Papers proposal for the OTSSA 2014

a. Name: Carlos David Castillo Mora

b. Address: The Administrator, 29 Golf Road, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, 3201
c. Address of affiliated institution: King Edward Avenue, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, Private Bag X01
Scottsville 3209
d. E-mail address: pandolfocm@yahoo.com / davidcastillomora@yahoo.com
e. Title: Criticizing socio-economic exploitation in monarchic Israel: Genesis 47.13-26 and its theological
contribution to the struggle for socio-economic justice in the Costa Rican context.
Abstract:
Genesis 47.13-26 can be considered a text that shows the dynamics of socio-economic exploitation
and religious legitimation in Ancient Israel. The section narrates the so called Josephs agrarian policy
(see Redford 1970: 236), which included the taking of the ancestral land, the enslavement of the
population and the establishment of a taxation system. The story resembles the economic measures
implemented by the Israel and Judah monarchy from the 10 th century BCE, reflected in texts like 1
Samuel 8 and 2 Kings 12 and highly contested by prophets like Micah and Amos. This work connects
the literary dimension of Genesis 47.13-26 to the socio-economic world just mentioned, highlighting the
role of the temple-state system and the function it played in legitimating legitimate the monarchy and its
socio-economic policies. I will describe the impact that such a model had on Israels population, who
having been independent owners became economically and politically dependant due to taxes and
loans. The paper proposes that the rhetorical discourse in Genesis 47.13-26 is a denunciation and
contestation of the economic exploitation of the tributary system and the discourse of salvation of the
monarchy. The paper analyses how Genesis 47.13-26 challenges the legitimating role of the Joseph
story when it is understood as a narrative that represents the interests of the monarchy and the
tributary system. Finally, it describes in what ways the text can contribute ideo-theologically in the
pursuit of socio-economic justice in the Costa Rican context, calling for a re-interpretation of the text
from the perspective of the impoverished and oppressed.

Introduction:
The interest of this paper is to present Genesis 47.13-26 as an Old Testament text that
denounces socio-economic exploitation. Genesis 47.13-26 is a peculiar text. It belongs to the so-called
Joseph story, located at the end of the book of Genesis in chapters 37-50. Even though much has been
written on these 14 chapters, little material is to be found on Genesis 47.13-26. The strange way
Joseph is portrayed in that particular section in comparison to the discursive homogeneity of the rest
of the material (37-50) has confused most of its interpreters. Some describe the passage as a strange
corpus and do not dedicate much time to it, just highlighting how problematic it is (Coats 1976: 253).
Others, perturbed by what these verses suggest, include few lines trying to connect the account with its
1

literary context by justifying Josephs economic actions and salvific role as congruent to what is
narrated in Genesis 37-50 as a whole (Speiser 1964: 353; Von Rad 1972: 410; Turner 2009: 203). Most
interpreters are afraid to challenge the image constructed around Joseph because, in my opinion, it
requires that they denounce and criticize the way he enslaves the Egyptians and imposes a taxation
system on them. The way Joseph has been legitimized a few chapters earlier, where the text insists
that the divinity is with him (see Genesis 39) and where he is portrayed as a wise administrator (see
Genesis 41) becomes a problem for many interpreters of this passage. A few, however, have overheard
the interpretative tradition and questioned Joseph for his unjust actions (Clevenot 1985: 24; Watson
1994: 69-72; Brett 2000: 132). I want to read Genesis 47.13-26 from this marginal position as well.
In my opinion, Genesis 47.13-26 represents an exegetical and hermeneutical challenge. In a
literary level, it is clear that there are some disconnections with the main discourse of the Joseph story.
It cannot be denied that the story shows continuity with this material, narrating events related to a
famine, Josephs role as Egyptian administrator, and the establishment of new socio-economic
measures (Genesis 41). However, it is also clear that the disconnections are important. Genesis 47.1326 seems to challenge the claims of the monarchy to save the people by applying the tributary system,
a discourse strongly defended in the Joseph story (See Storniollo 1996). The debate between these
two traditions, which propose contrary socio-economic and ideo-political projects, has not yet been
sufficiently explored in exegesis, and one of my goals is to deal with it.
However, the most important element for my study is hermeneutical. Genesis 47.13-26 portrays
Joseph as an oppressive administrator, who uses the resources of the Egyptians to impoverish them for
the benefit of the rulers and who legitimately establishes an economic system largely known in the
ancient world for its oppressive and extractive measures. Professional and non-professional readers,
as I mentioned, have had trouble interpreting this text. What appears to be a story of exploitation and
injustice is difficult to denounce as such due to its connection to one of the traditional heroes of the
Hebrew Bible and Christianity, Joseph. Reading from Costa Rican and the third world, and from
contexts that have been socio-economically exploited and oppressed by foreign and local elites, calls
for an alternative reading. These contexts require an interpretation that liberates itself from the pressure
of the pious discourse within the text as well as the one present in the history of reception, in order to
denounce the abuses the text can promote. This reading seeks to encourage projects of liberation and
economic justice, while at the same time being responsible to the discipline of Biblical Studies and
accountable to the reality of our contexts. Postcolonial and Liberation are frameworks that can
contribute to this reading project. The first, based on works such as those of Sugirtharajah (1998) and
Brett (2000), are especially useful for understanding the dynamics of power and domination in the text
and its interpretation history. The second, based on the work of Itumeleng Mosala (1989), seeks to
2

