Why Jacob will not let Benjamin go—Genesis 42:36-38

Recognizing that God is dealing with them (42:28), especially for what they did to Joseph years earlier (42:21), Joseph’s brothers return home anxious and afraid. Instead of viewing the money in their sacks as a divine gift (43:23), they fear that the already suspicious and hostile vizier of Egypt will find more reason to accuse them (42:35). They return to their father with such fears, without their brother Simeon, and with a demand that they bring with them their youngest brother, Joseph’s full brother Benjamin, when they return to Egypt (42:29-35). Not surprisingly, their father Jacob is not willing to entrust Benjamin into their care (42:38).

One can readily understand why Jacob would not send Benjamin with his brothers. On the emotional level, Benjamin was all that Jacob had left of his beloved wife Rachel and his favorite son Joseph (“he alone is left,” 42:38). Jacob’s tragedies have shaped him, and he keeps Benjamin at home because he fears that “harm” may befall him (42:4, 38; 44:29). Jacob’s pathetic overprotectiveness undoubtedly continually reinforces the remorse of his other sons, who know very well why their father lost Rachel’s first son. (Jacob’s fear of “harm on the way” in 42:38 might evoke Rachel dying “on the way to Ephrath,” 35:19, and even likelier Joseph disappearing on a journey to find his brothers. Jacob forgets that God had kept Jacob on his own journey in 28:20; 35:3.)

Not unlike Judah mistrusting his third son with Tamar after the loss of his first two sons (38:11), Jacob is not ready to entrust Benjamin to his brothers who “found” Joseph’s bloodied coat and who have now returned without Simeon (42:36). That the lord of Egypt specifically wants to see Benjamin—of whom Jacob thinks he need not have heard in the first place (43:6)—seems too suspicious and risks Jacob losing the one connection to his original love that he yet retains. And Jacob’s sons, who know far better than Jacob why Joseph really disappeared, know very well that they do not deserve his trust. (Whether Jacob suspected what happened is unclear, although Jacob heard about Reuben’s action in 35:22. That was probably originally meant to be a secret between fewer persons than the ten brothers who knew what became of Joseph, so rumors may have circulated about Joseph’s disappearance as well. At least by 50:17, Jacob’s sons apparently believe that their father knew about their guilt, though they might presume, rightly or wrongly, that Joseph told him.)

Although God had given Jacob various blessings, Jacob’s experience of tragedy shapes his perception about everything else. Unlike Esau, Jacob had pleased his parents by going to Paddan-Aram to get his wife, and the one wife he truly loved and desired there was Rachel. Although Jacob’s continued favoritism of Rachel’s children (probably even “my son” in 42:38) is undoubtedly not pleasant to his other sons, the narrative shows that they are no longer like they were years earlier when they sold Joseph. At this point they may have more pity for their father (and regret for their behavior) than jealousy.

When Jacob laments, “You have bereaved me!” (42:36; cf. his fear that they would kill him with grief in 42:38), he may speak the way one might speak to a bearer of bad news. Genesis’s hearers, however, understand that the brothers really are the reason that he does not have one of Rachel’s sons, and consequently the reason that one of Leah’s sons (Simeon) also is not with them.

Although not always on the surface, a tragic loss is never completely forgotten. Joseph always appears in the background even of discussion of the family (the one who, literally, “is not”; 42:13, 32, 36; “dead” in 42:38; 44:20), a loss that can never be fully forgotten. (That they speak of Joseph as dead may be more an inference than a lie, although it evades the question of their responsibility; after so many years lost in laborious slavery, Joseph might well be presumed deceased—but for God’s plan.) Whereas Abraham, Jacob’s grandfather, appears as a man of great faith, Jacob at this point appears as one broken by his losses. Yet, perhaps unknown to Jacob, God was still with him (46:2-4).

Jacob’s struggle illustrates how tragedy wreaks havoc in our lives. His sons’ struggle, however, illustrates the ravages of guilt. A decision taken in haste that treats lightly another person can bear lifelong consequences, though in many of our lives on many occasions God’s grace has mitigated these.

Money in their sacks—Genesis 42:25-35

What would you do if you found money in your wallet that you knew you hadn’t earned, especially if it looked like a mistake?

When Joseph sends his brothers home to Canaan, he sends them with an unexpected gift, still not having told them who he is. Joseph orders their vessels filled with grain (42:25), supplying the needs of their households, for whom Joseph had concern (cf. 42:19; 45:19). Yet Joseph also orders that their silver be returned to each of them clandestinely in their sacks, undoubtedly as part of testing them. He must know whether they are genuinely “honest” men as they claim (42:11, 19). They had sold Joseph for silver; now he needs to know if silver still matters more to them than integrity.

Joseph’s plan appears wise: surely, knowing that Simeon is in custody, they will return with Benjamin if he is well. If they return the silver, he will also need to see whether they will protect or relinquish Benjamin. What Joseph cannot know is the unwillingness of his father to part with Benjamin or the sheer terror the planting of money in their sacks will bring them. Thus for some time it may appear that they have both kept the silver and abandoned their brother Simeon.

Happily, God’s plan is even greater than Joseph’s; also happily, Jacob does not have a heart attack in parting with Benjamin, although the parting is delayed far longer than Joseph (or Simeon) would have hoped (cf. 43:10). (The delay may provoke Joseph’s special concern as to whether their father remains alive—43:27.)

The brothers had traveled alongside other travelers going down to Egypt for food (42:5), and undoubtedly the road was full of people traveling both directions. If the grain was to keep them very long, they would need much grain loaded on each of the donkeys (cf. 44:1), though they probably planned to make multiple trips (43:10). (Why workers and other animals are not mentioned is unclear, unless Genesis expects hearers to envision Jacob’s earlier camp as having disbanded, perhaps due to the famine; perhaps Genesis merely focuses on the activity of the immediate family—the way a scriptwriter today would—and deliberately leaves less relevant details untold. We learn of such spotlighting even in ancient biographies.)

I had often thought it risky for Joseph to have their money returned in the mouths of their sacks, where they would find it when opening the sacks. What if one opened a sack before leaving the area? But the risk of depositing the money deeper in the sack was greater, because some of their workers might be the ones to find the money when feeding animals and some of the money might disappear (perhaps along with some of the workers).

Joseph may ultimately plan for them to see the money as a gift from God in a kind way (43:23), but he may also want them thinking about their past greed (and may want to test them about their current greed). They recognize that God had returned the money to them (42:28), but they do not experience this recognition in a positive way. Their honesty was already in question with the vizier of Egypt, and now it might appear that they had not paid for the grain they took. Or worse yet, perhaps God was exposing the fruit of their past greed, when they sold a brother for money—a matter already on their minds (42:22). Their father allows that it may have been an oversight (43:12), but he is no less afraid (42:35). Such fear undoubtedly makes him more hesitant to send Benjamin (42:36, 38), the subject of the next installment on Genesis. In any case, we can be glad that even when our plans work less smoothly than we intend, God is still in charge to bring about his purposes.