Elisheba: The Priest’s Wife (Exodus 6:23)

Who was Aaron’s wife? Elisheba

Exodus interrupts its narrative to supply a genealogy of the heads of the first three tribes of Israel (Exodus 6:14-27). The list naturally focuses on the tribe of Levi, the clan of its leaders, Moses and Aaron (Exodus 6:16-27). Amid this context, Aaron’s wife, Elisheba, makes her only biblical appearance (Exodus 6:23).

Aaron married Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, the sister of Nahshon, and she bore him Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. (Exodus 6:23 NASB)

Elisheba is obscure. She appears only in this genealogy and nothing is said of her apart from her family ties. Pamela L. McQuade (b. 1953) acclimates:

Aaron’s wife doesn’t get a lot of press in the Bible. Her brother Nahshon gets more mention as a leader of the tribe of Judah [Exodus 6:23; Numbers 1:7, 2:3, 7:12, 17, 10:14; Ruth 4:20, I Chronicles 2:10, 11; Matthew 1:4; Luke 3:32], but Elisheba would have been well known to the Israelites, as wife of their high priest [Exodus 6:23]. (McQuade, The Top 100 Women of the Bible: Who They Are and What They Mean to You Today, 47)

Some have attempted to fill this void in Elisheba’s story. One strand of Jewish tradition claims that she served as one of the midwives who protected Hebrew babies in Exodus’ opening chapter. (Exodus 1:15-21).

Scott M. Langston (b. 1960) researches:

Were the “midwives of the Hebrews” Egyptians or Hebrews? In the Septuagint, as in Josephus [37-100], they were Egyptians. In the Talmud, however, they were Jewish. One Talmudic tradition, also followed by Targum Neofiti I and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, identified Shiphrah as Jocheved, Moses’ mother, and Puah as Miriam, his sister. The other understood the midwives to be Jocheved and Elisheba, the wife of Aaron (b. Sotah 11b). Exodus Rabbah agreed that they were Hebrew and recorded numerous explanations of their names. Their ethnicity made a difference in the story. As Egyptians, they exemplified God’s ability to use non-Hebrews to achieve his purposes. As Hebrews, they became symbols of the national struggle for freedom. (Langston, Exodus Through the Centuries, 18)

Some scholars have supplied Elisheba a voice. Penina Adelman (b. 1953) apprises:

Very little has been written about Elisheba. Ellen Frankel [b. 1951], author of The Five Books of Miriam (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1996), pages 159-61, responds to this void by letting Elisheba speak in her own voice...Jill Hammer [b. 1969] has responded to the lack of material on Elisheba with a midrash of her own, which also portrays Elisheba in her midwife guise. It is called “The Tenth Plague” and can be found in the midrash collection Sisters at Sinai: New Tales of Biblical Women (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2004), pages 105-113. (Adelman, “Elisheba”, Praise Her Works: Conversations with Biblical Women, 138-39)

Elisheba is the only person who carries this name in the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 6:23). Though uncommon in the modern era, the name did briefly make its way into the mainstream when actress Elizabeth Taylor (1932-2011) adopted it upon her conversion to Judaism in 1959.

William H.C. Propp (b. 1957) studies:

Ĕlîšeba‘ seems to mean “My god is Seven” (cf. the names batšeba‘ ‘Seven’s daughter,’ yehôšeba‘/yehôšab‘at ‘Yahweh is Seven,’ be’ēršeba‘ ‘Seven’s well’ and šeba‘ ‘Seven’; compare to the Byblian king Sibitti-běl ‘Baal is Seven’ mentioned in inscriptions of Tiglath Pileser III [Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament 282, 283]). Is šeba‘ an Israelite manifestation of the Mesopotamian god/gods/demons Sebettu ‘the Seven,’ on whom see D.O. Edzard [1930-2004] (1965:124-25)? For other etymologies see Samuel E. Loewenstamm [1907-1987] (1950). (Propp, Exodus 1-18 (Anchor Bible), 279)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) informs:

The name ’élîśeba’ (Elisheba) is the Hebrew form of “Elizabeth”. What “Elizabeth” means is debatable, but two possibilities are “My God is the One by whom to swear” or “My God is Seven.” (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 106)

Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) connects:

According to Luke, the mother of John the Baptist and wife of Zechariah the priest is Elizabeth (Luke 1:5). The name Elizabeth is a variant of the biblical name Elisheba (אלישבע), the wife of Aaron (cf. Exodus 6:23), which in the Septuagint is Έλισάβεθ. The Greek form Έλισάβη appears on an ossuary from Silwan, Jerualem (cf. Hans Henry Spoer [1873-1951] 1907; Samuel Klein [1886-1940] and Jean-Baptiste Frey [1878-1939] no. 1338). (Evans, Jesus and the Ossuaries: What Jewish Burial Practices Reveal about the Beginning of Christianity, 82)

The fact that Elisheba is named is significant in and of itself as Exodus seldom identifies women by name. Carol Meyers (b. 1942) notes:

Only six women (Elisheba [Exodus 6:23], Jochebed [Exodus 6:20], Miriam [Exodus 15:20, 21], Puah [Exodus 1:15], Shiphrah [Exodus 1:15], and Zippporah [Exodus 2:21, 4:25, 18:2]) are mentioned by name in the book of Exodus. But many more are referred to in the narratives, especially in chapters 1-3 [Exodus 1:1-3:22]; and generic women are mentioned in the Decalogue and community regulations of chapters 20-23 [Exodus 20:1-23:33]. (Meyers, Exodus (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 25)

It is worth noting that Moses’ wife and sister are unnamed in this genealogy while Elisheba is.

It is also rare for women to be mentioned in genealogies. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) comments:

Unlike most genealogies in Scripture or elsewhere, it [Exodus 6:14-27] includes the names of women (Matthew 1:1-17 is another exception to the rule); Jochebed [Exodus 6:20], Elisheba [Exodus 6:23], an anonymous daughter of Putiel (wife of Eleazar, Aaron’s daughter-in-law, Phinehas’s mother) [Exodus 6:25], and Miriam in Exodus 6:20 if we follow the reading of the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch. What makes the presence of these women so unique here is that this genealogy is about who has the proper bloodlines to serve as high priest or just as priest, an office restricted by sex to males. There are no “priestesses” in the Old Testament. (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 108)

Tikva Frymer-Kensky (1943-2006) analyzes:

She [Elisheba] never appears in any story, and the mention of her name in this brief genealogy must be related to the purpose of this family listing. Such listings don’t ordinarily include female ancestors. This genealogy foregrounds Moses and Aaron, and the addition of named women to their family tree — Moses’ mother Jochebed [Exodus 6:20] as well as Elisheba [Exodus 6:23] — perhaps contributes to the prominence of their lineage. Moreover, the inclusion of a mother’s name indicates how significant these women were to the destiny of their children. (Carol L. Meyers [b. 1942], Toni Craven [b. 1944], Ross Shepard Kraemer [b. 1948], “Elisheba”, Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books and New Testament, 73)

Elisheba is the wife of Aaron, the high priest (Exodus 6:23). There is either a significant difference in age between Elisheba and her husband or there is a gap in the genealogy.

William H.C. Propp (b. 1957) relays:

Heinrich Holzinger [1863-1944] (1900:20) observes that Aaron may be considerably older than his wife. He is of the fourth generation from Jacob, she of the sixth. (Propp, Exodus 1-18 (Anchor Bible), 279)

Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) counters:

The principle of selectivity is...clear in comparing other genealogies within the Old Testament. So, for example, according to Exodus 6, Aaron and Moses belong to the fourth generation after Jacob, whereas from the lists in Ruth 4:18-20 and I Chronicles 2:4-10, it would appear that Aaron’s wife Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, belonged to the sixth generation. (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Old Testament Library), 117)

Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) concurs:

Moses’ listing of his and Aaron’s ancestry has, typically, gaps. It mentions Moses and Aaron in the fourth generation after Jacob, although Aaron’s wife Elisheba (Exodus 6:23) seems to fit in the sixth generation after Jacob according to the data lists in I Chronicles 2:4-10 and Ruth 4:18-20. By mentioning only the generations of Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Aaron/Moses (Exodus 6:16-20), it could seem to give the impression that there were in fact only four generations from the entrance into Egypt until the exodus—a period of 430 years (cf. Exodus 12:20). This is theoretically possible in light of the long lives of Levi, Kohath, and Amram and the fact that Moses was eighty when the exodus began, but it would require that each father in this group had the son named in this group at about age one hundred. (Stuart, Exodus (New American Commentary), 176)

Though relatively inconsequential within the confines of the Bible, Elisheba was likely eminent during her own lifetime as she was a prominent member of Israel’s first family.

