Realistic Writing: Joseph as Typical Politician
I am not a huge fan of Joseph. I think he's an ordinary politician. This might cause some questions, so I'll briefly outline my reading of him in the biblical story. But mainly I want to marvel, very shortly, at the humility of Genesis' writer in writing/maintaining the story as he has.
We meet Joseph as a young lad, rather arrogant. He tells his brothers and parents that they will bow down to him (Gen. 37:1-11). He is convinced of his own developing importance. (Typical politician.)
He is sold by his envious brothers into slavery. He is imprisoned for the sake of Potiphar's wife, though he himself is innocent. He dreams some dreams and is put in charge of Pharaoh's entire household. His responsibility is to prepare the people for upcoming famine. The plan? Keep reading.
First, gather grain during abundant years (41:47-49). For the moment, I'll leave untouched exactly how someone gathers grain from people when rumors of famine are circling. Perhaps military force?
Second, provide food. The famine spreads in Egypt and the world. But not to fear! Joseph has collected food from the people. And now he distributes it to the people of Egypt by...selling it to them (41:56)! Further, he sells it to strangers and aliens. Joseph treats the people in his charge the same as foreigners. Hmmmm.....
The famine continues. The people have given all their money--all the money in Egypt and Canaan!--for bread, but now the bread is gone (47:13-15). So, what does Joseph do? He graciously takes their livestock (47:17) for the bread he has made of the grain that he originally collected from them. (Grace, grace, marvelous grace...coming down from the Pharaoh above!)
The famine continues. All the money is gone. All the livestock is gone. The people still need food. So, what does Joseph do? He buys the people and their land in exchange for food (47:18-22). In essence, he makes slaves of the whole nation.
Let's recap: Joe collects grain from the people. He then sells it back for money, then livestock, then land and selves. Everything now belongs to Pharaoh (except for the lands of the priests). Now Joseph seals the deal: he gives seed to the people and says they can keep fourth-fifths of their crops, but have to give a fifth to Pharaoh. So, Joseph has taken the people's food--whether forcefully or peacably is now irrelevant. He returns it to the people by price gouging--offering the same product for increasing prices as things of value become scarce. In the end, Pharaoh owns it all and sets up a system that he gets grain for....nothing! Joseph has no doubt done a good thing: He has saved Egypt. He has just done it in a harsh, brutal, and vicious way. He has created a system of evil that will later lead to the slavery of his own people--once the new Pharaoh forgets that it was a descendant of Abraham that set up his cushy spot (Ex. 1:8).
Now, here's my amazement at Genesis' writing: The story is not sugar coated. Israel owns the fallen nature of their own ancestors. Joseph is recorded as being a scoundrel and a hero. The story does not appear altered to make Israel look better than they should. Nope, they produced the man who created the situation from which God would have to rescue them. Their ancestor played a role in getting them abused as slaves. It wasn't just them pesky foreigners; it was their flesh and blood.
Let's hope that we can record our own stories/histories so honestly!
We meet Joseph as a young lad, rather arrogant. He tells his brothers and parents that they will bow down to him (Gen. 37:1-11). He is convinced of his own developing importance. (Typical politician.)
He is sold by his envious brothers into slavery. He is imprisoned for the sake of Potiphar's wife, though he himself is innocent. He dreams some dreams and is put in charge of Pharaoh's entire household. His responsibility is to prepare the people for upcoming famine. The plan? Keep reading.
First, gather grain during abundant years (41:47-49). For the moment, I'll leave untouched exactly how someone gathers grain from people when rumors of famine are circling. Perhaps military force?
Second, provide food. The famine spreads in Egypt and the world. But not to fear! Joseph has collected food from the people. And now he distributes it to the people of Egypt by...selling it to them (41:56)! Further, he sells it to strangers and aliens. Joseph treats the people in his charge the same as foreigners. Hmmmm.....
The famine continues. The people have given all their money--all the money in Egypt and Canaan!--for bread, but now the bread is gone (47:13-15). So, what does Joseph do? He graciously takes their livestock (47:17) for the bread he has made of the grain that he originally collected from them. (Grace, grace, marvelous grace...coming down from the Pharaoh above!)
