Joseph: A Prefiguration of Messiah

Translated from Ukrainian by Oleksiy Panych

The story of Joseph victimized by his own brothers is a well-known part of Torah. For Christians and Messianic Jews, the similarity of Joseph’s path to the life of Messiah is quite obvious. It is worth noting that even in traditional Judaism the figure of Messiah is closely linked to Joseph (almost as much as to David).1 However, could this similarity be much deeper than we are accustomed to think?

The beloved son is attacked by his brothers and eventually sold into slavery by Judah for twenty silver pieces (Gen 37:26–28). But what if we say the following: Israel and his sons rise against Joseph because he pretends to be God, which in their eyes is idolatry.

The father deliberately sends his beloved son to his brothers to his death. Let us analyze the story of Joseph and try to find out whether this reading is indeed so far-fetched as it may seem at first.

A brief reminder about the story of Joseph

Jacob had twelve sons. Only two of them were born to Rachel, whom he married out of love: Joseph, now 17 years old and newborn Benjamin. Other sons were from Rachel’s sister Leah and their maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah (Gen 35:23–26).

The father loved most, the firstborn son of his beloved Rachel, and that is why the other ten adult brothers hated Joseph. Jacob distinguished Joseph by a special robe, and the beloved son brought him a bad report about his brothers (Gen 37:2–4). Then Joseph had two dreams. In the first, the sheaves of his eleven brothers are bowing to his own sheaf. He recounts this dream to his brothers and they hate him even more (Gen 37:5–8). In Joseph’s second dream, not just sheaves, but the sun, the moon, and eleven stars are prostrating themselves to him. Joseph recounts this second dream to both his brothers and his father (Gen 37:9–10).2 Now his father loses his patience: “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Will we come, I, your mother, and your brothers, to prostrate ourselves to you to the ground?” (Gen 37:10).Note that Joseph’s mother Rachel has already passed away (Gen 35:19). That means it is physically impossible for her to bow to her son. If so, what is the meaning of this dream?

The Bible says that after this second dream, “his brothers envied him, but his father awaited the matter,” or, literally, “kept the words” (Gen 37:11). He kept in mind the dream of Joseph. Yet, for what purpose? A classical Jewish commentary by the medieval sage Rashi explains: “He was waiting and looking forward in expectation of when it [the fulfillment] would come.” And he rebuked Joseph in the presence of the other sons “because he was bringing hatred upon himself.”3

As to the dilemma regarding Rachel, having passed, Rashi suggests that either “the matters,” in fact, “referred to Bilhah, who had raised him [Joseph] as [if she were] his mother,” or perhaps this was just a “meaningless component” of the dream.4 Perhaps, even the renowned Jewish commentator does not fully understand what to do with this dream where the dead Rachel prostrates herself to Joseph. According to Rashi, Jacob himself did not know that the moon in Joseph’s dream was Bilhah instead of Rachel. But, if so, which fulfillment was Jacob waiting for? If he did not think it was Bilhah instead of Rachel, he would take this dream as utterly unrealizable, because Rachel was dead. In the words of Jacob: “Will we come, I and your mother? . . . Rashi also interprets in the context of the dream’s unreality. In his view, for Jacob it was a way of saying: “Just as it is impossible for your mother, so is the rest meaningless.”5 Thus, it seems that Jacob could not be waiting for this dream to be fulfilled, because he took it as unrealistic, as well as very impudent on the part of Joseph. If so, why did Jacob remember this dream? A man remembers something that impresses or strikes him, so that it is worth further consideration; and he may act upon this consideration.

What does Jacob do afterwards? He sends Joseph to his brothers who went to pasture their father’s flocks. Jacob gives Joseph a seemingly ordinary, but actually very strange commission. Go to Shechem where his brothers are pasturing; see the “welfare of the flock, and bring word back to me.” (Gen 37:14).

What’s wrong with this commission? In fact, almost everything.

Shechem is an unsafe place for Jacob’s sons to pasture.

Earlier, Shechem, the son of Hamor, the prince of the land, saw Dinah, the daughter of Leah, and violated her. For this crime, Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, slew every male in the city (Gen 34:1–31). This means that just to go pasture in Shechem is not a good idea. The locals could spot Jacob’s sons and try to take revenge.

Genesis does not say who decided to pasture there, Jacob or his sons. However, even if this crazy idea came to the minds of his sons, they would scarcely realize it without asking their father’s permission. Curiously, when Joseph came to Shechem, he did not find his brothers, because they had already traveled away (Gen 37:17). Quite possibly, they moved on because they were afraid to stay in Shechem for a long time, feeling danger. The question remains: why take the risk and go to Shechem, if there are also other places available for pasturing? There is Dothan, where the brothers moved from Shechem. Why not go with their flocks to safe Dothan in the first place?

