King Solomon’s Wives (I Kings 11:3)

How many wives did Solomon have? Seven hundred (I Kings 11:3)

Known as the wisest man on the planet (I Kings 4:30), King Solomon is a successful ruler. The holdings of Israel’s kingdom reach their apex during his reign (I Kings 10:14-29). The modern adage “Go big or go home” would have been an apt motto for the ancient monarch as he seemingly accrues everything in warehouse club portions. In addition to wisdom and commodities, Solomon amasses an abundance of women: seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3).

He [Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. (I Kings 11:3 NASB)

The number of Solomon’ wives is fantastic. Douglas Sean O’Donnell (b. 1972) relays:

In Mark Twain [1835-1910]’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck says to Jim that Solomon “had about a million wives.” A slight exaggeration—Solomon only had 700 wives and 300 concubines. He had a thousand, not a million (but still large enough!). (O’Donnell, The Song of Solomon: An Invitation to Intimacy (Preaching the Word), 130)

Not surprisingly, Solomon and his wives have become fodder for humor. A.J. Jacobs (b. 1968) gibes:

Solomon holds the record with seven hundred wives...Solomon’s proverbs warn against adultery [Proverbs 2:16-19, 5:1-23, 6:24-29, 32, 7:5-23, 9:13-18, 22:14, 23:27, 30:20], which I find curious, since I can’t imagine he had any time or energy for other men’s wives. (Jacobs, The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Possible, 135)

Andy Stanley (b. 1958) exclaims:

Seven hundred wives! Think about that. Seven hundred mothers-in-law. What was he thinking? Apparently he wasn’t. (Stanley, The Principle of the Path: How to Get from Where You Are to Where You Want to Be, 92)

The note itself falls awkwardly into the narrative as it does not fit comfortably into its present context (I Kings 11:3). Percy S. F. Van Keulen (b. 1963) scrutinizes:

The position of the note in I Kings 11:3a is awkward. Materially, this note links up with the remark of I Kings 11:1 that Solomon loved many women. Its belated appearance at I Kings 11:3a is due to the circumstance that first the issue of the alien origin of Solomon’s wives is dealt with in I Kings 11:1b and I Kings 11:2. However, at I Kings 11:3a the note interrupts the logical sequence between I Kings 11:2b and I Kings 11:3b; the latter verse notes the fulfillment of the prediction made at I Kings 11:2b that foreign nations could turn the heart of the Israelites away behind their gods. (Van Keulen, Two Versions Of The Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry Into The Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2-11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2-11, 208)

The Septuagint reorganizes the passage to accentuate the bevy of marriages. Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) footnotes:

The Septuagint...rearranges I Kings 11:1-3 to emphasize Solomon’s many wives followed by his love for foreign women and apostasy: “And King Solomon was a lover of women. And he had seven hundred royal wives and three hundred concubines. And he took Gentile women, and the daughter of Pharaoh, Moabites, Ammonites, Syrians, and Idumeans, Hittites and Amorites, of the nations concerning which the L-rd said to the sons of Israel ‘You shall not go into them, and they shall not come in to you, lest they turn away your hearts after their idols.’ To them, Solomon clung in love” (see Heinrich Hrozný [1879-1952], Die Abweichungen des Codex Vaticanus vom hebräischen Texte in den Königsbüchern 70-72; Gottfried Vanoni [1948-2006] 24-57). (Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 153)

Solomon is said to have seven hundred “wives” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “women” (MSG). These are distinguished from his additional three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3).

The sheer volume is staggering. Solomon tends to do everything extravagantly and marriage is evidently no different. He has far more wives than anyone else in the Bible.

Gene Rice (b. 1925) compares:

As Solomon’s building program, wealth, and fame were on a grand scale, so was his harem. Seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines are not unprecedented [I Kings 11:3], but never before or after did an Israelite king have so many wives. The next largest harem was Rehoboam’s eighteen wives and sixty concubines (II Chronicles 11:21). David had at least eight wives (II Samuel 3:2-5, 5:13-16, 11:27; I Chronicles 3:1-9) and some ten or more concubines (II Samuel 15:16). Only one of David’s wives in known to have been a foreigner (II Samuel 13:37; I Chronicles 3:2). (Rice, 1 Kings: Nations Under God (International Theological Commentary), 86)

Steven Weitzman (b. 1965) illustrates:

It would seem that Solomon conducted his sex life on the same unmatchable scale that he did everything else...In fact, it is scarcely possible to conceive a sex life on this scale. In 1921 the Yiddish writer David Pinski [1872-1959] tried, undertaking an audacious attempt to describe all 1,000 of Solomon’s wives, but though he worked for fifteen years he managed to complete portraits of only 105; there were just too many to handle—and he was merely writing about them. Solomon seems to do everything in multiples of thousands—40,000 stalls for his horses [I Kings 4:26], 180,000 laborers to build the Temple [I Kings 5:13-16]; a sacrifice consisting of 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep [I Kings 8:63; II Chronicles 7:5]—but no figure in I Kings has impressed itself on the imagination, or strains it, quite like the king’s 700 wives and 300 concubines. (Weitzman, Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom, 150-51)

Given the outlandish figure, many have seen the record as employing hyperbole. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) considers:

Not for the first time in the Solomon story (cf., e.g., I Kings 4:26), we may suspect that the number (a round 1000) is not meant to be taken literally. The point is that everything Solomon did, he did in a big way! Song of Solomon 6:8-9 contrasts the one true love of the king (Pharaoh’s daughter? cf. Victor Sasson [b.1937], “King Solomon and the Dark Lady in the Song of Songs,” Vetus Testamentum 39 [1989], pp. 407-14) with his 60 queens and 80 concubines—a more modest number, though not in itself unimpressive, particularly when combined with “virgins beyond number [Song of Solomon 6:8].” (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 93)

Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) discounts:

The number of Solomon’s wives is said to be one thousand; as usual, this is probably an exaggeration, and the number has no significance for the course of the narrative. It only matters that his love for the women causes Solomon’s heart to turn away from Yahweh as the only God [I Kings 11:3-8]. The Deuteronomistic Historian firmly roots Solomon’s idolatry in his biography. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings (A Continental Commentary), 131)

Linda S. Schearing (b. 1947) pronounces:

His alleged marriages to 700 foreign princesses...is considered historical by some in spite of I Kings 11:3’s obvious hyperbole and literary function...John Gray [1913-2000], 1 & 2 Kings, pp. 274-75, for example, asserts that although “historical fact has been magnified and stylized” in I Kings 11:3, there is still a “historical basis” to Solomon’s diverse harem; while John Barclay Burns [b. 1943], “Solomon’s Egyptian Horses and Exotic Wives,” Foundations & Facts Forum 7 (1991) 33, admits that the “exaggerated numbers of wives and concubines would not have appeared in any formal chronicle” yet goes on to argue that “nonetheless, it is conceivable that Solomon wed foreign princesses to weave a strong web of alliances.” (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “A Wealth of Women: Looking Behind, Within and Beyond Solomon’s Story”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 436)

Not all agree that the number is figurative. Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) defends:

While the daughter of Pharaoh held a special position as the number one wife of the king, I Kings 11:3 tells us that Solomon also had 699 other wives as well as 300 concubines. The fact that this number far exceeds the typical harems of other contemporary monarchs should not cause a problem with credibility, since Solomon diligently competed to exceed the other nations in every way. He had accumulated greater wealth, wisdom, and power than all others; and since virility was supposed to be an indicator of royal greatness in that day, he wanted to surpass them in this category too. Some interpreters who doubt the accuracy of the number in I Kings 11:3 point out that in the Song of Solomon 6:8 Solomon speaks of only “sixty queens and eighty concubines and virgins without number.” But the supposed discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the “virgins without number” could have brought the total to a thousand. It can also be explained by reckoning that the number listed in the Song of Solomon may have come earlier in Solomon’s reign before he had accumulated the full number in this chapter. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 131)

There are parallels to Solomon’s polygamy in other cultures. John Monson (b. 1963) correlates:

In addition to being a status symbol, the royal harem maintained close ties to Solomon’s constituents through marriage into families of varying clans, tribes, and social classes, including wives of higher status who were counted among the royalty. Counting royal women by the hundreds was not unusual during the Iron Age. Assyrian wine lists from Nimrud indicate that as many as three hundred women of various ranks lived at that palace. Extensive harems produced a large pool of heirs to ensure the enduring strength of the dynasty. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 50)

Solomon is the poster child for polygamy. Surprisingly, polygamy is not explicitly outlawed in the Bible. The Torah does mandate that the king “shall not multiply wives for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17 NASB) and the rabbis capped the number of marriages at eighteen (Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:4). The marriages themselves, however, are not the source of Solomon’s criticism.

Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) comments:

Polygamy in ancient Israel was apparently permitted, even though it obviously contradicted God’s ideal of one man for one woman for life. Most of the biblical patriarchs had numerous wives. David had fifteen. Abijah had fourteen [II Chronicles 13:21]. Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, had eighteen wives and sixty concubines [II Chronicles 11:21]. So except for the unprecedented number, Solomon’s marital situation was not unusual for the historical period. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 131)

The harem was likely a source of pride for the king. Steven Weitzman (b. 1965) informs:

If the historical Solomon really did have a large harem, he was probably quite proud of it. Biblical family values allowed a man to have multiple wives and concubines (it was only in the Middle Ages that Jews embraced monogamy as the ideal), and a large family was considered a mark of virility, wealth, blessing—evidence that a man was favored by God. In the Kebra Nagast, the Ethiopian version of Solomon’s story, the king’s motive for marrying so many women is a pious one; he wants to fulfill God’s promise to Israel of many descendants more numerous than the stars in the sky [Genesis 15:5, 26:4; Exodus 32:13], and there seemed to him no better way to bring this about than to have sex with as many women as possible. (Weitzman, Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom, 151)

While polygamy is not expressly forbidden, intermarriage with those of other religions is (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). This tenet is also sustained in the New Testament where the apostle Paul instructs, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (II Corinthians 6:14 NASB).

Steven Weitzman (b. 1965) notices:

We are told virtually nothing about Solomon’s wives as individuals—only one is given a name, Naamah, the mother of Solomon’s successor Rehoboam, and only because she was the mother of a future king [I Kings 14:21, 31; II Chronicles 12:13]. What I Kings does make a point of revealing, however, is the ethnic background of these women—they were Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites [I Kings 11:1], non-Israelite peoples who lived within or on the borders of the land of Canaan—and that is what doomed Solomon’s marriages from the start. (Weitzman, Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom, 151-52)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) adds:

Solomon’s many foreign wives...provide the focus for the description of his unfaithfulness (I Kings 11:1-8). But it is not Solomon’s polygamy per se that centers the account, but disloyalty to God that follows therefrom. Deuteronomic law had prohibited marriage with the peoples of Canaan because of the danger of being led astray to serve other gods (Deuteronomy 7:3-4; see Exodus 34:16; Joshua 23:12-13). Such intermarriage, in fact, had taken place early in Israel’s life in the land (Judges 3:5-6). That law, paraphrased here (I Kings 11:2), is interpreted to apply to other non-Israelite peoples as well. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 63)

Solomon, it appears, is exercising a loophole in Deuteronomy’s prohibition (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). Cameron B.R. Howard (b. 1980) observes:

Throughout Kings, the worship of foreign gods is repeatedly linked with the influence of foreign women. Solomon’s wives’ seductive powers extend outside the matrimonial realm to the religious, where they “turn his heart” to the gods of their homelands [I Kings 11:3, 4, 9]. According to I Kings 11:1, the peoples represented in Solomon’s marriages include Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites. Notably, this list does not correspond to the book of Deuteronomy’s injunction against intermarriage (Deuteronomy 7:1-6), even though the narrator seems to be invoking that prohibition. Marvin A. Sweeney [b. 1953] notes that Solomon’s list corresponds instead to alliances and conquests made by David, and that the invocation of Deuteronomic law was probably a later reaction to make Solomon’s actions fit it, rather than having composed Solomon’s list in light of the Deuteronomic prohibitions (Sweeney, 155). (Carol A. Newsom [b. 1950], Sharon H. Ringe [b. 1946] and Jacqueline E. Lapsley [b. 1965], Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated, 169)

Solomon certainly has a problem. Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) critiques:

How many women did he “love” [I Kings 11:1]? At least a thousand, which was a thousand times too many! The king was living so large that even his sin was super-sized: “He had 700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines” (I Kings 11:3). (Ryken, King Solomon: The Temptations of Money, Sex, and Power, 176)

The Message paraphrases, “King Solomon was obsessed with women.” (I Kings 11:1 MSG). Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) condemns:

The number of wives, “seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines” (I Kings 11:3), even among ancient practices and even assuming some hyperbole, is unconscionable. It bespeaks an excess of one who has lost touch with reality and with relationships. Here, no prospect of human relationship or care exists. Women have been reduced to a commodity to exchange and possess. The iteration of his love for foreign women (I Kings 11:1-2) in such numbers does not convey intimate caring but a recalcitrant attachment to these women as possession and obsession. Moreover, the unimaginable number of wives coincides with behavior patterns well established through his lifetime. Excess has defined this king’s ambitions. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary), 109)

Seven hundred wives would produce a logistical nightmare. This is seen in the fact that the wives remain nondescript, nameless and devoid of character. Stuart Lasine (b. 1945) attends:

In spite of his thousand wives and concubines, readers do not witness any illuminating exchanges between the king and his famous loves, as one is allowed to follow David’s interactions with Michal [I Samuel 19:11-17: II Samuel 6:16, 20-23; I Chronicles 15:29], Abigail [I Samuel 25:2-42], and Bathsheba [II Samuel 11:2-27; I Kings 1:11-31]. None of Solomon’s wives is said to love him as David was loved by Michal [I Samuel 18:20]. None pursues and flatters Solomon as did David’s wife-to-be Abigail [I Samuel 25:18-35]...In fact, of Solomon’s one thousand wives and concubines only Pharaoh’s daughter receives any attention at all in I Kings 3-11, and remarkably little is said about her or about Solomon’s alleged love for her [I Kings 3:1, 7:8, 9:16, 24, 11:1]. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Solomon and the Wizard of Oz: Power and Invisibility in a Verbal Place”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 379-80)

Sadly, it is doubtful that Solomon had much more of a relationship with his wives than does the reader.

There is also implicit condemnation of Solomon’s serial polygamy. Adele Reinhartz (b. 1953) surmises:

The negative judgment of the narrator upon Solomon for loving foreign women, expressed explicitly in I Kings 11:1-3, is also conveyed by silence regarding the offspring of these unions. That there were offspring is indicated in the formulaic reference to Naamah the mother of Rehoboam (I Kings 15:21) and the naming of several daughters of Solomon who married his prefects (I Kings 4:11-15). This silence regarding Solomon’s offspring is emphasized by the reference to the son of his archenemy, King Hadad the Edomite (I Kings 11:14). In some respects, Hadad is the mirror image of Solomon. Like Solomon, he married a close relative of the Pharaoh, and an anonymous one at that (I Kings 11:19). But unlike Solomon, Hadad is portrayed as the father of a son, Genubath, borne of the Pharaoh’s sister-in-law and raised in the Pharaoh’s palace (I Kings 11:20). It is a mark of Solomon’s disgrace that his adversary is accorded the kind of conventional treatment by the narrator that Solomon himself is denied. (Reinhartz, ”Why Ask My Name?”: Anonymity and Identity in Biblical Narrative, 26)

The text categorically states that “his wives turned his heart away” (I Kings 11:3 NASB). They evidently exercised more influence on him than he them.

David C. Hopkins (b. 1952) accounts:

The narrative of Kings reports Solomon’s seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3) and suggests their influence upon their husband was both considerable and pernicious. Any influence in reverse escapes mention; the disproportionate numbers undoubtedly weighed against Solomon’s potential sway. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “The Weight of the Bronze Could Not Be Calculated: Solomon and Economic Reconstruction”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 301)

Seven hundred wives coupled with three hundred concubines is a formula for disaster. With one thousand women of varying religious affiliations it is not surprising that Solomon has divided loyalties. The text notes that the predicament finally gets the better of him in his old age, as if his senescence mitigates his fall (I Kings 11:4). He acquiesces and erects idols to placate his pagan wives (I Kings 11:4-8). In appeasing the women, he alienates God (I Kings 11:6). The king does what many do: he makes the mistake of tending to the interests of the immediate, temporal issues which surround him instead of the transcendent, eternal deity which sustains him.

What does the number of his wives say about Solomon (I Kings 11:3)? Is the mandate against intermarriage primarily a warning against foreign women or foreign gods (Deuteronomy 7:1-6)? Would you pursue a relationship with someone who practiced a different religion? What is the most spouses you have heard of someone having? What did you think of that person? Why does the Bible not expressly condemn polygamy? Are there any biblical instances where polygamy “works”? In addition to marriage partners, when is less more? Does Solomon have any influence on his wives? How much influence does your significant other have on you; how much do you exert over them? Who would it grieve you more to displease, your loved ones or God?

