Dorthan revisited
Genesis 44: 1-34
Why did Joseph have to take about a year or so to reveal his identity to his brothers ? I believe it was because there was no evidence of genuine repentance until the events of chapter 44. While Joseph’s brothers had come to the point of recognizing the hand of God in their trials during their first journey to Egypt (cf. 42:21-22,28), their response was more one of regret and remorse than of repentance. It was the genuine repentance of Judah and his brothers in chapter 44 which caused Joseph to disclose his identity and thus turn their sorrow to rejoicing.
Let us approach this final test of Joseph’s brothers to learn more of this matter of repentance.
The noon meal finally finished, Joseph instructed his steward to provide his brothers with as much provisions as they could carry.
He commanded his house steward, saying, “Fill the men’s sacks with food, as much as they can carry, and put each man’s money in the mouth of his sack. And put my cup, the silver cup, in the mouth of the sack of the youngest, and his money for the grain.” And he did as Joseph had told him (Genesis 44:1-2).
As he did on the first journey to Egypt, Joseph ordered his steward to place in their sacks the money they had given for their grain. In addition to this, the silver cup which belonged to Joseph was placed in the sack of Benjamin, thus setting the scene for the final test of his brothers
As soon as it was light, the men were sent away, they with their donkeys. They had just gone out of the city, and were not far off, when Joseph said to his house steward, “Up, follow the men; and when you overtake them, say to them, ‘Why have you repaid evil for good? Is not this the one from which my lord drinks, and which he indeed uses for divination? You have done wrong in doing this’” (Genesis 44:3-5).
Joseph’s brothers must have spent the night at his house, for they were “sent off” at first light (verse 3). No more had they gotten out of sight than Joseph ordered his steward to pursue them, charging them with theft and bringing back Benjamin, in whose sack the silver cup was sure to be found. The instructions which Joseph gave are cited as a quotation, but surely more detailed orders were given, for what happens is much more complex than what Joseph commanded his steward.
A serious difficulty arises with this silver cup that is hidden in Benjamin’s sack. The servant described it as the cup which his master used for divination (verse 5). And in verse 15 Joseph claimed to have knowledge through divination. The difficulty lies in the fact that later revelation in scripture strictly forbids divination:
“You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor practice divination or soothsaying “(Leviticus 19:26).
“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer “(Deuteronomy 18:10).
How could one as spiritual as Joseph be guilty of using a method of gaining knowledge that was an abomination to God?
Some feel that Joseph really did use the method of divination. Also, we are reminded that, at this point in time, divination was not clearly condemned by divine revelation. Other explanations have also been suggested. But I am rather strongly inclined to believe that this is just one more element of the carefully constructed disguise of Joseph, who posed as a true Egyptian. He is unlikely to have employed methods which God would later condemn. Some of the commandments of the Mosaic Law, while recorded later, were known and observed in much earlier times, such as the law of levirate marriage (cf. Genesis 38:8; Deuteronomy 25:5-6).
When speaking to his steward Joseph referred to this cup differently than we would expect: “And put my cup, the silver cup, in the mouth of the sack of the youngest …” (Genesis 44:2).
Who, more than his personal steward, would have recognized this silver cup as the divining cup of his master? That is, of course, assuming that Joseph used the cup for divination. But suppose that he never used the cup for divining. How, then, would Joseph have referred to it? Just as he did. He called it “my cup, the silver cup” (verse 2). I contend that Joseph referred to his cup in this way because it reflected the actual use of that cup in such a way as to distinguish it (for his steward’s sake) from any other cup. He wanted a particular cup placed in Benjamin’s sack, and so he distinguished it by its uniqueness; it was Joseph’s cup—his drinking cup—which was silver.
This also explains why Joseph gave very specific instructions to his steward as to how he should refer to this cup when accusing his brothers of theft: “Is not this the one from which my lord drinks, and which he indeed uses for divination?” (Genesis 44:5).
Why did he give his trusted steward such latitude in everything but the specific wording of the accusation? I would suggest that it is precisely because the steward would never have worded his rebuke in this way. Why? Because not only the charge was false, but the impression given was also not true to the facts. If Joseph never used that silver cup for divination, how would his steward ever have conceived to refer to it in that way? He would have spoken of it just as Joseph did to him. He would have called it his master’s silver drinking cup, for no doubt it was used during the noon meal which Joseph shared with his brothers.
