The Mother of All Living Sermons

I would like to start with a prayer request. I’m not a fan of the unspoken prayer request, but I imagine the person involved in the prayer request would not appreciate strangers knowing about her business, so I will not name any names. Please pray for a friend from quizzing. When I first met her, she was a bright and bubbly Christian. In fact, she joined quizzing because she just wanted to get to know better her Lord and Savior, who she loved so much. The only problem, however, is that her Christian fellowship was a Christian fellowship that thought to hold to certain religious beliefs, you had to hold certain political beliefs, and no true Christian would hold to any political beliefs contrary to what this Christian fellowship believed, which was simply not true. She too did indeed know it was simply not true. Not only did see conflicts between their political beliefs and their religious beliefs, she saw how her differing political views actually correlated better with her religious views, but her Christian fellowship refused to listen. Nevertheless, she sought out a group of friends who would encourage and support her political stances. Unfortunately, this group of friends further verified that indeed her political stances did contradict her religious stances (again, not true), but her political views were correct, and her religious views were incorrect, so she had to abandon her religion to hold stronger to politics. At worst, I worry she’s falling away from the faith, and at least, she’s stunting her spiritual growth. Please pray for my quizzing sister in Christ, that Jesus will keep her strong, that she may be a witness to both her Christian fellowship and her friends, and that I may know how to counsel her through this rough time.

So far, my witness to her is to converse with her on the lies the group of friends have fed her, and one sticks out as peculiar, which fits well into a Mother’s Day sermon. One of the lies told by her friends is that the Bible is misogynist. Merriam-Webster defines misogyny simply as “the hatred of women.” Therefore, a misogynist hates women. Thus, to call the Bible misogynist is to say the Bible hates women. Yes, this is what her friends have claimed about the Bible: The Bible hates women. According to them, at best, the Bible treats women like second-class citizens, at worst, the Bible treats women like slaves, property to be bought, sold, and traded, so why would any self-respecting woman read the Bible? It would not surprise if so many Christian, both brothers and sisters in Christ, have heard this argument. So, while the best thing to do is pray for my quizzing sister in Christ, the next best thing to do is talk about how you can combat this lie.

Of course, there are some easy, low-hanging fruits we can go to for easy retorts. Turn to the book of Judges, turn to the fourth chapter, and read about Deborah, a prophetess, or a female prophet, who takes reign of the army of Israel when Barak refuses to do so, and she leads Israel to victory of Canaan. Turn to the book of Esther and read how the Jewish girl Hadassah becomes Esther queen of Persia, and she uses whatever little power she has to save her people from genocide across the empire. These women are hardly second-class citizens or slaves. If this is too Old Testament for you, the New Testament has lesser known but more important examples. Turn to Romans 16:1 and read how Phoebe was a deaconess. Yes, I know that can translate into “servant,” but the Greek term διάκονος (diakonos) is literally where the English word “deacon” come from, so I will be brave to enough to say, I think English Bible translations who translate it into “servant” instead of “deacon” do so to avoid alienation from the churches who have a hard stance against women leadership in church. Turn to Colossians 4:15 and read how Nympha had a church meet in her house. Yes, while “church in her house” can simply just mean she hosted a church, a lot of scholars now agree a person hosted a church because that person led the church (cf. Acts 16:15&40). Both the Old Testament and the New Testament praise women in leadership, which highly contests the notion that the Bible makes women second-class citizens or slaves.

Of course, like I’ve said, that’s easy, low-hanging fruit. Graham doesn’t do easy, low-hanging fruit; Graham does hard, high-hanging fruit. What is the high-hanging fruit of this topic? Let’s a pick a woman from the Bible that opponents of the Bible would use to prove that the Bible is misogynist. What a better character than Eve! How fitting for Mother’s Day, for the name Eve means “mother of all living,” so she everybody’s mother. I have heard some wild accusations of the Bible about Eve, and maybe you’ve even heard crazy ones yourself. Some say, “Eve is created second, making her secondary to man!” Others will say, “Eve is created differently, making Eve a lesser human!” Still other will complain, “Eve is blamed for the fall of man, and Eve is punished unreasonably harshly.” Those who oppose the Bible with these comments truly have never read the Bible themselves, for those who have read the Bible should see that, not only are all these statements false, but the Bible goes out of its way to teach the opposite.

 

Without further ado, please turn to the book of Genesis. As you turn there (like it would take anyone a long time, unless your Bible has a massive introduction and/or preface), let me point out that, from the onset, since an account of woman’s creation even exists in the Bible, the Bible cannot be misogynist. Comparing the Bible with ancient creation myths around the world will reveal the Bible is in the minority just solely in the fact it records the how woman became living human. A majority of ancient creation myths do not record any story about the creation of the woman; only a minority of the ancient creation myths do. Some have tried to justify this by declaring that the creation of woman is assumed alongside the creation of man, but others rightfully state that the ancient creation myths without retelling the creation of women subtly hint that the world has no need for women.

 

The minority of ancient creation myths that do mention the creation of women have a habit of putting the creation of women in a negative light. For example, look no further than the famous Greek myth of Pandora’s Box. According to the Ancient Greeks, the myth takes place during the Golden Age, when there were just men (and no women), when technology rapidly advanced, when no man had any want or need because man shared all resources equally, and man had no enemies or foes…except Zeus. See, with the help of Prometheus, the Greek titan Zeus assigned to creating men, men had tricked Zeus into accepting offering of bones instead of the fat of the meats, and men had stolen fire, sacred to the gods. Now Zeus had already punished Prometheus by chaining him to a mountain and having an eagle eat his liver daily. As for man, however, Zeus thought man had it going too well, so he wanted unleash sorrow and suffering onto them. Fortunately, he had a jar (yes, you heard me right: jar. Apparently, Erasmus mistranslated it during medieval times, and nobody ever bothered to correct him. Since, however, everybody is used to calling it a box, I will continue to call it a box.) that held sorrows and suffering. Unfortunately, Zeus could not open it on man, or else the suffering and sorrows would come back on him. Furthermore, men were on edge because Prometheus warned them not to take anything from Zeus, so men could not easily be tricked. Therefore, Zeus decided to try creating a human himself, and this human would become the first women. Zeus got all the gods involved. For example. Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty, to make her beautiful. As another example, Hermes, the messenger god, taught her an eloquent tongue to speak well. Hence, her name was Pandora, meaning “all endowed” or “all gifted.” Finally, Zeus gave her 2 gifts: the gift of curiosity and the gift of the box full of sorrows and suffering. Zeus told Pandora, “Don’t open the box, for no mortal should look on it,” conveniently leaving out what is in the box. Well, a box with unknown contents and a curious woman are a bad combination, and it is only a matter of time before Pandora opens the box and unleashes the curse of sorrows and suffering on man. The moral of the story seems to be, “Darn those women and their curiosity! If it wasn’t for woman’s curiosity, humanity would be cursed with suffering!” Now at this point, one may think, “Well, that may explain why women suffer, but it does not explain the suffering of men because a woman opened the box, not a man.” That’s right! What you heard was the more famous, rated G version of the story. There’s an alternative, rated R, version of the story in which Pandora says to men, “Hey, if you can open this jar for me (maybe this is where the stereotype of the woman not able to open the pickle jar comes from), I’ll do anything with you,” to which the men say, “Anything?” and Pandora replies, “Anything!” Yes, that’s exactly what you think it means. This is worse! At least with the former legend, curiosity just got the best of Pandora. In this myth, Pandora actively seduces man to bring curses upon humanity. The clear moral of this story is, “Beware of women! They will use the sexuality to seduce you and to curse you, which will always bring sorrow and suffering!” Now the reason for man’s suffering falls less on the contents of the box/jar and more on the woman herself. Why do men seek to become richer, so much so that they will make other men poor in the process? To impress women, of course! Why do men seek to become the most powerful kings and emperors, to the point of enslaving other men? So, they can marry any woman they want, of course! Now that’s a sexist and misogynist origin story! As stated earlier, and pointed out now, many ancient myths do not mention the creation of the woman, and those that do, a lot of them mention the creation of woman as a negative thing. The Bible, however, does mention the creation of the woman, and as will be drawn out soon, the Bible puts the creation of woman in a positive light.

