Good evening, and welcome to EBible Fellowship’s Bible study in the book of Genesis.  Tonight is study #9 in Genesis 39, and we will read Genesis 39:12-20:

And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out. And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth, That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice: And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got him out. And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home. And she spake unto him according to these words, saying, The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me: And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out. And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spake unto him, saying, After this manner did thy servant to me; that his wrath was kindled. And Joseph's master took him, and put him into the prison, a place where the king's prisoners were bound: and he was there in the prison.

I will stop reading there.  We see that Potiphar’s wife lied concerning what had happened when Joseph came into the house.  She was the instigator.  She was the adulterous one on a daily basis.  When Joseph refused her advances, she took hold of his garment, and she came up with a plan to turn things around and accuse Joseph of doing what she had been trying to do.  She must have been very upset and angry with him, so she told her husband Potiphar that Joseph had done these things, and Potiphar’s wrath was kindled, and he put Joseph into the prison where the king’s prisoners were bound.  That is how this passage will conclude, and then we will read of Joseph’s experience in the prison.

Before we get into our passage, I would like to discuss something related to Potiphar.  A listener contacted me and pointed out that the language that describes Potiphar being an officer of Pharaoh may indicate that he was a eunuch.  If we go back to the first verse of this chapter, it says in Genesis 39:1:

And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmeelites, which had brought him down thither.

The word “officer” is a word that is translated as “eunuch” many times.  It is also translated as “officer” or “officers,” normally in relationship to the royal court, and of being a servant of the king. 

It is translated as “eunuch” in Isaiah 39:7:

And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.

That was God’s prophecy to King Hezekiah of Judah.

Also, it says in Isaiah 56:3-5:

Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to JEHOVAH, speak, saying, JEHOVAH hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith JEHOVAH unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

So the word “eunuch” is this word translated as “officer.”  We also read in Jeremiah 38:7:

Now when Ebedmelech the Ethiopian, one of the eunuchs which was in the king's house, heard that they had put Jeremiah in the dungeon; the king then sitting in the gate of Benjamin;

Ebedmelech was used of God to rescue Jeremiah out of the dungeon, and he was a eunuch that served in the king’s house. 

Again, whenever we read the word “eunuch,” it could be translated as “officer.”  We understand that often in ancient civilizations when they brought someone to the king’s house where the king’s wives were located, they would turn them into eunuchs.  The castrated them, and then they would not have to worry about sexual relationships going on in the palace among the royal family.  So Ebedmelech the Ethiopian was a eunuch.

Also, from everything we can read, this also applied to Daniel and his friends when they were carried into Babylon.  We read in Daniel 1:3:

And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;

This would serve to fulfill the prophecy we read in Isaiah 39 that said that Hezekiah’s sons would be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon because some of these children were of the king’s seed.

Then it says in Daniel 1:7-10:

Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego. But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king.

Given that Daniel and his friends were under the authority of the prince of the eunuchs, there is a strong implication that they were made eunuchs, and that is why the prince of the eunuchs is feeding and instructing them.  He is teaching them how to be a proper eunuch within the kingdom of Babylon. 

Eunuchs were often considered to be officers of the court.  We have an example of that in the New Testament in the book of Acts regarding the Ethiopian eunuch.  It says in Acts 8:27-28:

And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

This man was soon baptized by Philip, and from every indication he became a true child of God.  God saved the Ethiopian eunuch, which reminds us of what we read in Isaiah 56 when God said that although a man be a eunuch, God would give him the name of a son and an everlasting name.  This particular eunuch had great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians. 

So these are some examples of how the word “officer” became associated with the a “eunuch.”  Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego became officers within the kingdom of Babylon.  It was Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego that refused to bow down to the king’s image, and they were thrown into a fiery furnace.  Yet they survived because God fully protected them.  Afterwards, we read in Daniel 3:30:

Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in the province of Babylon.

They would have had positions of great authority and power, just as Daniel became a great man within the kingdom of Babylon after interpreting the king’s dream.  But even prior to that, the fact that he could get near the king and be considered as an interpreter indicated that he had a position of official authority of some kind.  So a “eunuch” became interchangeable with the idea of an “officer.”

So when we read “eunuch,” we can think of an “officer,” and vice versa, although I would still allow for the possibility that in our account in Genesis 39 regarding Potiphar and his wife, the word “officer” may have applied to individuals who were not eunuchs.  I do not know that for sure, but I am saying it could be a possibility because Potiphar had a wife, historically.  But there could also be an explanation for a eunuch to have a wife in the sense that he could have gotten married for social or political reasons.  I think that is also possible, but because he did have a wife, maybe he was not a eunuch.

