Papacy in Scripture I: Joseph in Egypt
One of the many charges leveled against Catholic teaching on the papacy has been that it runs contrary to Scripture. What I hope to do over the next several posts is show how the papacy’s roots lie deep within Scripture, and are in fact fundamental to the very concept of church in the Gospels. In this first post, I will discuss the roots of this ecclesiastical office in the Old Testament narratives about the patriarch Joseph.
The first thing to note is that when we encounter Joseph in Genesis 37, we find him shepherding his brothers’ flock. This is interesting since later in the Bible we discover that King David too was a shepherd, and in the NT, Jesus instructs Peter to shepherd His flock (John 21:15-17, where Peter is commanded to feed and tend Jesus’ flock). As we read further, we see that his father Jacob/Israel gives Joseph a special cloak which probably implied some sort of high family status, since Israel loved Joseph more than his brothers (37:3), which made his brothers jealous. Soon Joseph has dreams where he appears to be exalted above his brothers (37:6-11).
Now, we all know the story. Joseph’s brothers sell him into slavery, and he eventually lands in the service of Potiphar in Egypt. This is where the biblical narrative becomes important for our present discussion. Potiphar was an officer in Pharaoh’s kingdom (Gen. 39:1). The Lord granted Joseph favor in Potiphar’s eyes, so Potiphar made Joseph the overseer (RSVCE) in his house (39:4). In Hebrew it reads, al-bayto (over his house). This idea of asher al-habayit (one who is over the house), is a term used for a steward (usually of a king), who rules the house (often a kingdom) weilding the full authority of the lord of the house (again, usually a king, or pharaoh). In this case, Joseph weild’s Potiphar’s authority within Potiphar’s house: “he left all that he had in Joseph’s charge” (39:6, RSVCE). Joseph falls out of favor with Potiphar and is thrown in prison. He gets restored, however, to a similar position within the prison itself. The chief in charge of the prison put Joseph in charge of all of the prisoners (39:22).
Pharaoh eventually restores Joseph, because while he was in prison Joseph correctly interpreted the dreams of the Pharaoh’s butler and baker. The butler eventually remembers Joseph when the Pharaoh has dreams he is unable to understand. Joseph correctly interprets the Pharaoh’s dream, and what’s amazing is that the Pharaoh recognized this:
“‘Can we find such a man as this, in whom is the Spirit of God?’ So Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discreet and wise as you are; you shall be over my house [al-baytiy], and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.’ And Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘Behold, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.’ Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in garments of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck” (41:38-42, RSVCE).
Near the end of the narratives, when Joseph finally reveals his identity to his brothers, he explains how God providentially transformed their evil actions into good, and how God made Joseph “a father to Pharaoh, and lord of Egypt” (45:8). That Hebrew word for “father” (av) became an official term for the royal steward, the individual whose office was second only to the king. This indeed was Joseph’s position. He was the royal steward to the Egyptian king, who was believed to be the divine son of the Egyptian sun god Re.
In light of the forthcoming posts on this topic, we’ll see how Israel eventually patterned their kingdom on the basic structure of other ancient Near Eastern monarchies, which, like the Egyptians, had royal officers and a single royal steward, who was given a symbol of his authority (in Joseph’s case, Pharaoh’s ring, but in the case of later Israel the royal key [Isaiah 22:22]). Furthermore, we’ll see how the Israelite royal steward was likewise called an av (a father) to the kingdom (Isaiah 22:21). When we get to the NT, we will see how Jesus’ church is the fulfilled kingdom of David, incorporating (and transforming) basic structural components in the new kingdom of Israel, the church.
And like the Pope (which means “Father”—pope in Latin is papa), Joseph was given a special charism. The papacy, representing the Church which is infallible in her role as guardian of divine revelation, shares in this charism of infallibility by God’s grace alone. Joseph was likewise able to correctly interpret dreams, by a special charism from God. And Peter, as we shall see, was given the divine revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, which God the Father chose to reveal to Peter alone in response to Jesus’ question at Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:15-17). However, an important difference remains. Joseph was the royal steward to the false son of god in a national Gentile kingdom, whereas Peter was the royal steward to the true Son of God in an international cosmic kingdom which includes both Jews and Gentiles.
