Letting Go of Deborah (Genesis 35:8)

What was the name of Rebekah’s nurse? Deborah

While residing in Shechem (Genesis 33:18-20), God commands Jacob to return to Bethel and build an altar (Genesis 35:1). The patriarch complies, instructing his entire entourage to purge their idols, purify themselves and change their clothes (Genesis 35:1-3). After burying the idols near Shechem (Genesis 35:4), the caravan journeys to Bethel where Jacob builds the prescribed altar (Genesis 35:5-7).

The text notes that while there, his mother Rebekah’s nurse, Deborah, dies (Genesis 35:8).

Now Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried below Bethel under the oak; it was named Allon-bacuth. (Genesis 35:8 NASB)

Elizabeth George (b. 1944) imagines:

Age brought an end to Deborah’s active role of caregiver, and then Jacob’s family cared for her. She loved them, and they loved her...Deborah was buried under “the oak of weeping” [Genesis 35:8] and was lamented with sadness and tears usually reserved for family. (George, Walking with the Women of the Bible: A Devotional Journey Through God’s Word, 67)

Deborah’s death notice is puzzling. Rebekah has not appeared in the book’s last seven chapters (Genesis 27:46) and, though her unnamed nurse has been referenced (Genesis 24:59), Deborah’s name appears in the text only here (Genesis 35:8). She is not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.

Martin Sicker (b. 1931) acknowledges:

It is not at all clear why this statement is included in the text or what its significance is, and for over two millennia commentators have struggled to explain it. Perhaps what is most troubling is its mention by name of Rebekah’s nurse, and the notation regarding her death and burial, at the same time that the text is completely silent with regard to the death and burial of Rebekah. The absence of relevant information in the text has inspired a good amount of speculation and supposition to fill the gap. (Sicker, The Ordeals of Isaac and Jacob, 167)

The announcement leaves a lot of questions. Leon R. Kass (b. 1939) asks:

The report of Deborah’s death takes the reader by surprise: Why Deborah? And why now? Deborah, has played no visible part in our story; never before mentioned by name, we know of her only from a remark made long ago, when Abraham’s servant came looking for a wife for Isaac: “And they sent away Rebekah their sister, and her nurse, and Abraham’s servant and his men” (Genesis 24:59, emphasis added). How did she come now to be in Jacob’s party? And why are we told of her death, especially since the death of Rebekah herself will not be reported? We have no confident answers to these perplexing questions. (Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, 502)

Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) surmises:

The brief notice about the death of Deborah [Genesis 35:8], who is not mentioned before or after, gives one the impression that the narrator and his readers once knew more about her. One may not ask what Rebekah’s old nurse, who belonged in Isaac’s house, was doing on Jacob’s wandering. A tradition about Deborah was early connected with a place not far from Bethel. According to Judges 4:5, it may have been one about the prophetess Deborah, but then a different tradition knew of a nurse of Rebekah. Since Jacob has now arrived in the vicinity of Bethel, this brief traditional element has been attached to the narrative. (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 338)

The verse is classified as a death report (Genesis 35:8). Jules Francis Gomes (b. 1966) inspects:

Genesis 35:8 is traditionally attributed to E. The form is that of a “Death Report” followed by the formula reporting the naming of the place in Genesis 35:8b. Structurally, it serves as an introduction to subsequent death reports (Genesis 35:16-19, 28-29). Erhard Blum [b. 1950] demonstrates how the death, burial and place naming for Deborah (Genesis 35:8) and Rachel (Genesis 35:19-20) closely resemble each other. The death reports are interrupted by P (Genesis 35:9-15) with a parallel report on the naming of Bethel. (Gomes, The Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity, 88)

Narrative asides such as this are common in Genesis. Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) comments:

The very brief “comments” that occur occasionally in Genesis stand in starkest contrast to the expansive legends—for example, when it is stated, very briefly, that Jacob encountered the divine host in Mahaniam (Genesis 32:2-3), and he bought a field in Shechem (Genesis 38:18-20), that Deborah died and was buried near Bethel (Genesis 35:8, 14), that Rachel died near Ephratha when Benjamin was born...(Genesis 35:16ff.), or that Sarah was buried in the cave of Machpelah [Genesis 23:19]...It is certainly no accident that many of these “comments” mention the place where the event occurred, indeed, that it is often the main point of the whole tradition. Consequently, we must see such information as local traditions adapted directly from oral tradition. Such brief local traditions can still be heard in the German countryside and read in legend books (cf. Jacob Grimm [1785-1863] and Wilhelm Grimm [1786-1859], Deutsche Sagen nos. 2, 6, 11, 12, 19, 21, 22, etc. and, e.g., also Karl Bader [1868-1956], Hessische Sagen 1, nos. 8, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, etc.). Later narrators sometimes constructed whole narratives from such “comments” (cf. Genesis 4:4). (Gunkel [translated by Mark E. Biddle (b. 1957)], Genesis (Mercer Library of Biblical Studies), xlviii)

Some have conjectured that the laconic notice may have been displaced. Claus Westermann (1909-2000) notices:

There follows in Genesis 35:8 an itinerary note, apparently independent of both...Genesis 35:1-7 and Genesis 35:9-12...It would be quite appropriate, however, before Genesis 35:16; in both form and content, Genesis 35:8 and Genesis 35:16-20 belong together. (Westermann, Genesis (Academic Paperback), 244)

Though the aside seems like a non sequitur, George W. Coats (1936-2006) situates:

This little unit [Genesis 35:8] connects with the context on the basis of a catchword organization. The context concerns Bethel. The burial site at the center of this tradition is Bethel. Yet, beyond catchword organization, the unit has no contact with its context. In the redaction of the patriarchal narratives as a whole, it may be taken as an introduction to the section of narratives dealing with death and burial of patriarchal figures and their associates. The following unit (P) interrupts that organization with a parallel to the Bethel tradition in Genesis 28:10-22 and Genesis 35:1-7. But the theme of death and burial or succession returns in Genesis 35:16 (J). It should be noted, however, that this unit has more contact with an Isaac narrative than with Jacob. Deborah has played no role in the narrative frame. There is no connection between her death and the pilgrimage from Shechem to Bethel described in Genesis 35:1-7. Rather, one has the impression that with this verse J shifts the organization of the Jacob tradition from the narrative inclusion to the narratives about the last days and the death of the patriarch and his family. (→ Genesis 35:16-20). (Coats, Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature (Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 238)

Deborah’s passing inaugurates a theme in this chapter of Genesis (Genesis 35:8, 19, 29). Bill T. Arnold (b. 1955) observes:

Rebekah’s nurse, Deborah, who left Mesopotamia with her mistress to return with Abraham’s servant (Genesis 24:59), is mentioned here again here in a passing death and burial notice (Genesis 35:8). She plays no role in the narrative and is named only here. But the record of her death is the first of three in this chapter [Genesis 35:8, 19, 29], which together serve to bring closure to the Jacob narrative generally. (Arnold, Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 302)

W. Lee Humphreys (b. 1939) compares:

The narrator tells us that on the journey from Bethel, death once more strikes Jacob’s family. The impact of the death of Deborah seems limited in terms of the narrative space given her [Genesis 35:8]. The second death—of Rachel in childbirth—carried a much greater weight [Genesis 35:16-21]. (Humphreys, The Character of God in the Book of Genesis: A Narrative Appraisal, 200)

Abraham Kuruvilla considers:

Rachel’s burial in Bethelem is puzzling [Genesis 35:19]: it was only twenty-odd miles to the family burial site at Machpelah, where Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, and Leah were buried (Genesis 49:31). Indeed, if Jacob himself could have his body, and Joseph his bones, moved 200 miles from Egypt to the same burial site (Genesis 50:1-14; Exodus 13:19; Joshua 24:32), one wonders why Rachel’s remains could not have been transported a tenth of that distance to Machpelah. Besides, her burial is described in the exact terms as Deborah’s is, in Genesis 35:8; “And Deborah died...and she was buried,” “And Rachel died, and she was buried” (Genesis 35:19). “But while the sort of al fresco burial these verses depict is appropriate for a character like Deborah, a servant who merely sojourns with Abraham’s family and not a member of the Abrahamic patriline, it seems strikingly out of place for Rachel, whom we would expect to receive instead the interment in Machpelah due an honored wife, as is accorded to Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah.” (Kuruvilla, Genesis: A Theological Commentary for Preachers, 439)

Despite multiple deaths, the overarching tone of the chapter is upbeat (Genesis 35:1-29). Martin Kessler (b. 1927) and Karel Deurloo (b. 1936) characterize:

Deborah...died and was buried under the Oak of Weeping [Genesis 35:8]. Surely, there was mourning but the event also carried the undertone that they were in the land of milk and honey [Exodus 3:8]. (Kessler and Deurloo, A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, 179)

Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) expounds:

The journey to Bethel is shadowed by multiple reminders of death [Genesis 35:1-8]. The departure has to be protected lest the surrounding cities attack [Genesis 35:5]. There is another reference to fleeing from Esau [Genesis 35:1]. And then, most explicitly, there is sudden death, sudden in the sense that it intrudes, unannounced, in the narrative. It is the death of Deborah, the nurse of Rebekah [Genesis 35:8]. Its intrusiveness in the narrative does not mean that it does not belong there. Rather it illustrates vividly one of the narrative’s key concerns—the shadow of death, and the unpredictability of the way death strikes. Deborah apparently is the kind of person who is scarcely noticed till she dies...Yet, despite the emphasis on death, the journey as a whole is positive. (Brodie, Genesis As Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary, 342)

Deborah is known only by her death (Genesis 35:8). Tammi J. Schneider (b. 1962) introduces:

Deborah is the subject of one verb: she “dies” (Genesis 35:8). Deborah is described only by her occupation, but she is never depicted as doing her job. Her importance must lie in something other than her abilities as a nurse. (Schneider, Mothers of Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis, 207)

Though her name is referenced only at her death (Genesis 35:8), most commentators have determined that Deborah is the anonymous nurse who accompanies Rebekah from Paddan-Aram (Genesis 24:59).

