean 'which rightly follows'. The imagery of the dreams, such as blasting and the east wind, is all elsewhere used of Divine judgment. "Seven years of famine" is specifically stated to represent Divine judgment in <em><a href='B:100 24:13'>2Sa 24:13</a></em>. There would be blessing and then judgment. Perhaps this was God's way of saying that Egypt's injustice to Joseph was to be punished by judgment, and yet through Joseph's grace they were to be saved out of it. See on :34.</p>


text:
<p><em>The dream was doubled to Pharaoh, because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass</em>-</p><p> The idea is 'God is hastening to do it', as if Joseph saw that this apparently future sequence of events was already being operationalized; see on :25.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now therefore let Pharaoh look for a discreet and wise man, and set him over the land of Egypt</em>-</p><p> Joseph knew that there must be some fulfilment of the prophetic revelation that his sheaf must arise. I dare to think that Joseph made this suggestion hinting that he could be that man. This was spiritual ambition indeed. The years in slavery and prison, all the rejection, injustice and betrayal by his brethren... did not break his faith in God's prophetic word to him. Had he not had those experiences, and the dreams had come true painlessly, he would have been proud; and there would have been no reason for his brothers to bow before him. There can be no true, legitimate exaltation without the humbling hand of providence first. </p><p>The same Hebrew phrase "discreet and wise man" is used about the leaders of Israel (<em><a href='B:50 1:13'>Deu 1:13</a></em>) and also every individual in Israel (<em><a href='B:50 4:6'>Deu 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 107:43'>Psa 107:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 14:9'>Hos 14:9</a></em>), and is used multiple times in Proverbs about whoever gives heed to God's word. Joseph knew that he had received God's word, and that it had given him the wisdom he had just shared with Pharaoh. His desire to be set over Egypt was not motivated by personal pride, but in order to be a blessing to the world and to save his brethren, all in fulfilment of the Abrahamic promises. We too cannot just wait for these promises to be fulfilled; they are the basis of the new covenant in which we are. We must have vision and be proactive as to how we can be a blessing and source of salvation in this world.</p>


text:
<p><em>Let Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint overseers over the land- </em>"Appoint" is the same word used three times of how Joseph was appointed to authority in prison and in Potiphar's house (<em><a href='B:10 39:4-5'>Gen 39:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 40:4'>Gen 40:4</a></em>). He had clearly been prepared for the responsibility he would now bear and the job he was to do. "Overseers" is the same word used of Pharaoh's officers with whom Joseph had been imprisoned. All he had been through was now making sense and was appropriate background experience for what he now had to do. And so it shall be in our eternal work in the Kingdom; we are being prepared for it now, although we don't realize the details.</p><p><em>And take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt’s produce in the seven plenteous years</em>-</p><p> A fifth was a double tithe. It was also seen as the amount which should be paid in compensation for theft or fraud, especially when committed in ignorance (<em><a href='B:30 5:16'>Lev 5:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 6:5'>Lev 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:14'>Lev 22:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 27:13'>Lev 27:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:7'>Num 5:7</a></em>). This is quite a significant catena of verses; and we must remember that the Law of Moses was codifying things which were already understood. It all suggests that Egypt had sinned, even if most were ignorant, and there had to be this compensation. I discussed on :31 the idea that the famine was Divine judgment upon Egypt in response to what they had done to Joseph. It was Joseph who suggested this "fifth", so we wonder if he did struggle with feelings of anger over it all, and yet came down on the side of mercy rather than judgment. He clearly wanted the brothers to come to repentance through experience of discipline, he wanted there to be some recognition of wrong, as he saw it as a step required toward their salvation. And so perhaps he also saw the situation with the Egyptians.</p>


text:
<p><em>Let them gather all the food of these good years that come, and lay up grain under the hand of Pharaoh for food in the cities, and let them keep it</em>-</p><p> The "them" refers to the overseers whom Joseph suggests should be appointed. It would have meant a huge administrative task and a shakeup of the existing administration and government. <em><a href='B:230 105:22'>Psa 105:22</a></em> states that Pharaoh gave Joseph power "to discipline (AV "bind") his princes at his pleasure, and to teach his elders wisdom". The wisdom Joseph had was from God (see on :33), so this was really an invitation to teach the Egyptian leadership the wisdom of the true God. There is no record that Joseph ever 'bound' any princes; he didn't want to do to others what had been done to him, rather than seeking the opportunity to make others suffer as he had. The idea presumably was that any who didn't invert their superstitions and follow Joseph's policies would be disciplined or "bound" in prison. There would've been much opposition to Joseph's plans; he was a foreigner, a newcomer without political experience, and he was asking Egypt to go against their previous superstitions and religious ideas. But he was empowered by Pharaoh to do so. We tend to therefore think that effectively, Pharaoh accepted Joseph's religion, or at least, rejected his own. During the seven good years, this would have been difficult; it would have seemed that nothing now could go too wrong. So the way Pharaoh persevered in faith in the dream over an extended period is significant. </p>


text:
<p><em>The food will be for a store to the land against the seven years of famine, which will be in the land of Egypt- </em>"A store" is the noun from the verb 'to oversee', which was been used about Joseph being made an overseer in prison and in Potiphar's house (<em><a href='B:10 39:4-5'>Gen 39:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 40:4'>Gen 40:4</a></em>). The food would oversee them; and yet Joseph would be the supreme overseer. We can therefore understand the association perceived between Joseph and the food, for he was given a title meaning 'Bread of life' (:45). </p><p><em>That the land not perish through the famine</em>-</p><p> This is surely alluded to in the Bible's most well known verse; God so loved this world, as He did Egypt (which represents the world) that He sent His Son, prefigured in Joseph, that whoever believes in him "should not perish" (<em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>The thing was good in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of all his servants</em>-</p><p> As noted on :36, it all required quite some faith in Joseph personally and the Divine message he was giving; and that faith had to continue over the seven good prosperous years. And prosperity is never a good environment for faith in God regarding future things. </p>


text:
<p><em>Pharaoh said to his servants, Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom is the Spirit of God?</em>-</p><p> Pharaoh believed in multiple gods, but Joseph had adopted the assumed position that there was only one God. And that rubbed off upon Pharaoh, who now speaks likewise. He was open to the inversion of his belief system and was blessed because of it. Pharaoh means that Joseph knew the mind of God; this is what it means to have the Spirit of God, in this context.</p>


text:
<p><em>Pharaoh said to Joseph, Because God has shown you all of this, there is none so discreet and wise as you</em>-</p><p> Without doubt the absolute power of the Pharaohs made them capricious and often unwise in who they rewarded on the cusp of emotion or personal pleasure. But the exaltation was so major and so sudden, and was respected for the rest of Pharaoh's life, that we have to see something more here than the momentary emotional outburst of a powerful man. He saw something of God, and as noted throughout this chapter, he had accepted the inversion of his belief system, thanks to Joseph.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall be over my house- </em>Pharaoh wanted Joseph to not only rule over all Egypt, but over his own family (:43). We see here another hint that Pharaoh personally accepted Joseph and wanted his private matters ruled according to Joseph's Divine principles. Joseph had been prepared for this by being made ruler over Pharaoh's house. If we keep responding to God's movement in our lives, one experience leads to another. </p><p><em>And according to your word will all my people be ruled. Only in the throne I will be greater than you</em>-</p><p> This must have been the greatest and quickest exaltation of all time. A man who was just an hour before a miserable prisoner shaving himself in the prison washroom was now the second most powerful person on the planet. It speaks of the Lord's exaltation, from earth to heaven, from a shamed, bleeding, spittle covered body lying in a cave in Palestine... to the exalted Lord of heaven and earth. But it also demonstrates for all time that no human situation is as permanent as it may seem. God can really do anything.</p><p>It's a debatable question as to whether Pharaoh created this new position, or whether by giving Joseph this exaltation he was effectively firing another man from his post; or maybe, providentially enough, the post was open. It could be that all this happened two full years, precisely two years, after the exaltation of the butler (:1), which would mean that again it was the time of Pharaoh's birthday, when apparently judgments were made; the baker put to death, the butler exalted. So perhaps the position was open. Joseph would have accepted the position fully aware of how easily such senior officers could be removed or killed by Pharaoh. But unlike Daniel, he accepted the position because he knew that he could use it to save his family, and he perceived that it was part of the fulfilment of the dreams he had been given. That Joseph remained in power all his life beneath the Pharaoh was of itself a testament to God's power and purpose. Or perhaps the Pharaoh came closer to the morality of the one God whom he had come to recognize, and ceased to act in the capricious manner of despots.</p><p>The rulership of Egypt according to Joseph's word was backed up by the power to bind any objectors in prison, and to teach the officials Divine wisdom (<em><a href='B:230 105:22'>Psa 105:22</a></em>). It points forward to the supremacy of the word of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>Pharaoh said to Joseph, Behold, I have set you over all the land of Egypt</em>-</p><p> Joseph was <em>given</em> the <em>land</em> of Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 41:41'>Gen 41:41</a></em> Heb.), 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. The gift of the land of Egypt was but a primary fulfilment of the greater promise. Again, we see the theme developed of primary fulfilment of the promises in this life. The promises of being fruitful and being given a land were being fulfilled, in a primary sense, in Israel's experience in Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 48:4'>Gen 48:4</a></em> cp. 47:27). And that fruitfulness was shared with all Egypt in the seven years of plenty. Abraham's seed was in a primary sense a blessing for the world (Egypt).</p>


