Moses: 120 Years Young (Deuteronomy 34:7)

How old was Moses when he died? 120 years (Deuteronomy 34:7)

Israel’s renowned liberator, Moses, dies alone with God high atop Mount Nebo (Deuteronomy 34:1-8). Though he will not accompany his nation into the Promised Land, he spends the last moments of his earthly life scanning the region with God’s assurance that it will be given to his descendants (Deuteronomy 34:1-4).

Moses lives to the age of 120 (Deuteronomy 34:7). Despite his advanced years, the text is clear that Moses does not succumb to old age.

Although Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died, his eye was not dim, nor his vigor abated. (Deuteronomy 34:7 NASB)

Moses does not endure the diminished capacity that invariably comes with age (Deuteronomy 34:7). Even when he dies at the age of 120, he’s still got it!

Gene A. Getz (b. 1932) applauds:

Moses had begun his career in Israel as a very strong man, and even though he endured unusual stress, he ended his life on earth well-preserved [Deuteronomy 34:7]—a great tribute to his trust and confidence in God and an even greater tribute to the Lord’s loving care and concern for His friend. (Getz, Moses: Freeing Yourself to Know God, 174)

Dennis T. Olson (b. 1954) supports:

Moses remains exceptionally strong and healthy: “His sight was unimpaired and his vigor had not abated” (Deuteronomy 34:7). Unlike the ancestor Isaac, whose eyes were dim in his old age (Genesis 27:1), Moses is able to see clearly the land that God has showed him [Deuteronomy 34:4]. Moreover, Moses’ “vigor” remains strong. The word for “vigor” is rare in Hebrew but is associated with the fresh, moist property of young trees and fresh fruit. At 120, Moses remains strong, young and supple. These claims about Moses’ extraordinary strength and youthfulness are common legendary motifs associated with heroes in ancient literature. (Olson, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading, 167-68)

Moses is characterized as the picture of health throughout his life. Danny Mathews observes:

The canonical presentation of Moses begins and ends with reference to the appearance and health of Moses. At his birth, he is described as “beautiful (מוב; Exodus 2:2). Upon his death, Moses “was one hundred and twenty years old...his sight was unimpaired and his vigor had not abated” (Deuteronomy 34:7). Here Moses is presented as one in perfect health on the day of his death who dies rather at “the Lord’s command” (Deuteronomy 34:5). (Mathews, Royal Motifs in the Pentateuchal Portrayal of Moses, 48-49)

Some have seen a discrepancy in the narrator’s evaluation of Moses’ health and his own personal assessment presented three chapters earlier (Deuteronomy 31:2, 34:7).

Dennis T. Olson (b. 1954) acknowledges:

This heroic depiction of Moses [Deuteronomy 34:7] seems to contradict the portrait of Moses as feeble and weak in Deuteronomy 31:2: “I am now one hundred twenty years old. I am no longer able to get about.” While the contradictions may be explained away as coming from two different sources, their presence together in the final form of Deuteronomy suggests a meaningful tension in the portraiture of Moses. Moses is heroic and legendary and at the same time subject to the limits and weaknesses of all human beings. The same dialectic is at work in the juxtaposition of the stress of the inevitable reality of Moses’ death on the one hand (Deuteronomy 34:16) and on the undiminished vigor and sight of the heroic Moses on the other (Deuteronomy 34:7). (Olson, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading, 168)

Mark E. Biddle (b. 1957) evaluates:

Moses’ admission (Deuteronomy 31:2) that, at 120 years of age, he could “no longer go out or come in,” sounds like a description of geriatric infirmity. If so, it contradicts the claim (Deuteronomy 34:7) that at the time of his death Moses’ eyesight was still good and he was still vigorous. Contrasts such as this prompt modern scholars to hypothesize multiple traditions or editorial processes. Rabbinic scholars, on the other hand, regarded such infelicities as indicators of some subtlety...The late medieval Jewish commentator Nachmanides [1194-1270], for example, assumed that the great Moses would have been in remarkable health to the end. The interpretive problem, then, is Moses’ apparent misrepresentation in Deuteronomy 31:2. Nachmanides suggested a psychological motivation for Moses’ white lie; Moses’ statement reveals his pastoral concern for the people who were about to be deprived of the only leader they have ever known: “he told them this in order to comfort them”; that is, so they could find some rationale for Moses’ passing...The Talmud (Sotah 13b) harmonizes the two statements by postulating that Deuteronomy 31:2 refers to Moses’ mental condition while Deuteronomy 34:7 refers to his physical condition. It explains that “This [Deuteronomy 31:2] teaches us that the well-springs of wisdom were stopped for him.” (Biddle, Deuteronomy (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 455)

Moses must be in relatively good physical condition as he can climb the mountain (Deuteronomy 34:1) and his eyes are strong enough to see the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 34:2, 4).

Moses’ age and health (Deuteronomy 34:7) are often seen as emblematic of divine blessing, comparable to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox belief in the incorruptibility of the saints.

Eugene E. Carpenter (1943-2012) informs:

Old age was a blessing from the gods in the thinking of the ancient Near East. The kings before the flood in the Sumerian King List were attributed heroic lives of thousands of years. The age of one hundred and ten represented a fulfilled life in Egypt. Ramesses II [1303-1213 BCE] lived to be about ninety. Moses reaches the biblical ideal of one hundred and twenty years (Genesis 6:3; cf. Genesis 50:26). (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, 513)

Some have viewed Moses’ 120 year life span as an approximation (Deuteronomy 34:7). Pierson Parker (1905-1995) and Henry Herbert Shires (1886-1961) consider:

It is difficult to know whether or not we should take this tradition at face value. In rough computation Israel frequently assumed a generation to be roughly forty years (cf. the time spent in the wilderness [Deuteronomy 2:7], i.e., a generation). Moses’ age as here given is simply thrice forty years, which may mean nothing more than that he was an old man who had seen grandchildren grow to maturity. (Parker and Shires, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel (The Interpreter’s Bible), 511)

Ian Cairns (1930-2000) supplements:

Moses’ age is 120 years (Deuteronomy 31:2; cf. Deuteronomy 34:7). In the historical framework of the Deuteronomistic history, “forty years” stands for a complete generation (e.g., Judges 3:11, 5:31b), or for the time in office of a great leader — Eli, David, Solomon, Joash, and Moses himself (e.g., Deuteronomy 2:7)...That Moses’ life span is precisely three times forty years may be symbolic of his preeminence. (Cairns, Deuteronomy: Word and Presence (International Theological Commentary), 271)

There is meaning attached to the number 120. Gary Harlan Hall (b. 1941) footnotes:

There is probably some symbolism at work here. The ideal age in Egypt was 110, the age of Joseph at his death (Genesis 50:26). In ancient Syria the ideal age was 120 (John H. Walton [b. 1952] and Victor H. Matthews [b. 1950], Genesis–Deuteronomy, p. 265). In the Old Testament 120 years was the limit to life after the flood (Genesis 6:3). Moses’ full life of service had been under the careful watch of God and was now complete. In the Old Testament forty was the number that signaled a full and complete period of service (Eli – I Samuel 4:18; David – II Samuel 5:4; Solomon – I Kings 2:11; Joash – II Kings 12:1) or a full generation (Judges 3:11, 5:31b, 8:28). Moses’ life spanned three such periods. (Hall, Deuteronomy (College Press NIV Commentary), 453)

J.A. Thompson (1913-2002) contemplates:

The age of Moses is given as a hundred and twenty years (Deuteronomy 34:7; cf. Exodus 7:7). The significance of the figure is not clear. In Egyptian literature 110 years was the life-span of a wise man and numerous examples are known. The fact that Moses’ life was ten years longer may be a device to express Moses’ superiority over the wise man of Egypt. Again, the age 120 is three times forty (cf. the time spent in the wilderness, Deuteronomy 2:7) and may well denote three generations. In any case Moses was an old man who had seen his grandchildren grow to maturity. (Thompson, Deuteronomy (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 290)

