“It Was Not You Who Sent Me Here, but God” (Gen 45:8): Moses, Joseph, and the Prophetic Tradition

Abstract

This article investigates some analogies between the narratives of Moses and Joseph and the prophetic tradition, with particular attention to the theme of commissioning and the role of the Hebrew verb šālaḥ (“to send”). Grounded in the premise that call narratives are decisive for understanding prophecy, the study offers a quick overview of the prophetic vocation and the phenomenon of human resistance to the divine commission. It then presents an analysis of Moses’s call narrative in Exod 3–4 and of Joseph’s discourse in Gen 45:1–8. The Exodus narrative highlights divine initiative and Moses’s resistance, while Joseph’s reinterpretation of his past suffering reconsiders it as part of a divine mission, with his use of šālaḥ interpreting the betrayal of his brothers as providential sending, echoing themes found in the book of Jeremiah. By highlighting these parallels, this work contributes to the understanding of prophetic identity within the Hebrew Scriptures.

1. Introduction

This study examines key elements of the prophetic experience, with particular emphasis on the theme of commissioning. It proceeds from the premise that call narratives may provide an important perspective for understanding the nature of prophecy (see Pikor 2020). The primary aim of this work is to explore the connections between two prominent Pentateuchal figures, Moses and Joseph, and the prophetic tradition. The vocation of Moses has already been interpreted as a paradigmatic call narrative (Childs 1974, pp. 54–56; Fischer 2011, pp. 179–81; Ditona 2016). Similarly, recent scholarship has drawn connections between Joseph’s story and Jeremiah (see Teeter 2021). The present study builds on these insights, but seeks to contribute further by examining the relationship between Moses, Joseph and the prophetic tradition, with special attention to the theme of commissioning, as it emerges in the narrative of Moses’s call in Exod 3–4 and in Joseph’s discourse in Gen 45.

2. Prophecy

The prophetic experience originates in a divine initiative that disrupts the life of an individual and entrusts him with a message that frequently provokes resistance and hostility. This section offers a brief overview of prophecy by focusing on two essential aspects: first, the structural features of call narratives, paying particular attention to the Hebrew verb šālaḥ (“to send”) as a crucial marker of the transition from divine revelation to prophetic commissioning; and second, the particular role of opposition and suffering within the prophetic experience.

2.1. The Calling of the Prophet and the Verb šālaḥ

The prophet is a figure who introduces his speech with the formula: “Thus says Yhwh”.1 By invoking divine authority, the prophet asserts his legitimacy, demands obedience, and, as a result, often faces doubt or scrutiny. The book of Amos offers a clear example of this dynamic. The prophet Amos is sent by God to the Northern Kingdom of Israel to denounce the people’s actions and to expose the hypocrisy embedded in their religious practices (for updated bibliography, see Wazana 2020; Davis 2022). His message, however, meets strong resistance from Amaziah, a priest from Bethel, who reports Amos’ words to the king (Amos 7:11), deliberately emptying them of their theological meaning (7:9). Amaziah’s misrepresentation makes the prophet a threat to King Jeroboam and accuses him of exploiting his ministry for personal gain: “Go away, O seer, retire to the land of Judah; eat bread there, and prophesy there” (7:12). In response, Amos offers a brief but compelling account of his calling (7:14–15): “I am no prophet nor a prophet’s son2, but I was a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore figs. Yhwh took me from behind the flock and said to me, ‘Go! Prophesy to my people Israel!’”

Amos first delineates his identity through a twofold negation, placing notable emphasis on the statement, “I am no prophet nor a prophet’s son”. In doing so, he distances himself from professional and established prophetic circles (see 1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3). By identifying himself instead as a “herdsman”, and a dresser of sycamore figs3, Amos emphasizes the divine origin of his calling. His ownership of fields and flocks indicates that his prophecy was not motivated by economic interests; rather, his discourse depicts God’s call as a sudden event (“Yhwh took me”), and not as the result of any personal decision4. Yhwh interrupts Amos’ ordinary life (“from behind the flock”), and reorients it towards a new course. The mandate is expressed through an imperative (“Go! Prophesy!”), that demands total obedience, transforming the prophet’s existence.

