Living up to Barnabas (Acts 4:36)

What was Barnabas’ original name? Joseph (Acts 4:36)

In a summary statement at the conclusion of its fourth chapter, Acts communicates how the earliest Christians are in one accord and share their possessions (Acts 4:32-35). The book then offers a brief concrete example in the form of a Cyprian Levite named Joseph whom the apostles dub Barnabas (Acts 4:36-37).

Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (Acts 4:36-37 NASB)

Barnabas liquidates his assets and donates the funds to the apostles (Acts 4:37). Even though Barnabas’ act matches the community description (Acts 4:32-35), his is still an exceptional gesture, an exemplar of Christian generosity. The notation also functions as a segue as Barnabas’ model behavior contrasts sharply with the duplicity of Ananias and Sapphira that immediately follows (Acts 5:1-11).

The apostles affectionately bestow Joseph with the added cognomen Barnabas (Acts 4:36). David J. Williams (1933-2008) records:

Literally, “Joseph who was called Barnabas from the apostles.” The preposition “from” used in the sense of “by” is odd but not without precedent. Luke employs it in this sense in Acts 2:22. Arnold Ehrhardt [1903-1965]’s suggestion that he was called “Barnabas of the apostles,” having purchased from them his right to this office is hardly convincing. (Williams, Acts (New International Biblical Commentary), 95)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) interprets:

His introduction at precisely this point in the narrative is not accidental...In the biblical idiom, the giving of a name to others signifies having authority over them (see e.g., Genesis 2:19, 17:5, 19:39, 25:26, 36; also Joseph and Aseneth 15:7). Barnabas is therefore shown to be doubly submissive to the apostles: he receives a new name from them and lays his possessions at their feet. (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 87)

The apostles may have felt the need to give the Cyprian disciple a nickname to distinguish him from Joseph Barsabbas (Acts 1:23). Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) considers:

Joseph is a very common name, which may explain why the apostles called him Barnabas. It is also not unusual for a person to bear two names (e.g., Saul, Paul; Peter, Simon). The meaning of the less-common name, “son of encouragement” (υἱὸς παρακλήσεως, huois parakleseos) well summarizes the way Barnabas will function in the book, as he will embrace Paul’s conversion, minister with him, and be an evangelist. (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 216)

The name Barnabas sticks as Acts never again refers to Joseph.

Acts glosses the sobriquet for the reader, noting that Barnabas means son of “encouragement” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “comfort” (MSG), “consolation” (KJV) or “exhortation” (ASV). The Greek employed is paráklesis.

Douglas A. Hume (b. 1969) informs:

ρακαλέω means literally “calling to one’s side.” Barnabas is repeatedly portrayed as metaphorically “calling to his side” characters who, like Paul before the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 9:28), need his advocacy to gain acceptance with others or, like the church in Antioch (Acts 11:23), need encouragement to grow in new found faith. (Hume, The Early Christian Community: A Narrative Analysis of Acts 2:41-47 and 4:32-35, 141)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) comments:

The term παρακλησεως refers to some sort of speech activity, and to judge from Luke’s use elsewhere (cf. Luke 5:34, 10:6, 16:8, 20:34, 36 and, especially of Barnabas, Acts 11:23) the translation “encouragement” can be argued to have the edge...Since Luke does indeed have a concern to portray Barnabas not just as an encourager but perhaps even more as a preacher and missionary, on the whole the translation “son of exhortation” (=preacher) seems preferable. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 209)

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) and Martin M. Culy (b. 1963) counter:

It is unclear whether this term refers to “encouragement” (cf. Philippians 2:1) or “exhortation” (II Corinthians 8:4). In the latter case, the description “son of exhortation” would probably indicate that Barnabas was a noted preacher...Such a view, however, does not seem consistent with the fact that Paul was the primary speaker when he and Barnabas worked as a team (Acts 14:12). (Parsons and Culy, Acts: A Handbook on the Greek Text, 84)

John Phillips (b. 1927) embraces the ambiguity:

The name means either Son of Consolation, which would indicate something of the man’s grace, or it means Son of Exhortation, which would indicate something of this man’s gift—he had the gift of prophecy. Perhaps the vagueness is deliberate. From what we learn later of this man, he was both a son of consolation and a son of exhortation. Grace and gift were well wedded in his soul. (Phillips, Exploring Acts: An Expository Commentary, 92)

It is fortunate that Acts supplies the name’s meaning as it is doubtful that this particular interpretation would have been derived otherwise. Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) and Richard I. Pervo (b. 1942) evaluate:

The narrator of Acts translates the names of characters as a means of identifying them. This technique conforms to Greek practice, and the fact that the Third Gospel does not employ it is another point of differentiation...In Acts, the narrator is willing to exploit this technique...The narrator glosses “Barnabas” as “Son of encouragement” (=“one who encourages,” Acts 4:36). In actual fact this is wrong. (Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts, 69)

Acts’ translation is faulty on strictly linguistic grounds. While bar unequivocally means “son”, the second part of the compound is problematic. There is no decisive explanation as to its etymology.

