Genesis 37:1-36

PART FORTY-SIX
THE STORY OF JOSEPH

(Genesis 37:1-36; Genesis 39:1 to Genesis 47:31)

1. The Biblical Story: Joseph as a Youth in Canaan (Genesis 37:1-36).

1 And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father's sojournings, in the land of Canaan. 2 These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and he was a lad with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives: and Joseph brought the evil report of them unto their father. 3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colors. 4 And his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren; and they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.
5 And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brethren: and they hated him yet the more. 6 And he said unto them, Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed: 7 for, behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and, lo, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright; and, behold, your sheaves came round about, and made obeisance to my sheaf. 8 And his brethren said to him, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words. 9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it to his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed yet a dream; and, behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars made obeisance to me. 10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren; and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth? 11 And his brethren envied him; but his father kept the saying in mind.
12 And his brethren went to feed their father's flock in Shechem. 13 And Israel said unto Joseph, Are not thy brethren feeding the flock in Shechem? come, and I will send thee unto them. And he said to him, Here am I. 14 And he said to him, Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren, and well with the flock; and bring me word again. So he sent him out of the vale of Hebron, and he came to Shechem. 15 And a certain man found him, and, behold, he was wandering in the field: and the man asked him, saying, What seekest thou? 16 And he said, I am seeking my brethren: tell me, I pray thee, where they are feeding the flock. 17 And the man said, They are departed hence; for 1 heard them say, Let us go to Dothan. And Joseph went after his brethren, and found them in Dothan.
18 And they saw him afar off, and before he came near unto them, they conspired against him to saly him. 19 And they said one to another, Behold, this dreamer cometh. 20 Come now therefore, and let us slay him, and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say, An evil beast hath devoured him: and we shall see what will become of his dreams. 21 And Reuben heard it, and delivered him out of their hand, and said, Let us not take his life. 22 And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but lay no hand upon him: that he might deliver him out of their hand, to restore him to his father. 23 And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him; 24 and they took him, and cast him into the pit: and the pit was empty, there was no water in it.
25 And they sat down to eat bread: and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt. 26 And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood? 27 Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother, our flesh. And his brethren hearkened unto him. 28 And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. And they brought Joseph into Egypt.
29 And Reuben returned unto the pit; and, behold, Joseph was not in the pit; and he rent his clothers. 30 And he returned unto his brethren, and said, The child is not; and I, whither shall I go? 31 And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a he-goat, and dipped the coat in the blood; 32 and they sent the coat of many colors, and they brought it to their father, and said, This have we found: know now whether it is thy son's coat or not. 33 And he knew it, and said, It is my son's coat; an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt torn in pieces. 34 And Jacob rent his garments, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days. 35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he said, For I will go down to Sheol to my son mourning. And his father wept for him. 36 And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, and officer of Pharaoh'S, the captain of the guard.

(1) The Motif of the Joseph-Story is obvious, namely, that of the operation of Divine Providence in relation to human affairs, and in relation especially to all those eminent personages whose lives in any significant way become related to the development of God's Plan and Redemption, both through His people of the Old Covenant and His people of the New Covenant, the fleshly and spiritual seed of Abraham, respectively (Galatians 3:23-29). With the exception of ch. 38 and ch. 49 the whole of this final section of Genesis is a biography of Joseph. This narrative, unlike what has gone before, proceeds without any visible divine intervention and without any new revelation; it is one long lesson. Providence thwarts mens-' plots and turns their malice to profit. The lesson is explicit in Genesis 50:20 (cf. Genesis 45:5-8). Betrayed by his brothers, Joseph is rescued by God who makes the betrayal itself serve the divine purpose, for its resultthe arrival of Jacob's sons in Egypt is the first step in the making of a chosen people. This theme of salvation (-the survival of a numerous people,-' Genesis 50:20) runs throughout the whole of the Old Testament to be enriched in the New. Here, as later in the Exodus, we have a preliminary sketch of the Redemption. Not a few details in the narrative bear witness to a precise knowledge of Egyptian affairs and customs as known to us from Egyptian sources (JB, 59).

