Tertius: Writer of Romans (Romans 16:22)

Who wrote the letter of Romans for Paul? Tertius (Romans 16:22)

The Epistle to the Romans is Paul’s magnum opus; the weightiest, longest and most influential of the apostle’s writings. It is the only letter that he wrote to a church that he did not found and as such it lays the foundation for his doctrine and systematic theology. In many ways, the epistle functions as Paul’s resume, introducing himself to the church at Rome in hopes of future collaboration (Romans 1:10-12, 15, 15:24, 28).

Like many of Paul’s letters, Romans concludes with personal greetings. On the surface, the material seems inconsequential, like a long list of people to whom “Goober says hey!” on The Andy Griffith Show (1960-68). Given the perceived lack of relevance, these postscripts are often neglected when reading or studying the biblical text.

Like the letter itself, this section of Romans is longer than its counterparts in any of Paul’s other canonical epistles. Amid these copious greetings, a scribe emerges from behind the scenes to send his own salutations. Tertius (pronunciation: TER-tee-us) nonchalantly interjects his own address and notes that it is he who has physically penned the document (Romans 16:22).

I, Tertius, who write this letter, greet you in the Lord. (Romans 16:22 NASB)

Tertius’ bold interjection disrupts the letter (Romans 16:22). Though there is nothing in the salutation’s tone to indicate that it does not follow standard operating procedure, this awkward intrusion represents an anomaly. As is typical of Greco-Roman writers, Paul does not customarily identify his secretaries, known as amanuenses, by name. In fact, this is the only instance of a named amanuensis in all of Paul’s canonical writings. Even more strikingly, it is not Paul but the stenographer himself who makes the reference.

Peter Stuhlmacher (b. 1932) asserts:

The most interesting remark in this section of the text historically is found in Romans 16:22. In a move which is quite unusual in the Pauline letters, the writer of the letter, Tertius, takes the opportunity of giving a personal greeting. (Stuhlmacher, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, 254)

Though unusual for Paul, having a scribe interject is not entirely unparalleled. James R. Edwards (b. 1945) compares:

It was common in rabbinic literature to mention the name of an amanuensis, but one can sense Tertius’ special pride in being the transcriber of such a monumental work. (Edwards, Romans (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 361)

Paul’s permitting Tertius to embed greetings is like a master painter allowing a novice to add a stroke to a masterpiece. F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) speculates:

At this point Tertius may have handed the pen to Paul. The sender of a letter in antiquity, after dictating most of it, frequently wrote the last few words in his own hand. Such an autograph (not necessarily, and indeed not usually, his signature) was Paul’s authenticating mark in all his letters (II Thessalonians 3:17). We may, then, envisage Paul writing the remainder of the letter himself, perhaps in the ‘large letters’ to which he draws attention in Galatians 6:11 (Bruce, Romans (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 265)

Somewhat conspicuously, Paul recognizes no coauthor to the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 1:1). E. Randolph Richards (b. 1958) observes:

Paul’s letter to the Romans had no coauthor, and yet Timothy was present during its composition (Romans 16:21). Romans is the only letter where Paul states that Timothy was present but does not also name him as a coauthor [Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; I Thessalonians 1:1; II Thessalonians 1:1]. (Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, 206)

Despite having no formal coauthor, there are more hands in the kitchen when cooking up Romans than is typically imagined.

While Paul is undisputedly the author of the letter (Romans 1:1), the physical act of writing the epistle is performed by Tertius (Romans 16:22). At this time, it was not uncommon for an amanuensis to compose documents. Romans features the clearest indication of Paul’s utilizing such a transcriber (Romans 16:22) though it is often assumed that the apostle employed amanuenses in other letters. Four times Paul signs off with a greeting which he emphasizes is written by his own hand, implying that the remainder of the correspondence was penned by another (I Corinthians 16:21; Galatians 6:11; Colossians 4:18; II Thessalonians 3:17). Some have speculated that Paul used an amanuensis due to a preexisting eye condition, perhaps stemming from his conversion experience (Acts 9:7-9, 17-19). In Galatians, Paul himself notes the John Hancockian size of his penmanship (Galatians 6:11).

Amanuenses were trained to write small and neatly in an era where paper was scarce and expensive. Daniel M. Gurtner (b. 1973) chronicles:

The employment of an amanuensis was a common practice in antiquity. Cicero [106-43 BCE] frequently dictated letters to his secretary, Tiro [103-4 BCE], as did other classical writers to theirs. Caesar [100-4 BCE] also seemed to have one (Plutatch [45-120], Vita Caesaris 17.3), as did many others (Pliny [23-79], Epistulae 3.4, 9.36; Quintilian [35-100], Institutio Oratoria 10,3,19). In addition, many papyrus letters preserved from Paul’s day were written by secretaries, with a final greeting or closing matter written in the hand of the sender. (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], Acts-Philemon (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary), 244)

In employing an amanuensis, Paul composed Romans according to the writing conventions of his day. One of the reasons for the prevalence of amanuenses was the skill set needed to write in the ancient world. Primitive pens and paper made printing legibly a challenge.

C. Marvin Pate (b. 1952) inventories:

Writing materials during this time period included a stylus for writing on wax tablets, and pen and ink for writing on surfaces such as papyrus, vellum, boards, or pottery. (Pate, Romans (Teach the Text Commentary Series), 8)

Prior to Johannes Gutenberg (1395-1468)’s invention of movable type (1454), all copies had to be produced painstakingly by hand. It is from this process that the term “manuscript” (manu [“hand”]-script) developed. As such, writing came at great cost in terms of both time and money.

