With Bros Like These…: Joseph Sold By His Brothers: Genesis 37:12-36

[2ndpillar]

And they sold him for THIRTY pieces of silver after having kept him in an old dry well in the bowels of the earth for three days and nights.

You might want to reread the story.

New American Standard Bible Genesis 37:28
Then some Midianite traders passed by, so they pulled him up and lifted Joseph out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. Thus they brought Joseph into Egypt.

 

[The Anointed]

You might want to reread the story.

New American Standard Bible Genesis 37:28
Then some Midianite traders passed by, so they pulled him up and lifted Joseph out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. Thus they brought Joseph into Egypt.

You might want to read my previous post on page 1. As seen below.

For a better understanding of the brothers of Joseph, download, "THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS."

Although the OT states that Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver, Gad reveals that it was he and Simeon who sold Joseph for 30 pieces of silver/gold, hiding 10 pieces for themselves and sharing the twenty with their brothers, with which money they all bought new sandals.

It was from here that the Hebrew custom began, where a sandal would be removed and given to the purchaser of a sale. See Ruth 4: 7.

 

[The Anointed]

You might want to read my previous post on page 1. As seen below.

For a better understanding of the brothers of Joseph, download, "THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS."

Although the OT states that Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver, Gad reveals that it was he and Simeon who sold Joseph for 30 pieces of silver/gold, hiding 10 pieces for themselves and sharing the twenty with their brothers, with which money they all bought new sandals.

It was from here that the Hebrew custom began, where a sandal would be removed and given to the purchaser of a sale. See Ruth 4: 7.

The Testament of Reuben to his descendants, 3: 11; For had I not seen Bilhah bathing in a covered place, I had not fallen into this great iniquity. 12 For my mind taking in the thought of the woman's nakedness, suffered me not to sleep until I had 13 wrought the abominable thing. For while Jacob our father had gone to Isaac his father, when we were in Eder, near to Ephrath in Bethlehem, Bilhah became drunk and was asleep uncovered in her 14 chamber. Having therefore gone in and beheld nakedness, I wrought the impiety without her 15 perceiving it, and leaving her sleeping I departed. And forthwith an angel of God revealed to my father concerning my impiety, and he came and mourned over me, and touched her no more.

Many months later, while Jacob's family was still camped in Eder, near to Ephrath, Rachel died while giving birth to Benjamin.

The Testament of Benjamin 1 1 The copy of the words of Benjamin, which he commanded his sons to observe, after he had lived 2 a hundred and twenty-five years. And he kissed them, and said: As Isaac was born to Abraham 3 in his old age, so also was I to Jacob. And since Rachel my mother died in giving me birth, I had 4 no milk; therefore I was suckled by Bilhah her handmaid. For Rachel remained barren for twelve years after she had borne Joseph; and she prayed the Lord with fasting twelve days, and she 5 conceived and bare me. For my father loved Rachel dearly, and prayed that he might see two 6 sons born from her. Therefore was I called Benjamin, that is, a son of days.

Rachel had remained barren for twelve years after she had borne Joseph; Bilhah, who had been raped by Reuben the first-born son, had been barren longer than Rachel, but she just happened to be lactating at the time that Benjamin was born.

Benjamin was born 12 years after Joseph and was only 5 years old when the 17 year old Joseph was sold by his brothers.

 

[2ndpillar]

You might want to read my previous post on page 1. As seen below.

For a better understanding of the brothers of Joseph, download, "THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS."

Although the OT states that Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver, Gad reveals that it was he and Simeon who sold Joseph for 30 pieces of silver/gold, hiding 10 pieces for themselves and sharing the twenty with their brothers, with which money they all bought new sandals.

It was from here that the Hebrew custom began, where a sandal would be removed and given to the purchaser of a sale. See Ruth 4: 7.

Your "testaments of the twelve patriarchs" is as reliable as most of what you project. Ruth 4:7 is about Ruth and Boaz and the purchasing of land to seal the deal. The custom is about purchasing of land.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And they sold him for THIRTY pieces of silver after having kept him in an old dry well in the bowels of the earth for three days and nights.

It's always 30 pieces of silver for betrayal in the Bible.

 

[The Anointed]

Your "testaments of the twelve patriarchs" is as reliable as most of what you project. Ruth 4:7 is about Ruth and Boaz and the purchasing of land to seal the deal. The custom is about purchasing of land.

The Hebrew custom of removing a sandal and giving to the Purchaser was done in the case of redeeming, exchanging or any transaction in those days.

BTW, It's not my Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, it's the Lord's. What a pity that the woman who sits on the seven hills of Rome, who rejected the books of Enoch and many other books of scripture, has confined you to her limited canon.

