Scroll to Scroll:

Todays Parsha #10: Mikkets (At the end)

STUDY QUESTIONS FROM LAST WEEKS PORTION (Vayeshev)
1) In this Torah portion, there is one brother of Joseph who bears a striking similarity
with which disciple of Yshua?
Both Joseph and Yshua were betrayed by men named Judas/Yehudah. Although it is
possible to argue that Yehudah protected Joseph by turning away the plot to kill
him, it was still a betrayal to sell him into slavery.
2) At least according to some rabbinic authorities, the way they describe this other
brother of Joseph is the opposite of this disciple of Yshua, or perhaps they are more
alike that we would want to think about comfortably. Who is the brother and who is
the disciple?
In this answer as well as the previous one, I have deliberately omitted the fact in the
question that these men have the same name because that would make the question
too easy. However, now that you know, I think you also have the answer:
Shimeon/Shimon (Peter).
Shimeon is blamed by the rabbis for being the he who pushes Joseph into the well.
Now we can say he is the opposite of the chief disciple Shimon Keefa, but in an
uncomfortable way they are more alike since Keefa denied Yshua three times, after
swearing not to just hours earlier.
3) There is another very important instruction that most people think was not in force
before Sinai but clearly was in force in this Torah portion. What is that instruction?
The answer isthou shalt not commit adultery! As we see here
7

and it happened some time later that his master's wife cast her eyes on Joseph
and said, 'Sleep with me.' 8 But he refused. 'Look,' he said to his master's wife,
'with me here, my master does not concern himself with what happens in the
house, having entrusted all his possessions to me. 9 He himself wields no more
authority in this house than I do. He has exempted nothing from me except
yourself, because you are his wife. How could I do anything so wicked, and sin
against God?' (Genesis 39:7-9 NJB)
So Joseph calls sex with his masters wife wicked and a sin. Therefore, it was
understood that adultery was a sin in Josephs day. The Rabbis in fact believe that
Joseph got his moral code straight from his father Jacob, who in turn got it from
Isaac. Isaac probably emphasized this prohibition after seeing the damage that
`1 | P a g e

adultery had caused his father Abraham. Jacob passed it on in part also because of his
experience of pining for Rachel as first wife and not getting her as such, watching her
womb close up for 20 years because of it.
4) After Joseph prophesies to the cup bearer that he will be freed, he tells him to say to
Pharaoh that I was kidnapped out of the Land of the Hebrews, rather than the land
of Canaan, but this is centuries before the tribal allotments are given out. What I
want to focus on is this: Was there a political advantage to Joseph describing his land
in this way for the cup bearer to tell it to Pharaoh? If so, why would that be the case?
There are two political considerations in this description that Joseph gives. First,
Canaan is a buffer state as we mentioned recently between the Egyptians on one side
and the Hittites on the other. Both empires keep vying for influence in Canaan over
their rival, so if Joseph says he is from Canaan, it will be natural for Pharaoh to
wonder where his loyalty lies, either with Egypt or with the Hittites. After all,
Pharaoh probably also knows Josephs grandfather Abraham traded with his rivals
the Hittites and their ancestral burial ground at Macpelah is technically Hittite
territory, but transferred to Abraham for 400 shekels and by deed.
The other political concern is that the Pharaoh who is on the throne is not from the
real Egyptian royal family but is from a foreign people known as the Hyksos. The
Thebans were kicked out of the Nile Delta and pushed out of power in the Goshen
area, also known as Avaris in the archaeological record. But if Pharaoh is aware of
the power the Hebrews have through their Elohim, perhaps Joseph hopes that
Pharaoh will remember what happened when a previous Egyptian ruler took
Abrahams wife. Though that king was not from his lineage, the lesson of those
plagues would be a powerful deterrent to the Hyksos ruler not to mess with the
Hebrew people. It would be one thing if he did NOT know Joseph was imprisoned
and that he was Hebrewits another to know those things and deliberately oppress
him, so Joseph wants to make sure all is clear.
5) What does Stephens mode of address in this short portion reveal about himself in
relation to the people he is speaking to?
Stephen, whose Hebrew name is Tzephania, is revealing that he too is of Hebrew
extraction. He does this by calling the heads of the tribes of Israel OUR fathers, and
since the crowd doesnt dispute this, his lineage as a Jewish person must be an
established fact.
1) Meaning of this weeks Torah portion and summary of contents:
Mikkets means at the end as in at the end of two years of Josephs confinement.
When Pharaoh has bad dreams and cant get any of his seers to interpret them, the
wine taster remembers Joseph and tells Pharaoh he can help. After Joseph correctly
interprets the dream, he is quickly elevated to the second in command, given an
Egyptian priestess for wife and moves forward with his plan for storing grain during
the years of plenty. The rest of the portion details the intricate series of comical
`2 | P a g e

pranks Joseph plays on his brothersbut to those brothers it is a matter of life and
death which, obviously, is the whole point. Its time for Joseph to hold their lives in
HIS hands.
2) Parsha (English-Genesis 41:1-44:17). This week we will read the entire portion.
3) Play by Play commentary where appropriate.

Vayehi mikets shnatayim yamim uFar'oh cholem vehineh omed al-haYe'or.

Vehineh min-haYe'or olot sheva parot yefot mar'eh uvri'ot basar vatir'eynah
ba'achu.
4) Point out key Hebrew words/terms. Color Commentary:
VAYEHI MIKETS SHNATAYIM YAMIM (41:1) = and when two full years had
passedmeaning from when Joseph was thrown in prison and had his dream
interpretation free the wine taster.
One of the issues with Rabbinic chronology here is that in spite of the fact that there is
nearly universal agreement that Joseph was in Egypt during the time of the Hyksos (e.g.
Josephus, Against Apion 1:14), the Rabbinic year chosen in BCE time is way too late,
and after the Hyksos period, no matter which chronological system in Egypt is used.
With the Rabbis counting from 3761 BCE as their start, following the precise chronology
given in the Hebrew text (remember I support the Hebrew chronology in terms of
intervals, but not where the Rabbis choose to count those intervals from), 2230 years
after Adams creation year will bring us to 1532 BCE, well after the end of the Hyksos in
1570 to maybe 1550 BCE.
Now bible.ort.org makes an interesting comment about challenges in the rabbinic
counting
As mentioned above, however, it may be necessary to make a correction by as much as
163 years (note on Genesis 12:15). The Pharaoh would then be the one who, according to
conventional chronologies, reigned in 1695 b.c.e. This would place the Pharaoh in the
14th Dynasty, which was when Egypt was under the rule of the Hyksos. Since very little
is known historically of that period, it would explain why there are no historic records of
Joseph. Josephus also writes that the Israelites lived in Egypt during the reign of the
Hyksos (Contra Apion 1:14).
In my view, this is mostly correct. I put the rabbinic count off by 140 years from when
Adam was created (3901 vs. 3761 BCE for the rabbis) and 154 years off from when they
say the Temple was destroyed and what the rest of historians believe (586 BCE for
almost all historians vs. 432 BCE for the rabbis).

