Was a Type of the Messiah? Tracing the Typological Identification between Joseph, , and James M. Hamilton

James M. Hamilton serves as This typological way of reading written up by may have been Associate Professor of Biblical Theology the is indicated too often and influenced by the story of .3 at The Southern Baptist Theological explicitly in the itself for us to be in any doubt that The presence of these elements in the Seminary. He previously served as this is the “right” way of reading Joseph story then exercised influence on Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies it—“right” in the only sense that the selection of events included in the criticism can recognize, as the way at Southwestern Baptist Theological 4 5 6 that conforms to the intentionality stories of Moses, , , and Seminary’s Houston campus and of the book itself and to the conven- Nehemiah.7 Each of these instances could tions it assumes and requires. . . . was the preaching pastor at Baptist be studied in their own right, but in this Naturally, being the indicated and Church of the Redeemer in Houston, obvious way of reading , essay we will focus on the narrative cor- Texas. Dr. Hamilton has written many and scholars being what they are, respondences between Joseph and David scholarly articles and is the author of is a neglected subject, even in theology, and it is neglected before looking to Jesus. My contention in God’s Indwelling Presence: The Ministry elsewhere because it is assumed the first part of this essay is that the story of the Holy Spirit in the Old and New to be bound up with a doctrinaire of Joseph in Genesis 37–50 was a forma- Testaments (B&H, 2006). adherence to Christianity (Northrop Frye, The Great Code).1 tive influence on the account of David produced by the author(s) of .8 I Introduction will seek to show that the Joseph story How do we interpret the world and the had a world-view shaping impact upon events we experience? The world and the the author(s) of Samuel. The Genesis events that take place within it are not, account was so deeply pressed in that the after all, self-interpreting. In this essay I shape of the thing left its mark, its type.9 will argue that earlier biblical narratives My proposal is as follows: as a result of so impacted later biblical authors that the deep impression made by the Joseph their minds, their vocabulary, and their story, the life of David was interpreted interpretive framework were all shaped by people who read what happened to by what they read in earlier biblical nar- David through the lens of Joseph.10 In ratives, chiefly the Pentateuch.2 I will seek this sense Joseph functioned as a type of to demonstrate this from the way that David. There was precedent for this in the later biblical authors frame their accounts way that the Joseph story influenced key to correspond with earlier stories. This points in the account of Moses, so once essay will focus on narratives devoted to the narratives of Moses and David were Joseph, David, and Jesus. presented in the “Josephic” pattern, it is In the story of Joseph we find a cer- plausible that expectations for more of tain pattern of events. The way that key the same would be generated. Once these aspects of this pattern of events drew patterns began to be recognized, which attention, were passed down, and later would have been possible for readers 52 of the Pentateuch because it contained , and the pattern undergoes a the repeated patterns in the stories of heightening or escalation of significance Joseph and Moses, the patterns might be when the Messiah himself experiences the associated with Cain’s enmity for Abel, fullest expression of this pattern of events ’s for , and ’s for . and is crucified. The pattern is typologi- These typological patterns, where the one cally fulfilled in Jesus. favored by God is rejected by his kinsmen, In an earlier essay I attempted to trace could have been understood as prospective out the ways that David functioned as a in that they generated the expectation that type of Jesus the Messiah.13 This essay future individuals in the line of promise, will examine the Joseph story’s impact who experienced God’s favor and kind- on the author(s) of Samuel, then seek to ness, would be expected to experience show how the Joseph story also shaped similar treatment. the interpretive framework reflected in In my view the like Moses the New Testament. If what is presented in Deut 18:15–18 should be understood here proves to be convincing, there is a in precisely this way—as pointing to a natural point of application that flows succession of prophets (that according from it: if biblical language, imagery, and to Deut 34:10–12 would culminate in one patterns of events provide the interpretive uniquely like Moses) who would experi- matrix or grid of meaning through which ence a pattern of events similar to what later biblical authors interpreted the Moses underwent in being raised up by events they recount, what should those God, rejected by the people, declaring of us who seek to learn from the biblical the word of God, and being vindicated authors use to form our own interpretive by God.11 That is to say, the recognizable framework?14 pattern (along with specific texts like I would offer the following working Deuteronomy 18 and 34) pointed forward definition of typological interpretation: to others who would have parallel expe- typological interpretation is canonical riences. It also seems that Luke presents that observes divinely intended Jesus making this kind of typological patterns of historical correspondence association between the righteous proph- and escalation in significance in the ets and their wicked opponents when he events, people, or institutions of Israel, speaks of “the blood of all the prophets and these types are in the redemptive . . . from the blood of Abel to the blood historical stream that flows through the of Zechariah” (Luke 11:50–51).12 All the Bible.15 Some exposition of aspects of this righteous prophets have received the definition will perhaps be helpful, starting same kind of treatment from their wicked with the last part first: (1) the progress of kinsmen, and the pattern will culminate revelation through salvation history as in the murder of Jesus himself, for which recorded in the Bible functions as banks of reason Jesus asserts that all the blood of the stream for typological interpretation. the prophets, “shed from the foundation Things that are outside the banks of this of the world, may be charged against this stream do not match the “type” of inter- generation” (11:50). There is historical pretations that qualify as valid typological correspondence between the way wicked readings. (2) Divine intention points to opponents have treated the righteous God’s sovereign, providential work in the 53 drama of human history. (3) Typological he has made. We turn to the evidence for interpretation of the Bible looks for the each of these. ways the human authors of the Bible have “read” God’s work in history, and it Linguistic Correspondences seeks to discern cues the human authors As we begin to survey this evidence, give as to how they have interpreted that it is important to note that the argument work. (4) Typological interpretation then being presented is based on the accumu- shapes the worldview of those who have lation of all the pieces of data to be sur- learned interpretation from the biblical veyed below. Taken individually, a point authors, and we who would learn from of correspondence may seem incidental the biblical authors seek to interpret the or easily dismissed. Taken all together, world and our experiences in it in the however, these are the kinds of correspon- same way that the biblical authors have. dences that allusively draw the mind of We seek to have our symbolic universe someone reading the narratives of David shaped by the symbolic universe por- to the narratives of Joseph, with the result trayed in the Bible. We seek to build our that Joseph and David come to be associ- interpretive framework after the pattern ated with one another, even if not in an of the interpretive framework employed explicit or conscious way.17 The authors by the biblical authors. Our world is, as of the biblical narratives are not heavy it were, read through the lens given to us handed, nor do they invent material or by the Bible. falsify history. They do, however, make significant choices about which events Was Joseph a Type of David? or aspects of events to record, and they Peter Leithart has written, “Like great make linguistic choices regarding how to novelists, the biblical writers repeat a describe those events. These choices can theme, word, or image throughout a function as intentional, if subtle, allusions book, and it accumulates significance as to earlier narratives, and they can point us it goes.”16 My argument that the author(s) to the ways in which the biblical authors of Samuel intended the book’s audience frame their interpretation of history to to see that Joseph was a type of David match earlier biblical patterns. will be based on three observable sets It is also helpful to consider the way of data: (1) linguistic correspondences: the that allusions work in our own language reuse of key phrases from the Joseph story and culture. We know from our own expe- points readers of the David narratives rience that a unique phrase made up of back to Genesis 37–50; (2) sequential event common words that only occurs in a few correspondences: the pattern of events in places inevitably causes readers to associ- the David narrative broadly corresponds ate the passages where the unique phrase to the Joseph story both in terms of the occurs. Often we know the first instance events themselves and in terms of the of such a phrase, and we recognize that chronological sequence in which the the author who reuses the same phrase events are presented; and (3) redemptive consciously points his readers back to its historical import: both Joseph and David original instance. So, for instance, words are presented as agents of salvation for like “whom,” “for,” “bell,” and “tolls” are God’s people in fulfillment of promises very common in English literature. But 54 when Hemingway entitles his novel “For flock of the father,” where the verb “shep- Whom the Bell Tolls” the allusion to John herd” is in the qal infinitive construct Donne’s meditation is unmistakable.18 with the lamed preposition followed by As it happens, there are only three the marker of the definite direct object et instances in the text of the connected to “flock of his/their father.” (as reflected in BHS) where we find the The only two instances of this phrase are phrase “shepherding the flock” in the in Gen 37:12 and 1 17:5.21 form of the participle h[,ro with both the Gen 37:12, bet preposition and the article prefixed to `~k,(v.Bi ~h,Þybia] !acoï-tªa,ª tA[±r>li wyx'_a, Wkßl.YEw: the noun “flock” !aCoB;.19 1 Sam 17:15, lWa+v' l[;äme bv'Þw" %leîho dwI±d"w> `~x,l'(-tyBe( wybiÞa' !acoï-ta , tA[±r>li Gen 37:2, Joseph was “shepherding the flock with his brothers” !aCoêB; ‘wyx'a,-ta, h[,Ûro These two phrases differ only in the 1 Sam 16:11, David was “shepherd- pronominal suffix modifying the word ing the flock” !aCo+B; h[,Þro “father.” In Genesis Joseph’s brothers 1 Sam 17:34, David was “shepherd- are doing this action, while in 1 Samuel ing the flock” !aCo+B; wybiÞa'l. ^±D>b.[; hy"ôh' h[,’ro David is doing the action. We should not discount this as evidence because David Flocks and shepherds are common in is not described in terms that describe the Old Testament, but this combination Joseph, for the reuse of the phrase from of the terms in these forms is unique to the Joseph narrative serves as another these three verses. The use of the unique link between the two narratives. phrase referring to Joseph in Gen 37:2 by Even the use of a more common phrase the author of Samuel with reference to might be significant if it fits into a similar David establishes a connection between sequence of events. In other words, though Joseph and David. Others described in the phrase “and they went” (Wkl.YEw:) is very similar terms include Abel, Jacob, and common in the , it may Moses: nevertheless remind readers of the David narratives in Samuel of the Joseph story in Gen 4:2, Abel was shepherding the flock!acoê h[eroå ‘lb,“h,-yhiy>w): Genesis, since both Joseph’s and David’s Gen 30:36, Jacob was shepherding older brothers are described this way. the flock !b'Þl' !acoï-ta, h[,²ro bqoª[]y:w> Exod 3:1, Moses was shepherding Joseph’s brothers went off to shepherd

