Getting Straight on Straight St. (Acts 9:11)

On which street in Damascus was Saul of Tarsus staying after his conversion? The Street called Straight (Acts 9:11)

Paul, at the time known as Saul, has a life changing encounter with the risen Christ while en route to Damascus to persecute Christians (Acts 9:1-19). Saul is stopped in his tracks when a “light from heaven” blinds him (Acts 9:3-9). This story is told three times in the book of Acts (Acts 9:1-19, 22:4-16, 26:9-18). In the first telling, a Christian named Ananias is given very specific directions in a vision as to Saul’s whereabouts in Damascus so that he might intercede on behalf of the blinded fanatic (Acts 9:11).

And the Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying, (Acts 9:11 NASB)

With each detail the instructions become more explicit until God finally drops the bombshell of the name of the man whom Ananias is seeking (Acts 9:11). Saul is presumably the last person Ananias wishes to see. After all, before being blinded, Saul was bound to eliminate Christians, in this case Ananias and his church family (Acts 9:1-2). In supplying these specific instructions God leaves little room for doubt: Ananias is asked to track down the man hunting him.

In this vision, Ananias is given precise instructions. C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) informs:

In The Beginnings of Christianity 4.102 it is pointed out that if a vision of this kind is to be given at all it must be given with all the necessary detailed directions; they are required on both natural and supernatural grounds. It is inferred that the names of the street and of Paul’s host are not to be taken as conveying an old tradition. It is however fair to remark that Acts 9:9 required a continuation; Paul could hardly be left lying by the roadside. The narrative makes a connected whole. Colin J. Hemer [1930-1987] (226) refers to addresses, or directions, in papyrus letters. (Barrett, Acts 1-14 (International Critical Commentary), 153)

The physical locations in the book of Acts have often been neglected by scholars. Matthew L. Skinner (b. 1968) attends:

Although nearly all narrative critics note the potential for literary settings to shape readers’ understandings of a narrative, attention to particular settings in Luke’s two-volume work has been meager. The vast diversity of places in which events occur in Acts—both general (e.g., Jerusalem [Acts 1:12, 4:5, 8:25, 9:26, 28, 11:2, etc.], Iconium [Acts 13:51, 14:1, 21], Athens [Acts 17:15, 16], and Rome [Acts 28:14, 16]) and more specifically localized sites (e.g., a eunuch’s chariot [Acts 8:28], Judas’s house on Straight Street in Damascus [Acts 9:11], and the Jerusalem temple [Acts 2:46, 3:1, 3, 8, 10, 5:21, etc.]—brings this inattention into bold relief. On the one hand, the general lack of descriptive detail about places in biblical literature may explain why biblical scholars interested in narrative criticism emphasize plot and character at the expense of setting. On the other hand, some of this inattention derives from the fact that literary theory has not provided biblical scholars with the theoretical foundations and methodological models needed to analyze setting. Many eminent literary theorists give disproportionately little notice to setting in their work on narrative. None of this, however, must mean that the role of a setting in biblical narrative is minimal or rightly dismissed by narrative critics. (Skinner, Locating Paul: Places of Custody As Narrative Settings in Acts 21-28, 3-4)

In this scene, Saul is situated on the “street called straight” (ESV, HCSB, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), the “street which is called Straight” (ASV, KJV), “Straight Street” (CEV, NIV, NLT) or “Straight Avenue” (MSG). The Voice modernizes the text, reading “Straight Boulevard” (Chris Seay (b. 1971), The Dust Off Their Feet: Lessons from the First Church, 41).

J.A. Alexander (1809-1860) defines:

Street, a Greek word corresponding to the Latin vicus, and denoting properly a lane of alley, as opposed to a wide street or broad way...This is the only street named in the New Testament. (Alexander, Acts of the Apostles (Geneva Series of Commentaries), 362)

A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) adds:

To the street [epi tēn rhumēn]...A run way (from [rheō, to run) between the houses. So were the narrow lanes or alleys called streets and finally in later Greek the word is applied to streets even when broad. (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament: Acts, 119)

Straight Street is an example of the famed Roman roads. Stephen Kyeyune (b. 1959) comments:

Most probably this was one of the highways that were constructed by the Romans in the empire. The Romans were the greatest road maker[s] in the world. In over five centuries they built 50,000 miles of high-quality roads and 320,000 miles of back roads. (Kyeyune, The Acts of the Apostles: The Acts of the Holy Spirit, 260)

“Straight” is not only descriptive but the name of the street (Acts 9:11). C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) discerns:

τὴν καλουμένην means that Εὐθειαν is a name, not a mere description. (Barrett, Acts 1-14 (International Critical Commentary), 153)

Though the street name is uncreative it is descriptive and distinctive. A straight road was a rarity in the ancient world. A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) remarks:

Most of the city lanes were crooked like the streets of Boston (old cow-paths, people say), but this one still runs “in a direct line from the eastern to the western gate of the city” (Marvin Vincent [1834-1922]). Since the ancients usually rebuilt on the same sites, it is probable that the line of the street of that name today is the same, though the actual level has been much raised. Hence the identification of the house of Ananias and the house of Judas are very precarious [Acts 9:11]. (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament: Acts, 119)

Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) concurs:

Most streets in pre-Hellenistic cities would be winding, narrow, and easy to become lost in; such cities grew haphazardly, in contrast to the ideal of Hellenistic urban planning, where streets crossed the straight main street at right angles. Though Damascus was one of the empire’s oldest cities, its construction on relatively even ground facilitated its transformation to the newer standards of Greek and Roman design. The spacing of streets reflects this pattern: east-west streets lie more than “300 feet (100 meters) apart,” with north-south streets “about 150 feet (45 meters) apart.” (Keener, Acts, An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 2 (Acts 3:1-14:28))

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) envisions:

