Joseph is a type for the Mashiyach and Judah is the name under which ethnic Israel would one day be conjoined. 44:1 Then he instructed the one over his household saying, “Fill the men’s sacks with as much food as they are able to lift and put silver in the mouth of each man’s sack. 2 Place my cup, the silver cup, in the mouth of the sack of the youngest, along with his grain and silver.” So he did as Yosef (YHVH: Mercy adds) told him.
The Targum Yonatan once again asserts that the “One over his house” is Manasseh. Joseph had sought to prove his brothers in many ways, during their first trip to Egypt and then during the meal he provided for them upon their return with Benjamin. However, he seems determined to seek confirmation of the brothers’ repentant spirit by placing them in a position where they will have to choose either to fight for a son of Rachel (Benjamin), or flee in order to save themselves. The returning of the silver is of no real practical consequence, given that this has been done previously. However, each time Joseph returns the silver to his brothers he is leaving a clue to the ruse. After all, they had received 20 pieces of silver as his purchase price when they sold Joseph into slavery (37:18-28). What makes this plot more convincing is the addition of the personal sacred item. The cup in question may have been similar in appearance to other sacred goblets used in divination and occult practices. It is clearly symbolic of Joseph’s authority and is an intimate object that touches the mouth: the domain of speech, food, kissing etc. It is obviously a cup he drinks from regularly. 3 In the morning light, the men were sent off, they and their donkeys. 4 They left the city and had not gone far, when Yosef said to the one over his household, “Arise, run after the men. When you catch up to them, say to them, “Why have you repaid ra’ah evil for good? “Get up, chase after the men while the fear of the city is still upon them.” -Tanchuma Joseph was clearly using the awe of the city and the proximity of his power to help inspire fear in his brothers. If the one over Joseph’s house had waited until the brothers were outside of the city they may have felt that they were a safe distance away and simply made their escape. The charge “Why have you repaid evil for good” is a heavy accusation in the culture of the Middle East. Hospitality is paramount and any suggestion that hospitality has been disrespected in any way is often seen as being a greater offense than petty crimes like stealing. 5 Isn’t this the one (cup) from which adonaiy my lord drinks? He even uses it to nachash y’nachash diligently observe by divination (observe a hissing snake). This is ha-reiotem the evil that you’ve fashioned!” 6 Thus he had caught up to them and spoken these words to them. An ancient Jewish translation of the Tanakh called the Septuagint offers evidence that a second question “Why have you stolen my silver goblet?” was once included in the Hebrew text at the end of verse 4. This helps us make sense of the fact that the Hebrew “Kos” (Cup) is not used in verse 5. The phrase “From which my lord drinks” is meant to inspire terror in the hearers. The cup of a king was sacred property and the stealing of it was a direct slight against the one in authority of the entire land of Egypt. The use of the Hebrew “ha-reiotem” from the root “ra’ah”, meaning evil, is interesting. It is used twice in as many verses and carries the core meaning of the accusation against the brothers. First in verse 4 it is said “Why have you repaid ra’ah evil for tovah good?” Then again here in verse 5 we read “This is ha-reiotem the evil that you’ve fashioned”. When added to the double use of the Hebrew “Nachash” meaning “hiss, divine, snake, divination, observe diligently etc.”, the twofold ruse of Joseph is illuminated against the double sin of his brothers. They first threw him into a pit in order to kill him and then sold him into slavery. Joseph has thrown them into a pit (during their first visit to Egypt) and is now placing them in a position where the only means of saving the life of Benjamin and their own lives is to submit to slavery. It is important to remember that the reference to divination does not mean that Joseph practiced divination. In order for Joseph to live and work in Egypt he must have possessed cultural items and objects of authority and items that others associated with Egyptian worship that were simply part everyday life for one who was associated with the Egyptian monarchy. All of this is a ruse. Later when Joseph claims to know things by divination he is simply playing a part. What is clear from the story of Joseph is that he was a devote worshipper of HaShem and it is therefore unlikely that he ever literally practiced divination, which is considered an act of rebellion against God. (Lev. 19:12; Numbers 23:23; Deut. 18:10-11). 7 They said to him, “Why are you saying these things my lord? Far be it from your servants to fashion such a thing as this. 8 Look, the silver we found in the mouths of our sacks, we brought back to you from the land of K’naan (humility, lowland). So how could we steal silver or gold from your lord’s house? 9 Whoever among your servants is found with it, let him die! And also, we’ll become my lord’s slaves.” The first response of the brothers is an emotional one, charged with incredulity. However, they follow this with what is known in the Talmud as a kal vachomer [a.) a deduction from minor to major b.) by extrapolation we know; all the more so]. The brothers are so sure that none of them have stolen the goblet, that they proclaim a death curse over the thief and slavery for themselves if it is proven to be true. It is no coincidence that death and slavery were the very things that the brothers intended to inflict on Joseph. 10 “Now let it be according to your words,” he said. “He with whom it is found shall be my slave, and the rest of you shall be n’kiym clean (innocent, exempt).” The one over Joseph’s house accepts the spirit in which the brothers have spoken but does not insist on a literal adherence to their oath. Rather he counters by proposing the enslavement of the guilty party who he knows to be Benjamin (Though not truly guilty). This is an additional test to prove the brothers. They are being offered the opportunity to leave the guilty party behind and save themselves. Joseph clearly believes that if his brothers still hold animosity toward the sons of Rachel that they will take the opportunity to be rid of Benjamin and escape Egypt with their lives intact. However, if they choose to stay and defend Benjamin, Joseph will know that they are truly repentant. It’s interesting to note that the one over Joseph’s house says “He with whom it is found will be my slave”. This would be a preposterous thing for a servant to say. A slave may work under another slave but he is never the property of that slave. This lends credence to the idea that the one speaking here is Manasseh the son of Joseph who holds authority in Joseph’s house as his first born, and is therefore qualified to speak this way. 11 Then each man hurriedly lowered his sack to the ground and each man opened his sack. 12 He searched them beginning with the eldest and finishing with the youngest, and the cup was found in Benyamin’s sack. 13 Then they tore their clothing, and each one loaded up his donkey and they returned to the city. The speedy response of the brothers shows their belief in their innocence. The man over Joseph’s house searches methodically from eldest to youngest so as to make it appear that he has no idea where the cup might be. According to the Midrash the brothers were being punished measure for measure. Just as they had sent Joseph’s blood stained coat home to Jacob and he had torn his garment in grief, so too they were tearing their garments at the thought of Benjamin’s slavery and the affect that it would have on Jacob. The tearing of garments is a significant Hebraic sign of grief over a lost loved one. The brothers were grieving, not only for Benjamin and Jacob but also for the potential death of the burgeoning nation of Israel. 