`3 | P a g e

And they are correct about Joseph being in Egypt during Hyksos rule. However, the 14th
dynasty was not ruling from Avaris during Josephs time. It is actually the 15th dynasty,
the one mentioned by Josephus and Manetho and reflected on the Turin Canon list, that is
the one that knew Joseph.
In fact, many Egyptologists are questioning the 14th dynasty as an independent group,
with some saying they could not have emerged prior to the 13th dynasty. In any case,
almost everyone puts the 14th dynasty as way too early for it to be associated with
Joseph1800 to 1700 BCE. Others put this group even earlier, back to the times of the
Middle Kingdom. And, no matter what position one ends up with, it is granted that the
challenges to chronological precision for this time in general are quite extreme.
For more information please see Life of Joseph bonus teaching.
SHEVA PAROT (41:3) = Seven cows. The Egyptian cow-goddess Hathor was said to
take seven forms, so Pharaoh in seeing seven cows might have had that imagery from
Abba YHWH based on that myth. Hathor was supposed to be the goddess of fertility but
ironically she also welcomed the dead into the afterlife. So, when Pharaoh sees seven
healthy cows followed by seven starving cows, the goddess worship he knows is being
used to terrify himthere is no more fertility in Egypt, only death.
CHARTUMIM (41:8) = magicians, but probably more than just that term suggests. This
is yet another Hebrew word that appears born from an ancient Egyptian oneCHER
THEMMUwhich roughly translates to magic writer or one who casts spells from
incantation books or inscriptions.
GALACH (41:14) = he SHAVED. This indicates that beards were not required, or
Moshe would have criticized Joseph here. Nor would the Egyptians have forced Joseph
to shave. Everyone from prisoners to visiting heads of state presented themselves before
Pharaohs with beards. Even when Egypt had a female Pharaoh (Hatshepsut), she is often
depicted with a beard. The prohibition on not marring the corners in Leviticus is
clarified in Deuteronomy that it is in connection with a ritual of the dead.
BILADAY ELOHIM YAANEY ET-SHLOM PAROH (41:16) = it is not by my own
power but Elohim may provide an answer to Pharaoh. The early form of not by might,
not by power, but by My Ruach which we saw two weeks ago. Daniel has a similar
attitude that the interpretation is given by Abba YHWH and he and Joseph are merely
giving YHWHs answers. On the other hand, Josephs declaration suggests he doesnt
interpret dreams at all but merely hears Abba YHWHs voice and gives that answer.
VAYIKATS (41:21) = Then I woke up. This is a very important detail. Even though
Joseph will say momentarily that these are one and the same dream, the fact that Pharaoh
wakes up, goes back to sleep and has the second dream is significant. Joseph means of
course that each dream brings the same message from Abba YHWH, and what this also
shows is that Abba YHWH is giving Pharaoh two witnesses to the judgment He is about
to inflict which is of course codified later in Deuteronomy 18 and 19.

`4 | P a g e

CHIMESH (41:34) = a rationing system, probably divided into fifths, from the Hebrew
word for five (CHUMASH = five books of Moshe). Most likely scenario I believe is
dividing Egypt into five administrative districts to efficiently distribute grain: In that day
five cities in the land of Egypt will be speaking the language of Canaan and swearing
allegiance to YHWH of hosts; one will be called the City of Destruction/City of the
Sun. (Isa 19:18)
KOL HA-ERETS EGYPT (41:41) = all the land of Egyptactually, not all of what
constituted Egypt before this period of history as Egypt was divided. The Hyksos ruled
in the Nile Delta region, alternatively called Goshen, Avaris or Tanis. Egypt was
actually two separate lands that got stitched together politically, but also retained
distinctiveness in their halves. This is reflected for example, in the crown of Pharaoh,
which was a combination of the individual crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt. This is
also why the Hebrew word for EgyptMisrayimis in the PLURAL, to reflect what
they called the Two Lands, MISR being a very ancient root that denotes building and
measurement.
Finally at this time, there were Thebans ruling in the south while the Hyksos ruled in the
north. It is likely that the starving Thebans were not allowed in to see Joseph to buy
grain, which may explain their getting what they felt was revenge against the Hebrews
once they regained control over the whole country. But again, at this time, ca. 1671
BCE, all of Egypt did not include the area that Thebes was a part of, so Joseph did not
rule there, nor did he give them grain, though he probably didnt understand that was
going on at the time.
AVREKH (41:43) = There is a lot of speculation about what this word means and
whether it is ancient Hebrew or Egyptian. In looking at the evidence I believe the most
likely linkage is with ancient Akkadian and the word ABRAKHU which means the head
of the royal house, the steward or chief assistant to the king. The problem with this being
ancient Hebrew is the derivatives all lead to meanings with father being attached such
as AV-REKH, my father is king. Joseph would not be called the son of this king!
VAYARKEV OTO BEMIKEVET HA-MISHNEH (41:43) = and he had him [Joseph]
ride in his second chariot. This is an extremely important clue in terms of dating these
events. There are some historians like David Rohl and Immanuel Velikovsky that want
to put Josephs time in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom or 12th Dynasty. The problem
with that idea, regardless as to how one dates these kingdoms which is a separate
problem altogether, is that we know the Middle Kingdom never saw or built a chariot!
So when the Hyksos invaded and displaced the 12th Dynasty that was the first experience
Egypt ever had with a chariot. Therefore, since there were no chariots in the Middle
Kingdom and since Joseph is shown to be riding on a chariot, Joseph cannot be dated to
the Middle Kingdom either, but can only be put in the Hyksos Period.
Later on, in the special teaching Life of Joseph we will get a lot more specifics on this
period in history. For now however, suffice to say that Joseph is sold into slavery at 17,
at which time the war between the native Egyptians and the Hyksos is going on. By age
23, the Hyksos have won and they rule for 108 years after that. Since Joseph dies aged
110, that means Joseph is in Egypt 87 years, which really helps narrow down the totality
`5 | P a g e