Jack R. Lundbom (b. 1939) adds:

Moses is the only person in the Bible to achieve the ideal life span set forth in Genesis 6:3...A life span of 120 years occurs in the ancient Sumerian folktale “Enlil and Namzitarra” (lines 23-24), which speaks of the uselessness of accumulating wealth when life is so short; you die and can take nothing to the grave (Jacob Klein [b. 1934] 1990). In Egyptian literature the ideal life span is 110 years (Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 414 n 33; cf. Genesis 50:26, where Joseph’s age at the time of his death in Egypt is 110 years). Joshua, too dies at 110 years (Joshua 24:29). Psalm 90:10 puts the normal lifespan at 70, perhaps 80. (Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, 829)

Moses’ advanced age is certainly an anomaly. James M. Scott (b. 1955) surveys:

If, as we have seen, Moses died at 120 years of age (less than three jubilees) [Deuteronomy 34:7], then the death of Moses on the verge of entering the Land marks the end of an era, since human longevity thereafter drops to below two jubilees. This corresponds to the fact that outside of the patriarchal narrative in Genesis, only four individuals in the Old Testament are said to have lived beyond 100 years of age: Moses (120 years [Deuteronomy 34:7]), Joshua (110 years [Joshua 24:29]), Job (140 years [Job 42:16]), and the high priest Jehoiada (130 years [II Chronicles 24:15]). (Scott, On Earth as in Heaven: The Restoration of Sacred Time and Sacred Space in the Book of Jubilees, 114)

Jewish tradition advances that Moses is the first of four significant figures who die at the landmark age of 120. The Midrash Sifre (Deuteronomy 34.7 §357.14) records:

He [Moses] is one of four who died at the age of one hundred twenty years. These are they: Moses, Hillel the Eder [110 BCE-7CE], Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai [30 BCE-90 CE], and Rabbi Aqiba [40-137]. Moses spent forty years in Egypt, forty years in Midian, and forty years as sustainer of Israel. Hillel the Elder emigrated from Babylonia at the age of forty years, served as disciple of sages for forty years, and spent forty years as sustainer of Israel. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai spent forty years in trade, served as disciple of sages for forty years, and spent forty years as sustainer of Israel. Rabbi Aquiba studied Torah at the age of forty years, served as disciple of sages for forty years, and spent forty years as sustainer of Israel. There are six pairs who lived the same length of time: Rebecca and Cheetah, Levi and Amam, Joseph and Joshua, Samuel and Solomon, Moses and Hillel the Elder, and Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and Rabbi Aquiba. (Jacob Neusner [b. 1932], A Theological Commentary to the Midrash: Sifré to Numbers and Sifré to Deuteronomy, 187)

At the time of his death, Moses is one hundred twenty years young (Deuteronomy 34:7). Despite his many years, he is still vigorous. This detail adds an element of tragedy to his death.

Eugene H. Merrill (b. 1934) laments:

That Moses’ death was premature, even though he was 120 years old, is clear from the assessment that “his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone” (Deuteronomy 34:7). In other words, he did not fail to enter Canaan because he died, but he died because he failed to enter Canaan [Numbers 20:12]. (Merrill, Deuteronomy (New American Commentary), 453-54)

George W. Coats (1936-2006) analyzes:

At this critical point in the heroic story, intimacy between the hero and God is apparent. But in the death away from the people, intimacy between hero and people is broken. In the past he also belonged to his people. Now his people are absent. The death of the hero is thus typically tragic: ‘No man knows the place of his burial to this day’ [Deuteronomy 34:6]. Deuteronomy 34:7 heightens the tragedy. Moses was one hundred twenty years old. That age is the time for death (contrast Deuteronomy 31:1). But for Moses the vigor of his heroic life remained. ‘His eye was not dim, nor his vigor abated.’ He could have continued his leadership. He was in physical form if not in chronological age a young man. And he left his people when he would have still been able to lead them. (Coats, Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God, 152)

Despite Moses’ premature death prohibiting him from entering the Promised Land, he never experiences poor health and is permitted to inspect the region while imagining a better life for his people given divine assurance that his efforts have not been in vain (Deuteronomy 34:1-4). Deuteronomy 34:7 provides a fitting epitaph for the revered leader .