This street is still a major road in the city (F.F. Bruce [1910-1990] 1990:237). It runs east and west in the eastern portion of the old city and is known tody as Derb el-Mustaqim, although its direction has changed slightly since that time. It was known to have had major halls with colonnades and two great city gates at each end, making it a ‘fashionable” street (Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975] 1987:323). It was fifty feet wide (Hilary Le Cornu [b. 1959] and Joseph Shulam [b. 1946] 2003:497). (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 360)

Robert A. Schuller (b. 1954) depicts:

The ancient city of Damacus, in Syria, due north of Israel, had a central artery running through it called Straight Street. It was rare for an ancient city to have such a street. Most of the streets, especially in cities like Jerusalem that were razed and rebuilt scores of times throughout history, were narrow and crooked, not unlike the streets in some modern cities. But Damascus’ Straight Street ran from one side of the city to another, one hundred feet wide with the equivalent of a modern sidewalk along each side. ( Schuller, Walking in Your Own Shoes: Discover God’s Direction for Your Life, 71-72)

Damascus’ Straight Street is likely the result of advances in city planning. Paul Barnett (b. 1935) explains:

Damascus was located on the fringe between the fertile belt and the Arabian desert. An ancient settlement, Damascus passed through many hands before coming into the orbit of the Hellenistic kingdoms following Alexander [356-323 BCE]’s conquests. The city was refounded along Hellenistic lines, on a square grid according to the planning theories of Hippodamus of Miletus [498-408 BCE], which explains the reference to a “street called straight” (Acts 9:11). (Barnett, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years, 20)

Straight Street is typically presumed to be one of Damascus’ major thoroughfares. Stanley D. Toussaint (b. 1928) introduces:

It was one of the two parallel streets that ran from the western wall to the eastern wall. (John F. Walvoord [1910-2002] and Roy B. Zuck [1932-2013], The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, 376)

William J. Larkin (1945-2014) relates:

Ananias should proceed to the main east-west thoroughfare of Damascus, Straight Street. With great porches and gates at each end and colonnades for commerce running along each side, this fashionable address would be as well known in its day as Regent Street in London or Fifth Avenue in New York is today. (Larkin, Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary), 142)

The Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary locates:

This street, the only one identified by name in the New Testament (Acts 9:11), was located in Damascus, a city within the boundaries of Syria but belonging politically to the Decapolis. The city obtained its freedom from Rome shortly after Christ’s death and was under an Arabian ruler during the period covered by Acts 9:1-31...By current standards, Straight Street (also referred to as Via Recta) was probably a lane or alley. (J.D. Douglas [1922-2003], Merrill C. Tenney [1904-1985] and Moisés Silva [b. 1945], Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1397)

A Straight Street still exists in modern-day Damascus. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) reveals:

This street remains today in the eastern section of Damascus’s Old City and is called Derb el-Mustaqim. Jack Finegan [1908-2000] surveys the remains: “The main east-west street, the Roman decumanus maximus and the “street called Straight” of Acts 9:11, is plainly recognizable in the present Midhat pasha and Bab Sharqi streets, which run directly through the Inner city, parallel to the Barada River, for a distance of nearly 1 mile (1,600 meters). In Roman times this street was 50 feet (15 meters) wide and bordered with colonnades, consisting of two rows of Corinthian columns on either side.” (Keener, Acts, An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 2 (Acts 3:1-14:28))

P.W.L. Walker (b. 1961) updates:

The main street within the Old City is still called “Straight” – just as it was when Paul lodged in the ‘house on Straight Street’ (Acts 9:11)...Damascus’ Straight Street (or the Via Recta was simply an example of the east-west street found in many ancient cities, built on what is known as the Hippodamian plan (named after the man who redesigned Athens’ harbour-town on Piracus in the 400s BC). Here in Damascus, this Straight Street had been recently refurbished as a splendid colonnaded thoroughfare, with a width of 27 yards (25 meters) – something hard to imagine as you pass through the confined and covered souks now constructed along this street at the western end. (Walker, In the Steps of Saint Paul: An Illustrated Guide to Paul’s Journeys, 26-27)

Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) details:

The eastern city gate (the Bab Sharqi, the Sun Gate or East Gate), which opens to the street, had three arches. Of the seven Roman gates, only this one, probably dating to the second century C.E. in its current form, remains. It has a large central entrance flanked by two smaller ones; the central entrance opened onto the street, 13.68 meters wide, and the other entrances led to sidewalks beside the street. Two arches to the west suggest a minor directional shift; if this was Straight Street, it was not really straight. One of the arches, about 2,000 feet (600 meters) west of the East Gate and roughly halfway along the street, probably commemorated Pompey’s conquest and hence was standing in Paul’s day. (Keener, Acts, An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 2 (Acts 3:1-14:28))

More specifically, Paul is convalescing at the house of a Judas on Straight Street (Acts 9:11). Nothing is known of this Judas. C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) remarks:

Judas (the name is a common one) is quite unknown. He was presumably a Jew; Paul’s residence with him may have been on a purely commercial basis, but he may possibly have been a local Christian. (Barrett, Acts 1-14 (International Critical Commentary), 153)

Some have suggested that Judas is the host of a house church. This is highly unlikely. Edward Adams (b. 1963) discusses:

Roger W. Gerhing [b. 1950] infers that Judas’s house is the meeting place of a ‘house church’ in Damascus. He writes, “Concrete memories of the conversion of Paul before Damascus, the disciple by the name of Ananias (Acts 9:10-19a), the explicit mention of the house of Judas on Straight Street (Acts 9:11), and the large number of disciples in Damascus (Acts 9:2, 12) are all reasons to believe that a fairly large congregation might have existed there that could have met in the house of Judas.”...But these data hardly provide support for such a conclusion. Luke gives no indication that Judas is a believer let alone a ‘house-church’ host. While Ananias is introduced as ‘a disciple’ [Acts 9:10], no such descriptor is applied to Judas. As C.K. Barrett [1917-2011] states, “Paul’s residence with him many have been on a purely commercial basis.” The manner in which Ananias is directed to Judas’s house suggests that the two are not known to each other. Were Judas the implied host of such a large congregation, one might expect Ananias to find reassurance in the fact that he is hosting Saul. But the information that Saul is to be found in Judas’s house does nothing to alleviate Ananias’s trepidation at the prospect of meeting the persecutor. Judas may have gone on to become a convert to ‘the Way’ and his house may have been a meeting place for believers in Damascus, but of such developments Luke tells us nothing. (Adams, The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses?, 61-62)

Clinton E. Arnold (b. 1958) supposes:

Judas is presumably not a Christian, but Paul’s Jewish host with whom he has made arrangements prior to leaving Jerusalem. (Arnold, Acts (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 77)

This would certainly challenge Ananias further: he would not only be visiting a persecutor, albeit an incapacitated one, but strolling right into enemy headquarters to do so.