Be careful not to eat anything that she does not offer you, it might be poisonous. But to the true believer, nothing is poisonous.

 

[2ndpillar]

The Hebrew custom of removing a sandal and giving to the Purchaser was done in the case of redeeming, exchanging or any transaction in those days.

BTW, It's not my Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, it's the Lord's. What a pity that the woman who sits on the seven hills of Rome, who rejected the books of Enoch and many other books of scripture, has confined you to her limited canon.

Be careful not to eat anything that she does not offer you, it might be poisonous. But to the true believer, nothing is poisonous.

Yeh, I get it. If it contradicts the Law and the Prophets, it must be good. Good luck with that one.

The "woman" doesn't sit on 7 hills of Rome, she sits on the beast with 7 heads, and those 7 heads are kings and mountains/nations. (Revelation 17:3 & 9). The Roman church is just one of the harlot daughters of Babylon the Great, and she sits on the Roman empire (nation), by the authority originally stemming from the Roman emperor (king) Constantine, who stood in the shoes of Julius Caesar, as an Augustus Caesar.

 

[The Anointed]

Yeh, I get it. If it contradicts the Law and the Prophets, it must be good. Good luck with that one.

The "woman" doesn't sit on 7 hills of Rome, she sits on the beast with 7 heads, and those 7 heads are kings and mountains/nations. (Revelation 17:3 & 9). The Roman church is just one of the harlot daughters of Babylon the Great, and she sits on the Roman empire (nation), by the authority originally stemming from the Roman emperor (king) Constantine, who stood in the shoes of Julius Caesar, as an Augustus

Who is the Whore of Babylon in Revelation?

Now don't you dare to eat of the fruit that she has forbidden. The Books of Enoch, from which Jesus and his apostles taught, were cherished by the early Christians right up until the fourth century, when they were banned by dogmatic Roman religious authorities such as Jerome, Hilary and Augustine, after which they gradually passed out of circulation and were thought lost for Millennia. Yep! the stone that builders of the Roman Church rejected, has turned out to be the most important stone at all.

Myself, I eat whatever physical food is set before me, the creative and maintenance forces within me, takes what it needs for the continuance of my growth and health, and dumps the rubbish out of the old tucker shut, and so it is with the spiritual food I eat, He who is Creating "WHO I WILL BE" takes that which he needs for the growth of the spirit/mind that I currently am, storing that which will be needed and rejecting the rubbish.

No spiritual food can harm me. And all scripture is good for learning the truth.

 

[2ndpillar]

Who is the Whore of Babylon in Revelation?

Now don't you dare to eat of the fruit that she has forbidden. The Books of Enoch, from which Jesus and his apostles taught, were cherished by the early Christians right up until the fourth century, when they were banned by dogmatic Roman religious authorities such as Jerome, Hilary and Augustine, after which they gradually passed out of circulation and were thought lost for Millennia. Yep! the stone that builders of the Roman Church rejected, has turned out to be the most important stone at all.

Myself, I eat whatever physical food is set before me, the creative and maintenance forces within me, takes what it needs for the continuance of my growth and health, and dumps the rubbish out of the old tucker shut, and so it is with the spiritual food I eat, He who is Creating "WHO I WILL BE" takes that which he needs for the growth of the spirit/mind that I currently am, storing that which will be needed and rejecting the rubbish.

No spiritual food can harm me. And all scripture is good for learning the truth.

There is no "whore of Babylon" per se. That is a term devised by Luther and his Protestant fellow leaders to describe the Roman church. You have "Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots" (Revelation 17:5) , who sits on the beast, and you have the "great harlot" who sits on "many waters" (Revelation 7:1). They are not the same.

As for you "eat whatever physical food set before" you, that would most likely include swine and mice. That reminds me of Isaiah 65:3-6. Did you hear of the guy who ate squirrel brains and supposedly died of mad cow disease?

The tare seed (Revelation 13) is the included in your food supply, provided through your "whore of Babylon", by way of her canon.

3A people who continually provoke Me to My face,
Offering sacrifices in gardens and burning incense on bricks;

4Who sit among graves and spend the night in secret places;
Who eat swine’s flesh,
And the broth of unclean meat is in their pots.
5“Who say, ‘Keep to yourself, do not come near me,
For I am holier than you!’
These are smoke in My nostrils,
A fire that burns all the day.
6“Behold, it is written before Me,
I will not keep silent, but I will repay;
I will even repay into their bosom,

 

[sealchan]

Trickiness seems to be a motif in Genesis. God plays tricks on humanity (Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, Abraham's Sacrifice), the snake on Eve, Abram and God on the Pharoah, Rebekah on Isaac, Jacob on Esau, Laban on Jacob, Jacob on Laban, Rachel on Laban her father...

