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

Singing Jehoshaphat (II Chronicles 20:21)

Whose army went into battle singing? Judah’s, under King Jehoshaphat (II Chronicles 20:21)

King Jehoshaphat becomes the fourth king of Judah when he succeeds his father Asa (I Kings 15:23-24; II Chronicles 17:1). He reigns for twenty-five years (I Kings 22:42; II Chronicles 20:31) and is remembered as one of the few kings faithful to God, the Old Testament benchmark for royals (I Kings 22:43; II Chronicles 17:3-6).

Jehoshaphat is far more prominent in Chronicles, where he is featured in four chapters (II Chronicles 17:1-20:37), than Kings, which devotes only ten verses to his reign (I Kings 22:41-50).

Brian E. Kelly observes:

Jehoshaphat plays a much more extensive and important role in Chronicles than in Kings, where his reign is described only briefly (I Kings 22:41-50) and he is a secondary figure compared to Ahab (cf. I Kings 22:1-38; II Kings 3:4-27). (Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles, 98)

The last notable event of Jehosphat’s reign occurs when an eastern coalition forms primed to invade Judah. This assailing confederation is comprised of Moabites, Ammonites and Meunites (II Chronicles 20:1). Naturally alarmed in the face of daunting odds (II Chronicles 20:3), Jehoshaphat responds radically: He prays, declares a national fast and assembles his country (II Chronicles 20:3-13). Prayer is Jehoshaphat’s first, not last, resort.

After being encouraged by a prophecy assuring that Judah would attain victory without having to fight (II Chronicles 20:14-17), Jehoshaphat consults his constituents and the army marches to the would-be battlefield praising God (II Chronicles 20:18-21). The king implores the people, “Put your trust in the Lord your God and you will be established. Put your trust in His prophets and succeed” (II Chronicles 20:20 NASB).

Paul K. Hooker (b. 1953) interprets:

King and people assemble at Tekoa, east of Jerusalem in the Judahite highlands. As they assemble, Jehoshaphat gives them what in other situations might have been battle instructions. Here, however, we have...religious admonition: “Believe in the LORD your God and you will be established [II Chronicles 20:20].” One final time, the Chronicler returns to the theme of trust. The language here is reminiscent of Isaiah 7:9: “If you do not stand firm in faith, you shall not stand at all” (the verb translated “stand firm” in Isaiah is the same as that translated “be established” here). The link between faith and victory is explicit: Belief, not strength of arms, is the key to the deliverance of God. (Hooker, First and Second Chronicles (Westminster Bible Companion), 213)

Leslie Allen (b. 1935) concurs:

Jehoshaphat’s battle speech on the morrow places a premium on faith. It echoes the message of Isaiah in a similar context of military threat , a message rendered more effectively by its Hebrew wordplay: “Have firm faith, or you will not stand firm” (Isaiah 7:9 NEB). In expression of such faith orders are given for anticipatory praise to be sung afresh, as on the day before in the temple precincts. The praise looks forward to a manifestation of God’s “steadfast love” (RSV), promised “forever” (II Chronicles 20:21) and so for today. The praise here replaces the shout associated with Holy War (see Judges 7:20; II Chronicles 13:15). It accentuates the fact that the people’s part was not to fight but to be spectators of the divine defeat of the foe, in accord with the prophet’s promise (II Chronicles 20:15, 17). (Allen, 1, 2 Chronicles (Mastering the Old Testament), 308)

Jehoshaphat’s faith has blossomed. J.G. McConville (b. 1951) charts:

The Jehoshaphat of II Chronicles 20:20 is one who has come from his initial fear (II Chronicles 20:3) to a new confidence that God is for him. His exhortation to Judah, “Believe in the Lord your God and you will be established (II Chronicles 20:20), is similar to the prophet Isaiah’s appeal to Ahaz (Isaiah 7:9). The thought may be paraphrased. Trust in the Lord your God, and you will find him trustworthy. There is in the exhortation a call to commitment. The trustworthiness of the Lord cannot be known until one begins to make decisions on the basis of his promises, staking wealth and welfare on the outcome—just as it is impossible to know certainly that a chair will bear one’s weight without actually sitting on it. (McConville, I & II Chronicles (The Daily Study Bible Series), 195)

As David had done in preparing the ark of the covenant (I Chronicles 13:1), the monarch collaborates rather than dictates. Sara Japhet (b. 1934) comments:

The Chronicler’s familiar ‘democratizing’ tendency...with its constant reference to the active participation of the people...is epitomized, with the king actually taking counsel with the people in a matter of military tactics, or cultic activity, ordinarily defined as a kingly prerogative. After having been made his full partners in his initiative and responsibility, his subjects will deservedly share the reward of victory. (Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 797)

The people collectively resolve to praise God while entering battle.

