Genesis 37 commentary

GE ESIS 37 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Joseph’s Dreams
37 Jacob lived in the land where his father had
stayed, the land of Canaan.
BAR ES, "Gen_37:1-5
Joseph is the favorite of his father, but not of his brethren. “In the land of his father’s
sojournings.” This contrasts Jacob with Esau, who removed to Mount Seir. This notice
precedes the phrase, “These are the generations.” The corresponding sentence in the
case of Isaac is placed at the end of the preceding section of the narrative Gen_25:11.
“The son of seventeen years;” in his seventeenth year Gen_37:32. “The sons of Bilhah.”
The sons of the handmaids were nearer his own age, and perhaps more tolerant of the
favorite than the sons of Leah the free wife. Benjamin at this time was about four years
of age. “An evil report of them.” The unsophisticated child of home is prompt in the
disapproval of evil, and frank in the avowal of his feelings. What the evil was we are not
informed; but Jacob’s full-grown sons were now far from the paternal eye, and prone, as
it seems, to give way to temptation. Many scandals come out to view in the chosen
family. “Loved Joseph.” He was the son of his best-loved wife, and of his old age; as
Benjamin had not yet come into much notice. “A Coat of many colors.” This was a coat
reaching to the hands and feet, worn by persons not much occupied with manual labor,
according to the general opinion. It was, we conceive, variegated either by the loom or
the needle, and is therefore, well rendered χιτᆹν ποικίλος chitōn poikilos, a motley coat.
“Could not bid peace to him.” The partiality of his father, exhibited in so weak a manner,
provokes the anger of his brothers, who cannot bid him good-day, or greet him in the
ordinary terms of good-will.
CLARKE, "Wherein his father was a stranger - ‫אביו‬ ‫מגורי‬ megurey abiv, Jacob
dwelt in the land of his father’s sojournings, as the margin very properly reads it. The
place was probably the vale of Hebron, see Gen_37:14.

GILL, "And Jacob dwelt in the land wherein his father was a stranger,.... And
this stands opposed unto, and is distinguished from the case and circumstances of Esau
and his posterity, expressed in the preceding chapter, who dwelt in the land of their
possession, not as strangers and sojourners, as Jacob and his seed, but as lords and
proprietors; and so these words may be introduced and read in connection with the
former history; "but Jacob dwelt", &c. (a); and this verse would better conclude the
preceding chapter than begin a new one. The Targum of Jonathan paraphrases the
words, "and Jacob dwelt quietly"; or peaceably, in tranquillity and safety; his brother
Esau being gone from him into another country, he remained where his father lived and
died, and in the country that by his blessing belonged to him:
in the land of Canaan, and particularly in Hebron, where Isaac and Abraham before
him had dwelt.
HE RY 1-4, "Moses has no more to say of the Edomites, unless as they happen to
fall in Israel's way; but now applies himself closely to the story of Jacob's family: These
are the generations of Jacob. His is not a bare barren genealogy as that of Esau (Gen_
36:1), but a memorable useful history. Here is, 1. Jacob a sojourner with his father Isaac,
who has yet living, Gen_37:1. We shall never be at home, till we come to heaven. 2.
Joseph, a shepherd, feeding the flock with his brethren, Gen_37:2. Though he was his
father's darling, yet he was not brought up in idleness or delicacy. Those do not truly
love their children that do not inure them to business, and labour, and mortification.
The fondling of children is with good reason commonly called the spoiling of them.
Those that are trained up to do nothing are likely to be good for nothing. 3. Joseph
beloved by his father (Gen_37:3), partly for his dear mother's sake that was dead, and
partly for his own sake, because he was the greatest comfort of his old age; probably he
waited on him, and was more observant of him than the rest of his sons; he was the son
of the ancient so some; that is, when he was a child, he was as grave and discreet as if he
had been an old man, a child, but not childish. Jacob proclaimed his affection to him by
dressing him finer than the rest of his children: He made him a coat of divers colours,
which probably was significant of further honors intended him. Note, Though those
children are happy that have that in them which justly recommends them to their
parents' particular love, yet it is the prudence of parents not to make a difference
between one child and another, unless there be a great and manifest cause given for it by
the children's dutifulness or undutifulness; paternal government must be impartial, and
managed with a steady hand. 4. Joseph hated by his brethren, (1.) Because his father
loved him; when parents make a difference, children soon take notice of it, and it often
occasions feuds and quarrels in families. (2.) Because he brought to his father their evil
report. Jacob's sons did that, when they were from under his eye, which they durst not
have done if they had been at home with him; but Joseph gave his father an account of
their bad carriage, that he might reprove and restrain them; not as a malicious tale-
bearer, to sow discord, but as a faithful brother, who, when he durst not admonish them
himself, represented their faults to one that had authority to admonish them. Note, [1.]
It is common for friendly monitors to be looked upon as enemies. Those that hate to be
reformed hate those that would reform them, Pro_9:8. [2.] It is common for those that
are beloved of God to be hated by the world; whom Heaven blesses, hell curses. To those
to whom God speaks comfortably wicked men will not speak peaceably. It is said here of
Joseph, the lad was with the sons of Bilhah; some read it, and he was servant to them,

they made him their drudge.
JAMISO , "Gen_37:1-4. Parental partiality.
Jacob dwelt in the land wherein his father was a stranger — that is, “a
sojourner”; “father” used collectively. The patriarch was at this time at Mamre, in the
valley of Hebron (compare Gen_35:27); and his dwelling there was continued in the
same manner and prompted by the same motives as that of Abraham and Isaac (Heb_
11:13).
K&D, "Gen_37:1-2
The statement in Gen_37:1, which introduces the tholedoth of Jacob, “And Jacob
dwelt in the land of his father's pilgrimage, in the land of Canaan,” implies that Jacob
had now entered upon his father's inheritance, and carries on the patriarchal pilgrim-life
in Canaan, the further development of which was determined by the wonderful career of
Joseph. This strange and eventful career of Joseph commenced when he was 17 years
old. The notice of his age at the commencement of the narrative which follows, is
introduced with reference to the principal topic in it, viz., the sale of Joseph, which was
to prepare the way, according to the wonderful counsel of God, for the fulfilment of the
divine revelation to Abraham respecting the future history of his seed (Gen_15:13.).
While feeding the flock with his brethren, and, as he was young, with the sons of Bilhah
and Zilpah, who were nearer his age than the sons of Leah, he brought an evil report of
them to his father (‫ה‬ ָ‫ע‬ ָ‫ר‬ intentionally indefinite, connected with ‫ם‬ ָ‫ת‬ ָ ִ without an article).
The words ‫ר‬ ַ‫ע‬ַ‫נ‬ ‫הוּא‬ְ‫,ו‬ “and he a lad,” are subordinate to the main clause: they are not to be
rendered, however, “he was a lad with the sons,” but, “as he was young, he fed the flock
with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.”
HAWKER, "The interesting history of the Patriarch Joseph, the son of Israel, begins at
this Chapter. And as he is in many instances a most striking type of the LORD JESUS, it
merits our attention the more. Here therefore I beg the Reader to call to mind the motto
with which I opened our comment on this book of Genesis: Moses wrote of CHRIST.
This Chapter hath for its contents the commencement of Joseph’s history at the 17th
year of his age: the partiality of his father for him: the envy of his brethren: their
conspiracy against him: their selling him for a slave: and the distress of Jacob in
consequence of the loss of Joseph
Genesis 37:1-2
From the review of Esau’s splendid race of dukes and kings, we are here introduced
among the humble children of Jacob, who are shepherds and husbandmen.

CALVI , "1.And Jacob dwelt. Moses confirms what he had before declared, that,
by the departure of Esau, the land was left to holy Jacob as its sole possessor.
Although in appearance he did not obtain a single clod; yet, contented with the bare
sight of the land, he exercised his faith; and Moses expressly compares him with his
father, who had been a stranger in that land all his life. Therefore, though by the
removal of his brother to another abode, Jacob was no little gainer; yet it was the
Lord’s will that this advantage should be hidden from his eyes, in order that he
might depend entirely upon the promise.
COFFMA , "Introduction
Toledoth X (Genesis 37:2)
Here, in Genesis 37:2, begins the tenth and final division of Genesis, the same being
the [~toledowth] of Jacob, following logically upon that of Esau just concluded. The
narrative in this section is concerned chiefly with the story of Joseph; and, for that
reason, liberal scholars often fail to see that the story of Joseph is secondary,
absolutely, to the overall history of Israel, the posterity of Jacob, as they are
removed to Egypt, rise to greatness as a nation, suffer enslavement, and are later
delivered. It is the authority of the patriarch Jacob that continues throughout this
section to the very end of it, especially as it pertained to the bringing in of the
Messiah; and the authority of Joseph pertained only to the secular and temporal
affairs of the chosen nation. The whole section, therefore, is accurately introduced
as the [~toledowth] of Jacob.
One need not be surprised that critical commentators resist such a conclusion. It
should be remembered that they are still preoccupied with trying to justify their
inaccurate understanding of the use of [~toledowth] in the early chapters of Genesis.
As Dummelow observed, "This section is the history of Jacob's descendants,
especially of Joseph."[1] Although Joseph is a key factor in the development of the
nation at this point, dominating the narrative almost completely. evertheless,
"Jacob is still the dominant character."[2]
The entire last section of Genesis, beginning here, records eleven important events
which were significant in the continued development of Israel. Willis, following

Skinner, listed these as follows.[3]
Joseph sold into Egypt by his brothers (Genesis 37).
Judah continues the Messianic line through his daughter-in-law (Genesis 37).
Joseph is cast into prison in Egypt (Genesis 39).
Joseph interprets the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 40).
Joseph interprets Pharaoh's dream (Genesis 41:1-52).
When the predicted famine comes, Joseph's brothers come to Egypt (Genesis 41:53-
44:34).
On the second trip, Joseph reveals himself to his brothers (Genesis 45).
Jacob and all his family move to Egypt (Genesis 46-47).
Jacob blesses the sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim (Genesis 48).
Final blessing and prophecy of Jacob (Genesis 49).
Death, burial, and mourning for Jacob, Joseph's reconcilation with his brothers, his
death, embalming, and request concerning his bones, when at last the children of
Israel should re-enter Canaan (Genesis 50).