So this history of tricksiness seems significant. What does this pattern suggest about the nature of God and His creation?

 

[sealchan]

I think it is helpful to understand where his brothers were and why they were there. Genesis 3:125 says "His brothers now went to pasture their father’s flock near Sheʹchem." It was a journey of about 50 miles or roughly a 4-5 day walk....but then they moved on to Dotham, some 14 miles to the north. So Joseph had to add some distance to his trek.

The account says...."Upon catching sight of Joseph at a distance, his half brothers began scheming against him, saying: “Look! Here comes that dreamer. And now come and let us kill him and pitch him into one of the waterpits.” The firstborn Reuben, however, desired to thwart the murderous plot and urged that they not kill Joseph but throw him into a dry waterpit. When Joseph arrived, they stripped him of his long striped garment and followed through on Reuben’s recommendation. Subsequently, as they were eating, a caravan of Ishmaelites came into view. By now Reuben had left. And in his absence, Judah persuaded the others that rather than killing Joseph (as they would have done by leaving him in the pit), it would be better to sell him to the passing merchants. “Hence they [Joseph’s half brothers, as indicated by the context] drew and lifted up Joseph out of the water pit and then sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty silver pieces. Eventually these brought Joseph into Egypt. Later Reuben returned to the waterpit and here Joseph was not in the waterpit.” (Gen. 37:18-29)

Pasturing a large flock is a big responsibility and all of the brothers were involved except Joseph and Benjamin. Joseph was sent to see how they were doing and was to bring back word to his father. When they caught sight of him, the brothers began to plot his death, such was their jealous hatred. They had no thought of how that would affect their aging father.....but they would soon find out.

Reuben persuaded the group not to kill him, but to throw him into an empty waterpit and intended to go back and rescue Joseph later.
But while Reuben was away, probably tending to the flock, the Ishmaelite caravan passed by and Judah suggested selling him as an alternative to incurring bloodguilt. So Joseph was saved on two occasions by two older brothers. It was no coincidence that this chain of events took place. Joseph was meant to go to Egypt in order to preserve the Messiah's family line. This is what Joseph realized but only when his brothers returned and showed remorse and loving concern for their father....something they had failed to do when plotting Joseph's death.

I love this story...there is so much in it....

Yes, I read the story, you have merely repeated it.

What about the plot hole regarding Reuben's whereabouts?

Also I noticed that you inserted "half-brothers" and "firstborn" into your version above. This differs from the source you quoted as well as from the NIV which I am working from. These adjectives are true but they are not a part of the original text. Why did you insert them?

 

[sealchan]

Genesis 25: 21-23....Isaac, like his father before him, was childless into his old age. Another way for God to prove his power in relation to the fulfilment of prophesy.....

"21 And Isaac kept on entreating Jehovah especially for his wife, because she was barren; so Jehovah let himself be entreated for him, and Re·bekʹah his wife became pregnant. 22 And the sons within her began to struggle with each other, so that she said: “If this is the way it is, just why am I alive?” With that she went to inquire of Jehovah. 23 And Jehovah proceeded to say to her: “Two nations are in your belly, and two national groups will be separated from your inward parts; and the one national group will be stronger than the other national group, and the older will serve the younger.”"

It was not a deception based on ill intent or bad motive. As the father of these two very different sons, Isaac found it difficult to favour one over the other. Esau was a hunter...a rugged masculine man who provided his family with meat and his masculine qualities most probably appealed to his father. Jacob on the other hand was a gentle soul who found favour with his mother.

Let's not whitewash it, it was a deception none the less. God approved, but not demonstrably something that Isaac was aware of or he must be accused of not siding with God.

Genesis 25:27-34 says....
And the boys got bigger, and Eʹsau became a man knowing how to hunt, a man of the field,* but Jacob a blameless man, dwelling in tents. 28 And Isaac had love for Eʹsau, because it meant game in his mouth, whereas Re·bekʹah was a lover of Jacob. 29 Once Jacob was boiling up some stew, when Eʹsau came along from the field and he was tired. 30 So Eʹsau said to Jacob: “Quick, please, give me a swallow of the red—the red* there, for I am tired!” That is why his name was called Eʹdom.* 31 To this Jacob said: “Sell me, first of all, your right as firstborn!” 32 And Eʹsau continued: “Here I am simply going to die, and of what benefit to me is a birthright?”b33 And Jacob added: “Swear to me first of all!” And he proceeded to swear to him and to sell his right as firstborn to Jacob. 34 And Jacob gave Eʹsau bread and lentil stew, and he went to eating and drinking. Then he got up and went his way. So Eʹsau despised the birthright."

We can see here a total disregard for the birthright on Esau's part. He swore an oath to give up his birthright, "selling" it for a bowl of stew.