Bernd Kollmann (b. 1959) acknowledges:

Etymologically the name Barnabas, unknown outside the New Testament, presents considerable problems, including its purported definition, “son of encouragement.” While bar is obviously traceable to the Aramaic...son...it is unclear from which Semitic word the second part of the name, nabas, derives. Barnabas is occasionally considered a version of Bar nebuah (“son of prophecy”), but this is not synonymous with “son of encouragement.” (Kollmann, Joseph Barnabas: His Life and Legacy, 13)

C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) researches:

It is not...clear how this meaning is to be derived from the name Barnabas. The simplest suggestion is that ‘ναβας’ is derived from the name א’בנ (son of a prophet or from אחא’בנ (or אחאו’בנ), son of prophecy, inspiration. This may well have been in Luke’s mind, or perhaps in the mind of the apostles...It is however a piece of popular rather than scientific etymology; this makes it no less probable as a popular opinion. The name is familiar in Palmyrene inscriptions (see H.J. Cadbury, [1883-1974] in FS J. Rendel Harris [1852-1941], 47f., and on the whole question Sebastian P. Brock [b. 1938] in JTS 25 (1974) 93-8)...and there seems to be little doubt that there it was originally Bar nebo, Son of Nebo (the Babylonian god). One may be confident that the apostles did not rename Joseph in this sense, and Brock...suggests that ‘Luke analysed Βαρναβας as br + nby’ (nbayya) meaning, “Son of Comfort”...A further suggestion with little to commend it is that ‘ναβας’ may be derived from נוחא, consolation; it is not clear that this word exists in Aramaic (it is not to be found in the dictionaries of Marcus Jastrow [1829-1903] and of Gustaf Dalman [1855-1941]), or how, if it does, it could give rise to the Greek letters in question. A more important observation is that Son of consolation, or comfort, could well be the meaning of the name Manaen (Acts 13:1) which is derived from the Hebrew name Menahem...Manaen shares with Barnabas a connection with Antioch; is it possible that there has been confusion between the two men? This is not impossible but can be nothing but a guess. (Barrett, Acts 1-14 (International Critical Commentary), 259)

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

“Barnabas” might be the adaptation of a form like Palmyrene Bar-Nebo (cf. G.A. Deissman [1866-1937], Bible Studies, E.T. [Edinburgh, 1909], p. 188); another suggestion is that it represents Aram. bar newāhā’ (literally, “son of soothing”); cf. August Klostermann [1837-1915], Probleme im Aposteltexte (Gotha 1883), pp. 8-14. See Theodor Zahn [1838-1933], Die Apostelgeschichte des Lucas pp. 183-88; Sebastian P. Brock [b. 1938], ΒΑΡΝΑΒΑΣ...JTS N.S. 25 (1974) pp. 93-98. (Bruce, The Book of the Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 101)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) reasons:

The name may be closer to a nickname. Barnabas can be seen as a “son of a prophet,” whose function is given encouragement (Alfons Weiser [b. 1934] 1981: 138). The origin of the name is disputed. A literal rendering of the name is said by some to be “son of Nebo” (e.g., Hans Conzelmann [1915-1989] 1987:36, who says Luke is simply incorrect). On the other hand, a popular wordplay can be at work here, as often is the case in the giving of names. Such a nickname rooted in a wordplay on nabi’ would make the name’s sense “son of a prophet” (that is, a prophet, on analogy with the phrase “son of man,” meaning a human being. By extension, then, the name refers to what the prophet does by way of encouragement...Which option is likely? Against “son of Nebo” is the unlikelihood that a Jewish Levite would carry the name of a Babylonian god, which is what Nebo is (Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975] 1987: 232n2). Haenchen (1987: 232n1) rejects the connection to “son of prophet” as not possible because this expression does not equal “son of consolation.” But this ignores the connection between the prophet, what he does, and the likely wordplay nature of the name. Sebastian P. Brock [b. 1938] (1974) appeals to Syriac and the more direct idea of a “son of comfort,” which also is possible although not without linguistic obstacles of its own. Joseph A. Fitzmyer [b. 1920] (1998:321)...rejects any connection to “son of a prophet” or any other alternative, offering no elucidation of the explanation given in Acts 4:36 for the name (also John B. Polhill [b. 1939] 1992:154n80). He regards the connection simply as problematic. One wonders, however, if nicknames hold to firm linguistic rules, so that the etymology may well be a wordplay rooted in Barnabas’s prophetic function or in his established role as a comforter. (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 217)

In this instance, the scientific etymology is far less significant than the intended meaning which Acts provides. Anthony B. Robinson (b. 1948) and Robert W. Wall (b. 1947) determine:

Even though Barnabas does not literally mean “son of encouragement,” Luke’s purpose is to stipulate the subtext of Joseph’s name change to Barnabas: according to Scripture, name changes indicate God’s favor (Matthew 16:17-20). (Robinson and Wall, Called to Be Church: The Book of Acts for a New Day, 75)

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) concludes:

That the apostles have given this name is another indication that Barnabas has submitted himself to the authority of the apostles. Peter is the only other apostle to receive a new name, and his is given by Jesus. The name itself is also interesting, or more specifically the translation that the narrator provides for this name, son of encouragement (Acts 4:36b; on the rhetorical figure of appositio [Quintilian [35-100], Institutio Oratoria 8.6.40-43])...The significance lies less in the etymology of the aramaic bar-anaba than in the role Barnabas will play later in the story. Here is an interesting character study; the same spirit of submission and liberality—“of encouragement”—is seen throughout the subsequent scenes in which Barnabas appears. (Parsons, Acts (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 74)

Regardless of how his name is contrived, Barnabas, is without a doubt a “son of encouragement.”

Who would you put forward as an exemplar of the values that your community stresses? What is a child of encouragement? If you had to apply this moniker to one person you know, who would it be? Who has given you a nickname? Did it suit you?

