Genesis 40 commentary

GE ESIS 40 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
The Cupbearer and the Baker
1 Some time later, the cupbearer and the baker of
the king of Egypt offended their master, the king
of Egypt.
BAR ES, " - Joseph in Prison
An uncomplaining patience and an unhesitating hopefulness keep the breast of Joseph
in calm tranquillity. There is a God above, and that God is with him. His soul swerves
not from this feeling. Meanwhile, new and distinguished prisoners are introduced into
his place of confinement.
Gen_40:1-4
The chief butler and chief baker, high officials in Pharaoh’s court, come under the
displeasure of their sovereign. “In the house of the captain of the guards.” It appears that
this officer’s establishment contained the keep in which Joseph and these criminals were
confined. “Charged Joseph with them.” As Joseph was his slave, and these were state
prisoners, he appointed him to wait upon them. It is probable that Joseph’s character
had been somewhat re-established with him during his residence in the prison.
CLARKE, "The butler - ‫משקה‬ mashkeh, the same as saky among the Arabians and
Persians, and signifying a cup-bearer.
Baker - ‫אפה‬ opheh; rather cook, confectioner, or the like.
Had offended - They had probably been accused of attempting to take away the
king’s life, one by poisoning his drink, the other by poisoning his bread or
confectionaries.
GILL, "And it came to pass after these things,.... After Joseph had been accused
and cast into prison, where he had been for some time:
that the butler of the king of Egypt and his baker had offended their lord the

king of Egypt; committed some fault, at least were accused of one, which raised his
displeasure at them. The Targum of Jonathan says, that they consulted to put poison
into his drink and food; which, it is not improbable, considering their business and
office, they might be charged with; at least it is much more probable than what Jarchi
suggests, that the one put a fly into his cup, and the other a little stone or sand into his
bread.
HE RY 1-4, "We should not have had this story of Pharaoh's butler and baker
recorded in scripture if it had not been serviceable to Joseph's preferment. The world
stands for the sake of the church, and is governed for its good. Observe, 1. Two of the
great officers of Pharaoh's court, having offended the king, are committed to prison.
Note, High places are slippery places; nothing more uncertain than the favour of princes.
Those that make God's favour their happiness, and his service their business, will find
him a better Master than Pharaoh was, and not so extreme to mark what they do amiss.
Many conjectures there are concerning the offence of these servants of Pharaoh; some
make it no less than an attempt to take away his life, others no more than the casual
lighting of a fly into his cup and a little sand into his bread. Whatever it was, Providence
by this means brought them into the prison where Joseph was. 2. The captain of the
guard himself, who was Potiphar, charged Joseph with them (Gen_40:4), which
intimates that he began now to be reconciled to him, and perhaps to be convinced of his
innocence, though he durst not release him for fear of disobliging his wife. John Baptist
must lose his head, to please Herodias.
JAMISO , "Gen_40:1-8. Two state prisoners.
the butler — not only the cup-bearer, but overseer of the royal vineyards, as well as
the cellars; having, probably, some hundreds of people under him.
baker — or cook, had the superintendence of every thing relating to the providing and
preparing of meats for the royal table. Both officers, especially the former, were, in
ancient Egypt, always persons of great rank and importance; and from the confidential
nature of their employment, as well as their access to the royal presence, they were
generally the highest nobles or princes of the blood.
K&D 1-4, "The head cup-bearer and head baker had committed crimes against the
king of Egypt, and were imprisoned in “the prison of the house of the captain of the
trabantes, the prison where Joseph himself was confined;” the state-prison, according
to Eastern custom, forming part of the same building as the dwelling-house of the chief
of the executioners. From a regard to the exalted position of these two prisoners,
Potiphar ordered Joseph to wait upon them, not to keep watch over them; for ‫ת‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ד‬ ַ‫ק‬ ָ
does not mean to appoint as guard, but to place by the side of a person.
CALVI , "Verse 1
1.And it came to pass after these things. We have already seen, that when Joseph
was in bonds, God cared for him. For whence arose the relaxation afforded him, but

from the divine favor? Therefore, God, before he opened the door for his servant’s
deliverance, entered into the very prison to sustain him with his strength. But a far
more illustrious benefit follows; for he is not only liberated from prison, but exalted
to the highest degree of honor. In the meantime, the providence of God led the holy
man through wonderful and most intricate paths. The butler and baker of the king
are cast into the prison; Joseph expounds to them their dreams. Restoration to his
office having been promised to the butler, some light of hope beams upon the holy
captive; for the butler agreed, after he should have returned to his post, to become
the advocate for Joseph’s pardon. But, again, that hope was speedily cut off, when
the butler failed to speak a word to the king on behalf of the miserable captive.
Joseph, therefore, seemed to himself to be buried in perpetual oblivion, until the
Lord again suddenly rekindles the light which had been smothered, and almost
extinguished. Thus, when he might have delivered the holy man directly from
prison, he chose to lead him around by circuitous paths, the better to prove his
patience, and to manifest, by the mode of his deliverance, that he has wonderful
methods of working, hidden from our view. He does this that we may learn not to
measure, by our own sense, the salvation which he has promised us; but that we
may suffer ourselves to be turned hither or thither by his hand, until he shall have
performed his work. By the butler and the baker we are not to understand any
common person of each rank, but those who presided over the rest; for, soon
afterwards, they are called eunuchs or nobles. Ridiculous is the fiction of the trifler
Gerundensis, who, according to his manner, asserts that they were made eunuchs
for the sake of infamy, because Pharaoh had been enraged against them. They were,
in short, two of the chief men of the court. Moses now more clearly declares that the
prison was under the authority of Potiphar. Whence we learn what I have before
said, that his anger had been mitigated, since without his consent, the jailer could
not have acted with such clemency towards Joseph. Even Moses ascribes such a
measure of humanity to Potiphar, that he committed the butler and baker to the
charge of Joseph. Unless, perhaps, a new successor had been then appointed in
Potiphar’s place; which, however, is easily refuted from the context, because a little
afterwards Moses says that the master of Joseph was the captain of the guard,
(Genesis 40:3.) When Moses says they were kept in prison a season, some
understand by the word, a whole year; but in my judgment they are mistaken; it
rather denotes a long but uncertain time, as appears from other places.
COFFMA , "Introduction
This is the fourth in the series of narratives that make up the [~toledowth] of Jacob;
and the central theme in all of them is the providence of God in His protection and
guidance of the Holy ation until the Messiah should at last arrive as the redeemer

of all mankind. We may entitle this chapter:
JOSEPH A D THE DREAMS OF THE BUTLER A D THE BAKER
Efforts of those preoccupied with finding evidence of divided sources in Genesis
have no success with this chapter. One may find about as many illogical and
unreasonable "divisions" as there are scholars advocating such things, all of them
being apparently unaware that there are no prior documents! This record before us
is all that has come down through the mists of centuries. And the traditional view
that the great Lawgiver Moses, whatever "sources" he might have consulted or
made use of, has delivered for us, through the inspiration of God, an accurate and
trustworthy account of what happened is absolutely valid. The careful student
should be especially wary of accepting the bizarre and outlandish "translations" of
certain words, phrases, and clauses, because the fundamental purpose of most of
such "emendations" and "corrections" of God's Word is that of trying to aid some
critic in splitting up what he conceives to be Biblical sources. Willis cited three
examples of this type of tampering with the text, as exhibited in the ew English
Bible, all three of them in the last two chapters. An example is: "Tamar perfumed
herself and sat where the road forks in two directions!" (Genesis 28:18). "Such a
translation flies in the face of the context."[1] In this, and dozens of other places, the
ew English Bible translators were simply substituting what they imagined
happened for what the Word of God says happened. On that particular verse, one
wonders how the ew English Bible translators knew so much about how harlots
were supposed to smell. Why did they not also give us the name of the perfume?
Verses 1-3
"And it came to pass after these things, that the butler of the king of Egypt and his
baker offended their lord the king of Egypt. And Pharaoh was wroth against his two
officers, against the chief of the butlers, and the chief of the bakers. And he put
them in ward in the house of the captain of the guard, into the prison, the place
where Joseph was bound."
This passage is not the melding of three different "documents," each using a
different designation for the offenders, butler, chief of the butlers, and officer (and
similarly for the baker), but these various terms are for the sake of greater clarity

and more information. "Butler" in this narrative means the chief of the butlers, the
same being called also "an officer." ote also that three different terms are used for
the ruler of Egypt. He is called "King of Egypt," "Pharaoh," and "their lord." ow,
if we suppose that each of the six terms here cited belonged exclusively to one of
those imaginary "documents" the scholars are always talking about, it results in no
less than half a dozen "sources" for these three short verses! The refutation of such
nonsense lies in the simple truth that it is a mark of all intelligent writing that
various and synonymous terms are always visible; and it could hardly be otherwise
here.
There have been many speculations about the manner of these men offending
Pharaoh, ranging all the way from the allegation that they had plotted to poison him
to some more trivial offense. From the Jewish writings, we have this:
"The chief baker was put into prison because a pebble had been found in the pastry
he baked for Pharaoh, and he was guilty of a misdemeanor because he had
neglected the sifting of the flour. A fly had happened to fall into the wine that the
chief butler poured for Pharaoh, but that could not be construed as caused by any
negligence on his part. Thus, the butler had not committed a punishable offense."[2]
The distorted value of judgments of that ancient society appear vividly in such a
comment.
ow, if to the triple designations of the offenders, and of the king, we add the triple
designations of the place where the offenders were incarcerated, namely, (1) the
ward in the house of the captain of the guard; (2) the prison; and (3) the place where
Joseph was kept, we thus find a total of no less than nine possible "sources,"
according to the usual scholarly dictum to that effect. o wonder there is not any
agreement anywhere on earth today as to what belongs to which "source" in
Genesis. Even the ew English Bible's gratuitous rendition of (1) as The Round
House is no help! All the scholars we have read confess that the exact meaning of
some of these terms is either unknown or ambiguous, and therein may lie the reason
why the sacred author (singular) used various words.
As it stands, the text rewards us richly. Potiphar was not only the captain of the
guard, but his duties also included the administration of the special prison used for

detaining the king's prisoners. The keeper of the prison is not named, but the keeper
was Potiphar's deputy, and the compound or palace where this establishment lay
also served as Potiphar's residence.
This understanding of the passage clears up everything. Here is the explanation of
how Potiphar was able to cast Joseph into prison without even an examining trial,
and how things were said to be done by Potiphar, the captain of the guard, that
were actually done by the deputy, who is nowhere named in the passage.
"The chief of the butlers ..." This office was also known as "the cupbearer," a
position held by ehemiah ( ehemiah 1:11) in the court of Persia. It was a highly-
respected position because of the holder's access to the presence of the king.
"Rabshakeh (Aramaic for `chief of the cup-bearers') was in the court of Assyria (2
Kings 18:17)."[3]
"Offended, or gave offense, to their lord ..." Speiser tells us that, "Literally, the
word means proved to be at fault,"[4] Therefore, such a rendition as "sinned
against" is inappropriate, especially in a secular context.
COKE, "Genesis 40:1. Butler—and—baker— This chief butler and chief baker,
Genesis 40:2 were two distinguished officers of the crown; cup-bearer and master of
the household to the king; see ehemiah 1:11. Diodorus Siculus informs us, that "all
officers who immediately served the ancient kings of AEgypt, were taken from the
most illustrious families of the priests; no mercenaries purchased for money, or
home-born slaves, were ever admitted to this honour." Some writers have assigned
causes for this anger of Pharaoh against these officers; but these can be nothing but
conjecture.
WHEDO , "1. After these things — After Joseph had been imprisoned, and had
found favour with the keeper.
The butler — Or, cup-bearer. He was the officer who had charge of the king’s
wines; and so important was this office that the chief or prince of the butlers
(Genesis 40:2) found it necessary to employ the services of many others in this
business. How the butler and baker offended we are not told; the Targum of

