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

Christian Tax Collector? (Matthew 9:9)

Which Gospel writer was a tax collector? Matthew

The principal story for which Matthew is known is his call to discipleship (Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-31). In fact, this is the only narrative which features Matthew in the entire Bible. The Synoptic gospels report that Matthew was called to be Jesus’ disciple while on the job, sitting at a tax collector’s booth near Capernaum (Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-31). Matthew’s gospel is as detached as the other gospels when recounting the occasion.

As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. (Matthew 9:9 NASB)

Daniel J. Harrington (b. 1940) concludes, “We are probably to imagine the ‘tax office’ (telōnion) as a tollbooth at which fees were collected on goods (most likely fish) as they were transported out of the region of the Sea of Galilee (Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina), 126).”

While the gospel that bears his name refers to the tax collector as Matthew (Matthew 9:9), for unstated reasons he is called Levi in the parallel accounts (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27). Though the name changes, all of the elements of the story remain intact. When called, the tax collector leaves his post to follow Jesus (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-28). (Hopefully it was near the end of his shift.) He then hosts a dinner party for his new found master (Matthew 9:10-13; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-31). The immediacy of Matthew’s response echoes Jesus’ previous call to the fisherman (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20).

Being a tax collector in the first century was inauspicious. When Matthew’s gospel lists the twelve disciples(Matthew 10:1-4), only Matthew’s vocation is mentioned (Matthew 10:3). He is described as a telones (Matthew 9:9, 10:3). This term is most commonly rendered “tax collector” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) but in deference to the publicum, the Latin state treasury, older translations use “publican” (ASV, KJV). The Message states simply that Matthew was a “tax man”.

There were two varieties of tax man in the first century. Robert Kysar (b. 1934) explains:

Tax collectors were businessmen who contracted to collect revenues in a prescribed area, which they leased. In turn they hired a group of individuals who exercised the actual collections. This distinction between the major figure and his arm of collectors is suggested in the Gospels by the two titles, “chief tax collector” (architelōnēs, Luke 19:2) and the simple “tax collector” (telōnēs, Matthew 10:3). The first designated enterprising persons of some wealth (if not moral integrity). The second was used of individuals, many of whom were poor and of low social rank. They may have been driven to this unseemly work by sheer desperation. Their dirty work brought them only contempt and social discrimination, but it made a living. (Kysar, Called to Care: Biblical Images for Social Ministry, 47)

Given both Matthew’s physical and vocational position, many deduce that he was a customs official employed by the tetrarch Herod Antipas in Capernaum to collect from the nearby major thoroughfare that connected Mesopotamia to Egypt.

Though the modern equivalent is far from popular, tax men in Matthew’s day were far more despised than modern IRS agents. In Israel they were ranked with the lowest of the low, grouped with prostitutes (Matthew 21:31, 32), Gentiles (Matthew 18:17) and most commonly sinners (Matthew 9:10, 11, 11:19; Mark 2:15, 16; Luke 5:30, 7:34, 15:1).

David L. Turner (b. 1949) explains:

Tax collectors would likely be unacceptable to the Pharisees not only because of their oft-deserved reputation for extortion (cf. Luke 3:12-13) but also because of their frequent association with Gentiles. The term “sinners” (Matthew 9:11, 13; 11:19, 26:45; cf. Mark 2:14-22; Luke 5:27-39) may designate those whose behavior was egregiously ungodly, but from the Pharisaic viewpoint, it would also include those who did not observe the traditional interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (Matthew 15:2) on such matters as ritual purity, food laws, and Sabbath observance. (Turner, Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) , 252)

Tax collectors were deemed reprobates because they were corrupt on multiple levels, viewed as both extortionists and traitors. Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis (b. 1946) describes:

It is difficult not to see the glint of ambition in Matthew’s eye as he counts the incoming money, which we are sure contains a good percentage of the unofficially extorted. Matthew’s social standing is hence, very low. Not only does the tax collector prefer worldly gain to spiritual gain; he also works for the pagan occupying power, Rome, and is thus despised both politically and religiously by right thinking Jews...Matthew the telônês (“tax collector”), then, enjoys no social, political, or religious status in his community. He is a shady character who lives at the fringes of Jewish society. To make money by collecting others’ money cannot, even in the best of cases, elicit any philosopher’s admiration: it would be difficult to find any creative or altruistic aspect in this endeavor. (Leiva-Merikakis, Fire of Mercy, Heart of the Word: Meditations on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew: Volume 1, 421)

