Maybe the starkest contrast between the Qur’an’s version of Joseph’s life and that of the Bible’s is how God is depicted.
God is BIG in Genesis. He fills the room. This is God with thunder and lightning and awe-inspiring actions of creation, protection and deliverance. The God of Genesis is active and visible. Water parts and land rises. Life springs where it was not moments before. God walks in a garden and confronts sin face to face. Earth is created, then uncreated, then created again. This God talks to people, shows up in dreams, visits your encampment. He gives senior citizens babies. He commands the inexplicable, then delivers by an angel and ram. If your lucky, he might even come and wrestle with you until you win a blessing. This is God in all his majesty and power, a God who is immanent and tangible.
That is until you come to the Joseph story in the Bible. Scholars have long noticed the change. Terence Fretheim describes it this way:
The Joseph story depicts the Creator God in ways somewhat different from chaps. 12-36. Although not mentioned less often (some fifty times), God acts in less direct ways. God does not offer oracles (God never appears to Joseph) and miracles; rather, God weaves the threads of goodness, mercy, and judgment into the texture of ordinary life, both private and public, working toward the best possible end. Joseph associates with no centers of worship and builds no altars. Yet God is with him, blessing him at every turn, and he is imbued with God’s spirit. (Fretheim, The Pentateuch, 91).
The author of Genesis is making the point that God is more than just the flash and bang of Cecil B. deMille movies. Sure, God is that, see chapters 1-36. But God also fades into the background of life or, maybe said a different way, He becomes so fused into the everyday workings of life that others become major characters (i.e., Joseph). This reads like a story of Joseph and his conniving brothers, but what they were intending to be a curse on the surface, God was working together underground to be a blessing (Gen. 50:20). God is talked about more than He talks in this story. He is there, there should be no doubt, but in much less obvious ways. Samuel Terrien called this the “elusive presence” of God. The point from Genesis: to really “know” and relate to the God of the Bible it is necessary to embrace this much more subtle Guide as well as the mighty Creator or strong Deliverer.
In the Joseph or “Yusuf” stories of the Qur’an, Allah remains every bit as active and obvious as He has been up until this point. This God cannot be viewed as subtle in any way. Same story, many of the same details, but God is more out front than He is in Genesis. For example:
- We know right from the beginning (not the end like in Genesis) that God has chosen Joseph and will be blessing him (12:6)
- God verbally reassures Joseph to go with his deceitful brothers because he will get a chance to confront them later (12:15)
- Jacob looks to God as a present source of comfort when he receives the news of Joseph’s (fake) death (12:18)
- God is right there keeping track of the misdeeds of the caravaners who take him to Egypt (12:19)
- God actively “settles” Joseph in Egypt and “teaches” him how to interpret dreams (12:21-22)
- God has given Joseph evidence of His presence before Egypt in order that Joseph would develop a faith that could withstand the temptations of Potiphar’s wife (12:24)
- Joseph prays (something I don’t believe ever happens explicitly in Genesis) and God actively strengthens him in sexual temptation (12:33-34)
- Satan is blamed for Joseph’s fellow prisoner forgetting him and leaving him in prison (12:42) and for the discord between Joseph and his brothers (12:100). This one is quite different from Genesis. Satan is no where to be found, rather God uses negative things to accomplish his goal. One could validly argue that God allowed or even caused negatives (i.e., being taken to Egypt and being thrown in prison) in order to create the greater good of saving Egypt and Abraham’s seed from sure death in the famine of that time. It appears the Qur’an is not comfortable with this, and inserts Satan as a way to separate God from the negative.
- God is the active force that makes Joseph an Egyptian governor (12:56)
- Even Joseph’s brothers know God is the “decider” of all things (12:80)
- Credit and praise to God is all over the scene where Joseph is reunited with his brothers (12:90-91)
To be fair, there are two caveats in this surah in which the author acknowledges that not all will acknowledge the active presence of Allah:
God always prevails in His purpose, though most people do not realize it. (12:21)
My Lord is most subtle in achieving what He will. (12:10)
It seems what we are finding here is a stronger view of the providence of God in Islam than in some versions of Christianity. A fundamental tenet in Muslim theology is the supreme power of Allah. He controls all things. This is best said in this passage by Jacob, “all power is in God’s hands” (12:67). If it happens, it is because it is God’s will. You will notice many modern Muslims will qualify their plans with insha Allah (If God wills it so) because of this view. Previously we have read this ayah:
Nothing will happen to us except what God has written for us. (9:51)
In the Qur’an, God is the active, providential overseer and engineer of all things. Allah cannot be anything less than active and involved. It appears we are seeing an aspect of Islamic theology that is non-negotiable. At least amongst the majority of Muslim theologies, there is no room for an “elusive presence” or “hidden God.” This is a very high version of God, but it is also a very controlling version. Allah is not the responsive God of open theism or process theology. He is not the accommodating God of theologies that uphold the freedom of humanity. Of course, there are versions of Calvinistic Christianity that have a similar view of God’s sovereignty.