We see, then, that Amos 7:11–15 exhibits the essential characteristics of the prophetic call narrative, which are further elaborated in the accounts of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The structure of this narrative can be briefly described as the interplay between two key components: a divine revelation, typically expressed in the indicative mood and mediated through a visual or auditory experience, and an act of commissioning, conveyed in the imperative mood. The following table provides a concise overview of the main elements of the call narrative, as proposed by Bovati and Basta (2012, pp. 80–93).

Revelation	Commissioning
Divine irruption: Jer 1:5; Amos 7:14–15	Imperative: 1 Sam 3:11–14; Jer 1:5,10 God sends (šālaḥ): Isa 6:8; Jer 1:7; Ezek 2:3–4
Visual experience: Isa 6:1; Ezek 1:26–28 Auditory experience: Jer 1:7, 9	Resistance: the prophet (Isa 6:5; Jer 1:6); the recipients (Jer 1:19; Ezek 2:3–4; Amos 7:12–13)

This highlights an aspect that, while absent in Amos 7:14–15, is frequently associated with the prophetic call: the divine imperative is often accompanied by a reference to the commissioning conveyed through the Hebrew verb šālaḥ (“to extend” or “to send”5). The meaning of this root largely depends on its immediate context (Hossfeld and van der Velden 2006). Typically, the subject of šālaḥ is either God or a human agent, while the object—whether material6 or personal—is directed away from the subject. The verb itself implies an action oriented towards a particular end. When the object is an individual person, they are dispatched to carry out a task on the sender’s behalf: “Abraham said to Sarah, his wife, ‘She is my sister!’ Then Abimelech king of Gerar sent (wayyišlaḥ) and took Sarah” (Gen 20:2; see also 1 Sam 19:14; 25:40; 2 Sam 3:15). The envoy is frequently tasked with the delivering of a message and is thus described as a messenger who conveys the words of another (1 Sam 16:19; see also Gen 32:4; Num 20:14). With regard to the verb šālaḥ, then, “the basic semantic meaning is: ‘set someone or something in motion toward a goal (topological or operant)’” (Hossfeld and van der Velden 2006, p. 59).

Therefore, although the verb šālaḥ does not explicitly appear in Amos 7:14–15, it is deeply embedded in the prophetic call. It contributes to the framing of the prophetic mandate as a movement initiated by a divine imperative that radically reorients the prophet’s existence. In this light, the account of Amos, with its emphasis on the disruption of his ordinary life and the prophet’s obedient response, fully participates in the logic of commissioning. The next step is to examine how the prophetic experience typically encounters resistance, rather than acceptance.

2.2. Prophecy and Suffering: The Example of Jeremiah

Prophecy rarely finds easy acceptance in the hearts of its audience, as Bovati observes: “Human resistance is the paradoxical place where divine revelation progresses in history” (Bovati 2008b, p. 92). On the one hand, the prophet struggles with embracing the divine commission; on the other, the intended recipients are often reluctant to accept the message.

The book of Jeremiah offers one of the most nuanced explorations of the theme of prophetic rejection. At the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign, God commands Jeremiah to deliver stern warnings to those gathered in the temple to worship (Jer 26:2–6). His words provoke intense opposition, resulting in his arrest by the priests, prophets and people (26:8–9) and his subsequent trial before the leaders of Judah at the New Gate of the temple (26:10). In his defense, Jeremiah refers to the divine origin of his commissioning, and declares: “Yhwh sent me (š^elāḥanî) to prophesy against this house and this city all the words that you have heard” (26:12). He offers no explanation, and surrenders to the mercy of his audience, by saying: “But as for me, I am in your hands. Do with me as seems good and right to you” (26:14; Bovati 2008b).

Jeremiah’s lament (Jer 20) reveals a deep anguish, culminating in his admission: “For whenever I speak, I cry out, I shout: ‘Violence! Oppression!’ Thus, the word of Yhwh has become for me a cause of shame and derision all day long” (20:8). Such despair drives Jeremiah to curse the day of his birth (20:14–16), and he comes to interpret the joy associated with new life as a tragic illusion.

This recurring theme intensifies during the reign of Zedekiah, when Jeremiah is arrested (37:16), thrown into a cistern (38:6), and liberated through the intervention of a foreigner (38:11–13). Through these trials, Jeremiah’s life becomes a symbol of the fate of Jerusalem (Bovati 2008b, p. 103; Cucca 2010)—a city chosen as God’s dwelling place, yet destroyed and humiliated during the Babylonian siege of 587 BCE.

