34:25-31. The ensuing crime of Simeon and Levi was even more grave, for as the Shechemite men were recovering in pain from their circumcision (v. 25)—with Dinah having already been taken to Shechem’s house (thus married, v. 26)—the two brothers went throughout the city and killed every male. When the news of the sons’ deceit was brought to Jacob, who was sincere in his consent to the marriage, he angrily pointed out that when the other tribes of the land heard of the affair they would gather together against him and attack him, thus destroying him and his household (v. 30). To this Dinah’s brothers (note that Simeon and Levi and Dinah were full siblings whose mother was Leah) simply said, Should he treat our sister as a harlot? (v. 31).

This story served a variety of purposes in the account of the life of Jacob. First, it showed that the conquest of the land was not to occur at this time but at a much later time (as God had told Abraham, Gn 15:13-16). Second, although the behavior of Jacob’s sons seemed to jeopardize the covenant/promise, God in His grace would still give the land to Israel. For this reason, everywhere they went, the terror of God surrounded and protected them (Gn 35:5), contrary to what Jacob anticipated (v. 30). Third, the narrative functioned as a warning to Israel not to make treaties or to intermarry with the Canaanites when centuries later they would eventually enter and settle in the land. The final function of this story was to explain that Simeon and Levi, as the instigators of this treachery, would be disqualified as the royal tribe in Israel (cf. Gn 49:5-7).

(3) The Close of the Jacob Story (35:1-29)

Although Jacob appears later in the Genesis narratives, this chapter closes the section in which he is the main character. As such, it demonstrates God’s faithfulness to the promises that He made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

35:1-15. Despite the treacherous behavior of his sons, Jacob knew that God, in keeping with His covenant promises, would not let his family be destroyed. So he exhorted his household to purify themselves and, with him, to turn to God, who answered (lit., “answers”) him in the day of his distress and [had] been with him wherever he had gone (v. 3). Notwithstanding their many imperfections, therefore, Jacob’s family was preserved, and the patriarch’s faith affirmed, by a great terror that God caused to fall upon the cities which were around them (v. 5). The connection of this denouement to the Abrahamic covenant—and God’s faithfulness in unconditionally upholding it—is underscored by the explicit reference to the covenant and its main provisions: i.e., blessing (v. 9, and He blessed him); descendant nationhood (v. 11, a nation … shall come from you); and land (v. 12, the land … I will give … to you, and … to your descendants). Additionally, there was a promise that kings shall come forth from you (v. 11), a promise fulfilled in the line of Judah, through whom the ultimate messianic king would come (Gn 49:8-12).

35:16-22a. As Jacob and his household journeyed from Bethel, about 10 miles (17 km) north of Jerusalem, to Ephrath (the early name of Bethlehem), about 5 miles (8 km) to Jerusalem’s south, Rachel began to give birth, and suffered severe labor, eventually resulting in her death. Yet the baby—a son—was born, and as she was dying, Rachel named him Ben-oni, meaning “son of my suffering.” Jacob, however, seeking to give the event a more positive memorial, renamed his 12^th and last son Benjamin, meaning “son of (my) right (hand).” Rachel was then buried in the vicinity of Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem), where her tomb still stands. Not long after this, Jacob’s oldest son, Reuben, committed a grave personal offense against his father (thus disqualifying him from receiving the covenant blessing; 49:4) by laying with Bilhah his father’s concubine (v. 22). This was incest, since a concubine was considered one’s wife, which is how Bilhah is described in 30:4. This brief narrative was not irrelevant but was included to explain why Reuben, as firstborn, would not be named as the leader of the tribes of Israel. Jacob bypassed Reuben (49:3-4) and Simeon and Levi (49:5-7, cf. 34:25-30) because of their sins, instead identifying Judah as father of the royal line and the one through whom the future messianic King of Israel would come (49:8-12).

35:22b-29. The “records of the generations of Isaac” (25:19) ends here with a summary look at God’s overall blessing of Isaac. God’s material blessing of Isaac (and Jacob) is evident in his “full quiver” (to employ the terminology of Ps 127:4-5) of sons—that is, in addition to Jacob and Esau, his twelve grandsons from whom the promised nation (see Gn 12:2) would descend. God’s blessing of Isaac is further indicated by the reference to him dying as an old man of ripe age (35:29), or translated literally, “satisfied of (i.e., with his) days.” This phrase also hints at God’s spiritual blessing of Isaac (that he knew God and was known by God). In addition to Isaac, the other four occurrences of the terms “ripe” age and full of “days” in Scripture all describe men who died as believers, mature in faith: Job (Jb 42:17), Abraham (Gn 25:8), David (1Ch 23:1; 29:28); and Jehoiada (2Ch 24:15). Isaac’s two sons, formerly at odds with each other but having reconciled (Gn 33:1-17), came together in peace to bury their father.

D. Descendants of Esau: Another Locus of Conflict with God’s People (36:1–37:1)

36:1–37:1. A record of the descendants of Ishmael, the older brother, was given in 25:12-18. So too here a record of the generations of Esau is given, the older brother whom God excluded from the Abrahamic covenant. One of the purposes for this record is to show that in the fulfillment of God’s word, Esau’s descendants would likewise constitute a nation. However, an important difference is to be noted. Whereas Ishmael was blessed by God and promised to become a great nation (17:20), Esau was simply declared to become a “nation” (25:23), without any explicit connection to divine blessing. In fact Esau’s descendants, the nation of Edom (36:8), was eventually wiped out as a distinct people because of their opposition to the Lord and His people (see Mal 1:3-4).

Also, Esau’s list of “generations” is roughly six times longer than that of Ishmael because of the nature of two additional purposes unique to the genealogy of Esau. The first of these concerns the sons of Seir the Horite presented in vv. 20-30. Though Seir was not a descendant in the Abrahamic line, his descendants became interlinked with those of Esau through intermarriage with Esau’s descendants. Among the descendants common to both was Amalek, the son of Esau’s son Eliphaz, and Seir’s daughter Timna (vv. 12, 22). Because the descendants of Esau (the Edomites; see vv. 9, 19, 43) became more numerous and prominent than the descendants of Seir, the entire region, which included the dwelling place of the sons of Seir, was designated after the former, that is, the land of Edom (v. 21). Also its inhabitants, though not all linked to Esau, were known generally as Edomites, and in particular “Amalekites” (Ex 17:8; Nm 24:20; Dt 25:17; Jdg 3:13, etc.) since these latter became the predominant tribe among the Edomites (analogous to the eventual use of the term “Judahite” [hence, “Jew” from “Judah”] for a descendant of any of the 12 tribes). Amalek, however, was one of the few tribes cursed by God with complete annihilation (at the hand of Israel) because of their extreme perversity and opposition to His people (see Ex 17:14). Yet had the specific details of Amalek’s descent, together with those of Seir, not been presented here, the Israelites would inevitably have killed all those people known after the predominant tribe as “Amalekites” who were not in fact related to the Amalekites at all (Gn 14:7). These details thus prevented the Israelites from the sin (committed in ignorance) of shedding “innocent blood” (cf. Dt 19:10; 21:7-9) and exemplified God’s discriminating application of justice (as earlier affirmed by Abraham in 18:23).

The second purpose unique to Esau’s genealogy concerns the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, presented in vv. 31-39. The eight kings here enumerated (Bela, Jobab, Husham, Hadad, Samlah, Shaul, Baal-hanan, and Hadar) contrast sharply with the monarchy later established in Israel. Each of these kings of Edom epitomizes enthronement by human effort, since each one of them is explicitly associated with a different city, thereby discounting genealogical succession. But the later monarchy of Israel epitomizes enthronement by divine effort, since it was founded, maintained, and in the end personally upheld by God alone (cf. 2Sm 7:12-16). This contrast is even more vividly borne out by the explicit statement that these eight Edomite kings reigned well before any king reigned over the sons of Israel (v. 31). Yet already by the eighth king in the true Israelite (Judean) monarchy, that is, Jehoshaphat, “there was no [longer any] king in Edom” (1Kg 22:47).

