“This is the family history of Jacob.”
This verse is extremely important as establishing that ‘toledoth' means family history. It is clearly a colophon identifying the tablet to which it refers and in our view equally clearly refers backwards. The following narrative begins with ‘Joseph' and contains his story in a continuous narrative.
JOSEPH
The Life of Joseph (Genesis 37:2 to Genesis 50:26)
In this section we have the life of Joseph from beginning to end. It quite clearly bears within it the stamp of a deep knowledge of Egypt, its customs and its background, and could not have been written by anyone who did not have that deep knowledge, and who was not familiar with things at court. The correct technical terms are used for court officials. And the whole of Joseph's stay in Egypt is clearly written against an Egyptian background without the artificiality which would appear if it was written by an outsider.
The Betrayal and Selling into Egypt of Joseph (Genesis 37:2-36)
We note here a remarkable change in the narrative. Up to this point each section has been relatively brief. Covenant narrative has followed covenant narrative. This was because the records were written down in order to preserve the words of the covenant which were then, as regularly in the ancient world, put in the context of the history behind them. Thus up to Genesis 37:2 a we continually have typical examples of covenant records.
But now all changes. Instead of short sections we have a flowing narrative that goes on and on, portraying the life of Joseph. And this remarkable fact is exactly what we would expect if these records were written in the first part of the 2nd Millennium BC. For Joseph was a high official in Egypt where papyrus (a writing surface made from the papyrus plant) was plentiful and the recording of information about such officials was common practise. A good case could indeed be made for suggesting that it was at this time that the earlier written covenant records were taken and compiled into one narrative to provide background history to this great man.
‘Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brothers, and he was a lad with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives. And Joseph brought the evil report of them to their father.'
It would appear from this narrative that at this time the six Leah brothers kept some of their father's flocks and herds in a separate place from the others. Perhaps his policy of dividing his possessions into two companies (Genesis 32:7) had become permanent (although subsequently changed). Or it may simply be that the herds were so large that to remain together was impossible due to the sparsity of good grazing land. Thus Joseph works with the sons of the concubines.
But he made himself decidedly unpopular by tale-telling. He told his father about their bad behaviour. Possibly he felt some superiority as the son of Rachel, but more probably it was because he was spoiled as the next verse shows, and because he felt bitter at their unfriendly treatment of him (Genesis 37:4). This is a strong warning against parents having favourites among their children. Yet in this case God would use it for good. But that does not justify the spoiling or the favouritism, both of which are destructive.
‘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 colours (or ‘a long sleeved coat').'
Here we learn that Joseph was his father's clear favourite. A long sleeved or many-coloured coat was a symbol of luxury (see 2 Samuel 13:18). It was not a working garment but one for wearing to make an impression.
“The son of his old age.” Joseph was not much younger than his brothers. This phrase must therefore mean that in his old age Jacob had made him his special favourite, as old men can tend to do, the one on whom he leaned (Genesis 37:4). Later Benjamin is called ‘the child of his old age' where his father's special love for him is stressed (Genesis 44:20).
“Israel.” Jacob is now again called by his new name Israel. But until Genesis 42 ‘Israel' is only used twice (Genesis 37:3; Genesis 37:13) and ‘Jacob' is only used once (in Genesis 37:34) thus we cannot speak of a preponderance of either. Then they are interspersed freely. This use of two names of the same person in the same context is evidenced in ancient literature in both Egypt and elsewhere.
‘And his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and they hated him and were unable to speak to him in a friendly way.'
This is the other side of the story. Because, quite inexcusably, Jacob had let his favouritism be seen his brothers were rough with Joseph. Thus the tale-telling may have been his method of getting his own back
‘And Joseph dreamed a dream and he told it to his brothers and they hated him even more. And he said to them, “Listen, I beg you, to this dream that I have dreamed. For behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold your sheaves came round about and made obeisance to my sheaf.'
To dream such a vivid dream was looked on as of special significance. It was not the kind of thing you kept to yourself for it contained portents of the future. Joseph was not on such bad terms with his brothers that he could keep such a thing from them. Perhaps he did not recognise what the dream meant. Or perhaps he was so filled with wonder that he did not consider the consequences. But when they thought of its meaning they hated him even more, for they recognised that it was suggesting his superiority. Perhaps they even thought that he was making it up so as to make them look small..
“Binding sheaves in the field.” The dream is interesting in confirming yet again that the family tribe grew crops as well as herding cattle and sheep.