The famine continues. All the money is gone. All the livestock is gone. The people still need food. So, what does Joseph do? He buys the people and their land in exchange for food (47:18-22). In essence, he makes slaves of the whole nation.
Let's recap: Joe collects grain from the people. He then sells it back for money, then livestock, then land and selves. Everything now belongs to Pharaoh (except for the lands of the priests). Now Joseph seals the deal: he gives seed to the people and says they can keep fourth-fifths of their crops, but have to give a fifth to Pharaoh. So, Joseph has taken the people's food--whether forcefully or peacably is now irrelevant. He returns it to the people by price gouging--offering the same product for increasing prices as things of value become scarce. In the end, Pharaoh owns it all and sets up a system that he gets grain for....nothing! Joseph has no doubt done a good thing: He has saved Egypt. He has just done it in a harsh, brutal, and vicious way. He has created a system of evil that will later lead to the slavery of his own people--once the new Pharaoh forgets that it was a descendant of Abraham that set up his cushy spot (Ex. 1:8).
Now, here's my amazement at Genesis' writing: The story is not sugar coated. Israel owns the fallen nature of their own ancestors. Joseph is recorded as being a scoundrel and a hero. The story does not appear altered to make Israel look better than they should. Nope, they produced the man who created the situation from which God would have to rescue them. Their ancestor played a role in getting them abused as slaves. It wasn't just them pesky foreigners; it was their flesh and blood.
Let's hope that we can record our own stories/histories so honestly!
41 Comments:
This is my absolute favorite out of all your posts so far!
Indeed. AP as Joseph. Works on so many levels.
Key repeated phrase throughout the Joseph story: "And God was with Joseph. . . ."
Ironic note: Joseph rises to second in command of Potiphar's house. Gets thrown in prison. Rises to second in command in prison. Who's in charge of the prison? Probably Potiphar.
That dude knew what his wife was up to and dealt with JOseph in a way that bowed the knee to Egyptian "justice" and bowed the knee to plain old justice. Go Potiphar.
SGFMB
AP as Joseph?? you guys really know how to ruin it for the reader don't ya? sheesh. say it ain't so. [echo] "it ain't so."
(the last thing we need is another influencial "Christian" voice that is really an insecure polititian with an underdeveloped selfhood who has co-opted Christianity [and naive Christians] to serve his own personal self-aggrandizing agenda---the stench of which reeks to high heaven).
Though I've heard this kind of interpretation of the Joseph narrative before, I have to say I pretty much totally disagree. I think Joseph is one of the strongest types of Christ in all of the Old Testament.
In fact, of all the things you listed, the only one I can agree with your approach on is, perhaps, his childhood arrogance. But even that, I think, has been overstated by many.
I believe his childhood dream was, after all, from God. The difficulty and suffering he experienced was also from God. And his redemption was from God.
And I take the 'politics' involved in a completely different way. I think of the story as a type of Jesus (Joseph) and God the Father (Pharaoh). We owe God everything, but He (gracefully) allows us to keep most of it as stewards.
47:25 ""You have saved our lives," they said. "May we find favor in the eyes of our lord; we will be in bondage to Pharaoh.""...is one of my favorite verses to this end. Jesus has saved our lives. In response, we become God's slaves/servants.
Interesting take
Because I perceive you to be one who honestly and humbly lives your life, I enjoyed this post (once I read the entire thing). Humble integrity is something we lack on many fronts; may God help us indeed!
I agree with you and TCW about Christian politicians with an agenda. (I also think it's very easy for us to judge them when we have such an incomplete view of these people, but that's another comment for another day.)
Like Matthew, I disagree with your interpretation of Joseph. Had the story been written in the last 300 years by someone in Western Europe or the Americas, then I think the political cynic view would be appropriate. However, Joseph's life happened in some of humanity's earliest recorded history. The story about which you speak is something in ancient Egyptian context. Ancient Egyptians were used to following whatever whim the Pharaoh had at the time. They were also used to worshipping Pharaoh as if he were a god. Because they viewed Pharaoh as a god, they sought his mercy the same way they did every other god. To give their money and belongings to Pharaoh was literally an act of worship for the Egyptians - it had been for centuries.