of possible years for the entire drama to unfold under. Linking these times to other
information we have about Exodus and Moshe will help hone these numbers even more
precisely, to the degree that I truly believe what I have is very close to the actual years
the events occurred, although a few details inside the overall chronology will always
remain somewhat vague.
TZAPHENATH PANEACH (41:45) = Very interesting possibilities! According to
Josephus this is a Hebrew translation of the real Egyptian name, whatever it actually
was. Josephus believes that name means revealer of secrets. While that is appropriate, I
believe it is far more likely this is an Egyptian name that the rabbis wanted to convince
others away from. NATH/NETH/NAS was an Egyptian false deity and this name could
have formed the part of Joseph and his wifes name (will explain below). In terms of
meanings, TZAPHENATH means Neth speaks and PANEACH means the life hence
Neth speaks life or if Neth denotes a master, Lord of Life has been supposed by
some rabbis. My personal opinion: The mighty one speaks and this man lives. It would
not be surprising that the Egyptians might associate Josephs powers as coming from one
of their deities or that Josephs One True El was part of their pantheon under another
name.
ASENATH (41:45) = Along the same lines she is a pagan priestess so her name could
be associated with this same Neth, ASA-NETH, belonging to Neth. It is possible that
Neth again would have been understood by some as a generic term for god and would
be applied to Abba YHWH.
Other authorities think Asenath isnt pagan at all but is the daughter of Dinah (and
Shechem?) who was brought to Egypt and adopted by Poti-phera, but I find this highly
unlikely that a Hebrew woman like Dinah would have put her daughter in the care of
pagans. In yet one more possibility, ASENATH is alleged to be from a Hebrew origin
after all, derived from SNEH (bush). I do not find that last idea persuasive however. I go
with belonging to Neth or generically belonging to Elohim would be just about as
Hebraic as I would go, and even that is a stretch.
POTIPHERA (41:45) = Purely Egyptian name, Pa-diu Per-Ra, gift of the house of Ra
(sun god). I should also point out that PHARAOH is PER RA (great house) and all
pharaohs had a pre-name SE RA, son of Ra.
MANASSEH (41:50) = forget. Joseph has forgotten his grief. EPHRAIM (41:51) =
fruitful, indicates that Joseph is also thriving and bearing fruit in his new land.
Although, as I indicated last week, it could be argued that Canaan gave him more
affliction than Egypt did!
VAYOMER PAROH LECHOL MITZRAYIM LECHU EL-YOSEF ASHER
YOMAR LECHEM TAASU (41:55) = and Pharaoh said to all of Egypt: Go to
Joseph and do whatever he tells you. I find it interesting that Pharaoh commands his
people to go to Joseph rather than go to Tzaphenath Paneah, the Egyptian name
he publicly gave him. Perhaps by this time both Pharaoh and the Egyptian people
had accepted Joseph over the last 7 years and were more comfortable calling him by
`6 | P a g e

his Hebrew name.

VEYOSEF HU HA-SHALIT (42:6) = and Joseph was like a dictator. The word
SHALIT as a verb means to have mastery over, to dominate. This Hebrew root
gives birth to SHOLTANA in Aramaic (e.g. Matthew 9:6, Mark 1:27) and SULTAN
in Arabic. The synonym for SHOLTANA is KHAILA in Aramaic, and is used by
Yshua in the Masters Prayer as the POWER in kingdom, power, glory. Arabic
will borrow that term too as apply it to their leaders as well: CALIPH.
VAYIZKOR YOSEF ET-HACHALOMOT ASHER CHALAM LAHEM
VAYOMER ALEHEM MERAGLIM ATEM LIROT ET-ERVAT HA-ARETZ
BATEM (42:9) = And Joseph remembered what he had dreamed about them. He
said, You are spies! You have come to see the nakedness of the land! Joseph
specifically remembered his dreams at 17 years old, where his family is bowing
down to him as stars or sheaves of wheat, which his brothers did in 42:6. The
nakedness of the land is a metaphor for exploring the weaknesses in the
fortifications of Egypt.
VEGAM DAMO HINEH NIDRASH (42:22) = Literally, and now his blood,
behold, seeks (us out) or his blood is balancing the account/recompensing for our
sins.
MEITAM ET-SHIMON VAYEESOR OTO LEEYNEYHEM (42:24) = He had
Shimeon taken from them and placed in chains before their eyes. This is because, as
we discussed last week, one brother is guilty of violently pushing Joseph into the
Dothan well, and this appears to be payback to that individual brother.
Note on 42:27: According to the Yonatan Targum and Rashi, the one who opened
his sack and saw the money was there was Levi.
MEAT TSARI UMEAT DVASH NECHOT VALOT BOTNIM USHKEDIM (43:11) =
a little balsam, a little honey, some gum, resin, pistachio nuts and almonds. These
products though are not native to Egypt but were sent there by the same Midianite traders
who sold Joseph into slavery (Genesis 37:25)!
43:21- and it came about when we came to the lodging place, that we opened our sacks,
and behold, each man's money was in the mouth of his sack, our money in full. So we
have brought it back in our hand, is not exactly what happened in real time but a
simplified summary.
HASHALOM AVICHEM HAZAKEN (43:27) = Literally, Is your father who is old at
peace? This can have a double meaning that is not wholly resolved with the answer that
he is alive. at peace can mean he is well, healthy or it can mean he is resting in
peace. It is possible that Joseph intended to ask this question in a vague manner to
gauge his brothers reactions.
HAMITZRIM LEECHOL ET HA IVRIM (43:32) = the Egyptians didnt eat with
`7 | P a g e

Hebrews. This was because Hebrews ate sheep whereas sheep were a sacred and taboo
animal to the Egyptians, much like how Hindus dont eat cows. This may also add
another wrinkle to why Potiphar only worried about Josephs foodironically with the
Hebrew being considered unclean!
HA IR (44:4) = the citysome believe this was Memphis, the old capital of Egypt
again during the Hyksos period and earlier but NOT during the New Kingdom, when it
was moved to Thebes. Memphis is mentioned in Scripture as NOPH or MOPH in
Hebrew (Isaiah 19:13, Hosea 9:6, Jeremiah 2:16 and Ezekiel 30:13). But the Hyksos
had their own capital at Avaris or Goshen, and so this is what I go with.
Torah Question of the Week:
How has Joseph changed and how has he not changed in terms of the way he treats
his brothers?
END PART 1

