We often say things we regret, when we are surprised by an accusation, and, intending to express our utter blamelessness in the claim, we call down upon ourselves the worst curses we could think of, if, indeed, we are found guilty. This is what Jacob did, when he was pursued by Laban from Haran to Gilead and accused to stealing his teraphim or his household gods, which were probably used for divining (Genesis 31:30). Jacob didn’t know that Rachel had stolen the teraphim, so he protested his innocence by pronouncing the death penalty upon whomsoever Laban found had stolen them (Genesis 31:32). Interestingly, when the brothers were accused of the theft of Joseph’s drinking cup, which he also used for divining, they also protested their innocence by pronouncing the death penalty upon whomsoever Joseph’s chief steward found had taken the royal property (Genesis 44:9).
As indicated above, the brothers weren’t very far from the city when Joseph’s men overtook them and accused them of stealing royal property (Genesis 44:4-6). However, the brothers protested, saying their accusation didn’t make sense. Why would folks steal silver or gold, when they were honest enough to bring back the money they found in their sacks, saying it was used to purchase the grain from last year, but was mysteriously found in their sacks of grain, when they returned home (Genesis 44:7-8)? Where’s the sense in such a thing?
Nevertheless, they invited the chief steward to search their belongings, and, as proof of their honesty, they pronounced the death penalty upon whomsoever did the thing the chief steward accused them of doing (Genesis 44:9). At first, the modern reader may think the statement by the brothers was hyperbole, an exaggeration of the penalty required, but this is far from the truth. Egypt appears to have its own laws, and penalties for breaking them, but Jacob and his sons and probably most, if not all, of the Land of Canaan lived according to the Code of Hammurabi, and according to precept #6,
“If a man steal the property of a god (temple) or palace, that man shall be put to death; and he who receives from his hand the stolen (property) shall also be put to death.”
In other words, the brothers merely submitted themselves to the common law practiced in their community. Perhaps the addition of the others submitting to slavery (Genesis 44:9) was submission to Egyptian law (cp. verse-10). In reply, the chief steward told the brothers that the penalty would, indeed, be according to their words, but modified by Egyptian law. That is, the death penalty would not be imposed upon the guilty one, but the thief would become Joseph’s slave (Genesis 44:10), Nevertheless, the others would be allowed their freedom. Once again, the emphasis upon the one perceived to have taken the thing, while the others are set free, seems to point to Joseph’s test of his ten brothers, in order to know for a fact that the family bigotry against Rachel’s sons had come to an end.
Therefore, the Egyptians conducted a quick search of the men’s sacks, beginning with the eldest to the youngest, and they found Joseph’s silver cup in the mouth of Benjamin’s sack (Genesis 44:11-12). When it was discovered that the silver cup was in Benjamin’s sack, the other brethren immediately tore open their clothes in mourning, and loaded up their sacks on their donkeys once again, and they returned to the city, following the chief steward, who had taken Benjamin captive (Genesis 44:13).
Smoodock's Blog 