Right from the start, Jacob was the one who found favor with God and would supplant his brother as patriarch, priest and teacher.

The apparent deception, was in accord with God's will and a fulfillment of what God had revealed to his mother.

I find it unlikely, given Esau's later anger with his "younger" brother and the concern of his parents regarding that anger, that Esau took the sale of his birthright seriously. Jacob was uncharitable at best and insulting, taunting at worst and in no legitimate position to demand something like a birthright in exchange for food. He was his brother after all. At most Esau merely humored Jacob because his stomach was louder than his cleverness of mind to outwit Jacob. Esau never took the exchange seriously that we can see from the story. Neither did Isaac, if he ever heard of it. In this way Jacob is in the role of the serpent in the Garden of Eden using his cleverness to produce a choice against God's Will. That Jacob even knew God favored him is highly debatable. He likely did what he did for his own personal reasons.

Only we, the audience, know that Rebekah had word from God about His preference. This revelation, as far as the text goes, was private to her. So the deception is still a deception.

 

[sealchan]

We know that Jesus' apostle Judas, a name which references the tribe of Judah and is the basis of the ethnic/religious identification of the Jews, receives money in exchange for his betrayal. This story is unique to Matthew who, as I understand, evidences the most thorough knowledge of Jewish scripture among the gospel authors. It is likely that this reference is further evidence of one of the more subtle ways that the author of Matthew crafted his unique narrative of the life of Jesus.

 

[Deeje]

Yes, I read the story, you have merely repeated it.

Just adding details for clarity and interest.

What about the plot hole regarding Reuben's whereabouts?

The Bible does not say where Reuben went, but as all his brothers were there trying to decide what to do with Joseph, someone had to be keeping an eye on the flock....the firstborn, I assume had more responsibility as the oldest. There is no hole really unless you want to fill it with imagination. Why make intrigue where there is none?

Also I noticed that you inserted "half-brothers" and "firstborn" into your version above. This differs from the source you quoted as well as from the NIV which I am working from. These adjectives are true but they are not a part of the original text. Why did you insert them?

The NWT attempts to give accuracy to the reading. Does the insertion of these words change the meaning of any of it....or does it simply clarify what is written? They were Joseph's "half brothers", since his only full sibling was at home with his father. Reuben was the "firstborn"....so why does it matter? Using the NIV gives us the same information.

Let's not whitewash it, it was a deception none the less. God approved, but not demonstrably something that Isaac was aware of or he must be accused of not siding with God.

Isaac had always been fond of Esau, because he was the outdoor type, a hunter and a man of the field, and this meant game in Isaac’s mouth. (Genesis 25:28) So, with failing eyesight and a feeling he did not have long to live, Isaac prepared to give Esau the firstborn’s blessing. (Genesis 27:1-4) Whether he was unaware that Esau had sold his birthright to his brother Jacob and whether he failed to remember the divine decree, given before the two boys’ were born, that “the older will serve the younger,” is not known. (Genesis 25:23; 29-34) Whatever the case, Jehovah remembered, and so did Rebekah, who quickly arranged things so that Jacob received the blessing. When Isaac learned of the ruse that had been used to accomplish this, he refused to change what was unmistakably Jehovah’s will in the matter. Isaac also prophesied that Esau and his descendants would reside far away from the fertile fields, would live by the sword, and would finally break the yoke of servitude to Jacob from off their necks. (Genesis 27:5-40; Romans 9:10-13)

I find it unlikely, given Esau's later anger with his "younger" brother and the concern of his parents regarding that anger, that Esau took the sale of his birthright seriously.

Esau was only ticked off about the birthright when he realized what he had thrown away for a bowl of stew.

As Genesis 25:34 stated..."Esau despised his birthright".

Jacob was uncharitable at best and insulting, taunting at worst and in no legitimate position to demand something like a birthright in exchange for food.

Jacob was no such thing. I think you are confusing Jacob with Joseph.

He was his brother after all. At most Esau merely humored Jacob because his stomach was louder than his cleverness of mind to outwit Jacob. Esau never took the exchange seriously that we can see from the story. Neither did Isaac, if he ever heard of it. In this way Jacob is in the role of the serpent in the Garden of Eden using his cleverness to produce a choice against God's Will. That Jacob even knew God favored him is highly debatable. He likely did what he did for his own personal reasons.

You are completely departing from the truth of the story now. Why? It was clearly God's will that "the older would serve the younger" and that Jacob was God's choice to receive the right of firstborn. From the womb, God knew the personalities of the two brothers, and Esau was not a spiritual man...Jacob was God's choice.

Only we, the audience, know that Rebekah had word from God about His preference. This revelation, as far as the text goes, was private to her. So the deception is still a deception.