The note regarding King Solomon’s wives is a precursor to the account of the division of Israel’s kingdom in the next chapter (I Kings 12:1-24). I Kings 11:1-13 braces the reader for the fall of Solomon’s empire.

Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) dissects:

The long narrative preparing the division of the empire is not a unified whole but was assembled from several single pieces to arrive at its current form. After giving the basic reasons for the events in Solomon’s wrong behavior in I Kings 11:1-13, the narrative moves on to depict Jeroboam as a renegade and unlawful usurper in I Kings 11:26, 40. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings (A Continental Commentary), 130)

August H. Konkel (b. 1948) classifies:

This section [I Kings 11:1-13] has been characterized as a theological review. It contains offenses and judgment statements that evaluate the king according to prophetic orthodoxy. The prophetic indictment is given as a word from Yahweh without any specification as to the occasion or manner in which that word is delivered. (Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings (NIV Application Commentary), 219)

Despite elevating Israel to unprecedented heights, the mighty king will fall. The seeds for this demise have long been evident. Lissa M. Wray Beal exposes:

The initial verses (I Kings 11:1-8) reveal Solomon’s heart and the reasons for YHWH’s judgment. With I Kings 3:1-3 they bracket Solomon’s narrative and negatively characterize the king. In Kings 3 Solomon marries Pharaoh’s daughter; the closing bracket now includes other foreign women. In I Kings 3:3 Solomon ‘loves’ YHWH; the only other place where Solomon ‘loves’ is in I Kings 11:1 – but now the ‘love’ is for these foreign women. In I Kings 3:1 the king’s intention to build the temple is mentioned...in I Kings 11:7-8 the temple project is denigrated as Solomon builds temples to foreign gods. Finally, I Kings 3:3 records the king’s positive attitude towards torah obedience, obedience explicitly compromised in I Kings 11:10. (Beal, 1 & 2 Kings (Apollos Old Testament Commentary), 168-69)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) concurs:

The narrative turns from Solomon’s love for the Lord (I Kings 3:3; see Deuteronomy 6:5), as God had loved him (II Samuel 12:24), to his love for his foreign wives (I Kings 11:1-2); these two references bracket the reign of Solomon. This is a love story gone awry. God’s continuing love does not overwhelm Solomon’s decision to turn his love toward that which is not God, to violate his own call for complete devotion to God (I Kings 8:61). (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 62)

Solomon’s plight is foreshadowed in the preceding chapter as well (I Kings 10:1-29). Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) catalogs:

The praise for Solomon is not undiluted, since the narrator records that Solomon violates the laws of kingship by multiplying gold and weapons. Gold is mentioned some ten times in this chapter [I Kings 10:1-29]...Solomon has so much gold that he uses it for drinking vessels [I Kings 10:21] and for ceremonial shields [I Kings 10:16-17], and the abundance of gold drives the value of silver to nothing (I Kings 10:21). This seems a further encomium to Solomon, but Deuteronomy 17:14-17 specifically forbids Israel’s kings from multiplying gold and silver...Solomon also gathers horses and chariots [I Kings 10:25-29], again in violation of the rules of Deuteronomy 17:16, and even imports them from Egypt [I Kings 10:28], the very place that Israel was forbidden to go for horses and chariots. These violations prepare for the climactic violation in I Kings 11, the multiplication of wives, who seduce Solomon into idolatry [I Kings 11:1-13]. (Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 81)

In recounting Solomon’s reign, the text saves the worst for last. A. Graeme Auld (b. 1941) reveals:

The most trenchant criticism of Solomon is left to the end of the report. We have sensed at various points in the previous chapters an undertow of critique; but now it is on the surface and in the open. (Auld, I & II Kings (Daily Study Bible), 80)

J. Maxwell Miller (b. 1937) detaches:

I Kings 3-11 presents Solomon the faithful ruler who achieved the golden age, then I Kings 11 presents a later Solomon led astray by foreign wives and struggling to maintain the secularity of his kingdom. This is an artificial arrangement; the compilers separated out and placed at the end of Solomon’s reign the items which conflicted with their notion of an ideal Solomonic era. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Separating the Solomon of History from the Solomon of Legend”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 16)

Paul S. Evans concurs:

Beginning in I Kings 10:26 there is a clear bent to present Solomon’s shortcomings. Describing his direct violations of the law regarding chariots (from Egypt no less—explicitly forbidden in Deuteronomy 17:16) and amassing of wealth (forbidden in Deuteronomy 17:17). This undercurrent of negativity in this otherwise lionizing description of Solomon has been noted by many. See Richard D. Nelson [b. 1945], First and Second Kings (Atlanta: John Knox, 1987), 66-67; and Jerome T. Walsh [b. 1942], I Kings (editor David W. Cotter; Collegeville, Minnesota; Liturgical, 1996), 137-38. This aspect is surprisingly overlooked by many. E.g., Burke O. Long [b. 1938] (1 Kings, 120) notes this section’s intention as to “glorify Solomon” and does not note the overt (or subtle) critique when read in light of Deuteronomy 17. Curiously, Martin J. Mulder [1923-1994] (1 Kings [Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; translator John Vriend [1925-2002]; Leuven; Belgium: Peeters, 1999], 542) notes the Deuteronomy 17:17 connection only to support the idea that “Egypt was famous for its horses.” (Evans, The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-Critical and Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18-19, 149)

Israel Finkelstein (b. 1949) and Neil Asher Silberman (b. 1950) characterize:

The Biblical Solomon is haunted by a great contradiction. In I Kings 3-10, he is the great successor of David, a larger-than-life ruler who builds the Temple in Jerusalem and who provides the standards of wisdom and opulence that countless later kings would attempt to achieve. Yet in I Kings 11:1-13 he is little more than a senile apostate, who is led astray by the charms of his many foreign wives. (Finkelstein and Silberman, David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition, 179)

The downfall of a nation in conjunction with an idolatrous queen will recur in I Kings. Cameron B.R. Howard (b. 1980) studies:

Taking on a sardonic tone, the narrator remarks of Ahab, “And as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, he took as his wife Jezebel daughter of King Ethbaal of the Sidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshiped him.” [I Kings 16:31] The marriage was surely a political move, creating an alliance with the Sidonians, that is, the Phoenicians, whose kingdom was just north of Israel. Solomon had employed the same strategy hundreds of times, to the disdain of YHWH and the Deuteronomists, though with great political effect. In the eyes of the narrator, it is as if Jezebel herself is capable of more harm than Solomon’s seven hundred foreign wives and three hundred concubines put together. (Carol A. Newsom [b. 1950], Sharon H. Ringe [b. 1946] and Jacqueline E. Lapsley [b. 1965], Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated, 172)

Despite the influence of his pagan wives, when Solomon’s kingdom falls, Solomon himself is to blame. Gary N. Knoppers (b. 1956) clarifies:

One may observe that the topos of mixed marriages explains a reversal in the course of Solomonic rule, but it does not excuse it. Solomon’s foreign wives catalyze his decline, but YHWH becomes enraged with Solomon and not his wives, “because he turned...his heart from YHWH, the God of Israel” (I Kings 11:9). Similarly, the judgment oracle of I Kings 11:11-13 accuses Solomon and not his wives, of malfeasance. The refusal to excuse Solomon underscores the force of the prohibitions he violates. In his dotage (I Kings 11:4) Solomon flounders because he flouts established divine commands. Under the rule of law even one of Israel’s most distinguished monarchs can be judged and found wanting. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Solomon’s Fall and Deuteronomy”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 398)

John W. Olley (b. 1938) examines:

According to the practices of the ancient Near East all was praiseworthy, showing a mastery of international politics and diplomacy...The biblical writer however saw a sign of weakness and failure for it contradicted the Deuteronomic warning (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). It could be said that Solomon trusted in political alliances, sealed by marriages, rather than wholeheartedly in Yahweh, a negation of “be strong” of I Kings 2:2-3. In fact, the warning became reality as his wives turned his heart after other gods (I Kings 11:4). While this statement has been read as blaming the wives, just as Adam blamed Eve (Genesis 3:12), God places the responsibility squarely with Solomon (I Kings 11:9-10; cf. Genesis 3:17-19). (Olley, The Message of Kings (Bible Speaks Today), 115-16)

Solomon is clearly not discriminating in his marriages and various explanations have been posited for his excessive polygamy. Gerhard Langer (b. 1960) recounts:

Rabbi Jose ben Halafta [second century CE] (Canticles Rabbah 1.1.10) is of the opinion that Solomon took these women in order to win them for the Lord, to convert them to the true faith. Other Rabbis opine that Solomon was seduced to sin and sexual deviance. According to Rabbi Eleazer ben Rabbi Jose ha Gelili [second century CE] , Solomon had intercourse with these women during their menstruation period. (Joseph Verheyden [b. 1957], “Solomon in Rabbinic Literature”, The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect, 130)

