Chapter 37

2 Joseph is hated of his brethren. 5 His two dreams. 13 Jacob sendeth him to visit his brethren. 18 His brethren conspire his death. 21 Reuben saveth him. 26 They sell him to the Ishmeelites. 31 His father, deceived by the bloody coat, mourneth for him. 36 He is sold to Potiphar in Egypt.

1. Jacob dwelt in the land. This statement introduces the period after Isaac’s death. Jacob was now heir to the blessings and promises that accompanied the patriarchal succession.

2. The generations of Jacob. Here opens a new section (see chs. 5:1; 6:9; etc.). Although the name of Jacob alone is mentioned in this title, the history of his family is clearly implied, as the following chapters show. During his lifetime whatever experiences came to members of his family are considered part of his family record.

Joseph, being seventeen. The events about to be described took place some 11 years after Jacob’s return from Haran, when he had reached the age of 108 years (see ch. 30:25 and on ch. 27:1).

With the sons of Bilhah. Joseph was more closely associated with the sons of Bilhah and Zilphah, who stood nearer to him in age, and who were perhaps less haughty than those of Leah. It may be that Bilhah, who had been his mother Rachel’s maid, cared for Joseph after Rachel’s death.

Their evil report. Joseph either reported what he had observed personally or repeated what he had heard about his brothers. This marks the beginning of the bitter hatred that his brothers felt toward him. Joseph was actuated by high ideals, and his sensitive conscience rebelled against the evil deeds of his brothers. His report of these things to Jacob was doubtless with the thought that his father’s influence might lead them to change their ways, lest dishonor come to the family name as it had in the massacre of the Shechemites.

3. Israel loved Joseph. Jacob found particular satisfaction in the companionship of Joseph, whose amiability and ideals made him so different from his brothers. Since Jacob had been 91 years old at the birth of Joseph, and Benjamin was not born till a number of years later, he considered Joseph “the son of his old age.”

A coat of many colours. Jacob’s preferential treatment of Joseph reached a climax in the special coat, or tunic, he made for him. The meaning of the word passim, “of many colors,” is uncertain. It is used also in 2 Sam. 13:18, 19 to describe the dress of Tamar, the daughter of King David. The LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac rendering, “colorfully dyed,” forms the basis of the translation found in most modern Bibles. A painting on the wall of a nobleman’s tomb at Beni Hasan in Egypt, dating from the time of Abraham, depicts a group of Asiatic men, women, and children, of whom some wore nothing but two-colored loincloths, and some, tunics that reached to the knee but left one shoulder bare. Some of these were of plain white material, but others had blue and red designs. The chief’s garment was especially colorful, and is distinguished from the others by a beautiful design woven into the fabric. The tunic Jacob gave to Joseph may have resembled this one. As pointed out here, however, the word passim is of uncertain origin. If, as seems probable, it is the plural of pas, “extremity,” it would refer to the hands and the feet. In Dan. 5:5, 24, pas is the word translated “part.” Accordingly, then, Joseph’s coat, or tunic, would be one with long sleeves, and one which also reached to his feet. Such a garment would not be suitable to wear while working, and was, furthermore, the kind worn by children of noble rank. The RSV reads, “a long robe with sleeves.” The Hebrew grammatical construction suggests the idea that Jacob not only made one such coat for Joseph but “used to make” them for him. In either case this coat excited the suspicion that Jacob intended to pass by this older children and bestow the birthright upon Joseph. Little wonder that his brothers all hated him (PP 209)!

4. They hated him. Jacob’s fondness for Joseph was natural, perhaps, since he saw in him not only the child of his beloved Rachel but also an excellence of character which stood in marked contrast to the notorious lives of some of his other sons. Many parents who find themselves in Jacob’s position, drawn to one child more than to another, at least put forth the effort to conceal the preference, which in their inmost hearts they probably feel is wholly justified. But with inordinate and obvious partiality, Jacob made evident his preference for Rachel’s son by presenting him with an expensive and princely garment. As expected, such a mark of esteem was distasteful to his other sons and, had it not been for Joseph’s fundamentally sound character, might have been injurious to Joseph himself.