When he [Jehoshaphat] had consulted with the people, he appointed those who sang to the Lord and those who praised Him in holy attire, as they went out before the army and said, “Give thanks to the Lord, for His lovingkindness is everlasting.” (II Chronicles 20:21 NASB)

Jehoshaphat appoints a choir to lead the nation onto the battlefield. Frederick J. Mabie (b. 1965) surmises:

The men appointed by Jehoshaphat to lead singing to God and praise for the “splendor of his holiness” (II Chronicles 20:21) are presumably Levites (on the musical service of Levites, cf. I Chronicles 6:31-48, 23:2-32, 25:1-7). Going to battle in song is found in several key battles of faith in the Old Testament and seems to underscore an especially intentional focus on God and his strength (cf. Joshua 6:1-21; II Chronicles 13:3-20). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b.1947], 1 Chronicles–Job (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 245)

Singing en route to battle is not entirely unique in the annals of the Old Testament (Joshua 6:4-20; Judges 7:18-20; II Chronicles 13:12; Psalm 47:5) and the story also has extra-biblical parallels. Kenneth C. Way (b. 1975) compares:

This account shares interesting similarities to the Old Aramaic memorial stela of Zakkur (The Context of Scripture 2.35:155), king of Hamath, who also faced a coalition of enemy nations, cried out to his god, and received a similar divine response by means of cultic personnel...The date of the events in II Chronicles 20 is difficult to determine, but an early setting in Jehoshaphat’s reign seems likely. References to the “terror of God” being upon Judah’s enemies and to Judah enjoying a period of peace both occur at the end of this episode and in a passage describing the early events of Jehoshaphat’s reign (II Chronicles 17:10, 20:29-30) (see Gary N. Knoppers [b. 1956] 1991, 518). Furthermore, the mention of the “new court” of the temple (II Chronicles 20:5) may hint that the repairs made by his father, Asa, were relatively recent II Chronicles 15:8]. (Bill T. Arnold [b. 1955] and H.G.M. Williamson [b. 1947], Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, 532-33)

In the midst of crisis, the nation sings the opening line to the 136th Psalm (II Chronicles 20:21; Psalm 136:1), a recurring refrain in Chronicles (I Chronicles 16:34; II Chronicles 5:13, 7:3, 20:21). Martin J. Selman (1947-2004) chronicles:

Both the form and content of this song of praise are based on the use of psalms in temple worship. The appointed ‘musicians’...were Levites (cf. I Chronicles 6:31-32, 25:1-31), their song was taken from Chronicles’ favorite psalm (Psalm 136:1; cf. I Chronicles 16:34; II Chronicles 5:13, 7:3) and the phrase the splendour of his holiness...is found elsewhere only in the Psalms (Psalm 29:2, 96:9; I Chronicles 16:29). The outstanding feature, however, is that as they began to sing and praise (II Chronicles 20:22), the Lord started the battle. There can be no clearer indication that this was neither an ordinary battle nor a traditional holy war, but Yahweh’s war in which he acted on his own. In that sense, it anticipates Jesus’ victory on the cross, though that was accompanied by silence rather than singing. (Selman, 2 Chronicles (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 428)

The battle becomes an opportunity for worship. Winfried Corduan (b. 1949) comments:

The same spirit of praise continued as Jehoshaphat and his army set out for the Judean desert the next morning. As the troops left Jerusalem, the king turned the military mission into a “singspiration.” He reassured everyone of God’s promise and appointed song leaders to lead the soldiers in praise choruses. Soon everyone joined in the familiar tune, Give thanks to the LORD, for his love endures forever. This anthem was associated with the occasions when David and then Solomon moved the ark of the covenant (I Chronicles 16:41; II Chronicles 5:13). God was on the march again! (Corduan, I & II Chronicles (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 277)

Steven S. Tuell (b. 1956) determines:

The advance of Jehoshaphat’s host is more a liturgical procession than a military maneuver. (Tuell, First and Second Chronicles (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 183)

Andrew E. Hill (b. 1952) agrees:

H.G.M. Williamson [b. 1947], almost humorously, has commented that the battle cry has been replaced by the Levitical chorale. The report of an army going into battle singing the praises of God is unique in the Bible, although music accompanies the appearance of the divine warrior when he executes judgment on the earth (Psalm 47, 96, 98). The event gives new meaning to the psalmist’s declaration that God’s “pleasure is not in the strength of the horse, not his delight in the legs of a man; the LORD delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love” (Psalm 147:10-11). (Hill, 1 and 2 Chronicles (The NIV Application Commentary), 491)

The nation of Judah praises God before victory has been secured. John C. Endres (b. 1946) remarks:

Levites arise to praise God with a very loud voice, which they are appointed to do, but here it seems premature, for the victory is still in the future. Jehoshaphat then rises and delivers a speech that sounds like a sermon. Believe God and you will be set firm (II Chronicles 20:20)...The Chronicler gives a theological commentary on this event: Jehoshaphat faces a test of faith, just as Ahaz faced a test of faith when Isaiah uttered the word to him. (Endres, First and Second Chronicles (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), 103)

Jehoshaphat passes the test. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) favorably contrasts Jehoshaphat with his father, Asa:

When attacked by King Baasha of Israel, Asa goes the alliance route, and as a result is chided by a prophet (II Chronicles 16:7-8). Asa’s sad story is one of a shift from trust in God to trust in human power, and the tragic consequences that befall...The opposite of Asa’s latter strategy is that of Jehoshaphat when he is attacked by a military coalition (II Chronicles 20:1-30). The text records absolutely no military response by Jehoshaphat and his soldiers. Instead, they engage in liturgical acts like singing and praying, and Yahweh defeats the enemy (“As they began to sing and praise, the Lord set to ambush against the Ammonites...so that they were routed” [II Chronicles 20:22]). Philip R. Davies [b. 1945] (1992: 45) captures well the scene here: “If your cause is just and you are faithful to your deity (and if that deity is YHWH), you will not need an army to protect you. Spend your defense budget on hymnbooks and musical training for your brass band! The only army you need is the Salvation Army.” (Hamilton, Handbook on the Historical Books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther , 492-93)

Jehoshaphat responds to the disastrous events with a sign of trust and his faith is rewarded. As the Lord had promised, Judah never even engages in battle. The tenuous alliance disbands as the opposition turns on one another (II Chronicles 20:22-25).

Andrew E. Hill (b. 1952) explains:

Whether God terrifies the coalition armies with the appearance of his heavenly army (as in II Samuel 5:24; II Kings 7:5-7) or sends a spirit of confusion and mistrust among the allies (as in Judges 7:22; II Kings 3:23) is unclear. What is clear is that God stirs the Transjordan armies into a spirit of frenzied self-destruction (II Chronicles 20:22-23). First, the armies of Moab and Ammon slaughter the soldiers from Seir, perhaps out of distrust (II Chronicles 20:23a). Then the Moabites and the Ammonites destroy each other so that no one escapes (II Chronicles 20:23b-24a). (Hill, 1 and 2 Chronicles (The NIV Application Commentary), 492)

Through some undisclosed mechanism God delivers Judah and the conflict is remembered as one of Jehoshaphat’s greatest triumphs.

Regardless of what had happened in the battle, in choosing to praise God, Jehosphapat has already scored a far more important victory: His faith has been demonstrated. What begins as an invasion story evolves into a classic story of faith.

Why does Jehoshaphat dismiss military strategy in favor of divine consultation? What leaders are you familiar with who have prayed publicly when facing a national crisis? What armies have gone into battle singing? Is there ever an inappropriate time to worship? Did the singing in any way trigger the discord between Judah’s adversaries? When have you not had to fight a seemingly inevitable battle? Do you truly believe that God is for you? When have you praised God before victory has been secured?

While most contemporary believers will not be surrounded by armies from multiple nations, Jehoshaphat sets a precedent. Worship is a proper response in the face of crisis and worshiping God can be done in the midst of catastrophe.

Neil T. Anderson (b. 1942) and Rich Miller (b. 1954) apply:

In response to the word of God, all the people worshiped God (II Chronicles 20:18). Worship became their battle plan to defeat the enemy. “And when he [Jehoshaphat] had consulted with the people, he appointed those who sang to the LORD and those who praised Him in holy attire, as they went out before the army and said, “Give thanks to the LORD, for His lovingkindness is everlasting.’ And when they began singing and praising, the LORD set ambushes against the sons of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, who had come against Judah so they were routed” (II Chronicles 20:21-22)...Worship brings to our minds the awareness of God’s presence and fear flees! When the first hint of fear or anxiety comes into your mind, worship God. (Anderson and Miller, Freedom from Fear: Overcoming Worry and Anxiety, 274)

Worship reminds us that we are never alone. This is especially beneficial at times when we feel abandoned. Creflo A. Dollar (b. 1962) advises:

When you are faced with a life-and-death crisis, the most important thing you can remind yourself is that God’s mercy endures forever. It will stir your faith. It will move to tap in to the power of praise. (Dollar, In the Presence of God: Find Answers to the Challenges of Life)

Worship makes us keenly aware of God’s presence. Anthony De Mello (1931-1987) connects:

When we praise God for his goodness and for the good things he has given to us and to others, our hearts become lightsome and joyous...There are few forms of prayer so effective for giving you the sense that you are loved by God, or for lifting depressed spirits and overcoming temptation. Psalm 8 says, “You have established praise to destroy the enemy and avenger [Psalm 8:2],” and it was the custom among the Jews to march out into battle singing praises to the Lord. This was considered a mighty weapon for defeating the foe. (De Mello, Contact with God, 116)

Though often neglected, praising God is a useful tactic when facing trials.

How do you respond to adversity? Do you turn toward God or away from God? Do you blame or praise? How do you enter into battle?