(2) Joseph the Dreamer: His Brothers-' Hatred (Genesis 37:1-24). We meet Joseph again as a lad of seventeen years dwelling with his father in the land of the latter's sojourning, that is, in the area around Hebron (25:37). It is interesting to note that Jacob, like his father Isaac and his grandfather Abraham, was just sojourning in the Land of Promise. They were still pilgrims (cf. Hebrews 11:8-16). They owned nothing except the plot that had been purchased by Abraham for a burial site, the Cave of Machpelah (Genesis 23:17-20). At the beginning of the significant history of Joseph, we find him on his way, at his father's command, to the place where his brothers were tending their flocks, supposedly near Shechem. However, on arriving at Shechem Jacob learned that the brothers had gone to Dothan, to which place he accordingly followed them. Already Joseph had aroused the hatred and envy of the brothers on three counts (as would be said in legal phraseology): 1. He reported to his father the misconduct (whatever form that took) of the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, Jacob's concubines. We find it difficult to believe that Joseph had any personal prejudices in the matter or even any personal desire to injure these men. We are inclined to think that his motive was good: apparently he had higher ideals than the brothers and felt that his father should know about their delinquencies. Or perhaps it was just childish naivete, on the part of this lad of seventeen. At any rate, the brothers hated him for voluntarily taking upon himself the role of a tale-bearer. However, there are some who would justify his actions, e.g., the following: It is no just charge against Joseph that he brought an evil report of his brethren. Had he carried it out of malice, however true, it had been so far evil; but brought from a desire that parental advice might effect reformation, it was both justifiable and right (SIBG, 273). 2. Jacob loved him more than his other children, and showed his partiality by decking out Joseph in a coat of many colors. A garment of several colors is a mark of honor in all countries, more especially in the East. In Europe every dignitary has its appropriate color and garment, in every profession and employment, civil or military. This was a long outer robe, made of many bright pieces and bright colors. It was expensive, showy, and usually worn only by persons of rank (SIBG, 273). This garment must have been a constant source of irritation to the brothers. It is supposed to have been a long coat (tunic) with sleeves (cf. 2 Samuel 13:18), that is, an upper coat reaching to the wrists and ankles, such as noblemen and kings-' daughters wore. This parental favoritism made Joseph actually hated by his brothers, so much so that they could not speak peaceably unto him, that is, ask him how he was, offer him the customary salutation, Peace be with thee, etc. 3. His dreams of a prophetical character finally tipped the scales. The first dream was that his brothers-' sheaves all made obeisance to his sheaf; the second, that the sun, moon, and eleven stars (that is to say, his father, mother, and eleven brothers) all bowed down before him, pointing in an unmistakable way to Joseph's supremacy: the first to his supremacy over his brethren, the second to his supremacy over the whole house of Israel. The brothers with their ill-will could not see anything in the dreams but the suggestions of his own ambition and pride of heart; and even the father, notwithstanding his partiality, was grieved by the second dream. The dreams are not represented as divine revelations; yet they are not to be regarded as pure flights of fancy from an ambitious heart, but as the presentiments of deep inward feelings, which were not produced without some divine influence being exerted upon Joseph's mind, and therefore were of prophetic significance, though they were not inspired directly by God, inasmuch as the purposes of God were still to remain hidden from the eyes of men for the saving good of all concerned (K-D, 335). (Note the allusion, to his mother, Genesis 37:10. Rachel, Joseph's mother, was now dead, but the customs of the Jews and of other nations conceded the title of mother to one who was not really a mother, but merely the wife of a father.) These dreams were interpreted by Joseph himself: we can only wonder whether his demeanor in telling them expressed self-righteousness or sheer naivete. Certainly his interpretation indicated his future supremacy over his entire family: the father could well sense that a secret pride and self-satisfaction prompted the telling and administered a deserved rebuke (EG, 960). The father saw what the dream signified: he interpreted the luminaries to mean I and thy mother and thy brethren. The question naturally arises: how can the mother, though dead, make obeisance? The simplest answer is that though she was dead she lived in the memory of this son and the father (EG, 960). We read that Jacob, though reprimanding his son, kept the son's saying in mind (cf. Luke 2:19; Luke 2:51). Dreams play a large part in the history of Joseph (cf. ch. 40); however, they are evidently not divine apparitions (as in Genesis 20:3, Genesis 28:12 ff., Genesis 31:11; Genesis 31:24); essentially they are, in Joseph's case, of the character of premonitions.

We have been told in Genesis 37:8 that the brothers hated Joseph for his dreams and all the more for his interpretation of them. Now in Genesis 37:11, we read that they envied him. Envied him for what? Envy is now added because this second dream went far beyond the first in its implications. Previously, Joseph's supremacy over his brothers had been indicated. Now it is supremacy over the whole family that is suggested. But Jacob, like Mary, Luke 2:19, bore the thing in mind. Strange things seemed to be foreshadowed by these remarkable dreams. In a measure they coincided with Jacob's own purposes, which he had intimated by the special cloak he had been providing for his favorite son. On the whole the folly of parental partiality is only too effectively portrayed (EG, 960).

