|
Library
Joseph: A Saga of Excellence (Part 2)By John W. Ritenbaugh
|
Last week, when we were looking into Joseph's background, we saw that he was born into a family that today surely would be called "dysfunctional." It contained a father who had to flee from his family because he had deceived his father, taken advantage of a brother in a time of his brother's weakness, and then stolen an item of very great material value from his brother. This father had several serious run-ins with his equally deceitful father-in-law; and things became so heated between them that he had to flee from him as well. And when his father-in-law pursued and caught up with him, the father-in-law accused that party of stealing from him as well. And, indeed, the charge was true. But the items stolen were never discovered because, during the search, one of Jacob's wives deceived her father.
Now there were four wives in all, in this family—two main ones, who were sisters (which is something that is forbidden in the law that was given through Moses), and two lesser ones, who were drawn into the family's operations in an intimate way because of the almost constant bickering that took place between the two sisters, who were married to the same man. And they were fighting for the affections of this man, the father.
By the time Joseph was born, there were already ten others sons; and they hated him, because the father had the dreadful practice of always favoring one member over the others—thus increasing the tension in a situation that would have been stressful even if he hadn't played favorites. In addition to that, a few years later two of the sons took the lives of a number of virtually defenseless men, during a time when negotiations were going on, because the sister (their sister) had foolishly gone out of her community to see what the world was like and had gotten herself raped.
Now, the other brothers participated in the moping up action--after the two had killed a number of people. And, in the wake of the brothers' killing spree, they ran off with sheep, oxen, asses, children, and wives--as the booty, taken during that misadventure. The two brothers certainly loss any consideration they might have received when their father distributed the sceptre and the birthright promises. The oldest child in the family, he then proceeded to dishonor his father
by accompanying one of his father's lesser wives to bed, where he had intercourse with her. He too, then, lost out of any consideration for receiving the inheritance. (It sounds just like the family you'd like to follow around if you were writing the script for "As The World Turns.")
And then came Joseph. There is a curious statement made about Jacob in Genesis 37:1-3 that is somewhat obscured in the translation into English. It says there:
And Jacob dwelt in the land wherein his father was a stranger, in the land of Canaan. 2 These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad was with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives: and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report. 3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colors. (Genesis 37:1-3)The obscure, or curious, statement pivots on the word "generations" or "genealogy," as it might say in your Bible. Both of them are correct translations; but the word in the Hebrew indicates "history" or "account." And some Bibles translate that as "This is the history (or, the account) of Jacob." The phrase is used a number of times for others; and, after it is used, there immediately follows a rundown of the family and a sketchy outline of a few significant occasions in the family's history.
With Isaac, the phrase is used to indicate the beginning of his dynasty; and that it began with the births of Jacob and Esau "in the land." But with Jacob, all of his children—with the exception of Benjamin—were born outside "the land." They were born in Syria. So, the phrase regarding Jacob and his history is withheld until after he reentered "the land of inheritance" and actually began living in it. Then, Joseph is named and nobody else. It's as if Jacob's story doesn't begin until they are "in the land." And then, instead of naming all of the children, only one is named. It is an indication that, even though Jacob remains the head of the family, Joseph--and, we are going to find out, to a lesser extent, Judah--is going to be the moving principle in the following history. So, it's almost as if God says, "Well, here the history of Jacob begins and here the history of Jacob ends." (Not quite, but almost.)
And he [that is, God] said unto Abram, Know of a surety that your seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15 And you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. 16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. (Genesis 15:13-16)
This is the prophecy that Joseph is going to be used to begin the fulfillment of. So, that's what this story concerns. Joseph is the central character. God's prophecy is the reason these things are going to be occurring. So, God was beginning--through Joseph—to work out another step in His plan. And, among other things, it shows us the extent that God will go in order to give us an illustration of a spiritual principle of very great importance to you and to me; and, that is, that every single one of us is in bondage, in the world. We are a slave, until He moves to free us.
