Moses: The Meekest Man (Numbers 12:3)

Who was the meekest of all men? Moses (Numbers 12:3)

While leading the burgeoning Israelite nation through the wilderness, Moses not only faces criticism from its concerned citizens but also from Miriam and Aaron, his siblings and co-leaders (Numbers 12:1-2). Though the Book of Numbers states that the complaints reach God there is no mention of Moses’ response or even the degree of his awareness (Numbers 12:2). Instead the text bestows a superlative: Moses is the most humble man on the planet (Numbers 12:3).

(Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.) (Numbers 12:3 NASB)

This statement is generally perceived as a parenthetical aside. Though parentheses do not occur in the Hebrew text, translations are just as apt to supply them (KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT) as not (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NRSV, RSV).

Martin Noth (1902-1968) assesses:

Numbers 12:3 is a later addition which disrupts the close connection between Numbers 12:2b and Numbers 12:4. (Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 95)

R. Dennis Cole (b. 1950) detects a narrative purpose:

A parenthetic statement by the narrator concerning the character and quality of Moses as a man and as a leader of Israel is interjected into the flow of the narrative, heightening the dramatic effect of the passage. (Cole, Numbers (New American Commentary), 202)

In Hebrew, the first word in the text emphasizes Moses’ humanity as for the third and final time in the biblical record, Moses is characterized as “the man” (Exodus 32:1, 23; Numbers 12:3). This appellation is not conferred in the contemporary complimentary sense of the idiom.

Jonathan Kirsch (b. 1949) comments:

“There is nothing divine about Moses,” observes the eminent Bible scholar Gerhard Von Rad [1901-1971], and as if to remind us of this crucial fact, the Bible refers to him with a simple, sturdy, and straightforward phrase—“the man Moses.” (Exodus 32:1, 23; Numbers 12:3). (Kirsch, Moses: A Life, 1)

Robert Alter (b. 1935) expounds:

Alone among biblical characters, he is assigned an oddly generic epithet, “the man Moses.” There may be some theological motive for this designation, in order to remind us of his plainly human status, to ward off any inclination to deify the founding leader of the Israelite people, but it also suggests more concretely that Moses as forger of the nation and prince of prophets is, after all, not an absolutely unique figure but a man like other men, bringing to the soul-trying tasks of leadership both the moral and temperamental resources and the all-too-human weaknesses that many men may possess. In regard to our experience of the character and the story, all this means that “the man Moses” remains somewhat distanced from us, that we never get the sense of intimate acquaintance with his inner life and his distinctive traits of personality that we are so memorably afforded in the stories of Jacob and Joseph. (Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, 300-01)

Moses is characterized as the most “humble” (HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV) or “meek” (ASV, ESV, KJV, RSV) human of his era. This type of description is rare in the Old Testament. Aaron B. Wildavsky (1930-1993) acknowledges:

The few direct characterizations of Moses in the Bible are elusive...The closest approach to delineating the man himself—“(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth)” (Numbers 12:3)—is the most elusive of all. (Wildavsky, Moses as Political Leader, 199)

“Humble” is more prevalent than “meek” in newer translations. Clyde M. Woods (b. 1936) and Justin M. Rogers (b. 1982) deliberate:

A discussion rages over the definition of the term ענו (‘ānāw). Many are insistent upon the fact that the term ‘ānāw does not mean “meek,” but rather “humble”...or, as Baruch A. Levine [b. 1930] interprets, “humble before God” (Numbers, p. 329). Jacob Milgrom [1923-2010] goes so far as to state, “It never means ‘meek’” (Numbers, p. 94). Actually, the term ’ענ (‘ānî) often denotes a condition of oppression or weakness, either materially or emotionally (see The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1.856). Thus, the idea of a “bowing” [in dejection] may be altogether appropriate (see The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1.855). In this case, “humble” seems to be a better choice than “meek” (Woods and Rogers, Leviticus–Numbers (The College Press NIV Commentary), 249)

Gordon J.Wenham (b. 1943) prefers:

‘Humble’ conveys the sense of the Hebrew ‘ānāw better than meek. It is a word that elsewhere is used only in poetry. It sometimes refers to those in real poverty (Amos 2:7; Isaiah11:4). Such people must look to God for aid, because they are unable to help themselves. But more frequently the word seems to denote an attitude of mind, more characteristic of the poor than of the rich, one of humility and dependence on God. The Psalms repeatedly assure the humble that God will deliver them, ‘The LORD lifts up the humble’; ‘he adorns the humble with victory’ (Psalms 147:6, 149;4; cf. Psalms 22:26, 25:9, 37:11, 76:9; cf. Matthew 5:5; I Peter 5:6). (Wenham, Numbers (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 111)

