John Calvin Commentary Genesis 44

And he commanded the steward of his house. Here Moses relates how skillfully Joseph had planned to test the dispositions of his brothers. We have said elsewhere that, while God has commanded us to cultivate simplicity, we are not to take this and similar examples as giving permission to resort to indirect and cunning methods.

For it may have been that Joseph was impelled by a special influence of the Spirit to this course. He also had an extraordinary reason for investigating very strictly how his brothers were affected. Charity is not suspicious. Why, then, does he so distrust his brothers; and why can he not suppose that they have anything good, unless he first subjects them to the most rigid examination?

Truly, since he had found them to be exceedingly cruel and treacherous, his suspicion is excusable if he does not believe them to be changed for the better until he has obtained a thorough perception and conviction of their penitence. But since, in this respect, it is a rare and very difficult virtue to maintain a proper balance, we must be careful not to imitate Joseph's example in such a severe course of action, unless we have set aside all vengeful feelings and are pure and free from all enmity.

For love, when it is pure and free from all confusing influence, will best decide how far it is right to proceed. It may, however, be asked, “If the sons of Jacob had been easily induced to betray Benjamin's safety, what would Joseph himself have done?” We may readily conjecture that he examined their fidelity so that, if he found them dishonest, he might retain Benjamin and drive them with shame from his presence.

But, by pursuing this method, his father would have been deserted, and the Church of God ruined. And certainly, it is not without risk to himself that he thus terrifies them, because he could scarcely have avoided the necessity of denouncing some more grievous and severe punishment against them if they had relapsed again.

Therefore, it was due to God's special favor that they proved to be different from what he had feared. Meanwhile, the advantage of his examination was twofold: first, because the clearly ascertained integrity of his brothers made him more forgiving toward them; and secondly, because it lessened, at least to some degree, the former disgrace which they had incurred through their wickedness.

And put my cup, the silver cup. It may seem surprising that, considering his great opulence, Joseph did not instead drink out of a golden cup. Doubtless, either the moderation of that age was still greater than has since prevailed, and its splendor less sumptuous; or else this conduct must be attributed to the moderation of the man, who, in the midst of widespread lack of restraint, was nevertheless content with a plain and decent, rather than a magnificent, style of living.

Unless, perhaps, because of the excellence of the workmanship, the silver was more valuable than gold: as is clear from secular history, that the workmanship has often been more expensive than the material itself. It is, however, probable that Joseph was restrained in his household display to avoid envy.

For if he had not been prudently on his guard, a conflict would have arisen between him and the courtiers, stemming from a spirit of rivalry.

Moreover, he commands the cup to be placed in Benjamin’s sack, so that he might claim him as his own when convicted of the theft and might send the others away. However, he accuses them all equally, as if he did not know which of them had committed the crime.

First, he rebukes them for their ingratitude because, having been so kindly received, they made the worst possible return. Next, he argues that the crime was inexpiable, because they had stolen what was most valuable to him: namely, the cup in which he was accustomed both to drink and to divine. He does this through his steward, whom he had not trained to acts of tyranny and violence. From this, I infer that the steward was not entirely unaware of his master’s plan.

Whereby indeed, he divineth. This clause is variously interpreted. For some take it as if Joseph pretended that he consulted diviners to find out the thief. Others translate it, “by which he has tested you, or searched you out;” others, that the stolen cup had given Joseph an unfavorable omen.

The true meaning seems to me to be this: that he had used the cup for divinations and for magical arts, which, however, as we have said, he pretended, for the sake of aggravating the charge brought against them. But the question arises: how does Joseph allow himself to resort to such a tactic?

For not only was it sinful for him to profess augury, but he also vainly and unworthily transfers to imaginary deities the honor due only to divine grace. On a former occasion, he had declared that he was unable to interpret dreams, except to the extent that God would reveal the truth to him.

Now he obscures this entire attribution of praise to divine grace. And what is worse, by boasting that he is a magician rather than proclaiming himself a prophet of God, he impiously profanes the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Doubtless, in this dissimulation, it cannot be denied that he sinned grievously. Yet I think that, at first, he had strived by all means in his power to give God His due honor.

