FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS IN THE BIBLE

Instructor: Barbara Sutnick
sutnick@internet-zahav.net

Week 10/10 JACOB AND FAMILY

You will find "The Joseph Story" in Genesis 37 - 50. It is an intriguing "novella" which is highly recommended both as a good read, and for background to this lecture. I will refer mostly to chapters 37, 42, 43, and 45 - 49. Chapter 34 of Genesis will also be an important background piece.

* * * * *

Beginning with chapter 37, the focal point of the Genesis narrative becomes Joseph, the favored son of Jacob and Rachel. The antagonism between Joseph and his brothers is legend, yet as we know from this course sibling tension in the Bible is the rule rather than the exception. We remember that Abraham had two sons, only one of whom (Isaac) was able to remain within the Hebrew people; Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau, and only Jacob inherited the Abrahamic blessing and the role of patriarch. By the time we get to Jacob, we have a social system which is much more complicated: now the nuclear family consists of twelve sons, one daughter, four wives and a doting father.

Jacob's strong emotions are an important key to the family dynamics. If we compare, Abraham had been directed to banish Ishmael by Divine decree (21:12); and Isaac had been "tricked" into excluding Esau from the patriarchal blessing through Rebecca's plan (27:5ff). In the case of Jacob (Israel, once God renamed him) we read, "And Israel loved Joseph most of all his sons, for he was the child of his old age, and he made him a coat of many colors" (37:3).

For Jacob this favoritism originates with the patriarch himself, and he displays it as prominently as one could ask. He dresses Joseph regally and keeps him at home while his other sons are sent to tend the flocks. He indulges (and perhaps even encourages) a tattling habit that the brothers no doubt found completely obnoxious (37:2). These displays of disproportionate fatherly affection had their consequences: "And when the brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of his brothers, and they hated him so that they could not speak a friendly word with him." (37:4) They hated Joseph to an extreme. According to S'forno, they could not even discuss everyday matters with Joseph, such as taking care of the flocks or the family home. Jacob had to have noticed that his sons could not even carry on the pretense of civility toward Joseph. As Rashi comments on 37:4: "even within the criticism of the brothers the Torah speaks to their credit: they didn't think one thing in their hearts, yet say another with their mouths.") In other words, the brothers were not at all reticent in their criticism of Joseph.

Is all of this enough to explain the murderous desires and actions of a group of mature men, fathers themselves, towards their own brother? If we remember that the brothers surely knew their family history we can put their desire to eliminate Joseph into context. They knew that in their family, favoritism of one child had led to exclusion of the other(s) from the tribe and from their birthright. This makes the depth of their fury more understandable: Joseph was not merely a bratty little brother; he was a potentially real threat to all that they had. However, how do we understand Jacob's flagrant favoritism? Jacob also knew the extremes to which this type of parenting had led in his family. How can we explain the fact that he sent Joseph alone to Shechem to check up on his brothers? What was Jacob trying to do and why does the Bible not condemn his behavior?

To make this question even more urgent let us think briefly about the players. The temperament of Simeon and Levi are known to us from chapter 34 of Genesis. Dinah (Jacob's daughter by Leah) is raped by Shechem, the prince of the town that bears his name. Shechem's father then approached Jacob for permission to marry his son to Dinah and to form an alliance between their respective nations. After convincing Shechem and all the males of his tribe to circumcise themselves in preparation for a permanent merger with the children of Jacob "...Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob's sons, brothers of Dinah, took each his sword, came upon the city unmolested, and slew all the [recuperating] males." (34:25) At this, Jacob is mortified; he is in a panic. Simeon and Levi have endangered the security of Jacob and his family before all the other residents of the Land. When he confronts the sons who have avenged their sister's honor in such murderous fashion, they reply "should he use our sister as a harlot?" These were dangerous men when provoked! And they choose to graze their flocks in Shechem of all places. Rashi's comment on this destination is as follows: [Shechem] was a place perfect for punishment: there the brothers had done damage, there Shechem had raped Dina..." Perhaps the brothers actually were so tough that they took pleasure in returning to the scene of their revenge of Dina's attacker. However, alarms must go off in our heads when "Israel said to Joseph, aren't your brothers tending the flocks in Shechem? Come and I will send you to them." And Joseph said to him: "Here I am." (37:13) Permit me to suggest at this point some of the subliminal messages that I hear calling out from between the lines of the Biblical text:

"Aren't your brothers (who hate you and can't talk to you) tending flocks in Shechem (the very same place where Simeon and Levi slaughtered all the males of the tribe lodging there)? Let me (who complained bitterly about their treachery and therefore knows their violence, and who incidentally fomented the animosity between you and your brothers) send YOU to them (even though we both know what is likely to happen there)." Joseph responded (knowing the full weight behind the request): "Here I am" (signifying readiness to fulfil his destiny with the same word uttered by Abraham and Isaac at the Binding: HiNeiNi-- "Here I am")!