`8 | P a g e

PART 2: THE HAFTORAH

Torah Question of the Week:
How has Joseph changed and how has he not changed in terms of the way he treats
his brothers?
Joseph has changed in that he doesnt revel in his superior position to cause his
brothers excessive painor at least not permanent or damaging pain. But he still is
clearly the practical joker and is relishing these pranks he plays at their expense.
Bonus Tanakh Teaching!
Life of Joseph
Joseph was born in 1701 BCE, according to my chronology which counts forwards from
Adam's creation (3901 BCE) and backwards from Exodus (1447 BCE), in Hebrew
intervals for when the patriarchs had their first born son.
In 1684 BCE, Joseph turned 17 years old and was sold into slavery in Egypt. According
to the Turin Canon list, at that general time we have a total of 6 Hyksos kings reigning
over 108 years.
However, Josephus says this dynasty lasted 511 years, because his source Manetho
wrongly assumed only one king or dynasty ruled at a time, and we know now during this
period, several dynasties were ruling in different places at once. Manetho did not account
for co-regencies either, or when two kings ruled at the same time.
Different books on the subject from mainstream Egyptologists are also on occasion
totally confused on this period of time. It seems that there were two Hyksos groups
reigning at the same time: the 15th dynasty from Avaris or Goshen and the 16th dynasty
that are minor vassal kings in the general area, plus another Hyksos group near Thebes,
reigning at the same time as 17th (Theban) dynasty.
Whatever that final configuration turns out to be, to have at least three contemporaneous
dynasties that could all be called Hyksos at the same time more than accounts for the
differences between 108 years for the group that knew Joseph and the 511 years that
Josephus ascribes to the entire Second Intermediate Period.
And so, in order to really recover more details about Josephs life, we need to have a
thorough understanding of the 15th Dynasty and the Hyksos kings Joseph knew and
served under. This is critical, because it also will set us up for properly understanding
Moshe and the Exodus which also can also best make sense during their proper time in
Egyptian history. That said, here is the list according Josephus:
79

There Salatis came in summer time, partly to gather his grain, and pay his
soldiers their wages, and partly to exercise his armed men, and thereby to terrify
foreigners. 80 When this man had reigned thirteen years, after him reigned
another, whose name was Beon, for forty-four years; after him reigned another,
`9 | P a g e

called Apachnas, thirty-six years and seven months; after him Apophis reigned
sixty-one years, and then Yonias fifty years and one month; 81 after all these
reigned Assis forty-nine years and two months. And these six were the first rulers
among them, who were all along making war with the Egyptians, and were very
desirous gradually to kill them to the very roots. (Against Apion, 1:79-81)
Total: 13+ 44 + 36 years, 7 months + 61 + 50 years and 1 month + 49 years, 2
months = 253 years and 10 months.
Now of these 6 names given by Manetho, the Turin Canon matches up only 3 of them
this way:
1) Sakir-Har (Salatis), 2) Khyan (Beon), 3) Apepi (Apophis)
The name "Salatis", sometimes called in Arabic "Sultan"--powerful king--is quite similar
to Sakir-Har on the Turin Canon, but that source doesn't list the length of his reign,
whereas "Salatis" was said by Manetho to have reigned 13 years. I believe therefore
Salitis and Sakir-Har refer to the same king, an idea which is confirmed in the research of
Dr. Ian Shaw (Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, 2000) who lists Salatis and Sakir-Har as
the same king.
The second name, Beon, is widely believed to be a corruption of "Khyan", a king who
Josephus says reigned 44 years but now is widely believed to have reigned 35 years
instead.
This figure is based on the work of Egyptologist Kim Ryholt, who estimates Khyan ruled
30-40 years based on the number of scarabs produced during his reign and other
evidence. I dont see a problem with splitting the difference because, even if this
estimate is off by a few years on either side, the discrepancy can simply be credited or
debited to the times of two missing kings that we will see in a moment belong to this
dynasty.
Additionally, Josephus puts Khyans reign at 50 years, most scholars believe Josephus
has combined his rule with another king. Confusion may have come from the record of a
prince named Yanassi (Iannas in Josephus) whom most believe had a lengthy co-regency
with his father, but was apparently pushed aside after Khyan died and the king Apepi
took over in a coup.
The third king, Apepi, has his reign being attested to as 40 years based on the Turin
Canon. Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt. Librairie Arthme Fayard, 1988,
p.189. The Rhind Papyrus gives his reign as lasting a minimum of 33 years, but doesnt
say he died in that 33rd year.
And this is also why almost all Egyptologists today believe the 61 year reign of Apepi is
either greatly exaggerated or being conflated with another Apepi in another dynasty.

`10 | P a g e

Another king, Khamudi (4) is shown to be the last king of this dynasty according to a
document known as the Rhind Papyrus which tells us he ruled for 11 years, according to
Egyptologist Thomas Schneider:
Another reign length can be inferred from the note on the verso of the Rhind
Mathematical Papyrus whereby in the 11th regnal year of the ruling king,
Heliopolis has been conquered, and "he of the South" has attacked and taken Sile.
Since "he of the South" must denote the Theban ruler Ahmose, the regnal year 11
can only be assigned to the successor of the Hyksos king Apepi: Khamudi. The
Hyksos capital Avaris will have fallen to Ahmose not much later".[1]
Thomas Schneider, The Relative Chronology of the Middle Kingdom and the
Hyksos Period (Dyns. 12-17) in Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss & David Warburton
(editors), Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Handbook of Oriental Studies), Brill:
2006, p.195.
So let's add up the time thus far: Sakir-Har (13) + Beon/Khyan (35) + Apepi (40) +
Khamudi (11) = 99 years.
This only gives us 9 more years to account for and for me the answer is very simple.
While the Turin Canon tells us there were 6 kings for the 15th Dynasty for a total of 108
years, as I said, it doesnt name two of them.
However there are two kings who bear the title Heku Shasu (foreign princes, Hyksos)
which is title far more predominant, if not universal and unique to, the 15th Dynasty.
Although there is a huge debate going on in Egyptology circles, now about whether these
kings (Semqen and Aperanat) are 15th or 16th Dynasty, I agree with Kim Ryholt that the
Heku Shasu title for these kings makes his theory the one to beathis opponents need to
prove him wrong rather than he having to prove himself rightso I put these kings in the
15th dynasty as the two missing kings off of the Turin Canon list.
Another factor that strengthens this theory is that both kings are only testified to having
ruled by a single scarab each, a fact which almost certainly points to a fairly short reign
of no more than a few years each.
On the other hand though, I disagree with Ryholts theory that these missing kings were
the first and second rulers of that 15th Dynasty because in most cases errors of which king
belongs where are in the middle of a sequence, not the beginning. The overall trend then
is to treat the first few kings of a dynasty as being the most likely to be correct before too
much time passes to mess things up with co-regencies and other problems.
As a result, my best hypothesis for the moment is that Semqen and Aperanat reigned
somewhere in the middle of the dynasty, since I believe we are on very solid historical
footing in saying that Sakir-Har was the first king and Khamudi was the last.
With this data in place we can now progress to fitting these kings into the overall period,
from 1678 to 1570 BCE, the latter date being when the Hyksos were defeated and driven
out by Pharaoh Ahmose I, first king of the 18th dynasty.
1) Sakir Har (1678-1665 BCE)
2) Khyan (1665-1630 BCE)
3) Semqen (1630-1625 BCE)
`11 | P a g e