Are we the audience to be the judges here? I am happy to let God be the judge because Jacob was God's choice from the beginning.
Jacob, (in contrast to Esau who loved outdoor life and was a cunning hunter,) was an honest, harmless and innocent man who preferred to live in tents. Jacob appreciated spiritual things; his God was close and real to him, as can be seen by his vow and prayers. Without doubt Jacob noticed that Esau did not highly value his spiritual heritage, otherwise he would hardly have dared to suggest that Esau give it up for a mere bowl of stew. Had Esau truly appreciated his birthright, then, even though ravenously hungry, he would have rejected Jacob’s offer. But no, Esau was a materialistic, fleshly-minded man. Jacob did him no injustice in bargaining with him for the birthright. It was God's will.

 

[Deeje]

Trickiness seems to be a motif in Genesis. God plays tricks on humanity (Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, Abraham's Sacrifice), the snake on Eve, Abram and God on the Pharoah, Rebekah on Isaac, Jacob on Esau, Laban on Jacob, Jacob on Laban, Rachel on Laban her father...

So this history of tricksiness seems significant. What does this pattern suggest about the nature of God and His creation?

It is indeed an interesting line to follow......

When dealing with creatures to whom he has given free will, God has to sometimes be three steps ahead of the game. As he has to allow the humans to exercise their free will before he can respond to their choices, he has to be prepared for any eventuality.

I don't know what tricks you think God played in Eden, but the outcome of that scenario had an impact on what happened next. It could have been one of several outcomes.....
1) the devil had not rebelled...in which case the woman would never have succumbed to his deception. The humans would have filled the earth and extended the borders of paradise until the whole earth resembled the garden of Eden.

2) The devil may have offered his temptation but the woman could have stood her ground and reject his reasoning. She had already told him what her husband had told her. God would have dealt with the rebel spirit and God's first purpose would have gone ahead as above.

3) The woman may have fallen for the temptation, but her husband would not disobey the direct command of his God. In which case, the woman would have received the stated punishment but the man would not. Perhaps God would have remover her from the scene and given the man a new mate, with the experience of what happened to Eve to deter any future disobedience?

4) All three rebels set in motion the groundwork for Genesis 3:15 to begin a process that would taken thousands of years, and involved the testing of the whole human race as to fitness to occupy the world that God first offered them....the one from which they were evicted. The whole reason why Jesus came was to undo the damage caused by the actions of those three selfishly motivated rebels.

The devil said that all the kingdoms of the world were delivered to him, and that he could give them to whomever he wanted.(Luke 4:5-8) As all mankind have been living in a world that was ruled by the devil (from the time humans chose him as their ruler and god,) all the "trickiness" that followed was part of the devil's MO to thwart God's purpose. It isn't God who is tricky...its his adversary. Free will means that we have to choose who it is that we will obey.

We know that Jesus' apostle Judas, a name which references the tribe of Judah and is the basis of the ethnic/religious identification of the Jews, receives money in exchange for his betrayal. This story is unique to Matthew who, as I understand, evidences the most thorough knowledge of Jewish scripture among the gospel authors. It is likely that this reference is further evidence of one of the more subtle ways that the author of Matthew crafted his unique narrative of the life of Jesus.

Not quite sure how these questions tie into Joseph's experience but.....

Thirty pieces of silver ($66, if shekels) was the price offered.(Matthew 26:14-15) The sum fixed by the religious leaders appears designed to show their contempt of Jesus, viewing him as of little value. According to Exodus 21:32, the price of a slave was 30 shekels. Carrying this forward, for his work as a shepherd of the people, Zechariah was paid “thirty pieces of silver.” Jehovah scorned this as a very meager amount, regarding the wages given to Zechariah as an estimation of how the faithless people viewed God himself. (Zechariah11:12-13) Consequently, in offering just 30 pieces of silver for Jesus, the religious leaders made him out to be of little value. But at the same time, they were fulfilling Zechariah 11:12, treating Jehovah as of low value by doing this to the representative he had sent to shepherd Israel.

The designation for the traitor apostle Judas (and his father Simon) sets him apart from the other apostle, also named Judas. (Matthew 10:4; Luke 6:16; John 6:71) If “Iscariot” means, as is most commonly thought, “Man From Kerioth,” then it likely identifies Simon and his son as being from the Judean town of Kerioth-hezron. If that is the case, then Judas is the only Judean among the 12.

It helps to also remember that Matthew was a former tax collector....so no surprise that his account has to do with financial matters.

 

[sealchan]

Just adding details for clarity and interest.

Changing the way the Bible is written messes with the author's original intent. Single words add context and import and resolve ambiguity. But using those words to specify Joseph's biological relationship with his brothers introduces a potential distance between those brothers that reduces the impact of the fact that they were brothers. That is a potentially important change.

