Posted on

12 minute-radio interview with Craig today

Craig and Médine were interviewed today on American Family Radio concerning their book Impossible Love and Médine’s experience as a refugee. For those who want to listen to our interview, you can forward to 11 minutes and 38 seconds on the following link is:

http://afr.net/afr-talk/todays-issues/2016/october/craig-medine-keener-danny-faulkner/

The book is at: https://www.amazon.com/Impossible-Love-African-Miracles-against/dp/0800797779

Since this blog is mentioned in our part of the broadcast as a way of finding out more about us, I should also give this link: http://asburyseminary.edu/person/dr-craig-s-keener/

Posted on

Does much learning make you mad? Or: dangers of academics?

Recently Aaron Ross interviewed Craig on a blog and asked whether higher learning should cause Christians to lose their faith … or something like that … One could address this in various ways (Craig actually did wrestle with this in some early years, given his former atheism), but this is how he answered it now:

The Madness of Learning

http://ecclesiam.com/2016/10/madness-of-learning/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

Posted on

Joseph goes to prison

Genesis 39:19-23

Bad things happen to good people. Granted, Judah suffered shame for his sexual sin in Gen 38:26; but Joseph now goes to prison because he refused to commit sexual sin (39:12, 19-20). Joseph’s imprisonment, however, does allow for his fortunes in this life to change in the future; given Joseph’s position as a slave, Potiphar might well have killed him.

Why did Potiphar choose to imprison him instead of kill him? Some suppose that he did not believe the charge against Joseph; yet Genesis speaks of his anger (39:19), and his only subsequent action mentioned is directed against Joseph (though Potiphar’s wife is no longer an issue in the story). Perhaps he preferred to see Joseph suffer longer. But perhaps—and I suspect this more likely—Potiphar did not want Joseph’s talents to go to waste, even while he wanted him punished and away from his wife; he may have expected him to serve some useful purpose in the prison as he would later.

Potiphar was apparently in charge of this prison, which was apparently on his own property (see discussion below), and he might continue to make profitable use of Joseph’s skills while keeping Joseph humble and far away from the home. Unknown to any of the people within the narrative, this turn of events will prove providential for Joseph’s ultimate calling.

Despite Joseph’s suffering, God remains with him. God had been with Joseph in Potiphar’s house, giving him favor with Potiphar, who did not need to pay attention to anything he owned, entrusting all of it into Joseph’s care and experiencing blessing because of him (39:2-5). This same blessing continues when Joseph is in prison (39:21-23). That God is with us matters more than our specific circumstances; God can raise us up and make us fruitful even within our most difficult circumstances, whereas even the best circumstances can be empty without him. Joseph had the best position within bad circumstances; meanwhile his administrative duties in less than ideal circumstances were training him to be vizier over Egypt.

Whether the overseer of the prison was the same person as Potiphar, or more likely someone under Potiphar, Potiphar was presumably involved (or, much less likely, Potiphar’s successor if he somehow lost his position). The beginning of the narrative concerning Potiphar emphasizes twice that he was sar hatabachim, often translated “captain of the guard” (Gen 37:36; 39:1); this might mean “chief executioner” (or possibly, were prison not involved, chief royal butcher). Yet this same official’s house is precisely where Joseph is imprisoned (40:3; 41:10), and this is the official who puts Joseph in charge of serving the chief cupbearer and chief baker (40:4). (That it is precisely these officials who are imprisoned probably suggests that Pharaoh had gotten sick to his stomach and suspected one of these officials of having poisoned him. Still, both are said to have somehow offended him—40:1; 41:9.) Joseph remains the slave of this official (41:12), another indication that Potiphar remains in view. Joseph thus retained some favor with Potiphar, though Potiphar didn’t want him having access to his wife. This indicates the extent to which God blessed Joseph’s work and the favor he had long had with Potiphar (39:2-6).

