Category Archives: Old Testament

Posted on

What’s so special about the list of names in Genesis 46:7-27?

Everybody loves to read lists of names, right? Not usually, but it’s different if those names bear a special meaning to us. This list symbolizes Israel’s heritage, their own ancestors whom God rescued from famine and brought to Egypt in a time when Egypt welcomed them.

Following are some thoughts about the list. The list is more interested in the ancestors than in precise chronology. For example, of those recorded as going down to Egypt, the timeline does not easily permit Pharez to be old enough to have already fathered Hezron and Hamul (46:12). But because the narrator has noted the deaths of Er and Onan (46:12), and because Pharez inherits Er’s line via Tamar’s exploitation of levirate custom (38:14, 25-30), Pharez’s first two future sons might count for Judah’s sons the way that Joseph’s first two counted as Jacob’s sons (48:5). (The firstborn always received a double portion of the inheritance.)

The narrator enumerates those who came to Egypt with Jacob. These were far more numerous than the one heir in whom Abraham found the promise fulfilled, yet also a far cry from “As the stars are, so shall your seed be” (15:5; 22:17; cf. 26:4). They remained few in number, but the numbers of those who would leave Egypt generations later would indeed dwarf these figures many times over (even if, as many scholars suggest, they include an element of ancient population hyperbole)—virtually innumerable, as the stars were thought to be (Deut 1:10; 28:62). (Undoubtedly there were also others who came with Jacob besides those in the list, but these are his “direct descendants” [46:26, NASB, NIV; cf. 46:6-8]; other workers may have been assimilated into the tribes at a later time, perhaps during Israel’s enslavement in Egypt.)

How does the narrator calculate? The grandsons listed in 46:8-15 total 25 (of whom two died in Canaan), plus two great-grandsons; to these we may add the six sons, bringing the total to either 31 or 33 (depending on whether one subtracts the two who died in Canaan and thus did not come to Egypt); Dinah is also named along with other daughters who are not named (46:15; cf. 37:35), but the total count remains 33 (46:15). The grandsons listed in 46:16-17 total 13, plus a granddaughter and the two sons, for a total of 16 (46:17). The grandsons listed in 46:20-21 total twelve, plus the two sons, totalling 14 (46:22). The grandsons in 46:23-24 number five, plus the two sons, totalling seven (46:25). The total of the totals yields seventy (46:27), or with Joseph and his two sons subtracted, 66 (46:26). Seventy minus three should be 67; the 66 figure could have subtracted Jacob himself, but he does not figure in the original count. Surely Jacob had other daughters besides the two named in the list; the sons’ wives are also not counted (46:26; we do not hear whether any of Jacob’s own wives remain alive at this point).

All of this suggests either that Genesis’s first audiences were very bad at math or, more likely, that seventy is selected as a rounded number. Why seventy? Recall the seventy nations of Gen 10. God started humanity over with Noah (http://www.craigkeener.org/why-would-god-send-judgment-genesis-6-9/), but promised not to again destroy the earth with a flood; this time he starts humanity over in a new way, through Jacob’s children and the promise that their seed bears for the future. Through them, God would restore the worship of the one true God to humanity, particularly to those who would become part of a new humanity of God’s true followers. Looking back at history, we can marvel as we see how God used Israel as an agent of his purposes for the world—a small people here, but with an immeasurable influence on the destiny of humanity as a whole.

Posted on

Jacob’s faith renewed—Genesis 46:1-4

In the face of tragedy, we sometimes forget how much God is with us. Jacob didn’t believe that he had seen the great events reported in the stories of his father and grandfather (cf. 47:9), not knowing that subsequent generations would tell his story along with theirs. When we have come through the trials and look back, however, we often can see God’s faithfulness. If we do not recognize it in this life, it will be openly evident in the world to come; but it’s often there for us if we have eyes to see. News of Joseph’s survival and flourishing transforms Jacob. Broken by the loss of his wife and son, Jacob now gets new eyes to see.

