Bible Commentaries
Genesis 37

Verse 1

D. What became of Esau 36:1-37:1

Moses included this relatively short, segmented genealogy (toledot) in the sacred record to show God’s faithfulness in multiplying Abraham’s seed as He had promised. It also provides connections with the descendants of Esau referred to later in the history of Israel. Among his descendants were the Edomites (Genesis 36:8) and the Amalekites (Genesis 36:12). Lot, Ishmael, and Esau all walked out of the line of promise. This list also includes earlier inhabitants of the area later known as Edom whom Esau brought under his control. [Note: The NET Bible note on 36:1.]

We can divide this chapter as follows.

Esau’s three wives and five sons, Genesis 36:1-8

Esau’s five sons and 10 grandsons, Genesis 36:9-14

Chiefs (political or military leaders) descended from Esau, Genesis 36:15-19

Chiefs of the Horites (with whom the Edomites intermarried and whom they dispossessed), Genesis 36:20-30

Kings of Edom, Genesis 36:31-39

A final list of chiefs, Genesis 36:40-43

Different names of Esau’s wives appear here as compared with what Moses recorded earlier (Genesis 36:2; cf. Genesis 26:34; Genesis 28:9). [Note: For an explanation, see Keil and Delitzsch, 1:321-22.] People added surnames to given names later in life. Women often received new names when they married. Esau married a Hittite (Genesis 36:2), a Hivite (Genesis 36:2) who was a descendant of a Horite (Hurrian, Genesis 36:20), and an Ishmaelite (Genesis 36:3). Some commentators connected the Horites with cave dwellers since the Hebrew word for cave is hor. [Note: E.g., Speiser, p. 283; and Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 223.]

Esau’s sons were born in Canaan and then moved out of the Promised Land to Seir. Jacob’s sons, except for Benjamin, were born outside Canaan in Paddan-aram and later moved into the Promised Land.

"That there are two toledot headings for Esau makes his treatment in two consecutive sections exceptional in the book. The first section [Genesis 36:1-8] focuses on family and homeland, and the second [Genesis 36:9 to Genesis 37:1] centers on his offspring as a developing nation. These two sections are flanked by the major narrative toledot sections of Isaac (Genesis 25:19 to Genesis 35:29) and Jacob (Genesis 37:2 to Genesis 50:26)." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 632.]

The Kenizzites (Genesis 36:11; Genesis 36:15) later affiliated with the tribe of Judah. [Note: J. Milgrom, Numbers, pp. 391-92.] The Amalekites separated from the other Edomites and became an independent people early in their history (Genesis 36:12). [Note: See the chart illustrating their family relationship among my comments on 25:1-6.] A group of them settled in what later became southern Judah as far as Kadesh Barnea and the border of Egypt (Genesis 14:7; Numbers 13:29; Numbers 14:43; Numbers 14:45). Another branch of the tribe settled in the hill country of Ephraim that was in central Canaan (Judges 12:15). The largest group of Amalekites lived in Arabia to the southeast of Canaan and Edom. They united on occasion with their neighbors, the Midianites (Judges 6:3; Judges 7:12) and the Ammonites (Judges 3:13). Saul defeated the Amalekites (1 Samuel 14:48; 1 Samuel 15:2) as David did (1 Samuel 27:8; 1 Samuel 30:1; 2 Samuel 8:12). Some Simeonites finally exterminated them during Hezekiah’s reign (1 Chronicles 4:42-43).

"What is most interesting about the king list [Genesis 36:31-39] is that it reflects an elective kingship rather than a dynastic one. . . .

"These ’kings’ may have indeed been charismatic individuals who, like the judges, assumed their office without regard to heredity." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 400.]

This list of Edomite kings demonstrates the partial fulfillment of God’s promise that kings would come from Abraham’s loins (Genesis 17:16).

