Wordplay in the Old Testament

Wordplay in the Old Testament

The Old Testament frequently uses wordplay to communicate its message.
The Old Testament frequently uses wordplay to communicate its message.

A good wordplay catches the eye and often communicates an effective message with wit and humor. The names of companies such as “Cane and Able Mobility Healthcare,” or “Curl Up and Dye,” the name of a beauty salon in London, capture people’s attention, while at the same time effectively communicating what their business is about. This particular type of wordplay is known as paronomasia. Puns are also favorite devices for communicating ideas with wit and humor. Among the better known puns, at least among musicians, is Douglas Adams’s statement, “You can tune a guitar, but you can’t tuna fish. Unless of course, you play bass.” For those of a more philosophical bent, Oscar Wilde once quipped, “Immanuel doesn’t pun, he Kant.”

The Use of Wordplay in Samson’s Riddle

Samson's riddle which involves honey in the carcass of a lion, uses wordplay.
Samson’s riddle which involves honey in the carcass of a lion, uses wordplay.

Some may not be aware that the Old Testament is also filled with various kinds of wordplay. Of course the wordplay occurs in Hebrew and, therefore, it is not usually possible to communicate it in our English Bibles, but translators give it their best shot when possible. For example, Samson’s riddle to his wedding guests in Judges 14:14, comes through quite well in most English translations. Based on his exploit of killing a lion and later discovering honey in its carcass, which he proceeds to eat, Samson poses the following riddle: “From-the-eater out-came eat[s] and from-the-strong out-came sweet[s]” (translation from Daniel Block, Judges, New American Commentary, p. 433). Although the Hebrew version of the riddle doesn’t rhyme (as Block’s and other English translations do), Samson does use assonance (the use of similar vowel sounds), alliteration (the use of same sounding consonants), and word repetition.

Fun With Names: Paronomasia in the Book of Judges

The land of Cushan Rishathaim
The land of Cushan Rishathaim

Although the Book of Judges is not the only book in the Old Testament to play with people’s names, it does have some particularly amusing examples of paronomasia. One of these is found in Judges 3:8, 10. In this short story the Israelite judge, Othniel, battles Cushan Rishathaim from Aram Naharaim. Even in English we can pick up the obvious rhyme between Rishathaim and Naharaim. The NKJV spoils this rhyme by translating Aram Naharaim (which means “Aram/Syria between the 2 rivers”) as Mesopotamia. Besides the obvious rhyme which is a lot of fun to say (try repeating “Cushan Rishathaim from Aram Naharaim” about 5 times!), the name Cushan Rishathaim also is a clever wordplay. The word “Rishathaim” means “doubly wicked.” Cushan may also mean “dark,” and so Cushan Rishathaim means, “the dark doubly wicked one!” Clearly this is not the name that Cushan’s parents gave him! Rather, it is a clever twisting or substituting of vowels to produce a pun that mocks their adversary. The Israelites, and their later Jewish descendants, were famous for making a pun on a name simply by changing a vowel or two. Such a device is similar to modern political cartoons that poke fun at a rival by exagerrating some characteristic of their opponent. Another example of this can be found in Judges 9 when a man named Gaal Ben Ebed strolls into the city of Shechem. Gaal Ben Ebed means “Loathesome son of a slave,” hardly the man’s real name. In cases like this, we will never know the real name of the individual, but we can take an educated guess. For example, by changing a couple of vowels, Gaal becomes “Goel” which means “redeemer.” Were the Israelites making fun of this man whose name may have meant “Redeemer” by calling him “Loathesome?” Remember that when writing ancient Hebrew (much like modern Hebrew) only consonants were used. Therefore, Gaal and Goel would look the same when written out. These examples demonstrate that making fun of a person’s name is not a modern phenomenon, it is a human phenomenon dating back many millennia. While these name changes are not easily detected in English, a good Bible commentary will help identify this use of wordplay.