This slavery is spiritual. We may be physically free in the land in which we live; but God is showing us that there is something bigger, something greater, and something more powerful to whom every single one of us is in bondage. And He also shows that there is, overriding that, a great purpose that He is going to put us into, as a part of. It is essential that we begin by understanding that we are in bondage to this one that we cannot see, regardless of where we live.
Let's go back...You may want to hold your finger in Genesis 37, because sometime we'll go away from it and then we'll come back to it. So, put something there so that you can turn back to it reasonably easy. We are going to go to the book of JAMES, in chapter 1 and verses 13 and 14.
Now we have to see what Joseph and his brothers and Jacob went through, in the light of the way God looks at the things that occurred.
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. (James 1:13-14)Please understand, because if you do not understand this, you are not going to get the lesson that is involved here, as it applies to you—to your life. It is good to remember that these people (the principles that are involved in this issue—Joseph and all of his brothers and Jacob) did not know, when they were going through this experience, what they were going through. They did not know what they were going through when they went through it. I mean, they didn't know it from God's perspective.
Now, how does James 1:13-14 apply to that? How did this thing begin? This whole adventure began because of sin. God did not make these people sin the sins that precipitated these events. God does not tempt people. He does not force people to live by faith either. Instead, what this shows is how God is able to turn bad attitudes, and foolish choices, and even heinous sins of people involved into a result that is beneficial to everybody concerned. It is beneficial to God's plan and also to peoples' well being, even though it may be very difficult while they are experiencing it.
Even when the incident was over--and Israel, and all of his family, was safely ensconced in Egypt and protected from the effects of the famine—neither Jacob nor Joseph understood the spiritual implications of what the family had gone through. They saw the physical implications; but God's larger, spiritual purpose was beyond them.
We can understand, because we can look back on it; but, if you had been in the position they were in and went through the experience as they were going through it, you wouldn't have understood either. But we find at least one person who when through this experience by faith.
Now both Joseph and Jacob believed the promises of God. I mean, this is at the end of the experience. And they believed that Joseph had been used by God. They believed that they had been the recipients of a gracious gift of God; and they knew (they believed...Jacob and Joseph believed) that the family would return to Canaan, because they knew the promise that God had given to Abraham just a few years before. But they still did not fully and clearly see the totality of what God had worked through them.
To me, it is incredible that God is able to use people as He did here—using Jacob's entire family, developing their character, correcting and punishing, bringing about repentance, and producing vital lessons for others (like you and me), things that we can learn from—and yet never take away a person's free moral agency.
Did you know that if God takes away someone's free moral agency, then He would have no basis for judging? How could He either praise...? It takes judgment to praise. It takes evaluation to praise. How could He praise and give reward, or blame...? You can only blame somebody if they, personally, are accountable. How can God give either praise (and reward) or blame (and punishment) if He had--by using His greater power--merely made people do things over which they had no control?
They were not puppets on a string; and neither are we. They could not be judged, because they would not have been responsible for their actions. God would have been responsible. But God holds us responsible for our actions. Now turn with me to II Corinthians 5, and beginning in verse 9. Paul writes to these people--and to you and me:
Wherefore we labor, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to thatDo you see? Judgment is being discussed here. And Paul is saying that we need to turn our full attention to doing everything we possible can, while we are alive, while we are "in the body"—do what we can to please Jesus Christ, because we are going to be held accountable. We are going to be judged because of, or on the basis of, the choices [which we make]. So, we have to answer for those things.
he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (II Corinthians 5:9-10)
We find, a little bit further, verse 14:
For the love of Christ constrains us [that is, it gives us impedance]; because we thus judge, that if one died for all [that is, Christ], then all were dead [that is, in sin]: 15 And that he died for all, that they [those of us who have been cleaned by his blood] that they [Let's change it to "We".] which live should not henceforth live to themselves, but unto him which died for them and rose again. 16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh [that is, we don't regard people according to the flesh]: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more [that is, in that way]. (II Corinthians 5:14-16)So we turn our attention to the choices, and the reasons and motivations of why we make the choices that we do. I believe that one of the reasons the story of Joseph is in the Bible is not just because he was used of God to fulfill a major portion of a great promise. But [it's there] because here was a man who had an extremely high batting average when it came to making the right choices. And he didn't make the choices because he was lucky. Joseph considered his options; and he deliberately made the right choices, regardless of the consequences to himself.
