Rabboni! (John 20:16)

What did Mary Magdalene say to Jesus when she recognized Him after His resurrection? “Rabboni”

John’s gospel records that Mary Magdalene is the first to see the risen Christ (John 20:1-18). Mary stands outside of the empty tomb weeping before two angels question her regarding the reason for her tears (John 20:11-13). After responding to the angelic inquiry, Mary turns and sees Jesus, though she does not recognize him; instead she presumes him to be the gardener (John 20:14-15). When Jesus calls her by her name, she perceives his identity and returns the gesture, exclaiming, “Rabboni!” (John 20:16).

Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). (John 20:16 NASB)

When uttering the caritative “Rabboni”, Mary is most likely excited (John 20:16). Many translations add an explanation point (ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) though some do not (ASV, CEV, KJV).

Of the four canonical gospels, John alone records that Mary calls Jesus by this name. Jack W. Stallings (b. 1944) remarks:

This is apparently the term by which she has habitually addressed Jesus and, for some reason, John thinks it important that his readers know the very word she uses. (Stallings, The Gospel of John (The Randall House Bible Commentary), 279)

The text notes that Mary turns to Jesus at the sound of her name, a posture she seemingly already has assumed (John 20:14, 16). Shelly Rambo (b. 1968) observes:

There is a slight confusion in the text about Mary’s positioning. It says that Jesus speaks her name and that she turns around and responds to him [John 20:16]. But isn’t Mary already facing Jesus? At first she was looking into the tomb, speaking to the angels [John 20:11]. Then she turns and speaks to him (without recognizing him) [John 20:14]. When he speaks her name, we assume that she is facing him. But the next verse calls that into question [John 20:16]. It says that she turns and responds by speaking his name. Somewhere between speaking to him as the gardener and speaking his name, did she turn away?...Many explain it by saying that the saying that the second turn is not literal; it merely emphasizes Mary’s comprehension of Jesus’ identity. The turning highlights her moment of recognition. (Rambo, Spirit and Trauma: A Theology of Remaining, 86)

Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) informs:

The use of Mary’s name draws her attention because obviously the gardener knows her personally. Yet Mary had already turned towards the man (same verb) in John 20:14. Those who try to deal with the duplication without resorting to literary criticism (i.e., the joining of once independent accounts) usually suppose that Mary had turned away in the meantime. (Brown, The Gospel According to John, XIII-XXI (The Anchor Bible), 991)

James L. Resseguie (b. 1945) posits:

The second turning is redundant, since Mary has already turned once to Jesus. Thus the second turning must represent a spiritual turning, an awakening. (Resseguie, The Strange Gospel: Narrative Design and Point of View in John, 149)

Nicolas Farelly (b. 1978) evaluates:

This new “turn” is best explained by Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976], John, 686...for whom it “signifies the sudden and lively movement towards him as μή μου ἂρτου John 20:17 shows.” Additionally, as is explained by Dorothy A. Lee [b. 1953], “Turning from Death to Life: A Biblical Reflection on Mary Magdalene,” 114, these successive “turns” may indicate that “at each point,” Mary moves closer and closer to what she seeks. Misunderstanding in the end, leads her to understanding.” A similar interpretation to Lee’s is given by Jean Zumstein [b. 1944], L’évangile Selon Saint Jean (13-21), 279...“Marie Madelein se détourne du tombeau qui signifie, pour elle, la réalité de la mort, pour se diriger vers le vivant.” (Farelly, The Disciples in the Fourth Gospel: A Narrative Analysis of Their Faith and Understanding, 159)

Mary’s body language corresponds with her exclamation: She is experiencing a moment of recognition. Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) analyzes:

The narrator marks her reaction first by noting her movement—being turned—suggesting that she has looked away after making her demand and Jesus’s words cause her to turn about suddenly [John 20:16]. The double turn puzzles exegetes, but Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975]’s observation—“for reasons of rhythm, one hesitates to dispense with it” (1984, 2:209)—may point to the importance of the phrase for the operation of the story. John marks the moment of recognition with a word, “Rabbouni,”...With dramatic economy and without the interjections by an omniscient narrator, the Gospel represents the private experience of recognition through public displays of emotion. Her choice of address is not the language of faith but of reunion (Kasper Bro Larsen [b. 1972] 2008, 190). The personal address “Mariam” calls for a more personal response. She has not been prepared to see Jesus by any prior witness. The response is a pure outpouring of joy. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 270)

John uncharacteristically leaves the word “Rabboni” in its original language though the gospel does gloss the term for the book’s Hellenistic audience. Like a movie where only a few words need be subtitled, John’s use of “Rabboni” stands out (John 20:16).

R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) deduces:

The reader knows Greek and only Greek. Such common terms as “Rabbi” (John 1:38), “Messiah” (John 1:41), and “Rabboni” (John 20:16) must be translated. Names are also translated to convey their meaning (Cephas, John 1:42; Siloam, John 9:7). Where Hebrew or Aramaic terms are introduced (Bethesda, Gabbatha, and Golgotha), they are referred to as foreign words (“in Hebrew,” John 5:2, 19:13, 17) rather than as the names by which the reader would know these locations. Their presence adds credibility to the account. (Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 218-19)

John refers to “Rabboni” as “Hebrew” (ASV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NLT, NRSV, RSV) though it is actually “Aramaic” (CEV, ESV, NIV). Some translations simply omit this clause presumably to avoid the imprecision (KJV, NKJV).

Robert Kysar (b. 1934) acknowledges:

Rabboni is a more personal address to a teacher, one which reflects warmth and affection. John’s translation (Teacher) is consistent with John 1:38, although “my master” might be a more exact rendering of the Aramaic. (John calls it Hebrew, as he is prone to do with Aramaic words, e.g. John 19:13.) (Kysar, John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 300)

Though something might be lost in translation, for John’s purposes the word means “teacher” (John 20:16). John’s definition provides the text’s own internal meaning of the term.

Holly E. Hearon (b. 1956) connects:

The identification is underlined...when Mary, in the moment that she recognizes Jesus, calls him “Rabboni.” Throughout the gospel Jesus is addressed as “Rabbi” by his followers (John 1:38, 49, 3:2, 4:31, 6:25,9:2, 11:18). However, both the first (John 1:38) and last time (John 20:16) this title is used it is accompanied by the parenthetical statement: “which means teacher.” This suggests that the storyteller wants the audience to hear these two verses together. (Hearon, The Mary Magdalene Tradition: Witness and Counter-Witness in Early Christian Communities, 160)

Like the Greek text, English versions leave the word in its original language. The term rhabboní is transliterated “Rabboni” (ASV, CEV, ESV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT), “Rabbouni” (HCSB, NRSV) or “Rab-bo’ni” (RSV).

D.A. Carson (b. 1946) explains:

Rabbouni or rabboni (the spelling varies in the manuscripts) appears to be an extended form of the more familiar rabbi (literally, ‘my teacher’). The term appears elsewhere in the New Testament only at Mark 10:51...In rabbinical Hebrew the term is regularly applied to God (in the expression ribbônô šel ‘ôlām, ‘rabbi of the world’), and this prompts Sir Edwyn Clement Hoskyns [1884-1937] (p. 543) to argue that although it may be used in reference to a human rabbi, it is never used in addressing a human rabbi. Mary’s address therefore becomes a form of address to God, not unlike John 20:28. But it has often been pointed out that rabboni is used in addressing men in the Palestinian and Jerusalem Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures). As far as John is concerned, he offers Didaskale (‘Teacher’) as his translation for both ‘Rabbi’ (John 1:38) and ‘Rabboni’ (John 20:16). (Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 646)

“Rabboni” is a title for honored teachers intensified to convey the highest affection. In the New Testament, the title is spoken only twice, both times of Jesus, by Bartimaeus (Mark 10:51) and Mary Magdalene (John 20:16).

Herman Ridderbos (1909-2007) defines:

“Rabbouni” literally means “my teacher” or “my master,” but it is used elsewhere simply as an equivalent to the common word “Rabbi.” Nevertheless, in this description of Jesus’ appearance to Mary there is undeniably something very personal. Unlike his other resurrection appearances, here Jesus simply calls her by name and she recognizes him as she hears him. So the way in which she turns to him and answers him with “Rabbouni” does have a strong personal and affective component (see also “my Lord” in John 20:13). All this is easy to link with her prehistory as a woman saved by Jesus from great distress (Mark 16:9), but the Evangelist does not mention this. (Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, 637)

In later years, the Jews recognized three levels of teachers: rab (lowest), rabbi, rabboni (highest). This hierarchy does not seem to be in place in John’s gospel given that the gospel’s internal translation makes it interchangeable with “rabbi”.

Leon Morris (1914-2006) compares:

It is often said that the word means much the same as “Rabbi”. Etymologically this may be so, though we should not overlook the point made by W.F. Albright [1891-1971] that the term is a caritative with a meaning like “my (dear (or) little) master” (The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, p.158). But the usage is decisive. “Rabbi” is frequently used as a form of address, but “Rabboni” is not cited in this way (other than in prayer, of address to God). Matthew Black [1908-1994], however, points to its use in the old Palestinian Pentateuch Targum (see p. 119, n. 136; he regards it as a much more reliable guide to first-century Aramaic than the Onkelos Targum which is the basis of much of Gustaf Dalman [1855-1941]’s argument), which “shows that it cannot have been uncommon in earlier Palestinian Aramaic for a human lord” (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, p. 21). He does not, however, cite any example of the term as a form of address to a human lord. (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 839)

Beauford H. Bryant (1923-1997) and Mark S. Krause (b. 1955) add:

The precise distinction between “Rabbouni’ and the more common “Rabbi” is difficult to see, although some have suggested that “Rabbouni” shows greater respect and is therefore more suitable for use by a woman. This may be the case, but these subtle distinctions would be as lost on John’s original readers as they are on us today. More likely is that John is concerned to preserve the actual word used by Mary. (Bryant and Krause,John (The College Press NIV Commentary), 394)

The vocative appellation does seem to indicate intimacy. Francis J. Moloney (b.1940) discusses:

The name Jesus calls Mary and her response are Greek transliterations of Aramaic, although the narrator explains that it is Hebrew. There is a level of intimacy implied by the recourse to an original language in both the naming and the response (cf. Robert Gordon Maccini [b. 1951], Her Testimony is True 212-213). Some (e.g., B.F. Westcott [1825-1901], Gospel 292; John Marsh (1904-1994), Saint John 637) mistakenly argue that Rabbouni is quasi-divine. A number of scholars (e.g., Sir Edwyn Clement Hoskyns [1884-1937], Gospel 542; Marsh, Saint John 633, 636-637; Béda Rigaux [1899-1982], Dio l’ha risuscitato 324-325; Sandra M. Schneiders [b.1936], “John 20:11-18" 162-164) regard Mary’s addressing Jesus as Rabbouni as an authentic confession of faith. Others (André Feuillet [1909-1998], “Le recherche du Christ” 93-112; Mark W.G. Stibbe [b. 1960], John 205; Teresa Okure [b. 1941], “Jesus’ Commission” 181) trace in this encounter the experience of the bride seeking the spouse in the early hours of the dawn in Song of Solomon 3:1-3. (Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina), 528)