Though he is said to have “loved many foreign women” (I Kings 11:1 NASB), many assume that there are political motivations behind Solomon’s marriages. Richard D. Patterson (b. 1929) and Hermann J. Austel (1926-2011) suspect:

Though Solomon may originally have taken foreign wives for the cementing of diplomatic alliances, I Kings 11:2 states that he “held fast to them in love.” This speaks of strong emotional attachment, which is normal and desirable in a husband. But because Solomon was attached to the wrong women, he was led astray. The seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, though perhaps adding to the splendor of Solomon’s kingdom, were his downfall. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel ~2 Kings (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 728-29)

Richard D. Nelson (b. 1945) appraises:

What the modern reader may see as the necessary political reality of intermarriage between allied royal families and what the ancient person would have normally interpreted as a witness to Solomon’s glorious potency as a ruler (cf. I Kings 11:4), the narrator evaluates single-mindedly as a violation of the law of God (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). It is not the fantastic number of these wives which is presented as the problem; it is their nationality and religion and Solomon’s accommodation to it. Even though Solomon himself did not worship their gods (I Kings 11:8b, note the plural), it was enough that he had been lured into building places of sacrifice for them. Just as the construction of the temple is presented as the acme of his piety, so these high places are sufficient evidence that “his heart was not wholly true to Yahweh his God” (I Kings 11:4). (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 69-70)

Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) supports:

The choice Solomon made again and again over the course of his life is clear. The final assessment that unfolds in these verses (I Kings 11:1-8) is less about breaking one law of Deuteronomy as it is about his repeated choices that now culminate in comprehensive waywardness. Polygamy itself is not the issue. That was a common and accepted practice in the ancient world. Failure to trust in the Lord is the crime here. The involvement with women from Egyptian, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite kingdoms indicts Solomon. Such intermarriages grew out of international alliances and treaties by which nations secured themselves before enemy threats. Solomon’s guilt lies in placing his trust in the power of others rather than in God. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary), 108-09)

Though Solomon’s many lovers facilitate his downfall, the fact that he enters into these unions is evidence of his proneness. His political allegiances demonstrate a lack of trust in God. Like Adam who is with Eve when partaking of Eden’s forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6), the great king is culpable in his kingdoms demise despite his wives’ influence. The root of the problem lies in Solomon, not the women or their gods. God is to be his true love and as such, all of the women and idols become little more than “the other woman”.

Where is Solomon’s legendary wisdom when consenting to his marriages? When have you seen the worst of a person revealed at the end of her life; when has the worst been saved for last? Who is most to blame for the fall of the united kingdom of Israel? Who do you know whose downfall was closely connected to the opposite sex? Do you most rely upon divine guidance or human ingenuity? Where does God rank among your loves?

“I found out a long time ago
What a woman can do to your soul
Oh, but she can’t take you any way,
You don’t already know how to go.”
- The Eagles, “Peaceful Easy Feeling” (1972)

Singing Jehoshaphat (II Chronicles 20:21)

Whose army went into battle singing? Judah’s, under King Jehoshaphat (II Chronicles 20:21)

King Jehoshaphat becomes the fourth king of Judah when he succeeds his father Asa (I Kings 15:23-24; II Chronicles 17:1). He reigns for twenty-five years (I Kings 22:42; II Chronicles 20:31) and is remembered as one of the few kings faithful to God, the Old Testament benchmark for royals (I Kings 22:43; II Chronicles 17:3-6).

Jehoshaphat is far more prominent in Chronicles, where he is featured in four chapters (II Chronicles 17:1-20:37), than Kings, which devotes only ten verses to his reign (I Kings 22:41-50).

Brian E. Kelly observes:

Jehoshaphat plays a much more extensive and important role in Chronicles than in Kings, where his reign is described only briefly (I Kings 22:41-50) and he is a secondary figure compared to Ahab (cf. I Kings 22:1-38; II Kings 3:4-27). (Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles, 98)

The last notable event of Jehosphat’s reign occurs when an eastern coalition forms primed to invade Judah. This assailing confederation is comprised of Moabites, Ammonites and Meunites (II Chronicles 20:1). Naturally alarmed in the face of daunting odds (II Chronicles 20:3), Jehoshaphat responds radically: He prays, declares a national fast and assembles his country (II Chronicles 20:3-13). Prayer is Jehoshaphat’s first, not last, resort.

After being encouraged by a prophecy assuring that Judah would attain victory without having to fight (II Chronicles 20:14-17), Jehoshaphat consults his constituents and the army marches to the would-be battlefield praising God (II Chronicles 20:18-21). The king implores the people, “Put your trust in the Lord your God and you will be established. Put your trust in His prophets and succeed” (II Chronicles 20:20 NASB).

Paul K. Hooker (b. 1953) interprets:

King and people assemble at Tekoa, east of Jerusalem in the Judahite highlands. As they assemble, Jehoshaphat gives them what in other situations might have been battle instructions. Here, however, we have...religious admonition: “Believe in the LORD your God and you will be established [II Chronicles 20:20].” One final time, the Chronicler returns to the theme of trust. The language here is reminiscent of Isaiah 7:9: “If you do not stand firm in faith, you shall not stand at all” (the verb translated “stand firm” in Isaiah is the same as that translated “be established” here). The link between faith and victory is explicit: Belief, not strength of arms, is the key to the deliverance of God. (Hooker, First and Second Chronicles (Westminster Bible Companion), 213)

Leslie Allen (b. 1935) concurs:

Jehoshaphat’s battle speech on the morrow places a premium on faith. It echoes the message of Isaiah in a similar context of military threat , a message rendered more effectively by its Hebrew wordplay: “Have firm faith, or you will not stand firm” (Isaiah 7:9 NEB). In expression of such faith orders are given for anticipatory praise to be sung afresh, as on the day before in the temple precincts. The praise looks forward to a manifestation of God’s “steadfast love” (RSV), promised “forever” (II Chronicles 20:21) and so for today. The praise here replaces the shout associated with Holy War (see Judges 7:20; II Chronicles 13:15). It accentuates the fact that the people’s part was not to fight but to be spectators of the divine defeat of the foe, in accord with the prophet’s promise (II Chronicles 20:15, 17). (Allen, 1, 2 Chronicles (Mastering the Old Testament), 308)

Jehoshaphat’s faith has blossomed. J.G. McConville (b. 1951) charts:

The Jehoshaphat of II Chronicles 20:20 is one who has come from his initial fear (II Chronicles 20:3) to a new confidence that God is for him. His exhortation to Judah, “Believe in the Lord your God and you will be established (II Chronicles 20:20), is similar to the prophet Isaiah’s appeal to Ahaz (Isaiah 7:9). The thought may be paraphrased. Trust in the Lord your God, and you will find him trustworthy. There is in the exhortation a call to commitment. The trustworthiness of the Lord cannot be known until one begins to make decisions on the basis of his promises, staking wealth and welfare on the outcome—just as it is impossible to know certainly that a chair will bear one’s weight without actually sitting on it. (McConville, I & II Chronicles (The Daily Study Bible Series), 195)

As David had done in preparing the ark of the covenant (I Chronicles 13:1), the monarch collaborates rather than dictates. Sara Japhet (b. 1934) comments:

The Chronicler’s familiar ‘democratizing’ tendency...with its constant reference to the active participation of the people...is epitomized, with the king actually taking counsel with the people in a matter of military tactics, or cultic activity, ordinarily defined as a kingly prerogative. After having been made his full partners in his initiative and responsibility, his subjects will deservedly share the reward of victory. (Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 797)

The people collectively resolve to praise God while entering battle.