The commission of Jacob is of no practical use.

Young Joseph is much less experienced than his adult brothers. Obviously, this is not their first pasturing far away from home, so they need less supervision, much less than Joseph. If so, why does Jacob decide at this very moment to send Joseph to “just look at his brothers” who hate him more than ever before? Joseph does not bring his brothers any food, or drink, or arms. His task is simply to go a long way across the dangerous territory in order to see if everything is well with his brothers and the cattle, and then take the same long way back. Could Jacob explain to Joseph: your brothers are pasturing in Shechem, and this is a dangerous land, so go and see if all is well with them?

Why doesn’t this explanatory logic work well? First, it is better not to risk one’s life but rather locate another place for pasturing. Second, when Joseph is looking alone for his brothers at Shechem, he would be in much greater danger than his ten adult brothers. Third, Jacob sends Joseph, not to help his brothers, but only to “see” to their welfare. Thus, if Joseph were to find his brothers in danger, he should go the same long way back and inform Jacob that they are in danger; only after that would Jacob send them help. However, during his return and the arrival of help anything might happen to the brothers. They could be removed to another place or simply be killed. That is why there is no sense in sending Joseph first and help, only afterwards. It would be better to send at once several servants who could effectively assist the brothers onsite. If Jacob was truly worrying that the brothers could be assaulted at Shechem, he shouldn’t send Joseph alone to them. Instead, he should send someone else with Joseph for his own safety. However, Jacob did not do that. Even if we agree with some Jewish commentators that Jacob considered Joseph a great righteous man, so that he is not in any danger,6 why tempt the Creator? A righteous man would never cross the street at a red light just because he is righteous. All the more a father would not send his righteous son to take an unnecessary risk without ensuring all precautionary measures. Yet that’s what Jacob did.

It is dangerous for Joseph to meet his brothers in an uninhabited place,
and Jacob knows that.

Jacob sends his son to meet his brothers (who hate him) in a lonely field where they would be virtually alone. This is obviously dangerous for Joseph. Jacob ought to understand that after the last dream it would be better for Joseph to meet his brothers only with others present, so that the brothers would not be tempted to hurt him, nor would Joseph be accosted by others. Accordingly, Jacob ought to keep Joseph close to him until the brothers’ hatred cools. Instead, he sends Joseph to meet them far away, in a lonely field, where nobody else would see them.

We don’t know whether Jacob knew the story of Cain who slew his brother Abel in the field (Gen 4:8). Regardless, Jacob ought to have foreseen a similar course of events. This time not just one brother would rise up against another but ten brothers seized by hatred might rise up against one, being alone in the field. It is quite obvious that they might hurt him. The British Bible commentator Matthew Henry remarks, “Joseph and his father had . . . more of the innocence of the dove than of the wisdom of the serpent, else [Joseph] had never come thus into the hands of those that hated him.”7 A similar explanation was suggested by John Chrysostom: “From day to day” the brothers “deepened their hatred, the fire that burnt secretly within them, without their father or the young man suspecting anything of the kind nor the fact that they were about to proceed to such awful folly.”8 Gordon J. Wenham makes a similar claim: “To judge from the conversation in 37:13, neither Joseph nor Jacob thought he was in danger from the brothers. Jacob was just worried about how his sons and flocks were. . . . Jacob, fearing attacks from outside the family, is apparently blind to the lack of peace within.”9

Such explanations are not simply naïve; in fact, they insult the intellectual abilities of Jacob who previously demonstrated time and again his intellect and wisdom. When commentators and most of the readers see that Joseph’s assignment was dangerous, Jacob, having no less insight, would see it even clearer.

Further, events demonstrate that Joseph most likely understood the danger of this commission as well. An important detail is that he was not to “just go to Shechem, and if your brothers are not there, go back home.” Jacob clearly says, “Go now and see to your brothers’ welfare and the welfare of the flocks, and bring me back word” (Gen 37:14). Thus, Joseph had to return to Jacob with one of two possible answers:

• The brothers (and the flocks) are well.
• The brothers (and the flocks) are not well.

Joseph could not return to Jacob and just say, “The brothers are not in Shechem.” This is not an answer to Jacob’s question. He must tell Jacob not where the brothers are but whether they are well. That is why Joseph had to find the brothers.

Jacob’s reaction to the robe dipped in blood

After the brothers sold Joseph into slavery, they took his robe, slaughtered a goat, dipped the robe in the blood, and brought it to the father saying, “We have found this; now recognize whether it is your son’s robe or not.” (Gen 37:32) The reaction of Jacob to this robe and their words is very strange.