Jonathan says “they had taken counsel to throw the poison of death into his food
and into his drink, to kill their master.” These officers would be especially subject to
such suspicions.
ELLICOTT, "(1) Butler.—Heb., one who gives to drink, cupbearer. As we learn in
Genesis 40:11 that it was grapewine which he gave the king to drink, this chapter
has been the main dependence of the new critics for their proof that the Book of
Genesis was not written by Moses. For Herod. (i. 77) says, “The Egyptians make use
of wine prepared from barley, because there are no vineyards in their country.” As
Herodotus was thirteen centuries later than the time of Joseph, they argue not only
that the vine could not have been introduced into Egypt at so early a date, but that
the records of Joseph’s life could not have been put together by anyone acquainted
with Egypt, in spite of their exact knowledge in all other respects of Egyptian
customs. But when we turn to Herodotus himself, we find the most complete
refutation of the previous statement. For, in Book ii. 37, speaking of the liberal
treatment of the priests, he says, that they had an allowance of “grape-wine.” Again,
in Genesis 39, he tells us that it was the custom to pour wine on a victim about to be
sacrificed. To one used to the extensive vineyards of Greece and Asia Minor, the
comparative scarcity of the vine, and the use of another ordinary drink in its place,
would be striking; but that he was guilty of gross exaggeration in his statement is
proved by evidence far more trustworthy than his own writings. For, on the tombs
at Beni-hassan, which are anterior to the time of Joseph, on those at Thebes, and on
the Pyramids, are representations of vines grown in every way, except that usual in
Italy, festooned on trees; there is every process of the vintage, grapes in baskets,
men trampling them in vats, various forms of presses for squeezing out the juice,
jars for storing it, and various processes, even of the fermentation, noticed.
umerous engravings of the sculptures and paintings on these ancient monuments
may be seen in Wilkinson’s Egypt; and most abundant evidence of the culture of the
vine in ancient Egypt has been collected, and an account of the vines grown there
given in Malan’s Philosophy or Truth, pp. 31-39. It neither is nor ever was a great
wine-producing country, but the vine existed from one end of the country to the
other, as it does at this day.
Baker.—Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, ii. 38, 39, gives proof from the monuments,
that they had carried the art of making confectionery to very great perfection.

GUZIK, "A. Joseph meets the butler and the baker in prison.
1. (1-4) The Egyptian royal butler and baker are put into prison.
It came to pass after these things that the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt
offended their lord, the king of Egypt. And Pharaoh was angry with his two officers,
the chief butler and the chief baker. So he put them in custody in the house of the
captain of the guard, in the prison, the place where Joseph was confined. And the
captain of the guard charged Joseph with them, and he served them; so they were in
custody for a while.
a. The butler and the baker of the king of Egypt: The butler was in charge of
Pharaohs wine and the baker was in charge of Pharaohs food. They were
imprisoned because they offended their lord, the king of Egypt. It is difficult to tell
if it was in a minor or a major way. Considering how the account will develop, it is
probable there was a plot to murder the Pharaoh (perhaps by poisoning).
i. But we never lose sight of the over-arching reason: whatever external reason they
were sent to prison, in Gods great plan they were really there to meet Joseph.
b. The captain of the guard charged Joseph with them, and he served them: This
favorable treatment of Joseph by the captain of the guard shows that Potiphar did
not really believe the accusations his wife made against Joseph. We know this
because Potiphar himself was the captain of the guard (Genesis 39:1).
c. And he served them: Though Joseph had a position of high authority in the prison
he did not use it to make others serve him. He used his high position to serve others.
LA GE, "PRELIMI ARY REMARKS
The contents of this chapter may be denoted, the silent preparation for the great

turning in Joseph’s destiny. In itself considered, however, our narrative shows us
how the religious capacity of suffering for the Lord’s sake develops itself, like a
germ, in the people of God. Joseph’s spiritual life shines resplendent in his prison.
There may be distinguished the following sections: 1. The imprisonment of the two
court-officers, and Joseph’s charge over them ( Genesis 40:1-4); 2. their
dejectedness, and Joseph’s sympathy ( Genesis 40:5-8); 3. the dream of the chief
butler, and its interpretation ( Genesis 40:9-15); 4. the dream of the chief baker, and
its interpretation ( Genesis 40:16-19); 5. the fulfilment of both dreams.
EXEGETICAL A D CRITICAL
1. Genesis 40:1-4. The imprisonment of the two court-officers, and Joseph’s charge
over them.—The chief of the butlers and the chief of the bakers.—According to
Genesis 40:2 they are the chiefs in their respective departments of service. The
oriental kings, as those of the Persians (Xenoph, Hellenica, viii. i38), had a multitude
of butlers, bakers, and cooks. The office of chief butler was very honorable with the
kings of Persia (Herod, iii34; Xenoph, Cyroped. i3, 8). It was once filled by
ehemiah ( ehemiah 1:11; ehemiah 2:1).—In the house of the captain of the
guard—i. e, in the house of Potiphar. The house of the captain of the guard was
connected with the state-prison, and denotes here the prison itself.—Charged
Joseph with them.—Here Potiphar again mingles himself with Joseph’s fortune
(and that by way of mitigating it) in the recognition of his talents. By this
distinguished charge, he shows favor, at the same time, to Joseph and to his fallen
colleagues.
PULPIT, "Genesis 40:1
And it came to pass (literally, and it was) after these things (literally, words, i.e.
after the transactions just recorded), that the butler— ‫ֶה‬‫ק‬ְ‫שׁ‬ָ‫מ‬, the hiph. part. of ‫ָה‬‫ק‬ָ‫,שׁ‬
to drink, signifies one who causes to drink, hence cupbearer (cf. Genesis 40:11 )—of
the king of Egypt and his baker—the ‫ֶה‬‫פ‬ֹ ‫א‬ (part. of ‫ָה‬‫פ‬‫,אָ‬ to cook or bake) was the
officer who prepared the king's food. The monuments show that the Egyptians had
carried the arts of the confectioner and cook to a high degree of perfection—had
offended (or sinned against) their lord (literally, against, the preposition being
repeated) the king of Egypt—whom they had attempted to poison (the Targum of
Jonathan), though this of course is only a conjecture in the absence of specific

information.
PETT, "Verse 1-2
Joseph Comes In Contact With Important Court Officials And Interprets Their
Dreams (Genesis 40:1-23).
Genesis 40:1-2
‘And it happened after these things that the cup-bearer of the king of Egypt, and his
baker, offended their lord the king of Egypt. And Pharaoh was angry against his
two officers, against the head of the cupbearers and the head of the bakers.’
We note here the old title ‘the king of Egypt’ and the new title ‘Pharaoh’, the latter
probably an updating by Moses. We do not know how the two ‘officers’ (saris as
with Potiphar) offended but it may be that something made Pharaoh ill and the
blame fell equally on the two responsible for his food and drink. Later investigation
may then have vindicated the butler and put the blame on the baker.
“The head of the cup-bearers.” The word ‘masqeh’ (EV ‘butler’) corresponds
approximately to the Egyptian wdpw (which has a wider meaning), and is the exact
equivalent of the later wb’ (c1600 BC onwards). It means cupbearer. The king’s
cupbearer had an extremely important and high ranking position. It was he who
handed the cup to the king after tasting it to check for poison, and he was thus the
only one who could slip something into the drink after it had been tested. He was
therefore a highly trusted officer. In 13th century BC one such was actually called
wb’ dp irp - ‘the cupbearer who tastes the wine’.
“The head of the bakers.” Bakers are well known in Egypt but there is no exact
equivalent to ‘head of the bakers’ as far as we know. However there would clearly
be someone who was in charge of the bakers at the various palaces. He too would be
responsible to guard against the king being poisoned. He may be the equivalent of
‘the Royal Table Scribe’ - ss wdhw nsw.

