Verse by Verse

1 Now Joseph had been taken down to Egypt. And Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him from the Ishmaelites who had taken him down there.

² The Lord was with Joseph, and he was a successful man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian.

³ And his master saw that the Lord was with him and that the Lord made all he did to prosper in his hand.

⁴ So Joseph found favor in his sight, and served him. Then he made him overseer of his house, and all that he had he put under his authority.

⁵ So it was, from the time that he had made him overseer of his house and all that he had, that the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake; and the blessing of the Lord was on all that he had in the house and in the field.

⁶ Thus he left all that he had in Joseph’s hand, and he did not know what he had except for the bread which he ate. Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance.

[Many] scholars believe that [Joseph’s time in Egypt] was during the reign of the Hyksos kings in Egypt. They were foreign invaders, probably at least partially of Semitic stock, who came from the East and conquered Egypt according to the standard chronology, about 1720 B.C. They were also called the “Shepherd Kings.” Many believe that it was because of their Semitic origin that the rules of Egypt in Joseph’s day treated the children of Israel so well when Jacob and his family moved to Egypt. The Hyksos were expelled from Egypt prior to Moses’ time, so that the pharaoh of the new dynasty “knew not Joseph,” and soon began to persecute the Hebrew “relatives” of the Hyksos. While this general background and its inferences may be correct, they should not be regarded as firmly established. — Morris, page 558.

__________

Potiphar, to whom Joseph was sold, was captain of Pharaoh’s bodyguard, and also probably in charge of political executions ordered by Pharaoh. He is also called an “officer” of Pharaoh, the Hebrew word being saris, meaning “eunuch,” or “chamberlain.” It was evidently customary in ancient pagan countries, beginning with Sumeria, to require prominent officers associated closely with the king’s court to be castrated, perhaps to ensure full-hearted devotion to the duties required of them and to minimize the possibility of their taking over the kingdom by military coup to establish a dynasty of their own. — Morris, page 559.

__________

This chapter clearly establishes the pan-historical (yet unpopular and often unrecognized) principle of righteous-remnant living—to wit, that “all who desire to live godly … will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12). It is through such persecution, however that the greatest “training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) often occurs as the believer learns what it is to truly depend on God in the process. In the present chapter, accordingly, we see God complementing Joseph’s efforts at godly living by causing him to “find favor” in the sight of key individuals (a key phrase denoting God’s “behind-the-scenes” activity) and blessing the results of his work in a way that ultimately benefits the welfare of Israel, God’s covenant people. — Wechsler, page 252.

²⁴ And it came to pass, about three months after, that Judah was told, saying, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; furthermore she is with child by harlotry.” So Judah said, “Bring her out and let her be burned!”

²⁵ When she was brought out, she sent to her father-in-law, saying, “By the man to whom these belong, I am with child.” And she said, “Please determine whose these are—the signet and cord, and staff.”

²⁶ So Judah acknowledged them and said, “She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah my son.” And he never knew her again.

²⁷ Now it came to pass, at the time for giving birth, that behold, twins were in her womb.

²⁸ And so it was, when she was giving birth, that the one put out his hand; and the midwife took a scarlet thread and bound it on his hand, saying, “This one came out first.”

²⁹ Then it happened, as he drew back his hand, that his brother came out unexpectedly; and she said, “How did you break through? This breach be upon you!” Therefore his name was called Perez.

³⁰ Afterward his brother came out who had the scarlet thread on his hand. And his name was called Zerah.

Even though Tamar was living back in her own father’s home, she was still under Judah’s authority, nominally engaged to his son Shelah. The penalty for adultery in such a case, even in an ungodly society like that of Canaan, was death, as may be observed in the Code of Hammurabi and other ancient codes. In all such systems there seems to have been a double standard, with much more severe penalties being imposed on the woman than on the man, evidently on the basis of the shame attached to a man having some other man’s child born in his family. — Morris, page 555.

__________

The midwife attending the birth first saw a tiny hand emerge and, in order to keep the twins distinct, assuming this one would be born first, she tied a scarlet thread on his hand. But then, surprisingly, his hand drew back, and the other twin forged ahead and came out first. The latter was named Perez, meaning “breaking-through,” in token of the manner of his birth. The other was named Zerah, meaning “rising.” It was he on whose hand had been tied the scarlet thread.

Tamar, therefore, had the distinction of being one of the few women whose names are listed in the official genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:3). The others were Rahab, Ruth, and the one who had been the wife of Uriah, that is, Bathsheba (Matthew 1:5-6). It is remarkable that all four of these women were non-Jews … Tamar was a Canaanite, Rahab a native of Jericho and thus presumably also a Canaanite, Ruth was a Moabitess, and Bathsheba probably a Hittite (at least by marriage to Uriah, if not by birth). — Morris, pages 556-557.

__________

Judah’s “turning-point” comes when Tamar reveals that he is in fact the father, whereupon Judah is resolutely (and very publicly!) confronted with his sins—namely: (1) his failure to show compassion and do his “duty” towards Tamar (as well as his son Er) by giving her to Shelah as his wife; (2) his engaging in illicit sex with a harlot (as he thought Tamar to be); and (3) his hypocrisy in mercilessly calling for the execution of Tamar (and her baby) for the very same sin he committed—with her, as he now realizes. Expressive of his contrition, Judah declares that Tamar “is more righteous than I”—which comparison is, of course, relative—that is to say, Tamar was more righteous than Judah in the drama of this chapter, but certainly not perfectly righteous, for though the conception of a son from Judah’s line was her right, the way in which she went about ensuring that conception was still sinful. God, nonetheless, “causes all things to work together for good … to those who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28), and from Tamar’s conception are born twins, Perez and Zerah, from the former of whom would descend Jesus, the culmination of the Path of Redemption here being laid. — Wechsler, page 251.

¹² Now in the process of time the daughter of Shua, Judah’s wife, died; and Judah was comforted, and went up to his sheepshearers at Timnah, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.