Barnabas will become a major player in Acts’ narrative, including becoming Paul’s first missionary partner (Acts 11:19-30). Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) probes:

He is referred twenty-three times in the book (Acts 4:36-37, 9:27; in Antioch: Acts 11:22, 29-30, 12:25-13:2; in mission with Paul: Acts 13:7, 43, 46, 50, 14:11-12, 14-15, 20; at the Jerusalem Council: Acts 15:2, 12, 22-26, 35-40). Barnabas will be well qualified for a mission to Gentiles, since he came from one of these Gentile areas. Part of the function of the unit is to introduce him to Luke’s audience. He surely is one of Luke’s heroes. (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 216)

Introducing a future member of the full-time cast with a cameo appearance is characteristic of Acts. Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1934) notifies:

In Acts 4:36-37 a certain Joseph Barnabas is introduced as a concrete illustration of those who sold property and brought the money to the apostles for distribution. The two verses give no indication that Barnabas will later play an important role in the story. Barnabas is a first example in Acts of the tendency to introduce an important new character first as a minor character, one who appears and quickly disappears. Philip (Acts 6:5) and Saul (Acts 7:58, 8:1, 3) are similarly introduced before they assume important roles in the narrative. This procedure ties the narrative together, and in each case the introductory scene contributes something significant to the portrait of the person. (Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, Volume 2: The Acts of the Apostles, 78)

Barnabas proves to be a true son of encouragement. William J. Larkin, Jr. (b. 1945) portrays:

Luke translates the nickname for us: Son of Encouragement, that is one who habitually manifests this quality...Barnabas is a “bridge person,” bringing diverse parties together so that the cause of Christ advances and both older and newer believers are encouraged (Acts 9:27 11:22-23, 25, 15:3, 12, 15, 30-35). For Luke he embodies the fully integrated life of external witness and care for the church’s internal needs of “a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith” (Acts 11:24). (Larkin, Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary), 83-84)

Steven M. Sheeley [b. 1956] encapsulates:

Each time the reader encounters Barnabas in the narrative, Barnabas is living up to his name by encouraging or exhorting those around him.” (Sheeley, Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts, 11-13)

As such, Barnabas is the son of encouragement both by identification and characterization. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) praises:

Barnabas was named after his spiritual gift — “Son of Encouragement,” son of exhortation, son of consolation! Every mention of Barnabas in Acts pictures him as an encourager. For example, when Paul dropped poor John Mark, Barnabas came alongside and patched him up, so that he went on to live a productive Christian life [Acts 15:36–41]. (Hughes, Acts: The Church Afire (Preaching the Word), 72)

C. Peter Wagner (b. 1930) agrees:

Barnabas was an encourager. The apostles thought so highly of this man, whose original name was Joses, that they give him a nickname, Barnabas, meaning Son of Encouragement. William LaSor [1911-1991] says, “Barnabas was good at exhorting, encouraging, comforting. He must have been a wonderful man to have been given such a wonderful name!” It seems that Barnabas had a pastor’s heart and was a phlegmatic personality type; quite a contrast from Paul, with whom a significant conflict arises almost 20 years later. (Wagner, The Book of Acts: A Commentary, 107)

Encouragement is not a trait typically listed high on most people’s preferred list of skills but it defines Barnabas and through him subsequently shapes the early church.

Who do you know whose name fits them? Does yours? What organizations can you think of who live up (or down) to their names? How would Paul and the early church have been different without Barnabas’ encouragement? If you were named for your spiritual gift, what would you be called?

“Instruction does much, but encouragement everything.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), “Letter to A.F. Oeser [1717-1799], November 9, 1768)”, Early and Miscellaneous Letters of J. W. Goethe: Including Letters to His Mother, with Notes and a Short Biography, p. 27

A Tale of Two Houses (I Kings 7:1)

How many years did it take Solomon to complete work on his palace? Thirteen years (I Kings 7:1)

King Solomon ushers in unprecedented opulence as he undertakes two monumental building projects, Yahweh’s temple and his palace. Conspicuously sandwiched between accounts of the building of the temple (I Kings 6:1-38) and its furnishings (I Kings 7:13-51) is a description of Solomon’s royal complex (I Kings 7:1-12).

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) connects:

The proximity of the temple and royal palace reflects the intimate association between the Davidic king and YHWH, who is consistently portrayed with royal imagery in the ideology of the Judean state. The Davidic king is authorized to rule by the creator G-d, YHWH (II Samuel 7; Psalm 89, 110, 132, cf. Psalm 2), and the worship of YHWH is authorized by the Davidic king, who erects the sanctuary for YHWH’s honor. (Sweeney, I and II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 116)

The palace’s propinquity to the temple seems to be as close geographically as it is literarily. Philip J. King (b. 1925) and Lawrence E. Stager (b. 1943) note:

The palace appears to have been built alongside the Temple, to its south, on the acropolis. The juxtaposing of palace and temple was established by the Canaanites early in the second millennium B.C.E., probably by 2000 in North Syria (e.g., Alalakh, a Syrian city-state). (King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 203)

The discussion of Solomon’s palace begins with a notice of the project’s duration (I Kings 7:1).

