Paul Earns His Stripes (II Corinthians 11:24)

How many times did Paul receive the legal maximum of 39 lashes? Five (II Corinthians 11:24)

After learning that some members of the church at Corinth had challenged his apostolic authority, Paul responds by presenting his credentials (II Corinthians 11:22-12:9). Though the apostle repeatedly acknowledges that such boasting is foolish (II Corinthians 11:16, 17, 19, 21, 12:6), his validation comes in the form of biographical details. Instead of recounting his triumphs, Paul’s “fool’s boast” paints a bleak picture as he presents a catalog of the hardships that he has endured for the sake of Christ (II Corinthians 11:23-27).

This material is common in Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) informs:

This is the third such listing of Paul’s hardships in this letter (see II Corinthians 4:8-12, 6:4-10). A fourth will follow in the next chapter (II Corinthians 12:10). This is the longest of the four and contains some vocabulary that does not appear elsewhere in Paul’s correspondence as well as other words he rarely uses. Like the other catalogs, this list demonstrates Paul’s endurance and his steadfastness in preaching the gospel, despite the difficulties that he encountered at virtually every turn. (Collins, Second Corinthians (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 231)

Calvin J. Roetzel (b. 1931) inventories:

This longest of all of Paul’s tribulation lists (II Corinthians 4:8-9, 6:4-5, 12:1, I Corinthians 4:9-13; and Romans 8:35) discloses information known only here. We learn here of five synagogue lashings (II Corinthians 11:24, see Deuteronomy 25:3), three Roman scourges with rods, one stoning possibly by a mob (II Corinthians 11:25), three shipwrecks, multiple imprisonments (II Corinthians 11:23), and so forth. The list embraces different types of tribulation—physical abuse (II Corinthians 11:23b-25a), peril (II Corinthians 11:25b-26), hardships (II Corinthians 11:27), and anxieties (II Corinthians 11:28)—but Paul lumps them all together without distinction. They all tell a story of weakness in which is imbedded a profound theological assertion that sets Paul apart from the rival missionaries, contests their legitimacy, and subverts and inverts their understanding of body language. (Roetzel, 2 Corinthians (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 109)

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor (b. 1935) encapsulates:

His apostolic labours have often brought him to the point of death (II Corinthians 11:23). One could starve in prison, and the floggings inflicted by Jewish (five times) and Roman authorities (three times) were as little concerned about the survival of the victim as the mob who pelted him with stones. Here Paul graphically illustrated what he means by ‘bearing in the body the dying of Jesus’, which is the means whereby ‘the life of Jesus’ is manifested (II Corinthians 4:10-11). (Murphy-O’Connor, The Theology of the Second Letter to the Corinthians, 115-116)

The litany of Paul’s brushes with death begins by noting that he has endured corporal punishment from the Jews (II Corinthians 11:24).

Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. (II Corinthians 11:24 NASB)

The beatings came “from” the Jews (II Corinthians 11:24 KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV). C.K Barrett (1917-2011) notifies:

Five time the Jews have given me...[is] literally, From the Jews I received—the verb corresponds to rabbinic usage; see Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] iii. 527). (Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 296)

Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) analyzes:

This use of ὑπό, ‘at the hands of,’ is classical and is found in papyri, but it is rare in the New Testament. In I Thessalonians 2:14 and Matthew 17:12 we have πάσχειν ὑπό. Georg Benedikt Winer [1789-1858], p. 462. We expect ὑπό των ἐθνων with the next statement, but in the rapid enumeration it is omitted. He naturally begins with what his own nation, which had become bitterly hostile, had done to him. (Plummer, II Corinthians (International Critical Commentary), 323)

Paul further stresses the Jews’ culpability by placing them at the beginning of the sentence, an emphatic position in the Greek. Victor Paul Furnish (b. 1931) observes:

A certain emphasis attaches to the phrase here, not only because it stands first...but also because no agent is specified for either of the similar experiences which follow immediately in the list (II Corinthians 11:25). (Furnish, II Corinthians (Anchor Bible), 515)

Despite this emphasis, Paul is certainly not being antisemitic. Murray J. Harris (b. 1939) clarifies:

The construction λαμβάνειν τι ὑπὸ τινος means “be given something by someone” (Walter Bauer [1870-1960], F. Wilbur Gingrich [1901-1993], William F. Arndt [1880-1957] and Frederick W. Danker [1920-2012] 465c). ὑπὸ ’Ιουδαί ων, “at the hands of the Jews,” does not amount to a general indictment of the Jewish people, but it does strike a note of pathos after Paul’s defense of his Jewishness in II Corinthians 11:22. (Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 801)

Margaret E. Thrall (1928-2010) questions:

It may be significant that when Paul comes to speak more specifically of his hardships he begins with his five experiences of punishment by the Jews [II Corinthians 11:24]. Is it because this particular hardship was especially unlikely to have come the way of his rivals? And was this because their ‘alternative gospel’ appeared to involve less of a break with Judaism than what had become known of Paul’s own message and his more radical attitude to the Mosaic law? (Thrall, 2 Corinthians 8-13 (International Critical Commentary), 736-37)

Paul literally had a tortured relationship with the synagogue. John G. Gager (b. 1937) construes:

Paul’s activities generated deep hostilities toward him among many Jews. These hostilities are reflected directly in two Pauline texts: first, in II Corinthians 11, where he speaks of “danger from my own people” and having received the thirty-nine lashes (an official punishment administered by Jews on Jews) five times at the hands of the Jews, no doubt in connection with his disruptive missionary activities [II Corinthians 11:39]; and in II Thessalonians 2, an early letter, where he rants against the Jews “who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out and...oppose all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved [I Thessalonians 2:15-16].” (Gager, Reinventing Paul, 68)

The punishment that the Jews Paul subject Paul to is flogging: “lashes” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “stripes” (ASV, KJV, NKJV). This word is actually not in the text and must be supplied by translators.

R.C.H. Lenski (1864-1936) explains:

The Greek needs no noun, “I got forty minus one” being plain enough. Luke 12:47 likewise omits “stripes.” (Lenski, The Interpretation of II Corinthians, 1273)

Though many translations do the math for the reader and simply report that Paul received 39 lashes (CEV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NLT), the literal Greek is forty “minus” (NIV, NKJV, NRSV), “less” (ESV, RSV) or “save” (ASV, KJV) one.

Murray J. Harris (b. 1939) comments:

In the expression τεσσεράκοντα παρὰ μίαν...the preposition παρὰ has the unusual sense of “less” (Friedrich Blass [1843-1907], Albert Debrunner [1884-1958] and Robert W. Funk [1926-2005] §236[4]) or “minus”; that πληγάς (“strokes”) must be supplied (as in Luke 12:47) with τεσσεράκοντα, or πληγήν with μίαν; that τεσσεράκοντα was more often spelled τεσσαράκοντα until the Byzantine period. (Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 801)

The 39 stripes, also known as the makkot arbaim, represents the maximum Jewish in-house punishment of Paul’s era. Margaret E. Thrall (1928-2010) apprises:

The Roman authorities allowed the Jews to inflict this punishment upon those of their fellow-Jews who had broken the regulations of the Mosaic Law. (Thrall, I and II Corinthians (Cambridge Bible Commentary), 174)

Though governed by later custom, the penalty originated in the Pentateuch (Deuteronomy 25:2-3). Murray J. Harris (b. 1939) traces:

“The thirty-nine stripes” was the official punishment of the synagogue, alluded to by Jesus when he warned his disciples that some of them would be handed over to local Jewish councils (συνέδρια) and scourged “in their synagogues” (ἐν ταις συναγωγαις αὐτων, Matthew 10:17; cf. Matthew 23:34). This punishment has its origin in the regulations of Deuteronomy 25:2-3 concerning the penalty to be meted out to the guilty person who deserved a flogging. The number of lashes was to correspond to the gravity of the offense, but in no case was it to exceed forty lest the offender should suffer gross public humiliation. We may explain the change from forty to thirty-nine strokes as the maximum permissible penalty as resulting from (1) a concern to avoid a miscount that would infringe a commandment; or (2) the fact that the instrument of punishment had three straps, so that thirteen strokes was the maximum permitted; or (3) an interpretation of the juxtaposed words bemispār ’arbā‘îm (Septuagint, ἀριθμω τεσσαράκοντα), literally, “by number forty,” in Deuteronomy 25:2-3 to mean “a number near to forty” (Mishnah Makkot 3:10). Josephus [37-100] also refers to the “forty stripes minus one” (Antiquities of the Jews 4:238, 248); clearly the later comparable reference in the Mishnaic tractate Makkot (“Stripes”) reflects practice that dates back at least to the first century A.D. (Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 801)

Victor Paul Furnish (b. 1931) notes:

The present list is the earliest evidence for the practice of stopping one short of the maximum allowed, probably to avoid going over the maximum due to a miscount...The later rabbinic tractate Makkot indicates some of the crimes for which this punishment was administered (Mishnah Makkot 3:1-9), and explains that the administrator was liable if more than forty blows had been given (Mishnah Makkot 3:10-14). (Furnish, II Corinthians (Anchor Bible), 515-16)

In being whipped, Paul receives the stiffest penalty available to the Jews. E.P. Sanders (b. 1937) examines:

Paul says that he five times received the thirty-nine stripes [II Corinthians 11:24]. It seems very likely that the administration of the stripes is what is called elsewhere “persecution.’ It is important to note that, from the Jewish perspective, it was punishment...It is intrinsically probable that the Diaspora synagogues had at their disposal only two punishments, ostracism and the thirty-nine stripes. (Peter Richardson [b. 1935] with David Granskou [b. 1927], “Paul on the Law, His Opponents, and the Jewish People in Philippians 3 and II Corinthians 11”, Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, Volume 1: Paul and the Gospels, 86)

Obviously, the procedure was agonizing. Paul Barnett (b. 1935) describes:

In no case was the beating to exceed forty, administered to the man or woman bending down. The Mishnah tractate Makkoth, which corroborates Paul’s “forty lashes minus one,” nominates false witness (e.g., about a priest, that he was the son of a divorced mother — Mishnah Makkoth 1:1) as an offense for which this punishment was administered. The minister of the synagogue was to stand on a raised stone inflicting the blow “with all his might,” using a redoubled calf strap, to which two other straps were attached. Thirteen blows were delivered to the chest and twenty-six to the back. The severity of this beating can be inferred from the provisions made in the event the offender defecated, urinated, or even died as a result of their blows. (Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 542)

Bruce Chilton (b. 1949) adds:

The culprit had his hands tied on either side of a pillar and his clothing ripped from his torso. Then an expert in the lash flogged him from behind so that one-third of the blows landed on his chest and two-thirds on his back. The total number of blows was limited to thirty-nine—Paul’s “forty lashes less one.”...Although such flogging was nothing compared to the Roman version, which went on and on with steel-tipped whips and could kill a man, it remained a painful disgrace (see Josephus [37-100] Antiquities 4.238-39). Just the thing for a Diaspora interloper who thought he could compare himself to Moses. (Chilton, Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography, 84-85)

Paul likely reviews his most physically demanding trial first. Kar Yong Lim considers:

A.E. Harvey [b. 1930], ‘Forty Strokes Save One: Social Aspects of Judaizing and Apostasy’, 93-94, rightly points out that none of the other sufferings Paul undergoes ‘is likely to have exceeded, in the sheer damage it caused to his physique (let alone the humiliation of his person), the five occasions on which he received from his fellow Jews the maximum judicial penalty of forty strokes save one’. So Sven Gallas, ‘»Fünfmal vierzig weniger einen ...«. Die an Paulus vollzogenen Synagogalstrafen nach 2Kor 11,24’, 190. (Lim, ‘The Sufferings of Christ Are Abundant In Us’: A Narrative Dynamics Investigation of Paul’s Sufferings in 2 Corinthians, 179)

Though painful, the 39 stripes resulting in death was probably rare. Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) conjectures:

Josephus [37-100] (Antiquities of the Jews iv.viii. 21) calls it τιμωρίαν ταύτην αἰσχίστην, but he does not intimate that death often ensued, and it is improbable that Jewish magistrates would allow death to be risked. But the frail and sensitive Apostle might feel that he had nearly died under the affliction. (Plummer, II Corinthians (International Critical Commentary), 324)

Paul notes that he faces this maximum punishment five times! (II Corinthians 11:24). R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) calculates:

Five floggings total 195 stripes. Imagine Paul’s anguish as in full knowledge of the excruciating pain that was coming he awaited another beating. Even more, imagine his love for his people, the Jews. (Hughes, 2 Corinthians: Power in Weakness (Preaching the Word), 203)

The unit is laced with language which emphasizes the severity of Paul’s hardships. Robert B. Hughes (b. 1946) reveals:

Paul loads this section with words that show abundance: “far more,” “without number” (II Corinthians 11:23), “often” (II Corinthians 11:23, 27); “five times,” “three times” (II Corinthians 11:24-25); “frequent” (II Corinthians 11:26); “dangers” (eight times in II Corinthians 11:26); “many” (II Corinthians 11:27); “daily pressure,” “all the churches” (II Corinthians 11:28). (Hughes, Second Corinthians (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 110)

There is, however, a shift which begins when Paul begins speaking of the 39 stripes. Paul Barnett (b. 1935) delineates:

Unlike the verses preceding and succeeding, which use the generalized references “more abundantly” (II Corinthians 11:23), “surpassingly” (II Corinthians 11:23), and “frequently” (II Corinthians 11:23, 26, 27), II Corinthians 11:24-25 give specific numbers — “five times,” “once,” and “three times.” In their statements of their exploits the great Romans appealed to statistics; for example in his Res Gestae Augustus [63 BCE-4 CE] declared, “Twice I received triumphal ovations. Three times I received curule triumphs. Twenty times and one did I receive the appellation of imperator” (Res Gestae 4). The numerical details given here by Paul probably belong to that tradition, except that Paul’s catalogue points to his suffering and defeat. (Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 541-42)

Victor Paul Furnish (b. 1931) notes:

The numerical reference is somewhat less prominent in the first example of death-dealing experiences than in those which follow in II Corinthians 11:25, simply because this first one has been introduced with reference to the agents. But here, too, the number is important, for it adds to the overall impressiveness of the list. Cf. the patterned enumeration of Augustus [63 BCE-4 CE]’s honors on the Monumentum Ancyranum: e.g., “Twice I received triumphal ovations. Three times I celebrated curule triumphs. Twenty times and one did I receive the appellation of imperator” (E.G. Hardy [1852-1925] 1923:37). Similarly, the tabulated exploits of Pompey (Pliny [23-79], Natural History VII.xxvi.98), Lucius Siccius Dentatus [514-450 BCE] (ibid.101-3), M. Manilus Capitolinus [D. 384 BCE] (ibid.103-4), and Julius Caesar (Civil Wars II, 32). (Furnish, II Corinthians (Anchor Bible), 515)

Paul plays on familiar language as the format and numbers entailed lampoons Augustus (63 BCE-4 CE)’s resume. Moyer V. Hubbard (b. 1962) reports:

Paul’s words read like a parody of the famous inscription of Augustus [63 BCE-4 CE] in which he catalogs the glories of his reign, the achievements he wanted all to remember...“Twice have I had the lesser triumph...three times the [full] curule triumph; twenty-one times have I been saluted as ‘Imperator’...Fifty-five times has the Senate decreed a thanksgiving unto the Immortal Gods...Nine kings, or children of kings, have been led before my chariot in my triumphs...thirteen times had I been consul.”....The original inscription was erected on bronze pillars at the emperor’s mausoleum in Rome, and copies were distributed throughout the provinces. Portions have been found in Ancyra (capital of Galatia), Apollonia (in Illyricum), and Antioch (in Psidia). Such chronicles of glory would have been familiar to Paul and the Corinthians, rendering Paul’s “boast” all the more ironic. (Clinton E Arnold [b. 1958], Romans to Philemon (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 152)

Despite these floggings seemingly representing significant occurrences, none of them is recorded in the book of Acts which narrates much of Paul’s ministry. John B. Polhill (b. 1939) conjectures:

Nowhere in Acts is there mention of Paul’s receiving a lashing from a synagogue. There is no doubt that Luke was selective in narrating the events of Paul’s life. It is striking, however, that he mentioned none of the five lashings. It may be that some of them were received during the period of his Cilician ministry. This would be particularly likely if he worked exclusively out of the synagogues during this period, which seems to have been the case. His leaving the synagogues and turning primarily to Gentiles was a development of his first missionary journey, according to the picture furnished by Acts (Acts 13:46-48). (Polhill, Paul and His Letters, 68)

Kenneth L. Chafin (1926-2001) reasons:

Paul claims that his suffering in behalf of Christ should put him in a totally different category of apostle from that of those who oppose him. He wrote to the Galatians: “Let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus” (Galatians 6:17). As one reads through Paul’s account he is immediately aware of the fact that there is information here in II Corinthians that is not recorded by Luke in Acts. Had Paul’s credentials not been questioned, he probably would never have shared what he wrote here. He was like a doctor who never calls attention to his credentials until someone falsely accuses him of not having...training, experience, or expertise in his field. (Chafin, 1, 2 Corinthians (Mastering the New Testament), 283-84)

Acts’ silence on the matter has not deterred speculation about the beatings. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) hypothesizes:

Remarkably, not one of Paul’s floggings is mentioned in Acts or any other source. Therefore, the five floggings all occurred early in Paul’s ministry — and were likely followed by more. (Hughes, 2 Corinthians: Power in Weakness (Preaching the Word), 203)

Mark A. Seifrid (b. 1953) footnotes:

Peter Stuhlmacher [b. 1932] (Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit, pp. 90-91) points to the five times Paul received thirty-nine lashes from ‘the Jews’ as an indication that at an early stage Paul’s Gospel was Law-free. If Paul received this treatment at an early stage in his missionary career, it may well have been the result of his stance regarding the Law, but we cannot be certain on this basis. (Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme, 146)

Based upon opportunity, Bruce Chilton (b. 1949) deduces:

The synagogues of both Damascus and Jerusalem had the means and the will to administer the thirty-nine lashes, and it’s likely Paul received a couple of his five floggings in those cities. (Chilton, Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography, 85)

Murray J. Harris (b. 1939) relays:

Ernest-Bernard Allo [1873-1945] (296) speculates that they might have taken place at Damascus (Acts 9:23), Jerusalem (Acts 9:29), Psidian Antioch (Acts 13:50), Iconium (Acts 14:2, 5), and early in his Ephesian ministry (Acts 19:9; cf. I Corinthians 15:32). (Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 802)

Notably, Corinth, the city to which the letter is sent, is not among the usual suspects for hosting a flogging.