Michael P. Middendorf (b. 1959) comments:

The use of a scribe, amanuensis, or secretary like Tertius was common in Paul’s day. It appears that Paul regularly utilized one...Part of this was due to, and also affected by, the cost of producing a letter of exceptional length like Romans, since a scribe could write more succinctly in a smaller hand that was also more legible. Leon Morris [1914-2006] cites the following statistics: “In the papyri private letters range in length from 18 words to 209. More literary letters tend to be longer, the subject matter obviously having an influence on length. Cicero [106-43 BCE]’s 796 letters average 295 words with a range from 22 to 2,530, while Seneca [4 BCE-65 CE]’s 124 letters range from 149 to 4,134 words with an average length of 995 words. The New Testament letters tend to be longer, though II and III John are quite short. The 13 Pauline letters average around 1,300 words. Clearly Paul took letter writing very seriously and made it much more of a vehicle for significant teaching than did most people of the ancient world. Romans is his longest letter, with about 7,100 words. Its length as well as the profundity of its subject matter marks it out as a most unusual letter.” (Middendorf, Romans 1-8 (Concordia Commentary), 3-4)

Some have approximated an amanuensis’ pace to be seventy words per hour. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) appraises:

Given the time necessary to take normal dictation in antiquity (shorthand being unavailable), Paul may have taken over eleven hours to dictate this letter to Tertius, its scribe (Romans 16:22). Since such a major undertaking probably involved more than one draft (and Paul could draw on his preaching experience), the final draft may have taken less than this estimate, but the total time invested in the letter was probably greater. Given the cost of papyrus and of the labor required (though Tertius, a believer, might have donated his services), one scholar estimates the cost of Romans at 20.68 denarii, which he calculates as roughly $2275 in recent US currency. In other words, Paul did not simply offer this project as an afterthought; Romans is a carefully premeditated work. (Keener, Romans (New Covenant Commentary Series), 1-2)

C. Marvin Pate (b. 1952) investigates:

E. Randolph Richards [b. 1958] provides three intriguing details about Paul’s letter to the Romans: it would have cost approximately $2,275 (in modern currency); the travel time to deliver a letter from Corinth to Rome by sea would have been about ten days; the same letter would have taken about two months to travel by land from Corinth to Rome. (Pate, Romans (Teach the Text Commentary Series), 322)

Romans is lengthy, a book in the true sense of the word. Its transcription would have been arduous work. Perhaps Tertius’ greetings are Paul’s way of rewarding his amanuensis for days of intensive labor.

Tertius describes himself as the one “who wrote” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NKJV), “who write(s)” (ASV, NASB), “who wrote down” (NIV), “the writer” (NRSV, RSV) or the “one writing” (NLT) Romans as opposed to “translator” or “interpreter”. Still, there is nothing in the Greek vocabulary (grapho) to indicate the extent of Tertius’ involvement in the composition.

Though no one doubts that Tertius serves as amanuensis, the exact role he plays has been the subject of much debate as the scope of the position varied greatly. C. Marvin Pate (b. 1952) inspects:

E. Randolph Richards [b. 1958]’s study of ancient letter writing shows that there was a continuum of how much input amanuenses had in the composition of a letter, moving from little control (dictation), to some control (shorthand), to complete control (composer). (Pate, Romans (Teach the Text Commentary Series), 321)

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

That Romans 16:22...was not composed by Paul is clear. Recent commentators have for the most part been content to say simply that Paul was in the habit of dictating his letters. But it is necessary to ask whether Tertius means by ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν (i) that he wrote the letter in long-hand to Paul’s dictation, or (ii) that he took it down in shorthand as Paul dictated it and then subsequently wrote it out in long-hand, or (iii) that, acting as a much more independent secretary, he himself composed the letter in accordance with Paul’s instructions. (Cranfield, Romans, Volume 1: I-VIII), 2)

The least likely possibility is that Paul allowed Tertius the freedom to compose the letter based on the apostle’s outline, a function comparable to the modern ghostwriter. Notably, Otto Roller (1871-1936) endorsed this stance in his 1933 book Das formular der paulinischen Briefe: ein Beitrag sur Lehre vom antiken Briefe.

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

Otto Roller [1871-1936]...maintained that the normal practice was either to write one’s own personal letters in one’s own hand (especially if they were short) or else—and this was more often done—to entrust the writing to a secretary, who would himself compose the letter on the basis of the instructions given him; that the dictation of letters (in the sense of the dictation of the full text of the letter as the scribe wrote) was exceptional, since the extreme laboriousness and slowness of writing on papyrus with such pen and ink as were available made such dictation excessively tedious and time-consuming; that shorthand was not used as early as Paul’s time for taking down letters from dictation. With regard to Romans, in particular, he further argued that the fact that Tertius composed Romans 16:22 independently itself gives rise to doubts as to whether Paul dictated Romans 16:21 and Romans 16:23—and, in fact, the rest of the letter; and that the chiastic arrangement of Romans 1:8-15 and Romans 15:28-33 (prayer—proposed visit in the one and proposed visit—prayer in the other) suggests composition by a secretary familiar with the stylistic convention that the beginning and conclusion of the ‘context’ of a letter should correspond, since this phenomenon occurs in no other Pauline letter. He also suggested that some of the anacolutha and other unevennesses to be found in the Pauline epistles may be the result of Paul’s own additions to, and corrections of, the drafts submitted for approval...But Roller’s arguments and the mass of fascinating illustrative material he brought together fall a long way short of proving that alternatives (i) and (ii) must be ruled out. (Cranfield, Romans, Volume 1: I-VIII), 2-3)

Roller’s position is still decidedly in the minority and naturally generated criticism. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) archives:

Otto Roller [1871-1936]’s work has not gone without serious criticism; see Ernst Percy [b. 1901], Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, Acts regiae societalis humaniorum litterarum lundensis 39 [Lund: Gleerup, 1946], 10; Wilhelm Michaelis [1896-1965], Einleitung in das Neue Testament [Bern: Haller, 1946], 242-44; 2nd edition [1954], 251; J.N. Sevenster [1900-1991], Do You Know Greek?, Novum Testamentum Supplements 19 [Leiden: Brill, 1968], 12. (Fitzmyer, Romans (Anchor Bible), 41)

It is safe to say that most interpreters do not perceive Paul playing Christian to Tertius’ Cyrano, allowing the apostle to present another’s eloquence as his own as in Edmond Rostand [1868-1918] ’s Cyrano de Begerac (1897).

