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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter C. Craigie (1938-1985) calculates:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen K. Sherwood (b. 1943) comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) interprets:

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

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

Patrick D. Miller (b. 1935) applies:

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

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

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

Zacchaeus: Up A (Sycamore) Tree (Luke 19:4)

What kind of tree did Zacchaeus climb in order to see Jesus? Sycamore

A wealthy tax collector named Zachaeus desires to catch a glimpse of Jesus as the famed teacher passes through Jericho (Luke 19:1-2). A short man, Zacchaeus’ vision is obstructed by the crowd (Luke 19:3). The admittedly unscrupulous publican is presumably unpopular and not someone the masses would accommodate (Luke 19:8). Undeterred, the diminutive tax collector casts his dignity aside, scurries and scales a nearby tree to spot Jesus (Luke 19:4).

The story, found only in Luke’s gospel, provides a curious detail: The tree that Zacchaeus scales in the City of Palms (Deuteronomy 34:3, Judges 1:16, 3:13, II Chronicles 28:15) is a sycamore.

So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way. (Luke 19:4 NASB)

Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) sees the humor in Luke’s setting:

The story begins as a comedy. Zacchaeus is drawn, not by devotion to Jesus or any high-sounding confession of faith, but by simple curiosity to try to get a glimpse of him. Being short, he decides to climb a tree to get a better view. A sycamore tree should provide good cover and let him get away with his covert surveillance without jeopardizing his dignity. No such luck. Jesus not only spots Zacchaeus, but makes a spectacle of him by inviting himself to Zacchaeus’s home. You have to chuckle (unless you happen to be Mrs. Zacchaeus, left with the problem of rearranging household plans to provide dinner for the unexpected guest and his entourage). (Ringe, Luke (Westminster Bible Companion), 232)

This is the only time the word sycamore (Greek: συκομμρέα, sukomōraia) appears in the New Testament, though Luke uses the similar sykaminos in Luke 17:6. The sycamore is native to Egypt and Asia minor and thrives in the warm lowland areas of Palestine. It produces sweet, edible fruit.

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) identify:

The sycamore (or, more correctly, sycomore) referred to here is a type of fig tree, Ficus sycomorous. (Sycamore, spelled with an a, is an American name for a plane tree, genus Platanus. Though the fruit was considered inferior to the true fig (Ficus carica) it was widely consumed and cultivated by some (e.g. the prophet Amos identified himself as a trimmer of sycomore trees [Amos 7:14]). (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 303)

Philip W. Comfort (b. 1950) and Walter A. Elwell (b. 1937) determine:

The word translated “sycamore” in I Kings 10:27; I Chronicles 27:28; II Chronicles 1:15, 9:27; Psalm 78:47; Isaiah 9:10; Amos 7:14; and Luke 19:4 undoubtedly refers to the well-known sycamore-fig, which is also known as the mulberry-fig or fig-mulberry...The sycamore-fig of the Bible is a strong-growing, robust, wide-spreading tree growing 30 to 40 feet (9.1 to 12.2 meters) tall and sometimes attaining a trunk circumference of 20 feet (6.1 meters) or more with a crown 120 feet (36.6 meters) in diameter. It is a tree that is easily climbed and is frequently planted along roadsides, which accounts for the reference in Luke 19:4. It produces an abundant amount of fruit in clusters on all parts of the tree, on both young and old branches and even on the trunk itself. It is very similar to the common fig, only smaller and much inferior in quality. In David’s day it was so valuable that he appointed a special overseer for the sycamore trees (I Chronicles 27:28). (Comfort and Elwell, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, 1058)

Megan Bishop Moore (b. 1972) adds:

This tropical tree grew abundantly in the Shepelah (I Kings 10:27; II Chronicles 1:15, 9:27). It is not the American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), the Old World sycamore (Platanus orientalis), or the sycamine (mulberry, Morus Nigra L.), as earlier thought...Both the wood and the fruit of the sycamore tree are valuable. The soft, porous wood was used in construction of Egyptian tombs and coffins. The sycamore fig is inferior to the common fig, Ficus carica L., but was cultivated and eaten in ancient times. About three days before the sycamore fig harvest, a gash was made in the fruit to hasten ripening...The sycamore fig of biblical times was fertilized by wasps. Modern sycamores produce seedless figs and grow only in cultivated form. (David Noel Freeman, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 1260)

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) sees a connection between the tree and Zacchaeus’ later confession (Luke 19:8):

In Luke’s original Greek there may be a wordplay between “I’ve extorted” (esykophatēsa) and “sycamore tree” (sykomorean), as though before God his extortions “put him up a tree” from which he has now come down in repentance. (Gundry, Commentary on Luke)

Desperate times call for desperate measures and for Zacchaeus, the sycamore tree is a means to an end. His willingness to climb the sycamore is evidence that the resourceful and determined tax collector will stop at nothing to see Jesus.

