Joseph & Jesus (part 2)

A bit later, “they looked up and saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead” (37:25b).  We should note that “Ishmaelites” would have been family.  These men would have been related to this group through their great-uncle Ishmael, the brother of their grandfather, Isaac.  This adds an interesting kinship dynamic to the story to go along with the honor competition.  It is said that the Ishmaelites were heading to Egypt, so Judah said “What profit is there if we kill our brother and cover up his blood?  Come, let’s sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let’s not lay a hand on him, for after all, he is our brother, our own flesh” (37:26b-27a).  His brothers agreed to this and struck the deal.  Theoretically, by not killing him, and merely selling him as a slave, his brothers believed that they would have not have his blood on their hands.  We then go on to learn that Reuben was not a party to this, with the narrative indicating that he was quite dismayed upon learning that this had occurred.

Thinking back to the connection between the lives of Joseph and Jesus, we can see that link in the continuing demonstration of Joseph’s brothers’ animosity towards him.  When Jesus is betrayed by Judas, he is betrayed to Jewish leaders.  Ethnically, these would have been Jesus’ brethren.  With the honor and kinship model at play in the ancient world, it would indeed be something of a rare occurrence for members of Israel to willingly turn a fellow Israelite, and especially a messianic claimaint and potential king over to their foreign subjugators.  Thus, the honor competition, and Jesus’ apparent unwillingness to align His movement (and therefore His potential throne) with the powers-that-be of the day, trumped the broad familial tie.  Again, Jesus would accrue too much of the limited good of honor to Himself, and Jesus had not brought any of the ruling authorities into his circle of patronage and clientage.  Thus, He was not only of no use to them, but He also needed to be removed from the honor competition altogether.  Accordingly, they sought to kill Jesus. 

With that desire at play, they were able to successfully bring a charge of blasphemy against Him, which would merit the death penalty.  However, they did not carry out the execution themselves.  Yes, there were restraints on the execution of capital punishment, but this was clearly a special circumstance, and Jesus’ blood was not going to be on their hands.  Rather, they drew Jesus out of the metaphorical (and possibly literal) pit into which he had been placed, and carried Him to the Romans, in order to bring about His demise.  In a sense then, much like Joseph’s brothers believed to be the case when they handed their brother over to those that were effectively foreigners (though related), if the Romans also found Him guilty and carried out the sentence of death, then Jesus’ blood was on them.

Changing gears a bit, and fitting the two stories of Joseph and Jesus into the encompassing Scriptural themes of exile and exodus, it could be said that the entrance of Joseph into Egypt was the beginning of the people of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.  His presence there marked the beginnings of the first exile from the land of promise, which would be rectified by the exodus under the leadership of Moses a few hundred years later.  Just as Joseph was sold into Egypt by the Ishmaelites, to whom he had been handed by his brothers, Jesus was effectively sold into the exile of death by the Romans, to whom He had been handed by His brethren. 

Though sold into Egypt as a slave, we know that Joseph did not remain a slave.  He first found favor in the house of Potiphar, and then found favor in the eyes of the warden of the prison into which he had been unjustly cast.  Finally, due to what is said to be the Creator God of Israel’s gift to him of dream interpretation, Joseph found favor in the eyes of Pharaoh.  As the story goes, owing to the Spirit that was to be found in Joseph, Pharaoh said to him, “Because God has enabled you to know all this, there is no one as wise and discerning as you are!  You will oversee my household, and all my people will submit to your commands.  Only I, the king, will be greater than you”  (Genesis 41:39b-40). 