The story of Jeremiah thus demonstrates that suffering is essential to the prophetic call (see Isa 53:7–12). This framework provides a lens through which to view the figure of Joseph, whose narrative, as we shall see, presents notable analogies with the story of Jeremiah.

3. Echoes in the Pentateuch

Having established both the function of the Hebrew verb šālaḥ (“to send”) and the centrality of resistance in the prophetic experience, we now turn our attention to two other relevant narratives, concerning the figures of Moses and Joseph. An important element common to both—and particularly relevant to the aims of this study—is the repeated use of šālaḥ.

The first group of occurrences is found in the account of Moses’s call (Exod 3:1–4:17), a passage recognized for its structural and thematic affinities with the prophetic call (Childs 1974, pp. 54–56; Fischer 2011, pp. 179–81; Ditona 2016). The text is generally understood as a combination of an ancient core, dating to the monarchic period, with later editorial layers (see Childs 1974, pp. 52–53), although scholars diverge on how best to reconstruct its redactional history. Recently, however, numerous authors have argued for a greater degree of literary unity: Blum (1990, pp. 22–40), for example, regards Exod 3–4* as a unified Deuteronomistic composition, while Schmid (2010, pp. 179–82) interprets it as a post-priestly and relatively late insertion. For a recent synthesis of the discussion, see Jeon (2013).

The second group of occurrences appears in Gen 45:5–8, a key text in the Joseph cycle, which reveals striking parallels between his experience and that of the suffering prophet. The affinities between Gen 37–50 and the book of Jeremiah, as will be discussed below, have led some scholars to interpret the Joseph story as a late composition, reflecting a milieu familiar with prophetic traditions. Scholarly opinions, however, remains divided: Teeter (2021), for instance, argues that the Gen 37–50 reflects a late monarchic or early exilic context, whereas Römer (2015) interprets the final form of the narrative as a post-exilic, possibly Persian-period composition.

3.1. The Calling of Moses and the Relevance of the Verb šālaḥ

In Exod 3, Moses is portrayed as an individual engaged in a profession which has symbolic meaning: as a shepherd, he guides the flock through the chaotic (Deut 32:6) and inhospitable desert (Jer 2:6; Ps 23). Beyond this wilderness7, Moses encounters a bush burning without being consumed—a theophanic image, in which fire both signals divine presence and preserves God’s transcendence (Exod 19:18; 24:17).

The reader is immediately informed that this fire represents a divine irruption, manifested through an angel of Yhwh, appearing “as a flame of fire”8 (3:2). In contrast, Moses initially fails to perceive the divine nature of this vision. Intrigued by this sign9, however, he decides to draw near (3:3), his “turning aside” echoing Amos 7:14–15. Yet while Moses intends to “see” the burning bush, it is ultimately Yhwh who “sees” Moses approaching, a wordplay emphasized through the repeated use of the Hebrew verb rā’ah (“to see”, 3:3–4). This visual engagement transitions into an auditory one, as Yhwh calls10 Moses by name and initiates an extended dialogue with him. The accent thus quickly shifts from the burning bush to the word of Yhwh, emphasizing that Moses’s mission is founded on divine communication (see Sonnet 2018).

In Exod 3:5, God commands Moses not to draw closer and to remove his sandals, acknowledging the holiness of the place and affirming the profound otherness of Yhwh (Fornara 2004, pp. 359–60). In Exod 3:7–10, before the covenant at Sinai, God already reveals his relationship with the Israelites (see Costacurta 2014, p. 24; Davies 2020, p. 249), by calling them “my people” (v. 7). Moreover, Yhwh discloses to Moses his intention to re-establish justice and to save the people11 (Exod 3:8; see Gen 18:21). God “descends” in order to “bring up” the Israelites, restoring their dignity, and lead them to a “good and spacious land”12 rich with milk (Prov 27:27) and honey (Ben Sira 39:26), which will abundantly “flow” like water13. Therefore, Exod 3:7–9 serves as a framework for the call of Moses and affirms Yhwh’s intention to act through him as a redeemer for the oppressed.