The very summary of these dramatic events suggests the intense interest that has
always centered in this part of Genesis. Scholars of all shades of belief have praised
the unity, beauty, and effectiveness of this astounding narrative, in which the finger
of God is so evident, overruling the sins and wickedness of men in order to achieve
the divine purpose.
Furthermore, there is no need to question whether, or not, we are dealing here with
history or legend. It is history, accurate and detailed history. As Richardson said,
the onus of proof does not rest upon those receiving this account as history, "but on
those who seek some other explanation."[4]
It is also of very great interest that Joseph appears in these chapters as somewhat of
a type of Jesus Christ. We cannot affirm that he is indeed such a type, for the .T.
nowhere refers to him as such, and in the fact of his name being finally identified
with the orthern Israel (Ephraim), their reprobacy, and final removal from the
face of the earth, one is surely confronted with an insurmountable obstacle (in
making him a type), as is also the case with his marriage to a pagan princess.
evertheless, there are significant resemblances which have been pointed out by
many:
The brothers of Joseph were envious and hated him; just so it was with Jesus who
was hated by his brethren ("For envy they delivered him" ... Matthew 27:18).
Both Joseph and Jesus were sold for silver.
The efforts of Joseph's brothers to destroy him actually elevated him; and the
efforts of Satan to destroy Christ made him the Saviour of all the world.
Joseph found himself "in a sense" between two malefactors, the butler and the
baker; Christ was crucified between two thieves.

One of those characters was forgiven and elevated, the other was not; just so the two
thieves with Jesus - one was forgiven the other not.
Joseph, beloved of the father, was sent with a mission to the brethren; Jesus was
sent from the Father with a mission to Israel.
Joseph begged of the chief butler that he would remember him when restored to his
honor; and, in an interchange resembling this, but with marked differences, the
forgiven thief requested that Jesus would "remember" him when he came into his
kingdom.
Joseph saved the whole Jewish nation from the famine and death by bringing them
into the land of Goshen; Christ saves the new Israel by bringing them into his
kingdom.
"Though these parallels are not stamped as typical in the .T., there can hardly be
any doubt as to their validity."[5] There is yet another oddity in that Joseph begged
the body of the First Israel from Pharaoh, along with the privilege of burying it.
And another Joseph, in time, begged the body of the ew Israel from Pontius Pilate,
along with the privilege of burying it!
Our attention is now directed to the first of these eleven great events that mark this
final section of Genesis.
Verse 1
JOSEPH SOLD I TO EGYPT
"And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father's sojournings, in the land of Canaan."

This is a connecting link between the generations of Esau, just related, and those of
Jacob, next to follow.
LA GE, "GE ERAL PRELIMI ARY REMARKS
1. It is to be noted here, in the first place, that the history of Joseph is amplified
beyond that of any of the patriarchs hitherto. This is explained by the contact which
Joseph’s transportation gives rise to between the Hebrew spirit and the Egyptian
culture and literature. A trace of this may be found in the history of Abraham; for
after Abraham had been in Egypt, his history becomes more full. With the
memorabilia of Joseph connects itself the account of Moses, who was educated in all
the different branches of Egyptian learning, whilst this again points to Samuel and
the schools of the prophets.
2. Knobel regards Joseph’s history as having grown out of the original Elohistic text
connected with a later revision (p288). He supposes, however, in this case, two
halves, which, taken separately, have no significance. That Joseph was sold into
Egypt, according to the supposed original text, can only be explained from the fact
mentioned in the supposed additions, that he had incurred the hatred of his
brethren by reason of his aspiring dreams. Reuben’s proposition to cast Joseph into
the pit, and which aimed at his preservation, was not added until afterwards, it is
said. Even Joseph’s later declaration: I was stolen from the country of the Hebrews,
is regarded as making a difference. Delitzsch, too, adopts a combination of different
elements, without, however, recognizing the contradictions raised by Knobel (p517).
He presents, also, as a problem difficult of solution, the usage of the divine names in
this last period of Genesis: In Genesis 37 no name of God occurs, but in Genesis 38,
it is Jehovah that slays Judah’s sons, as also, in Genesis 39, it is Jehovah that blesses
Joseph in Potiphar’s house, and in person; as recognized by Potiphar himself. Only
in Genesis 37:9 we find Elohim,—the name Jehovah not being here admissible.
From Genesis 40 onward, the name Jehovah disappears. It occurs but once between
Genesis 40, 50, as in Genesis 18, when Jacob uses it: “I have waited for thy
salvation, Jehovah.” For different interpretations of this by Keil, Drechsler,
Hengstenberg, Baumgarten, and Delitzsch, see Delitzsch, p515. The three last agree
in this, that the author of Genesis, in the oft-repeated Elohim, wished here to mark
more emphatically, by way of contrast, the later appearance of the Jehovah-period,

Exodus 3:6. This would, indeed, be a very artificial way of writing books. The riddle
must find its solution in actual relations. The simple explanation Isaiah, that in the
history of a Joseph, which stands entirely upon an Elohistic foundation, this name
Elohim predominantly occurs. Joseph is the Solomon of the patriarchal times.
3. The generations of Jacob connect themselves with those of Esau. Delitzsch justly
remarks, p511, that the representation which follows ( Genesis 37 to Genesis 50),
was intended to be, not a mere history of Joseph, but a history of Jacob in his sons.
Otherwise Judah’s history, Genesis 38, would appear as an interpolation. The
twelve sons of Jacob constitute Israel’s new seed. The latter fact, of course, has the
stronger emphasis. The generations of Jacob are the history and successions of his
posterity—that Isaiah, his living on in his posterity, just as Adam’s tholedoth,
Genesis 5:1, represent the history of Adam, not personally, but historically, in his
descendants.
4. Joseph’s history is considered in a triple relation: as the history of the genesis of
the Israelitish people in Egypt; as an example of a special providence, such as often
brings good out of evil, as Exodus -emplified in the book of Job; and as a type of the
fundamental law of God in guiding the elect from suffering to joy, from humiliation
to exaltation—a law already indicated in the life of oah, Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, but which, henceforth, develops itself more and more (especially in the
history of David), to terminate, at last, in the life of Jesus, as presenting the very
sublimity of the antithesis. Hence the appearance, in our history, of individual types
representing the ew-Testament history of Jesus, such as the jealousy and hatred of
Joseph’s brethren, the fact of his being sold, the fulfilment of Joseph’s prophetic
dreams in the very efforts intended to prevent his exaltation, the turning of his
brothers’ wicked plot to the salvation of many, even of themselves, and of the house
of Jacob, the spiritual sentence pronounced on the treachery of the brethren, the
victory of pardoning love, Judah’s suretyship for Benjamin, his emulating Joseph in
a spirit of redeeming resignation, Jacob’s joyful reviving on hearing of the life and
glory of his favorite Song of Solomon, whom he had believed to be dead.
Concerning Israel’s genesis in Egypt, Delitzsch remarks: “According to a law of
divine providences, to be found not only in the Old Testament, but also in the ew
(?), not the land of the promise, but a foreign country, is the place where the Church
is born, and comes to maturity. This foreign country, to the Old-Testament Church,
is the land of Egypt. To go before his people, to prepare a place for them, is Joseph’s

high vocation. Sold into Egypt, he opens the way thither to the house of Jacob, and
the same country where he matures to manhood, where he suffers in prison, and
attains to glory, becomes, to his family, the land where it comes to the maturity of a
nation,—the land of its servitude, and of its redemption. Thus far Joseph’s history is
the overture of Jacob’s history—a type of the way of the Church; not of Jehovah
only, but of Christ in his progress from humiliation to exaltation, from subjection to
freedom, from sufferings to glory.” See Matthew 2:15; Hosea 11:1. Israel’s riches of
election and endowment are to be developed by contact with different heathen
nations, and especially with Egypt. Just as Christianity, the completed revelation of
the new covenant, developed itself formally for the world, by its reciprocal
intercourse with a Græco-Romanic culture, thus was it also with the faith of the old
covenant in its reciprocal intercourse with the old Egyptian world-culture, as shown
especially in the history of Joseph, Moses, and Solomon who became the Song of
Solomon -in-law of one of the Pharaohs. More prominently does this appear, again,
in the history of Alexandrian Judaism; in which, however, the interchange of
influence with Egypt becomes, at the same time, one with that of the whole Orient,
and of Greece.
The key of Joseph’s history, as a history of providence, is clearly found in the
declaration made by him Genesis 45:5-8, and Genesis 50:20. The full explanation,
however, of its significance, is found in the history of Christ as furnishing its perfect
fulfilment. Permission of evil, counteraction and modification of evil, frustration of
its tendency, its conversion into good, victory over evil, destruction of evil, and
reconciliation of the evil themselves,—these are the forces of a movement here
represented in its most concrete and most powerful relations. The evil is conspiracy,
treachery, and a murderous plot against their innocent brother. The conversion of it
is of the noblest kind. The plot to destroy Joseph is the occasion of his greatest
glorification. But as God’s sentence against the trembling conscious sinner is
changed into grace, so also the triumph of pardoning love overcoming hatred
becomes conspicuous as a glorious omen in Joseph’s life.
“Inasmuch,” says Delitzsch, “as Israel’s history is a typical history of Christ, and
Christ’s history the typical history of the Church, so is Joseph a type of Christ
himself. What he suffered from his brethren, and which God’s decree turned to his
own and his nation’s salvation, is a type of Christ’s sufferings, caused by his people,
but which God’s decree turned to the salvation of the world, including, finally, the
salvation of Israel itself.” Says Pascal (Pensées, ii9, 2): “Jesus Christ is typified in
Joseph, the beloved of his father, sent by his father to his brethren, the innocent one

sold by his brethren for twenty pieces of silver, and then becoming their Lord, their
Saviour, the saviour of those who were aliens to Israel, the saviour of the world,—all
which would not have been if they had not cherished the design of destroying him—
if they had not sold and rejected him. Joseph, the innocent one, in prison with two
malefactors—Jesus on the cross between two thieves; Joseph predicts favorably to
the one, but death to the other; Jesus saves the one, whilst he leaves the other in
condemnation. Thus has the Church ever regarded Joseph’s history.” Already is
this intimated in the Gospels. What Pascal here says, and as is also held by the
fathers, e.g, Prosper Aquitanus, de Promissionibus et Praedictionibus Dei, is but a
brief statement of the pious thoughts of all believers, in the contemplation of the
history. It is this which imparts to the wonderful typical light here presented its
irresistible charm.
When, however, Joseph is made the exclusive centre of our history, and the
patriarchal type of Christ (Kurtz, “History of the Old Testament,” i. p343), Keil
presents, in opposition, some most important considerations. It Isaiah, indeed, no
ground of difference (as presented by him), that Joseph became formally
naturalized in Egypt; for Christ, too, was delivered to the heathen, and died out of
the camp. or does it make any important difference that Joseph received no special
revelations of God at the court of Pharaoh, as Daniel did at the court of
ebuchadnezzar; the gift of interpreting dreams he also, like Daniel, referred back
to God. Of greater importance is the remark that Joseph is nowhere, in the
Scriptures themselves, presented as a type of Christ; yet we must distinguish
between verbal references and real relations, such as might be indicated in
Zechariah 11:12, and in Christ’s declaration that one of his disciples should betray
him. There Isaiah, however, a verbal reference in Stephen’s speech, Acts 7:9. There
is no mistaking the fact that the Messianic traces in our narrative are shared both
by Joseph and Judah. Judah appears great and noble throughout the history of
Joseph; the instance, however, in which he is willing to sacrifice himself to an
unlimited servitude for Benjamin, makes him of equal dignity with Joseph. So in
Abraham’s sacrifice, the Messianic typical is distributed between him and Isaac.
Joseph’s glory is preëminently of a prophetic kind; the weight of a priestly
voluntary self-sacrifice inclines more to the side of Judah. Benjamin, too, has his
Messianic ray; for it is especially on his account that the brethren may appear
before Joseph in a reconciling light. On Hiller’s “Typological Contemplation of
Joseph,” see Keil, p242. Meinertzhagen, in his “Lectures on the Christology of the
Old Testament” (p204), treats of the typical significance of Joseph with great
fulness. It is also to be noted that ever afterwards Benjamin appears theocratically
and geographically connected with Judah.