Now Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house (I Kings 7:1 NASB)

Solomon’s “house” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or “palace” (CEV, HCSB, MSG, NIV, NLT) is actually comprised of multiple buildings. Marvin A. Sweeney(b. 1953) outlines:

I Kings 7:1 discusses the time taken to build the temple complex. The complex includes five buildings: the house of the forest of Lebanon (I Kings 7:2-5), the hall of columns (I Kings 7:6), the hall of the throne or the hall of justice (I Kings 7:7), and the private quarters of Solomon and the daughter of Pharaoh (I Kings 7:8). I Kings 7:9-11 discusses construction details common to these buildings, and I Kings 7:12 discusses the surrounding courtyard. (Sweeney, I and II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 116)

Burke O. Long (b. 1938) classifies I Kings 7:1-12:

The unit is a REPORT...made up of a series of brief reports dealing with specific details according to a clear schematic style. The form of the brief reports, and of the whole which is an aggregate of these parts, is clearly paralleled in priestly materials in the Old Testament. (Long, 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature (Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 89)

The palace’s architecture was typical of royals of the era. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (b. 1943) encapsulates:

Solomon’s “palace” was a complex of six structures just south of the Temple. Its layout followed the so-called bit-hilani plan, an architectural style typical of palace-complexes in northern Syria. Archaeologists have found two “palaces” of this type built by Solomon at biblical Megiddo. Basically, the design featured a series of buildings centered on a long, large assembly hall whose entry was in its broad side through a portico with pillars...I Kings 7:1-5 describe the main building, I Kings 7:6-9 the satellite structures. We cannot be certain whether all the buildings in Solomon’s palace structurally were joined to each other. In the ancient world, palace-complexes typically covered many acres, and this royal center was no exception. (Hubbard, First & Second Kings: Everyman’s Bible Commentary, 46)

Despite its grandeur no archaeological evidence of Solomon’s palace has been unearthed. August H. Konkel (b. 1948) documents:

No remains have been linked to the palace of Solomon at Jerusalem. Remains of palaces are evident in their size, layout, elaborate decorations, and contents, such as expensive furniture and state archives. The ground plans of buildings at Megiddo from Solomon’s time are similar to the palaces at Zinjirli (the ancient Aramean city of Sam’al), suggesting that this may have been the plan of the Jerusalem palace. Walls and towers surround the three palaces and storehouses; to enter the complex it was necessary to pass through two gates. Solomon develops a similar complex at Jerusalem, where the citadel encloses a number of buildings. (Konkel, 1 and 2 Kings (The NIV Application Commentary), 119)

No archaeological confirmation is needed to determine that Solomon resided in quarters fit for a king.

Why is the account of the palace inserted between details about the temple? What are the longest building projects of which you are aware? If you could build your dream house without financial restraints, what would it entail? Is the palace more a wise investment for the nation or a vanity project for its king? Is there any way in which Solomon’s palace glorifies God?

Strikingly, the note regarding the palace’s thirteen year construction (I Kings 7:1) immediately follows a formal summary statement of the building of temple which specifies that the temple took only seven years to complete (I Kings 6:38).

Alice L. Laffey (b. 1944) comments:

Whereas the final verse of chapter 6 [I Kings 6:38] functions as both a climax and a statement of completion, the narrator introduces chapter 7 with a seemingly deliberate literary contrast. Whereas it took seven years to build the house of the Lord, it takes thirteen years to build the house of a king. Although thirteen is not a number used frequently in the biblical texts, it too may be used symbolically to indicate completion (ten and three). The unusual character of the number may be a literary device that the authors use to subtly imply some inappropriateness related to the king’s palace. The fact that it takes almost twice as long to build the king’s house as it does to build the Lord’s house can imply that the king’s house was not worked on by as many builders, or with as much zeal as was the Lord’s house. Or, it could imply that the grandeur of the Lord’s house paled beside the grandeur of the king’s. If the latter is true, the text is hinting at future difficulties. (Laffey, First and Second Kings (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), 33)

Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) observes:

Chapter 7...turns attention away from the temple and unexpectedly fixes upon another of Solomon’s building projects, the palace complex. The introduction to this description, reporting that the palace complex took thirteen years to build, contrasts sharply with the conclusion to chapter 6 reporting that the temple was a seven-year project. Initial impressions might argue that the temple was this king’s priority. Thus it received most attention and was completed speedily and first. However, the brief sketch (I Kings 7:2-12) of the state buildings and the king’s own house challenges such easy assumptions. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary), 68)

The contrast between the two projects is drawn intentionally. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) asserts:

The NIV suggests the nature of the connection between I Kings 6:38 and I Kings 7:1 and the force of the transition from one to the other, but it does not fully capture it. A translation that better brings out the relationship between them, and particularly the significance of the word order, runs as follows: “He completed (khl) the temple (bayit)...he spent seven years building it (bnh). But his own house (bêtô) Solomon spent thirteen years building (bnh) and he completed (klh) the whole of his house (kol-bêtô).” There are two “houses” in view, and an emphatic contrast is made between them. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 69)

The Hebrew syntax further accentuates the disparity. John W. Olley (b. 1938) discerns:

The contrast is expressed intentionally by the chiastic Hebrew sentence structure of I Kings 6:38-7:1 (obscured by the much later chapter division and further in some Bibles by a heading; there is no paragraph division in the Masoretic Text). (Olley, The Message of Kings (Bible Speaks Today), 86)

It is possible that the two building projects were undertaken concurrently. Martin J. Mulder (1923-1994) recognizes:

The statement in our verse [I Kings 7:1], when combined with the conclusion of the previous chapter, yields the number 20, which in I Kings 9:10 is in fact the time given for the construction of the 2 ‘houses.’ But the relation between the 2 verses is hard to determine. In our opinion, Martin Noth [1902-1968] is correct when he says that the sequence of the construction: first the temple and then the palace, is improbable and that it is better to picture the construction as simultaneous. (Mulder, 1 Kings, Volume 1:1 Kings 1-11 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), 286)