Words That Look and/or Sound the Same


The technical terms for this kind of wordplay are homographs (words that look the same–“graph” meaning “to write”), homophones (words that sound the same but are spelt differently) and homonyms (words that look and/or sound the same but have different meanings–e.g., “right” and “write”). The prophets were well-known for using this type of wordplay. For example, when Jeremiah was called to be a prophet God says to him in Jeremiah 1:11, “What do you see Jeremiah?” The young prophet responds, “I see a branch of an almond tree.” The Lord responds, “I am watching over my word to perform it” (Jer. 1:12). In Hebrew the word for almond tree is shaqed, while the word for watching is shoqed. Since the almond tree was the first tree to bud in spring, the point of the wordplay is that God’s word will soon come to pass. Once again, only a good commentary will help the English reader, since this wordplay is not obvious in English. In this case, the words are homographs–they look the same–but they are pronounced slightly differently.

Eli the heavy high priest who did not honor the Lord.
Eli the heavy high priest who did not honor the Lord.

My favorite wordplay of this kind occurs in the story of Eli found in 1 Samuel chapters 1-4. We are told on two occasions that Eli has a weight problem. In 1 Samuel 2:29 the Lord accuses Eli and his sons of making themselves “fat with the best of all the offerings of Israel.” Later when Eli dies, the narrator tells us that Eli broke his neck when he fell backwards off his seat because he was old and heavy. The word heavy in Hebrew is kabed. It is from the same root as the Hebrew word for honor which is kabod. The story of Eli emphasizes that he has not honored the Lord (1 Sam. 2:30). Eli’s heaviness is directly related to the lack of honor that he has shown for God because it is his consumption of the stolen meat from the sacrifices that has contributed to his weight problem. The wordplay between kabed and kabod emphasizes the correspondence between the stolen sacrificial meat and the lack of honor given to God. But there is still more to this story. The word kabod which means honor, can also be translated glory in English. After Eli’s death, his daughter-in-law gives birth to a child that she names Ichabod (notice the word chabod, or kabod–it can be spelt either wayin this name). Ichabod means either “no glory,” or “where is the glory?” The child is named Ichabod because, as Eli’s daughter-in-law states, “the glory has departed from Israel” (1 Sam. 4:21-22). When we follow the wordplay through, we come to realize that the story is telling us that because Eli made himself heavy (kabed) and did not honor (kabod) the Lord, the glory (kabod) departed from Israel. I explore this wordplay in more depth in my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel.

These are just a few examples of the different ways that the Old Testament uses wordplay. The discovery of wordplay in the Old Testament not only enhances our appreciation for its artistry, more importantly, it helps us to connect with the theology and messages in the biblical text that we might otherwise overlook. For those of you who enjoy a good wordplay, I would love for you to share some of your favorites from the Bible in the comment section below.

29 thoughts on “Wordplay in the Old Testament”

  1. I don’t know if this qualifies as a pun, but I was studying the temptation of Christ in the wilderness where Satan dares Christ to jump off the pinnacle of the temple, “For it is written, ‘He will command His angels concerning you;’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up…” (Matthew 4:5-6). Jesus replies, “On the other hand, it is written,’You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'” I wondered if that was coincidence, or if Jesus was displaying a hint of a sense of humor by answering in this way. It’s not exactly a time for humor, but could be part of Jesus’ display of superiority over Satan’s misuse of the Word. That is why I googled Biblical punditry and found your website!

    1. Hi Debbie,

      Sorry it has taken me awhile to respond. Thanks so much for your comment and I’m glad you found the post interesting. With regard to your question in Matthew 4:5-6. The “hand” pun works in English perhaps but it doesn’t work in the original Greek. “On the other hand” is simply an English idiom used by the translators of whatever English version you are quoting. The word “hands” does appear in the Greek in Satan’s quote of Ps. 91:12. But Jesus does not use the word “hand” in his reply. Thanks again for you comment. God bless!

