Food for Thought

5 The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king. 6 Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah. 7 And the chief of the eunuchs gave them names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego.

8 But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself. 9 And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs, 10 and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, “I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink; for why should he see that you were in worse condition than the youths who are of your own age? So you would endanger my head with the king.” 11 Then Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had assigned over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, 12 “Test your servants for ten days; let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink. 13 Then let our appearance and the appearance of the youths who eat the king’s food be observed by you, and deal with your servants according to what you see.” 14 So he listened to them in this matter, and tested them for ten days. 15 At the end of ten days it was seen that they were better in appearance and fatter in flesh than all the youths who ate the king’s food. 16 So the steward took away their food and the wine they were to drink, and gave them vegetables. – Daniel 1:5-16 ESV

Since the book bears Daniel’s name, it’s easy to assume that its content is all about him. Its retelling of Daniel’s arrival in Babylon and his meteoric rise to prominence within the court of Nebuchadnezzar gives it the feel of a biography. Over the centuries there has been much debate concerning the book’s authorship, but within its own pages, the evidence points to Daniel.

In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first. – Daniel 8:1 ESV

…in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. – Daniel 9:2 ESV

While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my plea before the Lord my God for the holy hill of my God, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. – Daniel 9:20-21 ESV

In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks. – Daniel 1-:2-3 ESV

Throughout the book, Daniel switches from the first-person singular to the third-person, a common literary practice among ancient authors. The primary reason some scholars reject Daniel as the book’s author is the staggering success rate of the prophecies it contains. The fact that so many of Daniel’s predictions come true leads them to conclude that the book was written by an unknown author who lived centuries later.

The Book of Daniel predicts events of the second century before the coming of Jesus (especially the period 175-164 B.C.) with such precision that doubting critics believe it had to have been written after that period, during the time of the Maccabees (in-between the Old and New Testaments). Supposedly, the purpose for writing Daniel at that time was to inspire God’s people on to victory during the Maccabean wars. – David Guzik, Daniel: The Enduring Word Commentary

Critical scholars, unwilling to accept the supernatural nature of the book’s prophetic visions, have attempted to explain it all away by arguing for an anonymous author who used Daniel as a mouthpiece. By recasting the events of his own day as the fulfillment of ancient prophecy, the author was merely attempting to encourage his contemporary readers.  Yet, Jesus, who lived centuries after the events recorded in the book, believed Daniel was its author.

“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)…” – Matthew 24:15 ESV

But while this suggests that the book is actually an autobiography, Daniel is not telling his story. He is simply a player in the grand drama that began with the call of Abraham in Ur. Daniel and his companions were caught up in a much larger story that spans all the way from God’s creation of the universe to His ultimate recreation recording in the Book of Revelation. This book was not intended to set Daniel up as an icon of virtue or a model for godly living. While he and his friends exhibit admirable characteristics and demonstrate a commitment to God worthy of emulation, they are not to be worshiped as heroes. Too often, the book’s content is reduced to little more than a guide for godly living. Lessons have been written with titles like “Dare to Be a Daniel” that attempt to encourage faithfulness and discourage compromised convictions in the face of worldly pressure. But while those are worthy objectives, they can easily lose sight of the book’s primary objective.

The opening chapter sets the stage for Daniel’s arrival in Babylon. There are no details given as to Daniel’s family background or social standing in the city of Jerusalem. Verse 3 states that Nebuchadnezzar issued orders “to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility” (Daniel 1:3 ESV), so it seems likely that Daniel was from an affluent family. It also appears that a selection process was involved that culled out the less attractive “candidates.” Daniel was one of the “youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king's palace” (Daniel 1:4 ESV).

Upon their arrival in Babylon, these young men were separated from their families and taken to the royal palace where they were to be trained “in the language and literature of Babylon” (Daniel 1:4 NLT). In a sense, they were enrolled in a Babylonian boarding school where they would be inculcated with the wisdom and ways of their new masters. This was nothing less than an intense indoctrination strategy designed to isolate these young men from their parents so they could be reprogrammed and repurposed.