Without asking his sons anything, Jacob announces at once what has
happened, based only on the robe dipped in blood.

Jacob does not just say “yes, I recognize this robe,” but “a wild beast has devoured him.” He states this very positively: “Joseph has surely been torn up” (Gen 37:33). Why is he so positive about that? He did not interrogate his sons; he just saw Joseph’s bloodstained robe and cried at once that his son had been devoured by a beast.

It would have been more reasonable to ask his sons first about the details. Where did they find the robe? Who was there? Did they look for his brother after finding his robe? The sons knew this robe perfectly well; it was one of the reasons for their dislike of Joseph.

Curiously enough, Jacob’s words that “a wild beast has devoured him” are completely identical to what the brothers themselves were saying when they plotted against Joseph: “So now, let us kill him, and we will cast him into one of the pits, and we will say, ‘A wild beast devoured him.’ ” (Gen 37:20) The brothers, however, had not yet told Jacob anything, but rather just showed him the robe. Jacob himself announces exactly what his sons agreed to say in the field. He did not hear them there but for some reason he now repeats them verbatim. It looks as if Jacob announced to everybody at once what had happened, so that he would not force his sons to lie by further interrogations.

Why is Jacob so positive that it was a beast, not a man, and
why is he sure that Joseph has been devoured, not just wounded?

It is not clear why Jacob says it was a beast, and not a man (for example from Shechem) who killed Joseph. Maybe the reason is that a homicide would call for revenge, whereas being devoured by a beast puts an end to the whole story. It is not clear why Jacob is so sure that the beast has devoured Joseph and not just wounded him. Jacob did not see the body or the beast; he did not know any details. His sons told him nothing and he asked them nothing.

Jacob does not command his sons to go find Joseph who might be still
alive nor does he command them to find his corpse in order to bury him.

What would be a natural reaction of a father who sees the bloodstained robe of his son? He would be full of fright but still would hope his son to be alive, maybe wounded, but alive. That is why Jacob would not just interrogate his sons, but immediately give an order to them, as well as the servants, to run and look for Joseph, who might lie somewhere wounded waiting for help. However, Jacob does not do that. Neither does he command them to go and find Joseph’s corpse, although it is a sacred duty to bury the corpse by the end of the day (Deut 21:23). Even if they could not find the dead in time, by sunset they should nonetheless make the attempt. The explanation might be found in the second dream of Joseph, where his dead mother prostrates herself to him. The father rebuked Joseph for this dream and “awaited the matter” (Gen 37:10–11). Immediately after that Jacob begins to act strangely toward his beloved son.

What could Jacob see in this dream?

If we have a dream in which living people bow to a person, as it was in the first dream, this is clear enough: it means that this person will rule over someone (or strive to do so). It is another matter with the dead. They are in the world of souls in close proximity to the Creator; thus, they can only worship him. Could Jacob have thought that he was too indulgent to Joseph, so that Joseph wished to be a god to whom both the living and the dead would bow? Indeed, what could Jacob think when he learned about that dream? He could not take this dream as prophetic because neither alive or dead would [Jacob] prostrate to a man. Jacob’s own reaction shows that he could not even imagine that anything like this would ever happen. Jacob might think that this dream was not God-given. However, a person often sees in dreams a reflection of waking thoughts. Jacob might conclude that Joseph began to think about himself as a god, and this had been reflected in his dreams. This would be a scary thought for the father. Such a sin of Joseph would be idolatry. Should Jacob not appropriately deal with this matter, God just might avert his face from the house of Jacob. That is why the father of Joseph had to do something; he couldn’t just sit and watch, especially since he had been indulgent to Joseph. Jacob surely knew the test given by God to Abraham: namely, to sacrifice
his beloved son Isaac in order to demonstrate his loyalty (Gen 22:1–19).

Now Jacob recognizes that his own beloved son aims at being God. Jacob could easily take it as another test from heaven: whom does he love more and whom will he side with?: his beloved son who believes himself a god, or the Creator? In such a situation Jacob would certainly choose God and sacrifice his beloved son. That is why he quite possibly would give up Joseph.

There is one more analogy. God promised to Abraham that his seed (that is, the descendants of Isaac) will be as numerous as the stars (Gen 15:5). Then suddenly God orders Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. What about the seed? This is the very essence of the trial: to trust God despite all irrationality. Jacob could believe that God was giving him a similar test. Rashi remarks that Jacob had a sign from God: if none of his sons would die within his lifetime, he would not see the face of Gehinnom (Gehenna).10 Now one of his sons falls into idolatry. This is not physical, but spiritual death. What should he do? Should he close his eyes to Joseph’s sin, hoping to gain the promised lot for himself? This would be unfair, and one cannot deceive God. Thus, Jacob, in order to prove his loyalty to God, had to sacrifice not only Joseph, but also his destiny after death, just as Abraham was ready to sacrifice his promised seed. Jacob could be wrong in his assumptions regarding Joseph, but his motive would be to deliberately abandon everything — his beloved son and his destiny after death — in order to demonstrate his faithfulness to God.