5. Joseph dreamed a dream. The coat implied Jacob’s intention of making Rachel’s older son his heir; now, Joseph’s dream was taken as an expression of his own intentions in the matter. They hated him, not only because of the dream, but also for his boldness in telling them about it (v. 8). Though it is not stated that Joseph’s dreams were of God (chs. 20:3–7; 28:12–15), the subsequent history of his life makes it virtually certain that this was so, and that they were not the reflection of any personal ambition on his part. Joseph’s dream shows that Jacob did not limit his pursuits to cattle and sheep raising, but was also engaged in agriculture, as his father Isaac had been before him (ch. 26:12). Such activity had been implied in Isaac’s paternal blessing (ch. 27:28).

9. Another dream. If Joseph’s first dream had pointed only to supremacy over his brothers, the second extended it to the entire family. That Joseph should have related this dream to his brothers, after seeing how they had reacted to the first one, reveals a decided immaturity of judgment. This dream could only intensify their envy and hatred. Joseph, however, seems to have felt a certain satisfaction in telling his dreams and watching his brothers’ envy and anger. Jacob, who was present upon this occasion, administered him a sharp rebuke, partly, perhaps, in surprise, and partly to disavow any collusion on his own part. Though Jacob disapproved of the narration of the dream, he could not avoid being impressed by the way in which it reflected his own thoughts.

Some have questioned the divine origin of the second dream, inasmuch as it seems to have met but partial fulfillment. Neither Rachel nor Leah lived to see the rulership of Joseph’s in Egypt (chs. 35:19; 49:31). It is sufficient to note that even Jacob did not take every detail of the dream thus literally, since Joseph’s mother was already dead at the time (v. 10). Jacob apparently understood the dream as representative of Joseph’s supremacy in a general sense.

12. His brethren went. The sons of Jacob seem to have made rather long annual migrations from one pastureland to another, as is often necessary even today. Shechem lies 60 road mi. north of Hebron, and Dothan (v. 17) another 16 mi. to the northwest of Shechem. Use of the northern pasturelands implies that the season was summer or early fall. The dry season began in April and lasted till October (see v. 24). The reason for pasturing the flocks at Shechem may have been the fact that Jacob’s family owned property there, secured partly by purchase (ch. 33:19) and perhaps partly by conquest (ch. 34:27). Jacob’s sons seem to have felt that they had nothing to fear from the surrounding population (ch. 35:5), who had never taken revenge for their massacre of the Shechemites.

13. I will send thee unto them. Jacob was apparently unaware of how keenly his sons hated Joseph, a fact they had been at pains to hide from him. This is evident not only from the fact that he sent Joseph alone to visit them but also from his reaction to their story of this disappearance. He seems never for a moment to have suspected foul play on their part. Jacob’s concern for his sons was probably due not alone to their long absence but also to fear that fellow countrymen of the Shechemites may have either taken revenge for the massacre or hindered them in the pasturing of their flocks.

17. Let us go to Dothan. Lying about 12 mi. north of Samaria, in the direction of Esdraelon, Dothan was situated on the great caravan road from the north to Egypt. It lay in an oblong plain containing one of the best grazing areas of Canaan, and was therefore well chosen by Jacob’s sons. It still bears its ancient name, DoЖtaЖn. In the time of Elisha it was the scene of a great miracle (see 2 Kings 6:13–19).

20. Let us slay him. To men who had slain the males of a whole city, the murder of a single individual could hardly seem a grievous sin. Hatred had developed in their hearts to the point that they were ready to kill their own brother in cold blood. They were far from home and its restraining influences. The “pit” into which they intended to cast his body was one of the cisterns common in Palestine. The story they proposed to tell their father would be entirely credible, for Palestine was a wild country during the second millennium b.c., and lions, bears, and other animals roamed at will (see Judges 14:5; 1 Sam. 17:34).

21. Reuben heard it. Though Reuben had been far from perfect himself (see ch. 35:22), his heart was not so hard as theirs. As the eldest son, he felt a special responsibility for his younger brother, and determined, if possible, to save him from them. The would-be murderers were content, for the moment, to follow Reuben’s suggestion. Weak and vacillating though he was (ch. 49:4), Reuben appears to have been the only one of Joseph’s brothers in whom the natural affection of a brother was not completely lost. Though he lacked the courage to resist openly their stronger wills, he at least made a timid attempt to save Joseph’s life. Reuben’s plan was commendable as far as it went, but it failed because of his lack of determination and vigilance.

24. Cast him into a pit. Adding insult to injury, they stripped Joseph and threw him into a dry cistern nearby. It seems that cistern were often put to such a use (see Jer. 38:6). The thought that he would die a painful death by starvation apparently satisfied their vindictiveness, and they paid no heed to his piteous appeals (ch. 42:21, 22).