There is no way of determining the exact number of young men who were forced to endure this three-year program of brainwashing and rehabilitation. It’s unlikely that the four individuals listed represent the entire “freshman class” of Nebuchadnezzar’s elite training program. But Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are listed because they will play important roles as the book unfolds. Each of them is from the tribe of Judah and faces the challenge of maintaining their Jewish heritage and faith in Yahweh as they endure the pressure to adapt to the ways of their new masters.

It all begins easily enough with Daniel and his companions being offered “a daily ration of food and wine” (Daniel 1:5 NLT) from the king’s own kitchen. Rather than being treated like slaves, they were feted like royalty, eating food fit for a king. This was likely a ploy to soften up these young men so they would have a more favorable view of their Babylonian overlords. Along with fine food, they were given new names, another not-so-subtle ploy to reprogram these young men so they would forego their past and embrace their new homeland.

…the chief of the eunuchs gave them names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego. – Daniel 1:7 ESV

There is far more going on here than just the designation of new Babylonian names. There was a purpose behind the eunuch’s choice of names. Daniel’s Hebrew name meant “God is my judge,” while his new name meant “the prince of Bell). Hannaniah, which means “Beloved by the LORD” was changed to “Illumined by Sun-god.” Mishael’s name (Who is as God) was changed to Meshach (Who is like Shach). Finally, Azariah had his name (The LORD is my help) changed to Abed-Nego (Servant of Nego). Each young man’s Hebrew name honored Yahweh, the God of the Israelites. But their new names honored one of the gods of the Babylonians. This was another attempt to indoctrinate these young men by removing any attachment they may have to their former religion. Everything was being altered; their diet, education, environment, names, and religious affiliation.

Yet, despite the pressure to compromise, Daniel resisted.

Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king's food, or with the wine that he drank. – Daniel 1:8 ESV

There is far more going on here than Daniel refusing to eat the king’s rich and probably unhealthy diet. The text purposely uses the word “defile.” The Hebrew word, gā'al, can be translated as “to pollute” or “desecrate.” It is a word associated with unacceptable sacrifices offered to God. In the Book of Malachi, God confronts the priests of Israel, accusing them of treating His name with contempt. They declare their innocence and respond, “How have we despised your name?” (Malachi 1:6 ESV). God answers them with a specific charge that uses the same Hebrew word.

“By offering polluted [gā'al] food upon my altar. ” – Malachi 1:7 ESV

The content of Daniel’s diet is not provided, but it seems likely that it contained meat that had not been processed according to the Mosaic Law. Israelites were forbidden to eat any meat that had not first been drained of all its blood.

“If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.” – Leviticus 17:10-12 ESV

Daniel refused to eat meat that was improperly prepared. To do so would defile himself before Yahweh. His request for a vegetarian-based diet reflects his desire to avoid the impure nature of the meat provided by the Babylonians. When Daniel informed the chief eunuch of his decision to fast, he was met with concern, not consternation. The eunuch didn’t explode with rage or threaten Daniel with discipline. Instead, he showed unprecedented concern. But the text makes clear that this reaction was God-ordained.

God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs. – Daniel 1:9 ESV

This subtle statement sets the tone for the rest of the book, revealing that Yahweh was behind every aspect of Daniel’s life and would be intimately involved in every circumstance that unfolded in the days ahead. Even within the confines of Nebuchadnezzar’s royal compound, Yahweh was providentially moving behind the scenes to accomplish His will for Daniel and His redemptive plan for the people of Israel. This was about far more than Daniel’s diet; it was about the sovereign will of Yahweh.

When the eunuch heard the decision of Daniel and his companions, he became concerned that the lack of protein might have a deleterious effect on their health and his own personal well-being.