John Sturdy (1933-1996) adds:

The word is ‘ānāw, a key term in the religious language of the psalms for the ideal religious man (e.g. Psalms 25:9 ‘He guides the humble man in doing right’), and from here inherited by Christianity (Matthew 5:5, translated ‘of gentle spirit’ in the N.E.B.). Absence of self-assertiveness in the presence of God gives the right relationship with him. Moses is here given the highest valuation that Israelite piety has. (Sturdy, Numbers (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament), 90)

George W. Coats (1936-2006) questions:

The key term ‘ānāw refers to a leading virtue of Moses who exemplifies the virtue better than any other person in the land. It is not, however, clear that the words, ‘meek’ or ‘humble’, do justice as tools for translating the term...What kind of virtue...belongs to Moses more than to all other persons who are on the face of the earth?...The basic thesis is that the word derives from a root ‘nw, connoting responsibility or integrity...If ‘ānāw derives from such a stem, ‘nw, with denotation of obedient response, the connotations of the word in Numbers 12 should follow in unforced sequence...The context highlights...obedience within the context of personal responsibility...The range of connotation in the word emerges even more clearly when one compares the virtue with ‘honor’...Numbers 12:3 might thus read: ‘The man Moses was the most honorable of all persons who are on the face of the earth.’ (Coats, The Moses Tradition, 92-94)

Richard S. Briggs (b. 1966) responds:

The etymological argument is probably weak on its own. As noted in one review of his proposal, “If the point of the editorial comment is to emphasize Moses’ honour, then there are far more direct and unambiguous ways of doing it than by using ‘ānāw” (Stephen B. Dawes 1990:337). (Briggs, Virtuous Reader, The: Old Testament Narrative and Interpretive Virtue, 52)

Contextually, it is obvious that the comment is a compliment, even when translated “meek” which presently carries pejorative baggage. Walter Riggans (b. 1953) clarifies:

The description of Moses as “very meek” is important for understanding what God prizes in mankind. It does not mean a whimpering, spineless, uncommitted weakling. (Riggans, Numbers (Daily Study Bible Series), 102)

J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988) reminds:

It is stated of Moses and our Lord Jesus that they were meek. Remember that meekness is not weakness. Meekness is being obedient to God and doing his will. (McGee, Numbers (Thru the Bible), 82)

Regardless of how the term is translated the trait for which Moses is applauded is directly connected to his relationship with God. Raymond Brown (b. 1928) delineates:

The word humble is from a root meaning ‘bowed down’; in leadership he was genuinely ‘subordinating his personal interests to those of God and his cause’. His sensitive spirit must have been profoundly disturbed when members of his own family questioned his divinely appointed role and, particularly, his responsibility as the Lord’s mouthpiece. (Brown, The Message of Numbers (Bible Speaks Today), 107)

Dennis T. Olson (b. 1954) interprets:

The word “humble” does not refer so much to a general personality trait of meekness as it underscores Moses’ devotion or humility before God (George Buchanan Gray [1865–1922], p. 123; cf. Zechariah 2:3). The narrator’s parenthetical comment instantly undercuts Miriam and Aaron’s complaint and seeks to persuade the reader to stand with Moses in his defense against his siblings. (Olson, Numbers (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 71)

R. Dennis Cole (b. 1950) inspects:

The term ‘ānāw used is not the normal Hebrew word for humility, meekness or weakness but one that conveys an individual’s devout dependence upon the Lord. It may also describe a state one must experience before one is honored by God or man. In his first encounter with the Lord at Horeb in the burning bush, Moses realized his human limitations—“Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?” (Exodus 3:11). But with the assurance of the divine presence—“I will be with you” (Exodus 3:12)—he went forth by faith, even though initially reluctant, and was used by God in ways that far surpassed human comprehension. His humility in this manner far exceeded that of any other person on the earth. (Cole, Numbers (New American Commentary), 202)

Humility entails an awareness of one’s identity in relationship to God. No other human of his time had a closer relationship to God than Moses and consequently, none would be more mindful of his own relative inadequacy.

