The Scripture Study Podcast
The Scripture Study is a space for anyone who loves the Word and wants more—more understanding, more clarity, more depth. This podcast is for aspiring scriptorians, passionate learners, and those seeking to strengthen their scripture study habits. Together, we explore the text deeply, unpack meaning, and develop the tools needed to study scripture with intention and insight. Come curious, come hungry, and come ready to grow.
The Scripture Study Podcast
The Biblical Power Suit: What Joseph’s Coat Teaches Us About God’s Presence and Protection
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
In this episode of the Scripture Study Podcast, Susan Petersen and Cindy Madsen explore the powerful symbolism of clothing in the biblical story of Joseph. They examine how Joseph's famous coat, the kito net passim, represented identity, authority, and favoritism, fueling his brothers' jealousy. The hosts discuss how clothing throughout the narrative serves as a tool of deception, vulnerability, and ultimately restoration. Drawing on Midrashic literature, scholarly insights, and broader biblical themes, they connect Joseph's story to the spiritual metaphor of being "clothed in Christ," encouraging listeners to reflect on their own spiritual identity.
00:00 Introduction
03:40 The Holy Garment
06:06 The Significance of Joseph's Coat
11:05 Translating "Kito Net Passim"
18:03 Midrashic Interpretation of the Coat
25:31 Joseph Stripped of His Coat
30:08 The Development of Joseph's Character
38:03 Jacob's Refusal to Be Comforted
44:55 Clothing, Deception, and Potiphar's Wife
51:27 Putting on Christ and Clothing Others
57:40 Joseph Clothed by Pharaoh
59:06 The Wedding Feast of the Lamb
Join Us
The Scripture Study Podcast is your midweek Bible boost—designed to help you grow in understanding, confidence, and love for God’s word.
If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, leave a review, and share it with a friend!
Resources
Instagram (Susan Petersen)
https://www.instagram.com/susan.m.petersen/
Wearing God by Laura F. Winner
https://www.harpercollins.com/products/wearing-god-lauren-f-winner
The Art of Biblical Narrative by Robert Alter
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780465022553/the-art-of-biblical-narrative
Covenant and Conversation by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/
How Colorful was Joseph’s Coat? by Sarah Rudolph
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/how-colorful-was-josephs-coat/
Genesis Rabbah
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis_Rabbah
Midrash Aggadah
https://www.sefaria.org/Midrash_Aggadah
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/samson-raphael-hirsch
Join Us
The Scripture Study Podcast is your midweek Bible boost—designed to help you grow in understanding, confidence, and love for God’s word.
If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, leave a review, and share it with a friend!
Welcome to the Scripture Study Podcast.
SPEAKER_00I am Susan Peterson and I'm Cindy Madsen. We're so glad you're here with us. The Scripture Study Podcast is designed to be your midweek Bible boost. Let's dig in.
SPEAKER_01Hi, welcome back to the Scripture Study Podcast. I am your host, Susan Peterson.
SPEAKER_00And I'm Cindy Matson. Hi, Susan. Hi, Cindy. How are you? I am great. It's another beautiful day here. Oh my gosh. The trees. I'm dying. The trees are coming out. My apple tree has blossoms on it, which is really good because last year it didn't. I got no apples, but I will this year. Oh, how fun is that? So I'm very happy. Unless we get a frost. Oh, yeah. Please know.
SPEAKER_01Well, I mean, I'll take the moisture. It's one of those things.
SPEAKER_00It's one of those things.
SPEAKER_01Okay, well, we are gonna jump right in today. We are in Joseph.
SPEAKER_00We are gonna talk about Joseph. We've made it to Joseph. So we're gonna we're gonna talk about Joseph today. And in her book, Wearing God, Laura F. Winner writes Ever since God clothed Adam and Eve in their full humanity, clothes have not only protected us from the elements and kept us warm, they've also profoundly shaped our identity and our sense of self. It is not surprising then that clothing is an image that runs all the way through scriptures, from the first mention in Genesis to Revelation, where the gathered community of worshipers is clothed in robes made white by being laundered in the blood of the Lamb. To my eye, the image sitting at the center of all the Bible has to say about clothing is Paul's startling statement in Galatians 3. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. God doesn't just clothe us with skin, God clothes us with God's own self. This seems a pretty radical thing for Paul to say, which was that God doesn't just clothe us with skin, God clothes us with his own self. So intriguingly, scholars begin that this metaphor is original to the Pauline writings. Nowhere in ancient literature does there appear to be a clear parallel to the Pauline rhetoric of being clothed with a person. And not just any person, God. Maybe it's that clothing figure more centrally in my daily life than kings or shepherds, but I find the notion of God as clothing to be endlessly suggestive. I have some sense of what my clothes do to and for me each day, how they act upon me, what they mean for my life and identity. What might it mean to understand myself as clothed in God? What does it mean to imagine God as a warm winter coat, as a handmade bespoke suit, as a beloved cardigan sweater purchased in Galway on your honeymoon? Close quote. Oh, I love that. Isn't that wonderful? I love this thought. Yes. What might it mean to understand myself, yourself, all of us? What might it mean to understand ourselves as being clothed in God? Can I put off the old man, as Paul says in Romans, and put on God just as surely as I put on my clothes every morning? Can I wear God every day? Yes, you can actually.