Richard Nelson (b.1945) resolves:

There is a chronological distortion in that Kings understands the thirteen years of I Kings 7:1 to have come after the seven years of temple construction (I Kings 9:10). But by moving these buildings forward in time, sandwiching them between material on the temple and integrating them architecturally with the temple (I Kings 7:12), the narrator firmly subordinates these secular buildings to the house of the Lord. Both the house of the forest of Lebanon and the complex described in I Kings 7:6-8 are substantially larger than the temple, but have been effectively relegated to the status of interesting footnotes. They highlight Solomon’s glory without diminishing the wonder of the temple. (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 45)

Some have seen the relative lengths of the projects as an indictment against the king. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) accuses:

Solomon spent much more time building his own house...than he did building God’s house. This is not surprising, because just the first of its several buildings was much bigger than the temple (I Kings 7:2; cf. I Kings 6:2). The temple had quite a bit of cedar of Lebanon in it (I Kings 6:9-10, 15-16, 18, 20, 36); this building, however, is packed with so many cedars (I Kings 7:2-3, 7, 11, 12) that it is called the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon—and this for a building apparently designed only as a treasury of armory (cf. I Kings 10:17, 21; Isaiah 22:8)! The suggestion is that the king was much more concerned about his palace than about the LORD’s temple. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 69-70)

Jerome T. Wash (b. 1942) elaborates:

Since the palace complex houses the central administration of the whole empire, the issue is not a simple contrast between Yahweh’s Temple and Solomon’s private residence, as if Solomon were being accused of spending all that time on his own luxury and glory. Nonetheless, the juxtaposition of I Kings 6:38 and I Kings 7:1 invites us to infer that the governmental buildings are far more important to Solomon than the religious one. In view of the ruinous annual tariff Solomon is paying Hiram [I Kings 5:11], it is quite clear which project brings Solomon to the brink of bankruptcy. (Walsh, 1 Kings (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 106)

Backlash against Solomon has persisted for centuries. Presumably in response, Josephus (37-100) skewed his account in favor of the king. Louis H. Feldman (b. 1926) relays:

By deferring the account of the building of the palace until after the completion of his description of the dedication of the Temple, Josephus stresses the importance of the Temple and diminishes that of the palace. In I Kings 9:10 it is simply stated that it took 20 years to build the two houses, 7 years for the Temple (I Kings 6:38) and 13 years for the palace (I Kings 7:1). Josephus (Antiquities 8.30), apparently aware of the objection that Solomon devoted almost twice as much time to building his palace for his own glory as to building the Temple for the greater glory of G-d, emphasizes Solomon’s piety by adding the significant comment that the palace was not built with the same industry (ἐσπουδάζετο) with which the Temple was built. Josephus (Antiquties 8.131) adds an extra-biblical remark that the palace was much inferior in dignity (ἀξίας) to the Temple since the building materials had been prepared not so long in advance, with less expense, and was intended as a dwelling place for a king and not for G-d. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Josephus’ View of Solomon”. The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 365)

Martin J. Mulder (1923-1994) critiques:

Josephus and other Jewish commentators have attempted to explain the ‘offensiveness’ of this longer duration of palace construction. Among other things Josephus says (Antiquities VIII §§130ff.) that the palace was not built with the same zeal as the temple. The temple was even finished before the time appointed, since God so obviously cooperated with the builders. This was not the case with the construction of the palace, while also the material used was of an inferior quality, because the building was only intended for kings, not for God. This motive is further elaborated in later Jewish legends (cf. Louis Ginzberg [1873-1953], Legends of the Jews, IV, 155f.; VI, 294f.). The truth, of course, is that the complex of palaces was larger and more beautiful than the temple and therefore took more time. (Mulder, 1 Kings, Volume 1:1 Kings 1-11 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), 285-86)

Solomon also has contemporary apologists. Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) exemplifies:

The conjunction “but” in I Kings 7:1 is intended to contrast the thirteen years required to build Solomon’s own house with the seven years required to build the temple (I Kings 6:38). However, what this difference implies is not clear. To some commentators it seems to condemn Solomon for spending twice as much time building his own house as he spent building the temple of God. Were worldly power and luxury already going to the young king’s head? Were secular ideals beginning to overshadow spiritual ideals in his court? It is true that in later years Solomon began to minimize the high priority he had given to serving the Lord, but that was not the case in these early years...A better interpretation of I Kings 7:1 is that Solomon purposely allowed the construction of his house to drag on for thirteen years, while he had accelerated the temple construction and finished it in seven years. Also, we must remember that many years of preparation, planning, and accumulation of materials had preceded the seven-year temple project, while the work on the palace apparently had no such head start. Furthermore, while the temple was more elaborate and intricate, the palace complex was more widespread, involving a number of separate buildings, and thereby more time-consuming. Considering these factors, Solomon probably gave priority to the temple and put more attention and time on its construction than on his palace. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 96-97)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) speculates:

Almost twice as much time is taken to build it as the temple, though that is probably not a negative judgment, given the buildings necessary for the state to function. The lack of clear detail may indicate a lack of interest (and/or knowledge) apart from highlighting Solomon as a wise builder. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 43)

Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) theologizes:

Commentators sometimes suggest that the time Solomon spends on his own house, nearly double the time he spends on the temple, is an early sign of his later apostasy...Yet Solomon is nowhere criticized for this. Apparently the logic is similar to the logic of the tithe: once Solomon pays his firstfruits, his time is “desanctified” so that he can devote his attention to building his own house. The objection that Solomon’s glory challenges Yahweh’s assumes a false doctrine of God. God’s glory does not compete with human glory, nor does God glorify himself by siphoning glory from his people. He glorifies himself by freely and abundantly bestowing glory, just as the Father glorifies himself in the Son through the Spirit, and the Son in the Father through the same Spirit. Yahweh gives Solomon glory, but this makes the name of Yahweh glorious among the Gentiles, precisely because it makes the name of Solomon glorious. (Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 60)

Regardless of what light is being cast upon Solomon, the comparative building durations of the temple and palace invite the reader to evaluate her own priorities and how those priorities are played out in her budget.

Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) applies:

It would be better for us to put a lower priority on a comfortable living situation and a higher priority on the kingdom of God. First Kings takes this perspective in the way it tells the story of Solomon. The major emphasis in chapters 5 through 8 is the house that Solomon built for God [I Kings 5:1-8:66]. The Bible gives us the full details of the temple’s structure and furnishings, plus a lengthy account of its dedication. Solomon’s own house took longer to build, but receives much less attention–just twelve verses for five buildings. Even for all its splendor, Solomon’s palace receives only brief mention. As far as the Holy Spirit is concerned, this is all it deserves, because Solomon’s house was not nearly as important as the house he built for God. By de-emphasizing Solomon’s palace, the Bible is keeping things in their proper priority. (Ryken, 1 Kings (Reformed Expository Commentary), 165)

Why do you think it took longer to build the palace than the temple? Which building project do you think is more important to Solomon? What is meant by the intentional contrast between the time spent building God’s temple and the king’s palace? How does this incongruity reflect upon Solomon? Which building do you take more pride in maintaining, your church or your residence? Do you spend more time and energy devoted to God or yourself?

“Action expresses priorities.” - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

Raising Our Ebenezer (I Samuel 7:12)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Philips Long (b. 1951) comments:

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

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

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

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

Francesca Aran Murphy (b. 1960) interprets:

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

Mark Batterson (b. 1969) simplifies:

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

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

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

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

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

John Goldingay (b. 1942) elucidates:

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

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

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

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

Robert P. Gordon (b. 1945) expounds:

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

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

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

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) adds:

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

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

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

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

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

David Toshio Tsumura (b. 1944) explicates:

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

Hans William Hertzberg (1895-1965) determines:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beth Moore (b. 1957) encourages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

With Friends Like These... (Job 2:11)

Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar were friends of whom? Job

Job and his tale of woe have become synonymous with suffering. While the majority of the book that bears his name is a philosophical dialogue, the prologue relays how his vast holdings, children and good health are systematically eradicated (Job 1:1-2:13). When tragedy strikes one of their core group, Job’s friends, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar, spring into action and plot to console their friend (Job 2:11).

Now when Job’s three friends heard of all this adversity that had come upon him, they came each one from his own place, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite; and they made an appointment together to come to sympathize with him and comfort him. (Job 2:11 NASB)

The friends opt to make the visit together; such awkward visits are always more pleasant when conducted in groups. Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar assemble around Job in much the same way as God’s council gathers around Yahweh in the preceding chapter (Job 1:6).

The text does not indicate how the group learns of Job’s plight. The Targum relays that the friends are alerted by the sight of garden trees withering, meat regressing into raw meat while being eaten, and their wine transmuting to blood.

Unlike the four messengers who appear in hurried procession to inform Job of his catastrophic losses (Job 1:14, 16, 17, 18), Job’s friends’ trip is planned and lengthy (Job 2:11-13). As it took time for the news to reach them, they had to make long-distance arrangements to meet and then had to travel a considerable distance to reach Job’s side, it was possibly months between Job’s trials and his friends’ arrival.

Stephen M. Hooks (b. 1947) speculates:

The fact that these men met by appointment suggests that they know one another as well as Job. How they have learned of Job’s misfortune we are not told. News of Job must have spread far and wide. These developments imply the passing of some time, and information gleaned from the dialogues confirms this. In Job 7:3, for example, Job speaks of “months” of pain he has already endured. (Hooks, Job (College Press NIV Commentary), 79)

Job’s friends will serve as major players for the remainder of the book. Aside from their names and places of residence, little is revealed about them.

Eliphaz (whose name means “God is fine gold” or “God conquers”) has been identified with Edom as both his name and nationality (Teman) appear in Edomite genealogies (Genesis 36:4, 15). Some have speculated that Eliphaz is the oldest of Job’s counselors as he is listed first (Job 2:11, 42:9), speaks first, gives longer and more mature speeches and perhaps most tellingly God addresses him as representative of the group (Job 42:7).

Of Job’s counselors’ hometowns, only Eliphaz’s can be definitively located. Teman was a principle sight in the northern region of Edom (Ezekiel 25:13; Genesis 36:34). The location was known for its wisdom (Jeremiah 49:7; Obadiah 1:8).

The name Bildad (possibly meaning “son of Hadad”) does not appear elsewhere in the Bible. Bildad is a Shuhite which some associate with Shuah, a son born to Abraham by Keturah (Genesis 25:2). Others connect Bildad’s region to Sūhu, a site referenced in Akkadian documents located on the Middle Euphrates River below the mouth of the Khabur River.