25. Sat down to eat. Perhaps with a secret feeling of satisfaction, if not of exultation, and with infinite indifference, the heartless brothers sat down to eat.

A company of Ishmeelites. The word translated “company” in the KJV means a band of travelers, especially of merchants, and may therefore appropriately be translated “caravan.” The Arabs, descending from Ishmael, occupied the desert regions of Arabia east of Egypt and northward in the general direction of Assyria. Biblical and secular records reveal that the Arabs carried on a flourishing trade with Egypt. That some of Ishmael’s descendants had already become a trading people is not surprising, for it was now about 180 years since Ishmael’s birth, and his family had no doubt grown rapidly.

From Gilead. Inasmuch as Dothan lay on a major trade route, it was only natural that caravans should pass by from time to time. The route from Gilead in Transjordan crossed the Jordan in the neighborhood of Beth-shan, at the eastern end of the Esdraelon valley, followed the valley to Jenin, then turned south to cross the Carmel range. Passing through the plain of Dothan, it continued southward by way of Er Ramle and Gaza toward Egypt.

Spicery. The word translated “spicery” is understood by some to be tragacanth gum, which is obtained from bushes of the genus Astragalus. It has also been identified with the dried red blossoms of the naqawa plant, or the resin of the cistus, or rockrose. Whatever the origin of the “spicery,” or gum, it was probably used either as an ingredient of incense or as a cosmetic.

Balm. The Hebrew word translated “balm” probably refers to the gum of the mastic tree and the terebinth.

Myrrh. The meaning of the word thus translated is uncertain. It is usually understood to refer to labdanum, an aromatic gum exuded by the leaves of the cistus, or to what is known today as myrrh. Others think it to be the resinous bark of the mastic tree.

26. Judah said. Judah saw in the appearance of the Ishmaelite caravan a means for permanently disposing of Joseph without taking his life. This would effectively eliminate him from further competition in the contest for the birthright. The brothers reasoned, no doubt, that Joseph had done little to increase the family fortune, and they saw no reason why he should fall heir to the wealth their hands had produced. Judah’s proposal proved to be a most welcome one to all the brothers, who by now, after reflecting upon their original impulse to kill Joseph, found themselves somewhat reluctant to lay their own hands upon him.

28. Merchantmen. The traders are called “Ishmeelites” in vs. 25, 27, and 28, and “Midianites” in vs. 28 and 36. This has been explained by assuming that both groups were represented in the caravan, or that the two names were used synonymously in common parlance. In either case, only one caravan was involved in the transaction (see PP 211).

Twenty pieces of silver. The price paid for Joseph, 20 pieces or shekels of silver, was much less than the average price of a slave. According to Ex. 21:32, this price seems to have been 30 shekels, in all probability the retail price of the Ishmaelites expected to receive for Joseph in Egypt. Naturally, they would pay less for him. Twenty shekels would be approximately 8 oz. (228 gr.) of silver (see on ch. 20:16).

The selling of Joseph was an overt violation of the principle that no man has the right to subject another to involuntary servitude (cf. Lev. 25:39–43). It demonstrates clearly the extent of moral perversion that had taken place in the hearts of Joseph’s brothers. Those who sold Joseph demonstrated thereby that they had utterly lost all natural affection. Joseph’s sale into slavery is the first recorded example in the Bible of such a transaction.

Slave dealers have imitated but seldom surpassed the cruelty of which Joseph’s brothers were guilty, for it was not simply a fellow creature they sold, but their own brother. Nevertheless, divine Providence overruled the evil designs of these calloushearted men. The coming of the caravan at this precise time was Heaven’s appointed means of saving Joseph from their malicious plot on his life, and the saving of his life became, in turn, the means by which their lives were saved (ch. 45:4, 5).

Though Joseph could not know at the time, Providence was guiding his footsteps. How often life’s darkest roads lead to its brightest prospects! Let us ever be willing to follow on wherever God may lead (see Rom. 8:28, 35–39).

29. Reuben returned. The whole transaction took place in Reuben’s absence and without his knowledge. Having persuaded his brothers to consent to cast Joseph alive into a pit, he had left them before Joseph arrived, lest they should discern his intention to restore Joseph to his father (PP 211). The rending of one’s clothing was an ancient custom expressive of grief and sorrow (see Gen. 37:34; 44:13; 2 Sam. 13:31; 2 Kings 18:37; Job 1:20).