Jacob sets out for Egypt, to be reunited with his son before Jacob dies (45:28). When Jacob reaches Beersheba, he sacrifices (46:1). The narrator deems this site important, reiterating it in 46:5; Jacob, his father Isaac and grandfather Abraham had all sojourned there (21:31-33; 22:19; 26:23, 33; 28:10), and both Abraham and Isaac had called the site Beersheba (“Well of the Oath”) because of covenants sworn there (21:31; 26:31-33). (Jacob sacrificed for a different covenant elsewhere, in 31:54.) This was one of the sites where Abraham had called on the Lord’s name (21:33). Of course, Beersheba appears here rather than other sacred sites such as Bethel because Beersheba is in the south, on the way toward Egypt. But it would also mark the southern border of the land of Israel (cf. e.g., 1 Sam 3:20; 1 Kgs 4:25), a place where Jacob’s descendants could also remember God’s works.

In the ancient Near East, people more often expected divine dreams when they slept in sacred places. Whether this is a dream or a vision while awake (cf. 15:1, 12), it is consistent with how God had often spoken through dreams, including to Jacob (28:12; 31:10-11) and to Joseph (37:5-10) and to those whose dreams Joseph interpreted (40:5; 41:1, 5). God here calls Jacob’s name twice (46:2), as he had when calling Abraham (22:11; at the sacrifice of Jacob’s father Isaac); Abraham also appropriately replied, “Here I am” (22:11). “Here I am” was an appropriate response to God or his angel (22:1, 11), and had been Jacob’s response earlier (31:11). (The same pattern holds mostly true in Exod 3:4; 1 Sam 3:10.)

God identifies himself to Jacob as “the God of your father” (Gen 46:3), just as God revealed himsef to Isaac as “the God of your father Abraham” (26:24) and to Jacob as “the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac” (28:13). God encouraging Jacob not to fear (46:3) also recalls earlier revelations. God had urged Abram not to fear, because God would defend him (15:1); the angel of God warned Hagar not to fear (21:17); in the closest parallel to this passage, when the Lord appears at night to Isaac and assures him that he is the God of his father Abraham, God urges Isaac not to fear, because God is with him and will multiply him (26:24).

Although God had earlier warned Isaac against going down to Egypt (26:2), this time Jacob should not fear to go down to Egypt, because God will be with him (46:4) and will bring him back up (46:4). That Joseph will close his father’s eyes (46:4) assures Jacob of his reunion with Joseph; it also hints that God bringing Jacob back to Canaan does not mean during Jacob’s lifetime. Not all of God’s promises are always fulfilled directly in our individual lives; sometimes they are fulfilled in the legacy that, by God’s grace, we get to leave behind. (That “Jacob” in ancient ideology included Jacob’s family seems implied even in 46:5, where not only Jacob but his sons’ children and wives ride the wagons sent to carry “him,” singular, i.e., Jacob.)

God’s promises are faithful. God is dependable.

Posted on

Joseph lavishly welcomes his family—Genesis 45:16-24

Joseph realizes that his brothers are genuinely sorry for what they did to him, and he is now ready to trust them. Fully forgiving his brothers, he lavishes signs of his love on them, signs that should have assured them of his love and favor (though their regrets make this understanding difficult for them; 50:15-18). Had he exposed their past deeds to Pharaoh, they would not have dared settle in Egypt, but Joseph instead secures Pharaoh’s favor for them.

Just as Joseph’s earlier counsel regarding the crops had seemed “good in the sight of Pharaoh and his servants” (41:37), so also the coming of Joseph’s brothers seems good to Pharaoh and his servants now (45:16). Happily, even in the past, Joseph had clearly never informed Pharaoh of his brothers’ past behavior! (Not that even Pharaoh’s highest officials would treat Pharaoh as a confidante, but Joseph was probably one of the people closest to him.)