Sarah Shectman (b. 1973) connects:

Very little attention has been paid to this Deborah, Rebekah’s wetnurse, who is mentioned by name only once, in Genesis 35:8, although an anonymous wetnurse of Rebekah is mentioned in Genesis 24:59 as well. The latter verse states that Rebekah takes her nurse with her when she leaves with Abraham’s servant to go to Canaan and marry Isaac [Genesis 24:59]. Interpreters tend to assume that these two wetnurses are the same person, and it is difficult to argue with this assumption. The text is not concerned with the logistics of how the wetnurse got from one place to another and suggests a tradition that this wetnurse stayed with Rebekah’s family for multiple generations. (Shectman, Women in the Pentateuch: A Feminist and Source-Critical Analysis, 103)

Tammi J. Schneider (b. 1962) concurs:

Deborah is named and described in only one passage, Genesis 35:8. But there is good reason to consider another passage as obliquely referring to her. The first potential reference to Deborah appears when Rebekah is leaving her family to marry Isaac (Genesis 24:59). The text notes that they send off their sister and her nurse, along with Abraham’s servants and his men. The term used for “nurse” is meneqet. The noun used to describe this person comes from the verb yanaq, meaning “to suck,” leading to the translation “wet nurse”...Nowhere is Deborah depicted nursing a child, and it is highly unlikely that Deborah still nurses Rebekah, nor does Rebekah have children. It is not clear why she accompanies Rebekah. The reason to connect this women to the Deborah who dies in Genesis 35:8 is that she is also labeled Rebekah’s “nurse.” The title is used infrequently in the biblical text and its use for both of these women connected with Rebekah strongly supports their identification. (Schneider, Mothers of Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis, 206-07)

Deborah’s name literally means “bee”. Her name within the family might have been Aunt Bee! While running a hive that includes twin boys, she is likely “busy as a bee”.

This type of name is common among Hebrew women. David W. Cotter provides:

A rule of thumb—women’s names often allude to some aspect of the natural world, e.g., Tamar = “palm tree,” Deborah = “honey bee,” Susanna = “lily.” Men’s names, by contrast, often contain a theophoric element, i.e., some reference to God: Michael = “who is like God?” Isaiah = “YHWH saves,” etc. (Cotter, Genesis (Berit Olam; Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), xxx)

Jeff A. Benner traces the root:

The root word is ‘davar’ and is most frequently translated as a thing or a word. The original picture painted by this word to the Hebrews is the arrangement of things to create order. Speech is an ordered arrangement of words. In the ancient Hebrew mind words are ‘things’ and are just as ‘real’ as food or other ‘things’. When a word is spoken to another it is ‘placed in the ears’ no different than when food is given to another it is ‘placed in the mouth’. The Hebrew name Devorah (Deborah) means ‘bee’ and is the feminine form of the word davar. Bees are a community of insects which live in a perfectly ordered arrangement. The word ‘midvar’ meaning wilderness is actually a place that exists as a perfectly arranged order as its ecosystem is in harmony and balance. (Benner, Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings: Wilderness ~ Midvar)

Deborah is “the help” (Genesis 35:8). She is a described as a “nurse” (ASV, ESV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “one who had nursed” (HCSB) or “personal servant” (CEV).

Deborah would likely have been seen as a nanny. Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005), investigates:

Hebrew meneket is really a wet nurse, such as employed for the baby Moses in Exodus 2:7. Rebekah could hardly have been in need of such services. In Mesopotamia the wet nurse, Akkadian mušēniqtum, “the one who suckles,” frequently had the additional duties of tarbītum, bringing up the child and acting as its guardian. In Genesis 35:8 Rebekah’s nurse is identified as Deborah, and her death and burial are recorded. She was obviously an esteemed member of the family. Having attended and reared Rebekah from birth, she must have remained as a member of the household and now accompanies her as a chaperon. Interestingly, Targum Jonathan renders meneket by padgogthah from Greek paidagŏgos, “tutor,” a meaning that echoes the Akkadian tarbītum. (Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary), 169)

Martin Sicker (b. 1931) suspects:

With regard to Deborah’s identification as Rebekah’s nurse, the Hebrew term meineket would be better translated as “wet-nurse.” It has been suggested that the term does not refer to the woman who served as wet-nurse to Rebekah, but rather that she was the wet-nurse employed by Rebekah to care for their infant sons Esau and Jacob, which might explain in part why her death was a matter of particular concern to Jacob. (Sicker, The Ordeals of Isaac and Jacob, 167)

The descriptor “nurse” is rare in the Old Testament. Tammi J. Schneider (b. 1962) inventories:

The other two “nurses” serve Moses (Exodus 2:7) and Joash (II Kings 11:2; II Chronicles 22:11). There is a reference in Isaiah 49:23 but it is to theoretical future “nurses,” not specific individuals. (Schneider, Mothers of Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis, 207)

That Rebekah has a nurse has been interpreted as a sign of her family’s wealth (Genesis 24:59, 35:8). Carol Meyers (b. 1942) infers:

Because the mention of wet nurses is so rare in the Hebrew Bible (the only other specific instances are for Moses, where his biological mother is “hired” to be his nurse [Exodus 2:7], and for Joash, a Judean king whose mother was apparently murdered [II Kings 11:2; II Chronicles 22:11]), it may be assumed that most Israelite women nursed their own children. The exceptions may have been elite or royal women. That Rebekah is said to have had a nurse may be a literary embellishment pointing to her prominence among matriarchs. (Meyers, Toni Craven [b. 1944], Ross Shepard Kraemer [b. 1948], “Deborah 1”, Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament, 66)

Given her vocation, Deborah is likely an important witness. Like Eugene Allen (1919-2010), the White House butler who served eight presidents, Deborah has a unique view to multiple generations of history. Her presence at one event may be especially significant.

Tammi J. Schneider (b. 1962) speculates:

Deborah is labeled not a midwife but a west nurse [Genesis 35:8]. The text does not suggest who is with Rebekah when she bears her twin boys [Genesis 25:24-26]. Could it be that Deborah is there when Rebekah bears Esau and Jacob? If so, Deborah is the only person who witnesses which child emerges first. Throughout the text the situation of the primogenitor is an issue and here it is particularly important: the Deity conveys to Rebekah that the older shall serve the younger [Genesis 25:23]...This is a major concern for Rebekah, ensuring that the Deity’s plan comes true. Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, would be the only person who knows which son of Rebekah should receive the promise. (Schneider, Mothers of Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis, 208)

Deborah has clearly endeared herself to the family, her value far exceeding her vocational position. Michelle Ephraim (b. 1969) chronicles:

The medieval philosopher Nachmanides [1194-1270] understands the nurse Deborah as a surrogate maternal figure who gets sent along in lieu of Rebecca to accompany Jacob as he leaves home. Jacob’s weeping on the occasion of her death [Genesis 35:8], he reasons, should be taken as his mourning of Rebecca, whose death ceremony, for reasons of Jacob’s departure [Genesis 28:5], Esau’s fury [Genesis 27:41], and Isaac’s blindness [Genesis 27:1], could not be properly performed: “[F]or the weeping and anguish could not have been such for the passing of the old nurse that the place would have been named on account of it. Instead, Jacob wept and mourned for his righteous mother who had loved him and sent him to Paddan-Aram and who was not privileged to see him when he returned.” The Midrash explains Jacob’s weeping, similarly, as grief for both Deborah and Rebecca. John Calvin [1509-1564] understands Deborah as “a holy matron...whom the family of Jacob venerated as a mother” whose ceremonial burial is evidence of her status. Andrew Willet [1562-1621] explains that Deborah most likely played the role of Rebecca’s “bringer up and instructor.” (Ephraim, Reading the Jewish Woman on the Elizabethan Stage, 63)

Jacob’s respectful burial of this servant is a sign of love. A contemporary literary comparison might be that of Harry Potter’s unnecessary burial of the house-elf, Dobby (J.K. Rowling (b. 1965), Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, 477-81).

Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) applauds:

Jacob’s tender treatment of this elderly servant is an example for all of us to follow. (Wiersbe, Be Authentic: Exhibiting Real Faith in the Real World (Genesis 25-50), 83)

Deborah’s body is laid to rest beside an oak tree and the site is christened Allon-bacuth (Genesis 35:8). Dianne Bergant (b. 1936) explains:

Planting a tree over a burial site, as Jacob did over Deborah’s grave [Genesis 35:8], was a common practice. It might have developed from an animalistic belief that the souls of the dead could then live in trees. The name of the tree planted here is very fitting for the occasion: בכות אלון (Allon-bacuth; the oak of the weeping). (Bergant, Genesis: In the Beginning, 150)

Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) supports:

The association of Deborah’s internment with the “oak” (’allôn) at Bethel also encouraged the inclusion of this burial in the passage (see “oak [’ēlâ],” at Shechem, Genesis 35:4). Her burial under a tree was not exceptional (cf. “tree” [’ēlâ], I Chronicles 10:12; also I Samuel 31:13), although in the patriarchal period a hewn cave for multiple burials was typical. Burial sites continued to be honored by later generations, providing future descendants a psychology of divinity with the land (Genesis 47:29-30, 49:29-32, 50:25; Exodus 13:19). (Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26 (New American Commentary), 620-21)

Some have connected this tree with the palm tree from which the judge Deborah operates (Judges 4:5). Jules Francis Gomes (b. 1966) informs:

The connection between the palm of Deborah in Judges and Rebekah’s nurse has been noted by many scholars, “asserting that the latter day Deborah had turned a venerable place of lamentation into a little oracular oasis.” (Gomes, The Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity, 121)

Klaas Spronk (b. 1957) explicates:

According to Barnabas Lindars [1923-1991], “the later editor, knowing the place, has decided that it was the right place for Deborah simply because the name was the same. This was not necessarily due to simple-minded confusion, but was the result of an hermeneutical principle, whereby one passage of scripture is elucidated by reference to another. In this case it furnished the location of Deborah, which was not given in the text.’...If Lindars is right in assuming that a later editor used Genesis 35:8 to fill the gap of information left in Judges 4, then why did he not cite it properly? In Genesis 35:8 we hear of Rebecca’s nurse Deborah being buried ‘under the oak below Bethel’ and that this oak received on this occasion the name ‘oak of weeping’ (בכות אלון). Why does the assumed editor not speak in Judges 4:5 of an oak, but instead a palm tree or, to be more precise, of חמר, using an uncommon vocalization? A commonly accepted bridge between these names was constructed by Wolfgang Richter [b. 1926]. He relates both trees to ‘the oak of Tabor’ (חבור אלון) mentioned in I Samuel 10:3, which is also located in the vicinity of Bethel. This would be according to an old suggestion a corruption of דבורה אלון, ‘the oak of Deborah.’ This does not explain, however, the use of the word חמר in stead of the expected אלו. According to Lindars the unusual vocalization might indicate a ‘different tree from the various kinds of palm...it might denote any tree.’ Why did the editor not use then, one could ask, the normal word in Hebrew for tree? More to the point seems to be the explanation of this word by Angelo Penna [1917-1981] as polemically vocalized with the vowels of בשת, ‘shame’, indicating that we are dealing here with a pagan cult object. Lindars reports this suggestion, but does not accept it. In my opinion, however, this could very well be a first clue to a better understanding of this verse. (Johannes C. de Moor [b. 1935], “Deborah, a Prophetess: The Meaning and Background of Judges 4:4-5”, The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character, and Anonymous Artist, 234)

Some interpreters have seen the explanation of this location’s name as the primary reason behind the death report (Genesis 35:8). Robert Alter (b. 1935) remarks:

Allon-bakuth. The name means “oak of weeping.” Beyond the narrative etiology of a place-name, there is not enough evidence to explain what this lonely obituary notice is doing here. (Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary, 197)

Deborah’s grave site gives Jacob one more stake in the Promised Land, an important prerequisite to the fulfillment of the promises given to his grandfather, Abraham (Genesis 12:2).

John H. Walton (b. 1952) enlightens:

When the family of Jacob arrives at Bethel, Rebekah’s nurse, Deborah...is buried under a tree (Genesis 35:8). There is no suggestion that this land for burial has to be purchased, but its use for a tomb establishes yet another claim and foothold in the land. This continues to be an important submotif in the author’s development of covenant issues. (Walton, Genesis (NIV Application Commentary), 631)

Deborah’s presence here is odd (Genesis 35:8). She is out of place both in the narrative and geographically. Laurence A. Turner concedes:

The most puzzling element in this paragraph is the death notice of Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse (Genesis 35:8)...Claus Westermann [1909-2000] considers it to be ‘beyond comprehension what Rebekah’s nurse is doing in Jacob’s caravan’ (Westermann 1985:552). Surely she could not have accompanied Jacob to and from Haran. (Turner, Genesis (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 156)

Joyce G. Baldwin (1921-1995) notices:

There is nothing to suggest that she had been in Jacob’s caravan, and by this time she would have been very old, having left Haran some 140 years earlier (compare Genesis 25:20 with Genesis 35:28). Her grave would, however, have been of considerable interest to this family, which had come from the same place in Haran as Jacob’s wives. (Baldwin, The Message of Genesis 12–50 (Bible Speaks Today), 149)

Miguel A. De La Torre (b. 1958) inquires:

The appearance of Deborah as a member of the caravan is odd [Genesis 35:8]. She is the only servant in Genesis whose death is recorded, even though we know nothing about her, except that she left Paddan-arm with Rebekah [Genesis 24:59]. It is strange that the text tells us about Deborah’s death, and yet is silent about the death of her mistress, the matriarch Rebekah. Moreover, how did Deborah find herself in Jacob’s caravan? Did Deborah go with Jacob to Laban’s house over two decades earlier? If so, why is she not mentioned as accompanying him on the journey? If not, when did she join the caravan? (De La Torre, Genesis: Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, 294)

John C.L. Gibson (1930-2008) wonders:

Had this old, old woman, who had perhaps dandled him on her knee as a baby, come north to Jacob from Hebron when he had returned to Canaan to tell him of Rebekah’s own earlier death, the mother who, it will be remembered, had expected him back from Mesopotamia in a “few days” (Genesis 27:44 KJV), but had not lived to see it? If so, the note prepares us for a quick descent from triumph to pathos; for hardly has Jacob left Bethel than his beloved Rachel dies giving birth to Benjamin [Genesis 35:19].(Gibson, Genesis, Volume 2 (Daily Study Bible), 217-18)

Many have speculated that Deborah’s presence is because she is serving as a messenger. Rashi (1040-1105) records a tradition that Rebekah has sent Deborah to alert Jacob that it is finally safe to return (Genesis 27:45).

Martin Sicker (b. 1931) supposes:

It is suggested that, notwithstanding her obviously advanced age, Deborah was sent by Rebekah to find Jacob and encourage him to return home, fulfilling Rebekah’s promise to him when she sent him away to escape his brother’s anger until it was assuaged, then I will send and fetch thee from thence (Genesis 27:45). According to this reconstruction of events, Deborah encountered Jacob after he left Shechem and reported to him that his mother Rebekah had died, and then succumbed herself. (Sicker, The Ordeals of Isaac and Jacob, 167-68)

More commonly, Deborah is seen as the bearer of the bad news that Rebekah has died. Robert R. Gonzales, Jr. (b. 1963) conjectures:

After Rebekah’s death and on learning that Jacob was on his way, Deborah apparently went to meet Jacob to give him the news. Ironically, she dies sometime shortly afterwards. (Gonzalez, Where Sin Abounds: The Spread of Sin and the Curse in Genesis with Special Focus on the Patriarchal Narratives, 236)

The presumption is that if Deborah is not with Rebekah, Rebekah is dead. Rebekah is Deborah’s home. This makes the passage as indirect allusion to Rebekah. In this way, Deborah is doing what she always does: standing in as a surrogate for Rebekah.

Many have seen Deborah’s death notice as an indictment against Rebekah. When last seen, the matriarch assures her reluctant son, Jacob, that if he deceives his brother Esau, as she proposes, that she will incur any resulting curse upon herself (Genesis 27:13). Rebekah assumes the consequences for Jacob’s actions.

Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) understands:

Rebekah stakes her life on her convictions [Genesis 27:13]. Knowing the oracle she has been given that the older will serve the younger [Genesis 25:23], she can dismiss Jacob’s fears. Although her faith pays off and no curse falls on her, she pays a price for her deception. Ominously she disappears...after this scene. The narrator memorializes Deborah, her nurse not Rebekah (Genesis 35:8) and makes no notice of her death (cf. Genesis 23:1-2). At the end of Genesis however, he notes that she was given an honorable burial with the other patriarchs and matriarchs in the cave of Machpelah (see Genesis 49:31). (Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks [b. 1970], Genesis: A Commentary, 378-379)

Deborah’s presence is a reminder of Rebekah’s conspicuous absence. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) scrutinizes:

The last we heard of her [Rebekah] was Genesis 27:46, well over twenty years before this scene. Without exception Genesis tells us about each patriarch’s death and burial (Abraham, Genesis 25:7-11; Isaac, Genesis 35:29; Jacob, Genesis 49:33). Genesis also tells us about the death and burial of each patriarch’s favorite wife (Sarah, Genesis 23:1-20; Rachel, Genesis 35:19). The exception is Rebekah, apart from the summarizing statement in Genesis 49:31. Presumably she died and was buried before Jacob returned from Aram-naharaim, for there is no reference to Jacob being reunited with Rebekah. Rebekah is gone, though survived by her nurse, but only Jacob arrives. He not only does not get to see his mother, but is forced to become undertaker for his late mother’s nurse [Genesis 35:8]. Thus, one of Jacob’s first experiences after coming back home is confronting death. But including the name Rebekah, the author helps his reader recall her character, she who instigated the deception of Isaac [Genesis 27:5-10]. Her punishment (implied at least) is that she will never get to see her son again. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 378)

Laurence A. Turner bolsters:

The effect of her [Deborah’s] death notice in this context is important. The narrator has provided the death notices for Sarah (Genesis 23:1-2), and for Rachel in the next paragraph (Genesis 35:19), but for Rebekah, the death of her nurse is provided [Genesis 35:8]. Perhaps depriving Rebekah of a death notice, but providing one for her nurse, passes silent comment on her role in the story. Others who died were remembered; but Rebekah has died and been forgotten. (Her burial place is mentioned in passing only in Genesis 49:31). She died without ever seeing her son again (cf. Genesis 27:44-45), and appears to have said more than she realizes when she told Jacob, ‘Let your curse be on me, my son’ (Genesis 27:13; see Joyce G. Baldwin [1921-1995] 1986:149). (Turner, Genesis (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 156)

Deborah is a character who is introduced at her funeral (Genesis 35:8). Her life is not documented, only her death. She is known by her obituary.

Her nature can be inferred from the two passages that reference her (Genesis 24:59, 35:8): Having spent so many years in service to Rebekah, she is loyal and faithful. Deborah must have been courageous to both leave her homeland with Rebekah (Genesis 24:59) and then, at some later point, leave another familiar place at an advanced age to reunite with Jacob in Bethel (Genesis 35:8).

Furthermore, the documentation of her death is evidence that Deborah is an important member of Jacob’s household (Genesis 35:8). The patriarch feels very attached to the woman. This sentiment is likely amplified by Deborah representing the last vestiges of his beloved mother, Rebekah.

At her death, Deborah, a character usually behind-the-scenes, takes a rare turn in the spotlight. She is an unsung hero. In a heart warming moment, the Bible documents the care Jacob takes in regards to this caretaker (Genesis 35:8). The loss of someone the world would have viewed as insignificant is felt greatly by Jacob. And his God.

