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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rieuwerd Buitenwerf (b. 1973) researches:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinton E. Arnold (b. 1958) chronicles:

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

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) adds:

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

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) differentiates:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) counters:

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

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

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

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

William H. Willimon (b. 1946) interprets:

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

Lloyd J. Ogilvie (b. 1930) praises:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) tracks:

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

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

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

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

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

Derek Carlsen remarks:

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

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

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

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

Loveday Alexander characterizes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restoring Mephibosheth (II Samuel 4:4)

How old was Mephibosheth when the nurse dropped him and he became lame? Five years (II Samuel 4:4)

Much like Russia’s Romanov dynasty was collectively expunged in 1917, Israel’s royal family is largely eradicated in one day when King Saul and three of his sons are killed in battle on Mount Gilboa (I Samuel 31:1-2). After their deaths, the kingdom is temporarily divided as David and Saul’s remaining son, Ishbosheth, make competing claims on the vacant throne (II Samuel 2:1-11). The resulting civil war ends when Ishbosheth is assassinated by two of his own commanders, Rekab and Baanah (II Samuel 4:1-7).

While recounting Ishbosheth’s murder, the text adds in passing that there was another tragic consequence of the battle at Mount Gilboa: the crippling of Jonathan’s son (and Saul’s grandson) Mephibosheth (II Samuel 4:4).

Now Jonathan, Saul’s son, had a son crippled in his feet. He was five years old when the report of Saul and Jonathan came from Jezreel, and his nurse took him up and fled. And it happened that in her hurry to flee, he fell and became lame. And his name was Mephibosheth. (II Samuel 4:4 NASB)

Though the narrative aside introduces the recurring character of Mephibosheth (II Samuel 4:4, 9:1-13, 16:1-4, 19:24-30, 21:7-8), it reads as a non sequitur.

Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg (1895-1965) acknowledges:

The description of how this—evidently the only—son of Jonathan became lame has no connection with this narrative. It would be in place in chapter 9, to which some commentators would transfer it. Perhaps it is meant to say here, ‘that after the death of Ishbaal there was no suitable claimant to the throne from the house of Saul’ (Friedrich Nötscher [1890-1966]). This is, of course, uncertain (cf. II Samuel 21), but not impossible. The marginal note would have been incorporated into the text with other gloss. The narrative proper has II Samuel 4:5 immediately after II Samuel 4:2. (Hertzberg, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 264)

Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) speculates:

Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth is introduced parenthetically to demonstrate this his youth and physical handicap disqualify him for rule in the north. Symon Patrick [1606-1707]...provides another possible reason: “to show, what it was that emboldened these Captains [Banaaj and Recab] to do what follows: Because he, who was the next Avenger of Blood, was very young; and besides was lame and unable to pursue them.” (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel-2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 337)

Whatever the reason for his inclusion at this point, as soon as Mephibosheth is mentioned, the subject is immediately dropped (pun intended).

Mephibosheth is also known as Merib-baal (I Chronicles 8:34, 9:40). It has been speculated that the name has been bowdlerized.

A.A. Anderson (b. 1924) surmises:

“Mephibosheth” may be a deliberate distortion of the original name by substituting one element of the compound proper name by “bosheth” (בחת) meaning “shame”...However, some scholars regard “bosheth” as a divine epithet...The former alternative is more likely because in the Books of Chronicles we find what appears to be the original form of the proper name. There are two variants: Meribaal (בעל ’מר) in I Chronicles 9:40 and Meribbaal (בעל ב’מר) in I Chronicles 8:34, 9:40. The former variant may be derived from the latter (so Matitiahu Tsevat [1913-2010]) meaning, perhaps, “Baal contends.” (Anderson, 2 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary), 69-70)

Peter R. Ackroyd (1917-2005) asserts:

The name has undergone a double change. The first part was altered so as to suggest the meaning ‘exterminator or Baal,’ and the second part to avoid uttering the detested name of Baal. (Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the New English Bible), 49)

Mephibosheth’s fate is tragic. In the aftermath of the defeat at Gilboa, the fear of reprisals sets off panic within Saul’s household and they flee. Five year old Mephibosheth is crippled during the escape when his nurse, who has presumably scooped up the child in an effort to save time, drops him (II Samuel 4:4). This misfortune would plague Mephibosheth for the remainder of his life (II Samuel 9:3, 19:26). Unable to walk, Mephibosheth would never ascend the throne.