Also, let's not forget SGFMB, who reminded us that God was with Joseph. I do NOT purport that God prompted Joseph to act arrogantly in his youth or to conscript the nation of Egypt as slaves. I DO, however, believe that God lets cultures be cultures, gradually drawing people to Himself and His Way. For Him to save the Egyptians from their bondage in a way that you and I deem acceptable would have rocked the ancient Egyptians severely. They were saved by means they understood so that God could be revealed by the God-fearing Joseph, whom they all adored.
I don't think Joseph should be compared to Jesus, so I'll let Matthew on his own with that. :)
Big Joey should have gathered the food and then given it back for free. Then he would have had about a million favors he could call in and used them to become Pharaoh, sort of a pre-democratic vote buying deal. Thanks for this very fresh view of this story. It definitly gives me something to think about.
hey matt, redemptive reads are nothing new in the Christian history...so, i won't say it can't be read like that. i don't think it the most natural way to read it, though. and considering Genesis functions mainly as backdrop to Exodus, i think it the most appropriate. Joseph did establish the means in which his people went into slavery.
moreover, it seems to me if you read this text redemptively, then you have to be critical of joseph. the grace of joseph lead to slavery under Pharaoh. the grace of God, however, leads to the slavery under God. taht is a radically different kind of slavery. so, when Paul is talking about release from the bondage of sin, no doubt he has in mind the exodus story. if Joseph is a type, then he has as many negative lessons as positive ones.
nor did i say that God is not with joseph (which SGFMB knows). he most certainly is. that's God's prerogative: to use people and then fix what they've screwed up through other people. he was with adam....and then noah....and then abraham....
lynn, why would my read be dependent on modern-western worldview? did joseph's actions ultimately establish the slavery of the Israelites? did he take all that the people had? are we led to believe that by the text? (i urge you to read the notes cited.)
people understand things being taken from them; people understand price-gouging; people understand famine...those aren't time-sensitive....
A moment to clarify:
"And God was with Joseph" does not mean Joseph was nice. It means that Joseph... ruthless, arrogant, mean-spirited, oligarch, Joseph was chosen by God to preserve God's people. It means God uses all kinds of secondary causes for His own ends.
Which I think is the overriding theme. God uses Joseph's (evil) actions to bring Israel to Egypt where they will thrive. Four centuries later, God uses a jealous and worried Pharoah to enslave Israel and create in them a yearning for their own land. God then uses a barren queen to raise up a leader. God uses a pagan priest to train him further. God uses a stutterer to confound the wise men of Egypt.
All of it, not just the Exodus itself, but all of it is the unfolding of God's plan to make Israel a nation through whom the entire world will be blessed. "My father was a wandering Aramean who went down to Egypt and became a nation." That's the Pentateuch in a nutshell.
I am with AP on this one.
SG
minus the Reformed tones, agreed!
and interestingly, "My father was a wandering Aramean" was a phrase spoken to the priest before offerings. The role of speech in atonement? Someone should write a dissertation on that!
Interesting stuff guys... I don't have time to write all I would like... but I think the reality falls somewhere in the middle... I think Lynn is right in pointing us in the direction of context... However I can also see some of AP's perspective on the role of Joseph... Not sure where exactly I land yet... but I think it will be somewhere in the middle.
I wouldn't be too quick to throw away Matt's typology either... Types don't necessarily follow through on every little detail...just like no illustration can completely encapsulate an explanation... However, there is a lot of typology with the OT and NT and Matt's idea probably has some validity...
This is free...and may be worth exactly what you paid for it.
Benson
btw, Jo, paul and SG are merely operating and continuing an inside joke.
ap, i realized that. i was just blabbing for the dramatic fun of it.
i didn't know cantankerous women blabbed for fun. :)
Do contankerous women need a reason? For anything?
SG
SG: you make a fine point. may the force be with you.
AP: haha. yep. there are no molds for 'cantankerous' women.
