44:1–2 At the end of chapter 43 the brothers were enjoying Joseph’s hospitality to the full, even to the point of excess (43:34). They had successfully retrieved Simeon from his Egyptian captivity and thought they would be heading home the next day laden with grain they had purchased. It seemed that a trip with so many potential ways to go wrong was turning out far better than they had dared hope.

Yet Joseph was simply setting the brothers up for the ultimate test, as becomes clear when he gives his instructions to his steward the following morning. Not only is the steward to fill the brothers’ sacks to the brim (“as much as they can carry,” 44:1); he is once again to return the brothers’ money in their sacks. No reason is given for this action, and it is not referenced later in the narrative, but it will likely heighten the brothers’ sense of divine activity when they discover it, especially since the steward had deliberately attributed the earlier return of their money to “the God of [their] father” (43:23). It will also confirm to them that Benjamin is innocent of the charges against him.

The steward is further instructed to place Joseph’s silver cup in the sack of the youngest brother, Benjamin, making it appear that he has violated his host’s generous hospitality by stealing a prized possession (44:1–2). The word for “cup” here (Hb. gabiaʿ) usually has in view a container for liquid larger than a normal drinking vessel, generally something used for sacred purposes such as libations.630 Later the claim is made that Joseph uses this vessel for divination (vv. 5, 15), perhaps through studying oil trails in water or similar phenomena. The claim is probably designed as part of Joseph’s Egyptian disguise, as well as to provide an explanation for how he could discern hidden things such as Benjamin’s alleged theft, rather than being a statement to be taken at face value. Divination is later forbidden to Israel (Deut. 18:10).

44:3–13 The brothers leave with their grain sacks and donkeys at first light, probably still nursing hangovers from the night before (Gen. 43:34), but it is not long before Joseph sends the steward after them with a scripted accusation of having broken the sacred trust of ancient Near Eastern hospitality and doing undeserved evil against Joseph (44:4–6). Specifically, they are to be accused of theft—and not just of the common or garden variety but of stealing Joseph’s own silver cup,631 which he uses for sacred purposes (v. 5). The initial irony, of course, lies in the fact that they have indeed done undeserved evil against Joseph, selling him for silver, the same material as that of which the cup is made. They are thus truly guilty men, even though they are completely innocent of this particular charge.632 The deeper irony may be seen in the fact that God’s purpose in all of this is to do them undeserved good, even though their intentions have been truly evil (50:20).

Sure enough, the steward rapidly overtakes the heavily laden brothers, making his rehearsed speech (44:6). The brothers’ response is full of aggrieved innocence (vv. 8–9). The insistence on death for the person who has stolen a precious object is reminiscent of Laban’s search for his household gods, when Jacob made a similar commitment—not knowing that Rachel had indeed stolen them (31:32). The brothers “quickly” lower their sacks to be examined, confident that the search will prove fruitless (44:11).

Unimpressed by the brothers’ loud protestations of innocence (not least because he himself earlier planted the allegedly stolen cup in Benjamin’s sack), Joseph’s steward begins to open their sacks, one by one. As with the seating of the brothers at the banquet, he starts with the oldest, Reuben, and works his way down to Benjamin, with the suspense building as he goes (v. 12). As he begins to open the sacks and the brothers see their money once again, they must have a sinking feeling. Perhaps they begin to feel like Lady Macbeth, doomed to be haunted forever by the silver they received in exchange for their brother.633

This sinking feeling must turn to profound panic when the searchers reach Benjamin’s sack and find the stolen goblet (v. 12). The brothers likely suspect that it has been planted there, just like their money was. However, their chances of convincing Joseph of this fact are slim, especially since he (or someone in his household) seems to have planned their downfall. Yet, in light of recent events, in which one inexplicable circumstance has been piled on top of another, they may suspect a higher hand at work in all this. The steward has been promoting this connection from the beginning with his assertion that their God had returned their money on the previous trip (43:23). The logical conclusion is that this time their God not only has returned their money but also has miraculously planted the cup in Benjamin’s sack to repay them for their former misdeeds. Their distress is evident as they tear their garments,634 reload their donkeys, and return with heavy hearts to the city. It is striking that by this means the brothers all demonstrate their sorrow, even though the steward has already informed them that only Benjamin will suffer for his “crime” (44:10).