discern the ideological interest in the composition of texts, and to analyse whether they can contribute
to construct oppressive or liberating projects. I take very seriously the warning of this author, who calls
us to be careful and not to confuse the theology of the oppressor as a liberating discourse (Mosala:
1989: 13).
My study of Genesis 47.13-26 responds to ideological, theological and socio-economic
interests. Accepting Josephs actions in this as divine text, as it seems to happen in the Joseph story,
imply that Josephs God is oppressive. The ideo-thelogical discourse of the story, therefore, needs to be
deconstructed and challenged. The absence of Yahweh in Genesis 47.13-26 seems to suggest that he
is not with Joseph and that he does not support his oppressive actions. In fact, the presence of the
priests can also imply that Josephs god belongs to the religious systems of Egypt as well as that of
monarchic Israel, where religion and the divinity legitimates the rulers power. Genesis 47.13-26
provokes us to reconstruct our images of God, to reject the discourses that sustain projects of death
and domination, and to look for theological constructions where God is the motor of dignity for the
oppressed and exploited.
The discourse of Genesis 47.13-26: Ridiculing the monarchy and its tributary system
The rhetorical argumentation in Genesis 47.13-26 is that of ridiculing. The text is carefully
constructed to denounce the socio-economic injustice of the temple-state organization in monarchic
Israel-Judah, which was probably established in this land at the beginning of Solomons kingship
(Clevenot 1985; Chaney 1986: 60; Gottwald 1987: 321, Coote and Coote 1990: 33, Dreher 1997: 2528)1. The author portrays Joseph as an oppressive administrator and criticizes the economic measures
he applies to preserve the life of the Egyptians by narrating their enslavement. The rhetoric of ridicule
in Genesis 47.13-26 is developed on the basis of the story itself, that is, the contrast between the socioeconomic deterioration of the Egyptians situation at the end of the story and their claims of having been
saved by the state. Salvation, in my opinion rarely can be identified with dispossession, tenancy and
taxation. This story, I suggest, is a literary construction that evokes the history of Israel under the
monarchy. The Egyptians are portrayed to evoke the majority of the population of Israel and their socioeconomic situation of poverty and exploitation under the monarchy. Joseph, the Pharaoh, and the
priests, on the other hand, represent the monarchic system, centred in the temple-state and its
participation in economic extraction. The conclusion of Genesis 47.13-26 with the dispossession of the
1 However, it is important to take into consideration the discoveries in Archaeology,
especially those related to the work of Israel Finkelstein and others, which question the
description of Solomons kingdom as it is in the book of 1 Kings and therefore the socioeconomic projects of this king.
3

money, land, and cattle of the Egyptians, its enslavement, and the establishment of a perpetual tax
system, challenges the ideo-theological legitimation of the monarchys socio-economic organization as
salvific, discourse defended in the so-called Joseph story.
In Ancient Israel, the king and his court exercised their control over the population generally
through tithes, offerings, tributes and corve, measures that were blessed by the official religious
system (Wittenberg 2007: 6-10; Horsley 2009: 54-63; West 2011: 520-523). The story, therefore,
ridicules the monarchys pretensions of being the only way God has chosen to bring salvation to the
people. In addition, it contrasts the events of the story with other types of organization found in the
Bible, where the power is not centralized in such an oppressive way, and where the peasantry owned
the land and its production for sustenance (This has been the ideal way in which the tribal
organization before the monarchy was imagined; conff. Clevenot 1985: 33; Chaney 1986: 62; Gottwald
1987: 285-287; Horsley 2009: 29). Genesis 47.13-26, therefore, criticises the socio-economic
organization and ideological and theological legitimation of this system, and shows the reality of
oppression and exploitation that it has produced.
This rhetorical discourse of ridiculing is achieved by the careful literary design of the story. The
structure plays an important role in this denunciation of socio-economic exploitation. It can divided in
five main moments that deal with the process of the dispossession of the Egyptians:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

Introduction: 47.13. The Egyptians have no bread due to a famine.

The Egyptians suffer from the dispossession of money and cattle: 47.14-17
The Egyptians suffer from the dispossession of land and freedom: 47.18-22
The Egyptians are trained in the dynamics of taxation and land tenancy: 47.23-25
Conclusion: 47.26. The Egyptians have to pay a new tax to the Pharaoh.

These five sections describe the progressive dispossession of the Egyptians at the hand of
Joseph, to the point that they lose their land, become debt-slaves and Pharahos tenants, and finally
are perpetually charged with taxes. The plot emphasises this process of extraction. Land and freedom
from exploitation, taken by Joseph right in the central section of the narrative, are mentioned as sacred
gifts from Yahweh in different parts of the Old Testament traditions (see for example Lev 25 9-10 and
23). Thus, Joseph brakes essential elements of Israels identity and foundations. The structure,
organized concentrically, highlights two main moments: the question in verses 18-22 and its answer in
verse 26. Why shall we die before your eyes? is the question of the people in the midst of starvation
and their struggle for survival (verse 19, with parallel in 15). Joseph remains silent before this but
responds by taking the land of the people and enslaving them (20-21), actions that foreshadow what is
about to happen in verse 26 with the establishment of a systematic dispossession of the Egyptians. The
answer to the question in verse 19 comes at the end of the story, where in verse 26 the salvation from
4

this danger of starvation is achieved through tenancy and taxation. The Israelites who lived under the
rule of the monarchy learned that tenancy and taxation brought everything but salvation. The story is
clear on this: people have been totally disposed and now an extractive system is inaugurated in order
to continue perpetually and legitimately such extraction. By responding with the establishment of the
tax for the Pharaoh, a system that caused indebtedness, dispossession and starvation, the author
answers the question in verses 18-22 with a yes. The people will die since they will have to struggle to
survive no longer due to a famine but because of the monarchy and its tributary system. The structure
of Genesis 47.13-26 makes an emphasis on the loss of the land and the enslavement of the population,
while playing at the same time with the ridiculous idea of taxation as salvific system. The structure
becomes one of the instruments used in the story to denounce socio-economic exploitation and ideotheological domination.
Characterization is also another narrative tool that shows the dynamics of oppression in the
story. The narrator pictures Joseph as an oppressive administrator through his treatment of the
Egyptians, his connections with groups in power, and his implementation of unjust socio-economic
realities rejected by Israelite tradition (slavery/corve and tribute). Joseph is the primary person
responsible for the impoverishment of the Egyptians and the extreme wealth and totalitarian power of
the Pharaoh. His actions and words show his role as an oppressive administrator who takes advantage
of the population for the benefit of the rulers. This is perceived clearly by the most important parts of the
story: its beginning and its denouement. Joseph is the character who acts first (47.14) and speaks last
(47.26). The first thing he does its to gather up ( , word that implies that he took everything) all
the silver of the people in exchange for bread, while his last action is to establish a perpetual tax
system of 20% of the peoples produce. Joseph has taken all ( lKo) from the people, and this
economic abuse is one element used to portray him as oppressive.
The other elements that contribute to constructing this image is that Joseph is portrayed as
taking the Egyptians resources to enrich the Pharaoh and maintain the priestly class (47.14b, 20-21).
He takes the cattle (47.17) and the land (47.20) of the Egyptians and makes them slaves (47.21), while
not touching the land belonging to the priests and bringing the acquired resources to Pharaoh. Josephs
actions seem to respond to the interests of the ruling classes, to which he also belongs and represents.
Joseph is part of the court as Pharaohs second in command (Genesis 41.40-45), and it seems that he
is portrayed in the narrative as seeking to ensure his position of power by acting in favour of his master.
In addition, he is linked to the Egyptian priestly class (41.45), a fact that leads to a suspicion concerning
the fact that priests land does not become Pharaohs (47.22, 26b). These political and religious
institutions benefit each other while the common people suffer the consequences, as happened with the
5