Ronald L. Eisenberg (b. 1945) educates:

The Talmud notes that “Elisheba had five joys more than the daughters of Israel” on the day the Tabernacle was dedicated. “Her brother-in-law [Moses] was a king, her husband [Aaron] was a high priest, her son [Eleazar] was segan [deputy high priest], her grandson [Pinchas] was anointed [as deputy high priest to lead the army for battle], and her brother [Nachshon] was the prince of his tribe; yet she mourned her two sons [Nadab and Abihu]” (Zevachim 102a). (Eisengberg, Essential Figures in the Bible, 62)

Midrash has also attached Elisheba with Proverbs’ description of the ideal woman (Proverbs 31:25). Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) edifies:

Yalqut Shimoni...assembles midrashic comments that identify the Woman of Strength [Proverbs 31:10-31] with Sarah...Memories of other women are evoked as well. “Strength and majesty are her raiment” (Proverbs 31:25a) was associated with Elisheba daughter of Amminadab (Exodus 6:23), and “She opens her mouth in wisdom” (Proverbs 31:26a) brought to mind the wise woman who spoke with Joab (II Samuel 14:2). These and similar associations were not meant to be exclusive identifications but to point to women who exemplify the qualities described in this poem. (Fox, Proverbs 10-31 (Anchor Bible), 906)

Elisheba’s presence within Exodus’ genealogy gives credibility to her family’s position. Susanne Scholz (b. 1966) discusses:

An extensive genealogy interrupts the events. Strengthening the authority of Moses (Exodus 6:14-25), the list legitimates him as the leader of the people of Israel. The passage includes his male and a few female ancestors. The women are characterized as daughters, wives and mothers...Women are significant only in their relationship to men (cf. Exodus 1:27-:20). Jochebed, the mother of Moses, is named (Exodus 6:20) but not Moses’ sister and wife. Instead, Aaron’s wife Elisheba (Exodus 6:23) and the daughters of Putiel are listed. One of the daughters marries Eleazar and gives birth to a son (Exodus 6:25). (Athalya Brenner [b. 1943], “The Complexities of ‘His’ Liberation Talk: A Literary Feminist Reading of the Book of Exodus”, A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy, 30)

In addition to Moses, the genealogy also bolsters his descendants, who likely need the credibility more than he. Thomas B. Dozeman (b. 1952) concludes:

The structure indicates the important position of Phinehas [Exodus 6:25]. He is the only character named in the sixth generation of descendants from Levi. Additional information provided by the P author further accentuates his position. The P author provides the age of three characters, Levi (137 years) [Exodus 6:16], Kohath (133 years) [Exodus 6:18], and Amram (137 years) [Exodus 6:20], emphasizing the ancestry of Aaron. Then, beginning with the father of Aaron, Amram, the P author also includes the name of the wife: Amram married Jochebed, his father’s sister [Exodus 6:20]; Aaron married Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, and the sister of Nashshon [Exodus 6:23]; and Eleazar married one of the daughters of Putiel [Exodus 6:25]. The recording of the mothers further accentuates the status of Phinehas. (Dozeman, Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 172)

Exodus’ genealogy serves to bolster the credibility of the priestly line and Elisheba’s inclusion assists in accomplishing this objective (Exodus 6:14-27). Her children, introduced with her (Exodus 6:23), will later play prominent roles. Eleazar will become the nation’s high priest (Numbers 20:23-29) making Elisheba both the wife and the mother of a high priest. From this one reference, it is clear that Elisheba is deemed a great success, a woman many likely aspired to be (Exodus 6:23).

Why is Elisheba named in Exodus’ genealogy when so few women are (Exodus 6:23)? Were you documented as merely a name in your family’s genealogy what could be said of you? Who benefits more from this genealogy, its early or later entries? How important are bloodlines to clergy? What are the advantages and disadvantages to being a second generation minister? Do you add credibility to your relatives and associates?

Elisheba is presented as the wife of the high priest, Aaron (Exodus 6:23). This relationship is accentuated given its connection to a remark made by God earlier in the chapter (Exodus 6:7). Bruce Wells (b. 1968) correlates:

Take you as my own people (Exodus 6:7)...Literally the statement is, “I take [lāqah] you to myself as a people.” The forming of a marriage relationship is also expressed in this way: “Aaron took [lāqah] ...to himself as a wife” (literal translation Exodus 6:23). (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 185)

This type of connection is rare in the Old Testament. Madeline Gay McClenney-Sadler (b. 1967) assesses:

There are only seven marriages in the Pentateuch which provide sufficient kinship information about each character to suggest a preferred marriage form: Milcah–Nahor (Genesis 11:29); Sarah–Abraham (Genesis 12:13, 20:12); Rebekah-Isaac (Genesis 24:4); Mahalath-Esau (Genesis 28:9); Leah–Jacob–Rachel (Genesis 29:30); Aaron–Elisheba (Exodus 6:23) and Amram–Jochebed (Exodus 6:20). (McClenney-Sadler, Re-covering the Daughter’s Nakedness: A Formal Analysis of Israelite Kinship Terminology and the Internal Logic of Leviticus 18, 57)

Given its structure, some have seen practical marriage advice implicit in the genealogy. Ronald L. Eisenberg (b. 1945) informs

The biblical text describes Elisheba as the daughter of Amminadab and the sister of Nachshon (Exodus 6:23). Because the second relationship would seem to be obvious from the first, Rava [280-352] inferred an underlying teaching: “A man who [wishes] to take a wife should inquire about [the character of] her brothers” (Bava Batra 110a), because “most children resemble the brothers of the mother” (Sopherim 15:20). (Eisengberg, Essential Figures in the Bible, 62)

Yehuda Berg (b. 1972) applies:

In an apparent non sequitur, the verse mentions that Elisheva was Nahshon’s sister [Exodus 6:23]. This is important later, Nahshon, who will be one of the foremost tribal princes, will also be the first person to enter the Red Sea when it parts. But there is also a relevant lesson here for us today. Whenever we are considering entering into a relationship, we must take into account the other person’s family because they are the people who have shaped our partner’s concept of the world. (Berg, Exodus (Kabbalistic Bible), 62)

Unlike his brother Moses (Exodus 2:16-22, Numbers 12:1), Aaron marries a fellow Hebrew. But he does not marry someone from his own tribe of Levi. The marriage between Aaron and Elisheba unites two of Israel’s most prominent tribes, Judah and Levi.

William H.C. Propp (b. 1957) relates:

Eliheba is identified by both father and brother because these were an unmarried woman’s primary guardians, and perhaps because, in cases of polgyny, naming a brother in effect identified a woman’s mother. In light of the emphasis on Moses’ and Aaron’s pure Levitic ancestry, it is surprising that Aaron should marry a Judahite (cf. Numbers 1:7, etc.). But Elisheba is the daughter and sister of David’s ancestors Amminadad and Nahshon (Ruth 4:20-22; I Chronicles 2:10-15). The tradition may reflect close ties between the royal house of David and the Jerusalem priesthood (Richard Elliott Friedman [b. 1946] 1987:213). (Propp, Exodus 1-18 (Anchor Bible), 279)

Michele Clark Jenkins (b. 1954) pronounces:

Elisheba is mentioned in Scripture to tell of the marriage union of the Levites with the tribe of Judah. Her husband, Aaron, was a Levitical priest. The priests could not inherit nor leave an inheritance. However, Levites could intermarry with women from other tribes because there would be no confusion regarding inheritances, particularly the allocation of land that God had made to each tribe. (Jenkins, She Speaks: Wisdom From the Women of the Bible to the Modern Black Woman, 63)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) reviews:

Exodus 6:23 tell us that Aaron does not marry a fellow Levite(ss), but instead marries Elisheba/Elizabeth. Her father is Amminadab, and her brother is Nashshon (a name meaning “snakelike” [the Hebrew word nāhāš, “serpent/snake,” as in Genesis 3 [Genesis 3:1, 2, 4, 13, 14], and -ôn, a characterizing affix]). Both her father and her brother are links in the line of from Judah to David and to Jesus (Ruth 4:20; I Chronicles 2:10-11; Matthew 1:4; Luke 3:32-33). Her brother, Nahshon, is the individual from the tribe of Judah who assists Moses in taking the census (Numbers 1:7). That means that the Levitical priest Aaron is married to a Judahite and that the second generation of high priests comes from mixed tribal groups, Levitical and Judahite. Thus, in the ancestry of Jesus Christ, our High Priest and King of kings, there is an interesting mixture of Levi and Judah. (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 109)

The union of the priestly tribe of Levi with the royal tribe of Judah in the life of Aaron and Elisheba (Exodus 6:23) foreshadows their perfect union in the life of Jesus. It proves to be an unbeatable combination.

Is Aaron’s and Elisheba’s union politically motivated? How important is it to be familiar with a potential spouse’s family before consenting to marriage? Where else do the roles of king and priest overlap? When have two famous families merged? When have you seen a marriage in which the whole was greater than the sum of its parts? What is the most effective combination of people or things of which you are aware?

“Love is a partnership of two unique people who bring out the very best in each other, and who know that even though they are wonderful as individuals, they are even better together.” - Barbara Cage

The Clothes Make the Man? (Exodus 28:4)

Who wore an ephod? The high priest (Exodus 28:4)

In defining Aaron’s role as the high priest for the new nation of Israel, God establishes a very strict dress code (Exodus 28:4-43). God commands Moses:

“These are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece and an ephod and a robe and a tunic of checkered work, a turban and a sash, and they shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons, that he may minister as priest to Me.” (Exodus 28:4 NASB)

Maxie Dunnam (b. 1934) comments:

The garments were very ornate, of fine linen, intricately embroidered, not to draw attention to the priest, but to the office, the function. Seven pieces of apparel are described. (Dunnam, Exodus (Mastering the Old Testament), 338)

Of the cataloged items, the ephod is unquestionably one of the most important. It is meticulously described with explicit instructions as to its construction (Exodus 28:6-14, 39:1-17) .