“This is not the time to panic, this is the time to praise!” - Cynthia A. Patterson (b. 1964), It Had to Happen: Understanding that Everything You Go Through in Life is for God’s Purpose

To Us a Child Is Born (Isaiah 9:6)

Who prophesied “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given”? Isaiah (Isaiah 9:6)

The prophet Isaiah spoke to Israel during the tumultuous reign of King Ahaz (Isaiah 1:1, 7:1). While the king was becoming the embodiment of failed leadership (Isaiah 6:1-8:22), the prophet provided hope to the people (Isaiah 9:1-7). He famously prophesied:

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6 NASB)

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) comments:

This familiar and beloved oracle offers to Judah, driven as it is to distress, darkness, gloom, and anguish, yet another chance in the world. The prophetic oracle beginning in Isaiah 9:2 is introduced by what seems to be a prose transition in Isaiah 9:1. In the Hebrew text..Isaiah 9:1 is the final verse of chapter 8, so that it looks back to the ominous judgment of Isaiah 8:22 as well as forward to the promised well-being of the oracle. (Brueggemann, Isaiah 1-39 (Westminster Bible Companion), 81)

Daniel L. Akin (b. 1957) concurs:

Isaiah 9:6-7...is an extension of the “virgin conception/Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. Israel would be attacked and crushed in humiliating defeat in 722 BC by the Assyrians. And yet, in the midst of their despair and hopelessness, a word of hope arrives. The gloom, distress, humiliation, darkness, and death of Isaiah 9:1-2 would be turned into the rejoicing, joy, light, liberation, and peace of Isaiah 9:2-5. How? By the coming of the Messiah-King. (Akin, A Theology for the Church, 487)

Prior to this hopeful proclamation, Isaiah acknowledges that Judah will be afflicted by the powerful Assyrian army (Isaiah 8:1-22). John N. Oswalt (b. 1940) details:

The Assyrian conquests began in the tribal territory of “Zebulun” and “Naphtali,” which extended from the Jezreel Valley northward to the foot of Mount Hermon. A major part of that area is what is known today as the Huleh Valley. The Jordan River flows through this valley before emptying into the Sea of Galilee. Not only was this a lush agricultural area, it was also the place through which the main trade route from Mesopotamia to Egypt ran (“the way of the sea”). Thus, it is easy to see why it was high on the priority list for conquest. But God is greater than Asyria, and he promises that just as these people have experienced the grief and despair of conquest, they will also experience the joy of and triumph of victory (Isaiah 9:3-5). As Gideon defeated Midian in the Valley of Jezreel (Judges 7:1-25), so God will defeat Israel’s enemies in that same place...But how will God accomplish this great feat? Through the birth of a child (Isaiah 9:6)! For the third time in as many chapters, the birth of a child is filled with great portent. (Oswalt, Isaiah (NIV Application Commentary), 160)

Judah’s hope will come in the form of a child. Given the well known list of epithets that conclude the oracle about the child, most conclude that Isaiah is referencing Ahaz’s son and successful successor, Hezekiah (Isaiah 9:6-7).

Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) explains:

The royal titles of kingship are conferred upon him: “Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Each name brings out some extraordinary quality for the divinely selected ruler: a counsellor of unique wisdom and abundant power, endowed with enduring life, and the bringer of eternal peace. The description of his reign makes it absolutely clear that his role is messianic. There is no end to his rule upon the throne of David, and he will reign with justice and righteousness forever. Moreover, it is the ardor of the Lord of hosts who will bring this eschatological purpose to fulfillment. The language is not just of a wishful thinking for a better time, but the confession of Israel’s belief in a divine ruler who will replace once and for all the unfaithful reign of kings like Ahaz. (Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 81)

The birth of this child will be a cause for great hope. Christopher R. Seitz (b. 1954) clarifies:

Most regard the references to birth and the language “child” and “son” at Isaiah 9:6 as referring to the king’s accession rather than to his actual birth, in line with the imagery of Psalm 2:7...and common Near Eastern practices. Whether or not this is so in the strict historical sense, the reference to birth is surely meant to pick up the language of Isaiah 7:14: “a young woman shall conceive and bear a son” (RSV). On chronological grounds, a royal accession oracle is out of place at this juncture in the presentation. Hezekiah’s mature reign still lies ahead, as is made clear by the material following (Isaiah 9:8-10:34), where the Assyrian foe is still gainfully occupied in the role of “rod of my [Yahweh’s] anger” (Isaiah 10:5). Therefore one is already dealing with a decision to place the royal oracle at this juncture secondarily, whatever its original historical circumstances. If a link has been established intentionally between the “birth” of Isaiah 9:6 and the promise of Immanuel at Isaiah 7:14-16, then the effect is to focus the royal oracle on the birth rather than on the accession of Immanuel. The birth then portends great things and in that sense is analogous to children of the prophet, who are “signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts” (Isaiah 8:18). (Seitz, Isaiah 1-39 (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 86)

This child will be nothing less than a gift of God. Gary V. Smith (b. 1943) analyzes:

The initial announcement that a child “will be born” (yullad prophetic perfect verb) is further explained in the parallel phrase, God “will give a son to us,” that is, to the people of Judah. The second line emphasizes that this is a work of God’s gracious giving, not just a coincidence. No date of birth in the future is hinted at, and the only comparable son promised by God in earlier oracles was Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14-15. An identification marker that links these two sons is that they both will be righteous Davidic rulers. But the two sons do not have identical names. Concerning the Davidic ruler, “he [presumably God] will call his name” (not passive, “he will be called” as in NIV) titles that represent his character and roles. The eight words that follow could be eight names, but since Immanu-el, Shear-Jashub, and many other Hebrew names comprise two words (Isaiah means “God saves), it seems natural to divide these eight words into four titles. (Smith, Isaiah 1-39 (The New American Commentary), 240)

Who or what do you associate with the names Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace? When you look to the next generation of leaders in your region, does it elicit hope? When has God given you or your country a gift? How does Isaiah’s prophecy relate to the birth of Jesus?