This trait is on full display during the conflict with his siblings. Moses does not waste time attempting to subjugate his peers on the basis of his own importance. Instead he concentrates on his appointed objective, namely establishing a nation under God.

Iain M. Duguid (b. 1960) observes:

The grumbling of Moses and Aaron was not answered by Moses. His behavior in this chapter is a living affirmation of the narrator’s description of him as more humble than anyone else of the face of the earth (Numbers 12:3). Moses knew who he was before God; so he didn’t feel the need to fight to stand up for his own rights and status. A servant doesn’t feel the need to stand up for his own rights and status. It is only when we misconceive Christian leadership as being like the world’s model that we start to defend our turf. (Duguid, Numbers: God’s Presence in the Wilderness (Preaching the Word), 162)

Glen S. Martin (b. 1953) remarks:

Moses never thought so highly of himself as to be offended by these remarks. They may have even made sense to Moses! The reason for this came from the character he embodied. He was a very humble man...Moses reflected the spirit of Christ, who “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6), but took on the form of a servant. Moses did not cling to his position and rank, but apparently stood silent. (Martin, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 299)

Moses is not motivated by gaining personal advantage over others. Numbers 12:3 implies that Moses faces the criticism in dignified silence. Timothy R. Ashley (b. 1947) speculates:

The narrator wishes the reader to know that Moses himself would probably have let this challenge go unanswered. It was Yahweh who heard it and who took it upon himself to answer it. (Ashley, The Book of Numbers (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 224)

David L. Stubbs (b. 1964) compares:

In contrast to the jealousy and presumption of Miriam and Aaron, the humility of Moses is pointed out...Moses’s humility is exhibited here by his not responding directly or angrily to the murmurings of Miriam and Aaron. While Miriam and Aaron want to use their intimacy with God in order to increase their status among the people, Moses enjoys the greater good of such intimacy—friendship with God: “Moses...is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak face to face—clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the LORD” (Numbers 12:7-8). (Stubbs, Numbers (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 124)

W.H. Bellinger, Jr. (b. 1949) infers:

The parenthetical comment in Numbers 12:3 indicating that Moses was more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth immediately displays a bias against the position of Miriam and Aaron. While modern readers may understand the adjective “humble” as “self-effacing,” here it probably indicates Moses’ discipline, integrity, trust, and dedication in relationship with God. This comment contrasts with the brutally honest dialogue between God and Moses in chapter 11 [Numbers 11:16-23]. Perhaps this passage should lead us to redefine humility similarly. The complaints of Miriam and Aaron are contrasted to Moses’ qualities. (Bellinger, Leviticus, Numbers (New International Biblical Commentary), 225)

Even so, the plaudit’s existence is noteworthy. Stephen K. Sherwood (b. 1943) recognizes:

Such direct characterization is rare in biblical narrative, but it is necessary here for the development of the plot. Is Moses inventing a religion in which he gives himself exaggerated authority?...The fact that the narrator felt it necessary to address this question indicates that someone was asking it with sufficient credibility to require a response. (Sherwood, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 155-56)

The parenthetical aside accentuates Moses’ innocense in the face of all charges levied against him (Numbers 12:1-2). In making this claim, the narrator vindicates Moses even before God does. Contrary to his siblings’ objections (Numbers 12:1-2), Moses is in fact unique (Numbers 12:6-8).

If God is offended by Aaron and Miriam’s criticism (Numbers 12:5-9), should Moses be also? Is Moses bothered? As the nation’s leader, should Moses have responded to his siblings’ complaints? Who do you know who has been vindicated without defending themself? What quality most characterizes Moses? Who is the most humble person on earth today? If you were given one superlative what would it be?

The assertion that Moses is the most humble man on earth has garnered unique criticism due to the book’s traditional authorship. Roy Gane (b. 1955) explains:

For those who believe the traditional view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, Numbers 12:3 raises a question: If Moses wrote that he was the humblest man on the face of the earth, wouldn’t this constitute a boast that would invalidate his humility? We understand the boxing champ Muhammad Ali [b.1942]...when he claims the epithet “The Greatest.” But “The Humblest” is a different matter. So it can be argued that...Numbers 12:3...was written by an editor of the Pentateuch, not by Moses himself (cf. Genesis 12:6; Deuteronomy 34:1-12). (Gane, Leviticus, Numbers (The NIV Application Commentary), 592)