What does Deuteronomy’s epitaph convey about Moses (Deuteronomy 34:7)? How do you picture Moses, as a vigorous mountain man or a decrepit lawgiver; which is more accurate? How important is vitality to a leader’s credibility? What do you think Moses felt as he inspected the Promised Land, hope or regret (Deuteronomy 34:1-4); is this viewing a blessing or a curse? Who have you known who experienced good health even well advanced in years; who aged best? How long would you like to live?

Moses’ 120-year life can be divided neatly into three parts. Gary Harlan Hall (b. 1941) delineates:

Moses was a hundred and twenty years old [Deuteronomy 34:7]. This marked the end of the third cycle of his life and rounded off his service to God. Moses was forty wen he fled Egypt (Acts 7:23), eighty at the time of the Exodus (cf. Deuteronomy 2:7), and now 120. Now at the end of the third cycle he was no longer able to carry out his leadership functions. The end had come for Moses not because of deteriorating health (see Deuteronomy 34:7), but because his role in God’s plan was at an end. A new task called for new leadership. (Hall, Deuteronomy (College Press NIV Commentary), 453-54)

Though Moses’ life has three notable forty year phases, he is primarily remembered for what he achieved during its final chapter (Deuteronomy 2:7, 34:7); Israel’s renowned leader saves his best for last. In a very real sense Moses’ life begins at eighty (Exodus 7:7). Moses’ age provides hope that it is never too late to serve God. And to do so well.

How did the first phases of Moses’ life prepare him for its final chapter? How would you divide your life into eras? Who do you know who was most productive during the last leg of their life’s race? What do you want to do in the final chapter of your life? What would you do if you knew that you were living it now?

“Sometimes, the embers are better than the campfire. It’s strange, but it’s true.” - Stephen King (b. 1947), The Green Mile: The Complete Serial Novel

Og’s King Sized Bed (Deuteronomy 3:11)

Who is the first bedstead owner mentioned in the Bible? Og (Deuteronomy 3:11)

Before undertaking the conquest of the Promised Land, ten of twelve Israelite spies return with a negative report citing the massive inhabitants of the land (Numbers 13:33). Og, king of Bashan, seems to be evidence that their report is not entirely without merit (Numbers 21:33-25; Deuteronomy 3:1-11).

While the book of Numbers offers only a brief summary of the Israelites’ victory over Og (Numbers 21:33-35), Moses expounds upon the triumph while addressing the nation for the last time in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 3:1-11). To those who subscribe to the documentary hypothesis, the J source minimizes the battle while the D source accentuates it.

Moses finds the battle significant enough to recount it in his final remarks (Deuteronomy 3:1-11). The narrative’s final verse notes that Og is the last of the Rephaim and at the time of the text’s writing, his bed remains as a testament to his might (Deuteronomy 3:11).

(For only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bedstead was an iron bedstead; it is in Rabbah of the sons of Ammon. Its length was nine cubits and its width four cubits by ordinary cubit.) (Deuteronomy 3:11 NASB)

Many have viewed this editorial insertion as an historical gloss added by a later redactor. It is presented as a parenthetical aside in many prominent translations (ASV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). Daniel I. Block (b. 1943) remarks that the interjection “invites ancient readers to check the narrator’s veracity and confirm the magnitude of Israel’s victory (Block, Deuteronomy (The NIV Application Commentary), 31).”

The annotation highlights Og’s colossal iron bed. At the time of the text’s writing, Og’s bedstead is a museum piece in Rabbah, modern-day Amman, the capital and largest city in Jordan. This is the first reference to Rabbah in Scripture (Deuteronomy 3:11; Joshua 13:25, 15:60; II Samuel 11:1, 12:26, 27, 29, 17:27, I Chronicles 20:1; Jeremiah 49:2, 3; Ezekiel 21:20, 25:5; Amos 1:14).