44:14–17 When the brothers return to Joseph’s house, he is waiting to meet them (v. 14). Rather than leaving this task for a subordinate to carry out, he puts his business to one side in order to deal with them himself. The brothers once again prostrate themselves before him in fulfillment of his dream (v. 14; cf. 37:7); the addition of the phrase “to the ground” emphasizes their helplessness before him. Joseph does not need to reiterate the charge: his words are rhetorical, aimed at heightening the brothers’ sense of participation in a divine drama. If Joseph is able to divine the identity of the thief, it must be because God has given him the insight (cf. 41:16). This explains Judah’s reply: “God has found out the guilt of your servants” (44:16). He cannot be referring to the stolen cup, since the brothers are not guilty of that crime. This must be an acknowledgement of divine judgment upon the brothers for the sin of selling Joseph into slavery. The punishment fits the guilt of their earlier crime: since they sold Joseph to slavery in Egypt, they will now become slaves in Egypt.

It is significant that at this point Judah steps forward as the undisputed leader of the brothers to make the longest speech in the book of Genesis.635 Previously, as firstborn, Reuben made the initial proposals, though in each case Judah’s voice ultimately prevailed (37:22–28; 42:37–43:9); now, however, Judah’s voice alone is heard in a lengthy speech on behalf of them all. The initial focus of his speech is the brothers’ solidarity with Benjamin (44:16). The steward had suggested that, as the guilty individual, Benjamin alone would be enslaved; the other brothers would be free to return home with their grain (v. 10). This offer is calculated to appeal to the brothers’ jealousy of Benjamin, which Joseph has fanned by showing special favoritism to the younger brother in speech (43:29) and action (43:34). Joseph reiterates the offer himself: only the guilty party will be enslaved, while the other brothers can go up “in peace” (Hb. beshalom; 44:17) to their father. Here is a golden opportunity for the brothers to be rid of their rival once for all, with no personal blame attaching to them in the least. It would be easy for the brothers to rationalize this choice, arguing that, if they all remain in Egypt, there will be no one to carry the grain home to their families in Canaan, who will then inevitably perish.

44:18–34 Judah’s second speech is triggered by Joseph’s words “Go up in peace [beshalom] to your father” (v. 17). There will be no shalom engendered by the brothers’ returning to their father without Benjamin. This, of course, requires Judah to give a lengthy explanation to Joseph of the family situation. His language is extremely deferential, as befits conversation with a man of such power (“like Pharaoh himself”; v. 18), especially under such circumstances. Judah is aware that even speaking before Joseph is a privilege and not a right. Of course, the positive side of Joseph’s undisputed power is his ability to determine appropriate punishment and grant clemency in this situation; there is no other man to whom he is accountable in his administration of justice.

Judah’s appeal is ultimately on behalf of his father, not his own interests or even those of Benjamin; in this speech he uses the word “father” no fewer than fourteen times.636 His recounting of their history is a loose paraphrase of events, focusing on why they had no choice but to bring Benjamin with them on this return visit to Egypt, as well as on Benjamin’s special relationship with his father. The former is the result of Joseph’s own unrelenting demand, while the latter is due to Benjamin’s being the child of Jacob’s old age and to the earlier death of Benjamin’s brother (though, of course, Judah is at that moment unwittingly speaking to the “dead” brother, Joseph!). The unusual extensive use of second-level reporting—quoting earlier direct speech verbatim—lends Judah’s words additional directness and pathos. The conclusion Judah hammers home is that if the brothers return home without Benjamin, it will kill their father (vv. 30–34). The father’s life is bound up in the boy’s, and Judah has personally pledged to bring Benjamin home safely or bear the guilt forever. Jacob’s favoritism of Benjamin is no longer the reason for fraternal jealousy but now becomes a reason for Joseph to show compassion on the boy.