Tradition has identified the site of Judas’ house. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) relays:

The house where, traditionally, Paul stayed is close to the street’s western end. There were no signposts designating streets, but they had names and locals knew them; once one found the correct street, one asked for a particular house by the name of its owner. It is also possible that Luke or his source abbreviates the directions (since they were no longer relevant many years later). (Against the traditional identification of Straight Street, in late Greek ῥύμη was often a narrow street or ally; for a major street, we might expect πλατεια. But the distinction was not pervasive enough to count securely against the tradition. Would an alley monopolize such a prestigious title?) Traditions such as the site of the house may or may not have been preserved by the early Christian community there, but a street’s name might well persist. (Keener, Acts, An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 2 (Acts 3:1-14:28))

It is clear that God’s instructions serve their purpose in connecting Ananias and Saul (Acts 9:17). Ananias follows directions and Saul’s vision is restored before Ananias baptizes him into the community he recently persecuted (Acts 9:17-19). Ananias’ walk to Straight Street marks one of the first major steps in church history. Saul will become Paul and the world will never again be the same.

How does Saul find himself at Judas’ residence? What is your favorite street name? What is the most aptly named street with which you are familiar? What are the best directions you have received? The worst? Who would be the person you would least want God to send you to? Is God leading you in that direction?

It is fitting that Ananias discovers Saul on Straight Street (Acts 9:11). Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) responds:

Why does Luke specify the particular street in this case? Elsewhere, revelations might include sufficient directions for travelers to find their way (cf. Acts 10:6)—“Judas” was, after all, a common name and hence could hardly specify the house’s location in Damascus by itself. But the street’s name in this case may also have supplied Luke a fortuitous opportunity for a literary connection: those who twisted God’s “straight” road (Acts 13:10) must be blinded (Acts 13:11), but the kingdom mission of true prophets entailed straightening that road again (Luke 3:4-5). Saul has turned to the Lord’s right path, to “the Way” (Acts 9:2). (Keener, Acts, An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 2 (Acts 3:1-14:28))

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) concurs:

The locale of the meeting is a bit ironic, as usually in Acts the term used for “straight” (εὐθειαν, eutheian) means to be ethically straight (Acts 8:21, 13:10). (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 360)

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) supports:

The heart of Simon the magician wasn’t “straight” before God (Acts 8:21). So there may be some symbolism in Saul’s residing in a house on a lane called “Straight.” Certainly his “praying” shows his heart to be straight before God [Acts 9:11]. (Gundry, Commentary on Acts)

Rick Strelan (b. 1946) expounds:

Ananias is told that Paul is to be found in the house of Judas and that house was located in the street called Straight (Acts 9:11). Scholars take this to be a simple reference to the address of Judas’s house (for example, F.F. Bruce [1910-1990] 1988:186; Gerhard Schneider [1926-2004] 2002:28). And it might well be; but it seems too coincidental given that being ‘straight’ and ‘upright’ was almost an obsession in the Qumran community (1QS 8.13-15; 1QS 3.4-12), and given that it was important also for the Christians in preparing the way of the Lord (Luke 3:4; Acts 8:21, 13:10). In addition, did Luke also interpret Amos 5:1-27 as referring to the Christian group in Damascus? Was the group there because of the persecution by those in Jerusalem (Acts 9:1) in a way similar to the Covenant group that went to Damascus to escape the Wicked Priest of Jerusalem? (Strelan, Strange Acts: Studies in the Cultural World of the Acts of the Apostles, 167)

There may also be Old Testament allusions in play. Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) connects:

Hearing echoes of Isaiah help clarify Luke’s point. In Isaiah, darkness/light and crooked/straight are used as images to describe the transformation of those opposing God: “I will lead the blind by a road they do not know, by paths they have not known I will guide them. I will turn the darkness before them into light, the rough places into level ground” (Isaiah 42:16; cf. Isaiah 26:7, 35:5). Throughout Isaiah, then, a cluster of images is employed to contrast those who are resisting God’s redemption with those who are following God’s plan: unrighteous/righteous; darkness/light; blind/seeing; crooked/straight; deaf/hearing (M. Dennis Hamm [b. 1936] 1990, 70). Saul’s blindness, and later the opening of his eyes, is an appropriate symbol for this “enemy of God” who has attempted to reverse the plan of God (Acts 5:38-39; cf. Hamm 1990, 70; Richard I. Pervo [b. 1942], 34). (Parsons, Acts (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 128)

F. Scott Spencer (b. 1956) concludes:

It is fitting that such a transformation takes place in a local residence on the road called ‘Straight’ (Eutheian) [Acts 9:11]. In the early chapters of Acts, the church has repeatedly gathered in private dwellings for prayer, fellowship and decision-making in the fullness of the Spirit (Acts 1:12-26, 2:1-4, 42-47, 4:23-31). Now, ironically, the same Saul who had infiltrated ‘house after house’ to arrest Christian disciples (Acts 8:3) finds himself ushered into Judas’ house as a fellow-disciple, a follower of the ‘Way’. We might even say that his rough and crooked path of persecution has been ‘made straight (eutheian)’ (cf. Luke 3:5-6). In contrast to Simon Magus who remained the enemy of the church because of a twisted heart ‘not right/straight’ (eutheia) before God (Acts 8:21), Saul is completely straightened out in his thinking about Jesus and his followers on an aptly named street in Damascus. (Spencer, Acts (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 98)

At the time of his encounter with Jesus, there were few men more reviled by the burgeoning Christian community than Saul. Yet it will be this man who leads the movement to new heights.