Pharaoh does not let Joseph simply invite his brothers to come to Egypt, or let Joseph merely provide resources for them on his own. Pharaoh provides wagons to carry Joseph’s father and his brothers’ families (45:17-21). Twice Pharaoh repeats that all the goods of Egypt will be at their disposal (45:18, 20); therefore they may leave many things behind in Canaan, because in Egypt they will receive whatever they needed (45:20). God had given Joseph great favor with Pharaoh, a favor that Joseph by this point knows that he can count on (cf. 46:31—47:12; 50:4).

Joseph shows special favor to Benjamin, his full brother, but his brothers, who had shortly before feared that they might lose Benjamin, are now in no position to complain. Given their father’s earlier concerns for Benjamin’s safety, they were no doubt glad when he earlier received five times as much as any of them (despite the double portion normally due the firstborn; 43:33). His fivefold changes of clothes (45:22) will hardly alarm them now. After all, Genesis probably implies their earlier jealousy about Joseph’s special clothing, a jealousy that had informed their hateful behavior toward him (37:3-4, 23).

In addition to clothes, which functioned as a form of wealth in antiquity, Joseph gives Benjamin three hundred pieces of silver (45:22). Joseph’s brothers had sold him for twenty pieces of silver (37:28); now Joseph offers far more as a gift to Benjamin. Benjamin was the only brother who had not mistreated Joseph, and the brothers who had once acted from their resentment of Jacob’s favoritism toward Joseph have long since learned to regret such resentments. No doubt they also recognize that not only Jacob but God, too, has really favored Joseph, at least as an agent for preserving them all.

God’s people have had a habit of rejecting deliverers or acting jealously against those he raises up to help us, a habit of which we must beware. Certainly the history of rejecting deliverers or other agents of God, such as Joseph (Acts 7:9), Moses (7:25-29, 35, 39) and the prophets (7:52), climaxes in the rejection of Jesus (7:35, 37, 52) and continues in the rejection of true followers who speak for him (7:51, 57-60). I also suspect that some historic Christian anti-Semitism reflects not only arrogance but the tendency of jealousy against claims of chosenness (cf. Rom 11:18-21).

Whereas Joseph had sent the brothers with ten donkeys loaded with grain before, now ten donkeys will carry far more than what Jacob’s house will need for their journey to Egypt (45:23). Joseph’s signs of love do not stop with his material gifts, however. As Joseph sends his brothers away, he warns them not to quarrel en route (45:24). He had earlier urged them not to be angry with themselves for selling him (45:5); perhaps some brothers might wish to assign blame more to some of their group than to others. Joseph had certainly experienced firsthand their quarreling in the past (37:8, 11). By urging them not to quarrel, he shows his knowledge of their character but also his affectionate concern, again seeking to reassure them of his forgiveness and love. Apart from Benjamin, these were Joseph’s older brothers, but providence had now made him the one to look after them. Whatever role God places us in, we may follow Joseph’s godly example of forgiveness and love for those he has placed in our lives.

Posted on

Reconciliation—Genesis 45:5-15

Joseph has finally revealed himself to his brothers (45:1-4), because he has finally found them sufficiently trustworthy (44:33-34). (This is good for Joseph, too, because it restores his connection with his father and the rest of the promised line.) Now, however, his brothers, wary because of where their relationship had last left off (45:3), must also learn to trust him. Joseph explains that the famine will continue for five more years (45:6)—meaning that Joseph’s brothers now have no choice but to depend on him.

But this new relationship was a major part of why God had sent him ahead—to preserve their family (45:7). If Joseph’s ways of testing his brothers leads any readers to question his heart, his thorough forgiveness and benefaction toward them here should resolve it. Years later, when his brothers again fear that only his love for his father has restrained his anger against them (50:15-18), Joseph again weeps and promises to provide for them. They meant selling him for harm, but addressing that was God’s business; God had meant it for good, to save many lives (50:17, 19-21).