¹³ And it was told Tamar, saying, “Look, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep.”

¹⁴ So she took off her widow’s garments, covered herself with a veil and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place which was on the way to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given to him as a wife.

¹⁵ When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, because she had covered her face.

¹⁶ Then he turned to her by the way, and said, “Please let me come in to you”; for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. So she said, “What will you give me, that you may come in to me?”

¹⁷ And he said, “I will send a young goat from the flock.” So she said, “Will you give me a pledge till you send it?”

¹⁸ Then he said, “What pledge shall I give you?” So she said, “Your signet and cord, and your staff that is in your hand.” Then he gave them to her, and went in to her, and she conceived by him.

¹⁹ So she arose and went away, and laid aside her veil and put on the garments of her widowhood.

²⁰ And Judah sent the young goat by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman’s hand, but he did not find her.

²¹ Then he asked the men of that place, saying, “Where is the harlot who was openly by the roadside?” And they said, “There was no harlot in this place.”

²² So he returned to Judah and said, “I cannot find her. Also, the men of the place said there was no harlot in this place.”

²³ Then Judah said, “Let her take them for herself, lest we be shamed; for I sent this young goat and you have not found her.”

Timnah (v.12) — probably a town which was later located in the border of Judah, between Jerusalem and Diospolis, given to Dan, and mentioned in the history of Samson as belonging to the Philistines (Judges 14:1).

[Tamar] was actually posing as a temple prostitute, rather than as a common harlot, as is evident from the fact that the word used to describe her later by the Canaanite men themselves (Hebrew cedesha, meaning “one set apart” is used in verses 21-22) was the word used for this purpose. — Morris, page 553.

sat in an open place (v.14) — the common behavior of a prostitute (Proverbs 7:12; Jeremiah 3:2). “Open place” means “the door of eyes,” and some believe it is a proper name referring to Enaim, a city in Judah.

your signet and cord (v.18) — The “Signet” is a ring-seal, with which impressions were made to ascertain property, etc. Jeremiah 22:24 says it was worn on the hand; though it might also have been suspended from the neck by a ribband. “Cord” from a word meaning “to twist,” may mean either a wreath for the arm or neck, a twisted collar, or a bracelet. It may have been a collar by which the signet was suspended; although here it is used in the plural.

It must be recognized that the Biblical record itself does not condemn or criticize [Tamar]. … We cannot judge Judah’s actions so charitably, however. In fact, he later acknowledged that he had sinned (v.26). — Morris, page 553.

1 It came to pass at that time that Judah departed from his brothers, and visited a certain Adullamite whose name was Hirah.

² And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he married her and went in to her.

³ So she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er.

⁴ She conceived again and bore a son, and she called his name Onan.

⁵ And she conceived yet again and bore a son, and called his name Shelah. He was at Chezib when she bore him.

⁶ Then Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.

⁷ But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him.

⁸ And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.”

⁹ But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother.

¹⁰ And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also.

¹¹ Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, “Remain a widow in your father’s house till my son Shelah is grown.” For he said, “Lest he also die like his brothers.” And Tamar went and dwelt in her father’s house.

The events in this chapter are referred to in Genesis 46:12, in David’s genealogy in 1 Chronicles 2:3-4, Ruth 4:12, and in Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1:3.

Adullam was a small Canaanite settlement about eight miles northwest of [Jacob’s] home. Some commentaries condemn Judah—perhaps rightly—for choosing a wife from the Canaanites, but what other options did he have? Laban’s family was not only closely related, but they were idol worshipers and antagonistic toward Jacob. Esau’s and Ishmael’s families had both mixed with the Canaanites. The Bible doesn’t tell us Tamar’s background.

Morris’ quote (below) is speculation but compelling enough, I thought, to be included here:

Shua’s daughter … was a true Canaanite, not only in parentage but in character, and was evidently unwilling to be converted to the worship of Jehovah. It is true that the Bible does not say this, but the inference is justified in view of the fact that all three of her sons were rejected by God from carrying on in Judah’s patriarchal line. Two of them, at least, were notoriously wicked, and it is likely that their characters largely reflected their mother’s character and teaching. — Morris, page 547

Er = watcher (named by Judah). His wickedness in the sight of the Lord may have been, in part, a refusal to consummate his marriage. Or, since God planned to include Tamar as an ancestor of the Messiah, it may be that God put Er to death before Tamar could conceive by him.

Onan = strong (named by his mother)

Shelah (also named by his mother), born in Chezib, apparently a small town near Adullam. He never did marry Tamar, but he did marry someone because he became the ancestor of the Shelanites, in the tribe of Judah (Numbers 26:20).

It was already a custom in those days that, if a man died without children, his next younger brother should marry his wife and “raise up seed to his brother.” The first son from such a marriage would then be recognized legally as the son and heir of the dead brother. This was the so-called Levirate marriage, which later was incorporated as a part of the Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 25:5-1-; Matthew 22:24). The obvious step [after Er had died], therefore, was to enforce the Levirate (a word from the Latin levir, meaning “brother-in-law”) regulation … and to have Tamar marry Judah’s second son, Onan. …

It was not the overt act of spilling the seed on the ground that occasioned Onan’s death, but rather his rebellion against his duty to give Tamar a son. Judah either didn’t know why his first two sons died, or else suspected that Shelah would sin in the same way and “also die like his brothers.” — Morris, page 549

__________

This last section of Genesis (i.e., the “generations of Jacob,” from 37:2 to 50:26) is [not] primarily to present the story of Joseph. … The primary purpose of this last section, consistent with the overall purpose of 11:27—50:26, is to complete and consolidate the biblical framework of God’s “Path of Redemption.” In keeping with this purpose, the present chapter is in fact quite integral, for by its focus on Judah it anticipates, or “sets up,” the essential place that he will come to occupy (even greater than that of Joseph!) in that Path of Redemption, and by virtue of the specific episode it relates, the reader is given to understand that spiritual “turning point” in Judah’s life (like that for his father in 32:24-30) that explains the dramatic moral reversal in [the] attitude and behavior [of] his father’s new favorite son (since Joseph is assumed dead) in 44:18-34. The way to this “turning point” for Judah is set up by his own sin and less than ideal behavior (as is often the case with such spiritual “turning points”)—first, in not doing that which “duty” requires, to wit: giving Tamar, the widow of his two older sons, to his surviving son Shelah as his wife. — Wechsler, pages 249-250.