SPEAKER_01Have you received your covenants in the temple? Yes, yes. Yes, yes, and as we've received God. Yes, and as we've received more revelation about the garment, it is so beautiful. That quote has more meaning for me. You too.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I love it. You too. I love that. And I think that it will have more meaning for all of us about why we wear the holy garment. If every day when we put it on, we think, I am clothing myself with Jesus Christ. I am clothing myself with my Heavenly Father. I am clothing myself with God. And so putting it on is a privilege.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, it's not underwear.
SPEAKER_00No, it's God.
SPEAKER_01It's God.
SPEAKER_00You're putting on God and it's a reminder.
SPEAKER_01So today's podcast then is all about clothing. Which I love. I'm so excited.
SPEAKER_00I know. We all love clothing and we need clothing. So there's a number of biblical scholars have commented on the theme of clothing in the Joseph narrative. And you will notice when reading the story of Joseph that throughout the storyline, clothing plays a pivotal role. And it appears at each critical stage of the narrative. In particular, the image of clothing is used in a range of different ways to develop and highlight various themes in this particular story, in the Joseph story. We all know Joseph and the technical are dream coat. I mean, it's all about clothing, right? So many biblical scholars have noticed that clothing is used as a literary device signaling identity, deception, and reversal. Another thing to think about is that the story's repeated use of clothing invites us to consider the interplay between the imagery of clothing in the Joseph story. And if you have listened to this podcast, you know I'm going to go here. The Adam and Eve story. Yes. When God provides clothing to the first man and the first woman after they have sinned by eating from the tree of knowledge. And finally, I would ask us to consider today as we talk how does the narrative invite us to recognize clothing as a gift from God and to use it in a manner consistent with the ideals demanded of us. So let's talk about Joseph's coat. Yes, okay. Clothing appears at the very beginning of the Joseph narrative. Having finally returned to the land of Canaan and intending to settle down peacefully with his family, Joseph's father Jacob, who's also by this time known as Israel, presents him with a coat. And the trouble begins. Sarah Rudolph, in an article titled, How Colorful Was Joseph's Coat, comments, quote, While it makes for excellent Broadway visuals, Technicolor alone might not seem like reason enough for attempted manslaughter. The brothers were all completely righteous to the extent that their names were a remembrance before God that is listed on the priestly breastplate. And we might well wonder what could have led such people to determine as one to kill their brother or to sell him, and they didn't even regret the evil. Was the beauty of the coat alone sufficient to generate such a degree of jealousy, resulting in extreme behavior from people who seem otherwise to have earned God's favor? She goes on to note that Joseph was a little old for his father to be spoiling him with a pretty piece of clothing. And his older brothers should have been beyond getting quite that worked up about it. Between their flocks and their booty from Shechem, Jacob's son certainly had enough wealth to make whatever they wanted, including a custom tailored coat for every member of the family. So what was it about this coat that caused such anger and hatred? Well, Sarah Rudolph goes on to make a really important part that I think we should keep in mind when studying these ancient biblical texts. We seek for understanding of the individuals in the biblical text and first approach the text with curiosity, not condemnation. She says, quote, thus treating the patriarchs and matriarchs as subjects to human emotions and fallibility does not necessarily entail finding their flaws in every story. We want to understand the human psychology of the brothers and what led them to their problematic behavior in the context of all the information we have about them. We may criticize them as well, but the first goal is to understand them, close quote. So we're trying to understand these people. Once we get understanding, once we understand what's the context of the community that they're living in, maybe we can point out the flaws, but we first want to go.
SPEAKER_01I think it's important to understand the culture and the expectation that was in that culture. And I think that's helpful here. Exactly. Because then we can better understand what is it the author's trying to say. Yes, exactly. Also, I think we need to remember there's only one perfect person in all of scripture, and everyone else is flawed, and that's intentional because we are flawed. Yeah. And we all have our moments of throwing our brothers in the pit. Yes, exactly. And we all have our moments of being thrown in the pit. Yes, yes, yes. And it's that way so we can gain wisdom. Like, how would I react in this? You're meant to say that, but first let's understand everything else.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I mean, we're supposed to have charity, right? Yes. And the Christian virtues cannot develop in a vacuum. We're down here on earth to learn things. And it's through our learning we get to make a choice. Am I going to turn toward God and maybe gain charity for my fellow man or turn against him and become bitter? Yes. So yeah, we're here to wrestle with these different things.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I love that.
SPEAKER_00Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch said, quote, following the precedent of Seferno, we think it our duty to look, if not for a justification, still for an explanation of the event which now follows. After all, we are not dealing with a band of robbers and murderers who would lightly commit murder for the sake of a coat, close quote. What's the explanation? What is going on?
SPEAKER_01What are these boys experiencing that normal people would push? Yeah, push normal people to the edge.
