Joseph is presented us as morally good. But he also seems the victim of premature elevation. Jacob recognized something worthy of trust in Joseph, but openly favoring him and then making a defacto (or more with that robe) overseer of his older adult brothers.
And then Joseph has to blab to them about his dreams of future authority.
So where is the closure to this part of the story? When do we see Joseph has learned to keep quiet when it is best to do so? I think the answer has to be when he deceived his brothers by not revealing who he was. When Joseph had the dream he immediately told his brothers. When Joseph experienced the fulfillment of the dream with his brothers, he kept quiet about it.
Interesting. I agree Joseph is presented as morally good. And Jacob as morally foolish: He wanted to elevate Joseph, but God wanted to elevate Joseph His own way. God’s way trumps Jacob’s attempts. And Joseph’s elevation comes through humiliation.
But I’m not yet convinced Joseph was acting foolishly when he told his dreams to his family. Despite his rebuke, Jacob himself seems to have regarded the dreams as revelatory (v. 11b). Now, if Joseph was acting indiscretely, or even egotistically, by announcing his dreams, then Jacob’s rebuke is justified. But if Joseph is being faithful, then Jacob’s rebuke is unjustified, and his private thoughts support this by revealing moral conflicted-ness (v. 11). These dreams don’t conform with Jacob’s own idea of how he would exalt his favorite son; he never intended his son to rise above himself and his wife! But Jacob’s rebuke is itself refuted in the end, as the dreams are indeed fulfilled. I think the story invites us to laugh at Jacob’s resistance and the brothers’ treachery, for in the end Joseph and his dreams are vindicated.
Delitzsch in his commentary points out that dreams, especially repetitive dreams, would have been regarded in the time of the patriarchs as supernatural revelations. And the psalmist would later describe Joseph’s dreams as “the word of God.” (Ps. 105:19) It seems plausible that Jacob’s family would and should have recognized these dreams as prophetic and divine in origin, which teaches us to see the brothers’ duplicity in offing Joseph: not only were they betraying Joseph, but they were rebelling against God’s revelation to them . The brothers dare to think they can prevent the fulfillment of the word of God (v. 20b). If Joseph was being faithful in telling his dreams, then we have great dramatic irony, since God of course knew how his brothers would react, and that their unbelieving treachery would in fact enact the fulfillment of the dreams they sought to thwart. We also have greater pathos: Joseph is the completely innocent sufferer here, persecuted for the word of God, rather than the innocent, though foolish, sufferer, who got himself into trouble by blabbing too soon. I don’t think God was bailing Joseph out of a jam he got himself into; I think the text portrays Joseph as acting faithfully and wisely throughout the story, and that God knew that this would result in Joseph’s humiliation, but God was faithful to Joseph through it all.
If Joseph had kept his mouth shut, he would have been the perfect son, conforming to all his father’s doting wishes. And he would have risen to prominence under his father’s favoritism, with ne’er a reason for his father to be displeased with him. But God had other plans, plans that eclipsed Jacob’s plans for his own son, and plans that disturbed the patriarch and the whole family when revealed in Joseph’s youth. Joseph would not be the docile object of his father’s doting; he would be Yahweh’s, an instrument for steering the destinies and disturbing the status quo of nations, both Israel and Egypt. It seems Joseph’s announcement of his dreams was an announcement of this fact; an announcement of his loyalty to Yahweh, which would trump other loyalties, and eventually lead a wayward elect family to salvation and renewed loyalty to Yahweh himself.
Anyway, that’s what I think. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.
I’m thinking….
The question is how much glee did Joseph take in communicating the dream to his brothers? Paul says, “speak the truth to one another in love” (Eph 4.15, cf., 2 Tm 2.25), which implies that there are other ways to “speak the truth,” ways that perhaps provoke people unnecessarily. Or consider the many proverbs about interacting with the foolish (and the wise). It’s not simply what you have to say, but who you’re saying it to as well.
Now, to be sure, if Joseph’s brothers were wise, they would have listend to Joseph no matter how obnoxiously he communicated his ascendancy (assuming he communicated it obnoxiously). But I get the “feel” from the passage that Joseph told his brothers hard rather than easy; he exalted in his ascension over them, and it provoked them.
To be sure, they responded sinfully, but Joseph seems to me to have unwisely provoked them. I suspect that he learned patience and tact while in prison.