text:
<p><em>Pharaoh took off his signet ring from his hand, and put it on Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in robes of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck</em>-</p><p> Joseph had been given a special robe by Jacob which he lost; the garment Potiphar gave him was likewise grabbed from him by Potiphar's wife; so he must have thought 'how long will this one last?'. And his previous experiences were so that he would now not feel proud about having this robe of honour from Pharaoh. We note how Biblical history repeated in the similar experiences of Daniel; and we can discern such similarities in our own lives, as the Bible's narrative helps us too to make sense of our lives. The exaltation and empowerment of Joseph clearly speaks of the Lord's exaltation and similar total empowerment, so that He functions as God, without being God Himself in person.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had. They cried before him, Tender father!</em>-</p><p> Although only 30, Joseph already had a fatherly image because of his loving care for others. Or we can read as AV "Bow the knee"<em>.</em> Joseph's faith in his dreams would've helped him not to be proud. He knew this wasn't the fulfilment of his dream of others bowing to him, but it was going to lead up to the primary fulfilment of it. He would've realized that if his brothers came to Egypt, they too would have to bow the knee to him, and thus fulfil his dreams. So he would've been on the lookout for them coming to him. Adam Clarke suggests the term could be translated "Father of blessing". In this case, we see Joseph as a primary fulfilment of the promised Abrahamic seed who would bring blessing upon Israel's Gentile neighbours.</p><p><em>He set him over all the land of Egypt</em>-</p><p> It seems there were rulers over the regions of Egypt, but this was a new position created- total control over the whole nation. Joseph was a foreigner and unknown to anyone much. His rulership was very strongly dependent upon his personal relationship with the king, and the direct delegation to him of all Pharaoh's power. This again gives an insight into the Lord's relationship with the Father. The dreams and their interpretation would have been preached and taught throughout Egypt; otherwise there would have been no motivation to pay the double tithe and make operational the plans which Joseph had. Those dreams were God's word; and perhaps some perceived what we noted earlier, that the seven years of famine suggested Divine punishment, and they needed to repent of sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>Pharaoh said to Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without you shall no man lift up his hand or his foot in all the land of Egypt</em>-</p><p> As noted on :43, for Joseph to practically have authority to execute his plans, he needed a clearly understood delegation of total power to him from Pharaoh; and this is what happened. It gives insight into the nature of the Lord's current exaltation. Lifting up hand or foot could be understood as idioms for agriculture; <em><a href='B:50 11:10'>Deu 11:10</a></em> speaks of Egypt as a place where agriculture depended upon the watering of the land by foot. </p>


text:
<p><em>Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnath-Paaneah- </em>'Saviour of the world', or 'bread of life'. The Lord was likewise given a new name on ascension (<em>Php_2:6-9</em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:3:12'>Rev 3:12</a></em>). See on :36.</p><p><em>And he gave him Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On as a wife. Joseph went out over the land of Egypt</em>-</p><p> "Asenath" means 'worshipper of Nath'. Joseph's wife had to forget all about her pagan past (<em><a href='B:230 45:10'>Psa 45:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:50 21:13'>Deu 21:13</a></em>), especially her father's house. Joseph alluded to what she had gone through when he spoke of how he too had forgotten all his past suffering and his father's house (41:51). What a pair they were! Both had broken free of their pasts and were dedicated to the new life together. As such they typify the relationship between Christ and His bride.</p><p>It seems hardly chance that Potiphera is the same word as Potiphar. I suggested on Genesis 39 that Potiphar didn't believe his wife's story. Could it be that he also bore the title "Priest of On", and now his daughter married Joseph? "On" is Heliopolis (as in LXX), and I suggested that the "round house" prison was in fact the circular tower of Heliopolis. All this points to an identity between Potiphar and Potiphera. See on <em><a href='B:10 39:19'>Gen 39:19</a></em>; it was the same "captain of the guard" who was also the manager of the prison. There was therefore this man Potiphar who was hanging around in Joseph's life, clearly used by providence. And why do we have to as it were read between the lines of the record to make this connection? Because that is how providence works, subtle rather than direct and 'in your face'. You have to read between the lines of your own life to see it, rather than having providence baldly stated. Joseph would have realized that clearly God's hand was at work with him. As he stood as a nervous 17 year old in a slave market in Egypt... it was all of God's grace and plan that he was bought by Potiphar or one of his servants. But it took him many years to perceive this. And the same can be said of events in our lives.</p>


text:
<p><em>Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh king of Egypt. Joseph went out from the presence of Pharaoh, and went throughout all the land of Egypt</em>-</p><p> "Went throughout" is literally 'to cross over', and is a strange term to use. But the Hebrew <em>abar</em> is the root of the word "Hebrew". Literally, Joseph 'Hebrewed' throughout Egypt. News of his one God principles, the word of that God in the dreams, the rejection of superstition and paganic ideas... along with Joseph's personal travels throughout the land would have spread the Hebrew religion throughout Egypt. This would explain why even 500 years later, a significant number of Egyptians considered themselves Hebrews and left Egypt with Israel to settle in Canaan.</p>


text:
<p><em>In the seven plenteous years the earth produced abundantly</em>-</p><p> Literally, 'by handfuls', a term more appropriate to the harvesting of rice than grain. The exact crop isn't specific in the original Hebrew.</p>


text:
<p><em>He gathered up all the food of the seven years which were in the land of Egypt, and laid up the food in the cities: the food of the field, which was around every city, he laid up in the same</em>-</p><p> The bread laid up in preparation for the famine seems to be alluded to when Paul writes of laying up the word as a foundation against the judgment (<em><a href='B:610 6:19'>1Ti 6:19</a></em>). To build storehouses in every town was a significant amount of work; perhaps it was in bitterness at this memory that a later Pharaoh made the Hebrews build him storehouses (<em><a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Joseph laid up grain- </em>Laying up or gathering corn would have made him reflect upon his dreams; he realized it was his sheaf standing up, and so he expected his brothers to come and bow down to it for the sake of corn.</p><p><em>As the sand of the sea, very much, until he stopped counting, for it was without number</em>-</p><p> This was the description of Abraham's seed. He realized that all this was happening for the sake of preserving Abraham's seed; which meant his brothers would come to him and bow down in search of corn from him. Likewise world events can happen for the sake of the people of God, who may be a tiny minority.</p>


text:
<p><em>To Joseph were born two sons before the year of famine came, whom Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On, bore to him</em>-</p><p> The implication is that he had other children, but these are the two who remained within the purpose of God. It's a sober thought that such a spiritual person as Joseph produced children who didn't all accept the covenant.</p>


text:
<p><em>Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh, For, he said, God has made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house</em>-</p><p> Joseph's (half-Gentile) sons were counted as the twelve tribes of Jacob, just as we are Christ's sons (<em><a href='B:650 2:13'>Heb 2:13</a></em>). Joseph was called "tender father" (41:43 mg.) as the Lord will be called 'Father' in the future age (<em><a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a></em> Heb.)</p><p>The same word for"toil" is used of the "travail" of the Lord's soul during the crucifixion process (<em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>). He forgot the pain of it all but clearly remembered what had happened. His apparent hardness to the brothers was therefore not from any motive of revenge. We find here a profound statement of God's ability to make us "forget" things which otherwise would remain an endless fountain of bitterness and regret. He clearly had not forgotten his family, and it could be argued that he did all he did with the hope of saving them, although on the right spiritual basis. He "forgot" in the sense that God forgets sin; the fact of them is still there, as witnessed by the Biblical history being full of the record of forgiven sins. But they are forgotten in the sense of not being counted against us, and this is how Joseph was helped to "forget" his sufferings. "My toil" could refer to hard labour in prison, although the Hebrew word is also translated "misery" and "sorrow". In this word choice we have a window back onto the deep psychological sufferings which the behaviour of others brought about. They are associated with his father's family. But there is such huge encouragement here, that God through the work of the Holy Spirit on the human heart is able to do such psychological miracles. And He does so to this day. To deny such operation of His Spirit is to leave ourselves bitter and at the mercy of hard memories which we will otherwise find impossible to deal with. This was an amazing miracle; no amount of steel-willed suppression of his past could have made Joseph paper over all the pain. But God did a psychological miracle upon him. God did not obliterate or delete Joseph's memory cells, but He made him "forget" the pain. </p>


text:
<p><em>The name of the second, he called Ephraim: For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction</em>-</p><p> Life without his brothers was an affliction, and the soft life was only affliction without that relationship. The idea of fruitfulness is an allusion to the promised fruitfulness of the Abrahamic seed (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 35:11'>Gen 35:11</a></em>). But Joseph noted that this was experienced in the land of his affliction, not in Canaan; so it was only a shadow fulfilment of the greater fruitfulness of the Kingdom which those promises spoke of. Again we see the theme of primary fulfilment of the promises in this life, even if we are not physically located in Canaan. The first audience of Genesis was Israel in the wilderness, who would well relate to Egypt as "the land of affliction", and the same word is used in this sense (<em><a href='B:10 15:13'>Gen 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:7'>Exo 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:17'>Exo 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:31'>Exo 4:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 9:9'>Neh 9:9</a></em>). But they were to grasp the point that even when things were going wonderfully in that land, for God's true people, it was still a land of affliction; as is anywhere apart from the Kingdom. Jacob would later comment on Joseph's fruitfulness (<em><a href='B:10 49:22'>Gen 49:22</a></em>); but the fruitfulness was in spiritual terms, for only two of his children have any further mention in the Biblical record.</p>