“If you become pale and thin compared to the other youths your age, I am afraid the king will have me beheaded.” – Daniel 1:10 NLT

But Daniel calmed the eunuch’s fears by suggesting a short-term trial to determine the efficacy of a vegetarian diet.

“Please test us for ten days on a diet of vegetables and water,” Daniel said. “At the end of the ten days, see how we look compared to the other young men who are eating the king’s food. Then make your decision in light of what you see.” – Daniel 1:12-13 NLT

The eunuch agreed to conduct the test and when the ten days were up, the results were all-conclusive; Daniel and his friends had not only survived but “looked healthier and better nourished than the young men who had been eating the food assigned by the king” (Daniel 1:15 NLT).

It should be no surprise that this story has been used to elevate Daniel and his friends to an almost saint-like status. This is where the “Dare to Be a Daniel” idea gets its genesis. Another strange but as-to-be-expected conclusion reached from this account is the once-popular “Daniel Diet.” Sometimes referred to as the Daniel Fast, this weight-loss program features a 10 to 21-day vegan diet plan based on minimally processed, plant-based foods, and the avoidance of all animal products, caffeine, and alcohol. While there is nothing inherently wrong with a vegetarian diet, that is not the point of this story. There is also nothing wrong with emphasizing Daniel’s faithfulness and refusal to compromise his convictions. But, once again, that is not the primary point of the story.

God was at work. The very fact that Daniel and his friends were in Babylon was the result of God’s sovereign will. The fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians and the deportation of its citizens had all been part of His plan. Nebuchadnezzar had not chosen these young men, God had because He had a plan to use them to accomplish His will. Their decision to refuse the king’s food was not a result of their willpower, but of God’s Spirit moving in their hearts.

When the text states that “Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself ” (Daniel 1:8 ESV), it attempts to convey more than just a cognitive decision on Daniel’s part. He didn’t use logic to reach his conclusion; it was a matter of the heart. The Hebrew could be translated as “he made up his mind” (NET Bible), or better yet, “he placed on his heart.”  This was a God-directed decision on Daniel’s part, and it was necessary so that Daniel and his friends could serve as God’s secret agents operating within the enemy camp. Yahweh had work for these young men to do and He was going to protect them and provide for them all along the way.

English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016). Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

New Living Translation (NLT) Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

New English Translation (NET)NET Bible® copyright ©1996-2017 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. http://netbible.com All rights reserved.

Mourning Comes Before Morning.

But David went up the ascent of the Mount of Olives, weeping as he went, barefoot and with his head covered. And all the people who were with him covered their heads, and they went up, weeping as they went. And it was told David, “Ahithophel is among the conspirators with Absalom.” And David said, “O Lord, please turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness.”

While David was coming to the summit, where God was worshiped, behold, Hushai the Archite came to meet him with his coat torn and dirt on his head. David said to him, “If you go on with me, you will be a burden to me. But if you return to the city and say to Absalom, ‘I will be your servant, O king; as I have been your father’s servant in time past, so now I will be your servant,’ then you will defeat for me the counsel of Ahithophel. Are not Zadok and Abiathar the priests with you there? So whatever you hear from the king’s house, tell it to Zadok and Abiathar the priests. Behold, their two sons are with them there, Ahimaaz, Zadok’s son, and Jonathan, Abiathar’s son, and by them you shall send to me everything you hear.” So Hushai, David’s friend, came into the city, just as Absalom was entering Jerusalem. – 2 Samuel 15:13-29 ESV

As David made his way out of the city of David, he did so in a state of mourning. He headed east toward the Mount of Olives, barefoot and with his head covered. He led a sizeable retinue of household servants, personal body guards, members of his royal administration, and armed soldiers. It is interesting to contrast this scene with the one in which David led the way as the Ark of the Covenant was brought into the gates of Jerusalem. At that point, David had been headed in the opposite direction and was in a significantly different mood. He was dancing and leaping, joyfully leading the procession that contained the Ark of God. Now, years later, the Ark was in Jerusalem, but David was on his way out. There was no music, no dancing, and no joy on this occasion. David was on his way out, abandoning his capital and abdicating his throne to his son, Absalom. David, and all those with him, were weeping as they went. And then, to make matters even worse, David received the disappointing news that one of his own counselors, Ahithophel,  had chosen to remain behind and serve Absalom. Not only that, Ahithophel is described as a co-conspirator with Absalom. He was not just switching sides at the end, he had played a role in the entire enterprise, providing Absalom with counsel and advice along the way.