Steven J. Andrews (b. 1954) and Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) review:

Mephibosheth...was lame in both feet due to a tragic accident during his early childhood. At the time of his father’s death (I Samuel 31:2) there was a very real fear that the Philistines would continue their advances southward from Mount Gilboa to Israel’s then-capital city of Gibeah. Members of the royal family were evacuated from the area to preserve an heir to the throne. As Mephibosheth’s nurse picked him up and fled she fell, with the result that he became crippled. (Andrews and Bergen, I & II Samuel (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 214-15)

The family’s fear was understandable. Charles R. Swindoll (b. 1934) explains:

According to some ancient customs, when the king died and a new dynasty began to rule, all of the descendants of the old king were annihilated. So when Mephibosheth’s nurse heard that both Saul and Jonathan, Mephibosheth’s father, had been killed, she took matters into her own hands. (Swindoll, The Mystery of God’s Will, 126)

Mephibosheth is dropped by his “nurse” (ASV, CEV, ESV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). Jo Ann Hackett (b. 1949) defines:

The nurse (Hebrew ’ōmenet) of Mephibosheth...is not necessarily a wet nurse (Hebrew mēneqet), but rather simply someone who takes care of him. The same root is used for female and male caretakers elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible...In this case the caregiver is made responsible for the lameness of her five-year old charge. The child falls as the nurse whisks him away from danger. (Carol L. Meyers [b. 1942], Toni Craven [b. 1944] and Ross S. Kraemer [b. 1948], Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament, 260)

Regardless of what her position entailed, a person enlisted to help the child is responsible for his greatest wound. Johanna W. H. Van Wijk-Bos (b. 1940) observes:

In the episode of Ishobshet’s murder, two...women appear, both in some way falling short in their responsibilities. First, a nurse appears, who fled in the aftermath of the defeat at Gilboa with one of Jonathan’s sons, Mephibosheth...“In her haste to flee,” the narrator reports, “he fell and was lame” (II Samuel 4:4). A change of subject in the sentence avoids a direct mention of the nurse’s failure—i.e., that she dropped the child—but the inference is clear enough. Finally, at the time the two killers enter their master’s quarters, a female guardian at the door may have been derelict in her duty: “And look, the woman who kept the gate, had been gleaning wheat and nodded and fell asleep” (II Samuel 4:6 in the reading of the Septuagint). Two women, even if they do not engage in outright criminal behavior, certainly participate in the demise of the house of Saul, one leaving the sole descendant lame, symbolic for a crippled house, the other unable to warn her master of his impending doom, futile though it might have been. (Wijk-Bos, Reading Samuel: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 170)

Mephibosheth’s injury is severe. V. Philips Long (b. 1951) diagnoses:

That...Mephibosheth...is described as lame in both feet may suggest a spinal cord injury. It is also possible that he received (compound) fractures that either were not or could not be set properly...Medicine designed to treat illness and injury was practiced in the ancient Near East from early times. An Egyptian medical papyrus copied by scribes from older texts (ca. 1700 B.C.), for example, provides systematic instructions for the diagnosis and treatment of a host of injuries, beginning with the head and moving downward (the text is discontinued and reaches no further than the upper arm and ribs). One section describes a serious spinal cord injury. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 427)

Kevin J. Mellish (b. 1968) adds:

The term used for Mephibosheth’s inability to walk (vayîpāsēah) is etymologically similar to the term that refers to the “Passover” (pesah) in Jewish tradition. Ironically, whereas the slaughter of a lamb commemorated a series of events that led to the Israelites’ freedom from bondage in the Exodus tradition, in this setting, the crippling of a child’s feet is connected with the opportunity for David to take control of Saul’s kingdom. As much as the text anticipates David’s role as ruler over Israel it also looks forward to Mephibosheth’s future relationship with David. When David rules as king from Jerusalem, he had Mephibosheth stay with him and “eat at [his] table” (II Samuel 9:7-13). (Mellish, 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 193)

The injury is life changing, even more so than it would be today. Elias Yemane evaluates:

The term “crippled in both feet” implies four characteristics: (1) economic vulnerability; (2) physical vulnerability; (3) permanent immobility; and (4) religious alienation. (Yemane, Mephibosheth: Transformation by a Covenant Love, 27)

Mephibosheth’s disability shapes his future and he allows it to largely define him. He will later refer to himself as a “dead dog” (II Samuel 9:8).

