Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: March 20
Today is: Thursday, April 25th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of March: (Show All Months)
Gen_40:1-13
It is always curious to see how an Oriental imagination supplies the details which the Scripture does not furnish. The Mohammedan account of this matter is, that a foreign king, then at war with Egypt, sent an ambassador, ostensibly for the purpose of negotiating a peace, but in reality only to seek the means of slaying the Egyptian sovereign. A woman of his own country, living in Egypt, whom he consulted, advised him that the best course of proceeding was to bribe either the chief cook or the chief butler to poison his master. The ambassador therefore made the acquaintance of both, but finding the chief cook the most tractable, he cultivated a closer intimacy with him, until he succeeded at last by means of a few talents of gold, in gaining him over to his purpose. He then prepared for his departure, but previously visited his countrywoman, with the view of communicating to her the chief cook’s promise. But as she was not alone, he could merely say that he had every reason to be gratified with his success. These words of the ambassador soon reached the ears of the king; and as they could not be referred to his ostensible mission, since the negotiation for peace had come to nothing, a secret of some kind was suspected. The woman was led before the king, and subjected to torture, till she confessed all she knew; but as she could not say which of the two was guilty, the king commanded both the chief cook and the chief butler to be cast into prison, until it should be ascertained which of them had taken this crime upon him.
The observations on dreams which we made a few days since, relieve us from any necessity of remarking largely upon those with which these two persons were visited, while they lay in the prison. Joseph noticed that they looked unusually sad and depressed one morning, and found that it was on account of dreams which had troubled their minds during sleep. If people allowed all dreams to trouble them, life would be miserable; but it would seem that in this case they were disturbed because the dreams were so connected and coherent, and had respectively such relation to their different employments as to show that they were not the mere fancies of a disordered imagination. This may indeed be one rule for distinguishing a significant from a worthless dream.
The butler’s dream involves some points of interest. He saw a vine, with three branches, which, while he looked at it, went through the processes of budding, of blossoming, and of producing ripe grapes. These grapes he took in his hand, and pressed the juice into the king’s winecup, which he then presented, as in times of old. Some have pretended to doubt, that the vine was formerly cultivated, or even grown, in Egypt; but the frequent notice of it, and of Egyptian wine, in the sculptures, and the authority of ancient writers, sufficiently answer these objectors, and confirm the intimations of the butler’s dream. Indeed the regrets of the Israelites in leaving the vines of Egypt, Num_20:5, prove them to have been very abundant, since even people in the condition of slaves could procure the fruit. In the mural paintings at Thebes, at Beni-Hassan, and at the Pyramids, some of which are supposed to be as ancient as the time of Joseph, there are representations of vineyards and vine arbors; of the ripe clusters being protected by boys from birds, whom they frighten away with the sling and by the sound of their voice; of the gathered clusters being carefully deposited in deep wicker baskets, which men carried either on their head or shoulders to the wine-press; but when intended for eating, deposited like other fruits, in flat open baskets, and covered over with leaves. It might be inferred from the text before us that the crude juice of grapes only was drunk, mixed, perhaps, with water, as a kind of sherbet. This may have been the case in the present instance; for if the dream is to be on this point literally, and not symbolically, taken, the drink offered to Pharaoh by his butler was not wine but sherbet. But that this was the sole form in which the juice of the grape was used in Egypt, is disproved, not only by the ancient accounts, which describe the qualities of the wines of Egypt, but most abundantly by the ancient paintings and sculptures, in which all the processes of wine-making, and even the effects of wine upon men and women, are most curiously and accurately represented. The chief mode of making the wine was, as afterwards among the Hebrews, by treading with the feet, in the wine-press; but sometimes the wine-press was simply a bag, into which the grapes were put and squeezed, by means of two poles, turning in contrary directions, or by one pole when the bag was fixed in a frame; a vase being placed below to receive the falling juice. The twisted bags were perhaps used to subject the grapes to a further and more stringent pressure, after being taken from the foot-press. After fermentation, the juice was dipped out of the vats, and placed in large jars, or amphoræ, after standing in which for a time, the jars were closed with a lid resembling an inverted saucer, covered with liquid clay, pitch, gypsum, and other composition, which was stamped with a seal. They were then removed from the wine-house, and placed upright in the cellar. We specify these processes, not merely because they are Egyptian, but also because they appear to be in all respects the same as those in use among the Hebrews, to which there are frequent allusions in the poetical books of Scripture. Note: The reader who feels interest in the matter may find ample information in Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, ii. 142-169.
Joseph, speaking, as he declared, by the inspiration of God, pronounced the three branches to mean three days—and that within three days the king would restore the butler to his place. He took the opportunity of bespeaking the kind remembrance of the butler; and implored that, when restored to his office near the king, he would make mention of his case—which he describes with great tact and delicacy, so as to set forth his grievance without compromising any of those who had been the instrument of his affliction. It was necessary, indeed, that he should vindicate his innocence, lest the butler, deeming his slavery and imprisonment the just punishment of his crimes, should decline to interfere in his behalf. He says, first, that be was stolen away from the land of the Hebrews—that is to say, that he was of a superior class to that from which slaves were usually taken, and had been kidnapped; but he studiously avoids accusing his brethren of the theft, and much less the Arabs who had sold him to Potiphar. Again, he declares that he had “done nothing for which he should be put into this dungeon;” but refrains from mentioning the criminal conduct of his mistress, which had caused his incarceration, or the selfish policy of his master in detaining him there, although he must, by this time, have been almost certain of his innocence. This reluctance to throw blame on others is an amiable trait in the character of Joseph, well worthy of imitation. It had important results in this case—for it may be much questioned whether the king would have been, in a later day, so favorably disposed to Joseph’s brethren, had their former misconduct towards their brother come to his knowledge.
Neither the Jewish nor Mohammedan writers are quite satisfied that Joseph was right in thus anxiously imploring the kind offices of the butler. They consider that he ought to have left the matter of his deliverance entirely in God’s hands, without this anxiety to secure a human interest and influence. It was, besides, wholly abortive—for although he did eventually obtain his deliverance through the butler’s mention of him at court, that personage had, meanwhile, wholly neglected his request; and when he did think of him, would have remembered him quite as well had not that request been made. The Jewish tradition affirms that Joseph remained yet two years in prison, because he had asked the butler to remember him. The Moslem tradition, which had previously stated that God had changed Joseph’s cell into a pleasant and cheerful abode, by causing a fountain to spring up in the midst thereof, and by making a tree grow at his door, to afford him shade and refreshing fruit; now declares that, on his making this request to the butler, his tree withered, and his fountain dried up, “because, instead of trusting in Allah, he had relied upon the help of a feeble man.” This is a fable, of course—but it lacks not a moral.