SPEAKER_00And so is there something that maybe we're not understanding that's going on in the text? Well, Sarah Rudolph goes on to say, quote, analyzing the coat for something beyond petty jealousy is not a simple matter of trying to whitewash the brother's behavior. It is not about justifying, but understanding. They might well have made a terrible mistake, even committed a major sin. But in light of other information about these individuals, which paints them more positively, or even the simple fact of their being adults, we might want to explain what could possibly have brought them to do such a thing. Was it really just because their father gave Joseph a nice coat? Or could there be another way to understand Joseph's gift, one that would offer further insight into why it upset these otherwise more respectable gentlemen to such a degree? Close quote. So this is where the hard part comes in, of course, which is we just don't know for sure that the original audience would have understood the significance of the quote, that's a given. But 5,000 years have erased a lot of cultural memory. Yeah. So the Hebrew for what is commonly translated as coat of many colors is ketonet pasim. And the problem that we have is in translating the word pasim, which is the plural of the word pos. The word appears five times in the Old Testament, always connected to a distinctive garment. Genesis 37, 3 and Genesis 37, 23, Genesis 37, 32, and then in 2 Samuel 13, 18, and 2nd Samuel 13, 19. So the first three times it is relating to Joseph. The second time it is relating to the story of Tamar and Amnon, I think is who it is. So English renderings vary. A robe of many colors, a tunic with long sleeves, ornate robes, but every context points to a costly honor-laden garment. In the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Bible, and this was done about 200 BC, it translates ketonet passine as ketona poikilon, which means coat of many colors or ornamented tunic. What is interesting is that the word pas literally means the palm of the hand or the sole of the foot. So if it is passim, then you're talking about multiple palms of the hand. So a coat of many palms of the hand. So what does this mean? It's very confusing. Well, in Daniel 5, 5, it says this at that very moment, the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the royal palace wall opposite the lampstand. The king was watching the pos, P A S, pos of the hand that was writing. Again, what does the word mean? Abraham Ibn Ezra, who lived from 1089 to 1167 A.D., was a Spanish Jewish biblical commentator, a poet, a philosopher, a grammarian, and an astronomer. I mean, he was a true Renaissance man. So alongside with Rashi, Ibn Ezra is one of the most important Jewish commentators, focusing on literal grammatical reading. If you study the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament for any length of time, you will come across him. You're going to see Ibn Ezra. So he understands this verse to mean a piece of the hand, a reference to the fingers, the part of the hand that was writing. So he connects that to ketunet pasim, meaning a coat of pieces, which is where the many colors comes from. So it's coming from that and the Septuagint. However, the midrash, Genesis Rabbah, gives this explanation: a tunic where the sleeves reached to the palms of his hands, or that it was made of material so fine and light that it could be hidden in the palm of his hand. Both of these explanations describe a garment that was more than just clothing, but that symbolized a particular rank or role. Who in the ancient Near East would wear a garment with sleeves all the way to the palms was not going to be someone who does manual labor. It would just get in the way of their doing their job. Not to mention the cost of the extra fabric. One type of person who might wear long sleeves or perhaps a particularly fine, delicate fabric, would be royalty. So Jacob's gift could then have marked Joseph as the next patriarch, set to rule his brothers and the clan. So the only other place where a ketonet passim is mentioned is in 2 Samuel 13, 18 in the story of Amnon and Tamar. And this is what it says quote, now she was wearing a long robe, a ketonet passim, for this is what the king's virgin daughters used to wear. So the garment was associated with her royalty in some way, although we don't know exactly how or what it is. But this would definitely give a stronger reason for the brothers' actions than that the coat was really luxurious or reinforced Jacob's favoritism. To understand that Jacob was giving this to Joseph, marking him as the next patriarch set to rule his brothers and the clan. And on top of that, to have Joseph coming to them with his dreams that they would ultimately be worshiping, you can see where this really would have set their teeth on edge. Yeah. They would have been mad. Yeah. This young boy, and he's getting all this and he's a little stinker too, to see these dreams.
SPEAKER_01That wasn't how tradition was back then. The oldest son became the next patriarch. The oldest son received the double inheritance. And so their dad is going against tradition. And I'm sure I wonder if there was a culture in the family too, with you just don't know. We don't. Now, I mean, I could imagine yes.