5. The disposition of Joseph’s history, and the settlement of the Israelites in Egypt,
as well as its relation to the Hyksos of whom Josephus speaks (contra Apion, i14), in
an extract from Manetho’s history, presents a question of great historical interest
(see Delitzsch, p518). The extract concerning the Hyksos has a mythical look. Still
darker are other things which Josephus gives us from Manetho and Chæremon
(contra Ap., i26, 32). Different views: 1) The Hyksos and the Israelites are identical;
so Manetho, Josephus, Hugo Grotius, Hofmann, Knobel (p301), and, in a modified
form, Seyffarth, Uhlemann2) The Hyksos are distinct from the Israelites; they were
another Shemitic tribe—Arabians, or Phœnicians; so Cunaeus, Scaliger, etc. This
view, says Delitzsch, is now the prevailing one. So also Ewald, Lepsius, Saalschütz,
jut with different combinations. On these see Delitzsch, p5213) The Hyksos were
Scythians; so Champollion, Rossellini. The first view is opposed by the fact that the
Israelites founded no dynasties in Egypt, as did the Hyksos; nor did they exist there
under shepherd-kings, as the name Hyksos has been interpreted. Against the second
view Delitzsch insists that the people of Egypt, into whose servitude Israel fell,
appear as a people foreign to them, and by no means as one connected with them.
The Shemitic idea, however, is so extended, that we cannot always suppose a
theocratic element along with it. The most we can say Isaiah, that the Hyksos, who,
no doubt, were a roving band of conquerors, came from Syria, or the countries lying
north and east beyond Palestine. In the Egyptian tradition, their memory seems to
have been so mingled with that of the Israelites, that it would seem almost
impossible to separate the historical element from such a mixture. Since, however,
the Israelitish history seems more obscured by that of the Hyksos than contradicted,
it may be regarded as more probable that the latter came latest. The pressure of the
Israelites upon the Canaanites, from the east, may have driven them in part to the
south; and the weakening of Egypt by the destruction of Pharaoh and his army,
forty years before, might have favored a conquest. The chronological adjustment,
however, must be left to itself. For a fuller treatment of this subject, see E. Böhmer,
“The First Book of the Thora” (Halle, 1862); appendix, p205, etc. According to
Lepsius, the appearance of the Hyksos in Egypt preceded the history of Joseph. At
all events, this dim tradition bears testimony to the Israelitish history in many
particulars (e.g, that they founded Jerusalem in Judea). On the full confirmation of
Joseph’s history by Greek historians and by Egyptian monuments, compare
Delitzsch, p524, etc.; Hengstenberg, “The Pentateuch and Egypt,” Berlin, 1841.
6. The history of Israel’s settlement in Egypt extends through the sections that
follow: 1) The corruption in Jacob’s house, the dispersion of his sons, the loss of
Joseph ( Genesis 38-39). 2) Joseph’s elevation, and the reconciliation and gathering

of his brethren ( Genesis 40-50). 3) Israel’s transplantation to Egypt ( Genesis 46:1
to Genesis 47:26). 4) The keeping of the divine promise, and the longing of Israel to
return home to Canaan ( Genesis 47:27–ch50).
EXEGETICAL A D CRITICAL
Contents: The conspiracy of Jacob’s sons against their brother Joseph, considered
in its awful darkness, or the deep commotion and apparent destruction of Jacob’s
house: 1. The occasion ( Genesis 37:1-11); 2. the opportunity, and the plot of murder
( Genesis 37:12-20); 3. Reuben’s attempt to rescue; 4. Judah’s effort to save,
unknowingly crossing that of Reuben ( Genesis 37:25-27); 5. the crime, the
beginning of mourning, the hiding of guilt ( Genesis 37:28-32); 6. Jacob’s deep grief,
and Joseph apparently lost ( Genesis 37:33-36).
1. The occasion ( Genesis 37:1-11).—In the land of Canaan.—It seems to have been
made already his permanent home, but soon to assume a different appearance.—
The generations (see above).—Joseph being seventeen years old.—A statement very
important in respect both to the present occurrence and the future history. In
Genesis 41:46, he is mentioned as thirty years old. His sufferings, therefore, lasted
about thirteen years. At this age of seventeen he became a shepherd with his
brethren. Jacob did not send his favorite son too early to the herds; yet, though the
favorite, he was to begin to serve below the rest, as a shepherd-boy. At this age,
however, Joseph had great naïveness and simplicity. He therefore imprudently tells
his dreams, like an innocent child. On the other hand, however, he was very sedate;
he was not enticed, therefore, by the evil example of some of his brethren, but
considered it his duty to inform his father.—And the lad was with the sons of
Bilhah.—For the sons of Bilhah Rachel’s servant stood nearer to him, while those of
Leah were most opposed. He brought to his father ‫רעה‬ ‫דבתם‬ ‫,את‬ translated by Keil,
evil reports concerning them. A direct statement of their offences would doubtless
have been differently expressed. They were an offence to those living in the vicinity.
This determined him to inform his father, but it does not exclude a conviction of his
own. It is inadmissible to refer this to definite sins (as, e.g, some have thought of
unnatural sins). That the sons of the concubines surpassed the others in rude
conduct, is easily understood. Joseph’s moral earnestness Isaiah, doubtless, the first
stumbling-block to his brethren, whilst it strengthens his father in his good opinion.
The beautiful robe was the second offence. It is called ‫ִים‬‫סּ‬ַ‫פּ‬ ‫ֶת‬‫נ‬ֹ ‫ְת‬‫כּ‬, “an outer garment
of ends,” which extends, like a gown, to the hands and the ancles. The Septuagint,

which Luther’s translation follows, renders it “a coat of many colors.” Comp. 2
Samuel 13:18. The common tunic extended only to the knees, and was without arms.
Already this preference, which seemed to indicate that Jacob intended to give him
the right of the first-born, aroused the hatred of his brethren. One who hates cannot
greet heartily the one who is hated, nor talk with him frankly and peaceably. In
addition to this, Joseph, by his dreams and presages (though not yet a prudent
interpreter), was pouring oil upon the flames. At all events, the ‫הנה‬ (lo), as repeated
in his narration, shows that he had a presentiment of something great. Both dreams
are expressive of his future elevation. In Egypt he becomes the fortunate sheaf-
binder whose sheaf “stood up” during the famine. The second dream confirms the
first, whilst presenting the further thought: even the sun and moon—that Isaiah,
according to Jacob’s interpretation, even his father and his mother—were to bow
before him. Rachel died some time before this. On this account the word mother has
been referred to Bilhah, or to Benjamin as representing Rachel, or else to Leah. The
brethren now hated him the more, not merely as recognizing in his dreams the
suggestions of ambition, but with a mingled feeling, in which there was not wanting
a presentiment of his possible exaltation—as their declaration, Genesis 37:20,
betrays. In Jacob’s rebuke we perceive also mingled feelings. There is dissent from
Joseph’s apparently pretentious prospects, a fatherly regard toward the mortified
brethren, yet, withal, a deeper presentiment, that caused him to keep these words of
Joseph in his heart, as Mary did those of the shepherds. As the naïvete of the
shepherd-boy was evidence of the truthfulness of these dreams, so the result testifies
to the higher origin of a divine communication, conditioned, indeed, by the
hopefully presageful life of Joseph. These dreams were probably intended to sustain
Joseph during his thirteen years of wretchedness, and, at the same time, to prepare
him to be an interpreter. The Zodiac, as here brought in by Knobel, has no
significance, nor the custom of placing a number of sheaves together.
PETT, "Introduction
JOSEPH
The Life of Joseph (Genesis 37:2 b - 51:26)
In this section we have the life of Joseph from beginning to end. It quite clearly
bears within it the stamp of a deep knowledge of Egypt, its customs and its
background, and could not have been written by anyone who did not have that deep

knowledge, and who was not familiar with things at court. The correct technical
terms are used for court officials. And the whole of Joseph’s stay in Egypt is clearly
written against an Egyptian background without the artificiality which would
appear if it was written by an outsider.
The Betrayal and Selling into Egypt of Joseph (Genesis 37:2-36)
We note here a remarkable change in the narrative. Up to this point each section
has been relatively brief. Covenant narrative has followed covenant narrative. This
was because the records were written down in order to preserve the words of the
covenant which were then, as regularly in the ancient world, put in the context of
the history behind them. Thus up to Genesis 37:2 a we continually have typical
examples of covenant records.
But now all changes. Instead of short sections we have a flowing narrative that goes
on and on, portraying the life of Joseph. And this remarkable fact is exactly what we
would expect if these records were written in the first part of the 2nd Millennium
BC. For Joseph was a high official in Egypt where papyrus (a writing surface made
from the papyrus plant) was plentiful and the recording of information about such
officials was common practise. A good case could indeed be made for suggesting that
it was at this time that the earlier written covenant records were taken and compiled
into one narrative to provide background history to this great man.
Verse 1
‘And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father’s sojournings, in the land of Canaan.’
In contrast with Esau Jacob remains in the promised land. This is the crucially
important statement that keeps Jacob firmly established as the inheritor of the
promises. He remains where God purposes are being outworked.
This verse could well in the original tablet have immediately followed Genesis 35:29
with Genesis 36 inserted by the compiler to explain what happened to Esau before
carrying on the Jacob story. Alternately it could be the conclusion to Genesis 36, for
it is of similar import to Genesis 36:8. This would then make the chapter part of ‘the