Let’s dive into the actual text. The meat of the text will come from Genesis 2, but the trip to Genesis 2 requires a pitstop in Genesis. For those unfamiliar with the book of Genesis, Genesis has 2 creations accounts. Commentators have different explanations on why, with some more blasphemous or heretical others. Personally, I believe Genesis records 2 different creation narratives because it tells the same story from different perspectives. Genesis 1 talks about the creation from God’s point of view, as God lays out an organized plan to bring order to the chaos. Genesis 2 tells the creation story from the human’s point of view, as God creates the perfect habitat around man. Since Genesis 2 comes from the human’s point of view, most of the theology about woman will come from Genesis 2, but Genesis 1 does have an important fact worth noting.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. ~Genesis 1:27 (ESV)

While so much can come out from this verse, pertinent to this study, three words need extra highlighting. The “man” in “So God created man in his own image” is the Hebrew term אָדָם (adam). Now the “man” here in אָדָם (adam) is short for “human,” which is short for “human being.” The last line of the verse states that God created them זָכָר (zāḵār) and נְקֵבָה (n^eqēḇāh). Most, if not all, Bibles translate the two Hebrew words as “male” and “female,” and rightfully so. Unfortunately, some people living in the 21^st century insist that that gender and sex are not interchangeable, and they also insist that gender is a social construct (which I actually understand to extent). Therefore, I must state this bluntly: a זָכָר (zāḵār) has a penis, and a נְקֵבָה (n^eqēḇāh) has a vagina. For proof, look further than a few chapters later. In Genesis 6&7, the Lord commands Noah to bring animals in the ark, זָכָר (zāḵār) and נְקֵבָה (n^eqēḇāh), with the clear intentions for them to multiply and fill the earth after the flood. There is no way around it and for good reason. In this one little verse in Genesis 1:27, God warns the reader, “Alright, when you go into the next chapter, you will discover that I created the woman after the man, and you will also find out that I created the woman in a different manner. This does not make her more or less in the image of God. The woman is equally made in the image of God.” Thus, the theology taught about the woman from Genesis 1:27 is that the woman was equally made in the image of God. Now let’s advance to meat of the creation story of the woman.

Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. ~Genesis 2:19&20 (ESV)

Although the text does not paint the most vivid picture, it has enough description to imagine what happened here. (Disclaimer: what you read in the remainder of the paragraph consists of nothing original, as the rest of the paragraph contains bits and pieces I have picked up from pastors and comedians alike.) The Lord says to Adam, “Okay, here’s the deal, I’m going to bring these animals to you one by one, and whatever you want to name them, that’s its name. Seriously, the first thing that comes to your mind, that’s its name.” Adam responds, “Okay, no problem, I got this.” God brings in the first in the first animal, “Alright, Adam, I got this animal. It's one of the larger animals. It’s gray. It’s got a big jaw. It likes being in the water. What are we calling it?” Adam announces, “Hippopotamus!” Picture a stenographer angel off to the side, asking “How do you want me to spell that?” The Lord tells the angel, “Oh, just sound it out.” Then God turns to Adam and says, “Okay, I’m bringing in the next animal. This animal is also one of the large ones, and it’s gray, too. This one, however, has a horn. What’s its name?” Adam is now starting to get in the groove, and he declares, “Rhinoceros!” The poor stenographer angel is mumbling under his breath, “Wow, seriously, where did he get this guy?” Unfortunately, as time passes, and as the animals get smaller, Adam is getting tired, and not one creative idea is left. “Alright, Adam,” the Lord tells Adam, “Here’s the next one. What its name?” Adam replies, “Dog?” God is like, “Hey, that’s just my name backwards…never mind, whatever, here’s the next one, Adam. What’s its name?” Adam sighs and states its name, “Cat?” God is like, “Oh, hey, wait, I didn’t make one of those…” (Just joking! Just kidding! Just playing! I own a cat, and I love my cat!) If you think that’s bad, it got worse when it came time to name insects! The Lord asks Adam, “Hey Adam, what are we calling that insect hopping along the grass?” Adam takes a big sigh and announces, “Grasshopper.” God proceeds, “Okay…well, what are we naming that insect flying around that animal you named a horse?” Adam takes a deeper sigher and declares, “Horsefly.” At this point, the Lord probably told Adam, “Let’s take a break, before you name all the fishes swims…”

In all seriousness, though, something has to be going on here, for the naming of animals interrupts the creation of the woman. Imagine that the Lord is not merely brining Adam the animals to name one by one, but rather, picture God bring Adam the animals two by two. Not only does Adam name the animal species, but he also gives names to both the males and the females. (I apologize in advance, for I am neither a zoologist nor a farmer, so I will probably butcher this, but you should still understand the illustration.) Imagine Adam saying, “Alright, this animal species we shall call a horse, which the males we will call stallions, and the females we will call mares.” Picture Adam stating, “This animal we will name bovine, which we will name the males bulls and the females cows.” Imagine Adam announcing, “This animal species we shall call pig, which the males we will call boars, and the females sows.” Picture Adam declaring, “The animal we will name a chicken, which the males will be named roosters, and the females hens.” As Adam goes through the process, he comes to a realization. He must have realized, “I’m a אָדָם (adam), or a human being, and the זָכָר (zāḵār)/male human is a אִישׁ (ʾîš), then where is the נְקֵבָה (n^eqēḇāh)/female human being?”

All of a sudden, Adam becomes sad. All of a sudden, the reader (and maybe the original audience of the Israelites? And maybe the angels watching Yahweh create?) panics! In Genesis 1, with every day of creation, God announces the day’s creation was טוֹב (tov), or “good.” In fact, when the Lord overlooks everything that he created, he declares the creation ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד (tov meod), or “very good.” For the first time in the Scriptures, located right in Genesis 2:18, the Lord has to state that something as לֹא־ט֛וֹב (lo-tov), or “not good,” and it’s the fact the man is alone. How can the very good creation, the perfect habitat for humanity, have something that is not good? Indeed, a good reason to panic! Before anyone can panic, God makes known that he has a plan.