If we had no free moral agency, judgement by God would be totally unfair; but God is not unfair. And He judges according to His law.
Let me put forth one more thing here, which is very important to our attitude, in regards to making choices. That is (in this section here in II Corinthians 5, and most specifically in verse 10), that the scriptures do not look at our appearing before Christ's judgement seat with dread. Going before a judgment seat tends to put us in fear (Does it not?) and dread. Even now, we wonder whether [or not] we please Jesus Christ. But understand this: the scriptures do not look upon this as something to dread, but rather as a very great privilege that we have. The rest of the world hasn't been given this privilege yet—to be judged of God. Now when does our judgement take place? Well, if you know what it says there in I Peter 4, and verse 17:
For the time is come [It's right now.] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (I Peter 4:17)So, our judgment is taking place right now. Let's tie this together with the story of Jacob and Joseph and Judah and you. In this same book of 1 Peter, and chapter 2, and verse 11, it says:
Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts [because we have choices to make in regards to this. And so he is saying, "Don't make a choice that is based upon covetousness."] which war against the soul.[You know, in war you have very great opportunity to be killed.] 12 Having your conversation [or, conduct] honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. (I Peter 2:11-12)The word here, that I want you to focus on right now, is "visitation." Do you know what it means? It means "to look over, inspect, consider, examine." What was happening to these people to whom Peter was writing? They were being persecuted—persecuted by their friends, family, and people in their neighborhoods, people in their city. Brethren, persecutors are not going to glorify God while they hate God and while they are persecuting His representatives (that is, His Christians).
Were Joseph's brothers glorifying God while they were doing what they were doing to Joseph? Joseph was God's chosen representative, or instrument, for delivering Jacob's family into a physical salvation, into Egypt. When did Joseph's brothers glorify Him? (I mean, God.) They were going to glorify God in the day of their visitation. That is, when they were called into judgment. Joseph's brothers were called into judgment when they had to face Joseph as Prime Minister of Egypt and [when they had to face] the fact of their heinous crime against him and against God.
"The day of visitation" is the day in which people are judged. And so these persecutors are not going to glorify God until it is their time to be looked over, inspected, examined, evaluated, judged. How do you fit into this scenario? In the same way Joseph did. Please do not separate yourself from this story. It is not just a story about Joseph. It is also a story about you and me, because we are going to be saviors before very long; and we are going to help save people from their sins in the day of their visitation. We are being prepared for that right now. And there is much to learn from what Joseph had to go through as the result of the persecution of his brothers.
Now, turn with me to Romans 8:33-39. While you are reading this with me, again, think of yourself; and think of Joseph; and think of Jesus Christ too.
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifies.Was Joseph charged? Are Christians charged? Who are they charged by? The word here indicates somebody called to account for what they are. And they are being charged, not by Jesus Christ in this case. They are being charged by the world; and, therefore, persecuted.
34 Who is he that condemns? It is Christ that died...What is Paul saying here? He's saying, "Look fellows, brethren. To whom do you have to give account? Is it to your persecutors? Or, is it to Jesus Christ?"
34 ...It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?Do you think those things went through Joseph's head when he was thrown in the pit, when he was taken into slavery, when he was bought as a common slave, when he was put into jail? "I'm innocent!"--he had every right to say.