the flock Arït.yI !aco±-ta, h[,²ro hy"ïh' hv,ªmoW the flock of their father (Gen 37:12), then Jacob sent Joseph to check on his brothers, Outside of the six passages listed above, at which point Joseph’s brothers opposed there are no other instances of particular him. Similarly, David’s brothers went off individuals being described with the to battle with (1 Sam 17:13), then masculine singular participle of the Jesse sent David to check on his brothers, verb “shepherding” taking “flock” as its at which point David’s brothers reacted 20 object, and the only instances in which harshly to him. Then a few phrases later, “flock” has the prefixed preposition bet in 1 Sam 17:15, we meet another phrase and the article are those that refer to from Gen 37:12, noted above, “to shep- Joseph and David. herd the flock of the father.” At the head A similar linkage between rare phrases of this parallel sequence of events, the occurs with the phrase “to shepherd the phrase “and they went,” though common, 55 is nevertheless a linguistic point of contact the related demonstrative pronoun zL'h;, between the two narratives. which is likewise rare.24 The use of a rare There are other linguistic connections but relatively easy to understand term between the Joseph and David narratives (because of its apparent relationship to that overlap with points of sequential the more common forms hz< and hZ

Linguistic Points of Contact Not Discussed above Genesis 37–50 Samuel Gen 38:1, 12, 20 1 Sam 22:1 Adullamite Cave of Adullam31 Gen 38:26 1 Sam 24:17 says of Tamar, “she has been Saul says to David, “you have been more righteous than I because . . .” more righteous than I because . . . ” -yKi( yNIM,êmi hq")d>c'( ‘rm,aYO“w yKiÛ yNIM<+mi hT'Þa; qyDIïc; dwIëD"-la, ‘rm,aYO“w: ; Gen 37:5, 9; 39:2, 3, 21, 23; 48:21 1 Sam 16:18; 17:37; 18:12, 14, 28 Yahweh was with Joseph32 Yahweh was with David33 Gen 39:3 1 Sam 16:18; 18:5, 14–16, 30 Yahweh causes everything Joseph does Yahweh with David to make him to succeed successful34 Gen 39:4 1 Sam 16:22 Joseph found favor in ’s sight David found favor in Saul’s sight wyn"ßy[eB. !xe² @seîAy ac'’’m.YIw: yn")y[eB. !xeÞ ac'm'î-yKi Gen 39:6 1 Sam 16:12, 18 Joseph’s handsome appearance David’s handsome appearance `ha,(r>m; hpeîywI ra;toß-hpey> 1 Sam 16:12, yairo+ bAjåw> ~yIn:ßy[e hpeîy> 1 Sam 16:18, ra;To+ vyaiäw> Gen 41:26 1 Sam 16:21 Joseph “stood before” Pharaoh David “stood before” Saul ynEßp.li Ad§m.['B. wyn"+p'l. dmoß[]Y:w:) Gen 41:38 1 Sam 16:14 Joseph has the Spirit David has the Spirit 57 chosen—Joseph through his dreams, and 18:20–21). After Joseph fled, Potiphar’s David when Samuel anoints him. Both wife lied about him (Gen 39:17–18), and Joseph and David have a father who after David fled Michal told a lie about apparently does not expect greatness from him (1 Sam 19:17). The lies of Potiphar’s them—Joseph’s father responds with wife were the cause of more affliction for incredulity to his dreams (Gen 37:5–10), Joseph (Gen 39:13–20), and in David’s and when Samuel came to anoint one flight he found no little affliction, includ- of his sons as king, Jesse only sum- ing his wife Michal being given to another moned David from the field after Samuel man (1 Sam 25:44). Saul planned to use passed over all of David’s brothers (1 his daughters as snares for David (1 Sam 16:8–13). Both Joseph and David are Sam 18:17, 21). David retook Michal (2 described as handsome (Gen 39:6; 1 Sam Sam 3:13–16), but she eventually turned 16:12, 18). Both Joseph and David have against him (2 Sam 6:16–23). The authors older brothers who go away—Joseph’s of the two narratives are explicit on the brothers to shepherd the flock (1 Sam point that Yahweh was with Joseph and 37:12), and David’s brothers go with Saul David and caused them to succeed in (1 Sam 17:13). Both Joseph and David everything they did, in spite of all afflic- are sent by their fathers to see how their tion and opposition (see the references in brothers are doing (Gen 37:13–14; 1 Sam the chart above). 17:17–18).36 Both Joseph and David meet Joseph’s brothers sold him into , with animosity from their older broth- which took him out of the promised land. ers—Joseph’s brothers put him in a pit Saul hurled his spear at David, which and sell him into slavery (Gen 37:18–36), forced him to flee the promised land (e.g., and David’s brother answers him harshly 1 Sam 19:10; 21:10; 27:1). Both Joseph and (1 Sam 17:28). David were pleasing to Gentile kings and Both Joseph and David meet opposi- prospered among foreigners—Pharaoh tion from their brothers, succeed, face was only greater than Joseph with respect more affliction, and ultimately prevail to the throne (Gen 41:40), and Achish as God’s deliverer for his people. Once was ready to take David into battle until Joseph’s brothers sell him into slavery the other Philistine lords objected (1 Sam in Egypt, Joseph succeeds in Potiphar’s 29:1–11). house and Potiphar entrusts everything Both Joseph and David were thirty to him (Gen 39:1–5). Once David has been years old when they rose to power (Gen answered harshly by his brother, he goes 41:46; 2 Sam 5:4). Exalted to power in on to slay Goliath (1 Sam 17:49–51), hav- Egypt, Joseph forgave his brothers and ing ministered to King Saul by playing showed kindness to them (Gen 45:1–15; the harp when the evil spirit troubled him 46:31–34; 50:19–21). Anointed as king (16:23). Then, just as Joseph was desired over Israel, David refused to lift his hand by Potiphar’s wife and refused her (Gen against Saul—though Saul sought to kill 39:7–12), Saul offered his daughter Merab him (e.g., 1 Sam 26:8–11)—and David to David, and he refused her (1 Sam later forgave Mephibosheth, who pros- 18:17–19). David was then desired by trated himself before David much the Saul’s daughter Michal, and Saul sought way Joseph’s brothers had prostrated to use her as a snare against David (1 Sam themselves before him (cf. Gen 50:18; 2 58 Sam 9:6–8). Joseph married an Egyptian version very like the one that has come woman, daughter of a priest, and had down to us.”37 sons by her (Gen 41:50–52, cf. Moses, who Those of us who affirm that these also married the daughter of a Gentile events took place, of course, will see priest and had sons by her, Exod 2:16–22). another hand at work in the shaping David also married a Gentile, the daugh- of history. A divine hand orchestrated ter of the king of Geshur, and had a son what took place such that key patterns by her (2 Sam 3:3). of events recurred in the lives of Joseph, Joseph interceded with Pharaoh on David, and the others mentioned above in behalf of his family (Gen 46:31–47:12). the introduction. That divine hand then David interceded with the king of guided the interpreters of those events, on behalf of his (1 Sam 22:3–4). Once with the result that the descriptions of Joseph made himself known to his broth- earlier instances of these patterns became ers, he provided land and grain for his the interpretive grid through which later father’s house, delivering them from the describers of similar patterns interpreted threat of the famine (Gen 47:27). Once the history they set down. Thus, the good David was acknowledged as king over all guys are identified by the Lord himself, Israel, he provided rest for the land, deliv- opposed by their kinsmen and driven ering the people from all their enemies away to Gentile territory, where they round about (2 Sam 7:1; 8:1–14). marry, have children, and are delivered As with the linguistic connections, from every affliction, vindicated by God, so with the correspondences between and then turn up triumphant to deliver the sequence of events in the narratives their own people, who find forgiveness of Joseph and David: isolated examples for their earlier evil opposition to God’s taken alone might be easy to dismiss, chosen agent of salvation. This pattern but the accumulation of example after can be seen in Joseph and David, as well example, in my judgment, places the as in Moses and others (such as Jephthah burden of proof on those who would and ). deny that the author(s) of Samuel sought to establish a connection between Joseph Redemptive Historical Import and David. The events recorded and the Genesis 3:15 points to a seed of the language used to record them point in woman who will crush the serpent’s the direction of David being described head.38 Genesis 5:29 indicates that the with terms that describe events well godly line traced in the genealogies known from the Joseph story. This con- expected a seed of the woman who would clusion is independently confirmed by reverse the curses (cf. Gen 5:29 with Gen Robert Alter’s analysis, where he con- 3:17–19). Genesis 12:1–3 announces that all cludes (from a different perspective) the families of the earth will be blessed by regarding the use of the Genesis narra- , and 22:18 adds that the blessing tives in Samuel: “From such purposeful will come through the seed of Abraham.39 deployment of allusion, the inference is Genesis 17:6 and 16 say kings will come inevitable that the author of the David from Abraham, and a natural conclu- story was familiar at least with the J sion to draw is that the seed of Abraham strand of the Joseph story in a textual through whom the nations will be blessed 59 will be a king. The blessing of Abraham is his own sons as surety for ’s passed to Isaac (Gen 26:2–5), then to Jacob life, Jacob refused ’s offer (Gen (28:3–4). Then Joseph becomes lord of all 42:37–38). But when Judah offered his Egypt (45:9), and he provides food for all own life as surety for Benjamin’s, Jacob the peoples of the earth (Gen 41:56–57). sent his beloved son to Egypt with Judah With Joseph delivering the Gentiles from (43:8–14). Then Jacob blessed Judah with famine, then providing for his brothers, the ruler’s staff that would never depart there is a sense in which all the families from him (49:8–12). of the earth have been blessed through In a sense the redemptive histori- the seed of Abraham. Regarding Joseph’s cal import of Joseph approximates the treatment of his brothers, it is interesting redemptive historical import of David. to observe that the guilty have their feet Joseph delivers his kinsmen, but he is not washed (Gen 44:24) and eat bread when king in the promised land. The promise of Joseph comes (44:25). a king to Abraham preceded the Joseph One might expect from the Joseph narrative in Genesis 17, and another narrative that the blessing of Abraham, indication of a king follows it in Gen having been passed through Isaac to 49:8–12. The oracles reiterate the Jacob, would be realized through a deliv- expectation of a king who will lead Israel erer from the line of Joseph, especially to peace and security (Num 23:21; 24:7, since Jacob blesses Joseph’s sons (Gen 17), and regulations for the king are stated 48:14–20). This was not to be, however, in Deut 17:14–20.42 Early students of the and 1 Chron 5:1–2 (ESV) explains: Pentateuch, then, who might have noticed the parallels between Joseph, Moses, and The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn, others, might have expected future deliv- but because he defiled his father’s erers of Israel to have similar experiences, 40 couch, his birthright was given to but they might also have been hoping the sons of Joseph the son of Israel, so that he could not be enrolled for a righteous king. These aspects of the as the oldest son; though Judah Pentateuch could have fostered the hope became strong among his brothers for one like Joseph but greater than he, and a chief came from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph). king in the land. It may have been just such an expecta- This text clearly states that though the tion that resulted in what is being argued birthright went to Joseph, the blessing here, namely, that the author(s) of Samuel of Abraham was not realized through a shaped the narratives concerning David leader from Joseph’s line. Rather, the chief such that readers were pointed back to came from the line of Judah. This refers to the Joseph stories. More happened in the line of David, who descended from David’s life than is recorded in the narra- Judah, and even in the Joseph narrative tives of Samuel. One instance of this will 41 there are ways in which Judah shines. illustrate the point: when the author(s) Joseph had told his brothers they would of Samuel framed up the story of David not see him again unless they brought killing Goliath, was it necessary to include Benjamin with them. Jacob was under- the details recounted above that are so standably reluctant to entrust Benjamin to reminiscent of Joseph? Was it necessary the care of his sons. When Reuben offered to record that David, the young son of 60 an aged father, had older brothers who While the redemptive historical import had gone off with Saul, and that Jesse of David goes beyond that of Joseph, since sent David to his brothers to see how David is king in the land of promise, still they were doing? Was it necessary to David cannot build the temple. His seed, include the interchange between David however, will do so. The seed of David and his brother Eliab? It would seem that will see his throne established forever, there could have been other places in the be as a son to Yahweh his father, and the narrative where the details of David’s kingdom of David will be established family could have been recorded. Since 1 through him (2 Sam 7:12–16). Like Joseph, Samuel 16 closes with David serving Saul who embodies aspects of the realization by playing the harp for him, the material of the promise, but whom the narrative about Jesse sending David to check on his points beyond to one greater, so also the brothers could have been left out. Since narratives of Samuel point beyond David David was designated as Saul’s armor to his greater descendant. Psalm 110 also bearer in 1 Sam 16:21, it would have been points beyond David, and Luke presents natural for David to be at the front to hear Jesus pointing this out (Luke 20:41–44). the Philistine’s taunts, and the narrative Before we move to the question of could have carried forward with David’s whether Joseph was a type of Christ, a response to and triumph over Goliath. If summary of my argument in this first sec- verses that tell of David’s family and his tion is in order. I have pointed to linguistic going back and forth from his father to his points of contact between the narratives brothers, such as 1 Sam 17:12–15, 17–20a, of Joseph and David, summarized cor- had been left out, the narrative would respondences between the two narratives have proceeded without interruption from at the level of historical event sequences, David as Saul’s armor bearer to his con- and described the roles played by Joseph frontation with Goliath. I contend that the and David in the outworking of God’s author(s) of Samuel included what they promise to crush the head of the serpent did not only because it happened that way and bless all the families of the earth as (again, much else that happened was not promised in the blessing of Abraham. The included), but also in order to highlight argument here is that history developed the historical correspondences between this way because God intended these Joseph and David. As Leithart puts it, patterns of events to be repeated in the “Through analogy, the writer guides his lives of Joseph and David. Further, the reader’s responses and judgments about author(s) of Samuel wrote what they characters and events.”43 The fact that wrote the way they wrote it in order to David goes on to be king in Israel provides show that Joseph was a type of David, the note of escalation, making David, in a and having pointed readers of the nar- sense, a typological fulfillment of Joseph. ratives back to Joseph, they then pointed Between Joseph and David, there are their audience beyond David to his seed. points of historical correspondence, and The next question to be considered is this: there is an escalation of significance from if Joseph was a type of David, was he also Joseph to David. It seems to me that the a type of the Messiah? author(s) of Samuel sought to establish these things, and succeeded. 61 If Joseph Was a Type of David, Was and the sojourn in Egypt (7:9–16); Moses, He Also a Type of the Messiah? , Sinai, and the wilderness In order to establish whether or not the rebellion (7:17–43); the tent of testimony early Christian perspectives reflected in and ’s temple (7:44–50). Then he the New Testament indicate that Joseph indicted them (7:51–53). In response, they was a type of the Messiah, we will ask two gnashed their teeth (7:54), threw him out questions: first, given David’s role as a of town, and stoned him (7:58). Evidently type of the Messiah,44 and having argued what Stephen said to them was more than for Joseph’s role as a type of David, are the innocuous history lesson it seems to there passages in the Gospels that reflect be at first glance. patterns that are closer to Genesis than to Stephen answered the three charges Samuel? And second, are there passages leveled against him, but something in his in the New Testament that make a con- words caused the Sanhedrin to set aside nection between Joseph and Jesus? What all concern for judicial proceeding. The follows below argues for an affirmative highest council of the Jewish people was answer to both questions, and the argu- so enraged at what Stephen said (7:54) ment is that the patterns in the Gospels that they took immediate, deadly action. are typological patterns, as are the connec- Perhaps the violent reaction to Stephen tions between Joseph and Jesus made by resulted from the way that his speech Stephen in his speech in . Because typologically identified his opponents Acts 7 draws explicit connections between with the wicked throughout Israel’s his- Joseph and Jesus, we will take it first, then tory, while at the same time identifying move back to the connections seen in the the early Christians, and most especially Gospel narratives. Jesus, with the righteous in Israel who, like all the prophets, were opposed by Stephen’s Speech in Acts 7 their wicked kinsmen throughout Israel’s Stephen “was doing great wonders history. and signs” (Acts 6:8) in when Typology is not all there is in Stephen’s he was opposed by the Synagogue of the speech. He answers the charge of speak- Freedmen and others (6:9). When they ing “against this holy place” (6:13), for could not overcome his wisdom and instance, by showing that God is not the Spirit in which he spoke (6:10), they limited to the land of Israel, the city of cooked up three charges against him: (1) Jerusalem, or temple mount. Yahweh “we heard him speaking blasphemous appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia words against Moses and God” (6:11); (2) (7:2), and Abraham had no foothold in “this man does not cease speaking words the land (7:5). Similarly, Yahweh appeared against this holy place and the law” (6:13); to Moses at Sinai (7:30), and then even and (3) “we heard him saying that this though Yahweh took up residence in Jesus the Nazarene will destroy this place the temple, taught that Yahweh’s and change the customs which Moses footstool would be not merely the ark handed over to us” (6:14). Stephen then but the earth, which Yahweh created as addressed the high priest and the Sanhe- his dwelling place (7:44–50). These state- drin (6:12; 7:1). He told them about Abra- ments seem to represent Stephen’s efforts ham and the (7:2–8); Joseph to place the temple mount in Jerusalem in 62 proper biblical-theological perspective. have now betrayed and murdered, We can see also that Stephen responded you who received the law as deliv- ered by angels and did not keep it to the charge of speaking against God and (Acts 7:51–53, ESV). Moses by endorsing what Moses wrote about God (7:2–40 all comes from the Pen- The statement “you always resist the Holy tateuch), and he was probably responding Spirit” is exposited by the words that to the charge of teaching that Jesus would follow, “As your fathers did, so do you” change the regulations of Moses when (Acts 7:51). In other words, the resisting he alluded to Moses teaching that God of the Holy Spirit to which Stephen refers would raise up a prophet like himself are the actions of the “fathers” he has (7:37). The bit about Jesus destroying enumerated to this point in his discourse. the temple may