The Bible does not say where Reuben went, but as all his brothers were there trying to decide what to do with Joseph, someone had to be keeping an eye on the flock....the firstborn, I assume had more responsibility as the oldest. There is no hole really unless you want to fill it with imagination. Why make intrigue where there is none?

The story introduces this strange event. I think that the author and the original audience would naturally ask, "Where did Reuben go?" It suggests that Reuben isn't the protective brother after all but is distracted. I don't think this was a slip up of the author of Genesis but rather a subtle ambiguity meant to raise questions.

Why cover it up if it is what the Bible says?

The NWT attempts to give accuracy to the reading. Does the insertion of these words change the meaning of any of it....or does it simply clarify what is written? They were Joseph's "half brothers", since his only full sibling was at home with his father. Reuben was the "firstborn"....so why does it matter? Using the NIV gives us the same information.

It matters a great deal when read with the literary sensitivity that the author of Genesis demonstrates time and time again. In fact, the precision of wording in Genesis belies any criticism that the story might have been written with anything less than a profound attention to detail. To miss this is to miss the deep intelligence of the narrative.

Isaac had always been fond of Esau, because he was the outdoor type, a hunter and a man of the field, and this meant game in Isaac’s mouth. (Genesis 25:28) So, with failing eyesight and a feeling he did not have long to live, Isaac prepared to give Esau the firstborn’s blessing. (Genesis 27:1-4) Whether he was unaware that Esau had sold his birthright to his brother Jacob and whether he failed to remember the divine decree, given before the two boys’ were born, that “the older will serve the younger,” is not known. (Genesis 25:23; 29-34) Whatever the case, Jehovah remembered, and so did Rebekah, who quickly arranged things so that Jacob received the blessing. When Isaac learned of the ruse that had been used to accomplish this, he refused to change what was unmistakably Jehovah’s will in the matter. Isaac also prophesied that Esau and his descendants would reside far away from the fertile fields, would live by the sword, and would finally break the yoke of servitude to Jacob from off their necks. (Genesis 27:5-40; Romans 9:10-13)

You raise an interesting point in regards to Isaac's blessing to the real Esau. It is a bit peculiar and seems to uphold God's preference. I will consider that further.

Esau was only ticked off about the birthright when he realized what he had thrown away for a bowl of stew.

That makes more sense than that he was angry because of the blessing? Try reading Genesis 41 again.

As Genesis 25:34 stated..."Esau despised his birthright".

True...that is a good point. The way it shows up in the story is as a kind of conclusory statement as if the author had said, "and that is the story of how Esau gave up his birthright." It would be interesting to know if this is considered a later emendation from that of the rest of the story as it is unique so far as I can recall in Genesis. But even as it answers the questions raised in the story it raises its own question in my mind. Why not write the story to be more clear?

Jacob was no such thing. I think you are confusing Jacob with Joseph.

When did Joseph use a convenient meal to obtain a birthright?

You are completely departing from the truth of the story now. Why? It was clearly God's will that "the older would serve the younger" and that Jacob was God's choice to receive the right of firstborn. From the womb, God knew the personalities of the two brothers, and Esau was not a spiritual man...Jacob was God's choice.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree here. I read a story about a clever person causing another less clever person to give up something given as a birthright although in both cases it could be argued that the person giving up didn't understand or believe they were doing so. Cleverness, deception and its consequences is a story arc over the whole of Genesis from the serpent's deception through to the deception of Joseph's brothers that it seems well substantiated that it play out its role. Sometimes God is the author, but usually it is the human individuals practicing deceit.

You are reading this story only from a God's eye point of view, which no doubt you would approve of. However, you are not reading the story as if it was important to recognize the story itself as describing our truly human experience. You are jumping to the punchline without knowing the joke. This means you miss the point.

Are we the audience to be the judges here? I am happy to let God be the judge because Jacob was God's choice from the beginning.

Of course, hence this sacred story. The very point for the original audience of these stories was to discuss the stories, to bring up one's own assumptions and to attempt to resolve the ambiguities if possible. By doing this the audience contemplates this story as if they were living in it and attempts to relate to the outcome. That is how the Bible teaches the sole of its reader. If you just pick out all the "right answers" to each "problem" that is presented in story form but then forget about the problem (which is a problem that we all face), then you are not teaching your soul, just memorizing the "right answers".

