Introduction

I have a friend who has a wise word on most any subject. One day someone asked me for a good definition of ethics. I could not think of one so I called my friend. “I have just been thinking about that subject,” he replied when I asked him. “Ethics is the difference between morality and legality. Ethics is the difference between what I ought to do and what the law demands I must do.” I have never heard a better explanation of ethics, and so I share it with you.

As I do this I realize that Jacob totally lacked any ethical system at this point in his life. For Jacob, legality was equated with morality. That is, anything which was not contrary to the law was no problem for his conscience. The purchase of the birthright from Esau was meticulously legal (cf. Genesis 25:31-33) but unethical. So, too, the deception of Isaac in order to obtain the blessing was legal. In fact, it even brought about what God had promised would happen but in a way that was displeasing to God (Genesis 27). Jacob’s proposal to work seven years for Rachel, the younger daughter, was legal, but it was not really acceptable to Laban (Genesis 29:18-19, 26). Finally, Jacob’s contract with Laban and his manipulation of the flocks in order to prosper at Laban’s expense was hardly ethical, but it was strictly legal—so much so, in fact, that he could later challenge Laban to accuse him of any infractions of their agreement (31:36-42).

It was Jacob’s lack of any ethical framework to guide and govern his conduct which resulted in a very painful parting when it came time to leave Paddan-aram and return to the land of promise. The consequences of questionable ethics are clearly seen in this final encounter between Jacob and his uncle Laban. We shall find, I believe, that things have changed little from the life and times of Jacob, for ethics are few and far between in our day as well. It is my intention to consider the basis for ethical conduct and the consequences of their absence as we study the events in the life of Jacob as he makes his exodus from Paddan-aram.

Jacob’s Escape
(31:17-21)

Then Jacob arose and put his children and his wives upon camels; and he drove away all his livestock and all his property which he had gathered, his acquired livestock which he had gathered in Paddan-aram, to go to the land of Canaan to his father Isaac. When Laban had gone to shear his flock, then Rachel stole the household idols that were her father’s. And Jacob deceived Laban the Syrian, by not telling him that he was fleeing. So he fled with all that he had; and he arose and crossed the Euphrates River, and set his face toward the hill country of Gilead (Genesis 31:17-21).

Circumstances strongly suggested that it was time for Jacob to return to the land of promise (31:1-2), and by divine revelation God commanded Jacob to do just that (31:3). Having received the assurance that his wives were in support of this move (31:14-16), Jacob hastily packed up all of their goods and left for home. It does not appear to be accidental that he departed at a time when Laban was busily occupied in shearing his flock. Leaving without any warning, Jacob reasoned, was the way to depart without any resistance from Laban, who might have refused to release Jacob’s wives or his flocks.

What Jacob did not know was that Rachel had stolen Laban’s gods just before they departed. Many speculations are made concerning Rachel’s motives, but the reason best supported by the text and by archaeology is that Rachel stole the household gods in order to establish a future claim on Laban’s family inheritance. The household gods were a token of rightful claim to the possessions and the headship of the family.²⁵⁵ Rachel must have felt justified in stealing these gods and in expecting to share in the family inheritance. After all, this is what she and Leah had just affirmed to Jacob:

Do we still have any portion or inheritance in our father’s house? Are we not reckoned by him as foreigners? For he has sold us, and has also entirely consumed our purchase price. Surely all the wealth which God has taken away from our father belongs to us and our children; now then, do whatever God has said to you (Genesis 31:14b-16).

In Rachel’s mind getting Laban’s wealth was God’s will. If that were so with the matter of the flocks which Jacob had been tending, why should it not be true of the estate at Laban’s death? I believe that Rachel felt entirely justified in stealing the family gods for this reason. It is interesting, however, that she did not tell Jacob of her theft.

Two wrongs are thus committed in the departure of Jacob and his family from Paddan-aram. First, Jacob has left without telling Laban about it and at a time when it would have been inconvenient for him to prevent it. Second, Rachel had stolen Laban’s family gods, which were the token of the right to claim a portion of Laban’s inheritance and the headship of the family. Jacob was doing the will of God in returning to the land of promise, but he was not doing so in God’s way.

Laban’s Pursuit
(31:22-35)

When it was told Laban on the third day that Jacob had fled, then he took his kinsmen with him, and pursued him a distance of seven days’ journey; and he overtook him in the hill country of Gilead. And God came to Laban the Syrian in a dream of the night, and said to him, “Be careful that you do not speak to Jacob either good or bad.” And Laban caught up with Jacob. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in the hill country, and Laban with his kinsmen camped in the hill country of Gilead. Then Laban said to Jacob, “What have you done by deceiving me and carrying away my daughters like captives of the sword? Why did you flee secretly and deceive me, and did not tell me, so that I might have sent you away with joy and with songs, with timbrel and with lyre; and did not allow me to kiss my sons and my daughters? Now you have done foolishly. It is in my power to do you harm, but the God of your father spoke to me last night, saying, ‘Be careful not to speak either good or bad to Jacob.’ And now you have indeed gone away because you longed greatly for your father’s house; but why did you steal my gods?” (Genesis 31:22-30)

What Jacob could not know was the impact his stealthy retreat would have upon Laban when combined with the theft of his gods. If you were Laban you would have come to the same conclusion. His gods were gone, and so was Jacob, hastily and secretly. Surely this must have been because Jacob had stolen his gods. What other conclusion could Laban have come to? While Laban attempts to throw a smoke screen by playing the part of the offended father and grandfather (verses 26-28), his real interest was in regaining possession of his gods (verses 30).

Catching up with Jacob was no easy matter, for he had gained three days’ lead time. By the time Laban had rushed home, discovered the loss of his gods, and gathered the relatives (who, I would gather, were armed for battle), a fourth day must have been lost. After seven days Laban caught up with Jacob, but his intentions were certainly altered by the divine warning contained in the dream he had the night before the two men met face to face. The message Laban received was a simple one: “Be careful that you do not speak to Jacob either good or bad” (verse 24). From a similar expression in 24:50 we must understand God to be warning Laban not to attempt to change Jacob’s course of action, let alone to bring harm to him in any way.

When Laban confronted Jacob the following day, God’s warning did not prevent him from rebuking him for his hasty departure, which deprived him from any kind of farewell. It was not the departure that Laban protested, for Jacob’s desire to return home was understandable (cf. verse 30). What troubled Laban was the way in which Jacob left. Jacob had “stolen away” (literally “stolen the heart of Laban,” verse 20, also verses 26-27), while at the same time Rachel had stolen his gods.

Laban works very hard at playing the part of the offended father and grandfather whose deep affection for his daughters and grandchildren caused him much agony when he found they had secretly left without any good-bye’s. Most of his protest is voiced on this note, but there seems to be a considerable lack of sincerity here. Had not Rachel and Leah indicated that he showed little concern for them any longer (verses 14-16)? The real bone of contention was the stolen gods: “… but why did you steal my gods?” (verse 30). This was the bottom line. This was the reason for the hot pursuit accompanied by other relatives who were probably prepared to fight. This explains why God warned Laban not to do anything harmful to Jacob. If Jacob got away with his gods, he could someday return and make a claim to his estate. This could not be tolerated.

Jacob’s response was not made from a position of strength. His first words are a rather weak defense of his stealthy escape, while his remaining words are in response to the matter of the stolen gods, of which he had no personal knowledge:

Then Jacob answered and said to Laban, “Because I was afraid, for I said, ‘Lest you would take your daughters from me by force.’ The one with whom you find your gods shall not live; in the presence of our kinsmen point out what is yours among my belongings and take it for yourself.” For Jacob did not know that Rachel had stolen them (Genesis 31:31-32).

Jacob’s conduct was the result of fear just as the deception of his father Isaac (26:7,9) and his grandfather Abraham (12:11-13; 20:11) had been. Jacob did not have sufficient faith that God would deliver him from the hand of his own father-in-law. In his fear he had to question the truthfulness of the words which God had spoken to him at Bethel:

And behold, I am with you, and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you (Genesis 28:15).

Jacob had not yet come to the place where he could trust God to accomplish His word without some back-up system which included Jacob’s manipulation or deception. Having gotten the upper hand over Laban in the last six years, Jacob was not certain that Laban would let him go without a fight. Perhaps he would not let his daughters go either.

This was not a discussion that Jacob was eager to prolong, for he had very little reasoning that could justify his recent actions. Feeling certain that he was innocent of the charge of stealing Laban’s gods, Jacob turned the conversation to this issue. Laban was urged to make a diligent search of Jacob’s goods to try and find his gods. Whoever was caught with them would die. Jacob obviously had no idea that his favorite, his beloved Rachel, was the culprit. That Laban was most interested in his gods, not in good-bye’s, is seen by his subsequent actions:

So Laban went into Jacob’s tent, and into Leah’s tent, and into the tent of the two maids, but he did not find them. Then he went out of Leah’s tent and entered Rachel’s tent. Now Rachel had taken the household idols and put them in the camel’s saddle, and she sat on them. And Laban felt through all the tent, but did not find them. And she said to her father, “Let not my lord be angry that I cannot rise before you, for the manner of women is upon me.” So he searched, but did not find the household idols (Genesis 31:33-35)

Obviously Laban did not suspect Rachel either. He first searched Jacob’s tent. Who would be more likely to have stolen his gods than Jacob? Was he not the one who had come to Paddan-aram because of his desire to inherit the headship of Isaac’s family and to have the rights of the first-born? The theft of the family gods would give Jacob preeminence over Laban’s household just as his deception had gained it over Isaac’s household.

Having searched carefully in Jacob’s tent, Laban went on to Leah’s tent and then to the two maids. Only last did he come to the tent of Rachel. She was the least suspect of all, and yet she was the guilty party. She successfully concealed her theft by a clever distraction. She sat on the very saddle which hid the gods of Laban. When he had searched every other part of the tent, she explained that she must remain seated because of her monthly infirmity, common to women. Laban did not wish to press that matter any further, and so Rachel’s theft was not discovered. I do not know when nor if Rachel told Jacob of her theft, but I can well imagine what his response must have been.

Had Rachel’s deed been discovered, a very different sequence of events would have followed. As it was, Jacob’s sheepishness over his secret escape was overshadowed by his righteous indignation. He reveled in his innocence in addition to the assurance he gained from Laban’s report that God had spoken to him in the night, preventing harm to Jacob. In the light of these events Jacob now seemed to have the upper hand; he held the winning cards, and he planned to use them to greatest advantage. The years of friction between these two men now boiled over as Jacob scalded Laban with “holy” anger.

Then Jacob became angry and contended with Laban; and Jacob answered and said to Laban, “What is my transgression? What is my sin, that you have hotly pursued me? Though you have felt through all my goods, what have you found of all your household goods? Set it here before my kinsmen, that they may decide between us two. These twenty years I have been with you, your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten the rams of your flocks. That which was torn of beasts I did not bring to you; I bore the loss of it myself. You required it of my hand whether stolen by day or stolen by night. Thus I was: by day the heat consumed me, and the frost by night, and my sleep fled from my eyes. These twenty years I have been in your house; I served you fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for your flock, and you changed my wages ten times. If the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac, had not been for me, surely now you would have sent me away empty-handed. God has seen my affliction and the toil of my hands, so he rendered judgment last night” (Genesis 31:36-42).

Jacob recognized Laban’s “hurt feelings” as a mere facade. The real reason for his hot pursuit was the thought of being wronged by Jacob. Laban concluded that Jacob had finally stepped over the line. Up till this point he had always managed to stay one step within the law. While he had bent the rules mercilessly, he had not yet broken them. With the disappearance of the family gods from his household, Laban thought Jacob had finally gone one step too far in his greed. But now Laban was caught empty-handed. His charges could not be justified. The evidence was lacking. Jacob, in ancient fashion, demanded a writ of habeas corpus. Laban was forced to produce the evidence. He must put up or shut up, and Jacob was the one who delighted to tell him which of the two he must do.

Not only was there no evidence found in his search, but Laban had been consistently wrong in many other areas. These Jacob was eager to elaborate upon. Never had Laban’s herds suffered from Jacob’s neglect, nor had he even eaten at Laban’s expense. The animals that were lost to natural causes Jacob replaced, even though he was not responsible. Laban insisted upon this, and Jacob did so without protest—until now. Jacob worked hard, suffering the hardships of a shepherd’s life, and all this while Laban continued to change his wages repeatedly.

Having gotten his years of frustration off his chest, Jacob used his trump card, triumphantly capping off his defense by asserting that God was on his side (verse 42). Had God not been looking out for him, Laban might have gotten away with his double dealing. All his prosperity, Jacob maintained, was God’s blessing on his life. God had seen his affliction, it was true (cf. verse 12), but Jacob went too far when he added “and the toil of my hands” (verse 42). Nowhere had God ever indicated to Jacob that His blessing was in any way related to Jacob’s works. In fact, God had revealed to Jacob that just the opposite was the case (verses 10-13). The warning which God had issued to Laban on the previous night was proof to Jacob that God was on his side. God had rendered judgment, and Jacob maintained that he had been proven innocent.

The Covenant of Peace
(31:43-55)

I come away from Jacob’s defense with the uneasy feeling that he has grossly overstated his case. God did see all that Laban had done to Jacob. Jacob’s prosperity was from God’s hand, but it had little or nothing to do with Jacob’s piety or productive genius. God had been blessing him on the basis of grace, but Jacob had used God’s intervention as the basis for his self-defense. Jacob maintained that he had prevailed and that God had intervened because he was spiritual, while Laban was carnal. I find myself unconvinced by Jacob’s best efforts. Laban does not appear to be overly impressed either. While he has not been able to prove Jacob’s dishonesty, he still is convinced of it. Thus, he initiates the covenant that is made:

Then Laban answered and said to Jacob, “The daughters are my daughters, and the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks, and all that you see is mine. But what can I do this day to these my daughters or to their children whom they have borne? So now come, let us make a covenant, you and I, and let it be a witness between you and me.” Then Jacob took a stone and set it up as a pillar. And Jacob said to his kinsmen, “Gather stones.” So they took stones and made a heap, and they ate there by the heap. Now Laban called it Jegar-sahadutha, but Jacob called it Galeed. And Laban said, “This heap is a witness between you and me this day.” Therefore it was named Galeed; and Mizpah, for he said, “May the LORD watch between you and me when we are absent one from the other. If you mistreat my daughters, or if you take wives besides my daughters, although no man is with us, see, God is witness between you and me.” And Laban said to Jacob, “Behold this heap and behold the pillar which I have set between you and me. This heap is a witness, and the pillar is a witness, that I will not pass by this heap to you for harm, and you will not pass by this heap and this pillar to me, for harm. The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us.” So Jacob swore by the fear of his father Isaac. Then Jacob offered a sacrifice on the mountain, and called his kinsmen to the meal; and they ate the meal and spent the night on the mountain. And early in the morning Laban arose, and kissed his sons and his daughters and blessed them. Then Laban departed and returned to his place (Genesis 31:43-55).