It is thus not Joseph, but their own shame that prevents them from trusting and embracing his love for them. Although much was restored, sin still had a consequence for their relationship, obstructing intimacy. That is not to say that it always must do so, but it did so in their case, since Joseph remained in a position far over them and they remained dependent on him. The shame of those against whom we have sinned—God and others—still can hinder our relationships with them, unless we embrace the full forgiveness that God (and some others) offer.

This reconciliation goes further and demands more than most cases of ethnic and social reconciliation today. Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery, an action that under normal circumstances would have led to his death by this time (cf. 42:13, 32). The brother who proposed his enslavement proves he has changed not with mere words but by offering himself to be a slave instead of their father’s new favorite son (44:33-34). Joseph’s forgiveness was generous and free, but his trust did not come cheaply. We dare not underestimate how wronging others damages relationships.

Joseph’s brothers are not the only ones shocked. His message to his father would astonish him and surely would initially seem too good to be true (45:26). Not only is Joseph alive; he holds, next to Pharaoh, the highest position in that part of the world (45:13, 26); further, he loves his father and invites him to join him in prosperous Egypt (45:9, 13). Joseph falling on his brothers’ necks and weeping over them (45:15) recalls the reunion of Esau and Jacob attesting their reconciliation (33:4). Genesis may be offering a moral or an observation: siblings may quarrel in their youth, but they often grow to appreciate one another more as the years go by and they live apart in other settings.

That “his brothers spoke with him” (45:15) might sound anticlimactic, and it probably does reflect the awkwardness of the situation for them (despite them having proved themselves by defending Benjamin). But it reverses their inability to speak to him in 45:3; the restoration of trust has, at least to some extent, begun. No less importantly, it also revisits and reverses their earlier behavior recorded in 37:4: “they were not able to speak with him in peace” (i.e., “peaceably,” NRSV, ASV, WEB; “peacefully,” ESV; “on friendly terms,” NASB; “a kind word,” NIV; “kindly,” NET).

Behind the scenes, the gracious God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has worked to restore a terribly broken family.

Posted on

Joseph reveals himself to his brothers—Genesis 45:5-8

Joseph had been “controlling” himself since 43:31, but he could not control himself any longer (45:1). Joseph sends everyone out as he is going to make himself known to his brothers. This reduces security, but at this point he believes that his brothers will not wish him harm; they have regained his trust.

Sending others out also allows privacy, so he can avoid shaming his brothers; questions of the past would undoubtedly surface, and it is no one’s interests for Pharaoh or others to know this past (47:1-2). Joseph may have also wanted to avoid the Egyptians hearing him weep; he had wept in private in 42:24 and 43:30 (although perhaps partly to keep the matter from his brothers). Genesis reports weeping for the dead (23:2; 37:35; 50:1), but also at emotional meetings or reunions (29:11; 33:4), as here (45:2, 14-15; cf. 46:29). If avoiding knowledge of his weeping is at all a motive, however, Joseph fails in this instance. Often sobbing was explicitly quite loud (21:16; 27:38; 29:11)—in this case so much that those outside heard him (45:2).

On revealing himself to his brothers, Joseph’s first question is whether his father is really still alive, a question he had pressed earlier in 43:27. Jacob was already old when Joseph was sold into slavery. Perhaps Joseph also could not be sure whether his brothers were telling him the truth about their father’s desperate anxiety over Benjamin or whether this was simply an emotional ruse to get him to free Benjamin. Conversely, Joseph knew Jacob’s special love for himself and his brother Benjamin, and Judah’s offer of himself instead of Benjamin suggested love for their father as well as for Benjamin. The clearest point here is that Joseph still deeply loves his father and longs to see him.