It is apropos that Saul gets straight on Straight Street. His past is a reminder that no one is beyond the redemption of God; there is a Straight Street available to all who desire one.

Where is your personal Straight Street; where have you experienced redemption? Is there anyone beyond the realm of straightening out? Is your personal trajectory straightening; are you heading in the right direction? Who can you be assisting on Straight Street?

“When peoples care for you and cry for you, they can straighten out your soul.” - Langston Hughes (1902-1967), Simply Heaven: A Comedy with Music, p. 26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rieuwerd Buitenwerf (b. 1973) researches:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinton E. Arnold (b. 1958) chronicles:

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

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) adds:

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

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) differentiates:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) counters:

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

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

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

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

William H. Willimon (b. 1946) interprets:

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

Lloyd J. Ogilvie (b. 1930) praises:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) tracks:

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

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

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

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

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

Derek Carlsen remarks:

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

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

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

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

Loveday Alexander characterizes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restoring Mephibosheth (II Samuel 4:4)

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

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

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

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

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

Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg (1895-1965) acknowledges:

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

Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) speculates:

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

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

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

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

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

Peter R. Ackroyd (1917-2005) asserts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin J. Mellish (b. 1968) adds:

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

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

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

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

Jeremy Schipper (b. 1975) reflects:

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

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

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

Robert Alter (b. 1935) summarizes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) notes:

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

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

Max Lucado (b. 1955) correlates:

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

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

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

King Saul’s Baggage (I Samuel 10:22)

Where was Saul when he was chosen to be king? Hiding among the baggage (I Samuel 10:22)

After the Israelites demand a king “like all the nations” (I Samuel 8:1-22), Saul is chosen by God as the nation’s first monarch (I Samuel 9:1-10:8, 10:17-27). Initially only Samuel, Israel’s last judge and de facto national leader, and the king-to-be are privy to Saul’s destiny. Then, Samuel calls a national assembly at Mizpah (I Samuel 10:18) where the new king will be selected before the people and be officially presented (I Samuel 10:17-27).

The process by which Saul is chosen is unclear as he is selected without being physically present. It can be determined that the nation is aligned by tribe and that the choice is presented as a process of elimination. Though the method seems random by modern standards, it was acceptable during the period and seen as a way of insuring God’s will.

Anticipation builds as the options dwindle to Saul’s tribe (Benjamin) and clan (Matri) but the proceedings are quickly reduced to an anticlimax as Saul is nowhere to be found (I Samuel 10:20-21). The man who is assured of being the #1 pick in the draft has chosen not to attend. The expectant people are put into a quandary and they ask a question which reads literally, “Is anyone else as yet come here?” (I Samuel 10:22). After human efforts fail, God outs Saul - the would-be-king is hiding among the baggage.

Therefore they inquired further of the Lord, “Has the man come here yet?” So the Lord said, “Behold, he is hiding himself by the baggage.” (I Samuel 10:22, NASB)

Peculiarly, instead of putting himself forward when presented, Saul instead steps back, hiding by the baggage. The Hebrew, k@liy, clearly has a broad range of meaning as it is translated alternately “baggage” (ASV, CEV, ESV, NASB, MSG, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “supplies” (HCSB, NIV),“equipment” (NKJV) and “stuff” (KJV).

P. Kyle McCarter, Jr (b. 1945) designates that the:

Hebrew hakkēlîm...can refer to almost any kind of equipment or paraphernalia, so that exactly where Saul was hiding is something we cannot know with certainty. He may have been concealed in a stockpile of weapons or a store of cultic utensils or, as many translators have supposed, a collection of baggage. (McCarter, I Samuel (Anchor Bible), 193)

The baggage may have been the necessary provisions for the national convention. Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) suspects that it is indicative of the people’s high expectations:

The reluctant “leader” was subsequently found hiding among the “baggage” (I Samuel 10:22; the Hebrew word in this specific sense is elsewhere translated “supplies,” always in a military context, perhaps hinting at the major task that the people had hoped Saul would enthusiastically assume; cf. I Samuel 17:22, 25:13, 30:24; Isaiah 10:28). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952], The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 3, 110)

Regardless of what the term entails, Saul’s hiding place is a good one as the Israelites cannot find him without divine intervention.

A more pertinent question than where Saul is hiding is why the nation’s potential leader is lurking among its supplies. Some have speculated that with time to contemplate this life changing event, the future king is getting cold feet. Timidity would be a natural response to such responsibility. A Targum reference claims that Saul slips out for prayer and Bible Study. Most, however, interpret Saul’s absence in one of two polarizing ways: commendable modesty or a flaw in character.

Some have viewed Saul’s action as evidence that he possesses the necessary modesty to be Israel’s king (I Samuel 9:21). Prominent rabbis Rashi (1040-1105) and Radaq (1160-1235) support this theory. Saul’s absence is not necessarily incriminating as David, Israel’s model king and Saul’s successor, will also initially be absent when being chosen (I Samuel 16:10-12). Even so, given the tragic way Saul’s life will unfold, it is difficult for many to see his truancy as a sign of the king’s goodness.

Many have viewed Saul’s concealment as unwillingness to lead. From this perspective, it is Saul’s personal baggage that leads the leader into the nation’s baggage. Reluctant to take the position, Saul’s physical position screams, “Not me!”