text:
<p><em>The seven years of plenty, that were in the land of Egypt, came to an end</em>-</p><p> Joseph may have reflected upon the strange similarity with how his father Jacob had served Laban for two periods of seven years, and Joseph had apparently been born in year two of the second seven years; which was exactly when he met his brothers again. There are at times such strange coincidences which are surely Divine, and yet we fail to attach meaning to them. Perhaps we shall know in the Kingdom; or maybe we are just supposed to take outline encouragement from the fact that our lives are under the Father's loving overall control.</p>


text:
<p><em>The seven years of famine began to come, just as Joseph had said. There was famine in all lands, but in all the land of Egypt there was bread</em>-</p><p> The "all lands" refer not to the whole planet, but the lands of the <em>eretz</em>. Just as the knowledge of the one true God had been distributed throughout Egypt, so all lands of the <em>eretz</em> would now come and meet Joseph in Egypt and hear of the dreams and their fulfilment by the one God. Jacob's sons likely heard the story- strange dreams had been fulfilled in Egypt, and there was therefore the bread of salvation available to all. And the brothers would have thought of Joseph's dreams, although probably on the level of the unconscious.</p>


text:
<p><em>When all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread, and Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians, Go to Joseph. What he says to you, do</em>-</p><p> When Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus says (<em><a href='B:500 2:5'>Joh 2:5</a></em>), she is quoting from the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 41:55'>Gen 41:55</a></em>, where Joseph’s word has to be obeyed in order to provide food for the needy Egyptians. I have several times pointed out the inversion of Egyptian religious values which was required to believe in the dreams and the interpretation being enforced by Joseph. Egypt was being given the chance to know God, and famine is a judgment from God designed to elicit repentance (see on :31) and faith in Him (Israel therefore were "famished" in the desert, <em><a href='B:50 8:3'>Deu 8:3</a></em> s.w.). But we note that such judgment doesn't come immediately; there is not a connection between sin and Divine judgment in real time; otherwise we would all be dead. In this case, God brought blessing and then only after that judgment for sin. We may balk at the idea of the whole nation and surrounding Canaan being afflicted for the sake of one man's mistreatment. But this is how significant is just one individual to God; and we think of the huge ramifications of the Lord's crucifixion.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>The famine was over all the surface of the earth. Joseph opened all the store houses, and sold to the Egyptians. The famine was severe in the land of Egypt</em>-</p><p> The Proverbs often allude to historical incidents in earlier Biblical books. <em><a href='B:240 11:26'>Pro 11:26</a></em> clearly fills out the situation that arose: "People curse someone who withholds grain, but blessing will be on the head of him who sells it". Joseph would have been blessed by the Egyptians; and thus there was again a primary fulfilment of the Abrahamic promises of blessing upon the Gentiles of the <em>eretz</em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>All countries came into Egypt, to Joseph, to buy grain, because the famine was severe in all the earth</em>-</p><p> We wonder why Joseph didn't invite his family to come, as surely he knew they were suffering. Perhaps he had learnt enough of the ways of providence to leave it all to God. Or he felt they had to take the initiative, and needed to most importantly repent before simply getting material salvation from their situation. Whatever the reason, one suggests it had a spiritual dimension to it, and was not because he didn't care for them or wanted them to suffer. Or it could be that as with Joseph's rather strange responses to his brothers, that he simply didn't know how to act. He had no game plan, because he didn't know. Perhaps he was indeed partly angry with them, and partly sorry; and partly wished their judgment, and partly their repentance. And in his character, mercy triumphed over judgment. This would give a window into the internal struggles of God and the Lord Jesus, before they finally come down on the side of mercy to us rather than the judgment we deserve.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now Jacob saw that there was grain in Egypt, and Jacob said to his sons, Why do you look at one another?</em>-</p><p> Their silence was because of their unspoken suspicion that Joseph was alive in Egypt and they must meet him and maybe bow down to him as he had once predicted. I suggested on <em><a href='B:10 41:54'>Gen 41:54</a></em> that the news of Pharaoh's amazing dreams and their interpretation by a Hebrew had spread around the neighbouring countries; and people believed they had come true to the extent that they went to Egypt to buy grain. And this would have triggered subconscious chords in the minds of the brothers; for they had effectively murdered their brother because of his dreams, which they considered impossible of fulfilment. They could not explain their inaction, sitting in silence looking at one another, as none would dare have revealed their innermost thoughts. If their cattle had died and the land was parched, they would have had little else to do apart from sit and look at one another.


text:
<p><em>He said, Behold, I have heard that there is grain in Egypt. Go down there, and buy for us from there, so that we may live, and not die</em>-</p><p> Jacob "saw" the grain in Egypt (:1), but he "heard" about it. Hearing is seeing; the word becomes flesh. This is true of 'seeing' by the eye of faith as a result of hearing the word of the Gospel. The situation was desperate; they were really facing death by starvation. The sons surely had heard before Jacob that there was corn in Egypt, for he was not elderly; but he speaks to them as if they don't know this. They had acted as if they didn't realize; and thus their guilty consciences are revealed to us.


text:
<p><em>Joseph’s ten brothers went down to buy grain from Egypt</em>-</p><p> We wonder why they all went, especially as Judah had apparently separated himself from them (see on <em><a href='B:10 38:1'>Gen 38:1</a></em>). Perhaps the famine had bound them together. Maybe they took with them all the wealth they had, and so they were not needed to stay and protect Jacob's encampment as there was nothing left to steal by robbers. Or perhaps Joseph had created a rule that corn would only be sold to heads of families personally, to avoid speculative purchase of corn for re-sale.


text:
<p><em>But Jacob didn’t send Benjamin, Joseph’s brother, with his brothers; for he said, Lest perhaps harm happen to him</em>-</p><p> Jacob clearly suspected the brothers of foul play with Joseph, and he figured that the other son of the favoured Rachel, his favourite and youngest son, would likely suffer from them too.


text:
<p><em>The sons of Israel came to buy among those who came, for the famine was in the land of Canaan</em>-</p><p> They were made to realize that for all their separation from the Gentiles, they were "among" them in a common need for salvation. This was another step in their progressive and intended humiliation which would lead to repentance. Latter day Israel have to come to realize this. Or it could be that their unspoken, unarticulated conscience about Joseph led them to try to fade in with the other Canaanites, from whom they were supposed to be spiritually separate.


text:
<p><em>Joseph was the governor over the land. It was he who sold to all the people of the land-</em></p><p> The situation would have required a major management team, headed by Joseph. He would surely have had to delegate much of the day to day selling of corn. Yet he guessed his brothers would come to him, and so he arranged things so that he would personally interview those who came from Canaan, perhaps stationing himself near the northern border from whence he knew his brothers would arrive. All along he had structured his life in accordance with the fulfilment of God's word which he had received as a teenager. And this has great power of example for those of us who likewise encountered the Gospel as teenagers.<p><em>Joseph’s brothers came, and bowed themselves down to him with their faces to the earth</em>-</p><p> This was only a primary fulfilment of the dreams, as I have often noted. For both Jacob and a resurrected Rachel had to be present for them to fulfil, and the brothers had to be involved in prosperous agriculture rather than cattle ranching.</p>


text:
<p><em>Joseph saw his brothers, and he recognized them, but acted like a stranger to them, and spoke roughly with them. He said to them, Where did you come from? They said, From the land of Canaan to buy food</em>-</p><p> The apparent roughness of God at times is here explained. As with Joseph, it is not because of anger with us; for behind those rough words was a love passing description. It is to elicit response in us, towards our greater blessing and final salvation; because in His love, He wants us only good in our latter end. And on a more simple, human level, it could be that the only way Joseph could hide his emotion and passionate love toward them was to mask it with harsh words. Anything less would have blown his cover. Joseph acted like a stranger, with the rudeness which Middle Eastern peoples tended to have towards foreigners.


text:
<p><em>Joseph recognized his brothers, but they didn’t recognize him</em>-</p><p> He was 30 when elevated from prison, and they had last seen him at 17. And there had been seven good years and now two bad years of famine, meaning they had not seen him for 22 years. He would have changed more than they had, would have had a shaved head, and he spoke through an interpreter and was likely arrayed in Egyptian clothing appropriate to his position. <p>The New Testament emphasizes that it was only at their second encounter with Joseph that he was recognized by them, and this points forward to Israel's recognition of their Messiah only at His <em>second</em> coming (<em><a href='B:510 7:13'>Act 7:13</a></em>). Perhaps we can infer from this clear parallel that the brothers were intended to perceive Joseph at this first meeting, but their consciences didn't let them. </p>


text:
<p><em>Joseph remembered the dreams which he dreamed about them- </em></p><p>This doesn't mean he had forgotten them; he remembered them in the same way as God 'remembers' promises; it's not that He has forgotten them out of mind. His whole plan with his brothers was based upon his realization that those dreams would come true in a primary sense even in this life, although the greater fulfilment was to be when his mother was resurrected and also bowed before him.<p><em>And said to them, You are spies! You have come to see the nakedness of the land</em>-</p><p> "Spies" can mean various things in the original. They were a group of ten men, perhaps with servants. Their response was that they were "one man's sons" (:11). Therefore this would have been in reply to the accusation that they were a group of men looking to invade Egypt or otherwise do harm. Joseph's accusation was not therefore made in anger, but to elicit from them news about their father and family. Egypt was most prone to attack on its northern border, over which Joseph's brothers would cross. So perhaps this was his excuse for stationing himself there, so that he could meet his brothers.</p>


