42:1–5 Like everyone else around them, Jacob and his sons have been affected by the severe famine gripping the entire world (41:57). When the news arrives that there is still grain for purchase in Egypt, Jacob immediately sends his sons there to purchase food, so that they might live and not die (42:2). The very survival of the family is at stake and, along with it, the survival of God’s promise, yet the inactivity of the sons—“looking at each other” instead of acting (v. 1)—contrasts sharply with Joseph’s wise preparations for the famine. “Life” and “death” are key motifs in this episode (cf. v. 18, 20; 43:8). On the one hand this emphasis reinforces the message that the future of the family is at stake, while on the other it subtly hints at the theme of divine judgment for sin, as well as the possibility of forgiveness for those who repent (cf. Ezek. 18:28).607

Jacob sends ten of his remaining eleven sons on the perilous journey to Egypt, which would take about a week to complete. He keeps Benjamin safely at home to ensure that he does not undergo an “accident” like that which befell Joseph (Gen. 42:4; cf. 37:33). It is not clear whether Jacob fears that Benjamin will be harmed by his brothers or fears that he will suffer a natural accident on the journey; either way, he is taking no chances with Joseph’s one remaining brother (42:4). Jacob’s toxic favoritism toward the sons of his favorite wife, Rachel, is still on full display, since he shows no equal concern over the harm that might befall his other sons on this dangerous expedition. In chapter 37 Jacob sent Joseph to seek the shalom of his ten brothers (37:14); now he unwittingly sends the ten brothers to Joseph, so that the shalom of the family may be fully restored. Here they are called the “sons of Israel” (42:5) rather than of Jacob to focus our attention on their role as bearers of God’s promises.

42:6–17 Joseph’s role as “governor” (Hb. shallit; “vizier”) leads to his taking an active role in the sale of grain (v. 6). It is hard to imagine that this hands-on approach is unconnected to Joseph’s expectation that sooner or later his brothers will need to come to Egypt to buy supplies. Joseph’s brothers prostrate themselves before him when they come in, just as Joseph’s dream had anticipated (vv. 6, 9; cf. 37:7). Joseph immediately “recognizes” his brothers (form of nakar), but he “acts like a stranger” toward them (a different form of nakar), and they do not recognize him; the same verb was used in 37:32–33 when Jacob “recognized” Joseph’s cloak. Joseph addresses the brothers harshly (42:7), questioning them about their origins and identity and accusing them of being spies (v. 9). Specifically, Joseph accuses the brothers of having come “to see the nakedness of the land” (v. 9)—a metaphorical use of an image that elsewhere implies sexual sin (cf. Leviticus 18). The major threat to Egypt during much of its history was across the land bridge from Asia, so this is not an implausible accusation.608 The language of “By the life of Pharaoh” (or “as Pharaoh lives”; Gen. 42:15, 16) parallels the form of an oath taken in the name of a deity (cf. “as the Lord lives”; e.g., Ruth 3:13).

The brothers’ response is a strong denial, couched in carefully deferential terms (“my lord”; “your servants”; Gen. 42:10). Far from being spies representing a military force, they are part of a single family, come down to Egypt to buy food like everyone else (v. 10). They are honest men, they claim—although Joseph knows them rather better than they imagine. Joseph’s aggressive tone forces the brothers to say more than they had expected as they cast around for means of defense against his accusations.609 They are part of a larger family of twelve brothers from the land of Canaan, they say, though one brother remains home with their father and the other is no more (v. 13). Such a single-family unit could hardly pose a threat to Pharaoh’s Egypt. Little do they know that the “other brother” of whom they speak is standing right in front of them!

42:18–22 This admission gives Joseph the opportunity he seeks to put the brothers to the test: they are required to leave one brother behind as a hostage and to go home with the food they have purchased (v. 19); then they are to return with their younger brother, Benjamin, as proof that they have been telling the truth (v. 20). Only then will the brother who remains as a hostage be released. In this way Joseph seeks to discover how determined the brothers are to keep intact what is left of the family, as well as to see how Benjamin is doing and ensure that they have not already disposed of him. These men had plotted Joseph’s death in cold blood and then changed their minds, not out of any remorse but simply in order to profit financially (cf. 37:26). Joseph therefore seeks to determine whether there is now any remorse or sorrow in their hearts over their sin. By not choosing which brother must remain behind, Joseph leaves the brothers to make the difficult choice of who the hostage will be.

What Joseph puts his brothers through is mild compared to his own sufferings. He speaks harshly to them and imprisons them for three days in the guardhouse (42:17); fittingly, this is the same location where Joseph was earlier held (40:4). Whereas earlier he had threatened to imprison all of them and send a single brother back to fetch Benjamin (42:16), now he allows nine of the brothers to return home, leaving a single hostage (v. 19). Joseph explains his kindness by saying “I fear God” (v. 18), a fear of God that the brothers had signally failed to display in their earlier mistreatment of Joseph himself. The fear of God is not exclusive to the family of promise—Abimelech had earlier evidenced it, despite Abraham’s doubt (20:11)—but it provides reassurance to the brothers that they can expect the Egyptian authorities to behave responsibly toward them. The charge “Do this and you will live” prefigures the similar declaration by the Lord in Leviticus 18:5, reinforcing the message that Joseph’s demands are not capricious. The brothers eagerly agree to Joseph’s conditions (Gen. 42:20), though in reality they have little alternative.

This inexplicable situation, in which the ruler of all Egypt has chosen to single them out for negative treatment, immediately begins to work on the consciences of Joseph’s brothers. They interpret this situation to be the result of karma (or, perhaps more fittingly in an Egyptian context, maʾat), as their earlier sins against Joseph are now coming home to roost. They saw his “distress” (tsarah) and did nothing to alleviate it; now a corresponding “distress” (tsarah) has come on them (v. 21). They acknowledge to one another their guilt in not listening to Joseph’s cries for help.610 These cries were not mentioned earlier, being held back by the narrator in order to increase their force as an expression of the vividness of the brothers’ conviction of sin.