Mary’s use of “rabboni” parallels Jesus’ personal direct address earlier in the verse (John 20:16). Adeline Fehribach (b. 1950) recognizes:

When Mary Magdalene does recognize Jesus through his calling her by name, she responds by calling out “Rabbouni,” not “Rabbi” (cf. John 1:38). Although English texts usually render this title “Teacher,” some scholars maintain that “Rabbouni” is the equivalent of “My Master” or “My Teacher,” rather than just “Master” or “Teacher.” This personalization of the title makes it a term of endearment. On one level of the text, the use of this particular title by Mary Magdalene may indicate that she does not yet understand the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection. On another level of the text, however, the personalization makes up for the fact that the christology of the implied author would not allow Mary Magdalene to call Jesus by his given name. No one in the Fourth Gospel calls Jesus by his given name. As one who has been sent above by the Father, Jesus’s aloofness from the world would not have allowed for it. Nevertheless, combined with Jesus’ calling Mary Magdalene by name, Mary Magdalene’s use of a personalized title for Jesus makes the Johannine text reminiscent of Chaereas and Callirhoe who call out each other’s name. (Fehribach, The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom: A Feminist Historical-Literary Analysis of the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel, 159-60)

What is undeniable is that in calling Jesus “Rabboni” Mary Magdalene is now aware of his identity. (John 20:16). There are parallel recognition scenes in other cultures. Raymond E. Brown (1929-1998) catalogs:

Some have found here an adaptation of the recognition scene that appears in stories of the Greco-Roman gods as they walk among men (Martin Dibelius [1883-1947], Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 33 [1918], 137). However, C.H. Dodd [1884-1973] is correct in insisting that a prolonged recognition is common the Circumstantial Narratives of Jesus’ appearances (p. 973)...The two disciples on the road to Emmaus walked and talked with Jesus for a while before they recognized him in the breaking of bread (Luke 24:31, 35). In John 21 we shall find Jesus standing on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias and talking with the disciples about fishing, before finally the Beloved Disciple recognizes him [John 21:1-7]. Such difficult recognitions may have had an apologetic purpose: they show that the disciples were not credulously expecting to see the risen Jesus. But they also have a theological dimension. (Brown, The Gospel According to John, XIII-XXI (The Anchor Bible), 1008-1009)

In this moment of revelation, Mary’s perception of Jesus transitions from a corpse, an object, to a living subject. Kathryn Madden sees this as being conveyed in Mary’s turning to Jesus:

The scriptural narrative does not indicate that Mary has ever turned away from Jesus in the first place. The pivotal point is that when the angels first ask Mary why she is weeping, she cannot recognize Jesus as the risen Christ but only through her projections as a gardener [John 20:15]. Then, in contrast to a bodily act, when we turn the second time, we come to know that we are separate but related to the divine source who meets us in the dark night of the imageless space. There is no one other than God who is capable of being such a reliable and eternal mother-mirror. If we are fully given to this source, we are transformed into the same image. In psychological terms, this moment of self reflection would be an instant when perception gives way to apperception, when “object” turns into a “subject.”...We can look into the psyche and think we “see him,” but he is hidden from us, for whatever reasons of human defense structures. When Christ does reveal himself, we may not “see him” because we are caught in our own projections. The second turning, then, is a profound transfigurative moment for Mary as well as the Risen Christ. We see all essences in their restored, eternal form. It is the eternal essence of the Risen Christ who Mary greets as “Rabbouni.” (David A. Leeming [b. 1937], Madden and Stanton Marlan [b. 1943], Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion, Volume Two: L-Z, 550)

In this exchange, both Jesus and Mary Magdalene utter only a single word. Yet these words speak volumes. Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) quips, “This is Jesus’ shortest sermon.” (Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1151)

Adele Reinhartz (b. 1953) interprets:

In identifying her by name, Jesus is acting out the role of the good shepherd who calls his own sheep (John 10:26). Mary’ recognition of Jesus as ‘Rabbouni’ indicates that she is a member of his flock (John 10:27) and demonstrates that she is a true disciple who recognizes the resurrected Jesus as teacher. (Amy-Jill Levine [b. 1956] with Marianne Blickenstaff (b. 1959), “Women in the Johannine Community: An Exercise in Historical Imagination”, A Feminist Companion to John: Volume II, 25)

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) concurs:

The present scene validates Jesus’ words in John 10:3, “My sheep know my voice” (Rudolf Schnackenburg [1914-2002] 1990: 3.317; Teresa Okure [b. 1941] 1992: 181). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 568)

Craig R. Koester (b. 1953) generalizes:

Being called by name is what moves Mary from the conviction that Jesus is dead to the realization that he is alive. This encounter is unique in many respects, yet her experience anticipates the way people of future generations will come to faith. The Gospel speaks to those who have not seen the risen Jesus (John 20:29), and Mary’s story shows that seeing the tomb, seeing the angels, and even seeing Jesus himself do not guarantee faith. Like Mary, others will be called to faith by the risen Jesus. This is reflected in Jesus’ comments about the good shepherd, who “calls his own sheep by name” and leads them out, and they recognize his voice (John 10:3-4, 16, 27). Jesus calls Mary by name outside the empty tomb, but he will also call others to recognize him, sending them as he sent Mary to tell others what has happened. (Koester, The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel, 125-26)

Bruce Chilton (b. 1949) agrees:

It is her experience that ultimately teaches the other disciples how to see Jesus as well. (Chilton, Mary Magdalene: A Biography, 130)

Mary Magdalene is emerging from her grief and awakening to a new reality. In this moment of recognition both Jesus and Mary Magdalene identify each other. Though their relationship will not be the same (John 20:17), Mary has found the Jesus for whom she is looking.

What about being called by name triggers Mary Madalene’s positive identification of Jesus? Why does John preserve Mary’s address in its original language? Is calling Jesus “Rabboni” equivalent to his calling her by her name? What is the most you have ever heard conveyed by a single word? When have you suddenly been able to perceive that God had been present in a situation long before you sensed it? In that instance, what prevented you from seeing God previously? In what ways is Mary Magdalene’s revelation a template for all who believe in the resurrected Jesus? Would you recognize Jesus if you saw him?

Mary is caught off guard and as such her response is completely unprompted. As in many impromptu utterances, her one word response is telling.

Rodney A. Whitacre (b. 1949) surmises:

Jesus calls her by the name he used for her before, and she responds with the title she used before [John 20:16]. She would naturally assume that their relationship could pick up where it left off and continue on as before. Jesus’ response, however, lets her know there has been a radical change in him and consequently in his relationship with his followers [John 20:17]. (Whitacre, John (IVP New Testament Commentary), 476)

Some have seen Mary’s use of “Rabboni” as a failure, or at best an incomplete understanding of the situation. Of the title “rabboni”, Karen L. King (b. 1954) regrets that it indicates “a relatively low standing on the hierarchical scale of Johannine Christological titles.” (King, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle, 131)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) traces:

Even when Jesus calls Mary by name, her pilgrimage is not over. In her initial reply she calls Jesus Rabbouni (my master), which suggests that she still thinks of Jesus in terms of her past friendship with him, as her teacher. This is verified by the translation the evangelist gives to the term—Teacher (John 20:16). At this juncture it becomes clear that it is no longer adequate to relate to Jesus as a great sage. He must now be seen as more that just a conveyor of Wisdom. Her reaction is of course natural and also involves her clinging to Jesus. (Witherington, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 331)

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) critiques:

The present reference is the only instance of the term “rabbi” in the second half of John’s Gospel. Since John 13-21 is told from the vantage point of the exalted Jesus, Mary’s address of Jesus as “rabbi” indicates that she has not yet comes to terms with the reality of Jesus’ resurrection. (Ben Witherington III [b. 1951] 1995: 331). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 568-69)

Jane Schaberg (1938-2012) examines:

Mary Magdalene’s use of the title Rabbouni is often thought of as another sign of her ignorance. It is a “modest” title, says Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998], “characteristic of the beginning of faith rather than of its culmination,” certainly falling far short of Thomas’ ‘My Lord and my God; in John 20:28. He is tempted to theorize that by using this “old” title the Johannine Magdalene is showing her misunderstanding of the resurrection: she thinks she can now follow Jesus in the same way she did during the ministry. Such thinking may indicate she has an inferior faith, and does not possess the Spirit: “[O]ne may wonder if her use of an inadequate title does not imply that only when the Spirit is given (John 20:22) is full faith in the risen Jesus possible.” Her use of the title “Lord” in John 20:18 makes this reasoning less plausible, but it is nevertheless common, in spite of her use of “Lord” in John 20:2 also. (Schaberg, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament, 328)

Morna D. Hooker (b.1931) determines:

In case we do not see the significance of her words, the evangelist explains that they mean “my Teacher.” [John 20:16] She still doesn’t really understand. She knows only that Jesus has come back, the old Jesus, the Jesus she knew and loved. She supposes that in spite of everything that has happened, life will now go on just as before...When she calls him “Rabbouni,” Mary is clearly thinking in terms of her old relationship with the earthly Jesus. When she holds on to him, she is wanting to perpetuate that relationship. The time for that is past. A new era has begun. From now on, she must learn to “hold on” to him in a new, spiritual way. (Dave Fleer [b. 1953] and Dave Bland [b. 1953], Preaching John’s Gospel: The World It Imagines, “Seeing and Believing”, 141-42)

Though Mary Magdalene recognizes Jesus, her identification is incomplete. Anthony J. Kelly (b. 1938) and Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) assess:

A moment of recognition follows; yet her way of addressing Jesus is still according to her previous experience of him: “Rabbouni” (John 20:16b)—pointedly translated once again as “Teacher” (cf. John 1:38, 20:16). She is yet to acknowledge him as “the Lord” (John 20:18), in whom the glory of the Father is revealed. Jesus summons her into the luminous darkness of a new relationship to him: Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father” (John 20:17a). She is to relate to him, not in terms of past experience, but as the one who has come from the Father and is not returning to him. (Kelly and Moloney, Experiencing God in the Gospel of John, 377)

Jesus is not merely an ethical teacher. Henry Gariepy (1930-2010) corrects:

It is not enough that we ascribe to Christ those titles of respect and tradition. We, too, must know Him as our risen Lord. We, too, have a mandate and mission to proclaim the Good News from a personal experience, ‘I have seen the Lord.’ Only a vibrant encounter with the resurrected Christ and a recognition of His mighty power leads us to know Him as He truly is and to share His message with others. In that discovery is our destiny. (Gariepy, 100 Portraits of Christ, 103-04)

Though no one enduring so much emotional turmoil ought be criticized, Mary Magdalene wrongly assumes that life will return to normal. This is seen as she tries to cling to Jesus and the Lord’s subsequent rebuffing of these efforts (John 20:17). Mary attempts to pick up where they left off, to recapture the past. But life can nonot revert to business as usual. As is often the case with death, Mary Magdalene must adjust to the rhythm of a new normal.