His brothers are too afraid to answer him, so Joseph summons them to come near (45:4; the command appears earlier in Genesis but in a very different situation, 27:21, 26). Their silence reveals their fear (of Joseph’s revenge) and/or shame (for their behavior), so Joseph addresses the issue openly. Yes, they had sold him to traders heading for Egypt (37:25). But he urges them (45:5) not to remain grieved or angry with themselves. (Genesis earlier uses these two Hebrew terms together, in 34:7, where they slaughtered an entire town for its prince’s abuse of their sister; this is their only use together in the Hebrew Bible, probably suggesting his brothers’ propensity for anger against someone who harmed a sibling—in this case, against themselves. That the leaders of the attack in ch. 34 were the victim’s full brothers rather than half-brothers may not minimize the comparison.)

They should not be angry with themselves because their motives were no longer an issue; God was the one who had sent him to Egypt ahead of them (45:5), thus making ready for them to be able to come (45:9). Genesis does not play off human disobedience and God’s action as mutually incompatible—God does not always prevent human sin, but God is so sovereign that, on a higher level, he has a larger plan that can incorporate even actions such as those to accomplish his long-range purposes in history.

God, who can work sovereignly even in the midst of human disobedience, had a larger purpose—to save lives (45:5). In saving the family God had a long-range purpose in history, but God also had a purpose in saving lives in Egypt and Canaan as well (45:5). Joseph’s words here illustrate God’s compassion toward all people. It is God’s ideal, all other matters being equal, to raise up those who will deal wisely and honestly, heeding his warnings, and provide for those who suffer from famine and other kinds of natural disasters.

Posted on

Taking responsibility: Judah has grown up—Genesis 44:16-34

Joseph accuses his brothers of wrongdoing regarding his silver cup (the “you” in 44:15) is again plural. Not realizing that Joseph is their brother, or that the real issue of their wrongdoing is something more than a silver cup, the brothers are frightened.

Judah, however, speaks up. He does not try to show himself or his brothers in the right (44:16); indeed, the only other use of this verb in Genesis is when Judah earlier admits that Tamar was more in the right than he (38:26). Judah confesses that God has revealed their iniquity (44:16); if God is the one who had given them in their sacks (43:23) money, which they once valued enough to sell their brother Joseph, God is also the one who gave Benjamin this official’s cup. They are now facing the consequences of a terrible past sin. Although they could not hope to persuade the official, Judah in fact realizes that, regarding the real offense, Benjamin is the only fully innocent one among them!

Judah’s words undoubtedly stir Joseph’s emotions—and those of Genesis’s informed audience—more than Judah within the narrative can know. Judah pleads for compassion for their aged father, who still mourns the apparent death of Joseph and will die if Benjamin is not brought back (44:27-31). Jacob has never fully recovered from the trauma of losing Joseph, and is deathly afraid of anything happening to his other son by his “wife” (singular, 44:27). (The term that can be translated “harm” in 44:29 appears in Genesis only in Jacob’s fears for what could befall Benjamin in Egypt—elsewhere in 42:4, 38.)

Judah laments that if he and his brothers return without Benjamin they will precipitate their father’s death. Although such language could refer to their role as catalysts of his death, Judah’s words probably also suggest their more direct role—betraying their moral guilt. Had Judah and his brothers not sold their brother Joseph, their father’s life would not be in the same level of danger. Judah is not confessing what they did to their brother Joseph, but for the audience who knows the brothers’ guilt, his words reveal his heart. The sons who gave little forethought to how Joseph’s disappearance would affect their father have experienced his anguish ever since and cannot bear to see it again. Sometimes in our immaturity we act on impulse without considering the consequences; our culture today indeed invites us to follow our desires rather than to recognize that we can and normally should control them.

One might think that this danger for his beloved father alone would sway Joseph’s heart: out of love for his broken father, Joseph dare not keep Benjamin there. But Judah is not finished. He now bears responsibility before his father (44:32) in a way that he had not thought of doing with Joseph. Judah has narrated the setting and now climaxes with his plea: Let Judah himself be a slave rather than Benjamin (44:33), lest Judah have to witness his father’s death.