All that Jacob took with him was really Laban’s, he insisted—his wives, his children, and his herds (verse 43)—but what could he do to resist? If he could not retrieve his household gods, the least Laban can do is to make a covenant with Jacob which would guarantee that he will never make use of those gods to further encroach upon his possessions in the future. Notice that the treaty is initiated by Laban and that its terms are spelled out by him. Since Laban has not succeeded in holding Jacob in check, Laban now calls upon Jacob’s God to do so.

A stone was set up as a pillar (verse 45), and a pile of stones was erected as a monument (verse 46). Also, a covenant meal was shared by Jacob and Laban and the other relatives (verse 54). Laban managed to get Jacob to swear before his God to several particulars. First, Jacob promised never to mistreat Laban’s daughters and never to take any other wives in addition to them (verse 50). Second, each covenanted that they would not pass that point to harm the other (verse 52). Having agreed to these matters, Laban said a last farewell to his daughters and their children. Blessing them, he returned to his home (verse 55). The long and often stormy relationship between Laban and Jacob had come to an end.

Conclusion

Jacob seems to have come away from this encounter with Laban as the unchallenged winner, but did he really? While Jacob may have convinced himself and his wives of his innocence, he has not convinced us, nor has he changed the mind of Laban. Laban was still certain that Jacob was a crook, but being warned by God, he could do little to stop him. The treaty which he initiated was his only hope. And that treaty was no tribute to Jacob’s character.

Now stop and think about it for a moment. Laban had lived in close association with Jacob for twenty years, and he was convinced of his lack of integrity. He believed that Jacob stole his gods. He believed that Jacob had underhandedly gotten possession of his flocks. He felt compelled to get Jacob to swear a holy oath that he would not mistreat his wives or someday return to Laban with hostile intent. Does this sound like a man who was convinced that Jacob was a godly man? Just as the covenants between Abimelech and Abraham (21:22-24), and later Abimelech and Isaac (26:26-31), were evidence of the carnal state of these patriarchs, so this treaty with Laban reveals the character flaws of Jacob. He was a man who could not be trusted. He would, at least, keep the letter of the law, and thus Laban spelled out assurances which he felt were needed. What a poor testimony to the character of Jacob.

And yet Jacob seems to be convinced of his integrity. He is certain that God is on his side because of his uprightness. How could Jacob have been so mistaken? I have come to believe that the answer is to be found in the fact that Jacob was a legalist. Jacob prided himself on being a man who kept the letter of the law. Never, to his knowledge at least, had he ever broken his word. He had made a deal with Laban, and he had always lived up to it. Oh, he had peeled those poles all right, but that was not a breach of their agreement.

Jacob, I believe, had no real system of ethics. He equated morality with legality. Whatever was within the law was morally right so far as he was concerned. Thus, he could stand before Laban with justified righteous indignation and demand that any evidence of wrongdoing on his part be put forth. He could claim with great assurance that God was on his side. How could this not be true when Jacob had always lived within the law?

But here is the heart of the error of legalism, for legalism equates morality with legality. It believes that righteousness and the keeping of the law are one and the same thing. A man may have no system of ethics whatever, but so long as he does not break the law he feels morally pure. He feels confident of the approval and blessing of God.

With this mentality Jacob was hardly different from the Jews of Jesus’ day. They felt that being a descendant of Abraham assured them of God’s favor (cf. John 8:39). They were confident that a meticulous keeping of the law made them acceptable to God. This puts the Sermon on the Mount in an entirely different light for me. Jesus spoke these words to Jews who were legalists. They felt that a mere living within the law was sufficient to merit them a righteousness acceptable to God. Our Lord went on to show them that a much greater righteousness was necessary (cf. Matthew 5:20). A genuine faith was not so much a matter of form as of faith. Those who were genuinely members of the kingdom were those whose hearts were pure before God. Thus our Lord dealt more with motives than with methods. He dealt more with function than mere forms.

The law was only a minimum standard; it was not intended to make men feel righteous but to demonstrate to men how far from God’s holiness they fell. The New Testament does not tell us that the standards set by the Old are no longer valid (Matthew 5:17), for those who walk in the Spirit will fulfill the requirement (singular) of the law (Romans 8:4). Legalism is sinful because men love to set human standards which, if they are kept, produce a man’s righteousness. Christian liberty views the standard for our thoughts and actions to be our Lord Himself, for it is to His image that we are being conformed (Romans 8:29).

Jacob may have felt self-righteous, but Laban was totally unconvinced. He resorted to legalism (that is, a legal covenant) because that was all he could trust Jacob to do—keep a few rules. Many Christians today are no different than Jacob. They (we?), too, are legalists. We think that we are pious and holy because we do not smoke or chew or curse. But ask those who have to work for us or those who have to employ us, and they will do just as Laban did—get it all down in writing. You see, even with all our pious talk the world knows better, for they have to live with us too. While we may keep a certain list of do’s and don’t’s, we may undermine and manipulate; we may deceive and destroy; we may seek our success at the expense of others. True righteousness, I believe, involves much more than keeping a few rules to the letter. It is a matter of the heart. No wonder so many unbelievers (and Christians) are reluctant to do business with Christians. They know that while God may be with us, we do not always act in a godly way.

Ethics, as I have said, is the difference between legality and morality. We live in a day when Christians and non-Christians alike think that whatever is legal is legitimate Christian activity. We, like Jacob, have our own pole-peeling and wheeling and dealing, which we think God is obliged to bless. No wonder the world is trying to legalize homosexuality and abortion and the like. To them, legality is morality. If it isn’t illegal, it is moral, they suppose.

The Bible does draw lines, clear lines at times. There are absolutes, and there are rules. But in addition to these, perhaps I should say above all these, is another standard of conduct which we shall call ethics or convictions. Many Christians seem to have too few of these, and yet this is what sets a true Christian apart in the eyes of the world. How many of us are viewed by the world as Jacob was by Laban? How many of us have convictions that cause us to avoid certain practices, even if they are legal? Christian ethics should be so high that legalistic rules are never necessary, at least for those who are righteous (I Timothy 1:9-10).

The bottom line for Jacob was that of faith. He tried to sneak off without telling Laban because he was afraid (verse 31). He trusted God but not enough to do that which was honorable in the sight of all men. He did not think that God could spare him and his family if he acted honorably before Laban. His God, in the words of J. B. Phillips, was “too small.” Isn’t that the case for most of us? The reason why we are reluctant to live by firm convictions is that we do not trust God to be able to bless us under these added restrictions. Have we forgotten how Elijah had barrels of water poured on his sacrifice so that those who watched could only give God the glory (cf. I Kings 18, especially verses 33-35)? Is this not the reason why we desperately try to dispensationalize the Sermon on the Mount, so that we do not have to try to live by its teachings? A faith that is firm does not fear to live in such a way that only God can be given the glory.

What a lesson this must have been to the ancient Israelites who received the law of God from the author of Genesis. While God gave Israel the law, He did not do so to provide a standard of righteousness which would convince men of their sinfulness, of their need of a sacrifice, and their need of a Savior Who would pay the penalty for their sins and provide the righteousness they could not produce for themselves by the work of their hands.

Jacob’s actions were wrong for another reason, I believe. While Jacob was willing to keep his deception within the law, his actions taught others to try to get ahead by stepping outside the law. This is what happened, I believe, to Rachel. She had learned well from her husband. She stole Laban’s household gods (verse 19), but in the very next verse we are told that “Jacob stole the heart of Laban …” (verse 20, margin, NASV). The same Hebrew word is employed for the acts of Rachel and Jacob. Do you think this is a coincidence? I do not. Jacob stole the heart of Laban but barely within the letter of the law. Rachel stole the gods of Laban, just outside the law. She did not see the fine distinctions of her husband. Our deception, even if within the law, leads others to go beyond us.

Finally, Jacob’s actions here remind me that one may be doing the will of God but in a way that is offensive to the character of God. God had commanded Jacob to leave Paddan-aram and return to the land of promise (verse 3). In this sense Jacob was doing God’s will for his life. But he was not doing the will of God in God’s way. Sometimes we get so caught up in the fact that what we are doing is right that we forget to ask if how we are doing God’s will is right. Our methods must always be consistent with our Master if our actions will be honoring to Him.

255 “. . . Rachel may well have had a partly religious motive (cf. 35:2,4), but the fact that possession of them could strengthen one’s claim to the inheritance (as the Nusi tablets disclose)+ gives the most likely clue to her action.” Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 165. +Kidner here refers to Biblical Archaeologist, 1940, p. 5.

Stigers goes into more detail, saying, “According to the Nuzu tablets, a natural son is to take the gods, the teraphim: ‘If Nashwi has a son of his own, he shall divide the estate equally with Wullu, but the son of Nashwi shall take the gods of Nashwi.’*

“Another text, a new will of Hashwi, indicates that Wullu has died and Wullu’s oldest son is to receive the household gods.** In yet another text a reassignment of shares of the estate is made, but the oldest son alone is given possession of the household gods.***” Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 242. (It should be added that Stigers does not agree with my conclusion that Rachel’s primary motivation for stealing Laban’s gods was to secure an inheritance for Jacob after Laban’s death. Cf. Stigers, p. 242.) *Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp. 219-220, **Anne E. Draffkorn, “Ilani-Elohim,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXVI (1957), p. 220. Cf. O. J. Gadd, “Tablets from Kirkuk,” Review d’Assyriologie et d’Archaeologie Orientale, XXII (1926), Text #5; ***L. L. Lachemann, Excavations at Nuzu, “Miscellaneous Texts, Part 2: The Palace and Temple Archives” (HSS XIV: 1950), para. 2, p. 108.

Introduction

When our church first began to meet, a man stood up in our worship meeting with some very nice things to say about us. He expressed his sincere opinion that ours was the most New Testament church that he had ever experienced. All in all, it was the kind of thing that most of us enjoyed hearing. After he was finished I felt that it was necessary for me to make a few comments. I stood and said that I had two responses as a result of his compliments. First, I hoped that what this man said was true and that we were coming close to what the New Testament church was and should continue to be. Second, I hoped that, if this were true, none of us would ever believe it.

You see, nothing could be more devastating than to be making progress in a particular area and then to be swallowed up by a sense of pride and complacency. We would then tend to rest upon our laurels and fail to press on to greater growth and maturity.

The same principle applies to the matter of security. While we are forever secure in the salvation that Jesus Christ has provided and we have accepted (cf. John 10:27-29), there is a kind of complacency which can be destructive and counter-productive to our spiritual lives. We can wrongly conclude that since we are eternally secure there is no need to press on, that there is no urgency and no imminent danger in our Christian experience. The moment we feel secure, we are in the greatest danger. The moment we become aloof to the intensity of the spiritual warfare in which we are engaged and the enemy who seeks to destroy us, we are beginning to fall into the enemy’s grasp.

That is precisely what Jacob does in these two chapters of Genesis. In the first portion of chapter 33 Jacob fearfully faces his brother, expecting that the worst might happen. But once this danger passes, Jacob becomes forgetful of the divine command and of his own vow to return to Bethel. A false sense of security made Jacob careless in his actions and brought him to a point of very grave danger. This danger was both physical and spiritual. Except for the questionable actions of his sons and the providence of God, Jacob could have been virtually destroyed.

This passage is particularly relevant to 20th century Christians who live in America, for we have been lulled into a false sense of security by our comfortable and easy way of life. We have Social Security and Medicare, welfare and workman’s compensation. We have insurance protection for our homes, our health, our ability to earn a living, and against all kinds of losses. We never wake up in the morning wondering if we will eat or where we will sleep the next night. Christians can feel even more comfortable, for many believe that when things really begin to get bad (e.g., the great tribulation) they will not be around to face it anyway because of the rapture.¹ In the midst of this kind of artificial security, we begin to live carelessly and find ourselves in danger of some serious spiritual defeats. Let us seek to learn from the life of Jacob how we can avoid complacency and over-confidence, which can be hazardous to our spiritual health.

One Step Forward
(33:1-16)

Then Jacob lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, Esau was coming, and four hundred men with him. So he divided the children among Leah and Rachel and the two maids. And he put the maids and their children in front, and Leah and her children next, and Rachel and Joseph last. But he himself passed on ahead of them and bowed down to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother. Then Esau ran to meet him and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept. And he lifted his eyes and saw the women and the children, and said, “Who are these with you?” So he said, “The children whom God has graciously given your servant.” Then the maids came near with their children, and they bowed down. And Leah likewise came near with her children, and they bowed down; and afterward Joseph came near with Rachel, and they bowed down. And he said, “What do you mean by all this company which I have met?” And he said, “To find favor in the sight of my lord.” But Esau said, “I have plenty, my brother; let what you have be your own.” And Jacob said, “No, please, if now I have found favor in your sight, then take my present from my hand, for I see your face as one sees the face of God, and you have received me favorably. Please take my gift which has been brought to you, because God has dealt graciously with me, and because I have plenty.” Thus he urged him and he took it. Then Esau said, “Let us take our journey and go, and I will go before you.” But he said to him, “My lord knows that the children are frail and that the flocks and herds which are nursing are a care to me. And if they are driven hard one day, all the flocks will die. Please let my lord pass on before his servant; and I will proceed at my leisure, according to the pace of the cattle that are before me and according to the pace of the children, until I come to my lord at Seir.” And Esau said, “Please let me leave with you some of the people who are with me.” But he said, “What need is there? Let me find favor in the sight of my lord.” So Esau returned that day on his way to Seir. (Genesis 33:1-6)

As Genesis 32 closes, the wrestling match between Jacob and the Angel of Jehovah had just ended, and Jacob was crossing Penuel as the sun began to rise (verse 31). At that very moment, it would seem, Jacob looked up and saw Esau and his 400 men appear on the horizon. Jacob divided his wives and children into groups, beginning with the maids and ending with Rachel and Joseph. Jacob went to the head of the group so that any harm done would be inflicted on him first. It was he whom Esau hated; ultimately it was a confrontation between these two brothers. As Jacob went out to meet his brother, he bowed repeatedly to the ground, a token of his newly found humility.

Now this was a very dramatic moment. Esau perhaps rode rapidly up to Jacob and then leaped from his mount and ran toward his brother. Jacob must have watched this approach with great anxiety, especially fixing his gaze upon the weapons that Esau carried. It was not until the warm and tender embrace, underscored by tears of genuine joy, that Jacob realized, to his great relief, that Esau came as a forgiving friend and brother rather than as a foe.