E. Descendants of Jacob: God’s Providence over Joseph and Israel (37:2–50:26)

In this final section of Genesis, the biblical framework of the “path of redemption” is completed, with emphasis being given not only to God’s sovereignty in the process of establishing (and hence maintaining) that path, but also to its ultimate end point in a descendant of Judah in whom will center the perfect and eternal administration of the three key provisions of the Abrahamic covenant: the land, the people, and the blessing. In terms of space, of course, Joseph is the most prominent of Jacob’s 12 sons. Yet this should not obscure the importance of Judah, as the second most prominent brother in this section, and in a respect, the most prominent brother of all because of his messianic significance (49:8-12). Whereas the paths of the two brothers Joseph and Judah diverge with the selling of Joseph in 37:28 (in which Judah took the lead), Judah, unlike the other ten brothers, was kept at literary “arm’s length” (hence chap. 38), with his path merging back again with that of Joseph later in Egypt.

1. Joseph in the Pit (37:2–40:23)

The “records of the generations of Jacob” (v. 2) focus attention not on Jacob, but rather on that son in the next generation through whom the Abrahamic covenant is channeled (i.e., Joseph; see comments on 25:19–35:29 and 38:1-30) until the emphasis in the narrative begins to shift from Joseph to Judah (see 43:8-9 and 44:18-34 and related comments below). Thus begins the Joseph cycle now that the subsequent narrative cycles for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have come to their respective conclusions.

a. Joseph Is Sold into Slavery by His Brothers (37:2-36)

37:2-17. The account of Joseph, around whom the majority of this last major section in Genesis revolves, presents a pattern that is employed by God throughout later history as one among several means of displaying His concern for Israel. This pattern features the elevation of a Jewish person to the upper echelons of governmental power, resulting in an elevation of the Jewish sociopolitical standing, and often also the improvement of their material welfare. Other examples from the biblical period include Moses (the adopted son of Pharaoh; Ex 2:10), David (commander and bodyguard of the Philistine king Achish; 1Sm 28:2), Daniel (adviser to the Babylonian and Persian king from Nebuchadnezzar until Cyrus; Dn 1:21), Esther (queen of the Persian king Ahasuerus [or Xerxes]; Est 2:17), her relative Mordecai (first chamberlain of Ahasuerus, then second to the king himself; Est 2:21; 10:3), and Nehemiah (cupbearer to the Persian king Artaxerxes; Neh 1:11).

Jacob, though having come to a place of true dependence on God, was not perfect. Not surprisingly he fell into the same pattern of sin expressed by his parents, namely, showing clear favoritism for one among several siblings. Just as Isaac’s preference for Esau and Rebekah’s preference for Jacob fueled the fraternal enmity that eventually prompted Esau to plot his brother’s murder (27:42), so too did Jacob’s preference for Joseph—whom his father loved … more than all his brothers (v. 4). This was the first factor that fueled an outright hatred of him on the part of his brothers that culminated in their plotting “to put him to death” (v. 18). The strife between Joseph and his brothers that begins in this passage reflects a common theme in Genesis (see comments on 4:8).

An important tidbit of parental instruction is here, for though any parent with several children may be inclined to favor one of them, the true hatred of Joseph’s brothers was fanned into life only after their father’s natural inclination toward Joseph as the son of his old age was outwardly displayed by his giving him a varicolored tunic (v. 3). This was a continual visual reminder to the brothers of Joseph’s favored status. Moreover, the strife between brothers was exacerbated by a second factor—Joseph’s own pride. This was evident when he told his brothers about his two dreams—both of which clearly symbolized his family bowing down to him (in submission, not worship)—and they hated him even more (vv. 5-11). For the sun and the moon and eleven stars, see comments on Rv 12:1-6. The fulfillment of these dreams becomes evident later in the narrative, when the family must go down to Egypt for food and had to bow before Joseph (Gn 42:9). Yet a third factor in the strife-developing hatred was Joseph’s brothers’ envy of him. They saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers (v. 4) and resented his dreams so much that the brothers were jealous of him (v. 11).

37:18-36. Thus the brothers decided to kill Joseph and throw his body into one of the pits in the wilderness (v. 20). Yet the oldest brother Reuben, in an act of compassion—or at the very least out of respect to his father—persuaded them, for the moment (cf. v. 26), not to lay hands on (i.e., kill) their brother, but rather to throw him into a pit so that he (Reuben) might later rescue Joseph and restore him to his father (v. 22). Sadly, Reuben’s good intentions were a fourth factor in Joseph’s descent to slavery—rather than forthrightly defend his brother, his schemed failed to protect his younger brother. The fifth factor causing Joseph to be sold into slavery was his brother Judah’s greed. Without Reuben’s knowledge, Judah then took the lead, perhaps showing some compassion (for he is our brother, our own flesh, v. 27) but mainly displaying a greedy attitude. He wondered aloud about the profit in murdering their brother (v. 26) and instead proposed selling Joseph to Ishmaelite traders on their way … down to Egypt (vv. 26-27). Already this revealed the enmity God declared in 16:12 would arise between Ishmael’s offspring and Isaac’s. Since Ishmael was Isaac’s great-uncle, these Ishmaelites would have been Joseph’s second cousins, no more than two or three times removed). The sixth and final factor in the strife between family members is the deception by the brothers caused by dipping Joseph’s tunic in the blood of a goat and bringing it to their father (vv. 31-32). Jacob concluded that a wild beast had devoured Joseph, for whom he then mourned for … many days and refused to be comforted (vv. 33-34). Many years earlier Jacob had deceived his own father using his brother Esau’s garments (27:1-46); now his sons deceived him using Joseph’s torn and blood-stained garments (37:33-35).

There are three results for the sad events described in this chapter. First, Joseph will now live in slavery (cf. 39:1-6). Second, Jacob is to live the next 22 years in sorrow, grieving for his favorite son (37:35). Third, Joseph’s brothers will continue to live in guilt, always seeing the sin against their brother as the source of all their woes (cf. 42:21-22; 44:16).

b. Judah Receives a Male Heir by Deception (38:1-30)

That this chapter is about Judah and makes no mention of Joseph has led critical interpreters of the Bible to consider it an “intrusion” or “interruption” to the Joseph narrative. This determination, however, presumes that the purpose of this last section of Genesis (i.e., the “generations of Jacob,” from 37:2 to 50:26) is solely to present the story of Joseph. Yet a significant purpose of this last section is to continue to trace the progressive fulfillment of the seed of redemption, first promised in Eden (3:15), also promised to Abraham (22:18), and culminating with the coming of the rightful king from the line of Judah (49:10). In keeping with this purpose, the present chapter is in fact quite integral, for by its focus on Judah it anticipates or “sets up” the essential place that Judah will come to occupy (even greater than that of Joseph!) in providing that seed.

In addition to keeping the focus on the “seed,” Gn 38 includes several other narrative links to the Joseph story. First, the Judah/Tamar story creates narrative suspense. The Joseph story concludes in the previous chapter with his being sold into slavery (37:36), and this chapter changes the scene and returns to events in Canaan. This is classic storytelling, allowing curiosity to build by letting the reader wonder what became of Joseph.

Second, the Judah/Tamar narrative gives time for the Joseph story to develop. According to the time markers in the text, 22 years pass from the time Joseph was sold into slavery until his brothers in their time of need finally appear before him (see chart, “Joseph’s Progression in Status and Age,” in comments on 41:38-57). Hence, there is plenty of time for Judah’s family to grow up, to marry, and to raise children.