14 When Y’hudah (Praise) and his brothers entered Yosef’s house, he was still there. They fell to the ground before him. 15 “What’s this deed you’ve done?” Yosef said to them, “Didn’t you know that a man like me can discern by divination?” Joseph’s allusion to divination is obviously part of the ruse. The phrase “A man like me” is intended to promote his Egyptian disguise and affirm his power over them. Joseph is a devote worshipper of HaShem and does not practice divination. This is now the second time Joseph’s first dream has been fulfilled (Gen 37:9). Hebrew prophecy has a cyclical nature and is often fulfilled multiple times. 16 Then Y’hudah said, “What can we say to my lord? What words can we speak? How can we justify ourselves? Ha-Elohiym The God has exposed the iniquity of your servants’. We are now my lord’s slaves—both we as well as the one in whose hand the cup was found.” Though Judah knows that he and his brothers are innocent (Perhaps with the exception of Benjamin), He doesn’t attempt to defend himself, nor does he place the blame on Benjamin. Instead he says, “The God has exposed the iniquity of your servants (plural)”. Judah is clearly making confession concerning the brothers’ greater sin of selling their brother Joseph into slavery. 17 But he said, “Far be it from me to do this. The one in whose hand the cup was found—he will be my slave. But you, go up to your father in peace.” Joseph pushes Judah further by saying “The one in whose hand the cup was found—he will be my slave. But you, go up to your father in peace.” This is his final proving of his brothers. Will they take the opportunity to finally be rid of Rachel’s sons? Or, will they show true repentance and join themselves to Benjamin in brotherly loyalty and honour. (Parashat Vayigash) And Draw Near 18 Then Y’hudah approached him and said, “I plead for your pardon, my lord. Please let your slave say a word in my lord’s ears, and don’t be angry with your slave, since you are like Pharaoh (Great House). The Hebrew phrase “Va-Yiggash,” translated here as “approached” also appears in the introduction to Avraham’s petition on behalf of the righteous of Sodom (Gen. 18:23). There are also similarities between Judah’s petition and that of Moses on behalf of Israel at Sinai (Exodus 32:9-14). However, while his offer is substitutionary, unlike Moses, Judah is not without guilt. Judah knew that his petition to trade places with Benjamin might be seen as letting Benjamin off the hook and therefore could be offensive to the Egyptian ruler (Joseph). Judah also intended to remind the viceroy (Joseph) of the fact that he had requested Benjamin’s presence despite the protests of the brothers. This is why he asked that the viceroy (Joseph) not be angered by what he was about to say. This self-sacrificing stance of Judah shows his strength of conviction and his willingness to be held accountable before God for his sin. 19 My lord asked his servants saying, ‘Do you have a father or a brother?’ 20 So we said to my lord, ‘We have a father who is old, a child born to him in his old age is katan little. Now his brother is dead, so he is the only one of his mother’s children left, and his father loves him.’ 21 Then you said to your servants, ‘Bring him down to me so that I can look at him.’ There is no problem with the description of Benjamin using the Hebrew katan, meaning little, small, young etc. Judah’s words are referencing what was said during their last visit and it is likely that enough time had passed since the brothers last came to Egypt for Benjamin to have matured in size and appearance. Benjamin is at least 20 years old when these events take place, given that Joseph is now approximately 40 years (Gen. 37:2; 41:46, 53). By reminding Pharaoh’s viceroy (Joseph) of his passed enquiries, Judah appears to be calling attention to the obvious inconsistencies in the events leading up to the discovery of the cup. Implicit in his recounting of events is his belief that something is not right with the situation that has arisen. 22 But we said to my lord, ‘The boy cannot leave his father. If he were to leave his father, he would die.’ 23 Then you said to your servants, ‘Unless your youngest brother comes down with you, you won’t see my face again.’ 24 “Now when we went up to your servant, my father, we told him my lord’s words. 25 Then our father said, ‘Go back, buy us a little grain for food.’ 26 So we said, ‘We won’t go down unless we have our youngest brother with us—then we’ll go down. For we won’t see the man’s face unless our youngest brother is with us.’ 27 “Then your servant my father said to us, ‘You yourselves know that my wife bore me two sons. 28 One went out from me, so I said, “He must have been torn to shreds,” and I haven’t seen him since. Verses 27-28 further illuminate the communication between Jacob and his sons which was recorded in Gen. 43:6-7. The Torah is often brief in one place and expansive in another. This kind of illuminated repetition helps the reader to retain small details that might otherwise be forgotten. 29 And if you also take this one away from before me and an accident happens to him, then you’ll bring my grey hair down to the evil of Sheol.’ 30 “Now if I come to your servant my father and the boy isn’t with us, since his v’nafsho soul life is bound to his b’nafsho soul life, 31 when he sees that the boy is no more, he’ll die. Then your servants will bring the grey hair of your servant our father down to Sheol in grief. The use of the Hebrew “nephesh”, meaning soul life, denotes a strong intimate relational connection between Jacob and Benjamin. The same word is used in 1 Samuel 18:1 where it describes Yonatan’s friendship with David. Judah is unwittingly accusing the viceroy of Egypt (Joseph) of killing his own father. Thus Joseph is emotionally challenged within his own ruse. 32 For your servant became surety (An exchange) for the boy with my father when I said, ‘If I don’t bring him back to you, I will bear the blame before my father all my days.’ 33 So now, please let your slave remain as my lord’s slave in the boy’s place, and let the boy go up with his brothers. 34 For how can I go up to my father and the boy is not with me? Otherwise I would see the va’rah evil that would come upon my father!” With a contrite heart Judah offers himself as a slave to the viceroy (Joseph), not knowing that the man who stands before him is the brother he had once sold into slavery. This is a wonderful prophetic allegory for the ethnic people of Israel and her redemption through Messiah at the end of the age. Joseph is a type for the Mashiyach and Judah is the name under which ethnic Israel would one day be conjoined. Thus, just as Judah and his brothers sold Joseph into metaphorical death, so too Israel sold Yeshua into death. But the story doesn’t end there. The day is coming when like Judah, the ethnic Jewish people will come with contrite hearts and gaze upon the One Whom we have pierced, and in repentance through the sacrifice of Yeshua the entire remnant of ethnic Israel will be saved (Romans 11). © 2017 Yaakov Brown We live to follow and serve in the strength we have been afforded, but when all strength is gone and every option exhausted, we learn that HaShem is sufficient. 43:1 Now the ha-ra’av famine (hunger) was kaveid heavy in the land.
