Now there is a distinct change of style in the narrative. Joseph is 17; his mother has been dead about two years.
We may sincerely hope that if any of us who are church members know of anything scandalous being perpetrated by another church member, we would remonstrate with them, and we would make it known. It would be our absolute biblical duty to do so. We are the church of Jesus Christ, and so we shouldn't look at Joseph as though he is acting out of line and talking behind the backs of his brothers. He is certainly not doing that. He is reporting their bad reputation and their conduct and all the trouble they are bringing upon the family, and how they are ruining the entire testimony, and spiritual and religious stand of the family in the region. He has a duty to make it known, and he knows perfectly well that he is going to suffer for doing this, because when Jacob is obliged to take them to task and to chastise them, as he surely will, it is Joseph who will be hated for it. So he is doing something very costly and very courageous, and something which it is his absolute duty to do. But sometimes interpreters can be so silly. They can assume that this is just some minor prank which one of the brothers has carried out, and so a too goody-goody lad is reporting everything in order to gain favour for himself. That is a quite ridiculous analysis of what is happening. We need to look at Joseph as a pious young man, he is closest to Jacob because he alone shares his faith.