Fear and perplexity (vv. 25-35). At Joseph’s command, his steward replaced the brothers’ money in their sacks, but later the steward said he had received their silver and he gave credit to the Lord (43:23). Either the steward was lying, which is doubtful, or Joseph paid for the grain himself so that he could care for his father and the relatives he hadn’t seen in over twenty years. The money in the sacks was also part of his plan to test his brothers and prepare them for their next trip to Egypt.
But there are some problems relating to the discovery of the money. When one brother found the silver in his sack (42:27-28), all the men must have searched through their sacks and found the rest of the silver. At least that’s the story they told Joseph’s steward when they arrived in Egypt on their second visit (43:21). But if that’s what happened, why did the brothers act surprised and frightened when they opened their sacks on arriving home (42:35)?
To say that their account to the steward was merely a “condensed report” of what had happened is to accuse them of having very poor memories. They specifically stated that it was at “the lodging place” (“the inn,” kjv), and not at home, that they discovered the money in the sacks. We assume that this statement is correct because they had no reason to lie to Joseph’s steward, the one man whose help they desperately needed. And why lie when they were returning all the money?
What are the possible solutions? Perhaps the steward put some of the money in the provision sacks and some in the grain sacks. The money in the provision sacks was found when they camped for the night, but the rest of the money wasn’t discovered until they emptied the other sacks at home. But the writer clearly stated that each man found all his money at the first stopping place (43:21; “the exact weight,” niv), which means that the nine brothers had done a quick search immediately and found all the silver.
If that’s true, then perhaps the brothers replaced the money in the sacks with the intention of deceiving their father by acting surprised when the money was discovered at home. But 42:35 is written as though their surprise and fear were genuine responses to finding the money. And why deceive their father about the money? They hadn’t stolen it, and they could take it back on their next trip. Anyway, Jacob didn’t seem worried about it; his only comment was “Perhaps it was a mistake” (43:12 niv).
Whatever the explanation, the experience put fear and perplexity into the hearts of the brothers. “What is this that God has done to us?” they asked (42:28 nkjv). They knew that they were innocent concerning the money, but could they convince the Egyptians? Their lives could be in danger (43:18).
Their report to their father only made the old man feel worse, especially when he heard the news about Simeon’s confinement and the future involvement of Benjamin. The whole episode should have led Jacob and his sons to some heart-searching and confessing of sin, but apparently it didn’t. It would have been a good time for them to seek the Lord and pray for His help and direction. However, in spite of their failures, God was still at work and His purposes would be fulfilled.
Despair (vv. 36-38). It was all too much for Jacob. “It is always me that you bereave,” he cried (v. 36), thus hinting that he suspected his sons were behind Joseph’s mysterious disappearance. “All these things are against me!” was a valid statement from a human point of view, but from God’s perspective, everything that was happening was working for Jacob’s good and not for his harm (Rom. 8:28).
It’s sad to see Jacob again expressing his special love for Joseph and Benjamin, something that must have hurt the other sons. Hadn’t the ten boys made the difficult trip to Egypt to help preserve the family? Was it their fault that the Egyptian officer asked too many personal questions, called them spies, and took Simeon as hostage? Were they responsible for the return of the money? Jacob could have been more understanding, but he was still grieving the loss of Joseph (Gen. 37:35); and the loss of Simeon and the possible loss of Benjamin were more than he could bear.
Considering that Reuben was out of favor with his father (35:22), Reuben should have kept quiet, but perhaps he felt obligated to act like a leader since he was Jacob’s firstborn son. His suggestion was ridiculous. What right did he have to offer his sons’ lives as compensation for the loss of Benjamin? Did he discuss this idea with his wife and sons? Furthermore, how would the death of two innocent boys offset the loss of one of Jacob’s two favorite sons? Was Reuben offering to sacrifice one son for Joseph and one for Benjamin? How would this make matters better in the home?
Jacob would have nothing to do with Reuben’s suggestion or with any suggestion that threatened Benjamin’s safety. The statement “he is left alone” (42:38) means “Benjamin alone is left of Rachel’s two sons.” It was another selfish statement from Jacob that made the other sons feel they were second-class members of the family. Benjamin must be protected even if the whole family starves! A crisis doesn’t make a man; it shows what a man is made of. Jacob was revealing his true affections, just as he had done when he had met Esau (33:2).