The reason this phrase is repeated at the beginning of this chapter is because “the land” in question here is not Egypt, as is the case in the previous chapter. The following verse qualifies the context for ba-aretz (In the land). Ha-aretz is a title synonymous with the land of Israel. We could read “Now the hunger was heavy in the land of Israel”. 2 When they finished eating the grain they had brought from Mitzrayim Egypt (Double distress) their father said to them, “Go back. Buy us a little food.” 3 And speaking toward him Y’hudah (Praise) said, “Ha-eish The man warned us firmly saying, ‘You won’t see my face unless your brother is with you.’ 4 If you send our brother with us, we will go down and buy grain for you for food. 5 But if you won’t send him, we won’t go down, because the man said to us, ‘You won’t see my face unless your brother is with you.’” Reuben, Jacob’s eldest son had already tried to convince his father and had failed (Gen. 42:36); Simeon the next in birth order, was now in Egypt (Gen. 42:24), and Levi, possibly due to his actions at Shechem (Gen. 34:25), had lost his father’s respect. Therefore, Judah, being next in birth order, with the consent of his brothers, speaks to Jacob for the good of the whole community. Judah uses stronger language in describing the Egyptian Viceroy’s (Joseph’s) instruction to them than the brothers had used together (42:24). When the issue of returning to Egypt was last discussed they had plenty of food and may have hoped that the famine would let up and allow for a return to agricultural prosperity. Now however, they were again faced with the prospect of starvation. Judah had to convince Jacob that none of his sons would return to Egypt without their brother, because Joseph’s vow had been made using a euphemism that required the return of Benjamin or the deaths of the brothers. The irony of the name Mitzrayim (Egypt: Double distress) is not lost on Jacob, who is facing the double distress of losing both Joseph and Benjamin. 6 Then Yisrael (Overcome in God) said, “Why did you do evil to me by telling the man that you have another brother?” 7 They said, “The man questioned particularly about us and about our relatives saying, ‘Is your father still alive? Do you have a brother?’ So we spoke to him on the basis of these words. How could we possibly know that he would say, ‘Bring your brother down’”? The name Israel is said to depict Jacob in his spiritual role as Patriarch of the Jewish people. Earlier in this account the name Jacob has been used, now Israel is employed. Jacob is a follower, Israel has overcome in God. In the previous chapters Jacob followed his vision, having seen food for his starving people in Egypt. He pursued that provision through his sons. Now he is faced with the possibility of losing the last of his favoured sons and the realization that this could potentially end the religious observance of Israel (remaining sons). It is at this point that he must completely let go of his own ability to control the circumstances of his family’s predicament and allow God to be his overcoming strength. Thus, Israel (Overcome in God). This is not so much the difference between human effort and Godly strength, rather it is the lesson of every disciple, we live to follow and serve in the strength we have been afforded, but when all strength is gone and every option exhausted, we learn that HaShem is sufficient. 8 Then Y’hudah (Praise) said to his father Yisrael (Overcome in God), “Please, send the boy with me and we’ll get up and go, so that we’ll live and not die—we and you, and our children. 9 I’ll exchange myself for him (Benjamin). From my hand you can demand him back. If I don’t bring him back to you and place him before you, then the sin I’ve committed against you will be on me all my days. 10 If we had not delayed, we could have returned twice by now.” Judah attempts to remove one of Jacob’s fears by taking sole responsibility. Reuben had previously offered the lives of his sons but Judah was making himself personally accountable. The Hebrew phrasing infers a life for a life exchange. Judah is saying that he will deliver Benjamin by any means including taking his place if he were to be unjustly imprisoned in the land of Egypt. Short of this he would bear the blood guilt of the sin of losing Benjamin. A sin that he sees as being committed against Jacob. “I will guard him from heat, cold, evil beasts, and robbers. I will offer my life for his and do anything necessary to ensure his safety.” –B’chor Shor Rav Meir Zlotowitz suggests that the reason Jacob was willing to listen to Judah’s petition was related to Jacob’s words “Upon me has it all fallen” (Gen. 42:36), implying that only a father could realize the magnitude of the loss of his two sons. Of all the brothers only Judah could identify with the loss of two sons (Gen. 38:7, 10). Therefore, when Judah offered to accept personal responsibility for Benjamin, Jacob granted Judah’s request to return to Egypt with his youngest brother. 11 Then their father Yisrael said to them, “If it must be so, then do this: take some of the best products of the land in your vessels, and bring an offering down to the man—a little balsam and a little honey, gum and myrrh, pistachios and almonds. As is the case in Genesis 37:21-30, Judah’s request prevails where Reuben’s had failed (Gen 42:37-38). There are of course a number of reasons for this, one of which is that the Torah is showing how Joseph, the dominant tribe of the North and Judah the Royal tribe of the south became more important than Reuben, the firstborn. Rashi notes the Targum, which says “From the praises of the land” and interprets “From the praised produce of the land”. To this he adds that the produce born of the land gives praise to God. While not all of this produce was unique to the land of K’naan (Israel), it was produce that K’naan was famous for. This selection of gifts included items that were not readily available in Egypt (Gen. 37:25). During a time of famine even a small amount of each of these precious commodities was a sign of great respect and a symbolic gesture of humility toward the Egyptian monarchy. The balsam or balm carries with it the symbolism of healing. A symbol that will be recognized by Joseph as a voice of affirmation, but is yet to be understood by his father and brothers. The gift of honey has particular significance because this is the first time it’s mentioned made in Scripture, and it’s being mentioned in relation to the land which will later be called the land of milk and honey (Exodus 3:8). Parts of the land of Israel (Ha-aretz) were famous for their honey production, such as in the region surrounding Ziph (Ez-Zeifeh. Located South-east of Hebron just below the Salt Sea [Dead Sea]: Josh. 15. 55; 1 Sam. 23. 14f., 24; 26. 2), subsequently called the honey of Ziphim (Misn. Machshirin, c. 5. sect. 9). 12 Also take in your hand a double portion of silver, and bring back in your hand the silver that had been returned in the mouth of your sacks. Perhaps it was a mistake. 13 Take your brother too—now, get up, go back to the man! The instruction to “take in your hand” seems to be a practical one. Silver carried in bags or vessels with other goods might appear to be hidden and therefore an attempt to deceive the Egyptian officials, whereas silver carried in hand shows both openness and a willingness to repay any funds that may have been mistakenly returned to the Hebrew contingent. 14 May El Shaddai (God the All Sufficient Protector) grant you rachamiym mercy (compassion) before the man, so that he may release your other brother to you, along with Benyamin (Son of my right hand/strength). As for me, if I am shachol’ti made childless, shachal’ti childless I will be.” The name Shaddai is a conjunction of she-dai, meaning “Who is sufficient/enough”. It seems that Jacob employs this name in order to remind his sons that regardless of the amount of preparation they put into their journey and the amount of silver and supplies they carry, it is because God is sufficient to meet the needs of His people that they can trust in His provision and mercy. The double use of the Hebrew shachol’ti emphasizes the weighty grief of Yisrael. Radak explains that the first use is passive and the second active, meaning that Jacob is saying “I have been made childless and I must face the possibility that I will be made childless”. This is a statement of trust in HaShem that is similar to that of Esther when she was about to appear before the king uninvited: “If I have forfeited my life, so be it” Esther 4:16. Put simply, “HaShem gives and Hashem takes away, Blessed is the Name of HaShem” (Job 1:21). The repetition of this word is also an affirmation of the two children Yisrael has treasured most in his old age, the sons of Rachel: Yosef and Benyamin. 15 Then the men took this offering. They also took the double portion of silver in their hand, as well as Benyamin. So they got up and went down to Mitzrayim Egypt, and stood before Yosef. 16 When Yosef saw Benyamin with them, he said to the one over his house, “Bring the men into the house. U-t’voach t’vach Slaughter, slaughter an animal and hachen (make it firm) prepare it, for the men will eat with me at noon. Jewish tradition teaches that “the one over his (Joseph’s) house” was his eldest son Manasheh (Targum Yonatan). This seems unlikely, given that Manasheh could not have been older than 9 at the time, having been born before the famine. The Sages say that the expression Ut’voach t’vach implies that the one over his (Joseph’s) house was to expose the incision in the neck of the animal so that the brothers could see that it had been slaughtered according to the tradition of their fathers, a tradition that would later be included in halakhic ruling regarding the Torah instructions for the slaughtering of animals (Chullin 91a Rashi). Radak explains that noon is known as the time for royal dining. The time when many ancient royals enjoyed their main meal. The Sages say that Genesis 43:16, which employs the phrase “Slaughter the animal and make it firm, prepare it”: infers that the preparation was done in honour of the Sabbath and that the meal was served at noon on the Sabbath. A day which Joseph observed long before the Torah was given at Sinai (Daat Zkenim). 