One could argue that the Creator did not tell Jacob directly what he is expected to do, as he did with Abraham. In that case, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his innocent son. Here it seems that Jacob’s beloved son has already fallen into sin. Thus, Jacob could believe that God says nothing to him because he wants to see how Jacob would react to his beloved son’s “idolatry.” This could also explain the strange behavior of Jacob after the loss of his son. Scripture further says:

And Jacob rent his garments, and he put sackcloth on his loins, and he mourned for his son many days. And all his sons and all his daughters arose to console him, but he refused to be consoled, for he said, ‘Because I will descend on account of my son as a mourner to the grave’; and his father wept for him (Gen 37:34—35).

Some take the words “and he mourned for his son” to mean that Jacob mourned for Joseph. However, Rashi interprets them differently, as meaning that Isaac “was weeping over Jacob’s distress.”11 The Jewish sages further explain that Isaac did not mourn the death of Joseph because he had a revelation from God and knew that Joseph was alive.12 That is why Isaac wept only over Jacob’s distress. However, Joseph, sold to slavery, was in no less distress. Why did Isaac not weep over the grave situation of Joseph? Perhaps it was because he considered only Jacob an aggrieved person because his son had fallen into idolatry.

Jacob refused to be consoled after the death of Joseph. Jewish commentators note that this is unusual, because after the appropriate days of mourning one should move forward.13 Jacob does not do that. Rashi explains that Jacob could not be consoled because “[n]o
one accepts consolation for a person who is really alive but believed to be dead, for it is decreed that a dead person should be forgotten from the heart, but not a living person.”14 The orthodox rabbi Meir Muchnik, referring to another Jewish sage, Netsiv, considers another explanation: Jacob could not be consoled because he possibly began to doubt the righteousness of Joseph only after his alleged death. Indeed, if Joseph had been devoured by a wild beast, it means that in fact he wasn’t righteous.15 Rabbi Muchnik disagrees; the actual reason was that Joseph seemingly perished spiritually, and this was indeed a capital failure.According to Rabbi Muchnik, Jacob might have known that Joseph was alive, but did nothing to find him exactly for this reason:

Why did Jacob not try to find Joseph? . . . This is not at the world’s end. Egypt is nearby. . . .
The answer seems to be this: as we have concluded, the main “loss” was not just Joseph himself, but his righteousness. Jacob doubted whether Joseph was indeed the saint he seemed to be, whether he managed to bring him up rightly. If actually he didn’t — even if Joseph is alive, so what? Now he is like Esau, who is also alive but lost for the Jewish people. That Joseph, who was a righteous saint, was dead — or maybe didn’t even exist?16

In the same article Rabbi Muchnik mentions some hints in Torah that the brothers suspected Joseph was in danger of idolatry.

“Behold, that dreamer is coming” — they said contemptuously (Genesis 37:19). The Jewish sages interpret this as . . . “this one will lead us to [the idols of] Baal.” They had seen in Joseph the germ of inclination to idolatry.17

Maybe Jacob and the brothers began to doubt indeed the righteousness of Joseph and suspected him of idolatry, but was this before his “death”?

Later, during the times of hunger, when Joseph held Simeon in Egypt and commanded the brothers to bring Benjamin, Jacob says to his ten sons: “You have bereaved me — Joseph is gone, and Simeon is gone, and you want to take Benjamin!” (Gen 42:36). This suggests that Jacob knew about the involvement of the brothers in the death (disappearance) of Joseph. He knew, but, once again, did nothing to find him.

Still later, when the sons tell him that Joseph is alive, Jacob refuses to believe them: “and his heart changed, for he did not believe them.” (Gen 45:26) The words “his heart changed” (literally recoiled, or withdrew) may suggest that he was scared. It would seem that a father would rejoice and hasten to check whether his beloved son is alive, but Jacob does not hasten and apparently does not believe. Further, when Jacob meets Joseph in Egypt, he does not fall on his neck and weep. Only Joseph falls on the father’s neck and weeps for a long time, but not vice versa (Gen 46:29). Jewish commentators suggest that Jacob did not fall on the neck of Joseph, did not weep and kiss him, because in his mind he was reciting the Shema.18 However, perhaps he was considering whether he understood rightly the second dream of Joseph?

If Jacob took this decision regarding Joseph, why did he do it through his sons, involving them in the sin of homicide (or selling to slavery, which by then standards was almost the same)? The point is that Jacob and at least some of his sons could perceive it not as a sin, but as an act of zealous love to God, a reproof to idolatry, and passing the test sent from heaven.