The one brother directly responsible for selling Joseph into slavery (37:26-27) is now the one who prefers his own enslavement to that of Joseph’s full brother Benjamin. Judah’s experience with Tamar made his own sinfulness impossible to evade (38:26); confronted with the selfish kind of person he had actually been, Judah has changed. Even dysfunctional families can change; God can heal relationships. Israelites who heard this story of their forebears would also recognize both the way people mature in different stages of life and God’s grace forgiving and working to unite their sinful people in the past. (Judah’s leading role also figures in 46:28; he has emerged as a major figure in the narrative, just as his tribe and Joseph’s Ephraimite tribe will be two of the most dominant tribes.)

Joseph had been “controlling” himself since 43:31, but he could not control himself any longer (45:1). He is now about to reveal himself to his brothers.

Posted on

Testing Joseph’s brothers—Genesis 44:14-17

Joseph’s steward detains Benjamin for allegedly stealing Joseph’s silver cup, but permits Joseph’s other brothers to go their way. Instead, they accompany Benjamin as he is escorted back, undoubtedly under guard, to stand before Joseph (Gen 44:13). That Joseph still remained at home (44:14) might surprise the brothers, since work often began at sunrise and Joseph was supervising the distribution of grain (presumably at the moment through subordinates). One who has been hearing or reading Genesis, however, will not be surprised: Joseph undoubtedly plans to allay Benjamin’s fears by revealing himself to Benjamin as soon as possible. Perhaps he might also reveal himself to his other brothers—if they prove trustworthy.

The brothers all prostrate themselves before Joseph, united in their commitment to Benjamin (44:14). Joseph accuses them all (the verb implying “you” is plural in 44:15), although after he hears that only one had the cup (44:16) he insists that he will punish only the one who had the cup (44:17). For the reader or hearer of Genesis, the dialogue drips with irony. Refusing to detain any of the brothers besides Benjamin, Joseph protests, “Far be it from me,” insisting on acting justly (44:17). On the narratorial level, however, this protest may echo the brothers’ protest that they would never have stolen the vizier’s divination cup (44:7); these are two of Genesis’s only three uses of that term of protest. Ironically, it is precisely most of these brothers who years earlier did commit a worse crime than stealing a silver cup; in return for silver, they had stolen their brother (in Hebrew, to “kidnap” is literally to “steal,” as in 40:15; or to “steal a person” or “a life,” as in Exod 21:16; Deut 24:7).

In Gen 44:15 Joseph demands, “What is this deed you have done?”; now in 44:17 he contrasts their misdeed with his justice, since he would not “do” this, using the same Hebrew term. He would send them away “in peace” (44:17), just as he had expressed interest in their peace (43:27; cf. earlier 37:14, with the same Hebrew term). The attentive audience of Genesis may recall that Joseph’s brothers had once refused to even speak with him in peace (37:4, again, the same term).

Joseph, then, will seize only Benjamin. The brothers will not likely mistake this seizure for a trap of Joseph’s design, since this official declines the greater opportunity to enslave them all. Rather than return to their father without Benjamin, however, they would rather support Benjamin as his fellow-slaves (44:16; cf. 44:9). Joseph’s continued insistence on enslaving Benjamin (44:17) reveals to Genesis’s audience that, as far as Joseph is concerned, the test is not yet complete.

Trust, once betrayed, is not easily restored—at least not cheaply. Sin has consequences. Nevertheless, God also often has a plan for restoration.