The usual small talk began with questions about the wives and children. Then the conversation turned to the droves of livestock that met him on his approach. Jacob explained once again that they were a gift, an expression of love. Esau tried politely to refuse the gift as unnecessary and unneeded, but Jacob persisted and prevailed.

The tenth verse is the key to the peaceful meeting of these brothers:

“No please!” said Jacob. “If I have found favor in your eyes, accept this gift from me. For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably” (NIV).

In the previous chapter Jacob had been taught that to prevail with God was to prevail with men as well. Now that Esau had welcomed him with open arms, Jacob saw that looking on the face of his brother was like looking on the face of God. The one was the result of the other. God, not Esau, had been the obstacle to Jacob’s entry into Canaan. Now that he had prevailed with God by means of petition and clinging to Him by faith, Esau was no longer a foe, but a friend.

Esau is a magnificent picture of graciousness and forgiveness. His words of greeting to Jacob are remarkably similar to those of the father of the prodigal son at his return (compare Genesis 33:4 with Luke 15:20).² Having accepted Jacob’s generosity in the gift of the droves of livestock, Esau offered to accompany his brother as he journeyed on to Canaan and, I would suppose, to the home of their father (cf. 31:30). Jacob expressed his appreciation but explained that he could not travel at the same pace as his brother and those with him. The young cattle and children would only serve to slow Esau down unnecessarily. To hurry the children and cattle would only result in needless losses.

Jacob’s reasoning made sense, but Esau seemed to feel it necessary for Jacob and his family and flocks to have an escort. Consequently, he urged Jacob to allow him to have some of his men accompany his party into the land. Jacob indicated that there was really no reason to take such precautions and that all he desired of his brother was his favor. And so Esau went on, assuming that he would see Jacob shortly; but, as we know, this will not happen. It would seem that years would pass until these men met once more. While we wish not to believe it and there may be some plausible explanations for his words,³ one does get the uneasy feeling that Jacob has resorted to his old habit of deception. While he said he was going to meet Esau at Seir (verse 14), he may have had no intention of doing so. Certainly that is the way things worked out, and yet without any good reason. The disastrous results of Jacob’s side trip would indicate that Jacob was wrong in going to Succoth and later to Shechem.

One Step Backward
(33:17)

And Jacob journeyed to Succoth; and built for himself a house, and made booths for his livestock, therefore the place is named Succoth (Genesis 33:17).

It is Derek Kidner who aptly summarizes the significance of Jacob’s journey to Succoth: “Succoth was a backward step, spiritually as well as geographically …”⁴ God had first appeared to Jacob at Bethel, and it was there that Jacob vowed to someday return to build an altar and give a tithe to God (28:20-22). When God instructed Jacob to return to Canaan, He identified Himself as the “God of Bethel” (31:13). Jacob was instructed to return “to the land of your fathers and to your relatives” (31:3). Succoth was in the opposite direction of Seir where Jacob had told Esau he was coming.⁵

While the text does not inform us of Jacob’s reasons for such a move, several could be suggested. First, Jacob may not have been eager to face his father, whom he had deceived and of whom he should seek forgiveness. Also, Jacob may not have been too excited about spending much time in close proximity to Esau, who was obviously well able to protect his own interests. Furthermore, Jacob had made a vow to pay a tithe to God at Bethel (28:22). Perhaps he was not eager to do this now that God had greatly prospered him. Finally, and perhaps most likely, the pasture was vastly superior in the Jordan Valley where Succoth was located, while Bethel was in the mountains.⁶ His cattle would normally fare better in the richer pastures of the Jordan Valley than in the mountains.

More distressing than the direction of Jacob’s travels was the duration of his stay at Succoth. We know that Dinah could not have been older than 6 or 7 when Jacob left Paddan-aram, for she was seemingly born later to Leah (cf. 30:21). But by the time Jacob is at Shechem, she is of marriageable age, which would have been at least 12 or 13. Several years must, therefore, have passed between the meeting of Jacob and Esau and the events of chapter 34.⁷ Some of those must have passed at Succoth. This is further confirmed by the fact that Jacob built a house there rather than to dwell in a tent (verse 17). He was not a sojourner here, but a settler. There is every indication that Jacob intended to “settle down” for some time.

A Second Backward Step
(33:18-20)

Now Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Paddan-aram and camped before the city. And he bought the piece of land where he had pitched his tent, from the hand of the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for one hundred pieces of money. Then he erected there an altar, and called it El-Elohe-Israel (Genesis 33:18-20).

We are not given any reason for Jacob’s departure from Succoth to Shechem. That would probably make interesting reading, but Moses does not seek to satisfy our curiosity. All we know is that Jacob arrived “safely” at the city of Shechem (verse 18). His camping near the city is reminiscent of Lot’s ever closer attachment to the city of Sodom, until he was a citizen. Again, Jacob did not appear to be a man passing through, for he purchased a piece of property from a man whose name he would some day like to forget.

From outward appearance Jacob is a religious man, much like his forefather Abraham. He has built an altar, which he called El-Elohe-Israel. Initially this seems very similar to what Abraham had done in the past, but this thought is short lived. When Abraham built altars, he did so “to the LORD” (12:8), and both Abraham and Isaac “called upon the name of the LORD” in worship (12:8; 13:4; 26:25). With Isaac, the altar was the first thing he built (26:25), while with Jacob it was the last (33:20). All of this, in addition to later developments, strongly suggests that while there was a religious formality, there was no spiritual reality. Jacob promised to build an altar at Bethel (28:22), which he later did (35:13-14), but there does not seem to be any great spiritual exercise here, only ritual. It is extremely difficult to worship God in the place where we are not supposed to be.

A Third Backward Step
(34:1-31)

Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force. And he was deeply attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, “Get me this young girl for a wife.” Now Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter; but his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob kept silent until they came in. Then Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. Now the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved, and they were very angry because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, for such a thing ought not to be done. But Hamor spoke with them, saying, “The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter; please give her to him in marriage. And intermarry with us; give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves. Thus you shall live with us, and the land shall be open before you; live and trade in it, and acquire property in it.” Shechem also said to her father and to her brothers, “If I find favor in your sight, then I will give whatever you say to me. Ask me ever so much bridal payment and gift, and I will give according as you say to me; but give me the girl in marriage” (Genesis 34:1-12).

Jacob, who had always been a “country boy,” must have been ignorant of the dangers of the city. As close as he lived to Shechem, Dinah found it easy to visit with “the daughters of the land” (verse 1). More than likely, this occurred frequently, and so her involvement with Shechem might not have taken place quite as suddenly as it would appear.⁸ Shechem may have first seen Dinah and been attracted to her when Jacob purchased the land from Hamor, his father. As the most respected in his father’s house, he could have been a party to this sale (cf. verses 2, 19).

On a particular occasion Shechem was able to seize her while she was alone and to force his affections on her. While his rape of Dinah was an abomination, he had a great love for her and desired to marry her. He urged his father to arrange for their marriage as soon as possible, regardless of the price. Dinah may have remained in his tent while these negotiations took place (cf. verse 26).

Hamor’s offer was one that could have been expected from a Canaanite who was a man of prominence within the community. He sought to assuage the anger of Dinah’s brothers by stressing the great love of Shechem for her (verses 7-8). In addition, such a union would pave the way for many other benefits. They could be free to inter-marry with the Canaanites (verse 9) and also to engage in business more freely (verse 10). Furthermore, whatever they required as a dowry would be paid. Probably Hamor felt that a high price for Dinah would do much to appease the anger of these brothers.

Jacob’s sons were not content with such an offer, but they did see it as providing a means for their getting revenge:

But Jacob’s sons answered Shechem and his father Hamor, with deceit, and spoke to them, because he had defiled Dinah their sister. And they said to them, “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a disgrace to us. Only on this condition will we consent to you; if you will become like us, in that every male of you be circumcised, then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters for ourselves, and we will live with you and become one people. But if you will not listen to us to be circumcised, then we will take our daughter and go” (Genesis 34:13-17).

I find it of particular interest that these words are attributed to “Jacob’s sons” rather than to “Dinah’s brothers.” The reason must be that in being deceitful they were proving themselves to be sons of their father. We are not entirely surprised by the fact that it is they rather than Jacob who respond to Hamor’s offer. A similar situation is to be recalled in the acquisition of Rebekah for Isaac (cf. 24:50,55, 57-60).

The one concession Jacob’s sons require is stated in such a way that it could be declined only with great difficulty. This is because circumcision is portrayed as a vital part of their religious ritual.⁹ Circumcision, these sons contended, would unite the Canaanites with the Israelites so that inter-marriage would be acceptable and permissible. If this rite were not followed, then no inter-marriage could take place.

The deceitfulness of Jacob’s sons is in no way defensible. They intended to trick the Canaanites into an arrangement whereby they would be physically incapacitated, especially on the third day of their circumcision. This would make the slaughter of Hamor, Shechem, and all the inhabitants of that city much easier to accomplish. No defense of this plan can be successfully presented.

Jacob’s silence is even more evil than his sons’ schemes. His sons proposed inter-marriage with the Canaanites only as a means to induce them to be circumcised so that they could be overcome more easily. Jacob silently and passively accepted the agreement with the people of Shechem, fully expecting to carry it out. Jacob planned to allow his descendants to inter-marry with the Canaanites, but his sons had no such intention. Jacob, in comparison with his sons, is even more guilty than they!

Jacob’s willingness to inter-marry with the Canaanites is not only contrary to the purposes and promises of God in the Abrahamic covenant, but it is also a direct violation of the instructions which his father had given him:

So Isaac called Jacob and blessed him and charged him, and said to him, “You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and from there take to yourself a wife from the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother. And may God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples. May He also give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your descendants with you; that you may possess the land of your sojournings, which God gave to Abraham” (Genesis 28:1-4).

On good faith, Hamor and Shechem went to their fellow citizens and convinced them to comply with the proposal of Jacob’s sons:

Now their words seemed reasonable to Hamor and Shechem, Hamor’s son. And the young man did not delay to do the thing because he was delighted with Jacob’s daughter. Now he was more respected than all the household of his father. So Hamor and his son, Shechem, came to the gate of their city, and spoke to the men of their city, saying, “These men are friendly with us; therefore let them live in the land and trade in it, for behold, the land is large enough for them. Let us take their daughters in marriage, and give our daughters to them. Only on this condition will the men consent to us to live with us, to become one people: that every male among us be circumcised as they are circumcised. Will not their livestock and their property and all their animals be ours? Only let us consent to them, and they will live with us.” And all who went out of the gate of his city listened to Hamor and to his son Shechem, and every male was circumcised, all who went out of the gate of his city (Genesis 34:18-24).

On the surface it was a reasonable offer that Jacob’s sons had made, and Shechem was eager to have the marriage performed. The reason why Hamor and Shechem would comply with the proposal was obvious, but the other men of the city were convinced on financial grounds. Hamor must have been the president of the Shechem Chamber of Commerce. How could his fellow-citizens refuse such a temporary inconvenience when they would eventually profit substantially from the arrangement (verse 23)?

Now it came about on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword and came upon the city unawares, and killed every male. And they killed Hamor and his son Shechem with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah from Shechem’s house, and went forth. Jacob’s sons came upon the slain and looted the city, because they had defiled their sister. They took their flocks and their herds and their donkeys, and that which was in the city and that which was in the field; and they captured and looted all their wealth and all their little ones and their wives, even all that was in the houses (Genesis 34:25-29).

Little did the people of Shechem realize the intentions of Dinah’s brothers, whose anger could not be appeased by anything less than the revenge of blood. Weakened by their circumcision, the men of the city were virtually helpless when attacked by Simeon and Levi. It was no less than a slaughter. They killed every male, and the rest of their brothers were quick to share in the spoils.¹⁰ All of their wealth along with the women and children was taken.

Jacob’s silence is shattered by the blood bath of his sons:

Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble on me, by making me odious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites; and my men being few in number, they will gather together against me and attack me and I shall be destroyed, I and my household.” But they said, “Should he treat our sister as a harlot?” (Genesis 34:30-31).

Surely a word of rebuke was in order, but Jacob’s words lacked force because his reasons were self-centered and not based upon principle, but only on the interest of self-preservation. They brought trouble to Jacob. They made Jacob look bad. They put his life in danger. He might be attacked and destroyed. Jacob seemed to care only about his safety and saving his own skin.

The shallowness of Jacob’s stern rebuke was exposed by his sons response: “Should he treat our sister as a harlot?” The issue of morality had never been raised by Jacob. Granted, the sons’ deception and destruction hardly seems moral, but they, at least, had some sense of the abomination that had taken place concerning their sister, while Jacob was strangely silent and passive on this point.

Conclusion

We can make several observations on the matter of safety from a closer look at these two chapters in Genesis.

First, Jacob was never safer than he was in those times of most evident danger. Think through Jacob’s life for a moment, especially those times of great danger. When fleeing from Esau, Jacob was met by God at Bethel (28:10ff.). When Jacob was hotly pursued by his frustrated and furious uncle, God sternly warned Laban that he should not even speak harshly to Jacob (31:24). This sharply curtailed Laban’s plans (31:29). When Jacob entered into a new and threatening existence in the land of Canaan, he was met by a host of angels assuring him of God’s presence and protection (32:1-2). Finally, as Jacob feared his brother as the sole obstacle to his entry into Canaan and the blessings of God, God Himself met him and wrestled with him, finally “succumbing” to his petition to be blessed. Having prevailed with God, into whose face he looked, he was assured of prevailing over Esau in the meeting that was ahead. Never was Jacob safer than at those times when his life seemed in greatest peril.

Second, Jacob was never in greater danger than at those times when he felt most secure. Jacob seemed to feel safest when his brother was out of sight, and yet it seems that Esau came with his armed men in order to provide an escort for him into Canaan. Jacob felt secure when his cattle could feed on the lush grass of Succoth rather than in the more sparse pastures of Bethel. He felt safer near a city of Canaanites than in the seclusion of some place more remote from civilization. But it was in Shechem that the rape of Dinah occurred, and it was there that Jacob could have been killed by the Canaanites.

The reason for this is really quite simple: we are most inclined to trust in God and obey Him when we sense that we are in grave danger and that our only hope is in God alone to save us. It is sad but true that all of us tend to slack up in our diligence and devotion when things are going along smoothly. We think that we can handle things ourselves when dangers seem distant and troubles are far removed, but when there is a crisis or a sudden overwhelming problem, then we rush to God for help. It is a foxhole kind of Christianity, but that is the way we are.

When Jacob was freed of Esau, whom he perceived to be his principal danger, he felt free to handle matters himself. He sought safety in separation from his brother and from succulent pastures and the security of cities and alliances with pagans. And at this time of spiritual decline, he was remarkably passive in the face of evils which should have been appalling to him. He who was so aggressive in seeking material prosperity had no zeal for moral purity. Self-interest and self-preservation were his only concern.