When he [Jehoshaphat] had consulted with the people, he appointed those who sang to the Lord and those who praised Him in holy attire, as they went out before the army and said, “Give thanks to the Lord, for His lovingkindness is everlasting.” (II Chronicles 20:21 NASB)

Jehoshaphat appoints a choir to lead the nation onto the battlefield. Frederick J. Mabie (b. 1965) surmises:

The men appointed by Jehoshaphat to lead singing to God and praise for the “splendor of his holiness” (II Chronicles 20:21) are presumably Levites (on the musical service of Levites, cf. I Chronicles 6:31-48, 23:2-32, 25:1-7). Going to battle in song is found in several key battles of faith in the Old Testament and seems to underscore an especially intentional focus on God and his strength (cf. Joshua 6:1-21; II Chronicles 13:3-20). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b.1947], 1 Chronicles–Job (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 245)

Singing en route to battle is not entirely unique in the annals of the Old Testament (Joshua 6:4-20; Judges 7:18-20; II Chronicles 13:12; Psalm 47:5) and the story also has extra-biblical parallels. Kenneth C. Way (b. 1975) compares:

This account shares interesting similarities to the Old Aramaic memorial stela of Zakkur (The Context of Scripture 2.35:155), king of Hamath, who also faced a coalition of enemy nations, cried out to his god, and received a similar divine response by means of cultic personnel...The date of the events in II Chronicles 20 is difficult to determine, but an early setting in Jehoshaphat’s reign seems likely. References to the “terror of God” being upon Judah’s enemies and to Judah enjoying a period of peace both occur at the end of this episode and in a passage describing the early events of Jehoshaphat’s reign (II Chronicles 17:10, 20:29-30) (see Gary N. Knoppers [b. 1956] 1991, 518). Furthermore, the mention of the “new court” of the temple (II Chronicles 20:5) may hint that the repairs made by his father, Asa, were relatively recent II Chronicles 15:8]. (Bill T. Arnold [b. 1955] and H.G.M. Williamson [b. 1947], Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, 532-33)

In the midst of crisis, the nation sings the opening line to the 136th Psalm (II Chronicles 20:21; Psalm 136:1), a recurring refrain in Chronicles (I Chronicles 16:34; II Chronicles 5:13, 7:3, 20:21). Martin J. Selman (1947-2004) chronicles:

Both the form and content of this song of praise are based on the use of psalms in temple worship. The appointed ‘musicians’...were Levites (cf. I Chronicles 6:31-32, 25:1-31), their song was taken from Chronicles’ favorite psalm (Psalm 136:1; cf. I Chronicles 16:34; II Chronicles 5:13, 7:3) and the phrase the splendour of his holiness...is found elsewhere only in the Psalms (Psalm 29:2, 96:9; I Chronicles 16:29). The outstanding feature, however, is that as they began to sing and praise (II Chronicles 20:22), the Lord started the battle. There can be no clearer indication that this was neither an ordinary battle nor a traditional holy war, but Yahweh’s war in which he acted on his own. In that sense, it anticipates Jesus’ victory on the cross, though that was accompanied by silence rather than singing. (Selman, 2 Chronicles (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 428)

The battle becomes an opportunity for worship. Winfried Corduan (b. 1949) comments:

The same spirit of praise continued as Jehoshaphat and his army set out for the Judean desert the next morning. As the troops left Jerusalem, the king turned the military mission into a “singspiration.” He reassured everyone of God’s promise and appointed song leaders to lead the soldiers in praise choruses. Soon everyone joined in the familiar tune, Give thanks to the LORD, for his love endures forever. This anthem was associated with the occasions when David and then Solomon moved the ark of the covenant (I Chronicles 16:41; II Chronicles 5:13). God was on the march again! (Corduan, I & II Chronicles (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 277)

Steven S. Tuell (b. 1956) determines:

The advance of Jehoshaphat’s host is more a liturgical procession than a military maneuver. (Tuell, First and Second Chronicles (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 183)

Andrew E. Hill (b. 1952) agrees:

H.G.M. Williamson [b. 1947], almost humorously, has commented that the battle cry has been replaced by the Levitical chorale. The report of an army going into battle singing the praises of God is unique in the Bible, although music accompanies the appearance of the divine warrior when he executes judgment on the earth (Psalm 47, 96, 98). The event gives new meaning to the psalmist’s declaration that God’s “pleasure is not in the strength of the horse, not his delight in the legs of a man; the LORD delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love” (Psalm 147:10-11). (Hill, 1 and 2 Chronicles (The NIV Application Commentary), 491)

The nation of Judah praises God before victory has been secured. John C. Endres (b. 1946) remarks:

Levites arise to praise God with a very loud voice, which they are appointed to do, but here it seems premature, for the victory is still in the future. Jehoshaphat then rises and delivers a speech that sounds like a sermon. Believe God and you will be set firm (II Chronicles 20:20)...The Chronicler gives a theological commentary on this event: Jehoshaphat faces a test of faith, just as Ahaz faced a test of faith when Isaiah uttered the word to him. (Endres, First and Second Chronicles (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), 103)

Jehoshaphat passes the test. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) favorably contrasts Jehoshaphat with his father, Asa:

When attacked by King Baasha of Israel, Asa goes the alliance route, and as a result is chided by a prophet (II Chronicles 16:7-8). Asa’s sad story is one of a shift from trust in God to trust in human power, and the tragic consequences that befall...The opposite of Asa’s latter strategy is that of Jehoshaphat when he is attacked by a military coalition (II Chronicles 20:1-30). The text records absolutely no military response by Jehoshaphat and his soldiers. Instead, they engage in liturgical acts like singing and praying, and Yahweh defeats the enemy (“As they began to sing and praise, the Lord set to ambush against the Ammonites...so that they were routed” [II Chronicles 20:22]). Philip R. Davies [b. 1945] (1992: 45) captures well the scene here: “If your cause is just and you are faithful to your deity (and if that deity is YHWH), you will not need an army to protect you. Spend your defense budget on hymnbooks and musical training for your brass band! The only army you need is the Salvation Army.” (Hamilton, Handbook on the Historical Books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther , 492-93)

Jehoshaphat responds to the disastrous events with a sign of trust and his faith is rewarded. As the Lord had promised, Judah never even engages in battle. The tenuous alliance disbands as the opposition turns on one another (II Chronicles 20:22-25).

Andrew E. Hill (b. 1952) explains:

Whether God terrifies the coalition armies with the appearance of his heavenly army (as in II Samuel 5:24; II Kings 7:5-7) or sends a spirit of confusion and mistrust among the allies (as in Judges 7:22; II Kings 3:23) is unclear. What is clear is that God stirs the Transjordan armies into a spirit of frenzied self-destruction (II Chronicles 20:22-23). First, the armies of Moab and Ammon slaughter the soldiers from Seir, perhaps out of distrust (II Chronicles 20:23a). Then the Moabites and the Ammonites destroy each other so that no one escapes (II Chronicles 20:23b-24a). (Hill, 1 and 2 Chronicles (The NIV Application Commentary), 492)

Through some undisclosed mechanism God delivers Judah and the conflict is remembered as one of Jehoshaphat’s greatest triumphs.

Regardless of what had happened in the battle, in choosing to praise God, Jehosphapat has already scored a far more important victory: His faith has been demonstrated. What begins as an invasion story evolves into a classic story of faith.

Why does Jehoshaphat dismiss military strategy in favor of divine consultation? What leaders are you familiar with who have prayed publicly when facing a national crisis? What armies have gone into battle singing? Is there ever an inappropriate time to worship? Did the singing in any way trigger the discord between Judah’s adversaries? When have you not had to fight a seemingly inevitable battle? Do you truly believe that God is for you? When have you praised God before victory has been secured?

While most contemporary believers will not be surrounded by armies from multiple nations, Jehoshaphat sets a precedent. Worship is a proper response in the face of crisis and worshiping God can be done in the midst of catastrophe.

Neil T. Anderson (b. 1942) and Rich Miller (b. 1954) apply:

In response to the word of God, all the people worshiped God (II Chronicles 20:18). Worship became their battle plan to defeat the enemy. “And when he [Jehoshaphat] had consulted with the people, he appointed those who sang to the LORD and those who praised Him in holy attire, as they went out before the army and said, “Give thanks to the LORD, for His lovingkindness is everlasting.’ And when they began singing and praising, the LORD set ambushes against the sons of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, who had come against Judah so they were routed” (II Chronicles 20:21-22)...Worship brings to our minds the awareness of God’s presence and fear flees! When the first hint of fear or anxiety comes into your mind, worship God. (Anderson and Miller, Freedom from Fear: Overcoming Worry and Anxiety, 274)

Worship reminds us that we are never alone. This is especially beneficial at times when we feel abandoned. Creflo A. Dollar (b. 1962) advises:

When you are faced with a life-and-death crisis, the most important thing you can remind yourself is that God’s mercy endures forever. It will stir your faith. It will move to tap in to the power of praise. (Dollar, In the Presence of God: Find Answers to the Challenges of Life)

Worship makes us keenly aware of God’s presence. Anthony De Mello (1931-1987) connects:

When we praise God for his goodness and for the good things he has given to us and to others, our hearts become lightsome and joyous...There are few forms of prayer so effective for giving you the sense that you are loved by God, or for lifting depressed spirits and overcoming temptation. Psalm 8 says, “You have established praise to destroy the enemy and avenger [Psalm 8:2],” and it was the custom among the Jews to march out into battle singing praises to the Lord. This was considered a mighty weapon for defeating the foe. (De Mello, Contact with God, 116)

Though often neglected, praising God is a useful tactic when facing trials.