SPEAKER_00I mean, we know there's dysfunction in every family. Yeah. In every family. So Ruben, by this time, has been disqualified as the oldest son getting the birthright because he slept with Bill Ha. So you can look at it as okay, well, Joseph is the oldest son of the next legitimate wife. So you can look at it that way. Although there were sons born ahead of him. And there are, and we'll talk about some instances where there are times when the birthright could be bestowed. Yeah. Generally, it would go to the older sons. You can see where we've got some problems here. Well, the questions are going to broaden when we examine the text from a midrashic perspective. So midrash refers to both a body of ancient rabbinic literature, roughly from about the second to the eighth centuries CE, you know, the common era or AD, the Christian era. And the name comes from the Hebrew root derash, which means to seek or to inquire. So the purpose of Midrash is not to explain the simple meaning of the text. It's also not to determine historical fact. Rather, it is to reveal hidden meanings that are implied in the text. It is a very creative yet very disciplined mode of biblical interpretation that expands on, explains, and derives meaning from the Hebrew Bible, which in Hebrew is referred to as the Tanakh, meaning the Torah, the Neviim. So those are the prophets, and the Ketuim, the stories, the and so it is expanding on especially the Torah. Every detail in the biblical text, every word, even individual letters, any repetition, any unusual spelling, any apparent gap for these ancient rabbis carried meaning. And it had the possibility of very deep insight and demanded an explanation. Nothing for them is superfluous. Midrash primarily addresses problems in the text, contradictions, anomalies, or motivations for a character's actions. Midrash often presents multiple, sometimes contradictory interpretations of the same verse side by side, reflecting the belief that the divine text contains a multiplicity of truths. It links distant verses, sometimes referred to as a dialogue between distant verses, to create new meanings, assuming the Torah is a unified, harmonious whole. Now, there were interpretive rules for deriving new insights, laws, or narrative from scripture. It wasn't just a free-for-all for these ancient rabbis. Classical midrash originated in the oral teaching and performance in synagogue sermons or study houses, yeshivas, before being compiled into written collections like the Genesis Rabbah, the Leviticus Rabbah, or the Mechilta. There wasn't a ban on writing interpretive traditions, but the process really emphasized living debate and transmission. And over time, then the editors then shaped these into literary works with very consistent structures. And it was understandable because paper was expensive. So people did not have copies of the Torah, they would go into the synagogue. It would be read. And we talked about Jesus earlier, one of the earlier podcasts, being in the Temple and this questioning that would be going on there. It's this process that originated that was the origin for later Midrashim. So Midrash falls into two categories. When the subject is law and religious practice, it is called Midrash Halacha. And then there's Midrash Agadah, on the other hand, interprets biblical narrative, exploring questions of ethics or theology or creating homilies and parables based on the text. The primary sources for Midrish Agadah is the Midrish Rabbah, which contains a volume for each of the five books of Moses, as well as one for each of the five megalas, which are the five scrolls, Esther's Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes. So Stephen D. Ricks, in an article called The Garment of Adam in Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Tradition, quotes from the Midrash, and this is what he says. The garment given by God to Adam represents not merely protection and repentance, but authority as well, of extraordinary brilliance and splendor and possessed of supernatural qualities. Adam's garment was passed down from Adam to his descendants, who wore it as priestly robes. Thus, the Numbers Rabbah states that as Adam was about to sacrifice, he donned his priestly garments. As it says, God made for Adam and his wife coats of skin. They were robes of honor, which subsequent firstborn used. The firstborn sons sacrificed while wearing the garment before priests took over the role of sacrificing the offerings. Similarly, according to the Midrash Tanhuma, the liturgy was performed by the firstborn in Adam's garment. It was this garment passed through the generations from Seth to Noah that was worn by Noah when he sacrificed on an altar. It was one of the items that Noah saved and carried with him in the ark. Numbers Rabbah relates that Jacob desired to offer sacrifice, but could not, because he was not the firstborn and did not have the birthright, part of which consisted of Adam's garment. It was for this reason that Jacob bought the birthright from Esau, who said, quote, there is no afterlife, death ends everything, and the inheritance will do me no good, and willingly let Jacob have the garment along with his birthright. Immediately Jacob built an altar and offered sacrifice. This then was the garment, the kitonet pasim, that was given to Joseph. So this type of interpretation often inspires skepticism in modern readers. Is that really what the text means? Midrish is the rabbinic endeavor of mining the text of the Hebrew Bible to extract nuggets of hidden wisdom from its subterranean layers. Sometimes the best way to express the deeper hidden meaning is through a tale or a metaphor, and a midrash Agadah may speak in fantastic terms to do so. To paraphrase Rabbi Menachem Azaria Dafano, who is from the 16th century in Italy, every midrash is a true description of reality, albeit not necessarily on the material plane. I like to think of Midrash as those early rabbis in a conversation with the text. And since God dwells in the Torah, they are carrying on a conversation with the divine presence himself. And that's how I think of it. It's this conversation. Well, as you know, the story intensifies as Jacob sends Joseph in search of his brothers, who are tending their sheep near Dotan, still jealous of their younger brother because of the ketonet passim and his dreams. The brothers confront Joseph, strip him of his ketonet, and throw him into a pit. And it came to pass when Joseph came to his brethren that they stripped Joseph of his coat, the long sleeve coat that was on him, and they took him and cast him into a pit. That's 37, 23 through 24. So as quickly as Joseph receives this special, probably sacred garment from his father, it is taken away from him by his brothers. When the brothers strip Joseph of his ketanat passim, he loses not only a piece of clothing, but the respect that it represents and the leadership that it symbolizes. Joseph's loss of power, if indeed he ever had any, occurs in this instant. Okay. So an interesting question is how to interpret, quote, his coat, the long sleeve coat that was on him, that is verse 23. Okay. So usually those two words, his coat, the long sleeve coat that was on him, in many of your texts, it will be conflated. It'll be, they'll combine the two. But the plain meaning would appear to be that the phrase should read something like the long-sleeve coat that he had on. But it elaborates on this phrase, his coat. It's just, it's emphasizing that's his coat. Oh, guess what? It's the coat, the long-sleeve one that he has on. And the reason that many scholars think that the original author put it in this way was to emphasize that the brothers did not simply strip Joseph of just any coat, any garment. They stripped him of the long-sleeve garment, the special garment that their father had given Joseph, which was the cause of their jealousy and their hatred. But there are some commentators who interpret the verse to read this: his coat and the long-sleeve coat that was on him. And you can read it that way with the Hebrew, indicating that the brothers removed Joseph's ordinary kutonet, his ordinary tunic, which served as his basic clothing, as well as his special kitonet passim. Joseph was thrown into the pit naked. Well, in this view, the brothers stripped Joseph not only of the leadership role represented by the kitonet passim given to him by the father, but they also stripped him of the fundamental human dignity represented by his ordinary cutonette, his ordinary tunic. And I really like that interpretation, whether it's what the original author meant, both of them are possible interpretations. Yeah, why do you like that one better? Because I think that stripping the person down naked puts them in an extremely vulnerable position. And going back to the Garden of Eden, yeah, yeah, yeah. With Adam and Eve, realize their nakedness. They realize their vulnerability in the world. And clothing them, God gives them protection and he gives them dignity. And so unclothing a person like that strips them of protection and dignity. And I think also throwing them into the pit, and then as we'll see, selling him is emphasizing the stripping of human dignity.