tributary system established in Israel-Judah through the temple-state. Josephs characterization in the
narrative places him as an administrator who rules for the powerful classes and takes advantage of the
vulnerability of the people.
Joseph is also responsible for establishing unjust socio-economic systems, a fact that
emphasises his negative role in Genesis 47.13-26. He is portrayed as an enslaver and as the one who
imposed tribute on the population; both of which are socio-economic systems highly contested in Israel
for causing the ruin of the people (conf. Wittenberg 2007: 11-18). Debt-slavery was restricted by the law
(Horsley 2009: 43-49) while extractive systems against the population and their consequences were
highly contested (Samuel 8.11-18; 1 Kings 12, Isaiah 5.8; Mic 2.2). In addition, the selling of the land in
perpetuity, for example, was sanctioned by Leviticus 25.23, where it is stated that the land belongs to
Yahweh and has the quality to be redeemed, being part of the main principles that ruled the moral
economy of early Israel (Horsley 2009: 39). The author of the story seems very interested in showing
his audience the role of Joseph in the negative fate of the Egyptians. Within Genesis 47.13-26 Joseph
is a homogeneous character who from the beginning to the end acts as an exploiter, as his actions
throughout the story confirm it. Every encounter with the people represents a confirmation of his unjust
actions, a new dispossession for the Egyptians and a new benefit for the Pharaoh.
Scholars like Von Rad (1972: 410-411) and Speiser (1964: 353) have tried to see a positive
side of Josephs measures in Genesis 47.13-26, that is, his actions as a demonstration of a wise and
skilful administration which at the end saves the population. However, no justification can change what
is narrated in the story, where Josephs actions are presented clearly in a way that is far from having a
positive impact in the Egyptians reality. Joseph is the exploiter per excellence.
The other character that plays an important role in the story in terms of dynamics of oppression
is the Egyptians. The loss of their resources, their subordination to groups of power, the ideotheological discourses constructed to dominate them, and their incorporation to oppressive systems,
show the socio-economic exploitation they suffer in the story. The Egyptians experience a radical
transformation in the narrative. At the beginning they did not have bread (it was taken by Joseph in
chapter 41) but they were independent land owners, had cattle, and did not pay taxes or tributes. At the
end, they are given seed but at the cost of losing cattle, land, freedom and paying taxes. Not only their
current resources become Pharaohs possession, but also their future ones, which will be taxed for
the benefit of the ruler. Their bodies and strength become the toll to sustain the Pharaoh and his court.
The audience of the story probably will feel very close to the Egyptians, especially if they belonged to
the groups that suffered from the extractive measures of the monarchy and its courtiers. The Egyptians
economic problems place them in a position subordination to those in power. They call Joseph lord in
their second encounter with him (47.19), an interesting detail that foreshadows their imminent
6

enslavement under Egyptian power. They are made slaves (the best translation choice due to the
Greek tradition and the literary context) and therefore property of the Pharaoh, losing their humanity
and becoming only carcasses. Finally, they are positioned unfavourably in comparison to the priests,
who have the benefit of being supported by the political rulers (47.22, 26).
The story also refers to a discourse of domination that probably reflects the interest of the
groups in power. After their dispossession and enslavement, the Egyptians claim that Joseph has
favoured them and preserved their life (v.25). Such words, puzzling for authors like Westermann
(1986), may be understood in two ways. According to Watson, the Egyptians are so disoriented by the
disaster that has just come over them that they are thankful for the systematic oppression that has
been established (Watson 1994: 69). For this author this positive reaction of the people can only be
explained as an attempt to deal with the illusionless future brought by a reality that brings a too heavy
burden to bear (Watson 1994: 70). However, I think that the author of Genesis 47.13-26 uses this
expression to ridicule the ideo-theology used by the rulers to dominate the people. Discourses like this
work to make the population assimilate a system that tells them that there is no other option for them
but to call slavery grace (See Genesis 45.5 and 50.20). The phrase in verse 25 that seems to be a
positive reaction to slavery and taxation indicates the hopes of the rulers rather than the reality of the
peoples own perspective in the face of their reality. As other texts show (1 Samuel 8.11-18; 1 Kings 12;
Isaiah 5.8; Micah 2.2), some sectors of Israel will not assume such a subordinate attitude, and become
examples that show resistance to monarchic discourses of ideological and theological domination. The
Egyptians are enslaved and taxed, two socio-economic burdens considered a curse in the thought of
Ancient Israel (Gottwald 1987: 273). Their oppression in Genesis 47.13-26 is scandalous and becomes
a denunciation of the precarious reality experienced by the Israelites under monarchic rule.
Finally, I want to mention the role that setting plays in the construction of Genesis 47.13-26 as a
denunciation and ridiculing of the monarchy, its tributary system and its salvific discourse. Egypt, the
city and the house of Pharaoh are the spatial elements of the story, and all of them have in common
their exploitative and oppressive nature. Egypt is a place of mistrust and danger for Abraham and
Isaac, who go there to seek refuge during a famine but end up being in danger of being killed (Genesis
12.10); Jacob is prohibited to look for refuge in such a place (Genesis 26.1). In addition, Egypt is the
model of oppression and bondage in the Old Testament, with the book of Exodus as the main exponent
of its abuses. This land is characterized by its unjust mechanisms and represents the contrary of what
Israel has to be (Ryken, Wilhoit and Longmann III: 1998: 801-802). The city, mentioned in Genesis
47.21 if we follow the Masoretic Text, shares with Egypt the reality of exploitation. For Coote (1989: 78),
the word ry[i, Hebrew for city, is related to the temple-palace-grain-storage system, while West
7

