TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers Genesis 43:26–34. His four-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
Here is, I. The great respect that Joseph's brethren paid to him. When they brought him the present, they bowed themselves before him (Gen 43:26); and again, when they gave him an account of their father's health, they made obeisance, and called him, Thy servant our father, Gen 43:28. Thus were Joseph's dreams fulfilled more and more: and even the father, by the sons, bowed before him, according to the dream, Gen 37:10. Probably Jacob had directed them, if they had occasion to speak of him to the man, the lord of the land, to call him his servant.
II.The great kindness that Joseph showed to them, while they little thought it was a brotherly kindness. Here is,
1.His kind enquiry concerning Jacob: Is he yet alive? - a very fit question to be asked concerning any, especially concerning old people; for we are dying daily: it is strange that we are yet alive. Jacob had said many years before, I will go to the grave to my son; but he is yet alive: we must not die when we will.
2.The kind notice he took of Benjamin, his own brother.
(1.)He put up a prayer for him: God be gracious unto thee, my son, Gen 43:29. Joseph's favour, though he was the lord of the land, would do him little good, unless God were gracious to him. Many seek the ruler's favour, but Joseph directs him to seek the favour of the ruler of rulers.
(2.)He shed some tears for him, Gen 43:30. His natural affection to his brother, his joy to see him, his concern at seeing him and the rest of them in distress for bread, and the remembrance of his own griefs since he last saw him, produced a great agitation in him, which perhaps was the more uneasy because he endeavoured to stifle and suppress it; but he was forced to retire into his closet, there to give vent to his feeling by tears. Note,
[1.]Tears of tenderness and affection are no disparagement at all, even to great and wise men.
[2.]Gracious weepers should not proclaim their tears. My soul shall weep in secret, says the prophet, Jer 13:17. Peter went out and wept bitterly. See Mat 26:75.
3.His kind entertainment of them all. When his weeping had subsided so that he could refrain himself, he sat down to dinner with them, treated them nobly, and yet contrived every thing to amuse them.
(1.)He ordered three tables to be spread, one for his brethren, another for the Egyptians that dined with him (for so different were their customs that they did not care to eat together), another for himself, who durst not own himself a Hebrew, and yet would not sit with the Egyptians. See here an instance,
[1.]Of hospitality and good house-keeping, which are very commendable, according as the ability is.
[2.]Of compliance with people's humours, even whimsical ones, as bishop Patrick calls this of the Egyptians not eating with the Hebrews. Though Joseph was the lord of the land, and orders were given that all people should obey him, yet he would not force the Egyptians to eat with the Hebrews, against their minds, but let them enjoy their humours. Spirits truly generous hate to impose.
[3.]Of the early distance between Jews and Gentiles; one table would not hold them.
(2.)He placed his brethren according to their seniority (Gen 43:33), as if he could certainly divine. Some think they placed themselves so, according to their custom; but, if so, I see not why such particular notice is taken of it, especially as a thing they marvelled at.
(3.)He gave them a very plentiful entertainment, sent messes to them from his own table, Gen 43:34. This was the more generous in him, and the more obliging to them, because of the present scarcity of provisions. In a day of famine, it is enough to be fed; but here they were feasted. Perhaps they had not had such a good dinner for many months. It is said, They drank and were merry; their cares and fears were now over, and they ate their bread with joy, concluding they were now upon good terms with the man, the lord of the land. If God accept our works, our present, we have reason to be cheerful. Yet when we sit, as they here did, to eat with a ruler, we should consider what is before us, and not indulge our appetite, nor be desirous of dainties, Pro 23:1-3. Joseph gave them to understand that Benjamin was his favourite; for his mess was five times as much as any of theirs, not as if he would have him eat so much more than the rest, for then he must eat more than would do him good (and it is no act of friendship, but rather an injury and unkindness, to press any either to eat or drink to excess), but thus he would testify his particular respect for him, that he might try whether his brethren would envy Benjamin his larger messes, as formerly they had envied himself his finer coat. And it must be our rule, in such cases, to be content with what we have, and not to grieve at what others have.
Historical interpretation
Historical Reception
One surviving comment on this verse from the historical church.
(Verse 32) And they drank, and were intoxicated with it. The idiom of the Hebrew language is to equate drunkenness with satiety, as it says there: 'He shall be satisfied with the abundance of rain, with the produce of his land he shall be intoxicated.' (Psalm 65:11) Undoubtedly, this refers to a land irrigated by rain.