However when we look at the spiritual meaning of this word “officer,” and it is referring to Potiphar, we can understand that he was a “eunuch” of Pharaoh.  That is how we can understand that word because it is the same word that is translated as “eunuch” in these other verses.  And our real interest is the spiritual meaning.  Potiphar’s physical condition – eunuch, or not – is a slight curiosity because he had a wife, but our interest is not in the living arrangements between this man and his wife.  Our interest is in who he represents spiritually, and he represents God in his marriage to national Israel, as Potiphar’s wife is a picture of national Israel.

What does this tell us about that relationship?  It would definitely apply, as God would not use this word if He did not want us to look at a spiritual scenario wherein Potiphar is a figure of God in the marriage relationship with Israel, and he is lord over the house in which Joseph came to be a servant.  Regarding his relationship with his wife, we can gather that there was no “intimacy,” spiritually.  This is teaching us that between God and national Israel, there was no intimacy as “husband and wife,” other than in appearance and the fact that they had entered into a marriage of sorts. 

You know, God’s marriage to national Israel is rather strange, when we think about it.  It was an unusual marriage.  We know that God is married to His elect people; Christ is the Bridegroom, and each one who became saved is the bride.  That has been true throughout the entire history of the world.  That relationship between Christ and His true people has always been in operation.

We also know that God is married to mankind.  That is, the Law of God is in a marriage relationship with every human being.  When a sinner married to the Law sins, he is committing spiritual adultery against the husband, the Law of God, and the Law condemns that person, and the Law will take vengeance on the last day by “stoning him to death,” spiritually, bringing him to death in payment for breaking the Law.

We understand these two types of marriages, but the marriage to Israel was different than either one of those marriages.  When God entered into a marriage with Israel, it was actually a marriage to the institution.  For example, in Jeremiah 3 God tells us about this marriage.  It says in Jeremiah 3:1:

They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?

Notice that marriage is being likened to a land here.  Then it goes on to say in Jeremiah 3:1-3:

…but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith JEHOVAH. Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness. Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed.

Then it says in Jeremiah 3:8:

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Here, God is speaking of His marriage to Israel, and He gave her a bill of divorce, and that is how we know that it is not to the Law.  I was thinking about that.  Was God’s marriage relationship to Israel sort of an outworking of  marriage to the Law because Israel was duty-bound to be faithful in keeping the Law of God?  They were to worship and serve God only, and when they failed to do so God found fault with them and judged them repeatedly.  So there was this type of legal relationship that obligated Israel to obey and be faithful in a similar way as mankind is married to the Law and duty-bound to be faithful and obedient.  And yet mankind failed, and as a result comes under judgment.  So there is similarity there, but it must be more than that because there is no divorce from the Law as far as mankind’s marriage to the Law of God.  The Law of God does not divorce fallen mankind because they have sinned against Him.  He does not do that with mankind, but mankind is held responsible and accountable, and comes under judgment for any failure.  And the final judgment is death: “For the wages of sin is death.”

The marriage relationship of national Israel was similar to the Law of God and its relationship to each individual man in that there was that obligation to obey.  God judged them for their disobedience.  But it was the “land,” the idea of being married to an institution or entity rather than an individual.  We know the vast majority of individuals within the nation of Israel throughout the course of history were unsaved, and yet they would die individually for breaking the Law, and they would not die personally for the breaking of the Law by the institution.  Yes, God could bring judgment on a city using Babylon, for example, and some individuals would die in that way but, ultimately, they would die and not enjoy eternal life for their failure to keep the Law of God as an individual in that marriage to the Law, and not the corporate marriage of national Israel. 

So it does get a bit complicated, but in the marriage between God and Israel, there was very little intimacy right from the beginning.  I think we will just leave it at that.  There are different areas we could think about, but it just does not seem to go too far as far as my understanding in these areas.  But at least we can see the fact that Potiphar is a eunuch married to a wife, and his wife is an adulterous wife.  One thing we can say is that if she were married to a eunuch, historically, that does not excuse her and justify her for going after another in any way because no matter who you married, or the physical condition of the one you married , you are married, and you are to be faithful.  Marriage is to be honorable in all with that one person you have married, and no one else.  So even if her husband were a eunuch, Potiphar’s wife was guilty of adultery.  We have to stress that and make sure it is clear because sinners love to justify their sins: “Oh, my husband does not love me.”  “Oh, my wife is this, or that.”  No, there is no justification for any kind of sin.  It is never justified in any way.

When we get together in our next study, we will continue to look at the spiritual picture in Genesis 39.