One archaeological site even commemorates one of Paul’s whippings. Rivka Gonen documents:

On the western coast of the island of Cyprus are two ancient towns named Paphos...The sites of Christian significance are St. Paul’s Pillar in the centre of the village of Kato Paphos to which, so a local tradition relates, Paul was bound and given 39 lashes as punishment for preaching the new faith. (Gonen, Biblical Holy Places: An Illustrated Guide, 13-14)

As there is no documentation of the floggings, the charges that resulted in the floggings are equally uncertain. The interpreter is left to reconstruct the “crime” based upon the punishment.

Murray J. Harris (b. 1939) pieces together:

None of the floggings is mentioned in Acts, and where and when they occurred is unknown. Nor can we know precisely why Paul was given these synagogal punishments; but possible reasons are not difficult to find, such as disregard of food laws by eating unclean food (cf. Mishnah Makkot 3:2) and encouraging other Jews to do so (cf. I Corinthians 10:25, 27), or the rejection of the need for circumcision by male Gentiles as a sign of inclusion within the people of God (cf. Galatians 5:11). But an even more probable reason would have been a charge of blasphemy, understood either as “defiant sin,” which could involve the two offenses already mentioned, or as the dishonoring of God and his people by promulgating a messianism that focused on a crucified Jesus of Nazareth and affirmed his deity. The punishment for blasphemy was removal from the community (Numbers 15:30-31, and at a later period Mishnah Keritot 1:1), but from the Mishnah we learn that scourging could be a substitute for “extirpation” (Mishnah Makkot 3:15). If this was true also in the first century, Paul’s “blasphemy” that merited permanent removal from the synagogue could have been punished instead by flogging. Nor should we forget that he may have been punished for more than one reason on each of the five occasions. We may gauge the seriousness with which Paul’s offense was viewed on each occasion from the fact that he incurred the maximum penalty each time. (Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 801-02)

C.K Barrett (1917-2011) evaluates:

Many of these are offences of which it is unlikely that Paul could have been held to be guilty, such as illegal sexual connections [Mishnah Makkoth 3:1-9], the making of the sacred anointing oil or incense, or tattooing. In view of Acts 21:28 (which of course falls at a period later than the writing of II Corinthians) it is worth noting that one punishable offence was entering the Temple in a state of uncleanness (Mishnah Makkoth 3:2). In the third century (see Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] iv. 318ff.) it became customary to inflict flogging (as the less degrading punishment) upon a scholar who had deserved the synagogue bann. It is possible that this may have happened earlier in isolated cases. It can hardly be doubted that Paul refers to floggings he had received (broadly speaking) for being a Christian (Emil Schürer [1844-1910] II ii. 262), though it would be more accurate to speak of specific offences, such as consorting with Gentiles and eating forbidden food (cf. e.g. I Corinthians 10:25, 27) which Paul had committed because he was a Christian. The floggings will probably go back (Leonhard Goppelt [1911-1973], Christentum und Judentum, p. 87; Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times (1970), p. 74; Goppelt also points out that Paul must have been expelled from the synagogue, though wishing to remain within it) to the earliest period of his apostolic work, but the fact that he endured a formidable punishment...five times shows that he did not lightly give up his Jewish status and connection (cf. Romans 9:1-5, 10:1). (Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 296-97)

Margaret E. Thrall (1928-2010) discusses:

It must be significant that Paul each time received the maximum penalty, indicating the gravity with which his offence was apparently regarded. Its nature, however, remains a matter of conjecture. Most of the offences listed in Mishnah Makkot 3:1-9 as punishable by flogging would be irrelevant. Of the rest, infringement of the food laws would be the most probable. But it may be a mistake to attempt to identify the charge against Paul by looking through this list of offences. Flogging and ostracism were probably the only forms of punishment which Jews of the Diaspora were able to inflict on fellow synagogue members guilty of transgression and if the ostracised member continued to frequent the synagogue nevertheless, only flogging remained. Hence: ‘The penalty...probably covered so many transgressions that the crime cannot be precisely specified just by learning the punishment.’ It could well have been, in any case, Paul’s general attitude to the Mosaic law, in relation to his Gentile mission, that exposed him to discipline, rather than any specific personal offence. In particular, there was the fact that he did not require, indeed eventually strongly opposed, the acceptance of circumcision by his male Gentile converts. At a time when the Christian movement seemed still to be part of Judaism, and was so regarded both by Paul himself and by his fellow Jews, this policy might seem deserving of the most stringent punishment. (Thrall, 2 Corinthians 8-13 (International Critical Commentary), 737-38)

The floggings are naturally assumed to originate with Paul’s Christian beliefs. D.A. Carson (b. 1946) conjectures:

Probably there was some sort of legal excuse. The charge may have been specific: consorting with Gentiles or eating forbidden fruit or the like...Christian ministers and evangelists spent a total of eight years in jail during 1950-1952 in Quebec, because they preached the gospel in the open air and handed out literature; but the charge was always something else, such as inciting to riot or disturbing the peace. (Carson, A Model of Christian Maturity: An Exposition of 2 Corinthians 10-13, 126)

The assumption is that since the Jews could not beat Paul, they beat him. They are trying to nip Paul’s movement in the bud. While the specifics are unknown it can be safely assumed that Paul suffers for his Christian beliefs. In context, in subjecting himself to the 39 stripes, Paul is asserting that he has earned his stripes.

Does Paul have a better argument to substantiate his apostolic authority than his suffering? Why does the apostle open his catalog by noting the instances in which he was flogged by the Jews (II Corinthians 11:24)? Why are none of these beatings recorded in Acts? How would this punishment have affected Paul’s appearance and health? In naming the Jews, is Paul airing dirty laundry? What is the sternest punishment you have incurred? How do you feel about corporal punishment? In the context of a religious institution? Have you ever suffered for your beliefs? Physically? What are your credentials? If you needed to validate your standing as a Christian, how would you do so? Is suffering a prerequisite to being Christian? What does Paul’s withstanding these beatings indicate about the apostle?

Subjecting himself to the 39 lashes is a clear demonstration that Paul still has a heart for his native Jewish people. E.P. Sanders (b. 1937) characterizes:

II Corinthians 11:24 shows Paul’s continuing commitment to Judaism. He kept attending the synagogue. Arland J. Hultgren [b. 1939] has argued that Paul did not accept the punishment, but it is apparent that he did. He kept showing up, and obviously submitted to the thirty-nine stripes. He undoubtedly thought that those who judged him deserving of punishment were wrong, but had he wished he could have withdrawn from Jewish society altogether and thus not have been punished. (Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 192)

Paul’s standard operating procedure involved synagogue visits. William R. Baker (b. 1951) annotates:

Notably, in Matthew 10:17 and Mark 3:9, Jesus warns that his disciples would be flogged in the synagogues. Paul, who makes it a point to begin his evangelistic thrust by visiting the synagogues in each city he enters (Acts 9:20, 13:5, 14, 14:1, 17:1-2, 10, 17, 18:4, 19, 26, 19:8), regularly exposes himself to the danger of this punishment should the reaction against the gospel be severe. (Baker, 2 Corinthians (The College Press NIV Commentary), 406)

Frank J. Matera (b. 1942) suggests:

These scourgings...suggest that Paul continued to preach to his Jewish compatriots, at least from time to time, despite the harsh reception he received from them. As Luke indicates in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul frequented synagogues because they provided a ready-made assembly of Jews, proselytes, and God-fearers whom he could evangelize. His preaching about Jesus and the law, whether to Jews or to Gentiles, led the synagogue authorities to discipline him with the punishment described in Deuteronomy 25:3...That Paul was scourged five times is an indication of his perseverance in preaching as well as of his physical stamina. It also indicates that at this early stage the synagogue authorities were content to punish rather than expel him for his messianic preaching. (Matera, II Corinthians: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 267)

Some scholars have seen a contradiction between Acts’ account and Paul’s own writings. Wayne A. Meeks (b. 1932) critiques:

Unfortunately we cannot simply accept the Acts picture of the mission as a direct, factual account. The pattern of beginning always in synagogues accords ill will with Paul’s own declarations that he saw his mission as primarily or even exclusively to the gentiles (Galatians 1:16, 2:7-9; Romans 1:5, 13-15, 11:13ff, 15:15-21). To be sure, these statements are not to be taken absolutely: his becoming “as a Jew to the Jews, in order to win the Jews” (I Corinthians 9:20) is not merely rhetorical, for if he had never been in contact with synagogues he would not have “five times...received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one” (II Corinthians 11:24). But this policy seems to have been very different from the way it is described in Acts. (Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, 26)

It seems that in Paul’s mind, even though he has become an advocate for Jesus Christ, he is still a Jew. John M.G. Barclay (b. 1958) deciphers:

This suggests that Paul was considered a Jew, a member of the synagogue, and that he wished to be considered so; that he received this punishment five times indicates that he kept returning to synagogues although he knew this was risky. It also suggests, however, that he tested the tolerance of his fellow Jews beyond the limit, and that he was often considered a lawbreaker, and sometimes, perhaps an apostate...It is exactly this doubleness – of a radical Jew at the margins of his own community, all the more threatening because he claims to represent its center – that we meet everywhere in Paul’s own letters. (Stephen Westerholm [b. 1949], “Paul, Judaism, and the Jewish People”, The Blackwell Companion to Paul, 188)

It seems that Paul views his status within Judaism quite differently than do the Jews. Richard N. Longenecker (b. 1930) juxtaposes:

It may have been difficult for him [Paul] to relinquish his ties with Pharisaism and to think of himself as anything other than a fulfilled Jew. The Jewish world, however, seems to have been even more perceptive than Paul on this matter, and to have recognized his break with the past. For in II Corinthians 11:24 there is the statement: “From the Jews five times I received forty lashes less one.” Just where and when Paul received these lashings is uncertain. But there is no doubt that they were “synagogue whippings” or “stripes” that were administered by synagogue officials as a severe form of punishment for some type of serious deviation from Jewish thought or practice. And there is no doubt that Paul viewed them as afflictions that he suffered as a “servant of Christ” and because of his witness for Christ (cf. II Corinthians 11:23-29)...II Corinthians 11:24, in fact, speaks quite dramatically of how reticent Paul was to separate himself from his Jewish past and of how far he would go in being “to those under the law as one under the law” (I Corinthians 9:20). But it also suggests how the Jewish world, even at such an early time, viewed his commitment to Jesus, and how for them that commitment was anathema to the Jewish religion (cf. I Thessalonians 2:14). (Longenecker, “A Realized Hope, a New Commitment, and a Developed Proclamation: Paul and Jesus”, The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul's Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry), 28)

E.P. Sanders (b. 1937) concurs:

At least some...Jews, possibly including some Christian Jews (II Corinthians 11:26, “false brethren”), objected to Paul’s preaching to Gentiles enough to administer to him the thirty-nine stripes. He was punished, that is to say, for doing what lay at the heart of his call and his life’s work – bringing Gentiles into the people of God without requiring full obedience to the Torah. Thus he kept on getting punished, just as he kept on evangelizing the Gentiles. If Paul persecuted the church on the same issue as the one which subsequently brought down punishment on him, we would have to conclude that he did not initiate the Torah-free mission to the Gentiles. (Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 191)

In a tragic irony, Paul may be reaping the punishment that he sowed (Galatians 6:7). Murray J. Harris (b. 1939) outlines:

There is irony in the fact that as a Christian Paul repeatedly received the very punishment — synagogal floggings — that he, as a ruthless persecutor of Christians, had repeatedly caused to be meted out to them or himself had inflicted on them (Acts 22:19, 26:11). (Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 802-03)

In being flogged, Paul demonstrates that he is willing to place himself in harm’s way for sake of the Jews. A.E. Harvey (b. 1930) reminds:

If he had simply walked out of the synagogue never to return it is difficult to see how anything of this kind could have happened to him. But we know that this was not the case. He received a severe – indeed the maximum – judicial flogging five times, as a result (we must assume) of being determined to enjoy access to the synagogue even though continuing to show contempt for certain ‘observance of the law’. His own decision, that is to say, to renounce the superiority given to him by his parentage and education elicited a response from the synagogue which ‘penalized’ him severely. (Harvey, Renewal Through Sufferings: A Study of 2 Corinthians, 119)

David K. Lowery (b. 1949) connects:

This verse [II Corinthians 11:24] makes it clear that Paul’s statement in Romans 9:3—wishing himself cursed if by so doing Israel could be saved—was no empty declaration. (Roy B. Zuck [1932-2013], The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, 581)

Paul is convicted that Jesus represents nothing less than his people’s salvation and he is relentless in his pursuit to bring the Jews to Jesus. Michael F. Bird (b. 1974) asserts:

Paul is not given the thirty-nine lashes by his fellow Jews because he asks them to ‘try’ Jesus in the same way one might try a kebab (II Corinthians 11:24). He is not executed for asserting that Roman citizens may wish to invite Jesus into their hearts. No, Paul has the courage and conviction to proclaim that the one who is to come again, the Messiah, is Jesus, who has fulfilled Israel’s hopes by being cursed on a cross and raised from the dead. Jesus is the deliverer Israel has hoped for and desperately needed (II Corinthians 1:20; Acts 13:32-34; Romans 11:26). (Bird, Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission and His Message, 28-29)

Paul’s love for his people and his belief in Christ make him willing to subject himself to repeated whippings and public humiliation. As such his commitment is unquestionable and as such, so should be his apostolic authority.

In lieu of continued abuse, why does Paul not cut his ties with the circumcised people? What does it say about Paul that he subjected himself to this treatment? Does this confirm that Paul would rather have been maimed than expelled from the synagogue? Would Paul have perceived this suffering as coming from “friendly fire”? Is this evidence that Paul still acknowledges the synagogue’s authority? What, if anything, is accomplished by Paul’s suffering? Does any good emerge from it? Has any good resulted from your suffering? Who or what do you care enough about to subject yourself to a severe beating?

“He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.” - Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), quoted in Victor Frankl (1905-1997), Man’s Search for Meaning, p. 121

Ananias: Not An Apostle (Acts 9:10-19)

Who prayed for Saul when he was healed from his blindness? Ananias (Acts 9:18)

Paul, still known as Saul, begins his journey from persecutor of the church to apostle when he is famously blinded on the Damascus road during an encounter with Jesus (Acts 9:1-9). God enlists Ananias, a disciple from Damascus, to intercede on the still blinded Saul’s behalf (Acts 9:10-19). The man who persecuted believers is now dependent upon one.

In a vision, God instructs Ananias that Saul will be awaiting him as he too has experienced a vision (Acts 9:10-12). Citing Saul’s notorious reputation, an apprehensive Ananias voices his concerns (Acts 9:13-14). God does not refute the reluctant disciple’s assessment but overrules his objection, confiding that Saul will play an important role in the church’s future (Acts 9:15-16). Ananias relents and does as he is commanded (Acts 9:17-19).

So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; and he took food and was strengthened. (Acts 9:17-19 NASB)

Ananias was a common name during the period. Harold S. Songer (1928-2005) observes:

Ananias is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Hannaniah (Hanni or Hanan) which means “God is gracious.” The name occurs frequently in the Apocrypha (cf. I Esdras 9:21, 43, 48; Judith 8:1; Tobit 5:12) and is used of three different persons in the New Testament [Acts 5:1, 9:10, 23:2]. (Watson E. Mills [b. 1939], Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, 28)

Rieuwerd Buitenwerf (b. 1973) researches:

See Tal Ilan [b. 1956], Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity Part I: Palestine 330 BCE-200 CE...On the list of most popular Jewish names...Hananiah (=Ananias) is seventh (pp. 56, 103-108). In Josephus [37-100]....are found...nine persons called Ananias. (Buitenwerf, Harm W. Hollander [b. 1949], Johannes Tromp [b. 1964], “Narrative History Based on the Letters of Paul”, Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity: Studies in Honour of Henk Jan De Jonge [b. 1943] (Supplements to Novum Testamentum), 74)

Ananias proves to be the embodiment of his name. J. Bradley Chance (b. 1954) notes:

The name means “Yahweh is gracious.” Whereas the name is ironic when applied to the Ananias of Acts 5:1-11, it is fitting for this Ananias. Even more skeptical readers...acknowledge that Luke inherited this basic story from tradition, for he would not have “made up” a character with the same name as two other infamous characters in Acts (Acts 5:1-11, 23:2-5). (Chance, Acts (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 148)

Little biographical information is provided regarding Ananias but everything that is revealed is highly favorable. Tellingly, and unlike Saul in the preceding story (Acts 9:5), when Ananias is summoned he recognizes the voice (Acts 9:10). He answers the call with the stereotypical servant’s response (Genesis 22:1, 31:11; Exodus 3:10; I Samuel 3:4, 6, 8; Isaiah 6:8).

Ananias is deemed a “disciple” (Acts 9:10). Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) defines:

The term μαθητης is regularly used in Acts to refer to a Christian (cf. Acts 5:1, 8:9, 9:1, 10, 16:1), but it seems likely that Luke also uses the term of the followers of John the Baptist in Acts as he had in the Gospel (Acts 19:1; cf. Luke 5:33, 7:18). In this case it is clear enough that Ananias is a Christian disciple. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 317-18)

Ananias is well-informed as his assessment of Saul’s behavior is accurate (Acts 8:3, 9:1-2). Because he has only heard of Saul’s dealings and not experienced them first hand many have concluded that he is a native of Damascus and not a refugee who has fled persecution in Jerusalem (Acts 9:13-14).

Later in Acts, when Paul recalls Ananias’ intercession, he describes him as “a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there” (Acts 22:12 NASB). From this commendation it can be deduced that Ananias is a Jewish believer held in high regard in the Christian community.

