Traveling a Rocky Road (Luke 10:25-37)

Where did the story of the Good Samaritan take place? On the road to Jericho (Luke 10:30)

“The Parable of the Good Samaritan” is one of Jesus’ most famous illustrations (Luke 10:25-37). The famed story, found only in Luke’s gospel, is told in response to an inquiry as to the definition of “neighbor” (Luke 10:29). The parable describes a highway robbery in which a traveler is brutally ambushed by brigands (Luke 10:30). After two respected members of the religious establishment pass the victim without helping a Samaritan goes out of his way to assist the fallen traveler (Luke 10:31-33). The fact that Jesus paints a Samaritan, a reviled race by Jews of his day, as the hero would have shocked the original audience. After unleashing this thinly veiled diatribe against prejudice and religious leadership, Jesus concludes the discourse by letting the audience determine who in the story is the neighbor (Luke 10:36).

A unique facet of this parable is that Jesus gives it a clearly defined real world setting: the traveler is attacked between Jerusalem to Jericho (Luke 10:30).

Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. (Luke 10:30 NASB)

While the story is fictional, its landscape is not. This twist adds a heavy dose of realism to the parable.

This may be another incidence of Jesus finding a teachable moment based on his own physical location. Peter Rhea Jones (b. 1937) speculates:

It is possible that Jesus was standing on or near the Jericho road when he spoke the parable since Bethany is on the same road and the next pericopé centers there. Certainly the parables usually associated with Galilee are not peopled with priestly sorts, whereas this parable may well have been uttered in Judea, a region more related to the Temple. (Jones, Studying the Parables of Jesus, 295)

Specifically the traveler is “going down” from Jerusalem to Jericho, situated east of Jerusalem in the Jordan valley (Luke 10:30). Encountering priests on this journey is not surprising.

Klyne Snodgrass (b. 1944) informs:

Jericho was such a popular residence for priests that estimates suggest that half of the twenty-four orders of priests (cf. I Chronicles 24:1-19) lived there, although this may be an exaggeration. Each order would serve in the Temple for one week. (cf. Luke 1:8). (Snodgrass, Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, 345)

From Christianity’s earliest days, the parable’s setting was interpreted allegorically. Marcion of Sinope (85-160) posed that the backdrop was appropriate because Jesus was the true Good Samaritan and he appeared for the first time in history between Jerusalem and Jericho.

Arland J. Hultgren (b. 1939) relays:

Why Jericho? Augustine [354-430] allegorized the parable, saying that the descent signified the loss of immortality as the man went from the heavenly city (Jerusalem) to one that signified mortality (Jericho). It is more likely, however, that Jesus chose Jericho as the destination because the road to it was known to be a treacherous and dangerous route. (Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary, 95)

Though “road” is not explicitly in the text, the path taken can be definitively located as there were few alternate routes. In Scripture, one always goes “up” to Jerusalem and down from the Holy City and in this case the terminology was quite literal.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) describes:

According to Josephus [37-100], Bellum Judaicum 4.8,3 § 474, this was a distance of 150 stadioi (about eighteen miles) through “desert and rocky” country. Reference would be to the Roman road through passes and the Wadi Qelt; one would descend over 2500 feet above sea level (Jerusalem) to 770 feet below it (Jericho)...Josephus also mentions it as the way taken by the Legio X Fretensis [41-40 BC] en route from Jericho for the siege of Jerusalem (Bellum Judaicum 5.2, 3 § 69-70). (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (The Anchor Bible), 886)

Darrel L. Bock (b. 1953) adds:

Traveling the road from Jerusalem to Jericho (another journey going the other direction is found in II Chronicles 28:15), he would have gone through the Pass of Adummim (Joshua 18:17), a name that is related to the Hebrew word for blood. This journey had a reputation for being dangerous long before Jesus’ time...It was a rocky thoroughfare winding through the desert and surrounded by caves, which made good hideouts for robbers who laid in wait. Even centuries after Christ’s time, robbers continued to exploit travelers on this road. (Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 1029)

The road’s topography leant itself to treachery. It possessed a sharp, steep descent. Situated in wild, desolate country, its curved path limited a traveler’s line of sight.