But why all this subterfuge? Why would Joseph want his brothers to think that the cup was used for divination when it was not? As for me, the answer is obvious. Joseph wanted to continue to reinforce his disguise as an Egyptian. He also wanted to impress upon his brothers that he knew everything. He had been able to seat his brothers at the table according to their age, an act that astonished and puzzled them (43:33). As Hebrews, they would expect Joseph to seek divine revelation through such means, and they would be drawn away from considering that he might know about them because they were his brothers. Furthermore, it would discourage them from concealing the truth from him since they were inclined to believe he knew everything.
Joseph’s faithful steward now set out to accomplish what his master commanded. Joseph’s brothers had been lulled into a false sense of confidence, one which would lead them to pronounce upon themselves their own sentence.
Overtaking these Hebrew men as they headed back to their father, the steward accused them of stealing the silver “divining” cup. With smug confidence and self-righteousness the brothers assured the steward that such a thing was beyond them. After all, had they not attempted to return the money which they found in their sacks from the first journey? If they would not keep money that was accidentally placed in their sacks, much less would they consider taking as common thieves what was not theirs. Assured of their innocence, they overcompensated by pronouncing their own sentence if found guilty: let the thief, if indeed there was one, be put to death, and let all the rest become slaves. Slavery was what these men had most feared (cf. 43:18), and yet they were willing to risk it because they were certain of their innocence.
Knowing that he would discover the cup and probably knowing the intent of his master in this situation to test them in the matter of family cohesiveness and loyalty, the steward wisely and graciously modified their self-imposed sentence: no, let the one in whose sack the cup is found become Joseph’s slave and all the rest go free.
Each man hastened to take down his sack and open it, for they were certain that their innocence would be proven. While nothing is said of the money which was placed in each man’s sack (verse 1), the discovery of this money in each of their sacks must have made their hearts sink just as it had before (42:28, 35). Their logic had been, “How could they think of stealing his silver cup if they would not take his money?” And yet for some unknown reason they did have his money. A growing sense of dread must have come over these men as each learned that his money had found its way back to his sack. The basis for their righteous indignation was gone. But the steward makes no mention of their money. All he wished to discover was the thief of the cup. From the oldest to the youngest, the steward made his way down the line until he reached Benjamin, the last. Their world came crashing in upon them all when the cup was discovered.
Here was the first phase of the final test of Joseph’s brothers. While they had initially insisted that the thief die and the others remain as slaves, the steward set the penalty as slavery only for the culprit. The others could go on their way. And yet, all of the brothers tore their clothes as a sign of grief and mourning, and all of them returned to Joseph’s house. Had they acted only in self-interest, they would have renounced Benjamin as a thief, deserted him, and fled from Egypt as quickly as possible. But something different was taking place. These were not the same men that had determined to do away with Joseph at Dothan (cf. Genesis 37:18ff.).
More than twenty years had passed since they had sold Joseph into slavery, and yet it was as though they were reliving the event in the person of Benjamin. Before, they had resented the fact that Joseph had observed their misconduct and reported it to Jacob (37:2). Further, they resented the favoritism Jacob showed to Joseph (37:4) just as Jacob was now partial to Benjamin (cf. 44:27-31). When far from the watchful eye of their father, they found an occasion to get rid of Joseph. First they decided to kill him violently (37:20), then to starve him to death in a pit (37:22), and finally to sell him into slavery for silver (37:26-28).
Now they were faced with a similar situation. Benjamin, Jacob’s beloved, was in their care, far from Jacob’s protection. He was accused of a terrible crime for which there was no opportunity to establish his innocence. They, without any real guilt, such as they deserved before, could merely choose to walk away and enjoy their liberty at Benjamin’s expense. They could return to their father just as they had done so long ago and break his heart with the news that his other son was “no more.” More than twenty years after they sold Joseph, the same temptation faces these men. Will they evidence a change of heart, or will they act in self-interest?
That is what Joseph must know. The moment of truth has arrived.
The self-confidence of only a few verses previous (verses 7-9) has been completely eroded away by the discovery of the cup. There is now no attempt at making a defense or giving any explanation. Instead, there is an admission of guilt, not just on Benjamin’s part but on the part of all.