30. The child is not. Reuben’s helpless outcry revealed his secret intention to save Joseph. Now he was at a loss to know how he, as the eldest, was to give an account to Jacob for the disappearance of Joseph.

Reuben’s intentions were commendable and his plan well laid; nevertheless he failed. Eventually, however, the day came when Reuben’s brothers were forced to listen to his vivid reproof for this evil hour and its hideous deed (ch. 42:22). Joseph was to be delivered, but not by Reuben. The dross must be purged from his life through suffering (cf. Heb. 2:10) ere he might enjoy the honor for which Heaven destined him. In the providence of God, the cross must often precede the crown, and affliction become the lot of individuals in order that many may benefit and that the gracious purpose of God may finally prevail.

31. They took Joseph’s coat. Though Reuben was beside himself with grief and perplexity, his ruthless and unrelenting brothers were at no loss for a plan. Apparently, however, they had neither the brazen boldness to carry through their scheme in person nor the courage to witness their father’s first outburst of grief. Hence they arranged for another, probably a slave, who knew nothing more of the matter than what he was told, and so could not reveal their dark secret, to carry the bloody coat to Jacob in Hebron.

33. Rent in pieces. Jacob’s sons had not only besmeared the coat with blood but had also doubtless torn it to shreds to make the evidence of Joseph’s misfortune more vivid and their story more credible. All too eloquently the rent coat bore its mute testimony to the fate that had presumably overtaken the youth. The object that once symbolized Jacob’s unwise favoritism for Joseph now came to represent the undoing of both father and son.

34. Mourned for his son. Convinced of Joseph’s death by the undeniable evidence presented, Jacob entered upon a period of mourning, according to the custom of ancient times. His ordinary garments rent, he dressed in sackcloth, the usual garb of mourners (2 Sam. 3:31; Neh. 9:1; Esther 4:1). This was a coarse, thick haircloth, of which corn sacks were also made. In Gen. 42:25 the same word is translated “sack.” In cases of extreme mental distress the “sackcloth” was worn next to the skin (1 Kings 21:27).

35. Rose up to comfort him. When Jacob had mourned for Joseph longer than was customary, and his intense grief seemed unassuaged, his children became concerned. The callous criminals became tender comforters, and the would-be murderers sought to mollify the grief they had cruelly brought upon their father.

It is apparent that Jacob had other daughters besides Dinah, unless daughters-in-law- are meant here (cf. Ruth 1:11, 12). Since Hebrew terms designating family relationships are often used in a more general sense than is true today, it is often uncertain what the words “son,” “daughter,” etc., really mean. It seems clear from Gen. 46:7, however, that these were Jacob’s own “daughters.”

The grave.SheХol. This word is peculiar to Hebrew, is not found in any related Semitic language, and is of unknown origin. It is invariably used to designate the place to which the dead go.

36. The Midianites sold him. On the interchangeable use of the terms “Midianites” and Ishmeelites here and in vs. 25, 27, and 28, see on v. 28.

Unto Potiphar. This name, though long recognized by Egyptologists to be a good Egyptian personal name, was not found until the 1930’s on the monuments, where it appears, in Egyptian, as PХaРdiРpХaРReФ. It means “the one whom [the god] ReФ has given,” and is comparable to the Hebrew personal names ХElnathan, “God has given,” and Yonathan, “Jehovah has given.”

An officer of Pharaoh. The Hebrew word translated “officer” is saris, meaning, first of all, “eunuch.” Oriental rulers made use of eunuchs in various important positions, especially as officers in charge of the royal harem. The fact that Potiphar was married has been taken as evidence that the term saris means more than “eunuch” would imply in the strict sense of the word. This may be true, but stands without proof, since even eunuchs may have been married.

Regarding the title “Pharaoh,” see on ch. 12:15.

Captain of the guard. The word translated “guard” is from the Hebrew t\abbachim. In the singular it means “butcher” or “cook,” and signifies the one who slaughters, cooks, and serves the food (see 1 Sam. 9:23, 24). Here, in the plural, it refers to executioners. Potiphar, the “captain,” was probably chief of the executioners, or perhaps of the bodyguard of Pharaoh.

Ellen G. White comments

1-36PP 208-214, 332; SR 100-101

2 ML 30

3, 7 PP 209

7, 8 SR 100

8-10PP 210

9-11SR 101

12-18PP 210

19-28PP 211

28 5T 321

29-35PP 212

31-33PP 238

36 PP 214