Most importantly, however, is the mission of Joseph. Joseph was appointed to control the Pharaoh’s grain stores, out of which bread was made. Joseph saved the people of God, the Israelites (literally, the sons of Israel, Jacob his father and his entire family), by feeding them with Egyptian grain/bread. Likewise, Peter and his successors the popes, are called to feed Jesus’ sheep (John 21:17), the people of God. At one level this is accomplished through feeding the poor, the hungry. At a much deeper level, however, this occurs in the Eucharist, the bread from heaven.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY:
POPULAR:
Butler, Scott, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess. Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy. Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1996.
ACADEMIC:
Morrow, Jeffrey L. “Matthew 16:17-19 in its Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Context: Implications for Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Dialogue on the Papacy.” M.A. Thesis, University of Dayton, 2003.
Willis, John T. “‘Ab as an Official Term.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 10, no. 1 (1996): 115-136.
Hey Jeff,
Just found your blog, hijo. Awesome! Nice post, very Hahnian if I may say so.
In an unrelated note, what’s your take on this Personal Ordinariate for Traditional Anglicans?
Peace,
Dave
Thanks David. As regards the personal ordinariates for Anglicans, I’m a fan. Although I have to concede, I have not yet read the Holy Father’s apostolic constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus.
Jeff
Brother,
In the interest of Veritas and with unfeigned Caritas, I must honestly say that as far as I can tell this line of argumentation seems amount to this: You call our attention to the admittedly rich and varied typology surrounding figures like Joseph and David and ask us to believe that instead of pointing forward to the coming Christ, they prefigure the office of the papacy.
Joseph is a perfect case in point: The beloved son of his father, betrayed by his jealous brothers who conspire to kill him, sold for silver, divested of his glory (the magnificent coat), separated from his father, passing through a symbolic death, falsely accused, tempted and without sin, full of the Spirit, reveals himself to his brothers as alive, elevated to the highest place to save his people. Indeed, one could go on and on. It is fair to say that we would be hard pressed to find another individual in redemptive history whose life more fully lends itself to prefiguring Christ. How then can we take this and say that it is some kind of early image of the papacy? It strains credibility and looks like we are simply importing preconceived ideas rather than letting the whole system of scripture speak to us.
As for the Isaiah 22 passages, it would seem to me that “the key to the house of David” has messianic reference written all over it. You could hardly ask for a more textbook example. However, I think the real clincher is that the New Testament itself tells us how we are to understand this reference. It appears, you see, again in Revelation 3:7.
Here they are side by side:
21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. ~Isaiah 22:21-22
“To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. ~ Revelation 3:7
Here we see that the Key of David is in the hand of the Jesus the Messiah, the greater son of David, and the great and faithful steward over God’s house (Hebrews 3:6).
As with the other images, this is not some kind of cryptic reference to the Roman Pontiff or apostolic succession. It is rather a reference to Jesus, the true and faithful one, the great Shepherd of our souls.
Thanks for an opportunity to offer a counterpoint. I wish we could talk about this over a beer rather than in the blogosphere. (I would even buy.)
Josh
I keep thinking about the Joseph story. I find all of the 3 day and “on the third day” imagery fascinating and suggestive – the visions in prison (which intriguingly entail bread and wine) revolve around three days and later the brothers are held in custody for three days. Also, I think its interesting that Joseph’s revealing ( his true identity, the fact that he is alive, and the fact that he holds out forgiveness and salvation for the family) takes place after the brothers gather for a meal together.
And, incidentally, I love the way that Joseph will not permit the brothers to buy the grain but hides their silver in the sacks of grain. What a striking and poetic picture of grace.