When Judah and his brothers came to Joseph’s house, he was still there, and they fell to the ground before him. And Joseph said to them, “What is this deed that you have done? Do you not know that such a man as I can indeed practice divination?” So Judah said, “What can we say to my lord? What can we speak? And how can we justify ourselves? God has found out the iniquity of your servants; behold, we are my lord’s slaves, both we and the one in whose possession the cup has been found.” But he said, “Far be it from me to do this. The man in whose possession the cup has been found, he shall be my slave; but as for you, go up in peace to your father” (Genesis 44:14-17).
On their first visit the brothers had only been impressed with the severity of this Egyptian potentate (cf. 42:7; 43:3-5,18). Here was a man to be feared. But on this second mission they had also gained an appreciation for the generosity and kind intent of the governor. The sumptuous noon meal and the generous provisions and accommodations were not intended to disarm these men, but to assure them of the kindness of Joseph. In effect, they had seen both the “goodness and severity” (cf. Romans 11:22) of Joseph. I believe part of the reason they returned en masse to Joseph was that they had gained an appreciation for his integrity. He was one to whom they could appeal. He was a man of integrity and justice. This, to me, is the best explanation of the events of the last chapter, especially Joseph’s generosity and his hospitality at the noon meal.
Judah seeks to convey their brokenness. They are without any defense. He does not acknowledge guilt in the matter of the cup, nor does he seek to give an explanation. He does confess that they now see the origin of this disaster. It is God against whom they have sinned (verse 16). It is not for the theft of Joseph’s cup that they are now in trouble, but for their sins of the past. While not stated (how, after all, would this Egyptian know anything of their previous sins?), Judah’s acknowledgment of sin must refer primarily to the sale of Joseph into slavery. As all were guilty of that sin (except Benjamin, interestingly), so they are all guilty before the governor of Egypt, and thus all are his slaves. They will suffer together since they shared in a common act of sin.
But Joseph would not hear of this. Why should all suffer for the sin of one? As a mere Egyptian he could not know of their past sins. He was only intent upon making matters right in regard to the theft of his silver cup. No, all would be sent home to their father except Benjamin, and he would remain as Joseph’s slave (verse 17).
Judah once again assumes the role of spiritual leader among his brothers. It was he, after all, who had offered himself as surety for Benjamin’s safe return. Now that seems a rather remote possibility. Nevertheless, there is something about Joseph which inspires an appeal for mercy. Had he not inquired with great interest about Benjamin and Jacob? And did he not take great interest in the fact of their father’s health and well-being (43:27)? Contrary to Jacob’s preferences and advice (43:6), Judah was determined to tell Joseph the truth with no excuses and to appeal to his graciousness as evidenced at the meal they had shared (43:31-34).
With a humble petition for forbearance, Judah beseeches Joseph to give him the opportunity to tell the whole story from beginning to end (verse 18). It was Joseph who had inquired about their father and younger brother (verse 19), and they had responded with the truth. They had also mentioned that Benjamin had a brother who was deceased and that their father was deeply attached to Benjamin because he was the only remaining child of his mother (verse 20). It was Joseph who had insisted upon seeing this brother, although they had attempted to explain how their father would not want him out of his sight (verses 21-22). In spite of their efforts to dissuade him from it, Joseph had demanded to see this brother as proof of their honesty (verse 23). When they returned home, they reported all this to their father Jacob (verse 24). He later asked his sons to return for more grain, but they refused to go without Benjamin, for they took the Egyptian governor’s words seriously (verses 25-26).
Judah now attempts to paint an accurate picture of the pitiful condition of their father by reporting his words as spoken to his sons (verses 27-29). His beloved wife, he had said, had borne him only two sons. When the oldest went out from him and did not return, he was forced to conclude that this son had died, a victim of wild beasts. To take Benjamin, the only other son of Rachel, and not return with him would break his heart. Not only would he enter his grave in sorrow, but he also implied that his death would even be hastened by his grief.
Judah’s predicament is now described (verses 30-32). If Joseph can somehow understand the dilemma in which Judah finds himself, perhaps he will be sympathetic to his petition which concludes his appeal (verses 33-34). The life of this aged man of whom Joseph has inquired is inseparably intertwined with his youngest son, Benjamin (verse 30). To return to Canaan without this son would bring to pass that which Jacob himself had suggested, his untimely death (verse 31). And Judah is most directly related to this situation, for it is he who had assured his father of Benjamin’s safe return, offering himself as surety (verse 32).