In conclusion Judah proposes a solution that honors both justice and peace: let Judah take Benjamin’s place as the one condemned to slavery in Egypt, and let Benjamin return home to his father with the other brothers (v. 33). Judah will stand “in the place of” (takhat) Benjamin, as surely as the ram stood “in place of” (takhat) Isaac on Mount Moriah (v. 33; cf. 22:13).637 This is fitting since it was originally Judah who had proposed selling Joseph into slavery (37:26–27), and now Judah cannot face the devastating impact that the alternative scenario would have on his father (44:34). With this conclusion the change in the brothers, as represented by Judah, is clear. Earlier they had no concern for the “evil” that would overtake their father when he was shown Joseph’s bloody robe and concluded that his beloved son was dead (37:31–35); now Judah is willing to sacrifice himself in order to avoid any repetition of that scene.

45:1–15 At this moment the dramatic tension reaches the climax to which it has been building for several chapters. The future not only of Jacob, Benjamin, and the brothers lies in the balance, but indeed that of the Abrahamic promise itself. How could it be fulfilled unless the brothers are able to return home successfully with the grain? The resolution is swift and successful, as Joseph is overcome once again with emotion (45:1). He sends out his Egyptian entourage so that the moment of reconciliation with his brothers will be for them alone—although so great is the emotional outpouring that the sound of their weeping is heard more broadly, not just among Joseph’s attendants but as far as the household of Pharaoh (v. 2). The division in the family engendered by jealousy in chapter 37 is finally resolved into harmony through repentance, grace, and forgiveness, demonstrated by the fact that Joseph summons the brothers to draw near to him (45:4) and that the brothers who had earlier been unwilling even to speak to Joseph (37:4) now finally talk with him (45:15).

Joseph’s first words to his brothers, after confirming his identity, concern his father: “Is my father still alive?” (v. 3). He had already asked the brothers that question in 43:27, and indeed Judah’s lengthy speech made little sense if Jacob were not still alive, but Joseph wants to hear the news once more for reassurance. His brothers are understandably stunned and dismayed at Joseph’s self-revelation: if they had feared that the mysterious ruler of Egypt held a grudge against them before, now they have proof that he had abundant reason to do so. But, far from Joseph’s being determined to destroy them, he has pursued this entire complex plan in order to facilitate their reconciliation.

Joseph’s forgiveness of his brothers is remarkable. He identifies himself not as their lord and master but as their brother (v. 4).638 Not only does he not hold their sin against them, but he urges them not to hold it against themselves (v. 5). This magnanimity on Joseph’s part flows from an understanding of what God has been doing in and through their sin: “You sold me here,” but “God sent me before you to preserve life,” both the life of the Egyptian people and, especially, the lives of his chosen family (v. 5). As he looks back over his long and painful journey, Joseph can recognize that, ultimately, it was not the brothers who sent him into slavery in Egypt but God (v. 8).639 While the brothers were truly guilty of their sin, God’s sovereignty extended over Joseph’s enslavement, even to the point of his deliverance from slavery and meteoric rise to become ruler over all Egypt, second only to Pharaoh (v. 8). It was not fate or circumstances that had made Joseph lord of all Egypt, but God (vv. 8–9).

The famine is only just beginning at this point; they are a mere two years into the seven-year cycle of drought (v. 6). As a result, the best way for Jacob and all his family to survive the coming hardship is for them to come to Egypt with all their possessions and to settle in the fertile land of Goshen, in the Nile Delta, near Joseph (vv. 9–10). There Joseph will be able to provide for them, so that they will remain alive and avoid poverty (v. 11). The brothers now have to go back to their father and report the news of Joseph’s place in Egypt—an awkward conversation, if ever there was one—and bring him down to join Joseph in Egypt (v. 13). Joseph then embraces all his brothers, beginning with Benjamin (v. 15); he earlier wept separately, but now in the culmination of their reconciliation they weep together.