(3) The Conspiracy (Genesis 37:18-24). Throughout all this Jacob seems to have been strangely ignorant of the attitude of his other brothers toward Rachel's son. Joseph himself seems not to have suspected that their envy was so strong as to turn into the commission of a crime against him. At any rate he went, under his father's orders, to Shechem but discovered that the brothers had moved on some distance to Dothan, a place fifteen miles north of Shechem, toward the plain of Jezreel. Joseph arrived at his destination only to find out that his brothers-' hatred had burgeoned into a conspiracy to kill him. We can clearly detect the sheer contempt in their voices when, on seeing the lad approach them, they said one to another, Behold, this dreamer cometh! Immediately they formed the malicious resolution to put this dreamer to death, to throw him into one of the pits (cisterns), and then report to the father that a wild beast had slain him, and in this manner to bring the dreamer's dreams and words (Genesis 37:8) to nought.

We might raise the question at this point as to what kind of personality Joseph manifested in these various relationships. We find great difference of opinion. For instance, one writer tells us: The very youthful Joseph must have been exasperating, to say the least. Undisciplined by contact with the world, he was boastful, thoughtless and egotistical. He needed the experience which came to him in order that he should become his noblest self. To be protected in a happy home from everything disagreeable is a pleasant experience, but not one which develops real greatness of character (HH, 43). Some commentators think of Joseph as what we would call a spoiled brat. We might ask, Is it possible to avoid the feeling, from what is said about him, especially in these days of his youth, that he was tainted with a large measure of self-righteousness? Other writers view the young man in a better light. Concerning the evil report which he brought back to his father of the evil doings of the sons of Bilhah and those of Zilpah, Murphy writes: The unsophisticated child of home is prompt in the disapproval of evil and frank in the avowal of his feelings. With reference to Joseph's interpretations of his dreams, Murphy writes: His frankness in reciting his dream to his brothers marks a spirit devoid of guile, and only dimly conscious of the import of his nightly visions (MG, 442-443). Lange writes: At the age of seventeen Joseph became a shepherd with his brethren. Jacob did not send his favorite son too early to the herds; yet, though the favorite, he was to begin to serve below the rest, as a shepherd-boy. At this age, however, Joseph had great naiveness and simplicity. He therefore imprudently tells his dreams, like an innocent child. On the other hand, however, he was very sedate; he was not enticed, therefore, by the evil example of some of his brethren, but considered it his duty to inform his father.. That the sons of the concubines surpassed the others in rude conduct, is easily understood. Joseph's moral earnestness is, doubtless, the first stumbling-block to his brethren, whilst it strengthens his father in his good opinion (CDHCG, 583).

At any rate, it was Reuben, who was the eldest son, and therefore specially responsible for his younger brother, opposed this murderous proposal. He dissuaded his brothers from killing Joseph outright, advising them to throw him into a dry pit (cistern) that was near. Naturally, Joseph would inevitably perish in the pit, and so their hatred was satisfied. However, it was Reuben's intention to take Joseph out of the pit later and restore him to his father. As soon as Joseph arrived on the scene, they took off his coat of many colors (his coat with sleeves) and threw him into the pit.

(4) Joseph is Sold into Slavery (Genesis 37:25-28). No sooner had the would-be fratricides sat down to eat, after throwing Joseph into the dry cistern, than they espied a company of Ishmaelites from Gilead advancing along the road that traversed the plain of Dothan to the great caravan highway that led from Damascus by way of Megiddo, Ramleh and Gaza into Egypt. The caravan drew near laden with spices, including the balsam for which Gilead was so well-known (Genesis 43:11; Jeremiah 8:22; Jeremiah 46:11). Judah seized this opportunity to propose to the brothers that they sell Joseph to these Ishmaelites. Said he, What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother, our flesh. Lest the victim's blood cry to heaven, the murderer covered it with earth (Genesis 4:10, Ezekiel 24:7) (JB, 61). And the brothers hearkened unto him.