reflect Jesus’ statements The “fathers” resisted Joseph and sold regarding the temple in John 2:19 (cf. him into slavery in Egypt (7:9), and they 2:21)45 and the false charges brought are identified in that section of Stephen’s against Jesus in Mark 14:58, with the speech as “the patriarchs” (7:9) and as taunt as he was crucified in Mark 15:29. the “fathers” (7:11, 12, 15). Similarly, the The early Christians saw believers as the “fathers” resisted Moses (7:25–28), and replacement of the temple (cf. 1 Cor 3:16; with respect to Moses Stephen elaborates 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; 1 Pet 2:5),46 so this charge on the point: “This is the Moses who said against Stephen may even be a distortion to the , ‘God will raise up for of such teaching, to which Stephen’s com- you a prophet like me from your broth- ments about God not being limited to the ers. . . . Our fathers refused to obey him, land of Israel also apply.47 but thrust him aside, and in their hearts Still, the Sanhedrin had kept its cool they returned to Egypt” (7:35, 39).48 The in the face of early Christian teaching in formula in Stephen’s words, as they did so other cases, such as when Peter and John you do, is the kind of comparative state- declared they would obey God rather ment used when typological interpreta- than man (Acts 4:19). What Peter and John tions are being made. John Polhill puts did not do was declare that their oppo- it well: “The whole purpose of Stephen’s nents had aligned themselves with those speech now becomes clear. His historical who had opposed and killed the prophets survey had illustrated Israel’s constant throughout Israel’s history. This Stephen rejection of God’s chosen leaders. Moses, did, and it got him killed. Joseph, the prophets are all types of and Stephen’s indictment of his opponents pointers to Christ; and Stephen pointed in Acts 7:51–53 provides the key informa- out to his hearers that they had already tion for understanding why his remarks killed him.”49 A possible implication of were so incendiary. Luke presents Ste- Stephen’s theology and teaching might phen saying, be that his opponents concern for present Jerusalem—rather than being concerned You stiff-necked people, uncircum- cised in heart and ears, you always with the worship of God through his resist the Holy Spirit. As your Messiah—is analogous to returning to fathers did, so do you. Which of the Egypt.50 Perhaps another part of what prophets did not your fathers per- secute? And they killed those who infuriated Stephen’s opponents was announced beforehand the coming their perception that he had identified of the Righteous One, whom you 63 Jerusalem with Egypt (cf. Acts 7:39; Gal also clear parallels between the deaths 4:25; Rev 11:8). of Stephen and Jesus (Acts 7:59–60; Luke Stephen charged his opponents with 23:34, 46). This typological identification “always” acting this way, just as their of Stephen’s opponents with the wicked fathers did, and the examples he gave in Israel’s history is the basis for Stephen’s of those whom the fathers resisted are charge that his opponents are “stiff- Joseph and Moses.51 These two, how- necked people, uncircumcised in heart ever, Stephen treats as “typical.” That and ears [who] always resist the Holy is, the fathers’ treatment of Joseph and Spirit” (Acts 7:51). Polhill points out that Moses is paradigmatic. Thus, Stephen Stephen has in essence turned the charges asks, “Which of the prophets did your made against him back upon his oppo- fathers not persecute?” (Acts 7:52).52 His nents: “No, it was not he but his Jewish statement in Acts 7:52, “they killed those accusers who were the real lawbreakers (v. who announced beforehand the coming 53). They were the apostates and idolaters of the Righteous One,” is very similar who had constantly transgressed the first to the words of Jesus quoted above, Commandments.”56 And his opponents regarding the blood of all the prophets seem to understand precisely these impli- from Abel to Zechariah being charged to cations of his words: they understand that generation (Luke 11:50–51). Stephen that he has identified them with Joseph’s seems to be interpreting history the same brothers and with the wicked Israelites way Jesus did, and just as Jesus could who opposed Moses. They understand charge that generation with the blood of that he claims that Jesus is the prophet all the prophets because of the way they like Moses precisely because in Jesus is treated him, so Stephen asserts that “you seen the fullest expression of this “typi- have now betrayed and murdered” Jesus cal” pattern of events—God’s chosen and (Acts 7:52).53 anointed, rejected by the people, vindi- Stephen apparently read his own situ- cated by God. They understand, and they ation and the recent events that had taken will not tolerate such assertions. Gnashing place with Jesus through the lens of the their teeth, they stone him. Old Testament, with particular reference What I have argued above regarding in this instance to Joseph and Moses. He the narratives of Samuel, namely, that the identified Jesus and the early Christians author(s) of Samuel shaped their narra- with those to whom God had shown tives so as to match their account of David favor, and he identified the Jewish oppo- to the Joseph story, also holds, in my view, nents of Jesus and the early Christians with what Luke has done in his Gospel with Joseph’s brothers and Moses’ kins- and in Acts. Luke Timothy Johnson writes men who opposed and rejected them.54 regarding Luke’s account of Stephen’s Luke has read the events this way as well, speech in Acts 7: for he links Stephen and Moses when And in the case of both Joseph and he records Stephen saying that Moses Moses, Luke has edited his account did “wonders and signs” (7:36) having in such fashion as to show how noted that Stephen himself was doing each fits into a pattern of twofold sending and rejection, so that these “wonders and signs” when the opposi- biblical exempla point forward to tion rose up against him (6:8).55 There are the twofold sending and rejection of the prophet Jesus. By this editing 64 of the biblical narrative, Luke not likewise. Read this way, the comment only reinforces the fundamentally made by Luke becomes an indication prophetic character of Scripture and its heroes, but by doing this sup- that he is interpreting the Old Testament ports the ideological position of his the way that Jesus did, and at the same community that Scripture is best time interpreting Jesus the way that Jesus understood when read as pointing toward the risen prophet Jesus. interpreted himself. . . . And he does all this within the The parable of the wicked tenants tight limits set by the text of the (Luke 20:9–18) is in some ways an inter- LXX itself, whose wording he con- sistently employs.57 pretation of the whole history of Israel.58 The planting of the vineyard (Luke 20:9) Gospels Reflecting Genesis Rather is reminiscent of Isaiah’s love song for Than Samuel Yahweh’s vineyard (Isa 5:1–7), where the As we turn now to the narratives con- vineyard is explicitly identified as Israel cerning Jesus in the Gospels, our concern and Judah (5:7).59 When Jesus finishes the is to show that the Joseph story has not parable, Luke relates that “the scribes and only influenced the Gospel narratives by the chief priests sought to lay hands on means of its influence on the narratives him at that very hour, for they perceived of David but has had a direct influence that he had told this parable against on the narratives concerning Jesus in the them” (Luke 20:19, ESV), so they clearly Gospels. To establish this I will highlight understood that Jesus was identifying two points of linguistic contact between them as the wicked tenants, who beat Luke’s Gospel and the Joseph story as the servants sent to them by the owner translated into Greek. From there we will of the vineyard (20:9–12). Israel’s history consider event sequence correspondences of afflicting the prophets Yahweh sent between Joseph and Jesus, before consid- to them, from Moses to , makes ering the redemptive historical import of it easy to identify the prophets with the the two. servants the wicked tenants reject.60 Sig- nificant figures, such as Moses, , Linguistic Correspondences Samson, and David, are identified as the The claim here is not that these are the Lord’s servant in the Old Testament.61 only two points of linguistic correspon- From this perspective, Stephen’s dence between the Joseph narratives in speech in Acts 7 is simply a more explicit Genesis and the Jesus narratives in the version of Jesus’ parable of the wicked Gospels, but this discussion will focus tenants in Luke 20, and the parable of the on two from Luke’s Gospel. Rather than wicked tenants is a thinly veiled exposi- take them in the order in which they tion of the statement about the blood of appear in the Gospel, we will begin by all the prophets from Abel to Zechariah looking at one that appears in the par- (Luke 11:49–51). In the parable, the able of the wicked tenants. The second owner of the vineyard decides to send appears in a comment Luke makes as his beloved son (20:13). The audience of the narrator of the Gospel. I take them Luke’s Gospel has had Jesus identified as in this order because I think it likely that the beloved son at his baptism (3:22), and Jesus interpreted his life through the some manuscripts have “beloved son” lens given to him from the Joseph story, rather than “my son, the chosen one” at and from this his followers learned to do 65 the transfiguration (9:35, cf. KJV). Luke Whatever language Jesus was speaking presents Jesus routinely referring to him- (Aramaic? Greek?) when he told this par- self as the son of man, but Jesus’ opponents able, the evangelists present him alluding may have been aware of the occasions to the Joseph narrative. It would seem when the demons confessed Jesus as “son that the evangelists present Jesus telling of God” (4:41; 8:28), and they may have a parable that encapsulates the way that heard that Jesus said the kind of thing Israel treated the prophets God sent to Luke records at 10:22. The audience of her, and as he presents himself as the Luke’s gospel has every indication that the ultimate example of one who will receive beloved son in the parable of the wicked this treatment,64 as God’s beloved son, tenants is to be identified with Jesus, and he uses the very language of the Joseph it is likely that Jesus’ audience would have story to depict the way that his opponents understood him that way as well. will respond to him. Luke presents the As with Joseph and David, the father in opponents understanding exactly what the parable sends the son to see about his Jesus is saying and wanting to seize own, and the son will meet with a harsh him in response. This parable, with its response from those to whom the father linguistic connection to the Joseph story, has sent him. Here we meet the linguistic with the event sequence correspondence