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

Numbers 12:3 is the most difficult text in the whole book of Numbers. Critical scholars (and others) have correctly observed that it is rather unlikely that a truly humble person would write in such a manner about himself, even if he actually felt the statement was true. Many critical scholars are so convinced of the inappropriateness of recording such a note that they have used this as a strong mark against the Mosaic authorship of the whole book. (Kaiser, Peter H. Davids [b. 1947], F.F. Bruce [1910-1990] and Manfred T. Brauch [b. 1940], Hard Sayings of the Bible, 165)

Eugene H. Merrill (b. 1934) defends:

This statement is often adduced as evidence that Moses could not have written the Book of Numbers for he would not have boasted of his own humility. On the contrary, the declaration concerning his humility is the strongest possible support for the traditional view that Moses wrote Holy Scripture as an inspired penman. Only one led by the Holy Spirit could make such a statement about himself, probably against his own natural inclination. (John F. Walvoord [1910-2002] and Roy B. Zuck [1932-2013], The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, 228)

James E. Smith (b. 1939) supposes:

Modern critics have argued that these words are incongruous with Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Interpreted as braggadocio this verse would be difficult to square with Mosaic authorship. Perhaps Moses, however, intended the words to be understood as a confession of weakness in leadership. Because of his very low self-esteem he did not exercise boldness in dealing with the rebels (Numbers 12:3). (Smith, The Pentateuch, 430)

Ardent defense of traditional authorship has generated other unique responses. Richard S. Briggs (b. 1966) illustrates:

Those who hold to the notion that the “Torah of Moses” requires an idea of Moses as “author”...tend to...suggest that ‘ānāw must mean something else. When this concern is driven simply by the desire to safeguard Mosaic authorship at all costs, it can have little to commend it. One example shall suffice. Cleon Rogers [b. 1955], taking it as a given that one must find a way around the “concern and consternation” caused by Moses’s apparently inappropriate statement, concludes, on the basis of an etymological root meaning “to be bowed down; afflicted” (e.g., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament 776), that the meaning of Numbers 12:3 must be ‘miserable.’ He concludes, “Moses was saying that in the light of the burden of the people and the complaint of his family he was the most ‘miserable’ person in the world” (Cleon Rogers 1986: 263). The sheer implausibility of this line of thought is highlighted by the one remaining sentence in the article: “Who has not made this statement about himself at some point in life?” whereby a text affirming a unique characteristic of Moses has come to be a truism of every person. (Briggs, Virtuous Reader, The: Old Testament Narrative and Interpretive Virtue, 52)

Most interpreters understand Numbers 12:3 simply as a redaction by a later editor which enhances the narrative.

Which would bother you more, that Moses professed to be the most humble man on earth or that a later redactor inserted the comment? Could the most humble person on earth make that claim of herself? Is humility still considered a virtue? How would you define humility?

“Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it’s thinking of yourself less.” - C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)

Raising Our Ebenezer (I Samuel 7:12)

What does Ebenezer mean? “Stone of help” or “Hitherto the Lord had helped us” (I Samuel 7:12)

One of the most catastrophic military losses in Israel’s history occurs when the Philistines capture the ark of the covenant at Ebenezer (I Samuel 4:1-11). About twenty years later (and after retrieving the ark), the Israelites engage the Philistines in another significant battle, only this time it is they who prevail (I Samuel 7:7-11). Unlike the first battle, in which the nation acts without consulting God (I Samuel 4:3), they choose to rely on divine intervention (I Samuel 7:8) and are rewarded with an improbable if not miraculous victory (I Samuel 7:10-11). This is a significant triumph as it marks the first time in the nation’s history that they defeat the Philistines.

Samuel, Israel’s last judge, first prophet and de facto leader, commemorates the occasion by erecting a monument which he names: “Ebenezer” (I Samuel 7:12).

Then Samuel took a stone and set it between Mizpah and Shen, and named it Ebenezer, saying, “Thus far the Lord has helped us.” (I Samuel 7:12 NASB)

Israel now has a new religious symbol, a boundary with both geographic and spiritual meaning.

Stephen J. Andrews (b. 1954) and Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) summarize:

Samuel sought to keep the memory of God’s deliverance current in Israel’s mind. He wanted Israel to remember the past and be thankful for God’s help. Remembering God’s help in the past also encourages hope for the future, and hope sustains faith. (Andrews and Bergen, I & II Samuel (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 57)

Large rocks and stones were often used to mark significant events in the ancient world. This incident recalls the stone of Beth Shemesh in the preceding chapter (I Samuel 6:14-15, 18).