36 As it is written, For your sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, now things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:36-39)It's good to remember these things that we have just gone through. That now is our time of visitation. The very people that we living before, in the midst of (our friends, our relatives, our neighbors)...that the time of their visitation is yet to come—the time when they are going to be looked over, evaluated, considered, examined. And they may be giving us a very hard time, because of the things that we believe, because we are different. It's good to remember this when you are going through some perplexing trial—that there is very much to it than meets the eye.
Even as with Joseph, there was very much more than met his eye, on the surface. These people did not know what they were going through until most of it was over. Now, what you and I go through may not be of the magnitude of this event involving Joseph; but, in like manner, it may have very much to do with future things involving your family. Now, let's go back to Genesis 37. It says in verse 3:
Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children...It was Jacob's favoritism of Joseph that is the blunder that sets off the chain-of-events that God used to fulfill His prophecy there in Genesis the 15th chapter. The coat (that Jacob gave Joseph) is, to the brothers, the hated symbol of Jacob's neglectful treatment of them. The word "coat", or "tunic", or "robe" (as it is translated) appears only in one other context in the entirety of the Bible. That's in II Samuel 13, verses 18 and 19. There the word is translated to indicate clothing worn by the king's daughter—that is, David's daughter, Tamar, most specifically, in this case. Now the brothers of Joseph understood, or looked up, or interpreted "the coat" as being a flaunting of Jacob's attitude toward them. It was like rubbing salt in the wound.
I don't think that Jacob deliberately set out to incite the brothers to envy and hatred; but his whole life shows a man giving single-minded devotion to one goal, or to one purpose. We also find that he was a very competitive person, wanting to be Number One. When Rachel died, he transferred the majority of his affection and attention to Joseph; and [he] appears to have striven to make Joseph into Jacob's vision of what he thought he should be. (It's what psychologists today call a parent who is reliving his life through the child. Like a stage mother or a father trying to create a super athlete the father dreamed of being but never became.)
The real, real problem was the polygamy. I think that this was responsible for creating families, or cliques, within what should have been a single family. And, in this particular family, the rivalries were exceptionally intense.
I think that there is no doubt, though, that Joseph was a cut above his brothers in virtually every way—spiritually, morally, intellectually, and ethically as well. And when he spent time with them, working together, there were two different approaches to the way things were being done. The story later shows that Joseph approached and performed his responsibilities with a wise, diligent, and, indeed, a brilliant way that was pleasing to his employers. Even in his youth, I think that he was beginning to show the qualities that employers would later find so pleasing.
And I think we can only assume that the other sons, [that] he was with at this time, approached things more with a typical youthful carelessness—like "Nah, what does it matter? Out of sight out of mind. What does Dad care? He's not here to look at it. We'll just do it our way." I mean, that would be, I think, maybe a minor thing.
So Joseph, besides being their father's favorite, was also apparently a goody-two-shoes, who was a drag on their normal approach to doing things. And when he told Jacob of what, and the way, they were doing things, it intensified their hatred of him.
Now, it would be very easy for us to yield to the temptation to conclude that Joseph was just another spoiled brat tattletale. But I want you to consider something before you really, firmly, reach that conclusion—in light of what is revealed about the brothers' attitude and the character a little bit earlier and a little bit later. Two of the brothers had already taken the lives of men in what gives every appearance of being a stab-in-the-back ambush—a sucker punch, you might say--that resulted in the deaths of at least two men, and the implication is a great deal more.
They did this when the others (I'm talking about, in Shechem) were at a very decided disadvantage. So they weren't, at all, put off by the idea of fair play, of being just and equal. They lived by the rule that "all's fair in love and war." It didn't matter. And then the other brothers participated in the mop up action, making off with a good deal of the wealth of the people who were ambushed. Now consider that into the character of these people who are now envious and hating of Joseph. And then, of course, they later sold their own brother into slavery and deceived their aged father—inflicting him with a great deal of emotional pain.