connection to the Joseph story in Genesis, of the father sending the son, who is for the words that Jesus places on the lips then rejected, and with the redemptive of the wicked tenants are the very words historical import of Jesus as the last of of the Greek translation of Genesis 37:20: a long line of figures whom the owner avpoktei,nwmen auvto,n, “let us kill him” of the vineyard has sent to his tenants, (Luke 20:14).62 It seems likely that in telling indicates that Jesus understood himself this parable that summarizes the history of as the typological fulfillment of this pat- Israel’s rejection of the prophets, Jesus has tern, which means that Jesus understood chosen the very language of a significant himself as the typological fulfillment of a early instance in Israel’s history when the pattern to which the Joseph story made a patriarchs themselves rejected Joseph, the key contribution. one whom God had designated as preemi- The other point of linguistic cor- nent through his dreams. respondence to examine here indicates The parallel accounts of the parable that had learned this of the wicked tenants in Matthew 21 and perspective and reflects it in a narratorial Mark 12 strengthen the allusion by includ- comment. After Joseph told his second ing the first word of the phrase in Gen dream to his father, his father rebuked 37:20—the patriarchs words are rendered, him (Gen 37:10), his brothers envied him deu/te avpoktei,nwmen auvto,n, “come, let (37:11a), and then we read, “but his father us kill him” (Gen 37:20). This three word kept the saying in mind” (37:11b, ESV). phrase occurs in Matthew 21:38 and Mark The Greek translation of this phrase in 12:7, and some manuscripts include deu/te Gen 37:11b reads, o` de. path.r auvtou/ (“come”) in Luke 20:14. Genesis 37:20, dieth,rhsen to. r`h/ma. The point of contact Matt 21:38, and Mark 12:7 are the only with this in Luke comes when the parents three places in all of biblical Greek where of Jesus, having searched for him for three this three word phrase occurs.63 days, find him and his mother said, “Son, 66 why have you treated us so? Behold, your is like Joseph, who was a key early figure father and I have been searching for you in the pattern of Israel’s treatment of those in great distress” (Luke 2:48). The parents God raised up to deliver her. We will have of Jesus were understandably worried, more to say about the redemptive histori- and we might not be mistaken to see a cal import of this in the next section, here rebuke in the words of Mary. Jesus then we will highlight some sequential event responds (2:49). Luke relates that his par- correspondences between Joseph and ents did not understand (2:50), and that Jesus. Jesus went home and was submissive Luke’s notation that Jesus “was about (2:51a). Luke 2:51b then states, “And his thirty years of age” (Luke 3:23, ESV) is mother treasured up all these things in her almost certainly included to draw the heart” (ESV). In order to see how similar minds of his readers to the only other two the words Luke places on the lips of Mary figures the Bible says were thirty years are to the Greek translation of the words old: Joseph (Gen 41:46) and David (2 Sam of Jacob, it will be helpful to set them one 5:4).66 This instance is another one where on top of another: event sequence overlaps with linguistic correspondence. The Greek translation Gen 37:11, o` de. path.r auvtou/ dieth,rhsen to. r`h/ma of Gen 41:46 has the two word phrase, Luke 2:51, kai. h` mh,thr auvtou/ evtw/n tria,konta, to describe Joseph’s dieth,rei pa,nta ta. r`h.mata e vn th/| kardi,a| auth/j thirty years, this same two word phrase is used to describe Jesus being “about” Luke’s phrase matches the Greek of thirty years of age in Luke 3:23. The two Genesis 37 lexically and syntactically, words are transposed in 2 Samuel. The with the articular subject modified by significance of this notice at the level of the possessive pronoun, followed by the event sequence comes in the fact that in same verb, with the same object.65 Like each case the age is noted at the begin- Joseph’s father, who “kept the thing,” ning of the figure’s public service: Joseph Jesus’ mother “was keeping all these as he begins to serve Pharaoh, David as things,” and in both cases the narrator he begins to reign over Israel and Judah, makes this comment after the parent has and Jesus as he begins to bring in the rebuked the child. Luke seems to want kingdom. to remind his readers of Jacob’s words to The genealogy follows the notice Joseph near the beginning of his account that Jesus was thirty years old in Luke of Jesus, with the result that they will (3:23–38); then Jesus faces temptation in interpret other aspects of the life of Jesus the wilderness (4:1–13). There is a woe- through the lens of Joseph, just as Jesus ful pattern of sexual misbehavior in the interpreted his own life through the lens Old Testament seen in Judah with Tamar, of Joseph. Samson with Delilah, David with Bath- sheba, and Solomon with his multiplied Sequential Event Correspondences wives, but Joseph resisted the temptation The linguistic correspondences just of Potiphar’s wife (Gen 37:7–9). Simi- discussed serve, in my view, as cues to the larly, Jesus resisted Satan’s temptations audience of Luke’s gospel. The audience is (Luke 4:1–13). Just as Joseph’s righteous to take these cues and follow them. Jesus conduct was twisted by Potiphar’s wife 67 and used against him (Gen 37:11–20), so Gentile church. When Joseph’s brothers also the righteous mighty deeds of Jesus later appeared before him, they became were twisted and used against him (e.g., conscious of their own sin toward him the charge that he drove out demons by (42:21). Not realizing who he was, they Beelzebul, Luke 11:15). God was with bowed down to him. Joseph’s dreams Joseph (e.g., Gen 39:21), and Nicodemus came true. Joseph then made himself knew that God was with Jesus (John 3:2). known to his brothers (45:1–3), and it was Just as Joseph was sold for 20 shekels as though he was back from the dead. of silver (Gen 37:28), so also Jesus was The New Testament maintains that, like sold for a sum of silver, 30 pieces (Matt Joseph’s brothers, those who have rejected 27:14–16). Just as Joseph’s brothers, sons Jesus will see the one they pierced (Rev of Israel, sold Joseph into the hands of 1:7; cf. Zech 12:10). Paul’s words in Rom Ishmaelite-Midianite traders (Gen 37:28), 11:25–27 can be interpreted to mean that, so the nations gathered together against like Joseph’s brothers, Jesus’ kinsmen will Jesus (Acts 4:25–27; cf. Ps 2:1–2). Joseph’s bow to him when they behold him back brothers had stripped him of the special from the dead.69 coat his father gave him (Gen 37:23), and Jesus too was stripped of his seamless Redemptive Historical Import robe (Matt 27:28; John 19:23). Jesus is not simply one more example Joseph was in the pit (sometimes trans- in this pattern. He is its culmination. He lated “dungeon” Gen 40:15) with two is its fulfillment. Joseph told his brothers other criminals (40:4), one of whom was that God sent him to Egypt to preserve life delivered while the other was destroyed (Gen 45:5), to bring about a great deliver- (40:12–15, 18–22), hanged on a tree (40:19, ance (45:7). But that deliverance was only 22; 41:13). As for Joseph, he insisted that from famine. Jesus delivered his people he had done nothing to deserve his pun- from their sins. He broke the curse. As ishment (40:15). Jesus, too, was with two David Wells put it, the last defense against criminals, one who mocked him while the evil held, and in his death and resurrec- other was told by Jesus that he would be tion Jesus has broken the back of evil.70 with him in paradise (Luke 23:43).67 As for It may be that it was this pattern of the Jesus, Luke’s gospel insists that Jesus was way that Israel rejected those God sent to innocent (Luke 23:4, 14–15, 20, 23, 41, 47). her that made Jesus so certain that as the Joseph’s brothers treated him as a dead Messiah “it was necessary” for him to suf- man, and they fooled Israel into believing fer (cf. Luke 9:22, 44; 12:50; 13:32–33; 17:25; he was dead as well (Gen 37:31).68 Joseph 18:31–33; 24:25–26). And when Jesus was not dead, however, even though “interpreted to them in all the Scriptures his brothers thought he was “no more” the things concerning himself” (24:27), it (42:13). He was living and ruling over seems that he highlighted the ways that Gentiles in Egypt. Similarly, the Jewish he fulfilled these typological patterns. leadership was convinced that Jesus Attending to these typological patterns was dead, and they tried to fool others would also explain Paul’s preaching of into believing he was dead as well (Matt the same themes (e.g., Acts 17:2–3). 28:11–15). But just as Joseph was alive, Jesus is the climactic rejected prophet, Jesus is alive and reigns over a largely and he is the risen king in the land. In his 68 death the exile reaches its nadir, and his peace with the opponents of Jesus and resurrection begins the new exodus. The took their money? Or do we identify with followers of Jesus are now sojourning in Jesus, who told his followers, the wilderness, making their way to the If the world hates you, know that promised land. And one day the new it has hated me before it hated Jerusalem will descend from heaven, and you. If you were of the world, the we will see his face. world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the Conclusion world, therefore the word hates you. Remember the word that I said to I have argued that Joseph was a type you: ‘A servant is not greater than of David. This claim is based on the ways his master.’ If they persecuted me, that the author(s) of Samuel makes use they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep of the linguistic stock of the Joseph story, yours (John 15:18–20, ESV). the way event sequences in the David narratives are matched to those in the Stephen Wright states, “it is important Joseph story, and the roles Joseph and to restate that the position towards which David play in redemptive history. And I Frei has pointed, and which many oth- have argued that Joseph is also a type of ers have now stated from one angle or the Messiah. This claim is based on the another, is that a recovery of true biblical explicit connection between the rejection faith in our generation must first be a of Joseph, Moses, and Jesus made by Ste- matter not of defence [as in defending the phen in Acts 7, on the linguistic connec- historicity of the narratives, which Wright tions to the Joseph story in the parable of holds Christians should take for granted] the wicked tenants and in the way Mary . . . but of inhabiting the story.”73 Similarly, “was keeping all these things,” and on Peter Leithart writes, “the types of Scrip- the correspondences in the sequences of ture provide us with a set of and events experienced by Joseph and Jesus. symbols by which we may evaluate our The authors of the Gospels have shaped world and which provide a motivation their narratives to highlight points of for action.”74 historical correspondence between Joseph The kind of typological interpretation and Jesus, and their claim is that the sig- that informed the author(s) of Samuel, nificance of these historical events has Jesus, and the evangelists, appears to be been fulfilled in Jesus. the kind of typological interpretation we The story of the Bible is the story of the see in 1 Clement. The letter addresses world.71 This has implications for us. We division in the church in Corinth, and this should not only read the Bible typologi- division has apparently been caused by cally, the types we find in the Bible should jealousy directed at the legitimate leader- shape the way we view the world.72 With ship of the church. Accordingly, Clement whom do we identify? Do we identify identifies the usurpers in the church with with the people of Sodom, who sinned the wicked throughout Israel’s history, and were destroyed? Or do we identify and he identifies the legitimate leadership with Joseph and Jesus, who resisted in the church with Abel, Jacob, Joseph, temptation and were vindicated by God? Moses, and David (1 Clem 4:1–13).75 Do we identify with Judas, who made his Peter Leithart has described this kind 69 of interpretation in terms of the biblical seriously (cf. e.g., Psalm 1 and 19:7–11). text absorbing the world: The alternative picture constructed by modern critical scholarship is a house If the world absorbs the text, as in allegorical or historical-critical with no foundation built on sands of interpretation, we can discover scholarly speculation. See, for instance, nothing in the text that we did not Duane Garrett, “The Undead Hypoth- know before; the text can only illus- trate truths we learned from other esis: Why the sources, and it will not challenge is the Frankenstein of Biblical Studies,” or rebuke us. If the text absorbs the The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology world, as typological interpretation demands, it is useful for correction, 5, no. 3 (2001): 28–41. Hans Frei has reproof, and training in righteous- shown how the loss of confidence in the ness. Interpreted typologically, Scripture is unleashed to function historical reliability of the Bible ended as revelation. typological interpretation in The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth And that, after all, is what it is.76 and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics The final word goes to the Apostle Paul: (New Haven: Yale, 1974). For a brief sum- “Now these things happened to them mary of Frei’s argument and the conclu- typologically, but they were written down sion that “its main shortcoming seems for our instruction, on whom the end of to be that in one sense, Frei did not the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11).77 go far enough,” see Stephen I. Wright, “Inhabiting the Story: The Use of the ENDNOTES Bible in the Interpretation of History,” 1Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible in “Behind” the Text: History and Biblical and Literature (Harvest, 2002), 79–80. Interpretation (ed. Craig Bartholomew, C. 2This statement assumes that what the Stephen Evans, Mary Healy, and Murray Bible claims for itself regarding the Rae; Scripture and Hermeneutics Series formation of the Canon is true. Thus, 4; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 496. 3 as Deut 31:24 and the many references Like Abel, Joseph was shepherding the to “the law of Moses” indicate, Moses flock. Like Abel, Joseph was acknowl- wrote the Pentateuch. Joshua later added edged by God. Like Abel, Joseph’s to what Moses had written (Josh 24:25– brothers hate him unto death because of 26; cf. Deut 31:24–26), as did Samuel (1 God’s favor to him. Like Abel, Joseph’s Sam 10:25). See Roger Beckwith, The brothers do violence to him in the field. Old Testament Canon of the New Testament The enmity from brothers rejected by Church and Its Background in Early God directed at brothers accepted by (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985). These God reappears in the accounts of Isaac narratives, then, would have been avail- and Ishmael and Jacob and Esau. 4 able by the time of David, when proph- Like Joseph, Moses was shepherding ets and seers such as Samuel, , the flock. Like Joseph, Moses received and would have studied them, a revelation that identified him as the along with the king, who was com- agent of salvation for God’s people. Like manded to do so in Deut 17:18–20. The Joseph, Moses was rejected by God’s very Davidic book of Psalms indicates people when he sought to lead them. that King David took Deuteronomy 17 Like Joseph, Moses was then separated 70 from God’s people, and while he under the king. My thanks to Mark or thing that suggests a model or was removed from them he mar- Sherid for drawing my attention to pattern, form, figure, pattern . . . . ried the daughter of a gentile priest , which also prompted me (5) the content of a document, text, and sons were born to him. Like to consider Esther herself. content . . . . (6) an archetype serving Joseph, after these things Moses 7Like Joseph, Nehemiah is a Jew in a as a model, type, pattern, model . . . .” became the agent of deliverance for foreign land who has access to the (bold text removed). God’s people. king. Nehemiah is concerned for 10Cf. the discussion of the relation- 5Like Joseph, Daniel is held by the the state of the land of promise, and ship between “formative narra- captain of the guard. Like Joseph, he makes requests of the king that tives” and “world-view” in David Daniel is brought before the king to benefit the and their land. As Lyle Jeffrey, “(Pre) Figuration: interpret a troubling dream, which with the opposition to Joseph and Masterplot and Meaning in Biblical the magicians are unable to do. Like the others named in the foregoing History,” in “Behind” the Text, 365. Joseph, Daniel asserts that interpre- footnotes, the opposition to Nehe- 11Cf. D. A. Carson, “Review of Ken- tations belong to God. Like Joseph, miah is wicked. neth Berding and Lunde, Daniel declares the interpretation 8We do not know who wrote the eds., Three Views on the New Tes- of the dream, in which God has , nor do we know tament Use of the Old Testament,” revealed what he will do. Like how many people might have been Themelios 33, no. 3 (2008): 78–80: Joseph, Daniel is recognized by the involved in the project. The tradi- “Even if we accept that (at least foreign ruler as one in whom the tion in Baba Bathra 14b that Samuel some kinds of) types in the Old Spirit of God resides. Like Joseph, wrote the parts of 1 Samuel that Testament are clearly predictive, Daniel is given a gold chain around precede his death, and that the rest would the human author of the first his neck and exalted to power by was completed by Gad the seer entry in a series of events/institu- the foreign king. and Nathan the prophet appears tions that become a repeated pat- 6Like Joseph, Esther is virtually a to derive from 1 Chron 29:29, “Now tern (i.e., a type) have understood slave in a foreign land. Like Joseph, the acts of King David, from first to that he was laying the cornerstone she is described as being “hand- last, are written in the Chronicles for a type? Doubtless God would some in form and appearance.” of Samuel the seer, and in the know, and presumably the more Like Joseph, she is cleaned up and Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, discerning of later human authors presented to the king. Like Joseph, and in the Chronicles of Gad the would sooner or later discern the she finds favor in the king’s sight. seer” (ESV). pattern, but why is it necessary or The wording of her resolution is 9Cf. the range of meaning and the even plausible to assert that the reminiscent of Israel’s words (cf. glosses for the word tu ,poj, “type” author of the first entry would be Esth 4:16 and Gen 43:14), and like given in Walter Bauer, A Greek so discerning?” (80). What I have Joseph she makes requests of the English Lexicon of the New Testament suggested above leaves open the king that benefit, yea, deliver the and Other Early Christian Literature possibility that in the material that Jewish people from wicked opposi- (ed. Frederick W. Danker; 3rd ed.; Moses used as he wrote Genesis, tion. There are also ways in which Chicago: University of Chicago, he saw the pattern in Abel, Isaac, Mordecai corresponds to Joseph: 2000), 1019–1020: “(1) a mark made and Jacob in a sense culminating like Joseph, Mordecai is rewarded as the result of a blow or pressure, in Joseph. The influence this mate- by the king with new raiment and mark, trace . . . . (2) embodiment rial had on Moses could have then honored to ride in royal style with of characteristics or function of a prompted him to see significance in a herald before him. Like Joseph, model, copy, image . . . . (3) an object the elements in his own experience Mordecai is a Jew in a foreign land formed to resemble some entity, that corresponded to Joseph’s, and who rises to second in command image, statue . . . . (4) a kind, class, then as he wrote Deut 18:15–18 he 71 could plausibly have had in mind tion above indicates that I think we demonstration; it is in an enormous future prophets who would have can and should learn to interpret accumulation of small but unani- similar experiences. Assuming the way the biblical authors do, and mous facts. The secularist is not to that the Deuteronomy 34 account that we can and should apply their be blamed because his objections of Moses’ death and the observa- methods to questions they have to Christianity are miscellaneous tion that no one like Moses had not answered for us. What I am and even scrappy; it is precisely yet arisen was written by someone presenting here also impinges on such scrappy evidence that does other than Moses, perhaps Joshua, the whole discussion of the genre convince the mind. I mean that a we might nevertheless see a hint of the gospels. While many clas- man may well be less convinced of of the Deut 18:15–18 prophecy cul- sify the Gospels as a form of Greek a philosophy from four books, than minating in a unique figure whose Biography, it seems far more plau- from one book, one battle, one land- word Yahweh would enforce. In sible to me that the Gospels should scape, and one old friend. The very this case, the foreshadowing in be classified as biblical narrative fact that the things are of different the typological pattern might have since they carry forward the story kinds increases the importance of been intended by the earliest of the begun in Old Testament narrative the fact that they all point to one biblical authors, Moses himself. and fulfill it. conclusion. Now, the non-Christi- 12Though he is mainly concerned 15For an attempt to practice the anity of the average educated man with the order of the books in the theory articulated in this definition, to-day is almost always, to do him OT