V. Philips Long (b. 1951) comments:

The use of (often inscribed) boundary stones was widespread throughout the ancient Near East. The stones were sometimes named and believed to be under divine protection. Curses against those who moved them were sometimes included in the inscription. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 306)

Samuel names the stone “Ebenezer,” meaning “stone (or rock) of help”. Robert Alter (b. 1935) defines, “The name means ‘stone of help,’ with ‘help’ bearing a particularly martial implication (Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, 38).”

Samuel accents this etymology by adding, “Thus far the LORD has helped us” (I Samuel 7:12 NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV). Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) comments:

Samuel named the newly erected stone monument “Ebenezer” (Hebrew ’eben hā‘ēzer), “The Stone of [the Help” or “The Help[er] Is a Stone”) because “the LORD helped us.” The name given the memorial undoubtedly is a confession of faith and trust in the Lord. In the Torah the Lord is poetically referred as the “Stone of Israel” (Genesis 49:24), an obvious reference to his strength exercised in Israel’s behalf; in the Psalms the Lord is frequently praised as a Helper (cf. Psalms 10:14, 33:20, 40:17, 46:1, 63:7, 115:9-11, 118:7, 146:5). Thus whether Samuel was confessing that Israel’s strong God is also a source of help for his people or that Israel’s assistance-giving God is strong, the name affirms two of the Lord’s virtues. (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 108)

Francesca Aran Murphy (b. 1960) interprets:

Samuel does one thing that, as he saw it, was as good as raising a standing army to match the Philistines’: Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen and called its name Ebenezer...Augustine [354-430] interprets Samuel’s comment in relation to etymology: he thinks Ebenezer meant “stone of the helper.” For Augustine, the stone, set up on the new border between the Philistine and the Israelite settlement, represents the choice of direction the Israelites had to make: a “material kingdom” and authentic happiness “in the kingdom of heaven.” The stone “points” toward Israel: “And since there is nothing better than this, God helps us ‘so far’” (City of God 17.7). In the emblem of the stone, God helps to orient us toward the choice for God over a merely human kingdom. (Murphy, 1 Samuel (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 54)

Mark Batterson (b. 1969) simplifies:

I...came up with a personal translation of I Samuel 7:12. I decided to tweak the old adage “So far, so good” by taking “good” out of the equation. My translation? “So far, so God.” (Batterson, Soulprint: Discovering Your Divine Destiny, 85)

Christians have long taken hope in the name Ebenezer. J. Hudson Taylor (1832-1905), founder of the China Inland Mission, famously displayed a plaque in each of his residences which read “Ebenezer Jehovah Jireh”: “The Lord has helped us to this point, and He will see to it from now on.”

The name has also been famously adopted by Christian churches. Alton Hornsby, Jr. (b. 1940) chronicles:

The Ebenezer Baptist Church was founded in 1886, just two decades following the Civil War. The selection of the name Ebenezer, “Stone of Help” (I Samuel 7:12), was “profoundly prophetic,” for this church attained a unique history “in the struggle for freedom of all oppressed people.” The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. [1929-1968] was born into and nurtured by Ebenezer Baptist Church. (Hornsby, Southerners, Too?: Essays on the Black South, 1733-1990, 102)

The name Ebenezer affirms that the Israelites’ upset was the result of divine assistance rather than human strength. The stone’s name gives God rightful credit for the victory.

John Goldingay (b. 1942) elucidates:

For the Israelites, the battle meant God had been an extraordinary and decisive help to them “as far as this” in making it possible for them to reach their destiny as a people. They were not all the way there yet, but they were well on the way, and experiencing God acting powerfully on such an occasion had the capacity to embolden them about the certainty that God would take them to that destiny. During the narrative that will unfold through the story of Saul and into the early years of David, God will do so. (Goldingay, 1 & 2 Samuel for Everyone, 44)

Ebenezer puts the Israelites’ accomplishment in its proper perspective. Richard D. Phillips (b. 1960) remarks:

He [Samuel]...reminds Israel that this recent victory is just the latest in a long history of God’s mighty redemptive acts, not the least of which was God’s aid in helping the Israelites to repent. It is because of a long chain of mercies that the people of God exist in blessing. Samuel aims for the people to remember what God has done “till now,” so that in the future they will again appeal to him in faith. (Phillips, 1 Samuel (Reformed Expository Commentary), 128)

The name also alludes to the nation’s inevitable need for future assistance. Their success as a nation would be largely dependent upon their willingness to rely on God. At the moment Ebenezer is erected, they acknowledge this need.