Ronald E. Clements (b. 1929) prioritizes:

The ephod was the most important item of the clothing of a priest, and was apparently at one time the only substantial item worn (I Samuel 2:28, 14:3, 22:18). It consisted of a loin-cloth fastened by a strap or belt around the hips. It was probably, at a very distant time, the normal item of dress for everybody. (Clements, Exodus (Cambridge Bible Commentary), 181)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) counters:

The ephod is the second most important item of clothing the priest wears after the breastpiece. The reason for describing the ephod before the breastpiece may be because it provides the support for the breastpiece (Umberto Cassuto [1883-1951] 1967: 373). (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 485)

Whether ranking first or second in importance, the ephod is highly significant.

The term ephod is a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘êphôd. Though this term is not in popular use most translations leave it untranslated (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) though some Bibles using contemporary language render the garment “priestly vest” (CEV).

The exact meaning of the term has not been determined. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) traces:

We remain uncertain of the origin of the word ’ēpōd. John A. Tvedtnes [b. 1941] (1982) connects the Hebrew word with the Egyptian ifd/y/yfd (“cloth”). Others suggest that the Hebrew word is cognate with Akkadian epattu (“a costly garment’). (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 485)

Robert Alter (b. 1935) speculates:

The ephod (the Hebrew root suggests “binding” or “wrapping around”) evidently was a kind of apron, though opinions differ on this. It has a secondary meaning as an oracular device. (Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, 474)

The ephod is a distinct item. Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) differentiates:

In the divine instructions given to Moses in this chapter, the ephod is distinguished from the breastpiece that was attached to it for the purpose of diving God’s will through Urim and Thummim. The term ephod, however, came to include automatically the notion of “ephod with breastpiece attached” since the two pieces were not used separately, and after the book of Exodus one encounters the term “ephod” rather consistently for the ephod-breastpiece assembly. (Stuart, Exodus (New American Commentary), 606)

In spite of the relatively large space devoted to the ephod, it cannot be replicated with any certainty; its exact form and function remain indeterminate. H.L Ellison (1903-1983) acknowledges:

We have no means of giving a definitive meaning to “ephod”, the English being simply a transliteration of the Hebrew. As R. Alan Cole [1923-2003] says, “The extent of our puzzlement is shown by the fact that we do not know whether the ephod was a waistcoat or a kilt, to use modern terms.” (Ellison, Exodus (Daily Study Bible), 152)

Cornelis Van Dam (b. 1946) elaborates:

Opinion is divided about where the ephod was worn. One view holds that it was like an apron and worn below the waist (Menahem Haran [b. 1924], 106). The rendering of the Septuagint...and the testimony of Josephus [37-100] (Antiquities of the Jews 3.7.5. §162), however, favor the interpretation that it was worn on the upper part of the body. Such ephodlike garments have been attested in New Kingdom Egypt, indicating some cultural affinity with the Old Testament ephod. (T. Desmond Alexander [b. 1955] and David W. Baker [b. 1950], “Priestly Clothing”, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, 643)

Carol Meyers (b. 1942) concedes:

Neither of these priestly vestments can be reconstructed with confidence, but several aspects of each, apart from the other, can be discerned. Although not the first item in the introductory list, the ephod (Exodus 28:6-14) is the first for which directions are given. Perhaps this piece comes at the beginning because of its apparent antiquity in the array of Israelite priestly apparel. In addition to the priestly texts of the Pentateuch, it appears in a handful of deuteronomic texts relating to the premonarchic and early monarchic periods; and an equivalent term appears in other ancient Semitic texts. These sources contain such disparate information, however, that it is very difficult to understand what an ephod looked like or how it was used. Scholars have struggled with the ephod problem since antiquity. The appearance and use of the ephod clearly varied over the millennium or more represented by all these sources. What is constant is that the ephod always related to ritual matters – sometimes as a ritual garment, sometimes as a divinatory device, and sometimes as both. In Exodus and other priestly texts, its detail and its association with the breastpiece make it likely that it was worn by the priest and used for oracular purposes. (Meyers, Exodus (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 242)

The term’s inconsistent use within the Bible further muddies the waters. Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) reports:

It remains a question whether the description of the ephod is consistent throughout the entire Old Testament. In the earlier period, especially in the Micah stories (Judges 17:1-13), the ephod is associated with ‘house gods’ in a manner which is no longer fully clear (cf. also I Samuel 2:18; II Samuel 6:14, 20). However, in Exodus the ephod is part of the priestly clothing, being a type of apron of different colors on which the breastpiece was attached. Cf. the depiction by Kurt Galling [1900-1987], Exodus, p. 141. The other critical literature is cited by Julian Morgenstern [1881-1976]...pp. 114ff., the more recent by Rudolf Smend [1851-1913], Biblisch-historisches Handwörterbuch, col. 420 and Roland De Vaux [1903-1971], Ancient Israel: Its Life and Instructions, p. 544. (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Old Testament Library), 527)

Randall C. Bailey (b. 1951) conjectures:

The term “ephod” seems to imply two different kinds of cultic objects. Often in connection with the teraphim as well as images, the ephod at times was regarded as idolatrous (Judges 17:3-5, 18:14, 17-20; for the teraphim see I Samuel15:23; II Kings 23:24). Gideon created an ephod by which Israel “prostituted themselves by worshiping it there and it became a snare to Gideon and his family” (Judges 8:24). Goliath’s sword was kept “wrapped in cloth behind the ephod” (I Samuel 21:9). The ephod could be worn or carried (I Samuel 2:18, 28, 14:3, 22:18...II Samuel 6:14; I Chronicles 15:27). Its use to ascertain the divine will (I Samuel 23:9-11) seems to have produced the phrase “breastpiece of decision” (משפט חשו, hōšen mišpat, Exodus 28:15, 29). Such varied uses are difficult to reconcile. (Bailey, Exodus (The College Press NIV Commentary), 305)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) suggests:

Subsequent references to this ephod may or may not be referring to the high priest’s golden ephod (see Philip R. Davies [b. 1945] 1975: especially 84-85). For example, the ephod Gideon “set up” (Judges 8:27) seems to be a statue or an upright object rather than a garment (also see Judges 18:18), “the statue/carved image of the ephod [pesel hā’‘ēpôd]”. And how do young Samuel (I Samuel 2:18) and dancing David (II Samuel 6:14) get away with wearing something that only the high priest is to wear? Maybe there is more than one kind of ephod. Or maybe all ephod references are to the same phenomenon, but a phenomenon that has different manifestations throughout Israel’s history. (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 486)

Despite the uncertainty, at the very least a rough sketch of the garment can be reconstructed. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) characterizes:

The ephod is shaped liked an apron encircling the body and covers the loins (maybe from waist to thigh). It is kept in position on the body by means of two shoulder pieces (Exodus 28:7) and a fastening band (Exodus 28:8). Gold is its most dominant material and color. This is indicated by Exodus 28:6, which lists gold before it lists any fabrics. (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 485)

Terry W. Eddinger (b. 1964) envisions:

An ornate, sleeveless outer garment worn by the Israelite high priest. Exodus 28:6-10 describes the ephod as a garment made of fine, twisted linen decorated with gold, blue, purple, and scarlet material. Two shoulder pieces and a woven belt made of the same material complete the outfit. Affixed to the shoulder pieces were two onyx stones inscribed with the names of the sons of Israel. A breastplate made of the same materials and decorated with 12 precious stones, symbolizing the 12 tribes, was attached by golden rings to the front of the ephod (Exodus 28:15-28). A pocket in the breastplate stored the Urim and Thummim, the lots of divination. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], “Ephod”, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 415)

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (b. 1933) delineates:

The ephod probably was a high priestly waistcoat woven of blue, purple, scarlet, and white linen thread—all entwined with gold thread. Instead of having sleeves or being joined at the sides, it was hung from the shoulders by straps on each of which one onyx stone was mounted on top of a golden clasp, with the names of the six younger sons of Israel engraved on one stone and the six elder sons engraved on the other stone (Exodus 28:9-10). The Septuagint makes the onyx “emeralds,” while Josephus [37-100] (Antiquities of the Jews 3.165 [7.5]) makes them “sardonyx,” the best variety of onyx...A “waistband” (Exodus 28:8) made of the same material and style as the ephod held the front and back of the ephod to the priest’s body. It had no significance of its own. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Genesis ~Leviticus (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 527)

There are parallels to the ephod in other cultures of the period. Bruce Wells (b. 1968) addresses:

This description [Exodus 28:6] portrays the ephod as a rather expensive piece of clothing. A similar garment appears to be mentioned in Old Assyrian texts (the term is epattu) and in a few documents from Ugarit (ipd in Ugaritic). There is some hint that these garments were also costly though the evidence is inconclusive. Based on the biblical account, the ephod was like an apron that wrapped around the body from the waist down. Depictions of similar garments on figures that appear to be royal and/or divine have been preserved in artistic representations from New Kingdom Egypt. These garments include shoulder straps, fastened to the main piece by gems in similar fashion to the priestly ephod. Their purpose is unclear, as is any connection to their Israelite counterpart. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 253)

Due to these similarities some critical scholars have speculated that the ephod’s origins lay outside of Israel. William T. Miller (b. 1941) informs:

The ephod was apparently a vestlike garment that had in the past been used to decorate idols; in various places in the Old Testament, its use was prohibited. William H.C. Propp [b. 1957] suggests that P deliberately uses it in the legitimate cult, rather than avoid mentioning the existence of the garment altogether. (Miller, The Book of Exodus: Question by Question, 311)