4) Aperanat (1625-1621 BCE)

5) Apepi (1621-1581 BCE)
6) Khamudi (1581-1570 BCE)
However, in Biblical terms there is a slight issue. Joseph was born in 1701 BCE, so he is
17 years old in 1684 BCE when he goes into Egypt. This would have been, assuming the
chronologies on both ends are correct, about 6 years before the Hyksos 15th dynasty took
power and there is widespread agreement the Joseph story takes place entirely in that
time.
The issue is I think fairly resolved if we consider that while Joseph is 17 at that time, he
is only in Potiphar's house, then prison, for about 2 years but by the time Joseph was
thrown into jail, he had to be about 27 years old, because he is 30 when he interprets
Pharaoh's dream.
So Joseph may have arrived in Egypt during the chaos of their civil war! Fearing he could
not return home (like his father Jacob, when he was on the run from Esau), somehow
Joseph must have led a life of deprivation and hardship trying to survive for about 6
years.
This may explain why Genesis breaks up the Joseph story in chapter 38 to tell the story of
Judah and Tamar--chronologically that story happened between Joseph's arrival and
coming into Potiphar's house.
Finally, one other clue in Genesis is highly significant for dating this time. In Genesis
39:1 Potiphar is called the Egyptiana very curious phrase if the king and his court we
all Egyptian too! Therefore, I believe this clue is telling us a foreign king has just taken
power in Egypt who just happened to retain a few native Egyptians in his court, Potiphar
being one of them. Such a process then I think also points to the very start of that 15th
Dynasty, when a move like that seems far more probable, rather than later on when the
new dynasty has had sufficient time to push out her enemies and consolidate power.
So now here is Joseph's biography as it may have intersected with the 6 Hyksos kings of
the 15th Dynasty:
1701 (BCE)-Joseph is born.
1684-Joseph at 17 is sold to the Midianites who keep him probably for about 6 years.
1678-Hyksos are victorious. King Sakir-Har inaugurates the 15th dynasty. Joseph
enters Potiphars house at 23 years of age.
1673-Joseph is thrown into prison for 2 years.
1671-Joseph, now 30, is brought before Pharaoh Sakir-Har, and interprets his dreams; 7
years of plenty begin and Joseph stores grains. Marries Asenath and has two sons,
Manasseh and Ephraim.
1665-Pharaoh Sakir-Har dies. Khyan takes over and retains Josephs services.
1664-Years of plenty end and famine begins. Joseph is now 37 years old.

`12 | P a g e

1662-2nd year of famine concludes. Joseph reconciles with his brothers. Jacob is brought
to Egypt, aged 130. Joseph turns 39.
1657-Famine ends. Joseph is now 44 years old.
1647-Jacob dies in Egypt, age 147, but he will be buried back in Canaan. Joseph is now
54 years old.
1630-Pharaoh Khyan dies.
ca. 1630-1625-Reign of Pharaoh Semqen.
ca. 1625-1621-Reign of Pharaoh Aperanat.
1621-Pharaoh Apepi ascends to the throne. He will be the last one Joseph knows.
1591-Joseph dies, age 110. [Exodus happens 144 years later.]
1581-King Apepi dies. Khamudi, the last Hyksos king, ascends to the throne.
1570-Khamudi killed and deposed by Theban Ahmose I. 18th dynasty born. Ahmose
"doesn't know Joseph" because his people were not fed by him in the famine by
their enemy Hyksos rival. The Hebrews are enslaved at this moment or a few years
later.
From Joseph to Moshe and Exodus
1545-Ahmose I dies and Amenhotep I ascends the throne.
1537-Return of Sirius to align with Civil Year, a once in every 1,461 year occurrence,
happens in this Pharaohs 9th year. This may be the star sign the Egyptians dreaded as it
heralded possible return and judgment of their gods, making them nervous that a Hebrew
deliverer might be on the way.
1526-Amenhotep I dies and Thutmoses I ascends to the throne. Moshe is also born at this
time. Perhaps fearing the judgment of his alleged gods was imminent, Thutmoses I orders
the Hebrew infants killed to prevent their deliverer from arising. Thutmoses Is daughter,
Hatshepsut, who is about 13 years old, rescues Moshe from death.
1515-Thutmoses I dies and Thutmoses IIHatshepsuts brother and husbandascends
to the throne.
1508-Thutmoses II dies and his wife Hatshepsut becomes Queen Regent, holding the
throne (theoretically) in custody for when his infant son, Thutmoses III, comes of age.
[There is controversy among Egyptologists about how long T-II reigned, from as little as
3 to as long as 14 years. I believe the evidence points to 6 years.]
1502-Hatshepsut becomes Pharaoh in her own right, bypassing Thutmoses III who is still
a child, but is not able to make Moshe crown prince either, and he is nearly 30 years old.
1500-Hatshepsut has successful trade mission to Punt (Somalia) and probably took Prince
Moshe with her. [Moshes Egyptian name is Asiri-Meses by the way, the son of Osiris.]
1493-Hathshepsuts chief advisor and lover Senenmut, a man who also tutored Moshe,
disappears mysteriously. Although he built two tombs for himself, his body was never in
either. I believe Senenmut was Hebrew and returned to his people as a man named
Mered, who would marry Hatshepsut later, when she fled Egypt.

`13 | P a g e

1487-22 years after Hatshepsut became Queen Regent and 15 years after she became
Pharaoh, she disappears under mysterious circumstances. The lady buried in her tomb at
Deir el Bahri may not even be her, but even if it is, I believe she would have been buried
there many years later, by either Moshe or Senenmut.
1487-1486-Somewhere in this time frame, with his royal protection gone, Moshe kills the
overseer and flees to Midian. Thutmoses III is now Pharaoh. I believe Hatshepsut did not
die at this time, but also left Egypt around this time, probably separate from Moshe, but
they will be reunited later.
1450 (March)-Thutmoses III dies while Moshe is in exile. Amenhotep II becomes
Pharaoh, and he will be the one to confront Moshe at Exodus.
1447-Exodus.
1) Haftorah portion: (English- 1 Kings 3:15-4:1) and discuss common themes with
the Torah portion. Read entire portion first.