What a lesson this must have been to the Israelites who read this account of Moses, especially as they were about to enter into the land of Canaan. It should have taught them that their only security was in God. It should have warned them that the greatest danger in the promised land was not the size of the inhabitants or their military prowess, but in becoming carelessly complacent about spiritual purity and resisting false pride.

The Israelites, like Jacob, appeared to be in a place of great danger, trapped as they were between the Red Sea and the soldiers of Egypt (cf. Exodus 14:10-12). The fact was that they were never safer because they were in the will of God and walking according to His word. They were safe because they were where God wanted them to be, and so God made a path through the sea for them.

The great danger for Israel was what would happen once they were in the land. During the years in which they wandered in the desert, they were, humanly speaking, in a most dangerous situation, but God miraculously provided for them. Indeed, God used those circumstances to teach them that the most important matters of life were not food and drink, but obedience to the will of God and the keeping of His word (cf. Deuteronomy 8:1-6).

The greatest danger which Israel would ever face was not the persecution of the Egyptians, for that kept them pure. It was not the problem of survival in the desert, for God met their needs for food and clothing. The greatest danger Israel would face was their prosperity and apparent security once they possessed the land.

Beware lest you forget the LORD your God by not keeping His commandments and His ordinances and His statutes which I am commanding you today; lest, when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have built good houses and lived in them, and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and gold multiply, and all that you have multiplies, then your heart becomes proud, and you forget the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. He led you through the great and terrible wilderness, with its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water; He brought water for you out of the rock of flint. In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end. Otherwise, you may say in your heart, “My power and the strength of my hand made me this wealth.” But you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth, that He may confirm His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day (Deuteronomy 8:11-18).

Built into the Law which God gave His people were some factors which were intended to stimulate the faith of the Israelites once they were in the land.

You shall thus observe My statutes, and keep My judgments, so as to carry them out, that you may live securely on the land. Then the land will yield its produce, so that you can eat your fill and live securely on it. But if you say, “What are we going to eat on the seventh year if we do not sow or gather in our crops?” then I will so order My blessing for you in the sixth year that it will bring forth the crop for three years. When you are sowing the eighth year, you can still eat old things from the crop, eating the old until the ninth year when its crop comes in (Leviticus 25:18-22).

Here God instructed the people not to plant or to harvest in the seventh year. This did, of course, give the land a rest. In addition, it stretched the faith of the Israelites, for it forced them to obey God, even when the normal result would have been a lack of food. They had to trust God to provide for their needs. While Egypt had its river and its very predictable and prosperous farming by irrigation, God brought His people into a land where they must trust Him to provide the rains which the land needed to produce in abundance. These were faith-stimulating conditions, designed to keep the Israelites alert to their dependence upon God for their daily needs. Israel’s only security was in her God, Whom she must trust and Whom she must obey.

If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments so as to carry them out, then I shall give you rains in their season, so that the land will yield its produce and the trees of the field will bear their fruit. Indeed, your threshing will last for you until grape gathering, and grape gathering will last until sowing time. You will thus eat your food to the full and live securely in your land (Leviticus 26:3-5).

Man’s security has always been in God, and in God alone. This is not just a New Testament truth; it is an eternal truth.

The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men; From His dwelling place He looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth, He who fashions the hearts of them all, He who understands all their works. The king is not saved by a mighty army; A warrior is not delivered by great strength. A horse is a false hope for victory; Nor does it deliver anyone by its great strength. Behold, the eye of the LORD is on those who fear Him, On those who hope for His lovingkindness; To deliver their soul from death, And to keep them alive in famine. Our soul waits for the LORD; He is our help and our shield. For our heart rejoices in Him, Because we trust in His holy name. Let Thy lovingkindness, O LORD, be upon us, According as we have hoped in Thee (Psalm 33:13-22).

There is no security in the “arm of the flesh,” only in the “arm of Jehovah.” If we trust in our own devices, we are exceedingly vulnerable. If we trust in God, we are invincible.

The slaughter of the Canaanites by the sons of Jacob, while done in deception, was a necessity. Had Simeon and Levi not slaughtered the men of this city, Jacob’s sons and daughters would have inter-married. There is little doubt of this since Jacob consented to it. Jacob viewed their friendliness and openness as an evidence of safety and security. In reality, it was the opposite. The willingness of the Canaanites to adopt Jacob, the Israelites, and their religion into their way of life would have defiled the purity which God required for this race. While Jacob did not take such activity as defiling and disgraceful, his sons did (34:7,31), and so did God. Thus it was that He would later instruct the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites due to their depravity and decay (Deuteronomy 20:17-18). From this incident in the life of Jacob the Israelites could see the consequences of cohabitation with the Canaanites.

A number of principles arise from this event in the life of Jacob which apply to us centuries later.

(1) Safety is not something we can provide for ourselves. Men are never secure apart from God. Every non-believer must be warned of this truth. As Peter said centuries ago:

And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

(2) Safety comes only from God:

In peace I will both lie down and sleep, For Thou alone, O LORD, dost make me to dwell in safety (Psalm 4:8).

(3) The true believer is most secure when he is following the Word of God:

But he who listens to me shall live securely, And shall be at ease from the dread of evil (Proverbs 1:33).

(4) Safety is not the absence of danger, but the acknowledgment of it and the turning to God for protection in it. This was the faith of Daniel’s three companions (cf. Daniel 3:13ff.).

(5) Times of apparent safety which lead to complacency are occasions where danger is at its greatest intensity. The real dangers are most often not seen by the human eye because they are spiritual in nature. These dangers include unbelief, apathy, carnality, compromise, and complacency. And so it is that Christians are urged to be on the alert, attentive to the dangers which are always present, especially when there are times of prosperity and peace:

Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall (I Corinthians 10:12).

While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief; for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness; so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober (I Thessalonians 5:3-6).

Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour (I Peter 5:8).

Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked (Revelation 3:17).

How different the trials and sufferings of life look in the light of these truths. Life’s trials are not given by God for our destruction, but for our defense. They cause us to cling ever more closely to Him Who is able to give strength in times of need (cf. Hebrews 4:14-16). The trials of life are a gift of God’s grace (Philippians 1:29), intended by a loving Father to strengthen our faith:

It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. Therefore, strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble, and make straight paths for your feet, so that the limb which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed (Hebrews 12:7-13).

In my estimation most Christians in America prefer to dwell in comfort and complacency rather than to live on the cutting edge of Christianity. Most of us, like Jacob, prefer peace to purity, prosperity to piety, and safety to spirituality. The commands and principles of the New Testament, like the laws of the Old, are designed to cause us to live on the cutting edge of life. That, I believe, is why our Lord told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor. That man could not trust in God and gold—it was one or the other. While money is not evil, trusting in it for security is (I Timothy 6:17). God desires to remove from our lives anything which stands in the way of our total trust in Him. May each of us be willing to look only to Him for security and safety, for that is the way God has ordered this universe.

I strongly believe that many Christians desire to live the kind of life that God intends for us to live. The way to do this is intensely simple: trust and obey. Trust leads to obedience to the will and the Word of God. And obeying the Word of God forces us to trust in Him to provide for our every need. May each of us be willing to do as He commands.

1 I, too, believe in the pre-tribulation rapture of the church, but one of the dangers in the Christian life is the misuse of right doctrine. Some twist the doctrine of God’s grace into a license for sin (cf. Romans 5:20-6:23, I Peter 2:16). The doctrine of the return of our Lord was intended to inspire holy living, not carelessness (cf. II Peter 3:11-13), watchfulness, not waywardness (I Thessalonians 5; II Timothy 3).

2 So remarks Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 171.

3 “. . . these words are not to be understood as meaning that he intended to go direct to Seir; consequently they were not a willful deception for the purpose of getting rid of Esau. Jacob’s destination was Canaan, and in Canaan probably Hebron, where his father Isaac still lived. From thence he may have thought of paying a visit to Esau in Seir. Whether he carried out this intention or not, we cannot tell; for we have not a record of all that Jacob did, but only of the principal events of his life.” C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), I, p. 309.

“Few of us could cast the first stone at him for failing to combine grace and truth in refusing an embarrassing invitation. It is also possible, as Delitzsch suggests, that he intended to visit Seir one day, and deceived Esau ‘by deceiving himself.’ None the less, some of the deviousness of the old Jacob comes out, for he could have said plainly that he was under oath to go to Bethel.” Kidner, Genesis, p. 171.

4 Kidner, Genesis, pp. 170-171.

5 “What, then was Jacob’s next step? Actually this: instead of going after Esau to Seir, which was situated southeast of Peniel, he took his journey in an exactly opposite direction, and went to Succoth, northwest of Peniel.” W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), p. 312.

6 “Finding better pasture at Succoth for his considerable flocks and herds only furthered the delay. The site of Bethel in the mountains does not offer anything comparable to the fields east of the Jordan near the bottom of the escarpment of the Jordan Valley where the waters of the Jabbok offered drink for his animals.” Harold Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 255.

7 “The implied ages of Jacob’s daughter and his elder sons in the next incident, at Shechem, show that several years were indeed spent in one or both of these places, since Dinah was evidently a child of about seven when the family left Paddan-aram (cf. 30:19-25; 31:41).” Kidner, Genesis, p. 172.

8 “Her action is not prefaced by the phrase ‘Now it happened one day,’ which could then be followed by ‘that Dinah went out. . . .’ It would appear that her visits may have been a frequent occurrence and the event should be introduced by ‘Now Dinah had made it a practice to visit with the women . . .’” Stigers, Genesis, p. 256.

9 “The stipulation of circumcision was all the more plausible because the rite, outside Israel, was sometimes an initiation into marriageable status; cf. on 17:9-14.” Kidner, Genesis, p. 174.

10 There is some question as to who participated in the taking of the spoils of Shechem, but it appears to me that all of Jacob’s sons took part in this act, not just Simeon and Levi.

Introduction

There is a story (which I am certain is not true) about a man who was the sole survivor of a ship which sank at sea. He was able to make a small raft of some of the ship’s cargo and eventually drift to a desert island. There he constructed a make-shift shelter and lived on what little food he had been able to salvage from the wreckage. Time after time he had attempted unsuccessfully to attract the attention of a passing ship. Finally, he saw a ship approaching more closely and hurriedly set a signal fire ablaze. To his dismay, the ship passed by and was quickly fading from sight. Accidentally, sparks from the signal fire set the thatched roof of his shelter in flames, and the man watched hopelessly and helplessly as all of his provision burned to ashes.

All was lost, he reasoned, and life could not last much longer. Suddenly he noticed that the ship which had passed him by was turning around and approaching the island more closely than before. To his great relief, he was seen by the crew and rescued. Once on board, the grateful survivor went to the captain of the ship to express his thanks. “But what caused you to turn around after you had already passed by me?” he queried. “Why, we saw the signal fire you made by setting your shelter on fire,” the captain responded.

The very thing which seemed to seal the doom of this marooned man was the means of his delivery. What seemed to spell disaster for him became an instrument of his salvation. That is precisely the case with Joseph and Jacob in Genesis 37. A tragic and cruel event occurred which, to Jacob, brought his world to an end. Life was hardly worth living, he reasoned, because he had lost the one thing which meant the most to him. But in the end, the loss of Joseph for a period of years was the means God employed to save the nation from starvation and, worse yet, from a loss of purity by being absorbed into the culture and religion of the Canaanites.

The emotional intensity of the events of this episode in the life of Jacob and his sons is difficult for us to appreciate. We come to this 37th chapter of Genesis in much the same way as we would watch the video replay of a week-old football game. We know the outcome of the story. We know that Jacob was in error when he later cried out, “… all these things are against me” (Genesis 42:36). Only in the throes of crisis or tragedy can we fully appreciate what Jacob is experiencing in this chapter.

Genesis 36: A Few Observations

I have chosen to briefly pass over the details of Genesis 36 because the primary purpose of this chapter has already been realized. You see, the first readers of this chapter were the Israelites who were about to cross over the River Jordan to possess the land of Canaan and to annihilate the Canaanites (cf. Deuteronomy 1:8; 20:16-18). There were, however, some people who were not to be attacked or annihilated, among whom were the Edomites, the descendants of Esau:

And the LORD spoke to me, saying, “You have circled this mountain long enough. Now turn north, and command the people, saying, ‘You will pass through the territory of your brothers the sons of Esau who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. So be very careful; do not provoke them, for I will not give you any of their land, even as little as a footstep because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession’” (Deuteronomy 2:2-5).

Lest this command be violated, it was most essential for those Israelites of Moses’ day to know who the Edomites were and to have a carefully documented record of the generations of Esau. That record is the substance of chapter 36. As you can see, this has no direct bearing upon Christians in our age, while it was indispensable for the first readers of this account.

Having said this, I do not wish to leave the impression that there is no value for us in these verses. I would like to suggest two avenues of consideration for us today. First, I am impressed with the fact that Esau was a very gracious man. While he had in the heat of anger threatened to kill his brother for his deception, he received him warmly (33:4ff.), and when prosperity necessitated it, he moved out of his brother’s way:

Then Esau took his wives and his sons and his daughters and all his household, and his livestock and all his cattle and all his goods which he had acquired in the land of Canaan, and went to another land away from his brother Jacob. For their property had become too great for them to live together, and the land where they sojourned could not sustain them because of their livestock. So Esau lived in the hill country of Seir; Esau is Edom (Genesis 36:6-8).

I have maintained that had God elected one or the other of these twins on the basis of likeability He would probably have chosen Esau. At least that is who I would have chosen. While Esau had no regard for spiritual things (Genesis 25:34; Hebrews 12:16-17), he had many fine qualities. In verses 6-8 above, it was Esau who moved out of Jacob’s way just as Abraham gave way to Lot (13:5ff.). God’s elect are not necessarily more likeable people, nor are they any more gracious and kind. That is why election is apart from works, so that God’s free choice is really free (cf. Romans 9:10-13).

Finally, while Esau was rejected on a spiritual plane, he was nonetheless a recipient of the common grace of God. Abraham begged God to bless his son by Hagar, Ishmael, which He did (Genesis 17:18-20; 25:16). But apart from any recorded request by Isaac on Esau’s behalf, God greatly blessed and prospered Esau. This even extended to God’s command to Israel not to attack the Edomites nor to take any of their territory (Deuteronomy 2:1-7; 23:7; Numbers 20:14ff.).