Regardless of its origins, the ephod’s design carries considerable meaning within the context of Israel and later Christianity. Maxie Dunnam (b. 1934) observes:

The ephod (Exodus 28:6-14) included all the colors which have come to symbolize the characteristics of the person of Christ: gold—purity and power; blue—spiritual/divine; purple—sovereign king; scarlet—sacrifice. (Dunnam, Exodus (Mastering the Old Testament), 338)

The attire directly correlates to the high priest’s role. Peter Enns (b. 1961) connects:

We are not told here what its purpose is, but other biblical texts indicate that it is a means of finding God’s will (I Samuel 23:9-11, 30:7-8). The high priest functions not only in a sacrificial role but also as a conduit for God’s revelation to the people. (Enns, Exodus (The NIV Application Commentary), 530)

Of special significance is the inclusion of the names of the twelve tribes of Israel into the garment (Exodus 28:9-10). Carol Meyers (b. 1942) recognizes:

Two of the items, the ephod and breatspiece, are highly specialized, appearing almost exclusively in priestly contexts and probably having a specific role in ritual practice. Although very different in their construction, these two items share certain features. For one thing, their importance is signaled by the fact that directions for making them are far more extensive than for other pieces of priestly garb. Another feature is that they are linked structurally with rings and cords. Perhaps most striking is that they are both to be adorned with gemstones engraved for “remembrance” (Exodus 28:12, 19) with the names of the Israelite tribes. This feature has commemorative symbolic value, bringing all Israel into the tabernacle with Aaron as he carries out the rituals thought to help secure the well-being of the people or adjudicate their conflicts. (Meyers, Exodus (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 241)

J. Gerald Janzen (b. 1932) interprets:

The fact that God instructs these tribal names to be placed on the ephod shows that God intends to remember. But the fact that God instructs the priests to bear these names on their shoulders shows that God calls the priests (and through them the whole people of God) to participate with God in the act of intercessory remembrance. Thus already, in the symbolism of the ephod, we see the two-sided character of intercession as something we do and something God does in and through us (Romans 8:26-27). (Janzen, Exodus (Westminster Bible Companion), 207–08)

The high priest is adorned in ornate attire intended to convey dignity, not of the man but of his position and task. As is often the case with fashion choices, the high priest’s clothing makes a statement before he ever opens his mouth.

What items of clothing are you familiar with which maintain their name from their language of origin? How is the high priest’s wardrobe befitting of his function? What items of clothing are unique to a particular profession? Whose work attire is most identifiable? Does clothing always make a statement? What, if anything, do your clothes say about you?

The high priest obviously stands out. His attire sets him apart, even from other clergy. This pays dividends for all involved. Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) appraises:

The grandeur of these garments was important not only for the high priest but also for the nation of Israel. Whenever the priest performed his sacred duties, he represented God’s people. He did not act for himself alone, but for all the people before God. What he wore, therefore, was as important to them as it was to him. (Ryken, Exodus: Saved for God's Glory (Preaching the Word), 871)

The high priest is especially set apart. Thomas B. Dozeman (b. 1952) discusses:

About ritual clothing, John E. Vollmer [b. 1945] states: “Special clothes are used to transform the priest into a ritual celebrant,” who is “capable of bridging the gap between the physical world and the world of the spirits.” Moreover, ritual clothing is shaped by theology, a view of ordination, and liturgical practice. The more the clergy is seen as a priesthood, according to Deborah H. Kraak, the greater will be the visual distinction in clothing between the religious leaders and the laity. This is certainly the case with the priestly vestments in Exodus 28:4-43. The clothing of Aaron as the high priest is the most distinctive, because it signifies his holy status. Most of the sacred vestments focus on the high priest, including the ephod, the breastplate, the Urim and Thummim, the robe, and the turban (Exodus 28:6-38). The vestments of the general priesthood also separate them from the laity, but in a less distinctive way. (Dozeman, Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 642)

The high priest’s garb serves as a constant reminder to himself and everyone else that he has been consecrated by God for a special task. Every time he dons the ephod he renews his role as an intercessor between the sacred and the profane.

Why would a priest dress differently from parishioners? How is the pope, for instance, benefitted by his unique ensemble? Should clergy and laity dress differently? Since Jesus had to be identified by a traitorous kiss (Matthew 26:48-49; Mark 14:44-45; Luke 22:47-48), he obviously did not stand out; is this a model contemporary Christian ministers should follow when dressing? Is there a greater gap between laity and clergy in denominations whose ministers are governed by a specific dress code? At your place of worship, do clergy dress differently from the parishioners? How important is a minister’s wardrobe?

“Fashion is a language that creates itself in clothes to interpret reality.” - Karl Lagerfeld (b. 1933), renowned fashion designer

Beneath the Gold (Exodus 25:10)

Of what wood were the tabernacle pieces made? Shittim wood [acacia wood] (Exodus 25:10)

As the Israelites wander in the wilderness en route from Egypt to Canaan, the tabernacle serves as a portable “sanctuary”, the dwelling place of the divine presence (Exodus 25:8). God meticulously outlines the plans for its furnishings (Exodus 25:10-40). The inventory begins with its most famous piece, the ark of the covenant (or testimony) (Exodus 25:10-22).

“They shall construct an ark of acacia wood two and a half cubits long, and one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high. (Exodus 25:10 NASB)

The ark of the covenant is a box containing the tablets or tables of the Law a.k.a. The Ten Commandments (Exodus 25:16). It is a holy treasure chest.

Waldemar Janzen (b. 1932) defines:

The word ark (’aron) is used once in the sense of coffin (of Joseph; Genesis 50:26) and a few times with the meaning money box (as in II Kings 12:10; II Chronicles 24:8). However, of its 193 occurrences in the Old Testament, 184 refer to the ark of the covenant, as in our present context. (Janzen, Exodus (Believers Church Bible Commentary), 338)

Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) clarifies:

Sometimes the ark of the covenant is compared to Noah’s ark (Genesis 6:14), or even to the little ark or basket that saved baby Moses from drowning (Exodus 2:3). However, the Hebrew word used in these passages is not the one used here; there is no linguistic connection. (Ryken, Exodus: Saved for God’s Glory (Preaching the Word), 815-16)

The ark’s dimensions are defined precisely (Exodus 25:10-16). James K. Bruckner (b. 1957) describes:

The ark measured two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. A “cubit” (“forearm”) was the distance from the elbow to the end of the middle finger. The ancient world used various measures, but the generally accepted length of a cubit was between seventeen and a half and eighteen inches. The ark was approximately forty-five inches by twenty-seven inches by twenty seven inches. The ratio between its length and width is five to three—close to what...has recently been termed the “golden ratio.” (Bruckner, Exodus (New International Biblical Commentary), 239-40)

Though its ultimate fate is unknown, the holy object plays a prominent role in Israel’s history. Godfrey Ashby (b. 1930) chronicles:

The ark (Hebrew ’ărôn)...was carried about apart from the tabernacle at times and even taken into battle as a sort of mascot or palladium (I Samuel 4:1-11). Eventually, it was placed in the Jerusalem Temple by Solomon (I Kings 8:1-9). After this, there is no record of what happened to it. (Ashby, Exodus: Go Out and Meet God (International Theological Commentary, 121)

God even specifies the lumber with which the ark will be constructed: acacia wood. The Hebrew term for this structural timber is shittîym. Most translations render the building material as “acacia wood” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NJKV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) though the King James Version opts for the transliterated “shittim wood” (KJV).

Loren D. Crow (b. 1963) delineates:

It is almost certain that the word shittim (KJV) refers to common acacia, an evergreen tree that attains twenty to thirty feet in height. Its branches are long and spindly, ending in yellow flowers. A member of the mimosa family, its wood is excellent for building (Exodus 26:15). (Watson E. Mills [b. 1939], “Plants of the Bible”, The Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, 694)

Hans Arne Jensen (b. 1936) bolsters:

Translation of the Hebrew word shittah as ‘acacia wood’ is supported by the fact that the Arabic plant name sunt, a linguistic equivalent of the Hebrew shittah, designates certain species of acacia in Egypt, Arabia and southern Israel (Michael Zohary [1898-1983] 1982). (Jensen, Plant World of the Bible)

Acacia wood is a close-grained hardwood that is darker and harder than oak. With the exception of the variety native to Australia the acacia features thorns. Egyptian mythology associated the acacia with the characteristics of the tree of life, as seen in the Myth of Osiris and Isis.

Wilma James (1905-1996) depicts:

The acacia tree reaches a height of 20 to 25 feet even in waste places, but is frequently shrubby in appearance. It has soft, feathery foliage and in early spring is covered with sprays of fragrant yellow blossoms which produce fruit capsules resembling a pea pod. The rough orange-brown bark encases a hard fine-grained, and insect-resistant wood. Along with these qualities and its presence on the desert, the acacia was ideal for a building material. (James, Gardening with Biblical Plants: Handbook for the Home Gardener, 6)

Acacia wood is featured prominently in the construction of the tabernacle, also supplying its structure and furnishings (Exodus 25:10, 13, 23, 29, 26:15, 26, 32, 37, 27:1, 6, 30:1, 5, 35:7, 24, 36:20, 31, 36; 37:1, 4, 10, 15, 25, 28, 38:1, 6).

Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) analyzes:

Other than in Isaiah 41:19, Hebrew shittim always refers to the timbers used in the construction of the Tabernacle and the appurtenances. A few biblical place-names testify to the presence of acacia groves in the region of the Land of Israel. There are about eight hundred different species of acacias, but only a few have an upright trunk suitable for cutting timbers for construction. These yield very hard, durable, but lightweight planks. The Hebrew shittah may well be an Egyptian loan word. (Sarna, Exodus (The JPS Torah Commentary), 158)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) annotates:

The Septuagint translates “acacia wood” (‘āsê šittim) as “decay-resistant wood” (xula asēpta). Perhaps acacia wood is the equivalent of California redwood. In ancient Egypt it was considered a holy tree. A number of sites in the Bible have this tree as part of their name: Shittim (Numbers 25:1; Joshua 2:1, 3:1); Abel Shittim (Numbers 33:49); Beth Shittah (Judges 7:22); Nahal Hashshittim (NIV, “the valley of acacias”) in Joel 3:18. (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 455)

Allan A. Swenson (b. 1933) locates:

Acacia trees are common in some areas of the Sinai, especially Acacia seyal. This species and another, A. tortilis, are, botanists agree, the acacia trees that are most likely meant in these many passages in the Bible. From the Dead Sea area southward, acacias can be found in abundance. They favor ravines and wadis, with good reason. Although they can tolerate conditions few other trees can stand, acacias must have water at some time of the year. They obtain it from the rains that rush in brief, sporadic floods through these ravines before the water is swallowed by the desert sands. (Swenson, Plants of the Bible: And How to Grow Them, 157)

Alan Ray Buescher (b. 1955) adds:

Most grow in the Judean desert, the Negeb, and Sinai, while one type (Acacia raddiana) is found in the central and northern parts of Israel. The acacia (Hebrew šhittîm) is a hardy tree, able to withstand the extreme climactic conditions of the desert. Acacia is used for fuel, construction, and shade. The trunk, branches, and leaves also provide food for a variety of animals. Although some types of acacia are shrublike, 4-5 meters (13-16 feet) in height, others have central trunks and can reach heights of 12-15 meters (40-50 feet). (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 12)

Jewish Midrash asserts that the choice of acacia is predetermined. Rashi (1040-1105) cites that one of the first things the patriarch Jacob did upon entering Egypt was to plant the Shittim trees that would be used in the tabernacle hundreds of years later.

Attempts have been made to attach symbolic meaning to the acacia. Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) summarily rejects:

The continuing attempt to find a symbolic meaning in the choice of wood, e.g. it was a cedar like the trees of Paradise (Benno Jacob [1862-1945]), has no basis in the text. (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Old Testament Library), 523)

While symbolic meaning has been largely dismissed, there are practical reasons for the lumber’s selection. The acacia carries the advantages of availability, workability and durability as the wood is abundant in the Sinai, is easily worked and is an enduring wood.

Charlie March (b. 1956) surmises:

As a woodworker I find it interesting that God prefers acacia wood for its sturdy and lightweight nature. Most likely it was also locally available. (March, A Carpenter’s View of the Bible, 91)

The acacia was plentiful in the region making it easily accessible. As some species maintain a shrublike appearance, many have speculated that the burning bush was an acacia (Exodus 3:2). Given its preponderance, the Israelites might have selected the timber without provocation.

Tudor Parfitt (b. 1944) notes:

In many arid zones in Africa, the acacia is the archetypical tree. In the Sinai desert—the land bridge between Africa and Asia—the acacia species rules supreme. It would have been just about the only building material available in the wilderness...The wood of the acacia is exceptionally hard, very heavy, very dense, and will last for a long time. In desert conditions, it would not perish. In Egypt there are acacia panels that have survived for well over 3,000 years. (Parfitt, The Lost Ark of the Covenant: Solving the 2,500-Year-Old Mystery of the Fabled Biblical Ark, 63)

The Israelites likely had experience working with the wood. Gayle A. McCoy (1917-2013) speculates:

The acacia wood from which the ark was constructed grows in both the Sinai and Egypt. It was used extensively in Egypt, so the Hebrew craftsmen knew how to work with it. A species of this acacia tree grows in Arizona and Mexico. The Hebrew workmen had made mummy cases of acacia wood which were expertly carved. Mummy cases found in recent years are still in as good a condition as when built about four thousand years ago. Acacia wood is very durable. Prior to the time of building the ark, while in Egypt, the Hebrew wood craftsmen, made beds, stools, throne chairs and arks or as we would call them, boxes or chests. Solid wood furniture was the only form of furniture in ancient Egypt. The ark and the furniture of the tabernacle was the height of their artistic achievement and would remain so for centuries. (McCoy, God’s Golden Box: The Ark of the Covenant, 79)

Acacia wood is known for its durability. Randall Price (b. 1951) observes:

Acacia trees are native to the Sinai Desert, and the wood was considered so durable that the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) translated the Hebrew for “acacia wood” as “incorruptible wood.” (Price, Searching for the Ark of the Covenant: Latest Discoveries and Research, 15)

Acacia wood is not prone to scraping. It can be cleaned using water as its density prevents liquid from permeating it and causing damage. It can also go untreated and unprotected. It is resistant to fungus; in fact, acacia extract is used to improve the durability and fungal resistance of cheaper types of wood. The acacia also possesses natural barriers to predators as its thorns contain poison which deters insects and the sap excreted by its thorns attracts ants which discourage competing plants. The use of acacia wood insures that the ark is built to last.

As acacia trees generally grow in desert regions, the wood is perfectly suited for a wilderness sanctuary. The ark’s tumultuous history would justify this need for durability.

Stuart Munro-Hay (1947-2004) tracks:

The Ark of the Covenant...led a vigorous active life. Created in the desert from acacia wood...it travelled [sic] extensively in makeshift wagons, suffering the extremes of hot and cold. It swelled and shrank. It went on campaign, resting in tents. Its journeys were not smooth, and it was at times badly shaken in transit (killing those who tried to lend a hand to support it [II Samuel 6:2-11, I Chronicles 16:5-13].) It was conveyed on ox-carts or on the shoulders of priests. It was captured by the Philistines [I Samuel 4:11, 5:1-2]...It saved itself, to Dagon’s detriment, and was sent away in a cart [I Samuel 6:1-12]. It was enshrined at Shiloh and finally in Jerusalem [II Samuel 6:12-17]. (Munro-Hay, The Quest for the Ark of the Covenant: The True History of the Tablets of Moses, 207)

Through all of its journeys, there is no record of damage to the ark.

In addition to its practicality, acacia wood is attractive and as such is still prized in making furniture. It can be polished and produces a unique color do in large part to its grain. The wood can actually change its color when viewed in different lighting. This chatoyancy is not common in wood.

Despite its aesthetic advantages, the acacia would not be visible in the ark of the covenant as the chest was overlaid with gold. Randall Price (b. 1951) inspects:

Magnifying this imperishable quality was the pure gold that overlaid the wood (Exodus 25:11). It may have been applied as gilding (like gold leaf); an idea perhaps denoted by the language of Hebrews 9:4 “covered on all sides with gold.” This was the method used on wooden furniture of the period as evidenced in finds from Egyptian tombs. Thin leaves of gold were glued to a fine layer of plaster spread over the wood or applied as hammered sheets to the wood with small nails. However, the rabbinical interpretation of the Hebrew term for “overlay” here is more substantial. According to the Talmud, this indicates thin boxes of gold placed on both the inside and outside of the acacia wood, making it a three-layered box. (Price, Searching for the Ark of the Covenant: Latest Discoveries and Research, 15)

Thomas B. Dozeman (b. 1952) asserts:

The ark of the testimony is anything but a simple wooden box, devoid of iconography. The structure of the ark remains acacia wood, with the dimensions 2½ cubits long × 1½ cubits wide × 1½ cubits high (about 3¾ feet long × 2¼ feet wide × 2¼ feet high). But it is lavished in pure gold both inside and outside of the box with an additional molding of gold. The outside includes gold rings, two on each side, and wooden poles, also covered in gold, which are used to carry the ark. (Dozeman, Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 614)

The ark is built with quality materials. Given its concealment, the acacia wood is selected for its function, not form. Its history demonstrates that acacia wood was the right timber for the job.

Why did God regulate such a seemingly insignificant detail as the wood used in constructing the tabernacle? Do you think that there was a primary reason acacia wood was used or was it a combination of its benefits? Is there symbolic significance connected to this particular lumber? Why is the ark not fashioned in solid gold like its lampstand (Exodus 25:31)? Is God as intimately involved in all aspects of life as during the construction of the tabernacle or is this an anomaly? Do the reasons for selecting humans for given tasks follow the same rationale as the choice of wood in building the tabernacle? What are the closest modern equivalents of the tabernacle and ark of the covenant? How important are building materials to a structure’s success? In what container do you keep your most cherished possessions?

Being gold plated as opposed to solid gold reduces the ark’s weight and allows for smoother transportation. The acacia serves as a solid foundation on which to lay the gold. In doing so, its own beauty is concealed. Like many who work behind the scenes and beneath the surface, acacia wood does not always receive the credit it deserves.