Her relationship with Jesus will take on new meaning. Though Mary Magdalene is ahead of the curve as the first to identify the risen savior, her revelation is incomplete. She is still Mary. Jesus, however, is no longer merely “Rabboni”.

When have you encountered someone whose personal transformation resulted in a changed relationship? What does Mary Magdalene’s identification of Jesus reveal of her relationship to him? Is she wrong to call him “Rabboni”? What should she have called Jesus? What do you call Jesus? How would you identify Jesus: lord, liar, lunatic, etc.?

“Recognizing isn’t at all like seeing; the two often don’t even agree, and it’s sometimes a less effective way of determining what is.” - Sten Nadolny (b. 1942), The Discovery of Slowness

Timeless Songs (Revelation 15:2-4)

Which New Testament book contains the Song of Moses? Revelation 15:3, 4

The fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of Revelation form a self contained unit depicting God’s final judgment (Revelation 15:1-16:21). Seven angels unleash a series of seven plagues upon the earth. The first verse of chapter 15, Revelation’s shortest chapter, introduces the sequence with an announcement (Revelation 15:1).

Before developing this theme, the scene shifts to heaven to “something like a sea of glass mixed with fire” (Revelation 15:2 NASB). Around this landmark, an immense crowd of the redeemed sing a victory song (Revelation 15:2-3). This departure represents the calm before the storm. The foundational Exodus narrative is being reworked in reverse order as in Revelation, the religious community crosses the sea before the plagues descend.

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) depicts:

John looks and perceives a sea of glass as before, but this time it is mixed with fire. As in Revelation 8:5, fire is a symbol of God’s holiness and wrath, which is hovering and about to be cast down, like fire on Sodom and Gomorrah [Genesis 19:24]. By the sea John sees standing the conquerors with harps, those who triumphed over the Beast, and the number of his name...This worship scene is perhaps to remind us of the one in Revelation 4:1-5:14. (Witherington, Revelation (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 205-06)

The people are praising God. Worship is one of Revelation’s major themes and the action believers are most frequently portrayed performing in the book.

And they sang the song of Moses, the bond-servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,
“Great and marvelous are Your works,
O Lord God, the Almighty;
Righteous and true are Your ways,
King of the nations!
Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify Your name?
For You alone are holy;
For all the nations will come and worship before You,
For Your righteous acts have been revealed.” (Revelation 15:3-4 NASB)

Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) comments:

With their harps they were “singing the song of Moses” (Revelation 15:3). Christ had delivered them from the dragon with his blood (Revelation 12:11), and God had given them victory over the false trinity. Thus, like Moses after the exodus from Egypt, they sing a song of victory [Exodus 15:1-18]. (Osborne, Revelation (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 563)

Mark W. Wilson (b. 1949) compares:

Like the 144,000 who sing a new song before the heavenly throne (Revelation 14:1-3), the rest of the victors also sing a song of triumph. Their song imitates the heavenly song celebrating the triumph of the Lamb through his blood (cf. Revelation 5:5, 9-10). (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], Revelation (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 94)

The song is introduced with a familiar verb. David L. Mathewson (b. 1963) notes:

In Revelation 5:9, 14:3, and Revelation 15:3 the present of ἄδω is used to introduce and highlight the new song sung by living creatures, the voice from the throne, and the Song of Moses sung by the victorious saints. (Mathewson, Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation: The Function of Greek Verb Tenses in John’s Apocalypse, 78)

The passage falls within a vision of angels discharging the last plagues (Revelation 15:1-8). Like the previous plagues, these are introduced through the lens of heavenly worship (Revelation 15:3-4). Like Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980) interspersing comedy into his films to break up the suspense, Revelation frequently drifts to heaven so that the reader is not overwhelmed by horror.

Robert H. Smith (1932-2006) interprets:

Before the seer utters another word about the angels or their plagues, he lifts our eyes to the heavenly throne room. The vision of heavenly reality, as often before (Revelation 4:1-11, 8:2-5, 11:15-19, 14:1-5), interrupts scenes of otherwise unrelieved terror on earth. Heavenly visions offer a reading of events from God’s point of view and strengthen readers for the shocks to come. (Smith, The Apocalypse: A Commentary on Revelation in Words and Images, 78)

Jon Paulien (b. 1949) relates:

The sound of singing breaks into this scene completely unexpected, especially since rivers of blood anticipate even further plagues (Revelation 14:19-15:2). It would seem like a time to ban music and rejoicing. But sometimes the most powerful singing occurs when nobody plans on it. (Paulien, The Gospel from Patmos, Everyday Insights for Living from the Last Book of the Bible, 270)

The singing is accompanied by “harps of God” (Revelation 15:2). James L. Resseguie (b. 1945) analyzes:

The conquerors have in their hands harps or kitharas of God. The phrase “harps of God” is somewhat ambiguous. It could refer to harps given to the victors by God as symbols of their new status as members of the heavenly choir, like the twenty-four elders, who also have harps (Revelation 5:8). Or the phrase could indicate harps that are used for playing songs to God. It is doubtful that a choice needs to be made in this context: the harps are given by God and are to be played in praise of God. The harps identify the conquerors as the 144,000, for the Israel of God—represented by the symbolic number 144,000—also plays harps in Revelation 14:2. (Resseguie, The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary, 204-05)

The song’s intent is clear. Mike Tucker (b. 1952) pronounces:

This song of victory focuses entirely on God...and His glory and His worthiness. This is the essence of true worship. True worship always focuses on God. True worship always gives glory to God alone. Those who are faithful will worship Him exclusively, and nothing else. (Tucker, Meeting Jesus in the Book of Revelation, 123)

Revelation 15:3-4 is a redemption song. It wastes no energy gloating over fallen enemies, but instead accentuates the deliverance and exploits of God.

While the song’s meaning is clear its classification, ascription and sources are hot topics. The hymn may have been familiar to Revelation’s original audience. Robert H. Mounce (b. 1921) speculates:

The structure of the hymn suggests that it may have been used in the liturgy of the early church. The first four lines are a classic example of synonymous parallelism. (Mounce, The Book of Revelation (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 285)

Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) classifies:

Heinrich Kraft [b. 1918] (1974:201) sees this as a baptismal hymn focused on the fact that both Moses and the Lamb have “led their people through water to a new life.” However, there is too little evidence of baptismal symbolism here. More viable is Wolfgang Fenske [b. 1956] (1999:255), who sees the Song of Moses stemming from Deuteronomy 32:4-5 and the Song of the Lamb stemming from Psalm 85:9-10 from the standpoint of the conquering Lamb. Therefore, it may be a Christian war scroll (so also J.A. du Rand [b.1954] (1995). (Osborne, Revelation (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 564)

The song is ascribed to “Moses, the bond-servant of God, and the song of the Lamb” (Revelation 15:2 NASB). This marks the 847th and final time that Moses’ name appears in the Bible and the only time it is referenced in Revelation. The infrequency of Moses’ name in Revelation is not surprising as the book typically alludes to the Old Testament rather than citing it.

Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (b. 1938) informs:

Revelation never refers to the Old Testament as graphē (Scripture) and does not once introduce its Old Testament material through a formula quotation. We only find one explicit reference to the Old Testament: “They sing the song of Moses, the servant of God” (Revelation 15:3). Yet the song which follows is not connected in any literary way with the Song of Moses in Exodus 15:1-18 or Deuteronomy 32:1-43, but is an amalgamation of various Old Testament themes. Thus Revelation does not even once strictly quote the Old Testament. (Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, 101-02)

Joseph L. Mangina (b. 1957) concurs:

The exodus forms a kind of subtext throughout the Apocalypse, present yet hidden under multiple figures, hints, and allusions. But now the theme is stated in an unambiguous way. The song sung by the sea, John tell us, is none other than “the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb.” (Mangina, Revelation (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible))

John is making an intentional connection to the Old Testament. Robert W. Wall (b. 1947) explicates:

The phrase, song of Moses...and the song of the Lamb, prepares the reader for the hymn of praise which follows. Even though the hymn’s content derives from the biblical psalter, John’s reference to the song of Moses frames its theological importance. (Wall, Revelation (New International Biblical Commentary), 193)

Moses is designatd God’s doûlos, translated “servant” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “bond-servant” (NASB). John Christopher Thomas (b. 1954) asserts:

Mention of ‘the song of Moses the servant of God’ could not help but call attention to the place of Moses in Israel’s redemptive history, which is without parallel, for not only is the descriptive title ‘the servant of God’ one used for Moses on numerous occasions in the Old Testament (Exodus 14:31; Numbers 12:7; Deuteronomy 34:5; Joshua 1:1, 15, 8:32, 9:24; I Kings 8:53, 56; II Kings 18:12, 21:8; II Chronicles 24:9; Nehemiah 1:8; Psalm 105:26; Malachi 4:4), but it also makes clear the fact that Moses himself is a prophet of God (cf. Revelation 10:7), and a most important one at that! (Thomas, The Apocalypse: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 453)

Wilfrid J. Harrington (b. 1927) connects:

As in Hebrews 3:5, Moses is called God’s servant and is set in contrast to the Son: “Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant...but Christ was faithful in all God’s house as a son.” (Harrington, Revelation (Sacra Pagina), 159)

The phrase also attaches Moses to believers in Revelation. Hanna Stenström (b. 1963) associates:

Christians are described as δούλοι του θεου in Revelation 2:20, 7:3, 19:2, 5, 22:3, 6. In some passages, a certain person is identified as a δούλος του θεου: Revelation 1:1 where the designation refers to John, and Revelation 15:3 where it refers to Moses. See also Revelation 10:7, 11:18 where the prophets are called δούλοι του θεου. On this theme in Revelation see Akira Satake [b.1929], Die Gemeindeordnung in der Johannesapokalypse, pp. 86-97. (Amy-Jill Levine [b. 1956] and Maria Mayo Robbins [b. 1973], “They Have Not Defiled Themselves with Women...: Christian Identity According to the Book of Revelation”, A Feminist Companion to the Apocalypse of John, 48)

There has been considerable discussion as to what is meant by the song “of Moses” (Revelation 15:2). Robert L. Thomas (b. 1928) considers:

One way of understanding the genitives Μωϋσέως (Mōyseōs, “of Moses”) and του ἀρνίου (tou arniou, “of the Lamb”) is to take them both as objective genitives: “the song about Moses’ accomplishments with God’s help and the song about the Lamb’s accomplishment with God’s help” (James Moffatt [1870-1944], R.C.H. Lenski [1864-1936], Alan F. Johnson [b. 1933]). This hypothesis cannot explain why Moses and the Lamb are not mentioned in the songs (Isbon T. Beckwith [1843-1936]), however, neither does it agree with the clear fact that Moses was the composer and singer of his song. Another way of interpreting is to consider the former genitive as subjective and the latter as objective: “the song Moses sang and the song about the Lamb.” Yet the song does not mention the Lamb, so this proposal falters (Beckwith). The best analysis takes both genitives as subjective: “the song by Moses and the song for which the Lamb is responsible.” It is the Song of Moses because its thought and language came from Moses. It is the song of the Lamb because he composed it, not in words but in actions that are the essential focus of this whole revelation of last things (Beckwith). The actions of the Lamb have dominated throughout the process of deliverance that reached its climax at this point (cf. Revelation 5:5), so in that sense He is responsible for the overcomers’ ability to sing as they do. (Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary), 236)

