The men were afraid, because they were brought into Joseph’s house
Joseph’s brethren under the influence of a guilty fear
I. THEY DREAD SOME GREAT MISFORTUNE. They are driven to Egypt by a dire necessity. A presentiment of disaster weigh upon their hearts. They expect no favourable solution of their mysterious treatment.
II. THEY ARE POSSESSED BY AN INVETERATE SPIRIT OF MISTRUST, They interpret adversely even the most favourable appearances. The generous reception which was given them only serves to raise their worst suspicions and to alarm their fears. They cannot get rid of the belief that Joseph meant to entrap them by a cunning device.
III. THEY ARE HAUNTED BY THE MEMORY OF AN OLD CRIME. They are innocent respecting this money in their sacks, and yet they feel themselves to be guilty men. Conscience makes cowards of them everywhere. (T. H.Leale.)
Lessons
1. Fear misinterprets kindness.
2. We are often being tested while we are unconscious of the fact that we are so.
3. An illustration of the difference between the outer appearance and the inner life of a man. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Bring these men home
It was a whisper aside, addressed to one who proved himself very capable of executing Joseph’s wishes. This device of “bringing them home” and feasting them gave Joseph opportunity for testing their feelings towards Benjamin; it allowed them a chance of recognizing their brother; and it used them to his love as mingled and contrasted with his severity. Joseph wished to produce these three effects; but I scarcely think he intended another effect, which, however, was the first--the re-awakening of their fears. It was God who intended that. (A. M.Symington, D. D.)
Use of animal food in Egypt
It has been objected here that the narrator must be in error in representing Joseph as giving orders for the slaughter of animals for food, since that must have been contrary to the customs of the Egyptians; but Wilkinson, in describing preparations for dinner, says, “an ox, kid, wild-goat, gazelle, or oryx, and a quantity of geese, widgeons, quails, or other birds were obtained for the occasion”; and Kalisch alleges that “though there was scarcely an animal which was not held sacred in some province, there was, perhaps, with the only exception of the cow, none which was not eaten in other parts of the land”; so that the description here is in perfect harmony with what we now know to have been the habit of the people. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)