Third, the Judah/Tamar narrative provides textual links with the previous story. Robert Alter has demonstrated a variety of verbal and thematic links between chap. 38 and the rest of the Joseph narrative. For example, Joseph’s brothers use the words “please examine” (haker-na) when showing Joseph’s blood stained coat to Jacob (37:32), and Tamar uses the exact same words, “please examine” (haker-na) when showing Judah the items she took as a pledge from him (38:25). Also, in both stories, deception occurs through the use of a goat: the brothers deceive Jacob with goat’s blood on Joseph’s coat (37:31), and Tamar deceives Judah with the contrivance of taking his pledge while waiting for a young goat (38:17-18). Additionally, there is the contrast between Judah’s sexual impurity (38:15-16) and Joseph’s commitment to sexual purity (39:10-12; Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative [New York: Basic Books, 1981], 3-12 esp. 10).

Fourth, the Judah/Tamar narrative is linked to the wider themes of Genesis. For example, there is the problem of childlessness, previously experienced by Sarah and Rachel and here experienced by Tamar. Also, in this narrative Judah is deceived as were the other patriarchs (Isaac by Jacob, Jacob by Laban, and Jacob by his sons). This story also shows the covenant/promise in jeopardy once again, this time from the line of Judah coming dangerously close to not having an heir. And at the end of the story, the younger son Perez is preferred over the older Zerah, as is the pattern throughout Genesis. Clearly, the Judah/Tamar story fits within the narrative of Genesis and is not an unnecessary or random interpolation.

38:1-13. The specific episode of chap. 38 reveals the spiritual “turning point” in Judah’s life. This in fact explains the dramatic moral reversal in his attitude and behavior toward his father’s new favorite son, Benjamin (since Joseph is assumed dead) in 44:18-34, where Judah shows great compassion both for his youngest brother’s welfare and for his father’s feelings, in contrast to his blameworthy participation in the betrayal of Joseph. The way to this “turning point” for Judah was set up by his own sin and less-than-ideal behavior with Tamar (as is often the case with such spiritual turning points). At the outset, he did not do what duty required, that is, giving Tamar, the widow of his two older sons (Er and then Onan), to his surviving son Shelah as his wife (vv. 6-11, 14). This custom of marrying the sonless widow of one’s closest relative was intended as an important expression of maternal honor (to ensure that one’s mother would be provided for in old age; see Ru 4:15) as well as of familial honor (to ensure that the “name” of the deceased husband is maintained through a male heir; see Ru 4:5). Eventually this custom was legally codified by God in the Mosaic law (Dt 25:5-6), though His approval of the custom even here is evident from the statement that Onan’s refusal to give a seed (i.e., male heir) to his deceased brother, Er, was displeasing in the sight of the LORD (v. 8-10).

38:14-26. Tamar therefore undertook to deceive Judah, following the pattern of one’s mischief returning “upon his own head” (Ps 7:16). As Judah took the lead in deceiving Jacob by lying about Joseph being killed by a wild beast, so now was he himself deceived. She disguised herself so that Judah … thought she was a harlot (v. 15) … and he went in to her, and she conceived (v. 18). Three months later, when her pregnancy became noticeable, Judah accused her of harlotry (zenunim, lit., “illicit [i.e., extramarital] sex”) and commanded that she be burned (v. 24). Judah’s “turning point” then came when she revealed that he was in fact the father, whereupon Judah was resolutely (and very publicly!) confronted with his sins: (1) his failure to show compassion and do his “duty” toward Tamar (as well as his son Er) by giving her to Shelah as his wife; (2) his engaging in illicit sex with a harlot (as he thought Tamar to be); and (3) his hypocrisy in mercilessly calling for the execution of Tamar (and her baby) for the very same sin that he had committed—with her, as he now realized. Expressive of his contrition, Judah declared, Tamar is more righteous than I (v. 26). True, Tamar was more upright than Judah in the drama of this chapter, but certainly not perfectly righteous, for though the conception of a son from Judah’s line was her right, the way in which she went about ensuring that conception was still sinful. However, the declaration of righteousness is not really a statement about her better morals than Judah’s. Rather it is derived from the overarching purpose of this chapter, namely, to explain the preservation of the line of Judah, which will ultimately produce the Messianic king (49:8-12). Hence, it is evil to be unconcerned with preserving the promised line as evident in the behavior of Onan, who refused to raise up seed for his brother, and Judah, who also refused to give his youngest son as a husband to Tamar to raise up seed for his line. In contrast, Tamar demonstrated that she was indeed righteous, not by practicing deception or harlotry, but by being concerned with the preservation of the promised line, through which the messianic king would come.

The transformation of Judah plays a significant role in the Genesis narrative in that he becomes the progenitor of the royal and messianic line in Israel (49:8-12). The narrative reveals the change in Judah’s role and standing through subtle clues. For example, early in Genesis, Judah appears to be greedy, calling for Joseph to be sold rather than killed, in order to get monetary benefit from the betrayal of his brother (37:26-27). In this chapter, Judah appears callous and cruel in regard to his daughter-in-law. Moreover, he was indifferent toward his need to maintain the purity of his line (he married a Canaanite woman, 38:2) or even his responsibility to continue his line. However, after his “turn around” recorded here, the narrative begins to elevate Judah. For example, afterwards Jacob ignores Reuben’s request to return to Egypt (42:37-38) but listens to Judah (43:8-11). Once the brothers return to Egypt for food, Judah is plainly seen as their leader (44:14; 46:28). Moreover, afterwards Judah demonstrates compassion for his brother Benjamin and his father (44:30-34). This transformation sets the stage for Jacob’s oracle that Judah’s line would be ascendant and the source of the future Messiah (49:8-12).

38:27-30. So Tamar gave birth to twin sons, Perez and Zerah, continuing Judah’s line. Zerah put out a hand … first, indicating that he would be the firstborn only to draw it back. Then Perez was born. So once again in Genesis, the younger son becomes the preferred one and the perpetuator of the Abrahamic promise. This emphasizes the sovereignty of God in providing the seed for the promised line (see comments on 25:21b-26). Significantly, Jesus the Messiah would descend from Zerah (Mt 1:3), being the culmination of the path of redemption here being laid.

c. Joseph Is Falsely Accused by Potiphar’s Wife (39:1-23)

The already tragic story of Joseph gets worse, going from a pit to slavery and by the end of this chapter, to prison. This chapter clearly establishes the historical (yet unpopular and often unrecognized) principle of righteous living specifically, that “all who desire to live godly … will be persecuted” (2Tm 3:12). Through such persecution, however, that the greatest “training in righteousness” (2Tm 3:16) often occurs, as the believer learns what it is to truly depend on God in the process. In the present chapter, accordingly, we see God complementing Joseph’s effort at godly living by causing him to “find favor” in the sight of key individuals (an important phrase denoting God’s “behind-the-scenes” activity, vv. 4, 21) and blessing the results of His work in a way that ultimately benefits the welfare of Israel, God’s covenant people.

39:1-6a. Thus Joseph found favor (v. 4) in the sight of Potiphar, … the captain of Pharaoh’s bodyguard, who bought him from the Ishmaelites to whom his brothers had sold him (v. 1). The source of Joseph’s ensuing success is revealed immediately with the surprising words, the LORD was with Joseph (vv. 2-3). It would appear that if the Lord were indeed with Joseph, he would not have been sold into slavery. Yet the presence of God in one’s life and the extent of success is not to be measured by the absence of adversity but a faithful attitude in the midst of adversity. On this score, Joseph was a great success. While some might attribute Joseph’s success in Potiphar’s household to his diligence at work, it was truly because the LORD caused all that he did to prosper (v. 3). As a result, Joseph was made overseer in Potiphar’s house and the LORD’s blessing continued on all that he owned (v. 5).