Zophar (“young bird”) hails from Naamah. Naamah is both the name of a female descendant of Cain (Genesis 4:22) and an Ammonite princess who marries Solomon (I Kings 14:21). A site known as ‘Ain Sopar on the road between Beiruit and Damascus has been identified as a possible location of Naamah.

While the geography involving Job’s friends cannot be pinpointed with any certainty, it can be determined that ,like Job himself, his friends live outside of Israel and they descend upon him from diverse places. Job has international connections.

Job’s friends are literally three wise men. All three are old (Job 32:6), possibly older than Job (Job 15:10) and presumably all are eastern patriarchs.

Samuel E. Balentine (b. 1950) comments:

Three “wise” friends journey toward Uz, where Job’s life had exemplified Edenic harmony. Now, “evil” (Job 2:11: rā‘āh, NRSV: “troubles”) has fallen upon this once paradisiacal world, and the one who had always “turned away from evil (rā‘; Job 1:8, 2:3) is “sitting among the ashes.” With such a scenario, the prologue suggests that a world like Job’s requires the best insights wisdom can offer. (Balentine, Job (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 66-67)

The theology presented in Job will not come from anonymous voices; each of Job’s friends has a distinct personality. It has even been suggested that they represent varying strands of philosophy.

In addition to their social standing, these men are well intentioned friends (Job 2:11), not detached messengers (Job 1:14, 16, 17, 18). They have been described as comforters, companions, counselors and friends. The Hebrew rea’ is a very common word and in this context is universally translated “friends” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). James L. Crenshaw (b. 1934) defines, “The noun re‘a indicates an intimate, a companion from whom one accepts advice (Crenshaw, Reading Job: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 45).”

Norman C. Habel (b. 1932) analyzes:

These visitors have come to perform a traditional role of the friend in ancient society, namely, to “console” (nwd) and “comfort” (nhm). A “friend” (rēa‘) is characterized by deep loyalty and close bonds of faithfulness (hesed; cf. Proverbs 18:24; II Samuel 16:17)...It is precisely this loyalty which Job later accuses his friends of violating, thereby not fulfilling their true role as “friends”. (Habel , The Book of Job: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 97)

John E. Hartley (b. 1940) expounds:

The term for friends has a wide range of meanings, including an intimate counselor (I Chronicles 27:33), a close friend (Deuteronomy 13:6), a party in a legal dispute (Exodus 22:9). Friends often solemnized their relationship with a covenant, promising to care for each other under all kinds of circumstances. The relationship between Job and his three friends gives every evidence of being based on a covenant (Job 6:14-15, 21-23, 27). Such a relationship was characterized by loyal love (hesed; e.g., Jonathan and David, I Samuel 20:14-15)...With the noblest intentions, these three earnestly desired to help Job bear his sorrow. (Hartley, The Book of Job (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 85)

Their visit constitutes a grand gesture. Job’s companions take great efforts to see him and risk contagion and public censure to be with their friend in his time of need.

Mike Mason (b. 1952) observes:

What a blessing it would be to have just one friend like this in time of need—one friend who would drop everything at a moment’s notice, travel any distance, and stick by one’s bedside night and day for an entire week! Job, apparently, had not just one such friend-in-need, but three. Even in the Bible we do not often hear of people having this many close friends. One memorable exception is the paralytic of Mark 2:3-4, who had no less than four friends who loved him so much that they actually went to all the trouble and embarrassment of carrying him through a large crowd and then digging down through a roof in order to get him to Jesus. In the New Testament, understandably, heart-to-heart friendship becomes an increasingly common phenomenon, and the long genealogical lists of the Old Testament gradually give way to a very different sort of list, such as the one in the last chapter of Romans in which Paul gives us just a glimpse into the vast network of people who, far more than being mere friends, were his true family, his brothers and sisters in the Lord. These are blood ties indeed, for here the family tree is the cross. (Mason, The Gospel According to Job: An Honest Look at Pain and Doubt from the Life of One Who Lost Everything, 49)

What makes a person a friend? Who are your best friends? Who would travel to meet you during your darkest hour? When have friends come to your rescue during a time of need? When have you seen someone suffer? What did you do? Why do Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar visit Job? What can they possibly do to ameliorate Job’s situation?

Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar’s visit has a two-fold objective (Job 2:11). Gerald H. Wilson (1945-2005) appraises:

The purpose of the friends’ visit is to sympathize with him and comfort him. The Hebrew verb for “sympathize” is nud, which denotes shaking the head or body back and forth as an indication of taking on the pain or grief of another. The Hebrew for “comfort” is nkhm, which normally means (in the Piel stem as here) to comfort with words—in contrast to the silent waiting that ultimately characterizes the friends’ vigil. (Wilson, Job (New International Biblical Commentary), 33)

Though they plan to bring words of comfort and have a long trip in which to gather their thoughts, when they arrive, they realize that they have no words for this occasion. Sometimes there is nothing that can be said. In these instances, silence is golden.