Maybe the supreme control of God is a comforting idea. Maybe it is troublesome because there are things that happen that we do not want to associate with God’s agency. Maybe this just doesn’t conform to our experience. How do you feel about it?
A Christian Reads The Qur'an 
June 8, 2011 at 11:57 AM
“The author of Genesis is making the point that God is more than just the flash and bang of Cecil B. deMille movies. Sure, God is that, see chapters 1-36. But God also fades into the background of life or, maybe said a different way, He becomes so fused into the everyday workings of life that others become major characters…God is talked about more than He talks in this story. He is there, there should be no doubt, but in much less obvious ways. Samuel Terrien called this the “elusive presence” of God. The point from Genesis: to really “know” and relate to the God of the Bible it is necessary to embrace this much more subtle Guide as well as the mighty Creator or strong Deliverer.”
As a Harding Academy alum who lives and works and studies behind enemy or even Egyptian lines, compared to my peers who might make more comfortable comparisons on campuses like HU or LU, I thought these were pretty crucial points. From my MHA tenure, I’d say I identify with the dichotomy between talking about God and God talking. But opposite to the Genesis passage, it seems that we figure God recedes into the background the less he is talked about and becomes more subtle when he talks himself.
We take cues like these, to be still and know and to let God fight for us. We love these verses. Dynamically translated, I’d say they sound a lot like “carve some time out to read the Good Book”, or “take time out of your day to find a peaceful place to pray.” At lease in the circles I’ve been in, sentences like these are fixtures of our rhetoric–at least in my Bible class/WSYG experience.
Now, these are good points that proffer a proactive and meaningful pursuit of harmony with the will of God–his good, pleasing, and perfect will, but I feel that in this “carve out some time” style of speaking, we imply that worship and communion with the Creator is a subtractive experience. Although worthy of sacrifice, of “taking away” other things to make room, things like study of scriptures and prayer arguably perform on a more fundamental and indispensable level to be on negotiable terms with the things we think we should sacrifice for them–talking on the phone with friends, being on facebook, studying or practicing whatever to the detriment of our spirituality. When we talk like this, it seems to me that we are arguing, “Sacrifice your dairy and vegetables for grains and starches.” We can’t rightly rearrange the food pyramid (which has recently been updated) as much as we have to respect the priority it represents. Much like your writing “But God also fades into the background of life” seems to connote a passive, bypassed God as opposed to “He becomes so fused into the everyday workings of life that others become major characters.” In the revised version, SAID IN A DIFFERENT WAY, God performs essentially the same action with a whole new continent of connotations and implications about his character.
And then we come to the point where talking about God gives way to God’s talking. I’m pretty sure a concurrence is possible, like God talking about himself through us, if you will. But. To speak plainly, when I am at Rhodes, I probably say the most about God without mentioning his name. Kind of like, “Preach the Gospel, when necessary use words.”
It becomes a very external, active practice to preach the peace of God. At Harding, it seemed more like an introspective maintenance. Is there a place for both? Of course. Just like there’s an infirmary and a front line on any battleground. But, I feel my time on the front has naturally led me to say things in a different way. To keep up the analogy, I don’t feel my change of language is a syncretism or dissipation of speech as much as its a nod at how necessary it is for the infirm to have an intimate grasp of their English in case foreign phonetics mislead their ear once they are where I am.
To do away with the metaphor, you’ll be familiar with how frustrated I was when my peers found it more fit to argue clapping , instrumental music, and the role of women in church than how we ought to translate ancient texts into contemporary use. Punctilios, preferences, instead of well, practical, practice and community improvement. The whole “lost” rhetoric really chapped my hide, too. But, same song, a later verse.
