Exceptions Prove the Rule
Joseph in the Egyptian Famine
Joseph was sold into slavery about 1800 BC. After a series of personal ascents and descents, he served several government administrations at various levels. By the end of his life, he was a high official in the court of Pharaoh. Genesis 41 and 47 are instructive on matters of state. Joseph, by divine charisma, was able to interpret Pharaoh’s troubling dream about seven fat cows and seven lean cows. The interpretation was that for the next 14 years Egypt would have cycles of plenty and want. For the first seven years, the cattle and crops would be abundant. The second seven years, however, would be characterized by severe famine. If some form of pre-savings plan was not implemented the people would starve; in fact, many did.
Joseph advised Pharaoh to use “commissioners” (Gen. 41:34) to store up essential natural resources ahead of time. These commissioners were to take 20% of the crops during the abundant period. This taxation would still leave the people with sufficient food, when the abundance was taken into account. Joseph stored away the grain in centralized cities (Gen. 41:35), held it in reserve, and was put in charge of this program. In light of his principled godliness in general as well as in light of the specific divine-origination of this plan (Gen. 41:38), the presumption is that this plan was acceptable to the Lord. Nowhere is it condemned by God; only commended by the citizens. Still, insofar as this example touches on the areas of taxation and state protocol, this narrative set of precedents must be harmonized with other didactic principles. Yet, it does give an example of a benevolent administration with the prudence to prepare for times of scarcity. The tax rate for this national emergency, although twice the rate of the tithe, was only temporary and did not prevent normal commerce. One could even see this taxation as a collection of the surplus especially provided by God. In light of the abundance, the people retained virtually the normal amount of goods, contributing mainly from the divinely-produced excess.
This narrative acknowledges a place for wise, cooperative government. Even though many modern states have encroached on other divinely-ordained agencies—sometimes nearly smothering them—one must be careful not to over-react and disregard the divinely approved precedents provided in Scripture. The dangers of leviathan-states are writ large in our century; however, there are benefits of centralizing methods which actually help, as long as they do not violate any other divine prerogative or become useful only for the administrators or their sub-delegates. Centralization as a method of economical stewardship is not wrong; only when centralization crushes the vitality of other spheres is it dangerous.
From this model, the following principles can be established:
1. Responsibility (both personal and as encouraged by the government) for saving for the future is delegated. In consumerist societies, it has often been pointed out that the lack of future planning, as well as a low personal saving rate, is detrimental to the economic health of a culture. In this case, it is instructive to see that the first step in providing for basic necessities was to encourage limited consumption during the good years in order to save for the lean years. This is a principle that would assist any state. Both personal and governmental responsibility are shared toward this end. On an irreducible level, even if the government does not encourage this prudence, the family should implement this on a small scale. Personal and familial responsibility in this area is fundamental. It might even be acceptable for the state to require personal savings plans (as some countries do) with such plans administered by the private sector, with the responsibility remaining in the hands of the individual. Most who object to a nationalized “Social Security” do not object in principle to forced savings per se; they object to the state assuming financial support for others via a collectivist method, or the unwise investments or unsound actuarial bases of such systems. This episode in the life of Joseph may not be stretched to require support for such “Social Security” measures. However, it does support the state playing a role in providing for the future safety of its citizens. It is also crucial to keep the taxation rates limited, to not expropriate the needed provisions for families and individuals, and to have the support of the people.
2. There is a role in catastrophic times for a centralized government. Some may argue that this is an exception, rather than the rule in light of its catastrophic nature. That is possible. A maxim of historical study is that norms should be carefully established when taken from exceptional eras of history. Nevertheless, it is clear from Genesis 41:34 that Joseph proposed a centralized system for this emergency. The origination of this centralization is neither attributable to secular origin nor due to statist imposition. On the contrary, the suggestion emanates from divine revelation and the godly counsel from Joseph himself. If the central government was never to be involved—even in emergency situations like these—then surely God would not have sanctioned this instance. Yet with divine blessing, there is a proper role for administrative centralization. This particular administrative plan even went to preserve the line of the Messiah. Administrative centralization should not be considered an a priori evil; it depends on the agents involved and the extent of governmental sweep.
