The WTS loooves to harp on the story of Joseph fleeing from Potiphar's wife (see this week's Watchtower article). It provides a most convenient moral story with which to command young people to remain celibate till marriage. The aim is noble, but is the basis credible?
I've often wondered if Joseph rejected Mrs Potiphar for reasons OTHER than Chastity. For one, she might have been a toothless, droopy old hag who compensated with heavy mascara. While the Bible described Joseph as a "beautiful" young man twice in the same sentence (Gen 39:6), it is silent on Mrs. Potiphar's looks. The hot temptress is merely the fictitious imagination of those who are trying to exaggerate the integrity of young Joseph.
Another possible reason Joseph chose not to sleep with Mrs Pot might be found in his own rejection speech:
8
But he would refuse and would say to his master’s wife: "Here my master does not know what is with me in the house, and everything he has he has given into my hand. 9
There is no one greater in this house than I am, and he has not withheld from me anything at all except you, because you are his wife. So how could I commit this great badness and actually sin against God?" - Genesis 39:8,9
While I appreciate that it is possible that the Ten Commandments have not yet been produced at that time, it is worth comparing the message of the 10th Commandment (Exodus 20:17) with Joseph's words:
17
"You must not desire your fellowman’s house. You must not desire your fellowman’s wife, nor his slave man nor his slave girl nor his bull nor his ass nor anything that belongs to your fellowman.
Having read both accounts, what I'm thinking here is: Could Joseph's concept of sinning against his master and God revolve around the concept of property ownership and NOT the concept of chastity? Could Joseph have viewed sleeping with Mrs. Pot as an act of STEALING and not an act of LUST? There is nothing in the scriptures to insist on the chastity interpretation.
Some may wonder why should this be an issue. They may reason that "Yeah sleeping with someone's wife is in effect stealing another man's wife. That's called infidelity too."
Well, the difference is that, viewed in this light, Joseph's integrity reflected the male chauvinism of his time. It isn't based on pure righteousness as the WTS would have us believe. Joseph didn't shag Mrs Pot for the same reason he wouldn't have worn Pot's linen underwear or played with Pot's golf clubs. It's all about the toys that can be played with and toys that are exculsive to the master. And if I'm correct, Mrs. Pot was merely an exculsive TOY. And if this is true, it's not the kinda moral lesson you want to teach your kids. It has nothing to do with respecting women or valuing your virginity.
Another point I would like to make is that, if exclusive ownership was the basis of Jospeh's abstinence, who knows how Joseph would have behaved if the enthusiastic gal was not Potiphar's wife, but Potiphar's daughter who's old enough to attract suitors. Potiphar's single daughter is still the exclusive property of Potiphar, but would necking and petting be out of the question if Joseph and daughter were mutually attracted to each other?
Joseph's rejection of Mrs. Pot because she was another man's property should not be used ( as the WTS does) to preach chastity to young single men and women who're mutually attracted to one another. I'm not arguing against chastity, I'm arguing about the basis of such a sermon. We do not know that Joseph would NOT have hanky-pankied with a single woman he fancied of Potiphar's household, ESPECIALLY if the property ownership interpretation is true.
It is time to expose the stretch in the interpretation made by those with a conservative agenda.
INQ