SPEAKER_01They were sick of him.
SPEAKER_00Yes, they were.
SPEAKER_01And I've never considered this. I've always thought Joseph was a hero of the story. The brothers were not the heroes. However, I'm thinking that maybe I've thought about this wrong. I'm mid-rashing with myself.
SPEAKER_00Yes, mid-rash away.
SPEAKER_01That I wonder, like, I can see the patience of God in developing Joseph now, which is so beautiful. And in the same way that he developed Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, I don't want to emphasize too much or whatever, but not everything bad that happens to us is bad at all. Let's take the macro view of this and not the micro view of him in the pit naked, which is terrible. We see a character develop over the next stories, and it's always at the cost of his dignity a little bit.
SPEAKER_00That's exactly right.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00It is. And I think it's important to remember too, he's young. He's young, probably around 17. And so he's given this coat, which signifies leadership. And then he's saying, Oh, look, God, you don't need to feel like it's just my dad that's giving me the coat. God is giving me these dreams, which are saying I should have the coat, which maybe is not the best way to win friends and influence people.
SPEAKER_01I think we but he was so young. Joseph can't read a room until he's in Egypt. Like he's so young. He's so young. And it took me a long time to read a room. Yes, but he just really can't read a room. I would think about 17-year-olds that I know, and they just can't. They're so young. They just killed a bunch of people to defend their sister's dignity or whatever.
SPEAKER_00It was a very, I mean, the biblical author makes it very clear you were very extreme in this. It's not an appropriate response.
SPEAKER_01And so I don't know that I would go before those guys and be like, hey, look at this coat. And also, I have dreams and I get to be in charge of you guys. He can't read a room yet. Right. But God is patient-year-old boy. And willing to take him on a huge journey in order to teach him how to read a room. And we see at the end, he can read a room. So he's book smart, not street smart.
SPEAKER_00And I think this should give us a lot of patience with the prophet Joseph Smith. Right, a lot of patience with him. He was so young. He was so young. And so the prophet Joseph Smith, he is doing the best he can to fulfill what God has asked him to do, but he's so young. And I look back on myself when I was so young, and I'm so embarrassed thinking about some of the things that I did or said. And I sure really hope people will have the grace to forgive me for those things.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. And just trust that God is going to take you on a nice journey. Oh, and he has.
SPEAKER_00Oh, he has. Then Judah, here's poor Joseph. He's down the pit. And Judah says to his brothers, quote, What profit is there if we kill our brother and cover up his blood? Come, let's sell him to the Ishmaelite. But let's not lay a hand on him, for after all, he is our brother, our own flesh. I mean, the whole story of Joseph is superbly constructed. But just looking at this small section of narrative, the text is dripping with irony as the author juxtaposes Judah acknowledging, after all, he is our brother, our own flesh, with the callous observation that the brothers can't make any money off of him if he is dead. Their flesh and blood is a commodity to be bought and sold like an animal. We shouldn't be surprised at this, like we just talked about, because in Genesis 34, not only do the brothers kill Shechem, Hamor, and all of the men in the cities, but they quote, captured as plunder all their wealth, all their little ones, and their wives, including everything in the houses. For these brothers, people are things to be plundered. The other irony about this story is looking at it from the New Testament view, where you have Jesus, who is from the tribe of Judah, is sold by his brethren, his fellow tribe members, and specifically Judas, which is the Greek form of Judah, as we've talked about. But he's sold to his own people, who then turn him over to the Romans. In that instance, they don't even have the dignity to kill him themselves. They give him to someone else to do their dirty work for them. Again, this symbol of Jesus is there. Jesus is sold for the price of a slave. Joseph is sold for the price of a slave. Yeah. So this is all, you know, the New Testament, it's definitely looking back at this. So according to a midrash, not only did Joseph lose his clothing at this juncture, but his brothers also gained clothing. And this is what the midrash says. Then one of your ancestors who sold their brother to a caravan of Ishmaelites, they peddled him, P-E-D-D-L-E-D, peddled him and gave him away for shoes. On the one hand, the point of the midrash seems to be that the brothers received something of little value, that is, shoes, in exchange for their brother. Yet, from the brothers' perspective, given their relationship with Joseph, clothing was everything. For them, even shoes represented something significant. Later, Reuben returns to the cistern to find that Joseph was not in it. And what did he do? He tore his clothes and returned to his brothers and said, Quote, the boy isn't here. And I, where can I go? So they take Joseph's kitonet passim, they killed a young goat, they dipped it in the blood, and then they brought the kitonet passim to their father, and they said, We found this. Determine now whether it is your son's kitonet or not. In the Syriac history of Joseph, Benjamin tells Joseph, quote, Jacob still mourned for him, and he wails and laments over him, just as though he had died today. And he will not stop, my Lord, because he sees the coat spattered with blood laid out before him. This story indicates that Joseph's rent garment was indeed preserved, and it became a memento of great significance for Jacob. In the literature of early