Jeremy Schipper (b. 1975) reflects:

The David Story mentions his “lameness” almost every time his character appears in II Samuel (II Samuel 4:4, 9:3, 13, 19:27). While the royal ideal in the ancient Near East was a strong body with every physical feature properly placed (e.g. the depiction of Naram-Sîn), Mephibosheth is represented as “lame in both feet” (II Samuel 9:13)...By mentioning his disability in chapter 9, some suggest that the David Story contrasts Mephibosheth’s entrance into Jerusalem with David’s in chapter 6. In II Samuel 19:27, Mephibosheth’s disability marks him as one who has difficulty going out to war. When David asks him why he did not flee Jerusalem with the king, he cites his need for a donkey to ride because of his disability...A “lame” person who must ride a donkey hardly fits the ideal of the ancient Near Eastern king leading successful military campaigns. The representation of the last Saulide suggests to the reader that he lacks the properly portioned physique and military prowess of an ideal king. (Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story, 96)

The injury effectively disqualifies Mephibosheth from the throne. James E. Smith (b. 1939) deduces:

The Beerothites felt confident that the assassination of Ish-Bosheth would lead directly to David’s succession. Only one other direct descendant of Saul remained alive, but he was not a viable candidate for the throne. Jonathan had a son named Mephibosheth who was lame in both feet, (literally, “smitten of feet”). Before the fateful battle of Gilboa, the Israelite army had been camped at Jezreel (I Samuel 29:1). When news came from Jezreel of the death of Saul and Jonathan, the nurse (nanny) fled with the child. Unfortunately she had dropped the child. This caused permanent lameness. The text does not relate where Mephibosheth and his nurse were when they heard the news; they could have been in Gibeah, Saul’s hometown. Both his youth (he was twelve at this time) and his disability made Mephibosheth unwilling or unable to press his claim to the throne. (Smith, 1 & 2 Samuel (The College Press NIV Commentary), 368)

Robert Alter (b. 1935) summarizes:

The notice is inserted here to make clear that after the murder of Ish-bosheth, there will be no fit heir left from the house of Saul, for Saul’s one surviving grandson is crippled. (Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, 218)

Through one unintentional slip, one unfortunate moment, a child who was born to be king instantaneously became a “dead dog” who moved from the forefront to the background of history.

When you meet someone who is injured, are you curious as to how they arrived at their condition? Why? Why is a nurse carrying a five-year old; could Mephibosheth have had a preexisting medical condition? What royals have been maimed in more modern times? Would you be less accepting of an injured leader? What national leaders have had significant disabilities, e.g. Franklin D. Roosevelt [1882-1945]? Who do you know who has been irrevocably affected by an incident from childhood?

Despite the tragedy, there is still hope for Mephibosheth and his family. Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) contextualizes:

The most important event of II Samuel 4 is the death of Ish-Bosheth. But in order to dispel the notion that might arise in the reader’s mind that Ish-Bosheth’s death meant the final destruction of the Saulide family, the writer inserts here a note concerning Mephibosheth, son of “Jonathan son of Saul.” (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 316)

Whereas the nurse drops Mephibosheth, his father’s friend, King David will pick him up. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) comments:

This is an exceedingly curious note inserted in the middle of the Ishbosheth narrative. It disrupts the story line but does pertain to Ishbosheth’s fate. Ishbosheth is destined for death, whereas his nephew Mephibosheth is headed for mercy. In terms of the total David plot, this verse stands midway between I Samuel 20:14-17 and II Samuel 9:1-8. The subject of these two passages is the kindness (hesed) of David toward Jonathan. In the former, David promised Jonathan that he would not cut off his “loyalty” to the house and name of Jonathan. In the latter, David now keeps that promise by asking if there is anyone left of the house of Saul to whom the king may show kindness. David promises hesed and fulfills that promise. Mephibosheth is the channel for the fulfillment of the promise. Thus this verse sets the stage for the affirmation that David is a man of hesed who keeps vows, honors friends, and shows mercy to those with whom he is bound...The name of Mephibosheth is intended to remind the listener of David’s hesed. This peculiar verse, then, is a device for asserting that David would not do damage to Ishbosheth, who also comes under the vow made to Jonathan in I Samuel 20:14-17. II Samuel 4:4 reminds us of hesed in a chapter otherwise devoid of any dimension of mercy, fidelity, or generosity. (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 234)

In allowing Mephibosheth to routinely dine at his table (II Samuel 9:13), David violates his own royal decree forbidding “the blind or the lame from entering Jerusalem (II Samuel 5:6-8).

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) notes:

David will deal with an actual individual who is lame—Mephibosheth (II Samuel 9). David will bring him into the city and into his home with honor, treating him with the utmost respect. David’s actions are better than his words. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 159)

It is harder to discriminate against someone that is standing in front of you with their humanity on full display and David does not reject his friend’s son. After reaping the benefits of David’s kindness, Mephibosheth is a royal who is maimed but restored.

