Genesis 39:6

Gen 39:6 And he left all that he had in Joseph’s hand; and he knew not ought he had, save the bread which he did eat. And Joseph was [a] goodly [person], and well favoured.

Ver. 6. And he knew not aught he had, &c.] Some expound this of Joseph, that he took nothing for all his pains, but the food he ate; did not feather his own nest, as many in his place would have done; nor embezzle his master’s goods committed to his trust. But without doubt the other is the better sense: Potiphar took what was provided for him, and cared for no more. This is few men’s happiness; for usually the master is the greatest servant in the house.

And Joseph was a goodly person.] But nothing so goodly on the outside as on the inside. {a} His brethren had stript him of his coat, but could not disrobe him of his graces. Still he retained his piety and fear of God, his integrity and faithfulness toward his master, his chastity and modesty toward his mistress, his spiritual prudence and watchfulness over himself. How stoutly did he resist the devil, despise the world, subdue the flesh! Many "archers shot at him, but his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made firm by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob." {Gen 49:23-24} Of bodily beauty, {See Trapp on "Gen 6:2"}

{a} Pulchrior in luce cordis quam facie corporis.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gen 39:6. He knew not aught he had — Persuaded of Joseph’s faithfulness and diligence, and relying on his care, he took no part in the management of his own affairs, but left them wholly to this young but trusty Hebrew. The servant had all the care and trouble of the estate, and the master only the enjoyment of it. In this Potiphar is an example not to be imitated by any master, unless he could be sure that he had one like Joseph for a servant.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

39:6-10 One of the major motifs of wisdom literature (see study note on 37:2–50:26) is to warn young people that immorality will lead them to disaster (cp. Prov 5–7). Joseph was able to resist temptation because he had godly wisdom—he was guided by the fear of the Lord (Prov 1:7; 9:10).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

For he was assured that all things should prosper well: therefore he ate and drank and took no care.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 6. Joseph was a goodly person, and well favoured.] יפה תאר ויפה מראה yepkeh thoar, vipheh mareh, beautiful in his person, and beautiful in his countenance. The same expressions are used relative to Rachel; see them explained Ge 29:17. The beauty of Joseph is celebrated over all the East, and the Persian poets vie with each other in descriptions of his comeliness. Mohammed spends the twelfth chapter of the Koran entirely on Joseph, and represents him as a perfect beauty, and the most accomplished of mortals. From his account, the passion of Zuleekha (for so the Asiatics call Potiphar's wife) being known to the ladles of the court, they cast the severest reflections upon her: in order to excuse herself, she invited forty of them to dine with her, put knives in their hands, and gave them oranges to cut, and caused Joseph to attend. When they saw him they were struck with admiration, and so confounded, that instead of cutting their oranges they cut and hacked their own hands, crying out, [Arabic] hasha lillahi ma hadha bashara in hadha illa malakon kareemon. "O God! this is not a human being, this is none other than a glorious angel!" - Surat xii., verse 32.

Two of the finest poems in the Persian language were written by the poets Jamy and Nizamy on the subject of Joseph and his mistress; they are both entitled Yusuf we Zuleekha. These poems represent Joseph as the most beautiful and pious of men; and Zuleekha the most chaste, virtuous, and excellent of women, previous to her having seen Joseph; but they state that when she saw him she was so deeply affected by his beauty that she lost all self-government, and became a slave to her passion. Hafiz expresses this, and apologizes for her conduct in the following elegant couplet: -

[Arabic]

[Arabic]

Men az an husn-i roz afzoon keh Yusuf dasht

danistam

Keh ishk az pardah-i ismat beroon arad Zuleekhara.

"I understand, from the daily increasing beauty

which Joseph possessed,

How love tore away the veil of chastity from

Zuleekha."

The Persian poets and eastern historians, however, contrive to carry on a sort of guiltless passion between them till the death of Potiphar, when Zuleekha, grown old, is restored to youth and beauty by the power of God, and becomes the wife of Joseph. What traditions they had beside the Mosaic text for what they say on this subject, are now unknown; but the whole story, with innumerable embellishments, is so generally current in the East that I thought it not amiss to take this notice of it. The twelfth chapter of the Koran, which celebrates the beauty, piety, and acts of this patriarch, is allowed to be one of the finest specimens of Arabic composition ever formed; and the history itself, as told by Moses, is one of the most simple, natural, affecting, and well-told narratives ever published. It is a master-piece of composition, and never fails of producing its intended effect on the mind of a careful reader. The Arab lawgiver saw and felt the beauties and excellences of his model; and he certainly put forth all the strength of his own language, and all the energy of his mind, in order to rival it.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. And he left all that he had Joseph reaped this fruit of the divine love and kindness towards him, that he was cheered by some alleviation of his servitude, at least, for a short time. But a new temptation soon assailed him. For the favor which he had obtained was not only annihilated, but became the cause and origin of a harsher fortune. Joseph was governor over the whole house of Potiphar. From that post of honor he is hurried into prison, in order that he may be soon brought forth to the punishment of death. What then could enter into his mind, but that he was forsaken and abandoned by God, and was continually exposed to new dangers? He might even imagine that God had declared himself his enemy. This history, therefore, teaches us that the pious have need of peculiar discernment to enable them, with the eyes of faith, to consider those benefits of God by which he mitigates the severity of their crosses. For when he seems to stretch out his hand to them, for the sake of bringing them assistance, the light which had shone forth often vanishes in a moment, and denser darkness follows in its place. But here it is evident, that the Lord, though he often plunges his own people into the waves of adversity, yet does not deceive them; seeing that, by sometimes moderating their sufferings, he grants them time to breathe. So Joseph, though fallen from his office as governor of the house, was yet never deserted; nor had that relaxation of his sufferings proved in vain, by which his mind was raised, not to pride, but to the patient endurance of a new cross. And truly for this end, God meets with us in our difficulties, that then, with collected strength, as men refreshed, we may be the better prepared for other conflicts.