The furniture in question is alternately translated as Og’s “bedstead” (ASV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, RSV), “bed” (ESV, HCSB, MSG, NIV, NLT, NRSV), or “coffin” (CEV).

Everett Fox (b. 1947) and Peter C. Craigie (1938-1985) render the word “couch”. This is functionally accurate as John H. Walton (b. 1952) and Victor H. Matthews (b. 1950) note, “Beds were not just for sleeping but were often used for reclining on during feasts and celebrations. Some reliefs picture kings reclining on magnificent couches (Walton and Matthews, Genesis—Deuteronomy (The IVP Bible Background Commentary), 223).”

As indicated by the CEV’s translation, some have proposed that Og’s bed is actually a sarcophagus or coffin. A.R. Millard (b. 1937) traces:

According to S.R. Driver [1846-1914] it was J.D. Michaelis [1717-1791] who gave birth to the idea that “bed” here, ‘ereś, might denote a sarcophagus, an idea which many now accept...The metamorphosis of Og’s bed into a basalt coffin was completed when it gained authoritative status in modern Bible translations...The NEB renders ‘ereś barzel, “sarcophagus of basalt,” with a footnote “or iron” for basalt, and the United Bible Societies’ Good News Bible offers “His coffin made of stone,” with footnotes “coffin or bed” and “stone or iron.”...Despite the unanimity of commentators, S.R. Driver’s caution deserves to be heeded: “it is not impossible that the giant relic shown at Rabbah was a sarcophagus; though, as this meaning of ‘rś is uncertain, it is better to suppose that what was really a sarcophagus was popularly called a ‘bed’.” In other words, “Og’s bed” was a name like “King Arthur’s Seat” in Edinburgh, or “Solomon’s Throne” in Iran. That is, in fact, the only way to explain how a word which always means ‘bed” can be translated “coffin,” and how a word which always denotes “iron” can be given the meaning “stone.” Archaeologists have yet to unearth a large basalt coffin in Amman inscribed “The iron bed of King Og,” and it is unlikely they will do so. (Lyle Eslinger [b. 1953], “King Og’s Bed and other Ancient Ironmongery”, Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Essays in Memory of Peter C. Craigie [1938-1985], 482-84)

The belief that the bed is actually a coffin is not universal. Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) refutes:

The object which was shown in Rabbah of the Ammonites as the ‘bed’...can hardly have been originally a sarcophagus in view of its length (about fourteen feet), for it is more than double the length of the famous sarcophagus of Ahiram of Byblus. (Von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 44-45)

The Hebrew term literally indicates a bed. Robert Alter (b. 1935) defines:

The Hebrew noun ‘eres is a poetic term for bed, perhaps used here (instead of the more prosaic mishkav or mitah) to give this declaration an epic flourish. Moshe Weinfeld [1925-2009] proposes that it means “bier,” a secondary meaning that mitah has. Several scholars have noted that late in the second millennium B.C.E., iron had been only recently introduced and was still regarded as a rare metal. But the sheer hardness of the substance might be meant to indicate the martial toughness of the gigantic king. (Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, 893)

The bed is characterized by its prodigious size and its iron composition, likely state of the art for the period. Christopher J.H. Wright (b. 1947) researches:

Alan R. Millard [b. 1937] has argued from archaeological evidence, first that Og’s “iron bed” was indeed a bed and not...a basalt sarcophagus, and secondly, that it was probably a wooden frame plated or decorated with iron, not solid iron (like “ivory palace,” Psalm 45:8). At this point in history, the transition from the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age, iron is still a precious and costly metal and therefore fit the decor of the royal bedroom. Millard also suggests that since iron became the common metal of following centuries, this small incidental note about a remarkable “iron bed” is consistent with an early date for Deuteronomy. Cf. Millard, “King Og’s Bed.” Unlike Og, the matter has not been laid to rest: cf. Robert Drews [b. 1936], “The ‘Chariots of Iron’ of Joshua and Judges” and Millard, “Iron Bed.” (Wright, Deuteronomy (New International Biblical Commentary), 43-44)

