Joseph uses this question to ground his refusal in moral impossibility, shifting the issue from desire or opportunity to theological and ethical obligation that makes compliance unthinkable.

The text does not record any verbal response from Potiphar’s wife to Joseph’s question. However, her persistence is evident in the subsequent narrative, as she continued her advances day after day (Genesis 39:10), ultimately leading to the false accusation when Joseph fled from her physical grasp (Genesis 39:11-18).

Joseph’s question functions as a moral verdict disguised as an inquiry. By asking how he could commit such wickedness, he declares the action morally impossible rather than merely inadvisable. The Hebrew construction emphasizes impossibility through the interrogative ‘eykh (how), suggesting not just difficulty but incompatibility with his identity. Joseph frames the sin in dual terms: ra’ah gedolah (great wickedness) against human trust and chata’t (sin) against God, with the divine dimension climaxing his argument. The question form rather than a flat refusal invites Potiphar’s wife to see the moral landscape he inhabits, where covenant loyalty and fear of God create boundaries stronger than locked doors. Theologically, this reveals that sexual purity is grounded not in legalism but in relational faithfulness to a God who sees and a master who trusts, making sin against either an assault on covenant love itself.