Rabbis Michael Katz (b. 1952) and Gershon Schwartz (1952-2004) advise:

How ironic that the Talmud records this anonymous axiom—“The only benefit from the acacia is when it is cut down”—without acknowledging that the acacia actually has an important and sacred use in traditional Jewish life before it is cut down. Two of the primary ingredients in the ink for Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot come from the acacia tree. One is...gumi, “gum acacia,” also known as gum arabic, a thickening agent made from the dry sap of this tree. The other is...afatzim, “nutgalls” or “gallnuts,” made from a growth on the acacia...Why, then, did Rabbis claim that “The only benefit from the acacia is when it is cut down” when it did have clear uses even before it was cut down? Perhaps this is a case of Rabbinic exaggeration: The acacia does not produce an edible fruit. Or this may be a case where many people were not aware of the usefulness provided by the sap and gall of the acacia...Thus, it is not really true that “The only benefit from the acacia is when it is cut down.” For Jews, there is nothing more sacred than a Torah scroll, and the Torah scroll requires an acacia before it is cut down. We should not judge a tree merely by its fruit. We also need to look at its inner essence, where we discover that there is great worth and benefit. So, too, we have to look inside people and discover that their real worth is often not what appears on the surface. (Katz and Schwartz, Searching for Meaning in Midrash: Lessons for Everyday Living, 94)

God’s selection of acacia wood serves as a reminder that the foundation, commonly concealed, is as critical as the more apparent surface.

When have you completed a thankless task? Who do you know who does not receive due credit? Who can you commend whose work often goes unnoticed or unappreciated?

“Underneath my outside face
There’s a face that none can see.
A little less smiley,
A little less sure,
But a whole lot more like me.”
- Shel Silverstein (1930-1999), ”Underface”, Every Thing on It, p. 132

Bezalel & Building (Exodus 31:2-6)

Name the two craftsmen who worked on the tabernacle. Bezalel and Oholiab (Exodus 31:2-6)

The Tabernacle served as the representation of the divine presence during Israel’s wilderness wandering. God goes to great lengths in planning this portable dwelling place, dictating six chapters of explicit instructions to Moses (Exodus 25:1-30:38). God not only cares about the design of the tabernacle but also who will implement the vision. Moses is not to construct the tabernacle nor would there be politicking to secure this government contract. Instead, God personally selects two master craftsmen: Bezalel and Oholiab (Exodus 31:2-6).

“See, I have called by name Bezalel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. I have filled him with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all kinds of craftsmanship, to make artistic designs for work in gold, in silver, and in bronze, and in the cutting of stones for settings, and in the carving of wood, that he may work in all kinds of craftsmanship. And behold, I Myself have appointed with him Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan; and in the hearts of all who are skillful I have put skill, that they may make all that I have commanded you: (Exodus 31:2-6 NASB)

From start to finish the tabernacle was a God given structure. Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) observes:

For the Old Testament writer the concrete form of the tabernacle is inseparable from its spiritual meaning. Every detail of the structure reflects the one divine will and nothing rests on the ad hoc decision of human builders. There is no tension whatever between form and content, or symbol and reality throughout the tabernacle chapters. Moreover, the tabernacle is not conceived of as a temporary measure for a limited time, but one in which the permanent priesthood of Aaron serves throughout all their generation (Exodus 27:20ff). (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Old Testament Library), 540)

F.B. Meyer (1847-1929) lauds:

The tabernacle with its contents was the subject of much divine thought and care. It was not a poor hut run up in an hour. It was not the creation of human fancy. Man was not the creator, but the executor of the divine program and plan. It was thus that God made the heavens and the earth. He was alone when the foundations of the heavens and earth were laid. To Him alone must be attributed, also, the pattern of the human life of our Lord, in which the tabernacle was duplicated in flesh and blood. In the minutest details, He is immediately interested; and in the most holy place of our nature, within the veil, there is a shrine, where angels might tread with reverence, because His holy presence is there.” (Meyer, Devotional Commentary on Exodus, 303)

The final instructions God gives regarding the tabernacle concern its artisans. The selection of craftsmen is a standard element in ancient building stories, especially in the region where the Bible was written (e.g., the Ugaritic Baal Cycle).

God hires local contractors for the job. Bezalel is “called by name” (Exodus 31:2), indicating a personal selection and perhaps an intimate acquaintance. Bezalel and Oholiab represent a balanced ticket as Bezalel hails from Judah in the south (Exodus 31:2), the largest tribe (Numbers 1:27), while Oholiab is from Dan (Exodus 31:6), one of the smallest tribes (Numbers 1:39), situated in the north.

God selects people who have already demonstrated talent with the requisite skill necessary to assemble the tabernacle. Some have even posed that Bezalel and Oholiab are representative of famous family guilds. It can be certain that they constitute highly skilled labor.

They likely acquired this skill set through slavery. Gene Edward Veith, Jr. (b. 1951) speculates:

Bezalel was probably already a skilled craftsman in the normal course of things before he received his divine commission...Ancient Egypt is renowned for its magnificent art, and although it glorified the Pharaohs, much of the actual labor was done by slaves. Perhaps Bezalel had been forced to adorn a pyramid. The Lord speaking to Moses indicated that He had given these gifts to Bezalel prior to the Sinai revelation. Furthermore, He states that He gave similar ability to others who would be helping Bezalel. (Veith, State of the Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe, 108)

Steven J. Binz (b. 1955) asserts:

There is a marked contrast between the dignity associated with work done in freedom and the brutal labor of slavery. God’s spirit is recognized as the source of the artisan’s skill, talent, and competence. There is pride and concern associated with mastery in the art of embroidery, metalwork, jewelry, and woodcarving. (Binz, The God of Freedom and Life: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 117)

Relatively little is known of Bezalel and Oholiab. Bezalel’s name appears nine times in Scripture; seven in Exodus (Exodus 31:2, 35:30, 36:1, 2, 8, 37:1, 38:22) and twice in Chronicles (I Chronicles 2:20; II Chronicles 1:5). Oholiab’s name is found only five times, all in conjunction with this building project (Exodus 31:6, 35:34, 36:1, 2, 38:23). There is some debate as to whether they worked in tandem or if Bezalel was the foreman. It appears that Bezalel holds a higher position as he is given preeminence.

Bezalel’s heritage is intriguing. His grandfather is named Hur (Exodus 31:2), a common name meaning “Whitey”. It is possible that this is the same Hur who famously propped up Moses’ hands during a victory over the Amalekites (Exodus 17:10-13).

The fact that Bezalel is from the tribe of Judah is noteworthy. Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) examines:

What is perhaps most significant about Bezalel’s family lineage is his being a Judahite. In all aspects of tabernacle service and maintenance, Levites were the only persons allowed responsibility. They alone could set up, take down, transport, maintain, or utilize anything pertaining to the tabernacle. But the original construction was another matter. The servants in God’s house were chosen for their duty by reason of birth lineage; but those who actually built it were chosen because of spiritual gifting. No Judahite would be able to touch anything in the tabernacle once it was constructed and sanctified, but until then the best craftsmen, regardless of tribe, would handle every part of it as they made it into a beautiful, portable divine dwelling for Israel’s God. (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary), 649-50)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) resolves:

Hur’s grandson, Bezalel, is the foreman overseeing the tabernacle’s construction (Exodus 31:2; I Chronicles 2:19-20). Postbiblical Jewish literature sometimes “found” a husband for female figures in Scripture to whose husbands Scripture never refers (e.g., Dinah marries Job, and Rahab marries Joshua). Josephus (37-100, Antiquities 3.2.4 §54) says that Miriam married Hur. This creates marital ties between the tribe of Levi (Miriam) and the tribe of Judah (Hur), as does the marriage of Levite Aaron to Judahite Elizabeth (Exodus 6:23). (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 270)

Bezalel possesses the impressive set of skills necessary to complete the task at hand. A mythology has developed around Bezalel’s giftedness. One Jewish tradition asserts that Bezalel is only twelve years old at time of his commissioning (Sanhedrin 69b). Godfrey Ashby (b. 1930) has dubbed Bezalel “the Leonardo da Vinci of the Hebrews” (Exodus: Go Out and Meet God (International Theological Commentary), 142).

Scott M. Langston (b. 1960) chronicles:

The image of Bezalel...became the medieval prototype of the master jeweler, while also contributing to a Christian mystical understanding of the relationship with God. Richard of St. Victor (1123-1173), as well as the author of the fourteenth century work The Cloud of Unknowing, portrays Bezalel as “the prototype of the ideal Christian labouring, like the jeweler in Pearl, towards a vision of God by his own spiritual effort with the help of divine grace.” Casting him as the model of the “earth-bound artist, achieving a spiritual vision of grace, by sheer craftsmanship and the perfection of accomplished art.” (Langston, Exodus: Through The Centuries (Blackwell Bible Commentaries), 226)

Bezalel is not merely a jack of all trades but a master. Even so, Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) clarifies:

The two personalities are not architects. They possess the necessary skills to fashion the several individual items in accordance with the instructions that they receive from Moses. However, when it comes to assembling the parts into an integrated whole, it is Moses personally who performs the task, not they [Exodus 16:35; Numbers 11:6; Joshua 5:12; Nehemiah 9:20-21]. This really has to be so, within the framework of the narrative, since only Moses carries a mental picture of the Tabernacle in its completed, coherent form. No one else knows the disposition of the individual components and the harmonious interrelationships of the constituent elements. (Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel, 200-1)

Bezalel’s companion is Oholiab. Though most commonly spelled “Oholiab” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), some translations render the name “Aholiab” (KJV, NKJV). Oholiab appears in the Bible only during his commissioning (Exodus 31:6) and the fulfillment passages of his task (Exodus 35:34, 36:1-2, 38:23). There is debate as to whether Oholiab serves as a co-leader or an assistant. At the very least, Bezalel is second in command on the project.