Stephen S. Smalley (b. 1931) concurs:

It is not immediately clear how to construe the genitive in ‘the song of Moses’ (τὴν ὠδὴν Μωϋσέως, tēn ō[i]dēn Mōyseōs). However, it can scarcely be objective (‘a song to or about Moses’), since what follows is clearly addressed to God. It makes sense, therefore, to understand the genitive as subjective: this is a ‘song by Moses’. There are two such hymns recorded in the Old Testament: Exodus 15:1-18; and Deuteronomy 31:30-32:43 (David E. Aune [b. 1939] [872] includes Psalm 90:1-17, a ‘prayer of Moses’, as a third). In view of the Exodus motif which runs strongly through the theology of Revelation 15:1-8, it is likely that the allusion here is to the song of God’s victory which Moses recited with the Israelites (Exodus 15:1) after the Exodus. In itself, that event points to the triumphant and new Exodus achieved by the messianic Lamb in his cross and resurrection (Revelation 14:3-4; cf. John 16:33); see G.K. Beale [b. 1949] 792. (Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse, 786)

Olutola K. Peters (b. 1952) deduces:

While it is true that the syntax of the text allows for both objective and subjective genitives, the historical background includes well-known “songs” of Moses (cf. Exodus 15:1-18; Deuteronomy 31:30-32:43); this would suggest a song by Moses (subjective genitive). For lack of a reference anywhere to a song sung by the Lamb, it would make more sense to regard “the song of the Lamb” as that which is about the Lamb (cf. Revelation 5:9-12). (Peters, The Mandate Of The Church In The Apocalypse Of John, 69)

As has been alluded, Revelation 15:3-4’s classification as a “song of Moses” is problematic. Moses is credited with two songs in the Pentateuch, one at the beginning of his career (Exodus 15:1-18) and the other near the end, his swan song (Deuteronomy 32:1-43). The words in Revelation’s “song of Moses” match neither.

Leonard L. Thompson (b. 1934) inspects:

Moses sang two songs, one after victory at the Red Sea (Exodus 15:1-18) and one near the end of his life (Deuteronomy 32:1-43). The two are not always kept separate (see De Ebrietate 111). The primary reference here is to the song sung at the Red Sea (though compare the opening four lines to Deuteronomy 32:4). According to Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], the Therapeutai, a Jewish contemplative order, sang such a song at Passover (festival celebrating the exodus from Egypt), in imitation “of that one which, in old time, was established by the Red Sea, on account of the wondrous works which were displayed there” (cf. Vita Contemplativa 84-88). (Thompson, Revelation (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 150)

Connecting either of the songs credited to Moses in the Pentateuch to Revelation 15:3-4 involves a stretch. Brian K. Blount (b. 1955) introduces:

Calling this new song the song of Moses raises a problem: to what Old Testament song of Moses is John referring? Even though John envisions a similar context for the multitude’s song and the Song of Moses in Exodus 15:1-18, there are few grammatical and thematic parallels between the two. Many scholars have noted that a better thematic comparison exists between the multitude’s song and the one attributed to Moses and the Israelites in Deuteronomy 32:1-43. But even there the connections are quite general. (Blount, Revelation: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 286)

Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) surveys:

The Song of Moses itself is found in Exodus 15:1-19 or perhaps in Deuteronomy 31:30-32:43 (both are called the “song of Moses,” Exodus 15:1; Deuteronomy 31:30). Though it is commonly said that Exodus 15 is closer to the themes here, some (G.R. Beasley-Murray [1916-2000], Heinz Giesen [b. 1940], G.K. Beale [b. 1949]) have noted that both are reflected in this hymn. J.A. du Rand [b.1954] (1995:203-5) believes that Deuteronomy 32 is closer and sees the key terms “works/deeds,” “ways,” and “holy” drawn from there. The song combines the war tradition with the eschatological exodus tradition, possibly alluding also to the David and Goliath tradition (cf. Tosefta Targum on I Samuel 17) to portray the victory of the Lamb over the beast (du Rand 1995:207-8). Thus, liberation and restoration are the major themes as God’s people experience a new exodus (so also Donal A. McIlraith [b. 1945] 1999:522-23). The problem is that the wording of the song has little connection with either Exodus 15 or Deuteronomy 32. Therefore, many (e.g., G.B. Caird [1917-1984], Austin Farrer [1904-1968], Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza [b. 1938], Gerhard A. Krodel [1926-2005]) have noted that the song here is a concatenation of themes drawn from many places in the Old Testament. (Osborne, Revelation (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 563-64)

Some argue that the song of Moses in Revelation 15:3-4 correlates to Exodus 15:1-18 and Exodus certainly does inform the worldview of Revelation. Barbara R. Rossing (b. 1955) assesses:

The fundamental model for liberation in Revelation is the Book of Exodus, the story of the liberation of Israel from bondage in Egypt. As Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza [b. 1938] and other scholars have shown, the Book of Exodus furnishes the pattern for much of Revelation’s imagery, including Jesus as the Lamb who takes on the role of Moses. The entire Book of Revelation suggests a parallel between the Christians’ journey out of Rome and the Israelites’ journey out of Egypt. For example, the author of Revelation calls Christians to “come out” of Babylon (Revelation 18:4). The connection to Moses and the Exodus becomes explicit when God’s servants sing the “song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb” (Revelation 15:3). As such, the Book of Revelation gives a “re-reading of the Exodus, now being experienced not in Egypt but in the heart of the Roman Empire.” (David Rhoads [b. 1941], “For the Healing of the World: Reading Revelation Ecologically”, From Every People and Nation: The Book of Revelation in Intercultural Perspective, 175)

More pointedly, some have seen reverberations of the song of Moses in Exodus 15:1-18 in Revelation. Margaret Barker (b. 1944) correlates:

There are many echoes of this song in the Book of Revelation: ‘Who is like thee?’ was said in irony of the beast [Revelation 13:4]; the earth also swallowed the river which came from the dragon’s mouth [Revelation 12:16]; the ‘redeemed’ are the kingdom of priests, the first born (Revelation 5:6, 14:4) who have been set free from Egypt [Revelation 11:8] and established on the holy mountain (Revelation 14:1-5). They are brought across a sea which has congealed to let them pass, the crystal sea of vision. (Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: Which God Gave to Him to Show to His Servants What Must Soon Take Place (Revelation 1.1), 261)

The song of Moses in Exodus derives from Moses’ first triumph, crossing the Red Sea and evading Pharaoh’s forces (Exodus 15:1-18). Moses leads the Israelites in singing the composition and it is summarized antiphonally by Miriam (Exodus 15:21).

Robert H. Mounce (b. 1921) describes:

The deliverance of which Moses and the people sang in Exodus 15:1-18 prefigured the greater deliverance wrought by the Lamb...This song commemorating Israel’s greatest deliverance was sung on Sabbath evenings in the synagogue service. Its imagery was stamped on the consciousness of every pious Jew. The theme of victory in Exodus becomes the basis for praise and adoration in the song of the victors. God is worthy of glory and honor because his great and marvelous works are true and righteous. The song does not celebrate the judgment of God upon his enemies but the righteousness of his great redemptive acts. As Moses triumphed over Pharaoh, and as the risen Lord was victor over the world (John 16:33), so also the faithful have maintained their fidelity against all demand of the imperial cult. (Mounce, The Book of Revelation (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 285-86)

The song of Moses in Exodus 15:1-18 may have held eschatological significance. G.K. Beale (b. 1949) briefs:

Other Jewish writings affirm that the song of Exodus 15:1 implies the resurrection of the Israelite singers to sing once again in the new age (b. Sanhedrin 19b; Mekilta de Ishmael, Shirata 1.1-10). This could be a hint suggesting that Revelation 15:2-3 is a resurrection scene. Similarly, Wisdom of Solomon 19:6-9 speaks of Israel’s passage through the sea as their new creation, for which they “praised” God...A resurrection is possible in Revelation 15:2, where the notion of resurrection is pointed to by the saints “standing” (ἑστωτας) on the glass sea, in striking similarity to the clear resurrection portrayal of the Lamb “standing” (ἑστηχός) by (or on) the glass sea (Revelation 5:6). The “conquering” of both the Lamb and the saints includes resurrection (cf. νιχάω in Revelation 5:5 and Revelation 15:2). (Beale, The Book of Revelation (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 792-93)

Alan F. Johnson (b. 1933) adds:

K. Boronicz (“‘Canticum Moysi et agni’—Apoc. 15:3,” Ruch Biblit 17 [1964]:81-87) argues that according to Jewish tradition the doctrine of resurrection is implicitly contained in the Law and is exemplified by the Canticle (Song) of Moses (Exodus 15:1-18). Revelation 15:3-4 has a prophetic and messianic sense and points to resurrection. In their prophetic symbolism, the Song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb are identical. Could this also be the reason why all early church liturgies included the Song of Moses somewhere in the Easter commemoration and some also included it on other Sundays (cf. Eric Werner [1901-1988], The Sacred Bridge: Liturgical Parallels in Synagogue and Early Church [New York: Schocken, 1970, 142)?...In the ancient synagogue, the Haftorah (prophetic reading) accompanying the Seder on Exodus 15:1-12 was Isaiah 26:1: “In that day this song will be sung in the land of Judah. We have a strong city; God makes salvation its walls and ramparts”; and Isaiah 65:24: “Before they call I will answer; while they are still speaking I will hear.” Both prophetic portions are part of texts called “Consolation of Israel” and emphasize the strengthening of the faith of Israel (cf. Jacob Mann [1888-1940], The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue [New York: Ktav, 1971], 1:431-32). The Song of Moses was apparently not so frequently used in the synagogue but principally in the temple services (cf. Werner, Sacred Bridge 141). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Hebrews– Revelation (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 730)

There are many contextual similarities between the songs in Exodus 15:1-18 and Revelation 15:3-4. Young Mog Song (b. 1969) contends:

Many parallels between Exodus 15 and Revelation 15 are important: (1) the theme of victory in Exodus 15 becomes the basis for praise in Revelation 15:3-4 (Robert H. Mounce [b. 1921] 1983:287). (2) Several terms, e.g. ‘glory’, ‘victory’, and ‘tabernacle’, are common (cf. Exodus 15:11; Revelation 15:4). (3) The entire scene of Revelation 15:2 revives the Israelites standing on the shore of the Red Sea. (4) The seven plagues (Revelation 11:6, 15:8) recall the ten plagues om Egypt. And (5) the universal recognition of Jehovah as the one true God is a common theme of their praises (Exodus 15:14; Revelation 15:4; Mounce, 1983: 288). (Heerak Christian Kim [b. 1970], Journeys in Biblical Studies: Academic Papers from SBL International 2008, New Zealand, 65-66)

