by Teri Ong

We have been subjected to an almost unprecedented uproar in American society for the past
three weeks. Some of us stopped holding our breath on Saturday afternoon (Oct. 6) when Justice
Kavanaugh was approved by the U.S. Senate to serve on the Supreme Court. Others have been, and some
continue screaming without ever seeming to stop and take a breath, because of the confirmation.
There is a segment of society, predominantly vociferous women and some men with a particular
political agenda, who are trying to convince the rest of us that all women who claim to have been
victimized by men should always (automatically) be believed. They want us to presume that no woman
would make a public statement about having been abused in a shameful way unless the claim were true.
In other words, the shame will only be overcome by a great need to expose the truth.

I know only too well, in ways that pain my heart, that many women have been treated despicably
and criminally in their lifetimes. Many are reticent to expose the truth, and sometimes only extreme
conditions will cause the truth to overcome the shame. But I also know that women are not the only
victims in society at large. It is a lie of the devil that all men are predators and all women are the prey. But
sadly, there have been many voices advancing that lie in the last three weeks, and not because they truly
care about victims.

The wholesome relationship of man and woman as designed by God was broken in the Garden of
Eden. That is why I say with certitude that the lying voice in our society is that of the devil himself. After
Satan deceived Eve into taking the forbidden fruit, she gave it to Adam, who ate it with eyes wide open.
From that moment, the blame game began. Neither one of them wanted to take responsibility for their
actions. They also experienced a breakdown in the purity of human sexuality. As husband and wife, they
were now ashamed of their nakedness. They were also afraid of relational intimacy and hid themselves.
They were relieved when God was out of the picture. God’s curse was that they would experience a
natural consequence of their sinful choice: there would be an ongoing power struggle between the sexes
that will only be put right in the new heaven and the new earth. (See Gen. 3)

All of these things we have witnessed writ large during the Senate confirmation hearings and
attendant hullabaloo. My concern throughout the process was the sloganeering of those who opposed
Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “Believe the Victim!” “Every victim has the right to be believed!” In my
mind this bit of dangerously oversimplified pop jurisprudence raises some crucial questions.

1. Do the espousers of these slogans really want us to believe the “victim” or do they merely
want us to believe the accuser?
2. On what are we to base our credulity?
3. Does anybody have a “right” to be believed?
4. How are we to determine who is the real “victim” in a given situation?
Let’s analyze each question.

1. Do the espousers of these slogans really want us to believe the “victim” or do they merely want
us to believe the accuser?

In the case of Justice Kavanaugh, three women (all with liberal political views) came forward in
a well-timed, well-orchestrated crescendo of accusations against a man (with conservative views). None
of the three had any corroborating evidence to back up their claims. But many voices engaged in ugly
name calling if anyone questioned the credibility of the women [“racist,” “supremacist,” “sexist,”
“patriarchal pigs,” etc.]. The invective gave new meaning to ad hominem attacks. The voices amplified by
the mainstream media outlets were trying to equate “accuser” with “victim” with no questions asked.
There is a notably similar case recorded in the Bible in Genesis 39. The man in the incident was
Joseph. He was young, handsome, and successful in the household of Potiphar. He had been sold as a
common slave, but had risen to the status of chief in the house, second only to his boss. He naturally came
under the watchful eye of Potiphar’s wife, who was lustfully sexually attracted to him. In the course of
time, she tried to seduce him. Joseph, however, respected his master and feared God. He rejected her
advances on that basis, not just once, but repeatedly day after day.

One day, however, she caught him when there were no other people present in the house. He ran
to escape her evil plans, but his garment tore in her grasp. What follows in Scripture is a depiction of the

truth that “hell has no fury like a woman scorned.” She seized the opportunity to call out to other workers
and accused Joseph falsely of attempted rape.

Potiphar’s wife successfully convinced her husband and local law enforcement that the accuser
and the victim were one and the same. They “believed the victim”– her– and sent Joseph to jail unjustly–
for years! So we should ask, who was the real victim in this historical scenario? The real victim was
obviously Joseph; however, no one but God believed him.

2. On what are we to base our credulity?

The voices resisting Justice Kavanaugh wanted us to base our credulity on one thing – the female
gender of the accusers. If the one accused happens to be a male, there is to be no legitimate defense and
no presumption of innocence. This is what logically follows from believing the lie that all males are
predators and all females are prey.

Human beings are sexually driven beings by God’s design. But as we have seen, that design was
bent and broken in the fall of humanity. Now we are totally depraved in every part, including our sexual
natures. There is no end to the perversions we have imagined and acted upon in this aspect of life. But
perversions and sexual sins do not plague only one gender.

