Chapter 39

1 Joseph advanced in Potiphar’s house. 7 He resisteth his mistress’s temptation. 13 He is falsely accused. 20 He is cast in prison. 21 God is with him there.

1. Down to Egypt. Inasmuch as Moses designates the kings of Egypt only by the general title “Pharaoh” (see on ch. 12:15), it is most difficult to correlate Biblical statements relative to Egyptian history with known dates and events of secular history.

Among Biblical scholars who believe in the historicity of Joseph there is general agreement that his activities in Egypt occurred during the first half of the second millennium b.c. Many believe that he held office under one of the Hyksos kings.

Under the illustrious kings of the powerful Twelfth Dynasty (1991 to about 1780 b.c.), Egyptian art, architecture, and literature flourished. The national economy was sound. Egypt exerted a strong influence in Western Asia to the north and in Nubia to the south, and carried on an extensive trade with various foreign countries. The two succeeding dynasties were weak, and lost ground before advancing Asiatic armies, whose leaders called themselves HeqaХРchaХsЊut, “rulers of foreign countries.” The Greek transliteration of this title is rendered in English as Hyksos. Josephus explains the name as meaning “Shepherd Kings,” but this is doubtful. The names of the various Hyksos rulers indicate that most of them were Semitic, though a few bore Indo-European names. Some of these kings were able to extend their power over most of Egypt, whereas others found it necessary to tolerate local rulers in various parts of the country.

Since Greek times the Hyksos rulers have been traditionally divided into two dynasties, the 15th and 16th, which ruled Egypt from their capital Avaris, in the Delta, from about 1730 to 1580 b.c. During the latter part of this period the local Egyptian rulers of Thebes gradually extended their influence over the whole of Egypt, pushing the Hyksos northward. They finally conquered Avaris and drove the Hyksos from the country. The latter held out for another three years in the stronghold of Sharuhen in southern Palestine, but were again defeated and finally disappeared to the north. Thus ended the Second Intermediate Period, the Thirteenth to the Seventeenth Dynasty, which had lasted some 200 years. The native rulers of Egypt who waged the war of liberation against the Hyksos, Kamose, and Sekenenre, belonged to the Seventeenth Dynasty. Their successors, the powerful kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty, founded the Empire, or New Kingdom, during which the Exodus occurred.

The Asiatic Hyksos were intensely hated by the Egyptians, who, upon their return to power, destroyed all Hyksos monuments and records, with the result that very little is known about them. The names of their kings, a few sarcastic remarks about them, and a few brief episodes from the war of liberation are all that remain. Evidence for placing Joseph in the Hyksos period is, in brief, as follows:

1. Bible chronology. If we reckon back to the Exodus from the 4th year of Solomon (1 Kings 6:1)—which is located by the chronology of the kings based on the generally accepted date of 853 b.c. for Ahab’s death—thence 215 years before the Exodus to Jacob’s entry into Egypt (see pp. 184, 186), when Joseph was 39 (see on Gen. 27:1), that will place Joseph near the middle of the Hyksos period.

2. The horse and chariot were introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos, and were unknown in the land prior to their invasion. Since horses and chariots are repeatedly mentioned in the Joseph narrative (chs. 41:43; 46:29; 47:17), his activities in Egypt cannot have taken place before the time of Hyksos supremacy.

3. The statement that Potiphar, the captain of Pharaoh’s bodyguard, was “an Egyptian” (ch. 39:1) would have significance only at a time when it was the exception to find native Egyptians occupying high office.

4. It is more likely that a Semite like Joseph would be advanced to the high position of prime minister under the Hyksos kings, of whom a majority were Semites, than under a native Egyptian monarch.

5. Avaris, the residence of the Hyksos kings, lay in the northeastern section of the Nile Delta, near the land of Goshen. This fact agrees with inferences in the Joseph narrative to the effect that the capital was not far from where Jacob and his sons settled (ch. 45:10). Avaris and Goshen are only about 25 mi. apart.

6. The statement that a new king arose who did not know Joseph (Ex. 1:8) can be explained best by assuming that reference is made to a Pharaoh of the Seventeenth or Eighteenth Dynasty, who had expelled the Hyksos and naturally hated all who had received favors from them.

7. The silence of all Egyptian records regarding Joseph would be most significant if Joseph lived in the time of Hyksos supremacy, for their records were systematically destroyed.

8. Egyptian records of the pre-Hyksos period show the existence of private enterprise and private ownership of land and livestock. All this changed during the time of the Second Intermediate Period, and we find that when the native Egyptians regained power, lands and cattle, with the exception of ecclesiastical property, were considered possessions of the crown. The explanation for this change is found in Gen. 47:18–26.

Arguments that seem to oppose placing Joseph’s term as prime minister in the time of the Hyksos will be dealt with in the comments that follow.

An Egyptian. Resuming the thread of the Joseph narrative, interrupted by insertion of the incident involving Judah and Tamar, Moses repeats in essence what he had stated in ch. 37:36. The only important addition is the statement that Potiphar was an Egyptian. This seems to suggest that Joseph arrived in Egypt at a time when it was unusual to find an Egyptian in a responsible government position.

2. The Lord was with Joseph. Though Joseph found himself in a foreign land, abased from the position of favored son in a wealthy home to the social status of a slave, Jehovah was still at his side to bless and to prosper the work of his hands. It is God’s design that men of the world, attracted by the diligence, care, and energy manifested by his faithful servants on earth, shall thereby learn to Him. Potiphar’s confidence in Joseph increased, as he observed the blessings of Joseph’s God upon his property in the house and in the field, with the result that he eventually left to him the management of all his personal affairs.