39:6b-23. Just when it appeared that Joseph had found a satisfactory situation, even in slavery, the narrator prepares the way for Joseph’s spiraling descent into greater difficulty by describing him as handsome in form and appearance (v. 6). His youthful good looks led to the repeated adulterous advances of his master’s wife (vv. 7, 10). Joseph’s strength in refusing these advances were fueled by his loyalty to his master (vv. 8-9) and even more significantly, his recognition that the Lord was indeed with him. Thus, he asks, How then could I do this great evil and sin against God? After one particularly tempting situation, Joseph wisely fled from her presence (v. 12; see Paul’s admonition to Timothy in 2Tm 2:22; also 1Co 6:18), which prompted Potiphar’s wife to falsely accuse Joseph when his master, her husband, returned home. As a result, Joseph’s master took him and put him into the jail … where the king’s prisoners were confined (v. 20). Joseph now had experienced both betrayal and false accusation, had descended from the status of favored son to slave to prisoner, and the narrator surprisingly reminds the reader the LORD was with Joseph (v. 21). In prison, once again God—whose plan continued to unfold undiminished—gave him favor, this time in the sight of the chief jailer, who placed him in charge of all of the prisoners … in the jail (vv. 21-22). Too often adversity is considered a sign of God’s abandonment. Yet, in the life of Joseph, despite his difficulties, the Lord was present in his life, granting favor and success. Plainly the story is establishing the providence of God in achieving God’s good purposes despite Joseph’s adverse circumstances.

d. Joseph Is Forgotten by the Cupbearer (40:1-23)

40:1-15. God’s hand in the affair now became more explicit as He prepared the way for Joseph’s elevation—and thus Israel’s preservation—by the dreams He gave to two newly arrived prisoners from Pharaoh’s court, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker (v. 2). The dreams were both given on the same night. Though they did not understand the dreams’ meanings—both officials were clearly dejected the next morning (vv. 5-6). Though these men were strangers, Joseph displays clear compassion toward them by asking why their faces were so sad. And when they told him he sought to resolve their dilemma by offering to interpret their dreams, affirming that the interpretations of all dreams belong to God (vv. 7-8).

40:16-23. The dream of the chief cupbearer Joseph interpreted favorably (v. 16), indicating that within three more days Pharaoh would restore him to his office, and he would continue to serve Pharaoh according to his former custom (v. 13). The dream of the chief baker, however, was interpreted unfavorably, for within the same three days Pharaoh would hang him on a tree (v. 19). And so the events unfolded just as Joseph had interpreted (v. 22), yet despite Joseph’s request that he do him a kindness and mention his unjust imprisonment to Pharaoh (v. 14), the chief cupbearer … forgot Joseph (v. 23). In this Joseph was undoubtedly continuing to learn what it means to wait on the Lord (the cupbearer neglected his word to Joseph for “two full years,” 41:1) as He continued to prepare the present path of deliverance and maneuver “the king’s heart … like channels of water in [His] hand” (Pr 21:1). A notable parallel, moreover, which is clearly intended to bear out the same theological principle, may be found in failure of king Ahasuerus to remember to reward Mordecai’s deed (likewise concerning two of the king’s officials) until that time when it was most effectively suited to the deliverance of Israel (and not just the elevation of Mordecai; see comments on Est 6).

2. Joseph as Prime Minister (41:1–50:26)

a. Joseph Becomes Prime Minister (41:1-57)

41:1-13. God did not resolve Joseph’s personal situation—which was, after all, only one thread in a much larger tapestry depicting His care for His people—until the end of two full years (v. 1), at which time Pharaoh had two dreams that caused his spirit to be troubled (v. 8). Since Pharaoh could find no one to interpret these dreams—in the first of which seven … gaunt … cows ate up seven … fat cows, and in the second of which seven … thin ears of grain swallowed up the seven … full ears (vv. 2-7)—the chief cupbearer (implicitly prompted by God) recalled Joseph and told Pharaoh of his ability to interpret … dreams accurately (vv. 9-13).

41:14-37. Significantly when Pharaoh summoned Joseph and asked if he could truly interpret dreams, Joseph’s response—his first recorded words in two years—was, It is not in me (v. 16), which may be more literally translated, “[It is] apart from me,” that is, “It has nothing to do with me.” Joseph had not grown bitter after spending thirteen years (unjustly) as a slave and then prisoner, but his focus was in fact set squarely on God and His glory—a focus that was undoubtedly essential to staving off despair during those years. At the first opportunity Joseph unabashedly emphasized the sovereignty (and hence glory) of God to Pharaoh himself, for he told him God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer (v. 16). This clause, however, should be rendered “God will respond to Pharaoh’s situation.” The word translated “situation” is the Hebrew word shalom (generally signifying “peace” or “completeness”), and is here intended in the sense of “situation” or “welfare.” Pharaoh then told Joseph his dreams, which Joseph interpreted as both signifying the same thing: seven years of great abundance will come to Egypt, and after them seven years of famine, which will be very severe (vv. 29-31). Joseph then advised Pharaoh to find a man discerning and wise who can implement the specific steps he described to prepare for this famine. In contrast to his successor 400 years later “who did not know Joseph” (Ex 1:8), the present Pharaoh responded enthusiastically by affirming the truth of what Joseph’s God had informed him (Gn 41:38).

41:38-57. Pharaoh realized that Joseph was himself the very discerning and wise man needed for the task (v. 39). Pharaoh then made Joseph second in authority only to himself (anticipating the same redemptive “positioning” of, Esther and Mordecai, among others, at the opposite end of Israel’s biblical history; Est 8:2; 10:3) and declared that without your permission no one shall raise his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt (v. 44). Joseph prepared for the famine by storing up grain in great abundance (v. 49), and he also took a wife who bore him two sons (v. 50). The names of his sons further reflect Joseph’s selfless, theocentric perspective in the narrative, focusing not on his 13 years of ignominy and affliction (he was 17 when sold and 30 when promoted by Pharaoh; 37:2; 41:46, see chart, “Joseph’s Progression in Status and Age,” below), but rather on the grace and blessing that God had shown him according His own time and plan: Manasseh (meaning “He causes to forget”), for … God has made me forget all my trouble (v. 51) and Ephraim (meaning either “fruitful land” or “double fruitfulness”) for … God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction (v. 52).

Some might consider Joseph’s ascendency to the prime minister’s office in Egypt to be the climax of the Joseph narrative. Nevertheless, this part of the story is but a means to an end. The climax will be Joseph’s restoration with his brothers and the recognition that all his painful experiences were part of God’s plan to deliver the sons of Israel.

Joseph’s Progression in Status and Age

b. Joseph Tests His Brothers (42:1–44:34)

In the next three chapters, although it might seem as if Joseph toyed with his brothers, in reality he was testing them. These interactions were designed to evaluate their consciences, their character, and their compassion, all traits sorely lacking when they sold him into slavery.

(1) The Conscience Test (42:1-38)

42:1-24. In chaps. 42–45 God “tied together” the various strands of circumstance that were spun in the previous five chaps. (from 37:2 onward), bringing the brothers face to face with their sin, for the purpose of reconciliation and refinement in godliness as He continued to mold them into the ideal covenant people that they would one day be in the prophetic future (cf. Dt 10:12-22; Is 1:25-26; Mal 1:5). This denouement commenced when, as a result of the famine—which extended even to the land of Canaan (see 41:57)—Jacob sent the ten brothers of Joseph … to buy grain from Egypt (v. 3). When they arrived, though Joseph … recognized his brothers, … they did not recognize him (vv. 7-8). Joseph wisely exploited this situation, not to torture his brothers or to gain vengeance but to test them in several ways, in order to determine whether their collective character had improved and they had moved beyond their predilection to deceitfulness. Joseph’s began with a test of their collective consciences, to see if they were penitent about the evil they had done to him, their own flesh and blood.