Max Lucado (b. 1955) correlates:

Mephibosheth is bracketed into the Bible. The verse doesn’t tell us much, just his name (Mephibosheth), his calamity (dropped by his nurse), his deformity (crippled), and then it moves on...But that’s enough to raise a few questions...If his story is beginning to sound familiar, it should. You and he have a lot in common. Weren’t you also born of royalty? And don’t you carry the wounds of a fall? And hasn’t each of us lived in fear of a king we have never seen? (Lucado, Cast of Characters: Common People in the Hands of an Uncommon God, 33-34)

Can you identify with Mephibosheth, a character presented largely as a victim? Why? Why not? What in your life is in need of restoration? Do you have hope that God will restore you?

“I am conscious of a soul-sense that lifts me above the narrow, cramping circumstances of my life. My physical limitations are forgotten- my world lies upward, the length and the breadth and the sweep of the heavens are mine!” - Helen Keller (1880-1968), The Story Of My Life: With Her Letters (1887--1901) And A Supplementary Account Of Her Education, Including Passages From The Reports And Letters Of Her Teacher, Anne Mansfield Sullivan, p. 111

The Locust Army (Joel 1:1-2:17)

In what book are locusts likened to an invading army? Joel

Joel is classified as a minor prophet, the second of twelve such books canonized in the Bible. Locusts overrun Joel’s text as they do the landscape he describes, figuring prominently in two of the book’s three chapters (Joel 1:1-2:17). The prophet addresses Judah, a land ravaged by a locust invasion that has destroyed everything in its wake (Joel 1:4).

What the gnawing locust has left, the swarming locust has eaten;
And what the swarming locust has left, the creeping locust has eaten;
And what the creeping locust has left, the stripping locust has eaten. (Joel 1:4 NASB)

Joel likens the locusts to an invading army (Joel 2:4-11).

Locusts were no laughing matter and Joel’s allusion to the insects represents powerful language. James E. Smith (b. 1939) describes:

Newly hatched locusts resemble ants or tiny roaches. Fully developed, these “hoppers” as they are called form marching bands up to ten miles wide and ten miles long. These bands move forward at a slow pace of about 250 feet per hour. Within their path they consume virtually every blade of grass or legume. No obstacle can stop this irresistible insect army. (Smith, The Minor Prophets, 67)

John D.W. Watts (b. 1921) adds:

Joel skilfully blends the imagery of prophecy with the realistic experience of the locust plague. Travellers who have seen such confirm the accuracy of the account. Locust swarms darken the sky like an eclipse of the sun; at dusk the low rays of the sun catch their wings, reflecting an eerie light. (Watts, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible)), 25)

Joel depicts an especially harsh invasion. David Allan Hubbard (1928-1996) examines:

The devastation does not stop with the laying waste...of grapes and leaves, but includes also the splintering...of the fig tree; the bark itself is peeled off and thrown down so that the denuded branches appear white. A California agricultural official reported that ‘what they...don’t eat they cut off for entertainment.; He also noted that in the wake of the insects, fields are left ‘bare as the floor’, apple trees are stripped of every leaf and rose bushes are consumed through the green bark. During the same attack, a farmer lamented that 100 acres of his bean field had been ‘completely cleared by the hoppers. Joel’s account is not hyperbolic but factual. (Hubbard, Joel and Amos (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 45)

James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) cites another historical example:

When the locust invasion of 1915 struck Palestine and Syria the desolation was as great as anyone could have possibly imagined. The first swarms appeared in March. The final stages did not depart until early summer. During that four-or-five-month period the land was stripped of every green thing: vines, fig trees, grain. Still, bad as the destruction was, the locusts did move on and in time the land recovered. (Boice, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical Commentary, 106)

Though Joel was not the first to take literary license with the destructive creatures, he adds his own unique spin. John Barton (b. 1948) chronicles:

The imagery occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. In Judges 6:5 the Midianites and Amalekites used to come up against Israel “as thick as locusts” (cf. also Judges 7:12), while Jeremiah 51:14 threatens Babylon that YHWH will “fill you with troops like a swarm locusts. And James L. Crenshaw [b. 1934] cites a Sumerian text..Perhaps we should...see some originality in Joel’s reversal of the image, making locusts seem like an invading army. As so often in the prophets, a familiar trope is given new life, in this case by being reversed. I do not know of any other case inside or outside the Bible in which literal locusts become a metaphorical army. (Barton, Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 43-44)