Now, contrast that with what the Bible later reveals about Joseph's character. The contrast is pretty clear; and maybe, just maybe, Joseph's being a tattletale was justified—because maybe there was more to this incident than meets the eye. Was Joseph justified in doing what he did?
Turn with me to Leviticus 5. I want you to note, as we turn there, that God didn't say what Joseph did was bad. The brothers interpreted it that way.
And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. (Leviticus 5:1)Do you know what that law says? This law is the principle upon which the being of an accomplice, before or after the fact, of a crime is based. Doesn't he say that if you've been a witness to something, and you hear it, and you don't report it, you bear your sin? Now most of us have little or no problem reporting a crime, or being a witness in a trial, of someone that we do not know or that we might only know in a passing way. You know, people fear turning somebody else in. In order to circumvent this fear, the police have telephone numbers that citizens can call, in order to turn somebody else in and at the same time remain anonymous. But, if being a witness involves something that is much more personal--that is, somebody close (a brother, a sister, a cousin, a parent, a child, maybe a little bit more distant relative, or maybe somebody in the neighborhood, or the next neighborhood over; but it's somebody that you know a little bit more closely)--it becomes much more emotionally difficult to turn somebody else in and to be witness against them in their trial.
Consider this in the case of Joseph and his brothers. They're right in the same family. Now hardly anybody wants to be "the bad guy." And the way the brothers looked at what Joseph did, he was the bad guy, because he told their father of something evil that they had done.
Now this particular thing is very difficult today; because liberal Protestantism has taught our culture, here in the United States, that we are to be very tolerant. "Don't set yourself up as a judge of your brother," we are told. That's almost a total misunderstanding of the biblical principles. This is a little bit off the subject, but do you realize that the police would hardly ever catch anybody if citizens didn't report things that they saw? So, if they did not, crime would be so rampant--it's almost unimaginable. The fear of being witnessed, and reported, and caught is a major factor in holding crime in check.
Now, as to understanding this verse (Leviticus 5:1), please do not focus on the illustration that is given; that is, hearing somebody swearing. This is used only to give an example of one being a witness to something that may even be quite privately done. That is the kind of atmosphere most crimes are committed in, isn't it? In the dark, where people think that nobody is watching them. If people think that somebody is watching them, they are much less likely to do the evil things that they do. And so God is saying that it is the duty of a person to report wrongdoing; and, if the person does not, then he bears sin with them. He is accomplice to what they have done.
I want you to see how strong this sense of personal responsibility is in the Bible. It's a responsibility both to God and to the community; and, in this case, the community is the church—which Mr. Armstrong use to tell us is the Kingdom of God in embryo. Now, why have a law like this? Well, it's because of the principle that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. And if crime, or sin, is not stopped at its source quickly, it is going to spread. And if one sees something being done (that is a sin or a crime), God holds the witness responsible for doing what he can to stop it. At least, it can be reported to authorities.
In many cases, let's say "in the church", the best thing to do (the appropriate thing to do) is to go directly to the person, in a spirit of humility, who has sinned. Now let's go back to 1 Timothy, chapter 5 and verse 22. This is something that is directed at someone like me [a minister].
Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep yourself pure. (I Timothy 5:22)That is not a disjointed, disconnected thought (that the apostle Paul says). The ordination of a person is directly connected to that person being, or perhaps becoming, a sinner. And this is a warning to the minister--the one who does the ordaining—who allows another minister to bring the ministry into disrepute, through ordaining a rascal into office. Paul's warning to Timothy is that, if he (Timothy) allows this to occur without thorough examination of the man who is to be ordained, then he will not be totally separated from the rascal's sin--because he has allowed him [the rascal] to come into office in the first place. So it is a warning to the ministry to deal decisively with another minister who has gone astray; and especially so if one of us has been involved in the ordination of such a person, or maybe made the recommendation that they should be ordained.