text:
<p><em>They said to him, No, my lord, but your servants have come to buy food</em>-</p><p> The purpose of the false accusations was to make them totally honest in their answers, desperate as they were to avoid prison and to obtain corn so as to keep alive. Joseph elicits a spirit of total honesty from them, in the hope that this will lead them to recognize their sin against him. "Your servants" was another primary fulfilment of the dream.</p>


text:
<p><em>We are all one man’s sons; we are honest men. Your servants are not spies</em>-</p><p> As noted on :9, the accusation of being spies was made on the basis of them being a significant group of men together; and Joseph's intention was thereby to elicit from them a statement about their connection to each other, and information about their father. The false accusations were made to elicit from them the statement that they were "honest / true men"- and as soon as the words were off their lips, they would have realized that in another context, they were not true men at all. This is why God allows false accusation- to elicit from us an awareness of where in fact we are really and truly at fault.</p>


text:
<p><em>He said to them, No, but you have come to see the nakedness of the land!</em>-</p><p> Joseph disagreed with their claim to be honest, because they had not recognized him, and they had repeated the old lie that Joseph was dead. Seeing or looking upon nakedness is the very phrase used of Ham in <em><a href='B:10 9:22'>Gen 9:22</a></em>. To look upon nakedness was also a euphemism for incest; and this was what Reuben and Judah had both committed, Reuben with Jacob's concubine, and Judah with Tamar. And who knows which other of the brothers had done similar things. Perhaps this was a further attempt to prod their consciences. They were indeed not spies, looking upon the nakedness of the land; but they had looked upon nakedness.</p>


text:
<p><em>They said, We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan; and behold, the youngest is this day with our father, and one is no more</em>-</p><p> They were being careful to be truthful, and yet they had repeated the lie about Joseph's death so often that they had come to believe it. And this is the problem with lying; we deceive ourselves until we live in a false reality.</p>


text:
<p><em>Joseph said to them, It is like I told you, saying, ‘You are spies!’</em>-</p><p> AV "That is it"; they had lied about Joseph by saying "one is no more". Joseph therefore repeated his claim that they were lying- over years of faith in the fulfilment of his dreams, Joseph had carefully planned all this. His sufferings had made him very sensitive, and he was like the Lord Jesus, a great psychologist. And the brothers responded just as he thought they would, but they refused to allow him to elicit from them the stark truth: 'And one we effectively killed and his blood is upon us to this day'. The Hebrew word translated "spies" can also mean "slanderer" and it is translated like this in <em><a href='B:100 19:27'>2Sa 19:27</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 15:3'>Psa 15:3</a></em>. It was a word with a range of meanings, and Joseph repeatedly uses the word, hoping to elicit in them a recognition that they were indeed tale bearers, although they were not spies.</p>


text:
<p><em>By this you shall be tested. By the life of Pharaoh, you shall not go out from here, unless your youngest brother comes here</em>-</p><p> This is effectively saying that they are liars. As noted on :14, "spies" can mean both spies and liars, slanderers. So Joseph is trying to get them to see his point- that "spies" can mean both spies and slanderers. And he wishes to 'test' them to try to get them to realize his <em>double entendre</em></p>.


text:
<p><em>Send one of you, and let him get your brother, and you shall be bound- </em></p><p>Joseph later changes his game plan, so that instead of nine remaining in prison and one going for Benjamin, one remains in prison and nine return for Benjamin. To some extent, he was unsure of his game plan because of the emotion and relative suddenness of the situation. But it is also clear that their repentance and spiritual reformation was his intention, and all he asked of them, and all his changes of plan with them, were to that end. It could be that he guessed they hated Benjamin as they hated him; and he wanted to give them the opportunity to be alone with Benjamin and learn to treat him better than they had Joseph. The apparent change of plan might however have been purposeful, to indicate to them that change of plan was possible with those who have power, and God Himself changes His plans and position on things- in order to give us inspiration towards repentance, change of mind on our side.<p><em>That your words may be tested, whether there is truth in you, or else by the life of Pharaoh surely you are spies- </em></p><p>The idea was that they were to perceive that the Hebrew word for "spies" meant both liars, and spies. Joseph wanted them to confess that they had been liars, about his 'death'. John seems to allude to this idea of truth within us when he writes: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (<em><a href='B:690 1:8'>1Jn 1:8</a></em></p><p>). Joseph wanted them to admit that in the brief biography they had presented, they had sinned. But they were still denying they had sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>He put them all together into custody for three days</em>-</p><p> As they had cast Joseph into the pit (<em><a href='B:10 37:22'>Gen 37:22</a></em>) and as he had been cast into prison because of false accusation (<em><a href='B:10 39:20'>Gen 39:20</a></em>). The three days in prison perhaps recalled Joseph being three days in the pit- although such a time period isn't stated in the record, we can maybe infer he was there for three days because he is such a clear type of Jesus in the grave for three days. He did all this so that they could enter into His sufferings. Or perhaps their three days in prison corresponded with three years in prison for Joseph, although the period isn't mentioned. It is unusual for groups of offenders to be imprisoned together, in the same cell. But Joseph did this, because he wanted to overhear their conversations, and he hoped that their collective guilt would result in a collective confession to him; but their pride and self deception was still too strong for that to happen at that time.<p>Perhaps the three days point forward to a three year tribulation of Israel in the last days to bring them to accept Christ? We get the impression that Joseph changed his plans for them several times; he recalled them when already on their journey etc. - Does this show that he hastened the day of revelation to them from purely emotional considerations- and will the Lord do the same with His Israel?</p>


text:
<p><em>Joseph said to them the third day, Do this, and live, for I fear God</em>-</p><p> The Hebrew could mean "I <em>also</em> fear God", as if to encourage them to indeed fear God, and join the dots and perceive he was Joseph before he had to reveal it to them. H.P. Mansfield claims that the article is present in the original: "I fear <em>the </em>God", as if inviting them to get the hint that he like them worshipped only one God. "Live" could carry the suggestion that if they remained in prison, they would die; the death threat is still there in :20. For the significance of them facing death in Egypt, see on <em><a href='B:10 43:8'>Gen 43:8</a></em>. He wanted them to understand what Egyptian prison was like, and to place before them death in Egypt if they were not honest about their family situation, or death from famine in Canaan.</p>


text:
<p><em>If you are honest men, then let one of your brothers be bound in your prison; but you go, carry grain for the famine of your houses</em>-</p><p> Joseph changed the conditions- instead of all the brothers going to prison, only one of them would (cp. :16). He wanted to develop within them appreciation of the idea of one brother suffering for and in the place of his brothers- to prepare them to realize what had been achieved through Joseph's sufferings. In addition to this, we should consider that their appearance before him was unexpected, and he was reeling under shock. He perhaps had no clear game plan in place. And he would have had a desire to simply forget his father's family and move on with life; on the other hand, he loved them and wanted their salvation; yet without doubt he would have had natural feelings of anger and a desire at least for them to appreciate the magnitude of what they had done.<p>"Honest men" is literally 'upright men', but the word carries the sense of 'something being so'. It occurs in :20 "They did so" and in :21 "<em>therefore</em> is this distress...". The idea could be that they were proving themselves 'upright'; but they still could not make the confession Joseph sought. In fact, they never did; his pity and grace was such that he gave up demanding it. God likewise so loves us that it seems He accepts our internal recognitions of sin, even without the articulation of it as confession in the terms He ideally seeks. We should likewise not be too demanding of confession of sin from others, but grace and pity should dominate our attitude.</p>


text:
<p><em>Bring your youngest brother to me; so will your words be verified, and you won’t die. They did so</em>-</p><p> See on :19. As noted on :18, Joseph was threatening them with death. But they could have just remained in Canaan; they would have reflected that Joseph spoke of death even in Canaan as somehow within his power. They would have concluded that he was speaking somehow from God. Why did Joseph insist on their bringing Benjamin when he knew it would cause his father so much stress that it might kill him? Was it a form of anger with his father, for having set him up as the favourite and thereby causing all the problem, or for disbelieving his dreams? Or as mentioned on :19, was it quite simply that he had no clear game plan in place and was reeling under the emotion of the situation? Or it could be that he correctly guessed that Benjamin was now the pampered, favourite son as he once had been. And he realized that for Benjamin to come to spiritual maturity, he had to become a man spiritually and separate from his father.</p>


text:
<p><em>They said one to another, We are certainly guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he begged us, and we wouldn’t listen. Therefore this distress has come upon us</em>-</p><p> See on :19. This was a major step forward in the process of repentance. But there was nothing done further, no attempt at a guilt offering, and no public confession. Joseph obviously thought that private acceptance of guilt was not enough; there needed to be something further. And that is a challenge to us. However, Joseph never succeeded in getting such a confession from them. This is the nearest he got to it. His grace and pity led him to simply reveal himself to them. "Distress" and "anguish" translate the same word. They were being brought to experience Joseph's feelings in the pit. We too are led by a loving Lord to know His mind during His sufferings, and we are to allow that mind to be in us which was in Him then (<em>Php_2:4-5</em>). "The anguish of his soul" and pleas for deliverance, ignored by the brothers, point forward to "The travail of his soul" (<em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em> s.w.), ignored by Israel (<em><a href='B:290 53:1-4'>Isa 53:1-4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Reuben answered them, saying, Didn’t I tell you, saying, ‘Don’t sin against the child’, and you wouldn’t listen? Therefore also, behold, his blood is required</em>-</p><p> He is quoting the law of <em><a href='B:10 9:5'>Gen 9:5</a></em>, which says that blood will be required from both animal and man if they slay a man. The brothers had created the story that an animal had killed Joseph; and they had been concerned at the time not to personally slay him. But now they realize that effectively, they had killed him by their decision; his blood was upon them. Even Reuben who had been against killing Joseph felt himself guilty for his blood. This is a huge challenge to us. We may carefully avoid the actual commission of sin, but the implications of our actions against others are tantamount to the same sin we thought we were technically avoiding. This is particularly true in the sin of excluding believers from Christian fellowship. The brothers were driven to realize that they were personally each one guilty of Joseph's blood. No shifting of the blame onto an animal or anonymous traders or Egyptians could take it away from them. Judah had suggested that by doing so they would "conceal his blood" (<em><a href='B:10 37:26'>Gen 37:26</a></em>) and they had agreed with that. Now they realized that this was just a technical get out, and they were all guilty of his blood.</p>