Others, most famously William Sanday (1843-1920) and Arthur C. Headlam (1862-1947), have posited that Tertius functioned more like the modern court report, jotting Paul’s words in shorthand before expanding later.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) reviews:

William Sanday [1843-1920] and Arthur C. Headlam [1862-1947] (Romans, lx) had opted for dictation of the letter to Tertius, who would have taken it down in shorthand and then written it out in longhand. They argued for this mode of dictation on the basis of the way that Origen [184-253]’s lectures were taken down and subsequently copied, as described in Eusebius [263-339], Historia ecclesiastica 6.23.2. Tachygraphy or shorthand writing was used in the ancient Greek-speaking world of the eastern Mediterranean area; legend ascribes it to Xenophon [430-354 BCE], but an example of it, as yet undeciphered, has been found even in Palestine. It occurs in a text written on skin discovered in a Murabba‘at cave, dating from the early second century A.D. (see Pierre Benoit [1906-1997], “Document”). (Fitzmyer, Romans (Anchor Bible), 41-42)

James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) supports:

Often cited is Seneca [4 BCE-65 CE]’s reference to “the shorthand symbols by means of which even a rapidly delivered speech is taken down and the hand is able to keep up with the quickness of the tongue” (Epistulae 90.25). “The practice was widespread in the empire” (E. Randolph Richards [b. 1958], Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collectio; further 67-74; earlier Secretary in the Letters of Paul 26-43; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor [b. 1935], Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills 8-13). (William H. Brackney [b. 1948] and Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], “How the New Testament Began”, From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith: Essays in Honor of Lee Martin McDonald [b. 1942], 130)

E. Randolph Richards (b. 1958) speculates that Tertius may have been a notarius, a public secretary with authority to draw up official documents (Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, 31). He questions:

Perhaps Tertius was not used because Romans was so long, but actually Romans was so long because Tertius was a professional secretary. He may well have been trained in Greek shorthand (tachygraphy), since Rome was most known for housing professional stenographers. (Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, 206)

There is debate as to whether tachygraphy was even in practice at the time and region of Romans’ composition. C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) considers:

Otto Roller [1871-1936] maintains that there is no certain evidence of the existence of Greek tachygraphy earlier than the middle of the second century A.D. (The evidence for Latin tachygraphy is earlier.) But the fact that Cicero [106-43 BCE] used a Greek expression to denote shorthand-writing in a letter to Titus Pomponius Atticus [112-35 BCE] strongly suggests that he derived the art from Greeks. Whatever we make of the tradition that Xenophon [430-354 BCE]...invented shorthand–-we might perhaps think of him taking down a few sentences at a time in this way and then writing them out in long-hand while Paul thought out his next few sentences—cannot be ruled out. (Cranfield, Romans, Volume 1: I-VIII), 4)

Peter Stuhlmacher (b. 1932) rejects:

Tertius could have take dictation from the apostle in stages in Greek shorthand and then subsequently expanded it and presented it to Paul for his additions and corrections...The fact that there are sentences in the letter which remain incomplete (so-called anacoluthons), as in Romans 2:20, 5:6, 12, 9:22ff, rather speaks against it. (Stuhlmacher, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, 254)

Most interpreters envision Paul maintaining strict creative control and veto power over the content of Romans with the apostle closely monitoring Tertius. He is given sole writing credit (Romans 16:1) while elsewhere he freely shares authorship (I Corinthians 1:1; II Corinthians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1I Thessalonians 1:1; II Thessalonians 1:1; Philemon 1:1).

There is precedence for such strict dictation. C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) presents:

The last sentences of Cicero [106-43 BCE]’s letter of 12 July 45 B.C. to his friend Atticus [112-35 BCE], in which he speaks of a letter he had written to the exceedingly fastidious Varro [116-27 BCE], show that Cicero judged it wiser, where it was specially important that the expression of his thought should be absolutely right, to dictate ‘syllabatim’ to Spintharus than to entrust the drafting to his highly competent and beloved secretary Tiro [103-4 BCE], though he apparently found this very tiresome. In view of the special importance and special difficulty of its subject matter and also in view of its occasion, it hardly seems particularly unlikely that Paul would dictate his letter to the Roman church—in spite of its very much greater length—in the way Cicero dictated his letter to Varro. After all, though he may not have thought that he was producing a κτημα ἐς αἰεί he must surely have hoped that his letter would on more than one occasion be read and listened to with a good deal of attention by the Christians of Rome, and that they would ponder it and discuss it amongst themselves. Moreover, with regard to the slowness of such dictation, it is surely likely that even Paul would be unable to formulate such a letter at any great speed...May not Paul have needed quite as much time to compose it as did Tertius to write it? (Cranfield, Romans, Volume 1: I-VIII), 3-4)

There is also linguistic evidence that suggests that Romans is dictated. Gary M. Burge (b. 1952), Lynn H. Cohick (b. 1962) and Gene L. Green (b. 1951) detect:

Most likely Paul dictated Romans to Tertius. The study of letter writing in antiquity shows that the repetition of the word “for” (gar in Greek) signals a process of dictation—and it occurs 144 times in Romans. Furthermore, Romans closely resembles some of Paul’s other letters, which probably had different scribes. (Burge, Cohick and Green, The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within Its Cultural Context, 326)

Thomas R. Schreiner (b. 1954) resolves:

It is intrinsically unlikely that Paul would surrender the specific contents of Romans to Tertius. The letter was of great import to Paul, and its careful structure suggests that he fussed over the details. Indeed, the ever present γάρ (gar, for) suggests a dictated text (Joseph A. Fitzmyer [b. 1920] 1993c:42). The style of Romans fits with Paul’s other letters that are accepted as authentic, and there is no evidence that Tertius composed those. In conclusion, Romans should be accepted as the product of Paul’s dictation to Tertius, and the question whether it was first composed in shorthand or longhand should be left open. (Schreiner, Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 2-3)

Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) supports:

While many gave their amanuenses great freedom in writing their letters, the similarity of style in Galatians, Romans and the Corinthian correspondence probably means Paul dictated his (so Peter Stuhlmacher [b. 1932] 1994; Douglas J. Moo [b. 1950] 1996, Thomas R. Schreiner [b. 1954] 1998). (Osborne, Romans (IVP New Testament Commentary), 416)

While Paul may not have known the long-term impact that Romans would have, he was well aware of its immediate significance. This letter was simply too important to leave anything to chance.