"It might seem unusual that such detail concerning the descendants of Esau be included, but the relationship between Esau and Jacob, and then between the nations of Edom and Israel, is a theme of the entire Old Testament." [Note: Davis, p. 259. For archaeological discoveries relating to the Edomites, see Itzhaq Beit-Arieh, "New Light on the Edomites," Biblical Archaeological Review 14:2 (March-April 1988):28-41.]

"What Israelites did to Canaanites, Esauites did to Horites. Thus Genesis 36 is moving backward from the conquerors (Genesis 36:9-19) to the conquered (Genesis 36:20-30)." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 397.]

Genesis 36:31 is probably a post-Mosaic explanation written after Israel had kings to show that the Edomites were also a powerful people with kings, even before there were kings in Israel. [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 656.] This is further proof of God’s blessing on Esau, one of Abraham’s descendants.

Jacob was living at Hebron when Joseph’s brothers sold him, and he may have continued living there until he moved to Egypt (Genesis 37:1; cf. Genesis 35:27).

"Verse 1 [of chapter 37] belongs structurally to the preceding narrative as a conclusion to the Jacob story. It shows Jacob back in the Land of Promise but still dwelling there as a sojourner like his father before him. The writer’s point is to show that the promises of God had not yet been completely fulfilled and that Jacob, as his fathers before him, was still awaiting the fulfillment." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 225. Cf. Hebrews 11:39.]

Perhaps the major lesson of this genealogy is that secular greatness develops faster than spiritual greatness. Consequently the godly must wait patiently for the fulfillment of God’s promises.

Verses 2-4

Joseph was tending his father’s flock with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. This description prefigures Joseph’s later shepherding role in relation to his brothers, after they became dependent on him. David also tended sheep in preparation for his role as a leader of people.

Joseph’s "bad report" implies that the brothers were participating in serious wicked behavior. This is not hard to believe in view of their former treatment of the Shechemites and their later treatment of Joseph and Jacob.

The use of the name Israel (Genesis 37:3) suggests that Jacob’s special love for Joseph had a divine origin and was part of God’s plan for the chosen family. However, Jacob’s favoritism of Joseph over his other sons was wrong and fueled the brothers’ hatred of Joseph. Favoritism had a long history in Jacob’s family (Isaac’s preference for Esau, Rebekah’s for Jacob, and Jacob’s preference for Rachel). In every case it created major problems. Leah was hated, and her sons hated (cf. Genesis 29:31; Genesis 29:33).

"Son of his old age" means wise son, or son of wisdom. Joseph was old for his years; he had the wisdom of age in his youth. Joseph was born when Jacob was 91 years old, but he was not Jacob’s youngest son. One of Joseph’s brothers was younger than he: Benjamin.

The "varicolored tunic" was probably also a long robe. The sons of nobles wore long robes with long sleeves and ornamentation, like Joseph’s, as did Tamar, King David’s daughter (2 Samuel 13:18).

"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." [Note: Thomas, p. 356.]

Such a garment identified the possessor of the birthright. This sign of Jacob’s love for Joseph constantly irritated the jealous brothers.

"Jacob’s partiality for Rachel and for her two sons doomed his family to the same strife he had experienced in his father’s household." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p, 689.]

"The story of Jacob features rocks; that of Joseph features robes (Genesis 37:3; Genesis 37:23; Genesis 39:12; Genesis 41:14). These palpable objects symbolize something of the characters’ social and/or spiritual situations." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 499.]

Verses 2-11

1. God’s choice of Joseph 37:2-11

Joseph faithfully served his father even bringing back a bad report of his brothers’ behavior to him for which Jacob expressed his love by giving Joseph preferential treatment. However his brothers envied and hated him. God confirmed His choice of Joseph as leader, an event that perplexed Jacob and infuriated Joseph’s brothers.

Verses 2-26

E. What Became of Jacob 37:2-50:26

Here begins the tenth and last toledot in Genesis. Jacob remains a major character throughout Genesis. Moses recorded his death in chapter 49. Nevertheless Joseph replaces him as the focus of the writer’s attention at this point. [Note: For some enriching insights into the similarities between the stories of Jacob and Joseph, see Peter Miscall, "The Jacob and Joseph Stories As Analogies," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (February 1978):28-40.] These chapters are not entirely about Joseph, however. The writer showed interest in all the sons of Jacob and among them especially Judah. [Note: See Bryan Smith, "The Central Role of Judah in Genesis 37-50," Bibliotheca Sacra 162:646 (April-June 2005):158-74.]