Why is Deborah’s death notice recorded in Scripture (Genesis 35:8)? When have you felt out of place? Who do you overlook; are you familiar with any unsung heroes? Has anyone served as a surrogate parent to you or your children? How do you feel about these people? When has a person’s death been more documented than their life? When have you felt that you met someone after they passed? How would you want your obituary to read?

This period represents a time of transition in Jacob’s life. Deborah is a connection to his past. John Phillips (1927-2010) envisions:

It was a great comfort to Jacob to have her back and, no doubt, a great comfort to his wives as well, for she was a link with Padan-aram. How eagerly Deborah must have asked after Laban and old friends of years gone by. Then, too, she, was a link with Rebekah, a link with him, a link with Jacob’s past, with boyhood days, with life’s early memories. But God was gently severing all those ties and separating Jacob to Himself, so Deborah died and was tenderly buried under a notable terebinth tree, a landmark in those parts now to be called “The oak of weeping” [Genesis 35:8]. It was snapping one more tie that bound Jacob to earthly things. (Phillips, Exploring Genesis: An Expository Commentary, 275)

Burying Deborah marks the end on an era (Genesis 35:8). Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) denotes:

Her [Deborah’s] presence recalls Abraham and Isaac, whose connection with Paddan Aram arose from the servant’ attainment of Rebekah (Genesis 24:59). Deborah then represented the past, and her presence in Jacob’s circle meant that the past is revived in the return of Jacob. Similarly, the death of Rachel in conjunction with Benjamin’s birth also recalls the past in Paddan-Aram (Genesis 35:16-20), which is now only a painful memory for Jacob. The burials of Deborah and Rachel meant the end of the Aramean era. (Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26 (New American Commentary), 614)

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) agrees:

Now, with the patriarch in Bethel, God began to effect a transition to a new generation with the death of aged Deborah. “And Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried under an oak below Bethel. So he called its name Allon-bacuth [“oak of weeping”] (Genesis 35:8). Deborah’s 180 years bridged the lives of the first two patriarchs, “and her death reminded the people of the era that ended with the return of Jacob to Bethel” (Allen P. Ross [b. 1943]). Change was in the air. (Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Preaching the Word), 421)

In laying Deborah to rest, Jacob is burying his past. This is connected to the burial of his family’s idols four verses earlier (Genesis 35:4). Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) bridges:

Deborah being buried [wattiqqābēr] under the oak tree [’allon] parallels Jacob’s burying (wayyitmōn) the false gods under a terebinth (’ēlâ), earlier in the chapter [Genesis 35:4]. For the gods’ burial the root tāman is used. For Deborah’s burial, the more usual root qābar is used. The opening unit in the Jacob cycle (Genesis 25:19-34) contains, among its emphases, the birth of two people, Esau and Jacob. The concluding unit in the Jacob cycle (Genesis 35:1-22) contains, among its emphases, the death of two people, Deborah [Genesis 35:8] and Rachel [Genesis 35:19]...Jacob’s life after the events at Peniel [Genesis 32:24-32] is filled with hardship: the trauma of facing Esau again [Genesis 33:1-17], the violation of Dinah [Genesis 34:1-31], the death of his late mother’s nurse [Genesis 35:8], the death of Rachel in childbirth [Genesis 35:16-20]. In the remainder of his life he will face more tragic and distressing situations. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 378-79)

Leon R. Kass (b. 1939) joins:

The place of Deborah’s burial, “beneath the oak” (tachath ha’allon), reminds of the burial of the foreign gods and earrings, also “beneath the oak” (tachath ha’elah), at Shechem, during the recent purification, mentioned but a few verses earlier (Genesis 35:4). Deborah, the last remnant of the world of Paddan-aram, the old nurse of his mother who had been sent to watch over her as she left to join the people of God’s covenant, now at last departs; with her burial “beneath the oak” are symbolically laid to rest all traces of Mesopotamian influence. (Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, 502)

Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) applies:

Deborah...is buried under an oak tree, which they called the Oak of Weeping (or Oak of Tears, Genesis 35:4, 8). Her tearful burial, under the tree, forms a precise literary continuity with the burial of the foreign gods under a tree (Genesis 35:4, 8). The apparent suggestion, is that, while tears have their place—they are prominent in the Odyssey—they can also be foreign gods, idols, and it is right at a certain point to bury them, to put them away. (Brodie, Genesis As Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary, 342)

In this time of transition, Jacob’s puts his past to rest. Some burials, like Deborah’s, are good things that are relinquished with tears (Genesis 35:8). Others, like the false gods, are not (Genesis 35:4). Jacob lets go of both to embrace the future that awaits.

When have you wept over loss? What is your greatest loss? What do you need to let go of in order to move forward?

“Holding on is believing that there’s only a past; letting go is knowing that there’s a future.”- Daphne Rose Kingma (b. 1942), The Ten Things to Do when Your Life Falls Apart: An Emotional and Spiritual Handbook, p. 74

Rod in the Box (Hebrews 9:4)

Whose rod was kept in the gold covered chest, the Ark of the Covenant? Aaron’s rod

Hebrews is a self described “word of exhortation” to early Christians (Hebrews 13:22). In its ninth chapter, the imperfect earthly sanctuary is contrasted with its perfect heavenly counterpart to display the obvious superiority of the latter (Hebrews 9:1-12).

In making this argument, Hebrews depicts the earthly sanctuary (Hebrews 9:1-5). Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) describes:

In this very inventive passage, the Preacher takes the congregation on a guided tour of the old desert tabernacle, the first sanctuary of Israel under the old covenant (the Preacher’s narration is not absolutely precise, but it roughly follows the description of the design and furnishings of the tabernacle woven through Exodus 25-40). The Preacher even takes the congregation where they would not have been allowed to go: into the very inner sanctum, the Holy of Holies. (Long, Hebrews (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 93)

While recounting the furnishings of the holy of holies, Hebrews mentions three items enclosed in the ark of the covenant: a jar of manna, Aaron’s rod and the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed (Hebrews 9:4).

Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant; (Hebrews 9:3-4 NASB)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) teaches:

The “ark of the covenant”...is a box or chest (kibōton) that is also called by the Septuagint the kibōtos martyriou (“ark of the testimony”) (Exodus 25:10). Exodus 25:16 says simply that Moses is to put into the ark “testimonies” (ta martyria) that I will give you.” The term means “evidences,” and the author elaborates three such concrete pieces of evidence for God’s presence among the people—only one of which Exodus itself specifies, namely “the tables of the covenant” (see Deuteronomy 10:1-5; I Kings 8:9; II Chronicles 5:10) given to Moses from the hand of God (Deuteronomy 9:9-10). The other two items were also signs of God’s presence and protection. The miraculous manna (Exodus 16:31) fed the people in the wilderness, and some of it was preserved in a jar (Exodus 16:32-34) that the Septuagint characterizes as “golden” (Exodus 16:33; see also Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], Preliminary Studies 100). Moses was told to place the jar “before God,” but not specifically in the ark. The flowering rod of Aaron was equally a sign of “evidence” of God’s protection, through the selection of Aaron as the one whom God wanted to approach the tent of testimony, and put an end to the murmuring of the people (Numbers 17:16-26). Once more, Moses is instructed to place the rod before the testimony “as a sign for the sons of rebellion” (Numbers 17:25), though not in the ark, as Hebrews has it. (Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 220)

David L. Allen (b. 1957) adds:

The “ark of the covenant” is described in the Greek text with a perfect tense participle “covered around,” an adverb meaning “on (from) all sides” and the dative “with gold.” William L. Lane (1931-1999) and the NIV both translate this Greek phrase as “gold-covered,” a descriptive phrase that gets at the meaning, but as J. Harold Greenlee [b. 1918] noted, such an attributive rendering violates Greek grammar. (Allen, Hebrews (New American Commentary), 461)

This passage marks the last of three references to Aaron, Israel’s first high priest, in Hebrews (Hebrews 5:4, 7:11, 9:4). It also represents the only reference to Aaron’s “rod” (ASV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or “staff” (ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT) in the New Testament (Hebrews 9:4).

Aaron’s rod was a sacred object which originally symbolized his tribe’s selection as the nation’s priests (Numbers 17:1-11). Alan C. Mitchell (b. 1948) recounts:

The budding rod of Aaron, according to Numbers 17:1-9, was placed by Moses in the Holy of Holies. Twelve staffs with the names of the heads of the tribes were to be placed in the sanctuary, before the Lord. Aaron’s name was to be inscribed on the staff of Levi. When Moses returned the next day he saw that Aaron’s rod had sprouted a flower. This indicated that he was chosen by God for the priesthood, which was supposed to be a warning to rebels and to put an end to complaints. God instructed Moses to place his rod in the sanctuary before the covenant, but not in the ark itself. (Mitchell, Hebrews (Sacra Pagina), 175)

The inclusion of Aaron’s rod in the ark of the covenant is not referenced in the Old Testament. While the Ten Commandments are said to be placed in the ark (Exodus 25:16; Deuteronomy 10:2), the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod’s are not. At the dedication of the temple it is definitively stated that the tablets are the only items situated inside the ark (I Kings 8:9; II Chronicles 5:10).