If this is the case, Richard D. Phillips (b. 1960) understands Saul’s trepidation:

The context strongly suggests fear instead of humility as the reason that Saul hid himself. And who can blame him, since he was being called to step into God’s place! Perhaps Saul could see that God was angry and that his selection was God’s judgment on the nation. Given the difficulty of the task, we can hardly blame him for trying to get away. Nonetheless, Saul’s selfish neglect of duty foreshadows a pattern that will be repeated during his kingship. The people of Israel had desired a king who would give them the leadership edge enjoyed by the worldly nations, no longer willing to rely simply on God’s saving power. Here, then, is the kind of self-serving cowardice that they will have to get used to under human kings! (Phillips, 1 Samuel (Reformed Expository Commentary),163)

Robert Alter (b. 1935) critiques:

This detail is virtually a parody of the recurring motif of the prophet-leader’s unwillingness to accept his mission. Saul the diffident farm boy had expressed a sense of unworthiness for the high office Samuel conferred on him. Now, confronted by the assembled tribes and “trapped” by the process of lot drawing, he tries to flee the onus of kingship, farcically hiding in the baggage. (Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, 48)

From this perspective, Saul lacks true humility which would include depending on God. This stance is supported as fear fits the paranoia that will characterize Saul’s life. Though his action is highly irregular, it is typical of Saul.

Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) explains that this inauspicious start is fitting:

Saul’s actions, however off, were consistent with the portrayal of Saul to this point; previously the king-designate had shut out both his servant (I Samuel 9:27) and his uncle (I Samuel 10:16) from any knowledge of his destiny. Saul’s vacancy at his own coronation suitably foreshadows a reign that would vacate responsibilities associated with the exercise of godly rule and perhaps suggest the lack of wisdom of those who preferred such a king to Yahweh. At the same time, divine assistance in the search for Saul reinforced the conclusion that Saul was indeed the Lord’s answer to Israel’s demand for a king “like the other nations.” (Bergen, , 2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 132)

Clinical psychologist David A. Stoop (b. 1937) concurs, characterizing:

Saul’s fearful posture toward life is...seen in his response to being publicly anointed as king. He simply wants to avoid the whole process. The way he attempts to avoid being anointed king in front of all Israel is to hide. (Stoop, What’s He So Angry About?, 80)

Whatever his motives for hiding, when discovered, Saul assumes the crown. Saul’s reluctance is completely ignored and the people accept him as king (I Samuel 10:23-24). On cue, they chant, “Long live the king!” (I Samuel 10:24, NASB).

Despite his awkward discovery, Saul’s impressive stature makes an even more immediate first impression. The only descriptor mentioned is that he stands a head taller than any of his peers: Saul is tall (I Samuel 9:2, 10:23). This detail adds to the story’s humor as the nation’s tallest man is theoretically the most difficult to hide, comparable to 7'6" Yao Ming attempting to hide in a Chinese national assembly. Aside from Saul, impressive height is a quality reserved for non-covenant people and Saul’s more ideal successor, David, will not share this trait (I Samuel 16:7). In picking Saul, the Israelites receive what they ask for - a king like all the nations (I Samuel 8:5) and his selection foreshadows the typical lack of godly commitment exhibited by most of Israel’s monarchs.

What motivates Saul’s hiding, modesty or timidity? Who is he hiding from? If Saul does not want the position, why does he attend the convention at all? Why would God select a king that did not want the responsibility? Have you ever known anyone to turn down a promotion? Have you ever gotten a position that you didn’t want? Would you follow a leader who did not want her position? Would you want to be a monarch? Are you currently hiding from anything?

Whatever Saul’s reasons, his concealment has a significant consequence: it provides another opportunity for God to demonstrate divine involvement in his selection. It is God, not the Israelites, who finds Saul (I Samuel 10:22). Despite one of the implicit desires in asking for a monarch being independence, once again, the Israelites are reliant upon God. And they have enough access to God to use divine assistance to find the ruler they have chosen instead of God.

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) comments:

Once chosen, Saul is nowhere to be found! He has gone into hiding. Did that last sermon by Samuel put the fear of God in him? Did he have a premonition that despite all the signs of God’s Spirit in his choosing, the kingship was flawed from the start by the people’s God-rejecting ambitions, and it was going to be a rocky road ahead? The story does not provide us with Saul’s motives for hiding. What it makes quite clear, though, is that this whole king business was going to be a mixed bag, involving both God’s mercy and God’s judgment...And here is a telling detail: They are now forced to pray to God to help them find the king they have just chosen with God’s help, but against God’s will (I Samuel 10:22). God graciously condescends to do for them what they cannot do for themselves. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 66)

If the Israelites are close enough to God to find the concealed candidate, why do they seek a king? Is your trust in God’s leadership or in human rulers?

“Well, he’s always the tallest man in the room. He’s bound to end up leading something.” - Benjamin Franklin (Tom Wilkinson) to John Adams (Paul Giamatti) after Adams exclaims that George Washington is a “natural leader” in the HBO miniseries John Adams (2008)

Agag: From King to Pawn (I Samuel 15)

Whose life did King Saul spare even after he was told to destroy him and all his people? King Agag

During the Exodus, as the Israelites journeyed from Egypt into the Promised Land, they faced stern resistance from the Amalekites (Exodus 17:8-16; Deuteronomy 25:17-19), descendants of Esau (Genesis 36:12; I Chronicles 1:36). Years later, the prophet Samuel informs king Saul that God has decided to repay the Amalekites for their opposition during Israel’s march to independence (I Samuel 15:1-2). The punishment was harsh - the Amalekites were to be eradicated (I Samuel 15:3).

“Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (I Samuel 15:3 NASB)

Saul summons his troops, ambushes the target and wins the battle (I Samuel 15:4-8). In the process, Saul also captures the opposing king, Agag (I Samuel 15:8). In war, as in chess, the capture of the king symbolizes victory. Saul makes Agag an exception to the rule. Instead of slaying the king as he had done to his army, Saul takes Agag alive (I Samuel 15:8).

But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed. (I Samuel 15:9 NASB)

This aberration is striking. Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) explains, “So significant was Saul’s action to the writer that he recounted it twice, using two different verbs to describe the same event; Saul both “took Agag king of the Amalakites alive” (I Samuel 15:8) and “spared Agag” (I Samuel 15:9) (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary: Vol. 7),169).”