text:
<p><em>They didn’t know that Joseph understood them; for there was an interpreter between them</em>-</p><p> The Lord Jesus likewise keeps an apparent distance from us, when He understands exactly what we are saying and feeling.</p>


text:
<p><em>He turned himself away from them, and wept-</em></p><p> Joseph wept (this is recorded seven times in the record), as did the Lord Jesus. He must have found it hard to prolong the agony of not revealing himself to them immediately; he was motivated by a desire to make them see the enormity of their sin, for their spiritual good rather than his own vindication. This is a stunningly deep prophecy of the intensity of the Lord's feelings, as the mighty Son of God, towards wayward Israel in the last days. He was a man of sorrow in his mortal life, and will still have an element of this characteristic in the future.<p><em>Then he returned to them, and spoke to them, and took Simeon from among them, and bound him before their eyes</em>-</p><p> We wonder why Simeon was chosen; perhaps it was the outcome of his discussion with them when he returned "and spoke to them". Jewish tradition claims he was the one who was most aggressive to Joseph and had been the ringleader in trying to kill him in the pit. That would make sense; but again we must ever note that Joseph's actions were not so much punishment, as attempts to provoke their consciences. He had Simeon tied up before their eyes in order to restimulate their memories of how they had had Joseph bound.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then Joseph gave a command to fill their bags with grain, and to restore each man’s money into his sack, and to give them food for the way. So it was done to them</em>-</p><p> This was grace indeed, and he wanted them to perceive it, and perhaps return to him from the lodging place (:27) once they realized. But their consciences were still not ready. Likewise, Israel ought to have recognized the Lord Jesus at their first meeting; but they will only do so at their second meeting, because their hearts were hardened the first time, and were too proud to repent.</p>


text:
<p><em>They loaded their donkeys with their grain, and departed from there</em>-</p><p> The camera is as it were close up on them. We see them strapping the bags to the animals, lost in their own thoughts.>/p>


text:
<p><em>As one of them opened his sack to give his donkey food in the lodging place, he saw his money. Behold, it was in the mouth of his sack</em>-</p><p> They for some reason were dishonest with Jacob about this; for they made out that only one of them opened his sack in the lodging, and that Jacob and the rest of them were seeing their money in their sacks for the first time when they returned to him (:35). But as their repentance deepens and they are brought closer to being totally truthful, which is what repentance is about, they admit that each of them opened their sacks in the lodging and found their money (<em><a href='B:10 43:21'>Gen 43:21</a></em>). It was anyway psychologically unlikely that one of them would open his sack and find his money, and the other brothers wouldn't even bother checking their sacks. See on :29 for another example of their lack of total honesty.</p>


text:
<p><em>He said to his brothers, My money is restored! Behold, it is in my sack! Their hearts failed them, and they turned trembling one to another, saying, What is this that God has done to us?</em>-</p><p> They were being introduced to grace; but like many who encounter grace, they shy away from it, because it demands too deep a recognition of sin and unworthiness. We recall how they had looked at one another in the silence of a guilty conscience (:1). They realized that God was in this.</p>


text:
<p><em>They came to Jacob their father, to the land of Canaan, and told him all that had happened to them, saying</em>-</p><p> They did not literally tell him everything, because they omit to say they had been imprisoned, and threatened with certain death. Again we see that although they were shaken up by what had happened, they were still far from total honesty. and that is required for total repentance. See on :27.</p>


text:
<p><em>The man, the lord of the land, spoke roughly with us, and took us for spies of the country</em>-</p><p> They are willfully missing the point. Joseph had accused them of being "spies", using a word which could mean both spies and liars; see on :14. They chose to focus on the meaning "spies of the country".</p>


text:
<p><em>We said to him, ‘We are honest men. We are no spies</em>-</p><p> Jacob would have immediately realized that his sons had lied; they could hardly be called "honest men", given their suspected behaviour with Joseph, the massacre of Shechem and Judah's behaviour with Tamar- and probably much else which is not recorded.</p>


text:
<p><em>We are twelve brothers, sons of our father; one is no more, and the youngest is this day with our father in the land of Canaan’</em>-</p><p> Again they repeat the lie about Joseph; they had told it so often that it was now perceived truth and reality for them.</p>


text:
<p><em>The man, the lord of the land, said to us, ‘By this I will know that you are honest men: leave one of your brothers with me, and take grain for the famine of your houses, and go your way</em>-</p><p> Jacob's refusal to allow Benjamin to return with them was therefore tantamount to agreeing that they were not honest men. He also shows his obsession with Benjamin and disregard for Simeon who was left in prison.</p>


text:
<p><em>Bring your youngest brother to me. Then I will know that you are not spies, but that you are honest men. So I will deliver your brother to you, and you shall trade in the land’</em>-</p><p> Joseph is not recorded as saying anything about future trading. Perhaps we have another example here of how the brothers had still not come to the total honesty which is required for true repentance; they were prepared to add in some things here and there, to effectively lie to their father as Jacob had done to Isaac, to make their message more palatable or attractive to Jacob.</p>


text:
<p><em>It happened as they emptied their sacks, that behold, each man’s bundle of money was in his sack. When they and their father saw their bundles of money, they were afraid</em>-</p><p> This is recorded from the perspective they wished to give; this was the impression they gave Jacob, but they were still being deceitful; see on :27.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob, their father, said to them, You have bereaved me of my children! Joseph is no more, Simeon is no more, and you want to take Benjamin away. All these things are against me</em>-</p><p> This implies Jacob knew they had killed Joseph. There is a theme in the records of unspoken knowledge; in 42:1 the brothers fear to go to Egypt because of their unspoken suspicion they might meet Joseph there.</p>


text:
<p><em>Reuben spoke to his father, saying, Kill my two sons, if I don’t bring him to you. Entrust him to my care, and I will bring him to you again</em>-</p><p> This is typical hot headed language. Jacob could hardly be comforted over the death of another son by then murdering two of his grandchildren. The whole series of events was intended to lead the brothers to the truthfulness which is required for repentance. Reuben would have reflected on this foolish usage of language and how there was no real truth to it of itself... and been provoked in his path toward truthfulness.</p>


text:
<p><em>He said, My son shall not go down with you; for his brother is dead, and he only is left- </em>As Joseph had perhaps imagined, Benjamin was perceived by Jacob as his only remaining child. He was clearly the favourite, and by saying this, Jacob showed the disregard he had for the rest of his sons. He had still not learnt the need to not show favouritism. <p><em>If harm happens to him along the way in which you go, then you will bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol</em>-</p><p> Clearly enough, <em>sheol</em> refers to the grave, and not to a place of torment where only the wicked go.</p>


text:
<p><em>The famine was severe in the land- </em>As explained on :8, Jacob's sons were facing death by starvation. And yet they had been threatened with death in Egypt if they returned and were not totally truthful about their family situation (<em><a href='B:10 42:18'>Gen 42:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 42:20'>Gen 42:20</a></em>). The same word for "severe" is used in the interpretation of Pharaoh's dreams in <em><a href='B:10 41:31'>Gen 41:31</a></em>; the prophetic word came absolutely true. And Joseph would have been encouraged that likewise <em>his</em> dreams would come true.</p>


text:
<p><em>It happened, when they had eaten up the grain which they had brought out of Egypt, their father said to them, Go again, buy us a little more food</em>-</p><p> "A little" perhaps hints at their poverty; they were now facing death and their resources were nearly spent. See on :8. We note that they could only afford "a little" food as presents for Joseph (see on :11). They 'ate up' the grain just as the evil cows ate up the fat ones; this is who they were being likened to. Their actions against Joseph 22 years before were not forgotten by God. We can easily assume that time works a kind of pseudo atonement for sins of youth. But God is outside of our concept of time and has no fading memory; He is more sensitive to sin than that, and works so that we might recognize the impact of our actions and come to repentance even many years later. The Hebrew phrase for "eaten up" occurs again in <em><a href='B:370 7:2-3'>Amo 7:2-3</a></em>: "It happened that when they made an end of eating (up) the grass of the land, then I said, Lord Yahweh, forgive, I beseech You! How could Jacob stand? For he is so small. Yahweh relented concerning this. It shall not be, says Yahweh". Jacob and his sons had indeed been brought down very small, to the point of death by starvation; and were saved only by God's grace manifested through the amazing grace and forgiveness of Joseph.</p>