As such, tax collectors were often perceived as spiritually hopeless. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) writes:

Although later Jewish tradition remarks that it would be difficult for a publican to repent (because it would be hard to make restitution; see, e.g., t. B. Mes. 8:26), it allowed that God can forgive this sin like any other...and emphasized God’s love toward the repentant...Jewish tradition already warned not to reproach one who had turned from sin (Sirach 8:5). But Pharisees, like modern churchgoers, were presumably not always what their official ethics called them to be. In the total context of Matthew’s Gospel, the informed reader ultimately recognizes that the religious establishment themselves are “sinners” (Matthew 26:45; though the term could refer to Gentiles, its immediate contextual referent is probably the priestly aristocracy). (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 297)

The assumption was that one could not be a good Jew and a tax collector. A more modern parallel is seen in the June 3, 1957 edition of Time Magazine. The publication featured a blurb about an encounter between Mickey Cohen (1914-1976) and Billy Graham (b. 1918) during Graham’s 1949 Los Angeles crusade. (Graham himself writes of the encounter in Just As I Am: The Autobiography of Billy Graham, 151-52). At the time, Cohen, a notorious gangster, was far mor famous than the novice evangelist. Cohen was quoted as saying, “I am very high on the Christian way of life. Billy came up, and before we had food he said—What do you call it. that thing they say before food? Grace? Yeah, grace. Then we talked a lot about Christianity and stuff.” There is a myth that after Cohen was confronted about his unchanged lifestyle, the mobster purportedly replied,“Christian football players, Christian cowboys, Christian politicians; why not a Christian gangster?”

Whether or not the story is true, it conveys truth. Christian gangster is perceived as an oxymoron just as Jewish tax collector was 2000 years ago. Michael J. Wilkins (b. 1949) speculates:

For Matthew, discipleship has an immediate cost, for collecting taxes not only filled the coffers of the governor but also meant a lucrative income for the tax collector (cf. Zacchaeus, Luke 19:1-10). A fisherman could always go back to fishing, but it is less likely that a tax collector could return to the booth. But our author doesn’t expand on what the sacrifice entails, perhaps a subtle indication of the identity of the humble Matthew as the author of this first Gospel. (Wilkins, Matthew (The NIV Application Commentary), 365)

Could Matthew have returned to tax collecting and still professed his Christianity? What modern jobs are incompatible with Christianity? Do you reflect your religious beliefs at your job? Do you live in such a way that an outsider might not think a Christian gangster to be an oxymoron?

After Matthew accepts his calling, Jesus dines with the former tax collector and his equally reviled friends which Jesus’ opponents naturally found disgraceful (Matthew 9:10-13; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-31). Douglas R.A. Hare (b. 1929) explains, “To good religious people it was scandalous that Jesus kept such bad company. His enemies ridiculed him as ‘a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners’ (Matthew 11:19) (Hare, Matthew (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching) 101).”

For Jesus, there was a bigger issue than his public image. David E. Garland (b. 1947) writes:

Jesus embodies God’s mercy and purpose to take away the diseases, infirmities, and sins of all the people; and the meal was a concrete expression of the acceptance of sinners. The Pharisees would have had no objection to sinners repenting. What would have been reprehensible to them was the tacit approval and forgiveness of a coven of sinners who had done nothing that would pass for traditional repentance (confession and restitution) except to follow Jesus (Matthew 9:9). (Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary & Theological Commentary on the First Gospel, 103)

John Nolland (b. 1947) explains Jesus’ rationale:

As far as the Matthean Jesus is concerned, for these people the decisive turning point has already occurred. They do not remain guilty until they prove themselves; rather, those who will come are welcomed. No ‘threshold score’ is required for entry. (Nolland, The Gospel Of Matthew: A Commentary On The Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 386)

The call of Matthew speaks to inclusiveness as a fearless Jesus eats freely with those on the margins of society. In 1573 , Paolo Veronese (1528-1588) produced a famous oil on canvas which he later titled Christ in the House of Levi. Today the painting hangs in room 10 of The Galleria dell' Accademia (Venice Academy) in Italy. The interesting aspect of this likeness is that Veronese did not set out to depict this scene.