Now we know that there comes the time when each person is held accountable for his own sins. But I am telling you this so that you will understand how strongly and powerfully God views the "connectedness" that there is between all of us. We are a body; and there is a responsibility.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: 11 For he that bids him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds. (II John 10-11)How about those apples? That connects--everybody in the congregation has a responsibility to God in regard to this. Now John's not writing here of your ordinary Joe church member who has left the fellowship for whatever reason. And he's not talking about your neighbor, who might be a religious person but of a false god. He is speaking here of false prophets, of deceivers, of antichrists. He is talking about people who are out to destroy the truth. And sometimes that can be your neighbor. So Paul says that if we are hospitable to these people and give them comfort, then we become accomplices in their evil deeds. That's pretty stringent, isn't it. (I didn't write that.)
Back to Genesis 37. Now, what do you think about what Joseph did? That puts a different light on it, doesn't it? It begins to look like Joseph had some pretty good spiritual training, to me—or some teaching that was on a very high level for somebody seventeen years old. And so he did what he was responsible before God to do; and what happened? It backfired on him. It only made his brothers hate him more. Isn't that natural?
The two spirits in this world are at war with one another! And whenever the Spirit of God does something right, the spirit of the world hates it. So don't expect the world to pat you on the back for doing things right. Remember Jesus' warning that whenever all men speak well of you, then you'd better take warning because it's very likely that you are probably friends with the world rather than friends with God.
Now you can see [that] at a very early age Joseph was showing inclinations that he was going to put God, and God's Word, and God's laws (which he was taught) before anything else—even the friendship of his own brothers. Can you see what is happening? Joseph is rapidly becoming a stumbling block to his brothers. Not because he is evil, but because he is good and they were being condemned by it. When that happens, the natural thing is for human nature to persecute the good.
Is that beginning to teach you something about Christ? Feed Christ into that, instead of Joseph. Christ was killed because He was a good man. He condemned people by His righteousness, by His holiness, by His goodness; and people couldn't stand the comparison. "Oh yes," they'd say, "He's a good man. He goes around doing good things." But they couldn't stand what He stood for, even though they liked Him. And so Christ, Himself, said that He was going to be a stumbling block for many. (The stone which the builders rejected is become a stumbling block.)
And that's what was happening with Joseph. In verse 4 of Genesis 37, it says:
And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him. (Genesis 37:4)They couldn't even give him the time of day, even with his own family. They couldn't say something to him that would be the equivalent of "Good morning" or "Good day." And you know what they did? Unwittedly, they drove the father and son even closer together.
My son, if sinners entice you, consent you not. (Proverbs 1:10)If sinners allure you, if sinners persuade you, or if they try to seduce you—the warning is, "Don't allow yourself to be open to these things." Now, in the case of young people especially, I might add here, peer pressure is very difficult to resist. I read recently that a survey of teens revealed that what their peers said and did had greater influence with them than their parents, because they want to be accepted.
All Joseph had to do was to be "a good guy" (one of the group)—to become like them, to allow his desire to be accepted, to allure or persuade him into doing things and into having the same kind of attitudes as they did. Yeah, join them in their surly and devious and violent ways; and the pressure would have been all gone. But Joseph had something very powerful going for him; and it's something that already has been mentioned very frequently. I am absolutely certain that it enabled him to stay the course and at the same time it brought pain, and separation, and alienation from his brothers. Do you know what it was? He had the love of his father.
Do you see the parallel with Jesus Christ developing? Though despised and rejected of men, He stayed the course because of His Father's love--and because, above all things, He wanted to please His Father.
Now, in Joseph's life, God intervened and He actually intensified the feelings all around. Things were going to get worse before they got better. Back to Genesis 37, and verse 5.