Oholiab’s name is ironic given his task. Randall C. Bailey (b. 1951) notes:

This name may reflect a wordplay since “Oholiab” can mean “father’s tent,” “father is my tent (= protection),” “the tent of the father,” “the father of the tent,” or the like. Further, names containing the word “tent” are prominent in the ancient Near East. (Bailey, Exodus (The College Press NIV Commentary), 330)

Having “tent” as part of one’s name is not irregular in the Bible. Oholibama (“A high place [is] my tent”), Oholah (“Her tent”) and Oholobah (“My tent [is] in her”) are other examples. Oholibama is one of Esau’s Canaanite wives (Genesis 36:2, 14, 18) while the last two names are metaphorical monikers that the prophet Ezekiel supplies to sinful Samaria and apostate Judah respectively (Ezekiel 23:4, 5, 11).

It is often said that “God does not call the equipped. He equips the called.” In this case God calls the equipped.

Bezael and Oholiab’s names suggest that they may have been born for a time such as this. Peter Enns (b. 1961) appraises:

If it is even valid to seek significance in the etymology of names (a last resort when other information is lacking), Bezalel probably means “in the shadow/protection of El [’el, a name of God].” Oholiab can mean either “father is my tent” or perhaps “father is a tent.” Thus, the names themselves may be an allusion to the tabernacle. (Enns, Exodus (The NIV Application Commentary), 543)

Why does Moses not build the tabernacle himself? Why does God not simply speak the tabernacle into being? Who constructs and fixes churches today? Is the task of church maintenance deemed important in your church? What task have you been gifted to do? Have you ever felt as though you were enacting God’s vision? Is there anything you feel that you were born to do?

The construction of the tabernacle is not merely a human effort. As is often the case, God allows humanity to partner with the divine will. In addition to his innate talent, Bezalel and crew are given a significant performance enhancer: the Spirit of God (Exodus 31:3), more specifically, the Spirit of El (as opposed to the personal name Yahweh). Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, the phrase “the Spirit of God” occurs only five times (Genesis 1:2, 41:38; Exodus 31:3, 35:31; Numbers 24:2) twice in connection with the building of the tabernacle (Exodus 31:3, 35:31).

William T. Miller (b. 1941) comments:

The statement in Exodus 31:3, I have filled him with divine spirit (or with the spirit of God), is quite striking. The only other use of the phrase by P is found in Genesis 1:2, the spirit of God swept over the face of the waters. William H.C. Propp (b. 1957) speaks of Bezalel the artist as a “theologian, exampling divine activity and rendering it active and comprehensible.” (Miller, The Book of Exodus: Question by Question, 314)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) theologizes:

Bezalel executes in miniature the divine creative role of Genesis 1 in the building of the tabernacle. The spirit of God with which the craftsmen are filled is a sign of the living, breathing force that lies behind the completing of the project just as it lies behind the creation. Their intricate craftsmanship mirrors God’s own work. The precious metals with which they work take up the very products of God’s beautiful creation and give new shape to that beauty within creation. Just as God created such a world in which God himself would dwell (not explicit in Genesis, but see Psalm 104:1-4; Isaiah 40:22), so now these craftsmen re-create a world in the midst of chaos wherein God may dwell once again in a world suitable for the divine presence. (Fretheim, Exodus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 269)

This incident makes Bezalel the first person explicitly said to be filled with the Spirit in Scripture. It is worth noting that the first person filled with the Spirit is not a patriarch, lawgiver, prophet or judge. It is rather Bezalel, an artist.

Waldemar Janzen (b. 1932) remarks:

It is remarkable that the special spirit-endowment of Bezalel—as well as Oholiab and the unnamed others (Exodus 31:6)—is given to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, in every kind of craft (Exodus 31:4-5). In other words, “spiritual gifts” are not reserved here for the realm with which we often associate them (e.g., prayer, prophecy, etc.). Instead, they are applied to the work of artists and artisans working with tangible materials. Again, the term “incarnational” seems appropriate; God works through earthly, bodily, and material functions of human beings (cf. Exodus 25:3-7). (Janzen, Exodus (Believers Church Bible Commentary), 368)

Jo Ann Davidson adds:

One does not normally link the ministry of the Holy Spirit to artistic talent. But in this verse [Exodus 35:31] it is shown to be the initial gift given to Bezalel. In fact, Bezalel is the very first person recorded in biblical history as inspired by the Holy Spirit, even though he is an artisan and not by vocation a priest or a prophet. God’s call of Bezalel mirrors language of the New Testament where God again speaks of "calling", "filling" (Luke 1:15, 41, 67; Acts 4:8, 13:2, 16:10; Romans 1:1; I Corinthians 1:1). (Davidson, Toward a Theology of Beauty: A Biblical Perspective, 28-29)

In Bezalel, the filling of the Spirit manifests itself in three ways (Exodus 31:3). John I. Durham (b. 1933) delineates:

Bezalel...is described as specially endowed for his assignment by an infilling of the divine spirit, which adds to his native ability three qualities that suit him ideally for the task at hand: wisdom (חכמה), the gift to understand what is needed to fulfill Yahweh’s instructions; discernment (חבונה), the talent for solving the inevitable problems involved in the creation of so complex a series of objects and materials; and skill (דצת), the experienced hand needed to guide and accomplish the labor itself. Bezalel, so gifted, is the ideal combination of theoretical knowledge, problem-solving practicality, and planning capability who can bring artistic ideals to life with his own hands. That such a comprehensive equipping is intended here is suggested also by the summary listing of what Bezalel is to accomplish: he is to design intricate patterns in three metals, gold, silver and copper; to engrave gemstones; and to carve wood; all these talents are required for “workmanship of every kind.” In sum, Bezalel is made expert by Yahweh himself for every kind of work necessary for fulfilling the instructions given to Moses on Sinai. (Durham, Exodus (Word Biblical Commentary), 410)

Given how few details are provided regarding the tabernacle’s blueprints, perhaps such divine influence is necessary. The indwelling of the Spirit in this task certainly demonstrate’s the tabernacle’s significance.

Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) interprets:

This shows how important the tabernacle was. God wanted his house built in a special way. To that end, the same Holy Spirit who with the Father and Son created the world in six days (see Genesis 1:2) was poured out on the men who made the tabernacle...The outpouring of the Spirit teaches us something about the importance of spiritual gifts in the church. It takes the Holy Spirit to build God’s house. In the time of Moses, the Spirit came with special gifts for building the tabernacle. Now as the Holy Spirit dwells in our hearts through faith, he brings gifts such as teaching, evangelism, discernment, leadership, hospitality, and service. These spiritual gifts are for building God’s dwelling place on earth (see Ephesians 4:7-13), which today is the church of Jesus Christ. Whatever spiritual gifts we have come from God the Holy Spirit, who calls us to use them in God’s house. The Scripture urges us “to excel in gifts that build up the church” (I Corinthians 14:12). (Ryken, Exodus: Saved for God’s Glory (Preaching the Word), 1090)

The combination of the Spirit of God with Bezalel and Oholiab’s skills is effective. Exodus documents both the beginning of this work (Exodus 35:30-36:2) and its successful completion (Exodus 38:22-23).

Are Bezalel’s skills “spiritual gifts”? Is there a difference between a skill and a spiritual gift? Why do you think that an artisan is the first person said to be filled with the Spirit of God? If God’s Spirit was upon them, why did they need the skill set they had? Have you ever partnered with God? Have you ever felt filled with God’s Spirit? When? What are your spiritual gifts? How are you using them to build up the house of God?

“Where the spirit does not work with the hand there is no art.” - Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519)

It’s All in the Hands (Exodus 17:9-13)

What did Moses do during the battle of Rephidim? Stayed on top of a hill holding up his hands with the rod of God in them (Exodus 17:9-12)

While wandering in the wilderness, Israel not only faces challenges from nature (Exodus 16:1-8, 9-36, 17:1-7) but also from new military rivals. The nascent nation’s first battle comes when the Amalekites ambush them at Rephidim (Exodus 17:8).

Presumably between gradual attacks, Moses instructs Joshua to piece together a makeshift army with the assurance that he would remain perched atop a hill holding the staff of God (Exodus 17:9). The Bible records that Moses’ posture was the deciding factor in a seesaw daylong battle (Exodus 17:11).

So it came about when Moses held his hand up, that Israel prevailed, and when he let his hand down, Amalek prevailed. (Exodus 17:11 NASB)

To ensure that Moses’ hands remain raised, he is propped up on a stone and realizing that six hands are better than two, Aaron and Hur hold his hands prostrate (Exodus 17:12). Israel wins the battle (Exodus 17:13).

The narrator leaves much to the imagination. Though both will play prominent roles later in the Exodus story, Joshua and Hur enter the biblical text for the first time with no introduction. The Amalekites also appear as a people for the first time (Genesis 14:7, 36:12). Not only is no introduction given them but no reason is given for their assault.

John Goldingay (b. 1942) speculates:

Exodus gives no reason for the attack. Perhaps they thought they could appropriate the Israelites’ flocks and herds. Living in the wilderness south of Canaan, perhaps they felt threatened by the Israelites’ advancing their way. Greed, resentment, and fear have often fueled anti-Semitism. But Exodus gives no reason and this underlines the link between the mystery of hostility to Israel and the Jewish people that has been a recurrent aspect of Israelite and Jewish experience. (Goldingay, Exodus and Leviticus for Everyone, 73)

The Amalekites, presumed to be a hostile nomadic tribe, are traditional enemies of Israel and they simply enter the story donned in their customary black hats (Judges 6:3-4; I Samuel 15:1-9, 27:8). They serve almost as stock characters in the Bible and are not referenced outside of it. The Israelites would later remember the attack as a cowardly affront to a vulnerable people (Deuteronomy 25:17-18). In appearing from seemingly out of nowhere, the text captures the unexpectedness of the attack felt by the original victims.