family history of Jacob’ (Genesis 37:2 a). Jacob may well have been responsible for
the tablet that recorded the Esau story as the elder brother and head of the family
once Esau had died, just as Esau could have been responsible for the tablet that told
the Jacob story (Genesis 36:1) because he was the elder brother and head of the
family at the time. But the important fact as far as we are concerned is the fact that
colophons to tablets are indicated.
MACLARE , "THE TRIALS AND VISIONS OF DEVOUT YOUTH
‘The generations of Jacob’ are mainly occupied with the history of Joseph, because
through him mainly was the divine purpose carried on. Jacob is now the head of the
chosen family, since Isaac’s death (Gen_35:29), and therefore the narrative is continued
under that new heading. There may possibly be intended a contrast in ‘dwelt’ and
‘sojourned’ in Gen_37:1, the former implying a more complete settling down.
There are two principal points in this narrative,-the sad insight that it gives into the state
of the household in which so much of the world’s history and hopes was wrapped up,
and the preludings of Joseph’s future in his dreams.
As to the former, the account of it is introduced by the statement that Joseph, at
seventeen years of age, was set to work, according to the wholesome Eastern usage, and
so was thrown into the company of the sons of the two slave-women, Bilhah and Zilpah.
Delitzsch understands ‘lad’ in Gen_37:2 in the sense in which we use ‘boy,’ as meaning
an attendant. Joseph was, then, told off to be subordinate to these two sets of his rough
brothers. The relationship was enough to rouse hatred in such coarse souls. And, indeed,
the history of Jacob’s household strikingly illustrates the miserable evils of polygamy,
which makes families within the family, and turns brothers into enemies. Bilhah’s and
Zilpah’s sons reflected in their hatred of Rachel’s their mothers’ envy of the true wife of
Jacob’s heart. The sons of the bondwoman were sure to hate the sons of the free.
If Joseph had been like his brothers, they would have forgiven him his mother. But he
was horrified at his first glimpse of unrestrained young passions, and, in the excitement
of disgust and surprise, ‘told their evil report.’ No doubt, his brothers had been unwilling
enough to be embarrassed by his presence, for there is nothing that wild young men
dislike more than the constraint put on them by the presence of an innocent youth; and
when they found out that this ‘milk-sop’ of a brother was a spy and a telltale, their wrath
blazed up. So Joseph had early experience of the shock which meets all young men who
have been brought up in godly households when they come into contact with sin in
fellow-clerks, servants, students, or the like. It is a sharp test of what a young man is
made of, to come forth from the shelter of a father’s care and a mother’s love, and to be
forced into witnessing and hearing such things as go on wherever a number of young
men are thrown together. Be not ‘partaker of other men’s sins.’ And the trial is doubly
great when the tempters are elder brothers, and the only way to escape their unkindness
is to do as they do. Joseph had an early experience of the need of resistance; and, as long
as the world is a world, love to God will mean hatred from its worst elements. If we are
‘sons of the day,’ we cannot but rebuke the darkness.
It is an invidious office to tell other people’s evil-doing, and he who brings evil reports of
others generally and deservedly gets one for himself. But there are circumstances in
which to do so is plain duty, and only a mistaken sense of honour keeps silence. But

there must be no exaggeration, malice, or personal ends in the informer. Classmates in
school or college, fellow-servants, employees in great businesses, and the like, have not
only a duty of loyalty to one another, but of loyalty to their superior. We are sometimes
bound to be blind to, and dumb about, our associates’ evil deeds, but sometimes silence
makes us accomplices.
Jacob had a right to know, and Joseph would have been wrong if he had not told him,
the truth about his brothers. Their hatred shows that his purity had made their doing
wrong more difficult. It is a grand thing when a young man’s presence deprives the Devil
of elbow-room for his tricks. How much restraining influence such a one may exert!
Jacob’s somewhat foolish love, and still more foolish way of showing it, made matters
worse. There were many excuses for him. He naturally clung to the son of his lost but
never-forgotten first love, and as naturally found, in Joseph’s freedom from the vices of
his other sons, a solace and joy. It has been suggested that the ‘long garment with
sleeves,’ in which he decked the lad, indicated an intention of transferring the rights of
the first-born to him, but in any case it meant distinguishing affection; and the father or
mother who is weak enough to show partiality in the treatment of children need not
wonder if their unwise love creates bitter heart-burnings. Perhaps, if Bilhah’s and
Zilpah’s sons had had a little more sunshine of a father’s love, they would have borne
brighter flowers and sweeter fruit. It is fatal when a child begins to suspect that a parent
is not fair.
So these surly brothers, who could not even say ‘Peace be to thee!’ (the common
salutation) when they came across Joseph, had a good deal to say for themselves. It is a
sad picture of the internal feuds of the house from which all nations were to be blessed.
The Bible does not idealise its characters, but lets us see the seamy side of the tapestry,
that we may the more plainly recognise the Mercy which forgives, and the mighty
Providence which works through, such imperfect men. But the great lesson for all young
people from the picture of Joseph’s early days, when his whiteness rebuked the soiled
lives of his brothers, as new-fallen snow the grimy cake, hardened and soiled on the
streets, is, ‘My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.’ Never mind a world’s
hatred, if you have a father’s love. There is one Father who can draw His obedient
children into the deepest secrets of His heart without withholding their portion from the
most prodigal.
Joseph’s dreams are the other principal point in the narrative. The chief incidents of his
life turn on dreams,-his own, his fellow-prisoners’, Pharaoh’s. The narrative recognises
them as divinely sent, and no higher form of divine communication appears to have been
made to Joseph, He received no new revelations of religious truth. His mission was, not
to bring fresh messages from heaven, but to effect the transference of the nation to
Egypt. Hence the lower form of the communications made to him.
The meaning of both dreams is the same, but the second goes beyond the first in the
grandeur of the emblems, and in the inclusion of the parents in the act of obeisance.
Both sets of symbols were drawn from familiar sights. The homeliness of the ‘sheaves’ is
in striking contrast with the grandeur of the ‘sun, moon, and stars.’ The interpretation of
the first is ready to hand, because the sheaves were ‘your sheaves’ and ‘my sheaf.’ There
was no similar key included in the second, and his brothers do not appear to have caught
its meaning. It was Jacob who read it. Probably Rachel was dead when the dream came,
but that need not make a difficulty.
Note that Joseph did not tell his dreams with elation, or with a notion that they meant
anything particular. It is plainly the singularity of them that makes him repeat them, as

is clearly indicated by the repeated ‘behold’ in his two reports. With perfect innocence of
intention, and as he would have told any other strange dream, the lad repeats them. The
commentary was the work of his brothers, who were ready to find proofs of his being put
above them, and of his wish to humiliate them, in anything he said or did. They were
wiser than he was. Perhaps they suspected that Jacob meant to set him at the head of the
clan on his decease, and that the dreams were trumped up and told to them to prepare
them for the decision which the special costume may have already hinted.
At all events, hatred is very suspicious, and ready to prick up its ears at every syllable
that seems to speak of the advancement of its object.
There is a world of contempt, rage, and fear in the questions, ‘Shalt thou indeed reign
over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us?’ The conviction that Joseph was
marked out by God for a high position seems to have entered these rough souls, and to
have been fuel to fire. Hatred and envy make a perilous mixture. Any sin can come from
a heart drenched with these. Jacob seems to have been wise enough to make light of the
dreams to the lad, though much of them in his heart. Youthful visions of coming
greatness are often best discouraged. The surest way to secure their fulfilment is to fill
the present with strenuous, humble work. ‘Do the duty that is nearest thee.’ ‘The true
apprenticeship for a ruler is to serve.’ ‘Act, act, in the living present.’ The sheaves may
come to bow down some day, but ‘my sheaf’ has to be cut and bound first, and the
sooner the sickle is among the corn, the better.
But yet, on the other hand, let young hearts be true to their early visions, whether they
say much about them or not. Probably it will be wisest to keep silence. But there shine
out to many young men and women, at their start in life, bright possibilities of no
ignoble sort, and rising higher than personal ambition, which it is the misery and sin of
many to see ‘fade away into the light of common day,’ or into the darkness of night. Be
not ‘disobedient to the heavenly vision’; for the dreams of youth are often the prophecies
of what God means and makes it possible for the dreamer to be, if he wakes to work
towards that fair thing which shone on him from afar.
SBC, "Joseph’s is one of the most interesting histories in the world. He has the strange
power of uniting our hearts to him, as to a well-beloved friend. He had "the genius to be
loved greatly," because he had the genius to love greatly, and his genius still lives in these
Bible pages. We discover in Joseph—
I. A hated brother. The boy was his father’s pet. Very likely he was the perfect picture of
Rachel who was gone, and so Jacob saw and loved in him his sainted wife. In token of
love his father foolishly gave him a coat of many colours, to which, alas! the colour of
blood was soon added. It was for no good reason that his brothers hated him. Joseph
brought unto his father their evil report. Not that he was a sneaking tell-tale; but he
would not do as they did, nor would he hide from his father their evil doings. God means
the children of a family to feel bound together by bands that grapple the heart, and to
stand true to one another to life’s end. Reverence the mighty ties of kindred which God
has fashioned. Joseph also teaches you never to make any one your foe without a very
good reason. The weakest whom you wrong may one day be your master.
II. Joseph was also a blameless youth. Though terribly tempted, he never yielded. He
was shamefully wronged, yet he was not hardened or soured. His soul was like the oak
which is nursed into strength by storms. In his heart, not on it, he wore a talisman that
destroyed sin’s charms. The heavenly plant of his piety disclosed all its beauty, and gave