BI 1-23, "The captain of the guard charged Joseph with them, and he served them
Light upon Joseph’s destiny
This chapter discovers signs that Joseph was destined to fill an important place in the
history of the kingdom of God.
This was now the time of his trial and preparation for his great calling as the ruler of the
Egyptians, the deliverer of his nation. Some of the indications of his high destiny are
these:—
I. THE CONVICTION OF HIS INNOCENCE AND INTEGRITY GAINS GROUND.
Joseph was, at first, thrown into a dungeon and laid in irons. Now, this severe discipline
is relaxed, and he is appointed to a kind of stewardship over the other prisoners. It is
highly probable, that, by this time, Potiphar was convinced of his innocence, though he
detained him in custody for prudential reasons. Joseph was everywhere giving the
impression of being a good and holy man. The character of Potiphar’s wife could not
long be concealed; and as it became more and more known, the belief in Joseph’s
innocence would gain ground.
II. HE DISCOVERS SIGNS OF HIS TRUE VOCATION.
1. As a saint of God. Mark how Joseph refers to God in every important crisis of his
history. When Pharaoh’s two officers lamented that there was no interpreter of their
dreams, he said, “Do not interpretations belong to God?” He was always true to his
religion. Mark his temperateness and forbearance, his calmness and simplicity. He
does not speak unkindly of his brethren, he does not even name them, but simply
states that he was “stolen out of the land of the Hebrews,” and that he had “ done
nothing” that they should put him “ into the dungeon” (verse 15). Here was the faith
and resignation of a saint, whose life was fit to be recorded in the pages of Revelation
as an eminent and worthy example to all ages.
2. As a prophet of God. As such he interprets dreams, which are here to be
considered as Divine revelations to men of warning, reproof, and teaching Job_
33:14-18).
3. As a kind and just ruler of men. Joseph was clearly a man who was destined to
wield a commanding, and even a regal influence over others. He was fitted for this,
doubtless, by his intellectual gifts and characteristics, but more especially
(1) by his sympathy. “Wherefore look ye so sadly to-day?” he said to his fellow-
prisoners, whose dreams suggested the worst forebodings (verses 6-7). He
himself had been in the school of affliction, and he had learned to be tender.
Though he had griefs of his own to bear, he felt for others. He cannot be a true
ruler of men who has not learned sympathy.
(2) By his uprightness. He was firm and faithful, even when he had to tell
unpleasant truths (verses 18-19). Such are the qualities required in a true ruler of
men (2Sa_23:3-4).
III. HE RETAINS FAITH AND HOPE IN GOD IN THE MIDST OF ALL. HIS
ADVERSITIES. God was with him in the prison. Therefore he does not abandon himself
to despair, but still trusts and hopes on. (T. H. Leale.)
Joseph and the two prisoners

I. We cannot but be struck with THE MINUTE PARTICULARITY OF THE
PROVIDENCE OF GOD. See at how many critical points Joseph’s life touches the lives
of others, and is, thereby, carried so much the farther forward towards the attainment by
him of the place which God was preparing for him. When I get to a great railway
junction, and find trains coming m together from the east, and the north, and the south,
just in time to join another that is starting from that point for the west, I should be
regarded as a simpleton if I spoke of that as a wonderful coincidence. And yet on the
great Railroad of Life, when I come to such a junction and meet there a train that leads
me on to some significant sphere of service, I am supposed to be a simpleton if I refer
that to the over-ruling providence of God. But I am not a simpleton—I am only
reasoning in that department as I would in the domain of literature or daily travelling;
and he who repudiates God’s providence is the fool, according to that scathing utterance
of the Psalmist—“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
II. We are reminded by this history also that THE CHARACTER OF THE INDIVIDUAL
HAS AS MUCH TO DO WITH WHAT I HAVE CALLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PLOT OF HIS LIFE AS THE PLAN OR PURPOSE OF GOD HAS. Providence is not
fatalism. Joseph, if he had chosen to act otherwise than he did, might have thrown away
all the opportunities which these places of junction in his life afforded him. The men that
fail in life do not fail for want of such opportunities as Joseph had, but for want of the
character to see these opportunities, and the ability to use them. Keep near to God,
therefore, form your character according to His principles, and then, even though you
may be in a prison, you will find a way to serve Him, and will feel that somehow you are
on the road to your success, and in training for your sphere.
III. We may learn that THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN THEMSELVES UPHELD IN
TROUBLE, ARE THE MOST EFFICIENT HELPERS OF OTHERS WHEN THEY ARE IN
TRIAL. Young as Joseph was, he had not seen enough sorrow to dispose him to
sympathize with others in their affliction. And in the suggestive question which he put to
his fellow-prisoners, “do not interpretations belong to God?” he not only expresses his
own faith, but in the most delicate and skilful manner indicates to them the source
whence alone true consolation comes. More than thirty years ago, just at the beginning
of my ministry, I was in the house of a beloved pastor, when he was called to pass
through the greatest trial that a man can know, in the death of a truly good and noble
wife. Two mornings after, the postman brought in a sheaf of letters. I think there were
more than twenty of them, but each was from a brother minister who had been led
through the same dark valley, and who was seeking to comfort him with the comfort
wherewith himself had been comforted of God. Only a few evenings ago I met a Christian
lady, with whom I was comparing notes regarding the experience of the loss of little
children, and she said to me, “I never see the death of a little child announced in the
newspaper but I have an impulse to write to the parents and speak comfortably to them.”
Thus we may console ourselves under our own trials with the thought that God is
endowing us thereby with the gift of sympathy, and fitting us to become “ sons of
consolation” to others in affliction. The price is costly, but the learning is precious.
IV. THOSE WHOM WE BENEFIT HAVE OFTEN VERY POOR REMEMBRANCE OF
KINDNESS. Men too often write the record of grudges in marble, and of favours in
water. Nay, such is the perversity of human nature, that not unfrequently men return
evil for the good which has been done them. One spoke to an English statesman of the
violent enmity which another evinced towards him. “Yes,” was the reply, “and I cannot
understand it, for I never did him any kindness that I can remember.” The sarcasm was
bitter, but there was enough of truth in it to give it point; and every one who seeks to be
a helper of others learns, sooner or later, to give over looking for human gratitude, and

to think mainly of the Lord Jesus Christ and His appreciation. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Lessons
1. Let no circumstances ever tempt the children of God to doubt and question the
watchful care and kindness of their heavenly Father’s providence. Let them bear in
remembrance, that He not only works in His own way, but chooses His own time;
and let them rest in the assurance that both His way and His time are always the
best. Though He tarry, then, wait for Him. “Fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.”
2. The source of true and constant enjoyment of that happiness which all seek and so
few find must be within. It lies essentially in a sense of God’s love. This is happiness.
This will ever he associated with confidence in His wisdom, and faithfulness, and
kindness; and consequently with contentment in all conditions. These are sources of
joy of which no power can rob us, and which remain ever the same—amidst all
changes unchanging. (R. Wardlaw.)
Joseph ministering to the comfort of others
It may possibly cause momentary surprise, that Joseph, who interpreted others’ dreams,
was left in ignorance of his own destiny. Is not this, however, the method ordinarily
employed to strengthen faith and produce entire reliance upon God? Indeed, was it not
communion with God produced by this sense of dependence which enabled him to
interpret mysteries, which fitted him for comforting the sorrowing? It not frequently
happens that those whose lives are passed in unrelieved sadness—with whom the
present is an enigma, the past a memory of grief, the future a cloud of torturing
uncertainty—are nevertheless the instruments in God’s hand of producing joy in others’
hearts. As a block of ice, chiselled into the form of a lens, can be made to concentrate the
sun’s rays, kindling a flame, so the believer, by gathering the scattered beams of
Heaven’s love, may pour cheerfulness into others’ hearts while his own may remain quite
cheerless. (J. S. Van Dyke.)
The same prison is not the same thing to good and bad
Too often it happens to the righteous according to the wish of the wicked. Here we find
two men who had sinned against their lord, the king of Egypt, confined in the same
prison with Joseph. Yet the same prison is not the same thing to a good and to a bad
man. The two offenders trembled in anxious dread of some worse punishment; and the
consciousness of their demerit, if they were really guilty, was more painful to them than
the irons were to Joseph, although they entered into his soul. Joseph had the testimony
of his conscience to cheer him. He not only suffered without cause, but suffered for
righteousness’ sake, and trusted that God would bring his sufferings to a comfortable
conclusion. In the world you may meet with much distress; but keep consciences void of
offence towards God and man, and you shall be preserved from the sting and venom of
those troubles that Providence allots you. “Let no man suffer as a thief, as an evil-doer,
as a busy-body in other men’s matters. But if any man suffer as a Christian,” or without
deserving to suffer, “let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God, who executes
righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed.” (G. Lawson, D. D.)

The butler and the baker
I. PRISON OCCUPATIONS. The crime is the disgrace, and not the scaffold or the prison.
Good men have often been imprisoned, while many wicked have escaped. Yet,
notwithstanding the prison, these sufferers are amongst our heroes and martyrs. Milton
said, “there shall one day be a resurrection of names and reputations.” Bunyan, Baxter,
&c., are not honoured the less for the dungeons in which they suffered. Next to escaping
the prison, the best thing is, like Joseph, to suffer innocently. Joseph in prison. Suffering
often hardens the bad and purifies and manifests the good. Joseph’s character could not
be hid. Even the keepers saw how different he was from the ordinary criminals
committed to their care (see Pr
16:21. The prisoner becomes a keeper (so many of the captive Jews, asDaniel, Nehemiah,
Mordecai, were exalted). Is so much trusted as to be freed from supervision (Gen_
38:22-23). God, who was with him in Canaan, is with him in Egypt, and in prison. He
does not forsake His friends in distresses brought upon them by their fidelity to Him.
II. PRISON COMPANIONS. The butler and baker, two officers of importance in eastern
and ancient courts. Yet even these were not spared by a capricious and absolute
monarch. “Oh, how wretched is that poor man that hangs on princes’ favours!” In a
palace one day, a prison the next. In ancient times a courtier’s office was often like the
Bridge of Sighs at Venice, “a palace and a prison on each hand.” These men may have
suffered justly; like the malefacters who were crucified with Jesus Luk_23:41). The
worst punishment of the good is forced fellowship with the wicked. As providence over-
ruled the wrath of Joseph’s brothers, so now he ever-rules the wrath of Pharaoh. One of
these degraded officials shall be the instrument of Joseph’s release and exaltation.
III. PRISON DREAMS. That is: the dreams of the butler and baker. The subject was so
strange, and the recollection so vivid, that they were troubled. Dreamland, a mysterious
region to the ancients. No interpreter of dreams in the prison, they thought. Joseph’s
inquiry. Be thinks of his own dreams, doubtless, and the transitory trouble they had
brought him into. He gives the praise to God, as the true interpreter of dreams. By the
help of divine illumination, he reveals the meaning of their dreams. No doubt he saw
that God had sent them those dreams for him to interpret; and that his connection with
these men would work out the fulfilment of his own dreams. It is certain that what was
foretold by their dreams would have occurred even if they had never dreamed at all.
Hence, it was clear that there was a purpose in their dreaming, and in their relating their
dreams to Joseph. Probably had not Joseph been in prison, they would not have
dreamed as they did. Learn:
I. If we suffer, let it be for righteousness’ sake.
II. When a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies, &c, (J. C. Gray.)
Lessons
1. Providence keeps its method in multiplying mercy to His saints in misery.
2. The sins of others God sometimes maketh an occasion of refreshing His own
servants.
3. Court officers are very prone to sin, and abuse favours.