Islam, there is also this story. In the 10th century of our era, the greatest antiquarian of the Muslim world, Muhammad ibn Ibrahim of Thalabi, collected in Persia a great many old tales and legends about the prophets of Israel. Among other things, Thalabi tells a number of stories, which we have not found anywhere else, about Jacob and the garment of Joseph. In one, Joseph's brethren bring his torn garment to their father as proof that he is dead. But Jacob, after examining the garment, declares that the way the cloth is torn shows him that their story is not true. Quote, behold, if the bear had eaten him, he surely would have rent his garment. And since he would naturally have fled toward the gate, verily the garment should have been torn behind. But since this is not the case, it may be that Joseph still lives. In his book, Covenant and Conversation, Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sachs also wrote about Jacob's hope that Joseph still lived. In analyzing Genesis 37, 34 through 35, after the sons have brought the torn and bloodied remnant of Jacob's coat, Jacob rent his clothes, put on sackcloth, and mourned his son for a long time. His sons and daughters tried to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. Rabbi Sax notes that there are laws in Judaism about the limits of grief. Shiva, which is seven, Shela Shoshim, which is 60, I think. Okay. It might be 30. Now I'm forgetting. A year. This is the point. There is no such thing as bereavement for which grief is endless. Because the Talmud says that God admonishes one who weeps beyond the appointed time. This is what it says. You are not more compassionate than I. And yet Jacob weeps and refuses to be comforted. One can be comforted for one who is dead, but not for one who is still living, it says. In other words, Jacob refused to be comforted because he had not yet given up hope that Joseph was still alive. But on what basis did Jacob continue to hope? Surely he had recognized Joseph's bloodstained coat. He had said explicitly, a wild beast has devoured him. Joseph has been torn into pieces. But do those words really mean that he accepted that Joseph was dead? Then Rabbi Sax makes this really interesting connection. He pointed out that David Daub noticed that the sons say to Jacob, which the words are in Hebrew, hakerna, literally mean identify, please, and that those words have a quasi-legal connotation. Daub relates this passage to another with which it has close linguistic parallels found in Exodus 22, 10 through 13. If a man gives a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any other animal to his neighbor for safekeeping, and it dies or is injured or is taken away while no one is looking, the issue between them will be settled by the taking of an oath before the Lord that the neighbor did not lay hands on the property. If it is the animal that was torn to pieces by a wild animal, the neighbor shall bring the remains as evidence, and he will not be required to pay for the torn animal. The issue then at stake is the extent of responsibility borne by, and the word in Hebrew is a shhomer, which means a guardian or a watchman, someone who watches over people, places, or principles. If the animal is lost through negligence, the Shomer, the guardian, is at fault and must make good the loss. But if there is no negligence, merely an unavoidable, unforeseeable accident, like a domesticated animal being torn to pieces by a wild animal, then the guardian is exempt from blame. We know that some such law existed prior to the giving of the Torah, because Jacob himself says to Laban, whose flocks and herds had been placed in his charge, I did not bring you animals torn by wild beasts. I bore the loss myself. This implies that Jacob, as the Shomer or the guardian, that guardians were exempt from the responsibility from the damage caused by the wild animals, but he had paid for them. We also know that an older brother carried a similar responsibility for the fate of a younger brother placed in his charge. That is the significance of Cain's denial when confronted by God as to the fate of Abel. Am I my brother's shomer or keeper or guardian? Rabbi Sax notes we now understand a series of nuances in the encounter between Jacob and his sons upon the return without Joseph. Normally, they would be held responsible for their younger brother's disappearance. To avoid this, as in the case of later biblical law, they quote, bring the remains as evidence. If those remains show signs of an attack by a wild animal, they must, by virtue of the law then operative, be held innocent. Their request to Jacob, haq erna, identify please, must be construed as a legal request, meaning examine the evidence. So Jacob has no alternative but to do so, and by virtue of what he has seen to acquit them. A judge, however, may be forced to acquit someone accused of a crime because the evidence is insufficient to justify a conviction while still retaining lingering private doubts. So Joseph was forced to find his sons innocent without necessarily trusting what they had said. In fact, concludes Rabbi Saxe, Joseph did not believe it, and his refusal to be comforted shows that he. He was unconvinced. He continued to hope that Joseph was still alive. That hope was eventually justified. Joseph was still alive, and father and son were ultimately reunited. Close quote. I thought this was such an interesting thing that Rabbi Sachs talks about. And it also really helps us to understand why Reuben, as the oldest brother, was so distraught. Because as the guardian, as the oldest brother, he would have been the shower, the guardian or the keeper of Joseph and would be held responsible for that. I think on Reuben's part, there was also honor and tenderness. But I do think that that's a big part of the reason that was his role.
SPEAKER_01I think there was a little bit of a mob mentality going on. I think they came to themselves and thought, oh no, what did we do? Right. And then he was gone.
SPEAKER_00But he's gone.