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” ~Genesis 2:18 (ESV)

In the Hebrew, Yahweh announces that he will make a עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו (ʿēzěr k^eněḡěḏo) for man. Depending on your English Bible translation, the עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו (ʿēzěr k^eněḡěḏo)  will translate into “helper suitable for him” (NASB), “helper fit for him” (ESV & RSV), “help meet for him” (KJV), “helper comparable to him” (NKJV), “helper as his complement” (CSB), “helper as his partner” (NRSV), “helper suitable for him” (NIV, both 1984 and 2011 editions) or “helper who is just right for him” (NLT). The כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו (k^eněḡěḏo) part literally translate into “like what is in front of him.” Most commentators equate this to mean “corresponding to him” or “alongside him,” but I would even equate it to mean “equal to him” or “similar to him.” More interesting, however, is the עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr). From the root עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) comes the name Ezra, but most often עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) does not refer to a human, but it refers to the Lord himself! In Exodus 18:4, when Moses recognizes how God freed the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery, Moses calls Yahweh an עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr). David names the Lord an עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) whenever David escapes from his enemies or wins victoriously over his enemies (see Psalms 20:2, 70:5, 89:19, 121:1&2, 124:8 and 146:5). Between Moses and David, the common denominator lies within the fact that God has brought salvation or deliverance, thus making Yahweh a savior or deliver. This makes sense because the verb form of עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) is עָזַר (ʿāzar). The verb עָזַר (ʿāzar) means “to deliver from death” or “to save from danger.” Therefore, עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) could translate “savior.” Thus, the Lord declares here that he will make “a savior equal to him.”

My sisters in Christ, especially the wives and mothers out there, I am going to give you some fuel to the fire on this Mother’s Day. I imagine as the good Christian couples you are, you two don’t get into any fights, or arguments, or even debates 😉. You just sometimes get into some “intense discussions” 😉. Ladies, next time you find yourself in one of these “intense discussions” with your boyfriend, fiancé, or husband, if he starts getting a little mouthy with you, you snap back and say, “Hey! Remember I am your savior! There you were in your singleness! You were eating canned food and frozen meals because you couldn’t cook. Your living quarters were a pigsty! Your fashion sense so out of whack it was embarrassing to just stand around you! You had to get down on one knee and beg me to marry you, and you even had to bribe me with a diamond ring! You do not talk to your savior like that!” Now my brothers in Christ, I can imagine what you’re thinking. You are probably thinking to yourself, “Well, my girlfriend/fiancée/wife is not the perfectly sinless Son of God like my true savior is.” That’s true, you’re right, your girlfriend/fiancée/wife is not the perfectly sinless Son of God (sorry, ladies, you’re not getting away with that, even on Mother’s Day). I would also imagine, however, that Christ’s will for your life is not always how you wanted to go. I imagine you may have vented your frustration to Jesus. After all, if prayer is simply communicating with God, you may have prayed or communicated with God your frustrations. In venting your frustrations, however, you probably never used foul language, you probably never name called, you probably never used put downs or talked down, you probably never resorted to logical fallacies. In the same way, your girlfriend/fiancée/wife does not deserve foul language, name calling, put downs, belittling or logical fallacies in your “intense discussion.” If anybody gets anything out of this point, remember God created the woman to be your savior, so boyfriends and husbands, thank your girlfriend or wife for something that she saved you from, whether that be from loneliness, failure, lack, processed meals, a dirty home, or an out of whack fashion sense.

 

²¹ So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. ²² And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. ²³ Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” ²⁴ Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. ²⁵ And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. ~Genesis 2:21-25 (ESV)

According to Genesis 2:21 in the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh created the woman by taking man’s צֵלָע (ṣēlāʿ), which better translates into “side.” Quite possibly, somewhere along the translation line, somebody saw that the Hebrew manuscript said “side,” looked at the human anatomy, wonder to himself, “Now what side organ could the Lord have used to create the woman?” and from that he somehow concluded “rib,” which tradition just stuck with, even until now. Personally, I like to think this is the first recorded kidney transplant. I know some Christians still refuse organ transplants, claiming an organ transplant runs contrary to the Christian faith, but such an argument falls flat when God himself performs an organ transplant. Ultimately, the argument over which organ Yahweh used has no importance, for the symbolism carries the significance of the Lord making the woman out of the man’s side. Now I am going to do something I don’t quite often do: quote Matthew Henry. See, Matthew Henry is like a Nintendo 64: it was really great in its date, but now, it’s incredibly out of date and looks bad. This quote from Matthew Henry, however, has aged quite gracefully. In his commentary on Genesis 2:21-25, Matthew Henry comments, “the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.” Everybody can let out an “aww” right now. Cuteness aside, Matthew Henry hits on an important part. Even the body part the Lord chose to make the woman out of reflects the woman’s equal status to man.

 

Matthew Henry

Genesis 2:22 records that God brought the woman to the man, just like he did with the animals. The text invites the reader to imagine Yahweh approaching the just awoken Adam, saying in a sing-song voice, “Oh Adam, I have someone else for you to name…” and Adam begins, “Oh come on, Lord, I just woke up, can’t you give me just a bit more time, I just need…” but then Adam sees God’s newest creation and says, “Woah man!” Yes, I couldn’t resist, but there’s a point to that, which will become apparent soon.

At this point in Genesis 2:23, the narrative prose stops and poetry begins. The shift in writing style probably intended to highlight the creation of the woman. The first word to come out of Adam’s mouth is הַפַּ֗עַם (hapǎǎm), or “at last” or “finally,” pointing back to conflict of Adam not finding his equivalent when naming the animals. Adam’s first comments observe how the woman has the bone and flesh and he does. On the surface level, by doing so, Adam observes that Yahweh has made the woman out of the same stuff as him, which already makes her his equal. This is why I included Genesis 2:25 as part of the Scripture. Because both are naked, Adam can clearly see different body parts, yet he states she is made of the same stuff. In Hebrew poetry, however, bones typically symbolize strength, and flesh typically symbolize weakness. Therefore, Adam’s comments observe how the woman shares in the same strengths and weaknesses as he does, further emphasizing the equality. Even more to the point, the ancient Hebrews used the phrase “my own flesh and bones” like modern English-speakers say, “my own flesh and blood.” The saying emphasizes a relationship, even more further highlighting equality.

To cap everything off, Adam names the Lord’s newest creation “woman,” or in the Hebrew text אִשָּׁה (ʾiššā). The Hebrew term for “man” (as in male human) is אִישׁ (ʾīš), and now the Hebrew word for “woman” (as in female human) is אִשָּׁה (ʾiššā). Even without knowing the Hebrew language, anybody can see the terms are remarkably similar, almost the exact same word, with the exception of the extra letter in the end. In fact, this will become a pattern in the Hebrew language, for most, if not all, of the female animal names will simply be the male animal names with a hey at the end. For example, for horses, the male stallion Hebrew is סוּס (sûs), and the female mare is סוּסָה (sûsāh). Even in the naming of the woman reflects the similarity of the woman to the man, almost the same, which displays her equality.

 

¹⁴ The Lord God said to the serpent,

       “Because you have done this,

cursed are you above all livestock

and above all beasts of the field;

       on your belly you shall go,

and dust you shall eat

all the days of your life.

¹⁵    I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and her offspring;

       he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel.”

¹⁶ To the woman he said,

       “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;

in pain you shall bring forth children.

       Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,

but he shall rule over you.”

¹⁷ And to Adam he said,

       “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife

and have eaten of the tree

       of which I commanded you,

‘You shall not eat of it,’

       cursed is the ground because of you;

in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

¹⁸    thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;

and you shall eat the plants of the field.