17 So the man did as Yosef said, and the man brought the men into Yosef’s house. 18 But the men were afraid, because they had been brought into Yosef’s house. They said, “It’s because of the silver that was returned to our sacks the first time that we are being brought in—in order to wrestle us to the ground and fall on us and take us as slaves, along with our donkeys.” It seems that the brothers’ guilt feeds their fear. They were probably concerned about the loss of their donkeys because they were their only means of delivering supplies back to Jacob and their families in K’naan. 19 So they approached the man who was over Yosef’s house and spoke to him at the entrance of the house. 20 “Please, adoniy my lord!” they said. “We came down the first time to buy grain for food. 21 When we came to the encampment and opened our sacks, behold, there was each man’s silver at the opening of the sack, the full amount of our money. So we’ve returned it in our hand. This response seems to merge the details of the two discoveries of silver: the singular portion of silver first found in one of their sacks and the silver subsequently found in all their sacks upon their return to K’naan. The reason for including the details regarding the silver discovered at the encampment on the way, may be to show that they could not have returned at that point because they had not yet retrieved their brother and had been warned by the viceroy (Joseph) not to return without him. 22 In addition, we’ve brought down other silver in our hand to buy grain for food. We didn’t know who put our money into our sacks.” 23 “Shalom lachem Peace to you all,” he replied. “Don’t be afraid. Eloheichem v’loheiy Your God and the God of your father has given you hidden treasure in your sacks. Your silver had come to me.” Then he brought Shimeon out to them, The man who was over Joseph’s house (possibly Manasheh, or a member of As’nat’s family, because if this one had been a servant the text would read “the servant who was over Joseph’s house” rather it reads, “the man”), makes a point of comforting the brothers by saying that it has been their God Who has engineered events to bless them. Something that Joseph later expresses to his brothers. Whoever the one over Joseph’s house is, one thing is certain, he is aware of the God of Israel. Joseph is clearly teaching his Egyptian household about the merciful God of Israel from Whom he has received his name and calling. 24 and the man brought the men into Yosef’s house, gave them water and they washed their feet. He also provided fodder for their donkeys. 25 So they prepared the offering for Yosef’s coming at noon, for they had heard that they were going to eat there. This verse seems to indicate a progression in their approach toward Joseph’s house and their entry into it. Thus it seems likely that the conversation recorded prior to this was held the courtyard or entry room to the house, which is considered part of the house. In their fearful state Joseph’s brothers had expected to be pounced on, beaten and confined, and in truth that is what they deserved. However, they were instead given water to wash their feet. One recalls the actions of Yeshua during his final Pesach meal with His disciples. Joseph’s brothers had expected their donkeys to be taken from them. However, they were instead given fodder with which to feed their donkeys. Through the actions of the governor of Joseph’s house (Manasheh: forget), the brother’s sins are forgotten and Mercy is shown to triumph over judgement. “He has not dealt with us as our sins deserve; nor repaid us according to our iniquities.” –Psalm 103:10 26 When Yosef came home, they brought him the offering in their hand into the house, and they bowed down to the ground to him. For the first time all of Joseph’s brothers, including Benjamin, bow down to him in fulfilment of Joseph’s first dream (Gen. 37:7). 27 Then he asked if they were well, and said, “Is he well—your elderly father that you told me about? Is he still alive?” The order of Joseph’s questions seems strange. He first asks if their father is well and then if he is alive. This can be explained by the fact that Joseph may have asked the first question and then, before the brothers could answer, had the terrible thought that his father may have passed away. Alternatively he may have simply been nervous and muddled his words. Perhaps a better explanation is found in Daat Zkenim, where it is suggested that Joseph first asks after Jacob “Is he well” and then asks about his sabba (Grandfather) Isaac “The older father”, whom the brothers may also have told him about, and who’s death occurred around this time. Of course, the text doesn’t explicitly state that the brothers had spoken to Joseph about Isaac, but on the other hand, he may have simply slipped up by revealing his knowledge about Isaac’s existence. He was certainly showing superior knowledge when he had his staff seat the brothers according to their birth order. 28 “Your servant, our father, is well,” they said. “He’s still alive.” Then they knelt and bowed down. 29 Then he lifted his eyes and saw his brother Benyamin, his mother’s son, and said, “Is this your youngest brother whom you mentioned to me?” Then he said, “May God be gracious to you, my son.” 30 Then Yosef hurried out because his rachamiyn compassion grew warm and tender toward his brother so that he wanted to cry. So he went into an inner room and wept there. If the assertion concerning Joseph’s unusual question is correct, then the answer of the brothers “Our father is well” applies to Jacob and the second phrase “He is still alive” applies to Isaac. If Isaac was alive at this point in time, he must have passed away between this encounter and the coming to Egypt of Jacob’s household (46:26-27). Joseph had already seen Benjamin but at this point he notices Benjamin’s features and sees the resemblance to his mother (Zohar; Haamek Davar). Benjamin is 31 years old at the time of this meeting. Joseph hasn’t seen him for over 13 years. Jacob had blessed his sons saying “May El Shaddai (God the All Sufficient Protector) grant you rachamiym mercy (compassion) before the man” (v.14). Now, Joseph is filled with rachamiyn mercy and compassion for Benjamin. 31 Then he washed his face, came out, and controlled himself. “Serve the food,” he said. 32 So they served him by himself, them by themselves, and the Egyptians who were eating with him by themselves (for Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews because it was an abomination to Egyptians). Joseph probably ate separately because of his exalted status and possibly because he was keeping Hebrew eating practices that would have been seen by his Egyptian staff as abhorrent and reported to Pharaoh. The reason for the Egyptians eating separately from the Hebrews is stated. Shepherds (Hebrews) were regarded as abhorrent to the Egyptians (Gen. 46:34; Exodus 8:22), and the sheep seems to be the singular exception to the Egyptian worship of various animals. Egyptians despised sheep and their herders in much the same way as Jews came to despise pigs and their keepers. Radak’s assertion that Egyptians didn’t eat the meat of sheep because they were considered a deity is untenable, given that Egyptians consumed the meat of a number of other animals to which they attached worship practices, and that those who herded sheep would have therefore been considered holy and respected rather than abhorred. The fact that the Hebrews were detestable to the Egyptians at a time when Israel consisted of less than seventy souls (Gen. 46:26), is a testimony to Israel’s God given reputation and prominence in the land of K’naan. 33 They were seated before him, the firstborn according to his birth-right and the youngest according to his youth. The men looked at each other in astonishment. The ten eldest brothers were born within seven years of one another, making it difficult for a stranger to guess their exact birth order. Thus the brothers were astonished to see themselves seated in order from Eldest to youngest. 34 Then portions were brought to them from before him—and Benyamin’s portion was five times larger than any of their portions. Yet they drank and celebrated with him. Benjamin’s portion is half the number for completion. Half of Joseph’s prophetic dreaming had been fulfilled. Joseph gave Benjamin a significantly greater portion in order to test the brothers to see if their hatred for the sons of Rachel still consumed them. In response to this the Torah states “Yet they drank and celebrated with him”. They were not angered by the special treatment shown to Benjamin. To the contrary, they celebrated it. This shows true repentance and a genuine humility on the part of the 10 eldest sons of Jacob, and stands in stark contrast to the meal they had eaten when they had sat down after throwing Joseph into the well (Gen. 37:25; 42:21). Only the repentant can receive salvation. © Yaakov Brown 2017 42:1 Now Yaakov (Follows after the heel) ra’ah learned (saw, perceived) that there was grain in Mitzrayim (Egypt: double distress), so Yaakov said to his sons, “Why are you looking at each other?”