SPEAKER_01But he's gone. Yeah.
SPEAKER_00So after being taken out of the pit, Joseph is taken to Egypt. He's sold as a slave to Potiphar. Yeah. And the story quickly moves to yet another sequence of events in which clothing plays a central role in Joseph's life. So in this case, Potiphar's wife attempts to seduce Joseph, who is forced to leave behind his garment as he flees the house. And this is in Genesis chapter 39. Robert Alter, who you know this, Susan, he's one of my favorite biblical scholars. He's also one of the most influential voices on biblical narrative. In his book, The Art of Biblical Narrative, he traces a pattern of deception involving garments across Genesis, observing that when Joseph flees from Potiphar's wife, leaving his cloak in her hand, Joseph is again linked with the misleading evidence of a garment, as he was when his brothers brought the blood-soaked tunic to his father. This is the second time that Joseph has been stripped of his garment, and the second time the garment is used as evidence of a lie. Clothing is used again as a tool of deception, and it's also used to persuade others of false narratives. We use clothing to shape our identity and also to communicate something about our identity to the people we meet. Inherent in what we choose to wear, is the message that we are communicating about ourselves. Within the biblical story, the authors repeatedly remind us that garments function as portable identity markers. And those identity markers can be manipulated. Laura Winner, who I quoted at the beginning of this podcast from her book, Wearing God, writes that often clothing can underline socioeconomic distinctions. She says that for many centuries, countries in the Western world had what was called sumptuary, S-U-M-P-T, U-A-R-Y, likes the word sumptuous, sumptuary laws that dictated, for example, that only the wealthy could wear clothes with lace or gold thread in our era. Clothing also recreates class divisions all the time. Yes. But Laura Winter goes on, she says, but clothing need not always create borders between people. Clothes can also minimize divisions. This is one of the chief arguments for school uniforms. In addition to reducing friction between parents and teens every morning and reducing violence in schools, especially in schools where, without uniforms, clothing might mark gang membership. School uniforms serve as a social and economic equalizer among students and create environments where income is not advertised by shirts and slacks, and friendship and learning are possible across class lines. Close quote. And they did just that.
SPEAKER_01My kids went to a school where they wore uniforms well into junior high, and it was really nice.
SPEAKER_00It's wonderful.
SPEAKER_01Yes, especially for back to school clothes shopping, morning times, all the things.
SPEAKER_00It makes everything easier. Yes. And no one is judged by their clothing. Yeah. Well, I've studied the Anabaptist religions quite a bit. And one of the things that I love about the majority of them is their concern for clothing. Recognizing that clothing can cause distinction and division, they often regulate the type of clothing that they wear. And this in turn becomes an identity marker, which sets them apart from the rest of the world. The Amish, for example, have strict rules about clothing. So the Amish are an Anabaptist religious tradition. And they have strict rules about clothing defined by what they call plain principles. They describe themselves as the plain people. And those principles are simplicity, modesty, and functionality. Understanding and acknowledging the inherent messaging of clothing, they have deliberately designed theirs to promote humility, community cohesion, to separate their community from modern worldly fashion. This plain style shows their commitment to focusing on inner values rather than outward appearance. And they often refer to verses like 1 Peter 3, 3 through 4, which says, Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. In Alma chapter 1, verse 27, when describing the people of the church of God, it says, They were all equal, and they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor and the sick, and the needy and the afflicted, and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely. It has always been interesting to me when reading the Book of Mormon that the first thing that happens to initiate the pride cycle is that people begin to use their clothing to distinguish themselves. In Mormon chapter 8, verses 36 through 37, Mormon offers to us this warning, and I know that you do walk in the pride of your hearts, and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying and strifes and malice and persecutions and all manner of iniquities, and your churches, yea, even every one have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts. For behold, ye do love money and your substance and your fine apparel and the clothing of your churches more than you love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted. Alexander McLaren was a 19th-century Baptist minister in Manchester, England, in his commentary on the book of Romans. Yes, he's got a community, too, but of course his commentary. And it says this he says, it takes a lifetime to fathom Jesus. It takes a lifetime to appropriate Jesus, it takes a lifetime to be clothed with Jesus. And the question comes to each of us have we put off the old man with his deeds? Are we daily, as sure as we put on our clothes in the morning, putting on Christ the Lord? Again, Laura Winter observes that the notion of communicative clothing and the idea that, as with a garment, we might as Christians wordlessly speak something of Jesus is appealing. Is the clothing that I wear congruent with the Jesus whom I wear? How can I remove the clothes that set me apart for other people and instead wear clothing for God? In the beginning, God clothed the man and the woman with coats of skins. And Jesus, God the Son, has clothed us with his own body. But God also draws us into the act of clothing by instructing us to clothe others. As James says, what good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you can say that you have faith, but you do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or a sister is naked and lacked daily food, and one of you says to them, Go in peace, keep warm, and eat your fill, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs. What is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. For I was hungry, Jesus said, and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in. And he will answer I tell you the truth that when you refuse to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.
SPEAKER_01I mean, it gives a new meaning for me to that verse of putting off the natural man. Because I think sometimes we think clothes are innocuous. And they probably are in a lot of instances. However, it's the intent behind it. And I think that if your intent is to praise God in all you do, then that's different, you know? Like putting off the world. There's so many scriptures that put through this lens, are they different now? Yeah, I love it.
