Filed under: Main
It must all the post-Christmas bile I’m building up, but I’ve been going negative ballistic on Joseph this week. Which is why it took so long to write this post on the Sabbath school lesson. It’s a sour note to end the year, but here are the issues—some serious, some tongue-in-cheek—I have with Joseph. Kyrie, eleison!
1. Jewelry (Gen 41): Joseph had no qualms about having extravagance placed on himself (signet ring, robe of fine linen, signet ring [function excuses vanity?]), chariot, slaves. Where is his Daniel-esque resolution?2. Interfaith Marriage (Gen 41): Joseph married an Egyptian. Wasn’t intercultural, interfaith marriage a big issue with Esau? What’s different between the two? Asenath, Joseph’s wife, was no ordinary Egyptian, either. She was the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On. Was this forced on Joseph? He must’ve had some choice on this matter. If he was the most powerful person in Egypt, second only to Pharaoh, why couldn’t he send for a woman from his kinsfolk?3. Oppression of Egyptians (Gen 41, 47): I can understand Joseph taxing Egyptians 20% of their grains during the time of abundance in preparation for the famine that is to come. I can also understand Joseph selling the grains back to the people after the famine started. However, his conduct after money ran out among the people troubles me greatly. First, it’s the livestock that he takes from the people, and then it’s their land, and then finally the people themselves. Read the very troubling verses, 47:20-21: “So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh’s, and Joseph reduced the people to servitude.” I seriously question if this was what God intended when he gave the visions about the 14 cows. With the very grain that came from the people’s hard work during the first 7 years, Joseph proceeds to rob every Egyptian of the dignity that they have as human beings in serve of the monarch. No wonder Pharaoh was so good to him and his family. And no wonder, eight verses after he is placed in a coffin, a Pharaoh arose “who knew not Joseph,” and enslaved all of Israel.4. Not Reaching Out to Family (Gen 41-42): It puzzles me that Joseph does not make any effort in the first seven years of his premiership to make contacts with his family. Is he bitter? Afraid? Timid? Too wounded still? Didn’t he at least miss his father and Benjamin? After his brothers come to purchase grain, he waits until his brothers return for a second visit. Joseph’s inaction perplexes me very much.5. Manipulative Nature (Gen 42-44): Joseph seems a bit too shrewd, manipulative, and even duplicitous in his dealings with his brothers who are in Egypt to buy grain. His actions certainly don’t amount to revenge, but they do allow me, for the first time in the story, a glimpse into the complexities of his heart. Here, he is no longer the one-dimensional tattle-taler or principled rebuffer of Potiphar’s wife. Behind his actions, I see Joseph testing, gauging, doubletaking, pondering, calculating, doubting, and protecting himself—all the while feeling deeply for his brothers. He is not the saintly young adult full of grace and forgiving heart that I grew up idolizing.6. Divination (Gen 44): Did Joseph participate in divination? That intriguing verse in Gen 44 appears to point us in that direction. As Joseph instructs his steward to go after his brothers to rebuke them for the silver cup placed in Benjamin’s sack, he has the steward say to his brothers, “Isn’t this the cup my master drinks from and also uses for divination?” Also, after the brothers return to him, Joseph says, “Don’t you know that a man like me can find things out by divination?” It may very well be that Joseph did not practice divination, but was simply referring to the common use of such a cup by an Egyptian diviner. That would take Joseph off the hook. But still…the possibility lingers…that Joseph may very well have used that silver cup for divination. This raises the question that has been nagging me all along of: How much of a saint do I need Joseph to be? How much do I need Joseph to conform to my expectation of righteousness? More on that below.7. Favoritism (Gen 45): Joseph’s blatantly preferential treatment of Benjamin bothers me somewhat. Does he not remember that it was his father’s favoritism of him that led to the chain of tragic circumstances in his life?8. Tension with Brothers after Forgiveness (Gen 45, 50): Joseph may have forgiven his brothers, but he hasn’t come to a place of full trust yet. As he sends his brothers back to Canaan to deliver the good news to Jacob and bring him to Egypt, Joseph tells his brothers, “Don’t quarrel on the way!” (what a great line after all that weeping, huh). It appears that there was some tension (whether real or imagined) that remained enough to cause the 10 brothers to throw themselves as slaves before Joseph after Jacob’s death in exchange for their lives. Forgiveness wasn’t complete until Jacob passed away.9. Calculating Mind (Gen 46-47): Another glimpse into Joseph’s calculating mind can be seen in the simple exchange between him and Jacob. Joseph tells his father to say to Pharaoh that he and his sons are shepherds so that they can settle in Goshen, as Joseph wants. As the text says, Egyptians detest shepherds, thus they would be OK with Israelites living apart from them in Goshen.10. Problem with Typology: I’m realizing that my beef with Joseph isn’t really with him, but with the typological thinking that I grew up with. Because Joseph was seen as a type of Christ, every part of his life and being had to be “perfect.” The questionable parts were either ignored, glossed over, or somehow explained away. Typology, no doubt, is helpful, useful, and even necessary. I see Scripture using it extensively. But it can also be terribly limiting if it is used as the primary lens through which history is viewed. It can prevent us from seeing biblical characters for who they were and what they lived through.I don’t know if all the questions I raised here and all the beef I have with him are justified, but in the end I don’t know if it really matters. He was a human being thrown into a situation that he never desired and did what seemed the best. He made some mistakes—terrible ones—yet there was something in his life that invited God’s presence. Unlike Eve who thought she could be like God by taking the fruit, Joseph had the acute sense that, even with all the power he had, he was dependent on God. I really appreciate the telling words of Joseph to his brother, “Am I in the place of God?” (50:19). I learn through the life of Joseph that no one can really stand in the place of God—typologically or otherwise.