It seems to me that that the parallels between the Genesis narrative and Peter’s sermon in Acts are noteworthy.
Genesis:
“Then Joseph said to his brothers, “Come close to me.” When they had done so, he said, “I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! 5 And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. … But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.”
25 So they went up out of Egypt and came to their father Jacob in the land of Canaan. 26 They told him, “Joseph is still alive! In fact, he is ruler of all Egypt.”
_______
Acts:
“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33Exalted to the right hand of God…..
36″Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
Fascinating a beautiful stuff.
Josh,
Those are some really interesting observations. I had never really considered all of the parallels between Christ and Joseph. And to think, I have known these stories for my entire life! I think you are right, it seems clear Joseph strongly foreshadows Christ. And the “key of David” comment was also very eye-opening. I recall reading the passage in Revelation, but had no idea he was quoting directly from Isaiah. It’s a lot to think about.
Jack, I agree with you, Josh made some fantastic observations. Very deep indeed.
Jeff
Oh, I forgot to mention the similarity between God’s revelations to Joseph through dreams, and God’s revelation to Peter in a vision about allowing gentiles to enter the Church (Acts 10:9-23). I will respond to the other responses below shortly.
Jeff
Dear Josh,
Great stuff my brother!!!! I love it! Thanks so much for your posts. There are a few things I’d like to say. The first is that, as this is merely the first of a rather lengthy multi-part series, I hope that my argument in the end will be a little bit better than this first rather unnecessary stepping stone (unnecessary because I don’t think the Joseph stuff is as important as what comes next, but I do think it can be useful nonetheless). We shall see. But please continue to press each post you feel needs pressing, I love the enthusiasm for veritas, especially on such weighty matters, and of course I appreciate your caritas.
Next, I think your comments are a terrific example of allegorical or typological interpretation, such as those that abound in the early church fathers, e.g., St. Cyril of Alexandria (in his Glaphyra on Genesis) and St. Ambrose of Milan (in his On Joseph), among many others. Clearly Joseph functions as a type of Christ, and my comments in the post were not meant in any way to detract from such typology. The early fathers likewise have some amazing tropological or moral interpretations—-I’m thinking especially here of St. Ephrem the Syrian in his Commentary on Genesis. There are also ways in which Joseph prefigures Jesus’ foster-father St. Joseph (especially regarding dreams, going into Egypt and returning) and of course the people of Israel in general (Moses brings Joseph’s bones out of Egypt along with Israel).
What I was intending to do, however, was literal-historical exegesis regarding the actual position of Joseph in Pharaoh’s administration. Re-reading my post, I can see how confusing what I wrote was. I make all kinds of comments about similarities I found “interesting.” Worse, I’m very sloppy with phrases like, “Most importantly,” used regarding other points I found “interesting,” but were intended to be tangential to my main point, and could be easily confused for typology. What I’m trying to do, a little bit, is telegraph where I’m going in future posts.
In a nut-shell, what I’m trying to do in the first several posts I make concerning the Old Testament is the following: the Joseph narratives give us a glimpse into the structural framework of a typical ancient Near Eastern kingdom. Later, when Israel decides to have a kingdom, they pattern aspects of their kingdom on the nations. Jesus, as Messiah, will then transform this kingdom into His Church. You do well to typologically link Joseph to Jesus, but what I’m trying to do (which does not negate, but rather I think is complementary to what you’re doing) is to show how Joseph (the steward) is to Pharaoh (the king) what Eliakim (the steward) is to Hezekiah (the Davidic king), and he is thus also what Peter (the steward) is to Jesus (the Davidic King, which is one thing the Messiah is). Yes the keys of David belong to Jesus (Rev. 3:7), but Jesus entrusts those keys to Peter (Matt. 16:19), just as though the keys of David belonged to the reigning Davidic king (e.g., Hezekiah) they were entrusted to his royal steward (Shebna, and then Eliakim, Isa. 22:22). And yes Jesus is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11), but He asks Peter to take His place as shepherd in a unique way (John 21:15-17), who will have to lay his life down like Jesus (John 21:18-19).