Joseph first sought to test their consciences by making circumstances difficult for them, accusing them of being spies (v. 14). Joseph knew this was untrue and the brothers of course denied it, whereupon Joseph set a condition to determine whether the truth was really in them (v. 16). Though initially this condition was that one of them would return to bring their younger brother, Benjamin (v. 34), while the other nine remain confined (held as prisoners), Joseph compassionately mitigated this condition (he would not do to them, even for a much shorter period, what they did to him) and confined only one of then, Simeon (v. 24). It is at this point that Joseph, overhearing their discussion in Hebrew, understood that they did indeed feel guilt and regret for their behavior toward Joseph. They did not realize Joseph understood their words (v. 23) when they said, Truly we are guilty concerning our brother (v. 21), and Reuben declared, Now comes the reckoning for his blood (v. 22).

42:25-38. Then, while Simeon remained behind and the other nine returned to their father Jacob in the land of Canaan (v. 29), Joseph continued to test their consciences, but now with kindness. Next Joseph gave orders to fill their bags with grain and to restore every man’s money … and to give them provisions for the journey (v. 25). Their response upon discovering this generous gift was not to bless God for His kind provision but instead to become distraught, asking, What is this that God has done to us? (v. 28), declaring their guilt once again for their treatment of Joseph. Plainly, more than 20 years later, Joseph’s brothers were no longer the callous and heartless men they had been before. God was indeed bringing discipline to them by the hand of Joseph all these many years after their sin. However, when they returned home and told their father what had happened, Jacob refused to let Benjamin return to Egypt with them, lest harm should befall him and Jacob would thus go down to Sheol in sorrow (i.e., die of heartbreak; v. 38).

(2) The Character Test (43:1-34)

43:1-15. With the need to return to Egypt, the brothers demonstrate that they have passed yet another test, this time pertaining to character. The famine remained severe, and when the family of Israel finished eating the grain which they had brought from Egypt (vv. 1-2), they were forced to return to Joseph to buy some more, and thus also to take Benjamin with them. Thus, the first aspect of the character test becomes apparent even while still in Jacob’s house—they prove responsible (43:1-15), particularly when Judah promised his father that he would be responsible for Benjamin (vv. 8-9). At this point Judah’s role began to expand and theologically overshadow that of Joseph, for to ensure the safety of Benjamin, Judah took the positive initiative (just as he took the negative initiative to sell Joseph), declaring to his father that he would be surety for his brother (v. 9). The expression used here (i.e., ’e‘erennu) is significant, for it is from the same root (’-r-b) used previously—and certainly not coincidentally!—by Judah in 38:17-18 to describe the “surety” or “pledge” (‘erabon) that Tamar took from him and that served as the catalyst for his own spiritual “turning point.” The use of the same root here thus serves as an unmistakable, though subtle, link between the two episodes that underscores Judah’s moral-behavioral shift in the latter of the two. Thus, in obedience to Joseph’s demand, the brothers returned to Egypt with Benjamin in hand and stood before Joseph (v. 15).

43:16-23. The second aspect of their test of character becomes evident when they are at Joseph’s door, where they prove themselves to be honest men. Rather than greedily keeping their unexpected benefit of returned payment and in contrast to their greedy behavior in selling Joseph, they immediately offered to return the money they had found in their sacks (vv. 20-22). Much to their surprise, Joseph told them that he had received their money and that their God … had given them treasure in their sacks (v. 23).

43:24-34. Yet a third aspect of their character test became clear at Joseph’s table, where he had a banquet prepared for them. The literary tension mounts as the expectation of Joseph’s self-revelation to his brothers grows stronger, as indicated by the statement that he had them seated according to … birthright and youth (v. 33), that is, according to their age or birth order. A stranger would logically have been unaware of this. Another strange aspect of this feast was that the Egyptians sat separately by themselves, as did Joseph … by himself, as well as the eleven brothers by themselves (v. 32). This was because Joseph was observing the Egyptian caste system in which foreigners, and particularly shepherds, were considered uncultured and vulgar. Joseph’s brothers did not sit with him because they were shepherds. But Joseph sat separately from the other Egyptians, a first sign to the brothers that the prime minister of Egypt was a foreigner as well. Then, as a test, Joseph gave food from his own table to his brothers but gave his full brother Benjamin five times as much (v. 34). Nevertheless, they all feasted and were content, not exhibiting any of the jealousy they had previously shown toward Joseph.

(3) The Compassion Test (44:1-34)

Joseph’s final test of his brothers was to see if they had been transformed from the callous indifference they had shown previously to being compassionate and caring.

44:1-34. The setting for this test came when Joseph’s brothers set off on their way back to Canaan. Joseph’s house steward overtook them and found his master’s silver cup in Benjamin’s sack (where the steward had planted it per his master’s instructions). The penalty for this alleged wrongdoing required that Benjamin become Joseph’s slave (vv. 1-13). The brothers returned to Joseph’s house, where Judah (whose preeminent role is anticipated by the statement Judah and his brothers, v. 14) stepped forward to intercede for the life of his brother (v. 18). After summarizing the entire situation (from 42:13), Judah drew his plea to a conclusion in 44:32 by telling Joseph that he had become surety for Benjamin—again employing (as in 43:9) the verbal form (i.e.,‘arab) of the same root used in a noun in 38:17-18 to denote Judah’s “surety” or “pledge” (‘erabon). In chap. 38 the “surety” consisted of certain possessions (Judah’s seal, cord, and staff), but in chap. 44 it consisted of the person of Judah himself. The messianic significance of this term is expressed in the OT in the Lord’s eschatological declaration through Jeremiah (Jr 30:21) that the Messiah will one day reconcile His people Israel to Himself because “their leader [who] shall be one of them … will give Himself in surety” for them (lit., translation).

The brothers, and particularly Judah as their leader, demonstrated that they did indeed pass the compassion test. Previously they were indifferent to the suffering of their own brother, contemplating his murder, casting him into a pit, and then selling him into slavery (37:18-28). Moreover, they had been callous toward the grief of their own father, by deception leading him to believe that wild beasts had killed his favorite son (37:31-35). Now, however, besides Judah being willing to take the punishment in the place of Benjamin (44:33), he expressed his grave concern for his father should Benjamin not return: For how shall I go up to my father if the lad is not with me—for fear that I see the evil that would overtake my father? (v. 34). No longer were they the cruel, jealous, deceitful, and callous perpetrators of a crime against their brother and their father. Now they were sorrowful men of integrity with concern for their youngest brother and compassion for their aged father.

c. Joseph Reconciles with His Brothers (45:1-28)