Edward J. Woods sees a further explanation for the metal:

In this archaeological note, Og is pictured as a giant, requiring a huge bed that has to be made of iron in order to bear his weight. For this reason, it would have been considered a remarkable piece for the Late Bronze period (second millennium BC), when iron was considered to be precious, as with the term iron chariots (Joshua 17:16, 16; Judges 1:19, 4:3, 13). In the Iron Age of the first millennium BC, one did not mention that chariots (or beds) were made of iron, as this was understood...The reference to the Ammonite city of Rabbah might place this note as late as the time of David, when Rabbah was the capitol of Ammon. (Woods, Deuteronomy (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 97-98)

The distinguishing characteristic of the piece is its size, nine cubits in length (Deuteronomy 3:11). Doug McIntosh (b. 1945) measures:

The last phrase is literally, “according to the cubit of a man.” This form of measurement, the most common biblical linear standard, came from a measurement available to everyone: the distance between the elbow and the tip of the middle finger, approximately eighteen inches. A cubit is also twice the distance of the space between the thumb and the tip of the little finger, what the Bible calls “a span.”...The measurement of the “cubit of man” received confirmation some years ago when the Siloam inscription was discovered in Jerusalem. It describes the length of Hezekiah’s Tunnel as 1,200 cubits long. Its length in modern terms is 1,749 feet, yielding a measurement for the standard cubit of 17.49 inches. (McIntosh, Deuteronomy (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 47)

Peter C. Craigie (1938-1985) calculates:

The common cubit...appears to have been...approximately 18 inches. Thus the approximate dimensions of Og’s sarcophagus or couch would have been 13½ × 6 feet (4.1 × 1.8 meters). (Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 120)

Og truly has a king-sized bed. There are presently two sizes of king sized beds and four names for them. A Standard (or Eastern) King is about 4" wider and a California (or Western) King is 4" longer. A Standard measures 76" wide x 80" long while a California is 72" wide x 84" long. While Og’s bed is not much wider than the modern king sized bed, its length is nearly twice the size of even the longer California King.

Tellingly, this extraordinary object is all that the once powerful king leaves to history.

Are there other famous (or notorious) beds in history worthy of being museum pieces? When have makeshift coffins been constructed from objects not intended for such use? What size bed do you employ? If you could choose only one of your possessions to be left for posterity, what would it be?

Interestingly, the text discusses the size of Og’s bed though not his own. The insinuation, however, is clear: Og is a giant. An American equivalent is the 27th president, William Howard Taft (1857-1930). An urban legend that the 340-pound president became stuck in a White House bathtub originated with chief usher Irwin Hood “Ike” Hoover (1871-1933)’s 1932 memoir 42 Years in the White House. While Hoover’s story cannot be corroborated, newspaper reports housed in the National Archives record that in preparation of Taft’s 1909 trip to inspect construction of the Panama Canal, the captain of the USS North Carolina requested an oversized bathtub to accommodate the president-elect. The tub is described as having “pondlike dimensions”. Like Taft’s bathtub, the proportions of Og’s bed intimate his own size.

Og’s height is also implied in his being described as the last of the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 3:11). Og is a giant and, as such, represents the living embodiment of the Israelites’ worst nightmares (Numbers 13:33). Yet with God’s help, Og is soundly defeated (Numbers 21:33-25; Deuteronomy 3:1-11) and the land once ruled by Bashan’s king is redistributed to the Israelite tribe of Manasseh (Deuteronomy 3:13). With Og’s death the giants have been defeated.

