Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: March 17
Today is: Friday, April 26th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of March: (Show All Months)
It is not, however, our intention to dwell on the incidents of this or any other parts of Joseph’s story, seeing that no repetition of them that we ever saw, preserves half the force of the original narrative. We shall be content to illustrate some remarkable or obscure points of it, and to gather up the indication of Egyptian usages which it affords.
In the narrative of Joseph’s temptation, what strikes one as greatly different from modern Egyptian usage, is the free access which Joseph and the other men-servants have to their mistress. This surprises the Eastern reader of the narrative; but to us it seems natural, being much in accordance with our own customs. Now this circumstance, so adverse to oriental notions, is remarkably in accordance with what we know of the Egyptians, and supplies one of the many incidents found in the history of Joseph, to confirm the verity of the sacred record. Indeed this history must be regarded as the most remarkable and interesting account of the ancient Egyptians that we possess, and in fact the only account of such ancient date, if we except perhaps some of their own monuments.
It is, then, admitted, on the evidence of the ancient historians, confirmed by the history of Joseph, and by that of the monuments, that the women in Egypt were indulged with greater privileges than in any other country; and this we may certainly accept as an evidence of their higher external and social civilization. The Greek historians seem, indeed, to ascribe a certain superiority in Egypt to the women over the men; but this does not seem to have been true, although the statement may be accounted for, by considering the impression which the polite and formal obeisance of men’s strength before woman’s weakness and delicacy—such as exists also in modern Europe—would make upon Greek travellers, whose usages were so very different. It is just as if an Oriental should infer, from the deferential attention, which females receive from men under our social system, that women here rule over men, and should deem his discovery confirmed by the fact that a lady reigns over the land. The same phenomena might, indeed, even to this extent, be witnessed in Egypt, where the royal authority and supreme direction of affairs, were entrusted, without reserve, to women. Even the mistakes into which the ancient writers fell, in viewing the customs of the Egyptians regarding women, from their being so precisely similar to those into which an Oriental would fall respecting those of civilized Europe, serve to show us where the truth lay. That the wife of Potiphar was enabled from day to day to converse with Joseph, and that the male servants of the household could come before her at her call, is a fact as astonishing to an Oriental as anything he would witness in our own customs. It shows that the ladies of Egypt enjoyed quite a European measure of freedom at home. Nor, probably, were they subject to modern oriental restraints abroad. On this point there are few facts; but at a later period we find the king’s own daughter walking down to the river, with her maidens, with such freedom and unreserve as allowed of her being accosted by a stranger. Exo_2:5-7.
At some of the public festivals it is known that women were expected to attend—not alone, like the Moslem women at a mosque—but in company with their husbands and relations. Josephus, indeed, states that it was an occasion of this kind, when it was the custom for women to go to the public solemnity, “that the wife of Potiphar, having pleaded ill-health, in order to be allowed to stay at home, was excused from attending, and availed herself of the absence of her husband to make her last and deliberate assault upon the virtue of Joseph.”
In this instance, also, it is seen that the Egyptian, although a person of high office, and evident wealth, has no more than one wife. We are informed by Diodorus that the Egyptians were not restricted to any number of wives. But it would appear from the testimony of Herodotus, that it was nevertheless customary to take but one; and the numerous scenes in the ancient mural paintings illustrative of their domestic life, confirm the testimony that a plurality of wives was exceedingly rare. So it is also among the Mohammedans of the present day, who, although allowed by their law to take four wives without sin, very rarely have more than one. Such was, and indeed is now, the case among the Hebrews themselves, who are not by their law restricted in this respect, but among whom a plurality has been and is the rare exception, and not the rule.
Some people have wondered that when Potiphar listened to his wife’s accusations, be did not at once put Joseph to death, seeing that he had power to do so, as the offender was his own slave, and the offence a capital crime. It has been urged, indeed, that Potiphar had a two-fold right over Joseph’s life, not only as his slave, but as being captain of the guard, which is thought by some to have given him an absolute power of life and death over all his own servants, and all connected with the court. The latter is a great mistake. The sovereign alone—or those invested with delegated sovereign power as governors of provinces—have ever had such power in the Egyptian, or have it in any oriental court. All cases but such as the sovereign himself decides—and his power is absolute in his own court, and over his own house hold—must go before the courts of justice. If, therefore, Potiphar had wished to inflict death upon Joseph, he could only have done it by bringing the matter before the king, or before the judges, and as an officer of the court, the former would probably have been his alternative. Then, as to putting him to death as his slave, that was not allowed by the laws of Egypt—just laws for the most part, which, while they sanctioned slavery, forbade the master to put the slave to death. Furthermore, notwithstanding the assertion too often made, that the crime of adultery was punished with death among all ancient nations, it was not so punished by the Egyptians. The punishment of the woman was to have her nose cut off, and of the man to receive a thousand stripes. If, indeed, it were proved that violence was used towards a free woman, the man was indeed subject to a cruel and inhuman punishment, but was still not to be put to death.
These facts help us to understand the conduct of Potiphar, and show us why, when Joseph was charged with this dreadful crime, he did not slay him, or subject him to any immediate punishment, beyond casting him into the prison in his own house, in which persons accused of crimes within the verge of the court, were detained until their cases could be investigated.
He could not, put him to death; and thus is explained what some have been unable to account for, but by supposing that Potiphar did not really believe the charge brought against Joseph by his wife. But the Scripture expressly says, that he did believe her; for it states that “his wrath was kindled” by her recital, and that it was in consequence of this kindling of his wrath that he cast Joseph into prison. This was, in fact, all that he could do, unless, perhaps, to cause him to be beaten, which, at the time, might scarcely seem to him an adequate punishment. He reserved him for something worse. But as he detained him so long in prison, without bringing the matter to an investigation and punishment, which it was only possible for him to do in consequence of his position as master of the prison; it would seem, that on cooler reflection he had some misgivings on the subject, or felt reluctance to make the affair a matter of public scandal, and was, therefore, well content that Joseph should remain in prison, especially when he found that, even there, he had made himself useful, and that he could be there kept in a quiet manner, out of the way of his wife.