The Generations of Jacob and the Jealousy of His Sons
(37:1-11)

Now Jacob lived in the land where his father had sojourned, in the land of Canaan. These are the records of the generations of Jacob. Joseph, when seventeen years of age, was pasturing the flock with his brothers while he was still a youth, along with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives. And Joseph brought back a bad report about them to their father. Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a varicolored tunic. And his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers; and so they hated him and could not speak to him on friendly terms. Then Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him even more. And he said to them, ‘Please listen to this dream which I have had; for behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf rose up and also stood erect; and behold, your sheaves gathered around and bowed down to my sheaf.” Then his brothers said to him, “Are you actually going to reign over us? Or are you really going to rule over us?” So they hated him even more for his dreams and his words. Now he had still another dream, and related it to his brothers, and said, “Lo, I have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” And he related it to his father and to his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have had? Shall I and your mother and your brothers actually come to bow ourselves down before you to the ground?” And his brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the saying in mind (Genesis 37:1-11).

There is a tendency to regard the remaining chapters of Genesis as the “story of Joseph,” but this is not technically accurate. Moses referred to chapter 36 as the “records of the generations of Esau” (36:1,9). In Genesis 37:2 Moses entitled this section “the records of the generations of Jacob.” We must not forget that Jacob will not pass off the scene until Genesis 49, where we find the account of his death. This last section, then, is an account of God’s working in the life of Jacob and of his sons through the instrumentality of Joseph. Joseph is certainly the central figure in these chapters, but he is not the only figure. God is forming a nation out of all the sons of Jacob. Joseph’s sojourn in Egypt and his ultimate elevation to the post of prime minister under Pharaoh makes possible the preservation of Jacob and his sons, as well as teaching all of them some valuable spiritual lessons.

One of the great disservices we do to this text is to fail to grasp the fundamental cause of the animosity of Joseph’s brothers toward him. Generally we tend to think of Joseph as a small lad 8-10 years of age who is a tattletale on his big brothers. That is hardly a crime which deserves death, and it does not fit the details of the account. Joseph is not 7 years old, but 17 (37:2). Now in some senses this is young, but in the Ancient Near East girls of this age were often already married (for example, Dinah 34:lff.), and young men were not infrequently kings at this age (cf. II Kings 11:21).

It is my contention that Joseph was rejected by his brothers because of the authority he exercised over them, even though he was their younger brother. Seventeen was not necessarily young for such authority, but it was younger than his older brothers, and this was indeed a bitter pill for them to swallow. Several convincing lines of evidence converge to document this assertion:

(1) Grammatically, Joseph’s authority is not only permissible, but it is preferable. George Bush, author of the classic commentary on the book of Genesis, strongly holds to the most literal and normal rendering of verse 2, of which he writes,

… literally was tending, or acting the shepherd over, his brethren in the flock. However uncouth to our ears the phraseology, this is undoubtedly the exact rendering and the import of the words we take to be that Joseph was charged with the superintendence of his brethren, particularly the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.²⁴

Bush goes into considerable grammatical detail to establish his point,²⁵ and I must say that he has convinced me.

(2) After the sin of Reuben, Joseph was given the rights of the firstborn:

Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn, but because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; so that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright. Though Judah prevailed over his brothers, and from him came the leader, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph), … (I Chronicles 5:1-2).

While it is not until chapter 49 that this transfer is formally stated by Jacob, the sin which precipitated it has already been recorded in Genesis 35:22. It is not unlikely that Jacob expressed his intentions much sooner than this to his sons and even began to give Joseph preeminence over his brothers by this time. Further details seem to demonstrate this.

(3) Joseph’s coat was a symbol of the authority he was granted over his brothers. Jacob’s preference for Joseph was no secret (37:2,3). The coat his father gave him was regarded as evidence of Jacob’s greater love for Joseph above his other sons. Furthermore, this coat indicated more than preference; it symbolized preeminence and superiority of rank.

No one really knows exactly what this coat looked like. Some have suggested that it differed from the coats of Joseph’s brethren in that it had long sleeves,²⁶ in which case it would mark out Joseph as a “white collar worker” while his brothers were mere “blue collar workers.” Just as supervisors are marked out today by the fact that they wear suits, so, we are told, Joseph was set apart by his long-sleeved coat.

While there is considerable conjecture on this matter of the coat, one thing is certain. The term which is used for Joseph’s coat in this chapter occurs elsewhere only in II Samuel 13:18-19. There it is employed for the coat which was worn by Tamar, the daughter of David. While other things may have been symbolized by this garment (such as virginity), the coat was an evidence of royalty.

In the context of our passage I believe that Joseph’s coat was considered to be symbolic of his authority in the same manner as stripes on the sleeve of a military uniform. Joseph’s brothers hated this garment and what it symbolized, for their first act of violence was to strip his coat from him (37:23).

(4) The greatest antagonism toward Joseph was from the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah (verse 2), while the two brothers who attempted to release him (Reuben and Judah) were sons of Leah (37:21,26). In verse 2 Joseph was said to have pastured the flocks of Jacob “along with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah.” Reuben, and later Judah, sons of Leah, attempted to prevent or at least to modify the plan of the others to kill Joseph. A footnote on verse 2 in the margin of the Berkeley Version²⁷ suggests that the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah would be less disciplined since they were the sons of pagan mothers, while Leah and Rachel would reflect the relatively more godly training of Laban.

There is little doubt that both Bilhah and Zilpah would be on a socially lower plane than Leah and Rachel since the former were mere concubines, while the latter were full-fledged wives. This social stratification would naturally be reflected in the sons of these women, and so it is not difficult to believe that Jacob would have put Joseph in charge of the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.

(5) Joseph’s report to his father would be a logical and necessary part of his function and authority as a supervisor. Joseph at 17 was no tattletale. This can hardly be the case. Surely this kind of sibling rivalry would be expected but undeserving of such harsh counter-measures by Joseph’s brothers. If Joseph had been placed in a position of authority (a “white collar” job) by his father, then what could be more logical than a report to Jacob on the performance, efficiency, and reliability of those under him?

When Jacob asked Joseph to go to Shechem to check up on his sons and on his flocks (verses 12-14), he was not sending Joseph around the corner to spy upon and then tattle on his brothers. It was 50 miles or more to Shechem and about 70 miles to Dothan! Since Shechem had been the scene of the slaughter of the men of that city years before (34:25ff.), Jacob would not have taken such an assignment lightly. It was the kind of responsibility that he would give only to one who had proven his capabilities as a leader. A sensitive and potentially dangerous mission would not be given to a son without reliability and authority.

(6) The intensity of Joseph’s brothers’ reaction to his dreams indicates that there must have been some substance to their fears of Joseph assuming such great power and prominence. Joseph’s brothers were deeply distressed by his two dreams (verses 8, 11). And when the plot to kill him is first conceived, the dreams are a prominent part of their hostility and motivation:

And they said to one another, “Here comes this dreamer! Now then, come and let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; and we will say, ‘A wild beast devoured him.’ Then let us see what will become of his dreams!” (Genesis 37:19-20).

Idle or fanciful dreams provide an occasion only for laughter. Under most circumstances the worst that might be considered would be that Joseph needed to be put into a padded cell for his own protection. But if there were already evidence of Joseph’s authority, leadership, and capabilities, fear of even greater status and power would be acted upon with grim determination and zeal.

(7) As a type of Christ, the cause of Joseph’s rejection would most accurately be a refusal to submit to the authority of one who threatened personal power and prestige. Joseph, I have maintained, was rejected by his brethren because they deeply resented the authority his father had granted him over them, especially when they reasoned that it should be theirs. Was this not the very root reason for the rejection of Jesus by the religious leaders of His day? When Jesus taught the people, the response of the masses was significant:

The result was that when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes (Matthew 7:28-29).

What a blow this must have been to the pride of Israel’s leaders. This is the reason why they resisted the Master with the challenge, “By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?” (Matthew 21:23).

All of these lines of evidence lead me to the same conclusion: Joseph was rejected by his brethren because he, the youngest of these men (save Benjamin, of course), was placed in a position of authority over them. This rejection of Joseph’s authority, coupled with the specter of even greater preeminence as foreshadowed by his dreams, led them to conclude that they must do away with him in order to protect their own position.

An Evil Plot, An Empty Pit, and an Egyptian Purchase
(37:12-36)

Animosity toward Joseph had continued to build up until the situation was explosive. Now it was only a matter of time and opportunity. That opportunity finally arrived when Jacob sent Joseph to Shechem.

Then his brothers went to pasture their father’s flock in Shechem. And Israel said to Joseph, “Are not your brothers pasturing the flock in Shechem? Come, and I will send you to them.” And he said to him, “I will go.” Then he said to him, “Go now and see about the welfare of your brothers and the welfare of the flock; and bring word back to me.” So he sent him from the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem. And a man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field; and the man asked him, “What are you looking for?” And he said, “I am looking for my brothers; please tell me where they are pasturing the flock.” Then the man said, “They have moved from here; for I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Dothan.’” So Joseph went after his brothers and found them at Dothan (Genesis 37:12-17).

Jacob’s concern for the welfare of his family and his flocks was not unfounded. Shechem was the city where Dinah had been taken by force and where Jacob’s sons, especially Simeon and Levi (34:30), had slaughtered all of the men. Since Jacob had purchased land there (33:19), it would not be unusual for him to make use of it by sending his flocks there to feed on its rich pastureland under the care of his sons. But there was always the danger of some angry relative of one of those Shechemites who were killed or captured seeking vengeance. This seems to be what Joseph was sent to look into. Only a man with proven skill and wisdom would ever be sent to handle a task as sensitive and volatile as this.

Joseph wandered about the fields of Shechem in search of his brothers. It just so happened²⁸ that a man found him who had further happened to see Joseph’s brothers and overhear them saying they were going on to Dothan. Not willing to give up his search and return to his father without completing his task, Joseph went on to Dothan.

While at a considerable distance Joseph was recognized by his brothers. They immediately conspired in a violent and daring plot which would rid them once and for all of their brother:

When they saw him from a distance and before he came close to them, they plotted against him to put him to death. And they said to one another, “Here comes this dreamer! Now then, come and let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; and we will say, ‘A wild beast devoured him.’ Then let us see what will become of his dreams!” But Reuben heard this and rescued him out of their hands and said, “Let us not take his life.” Reuben further said to them, “Shed no blood. Throw him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but do not lay hands on him”—that he might rescue him out of their hands, to restore him to his father. So it came about, when Joseph reached his brothers, that they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the varicolored tunic that was on him; and they took him and threw him into the pit. Now the pit was empty, without any water in it (Genesis 37:18-24).

It was probably Joseph’s coat that made it possible to identify him so quickly from such a distance. It may also have been that coat which triggered the pent-up feelings of jealousy and hostility toward the beloved son of their father. They saw the great distance from their father and the remoteness of this spot as the ideal opportunity to do away with the threat which Joseph posed. The opportunity for a perfect alibi was also at hand, for wild animals were a threat to life and limb in the open field. They need not even produce a body if they blame Joseph’s absence on his being devoured by a wild beast. Only a bloody robe need be presented to Jacob. His imagination would take care of the rest.

Reuben had good reason to hate his brother, for it was Joseph who would obtain the birthright that could have belonged to him. But it seems that Reuben feared facing his father more than he hated Joseph. He was still the oldest of the family. Whether or not he had the rights of the first-born, he was still saddled with the responsibilities. This may be the explanation for Reuben’s suggestion and his intention to spare the life of Joseph.

Reuben’s actions were hardly heroic. I must admit, however, that I would not have wanted to stand up against these fellows either. They were mean, really mean. These men would make the “nickel defense” of the Dallas Cowboys look like a Boy Scout troop. The slaughter of the Shechemites was only one evidence of their brutal natures. Reuben therefore suggests that they kill Joseph without the shedding of blood. Throw the boy in a cistern and let nature do him in. The idea had some definite advantages, and so the plan was agreed to.

When Joseph arrived, his reception was far from friendly. They tore off his coat, the symbol of all that they rejected, and threw the defenseless young man into a pit. It is significant that this pit was empty, for normally it would have contained water.²⁹ If this had been the case, Joseph would have drowned before the Ishmaelite caravan had arrived. Even the empty pit was a part of God’s providential care of Joseph and his brothers.

The callousness and cruelty of Joseph’s brothers is almost unbelievable.

Then they sat down to eat a meal. And as they raised their eyes and looked, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing aromatic gum and balm and myrrh, on their way to bring them down to Egypt. And Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is it for us to kill our brother and cover up his blood? Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay our hands on him; for he is our brother, our own flesh.” And his brothers listened to him. Then some Midianite traders passed by, so they pulled him up and lifted Joseph out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. Thus they brought Joseph into Egypt. Now Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit; so he tore his garments. And he returned to his brothers and said, “The boy is not there, as for me, where am I to go?” So they took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a male goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood; and they sent the varicolored tunic and brought it to their father and said, “We found this; please examine it to see whether it is your son’s tunic or not” (Genesis 37:25-32).

Having thrown Joseph into the pit, they sat down to eat a meal. There is no loss of appetite, no sense of guilt or remorse. And there is no pity, for they eat their meal probably well within hearing of the cries that were continuing to come from the bottom of the pit. I can almost hear one of the brothers raise his voice over the petitions of Joseph and say to one of the others, “Want to trade a mutton sandwich for a cheese?” Only later would these cries haunt the sons of Jacob:

Then they said to one another, “Truly we are guilty concerning our brother, because we saw the distress of his soul when he pleaded with us, yet we would not listen; therefore this distress has come upon us” (Genesis 42:21).

While they were eating, a caravan of Ishmaelites approached them on their way to Egypt from Gilead (verse 25). This gave Judah an idea which would prevent the shedding of Joseph’s blood altogether. Rather than leaving Joseph to die of starvation and exposure, why not sell him into slavery to these traders? This would dispose of their problem, avoid the messy matter of murder, and get rid of any evidence of wrongdoing. Perhaps most appealing, it would provide them with a profit.

I do not see any virtue in Judah’s proposal to his brothers. While Reuben sought to return Joseph to his father, Judah is not said to have any such intention. He did not question the ethics or desirability of Joseph’s murder, only the benefits. Profit was the one word which best summarizes Judah’s motivation. While slavery may seem to be a more humane fate than death, some who lived in such a state of slavery might challenge this fact. Selling a brother as a slave was hardly more commendable than putting him to death. In the end, Joseph was sold to the Midianite³⁰ traders for twenty shekels of silver, the price which Moses later fixed for a young slave boy (Leviticus 27:5).

Reuben had been gone during the time his brothers sold Joseph to the traders. Very likely this was to distract their attention from Joseph in the hope of their leaving him quickly, so that he could return to rescue Joseph. What a shock it must have been for him to return to the dry cistern and find Joseph gone. Reuben, as the oldest son, is the one who must face his father, and that to him is not a very pleasant thought.