out its sweet odours in the wicked palaces of Potiphar and Pharaoh.
III. Joseph was also a famous ruler. He entered Egypt as a Hebrew slave, and became its
prime minister. He was the hero of his age, the saviour of his country, the most
successful man of his day. He became so great because he was so good; he was a noble
man because he was a thorough man of God.
IV. Joseph was a type of Christ. Joseph, like Jesus, was his father’s well-beloved son, the
best of brothers, yet hated and rejected by his own; was sold from envy for a few pieces
of silver, endured a great temptation, yet without sin; was brought into a low estate and
falsely condemned; was the greatest of forgivers, the forgiver of his own murderers; and
was in all things the son and hope of Israel.
J. Wells, Bible Children, p. 35.
BI 1-2, "Joseph
The history of Joseph
Joseph’s is one of the most interesting histories in the world.
He has the strange power of uniting our hearts to him, as to a well-beloved friend. He
had “the genius to be loved greatly,” because he had the genius to love greatly, and his
genius still lives in these Bible pages.
I. JOSEPH WAS A HATED BROTHER. The boy was his father’s pet. Very likely he was
the perfect picture of Rachel who was gone, and so Jacob saw and loved in him his
sainted wife. In token of love his father foolishly gave him a coat of many colours, to
which, alas! the colour of blood was soon added. It was for no good reason that his
brothers hated him. Joseph brought unto his father their evil report. Not that he was a
sneaking tell-tale; but he would not do as they did, nor would he hide from his father
their evil doings. God means the children of a family to feel bound together by bands
that grapple the heart, and to stand true to one another to life’s end. Reverence the
mighty ties of kindred which God has fashioned. Joseph also teaches you never to make
any one your foe without a very good reason. The weakest whom you wrong may one day
be your master.
II. JOSEPH WAS A BLAMELESS YOUTH. Though terribly tempted, he never yielded.
He was shamefully wronged, yet he was not hardened or soured. His soul was like the
oak which is nursed into strength by storms. In his heart, not on it, he wore a talisman
that destroyed sin’s charms. The heavently plan of his piety disclosed all its beauty, and
gave out its sweet odours in the wicked palaces of Potiphar and Pharaoh.
III. JOSEPH WAS A FAMOUS RULER. He entered Egypt as a Hebrew slave, and
became its prime minister. He was the hero of his age, the saviour of his country, the
most successful man of his day. He became so great because he was so good; he was a
noble man because he was a thorough man of God.
IV. JOSEPH WAS A TYPE OF CHRIST. Joseph, like Jesus, was his father’s well-beloved
son, the best of brothers, yet hated and rejected by his own; was sold from envy for a few
pieces of silver, endured a great temptation, yet without sin; was brought into a low
estate and falsely condemned; was the greatest of forgivers, the forgiver of his own
murderers; and was in all things the son and hope of Israel. (J. Wells.)

The commencement of Joseph’s history
I. As DISTINGUISHED BY HIS EARLY PIETY. His conduct was not back-biting, but a
filial confidential report to his father.
1. It showed his love of truth and right. He would not suffer his father to be deceived
by a false estimate of the conduct of his sons. He must be made acquainted with the
truth, however painful, or be the consequences what they might to all concerned.
2. It showed his unwillingness to be a partaker of other men’s sins.
3. It showed a spirit of ready obedience. He knew that a faithful report of the
conduct of his brethren was a duty he owed to his father.
II. As MARKED OUT FOR A GREAT DESTINY. III. AS THE OBJECT OF ENVY AND
HATRED.
1. Because of his faithful testimony.
2. Because of his father’s partiality.
3. Because of the distinction for which God had destined him. (T. H.Leale.)
Jacob and Joseph
I. THE DIVISION FOUND IN JACOB’S FAMILY. Four reasons for this.
1. Jacob’s favouritism for Joseph.
2. The scandal-bearing of Joseph.
3. The polygamy of Jacob.
4. The envy of the brothers.
II. JOSEPH’S MISSION TO SHECHEM. Observe here the bloodguiltiness of these
brothers; they did not take Joseph’s life, but they intended to take it; they were therefore
murderers. Let us make a distinction; for when we are told that the thought is as bad as
the crime, sometimes we are tempted to argue thus: I have indulged the thought, I will
therefore do the deed, it will be no worse. This sophistry can scarcely deceive the heart
that uses it; yet, merely to put the thing verbally right, let us strip it of its casuistry. The
thought is as bad as the act, because the act would be committed if it could. But if these
brethren of Joseph had mourned over and repented of their sin, would we dare to say
that the thought would have been as bad as the act? But we do say that the thought in
this case was as bad as the act, because it was not restrained or prevented by any regret
or repentant feeling; it was merely prevented by the coming in of another passion, it was
the triumph of avarice over malice. But all these brothers were not equally guilty.
Simeon and Levi and others wished to slay Joseph; Judah proposed his being sold into
captivity; while Reuben tried to save him secretly, although he had not courage to save
him openly. He proposed that he should be put into the pit, intending to take him out
when the others were not by. His conduct in this instance was just in accordance with his
character, which seems to have been remarkable for a certain softness. He did not dare
to shed his brother’s blood, neither did he dare manfully to save him. He was not cruel,
simply because he was guilty of a different class of sin. It is well for us, before we take
credit to ourselves for being free from that or this sin, to inquire whether it be banished
by grace or only by another sin. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)

The father’s favourite, and the brothers’ censor
1. We are taught here the evil of favouritism in the family. The balance, as between
the different children in the same household, must be held evenly by the parents. No
one ought to be the “pet” of either father or mother, for the “pet” is apt to become
petted, haughty, and arrogant towards the others; while the showing of constant
favour to him alienates the affections of the rest, both from him and from the
parents. “Is that you, Pet?” said a father from his bedroom to a little one who stood
at the door in the early morning knocking for admission. “No, it isn’t Pet, it’s only
me,” replied a sorrowful little voice; and that was the last of “pet” in that family. See
what mischief it occasioned here in Jacob’s household!
2. We may learn from this narrative how bitter is the antagonism of the wicked to
the righteous in the world. The real root of the hatred of Joseph’s brethren is to be
traced to the fact that he would not consent to be one of them, and join in the doing
of things which they knew that their father would condemn. His conscience was
tender, his heart was pure, his will was firm. He was a Puritan and they were
regardless, and they chose to set down his non-conformity to pride rather than to
principle, and persecuted him accordingly. There is an immense amount of petty
persecution of this sort going on in all our colleges, commercial establishments, and
factories, of which the principals and the great world seldom hear, but which shows
us that the human nature of to-day is in its great features identical with that which
existed many centuries ago in the family of Jacob. What then? Are the upright to
yield? are they to abate their protest? are they to become even as the others? No; for
that would be to take the leaven out of the mass; that would be to let evil become
triumphant, and so that must never be thought of. Let the persecuted in these ways
hold out. Let them neither retaliate, nor recriminate, nor carry evil reports, but let
them simply hold on, believing that “he that endureth overcometh.”
3. The case of Joseph here brings up the whole question of our responsibility in
regard to what we see and hear that is evil in other people. I have come to the
conclusion that Joseph was by his father placed in formal charge of his brokers, and
that it was is duty to give a truthful report concerning them, even as to-day an
overseer is bound in justice to his employer to state precisely the kind of service
which those under him are rendering. That is no tale-bearing; that is simple duty.
But now, suppose we are invested with no such charge over another, and yet we see
him do something that is deplorably wrong, what is our duty in such a case? Are we
bound to carry the report to his father or to his employer, or must we leave things
alone and let them take their course? The question so put is a delicate one and very
difficult to handle. But I think I see two or three things that cast some little light
upon it.
(1) In the first place we are not bound by any law, human or divine, to act the
part of a detective on our neighbour and lay ourselves out for the discovery of
that in him which is disreputable or dishonest. We must have detectives in the
department of police, and they are very serviceable there; but that every one of us
should be closely watching every other to see what evil he can discover in him is
intolerable, and we should discourage in all young people every tendency to such
peering Paul Pryism.
(2) Then, in the second place, when, without any such deliberate inspection on
our part, we happen to see that which is wrong, we should, in the way in which

we treat the case, make a distinction between a crime and a vice. A crime is that
which is a violation of the civil law; a vice is that which, without violating the civil
law, is a sin against God. Now suppose that what we see is a crime—the man, let
us say, is robbing his employer—then my clear duty, if I would not be a particeps
criminis, is to give information to his master, and let him deal with the case as he
sees fit. On the other hand, if the evil is a vice—say, for example, sensuality or the
like, which does not, directly at least interfere with his efficiency as a servant—
then I must deal with himself alone. If he hear me, then I have gained him; but if
he refuse to hear me, then I may say to him that, as he has chosen to pay no heed
to my expostulation, I shall feel it my duty to inform his father of the matter; and
then, having acted out that determination, I may consider that my responsibility
in regard to him is at an end, unless, in God’s providence, there is given me some
other opening through which to approach him. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Joseph at home
I. THE OCCUPATION OF HIS EARLY YEARS. Trained from youth to healthy labour
and useful employment. Idleness, like pride, was never made for man.
II. THE ACCOUNT WHICH HE GAVE TO HIS FATHER OF WHAT HE HAD SEEN
WHILE WITH HIS BRETHREN. When open and undisguised sin has actually been
committed before our eyes, we are on no account to wink at it. It is a time to speak when,
by reporting what is amiss to those who have power to restrain and correct it, we may
either put an end to that evil, or bring those to repentance who have committed it. This,
however, is both a difficult and painful duty, and it requires much wisdom and grace to
perform it aright.
III. ISRAEL’S SPECIAL LOVE FOR JOSEPH.
IV. THE MANNER IN WHICH HE SHOWED HIS PARTIALITY. Various ways may be
found of showing our approbation of those that are good, without displaying those
outward marks of distinction, which are almost certain to provoke the envy of others.
V. THE IMPROPER FEELINGS AWAKENED IN THE BREASTS OF HIS OTHER
CHILDREN.
VI. JOSEPH’S REMARKABLE DREAMS. He dreamt of preferment, but not of
imprisonment. (C. Overton.)
Joseph the favourite son
1. Joseph, though the object of his father’s tenderest love, was not brought up to
idleness. The young man who is desirous of rising in the world, should not forget
that the world’s prizes are for those who win them on the field of toil.
2. It is impossible to determine whether it was Jacob’s partiality and Joseph’s
superior merit which secured for him the office of superintendent of his brethren.
Whatever may have secured him the situation, he seems to have proved himself
equal to it.
3. Jacob’s ill-disguised partiality for the son of endeared Rachel prompted him to an
act injurious at once to himself, to Joseph, and to his other children. (J. S. Van
Dyke.)