Regardless of methodology, the precision of Romans’ construction is undeniable. Richard N. Longenecker (b. 1930) concludes:

Whether Tertius should be viewed as having written down Paul’s dictation in longhand “syllable by syllable,” as C.E.B. Cranfield [b. 1915] postulates, or as having taken Paul’s dictation in shorthand and then written it out in longhand, as William Sanday [1843-1920] and Arthur C. Headlam [1862-1947] proposed, Paul’s letter to the Christians at Rome gives every indication of having been carefully composed by him in both its arguments and its diction — that is, in both it content and its wording. (Longenecker, Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul's Most Famous Letter, 10)

Tertius may have had a greater impact on Romans than is typically thought. He has been used as a catch-all for potential textual problems in the letter. John Hugh Michael (1878-1959) pinpoints problematic words or phrases that occur in different contexts and posits that the repetition may be owed to dictation (A Phenomenon in the Text of Romans).

More favorably, Frank J. Matera (b. 1942) imagines:

Dictating the letter to Tertius would have allowed Paul an opportunity to test phrases out loud for rhetorical effect before Tertius wrote them. (Matera, Preaching Romans: Proclaiming God’s Saving Grace, 120)

Wilhelm Wuellner (1927-2004) endorses:

That the postscript is in itself well composed, and that it can be shown to be fully integrated with the rest of the letter, is as applicable to Romans as it is to Galatians. The very mention of the amanuensis Tertius in Romans 16:22 points to the fact that the “letter itself assumes more and more the character of an official document and less the character of a ‘private letter,” as Hans Dieter Betz [b. 1931] puts it. (Karl P. Donfried [b. 1940], “Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the Karl P. Donfried [b. 1940]-Robert J. Karris [b. 1938] Debate Over Romans”, The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition, 136)

E. Randolph Richards (b. 1958) lauds:

Why was Tertius used to record Romans? It may well be no other reason that he was an available secretary. It should be asked, however, is it merely coincidence that Romans is the longest letter of Paul, the letter that contains the strongest oral features, that can contains the highest frequency of oratorical rhetoric? Ever since Gustav Adolf Deissmann [1866-1937], scholars have noticed rhetorical parallels between Epictetus [55-135] and Paul. Epictetus’s works claimed to be the recorded speeches of Epictetus, taken down by Arrian [86-160]. The surface similarities between Epictetus and Romans may well be because both were accurate recordings of spoken preaching style. (Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, 206)

Some scholars have even speculated that Tertius composes an entire, albeit brief unit, of Romans’ postscript (Romans 16:21-23). Christopher Bryan (b. 1935) notes:

Harry Y. Gamble [b. 1941] raises the possibility that Paul wrote the whole of Romans 16:1-20ab in his own hand, with Tertius adding Romans 16:21-23: see The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism, Texts and Documents 42 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1977), 93-95. (Bryan, A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in Its Literary and Cultural Setting, 14)

James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) agrees:

If Romans 16:17-20 are a final rousing call written in Paul’s own hand, as seems quite possible, Romans 16:21-23 are a final postscript, very likely penned by Tertius himself, before the letter was sealed and passed to the messenger. (Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Word Biblical Commentary), 908)

In relaying his greetings, Tertius makes his only appearance in the biblical record. Alexander Maclaren (1826-1910) describes:

He is never heard of before or since. For one brief moment he is visible, like a star of a low magnitude, shining out for a moment between two banks of darkness and then swallowed up...We do not know whether he was a resident in Corinth, where he wrote this epistle, or one of Paul’s travelling companions. Probably he was the former, as his name never recurs in any of Paul’s letters. One can understand the impulse which led him for one moment to come out of obscurity and to take up personal relations with those who had so long enjoyed his pen. He would fain float across the deep gulf of alienation a thread of love which looked like gossamer, but has proved to be stronger than centuries and revolutions. (Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture: Romans and Corinthians, 395-96)

In Greek, the first person pronoun is implied in the verb ‘I write” but Tertius accentuates his involvement by adding an unnecessary additional “I”. Robert H. Mounce (b. 1921) infers:

James Denney [1856-1917] notes that the of the first person “is a striking indication of Paul’s courtesy.” Tertius was more than simply a scribe brought in for the occasion; he was a Christian brother free to add his personal greetings to those of others. (Mounce, Romans (New American Commentary), 281)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) applauds:

For whatever reason he sends his own greetings. It is a little human touch. That the apostle allows this to be done in connection with such a weighty letter as this sheds light on the relationship between the apostle and his helpers. Tertius calls attention to himself with the emphatic I and tells the reader that he wrote the letter. (Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 543)

Tertius is a common slave name. James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) introduces:

Tertius, a Roman name quite common among slaves and freedmen (Otto Michel [1903-1993]), is not otherwise known; but he may have been known in Rome. On the other hand, having been so much part of such an important letter he may have felt it appropriate to add his personal greetings, even though greetings in the first person were unusual (TDNT 1:501). (Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Word Biblical Commentary), 912-13)

The function he serves is further evidence that Tertius is likely a slave. The origin of the word amanuensis is the Latin servus a manu, which entails a “slave with secretarial duties”.