45:1-15. Seeing that his brothers were changed and overcome with emotion, Joseph revealed his true identity to his brothers, declaring I am Joseph! (vv. 1-3). In response, the brothers were naturally dismayed (v. 3, lit., “dumbfounded”) at this news and were afraid that Joseph might seek vengeance. Up to this point, Joseph’s brothers had experienced a general sense of guilt, seeing their difficulties with this powerful Egyptian as just recompense for their sin in selling Joseph (42:22; 44:16). But out of concern for his brothers, Joseph sought to comfort them with kind words, which provide a theologically mature reflection on God’s all-encompassing goodness and sovereignty. Despite his brothers’ sinful intention in selling him as a slave to the Egypt-bound traders, Joseph realized a greater good: God sent me before you to preserve life (45:5; see also 50:20). Seeing the providence of God is the key to Joseph’s reconciliation with his brothers, as is true for reconciliation between all estranged and hurt people. Although Joseph stated one time that they had sold him as a slave into Egypt (45:4), three times he clarified that in reality it was God who sent him to Egypt (vv. 5, 7, 8) as a an act of concern to preserve the family of Israel. In other words, all Joseph’s sufferings during his 13 years as a slave and later as a prisoner was a result, ultimately, not only of the sinful will and actions of his brothers, but ultimately of the perfect will and behind-the-scenes work of God Himself. The verb sent (v. 5) is an active-voice verb and indicates God’s providence over the sinful actions of Joseph’s brothers. The verb sold, used for the sinful actions of the brothers, also is an active-voice verb (vv. 4-5). This is one of the key texts in the Bible indicating that God is sovereign over free human actions and that these two seemingly polar dynamics are nevertheless compatible in Scripture. Of course, this did not exonerate his brothers from the sinful part they played, though in response to their obvious repentance Joseph’s declaration of this profound theological insight provided his brothers significant comfort and conciliation. For a brief discussion of the interplay between God’s sovereignty (over sin and evil) and human responsibility, see comments on Rm 9:17-23. The genuineness of the full reconciliation of Joseph and his brothers is evident in Joseph’s behavior toward them in providing a place for them to live (v. 10), food for them to endure the last five years of the famine (v. 11), and encouragement for them to bring [his] father down to Egypt (v. 13). True reconciliation shows genuine fruit and betrays no vengeance or bitterness.

45:16-28. Hearing the news that Joseph’s brothers had come, Pharaoh—in whose eyes God had granted Joseph enduring favor—graciously told Joseph to invite his entire family to come down to the land of Egypt, where he would give them the best of the land (v. 18). The 11 brothers returned to the land of Canaan to their father Jacob (v. 25), loaded with provisions and gifts from Pharaoh and Joseph, and they relayed Pharaoh’s gracious invitation, as well as the news that Joseph is still alive and … ruler over all the land of Egypt (v. 26).

d. Joseph Cares for All Egypt (46:1–47:26)

The next section of the Joseph story shows the outworking of the God’s providence in the lives of many people, especially Joseph’s brothers and father Jacob. Joseph had told his brothers that God had sent him to Egypt “to preserve life” (45:5). Similarly, the story that follows shows how God used Joseph to care for the life of the family of Israel (Jacob), the people of Egypt, and even Pharaoh.

(1) Joseph Provides for the Family of Israel (46:1–47:12)

46:1-34. In clear contrast to Abram, whose spiritual immaturity was expressed (among other things) by his immediate forsaking of Canaan for Egypt when the former was struck by famine (12:10), Jacob went first to Beersheba (46:1) on his way to Egypt (vv. 5-6). Beersheba was a significant place because there Jacob’s grandfather Abraham “called on the name of the LORD” (Gn 21:33). Furthermore, in Beersheba God appeared to Jacob’s father Isaac and reiterated the Abrahamic promises to him (Gn 26:23-24). In response, Isaac “built an altar there and called upon the name of the LORD” (v. 25). Thus, Jacob offered sacrifices to … God, calling on His name and proceeding no further until the Lord assured him he could do so (46:1-7). The total number of family members whom Jacob brought with him to Egypt was sixty-six (v. 26). This number excludes the wives (per genealogical convention in antiquity), as well as Jacob and Joseph with his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (who were already in Egypt), whereas including these latter four males brings the total number of persons of the house of Jacob in Egypt to seventy (v. 27). Stephen gave the total persons as 75 (Ac 7:14), which was most likely caused by his inclusion of Joseph’s three grandsons and two great-grandsons (Gn 50:23 with Nm 26:29, 35-36, that is, all the children of Jacob in Egypt mentioned in Genesis, prior to the exodus). To ensure a minimum of social contact with (and hence potential molestation by) the Egyptians, Joseph instructed his family to emphasize (not to lie about) their role as shepherds, since, according to the Egyptian caste system (see comments on 43:24-34) every shepherd is loathsome to the Egyptians (46:34).

47:1-12. The sojourn to Egypt enabled Jacob and his family to be physically reunited with Joseph and his family. But it also provided the ideal venue within which the family of Jacob could grow into the “great people/nation” God had promised to make them (see 12:2; 15:5; 17:2; 22:17; 26:4, 24; 28:14; 35:11). In the land of Canaan the patriarchal family was one among a plethora of tribes and peoples (most of them stronger and more numerous) constantly contending for land and resources (cf. 13:7; 15:19-21; 21:25; 26:18-21; 47:4), but in Egypt they were given, at Pharaoh’s order, a privileged place in the best of the land … in the land of Goshen (47:6). Goshen is not mentioned in Egyptian literature, but it was later called the district of Rameses (v. 11). Its fertility and proximity to Joseph makes it likely that Goshen was a fertile area in the Nile Delta. Here they had the room to expand and grow, free from harassment or famine. Thus, Joseph fulfilled God’s providential purpose in sending him to Egypt, in that he provided his father and his brothers and all his father’s household with food (v. 12), Moreover, after 400 years had passed they had “increased greatly, and multiplied, and became exceedingly mighty, so that the land was filled with them” (Ex 1:7). The people were then numerous enough to spread throughout and fill the land of Canaan, their divine inheritance.

(2) Joseph Provides for the People of Egypt (47:13-19)

47:13-14. Besides bringing Joseph to Egypt to provide for his own family, God also was concerned for the lives of all Egypt and Canaan. Indeed, there was no food in all the land, so that Egypt and … Canaan languished because of the famine (v. 13). Therefore, the plan that God gave Joseph to store up food during the seven years of plenty not only saved his own family but all the people of Egypt and those that lived in Canaan as well (cf. 45:5, 7; 50:20).

47:15-19. Joseph accepted money and then livestock and finally land in payment for food. When that ran out, the Egyptians willingly sold themselves into a relatively benign form of slavery to Pharaoh. In return, Joseph not only gave them food but seed to grow food on the land from which Pharaoh would receive 20 percent of the produce. In essence, the people could work their own land and receive their own produce with a tax rate of 20 percent to Pharaoh. This narrative indicates a deliberate ironic literary strategy: Even as Joseph was sold into Egyptian slavery for 20 shekels of silver (Gn 37:28; cf. 39:17), now Joseph sold the whole land of Egypt into slavery, taking all the money (lit., silver) of the land (vv. 14, 18). In a sense, this was retributive justice upon all the Egyptians for buying a Hebrew slave (12:3). Nevertheless, the Egyptians saw their slavery as a means of deliverance and declared to Joseph, “You have saved our lives!” (v. 25).

(3) Joseph Provides for Pharaoh (47:20-26)

47:20-26. God brought Joseph to Egypt not only to save the family of Israel and the people of Egypt but also to provide great wealth for Pharaoh. Thus, through Joseph’s shrewd dealings with the people, their wealth, their livestock, and their land, even the people themselves became the property of Pharaoh (except for the priests, vv. 22, 26). As a result, Pharaoh, who blessed Jacob and his family and welcomed them to Egypt and provided them with food, good land, and safety, experienced blessing as well, in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, receiving blessing for blessing (12:3).

e. Joseph Receives the Blessing for His Sons (47:27–48:22)

After describing Joseph’s providential role in saving the entire land of Egypt, with distinct emphasis on the deliverance of the family of Israel, the narrative now turns to emphasize the blessing of Joseph as the firstborn.

47:27. The story now transitions away from the deliverance of Egypt to the blessing of Israel. As such, it describes Israel’s sojourn in the land of Egypt as prosperous in that they were fruitful and became very numerous (v. 27) The text here uses the same Hebrew words (“be fruitful and multiply”) spoken to Adam and Eve in the garden (1:22, 28), but spoken even more significantly to Jacob when he returned to Canaan and was blessed by God (35:11). Just as the Lord directed Jacob, so He had now made it possible, with His own providential care, for Jacob to obey that command. The “incubational” aspect of Israel’s stay in Goshen is vividly underscored in v. 27, in which the writer skillfully transitioned from a reference to Israel the person (Now Israel lived in the land of Egypt, in Goshen [v. 27], in which the verb lived is sg.)—to the first biblical reference to Israel the people (and they acquired property in it and were fruitful and became very numerous in which the verbs are all pl.). The wording of this latter statement recalls God’s promise to Abraham in 17:6: “I will make you exceedingly fruitful,” thus connecting this future state of affairs to the important theme of God’s covenant faithfulness.