¹⁹    By the sweat of your face

you shall eat bread,

       till you return to the ground,

for out of it you were taken;

       for you are dust,

and to dust you shall return.”

~Genesis 3:14-19 (ESV)

 

While I want to focus in on Yahweh conversing with the woman, I put the Lord’s whole dialogue here, in the hopes of seeing a pattern and a lack thereof. Note how God never explicitly curses the woman. Literally, the term “curse,” or אָרַר (ʾārǎr) in the Hebrew text only applies to the serpent (3:14) and the ground (3;17). Notice how Yahweh’s speech the serpent and to Adam begins with “because you…” but the Lord omits this beginning when talking to the woman. Between these two observations, it would seem that what God tells the woman falls more under descriptive than prescriptive. In order words, Yahweh does not actively penalize the woman here, but rather, the Lord passively reminds the woman that sin has its consequences, God makes her fully aware of those consequences. In all fairness to the woman, the serpent deceived the woman, whereas the serpent and the men deliberately rebelled in their sin, as evident by their punishment starting with “because you…”

A lot could be said about Yahweh announcing a multiplication of the woman’s pain in childbearing, but more pertinent to our point about the misogyny entering the world as a result of the fall, Genesis 3:16b deserves more examination. The key words in Genesis 3:16b are תְּשׁוּקָה (t^ešûqāh) and מָשַׁל (māšǎl). Now תְּשׁוּקָה (t^ešûqāh) is an exceedingly rare word in the Hebrew Old Testament, only appearing three times. The first one appears here in Genesis 3:16b. The last one happens in Song of Solomon 7:10, in which, ironically, the man desires the woman, as opposed to Genesis 3:16b, in which the woman desires the man. The middle instance occurs in Genesis 4:7, and this instance also pairs with מָשַׁל (māšǎl). In Genesis 4:7, the Lord informs Cain of what sin wants to do to him. Just as mankind and sin find themselves in a constant struggle of control, as evident by Genesis 4:7, so the man and the woman will find themselves in constant struggle of dominating and submitting, as evident by Genesis 3:16b. What Yahweh intended to become an equal relationship, sin would make a power struggle of dominance and submission. What the Lord intended to become “to love and to cherish” became “to dominate and to submit.” What God intended for reciprocal love would turn into marital stress and strain. Some have used their verse to explain why, even in the most patriarchal societies, despite a woman’s craving for independence, she would still succumb to a marriage. Other have even gone as far as using this verse to explain why some women will still stay with the most abusive husbands. Either way, even if these points are true, the truth remains that sexism, misogyny and patriarchy are the result of evil sin infiltrating Yahweh’s good creation.

The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living ~Genesis 3:20 (ESV).

 Scholars could and have said much about the name of Eve. Without diving too much in the Hebrew language, a few things deserve pointing out for the name Eve. First, note that the Hebrew name for Eve, חַוָּ֑ה (havvah), looks nothing like the Hebrew term for humans, אָדָם (adam), or the Hebrew word for man, אִישׁ (ʾîš). Already, the sinful nature has begun taking over Adam, and he has already begun distancing himself from Eve. Second, notice how Eve’s name means “mother of all living.” No longer is the woman “a savior equal to him,” but rather, Adam sees Eve as just “the mother of his children.” Ouch! Again, the sinful nature in Adam desires to distance himself from Eve. Together they reveal that, when Adam names the woman Eve, he treats her no differently than when he named the animals, asserting his dominance over the woman, demanding her submissiveness. Once again, the sexism, misogyny and patriarchy came about as a product of humanity’s fall into sin.

Not only does Genesis 3 not direct the primary blame for the Fall upon the woman Eve, the whole Bible does not direct the primary blame for the Fall, especially including the New Testament. Take a look at a couple New Testament verses-

¹² Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— ¹³ for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. ¹⁴ Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. ~Romans 5:12-14 (ESV)

²¹ For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. ²² For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. ~1 Corinthians 15:22&23 (ESV)

Note how both Scriptures don’t say “the woman” or “Eve.” Notice how both passages don’t even say “the man and the woman” or “Adam and Eve.” Both Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 merely put the blame of sin and death on the man, on Adam. The idea of woman solely bringing sin, death, sorrows and suffering into the world would make sense to either the Old Testament Jew or the New Testament Christian.

Before closing, let me briefly touch on some objections some may have, but please note that these 2 exceptions I will bring up deserve a close and thorough examination, each on their own.

³ But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God…⁷ For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. ⁹ Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰ That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. ¹¹ Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; ¹² for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. ~1 Corinthians 11:3,7-12 (ESV)

Please recall that the epistles are highly contextualized. Paul writes to a certain people at a certain place at a certain time, to address occasions that may arise out of that historical, geographical and cultural. In 1 Corinthians 11:3, the Greek term κεφαλή (kephalē) literally means “head,” but figurately it means “authority” or “source.” I prefer the latter because then 1 Corinthians 11:3 points back to Genesis 2:21&22. 1 Corinthians 10:7 reminds the reader that Paul wants to address why he believes men should prayer and prophesy with heads uncovered, while women should pray and prophesy with their heads covered. A cult in Corinth allowed women to pray with their heads uncovered, which would sometimes come off as sexual. Paul did not want the new and budding church in Corinth to get mixed with the cult. Paul’s command here for women to cover their heads intended to distance the church from the cult, and also quite possibly prevent women from becoming a sexual distraction in the Christian church. The idea of woman becoming the glory of man does not put her is a submissive or servient role. To the contrary, the woman received glory by giving glory to her husband. If anything, Paul presents giving glory to the husband as another opportunity women could give glory to God. Paul recollects the creation of the woman in Genesis 2 to remind the Christian women in Corinth how God created the women to turn something not good to something good in the very good creation, and likewise, Paul calls on the women to serve God in the same exact way.

¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve; ¹⁴ and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. ¹⁵ Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. ~1 Timothy 2:12-15 (ESV)

Again, please recall that the epistles are highly contextualized. Paul writes to a certain people at a certain place at a certain time, to address occasions that may arise out of that historical, geographical and cultural. When Timothy takes over the church in Ephesus, a heresy known as Gnosticism became quite popular. Gnosticism loved combining Greek and Roman philosophy with Jewish, and sometimes Christian, religion. Mixed in with all the heresy, Gnosticism at this time proclaimed a liberation and empowering of women. Paul did not necessarily oppose the liberation and empowering of women. Rather, he feared that message would lure in good Christian women, who would buy into the heresy just to get a taste of the liberation and empowerment, and then these women would proclaim the heresies back at the church. In other words, Paul feared that Gnosticism would deceive the good Christian women of Ephesus, hence why Paul emphasizes how Eve got deceived. At the current time, as the best advice Paul could think up, he advised Timothy to put hiatus on women teaching, until the church could determine the women remain uninfluenced by any heresy. Likewise, a church should only hold back on a woman preaching or teaching if they fear she will preach or teach heresy from the pulpit. Otherwise, let her preach and teach!

To conclude, anybody who claims the Bible is misogynist lies. First, while so many creation myth lack a creation of woman story, and for those that do, a lot of them put the creation of the woman in a negative light. To the contrary, the Bible does have a creation of woman story, and it does put it in a positive light. Second, the Bible clearly announces the man and the woman equally made in the image of God. Third, the Lord makes the woman with the intention that woman will become “ a savior equal” to man. Fourth, by calling her “woman,” man identifies his sameness and equality to her. Fifth, because of the lack of “because you” or “cursed” in the woman’s penalty, Yahweh deflect putting all the blame on the woman for the fall. Sixth, not until after the Fall of humanity into sin does Adam assert his dominance by naming her Eve. On this Mother’s Day, women thank the Lord for creating you the way he did, and men, thank God for putting the women, whether mother, aunts, sisters, cousins, wives, sisters or friends, into your life to serve as your “savior.”