As I hope to show when we get into the New Testament material (more than just Matt. 16, I promise….although we will spend a bit of time walking through Matt. 16), I don’t think these passages would be as cryptic as one might think.
I really appreciated both of your posts, and hope you will continue to read and comment on what we write. Please do your best to help keep us honest!!! We may have a bit of iron in us, but it’s in desperate need of sharpening….and of course, as our dear brother Ben Kroger used to say, “when iron sharpens iron, sparks fly!”
I miss our time together in Macedonia, where it was we last spoke on such matters if memory serves…although I think it was coffee not beer, and I hadn’t entered the Catholic Church yet (I think my entrance was still a few weeks away, it was that Easter), but I hope the opportunity will come where we can talk these things over good beer.
Jeff
Hey Jeff, I have to say that I am already hooked. I can’t wait to read what follows, any clue when that might be?
I will be praying for you. God Bless.
Thanks Juan. Actually, I don’t know when the next one will be. I’m definitely not the techie in the group, and wouldn’t know how to set up a blog or schedule posts…..thanks be to Ryan this thing is up and working.
In light of the above comments, I thought it might be beneficial to some if I included a brief annotated bibliography of sorts dealing with Joseph’s position in Egypt vis-à-vis other ancient Near Eastern counterparts, particularly the Davidic Monarchy under King Solomon. I wrote a few pages on this in my master’s thesis in 2003.
Some scholars have argued that the office of royal steward, found throughout the ancient Near East, may in fact have even originated in ancient Egypt.
Miami’s own Dr. Y [for you non-Miamians out there, that’s Miami University (of Ohio)’s retired history professor, Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, the 2006 President of the Evangelical Theological Society] once wrote, “Solomon’s administration may have owed much to Egyptian prototypes, as the prototypes, as the title of his various officers seem to be the Hebrew equivalents of Egyptian titles.” See, Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Political Background of the Old Testament,” in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation: A Complete Library of Tools and Resources, ed. David S. Dockery, Kenneth A. Matthews, and Robert B. Sloan, 306-327 (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 316.
Kenneth Kitchen thinks that Egyptian influence on the Solomonic court is very likely. See, K.A. Kitchen, “Egypt and Israel During the First Millennium B.C.,” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986, ed. J.A. Emerton, 107-123 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 116.
The most important case against Joseph being the Egyptian vizier (the highest Egyptian official below the Pharaoh) comes from the great evangelical Egyptologist (who studied Egyptology under the renowned Jewish scholar of the Bible, Mediterranean world and ancient Near East, Cyrus Gordon [Gordon was also Yamauchi’s doctoral advisor], and who helped bolster Brown University’s Egyptology program) William Ward. See W.A. Ward, “The Egyptian Office of Joseph,” Journal of Semitic Studies 5 (1960): 144-150.
Probably the most important and up-to-date discussion of Joseph’s position (it’s historical context, etc.) remains James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). Hoffmeier thinks it is still possible that Joseph was the vizier, although our knowledge of the vizier prior to the early New Kingdom period is not as clear as we’d like.
And just so people don’t get the feeling that this discussion is only among evangelicals (Yamauchi, Kitchen, Ward, and Hoffmeier are all evangelicals…..evangelicals who can each read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs as well as biblical Hebrew, among many other ancient languages)…..here’s just a few of the many non-evangelicals in the mix that all have important information on either Joseph’s position or on Egyptian influence on the court administration of ancient Israel:
Gösta W. Ahlström, “Administration of the State in Canaan and Ancient Israel,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East Volume I, ed. Jack M. Sasson, 587-603 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995).
Gösta W. Ahlström, Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine (Leiden: Brill, 1982).
Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961).