47:28-31. As a prelude to Jacob giving his blessing to Joseph, the narrative shifts to a new time frame. It is now seventeen years after Jacob had moved to Egypt, and the famine is long over (v. 28). Jacob is 147 years old. Anticipating his own death, Jacob asks Joseph to be sure to bury him in the promised land. Central to the patriarchal promises was that God would give this land to their descendants. Jacob anticipates the ultimate fulfillment of the land promise and longs to be part of it, when the dry bones once again come to life, and Joseph and Judah become one nation under the greater son of “David” their King (Ezk 37:22-24, see comments there).

48:1-22. As Jacob drew near to the end of his life (as he was fully aware; 48:21), he turned his attention to bestowing the patriarchal blessings on his male children. Thus when Joseph heard that his father was sick and went to visit him with his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (v. 1), Jacob exhorted Joseph to bring them closer so that he may bless them (vv. 8-16). In blessing his two grandsons—whom he in fact elevated to the status of sons begotten by himself (see v. 5)—Jacob intentionally granted the preeminent blessing to the younger rather than to the older, as has been the pattern throughout Genesis (see comments on 25:21b-26). This highlights the sovereignty of God in election (cf. Rm 9:10-16), but it also anticipates the similar “unconventional” election of Jacob’s fourth-oldest son (Judah) as the recipient of the messianic blessing in the next generation (49:8-12). Moreover, before turning to his final pronouncements over his 12 sons, Jacob granted to Joseph one portion more than his brothers (48:22). In other words, the inheritance would be divided 13 ways between the 12 sons, and Joseph would receive two thirteenths of it, but the rest one thirteenth. This signifies that although the preeminent (messianic) blessing would go to Judah (see comments on 49:8-12), the birthright (i.e., double the amount of the material inheritance the other brothers would receive, here denoted by the “one portion more”) would go to Joseph (as affirmed in 1Ch 5:2; cf. also the distinction between the blessing and the birthright in Gn 27:36).

f. Jacob Blesses the Twelve Tribes (49:1-33)

49:1-2. To underscore not only the importance but also the prophetic nature of his final words of blessing (which are in a few instances mixed with rebuke), Jacob exhorted his sons to assemble themselves so that he may tell them what will happen to them in the days to come (lit., “in the end of days,” v. 1). Consistent with its usage elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (including its three other occurrences in the Pentateuch: Nm 24:14; Dt 4:30; 31:29), this phrase (“in the end of days”) refers specifically to that future period toward the end of redemption history, culminating in the final advent of the messianic King and His restoration of Israel, both spiritually as well as physically (cf. Is 2:2; Jr 23:20; Ezk 38:16; Dn 10:14). The expectation is thus laid for an expression of the Abrahamic blessing that specifically depicts the promised seed in this eschatological ruling role. This fits with an overall theme of Genesis, that God will restore the blessing lost in the garden through the messianic King, the ultimate seed of Abraham.

49:3-7. In selecting the son on whom to bestow this blessing, Jacob followed the conventional order of birth. The first three sons, however, were disqualified from receiving the messianic blessing because of their previous commission of sins that directly (and severely) violated their father’s honor. In the case of Reuben, he violated Jacob’s concubine Bilhah (35:22; alluded to in 49:4), and in the case of Simeon and Levi, they violated their agreement with the Shechemites (34:11-17, 30; alluded to in 49:5-6).

49:8-12. The messianic blessing thus fell to Judah; the central focus of Jacob’s pronouncement was on the preeminence of the messianic King who would descend from Judah. Specifically four aspects of Judah’s/the Messiah’s preeminence are depicted, beginning with his preeminence over his brothers, indicated by your brothers shall praise you and, even more significantly, by the parallel clause your father’s sons shall bow down to you. This statement uses the same wording that was originally applied to Joseph in 37:10. The point is that, though the family of Israel would bow down to Joseph in the near future, in the far-term they would all bow down to Judah, represented by his descendant, the messianic King, on his eternal throne (cf. 2Sm 7:16).

The future king will also have preeminence in power, with the image of a lion ready to pounce upon his prey, indicating the victorious power of the future king (cf. Nm 24:9 where the words are virtually identical). This prediction of victorious power is the source of the messianic title in Rv 5:5, “the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome.”

Jacob next depicted the future king’s preeminence over royalty, first by indicating that he would transcend all the kings of Judah (i.e., the Davidic line) in the duration of his rule. Hence, the office of ruler—represented by the terms scepter and staff (Gn 49:10)—would be successively handed down only until that final king would come to take up the royal scepter and staff forever (such being the natural implication of shall not depart … until). Second, the ruler’s preeminence is such that he would transcend all rulers in his very nature as the true and rightful king. According to the NASB, the future king’s title is Shiloh and has been interpreted in a variety of ways: (1) Shiloh can be a proper name (as in the NASB and in the Talmud in b. Sanh. 98b), meaning “peacemaker,” but this cannot be confirmed lexically or by the analogy of Scripture. (2) The word can be derived from a place name, the city of Shiloh, but the Hebrew Bible, despite containing various spellings of the city name, never spells the city name as it does in Gn 49:10. Additionally, the biblical convention is for city names to be derived from those of individuals, not vice versa. (3) The word could be revocalized as sheloh and would mean “to whom tribute will be brought.” Support for this reading is derived from the seemingly parallel next phrase, the obedience of the peoples, so those who obey will bring tribute. But this translation requires changing the verb form from the active comes to the passive “be brought” making possible revocalization unlikely. (4) The word could be a contracted Hebrew word, meaning “to whom it belongs.” The primary objection to this interpretation is that it is only found in a minority of MT manuscripts. However, Walter Kaiser contends that there is indeed significant textual support for it, with 38 Masoretic manuscripts holding to this reading. Further, it is the source of the LXX’s translation, “to whom it belongs.” This interpretive view is also supported by Targum Onkelos, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion and seems to have an inner-biblical reference in Ezk 21:25-27, making this the likely interpretation (Walter C. Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995], 51-52). Hence, the descendant of Judah will be the ultimate and true King of Israel, the One to whom rightful kingship belongs.

The King will also surpass all the future kings from Judah in the extent of his rule, for to him shall be the obedience of the peoples (Gn 49:10). The term for peoples (‘ammim) is regularly employed in the singular (‘am) to denote the entire nation of Israel. So, since it is used in the pl. here, it denotes more than just Israel but the nations of the world obeying the future king.

Jacob then depicted the future king as having preeminence in wealth, that is, the ideal abundance of both natural and cultivated provision that will characterize the land under his reign. One will be able to tie his foal or donkey’s colt to the choice vine (v. 11) without worrying whether the animal will damage it or eat its grapes, for the land will be filled with such vines. Moreover, the amount of choice wine these vines produce will be such that one can use it instead of water to wash his garments without feeling the slightest shade of loss! These images are of course hyperboles that to underscore the all-pervasive fruitfulness of the Messiah’s kingdom, as also depicted, for example, in Jl 3:18: “And in that day the mountains will drip with sweet wine, and the hills will flow with milk.” The peoples’ physical health during that time will naturally also be ideal, as emphasized by the picture of the King Himself, whose eyes are dull from (lit., “darker than”) wine (i.e., the darkness of his Semitic irises is set off by his healthy eye-whites), and whose teeth are white from (lit., “whiter than”) milk. This picture stands in contrast to the jaundiced yellowing of the whites of one’s eyes often present in those suffering from famine and/or malnutrition, along with the attendant yellowing of the teeth that also results from, among other things, a poor diet and old age.