There is great debate as to whether Joel is speaking literally or figuratively. Thomas J. Finley (b. 1945) explains:

Many commentators agree that Joel describes a literal locust plague in the first chapter, though there is much more dispute about the second chapter. The suggestion has also been made (Douglas Stuart [b. 1943]) that even in the first chapter the locusts stand for an invading army, either the Assyrians or the Babylonians. While there may be elements of hyperbole in Joel’s description of the locust plague, as when he asks rhetorically whether anything like this has happened before, the poetic language reflects a manner of expression common among the Hebrews (cf. II Kings 18:5, 23:25). Locust plagues were greatly feared, and this particular one could have been unusually severe. (Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah: An Exegetical Commentary, 26)

Most modern commentators agree that Judah has experienced the devastating effects of locusts. Leslie C. Allen (b. 1935) explicates:

Most scholars interpret the locusts in both chapters in strictly contemporary terms, and this is the most natural way of construing the material. Joel 1:2-4 speaks of the locusts as a present threat to Joel’s generation and the occasion of his summons to lamentation. Joel 1:16 confirms this impression of direct involvement with the ravages of real locusts. The past verbs of Joel 2:18, 19 categorize Yahweh’s response to the locust crisis and the people’s penitential cries as having already occurred. It is significant that the locusts behave in a literal manner: they ravage fields, trees, and fruit, but do not kill or plunder, or take prisoners of war. They are indeed described metaphorically as an attacking army and are compared with soldiers, but to conceive of figurative locusts who are like the soldiers they are supposed to represent is a tortuous and improbable interpretation. Moreover, the restoration promised by Yahweh in Joel 2:18-27 concerns the material damage associated with locust attacks. In Amos 7:1-3, a locust plague is certainly a symbol of coming destruction, and Revelation 9:3, 7-9 actually applies Joel’s language to an apocalyptic event, but these passages provide no warrant for detaching the theme of Joel from its historical and literary contexts. (Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 29-30)

David Prior (b. 1940) rationalizes:

Such a detailed description is more likely the result of actually seeing locusts at work in such profusion. All the descriptions we have of this phenomenon substantiate the accuracy of Joel’s language. The prophet does not exaggerate the situation one bit. Probably only those who have not experienced locusts on the march cannot conceive such an appalling scenario. (Prior, The Message of Joel, Micah & Habakkuk (Bible Speaks Today), 23-24)

Whether describing a swarm of locusts or an invading army, Joel’s point is clear: The catastrophe is only a sign of things to come. The people are dealing with an earthly phenomenon but soon they will contend with the day of the Lord.

David W. Baker (b. 1950) envisions:

Joel likens God’s judgment to an army of locusts that descends on us all. Like a winged AIDS infestation they destroy everything in their path. It is clear that for Joel, the locust invasion is a metaphor for what will happen on the Day of the Lord, when all righteousness accounts will be settled. To describe this judgment we are driven to metaphors of nature, the economy, or foreign armies, but Joel’s point is that the scope of God’s judgment exceeds them all. (Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi (The NIV Application Commentary), 13)

Lloyd J. Ogilvie (b. 1930) substantiates:

The coming day of the Lord described in chapter 2 results in a cosmic upheaval described in Joel 2:10. This is more than the effect of locusts or even a powerful human army. The language here is reminiscent especially of various theophany texts (Judges 5:4-5; Psalms 18:7-15, 68:8, 97:2-5) and also of other day of the Lord passages (Isaiah 13:10, 13). (Ogilvie, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (Mastering the Old Testament), 224)

In making this leap, Joel draws from tradition. Robert B. Chisholm, Jr. (b. 1951) delineates:

That the prophet would draw the connection between the locust plague and a greater judgment to follow should come as no surprise. When the Lord judged the Egyptians prior to the Exodus, a locust plague preceded the final plagues of darkness and death (Exodus 10:1-11:10, 12:29-30). The curse list in Deuteronomy 28 associates locust plagues with death and exile (cf. Deuteronomy 28:38, 42). (Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 56)

The desired response to all of this destruction and the looming Day of the Lord is repentance (Joel 2:12).

Do you think that Joel intended to depict a literal swarm of locusts or an invading army or both? How does making this choice influence your reading of the prophet? Why does Joel incorporate military imagery? What do you need to repent of?