Posted on

The test: Have Joseph’s brothers changed?—Genesis 44:1-12

Joseph orders his household manager to return his brothers’ money in their sacks and also to place his silver cup in Benjamin’s sack (44:1-2). A drinking cup could be an official’s precious possession (cf. Pharaoh’s cup in 40:11, 13, 21, though the narrator uses a different Hebrew term there). Here it also is something that was obviously present at the meal that Joseph shared with his brothers, although he had been seated apart from them (43:30). Planting this cup in Benjamin’s sack will make it appear that Benjamin had stolen Joseph’s cup during the banquet.

Wronging one’s dinner host was a heinous offense, since shared meals were supposed to create a relationship among those who ate together (Ps 41:9). Their alleged theft thus apparently returns evil for good; in point of fact, they actually already had done “evil” to Joseph, although God had turned it for good (Gen 50:20). That the cup was used for divination (44:5) will sound plausible to the brothers; Egyptians did often use fluids for divination. That Joseph practiced “divination” with this cup (44:5) is surely untrue (cf. Deut 18:10), but again may relate to something true: Joseph was divinely blessed to interpret dreams, including dreams about royal cups (Gen 40:11). Joseph’s supposed ability to divine (even without the cup, 44:15) will explain why Joseph knows so much about them (43:33) and reinforce their fear that God has exposed their past sin (44:16)—which in fact he has, although in a way quite different from what they suppose.

Could Joseph’s plan have gone awry? Possibly, but failure was not likely; the strategy appears to have been planned fairly carefully. What would have happened had the brothers, remembering their previous experience, thought to open their sacks before Joseph’s steward reached them? Even in the mouth of the sack (44:1-2), one might have to dig inside and not simply open the sack to find it (44:11-12); still, they undoubtedly would not need to dig far. Yet it would appear rude to examine the sacks in front of their hosts, and if they discovered the money afterward, their options would be limited. They would have needed to either return with the money, risking possible accusations if (as Joseph might arrange) they were intercepted before returning it, or decide to go on to Canaan with it. Joseph’s steward forestalls any possibility of the latter course in any case by intercepting them quickly, barely outside the city (44:4). Joseph’s plan to stage Benjamin’s arrest could fail only if the brothers offer violent resistance, for which they are presently ill-equipped against Egypt’s might, or if they discover the cup in advance and remove it (especially if they discard it).

Why does Joseph set Benjamin up for arrest? The narrative has already been clear that Joseph harbors no ill-will toward his younger brother, but cares for him deeply (43:29-30, 34). Instead, Joseph wants to take in Benjamin, and must also know whether his other brothers can now be trusted. If the brothers abandon Benjamin to be a slave as they sold Joseph as a slave, Joseph will know that they have not changed. Joseph may expect that, after Benjamin’s momentary dismay at being abandoned, Benjamin will learn Joseph’s identity and find himself at home in Joseph’s courts and the comforts of Egypt. In truth, neither Benjamin nor his brothers would be willing to bring such pain to their father. Joseph, however, cannot know this and he also currently has no access to his father except through these brothers, whom he so far has little reason to trust.

The steward intercepts the brothers just outside the city, as planned (44:4). Accused of having stolen the cup, the brothers emphatically deny it. They do not know whether the supposedly stolen cup is silver or gold (44:8); both were expensive substances often mentioned together (e.g., 13:2; 24:35, 53). That Joseph’s cup is silver (44:2), however, is significant for the narrative, because it was silver for which Joseph’s brothers had earlier sold him.

Forgetting that they previously discovered unexpected money in their sacks (42:27), as if it were a fluke, the brothers speak overconfidently. They dangerously assert that any of them with whom the cup is found shall die (44:9). Jacob had earlier offered just such an assertion regarding Laban’s stolen teraphim, not knowing that Rachel had stolen them (31:32). In that case, Rachel escaped punishment because she was not caught with the stolen property; in this case, however, Rachel’s younger son Benjamin is found with the “stolen” merchandise.

The overconfidence of Benjamin’s brothers has left them no defense. They offered the thief’s life and the others’ enslavement, so Joseph’s steward has already been merciful by requiring the accused one to be merely a slave, allowing the others to go their way (44:10). They can thus go their way without Benjamin—if they are willing.

