Joseph: Sibling Rivalry (Part Two)

(Please read Genesis 37:12-36.)

Message: Family relationships need MORE grace, not less.

The Birth Order Effect

“The one thing you can bet your paycheck on is the firstborn and second-born in any given family are going to be different,” says Dr. Kevin Leman, a psychologist who has studied birth order since 1967 and author of The Birth Order Book: Why You Are the Way You Are (Revell). But how is it that a gregarious comedian and a reclusive, introspective thinker can be so different yet share the same genes? Psychologists like Leman believe the secret to sibling personality differences lies in birth order — whether you’re a first-, middle-, last-born, or only child — and how parents treat their child because of it.

Birth Order + Parenting = Behavior

Simply by virtue of being a couple’s first child, a firstborn will naturally be a sort of experiment for the new parents, a mixture of instinct and trial-and-error. Perhaps this will cause the parents to become by-the-book caregivers who are extremely attentive, stringent with rules, and overly neurotic about the minutiae.

In contrast, if the couple decides to have a second child, they might raise their second-born with less of an iron first due to their experiences raising their firstborn. They might also be less attentive to the second-born since there’s another child competing for attention, and they probably will be less inclined to impulsively dial 911 every time the child breaks a sweat.

Firstborn: As the leader of the pack, firstborns often tend to be:







Middle Child: In general, middle children tend to possess the following characteristics:


Somewhat rebellious

Thrives on friendships

Has large social circle


Last Born

Youngest children tend to be the most free-spirited due to their parents’ increasingly laissez-faire attitude towards parenting the second (or third, or fourth, or fifth…) time around. The baby of the family tends to be:







(Retrieved from on 8/7/15.)

While Joseph wasn’t exactly the baby of the family, he held the last-born spot several years before the “Oops! Baby” Benjamin was born.  Does this description sound like Joseph?

(NOTE: See Part One for main points one and two.)

3. The consequences of sibling rivalry (37:12-36).

     Consequence #1 = Vengeful brothers.

Joseph’s father Jacob (aka Israel) did not discipline Joseph for tale-bearing, but used him to check up on his brothers (12-14). Why would Jacob do this if his sons weren’t men of questionable character?  Doesn’t this action show there were already divisions in the family?

The fact that they were not where he expected them to be may justify Jacob’s use of Joseph as a spy (15-17).  They may have been in Dothan goofing off or carrying out some scheme they wanted to keep secret.  Chapter 38 shows Judah running off and making deals of his own.  This may be additional justification of Jacob’s suspicions.

Still I wonder at the lack of wisdom Jacob shows in sending Joseph out like this.  Surely he knew the brothers hated Joseph.  He should’ve been able to guess that they would know Joseph was there as a spy and would mistreat him in some way.  Even if he refused to believe they’d really harm Joseph, he should’ve seen the threat of some type of harm and preserved his favorite son from ten bullies.

If it seems I’m being hard on Jacob, let’s remember a couple things. First, “Jacob” literally means “heel-grabber.”  That is a description of what happened at his birth but is also a euphemism for “deceiver.”  His character is expressed in his name.  Second, the last dozen chapters of Genesis have demonstrated his cleverness in outfoxing his father, brother, and father-in-law among others.  He was the guy who wrestled all night with God!

Where has this guy gone?  Has age consumed him?

It seems most likely to me that Jacob sent Joseph on this errand wearing the coat to demonstrate Joseph’s authority over his brothers.

He wanted to believe that they would respect his decision to promote Joseph over them, but they weren’t that kind of men.

This makes more sense because wanting to kill him over a coat has always seemed a petty and effeminate motivation for their fratricidal anger. This is important: the brother’s jealousy was not over the coat itself, but what the coat represented: Jacob’s having put Joseph in authority over them.  This was pride talking, and guys have been known to commit murder over nothing more important than pride.

This also fits with Joseph’s dreams.  They predicted his supremacy over his brothers and they saw Joseph’s promotion to “supervisor” as a step toward making those dreams a reality.

Notice that before Joseph has even caught up with them, the brothers are plotting to KILL HIM (18-22)!  However you explain it, this shows the depth of their motive.

“HERE COMES THAT DREAMER!” they say.  In the Hebrew this literally means “master of dreams.” Later they add, “THEN WE’LL SEE WHAT COMES OF HIS DREAMS.”  Both statements imply that their motive is jealousy and the focus is on the dreams, not the coat.  The irony is that God will use their actions to bring about the fulfillment of his dreams!

The brothers weren’t thinking clearly or never were good planners.  In any event, their initial plan was simple; kill Joseph, dispose of the body in a place no one will look for it (in a CISTERN; dried-out well) and make up an excuse for dad.