As horrific as Joel’s imagery is, the locusts do not get the last word (Joel 2:25). Trent C. Butler (b. 1941) relays:

Joel ends his book on an unexpected note. No more locust plagues. No more army invasions. No more natural disasters. No more punishment. The Day of the Lord will bring salvation to God’s people—a salvation marked by his eternal presence with them. One thing made that possible. God pardoned, forgave, and annulled all the punishment they deserved. (Butler, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 155-56)

Judah’s survival from the locusts provides hope for future endurance. Bruce C. Birch (b. 1941) connects:

This experience of salvation in a present crisis leads to the prophet’s vision of God’s future salvation, when the day of the Lord does come (Joel 2:31, 3:14). The prophet dares hope that this will not be a date of judgment for Judah. With relationship restored between God and God’s people that future day will be a day of salvation in all its fulness. Such a day of salvation includes, in Joel’s vision, a pouring out of God’s spirit on all people in a way that overcomes differences of gender and age and social status; men and women, young and old, slave and free alike shall be linked to God by the mutual empowerment of God’s spirit (Joel 2:25-29). This is the text and the vision that formed the basis of Peter’s sermon following the Pentecost experience [Acts 2:16-21]. (Birch, Hosea, Joel, and Amos (Westminster Bible Companion), 129)

Even the worst calamity Joel can imagine is nothing in comparison to the redemptive power of God.

When has your past endurance given you hope in the present? Is there any situation so dark that God cannot brighten it?

“We must not offer people a system of redemption, a set of insights and principles. We offer people a Redeemer.” - Paul David Tripp (b. 1950), Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands: People in Need of Change Helping People in Need of Change, p. 8

Putting Jesus in His Place (Revelation 14:1)

Which chapter begins “Then I looked and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb”? Revelation 14

Revelation 13 paints a bleak picture of enemies aligning against God in the final cosmic battle between Satan and God. The great red dragon (Revelation 12:3, 13:1) enlists two beasts in the war against God, one from the sea (Revelation 13:1) the other from the earth (Revelation 13:11). The beast appears to have an advantage as many have taken the notorious mark of the beast (Revelation 13:16-18). Then the scene shifts.

To the relief of the reader, Revelation 14 moves from war to peace (Revelation 14:1-5). The Lamb, last seen seven chapters earlier (Revelation 7:17), is reintroduced. Despite his extended absence, no introduction is necessary. The reader knows the Lamb to be Jesus, the lone figure worthy to unloose the seals of the scroll (Revelation 5:11-14) and receive the adulation of the multitude (Revelation 7:10). Amid the apparent chaos, the Lamb stands triumphantly with 144,000 of his followers (Revelation 14:1-5).

Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. (Revelation 14:1 NASB)

The author emphasizes the striking quality of this visual by adding the phrase “looked and behold” (Revelation 14:1).

The picture of the Lamb atop the mountain stands in sharp contrast to the visuals from the previous chapter. The text transitions from those who have taken the mark of the beast to those who bear the mark of Christ. The names adorning the believers’ foreheads fulfills a previous promise given to the victors (Revelation 3:12). This inscription of God’s name dramatically opposes the mark of the beast, the number of his name. While the beast attempts to elicit worship, the Lamb is the recipient of true worship. The scene portrays the past invading the present while simultaneously foreshadowing the future as it recalls Revelation 7:1-8 and anticipates Revelation 21:1-22:6.

The lamb’s position, atop Mount Zion, is significant. The location is mentioned only here in Revelation. Zion is seldom mentioned in the New Testament and when it is, it is most commonly in Old Testament quotations (Matthew 21:5; John 12:15; Romans 9:33, 11:26; Hebrews 12:22; I Peter 2:6; Revelation 14:1; also Barnabas 6:2). Even so, Zion carries a lot of weight.

Though “Mount Zion” is introduced in the Bible as a fortress on one the southernmost and highest of the hills of the pre-Israelite city of Jerusalem (II Samuel 5:7) it eventually took on a broader reach, sometimes loosely encompassing all of Jerusalem. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary charts the name’s scope:

The designation of Zion underwent a distinct progression in its usage throughout the Bible...The first mention of Zion in the Bible is...the name of the ancient Jebusite fortress situated on the southeastern hill of Jerusalem at the junction of the Kidron Valley and the Tyropoeon Valley [II Samuel 5:7]. The name came to stand not only for the fortress but also for the hill on which the fortress stood...When Solomon built the temple of Mount Moriah (a hill distinct and separate from Mount Zion), and moved the ark of the covenant there, the word “Zion” expanded in meaning to include also the Temple and the Temple area (Psalm 2:6, 48:2, 11-12, 132:13). It was only a short step until Zion was used as a name for the city of Jerusalem, the land of Judah, and the people of Israel as a whole (Isaiah 40:9; Jeremiah 31:12). (Ronald F. Youngblood [b. 1931], Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary: Completely Revised and Updated Edition), 1343)