Believing that God earlier put money in their sacks (42:28; 43:23), the brothers can only assume that God has done the same this time—and also planted the silver cup in Benjamin’s sack. They have already understood that some misfortunes have befallen them, such as the captivity of another brother, because of what they had done to Joseph (42:19, 21).

God knows and can expose the secrets of human hearts (see e.g., Gen 4:9-10; 18:13-15). Indeed, the brothers’ belief that God is exposing them is in a sense correct: through Joseph, God is giving them another chance to decide whether they will act as they once acted with Joseph. They can leave for Canaan with this new gift of silver if they will abandon their brother Benjamin as a slave. They face the test of Joseph afresh: will they again act out of greed and self-interest rather than out of concern for their brother?

Sometimes in his kindness God brings us back to the same tests we have failed before. He is giving us the chance to show that we have changed.

Posted on

Feasting in Joseph’s house—Genesis 43:26-34

When they are taken to the vizier’s house, Joseph’s brothers expect to be enslaved (43:18). Instead, shockingly, the involuntary guests now find their visit the occasion for a feast. Joseph’s order to slaughter an animal for the meal (43:16) suggests a feast, undoubtedly with more meat than the guests could eat. The meal, possible because of Joseph’s foresighted storage of grain for people and animals, contrasts with the famine back home (43:1-2). What would be most shocking to the guests, however, is the transition from being detained as suspected spies during a previous visit (42:16-17)—with Simeon remaining in custody until their return (42:24)—and their present welcome. The key difference here is that Benjamin is now with them (43:16).

This time all eleven of his brothers are together to bow down to Joseph (43:26, 28), as in Joseph’s dreams (37:7, 9). (Perhaps his father can be understood as doing so in 47:31, but his mother, deceased long before this point, obviously cannot, unless indirectly through her son Benjamin [43:29]; probably we are meant to understand that the spirit of the dream in 37:9 is fulfilled, rather than expecting the fulfillment of all its literal details.)

Joseph asks about their welfare and especially that of their aged father (43:27). To inquire about another’s welfare was polite and natural (e.g., Exod 18:7; Judg 18:15; 2 Sam 11:7; Jer 15:5), so much so that in some texts translators often treat it as a mere greeting (many translations of 1 Sam 25:5; 30:21). Joseph, however, has special concern about his father, who is aged; happily, he remains alive (Gen 43:28).

As Joseph sees his brother Benjamin, however, he rushes out because he was moved (43:29-30). A term used here for his compassion (MyImSjår) appears in this form only once elsewhere in Genesis—quite recently, in 43:14, where Jacob prays that God Almighty (El Shaddai) will grant them compassion in the Egyptian official’s sight, to send them and Benjamin away safely. Clearly God here is answering Jacob’s prayer, though no one present at the time realizes this. Joseph’s love for Benjamin underlines by way of contrast his brothers’ past hard heart toward him, though as the narrative progresses it becomes increasingly clear that his brothers have become much more brotherly.

Their seating by birth rank astonishes the brothers (43:33); the term for astonishment here is usually an unhappy astonishment (it appears negatively in Job 26:11; Ps 48:5; Isa 13:8; 29:9; Jer 4:9; Hab 1:5). How does Joseph know so much about them? This special knowledge will gain credence, however, for his later claim to divine knowledge (44:15; cf. 44:5), reinforcing their recognition that God is the one who has exposed their sin (44:16).

Joseph’s generosity, especially toward Benjamin (43:34), will likewise highlight their apparent ingratitude in supposedly stealing from him (44:4). For now, however, experiencing Joseph’s generosity, his brothers lower their guard to the extent of even becoming drunk (the normal sense of the final verb in 43:34, which is the same verb used of Noah’s drunkenness in 9:21). Joseph does not yet observe enough details to know whether they have changed.