Another possible suggestion is that Jacob had no intention to involve his sons (at least all of them) in his plans. The text is silent on the formation of a plot of Jacob with all his sons. This is demonstrated by the behavior of Reuben who wanted to “save [Joseph] from their hand[s], to return him to his father.” (Gen 37:22) It could be the case that Jacob did not send his sons to pasture in Shechem accidentally, and the sons did not coincidenrally move to another place. This would mean Jacob did something similar to what David did to Uriah when he sent him to “the forefront of the fiercest battle . . . so that he will be hit and will die.” (2 Sam 11:15) Jacob could have ordered his sons to go to Shechem and move after a while to another place, without telling them his intention. Then he sent Joseph to Shechem. He could have assumed that young Joseph, looking for his brothers in Shechem after they had already moved from there, could encounter some locals who could recognize him as a son of Jacob and would want to wreak vengeance upon him. Then, in order to avoid revenge on the people of Shechem, one could announce that Joseph had been devoured by a wild beast. Even later, if it became clear that it was somebody from Shechem instead of a wild beast, one could claim that it was divine punishment to Joseph for his idolatry. Moreover, his brothers, who hated Joseph, would scarcely hasten to avenge his death.

Indeed, Joseph wandered in Shechem, looking for his brothers, by himself, exposed to danger.

Then a man found him, and behold, he was straying in the field, and the man asked him, saying, ‘What are you looking for?’ And he said, ‘I am looking for my brothers.’ (Gen 37:15–16)

[Joseph did not run into this man; the man found him.]

‘Tell me now, where are they pasturing?’ said Joseph. And the man said, ‘They have traveled away from here, for I overheard them say, Let us go to Dothan.’ So Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dothan. (Gen 37:16–17)

The role of this unknown man in this story is extremely important. It is as though he stands at the crossroad and directs the story to another path. Who is this man? An oral tradition in Judaism maintains that it was the angel Gabriel.19 If so, God himself interfered in the course of events by sending his angel.

Joseph could not leave Shechem because he did not know his brothers’ whereabouts. He also could not return to his father without information about the brothers, whether they were well. Without Gabriel’s assistance he would have no other choice but to keep looking for his brothers in Shechem, running the risk of violence from the locals. However, Gabriel helps Joseph and he finds his brothers in Dothan. Seeing him from far away, they begin to plot against him: “So now, let us kill him, and we will cast him into one of the pits, and we will say, ‘A wild beast devoured him.’ ” (Gen 37:20) Let us accentuate once again: it seems very strange that Jacob, as soon as he sees Joseph’s bloodstained robe, immediately repeats the same words: “a wild beast has devoured him.” (Gen 37:33) The text does not specify who of the brothers pronounces these words in the field. However, it was Judah who suggested to the brothers that it would be better not to leave Joseph in the pit but instead sell him to the Ishmaelites (Gen 37:27).

Commenting on the next chapter of Genesis, Rashi says: “Judah had deceived his father with the kid in whose blood he immersed Joseph’s coat.”20 In this regard, one should recall that in Genesis and the oral Jewish tradition Judah and Joseph are considered the leading forces of the Jewish people and are often contrasted one to another.21 Professor Aleksander Lopukhin remarks: “Tradition says that the suggestion to kill Joseph came from either Simeon and Levi (cf. the bloodshed in Shechem) or from Simeon alone; in the latter case this also explains why it was Simeon who Joseph left as a hostage in Egypt
(Gen 42:24).”22 Also, quite possibly there could be a conspiracy of Jacob and Judah and/or Simeon and/or Levi: if Joseph managed to find the brothers, they would cast him into a pit or sell him to slavery and bring to the father his bloodstained robe, thus causing the father to react the way he did. Once again, for Jacob and his sons it could seem as the only proper response to Joseph’s “idolatry,” which could turn God’s grace away from the house of Jacob.

Joseph in Egypt and his treatment of his brothers

When Joseph was a high-ranking person in Egypt, he named his firstborn “Manasseh, for ‘God has caused me to forget all my toil and all in my father’s house.’” (Gen 41:51). Why not just brothers? “All my father’s house” also includes the father himself. Maybe Joseph felt offended by his father because of being sent to this risky venture of finding his brothers? This would also explain why during nine years after being released from prison Joseph did not attempt to contact Jacob. The behavior of Joseph after his brothers came to Egypt is no less strange than the previous events after his second dream. Ten brothers who sold Joseph now came to him. Jacob did not permit the youngest one, Benjamin, to go with them to Egypt. Joseph asks the brothers whether they have a father and a brother; they tell him the detail (Gen 42:1–13). Thereafter Joseph accuses them of espionage, keeps Simeon in prison, and sends the other brothers home with the command to bring him Benjamin. He says that without the eleventh brother they will not receive either Simeon or grain next time (Gen 42:14–20).