L.L. Welborn (b. 1953) shares:

The Latin name Tertius means “third,” and was often used as a name for slaves. The fact that Tertius’ profession was that of scribe also indicates slave status, since amanuenses were often slaves. Because Paul was a guest in the house of Gaius in Corinth when he wrote the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 16:23), we should probably infer that Tertius was a slave of Gaius. The self-assurance with which Tertius speaks in the greeting which he inserts into the letter itself, rather than attaching it as a note at then end, is eloquent testimony to the sense of equality “in Christ” enjoyed by this member of the Pauline community, as Robert Jewett [b. 1933] has observed. (Welborn, An End to Enmity: Paul and the "Wrongdoer" of Second Corinthians, 235-36)

Some have related Tertius to Quartus who is referenced in the very next verse of Romans’ salutations (Romans 16:23). F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) connects:

Since Quartus is Latin for ‘fourth’, and Tertius for ‘third’, would it be excessively far-fetched to think of him as Tertius’s brother, born next after him? (Bruce, Romans (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 266)

John Murray (1898-1975) counters:

Quartus is called the brother [Romans 16:23]. It is more likely that this means brother in Christ rather than brother of Erastus [Romans 16:23] or even of Tertius. The fact that he is distinguished as “the brother”, when all the others are brethren in Christ, does not require the ordinary use of the term “brother” any more than does the addition of “in the Lord” in Romans 16:8 in the case of Ampliatus mean that others mentioned as beloved were not beloved in the Lord as well. All the others mentioned in these greetings (Romans 16:21-23) are not only mentioned by name but identified by some other addition. (Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 239)

The more intriguing connection is between amanuensis and author. It has been speculated that Tertius is placed at Paul’s disposal by his host, Gaius (Romans 16:23; F.F. Bruce [1910-1990], 14), or his benefactor, Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2, C. Marvin Pate [b. 1952], 321).

James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) contemplates:

This was written while he [Paul] was the guest at the home of Gaius, whose house also served as the meeting place when ‘the whole church (in Corinth)’ came together (Romans 16:23). It was Gaius too, perhaps, or Phoebe, another of Paul’s benefactors (Romans 16:1-2), who was able to provide or finance the use of a skilled secretary or amanuensis, Tertius (Romans 16:22), something particularly desirable in such a major composition, and itself signalling the care with which Paul set about composing the letter. We need not imagine Paul spending day after day for the whole period on the letter. But neither is there any hint that he continued to work to maintain himself. More likely what detained him for so long in Corinth was the business of organizing the collection and the gathering to Corinth of the various delegates. But no doubt there would be long gaps when little more could be done and he could devote himself to the drafting and final composition of the letter. (Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem (Christianity in the Making, Volume 2), 863)

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

The secretary to whom Paul dictated Romans makes his presence obvious in the note, “I, Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord” (Romans 16:22). This is the only case in which one of the apostle’s secretaries intervenes personally and identifies himself. That he felt free to do so says much for his relationship to Paul; no professional hired for the occasion would have taken the liberty. Tertius was more a friend and collaborator than an employee...A confidential secretary is almost an extension of his master’s personality. (Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills, 6)

Tertius’s salute is authorized; he is not going into business for himself. Paul could just as easily have documented Tertius’ greeting but instead allows the amanuensis to deliver it himself. This has led some to presume that Tertius is known to the Roman Christians.

E. Randolph Richards (b. 1958) surmises:

In Paul’s letter to the Romans he concluded by greeting a large number of people by name, all in the Roman church. It has been questioned how Paul came to know so many when he had never visited the church. In Paul’s day, however, people traveled extensively, so it was not impossible. Yet there is another explanation. Paul used a secretary, Tertius (Romans 16:22), who apparently was not a member of his band. Tertius, a Roman name, was also a believer for he sent greetings “in the Lord.” Secretaries did not send greetings in a letter written for another, with the rare exception where the secretary was also known to the recipients. The few examples of a secretary squeezing in a greeting are only where the secretary was well known to the recipient. Most likely Tertius was a member of the Roman church. (Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, 151)

E. Randolph Richards (b. 1958) decides:

Tertius was not mentioned in Romans 16:22 because he was the secretary (for Paul identified his secretary in no other letter), but because he was known to the Roman church. (Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, 206)

Robert Jewett (b. 1933) accounts for Tertius’ interjection with the suggestion that he serves a dual role: he is not only Paul’s penman but was also the one who read the letter aloud to the church in Rome (Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible), 22-23, 41).

If Tertius is a known commodity in Rome, his personal greetings are not only a courtesy but also strategic. Paul is networking, making connections with a congregation he does not know firsthand. Tertius’ greeting displays Paul’s benevolent nature to the Roman church.

Paul’s use of a scribe not only adds a layer of complexity to Romans’ construction but also provides additional authentication of the veracity of its content. This makes Tertius a witness testifying to the credibility of Paul’s claims.

Whatever the reason for his cameo appearance, this marks Tertius’ only mention in the New Testament (Romans 16:22). It leaves the reader wondering as to his fate. Some ancients connected him to Silvanus (I Peter 5:12). Church tradition numbers Tertius among the Seventy Disciples (Luke 10:1), presents him as the apostle Sosipater’s successor as the bishop of Iconium and celebrates him as a martyr. The Catholic Church celebrates St. Tertius days on October 30 and November 10.

Though it is perhaps natural to downplay Tertius’ role to elevate Paul, penning perhaps the most influential letter of all-time is quite the accomplishment. Craig Gross (b. 1975) and J.R. Mahon exclaim:

Tertius wrote Romans! Read it. If we rely on history, Tertius is a hand that held a pen, nothing more. The only problem? God saw fit to mention him by name in the context of one of the most powerful books in the New Testament. To excuse this divine act is to ignore Tertius’s talent, which brought the book of Romans to life for you and me. (Gross and Mahon, Starving Jesus: Off the Pew, Into the World, 82)

Tertius is like many other Christians who do invaluable, often thankless work behind the scenes. Paul graciously provides him a moment in the spotlight.

How did Paul work the exorbitant cost of Romans into his budget? What literature is worthy of making an investment? Why does Paul allow Tertius to convey his personal greetings? Can networking be a Christian practice? What would you have said if you were Tertius? What is the modern equivalent to the ancient amanuensis? How much leeway do you think that Paul gave Tertius? If Tertius was more involved in Romans’ composition, would it make the text less inspired? Is Paul God’s amanuensis? When have you taken great care in writing something? Who do you trust to edit your words? Who do you know who does underappreciated work in a church?

Tertius intrudes into the text to “greet” (ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “send greetings” (CEV, MSG, NLT) or “salute” (ASV, KJV) the Roman Christians “in the Lord” (Romans 16:22).