Thomas B. Slater (b. 1952) adds:

The song of Moses and the Lamb celebrates God’s eschatological exodus of his people. It is similar to the song of Moses in Exodus 15:1-18 in this regard. Both songs are sung along a seashore. The reference to the Lamb could remind the reader of the Passover Lamb of the Exodus tradition (Exodus 12:3, 4, 5, 21). However, unlike Exodus 15:1-18, which celebrates the deliverance of a single nation, the event in Revelation 15:3-4 celebrates the deliverance of a racially and culturally mixed Christian body (cf. Revelation 7:9-10). Finally, both Moses and the Lamb function as deliverers of a religious community. (Slater, Christ and Community: A Socio-Historical Study of the Christology of Revelation, 195)

Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (b. 1938) resolves:

The most influential text...seems to be Exodus 15:1-8. The Song of Moses has become in Revelation the Song of the Lamb, the “new song.” Both songs praise God’s redemptive activity in the deliverance and liberation of the people of God. In addition, the hymn functions also as a positive response to the eternal gospel because it announces that God’s justice will cause the nations of the earth to come and worship God. Here, like Caesar, God is called the king of the nations. The new song of Revelation announces liberation and salvation not only for the Christian community, but also for all nations which are now oppressed and longing for the experience of God’s justice. God’s judgments are just and true. Like the chorus in a Greek drama, this hymn interprets the meaning and intention of the preceding and following visions of cruel judgment. Their goal is justice and salvation. (Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World (Proclamation Commentaries), 92)

Frederick J. Murphy (1949-2011) interjects:

The hymn is the most explicit reference to the exodus in Revelation, and it alerts the reader to the exodus allusions in the bowls that follow in chapter 16 (Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza [b. 1938] 1991, 91). Exodus 15:1-21 and Revelation 15:3-4 are broadly similar in that both celebrate the awesome exhibition of God’s power on behalf of his people and his rescue of them. A difference is that the enemies in Exodus 15 are either destroyed (Egyptians) or in terror (inhabitants of Philistia, Edom, Moab, Canaan), and their conversion is not contemplated. Revelation 15:3-4 anticipates the acceptance by all nations of God’s sovereignty. This contrast must be qualified, however, for the nations’ fear in Exodus 15:14-16 is a recognition of God’s power, and non-Christians are not treated so benignly elsewhere in Revelation. (Murphy, Fallen Is Babylon: The Revelation to John, 330)

Jürgen Roloff (1930-2004) sees typological connections:

The reference to Moses certainly calls to mind the Red Sea tradition in Exodus 15:1-21...Because the hymn deviates greatly from the content of the Red Sea hymn, it cannot be the intention of the author to present it in its original form. The relationship between the hymn of praise of those who overcome and that of Moses, instead, is at the salvation-historical and typological levels. Just as in the exodus Israel was delivered from the Egyptians by Moses, so now will the salvation people of the end time be delivered from the evil powers that afflict them—in fact, by Jesus, the lamb, who purchased his own by his blood (cf. Revelation 5:9-10). The deliverance event of the end time corresponds, contrastingly and in heightened form, to that of primitive history. The idea that the exodus is a prototype of God’s end-time act of redemption toward his people was also active in Jewish tradition. Thus, one expected that Moses as the risen one would one day sing again with the risen community the song of the Red Sea (Mekilta Exodus 15:1). Moses and Jesus are compared here as the representatives of God’s saving activity in primitive times and at the end time, which becomes an occasion for the rescued to sing praise; thus, the designation of Jesus as lamb heightens the typology even more. (Roloff, Revelation (Continental Commentary Series), 183)

Joseph L. Mangina (b. 1957) sees another point of contact:

What joins the song in Exodus with the song of the Lamb is not just the theme of victory...but the importance that both songs accord to the name of God. Whether in the form of the Tetragrammaton YHWH, or the formula “who was and who is and who is to come,” or the name of Jesus, the name of God is a powerful indicator of his holiness. God is holy and singular, as well as gracious and loving. The life and death of the Lamb may be seen as the act in which God glorifies his own name, a kind of “yes” to himself, on the basis of which the nations are summoned to add their own “yes” in the form of an eternal sanctus. “For your righteous acts have been revealed” (Revelation 15:4). Once again we see the crucial role played by the first commandment in the Apocalypse [Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7]. This is yet another reason why the song of the Lamb does not render the song of Moses obsolete, but rather confirms it and intensifies it. (Mangina, Revelation (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible))

T.F. Glasson (1906-1998) contends:

The song of Moses...and the song of the Lamb are virtually the same song, celebrating divine deliverance...The words given here in Revelation 15:3-4 would be equally appropriate in the old Exodus and the new; in both events the same delivering mercy was revealed. (Glasson, The Revelation of John (The Cambridge Bible Commentary), 89)

While the context of both songs is a divinely orchestrated military victory, Revelation’s triumph is on a larger scale: In Exodus 15 a battle is won, in Revelation 15 a war. It is fitting that at the end of the war one of the opening victories is recalled.

Earl F. Palmer (b. 1931) studies:

The song of Moses is fulfilled in this chorale of Revelation 15:3-4. Moses and his army, like the army of the Lord in Revelation, have both won a victory, but Moses’ song primarily exalts the Lord for the defeat of the foe; whereas, in the song of Revelation 15, the exaltation is larger and more far-reaching. God is not only the victor over Pharaoh, but He is King of the ages. All nations shall come to Him in worship. His mighty will has been revealed, and the whole created order shall experience the result. (Palmer, 1,2,3, John & Revelation (Mastering the New Testament), 216)

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

Just as Israel praised God by the sea after he delivered them from Pharaoh, so the church praises God for defeating the beast on their behalf. Like God’s people of old, so God’s new covenant people praise him by singing “the song of Moses.” Their song is a hymn of deliverance and praise of God’s attributes like the song in Exodus 15:1-18. Though Moses is called a “servant of God” often throughout the Old Testament, the title here comes from Exodus 14:31, since there the title immediately precedes the song in Exodus 15:1-18. The song here is about the much greater deliverance accomplished through the Lamb’s work, so that it is called the Lamb’s song as well as Moses’. (Midrash Rabbah Exodus 24:3 says that “as soon as they [Israel] uttered the song, they were forgiven their sin at the sea.”) (Beale, The Book of Revelation (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 792)

Michael Wilcock (b. 1932) prioritizes:

It would be wrong to say that the exodus was the ‘real’ deliverance while the cross and resurrection were ‘only the spiritual’ one. It would be truer to say that the spiritual deliverance by Christ is the real one, while exodus was ‘only historical’. The latter was a representation of the former on the stage of history, rather as the player-king’s ‘crime’ in Hamlet was a dramatic representation—dramatic in both senses—of what King Claudius had actually done. (Wilcock, The Message of Revelation (Bible Speaks Today), 138)

Revelation 15:3-4 is also on a larger scale than the Exodus as the saved party enlarges from a nation to nations. Warren Carter (b. 1955) construes:

The recognition in worship of God’s superiority is a political statement. It contests Rome’s claims to be the supreme power that exercises rule over the world by asserting that God has all power and rules the nations. The vision of God’s empire outdoes Rome’s even while it imitates it! Unlike Rome’s empire that compromises only conquered or allied peoples, God’s reign embraces every nation. “All nations will come and worship before you” (Revelation 15:4; see also Revelation 5:13). (Carter, What Does Revelation Reveal?: Unlocking the Mystery)

Joseph L. Mangina (b. 1957) stresses:

While the church may and must sing this song, it is not the song sung by the conquerors at the sea of glass. A new exodus literally demands a new song, celebrating not just Israel’s deliverance from Egypt or even the resurrection, but the submission of the nations to God’s righteous rule...The twofold mention of ta ethnē [Revelation 15:4] in the present hymn serves as a reminder of Revelation’s catholic-cosmic trajectory, the divine action drawing people from all nations, tribes, and languages into the acknowledgment of God as Pantokratōr and Lord. (Mangina, Revelation (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible))

Notably, as part of his thesis that Revelation emphasizes universalism, Richard Bauckham (b. 1946) attaches:

The reference to the song of Moses has caused some difficulty and perplexity, since the words of the martyrs’ song are not those osf the song sung by Moses and the Israelites in Exodus 15:1-18...Thus Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza [b. 1938] sums up the consensus when she writes: ‘the song which follows [in Revelation 15:3-4] is not connected in any literary way with the song of Moses in Exodus 15 and Deuteronomy 32, but is an amalgam of various Old Testament themes’. But this...is a mistaken verdict. It leaps from the correct observation that none of the words of the song in Revelation 15:3-4 derive from Exodus 15:1-18, to the claim that therefore there is no literary connexion between the two passages. The literary connexion...is made...beneath the surface of the text by John’s expert and subtle use of current Jewish exegetical method...The notion of referring to a psalm or hymn to be found in the historical books of the Old Testament and then giving, not the words of the Old Testament, but a new composition, is not unknown in the Jewish literature of the New Testament period...John writes a new version of the song of Moses in order to provide an interpretation of the deliverance at the Red Sea and its eschatological antitype. (Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation, 297-98)

David A. deSilva (b. 1967) summarizes:

While Revelation 15:3-4 contains no recontextualizations from Exodus 15:1-18, Richard Bauckham [b. 1946] argues that there is nevertheless a close literary connection. John follows an established tradition of reinventing a biblical song of deliverance, such as one finds in Pseudo-Philo (comparing the Song of Deborah in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 32 with Judges 5:2-31) and Isaiah 12:1-6 (a reinvention of the song of deliverance by the sea using motifs found in Exodus 15:1-18). The Song of the Redeemed shares several points of interest with the Song of Moses: God’s mighty act of judgment of God’s enemies (Exodus 15:1-10, 12), which also revealed God’s superiority to the pagan gods (Exodus 15:11); God’s judgments resulting in awakening “fear” among the nations (Exodus 15:14-15); and the manifestation of God’s reign (Exodus 15:18)...John has created this new song, moreover, using phrases from biblical texts (e.g. Psalms 86:8-10; Jeremiah 10:6-7a) that themselves relate to Exodus 15 by gezera shawa, in particular to the declaration of God’s incomparable superiority over the gods of the nations (Exodus 15:11), a verse of particular significance for the question of whom to worship, so central in John’s setting. “Thus John’s version of the song takes as its starting point the key verse Exodus 15:11, which is taken for granted, without being quoted, because it is the common denominator which links the passages to which allusion is made (Jeremiah 10:6-7; Psalm 86:8-10, 98:1-2).” (deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation, 151)

Richard Bauckham (b. 1946) pinpoints:

The words of the martyrs’ song are not...those of the song of Moses is Exodus 15:1-18; but nor are they simply another song, with which John has replaced the original song of Moses. Like the version of the song of Moses which Isaiah 12:1-6 predicts that Israel will sing at the new exodus, Revelation’s version is an interpretation of the song of Moses, which John has produced by typically skilful use of current Jewish exegetical methods. As he related the hymn of Exodus to the eschatological exodus, John evidently identified five points of significance...(1) God’s mighty act of judgment on his enemies, which was also the deliverance of his people. (Exodus 15:1-10, 12)...(2) God’s mighty act of judgment demonstrated God’s incomparable superiority to pagan gods...(Exodus 15:11)...(3) God’s mighty act of judgment filled the pagan nations with fear (Exodus 15:14-16)...(4) It brought his people into his temple (Exodus 15:13, 17)...(5) The song concludes: ‘The Lord shall reign forever and ever’. (Exodus 1518). (Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, 99)

Others have seen a closer relationship between Revelation 15:3-4 and Deuteronomy 32:1-43 than to Exodus 15:1-18. J. Massyngberde Ford (b. 1928) discusses:

Although their song is called the song of Moses, it is not one of triumph such as is found in Exodus 15:1-18; it is more like Deuteronomy 32:1-43, also called the Song of Moses. The hymn is not christological. It is addressed only to God and is woven out of Old Testament remembrances. (Ford, Revelation (The Anchor Bible), 257)

Ian Boxall (b. 1964) declares:

The actual content of Revelation’s song is closer to the second song of Moses, uttered prior to his death (Deuteronomy 32:1-43). There is a particularly close parallel between Deuteronomy 32:4 LXX, which speaks of God’s deeds as ‘true’ (ἀληθινὰ), ‘his ways’ (αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτου) as judgements, and his character as ‘righteous and holy’ (δίκαιος καὶ ὅσιος). But the canticle John hears is no mere repetition of Deuteronomy 32:1-43, and commentators have detected a wide range of additional echoes of and allusions to Old Testament texts. (Boxall, The Revelation of Saint John (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 219)

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

Deuteronomy 32 is also called a “song of Moses” (Deuteronomy 31:19, 22, 30, 32:44) and is included in the allusion here to Exodus 15, since it also describes judgment. Wrath against apostate Israelites because of idolatry is the focus in Deuteronomy 32, as here judgment on apostate Christians together with the nations is in view. The song in Deuteronomy 32 concludes with the climactic thought that God will both punish the enemy nations who have persecuted Israel (Deuteronomy 32:43: “he will avenge the blood of his servants”) and “atone for his...people” (Deuteronomy 32:43; cf. Deuteronomy 32:41-43). The same idea is included in Revelation 15:2-4 (the vindication theme from Revelation 6:9-11 and Revelation 8:3-5 was just repeated in Revelation 14:18 and will be again in Revelation 15:7). The song is the same as the “new song” of Revelation 5:9ff and Revelation 14:3, where the singers likewise hold harps while lauding the Lamb for his work of redemption (cf. Revelation 5:8, 14:2). That the song in Revelation 15:3-4 is also a “new song” is evident because the saints sing not only the old “song of Moses” but also the “song of the Lamb,” which has hitherto not been sung. Therefore, the song is sung in praise, not only to God but also to the Lamb, since Revelation 5:9ff also lauds the Lamb for his redemptive work (so implicitly also Revelation 14:3). (Beale, The Book of Revelation (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 793)

While the text of Revelation 15:3-4 does not directly quote any extant song of Moses, it is replete with Old Testament terminology, a patchwork quilt of ancient worship phraseology. It is a pastiche. A modern equivalent might be Spyder Turner (b. 1947)’s 1967 rendition of “Stand by Me” (1967) in which Turner impersonates a string of famous R & B singers (Jackie Wilson [1934-1984], James Brown [1933-2006], Eddie Kendricks [1939-1992], Melvin Franklin [1942-1995], David Ruffin [1941-1991], Billy Stewart [1937-1970], Sam Cooke [1931-1964], Smokey Robinson [b. 1940] and Chuck Jackson [b. 1937]) to form a new composition.

Robert A. Lowery (1948-2011) apprises:

The actual contents of the song do not come from one primary source, either Exodus 15:1-18 or Deuteronomy 32:1-43. For example, we can compare Revelation 15:3b-4a with Jeremiah 10:7, 15:4 with Psalm 86:9-10, and Revelation 15:4c with Psalm 98:2. Over and over John creates visual and auditory collages by drawing together a variety of Old Testament passages to describe what he had seen and heard. (Lowery, Revelation’s Rhapsody: Listening to the Lyrics of the Lamb: How to Read the Book of Revelation, 91)

Robert H. Mounce (b. 1921) dissects:

Practically every phrase of the hymn is taken from the rich vocabulary of the Old Testament. For the first strophe cf. Psalm 111:3 (“Glorious and majestic are his deeds”); Amos 4:13 (“the Lord God Almighty is his name”); Deuteronomy 32:4 (“all his ways are just”); Jeremiah 10:7 (“O King of the nations”). In the Nestle-Aland text almost 80 percent of the words in the hymn (10 of 48) are italicized to show that they have been taken from the Old Testament. (Mounce, The Book of Revelation (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 286)

In addition to the discussion centering on the song’s sources, there has also been debate as to whether the epithet “the song of Moses...and the song of the Lamb” (Revelation 15:2) represents one song or two. The song does divide naturally into two parts that follow the versification (Revelation 15:3-4).

James M. Hamilton, Jr. (b. 1974) delineates:

The first four lines are in the second half of Revelation 15:3, then there are five lines in Revelation 15:4. The first four lines at the end of Revelation 15:3 are made up of two couplets, or two two-line sets. Each consists of a statement about God in the first line, followed by an address to God using significant titles for him in the second...There are five lines in Revelation 15:4. The first two lines are parallel, and the next three lines give reasons for the statements in the first two. (Hamilton, Revelation: The Spirit Speaks to the Churches (Preaching the Word), 306)

Few have interpreted the passage as recording two songs. John F. Walvoord (1910-2002) exemplifies this minority opinion:

The fact that the word “song” (Greek, ōdēn) is repeated with a definite article in both cases would lead to the conclusion that two songs are in view rather than one, both being sung by the martyred throng. The former recounts the faithfulness of God to Israel as a nation in recognition that a large number of Israelites are among these martyred dead. The song of the Lamb speaks of redemption from sin made possible by the sacrifice of the Lamb of God and would include all the believers in Christ. (Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 227-28)

If interpreted as two songs, the passage functions as a mash-up of sorts or like Queen’s “We are the Champions/We Will Rock You” (1977) in which two songs were released as single resulting in a top ten hit.

Most interpreters, however, view the song as a single piece. Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) examines:

The added καὶ τὴν ὠδὴν του ἀρνίου (kai tēn ōdēn tou arniou, literally, ‘and the song of the Lamb”) is somewhat difficult, for there is no hint that there are two songs here. Therefore the καὶ is most likely epexegetical (“that is”), and the genitive is the object. Thus, I translate, “the song of Moses, that is, the song about the Lamb.” This means that the victory being celebrated was won by the Lamb, in keeping with Revelation 12:11, “They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb.” The emphasis on the lamb highlights Jesus’ paschal sacrifice of his blood for the redemption of the nations. (Osborne, Revelation (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 564)

James L. Resseguie (b. 1945) agrees:

Although it may appear that these are two separate songs, the progression indicates that it is one and the same song. The first part draws attention to the exodus of the Israelites. After Israel passed through the Red Sea on dry ground, they sang a song of deliverance (Exodus 15:1-18). In the same way the new Israel sings a hymn of deliverance at a heavenly sea mixed with fire. The second part elaborates the song’s content: praise for God’s deliverance by the Lamb. The canticle is tightly structured with three parts praising God’s “great and amazing” deeds (cf. Revelation 15:1, where the sign is “great and amazing”). In synonymous parallelism, part 1 extols the character of God. (Resseguie, The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary, 205-06)

George Eldon Ladd (1911-1982) determines:

Exegetes debate whether this means that the victors sing one song or two. Grammatically the language might seem to suggest two songs: one of Moses, and one of the Lamb. Contextually the idea is that the victors sing a song of triumph which both the saints of the Old Testament and the New Testament knew how to sing, because both sang of the deliverance of the one God. (Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 205)

Like selecting a hymn for an ecumenical service, the song is apropos because it is one to which all parties are familiar.

Grammatically, the ascription could indicate that the song is sung by Moses and the Lamb. If this is the case, John is describing the song as he does because he is seeing and hearing Moses and the Lamb perform the composition. This would comply with Revelation’s mode of revelation.

Steve Moyise traces:

Point of view is established by attending to a number of contrasts, such as hearing and seeing, above and below, outer and inner, and centre and perimeter. The first is established as a principle in the seven letters with the command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. In Revelation 9:13-21, John sees a vision of horses with lions’ heads and hears their number, 200 million....In Revelation 12:1-17, John sees a heavenly battle between Michael and Satan but does not understand its meaning until he hears the heavenly voice. In Revelation 14:1-20, John sees the 144,000 and hears a multitude singing. In Revelation 15:1-8, John sees those who have conquered the beast and hears the song of Moses and the song of the Lamb. In Revelation 21:1-27, John sees a new heaven and earth and hears about its meaning. Thus is established the principle that hearing interprets seeing. (Moyise, “Does the Lion Lie Down with the Lamb?”, Studies in the Book of Revelation, 188-89)

Moses and the Lamb could be performing a duet. If so, Moses would be releasing a posthumous album like many contemporary musicians (e.g., Tupac [1971-1996]). Ian Boxall (b. 1964) maintains:

This is not the ‘new song’ previously learned, for it has no explicitly christological content (unlike the ‘new song’ of Revelation 5:9-10). This suggests that the genitive in the additional phrase and the song of the Lamb should be understood, like the previous genitive ‘of Moses’, as a subjective genitive: both Moses and the Lamb sing this song. In this interpretation, perhaps Christ is being presented as a new Moses, who ‘leads’ his people to salvation (for the Lamb as leading, see Revelation 7:17; cf. Revelation 14:4). It is possible that here Christ is the leader of the heavenly choir (Jonathan Knight [b. 1959] 1999:108; see Ascension of Isaiah 9:1, 4, where an angel is set over the praises of the sixth heaven). Though not explicitly stated as being present, the Lamb may be implied as part of that group which is victorious over the monster. (Boxall, The Revelation of Saint John (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 218)

If the song is a duet between Moses and the Lamb, it is a beautiful picture of the old warrior joining with the long awaited savior, the Old Testament and the New Testament meeting in triumph.

How does John, the author of Revelation, know that what he is hearing is “the song of Moses” if its lyrics do not correlate to any known song of Moses? How is Revelation 15:2-4 connected to Exodus 15:1-18 and Deuteronomy 32:1-43? Have you ever sang these songs? When has a song perfectly captured the mood of an occasion? What is your favorite victory song? Do you praise God for your successes; what will you be singing when you are winning? What songs can you think of that relay the same meaning?