David A. deSilva (b. 1967) notes:

The contents of the ark are not explicitly described in the Pentateuch save for the two tablets of stone containing the ten commandments (Deuteronomy 10:2; I Kings 8:9). The jar of manna (Exodus 16:32-34) and Aaron’s rod...(Numbers 17:10) were to be placed within the inner sanctum as a perpetual “testimony,” but the author of Hebrews actually has them stored within the ark (suggested perhaps by Exodus 18:21: “in the ark you shall put the testimony that I will give you.”). (deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “To the Hebrews”, 297-298)

Not only does the Old Testament fail to mention that the manna and the rod are not fixed in the ark of the covenant but this detail is also absent from rabbinic literature. Paul Ellingworth (b. 1931) acknowledges:

Rabbinic tradition, which in other respects goes beyond scripture in describing the contents of the ark, is more faithful to the Exodus text than Hebrews at this point in locating the pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod, not in but beside the ark...These details appear to have no independent significance for the author; he does not, for example, relate the gift of manna to Israel’s status as a wandering people. (Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 428)

In the Old Testament, the manna and Aaron’s rod were deemed sacred objects but were to be placed in front of the ark, not in it. It has been argued that Hebrews is indicating as such. David L. Allen (b. 1957) reveals:

The location of the jar of manna and the staff “in” the ark is problematic when compared to both the Hebrew and Septuagint texts of Exodus 16:33 and Numbers 17:10...In the Hebrew text, the same preposition lipnê, “in front of” or “before” is used to describe the location of the jar as before “the Lord” and the rod as in front of “the testimony.” The question is whether the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod were placed inside the ark or in front of the ark. The linguistic ambiguity of the preposition lipnê in the Old Testament texts above can be interpreted either way. (Allen, Hebrews (New American Commentary), 461-62)

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) rejects:

According to Exodus 16:33ff Moses commanded Aaron to put an omer of manna (about four pints, one-tenth of an ephah) in a jar, “and place it before Yahweh, to be kept throughout your generations”; and Aaron accordingly “placed it before the testimony, to be kept.” Similarly, when twelve rods or sceptres, one for each tribe of Israel, had been laid up “in the tent of meeting before the testimony,” Aaron’s rod, the rod of the tribe of Levi, was found the next day to have put forth buds, blossoms, and ripe almonds—a token that Aaron was the man whom God had chosen for the priesthood (Numbers 17:1-10). Moses was then directed to “put back the rod of Aaron before the testimony, to be kept as a sign for the rebels” (Numbers 17:10). Does the phrase “before the testimony” imply that these objects were placed inside the ark, or simply that they were laid in front of it? Franz Delitzch [1813-1890] thinks that the former “is a natural conclusion” from the phrases “before Yahweh” and “before the testimony”; this is by no means clear, especially as regards the phrase “before Yahweh,” for this phrase is used of other installations in the tabernacle, which were certainly not inside the ark. On the other hand, it will not do to say that the antecedent of “wherein” is not “the ark” but “the tent called the holy of holies” (Hebrews 9:3); this puts an intolerable strain on the natural construction of the sentence by the distance which it places between the relative and its antecedent. It is not to be doubted that our author represents the jar of manna and the rod as having been inside the ark along with the tables of the law. (Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 203)

William L. Lane (1931-1999) relays:

The statement that the ark contained, in addition to the stone tablets of the covenant, the golden jar of manna and Aaron’s rod that blossomed, it is not attested elsewhere...According to all of the texts and versions known of the Old Testament, only the tablets of the covenant were actually placed within the ark (Exodus 25:16, 21; Deuteronomy 10:1-2; cf. I Kings 8:9; II Chronicles 5:10). Johannes van der Ploeg [1909-2004] (Revue Biblique 54 [1947] 219) suggested that the writer adopted a tradition according to which subsequently other objects were placed within the ark, a tradition presupposed in certain strands of rabbinic evidence (cf. Bava Batra 14a; Tosefta Yoma 3.7; ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan 41 [67a]). (Lane, Hebrews 9-13 (Word Biblical Commentary), 221)

These additional items could have fit in the ark but would likely have filled it. Joseph Ponessa (b. 1948) and Laurie Watson Manhardt (b. 1950) measure:

Exodus gives the dimensions 3.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cubits, or 45 x 27 x 27 inches, just large enough to hold “a golden urn holding manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant. (Ponessa and Manhardt, Moses and the Torah (Come and See Catholic Bible Study), 97)

In surveying the Holy of Holies, Hebrews positions three sacred items into one sacred object. The ark of the covenant and the holy of holies where it is housed are truly sacred. Yet they pale in comparison to the future sanctuary (Hebrews 9:11-12).

Should the manna and the rod have been placed into the ark of the covenant? Who do you think did so and when? Is the ark magnified in any way by the inclusion of these items? Does placing the manna and the rod in the ark, where the items would be unseen, detract from their purpose to serve as a “testimony”? Is there anything you cherish that you conceal or hide? What objects are sacred to you? What do the ark’s contents mean individually and collectively?

The three items housed by the ark and the ark itself are tangible monuments of Israel’s connection to God. All of these objects come from the same period in Israel’s history, the formative period of the Exodus. Thomas D. Lea (b. 1938) assigns:

The ark contained three treasures. “The gold jar of manna” (Exodus 16:32-34) was a reminder of God’s faithful provision during the wilderness wanderings. Aaron’s staff that has budded (Numbers 17:1-11) reminded readers of God’s powerful warnings against complaint and faultfinding. The stone tablets of the covenant (Exodus 25:21-22) reminded them of God’s expectations, and pointed...to the ministry of Christ. (Lea, Hebrews & James (Holman New Testament Commentary), 167)

Gareth Lee Cockerill (b. 1944) condenses:

If the Ten Commandments were the foundation of God’s covenant, manna was evidence of his provision, and the rod symbolized his choice of Aaron as priest. (Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 378)

There may be a more significant reason for Hebrews’ allusion to Aaron’s rod. Donald A. Hagner (b. 1936) conjectures:

The reference to Aaron’s rod may be seen to have special importance, given the argument of chapter 7 [Hebrews 7:1-28]. The budding rod demonstrated the sole legitimacy of Aaron and the tribe of Levi in priestly service at the altar (cf. Numbers 18:7). But that uniqueness has now been displaced—indeed canceled—by the high priest of the order of Melchizedek. (Hagner, Hebrews (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 132)

In including the symbol of Aaron’s priesthood among the items that pales in comparison to Jesus’ priesthood (Hebrews 4:14-15, 5:6), Hebrews may be reiterating its point that Jesus is far superior to his predecessors. In comparison to Jesus, the old signs lose a little luster.

Do the ark of the covenant, the tablets containing the ten commandments, the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod still hold meaning? If so, what is it? What is the effect of Jesus on their significance? What are the tangible monuments to Jesus’ life? What serves as a “testimony” to your faith?

“If you’d rather live surrounded by pristine objects than by the traces of happy memories, stay focused on tangible things. Otherwise, stop fixating on stuff you can touch and start caring about stuff that touches you. - Martha Beck (b. 1962)

Famous Last Words (Psalm 150:6)

Complete: “Let everything that hath breath _______________.” Praise the Lord (Psalm 150:6)

The Book of Psalms is comprised of 150 hymns. The psalter’s last five entries begin and close with the identical charge to “praise the LORD” (Psalm 146:1, 10, 147:1, 20, 148:1, 14, 149:1, 9, 150:1, 6). The book’s final offering is a simple, repetitive song comprised of six verses which repeatedly echo the clarion call to “praise the LORD” (Psalm 150:1-6). Each verse of the song begins with this edict and the song reiterates the command 13 times in varying grammatical forms.

Samuel Terrien (1911-2002) analyzes:

The final hymn of praise is composed of three quatrains, of two bicola each. The last of these appears to be shorter (Psalm 150:6b) since it summarizes the whole psalm with its summons to anyone who has breath (Psalm 150:6a). The naming of the deity moves from “God” to “the Lord” (Yahweh; Psalm 150:1 and Psalm 150:6), which indicates a movement from the theme of creation to that of salvation. The meter is regular (3+3), with the first stichos shorter (2+3). The imperative verb, “Praise God,” or “Praise him,” is used ten times, while the last exhortation to all creatures that breathe selects the optative (Psalm 150:6b). The orchestra is enlisted with seven groups of musical instruments, no doubt by respecting specific numbers. (Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 928)

Cas J.A. Vos (b. 1945) encapsulates:

Psalm 150 focuses on praising God. The song begins and ends with the exclamation, ‘Praise the Lord!’ or ‘Praise Yahweh!’ (Yah, the last syllable of the exclamation hallelujah, is a variant of the divine Name, Yahweh). This also occurs in the last five songs of the Psalter (cf. Psalms 146-149). However, in Psalm 150, this exclamation occurs ten times with precise regularity....Each colon from verses 1 to 5 begins with the exclamation and is always placed with the third person, masculine singular suffix, except the first time, when El (God) is the object. The effect of this regularity is that the visual appearance of the words emphasises [sic] the nature of praise in this song...Psalm 150:6, the final verse, also contains an exhortation to praise and uses the same verb, but switches the word-order around and uses a different form, i.e. the third person, feminine, singular jussive. This is the only verse which does not consist of hemistichoi with equal meter (3+3), but which consists of a single four-word verbal clause. It is apparent that the song, which contains the same appeal thirteen times, in six verses and also has this appeal as its first and last words, is comprised almost exclusively of the motif of praise. (Vos, Theopoetry of the Psalms, 276-77)

Stephen B. Dawes classifies the psalter’s final piece:

Psalm 150 is...both an extended ‘call to praise’, in which the worshipping community is called to praise God for what he is and what he has done and express that praise by using all the musical instruments they have, and a doxology, a song which is itself an expression of praise to God. As such it forms a powerful crescendo to Psalms, crowning the shorter doxologies found at the end of Books 1-4. (Dawes, Psalms (SCM Studyguide), 35)

The psalter’s coup de grace is a symphony that invites consonance from a variety of instruments (Psalm 150:3-5). It would seem that no instrument is out of bounds when praising God. Reproducing the song as it was originally performed, however, is problematic.