Continue studying Genesis 43:32 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
SefariaThe Hebrew text with Rashi and centuries of Jewish commentary.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
Genesis 43:32 meticulously details the dining arrangements at Joseph's table in Egypt, highlighting the strict segregation between Joseph, his Hebrew brothers, and the Egyptian guests. This separation was mandated by a deeply ingrained cultural and religious aversion, as Egyptians considered eating bread with Hebrews an "abomination." The verse underscores the profound social and cultural barriers of the ancient world and subtly reveals Joseph's unique, isolated status as a high-ranking Egyptian official navigating these complex dynamics.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is strategically placed within the narrative of Joseph's second encounter with his brothers in Egypt. Following their initial visit and Joseph's command to bring Benjamin, the brothers have returned, and Joseph, now the powerful governor, invites them to a meal. The immediate preceding verses describe Joseph's emotional reunion with Benjamin, where he is deeply moved but maintains his disguise. The meticulous seating arrangement in Genesis 43:32 serves as a deliberate act by Joseph, both to observe his brothers' reactions and to adhere to Egyptian protocol, setting the stage for the subsequent test involving the silver cup. This scene vividly illustrates the cultural chasm between the Egyptians and the Hebrews, even as Joseph secretly navigates this divide to fulfill God's redemptive plan for his family.
Historical & Cultural Context
Ancient Egypt was a highly stratified society with elaborate concepts of ritual purity and social hierarchy. Foreigners, particularly those engaged in occupations like shepherding, were often viewed with disdain and considered ritually unclean. Genesis 46:34 explicitly states that "every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians," a sentiment rooted in their reverence for cattle (sacred to certain deities like Hathor and Apis) and their settled agricultural lifestyle contrasting with nomadic pastoralism. Shared meals were significant social and religious acts, symbolizing fellowship and shared values. The refusal to eat with Hebrews was not merely a social preference but a profound cultural and religious taboo, reflecting deep-seated prejudices and the Egyptians' desire to maintain their perceived purity and social order.
Key Themes
Genesis 43:32 contributes to several overarching themes in the book of Genesis. It highlights the theme of Divine Providence, demonstrating how God orchestrates events, even human prejudices, to bring about His purposes, as Joseph's position allows him to bridge these cultural divides. It also emphasizes the Cultural and Social Barriers prevalent in the ancient world, showcasing the deep-seated distinctions between peoples and the challenges of intergroup relations. Furthermore, the verse subtly introduces the theme of Joseph's Mediation and Isolation, as he navigates his role as a powerful Egyptian official while secretly working to reconcile with his Hebrew family, a precarious position that sets him apart from both groups. The concept of Separation and Distinction is also prominent, foreshadowing God's later establishment of Israel as a distinct nation, set apart for a holy purpose, as seen in passages like Deuteronomy 7:6.
Exposition and Analysis
The verse meticulously describes the dining protocol at Joseph's table: "And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that [is] an abomination unto the Egyptians." This arrangement reveals critical insights into the cultural, social, and religious dynamics of ancient Egypt and the unique position of Joseph.
Key Word Analysis
This term refers to an inhabitant of Mitsrayim (Egypt). In this context, it highlights the native population whose cultural and religious norms dictate the dining separation. Their identity is central to understanding the "abomination" they perceive in the Hebrews.
A primitive root meaning "to eat" literally or figuratively. Here, it signifies the act of sharing a meal, which universally symbolizes fellowship, communion, and shared life. The inability of Egyptians and Hebrews to "eat bread" together underscores a fundamental lack of fellowship and a deep chasm between the two groups.
Properly, something disgusting (morally), an abhorrence. While often used in the Bible for practices detestable to God (e.g., idolatry), here it reflects a profound cultural and religious taboo from the Egyptian perspective. It signifies a deep-seated revulsion, not merely a preference, rooted in their concepts of purity, social hierarchy, and possibly dietary customs.
Verse Breakdown
"And they set on for him by himself"
This refers to Joseph. Despite being Hebrew, his seating apart from both his brothers and the other Egyptians signifies his complete integration into Egyptian high society and his adherence to their court customs as a high-ranking official. His position demanded a distinct status, separating him from even his own family in a public setting. This also serves to maintain his disguise and control over the situation.
"and for them by themselves"
This refers to Joseph's brothers, the Hebrews. They were seated in their own distinct group, a separation not merely for order but mandated by Egyptian custom. This highlights their foreign status and the social distance maintained by the Egyptians, emphasizing the cultural divide.
"and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves"
The Egyptian guests also had their own designated section, further emphasizing the rigid social stratification and the unacceptability of intermingling with Hebrews at the table. This three-tiered seating arrangement underscores the profound social and cultural barriers of the time.
"because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that [is] an abomination unto the Egyptians"
This clause provides the explicit reason for the strict segregation. The act of sharing "bread" (a metonym for a meal) symbolized fellowship and shared values, which was considered impossible or defiling across such a perceived divide. The term "abomination" signifies a deep-seated cultural and religious taboo, likely stemming from Egyptian concepts of ritual purity (especially regarding shepherds), differing dietary laws, and a general disdain for foreign, nomadic peoples.