The song of Revelation 15:3-4 has been in use since its original composition. For instance, Judith Kovacs (b. 1945) and Christopher Rowland (b. 1947) document:

The song of Revelation 15:3-4 is quoted by John Milton [1608-1674] on several occasions: for example, in Samson Agonistes (1671) the chorus adds the words ‘Just are the ways of God’ to the memorial of God’s saving purposes and Israel’s willingness to enjoy ‘bondage with ease [rather] than strenuous liberty’ (line 293). In Paradise Lost x.644 it echoes in the heavenly host’s response, ‘as the sound of sea’, to the Almighty’s declaration of eschatological deliverance through the Son. (Kovacs and Rowland, Revelation (Blackwell Bible Commentaries), 169-70)

The song of Moses is timeless as it blends past, present and future worship. The allusion to Moses sets the piece in history while also seeing it as a continuation of an ancient story. In doing so, it adds a layer of meaning to both Exodus and Revelation.

J. Ramsey Michaels (b. 1931) characterizes:

Like the “eternal gospel” proclaimed from heaven (Revelation 14:6), the song is not distinctively Christian. It encompasses the worship of Jew and Christian, Hebrew and Greek, Moses and the Lamb alike. Indeed it sounds like a postscript to the “eternal gospel,” asking, Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy (Revelation 13:4). The song is Jewish to the core, yet comes to a focus in the expectation of Jew and Christian alike that all nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed (Revelation 13:4). (Michaels, Revelation (IVP New Testament Commentary), 183)

Brian K. Blount (b. 1955) evaluates:

In John’s liturgical hymns not only the boundaries between heaven and earth are broken down, but the ones that separate time as well...Revelation 15:3-4...about Moses’ past victory, which is simultaneously a pointer to God’s future victory, is a dramatic case in point; it has a real-time, present effect. Mitchell G. Reddish [b. 1953] makes an appropriate observation: “While in John’s vision it is an eschatological song, in the real world of John’s day this was a song that was already being sung. The victory that was in the future was being anticipated in the present.” (Blount, Can I Get a Witness?: Reading Revelation Through African American Culture, 110)

Hymns are often the most timeless of music because their audience and subject, God, is eternal. Revelation 15:3-4 is no different.

Do you see your story as a continuation of the biblical story? What songs do you know of that have staying power? What songs have come back into vogue years after their initial release? When will Revelation 15:3-4 be sung again?

“Soul music is timeless.” - Alicia Keys (b. 1981)

Voice Recognition: (I Samuel 3:1-14)

Whose voice did young Samuel think he heard when God called him three times? Eli’s (I Samuel 3:4-8)

The third chapter of First Samuel describes a time of limited prophetic activity (not unlike our own) when “word from the Lord was rare” and “visions were infrequent” (I Samuel 3:1 NASB). The priest Eli and his young protégé Samuel are lying down at the Shiloh temple (I Samuel 3:2), the former resting by the ark of the covenant (I Samuel 3:3). After three verses establishing a highly ordinary setting, the pace picks up when God initiates action.

The Lord called Samuel; and he said, “Here I am.” Then he ran to Eli and said, “Here I am, for you called me.” But he said, “I did not call, lie down again.” So he went and lay down. (I Samuel 3:4-5 NASB)

When called, Samuel excitedly runs to answer the priest (I Samuel 3:5). His youthful enthusiasm is misdirected as he mistakenly interprets the voice’s origin. Fortunately, God’s call is deliberate and persistent. Undeterred, the Lord awakens Samuel four times (I Samuel 3:4, 6, 8, 10). In a comedic scene, three times the confused young man awakens Eli. After the third attempt, the seasoned priest recognizes that God is calling Samuel and instructs his pupil to respond in kind (I Samuel 3:8-9). The fourth time is the charm as Samuel receives the revelatory word (I Samuel 3:10-14). As such, Samuel first hears the voice of God while literally lying down on the job (I Samuel 3:4).

The setting is significant, symbolic of the nation’s theological predicament. Richard D. Phillips (b. 1960) observes:

The setting for Samuel’s calling is provocatively stated: “The lamp of God had not yet gone out” (I Samuel 3:3). This indicates that it was in the early hours before dawn that God called to Samuel, since the lamps were kept lit until morning. But this was also symbolically true: the lamp of God’s presence in Israel was dim but not completely out. In such a setting, the voice of the Lord was once more heard within his house. (Phillips, 1 Samuel (Reformed Expository Commentary), 65)

The light is scarce but it is not yet extinguished. The voice in the darkness mirrors the hope for renewal embodied in Samuel.

Kevin J. Mellish (b. 1968) adds:

The location where Eli and Samuel slept at the time of the theophany is also symbolic. Eli was in his own room and separated from the ark. Samuel was lying down in the temple...where the ark of God was (I Samuel 3:3). Based on this description, Samuel must have slept in the inner sanctuary where the ark resided. It is noteworthy that Samuel, the prophet/priest designate, remained near the presence of God, which was symbolized by the ark of the covenant. Eli, the soon to be deposed priest, slept at a distance from it. The imagery is fitting considering that Yahweh’s presence no longer abided with Eli as it was with Samuel, This is also the first, albeit brief, reference to the ark in Samuel. (Mellish, 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 61)

Some have posed that Samuel’s position indicates that he is seeking just such a divine encounter. V. Philips Long (b. 1951) explains:

That Samuel is described as “lying down in the temple of the LORD, where the ark of God was” (I Samuel 3:3), has led some to speculate that he may have been engaging in a well-attested ancient Near Eastern practice called “incubation.” Incubation involves spending a night in the temple precinct in the hope of receiving a divine or oracular dream. The practice is attested among the Egyptians, with manuals of dream interpretation being used as early as the New Kingdom period, among the Hittites of Anatolia, and in Canaan during the biblical period...Extrabiblical examples of such theophanies, or auditory message dreams as they are sometimes called, come from Egypt (Thutmose IV, fifteenth century), Ugarit (in both the Kirta Epic and ‘Aqhatu Legend), Hatti (Hattušiliš, thirteenth century), and Babylonia (Nabonidus, sixth century). (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 282-83)

Ralph W. Klein (b. 1936) counters:

We are not told why Samuel slept by the ark. The view that he was participating in some kind of incubation ritual seems contradicted by his repeated suspicion that Eli—and not God—was calling him. (Klein, 1 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary), 32)

Instead, Samuel is likely taking his turn in fulfilling priestly duties. Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) assumes:

While Samuel was fulfilling the Torah obligations to tend the lamp of God (cf. Leviticus 24:3; Numbers 18:23), the Lord called the youth and delivered a message of judgment to him. In a form paralleling Abraham, Jacob, and Moses’ obedient responses to divine calls (Genesis 22:1, 11, 31:11; Exodus 3:4), Samuel responded, “Here I am” (I Samuel 3:4). Because he did not initially know the Lord, however, Samuel at first went to Eli for further instructions (I Samuel 3:5-6, 8)...It is...probable that the writer included this note to demonstrate Samuel’s diligence in fulfilling Torah mandates. As a son of Aaron, Eli was required “to keep the lamps burning before the LORD from evening till morning” (Exodus 27:21; cf. Leviticus 24:3; also Numbers 18:23). However, since Eli apparently was too old for active service before Yahweh as a priest (cf. Numbers 8:23-26), the Levite Samuel was permitted to act as his surrogate in this matter (cf. Numbers 18:23). (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 86)

God calls Samuel while he is already on duty. Though Samuel does not know who is calling, he responds promptly and politely. Josephus (37-100) records that Samuel is only twelve years old at the time (Antiquities of the Jews 5.10.4).

It is clear that Samuel perceives the voice audibly, originating outside of himself. T.M. Luhrmann (b. 1959) determines:

The striking phenomenonological detail is that Samuel looked for the source of the voice. When someone gives you that detail—they heard a voice and then looked to see who was speaking—it is good evidence that they heard the voice with their ears. (Luhrmann, When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God, 344)

Samuel’s call marks a rare instance of a human hearing the audible call of God. Steven J. Andrews (b. 1954) and Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) characterize Samuel’s experience:

Being so physically close to the Lord’s throne, Samuel was bound to meet him. All of chapters 1 and 2 has led up to this point. God was going to do something wonderful with this young man who was dedicated by his parents to minister before the Lord...Here was the moment of contact. Here was God’s call. It was personal and face-to-face. It was private when no one else was around. It came in God’s house in the early morning. Samuel answered...but he didn’t know who called him. He heard, but he wasn’t listening...God is certainly persistent. The verb call occurs eleven times in I Samuel 3:4-10. Anyone who has ever experienced a call from God can tell you that sometimes it is relentless. God does not give up. (Andrews and Bergen, I & II Samuel (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 32-33)

Samuel incorrectly assumes that the voice he hears is Eli’s. To explain this error, the text offers a narrative aside to remind the reader that Samuel has yet to hear the voice of God; Samuel is not yet the legendary prophet (I Samuel 3:7). One can hardly blame Samuel for his failure to recognize the voice. God has not spoken to him previously and Eli’s is the most likely voice. In this secluded setting, who else would be calling him?

Mary J. Evans (b. 1949) muses:

The story continues with the young Samuel asleep in the area where the ark of God was kept, a fact that shows how fully he had been integrated into priestly service. He hears a voice and immediately goes to Eli—maybe it was a regular occurrence for the almost blind Eli to need help. Samuel’s willingness to get up three times in the night, apparently without complaint, to attend to the ailing old man speaks well for the character of the young priest and draws attention to his worthiness to receive the prophetic word. (Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel (New International Biblical Commentary), 28)

Samuel’s mistake is also natural as the voice of God is often filtered through human beings. Kenneth Chafin (1926-2001) acknowledges:

How easy it still is not to be able to discern God’s voice from other voices. It would be so much easier if all of God’s messages to us came with a clearly printed label: “From God.” But, as my colleague, Frank Tupper [b. 1941], says, “God speaks to us through familiar voices.” While there is a tendency to think of the more dramatic revelations of God as normative, most people experience God’s guidance in quite ordinary ways: through experiences good and bad, while reading the Scripture, through the counsel of another, or out of a growing interest. (Chafin, 1, 2 Samuel (Mastering the Old Testament), 46)

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) adds:

Learning to discern the difference between human words and God’s word is basic to his prophetic and priestly life: Samuel listens. Listening is an act of personal attentiveness that develops into answering. The emphatic “Let anyone with ears listen!” with which Jesus concluded his parables (Matthew 13:9, 43) is repeated in the Spirit’s urgent messages to the churches in the Revelation (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22)...Samuel answers, which is to say, he prays...Samuel’s very existence is a result of prayer, the prayer of his praying mother, Hannah. The story of his call in the temple, introducing his prophetic vocation, shows him learning how to pray for himself, that is, listen to God’s personal word to him and then respond. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 38-39)

Ironically, Eli the priest is seldom depicted speaking for God. Yet here it is Eli, not Samuel, who correctly discerns the voice of God. Eli is finally doing his job: presenting a worldview with God at its center.