Seder Olam says that it wasn’t until the second year of the famine that Yaakov sent his sons down to Egypt. The Hebrew shever (grain) can be read sever (hope). It is understood that the original Hebrew text was without nikkud (vowel markers added by the Massorites). This means that the character shin could be read as sin and potentially alter the meaning of the word, providing that the meaning fits the context. Rashi concludes therefore, that the phrase “Yaakov saw that there was grain in Egypt” should read “Yaakov saw that there was hope in Egypt”. We need not chose one over the other. The former is practically true and the latter, spiritually true. Note that this account begins by using the name Yaakov the individual. The Hebrew, “Lamah tit’rau” (Why are you looking at each other), means: “Why are you excusing your inaction by looking to someone else to do something about it, when you know you are capable of doing something about it yourself?” Alternatively “Why do you make yourself conspicuous?” (Taanit 10b; Rashi). This is why the Brit HaChadashah (The New Covenant) says, “If anyone knows the good he should do and does not, to him it (is accounted) sin” –Yaakov (James) 4:17 2 Then he said, “Hinei Behold! I’ve heard that there’s grain in Mitzrayim (Egypt: Double distress). Go down there and buy some grain for us there so that we’ll live and not die.” The phrase “So that we’ll live and not die” while referring to the immediate future, can also be understood as a remez (hint) of what is to come in the days of Yisrael’s deliverance from slavery in Egypt. Meaning that Yisrael’s suffering and bondage is a prerequisite to her redemption. This is yet another picture of the Gospel of our Messiah at work in the story of Yisrael. In fact it is true to say that (within the sin affected world), without suffering there can be no redemption. 3 So Yosef’s (YHVH: Mercy adds) brothers went down, ten of them, to buy grain from Egypt. 4 But Benyamin (Son of my right hand: strength), Yosef’s (YHVH: Mercy adds) brother, Yaakov did not send, for he said, “Lest he encounter ason mischief, evil, harm, hurt.” Some ask why ten of the brothers had to go to Egypt. Sforno explains that Yosef had decreed that no one could buy more food than was needed for a single household. The Midrash suggests that Yosef had imposed this restriction upon each person who came to buy grain so as to assure that all of his brothers would have to come down to Egypt to buy an allotted portion of grain for each of their households. Thus fulfilling the prophecy of his dream. It is worth noting that according to Divine justice and practical protection, Benyamin is kept from the torment and adversity his brothers would face prior to Yosef revealing himself. This is because Benyamin played no part in causing Yosef’s suffering. Spiritually speaking we might say that this is yet another picture of the Messiah, as if God were saying, “The Son of my right hand alone is without guilt”. The use of the Hebrew ason infers that Yaakov suspected that Yosef’s brothers had harmed Yosef because of their hatred of him. He also feared that because of the brothers’ animosity toward the favoured sons of Rachel (Sons of Yaakov’s old age), that they might do harm to Benyamin also. Of course, ten is a number of completion. Therefore, this is also symbolic of the completion of Yosef’s rise to power and of the first stage in Yisrael’s journey toward freedom from both physical and spiritual bondage. 5 The sons of Yisrael (Overcomes in God) went to buy grain among the others who were coming, because the famine was in the land of K’naan (Lowland, humility). Note that the story continues here under the name Yisrael, meaning the sons of the nation Yisrael rather than the individual Yaakov. 6 Now Yosef (YHVH: Mercy adds) was the master over ha-aretz the land. He was the provider of grain for all the people of ha-aretz the land. It seems that this verse is meant to indicate that Yosef had watchers throughout the land whom he had instructed to keep a look out for his brothers. The Midrash says that Yosef, knowing his brothers would eventually have to come for grain in Egypt, had kept only one storehouse open so that he could monitor it personally and thus spot his brothers when they arrived. Alternatively, according to Rashi, Yosef interviewed every national group and then delegated their care to his subordinates according to each group’s needs. 7 Then Yosef’s (YHVH: Mercy adds) brothers came and bowed down to him with faces to the ground. When Yosef saw his brothers, he recognized them, but he made himself unrecognizable to them. Then he spoke harshly and said to them, “Where have you come from?” “From the land of K’naan (Lowland, humility)” they said, “to buy grain for food.” Though it had been at least 13 years since Yosef had seen his brothers we must remember that they had been older than him at the time of his sale into slavery, and that males older in age tend to maintain a certain continuity of appearance whereas a young man (as Yosef had been) would have undergone a more dramatic growth period from 17 to 30 years of age and thus may have changed significantly in appearance. Therefore, it seems logical that though his brothers were immediately noticeable to him, he was not easily identifiable. We can add to this the fact that they were expecting to find Yosef a slave, providing he were still alive. In addition, Yosef was not arrayed in common clothes. He was wearing the garments of royalty and probably had a shaved head and Egyptian chin beard, both customs being contrary to the ancient Hebrew style of grooming. We know from the following verses that one of the ways Yosef disguised himself was to use an interpreter, thus giving the impression that he did not speak Hebrew. Based on the events that follow we can interpret Yosef’s actions as a well thought out pretence intended to direct circumstances toward the fulfilment of his dreams. His harsh speech is meant to initiate events that will eventually bring his entire family to Egypt so as to save them from starvation and poverty. The phrase “To buy grain for food” tells us that the brothers believed it to be impossible to use the grain as seed for sowing as long as the drought and famine continued. It also indicates that they had run out of their own grain supplies for planting and were now so desperate that they were at the point of starvation and needed food immediately. 8 Though Yosef recognized his brothers, they did not recognize him. 9 Then Yosef remembered the dreams he had dreamed about them. He said to them, “You’re spies! You’ve come to inspect the er’vah nakedness (undefended places) in the land.” It is after remembering his dreams that Yosef further manipulates his brothers’ circumstances. He is looking for a way to bring his entire family to safety. This pretence is one born of trust in God, the One who had given him his dreams. There are times when harsh words are words of love, and times when gentle words are evidence of a failure to love. Kli Yakar notes that Yosef uses the accusation of spying in order to keep the brothers from seeking out Yosef while they were in Egypt. Given the opportunity to investigate Yosef’s whereabouts they may have gleaned information about a Hebrew slave who had risen to power in Egypt. This in turn may have adjusted the outcome of events. Whereas by being accused of spying, they would not be allowed to move freely throughout Egypt. Yosef’s first dream called for all eleven of his brothers to bow to him. Therefore, he must arrange for this to happen. Only then could his second dream find its partial practical fulfilment. Meaning, the only way his mother could bow before him is at the resurrection. Thus the complete spiritual fulfilment of Yosef’s dream would be at the resurrection and acts as an allegory for the bowing of the tribes of Yisrael before the Messiah, for Whom Yosef is a type. 10 “No, my lord!” they said to him. “Your servants came to buy grain as food. 11 All of us are the sons of one man. We’re being truthful. Your servants have never been spies.” 12 “Not so,” he said to them. “Rather, you’ve come to see the er’vah nakedness (undefended places) in the land.” Though they are unaware of it, in both a practical and prophetic sense the phrase “All of us are the sons of one man” includes Yosef, the one they’re speaking to. It seems that the brothers employed this phrase in order to appeal to common sense. It is unlikely that a people would send all or even the majority of their fighting men to spy out a foreign power. It is standard spying practice to send only a selection of men so that they might travel light and go unnoticed. It seems likely that Yosef continued to challenge them in order to get information out of them about Benyamin and Yaakov. Yosef may have been concerned that they had treated Benyamin poorly because he was also a son of Rachel. Their answers would indicate to Yosef whether they were worthy of redemption. 13 But they said, “We your servants are twelve brothers, sons of one man in the land of K’naan. V’hinei And behold, the youngest is with our father today and the other one we are without.” The brothers seem to be answering an unrecorded question, indicated by the recounting of their story to Yaakov in Genesis 43:7, where they say “The man asked us directly about our condition and our family saying ‘Is your father still alive?’ and ‘Do you have another brother?’” The brothers tactfully use the phrase “The other one we are without”. Thus they keep the reasons for the missing brother secret rather than showing themselves to be of poor character. Sforno suggests that by speaking so freely about their family they were attempting to prove themselves trustworthy because all that they were saying was easily verifiable. 14 Yosef said to them, “It’s according to the words I spoke to you when I said, ‘You’re spies.’ Yosef pretends to be unimpressed by the words of his brothers and reemphasizes his belief in their guilt, but offers them a way to prove their innocence, and bring his brother Benyamin to him. 15 By this you’ll be proved, scrutinized and tested: by the life of Pharaoh (Great House), you’ll not leave from here until your youngest brother comes here! 16 Send one from among yourselves to get your brother, while you remain confined, in order to prove your words, to see whether the truth is with you. If not, by the life of Pharaoh, you’re spies!” The proof of their innocence will be Benyamin’s physical presence in Egypt. Thus all their other claims will be considered true. Yosef’s use of language strengthens his disguise. He is making oaths (Of pretence) using Pharaoh as the deity before which the oath will be held accountable. This causes him to appear to them as a typical heathen Egyptian. The following verses seem to indicate that none of the brothers were willing to volunteer to go. Perhaps because to travel alone would be dangerous, or because they believed Yosef to be an unreasonable ruler who would not keep his word. 17 So he put them together in prison for three days. The three days in prison reflect the death and resurrection of the cupbearer. This is also a remez hinting at the death and resurrection of the Messiah Yeshua, Who will come out of Yisrael and through His own imprisonment and freedom will deliver her from death. 18 Then Yosef said to them on the third day, “Do this and you will live. Ha-Elohiym the God, I am in awe of. 19 If you’re being truthful, let one of your brothers remain as a prisoner in the guardhouse where you’ve been, while you, go and bring grain for the hunger in your homes. 20 And bring me your youngest brother, so that your words can be verified—and you won’t die.” So they did. Seeing that none of the brothers had volunteered to go, Yosef offered a more palatable solution. Using the name of the brothers’ own God in reference to his offer, Yosef sought to sooth their fear somewhat. We notice that even with the offer of freedom for the nine, he still had to select the one who would stay. This denotes great fear on the part of the brothers. Notice that they have been confined in the guardhouse, just as Yosef was. He had put them in the prison of the upper class rather than placing them under confinement in the harsh conditions of the prisons of the common people. 21 Then each man said to his brother, “We’re truly guilty for our brother. We saw the distress of his soul when he begged us for mercy, but we didn’t listen. That’s why this distress has come to us.” This is an honest and sincere admission of guilt. This is confession, an acknowledgement of sin. 22 Reuven (Look a son) answered them saying, “Didn’t I tell you, ‘Don’t sin against the boy’? But you didn’t listen. Now, see how his blood is now being accounted for.” Reuven continues to believe that the other brothers have killed Yosef and thus speaks of the blood guilt that murderers carry. 23 They did not know that Yosef was listening, since there was an interpreter between them. The presence of an interpreter gives strength to Yosef’s disguise while allowing him to hear the brothers’ responses. According to the Midrash, the interpreter was Manasseh Yosef’s firstborn son (Rashi). 24 He turned away from them and wept. When he turned back to them and spoke to them, he took Shimeon (Hears) from them and tied him up before their eyes. It seems that at least in part, Yosef’s tears were due to his having heard his brothers admit their wrong doing. Shimeon is the appropriate choice of hostage because he is the second born son of Leah (Gen. 29:31-33) just as Benyamin is the second born son of Rachel. This is a clue to Yosef’s identity that his brothers were unable to see due to their distress. Rashi suggests that Shimeon is chosen because of his hot temper as evidenced by he and Levi’s raid on Shechem. Thus Yosef can be sure Shimeon and Levi (Gen. 34:25-26) will not develop some foolish plot to retaliate. Yosef continues the harsh performance by treating Shimeon roughly before them. 25 Then Yosef gave orders to fill their bags with grain, return each man’s money to his sack, and to give them provisions for the journey. So it was done for them. 26 Then they loaded their grain on their donkeys and left from there. Yosef’s actions in returning the money seem to be intended to incite further fear and give the brothers a greater motivation for repentance. 27 As one of them opened his sack to give fodder to his donkey at the encampment, he saw his money—behold, it was at the top of his bag. 28 So he said to his brothers, “My money has been returned! Look, it’s in my bag.” Their hearts sank. Trembling, each one turned to his brother and said, “What is this that God has done to us?” Knowing that Yosef kept accurate records, the brother who opened the sack at their first encampment was rightly afraid. Rashi suggests that this was Levi. “What is this that God has done to us?” is yet another admission of guilt and an acknowledgement of the Judge of the Universe, God of Yisrael. The brothers saw the returning of the money as a plot by the Master of Egypt to enslave them. Thus they saw it as a just retribution from God for what they had done to Yosef. 29 When they came to their father Yaakov, in the land of K’naan (Lowland, humility) they told him all that had happened to them, saying, 30 “The man, the lord of the land, spoke with us harshly, and took us as spies of the land. 31 But we said to him, ‘We’re honest. We’ve never been spies. 32 We are twelve brothers, sons of our father. One is no more and the youngest is with our father today in the land of K’naan.’ 33 Then the man, the lord of the land, said to us, ‘By this I’ll know if you’re being truthful: leave one of your brothers with me. As for the hunger of your homes: take and go! 34 Then bring your youngest brother to me, so that I may know you are not spies, but you are telling the truth. I’ll give you back your brother and you can move about freely in the land.’” In recounting their ordeal the sons of Yaakov keep certain facts from him in order to spare him unnecessary concern. They know he is old and still grieving the loss of Yosef. Therefore, they don’t include their three day imprisonment, nor do they convey the very real threat of slavery or the possible execution of Shimeon. 35 Now as they were emptying their sacks, v’hinei behold, there was each man’s bag of money in his sack. When they saw their money bags, they and their father, they were afraid. The fear of the brothers was due to their guilt, but the fear of Yaakov was for his sons, for Shimeon and ultimately for Benyamin. The brothers may have concluded that the money left in the one sack discovered on the way might have been an oversight on behalf of one of Pharaoh’s officials but the money found in all their sacks was evidence of an intentional plot to accuse them. 36 Then their father Yaakov said to them, “You’ve made me childless! Yosef is no more. Now Shimeon is gone, and next you’ll take Benyamin! Everything is against me!” One wonders at how the sons of Yaakov may have felt at hearing their father’s words? It is because he is without Yosef and may soon be without Benyamin, that Yaakov considers himself “childless”. Though Shimeon is included as collateral damage, this is none the less a slight against all ten brothers. 37 Then Reuven (Look a son) spoke to his father, saying, “You can put my two sons to death if I don’t bring him back to you. Put him in my hand and I—I will return him to you.” Reuven continues to seek restoration over his defilement of his Father’s wife. Here he offers the lives of his own sons in an attempt to prove his repentance, both in regard to his sexual sin and his part in the mistreatment of Yosef. This is however, a weak gesture because regarding the Hebrew consciousness the sons of Reuven are also considered the sons of Yaakov. 