Not only were Joseph’s brothers completely aloof to his suffering, but also they almost seemed to delight in the suffering that their report would bring to Jacob. There is no gentle approach, no careful preparation for the tragic news, only the crude act of sending the bloody coat to him and letting him draw the desired conclusion. It was a heartless deed, but one that accurately depicted their spiritual condition at the time.

Like most of us, Jacob jumped to a conclusion, assuming the very worst had happened:

Then he examined it and said, “It is my son’s tunic. A wild beast has devoured him; Joseph has surely been torn to pieces!” So Jacob tore his clothes, and put sackcloth on his loins, and mourned for his son many days. Then all his sons and all his daughters arose to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. And he said, “Surely I will go down to Sheol in mourning for my son.” So his father wept for him (Genesis 37:33-35).

It was, of course, his son’s tunic, for there was none other like it. And it was covered with blood. Such a blood-stained garment without a body led Jacob to the conclusion his sons desired: Joseph must have been attacked and devoured by a wild animal. Perhaps the brothers of Joseph prided themselves in the fact that they never said Joseph was dead. They simply “deceived” their father into believing this. Isn’t it ironic that this deception involved the killing of a goat, just as the deception of Isaac had (cf. 27:9,16-17,19).

Jacob seemed to have handled the death of Deborah (35:8) and Rachel (35:16-19) with a fair degree of composure, but the death of Joseph simply overcame him. There was no way that his children could comfort him. How hypocritical these efforts must have been anyway. Life for Jacob seemed hardly worth living any longer. The only thing Jacob could look forward to was the grave. For many years Jacob would live with the lie that his son was dead.

In one sense believing this was a gracious thing. Can you imagine the mental torment it would have been for Jacob to know what was actually happening to his son? We have just seen the dramatic conclusion to the hostage crisis in Iran, which lasted less than two years. We know something of the agony of the relatives and friends of these captives, but Jacob would have had to endure such suffering and anguish for over twenty years.³¹ How his soul would have been troubled by the knowledge of Potiphar’s wife pursuing Joseph day after day (cf. 39:10). What heartache would have been Jacob’s had he known of Joseph’s imprisonment (cf. 39:19ff.). Ignorance, in this case, was not bliss, but it was better than a blow-by-blow account of Joseph’s status.

While Jacob was crying, “Woe is me,” God was working all things together for the good of Jacob, Joseph, and his wayward brothers: “Meanwhile, the Midionites sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, Pharaoh’s officer, the captain of the bodyguard” (Genesis 37:36).

Joseph, in fact, was not dead, nor was he outside of the providential care of God. By no accident Joseph ended up in the home of one of the most responsible officers of Pharaoh’s administration. While years would pass by before God’s purposes would become known, the process was under way.

Conclusion

Contextually and historically the sale of Joseph into slavery explains how Joseph (and ultimately the entire nation of Israel) ended up in Egypt, from whence the exodus commenced. More importantly, this chapter tells us a good part of the reason why it was necessary for the 400 years of bondage to occur. The fact that this bondage would take place was no mystery, for God had revealed it to Abraham:

And God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve; and afterward they will come out with many possessions” (Genesis 15:13-14).

Spiritually, the state of the sons of Israel was at an all-time low. Nowhere have we yet seen any kind of relationship with God such as that of their forefathers. Internally, there was no unity among these brothers. They were simply the sons of four different mothers perpetuating the strife which existed between them (cf. 29:21-30:24). There was no brotherly love, only the seeking of self-interest. There is no better way to stimulate unity than through persecution. A brotherly quarrel is quickly forgotten and family unity is intensified when outside opposition is introduced. Four hundred years spent among Egyptians, who despised Hebrews (46:34), developed and strengthened the cohesiveness of these tribes of Israel.

Later on in the story of Joseph and his brothers, Joseph will test them in this matter of family unity, for he will offer them the opportunity of gaining their freedom for the expedient sacrifice of their youngest brother (chapters 42-44). Then they showed a change of heart which greatly encouraged and touched Joseph.

Doctrinally, we gain insight into several key biblical truths. First, we are reminded of the teaching of Scripture on the matter of election. We almost have to pinch ourselves to be reminded that the roots of Israel’s race and religion go back to men such as these brothers, who have conspired to do away with their own flesh and blood. In the ninth chapter of Romans Paul taught that election is not based upon the works which a person has done or will do in the future (9:6-13). Surely the choice of these sons of Israel illustrates this principle of election. Nearly anyone else in the land of Canaan would have been as qualified or more so than these cruel and wicked men. Most pagans have a deeper sense of family loyalty than this.

Furthermore, the doctrine of the sovereignty of God is easily seen in this chapter. In Romans it is summarized by these words:

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28).

In the book of Ephesians Paul has written:

… also we have obtained on inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, … (Ephesians 1:11).

God had purposed and promised to bring about the fulfillment of His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through these sons (35:10-12). Neither Jacob nor Joseph nor Jacob’s other sons nor even Pharaoh himself could prevent or even delay the sovereign purposes of the God of Israel.

The means which God employed to accomplish His will is seen in the doctrine of the providence of God. No one has defined the providence of God better than George Bush:

While the recital flows on with all the charm of a highly-wrought tale of fiction, we are still assured of the truth and reality of every incident, and feel that we are contemplating an epitome of the dispensations of that overruling Power which is “wonderful in counsel and mighty in operation”—which controls the free and voluntary action of intelligent creatures, even when prompted by a spirit of malevolence and rebellion, so as to render them subservient to the accomplishment of those very plans which they are intent upon defeating, while the guilt of the agents remains resting upon them in all its unabated aggravations.³²

In its simplest terms, the providential rule of God is the working out of His plan through sinful and willful men, even when they are actively striving to resist Him and His purposes. All the while, God remains sovereign and in full control. He assumes none of the guilt or responsibility for man’s sins; man must bear the full weight of responsibility for his actions.

The providence of God is not His preferred plan of action, but a back-up system which assures the fulfillment of His eternal purposes. Ideally, God works through believing men and women who will do His will as expressed through His Word. When believers or unbelievers choose to resist the will and Word of God, He resorts to this secondary system. It is decidedly less desirable to willful obedience and submission, for the wayward one always faces the consequences of disobedience and fails to find the joy and fulfillment which comes from obedience. The joy of actively and joyfully participating in the plan and program of God is lost. God’s work goes on, but we are unaware of it, just as Jacob and the brothers of Joseph were ignorant to the hand of God in what was taking place. God is never handicapped by man’s sin and disobedience, but we are always hurt by it.

Few have failed to note the typical significance of the life of Joseph, who in many ways foreshadows the life and work of our Lord.³³ While this is a profitable avenue of study, we must point out that nowhere do the Scriptures specifically refer to Joseph as a type of Christ. So long as such study is viewed as supplementary and secondary in importance, it can be profitably pursued.

The practical applications of the principles found in this passage are many. First, there is a lesson in the matter of divine guidance. Since we have already dealt with the subject of God’s providence, we shall not do any more than to relate this doctrine to the matter of guidance.

God’s revealed will is given to us in His Word. In this sense it was surely not God’s revealed will that brothers should sell one of their own into slavery. Thus, the actions of Joseph’s brothers were sin. God never guides by circumstances alone, but by the Scriptures, His revealed Word. They did find themselves at a secluded spot, far from the scrutiny of their father. There was a pit near at hand, but it was not the revealed will of God that Joseph be cast into it. There was a band of traders conveniently passing by, but selling Joseph into slavery was wrong.

God’s eternal purpose, as stated to Abraham years before (Genesis 15:13-15), was a period of bondage. Joseph’s brothers had no intention of carrying out God’s purpose—they sought only to get rid of Joseph. The plan of God was for the Israelites to sojourn in Egypt but this was not known to the sons of Jacob at this time. (In fact, God had carefully avoided telling Abram where this sojourn was to be or how it would come about.) Seldom is guidance a matter of not knowing the general principles and precepts that should govern our conduct. Most often we “miss” the will of God by deliberately choosing to disobey what we know to be right. But even when we deliberately step out of the revealed will of God, His purposes will continue through His providential guidance. In this sense, we cannot miss the will of God. And, be assured, God will make us aware of our sin and bring us back to the place of willful obedience, though through the hard knocks of experience.

What a commentary this event is on the matter of suffering. I think an excellent title for the entire episode might be “A Severe Mercy,” picking up on the title of a current and popular book. The two terms “severe” and “mercy” seem to be contradictory, but this is never the case for the Christian. That is why the Apostle James wrote centuries later:

Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials; knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing (James 1:2-4).

The writer to the Hebrews has said nearly the same thing in more extensive terms (Hebrews 12:1-13 and, indeed, the entire epistle).

On the one hand, the suffering which we observe in the lives of Jacob, Joseph, and his brothers is needless, the result of sin. Yet it is a part of the gracious dealings and discipline of God to bring these men to Himself and to maturity. In the midst of our suffering this is most often not seen because the truth is veiled by our tears. But the end result of suffering is to be faith, maturity, and joy. So it was for Jacob and his sons. So it will be for every child of God.

All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness (Hebrews 12:11).

The life of Joseph provides excellent material for a study on rejection. We know, of course, that Joseph was not sinless. His sins are not recorded, I believe, in order to provide a more accurate type of Christ and also to illustrate the matter of innocent suffering. Moses, then, portrays an incident where the rejection of Joseph is without good cause. That informs me, as other passages suggest (e.g., I Peter 2:20-25; 3:17; 4:4-5,12-19), that rejection and persecution may come completely without cause. The Christian must be prepared for rejection in this life. It is the badge of discipleship:

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, “A slave is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also (John 15:18-20).

And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (II Timothy 3:12).

Hence let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach (Hebrews 13:13).

Persecution is never to be sought, but it is to be expected and accepted. One part of this persecution is rejection. Few have faced the kind of rejection that Joseph did. He was rejected by his brothers, by Potiphar and his wife (eventually), and by Egyptians in general, who disliked Hebrews. His rejection, and ours, need not indicate any defect on our part, however. It can be an evidence of godliness and purity. Since this is true, our self-image (not self-love) need not suffer self-inflicted pangs of guilt and abuse.

In this chapter God prepared Joseph for the rejection which he was to experience. The two dreams he had were much more for his benefit than for his brothers. They strongly impressed Joseph with the important role he was to play in the outworking of God’s program. In the sight of his brothers and the Egyptians (at least for a time), Joseph was a detriment, an obstacle, and a problem to be removed if possible. To God, Joseph was a key figure for the salvation (in a physical sense) and spiritual instruction of his brethren.

Rejection is an unavoidable part of life for every Christian. If we are living as God desires, we will be rejected of men. Righteous rejection, if I may so label it, is cause for encouragement, not despair. Rejection can best be handled by an awareness that God has a significant role for us to play in His work. Is this not a part of what the New Testament teaching of the body of Christ and the gifts and calling of individual members is all about?

But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body, which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our unseemly members come to have more abundant seemliness, whereas our seemly members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it (I Corinthians 12:20-27).

The life of Joseph is a wonderful encouragement to parents, who will someday have to turn loose of their children, allowing them to move out from under their control and protection. It may be in the form of sending a child off to a college campus, removed from the supervision of the parents. It may be by a marriage or a job change. All of us as parents will have to face the time when we cannot control the environment in which our children will live. (Perhaps that is more true, even now, than we would like to admit.)

Joseph was abruptly torn from his father and friends and family. He was removed from any godly influences and encouragement. He was placed among a people who did not believe in his God or his convictions. In Egypt he was subject to the strongest temptations. And yet, apart from any Christian friends or fellowship, Joseph not only survived, but he was strengthened. His father could not save Joseph from this, but Joseph would eventually save his father and brothers from starvation.

God knows how to care for His people. No one is on more dangerous ground than the one who is complacent and smugly secure. No one is safer, regardless of their environment, than he or she who is looking only to God for protection and provision for the need of the moment. When our children have left the security of our nest, they will be secure in the hands of the God who created them and cares for them.

There is an interesting analogy between Abraham and Jacob. Both of them were called upon to give up their beloved sons. Abraham did so voluntarily and actively, Jacob unknowingly and begrudgingly. Both sons were given back to them. It was through these sons, whom these fathers gave up, that the future of the fathers was secured.

Throughout the Scriptures, salvation is never secured without great sacrifice. As it was with Abraham, so it was with Jacob also. These two instances only prepare us for the greatest sacrifice of all when God the Father gave up His Son, Jesus Christ, for our salvation. As Joseph was rejected by his brethren and humiliated by slavery and imprisonment, so Jesus Christ was rejected by the Jewish leaders and His brethren and crucified on a Roman cross among criminals. Through the suffering of Joseph, Jacob and his sons were spared from the ravages of a severe famine. Through the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ, those who trust in Him are spared from the eternal wrath of God.

The Word of God declares you to be a sinner, my friend, deserving of the eternal wrath of a holy and righteous God (cf. Romans 3:10-18,23; 6:23). But the good news of the gospel is that Jesus Christ has come to take the place of the sinner, paying the penalty for his sins and providing the righteousness which God requires for eternal life (II Corinthians 5:21; Romans 3:21-22). You may experience the forgiveness of sins and the peace of God by simply acknowledging your guilt and trusting in the work of Jesus Christ on your behalf, for, “Whoever will call upon the name of the LORD will be saved” (Romans 10:13).

24 George Bush, Notes on Genesis (Minneapolis: James Family Christian Publishers, 1979 (reprint)), II, p. 220.

25 Ibid, p. 221.

26 “The gift of a coat of many ‘pieces’ (not ‘colors’), or rather ‘the tunic with sleeves,’ was about the most significant act that Jacob could have shown to Joseph. It was a mark of distinction that carried its own meaning, for it implied that exemption from labor which was the peculiar privilege of the heir or prince of the Eastern clan. Instead of the ordinary work-a-day vestment which had no sleeves, and which, by coming down to the knees only, enabled men to set about their work--this tunic with sleeves clearly marked out its wearer as a person of special distinction, who was not required to do ordinary work.” V. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), p. 356.

“The outward distinction which the father bestows upon this son is ‘a long-sleeved cloak,’ kethoneth passim. The kethoneth is the undergarment or tunic, which usually was sleeveless--a thing of about knee-length. But passim means ‘ankles’ or ‘wrists.’ Consequently, this tunic was sleeved and extended to the ankles. It was not, therefore, a garment adapted to work but suitable to distinguish a superior, or an overseer. By this very garment the father expressed his thought that this son should have pre-eminence over the rest.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 955.

Not all agree with statements such as these by Thomas and Leupold, Stigers challenges, “There is nothing in any of the texts where the term is used to indicate that the tunic had long sleeves or was of many colors. The AV ‘coat of many colors’ becomes only an attempt to give a meaning to the total term.” Harold Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 271.