AP as Joseph, I am exegeting to mean: AP is the younger, favored son...or at least that's the inside joke of his older brothers.
As a youngest son myself, that may just be my read-response exegesis though :o)
John
I knew there was a reason I didn't like Joseph. I think recognizing the negative attributes of the "Good Ole' Boys" of the Bible is important. It seems like we wanna make biblical figures almost perfect, with a screw up here and there. So recognizing Joey's short-comings helps us "Keep it real, yo"!
As far as AP being a modern day Joseph...
Youngest Son (Check)
Mocked as a child (Check)
Political Interest (Check)
Cut-Throat & Ruthless (Check)
-ever play Risk w. him?!
Visions of Grandeur (Check)
Rising Leader (check)
All let's left now is for him to start selling our stuff on e-bay.
I think we pay higher taxes today than those people paid under Joseph's leadership. no?
That's a joke right?
The Egyptian populace was systematically reduced through taxation and coercion to a nation of tenant farmers. And God was with Joseph (just had to get that in). We may pay a higher rate of taxation, but we can own our land, pass it on to our kids, build a legacy of capital, etc.
To compare their flat tax of 20% to our tax rate in the light of this is a bit like comparing apples and Klingon Birds Of Prey because both have appeared in episodes of Star Trek.
Please, tell me it's a joke. I don't mind being thick. Really. Being thick is not to(o) bad. It's as much fun as loosing myself.
SG
People who think that God being with someone necessarily makes them nice are shallow.
Yes, that's a strong statement, but I believe it. Nice is not fruit of the Spirit. (Kindness is, but "nice" is shallow, too. "Nice" normally means an ingenuous smile while thinking what you would never say lest you burn eternally.) I share the statement to let you know I wasn't assuming Joseph was absolutely nice. Seriously, though, can we hang the fate of the Israelites on Joseph's actions?
The Israelites settled in Goshen as 70 people who were invited by their immediate relative, Joseph. They didn't need to stick around for 400 years.
Their sticking around and multiplying led to fear among the Egyptians. They feared that the Israelites would continue growing and become more powerful. 400 years had passed. The Pharaoh had no idea who Joseph was. I doubt very much, then, that we can honestly put the onus on Joseph. Sure, he brought the family down to Egypt, but their bondage had many more components than that.
The reason I think your reading of the passage is a contemporary Western reading is because politics aren't the same here and now as they were then. You are rightly cautious of politicians. Joseph was one. However, I don't think lumping Joseph in with the likes of (most of) today's politicians is giving him, the politicians, or you enough credit.
(Have I ever mentioned, AP, that I like how you and I can disagree? It's refreshing not to have to double-check my opinion for fear of really hurting someone irreversibly. It's also challenging to know that you're always honest right back.)
hey matt, glad you're back. i take seriously your opinion, and didn't want to come across like i hadn't considered it.
as to your question, depends on how you mean. if you mean we pay more than 20% of our income, then yes we do pay more. however, we have not been forced into taxes by becoming bond-slaves with no money, goods, or land. Pharaoh is able to collect a fifth because Joseph has bought the land and people and controls all the grain (47:23). by giving the grain back to the people and then having them work (what is now) his land and return a portion back to him, the situation is set for slavery. Pharaoh is in complete control.
hey lynn,
i'll take the jab at for the overstated title. but that's not really the point of the post, though. the point is more realistic writing--the typical politician is hyberbole.
so, i feel fine pointing out that when you write, "Seriously, though, can we hang the fate of the Israelites on Joseph's actions?" i say not totally. they came, stay, multiply, find a fearful Pharaoh, and 400 years do pass. but he did create the system which brought slavery to Egypt. not sure how that can be gotten around.
i am also sure that the Genesis writer had in mind the great irony of Joseph's life: Joe is sold into slavery in Egypt, his life being spared by Judah(!) (Gen. 37). Joe buys the slavery of the Egyptians, but also spares their lives.
i will also point out that SG is not nearly so cantankerous and crusty in real life. just about half as much.
Joseph should have kept his mouth shut about his brothers bowing to him... He was using poor judgement in this.
