“From Efrayim came those rooted in ‘Amalek.
Behind you, Binyamin is with your peoples.”
-Judges 5:14
Verse 14 presents us with a serious head-scratching problem.
It says that Ephraim came to join the battle against the Canaanites, but they were “rooted in Amalek”.
What the heck?!?!?!
Why is this a problem?
Because the Lord swore to utterly wipe the Amalekites off the face of the earth.
Check out this verse from Exodus.
“Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.'”-Exodus 17:14
Or this one from 1 Samuel.
“Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”-1 Samuel 15:3
So what gives here since this doesn’t appear to be a negative statement at all?
We know for a fact that Ephraim doesn’t have any genetic or national connections to Amalek.
We also know with even more certainty that Amalek is an age-old enemy of Israel who is marked for complete and utter destruction when Messiah returns.
So what in the world does this verse mean when it says the tribe of Ephraim was rooted in Amalek?
Well, over the centuries, there have been a couple of opinions offered up and to be honest, they’re all pretty good.
One opinion is that Amalek should have been written Emek.
So what we have here is a tiny copyist error.
Emek means valley and this would actually make sense because Ephraim was indeed living in the valleys.
However, let’s see what some of the most prominent Jewish sages in history have to say about this.
Let’s go to Rashi.
And by the way, If you don’t know who he is, you should.
Because he’s only the most widely read Jewish Bible commentator in the history of mankind.
He says, “rooted IN Amalek” should actually be translated as “rooted AGAINST Amalek”.
Obviously, contextually speaking, that would make a lot more sense.
Let’s take a look at what another prominent Rabbi had to say.
I go now to Dr. Rabbi Yishai Kiel.
He was a scholar of Jewish law and religion in the ancient and early medieval periods and interestingly once served as a lecturer in the Religious Studies Department at Yale University.
So Kiel says the translation of “rooted in Amalek” is perfectly fine the way it is.
Because when we consider the fact that during Israel’s conquest of Canaan, Ephraim succeeded in taking away much territory from the Amalekites, it makes perfect sense.
In other words, the territory where Ephraim now lived used to be Amalek territory.
So in a sense, yeah, Ephraim was “rooted in Amalek” or “rooted in former Amalek” if you want to get more technical about it.
So which opinion is correct?
Personally, I think we can strike the first one about there being a copyist error from “Amalek” to “Emek” (but darn still plausible if you think about it).
You know, I would go with Kiel on this one (and I’m not being dogmatic, so calm down man).
Because I just think it makes more sense when you think about WHEN this was written and how people thought about territorial holdings in those days.
But one thing I can say for sure is there is absolutely NO WAY IN HELL this means Ephraim was supporting or being supported by Amalek, who was a sworn enemy of Israel.
And for sure, Ephraim has ZERO national or ethnic connection to Amalek.
Finally, since both Joshua and Devorah belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, it’s pretty clear why they’re mentioned first in the list of tribes here.
Over and out homies.
Good food for thought. Thanks sir
Thank you!