  2. My favorite is from the story of Babel. Bricks are “lbn.” (11:3) The people are making bricks to build a tower. So, God says, “Let us confuse their language.” Confuse is “bll” but in cohortative, it is “nbl.” (11:7) “lbn” – “nbl.” God is turning their bricks into confusion. In a story about the scrambling of language, there is an example of the very letters of words being scrambled to come to a new meaning.

    1. That is definitely a great one Micah. One that can only be seen in Hebrew. I love sharing it with my Genesis students. Thanks for sharing it with the readers here!

  3. There is an interesting wordplay around the life of Joseph (YOSePh), adding/more (YaSaPh), silver (KaSaPh), coat of many colors (PaSIM) in Genesis 37. Plus on the biblewheel pattern Genesis 37 is 15+22=37the 15th letter is Samech, which is present in these words.

    1. Thanks for pointing out the wordplays Greg. I’m not so sure about the Genesis 37 part however, since Bible chapters were not a part of the original text. The Bible was first divided into chapters in the 13th century.

  4. I am working through 1 Sam 18 this week and was wondering you could help me out with something. 1st there is a cool chiastic structure (20-26) with the middle points being in verse 22-24. Saul sends a message to David (22,23) and the David sends a message to Saul (23,24). Then David uses a word play “little thing”(הַֽנְקַלָּ֤ה) and “no reputation”(וְנִקְלֶֽה).

    Is David playing on words to point to his humility and humble origins. And since it is in the middle of the chiastic structure, would it be fair to say that David’s humility is a big idea that is being pointed out?

    1. Hi Tim,

      Great question and observation! In doing a little research on these verses I noticed that Ronald Youngblood in his commentary on 1&2 Samuel in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary also notes a chiastic structure here, as well as a wordplay on “light thing” and “humble”. As you may be aware, these 2 words are from different roots קלל and קלה respectively. There is definitely a wordplay going on and I do agree that since it occurs in the middle of the chiastic structure it is certainly being highlighted. In case you haven’t read Youngblood’s comments, he also notes the irony in the use of “pleased” (right in one’s eyes). Saul is “pleased” because he thinks this is a way to get rid of David and David is “pleased” because this is a payment he believes he can make.
      Thanks for reading my article and thanks again for the good insight and question!

  5. I came here because I’m debating an atheist who claims that Matthew 2:23 is speaking of a prophecy concerning Nazareth that was never made in the OT. I shared “Got Questions” analysis of the the meaning of “Nazareth” and how it could have fulfilled a prophecy:

    “Three major options exist for interpreting this verse. First, it may be that Matthew is associating the word Nazarene with the Hebrew word netser (“branch or sprout”). The “Branch” was a common term for the Messiah, such as in Isaiah 11:1: “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.” Hebrew was written with only consonants, and netser would have appeared as NZR—the same main consonants as Nazareth. In fact, in Aramaic, the common language of Jesus’ day, the word for “Nazareth” and the Hebrew word for “branch” sounded very much alike. Matthew’s point could be that Jesus was “sprouting up” from an obscure village in Galilee; Jesus was the Branch predicted by the prophets, and the name of the town He grew up in happens to sound just like the prophets’ word for “branch.””

    His response:

    “The points you are failing to recognise are:
    1. there is no connection between the origin of the Hebrew word for branch and the city/town/village /hamlet named Nazareth.
    2. There is no prophecy that suggests a Messiah would arise from Nazareth.
    Matthew was writing fiction.”

    This led me to think of other times the scriptures used plays on words. I think the Eli analysis is a great example. Thank you for taking the time to write this article!

    1. You’re very welcome Diana! Thank you for the kind words and information on Matthew 2:23. May God continue to bless you as you share His truth with others!

  6. I like the way Samuel is asking Saul why he is hearing sheep in 1Samuel 15: 14: u mè qol hatson hazè? You are hearing the sheep in Samuel´s question: mè and zè.

      1. It is not the Old Testament, but this one you cannot miss.
        If you realize that Eutychus means Lucky this well known story (Acts 20: 7-12, NIV) gets some fine divine humour:

        On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting. Seated in a window was a young man named Lucky, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “He’s alive!” Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left. The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted.