The setting, though, remains unpleasant; though it is in the official’s house, it is also described as a “pit” (40:15; 41:14), perhaps something like a makeshift dungeon (cf. humanly manufactured pits in Exod 21:33-34). Prisoners could indeed be kept in pits, not always counted worthy of the financial investment required for cells. This is not the only text that applies the term to a place of detention (Exod 12:29). It seems hardly a coincidence, however, that this Hebrew word for pit appears elsewhere in Genesis only with respect to, and repeatedly for, the place where Joseph’s brothers cast him (Gen 37:20, 22, 24, 28-29).

Joseph’s unjust suffering has continued, this time due to a false accusation. God, however, has greater plans for Joseph. In God, things aren’t over till they’re over: and in the end, whether in this life or the next, he vindicates those who serve him.

Posted on

The accusation of Potiphar’s wife—Genesis 39

Years ago it looked as if my life and ministry were over on account of some matters over which I had no control. I took comfort in the story of Joseph; he was falsely accused by Potiphar’s wife, but eventually God exalted him in such a way that Potiphar’s wife was no longer even an issue. I could hope for ultimate vindication, on the day of judgment if not before. But if God was going to fulfill my calling, I hoped that somehow he would vindicate me, like Joseph, in this life as well as the one to come. Graciously, God has done so.

Why does Potiphar’s wife accuse Joseph to begin with? As noted in an earlier post, Potiphar’s wife seizes Joseph’s clothing just as his brothers had seized his robe. Some assume that her subsequent actions reflect a sudden change of heart, desiring vengeance because of Joseph’s rejection. That is possible, and Egyptians and others in antiquity even had stories about such false accusations. But her actions may simply reflect an interest in self-preservation. Once she sees Joseph’s garment in her hand, her options are limited; she cannot go out of the house and simply return it to him, and she would not dare to explain her possession of this garment by saying that she seized it while harassing Joseph.

Her only remaining option is to accuse Joseph of having tried to force himself on her, claiming that she successfully frightened him off with her screams (39:15; cf. Deut 22:24, 27); her hearers will then presume that he had left his cloak because he had removed it in front of her. So now, just as a non-Israelite man raped an Israelite girl several chapters earlier (34:2), here a non-Israelite woman falsely charges an Israelite young man of trying to rape her, even slanderously exploiting a stereotype about his ethnicity (39:14). She also implicitly blames her husband for bringing the slave there (39:14, 17; cf. Adam implicitly blaming God for giving him Eve, 3:12).

When Potiphar’s wife accuses Joseph of laughing at or mocking her (39:14, 17), the verb she uses is one that appears ten times in Genesis but only twice elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. It can apply to the laughter of Abraham and Sarah at the thought of having a child at their age, a silent laughter of disbelief (17:17; 18:12-15); to the supposed jesting of Lot over Sodom’s coming destruction (19:14); and to the laughter of delight in God’s fulfilled promise (21:6). But the term can also have sexual connotations, such as in Isaac playing maritally with his wife (26:8) and perhaps Israelites later “playing” sexually in Exod 32:6. What Ishmael does to Isaac in 21:9 is less clear—it might be mocking (cf. the noun cognate in Ezek 23:32)—but its arousal of Sarah’s ire (21:9-10) presumes something more hostile than friendly laughter. Here Potiphar’s wife may claim that Joseph came to toy with her, whether to abuse her sexually or to ridicule her as if she is inferior and an object subject to his exploitation.

Meanwhile, deception continues as a common theme, now at a more serious level than that of Jacob or Laban, and certainly far more than Abraham or Isaac about their related wives as their sisters. Joseph’s brothers lied to their father about Joseph’s fate; now Potiphar’s wife lies to Joseph’s master about Joseph’s behavior.

Overnight Joseph goes from being a high-class servant to being a prisoner in something like a dungeon; indeed, Joseph could have been killed. But God still had a plan for Joseph. And even in our most difficult times, when we face unfair accusations or other hardships, God still has a plan for us.

Posted on

Scripture challenges racism

Craig was invited to preach and address race issues in a forum with Christena Cleveland of Duke, and also in chapel this past week. This is his 30-minute chapel message, from Ephesians 2:11-22.
https://player.vimeo.com/video/183846324?autoplay=1

(For those who wonder: Yes, I know some people don’t think Paul wrote Ephesians. I think he did. Even if you disagree, you can still get good ideas from the sermon. 🙂 )