The Goodness of God and the Power of God: On Joseph, Part 2

That'll teach the little brat!--or not.

Last post, we left Joseph in prison.  Far from home, surrounded by pagans, a slave, accused falsely of a heinous crime.  Yet even here, he is characterized by what?  Pining away at the injustice of it all?  Does he cry out like Job, or maybe like David in his darker moments?

Maybe--we are not told.  He may have spent sleepless nights in tears and crying out at the injustice of it all.  Yet if that happened, the Biblical author did not deem it important enough to record.  It wasn't as if the Bible doesn't have those kind of dark nights of the soul recorded--it has plenty of them.  But for telling us about Joseph it wasn't deemed important.

Yet we are told that--in the midst of a stinking, squalid Egyptian prison,

21 But athe Lord was with Joseph and showed him steadfast love band gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison. 22 And the keeper of the prison cput Joseph in charge of all the prisoners who were in the prison. Whatever was done there, he was the one who did it. 23 The keeper of the prison paid no attention to anything that was in Joseph’s charge, because dthe Lord was with him. And whatever he did, the Lord made it succeed.--Gen 39:21-23

Wait, what?  The Lord showed him "steadfast love"?!  The Lord "was with him"?!  He's in prison!!!

Yet this is how the Bible presents it: in the very midst of prison, pain, torture--God is with those whom He loves.  Could God have pulled Joseph out of there?  Of course He could have!  But He did not.  God had other plans.  He did not forget Joseph, He had steadfast love--hesed--on him.  It wasn't when things got better that showed that God had mercy on him--it was there in prison He showed His mercy on him.

And it wasn't that God was just there comforting Joseph.  No, He was active--making whatever Joseph do succeed.  God was not powerless.  God was not passive.  God was not just a vague comfort in the midst of pain.  Rather, the God Who was with Joseph, was actively working to ensure Joseph's work succeeded.

We do not see the picture that God ignored Joseph until his rise to power.  God's covenantal love for Joseph was there in the midst of prison, long before he would come to Pharaoh's attention.  God did not forget His child, but prison was part of His will for Joseph.

Again, it is not "culturally relevant" today to state this.  We are told we're supposed to argue with God, to shake our fists at Him, to have the "catharsis" of screaming at the unfairness of it all.  But it was not viewed this way always.  Indeed, we are the theological outliers.  Oh, we can flatter ourselves with the conceit that we are 'advanced' and more 'sensitive' to those in pain.

Of course, we know what happens next.  Eventually, Joseph encounters two important officials of Pharaoh, accurately interprets their dreams--and is forgotten for another two years.  Finally, after more years of misery, Joseph comes to Pharaoh's attention, is elevated to be Vizier of Egypt, and saves both Egypt and many other people from a devastating famine.

Years later, Joseph's father Jacob (Israel) dies, and his brothers are scared of Joseph's wrath.  So they plea for mercy, saying "Dad didn't want you to punish us" (perhaps a lie, perhaps not--again, we are not told.)  Joseph's response?

19 But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for ham I in the place of God? 20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but iGod meant it for good, to bring it about that many people2 should be kept alive, as they are today.--Gen 50:19-20

Note what I bolded above.  Joseph doesn't say "You threw God for loop for a little bit, but He was able to fix it up."  No, he speaks of intention:  Joseph's brother's intended evil; but God intended good.  God wasn't faced with having to fix something to thwart the plans of evil men.  Rather, God intended Joseph's trial to bring about good.  God had an intention around Joseph's suffering.  No, it did not alter the fact that his brothers meant evil--but God had His reasons, and His reasons were good.

Again, we do not like this message.  We do not like the suggestion that pain and suffering can bring about good.  Oh, sure--we accept the adage "no pain, no gain" when it comes to exercise.  We may even appreciate delay of gratification (though even that seems to be a dying viewpoint.)  But we are faced with horrible evil that seems to us to have no good purpose--this is to bring about good?  Senseless acts of butchery and carnage--this is for good?!

Consider the alternative for a moment: if God is as we theists claim, He could instantly stop any and all evil.  But He does not.  So we are faced with a God who allows such evil because (a) He has some purpose or (b) He has no purpose.

Think about that for a moment: God allowing suffering--for no purpose?  That is somehow better than the viewpoint that God actually has a purpose?  Not just from a moral standpoint--God just ignoring evil--but from a coherence standpoint: how is purposeless evil coherent with the theistic conception of a God who is a Personal Being (or Tri-personal from the orthodox Christian viewpoint) who acts according to purpose and volition?

And turning to the pages of the New Testament, we see exactly the same picture of God.  Stay tuned for more.