4. Kings themselves are not secured from offences by their nearest servants (Gen_
40:1).
5. Kings, offended, are apt to swell in wrath and displeasure.
6. Greatest wrath of kings is apt to rise against officers (Gen_40:2).
7. The wrath of kings usually causeth the restraint and imprisonment of their
criminal subjects.
8. God orders place where the wrath of man imprisons, and that for His own ends.
9. Innocents and malefactors may lie together in the same prison (Gen_40:3).
10. God inclineth the hearts of chief commanders for imprisonment, more to the
innocent than guilty.
11. Innocent prisoners under Providence may have the charge of malefactors.
12. Good souls trusted in any capacity, do execute it faithfully.
13. Set times and seasons of restraint God appoints to His own and others for His
own ends.
14. All these Providence orders to be occasions of glorifying His grace in His saints
(Gen_40:4). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
2 Pharaoh was angry with his two officials, the
chief cupbearer and the chief baker,
GILL, "And Pharaoh was wroth against two of his officers,.... The same above
mentioned:
against the chief of the butlers, and against the chief of the bakers; for as
there were several butlers and bakers that belonged unto him, who were employed in
providing wine and food for him, there was one of each who was over the rest; and as
their business was to see that those under them did their work well, when they were
faulty the principal officers were answerable for it: wherefore, if in this case they had not
been guilty of anything criminal themselves personally, yet they might have neglected to
look after those that were under them, and so were culpable, and drew upon them the
wrath and resentment of their lord and sovereign.
HAWKER, "Reader! do not overlook in this verse, that this captain of the guard must

have been Potiphar, Gen_39:1. Whether by this time Joseph’s master had begun to
believe Joseph was innocent doth not appear, but yet it should seem so, in that he
committed to his care those state prisoners.
HE RY, "
JAMISO , "
And Pharaoh was wroth—literally, broke forth (sc. into anger)—against two of his
officers (vide Genesis 37:36) against the chief—sar: the word occurs in one of the
oldest historical documents of ancient Egypt ('Inscription of Una,' line 4, sixth
dynasty), meaning chief or eunuch (vide ' Records of the Past,' 2.3)—of the
butlers,—an office once filled by ehemiah in the Court of Persia ( ehemiah 1:11),
and Rabshakeh (Aramaic for "chief of the cupbearers") in the Court of Assyria (2
Kings 18:17)—and against the chief of the bakers. Oriental monarchs generally had
a multitude of butlers and bakers, or cupbearers and Court purveyors, the chiefs in
both departments being invested with high honor, and regarded with much trust
(Herod; 3.34; Xenoph; 'Cyrop.,' 1.3, 8).
3 and put them in custody in the house of the
captain of the guard, in the same prison where
Joseph was confined.
CLARKE, "Where Joseph was bound - The place in which Joseph was now
confined; this is what is implied in being bound; for, without doubt, he had his personal
liberty. As the butler and. the baker were state criminals they were put in the same
prison with Joseph, which we learn from the preceding chapter, Gen_39:20, was the
king’s prison. All the officers in the employment of the ancient kings of Egypt were,

according to Diodorus Siculus, taken from the most illustrious families of the priesthood
in the country; no slave or common person being ever permitted to serve in the presence
of the king. As these persons, therefore, were of the most noble families, it is natural to
expect they would be put, when accused, into the state prison.
GILL, "And he put them in ward in the house of the captain of the guard,....
Who is generally thought to be Potiphar, since this was the office he was in, Gen_39:1;
unless he was dead, and there was another put into his room, or there were more than
one in the same office:
into the prison, the place where Joseph was bound; that is, where he had been
bound, and where he was still a prisoner, though not fettered and in that close
confinement he had been in.
JAMISO , "Pharaoh put them in ward, etc. — Whatever was their crime, they
were committed, until their case could be investigated, to the custody of the captain of
the guard, that is, Potiphar, in an outer part of whose house the royal prison was
situated.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 3-4
(3, 4) In the house of the captain of the guard.—That is, of Potiphar. As he is said to
have charged Joseph with the care of these two high officials, he must, ere this, have
become aware of his innocence. But as the wife in ancient times in Egypt was
endowed with all the husband’s property, and was a formidable person, as we learn
from many of the records now being translated and published, Potiphar may not
have wished to offend her.
He served them.—Used only of light service. (See ote on Genesis 39:4.)
And he put them in ward (or in custody) in the house of the captain of the guard,—
i.e. Potiphar (vide Genesis 37:36)—into the prison,—literally, house of enclosure
(vide Genesis 39:20)—the place where Joseph was bound. The word ‫,אָסור‬ from ‫ַר‬‫ס‬‫,אָ‬
to make fast by binding, seems to corroborate the Psalmist's assertion (Psalms
105:18 ) that Joseph had been laid in iron and his feet hurt with fetters; but this
could only have been temporarily (vide Genesis 40:4, Genesis 40:6).

ISBET, "A OBLE PRISO ER
‘The place where Joseph was bound.’
Genesis 40:3
The oldest prison story that has been preserved from the oblivion underneath which
time buries human events is this of Joseph in Egypt. Prisons were then no new thing
in the earth. We are introduced to them as well known and familiar institutions.
They may have existed before the Flood; we can scarcely imagine them not to have
existed. This first mention of them in Egypt, the foremost of the world’s nations in
civilisation and power, reminds us of the twofold use which has been made of them
in most countries and ages, as a means of punishment and as an instrument of
tyranny.
I. Even in prison Joseph prospered. He had prospered in the service of Potiphar.
The Lord was with him, and made all that he did to prosper in his hand. His
reputation no doubt followed him into his prison. And the keeper of his prison soon
discovered that he was worthy of it, and availed himself of his trustworthiness, and
devolved upon him much of his responsibility, and felt his work and charge safe in
the hands of Joseph. There may have been a bit of superstition in the sentiment with
which the Hebrew youth was regarded. There is nothing that tends more to one’s
advancement in the East, we are told, than the opinion that everything prospers in
his hands. In an old translation of the Bible we have the homely words, ‘The Lord
was with Joseph, and he was a lucky fellow.’ The reputation of being ‘lucky’ will, in
the East, perhaps in the West, make a man’s fortune. In the case of Joseph, there
was a pure character and a Divine blessing to account for his prosperity or luck.
Potiphar had already found the purchase of Joseph to be one of the best bargains he
had ever made. And now the keeper of the prison found that this was no common
prisoner who had been committed to his hands.
II. What of his prison thoughts? We have no record of them, but conjecture cannot
lead us far astray. That he felt his imprisonment painfully, we infer from his desire
to escape from it. When he interpreted the butler’s dream as foreshadowing his
restoration to freedom and his former position, he said—‘But think on me when it
shall be well with thee, and show kindness, I pray thee, unto me, and make mention
of me unto Pharaoh, and bring me out of this house … I have done nothing that they
should put me into the dungeon’ (Genesis 40:14-15). othing could reconcile him to
being shut up within these prison walls. Honour and trust and work were blessings

which he prized. But bondage was bondage still. His heart wandered to what he
called the land of the Hebrews.
III. With his faith in God there was a source of comfort which never failed the
young man in his Egyptian prison, and that was a good conscience both towards
God and towards man. It was a hard thing, indeed, to bear so foul and false a
charge as that on which he was thrust into prison. To his pure mind the shame of
such a charge was painful as it would not be to others. But the pain of suffering
rightfully would have been far worse than the pain of suffering wrongfully, because
it would have in it the bitterest of all ingredients, the accusations of a guilty
conscience. Had he yielded to temptation, and suffered imprisonment for thus
wronging the master who had trusted him, he would have lost those supports which
his faith in God now brought him, and his conscience would have punished him
more severely than did the fetters of iron. Conscience is a terrible foe or a most
beneficent friend. As it was, Joseph and his conscience were good friends, and his
conscience comforted his heart.
Illustration
(1) ‘Oriental legend commemorated Joseph’s peace and happiness in its own way.
His cell became a pleasant and cheerful abode, for a fountain sprang up in the midst
of it, and a tree grew at his door to afford him shade and refreshing fruit. The
legend indeed says that the fountain dried up and the tree withered when Joseph
asked the butler to remember him and promote his release, because, instead of
trusting in God, he relied on the help of a feeble man. There seems to me no ground
for the notion that Joseph did wrong in seeking the interposition of his fellow
prisoner. But we may accept the legend as a beautiful parable. Within those prison
walls there was a fountain opened whence the young Hebrew drew constant
strength and solace. And there, sunless as the prison was, grew a tree, from which
he derived food that the world knew not of. His God was with him.’
(2) ‘God’s providence works for far distant objects. With a view to Israel’s
settlement in Egypt, Joseph is carried there, sold to Potiphar, cast into prison, has
fellow prisoners, who again get special dreams, with a view to Joseph’s future, and
so God leads through a prison to a throne. Look at your troubles in the bright light

of that to which they lead you.’
(3) ‘Jeremy Taylor says that he must be in love with peevishness who chooses to sit
down upon “his little handful of thorns” when there are so many causes for joy in
this wide world. But this is just what Joseph did not do. He refused to sit down upon
his handful of thorns, but went out of himself in thoughtful ministry to others. He
anointed his head, and washed his face, that he might not appear to men to be
suffering, and devoted himself to alleviate the griefs around him by kindly
sympathy.’
PETT, "Verse 3-4
‘And he put them in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, into the
prison, the place where Joseph was bound. And the captain of the guard charged
Joseph with them and he served them. And they continued for a time in custody.’
Such important prisoners were treated with special dignity, and the captain of the
guard (note not the keeper of the prison) put them in Joseph’s special charge. He
took a personal interest in the care of these important men for he knew their
influence and that they may well be released and be in a position to do him good or
harm.
He ‘served them’. Joseph took his charge seriously and made sure they were well
looked after, often attending to their needs himself. The fact that he is entrusted
with this task by the captain of the guard may point to the fact that the latter had
had second thoughts about his previous guilt. Alternately he may have recognised
the special qualities of Joseph and accepted that he had simply forgotten himself for
a moment with regard to his wife. After all nothing had actually happened to her
and by this time tempers had cooled. Or he may even have forgotten who Joseph
was and relied on the recommendation of the keeper of the prison.
“In the house of the captain of the guard.” ot his private house but the prison over
which he had responsibility. This may well have been located near his house, which
would be grand and in its own grounds, probably more like a small palace.