The Joseph Rule: A Defense of the Billy Graham Rule (Genesis 39)

On February 21, 2018, the world lost a wonderful man. If you are familiar with that date or that man, you will know that I am referring to Billy Graham. In my first draft, I had the “the world lost a good man,” but I quickly changed it because I know, and anyone else who knows Billy Graham would know that Billy Graham would never allow anyone to call him good. He would probably quote back to the words of Jesus: “No one is good but the Father alone.” Therefore, I chose wonderful because Billy Graham deserves such a positive adjective for his role as evangelist. Now obviously the job of evangelist is not a new job. It’s been around for a long time. As a matter of fact, if you are familiar with either American history or church history, you may recall the First Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening. Both the First Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening were ushered in by evangelists. What set Billy Graham apart as deserving such as positive adjective as wonderful is what he did for evangelists. Now I do not just mean the fact that he filled arena and stadiums with people eager to hear the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. No, I literally mean what he did for the evangelists themselves.

As paradoxical as this may sound, by the time Billy Graham joined the ministry as an evangelist, evangelists had become quite immoral and quite corrupt. Some evangelists would pretty much get rich off their audiences, begging for money with strong emotion persuasion, only to waste all that money on worldly possessions. Some evangelists, traveling far away from wives and family, would have affairs with weak and vulnerable women looking toward a strong man for advice. Other evangelists became quite famous for their willingness to verbally insult and bad mouth other famous pastors and evangelists. Still other evangelists would spend most of their time behind the pulpit bragging about their fame and success, even exaggerating about their fame and success, so they could uplift themselves, which in turn, downplayed Jesus. No Christian should act like this! How much more for the evangelist!

Billy Graham knew of evangelists like this, and it disturbed him greatly. Therefore, he, with the help of 3 other evangelists, met in Modesto, California, to compose the Modesto Manifesto. This manifesto created 4 rules for the evangelist to live out while ministering to the people. First, operate with financial transparency. Second, avoid even the appearance of sexual immorality. Third, avoid criticizing other pastors and churches. Fourth, be painstakingly honest in all publicity. By golly, it worked! Evangelists now reflected the gospel message they preached.

With such great success, these principles designed for evangelists specifically broadened out to Christians in general. Now of course some of these guidelines could only apply to evangelists, but the ones that could be practiced among Christians would be practiced in the church. The most popular one was the second rule, the avoidance of the appearance of sexual immorality. It became so famous, it was simply known as “The Billy Graham Rule.” According to the Billy Graham Rule, whenever a pastor, evangelist or minister needed to minister to a woman, that pastor would bring in another person to join the counseling session. (To quickly clarify, like it or not Billy Graham came from a church background in which only men could serve as pastors, evangelists or any kind of minister, so typically a second man would join the meeting. As time went on and Billy Graham had more say in his ministry, they allowed women to take “minor ministry roles,” so the second person could also be a woman.) Again, by golly, it worked. Sexual immorality within the churched dropped, and now every Christian better reflected the Christ they worship.

So you can imagine my surprise (and it might surprise you, too!) when I found out that the Billy Graham Rule was under attack! Crazy, right? Well it’s about to crazier! Believe it or not, the Billy Graham Rule is under criticism by Christians! Yes, you heard me right, Christians! On the internet, you’ll find articles, from Christian blogs to Christian magazines complaining about the Billy Graham rule. No matter where you find it, the argument pretty much comes down to this: “Oh come on! Why does everything have to be about sex? Can’t a man and a woman just be friends? How much more for Christians, who are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ! Can’t a man and woman just be brother and sister in Christ?”

Now the rhetorical questions they ask in their argument deserve answers, and I will get to them by the end. Before I do, however, may I propose that Christian attacking the Billy Graham Rule feel like they can criticize it because they see it as a human invention. Invented by a wonderful Christian man, but human nonetheless. What if I told you, though, that the Billy Graham is not of man, but of God, coming from his Word, the Scriptures, the Holy Bible? If you don’t believe me, I invite you to turn Genesis 39.

As you turn to Genesis 39, let me give you some context. Genesis 39 is an episode in the story of Joseph. Joseph’s story actually begins in Genesis 37. From Genesis 37, the reader learns Joseph is Jacob’s favorite son, for a number of reasons. First, he is the firstborn of Jacob’s favorite wife Rachel. Second, he does not fear giving a brutally honest bad report of his brothers’ work. Because of these two factors, Jacob clearly treats Joseph as the favorite son. For example, Jacob makes Joseph a special robe, which, according to the Septuagint and Vulgate, has many colors, according to the Peshitta has long sleeves or, according to Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, is a technicolor coat. Between Jacob’s favoritism and Joseph’s bad reports, Joseph’s brothers hate Joseph. Then Joseph starts having dreams that represent Joseph’s brothers’ bowing down to Joseph, and they hate him all the more! So one day when Jacob sends Joseph to report back on his brothers, Joseph’s brothers are ready to kill him! Reuben, as the firstborn over all of Jacob’s sons, knows that is Joseph dies, it will be on his head. Therefore, Reuben pretty much says to his brothers (this is my paraphrase), “Let’s not kill him, but let’s throw into the pit and let fate decide,” and all the while he plans to come back at a later time to grab him out of the pit, maybe threaten him to shape up or he will be left for dead next time, and then bring him back to his father. There’s a gap in the text here because Reuben must have left, for in the next paragraph, Judah, one of the brothers, sees a caravan of traders, and he pretty much says to the rest of the brothers (my paraphrase again): “A dead Joseph is good, but a Joseph sold into slavery is better! Not only do we get Joseph out of our hair, we make money off of it!” Judah and the rest of Joseph’s brothers sell Joseph for twenty pieces of silver. Genesis 37 concludes with Joseph’s brothers returning to Jacob with a fictionalized story about Joseph’s fake death, which puts Jacob into deep mourning, and Joseph sold into slavery in Egypt.

In the next chapter, Genesis 38, the story of Joseph pauses to tell a story about Judah. More specifically, it tell the story of Judah and Tamar. To give a quick summary, Judah’s son has married this Canaanite woman named Tamar. Tamar seems to be a “black widow” of sorts, for each son of Judah that marries her ends up dying and having no child. Judah, afraid to lose any more sons, tries to send her back to family without a kid, a big no-no in that culture. In order to get her due justice, she has to dress up like a prostitute, so that her father-in-law Judah will buy her services and impregnate her. Tamar’s plan works, as her father-in-law impregnates her, and she will give birth to twin sons. Now while it is highly debated among the scholars why this pericope of Judah and Tamar interrupt the Joseph narrative, one of the very plausible theories is that it display Judah sexually failing twice. First, he sexually fails by having sex with a prostitute. Second he sexually fails because he fails to provide a son who will impregnate Tamar and give her an heir. Clearly, Judah has sexually failed. The theory goes that this sexual failure is to be contrasted with success to abstain from sex in the next account, so keep an eye out for that.