Just what motivated Judah to take this step? Was it for the sum of money that would be their gain in consequence of the transaction? We can hardly think so. As we shall see later, Judah's conduct throughout the entire history of Joseph and his sons was marked by a certain quality of nobility that we cannot overlook. Reuben wished to deliver Joseph entirely from his brother's malice. Judah also wished to save his life, though not from brotherly love so much as from the feeling of horror, which was not quite extinct within him, at incurring the guilt of fratricide; but he would still like to get rid of him, that his dreams might not come true. Judah, like his brethren, was probably afraid that their father might confer upon Joseph the rights of the firstborn, and so make him lord over them. His proposal was a welcome one. When the Arabs passed by, the brethren fetched Joseph out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites, who took him into Egypt (K-D, 337). -Then Judah began to use the language of a hypocritical self-interest,-' says Delitzsch. This, however, seems not at all justified by Judah's after-history. It must be presupposed that Judah was unacquainted with Reuben's intention. The brethren were so much excited that Judah alone could not have hoped to rescue Joseph from their hand. The ferocity, especially, of Simeon and Levi, is known to us from former history. Judah, therefore, could not think otherwise than that Joseph must die from hunger in the pit. As in opposition to this, therefore, and not as a counteraction of Reuben's attempt at deliverance, is his proposal to be judged. Joseph lived still, though a slave. There was a possibility of his becoming free. He might make his escape by the caravan routes that passed south through his home. Reuben, in his tenderness, had made a subtle attempt to save him. In the bolder policy of Judah we see that subtle attempt crossed by one more daring. No doubt both had some ill-feeling towards Joseph, and were, therefore, not capable of a mutual and open understanding. That both, however, preserved a better conscience than the rest, is evident from the later history.. What Joseph says of himself afterwards, that he was stolen out of the land of the Hebrews (Genesis 40:15), does not contradict our narration. Was he to sell to the Egyptians the crime of his brethren? (Lange, 584).

The different names given to the tradersviz., Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:25; Genesis 37:27-28 b), Midianites (Genesis 37:28 a), and Medanites (Genesis 37:36)do not show that the account has been drawn from different legends, but that these tribes were often confounded, from the fact that they resembled one another so closely, not only in their common descent from Abraham (Genesis 16:15 and Genesis 25:2), but also in the similarity of their mode of life and their constant change of abode, that strangers could hardly distinguish them, especially when they appeared not as tribes but as Arabian merchants, such as they are here described as being: -Midianites, merchantmen.-' [Why not say that the names were used interchangeably? For Medanites, see the marginal rendering of Genesis 37:28, ASV.] That descendants of Abraham should already be met with in this capacity is by no means strange, if we consider that 150 years had passed since Ishmael's dismissal from his father's housea period amply sufficient for his descendants to have grown through marriage into a respectable tribe. The price, -twenty (sc. shekels) of silver,-' was the price which Moses afterwards fixed as the value of a boy between 5 and 20 (Leviticus 27:5), the average price of a slave being 30 shekels (Exodus 21:32). But the Ishmaelites naturally wanted to make money by the transaction (K-D, 337). It would not make sense to say in one breath, -Let us sell him to the Ishmaelites,-' and then in the same breath without explanation show how he was sold to Midianites, who, by the way, again appear as Ishmaelites before the end of the verse. Incidentally, in Genesis 37:36 a modification of the name Midianites occurs: they are called -Medanites,-' [again see Genesis 25:2]. Nor is the difficulty grave. First of all, Ishmaelites and Midianites have one ancestor, Abraham (Genesis 16:15, Genesis 25:2). Both groups may have been in this caravan. The Ishmaelites may have been the dominant faction, the Midianites the more numerous. In such a case both designations would be suitable. Instead of trying to reconcile a surface discrepancy critics press the different names in the interest of proving that the material of the chapter came from two different sources (Leupold, EG, 969). As to the statement attributed to Joseph in Genesis 40:15 in which he emphatically protested that he was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews, Leupold adds: But would you expect Joseph actually to reveal what his brothers had done to him? That passage would hardly cover the case of the Midianites who are supposed to have drawn him from a well. For to draw an abandoned wretch from a pit and to sell him is hardly theft (EG, 969).

(5) Jacob's Deep Grief (Genesis 37:29-36). The Ishmaelites, having completed the transaction, went on their way. Everything was settled in Reuben's absence; it may be that the brothers suspected that he intended to rescue Joseph. When he returned (note this verb: obviously, he had been absent) and found Joseph gone, he rent his clothes (a sign of intense grief on the part of the natural man), and exclaimed The child is not; and I, whither shall I go? That is, How shall I account to his father for his disappearance? The brothers, however, were at no loss about what to do: they dipped the colorfully variegated tunic (which had been an eyesore from the beginning) in the blood of a he-goat and sent it to Jacob, asking him whether it was Joseph's garment. (Their revenge thus prepared a cruel shock for the father. Had the father controlled his grief he might have found it suspicions that the cloak was not torn, but only stained with blood). At any rate, everything worked out as scheduled: the father examined the cloak, and recognized it immediately as Joseph'S. But the murderers were hardly prepared for the intense grief that overwhelmed Jacob. Their cruel device succeeded too well: Jacob was simply inconsolable: alarmed, and probably prompted by a feeling of guilt all his sons and all his daughters sought to comfort him, (Dinah is, of course, his only daughter named in Scripture). But Jacob refused to be comforted! He, too, rent his garments and put sackcloth upon his loins and mourned for his son many days, (Sackcloth was made of goat's hair, a coarse texture of a dark color: cf. Isaiah 50:3, Revelation 6:12. Wearing sackcloth was another badge of grief among Jews and heathen alike: 2 Samuel 3:31; 1 Kings 20:31; 1 Kings 21:27; 1 Chronicles 21:16; Nehemiah 9:1; Isaiah 37:1-2; Revelation 11:3). Assuming that Josephthe child of his deep and true love, the son of Rachelhad been devoured and destroyed by wild beasts, Jacob gave himself over to bitter, uncontrollable grief, exclaiming, Do not attempt to comfort me, for I will go down to Sheol mourning for my son. How should his sons comfort him, when they were obliged to cover their wickedness with the sin of lying and hypocrisy, and when even Reuben, although at first beside himself at the failure of his plan, had not courage enough to disclose his brothers-' crime (K-D, 338).