And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it his brethren: and they hated him yet the more. 6 And he said unto them, Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed: 7 For, behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and, lo, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright; and, behold, your sheaves stood round about, and made obeisance to my sheaf. 8 And his brothers said to him, Shall you indeed reign over us? Or shall you indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words. 9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me. 10 And he told it to his father, and to his brothers: and his father rebuked him, and said to him, What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow down ourselves to you to the earth? 11 And his brothers envied him; but his father observed the saying. (Genesis 37:5-11)The meaning of both dreams is the same; but the second goes beyond the first in its grandeur of the symbols and the inclusion of the father and the mother in obeisance to Joseph. And, again, we have no mention of Joseph's attitude in the telling of the dreams.
It's interesting to me that the Bible shows that Joseph, who later became renowned as the interpreter of dreams, did not interpret these dreams. His brothers interpreted the first one; [and] Jacob the second. The combination of the brothers' clearly shown attitude, and the fact that no mention is made of Joseph's attitude, and that the others interpreted the dreams, leads me to conclude that Joseph just blurted the dreams out, as almost any youngster would have done.
How many times have you had an arresting dream; and then, at the breakfast table (or something), you announced it to the whole family? "I had a dream last night; and you know what I saw in that dream?" Everybody does those things, without a sense of embarrassment or trying to get anything from it. It was just something that was real arresting, and maybe disturbing; and maybe we did wonder what it meant.
I think that Joseph might have just blurted it out, enthusiastically, like any kid would have done—because it really made an impression on him. It was, apparently, exceptionally vivid. But, just like what he did with his father a little bit earlier—in telling his father of the evil that his other sons had done—this one only served to backfire on him and brought even more intense hatred against him. Their interpretation was that the dreams revealed that he was going to rule over them. And that was already of great concern in their lives, because each one of them wanted to be first in line for the inheritance. And so the dreams served to intensify their feelings of rivalry. The dreams, to them, pointed to the supremacy of Joseph and the implied royalty. (They were going to bow down; and that's what you do to royalty.) And so the brothers, out of their envy, could see nothing in Joseph but overweening pride and ambition.
And even Jacob gave him a sharp rebuke. But it does say something about Jacob that is interesting: his father observed the saying. He remembered, or he tucked it into the back of his mind. It was something that he continued to think about and wondered if maybe, perhaps, there was something here that needed to be paid attention to.
You know it says that in regard to other people who were favored by God in some way. For example, in Luke the second chapter, it says it twice about Mary. When Jesus was born and these people began showing up where Jesus was being kept, it says that Mary kept these things in her mind. Then, later in the chapter, when Jesus was in Jerusalem and he was asking questions and answering questions, again it says that she tucked these things into her mind, because she was trying to understand a fuller meaning behind what these things might means.
So the brothers' reply, or their interpretation, was emotional. It was hasty; and it was completely carnal. Jacob's, though, was at least the product of a mind that showed some measure of humility and faith. And he was learning to allow for God's hand in the affairs of men and God's right to choose whom He will to do things.
Now why the two dreams, that were virtually the same? Do you remember, a little bit later in the story, that the baker and the butler each had dreams that were very similar in their construction? And then two years later, the Pharaoh also had two dreams that were very similar in construction--and that they, too, came one right after the other. Well we find out the answer in Genesis 41, and verse 32, where Joseph (now the interpreter of dreams) says:
And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass. (Genesis 41:32)Now when Joseph had his dreams, I am sure that he didn't understand a great deal. But quite a number of years had gone by—thirteen, to be exact—and time, experience, maturity, and revelation had taught him a great deal. The doubling of dreams was God's way of emphasizing. He was emphasizing that the process leading to the dreams' fulfillment was going to be occurring very quickly. And so Joseph is saying that the matter is already settled in God's mind; and nothing we can do can turn it aside. So we'd better get humping, post haste—right away.
Now before we go into another portion of Joseph's experiences and their meaning to us, we will break it off for today and pick up the story later. So, this transmission is completed.
JWR//
 |
 Printer-Friendly  E-mail this page |
|
| Articles | Bible Q&A | Bible Studies | Booklets | Sermons |