Hans-Joachim Kraus (1918-2000) explains:

Psalm 150 is an exhortation to engage in the praise that was heard in the holy place and probably should be dated in a late time. The praise of Yahweh is intoned to music and dance...The method of playing and singing is still a great problem. Naturally, clear indications are missing. In general, it is assumed that the pentatonic system, without half-steps, was predominant, but various ways of singing and making music are considered possible. It is conceivable that individual instruments, thus, e.g. the horn, only had the significance of signaling the praise, while the other musical apparatus principally performed rhythmic leading tones. (Kraus, Psalms 60-150 (Continental Commentaries), 570)

Stanley L. Jaki (1924-2009) imagines:

This psalm is meant to sound as a symphony orchestra does when the conductor motions the whole choir and all the instruments to perform the final bars of a great composition. The verses of this psalm prompt us to do what the psalms urged from the start: to sing the praises of God who is in His holy place and, of course, in His place in the highest heaven. The Book of Psalms is a book of praises even when the psalmists groan. (Jaki, Praying the Psalms: A Commentary, 236)

The song ends with a doxology:

Let everything that has breath praise the Lord.
Praise the Lord! (Psalm 150:6 NASB)

John Stott (1921-2011) lauds:

This doxology forms a magnificent conclusion to the Psalter. As a summons to worship, it is unsurpassed in grandeur. Every verse is an invitation to praise, instructing us where, why, how, and by whom the praise of God should be expressed. (Stott, Through the Bible, Through the Year: Daily Reflections from Genesis to Revelation, 100)

Robert L. Alden (1937-1996) observes:

Each of the five books within the Psalter ends with a doxology. (Note Psalm 41:13, 72:18-19, 89:52, 106:48). Psalm 150 in its entirety is a doxology. It concludes not only the fifth book of the Psalter, but the entire collection of psalms...No other psalm is quite like it for its repetition of the summons to honor God. (Alden, Psalms, Volume 3: Songs of Discipleship (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 109)

The psalm’s final doxology has been popularized in contemporary Christian music by Matt Redman (b. 1974). His composition, “Let Everything That Has Breath” (1998), has become a staple at many modern worship services.

Though the paean’s final verse continues with the hymn’s entrenched theme, the last line changes the established timing. This change of pace has precedent. John Goldingay (b. 1942) notes:

As happens in Psalm 148, a sequence of imperatives gives way to a jussive at the end (cf. also Psalm 149, though there the balance of imperatives and jussives is reversed)...I take the closing “praise Yah” as constituting the second colon of the final line as well as forming an inclusion with Psalm 150:1a, much as the opening “Praise Yah” was part of the opening line in Psalm 147 [Psalm 147:1] and even more as it was part of the closing line in Psalm 104 [Psalm 104:35]. (Goldingay, Psalms, Volume 3: Psalms 90-150 (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 749)

The line encourages everything who has “breath” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV) or “breathes”(HCSB, NLT, NRSV, RSV) to praise the Lord (Psalm 150:6). Willem A. VanGemeren (b. 1943) defines:

All God’s creation that “has breath” (n‘šāmâ, GK 5972)—particularly humankind (cf. Isaiah 2:22)—is summoned to praise the Lord (cf. Psalm 148:7-12). The word n‘šāmâ denotes all living creatures—all endowed with life by the Creator (Genesis 1:24-25, 7:21-22) but all distinct from the Creator (cf. Isaiah 2:22). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Psalms (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary),1010)

Konrad Schaefer (b. 1951) expounds:

The change of person, “everything that breathes praise the LORD” (Psalm 150:6), sums up the universal command to praise. Breath (něšāmâh) is the vitality which all beings receive from God (Genesis 2:7; cf. Job 32:8, 33:4; Isaiah 42:5). If God were to withhold the breath, we would return to dust (Job 34:14-15; Psalm 104:29). The last line of the Psalter, addressed to all creatures, invites a simultaneity of praise with life. It might be paraphrased with a moral tone, “As long as you breath, praise God.” (Schaefer, Psalms (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 345)

James L. Mays (b. 1921) posits:

The breath of life is, in the long last, the human being’s only possession, and in this the human being is dependent upon the LORD (Isaiah 2:22). No other use of breath could more right and true to life than praise of the LORD. No other sound could better speak the gratitude of life than praise of the LORD. So the psalm concludes with a vocative addressed to all of humanity calling for a simultaneity of praise with life. The final call echoes the promise that “all flesh will bless his holy name forever and ever” at the end of Psalm 145 [Psalm 145:21]; the promise and the call form a significant inclusion around the fivefold “Hallelujah” that concludes the Psalter. (Mays, Psalms (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 451)

Donald Williams (b. 1937) clarifies:

As this psalm and the Psalter concludes, there is a final exhortation, which refers us back to Psalm 150:1: “Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.” The animals have breath, they are to praise the Lord. The birds have breath; they are to praise the Lord. Humans have breath; they are to praise the Lord. This is the purpose of breath—the spirit (rûah) which God breathed into us (Genesis 2:7). We are to breathe it back to Him in praise as we offer the essence of our life up to Him. Indeed, as the psalm ends, “Praise the LORD!” (Williams, Psalms 73-150 (Mastering the Old Testament), 543)

William P. Brown (b. 1958) concurs:

The final psalm climactically enlists all living (i.e. breathing) creation, human and nonhuman alike, to join the orchestral chorus: “Let everything that breathes praise YHWH! Hallelujah!” (Psalm 150:6). In short, all of God’s works, animate and seemingly inanimate, that is, all “livingkind,” are to render praise and thanksgiving (Psalm 145:10). (Robert L. Foster [b. 1970] and David M. Howard [b. 1952], “‘Night to Night,’ ‘Deep to Deep’: The Discourse of Creation in the Psalms”, My Words Are Lovely: Studies in the Rhetoric of the Psalms, 64)

James Limburg (b. 1935) sets the parameters of this expression:

Psalm 104 indicates that those beings that God gives breath (Psalm 104:29) range from the tiniest creatures in the sea to birds and storks and wild asses and even sea monsters romping in the world’s oceans. If one could hear all the sounds of praise emanating from this blue planet, one would be able to detect not only the elegies of Duke Ellington [1899-1974] or the cantatas of Johann Sebastian Bach [1685-1750] but also the gentle whir of a hummingbird’s wing or the sturdy cantus firmus and counterpoint of the humpback whale. (Limburg, Psalms (Westminster Bible Companion), 506)

The scope of this great symphony is all living things. Herbert Lockyer, Sr. (1886-1934) argues:

C.J. Ellicott [1819-1905] confines this sixth verse to Israel—“We naturally wish to give these words their largest intent, and to hear the Psalter close with a n invocation, ‘the earth with her thousand voices’ to praise God. But the Psalm so distinctly and positively brings us into the Temple, and places us among the covenant people engaged at their devotions, that we are compelled to see here a hymn specially suited to the close of the collection of hymns of the covenant, as the first and second were to begin it. It is, therefore, not all breathing beings, but only all assembled in the sanctuary, that are addressed; and the loud Hallelujah, with which the collection of Psalms actually closes, rise from Hebrew voices alone.”...Needless to say, we disagree with such a limitation for the simple reason that the poet said let “everything that hath breath praise the Lord’—which surely includes all animate beings, whether on earth or in Heaven. The Vulgate Version puts it, “Let every spirit praise the Lord.” Perhaps breath is used in contrast to the musical, material instruments, but creatures able to offer vocal, articulate, and intelligent praise. Beasts and birds have breath and in their own way magnify their Creator. So, let the gnat make music with the vibrations of its wings! (Lockyer, Devotional Commentary on Psalms, 791)

John Eaton (b. 1927) agrees:

In keeping with the psalm’s economy of wording, the summarizing conclusion says much in few words. Much indeed, for it summons every ‘breath’, meaning every creature given life by God, to praise him. Concluding a psalm that has addressed all in the heavens and in the temple, symbolic centre of the universe, this last summons will be meant with all the scope of 96, 98 and 148. Every being in which the Creator has breathed his life (cf. Genesis 2:7) is to direct that life to him, rejoicing to know and behold him, to trust him, to honour his will, to testify to him and to exalt him above all else. (Eaton, The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary, 485)

Craig C. Broyles (b. 1953) cautions:

The psalm closing the book of Psalms concludes with a summons that extends to the farthest reaches beyond the chosen people of God: Let everything that has breath praise the LORD. No one is to be barred from the worship of God, though we must be mindful this verse is an invitation, not a statement. Yahweh in his greatness is worthy of a concert by an orchestra and choir that include every creature. (Broyles, Psalms (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 519)

Paul Westermeyer (b. 1940) sees the open invitation as characteristic of the justice inherent in the psalms:

Justice is on every page of the Psalter...Justice is sung throughout the psalms. Justice and song lead back and forth to one another, and the whole Psalter with all its concerns for justice leads to the song of praise in Psalm 150 toward which the whole cosmos is moving. The telos of praise to God contains justice within it as part of its very essence. (Westermeyer, Let Justice Sing: Hymnody and Justice (American Essays in Liturgy), 30-31)

All living creatures are invited to praise the Lord. George A.F. Knight (1909-2002) prescribes:

This psalm is in no sense a mere shout of empty and superficial praise. It sounds forth praise from the heart of a world that has discovered the cost to God of the world’s redemption, that has in fact glimpsed that in the heart of the Living God there is a Cross. Consequently it summons us in our turn to praise God, not only with our lips, but with our lives...The total pattern of God’s redemptive plan of activity has been glimpsed and fitted into the liturgy of Israel. What, then, is there left for not just Israel, but for everything that breathes, except to shout the one comprehensive word “Hallelujah!” (Knight, Psalms, Volume 2 (Daily Study Bible Series), 365)

Strikingly, no reason for this praise is cited. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) documents:

Psalm 150 lacks the usual rhetorical movement and development of Israel’s hymns. The hymn structure of Old Testament praise characteristically includes a summons to praise and the reasons or motivations for praise...Obviously both the summons and the reasons can be endlessly multiplied and restated...Psalm 150 is remarkable because it contains no reason or motivation at all. It is the only psalm that completely lacks motivation. It is the most extreme and unqualified statement of unfettered praise in the Old Testament. Psalm150 is situated literally at the end of the process of praise. It is also located theologically at the end of the process of praise and obedience, after all of Israel’s motivations have been expressed and no more reasons need to be given. By Psalm 150, Israel fully knows the reasons for praise, perhaps learned through the course of the book of Psalms. At the end of the book, Israel will not restate them. Instead, this psalm is a determined, enthusiastic, uninterrupted, relentless and unrelieved summons that will not be content until all creatures—all life—are “ready and willing” to participate in an unending song of praise that is sung without reserve or qualification. The psalm expresses a lyrical self-abandonment, an utter yielding of self, without vested interest, calculation, desire, or hidden agenda. This praise is nothing other than a glad offer of self in lyrical surrender to the God appropriately addressed in praise. The one who speaks in this psalm is utterly ceded over to God in praise. The Psalter, in correspondence to Israel’s life with God, when lived faithfully, ends in glad, unconditional praise: completely, and without embarrassment or distraction, focused on God. No characterization of God is given; it is enough that the one to be praised is fully and utterly God and therefore must be praised. (Brueggemann, The Psalms and the Life of Faith, 192-93)

Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (b. 1954) concludes:

This “unfettered” praise is only possible at the end of the story of the Psalter. The postexilic community must understand where it has come from...and where it is going...before it can participate in the praise of YWHH the king. Thus the Psalter becomes a story of survival in the changed and changing world with which the postexilic Israelite community is confronted. (Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter, 103)

It is clear that circumstance does not affect the admonition to praise God. There is always motivation for worship. One of those reasons is implicit in the description of the worshipers, namely that they possess the very breath to do so.

How are you praising God? What different ways can you think of to praise God? For what reason do you praise God? Is anyone excluded from the invitation to praise God in Psalm 150:6? Who benefits more from this praise, the creation or the Creator?

The Book of Psalms concludes on a decidedly high note. Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) praises:

The Psalter concludes in a cannonade of praise: booming salvos of joy shake the air with “artful thunder” (Ralph Waldo Emerson [1803-1882], “Merlin”). Every means (eight instruments are listed) is put to use for the great end. Every creature is enlisted as a voice in the climactic chorus. (Peterson, Praying with the Psalms: A Year of Daily Prayers and Reflections on the Words of David, 365)

Psalm 150 is strategically placed at the end of the book. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) determines:

As a poem for the conclusion of the collection, this psalm is a good match for Psalm 1. We have suggested that Psalm 1 is a formal and intentional introduction to the Psalter. It asserts in a decisive way that life under torah is the precondition of all these psalms. In relation to that, Psalm 150 states the outcomes of such a life under torah. Torah-keeping does arrive at obedience, yet obedience is not the goal of torah-keeping. Finally, such a life arrives at unencumbered praise. As Israel (and the world) is obedient to torah, it becomes free for praise, which is its proper vocation, destiny, and purpose. In this light the expectation of the Old Testament is not finally obedience, but adoration. The Psalter intends to lead and nurture people to such a freedom that finds its proper life in happy communion that knows no restraint of convention or propriety. That is the hope for Israel and for all creation. (Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary, 167)

James L. Mays (b. 1921) ratiocinates:

As the final psalm in the Psalter, the 150th tells us something about the book...The book the began with a commendation of Torah of the LORD as the way of life ends here with an invitation to praise of the LORD as the use of life. The correspondence between the repeated verb “praise” (hillel) and the title of the book in Hebrew, “Praises” (tehillim), argues that those who gave the book its name understood the book itself to contain the praises of the LORD offered to all that have breath. The book is the language by which life can say its dependence and obligation and gratitude to the LORD. Hallelujah! (Mays, Psalms (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 451)

The verse and its charge serve as a fitting end to the psalter. Robert Alter (b. 1935) declares:

Appropriately, the psalm and the book conclude on a note of universalism: Not Israel alone but every living thing is exhorted to praise the God of all creation. From this grandly resonant conclusion, one can see how the Book of Psalms has spoken to people through the ages across the borders of nations, languages, and sectarian divisions. (Alter, The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary, 516)

The psalm’s invitation is to participate in an activity that persists from this world into the next: worship. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) affirms:

In such singing, we are in the company of the abiding singing of the saints of the world (Revelation 4:10-11). That singing in the age to come, however, is already underway in this age among those for whom this narrative is re-performed. It is no wonder that life in this re-performed poetry culminates in such unrestrained praise; it is no wonder that the Psalter ends in the same way, as do our lives in the presence of God, (Dave Bland [b. 1953] and David Fleer [b. 1953], “Psalms in Narrative Performance”, Performing the Psalms, 29)

The verse serves not only as an invitation, but an objective; the Westminster Catechism affirms, “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.”

Artur Weiser (1893-1978) explicates:

The keynote of all the last hymns of the Psalter has been that of a song of praise, and at the very end the great Hallelujah...now swells into a mighty final chord. The last psalm is simply and solely a call to sing the praise of God...In praising God the meaning of the world is fulfilled. To praise the abundance of his power is the purpose which links together the most diverse voices in heaven and on earth in a tremendous symphonic hymn of praise. In that prose the members of the cult community join; for them it is given in a special way to bear witness to God’s mighty deeds, which entail the realization of salvation, their salvation, which at the same time implies the salvation of the whole world. It accords with this train of thought that in conclusion ‘everything that breathes’ is called upon to join the praise of God, who as the Lord of the world has revealed himself in power. (Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 841)

J. Clinton McCann, Jr. (b. 1951) supports:

In short, praising God is the goal of every living thing, the goal of all creation! The Hebrew for “everything that breathes” is kōl hanněšāmâ (literally, “all the breath”). The word breath recalls the Genesis traditions: the creation of humanity (Genesis 2:7) and the flood story in which the proper goal of human and animal life was not realized (see Genesis 7:22). Against this background of destiny gone awry, Psalm 150 teaches us that the proper mode of existence for humankind and all creation is relatedness to God. In short, to live authentically is to praise God, and to praise God is to live. (McCann, A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah, 56)

In the psalter’s concluding hymn, praise resounds and receives the final word. It is a good ending.

Whose “famous last words” are you familiar with? What is your favorite last line of a book or song? What would you want your last words to be? How would you wish to use your last breath?

“I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation. It is not out of compliment that lovers keep on telling one another how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete till it is expressed.” - C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), Reflections on the Psalms, p. 95

Anna’s Anticipation (Luke 2:36)

Who was the widow who recognized Jesus when he was presented as the temple? Anna (Luke 2:36)

At the time of Jesus’ birth, few recognized that he would be the instrument of Israel’s redemption. Though the infant does nothing demonstrable, when Jesus is presented at the temple (Luke 2:22-24), two great witnesses emerge: Simeon (Luke 2:25-32) and Anna (Luke 2:36-38). The early witness of these elders is often overlooked when recounting Jesus’ life, even being omitted from the 2006 movie The Nativity Story.

Anna is not referenced in any other book of the Bible, much less extrabiblical materials. Though her story constitutes only three verses, Anna gets the last word in Luke’s infancy narrative (Luke 2:36-38).

And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers. At that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2:36-38 NASB)

Even as an infant, Jesus’ mission is recognized. Fred B. Craddock (b. 1928) summarizes:

The truth of Simeon’s prophetic witness is confirmed by Anna, a devout prophetess of advanced age...Being a woman with the gift of prophecy who lives in the temple area continually in prayer and fasting, she...comes to the scene precisely where and when Jesus is being presented. She thanks God and witnesses about the child to all who have kept alive hope for “the redemption of Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38). Jerusalem and with it the temple represent the whole of Israel’s hope before God. And Jesus will return to Jerusalem because, as these two have testified, God is leading Israel to the Messiah, just as God is giving the Messiah to Israel. But Jesus will weep over the city because it did not recognize the time of the messianic visitation (Luke 19:41-44). (Craddock, Luke (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 40)

Balancing a male witness with a female counterpart is characteristic of Luke. Neal M. Flanagan (1920-1985) identifies 13 man-woman parallel stories in Luke’s gospel (Flanagan, “The Position of Women in the Writings of St. Luke”, Mareanum 40, 288-304). In Luke-Acts, women are paired with men even when, as in the case of Anna (Luke 2:36-38) and Philip’s four prophetess daughters mentioned alongside Agabus (Acts 21:9-11), they add nothing to what has been said.

Both Simeon and Anna are models of piety and devotion (Luke 2:25, 36-37) making Anna a reliable corroborating witness. Joel B. Green (b. 1956) compares:

As a counterpart to Simeon, Luke introduces Anna. Both are prophetic figures (cf. Acts 2:17-18), aged, pious, related to the temple, and among those who await eschatological salvation. And both recognize in Jesus the advent of God’s redemptive intervention in the world, with the result that they praise God. In this way, Anna’s testimony is added to that of the angels (Luke 2:10-14) and Simeon (Luke 2:28-35), who respond to the wondrous child by praising God and interpreting the significance of Jesus’ coming. Focusing as they all do on God and on eschatological hope, however, they bear witness to Luke’s interest in a narrative aim that transcends the birth and manifestation of Jesus. Luke is concerned preeminently with the redemptive purposes of God, grounded ultimately in God’s own designs, expressed in the Scriptures, anticipated by the faithful of Israel, now coming to fruition in the arrival of Jesus. In the present scene, Luke actually devotes more time to emphasizing Anna’s reliability than to her reaction, a further attempt to render unimpeachable her testimony concerning Jesus. (Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 150)

As Green alludes, Luke provides a striking amount of information about Anna. Though the gospel does not specify what she actually said, more introduction is given her than Simeon.