27 Gerrit Verkuyl, editor-in-chief, The Berkeley Version in Modern English (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, fifth edition, 1962), p. 37, fn. w.

28 These “strange coincidences” are evidence of the providence of God, which we shall discuss more fully later.

29 “The original word is sometimes rendered ‘cistern,’ a term applied to hollow reservoirs excavated out of the solid rock for the purpose of holding rain water, or to natural cavities containing fountains, which were often walled up with stone to prevent the water from escaping.” Bush, Genesis, II, p. 231.

30 “The alternation of the names Ishmaelites and Midianites in verses 25, 27, 28, 36, and chapter 39:1 would suggest that they were synonymous or overlapping terms, even if no evidence confirmed it. It is in fact settled by Judges 8:24, which says of the Midianites ‘they had golden earrings, because they were Ishmaelites.”’ Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), pp. 182-183.

31 Joseph was 17 years old when he was sold into slavery (37:2). He was raised to a position of power under Pharaoh at age 30 (41:46). The seven years of plenty had already passed and two years of famine had gone by before Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:6-9). Joseph was therefore 39 when he revealed his identity to his brothers, and so 22 years had elapsed since his brothers sold him into slavery.

32 Bush, Genesis, II, p. 219.

33 “Hence the appearance, in our history, of individual types representing the New Testament history of Jesus, such as the jealousy and hatred of Joseph’s brethren, the fact of his being sold, the fulfillment of Joseph’s prophetic dreams in the very efforts intended to prevent his exaltation, the turning of his brothers’ wicked plot to the salvation of many, even of themselves, and of the house of Jacob, the spiritual sentence pronounced on the treachery of the brethren, the victory of pardoning love, Judah’s suretyship for Benjamin, his emulating Joseph in a spirit of redeeming resignation, Jacob’s joyful reviving on hearing of the life and glory of his favorite son, whom he had believed to be dead.” John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), I, p. 581.

Introduction

A couple I know had an experience which resembles events in the life of Joseph which we have studied up to this point. The husband went out to his car one morning only to discover that it wouldn’t turn over because the battery had been stolen. After lifting up the hood, he discovered a note which said something to this effect: “I’m sorry I had to take your battery, but it was an emergency and I had to get to the hospital. I will return your battery as soon as I can.” A little later the battery was returned with another note: “Thank you so much for the use of your battery. To express our appreciation and to make up for the inconvenience we have caused you, here are two tickets to the Dallas Cowboy game this Sunday.”

The couple was ecstatic. They were fans of the Cowboys and were thrilled at the opportunity to go to the game. What a wonderful turn of events this had been. But when they returned home from the game they discovered, to their dismay, that their apartment had been cleaned out. The football tickets had simply been a ruse to get them out of the house.

Joseph’s life, too, had several curious turns of events. Just at the time when things seemed to be going his way circumstances would rapidly change, and hope was seemingly lost. At 17 he was the leader of his brothers, but that only got him thrown into a pit. Due to the band of Ishmaelite traders who “happened by” and at the suggestion of Judah, they sold him instead of leaving him there to die. As Joseph’s abilities became evident to Potiphar, the Egyptian official who had purchased Joseph as his slave, he found himself rising to a position second only to that of his master. Joseph’s refusal to have an affair with Potiphar’s wife resulted in false charges and his incarceration in Potiphar’ prison. And once again in Genesis 40 when it looks as though the butler will be able to make an appeal to Pharaoh on Joseph’s behalf, Joseph’s hopes seem to be dashed on the rocks of reality.

How Joseph handles the “pits” of his life provides us with a key to his ability to live in undeserved and unpleasant circumstances with faith, hope, and love. And what enabled him to live a day at a time also proved to be the means by which God brought about his release and rise to the second highest office in the land of Egypt.

Many of us live “in the pits” too. They may not be the pits of a literal variety, but rather of the unpleasant realities of life, such as circumstances over which we have no control and from which we are not able to remove ourselves. Since those who will live godly lives will suffer persecution and hardship (cf. II Timothy 3:12; James 1:2-4, I Peter 4:12ff.), we must learn from Joseph the way to live life in the pits to the glory of God and for our own sanity and serenity. That lesson, while found not only in Genesis 40, is here to be seen for all those who desire to learn it.

A Divine Appointment
(40:1-8)

Then it came about after these things the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt offended their lord, the king of Egypt. And Pharaoh was furious with his two officials, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker. So he put them in confinement in the house of the captain of the bodyguard, in the jail, the some place where Joseph was imprisoned. And the captain of the bodyguard put Joseph in charge of them, and he took care of them; and they were in confinement for some time. Then the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were confined in jail, they both had a dream the same night, each man with his own dream and each dream with its own interpretation. When Joseph came to them in the morning and observed them, behold, they were dejected. And he asked Pharaoh’s officials who were with him in confinement in his master’s house, “Why are your faces so sad today?” Then they said to him, “We have had a dream and there is no one to interpret it.” Then Joseph said to them, “Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell it to me, please” (Genesis 40:1-8).

Two of Pharaoh’s officers had committed unknown offenses which greatly angered their master and resulted in their imprisonment (verses 1, 2). One was the king’s cupbearer, whom we shall call the butler; the other was the chief baker. These offenses were not mere indiscretions, but some clear-cut act of disobedience or misconduct, as the original term indicates.⁵⁰ These two officers, now fallen from the favor of Pharaoh, were placed under Joseph’s authority in the prison where he, too, was held in bonds.

Because of the details given in chapter 40 it is certain that the prison was in the dungeon under the house of Potiphar. In verse 3 we are informed that the prison was the same one in which Joseph was held captive and that this confinement took place in the “house of the captain of the bodyguard,” the official who has already been identified as Potiphar (39:1). In verse 7 the butler and the baker are reported to be kept with Joseph “in his master’s house.” This can be none other than Potiphar. And finally, Joseph pleads, “Get me out of this house” (verse 14), and he also says, “Even here I have done nothing that they should have put me into the dungeon” (verse 15). The “here” must refer to Potiphar’s estate, where he was brought as a slave and kept as such in the prison.

One must marvel at Joseph’s submissive spirit. He was still regarded as the slave of his master there in the prison. In fact, he was given greater and greater responsibilities there (39:22-23). Evidencing his continued confidence in Joseph’s abilities, Potiphar placed these two officials under Joseph’s authority (40:4). How would you feel toward Potiphar and the task of looking after these men after what Potiphar had done to you? Joseph not only obeyed his master in this, but he made it his business to minister to these men, even to the point of keeping them in good spirits.

After some time had passed, both the butler and the baker had a dream on the same night. The dream of each man was distinct and the meaning different (verse 5). We are told that Egyptians believed that dreams were indicative of future events,⁵¹ and so these two were most concerned by the fact that here, in the dungeon, there was no one qualified to interpret their dreams for them. Their futures had been revealed to them in their dreams, but they could not be interpreted, and the realization of this brought great distress to them. Their downcast faces reflected their great dismay.

Joseph was quick to observe that something was wrong. Body language alone told him that there was a need to be met. The confidence which he had gained over the days they had been together in confinement made it easy for Joseph to ask about this and for them to respond candidly. Each had a dream, they reported, but no one was there who was able to give them the meaning.

With a confidence too contagious to resist, Joseph reminded his companions that the interpretations of dreams belong to God. Since this was the case, they need only tell their dreams to Joseph. He, and they, expected an interpretation of the dreams of the previous night. Joseph’s absolute confidence informs us of his spiritual condition. A man in his circumstances might well question whether or not there even was a God. Many Christians, like the friends of Job, would wonder if his imprisonment were not the result of sin. Joseph was assured of God’s love and care. His eagerness to hear and interpret these dreams reveals his confidence of God’s love and care in his life. The eagerness of the butler to relate his dream to Joseph indicates that he, too, sensed God’s closeness to this Hebrew.

The Good News and the Bad News
(40:9-19)

So the chief cupbearer told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, “In my dream, behold, there was a vine in front of me; and on the vine were three branches. And as it was budding, its blossoms came out, and its clusters produced ripe grapes. Now Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand; so I took the grapes and squeezed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and I put the cup into Pharaoh’s hand.” Then Joseph said to him, “This is the interpretation of it: the three branches are three days; within three more days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your office; and you will put Pharaoh’s cup into his hand according to your former custom when you were his cupbearer. Only keep me in mind when it goes well with you, and please do me a kindness by mentioning me to Pharaoh, and get me out of this house. For I was in fact kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews, and even here I have done nothing that they should have put me into the dungeon” (Genesis 40:9-15).

The butler’s dream corresponded closely with his previous position under Pharaoh. The dream must therefore indicate what the future held for him, especially in regard to being the cupbearer of Pharaoh. The vine before him, having three branches, rapidly budded, blossomed, and produced grapes, which he squeezed into the cup of Pharaoh and then put into his hands, just as he had formerly done. The three branches signified three days, Joseph told the butler. The dream foretold the restoration of the butler to his former position. In three days things would return to the way they had been previously.

A man in Joseph’s position could easily have taken advantage of his circumstances. Frequently men in charge of prisoners would give preferential care to those who were willing and able to pay for it (cf. Acts 24:17,26). These two officers were eager to learn the meaning of their dreams, a service that Joseph could have rendered for payment. He did, however, request that he be remembered before Pharaoh (verse 14), for the circumstances which led to his arrival in Egypt, as well as those which brought him to prison, were a matter of injustice which Pharaoh could correct.

We all know that everyone is innocent in their own eyes (cf. Proverbs 16:2), and so Joseph’s claim would not be anything unexpected of one in his state. But his ability to interpret the dream of the butler would prove that he was telling the truth before the God Who had revealed the meaning of this dream. He really was innocent. Joseph asked for no favors before the fact, but only after his words were proven to be according to truth. It was a reasonable request, for it only asked for what was just and fair.

Joseph’s one request of the butler gave further testimony to the great faith of this Hebrew prisoner. He was so certain that his interpretation was true that he made a request of the butler which he never considered in the case of the baker. He asked to be remembered before Pharaoh when his words came to pass. It is one thing to venture an opinion on the meaning of a man’s dream, but quite another to make a request for your freedom based upon the outcome of your interpretation. Joseph was convinced that God had spoken through him. While content to remain in the dungeon so long as God willed, Joseph also made every effort to be removed from that place through the channels legitimately available to him.

The butler was encouraged to share his dream with Joseph on the basis of God’s ability to interpret dreams and because of his confidence in Joseph’s relationship with his God. The baker, however, was motivated only by the fact that Joseph’s interpretation was good news to the butler. He, too, is now eager to report his dream to Joseph and thus to have an optimistic forecast of his future.

When the chief baker saw that he had interpreted favorably, he said to Joseph, “I also saw in my dream, and behold, there were three baskets of white bread on my head; and in the top basket there were some of all sorts of baked food for Pharaoh, and the birds were eating them out of the basket on my head.” Then Joseph answered and said, “This is its interpretation: the three baskets are three days; within three more days Pharaoh will lift up your head from you and will hang you on a tree; and the birds will eat your flesh off you” (Genesis 40:16-19).

We have already been informed that the dreams of each official were different and distinct, each with its own meaning (40:5). The baker did not seem to realize this because he eagerly reported his dream, thinking the outcome would also be favorable (verse 16). In his dream he had three baskets filled with various kinds of white bread. The birds were coming to him and eating the bread out of the top basket.

There was a certain similarity between the dreams of the butler and the baker. The baker’s dream also corresponded with his previous position under Pharaoh. He was a baker, and so his dream centered about three baskets filled with bread, just as the butler saw a vine with three branches. In both cases the number “three” pertained to the number of days until the fulfillment of the dreams. But here the similarities end dramatically. The bad news for the baker was that in three days’ time he would have his head lifted off, not lifted up. He was to be hanged, and his body left for the birds to feast upon (and also, probably, for the eyes of the people to look upon). It was a horrible prophecy, and Joseph naturally did not ask this man for any favors in the future.

But why is such a gruesome prediction necessary anyway? Was Joseph not unduly candid in his interpretation? First, we should notice that the two dreams, when taken together, tended to strengthen the testimony of Joseph that God was with him and enabled him to interpret dreams. Joseph did not, as is often done, give nebulous and vague predictions. He gave two very specific prophecies to two persons, yet they were exactly opposite in their outcome. If both came true, it would be much harder to attribute Joseph’s accuracy to good luck.

We do not know with any assurance that Joseph’s words were deliberately graphic or intentionally cruel. They certainly are to us. But let us also remember that these dreams were from God. Interpretations were of God, as Joseph claimed (verse 8), because their dreams had come from Him. God gave these dreams to these men in order to prepare them for things to come. Joseph’s task as an interpreter was not to create God’s message, nor did he dare to change it. He spoke as God directed. The message of the baker’s dream was one from God, and it was true. Neither in its content nor in its tone did Joseph dare to edit this divine revelation.

While we are most inclined to appreciate the fact that the baker’s dream was gorey, let us not forget that it was also, at least in a sense, gracious. The three days were given both to the butler and to the baker not just to agonize, but to prepare for what the future held. Would it have been less cruel for Joseph to have lied to the baker about his future? If he had lied, then there would have been no incentive for him to consider his ways and turn in faith to the God from whom this warning had come. Far better to be warned of the “wrath to come” and to prepare for it than to be deceived and face it unprepared.⁵²

These two dreams and their interpretations contain a striking parallel to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Both the butler and the baker had “sinned” against their master and had rightfully incurred his wrath. Both awaited the condemnation they deserved. One was pardoned and granted a restoration of fellowship and function at the hand of his master. The other received the punishment that he was due and paid the penalty of death.

The Bible declares to us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). As guilty sinners we deserve the penalty of our sins, which is eternal death and separation from God, but there is for us the offer of forgiveness through the provision of Jesus Christ.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:23).

When He comes for His own, some will spend eternity with Him, while others will live in eternal separation from His love and power:

And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day … (II Thessalonians 1:9-10).

The message of salvation, for all who would believe, is this:

Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household (Acts 16:31).

Many Christians desire to share with the unsaved only the good news of salvation through faith in the work of Jesus Christ on their behalf. While this is both true and necessary, it is not the whole story. The warning must also be given that to reject Christ is to continue on the path to destruction.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God (John 3:16-21).

I have a friend who shares the gospel something like this: “Well there’s the good news, and there’s the bad news. The good news is that Jesus Christ is coming again. The bad news is, boy is He mad!” The gospel is good news, but its rejection necessitates the bad news of eternal condemnation and separation.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:4-6,12-15).

The gospel is not our message to men; it is God’s. We can no more alter it than Joseph could change the interpretation of these men’s dreams. We must tell it like it is.