In sum, it turns out what we say means a whole lot. But not much more than how we say it. When we pander the verse, “Therefore, I urge you brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your body’s as living sacrifices holy and pleasing to the Lord for this is your spiritual act of worship,” to how loud we sing in chapel or Peak of the Week–well, we’ve done well to suit a certain scripture to a modern context. But. When this modern context entails how comfortable or cool we feel in an air-conditioned room with projectors and elaborate murals (and sometimes six or seven plasma screens) when lifting our voices to someone we hail as Redeemer of the Universe–what does that say about us? Are so consumed with our image, so petty that we have to overcome a complacency to SING to the LORD, a pretty essential human experience?
And what happens when a younger student takes the cue and uses the above as a conventional Call to Worship (this example is true to the formula, trust me)? What does that sound like to someone who doesn’t live next to this waterfall? A stranger to WSYG, for instance. He probably doesn’t consciously acknowledge it, but in some tacit way we have told him a struggle of ours: we consider celebration a sacrifice. And sense we are persuading people to sacrifice with a verse he hasn’t heard of, much less bought into, how likely is he to jump in with us in our ambiguous, admittedly ambivalent act of worship?
I realize it is hard to preach to all echelons of maturity. But, to pace-setters like those keeping up with this blog, it is time to rein the tongue while we preach how powerful it is. That means treating with utmost precision how we describe our quiet time with God, and it might mean discriminating “sacred” from “set aside” or “carved out.” It might mean that some synonyms do not suffice. It might mean that although our audience may not consciously grasp the difference, we still suggest meat will better sustain them even though they are accustomed to milk.
To raising the bar,
Dylan
June 8, 2011 at 4:50 PM
Dylan, that’s what I love about your comments. You hit the topic and six others. Always stimulating! I hope to respond soon. Lot’s to think about in this one!
June 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM
Sorry i haven’t responded sooner.
I really appreciate your reminder that we need to be careful how we talk, so to speak. I especially respect that you have a unique perspective on the matter and that you think soberly about all things.
I love what you say about talking about God more now without mentioning his name. Intriguing! I love the idea of that. Can you give an example of how you have done that recently?
I think you are exactly right about speaking the language of the people we are with, at least within reason or at least to the degree that we are talking about actual language. There are certainly actions that cancel out our words, don’t you think?
I think you have described the need for an internal and external spiritual life well. They are two sides of the same coin. We need quiet, reflective, individual time but we also have ministry to do in the world, dven if that ministry is simply to live as Jesus would in the everyday tasks we have set before us today. We should resist rhetotic that makes it seem like these are separate, disconnected or hierarchical. How can wr serve the world without a quiet center, but what good is it to be so different or distant from the world that we are never engaged or welcome? Jesus is the best example I know of someone who did both.
Okay . . . I was with you till the last paragraph, and I sense that it is the most important and practical point. I could take what you are saying several different ways but I am more interested in knowing exactly what YOU are suggesting. Can you give it to me again, maybe with specific suggestions?
June 9, 2011 at 1:38 AM
I have heard such a mishmash of ideas about the power and control of God throughout my Christian life that I often wondered just how He does work. Then I would realize again (and again and again) that I am not going to understand the mind of God; He is God, I am human, a created being. So, I just continue to contemplate the way He exercised His control in the lives of Biblical people and remind myself to be still and listen for His voice today..
As I read Surah 12, I saw lines that made me think that He cares for his followers and allows humans freedom of choice also. Joseph had the choice in how he responded to the unpleasant events of his life, but he needed help from his God and it was provided.
But I also saw several lines that could be interpreted to show God is very controlling, favoring some but not others. God had a plan that required Joseph to be enslaved (15, 76). God keeps some (Joseph in this case) from evil and indecency (24). God answered Joseph’s prayer and protected him from treachery (34). Unless the Lord shows mercy, man’s very soul incites him to evil (53). God grants His grace to whomever He wills (56). God raises the rank of whoever He wills (76). God allows Satan to sow discord (100). God saves who he pleases, but punishes others (110).
It seems to me that the Qur’an, like the Bible, shows God in both lights. And, it seems to me that some Muslims, like some Christians, latch onto one view or the other and carry it to an extreme. It seems to me that we need to seek a balanced view of God; He is both judge and father..
In all my reading of the Qur’an so far, I continually find myself grateful that Yahweh God came in human form to make me his friend and to show me the way of love.