39:1. Genesis 39 picks up the Genesis 37 left off, but it changes the perspective. Genesis 37 ends with the Joseph’s brothers selling Joseph to the traders, but Genesis 39 begins with Joseph purchased by Potiphar. In the former, the emphasis lies on Joseph’s brothers releasing Joseph from their captivity, but in the latter, the emphasis lies on Potiphar receiving Joseph in his custody. The rest of the opening verse of Genesis 39 introduces the reader to Potiphar. First, Potiphar is an officer of Pharaoh. To give him a modern-day equivalent, Potiphar is part of Pharaoh’s cabinet or board of advisors. Second, Potiphar is the captain of the guard. You can take that as literally as possible. If something needs guarding, Potiphar is the captain of it. Do borders need guarding from foreigners? Potiphar is the captain of it. Does Pharaoh needing guarding while in his own palace? Potiphar is the captain of it. Does the jail need guards to keep the prisoners from escaping? Potiphar is the captain of that, too. (Remember that one, for it will become important later on in the story!) Third, Potiphar is labeled an Egyptian. This one is a little more confusing, as it seems to state the obvious. Some scholars think it’s a mere wordplay because the Hebrew term Egyptian or “man of Egypt” (אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י,ʾîš miṣrî) sounds like the Hebrew phrase “man of success” (אִ֣ישׁ מַצְלִ֑יחַ,ʾîš maṣlîaḥ), used in the next verse. Other scholars claim that it’s to remind the Israelites later on that their forefather was a slave to an Egyptian, just like they are. I personally prefer the latter because it has the best explanation, a theological explanation, on why to state the obvious.

39:2. The second verse of Genesis 39 relieves the audience. Somebody listening or reading this story may think that the story of Joseph’s blessings stop when Joseph’s brother sell him into slavery. Not so. Genesis 39:2 reassures the reader that Joseph’s loss of family and loss of homeland does not equate to loss of blessing. Yahweh does not need Joseph in a certain land or among his family to bless him. God can bless Joseph wherever or with whoever. As a matter of fact, the divine name of Yahweh only appears in this chapter in the entire Joseph account. Genesis wants the listener or reader to know about Yahweh’s active presence in Joseph’s life while a slave in the house of Potiphar. While Joseph’s brothers may have abandoned Joseph, Yahweh has not abandoned Joseph. Yahweh is with Joseph, and Yahweh is blessing Joseph, as seen in his success. It just goes to show you that the Lord can bless you anywhere, even if it’s not where you want to be, and God can bless you with anyone, even if it’s not the people that you want surrounding you.

39:3. As if the second verses of Genesis 39 did not explicitly state enough about Yahweh’s presence in Joseph’s life as a slave, the third verse of Genesis 39 gives a witness. It is interesting to note that Genesis 39:3 notes that Potiphar, an Egyptian who probably did not worship Yahweh “saw that Yahweh was with him,” him being Joseph. The text does not reveal the exact details on how Potiphar witnessed it, but most likely, it has to be the results, the blessing. It just goes to show you that sometimes the only proof of God the atheist might see is your blessing, so testify to it!

39:4. Because of the blessing, Joseph wins over Potiphar, and Potiphar promotes him from “slave” (עבד, eved) to “overseer of his house” (וַיַּפְקִדֵ֨הוּ֙ עַל־בֵּיתֹ֔ו, yafqidē ʿal-bêṯô). Such a huge promotion. Joseph has gone from working general labor for Potiphar to personally administering the household right alongside Potiphar. As a matter of fact, the Hebrew verb for “attend” (שׁרת,shāret) describes what Joshua does for Moses and what Elisha does for Elijah. Potiphar truly treats Joseph as his right-hand-man.

39:5. As seen throughout the whole book of Genesis, Yahweh’s blessing of the chosen patriarch overflows to those around him. In this case, the Lord’s blessing on Joseph overflows to Potiphar. Indeed, this theme carries throughout Genesis. Remember in Genesis 12:3 Yahweh pronounces that the Lord will bless those who bless Abraham and curses those who curse Abraham. With God renewing this covenant with every descendant of Abraham, the promise still remains. In this case, Yahweh blesses Potiphar because Potiphar blessed Joseph with a promotion. It generates this image of an overflowing cup. Yahweh’s blessing of Joseph has overflowed onto Potiphar.

39:6a. Potiphar feels so blessed in Joseph and confident in Joseph that, little by little, Potiphar hand over more control to Joseph, until Joseph has everything under the control of his hand, literally. Genesis 39:6 in the Hebrew text literally reads that Potiphar left everything in Joseph’s hand. This will become quite ironic when Joseph leaves his garment in Potiphar’s wife’s hand. The text goes on to explain that because of Potiphar’s great confidence in Joseph, he concerned himself with nothing around the house except the food that he ate. Scholarship divides on what this means. Some have argued for a literal reading. Later on in Genesis 43:32, we will learn that Egyptians do not eat with foreigners out of cultural taboo (some have argued that the cultural taboo is out of a lack of trust, while others believe the cultural taboo equates to religious uncleanliness). With in mind, Potiphar did not want Joseph over the food that he ate because that too would violate the cultural taboo. Others believe that the phrase is an idiom meaning “everything except that which closest and personal to Potiphar.” In essence, Potiphar takes care of the personal aspects of his life, but for the business aspects, he lets Joseph handle it. Still yet others, including rabbis of old, actually consider the phrase to be a euphemism (a polite way of talking about something uncomfortable) referring to his wife. This would set up the next scene very well. Even if not euphemism, the phrase sets up the following conflict anyway. Potiphar has put Joseph in charge of everything, including overseeing the care of his wife.

39:6b. To set the scene for the conflict, Genesis 39:6 also comments that Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. Interesting enough, the only other person with a similar description in Genesis is Rachel in Genesis 29:17. It is almost like the text is telling the listener or reader that Joseph has his mother’s good looks. This short description in Genesis 39:6b connects 39:6a to 39:7. Potiphar has put everything under Joseph’s charge, including care of his wife. Joseph is handsome in form and features. Potiphar probably knows this; he is not stupid. It takes a lot of trust for a husband to put his wife under the care of a very attractive man and not worry that anything will become of it. Potiphar is confident that Joseph will neither force himself on his wife or flirt with his wife. Talk about trust! This blessing of good looks, however, foreshadows the conflict ahead.

39:7. Potiphar’s wife also observes Joseph’s handsome forms and features. The idea of “casting eyes” equates to the modern-day idiom of “checking him out.” Her request of him is short, only the two Hebrew words שִׁכְבָ֥ה עִמִּֽי (šiḵ^eḇá ʿimmî), which translates into “Lie with me.”