Thoughts of Jesus should not be too far removed from our mind upon reading these purported words from Pharaoh.  Bringing in some early post-Christ-era reflections on Jesus, what do we find in the Ephesians letter?  “And God put all things under Christ’s feet, and He gave Him to the church as head over all things” (1:22).  This is thought to be so because the great and powerful Creator God “raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly realms, far above every rule and authority and power and dominion and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come” (1:20b-21).  This is set forth alongside the idea that there was a people of God, a household of faith, chosen “in Christ before the foundation of the world” (1:4a)---a worldwide family of divine image-bearers that had always been the intention of the Creator.  It is these people, identified by their adherence to the Gospel of Jesus, and their submission to its claim that Jesus Christ is Lord of all, that faithfully submit to the commands of Jesus to love one another and to preach the message of the Gospel, through the enabling power of the Holy Spirit.  There is a household to be overseen.  

Joseph & Jesus (part 1)

Now Joseph’s brothers saw him from a distance, and before he reached them, they plotted to kill him.  They said to another, “Here comes this master of dreams!  Come now, let’s kill him, thrown him into one of the cisterns, and then say that a wild animal ate him.  Then we’ll see how his dreams turn out!” – Genesis 37:18-21  (NET)

Just before this set of verses, which is set within a larger narrative (and within a sociological setting) that must always be borne in mind as the Scriptures are approached, as we are introduced to Joseph, we learn about his dreaming of dreams, and their implication that one day, his father, his mother, and his brothers will all bow down to him.  Coupling this with the fact that he was his father’s favorite---being the son of his father’s favorite wife---and had received special gifts due to that favored status, it is understandable why it is that his brothers did not care for him.  Natural sibling rivalries and jealousy aside, this also takes place within a world defined by honor and shame, and the competition for honor.  Here, Joseph is receiving greater honor from his father, while also attempting to accrue more honor to himself.  In a society in which honor is a limited good, he is creating problems for himself. 

As we are able to view all of Scripture through the lends of the Christ-event and the cross, so much of what we see in the life of Joseph becomes a pre-reflection of themes that will eventually be found in the life of Jesus.  This makes sense, especially when the biographers of Jesus are steeped in the story of Israel, defining themselves in accordance with the shared traditions associated with the stories of their patriarchs.  Thus, as we hear the words of his brothers, do we not also hear those that presented themselves as opponents of Jesus?  Can we not hear the scribes and the Pharisees, along with the other leaders of the people of Israel in Jesus’ day, with whom Jesus would not align Himself and with whom He would not come into agreement in the larger competition for honor, saying “let’s kill Him and see how His dreams turn out”?  Obviously, we do not have to look very far to find the plot to kill Jesus, as we find it executed in the pages of the Gospels. 

As the story goes, Joseph was sent to his brothers by his father.  After a bit of searching, we find that “When Joseph reached his brothers, they stripped him of his tunic, the special tunic that he wore” (37:23).  This was the famed “coat of many colors” with which we are all familiar.  This was the special gift from his father that indicated his special status (enhanced honor standing) and invoked the ire of his siblings (envy---a powerful social force in the honor and shame society, of which Jesus will also be victim). 

Following that, “they took him and threw him into the cistern” (37:24a).  This was done because Reuben, Joseph’s oldest brother (the first son of Jacob and his first wife Leah---ironically, the one that should have been held in the highest honor by his father and brothers), convinced the rest of his brothers not to kill Joseph.  Reuben had said, “Let’s not take his life!...  Don’t shed blood!  Throw him into this cistern that is here in the wilderness, but don’t lay a hand on him” (37:21b-22a).  Following this, we are given a special glimpse into Reuben’s mindset, as we read “Reuben said this so he could rescue Joseph from them and take him back to his father” (37:22b). 

It is likely that Reuben saw this as an opportunity to gain some honor for himself while also returning to his father’s good graces, after having sexual relations with one of his father’s wives (35:22).  We cannot allow ourselves to forget that every interaction in the ancient near east would have a component of the competition for honor.  Not only would this have been the case, but anyone who heard this story told would naturally expect there to be some element of honor competition and would process the story along those lines.  Indeed, it would be counter-intuitive for an interaction, or the story of an interaction such as this, to lack this element.