This divine commission is made explicit through the imperative: “Now go! I am sending (šālaḥ) you to Pharaoh that you may bring14 my people, the Israelites, out of Egypt” (3:10). This verse represents a decisive moment, linking Moses’s call to the prophetic mandate (Childs 1974, pp. 69–72; Bovati and Basta 2012, p. 86). This connection becomes even more evident when we consider that Moses is portrayed as the prophet who exhibits the most pronounced resistance to the divine call. Far from being driven by ambition, he displays marked reluctance, articulated through no fewer than five distinct objections.

3:10	3:11
“Now go! I am sending (šālaḥ) you to Pharaoh that you may bring my people, the Israelites, out of Egypt”	Moses said to God: “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?

In his first objection (3:11), Moses echoes God’s own words, yet shifts the focus onto himself: “Who am I?” This self-centered response (see Priotto 2014, p. 97) omits both the commissioning verb šālaḥ in v. 11, and the relational reference to “my people” (3:10), disregarding the Israelites’ value. In response, God reaffirms his commission: “This shall be the sign to you that I have sent you (kî ’ānōkî š^elaḥtîkā): when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain” (v. 12). The emphatic use of the pronoun ’ānōkî (“I”), coupled with the reiteration of the verb šālaḥ (“to send”) and the reference to a future sign15, reestablishes the focus on the divine initiative (Rashi de Troyes 1988, p. 20). Moses’s second objection continues in the same manner:

3:13	3:14–15
“Behold, I (’ānōkî) shall go to the Israelites, and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”	God said to Moses, “I am who I am”. And he said, “Say this to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” God said to Moses, “Say this to the Israelites, ‘Yhwh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations”.

First, the use of ’ānōkî (“I”) suggests that Moses has not overcome the obstacle of his own ego. Second, he continues to express a degree of detachment from the people, referring to them with a distant tone as “the Israelites”. Third, the expression “God of your fathers” highlights both his estrangement from the people and his unfamiliarity with God himself.

In response, God reveals his name: “I am who I am” (3:14)16. This expression serves both as a revelation and as an assertion of divine transcendence, precisely because it remains open to multiple translations: “I am who I am,” emphasizing God’s mystery; “I am the one who truly exists,” contrasting the living God with inanimate idols; “I will be who I will be,” highlighting God’s future-oriented, surprising interventions on behalf of Israel; “I am who I used to be,” affirming continuity in God’s relationship with his people, as the God who has revealed himself in history, “the God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob” (3:15; Sonnet 2010a). Thus, Moses is not tasked with portraying a definitive explanation of the divine essence, but with bearing a name that proclaims the inexhaustible richness and dynamic presence of God.

In 3:16, God reaffirms the mission of Moses by instructing him to gather the elders of Israel and giving him in advance the words he is to proclaim17. First, Moses must show the people that he has been granted unique access to God’s thoughts, revealing Yhwh’s compassion and deep concern for the oppressed people (3:16–17). Second, God openly reveals the difficulties the people will face, affirming his sovereignty even amidst adverse circumstances and presenting a sort of narrative program for what is to come (vv. 18–20; Ska 1990, p. 31; Galvagno 2024, pp. 73–74). Finally, God anticipates that the Israelites will leave Egypt with dignity, adorned with silver, gold, and fine garments received from the Egyptians (vv. 21–22; see Good 1985, pp. 385–400).

Despite these assurances, Moses raises a third objection:

4:1	3:18
“They will not believe me or listen to my voice, for they will say, ‘Yhwh did not appear to you.’”	“And they will listen to your voice; and you and the elders of Israel shall go to the king of Egypt and say to him, ‘Yhwh, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us; and now, we beg you, let us go a three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to Yhwh, our God.’”

The objection in Exod 4:1 is particularly striking, because it directly contradicts Yhwh’s previous words (3:18). To overcome Moses’s resistance, God grants him the ability to perform miraculous signs. The rod (see Propp 1988) can transform into a serpent, a mythical creature both revered and feared in the Ancient Near East (see, e.g., Gilgamesh XI, 303–30618). The hand temporarily afflicted with leprosy can be miraculously restored (Num 12:13). Even the Nile, venerated in Egypt as a deity (see Helck 1972) and regarded as a symbol of fertility, is shown to be subject to God’s dominion (see Priotto 2014, pp. 104–5). These signs confirm Moses’s legitimacy and highlight God’s authority over life and death (see 2 Kings 5:7).