Jewish commentators say that Joseph wanted to realize the two dreams, which were as a blueprint from God, so that its implementation would help the house of Jacob. That is why for the realization of the first dream the eleventh brother had to bow to Joseph too.23 However, Joseph could not realize the second dream under any circumstances. Even if Jacob would prostrate himself to him, his mother wouldn’t. And it is doubtful that Joseph would substitute Bilhah for his mother, as some commentators suggest. Thus, Joseph keeps Simeon in order to make the brothers bring Benjamin. After they return with Benjamin, Joseph orders his servants to put his goblet in Benjamin’s sack. His purpose is to accuse Benjamin of theft and keep him in Egypt (Gen 44:1–17). Some commentators, again in the context of Joseph’s dreams and their realization, suggest that for Joseph this was the way to implement his second dream. The point is that if Joseph would keep Benjamin as his slave, this would force Jacob to come to Joseph in order to liberate Benjamin. However, such an artful plan is completely superfluous. Further events demonstrate that Joseph could simply tell his brothers to go bring his father (Gen 45:13). On the other hand, if Jacob learned about Benjamin’s slavery, he could die and would never come to Egypt. Also, even if Jacob would come to Egypt to liberate Benjamin, would he also bring Bilhah with him? She is of no use in rescuing Benjamin from slavery. Thus, the suggestion that for Joseph this was the way of implementing his second dream obviously falls short.

Another interpretation is that Joseph is testing his brothers’ attitude toward Benjamin. This interpretation, however, does not take into account that this “test” of the brothers was absolutely merciless to Jacob, who would suffer the most because of this pseudo-trial. The reader of the Bible should ask: what is the attitude of Joseph toward his father at the moment when his brothers come to Egypt? If Joseph has no grudge against Jacob but only warm filial feelings, why does he inflict two crushing blows to the mental (and physical) health of his father? First, one of Jacob’s sons does not return from Egypt, being enslaved there. What would Jacob feel upon hearing about the slavery of Simeon? The second blow is even worse: the entire house of Jacob could die of starvation if the father refuses to permit Benjamin to go to the “ruler” of Egypt who has already imprisoned Simeon. In other words, Joseph gives to his father a hard choice: either die of starvation or run the risk of losing the second beloved son, the last one from Rachel.

Why torture his old and innocent father? These decisions look like revenge rather than love. Let us recall that the initial intention of Joseph was even more terrible: to keep all brothers in prison except the one to be sent to fetch Benjamin (Gen 42:16). Such a message could be insufferable for Jacob. After three days of consideration Joseph probably reaches the same conclusion and softens his requirements (Gen 42:17–19).

If Joseph had no grudge against Jacob, however, he would not resort to these tortures. Any “trials” of the brothers are not worth the tears of the old father, especially while the entire house of Jacob is threatened by famine. Indeed, Joseph could easily disclose himself to his brothers at once and ask them to bring their father and the entire family, just as he did eventually (Gen 45:3–13). Yet, Joseph does not do that.

The fact that Joseph deliberately neglects the feelings of his father is confirmed by the words of Judah:

And we said to my lord, ‘The boy cannot leave his father, for if he leaves his father, he will die.’ And you said to your servants, ‘If your youngest brother does not come down with you, you will not see my face again.’ (Gen 44:22–23)

Joseph would rather save Benjamin than Jacob’s health or even life.

The wording of Joseph’s sentence is also remarkable: “The man in whose possession the goblet was found he shall be my slave, but as for you, go up in peace to your father.” (Gen 44:17)In other words, “Now Benjamin will remain here, and you may go to your father. Good-bye!” Joseph does not say that they should return with their father, nor indeed whether they may return at all. He seemingly has no interest in this. Such manipulations are too complicated and cruel toward Jacob to be performed only to “test” the brothers. It seems that Joseph wants only Benjamin. Why? Maybe because only Benjamin was not guilty in his sufferings, whereas Joseph believed that the father and the ten brothers shared this guilt. That’s why he felt offended by them and would like to see face to face only the guiltless one. At the same time, Joseph ordered his servants to fill the sacks of his brothers with food and money (Gen 44:1). However, it may be

that his thinking was: “Well, you and my father sold me; that means, you don’t need me. Okay, let’s live separately; I give you food and money and wish you good luck.”