Art historians H.W. Janson (1913-1982) and Anthony F. Janson (b. 1943) chronicle:

He gave the painting its present title only after he had been summoned by the religious tribunal of the Inquisition on the charge of fillings his picture with “buffoons, drunkards, Germans, dwarfs, and similar vulgarities” unsuited to its sacred character. The account of this trial shows that the tribunal thought the painting represented the Last Supper, but Veronese’s testimony never made clear whether it was the Last Supper or the Supper in the House of Simon. To him the distinction made little difference. In the end, he settled on a convenient third title, Christ in the House of Levi which permitted him to leave the offending incidents in place. (Janson, and Janson, History of Art: The Western Tradition (6th Edition), 381)

For Veronese, it would seem there was little distinction between the meal at the tax collector’s house comprised of known sinners and the Last Supper whose guest list was filled with Jesus’ closest disciples. The title was the only real difference.

Why does Jesus dine with outcasts? Do you associate with those on the fringes of society? How can Christians be more inclusive, especially to those who come from different socio-economic backgrounds?

“God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners.” - Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard, July 7, 1838

Priests: Born or Made? (Numbers 3)

Out of the twelve tribes, which one was consecrated to the temple service? The tribe of Levi (Numbers 3:6-8)

In the Old Testament, the descendants of Levi were consecrated for among other things, temple service (Numbers 3:6-10, 18:2-7; Deuteronomy 10:8-9). The Levites were charged with ministering to the Kohanim (priests) and keeping watch over the Tabernacle (Numbers 18:2-6). (Contrary to popular belief, the Levites did not simply make God’s jeans.) All priests were Levites but not all Levites were priests (Numbers 18:1-2; Deuteronomy 21:5, 31:9). The book of Leviticus, which has a priestly impetus, is taken from the Greek meaning “relating to the Levites”.

Levi was the third son of Jacob a.k.a. Israel (Genesis 29:34, 35:23). God personally selected his descendants commanding “you shall cleanse them and present them as a wave offering; for they are wholly given to Me from among the sons of Israel. I have taken them for Myself instead of every first issue of the womb, the firstborn of all the sons of Israel (Numbers 8:15-16 NASB).”

The Levites were unique among Israel’s tribes. A special ceremony was held to consecrate the Levites and designate them to God’s service (Numbers 8:5-22). They were not eligible for military service as in conducting the census of the army, Moses was explicitly instructed to not count the Levites (Numbers 1:47-53, 2:33). The Levites were the only tribe not allotted land (Leviticus 25:32-34; Deuteronomy 10:8-9, 14:29; Joshua 13:13, 33, 14:3-4, 18:7) though they were given cities in which to reside (Numbers 35:1-5; Joshua 21:1-42). The Levites were given no inheritance as “the LORD, the God of Israel, is their inheritance” (Joshua 13:33 NASB). The Levites were dependent upon the landed tribes for sustenance, namely through tithes (Numbers 18:8-31; Deuteronomy 12:19), particularly the tithe known as the Maaser Rishon or Levite Tithe (Numbers 18:21-26).

Was the Levites designation as clergy a boon or did they draw the short end of the stick? In an era of the priesthood of all believers, should Christians mimic the ordinances set for the Levites? Why were the Levites set apart as Levi never demonstrated any moral superiority over his brothers (Genesis 34:1-31, 49:5-7)?

The Levites were selected for the clerical task because they were the tribe who stood with Moses in the blasphemous incident of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32:26-29). While Moses was on Mount Sinai convening with God and retrieving the Ten Commandments, the people became restless and convinced Aaron to fashion a Golden Calf (Exodus 32:1-6). When Moses returned, the Levites were the tribe which banded with Moses against the idolaters (Exodus 32:26). In fact, they killed 3000 infidels that very day (Exodus 32:28). It was presumably this zeal that set them apart for the priesthood (Exodus 32:29).

Ironically, both Moses and Aaron were Levites (Exodus 2:1-10, 4:14; Numbers 26:59; Joshua 21:4, 10).

In contrast, today Christian clergy are selected based on an individual sense of calling as opposed to being born into the profession.

Which system of clergy selection do you prefer? What are the benefits of both methods? What overarching factors changed to necessitate the change in clergy appointment? Have you known any second generation ministers? What are the advantages?