What types of trees have you climbed? How old were you the last time that you did climb a tree? What would it take to get you to climb a tree today? When has your vision been obstructed from something that you really wanted to see? What would you have done had you been Zacchaeus? Why does Zacchaeus climb the sycamore tree?

Climbing a tree in public would have been deemed highly undignified. Depicting the tax collector in this act is one of many ways that Luke features Zacchaeus in the most embarrassing light possible.

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) explains:

Luke has spared no insulting image to portray Zacchaeus as a pathetic, even despicable character. He paints a derisive and mocking picture of a traitorous, small-minded, greedy, physically deformed tax collector sprinting awkwardly ahead of the crowd and climbing a sycamore tree like an ape. But Luke exploits these conventional tropes only for the purpose of reversing them in the conclusion of the story. (Parsons, Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity, 107)

Some have viewed Zacchaeus’ scaling the sycamore as an attempt to remain inconspicuous; he is attempting to maintain dignity while performing an undignified act.

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) interprets:

The picture of this tiny, rejected man sitting alone, hidden in order to get a glimpse of Jesus, is very touching. He certainly did not want the crowd to know he was there. He had dignity! He would get a private view of Jesus. The crowd would pass, and he would remain unseen, like an orphan peering through a lighted window on a dark cold night. (Hughes, Luke, Volume Two: That You May Know the Truth (Preaching the Word), 223)

Some have accused Zacchaeus of nothing less than hiding in the sycamore. Kenneth E. Bailey (b. 1930) argues:

Luke 19:4...records Zacchaeus’s first action with the words “So he ran on ahead.” Middle Eastern adults do not run in public if they wish to avoid public shame. Furthermore, powerful, rich men do not climb trees at public parades anywhere in the world. Zacchaeus knew this only too well. So he ran ahead of the crowd and, trying to hide, climbed into a tree with dense foliage hoping no one would see him. Why is a sycamore fig mentioned?...Sycamore fig trees have large leaves and low branches. One can climb into them easily and just as easily hide among their thickly clustered broad leaves. Both of these features were important to Zacchaeus. Additionally, such trees were only allowed some distance from town. Zacchaeus chose to climb a tree growing outside Jericho, assuming the crowd would have dispersed by the time Jesus reached Jericho. (Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, 177)

Whatever his motive for climbing the tree, it can be certain that Zacchaeus is determined to glimpse Jesus. Robert H. Stein (b. 1935) deduces:

Such undignified behavior, according to that culture, indicates that more than curiosity was at play here. (Stein, Luke (The New American Commentary), 467)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) concurs:

The crowd might make way for someone who was respected in the community, but it would not do so for someone like Zacchaeus. Running ahead, he shamelessly scurries up a tree and perches on a limb. Zacchaeus’s resolve means that he does not mind looking ridiculous in his quest. (Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 747-48)

Zacchaeus receives more than he bargains for as Jesus will summon Zacchaeus from his perch atop the Sycamore and invite himself to dine at the reviled tax collector’s home (Luke 19:5-6). This awkward position atop a sycamore tree is where Zacchaeus meets Jesus and finds acceptance.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) charges:

The crowd laughs at the lowly, to people walking the way of humility, who leave the wrongs they suffer in God’s hands and do not insist on getting back at their enemies...Say what you like, but for our part, let us climb the sycamore tree and see Jesus. The reason you cannot see Jesus is that you are ashamed to climb the sycamore tree. (Arthur A. Just, Jr. [b. 1953], New Testament, III: Luke (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), 290)

Have you ever functioned as an obstacle to someone else seeing Jesus? What would you be willing to do to catch a glimpse of Jesus? Have you ever sacrificed your dignity in the name of Jesus?