39:8&9. Whereas Potiphar’s wife has a short request, Joseph has a long refute. Joseph’s refute deserves praise not only for his quantity of words, but also, for his quality of words. It deserves a second look. “Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge. He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me…” Pause right there. Now I will admit, I noticed to stop here because of my ESV Audio Bible Dramatized. See, in my ESV Audio Bible Dramatized, the man who plays Joseph in the Old Testament also plays Jesus in the New Testament. The first time I heard this man’s voice read these words, I thought to myself, “That does sound like something Jesus would say. (Don’t take that too far!) I want us to pause for another reason, though. Up to this point, Joseph’s argument against going to bed with Potiphar’s wife comes down to common sense. Joseph knows he has it good here. If we had to put a number behind it, Joseph has 99% of the house under his charge. He does not need 100% under his charge. For him, Joseph does want to risk that 99% to get just 1% more. Like I said, pure common sense, and it all comes from humility. Do you see the humility in his words? His first concern is the operation of the house, and alongside that, the well-being of his master Potiphar. Joseph’s last concern is about himself. Again, this too is an appeal to common sense. But then Joseph throws in this line: “How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” Now the listener and reader sees Joseph’s real priority: his God. If I may paraphrase, it is almost like Joseph is saying, “Even if my master Potiphar did give me permission, I still would not because how much it would offend God.” Interesting enough, note that Joseph uses the generic term “God” instead of the Lord’s name “Yahweh.” Possibly, Joseph kept it generic on purpose, so Potiphar’s wife could apply it to herself. Again, if I may paraphrase, it is like Joseph is subtly saying, “Even according to your religion, your gods would frown upon it.” Indeed, archaeologists have found Egyptian writings, from laws to stories, that demonstrate Egyptians abhorred extramarital affairs, too.

Put together the commonsense argument and the appeal towards God, Joseph has successfully repelled falling into sin, and with that, and some obvious connection can be made with the other stories in the the book of Genesis. In the previous chapter, Genesis 38, Judah sexually fails twice by having sex with a prostitute and not providing a reproducing son. In this chapter, Genesis 39, Joseph sexually succeeds, staying pure from the sexual advances of another man’s wife. Not only does Genesis 39 parallel the previous chapter, it also parallels to another event way earlier in the book of Genesis. Where else does the book of Genesis have someone tempted (that verb is a hint) to risk the 99% to go after the 1% so they can have 100%? That’s Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden! They had 99% of the trees as food, but they had 1 tree, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, from which they could not eat. The serpent comes in, tempting them to take the fruit from that 1 tree, so they can experience 100% of the fruit trees. The only difference between Genesis 3 and Genesis 39 is that Adam and Eve fail, but Joseph succeeds!

39:10. The tenth verse of Genesis 39 informs the listener or reader that Potiphar’s wife comes to Joseph daily with the request to lie with her. What’s Joseph to do? Follow the so-called “Billy Graham Rule”! Notice how the text says he refuses to both “lie beside her or be with her.” The fact that the text has two actions, with the conjunction “or” separating the two, means that they both cannot be a euphemism for sex. If “lie beside her” is the euphemism for sex, then “be with her” has to mean something else. Upon further investigation of the text, however, lie beside him may not even be the euphemism for sex. Notice how verse 10 adds the preposition “beside.” Potiphar’s wife asks for Joseph to lie with her, but narrator tells the listener or reader that Joseph won’t even lie beside her. In other words, Joseph will not put himself in a position where things could escalate. If Joseph worked in the living room, and Potiphar’s wife sat on the couch, Joseph would never sit next to her. If Joseph worked in the master bedroom, and Potiphar’s wife, reclining on the bed, says, “Joseph, you’ve been on your feet all day, you should sit down,” as she pats the edge of the bed, he would refuse. It even gets so bad, he refuses to be in her company, or the same room as her. I could even imagine if Potiphar’s wife called for service in an empty room, Joseph, as an administration, would send someone else. Looks like Joseph is following the Billy Graham rule before even Billy Graham, hence why I call it the Joseph Rule.

39:11. The conflict escalates in the eleventh verse of Genesis 39. The phrase “one day” (כְּהַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה, k^ehayyôm hazzeh) makes it seem like an ordinary day, when Joseph carried on his daily duties as expected to him. You can almost imagine the scene. Joseph is on high alert for Potiphar’s wife. He peers into the next room where he has to do his next task. He notices none of the household servants or slaves are in there, which he typically avoids in case of a confrontation with Potiphar’s wife. He wants to avoid it, in fear of Potiphar’s wife, but his master asked him to do something, and he wants to please his master. He may have concluded, “Well, nobody else is here, but at least she’s not here…” so he enters and goes about his business. When all of a sudden…

39:12. The twelfth verse of Genesis 39 states that Potiphar’s wife grabbed him by the garment. Now many English translations will say “caught,” but “grabbed” fits better for the Hebrew verb תפשׂ (tāp̄ǎś) because the verb implies violently grabbing. It almost seems like Potiphar’s wife now attempts to force herself on him. Therefore, when she says, “Lie with me” this time, it is less of a request and more of a demand. Joseph’s only possible response this time to “flee” (נוס, nûs) which in the rest of the Old Testament refers an army retreating in battle or an exile looking for sanctuary, somebody escaping for their life. Joseph flees for his life!

39:13-15. If Potiphar’s wife cannot coax or force Joseph into sex, then Joseph will be punished as if he did. She screams for her nearest servants, which she must have done loudly because verse 11 says that no household slave or servant was present, so she can accuse Joseph of rape. Potiphar’s wife’s account of the events deserve examination detail. First, she refers to the master of house, not as “Potiphar” or “my husband,” but simply “he.” By doing so, she sides with the servants and against Potiphar. She portrays Potiphar as a master who does not care about his slaves, like she does. She partially blames Potiphar because he put Joseph in such a high position. Second, notice how racist her accusation gets. “This Hebrew” clearly points out Joseph’s different race or ethnicity. Again, Potiphar’s wife, an Egyptian, sides with the Egyptian servants against a Hebrew servant. Scholars have highly debates what Potiphar’s wife meant when she said that Joseph “laughs” (צחק, ṣāḥaq). Some have suggested an idiom meaning “make a mockery,” while other propose another euphemism to mean have sex. It actually may serve as a double entendre here. If I may paraphrase, Potiphar’s wife’s accusation so far sounds like, “It’s already insulting that a Hebrew slave runs this house, but now this Hebrew slave thinks can just have sex with anyone he wants!” Now that Potiphar’s wife has the opportunity to testify, she orders the events backwards. In her account, Joseph approaches Potiphar’s wife, not Potiphar’s wife approaching Joseph. In her story, Joseph disrobes for her, where in reality, Potiphar disrobes Joseph for him. In her testimony, she screams before anything happens, when in reality, she screams after everything has happened. Her words, next to the narration, exposes Potiphar’s wife as a blatant liar! Genesis 39 does not record if the other servants and slaves had a reply. Most likely, Potiphar’s wife probably reported to the servants and slaves, so she could have witnesses. If Potiphar asked any servant or slave about what happened, that servant or slave could reply, “Well, I didn’t see anything, but I heard…”

39:16-18. The story does not tell how much time passed, but Potiphar’s wife prepared for it because she kept the garment close to her at all times! When Potiphar finally comes home, she repeats her account of the events, with some slight altercations. Just like before, Potiphar’s wife calls Joseph a Hebrew, point out his race for racist reasons. This time, however, she also labels him a slave, further demeaning him (obviously, she would not negatively call Joseph a slave in front of other slaves, lest she insult them). She still ultimately blames her husband for Joseph’s presence in the first place, but she does it in a softer manner, so she may ultimately have him side with her. Again, the verb “laughs” (צחק, ṣāḥaq) appears in this story, but this time, the direct object is Potiphar’s wife, not the whole Egyptian household. Potiphar’s wife makes herself the sole victim because Potiphar would care more about her and less about slaves. When it comes time to testify about the events, Potiphar uses the more generic verb בוא (bo) meaning “to go or “to come.” If taken literally in this context, it means Joseph approached Potiphar’s wife, but figuratively, it turns into another euphemism for having sex. Potiphar’s wife purposely uses vague language to let her husband’s mind fill in the blanks.