  7. In Zechariah 1: 12-15 we find an interesting dialogue

    Then the angel of Yahweh said, “Yahweh of the Heavenly Armies, how long will you
    withhold mercy from Jerusalem and from the towns of Judah, which you have been angry
    with these seventy years?” So Yahweh spoke good and comforting words to the angel
    who talked with me.
    Then the angel who was speaking to me said, “Proclaim this word: This is what
    Yahweh of the Heavenly Armies says: ‘I am very jealous for Jerusalem and Zion, and I
    am very angry with the nations that feel secure. I was only a little angry, but they went too
    far with the punishment.’

    God’s reaction to the question is remarkable. He answers with “good words, comforting words”, in Hebrew devarim tovim, devarim nichumim.
    Nichumim (comforting) comes from the same stem as Nahum (Nachum, Comfort).
    So you can translate also with “good words, Nahum-ic words”.

    What are the first good words, Nahumic words in God’s answer?
    I am very jealous for Jerusalem and Zion,
    and I am very angry with the nations that feel secure.

    What are the first words of the prophesies of Nahum?
    Yahweh is a jealous and avenging God;
    Yahweh takes vengeance and is filled with wrath.
    Yahweh takes vengeance on his foes
    and vents his wrath against his enemies

    So God is speaking Nahumic words indeed! Of course we still have to understand
    “comforting words” at the same time. That is normal if you find a wordplay.
    Is good or good words also used by Nahum? Yes.
    He says (Nahum 1: 15)
    Look, there on the mountains,
    the feet of one who brings good news,
    who proclaims peace!

    Zechariah brings a message of good words, Nahumic words to the people. So he is one
    who brings good news. The message of Nahum was against Assyria. In the time of
    Zechariah Assyria did not exist any more as a great empire. God is repeating his message. So the enemies in the time of Zechariah will disappear like Assyria. But the message remains Nahumic. So Zechariah can be seen as the one who brings good news.

    And Zechariah is standing on the mountains.
    We read (Zechaiah 1: 8)
    During the night I had a vision, and there before me was a man mounted on a red horse. He was standing among the myrtle trees in a ravine.

    The scene with the horses, the spies and the Angel of Yahweh was taking place in a valley.
    So Zechariah was looking from the mountains.

    A remarkable wordplay on comforting. Here it functions as a hint to look at the prophesies of Nahum in order to find several extra’s in the explanation.

    You can find more about the beginning of the book of Zechariah and you can find how those prophesies are an answer to the Lamentations in my article

    1. Always appreciate your insightful comments Arie. I look forward to reading your article!

  8. One very interesting pun uses a homophone in Job 13:15. The entire book of Job is an argument over whether Job will accept God’s action with piety or curse Him for the tribulations Job must endure. The pun here is over the word Lo meaning “No” and Lh (pronounced the same as Lo…) meaning “to/in him” and the word for hope or trust… the classic rendering is “Yea, though He slay me I will trust “in Him”, versus “Even if He kills me, I have “no hope”. (this is a Kitib/Qere or a written vs read pun…). Which plays directly into the argument between God and Satan. Satan can point out Job saying he’s hopeless because of God, but God can say Look Job is trusting in me!

  9. The Hebrew word translated “God” is Elohim (H430); which is also translated “gods” throughout the Hebrew canon (Ex.12:12,18:11), this is because Elohim is a plural noun. But always in all scripture, when Elohim is used for the God of Israel, it is used in a grammatical singular sense, because it governs the singular verb and adjective, speaking of one, this is the simple interpretational key to determining its use when refencing the God of Israel, and any other would be a clear perversion to one of the most fundamental rules of hermeneutics (interpreting it differently than its use in every other occurrence, to satisfy one’s own theological understanding)