text:
<p><em>Judah spoke to him, saying, The man solemnly warned us, saying, ‘You shall not see my face, unless your brother is with you’</em>-</p><p> The Hebrew idea of solemn warning is used so often in the Pentateuch and later Old Testament, with the implication of Divine judgment. <em><a href='B:370 3:13'>Amo 3:13</a></em> uses the same word concerning God's solemn testimony to "the house of Jacob", the family of Jacob, concerning the visiting of their past sins upon them; and always, judgment is in view. Joseph wanted them to think about the implications of having their brother with them. He referred not only to Benjamin but to himself. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:10 37:2'>Gen 37:2</a></em> of how Joseph had been "with" his brothers, and because of this he had seen their sins and reported to Jacob about them; and of how finally Joseph was "with" his brothers (<em><a href='B:10 45:1'>Gen 45:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 45:15'>Gen 45:15</a></em>). They would later have reflected how his demand was met- by his revelation of himself to them. </p>


text:
<p><em>If you’ll send our brother with us, we’ll go down and buy you food</em>-</p><p> They preferred death by starvation rather than being dishonest before Joseph. </p>


text:
<p><em>But if you’ll not send him, we’ll not go down, for the man said to us, ‘You shall not see my face, unless your brother is with you’</em>-</p><p> Seeing Joseph's face is paralleled with buying food and avoiding death by starvation (:4). The threat that they could not see Joseph's face without their brother with them clearly stuck in their minds (<em><a href='B:10 43:3'>Gen 43:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 43:5'>Gen 43:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 44:23'>Gen 44:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 44:26'>Gen 44:26</a></em>). To see a person's face meant to be accepted by them; to not see their face meant rejection and the ending of relationship (<em><a href='B:20 10:29'>Exo 10:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 3:13'>2Sa 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 14:24'>2Sa 14:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 14:28'>2Sa 14:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 18:17'>Jer 18:17</a></em>). Everything was structured by Joseph so that they could not avoid this; for he would not delegate the work to others. Likewise personal encounter with the Lord Jesus and acceptance by Him, seeing His face, is the end point for each believing life. But it requires the absolute honesty without which repentance is impossible.</p>


text:
<p><em>Israel said, Why did you treat me so badly, telling the man that you had another brother?</em>-</p><p> "Badly" is literally "evil". The brothers would have felt this was a false and unreasonable accusation; for since when was being honest 'doing evil'... The same word is used of the false accusation that they had 'done evil' in stealing Joseph's cup, which they had not done (<em><a href='B:10 44:5'>Gen 44:5</a></em>). Joseph was the master psychologist. He knew that false accusation is likely to elicit in people a realization of their actual sins; for as we clamour to protest 'That's untrue! You're unreasonable in saying that!', there will arise an awareness that 'Although <em>that </em>is untrue, I am not innocent in other areas'. I have had exactly that experience and have seen others pass through it; this then is one of the reasons why God allows false accusation, misunderstanding and slander. </p>


text:
<p><em>They said, The man asked directly concerning ourselves, and concerning our relatives, saying, ‘Is your father still alive? Have you another brother?’ We just answered his questions. Is there any way we could know that he would say, ‘Bring your brother down?’</em>-</p><p> They insisted that they had honestly answered the questions about their family and other brothers. But they had not done so, because they had lied about Joseph. But they still can't admit that. "We just answered his questions" is AV "We told him according to the tenor of these words". The exact phrase is used in <em><a href='B:20 34:27'>Exo 34:27</a></em>: "After the tenor of these words" God made a covenant with Israel, and "solemnly testified" it, as Joseph had done (:3). This language of covenant relationship offered not only judgment if they were being dishonest; but also ongoing relationship if they were honest, such as "trading in the land". This offer of covenant relationship ought to have again made them wonder who exactly this man was with whom they had to deal. Joseph asked them to 'bring their brother down' to Egypt to remind them that this is what they had done to him, selling him to merchants who 'brought him down' to Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 37:25'>Gen 37:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 39:1'>Gen 39:1</a></em> s.w.). And the Lord likewise persistently works in our lives to restimulate memories of past issues, that we might repent and move further.</p>


text:
<p><em>Judah said to Israel, his father, Send the boy with me, and we’ll get up and go, so that we may live, and not die, both we, and you, and also our little ones</em>-</p><p> "And not die" shows they were facing death unless they went to Egypt. And yet Joseph had threatened them with death if they returned and were not completely honest with him about their family situation (see on <em><a href='B:10 42:18'>Gen 42:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 42:20'>Gen 42:20</a></em>). This choice of death or death was to make them be completely honest about their family situation, which meant admitting what they had done to Joseph. All men in fact face this choice- and the logic of choosing repentance is so strong. Hence John the Baptist put before people the choice of fire or fire- unless they repented.</p><p>"The boy" means just that; but Benjamin was about 26, and already had ten sons and presumably daughters too (<em><a href='B:10 46:21'>Gen 46:21</a></em>). Perhaps "the boy", 'kiddo', was the term he was known by. But he was even so smothered by his father; maybe his prolific fruitfulness had been because of multiple relationships, or a desire to prove himself independent from his father. Maybe Joseph guessed the psychological damage that Jacob's doting favouritism would have on a young man, and therefore wanted Benjamin to separate from Jacob for a while and to pass through some brief time of testing so that he might spiritually mature. For Joseph had been the spoilt child, and had matured only through being taken away from that whole scene.</p>


text:
<p><em>I’ll be collateral for him. From my hand will you require him. If I don’t bring him to you, and set him before you, then let me bear the blame forever</em>-</p><p> "Blame" is literally 'the sin'. Judah was saying that if he did not let his younger brother return to Jacob, then this would be sin upon him forever. But the same word is used of how the brothers realized they had 'sinned' in this way regarding Joseph (<em><a href='B:10 42:22'>Gen 42:22</a></em>). Judah was being brought to realize that what he and his brothers had done to Joseph was indeed sin; for they had not allowed him to return to Jacob. And that sin was upon him "forever"; only by God's utter grace could it be reversed. And it was.</p>


text:
<p><em>For if we hadn’t delayed, surely we would have returned a second time by now</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; The brothers delay in their return, doubtless because of the struggle with their conscience; never spoken of together, but operating on each man individually. Will there be a 'delay' in Israel's latter day repentance, and therefore in the full manifestation of Christ? Every Jew in the last days will go through the silent struggle of conscience about Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em>Their father, Israel, said to them, If it must be so, then do this. Take from the choice fruits of the land in your bags, and carry down a present for the man, a little balm, a little honey, spices and myrrh, nuts, and almonds</em>-</p><p> "A little..." hints at their absolute poverty as they faced death by starvation. See on :2. "Balm" was what the merchants had been carrying, when they took Joseph into Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 37:25'>Gen 37:25</a></em>). It was made from fragrant gum trees which grew in Canaan, called ladanum. The brothers were intended by the hand of providence to reflect that in going to Egypt with such gum balm, they were retracing the steps of Joseph and those merchants. </p><p>They took their humble presents in the sacks (s.w. "bags"); and it was there that Joseph had placed their money, and where Joseph's cup would be placed. The paucity of what they could give was purposefully dwarfed by Joseph's generosity, in the same place- their sacks. It was to emphasize this that finally Joseph tells them to all come and live in Egypt and leave their sacks behind in Canaan (AV "your stuff", <em><a href='B:10 45:20'>Gen 45:20</a></em>, s.w. "bags" here and "sacks" in <em><a href='B:10 42:25'>Gen 42:25</a></em>). At every turn, we see grace poured out.</p>


text:
<p><em>And take double money in your hand, and take back the money that was returned in the mouth of your sacks. Perhaps it was an oversight</em>-</p><p> "<em>And</em> take back..." suggests that the "double money" was not simply money for their grain and then the same again returned which had been placed in their sacks. The idea was that if things got tough for them, they could offer money for their release. But again, they were being taught that money and wealth cannot atone for sin against a brother; atonement is from God alone, by grace, in response to human repentance. Their money had been returned in their sacks; yet they failed to learn the lesson, that Joseph (cp. the Lord Jesus) doesn't need money, nor can silver (Heb.) achieve redemption from the abuse of our brethren. They thought they were being of integrity by returning the silver; but they were to learn that their supposed integrity was just on a far lower plane than what was required of them- a complete rejection of their own wealth and low level integrity, and rather a genuine repentance and acceptance of God's grace through Joseph's forgiveness. They were missing the point by thinking that the great grace in returning their money was simply "an oversight", a technical error. It obviously wasn't. They had bought enough food to feed ten large families for an extended period, probably taking many donkeys with them to carry it all. The sum returned was significant. But they would rather imagine a technical error than accept Divine grace.</p><p>Effectively, Joseph became the firstborn of the family in a spiritual sense. The coat of many colours was the coat of the firstborn, and it was jealousy about this which had led the brothers to want to murder him. <em><a href='B:50 21:15-17'>Deu 21:15-17</a></em> says that firstborn was to receive the double portion; so perhaps the brothers would later reflect that providence had led them to accept Joseph as the firstborn by giving him the double money.</p>