The Greek text exhibits some ambiguity in connection to the prepositional phrase. John Piper (b. 1946) explains:

In Romans 16:22, the Greek word order goes like this: “I greet you, I Tertius, the one who wrote the letter in the Lord.” There is nothing in Greek that says “in the Lord” has to modify “I greet you,” as virtually all the translations have it: “I . . . greet you in the Lord.” It can just as easily modify “wrote”—“I Tertius, the one who wrote this letter in the Lord.” (Piper, ““Thank God for an Inspired Bible”, November 19, 2006)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) explicates:

There is a teasing little problem with in the Lord, which is usually taken with greet but which in the Greek follows immediately on “wrote the letter”. It is also true that in this chapter “in Christ” or “in the Lord” occurs repeatedly in verses which convey greetings (Romans 16:3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12a, 12b, 13), and not once is it connected with the greeting. It may well be that Tertius meant that he wrote the letter “in the Lord”, which, of course, immediately raises the question of what it means to “write in the Lord”. If this is the way to take it, we should see the writing of the letter, not as a mechanical project, but as something Tertius undertook as a piece of service to his Lord. (Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 543)

Both positions are likely true. Tertius would probably not object to crediting God with his penmanship nor bestowing Christian greetings.

Roberto Assagioli (1888-1974), the founder of psychosynthesis, developed a well-known parable about three stone cutters building a cathedral during the fourteenth century. When the first artisan is asked what he is doing, he bitterly replies that he is carving stones into blocks and laments that this chore will forever be his fate. When asked the same question, the second stone cutter has a different response, replying that he is supporting his family. When the third craftsman is interviewed, he joyously discusses the privilege of participating in the construction of a great cathedral that will stand as a holy beacon for a millennium. The three workmen are all performing the same task but hold very different perspectives concerning their occupation. It is their rationales that made all of the difference.

For Tertius the laborious burden of penning Romans is nothing less than an act of service, a gift to God. In an age when literacy was not common, he utilizes his specialized skill for Christ. As such, it is a labor of love.

Everett F. Harrison (1902-1999) and Donald A. Hagner (b. 1936) suspect:

We may be sure he [Paul] was careful to use believers rather than public secretaries who would do their work without any spiritual concern or special care. We also may be sure that people such as Tertius would undertake the task as work for the Lord, so that it would cost the apostle nothing. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Romans – Galatians (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 233)

To Paul’s credit, he allows Tertius to utilize his talents. In doing so, the apostle is also practicing what preaches. David L. Bartlett (b. 1941) recalls:

Romans 16:21-23 remind us that even the apostle did not minister alone. He is aided by co-workers and relatives. He depends on the hospitality of Gaius and others [Romans 16:23]. He dictates his letter to Tertius [Romans 16:22]. Paul insists in Romans 12 that the church is a body whose different members have different responsibilities [Romans 12:3-8]. His own ministry is fulfilled in cooperation with many others. (Bartlett, Romans (Westminster Bible Companion), 143)

What are the advantages and disadvantages to employing Christians in the church in less spiritual roles? What projects are you undertaking in which you would you be well served to collaborate with fellow believers? How can you use your skills to serve? What do you do “in the Lord”?

“Thoughts disentangle themselves when they pass through the lips and the fingertips.” - Dawson Trotman (1906-1956), founder of The Navigators

Leaping Tall Buildings (Psalm 18:29)

Who by God’s help was able to jump over a wall? David (Psalm 18:29)

Psalm 18 is a lengthy psalm that can be classified as an individual royal psalm of thanksgiving (Psalm 18:1-50).

Richard J. Clifford (b. 1934) introduces:

Psalm 18 shifts the topic from the subject of the three preceding psalms, the Temple, to the king (though the king is often associated with the Temple.) It is the third longest poem in the Psalters (after Psalms 119 and 78). A nearly identical version is found in II Samuel 22 [II Samuel 22:1-51]. (Clifford, Psalms 1-72 (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), 104)

The psalm’s superscription attributes its composition to King David. Geoffrey W. Grogan (1925-2011) notes:

Most scholars now see this psalm as very old, and the possibility that all or much of it is by David is quite widely (but not universally) accepted, even by some denying most other psalms to him. It is sometimes used as a yardstick for measuring whether others headed לדוד, lědāwid, are by him. (Grogan, Psalms (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary), 64-65)

William L. Holladay (b. 1926) adds:

Strikingly, this psalm [Psalm 18:1-50] is duplicated in II Samuel 22 [II Samuel 22:1-51], and there it is specifically attributed to David (II Samuel 22:1). The context given for the Psalm in II Samuel 22 might itself be unhistorical, but that this psalm, which appears to offer archaic language, is preserved in two different parts of the Old Testament suggests that the attribution to David should be taken seriously; most scholars at least date it to the tenth century B.C.E. (Holladay, The Psalms Through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses, 24)

Derek Kidner (1913-2008) defends Davidic authorship:

Although some have assumed from the final verse [Psalm 18:50] that the king in question was not David but one of his descendants, the verse does not require this, and the zest and vividness of the writing point to first-hand experiences such as David pre-eminently had. An incidental pointer to him is the allusion to fighting on foot (Psalm 18:29, 33), since later kings soon took up chariots (cf. I Kings 22:34; II Kings 9:21), which were introduced on a large scale by Solomon. (Kidner, Psalms 1-72 (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 90)

The psalm’s superscription states that the psalm documents “the day that the Lord delivered him [David] from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul.” This heading is highly irregular.

Samuel Terrien (1911-2002) informs:

The editor of the Davidic Psalter not only attributed Psalm 18 in its totality to David but also assigned it to a concrete situation without parallel elsewhere in the completed Psalter. Instead of a specific episode in the life of the young monarch, as was the case in most of the other David superscriptions (Psalms 3, 7, 34, 51-52, 54, 56-57, 59-60, 63; cf. 142), this notice covers all the king’s victories during Saul’s pursuits (II Samuel 5:5-25, 15:1-21:22). The psalm is called “canticle” or “chant” (cf. Deuteronomy 31:30), and the poet insists on the exceptional quality of the singer, whom he names “the servant of the Lord” (cf. Psalm 36:1, 144:10; cf. also “Moses, man of God”; Deuteronomy 33:1). (Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary, Volume 1: Psalms 1-72 (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 196)

Given this context, the psalm is sung as a sigh of relief after the singer has emerged victorious following a long struggle. It functions much the same way as the 1997 ubiquitous Chumbawamba hit “Tubthumping” whose hook is preceded by, “We’ll be singing when we’re winning!”