Prior to Saul’s blindness, as a prominent Damascan disciple, Ananias was likely high on the persecutor’s hit list. Ananias is beckoned in a vision, a common medium for divine communication in Acts, especially when the Lord is doing something new (Acts 2:17, 9:10, 12, 10:3, 17, 19, 11:5, 16:9, 10, 18:9). He is likely in terror when informed that the man hunting down he and his friends is in town much less that he is to seek him out.

Ananias receives an assignment he clearly does not want. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) compares:

The hunted do not usually minister to the hunter. Normally that would be as crazy as Peter Rabbit caring for Mr. McGregor or Golda Meir [1898-1978] nursing Adolf Eichmann [1906-1962]. But this is exactly what happened in Saul’s case. (Hughes, Acts: The Church Afire (Preaching the Word, 130)

For Ananias to entertain an idea this crazy, God had to be in it!

Being asked to intercede on Saul’s behalf is a severe test of Ananias’ faith. One of the ultimate measures of faith is how the believer responds to counterintuitive imperatives (Exodus 14:16; I Kings 17:3-14; II Kings 5:10; John 9:1-11). Ananias passes this test with flying colors.

Ananias goes to Saul and administers the laying on of hands (Acts 9:17). The ritual is commonly associated with healing in Luke-Acts (Luke 4:40, 13:13; Acts 9:17; 28:8).

Clinton E. Arnold (b. 1958) chronicles:

In the Old Testament, the laying on of hands is done in connection with a special commission (as Moses did when he conferred the leadership of the nation on Joshua; Numbers 27:23) or with the imparting of a blessing (as Jacob did on his sons just before he died; Genesis 48:14). Jesus often laid his hands on people as he healed them. (Arnold, John, Acts (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 78)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) adds:

The imposition of hands takes on a curative aspect...As a gesture of healing, it is unknown in the Old Testament or in rabbinical literature but has turned up in 1QapGen 29:28-20, where Abram prays, lays his hands on the head of Pharaoh, and exorcises the evil spirt afflicting him and his household for having carried off Sarai, Abram’s wife. (Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Bible), 429)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) differentiates:

Ananias will be the mediator of the restoration of Saul’s sight and of the Spirit’s filling. At Qumran, 1QapGen 20:28-29 mentions the laying on of hands to drive a demon away from Pharaoh, but this Qumranic text is not technically an exorcism, as there is no possession here, only oppression and demonic presence...What Ananias does is not designated to send a force away but to associate Saul with God...The purpose of laying on hands in this scene is obvious. The Spirit is connecting Saul to his brothers, as Ananias’s opening address affirms. He also is empowered for witness, a Pauline “Pentecost” (William J. Larkin, Jr. [b. 1945] 1995: 143 see Acts 9:15). (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 362)

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

The laying on of hands is certainly not a rite subsequent to baptism; as usual in Acts, it is a sign of blessing, to be interpreted as the occasion suggests. Here it is an act of healing. (Barrett, Acts 1-14 (International Critical Commentary), 457)

Ananias’ intercession accomplishes its purpose as Saul regains his eyesight (Acts 9:18). This marks the only New Testament story outside of the gospels where a blind person’s sight is restored. The return of Saul’s sight is signaled by “something like scales” falling from his eyes (Acts 9:18 NASB). A similar film is removed from Tobit’s eyes in the Apocrypha (Tobit 3:17, 11:13).

The event marks Saul’s physical and spiritual healing. Saul is eventually filled with the Spirit though there is some debate as to when this occurs. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) rationalizes:

It is not clear whether in the present context it is also regarded as conveying the gift of the Spirit to Paul, and indeed this seems unlikely since here it precedes baptism, with which reception of the Spirit would normally be associated. At the same time Ananias indicated his commission from the same Lord who had already appeared to Paul to bring him healing and the gift of the Spirit. (Marshall, Acts (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 172)

Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) counters:

The conjunction of regaining sight and being filled with the Spirit seem to be two sides of one coin here. Hence when Acts 9:18 says he sees, it can be inferred that he has been filled. The visible sign of his filling is his healing (cf. Galatians 3:5). If so, there is once again considerable variety in the arrangements associated with the reception of the Holy Spirit in Acts. (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 87)

Regardless of when he is filled with the Spirit, Saul is initiated into the Christian community.

Remarkably, the dutiful disciple not only follows orders but seemingly does so ungrudgingly. Ananias’ words match his actions as he not only touches Saul but establishes rapport by receiving him as a “brother” (Acts 1:16, 2:29, 2:37, 3:17, 6:3, 7:2, 9:17, 13:15, 26, 38, 15:7, 13, 21:20, 22:1, 22:13, 23:1, 5, 6, 28:17.) Often lost in translation, Ananias also greets Saul using the Hebrew or Aramaic transliteration Saoul. Taken collectively, these gestures add up to a warm welcome demonstrating genuine love and kindness and more importantly, acceptance as a member of the community.

What is absent is also meanningful: At no point does Ananias reproach Saul! Saul has been accepted by God and that is good enough for Ananias.

William H. Willimon (b. 1946) interprets:

No longer does Ananias speak about “this man” [Acts 9:13] but to “Brother Saul.” The despised enemy, the alien, has become a brother. Does Luke intend the phrase “on the road by which you came’...to remind us of Acts 9:2 where the “way” refers to the believers? On the way to do in the followers of “the Way,” Saul was turned around and set on the way. (Willimon, Acts (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 77)

Lloyd J. Ogilvie (b. 1930) praises:

One of the most moving scenes in all of Scripture is what happened when Ananias went to Saul. He found the feared persecutor alone, blind, and helpless. All the hurt and fright Ananias had felt for what this man had done to his brothers and sisters in Christ drained away. The same Lord who told him to go to Saul lived in him and had given to him His own character traits of love and forgiveness. It was with the Lord’s deep compassion and acceptance that Ananias could say, “Brother Saul.”...How we need people to enact His love in a daring way by calling us by a name we have not yet earned or accepted for ourselves! (Ogilvie, Acts (The Preacher’s Commentary), 166-67)

The truce between Ananias and Saul represents the forgiveness possible through Christ, a reconciliation the would shape Paul’s ministry. Charles L. Campbell (b. 1954) connects:

There are few more dramatic pictures of the reconciling power of the risen Christ. The persecuted Ananias, in the power of the risen Christ, calls his former persecutor “Brother.” In Jesus, that is the kind of reconciled community that is possible. And for the rest of his ministry Paul will emphasize this reconciliation between “Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female.” Not only Paul’s life is changed by his encounter with the risen Christ, but the very character of the community itself begins to undergo a transformation. (Roger E. Van Harn [b. 1932], The Lectionary Commentary, Theological Exegesis for Sunday’s Texts: The First Readings – The Old Testament and Acts, 561-62)

Ananias’ response to Saul serves as a model for all Christians to accept new believers regardless of past actions.

Though Ananias plays only a cameo role in the New Testament, the part he plays is significant. Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1934) proclaims:

Ananias is an important figure in Acts 9. He is more than a messenger. His reaction to events is important. The narrator takes time to present this reaction and the Lord’s corrective response. Therefore, this episode is more than the story of Saul; it is the story of Saul and Ananias, a story of how the Lord encountered both and brought them together. (Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, A Literary Interpretation, Volume 2: The Acts of the Apostles, 115)

Behind every great Christian is another who instructed them along their way. Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) correlates:

On April 21, 1855, Edward Kimball led one of the young men in his Sunday School to faith in Christ. Little did he realize that Dwight L. Moody [1837-1899] would one day become the world’s leading evangelist. The ministry of Norman B. Harrison in an obscure Bible conference was used of to bring Theodore Epp [1907-1985] to faith in Christ, and God used Theodore Epp to build the Back to the Bible ministry around the world. Our task is to lead men and women to Christ; God’s task is to use them for his glory; and every person is important to God. (Wiersbe, Be Dynamic (Acts 1-12): Experience the Power of God’s People, 137)

Christian history is filled with lesser known disciples who influenced influential followers. Other such examples are Johann von Staupitz (1460-1524) and Martin Luther (1483-1546), John Egglen and Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892) and Mordecai Ham (1877-1961) and Billy Graham (b. 1918).

Ananias leaves the Biblical text as abruptly as he enters it. His diminishing recognition begins in the Bible itself.

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) tracks:

In Saul’s autobiographical retellings Ananias’s role diminishes as Saul’s role expands (Ronald D. Witherup [b. 1950] 1992, 77). In Acts 22 Ananias tells Saul to receive his sight and that he will be a “witness” of all he has seen and heard. By Acts 26 Ananias drops out of the story completely. (Parsons, Acts (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 130)

Ananias is not referenced in any of the Pauline epistles. This is especially conspicuous when Paul writes the Galatians of his encounter with Christ and asserts that “I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood” (Galatians 1:16 NASB).

There is little doubt that Ananias is one the Bible’s unsung heroes.

How hard must it have been for Ananias to help Saul? Who would you recoil from assisting? When has God asked you to do something that seemed illogical? How would Paul’s story have changed without Ananias’ intervention? Why do you think that Ananias fades from the forefront? If God wishes Saul’s sight to be restored, why does he wait for Ananias’ arrival for the scales to fall? What is accomplished by Ananias’ involvement? Why is Ananias chosen for this task?

To complete his mission, Paul will need the acceptance of the church and Ananias is a credible witness to an incredibly important event.