Joseph’s first experience of life
I. This young man was taught to work.
II. He was placed in favourable circumstances.
III. He saw the iniquity of society.
IV. He remained uncontaminated in the midst of evil.
V. He sought to better society: (Homilist.)
Lessons
1. The Church’s line is drawn by God’s Spirit eminently opposite to the wicked.
2. The Church’s generations are best made out from the best of her children.
3. Youth is eminently memorable, when it is sanctified, and gracious.
4. Gracious parents are careful, though never so rich, to bring up their children in
honest callings. So Jacob did Joseph, &c.
5. God can preserve some pure, though conversing with wicked brethren, and
relations.
6. Gracious dispositions cannot bear or favour the sins of nearest relations.
7. Souls grieved with sins of other relations bring the discovery to such as can amend
them (Gen_37:2.) (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Joseph
In Joseph we meet a type of character rare in any race, and which, though occasionally
reproduced in Jewish history, we Should certainly not have expected to meet with at so
early a period. For what chiefly strikes one in Joseph is a combination of grace and
power, which is commonly looked upon as the peculiar result of civilising influences,
knowledge of history, familiarity with foreign races, and hereditary dignity. In David we
find a similar flexibility and grace of character, and a similar personal superiority. We
find the same bright and humorous disposition helping him to play the man in adverse
circumstances; but we miss in David Joseph’s self-control and incorruptible purity, as
we also miss something of his capacity for difficult affairs of state. In Daniel this latter
capacity is abundantly present, and a facility equal to Joseph’s in dealing with foreigners,
and there is also a certain grace of nobility in the Jewish Vizier; but Joseph had a surplus
of power which enabled him to be cheerful and alert in doleful circumstances, which
Daniel would certainly have borne manfully but probably in a sterner and more passive
mode. Joseph, indeed, seemed to inherit and happily combine the highest qualities of his
ancestors. He had Abraham’s dignity and capacity, Isaac’s purity and power of self-
devotion, Jacob’s cleverness and buoyancy and tenacity. From his mother’s family he
had personal beauty, humour, and management. A young man of such capabilities could
not long remain insensible to his own destiny. Indeed, the conduct of his father and
brothers towards him must have made him self-conscious, even though he had been

wholly innocent of introspection. The force of the impression he produced on his family
may be measured by the circumstance that the princely dress given him by his father did
not excite his brothers’ ridicule but their envy and hatred. In this dress there was a
manifest suitableness to his person, and this excited them to a keen resentment of
distinction. So too they felt that his dreams were not the mere whimsicalities of a lively
fancy, but were possessed of a verisimilitude which gave them importance. In short, the
dress and the dreams were insufferably exasperating to the brothers, because they
proclaimed and marked in a definite way the feeling of Joseph’s superiority which had
already been vaguely rankling in their consciousness. And it is creditable to Joseph that
this superiority should first have emerged in connection with a point of conduct. It was
in moral stature that the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah felt that they were outgrown by the
stripling whom they carried with them as their drudge. Either are we obliged to suppose
that Joseph was a gratuitous talebearer, or that when he carried their evil report to his
father he was actuated by a prudish, censorious, or in any way unworthy spirit. That he
very well knew how to hold his tongue no man ever gave more adequate proof; but he
that understands that there is a time to keep silence necessarily sees also that there is a
time to speak. And no one can tell what torture that pure young soul may have endured
in the remote pastures, when left alone to withstand day after day the outrage of these
coarse and unscrupulous men. An elder brother, if he will, can more effectually guard
the innocence of a younger brother than any other relative can, but he can also inflict a
more exquisite torture. (M. Dods, D. D.)
Feeding the flock
Joseph feeding his father’s flock
We have in the text various statements respecting Joseph.
I. His feeding his father’s flock.
II. His father’s great love for him.
III. His brethren’s hatred of him.
IV. His keeping company more especially with the humbler children of Israel, the sons
of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, the two handmaids.
1. The description of the youthful Joseph, as feeding his father’s flock, may well
remind us of the great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, who as the good Shepherd
laid down His life for the flock of God, and leads His own sheep forth by the still
waters of salvation, and makes them to lie down in the wholesome pastures of His
Word (Psa_80:1-19; Psa_95:6-7; Isa_40:11; Eze_34:22-31; Zec_13:7).
2. We are now to consider Joseph as the dearest of his father’s sons, as a type of
Jesus, the beloved Son of His Eternal Father. Joseph as he grew up was still more
endeared to his father. The death of his mother would naturally lead Jacob to centre
his affections still more absorbingly upon him. And it appears, that Joseph repaid
the old man’s warm affections by filial obedience and love. And parents value a
dutiful and heavenly-minded child the more, when, like Joseph, he is preserved
unpolluted by the bad example of his ungodly brothers. We have in the inspired
narrative very early proofs of this partiality of the patriarch. “And he put the two
handmaids and their children foremost, and Leah and her children after, and Rachel
and Joseph hindermost” (Gen_33:1-2). But it is time we directed our attention to
One greater than Joseph. The love of the Father to the Lord Jesus immeasurably

exceeds every love of which we have any experience in our own breasts. It passeth
knowledge. Of all the sons of God, Jesus is certainly the chiefest among ten thousand
and the altogether lovely in the sight of His eternal Father. Jesus is indeed “the only-
begotten of the Father,” His only-begotten Son. The obedience and love and filial
sympathy of the Lord Jesus was, to use the language of men, the solace of Jehovah’s
heart when grieved with the ingratitude and vileness of the whole human family. He
was a perfect Son, and the only perfect Son the world ever beheld. The zeal of His
Father’s house consumed Him. Throughout His whole life He was, like Joseph,
separate from His sinful brethren, and mourned with His Father over their
wickedness. The obedience of Christ to His Father was well pleasing to Him, and we
are again and again informed throughout the Gospels that the Father delighteth to
honour the Son, and viewed every step of His work on earth with the highest
satisfaction.
3. His keeping company with the humbler children of his father, the sons of Bilhah,
and the sons of Zilpah, the two handmaids. In how much higher a sense must it have
been indeed painful in the extreme for the meek and lowly Saviour to live in the
polluted atmosphere of our guilty world. What wonderful condescension what
humility, that He should stoop from heaven to mingle with vile stoners here! Learn a
lesson of forbearance and patience with sinners from our dear Redeemer.
4. And now let us briefly consider the last particular respecting Joseph, mentioned
in my text; viz., the envy with which his brethren regarded him. As this envy will
come again under our notice as we proceed further into the life of Joseph, we will
now simply consider the result of it mentioned in the text: “They could not speak
peaceably unto him.” The higher a man rises in the estimation and friendship of
some, the more he is hated and abhorred by others. The nearer a man lives and the
closer a man walks with his heavenly Father, the more will he experience of this
world’s envy and the anger of the old serpent’s seed. If Joseph drinks most fully of
the sweets of his father’s love, he must also drink most deeply of the bitters of his
brethren’s hate. If anything could disarm opposition and rob envy of his fang, surely
it was the mild meekness and humility of that Man of Sorrows. (E. Dalton.)
2 This is the account of Jacob’s family line.
Joseph, a young man of seventeen, was tending
the flocks with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah
and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives, and he
brought their father a bad report about them.

CLARKE, "These are the generations - ‫תלדות‬ toledoth, the history of the lives
and actions of Jacob and his sons; for in this general sense the original must be taken, as
in the whole of the ensuing history there is no particular account of any genealogical
succession. Yet the words may be understood as referring to the tables or genealogical
lists in the preceding chapter; and if so, the original must be understood in its common
acceptation.
The lad was with the sons of Bilhah - It is supposed that our word lad comes
from the Hebrew ‫ילד‬ yeled, a child, a son; and that lass is a contraction of ladess, the
female of lad, a girl, a young woman. Some have supposed that King James desired the
translators to insert this word; but this must be a mistake, as the word occurs in this
place in Edmund Becke’s Bible, printed in 1549; and still earlier in that of Coverdale,
printed in 1535.
Brought unto his father their evil report - Conjecture has been busily employed
to find out what this evil report might be; but it is needless to inquire what it was, as on
this head the sacred text is perfectly silent. All the use we can make of this information
is, that it was one cause of increasing his brothers’ hatred to him, which was first excited
by his father’s partiality, and secondly by his own dreams.
GILL, "These are the generations of Jacob,.... But no genealogy following, some
interpret this of events or of things which befell Jacob, and his family, particularly with
respect to his son Joseph, as Aben Ezra and Ben Melech take the sense of the word to be
from Pro_27:1; but the words may refer to what goes before in the latter end of chapter
35, where an account is given of Jacob's sons, with regard to which it is here said, "these
are the generations of Jacob"; the whole of chapter 36, which contains the genealogy of
Esau, being a parenthesis, or at least an interruption of the above account, the history of
Jacob and his posterity is here reassumed and carried on:
Joseph being seventeen years old, was feeding his flock with his brethren; or
"in the flock" (b); he was with them in the pastures, where the flocks were fed, not so
much to assist them in it, as to be taught by them how to feed, they being older than he:
and the lad was with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his
father's wives: his secondary wives or concubines, called his wives, because their
children shared in the inheritance. These sons of theirs were Dan and Naphtali, the sons
of Bilhah; and Gad and Asher, the sons of Zilpah; with these Jacob rather chose Joseph
should be, than with the sons of Leah; and especially that he should be with the sons of
Bilhah, who was the handmaid of Rachel, Joseph's mother, and she being dead, it might
be thought that Bilhah and her sons would have the most respect for Joseph:

and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report; for not being able to bear
with their evil deeds, and yet not having authority enough, being a junior, to reprove,
correct, and check them, he reported them to his father: what the things were reported is
not said, perhaps their quarrels among themselves, their contempt of Joseph, their
neglect of their flocks, &c. Some of the Jewish writers make them to be abominable acts
of uncleanness (d), others eating of the member of a creature alive, particularly the flesh
of the tails of lambs while living (e).
JAMISO , "generations — leading occurrences, in the domestic history of Jacob,
as shown in the narrative about to be commenced.
Joseph ... was feeding the flock — literally, “Joseph being seventeen years old was
a shepherd over the flock” - he a lad, with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. Oversight or
superintendence is evidently implied. This post of chief shepherd in the party might be
assigned him either from his being the son of a principal wife or from his own superior
qualities of character; and if invested with this office, he acted not as a gossiping telltale,
but as a “faithful steward” in reporting the scandalous conduct of his brethren.
CALVI , "2.These are the generations of Jacob. By the word ‫תולדות‬ toledoth we are
not so much to understand a genealogy, as a record of events, which appears more
clearly from the context. For Moses having thus commenced, does not enumerate
sons and grandsons, but explains the cause of the envy of Joseph’s brethren, who
formed a wicked conspiracy against him, and sold him as a slave: as if he had said
“Having briefly summed up the genealogy of Esau, I now revert to the series of my
history, as to what happened to the family of Jacob.” (132) Moreover, Moses being
about to speak of the abominable wickedness of Jacob’s sons, begins with the
statement, that Joseph was dear beyond the rest to his father, because he had
begotten him in his old age: and as a token of tender love, had clothed him with a
coat woven of many colors. But it was not surprising that the boy should be a great
favorite with his aged father, for so it is wont to happen: and no just ground is here
given for envy; seeing that sons of a more robust age, by the dictate of nature, might
well concede such a point. Moses, however, states this as the cause of odium, that the
mind of his father was more inclined to him than to the rest. The brethren conceive
enmity against the boy, whom they see to be more tenderly loved by their father, as
having been born in his old age. (133) If they did not choose to join in this love to
their brother, why did they not excuse it in their father? Hence, then, we perceive
their malignant and perverse disposition. But, that a manycoloured coat and similar
trifles inflamed them to devise a scheme of slaughter, is a proof of their detestable
cruelty. Moses also says that their hatred increased, because Joseph conveyed the
evil speeches of his brethren to their father. Some expound the word evil as meaning
some intolerable crime; but others more correctly suppose, that it was a complaint
of the boy that his brothers vexed him with their reproaches; for, what follows in