Anna’s comprehensive resume includes the following details:

• She is a woman. Anna appears only in Luke and among the gospels, Luke pays special attention to women (43 references).
• She is a prophetess. Though she is the only woman in the gospels described as a prophetess, the description is not uncommon in Scripture (Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4; II Kings 22:14; Nehemiah 6:14; Luke 2:35; Acts 2:17, 21:8-9; I Corinthians 11:5).
• She is named Anna. In the Apocrypha, this is the name of Tobit’s wife (Tobit 1:9, 20, 2:1, 11-14, 4:3-4, 5:18-6:1, 10:4-7, 11:5-6, 9, 14:12). The name is the female equivalent of John (Johannah) and the Greek version of the Hebrew, Hannah. Despite being Biblical the name was not popular during the Second Temple period. Richard Bauckham (b. 1946) notes, “Of the 247 Jewish women in Palestine from the period 330 BCE-200 CE, whose names are known, our Anna is the only one who bears this name (Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels, 92).” In Jewish tradition, her namesake Hannah is also considered a prophetess (b. Meg 14a). As both women are depicted as praying in the temple and there are similarities between the presentations of Jesus and Hannah’s son Samuel (I Samuel 1:22-24; Luke 2:22), many have seen an intentional allusion. As Anna is “looking for the redemption of Israel” (Luke 2:38 NASB), both the barren Hannah and Anna are praying for miracle babies.
• She is the daughter of Phanuel. Phanuel is otherwise unknown and the only other biblical figure with this name is equally obscure (I Chronicles 4:4). Phanuel is not important enough to be listed anywhere else and as such, being the daughter of Phanuel was of no great consequence. The name Phanuel is the equivalent of place name Peniel (Genesis 32:31-32). As both Anna and her father have Biblical names, it can be deduced that she comes from a godly heritage. Anna inherits a spiritual legacy and builds upon it.
• She is from the tribe of Asher. This detail likely seemed as remote then as it does now as Asher was one of the ten “lost” northern tribes of Israel (Genesis 30:12-13, 35:26) which settled in northern Gilead (Joshua 19:24-31). Anna retains her ancestral heritage. In fact, she is not referenced in connection to her deceased husband, but rather to her people to whom she presumably has a stronger connection. Given that she waited for decades in the temple it is not surprising that Anna can trace her genealogy. Most have attached no significance to the connection to Asher as Luke is typically more interested in symbolism than geography (whom his audience would not have known). In his article “Anna of the Tribe of Asher”, however, Richard Bauckham (b. 1946) argues that the original audience would have understood Anna as a returnee from the exile of the northern tribes in Media. Others have seen this reference as alluding to the restoration of all of the tribes of Israel. Asher is one of the least significant tribes and this coupled with her unsubstantial father may collectively speak to humble origins, like Gideon (Judges 6:15). The world would have viewed Anna’s heritage as insignificant, a fact which was equally insignificant to God.
• She is elderly. Her age is emphasized by redundancy in Greek which reads “she was very old in her many days” or “she was exceedingly old and full of years”. In her culture, her agedness would have merited respect. The text is ambiguous regarding her exact age. It could mean that she was eighty-four or that she has been a widow for eighty-four years. The more natural way to interpret the syntax is the latter (Darrell L. Bock [b. 1953], Luke [BECNT], 1:251-52; I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934], Luke [NIGTC], 123-24). If this is the case, and she was married at the standard age of 14, she would have been 105 years old. This fits both the improbable nature of the nativity and Luke’s emphasis on her agedness and would also connect her to Judith, another widow who served God night and day (Judith 8:1-8, 11:17) and lived to be 105 years old (Judith 16:23). Either way, Anna is at least 84. One is never too old to serve or experience God in dramatic fashion. In Anna’s case, her greatest contribution comes at the end of her life.
• She is a widow. Three widows are featured in Luke’s gospel (Luke 2:36-38, 7:11-15, 21:1-4) and the evangelist also includes a widow as the star of a parable (Luke 18:1-8). A later description of Christian widows shares marked similarities with the description of Anna (I Timothy 5:3-16). Tragically, Anna’s husband died just seven years into their marriage (Luke 2:37). She presumably had no children and chose not to remarry. Instead, she devoted herself to God. When faced with tragedy, one has the choice to move closer or farther away from God. Instead of getting bitter, Anna got better.
• She never leaves the temple. Serving “night and day” reflects the Jewish belief that the day began at sunset (Deuteronomy 28:66; I Kings 8:29; Isaiah 27:3; Jeremiah 14:17; Mark 5:5; Luke 2:37; Acts 20:31, 26:7; I Thessalonians 2:9, 3:10; II Thessalonians 3:8; I Timothy 5:5; II Timothy 1:3). It is theoretically possible that she resides in the temple’s women’s court but there is no precedent for this arrangement. Like the English expression “all of the time”, Luke is most likely using hyperbole as women were not normally allowed to stay in temple at night. Widows were typically poor and practically speaking, the temple may have been the best place for Anna. Then again, perhaps her devotion and expectation were such that she never leaves the temple precincts. Whatever her reasons, she is a fixture at the temple. Luke likely intends to accent her piety. Later tradition asserts that Mary herself was raised in the temple (Protoevangelium of James 7:1-8:2). Depending upon one’s perspective, Anna is living a life of worship or is a religious fanatic. Either way, Anna has found her niche. Though no priest notices the baby Jesus, someone associated with organized religion takes notice and though Anna could not go into the Holy of Holies she sees God in person.
• She fasts and prays. These are classic expressions of piety. Fasting coupled with prayer is evidence of self-denying focus (Psalm 35:13; Daniel 9:3; Tobit 12:8, Matthew 17:21; Luke 2:37). As the third traditional good work of almsgiving is not mentioned, some have deduced that Anna was poor, fitting her status as a widow. Some interpreters suggest that the story of the widow’s mite near the end of Luke’s gospel (Luke 21:1-4) is best read while remembering the poor widow at the gospel’s outset (Luke 2:36-38). Anna likely prays for “the redemption of Israel”. This expression comes from Isaiah 52:9 and a similar phrase was used on Jewish coins in Bar-Kokhba’s Jewish revolt against Rome (132-136 CE).

Luke stresses Anna’s age and single minded devotion. Anna does not lead a very complicated life. She never goes anywhere. Her singular focus is the service and worship of God. She is part of the remnant that is still actively seeking the Messiah. Anna is a throwback to a bygone era whose unwavering faith is likely as rare as being from her long lost tribe.

Jane J. Parkerton (b. 1946), K. Jeanne Person (b. 1962) and Anne Winchell Silver (b. 1948) examine:

Why is she there? What does she seek? What is it about the life and worship of the Temple that sustain her?...On a practical level, we might understand Anna’s proximity to the Temple as her only means for daily survival. Because she has no husband or child, and because she is elderly, she is among the most economically vulnerable of her society. She is no longer physically able to glean the agricultural fields for leftover grains and fruits, as poor widows were legally permitted to do in order not to starve. Her life may depend on alms she might receive from pilgrims visiting the temple...Anna’s story, however, is not manifestly about a widow’s economic destruction and helplessness. In this, her story differs from many about widows in the Bible...We have no sense that Anna is impoverished, anxious or desperate...She seems to be yearning for something that is not practical at all. (Parkerton, Person and Silver, Where You Go, I Shall: Gleanings from the Stories of Biblical Widows, 71-72)

David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) adds:

In some deep sense, Jesus is an answer to the prayers of Anna, even as to those of Simeon. Arriving on the scene precisely at the moment of Simeon’s prayer she acts as what dramaturgists call “fifth business”; in her words she not only gives thanks to God but Luke adds, like the shepherds, also immediately begins to spread the good word “to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38). (Jeffrey, Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 48)

In painting this picture of Anna, Luke has given his witness credibility. Just as Simeon’s piety give him tenability to make an important pronouncement (Luke 2:25) so does Anna’s character make her a reliable spokesperson. In someways, it is not surprising that the supergodly woman recognizes God when she sees the baby Jesus.

In doing so, Anna carries out her prophetic role. While angels announce Jesus’ coming to Zechariah (Luke 1:11), Mary (Luke 1:26) and the shepherds (Luke 2:9), Anna does so for holy city (Luke 2:38).

Are you a credible witness? Which of the details that Luke uses to describe Anna most defines her? Who do you know who is devout like Anna? Who do you know with great spiritual insight? For whose benefit is Anna’s prophecy? How do you think that her prophecy was received? Did anyone even notice? Compare and contrast Simeon and Anna; are they more alike or different? How does Anna know Jesus is the one she has been seeking?

Simeon and Anna recognize Jesus in part because they are looking for him. They live in a state of perpetual hope. The persevering elderly duo never give up. How many babies must Anna have seen in all of those decades at the temple? Yet, after all that time, she waits expectantly.

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) applauds:

Mary and Joseph needed Simeon and Anna at that moment; the old man and old woman needed them, had been waiting for them, and now thanked God for them. (Wright, Luke for Everyone, 27)

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) adds:

Simeon and Anna represented all who saw that their only hope was in the mercy and grace of God. Along with the poor carpenter and his wife and the outcast shepherds, they were flesh-and-blood examples of those to whom Christ comes. They personified the paradox of being profoundly empty and profoundly full — “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matthew 5:6). They longed for righteousness and consolation that would come only through the Messiah. They came to God’s house hungry, and they received as few others have in the history of the world...Lives like these are rare. Such longing is not in vogue today. (Hughes, Luke (Volume 1): That You May Know the Truth (Preaching the Word), 95)

Waiting is often one of the marks of the faithful. Henri J.M. Nouwen (1932-1996) notes, “Waiting...became the attitude of only the remnant of Israel, of that small group of Israelites that had remained faithful (Nouwen, Finding My Way Home: Pathways to Life and the Spirit, 95).”

Simeon and Anna are emblematic of the patient faithful. Like today, though the remnant may have dwindled, people are still expecting the Messiah to come.

Is anticipation a necessary component of faith? What, if anything, are you currently anticipating? Do we long for Jesus as Anna does?

“We possess the past by memory and the future by anticipation” - Paul Tillich (1886-1965), The Shaking of the Foundations, p. 35