Joseph L. Trafton (b. 1949) adds:

David took Jerusalem from the Jebusites by capturing the “stronghold of Zion,” which he renamed the city of David (II Samuel 5:6-10). Solomon built the Temple on a hill directly north of the City of David (I Kings 8:1-6). Hence, the site of the Temple, along with Jerusalem itself, came to be known as “Mount Zion” (e.g., Psalm 48:2, 74:2, 78:68-69, Isaiah 8:18, 18:7; Lamentations 5:18; cf. Psalm 2:6) or sometimes simply “Zion” (e.g., Psalm 147:12; Isaiah 37:32, 62:1; Joel 3:17; Micah 3:12, 4:2). In the Old Testament the expression “Mount Zion” is identified further as a place that will experience future deliverance (Joel 2:32; Obadiah 1:17, 21) and blessing (Isaiah 4:2-6), to which gifts will be brought by foreigners (Isaiah 18:7), which God will defend (Isaiah 31:4-5), out of which will come a remnant of survivors (Isaiah 37:32), and to which exiles will come to be ruled by the Lord forever (Micah 4:6-7). (Trafton, Reading Revelation: A Literary And Theological Commentary, 134)

At the time of Revelation’s writing, Zion was an emblematic term, long associated with the type of divine deliverance depicted here (Joel 2:32). It had an eternal quality which applied to heavenly temple in present (Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 11:19) and pointed to the new Jerusalem of the future (Revelation 21:2). Consequently, there is much debate as to whether the Zion in question is in heaven or on earth.

The text is ambiguous. Those who support a heavenly setting note that the Lamb is last seen in heaven and the narrative makes no comment about his transitioning from heaven to earth (Revelation 7:9). Likewise, the composition’s author, John, is never said to move from his initial position, also in heaven (Revelation 4:1). Another detail favoring a heavenly scene is a singing multitude of 144,000 suggesting the same group that previously appears in heaven (Revelation 7:4).

Those who support an earthly vision argue that the text itself says nothing of heaven. The 144,000 had been sealed and protected previously, which would be presumably unnecessary if they resided in heaven (Revelation 7:3). Some also note that the fact that in the next verse the author hears “a voice from heaven” indicates that he is situated on earth (Revelation 14:2).

Scholars are divided on the issue. Stephen S. Smalley (b. 1931) compares:

The precise location of Mount Zion in Revelation 14:1 is not immediately clear. In the view of some commentators, the setting of this verse is on earth; even if the reality represented is spiritual (William Milligan [1821-1893] 240-41; Henry Barclay Swete [1835-1917] 177; Isbon Thaddeus Beckwith [1843-1936] 647, 651; R.H. Charles [1855-1931] 2, 4-5; Michael Wilcock [b. 1932] 132; Robert W. Wall [b. 1947] 179; David E. Aune [b. 1939] 803). Others regard the vision of the Lamb of Zion, with the 144,000, as taking place in heaven (Martin Kiddle 262-65; William Hendriksen [1900-1982] 151; P.W.L. Walker [b. 1961], Holy City 261; Robert H. Mounce [b. 1921] 264-65); cf. 4 Ezra 2.42-48. A third interpretation equates Zion in this context with the new Jerusalem, which ‘comes down from heaven’ (Revelation 21:2), and becomes part of the new creation after the destruction of the old; so George Eldon Ladd [1911-1982] 189-90...also G.R. Beasley-Murray [1916-2000] 222, who believes there is a contrast here between the earthly Jerusalem, which has become a symbol for the godless world (Revelation 11:8-10) and the Jerusalem from above, where heaven and earth are brought together in a unity (Revelation 21:16). (Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse, 354)

The inconclusiveness is not surprising as Revelation is typically unconcerned with geography, frequently mixing temporal and spatial images. The book’s subject matter transcends time and space. The setting of Revelation’s Mount Zion could be heaven, earth, both or neither.