Vayikats Shlomoh vehineh chalom vayavo Yerushalayim vaya'amod

lifney aron brit-Yahweh vaya'al olot vaya'as shlamim vaya'as mishteh
lechol-avadav.
Az tavonah shtayim nashim zonot el-hamelech vata'amodnah lefanav.
Vatomer ha'ishah ha'achat bi adoni ani veha'ishah hazot yoshevot
bevayit echad va'eled imah babayit.
2) Our linguistic commentary
ARON BRIT ADONAY (3:15) = Ark of the Covenant of Adonai. Solomon could
actually be in the presence of the ark without being a kohen and without dying. This is
how righteous he is, or perhaps he has a special dispensation in return for his building
the Temple.
ZONOT (3:16) = harlots. These are regular women who have had sex out of
marriage or who are regular prostitutes. They are not KEDESHA, or cult
prostitutes.
VAYEHI HAMELECH SHLOMOH MELECH HA KOL YISRAEL (4:1) = And it
came to pass the king, Solomon, is king over all Israel. This line is interesting because it
is clear Solomon has been king for a while and yet it says this as if his kingship is new. I
think this is because Solomon really proved himself in the trial of the women and put
Israel in awe. He may have been on the throne for a while, but after this incident he was
proven worthy in the court of public opinion.
3) Renewed Covenant portion: (English). Acts 7:9-16 (all the way through
`14 | P a g e

with applicable footnotes.)

Bonus NT Teaching!
How Many Souls Went to Egypt70 or 75?
And Where are Josephs Seven Extra Sons?
About twenty years ago when I began researching the Aramaic Scriptures, I came
across the overwhelmingly prevailing scholarly opinion that the NT quoted
frequentlyeven liberallyfrom the Greek OT, or what we call the Septuagint.
This theory set me on a path of discovery that I am still walking through even now
because there are so many moving parts around it generally, as well as how to
answer the specifics and count the Hebrews in Egypt, at either 70 or 75.
Staying on the general process though for a while, I began looking at each of the
claims Greek NT scholars made about these alleged Greek OT quotes and found
that I could refute the vast majority of them with little effort and others with a bit
more effort.
For example, consider the case of Genesis 47:31. In that passage of Scripture Jacob
is dying (we will of course read this in two weeks) and the Hebrew Masoretic Text
says, and Israel bowed at the head of the bed.
However, in the Greek translation it says, and Israel bowed at the head of the
staff. Because the Greek NT also says staff rather than bed in Hebrews 11:21
(Greek word: rhabdos, meaning staff, rod, scepter), the assumption was made the
Greek NT was quoting the Greek OT over the Hebrew OT.
But I say, wait, not so fast. First of all, we needed to remember that the Greek OT
was merely a translation of a more ancient Hebrew OT which was in circulation in
first century Israel.
In one of our most ancient witnesses, the Samaritan Pentateuch which predates the
Masoretic Text by at least 700 years, it gives the word as arsa (bed), and that word
only means bed. Please see: http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/showtargum.php.
Similarly, the Onkelos Targum from the 2nd century CE also picked bed with the
word (arsa), and such was passed down universally on the Aramaic side for
centuries after this. The Dead Sea Scrolls reading of Genesis 47:31 has regrettably
not survived.
Because ancient Hebrew had no vowels, the sound of the word would change its
meaning. Point it one way (mittah) and it means bed and point it the other way
(mitteh, spelled with the same letters/consonants) and it means staff!
In other words, the best explanation for the staff/bed variant was that one ancient
Hebrew word with two meanings had each of those meanings picked by different
witnesses. The Greek OT picked bed, while the Aramaic Tanakh (Mss. 14,425,
Codex Ambrosianius) had khotreh (his staff).
`15 | P a g e

In this case though, the question of who is right is secondary to what came from
where and for that question I think the answer shows it did not arise from the
Greek!
In much the same way then, Genesis 46:27 is not all it appears to be either. Like
the previous example, the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Aramaic OT text says
seventy souls went down to Egypt, the Greek Septuagint translation says
seventy-five and the Greek and Aramaic NT in Acts 7:14 both also say seventyfive. So, does this mean both the Aramaic and Greek NT are quoting from the
Septuagint? Hardly! Heres why:
26

All the persons that came with Jacob into Egypt, who came out of his loins,
besides Jacob's sons' wives, were sixty-six persons in all; 27 And the sons of
Joseph who were born to him in Egypt were two persons; thus all the persons
of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt were seventy. (Gen. 46:26-27 LPT)
The Aramaic OT is saying to exclude the wives of Jacobs sons in the count, and you get
66, plus Josephs two sons, plus Joseph and Asenath. Total: 70. The Hebrew Masoretic
text says exactly the same thing, which is important because it shows that tradition is
confirmed in far older Aramaic manuscripts from five centuries before the Aleppo or
Leningrad Codices were done.
But now lets turn to the Greek OT and to its quotes in Greek and Aramaic Acts 7:14.
26

And all the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, who came out of his loins,
besides the wives of the sons of Jacob, even all the souls were sixty-six. 7 And the
sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all
the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five
souls. (Gen. 46:26-27 LXE)
Like the other witnesses, the Greek also excludes the wives of Jacobs sons. But unlike
the others, the Greek says AND THE SONS OF JOSEPH WHO WERE BORN TO HIM
IN THE LAND OF EGYPT WERE NINE SOULS!
So now it gets very interesting: The Greek is saying Joseph has SEVEN more sons than
the Hebrew and Aramaic donine instead of two. Whats going on here?
Well one thing that seems to be going on is that Manasseh and Ephraim are part of the
nine. Joseph and Asenath, who are already in Egypt, are not counted, so 66 + 9 =75. As
for the NT, both the Greek and Aramaic versions of Acts 7:14 read the same way, so let
me use my version:
14

And Yosip sent for his father and brought Ya'akov and all his family. And
they were seventy and five souls in number. (Acts 7:14 AENT)

`16 | P a g e

So by Stephen, or Tzephaniah as he was known, since Joseph SENT for his father
AND brought him and all his family, this means once again that Joseph and Asenath
are not counted.
However, notice also there is no mention of the nine sons, that is, the seven extra sons
after Ephraim and Manasseh. If Stephen is quoting the Greek OT, did he forget all
these sons of Joseph? Or, perhaps there is yet another explanation in this situation and
all its twists and turns.
The answer is, Acts 7:14 also is not referencing how it counted the initial 66 souls
and therefore it is not referencing whether it is counting the wives of Jacobs sons! In
fact, in order for the numbers to work, Tzephaniah may instead be counting the
wives that were not counted in the other versions.
The only problem is, the Scripture itself doesnt tell us directly how many of these
wives from Jacobs sons are still alive at this momentso have we hit another brick
wall? Not necessarily, because there is one other detail about Tzephaniah that needs
to be given:
5

And this saying was pleasing before all the people. And they chose Astapanos,
a man who was full of faith and the Ruach haKodesh. (Acts 6:5 AENT)
8