(2011: 515) points out how there cannot be city without economic extraction. That Genesis 47.20 can
be translated as taken to the cities or made slaves shows the close connection between living in the
city and suffering slavery and economic exploitation. Finally, the house of Pharaoh is part of the
dynamics of economic abuse. From it comes the measures that impoverish and ruin the people, and to
it goes all what is extracted from the land (Genesis 47.14, 20, 24, 26). Josephs actions reflect the
corruption in the setting. He has come from Canan to Egypt as a slave, then to the city life, where he
goes to jail unjustly, and finally reached Pharaohs house as one of his courtiers. The experience of
abuse and exploitation Joseph suffers in these places could explain why, when he is totally absorbed by
an Egyptian, city and court identity, he oppresses others. His previous experience of exploitation and
enslavement does not seem to prevent him to act in the same way and put others to suffer what he
suffered.
All the literary elements mentioned, plus others like plot and repetitions, which I have omitted
here, contribute to understanding Genesis 47.13-26 as narrative that strongly denounces and ridicules
the oppressive measures of the monarchy and its discourse of salvation by showing the ruin it brought
to the population of Egypt.
However, this proposal is not only based on the literary dimensions of the text, but also on the
possible context behind the composition of the story. Genesis 47.13-26 has been considered an
aetiology inserted in the main corpus of the Joseph story (Coats 1976: 52-53; von Rad 1972: 408-410;
Westermann 1986: 67). Many authors think that it refers to changes in the land tenure of Egypt or to an
social organization that somehow captured Israels attention (Speiser 1964: 353; Von Rad 1972: 110,
but very few have associated it with any historic experience of Israel and least of all as a critique of a
particular socio-economic experience of this population. Authors like Storniollo (1996) and Reimer
(1996), however, have seen in this account a clear description of the negative consequences of the
monarchic tributary system. They see in Joseph the evocation of Solomon, and the possible
inaugurator of the temple-state system in Israel (Storniollo 1996: 189), although Joseph has also been
connected with Jeroboam I (Coote 1991: 92). That the people are exploited by a taxation system, lose
resources like cattle and ancestral land to become debt slaves, makes reference to the realities of the
Israelites under the monarchies of and after Solomon (conff. Chaney 1986, and also references on
Isaiah 5.8, Micah 2.2 and Nehemiah 5.1-5). The establishment of the monarchy and the temple
represented a heavy burden for the population. King Salomon, and practically all the monarchs after
him, requested tribute from the people, which was used to pay his building projects, the expenses of
the army, and the life style of his lavish court (Clevenot 1985: 28; Chaney 1986: 60; Coote and Coote
1990: 33; Dreher 1997: 26-33; West 2011: 516-517). Gottwald points out that Solomon launched an

ambitious program of political economy calculated to increase the wealth of his kingdom where the
most important income came from the surpluses of the peasants (Gottwald 1987: 321-322).
The temple also played a role in the mechanism of extraction, requesting tithes and tributes for
the divinity, which were destined to pay for the expenses of the priestly class. Horsley (2009: 3)
mentions how one of temples function was to store the tithes and offerings to the gods, contributing to
the construction of a system where economics and politics were sacred. The priestly classes enjoyed
the benefits of this, as West shows, since they were not only exempted from many obligations, but also
received a share of the daily offerings and controlled the temples land (West 2011: 521). Temples
played an important role legitimating the rule of the monarchs, convincing the people it was divinely
mandated and necessary for the well-being of the land (Wittenberg 2007: 6).
Unable to cope with such economic pressure under both monarchy and temple, the Israelites
sought credits from elites and other groups that were rising in relation to the ruling classes, this to cover
their own expenses and to pay tributes to their rulers (West 2011: 516). Unable also to pay their debts,
Israelites ended up losing their ancestral land and becoming tenants, as in Genesis 47.13-26, or in the
worst case, day-labourers (Horsley 2009: 44-45; West 2011: 519). At that point the peasants do not
work the land to care for their subsistence, but in order to fulfil the export demands of the rulers (Coote
and Coote 1990: 37). Such situations represented a contradiction to Israels founding principles and
religion, based in the tribal system that rejected the taxation of the city-state system and promoted an
egalitarian society, and at certain point angered the population, especially in the North (Gottwald
1987: 285). The voices of those oppressed by this socio-economic system and ideo-theological
discourse find their expression in Genesis 47.13-26.
To use Egypt, the cities and the house of Pharaoh as the setting for Genesis 47.13-26 is
appropriate to evoke the connection between Egypt and the Solomonic rule. Some authors think that
the tributary system was imported from this place by Solomon to Israel and then was followed by the
subsequent kings, including Jeroboam and the Omrids (See Wittenberg 2007; Coote and Coote 1990:
40-43). Kings and priests constructed a religious and political legitimation for the monarchy and its
system, imposing a double oppression on the people (Wittenberg 2007: 6-10; Horsley 2009: 54-57;
West 2011: 520). Yahweh stopped being the liberator of the Israelites and became the God of the
state who sanctioned the oppressive system (Storniollo 1996: 189). The theology constructed was in
favour of the city-state and its interests, as reflected in Genesis 37-50. However, as I mentioned,
movements arose to reject this theology and foment the faith of the ancient Israelites, which worshiped
Yahweh and centred its socio-religious project in the liberation from the city-state control (Gottwald
1987: 285-287). The narratives of 1 Samuel 8.11-12 and 1 Kings 12, as well as prophetic speeches as
the ones in Isaiah 5.8 and Micah 2.2, could be signs of denunciation of exploitative systems, theological
9