Derek Carlsen remarks:

The Lord did not need to use Ananias, but the church needed Ananias’ testimony and it also shows that the Lord uses people in bringing about the accomplishment of His will. This should encourage us to faithfully minister where we are, knowing that our labor is not in vain (I Corinthians 15:58). (Carlsen, Faith and Courage: Commentary on Acts, 237)

On many levels, Ananias is an odd choice. Not only does enlisting Ananias break “apostolic succession”, he also has no official status within the church.

S. G. Wilson (b. 1942) discerns:

If the point of Acts 9 was primarily to show how Paul was absorbed into the Church’s tradition, or, as Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975] would have it, legitimised by the Twelve through their representative, then one might have expected Luke to have made a clearer line of contact between the Twelve or the Jerusalem Church and Ananias in Damascus. It is an oft-noted fact that Ananias, a Christian who apparently permanently resides in Damascus, suddenly appears in Acts 9 without any clue being offered how Christianity had spread from Jerusalem to Damascus. We are not told that the Twelve preached or legitimised preaching there as, for example, they did in Antioch and Samaria. (Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series), 64)

Loveday Alexander characterizes:

Formally speaking, the laying on of hands here (Acts 9:17) is not apostolic. Ananias was not one of the Twelve, and there is no record that he himself was ever commissioned by the Jerusalem apostles. He acts simply as a believer, responding directly to the vision out of the conviction that he too has been sent...by the same Lord Jesus who appeared to Saul on the road. For Luke...Paul’s apostolic commission came not from Jerusalem but direct from the Lord himself. So Saul’s Damascus road experience leads him into a transformative encounter with the risen Christ. Its results are vision restored, rising to new life, baptism and filling with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17-18), and renewed strength (Acts 9:19). (Alexander, Acts: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer (Daily Bible Commentary), 79)

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

The commissioning of Saul, and the part played in it by Ananias, must ever remain a stumbling block in the path of those whose conception of the apostolic ministry is too tightly bound to one particular line of transmission or form of ordination. If the risen Lord commissioned such an illustrious servant in so “irregular” a way, may he not have done so again, and may he not yet do so again, when the occasion requires it? (Bruce, The Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 189)

Apostle or not, Ananias is a believer, a representative of God. And clergy or not, that is all he needs to be commissioned to do great things by God.

Why did God choose Ananias and not an apostle for the task of interceding for Saul? Do you believe that “apostolic succession” is a requirement for clergy? Who was instrumental in your spiritual development? Who have you interceded for? Who can you be interceding for?

“God will not look you over for medals, degrees or diplomas but for scars.” - Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915), The Note Book

Trusting Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2)

In what city was Phoebe a deaconess? Cenchreae (Romans 16:1)

Paul’s longest and most influential letter is the Epistle to the Romans. After communicating doctrine throughout the book’s first fifteen chapters (Romans 1:1-15:21), the letter concludes with customary salutations (Romans 16:1-27), equivalent to modern “shout outs”. This section incorporates 26 names representing a hodgepodge of people; Paul greets Jews and Gentiles, men and women alike. The chapter is so thorough that some have posited that it constitutes a self contained letter.

The most extensive salutation is devoted to endorsing Paul’s associate, Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2).

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well. (Romans 16:1-2 NASB)

This passage is a letter of recommendation. Letters of introduction, known as sustatikai epistolai, were common in the ancient world (Acts 18:27; II Corinthians 3:1, 4:2, 5:12, 10:12; III John 1:9-10; I Maccabees 12:43; II Maccabees 9:25). These affirmations were important as the ancient traveler had to rely on networking in an age where communication was far scarcer and slower than in modern times.

Paul’s endorsement features standard form and content. Efrain Agosto (b. 1955) outlines:

Romans 16:1-2 includes some typical terms from Greco-Roman commendation letter-writing: συνίστημι, synistēmi (“commend”); προσδέχεσθε, prosdechesthe (“receive”); and παραστητε, parastēte (“assist” or “help”). Paul clearly states Phoebe’s credentials for commendation. She is a “sister,” a διάκονος, diakonos (“servant”), someone “worthy [ἀξίως, axiōs]of the saints,” and a προστάτις, prostatis. Except for the final term, Paul uses language found elsewhere in his letters, including commendation passages (cf. “service [διάκονια, diakonia] to the saints,” I Corinthians 16:15; “receive [προσδέχεσθε, prosdechesthe] him in the Lord,” Philippians 2:29). Finally, the action Paul requests from the Roman churches on Phoebe’s behalf is ambiguous. She is to be welcomed and assisted in whatever she needs. Such ambiguity is also typical of Greco-Roman commendation letters. (J. Paul Sampley [b. 1935], Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, 123)

Paul does add weight to the common formula. Arland J. Hultgren (b. 1939) explains:

Paul’s commendation has a fourfold structure, in which he (1) identifies Phoebe by name; (2) mentions her credentials (a sister and deacon); (3) expresses a desired action from his readers (to receive her and to assist her); and (4) adds further credentials (calling her a benefactor of many and of Paul). Typically the first three items (identification, credentials, and desired action) appear in Pauline commendations. But in this case Paul adds an additional statement concerning Phoebe’s credentials. That is especially appropriate in this instance, since it sets up reciprocity. Paul asks that the Roman Christians receive Phoebe and assist her, for she has assisted others, including Paul himself. (Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, 569)

Despite employing routine form and content, this unit and Phoebe herself have come under much scrutiny. The mystery surrounding Phoebe’s role has perplexed scholars attempting to reconstruct the flow chart of the early church. The enigma surrounding Phoebe has projected her into the debate regarding what ministerial activities she and other women are authorized to perform and has made her a highly controversial figure.

Though her name was common, Phoebe is mentioned only here in the New Testament (Romans 16:1-2). She is otherwise unknown. Her name means “bright” or “radiant”. It is the feminine form of Phoebus (φοἰβος), a famous epithet given to the god Apollo, “the Bright One”.

Slaves were routinely issued pagan names because figures from Greek mythology commonly substituted for the godfather during the naming process. When slaves became Christian they typically retained their pagan names if not their meaning. In view of this practice, some have speculated that Phoebe is a freedwoman.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) theorizes:

The name Phoibē suggests her pagan background and probably connotes her status as a freed slave (so Heinrich Schlier [1900-1978], Römberbrief 441). The name was of mythological origin, that of a Titaness, daughter of Heaven and Earth (Hesiod, Theognis 136), wife of Coeus, and mother of Leto, grandmother of Apollo (Phoebus) and Artemis. The name means “shining, beaming, bright”; it was commonly used in the Greco-Roman world of the time. (Fitzmyer, Romans (The Anchor Bible), 729)

At the very least, it can be inferred that Phoebe is a Gentile as a Jewess would not have used such a name.

Phoebe is referenced with no mention of a father, husband or sons. Paul ignores all other biographical data and emphasizes her role in the church at Cenchreae. Cenchreae was a port situated on the Saronic Gulf, on the southeastern side of the narrow isthmus that connects southern Achaia to northern Achaia (and Macedonia further north). This locale would provide plenty of opportunity for the practical expression of Christian compassion (Romans 16:2).

Located eight miles from the city, Cenchreae served as Corinth’s eastern port to the Aegean Sea; one of two Corinthian ports. The reference to Cenchreae supports the common belief that Romans is written at Corinth (Romans 16:1). Paul spent eighteen months in Corinth (Acts 18:1-18) and the apostle sailed from Cenchreae in traveling from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts 18:18). In all likelihood, Phoebe was well known in Corinth.

In his glowing recommendation, Paul asserts that Phoebe is a sister, a deacon/servant, a saint, and a helper (Romans 16:1-2). In describing her as “our sister” and “saint”, Paul informs that she is a fellow believer and appeals to their common bond: Christ. Early Christians commonly referred to women believers with the familial appellation “sister” (I Corinthians 7:15, 9:5; Philemon 1:2; James 2:15; Ignatius Epistle to Polycarp 5.1; II Clement 12:5, 19:1, 20:2; The Shepherd of Hermas Vision 2.2.3, 2.3.1).

Paul evokes Phoebe’s status as a diakonos, a shadowy term with a broad range of meaning. Paul uses the same designation earlier in the letter (Romans 13:4 twice). The intent of this term has sparked much discussion. The question is whether the word indicates a general use (“servant”) or the ecclesiastical office of “deacon”, albeit an undeveloped form of this position.

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) assesses:

Paul uses the language of “service” (diakonia) in a variety of ways, as we might expect for a term so broad in its possible applications. In this letter, he uses it for his own ministry of preaching (Romans 11:13), his collection for the saints in Jerusalem (Romans 15:31) and for the work of Phoebe (Romans 16:1). A separate ministry of “deacons” appears in I Timothy 3:8, 12, but the “gift of service” may extend beyond that office (see I Corinthians 16:15; II Corinthians 8:4, 9:1; Ephesians 4:12). (Johnson, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 193)

Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) adds:

He uses the same word he employs regularly to describe both himself and others as servants of God (II Corinthians 6:4), servants of the gospel (Ephesians 3:7; Colossians 1:23), servants of a new covenant (II Corinthians 3:6), servants in the Lord (Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7), and servants of Christ (Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7; I Timothy 4:6). Only here in Romans 16:1 do we find anyone described as ‘a deacon of the church’, and this appears to be the earliest reference to such a ministry in ‘the church’. In Colossians 1:24-25 Paul does speak of the body of Christ, the church, of which he became a ‘servant’. All this suggests that the apostle recognized Phoebe as a servant of the church similar to his other colleagues and himself. (Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 553)

The diverging opinions on the term’s purpose are evidenced by the variance among translations. Many opt for the general meaning, “servant” (ASV, CEB, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV) as it used of servants drawing water (John 2:5, 9). Others go with the more formal title, “deacon” (NIV, NLT, NRSV) or “deaconess” (AMP, RSV). Still other translations utilize broader designations like “leader” (CEV) or “key representative” (MSG).

