|
God Loves Me and Has What Kind of Plan for My Life?
Iain M. Duguid, Ph.D.
(First published in Evangelium, Vol. 2, Issue 1,
Jan/Feb 2004)
Genesis 39 tells the familiar story of Joseph and Potiphar’s
wife. It has often been described as a case study in dealing
with temptation, and in some ways it is. The temptation being
addressed is not necessarily the obvious one, however.
Certainly, Joseph’s approach to the head-on assault of lust is
far different from that of his brother Judah in the previous
chapter. These two incidents, set side by side in Scripture,
serve as foils for one another. Yet, as we shall see, there is
far more to learn from this passage than merely how to “Just say
no” to sexual temptation.
The story unfolded in the chapter is well known: Potiphar’s
wife desired Joseph. Some of the older commentaries contain
slanderous assertions about the morals of Egyptian women in
general, but there may have been another factor in this case.
Potiphar, we are told, was an official (a sarîs) of Pharaoh
(Gen. 39:1). Now the word sarîs literally means a eunuch. Later
on it became a more generalized term for a certain class of
official, but the word is still translated “eunuch” on at least
half the occasions it occurs in our English Bibles (see, for
example, Is. 56:3,4). If Potiphar was a eunuch, then it
certainly would add a new and perhaps more understandable
dimension to his wife’s interest in Joseph. Whether Potiphar’s
wife was motivated by simple lust or by a difficult marriage
situation, the temptation that presented itself to Joseph was
sudden, real and direct. Potiphar’s wife was not exactly subtle
in her approach. She lifted up her eyes upon Joseph; she looked
at him, wanted him and commanded him: “Come to bed with me!”
(Gen. 39:7). It was not a request; it was a demand, delivered in
the same tone of voice she would use in telling him to
straighten the chairs or dust the furniture. This is temptation
in the form of a head-on assault.
In such a situation, it would have been easy for Joseph to
rationalize. He could have said: “This is simply a matter of two
consenting adults. No one will be hurt by my sin; no one needs
ever to know. Sure, it may be wrong but think how it might
improve my promotion prospects! On the other hand, to refuse
would almost certainly have negative repercussions: Hell hath no
fury like a woman scorned!” But Joseph didn’t do that. He not
only explained to Potiphar’s wife why it would be humanly wrong
(because it would have been a betrayal of the trust placed in
him by Potiphar), but he also went on to the deeper and more
important reason why he could not do this: It would be a sin
against God (Gen. 39:9).
Day after day, though, the same temptation confronted Joseph.
Even though he did his best to avoid it, refusing even to be in
the presence of Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39:10), it was always
there. Finally, Potiphar’s wife made one last all-or-nothing
try. She waited until she could catch him alone, grabbed his
cloak and commanded him again, “Come to bed with me!” Still
Joseph refused, running out of the room. Yet unfortunately for
Joseph, there was not a happy ending to the incident. In running
away, he left his cloak behind in his mistress’s hand (39:12).
Not for the first time was Joseph’s clothing used to fabricate a
false report about him. First, it was his fancy coat that his
brothers used to convince his father he had been killed by a
wild animal (Gen. 37:32). Now his cloak was used by Potiphar’s
wife as evidence that he had assaulted her. The fact that Joseph
ended up in an Egyptian prison rather than on the gallows may
suggest that Potiphar found his wife’s allegations less than
entirely convincing, but that would be little comfort to Joseph.
Once again, he was at rock bottom, falsely accused and found
guilty of a terrible sin. So what is the point of the story?
Dare to be a Joseph and you too could live miserably ever after?
It was in prison where the deeper, much harder, temptation that
faced Joseph began—the temptation to doubt God’s goodness. We
can understand why we suffer when we sin, but why do we suffer
when we do not sin? If God loves me and loves justice, why
doesn’t he reward my (rare) moments of good behavior? Why did
Joseph’s spotless obedience cost him his liberty in this way?
Where is the God of justice?
The first answer to these questions is that there was no
immediate answer for Joseph. God didn’t rend the heavens and
come down to explain how this all fitted into the divine master
plan. Joseph was left there in prison to work through it by
himself. Yet he was not on his own. There in prison too, in the
depths, we read that the Lord was with him (Gen. 39:21). There
were no answers to his questions except “I am with you.” God was
with him in joy and in suffering, with him in success and in
failure. That was what God had promised Joseph’s forefathers,
and that was what Joseph experienced in the Egyptian dungeon:
that God would be his God, a present help in time of trials.
The second answer was slow in coming for Joseph. It was not
until many years later that he saw what God had been doing.
Ultimately, though, he came to understand how even this
imprisonment was part of God’s plan. Joseph told his brothers in
Genesis 50:20: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for
good.” If his brothers hadn’t sold Joseph into slavery, he would
never have gone to Egypt. If he hadn’t been falsely imprisoned
there as a result of this accusation, he would never have met
Pharaoh’s servants. If he hadn’t met Pharaoh’s servants, Joseph
would never have been able to save his own family when the
famine came. He only saw what God accomplished through his
suffering after it was over. We too don’t always get that answer
here on earth, but we do have the assurance nonetheless that God
is working our suffering too for good (Rom. 8:28). There is a
third answer also to the question: “How can God allow me to
suffer for doing what is right?” The answer was not given to
Joseph, but it is given to us who live in the Christian era. The
answer is Jesus. Jesus was the only truly righteous man, the
only one who ever suffered completely without fault of his own.
He experienced much greater suffering as his reward for
righteousness than Joseph ever did. So why did Jesus suffer? Was
it because God is not just? Was it because God was not able to
prevent such sufferings? By no means. We—sinful humanity—meant
his sufferings for evil: We wanted to do away with this sinless
one because our deeds were evil, and we hated the light. But God
meant it for good. In our very act of doing away with Jesus,
God’s redemptive purpose for our salvation was accomplished. His
death cleansed us of our sins and gave us his righteousness. His
wounds were the means by which we were healed.
The undeserved sufferings of Christ are the model now for our
response to sufferings (1 Pet. 2:20-25). His sufferings are what
brought us light and life, and a restored relationship with the
Shepherd of our souls. We see more clearly than Joseph could
ever have the way in which God’s perfect plan unfolds itself. So
now, since God has loved you more deeply and more profoundly in
Christ than you could ever have imagined, you have a reason to
endure undeserved sufferings with even more patience and hope
than Joseph did. We can be confident that God will be with us in
the midst of our pain and will use whatever sufferings he sends
into our lives for his glory and for our good.
©2004
Westminster Seminary California All rights reserved
Permissions: You are permitted to reproduce and distribute this material in
any format provided that you do NOT alter the wording in any
way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of
reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on
our website is preferred. Any distributed copy must contain
the following statement: By [author's full name] ©
[date]
Westminster Seminary California.
Website: www.wscal.edu.
E-mail:
info@wscal.edu.
Phone: 888/480.8474
For Evangelium
articles, the reproduced copy must contain: "First published in
Evangelium, Vol. __, Issue ___ (month & year)."
Evangelium is a quarterly publication of the Seminary. For more
information, click here. |
|
S. M. Baugh
R. Scott Clark
Iain M. Duguid
Bryan D. Estelle
W. Robert Godfrey
Michael S. Horton
Dennis E. Johnson
Hywel R. Jones
Peter R. Jones
Joel E. Kim
Julius J. Kim
George C. Scipione
Robert B. Strimple
David M. VanDrunen
|