My (Lean) Vege-meat with Julius in Loma Linda . . . also tongue-in-cheek. Happy New Year!
1. Jewelry - signet ring, et al.: all part of the uniform. Would the people respect him and the office without all that? I don’t think so.
2. Intercultural marriage? Besides the whole “arranged” marriage aspect, I’m sure that after years in prison, any woman might start to look like a blessing?
3. Oppression: you’re making the assumption that these Egyptians weren’t already in servitude to some degree to the king. And who’s to say for how long?
Also, think of what sort of “servitude” Joseph served. He was in charge of Potiphar’s household. Too bad about being framed for rape, though.
4. Not reaching out to his family? Uh, what’s the forwarding address for a tribe of nomads? And then there was the whole “I’m busy saving the entire nation of Egypt” thing he had on his plate.
5. Joseph being clever makes me admire him all the more. [Of course, some missionaries have had the disappointment when they realized their headhunter audiences were admiring Judas in the Passion story . . .]
6. The divination cup - could have been rhetorical. But then again Joseph did have those dreams.
7. What then is forgiveness? To forget and never feel bad ever again? Friend, if you punched me in the face, and then asked for forgiveness - I might possibly forgive you, but then only communicate through e-mail thereafter.
Finally: typology - Joseph and Jesus both having to be “perfect.” Not even Jesus is “perfect” in that sense. Jesus doesn’t get along with his own family; Jesus changes his mind about going to Jerusalem (but shows up anyway); Jesus has harsh words for the religous set (”you snakes!”); Jesus sighs at his disciple’s lack of understanding; Jesus doesn’t always heal; Jesus refers to the Syro-Phoenician’s children as “dogs”; Jesus curses a fig tree, etc.
I’m always grateful, as you seem to be, that biblical figures are presented as real - warts, slaves and all.
Comment by Jimmy 12.30.06 @ 10:06 amThe problem we have with the guys like Joseph is that we expect him to be just as good a Seventh Day Adventist as anyone of us and better; be well aquainted with the twenty seven fundamental beliefs.
We forget that he lived a few thousand years ago.
My first theology professor taught me something that I would call the progression of the knowledge of truth. For example the people in the Old Testament could not be expected to be monogamous, because the truth about God wanting men to live with only one wife was only revealed later. Even a better example is the understanding of the resurrection. If you look at the older books of the Old Testament, you see that there is no mention of the resurrection. In the Psalms the writers did not expect to go to heaven for their righteous reward. All the rewards they expected to get were in this life. For them heaven was a foreign concept. Even Jobs mention of seeing God after he is dead can hardly qualify as a reference to a general resurrection. Any real reference to resurrection did not come until Ezekiel started talking about the dead bones coming to life. And why is this? God did not reveal all the truth at one time, but the truth became known to the people of God bit by bit. The early people of the Bible could not be expected to understand even half the truth that for example the writers of the New Testament understood.
So what could we realisticly expect a gyu like Joseph to know about God. He certainly did not know bout the personal evil, for him divination from the cup could just be anothter form of God talking to him. He would not understand democracy or would not have thought that every man is equal before God. Therefore bringing the Egyptians in to servitude would just mean that he served his master, Pharaoh, well as God would expect him to do. Or that he was shrewd: God blessed him with wisdom. Who says that shrewdnes was not a positive guality for a man of God in such a primitive culture that he lived in. The thing about the foreign wife was a bit more fishy of course..