Moses, I take to have been added in explanation, that we may know the cause for
which he had been treated so ill and with such hostility. It may be asked, why Moses
here accuses only the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, when, afterwards, he does not
exempt the sons of Leah from the same charge? One, indeed, of her sons, Reuben,
was milder than any of the rest; next to him was Judah, who was his uterine
brother. But what is to be said of Simon? What of Levi? Certainly since they were
older, it is probable that they were leaders in the affair. The suspicion may,
however, be entertained, that because these were the sons of concubines and not of
true wives, their minds would be more quickly moved with envy; as if their servile
extraction, on the mother’s side, subjected them to contempt.
COFFMA , "Verse 2
"These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding
the flock with his brethren. And he was a lad with the sons of Bilhah, and with the
sons of Zilpah, his father's wives: and Joseph brought the evil report of them unto
their father."
"These are the generations of Jacob ..." The word here is the great divisional
marker in Genesis, [~toledowth], invariably denoting what follows, not that which
precedes. This tenth and final division of Genesis "covers the period of Jacob's
patriarchal authority, which began upon his return to Isaac in Canaan."[6] Despite
the prominence of Joseph in this account, and his being elevated in order to
preserve the chosen nation, he remained subordinate to Jacob within the covenant
structure. Therefore, the following account is the [~toledowth], not of Joseph, but of
Jacob.
"Was feeding the flock with his brethren ..." Joseph was not reared in a life of ease
and idleness. Some have read that into the implications of the gift of the special
garment (Genesis 37:4), but that appears to be an error.
"And Joseph brought the evil report of them to their father ..." We cannot accept
the explanation of this offered by Friedman who wrote: "Joseph did not actually
bear tales of the conduct of his brothers to his father. But by his own conspicuous
righteousness, he caused Jacob to be displeased with the conduct of his other
children."[7] The only thing wrong with such an interpretation is that it denies what

the sacred text says. Such errors we believe to be due to the tendency of some
scholars to see Joseph as a perfect hero, a paragon of virtue and righteousness. Even
Skinner fell into that trap. He wrote:
"The hero is idealized as no other patriarchal personality is. Joseph is not (like
Jacob) the embodiment of one particular virtue but is conceived as an ideal
character in all the relationships in which he is placed: he is the ideal son, the ideal
brother, the ideal servant, the ideal administrator."[8]
Such a view, of course, makes a tattletale brother an "ideal" that few brothers
would gladly accept. Leupold, commenting on Skinner's words here, said that they
are a case of "misplaced emphasis," and that in the inner spiritual things, "He does
not come up to the level of his fathers."[9]
COKE, "Genesis 37:2. These are the generations of Jacob— i.e.. These are the
things which befel Jacob, the transactions of him and his family. As nothing is here
said of genealogy, or beget-ting children, it is plain that the original word here, as in
some other passages of Scripture, should be rendered the history. Two reasons are
generally assigned, why Moses is more full in relating the adventures of Joseph,
than of any other of Jacob's children. The one, because his life is a bright example of
piety, chastity, meekness, and prudence: the other, because it was by the means of
Joseph that Jacob went down into AEgypt. And as his going down gave occasion to
the wonderful departure of the children of Israel thence, so the history of the Jews
would have been imperfect, and indeed altogether unintelligible, without a longer
account than ordinary of Joseph's life and transactions there.
Was with the sons of Bilhah, &c.— Hence it is plain, that the sons of Jacob fed their
flocks separately; the sons of Leah were not with those of the concubines: this
remark may be of use in the conclusion of the chapter. There were three great
sources of hatred and envy towards Joseph, from his brethren; the first, springing
from his superior piety and virtue, his disapprobation of their evil conduct, and his
acquainting his father with it; the second, from his father's partial love to him; and
the third, from his dreams.
WHEDO , "2. Seventeen years old — Or, according to the Hebrew idiom, a son of
seventeen years. The historian (according to his usual custom noticed in the earlier

parts of Genesis) goes back a little, and commences his new section at a point
previous to Isaac’s death. Comp. Genesis 35:27, note.
The lad was with the sons — Hebrews, and he a lad, with the sons of Bilhah. Some
understand this to mean that he was a lad along with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah;
that is, he was nearer their age than the ages of the sons of Leah, and hence fed the
flocks along with them. Others construe the words with the sons of Bilhah, etc., with
feeding the flock, and understand that, as he was too young to be trusted alone, he
fed the flock in company with these older brothers; perhaps, says ewhall, “because
the sons of the concubines agreed with him better than did the sons of Leah.” But a
strict rendering of the whole verse is best made by throwing the words and he a lad
in parenthesis, and construing the words sons of Bilhah, etc., as appositional and
epexegetical of his brethren, thus: Joseph, a son of seventeen years, was (in the habit
of) shepherding his brethren in the flock, (and he a mere lad,) — even the sons of
Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, wives of his father. That is, Joseph, when only
seventeen, a mere boy, was in the habit of taking care of his brothers as if he were
their shepherd; especially did he thus attend to the sons of the concubines. This
seems to have been his first offence. The next was, his reporting to his father what
was said of them; then his father’s partiality, shown in the costly garment, and,
finally, his various dreams.
Their evil report — Rather, “an evil report concerning them, which he had heard
from the inhabitants in the neighbourhood of the pasture ground, (Knobel, Lewis,)
not their evil report, as A.V., which would require the article with the adjective; not
any definite crime, not evil words which his brethren had said about him (Kimchi;)
the phrase is purposely indefinite, and refers to a floating rumour which affected
the character of his brethren.” (Delitzsch.) — ewhall.
CO STABLE, "Verses 2-4
Joseph was tending his father"s flock with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and
Zilpah. This description prefigures Joseph"s later shepherding role in relation to his
brothers, after they became dependent on him. David also tended sheep in
preparation for his role as a leader of people.
Joseph"s "bad report" implies that the brothers were participating in serious

wicked behavior. This is not hard to believe in view of their former treatment of the
Shechemites and their later treatment of Joseph and Jacob.
The use of the name Israel ( Genesis 37:3) suggests that Jacob"s special love for
Joseph had a divine origin and was part of God"s plan for the chosen family.
However, Jacob"s favoritism of Joseph over his other sons was wrong and fueled
the brothers" hatred of Joseph. Favoritism had a long history in Jacob"s family
(Isaac"s preference for Esau, Rebekah"s for Jacob, and Jacob"s preference for
Rachel). In every case it created major problems. Leah was hated, and her sons
hated (cf. Genesis 29:31; Genesis 29:33).
"Son of his old age" means wise Song of Solomon , or son of wisdom. Joseph was old
for his years; he had the wisdom of age in his youth. Joseph was born when Jacob
was91years old, but he was not Jacob"s youngest son. One of Joseph"s brothers was
younger than he: Benjamin.
The "varicolored tunic" was probably also a long robe. The sons of nobles wore
long robes with long sleeves and ornamentation, like Joseph"s, as did Tamar, King
David"s daughter ( 2 Samuel 13:18).
"It was a mark of distinction that carried its own meaning, for it implied that
exemption from labor which was the peculiar privilege of the heir or prince of the
Eastern clan." [ ote: Thomas, p356.]
Such a garment identified the possessor of the birthright. This sign of Jacob"s love
for Joseph constantly irritated the jealous brothers.
"Jacob"s partiality for Rachel and for her two sons doomed his family to the same
strife he had experienced in his father"s household." [ ote: Mathews, Genesis
11:27-50:26 , p, 689.]
"The story of Jacob features rocks; that of Joseph features robes ( Genesis 37:3;

Genesis 37:23; Genesis 39:12; Genesis 41:14). These palpable objects symbolize
something of the characters" social and/or spiritual situations." [ ote: Waltke,
Genesis , p499.]
CO STABLE, "Verses 2-26
E. What Became of Jacob37:2-50:26
Here begins the tenth and last toledot in Genesis. Jacob remains a major character
throughout Genesis. Moses recorded his death in chapter49. evertheless Joseph
replaces him as the focus of the writer"s attention at this point. [ ote: For some
enriching insights into the similarities between the stories of Jacob and Joseph, see
Peter Miscall, "The Jacob and Joseph Stories As Analogies," Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament6 (February1978):28-40.] These chapters are not entirely about
Joseph, however. The writer showed interest in all the sons of Jacob and among
them especially Judah. [ ote: See Bryan Smith, "The Central Role of Judah in
Genesis 37-50 ," Bibliotheca Sacra162:646 (April-June2005):158-74.]
"The emphasis now shifts from Jacob"s personal struggles to receive the blessing
promised to Abraham and Isaac, to the events in Jacob"s life that lead up to the
formation of Israel as a nation." [ ote: Aalders, 2:179.]
The story of Joseph also links the history of the patriarchs with their settlement in
Egypt.
"The Joseph story ... develops the theme of the Pentateuch by showing the gradual
fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3. In particular, it
shows how God blesses the nations through the descendants of Abraham [cf.
Genesis 50:20]." [ ote: Wenham, Genesis 16-50 , p344.]
"The theme of the Joseph narrative concerns God"s hidden and decisive power
which works in and through but also against human forms of power. A "soft" word
for that reality is providence. A harder word for the same reality is predestination.

Either way God is working out his purpose through and in spite of Egypt, through
and in spite of Joseph and his brothers." [ ote: Brueggemann, Genesis , p293.]
One writer concluded that the genre of the Joseph story in chapters37-50 is a court
narrative. He provided many observations on the narrative features of the story.
[ ote: Richard D. Patterson, "Joseph in Pharaoh"s Court," Bibliotheca
Sacra164:654 (April-June2007):148-64.]
"The Joseph story, though different in style from that of the patriarchs, continues
the theme of the patriarchal narratives-God overcomes obstacles to the fulfillment
of the promise." [ ote: Longman and Dillard, p60.]
"Rarely has God"s providence been so evident in such an extended passage." [ ote:
Wolf, p121.]
The books of Ruth and Esther also emphasize divine providence. Human
responsibility is as much a revelation of this section as divine sovereignty.
ELLICOTT, "(2) The generations of Jacob.—This Tôldôth, according to the
undeviating rule, is the history of Jacob’s descendants, and specially of Joseph. So
the Tôldôth of the heaven and earth (Genesis 2:4) gives the history of the creation
and fall of man. So the Tôldôth Adam was the history of the flood; and, not to
multiply instances, that of Terah was the history of Abraham. (See ote on Genesis
28:10.) This Tôldôth, therefore, extends to the end of Genesis, and is the history of
the removal, through Joseph’s instrumentality, of the family of Jacob from Canaan
into Egypt, as a step preparatory to its growth into a nation.
Joseph being seventeen years old.—He was born about seven years before Jacob left
Haran, and as the journey home probably occupied two full years, he would have
dwelt in Isaac’s neighbourhood for seven or eight years. Isaac’s life, as we have seen,
was prolonged for about twelve years after the sale of Joseph by his brethren.