Deacon was one of the first offices to emerge in the early Christian movement (Philippians 1:1; I Timothy 3:8; Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians 2.1, Epistle to the Magnesians 6.1). Today, it is a loaded term as “Deacon” means different things depending on the denomination or person speaking. Paul’s casual use of the word shows that it has not yet developed the baggage it carries today.

Translations often demonstrate their bias in their rendering of Romans 16:1. Sojung Yoon exposes:

Διάκονος appears a total of nineteen times in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline letters. Sixteen times the KJV and ASV translate it as “minister,” while in Philippians 1:1 and I Timothy 3:8,12 they translate it as “deacon.” and in Romans 16:1 as “servant.” Therefore one can say that the KJV and ASV imply that διάκονος refers to an official position within the church, since normally they translate it as “minister.” Only in Romans 16:1 do they translate διάκονος as “servant,” thus implying that Phoebe was not a leader in the church but a devoted lay person. The RSV translates διάκονος as “deaconness,” also differentiating Phoebe’s leadership from other male διάκονοι by making the masculine noun διάκονος feminine, a distinction not found in the Greek. (Holly E. Hearon[b. 1956], Distant Voices Drawing Near: Essays in Honor of Antoinette Clark Wire [b. 1934], 20)

Alvin J. Schmidt (b. 1932) chronicles:

Phoebe...was a diakonos, not “deaconess” as male theologians have mistranslated this work in many Bible versions. (The feminine form of diakonos) did not appear in literature until about 300 years after St. Paul addresses Phoebe in the Epistle to the Romans. The Apostolic Constitutions [a Syriac document of about A.D. 375] is the first known Christian writing to use the feminine form of diakonos). The word diakonos appears many times in the New Testament. In the King James Version (KJV) it is most often translated as “minister” when it speaks about a man holding this office. Three times the KJV translates the word as “deacon.” Only in one place does it use the word servant, and that occurs in Romans 16:1, where Phoebe in mentioned...Evidently, beginning with the KJV, English translators were overwhelmed by sexist values because the Miles Coverdale [1488-1569] edition, about seventy years earlier (1535), still translated diakonos in Romans 16:1 as “minister.” Closer to our time, the Revised Standard Version renders diakonos as “deaconess.” while the New International Version, like the KJV, has “servant.” (Schmidt, Veiled and Silenced: How Culture Shaped Sexist Theology, 180)

As Yoon and Schmidt allude, “deaconess” is an especially incorrect translation (AMP, RSV, J.B. Phillips [1906-1982]). Kristina LaCelle-Peterson (b. 1960) corrects:

The fact that Paul used the masculine nominative form of the word suggests that she held a particular recognized role of “deacon” or “servant” that carried the same responsibilities as when a man held that role. If Paul is not referring to a specific office that Phoebe held, we have to assume that he simply confused the endings, but that would be like using the wrong gendered pronoun (as in, Phoebe had his mission to fulfill). No educated person would do that, particularly not someone as articulate as Paul. When an English translation renders the word as deaconess it leaves the inaccurate impression that Paul is drawing a distinction of roles based on gender. (Fortunately this is less common in more recent translations.) (LaCelle-Peterson, Liberating Tradition: Women’s Identity and Vocation in Christian Perspective, 62)

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

In a church context the word should be rendered ‘deacon’, whether masculine or feminine. That the duties of a deacon could be performed by either men or women is suggested by I Timothy 3:11, where ‘the women’ are to be understood as ‘deacons’ (like the men of I Timothy 3:3-10). (Bruce, Romans (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 252)

Scholarly opinion is as divided as the translators regarding the meaning of diakonos. Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) surveys:

She is a “deacon”...of the church in Cenchrea, which could refer to a general service to the church (NIV; NASB; Kazimierz Romaniuk [b. 1927] 1990:132-34) or an official office in the church (NRSV; REB; NLTL; C.E.B. Cranfield [b. 1915] 1979; James D.G. Dunn [b. 1939] 1988b; Leon Morris [1914-2006] 1988; Douglas J. Moo [b. 1950] 1996; Thomas R. Schreiner [b. 1954] 1998). Most accept the latter, for the term referred to that office (Philippians 1:1; I Timothy 3:8, 12), and women at times did hold the office (I Timothy 3:11). Moreover, this is the masculine noun (diakonos), and if it did indicate a general “serving,” one would have expected the feminine diakonia. In fact some have concluded that she was the pastor of the congregation (Elizabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza [b. 1938] 1986:425-26; Robert Jewett 1988:148-50), but there is too little evidence that this term was used of the position of pastor over “overseer” in the first century. Most likely she held the office of “deacon,” but there is little evidence regarding what this office entailed...Most likely deacons dealt with the practical needs of the church, for example, caring for the needy...and financial oversight. (Osborne, Romans (IVP New Testament Commentary), 402-3)

The debate is not new, it has persisted for centuries. Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) documents:

Some early church fathers believed that she fulfilled an official role. Origen [184-253] said: ‘This passage teaches that there were women ordained in the church’s ministry by the apostle’s authority...Not only that — they ought to be ordained into the ministry, because they helped in many ways and by their good services deserved the praise even of the apostle’. Pelagius [354-420] said, ‘Even today, women deaconesses in the East are known to minister to their own sex in baptism or even in the ministry of the Word, for we find that women taught privately, e.g., Priscilla, whose husband was called Aquila.’ Some recent commentators agree. (Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 553-54)

The majority of scholars assert that Phoebe served in some official capacity. Many have concluded that since Paul’s qualification “of the church” (Romans 16:1) connects diakonos to a specific church it also indicates a specific office. This is the first time “church” is used in Romans and in this epistle it always speaks of a local, not the universal, church (Romans 16:1, 4, 5, 16, 23).

C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) comments:

It is perhaps just conceivable that the word διάκονος should be understood here as a quite general reference to her service of the congregation; but it is very much more natural, particularly in view of the way in which Paul formulates his thought...to understand it as referring to a definite office. We regard it as virtually certain that Phoebe is being described as ‘a (or possibly ‘the’) deacon’ of the church in question, and that this occurrence of διάκονος is to be classified with its occurrences in Philippians 1:1 and I Timothy 3:8, 12. And, while it is true that the functions of a διάκονος are not expressly indicated in Philippians 1:1 or in I Timothy 3:8ff or in the present two verses, there is nothing in any of these passages in any way inconsonant with the inherent probability that a specialized use of διάκονος in New Testament times will have corresponded to the clearly attested specialized use of διακονειν and διακονία with reference to the practical service of the needy, and there are some features, for example, what is said about Phoebe in Romans 16:2b, which would seem to afford it some support. (Cranfield, Romans 9-16 (International Critical Commentary), 781)

David L. Bartlett (b. 1941) argues that Phoebe is best described as a “minister”:

Phoebe...is designated as a diakonos. This Greek word often means “minister,” even as Paul applies it to himself (see, for instance, I Corinthians 3:5; II Corinthians 3:6, 6:4, 11:23). Clearly Phoebe has a role of some importance in the early community, and “minister” is probably a better translation than “deacon.” Sometimes a “minister,” or diakonos, is a person who carries out a commission from another. (In II Corinthians 11:15, Paul refers to false apostles as “deacons” or “emissaries” from Satan.) Phoebe may be Christ’s emissary in the church at Cenchreae, as Paul has been Christ’s emissary in Corinth. In Philippians 1:1, “deacons” are apparently local church leaders, though they may not yet be officers in any institutionalized way. Older translations sometimes called Phoebe a “deaconess,” but the Greek word gives not reason to think that she has a leadership role reserved for women. She is a “deacon” or “minister.” (Bartlett, Romans (Westminster Bible Companion), 140)

James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) states unequivocally, “Phoebe is the first recorded ‘deacon’ in the history of Christianity (Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Word Biblical Commentary), 887).”

If Dunn is correct, there is still great discussion as to what a deacon’s duties entailed. Women holding the office were known to conduct baptisms for women and to preach. The degree to which the term designated an actual office at the time Paul wrote Romans is also unclear.