In recounting the Lord’s assistance, the psalm transitions from defense (Psalm 18:16-19) to attack when David exclaims:

For by You I can run upon a troop;
And by my God I can leap over a wall. (Psalm 18:29 NASB)

James Limburg (b. 1935) contextualizes:

Psalm 18:25-30 consists of praise accompanied by instruction. The king speaks of what the Lord has done for his people (Psalm 18:27). Then, with striking imagery and exaggeration, the king tells what the Lord means for his own life: “Lord, you light my lamp, you give me the strength to take on an entire army, with you I can leap over a wall!” (Psalm 18:28-29 paraphrased). (Limburg, Psalms (Westminster Bible Companion), 56)

Peter C. Craigie (1938-1985) supplements:

The psalmist turns to a personal reflection (Psalm 18:28-29), in which he recalls the crisis from which he had sought deliverance, and the deliverance which came. He had almost been trapped by Death and Sheol (Psalm 18:4-5), which are symbolized by darkness, but in that darkness, God had given him light (Psalm 18:28) and had warded off the ultimate darkness of defeat in death. He had been threatened by enemies (Psalm 18:3), but had been enabled by God to attack a greater force (“a troop”) and “scale a wall” (namely the walls of enemy forts or cities, Psalm 18:29). (Craigie, Psalms 1-50 (Word Biblical Commentary), 175)

Some have seen the verse as out of place. Donald K. Berry (b. 1953) acknowledges:

Douglas K. Stuart [b. 1943] recommends that the entire verse be omitted for metrical and semantic reasons. The verse is tenuously connected to the statements which precede and follow it, but omission is somewhat drastic. (Berry, The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretive Strategies for Psalm 18 (Library Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies), 42)

David asserts that, with God’s help, he can “leap” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “scale” (NIV, NLT) or “vault” (Robert Alter [b. 1935], MSG) a wall (Psalm 18:29).

The Hebrew word for wall is shûr. Stephen D. Renn researches:

Shûr is a noun found in four places, designating a literal wall in each case (cf. Genesis 49:22; Psalm 18:29; II Samuel 22:30; Job 24:11). (Renn, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words: Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew And Greek Texts, 1025)

Colin J. Humphreys (b. 1941) infers:

The Hebrew word translated “wall” here is shur, and clearly it means a high wall that the psalmist can climb with the help of God, not a low wall he can easily step over. (Humphreys, The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist’s Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories, 210)

Because of this presumption, The Message paraphrases the word as “highest fences” (Psalm 18:29 MSG).

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) titled his “Reflections on the Life of David”, Leap over a Wall because he felt that Psalm 18:29 typified the king’s entire life. Peterson characterizes:

The image of David vaulting the wall catches and holds my attention. David running, coming to a stone wall, and without hesitation leaping the wall and continuing on his way—running toward Goliath, returning from Saul, pursuing God, meeting Jonathan, rounding up stray sheep, whatever, but running. And leaping. Certainly not strolling or loitering...David’s is a most exuberant story. Earthy spirituality characterizes his life and accounts for the exuberance. (Peterson, Leap Over a Wall: Earthy Spirituality for Everyday Christians, 11)

The setting of this particular leaping is a battlefield. Craig C. Broyles (b. 1953) situates:

In this section we have the first clear reference to the psalm’s military context: With your help I can advance against a troop; with my God I can scale a wall. In contrast to the theophany, which refers only to Yahweh in the third person...this song is dominated by first and second persons (he is used, however, in Psalm 19:30-34). While the theophany gives focus to divine intervention, and a dramatic one at that, this section gives attention to Yahweh’s equipping...and training...of his agent of victory. (Broyles, Psalms (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 106)

Konrad Schaefer (b 1951) compiles:

God instructs and equips the psalmist for military triumph: a belt of strength, safe passages, fleetness of foot (“like the feet of a deer”), a stronghold out of reach, amazing strength (to “bend a bow of bronze”), and training for battle (Psalm 18:31-35). Military vocabulary and images are preferred as the situation unfolds (Psalm 18:36-42). In an attack and allied victory, the psalmist pulverizes the enemy (Psalm 18:42). (Schaefer, Psalms (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 43)

William P. Brown (b. 1958) concurs:

In Psalm 18, the king can “run over a wall” (Psalm 18:29); he is girded with “strength”; his way is “perfect” (Psalm 18:32); and his “stride” is “lengthened” (Psalm 18:36). Such qualities, among others, establish the king’s prowess in combat (see also Psalm 18:33-34). (Brown, The Psalms (Interpreting Biblical Texts))

Allen P. Ross (b. 1943) analyzes:

Psalm 18:29 says, “By you I can run against a troop,” (a synecdoche, referring to all kinds of conflict in warfare). The second half of the verse may also refer to some aspect of war, although the idea is not readily clear: “I can leap over a wall” (perhaps escaping; see I Samuel 23:2). (Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 1: 1-41 (Kregel Exegetical Library), 454)

Many interpreters see the wall being leaped as reflecting David’s ability to penetrate enemy defenses.

The image depicted is that of a divinely inspired warrior. As such the Contemporary English Version paraphrases: “You help me defeat armies and capture cities” (Psalm 18:29 CEV). A more modern exemplar of Psalm 18:29 is Sergeant Alvin C. York (1887-1964), a Christian who merited the Medal of Honor during World War I for his individual exploits during an assault on October 8, 1918.