“Obstacles don’t have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don’t turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it.” - Michael Jordan (b. 1963)

What a Cluster! (Numbers 13:23)

What did the Israelite spies bring back from Canaan, from the brook of Eshcol? A cluster of grapes [pomegranates and figs] (Numbers 13)

Before the Israelites invade Canaan, God instructs Moses to enlist a representative from each of Israel’s twelve tribes to explore the land (Numbers 13:1-2). After securing these delegates (Numbers 13:3-16), Moses gives his scouts instructions (Numbers 13:17-20). After surveying the typical tactical objectives (topography, military, fortification, etc.), the last of Moses’ instructions is to obtain a sample of the region’s fruit (Numbers 13:20).

Do your best to bring back some of the fruit of the land.” (It was the season for the first ripe grapes.) (Numbers 13:20b NASB)

The seasonal time stamp included indicates that the reconnaissance most likely occurs in July, but potentially as late as early September.

The advance team does as they are told and secures an excellent specimen.

Then they came to the valley of Eshcol and from there cut down a branch with a single cluster of grapes; and they carried it on a pole between two men, with some of the pomegranates and the figs. (Numbers 13:23 NASB)

The spies retrieve grapes, pomegranates and figs; all fruits indigenous to Canaan but not Egypt where the Israelites are leaving and certainly not the Sinai wilderness where they are living. No one could deny the fertility of the Promised Land. As promised, Canaan is a land characterized as flowing with “milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3; Leviticus 20:24).

The most noteworthy souvenir is a cluster of grapes so substantial that two men and a pole are needed to secure it. Specimens as large as twelve pounds (five kilograms) have been found in the area.

Martin Noth (1902-1968) explains:

In order to carry it undamaged, they had to lay it on a pole carried by two bearers (most likely a kind of wooden bier such as is envisaged in Numbers 4:10, 12 for the carrying of the sacred lamp and other sacred vessels) and which they brought back along with a vine-branch and a few pomegranates and figs taken as samples from their reconnoitring. (Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 106)

David L. Stubbs (b. 1964) adds:

The image of the scouts bringing back a cluster of grapes so large that it hung on a pole supported by two men is a wonderful symbol of the fruitfulness of the promised land. Grapes, pomegranates, and figs may have been mentioned simply as part of the historical difference between the crops of Canaan and Egypt (see Numbers 11:5 for the fruit that people missed). Or these luscious and celebratory fruits of Canaan might be a subtle indication that God’s purposes are even better than what the people imagined in their unfaithfulness. The cluster of grapes and other fruit become a symbol of the faithfulness of God to his covenant promises. The land is indeed a good land; and the faithful God has brought them to a good place of not simply manna and water, but of grapes, wine, celebration, and feasting. (Stubbs, Numbers (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 128)

This massive vine leaves an indelible picture of the abundance of Canaan. In fact, even today, centuries later the image supplies the logo for the Israel Ministry of Tourism (pictured).

The valley of Eshcol, though geographically unidentifiable, is actually named for this produce. Timothy R. Ashley (b. 1947) dissects:

The word nahal (here valley) refers to the wadi or seasonal torrent-valley in the dry land. This valley was named for the cluster (’eškōl) of grapes found there. Since Numbers 13:24 makes clear that the spies themselves call the valley Eschcol, it is not surprising that the actual site is unknown. Some scholars have assumed that Eshcol was in the Hebron area, perhaps around Ramet el-Amleh. The biblical text probably means that the spies left Hebron and went on their way, coming to Eschcol at some point north of the town, but how far north is unknown. (Ashley, The Book of Numbers (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 238)

R. Dennis Cole (b. 1950) speculates:

The name of the valley, Eshkol, means “cluster (of grapes)” and was also the name of the brother of Mamre the Amorite, an associate of Abraham and the one for whom the town on the northwestern outskirts of Hebron was named (Genesis 14:13). Hence the valley may have been named originally according to the family name of Eshkol, and then developed as a prime region for viticulture. On the other hand, the Valley of Eshkol may have been so named by the scouts who explored the region somewhere north of Hebron according to the magnificent cluster of grapes growing there. (Cole, Numbers (New American Commentary), 221)

The word used to describe the pole on which the cluster is carried is also used sacramentally. Gordon J. Wenham (b. 1943) notes:

They brought back a selection of the fruits of the land, grapes, pomegranates and figs, which they carried back on a pole: though pole is the traditional rendering of Hebrew môt, it may mean something more elaborate like the frames for carrying the tabernacle in Numbers 4:10, 12. (Wenham, Numbers (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 118)

Roy Gane (b. 1955) adds:

When the chieftains return to the community, they stage a much anticipated “show and tell.” “...Most impressive is a gargantuan “cluster” (’eškol) of grapes that two scouts carry between them on a pole (Numbers 13:23), the way Kohathite Levites carry sacred objects belonging to the sanctuary (Numbers 4:6, 8, 11, 14, 7:9). (Gane, Leviticus, Numbers (The NIV Application Commentary), 599)

The procession of the grapes is intended to have a dramatic, religious ambience.

This fruit sampler platter also functions as a foretaste of the meals awaiting the Israelites in the Promised Land. These grapes serve as tangible irrefutable evidence of the land’s goodness (Numbers 13:27) and the implication is that there is more where that came from.

Billy Graham (b. 1918) illustrates:

One of New York’s leading grocery stores exhibited a basket of choice and beautiful grapes in the window. A notice appeared above the basket announcing: ‘A whole carload like this sample basket is expected in a few days.’ The grapes were a ‘pledge’ of what was to come. The firstfruits are but a handful compared with the whole harvest.” (Graham, The Holy Spirit: Activating God’s Power in Your Life, 86)

Seeing is believing and God graciously allows the Israelites a glimpse of their inheritance. Richard N. Boyce (b. 1955) relates:

Knowing us better than we know ourselves, God is aware that words alone are difficult to trust. While some few can believe without seeing, most would prefer to see and even taste (cf. John 20:24-29). No one who has read the New Testament, where Christ is the Vine who offers up the fruit of the kingdom through his death on the cross can help but see sacramental language bubbling over as the spies return from the Wadi “Eschol”...with a single cluster borne on a pole between two people (Number 13:23). God provides not only forewords and foresights, but foretastes as well. (Boyce, Leviticus and Numbers (Westminster Bible Companion), 157)

Like the ancient Israelites roaming the wilderness, modern Christians do not dwell in their eternal Promised Land. But like our spiritual ancestors, we are blessed with the occasional “foretaste of glory divine” in hopes that it will produce “blessed assurance”.

Since the text has already established that God is with the Israelites in their mission and that the land flows with milk and honey, why is it necessary to scout the Promised Land? What produce/food is your region known for? What is the most oversized produce you have ever witnessed? What might be the equivalent symbol of national wealth today? When have you experienced a foretaste of things to come? Why do the spies retrieve a single massive cluster as opposed to many small samples? Was this expedition an effort to build morale?

Like the grapes, the Promised Land is ripe for the picking. Unfortunately, the mammoth cluster is not enough to convince the nascent nation. The cluster creates a cluster. Amazingly, the colossal specimen does not even prove a conversation piece. After acknowledging the land’s goodness (Numbers 13:27), the conversation quickly shifts with a giant “but...”.

Grapes are not the only thing giant in the area. Like Texas, everything is bigger in Canaan. The majority opinion is negative as ten of the twelve spies focus not on the size of the grapes but on the size of the farmers who grew them. Only Caleb (Numbers 13:30) and Joshua (Numbers 14:6-9) maintain faith that God will deliver the land.

Instead of focusing on the promise, the Israelites see only the obstacles, the risk not the reward. The people become so downtrodden that there is no record of the grapes ever being eaten. They disregard the fact that they have safely scouted the land for forty days without incident. There is good news and bad news and the nation dwells on the bad.

In suggesting that they abandon their mission in Canaan, the Israelites are actually considering giving up on God. Not coincidentally, when the Promised Land is finally secured, Joshua and Caleb are the only ones from the period alive to see it (Numbers 14:30, 38, 26:65, 32:12).

Which two spies do you think carried the produce? Would these have been more likely to focus on it than the enemy? What would you have been consumed by, the obstacles or the objectives? Do you focus more on God’s blessings or your problems?

“The majority see the obstacles; the few see the objectives; history records the successes of the latter, while oblivion is the reward of the former.” - Alfred Armand Montapert (1906-1997), Distilled Wisdom, p. 173