I've used the example of Joseph and his brothers a few times in my paper on Determinism and Freedom. I would ask you to check it out at www.determinismandfreedom.blogspot.com
But I'll cite a couple of portions thereof:
***
God was ultimately in control in spite of the sinful actions of the brothers. It was not God's will for them to plot a murder or to sell Joseph into slavery, but God used their sinful actions to bring about his ultimate purpose: "the saving of many lives". However, in order to accomplish his purpose, God did not bring about the evil thoughts or actions of Joseph's brothers for this would make God the author of sin (Jas. 1:13). Therefore, control does not equal causation. [Section 3 #4]
***
In his debate with Dave Hunt, James White says that compatibilism is biblically tenable, and he provides an example from Genesis 50:20 where Joseph said to his brothers (who had sold him as a slave to Egypt) that they "intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives"... Hunt responds by saying that God did not decree (i.e. cause) the brothers to intend to kill or sell Joseph into slavery, and White replies that their intentions indeed came from their hearts, but that it was still part of God's eternal decree (2004:52, 56). White then chides Hunt for not understanding compatibilism. However, I believe that White does not fully understand the implications of holding to this compatibilistic view as defined by his fellow Reformed brethren. John Feinberg had explained that compatibilism teaches that the eternal decree includes not only God's chosen ends (in this case, the preserving of his people), but also the means to such ends (Joseph's brothers intentions to kill him, and later to sell him into slavery). And in order to decree the means to such an end, sufficient conditions, brought about by God, existed in order for the brothers to act without constraint. This would mean that God brought about the brother's evil intentions, so that they acted without constraint, in order to accomplish the preservation of his people.
White is therefore presumptuous to say that Genesis 50:20 presents the "truth" of compatibilism. The truth is, both Calvinists and Arminians would agree that God intended it (i.e. the brother's evil actions) for good to accomplish his ultimate purpose. The disagreement comes in as to how God exercised his intention. The text is silent here. So we are left to ask ourselves: Did God intend to accomplish his purpose by bringing about their evil intentions and actions (without constraint), or by allowing and using their self-determining actions to accomplish his good will? I believe the latter to be in harmony with the rest of Scripture.