projects that rejected oppression, and resistance movements that fought the abuse of the rulers. The
oppressive system lasted until the end of the monarchy, although it continued into the Persian rule
under Ezra, exercised by external political forces through local elites, as Ezra 5.1-5 suggests.
Since Genesis 47.13-26 reflects economic exploitation related to the monarchy and the
tributary system, as well as movements of resistance against it, makes it difficult to find a precise date
for its composition, since Israels story presents such characteristics from the beginning of the
monarchy until the Persian period. J has been connected with the composition of the text (Speiser
1964: 353; Coats 1976: 68 and 1983: 299), and with it the possibility that the text was written around
the 10th or 9th century BCE. However, authors like Redford (1970) have connected the events of the text
with the historical possibilities of Egypt, concluding that this narrative, together with the Joseph story
corpus, would have to be composed around the seventh and sixth century BCE, when the events told
had already or were happening in Egypt (Redford 1970: 234-239). Elements around authorship are as
well difficult to define, but whoever wrote the story is clearly part of a movement of resistance against
the abuse of the economic system of the monarchy, maybe connected with the traditions behind the
composition of 1 Samuel 8.11-18 and 1 Kings 12.
Genesis 47.13-26 and its role in the Joseph story: ridiculing the empire
I have just described how Genesis 47.13-26 denounces the socio-economic exploitation of the
monarchy and its tributary system while at the same time ridicules its claims of being a salvific project.
Such proposal, however, is clearer when the story is read within its literary context, the Joseph story.
The so called Joseph story is for some authors an apology of the monarchy and its tributary
system (Coote 1991; Storniollo 1996; Reimer 1996). It would reflect the debate around the
establishment of the institution of kingship, with movements in favour and against it (Westermann 1986;
Storniollo 1996; Coote and Coote 1990). However, the story is not a neutral account, and even though
it shows some resistance to Josephs projects, the main discourse of the story highlights the positive
implications of the monarchy and its tributary system (Storniollo 1996: 187).
Chapter 41 is used to suggest that the economic project defended in the story is the tributary
system. The fact that the measures Joseph implements to deal with the famine include the taxation on
the fifth of the produce of the population, a permanent measure that later becomes perpetual, refers to
the establishment of tribute in monarchic times, as I mentioned before. The narrative insists that
Josephs economic measures succeed in saving the life not only of the Egyptians but also of foreigners,
including Jacobs family (Genesis 41.55-57). However, the narrative is silent about the negative
implications of Josephs actions, clearly manifested in Genesis 47.13-26, but quickly mentioned in
Genesis 41.57, where the Egyptians have to buy from Joseph the food they have produced.
10

The discourse tries to propose that taxation is positive and saves lives. However, as in
the Ancient World economic and political issues are not separated from theological ones (Falk 1994:
49), the author also makes sure that Josephs rule and economic measures have divine sanction. Not
only Josephs position of privilege and success are due to Gods company, but also his raising as
Egypts administrator and socio-economic actions seemed to come from his divine wisdom. Genesis
39 insists that God is with Joseph and helps him overcome his difficulties, while Genesis 44.5 and
50.20 reiterate the idea that his presence in Egypt and the measures he has undertaken are the result
of Gods intentions to save lives. Joseph becomes Gods tool to preserve the life of the people, and
therefore the tributary system, which the ancient Israelites fought against (Gottwald 1987: 285), is
introduced in the land of Israel as Gods way to save his people (Storniollo 1996: 189-190). Storniollo
mentions that the author is very interested in convincing the audience to accept the monarchy, and that
Josephs characterization is one of his tools. For him, Josephs portrayal makes the audience trust him
and therefore accept everything he does (Storniollo 1996: 188). Storniollo thinks that the interest to
show the positive implications of kingship at moments is unbelievable, pointing out the fact that there is
a point where Egypt, the paradigm of oppression, is transformed in a place of life, this to fulfil the ideotheological and socio-economic project legitimated (Storniollo 1996: 189). Josephs ability to
administer, Gods support in his actions, and the resistance of the brothers turned in servitude, together
with the repetition of the idea of preserving lives, hy"x' (Genesis 45.5 and 50.20), are some of
the instruments used by the author to promote the monarchy and the tributary system and Gods salvific
plan.
The context that could produce such discourse is contested. Von Rad (1976: 256) and Coats
(1983: 283) see the story connected to the Solomonic court due to elements of wisdom and courtiers
formation, while Westermann (1986: 24) thinks that the story is strongly connected with debates around
the time of the united monarchy. Storniollo also agrees with Solomonic period, but for this author the
reason is that it was in that period that Yahweh was co-opted by the tributary system (Storniollo 1996:
189). Others like Coote (1991: 12) propose that the composition of part of Genesis 37-50 is in the
Northern kingdom, between the accession or Jeroboam I (931 BCE) to the fall of Samaria (722 BCE)
and in benefit of this king. However, Redford suggests that the story reflects the context of the seventh
century BCE (Reedford 1970: 233-235), while Brett (2000: 5-7) reminds us of how important it is to take
into account the context of the Persian period for the socio-economic and ideo-theological dynamics
within Genesis 37.50. The socio-economic and ideo-theological model applied in Israel would be
common in the Ancient World, where reigns and empires apply it with their populations as well as their
vassals (Horsley 2009: 52). The rule and economic order where divine and salvific according to the
11

