Interpretation 1: They were wrong

Summary:

Joseph’s measures were harsh and unjustified.

Arguments in favour of this view:

1. Joseph was selling to the farmers at a steep price the grain that he had first claimed from them (Genesis 47:14).

2. In addition, Joseph also robs the poor and emaciated people of their livestock.

3. Joseph abuses the situation by depriving the destitute people of their land and turning them into slaves of Pharaoh.

4. When we compare this to the later social legislation that the LORD gives his people Israel through Moses, Joseph’s measures are harsh and insensitive.

5. Joseph exhibits a mentality of a tyrannical ruler toward the Egyptians, while he was so meek toward his own wicked brothers.

6. In Joseph you can already see the later cunning of the Jews who see opportunities to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

7. In this failure of Joseph, who also has some good character traits, God’s Word intends to teach us that we needed an even better king than this Joseph: God’s own Son, the perfect King.

Arguments against this view:

1. In the seven years of abundant harvests, many people had become rich. Joseph now faced the huge task of helping a whole population through seven years of crisis. Selling the wheat at cost price, instead of just giving it away, helped to distribute the supplies fairly. Nowhere does it say that Joseph charged an unreasonably high price for the grain he provided.

2. By buying up the Egyptian farmers’ livestock in exchange for food, Joseph prevented Egypt’s livestock from dangerously thinning due to lack of food. Moreover, under Joseph’s leadership, the dairy products, meat, leather, etc. could now be given to the impoverished people in the cities instead of the farmers creating a black market.

3. The Egyptian peasants themselves come up with the proposal to be subservient to Pharaoh with their land. When Joseph accepts this, it is considered by both parties to be a fair transaction: the Egyptians sold their fields and Joseph bought them (Genesis 47:19–20). In the process, Joseph also provided the farmers with free seed.

   The Hebrew word often translated slave in many cases means nothing more than servant. In any case the people did not become slaves like the people who were kidnapped from Africa, sold, and put to work in the slave plantations of America. In Genesis 47:1–31 Joseph’s measure meant no more than that the free farmers became tenants of Pharaoh: they retained their houses, their land, and the livestock needed for farming, but they had to hand over a portion of the crops to Pharaoh. Take note that it also concerns a limited portion: one fifth, while they were allowed to keep and use four-fifths for themselves.

4. The measures taken are indeed different from the social legislation that the LORD later gave to Israel, but this does not imply that they are therefore also worse. Moreover, the laws for Israel were intended to be permanent, while Joseph’s measures were intended as an emergency order in a crisis situation to help the entire population. Only the tax of 20 percent of the crops for the king became a permanent measure. Note that such a rule also applied in Israel (1 Samuel 8:14–15).

5. It is clear from the abovementioned arguments that Joseph was not acting as a harsh tyrant, but that he was trying to make the best arrangements for all parties. The people also acknowledge that Joseph kept them alive in this way (see Genesis 47:25). Would it not also be strange that Joseph, who earlier had been so concerned that his family would get a bad name among the Canaanites (Genesis 37:2, now knowingly gave himself and his family a bad name by favouring his family and exploiting the Egyptians?

6. In regarding Joseph as the prototype of the later cunning, self-enriching Jew, this shows a reprehensible form of anti-Semitism. Moreover, Joseph did not enrich himself. In years of crisis, he regulated the central management of Egypt’s food sources, making the pharaoh the owner rather than himself. Thus, Joseph was also burdened with a great responsibility.

7. We do not read in the Holy Scripture about any disapproval of Joseph’s policy during these years in Egypt. In Psalm 105:22 we do read, in a positive sense, that Pharaoh appointed Joseph to instruct his princes at his pleasure and to teach his elders wisdom. Apparently, Joseph’s actions were evidence of a wise policy. True, Joseph was not a perfect king, but he was already allowed to show something of how the line of Abraham, under God’s blessings, would be a blessing to other nations as well (cf. Genesis 12:2).

Interpretation 2: They were right

Summary:

Joseph’s measures were wise and fair, intended to help the entire population of Egypt through the seven years of crisis.

Arguments in favour of this view:

We refer to the arguments against the first interpretation.