It was not his fault that the whole kingdom of Egypt was ignorant of the fact that he excelled in skill, not by magical arts, but by a heavenly gift.

But since the Egyptians were accustomed to the illusions of the magicians, this long-standing error so prevailed that they believed Joseph to be one of them. I do not doubt that this rumor was spread widely among the people, although contrary to his desire and intention.

Now Joseph, in pretending to be a stranger to his brothers, combines many falsehoods in one and takes advantage of the prevailing popular opinion that he used auguries.

From this we gather that when anyone departs from the right path, he is prone to fall into various sins. Therefore, being warned by this example, let us learn to permit ourselves nothing except what we know God approves. But especially we must avoid all dissimulation, which either produces or confirms harmful deceptions.

Besides, we are warned that it is not enough for anyone to oppose a prevailing vice for a time, unless he adds constant resistance, even if the evil becomes excessive. For he fulfills his duty very inadequately who, after once testifying that he is displeased with what is evil, afterwards, by his silence or connivance, gives it a kind of assent.

And they said to him. The sons of Jacob boldly excuse themselves, because a good conscience gives them confidence. They also argue from the greater to the less: for they contend, that their having voluntarily brought back the money, which they might with impunity have applied to their own use, was such a proof of their honesty, as to make it incredible that they should have been so blinded by a little gain, as to bring upon themselves the greatest disgrace, together with immediate danger of their lives.

They, therefore, declared themselves ready to submit to any punishment, if they were found guilty of the theft. When the cup was discovered in Benjamin’s sack, Moses does not relate any of their complaints; but only declares, that they testified the most bitter grief by rending their garments. I do not doubt that they were struck dumb by the unexpected result; for they were confounded, not only by the magnitude of their grief, but by perceiving themselves to be liable to punishment, for that of which their conscience did not accuse them.

Therefore, when they come into the presence of Joseph, they confess the injury, not because they acknowledge that the crime has been committed by them, but because excuse would be of no avail; as if they would say, “It is of no use to deny a thing which is self-evident.” In this sense, they say that their iniquity has been found out by God; because, although they had some secret suspicion of fraud, thinking that this had been a scheme to bring an unjust charge against them, they choose rather to trace the cause of their punishment to the secret judgment of God.

Some interpreters believe that they here confessed their crime committed against Joseph; but that opinion is easily refuted, because they constantly affirm that he had been torn by a wild beast, or had perished by some accident.

Therefore, the more simple meaning is that which I have adduced: that although the truth of the matter is not apparent, yet they are punished by God as guilty persons. They do not, however, speak hypocritically; but being troubled and astonished in their perplexed affairs, there is nothing left for them but the consciousness that this punishment is inflicted by the secret judgment of God.

And I wish that those who, when struck by the rod of God, do not immediately perceive the cause, would adopt the same course; and when they find that men are unjustly angry with them, would recall the secret judgments of God, which should humble us.

Moreover, since Judah speaks in the name of them all, we may from this infer that he had already obtained precedence among his brothers. And Moses exhibits him as their head and chief, when he expressly states that he and the rest came. For though the dignity of primogeniture had not yet been conferred upon him by the solemn judgment of his father, yet it was intended for him.

Certainly, in taking the post of speaker for the rest, his authority appears in his language. Again, it is necessary to recall, in reference to the language of Joseph, what I have said before: that although at first he had tried to ascribe the glory to God, he now sins in pretending that he is a soothsayer or diviner.

Some, to lessen the fault, say that the allusion is not to the art of augury, but to his skill in judging; there is, however, no need to resort to strained interpretations for the sake of excusing the man. For he speaks according to the common understanding of the multitude, and thus foolishly endorses the prevailing view.

Behold, we are my lord’s servants. They had before called themselves servants out of modesty; now they consign themselves to him as slaves. But in Benjamin’s case, they plead for a mitigation of the punishment’s severity; and this is a kind of entreaty, that he might not be capitally punished, as they had agreed to at first.