propaganda they spread. Genesis 37-50, in that sense, followed this propaganda in order to support
the monarchy and the temple-state city in Israel. However, as Gottwald (1987: 323.324) highlights, the
model generated political centralization, social stratification, and changes in land tenure.
This is what Genesis 47.13-26 shows in order to ridicule the discourse on Genesis 37-50. All
these periods mentioned before experienced exploitative economic relations, with local and foreign
powers and their religious discourses legitimating the oppression and control of the Israelites. Their
representatives created documents such as Genesis 37-50 to legitimize their rule, but the groups that
were oppressed and contested their abuses were not silent, and produced texts as Genesis 47.13-26 in
order to ridicule their assumptions and promote resistance. It shows that the salvation in 47.25 is far
from the one in 45.5 and 50.20. It also suggests that none of these salvations comes from God.
Genesis 47.13-26 then is a strong contestation to the discourse of the Joseph story. Inserted in the
same literary context, it becomes part of the debate around the monarchy and its implications, showing
its negative consequences. It ridicules not only the Israelite monarchy, but also the empires that put into
practice such oppressing economic and ideo-theological system, since both of them claim to bring
salvation while what their produce is starvation and death. The story is clear in saying that Israels ways
are different, and that Josephs actions have nothing to do with the God who delivered them from
Egypt.
Reading Genesis 47.13-26 in the struggle for socio-economic justice in the Costa Rican context:
incorporating the perspective of the impoverished and oppressed
The Bible has been used for projects of liberation and projects of oppression. Even though my
goal is to read Genesis 47.13-26 for projects of liberation, as I said at the beginning, trying to give voice
to those who have been marginalized and oppressed within and out of the text, I cannot use the text
without acknowledging its limits for my agenda. The challenge with Genesis 47.13-26 was to
understand its ideo-theological and socio-economic projects and consider if they were useful for
projects of liberation today.
Itumeleng Mosala (1989: 6) has criticized Biblical interpreters who use the texts for liberation
without acknowledging that such texts come from the same groups that oppress and exploit. He warns
us about the importance to understand that the Bible has come to us through hegemonic codes and
suggests how necessary it is to understand the dynamics of domination within the text and their
interpretations so the Scripture can be appropriated and transformed in a tool for liberation (Mosala
1989: 10-11). In this work, I tried to question Genesis 47.13-26 and see the possible agenda behind it.
The negative portrayal of Joseph and his economic measures made me realize that it unlikely that this
text is a product of the groups related to the court or the king. It really presented their corruption and
12

abuse against the masses. I cannot say with certainty that Genesis 47.13-26 comes from impoverished
and oppressed people or that it is a scripture that defends their cause. Unfortunately, issues of
authorship are difficult to define. However, what it is clear is that such negative presentation of the
rulers and their economic measures comes from groups that opposed their abusive and exploitative
actions or at least were interested in de-legitimize their power. Thus, I suggest that Genesis 47.13-26 is
a tool that we can use for liberation. We understand that the text comes from groups of power who can
write. We also acknowledge that it comes from certain class, who possessed land and cattle, who had
silver and whose grain was confiscated. This are certainly not the poor and oppressed of the Israelites,
but we can take their words and use them for the emancipation of those who have been impoverished
and exploited by the rulers.
Genesis 47.13-26 is a text that ridicules. It challenges the ruling class and dominant theology
by saying that God is not with the exploitative king and its tributary system, something defended by the
Joseph story and other texts of the Old Testament tradition. It separates God from the tributary system,
and the divinity from the actions of the ruler, an agenda that goes against Genesis 37-50. To ridicule is
sometimes the last resource of those who resist. They take advantage of the rulers weaknesses and
make them evident to detriment of their power. This happens, for example, with the word hy"x',
to preserve life. The monarchic groups used this word in Genesis 45.4 and 50.20 to construct a
discourse that suggests that their system brings abundance, land, bread, and life to everyone.
However, those who oppose such ideology and have experienced the reality of the monarchic system,
appropriate the same language to attack the oppressive discourse. This occurs in Genesis 47.25,
where those who resist such imposition of the reality use the same word to say that the preservation of
life from their rulers brings slavery, dispossession, and perpetual indebtedness.
This insight contributes to read the text in a refreshed way and also makes the Decolonization
of God possible, as Brett (2008: 31) suggests in a reading of the story from a Postcolonial perspective.
In the Joseph story, God has been co-opted, as Storniollo (1996: 189) said, and the creators of Genesis
47.13-26 have understood this and rescued the God of liberation, the God who hears the oppressed
when they cry Shall we die before your eyes? Sugirtharahaj (2004: 261) proposes that one of the
priorities of Post-colonialism in Biblical Studies is to read the text from the perspective of the
oppressed, marginalized and victimized, whether they are Israelites or not. This principle is important
not only for reading Genesis 47.13-26, but also for many other texts of the Old Testament, which
encourage violence and domination in the name of God and against groups related and not related to
Israel. We cannot just ignore what happens in Genesis 47.13-26 because Joseph is who oppresses

13

and the victims of his actions are the Egyptians. His projects and the images of God that are behind
them need to be questioned if we want to be faithful to promote liberating realities.
The questions, however, are how can this text be read in the Costa Rican context, especially by
those groups who have been mostly exploited by socio-economic structure and dominated by ideotheological discourses? As country, Costa Rican has seen its society transformed in the socio-economic
dimension. In the 1950s, after a convulse decade that witnessed a civil war, a Welfare state was
created, which prioritized the creation of governmental institutions that cared for the basic needs of the
population, these related to health, education, finance, labour rights, access to water and electricity,
housing and poverty contention (Quesada 2008: 129, 148). Such institutions contributed to the
promotion of a good quality of life for most of the population and guaranteed the access to resources of
primary need, especially for those who experienced the hardest difficult conditions (Quesada 2008:
129). However, in the 80s, due to internal and external pressure, the Welfare state entered in crisis, and
new political groups promoted the change of model to assume a neoliberal economy (Calvo1995: 112).
Such groups began a campaign to criticize the welfare state and present neoliberalism as the
salvation for the economic crisis (Esquivel 2013: 83). The dismantling of the state began, and the
institutions that were created for the protection of the population and their access to basic living
resources were put in risk (Calvo1995: 115). Today, after more than 30 years of neoliberalism in Costa
Rica, the socio-economic situation has deteriorated clearly, with more than 25% percent of the
population living in poverty (Calvo 1995: 116; Estado de la Nacin 2013: 87). Many of the institutions
created to protect the peoples rights have been privatized or weakened, and the presence of the state
in social situations has been reduced and limited (Calvo 1995: 115). The promise of socio-economic
growth made by the defenders of neoliberalism has proven false, and instead such system has
increased the crisis with devastating effects for the majorities and many advantages for the elites
(Calvo 1995: 115). Today there is a struggle between those who want to see the full application of
neoliberalism in the country against the groups that see in a model related to the welfare state the way
to heal the economy and protect those who are more socio-economically vulnerable.
How do we read Genesis 47.13-26 in a reality like this? Genesis 47.13-26 shows one voice
within a debate around economic domination. It questions the actions of the rulers, who oppress the
people and call salvation to such oppression. They even take the God of the people, who is the hope
for their liberation, and transform him in a divinity that works for exploitation and abuse. This text
encourages us to raise the voice in our communities, question the realities of suffering and poverty that
they face, and reflect in the social structures that cause them. It is not that we want to equal the temple
state-system with neoliberalism, but to make connections in the way they are applied and in their
consequences to the population. Both come from the rulers and elites, or groups related to them and
14