Ian Boxall (b. 1964) opts for a more general spiritual interpretation of the salvation community:

John is not concerned with physical geography: where the Lamb is standing is not the Temple Mount or even the heavenly Mount Zion (cf. Hebrews 12:22), but that spiritual Zion which is nowhere and everywhere. It describes that state of openness to God and protection by him which has been referred to elsewhere as the measured sanctuary (Revelation 11:1) or the ‘holy city’ (Revelation 11:2). It is that place of true spiritual worship which takes place neither on Mount Gerizim nor in Jerusalem (John 4:21-24). Understood in this way, the question as to whether this scene is located on earth or in heaven is superfluous. (Boxall, Revelation of Saint John, The (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 200)

James L. Resseguie (b. 1945) adds:

The symbolic mountain Zion is a sanctuary for the 144,000 who have the Lamb’s name and the name of the Father written on their foreheads (Revelation 14:1). Zion, a place of safety, is similar to the wilderness sanctuary (Revelation 12:6, 14) and the measured temple (Revelation 11:1). In the Old Testament, Zion is a refuge where God reigns along with the Messiah (Psalm 2:6-12; cf. 4 Ezra 13:25-35). The mountain is neither in heaven nor on earth, but is “nowhere and everywhere” at the same time. It is not found on John’s physical map, but on his spiritual map. Zion is God’s mountain, the “site of God’s presence,” and contrasts with Babylon, also located on mountains (Revelation 17:9). This is the first of several contrasts developed in the chapter that express an ideological point of view. Not only does Zion contrast Babylon (Revelation 14:1, 8), but also the names on the foreheads of the 144,000 contrast with the name of the beast on the foreheads or hands of its followers (Revelation 14:1, 9, 11); the grain harvest of the righteous contrasts with a grape harvest of the wicked (Revelation 14:14-16, 17-20); the wrath of God contrasts with the blessing of those who die in the Lord (Revelation 14:10, 13); and celibacy contrasts with fornication (Revelation 14:4, 8). (Resseguie, The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary, 193-194)

The reference to Mount Zion conveyed hope of restoration in and of itself to the original audience as the earthly Mount Zion had been pillaged by the Romans when Revelation was written.

Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) reminds:

Perhaps most significant of our observation here is the location of the 144,000. They are with the Lamb on Mount Zion, God’s dwelling in the present (Psalm 74:2, 76:2) and the future (Zechariah 2:10, 8:3), a place of Israel’s hopes for salvation (Psalm 53:6, 69:35, 87:5, 102:13) and triumph (Psalm 110:2; Obadiah 1:21; II Baruch 40:1). Although Jerusalem after 70 AD lay mostly in shambles and the nations were now trampling God’s sanctuary even in a symbolic sense (Revelation 11:2), John’s audience knew that the prophets had promised Zion’s restoration (Isaiah 1:27, 4:5, 46:13, 51:3, 61:11; Micah 4:2, 7). God would dwell in the midst of Zion as the triumphant warrior who delivered them (Zephaniah 3:15-19). He would make war form Mount Zion (Isaiah 31:4; cf. Zechariah 14:4); Jewish apocalyptic tradition added that the Messiah would stand atop Mount Zion when preparing to make war (4 Ezra 13:35). (Keener, Revelation (The NIV Application Commentary), 369)

Mount Zion itself becomes symbolic of redemption and victory. In spite of the previous chapter’s gloom and doom, the Lamb still reigns. In fact, some view Revelation 14:1-5 as the Lamb’s coronation as depicted in the second psalm (Psalm 2:6), a passage Revelation has already alluded to twice (Revelation 11:18, 12:5).

G.K. Beale (b. 1949) comments:

In the last days God will “install” his “Messiah” and “King on Zion, my [God’s] holy mountain.” Then the Messiah will judge the ungodly and will be a place of refuge for those who fear him (Psalm 2:6-12). On this Old Testament basis 4 Ezra 13:25-52 (cf. 4 Ezra 13:36) and II Baruch 40 speak of the “Son” and “Messiah” standing on “Mount Zion” at the end time judging the unrighteous and “defending” or “protecting” the remnant (those who “remain” or the “rest”). (Beale, The Book of Revelation (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 732)

The king installed on Zion will not be a lion but a lamb. And in spite of seemingly insurmountable obstacles, evil will be conquered by the Lamb, specifically by his death as opposed to the exercise of divine power (Revelation 13:8).

What is the most pronounced change in setting you have seen from one seen to the next? If you are experiencing difficult days, do you believe that there are better days ahead? What do you want restored? Are you confident in God’s ultimate victory?

In art, this scene is the basis for one of the most common depictions of the Lamb: with a nimbus standing upon a hill from which four streams flow (Revelation 14:1). It is noteworthy that the Lamb has the elevated position of standing on a mountain. In contrast, when last seen the beast stood on the sand of the seashore (Revelation 13:1). Even though the beast seems more imposing, the Lamb holds the high ground. As He has all along.

Where do you stand? Where does Jesus? Do you have confidence that the Lamb will slay the Dragon? Do you feel that Jesus is where He is supposed to be even if it does not feel that way?

“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always.” - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)