Christians have long connected Isaiah’s 700+ year old messianic prophecy to the birth of Jesus. Though Isaiah 9:6 is not quoted directly in the New Testament, Matthew does, however, quote the related passage in Isaiah 7:14 (Matthew 1:23).

Geoffrey W. Grogan (1925-2011) traces:

The word “child” is in a position of emphasis. The first person plural “us” suggests a link with Isaiah 7:14...and the reader is probably meant to see the connection, for as far as the reader is concerned, Isaiah is acting as a teacher. Just as his theme of the Branch of the Lord...becomes more and more explicitly messianic, so it is with the motif of the child. If the child of Isaiah 7:14-16...typifies the ultimate divine Christ, the child of these verses is that Christ. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] & David E. Garland [b. 1947], Proverbs-Isaiah (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 528)

John Goldingay (b. 1942) delineates:

It is usually assumed that the name in Isaiah 9:6b comprises a series of asyndetic phrases...and describes the person named. The son then is the Wonderful Counselor. Christian claims that Jesus fulfills the vision of Isaiah 9:6b can do justice to the designation Mighty God, but the difficulty comes with Everlasting Father, which hardly applies to Jesus. Conversely, a reading in the light of eighth-century B.C. Middle Eastern thinking can perhaps do justice to Everlasting Father as an extravagant Old Testament description of a king’s relationship with his people, but Mighty God is unparalleled in the Old Testament in such designations. Hans Wildberger [1910-1986]...suggests it is based on Egyptian ways of speaking of the king, but even these hardly parallel such an extravagant description. It is difficult to know what the original hearers would have made of the words if this is how Isaiah meant them. It is significant that the Jewish exegetical tradition assumed that at least the first three phrases referred to God, though it took them as describing God as namer rather than as part of the name. (Goldingay, Isaiah (New International Biblical Commentary), 72)

Remarkably, God needs only a child to respond to grievous oppression. Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. (b. 1949) acknowledges:

God’s answer to everything that has ever terrorized us is a child. The power of God is so far superior to the Assyrians and all the big shots of this world that he can defeat them by coming as a mere child. His answer to the bullies swaggering through history is not to become an even bigger bully. His answer is Jesus. (Ortlund, Isaiah: God Saves Sinners (Preaching the Word), 99)

God’s radical solution to the world’s sin was a baby. This is what the world celebrates at Christmas.

If Isaiah 9:6 foretells both Hezekiah and Jesus could it relate to another baby in the future? What dimensions does the fact that Jesus’ birth was prophesied add to the nativity story? When have you placed your hopes in a child? When has a child brought light into a gloomy world?

“Every child comes with the message that God is not yet discouraged of man.” - Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941)

The Locust Army (Joel 1:1-2:17)

In what book are locusts likened to an invading army? Joel

Joel is classified as a minor prophet, the second of twelve such books canonized in the Bible. Locusts overrun Joel’s text as they do the landscape he describes, figuring prominently in two of the book’s three chapters (Joel 1:1-2:17). The prophet addresses Judah, a land ravaged by a locust invasion that has destroyed everything in its wake (Joel 1:4).

What the gnawing locust has left, the swarming locust has eaten;
And what the swarming locust has left, the creeping locust has eaten;
And what the creeping locust has left, the stripping locust has eaten. (Joel 1:4 NASB)

Joel likens the locusts to an invading army (Joel 2:4-11).

Locusts were no laughing matter and Joel’s allusion to the insects represents powerful language. James E. Smith (b. 1939) describes:

Newly hatched locusts resemble ants or tiny roaches. Fully developed, these “hoppers” as they are called form marching bands up to ten miles wide and ten miles long. These bands move forward at a slow pace of about 250 feet per hour. Within their path they consume virtually every blade of grass or legume. No obstacle can stop this irresistible insect army. (Smith, The Minor Prophets, 67)

John D.W. Watts (b. 1921) adds:

Joel skilfully blends the imagery of prophecy with the realistic experience of the locust plague. Travellers who have seen such confirm the accuracy of the account. Locust swarms darken the sky like an eclipse of the sun; at dusk the low rays of the sun catch their wings, reflecting an eerie light. (Watts, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible)), 25)

Joel depicts an especially harsh invasion. David Allan Hubbard (1928-1996) examines:

The devastation does not stop with the laying waste...of grapes and leaves, but includes also the splintering...of the fig tree; the bark itself is peeled off and thrown down so that the denuded branches appear white. A California agricultural official reported that ‘what they...don’t eat they cut off for entertainment.; He also noted that in the wake of the insects, fields are left ‘bare as the floor’, apple trees are stripped of every leaf and rose bushes are consumed through the green bark. During the same attack, a farmer lamented that 100 acres of his bean field had been ‘completely cleared by the hoppers. Joel’s account is not hyperbolic but factual. (Hubbard, Joel and Amos (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 45)