4 The captain of the guard assigned them to
Joseph, and he attended them.
After they had been in custody for some time,
CLARKE, "They continued a season - ‫ימים‬ yamim, literally days; how long we
cannot tell. But many suppose the word signifies a complete year; and as Pharaoh called
them to an account on his birthday, Gen_40:20, Calmet supposes they had offended on
the preceding birthday, and thus had been one whole year in prison.
GILL, "And the captain of the guard charged Joseph with them,.... Committed
them to his care and custody, he being very probably recommended to him by the keeper
of the prison for his prudence and fidelity; and if it was Potiphar, he knew his character
full well, and might be now reconciled unto him, as having had a more full and clear
account of the affair between him and his wife from the keeper of the prison; and
therefore though he might not think fit for his own and his wife's reputation to remove
him from prison as yet, nevertheless might be inclined to do him what service he could,
as well as honour, as this was, to have two such state prisoners committed to his care.
Some render it, "he committed Joseph with them" (x); to be with them, as Jarchi
interprets it; they were put together, not merely for the sake of company, but that Joseph
might wait upon them, which might be beneficial as well as creditable, as it follows:
and he served them; he ministered unto them, and brought them every thing they
wanted:
and they continued a season in ward; or "days" (y); some certain days, many days,
a year, as Jarchi and Ben Gersom interpret it, and which is sometimes the use of the
word. The story of the butler and baker is told, partly to show the divine faculty of
interpreting dreams Joseph was possessed of; and partly to observe the remarkable
steps in Providence, though secret, towards his advancement in Pharaoh's court.
JAMISO , "The captain of the guard charged Joseph with them — not the
keeper, though he was most favorably disposed; but Potiphar himself, who, it would

seem, was by this time satisfied of the perfect innocence of the young Hebrew; though,
probably, to prevent the exposure of his family, he deemed it prudent to detain him in
confinement (see Psa_37:5).
They continued a season in ward — literally, “days,” how long, is uncertain; but
as they were called to account on the king’s birthday, it has been supposed that their
offense had been committed on the preceding anniversary [Calvin].
COFFMA , "Verse 4
"And the captain of the guard charged Joseph with them, and he ministered unto
them: and they continued a season in ward."
Aalders accurately understood this, pointing out that, "The prison in which the
captain of the guard resided was the house of Potiphar."[5] In regard to the special
arrangements that were made for taking care of the king's prisoners of such high
rank:
"The captain (Potiphar) probably made these arrangements himself, consulting
with his deputy, the `keeper,' with whom, by this time, Joseph had found
considerable favor. This indicates that Potiphar's anger against Joseph had cooled
considerably."[6]
COKE, "Genesis 40:4. A season— They were days, ‫,ימים‬ iamim, the Hebrew has it;
that is, say some, a whole year. It is thought by the generality of commentators, that
the captain of the guard here mentioned, was Potiphar: it is a point of no great
consequence, but I should rather conceive that he was a different person. Houbigant
denies that iamim, singly, ever denotes a year. See his Prolegomena.
REFLECTIO S.—The favour of princes is an uncertain possession. These two chief
officers of Pharaoh experience a sad reverse of fortune, from a palace to a prison.
They little thought for whose sake they were brought thither: it was for Joseph's,
and into his custody they were committed. The links of the chain of providence are
strangely connected, but in wisdom all.

5 each of the two men—the cupbearer and the
baker of the king of Egypt, who were being held
in prison—had a dream the same night, and each
dream had a meaning of its own.
BAR ES, "Gen_40:5-8
These prisoners dream, “each according to the interpretation of his dream,” the
imagery of which was suited to indicate his future state. They were sad - anxious to know
the meaning of these impressive dreams. “Why are your forces bad today?” Joseph keeps
up his character of frank composure. “Do not interpretations belong to God?” In his past
history he had learned that dreams themselves come from God. And when he adds, “Tell
them now to me,” he intimates that God would enable him to interpret their dreams.
Here again he uses the general name of God, which was common to him with the pagan.
CLARKE, "Each man according to the interpretation - Not like dreams in
general, the disordered workings of the mind, the consequence of disease or repletion;
these were dreams that had an interpretation, that is, that were prophetic.
GILL, "And they dreamed a dream both of them,.... Not one and the same
dream:
each man his dream in one night; which made it the more remarkable, and the
more impressed their minds, concluding from hence there must be something of
importance in their dreams:
each man according to the interpretation of his dream; they dreamed each what
was suitable to his office and character, and which portended what should hereafter
befall them, as the interpretation of them by Joseph afterwards, and the event showed;
so that it was not a vain idle dream, but divine and certain:
the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, which were bound in the
prison; this is added for explanation's sake, showing who were the persons spoken of
that dreamed the dreams.

HAWKER, "Observe how GOD works in his providences, and by what various means:
Job_33:15-16.
HE RY, "Observe, I. The special providence of God, which filled the heads of these
two prisoners with unusual dreams, such as made extraordinary impressions upon
them, and carried with them evidences of a divine origin, both in one night. Note, God
has immediate access to the spirits of men, which he can make serviceable to his own
purposes whenever he pleases, quite beyond the intention of those concerned. To him all
hearts are open, and anciently he spoke not only to his own people, but to others, in
dreams, Job_33:15. Things to come were thus foretold, but very obscurely.
JAMISO , "they dreamed a dream — Joseph, influenced by the spirit of true
religion, could feel for others (Ecc_4:1; Rom_12:15; Phi_2:4). Observing them one day
extremely depressed, he inquired the cause of their melancholy; and being informed it
was owing to a dream they had respectively dreamed during the previous night, after
piously directing them to God (Dan_2:30; Isa_26:10), he volunteered to aid them,
through the divine help, in discovering the import of their vision. The influence of
Providence must be seen in the remarkable fact of both officers dreaming such dreams
in one night. He moves the spirits of men.
K&D, "After some time (“days,” Gen_40:4, as in Gen_4:3), and on the same night,
these two prisoners had each a peculiar dream, “each one according to the
interpretation of his dream;” i.e., each one had a dream corresponding to the
interpretation which specially applied to him. On account of these dreams, which
seemed to them to have some bearing upon their fate, and, as the issue proved, were
really true omens of it, Joseph found them the next morning looking anxious, and asked
them the reason of the trouble which was depicted upon their countenances.
CALVI , "5.And they dreamed a dream. What I have before alluded to respecting
dreams must be recalled to memory; namely, that many frivolous things are
presented to us, which pass away and are forgotten; (150) some, however, have the
force and significance of prophecy. Of this kind were these two dreams, by which
God made known the hidden result of a future matter. For unless the mark of a
celestial oracle had been engraven upon then, the butler and the baker would not
have been in such consternation of mind. I acknowledge, indeed, that men are
sometimes vehemently agitated by vain and rashly conceived dreams; yet their
terror and anxiety gradually subsides; but God had fixed an arrow in the minds of
the butler and the baker, which would not suffer them to rest; and by this means,

each was rendered more attentive to the interpretation of his dream. Moses,
therefore, expressly declares that it was a presage of something certain.
COFFMA , "Verses 5-8
"And they dreamed a dream both of them, each man his dream, in one night, each
man according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the
king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison. And Joseph came in unto them in the
morning, and saw them, and, behold, they were sad. And he asked Pharaoh's
officers that were with him in ward in his master's house, saying, Wherefore look ye
so sad today? And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is none
than can interpret it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to
God? tell it me, I pray you."
The mention of "the butler and the baker (Genesis 40:5)" was understood by
Skinner to be a "contradiction" with the meaning that the king of Egypt "had only
one servant of each class!"[7] We cite it here merely to show what ridiculous
conclusions result from that "multiple sources" fantasy which often engages critical
scholars. In context, of course, "the butler" means the "chief of the butlers." Even
today, "Mr. Secretary," as addressed to any of the President's cabinet, cannot imply
that the President has only "one secretary."
The mention of dreams in this and the following chapters is, of course, alleged as
proof that the narrative of dreams pertained exclusively to this or that "source,"
and that therefore we are here dealing with a different imaginary document! As
Leupold truly stated it, however, "Moses wrote of dreams as they had bearing upon
his subject, and, therefore, as they actually occurred."[8]
Speaking of dreams, the Egyptians, especially, believed in the prophetic nature of
dreams, and perhaps that is the reason that God used such a device again, and
again, in his dealings with Egyptians. Leupold also commented that, "Persons who
stand on a lower spiritual level were the ones to whom revelation came through
dreams."[9]
"There is none that can interpret ..." These officials of Pharaoh's court were

dismayed that they, in prison, did not have access to their favorite interpreter of
dreams, but Joseph promptly discounted the services of such professional
interpreters, his words having the effect of saying that, "Such professionals were
charlatans,"[10] and that only GOD could interpret dreams. His subsequent actions
showed that Joseph believed that God would reveal the meaning of the dreams to
him, as certainly proved to be true.
COKE, "Genesis 40:5. According to the interpretation, &c.— That is, each man
dreamed a significative dream, according to the explanation which Joseph
afterwards gave of it. Houbigant would render it, after the Samaritan, each man his
dream, according to the interpretation of it, i.e.. each of whose dreams had its
proper and particular interpretation. That they understood their dreams to be
significative, to express something respecting themselves and their state, is evident
from the sadness which Joseph discerned in their countenances, Genesis 40:6 and
from the cause which they assigned for that sadness, Genesis 40:8. We have
dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it; that is, the usual interpreters of
dreams fail here, they cannot give us satisfaction; see note on Genesis 40:8 ch. 41: or
it may be, Here in the prison, we have it not in our power to consult those who are
skilled in dreams, and who are divinely instructed to interpret them. It was a
general opinion in the ancient pagan world, that dreams, or at least certain dreams,
proceeded from the gods, and that particular persons were enabled by these gods to
interpret them. Hence the large train of priests, prophets, diviners, &c. Bishop
Warburton, who has treated largely on this subject in the third volume of his Divine
Legation of Moses, observes, that, "the interpretation of dreams made a very
considerable part of ancient pagan religion. The AEgyptian priests, the first
interpreters of dreams, took their rules for this species of divination, from the
symbolic learning in which they were so deeply read: a ground of interpretation
which would give the strongest credit to the art, and equally satisfy the diviner and
consulter; for by this time it was generally believed, that their gods had given them
hieroglyphic writing; so that nothing was more natural than to imagine that these
gods, who, in their opinions gave dreams likewise, had employed the same mode of
expression in both revelations. This was probably the true original of the
interpretation of those dreams called allegorical; that is, of dreams in general; for
the wildness of an unbridled fancy will make all natural dreams to be of that kind.
If this account of the original of this art stood in need of farther evidence, I might
urge the rules of interpretation given from Artemidorus, and a great many more
which might be given; all of them conformable to the symbolic hieroglyphics in
Horapollo. As hieroglyphics were become sacred, by being made the cloudy vehicle
of the AEgyptian theology, and as none but the priests preserved these sacred

mysteries, the butler and baker might well be uneasy for want of an interpreter, as
none could be gotten in the dreary abode where they were confined."
GUZIK, " (5-7) Joseph shows concern for the butler and baker.
Then the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were confined in the
prison, had a dream, both of them, each mans dream in one night and each mans
dream with its own interpretation. And Joseph came in to them in the morning and
looked at them, and saw that they were sad. So he asked Pharaohs officers who were
with him in the custody of his lords house, saying, Why do you look so sad today?
a. Joseph came in to them in the morning and looked at them, and saw that they
were sad: This is a window into the heart of Joseph. Men who are consumed with
anger and bitterness do not often take a concern for the personal problems of others
like this.
b. Why do you look so sad today? It would be easy - perhaps technically true - for
Joseph to think that because of all the wrong done against him, everything should
center on his own feelings and hurts. Instead, he cared that the butler and the baker
looked so sad one day.
i. This is one of the keys to living like Jesus: being an others-centered person. Joseph
could have justified certain self-centeredness in his life (I have to take care of myself
right now), but he did not.
3. (8) Joseph invites them to tell him their disturbing dreams.
And they said to him, We each have had a dream, and there is no interpreter of it.
So Joseph said to them, Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell them to me,
please.