And Joseph was a goodly person, and well-favored. Whereas elegance of form was the occasion of great calamity to holy Joseph, let us learn not greatly to desire those graces of person which may conciliate the favor of the world; but rather let each be content with his own lot. We see to how many dangers they are exposed, who excel in beauty; for it is very difficult for such to restrain themselves from all lascivious desires. Although in Joseph religion so prevailed that he abhorred all impurity; yet Satan contrived a means of destruction for him, from another quarter, just as he is accustomed to turn the gifts of God into snares whereby to catch souls. Wherefore we must earnestly ask of God, that amid so many dangers, he would govern us by his Spirit, and preserve those gifts with which he has adorned us, pure from every stain. When it is said that Potiphar’s wife “cast her eyes upon Joseph,” the Holy Spirit, by this form of speech, admonishes all women, that if they have chastity in their heart, they must guard it by modesty of demeanor. For, on this account also, they bear a veil upon their heads, that they may restrain themselves from every sinful allurement: not that it is wrong for a woman to look at men; but Moses here describes an impure and dissolute look. She had often before looked upon Joseph without sin: but now, for the first time, she casts her eyes upon him, and contemplates his beauty more boldly and wantonly than became a modest woman. Thus we see that the eyes were as torches to inflame the heart to lust. By which example we are taught that nothing is more easy, than for all our senses to infect our minds with depraved desires, unless we are very earnestly on our guard. For Satan never ceases diligently to suggest those things which may incite us to sin. The senses both readily embrace the occasion of sin which is presented to them, and also eagerly and quickly convey it to the mind. Wherefore let every one endeavor sedulously to govern his eyes, and his ears, and the other members of his body, unless he wishes to open so many doors to Satan, into the innermost affections of his heart: and especially as the sense of the eyes is the most tender, no common care must be used in putting them under restraint.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

6. he knew not … him] The R.V. marg., with him he knew not, gives the correct meaning. Joseph’s master trusted everything to him. Everything went on smoothly; and with Joseph as manager he had no need to think of a thing, except as regards food. It is also just possible that “save the bread, &c.,” implies that food, owing to the strictness of Egyptian scruples (cf. Gen_43:32), could not be committed to the care of a foreigner. Joseph was controller, or steward, of the household.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And he left all he had in Joseph's hand;.... His master took no care of anything, but committed all to him, trusted him with his money and with his accounts, and with the management of all his affairs; such confidence did he put in him:

and he knew not aught he had, save the bread which he did eat; some understand this of Joseph, that though he had all his master's substance in his hands, yet he made no use of it for himself, enjoyed nothing of it but the bread he ate; and it is the observation of a Jewish writer (p), that he ate nothing but dry bread, and yet, like Daniel and his companions, was well favoured and of a goodly countenance, as in the next clause: but it is better to interpret it of Joseph's master, who was so satisfied with Joseph's good management and fidelity, that he never concerned himself about his affairs, how they stood or what money he had in his house, or what effects he was possessed of; all that he regarded was his food, and perhaps he knew not what that would be till it came to his table; though some take the expression in this light, that he gave himself unto a luxurious life, regarding nothing but eating and drinking, and taking his pleasure, having so good and faithful a servant: but according to Aben Ezra the sense is, that Joseph had all committed to his care, excepting the bread, or making provision of that for him and his family, which he might not touch being an Hebrew, and had all things common with him but that, see Gen 43:32; which is a much better sense than what the Targum of Jonathan and Jarchi give, who interpret bread of his wife, whom only he reserved for himself of all things in his house:

and Joseph was a goodly person, and well favoured; being like his mother, as Aben Ezra observes, see Gen 29:17; this is remarked for the sake of what follows, and as leading on to that.