James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) cites another historical example:

When the locust invasion of 1915 struck Palestine and Syria the desolation was as great as anyone could have possibly imagined. The first swarms appeared in March. The final stages did not depart until early summer. During that four-or-five-month period the land was stripped of every green thing: vines, fig trees, grain. Still, bad as the destruction was, the locusts did move on and in time the land recovered. (Boice, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical Commentary, 106)

Though Joel was not the first to take literary license with the destructive creatures, he adds his own unique spin. John Barton (b. 1948) chronicles:

The imagery occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. In Judges 6:5 the Midianites and Amalekites used to come up against Israel “as thick as locusts” (cf. also Judges 7:12), while Jeremiah 51:14 threatens Babylon that YHWH will “fill you with troops like a swarm locusts. And James L. Crenshaw [b. 1934] cites a Sumerian text..Perhaps we should...see some originality in Joel’s reversal of the image, making locusts seem like an invading army. As so often in the prophets, a familiar trope is given new life, in this case by being reversed. I do not know of any other case inside or outside the Bible in which literal locusts become a metaphorical army. (Barton, Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 43-44)

There is great debate as to whether Joel is speaking literally or figuratively. Thomas J. Finley (b. 1945) explains:

Many commentators agree that Joel describes a literal locust plague in the first chapter, though there is much more dispute about the second chapter. The suggestion has also been made (Douglas Stuart [b. 1943]) that even in the first chapter the locusts stand for an invading army, either the Assyrians or the Babylonians. While there may be elements of hyperbole in Joel’s description of the locust plague, as when he asks rhetorically whether anything like this has happened before, the poetic language reflects a manner of expression common among the Hebrews (cf. II Kings 18:5, 23:25). Locust plagues were greatly feared, and this particular one could have been unusually severe. (Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah: An Exegetical Commentary, 26)

Most modern commentators agree that Judah has experienced the devastating effects of locusts. Leslie C. Allen (b. 1935) explicates:

Most scholars interpret the locusts in both chapters in strictly contemporary terms, and this is the most natural way of construing the material. Joel 1:2-4 speaks of the locusts as a present threat to Joel’s generation and the occasion of his summons to lamentation. Joel 1:16 confirms this impression of direct involvement with the ravages of real locusts. The past verbs of Joel 2:18, 19 categorize Yahweh’s response to the locust crisis and the people’s penitential cries as having already occurred. It is significant that the locusts behave in a literal manner: they ravage fields, trees, and fruit, but do not kill or plunder, or take prisoners of war. They are indeed described metaphorically as an attacking army and are compared with soldiers, but to conceive of figurative locusts who are like the soldiers they are supposed to represent is a tortuous and improbable interpretation. Moreover, the restoration promised by Yahweh in Joel 2:18-27 concerns the material damage associated with locust attacks. In Amos 7:1-3, a locust plague is certainly a symbol of coming destruction, and Revelation 9:3, 7-9 actually applies Joel’s language to an apocalyptic event, but these passages provide no warrant for detaching the theme of Joel from its historical and literary contexts. (Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 29-30)

David Prior (b. 1940) rationalizes:

Such a detailed description is more likely the result of actually seeing locusts at work in such profusion. All the descriptions we have of this phenomenon substantiate the accuracy of Joel’s language. The prophet does not exaggerate the situation one bit. Probably only those who have not experienced locusts on the march cannot conceive such an appalling scenario. (Prior, The Message of Joel, Micah & Habakkuk (Bible Speaks Today), 23-24)

Whether describing a swarm of locusts or an invading army, Joel’s point is clear: The catastrophe is only a sign of things to come. The people are dealing with an earthly phenomenon but soon they will contend with the day of the Lord.

David W. Baker (b. 1950) envisions:

Joel likens God’s judgment to an army of locusts that descends on us all. Like a winged AIDS infestation they destroy everything in their path. It is clear that for Joel, the locust invasion is a metaphor for what will happen on the Day of the Lord, when all righteousness accounts will be settled. To describe this judgment we are driven to metaphors of nature, the economy, or foreign armies, but Joel’s point is that the scope of God’s judgment exceeds them all. (Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi (The NIV Application Commentary), 13)

Lloyd J. Ogilvie (b. 1930) substantiates:

The coming day of the Lord described in chapter 2 results in a cosmic upheaval described in Joel 2:10. This is more than the effect of locusts or even a powerful human army. The language here is reminiscent especially of various theophany texts (Judges 5:4-5; Psalms 18:7-15, 68:8, 97:2-5) and also of other day of the Lord passages (Isaiah 13:10, 13). (Ogilvie, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (Mastering the Old Testament), 224)

In making this leap, Joel draws from tradition. Robert B. Chisholm, Jr. (b. 1951) delineates:

That the prophet would draw the connection between the locust plague and a greater judgment to follow should come as no surprise. When the Lord judged the Egyptians prior to the Exodus, a locust plague preceded the final plagues of darkness and death (Exodus 10:1-11:10, 12:29-30). The curse list in Deuteronomy 28 associates locust plagues with death and exile (cf. Deuteronomy 28:38, 42). (Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 56)

The desired response to all of this destruction and the looming Day of the Lord is repentance (Joel 2:12).