In a touching scene, Job’s friends bind themselves to Job even in his suffering. They simply sit with him, saying nothing, for an entire week (Job 2:13). James A. Wharton (b. 1927) analyzes:

Like God’s servant in Isaiah 52:14, Job is so ravaged by suffering that he is “marred...beyond human semblance,” so that his friends cannot recognize in him the Job they had known before. Rather than turning away from this horror, however, they join Job in the signs of ritual mourning (compare Job 1:20 and Job 2:12), indicating that Job’s distress is their distress, to be lamented before God. The high-water mark of their compassion comes during these seven days when they found grace just to be there with Job—and to keep their mouths shut, “for they saw that his suffering was very great.” Consoling words rarely improve on the silent comfort of a friend’s presence. (Wharton, Job (Westminster Bible Companion), 23)

Charles R. Swindoll (b. 1934) imagines:

As he sits there covered with skin ulcers that have begun erupting with pus, swelling his body with fever and giving him a maddening itch that will not cease, he looks up into the faces of three friends who arrive on the scene. They sit and stare at the man for seven days and nights without uttering a word. Just imagine. First, they don’t recognize him, which tells you something of the extent of his swelling and the sores that covered his body. The sight causes them to be at a loss for words for a full week. (Swindoll, Job: A Man of Heroic Endurance, 5)

Beth Lueders (b. 1959) commends:

Now, that’s a ministry of presence and a ministry of waiting. These guys don’t check Job and themselves into a luxurious hotel room with a wide-screen TV. They don’t pull up overstuffed couches or recliners. They don’t hit the hot tub, shoot some hoops, or go off-roading in their souped up-chariots...The four men just hunkered down on the ground...in silence...for nearly 170 hours. (Sorry, gals, but I know of no woman who’d even attempt that!) And this no-talk gathering around Job is no feat to set a Guinness World Record or to win Survivor: The Land of Uz. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar are three amigos who just want to comfort their hurting friend. (Lueders, Two Days Longer: Discovering More of God as You Wait For Him, 146)

Simply by their very presence Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar convey compassion and sympathy, enter into Job’s sorrow and demonstrate that they are in this together with him.

Despite being Gentiles, Job’s friends follow Jewish tradition. Harold S. Kushner (b. 1935) notes, “In accordance with the custom followed by observant Jews to this day, Job’s comforters sit quietly until Job breaks the silence in an outburst of pain and grief (Kushner, The Book of Job: When Bad Things Happened to a Good Person, 49).”

Sitting seven days in silence demonstrates true compassion. Unfortunately, in time, silence gives way to speech (Job 3:1) and a debate ensues. As soon as the friends speak, their sympathy is replaced by professional pride and the need to defend God (Job 13:8). Eliphaz (Job 4:1-5:27, 15:1-35, 22:1-30) and Bildad (Job 8:1-22, 18:1-21, 25:1:5) address Job three times each while Zophar speaks twice (Job 11:1-20, 20:1-29). They follow conventional wisdom, concluding that Job’s suffering must be the result of some deep rooted personal sin. In doing so they become disputants, each time confronting Job with the sin that they perceive he has committed.

Job’s own friends prove to be the biggest challenge the Accuser throws at him. Their arrival symbolizes bringing in the big guns. What could not have been predicted was who they would be firing upon.

Steven J. Lawson (b. 1951) determines:

Next came the greatest assault Satan would hurl at Job—the counsel that came from his friends. What the devil spoke through Job’s wife [Job 2:9], he would speak even more convincingly through his three friends. Satan’s lies can be spoken through another person, even from the lips of another believer (Matthew 16:22-23). (Lawson, Job (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 27)

The fact that Job’s friends account for his greatest assault is evidence by the results. His companions do what the calamities could not: they break Job. Instead of friends, they function more as the requisite three witnesses needed to convict by Hebrew law (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15; II Corinthians 13:1). Job will eventually question their friendship (Job 6:14) and God, when finally intervening, expresses divine displeasure with his “defenders” (Job 42:7). Throughout the dialogue, Job wants God to start talking (Job 13:22) and his friends to stop. Unfortunately for most of the book, he experiences just the opposite.

Even so, Job’s friends, at one time, model true friendship at its finest. Ewan R. Kelly reminds:

When Job’s friends were willing in the face of his suffering to be with him and say nothing, not offering him advice, sharing their worldview, not judging him or asking about his feelings, at this time they were truly his comforters. (Kelly, Marking Short Lives: Constructing and Sharing Rituals Following Pregnancy Loss, 87)

This “ministry of presence” exhibited by Job’s friends is often what is most needed in crisis. Frank G. Honeycutt (b. 1957) advises:

Shared silence (see Job 2:13) is better than quick Hallmark-like pastoral sound bites. There will be times, says Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932), when we won’t feel like doing this ministry and even the church will lure clergy to mouth theological nonsense that goes down easily. However, pastors “are not the minister[s] of our changing desires, or our-time conditioned understanding of our needs, or our secularized hopes for something better. With these vows of ordination we are lashing you fast to the mast of word and sacrament so that you will be unable to respond to the siren voices.” (Honeycutt, The Truth Shall Make You Odd: Speaking with Pastoral Integrity in Awkward Situations, 98)

Richard J. Foster (b. 1942) and Julia L. Roller (b. 1976) conclude:

Job has lost his children, all that he owns, and is now covered head to foot with “loathsome sores” (Job 2:7). The friends come to Job in his need. They weep with him and sit quietly with him. Their quiet ministry of presence speaks loudly to those who think that only words heal. (Foster and Roller, A Year with God: Living Out the Spiritual Disciplines, 322)

What would you have said to Job? How would you characterize Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar? Do you think that Job still considered them friends at the end of his story? How could they have best achieved their goals of providing sympathy and comfort (Job 2:11)? When in your life has a true friend not acted like one? When have you thought you were acting for God when in reality you were aiding the opposition? Have you ever experienced the “ministry of presence”?

“It is better to have a heart without words than words without a heart.” - Mahatma Ganhdi (1869-1948)