David’s response was simple and it came in the form of a prayer: “O Lord, let Ahithophel give Absalom foolish advice!” (2 Samuel 15:31 NLT). He didn’t rant, rave or hurl invectives against Ahithophel. He simply asked God to turn the wisdom of Ahithophel into foolishness. Then, David did what he could to counter the betrayal of Ahithophel. He asked his good friend, Hushai, to return to the city and act as his eyes and ears, and to serve as an inside source, providing Absalom with advice that directly opposed that of Ahithophel.

“Return to Jerusalem and tell Absalom, ‘I will now be your adviser, O king, just as I was your father’s adviser in the past.’ Then you can frustrate and counter Ahithophel’s advice.” – 2 Samuel 15:34 NLT

David was down, but not out. He was in mourning, but he was not giving up. He was setting up his own network of spies to provide him with inside information regarding Absalom’s plans. He had evidently prearranged with Abiathar and Zadok, the priests, to use their sons as messengers, providing David with much-needed intel about all that went on in the kingdom while he was in exile. As bleak and bad as things looked, David still had friends. There were still those who were willing to stand beside him at one of the darkest moments in his life. And while David’s actions and demeanor portray a man who has all but given up, it would appear that he is just being realistic. He knows that, for the time being, he has lost his kingdom to his son. He does not know why. He is not yet sure if this is a permanent situation or simply another detour in God’s plan for his life. Rather than risk a pitched battle with Absalom and subject the city of Jerusalem to destruction and its inhabitants to death, David had left of his own free will. He was sad, but still expectant. He was in mourning, but remained hopeful. He put in place measures that would provide him with vital intelligence and allow him to influence the actions of Absalom from the inside.

The days ahead were going to be difficult for David and, at times, very dark. The worst had not yet come. There was going to be more devastating news and difficult circumstances in David’s future. He would be ridiculed, reviled, and rejected as king. He would find himself living in exile from his own kingdom. And yet, in the back of his mind, he would always have to wrestle with the seeming incongruity of his anointing by God to be king and the lightning-fast loss of his kingship. What was God doing? Why was all of this happening? Was it because of his sins? Was it the punishment of God for all he had done concerning Bathsheba and Uriah?

There will be days in the life of every believer that seem to make no sense. We will each find ourselves battling the dark days of the soul that make us question what we have done to offend God. And sometimes, God is slow in giving us answers to our questions or explanations to the seemingly confusing events surrounding our lives. At times, we will find ourselves suffering the ramifications of our own poor decision making. Other times, the consequences of past sins will catch up with us, leaving us confused and conflicted as to what God is doing and why. The days ahead for David were going to be dark and difficult. He would have more questions than answers. And all along the way he would be tempted to either give up in despair or lash out in anger. He would find himself struggling to balance waiting on God with working things out on his own. Should he fight or flee? Should he give up or faithfully wait for God to show up? It is in the trials of life that we find our faith in God tested and our understanding of who He really is exposed as flawed and one-dimensional. David’s circumstances had changed dramatically, but God had not. David’s power had diminished significantly, but not God’s. David was no longer on his throne, but God was. From David’s perspective, it would have been easy to see all as bleak, but God had a different view on things, and He was not yet done with David. Absalom loomed large in David’s life, but he was insignificant to God. Our darkest days can provide the perfect backdrop for the light of God’s goodness, love, power and deliverance to shine.