Lo and behold, by the time Joseph reaches his brother, they have already plotted to kill him: "And they said, each man to his brother, "here comes that dreamer...let us kill him." (37:19,20) The ancient Aramaic translation, Targum Yonatan, identifies which brothers are speaking, and his choice should not surprise us: "And Simeon and Levi said, for they are brothers (one) in the same plan. Our story careens in a dangerous direction, paving the way for the realization of Joseph's destiny: to be sent to Egypt for the ultimate salvation of Jacob's family (and the known world) from the famine that was to come? The story also sows the seeds for the fulfillment of an important overall Biblical agenda. Joseph's sale into Egypt, with the family following years later, is the prerequisite for the redemption from slavery in Egypt and subsequent receipt of the Torah at Mount Sinai. Once against we half-heartedly ask ourselves if the ends justify the means. The question is quite hair-raising in the face of such sibling cruelty; however the ends are so much taken for granted by us at this point that it hardly matters.

We cannot help but conclude that Jacob himself has manipulated the setting for a violent resolution to a long-standing family feud--the same feud that he was active in fomenting. The relatively peaceful (albeit cruel) resolution of sibling conflict that we saw in the two previous generations does not seem likely to replicate here. The exclusion of one or more brothers, will not be the outcome. In our story, we already appear to be moving towards fratricide.

Then a remarkable thing happens which points to the beginning of a healing process. Reuben saves Joseph from Simeon and Levi: "Let's throw him in a pit", says Reuben. The Bible declares outright that Reuben intended to save his brother later and to return him to Jacob. The other brothers liked this idea, but modified it slightly: "Let's throw him in the pit and fake his death." This plan would allow them to mislead Jacob and to sell Joseph into slavery. Now, while still not taking a very ethical stance, they are at least moving in a better direction! Just as they are about to cross the line which would bring them back to the days of Cain and Abel (see Lesson 8), they hold back. Let us look now at what follows. The brothers make several trips to Egypt where they encounter Joseph in the guise of the Governor of Egypt. They, of course, do not recognize him. He uses this advantage to put his brothers through an ordeal which will force them to confront and collectively process their guilt. As their difficulties grow, we see them searching their souls: "And they said each man to his brother, 'Alas, we are being punished on account of our brother, because we looked on at his anguish, yet paid no heed as he pleaded with us (not to kill him)'" (42:21). The Bible uses the identical phrase to signify this act of collaboration as it used earlier: "each man said to his brother".

Since both "each man" and "brother" are singular in the Hebrew, there is a grammatical basis for assuming that in both cases this was a dialogue between just two of the brothers. In the Sephardi commentary, Meam Loez, (available as The Midrash Says, in English translation) we see clarified what we might have already guessed: "Simeon said this to Levi". What has happened to these two? The like-minded perpetrators who plotted Joseph's death in the short time it took him to walk towards them near Shechem, who threw their brother into a pit and sat down together to eat a sandwich afterwards while Joseph cried out from the pit (37:24), now collude in affirming that they are rightly punished.

After purchasing grain in Egypt, the brothers return to Jacob, this time without Simeon, who is being held hostage (by Joseph) until their return WITH BENJAMIN. When they open their bags they discover that their money has been returned to them. (Joseph had ordered the brothers' money replaced in their sacks so that they will expect to be accused of thievery upon their return to Egypt.) When the money is discovered, it is at once obvious that the brothers have a good reason to avoid returning to Egypt, even though Simeon is being held there as a hostage. Jacob, their father, is understandably upset (or so it would seem, unless you are convinced by what follows) "Their father Jacob said to them, 'It is always me that you bereave: Joseph is no more and Simeon is no more, and now you would take away Benjamin. These things always happen to me!'" (42:36)

Joseph was special, as we know; Benjamin was Jacob's youngest and was also the son of Rachel, Jacob's favored wife. But "sandwiched" between the names of the two obvious favorites, is Simeon! Rashi tells us that Jacob suspected his sons of killing Simeon or selling him like they had done with Joseph. But, if he suspects them now, surely according to Rashi's logic, he must also have suspected Simeon of involvement in the disappearance of Joseph. Yet, even so and rather significantly, Jacob places him on the same level as Joseph and Benjamin in his concern for them. Why is Jacob suddenly being so even-handed? Perhaps he is also subtly encouraging his sons to go through to healing process that he know they must after the horrendous "ends and means" episode that they are all culpable for. Soon Jacob will have an opportunity to see if his sons have at all improved.