a. Tell them to me, please: This was not a case of mere discussion of dreams for the
sake of curiosity or a form of fortune telling. Joseph saw these men were clearly
disturbed by their dreams, and approached the dreams from a desire to speak to
their troubled souls.
b. Do not interpretations belong to God? Joseph had experience with dreams. His
two dreams about his future greatness antagonized his family (Genesis 37:5-11), and
he was mocked as the dreamer (Genesis 37:19-20).
i. Joseph was confident that God knew what the dream was about. He was like the
one boy who told another, My father and I know everything. When the other boy
asked a hard question, the boy just said, Thats one for my dad. Joseph knew he and
his Father together knew everything.
c. Do not interpretations belong to God? God may certainly speak through dreams
and many passages of Scripture show this (Genesis 20:3; 28:12; 31:11; 31:24;
umbers 12:6; 1 Samuel 28:6; Joel 2:28; Matthew 1:20; 2:13; 2:22). However, not
every dream is a revelation from God. We must be careful about putting too much
weight on dreams.
i. Dreams can come just because our minds are busy: A dream comes through much
activityFor in the multitude of dreams and many words there is also vanity.
(Ecclesiastes 5:3, 5:7)
ii. The Bible warns that false prophets might use dreams to give weight to their
message (Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Jeremiah 23:25-28).
LA GE, " Genesis 40:5-8. Their dejectedness and Joseph’s sympathy.—According
to the interpretation.—Both had dreamed—each one a different dream—each one a
significant dream, according to the anticipated occurrence upon which it was
founded, and also according to its interpretation. Joseph’s conversation with the sad
and dejected prisoners, proves his sagacity as well as his kindly sympathy. It shows,
too, how misfortune equalizes rank, and makes the great dependent on the

sympathy of those who are lower in position.—And there is no interpreter of it.—An
expression showing that the interpretation of dreams was much in vogue, and that it
was one of the wants of persons of rank to have their dreams interpreted.—Do not
interpretations belong to God?—He admits that there are significant dreams, and
that God could bestow on men the gift of interpretation when they are referred back
to him. He rejects, indirectly, the heathen art of interpreting dreams, whilst, at the
same time, giving them to understand that it was, perhaps, imparted to himself.
First, however, he is to hear their dreams. Knobel is inexact when he speaks in
general terms of “the ancient view concerning dreams.” Doubtless the field of
revelation admits dreams as sent by God, but these coincide with dreams in general
just as little as the prophetic mode of interpreting them coincided with that of the
heathen, though, according to Egyptian views, all prophetic art comes from the gods
(Herod, ii83), Knobel.
And they dreamed a dream both of them (on dreams cf. Genesis 20:3), each man his
dream in one night (this was the first remarkable circumstance connected with these
dreams—they both happened the same night), each man according to the
interpretation of his dream (i.e. each dream corresponded exactly, as the event
proved, to the interpretation put on it by Joseph, which was a second remarkable
circumstance, inasmuch as it showed the dreams to be no vain hallucinations of the
mind, but Divinely-sent foreshadowings of the future fortunes of the dreamers), the
butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, which were bound in the prison.
PETT, "Verse 5
‘And they dreamed a dream, both of them, each man his dream, in one night, each
man a dream with its own interpretation, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of
Egypt who were bound in prison.’
The scene is now set. Both officers have dreams on the same night, dreams which,
we are informed, were significant for they had their own meaning. It would appear
that they both discussed them in the morning and were deeply troubled by them, for
they both knew that such dreams could be a portent of something serious and could
have an important meaning. The interpretation of dreams was a ‘science’. Men
studied and learned the techniques for interpreting them and much had been
written on the subject. But because they were in prison they could not consult them.

6 When Joseph came to them the next morning,
he saw that they were dejected.
CLARKE, "They were sad - They concluded that their dreams portended
something of great importance, but they could not tell what.
GILL, "And Joseph came in unto them in the morning,.... For though Joseph
and they were in the same prison, yet not in the same ward. Aben Ezra thinks that
Joseph lodged in the dungeon in the night, Gen_40:15; and was let out in the morning to
wait on these prisoners; but the great interest he had in the keeper of the prison, and the
favour shown him by the captain of the guard, in putting such prisoners under his care,
will easily make one conclude, that Joseph now had a better lodging than that; though it
had been his case, he was now provided with a better apartment in the prison; and when
he arose in the morning, like a careful and faithful servant, he came to the ward where
the prisoners under his care were, to see that they were safe, and what they wanted:
and looked upon them, and, behold, they were sad; they looked sorrowful,
dejected, and uneasy.
HAWKER, "If we spiritualize this question and apply it to soul-distresses, that verse of
David will be the enquiry, Psa_42:11.
HE RY, " The impression which was made upon these prisoners by their dreams
(Gen_40:6): They were sad. It was not the prison that made them sad (they were pretty
well used to that, and perhaps lived jovially there), but the dream. Note, God has more
ways than one to sadden the spirits of those that are to be made sad. Those sinners that
are hardy enough under outward troubles, and will not yield to them, yet God can find
out a way to punish; he can take off their wheels, by wounding their spirits, and laying

loads upon them.
CALVI , "6.And Joseph came in unto them, in the morning. As I have lately said,
we ought here to behold, with the eyes of faith, the wonderful providence of God.
For, although the butler and baker are certainly informed of their own fate; yet this
was not done so much out of regard to them, as in favor of Joseph; whom God
designed, by this method, to make known to the king. Therefore, by a secret instinct
he had rendered them sad and astonished, as if he would lead them by the hand to
his servant Joseph. It is, however, to be observed, that by a new inspiration of the
Spirit, the gift of prophecy, which he had not before possessed, was imparted to him
in the prison. When he had previously dreamed himself, he remained, for a while, in
suspense and doubt respecting the divine revelation; but now he is a certain
interpreter to others. And though, when he was inquiring into the cause of their
sadness, he perhaps did not think of dreams; yet, from the next verse it appears that
he was conscious to himself of having received the gift of the Spirit; and, in this
confidence, he exhorts them to relate the dreams, of which he was about to be the
interpreter. Do not interpretations (he says) belong to God ? Certainly he does not
arrogantly transfer to himself what he acknowledges to be peculiar to God; but
according to the means which his vocation supplied, he offers them his service. This
must be noted, in order that no one may undesignedly usurp more to himself than
he knows that God has granted him. For, on this account, Paul so diligently teaches
that the gifts of the Spirit are variously distributed, (1 Corinthians 12:4,) and that
God has assigned to each a certain post, in order that no one may act ambitiously, or
intrude himself into another’s office; but rather that each should keep himself
within the bounds of his own calling. Unless this degree of moderation shall prevail,
all things will necessarily be thrown into confusion; because the truth of God will be
distorted by the foolish temerity of many; peace and concord will be disturbed, and,
in short, no good order will be maintained. Let us learn, therefore, that Joseph
confidently promised an interpretation of the dreams, because he knew that he was
furnished and adorned with this gift by God. The same remark applies to his
interrogation respecting the dreams. For he does not attempt to proceed beyond
what his own power authorized him to do: he does not, therefore, divine what they
had dreamed, but confesses it was hidden from him. The method pursued by Daniel
was different, for he was enabled, by a direct revelation, to state and interpret the
dream which had entirely escaped the memory of the king of Babylon. (Daniel 2:28.)
He, therefore, relying upon a larger measure of the Spirit, does not hesitate to
profess that he can both divine and interpret dreams. But Joseph, to whom the half
only of these gifts was imparted, keeps himself within legitimate bounds. Besides, he
not only guards himself against presumption; but, by declaring that whatever he has
received is from God, he ingenuously testifies that he has nothing from himself. He
does not, therefore, boast of his own quickness or clear-sightedness, but wishes only

to be known as the servant of God. Let those who excel, follow this rule; lest, by
ascribing too much to themselves, (which commonly happens,) they obscure the
grace of God. Moreover, this vanity is to be restrained, not only that God alone may
be glorified, and may not be robbed of his right; but that prophets, and teachers,
and all others who are indued with heavenly grace, may humbly submit themselves
to the direction of the Spirit. What Moses says is also to be observed, that Joseph
was concerned at the sadness of those who were with him in prison. For thus men
become softened by their own afflictions, so that they do not despise others who are
in misery; and, in this way, common sufferings generate sympathy. Wherefore it is
not wonderful that God should exercise us with various sorrows; since nothing is
more becoming than humanity towards our brethren, who, being weighed down
with trials, lie under contempt. This humanity, however, must be learned by
experience; because our innate ferocity is more and more inflated by prosperity.
PULPIT, "Genesis 40:6, Genesis 40:7
And Joseph came in unto them in the morning (a proof that Joseph at this time
enjoyed comparative freedom from corporeal restraint in the prison), and looked
upon them, and, behold, they were sad. The word ‫ִים‬‫פ‬ֲ‫ע‬ֹ ‫ז‬ from ‫ַף‬‫ע‬ָ‫ז‬, to be angry,
originally signifying irate, wrathful, τεταραγµένοι (LXX.), is obviously intended
rather to convey the idea of dejection, tristes (Vulgate). And he asked Pharaoh's
officers that were With him in the ward of his lord's house, saying, Wherefore look
ye so sadly today?—literally, knowing what ( ַ‫ע‬‫ַדּוּ‬‫מ‬—ַ‫ע‬‫ָדוּ‬‫י‬ ‫ָה‬‫מ‬ —τί µαθών) are your
faces evil, or bad (πρόσωπα σκυθρωπὰ, LXX.; tristier solito, Vulgate), today?
PETT, "Verses 6-8
‘And Joseph came in to them in the morning and saw them, and behold, they were
sad. And he asked Pharaoh’s officers who were in custody with him in his master’s
house, “Why are you looking so sad today?” ’
When Joseph saw them it was clear to him that something was wrong. And he
recognised that it was his responsibility to cheer them up. So he asked them what it
was.