Robert Martin-Achard, “L’oracle contre Shebnâ et le pouvoir des clefs, Es. 22, 15-25,” Revue de thâeologie et de philosophie 11 (1977) : 241-254.
Alain Zivie, La prison de Joseph: L’Égypte des pharaons et le monde de la Bible (Paris: Bayard, 2003). Thanks to James Hoffmeier for pointing me to this text which I had been unaware of before this past summer.
Hey, thanks for taking the time to respond. As I’ve said before I’m looking forward to following your work. Incidentally, I hope I don’t come across as trying to play some kind of theological or hermeneutical gotcha. Sometimes it is easy to slip into that mode, but I commend you guys for trying to situate this discourse in the context of love. I could not agree more that as soon as orthodoxy cuts itself loose from love, it ceases to be orthodoxy. The trick, I guess, is not sacrificing either truth in the interest of love or love in the interest of truth. Anyway, I am very interested in the both. And I am so glad that I know all of you well enough to know that you are too. In any event, I hope that you will find it profitable to receive some well-intentioned critiques from beyond the Tiber.
Josh, Lay any worries to rest. We know you too well to think that you’re playing a game of “gotcha.” Although, I fear that our posts might sometimes come across that way. You know the ambiguities of written communication.
In fact, we’re quite appreciative of your comments and insights. I was sincerely heaping praise on you when I compared your comments to those of Sts. Cyril of Alex. and Ambrose. I love those guys, and I love you. Even if you’re no St. Ambrose of Milan, I do respect your thoughts, especially considering your knowledge and love of Scripture. I’m willing to be corrected by anyone having studied at Reformed Theological Seminary anytime [although this is not meant to exclude other programs either....if anyone wants to critique us, please feel free, you don't have to be an aquaintance of ours nor have formally studied theology. Please critique away...we need the help].
But seriously, we need all the help we can get. I have no doubt that we will write many things that are in fact just plain wrong and are in desperate need of correction. Other things will just need more clarity, and critique can help here as well. At times (hopefully more often than the other two) there will simply be disagreement, and that’s to be expected in such an endeavor as this one.
And I think I can say on behalf of all 4 of us, that in some way, we’ve all 4 been on that side of the Tiber before….actually, quite literally for at least 3 of us when we were in Rome with your brother for the Jubilee
I still remember Jason and I symbolically walking across the bridge to get to the other side of the Tiber since we both entered the Church a little over a year before.
Nothing but love here for you bro,
Jeff
At the risk of “overdoing it,” “beating a dead horse,” etc. I should point out that one thing I’d change about this post in light of Josh’s comments are that I would probably just focus on Joseph’s role regarding pharaoh, and only connect this to the papacy in future posts. The important thing is that, like other ancient Near Eastern kingdoms, Joseph plays the role of the “one over the king’s house.” In future posts we’ll see how Israel took up this model, and then how Jesus transformed it as the New David with the new royal steward. Then near the end of the series I could mention the cutsie little things about feeding Israel with the grain, Joseph as shepherd, etc. I think my comments to that nature so early in the series confused what I was doing with typology (worthy as typology is…and of course I think there’s much fruit that can be gained even here with typolgoy, prefiguring the Church…but perhaps more on that in later posts). Ok, enough monopolizing the “conversation.”
Jeff
Ok, I can’t resist…the teacher in me is coming out. I recognize it’s possible some reading these posts might not know what typology, tropology, etc. are.
Here’s the Catholic Church’s discussion of the 2 senses of Scripture (literal and spiritual) and the 3-fold distinction of the spiritual sense (allegory/typology, moral/tropology, anagogy), from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 115-118 (you’ll have to scroll down to those paragraphs):
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#II
Also, if you want a relatively recent scholarly treatment on the ongoing debate about allegory/typology among the fathers, see the following excellent article (sorry no online link):
Peter William Martens, “Revisiting the Allegory/Typology Distinction: The Case of Origen,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 16, no. 3 (2008): 283-317.