"The emphasis now shifts from Jacob’s personal struggles to receive the blessing promised to Abraham and Isaac, to the events in Jacob’s life that lead up to the formation of Israel as a nation." [Note: Aalders, 2:179.]

The story of Joseph also links the history of the patriarchs with their settlement in Egypt.

"The Joseph story . . . develops the theme of the Pentateuch by showing the gradual fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3. In particular, it shows how God blesses the nations through the descendants of Abraham [cf. Genesis 50:20]." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 344.]

"The theme of the Joseph narrative concerns God’s hidden and decisive power which works in and through but also against human forms of power. A ’soft’ word for that reality is providence. A harder word for the same reality is predestination. Either way God is working out his purpose through and in spite of Egypt, through and in spite of Joseph and his brothers." [Note: Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 293.]

One writer concluded that the genre of the Joseph story in chapters 37-50 is a court narrative. He provided many observations on the narrative features of the story. [Note: Richard D. Patterson, "Joseph in Pharaoh’s Court," Bibliotheca Sacra 164:654 (April-June 2007):148-64.]

"The Joseph story, though different in style from that of the patriarchs, continues the theme of the patriarchal narratives-God overcomes obstacles to the fulfillment of the promise." [Note: Longman and Dillard, p. 60.]

"Rarely has God’s providence been so evident in such an extended passage." [Note: Wolf, p. 121.]

The books of Ruth and Esther also emphasize divine providence. Human responsibility is as much a revelation of this section as divine sovereignty.

Verses 5-11

Joseph’s dreams were revelations from God (cf. Genesis 40:8; Genesis 41:16; Genesis 41:25; Genesis 41:28). Joseph, his brothers, and his father did not grasp their significance fully until God brought them to pass. Joseph regarded his dreams as important, however, and therefore did not hesitate to make them known to his family.

"This is the first dream in the Bible in which God does not speak (cf. Genesis 20:3; Genesis 28:12-15; Genesis 31:11; Genesis 31:24). It forms a transition in the dominant means of God’s revelation from theophany in Genesis 1-11, to dreams and visions in Genesis 12-35, and now to providence in Genesis 36-50. These three stages resemble the three parts of TaNaK (i.e., the OT). In the Torah (’Law’), God speaks to Moses in theophany; in the Nebiim (’Prophets’), he speaks in dreams and visions; and in the Ketubim (’Writings’), he works mostly through providence." [Note: Ibid., p. 500.]

In the first dream (Genesis 37:7) God revealed that Joseph’s brothers would come to him for bread. Note the agricultural motif in both the dream and its fulfillment. His brothers did not fail to note Joseph’s position of superiority over them (Genesis 37:8), and they resented still more humiliation from him.

In the second dream (Genesis 37:9), which was even grander, Joseph was himself supreme over the whole house of Israel. The repetition of the main point of the dream confirmed that what God predicted would certainly happen (cf. Genesis 41:32). Jacob took note of these revelations but resented the possibility that his son might be in a position of authority over him (Genesis 37:10-11). Many people today also are offended by God’s election of some to special prominence and usefulness, especially close family members.

"Joseph is depicted as morally good but immature and bratty. His tattling, boasting, and robe parading inflames his brother’s hatred against him." [Note: Ibid., p. 498.]

"God’s future agent and mouthpiece in Egypt could hardly make a worse impression on his first appearance: spoiled brat, talebearer, braggart." [Note: Sternberg, p. 98.]

Textual references cannot establish whether Joseph at this time realized that his dreams were divine prophecies or not. People often regarded dreams as divine revelations in the ancient East. [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 600.] If Joseph did, the fact that he related them boldly to his family may indicate his faith. [Note: Cf. Erdman, p. 113.]