Comment by Marko 01.02.07 @ 2:53 pmMARKO: What a treat! Glad you dropped in and commented! I’m waiting to get an update on you via email!!! I agree with fully on the notion of progressive revelation evidenced in OT…which is why (as I tried to point out a tongue-in-cheek manner) we can’t expect righteous characters to conform to our standards of ethics and morality or be consistent within their own lives. Would you, though, take the notion of progressive revelation further and apply it to such issues as homosexuality and belief about creation? Can we say that opposition to homosexuality was an ancient attitude reflected in Scripture which can be revised? What about the creation account in Gen 1? Can we say that it reflects only as much truth as ancients could understand and handle? What do you think?
JIMMY: Thanks for your positively critical mind as always. You wrote: “3. Oppression: you’re making the assumption that these Egyptians weren’t already in servitude to some degree to the king. And who’s to say for how long?” Gen 47:20-25 makes it pretty clear for me that servitude and 20% taxation began with Joseph. As to how long…that’s a good question.
Anyhow, the lesson that I continue to get out of Joseph et al. is that if God can work with such “primitive” and imperfect individuals, God can surely use us—and we should be able to work with one another even if we have such “severe” differences in theology or values.
Comment by Julius 01.03.07 @ 10:38 amI wonder if in 500 years, church history books will comment on “progressive Adventism,” and if some guy will be blogging about Julius in the way we’re talking about Joseph?
Genesis 47:25 makes it clear that the Egyptians seemed relieved to enter this “servitude” (”You have saved our lives!”).
Anyway, here’s a comment on Ancient Egyptian land ownership: bascially, the land ultimately belongs to the gods.
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/economy/land.htm
In theory all the land seems to have belonged to the gods, and to the pharaoh as representative of Horus. It was regarded as communal property administered by the king, and was given to his subjects for usufruction, but as early as the middle of the third millennium BCE the sense of ownership and pride in one’s own achievements was well developed among some at least:
Comment by Jimmy 01.04.07 @ 8:47 amI was a commoner of repute, who lived on his own property, plowed with his own span of oxen, and sailed in his own ship, and not through that which I had found in the possession of my father, honored Uha.
The Offering of Uha, c. 2400 BCE
According to Herodotus Sesostris (whoever he was) divided the land equally among all his subjects, an acount we should not rely too much upon, but which reflects the idea of the land belonging to the pharaoh and its usufruct being given to the people who had to pay rent:
Sesostris also, they declared, made a division of the soil of Egypt among the inhabitants, assigning square plots of ground of equal size to all, and obtaining his chief revenue from the rent which the holders were required to pay him year by year. If the river carried away any portion of a man’s lot, he appeared before the king, and related what had happened; upon which the king sent persons to examine, and determine by measurement the exact extent of the loss; and thenceforth only such a rent was demanded of him as was proportionate to the reduced size of his land. From this practice, I think, geometry first came to be known in Egypt, whence it passed into Greece.
Herodotus, Euterpe, 109.1
The traditional approach to ownership appears to have changed by the Late Period, and land had become more like any other possession, but the state never relinquished all its rights over it.
Well Julius,
You seem to be shooting with full ammo from the beginning.
As to your question. I suppose one could extend the idea of progressive revelation to Genesis one account and the question of homosexuality. There is one problem with the idea though.
Most of the Christian theology is based the on the Gen 1 account. The very basis of Christianity is that there was darkness until God spoke. Only then there was light and everything was good and perfect unjtil man came and messed it up. We need salvation, atonement, sanctification, the second coming and all the other big theological words (half of which I have already forgotten) to get us out of the man made mess and restore us to the original perfection.
The theory of evolution works the opposite. In the beginning there was chaos. But through natural selection and the survival of the fittest the nature evolves all the time to a greater perfection.
It is hard to see how these two ideas can coexist. With evolution there could not have been any original perfection. If there was no original perfection, there was no fall either. If there was no fall, what do we need salvation for. And if there was no original beautiful garden in the beginning, why do we wait for the second coming to bring the garden back? One could also talk about the power of God to restore the hearts of men against the idea of billions of years of evolution, but I am going to leave it at that.
So if one is to change the understanding of the Gen 1 account, it would require, in the least, a total rethinking of the Christian theology. Personally I doubt there would be much meaningful Christianity left.
As to the question homosexuality. If we are to believe in the theory of evolution, isn´t homosexuality a higher form (evolution) of love where a humand kind has learned to express affection totally separated from the primitive purpose of sexual expression, that is procreation.
Comment by Marko 01.06.07 @ 11:19 am