canon, nevertheless Roger Beck- in addition to the present study and justice, made up of these loose but with’s discussion of this text is stim- the Julius Brown Gay Lecture cited living experiences. I can only say ulating for the light it sheds on what above, see my essay, “The that my evidences for Christianity Jesus and the evangelists intended Will Conceive: Typological Fulfill- are of the same vivid but varied in the words of Matth 23:34–36, ment in Matthew 1:18–23,” in Built kind as his evidences against it. paralleled in Luke 11:49–51 (The Old upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of For when I look at these various Testament Canon of the New Testament Matthew (ed. John Nolland and anti-Christian truths, I simply dis- Church, 212–34). Gurtner; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, cover that none of them are true. I 13See my Julius Brown Gay Lecture 2008), 228–47. discover that the tide and force of presented at The Southern Baptist 16Peter J. Leithart, A House for My all the facts flows the other way.” Theological Seminary on March : A Survey of the Old Testament 18Cf. the discussion of criteria in 13, 2008, “The Typology of David’s (Moscow, ID: Canon, 2000), 32, and Harm W. M. van Grol, “Exegesis of Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns see his discussion of “innerbiblical the Exile – Exegesis of Scripture? in the Book of Samuel.” Online in interpretation,” which he defines 9:6–9,” in Intertextuality in audio: http://www.sbts.edu/media/ as, “the way biblical writers inter- Ugarit and Israel, Oudtestamen- audio/JBGay/20080313hamilton.mp3 pret their own times through the tische Studiën (ed. Johannes C. de or text format: http://www.sbts.edu/ lenses of earlier events in Israel’s Moor; Boston: Brill, 1998), 40–42. pdf/JBGay/the_typology_of_davids_ history” (33). He concludes, “All these criteria rise_to_power2008-03-101.pdf. 17Thus, in my judgment, the biblical serve us, scholars, in our work 14In “The Typology of David’s Rise to authors understood and wrote in a and communication, but they do Power” the question was raised as way that reflects what G. K. Ches- not necessarily match reality in to whether we today can identify a terton (Orthodoxy [1908; repr., Colo- full. If there is no real quotation, person, event, or institution in the rado Springs: Waterbrook, 2001], if there is no explicit marker, and OT as functioning typologically if 216–17, ch. 9) was getting at when he if the connection between the two the NT does not explicitly identify wrote, “the evidence in my case . . . texts is not very broad, there still it as such. The framing of the ques- is not really in this or that alleged may be an allusion. Words go their 72 own way. Nevertheless, criteria are ing that even the smallest details of indicates that the other instances useful. They force us to present the rare words were known and their of yhiT.-la; in the OT are in 6:29; supposed connections in detail.” locations recorded. Prov 3:7; 22:6; 23:20; 24:28; Eccl 7:16; 19To establish these claims I have 23The three occurrences of this form Jer 50:26; Ezek 2:8. used A. Even-Shoshan, ed., A New are found in Gen 24:65; 37:19; and 29See also the reminiscence between Concordance of the Old Testament Isa 58:5. Even-Shoshan (Concordance, the two sons of , whom the Lord (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1997) in 295) seems to have missed Isa 58:5. desired to kill (1 Sam 2:25; 4:11), comparison with the results of 24This form occurs six times in the and the two wicked sons of Judah searches performed with Bible- OT: Judg 6:20; 1 Sam 14:1; 17:26; whom the Lord killed (Gen 38:7– Works 7. 2 Kgs 4:25; 23:17; Zech 2:8. 10). Judah’s attempt to admonish 20Related phrases that do not fit the 25so Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Onan to do right is as ineffectual criteria listed above appear in Gen Charles A. Briggs, eds., A Hebrew as Eli’s. 29:9; 46:34; 47:3; Num 27:17; 1 Kgs English Lexicon of the Old Testament 30These are the only instances of 22:17; 2 Chron 18:16; Ps 80:2; Ezek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1952), 229 “Adullamite” in the OT. 34:8, 12, 23; Zech 10:2; 11:4. (henceforth BDB). 31The other references to “Adullam” 21The only other instances of “to 26It might also be relevant that the in the OT are in Josh 12:15; 15:35; 2 shepherd” in the qal infinitive con- same verb, jvp, is used to describe Sam 23:13; 1 Chron 11:15; 2 Chron struct with the lamed preposition Joseph’s brothers stripping him of 11:7; Neh 11:30; and Mic 1:15. are in 2 Sam 7:7; 1 Chron 17:6; Ps his robe and Jonathan stripping 32See further my essay, “God with 78:71; and Song 6:2. himself of his robe (Gen 37:23; 1 Men in the ,” Westminster 22See the discussion of “The Appa- Sam 18:4). Different terms are used, Theological Journal 65 (2003): 113–33. ratus of the Masorah” in Emanuel however, to describe the “robe” in 33See further my essay, “God with Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew these two contexts, which decreases Men in the Prophets and the Writ- Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), the likelihood that this is a relevant ings, Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical 73–74: “The . . . Masorah gedolah observation. The different language Theology 23 (2005): 166–93. (Masorah magna . . .) written in used to describe Tamar’s removal 34The Hebrew terminology in these the upper or lower margins. This of one set of garments for another instances differs slightly, but the apparatus is closely connected with (Gen 38:14, 19) does show that the term used in Gen 39:3 with ref- the [Masorah parva] as its function author(s) of Samuel had other lin- erence to Joseph “prospering,” is to list in detail the particulars guistic possibilities. x:yliîc.m;, is the same term used in Ps mentioned by way of allusion in 27Robert Alter (The David Story: A 1:3, x:yli(c.y:, both deriving from xlc. the [Masorah Parva], especially the Translation with Commentary of 1 The terminology used to describe verses referred to by that appara- and 2 Samuel [New York: Norton, David prospering varies somewhat. tus. For example, if the [Masorah 1999], 267) notes that the phrase In both cases it is God’s presence parva] states that a certain word pronounced by Amnon in 2 Sam that causes everything Joseph and occurs eight times in the Bible, the 13:9, yl;ê['me( ‘vyai-lk' WayciÛAh “Clear out David do to succeed. See the similar [Masorah magna] lists the verses everyone around me!” is an exact analysis in Alter, The David Story, in detail.” The brackets above are reproduction of the words spoken 114. a result of my removal of Tov’s by Joseph just before he revealed 35See, for instance, the following: (1) abbreviations. These Masorah are himself to his brothers in Gen 45:1. the rare term in 1 Sam 17:18, hB'ru[] marginal notes in the manuscripts Alter goes on to compare and con- “token,” occurs only elsewhere in of Hebrew . Some notes are trast elements of the Joseph story Prov 17:18, and it is related to the even concerned with “defective with the narrative in 2 Samuel 13. rare term used in Gen 38:17–18, spellings” of certain words, show- 28A search done with BibleWorks 7 20, !Abr"[e “pledge,” which occurs 73 only in those three verses (see BDB 30–54. (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; 786). (2) Gen 37:2 describes Joseph 39See further my essay, “The Seed Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, as “young,” r[;n:, and 37:3 describes of the Woman and the Blessing of 2006). him as the son of Jacob’s old age. Abraham,” Tyndale Bulletin 58, no. 2 46For an examination of this theme, 1 Sam 16:11 uses the plural of r[;n: (2007): 253–73. see my study, God’s Indwelling Pres- “young men” to describe Jesse’s 40By doing what Reuben did, Absa- ence: The Holy Spirit in the Old and sons, and David is identified as the lom became a new Reuben (cf. New Testaments (NAC Studies in youngest. Jesse is described as old 2 Sam 16:21–22 and Gen 35:22). Biblical Theology; Nashville: B&H, in 17:12. See also the other linguis- I should note that typological 2006). tic points of contact between the interpretation is similar to but not 47Cf. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology Joseph story and Samuel noted by equivalent with the method of of the New Testament (rev. ed.; Grand Alter, The David Story, 72, 267–70. “homiletical identification” seen in Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 391. 36David Toshio Tsumara (The First rabbinical haggadah where “differ- 48Having noted that Stephen has Book of Samuel [New International ent characters from Scripture who highlighted the similarity of Joseph Commentary Old Testament; Grand are linked by similarity of name or to Moses, John B. Polhill, (Acts [New Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 449) of other characteristics are often American Commentary; Nash- writes of Jesse’s sending of David (1 said to be the same person, and this ville: Broadman, 1992], 199) writes, Sam 17:17–19), “The present episode in the face of the plainest evidence “Moses was a type of Christ. Both is sometimes compared with the to the contrary” (Beckwith, The Old were sent by God to deliver Israel. Joseph story. For example, R. P. Gor- Testament Canon of the New Testament Both were denied, rejected by those don explains: ‘[David’s] errand to Church, 217, see the whole discus- they were sent to save. But the like- the battle-front is a detail reminis- sion, 217–20, with notes 86–93 on p. ness does not end there. Moses per- cent of Joseph’s fact-finding mission 232–33). Typological identification formed ‘wonders and miraculous to Dothan (Gen. 37:12ff.); in both differs in that people retain their signs’ in Egypt . . . . One cannot cases the errand leads to an unfore- individual identity even if they fail to remember how Jesus also seen encounter with destiny.’ How- fit the “type” of, for instance, the performed signs and wonders” (the ever, since sending a messenger to wicked who oppose the righteous. likening of Joseph to Moses is on p. find out about someone’s welfare is 41So also Stephen G. Dempster, 192, cited in note 69 below). such a common experience, the nar- Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology 49Ibid., 206. Alternatively, cf. I. How- rator probably was not particularly of the Hebrew Bible (New Studies in ard Marshall (“Acts” in Commentary thinking of the Joseph story.” As Biblical Theology; Downers Grove: on the New Testament Use of the Old I have stated several times above, InterVarsity, 2003), 89–92. Testament [ed. G. K. Beale and D. taken individually, a detail such as 42See ibid., 116–17, 120. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, this one might be easily dismissed. 