25 Then Joseph gave a command to fill their bags with grain, and to restore each man's money into his sack, and to give them food for the way. So it was done to them.
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
Commanded to fill their sacks - כליהם keleyhem, their vessels; probably large woolen bags, or baskets lined with leather, which, as Sir John Chardin says, are still in use through all Asia, and are called tambellet; they are covered with leather, the better to resist the wet, and to prevent dirt and sand from mixing with the grain. These vessels, of whatever sort, must have been different from those called שק sak in the twenty-seventh and following verses, which was probably only a small sack or bag, in which each had reserved a sufficiency of corn for his ass during the journey; the larger vessels or bags serving to hold the wheat or rice they had brought, and their own packages. The reader will at once see that the English word sack is plainly derived from the Hebrew.
Then Joseph commanded to fill their sacks with corn,.... Which was as much as they came for:
and to restore every man's money into his sack; the money paid by each for his quantity of corn delivered to him, not into the person's hands, but to be put into his sack privately, and unknown to him:
and to give them provision for the way; sufficient both for themselves and for their cattle, that they might carry the whole of what corn they bought to their families:
and thus did he unto them; that is, not Joseph, but his steward or deputy, or however the servant that he gave the above order to.
The brethren came for corn, and corn they had: not only so, but every man had his money given back. Thus Christ, like Joseph, gives out supplies without money and without price. The poorest are invited to buy. But guilty consciences are apt to take good providences in a bad sense; to put wrong meanings even upon things that make for them.
Joseph commanded to fill their sacks with corn, and to restore every man's money--This private generosity was not an infringement of his duty--a defrauding of the revenue. He would have a discretionary power--he was daily enriching the king's exchequer--and he might have paid the sum from his own purse.
*More commentary available at chapter level.