Joseph had incredible integrity to leave Potiphar's wife alone even though whe pleaded him to go for a "roll in the hay"... This would have been tempting in any context...
It was the Lord who gave Joseph success in whatever he did (40:23). I don't see why we should assume that Joseph built himself up when the book tells us otherwise.
Joseph was humble: "I cannot do it," Joseph replied to Pharoah, "but God will give Pharaoh the answer he desires."
"It is because God has made me fruitful in the land of my suffering." Gen. 41:52 Was he wrong?
Now as far as it relates to his political dealings in the time of famine... I am not convinced that Joseph is the tyrant that is being portrayed here.
1. Torah was not given yet. God's progressive revelation may not have shown Joseph that there was a thing wrong with his dealings. Taking Wesley's definition of sin... "A willful transgression against a known law of God"... I don't think there is anything in the text that would suggest Joseph's motives were not pure... in fact I find the text to be moving in the opposite direction.
2. I would like to see some examples of other political practices in the region and the moral judgements of the people surrounding these practices... Do we know that the people thought they were getting a raw deal?? If Joseph's intentions were not to be giving them a raw deal...and the people didn't think they were getting a raw deal, then I am not sure we can be judges. Of course we have the advantage of knowing God's revelation further down the line of history... so we may feel justified in passing jugement on Joseph based on what we know and not on what he KNEW...
Great discussion here... I am enjoying it!
Cheers!
Joseph was a jerk. God was with him. Joseph was the victim of evil. God used that evil for good. Joseph was the perpetrator of evil. God used that evil for good, too.
There is only contradiction when Joseph's agency and God's are placed on the same level. They are not. Indeed, the text goes out of its way to accentuate this fact.
The decalogue, btw, is not an addition to revelation. It is a clarification and codification of the law written on our hearts (Jews and Gentiles both) made necessary because of sin. Joseph knew that sleeping with Potiphar's wife was wrong. And for the same reason, he knew that stealing from Egyptian farmers was wrong.
And God used Joseph's actions--from fleeing from Potiphar's wife (good) to fleecing the Egyptians--for his own purposes (bad). Namely, to begin to make Israel a nation.
From now on, I shall be known as Crusty Guy from Manitoba.
CG
I echo Benson, the people weren't upset at all by these events. In 47:23-24 Joseph establishes the 20% flat tax after already having bought their all their other stuff.
What is there response? Do they scream corruption? Do they consider him wicked? No, they praise him for saving their lives and commit to serve him and Pharaoh.
It's not as if Joseph was stealing from them. They were getting something far more valuable in return for their stuff (their lives!).
I'm in total agreement that we often idealize characters in the Bible. But I am inclined to view Joseph as one of the greatest and most positive characters in the Old Testament. Further, I doubt there are more than a few better 'types' of Christ in all of the Old Testament.
They were both the 1st son of a favored woman. They were both loved dearly by their father. They were both shepherds of their fathers sheep. They were both sent by their father to brothers. They were both rejected/hated by their brothers.
They were both targets of murder plots. They were both tempted prior to their exaltation. They were both taken to Egypt. They were both stripped of their robes. They were both sold for the price of a slave.
They were both falsely accused. They were both placed with 2 prisoners.
They were both about 30 at beginning of recognition. They were both exalted after suffering. They were both willing to forgive their enemies. They were both able to save their people and the people of the world. God used their suffering for a greater good. The list could go on.
In the end, the negative interpretation of the Joseph seems, to me, to be a blaming of Joseph for the famine itself. But the narative doesn't paint Joseph negatively at all, it paints him as the savior of a hungry world. Likewise, Jesus came into a world in the midst of a famine (a famine for hearing the word of the Lord) and proved to be its Savior.
So I read it as a type. The Egyptian kingdom at that time became subjects of Joseph. They no longer owned their own things. Those in the Kingdom of God are subjects to God and recognize that they own nothing, but are mere stewards of all they have and, perhaps, asked to give a small and reasonable percentage.
Though I disagree with various views expressed in these comments, I certainly respect those opinions and am grateful for various perspectives!