43Peter J. Leithart, A Son to Me: An 2007], 571): “It is possible for the Taken with all the other details dis- Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel (Moscow, reader to see where the characters cussed here, however, the burden ID: Canon, 2003), 13. in the story can be regarded as of proof shifts to those who would 44As argued in “The Typology of ‘types’ . . . but despite strong hints agree with Tsumara. David’s Rise to Power: Messianic . . . the possibility is not followed up. 37Alter, The David Story, 267. Patterns in the Book of Samuel.” . . . Bock (1987: 217–18) finds no use 38See further my essay, “The Skull 45On which see the argument that of a Joseph-typology here, since no Crushing Seed of the Woman: John presents Jesus as the typo­ ‘deliverance’ terminology is pres- Inner-Biblical Interpretation of logical fulfillment of the temple in ent; Wall (2002: 126) proposes that Genesis 3:15,” The Southern Baptist Paul M. Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfill- Joseph typifies the prophets and Journal of Theology 10, no. 2 (2006): ment of the Temple in the Gospel of John their fate, including Jesus and now, 74 in particular Stephen. However, author’s agenda in Acts 7, it does not rejection of a deliverer from God.” in the case of Moses there is the seem fair to reject the possibility of 52Cf. Beckwith, The Old Testament specific prophecy that the Lord will typology because Acts 7 does not Canon of the New Testament Church, raise up a prophet ‘like me’ (7:37), address these broader questions. If 215: “Abel being a ‘prophet’ in the and this statement invites typologi- we stay with the question of what same sense probably as some of the cal development . . .” Against Mar- is addressed by Acts 7, Bock himself other patriarchs, who are given the shall’s hesitancy, the key criteria for writes, “There can be little doubt title in Gen. 20.7; Ps. 105.15; 1 Chron. determining whether or not one is that Joseph fits into the general 16.22; Tobit. 4.12; Ecclus. 49.9 . . . dealing with typology are historical pattern of this speech which seeks Acts 3.25; 7:52 (where special allu- correspondence and escalation. Thus, to show that the Jews, beginning as sion is apparently made to Moses that “no ‘deliverance’ terminology far back as the Patriarchs, rejected and Joseph). A ‘prophet’, according is present” is not relevant. Even if the very men through whom God to this usage, is not necessarily we were to insist on its presence, was working or revealing himself. God’s mouthpiece in addressing however, it would not be difficult This point is acknowledged by others, but, like those prophets who to make the case that Stephen/Luke virtually every exegete of this pas- are, he is privileged to stand in an are invoking the broader context of sage” (Proclamation from Prophecy exceptionally close relationship the Joseph story, in which Joseph and Pattern, 217). with God, in which he enjoys both does “deliver” his family and all the 50Cf. David Peterson, “The Worship direct knowledge of the mind of earth from famine. A fuller version of the New Community,” in Wit- God and special access to God in of this argument, on which Mar- ness to the Gospel: The Theology of prayer” (emphasis his). shall depends, is in Darrell L. Bock, Acts (ed. I. H. Marshall and David 53Confirming the argument that Proclamation from Prophecy and Pat- Peterson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, “New Testament theology began tern: Lucan Old Testament Christol- 1998), 377: “Jerusalem preferred with the biblical expositions of ogy (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, to remain with the Temple and to Jesus” in E. Earle Ellis, “Jesus’ Use 1987), 217–18. Bock’s negative evalu- regard that as the final mark of of the Old Testament and the Gen- ation is controlled by the question God’s favour, rather than let it lead esis of New Testament Theology,” of whether the “three elements” them to Jesus to whom it pointed” in E. Earle Ellis, Christ and the Future he finds often mentioned by com- (Peterson is quoting Eric Frank- in New Testament History (Boston: mentators are present: (1) “Joseph’s lin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Brill, 2001), 20–37, quote on p. 29. deliverance of the Patriarchs;” (2) Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts 54Similarly Heinz-Werner Neudorfer, his “innocent suffering;” and (3) [S.P.C.K., 1975], 102–3). “The Speech of Stephen,” in Witness “the Patriarchs’ second coming to 51So also Frank Thielman, Theology of to the Gospel, 284, 288: “Apparently Joseph as a parallel of the time of the New Testament: A Canonical and this is typological exegesis with deliverance” (217). The problem Synthetic Approach (Grand Rapids: respect to the archetypal figures of with this is that Stephen/Luke’s Zondervan, 2005), 192–93: Luke Joseph and Moses.” point in Acts 7 has to do with Isra- “devotes the lengthy speech of Ste- 55So also Polhill, Acts, 191. el’s rejection of those sent to deliver phen to an historical review of Isra- 56Ibid., 206. her, and these other items Bock el’s rejection of those whom God 57Luke Timothy Johnson, Septuagintal mentions should only come into sent to deliver his people from vari- in the Speeches of Acts (The the discussion once we move from ous desperate circumstances. The Père Marquette Lecture in Theol- the issue at hand (the rejection of patriarchs were jealous of Joseph . . . ogy 2002; Milwaukee: Marquette the prophets) to broader questions Moses . . . . The speech ends with University, 2002), 29. In my view not addressed by the text of Acts 7. If a ringing indictment of Israel for what Johnson has described is bet- these broader questions are not the its most recent, and most serious, ter termed typological interpretation 75 than “septuagintal targum,” which 62Snodgrass (Stories with Intent, 277) same would be true of Moses later is what he labels “the rereading of asks “Is Gen 37:20 relevant?” Abso- on in Stephen’s speech. . . . One is Scripture in Stephen’s speech.” See lutely. strongly tempted to see here a ref- John Nolland’s comments on “Rep- 63Aside from Gen 37:20, Matt 21:38, erence to the two ‘visits’ of Christ. etition and escalation in salvation- Mark 12:7, and Luke 20:14, the The Jews had rejected him on his history” where he discusses the only other place in all of biblical first coming. Would they now “pervasiveness” of the “typological Greek where the two word phrase accept him when confronted by element in Luke’s presentation” avpoktei,nwmen auvto,n “let us kill Christ through Stephen’s preach- which has been “increasingly rec- him” occurs is in Judg 16:2. ing?” Cf. Bock, Proclamation from ognized” (John Nolland, “Salva- 64So also N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Prophecy and Pattern, 366 n. 16: tion History and Eschatology,” in Victory of God (Christian Origins “Lake and Cadbury, The Beginnings Witness to the Gospel [Grand Rapids: and the Question of God 2; Min- of Christianity, IV, p. 73, describe as Eerdmans, 1998], 70–71). neapolis: Fortress, 1996), 497. ‘possible’ the inclusion of the detail 58So also N. T. Wright, The New Testa- 65Pao and Schnabel (“Luke,” 268) of the second trip as pointing to the ment and the People of God (Christian note that the wording of Luke 2:51 second coming.” Origins and the Question of God “closely resembles that of Gen. 70David F. Wells, God in the Waste- 1; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 76. 37:11” but do not interpret the simi- land: The Reality of Truth in a World 59Arland J. Hultgren (The Parables of larity as I do here. of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: Jesus: A Commentary [Grand Rapids: 66The text of 1 Sam 13:1 is very dif- Eerdmans, 1994), 171. Eerdmans, 2000], 357) grants this ficult, but in spite of what the NIV 71Cf. Stephen Wright (“Inhabiting for Mark and Matthew but claims and NET say, the Hebrew text does the Story,” 506–507): “A renewed it is “all but lacking in Luke 20:9.” not say that Saul was thirty years figural interpretation will, I sug- This judgment seems to result old when he became king. gest, be both cosmic and personal. from a focus on Luke’s account 67Another conceptual link between That is, it will not confine itself as compared with Matthew and Genesis and Luke is the way that to the application of Scripture to Mark rather than a focus on Luke’s Joseph urged the one who was the course of individual lives; it account in the context of Luke’s delivered to “remember” him when will recognize the Bible as the key Gospel read in light of the OT. Ken- he was restored to his position in that unlocks understanding of the neth E. Bailey (Jesus through Middle attendance upon Pharaoh (40:14), unfolding course of the universe. Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the and one of the thieves crucified . . . We must distinguish the idea Gospels [Downers Grove: InterVar- with Jesus urged him to “remem- that Scripture interprets the cosmos sity, 2008], 413–14) has no difficulty ber” him (Luke 23:39–43). from the idea that Scripture con- seeing Isaiah 5 in his analysis of 68Israel concludes that an “evil beast” stitutes an independent source of Luke 20:9–18, nor do David W. Pao has torn Joseph (37:33). The refer- knowledge concerning the cosmos. and Eckhard J. Schnabel (“Luke,” ences to the beasts that surround When Scripture is treated as having in Commentary on the New Testament the Psalmist may have been influ- the latter function, it is mistreated Use of the Old Testament, 360–62). enced by the Joseph story. and becomes hostage to every sci- 60Hultgren, Parables, 359; and Klyne 69Commenting on Acts 7:12–13, Pol- entific advance.” R. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A hill (Acts, 192) writes, “What Ste- 72For excellent Bible Study curricu- Comprehensive Guide to the Parables phen did emphasize, however, was lum that examines the Joseph story of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, the seemingly insignificant detail with a stimulating concluding 2008), 288. that the brothers made two visits chapter on typology, noting inter- 61Cf. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty, and only recognized Joseph on the esting connections with, among 123 and note 25. second. Why this emphasis? The other books in the NT, Revelation, 76 see Warren Austin Gage and Chris- topher Barber, Joseph and Judah, The Masterpiece Study Series, vol. 1 (Ft. Lauderdale, FL: St. Andrews House, 2005). Online: www.saintandrews- house.com. 73Wright, “Inhabiting the Story, 501. 74Leithart, A Son to Me, 23. 75See W. Holmes, The Apos- tolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007). 76Leithart, A Son to Me, 23. 77I wish to thank Travis B. Cardwell, Andrew David Naselli, Professor Thomas R. Schreiner, and Profes- sor Brian J. Vickers for reading an early draft of this essay and offer- ing helpful feedback. I also wish to thank Professors Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum for insisting on textual warrant for typological interpretations. My gratitude to each of these men for their help and stimulation does not defer to them responsibility for what is claimed here, which I accept in full.

77