²³ So it came to pass, when Joseph had come to his brothers, that they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the tunic of many colors that was on him.

²⁴ Then they took him and cast him into a pit. And the pit was empty; there was no water in it.

²⁵ And they sat down to eat a meal. Then they lifted their eyes and looked, and there was a company of Ishmaelites, coming from Gilead with their camels, bearing spices, balm, and myrrh, on their way to carry them down to Egypt.

²⁶ So Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is there if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?

²⁷ Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother and our flesh.” And his brothers listened.

²⁸ Then Midianite traders passed by; so the brothers pulled Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. And they took Joseph to Egypt.

²⁹ Then Reuben returned to the pit, and indeed Joseph was not in the pit; and he tore his clothes.

³⁰ And he returned to his brothers and said, “The lad is no more; and I, where shall I go?”

³¹ So they took Joseph’s tunic, killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the tunic in the blood.

³² Then they sent the tunic of many colors, and they brought it to their father and said, “We have found this. Do you know whether it is your son’s tunic or not?”

³³ And he recognized it and said, “It is my son’s tunic. A wild beast has devoured him. Without doubt Joseph is torn to pieces.”

³⁴ Then Jacob tore his clothes, put sackcloth on his waist, and mourned for his son many days.

³⁵ And all his sons and all his daughters arose to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted, and he said, “For I shall go down into the grave to my son in mourning.” Thus his father wept for him.

³⁶ Now the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh and captain of the guard.

The traders who bought Joseph are referred to as Ishmaelites in verse 28 and Midianites in verse 36. Both Ishmael and Midean were sons of Abraham (Genesis 16:15; 25:2) and their descendants often mixed together. The two names are also used interchangeably in Judges 8:22-24.

the grave (v.35) = Sheol — this is the first reference in Scripture of this place of departed spirits.

As the brothers [minus Reuben] were eating, they saw other visitors coming in the distance—a caravan following the regular nearby trade route from the mountains of Gilead down into Egypt. Gilead was a plateau region east of the Jordan and extending down from about the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea. … It was a lushly forested region, specially known for its balms and spices. — Morris. page 543

While the brothers plotted and bargained to sell Joseph, he was pleading with them to free him and let him live (Genesis 42:21).

Without Reuben’s knowledge, Judah then takes the lead—also showing some compassion (“for he is our brother, our own flesh”)—in selling their brother to Ishmaelite traders on their way down to Egypt—thus already bearing out the enmity God declared in Genesis 16:12 would arise between Ishmael and his brothers (note that, since Ishmael was Joseph’s great-uncle, these Ishmaelites would have been his second cousins, no further than two or three times removed). Continuing the cautionary sub-theme of the potential influence on children of parent patterns of sin, the sons of Jacob in turn try their hand at deception by dipping Joseph’s tunic in the blood of a goat and bringing it to their father, who concludes that a wild beast has devoured Joseph, for whom he then mourns for many days. —  Wechsler, page 249.

__________

Jacob continues mourning for so many days that finally his sons became seriously concerned and tried to “comfort” him (a sharp commentary on their hypocrisy). His daughters also tried to comfort him. This is the first mention of any daughters besides Dinah, though they are also mentioned in Genesis 46:7, 15, so that he must have had at least on other daughter.

Potiphar is called an “officer,” but the Hebrew word is saris, meaning “eunuch,” which fact is no doubt partially explanatory of his wife’s later attempt to seduce Joseph. His office was the rather unsavory duty of captain of the “guard,” or, more literally, the “slaughterers” or “executioners” for Pharaoh, the king of Egypt. — Morris, page 545.

¹² Then his brothers went to feed their father’s flock in Shechem.

¹³ And Israel said to Joseph, “Are not your brothers feeding the flock in Shechem? Come, I will send you to them.” So he said to him, “Here I am.”

¹⁴ Then he said to him, “Please go and see if it is well with your brothers and well with the flocks, and bring back word to me.” So he sent him out of the Valley of Hebron, and he went to Shechem.

¹⁵ Now a certain man found him, and there he was, wandering in the field. And the man asked him, saying, “What are you seeking?”

¹⁶ So he said, “I am seeking my brothers. Please tell me where they are feeding their flocks.”

¹⁷ And the man said, “They have departed from here, for I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Dothan.’ ” So Joseph went after his brothers and found them in Dothan.

¹⁸ Now when they saw him afar off, even before he came near them, they conspired against him to kill him.

¹⁹ Then they said to one another, “Look, this dreamer is coming!

²⁰ Come therefore, let us now kill him and cast him into some pit; and we shall say, ‘Some wild beast has devoured him.’ We shall see what will become of his dreams!”

²¹ But Reuben heard it, and he delivered him out of their hands, and said, “Let us not kill him.”

²² And Reuben said to them, “Shed no blood, but cast him into this pit which is in the wilderness, and do not lay a hand on him”—that he might deliver him out of their hands, and bring him back to his father.

Shechem (v.12) was at least 50 miles from Hebron. Jacob did own land there (Genesis 33:19; John 4:5), but with Esau gone, it’s surprising that there wasn’t pasturage closer to home. Especially since Jacob’s family had left Shechem with fear of the surrounding people after Simeon and Levi had killed the men of the city (Genesis 34:30). It was far enough away that Jacob  hadn’t heard from his sons and was concerned. Only Joseph and Benjamin remained at home.

At Shechem, Joseph met a man who told him his brothers had moved on to Dotham, about 20 miles north, further away from home.

The word “Dothan” is believed to mean “two cisterns,” and was presumably so named because of two storage wells there. [It is probable that] one of these cisterns was dry at the time Joseph’s brothers were there, and it was into this well that they later decided to place him. — Morris, page 539.