The primary instrument of the prophet, however, remains the spoken word (see Bovati 2008a, p. 33). Moses’s fourth objection, therefore, centers precisely on this:

4:10	4:11–12
“Oh Yhwh, I (’ānōkî) am not a man of (eloquent) words, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue”	“Who has given a mouth to man, and who has made the mute, and the deaf, the seeing and the blind? Have not I (’ānōkî), Yhwh? Now go! I (’ānōkî) will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say”.

The use of the pronoun ’ānōkî (“I”) again points to Moses’s inward focus (Propp 2008, p. 211). Yhwh then replies with a complex question, reasserting his role as Creator. Yhwh does not promise to remove Moses’s limitations, nor does he assure Moses that he will be able to speak fluently. Yet, God offers himself—again using the pronoun ’ānōkî—as a guarantee (Priotto 2014, p. 107), reaffirming divine agency: “I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say” (4:12). The mission of Moses is not, therefore, proportionate to his personal qualities; rather, he is called to trust that God’s power “is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor 12:9; see Matt 5:16; Acts 4:13; 1 Cor 1:26–31). Finally, Moses utters his fifth objection:

4:13	4:14–17
“Oh, Yhwh, send (your word) by means of whoever you want to send”.19	“Is there not Aaron, your brother, the Levite? I know that he can speak well. Behold, he is coming out to meet you, and when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. […] And take in your hand this staff, with which you shall do the signs”.

This statement is particularly significant due to the use of šālaḥ (“to send”), which directly echoes Yhwh’s commissioning (3:10) yet at the same time resists it. The imperative mood is particularly unexpected, as it suggests an attempt to tell God what he ought to do. In doing this, Moses provokes the anger of Yhwh (4:14; Micah 5:14), exposing the depth of his own resistance. Rather than revoking the mission, however, Yhwh replies by appointing Moses’s brother Aaron as his spokesperson (4:14–17). Their resulting cooperation, marked by joy (4:14, 28) though later tested (Nm 12:1–10), leads to a first success (Exod 4:31) and offers a notable contrast to the recurring motif of sibling rivalry in Genesis. Moses’s prophetic call, therefore, will not be a solitary endeavor but a shared responsibility in delivering God’s singular word20.

In conclusion, Exod 3–4 reflects the structure of the prophetic call, combining visual and auditory experience with a divine mandate that is met with strong resistance. The recurring use of the Hebrew verb šālaḥ (“to send”) serves as a unifying narrative thread21: it appears repeatedly in God’s commissioning of Moses (see 3:10, 12, 14, 15), but also surfaces in Moses’s hesitant responses (3:13; 4:13). His objections are marked by an inward focus, as if Moses conceives of his mission as dependent on his own ability. This is especially obvious in the omission of šālaḥ in 3:11 and in its use in 4:13, where Moses strongly rejects his mission. In response, Yhwh reaffirms his own agency (3:12), discloses his indefinable name (3:14–15), provides numerous instructions (3:16–22), ratifies the call through signs (4:2–9), reassures Moses that his limitations are no impediment (4:11–12), and finally chooses Aaron to help him (4:14–17). Thus, through the repeated use of šālaḥ, the narrative emphatically asserts that Moses’s mission is not grounded in personal competence, but entirely on Yhwh’s initiative and authority.

3.2. Joseph’s Trials

Joseph’s story has recently been described as a Bildungsroman (see Schmid 2021)—a formative novel portraying the development of a gifted yet initially overconfident individual, who rises to high office in Egypt and ultimately forgives the very brothers who once conspired against him. In continuity with key figures in Israel’s tradition—such as Moses (Exod 3:1–6) and David (1 Sam 17)—Joseph is portrayed as a shepherd. From the outset, the narrative highlights familial tensions, while Jacob’s favoritism towards Joseph is expressed in the gift of a distinctive tunic22 (37:3).

Joseph’s suffering begins almost immediately. Though his decision to share his dreams may suggest a certain naivety (see Wenham 1994, p. 351; Wénin 2007, p. 30), the narrative reveals that the brothers’ hatred precedes these revelations (Schmid 2016, pp. 1–15). This is highlighted by the apparently redundant repetition of the phrase “and they hated him even more”23 in v. 5—before the account of the first dream, in vv. 6–7—and in v. 8.