SPEAKER_00Because we aren't forced to wear clothing, we choose to wear clothing. Yeah, whatever we wear is the message we're choosing to communicate about ourselves. Yeah. And so, yeah, are we choosing to put off the natural man, as it says in the Bible, also the old man and his deeds, both Bible and Book of Mormon talk about it, and put on Jesus. And then also, once we've done that, I think again, oftentimes we get tripped up on that word modesty, but you can be modest, it doesn't have to do with clothing. You can be modest in your living. In other words, you don't draw attention to yourself. That's really what it's about. And so I think part of the reason we want to be modest in our clothing, modest in our way of living, is because then that will give us more resources to help the poor. And that is where Jesus is criticizing us who profess to know him.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Is that when we don't give to the poor, when the money that has been given to us is completely used on ourselves, then there's a problem. Yeah. And in the Book of Mormon, it said in the scripture, they were neat and comely. In other words, they didn't look like they had just stepped out of a garbage can. No. But they were all equal because they were giving of their substance to make everybody equal.
SPEAKER_01Well, and our temples are not modest. No, they are ornate and really cool. And so he's not saying hide your light under a bushel. He's just saying, don't put emphasis on things that I don't emphasize.
SPEAKER_00Because in the temple, the clothing that we wear is supposed to be equalizing. Right.
SPEAKER_01I mean, it does, but I'm just saying the temple as a building.
SPEAKER_00As a building. Yeah, but it's a building to God. Yeah, but not a building to God.
SPEAKER_01It's a building to God. It's not to the world. Right.
SPEAKER_00And I think that's what he's saying to us. Are you being modest in how you are living in order that you can then give the excess? You can praise God. Yeah, to bring your brothers and sisters up so that we can all live together. I love it. So I think it's really interesting this pattern of clothing that we see throughout Joseph, because it leads us to ask questions about ourselves, about how we use clothing, and also in deeper ways, what is it that clothing is exposing? So we see that clothing removed exposes vulnerability in this story. Yeah. Clothing manipulated exposes deception. It denotes, it means deception in this. Now we don't have time to talk about this, but in Genesis 38, with the story of Judah and Tamar, clothing equals disguise. And finally, we're going to talk a little bit about this. Clothing bestowed, clothing given gives authority and power. Now we've already talked about this with the coat. And the story of Joseph in many ways wraps up. At the beginning, he's given a coat, which we believe signified authority and power. At the end of the story, it says this shortly after Joseph he appears before Pharaoh, right? He successfully interprets Pharaoh's dreams. Then Joseph is appointed a ruler over the entire land of Egypt. And in addition to receiving the king or the Pharaoh's ring, Joseph receives from Pharaoh garments of fine linen. Pharaoh clothes Joseph, and we see reversal and elevation. Pharaoh said to Joseph, I hereby put you in charge of the entire land of Egypt. Then Pharaoh removed his signet ring from his hand and he placed it on Joseph's finger. He dressed him in fine linen clothing and he hung a gold chain around his neck. So where is Jesus in this story? We've talked a little bit about that. Is Joseph being sold as a slave? Jesus is sold as a slave, right? Joseph is fairly universally among Christian scholars. Joseph is acknowledged to be a type of Jesus Christ. Yeah. And one day we too will be invited to the supper of the Lamb.
SPEAKER_01I love how you talk about this. That's my favorite.
SPEAKER_00And when that day comes, it will be Jesus who will be the king.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Right? Not Pharaoh. No. We will have the true king. In Revelation 3, all who are victorious will be clothed in white. I, Jesus, will never erase their names from the book of life. But I will announce before my Father and His angels that they are mine. And Revelation 7, a vast crowd, too great to count, from every nation and tribe and people and language will stand in front of the throne before the Lamb, and they will be clothed in white robes and hold palm branches in their hands, and will shout with a great roar, Salvation comes from our God, who sits on the throne and from the Lamb. Then one of the 24 elders asked me, Who are these who are clothed in white? Where did they come from? And I said to him, Sir, you are the one who knows. Then he said to me, These are the ones who died in the great tribulation. They have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb, and he has made them white. This is why they stand in front of God's throne. And in Revelation 19, for the time has come for the wedding feast of the Lamb, and his bride, all of us, the church, his bride has prepared herself. She has been given the finest pure white linen to wear. For the fine linen represents the good deeds of God's holy people. And the angel said to me, Write this blessed are those who are invited to the wedding feast of the Lamb. And that's what we all want. We want our clothing washed white and the blood of the Lamb. And we want to be given a garment.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00A wedding garment to wear to the wedding feast. Yes. Clothing's important.
SPEAKER_01Oh, I love it. Thank you, Cindy, for teaching us. It's beautiful. Oh, thank you so much, choose Susan.
SPEAKER_00I can't talk anymore. This has been great. I've loved it. Delightful.
SPEAKER_01All right. See you guys next time. Thank you for listening to the Scripture Study Podcast, your midweek Bible boost. Everything we mentioned on this podcast, if we said there would be a link to it, it is in the show notes wherever you find your podcast. Cindy Madsen currently does not believe in or participate in social media. However, if you would like to follow along with Susan Peterson, she can be found on Instagram at susan.m.peterson. Have a good week.