While his father Jacob wept for him, Joseph was taken into Egypt by the Midianites and sold to Potiphar, the commanding officer of the royal bodyguard, the official who executed the capital sentences ordered by the king (corresponding to a similar office among the Chaldeans, cf. 2 Kings 25:8; Jeremiah 39:9; Jeremiah 52:12). Joseph, while his father was mourning, was sold by the Midianites to Potiphar, the chief of Pharaoh's trabantes, to be first of all brought low, according to the wonderful counsel of God. and then to be exalted as ruler in Egypt, before whom his brothers would bow down, and as the savior of the house of Israel (K-D, 338). Note the word Sheol here: this was the Hebrew counterpart of the Greek and Roman Hades, the gloomy underworld of departed spirits or shades. (The word for the eternal abode of lost souls, in the New Testament, is Gehenna, a name derived from the gorge outside Jerusalem known as Ge-Hinnom, or the Valley of Hinnom, the place where the refuse of the city was constantly burning. It is significant that Jesus used this term, Gehenna (cf. Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:29-30; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 18:9; Matthew 18:23; Matthew 18:15; Matthew 23:23; Mark 9:43; Mark 9:45; Mark 9:47; Luke 12:5, James 3:6). (For Sheol in the O.T., see especially Deuteronomy 32:22, 2 Samuel 22:6; Job 11:8; Job 26:6; Psalms 16:10; Psalms 139:8; Proverbs 15:11; Proverbs 27:20; Isaiah 28:18, Ezekiel 32:27; Jonah 2:2, Habakkuk 2:5, etc.). Modern English translations generally use the originals, Sheol in the O.T., and Hades in the N.T. In most cases in the O.T., it simply signifies the grave. It can have no other meaning, apparently, in Genesis 37:35; Genesis 42:38; 1 Samuel 2:6; 1 Kings 2:6; Job 14:13; Job 17:13; Job 17:16, and in many passages in the writing of David, Solomon, and the prophets. The darkness and gloom of the grave was such that the word denoting it came to be applied to the abiding place of the miserable. (UBD, s.v.). In some instances, the word surely denotes the opposite of heaven (cf. Job 11:8, Psalms 139:8, Amos 9:3). In others it seems to mean strictly the abode of the wicked (as in Psalms 9:17, Proverbs 23:14) as distinguished from the righteous. The same general concepts are apparent in the Hades of the New Testament writings. In some cases the term does surely refer to the grave (e.g., Acts 2:31, 1 Corinthians 15:55); in others, to the underworld of punishment beyond the grave (Matthew 11:23; Matthew 16:18; Luke 10:15; Luke 16:23; Acts 2:27; Acts 2:31; Revelation 1:18; Revelation 6:8; Revelation 20:13-14). In classical Greek, Hades is indeed the unseen world, taking its name from the god of this world. In Greek mythology the cosmos was divided among three brothers: Zeus ruled over the land, Poseidon over the sea, and Hades over the world beyond death and the grave. (Their Roman counterparts were Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto). In the eleventh chapter of the Odyssey, Homer pictures Odysseus and his crew as plunging into the deep waters of the river Oceanus [which was supposed to encircle the earth], where lie the land and city of the Cimmerians who live enshrouded in mist and darkness, which the rays of the sun never pierce either at his rising or as he goes down again out of the heavens, but the poor wretches live in one long melancholy night. When we got there, we beached the ship, took the sheep out of her, and went along by the waters of Oceanus till we came to the place of which Circe had told us. This place was at the entrance to Hades, the underworld. Odysseus goes on to tell how he ordered his men to dig a trench there, how he prayed sufficiently to the dead, and how he then took the necessary steps to achieve communication with the shades who inhabited this dreary land. He tells the story as follows: I cut the throats of the two sheep and let the blood run into the trench, whereon the ghosts come trooping up from dark Erebusbrides, young bachelors, old men worn out with toil, maids who had been crossed in love, and brave men who had been killed in battle, with their armor still smirched with blood; they came from every quarter and flitted round the trench with a strange kind of screaming sound that made me turn pale with fear. One by one the great heroes and heroines of the Heroic Age came up to the trench; and on drinking of the sacrificial blood, each recovered memory and conversed with Odysseus [the Latin Ulysses] concerning reminiscences of life on earth. The testimony of the shade or ghost of Achilles is perhaps the most significant of all. Said Achilles: Speak not a word in death's favor. I would rather be a paid servant in a poor man's house and be above ground than king of kings among the dead (Samuel Butler translation). The Butcher-Lang translation here is more meaningful, as follows: Achilles says: Nay, speak not comfortably to me of death, oh great Odysseus. Rather would I live on ground as the hireling of another, with a landless man who had no great livelihood, than bear sway among all the dead that be departed. At the termination of the conversation, Odysseus tells us: So I spake, and the spirit of the son of Aeacus, fleet of foot, passed with great strides along the mead of asphodel, rejoicing in that I had told him of his son's renown. This is the true picture of Hades as envisioned in the early classical worldthe Greek counterpart of the Hebrew Sheol. It was the dark, dank, colorless habitation of the shades of the departed dead, a refuge, one might well say, of eternal melancholy hopelessness. This would indeed be eternal punishment.