How do you respond to adversity? Do you turn toward God or away from God? Do you blame or praise? How do you enter into battle?

“This is not the time to panic, this is the time to praise!” - Cynthia A. Patterson (b. 1964), It Had to Happen: Understanding that Everything You Go Through in Life is for God’s Purpose

Trusting Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2)

In what city was Phoebe a deaconess? Cenchreae (Romans 16:1)

Paul’s longest and most influential letter is the Epistle to the Romans. After communicating doctrine throughout the book’s first fifteen chapters (Romans 1:1-15:21), the letter concludes with customary salutations (Romans 16:1-27), equivalent to modern “shout outs”. This section incorporates 26 names representing a hodgepodge of people; Paul greets Jews and Gentiles, men and women alike. The chapter is so thorough that some have posited that it constitutes a self contained letter.

The most extensive salutation is devoted to endorsing Paul’s associate, Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2).

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well. (Romans 16:1-2 NASB)

This passage is a letter of recommendation. Letters of introduction, known as sustatikai epistolai, were common in the ancient world (Acts 18:27; II Corinthians 3:1, 4:2, 5:12, 10:12; III John 1:9-10; I Maccabees 12:43; II Maccabees 9:25). These affirmations were important as the ancient traveler had to rely on networking in an age where communication was far scarcer and slower than in modern times.

Paul’s endorsement features standard form and content. Efrain Agosto (b. 1955) outlines:

Romans 16:1-2 includes some typical terms from Greco-Roman commendation letter-writing: συνίστημι, synistēmi (“commend”); προσδέχεσθε, prosdechesthe (“receive”); and παραστητε, parastēte (“assist” or “help”). Paul clearly states Phoebe’s credentials for commendation. She is a “sister,” a διάκονος, diakonos (“servant”), someone “worthy [ἀξίως, axiōs]of the saints,” and a προστάτις, prostatis. Except for the final term, Paul uses language found elsewhere in his letters, including commendation passages (cf. “service [διάκονια, diakonia] to the saints,” I Corinthians 16:15; “receive [προσδέχεσθε, prosdechesthe] him in the Lord,” Philippians 2:29). Finally, the action Paul requests from the Roman churches on Phoebe’s behalf is ambiguous. She is to be welcomed and assisted in whatever she needs. Such ambiguity is also typical of Greco-Roman commendation letters. (J. Paul Sampley [b. 1935], Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, 123)

Paul does add weight to the common formula. Arland J. Hultgren (b. 1939) explains:

Paul’s commendation has a fourfold structure, in which he (1) identifies Phoebe by name; (2) mentions her credentials (a sister and deacon); (3) expresses a desired action from his readers (to receive her and to assist her); and (4) adds further credentials (calling her a benefactor of many and of Paul). Typically the first three items (identification, credentials, and desired action) appear in Pauline commendations. But in this case Paul adds an additional statement concerning Phoebe’s credentials. That is especially appropriate in this instance, since it sets up reciprocity. Paul asks that the Roman Christians receive Phoebe and assist her, for she has assisted others, including Paul himself. (Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, 569)

Despite employing routine form and content, this unit and Phoebe herself have come under much scrutiny. The mystery surrounding Phoebe’s role has perplexed scholars attempting to reconstruct the flow chart of the early church. The enigma surrounding Phoebe has projected her into the debate regarding what ministerial activities she and other women are authorized to perform and has made her a highly controversial figure.

Though her name was common, Phoebe is mentioned only here in the New Testament (Romans 16:1-2). She is otherwise unknown. Her name means “bright” or “radiant”. It is the feminine form of Phoebus (φοἰβος), a famous epithet given to the god Apollo, “the Bright One”.

Slaves were routinely issued pagan names because figures from Greek mythology commonly substituted for the godfather during the naming process. When slaves became Christian they typically retained their pagan names if not their meaning. In view of this practice, some have speculated that Phoebe is a freedwoman.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) theorizes:

The name Phoibē suggests her pagan background and probably connotes her status as a freed slave (so Heinrich Schlier [1900-1978], Römberbrief 441). The name was of mythological origin, that of a Titaness, daughter of Heaven and Earth (Hesiod, Theognis 136), wife of Coeus, and mother of Leto, grandmother of Apollo (Phoebus) and Artemis. The name means “shining, beaming, bright”; it was commonly used in the Greco-Roman world of the time. (Fitzmyer, Romans (The Anchor Bible), 729)

At the very least, it can be inferred that Phoebe is a Gentile as a Jewess would not have used such a name.

Phoebe is referenced with no mention of a father, husband or sons. Paul ignores all other biographical data and emphasizes her role in the church at Cenchreae. Cenchreae was a port situated on the Saronic Gulf, on the southeastern side of the narrow isthmus that connects southern Achaia to northern Achaia (and Macedonia further north). This locale would provide plenty of opportunity for the practical expression of Christian compassion (Romans 16:2).

Located eight miles from the city, Cenchreae served as Corinth’s eastern port to the Aegean Sea; one of two Corinthian ports. The reference to Cenchreae supports the common belief that Romans is written at Corinth (Romans 16:1). Paul spent eighteen months in Corinth (Acts 18:1-18) and the apostle sailed from Cenchreae in traveling from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts 18:18). In all likelihood, Phoebe was well known in Corinth.

In his glowing recommendation, Paul asserts that Phoebe is a sister, a deacon/servant, a saint, and a helper (Romans 16:1-2). In describing her as “our sister” and “saint”, Paul informs that she is a fellow believer and appeals to their common bond: Christ. Early Christians commonly referred to women believers with the familial appellation “sister” (I Corinthians 7:15, 9:5; Philemon 1:2; James 2:15; Ignatius Epistle to Polycarp 5.1; II Clement 12:5, 19:1, 20:2; The Shepherd of Hermas Vision 2.2.3, 2.3.1).

Paul evokes Phoebe’s status as a diakonos, a shadowy term with a broad range of meaning. Paul uses the same designation earlier in the letter (Romans 13:4 twice). The intent of this term has sparked much discussion. The question is whether the word indicates a general use (“servant”) or the ecclesiastical office of “deacon”, albeit an undeveloped form of this position.

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) assesses:

Paul uses the language of “service” (diakonia) in a variety of ways, as we might expect for a term so broad in its possible applications. In this letter, he uses it for his own ministry of preaching (Romans 11:13), his collection for the saints in Jerusalem (Romans 15:31) and for the work of Phoebe (Romans 16:1). A separate ministry of “deacons” appears in I Timothy 3:8, 12, but the “gift of service” may extend beyond that office (see I Corinthians 16:15; II Corinthians 8:4, 9:1; Ephesians 4:12). (Johnson, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 193)

Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) adds:

He uses the same word he employs regularly to describe both himself and others as servants of God (II Corinthians 6:4), servants of the gospel (Ephesians 3:7; Colossians 1:23), servants of a new covenant (II Corinthians 3:6), servants in the Lord (Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7), and servants of Christ (Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7; I Timothy 4:6). Only here in Romans 16:1 do we find anyone described as ‘a deacon of the church’, and this appears to be the earliest reference to such a ministry in ‘the church’. In Colossians 1:24-25 Paul does speak of the body of Christ, the church, of which he became a ‘servant’. All this suggests that the apostle recognized Phoebe as a servant of the church similar to his other colleagues and himself. (Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 553)

The diverging opinions on the term’s purpose are evidenced by the variance among translations. Many opt for the general meaning, “servant” (ASV, CEB, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV) as it used of servants drawing water (John 2:5, 9). Others go with the more formal title, “deacon” (NIV, NLT, NRSV) or “deaconess” (AMP, RSV). Still other translations utilize broader designations like “leader” (CEV) or “key representative” (MSG).

Deacon was one of the first offices to emerge in the early Christian movement (Philippians 1:1; I Timothy 3:8; Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians 2.1, Epistle to the Magnesians 6.1). Today, it is a loaded term as “Deacon” means different things depending on the denomination or person speaking. Paul’s casual use of the word shows that it has not yet developed the baggage it carries today.