English Standard Version (ESV)
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016). Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

New Living Translation (NLT)
Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

The Message (MSG)Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson

Naomi the Negative. Ruth the Resilient.

So the two of them went on until they came to Bethlehem. And when they came to Bethlehem, the whole town was stirred because of them. And the women said, “Is this Naomi?” She said to them, “Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. I went away full, and the Lord has brought me back empty. Why call me Naomi, when the Lord has testified against me and the Almighty has brought calamity upon me?”

So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabite her daughter-in-law with her, who returned from the country of Moab. And they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest.

Now Naomi had a relative of her husband's, a worthy man of the clan of Elimelech, whose name was Boaz. And Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi, “Let me go to the field and glean among the ears of grain after him in whose sight I shall find favor.” And she said to her, “Go, my daughter.” So she set out and went and gleaned in the field after the reapers, and she happened to come to the part of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the clan of Elimelech. And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem. And he said to the reapers, “The Lord be with you!” And they answered, “The Lord bless you.” Then Boaz said to his young man who was in charge of the reapers, “Whose young woman is this?” And the servant who was in charge of the reapers answered, “She is the young Moabite woman, who came back with Naomi from the country of Moab. She said, ‘Please let me glean and gather among the sheaves after the reapers.’ So she came, and she has continued from early morning until now, except for a short rest.” – Ruth 1:19-2:7 ESV

These verses are filled with contrasts. The most obvious one is the difference between the two women: Naomi and her daughter-in-law, Ruth. They both arrive in Bethlehem, but with radically different outlooks. Naomi had left during a famine, but arrived back during the barley harvest. Conditions back home had obviously improved. But she is so busy dwelling on all that had happened to her in Moab, that she fails to notice or appreciate the improved conditions in Bethlehem. In fact, she is so despondent over the loss of her husband and two sons, that she informs everyone her name will no longer be Naomi, but Mara. Naomi means, “my pleasantness” and Mara means, “bitterness.” She is so upset with her lot in life that she goes so far as to change her name to reflect her outlook. She is bitter and hold God responsible, claiming,  “I left here full, but the Lord has caused me to return empty-handed” (Ruth 1:27 NLT). In her mind, it was God who had opposed her and the El Shaddai, God Almighty, who had caused her to suffer. Her reference to God using the Hebrew name, Shaddai, reveals her belief in God’s all-powerful, sovereign nature. She rightly understands God’s omnipotence, but fails to grasp His lovingkindness. She views God as an all-powerful and somewhat angry deity who wields His power unfairly and unjustly. She sees no purpose in her losses and can find no silver lining to the dark cloud of her despair. She believes her fate is in the hands of God, but she finds no comfort there.

But Ruth, the Moabitess, seems to have a different perspective. Of the two women, it would seem that she had even more justification to be negative about her new circumstances. She too had lost her husband. She had also left behind her family and friends and moved to a new country with nothing more than her widowed mother-in-law as a companion. She found herself an outsider, a non-Jew living in the land of Israel. And on top of that, she was a woman and a widow, two things that would not be in her favor in the male-dominated society of the ancient Middle East. And yet, Ruth proves to be a beacon of light in the midst of Naomi’s darkened outlook.

With no means of providing for themselves, Naomi and Ruth are left with no other option than to search for grain in the fields after barley harvesters were done. This was called gleaning and it was a God-ordained policy meant to assist the needy. God had commanded the Israelites:

“When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.” – Leviticus 19:9-10 ESV