T. Lewis makes the following interesting comments on the primitive conception of Sheol. This is the first place in which the word occurs, and it is very important to trace, as far as we can, the earliest conception, or rather emotion, out of which it arose. I will go down to my son mourning to Sheol-'towards Sheol, or, on the way to Sheol, the reference being to the decline of life terminating in that unknown state, place, or condition of being, so called. One thing is clear: it was not a state of not-being, if we may use so paradoxical an expression. Jacob was going to his son; he was still his son; there is yet a tie between him and his father; he is still spoken of as a personality; he is still regarded as having a being somehow, and somewhere. Compare 2 Samuel 12:23, I am going to him, but he shall not return to me.-' The him and the me in this case, like the I and the my son in Genesis, are alike personal. In the earliest language, where all is hearty, such use of the pronoun could have been no unmeaning figure. The being of the one who has disappeared is no less real than that of the one who remains still seen, still found, to use the Shemitic term for existence, or out-being, as a known and visible state.. It was not to his son in his grave, for Joseph had no grave. His body was supposed to be lying somewhere in the desert, or carried off, by the wild beasts (Genesis 37:33). To resolve it all into figurative expressions for the grave would be simply carrying our meaningless modern rhetoric into ancient forms of speech employed, in their first use, not for the reflex painting, but for the very utterance of emotional conceptions. However indefinite they may be, they are too mournfully real to admit of any such explanations. Looking at it steadily from this primitive standpoint, we are compelled to say, that an undoubting conviction of personal extinction at death, leaving nothing but a dismembered, decomposing body, now belonging to no one, would never have given rise to such language. The mere conception of the grave, as a place of burial, is too narrow for it. It, alone, would have destroyed the idea of its germ, rather than have given origin or expansion to it. The fact, too, that they had a well-known word for the grave, as a confined place of deposit for the body (see Genesis 23:9 for a possession, or property, of the grave) shows that this other name, and this other conception, were not dependent upon it, nor derived from it.. There is reference also to the German holle, or the general term of the northern nations (Gothic- Scandinavian, Saxon), denoting hole, or cavity, though this is the very question, whether the northern conception is not a secondary one, connected with that later thought of penal confinement which was never separable from the Saxon hella sense-limitation, in fact, of the more indefinite and more spiritual notion presented primarily by the Greek Hades, and which furnishes the true parallel to the early Hebrew Sheol.. That Sheol, in its primary sense, did not mean the grave, and in fact had no etymological association with it, is shown by the fact already mentioned, that there was a distinct word for the latter, of still earlier occurrence in the Scriptures, common in all the Shemitic languages, and presenting the definite primary conception of digging, or excavating. There was no room here for expansion into the greater thought.. Had Joseph been lying by the side of his mother in the field near Bethlehem Ephratah, or with Abraham and Sarah, and Isaac and Rebekah, in the cave of Machpelah, or in some Egyptian sarcophagus, embalmed with costliest spices and wrapped in aromatic linen, the idea of his unbroken personality would have been no more vivid, Joseph himself (the very ipse) would have been no nearer, or more real, to the mourning father, than as he thought of his body lying mangled in the wilderness, or borne by rapacious birds to the supposed four corners of the earth. I will go to my son mourning Sheol-wardon the way to the unknown land.. This view of Sheol is strongly corroborated by the parallel etymology, and the parallel connection of ideas we find in the origin and use of the Greek Hades.. Hades, like Sheol, had its two conceptual stages, first of state, afterwards of locality. To the Greek word, however, there was added a third idea. It came to denote also a power; and so was used for the supposed king of the dead (Iliad, 20:61). This personification appears again in the later Scriptures, 1 Corinthians 15:55, O Hades, where is thy victory? and in Revelation 6:8; Revelation 20:13-14, where Hades becomes limited to Gehenna, and its general power, as keeper of souls, is abolished In Lange, 586, 587).