Care should be taken, however, in application, since this may be such an exceptional era. It is not dangerous to admit some necessary centralization of administration. In fact, good stewardship of finite resources demands such. It is only dangerous to surrender responsibility exclusively or permanently to the wrong agency. In this (temporary) episode, at least it is possible to allow some state activity while not permanently relegating the care for citizens to the state. While this passage does not mandate or justify statist control of food or commerce, unless one imposes an interpretation on the Scriptures, possible helpful synergy can be admitted. Theologically, it is not the case that the state per se is inherently evil or to be avoided. It is only the improper usurpation by the state, or the lawless activity of the state that is prohibited. Christians wish to avoid devaluing the state, just as they hate to see the church devalued. Both are proper institutions of God and should be encouraged to perform their lawful role as defined by other Scriptures. Government has its proper place.
The above notwithstanding, a sincere caveat must be issued for this interpretation. It must be mitigated by the criticism of seeking to derive an “ought” from an “is.” The above interpretation is open to the charge of seeking to draw inferences from the historical set of events. These structures may be exceptional, non-normal, and unable to be used for extrapolation. In an attempt to be fair to the record, this should at least be mentioned as a possibility, although dogmatism at this point would surely be incautious. If the state adhered to other divine principles (which is often not the case), activity as described in this narrative would not be threatening.
3. It is also worthy of note that in this episode there is an international result (Gen. 41:57). This episode makes it clear that not only does a good policy aid its own citizens, but moreover it is respected and valued by other nations. Perhaps one of the criteria for measurable success in policy reform is the extent to which other nations wish to model their political systems after the ones that do work. This can best be seen in times of international crisis. If it is a poor model, it may work only with limited cultural adaptation. If it is a successful model, it will likely have universal applicability. Cicero once wrote that the best governments would not “lay down one rule at Rome and another at Athens, nor will it be one rule today and another tomorrow. But there will be one law, eternal and unchangeable, binding at all times upon all peoples; and there will be, as it were, one common master and ruler of men, named God, who is the author of this law, its interpreter, and its sponsor.”[1] The best political practices are transferable to other cultures and vice-versa. Failing this test, policies should not be considered inviolable.
4. Also present in this model is a collective (Gen. 47:13-27). While one may be justifiably suspicious of collectivized approaches to the economy, especially in light of the rise and fall of empires in this century, nonetheless, the role of the collective in preserving the grain is illustrated here—at least as a temporary measure. It should also be noted that this centralized plan is concerned with necessities, not “wants.”
Again, one must be careful not to overreact against the excesses of recent times. Even if the majority of cases of collectivism are disastrous, one cannot on scriptural grounds rule out an exceptional or limited use of collectivist models as warranted by emergencies. It is the case, however, that such collectivist approaches are condoned only if they match conditions similar to this episode.
There is a significant difference between statist collectives and private cooperatives. Private charities have long known of economies of scale, and it is merely a wise use of resources to eliminate multiple agencies that perpetuate their own inefficiencies. One of the surest tests of the legitimacy of centralization is whether or not it is truly economical. If a task may be done more quickly or effectively by centralizing without violating any other ordained sphere, such economy is hard to fault. On the other hand, if centralization squelches humanity or violates other valid provisions, then it should be eschewed. While it would be unwise to construct the charter for a state on this model alone, yet, there may be some limited use of a co-operative in a godly model.
Taxation rates are explored in more detail in later chapters (cf. Chap. 13 below). In the first phase of saving, Joseph used a 20% taxation rate. Later, when the famine was in full-force, Joseph received money in exchange for these crops. One may question whether or not he should have received profit from what was already the people’s. However, there is no evidence of protest from the people about this matter. They seemed willing to pay for the crops, when the other surrounding groups were starving. The people were paying for Joseph’s industry and wise pre-planning. Twenty per cent was fair in this situation. When their money was used up, they sold their livestock and eventually pledged themselves to be Pharaoh’s servants. From that time on, a 20% rate—the maximum tax rate recorded in Scripture (and that during an international emergency)—was established for whatever produce was grown (Gen. 47:26). The only tax-exemption was for the priests and their lands (Gen. 47:22, 26), a basis for tax exemption for religious charities and their essential properties.