    In Gen.1:26, elohim is being used in its natural plural sense, by the plural verb “let us make”, and the possessive pronoun “our”. In every other occurrence where elohim is used with the plural verb it is not used for the GOD of the bible. So why read GOD into this scripture? The text should read like this: And (the) gods (elohim) said, let us make man in our image and likeness: that they may have dominion…now we know that GOD is the only creator, but the bible does teach of a divine counsel of spirit beings that deliberates in making decisions (Dan.4:17); but nowhere in scripture does it teach that the elohim, or angles share God’s image; while they are refenced as His sons (Job.38:7), nowhere do they bear the title “image”. The word does however teach that from among this divine counsel some have rebelled. So what is taking place in Gen.1:26, are the rebellious elohim of the divine counsel, that are making the wicked suggestion that man be made in their image and likeness (1King.22:19-22; Ps.82;86.8); that’s why the serpent later tempts them with the temptation, “you will be like the elohim (the gods)”.

    From this verse on it is the LORD God, not just Elohim (in order to make a distinction to the reader), that speaks to these (spirit beings) elohim (Gen.3:22;11:6-7; Isa.6.8); as the Most High Elohim of the divine counsel (Ps.89:5-8). Showing that God is not the one that is speaking in Gen.1.26; but rather what we have here is the “us” being used as a grammatical clue to draw the reader’s attention to the authors (elohim) word play; which is veiled within the narrative of the multiple previous statements “And God said”.

    And in response to their suggestion, it says “God made man in His own image” (not theirs), this seems to be the reason for the little poem of repetition that is in (Gen.1:27) in order catch the reader’s attention on what is taking place in these verses (meditation literature).

    The close context clues of verses 14-18 give further support as this being the meaning, where the hosts of heaven (sun, moon, stars, spirit beings are referred to as stars throughout the scripture,Ps.148:1-3; Jud.5:20; Dan.8:10; Amos.5:26; Job.38:7; Rev.12:4,9) are given rule over the day and night, and assigned with separating the light from the dark as God did in v.4 (delegated authority); which in ancient near eastern cosmology, the sun, moon, and stars are metaphorically used for the (elohim) gods. Who were believed to maintain the function of the cosmos. They wanted man to rule over earth in their image (instead of God’s image), as they (the elohim) ruled in the heavens, they wanted the glory and worship (Deut.4.19).

    Further evidence is clearly seen in Ps.8; which quotes Gen.1.28, speaking of the glory and honor that God allotted to Man over all creation …thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; Thou has put all things under his feet; all sheep and oxen…Ps.8:6-8.

    Paul’s refence to Christs exaltation in Eph.1:22 quotes Ps.8 “And hath put all things under his feet” He describes these “all things” as the principalities, powers, mights and dominions; Eph.6.12 describes them as the rulers of darkness of this world, as the evil spirits in the heavens.

    Well where does it mention in Ps.8, that evil heavenly ruling spirits would be included in these “all things” that are to be placed under Mans feet?

    In Ps.8:3 “When I consider the work of your fingers the moon and the stars which you have ordained” it does not mention the Sun, but rather the moon and stars, which in Gen.1.14-18 where given dominion over the night (the rulers of darkness, Eph.6:12; Col.1:13).

    Then in Ps.8:5 “For you made him a little lower than the elohim”; now remember that the moon and stars in Ps.8:3 are the works of Gods fingers, then it says Man will be given dominion over the works of God’s hands(this is to draw the reader’s attention to what was previously mentioned as being the works of Gods fingers, the moon and stars, which are included in the works of God’s hands), that have been placed beneath His feet, to which Paul interprets as being the evil spirits that have been placed beneath the feet of Christ; Man was made a little lower than the elohim (which the moon and stars that the psalmist was considering are meant to represent), but Man as God’s image has now been exulted above them, above the evil spirits in the heavens (Eph.1.20-23;Col.1:15-16).