Now Astapanos was full of grace and power and would perform signs and
wonders among the people. (Acts 6:8 AENT)
10

And they were not able to stand against the wisdom and the Spirit which
spoke by him. (Acts 6:10 AENT)
So Tzephaniah is a prophet who is both full of the Ruach haKodesh and does signs
and wonders. In other words, Tzephaniah meets all the requirements of a true prophet
according to the Torah! Lets see this up close:
But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My Name, which I have
not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other mighty
ones, even that prophet shall die. And when you say in your heart, How do we
know the word which has not spoken? when the prophet speaks in the
Name of and the word is not, or comes not, that is the word which
has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. Do not be afraid
of him. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22, The Scriptures 1998)
The phrase word is not or comes not means that he either was deceptive about
Scripture or he made a prediction that did not come true. Either way, if a would be
prophet proclaimed himself as such and was found to be wrong after having spoken in
Father Yahs Name, he is put to death.
But on the flip side, if Tzephaniah is telling the truth and did speak in Father Yahs
Name, then he is a true prophet which, as we just saw, was confirmed with his being
`17 | P a g e

filled with the Ruach and doing miracles that happened. So then, the only question left is,
since Tzephaniah is a true prophet, did he speak in Father Yahs Name? You bet he did!
Six times in Tzephaniahs speech he refers to Master YHWH (MarYAH) rather than
Elohim and, if hes speaking in Hebrew which seems likely, that means he is actually
saying Yahweh as he quotes Scripture and that, ironically, may have really been what
got him killed, saying the Name that was punishable by death under Oral Law.
The bottom line is it was the Ruach ha Kodesh that told him the right number of people
settling in Egypt. And whether Tzephaniah counted the wives or the seven extra sons of
Joseph, either way, we can be sure he had that number correct and that he didnt need the
Greek OT to give it to him.
Therefore, its simply two different ways to count the same people which we can finally
confirm by talking about the second witness to our final answer, in Deuteronomy:
Your fathers went down to Mitsrayim with seventy beings, and now
your Elohim has made you as numerous as the stars of the heavens.
(Deuteronomy 10:22, The Scriptures 1998, quoting the Hebrew)
22

Your fathers went down to Egypt seventy persons; and now Mar-YAH
your Elohim has made you as the stars of heaven in multitude.
(Deuteronomy 10:22, Lamsa, quoting the Aramaic)
22

With seventy souls your fathers went down into Egypt; but the Yahweh
your Elohim has made thee as the stars of heaven in multitude.
(Deuteronomy 10:22, Brenton, quoting the Greek)
Therefore the Torah text is consistent across the board. While different versions
may choose to count 70 or 75 in Genesis according to each ones individual
criteria, these same witnesses unanimously agree how to count the same group
in Deuteronomy 10:22. Again, no Greek OT is needed to tell Stephen how to
count!
And by the way, as a kind of postscript, perhaps some of you might be wondering
about these seven extra sons Joseph is supposed to have had that all other versions
seem to have forgotten about. Is there any trace of them elsewhere?
The answer, unfortunately, is NO. I have yet to find anything even in folklore that
talks about all of Josephs alleged sons, the nine that is. Nothing in Hebrew,
Aramaic, Greek, Latin or Talmud or even Apocrypha seems to hint about these
guys.
That doesnt mean they didnt exist of course, but if they did, if seven sons
additional sons were born to Joseph and Asenath in the long decades after the
famine that Scripture skips over, we do know that Jacob only adopted Ephraim and
Manasseh, in part so that their half Egyptian heritage would not be held against
`18 | P a g e

them, and it is at that moment that Jacob says something interesting:

5

"Now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to
you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon
are. 6 "But your offspring that have been born after them shall be yours; they
shall be called by the names of their brothers in their inheritance. (Genesis 48:5-6
NAU)
See that? Jacob seems to be saying that he already knows more offspring have come to
Joseph, i.e., that have been born after them, but for some reason we dont know anything
else about what must be seven additional sons! Maybe its a fluke thoughlets check
some other translations:
But with regard to the children you have had since them, they shall be yours
(Genesis 48:6 NJB)
But the children that you begot after them shall be yours (Genesis 48:6 LPT)
And still other translations will read that Jacob is talking about future sons for Joseph that
will be born later. Either way it seems we are not confined to just Ephraim and Manasseh.
So I suppose the discovery is just beginning after all.
4) Highlight common themes in Aramaic (terms in footnotes which I will read):
5) Apply these themes/issues to modern issues in the Netzari faith. (Remember
always that out of the 70 souls that went into Egypt a nation of millions arose.
Great things start from small beginnings. Only 70 righteous people dedicated to
Abba YHWHone extended familytransformed in bondage and hardship
into a mighty people.)
6) Relate to all or part of an Appendix portion of AENT or footnotes from a portion
(Founders of the All Gentile Church, p. 829-835).
STUDY QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED NEXT WEEK
1) What is the main difference in the level of the prophetic gifts and dream
interpretation between Joseph and the prophet Daniel?
2) But Daniel and Joseph are also united in a common cause that is the impetus
for their gifts to manifest. What is that common cause?
3) Joseph is given Asenath for a wife, and she is called a priestess of On,
which is a city in Egypt. What is the significance of the city of On and how
might it suggest the kind of knowledge the Hebrews are about to have access
to, assuming they dont know about it already?

`19 | P a g e

4) Who is the other great Biblical figure that, at least according to extra-biblical
literature, that was inextricably linked to the city of On for similar reasons as
the previous answer indicated?
5) Why does Mar Tzephania (St. Stephen/Astaphanos in Acts 7:16 say they
were carried over into Shechem when Jacob was not buried in Shechem, but
near Hebron, in Machpelah? Also it was Jacob who purchased land from the
sons of Hamor, not Abraham, so is this a contradiction?
Torah Thought for the Week:
Josephs Revenge?
While it is clear that the Joseph story is all about forgiveness and reconciliation of family
in spite of horrific sins, we should not diminish any of Josephs trials and tribulations that
lead him to various stops on his emotional journey. In order to appreciate the depth of
grace that Joseph will shower on his brothers we need to also take careful thought and
pause at the points in time where perhaps Joseph was not quite so gracious, and thats
putting it nicely.
As we discussed earlier, the moment Joseph was thrown into the Dothan well, the
Hebrew says it was HE who did it, not THEM, meaning two or more of his brothers. The
attack, as Joseph remembers it, begins with the violence of ONE MAN that the Torah
text does not explicitly name. However the Rabbis astutely noticed that sometime later,
in THIS Torah portion, Joseph has singled out only ONE brother for a special
punishment:
16