Do you think that Joel intended to depict a literal swarm of locusts or an invading army or both? How does making this choice influence your reading of the prophet? Why does Joel incorporate military imagery? What do you need to repent of?

As horrific as Joel’s imagery is, the locusts do not get the last word (Joel 2:25). Trent C. Butler (b. 1941) relays:

Joel ends his book on an unexpected note. No more locust plagues. No more army invasions. No more natural disasters. No more punishment. The Day of the Lord will bring salvation to God’s people—a salvation marked by his eternal presence with them. One thing made that possible. God pardoned, forgave, and annulled all the punishment they deserved. (Butler, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 155-56)

Judah’s survival from the locusts provides hope for future endurance. Bruce C. Birch (b. 1941) connects:

This experience of salvation in a present crisis leads to the prophet’s vision of God’s future salvation, when the day of the Lord does come (Joel 2:31, 3:14). The prophet dares hope that this will not be a date of judgment for Judah. With relationship restored between God and God’s people that future day will be a day of salvation in all its fulness. Such a day of salvation includes, in Joel’s vision, a pouring out of God’s spirit on all people in a way that overcomes differences of gender and age and social status; men and women, young and old, slave and free alike shall be linked to God by the mutual empowerment of God’s spirit (Joel 2:25-29). This is the text and the vision that formed the basis of Peter’s sermon following the Pentecost experience [Acts 2:16-21]. (Birch, Hosea, Joel, and Amos (Westminster Bible Companion), 129)

Even the worst calamity Joel can imagine is nothing in comparison to the redemptive power of God.

When has your past endurance given you hope in the present? Is there any situation so dark that God cannot brighten it?

“We must not offer people a system of redemption, a set of insights and principles. We offer people a Redeemer.” - Paul David Tripp (b. 1950), Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands: People in Need of Change Helping People in Need of Change, p. 8

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)

The Man of God & The Old Prophet (I Kings 13)

What happened to the man of God who had been sent to deliver a message and return home without eating or drinking? He disobeyed and was killed by a lion (I Kings 13:24)

When Israel split, the southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem, the religious epicenter (I Kings 12:26-27). To ensure that his constituents would not need to cross the border to worship, Jeroboam, ruler of the northern kingdom, Israel, erected altars at Dan and Bethel (I Kings 12:28-30). It is in this context that the Man of God enters the biblical narrative (I Kings 13:1-32).

The Man of God’s story is told in two parts (I Kings 13:1-10, 11-32). He strides into Bethel from Judah where he finds Jeroboam burning incense on the unauthorized altar (I Kings 13:1). The Man of God promptly condemns the altar (I Kings 13:2) and his words are validated when he produces a double miracle in which the idolatrous king’s hand is both cursed and cured (I Kings 13:4-6). Before leaving, the Man of God emphatically declines an invitation to dine with the king stating that God had prohibited it (I Kings 13:8-9).

“For so it was commanded me by the word of the LORD, saying, ‘You shall eat no bread, nor drink water, nor return by the way which you came.’” (I Kings 13:9 NASB)

This was a smash and grab job and the Man of God was not to dawdle in Bethel.

The Man of God’s second story arc begins where the first ends when an Old Prophet’s sons relay the Man of God’s exploits (I Kings 13:11-32). Presumably impressed, the Old Prophet and his sons caught the Man of God on his way out of town and asked him to dine (I Kings 13:14-15). The Man of God again notes that he is under strict divine orders not eat or drink on the trip (I Kings 13:8-9, 16-17).

The Old Prophet convinces the Man of God that he is a prophet who has received orders that supercede the Man of God’s and that the Man of God should eat with him (I Kings 13:18-19). While dining, the “word of the Lord” came upon the Old Prophet and he uttered an ominous portent claiming that the Man of God had disobeyed orders and would not make it home alive (I Kings 13:20-22). The prophecy comes to fruition as a lion kills the Man of God on his way home though it devours neither the Man of God nor his donkey (I Kings 13:24-25). The Old Prophet retrieves the Man of God’s corpse and insists that the Man of God be buried in his family tomb (I Kings 13:27-30). He also insists that when the day comes, his sons bury him with the Man of God (I Kings 13:31-32).

The Man of God’s instructions are simple: he was given dining restrictions and told to return home by another way. Inexplicably everyone he encounters offers him sustenance. (Why would his adversary Jeroboam do this?) The Man of God faces two tests, acing the first and flunking the next. August H. Konkel (b. 1948) sumarizes, “The man of God from Judah proclaims God’s word in declaring the folly of Jeroboam, but then chooses the way of folly himself in disobeying what he knows to be God’s word given to him (Konkel, 1 and 2 Kings (The NIV Application Commentary), 244).”