His brothers recognized Joseph “when they saw him afar off” (v.18). This would seem to indicate that his coat really was uniquely of many colors and not simply long-sleeved as some conjecture. Their hatred and resentment of Joseph must have been very active because they developed their plot between the time they recognized Joseph and when he arrived.

The Hebrew word for “dreamer” (v.19) implies one who is a master at dreaming, perhaps suggesting that he is good for nothing else. — Morris, page 541.

__________

Apparently this plan was hatched mainly by the younger brothers, perhaps supported by Simeon and Levi, since neither Reuben nor Judah would go along with it. Reuben, of all the brothers, would seem to have the most cause to resent Joseph, since Jacob obviously intended to give Joseph the birthright instead of him, the oldest son. His defense of Joseph is, therefore, the more commendable. Though he had lost his right of primogeniture through his incestuous relation with Bilhah, [Genesis 35:22] he must have … tried as best he could under the circumstances to exercise the moral leadership which his firstborn position in the family should have elicited.

[Reuben] persuaded [his brothers] not to slay [Joseph] right then, at least, but to catch him and throw him into the pit alive, perhaps [suggesting] letting him die of thirst rather than shedding his blood. They well knew God’s primeval command against the shedding of human blood (Genesis 9:6). Though Simeon and Levi may have felt justified in shedding blood in the matter of the Shechemites, … there was no such justification in this case; furthermore, Joseph was their father’s son. … [see Genesis 42:22.]

Joseph evidently realized that Reuben was really trying to save him, [perhaps] Reuben actually whispered words to this effect as they cast him into the pit. Years later, Joseph indicated he remembered this by holding Simeon (the next oldest of the sons), rather then Reuben captive in his prison (Genesis 42:24). — Morris, pages 542-543.

1 Now Jacob dwelt in the land where his father was a stranger, in the land of Canaan.

² This is the history of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brothers. And the lad was with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives; and Joseph brought a bad report of them to his father.

³ Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age. Also he made him a tunic of many colors.

⁴ But when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him.

⁵ Now Joseph had a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they hated him even more.

⁶ So he said to them, “Please hear this dream which I have dreamed:

⁷ There we were, binding sheaves in the field. Then behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright; and indeed your sheaves stood all around and bowed down to my sheaf.”

⁸ And his brothers said to him, “Shall you indeed reign over us? Or shall you indeed have dominion over us?” So they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.

⁹ Then he dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, and said, “Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me.”

¹⁰ So he told it to his father and his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall your mother and I and your brothers indeed come to bow down to the earth before you?”

¹¹ And his brothers envied him, but his father kept the matter in mind.

The story of Joseph’s life must have been originally written down by the sons of Jacob, especially by Joseph himself. This is probably indicated by the reference in Exodus 1:1, terminating this account, to the “names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt.” This is essentially equivalent to the standard formula which would have said: “now these are the generations of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt.” This section, however, probably more than those preceding, had been subject to Moses’ editorial emendations, in view of his more immediate connection to it. — Morris, page 533.

__________

This [vs.2a] constitutes the concluding statement and the signature of Jacob’s long record, beginning with Genesis 25:19b. Although he had trusted for years in God’s promise that he would inherit the land, the same as God had promised Abraham and Isaac, he, like they, continued to live as a “foreigner” in the land of Canaan. They did not yet own the land, only certain very small portions that they had purchased. Nevertheless, God had indeed blessed them materially with great possessions [see Hebrews 11:9, 13]. — Morris, page 534.

__________

God never actually appeared to [Joseph], as He had to [Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob], nor were the covenant promises given to him in any special way. In fact, of the sons of Jacob it was Judah, not he, through whom God would fulfill the coming of the Savior. — Morris, page 534.

Most of my commentaries present Joseph as a type of Christ—loved by his father, rejected by his brothers, truthful in the face of opposition, put to “death,” remaining faithful, ruling. Morris, however, says this:

Though a number of interesting parallels can be noted, it should not be forgotten that the New Testament nowhere speaks of Joseph as a type of Christ. In view of the dangers inherent in allegorical interpretation, it is generally safest to avoid spiritualizing, allegorizing, and typological interpretations in general except where there is explicit Biblical warrant. — Morris, page 535.

The sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher, would have been about Joseph’s age. Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah were older, Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin were younger.

Morris believes that the phrase “feeding the flock” (v.2) indicates that Joseph was in charge of his four older brothers as the chief shepherd.

son of his old age (v.3) — some commentaries believe this means that Joseph was wise, with intelligence beyond his years. My guess is just that it refers to the fact that Jacob was old before his favorite wife had a son.

many colors (v.3) — some translations believe this may mean “long-sleeved” and doesn’t refer to color. Whatever the case, it demonstrated Jacob’s favoritism for Joseph over his other sons. It may have been an indication that Jacob intended to give Joseph the birthright as the son of his favorite wife.

The true hatred of Joseph’s brothers is fanned into life (i.e., mentioned for the first time) only after their father’s natural inclination toward Joseph as the son of his old age is outwardly displayed by the giving to him of a varicolored tunic—by its nature also a continual reminder to the brothers of Joseph’s favored status. — Wechsler, page 248.

The Bible doesn’t say whether Joseph was right or wrong to display his father’s favoritism to his brothers, to give their father bad reports about them, or tell them his dreams. When I read the passage, it seemed to me that Joseph may have been hard to get along with at this stage of his life. Wechsler disagrees:

Joseph cannot be justly criticized for [telling his family his dreams], since we are not told he related these dreams boastfully or in an otherwise improper fashion—especially seeing that these dreams were in fact prophetically truthful; and who else, after all, should he seek to discuss their significance than the men in his family? Joseph can no more be censured for inciting enmity by relating these prophecies than can Jeremiah, Zechariah, or Jesus for the internecine enmity that their prophecies engendered. — Wechsler, pages 248-249.