Incidentally, this ability to “tell it like it is” is a vital quality in a leader. We are naturally inclined to gather about us men who will tell us what we want to hear rather than to confront us with what we need to hear. The news Joseph had to share with Pharaoh was not entirely good news, but it was the truth. On the basis of this message from God, provision could be made for the times of adversity which lay ahead. Pharaoh wanted a man under him who would tell him the truth, not give him reports designed only to make him feel good about his administration. This unpleasant task of telling the baker what his future held was not only for his good, but for Joseph’s, who would continue to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).

Prophecies Fulfilled, But Promises Forgotten
(40:20-23)

Joseph’s hopes must have soared when the three days passed and both the butler and baker experienced the fulfillment of his prophecies. Surely the butler would not fail to show his gratitude by speaking a word to Pharaoh, and hopefully this would be soon. But this was not to be the case.

Thus it came about on the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, that he made a feast for all his servants; and he lifted up the head of the chief cupbearer and the head of the chief baker among his servants. And he restored the chief cupbearer to his office, and he put the cup into Pharaoh’s hand; but he hanged the chief baker, just as Joseph had interpreted to them. Yet the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, but forgot him (Genesis 40:20-23)

The third day happened to be Pharaoh’s birthday. Such an occasion called for feasting and festivities. On such an occasion the services of both the butler and baker would have been required, and their absence would thus be conspicuous. The impression I get from verse 20 is that both the butler and the baker are brought to the banquet on an equal footing of status and prestige. Then, for some unexplained reason, the butler is given his former post, while the baker is taken out and hanged. Perhaps the butler had responded correctly to the king’s generosity while the baker had not. If this is so, the baker did not take heed to the interpretation to the dream which Joseph had given.

Impossible as it seems, the butler forgot all about Joseph for two years. Perhaps at first the butler intended to keep his promise to Joseph but never found the right moment to mention the injustice done to Joseph. As the days went by, thoughts of Joseph’s sufferings were suppressed, along with all the other painful memories triggered by any recollection of that prison. Finally, Joseph was completely forgotten until the king, too, had a dream which could not be interpreted.

Joseph’s rising hopes were dashed upon the rocks of reality for the last time. As he gained power and position in the house of Potiphar, Joseph must have hoped that he could appeal either to his master or perhaps through him to the Pharaoh so that he could be freed to return to his father and his homeland. His purity in the matter of Potiphar’s wife brought him to the dungeon again, just as his brothers had cast him into the pit. Then, when he had the opportunity to interpret the dream of the butler, it began to look as though Joseph could appeal to Pharaoh through this man once he was restored to his position of influence with the king. Two years of silence from the palace eroded away what little hope must have remained.

Conclusion

Those two years spent in Potiphar’s prison must have been the darkest days of Joseph’s life. These years are passed over by Moses in complete silence. We read in the book of Proverbs,

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life (Proverbs 13:12).

If Joseph were ever in the dumps, it must have been now. Yet we are never told that Joseph suffered from the normal emotional reactions to his circumstances that are common to every man. Instead, we find in chapter 40 a beautiful lesson in how to deal with despair and depression.

The first thing that enabled Joseph to endure his adverse circumstances was an absolute and unshakeable confidence in the fact that God was with him in his suffering. Twice in the previous chapter we have been told by Moses that God was with Joseph. In the first instance, we are not taken by surprise that God would be with Joseph on his way up in the organization of Potiphar (39:2-3) But we are told just as emphatically that God was with Joseph while he was in the pits (39:21-23). In chapter 40 no one could have had the confidence Joseph did that God was able to interpret dreams through him, apart from an intimate walk with God in that dungeon. And no one could have convinced the butler of this unless there were evidence of it to be seen.

The tragedy of our day is that some Christians are teaching that if a Christian merely has enough faith, he will never need to suffer, for (they say) that the death of Christ provides deliverance from all adversity and affliction.⁵³ While this doctrine may be considered as encouraging to the saint, it produces just the opposite result.⁵⁴ Had Joseph believed that if he only had the faith he could have been instantly delivered from his troubles, his faith would have been devastated by the fact that his troubles did not go away. If freedom from pain and problems is solely dependent upon my faith, then when pain and problems come my way, there must be something wrong with my faith. Joseph would then have been questioning his own relationship with God, perhaps even the existence of God, at the very time when he should have been ministering to others and giving testimony to his faith. If our faith does not endure the storms of life, what good is it?

Fortunately, Joseph believed in a God who is not only all-wise and all-loving, but all-powerful. The God he served did place his servants in circumstances that were difficult and unpleasant, but He also gave a sufficient measure of His grace to endure it. The testimony of Joseph in these dark days is a reminder to every Christian that even the righteous will suffer and that such suffering is in the will of God to accomplish His purposes. No promise is more comforting to the suffering saint than this:

I will never leave you, nor will I ever desert you (Deuteronomy 31:6; Joshua 1:5; Hebrews 13:5).

And lest we fear that such a promise is only for the pious, men like Joseph, we need only be reminded that a rascal like Jacob was assured,

And behold, I am with you, and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you (Genesis 28:15).

The second reason for Joseph’s serenity in suffering was his assurance that God could and would deliver him from his suffering in His good time and in His way. The dreams of the butler and the baker must have brought to Joseph’s mind the two dreams which he had had as a lad in the land of Canaan (Genesis 37:5-11). In both dreams God confirmed His purpose to elevate Joseph above his brethren and even his father. Nowhere did God indicate the timing or the means of this promotion. Joseph must have smiled to himself as he sat there in that prison, knowing that someday, somehow, God was going to deliver him.

Joseph’s confidence was no wild-eyed optimism. I know that many, even in Christian circles, are advocating a “positive mental attitude” methodology to bring us out of the pits of mediocrity and despair. I believe it is Zig Ziglar, author of See You at the Top, who has been quoted as saying, “I’m such an optimist, I’d go after Moby Dick in a rowboat and take the tartar sauce with me.”

Unless God has instructed us to “pursue Moby Dick in a rowboat,” the mere fact of our optimism will not give us success in such an endeavor. Positive thinking is only biblical insofar as it pursues biblical goals using biblical means and is motivated by biblical desires. The confidence which Joseph had was a confidence based upon divine revelation.

The watchword for Christians in the midst of suffering is not escape, but endurance:

Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials; knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing (James 1:2-4).

All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness (Hebrews 12:11).

And after you have suffered for a little, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen, and establish you (I Peter 5:10).

The third reason for Joseph’s ability to cope with his captivity is found in his selfless ambition to serve others rather than to squander his energies in self-pity. One evidence of this is found in verse 4:

And the captain of the bodyguard put Joseph in charge of them, and he took care of them [literally, ‘he ministered to them,’ margin, NASV]; and they were in confinement for some time.

The term “took care of” is normally not an expression used for menial service but for ministerial service. It is employed in the Old Testament for the ministry of Aaron (Exodus 28:35,43) and of the Levites (Deuteronomy 10:8) and the priests (I Kings 8:11). I do not want you to think that this word is used solely of religious ministry (e.g., Genesis 39:4), but it does have decided religious connotations. Personally, I believe that Joseph saw his service wherever he was as an act of devotion toward God and thus as ministry in the highest sense of the word. This would be in accord with what the New Testament teaches servants:

Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect (Titus 2:9-10).

There is absolutely no place on earth where some kind of ministry to others is not possible, for even if we are in solitary confinement, we can intercede on behalf of others (cf. Philippians 1:1-11).

Ministering to the needs of others had two very beneficial effects on the life of Joseph. For one thing, it kept him from continually wallowing in self-pity. He did not have time to pity himself when he was busily meeting the needs of others about him. Had Joseph been feeling sorry for himself, he would never have observed the sad countenances of the butler and the baker, nor would he have done anything about it even if they had brought the matter up.

A teacher of mine in college shared a personal illustration of how we save our lives by giving them up in the service of others. He had spent several years of the second world war in a prisoner of war camp in Japan. (Incidentally, he was awarded a presidential citation for promoting peace and harmony among the prisoners by implementing and overseeing a program of careful measurement and distribution of the meager supplies provided for those in the camp.) He observed that those who thought only of themselves, hoarding up what little food they could beg, borrow, or steal, often crawled in a corner and died. Strangely, those who sought to care for others, even by giving generously of their own supplies, survived. Ministering to others has a most beneficial effect upon those who serve.

Beyond the immediate value of Joseph’s service to others was the fact that his service was the means to his final deliverance. Had Joseph not observed the needs of those under his care, he never would have ended up in Pharaoh’s palace. Had he not interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker, the butler could not have told Pharaoh that he knew of a Hebrew who had the ability to interpret dreams. And so an act which, at the moment, seemed to have no great significance was the turning point of Joseph’s career. His faithful ministry in that dungeon opened the door for a far greater ministry in the palace of the Pharaoh.

What a striking parallel is to be found in the New Testament in the life of the apostle Paul. Paul had been falsely accused and thrown into prison because of these charges. While in confinement, the apostle penned an epistle to the saints at Philippi. His great concern was not for himself, but it was for those to whom he had earlier preached the gospel. The first eleven verses record the substance of his prayer life on their behalf.

Paul could have shared many unpleasant details of his imprisonment, but he did not. Even the preaching of some out of impure motives caused him to rejoice because the gospel was nonetheless being proclaimed (Philippians 1:15-18). Far from hindering the work of God, Paul’s imprisonment accelerated it. It gave other Christians the courage and confidence to boldly proclaim their faith (1:14). And it also enabled the gospel to be proclaimed throughout the entire praetorian guard (1:13). Is it any wonder, then, that in the concluding verses of this epistle Paul could write,

All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household (Philippians 4:22).

At the time of his conversion, Saul was told of God’s purposes for his life:

But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” (Acts 9:15-16).

Caesar’s household was reached with the good news of the gospel, but in a way that Paul would never have expected and some Christians refuse to accept—through unjust suffering. The most humble circumstances are the occasion of some of God’s greatest works. Who, for example, would have thought that anything of significance could have come from a stable in Bethlehem?

Joseph was a great success, but in a vastly different way than what we are told to expect today. The biblical key to success is found nowhere else than in the epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians: “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13).

Here, we have the full assurance that we can do anything when empowered by the Lord, Who loved us and gave Himself for us. Nothing is impossible to those who receive their strength from our Lord. Christians should never be pessimistic concerning the possibilities which can be realized in Christ. Pessimism is not befitting the Christian.

In this sense the proponents of PMA (Positive Mental Attitude) have a word which many Christians need to hear. Great men through the ages, such as D. L. Moody, have been motivated by the challenge, “The world has yet to see what God can do through a person who is fully committed to Him.” But we must also beware that in fleeing from unbelieving pessimism we do not venture too far to presumption, putting God to the test by overstepping ourselves and expecting God to bail us out—jumping off the pinnacle of the temple, as it were. God is not obliged to make us wealthy, well-liked, or free of woes. God has promised to be with those who belong to Him wherever they are and to bring us to maturity, but not to pamper us or to jump through our hoops.

Second, we need to remember that the “all things” which Paul has said he can do include such things as suffering and doing without. In the context of this verse we read,

Not that I speak from want; for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need (Philippians 4:11-12).

Contentment, not comfort, is the key to successful living.

Third, those great things which I am able to do are not the result of my works, but through His power. “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13).

If by having a “positive mental attitude” we mean having self-confidence, then we have completely missed the point. Our confidence and our enablement is to be found only in Him working through us. When we begin to take some of the credit for ourselves, God has to remind us Who is accomplishing things for His glory. That is why our greatest strength comes at the point of our greatest weakness, so that we must rely upon Him and not on ourselves:

And such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God (II Corinthians 3:4-5).

But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing greatness of the power may be of God and not of ourselves (II Corinthians 4:7).

And because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me—to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this I entreated the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong (II Corinthians 12:7-10).

May God enable us to face our difficulties as from God. May we be assured that He is with us in our trials and that He will remove us in His time and in His way. And may we determine, by God’s grace, to minister to others in our affliction.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort; who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God (II Corinthians 1:3-4).

50 “When it is said that they ‘offended’ their lord, the verb used, hate’u implies actual guilt on the part of each, for literally it means, ‘they sinned.”’ H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), II, p. 1005.

The point of the word is not that the butler and the baker were guilty of some indiscretion or inadvertently offended Pharaoh but that they committed some sin which rightly angered this potentate. The same Hebrew word is found in Genesis 20:6,9; 39:9; 42:22; Exodus 20:20, in this same sense. While Joseph was innocently imprisoned, these two officials were not.

51 “On the dreamers’ part, the conviction that the dreams had a meaning is equally in character: it was common belief in Egypt that they were predictive, and a body of writings grew up on the art of interpreting them.” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 193.

52 The purpose of prophetic revelation which speaks of impending judgment is to turn men to God in repentance:

Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, “Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it, if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it” (Jeremiah 18:5-8).

This is why Jonah dreaded preaching a message of condemnation to the people of Ninevah (cf. Jonah 3:5-4:3). He knew that God was gracious and not willing that men should perish. In the same way, I believe, the prediction of the death of the baker was intended to bring him to repentance.

53 In his classic work Knowing God, J. I. Packer devotes an entire chapter to the matter of suffering and the error of those who insist that the Christian need not experience it. I will cite several excerpts from this chapter, hoping you will read the entire book:

“A certain type of ministry of the gospel is cruel. It does not mean to be but it is. . . .

“What kind of ministry is this? The first thing to say is that, sad as it may seem, it is an evangelical ministry. Its basis is acceptance of the Bible as God’s Word and its promises as God’s assurances. Its regular themes are justification by faith through the cross, new birth through the Spirit, and new life in the power of Christ’s resurrection. . . .

“The type of ministry that is here in mind starts by stressing, in an evangelistic context, the difference that becoming a Christian will make. Not only will it bring a man forgiveness of sins, peace of conscience, and fellowship with God as his Father; it will also mean that, through the power of the indwelling Spirit, he will be able to overcome the sins that previously mastered him, and the light and leading that God will give him will enable him to find a way through problems of guidance, self-fulfillment, personal relations, heart’s desire, and such like, which had hitherto defeated him completely. How, put like that, in general terms, these great assurances are scriptural and true--praise God, they are! But it is possible so to stress them, and so to play down the rougher side of the Christian life--the daily chastening, the endless war with sin and Satan, the periodic walk in darkness--as to give the impression that normal Christian living is a perfect bed of roses, a state of affairs in which everything in the garden is lovely all the time, and problems no longer exist--or, if they come, they have only to be taken to the throne of grace, and they will melt away at once.” J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1973), pp. 221-222.

54 Joe Bayly has an excellent discussion on the detrimental effect of presumptuously praying the prayer of faith for healing in the case of the terminally ill in the chapter entitled “Prayer and Terminal Illness.” Joseph Bayly, The Last Thing We Talk About (Elgin, Illinois: David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1973), pp. 80-88.