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

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)