    1. Hi Antonio,
      Thank you for taking the time to lay out your view on Gen. 1:26-28. Anyone who investigates my site knows that I owe a huge debt to the late Michael Heiser (RIP dear brother) for opening my eyes to many of the Bible’s teachings on the Divine Realm. So I agree with many of your observations. You have certainly studied and thought through your conclusions. The one area I have a disagreement with is seeing ‘elohim in Genesis 1:26 as referring to the Divine Council members. While it is true that the members of the heavenly court are never said to be created in God’s image, the fact is that we do not have an account about their creation. I would ask, if they’re not created in God’s image, then whose image could they possibly have been created in?

      Given the fact, that the Creation account is all about God’s (Elohim’s) desire to create and give life–especially the creation of humans which the whole account is building toward–it would seem very strange for the first suggestion of creating Man to come from the Divine Counsel. This just seems to go against the intent of the story. Your grammatical observations above are correct, but in this case it seems to me that when God says, “Let us make Man in Our image,” He is speaking to the Divine Council. This infers that the heavenly beings are made in God’s image. However, the account goes on to clarify that Man was created in the image of God by returning to the singular, so that a distinction is made between Man and the heavenly beings.

      Thanks again for your input. God bless!

      1. First thank you brother for your response and valid questions.

        The elohim figured by the hosts of heaven, are said to be symbols, and signs, reflectors of the glory of God (Gen.1:14, H226).

        The “image” is a title and vocation, its meaning is peculiar to all creation, this is seen in Christ and the glory that we share with Him as His Body (Col.1:15-18; 310; Eph.1:11-14; 20-23;4:24).

        The “image” in God’s word along with the ancient near eastern cultural context, has the function of interceding between God and creation (this is seen in Hebrew word used for priestly service of Adams vocation,
        ). It is also what the god would rule through, as the image would be established in the different concord new territories (seen in the words have dominion, and subdue Adams kingly rule of Adams vocation, H3533 cp.Num.32:22,29).

        Adam was also to spread the word to his offspring as well as proclaim the truth of God to Eve warning here of the serpent’s lie (the role of prophet) these three offices are summed up in the vocation of the image, which is also closely connected to the preeminent firstborn motif.

        What we have in Gen.1:26 is God establishing order over his victory over the powers of chaos (Ps.74:13-14: 89:9-10; 104:7), to which God through His image planned to spread and maintain. so, the conflict motif is found in the creation account along with the mighty men of old, along with all ancient cultures of these semi divine sons of the gods, all the way to revelation Satan is trying to establish an image he can be worshiped through so i see my view of Gen 1:26 to harmonize with the conflict motif.

        I have a question, would my view on how the author use of Elohim be considered a word play, or can you think of any other similar examples?

        1. Hi Tony,

          Thanks for your reply. I would suggest if your interpretation is correct that it would be more of a “thought play” than a word play, since it is the same word with two different meanings. I’ll give more consideration to your answer in my studies.
          God bless!

  10. Do you know of any scriptures where a thought play is used with one word and grammar clues.
    Basically can you think of any that are close or the same as the example I gave. I am just trying to figure out if what I am claiming the text is doing is a technique found elsewhere?

    1. I’m confident that I’ve come across one or two in my reading and study. Unfortunately, right now, none come to mind. If I should come across one in the future, I’ll let you know.

  11. When an author was let’s say referring to David, but the fulfillment could only be fulfilled in the Messiha, could this be considered be a thought play?

    1. I think of a thought play (and the same with a word play) as more intentional by the author. Your suggestion might better fall under the category of typology.

  12. I think the many times Bethel (‘house of God’) is referred to as Beth-Aven (‘house of worthlessness/wickedness’) in Hosea and Amos when indicting the Northern Kingdom’s false worship would certainly fall into this category.

    One that really helped that I remember from Hebrew class was the use of שׁם (as ‘name’/’there’/’Shem’) in Genesis 10-11 as a key clue in interpreting the Babel account and why it was inserted where it was in the middle of the Noahic descedants, plus as a natural lead-in to 12:2.

    The names in Ruth also stick out as notable examples.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.