who benefits from such systems. Both present their projects as salvific and use any channel of
communication to sell such idea to the people in general. Both promise well-being, but instead
harshen the situation of the masses and enrich those in power. Finally, both face contestation. These
could be some connections that could be made between Genesis 47.13-26 and the Costa Rican
context. Seeing resistance in the text is a way to continue the struggle for socio-economic justice in our
context and communities. The text, as well, calls us to re-think our images of God, challenge the
religious discourses created to dominate and immobilize resistance, and instead assume Biblical and
other faith-based resources to promote justice, dignity and life for all. It makes us think about the
position of God in the struggles for economic justice. Besides, it shows the necessity of making choices
between the God who oppresses, as the one of Joseph, or the God of the Egyptians, which wants to be
identified with the impoverished and oppressed and resits to be co-opted and manipulated by those
whose desire is to subdue others.
This is the way I have found to understand Genesis 47.13-26 in my context. However, the idea
is also to hear the voices other Costa Ricans, who experience as I do the socio-economic injustice that
is going on in the country. Therefore, part of my project has been to construct a biblical study that can
help different Costa Rican groups and communities read Genesis 47.13-26 and reflect in their socioeconomic situation. The idea is to invite them to see how the Bible is also interested in socio-economic
dynamics, and how there are theological voices that can help us to deal with socio-economic issues in
our contexts today. In addition, another goal is to give these communities and groups their own voice at
the moment of reading the texts and interpreting them for their realities and situations. The invitation,
following the CBS model of the Ujamaa Centre, is to read the Bible for social and personal
transformation, focusing on understanding the ideo-theological and socio-economic dimensions of the
text and also the structural systems that oppress the Costa Rican population today. The study is still in
construction, and a tentative draft looks like this:
1. Do you think that there is economic exploitation and social injustice in your community/country?
Who are the exploiters/exploited and what are the ways of exploitation? Share with the rest of
the groups.
2. Read Genesis 47.13-26. What is the text about?
3. Who are the main characters in the story and what do we know about them? Make a
drawing/statue that shows the relationships between them. Share with the rest of the groups.

15

4. What are Josephs actions and words in the story? Who is benefited or harmed due to them?
How is the problem of the Egyptians solved in the text? What do you think the author is
suggesting about Josephs leadership and economic relations? Share with the rest of the
groups.
5. Different from what happens in the Joseph story (Genesis 37-50), where the narrator tells us
that God is with Joseph (see especially chapter 39), in Genesis 47.13-26 there is no reference
to God, and therefore, we do not know clearly what he thinks about Josephs ways to save the
Egyptians. However, other texts of the Old Testament that have similarities with Genesis 47.1326 could help us have an idea of how God would react in this situation. 1 Samuel 8.11-18
seems to have many elements in common with Genesis 47.13-26, especially in terms of socioeconomic relations and the reality where they were produced.
Read 1 Samuel 8.11-18. Do you find any connection between this text and Josephs actions? If
so, which ones? What is Gods position in the text? How do you think this helps us to
understand Gods position before Josephs actions in Genesis 47.13-26?
Socio-economic relations in monarchic Israel
Ancient Israel was characterized by socio-economic injustice. Some experts argue that before
the monarchy, the Israelites were organized in a communal egalitarian system. Such system
was based on local leadership and had as main characteristics the prohibition to sell/take the
ancestral lands and also to charge interests on loans. It was a protective society based on the
faith in Yahweh and the liberation of Egypt, were peasants would produce for their consumption
and solidarity in times of distress was required between the people. However, the raising of the
monarchy marked a transformation in this society. There was now a centralized power
represented by a king and a court. Rulers created legitimate but unjust ways to extract
resources like land, produce, work, and animals. Certain amount of these resources belonged to
the king, the priests and the courts officials, who required them as taxes and tithes. The temple
functioned as the centre where all these resources were taken. This caused economic distress
in the population, who saw their resources reduced in order to fulfil the requirements of the
monarchy and the new elites. In many occasions, natural disasters or other problems would
16