There are two biblical kings named Agag (Numbers 24:7; I Samuel 15:8-33) , both Amalekites, and as such it has been posited that Agag was a dynastic name. Robert P. Gordon (b. 1945) writes, “Agag is a name, or title (cf. Pharaoh, Candace), occurring also in Numbers 24:7 and perhaps perpetuated in the adjectival ‘Agagite’ used to describe – perhaps vilify – Haman in the book of Esther (Esther 3:1, etc.). (Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Library of Biblical Interpretation), 144).”

Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg (1895-1965) speculates:

The naming of the personification of anti-Semitism, Haman, in Esther 3:1 as Agagite shows clearly that Agag became almost the type of the enemy of Yahweh and his people. Saul’s subsequent action must therefore have been regarded all the more seriously at a later time. (Hertzberg, I and II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 125)

By this rationale, calling Haman an “Agagite” is tantamount to calling a tyrant a Hitler-ite in today’s world with Agag corresponding to Adolf Hitler (1889-1945).

An intentional verb-subject disagreement demonstrates that Saul alone was responsible for the decision to spare Agag. Robert Alter (b. 1935) deciphers:

The Hebrew says simply “Saul and the troops spared Agag,” but because a singular verb is used with the plural subject, it signals to the audience that Saul is the principal actor and the troops only accessories. (This highlighting of the first-mentioned agent through a singular verb for a plural subject is a general feature of biblical usage.) When confronted by Samuel, Saul will turn the responsibility for the action on its head. (Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, 78)

In short, Saul makes the call. His reasons are unknown. Some have theorized that Saul plans to make sport of the losing king as part of a victory celebration, as was often customary.

Others have seen Agag’s reprieve as an extension of the Israelites’ policy of destroying the weak and despised while keeping the best (I Samuel 15:9, 21). David Toshio Tsumura (b. 1944) writes:

Modern translations differ among each other in their understanding of the syntax of the phrase, literally, “the best of the sheep and the cattle and the fatlings and the lambs and all that was valuable.” The question is how far the scope of “best” extends. (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 395)

Whatever his rationale, the king’s disobedience leads to God regretting Saul’s appointment as king (I Samuel 15:10-11) and the prophet Samuel confronting Saul at Gilgal (I Samuel 15:12-23). The celebrating king clearly did not understand his failure (I Samuel 15:13, 20-21). Some have speculated that Saul’s transgression represents a misunderstanding of the scope of his orders.

Francesca Aran Murphy (b. 1960) explains:

“Utterly destroy” translates the Hebrew hrm. But did Saul know to interpret hrm as meaning destroy in the straight sense of annihilate then and there?...hrm could mean “something like ‘devote to a god by destruction.’”...Only the best meat could be used in sacrifice. King and people would not utterly destroy the best of the animals, because of this analysis their highest priority was to take the finest specimens to sacrifice to Yahweh. Gilgal was the place of sacrifice. Why go there, unless it was to sacrifice? (Murphy, 1 Samuel (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 139)

When confronted, Saul repents but Samuel will not relent (I Samuel 15:24-31). Saul had been given the opportunity to demonstrate his covenant leadership by being obedient and he had failed.

Samuel then finishes Saul’s job, carving the defeated king into pieces (I Samuel 15:32-33). Noting that Agag had employed similar tactics, Samuel butchers the Amalekite.

Afterwards, the prophet and the king part ways. Saul returns to his house at Gibeah of Saul while Samuel goes to Ramah (I Samuel 15:34). The doomed king and the prophet would never again see one another on this earth.

Saul spared only the best livestock. Did he regard the opposing king as the human equivalent? Why did Saul spare only Agag? Why did God want to expunge the Amalekites?

Ultimately, in the biblical narrative, king Agag is only a pawn in the account of Saul’s rejection. In this story, the background is far more problematic than the foreground – Saul is commanded by God to commit genocide and is reprimanded for showing (albeit a small) mercy.

The great Jewish philosopher Martin Buber (1875-1963) writes of an encounter he had while on a journey with an acquaintance whom he knew to be a devout Jew. As people are prone to do with clergy types, the conversation made its way to problematic biblical texts and eventually the story of Agag’s demise (I Samuel 15:1-33).

Buber describes:

I told him how already at that time it horrified me to read or to remember how the heathen king went to the prophet with the words on his lips, “Surely the bitterness of death is past,” and was hewn to pieces by him. I said to my partner: “I have never been able to believe that this is a message of God. I do not believe it.” With wrinkled forehead and contracted brows, the man sat opposite me and his glance flamed into my eyes. He remained silent, began to speak, and became silent again. “So?” he broke forth at last, “so? You do not believe it?” “No,” I answered, “I do not believe it.” “So? so?” he repeated almost threateningly. “You do not believe it?” And once again: “No.”

“What. What”—he thrust the words before him one after the other—“What do you believe then?” “I believe,” without reflecting, “that Samuel has misunderstood God.” And he, again slowly, but more softly than before: “So? You believe that?” and I: “Yes.” Then we were both silent. But now something happened the like of which I have rarely seen before or since in this my long life. The angry countenance opposite me became transformed as if a hand had passed over it soothing it. It lightened, cleared, was now turned toward me bright and clear. “Well,” said the man with a positively gentle tender clarity, “I think so too.” And again we became silent, for a good while. (Buber, Meetings: Autobiographical Fragments, 52-53)

Some have taken solace in the fact that, as Buber alludes, Saul’s orders are indirect. The story’s first verse reveals a chain of command in which God speaks to Samuel and Samuel to Saul (I Samuel 15:1). The genocidal orders are not spoken directly by God but instead God is only quoted by the prophet (I Samuel 15:1-3). It is certainly easier to believe Samuel, who cut his enemy to pieces at the text’s conclusion (I Samuel 15:32-33), a monster than God. While this theory works for the story’s first panel, in its second God is seen as complicit with the prophet (I Samuel 15:10-11) which moves the criticism from the prophet’s behavior to the text’s credibility.

Does Samuel act with true divine authority or, as Buber suggests, does he confuse his own desires with God’s will? How do you handle/interpret the genocidal command of I Samuel 15:3? How do you differentiate between God’s voice and your own?