Alister E. McGrath (b. 1959) writes:

On the first three occasions, Samuel assumes that the natural sound he has heard has a natural referent, and behaves accordingly...The turning point of the narrative takes place when Eli offers an alternative interpretive framework. Confronted with the evident failure of the most obvious schema, Samuel is invited to consider an alternative explanation of his experience (I Samuel 3:9). Eli can here be seen as a representative of the tradition of Israel, which offers an alternative way of interpreting nature – in this case, as a gateway to the transcendent. God is made known through the natural order. (McGrath, The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology, 176)

It might have even been presumptuous for Samuel to assume that God is calling him. Jack M. Sasson (b. 1941) elucidates:

It is not a lack of intelligence that prevents Samuel from understanding what Eli does comprehend but rather a profound psychological block. Is it possible that God is calling him rather than Eli the priest? Conversely, Eli apprehends what Samuel fails to see, not because of superior intelligence or experience, but because he lacks the inhibitions generated by self-interest. Nothing deters him from assuming that God might turn to the young servant and pass over the old priest! In this way, Eli’s humility compensates for Samuel’s. (John Kaltner[b. 1954] and Louis Stulman [b. 1953], Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon [b. 1933], 179)

God speaks to Samuel in such a way that causes Eli to fulfill his primary duty as priest: directing his congregant to God. In some small way, Eli redeems himself. In a sad irony, God’s message to Samuel is confirmation of the fall of Eli’s household (I Samuel 3:11-14). Tragically, Eli’s most effective act as priest occurs while mediating his displacement.

Dallas Willard (b. 1935) praises:

How wonderful that Eli recognized what was happening to young Samuel and could tell him what to do to begin his lifelong conversational walk with God! Otherwise, it might have been years before Samuel would have found his way by himself. We must not mistakenly assume that if God speaks to someone, he or she automatically knows what is happening and who is taking. If Samuel did not know, surely many others also would not. (Willard, Hearing God, Updated and Expanded: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God, 143-44)

In this case, as in many, effectively hearing God is an act of collaboration. For God’s voice to be heard, the lad needs to be open to it, but he also needs guidance from an elder.

Though the passage illuminates the struggle that clergy experience in discerning their calling, discerning the voice of God and distinguishing it from one’s own is a universal challenge that plagues clergy and laymen alike. Hearing God’s voice is often difficult. But it does not mean that God is not speaking.

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) asserts:

God speaks to Samuel. That God speaks is the basic reality of biblical faith. The fundamental conviction of our faith is not so much that God is, as that God speaks. The biblical revelation begins with God creating by word, speaking the cosmos into being (Genesis 1:1-31). It concludes with Jesus, the Word of God, speaking in invitation, “Come...” (Revelation 22:17). All the pages in between are packed with sentences that God speaks—in creation and invitation, in judgment and salvation, in healing and guidance, in oracle and admonition, in rebuke and comfort. The conspicuous feature in all this speaking is that God speaks in personal address. God does not speak grand general truths, huge billboard declarations of truth and morals; the Lord’s speaking is to persons, named persons: Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul. And Samuel. Personal address, not philosophical discourse or moral commentary or theological reflection, is God’s primary form of speech. Whenever we let the language of religious abstraction or moral principles (and we do it often) crowd the personal address, we betray the word of God. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 38)

Though God speaks, hearing is not often easy. Even Samuel, who literally lives in the temple, struggles to do so. Samuel’s experience demonstrates that a person can even be in the precarious position of encountering God without knowing it.

Norman J. Cohen (b. 1943) cautions:

Samuel reminds all of us how difficult it is to truly hear, see, and meet the other in our lives. When we finally do experience a moment of recognition and engagement, we sometimes are so overwhelmed that we cannot find the right words to express what we are thinking and feeling. As we are overcome with emotion, both elation and fear at the same time, words may seem impossible. (Cohen, “The Difficulty of Discerning the Call”, Hineini in Our Lives: Learning to Respond to Others Though 14 Biblical Texts & Personal Stories, 81)

Like all prophets, Samuel’s first prophetic act is to listen. His experience demonstrates that disambiguating the voice of God is a learned skill. This provides both a challenge and hope for us all as we echo Samuel’s words: “Speak, for your servant is listening (I Samuel 3:10 NASB).”

Why does God not make his identity more obvious when dealing with Samuel? When have you been called by an unfamiliar voice? If God called you, how would you know? Have you ever audibly heard God? In your mind, whose voice is most like God’s? What would have happened to Samuel had Eli failed to direct him? When has God spoken to you through a “familiar voice”? In what ways has God spoken to you? How have you been changed by the voice of God?

God speaking to Samuel forever changes his and his nation’s history. James E. Smith (b. 1939) notes:

One night (literally, “it came to pass on that day”) suggests that the day was special, a milestone in Samuel’s rise to leadership, and consequently in redemptive history. (Smith, 1 & 2 Samuel (The College Press NIV Commentary), 74)

The third chapter of First Samuel relays a coming of age story as Samuel is moving from “lad” to prophet. Samuel does not become a renowned prophet over night.

Richard L. Schultz (b. 1952) clarifies:

Hearing God’s call did not suddenly move Samuel from childhood to adulthood; following this encounter he still had to “grow up” (I Samuel 3:19). This text emphasizes God’s judgment on blatant sin in the family of Eli, Israel’s religious leader. It also portrays God’s careful preparation of Samuel for significant spiritual and political leadership as one who was open to hearing God’s voice and obeying. (Schultz, Out of Context: How to Avoid Misinterpreting the Bible, 86)

Samuel’s experience invites a discussion of calling. John Goldingay (b. 1942) projects:

Speaking with students often suggests to me that we think of ministry as something that enables us to find fulfillment, as it makes it possible for us to give expression to the gifts God has given us. Discernment thus begins as our seeking to perceive what our gifts are and how we may express them. There’s none of this way of thinking in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Samuel is not called because this will be the way he finds fulfillment...Given that the connotations of the word “call” have changed, we might do better to use the word “summons” rather than “call” to describe what happens to Samuel or Paul. Samuel gets the idea when he recognizes in the middle of the night that his boss has summoned him to do something, so he reports for duty; he just doesn’t realize which boss it is...There is nothing wrong with people using their gifts to serve God...It just has nothing to do with calling. (Goldingay, 1 & 2 Samuel for Everyone, 31)

As the message Samuel receives concerns Eli, many note that I Samuel 3:1-21 is not technically a call narrative. Anthony F. Campbell (b. 1934) advances:

The initiative is...given to Eli, and the focus of interest moves to his reaction. The story comes to rest with his acceptance...It is important to recognize that this is not a prophetic call narrative; there is no call. It may serve in place of a call narrative, since after this first experience of God’s word Samuel continues as a trustworthy prophet of the Lord. For all that, it is not a call narrative. (Campbell, 1 Samuel (The Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 57)

In contrast, Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) offers:

The literary genre of I Samuel 3 has usually been considered a prophetic-call narrative in the grand tradition of Exodus 3 (Moses), Isaiah 6, Jeremiah 1, and the like. Recently, however, on the basis of ancient Near Eastern parallels, Robert Gnuse [b. 1947], in The Dream Theophany of Samuel: Its Structure in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Dreams and Its Theological Significance has theorized that I Samuel 3 is best analyzed as an auditory message dream theophany. Although he sometimes tilts the evidence in his direction...his arguments are impressive...Of course, the genre could turn out to be a blend of both types (a not uncommon feature of Old Testament literature)—prophetic-call narrative plus auditory message dream theophany. But the advantage of Gnuse’s analysis is that it deals adequately with the fact that the Lord speaks to Samuel at night—a matter not handled convincingly by the theory that I Samuel 3 is a prophetic-call narrative and nothing more. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel-2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 65)

Some argue that as Samuel is awake as the story unfolds, the story cannot accurately be labeled a dream theophany. What cannot be argued is that this story marks a new era for Samuel and Israel. Samuel becomes an agent of change in both the nation’s religion (as a prophet) and politics (as the anointer the kings). His authorization to do so is significant.

Robert Alter (b. 1935) remarks:

The idea of revelation...is paramount to the story of Samuel, whose authority will derive neither from cultic function, like the priests before him, nor from military power, like the judges before him and the kings after him, but from prophetic experience, from an immediate, morally directive call from God. (Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 109)

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) expounds:

The narrative takes great care to show that Samuel’s credibility does not rest on any conventional political confirmation. Rather, Samuel is presented as having an authorization rooted in nothing other than the freedom and promise of God. Samuel’s freshly authorized voice in Israel’s public life stands over against all conventional modes of power and brusquely displaces them. Surely the old Israelites—and the storytellers—are political realists. They understand how political-priestly power works, how it is secured, maintained, and exercised. They want to assert, at the same time, a holy governance that matters in concrete life, a holy governance that is not bounded by accustomed power, by ordained authority, by conventional leadership. There is a chance for newness. (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 27)

Samuel is authorized to lead, but more importantly Samuel becomes Samuel through the process. His purpose is completely changed as he finds his identity in connection to God.

Francesca Aran Murphy (b. 1960) analyzes:

In order to become a moral individual, a person, Samuel must be called out of the familial collective and enter a direct relationship to God. God does not, here, just call an individual to effect a change in Israel’s culture: he creates an individual so to do...Only when the Lord calls with a single voice and reveals his unity, and only when the recipients of this revelation absorb communication of “Who he is,” can they become unified individuals, persons who act on history and cocreate it. (Murphy, 1 Samuel (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 29)

Merold Westphal (b. 1940) informs:

It takes little imagination to hear the resonances of Emmanuel Levinas [1906-1995]’s me voici, whose origins in any case are biblical, in Samuel’s “Here am I.” While this speech act is an expression of Samuel’s freedom, there is more heteronomy than autonomy in it. He does not originate the conversation but is called, called forth, even called into being by a voice not his own. The meaning of the situation in which he finds himself is not determined by his horizons of expectation, which are simultaneously surprised and shattered. Nor is it just his situation that is changed; his very identity is changed, as he becomes no longer merely Hannah’s son or Eli’s helper, but the one who stands coram deo, in God’s presence, by a call that is at once invitation and command. Everything begins with “you called me.” Prayer is the beginning of responsibility because it begins as response...He identifies himself as the servant before his Lord...Actually, when he responds in accord with Eli’s instruction, he does not name the speaker, but simply says, “Speak, for your servant is listening.”...The heavy lifting is done by Samuel’s self-identification as the servant of the speaker, whose divinity he now recognizes. He calls himself ebbe, a bond-servant. (Bruce Ellis Benson [b. 1960] and Norman Wirzba [b. 1964], “Prayer as the Posture of the Decentered Self”, The Phenomenology of Prayer (Perspectives in Continental Philosophy), 17)

Samuel’s awakening is intended to awaken us to our calling as well. Though we may not be called to be prophets or national leaders, our true identity is to be found as servants of God.

Who are today’s change agents? What have you been authorized to do? What has God called you to do? Have you found your identity in God?

“Not only do we not know God except through Jesus Christ, but also we do not know ourselves except through Jesus Christ.” - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pensées, p. 7