Profit and acquisition are also present in this episode (cf. also Ex. 3:22); and this is not merely another scheme for redistribution of wealth. Joseph made a profit, and he even traded the commodity for profit, the acquisition of land, and indentured servanthood. State policies do well not to condemn the profit motive or the acquisition of personal property. All it should avoid is the unjust acquisition of such (e. g., Mk. 4:19).
These are features of one model in the OT that can possibly be incorporated into government policies in our own times.
The governmental data in Genesis ends with a prophecy. Another revealed keystone for the state is a long-distance promise that the Messiah would be a “blessing to the nations.” To both Abraham and Isaac the promise about the coming Messiah is given (Gen. 22:18; 28:14), indicating at least two things: (1) God permits national configurations and foresees them without disapprobation, and (2) The Messiah will bless or benefit all nations. By the end of Genesis, Jacob prophesies that to the tribe of Judah belongs the “scepter” (a token of monarchical rule), that will not depart from it until the one arrives to whom it belongs. The Messiah fulfills that, and he sanctifies the notion of monarchy.
By the conclusion of Genesis, the early patterns of human government begin to emerge. There is much development and refinement over time. Indeed, some have even argued that the state per se does not properly exist until Mount Sinai or until the establishment of the Davidic monarchy. However, full maturity is not required before a legitimate institution exists. Divine institutions are permitted development. And their development should neither be suspect nor discount the earlier phases. As this study follows the lines of development, forms and techniques of government will develop while eternal foundations will remain constant.
One may also observe the Sovereign Principle: God is sovereign, but he delegates government as long as it conforms to his other revealed will. Over the centuries, various forms, trends, and details of human government have flourished. Regardless of which forms are employed, the Sovereign Principle maintains that government is ultimately guided by the sovereign Creator even while wielded by secondary human agents. The theological dimension is inescapable. Human agents do not become sovereign, but remain in a derivative position, subject to the will of the sovereign.
As with its first occurrence in Scripture (Gen. 1:16), government in general follows the analogy of the sun and moon: they were created for specific and limited purposes by the sovereign God. As long as they conform to those purposes, they are gifts and to be honored. It is only when these luminaries escape their orbits or seek to assume another’s jurisdiction that they defy God. As long as they remain submissive to the sovereign, they are useful servants. That is precisely the place of human government.
The following features of government were in existence prior to the organization of the state around the Law at Mount Sinai: citizenship, judges, kings, treaties, chiefs, divisions, confederacies, and a prison system.
Although the above features surface (mostly among unbelieving peoples), no explicit commands are given to the state to organize or perpetuate these functions (cf. Chart, in the final chapter below ). On the contrary, the following aspects of human existence were assigned strictly to the family at this early period: marriage, worship, inheritance, agriculture, commerce, education, justice, defense (military engagements), and environment.
Amidst such evolution, however, the family was still the primary unit of government. There is wisdom (although slightly overstated) in John Frame’s view that, “state authority is essentially family authority and extended somewhat by the demands of number and geography.”[2] While one might not state the authority as baldly as Frame, nevertheless, it is imperative to realize that the family is more basic than the state. That conclusion is heartily endorsed throughout Scripture.
The state should not interfere with these tasks assigned to the family except in an extreme emergency and with compelling concern for the good of all. It must be kept in its lawful place.
For more, see the author’s Savior or Servant: Putting Government in its Place or his other books on his author page at Amazon.com.
[1] Cicero, On the Commonwealth (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1929), p. 216.
[2] John Frame, “Toward a Theology of the State,” op. cit., p. 217. By such logic, Frame also rules out Lutheran views, Meredith Kline’s intrusion ethic, and the Anabaptist view that sees the state as essentially Satanic.