We note in the narrative the constant reminders that all this was taking place in
prison. These accounts would be read out and it was necessary to keep in the
hearer’s mind the solemnity of the situation. It may also be that the writer is trying
to bring home to us emphatically what Joseph’s position was.
Genesis 40:8 a
‘And they said to him, “We have dreamed a dream, and there is no one who can
interpret it.” ’
Their reply demonstrates the confidence they had built up in Joseph. They felt he
was important enough and friendly enough to discuss the matter with (you do not
tell such important things to just anyone). Thus they explained that they had had
dreams which appeared to be important but that they had no means of obtaining
their interpretation. They were no doubt filled with a sense of foreboding. Such
portents were often a warning.
Genesis 40:8 b
‘And Joseph said to them, “Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell it to me
please.’
To speak of Yahweh would have been meaningless to the men. Thus Joseph speaks
of God. Let them tell him the dreams and the implication is that his God will help
him to interpret them.
7 So he asked Pharaoh’s officials who were in
custody with him in his master’s house, “Why do
you look so sad today?”

GILL, "And he asked Pharaoh's officers that were with him,.... The chief butler
and baker that were committed to his care, and with whom he now was:
in the ward of the lord's house; this seems to confirm what is before observed, that
the captain of the guard that charged Joseph with them was Potiphar his master; though
indeed the keeper of the prison that was under Potiphar, the captain of the guard, might
be called Joseph's lord or master, but the house could not with so much propriety be
called his:
saying, wherefore look ye so sadly today? as they were officers, who had been in
lucrative places, they lived well and merrily, and expected very probably they should be
released in a short time, nothing appearing against them; but now there was a strange
alteration in them, which was very visible to Joseph, and for which he expresses a
concern, being of a kind, tender, and benevolent disposition, as the question he puts to
them shows.
HE RY, " Joseph's great tenderness and compassion towards them. He enquired
with concern, Wherefore look you so sadly today? Gen_40:7. Joseph was their keeper,
and in that office he was mild. Note, It becomes us to take cognizance of the sorrows
even of those that are under our check. Joseph was their companion in tribulation, he
was now a prisoner with them, and had been a dreamer too. Note, Communion in
sufferings helps to work compassion towards those that do suffer. Let us learn hence, 1.
To concern ourselves in the sorrows and troubles of others, and to enquire into the
reason of the sadness of our brethren's countenances; we should be often considering
the tears of the oppressed, Ecc_4:1. It is some relief to those that are in trouble to be
taken notice of. 2. To enquire into the causes of our own sorrow, “Wherefore do I look so
sadly? Is there a reason? Is it a good reason? Is there not a reason for comfort sufficient
to balance it, whatever it is? Why art thou cast down, O my soul?”
8 “We both had dreams,” they answered, “but
there is no one to interpret them.”
Then Joseph said to them, “Do not interpretations
belong to God? Tell me your dreams.”

CLARKE, "There is no interpreter - They either had access to none, or those to
whom they applied could give them no consistent, satisfactory meaning.
Do not interpretations belong to God? - God alone, the Supreme Being, knows
what is in futurity; and if he have sent a significant dream, he alone can give the solution.
GILL, "And they said unto him, we have dreamed a dream,.... Each of them:
and there is no interpreter of it; in that place in which they were, the prison;
otherwise there were persons enough in the land that pretended to the interpretation of
dreams, Gen_41:8; but they could not come at them, being in prison:
and Joseph said unto them, do not interpretations belong to God? that is, of
dreams, and to him only, meaning the true God whom he worshipped; for as dreams
themselves, which are of importance, and predict things to come, are of God; for none
can foretell future events but he, and such to whom he imparts the gift of prophecy; so
none can interpret dreams with any certainty but God himself, and those to whom he
gives the faculty of interpretation of them; this Joseph said to take off their minds from
the magicians and wise men, and interpreters of dreams among the Egyptians, these
officers were hankering after, and wished they had them with them to interpret their
dreams to them; and to suggest unto them, that though he did not arrogate such a power
to himself, as having it of himself, yet intimates that he doubted not, but upon an
address to his God, he would favour him with the interpretation of their dreams, and
therefore encourages them to relate them to him:
tell me them, I pray you; or "now" (z), directly, as the Targums of Onkelos and
Jonathan; signifying, that he would immediately interpret them to them; no doubt
Joseph said this under a divine impulse.
HAWKER, "How piously Joseph refers all wisdom unto GOD! Isa_41:22-23; Dan_
2:28-30.
HE RY, " The dreams themselves, and the interpretation of them. That which
troubled these prisoners was that being confined they could not have recourse to the
diviners of Egypt who pretended to interpret dreams: There is no interpreter here in the
prison, Gen_40:8. Note, There are interpreters which those that are in prison and
sorrow should wish to have with them, to instruct them in the meaning and design of
Providence (Elihu alludes to such, when he says, If there be an interpreter, one among a
thousand, to show unto man his uprightness, Job_33:23, Job_33:24), interpreters to
guide their consciences, not to satisfy their curiosity. Joseph hereupon directed them
which way to look: Do not interpretations belong to God? He means the God whom he

worshipped, to the knowledge of whom he endeavours hereby to lead them. Note, It is
God's prerogative to foretel things to come, Isa_46:10. He must therefore have the
praise of all the gifts of foresight which men have, ordinary or extraordinary. Joseph
premises a caveat against his own praise, and is careful to transmit the glory to God, as
Daniel, Dan_2:30. Joseph suggests, “If interpretations belong to God, he is a free agent,
and may communicate the power to whom he pleases, and therefore tell me your
dreams.” Now, 1. The chief butler's dream was a happy presage of his enlargement, and
re-advancement, within three days; and so Joseph explained it to him, Gen_40:12, Gen_
40:13. Probably it had been usual with him to press the full-ripe grapes immediately into
Pharaoh's cup, the simplicity of that age not being acquainted with the modern arts of
making the wine fine. Observe, Joseph foretold the chief butler's deliverance, but he did
not foresee his own. He had long before dreamt of his own honour, and the obeisance
which his brethren should do to him, with the remembrance of which he must now
support himself, without any new or fresh discoveries. The visions that are for the
comfort of God's saints are for a great while to come, and relate to things that are very
far off, while the foresights of others, like this recorded there, look but three days before
them. 2. The chief baker's dream portended his ignominious death, Gen_40:18, Gen_
40:19. The happy interpretation of the other's dream encouraged him to relate his. Thus
hypocrites, when they hear good things promised to good Christians, would put in for a
share, though they have no part nor lot in the matter. It was not Joseph's fault that he
brought him no better tidings. Ministers are but interpreters, they cannot make the
thing otherwise than it is; if therefore they deal faithfully, and their message prove
unpleasing, it is not their fault. Bad dreams cannot expect a good interpretation.
K&D, "On their replying that they had dreamed, and there was no one to interpret
the dream, Joseph reminded them first of all that “interpretations are God's,” come from
God, are His gift; at the same time he bade them tell him their dreams, from a
consciousness, no doubt, that he was endowed with this divine gift.
COKE, "Genesis 40:8. Do not interpretations, &c.— That is, says Calmet, "the
explanation of your dreams depends not on a diviner; it is God who reveals it to the
diviner himself, [if it be revealed] and who can reveal it to me as well as to him, if he
think proper." Joseph reasons here upon a principle universally allowed, that God
alone has the knowledge of future events, and consequently that he alone can reveal
such events, whatever instruments he may think fit to use for that purpose. See
Daniel 4:8-9. and Herod. l. ii. c. 83.
And they said unto him, We hays dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of

it—literally, a dream have we dreamt, and interpreting it there is none. This must
be noted as a third peculiarity connected with these dreams, that both of their
recipients were similarly affected by them, though there was much in the butler's
dream to inspire hope rather than dejection. And Joseph said unto them, Do not
interpretations belong to God?—literally, Are not interpretations to Elohim? i.e. the
Supreme Being (cf. Genesis 41:16; Daniel 2:11, Daniel 2:28, Daniel 2:47). The
Egyptians believed ὅτι ἀνθρώπων µὲν οὐδενὶ προσκέεται ἡ τέχνη µαντικὴ τῶν δὲ
θεῶν µετεξετέροισε (Herod; 2:83). Tell me them, I pray you. Joseph's request
implies that the consciousness of his Divine calling to be a prophet had begun to
dawn upon him, and that he was now speaking from an inward conviction,
doubtless produced within his mind by Elohim, that he could unfold the true
significance of the dreams.
9 So the chief cupbearer told Joseph his dream.
He said to him, “In my dream I saw a vine in
front of me,
BAR ES, "Gen_40:9-15
The chief butler now recites his dream. “Pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup.” The
imagery of the dream is not intended to intimate that Pharaoh drank only the fresh juice
of the grape. It only expresses by a natural figure the source of wine, and possibly the
duty of the chief butler to understand and superintend the whole process of its
formation. Egypt was not only a corn, but a vine country. The interpretation of this
dream was very obvious and natural; yet not without a divine intimation could it be
known that the “three branches were three days.” Joseph, in the quiet confidence that
his interpretation would prove correct, begs the chief butler to remember him and
endeavor to procure his release. “Stolen, stolen was I.” He assures him that he was not a
criminal, and that his enslavement was an act of wrongful violence - a robbery by the
strong hand. “From the land of the Hebrews;” a very remarkable expression, as it
strongly favors the presumption that the Hebrews inhabited the country before Kenaan
took possession of it. “I have not done aught.” Joseph pleads innocence, and claims
liberation, not as an unmerited favor, but as a right. “The pit.” The pit without water
seems to have been the primitive place of confinement for culprits.