"More than likely, the dream, and its recounting, is to be understood as an unsuspecting prophecy uttered by Joseph. God has a plan for his life, a destiny in his future, and Joseph spontaneously shares the enthusiasm that revelation spawns." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 410.]

God chooses faithful, righteous individuals for positions of leadership, but those chosen may experience the jealous hatred of their brethren.

"Divine sovereignty is not a rigid detailed blueprint that manipulates and straitjackets human behavior." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 692.]

Verses 12-17

It was not uncommon for shepherds to lead their flocks many miles from home in search of pasture. Shechem was about 60 miles north of Hebron. Jacob owned land there (Genesis 33:19). Dothan was 17 miles farther north.

Verses 12-36

2. The sale of Joseph into Egypt 37:12-36

Joseph’s brothers met his second recorded visit to them with great antagonism. They plotted to kill him and so render his dreams impossible to fulfill. For practical reasons they decided to sell him and to deceive Jacob into thinking that a wild beast had killed him. In spite of their plan God kept Joseph alive and safe in Egypt. Ironically, by selling Joseph into Egypt his brothers actualized the dreams they sought to subvert. The focus of this pericope is deceit, which is a recurring feature of the Jacob and Joseph narratives.

Verses 18-24

The extreme measures Joseph’s brothers considered to silence him have led some commentators to conclude that it was not just personal hatred springing from jealousy that motivated them (cf. Cain, Genesis 4:9). They may have wanted to alter the will of God as revealed in Joseph’s dreams as well.

"The brothers’ hate is therefore a rebellion against the matter contained in the dreams, against the divine power itself, standing behind them, who had given the dreams. The expression usually translated by ’the dreamer’ [Genesis 37:19] means much more than our English word, namely, the one empowered to prophetic dreams." [Note: von Rad, p. 353.]

Reuben, as the first-born, looked after his father’s interests and, knowing what sorrow Joseph’s death would bring to Jacob, sought to spare Joseph’s life and release him from the pit later. Perhaps Reuben wanted to get back in the good graces of his father (cf. Genesis 35:22). Joseph’s place of confinement was evidently a dry well or cistern.

Verses 25-28

Dothan lay on a caravan route that ran from Damascus to Egypt. [Note: See Ammon Ben-Tor, "The Trade Relations of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 29:1 (February 1986):1-27.] The next time the brothers would eat a meal in Joseph’s presence he would sit at the head table (Genesis 43:32-34).

Moses referred to the traders that bought Joseph as Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:25; Genesis 37:27-28) and Midianites (Genesis 37:28). Probably the caravan contained a mixture of both of these groups of Abraham’s descendants who were nomadic caravan merchants (cf. Genesis 39:1; Judges 8:24). Residents of this area sometimes used these names interchangeably. "Ishmaelite" is the more generic term for a Bedouin nomad. It became a general designation for desert tribes. "Midianite" is the more specific ethnic term. [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 423.] Alternatively, "Ishmaelites" may designate a league of tribes with the Midianites constituting one element (cf. Genesis 25:13-17). [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 355.] Rather than agents of death, the traders proved to be God’s instruments of deliverance.

Judah, like Reuben, did not relish killing Joseph. Yet he was not willing to let him go free either. Probably he dreaded the prospect of Joseph receiving the rights of the first-born since he, Judah, was in line for Jacob’s blessing. His suggestion that the brothers sell Joseph implies that he knew slave trading was common in Egypt. The price agreed on for Joseph was the same price that God later specified the Israelites should pay for a slave between the ages of five and 20 years under the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 27:5). These prices were evidently standard in the ancient Near East at this time. Shepherds employed by others earned about eight shekels a year. [Note: Ibid., p. 356.]

"If Joseph steps onto the pages of sacred history as a bratty do-gooder, Judah enters as a slave trader who has turned his back on Abraham’s God-given vision. He is callous toward his father and cynical about the covenant family." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 508.]