Rather than wallow in self-pity, Ruth determined to do whatever was necessary to provide for she and her mother-in-law. She asked Naomi for permission to do something about their dire circumstances, saying, “Let me go to the fields so I can gather grain behind whoever permits me to do so” (Ruth 2:2 NLT). With Naomi’s permission, she headed into the fields. And this is where the story gets interesting. The author gives us a not-so-subtle clue that there is more going on here than good luck. “Now she just happened to end up in the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, who was from the clan of Elimelech” (Ruth 2:3 NLT). Chapter two began with a brief parenthetical introduction to Boaz, telling us that “Naomi had a relative on her husband’s side of the family named Boaz. He was a wealthy, prominent man from the clan of Elimelech” (Ruth 2:1 NLT). When Ruth went into the fields, she knew nothing of Boaz or his fields. She simply went to glean. Her objective was to find food, not a husband. Her only motivation was survival. But again, the author lets us know that there is something providential going on here. He writes, “And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem” (Ruth 2:4 ESV). It just so happened that Ruth decided to glean in the field belonging to Boaz. It just so happened that Boaz showed up at the very same time Ruth was gleaning in his field. What a coincidence. What incredible timing.

It would be so easy to read the book of Ruth as a fanciful love story, a kind of screenplayfor a Hebrew Hallmark movie, where the down-and-out country girl meets the well-to-do city boy and their lives end happily ever after. But there is so much more going on here than a cheesy boy-meets-girl scenario with a sappy everything-turns-out-okay ending. This is about the sovereign will of God regarding His covenant promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Ruth, this widowed, helpless non-Jewish woman is going to become a major player in the divine plan of redemption. In his genealogical record of the birth of Jesus, Matthew writes, “Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king” (Matthew 1:5-6 ESV). Spoiler alert: Ruth and Boaz do end up together. They get married and have a son named Obed, who would become the grandfather of King David. And from King David's lineage would come Jesus Christ. God would end up making a covenant with David, saying, “And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:16 ESV). That promise would be fulfilled in Jesus, whose rule and reign on the throne of David will take place in the millennial kingdom.

Ruth went into the field to find grain. But God sent her into the field to find her purpose in life. She would become a major player in God’s divine plan for the redemption of the world and the eventual birth of the One who will reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. Ruth, like Mary, was going to be a vessel in the hands of God to bring about His divine will and accomplish His sovereign plan of salvation. The message given to Mary by the angel, Gabriel, sums up the real story behind the story of Ruth. God had far more in mind than providing grain or even a husband for Ruth. He was out to provide salvation to a lost and dying the world.

“Don’t be afraid, Mary,” the angel told her, “for you have found favor with God! You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he will reign over Israel forever; his Kingdom will never end!” – Luke 1:30-33 NLT

What Has God Done?

On the third day Joseph said to them, “Do this and you will live, for I fear God: if you are honest men, let one of your brothers remain confined where you are in custody, and let the rest go and carry grain for the famine of your households, and bring your youngest brother to me. So your words will be verified, and you shall not die.” And they did so. Then they said to one another, “In truth we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul, when he begged us and we did not listen. That is why this distress has come upon us.” And Reuben answered them, “Did I not tell you not to sin against the boy? But you did not listen. So now there comes a reckoning for his blood.” They did not know that Joseph understood them, for there was an interpreter between them. Then he turned away from them and wept. And he returned to them and spoke to them. And he took Simeon from them and bound him before their eyes. And Joseph gave orders to fill their bags with grain, and to replace every man's money in his sack, and to give them provisions for the journey. This was done for them.

Then they loaded their donkeys with their grain and departed. And as one of them opened his sack to give his donkey fodder at the lodging place, he saw his money in the mouth of his sack. He said to his brothers, “My money has been put back; here it is in the mouth of my sack!” At this their hearts failed them, and they turned trembling to one another, saying, “What is this that God has done to us?” – Genesis 42:18-28 ESV

Joseph determined to keep up his charade a bit longer. After three days of confinement, had his brothers brought into his presence once again. Using an interpreter, Joseph informs his brothers that he will allow them to go, but only under certain conditions. One of them must stay behind as a guarantee, and the rest must return with their youngest brother. They will be allowed to purchase grain and take it with them for their families, but each of them will be required to return in order to save the life of the one brother who will be left behind. Joseph is testing his brothers by placing a huge temptation right in front of them. He remembers full well how easy they had found it to get rid of him. So he provides them with another opportunity to reveal their true character. He is not going to dictate which brother will stay behind, but will leave that decision up to them. Would they take advantage of the situation to get rid of yet another less-than-favorite brother, choosing to never return and leaving him to deal with the governor’s anger?