49:13-27. Jacob’s final blessing over the rest of his sons are for the most part brief, cryptic, future oriented, and generally related to a wordplay derived from each name. They each depict a time of future blessing and abundance, indicating that these prophecies are all about the end of days (49:1-2), when Judah’s messianic descendant rules over the world (49:8-12). Zebulun[’s] borders will extend, at the end of days, to Sidon in Lebanon (v. 13). Issachar will labor as a strong donkey with the hope of ultimate settlement in the land of rest (vv. 14-15). Dan (Hb. “judge”) will judge his people (v. 16), a phrase likely fulfilled by Samson’s judgeship (Jdg 13–16). The cryptic phrase about a serpent that will bite the horse’s heels (Gn 49:17) is unclear in its meaning, but based on Jacob’s exclamation (For your salvation I wait, O LORD, v. 18) it points to end-of-days deliverance by the Lion of Judah. The prophecy for Gad is filled with wordplay, as four of the six Hebrew words contain the same letters as those in Gad’s name. It looks to the end-of-days victory when Gad will raid the heels of Israel’s enemies (v. 19). Asher is promised prosperity (v. 20), and he will obtain it when the messianic King brings prosperity to Israel (49:11). The enigmatic prophecy of Naphtali (v. 21) depicts freedom and pleasantness, conditions that will be experienced under the messianic King. The prophecy of Joseph (vv. 22-26), as would be expected, is more expansive than the words to the other brothers (except Judah). While recounting the story of Joseph with poetic images (vv. 22-24), Jacob emphasized the future blessing of Joseph’s descendants through repetition of the word blessings (vv. 25-26). The oracle for Benjamin recalls the promise to Judah, as both tribes are depicted as predators (Judah as a lion, 49:9; Benjamin as a wolf, v. 27). Benjamin is promised a military victory that will be won when the Lion of Judah takes His throne (49:10).

49:28-33. The paragraph that follows these words of prophecy provides a transition from Jacob’s blessing of the tribes to the end of the Joseph story. It begins by emphasizing Jacob’s blessing of the tribes (v. 28), three times using the word blessing in some form. These blessings will be realized when the One to whom kingship belongs (49:10) takes His throne and paradise will be regained. The purpose of Moses’ inclusion of Jacob’s blessing was to point Israel, as they entered the land of promise, to the hope that peace and prosperity would be theirs when their ultimate rightful king would come. As a final request, Jacob once again asks his sons to bring his body back to Canaan (vv. 29-33, cf. 47:29-30) in far more specific fashion than previously. This is designed to remind the reader of the land promise and to show that Jacob remained confident that God would indeed fulfill this promise to Israel. Fittingly, at this point, Jacob died and was gathered to his people, an expression that occurs only in the Pentateuch (Gn 25:8; Nm 31:2; Dt 32:50).

g. Joseph Believes God to the End (50:1-26)

This chapter functions as both the close of the Joseph narrative and the book of Genesis. It is designed to show Joseph’s faith in God and trust in the promises God made to his fathers to the very end of his life.

50:1-14. Joseph’s faith is evident in his request made to Pharaoh to personally bury his father in the land of Canaan in accord with Jacob’s wishes (v. 5). With Pharaoh’s assent, Joseph and his brothers then carried Jacob’s body to the land of Canaan and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah (vv. 7-12), where Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Leah were buried (49:31). In Canaan, Jacob’s family mourned him for a period of seven days (50:10), which, together with the similar reference in 1Sm 31:13, underlies the contemporary Jewish practice of shivah (setting aside seven days for the purpose of mourning over a deceased family member). This extended narrative about Joseph’s burial of his father, including the record of the large procession of Egyptians and the tribes of Israel (Gn 50:7) that went back to the land of Canaan is designed to show Joseph’s faith in the land promise. His trust that God would indeed keep His promise to return the family of Israel to the promised land (15:13-16) prompted this significant funeral so far from Egypt.

50:15-21. Joseph’s trust in God is also evident in his relationship with his brothers now that their father Jacob had died. Thinking that perhaps Joseph had stayed his hand of vengeance against them in deference to their father, the brothers now feared that perhaps Joseph would finally punish them (v. 15). As a result they once again apologized for the wrong they did to Joseph (vv. 16-18). At this point, Joseph’s faith in God becomes evident and served to remind his brothers that he forgave them, not for his human father’s sake, but because he saw God’s hand working in his own life. Thus, Joseph reiterates the ultimate point of the entire narrative about his life (cf. 45:7), reminding them that it was God who arranged for him to go to Egypt to preserve many people alive. Joseph’s words remind them of the providence of God: You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good (v. 20). It was trust in God’s good plan that enabled Joseph to forgive his brothers.

50:22-26. Joseph’s faith in God becomes apparent once again with the request he made of the sons of Israel. Although Jacob’s family returned to their privileged place in Goshen in the land of Egypt, Joseph continued the focus on returning to the promised land, as he bound the sons of Israel with the charge that God will surely take care of [lit., visit] you, and you shall carry my bones up from here (v. 25). The key words here are “visit” (the verb yiphqod, from the root p-q-d, when used of God, implies an active interest on behalf of His people, plus the infinitive absolute here, paqod yiphqod [twice in vv. 24-25], is the strongest way to say that the action will occur, “God will surely visit / take care of you”) and “carry up” (veha‘alitem, a verb from the root ‘-l-h, when used directionally, refers to movement toward the promised land, and when used within the promised land, to Jerusalem, and when in Jerusalem, to the temple; hence, “to go up” is to move closer to the presence of the Lord). Joseph faithfully trusted that God would indeed return the people of Israel to the promised land, and he wanted to participate when God finally brought it to pass.

Thus Genesis comes to a close by anticipating the return not only of Israel to the ideal of the promised land, but also therefore of “all families of the earth” (12:3, etc.) to the ideal of creation as it was in the prefall garden, when all of God’s servants “will see His face” and as coheirs with the Son will “reign forever and ever” (Rm 8:17; Rv 22:4-5).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, T. Desmond. “Further Observations on the Term ‘Seed’ in Genesis.” Tyndale Bulletin 48, no. 2 (1997): 363–67.

Allis, O. T. God Spake by Moses. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.

________. Genesis: Translation and Commentary. New York: W. W. Norton & Co, 1996.

Atkinson, David. The Message of Genesis 1–11. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990.

Baldwin, Joyce. The Message of Genesis 12–50. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, vol 1. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961.

________. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, trans. Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem and New York: Shalem, 2008.

Davis, John J. Paradise to Prison. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975.

Garrett, Duane. Rethinking Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991

Hamilton, Victor. The Book of Genesis, 2 vols. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990–95.

Hertz, J. H. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs. London: Soncino Press, 1950.

Jacob, Benno. The First Book of the Bible: Genesis. New York, NY: Ktav, 1974.

Jacobs, Louis. “Akedah.” In Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 2. Edited by Cecil Roth, 480–81. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing, 1971.

Morris, Henry M. The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976.

Ramban–Nachmanides. “Bereishis, Genesis Part 1.” In Commentary on the Torah. Vol. 1. Edited by R. Yaakov Blinder. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 2004.

Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981.

Sailhamer, John H. Genesis. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.

________. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.

Sarna, Nahum. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

________. Understanding Genesis. New York: Schocken Books, 1966.

Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Wenham, Gordon. Genesis, 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1987–1994.

Wise, Michael O., Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, trans. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. Rev. ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005.

Youngblood, Ronald, ed. The Genesis Debate. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986.