“The first point of wisdom is to discern that which is false; the second, to know that which is true.” - Lactantius (240-320), advisor to the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I (272-337)

Mission Impossible: Abishai (I Samuel 26:6)

Who went with David by night to Saul’s tent and took his spear and water jug? Abishai (I Samuel 26:6)

Before David was a king, he was an outlaw (I Samuel 19:1-31:6). A paranoid king Saul relentlessly pursued him throughout Israel (I Samuel 19:1-26:25). Even in David’s exile, a loyal band of mercenaries stood by the refugee future king.

While a fugitive, David’s spies divulged Saul’s position at the hill of Hachilah (I Samuel 26:4). After confirming the location, David undertook a covert mission to break Saul’s camp (I Samuel 26:5-6). The mission might be perceived as a suicide mission as the “plan” was to go to the heart of the camp to the king himself (I Samuel 26:6). Saul was flanked by 3000+ armed and dangerous men (I Samuel 24:2, 26:2) including his commander Abner (I Samuel 26:5).

David asked two from his militia if they would accompany him. Only Abishai chooses to accept the mission.

Then David said to Ahimelech the Hittite and to Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab’s brother, saying, “Who will go down with me to Saul in the camp?” And Abishai said, “I will go down with you.” (I Samuel 26:6 NASB)

David offers no objective for the mission, only the option to go. Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) speculates:

Under the cloak of darkness, David may have been going there to gather additional information about the one who threatened him (cf. Judges 7:10-15). His covert efforts were rewarded, for he was able to identify the key personnel leading the forces as well as the exact location and arrangement of the camp: on this expedition Saul was accompanied by his cousin Abner. The arrangement of Saul’s camp, combined with the location of the camp at the top of the hill, would have provided Saul with maximum protection. (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary: Vol. 7), 255)

Ahimelech the Hittite, the soldier who by his silence tacitly refused the mission, is not mentioned again in Scripture. In contrast, Abishai’s bravery (or perhaps foolishness) portends his later importance.

This incident marks the Bible’s first reference to the sons of Zeruiah, David’s sister’s children (I Chronicles 2:16). Robert Alter (b. 1935) characterizes, “David the warrior chieftain is surrounded by his three nephews, the three bloody-minded sons of Zeruiah: two of them impetuous (Abishai and Asahel), the third, who is David’s commander, ruthlessly calculating (Joab) (Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, 163).”

The bloodthirsty brothers were fiercely loyal to David (more so than Israel). As such, they have been viewed as the counterpart to Jesus and the sons of Zebedee (Mark 3:17, 9:38-41, 10:35-40). A comparable modern fighting family might be the Gracie family. The sons of Zeruiah were the type of men anyone would want on their side in a fight.

Abishai had a decorated military career. He served in the elite corps of “mighty men” of David’s army (II Samuel 23:18,19; I Chronicles 11:20, 21) and proved a brilliant field commander who headed one of the three divisions of David’s army in his battle with Absalom (II Samuel 18:2, 5, 12). In one legendary battle, the famed warrior slew three hundred men with his spear (II Samuel 23:18; I Chronicles 11:20).

Who is your most loyal friend? What is the objective of David’s covert mission? Why does David take Abishai: protector, witness, other? Why does Abishai consent? What does he hope to gain from the experience?

Inexplicably, Abishai and David broke Saul’s camp undetected and came to the sleeping Saul (I Samuel 26:7). Abishai offered to off the vulnerable king (I Samuel 26:8).

Then Abishai said to David, “Today God has delivered your enemy into your hand; now therefore, please let me strike him with the spear to the ground with one stroke, and I will not strike him the second time.” (I Samuel 26:8 NASB)

In an instant, the prey became the hunter. In requesting the honor of killing Saul, the confident warrior offered to eliminate David’s rival with one swift lethal blow, pinning the king to the ground with his spear. Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) notes, “Abishai’s sense of urgency...is conveyed by his ‘today’ and his ‘now’ (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952], 1 Samuel-2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 256).” This is not surprising as Abishai is always quick to act (II Samuel 16:9-10, 19:21-23).

This was the second opportunity David had to eliminate his rival (I Samuel 24:1-22, 26:6-12). Abishai verbalizes the temptation, even agreeing to do David’s dirty work for him. Abishai’s proposal echoes the words of David’s men at the time when he previously spared the king (I Samuel 24:4, 26:8).

As he had before, David refused to kill Saul (I Samuel 26:9-11). God might deal with Saul but David would not interfere. Instead, he confiscated Saul’s spear and water jug as evidence of his mercy (I Samuel 26:12). Saul’s spear, which had narrowly missed David’s head three times (I Samuel 18:11, 19:10, 20:33), was the visible sign of Saul’s power and rank. The jug was indicative of sustenance, the source of life. The seized spear would later serve as evidence of David’s goodwill (I Samuel 26:22).

Though it is not surprising that a son of Zeruiah would seek a violent resolution, Abishai’s response is the natural one. Surely the risk of the mission was not taken simply to procure souvenirs. In Abishai’s mind, God had given him the opportunity to instantaneously end the conflict and he ought to seize it. It is David’s response that is counter-cultural. Francesca Aran Murphy (b. 1960) explains:

Abishai thinks of murder; David does not. The single, deadly spear thrust proposed by Abishai is more redolent of death than anything that happened at En-gedi [I Samuel 24:1-22] or even in the Nabal story [I Samuel 25:1-25]. Somewhat as he had restrained his toughs as they mingled with Nabal’s shepherds, so now David restrains Abishai...God is alive, David tells Abishai, and has given him two providential signs, the spear and the water jug, Saul’s weapon and water carrier. These iron and bronze implements of life and death are a sign to David that Saul’s life is spent. (Murphy, 1 Samuel (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 245)

A presumably dumbfounded Abishai offers no response to David. The young warrior would not see battle in this encounter. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg (1895-1965) notes:

Abishai has no opportunity of assisting David in action. The Lord himself has taken care that no one wakes by means of a stupefying sleep (tardēmā) which he has spread over everyone...Abishai is merely...the tempter, through whom the theological concern of the narrative is brought out. (Hertzberg, I and II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 209-210)

In the heart of Saul’s camp, David’s temptation came in the form of one of his most loyal subjects.