(p) R. Abraham Sepharadi apud Munster. in loc.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Bread. A proverbial expression, to shew how entirely he reposed in Joseph’s fidelity and prudence. (Menochius) --- He was so rich, that he knew not the extent of his wealth. So Petronius says, Nescit quid habeat, adeo Zaplutus est. It may also be understood as a commendation of Joseph’s disinterestedness.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

He took care for nothing, but that he might eat, and drink, and fare deliciously. Nor did he indeed take any care for that, it being provided for him by other hands. Others thus, He took care for nothing, but committed all to Joseph, except his bread, which he would not have provided by a Hebrew hand,

because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, Gen 43:32. But that was no impediment, for neither did Joseph eat with his master, nor was he the cook to dress it for him. But he might provide food for him, as afterwards he did for all the Egyptians without any scruple on their side.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And (accordingly, encouraged by the admirable success attending Joseph"s management) he left all that he had in Joseph"s hand (i.e. gave him unrestricted control over all his temporal affairs); and he knew not ought he had (literally, he knew not anything with him, i.e. he shared not the care of anything along with him), save the bread which he did eat. This was necessitated by the laws of caste which then prevailed among the Egyptians, and in particular" by the fact that the Egyptians might not eat with the Hebrews. (Gen_43:32) And Joseph was a goodly person, and well favored liteally, beautiful is form and beautiful in appearance, like his mother Rachel. (Gen_29:17)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He knew not ought he had, save the bread which he did eat - The servant had all the care and trouble of the estate, the master had only the enjoyment of it; an example not to be imitated by any master, unless he could be sure that he had one like Joseph for a servant.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Joseph was handsome in form and feature; and Potiphar's wife set her eyes upon the handsome young man, and tried to persuade him to lie with her. But Joseph resisted the adulterous proposal, referring to the unlimited confidence which his master had placed in him. He (Potiphar) was not greater in that house than he, and had given everything over to him except her, because she was his wife. "How could he so abuse this confidence, as to do this great wickedness and sin against God!"

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

AND HE KNEW NOT AUGHT HE HAD — he paid no attention to anything.

כי אם הלחם SAVE THE BREAD — this means his wife, but Scripture uses here a euphemism (Genesis Rabbah 86:6) (cf. Joseph’s own words in Genesis 39:9).

ויהי יוסף יפה תאר AND JOSEPH WAS OF BEAUTIFUL FORM — As soon as he saw that he was ruler (in the house) he began to eat and drink and curl his hair. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Your father is mourning and you curl your hair! I will let a bear loose against you” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 8). Immediately.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

SAVE THE BREAD WHICH HE DID EAT. In the words of our Rabbis, this is a refined expression which refers to his wife. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said in interpretation of the verse that whatever Potiphar possessed was left in the hands of Joseph excepting the bread which he ate. This he did not even permit him to touch since he was a Hebrew. It was the customary behavior of the Egyptians towards the Hebrews that they not permit the Hebrews to touch their food, because that is abhorrent to the Egyptians. Possibly this is so. Perhaps the interpretation of the verse is that his lord did not know of Joseph taking anything from him save only the bread which Joseph ate, but no other pleasures as young people are wont to do. Nor did he gather wealth and property, just as it is said of David, And I have found no fault in him since he fell unto me unto this day. Now the verse, Having me, he knoweth not what is in the house, expresses another matter, namely, that he [Joseph’s lord] did not trouble himself to know about anything inside the house. But the present verse, Having him, he knew not aught, is an expression of negation; he knew that nothing in the house is [taken by Joseph except the bread which he eats].

AND JOSEPH WAS HANDSOME AND GOOD-LOOKING. The verse mentions this here in order to indicate that it was on account of his good looks that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon him. And Rashi wrote that because he saw that he was ruler of the house, he began to eat and drink, and curl his hair, etc.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

ולא ידע אתו מאומה, he did not involve himself in anything concerning the affairs of his household. Everything rested on Joseph’s shoulders. Everything that needed to be done in the household other than matters relating to the food served in the house. The reason why Joseph was not charged with this relatively minor task was the fact that he was from a different people. We know already from 43,32 that the family of Yaakov, loosely known as העברים, “the Hebrews,” (from the sticks, i.e. a culture beyond the Euphrates river) had such different eating habits that the Egyptians could not eat at the same table with them. Joseph had not changed his eating habits. Other commentators interpret the line כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, as a euphemism applying to Potiphar’s wife.

ויהי יוסף יפה תואר, the reason why the Torah mentions that Joseph was handsome is only to help us understand why a highly placed person such as Mrs Potiphar would try to get involved with a foreign-born slave. Joseph was so handsome in appearance. We already explained the nuances of the word יפה תואר and יפה מראה respectively in connection with Rachel (29,17).

Radak on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Eliyahu Munk, HaChut Hameshulash” (CC BY 4.0); “Rabbi Mike Feuer, Jerusalem Anthology” (CC BY 4.0); and “R. David Kimhi on the first book of Psalms, Translated by R.G. Finch, London, 1919” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.

Except for the bread he ate. He would not allow Yoseif to touch his bread because he was a Hebrew; see 43:32.

Ibn Ezra on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009” (CC BY 4.0); and “Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah - trans. by M. Friedlander, 1873” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.