Jacob, (in contrast to Esau who loved outdoor life and was a cunning hunter,) was an honest, harmless and innocent man who preferred to live in tents. Jacob appreciated spiritual things; his God was close and real to him, as can be seen by his vow and prayers. Without doubt Jacob noticed that Esau did not highly value his spiritual heritage, otherwise he would hardly have dared to suggest that Esau give it up for a mere bowl of stew. Had Esau truly appreciated his birthright, then, even though ravenously hungry, he would have rejected Jacob’s offer. But no, Esau was a materialistic, fleshly-minded man. Jacob did him no injustice in bargaining with him for the birthright. It was God's will.

Definitely disagree.

Yes, Esau is what you have said and God has chosen Jacob...but you cut through all the scripture as if the story were a merely formality for presenting these conclusions.

Jacob is not innocent because he was deceitful. Sure Esau is a lunkhead who is impatient and insensitive to the more spiritual matters of life, but that doesn't justify Jacob's tease. Sure God told Rebekah that Jacob was preferred by him, but that doesn't excuse Jacob for his misbehavior.

What this teaches us is that God doesn't choose perfect people to do His will but He does see qualities in them that can be grown until their flaws are balanced out. If Jacob is merely innocent then the whole story of his experience with his tricksy uncle Laban looses its moral depth. Jacob learns not to trick his way through the world by becoming subject to years of practical servitude under the cleverness of his uncle. When Jacob returns he offers Esau much more than a convenient meal in atonement for his prior attitude that caused his long exile. This is not a story of innocence but of arrogance taught a lesson of humility. That Jacob would learn this lesson is why God chose him, not because Jacob was ideal or perfect. Jacob can learn, on a personal level, to transcend his original nature. This makes Jacob's story both human and divine.

If we read that whatever Jacob does is okay, then we ignore the obvious injustice that Jacob did. This is the same sort of immorality of those who justify any of their deeds saying that God approves. Since no one can speak for God, this is always a dubious claim at best.

I have enjoyed your thoughtful responses. Thanks!

 

[sealchan]

It is indeed an interesting line to follow......

When dealing with creatures to whom he has given free will, God has to sometimes be three steps ahead of the game. As he has to allow the humans to exercise their free will before he can respond to their choices, he has to be prepared for any eventuality.

I don't know what tricks you think God played in Eden, but the outcome of that scenario had an impact on what happened next. It could have been one of several outcomes.....
1) the devil had not rebelled...in which case the woman would never have succumbed to his deception. The humans would have filled the earth and extended the borders of paradise until the whole earth resembled the garden of Eden.

2) The devil may have offered his temptation but the woman could have stood her ground and reject his reasoning. She had already told him what her husband had told her. God would have dealt with the rebel spirit and God's first purpose would have gone ahead as above.

3) The woman may have fallen for the temptation, but her husband would not disobey the direct command of his God. In which case, the woman would have received the stated punishment but the man would not. Perhaps God would have remover her from the scene and given the man a new mate, with the experience of what happened to Eve to deter any future disobedience?

4) All three rebels set in motion the groundwork for Genesis 3:15 to begin a process that would taken thousands of years, and involved the testing of the whole human race as to fitness to occupy the world that God first offered them....the one from which they were evicted. The whole reason why Jesus came was to undo the damage caused by the actions of those three selfishly motivated rebels.

The devil said that all the kingdoms of the world were delivered to him, and that he could give them to whomever he wanted.(Luke 4:5-8) As all mankind have been living in a world that was ruled by the devil (from the time humans chose him as their ruler and god,) all the "trickiness" that followed was part of the devil's MO to thwart God's purpose. It isn't God who is tricky...its his adversary. Free will means that we have to choose who it is that we will obey.

Yes, the devil is the king of politics it seems and political power is his pride. Trickiness seems generally to be involved with securing one's future political inheritence in Genesis and so does tie in all the way back to "you will not die" for eating the fruit.

Not quite sure how these questions tie into Joseph's experience but.....

Thirty pieces of silver ($66, if shekels) was the price offered.(Matthew 26:14-15) The sum fixed by the religious leaders appears designed to show their contempt of Jesus, viewing him as of little value. According to Exodus 21:32, the price of a slave was 30 shekels. Carrying this forward, for his work as a shepherd of the people, Zechariah was paid “thirty pieces of silver.” Jehovah scorned this as a very meager amount, regarding the wages given to Zechariah as an estimation of how the faithless people viewed God himself. (Zechariah11:12-13) Consequently, in offering just 30 pieces of silver for Jesus, the religious leaders made him out to be of little value. But at the same time, they were fulfilling Zechariah 11:12, treating Jehovah as of low value by doing this to the representative he had sent to shepherd Israel.

The designation for the traitor apostle Judas (and his father Simon) sets him apart from the other apostle, also named Judas. (Matthew 10:4; Luke 6:16; John 6:71) If “Iscariot” means, as is most commonly thought, “Man From Kerioth,” then it likely identifies Simon and his son as being from the Judean town of Kerioth-hezron. If that is the case, then Judas is the only Judean among the 12.