Obviously, Joseph was attentive, diligent, and conscientious in the performance of his household duties, as well as faithful and devoted to the interests of his master. Success seldom comes to the negligent, the idle, or the unprincipled. Though he was conscious that Jehovah was watching him (v. 9; ch. 45:5), it must have been a source of satisfaction to Joseph to know that his faithful service was appreciated by his earthly master.

6. A goodly person, and well favoured. Literally, “handsome in stature and handsome in appearance,” or, “handsome and good-looking” (RSV). This, Joseph must have inherited from his mother, Rachel, of whom the very same words are used in the Hebrew (see ch. 29:17; PP 209). The fact is no doubt mentioned here in anticipation of the episode which follows, and to which it forms an introduction.

7. His master’s wife. In this moment of crisis the personal integrity of Joseph stands forth in sharp contrast to that of his brothers. What would Reuben (ch. 35:22) or Judah (ch. 38:16) have done under the circumstances? Little wonder that Jacob favored Joseph, and that Potiphar felt such confidence in him. This confidence in him reinforced his serene purpose to be true to God, and made even more desirable to him his lofty ideals of personal honor and integrity.

10. She spake to Joseph day by day. Joseph’s character stood firm under persistent attack. Wisely, he refused even to be in her company. In thus refusing, Joseph revealed sincerity, wisdom, and determination in the way of right. The stronger the temptation, the more resolute he became in resisting it.

12. His garment. It is not certain what kind of garment Joseph wore. The Hebrew word, beged, is a general term for clothing, and may even mean a blanket. Most commentators have thought of it as a long gown thrown over the shoulders. In ancient Egyptian reliefs and paintings, however, men rarely appear in long garments. The standard dress of a man, from king to slave, was a loincloth. In the case of royalty, it was of fine material, immaculately clean, and starched. For all others it was of less value, its quality being determined by social standing. Overseers are occasionally pictured with a white piece of cloth hanging from their shoulders and wound around the body. Perhaps it was this that Potiphar’s wife snatched from Joseph as he fled from the house.

14. He hath brought in. It is interesting to note that in telling the other servants of the affair Potiphar’s wife spoke of her husband simply by the pronoun “he.” This shows how little respect she had for him, and accentuates her already vulgar and wanton character.

It seems ever to have been a weakness of human nature to blame others for one’s own misdeeds. Thus it was with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:12, 13). This is but a reflection of the spirit of the “accuser of our brethren” (Rev. 12:10), who seeks to justify himself by maligning those who serve the Lord (Zech. 3:1). His ultimate purpose is, of course, to prove God unfair in His dealings with created beings (see Job 1:8–11; 2:1–5). Stressing the defects of others, whether real or imaginary, is supposed to make the speaker appear better by contrast.

An Hebrew. That is, a descendant of Eber (see chs. 10:21; 14:13). It was generally thus that the descendants of Jacob referred to themselves as a people, and that others referred to them (see Gen. 39:17; 40:15; 41:12; 43:32; Ex. 1:15, 16, 19; 2:6; etc.). Originally, a “Jew” was a descendant of Judah, but after the captivity the term lost its strictly tribal application.

To mock us. In Gen. 26:8 the same Hebrew expression is translated “sporting.” It would seem that here, as with Isaac and Rebekah, it must refer to conduct proper only between husband and wife (see also on ch. 21:9).

15. Left his garment. Potiphar’s wife was careful not to state that Joseph had left his garment in her hand, since that would have revealed her duplicity.

20. Put him into the prison. In repeating her tale to her husband, Potiphar’s wife indirectly blamed him for the supposed affront by referring to Joseph as “the Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us” (v. 17). Potiphar’s action in confining Joseph with political offenders may be considered extreme leniency in view of punishment customarily administered for the crime of which he stood accused. In later times the penalty for an attempt at adultery was a thousand blows upon the soles of the feet, and for the rape of a freewoman it was even more severe (Diodorus i. 78). Potiphar’s lenience no doubt reflected his confidence in Joseph’s integrity, and in contrast, very little respect for his wife’s account of the episode. Nevertheless Joseph’s punishment seems to have been severe at first, for more happened to him than the Genesis narrative implies. According to Ps. 105:18, his “feet” were “hurt with fetters,” and “he was laid in iron.”

There is an Egyptian papyrus, now in the British Museum, that relates a “story of the two brothers” superficially resembling the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. Numerous scholars have taken it to be the original of the story of Joseph’s experience, and although the two are similar in some respects, the differences far outweigh the similarities. The Egyptian story, furthermore, has a mythological setting, and is of later origin than the book of Genesis by at least 250 years.

21. The Lord was with Joseph. The same Providence that had attended Joseph in the house of Potiphar followed him to prison and brought comfort to him in his new affliction. Moses attributes the speedy favor he found in the sight of the keeper to the help of God. The irksomeness of his confinement must have been mitigated considerably by the jailer’s growing trust and confidence in him, since the blessing of the Lord attended all things committed to his care. Although Joseph had been treated unjustly, he made the best of the circumstances in which he found himself. By discharging his duties in a cheerful, courteous, and sympathetic spirit he gained the confidence of the one in authority, and at the same time prepared the way for his own eventual release.

Ellen G. White comments

1-23PP 214-218; SR 101-103

1-3PP 214

4 5T 321

6 PP 214; SR 101

7, 8 PP 217

9 AA 575; AH 331; CE 43; Ed 52, 255; MB 67; ML 20, 76, 96, 120; PP 217, 457; SR 102; TM 437; 4T 544; 5T 124, 596, 628

12-144T 525

17-23PP 218

19, 20 ML 76; 5T 321