The rivalry between Joseph and his brothers escalates into violence. When Jacob sends Joseph to check on them, they decide to kill him (37:20), and then cast him into a pit (37:23–24). Judah recommends selling Joseph to the Ishmaelite traders (37:27), and eventually he is taken to Egypt by Midianite traders (37:28, 36). After this, the brothers deceive Jacob by covering Joseph’s special tunic with goat’s blood (37:31), sending the bloodied garment with the detached and cruel message, “We found this; please determine whether it is your son’s tunic” (37:32).

In Egypt, Joseph is sold to Potiphar, a eunuch of Pharaoh (39:1), but the text emphasizes that “Yhwh was with Joseph” (39:2). His presence brings blessing to Potiphar’s household, recalling the Abrahamic promise of Gen 12:3 (Fifi 2020, p. 65). Nonetheless, Joseph’s trials continue. His physical attractiveness draws the attention of Potiphar’s wife (39:6–7) and although he refuses her advances (vv. 8–9), he falls victim to her false accusations (vv. 10–19).

Joseph’s ruin becomes a turning point. While in prison, he explains the dreams of Pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker (40:7–23). Although initially forgotten by the cupbearer (41:1), Joseph is called to the Egyptian court when Pharaoh is troubled by dreams (41:9–13), and he offers a wise interpretation of the enigmatic visions. Pharaoh then appoints him as governor over all Egypt (41:37–49).

While Joseph might not be classified as a prophet, then, his life story shares notable parallels with prophetic figures, especially the prophet Jeremiah (Sternberg 1998, pp. 634–35; Teeter 2021). Teeter (2021) in particular identifies structural similarities between Gen 37 and Jer 3824: in both accounts, the protagonists are thrown into a pit (Gen 37:24; Jer 38:6) and later rescued through a stranger (Gen 37:28; Jer 38:13). Other analogies appear between Gen 39–41 and Jer 37: both Joseph and Jeremiah are accused, imprisoned (Gen 40:15; Jer 37:16), and released by a king who needs counsel25 (Gen 41:8, 24; Jer 37:17, 19). It is therefore unsurprising that, at the end of this narrative arc, Joseph emerges as an individual capable of discerning the divine purpose within these sufferings. This becomes especially explicit in Gen 45:1–8, where he reinterprets his past not merely as the result of his brothers’ betrayal, but as a part of a divine mission. This key passage will be the focus of the following section.

3.3. Joseph Reinterprets His Story as a Prophetic Envoy (Gen 45:1–8)

The scene in Gen 45 is preceded by a carefully structured sequence of encounters. During the famine, Jacob sends his sons to Egypt for provisions (42:1–5). Joseph provides for them, but conceals his identity and imposes a series of tests, imprisoning them (42:17) and demanding that they return to Egypt only if accompanied by Benjamin (42:18–20). When their provisions are exhausted (43:2), the brothers return to Egypt, with Judah standing surety for Benjamin (43:9). Before the Egyptian vizier, Judah gives a significant speech (44:16–34), offering himself in Benjamin’s place (44:33–34). This act marks a turning point in Judah’s personal transformation and in the narrative as a whole (Ficco 2025).

The delayed identification of the Egyptian vizier as Joseph heightens the dramatic tension (Wénin 2007, p. 192). The recognition scene in Gen 45 can be considered as the perfect example of this narrative shift, because the characters simultaneously pass from ignorance to knowledge (acknowledgement; Astorga Guerra 2015) and from unhappiness to happiness (peripety; see Ska 1990, pp. 27–28). The episode is framed by Joseph’s intense emotional reaction conveyed through a hyperbolic style (Giuntoli 2013, p. 298): he commands all the attendants to leave (45:1), breaks into uncontrollable weeping, and cries out loudly (45:2). Joseph’s self-revelation, therefore, is not a calculated act of retribution, but a spontaneous outpouring of long-suppressed emotions (Wénin 2007, p. 193).

45:3	45:4
Joseph said to his brothers, “I am Joseph26! Is my father still alive27?”. His brothers were unable to answer him, because they became terrified28 in his presence.	Joseph said to his brothers, “Please, come near to me!” And they came near. He said, “I am Joseph, your brother, whom you sold29 into Egypt”.