The significance of the action of Joseph’s brothers was greater than may appear at first.

"They had not only sold their brother, but in their brother they had cast out a member of the seed promised and given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the fellowship of the chosen family, and sinned against the God of salvation and His promises." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:332.]

Verses 29-36

Reuben was absent during the sale of Joseph. When he returned and found Joseph missing he felt great distress. Jacob would have held him responsible for Joseph’s safety since Reuben was the oldest of the brothers. Joseph’s brothers covered one sin with another.

"The message accompanying the cloak [Genesis 37:32] has a certain blunt brutality about it. They did not try to soften the blow." [Note: Leupold, 2:973.]

Jacob had deceived his father with the skin of a goat (Genesis 27:16). Now his sons were deceiving him with the blood of a goat (Genesis 37:31).

Had Jacob believed more strongly in God’s revelations in Joseph’s dreams he might not have jumped to the conclusion that Joseph was dead, and his sorrow might not have been as great (cf. 2 Samuel 18:33). Jacob’s fears were groundless, but he did not realize this because he chose in this instance to live by sight rather than by faith.

The Pharaoh referred to (Genesis 37:36) was probably Ammenemes II (1929-1895 B.C.), and the capital of Egypt during this period (the twelveth dynasty) was Memphis. This is where Joseph was taken. Potiphar, as Pharaoh’s bodyguard captain, would have been in charge of the king’s executioners who carried out the capital sentences ordered by Pharaoh. "Potiphar" is a shortened form of Potiphera (Genesis 41:45) meaning "he whom Ra [the sun-god] has given." The meaning of the Hebrew word saris, translated in Genesis 37:36 "officer" or "official," changed in meaning in the first millennium B.C. to "eunuch." [Note: Kitchen, Ancient Orient . . ., pp. 115-66.] Josephus called Potiphar Pharaoh’s chief cook, which may or may not have been correct. [Note: Josephus, 2:4:1. See Magen Broshi, "The Credibility of Josephus," Journal of Jewish Studies 33:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1982):379-384.]

This chapter is the first of many in the record of Joseph’s experiences that demonstrates God’s ability to cause the wrath of men to praise Him (Psalms 76:10). He can make even bad situations work for the accomplishment of His purposes and for the blessing of His elect (Romans 8:28).

"Envy is the root of almost every sin against our brethren. And whenever it is harbored, there is an end of all peace, rest, and satisfaction. Envy is ’the rottenness of the bones’ (Prov. xiv. 30), and no one can stand against it (Prov. xxvii. 4). ’Where envying is, there is confusion and every evil work’ (James iii. 16)." [Note: Thomas, pp. 361-62.]

"The Genesis account presents Joseph as a very unusual young man, possessed of a strong and sterling character, of a high morality and fidelity to God and his superiors. He was also characterized by gentleness in human relations. Remarkably, Joseph’s spiritual and moral strength does not appear to be based on or related to God’s periodic and direct revelations, as was true of Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. Presumably then Jacob must have put a lot of character building truth into the young man’s life at an early time. It does not appear that he could have obtained such information from any other source. If this is the case, Jacob did a much better job with Joseph than with his other sons." [Note: H. Vos, p. 134.]

"They [Joseph’s older brothers] had been brought up under the influence of the old Jacob, while Joseph had been the companion of the changed Jacob or ’Israel.’" [Note: Thomas, p. 355.]

Joseph’s motives are not completely clear in the text. Consequently students of his life have made judgments about his character that are both positive and negative. Most have concluded that he was one of the greatest men in history. [Note: See Thomas Mann’s 1,600-page Joseph and His Brothers.] A few have contested this view and have believed that he was selfish and manipulative. [Note: E.g., Maurice Samuel, Certain People of the Book; idem, "Joseph-The Brilliant Failure," Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):38-51, 68.] I believe the textual evidence favors the former view primarily, though some of his early actions seem to be unwise at best and arrogant at worst.

People who serve faithfully as unto the Lord often experience severe persecution, but God will preserve them so they can fulfill their God-given destiny.