It is Reuben, the firstborn as well as the one brother who had intended to free Joseph from the pit, who speaks first—although not to propose a solution but to attempt to clear himself from the corporate blame they share.611 “Did I not tell you not to sin against the boy?612 But you did not listen” (v. 22). He had indeed persuaded the brothers not to kill Joseph at once (37:21–22), but he was hardly completely innocent in the wider narrative. He had encouraged them to throw Joseph into a pit and had gone along with their later plan to deceive their father (37:32–33). All the brothers were equally implicated in the reckoning now coming due for the blood of Joseph.

42:23–28 Joseph has been listening to this entire exchange, though of course the brothers do not realize that this “Egyptian” understands Hebrew, a ruse preserved by Joseph’s use of an interpreter (42:23). The impact of these expressions of guilt and remorse from the brothers moves Joseph to tears, though he is careful that these tears remain unobserved (v. 24). Remorse and feelings of guilt are not enough by themselves, however; the brothers must exhibit evidence of genuine change. As a result, Joseph takes and binds Simeon as a hostage in front of the brothers (v. 24). We are not told why Simeon is singled out for this role; it may have seemed more logical to choose Reuben, as firstborn. However, Simeon is second in line after Reuben, and Reuben’s recounting of his role in trying to rescue Joseph may have saved him from being chosen for imprisonment.613

Meanwhile the grain is loaded into the sacks of the remaining brothers, while the money they have paid is returned to them, hidden in the grain. They are also gifted provisions necessary for the journey (v. 25). This is a deliberate attempt on Joseph’s part to mystify his brothers: if maʾat could explain the negative part of their experience as punishment for their treatment of Joseph, what could explain this unexpected graciousness on the part of the Egyptians? The silver would serve as yet another reminder of the brothers’ guilt, recalling the silver they received for selling Joseph to Egypt in the first place (37:28).

In this effort Joseph is successful. When the brothers stop overnight and go to feed their animals, one brother finds his money in his sack (Gen. 42:27). This astonishing outcome leaves them dumbfounded. It requires a larger explanation than ma’at, which dealt only in punishments fitting the crime and appropriate rewards for good behavior. Undeserved kindness could be attributed only to God, who is now referenced by Joseph’s brothers for the first time in the narrative (v. 28). Yet such an unexpected turn of events leaves the brothers terrified rather than overjoyed (v. 28), for they know God to be a God of justice in addition to his grace. What could this strange providence mean? Perhaps they will now be accused of being thieves as well as spies on their return to Egypt.614 This unexpected turn of events also jeopardizes their claim to be “honest men” (v. 11).

42:29–35 Upon the brothers’ return to Jacob they tell him “all that had happened to them” (v. 29), although, as is usually the case in such circumstances, they omit certain key details. They do not mention their collective three-day imprisonment or that Simeon was bound in front of their very eyes, nor that their money had been mysteriously returned to their packs. They begin by mentioning the hostility and power of their interrogator and their own protestations of innocence, and only afterward do they explain the conditions he had imposed upon them (vv. 30–34). Nahum Sarna plausibly argues that the brothers must have found all the money in their sacks during the week-long journey home—as they tell Joseph in 43:21—and so the scene in which the brothers “discover” their money returned to them in 42:35 must be a careful staging for their father’s benefit.615 Awkward details casting doubt on the safety of a return trip to Egypt are suppressed, however, in hopes of persuading their father to allow Benjamin to accompany them, which is their only hope of retrieving Simeon and securing food supplies for the future.

42:36–38 The brothers’ efforts to present the news as positively as possible are fruitless; the impact of seeing their money returned in their sacks provokes fear not simply in their hearts but, more importantly, in their father’s heart as well (v. 35). If Jacob would not allow Benjamin to go to Egypt with his brothers in the first place, he is now even more committed not to let him go, even though it means giving up any hope of Simeon’s return. Perhaps he suspects that their story about Simeon’s fate is not entirely truthful and that, if he allows Benjamin to go with them, his youngest son will have another of those “accidents” that had earlier caused Joseph’s disappearance (37:33).

Yet, for all his concern for Benjamin, Jacob’s primary concern is for himself. His reaction to the loss of Simeon and the potential loss of Benjamin is to say, “You have bereaved me of my children. . . . All this has come against me.” (42:36). Despite all the experiences in which God has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to provide for Jacob’s needs, Jacob remains a proud, self-centered old man. God’s message of powerful grace despite—and even through—Jacob’s weakness has not yet really taken hold on Jacob’s heart.

Once again, as firstborn, Reuben takes the lead in attempting to intervene (v. 37), though his intervention is as fruitless as his earlier efforts at leadership had been (37:22; 42:22). This is the last time he acts as leader of the group. Reuben offers his own two children as surety for Benjamin’s safe return (v. 37), seemingly unaware of the fact that it would hardly be comforting for Jacob to put to death two of his own grandsons in vengeance for the death of one (or perhaps more) of his sons! The effect of Reuben’s words is to confirm Jacob in the unchangeableness of his grief: Benjamin cannot go down to Egypt because his brother Joseph is dead and there is no one else left (v. 38). None of the other brothers forms part of Jacob’s equation,616 for he has pinned the entirety of his hope in the Abrahamic blessing on the sons of Rachel; to lose both of them would mean the end of the Lord’s promise, an outcome that would bring Jacob’s gray hairs down to Sheol,617 the home of the cursed dead, in sorrow. The remainder of his life would be marked by deep sadness and mourning.