And the lad was with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah.—Heb., And he
was lad with the sons of Bilhah, &c. The probable meaning of this is, that as the
youngest son it was his duty to wait upon his brothers, just as David had to look
after the sheep, while his brothers went to the festival; and was also sent to the camp
to attend to them (1 Samuel 16:11; 1 Samuel 17:17-18). The sons of Jacob were
dispersed in detachments over the large extent of country occupied by Jacob’s
cattle, and Joseph probably after his mother’s death, when he was about nine years’
old, would be brought up in the tent of Bilhah, his mother’s handmaid. He would
naturally, therefore, go with her sons, with whom were also the sons of the other
handmaid. They do not seem to have taken any special part in Joseph’s sale.
Joseph brought unto his father their evil report.—Heb., Joseph brought an evil
report of them unto their father.
PETT, "Verses 2-7
Genesis 37:2 a
“This is the family history of Jacob.”
This verse is extremely important as establishing that ‘toledoth’ means family
history. It is clearly a colophon identifying the tablet to which it refers and in our
view equally clearly refers backwards. The following narrative begins with ‘Joseph’
and contains his story in a continuous narrative.
JOSEPH
The Life of Joseph (Genesis 37:2 to Genesis 50:26)
In this section we have the life of Joseph from beginning to end. It quite clearly
bears within it the stamp of a deep knowledge of Egypt, its customs and its
background, and could not have been written by anyone who did not have that deep
knowledge, and who was not familiar with things at court. The correct technical
terms are used for court officials. And the whole of Joseph’s stay in Egypt is clearly

written against an Egyptian background without the artificiality which would
appear if it was written by an outsider.
The Betrayal and Selling into Egypt of Joseph (Genesis 37:2-36)
We note here a remarkable change in the narrative. Up to this point each section
has been relatively brief. Covenant narrative has followed covenant narrative. This
was because the records were written down in order to preserve the words of the
covenant which were then, as regularly in the ancient world, put in the context of
the history behind them. Thus up to Genesis 37:2 a we continually have typical
examples of covenant records.
But now all changes. Instead of short sections we have a flowing narrative that goes
on and on, portraying the life of Joseph. And this remarkable fact is exactly what we
would expect if these records were written in the first part of the 2nd Millennium
BC. For Joseph was a high official in Egypt where papyrus (a writing surface made
from the papyrus plant) was plentiful and the recording of information about such
officials was common practise. A good case could indeed be made for suggesting that
it was at this time that the earlier written covenant records were taken and compiled
into one narrative to provide background history to this great man.
Genesis 37:2 b
‘Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brothers, and he
was a lad with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives.
And Joseph brought the evil report of them to their father.’
It would appear from this narrative that at this time the six Leah brothers kept
some of their father’s flocks and herds in a separate place from the others. Perhaps
his policy of dividing his possessions into two companies (Genesis 32:7) had become
permanent (although subsequently changed). Or it may simply be that the herds
were so large that to remain together was impossible due to the sparsity of good
grazing land. Thus Joseph works with the sons of the concubines.

But he made himself decidedly unpopular by tale-telling. He told his father about
their bad behaviour. Possibly he felt some superiority as the son of Rachel, but more
probably it was because he was spoiled as the next verse shows, and because he felt
bitter at their unfriendly treatment of him (Genesis 37:4). This is a strong warning
against parents having favourites among their children. Yet in this case God would
use it for good. But that does not justify the spoiling or the favouritism, both of
which are destructive.
3 ow Israel loved Joseph more than any of his
other sons, because he had been born to him in his
old age; and he made an ornate[a] robe for him.
CLARKE, "A coat of many colors - ‫פסים‬ ‫כתנת‬ kethoneth passim, a coat made up of
stripes of differently colored cloth. Similar to this was the toga praetexta of the Roman
youth, which was white, striped or fringed with purple; this they wore till they were
seventeen years of age, when they changed it for the toga virilis, or toga pura, which was
all white. Such vestures as clothing of distinction are worn all over Persia, India, and
China to the present day. It is no wonder that his brethren should envy him, when his
father had thus made him such a distinguished object of his partial love. We have
already seen some of the evils produced by this unwarrantable conduct of parents in
preferring one child to all the rest. The old fable of the ape and her favorite cub, which
she hugged to death through kindness, was directed against such foolish parental
fondnesses as these.
GILL, "Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children,.... He being the
firstborn of his beloved Rachel, and a lovely youth, of a beautiful aspect, very promising,
prudent and pious: the reason given in the text follows:
because he was the son of his old age; being ninety one years of age when he was
born; and the youngest children are generally most beloved, and especially such as are
born to their parents when in years. Benjamin indeed was younger than Joseph, and is

described in like manner, Gen_44:20; and for this reason one would think had the
greatest claim to his father's affections; wherefore some give a different sense of this
phrase, and render it, the "son" or disciple of "elders", "senators", i.e. a wise and prudent
man: and indeed, if being the son of his old age was the reason of his affection, Benjamin
had the best claim to it, being the youngest, and born to him when he was still older; and
this sense is countenanced by Onkelos, who renders it,"because he was a wise son to
him:''and so the reason why he loved him more than the rest was, because of his senile
wisdom; though a child in years, he was old in wisdom and knowledge. Abendana
observes, that it was a custom with old men to take one of their little children to be with
them continually, and attend upon them, and minister to them, and lean upon their arm;
and such an one was called the son of their old age, because he ministered to them in
their old age:
and he made him a coat of many colours; that is, had one made for him, which
was interwoven with threads of divers colours, or painted, or embroidered with divers
figures, or made with different pieces of various colours: according to Jerom (f), it was a
garment which reached down to the ankles, and was distinguished with great variety by
the hands of the artificer, or which had long sleeves reaching to the hands; and so the
Jewish writers (g) say it was called "passim", because it reached to the palms of the
hands: this might be an emblem of the various virtues which early appeared in him; or
rather of the several graces of the Spirit of God implanted in him, and of the raiment of
needlework, the righteousness of Christ, with which he was clothed, Psa_45:14; and of
the various providences which Jacob, under a spirit of prophecy, foresaw he would be
attended with.
HAWKER, "Jdg_5:30; 2Sa_13:18. It were to be wished that parents would remember
the apostle’s precept, of doing nothing by partiality. 1Ti_5:21. Observe on the subject of
hatred: Joh_7:7; 1Jn_2:11.
JAMISO , "son of his old age — Benjamin being younger, was more the son of his
old age and consequently on that ground might have been expected to be the favorite.
Literally rendered, it is “son of old age to him” - Hebrew phrase, for “a wise son” - one
who possessed observation and wisdom above his years - an old head on young
shoulders.
made him a coat of many colors — formed in those early days by sewing together
patches of colored cloth, and considered a dress of distinction (Jdg_5:30; 2Sa_13:18).
The passion for various colors still reigns among the Arabs and other people of the East,
who are fond of dressing their children in this gaudy attire. But since the art of
interweaving various patterns was introduced, “the coats of colors” are different now
from what they seem to have been in patriarchal times, and bear a close resemblance to
the varieties of tartan.
K&D, "Gen_37:3-4
“Israel (Jacob) loved Joseph more than all his (other) sons, because he was born in
his old age,” as the first-fruits of the beloved Rachel (Benjamin was hardly a year old at
this time). And he made him ‫ים‬ ִ ַ ‫ת‬ֶ‫ּנ‬‫ת‬ ְⅴ: a long coat with sleeves (χιτᆹν ᅊστραγάλειος,

Aqu., or ᅊστραγαλωτός, lxx at 2Sa_13:18, tunica talaris, Vulg. ad Sam.), i.e., an upper
coat reaching to the wrists and ankles, such as noblemen and kings' daughters wore, not
“a coat of many colours” (“bunter Rock,” as Luther renders it, from the χιτራνα ποικίλον,
tunicam polymitam, of the lxx and Vulgate). This partiality made Joseph hated by his
brethren; so that they could not “speak peaceably unto him,” i.e., ask him how he was,
offer him the usual salutation, “Peace be with thee.”
SBC, "Jacob was wrong in making a favourite of Joseph. The coat of many colours was
the dress the firstborn child was to wear. In giving it to Joseph, Jacob was making him
like the firstborn son. It was a beautiful white tunic, with a great many pieces bound
upon it—not many colours like a rainbow.
I. Joseph’s coat must have been a snare to him, for we read that he was a tell-tale. He
told his father about the wrong things that his brothers did. Never tell of others till you
have used every possible persuasion. If you try to do good to others, you must be very
good yourself.
II. Just at that time Joseph had two dreams. Perhaps it was the wearing of the coat that
made him have these dreams. He was a little proud about the coat, so he had proud
dreams.
III. When his father sent him to Dothan, we find that Joseph was very obedient and very
brave. He went at once. He lost his way, but he was so persevering he would not go back,
because he was determined not to return without doing what his father told him; and
even after his brothers had sold him, we find that he was patient and forgiving. The
reason was that he loved God and tried to please Him. God took care of him and blessed
him through life.
J. Vaughan, Sermons to Children, 4th series, p. 317.
COFFMA , "Verse 3
" ow Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his
old age: and he made him a coat of many colors."
Some of the later versions read "coat of many colors" as "a long sleeved coat," but
it is admitted by all that the text here is difficult and that no one really knows what
is meant, except, that is, the only important thing, namely, that it was a distinctive,
special garment designed to endow the wearer with special attention and favor. That
part is clear enough. The implications of Joseph's receiving it were that he was his
father's special favorite, and that, in all likelihood, the birthright, forfeited by
Reuben's adultery with one of Jacob's wives, would eventually pass to Joseph,
which of course, it did. That such distinguished honor be emphasized in so
conspicuous a manner was extremely foolish never seems to have entered Jacob's
mind. Such action on his part was certain to foster egotism, arrogance, conceit, and

Genesis 37 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Genesis 37 commentary

Similar to Genesis 37 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Genesis 37 commentary