Joseph’s behavior changed only after Judah expressed his willingness to sacrifice himself for Benjamin (Gen 44:18–34). Only after that does Joseph reveal himself to them and ask “Is my father still alive?” (Gen 45:3). Why does Joseph ask this just after Judah said that the father is alive? It looks like only now does Joseph accept his father again by calling him “my father,” and he finally forgives everybody. Only now does Joseph begin to hasten his brothers to bring their father to Egypt. This suggests that until this moment he did not plan to move his father there and needed only Benjamin.

Joseph’s grievance could also have obstructed his understanding of the truth that he tells his brothers immediately after giving them pardon: everything comes from God, so don’t be sad (Gen 45:5–8). Joseph could understand this clearly only after freeing himself from the grievance that did not let God’s revelation come to him.

It is noteworthy that when Jacob dies, the brothers become frightened of Joseph’s revenge and send him a message asking him to forgive them. Later on they say to him that they are his slaves; however, Joseph’s reply is: “Do not be afraid! For am I in the place of God?” (Gen 50:19).24 He could have said “Don’t be afraid, for I fear God and will do nothing to you.” Rather, he says, “I am not in the place of God, responding to a question they didn’t ask, yet not denying an idolatrous bent.

Interpretation of the second dream

As to the second dream, it seems that it is not related at all to the meeting of the brothers and Jacob with Joseph in Egypt. To begin with, the scenery of this dream is situated in heaven (Gen 37:9) not earth (as with the sheaves), so that it may relate to the spiritual sphere. Also, Rachel is already dead (Gen 35:19) and cannot prostrate herself. There is no special need to substitute Bilhah for Rachel, because this dream is not realized as related to the father as well as the mother. Jacob did not prostrate himself to Joseph in Egypt. When they met the first time in Egypt, Joseph fell on Jacob’s neck but Jacob did not bow to Joseph (Gen 46:29). When Joseph brought Jacob to Pharaoh, Jacob did not bow either (Gen 47:7–10). When Joseph swore to bury Jacob in the land of his forefathers, Jacob “prostrated himself on the head of the bed,” but did not prostrate himself to Joseph. When Joseph came to Jacob with his sons for blessing, Jacob did not prostrate himself to him; instead, Joseph prostrated himself to the ground before Jacob (Gen 48:1–22). Finally, when Jacob gathered all his sons before his death, he also did not bow to Joseph (Genesis 49:1–33).

Only the first dream of Joseph, is related to hunger. The second one has a different kind of meaning. Most likely, it portrays Joseph as a prototype of Messiah, before whom the living and the dead will bow. Jacob, however, could not know this, and that is why this dream could displease him so much that he decided, “for Heaven’s sake,” to sacrifice his beloved son who had fallen into grave sin.

Let us sum up the story of Joseph

The father deliberately sends his beloved son to his brothers for death. Israel and his sons rise against Joseph because he pictures himself as God, which they perceive as a terrible idolatry. It is noteworthy that the key complaint of the Israelites against Yeshua was precisely that he called himself God (the Son of God). For a Jew, such a claim was unthinkable by definition. He was asked during his trial, “Are you the Son of God?” (Luke 22:70) This was the decisive reason for the death sentence (John 19:7). The stories of Joseph and Yeshua are similar in that both were accused of idolatry, particularly that each of them self-portrays as God, although in the story of Joseph this is not as obvious, due to other overshadowing factors. Jacob and his sons knew nothing about Daniel chapter 7, as this book did not yet exist, nor did other prophecies hint that God could become incarnated in a man. That is why their suspicion about Joseph’s idolatry after he dreamed that both the living and the dead will prostrate themselves before him is quite reasonable. It would be strange if they would take it otherwise.

Initially, Joseph becomes a king over Gentiles, whereas his brothers and Israel come under his rule only after 22 years of separation. Israel (Jacob) and his sons come to Joseph because they suffer from hunger and only Joseph can remedy it (Gen 42:1–6). This is a reunion of the house of Israel with Joseph. Does this remind you that Messiah has been initially recognized as the king and deliverer by Gentiles, whereas the house of Israel has not returned to him definitively for 2000 years? The ruler of Egypt was considered by the sons of Jacob [or Israel] as a source of danger but turned out to be their brother and the source of salvation. It could be the same with Messiah. The brothers of Joseph considered the ruler of Egypt who sold them grain a source of danger for them. This is not surprising because this ruler accused them of spying and framed the youngest brother in order to keep him in Egypt (Gen 42:9–20). However, at the last moment, totally unexpectedly for the brothers, the source of danger turned out to be the source of their salvation in the time of starvation. It could be the same with Messiah. Traditional Jews themselves often recognize that in the “latter days” this transformation of “enemy” into “brother” is possible.