The famine which sent the brothers to Egypt in the first place is harsh and persistent. The brothers know they must return to Egypt for more food. They approach Jacob for permission to return to Egypt with Benjamin, as the "Governor" has insisted. When Jacob resists letting Benjamin go, two offers are placed before the patriarch:

"Then Reuben said to his father, 'You may kill my two sons if I do not bring him [Benjamin] back to you. Put him in my care, and I will return him to you.'" (42:37)

And then later...

"Judah said to his father Israel, "send the boy in my care, and let us be on our way, that we may live and not die--you and we and our children. I myself will be a surety for him; you may hold me responsible...for we could have been there and back twice if we had not delayed'" (43:8-10)

Jacob rejects Reuben's offer out of hand. Rashi supplies Jacob's response: "Moron! They are my flesh and blood as well!" The midieval Sephardic commentator Me'am Loez, familiar with the language of barter and the characteristic protests of integrity one hears in the bazaars of the Middle East (i.e. "I swear on the life of xyz that this product is..."), saw this as an oath which was not meant to be taken at face value. He suggests that perhaps Reuben was willing to give up his sons' share in the division of the land of Israel. Whatever the hidden content of the oath, Jacob surely knew, as any other customer in the Market, not to take the words literally. Why then did he not entrust Benjamin to Reuben? If we look to Judah's offer, we begin to sense the answer. Judah tells Jacob, in essence, "I cannot swear to something which is out of my control. If the Egyptian Governor chooses to seize Benjamin, clearly it will NOT be with my approval. The most important matter here is that we are enduring a harsh famine and we need to buy food so that we can ALL survive." Judah emphasizes the equivalence of all: the brothers (Joseph, Benjamin and Simeon, as well), Jacob and even the little ones (including Reuben's sons, of course). Reuben's great flaw, then, was that he was operating in the old mode where the inclusion of one meant the exclusion of the other. Judah, on the other hand, could envision the family as a unit, with the individual good and the family good being one and the same.

Three significant moments define the healing process of the patriarchal family. While we can only touch on them briefly in this unit, I ask you to think of them as a progression. In chapter 45 we see the reunion of the brothers; in chapter 46 we see the reunion between Joseph and his father; and finally, in chapter 49, we see Jacob's blessings of all the sons. This is a key point of the Book of Genesis. While in previous generations, the blessing had been given to one and removed from the other, here in a much more complicated social framework, all the sons are included. Of course, not all the blessings read as generously as the promise of God to Abraham! For example:

"Simeon and Levi are a pair;/Their weapons are tools of lawlessness./Let not my person enter their council;/Or my being be joined to their ocmpany./For when angry they slay men, And when pleased they maim oxen./Cursed be their anger so fierce,/And their wrath so relentless./I will divide them in Jacob,/Scatter them in Israel" (49:5-7).

Even on his death bed, still the architect of the Jewish nation, Jacob strips Levi of his land inheritance while at the same time including him among the people. Levi will be scattered, but scattered among his own people; he will have no land (the Temple service will become Levi's portion), but will be supported by the people. What was Jacob's solution to the problem of Simeon and Levi getting into serious trouble together again? He did what any good parent would do: separate them! In the case of Jacob, however, separation does not mean condemning one to exclusion from the family and from the nation. For it is with Jacob's sons as a group, with all its strengths and weaknesses, that the family of Israel begins its growth to become the People of Israel.

* * * * *

I hope you have learned from and enjoyed "Family Relationships in the Bible".

Barbara Sutnick

* * * * *

All rights reserved. No part of this lecture may be reproduced for distribution except by permission of the Instructor.

QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT

1. Do you think that Jacob was consciously aware that he was sending Joseph to his death in chapter 37?

2. While most scholars hold that Joseph was leading his brothers through an important and necessary process of repentence before he revealed himself to them in Egypt; other say he was taking pleasure in torturing them. What do you think?

[Previous] [Home] [Homepage]