__________

Jacob, though having come to a place of true and growing dependence on God, is not perfect, and hence he falls (not surprisingly) into the same pattern of sin expressed by his parents—to wit, showing clear favoritism for one among several siblings. Just as Isaac’s preference for Esau and Rebekah’s preference for Jacob fueled the fraternal enmity that eventually prompted Esau to plot his brother’s murder (see Genesis 27:42), so too does Jacob’s preference for Joseph—whom his father loved … more than all his brothers—fuel an outright hatred of him on the part of his brothers that culminates in their collective plotting to put him to death (v.18). — Wechsler, page 248.

your sheaves stood all around and bowed down to my sheaf (v.7) — Now Joseph was governor over the land; and it was he who sold to all the people of the land. And Joseph’s brothers came and bowed down before him with their faces to the earth (Genesis 42:6). So Judah and his brothers came to Joseph’s house, and he was still there; and they fell before him on the ground (Genesis 44:14).

The Bible doesn’t say whether Joseph’s dreams were from the Lord, although the fact that they were fulfilled makes it likely. Jacob, who knew the Lord, rebuked Joseph for telling them, although he also wondered if they were true.

Joseph is the most prominent of Jacob’s/Israel’s 12 sons in [the remainder of the book of Genesis]; yet this should not be allowed to obscure the importance of Judah, who, in terms of space, is the second most prominent brother of all. In this we have something of a parallel to the focus on Enoch and Noah in Genesis 5:21-24, 29, in which the former, like Joseph, serves as a reminder of the hope of present redemption and the latter, like Judah, as a reminder of the hope of final (i.e., messianic) redemption. — Wechsler, pages 246-247.

__________

The account of Joseph, around whom the majority of this last major section in Genesis revolves, presents us with a paradigm that is employed time and again by God throughout later history as one among several means of displaying His solicitude for Israel—namely, elevating a Jew to the upper echelons of governmental power, resulting in elevating of Jewish socio-political standing, and often also the improvement of their material welfare. Other examples from the biblical period include Moses (the adopted son of Pharaoh; see Exodus 2:10), David (commander and bodyguard of the Philistine king Achish; see 1 Samuel 28:2), Daniel (advisor to every Babylonian king from Nebuchadnezzar until Cyrus; see Daniel 1:21), Esther (queen of the Persian king Xerexes; see Esther 2:17), her uncle Mordechai (first chamberlain of Xerxes, then second to the king himself; see Esther 2:21; 10:3), and Nehemiah (cupbearer to the Persian king Artaxerxes; see Nehemiah 1:11). — Wechsler, page 247.

1 Now this is the genealogy of Esau, who is Edom.

² Esau took his wives from the daughters of Canaan: Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite; Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite;

³ and Basemath, Ishmael’s daughter, sister of Nebajoth.

⁴ Now Adah bore Eliphaz to Esau, and Basemath bore Reuel.

⁵ And Aholibamah bore Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah. These were the sons of Esau who were born to him in the land of Canaan.

⁶ Then Esau took his wives, his sons, his daughters, and all the persons of his household, his cattle and all his animals, and all his goods which he had gained in the land of Canaan, and went to a country away from the presence of his brother Jacob.

⁷ For their possessions were too great for them to dwell together, and the land where they were strangers could not support them because of their livestock.

⁸ So Esau dwelt in Mount Seir. Esau is Edom.

⁹ And this is the genealogy of Esau the father of the Edomites in Mount Seir.

¹⁰ These were the names of Esau’s sons: Eliphaz the son of Adah the wife of Esau, and Reuel the son of Basemath the wife of Esau.

¹¹ And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz.

¹² Now Timna was the concubine of Eliphaz, Esau’s son, and she bore Amalek to Eliphaz. These were the sons of Adah, Esau’s wife.

¹³ These were the sons of Reuel: Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah. These were the sons of Basemath, Esau’s wife.

¹⁴ These were the sons of Aholibamah, Esau’s wife, the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon. And she bore to Esau: Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah.

¹⁵ These were the chiefs of the sons of Esau. The sons of Eliphaz, the firstborn son of Esau, were Chief Teman, Chief Omar, Chief Zepho, Chief Kenaz,

¹⁶ Chief Korah, Chief Gatam, and Chief Amalek. These were the chiefs of Eliphaz in the land of Edom. They were the sons of Adah.

¹⁷ These were the sons of Reuel, Esau’s son: Chief Nahath, Chief Zerah, Chief Shammah, and Chief Mizzah. These were the chiefs of Reuel in the land of Edom. These were the sons of Basemath, Esau’s wife.

¹⁸ And these were the sons of Aholibamah, Esau’s wife: Chief Jeush, Chief Jaalam, and Chief Korah. These were the chiefs who descended from Aholibamah, Esau’s wife, the daughter of Anah.

¹⁹ These were the sons of Esau, who is Edom, and these were their chiefs.

²⁰ These were the sons of Seir the Horite who inhabited the land: Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah,

²¹ Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan. These were the chiefs of the Horites, the sons of Seir, in the land of Edom.

²² And the sons of Lotan were Hori and Hemam. Lotan’s sister was Timna.

²³ These were the sons of Shobal: Alvan, Manahath, Ebal, Shepho, and Onam.

²⁴ These were the sons of Zibeon: both Ajah and Anah. This was the Anah who found the water in the wilderness as he pastured the donkeys of his father Zibeon.

²⁵ These were the children of Anah: Dishon and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah.

²⁶ These were the sons of Dishon: Hemdan, Eshban, Ithran, and Cheran.

²⁷ These were the sons of Ezer: Bilhan, Zaavan, and Akan.

²⁸ These were the sons of Dishan: Uz and Aran.

²⁹ These were the chiefs of the Horites: Chief Lotan, Chief Shobal, Chief Zibeon, Chief Anah,

³⁰ Chief Dishon, Chief Ezer, and Chief Dishan. These were the chiefs of the Horites, according to their chiefs in the land of Seir.

³¹ Now these were the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel:

³² Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom, and the name of his city was Dinhabah.