Perhaps the passage’s most glaring omission is that no explanation is given as to how Moses’ flagging equates to victory. The reader is left to speculate as to what he is doing or saying while raising his arms and why he is positioned high above the battlefield.

John I. Durham (b. 1933) notes that Moses’ position is conducive to his activity:

The reason for Moses’ position on the brow of the hill can be seen in what he does during the battle. Moses lifted his hands, in symbol of the power of Yahweh upon the fighting men of Israel, surely, but in some miraculous way Moses’ upraised hands became also conductors of that power. (Durham, Exodus (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 3), 236)

Military historian Richard A. Gabriel (b. 1942) does not find Moses’ isolation irregular for a military commander:

Here we see the ancient dictum that commanders must be seen by their soldiers to be effective. Egyptian pharaohs were always portrayed as leading their troops in battle, as was Alexander. Caesar, it was said, wore a red cloak so his men could easily identify him during battle, and both George S. Patton (who seriously contemplated wearing a red cloak!) and Irwin Rommel were both known for their presence on the battlefield in plain sight of their soldiers. (Gabriel, The Military History of Ancient Israel, 82)

The real question is not Moses’ placement but what his actions symbolize -what is he doing with his hands? Many explanations have been posited.

Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) explicates:

Both Jewish and Christian commentators have been quick to assume that Moses’s stance was that of prayer. What else would he be doing? However, there is no indication whatever in the text which would confirm this. No words are spoken, but the battle is decided simply by the raising and lowering of his hands. The same effect results from Moses’ stance even when his weary arms are physically supported by others. Hugo Gressmann [1877-1927] and Georg Beer [1865-1946] have described the scene as magical, with Moses playing the role of cult magician. Additional parallels from the Ancient Near East have been suggested...Without discussing at length the validity of these extra-biblical parallels, certainly the Old Testament offers the closest parallel in the figure of Balaam (Numbers 22:1ff). He is hired to curse Israel, and the point of the narrative turns on the automatic effect of a curse (or a blessing) which, once it has been unleashed, continues relentlessly on its course. In Exodus 17 the hands are the instruments of mediating power, as is common throughout the Ancient Near East...This amoral element of the unleashing of power through an activity or a stance is still reflected in the story. Nor can it be rationalized away, as already in the Mekilta, by assuming that Moses’ role was essentially psychological. His uplifted hands encouraged the Israelites to exert themselves fully, whereas without the encouragement they slackened in battle. (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 314-15)

Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) admits:

The significance of this gesture is unclear. The hand, often the symbol of action and power, is also the instrument of mediation. The expression “the laying on of the hands” exemplifies this idea. Moses’ action might therefore be interpreted as a sort of mysterious focusing of super natural power on Israel. If so, it is noteworthy that Moses is here presented as being subject to ordinary human frailties, in possession of no superhuman or innate magical powers. Another interpretation, highly plausible, is that of Rashbam, according to which Moses held up a standard bearing some conspicuous symbol that signified the presence of God in the Israelite camp. (Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, 95)

Peter Enns (b. 1961) summarizes:

Some commentaries suggest this is some sort of “magical” feat” performed by Moses, perhaps some power emanating from the staff. Others assign to Moses’ gesture a psychological explanation, that his raised hands are a sign of encouragement to the troops. Neither explanation seems satisfying...But can a better explanation be found?... No proposed explanation is problem-free. This problem is a classic example of what interpreters run into when attempting to explain a cryptic text. (Enns, Exodus (The NIV Application Commentary), 348)

Moses has raised his hands previously to produce miraculous results but not for an extended period (Exodus 9:22, 10:12, 14:16). Many have looked to the staff for answers as it is now called the “staff of God”, a term that has not been used since the item’s introduction in Exodus 4:20.

J. Gerald Janzen (b. 1932) describes:

Up to this point Moses’ use of the staff has been a simple matter of raising it and accomplishing the result, whether sign, plague, parting of the waters, or water from the rock. But this time the struggle is drawn out, to the point where Moses becomes so tired that from time to time he has to lower his arms...Interestingly...when Moses gets tired, the help does not come directly from God, but through Aaron and Hur, as each one supports one of Moses’s arms after seating him on a stone. What is this symbolism, of Moses seated on a stone, holding up his and God’s staff, and supported on both sides by Aaron and Hur? (Janzen, Exodus (Westminster Bible Companion), 122)

As Moses intervenes for the people and Aaron and Hur raise Moses’ hands, not their own, it is not surprising that many interpreters have seen this passage as an image of intercessory prayer.

Maxie D. Dunnam (b. 1934) comments:

The soldiers on the field of battle were not determining the issue of victory by themselves, but the intercessors on the mountain were playing an integral role. See that beautiful picture of those intercessors on the mountain in your imagination?...It’s a stirring picture—a picture of the Lord’s intercessor. (Dunnam, Exodus (Mastering the Old Testament), 214)

Many popular books on prayer prominently feature this story. In Too Busy Not To Pray, Bill Hybels (b. 1951) writes:

More than any other biblical passage, one story in the Old Testament has persuaded me that prayer yields significant results. It is found in Exodus 17:8-13...Moses stretches his arms toward heaven again and brings the matter to the Lord...Moses discovered that day that God’s prevailing power is released through prayer. (Hybels, Too Busy Not To Pray, 18-19)

In his book on intercessory prayer, Dutch Sheets (b. 1954) analyzes:

The victory was not decided by the strength or power of Israel’s army. If this had been the case, they would not have faltered when the staff was lowered. Nor was it a morale thing – they weren’t watching Moses for inspiration while in hand-to-hand conflict! An unseen battle in the heavenlies actually decided the outcome on the battlefield. And when the rod, representing the rule or authority of God, was lifted by the authorized leader of Israel, Joshua and the army prevailed. In other words, it was not power on the battlefield – though it was necessary – that was the deciding factor, but authority on the mountain. Authority is the key issue; power never had been. (Sheets, Intercessory Prayer: How God Can Use Your Prayers to Move Heaven and Earth, 190)

While the mechanics of how Moses’ arms correlated to victory are speculative, the text is clear that they did. In Israel’s first battle as a nation, the focus is on the hill, not the battlefield. The direction off stage upstages the actors on the stage. In modern sports terms, the camera is focused on the fans changing their posture or switching to their rally caps as it is the deciding factor in the contest. No exploits on the battlefield are remembered; only the result is recorded: victory.

How long can you hold up your arms? What would a national leader in Moses’ era have been expected to do during battle? Who is most responsible for the Israelites’ victory at Rephidim? Whose part in the story do you most relate to: the warriors, Aaron/Hur, Moses, Joshua? Who can you prop up spiritually when they are weakened? Who is praying for you? Where is God in this story?

God is not explicitly involved in this text. William H.C. Propp (b. 1957) acknowledges:

Unlike the previous wilderness episodes, Moses responds to the crisis without seeking divine instructions, at least so far as we are told. But he gives God proper credit in the end. (Propp, Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Notes and Comments (Anchor Bible), 617)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) adds:

After Amalek starts the battle, the initiative for the defense of Israel is taken entirely by Moses, demonstrating the leadership role he has assumed. God does not become the subject of a sentence until Exodus 17:14 but is not uninvolved in the prior verses. (Fretheim, Exodus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 192)

Despite not being referenced categorically, in Moses’ actions, there is little doubt that the battle is God’s. Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) comments:

Exodus 17:11 does not teach the efficacy of “prayer without ceasing” but rather the fact that Israelite holy war was God’s war. God reinforced this in the consciousness of Moses, Aaron, and Hur as well as the Israelite army by correlating the position of the staff with the fortunes of the army. It was important that the Israelites understand unmistakably that the only reason they could win against the Amalekites was that God was fighting for them, giving them the victory. The staff functioned in the case of this battle just as it had in the case of the plagues. As long as the staff of God was raised high, just as in the miraculous plagues and the miracle of the water from the rock immediately preceding, God’s decisive role was properly acknowledged symbolically and the army prevailed. When the staff was lowered (because Moses grew tired, as Exodus 17:12 makes explicit), “the Amalekites were winning.” Thus the staff portrayed God’s sovereignty in the consequences of battle. (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary, Vol. 2), 398)

Thomas B. Dozeman (b. 1952) concludes:

The circumstances indicate that the power to wage holy war resides in the magical staff of God, not in Moses, and certainly not in Joshua or the Israelite warriors. The staff of God, is like a lightning rod at the summit of the hill channeling power down to the Israelites in the battle. When the antenna is down, the power ceases. The eventual weakness of Moses even to raise his arms underscores further that the power in the battle does not reside with him but with God. (Dozeman, Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 395)

Victory did not rest in Moses’ hands, but rather in the hands that they represented.

If Moses is a conduit of God’s power, why is he himself weakened in channeling it (Exodus 17:12; Mark 5:30)? Does God still decide wars today? What do you need to relinquish and place into God’s hands?

“I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess.” - Martin Luther (1483-1546)