Consequence #2 = A Lost son.

As Joseph arrived, they set upon their brother violently (23-24). This may have appeased their anger a bit, but gave them an appetite – they sat down to eat!  During dinner an improvement to their plan presented itself (25-30 & 36).  Opportunity knocked and some pagans were on the other side of the door: a caravan of Ishmaelites (descendants of Abraham’s illegitimate son Ishmael) who were from Midian (MIDIANITES) inspired a decision to do some business.

The sale price of their brother was TWENTY SHEKELS OF SILVER. According to the price of silver at 10:00 am on 8/7/15, this was just $148.40.  But – as I’m sure these guys reasoned – it’s more money than they had before and it spares them of having guilty blood on their hands.

These Midianites were slave traders, not keepers and once they arrived in Egypt, they sold Joseph to an Egyptian named Potiphar (cf 39:1).  He was an officer of some standing in Pharaoh’s court.

In all of this, a couple of the brothers distinguish themselves:

– Reuben distinguished himself as the best of the bad guys by trying to trick his brothers and rescue Joseph later (21-22 & 29-30).  He doesn’t have the courage or caring to stop them from attacking Joseph, but he does save his life.

– Judah shows himself as the most self-interested by trying to make money with his brother (26-27).  However, this may have been the only way he could think of sparing Joseph’s life.

Later, in chapter 49, Jacob called his sons to him just before he died for the traditional time of blessing.  What he says about each of his sons is telling: he cursed Reuben (49:3-4) the “nice guy” and blessed Judah (49:8-12) the scoundrel!  In fact, Judah is the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ! This seems odd, but it was Judah’s action that saved Joseph and got him to Egypt, advancing the plan of God.

Consequence #3 = A Grieving father.

Their conspiracy develops their plan further to deceive their father (31-32).  The coat that had become the symbol of their father’s favoritism became the prop that averted suspicion from them.  Knowing the Joseph would not willingly surrender the coat, Jacob assumes the worst and accepts the brothers’ story.

Thereby, Jacob the Deceiver is thoroughly fooled and falls into deep grief (33-35).  He tore off his clothes and put on the clothes of mourning.  SACKCLOTH was like burlap; rough, abrasive and cheaply made, wearing it was a sign of deep sorrow.

Jacob mourned for SEVERAL DAYS, refusing all attempts by the family to comfort him.  He WEPT and said that mourning was his way of joining Joseph in the grave.

Sibling rivalry is considered to be quite healthy and very normal, even in adulthood. William Hansen, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, argues that its actually inevitable once that second sibling enters the family. “The oldest is suddenly shifted to the sidelines,” he explains. “It can be hard when the new one shows up and everyone is paying attention to her. That can set the stage for a lifetime of ill feelings.”

It is when the rivalry turns into envy it brings out the absolute worst in people, says Karen Doherty, co-author of the new book Sibling Rivalry: Seven Simple Solutions. “Sibling envy is like a festering wound and it sours our relationships to the point where we can’t bear the idea of our siblings being successful, or even happy, and instead take pleasure in their failures.”

But if siblings go down completely different career paths can they really compare themselves to each other? Apparently, yes they can. In some families career choices are very much impacted by the professional path the sibling has gone down.

(Retrieved from on 8/6/15.)

How’s this for a family of business?  Campbell’s Soup CEO Denise Morrison and her little sister Maggie Wilderotter runs Frontier Communications, a multi-billion-dollar communications company.

Their father was an AT&T exec who made her produce a business plan in order to get a bicycle. He told her, “Kids today have too much time, too much money and no responsibility. You’re going to have no time, no money and a lot of responsibility.”

One family solution was a “job jar,” in which each daughter’s chores would go. The girls could negotiate and barter their chores, but they all had to be completed by the end of the week. Morrison says her dad “would talk about the family as a team and everybody had to pull their weight.” That’s pretty cool — but also super-intense. But I guess you don’t produce a family of executives without a little intensity.

Morrison learned about the importance of relationship-building, a skill she neglected early in her career because she was so focused on numbers and results. A mentor pulled her aside and set her straight, telling her that she had to invest time in building relationships with her team. “I had been so conscious about being a working mother, of time spent on the job to deliver results and time spent at home to make sure the kids were OK, that I interpreted time spent building relationships as fooling around as opposed to, no, that’s serious business,” she explains. “That was a huge ‘aha.’”

(Retrieved from on 8/6/15.)

Similarly, my prayer is that this first lesson from the life of Joseph imparts to us a sense of the sacredness of family relationships and the desire to do all we can to strengthen the ties that bind us to those closest to us.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s