It helps to also remember that Matthew was a former tax collector....so no surprise that his account has to do with financial matters.

My last question is more looking forward at the particular similarity and not so much about what it says about Joseph's story.

Thanks for your thoughts here.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

• With brothers like these who needs enemies?

• Is this event karma for Jacob/Israel’s deceptions?

• Where did Reuben go after convincing his brothers not to kill Joseph? What did he mean by (NIV) “The boy isn’t there! Where can I turn now?”

• Does Judah’s suggestion to sell Joseph remind you of any other much later story from the Bible?

1. Amen.
2. LOL. For sure.
3. Don't know?
4. Every girl ever sold into slavery? I mean, it was codified into law. Joseph ends up doing MUCH better than most Jewish children, especially girls.

So why would Joseph's brothers go to the extreme of contemplating the murder of their brother? Is preferential treatment somehow an inducement to murder?

Joseph wouldn't shut up about all the honors to be heaped upon him. The eldest son was to get the majority if not the entire inheritance. This is all about waiting like vultures around a rich parent, much like Jacob did.

This recalls to mind the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4:3-5. Cain's motivation to murder Abel is fully based on this idea of preference of a higher authority. A similar theme can be seen in Ishmael and Isaac as children of Abraham and Jacob and Esau as children of Isaac. What is the significance of this motivation of conflict even to the point of murder attributed to preference?

Don't know if it's intended, but it could be read as a criticism of being at constant war with Canaanites, who were, after all, kin. You have elders upset that some new kid is hogging all the glory.

Especially as he was always running back to daddy, accusing his brothers of one thing or another. Like the time that a bear had attacked the portion of Jacob's livestock, of which Gad, with some of his fathers hired help, were in charge of.

What were they supposed to do? They didn't have automatic rifles back then.

Joseph who had been sent by daddy to take supplies to his other sons in the fields, arrived at Gads camp just after he had killed the bear which had a lamb in its Jaws, and seeing that the lamb was beyond any hope of surviving, he had butchered it and was eating it with the hired help. Joseph immediately ran home and told daddy that Gad was killing and eating from the flock without HIS permission or that of Reuben the firstborn son, and Gad was in trouble with his father on Joseph's account.

Why didn't they one-up the little tattle tale by bringing Jacob a stuffed bear?

By this I meant (cryptically) that even after God gave Jacob his new name, scripture still calls Israel Jacob quite frequently. This is in stark contrast to Abram/Abraham where once Abram's name changed he was never referred to by his old name again. Why is this not the case for Israel?

Different sources maybe?

I get that Reuben was trying to look out for his brother. I'm just noting what might be an unimportant plot hole as far as where he was while his other brothers were selling him. After all given the situation, if he was really concerned why would he leave?

With a concubine?

It's always 30 pieces of silver for betrayal in the Bible.

Yeah, it's probably more of a trope than a real number anyway.

So this history of tricksiness seems significant. What does this pattern suggest about the nature of God and His creation?

If all these stories are designed later to provide origin stories for the different tribes current as of the writings, then the public itself is being tricked. Might as well make it a thing.

That Jacob even knew God favored him is highly debatable. He likely did what he did for his own personal reasons.

And his mom greased the wheels. The prophecy most likely was something she told her son. Maybe she's like Cerce or whatever from Game of Thrones? Momma's Boy needs to be on the throne, so to speak. It doesn't matter what kind of a horrible jerk he is. He is willing to sit around and listen to her unlike Esau, who is independently minded and perfectly able to spend long days and nights hunting and presumably not caring what Mommy wants.

 

[sealchan]

And his mom greased the wheels. The prophecy most likely was something she told her son. Maybe she's like Cerce or whatever from Game of Thrones? Momma's Boy needs to be on the throne, so to speak. It doesn't matter what kind of a horrible jerk he is. He is willing to sit around and listen to her unlike Esau, who is independently minded and perfectly able to spend long days and nights hunting and presumably not caring what Mommy wants.

Haven't seen Game of Thrones at all...will some day...

Yeah, there is plenty of good speculation to be had in this in many of the stories.

My read on Joseph is that he was naive enough to go talking about dreams without knowing how much resentment they were harboring...I suppose they couldn't rough him up from time to time to teach him a lesson for fear of their father. I do like the idea someone raised that the story of Jacob/Israel's own experience, of nabbing the birthright out from under his barely older brother, might have caused some concern about how traditional Jacob would be when it came time to hand down the legacy.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe Hashem blessed the house of Judah for altering Joseph's fate from death to life -- it enabled Joseph to rise from slavery to Pharaoh's right hand man.