text:
<p><em>Take your brother also, get up, and return to the man</em>-</p><p> "Get up" may suggest a similar hesitancy as noted on <em><a href='B:10 42:1'>Gen 42:1</a></em>. It was not that they were lazy; rather again so we see the hints of bad conscience paralyzing their action. They were to specifically "return <em>to the man</em>", not simply 'to Egypt'. And <em>shub,</em> "return", often carries the idea of repentance, a turning back.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>May God Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he may release to you your other brother and Benjamin- </em>Jacob's perception of God was as very powerful, God Almighty, One who can give undeserved grace to men like Jacob's sinful sons. He uses a term he has not previously used: <em>El-Shaddai</em>, the Almighty El. Using new terms for God reveals a deepening of understanding of Him. We likewise will grow in our knowledge of Him through the trials of life. He felt that God's mightiness would be revealed through the mercy shown to them by Joseph; and indeed that came to pass. "Mercy" is effectively the same idea as grace, but the Hebrew word is the same used for "womb". The idea is the mercy and love which comes from being family. Jacob's prayer was wonderfully answered; for "the man" was their loving brother Joseph.</p><p><em>If I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved</em>-</p><p> The word is the usual one for miscarriage, as if Jacob felt that it was possible that God's plan of giving him a numerous seed was now likely to misfire and be aborted. This all sounds more like depressive fatalism than firm faith in the promises that his seed would eternally fill the earth. In <em><a href='B:10 35:11'>Gen 35:11</a></em> God encourages Jacob, fearful he would lose all his family to attacks from neighbouring tribes, to “be fruitful and multiply; a nation…<em> shall</em> be of thee, and kings <em>shall</em> come out of thy loins”. If he played his part, the promises would be fulfilled. But at this time it seems Jacob's depression had led him to a fatalism which is not of faith. "Bereaved" is the word used by Jacob's mother in <em><a href='B:10 27:45'>Gen 27:45</a></em>, when thanks to Jacob's deceit she was too feared bereavement from the loss of both her sons- Jacob at Esau's hand, and Esau at the hands of the avengers of blood. Her feelings were Jacob's fault; and now years later he was being made to see how she felt, to fear her fears. Such bereavement of children was seen as a Divine curse for disobedience (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 23:26'>Exo 23:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:25'>Deu 32:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 15:7'>Jer 15:7</a></em>). Yet faced with this, Jacob seems prepared to just accept it, rather than be moved to repentance for his deceit. </p>


text:
<p><em>The men took that present, and they took double money in their hand, and Benjamin; and got up, went down to Egypt- </em>As noted on :12, no amount of money or presents could resolve this. The "double money" was not a reference to returning the silver placed in their sacks (see on :12). Jacob ought to have learnt this from his attempt to placate the advancing Esau with presents; he had been saved by God's grace alone, and not by his gifts. </p><p><em>And stood before Joseph</em>-</p><p> We rather expect to read of them bowing before him. But they are recorded as standing. They probably did bow, but that is not mentioned. Perhaps the idea is that they had still not really bowed themselves before him as they needed to. </p>


text:
<p><em>When Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the steward of his house, Bring the men into the house, and slay an animal, and make ready; for the men will dine with me at noon</em>-</p><p> Joseph celebrates their repentance with a meal together, at which they sit in their proper places, looking forward to the marriage supper of the lamb, with each in his proper place (<em><a href='B:490 14:10'>Luk 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:30'>Luk 22:30</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:9'>Rev 19:9</a></em>). "Slay and make ready" is the basis of the prodigal son parable (<em><a href='B:10 45:14-15'>Gen 45:14-15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>); the father = Christ; the prodigal = repentant Jews, wanting to be servants and nothing else. Only the upper classes in Egypt ate meat; and there was a severe famine at the time. Grace was being lavished upon these men, dirty and exhausted after the grueling desert journey from Canaan.</p>


text:
<p><em>The man did as Joseph commanded, and the man brought the men to Joseph’s house</em>-</p><p> "House" is really his personal home. He had a steward over it, just as he had been for Potiphar. To invite strangers into his personal home was really tantamount to saying that he treated them as family. It was yet another attempt to get them to join the dots and recognize him. It was only their lack of repentance that closed their eyes to perceiving him. </p>


text:
<p><em>The men were afraid, because they were brought to Joseph’s house; and they said, Because of the money that was returned in our sacks at the first time, we’re brought in; that he may seek occasion against us, attack us, and seize us as slaves, along with our donkeys</em>-</p><p> The invitation into Joseph's personal home was a sign of loving acceptance; but they feared that expression of grace. If indeed Joseph was going to accuse them of theft, he would hardly invite them into his private home. But they were still thinking in material terms; hence "along with our donkeys", which were probably their last dimension of material wealth which remained to them. Constantly, their fears were that Joseph was against them. Those fears surely reflect how we quite rightly fear the just condemnation which we deserve; and yet the whole story comes to a glorious close with the utter triumph of Joseph's love and grace, on behalf of God, which clinches their salvation and eternal wellbeing.</p>


text:
<p><em>They came near to the steward of Joseph’s house, and they spoke to him at the door of the house</em>-</p><p> They spoke apparently without an interpreter. Perhaps he too was from their extended family, another Hebrew slave whom Joseph had bought / redeemed and exalted just as he had been, in reflection of the grace shown him. They felt the need for a mediator between them and Joseph, and the story reflects how they still struggled to come close to him directly. This all speaks of our weakness of faith in the Lord's grace. They were unwilling to immediately accept Joseph's gracious invitation into his home, and paused at the door. This is so similar to our reticence to believe in the Lord's gracious welcome.</p>


text:
<p><em>And said, Oh my lord, we indeed came down the first time to buy food</em>-</p><p> They are careful to recite the story truthfully and with attention to absolute accuracy. They were being prepared for the greatest truthfulness to themselves- the admission that they had cruelly abused their brother.</p>


text:
<p><em>When we came to the lodging place, we opened our sacks, and behold, each man’s money was in the mouth of his sack, our money in full weight. We have brought it back in our hand</em>-</p><p> <em>Full weight</em>-</p><p> The whole experience succeeded in eliciting hyper honesty from the brothers, which is what Joseph intended. They for some reason were dishonest with Jacob about this when they first returned to him; for they made out that only one of them opened his sack in the lodging, and that Jacob and the rest of them were seeing their money in their sacks for the first time when they returned to him (<em><a href='B:10 42:27'>Gen 42:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 42:35'>Gen 42:35</a></em>). But now as their repentance deepens and they are brought closer to being totally truthful, which is what repentance is about, they admit that each of them opened their sacks in the lodging and found their money. It was anyway psychologically unlikely that one of them would open his sack and find his money, and the other brothers wouldn't even bother checking their sacks.</p><p>They emphasize their technical, legal integrity- "full weight". This was to fade into insignificance when they were faced with the enormity of their sin and of Joseph's utter grace toward them.</p>


text:
<p><em>We have brought down other money in our hand to buy food. We don’t know who put our money in our sacks</em>-</p><p> They did know- it was someone acting on behalf of God. But they couldn't bring themselves to admit that. Joseph therefore verbalizes for them the answer they had unspoken in their consciences: "God" (:23). In fact it was God working through Joseph; if the steward received the money from Joseph but the money was returned to their sacks, then it must have been money from Joseph.</p>


text:
<p><em>He said, Peace be to you. Don’t be afraid- </em>"Peace" has connotations of the peace which comes from forgiveness. He was again trying to show to them that he alone of all human beings was in a possession to give them assurance of peace, with God and himself, and therefore freedom from fear; because he was Joseph, and had chosen to forgive them. But still they failed to join the dots.</p><p><em>Your God, and the God of your father, has given you treasure in your sacks. I received your money- </em>Joseph through his steward graciously recognizes that they have a relationship with God ("your God") and that they were not simply living out the religion of their faith; "<em>and </em>the God of your father" highlights the separation. They were each personally responsible before their God. If Joseph had received / taken their payment and yet the money had appeared again in their sacks- then that, the steward reasoned, must have only been from their God. As noted on :22, it would have been Joseph personally who paid this money. </p><p><em>He brought Simeon out to them</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; If they had loved their brother (Simeon), they would have returned sooner. The experience was to teach them to love their brother, a characteristic lacking in them- for the fate of Simeon never seems to enter their reasoning.</p>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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><em>They prepared the present for Joseph’s coming at noon, for they heard that they should eat bread there</em>-</p><p> "<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><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><em>They brought him the present which was in their hand into the house, and bowed themselves down to him to the earth</em>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> "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><em>They said, Your servant, our father, is well. He is still alive. They bowed down humbly</em>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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><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><em>For his heart yearned over his brother; and he sought a place to weep. He entered into his room, and wept there</em>-</p><p> 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>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><em>He washed his face, and came out. He controlled himself, and said, Serve the meal</em>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><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.</p><p><em>And the youngest according to his youth, and the men marvelled one with another</em>-</p><p> 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>).</p>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> "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.</p>


text:
<p><em>As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away, they and their donkeys</em>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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><em>Isn’t this that from which my lord drinks, and by which he indeed divines? You have done evil in so doing’</em>-</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>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>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>


text:
<p><em>He overtook them, and he spoke these words to them</em>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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>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><em>With whoever of your servants it is found, let him die, and we also will be my lord’s bondservants</em>-</p><p> 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. </p><p>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><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>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><em>Then they hurried, and each man took his sack down to the ground, and each man opened his sack</em>-</p><p> 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><em>He searched, beginning with the eldest, and ending at the youngest. The cup was found in Benjamin’s sack</em>-</p><p> 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><em>Then they tore their clothes, and each man loaded his donkey, and returned to the city</em>-</p><p> "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.</p>


text:
<p><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><em>They fell on the ground before him</em>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p><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.</p><p>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><em>Don’t you know that such a man as I can indeed divine?</em>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p><em>Judah said, What will we tell my lord? What will we speak?-</em></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 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><em>Or how will we clear ourselves?-</em></p><p> 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><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.</p><p><em>Behold, we are my lord’s bondservants, both we, and he also in whose hand the cup is found</em>-</p><p> 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>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>