Translations often demonstrate their bias in their rendering of Romans 16:1. Sojung Yoon exposes:

Διάκονος appears a total of nineteen times in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline letters. Sixteen times the KJV and ASV translate it as “minister,” while in Philippians 1:1 and I Timothy 3:8,12 they translate it as “deacon.” and in Romans 16:1 as “servant.” Therefore one can say that the KJV and ASV imply that διάκονος refers to an official position within the church, since normally they translate it as “minister.” Only in Romans 16:1 do they translate διάκονος as “servant,” thus implying that Phoebe was not a leader in the church but a devoted lay person. The RSV translates διάκονος as “deaconness,” also differentiating Phoebe’s leadership from other male διάκονοι by making the masculine noun διάκονος feminine, a distinction not found in the Greek. (Holly E. Hearon[b. 1956], Distant Voices Drawing Near: Essays in Honor of Antoinette Clark Wire [b. 1934], 20)

Alvin J. Schmidt (b. 1932) chronicles:

Phoebe...was a diakonos, not “deaconess” as male theologians have mistranslated this work in many Bible versions. (The feminine form of diakonos) did not appear in literature until about 300 years after St. Paul addresses Phoebe in the Epistle to the Romans. The Apostolic Constitutions [a Syriac document of about A.D. 375] is the first known Christian writing to use the feminine form of diakonos). The word diakonos appears many times in the New Testament. In the King James Version (KJV) it is most often translated as “minister” when it speaks about a man holding this office. Three times the KJV translates the word as “deacon.” Only in one place does it use the word servant, and that occurs in Romans 16:1, where Phoebe in mentioned...Evidently, beginning with the KJV, English translators were overwhelmed by sexist values because the Miles Coverdale [1488-1569] edition, about seventy years earlier (1535), still translated diakonos in Romans 16:1 as “minister.” Closer to our time, the Revised Standard Version renders diakonos as “deaconess.” while the New International Version, like the KJV, has “servant.” (Schmidt, Veiled and Silenced: How Culture Shaped Sexist Theology, 180)

As Yoon and Schmidt allude, “deaconess” is an especially incorrect translation (AMP, RSV, J.B. Phillips [1906-1982]). Kristina LaCelle-Peterson (b. 1960) corrects:

The fact that Paul used the masculine nominative form of the word suggests that she held a particular recognized role of “deacon” or “servant” that carried the same responsibilities as when a man held that role. If Paul is not referring to a specific office that Phoebe held, we have to assume that he simply confused the endings, but that would be like using the wrong gendered pronoun (as in, Phoebe had his mission to fulfill). No educated person would do that, particularly not someone as articulate as Paul. When an English translation renders the word as deaconess it leaves the inaccurate impression that Paul is drawing a distinction of roles based on gender. (Fortunately this is less common in more recent translations.) (LaCelle-Peterson, Liberating Tradition: Women’s Identity and Vocation in Christian Perspective, 62)

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

In a church context the word should be rendered ‘deacon’, whether masculine or feminine. That the duties of a deacon could be performed by either men or women is suggested by I Timothy 3:11, where ‘the women’ are to be understood as ‘deacons’ (like the men of I Timothy 3:3-10). (Bruce, Romans (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 252)

Scholarly opinion is as divided as the translators regarding the meaning of diakonos. Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) surveys:

She is a “deacon”...of the church in Cenchrea, which could refer to a general service to the church (NIV; NASB; Kazimierz Romaniuk [b. 1927] 1990:132-34) or an official office in the church (NRSV; REB; NLTL; C.E.B. Cranfield [b. 1915] 1979; James D.G. Dunn [b. 1939] 1988b; Leon Morris [1914-2006] 1988; Douglas J. Moo [b. 1950] 1996; Thomas R. Schreiner [b. 1954] 1998). Most accept the latter, for the term referred to that office (Philippians 1:1; I Timothy 3:8, 12), and women at times did hold the office (I Timothy 3:11). Moreover, this is the masculine noun (diakonos), and if it did indicate a general “serving,” one would have expected the feminine diakonia. In fact some have concluded that she was the pastor of the congregation (Elizabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza [b. 1938] 1986:425-26; Robert Jewett 1988:148-50), but there is too little evidence that this term was used of the position of pastor over “overseer” in the first century. Most likely she held the office of “deacon,” but there is little evidence regarding what this office entailed...Most likely deacons dealt with the practical needs of the church, for example, caring for the needy...and financial oversight. (Osborne, Romans (IVP New Testament Commentary), 402-3)

The debate is not new, it has persisted for centuries. Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) documents:

Some early church fathers believed that she fulfilled an official role. Origen [184-253] said: ‘This passage teaches that there were women ordained in the church’s ministry by the apostle’s authority...Not only that — they ought to be ordained into the ministry, because they helped in many ways and by their good services deserved the praise even of the apostle’. Pelagius [354-420] said, ‘Even today, women deaconesses in the East are known to minister to their own sex in baptism or even in the ministry of the Word, for we find that women taught privately, e.g., Priscilla, whose husband was called Aquila.’ Some recent commentators agree. (Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 553-54)

The majority of scholars assert that Phoebe served in some official capacity. Many have concluded that since Paul’s qualification “of the church” (Romans 16:1) connects diakonos to a specific church it also indicates a specific office. This is the first time “church” is used in Romans and in this epistle it always speaks of a local, not the universal, church (Romans 16:1, 4, 5, 16, 23).

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

It is perhaps just conceivable that the word διάκονος should be understood here as a quite general reference to her service of the congregation; but it is very much more natural, particularly in view of the way in which Paul formulates his thought...to understand it as referring to a definite office. We regard it as virtually certain that Phoebe is being described as ‘a (or possibly ‘the’) deacon’ of the church in question, and that this occurrence of διάκονος is to be classified with its occurrences in Philippians 1:1 and I Timothy 3:8, 12. And, while it is true that the functions of a διάκονος are not expressly indicated in Philippians 1:1 or in I Timothy 3:8ff or in the present two verses, there is nothing in any of these passages in any way inconsonant with the inherent probability that a specialized use of διάκονος in New Testament times will have corresponded to the clearly attested specialized use of διακονειν and διακονία with reference to the practical service of the needy, and there are some features, for example, what is said about Phoebe in Romans 16:2b, which would seem to afford it some support. (Cranfield, Romans 9-16 (International Critical Commentary), 781)

David L. Bartlett (b. 1941) argues that Phoebe is best described as a “minister”:

Phoebe...is designated as a diakonos. This Greek word often means “minister,” even as Paul applies it to himself (see, for instance, I Corinthians 3:5; II Corinthians 3:6, 6:4, 11:23). Clearly Phoebe has a role of some importance in the early community, and “minister” is probably a better translation than “deacon.” Sometimes a “minister,” or diakonos, is a person who carries out a commission from another. (In II Corinthians 11:15, Paul refers to false apostles as “deacons” or “emissaries” from Satan.) Phoebe may be Christ’s emissary in the church at Cenchreae, as Paul has been Christ’s emissary in Corinth. In Philippians 1:1, “deacons” are apparently local church leaders, though they may not yet be officers in any institutionalized way. Older translations sometimes called Phoebe a “deaconess,” but the Greek word gives not reason to think that she has a leadership role reserved for women. She is a “deacon” or “minister.” (Bartlett, Romans (Westminster Bible Companion), 140)

James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) states unequivocally, “Phoebe is the first recorded ‘deacon’ in the history of Christianity (Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Word Biblical Commentary), 887).”

If Dunn is correct, there is still great discussion as to what a deacon’s duties entailed. Women holding the office were known to conduct baptisms for women and to preach. The degree to which the term designated an actual office at the time Paul wrote Romans is also unclear.

It is for this reason that many, even those who object to women in ministry, have no problem conceding that Phoebe served as a deacon. Wayne Grudem (b. 1948) explains:

It does not matter very much...whether Phoebe is called a faithful “servant” or a “deacon” in Romans 16:1. In neither case does this passage show that she had any teaching or governing authority in the church. Teaching and governing the whole church are functions given to “elders,” not deacons, in the New Testament (see I Timothy 3:2, 5, 5:17; Titus 1:9; also Acts 20:17, 28). (Grudem, Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism: Biblical Responses to the Key Questions, 154-55)

The word translated “helper” is as contested as “deacon” (Romans 16:2 NASB). It is prostatis, which literally means someone who stands in front of something else. The word is translated variously “been helpful” (NLT), “helper” (ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV), “she’s helped” (MSG), “succourer” (KJV), “benefactor” (HCSB, NIV, NRSV), “patron” (ESV) and “respected leader” (CEV). The terminology represents distinguished service. The word connotes great honor. The Roman emperor even boasted that he was the state’s supreme benefactor.

