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 (šiḵeḇá 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, kehayyôm 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.