38 But he said, “My son will not go down with you—for his brother is dead and he alone remains. And if he should encounter ason mischief, evil, harm along the way you’re going, you’ll bring my grey hair down to Sheol (Place of the dead) in grief.” As part of his response Yaakov again insinuates that the brothers are guilty of mischief relating to Yosef: “if he should encounter mischief, evil, harm along the way you’re going”. The Hebrew Sheol (meaning place of the dead and not the grave, which is kever, an entirely different Hebrew word referring to the tombs of Yisrael which are above ground), again affirms the ancient Hebrew belief in the afterlife, spent in one of two places within Sheol: The bosom of Avraham (Gan Eden: Paradise) or Gehinnom (Torment). Whereas the grave (Kever) was above the earth, Sheol is a spiritual place indicated as existing below. This is because symbolically speaking, God’s throne is above, and death, the result of sin, is distinguished from God as being below. Yeshua illuminates the first century Jewish understanding of the temporal afterlife in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). The only parable where Yeshua employs proper nouns (names). This is because the parable is a true account regarding specific individuals and is intended to convey the reality of that which follows death: torment for the wicked and peace for the righteous. Sheol is a temporal holding place within time and space that precedes the final judgement, at which point the righteous will enter into the Olam haba (World to come) and the wicked into eternal punishment. Thus the Olam haba (World to come) follows Avraham’s bosom after the judgement and Eternal punishment (The fiery abyss) follows Gehinnom after judgement (Rev. 3:12; 20:10; 21:1-8). © Yaakov Brown 2017 When all practical avenues have been exhausted, God is seeding a miracle. Introduction: We should keep in mind the events of the previous chapter as we read the narrative of chapter 16. Avram has just received the unconditional covenant of the land and has been shown the future slavery and subsequent deliverance of Israel. He has received all these things as a sign of the fact that God has already established a blood heir for him. Avram is said to have come to a place of complete trust in G-d and is thus credited with righteousness (Genesis 15:6). Now however, it seems that he has either neglected to pass this information on to Sarai, or, she has chosen to doubt God’s ability to fulfil His promises to Avram. Either way, Avram allows his role as leader of the household to be usurped by the emotional pleas of his desperate wife, and thus makes room for conflict to enter his camp. The lesson for the follower of Messiah is clear: In Messiah we are completely safe at the core of our being (Avram’s trust in G-d). We cannot be possessed by another. However, if we allow our actions to stray from our core (Avram submits to Sarai’s demands), those actions can be utilized by another. Therefore, our actions must always come from our core, which is Messiah in us (Trust in G-d). In a wonderful redemptive twist, God blesses Hagar and her son, though He also clarifies Ishmael’s cantankerous spirit and his volatile role in the future history of humanity. At the conclusion of this account however, it is Hagar’s choosing to see (recognize) the G-d Who has seen—known her from before the creation of the world—her, and her obedience in returning to serve her mistress; that restores her position within the tents of Avram. Thus HaShem (Mercy) delivers her from perishing in the wilderness. In a paradoxical sense, Hagar’s symbolic role as an Egyptian, places the soon to be slave master of Israel under the authority of Avram via Sarai. In this account Egypt is seen figuratively as the servant of Israel. Just as Israel was to wander in the desert, so too Egypt, through Hagar, wandered in the desert. However, where Israel’s freedom was to be found by leaving Egypt (Sin) behind, Egypt’s (Hagar) freedom is found in her returning to Israel (Y’sra: overcoming El: in G-d). In the repetition of the Hebrew words ayin: eyes, and ra’ah: to see, and through the naming of Y’sh’ma-el (heard by God), this historical story emphasizes the all-seeing and all-hearing God of Israel. Gen 16:1 And Sarai (Princess) the wife of Avram (Father of a nation) didn’t bare him children: and she had a handmaid, a Mitzrit (Egyptian: double distress), whose name was Hagar (Flight).
The shame associated with being barren in Biblical times cannot be overstated. Children and in particular male heirs were essential to the survival of a family and the retention of lands and wealth. In spite of God’s promise Avram had been in the land of Canaan ten years without any sign of an heir. It may well have seemed like God had forgotten him, however, in reality this is yet another step toward complete reliance on God. When all practical avenues have been exhausted, only a miracle of God can establish His promises. According to the Midrash, as interpreted by Rashi, Hagar was a daughter of Pharaoh, who was gifted to Sarai after Pharaoh had witnessed the power of God at work on Sarai’s behalf, and had concluded, “Better that she (Hagar) be a servant in their household than a princess in someone else’s”. Gen 16:2 And Sarai said unto Avram, Behold now, HaShem (YHVH: Mercy) has restrained me from bearing: I plead with you, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Avram heard, listened, understood and consented (va’yeeshma) to the voice (kol) of Sarai. It is worth noting here that it is the attribute of Mercy displayed in the Holy Name (YHVH), which is responsible for restraining Sarai from bearing children. In the ancient near east surrogate mothers were often employed for the purpose of continuing family lines, a custom that is attested to in places such as ancient Ur and Cappadocia. The patriarch Yaakov (Jacob) also had children in a like manner, and the sons born to his wives were all full members of his household. However, in the present case it is election that will determine Isaac’s status as heir to the promises of Avram, while Ishmael, who has been blessed with a different blessing (Galatians 4:22-29), will be put out of the household of Avram. Avram seems to have momentarily taken his eyes off HaShem and given in to reason rather than walking in trust of God. What’s more he listens to, “l’kol Sarai” (the voice of Sarai) rather than, “Ha’kol Adonai” (the voice of The Lord). Gen 16:3 And Sarai (Princess) Avram's (Father of a nation) wife took Hagar (Flight) her maid the Mitzrit (Egyptian: double distress), after Avram had dwelt ten years in the land of Kena’an (Canaan: humility, lowland), and gave her to her husband Avram to be his wife. We find an interesting remez (hint) in the Hebrew text when we read the meaning in the names of the characters: “The princess, wife to a nation’s father, took flight in double distress, after the nation’s father had spent ten years in a land of humility.” Sarai is the instigator of this faithless action. She is in double distress because, unlike Avram, she has not trusted HaShem. Therefore she believes she is unable to bear children and that God is unable to provide her with a child. So Sarai is taking flight from God’s promises, a decision that will result in the birth of a child who will bring perpetual conflict to the progeny of Sarai’s womb. Thus the number for completion, “ten” is seen in the remez to represent the complete captivity (humility) of the Hebrews under the Mitzratim (Egyptians). Something that was outlined in detail during Avram’s covenant experience in the former chapter. Gen 16:4 And he went in unto Hagar, for the purpose of causing her to conceive: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress became insignificant in her eyes (she despised and looked down upon her mistress Sarai). It was not unusual for men to have multiple wives at this time and in this context. In fact without the protection of a husband and a wider family collective, a woman living in this historical environment would have surely died from lack of provision. To be given to a man of Avram’s stature would have been considered an honour and does not constitute sexual slavery in the modern sense. Remember that Avram aquired his Egyptian servants and riches through his relationship with the ruler of Egypt (Genesis 12:16). In fact Hagar’s life with Avram’s family may well have been far more comfortable than her former life under Egypt’s religious and cultural rule. Therefore, having been lifted from a position of servitude into the role of second wife, Hagar was being offered an opportunity for greater comfort and status. This makes her actions toward Sarai seem heinous rather than simple pettiness. Instead of showing mercy toward Sarai in her barren state, Hagar looks down upon her and despises her, viewing Sarai’s infertility as a sign of inferiority. For a woman of this time and context, the inability to bear children was disgrace enough without the added ridicule of her pairs. Gen 16:5 And Sarai said unto Avram, “My wrong be upon you: I have given my maid into your bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I became despised in her eyes: may HaShem (YHVH: Mercy) judge between me and you”. The literal translation, “My wrong be upon you” is ironic. While the plain meaning should be understood to refer to the fact that Sarai has been wronged, the remez (hint) conveys the idea that it is her wrong action that is being visited on Avram due to his lack of leadership. Avram’s desire to please his wife had caused him to temporarily relinquish the promise of God regarding his progeny. Thus the wrong committed by Sarai in insisting that Avram cohabitate with her maid servant has now come back upon Avram, who is the leader of the household and is therefore both explicitly and implicitly responsible for the current situation. From time to time in the Tanakh we read this spine chilling statement, “May HaShem