Rabbi Muchnik expresses:

What was the end of Jacob’s troubles? Suddenly — again, unexpectedly — the news came: Joseph is alive! And he appeared just where it seemed to be the source of all the latest woes. . . . So, our expulsion will end in a similar way. It is not known how exactly this will happen, but it will also happen suddenly. Salvation may come from where it was not expected, possibly even from the main source of woes, whatever this could mean.25

Those who believe in Messiah know what it means. The similarity of the path of Joseph’s life and the historical path of Messiah is indeed extraordinary. This underscores again that the story of Yeshua is deeply embedded within the life of Joseph, the book of Genesis and the entire Bible.

---

• 1 The oral tradition of Orthodox Judaism says that two Messiahs will come one after another: Mashiach ben Joseph (Messiah son of Joseph) and Mashiach ben David (Messiah son of David). The first will be from the tribe of Joseph, will appear for the first time in the mountains of Galilee and will suffer a violent death. See, e.g., Brakha Guberman, “Mashiach: Epoch and Man,” https://toldot.com/articles/articles_827.html (Russian translation from Hebrew). Here are some quotes from rabbinic literature on Mashiach ben Yosef:

  “Mashiach ben Yosef will appear four years earlier than Mashiach ben David” (Midrash Tehillim, 60); “Mashiach ben Yosef will die at the hands of the many goyim who came to war against Jerusalem” (Maharsha Sukkah 52:1). “After the death of Mashiach ben Yosef, there will be a period of misfortune for the people of Israel.” (“Shvilei Emunah,” Ch. 10, para. 1). This multiplication of Messiahs is probably related to the fact that Jewish commentators could not combine all prophecies related to Messiah in one person. On the one hand, the prophecies say that Messiah will be killed; on the other hand, he will become King. The commentators did not suppose that this dilemma could be solved by the resurrection of Messiah and his second coming as King.

  2 Hereafter the Bible quoted is the English translation of The Jewish Bible with Rashi’s Commentary, edited by Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg, https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Tanakh/Rishonim%20on%20Tanakh/Rashi.

• 2

• 3 Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 37:10–11, www.sefaria.org/Genesis.37.10?lang=bi&with=Rashi&lang2=en.

• 4 Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 37:10–11.

• 5 Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 37:10–11.

• 6 “Jacob was sure that Joseph is righteous, and a great righteous man is protected by his merits from both dangerous beasts and men” — Rabbi Meir Muchnik, “Joseph and Jehuda — intelligentsia and power,” https://toldot.com/blogs/muchnik/muchnik_3159.html (original in Russian).

• 7 https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/genesis/37.html

• 8 The Fathers of the Church, vol. 87, St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 46—67 (The Catholic University of America Press, 1992), 191.

• 9 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis, Word Biblical Commentary (Thomas Nelson, 1987), 353.

• 10 https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.37.35?ven=The_Rashi_chumash_by_Rabbi_Shraga_Silverstein&lang=bi &aliyot=0, Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 37:35.

• 11 Ibid, https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.37.35?ven=The_Rashi_chumash_by_Rabbi_Shraga_Silverstein&lang=bi &aliyot=0, Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 37:35.

• 12 Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 37:35.

• 13 Rabbi Meir Muchnik, “Joseph and Jehuda — intelligentsia and power,

• 14 https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.37.35?ven=The_Rashi_chumash_by_Rabbi_Shraga_Silverstein&lang=bi &aliyot=0, Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 37:35.

• 15 Rabbi Meir Muchnik, “Joseph and Jehuda — intelligentsia and power.”

• 16 Ibid, Rabbi Meir Muchnik, “Joseph and Jehuda — intelligentsia and power.”

• 17 Rabbi Meir Muchnik, “Joseph and Jehuda — intelligentsia and power.”

• 18 https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.45.29?ven=The_Rashi_chumash_by_Rabbi_Shraga_Silverstein&lang=bi &aliyot=0, Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 45:29.

• 19 Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 37:15.

• 20 https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.38.23?ven=The_Rashi_chumash_by_Rabbi_Shraga_Silverstein&lang=bi &aliyot=0, Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 38:23.

• 21 Rabbi Meir Muchnik, “Joseph and Jehuda — intelligentsia and power.”

• 22 Aleksander Lopukhin. Explanatory Bible. Commentary to Genesis 37. https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Lopuhin/tolkovaja_biblija_01/37 (original in Russian)

• 23 Lecture of Rabbi Benzion Zilber “Dreams and the rise of Joseph,” https://toldot.com/tv/video/video_30668.html (original in Russian)

• 24 The Five Books of Moses, trans. Everett Fox (Schocken, 1995), 237.

• 25 Rabbi Meir Muchnik, “Joseph and our expulsion — the lost luggage”, https://toldot.com/blogs/muchnik/muchnik_3146.html (original in Russian)