# Joseph removes brothers' blame due to God's providence



## chuckd (May 27, 2015)

Gen. 45:5 _Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life._

This passage seems different than,

Gen. 50:20 _But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive._

The former removes the brothers' guilt because of God's providence. The latter acknowledges their guilt even though God works all things for good.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 27, 2015)

They compliment each other in my view.


----------



## timfost (May 27, 2015)

It seems that the first emphasises forgiveness, the second providence. This is a necessary balance as we acknowledge what was dishonoring to God while trusting His providence.


----------



## Jack K (May 27, 2015)

I don't think Joseph means to imply in the first passage that they aren't guilty, just that they need not be despondent or "kicking themselves" over their sin. That's a good principle for all of us, actually, and the knowledge that God controls all things and uses them for our good helps us in it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 27, 2015)

Each statement should be read and appreciated in its own context. No one wants a prior, now isolated statement of theirs trotted out as if the mere form of words they previously used made them then, or makes them now, a liar. Or confused. Or unclear.

The potential confusion is presumed of the reader or hearer, until it may be proved that the statements in their respective contexts actually constitute a misstatement or a contradiction.

In the first statement, Joseph is speaking above all to men who are immediately stricken of conscience, in terror of Joseph, whose day of reckoning has come. They require assurance that their lives are not forfeit, despite what their sins deserved.

Furthermore, self-recrimination is a volatile feeling made even more so by a company of the guilty. If you feel like lashing out at your own self for sin, it is a small step to lashing out at others, especially if the others were parties with you in the crime. It is a logical extension of self-flagellation.

An important verse in the close context is v24 at the full end of the brothers' stay in Egypt, "As they departed, he said to them, 'Do not quarrel on the way.'"


The second statement comes in the aftermath of Jacob's death. Joseph is a man, the brothers are men too, and know themselves and other men. _What if Joseph is holding off on slaughtering the brothers out of love for his father?_ They have not fully grasped their brother's true, gracious, forgiving character. This is the kind of thought-process (see v15) that leads to them to petition him out of fear.

Joseph had long ago abandoned any rights he had to slake his thirst for vengeance. "Joseph wept when they spoke to him.... 'Am I in the place of God?'" vv17,19. The reason he was the virtual king of Egypt was because (in a sense) of his brothers' ill treatment of him. It had all come about in perfect fulfillment of the divine purpose, which could not only not be thwarted by the evil purposes of men; but which evil purposes were frustrated by showing them to be the instruments of fulfillment.

Taking vengeance late, Joseph would not only have been a man, but a typical despot whose ordinary passions of the flesh are simply magnified by the level of power he wields. Joseph would be a deceiver who outdid his father; instead of a type of the Christ who perfectly fulfilled all his Father's good will.


Each of us needs both comforts in our lives at different times. We need justification, the assurance that God does not hold our sins against us but has already provided us a Preserver of life. And we need the reminder that God has never been taken by surprise (before justification or afterward) by our contrary ways, but re-purposes them to the good of his elect.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 27, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Each statement should be read and appreciated in its own context. No one wants a prior, now isolated statement of theirs trotted out as if the mere form of words they previously used made them then, or makes them now, a liar. Or confused. Or unclear.
> 
> The potential confusion is presumed of the reader or hearer, until it may be proved that the statements in their respective contexts actually constitute a misstatement or a contradiction.
> 
> ...



-That's exactly what I meant to say


----------



## chuckd (May 28, 2015)

Thank you for your help, Rev. Buchanan and others.


----------

