gen 37

Question	Answer	Note---10-02-2016
	Both Abraham and Isaac were strangers in the land of Canaan	37:1
		37:4 Note that the scriptures records that the brothers HATED joseph on account of the father’s treatment towards (joseph)
What was Jacob doing that caused his sons to HATE joseph so.	Apart from the favoritism displayed (the coat of many colors) by Jacob towards joseph, the brother’s hatred for him (joseph) was only fueled by joseph’s talebearing.	Here we see the effects that the display of a parents favoritism towards one child. As a result it would be wise to treat all children equally.
	In the same way that jacob made a coat of may colors for Joseph, we can assume that Joseph was also the recipient of all the best that Jacob had to offer, and consequently the hatred.	Based on the past history, we know that the acts of the other sons were not peaceable. They killed the men of the city and one slept with a concubine of Jacob. These were troublesome boys. It is likely that this was what fueled the favoritism, yet Jacob was at fault to demonstrate this favoritism.
		It is not to be overlooked that the brothers are documented to have lacked the ability to speak peaceably unto Joseph.
		Joseph receives a dream and it is not clear why he would reveal this dream to his brothers, who he knew hated him. It seems it may have been to provoke them, however it could also have been that being the younger brother wanted to bond with his elders by consulting them about the meaning of the dream.
		It seems that the dreams were revealed for provocation.
		37:11 Although Jacob dismissed joseph’s dream, he still considered the possibility of it happening. Maybe this was because Joseph was already the favorite; or maybe the father saw something in joseph that alerted him to the possibility of it happening.
Does “observing” in this verse means that Israel made a special occasion of it; or was this observation silent?		37:11 The brothers did not consider this possible and resented even the thought of it happening, and hated Joseph the more for his dreams.
Why isn’t it recorded that joseph did not go out to feed the flocks? Could it be that his father did not allow him to do manual work?	Joseph/Benjamin might not have been sent out to watch the flocks because of their age. They might have been too young to participate in this type of labor.	37:12 Note that Jospeh did not go out into the field with his brothers to feed the flocks. No wonder the brothers hated him so.
Is it that Israel is oblivious to the hatred brewing among the other siblings for joseph, or is it that he thinks that they just have to deal with it, and no harm would come of it?	Maybe this was a regular occurrence and neither joseph nor Israel thought anything of the meeting. Neither joseph nor Israel considered that the hatred brewing could result in action
		37:14 The news-carrying behavior seems to be encouraged by Israel. It is not clear if Israel was really enquiring about the well-being of his sons, or he deliberately wanted Joseph to go spy on his brothers.
Could it be that this certain man was an angel, which was directing the path of Joseph?		37:15 It seems that Joseph is going about aimlessly until a stranger approaches him and asks him where he need to go?
	Dothan = "two wells"	37:17 It seems consistent to conclude that they left shechem to go to greener pastures or a placed better watered to sustain the flock.
		37:18 The fact that the brothers conspire to kill Joseph speaks to the coldness of their heart. It is a little concerning though that the same hate was not directed towards Rueben for what he had done with Bilhah. (one of his brother’s mother and Father’s concubine.35:22)
		37:19-20 It seems that these brothers are ungodly men. It is hard to believe that these men become the father of the faithful. It seems that God is with Joseph because He gives him the dreams, however it does not seem that God is with the other brothers.
Is this the same Rueben who slayed the men for his sister and slept with Bilhah, his father’s concubine and brother’s mother?	Rueben seems to have been maturing and now demonstrates being the responsible one.	37:21-23 Rueben is assertive over the other brothers. It seems he has a good heart, since it was his intention to deliver joseph to his father and out of the hands of his brothers.
Why was there need to mention that there was no water in the pit?	If there had been intention to kill him (joseph) then throwing him into a pit with water would mean his sure demise. Now throwing him into an empty pit, suggested that there was mercy. This was Reuben’s plot being executed.	37:24
		Based upon the innocence of Reuben in the story, it seems that he is the one re-counting the details of that day that joseph dis-appeared.
Where did these Medianites come from?	The midianites were the descendants of Abraham and Keturah. The Ishmaelites were the descendants of Abraham and Hagar	37:27 They want him dead bbut did not want tot be the ones to shed his blood.
Where was Rueben was this idea was conceived and executed?	It seems that Reuben is jus ttnot there so as to declare his innocence in the sae. This is reason to believe that he was the one recounting the story since he is conveniently absent at the sale.
What is the connection between the Ishmaelites and the Medianites?	The idea which seems to be conveyed is that both merchant ment (Ishmaelites and Midianites) were passing. It is possible that the story teller could have changed and it was not clear whether is was Midinites or ishmaelites that passed by, It is also plausible that both types of men were there.
Who sold Joseph into slavery? Genesis 37:36 says the Midianites sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, the courtier of Pharaoh. But Genesis 39:1 says the Ishmaelites brought Joseph to Egypt and sold him to Potiphar, the courtier of Pharaoh.	I have seen commentary from Christian researchers that claim that the terms "Midianites" and "Ishmaelites" were interchangeable. This is partly based on the use of the two tribal names in Judges 8:22 and Judges 8:24, which indicate that the names might have been interchangeable. Perhaps the names were interchangeable because the two tribes were intermixed to the extent that either name would suffice in describing them. In any event, Genesis 37:28 mentions both tribal names in connection with the sale of Joseph. And that alone undermines any claim of contradiction. http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q12.htm
Why 20 pieces of silver?
Was this the going rate for a slave?
		37:29 Reuben returns. We were never told that he left. How now after the sale of Jospeh, he returns seemingly disconnected from the final act of the sale.
Whither shall I go. Does this mean, where shall I go to look for him?
		37:29 The depth of their imagination to do evil seems to have no end, as they all agree to tell the father that they found his coat, after dipping it in lamb’s blood.
Why does the scripture here say “daughters” and we are only told one one daughter that Jacob had?	It seems that daughters here just represent female kind, and not necessarily Jacob kin.	37:35
		37:36 Joseph is sold to Potiphar house.
		Potipher was not the only one buying slaves that day. The story could have gone a completely different way if another person had bought joseph.  Even in the face of evil, God is still present preserving his servant.