The story is complex and perplexing. Renowned theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968) called I Kings 13 “perhaps the most expressive and at any rate the most comprehensive prophetic story in the Old Testament (Church Dogmatics II.2" The Doctrine of God, 409).”

The hero is anonymous much like Clint Eastwood (b. 1930) in Sergio Leone’s “Dollars Trilogy” (1964-66) or more recently Ryan Gosling (b. 1980) in Drive (2011). His non-name is emphasized as “the Man of God” is repeated 17 times in the text (I Kings 13:1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 26, 29, 31). Fittingly, the mysterious figure is juxtaposed with an anonymous adversary, the Old Prophet (I Kings 13:11).

Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) writes:

Commentators often point out that none of the main characters of the story are named...One effect of this technique is to highlight geography. By virtue of his designation, the man of God becomes representative of Judah, while the old prophet stands for Bethel and Israel, suggesting that the whole history of Israel and Judah is somehow foreshadowed in this chapter. (Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 98-99)

The only biographical detail given about the Man of God is his place of origin, Judah (I Kings 13:1, 12, 14, 21). This speaks to the era’s and the story’s fundamental conflict - a man from Judah enters Bethel.

In spite of his final failure, the Man of God, as both his moniker and homeland suggest, is a legitimate divine emissary. Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) writes:

The center of the narrative is the surprising fact that the lion killed the man but did not eat him. This exceptional behavior of the animal is used to explain the special holiness of the man of God that leads to his burial in a foreign land and the special honor attached to his grave. The corpse possesses a special dignity, because the lion has not touched it; the lion reveals the special status of the man of God and so he is buried by the prophet in his own grave and lamented by him. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary,151)

Gene Rice (b. 1925) adds:

He was heroic in obedience to the command to deliver—at great risk to himself—the prophecy against the altar at Bethel, but accepted too readily the alleged revelation of another that contradicted the revelation God had given him. The authentic word of God often seems extreme and unreasonable, and how adept we are in finding reasons to disobey it. The fate of the man of God from Judah is also a word of the LORD, namely, that obedience is a matter of life and death. (Rice, 1 Kings: Nations Under God (International Theological Commentary), 115)

The fact that the man who dies is not the principal evildoer is just one of many difficulties with the text. None of the characters’ motives are given even though there are more inexplicable than understandable actions. The text is also replete with moral ambiguity.

James L. Crenshaw (b. 1934) identifies another difficulty as he laments that “it must be declared that this passage deals the death knell to every attempt to specify absolute criteria by which to differentiate the true from the false prophet, for the ultimate criterion to which contemporary scholarship appeals (the charismatic intuition of a true prophet) fails in this instance (Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect upon Israelite Religion, 47-48).”

Richard Nelson (b. 1945) summarizes:

The story of the man of God from Judah and the old prophet in Bethel is notoriously problematic for modern readers. The blunt designation of Josiah by name (I Kings 13:2) is so obviously a prophecy made after the fact that the narrative is bast into immediate disrepute for the historically inclined. As a moral tale it is patently offensive. Trickery trumps over the servant of God and the living prophet is rewarded in the end. Is this a crude, insensitive God who violates our ideas of justice? (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 83-83)

What do you find problematic about this story? Why does the man of God fail? Does he presume that someone would not lie about being a prophet? Why does the Old Prophet lie? Why are there seemingly no consequences for his lie? Why does the lion kill but not eat the Man of God? What is the point of the story?

While I Kings 13 raises many questions, its main thrust can be determined. The postscript to the story relays that despite the encounter with the Man of God, Jeroboam did not alter his altars (I Kings 13:33-34). This end stress conveys the story’s primary meaning and represents the first of many assaults on Jeroboam’s policies in the books of Kings.

Paul R. House (b. 1958) concludes:

Basically, 1 Kings 13 continued the book’s emphases on proper worship, the prophetic word, and the slow demise of the covenant people. It also begins to analyze the difference between true and false prophecy (House, The New American Commentary, Vol. 8: 1, 2 Kings, 188-189).”

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) adds:

The issue of true and false prophecy is secondary to the larger concern with discrediting Beth El. Tensions between Judah and northern Israel come clearly to the forefront when the narrative depicts the old prophet from Beth El as a liar who deceives the Judean man of G-d into violating G-d’s commission. (Sweeney, First and Second Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 181).”

In some ways the story serves as a cautionary tale. The Man of God is held accountable for his actions even though he is deceived. If God would rebuke the Man of God for disobedience how much more so the dissident king?

The Man of God stood as a witness against Jeroboam in both life and death. The story’s true postscript comes many chapters later when the Man of God’s prophecy is fulfilled during the reign of Josiah (II Kings 23:1-30). When Josiah finally obliterates Jeroboam’s idols, he uncovers a tomb of two prophets (II Kings 23:15-20). The tomb served as a reminder that the false worship had been doomed from the start.

Is it significant that the Man of God and the Old Prophet are buried together? Are there any notable tombs or monuments near year? What are they saying? Where does false worship exist today?

“The noblest worship is to make yourself as good and as just as you can.” - Isocrates (436-338 BCE)