GILL, "And the chief butler told his dream to Joseph,.... He listened to what
Joseph said, and paid a regard to it, and began to think he might be able to interpret his
dream, and therefore was forward, and the first to tell him it at once; whereas the chief
baker did not seem disposed to do it, until he observed the good interpretation given of
the butler's dream, Gen_40:16,
and said unto him, in my dream, behold, a vine was before me; it appeared to
him in his dream, as if a vine sprung up at once, and stood before him; which was very
suitable to his office as a butler, wine being the fruit of the vine, which he provided for
the king his master, and presented to him at table.
JAMISO , "Gen_40:9-15. The butler’s dream.
In my dream, behold, a vine was before me — The visionary scene described
seems to represent the king as taking exercise and attended by his butler, who gave him
a cooling draught. On all occasions, the kings of ancient Egypt were required to practice
temperance in the use of wine [Wilkinson]; but in this scene, it is a prepared beverage he
is drinking, probably the sherbet of the present day. Everything was done in the king’s
presence - the cup was washed, the juice of the grapes pressed into it; and it was then
handed to him - not grasped; but lightly resting on the tips of the fingers.
K&D 9-11, "The cup-bearer gave this account: “In my dream, behold there was a
vine before me, and on the vine three branches; and it was as though blossoming, it
shot forth its blossom ( ָ ִ‫נ‬ either from the hapax l. ‫ץ‬ֵ‫נ‬ = ‫ה‬ ָ ִ‫,נ‬ or from ‫ה‬ ָ ִ‫נ‬ with the fem.
termination resolved into the 3 pers. suff.: Ewald, §257d), its clusters ripened into
grapes. And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; and I took the grapes and pressed them
into Pharaoh's cup, and gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.” In this dream the office and
duty of the royal cup-bearer were represented in an unmistakeable manner, though the
particular details must not be so forced as to lead to the conclusion, that the kings of
ancient Egypt drank only the fresh juice of the grape, and not fermented wine as well.
The cultivation of the vine, and the making and drinking of wine, among the Egyptians,
are established beyond question by ancient testimony and the earliest monuments,
notwithstanding the statement of Herodotus (2, 77) to the contrary (see Hengstenberg,
Egypt and the Books of Moses, pp. 13ff.).
COFFMA , "Verses 9-13
"And the chief butler told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, In my dream,
behold, a vine was before me; and in the vine were three branches: and it was as
though it budded, and its blossoms shot forth; and the clusters thereof brought forth
ripe grapes: and Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; and I took the grapes, and pressed
them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand. And Joseph said
unto him, This is the interpretation of it: the three branches are three days; within

yet three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head, and restore thee unto thine office: and
thou shalt give Pharaoh's cup into his hand, after the former manner when thou
wast his butler."
It has been widely supposed, that since the ancient Pharaohs drank only "wine,"
then some kind of an anachronism was here committed by the author of Genesis,
but as Dummelow pointed out:
"Among the inscriptions on the temple of Edfu is one in which the king is seen with
a cup in his hand, and underneath are the words, "They press grapes into the water,
and the king drinks."[11]
"Pharaoh will lift up thy head ..." Again we are face to face with an example of
God's use of the same words or expressions with multiple, or even opposite
meanings, as in the case of "seed" in the promise of Abraham, which we have
repeatedly cited. This expression to the butler meant his restoration to his former
office, and for the baker (Genesis 40:19), it meant he would be executed, probably
by hanging. There are many such examples of this usage of one term with multiple
meanings in the Bible. As Kline expressed it: "Joseph used a key expression with
opposite meanings to describe the cupbearer's restoration, and secondly, to describe
the decapitation (or hanging) of the baker."[12]
Some have supposed that, with the example before us, the interpretation of dreams
may be attempted now; but, it is still true that "interpretations belong to God."
Despite some implications of the dream seeming to be rather obvious, the key
element is absolutely inscrutable. The three branches ... the three baskets - these
could have signified three weeks, three years, three months, or nearly anything else.
As a matter of fact, they represented three days.
WHEDO , "9. Behold, a vine — otably the butler dreams of vines, and the baker
of the food (Genesis 40:17) he was wont to prepare for the king. “Herodotus denies
the existence of vines in ancient Egypt, and says that the Egyptian wine was made of
barley. 2:77. Yet Herodotus himself, (ii, 42, 48:144,) and Diodorus, (i, 11,) identify
Osiris with the Greek Bacchus, the discoverer of the vine, and Diodorus (i, 15)

expressly ascribes to Osiris the first cultivation of the vine. But it now appears from
the monuments, that both the cultivation of grapes and the art of making wine were
well known in Egypt from the time of the Pyramids.” — Speaker’s Commentary.
GUZIK, "B. Joseph interprets their dreams.
1. (9-11) The butler explains his dream.
Then the chief butler told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, Behold, in my
dream a vine was before me, and in the vine were three branches; it was as though it
budded, its blossoms shot forth, and its clusters brought forth ripe grapes. Then
Pharaohs cup was in my hand; and I took the grapes and pressed them into
Pharaohs cup, and placed the cup in Pharaohs hand.
a. In my dream a vine was before me, and in the vine were three branches: Though
this dream was from God, God used figures and pictures that made sense to the
butler (a vine, grapes, and serving the Pharaoh wine).
b. Pharaohs cup was in my hand: In his dream, the butler saw himself serve the
Pharaoh again, restored to his former position.
LA GE, " Genesis 40:9-15. The dream of the chief butler and its interpretation.—
In my dream, behold a vine.—A lively description of a lively dream. The first
picture is the vine, and the rapid development of its branches to the maturity of the
grapes. On the vine in Egypt, see Knobel, p307. In the second picture, the chief
butler beholds himself in the service of Pharaoh, preparing and presenting to him
the juice of the grapes. “The vine was referred to Osiris, and was already well
known in Egypt. See Psalm 78:47; Psalm 105:33; umbers 20:5. The statement,
Herod, ii77, Isaiah, therefore, to be taken with limitations. or is it true that in the
time of Psammeticus fresh must only was drank, while fermented wine was
prohibited. Knobel has shown that Plutarch, De Iside, vi6, says just the contrary.
The people drank wine unrestrained; the kings, because they were priests, only so
much as was allowed by the sacred books; but from the time of Psammeticus even

this restriction was abolished. The old monuments show great variety of wine-
utensils, wine-presses at work, topers tired of drinking, even intoxicated women.”
Delitzsch. “Wine had been prohibited before the time of Mohammed (Sharastani, ii.
p346). The grapes he allowed (Koran, xvi11, 69). They evaded his prohibition by
pressing the grapes and drinking the juice of the berries (Schultz, Leitungen, v.
p286). Such juice of grapes the Egyptian king drank also in Joseph’s time. He was a
ruler of the Hyksos (?), who were an Arabian tribe.” Knobel. The same: The dream-
interpreter Artemidorus classes the vine with plants that grow rapidly, and regards
dreams concerning it as having a quick fulfilment. Joseph’s interpretation.—Three
branches, three days.—Since Pharaoh’s birth-day was at hand, and was known,
perhaps, as a day of pardon, this presentiment may, to some degree, have been
affected by it.—Lift up thine head.—To replace, again, in prosperity and honor,
especially to bring out of prison ( 2 Kings 25:27).—And show kindness, I pray thee,
unto me.—Joseph is so sure of his interpretation that he employs the opportunity to
plead for his own right and liberty.—I was stolen.—An expression of innocence.
They took him away from his father, but how it was done, his feelings do not allow
him to relate; enough that he came to Egypt neither as a criminal, nor as a slave,
rightly sold. With the same caution he speaks about his imprisonment without
exposing the house of Potiphar.
PULPIT, "Genesis 40:9-11
And the chief butler told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, In my dream,
behold, a vine was before me—literally, in my dream (sc. I was), and behold a vine
(gephen, from the unused root gaphan, to be bent, a twig, hence a plant which has
twigs, especially a vine; cf. 9:13; Isaiah 7:1-25 :43; Isaiah 24:7) before me. The
introduction of the vine into the narrative, which has been pronounced (Bohlen) an
important factor in proof of its recent composition, since, according to Herodotus (ii.
77), the vine was not cultivated in Egypt, and, according to Plutarch ('De Is. et
Osir.,' 6), it was not till after Psammetichus, i.e. about the time of Josiah, that the
Egyptians began to drink wine, has now by more accurate study been ascertained to
be in exact accordance, not only with Biblical statements ( umbers 20:5; Psalms
78:47; Psalms 105:33), but likewise with the testimony of Herodotus, who affirms
(2:37) that wine (οι}noj a)mpe&lenoj) was a privilege of the priestly order, and with
the representations on the monuments of vines and grapes, and of the entire process
of wine-making. And in the vine were three branches:—sarigim, tendrils of a vine,
from sarag, to intertwine (Genesis 40:12; Joel 1:7)—and it was as though it budded,
and her blossoms shot forth;—literally, as it budded (Murphy); or, as though

blossoming (Rosenmüller, Keil, Kalisch); it shot forth its blossom (Keil); or, its
blossoms shot forth (Rosenmüller, Kalisch, Murphy)—and the clusters thereof
brought forth ripe grapes:—more correctly, its stems caused to ripen, or matured,
clusters, the ‫ֹל‬ ‫כּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ֶ‫א‬ being the stalk of a cluster, as distinguished from the ‫ִים‬‫ב‬ָ‫ג‬ֲ‫ע‬, or
clusters themselves, though interpreters generally (Kalisch, Keil, Murphy) regard
the first as the unripe, and the second as the ripe, cluster—and Pharaoh's cup — ‫ֹס‬ ‫כּז‬
, a receptacle or vessel, either contracted from ‫ֶס‬‫ג‬ֵ‫כּ‬, like ‫ישׁ‬ִ‫א‬ for ‫ֶשׁ‬‫ג‬ֵ‫א‬ (Gesenius), or
derived from ‫,כּוּא‬ to conceal, to receive, to keep, connected with the idea of bringing
together, collecting into a thing (Furst)—was in my hand: and I took the grapes, and
pressed them —ἐξέθλιψα (LXX.), expressi (Vulgate), a translation adopted by the
most competent authorities (Gesenius, Furst, Rosenmüller, Keil, Kalisch, et alii),
though the sense of diluting with water is advocated by Dathe, Havernick ('Introd.,'
§ 21), and others as the most appropriate signification of ‫ַט‬‫ח‬ָ‫,שׁ‬ which occurs only
here. That Pharaoh is represented as drinking the expressed juice of grapes is no
proof that the Egyptians were not acquainted with fermentation, and did not drink
fermented liquors. In numerous frescoes the process of fermentation is distinctly
represented, and Herodotus testifies that though the use of grape wine was
comparatively limited, the common people drank a wine made from barley: οἵνῳ δ
ἐκ κριθέων πεποιηµένῳ (2:77)—into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into
Pharaoh's hand —literally, I placed the cup upon Pharaoh's palm, ‫ַף‬‫כּ‬ , used of
Jacob's thigh-socket (Genesis 32:26), meaning something hollowed out.
10 and on the vine were three branches. As soon
as it budded, it blossomed, and its clusters ripened
into grapes.
GILL, "And in the vine were three branches,.... Which shot out from the root or

Genesis 40 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Genesis 40 commentary

Similar to Genesis 40 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Genesis 40 commentary