³³ And when Bela died, Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place.

³⁴ When Jobab died, Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his place.

³⁵ And when Husham died, Hadad the son of Bedad, who attacked Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place. And the name of his city was Avith.

³⁶ When Hadad died, Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place.

³⁷ And when Samlah died, Saul of Rehoboth-by-the-River reigned in his place.

³⁸ When Saul died, Baal-Hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his place.

³⁹ And when Baal-Hanan the son of Achbor died, Hadar reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Pau. His wife’s name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.

⁴⁰ And these were the names of the chiefs of Esau, according to their families and their places, by their names: Chief Timnah, Chief Alvah, Chief Jetheth,

⁴¹ Chief Aholibamah, Chief Elah, Chief Pinon,

⁴² Chief Kenaz, Chief Teman, Chief Mibzar,

⁴³ Chief Magdiel, and Chief Iram. These were the chiefs of Edom, according to their dwelling places in the land of their possession. Esau was the father of the Edomites.

By the time Isaac died, when Jacob and Esau spent some time together in connection with Isaac’s burial, Esau and Jacob were each 120 years old (Genesis 25:26; 35:28). Esau had been married for eighty years (Genesis 26:34), whereas Jacob had been married less than forty. Esau, consequently, had at least a full generation of descendants more than Jacob, and this fact is reflected in the extensive list of names given in this chapter. … It is also probably that Moses later augmented these original records with additional data that had come into his possession. by Moses’ time, the descendants of Esau (by then known as the Edomites) were a nation of considerable concern to the Israelites. — Morris, page 525.

__________

[There is an] apparent contradiction between the names of Esau’s wives as given here [Aholibamah, daughter of Anah; Adah, daughter of Elon; Bashemath, daughter of Ismael] and as given in Genesis 26:34 [Judith, daughter of Beeri; Bashemath, daughter of Elon] and 28:9 [Mahalath, daughter of Ismael].

Comparison of the names above indicates that, probably, Judith is the same as Aholibamah; Bashemath, daughter of Elon, is the same as Adah; and Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, is the same as Mahalath. That it was not uncommon for one person to have two names is well known. The women were probably known by the first set of names early in their lives (when Jacob had known them, as recorded in his “generations”), and by the second set of names later, at the time Esau wrote them down in his “generations.” It is possible that the women were given new names at the time of marriage, and the first set of names corresponded to their unmarried, given names. Similarly, Beeri must have been the same man as Anah.

Aholibamah is also said to have been the “daughter” of Zibeon, but since she is clearly the daughter of Anah (v.25), she must have been the daughter of Zibeon in the sense of being his descendant, probably his granddaughter. The fathers of Esau’s first two wives were said to  be Hittites (Genesis 26:34), but one of them here (v.2) is said to be a Hivite and also (v.20) a Horite (the same people known to archaeologists as Hurrians). All three groups were scattered throughout Canaan, and were Canaanite tribes; so there was undoubtedly much intermarriage among them, and the names were frequently used interchangeably.

Esau had five sons and an unknown number of daughters, as well as many servants and much cattle. After realizing that Jacob was destined to be the heir of Isaac and to possess the land of Canaan, he realized there would not be enough room for both of them, so began to move southward into the mountainous regions southeast of the Dead Sea. Both he and Isaac, and Jacob when he returned, were still “strangers” (foreigners) in these lands, owning little property of their own but pasturing their flocks and herds wherever there was room for them.

The region into which Esau (also known as Edom) migrated had previously been settled by the descendants of Seir, and the central range of mountains had come to be known as Mount Seir. To some extent the children of Esau had subjugated the Horites (equivalent to Horims, or Hurrians) by force (Deuteronomy 2:12, 22), but perhaps to an even greater extent had essentially assimilated them through intermarriage, so that the people eventually known as Edomites were a misture of Semitic (through Isaac and Esau) and Canaanitic (through Seir) inheritance. — Morris, page 527.

__________

The listing of Korah as one of the dukes in the family of Eliphz (when he is not listed in v.11 as one of Eliphaz’ natural sons) is probably best explained by assuming he was Eliphaz’ son-in-law. It is interesting that the name of Eliphaz’ concubine, Timna, is given, whereas that of his wife is not given. [Perhaps] this is because of the future prominence of her son, Amalek, who became the ancestor of the notorious Amalekites, the inveterate enemies of Israel in later years. The mention of Amalekites at the time of Abram (Genesis 14:7) is presumably an editorial addition by Moses to identify the region as it was known in his day. … The Amalekites in general lived west of the rest of the Edomites. — Morris, pages 527-528.

__________

chiefs (v.15) — The word translated “chiefs” (“dukes” in the KJV) means leader. It’s literal meaning is “ox.” Bultema says:

The ox was in Israel the leading and most useful animal which first in plowing and threshing gave the main pull and thus it became the symbol of a leader of the people. It became even the letter of the alphabet which once had the form of an ox head. The dukes of Edom then were … leaders of their people. — Bultema, page 67.

__________

If we assume [verses 31-35] to be an insertion of Moses, it is interesting to see that he began by stating these kings of the Edomites reigned long before there was any king in Israel. Of course, the Israelites had no kings even in Moses’ time, but Moses did know prophetically that they eventually would have kings (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).  …

It is interesting that the Edomite kings never became a family dynasty. When each king died, another unrelated individual acceded to the throne, probably by force of arms. Altogether, eight such kings are listed. The fact that each king died is also noted, except in the case of the last one, Hadar, who [may have been] still alive at the time Moses wrote. Three of them are listed as having a particular city of their own; there was evidently no permanent capital city in Edom. … The Midianites lived south of Edom, and the Moabites north of Edom. It seems probable that the Midianites during this period had swept northward through Edom (or perhaps around to the east of Edom’s mountains) on a mission of conquest into Moab, and that Hadad had taken his own army into Moab to defeat them (v.35). — Morris, pages 530-531.