Literary Devices
The verse employs several Literary Devices. The most prominent is Contrast, vividly displayed through the strict segregation of the three dining parties: Joseph, his brothers, and the Egyptians. This stark visual contrast underscores the deep cultural chasm and the social hierarchy prevalent in ancient Egypt. There is also a subtle Irony in Joseph, a Hebrew, being the one enforcing these Egyptian customs, even as he secretly plans to reconcile with his Hebrew family. The explicit declaration of the Egyptians' view of Hebrews as an "abomination" serves as a form of Exposition, directly explaining the cultural barrier. Furthermore, the entire scene functions as Symbolism, where the shared meal, universally a sign of fellowship, becomes a powerful symbol of division and alienation, highlighting the brokenness that God's redemptive plan in Joseph's life is working to overcome.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Genesis 43:32 offers profound theological and thematic insights into the nature of human division and God's sovereign plan. The strict cultural barriers and the "abomination" highlight the deep-seated prejudices and social stratification that can exist between peoples. Yet, within this context of human separation, God's divine providence is clearly at work, positioning Joseph in a unique role to bridge these divides and ultimately save his family. This scene foreshadows God's later establishment of Israel as a distinct, holy nation, set apart not out of prejudice, but for a unique covenant relationship and a holy purpose, demonstrating that while human distinctions can be rooted in sin, God also ordains distinction for holiness and truth.
Reflection and Application
Genesis 43:32 offers valuable insights into navigating cultural differences and understanding the roots of social barriers. It reminds us that societies often possess deeply ingrained customs and beliefs that can lead to significant distinctions and even aversion between groups. What is acceptable or normal in one culture may be considered offensive or "abominable" in another, highlighting the importance of cultural sensitivity and humility when interacting with people from diverse backgrounds. While the Egyptians' "abomination" was based on their own prejudices, the narrative also implicitly sets the stage for God's later establishment of His chosen people, Israel, as distinct for a holy purpose, as seen in passages like Deuteronomy 7:6. Joseph's ability to operate within the Egyptian system while maintaining his core identity provides an example of how individuals might adapt to different social contexts without compromising their fundamental beliefs or purpose, even when those contexts are marked by significant cultural divides. This verse calls us to examine our own biases and to consider how we might be bridges, rather than walls, in a world still marked by division.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why couldn't the Egyptians eat with the Hebrews?
The Egyptians considered eating with Hebrews an "abomination" (tôwʻêbah), primarily due to deeply ingrained cultural and religious beliefs. This included their concepts of ritual purity, which likely deemed foreigners, particularly shepherds (a common profession among Hebrews, as noted in Genesis 46:34), as ritually unclean. Differences in dietary practices and a strong sense of social hierarchy also contributed to this profound aversion. For Egyptians, sharing a meal symbolized fellowship and shared values, which they were unwilling to extend to the Hebrews.
What does "abomination" mean in this context?
The Hebrew word tôwʻêbah (תּוֹעֵבָה), translated as "abomination," signifies something detestable, abhorrent, or repugnant. In Genesis 43:32, it describes a strong cultural and religious taboo from the Egyptian perspective, not necessarily a divine judgment. It reflects a deep-seated revulsion based on their belief system concerning what was clean or unclean, pure or impure, particularly regarding the handling of animals and the social status of various professions. It was a deeply ingrained cultural prejudice.
Why did Joseph eat separately from both his brothers and the Egyptians?
Joseph ate separately because he had fully integrated into Egyptian society and held a high office as governor. His separate seating from both his Hebrew brothers and the Egyptian guests reinforced his unique, elevated status and his adherence to Egyptian court protocol. It symbolized his position as a bridge between two worlds, yet bound by the customs of the land he governed. This also served to maintain his disguise and control over the unfolding events with his brothers.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
The deep cultural chasm and the "abomination" that separated Egyptians and Hebrews at the table in Genesis 43:32 powerfully foreshadow the profound spiritual separation between humanity and God due to sin. Just as Joseph, though distinct and separated by his high office and the cultural divide, was providentially positioned to bring reconciliation and sustenance to his estranged brothers, so Christ, though perfectly holy and distinct from sinful humanity, entered a fallen world. He came to break down the "middle wall of partition" that separated Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2:14), and by extension, all humanity from God, through His ultimate sacrifice on the cross. In Christ, the ultimate "abomination" of sin is atoned for, and all who believe are invited to a new table of fellowship, not by cultural custom or social status, but by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). The Lord's Supper, in particular, represents this new covenant of unity and communion (1 Corinthians 10:16-17), where all believers, regardless of their earthly distinctions, partake together in the body and blood of Christ, fulfilling the longing for true, unhindered fellowship that the scene in Genesis 43:32 could only hint at. Through Christ, those who were once far off have been brought near (Ephesians 2:13), and the dividing wall of hostility has been abolished, making one new humanity in Himself (Ephesians 2:15).