C. S. Lewis's Interesting Question

Status
Not open for further replies.

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
In a letter to his brother (February 25, 1940), C. S. Lewis raises this question:

"Reflection on the story raised, in my mind, a problem I never happen to have thought of before: why was Joseph imprisoned and not killed by Potiphar? Surely, it seems extraordinarily mild treatment for attempted rape of a great lady by a slave? Or must one assume that Potiphar, though ignorant of the lady's intention to make him a cuckold, was aware, in general. . .that her stories about the servants were to be taken with a grain of salt - that his real view was 'I don't suppose, for a moment, that Joseph did anything of the sort, but I foresee there'll be no peace till I get him out of the house'? One is tempted to begin to imagine the whole life of the Potiphar family: e.g., how often had he heard similar stories from her before?"

I think this is plausible. Remember that Joseph, though a slave, had a position of great responsibility in Potiphar's household and that, due to God's blessing, Joseph was very good at his job (Genesis 39.1-6). Doubtless, Potiphar and Joseph had many discussions and interactions regarding Joseph's work over time (how much time before the incident we are not told) so that Potiphar would have had a definite opinion regarding the quality of Joseph's work and his trustworthiness in carrying out his responsibilities.

So, regarding his wife's accusations, I think Lewis's speculation is plausible. Potiphar may have heard his wife's story with a skeptical ear, based on his own day-to-day experiences working with Joseph. So (and all of this is under God's sovereign direction, of course), Potiphar had Joseph imprisoned instead of having him executed. And, he had him imprisoned, at least in part, due to mindfulness of his position as an important leader in Egypt's governing organization under Pharoah, along with the routine master/slave relationship of ancient times. Taking into consideration these relationships, Potiphar had to do something regarding Joseph - so, although skeptical of his wife's story but mindful of his own position in Egyptian society, Potiphar had Joseph put in prison instead of having him executed.

And, as Lewis speculates, perhaps Potiphar's wife had a history of this kind of behavior. This may not have been the first time that his wife had attempted to cheat on her husband.

The Bible does not go into any of this, of course (the story, like many in Scripture, is quite compressed in order to bring out the most important point about God's dealings with his creatures). But Lewis's question is interesting.

I'd be willing to bet that no commentaries on Genesis take up this question. I'd be happy to be wrong about this.
 
Aalders discusses it (p. 204 of volume 2 of his commentary). Currid hints at some of the issues (volume 2, pp. 230-231). Duguid discusses it (Living in Light of Inextinguishable Hope, p. 54). Hamilton also discusses it (volume 2, p. 471). I won't research the rest of my commentaries, but it seems clear that the commentators are aware of the question.
 
Could it have been as simple as God had other plans for Joseph, and influenced Potiphar's decision on the punishment meted out to Joseph ?
 
I'd be willing to bet that no commentaries on Genesis take up this question. I'd be happy to be wrong about this.

This piece by Rushdoony comes close: (This is the 4yh paragraph)

We are told that Potiphar was angry (v. 19), “that his wrath was kindled.” This is a curious statement. We are not told that he was angry at Joseph. He was losing a man whose presence had prospered him, and this was naturally upsetting to Potiphar. We can assume that Joseph said he was innocent, but Potiphar could not take the word of a slave over his wife. Dr. A.S. Yahuda, in Accuracy of the Bible, noted the severity of Egyptian punishment, but Joseph received only a prison sentence. But this is not all. It was the king’s prison, and Potiphar most likely had some jurisdiction over it. We are told that again God showed favor to Joseph, so that the keeper of the prison gave him a position of trust. He left Joseph unsupervised in his duties and was content to do so (vv. 20–23). Perhaps indirectly, Potiphar may well have commanded Joseph’s managerial abilities.

Rushdoony, R. J. (2002). Commentaries on the Pentateuch: Genesis (pp. 246–247). Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books.
 
The psychology of Potiphar, or musing upon why Joseph wasn't treated worse yet, may be something of a reward for the deep thinker; or possibly a rabbit trail. It should not detract from the evident intent of the inspired speakers--Moses, Psalmist, Stephen--which is to describe Joseph's condition as one that sinks, sinks, and sinks as far as the eye can see--all gracious mitigation notwithstanding.

Joseph says himself, Gen.40:19, "for indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews: and here also have I done nothing that they should put me into the dungeon [lit. 'the pit']." This is identical language to the "pit" of ch.37. Pit and grave [Sheol] are connected, cf. Ps.30:3; Prv.1:12; Is.38:18.

I doubt I remember the occasion with appropriate clarity, but I recall one of my spiritual fathers referring (I think) to a Psalm--I think it was Ps.69--which could well be read as David's meditation upon (and identification with) the trials of Joseph (anticipating the trials of Christ). It certainly can be read reflecting Joseph's despair after he has been made to "pay" for that which he did not steal (v4). "Pit" is mentioned again, v15; "brothers," v8.

I think the critical concern for the reader is that he see that the enemies of God and of God's people and of redemption--especially Satan--tries to get rid of Joseph, starting in ch.37. Every step drawn back from the ultimate stroke appears to be a reversal, until the next attack sends Joseph down into the pit further. Hollywood never came up with a better nail-biter.

Whatever Potiphar may have thought--and he may have been mostly disgusted with his wife--dropping Joseph into the dungeon is hardly to be regarded as "mercy" on his part. His "sorrow" (presumably) over losing so useful a slave did not extend so far as we know to caring about the condition of the prisoner, or how long he might remain there. It is not as if the "king's prison" was the "country-club" of jails. The Bastille was the French king's prison.

The fact is that GOD preserved Joseph, in spite of being put into the pit. What is, finally, living death for Joseph does not become final death. Joseph is brought out of his grave, and raised to the highest position over the world--so "the whole world" comes to Joseph for salvation, Gen.41:57.
 
Aalders discusses it (p. 204 of volume 2 of his commentary). Currid hints at some of the issues (volume 2, pp. 230-231). Duguid discusses it (Living in Light of Inextinguishable Hope, p. 54). Hamilton also discusses it (volume 2, p. 471). I won't research the rest of my commentaries, but it seems clear that the commentators are aware of the question.

Thanks, Lane. I'm glad it has been covered. (I don't have any Genesis commentaries here at home.)
 
Matthew Henry writes on Genesis 39:19-23,

"[Potiphar] believed the accusation, and either Joseph durst not make his defence by telling the truth, as it would reflect too much upon his mistress, or his master would not hear it, or would not believe it, and there is no remedy, he is condemned to perpetual imprisonment, v. 19, 20. God restrained his wrath, else he had put him to death; and that wrath which imprisoned him God made to turn to his praise, in order to which Providence so disposed that he should be shut up among the king's prisoners, the state-prisoners. Potiphar, it is likely, chose that prison because it was the worst; for there the iron entered into the soul (Ps. 105:18), but God designed to pave the way to his enlargement."
 
Keil and Delitzsch bring it up, and add the following not-so-P.C. observation: "The chastity of Egyptian women has been in bad repute from time immemorial."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top