Why does David resist the temptation to eliminate his competition? What well-meaning friend has tempted you?

“There are many devils...the one which is tempting you now is not the least of all to be feared...Beware of it; it is a demon more beautiful than Apollo — liberty, patriotism, men’s happiness, all these words vibrate like harp-strings at its approach; it is the sound of the silver scales of its flaming wings.” - Alfred De Musset (1810-1857), Lorenzaccio, 1833, p. 94

Saul, Paul and Rebranding (Acts 13:9)

What was Paul’s former name? Saul of Tarsus

When Paul is introduced in the Bible, he is called Saul (Acts 7:58). Six chapters later, while serving with Barnabas in Cyprus, the text nonchalantly mentions that Paul and Saul are synonymous (Acts 13:9).

But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him, (Acts 13:9 NASB)

No explanation is given for the alias and no one bestows the Hellenistic name on Saul yet for the remainder of Acts, the narrator speaks only of Paul. The only one who calls Paul “Saul” thereafter is Paul himself and only in repetitions of his testimony (Acts 22:7, 13, 26:14). For all intents and purposes, Saul is no more. Along with the new moniker, henceforth Paul’s name is listed first in each missionary tandem in which he appears, stylistically emblematic of leadership.

Saul’s namesake was Israel’s first king (I Samuel 9:17). Though Acts never mentions the fact, the future apostle (Romans 11:1; Philippians 3:5) and the former king both descended from the tribe of Benjamin (I Samuel 9:1-2, 21, 10:21, I Chronicles 12:1, 29; Acts 13:29). The connection between name and tribe has led some to speculate that the apostle was a distant heir of the king. Richard H. Bell (b. 1954) writes that “perhaps Paul’s family had a family tree which traced their origin through Ulam [I Chronicles 8:39-40] and Saul...Paul/Saul was therefore named after his most illustrious ancestor (Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel, 13).”

Counterintuitively, the name change does not coincide with Paul’s dramatic conversion (Acts 9:1-19). It does, however, serve a conscious literary purpose. Stanley B. Marrow (b. 1931) comments that “with the commencement of the apostle’s first missionary journey and at an important turning point in his career, the change of name from the very Semitic ‘Saul’ to the Greco-Roman ‘Paul’ should signal a far more significant change for the history of the world (Marrow, Paul: His Letters and His Theology: An Introduction to Paul’s Epistles, 7).” The name Paul was better suited to the missionary’s new Gentile context (I Corinthians 9:20-22).

Philip R. Davies (b. 1945) also sees a further poetic rationale:

“This replay of the persecution of a ‘son of David’ by a Saul might be thought fanciful; yet such a realisation surely did not escape the Benjamite Saul of Tarsus, nor the author of Acts—both of whom exhibit a fondness for scriptural analogies and precedents—nor indeed other reasonably knowledgeable Jews of that time.” (Rezetko, Lim & Aucker, Reflection And Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honor of A. Graeme Auld, 96)

Saul, a name reminiscent of royalty, becomes Paul, meaning “small” or “humble”. The name Paul fits with the missionary’s own belief that “I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God (I Corinthians 15:9 NASB).”

Is there significance to the timing of the metamorphosis from Saul to Paul in Acts? Have you ever known anyone who changed their name? If you changed your name what would it be? Why? Why do you think Paul changed his name?

Some have conjectured that the apostle opted for a new Hellenistic name in part because his old Hebrew name had developed a derogatory meaning in Greek. Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and John J. Pilch (b. 1936) explain, “The connotation of the Greek adjective saulos (“loose, wanton”), which described the peculiar walking style of courtesans and effeminate males, might have prompted Luke (and Paul) to prefer to use “Paul.” (Malina and Pilch, Social-science Commentary on the Book of Acts, 90).” This would be the equivalent of modern women who had the proper name “Gay” changing it when the term became associated with homosexuality.

Many other reasons have also been given for the transition. Ben Witherinton III (b. 1951) posits the following theories:

This story may suggest that Paul took the name in order to aid in the process of converting another Paul who was a Gentile and a proconsul on Cyprus, Sergius Paulus...Possibly Παυλος should be seen as a nickname, meaning “the small one.”...Wilson, Paul, p. 30, conjectures that Paul’s Roman name was Gaius Julius Caesar on the basis of his family being one of those enfranchised in Tarsus by Julius Caesar or Augustus. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 310)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) adds, “Lucian of Samosota tells us of men who changed their names to signify a higher social status (The Cock 14; Timon 22) (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina),223).” C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) contributed that “Saul” was the name in the Antiochan source while “Paul” was better known to most (Barrett, Acts1-14 (International Critical Commentary), 609).

Most scholarship (included the luminaries listed above) concurs that despite common belief to the contrary, the shift to Paul was no change at all. Paul was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25-28) and the most probable suggestion for his names is that Paulos was one of the three proper names a Roman citizen would have. Malina and Pilch remind, “This verse does not support the common belief that Paul underwent a name change from Saul to Paul. It was common for members of the house of Israel to have two names: a Hebrew one for insiders, a Greek or Latin name for outsiders (Malina and Pilch, 90).” Barrett summarizes, “Paul is an alternative name, not a newly given one (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary, 195).”

Paul is mentioned by his Jewish name 22 times, all in Acts. As such, Paul never refers to the name Saul in any of his letters. To read Paul’s letters, it is as if Saul never existed.

Do your friends or family call you something different than outsiders? Are you known by different names in different contexts? Do you think Paul’s name served to distance the character from his previous deeds as Saul? Have you known of any person or business who rebranded to evade a bad reputation? What do you call yourself? How, if at all, has your name shaped you?

“The name of a man is a numbing blow from which he never recovers.” - sociologist Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980)