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) summarizes:

The man was travelling (κατέβαινεν – imperfect) from Jerusalem to Jericho along a road which...runs through desert and rocky country, well suited for brigands (Josephus Bellum Judaicum 4:474; Strabo 16:2:41 describes how Pompey destroyed brigands here, and Jerome [347-420] (in Jeremiah 3:2) spoke of Arab robbers in his time). It is not surprising that on his journey the man encountered robbers. (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 447)

The road’s destination of Jericho also supplied ideal prey. Trent C. Butler (b. 1941) reports:

Herod [73-4 BC] had built New Testament Jericho as his winter palace on the same spot Hasmonean rulers had earlier built their palace. Herod included three palaces, a swimming pool, and a sunken garden. Thus, government officials frequently made the trip from Jerusalem to Jericho as did Jewish religious and political leaders. Criminals took advantage of the upper class’s need to travel this winding, crooked road through dangerous passes. They hid behind large rocks above narrow passes and preyed on travelers. (Butler, Luke (Holman Bible Commentary), 172)

The road has long had a nefarious reputation. Josephus (37-100) characterized the road as dangerous (Bellum Judaicum 4.451-475) and notes how some commuters took weapons to protect themselves as they traveled this road and others like it (Bellum Judaicum 2.8.4 §125).

The road’s reputation persisted for centuries. William Barclay (1907-1978) researches:

There is an extant letter dated A.D. 171 in which a complaint is made to the government by two dealers in pigs. They too had fallen into the hands of brigands “who assaulted us with very many stripes, wounding Pasion, robbed us of a pig and carried off Pasion’s coat.” In the fifth century Jerome [347-420] tells us that it was still called “The Red or Bloody Way.” Even as late as the middle of the nineteenth century travellers had to pay safety money to the local Sheiks if they wished to be safe from the attacks of the Bedouin...The grim history of the road extends even to our own time. H.V. Morton [1892-1979] in his book In the Steps of the Master writes, “When I told a friend that I intended to run down to the Dead Sea for a day he said, “Well, be careful to get back before dark.’ ‘Why?’ I asked. ‘You might meet Abu Jildah...’ ‘Who is Abu Jildah?’ ‘He is a brigand who has shot several policemen. There is a price of £250 on his head, and he has a habit of building a wall of stones across the Jericho road, stopping cars, robbing you, and if you resist, shooting you. So take my tip and get back before dusk...’” Even in the early 1930's this very road was still a danger to spot for the unwary traveller. (Barclay, The Parables of Jesus, 79-80)

Richard Gribble (b. 1952) adds:

In 1118, during the period of the Crusades, the Knight Order of Templars was formed to defend pilgrims on this path. As late as the nineteenth century, pilgrims received protection from Turkish soldiers along the way. (Gribble, The Parables of Jesus: Applications for Contemporary Life, Cycle C, 104)

Even if the reader is unfamiliar with the road’s well-deserved reputation, it quickly reveals itself in the events that transpire.

Remnants of the road still exist today. Henry Wansbrough (b. 1934) relays:

The old path from Jerusalem to Jericho runs down the Wadi Qilt, a deep, twisting canyon with rocky sides and blistering heat, some four hours’ smart walk. Today you can round a corner and find yourself in the middle of a flock of goats, herded by a bedouin boy and his noisy dogs. Just as easily it could be the bandits of Jesus tale. (Wansbrough, Luke: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer (Daily Bible Commentary), 95)

The old road, however, was even more menacing than the present one. It was considered especially dangerous even at a time when travel was customarily hazardous. Given this setting, the listener anticipates the story and is prepared for the violence that transpires. It is almost expected. There are modern equivalents.

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

Few Israelis today will travel from Galilee to Jerusalem by the direct route, because it will take them through the West Bank and risk violence. In exactly the same way, most first-century pilgrims making the same journey would prefer, as Jesus himself did, to travel down the Jordan valley to Jericho and then turn west up the hill to Jerusalem. It was much safer...But still not completely safe. The desert road from Jericho to Jerusalem had many turns and twists, and brigands could lurk out of sight in the nearby hills and valleys, ready to strike. A lonely traveller was an easy target. (Wright, Luke for Everyone, 127)

Darrel L. Bock (b. 1953) compares:

The cultural equivalent today might be a trip through parts of the inner city in the middle of the night. This road was hazardous, as the man who falls among robbers finds out. Thieves took advantage of the caves that lined the road as it wound through the desert, jumping travelers as they passed through. (Bock, Luke (The NIV Application Commentary), 300)

Given this reputation, some interpreters have viewed the traveler as irresponsible. William Barclay (1907-1978) indites:

The traveller...was obviously a reckless and foolhardy character. People seldom attempted the Jerusalem to Jericho road alone if they were carrying goods or valuables. Seeking safety in numbers, they travelled in convoys or caravans. This man had no one but himself to blame for the plight in which he found himself. (Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Daily Study Bible Series), 165)

It is worth mentioning that the story’s hero, the Samaritan, is not critiqued for being companionless. Neither is the priest nor the Levite.