God bless,
matthew
I think Biblical characters are often times idealized as something they were not... However...As to the negative interpretation of "Joseph was a Jerk"... I disagree with what you say, but would fight to the death your right to say it.
Cheers!
Benson
matt, if you are that great at finding parallels where there surely is none (both placed with two thieves?!; stripped of robes?!; sent by father to brothers?!), i am not sure i ever could get you to see the evil of selling grain to the people that produced in the first place. up is down! down is up! :D
a question, though: where did the notion of blaming joseph for the famine come from?
So, if Benson and Matt are correct,
the following course of action is moral, good, and presumably, therefore, to be imitated:
(1) take someone's grain
(2) sell it back to them
(3) take their livestock as payment after the money runs out
(4) take their land as payment after the livestock runs out
(5) Tax the produce of whatever is grown because it has been grown on what is now your land.
(6) Proclaim steps 1-5 as good because it saved lives.
The text says plainly that this is what Joseph did. Do you really need an addendum to add that it was a series of immoral acts?
Let me make it simple. Take "Joseph" out of the story and take the story out of the Bible. Insert "Jack Layton" as the character and put the story in the Toronto Star. Is it moral now?
That lives were thereby saved does not justify the act any more than it does the brothers selling Joey into slavery in the first place. "What you intended for evil, God intended for good" applies just as much to Joseph as to Judah and the rest.
I don't get why you are trying to rescue him when the text plainly indicts him.
But we are now going in circles. No doubt, someone will now yet again engage in hermeneutical acrobatics to "prove" that Joseph was not an immoral ass (is that better than jerk?). But however many hoops you will jump through to do it, you still have to explain why you believe steps 1-6 to amount to a morally worthy venture.
It is enough for all of us now to bow to AP, whose sheaf stands tall.
CG
and i saw the sun and the moon....
of course, i once "showed the moon" with benson, too.
"It is a clarification and codification of the law written on our hearts (Jews and Gentiles both) made necessary because of sin. Joseph knew that sleeping with Potiphar's wife was wrong. And for the same reason, he knew that stealing from Egyptian farmers was wrong."
I think you are giving too much weight to what was written on Joseph's heart... I am not convinced that the produce managment by Joseph was as tyranical as you suggest. The farmers sure as heck wouldn't have had enough space to store that much grain and so Joseph comes along and has a plan for them not to starve... can you come up with a better one--great--I would hope so with thousands of years of history and manangent theory and Divine Revelation to direct you... You assume that Joseph had more at his disposal than I am willing to give him.
That is why I think your steps 1-6 is flawed--you base in on a premise that I am not willing to give.
I am sensing a butt theme here...
A.P. talking about moons
Crotchety guy talking about asses
I just said butt...
What next?
Cheers!
just for clarification: what was at his disposal was not management theory, but that stealing is wrong.
so, benson, when you point out his righteousness in not committing adultery, and also mention this is prior to God giving the Law, the question is the same: How did he know adultery was wrong? How did he know stealing was wrong? CG's answer: God has written that law on our hearts; you don't need it written in stone.
also, the collection is not the problem. the problem is selling it back to them. if i take something from you and then only give it back to you by selling it, that is a form of stealing. if Joe knows stealing is wrong the same way he knows adultery is wrong, then......well, that's why he's getting critiqued.
I think you are looking at political tehory through 21st centure lenses and not the lenses of the period we are looking at. I think it is quite possible that given the dire condition of Egypt and the region surrounding, that Joseph saw this as a way to keep the people alive. Did another idea come to his mind that he said, "Oh yeah that might be morally right...and it will also feed the people...but this one will bring me more fame...and get me more money etc. etc. etc." I don't think the text leads us to believe this. I think that Joseph used a political construct that has obvious flaws...but primitive culture may not have seen another way of dealing with the matter. Nothing in the text leads us to believe that the people in that generation or ones to follow though that Joseph was an ass... If they did, they would have told him to shove his bones up his as#, not taken them with them when they left Egypt...