Robert P. Gordon (b. 1945) expounds:

There is more to the naming of the commemorative stone than the acknowledgment that the victory had come from God. Ebenezer, as the name linked with Israel’s earlier defeats by the Philistines (cf. I Samuel 4:1, 5:1), announces the reversal of these indignities; it is a symbol of reintegration...Hitherto may mean no more than that God’s help against the Philistines was experienced along the way as far as Ebenezer. However, in the present setting...it is tempting to entertain a temporal significance: until this point in Israel’s history Yahweh has been her helper. The question soon to be resolved (I Samuel 8) is whether Yahweh would be allowed to continue that help within the old theocratic framework, or would be set aside as Israel sought to go it alone. (Gordon, I and II Samuel: A Commentary (Library of Biblical Interpretation), 107-108)

Erecting this monument is very personal for Samuel. Joyce G. Baldwin (1921-1995) connects:

Samuel’s spiritual style of leadership had been vindicated. The memorial-stone named Ebenezer...proclaimed the effectiveness of trusting the Lord and his designated judge. What possible need could there be to seek innovations such as kingship? The incident provided a strong argument for maintaining the tradition of leadership by judges, appointed and spiritually endowed by the Lord. (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 33-34)

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) adds:

The primary focus is again on the person of Samuel. Samuel’s words assert the theological reality of the inversion and surprising victory: “Yahweh helped” (I Samuel 7:12). Samuel and Israel are clear that the transformation was wrought by Yahweh and by none other. Israel must always remember that the victory is a victory given by Yahweh. It is not Israel’s victory, or even the victory of Samuel. (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 54)

The name is also significant as the location where the ark had been seized was also called Ebenezer (I Samuel 4:1, 5:1). Prior to Samuel’s dedication, the Israelites would have cringed at the name “Ebenezer” the way that Napoléon Bonaparte (1769-1821) reacted to the name “Waterloo” after 1815.

Though they share the same name, there are likely two Ebenezers with the site of the monument being located many miles northwest of the previous battle site. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. (b. 1945) analyzes:

The relationship of this Ebenezer, located north of Mizpah, to the site of the great battle in I Samuel 4...is problematic, especially since that Ebenezer is supposed to have existed already before the foundation of this one. But it is clear that a certain symmetry is intended between the two battles of Ebenezer, and perhaps the two sites are to be identified...The Bible provides plenty of examples of the anachronistic mention of a place name in advance of the narrative describing the foundation of the place so named. (Bethel, for example, is named by Jacob in Genesis 28:19, though already mentioned in connection with Abraham as early as Genesis 12:8.) (McCarter, I Samuel (Anchor Bible), 146)

Though the victory likely did not occur at the same site as the earlier defeat, a name associated with destruction becomes synonymous with victory. One timely right counters a costly wrong. The sting of the earlier defeat is alleviated and the name “Ebenezer” is redeemed.

David Toshio Tsumura (b. 1944) explicates:

Perhaps Samuel named the stone after the place-name “Ebenezer” with the earlier experience in I Samuel 4-5 in mind so that the people might always be reminded of God’s special help (‘ēzer) in this time and at this place. The name “the stone Ezer” is not unusual as a place-name, and it is certainly a reminder of God’s powerful intervention in the history of Israel as well as her former failure at the other “Ebenezer.” (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 238)

Hans William Hertzberg (1895-1965) determines:

It is hardly fortuitous that the same geographical designation also appears in the account of Israel’s defeat (I Samuel 4:1, 5:1). In that case it was the false Ebenezer; this time it is the real one. Whether we have, or are meant to have...the same locality here, cannot be ascertained...because of the intimate geographical details in either case; it will be a place near Mizpah. Here...the theological element is more important that the historical. (Hertzberg, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 68-69)

The name specifically and intentionally accents God’s redemption. John Woodhouse (b. 1949) remarks:

Giving this memorial stone the name of the earlier locality...and drawing attention to the meaning of the name underlines the reversal that had taken place. The earlier Ebenezer had a terribly ironic name. At “stone of help” Israel had not been helped! Now, however, the new Ebenezer stood as a testimony to the Lord’s help, which was once again enjoyed by Israel. (Woodhouse, 1 Samuel: Looking for a Leader (Preaching the Word), 133)

Ebenezer was to remind the Israelites that God had reversed their fortunes in the past and could do so again. It serves the same notice to the modern reader.