__________

… Most of these “generations of Esau,” including the material from about 36:15 through 36:43 (most of it, at least), have been incorporated in the genealogical lists of 1 Chronicles 1:35-54. — Morris, page 531.

After reading this chapter, my response was “So what?” Morris’ attempt to explain its inclusion on the basis that God is concerned with each individual obviously doesn’t hold water—millions of people aren’t listed in the Bible. Wechsler, however, addresses it convincingly.

Just as for Ishmael in Genesis 25:12-18, so too here for Esau we are presented with a record of the generations of the older brother who was not chosen by God as a link in the line of Promise (i.e., the Abrahamic Covenant). One of the purposes for this—which is in the main a purpose shared by the genealogy of Ismael—is to bear out the fulfillment of God’s word concerning the older brother, that his descendants would likewise come to constitute a nation. There is, however, an important difference: whereas Ismael is blessed by God and promised to become a great nation (see Genesis 17:20)—ensuring that his descendants will be eternally represented in God’s Kingdom— Esau is simply declared to become a “nation” (Genesis 25:23), without explicit connection to divine blessing; and in fact Esau’s descendants—i.e., the nation of Edom (36:8)—are eventually wiped out as a distinct people because of their opposition to the LORD and His people (see Malachi 1:3-4).

it will also be observed that the presentation of Esau’s “generations” is roughly six times longer than that of Ishmael, the reason having to do with the nature (both immediate-practical and general-theological) of two addition purposes unique to the genealogy of Esau. The first of these concerns the sons of Seir the Horite presented in verses 20-30. Though Seir was not a descendant in the Abrahamic line, his descendants, as we’ve seen here, became interlinked with those of Esau through intermarriage with Esau’s descendants. Among the descendants common to both was Amalek, the son of Esau’s son Eliphaz and Seir’s daughter Timna (vs. 12, 22). Now because the descendants of Esau (i.e., the Edomites) became more numerous and prominent than the descendants of Seir, the entire region, which included the dwelling place of the sons of Seir, was designated after the former—i.e., the land of Edom (v.21)—and its inhabitants, though not all linked to Esau, known generally as “Edomites,” and in particular “Amalekites,” since these latter became the predominant tribe among the Edomites (analogous to the eventual use of the term “Judean” [hence, “Jew”] for a descendant of any of the 12 tribes). Amalek, however, was one of the few tribes cursed by God with complete annihilation (at the hands of Israel) because of their extreme perversity and opposition to His people (see Exodus 17:14), yet had the specific details of Amalek’s descent, together with those of Seir, not been here presented, the Israelites would inevitably have killed all those people known after the predominant tribe as “Amalekites” who were not in fact related to the Amalekites at all.  These details thus serve the binary purpose of preventing the Israelites from the sin (albeit committed in ignorance) of “shedding innocent blood” (cf. Deuteronomy19:10; 21:7-9) and exemplifying God’s discriminating application of justice (as earlier affirmed by Abraham in Genesis 18:23).

The second purpose unique to Esau’s genealogy concerns the kings who reigned in the land of Edom presented in verses 31-39. The eight kings enumerated (Bela, Jobab, Husham, Hadad, Samlah, Shaul, Baal-hanan, and Hadar) provide a striking contrast with the monarchy later established in Israel. Each of these kings of Edom epitomizes enthronement by human effort, since each one of them is explicitly associated with a different city (and not all of them in Edom, at that, such as Bozrah, which is in Moab (see Jeremiah 48:24), hence discounting genealogical succession, whereas the later monarchy of Israel epitomizes enthronement by divine effort, since it is founded, maintained, and in the end personally upheld by God alone (cf. 2 Samuel 7:12-16). Indeed, this contrast is even more vividly borne out by explicit statement that these eight Edomite kings reigned well before any king reigned over the sons of Israel (i.e., they had a substantial “head-start” of the Israelite monarchy), yet already by the eighth king in the true Israelite (Judaean) monarchy—i.e., Jehoshaphat (those before him being Asa, Abijah, Rehoboam, Solomon, David, Ish-bosheth, and Saul)—there was no longer any king in Edom (1 Kings 22:47), thus also bearing out the fulfillment of God’s declaration in Genesis 25:23b. — Wechsler, pages 244-246.

¹⁶ Then they journeyed from Bethel. And when there was but a little distance to go to Ephrath, Rachel labored in childbirth, and she had hard labor.

¹⁷ Now it came to pass, when she was in hard labor, that the midwife said to her, “Do not fear; you will have this son also.”

¹⁸ And so it was, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-Oni; but his father called him Benjamin.

¹⁹ So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem).

²⁰ And Jacob set a pillar on her grave, which is the pillar of Rachel’s grave to this day.

²¹ Then Israel journeyed and pitched his tent beyond the tower of Eder.

²² And it happened, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine; and Israel heard about it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve:

²³ the sons of Leah were Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, and Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun;

²⁴ the sons of Rachel were Joseph and Benjamin;

²⁵ the sons of Bilhah, Rachel’s maidservant, were Dan and Naphtali;

²⁶ and the sons of Zilpah, Leah’s maidservant, were Gad and Asher. These were the sons of Jacob who were born to him in Padan Aram.

²⁷ Then Jacob came to his father Isaac at Mamre, or Kirjath Arba (that is, Hebron), where Abraham and Isaac had dwelt.

²⁸ Now the days of Isaac were one hundred and eighty years.

²⁹ So Isaac breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people, being old and full of days. And his sons Esau and Jacob buried him.

Previous to this pilgrimage, after years of barrenness, Jacob’s beloved wife Rachel had finally borne a son, before they left Laban and the region of Haran (Genesis 30:22-25). She had named him Joseph and had, at the time, expressed faith that God would give her still another son. That, however, had been nearly fifteen years before, and her faith had not yet been rewarded. No doubt she had continued to pray about it, and God had finally answered. Rachel must have been well along in years by now, as Jacob was certainly 105 years old or more by this time. Finally, however, she became pregnant again. Jacob’s other wives had long since ceased bearing children, so Rachel gave birth to Jacob’s twelfth and last son. — Morris, page 522.

you will have this son also (v.17) — Genesis 30:24

Ben-Oni (v.18) = the son of my sorrows

Benjamin (v.18) = son of my right hand

Bethlehem (v.19) — the first reference in the Bible to the town where Jesus Christ was born.