Again: See a very remarkable passage, Diodorus Siculus, lib. 1, ch. 51, respecting the belief of the very ancient Egyptians: -The habitations of the living they call inns, or lodging-places, since we dwell in them so short a time, but those of the dead they style everlasting abodes, as residing in them forever.-' Why should not Jacob have had the idea as well as these most ancient Egyptians? That his thought was more indefinite, that it had less of circumstance and locality, less imagery every way, than the Greek and Egyptian fancy gave it, only proves its higher purity as a divine hope, a sublime act of faith, rather than a poetical picturing, or a speculative dogma. The less it assumed to know, or even to imagine, showed its stronger trust in the unseen world as an assured reality, but dependent solely for its clearer revelation on the unseen God. The faith was all the stronger, the less the aid it received from the sense or the imagination, It was grounded on the surer rock of the -everlasting covenant-' made with the fathers, though in it not a word was said directly of a future life. -The days of the years of my pilgrimage,-' says Jacob. He was -a sojourner upon the earth as his fathers before him.-' The language has no meaning except as pointing to a home, an eternal habitation, whether in Sheol, or through Sheol, was not known. It was enough that it was a return unto God, -his people's dwelling-place in all generations-' (Psalms 90:1). It was, in some way, a -living unto him,-' however they might disappear from earth and time; for -he is not the God of the dead.-' His covenant was an assurance of the continued being of those with whom it was made, -Because he lived they should live also.-' -Art thou not from everlasting, Jehovah, my God, my Holy One? we shall not (wholly) die.-' -Thou wilt lay us up in Sheol; thou wilt call and we will answer; thou wilt have regard to the work of thy hands.-' The pure doctrine of a personal God, and a belief in human extinction, have never since been found conjoined. Can we believe it of the lofty theism of the patriarchal age? (T. Lewis, ibid., 587). (Cf. Genesis 47:9, Hebrews 11:8 ff., Matthew 22:32, John 14:19, Habakkuk 1:12, etc. Cf. also Psalms 16:8-10, Acts 2:27: in these passages the reference is specifically to the redemption of the body, the last phase of redemption, known also as the putting on of immortality (Romans 8:23; Romans 1:5-7; Romans 8:11, Philippians 3:20-21, 1 Corinthians 15:35-58; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10: note here the phrase, that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life, Genesis 37:4).

A final word here, in re. Genesis 37:35: Jacob will wear the mourner's garb till his death, so that in the underworld his son may know how deep his grief has been (Gunkel). The shade was believed to appear in Sheol in the condition in which it left the world (Skinner, ICCG, 449).

After all, Jacob's inconsolable grief was in a sense a just retribution: cf. Galatians 6:7-8. Jacob's experience reflects some fulfilment of the dictum that -as a man sows so shall he also reap.-' Himself a deceiver who stole Esau's blessing and bought his birthright, he is now cruelly deceived by his own sons. Twenty years later the deceiving sons are to experience the anguish of guilty consciences as they see themselves threatened with retribution (Cf. Genesis 42:21) (HSB, 61).

Of the wickedness of Jacob's sons, there is much to be said. Lord, what is man? Behold the sons of Jacob hating a brother who had done them no evil, envying a brother because God portended him good, murdering a brother in purpose, and preparing to break a father's heart with sorrow. Yet, in the midst of all, they sat down to eat bread! But passion blinds the eyes, hardens the heart, and sears the conscience. The deeds of men differ in comparative enormity; but every heart is desperately wicked till its evil is mortified, Romans 8:13, and its nature renewed, Romans 12:2, by the Spirit of God (SIBG, 275).