"Send one of you that he may get your brother, while you remain confined, that
your words may be tested, whether there is truth in you. But if not, by the life of
Pharaoh, surely you are spies." 17 So he put them all together in prison for three
days. 18 Now Joseph said to them on the third day, "Do this and live, for I fear
God: 19 if you are honest men, let one of your brothers be confined in your
prison; but as for the rest of you, go, carry grain for the famine of your
households, 20 and bring your youngest brother to me, so your words may be
verified, and you will not die." And they did so. 21 Then they said to one another,
"Truly we are guilty concerning our brother, because we saw the distress of his
soul when he pleaded with us, yet we would not listen; therefore this distress has
come upon us." 22 Reuben answered them, saying, "Did I not tell you, 'Do not sin
against the boy'; and you would not listen? Now comes the reckoning for his
blood." 23 They did not know, however, that Joseph understood, for there was an
interpreter between them. 24 He turned away from them and wept. But when he
returned to them and spoke to them, he took Simeon from them and bound him
before their eyes. (Genesis 42:16-24 NAU)
We can see the immediate pleasure Joseph must have had. He could have thought, It
was YOU Simeon who began my separation from my family. Now I will do the same to
you! And this is in spite of the fact that earlier Joseph named his son Manasseh, or
`20 | P a g e

forgetfulness saying, I have forgotten my afflictions or words to that effect. Well

perhaps he did when he first got elevated by Pharaoh and began enjoying the perks of his
officebut when his brothers came to buy grain I suspect a lot of REMEMBERING
began to take hold. He bound the man who bound him and imprisoned the man who
imprisoned him.
It would be very naturalespecially in the case of sibling offensesfor Joseph to put
almost all his anger upon Simeon. We tend to blame the other person who in our minds
represents the first cause to our distress, as if to say, If YOU hadnt done X none of
these other tragedies would have ever happened! We say that and in most cases, we
know it isnt fair or true, yet it makes us feel better when we put that other down.
This is why also I believe Joseph is NOT angry at Potiphar for a similar offense and
doesnt even THINK of taking vengeance against him as second to Pharaoh. After all,
Potiphar threw him into prison where he languished for two years!
And what about that ungrateful sniveling of a cup bearer? How natural it would have
been for Joseph to say, I got YOU out of jail buddyand all I asked for in return was
for you to return the favor. So now, since no one lifts up hand or foot in Egypt without
MY say so, you are going to die unless Pharaoh countermands it, and believe me, when I
am done talking to him, he will believe ME and you will die! Thats a classic cable
movie of the week is it not? Currently on ABC TV there is a show that is simply entitled
REVENGE, and this plot line could easily have come out of the pen of the writer on that
show.
In so many other placeswhether fictional or historicalsomeone in Josephs position
looks at their elevation as a chance to get even, to settle the score with those who have
wronged them in the past. And yet, for the most part, Joseph refrainsexcept here.
In other classic revenge stories, someone like Joseph starts out just wanting revenge on
ONE person, and having gotten a taste wants more and fills his world with blood. In other
words, Simeon may have got what he had coming but others who were less culpable
will also die because the victim once empowered will never stop with dispensing so
called justice against his enemies. If it were NOT Joseph here but say a guy like Al
Capone, we could see that ALL the brothers except Benjamin are in serious and grave
danger for their lives, and the cup bearer also better run. Or, to paraphrase the famous
short speech given by Sean Connery in the movie about Capone called The
Untouchables
They bring a knife to a fight, you bring a gun. They send one of yours to the
hospital you send one of theirs to the morgue! THATs the Chicago way!
And it very well would have been the CANAAN way if it wasnt for Josephs overall
restraint, but that doesnt mean everything Joseph did was correct morally speaking.
Because while striking out even symbolically against Simeon was understandable and

`21 | P a g e

perhaps even cathartic for Joseph, it had some unintended consequences that he clearly
did not consider at the time
36

Then their father Jacob said to them, 'You are robbing me of my children;
Joseph is no more; Simeon is no more; and now you want to take Benjamin. I
bear the brunt of all this!' 37 Then Reuben said to his father, 'You may put my two
sons to death if I do not bring him back to you. Put him in my care and I will
bring him back to you.' 38 But he replied, 'My son is not going down with you, for
now his brother is dead he is the only one left. If any harm came to him on the
journey you are undertaking, you would send my white head down to Sheol with
grief!' (Genesis 42:36-38 NJB)
So Joseph didnt even think about the one INNOCENT party in this whole sad adventure,
his father Jacob! He could do so when it concerned HIS OWN GRIEF perhaps over
losing Jacob and family as he is shuffled off to Egypt. He might have thought, Wow
this will be terrible for Dad that I am gone, but Josephs anger at Simeon blinded him to
the fact that faking Simeons death would FURTHER devastate his father Jacob. In
other words, because Joseph was angry at Simeon, he didnt see that brothers worth to
his own father.
And it gets worse, because as Reuben put it a little earlier, he and the others
UNDERSTAND they are getting punished for shedding Josephs blood. And they said in
FRONT of Joseph, though they had no idea it was him. So for Reuben and company,
there is a bit of justice going on. Maybe Simeon also feels bad, but he is not given the
chance to express it. But Jacob didnt deserve to think he lost Simeon any more than
he should have been deceived that he lost Joseph in the first place!
The most ironic thing though is this startling fact: By separating Simeon from the other
brothers, Joseph has made himself guilty of the SAME offense that his brothers did to
him. He has faked Simeons death just as effectively as they faked HIS death to his
father, so how could that sin from before be justified now? In fact, one could argue that
Josephs sin (or perhaps in his mind, his just revenge where, after all, no one REALLY
got hurt) is actually WORSE, because it involves all his brothers and his father in the
mourning process for Simeon. The fact is also they assumed Simeon was immediately
executed, whereas with the Midianites, the brothers had reassurance that Joseph could in
fact survive as a slave in Egypt. So who is guilty of the worse sin?
Fortunately however, this is only one stop on a journey of many steps for Joseph. He will
forgive all against him and go overboard in showing kindness to everyone who is in his
power to help. It is also possible that YHWH used Joseph on a very small scale but a
similar manner like He used Nebuchadnezzar to wield judgment against Judah. But what
Abba YHWH will allow as punishment and take away He also can give back a thousand
fold when the lesson is learned, as apparently it must have been, not just for the sinful
brothers as is commonly taught, but for Joseph himself.
Im Andrew Gabriel Roth and thats your Torah Thought for the Week!
`22 | P a g e

Next week we will be exploring Vayigash or Genesis 44:18-47:27. Our Haftorah portion
will be Ezekiel 37:15-28 and our Renewed Covenant reading will be from Yochanan
10:11-19. Stay tuned!

`23 | P a g e