What do you associate with the name Ebenezer? Why do you think that Charles Dickens (1812-1870) named the immortal protagonist of A Christmas Carol (1843) “Ebenezer Scrooge”? What is the modern equivalent of erecting an Ebenezer stone? What disgraced names do you know of that have been redeemed? How do you acknowledge your dependence upon God? What personal victories do you commemorate? Do you give God proper credit? What in your life has been redeemed?

Samuel’s institution of the “Ebenezer” stone sets a strong example to establish spiritual markers in our own lives. Dutch Sheets (b. 1954) admits:

There are many...memorials that stand as monuments to the faithfulness of God in my life. Today, when nagging doubts try to trouble my mind in order to convince me that God will not come through for me in a particular situation, I revisit my Ebenezer. I whisper quietly. “Thus far He has helped me.” (Sheets and William Ford III [b. 1965], History Makers: Your Prayers Have the Power to Heal the Past and Shape the Future, 117)

Being intentional about acknowledging God is important as it seems to be in human nature to forget. Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) contextualizes:

The promised land that had been slowly eroded through generations of willfulness and forgetfulness was recovered as Samuel preached God’s word and administered God’s law. Enemies to the west (Philistines) and to the east (Amorites) were put in their place. The life of faith is never only a matter of the soul; nor is it ever merely circumstantial. The interior and exterior are always impinging on and affecting each other. Every once in a while there is a remarkable confluence of the two elements that calls for recognition. “Ebenezer” is one of those moments of recognition...It marks the place and time in Samuel’s leadership of Israel when the “insides” and “outsides” of Israel were in harmony. These moments are not constant in the life of God’s people, but when they arrive they deserve to be memorialized, for they are evidence of what can happen and what finally will happen as we pray, “Thy kingdom come.” (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 53)

Often, we must be reminded of how far we have come and who got us where we are today. Kenneth Chafin (1926-2001) advises:

Creating occasions for remembering is important in life. Often we receive stability in our present and hope for our future as we are reminded how God has dealt with us in the past. This is why one aspect of worship should always be remembering what God has done for us. This creates praise that fortifies us against temptation. Often an individual can work out of a time of discouragement simply by stopping to remember all the blessings God has brought into his or her life. (Chafin, 1, 2 Samuel (Mastering the Old Testament), 71)

Beth Moore (b. 1957) encourages:

As we walk out the remainder of our time line of faith, let’s keep memorializing God’s obvious interventions through stones of remembrance. In the meantime, by faith let’s walk with a (figurative) stone on our hand as an “Ebenezer” until we see the next astonishing evidence or spiritual marker and lay it on our line...The “Ebenezer” stone constantly reminds us, “Thus far the LORD helped us.” In other words, with God’s help we’re making it so far, and we’ll make it some more.” (Moore, Believing God, 255)

Samuel creates Ebenezer so that the Israelites have a constant reminder of God’s activity in the world and their lives. Jonathan Falwell (b. 1966) imagines:

Every time the children of Israel looked at that rock, it reminded them that God had been faithful before and would be faithful again, no matter what danger or trial they might face. We, too, need to be reminded of God’s grace in our lives. In our humanity, we tend to forget how good God has been to us. We must always remember how God takes us by the hand and leads us through violent rivers and dark paths of pain and doubt. Let us always remember our deliverer and all he has done for us. (Falwell, One Great Truth: Finding Your Answers to Life)

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the Israelites ever built upon Ebenezer. I Samuel 7:12 is the last of only three occurrences of the name Ebenezer in the Bible (I Samuel 4:1, 5:1, 7:12). The euphoria of the victory at Ebenzer does not last long as in the next chapter the Israelites demand a king (I Samuel 8:20). There are no further Bible stories set at Ebenezer and there are no tales of heroes drawing inspiration from the landmark. At no point in the Bible is anyone ever said to look back at the Ebenezer stone.

Did the Israelites ever remember Ebenezer? When have you drawn comfort from the past? Are you thankful for God’s blessings in your life? What are the spiritual markers in your life story? Do you take time to look at the Ebenezer stones in your life?

Here I raise mine Ebenezer;
hither by thy help I'm come;
and I hope, by thy good pleasure,
safely to arrive at home.
- Robert Robertson (1735-1790), “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing”, 1758