The facts have all been laid out. The situation is now seen in the light of what Benjamin’s captivity would do to this patriarch about whom Joseph seemed to show concern. If only Joseph would consent to a substitution, much of this suffering could be averted. Let him remain as Joseph’s prisoner, Judah pleaded (verse 33), for he could not bear to face his father without Benjamin. He would prefer to remain a slave in Egypt than to be free in Canaan and witness the pain and suffering he had helped to impose upon his father (verse 34).
A casual consideration of this passage might lead us to conclude that Judah had been successful in tugging at Joseph’s heart strings. Joseph disclosed himself because he could stand it no longer. This explanation is not sufficient, and it does not fit the facts. On previous occasions Joseph had also been emotionally touched (42:24; 43:30), but he had always been able to restrain these emotions. It was not that now his emotions finally controlled Joseph, but that Joseph’s purposes had been realized. Judah’s appeal did not change Joseph’s heart so much as it revealed that Judah’s heart had undergone a significant change since the day many years before when he had been instrumental in selling Joseph into slavery. In short, Joseph was now able to reveal his identity because genuine repentance had been evidenced.
Up until this moment there was insufficient evidence of repentance. Previous chapters have indicated that Joseph’s brothers recognized their suffering as the result of their sin, but at best they felt only regret. They wished, I believe, that they had not sold Joseph into slavery. Perhaps they were sorry that their father had to suffer as he did. And they regretted that they had to endure the consequences of their sins. This was a good beginning, but it was not enough. Remorse is no more than what we would expect from anyone who is faced with the unpleasant consequences of sin. Every prisoner regrets their crime, or at least the fact that they were caught. But repentance is more than remorse.
The regrets of Judah and his brothers had not brought them to the point of confessing their sin to Jacob nor of making any attempt to learn of Joseph’s fate. But now, given the opportunity to repeat their sin, there is a significant change of heart and action on the part of Joseph’s brothers, as exemplified by Judah. They had once determined to do away with Joseph, regardless of its impact upon Jacob, in order to seek revenge and to avoid becoming Joseph’s subordinates. Now, just the opposite was true. Judah was willing to become the slave of Joseph, even though he was declared innocent of the theft of the silver cup. He could not stand the thought of causing any further suffering to his father. That, my friend, is genuine repentance. Genuine repentance always brings about a change of heart.
That brings us to the point of defining repentance. Repentance is the recognition of our sins which results in the kind of sorrow that brings about a change in our intellect, emotions, and will. In other words, repentance recognizes sin and is genuinely sorry for it, so much so that this sin will be shunned and a new course of action will be sought. A path that was opposite to the one they now were traveling on.
The principle which underlies the protracted dealings of Joseph in the lives of his brothers is this: there can be no reconciliation without genuine repentance. That is what caused Joseph to delay so long in revealing his identity to his brothers. If there were to be true unity in his family, there must first be true reconciliation. And that reconciliation would not come before his brothers experienced and evidenced biblical repentance.
In this final episode of Joseph’s testing of his brothers, Joseph framed Benjamin for an imaginary crime and claimed Benjamin as a slave in recompense. Then he demanded that the brothers return home to Isaac without Benjamin (Gen. 44:17), Judah emerged as the group’s spokesman. What gave him the standing to take on this role? He had broken faith with his family by marrying a Canaanite (Gen. 38:2), had raised such wicked sons that the Lord put two of them to death (Gen. 38:7, 10), had treated his daughter-in-law as a prostitute (Gen. 38:24), and had hatched the plan to sell his own brother as a slave (Gen. 37:27).
But the story Judah told Joseph in Gen. 44 showed a changed man. He exhibited unexpected compassion in telling of the family’s heart-wrenching experience of starvation, of his father’s undying love for Benjamin, and of Judah’s own promise to his father that he would bring Benjamin back home, lest Jacob literally die from grief. Then, in an ultimate expression of compassion, Judah offered to substitute himself in place of Benjamin! He proposed that he be retained in Egypt for the rest of his life as the governor’s slave if only the governor would let Benjamin go home to his father (Gen. 44:33-34).
This my friends is true repentance and change of heart. And this was just what Joseph was looking forward for a long time.