judge between me and you”. It is not something that should be uttered lightly. In this case Sarai’s profound hurt over her inability to conceive has been compounded by her maid servant’s ridicule and has resulted in an emotionally charged and rash pronouncement. Genesis Rabah 45:5, suggest that Sarai’s litigious actions were the reason that Avram outlived her by fifty years (Gen. 23:1; 25:7). However, a glimmer of hope can be seen in the attribute of mercy that emanates from the Divine Name. Thus we read, “May Mercy judge between me and you”. Gen 16:6 But Avram said unto Sarai, “Behold, your maid is in your hand; do to her what seems good in your eyes”. And Sarai kept her busy (vat’anah: rt. anah) [with the chores of servitude], and she fled from before her face. While many English translations choose to say, “Sarai dealt harshly” the reader should be aware that the same Hebrew word, “anah” which is here translated as, “harshly, afflicted etc.” is used by G-d in verse 9 as an instruction to return to humble service, and in this context, does not mean, “affliction” but, “to be busy with the tasks of servitude”. Therefore, Avram, who has taken Hagar as a wife, and has given her all the privileges that come with matrimonial obligation, now returns Hagar to Sarai, for whom Hagar will always be considered a servant. The text doesn’t infer mistreatment but rather demotion. It is most likely that Hagar flees, not because of abuse but because of anger at having been denied her new found pre-eminence in the home. However, that which seems, good in Sarai’s eyes is not necessarily good in G-d’s eyes. Avram once again abrogates his authority as head of the household in order to please his wife Sarai, and as a result, Hagar, whose name means flight, flees. Gen 16:7 And seeking to secure her, the angel (Malach) of HaShem (YHVH: Mercy) found her by a spring (ayin: eye) of waters in the wilderness, by the spring (ayin: eye) in the way to Shur (wall). Shur was located southwest of the land of Israel on or inside of the eastern border of Egypt. Therefore Hagar was seeking to return home to Egypt. The angel of The Lord, Who, based on the pursuant conversation, is clearly a manifestation of The Lord Himself, seeks to give security to insecure Hagar. God need not find her, He knows her location, but manifesting as the angel of HaShem, God relates to Hagar in a tangible and present way: she is found by Him and is privileged to see the unseen One. The Hebrew word, “ayin” (eye), which has already been used three times up to this point in the chapter, is now translated, “Spring” (an eye in the earth producing water). This entire account emphasizes the all-seeing God. The God Who had already seen the future heir of Avram’s household. Avram traded his vision for that of his wife. Sarai in turn did what seemed good in her eyes, and Hagar used her eyes to look down on her mistress. Whereas, God saw the end from the beginning. He foresaw his servants’ faithless attempt to acquire their own heir. He foresaw the misery that would result. He also foresaw the rebellion of Hagar (Egypt) and the way she would take flight. So He prepared redemption for the one who would be subjected to misery. He seeded the spring of living water to sustain the wanderer. He saw the repentant heart of the one in flight and made a way for her to return to the tents of His people. “The poor man and the oppressor have this in common: Adonai gives light to the eyes of both.” –Proverbs 29:13 “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The eye is the lamp of the body. Therefore if your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!” -Matthew 6:21-23 (TLV) Our Messiah’s words are the foundation for the saying, “The eyes are the window to the soul”. The Hebrew consciousness sees the eye as a symbol of the heart motivation. This is clearly the intended meaning of Yeshua’s words in Matthew 6:21-23. Each of us has been seen by God and each of us has a choice to make: will we look upon Him in return and allow Him to fill our eyes with His light from the inside out, or will we close our eyes to His light and allow the yetzer ha-ra (evil inclination) to blind our vision with darkness? He is the God Who sees, His eye is on the sparrow. Will we look for the unseen reality of His promises or will we rely on the temporal vision of human reason? “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.” – 2 Corinthians 4:18 (NIV) Gen 16:8 And He said, “Hagar, the handmaid of Sarai, where have you come from? and, where will you go?” And she said, “I’ve fled from the face of my mistress Sarai.” Notice that God reminds Hagar of her status as, “the handmaid of Sarai”. This is as much a rebuke as it is a rescue. God requires humility from Hagar. God knows where Hagar has come from and where she is going, therefore, the question is intended to reveal something to Hagar. Hagar’s words of response show that she has humbled herself and is reconsidering her role in God’s plans. She acknowledges that Sarai is her mistress. This is the first step in her returning to the tents of Avram. Gen 16:9 And the angel (Malach) of HaShem (YHVH: Mercy) said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit (v’hit’ani: rt. anah) yourself under her hands. Avram (father of a nation) had said, “Behold, your maid is in your hand”. Now the angel of HaShem instructs Hagar to return and be subservient toward her mistress Sarai. Rather than enabling Hagar’s rebellion, God requires her to return to her mistress in humility, for her own good. Gen 16:10 And the angel (Malach) of HaShem (YHVH: Mercy) said to her, “I will multiply your seed exceedingly, so that they cannot be numbered due to the multitude of them.” Notice the differences between this promise and the promises made to Avram. Hagar’s seed will be numerous but the nations of the earth will not be blessed through her seed. Hagar’s seed will be numerous but the covenanted land will not pass to them. Hagar’s seed will be numerous, but they will not be as numerous as the stars or the dust of the earth. Hagar’s seed will be numerous but as is metaphorically indicated in the previous verse, they will return to submit beneath the hand of Avram’s blood progeny via Sarai. Gen 16:11 And the angel (Malach) of HaShem (YHVH: Mercy) said unto her, “Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Y’sh’ma-el (Heard by G-d); because HaShem (YHVH: Mercy) has heard your misery. Ishmael’s name does not mean, “He hears God” but rather that, “God has heard” him. It’s unlikely that Hagar knew she would have a son, therefore, the knowledge was an encouragement to her because sons were usually the inheritors of the family name and wealth. Gen 16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every human being, and every person's hand will be against him; and before the face of all his brothers he will dwell. This is an extremely perceptive prophetic statement regarding the progeny of Ishmael (the Arabic peoples) and the false religion (Islam: Submission) that has now become so prevalent. The irony of which is not lost when one considers the events taking place in today’s world. Gen 16:13 And she called the name of HaShem (YHVH: Mercy) Who had spoken to her, “You are the God Who sees me”: for she said, “I also in this place have seen after having been seen.” Here the text makes clear that it is HaShem Himself Who has spoken to Hagar. Therefore, the angel of HaShem is a manifestation of God Himself, Who is God with us, “Emmanuel”. The Hebrew word play over the root, “ra’ah” conveys a beautiful sense of the unseen causing the seen to receive sight. We are only able to see God because He has first seen us. Gen 16:14 Wherefore the well was called B’eir-lachai-roi (Well of the living Seer); behold, it is between Kadesh (Holy) and Bered (hail, fig. destruction). The remez (hint) in the three names of the spring, gives way to a drash (comparative teaching) regarding loss and redemption. The well of the living seer (Yeshua: Malakh ha-YHVH, Messenger of Mercy) is situated between the God we are running away from (Kadesh: Holy) and the destruction we are running toward (Bered: destruction). This well of the living seer is the water of living Himself. If, like Hagar (flight) we choose to see the One Who has seen us, we will be delivered and return to The Father of all Nations (God). Thus the waters of living restore us in the place of our fleeing and strengthen us so that we might return to God. Gen 16:15 And Hagar bore Avram a son: and Avram called his son's name, which Hagar bore, Y’sh’ma-el (Heard by God). The events of verse 15 happen some months after Hagar’s meeting with HaShem. She is back among the tents of Avram when she gives birth and he gives his son the name Ishmael, either by a personal revelation of God or by receiving the name from Hagar. Gen 16:16 And Avram was eighty six years old, when Hagar bare Y’sh’ma-el to Avram. The miracle of Yitzchak’s (Isaac) birth, which is soon to follow, is accentuated by the ages of Avram and Sarai at the conclusion to the events of Ishmael’s birth. When all practical avenues have been exhausted, God is seeding a miracle. © 2016 Yaakov Brown |
Yaakov BrownFounder of the Beth Melekh International Messiah Following Jewish Community, Archives
February 2024
|