The fact that Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn (when he was perhaps around 30 years old), laid with Bilhah (who would have been much older than Reuben), one of his father’s concubines, gets only passing mention here. But in Genesis 49:3-4, when Jacob was speaking to his sons, he had this to say to Reuben: “Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power. Unstable as water, you shall not excel, because you went up to your father’s bed; then you defiled it—he went up to my couch.” In other words, Reuben lost his birthright.

Here (vs.23-26) is the first complete list of the twelve sons of Jacob. … From them came the twelve tribes of Israel, the tribal blessing being given each of them respectively at the time of Jacob’s death (Genesis 49). The names reappear in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 2:1-2. As tribal names, they are listed on seven different occasions in the Book of Numbers, and appear again in the blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33), in the division of the land in Joshua 1:5, elsewhere in the Old Testament, and finally as the twelve sealed tribes of Revelation 7:4-8. The order in which the names are given varies. — Scofield, pages 51-52.

__________

Here was the birth of a son near Bethlehem. Rachel is used in connection with the slaughter of the innocents as the standing emblem of Israel’s love for her children and captives. Compare Jeremiah 31:15 with Matthew 2:18.

The name Ben-Oni means son of sorrow, suffering, and has always been taken as a faint and yet clear type of the suffering Man of sorrow. To father Jacob the son became Benjamin, the son of the right hand, and this is taken commonly as a shadow of the risen Christ who took His session at the right hand of God the Father. The type is clear: to the mother [Mary] he was the son of suffering, to the father, a Son seated at the right hand of glory. — Bultema, page 65.

__________

At the age of 180, Isaac died. This must actually have been about 25 years after Jacob came back from Padan-aram, since Isaac had probably been about 135 years old or so when Jacob left home. Actually, Isaac must have still been living at the time Joseph was sold into Egypt, but the writer found it appropriate to mention his death at this point. Mention of the fact that he “was gathered unto his people” is evidence that although nothing much is said about it in this part of the Bible, the patriarchs did believe in life after death. …

It is noteworthy that Esau and Jacob were still in fellowship with each other, these many years after their first reunion, as the two once-alienated brothers came together to participate with each other in the burial ceremonies for their father. Isaac was buried in the same sepulcher with Rebekah, and with Abraham and Sarah, in the cave in the field which Abraham had purchased in Mamre (Genesis 49:29-31). — Morris, page 524.

__________

The “records of the generations of Isaac” (Genesis 25:19) here ends with a summary look at at God’s overall blessing of Isaac. His material blessing of Isaac (and Jacob) is represented, first and foremost, by his “full quiver” (to employ the terminology of Psalm 127:4-5) of sons—i.e., in addition to Jacob and Esau, his twelve grandsons from whom the promised nation (Genesis 12:2, etc.) would descend. God’s material blessing of Isaac is further indicated by the reference to him dying as an old man, ripe of age—which latter phrase is literally translated “satisfied of (i.e., with his) days.” Indeed, this phrase also hints at God’s spiritual blessing of Isaac (i.e., that he truly knew/was known by God, since, of its remaining four occurrences, all are applied to men who died as believers, mature in faith (viz. Job [Job 42:17]; David [1 Chronicles 23:1; 29:28]; and Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:15]). — Wechsler, page 243.

⁹ Then God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Padan Aram, and blessed him.

¹⁰ And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” So He called his name Israel.

¹¹ Also God said to him: “I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.

¹² The land which I gave Abraham and Isaac I give to you; and to your descendants after you I give this land.”

¹³ Then God went up from him in the place where He talked with him.

¹⁴ So Jacob set up a pillar in the place where He talked with him, a pillar of stone; and he poured a drink offering on it, and he poured oil on it.

¹⁵ And Jacob called the name of the place where God spoke with him, Bethel.

The great name of “Israel,” promised to him in chapter 32 at Penuel, is now given at Bethel; and, with it, is revealed the glorious title El-Shaddai, i.e. God Almighty—the God who was able to fulfill to him the promises here made. To Jacob personally, as to Isaac and Abraham, resurrection is assured; for He says: “to thee will I give this land.” Note: (Genesis 32:28) “Thy name shall be”: (35:10) “He called his name.” — Williams, page 36.

I think it’s interesting that v.9 says that “God appeared to Jacob.” Since we know that no man has ever seen God the Father (John 1:18), this can only mean it was a theophany—a preincarnate appearance of Jesus Christ. And that makes it a clear statement of the deity of Christ because He identified Himself to Israel as El-Shaddai.

God once again appeared to Jacob, renewing the promises made thirty years before at the same spot. God identified Himself as “God Almighty” (Hebrew El Shaddai). God had revealed Himself by this name to Abram (Genesis 17:1) and to Isaac (Genesis 28:3), and now to Jacob. The name is related to the Hebrew word for “breast” (shad), and conveys the idea of God as the One who nourishes and provides, who is strong enough to meet every need.

Once again God promised Jacob that he and his seed, which would be a great multitude, would possess this land, as He had promised also to Abraham and Isaac. Furthermore, though he would be a “nation,” he would also be a “company of nations,” [perhaps] a reference to the continuing distinctiveness of the twelve tribes of Israel.

God also reaffirmed and reimpressed on Jacob that he now had a new name, Israel. He was a prevailing and powerful prince of God! He should therefore live and comport himself as one who possessed such a high calling. — Morris, pages 520-521.

__________

The first mention of the drink offering (v.14). It is not found among the Levitical offerings of Leviticus 1–7, though included in the instructions for sacrifice in the land (Numbers 15:5-7). It was always “poured out,” never drunk, and may be considered a type of Christ in the sense of Psalm 22:14; Isaiah 53:12. — Scofield, page 51.