Given the indeterminate superscription, the psalm may not refer to any particular battle. Michael Wilcock (b. 1932) speculates:

The effects of grace, God’s undeserved goodness to such people, are to bring light into their life and (what is more) to keep it burning, and to provide the very resources which they lack in coping with both people (a troop) and with things (a wall). David is no doubt thinking of some of the achievements which climaxed with his accession to the throne, for instance his defeat of the Amalekite raiders in I Samuel 30:1-20 and his capture of the Jebusite city of Jerusalem in II Samuel 5:6-16. (Wilcock, The Message of Psalms, Volume 1 (The Bible Speaks Today), 66)

Whoever the opponent, David is elated. Willem A. VanGemeren (b. 1943) restates:

In his newfound deliverance, the psalmist expresses a spirit of confident joy. There is no barrier that the Lord cannot overcome, whether it be a “troop” or the wall of an enemy city (Psalm 18:29). The presence of the Lord gives confidence of victory (cf. Joshua 23:10). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Psalms: Revised Edition (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 209)

Significantly, the psalmist’s confidence does not emanate from within himself but from without in the form of his God (Psalm 18:29; Romans 8:31). John Eaton (b. 1927) elucidates:

In Psalm 18:28-29 the king pictures the effect of his deliverance, and one can easily interpret his hopes as based on the meaning of a foregoing sacrament; God has in symbol ‘saved’ him and confirmed his choice of him, and so the king looks forward to having the divine help in the struggles that lie ahead. In times of darkness God will light his ‘candle’ (the picture will be of a lamp made of a wick set in a saucer of oil). It is a picture of one who has to go through much darkness, but whose little light is sufficient because it is lit by the Lord. Through God this warrior will not fear to run at a whole troop of foes, and a mighty city wall will be no obstacle to him. (Eaton, The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary with an Introduction and New Translation (Continuum Biblical Studies), 106)

The king has assurance that God will equip him with whatever skills he may need, even superhuman abilities such as Superman’s capacity to “leap tall buildings in a single bound”.

James H. Waltner (1931-2007) summarizes:

The loyal God lights my lamp (Psalm 18:28). In that God-given vitality, the king can crush a troop or scale the wall of a hostile city (Psalm 18:29). With God as enabler, he can do the unthinkable. The concluding assertion states the theme of the whole psalm: This God...is perfect (Psalm 18:30, tāmîm, “whole, integral”). God is totally reliable. (Waltner, Psalms (Believers Church Bible Commentary), 104)

After triumphing over numerous obstacles, David’s faith is soaring. The king’s assertion that he can leap over walls is a precursor to Paul’s famous declaration, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.” (Philippians 4:13 NASB).

What is the highest you have ever leapt? Have you ever felt as though you could “leap over a wall” with God’s assistance? What historical figures have illustrated Psalm 18:29 by exceeding their natural limitations? Who receives the credit for your successes? At what point in your life were you most confident in God’s ability to empower you? Is your life characterized by the joy inherent in Psalm 18:29?

David’s intent in penning the eighteenth psalm is not simply to document an historical victory but to inspire future communities of believers. The king’s military might is a community concern as it affects the entire nation.

Robert Davidson (1927-2012) connects:

On the king’s relationship with God and on his God-given vitality depends the well-being of the whole nation. As a warrior, the king can, with God’s help, successfully lead his army into battle. He can storm ramparts...and, taking his enemies by surprise, leap over a defensive wall. (Davidson, The Vitality of Worship: A Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 68)

J. Clinton McCann, Jr. (b. 1951) interprets:

If Psalm 18 is viewed simply as a royal psalm of thanksgiving used by David or one of his descendants upon the occasion of military victory, then it must be viewed essentially as a literary artifact—an interesting museum piece, but not something for contemporary handling and use. Taking a clue from Erhard S. Gerstenberger [b. 1932], however, the interpreter may move in a different direction. Gerstenberger’s proposal that Psalm 18 was intended “to keep hope alive in hard-pressed Jewish communities” is all the more likely when we consider that, in some post-exilic circles, the promises attached to the Davidic monarchy were applied to the whole community...The circumstances and faith of the psalmist, as well as the intent of Psalm 18 to keep hope alive, are captured in Jesus’ parting words to his disciples: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid...I have said this to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world!” (John 14:27, 16:33 NRSV). (1 & 2 Maccabees, Introduction to Hebrew Poetry, Job, Psalms (New Interpreter’s Bible), 749)

Many have been encouraged by David’s experience. Herbert Lockyer, Sr. (1886-1934) documents:

This portion of Scripture was the constant source of inspiration of the Scottish Covenanters...Walter Scott [1771-1832] has embodied in his novels the influence of the Psalms in their lives. It was a Psalm that nerved Manse Headrigg to leap her horse over a wall, Psalm 18:29. (Lockyer, Psalms: A Devotional Commentary, 65)

It continues to provide hope for modern believers. Robert L. Alden (1937-1996) confesses:

Psalm 18:29b is one of this writer’s favorite testimony verses. It comes to mind whenever a human impossibility is faced. “By my God I can leap over a wall!” Joshua and the people of Israel did it literally at Jericho. David and his army did it at Jerusalem. Why can’t we? (Alden, Psalms, Volume 1: Songs of Devotion (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 47-48)

William R. Taylor (1882-1951) generalizes:

Our possibilities, both of mind and body, are far greater than we realize. It is recorded of an athlete that when he was fifteen, he jumped over a five-barreled gate—a feat he never afterward equaled—because he was then chased by a bull. Fear drew out his latent power. If fear can be so great an incentive, how much more may love be? The stories of the martyrs and heroes provide the answers. (George A. Buttrick [1892-1980], Psalms, Proverbs (The Interpreter’s Bible), 99)

It is worth noting that God assists the believer as opposed to eliminating the obstacle. Even David, God’s anointed, does not claim that the wall is flattened, only that God has empowered him to move past it.

When have you been inspired by the triumphs of believers that have preceded you? What is the greatest thing you have accomplished “by” God? What walls do you need to leap over? When you pray, do you pray for your walls to be flattened or the ability to hurdle them? As God did not remove the wall before David, does this imply that there is value in our trials?

“It is not by my own strength but in my God that I shall leap over the wall which sins have built between humankind and the heavenly Jerusalem.” - Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Expositions of the Psalms 1-32 (Works of Saint Augustine, Vol. III, No. 15), p. 194

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