39:19&20. At first glance, it seems as if Potiphar’s accepted his wife testimony as true and declared him as guilty, but the response seems contradictory to the point. Not only did rapists received the death penalty, but even disobedient slaves could receive death. Potiphar could have executed Joseph on the spot, and nobody would have batted an eye. Instead, Potiphar has Joseph thrown into prison. The judgment does not match the sentence. Perhaps Potiphar trusted Joseph just as much as his wife. Maybe Potiphar trusted Joseph more. Poor Potiphar must have felt divided. Joseph has only blessed him, never doing anything that would curse, so his wife’s story does not sound like something Joseph would do. At the same time, however, his wife has a very detailed retelling of events, and the garment in her hands seems to prove her testimony. Part of Potiphar wants to side with Joseph, so he can continue receiving blessing after blessing, but the other part of Potiphar knows that if he sides with Joseph over his wife, he will set a precedent that any slave or servant can mistreat his wife or even rape her. Therefore, it would seem Potiphar internally compromises by punishing Joseph, but Potiphar punishes Joseph with a less harsh sentence. He merely serves life in prison instead of the death penalty.

39:21-23. The remaining three verses of Genesis 39 form an inclusio, which means the story stops the same way it started. Not only does this signify the full completion of the story, it will also highlights important themes and messages the author wants his audience to take home from the story. Indeed, anyone listening or reading the story will notice parallels between the start and the finish of Genesis 39. First, both declare God is with Joseph. No matter where Joseph goes, the Lord is with him. Second, the Lord shows love to Joseph and blesses him. Similar to the previous points, no matter where Joseph goes, there is not a place that God cannot bless him. Wherever Joseph is, he gets blessed. Third, just like Joseph gained favor in the sight of Potiphar (39:4), Joseph gains favor in the sight of jailer. Remember how I said remember that Potiphar is captain of all things needing guarding, including the prison? Potiphar is probably the jailer’s boss. Imagine Potiphar handing Joseph over to his jailer, saying, “Hey, keep an eye on this guy. He’s good.” While Potiphar can’t use Joseph in his house, he can sure use Joseph in his job as captain of the guard. Fourth, Joseph ends as an overseer again. For Potiphar, Joseph managed the house, but for the jailer, Joseph oversees the prisoners. Fifth, just like Potiphar, the jailer stops directly supervising Joseph because he has that much trust over Joseph. Sixth, the blessing in Joseph’s life overflows into the prison, just like it did in Potiphar’s house.

As we have observed, the Billy Graham Rule should actually be renamed the Joseph Rule, for Joseph practices it before Billy Graham practices it. When Joseph faces sexual temptation from Potiphar’s wife, he flees from it, both literally and figuratively. Not only does he run when backed in a corner, he drowns out her pleas and he refuses to keep her company when alone. As these actions come sandwiched in the middle of a passage bookended with verses that clearly state God’s presence with Joseph and God’s blessing of Joseph, this confirms that the Lord approves of Joseph’s actions, which means such actions deserve copying. Therefore, the Billy Graham Rule, or rather, Joseph Rule, is ordained by God in His Word, the Scriptures, the Bible.

Despite knowing that the Bible establishes this rule, some people will still object, “Why does everything have to be about sex? Can’t a man and a woman just be friends? How much more for Christians, who are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ! Can’t a man and woman just be brother and sister in Christ?” They will insist, “Potiphar’s wife is in the minority, a rare exception. Not every human, male or female, is begging for sex, and not every person, male or female, will easily give into sexual advances.” This argument is understandable, but such an argument comes with a heavy assumption. It assumes every person, especially Christians can and will shrug off sexual temptation. While the Christian undergoes the process of sanctification, thanks to the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit, the Christian has not yet reached perfect glorification, meaning the Christian can still fall into sin. While indeed the Holy Spirit has equipped every Christian to fight off sin, the Christian still needs to reject the sin by his or her own free will. That means Christians still susceptible to sin. The best way to fight off sin is to avoid temptation, and the best way to avoid temptation is accountability, even it means going to extremes. Accountability needs to be extreme because sin is extreme, with extreme consequences, so it should not be messed with. New Testament scholar D.A. Carson puts it best when he says, “We are to deal drastically with sin. We must not pamper it, flirt with it, enjoy nibbling a little of it around the edges. We are to hate it, crush it, dig it out…sin leads to hell. And that is the ultimate reason why sin must be taken seriously.” A quote from Puritan pastor and theologian follows up well, which says, “Be killing of sin, or it will be killing you!”  James 2:10 states a person guilty of one sin can be guilty of all sins. Christians must take that seriously, and they must never assume they cannot fall into a certain sin.

Others will argue that the Billy Graham rule…sorry, Joseph rule…is sexist. When this rule is applied, every case involves men applying it to a woman. Men never apply it to men. This indirectly prevents women from working their way up the leadership ladder (if the church allows it), so even if the woman wants to apply the rule, she cannot. Again, they will insist that Potiphar’s wife is in the minority, and Potiphar’s wife unjustly makes all women look like the sexual tempter, from whom innocent men need protection. To an extent, I would agree. Yes, the problem with the rule is that it can have sexist leanings. The solution, however, does not involve abolishing the rule totally. The solution lies in an egalitarian application of the rule. In the Old Testament, when Yahweh establishes a court system for this new nation of Israel, Deuteronomy 19:15-21 says that every court case must have 2 or 3 witnesses. In the New Testament, when Jesus establishes church discipline, Matthew 18:15-19 states that any accusation must have 2 or 3 witnesses moving forward, reiterating Deuteronomy 19:15-21. From both these Old and New Testament Scriptures, ministering should not happen on the individual level, not even one-on-one, for there you have two individuals meeting. Ministering needs to happen on the communal level, even if on the small group of a couple or a few, which can be any combination of men and women. When accountability, church discipline, church decisions, and even simple discipleship and ministering, happens on a communal level, the church thwarts Satan’s evil. One of Satan’s greatest deceptions is convincing Christians that they cannot sin or cannot commit a certain sin. Therefore, when a Christian faces the temptation to that sin, it cannot be wrong, for the Christian commit [that] sin. Similarly, even if the Christian will admit that he or she sinned, Satan deceives them by convincing him or her that he or she is the only Christian who has ever committed that sin, thus creating secrecy out of embarrassment. If the church can get pass that embarrassment to create a culture of open accountability, the church will see less sin and more morality.

In a world of the #MeToo Movement, the world cannot afford to cancel the Joseph/Billy Graham Rule. As a matter of fact, the world needs to embrace the Joseph/Billy Graham for the sake of the #MeToo Movement. There needs to be a third man or woman in there to say “He/She was not flirting with you. You need to back off from him/her.” There needs to be a third person in there to say, “You’re a married man/woman. Keep the relationship platonic.” While not every man or woman begs for sex or falls into sexual temptation, the church cannot risk it. The church must always keep an accountable eye out for sin and temptation. If Christians praised the rule instead of criticizing it, if the church accepted the rule instead of rejecting it, Christians could see immorality in the church drop once more.

Bibliography

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18–50. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 16–50. Vol. 2. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1994.