It is for this reason that many, even those who object to women in ministry, have no problem conceding that Phoebe served as a deacon. Wayne Grudem (b. 1948) explains:

It does not matter very much...whether Phoebe is called a faithful “servant” or a “deacon” in Romans 16:1. In neither case does this passage show that she had any teaching or governing authority in the church. Teaching and governing the whole church are functions given to “elders,” not deacons, in the New Testament (see I Timothy 3:2, 5, 5:17; Titus 1:9; also Acts 20:17, 28). (Grudem, Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism: Biblical Responses to the Key Questions, 154-55)

The word translated “helper” is as contested as “deacon” (Romans 16:2 NASB). It is prostatis, which literally means someone who stands in front of something else. The word is translated variously “been helpful” (NLT), “helper” (ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV), “she’s helped” (MSG), “succourer” (KJV), “benefactor” (HCSB, NIV, NRSV), “patron” (ESV) and “respected leader” (CEV). The terminology represents distinguished service. The word connotes great honor. The Roman emperor even boasted that he was the state’s supreme benefactor.

Douglas J. Moo (b. 1950) defines:

The Greek word prostatis is found only here in biblical Greek. It comes from a verb that means (1) “care for, give aid to,” or (2) “direct, preside over.” If Paul is applying to the noun this first meaning of the verb, he would simply be characterizing Phoebe as a “helper” of many Christians...But if we use the meaning of the cognate verb to define prostatis, Pauline usage would favor a different rendering. For Paul seems to use the verb only to mean “direct,” “preside over.” Noting this, some recent scholars have argued that Paul intends to characterize Phoebe as a “leader” of the church. But it is difficult to conceive how Phoebe would have had the opportunity to be a “leader” of Paul. Moreover, the fact, that Paul designates her as the leader “of many” rather than as the leader of “the church” (contrast Romans 16:1) suggests that the term here does not denote an official or even semi-official, position in the local church. The best alternative, then, is to give to prostatis the meaning that if often has in secular Greek: “patron,” “benefactor.” A “patron was one who came to the aid of others, especially foreigners, by providing housing and financial aid and by representing their interests before local authorities. Cenchreae’s status as a busy seaport would make it imperative that a Christian in its church take up this ministry on behalf of visiting Christians. Phoebe, then, was probably a woman of high social standing and some wealth, who put her status, resources, and time at the services of traveling Christians, like Paul, who needed help and support. (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 915-16)

Leander E. Keck (b. 1928) concurs:

The word here surely means more than “a good friend” (REB), for it appears to be the Greek equivalent of the Latin patrona, one who “came to the aid of others, especially foreigners, by providing housing and financial aid and by representing their interests before local authorities”...Acts 16:14-15, 40 suggests that Lydia served as Paul’s patron in Philippi. Phoebe, then, was a “benefactor,” from whose generosity Paul too benefitted (Gaius was another; Romans 16:23). Like Lydia and Gaius, Phoebe had financial resources; what sort of business took her to Rome is not indicated. By making her role in the church a reason to welcome her in Rome, Paul, in effect, says, “She deserves it.” Having assisted travelers like Paul, she would now be given assistance herself. (Keck, Romans (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 369-370)

Some have seen Paul’s use of prostatis as further evidence of a position of leadership. The word is derived from the same root (proistemi) as the word Paul uses for “leads” in Romans 12:8.

Alan F. Johnson (b. 1933) glosses:

The word “help” (Greek prostatis) in Romans 16:2 is found only here in the New Testament and its sense is not entirely clear...The word is found eight times in the Greek Old Testament (LXX) and thirteen times in the first-century Jewish writer Josephus [37-100], in each of the twenty-one cases with reference to a person who holds a publicly recognized service-oriented leadership role, the word may be stronger than simply a benefactor...Its choice here by Paul seems to clearly affirm that Phoebe has not only some social position, wealth, and independence, but that she is recognized as an official leader in the church as well. (Johnson, Romans (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 259-60)

Thomas R. Schreiner (b. 1954) counters:

That Phoebe is being called a leader here is improbable for three reasons. (1) It is highly improbable that Paul would say that Phoebe held a position of authority over him. He says that about no one except Christ, not even the Jerusalem apostles (Galatians 1:6-7, 11), so confident is he of his high authority as an apostle (cf. I Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:8-9; II Thessalonians 3:14). (2) There seems to be a play on words between the word prostatis and the previous verb paristēmi, in Romans 16:2. Paul says to help (paristēmi) Phoebe because she has been a help ( prostatis) to many, including to Paul himself. It fits the context better understand Paul as saying “help Phoebe because she has been such a help to others and to me.” (3) Although the related masculine noun prostatēs can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun (prostatis) does not take the meaning “leader” but is defined as “protectress, patroness, helper.” (John Piper [b. 1946] and Wayne Grudem [b. 1948], Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, 219-220)

Whatever her official position, Paul’s argument is clear: Phoebe has helped others and deserves any assistance the Roman Christians can provide. She has good kharma. In making this assertion, Paul is diplomatically reiterating his previous charge to contribute “to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality (Romans 12:13 NASB).”

It is uncertain what assistance Phoebe might need. Rudolf Schumacher (b. 1884) was the first to espouse that the language (pragma, Romans 16:2) connotes a lawsuit (Schumacher, Die beiden letzten kapitel des Römerbriefes, 49). While others have adopted this stance, it is far from certain.

Regardless of her gender, position and whatever needs she might have, it can be certain that Phoebe is special and a leading figure in the church at Cenchraea.

Which part of the letter was most important to the Romans, the teaching or the greetings? Is the recommendation of Phoebe an afterthought? When have you received a letter of recommendation? Who vouches for you? Who have you known that fits Phoebe’s description? Who are the leading women in your church? Can women serve as deacons there? In your opinion, what functions should a woman not perform? Is there anything that God cannot accomplish through a woman?

Though it is not stated in the letter, the prevailing opinion is that Phoebe is the bearer of the Epistle to the Romans. (To acknowledge her as courier in the letter might be considered stating the obvious.) The Roman Empire had no public postal system and many believe that she is delivering the correspondence while conducting “whatever business” she is tending to (Romans 16:2). Subscriptions in some ancient manuscripts even indicate as much (337, 424, 1881, Majority text). This theory is also attested in early Christian documents, e.g. Pseudo-Constantius, The Holy Letter of St. Paul to the Romans (on 16:1); dated 405.

Margaret Y. MacDonald (b. 1961) notes:

It was quite common for ancient letters to include praise of their bearers, and sometimes letters were written for the sole purpose of commending their bearers. Paul’s instructions concerning Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2 appear to reflect this conventional practice (cf. I Corinthians 16:15-18). It is impossible to be certain whether this commendation is made only to guarantee that the Romans offer her the best kind of hospitality or whether Paul intends that she might play a specific role in the life of the Roman community. (Ross Shepard Kraemer [b. 1948] and Mary Rose D’Angelo, Women & Christian Origins, 207-208)

Phoebe is accustomed to serving and her toting Paul’s epistle fits her character. A courier would have need of food and lodging and thus her being the bearer of the letter would account for Paul’s instruction to the Romans (Romans 16:2). At the very least, Phoebe and the letter arrive at roughly the same time.

As courier, Phoebe would be expected to interpret the letter and supplement content, filling in the gaps. This would make her the first commentator of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.

Robert J. Karris (b. 1938) describes:

It is highly likely that Phoebe not only carried Paul’s letter to the Romans to the house churches but also read it to them. You see, Phoebe was likely among the five percent of the population who could read. Further, in reading Romans, she surely had to know what it was about. Ancient letters (and manuscripts) did not have spacing, chapters and verses, and subheadings. I give a simple example. Suppose I put a recent headline in capital letters without spacing: FLORIDAKEYDEERREBOUNDS. Without too much effort you read: Florida key deer rebounds. But is “key” an adjective meaning “principal”? Does “key” refer to the Florida Keys? Is “key deer” a technical name for a species of deer? The reader would have to know answers to these questions in order to read this simple sentence out loud meaningfully. Just think of the skill Phoebe must have if she is to navigate successfully through all the elements of scholastic diatribe that Paul used in composing his letter! (Karris, Galatians and Romans (New Collegeville Bible Commentary: New Testament), 94)

Phoebe is Paul’s representative to the leaders of the house churches. In a very real sense, Paul and Phoebe endorse one another. In authenticating her, Paul gives his own work credibility. Paul trusts Phoebe implicitly. Some have speculated that he is sending her to set up operations in Rome and to financially support a mission to Spain (Romans 15:24, 28). More importantly, Paul entrusts Phoebe with his opus, his most complete work. Its survival is evidence of her success.

Brendan Byrne (b. 1939) praises:

Brief though it is, Paul’s commendation of Phoebe is an important indication of the leadership roles exercised by women in the early Christian communities. It is also not without significance that the document many have judged to be the most influential in Christian history (Paul’s letter to Rome) was entrusted to this woman on the long and risky journey to its destination, its ultimate reception very much dependent upon the impression she herself was to make on the recipient community. (Byrne, Romans (Sacra Pagina), 448)

Phoebe is entrusted with nothing less than the gospel. As are we.

Does it matter whether or not Phoebe held an official office? What does having a formal title mean to you? What is the bigger responsibility, being a deacon or bearing the letter to the Romans? What have you been entrusted with?

“This is a staggering fact. God has entrusted to people like us, redeemed sinners, the responsibility of carrying out the divine purpose in history.” - George Eldon Ladd (1911-1982), The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God, p. 134

Anna’s Anticipation (Luke 2:36)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anna’s comprehensive resume includes the following details:

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

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

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

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

David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) adds:

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

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

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

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

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