Frank Stern (b. 1936) reminds:

One of the surprising aspects of the parable was that all the travelers journeyed alone. Usually, people traveled the highway in groups. When the Essenes passed through, they carried weapons to protect themselves from robbers. (Stern, A Rabbi Looks At Jesus’ Parables, 220)

In fact, the traveler is completely nondescript. He may or may not have been reckless. Given his location, many have deduced that he is Jewish. This, however, is not stated. The only thing that can be stated conclusively about him is that he is in need of help. And for “good Samaritans” that is all that need be known.

Why does Jesus place his parable on a road synonymous with violence? How would the story change if set on an anonymous road? Does Jesus himself ever walk this path? Is the traveler in any way to blame for his predicament? If so, would he be less deserving of help? What is the modern-day equivalent of the road from Jerusalem to Jericho? Where do you feel uncomfortable walking alone? When have you been saddened but not shocked about events based upon where they occurred?

The setting prepares the reader for the story by eliciting an expectation for both violence and the presence of priests. These expectations also pave the road for the surprise: the startling answer to the question of “Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29) The plot moves from the common occurrence of robbery to the uncommon help of the Samaritan. The story ends with the jarring charge to be the neighbor the Good Samaritan is: to help those in peril (Luke 10:37).

But even at the story’s conclusion, the road remains. Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) critiques:

The road from Jerusalem down to Jericho was indeed a dangerous one. Since the temple workers used it so much, you would have thought the Jews or Romans would have taken steps to make it safe. It is much easier to maintain a religious system than it is to improve the neighborhood. (Wiersbe, Be Compassionate: Let the World Know That Jesus Cares (Luke 1-13), 115)

Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) challenges:

On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be changed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. (King, “Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam,” speech delivered April 30, 1967; The Riverside Church, New York).

Why was the road from Jerusalem to Jericho allowed to remain so vulnerable? What “road repair” needs to be done in your area? How can you help?

“Any revolution has to start with the transformation of the individual, otherwise individuals are corrupted by the power they get if their revolution succeeds.” - Wes “Scoop” Nisker (b. 1942)

Raising Our Ebenezer (I Samuel 7:12)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Philips Long (b. 1951) comments:

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

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

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

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

Francesca Aran Murphy (b. 1960) interprets:

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

Mark Batterson (b. 1969) simplifies:

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

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

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

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

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

John Goldingay (b. 1942) elucidates:

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

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

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

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

Robert P. Gordon (b. 1945) expounds:

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

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

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

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) adds:

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

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

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

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

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

David Toshio Tsumura (b. 1944) explicates:

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

Hans William Hertzberg (1895-1965) determines:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beth Moore (b. 1957) encourages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeking Advice or an Accomplice? (John 12)

To whom did the Greeks say, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus”? Philip (John 12:21)

Shortly before his crucifixion in Jerusalem, a contingent of Greeks sought an audience with Jesus (John 12:20-22). They enquired of Philip, one of the first disciples (John 1:43-44) and member of his entourage (John 12:21). In turn, Philip relayed their request to Andrew who led the party to Jesus (John 12:22). This narrative aside, though exceedingly short, marks the first time Greeks interacted with Jesus. Interestingly, John does not record the outcome of this encounter. The account is more concerned with illuminating the scope of Jesus’ ministry and perhaps addresses doubts of Jesus’ willingness to engage Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:22-24).

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) concluded that the disciples were merely following standard operating procedure: “Note the chain of access here, really a brokerage chain, from Philip to Andrew to Jesus, indicates the status of those core followers who stand between Jesus and the public (Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 212).”

Others have speculated that the Greeks chose Philip because he was a disciple with a Greek name. His hometown of Bethsaida (John 1:44, 12:21) also had a significant Gentile population. Of all the disciples, Philip was mostly likely to grant their request. Coincidentally, Andrew was the only other disciple with a Greek name.

Philip seemingly did not know what to do so he consulted his peer, Andrew.

What do you do when you don’t know what to do? Who do you go to for advice? How do you select your advisors?

Khalil Gibran (1883-1931) wrote, “Most people who ask for advice from others have already resolved to act as it pleases them.” As such many people choose an advisor whom they know will deliver advice that corroborates their direction. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) claimed that to choose an advisor is to already have decided.

Andrew never prevented anyone from seeing Jesus. In fact, each time Andrew is seen by himself, he is leading another to Christ (John 1:41, 6:8, 12:21). As Andrew first led his brother Simon Peter to Jesus (John 1:41) and later introduced the Greeks to Christ (John 12:22), it has been said that Andrew was both the first home and foreign missionary. It is doubtful that Andrew would have rejected someone’s petition to encounter Jesus.

Do you think Philip picked Andrew out of convenience (he happened to be there) or because he already knew what Andrew would do? When you choose advisors, do you pick those whose advice you can already surmise?

“The best way to give advice to your children is to find out what they want and then advise them to do it.” - Harry S. Truman (1884-1972)