Cheers!
well, this is my last response. if stealing is a political construct of the modern western world, then i read the text through those lenses.
when you say, "nothing in the text..." i, of course, see the exact opposite. i am not sure how one can get around the bondage of an entire people to a monarch as not being a negative. putting that under the rubric of cultural immaturity ("we know better, but they didn't") seems to me unacceptable. but, hey, just me.
How are those not parellels? You could argue that such parellels are irrelevant, but you can hardly pretend they do not exist.
I, along with many in the early church, tend to read the Old Testament as types and shadows of Christ. Joseph is one of most finely formed shadows we have in my opinion.
The mistake I believe is being made in this thread is, I think, assuming the pre-Joseph Egyptians had some kind of unlimited liberty. This doesn't seem to fit what we know of ancient cultures.
What we do know is that these people likely would have died if it weren't for Joseph. I doubt their lives even changed much, practically, before and after knowing Joseph.
Was the situation ideal? Of course not! There was a gigantic famine. Did the people survive? Yes. Why? Because of God's work through Joseph.
And, in my opinion, it is very simple to see the bondage of a people to 1 monarch in a positive sense if you view the OT primarily as typological instead of just a plain record of history.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Not to be too cheeky. I came to this conversation late and skimmed through a few of the posts. I must say whoever that crusty guy is from Manitoba he sure has some great ideas.
"(1) take someone's grain
(2) sell it back to them
(3) take their livestock as payment after the money runs out
(4) take their land as payment after the livestock runs out
(5) Tax the produce of whatever is grown because it has been grown on what is now your land.
(6) Proclaim steps 1-5 as good because it saved lives."
I am totally going to try this. Pure genius!!
well, i'm breaking my promise that last night was my last post for a few reasons. the main one is a joke that came to me last night.
hey matt. there is a definite difference between parallel and coincidence. if you can point me to any early church theologian who read joseph and jesus being stripped of their robes, with two thieves, or being sent from Father to brothers for anything other than illustrative effect--which is different, again, from typology--then please do. all the talk of typology of fine, too. i, too, affirm Joseph as a type of Saviour (in the theological sense). of course, i also affirm noah, abraham, and david. being a type does not mean endorsing all the actions of a person--or even, necessarily, the actions which reflect their typology. Joe can save--and thereby reflect Christ--but do so in a less than Christlike way.
i will say that no, this negative read does not require seeing the Egyptians with "unlimited liberty." the only assumption is that they had some liberty--which the text implies (otherwise putting themselves in bondage would have had no value). and you will never hear me complaining that people's lived were saved; and i expect you're right that they would have died without Joseph. all of this Genesis records for us--the good and the bad; i just want to mention the bad because it frequently gets over looked (and in this convo, imo, denied).
also, and this is pure question, of the four main characters from Genesis--Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph--do you, or anyone else, know why Joseph is dropped from the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" phrase?
last, here's my joke: making a hero of Joseph is a perfect illustration of the hamartiology of current evangelical pietists. you can enslave a people, just so long as you don't have sex! :)
that, i really promise, is my last post. thanks to Crusty Guy for some moral support and lynn, matt, and benson for pushing me. and now, because of that joke, i can leave, ala george costanza, on a high note! i'm out!
Just want to go on record as sayiong I agree with AP. Not because it matters just because it seems rare.
Hey AP,
I certainly agree being a type does not necessarily endorse the actions of the type at hand. And I dont even intend to communicate that I think the scenario was ideal. I simply think the scenario under Josephs leadership was better than it would have been under Pharaohs, or maybe anybody at the times.
I would guess Joseph isnt added to the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob because, though he is the main character of the end of Genesis, he isnt a member of the holy line. Just a guess.
The joke I like :)
God bless,
matthew
Joseph could have been added to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob even if he were a scoundral...just look at Jacob... I am thinking that it stopped there because it would get long after a while... I done with this one too... Great insight guys... I am still thinking about it and not landed yet... I think you make some good arguments A.P. and Crusty... Matt...good stuff...be careful not to take everything in the OT too far with typology... you can soon end up as Branscombe where everything becomes chiasm
Peace OUT.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home