Imagine Joseph advancing in all the unsuspecting openness of brotherly affection. How astonished and terrified must he have been at the cold reception, the ferocious aspect, the rough usage of his unnatural assailants! A vivid picture of his state of agony and despair was afterwards drawn by themselves (cf. ch. Genesis 42:21). They sat down to eat bread. What a view does this exhibit of those hardened profligates! Their common share in this conspiracy is not the only dismal feature in the story. The rapidity, the almost instantaneous manner in which the proposal was followed by their joint resolution, and the cool indifference, or rather the fiendish satisfaction, with which they sat down to regale themselves, is astonishing; it is impossible that mere envy at his dreams, his gaudy dress, or the doting partiality of their common father, could have goaded them on to such a pitch of frenzied resentment, or confirmed them in such consummate wickedness. Their hatred of Joseph must have had a far deeper seatmust have been produced by dislike of his piety and other excellences, which made his character and conduct a constant censure upon theirs, and on account of which they found they could never be at ease till they had rid themselves of his hated presence. This was the true solution of the mystery, just as it was in the case of Cain (1 John 3:12) (Jamieson, CECG, 232). How true it is always that evil hates true piety and becomes enraged in the very presence of it.

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

Analogies: Joseph and Christ

(Genesis 37:1-28)

We often wonder why incidents occurred as they did in the lives of the patriarchs; why the ark was builded by Noah, of gopher wood throughout, three stories high, with one door, and with one window in the top; why Isaac was born out of due season, figuratively offered and resurrected on Moriah; why Jacob went into a far country and labored for his bride; why Joseph was hated of his brethren and sold into Egyptian slavery; and so on. But when we find the answer in the fact that God, in these various happenings, was setting up types of Christ and the Church; and that the minutest of details often had a typical significance, we exclaim with Paul. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!, Romans 11:33-36. We will find many typical references, in the life of Joseph, to the life of Christ.

1.

Joseph was much beloved by his father, Genesis 37:3-4.

1.

Jesus was the beloved Son of the Heavenly Father, Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5, 2 Peter 1:17-18, John 3:16. This is brought out by the intimate relationship between the Father and Son, John 10:29-30; John 17:1-5.

2.

Joseph was sent unto his brethren, who hated and rejected him, Genesis 37:12-22, Genesis 37:4.

2.

Jesus was sent unto His people, but was hated, and rejected by them, Matthew 10:5-7, John 1:10-11, Matthew 23:37-39, Acts 2:33-36; Acts 4:11.

3.

Sold to the enemy for twenty pieces of silver, Genesis 37:23-28, by his brethren.

3.

Sold by one of His apostles, to his enemies, for thirty pieces of silver, Zechariah 11:13, Matthew 26:14-15; Matthew 26:47-49; Matthew 27:3-5.

4.

Joseph wore a coat of many colors. After his betrayal, this coat was dipped in the blood of a kid, and returned to his father, Genesis 37:31-35.

4.

Jesus bore the sins of many upon His own body, upon the tree, Hebrews 9:28, 1 Peter 2:21-24. On Calvary, the sins of many were dipped in His own precious blood, or whatever was lost by the first Adam was unconditionally regained by the second, Romans 3:24-25, Genesis 37:18, 1 John 1:7; 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 10:11-12. We meet this blood in the grave of water, John 19:34, Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5. The outward washing of the body in water is a figure of the inward cleansing of the soul by His blood according to divine appointment, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38.

5.

Joseph was condemned and numbered among transgressors for no sin of his own, Genesis 39. His humiliation.

5.

Jesus was condemned with two malefactors of the civil law, although without personal sin, Isaiah 53:12, Mark 15:25-28, John 8:46, Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 7:26-28, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5. A man of sorrows, acquainted with grief, Isaiah 53:1-5, Luke 22:44, John 11:33-35, Hebrews 2:10.

6.

Joseph raised from his humiliation to exaltation, to a position of great advantage to his people, Genesis 41:41, especially Genesis 45:4-8.

6.

Christ rose in his exaltation to the right hand of His Majesty on high, where He is today, acting as our Great High Priest, the Mediator between His people and the Father, Acts 2:36, Philippians 2:5-11, Hebrews 1:1-4; Hebrews 8:1-2; Hebrews 4:14-16, Revelation 19:16.

At this point, the typical relationship between Joseph and Christ is apparently lost. We can see the hand of God in the life story of Joseph. The Messianic hope, indeed the world's salvation, was tied up in the children of Israel, the chosen people of God. And at this time a famine drove Jacob and his sons into Egypt until such time as they were able to reoccupy their land. How clearly the divine hand is seen in making possible Joseph's exaltation, that his brethren might not perish, and his people might not be exterminated!

Again, there is something beautifully suggestive of the spirit of Christ in Joseph's forgiveness of his brethren, and their subsequent reconciliation! Although, in envy and hate, they had sold him into slavery, he lived to comfort them in God's providence. Said he to them, God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance, Genesis 14:7. Does not this breathe the spirit of Him who prayed, even for His enemies who were crucifying him in jealous rage, Father, forgive them, they know not what they do? Luke 23:34. From the Cross, O sinner, He pleads with you to come and be washed in His own precious blood.

REVIEW QUESTIONS

See Genesis 41:46 to Genesis 47:31.