affect the peoples crops, what meant that they will not be able to pay their dues. Money lending
became popular, but lenders would ask for high-rate interests to the peasantry, who will be bond
to them due to debt. When peasants were unable to pay their debts, lenders, who mostly
belonged to the court and the elites, would take land, animals and even people as slaves to
repay the debt. The people would slowly impoverish to the point of losing their ancestral land,
becoming day-labourers and tenants in what was their property. They were entrapped by a
systemic oppression. Some religious sectors, especially those related to the temple and the
king, created a theology to legitimize the actions of the rulers and therefore have religious
support to extract the resources of the population. However, marginal religious voices would
also raise to denounce the injustice of the rulers and their system, as well as the falsehood of a
God that legitimized oppression. Genesis 47.13-26 and 1 Samuel 8.11-18 seem to be texts
related to the groups interested in denouncing that type of socio-economic injustice in Ancient
Israel.
6. With the information of 1 Samuel 8.11-18 and the paragraph above, what do you thing Genesis
47.13-26 suggests about socio-economic relations? Is the text praising or criticizing Josephs
ways to save the Egyptians? Share your answers with the other groups.
7. Read Genesis 47.25. What do you think about the Egyptians words of thankfulness to Josephs
actions? Do you think they are being serious or sarcastic? How can we put together salvation
and grace with slavery? What do you think is the author of Genesis 47.13-26 suggesting in
verse 25?
In Ancient Israel, as it happens today, rulers created different discourses to convince the people
that their actions were righteous and honest, although most of the time their interests were to
benefit themselves by abusing of others. People, in many occasions, interiorize those
discourses as theirs, assuming a way of thinking that is the one of those who rule over them.
Verse 25 can be an example of those desires of the rulers, who wish to have submissive people
to dominate, people who accept oppression as salvation. However, the author of Genesis 47.1326 seems to be aware of the discourse of the powerful. Using irony, which is one of the literary
elements we use every day to ridicule or mock a reality that is presented falsely, the author puts
together in verse 25 salvation and grace with slavery to show its audience the real salvation
brought by the rulers. When the rulers mean salvation, they bring slavery, and that is what they
want the people to believe, that slavery is the only way to be saved. Genesis 47.13-26 could be
17

denouncing this discourse that the people do not believe anymore. Instead of showing
acceptance, the author of the story is telling us that the people already know the methods used
by the rulers, and that therefore people will not believe anymore their manipulation to accept
oppression and injustice as a way of salvation.
8. Do you think Josephs salvation is in accordance to Gods will? Could have Joseph saved the
Egyptians in a different way? How? What does the story tell us about the way we should react
to actions of oppression? Should we thank them or denounce them?
9. In what ways does this study contribute to deal with issues of socio-economic oppression in our
community/country? What can we do to help people in our community/country to understand
the dynamics of systemic oppression and denounce it?

My idea is to be extremely overt and clear that we are talking about the Bible and economic justice, this
since in the Costa Rican context the Bible is usually not read to deal with social issues. The Bible study
will be put into practice with different groups to test it as a resource to the struggle for socio-economic
justice in the Costs Rican context.

Bibliography
-Brett, Mark. 2000. Genesis: Procreation and the politics of Identity. London and New York: Roustledge.
-Brett, Mark. 2000. Decolonizing God: The Bible in the Tides of the Empire. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
18

Calvo C., Luis A. 1995. La Poltica Econmica Neoliberal o Neoclsica actual y sus aplicaciones en
Costa Rica, en Ciencias Sociales 70, Diciembre, 111-121.
-Chaney, Marvin. 1986. Systemic study of the Israelite Monarchy, in Semeia 37, 53-76.
-Clevenot, Michel. 1985. Materialist Approaches to the Bible. New York: Orbis Books.
-Coats, George W. 1976. From Canaan to Egypt: Structural and Theological Context for the Joseph
story. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America.
-Coats, George W. 1983. Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature. Volume I: The forms of
Old Testament Literature. Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company.
-Coote, Robert. 1991. In Defense of Revolution: The Elohist History. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991
-Coote, R. and Coote, M. 1990. Power, Politics and the Making of the Bible: An Introduction.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.
-Coote, R. and Ord, D. 1989. The Bibles First History: From Eden to the court of David with the
Yahwist. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
-Dreher, Carlos. 1997. Solomon and the Workers, in Leif E Vaage, ed., Subversive Scriptures:
Revolutionary Readings of the Christian Bible in Latin America. Pennsylvania: Trinity Press. 25-38.
-Esquivel, Fredy. 2013, Neoliberalismo en Costa Rica: secuelas en la cuestin social durante el siglo
XX, en Revista Ctedra Paralela N9, 76-101.
-Gottwald, Norman. 1985. The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press.
-Horsley, Richard. 2009. Covenant Economics: A Biblical Vision of Justice for All. Louisville-Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press.
-Mosala, Itumeleng. 1989. Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology in South Africa. Michigan:
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
- Programa Estado de la Nacin, 2013. Decimonoveno Informe Estado de la Nacin en Desarrollo
Humano Sostenible. San Jos, Programa Estado de la Nacin.
-Quesada, Rodrigo. 2008. Ideas Econmicas en Costa Rica (1850-2005). San Jos. EUNED, 2008.
-Redford, Donald. 1970. A study of the Biblical Story of Joseph. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
-Reimer, Haroldo. 1996. La Necesidad de la Monarchia para salvar al pueblo: Apuntamientos sobre la
Historia de Jos (Gnesis 37-50). RIBLA 23/1, 64-74.
-Ryken, L., Wilhoit J. and Longmann III, T. 1998. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: An encyclopedic
exploration of the images, symbols, motifs, metaphors, figures of speech, and literary patterns of the
Bible. Illinois-Leicester: Intervarsity Press.
-Speiser, E. A. 1964. The Anchor Bible Dictionary: Genesis. New York: Double Day.
-Storniollo, Ivo. 1996. A histria de Jos do Egito (ou a ideologa do reino de Salomao). Vida Pastoral
(Sao Paulo, Paulus), Marzo-Abril, 187-191.
19

-Sugirtharajah, R.S. 2004. The Bible and the Third World: Precolonial, Colonial and Postcolonial
Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-Turner, Laurence. 2009. Genesis. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.
-Von Rad, Gerhard. 1972. Genesis. Norwich: SCM Press.
-Von Rad, Gerhard. 1976. Estudios sobre el Antiguo Testamento. Salamanca: Sigueme.
-Watson, Francis. 1994. Text, Church and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective.
Edimburgh. T and T Clark.
-West, Gerald O. 2011. Tracking an Ancient Near East Economic System: The tributary Mode of
Production and the Temple State. Old Testament Essays 24/2, 511-532.
Westermann, Claus. 1986. Genesis 37-50: A commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House.
-Wittenberg, Gunther. 2007. Resistance Theology in the Old Testament: Collected Essays.
Pietermaritzburg: Clusters Publications.

20