text:
<p><em>He said, Far be it from me that I should do so- </em>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><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>-</p><p> "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><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><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>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><em>My lord asked his servants, saying, ‘Have you a father, or a brother?’</em>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p><em>You said to your servants, ‘Bring him down to me, that I may set my eyes on him’</em>-</p><p> 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. </p>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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><em>You said to your servants, ‘Unless your youngest brother comes down with you, you will see my face no more’</em>-</p><p> 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><em>It happened when we came up to your servant my father, we told him the words of my lord</em>-</p><p> The continual emphasis upon Jacob as Joseph's servant and "lord" was all a primary fulfilment of Joseph's dreams. </p>


text:
<p><em>Our father said, ‘Go again, buy us a little food’</em>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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><em>Your servant, my father, said to us, ‘You know that my wife bore me two sons</em>-</p><p> 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><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><em>And I said, Surely he is torn in pieces; and I haven’t seen him since</em>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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. </p>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p>&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>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>


text:
<p><em>He wept aloud. The Egyptians heard, and the house of Pharaoh heard</em>-</p><p> 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><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><em>His brothers couldn’t answer him; for they were terrified at his presence</em>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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. This was indeed a move toward spiritual maturity. </p><p>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). </p><p>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>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>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>). </p>


text:
<p><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.</p><p><em>And He has made me a father to Pharaoh, lord of all his house, and ruler over all the land of Egypt</em>-</p><p> <em>Lord of all Pharaoh's house</em>-</p><p> 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>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>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>). </p>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> "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><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>-</p><p> 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><em>Behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth that speaks to you</em>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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>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><em>He fell on his brother Benjamin’s neck, and wept, and Benjamin wept on his neck</em>-</p><p> 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><em>He kissed all his brothers, and wept on them. After that his brothers talked with him</em>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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><em>Pharaoh said to Joseph, Tell your brothers, ‘Do this. Load your animals, and go, travel to the land of Canaan</em>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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><em>Also, don’t concern yourselves about your belongings, for the good of all of the land of Egypt is yours</em>-</p><p>&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.</p>


text:
<p><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><em>Joseph gave them wagons, according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and gave them provision for the way</em>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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. </p>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><em>So he sent his brothers away, and they departed. He said to them, See that you don’t quarrel on the way</em>-</p><p> 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. 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>T<em>hey went up out of Egypt, and came into the land of Canaan, to Jacob their father</em>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><em>They told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said to them-</em></p><p> 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.</p><p><em>When he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob, their father, revived</em>-</p><p> 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><em>Israel said, It is enough. Joseph my son is still alive. I will go and see him before I die</em>-</p><p> "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:
<p><em>Israel travelled with all that he had- </em></p><p>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.<p><em>And came to Beersheba, and offered sacrifices to the God of his father, Isaac</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>God spoke to Israel in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob! He said, Here I am</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p>see on <em><a href='B:10 31:54'>Gen 31:54</a></em>. &nbsp;<em>He said, I am God- </em></p><p>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><em>The God of your father- </em></p><p>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.</p><p><em>Fear not to go down into Egypt, for there I will make of you a great nation</em>-</p><p> 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>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:
<p><em>I will go down with you into Egypt. I will also surely bring you up again- </em></p><p>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><em>Joseph will close your eyes</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>These are the names of the children of Israel, who came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons: Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>The sons of Reuben: Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>The sons of Simeon: Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanite woman</em>-</p><p> "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.


text:
<p><em>The sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari</em>-</p><p> "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:
<p><em>The sons of Judah: Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez, and Zerah; but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan-</em></p><p> "Shelah" means 'requested'; as observed with Shaul on :10, prayers for the child's existence were answered through a less than ideal relationship.<p><em>The sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul</em>-</p><p> "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:
<p><em>The sons of Issachar: Tola, Puvah, Iob, and Shimron</em>-</p><p> "Iob" is LXX "Jashub", as in <em><a href='B:40 26:24'>Num 26:24</a></em>.


text:
<p><em>The sons of Zebulun: Sered, Elon, and Jahleel</em>-</p><p> "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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>The sons of Gad: Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi, and Areli</em>-</p><p> "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:
<p><em>The sons of Asher: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, Beriah, and Serah their sister. The sons of Beriah: Heber and Malchiel</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah, his daughter, and these she bore to Jacob, even sixteen souls</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>The sons of Rachel, Jacob’s wife: Joseph and Benjamin</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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.


text:
<p><em>The sons of Benjamin: Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim, and Ard</em>-</p><p> 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>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>


text:
<p><em>These are the sons of Rachel, who were born to Jacob: all the souls were fourteen</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>The son of Dan: Hushim</em>-</p><p> "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:
<p><em>The sons of Naphtali: Jahzeel, Guni, Jezer, and Shillem</em>-</p><p> "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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>"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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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. <p>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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>Israel said to Joseph, Now let me die, since I have seen your face- </em></p><p>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.<p><em>That you are still alive</em>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><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></p><p>"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><em>‘My brothers, and my father’s house, who were in the land of Canaan, have come to me</em>-</p><p> "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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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 about this 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 unclean and unfit for sacrifice; and 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.


text:
<p><em>It will happen, when Pharaoh summons you, and will say, ‘What is your occupation?’</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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></p><p>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><em>For every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians</em>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>From among his brothers he took five men, and presented them to Pharaoh</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>Pharaoh said to his brothers, What is your occupation? They said to Pharaoh, Your servants are shepherds, both we, and our fathers</em>-</p><p> 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.


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>Pharaoh spoke to Joseph, saying, Your father and your brothers have come to you</em>-</p><p> 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.


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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.


text:
<p><em>Joseph brought in Jacob, his father, and set him before Pharaoh, and Jacob blessed Pharaoh</em>-</p><p> 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.


text:
<p><em>Pharaoh said to Jacob, How many are the days of the years of your life?</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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><em>In the days of their pilgrimage</em>-</p><p> 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.</p><p>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:
<p><em>Jacob blessed Pharaoh, and went out from the presence of Pharaoh</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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.


text:
<p><em>Joseph nourished his father, his brothers, and all of his father’s household, with bread, according to their families</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>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:
<p><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>-</p><p> "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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>Joseph said, Give me your livestock; and I will give you food for your livestock, if your money is gone</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>).


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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.


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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.


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> "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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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.


text:
<p><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><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><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><em>Please don’t bury me in Egypt</em>- </p><p>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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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.


text:
<p><em>He said, Swear to me, and he swore to him-</em></p><p>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><em>Israel bowed himself on the bed’s head</em>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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.


text:
<p><em>Someone told Jacob, and said, Behold, your son Joseph comes to you, and Israel strengthened himself, and sat on the bed</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>Jacob said to Joseph, God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me</em>-</p><p> 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.


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>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>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>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>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> If Joseph was to have any more sons, they would not become separate tribes, but numbered amongst Ephraim and Manasseh.


text:
<p><em>As for me, when I came from Paddan, Rachel died by me- </em>Literally, 'upon me', as if she died in his arms.<p><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>-</p><p> 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>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:
<p><em>Israel saw Joseph’s sons, and said, Who are these?</em>-</p><p> Or, "whose". He knew who and whose they were. 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> <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:
<p><em>Israel said to Joseph, I never thought I would see your face, and behold, God has let me see your seed also</em>-</p><p> 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>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>


text:
<p><em>Joseph brought them out from between his knees- </em></p><p>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><em>And he bowed himself with his face to the earth</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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.


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> <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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>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>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:
<p><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></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>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><em>Let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><em>Joseph said to his father, Not so, my father; for this is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head</em>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>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>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> "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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>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.</p>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><em>Assemble yourselves, and hear, you sons of Jacob. Listen to Israel, your father</em>-</p><p> 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><em>Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength; excelling in dignity, and excelling in power</em>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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>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><em>Simeon and Levi are brothers. Their swords are weapons of violence</em>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>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>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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>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>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:
<p><em>Judah, your brothers will praise you. Your hand will be on the neck of your enemies. Your father’s sons will bow down before you</em>-</p><p> see on <em><a href='B:10 37:10'>Gen 37:10</a></em>. Joseph's dreams had clearly stated that all the brothers would bow to him. And Jacob had come to see that and accept it, despite his initial dislike of the idea. But now his very last words seem an attempt to make those dreams apply to Judah and not Joseph. "Judah" was so named in order that others would "Praise Yah"; but Jacob turns this around to Judah himself being praised. It seems to indicate that Jacob died somewhat bitter and without having grasped that the grace shown to him ought to have been reflected by him to others. And yet he shall be saved, as with so many believers who end their days likewise. </p>


text:
<p><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><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><em>He stooped down, he crouched as a lion, as a lioness. Who will rouse him up?</em>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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>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>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>


text:
<p><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><em>He has washed his garments in wine, his robes in the blood of grapes</em>-</p><p> 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>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>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><em>His eyes will be red with wine, his teeth white with milk</em>-</p><p> 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>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><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>-</p><p> 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><em>Issachar is a strong donkey, lying down between the saddlebags</em>-</p><p> "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>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>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><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>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p><em>Dan will judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel</em>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p><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>-</p><p> 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><em>I have waited for Your salvation, Yahweh</em>-</p><p> 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>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><em>A troop will press on Gad, but he will press on their heel</em>-</p><p> 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;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>