The brothers, shocked and dismayed by the situation in which they find themselves, begin to talk among themselves. They assume that Joseph, who in their eyes is obviously an Egyptian, cannot understand them because he has been utilizing an interpreter. But he overhears their conversation as they begin to discuss and debate their dire circumstance. They immediately assume this is God’s payback for the sin they had committed against their brother, Joseph, more than 20 years ago. Reuben, utilizing a bit of revisionist history, reminds them that he was the one who told them “not to sin against the boy” (Genesis 42:22 ESV). Then he smugly adds, “But you did not listen.” The truth is, that is not exactly how it went down. What Reuben had actually said was, “Let’s not kill him. Why should we shed any blood? Let’s just throw him into this empty cistern here in the wilderness. Then he’ll die without our laying a hand on him” (Genesis 37:21-22 NLT). Now, in his defense, Reuben had planned to sneak back later that night and rescue Joseph from the cistern and return him to his father. But that part of the plan had never been revealed to the brothers. As far as they were concerned, he was also willing to let Joseph die. It was actually Judah who saved Joseph’s life by recommending that they sell him as a slave rather than kill him. But as the brothers bickered and debated, Joseph overheard their conversation and saw their fear and regret for what they had done. And he wept. He could sense their remorse. He could feel their pain as they struggled with what they had done and wrestled with the apparent divine justice that God was finally bringing on them.

So Joseph made their task a bit easier by choosing Simeon, the second oldest, as the one to stay behind. Then he had their sacks filled with grain. Not only that, he secretly instructed that the money each of the brothers had paid for their grain be put back in their sacks. And he provided them with provisions for the long journey home. This is a significant feature of the story. The brothers had come to Egypt to buy grain. The goal given to them by Jacob, their father, was to purchase what was necessary to save the lives of their families. He had sent them with the instructions, “Behold, I have heard that there is grain for sale in Egypt. Go down and buy grain for us there, that we may live and not die” (Genesis 42:2 ESV). They were to purchase their own salvation. The brothers, each guilty of selling their brother into slavery, were going to use their personal resources to try and escape the devastating and ultimately, deadly, effects of the famine. But when they had purchased their grain, Joseph saw to it that their money was returned to them. Their salvation would be based on his mercy, not their merit or resources. Joseph had every right to enact revenge, but instead he chose to show grace – undeserved favor. He gave them what they did not deserve. He provided them with salvation, when what they really deserved was justice.

On the way home, the mood must have somber. They would have had plenty of time to think about what they had done and regret their actions. When they stopped along the way to feed their donkeys, things took an even worse turn, as they made the shocking discovery that their money was still in their sacks. It is interesting to note that their conclusion was negative, not positive. They exclaimed, “What is this that God has done to us?” (Genesis 42:28 ESV). They saw this as another example of God’s divine payback for their previous sin. What they didn’t realize was that this was actually the merciful hand of God, providing them with salvation rather than condemnation. Joseph had given them the grain they needed as a gift. It was free. Their money was not necessary. They would simply have to accept it willingly and joyously. But their reaction was one of fear. They immediately saw the presence of their money as proof of God’s unabsolved anger with them. Little did they know that the salvation God had in mind was going to be far greater than sacks full of grain and temporary relief from a famine. He had bigger things in store for them. He was going to fulfill His promise to Abraham. He was going to give them a land. He was going to make them a great nation. He was going to bless the nations through them. What is this thing that God has done to us? A great thing. A divinely ordained thing. A good, gracious, merciful, kind and undeserved thing.