Joseph’s repeated declaration (“I am Joseph”: vv. 3–4), the brothers’ speechlessness30, and the narrator’s reference to their fear (v. 3) all testify to their shock in recognizing their brother. Joseph’s initial question (“Is my father still alive?”) emphasizes his filial bond, notably omitting any reference to his brothers; this omission could suggest a certain distancing from them. The following statement, however (v. 4: “come near to me!”), serves as a gesture of reassurance and renewed intimacy; repeating his self-identification, now with the fraternal qualification “your brother,” Joseph reveals that, despite their betrayal, the familial bond endures. At the same time, he explicitly recalls their wrongdoing: “whom you sold into Egypt” (v. 4). This explicit reference contrasts with the brothers’ vague allusions to Joseph’s fate (see Gen 42:13) and serves as a retrospective narrative (Odo 2021). Reconciliation, the text suggests, must be preceded by a transparent reckoning with the past. Only then does Joseph proceed to interpret the entire story within a theological horizon, formulating an elaborated discourse (Isaksson 2014).

• 5 And now, be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves because you sold me here,
• for, in order to preserve life, God sent me (š^elāḥanî) ahead of you.
• 6 For two years now31 there has been famine in the land, and (there are) still five years when32 there will be neither ploughing nor harvesting.
• 7 So33 God sent me (wayyišlāḥēnî) ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to keep you alive for a great deliverance34.
• 8 And now, it was not you35 who sent me (š^elāḥtem) here, but God. He established me as a father to Pharaoh, lord over all his household, and ruler over all the land of Egypt.

This passage (Gen 45:5–8) marks a logical shift, highlighted by the repetition of ‘attâ (“now”), which serves to prepare the concluding request36 (45:9–13). The discourse allows for several conclusions. First, Joseph interweaves two levels of causality: the human (his brothers’ betrayal) and the divine (God’s providence; Amit 1987, 2012). On one level, Joseph recounts tangible events—his being sold into slavery, the famine’s severity. On another level, he interprets these events as a part of a divine plan: “God sent me ahead of you”. Through this discourse, then, Joseph articulates a deep theological insight: that human history unfolds within a mysterious interplay between divine intention and human agency (see Sonnet 2010b).

Particularly relevant is Joseph’s repeated use of the verb šālaḥ (“to send”), which appears three times in Gen 45:5–8. This verb prominently features in prophetic call narratives (see Jer 1:17), thereby reinforcing Joseph’s connection to the prophetic tradition. Although Joseph is neither identified as nor explicitly called a prophet, this passage reveals his capacity to interpret suffering and humiliation not as meaningless, but as part of God’s plan. What initially seemed to be an act of fraternal betrayal is thus reinterpreted as a form of divine commissioning.

With each occurrence of the Hebrew verb šālaḥ (“to send”), the progression of Joseph’s speech gradually discloses the aim of this divine sending. In 45:5, Joseph presents a general purpose—“in order to preserve life, God sent me ahead of you”—making no particular reference to his brothers (he does not say “to preserve your lives”). The statement highlights the universal aim of his mission (Arnold 2009, p. 361), showing that Joseph interprets his personal experience as a source of blessing to the nations.

In v. 7, the mission is then illustrated more specifically: “So God sent me ahead of you, to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to keep you alive for a great deliverance”. Here, Joseph introduces two theologically charged terms: ś^eʾērît (“remnant”) and p^elêṭâ (“deliverance”). In using these terms with reference to his kin, Joseph also alludes to broader themes in prophetic literature (see, e.g., Isa 37:32; Ezra 9:14; see Hamilton 1995, p. 576). Joseph’s story thus evokes a relevant biblical motif: amid crisis, God can preserve a faithful remnant of chosen individuals.

Finally, Joseph concludes his argument with the following phrase: “And now, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He established me as a father to Pharaoh, lord over all his household, and ruler over all the land of Egypt” (v. 8). This third occurrence of šālaḥ (“to send”) moves the focus from Joseph’s affliction to his exaltation. His suffering does not constitute the conclusion of the story; rather, Joseph is elevated to a position of honor and authority, highlighted by the sequence of three different titles (father, lord and ruler). Among them, the expression “father to Pharaoh”37 is particularly relevant, indicating that Joseph’s administrative role allowed him to exercise care and provision, traits deeply connected to the responsibilities of a father (see Lev 22:13; Deut 32:6, 13; Ficco 2012, pp. 101–8).