In the case of Potiphar’s wife v. Joseph, the eye witness record is that of God Himself. On that
basis we know that it was Potiphar’s wife who wanted to violate her marriage relationship, commit
adultery, and when her scheme failed, lie about what happened to cover up the true wickedness of her
heart. She was the predator, and Joseph was the prey. I would not hazard a guess about how often that is
the situation on a percentage basis, but it does happen. If it had only happened once, we have sufficient
cause to be careful about believing a woman just because she’s a woman.

Potiphar’s wife did have the circumstantial “evidence” of Joseph’s torn coat, which is more than
any of Justice Kavanaugh’s accusers had. What should have happened in the trial of Joseph? Well, I am
sure there was no legal doctrine of presumption of innocense in Egypt at that time, like there would be
under the Mosaic law (Deut 17:6). But reasonable people should have looked at the proven character of
the accuser and the accused. Joseph was a man of outstanding character. God’s hand was with him in
everything he did, and he found universal favor with those who were over him. It would have been out of
character for him to do what Potiphar’s wife accused him of doing. Potiphar would have been wise to
hear Joseph out before sending him to prison, but Joseph was just a lowly, Jewish slave. He was part of a
despised class of people. What rights did he have, after all? Reason and justice did not prevail.

3. Does anybody have a “right” to be believed?

If anyone had a right to be believed, it was Jesus. His trial for sedition, however, was a complete
sham based on the political correctness and driving social agenda of His day. If He was not believed, who
are we to claim a “right” to be believed?

Some astute commentators on our recent political situation have pointed out that it might be
correct to say that accusers have a right to be heard. But that is a long way from automatically bestowing
victimhood on the accuser, without any sort of due process, or even any critical thinking. Under our
American legal system, people are free to bring a legal charge through the justice system. But it is also
true that the one being accused has the right to face the accuser and answer the charges with his or her
own evidence to the contrary.

Under the Mosaic law, no one could be punished on the word of a single witness because of the
possibility of a “malicious witness.” There had to be more evidence. The Ten Commandments in no
uncertain terms forbade giving false witness. In Deuteronomy, which amounts to the “regulations” that
guide the application of the law, we learn that offering false witness is to be punished severely.
15 ” A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which
he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. 16 ” If a
malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, 17 then both the men who
have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in
office in those days. 18 “The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false
witness and he has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended
to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. 20 ” The rest will hear and be
afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you. Deut 19:15-20 NASU
Scripturally, it is clear that no one class or gender has an automatic right to be believed apart

from substantiated evidence. In the case of Justice Kavanaugh, he was accused by three single witnesses,
none of whom were backed up in their individual accusations by physical evidence or corroborating
witnesses. Hundreds of other witnesses, on the other hand, offered evidence of his good character in a
variety of settings.

4. How are we to determine who is the real “victim” in a given situation?

God has given guidelines for how to proceed in this type of case.
17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the
judges who will be in office in those days. 18 “The judges shall investigate thoroughly,
The accuser and the accused are to face each other before God and the judges. A great
responsibility is put on the judges. They are to investigate thoroughly. Not only that, they are to
understand that they are fulfilling their responsibilities under the scrutiny of God Himself. This is a
missing element in our present-day legal system. I think if we had more of a sense that God, who sees and
knows all truth, is watching how we go about making righteous judgments, we would be more careful and
would not hesitate to ask for His divine guidance.

We know that in His sovereignty, He will sometimes allow injustice to prevail because He has
something bigger in His plan, just as He did for Joseph. Joseph’s time in jail prepared the way for him to
be able to save the nation of Israel, as well as the nation of Egypt, from a horrendous seven year famine.
In the process, Joseph was also restored to his perfidious brothers. I wonder if Potiphar’s wife was still
alive to see Joseph elevated to second in the kingdom. I wonder if she ever regretted her evil, false
accusations.

The other legal principle that might help us is if we had a system that required false accusers to
bear the expected punishment they hoped to inflict unjustly on the accused. We do require those who lose
their suit in certain civil cases to bear the legal costs, as a determent for frivolous suits. There would be a
definite determent factor if we had a punishment in kind for false accusations.

There is often no slam-bang easy way to determine who is a victim and who is a victimizer, apart
from physical evidence. One thing is certain– we cannot make such determinations based on being part of
a politically acceptable classification of people, or on our emotional notions of what kind of person is
“usually” the predator. To do so is to show the worst kind of partiality, which God hates. “ You shall not
show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not fear man, for the
judgment is God’s.” (Deut. 1:17) Remember Potiphar’s wife!