Stephen K. Sherwood (b. 1943) comments:

Only Og remained of the Rephaim—they had all been wiped out, mostly by other peoples. Fear of them was groundless. Pointing to Og’s iron bed emphasizes that the last of the giants is no longer. Certainly, the aside on Og’s bedstead is intended to stress the great size of the defeated enemy and thereby to allay the people’s fear of the size of their future opponents. (Sherwood, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 248)

All that remains of Og and his kingdom is his bed. Telford Work (b. 1965) interprets:

Having a bed of then-rare iron reveals Og’s power. The relic is a museum piece whose existence evokes awe at the formidable enemy whom God had delivered to Moses. (Work, Deuteronomy (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 52)

What was to be a witness to Og’s grandeur becomes a testimony to God’s power. J.G. McConville (b. 1951) observes:

The monument to the hero king’s memory ironically becomes an eloquent witness to the power of Yahweh over all such giants (cf. Deuteronomy 1:28). (McConville, Deuteronomy (Apollos Old Testament Commentary), 94)

Og’s bed is a constant reminder that God is bigger than giants. In his parting words to his nation, Moses reminds the people of this battle and as such this fact. There will be many battles ahead during the conquest of the Promised Land and the Israelites need not fear. Besides, the giants have been eliminated.

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) interprets:

Og is identified as the last of the Rephaim, and Sihon by indirection is also linked with the Rephaim, since he is a likeness of Og. Thus the narrative reports on the decisive defeat of the “giants in the land” by the power and will of YHWH. The importance of the “Rephaim-connection” is that Israel is reminded that YHWH has already defeated the Rephaim, or their equivalents (Deuteronomy 2:10-12, 20-21)...None of these was a match for YHWH in earlier times. The inference is that neither Sihon nor Og in his turn can resist Israel when Israel is guaranteed by YHWH. As Israel can remember these ancient victories against seemingly great odds, so Israel can legitimately anticipate victories in the forthcoming disputes with occupants of the land. None of the enemies is a match for the power of YHWH, the very assurance that Israel in Deuteronomy 1:26-33 was unable or unwilling to trust. (Brueggemann, Deuteronomy (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), 39)

The defeat of Og serves not only as a reminder to the Israelites preparing to vanquish the people dwelling in the Promised Land but to all who people who have followed them who serve the very same God.

Patrick D. Miller (b. 1935) applies:

Fearfulness and anxiety about future large and real problems will not get one across the border into the new land. The issue is not whether the Anakim are there, mighty and tall. They are indeed. If one doubts that, one has only to view King Og’s fourteen-foot bed! The issue, however, is whether the people will “see” that God has brought them safely by the Amalekites to this point (Exodus 17:8-16) and can and will give them victory over the Anakim they see ahead. (Miller, Deuteronomy (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 36)

What is the biggest obstacle you have overcome? What past victory gives you hope for the present and the future? Is any tangible reminder of that triumph preserved? What seemingly insurmountable obstacle is currently obstructing your path? Do you take comfort from Bible stories such as God’s ability to fell Og?

“My bed is actually two king beds put together.” - Cindy Margolis (b. 1965)

10 Commandments, 2 Places (Ex. 20 & Deut. 5)

In which two Old Testament books are the Ten Commandments recorded? Exodus (20:1-17) and Deuteronomy (5:1-21)

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, are foundational laws given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:1-21). They appear twice in the Old Testament, both times in the Law, in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. Moses first communicated the Ten Commandments after descending from Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:1-17) and then reiterated them in his final discourse to the people (Deuteronomy 5:1-21). This is not surprising as Deuteronomy is a retelling of the law. The name Deuteronomy means “second law”. Churches have given preferential treatment to the version given in Exodus.

The Ten Commandments are referred to elsewhere in the Bible as the ten devarim (“statements”) which is why they are grouped as a unit of ten (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13, 10:4). Early English Bible translations Tyndale (1530) and Coverdale (1535) referred to them as the “ten verses”. The Geneva Bible (1560) appears to be the first English translation to use “tenne commandements”, which established the precedent for the King James Version (1611). Various religions and denominations number the commandments differently. (To see different ways in which the Ten Commandments have been grouped, click here.)

There are subtle differences in the two versions of the Ten Commandments. One glaring dissimilarity is seen in the rationale behind keeping the Sabbath, the fourth commandment. The first version cites the precedent of God resting on the seventh day of creation (Genesis 2:1-3). Exodus reads:

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:11 NASB)

In contrast, Deuteronomy explains:

“You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.” (Deuteronomy 5:15 NASB)

Compare and contrast the two versions of the Ten Commandments. What differences do you notice? Does it bother you that there are different reasons given to explain the fourth commandment? Which is the real reason for observing the Sabbath?

Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) explained that Deuteronomy did not need to repeat the reference to creation in recording the fourth commandment as Deuteronomy itself refers back to the command from Exodus with the words “as the Lord your God has commanded you (Deuteronomy 5:12 NASB).” Instead, Moses revealed an additional motive for the command.

Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) gave equal weight to both rationales for the Sabbath command. He explained, “God commanded us to abstain from work on the Sabbath, and to rest, for two purposes; namely, (1) That we might confirm the true theory, that of the Creation, which at once and clearly leads to the theory of the existence of God. (2) That we might remember how kind God had been in freeing us from the burden of the Egyptians - The Sabbath is therefore a double blessing: it gives us correct notions, and also promotes the well-being of our bodies (Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, 406).”

The two explanations given for observing the Sabbath do not contradict one another. One action can be completed for more than one reason, hence the expression killing two birds with one stone. A person eats to sustain life but might also eat to enjoy a good meal or to celebrate an event. Why did they eat? All reasons might be equally accurate.

Jesus resolved that God instituted the Sabbath for humanity’s benefit - “ The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27 NASB).

What examples can you find of people performing one action for multiple reasons? In what ways does the Sabbath benefit humanity? Do you observe the Sabbath? If so, why?

An Eye for an Eye (Exodus 21:24)

In which book do these words first appear: eye for eye, tooth for tooth? Exodus (Exodus 21:24)

The phrase “eye for eye” appears in three of the five books of the Law, first in Exodus (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 19:21). The expression is connected to personal injury law and entitles an injured party to compensation. The principle of an eye for an eye is often referred to by the Latin phrase lex talionis, the law of talion. Talion indicates a punishment identical to the offense. An eye for an eye insures that a punishment fits a crime.

An eye for an eye did not necessitate retaliation but instead capped the reprisal. This reciprocal justice was intended to minimize retribution. Human nature often seeks to “win” instead of breaking even. In the acclaimed 1987 movie The Untouchables, Jim Malone (Sean Connery [b. 1930]) advises Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner [b. 1955]), “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He [Al Capone] sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.” An eye for an eye was designed to limit such escalating revenge.

Judaism has historically interpreted the eye for eye passages as allowing for injured parties to seek proportional compensation, usually monetary. This is seen in the Talmud (Bava Kamma, 83b-84a). It is far easier to determine fair monetary compensation than to mirror exact physical injury. The literal reading has also been refuted using the argument that blind or eyeless offenders would be exempt from the law.

There are many parts of the world where lex taliones is still practiced. Is any U.S. law based upon this principle? Why were eyes and teeth selected as the representative body parts? There have been many detractors of an eye for an eye as it seems to suggest that two wrongs equal a right. Jesus could be numbered among those critics. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also (Matthew 5:38-39 NASB).” The revolutionary nature of this teaching is lost today.

In the centuries since Jesus instructed his followers to turn the other cheek, many have attempted to live his words literally. Billy Bray (1794-1868) was a drunkard and coal miner who became a Christian at the age of 29. After his conversion, he transformed into a charismatic evangelist and folk hero in his native Cornwall.

D. Martyn-Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) describes an incident where Bray turned the other cheek:

Billy Bray, who before his conversion was a pugilist, and a very good one. Billy Bray was converted; but one day, down in the mine, another man who used to live in mortal dread and terror of Billy Bray before Bray’s conversion, knowing he was converted, thought he had at last found his opportunity. Without any provocation at all he struck Billy Bray, who could very easily have revenged himself upon him and laid him down unconscious on the round. But instead of doing that Billy Bray looked at him and said, ‘May God forgive you, even as I forgive you’, and no more. The result was that that man endured for several days an agony of mind and spirit which led directly to his conversion. (Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, 248.)

Is there a time when seeking an eye for an eye is preferable to turning the other cheek? Which do your practice, taking an eye for an eye or turning the other cheek? Which is more natural?

“An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.” - attributed to Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948)