Joseph then instructs his brothers to bring their father Jacob to Egypt, where he and his household will be sustained during the famine (45:9–14), and the passage concludes with a powerful depiction of restored communion. At the beginning of the story, the brothers’ animosity had reached such intensity that they “could not speak to him peacefully” (37:4). Now, in stark contrast, the story concludes with renewed dialogue and fraternal reconciliation (45:15; see Giuntoli 2013, p. 300).

This narrative arc—from humiliation to exaltation—resonates deeply with themes that pervade the biblical canon (cf. 1 Sam 2:7). It also anticipates key elements of the prophetic tradition (e.g., Jeremiah), particularly the Servant Songs of Isaiah (see, e.g., Isa 53). Within the Christian tradition, Joseph’s suffering has often been interpreted typologically as a foreshadowing of the passion of Jesus Christ. In this context, the repeated use of the verb šālaḥ in Gen 45 becomes especially relevant, reinforcing the analogy with prophetic literature. The theological sense of Joseph’s reinterpretation of past events—which lays the foundation for reconciliation—is captured by Grossman: “he was not ‘sold’ but rather ‘sent,’ meaning it was God who brought about this event” (Grossman 2013, p. 192).

4. Synthesis Section

The narratives of Exod 3–4 and Gen 45, like the figures of Moses and Joseph themselves, present distinct portrayals. Moses’s encounter with God is depicted as a prophetic call, whereas Joseph experiences no comparable act of direct commissioning. The motif most fully developed in Moses’s story, his resistance to the divine call, finds no parallel in Joseph’s experience. Moses is directly appointed by God, yet he resists his mandate; Joseph, by contrast, endures numerous hardships in Egypt, but ultimately recognizes his mission. Moreover, while divine causality is explicitly acknowledged throughout the Joseph narrative (see Gen 39:2–3, 5, 9, 21, 23; 40:8; 41:16, 25, 28, 32, 38–39, 51–52), human agency remains at the forefront, and God acts discretely “behind the scenes”. In Exod 3–4, on the contrary, divine initiative predominates.

Despite these differences, the two narratives share several features. Both Joseph and Moses are connected with Egypt, and each account concludes with a reference to fraternal relationship (see Gen 45:4, 15; Exod 4:14). Most significantly, both employ the verb šālaḥ, denoting divine commissioning. In each case, the emphasis thus falls in divine initiative, though expressed with differing nuances.

In Exod 3–4, the repeated use of šālaḥ highlights God’s role as the primary agent in Moses’s mission to deliver the Israelites from Egyptian bondage. Addressing Moses’s objections and self-centered hesitation, God sends him with the assurance of his own presence, reveals his extraordinary name, provides the words he is to speak, grants signs demonstrating authority over life and death, affirms that his limitations pose no obstacle, and finally appoints Aaron as his support.

In Gen 45, Joseph displays a profound awareness of the primacy of divine initiative. Like Moses, he is compelled to leave his place, though through his brothers’ initiative rather than direct divine intervention. In his speech, however, Joseph reinterprets his entire experience in Egypt as a divine commissioning (45:8, “it was not you who sent me here, but God”), thereby discerning within his sufferings the unfolding of divine purpose, a design that served multiple ends and ultimately became the means by which life was preserved.

5. Conclusions

This work has analyzed the prophetic dimension of the narratives concerning Moses and Joseph, focusing particularly on the theme of prophetic mission and the function of the Hebrew verb šālaḥ (“to send”). With regard to Moses, the repeated occurrence of šālaḥ in Exod 3–4 plays a significant structural role, since it not only marks the transition from revelation to commissioning, but also highlights Moses’s self-centered resistance. He gradually discovers that his mission is not based on eloquence or any personal capabilities, but in God’s initiative and presence.

On the other hand, the story of Joseph, especially in Gen 45:1–8, reveals that although Joseph is not specifically called as a prophet, he has a striking capacity to interpret the betrayal of his brothers as a divine mission (v. 8: “It was not you who sent me here, but God”), and his suffering as a means through which the divine purpose is fulfilled.