Douglas J. Moo (b. 1950) defines:

The Greek word prostatis is found only here in biblical Greek. It comes from a verb that means (1) “care for, give aid to,” or (2) “direct, preside over.” If Paul is applying to the noun this first meaning of the verb, he would simply be characterizing Phoebe as a “helper” of many Christians...But if we use the meaning of the cognate verb to define prostatis, Pauline usage would favor a different rendering. For Paul seems to use the verb only to mean “direct,” “preside over.” Noting this, some recent scholars have argued that Paul intends to characterize Phoebe as a “leader” of the church. But it is difficult to conceive how Phoebe would have had the opportunity to be a “leader” of Paul. Moreover, the fact, that Paul designates her as the leader “of many” rather than as the leader of “the church” (contrast Romans 16:1) suggests that the term here does not denote an official or even semi-official, position in the local church. The best alternative, then, is to give to prostatis the meaning that if often has in secular Greek: “patron,” “benefactor.” A “patron was one who came to the aid of others, especially foreigners, by providing housing and financial aid and by representing their interests before local authorities. Cenchreae’s status as a busy seaport would make it imperative that a Christian in its church take up this ministry on behalf of visiting Christians. Phoebe, then, was probably a woman of high social standing and some wealth, who put her status, resources, and time at the services of traveling Christians, like Paul, who needed help and support. (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 915-16)

Leander E. Keck (b. 1928) concurs:

The word here surely means more than “a good friend” (REB), for it appears to be the Greek equivalent of the Latin patrona, one who “came to the aid of others, especially foreigners, by providing housing and financial aid and by representing their interests before local authorities”...Acts 16:14-15, 40 suggests that Lydia served as Paul’s patron in Philippi. Phoebe, then, was a “benefactor,” from whose generosity Paul too benefitted (Gaius was another; Romans 16:23). Like Lydia and Gaius, Phoebe had financial resources; what sort of business took her to Rome is not indicated. By making her role in the church a reason to welcome her in Rome, Paul, in effect, says, “She deserves it.” Having assisted travelers like Paul, she would now be given assistance herself. (Keck, Romans (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 369-370)

Some have seen Paul’s use of prostatis as further evidence of a position of leadership. The word is derived from the same root (proistemi) as the word Paul uses for “leads” in Romans 12:8.

Alan F. Johnson (b. 1933) glosses:

The word “help” (Greek prostatis) in Romans 16:2 is found only here in the New Testament and its sense is not entirely clear...The word is found eight times in the Greek Old Testament (LXX) and thirteen times in the first-century Jewish writer Josephus [37-100], in each of the twenty-one cases with reference to a person who holds a publicly recognized service-oriented leadership role, the word may be stronger than simply a benefactor...Its choice here by Paul seems to clearly affirm that Phoebe has not only some social position, wealth, and independence, but that she is recognized as an official leader in the church as well. (Johnson, Romans (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 259-60)

Thomas R. Schreiner (b. 1954) counters:

That Phoebe is being called a leader here is improbable for three reasons. (1) It is highly improbable that Paul would say that Phoebe held a position of authority over him. He says that about no one except Christ, not even the Jerusalem apostles (Galatians 1:6-7, 11), so confident is he of his high authority as an apostle (cf. I Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:8-9; II Thessalonians 3:14). (2) There seems to be a play on words between the word prostatis and the previous verb paristēmi, in Romans 16:2. Paul says to help (paristēmi) Phoebe because she has been a help ( prostatis) to many, including to Paul himself. It fits the context better understand Paul as saying “help Phoebe because she has been such a help to others and to me.” (3) Although the related masculine noun prostatēs can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun (prostatis) does not take the meaning “leader” but is defined as “protectress, patroness, helper.” (John Piper [b. 1946] and Wayne Grudem [b. 1948], Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, 219-220)

Whatever her official position, Paul’s argument is clear: Phoebe has helped others and deserves any assistance the Roman Christians can provide. She has good kharma. In making this assertion, Paul is diplomatically reiterating his previous charge to contribute “to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality (Romans 12:13 NASB).”

It is uncertain what assistance Phoebe might need. Rudolf Schumacher (b. 1884) was the first to espouse that the language (pragma, Romans 16:2) connotes a lawsuit (Schumacher, Die beiden letzten kapitel des Römerbriefes, 49). While others have adopted this stance, it is far from certain.

Regardless of her gender, position and whatever needs she might have, it can be certain that Phoebe is special and a leading figure in the church at Cenchraea.

Which part of the letter was most important to the Romans, the teaching or the greetings? Is the recommendation of Phoebe an afterthought? When have you received a letter of recommendation? Who vouches for you? Who have you known that fits Phoebe’s description? Who are the leading women in your church? Can women serve as deacons there? In your opinion, what functions should a woman not perform? Is there anything that God cannot accomplish through a woman?

Though it is not stated in the letter, the prevailing opinion is that Phoebe is the bearer of the Epistle to the Romans. (To acknowledge her as courier in the letter might be considered stating the obvious.) The Roman Empire had no public postal system and many believe that she is delivering the correspondence while conducting “whatever business” she is tending to (Romans 16:2). Subscriptions in some ancient manuscripts even indicate as much (337, 424, 1881, Majority text). This theory is also attested in early Christian documents, e.g. Pseudo-Constantius, The Holy Letter of St. Paul to the Romans (on 16:1); dated 405.

Margaret Y. MacDonald (b. 1961) notes:

It was quite common for ancient letters to include praise of their bearers, and sometimes letters were written for the sole purpose of commending their bearers. Paul’s instructions concerning Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2 appear to reflect this conventional practice (cf. I Corinthians 16:15-18). It is impossible to be certain whether this commendation is made only to guarantee that the Romans offer her the best kind of hospitality or whether Paul intends that she might play a specific role in the life of the Roman community. (Ross Shepard Kraemer [b. 1948] and Mary Rose D’Angelo, Women & Christian Origins, 207-208)

Phoebe is accustomed to serving and her toting Paul’s epistle fits her character. A courier would have need of food and lodging and thus her being the bearer of the letter would account for Paul’s instruction to the Romans (Romans 16:2). At the very least, Phoebe and the letter arrive at roughly the same time.

As courier, Phoebe would be expected to interpret the letter and supplement content, filling in the gaps. This would make her the first commentator of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.

Robert J. Karris (b. 1938) describes:

It is highly likely that Phoebe not only carried Paul’s letter to the Romans to the house churches but also read it to them. You see, Phoebe was likely among the five percent of the population who could read. Further, in reading Romans, she surely had to know what it was about. Ancient letters (and manuscripts) did not have spacing, chapters and verses, and subheadings. I give a simple example. Suppose I put a recent headline in capital letters without spacing: FLORIDAKEYDEERREBOUNDS. Without too much effort you read: Florida key deer rebounds. But is “key” an adjective meaning “principal”? Does “key” refer to the Florida Keys? Is “key deer” a technical name for a species of deer? The reader would have to know answers to these questions in order to read this simple sentence out loud meaningfully. Just think of the skill Phoebe must have if she is to navigate successfully through all the elements of scholastic diatribe that Paul used in composing his letter! (Karris, Galatians and Romans (New Collegeville Bible Commentary: New Testament), 94)

Phoebe is Paul’s representative to the leaders of the house churches. In a very real sense, Paul and Phoebe endorse one another. In authenticating her, Paul gives his own work credibility. Paul trusts Phoebe implicitly. Some have speculated that he is sending her to set up operations in Rome and to financially support a mission to Spain (Romans 15:24, 28). More importantly, Paul entrusts Phoebe with his opus, his most complete work. Its survival is evidence of her success.

Brendan Byrne (b. 1939) praises:

Brief though it is, Paul’s commendation of Phoebe is an important indication of the leadership roles exercised by women in the early Christian communities. It is also not without significance that the document many have judged to be the most influential in Christian history (Paul’s letter to Rome) was entrusted to this woman on the long and risky journey to its destination, its ultimate reception very much dependent upon the impression she herself was to make on the recipient community. (Byrne, Romans (Sacra Pagina), 448)

Phoebe is entrusted with nothing less than the gospel. As are we.

Does it matter whether or not Phoebe held an official office? What does having a formal title mean to you? What is the bigger responsibility, being a deacon or bearing the letter to the Romans? What have you been entrusted with?

“This is a staggering fact. God has entrusted to people like us, redeemed sinners, the responsibility of carrying out the divine purpose in history.” - George Eldon Ladd (1911-1982), The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God, p. 134

Peace of Mind (Isaiah 26:3)

Complete: “Thou shalt keep him in perfect peace ____________________________.” Whose mind is stayed on Thee (Isaiah 26:3)

Isaiah 26 includes a comforting song that calls for trust in God for deliverance. Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) specifies:

Usually the unit is divided into two parts, Isaiah 26:1-6 and Isaiah 26:7-21...although different schemes of subdivision have also been suggested. In terms of genre, Isaiah 26:1-6 is classified as a psalm of trust or as a victory song, whereas the last section [Isaiah 26:7-21] is analyzed as a communal complaint. (Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 188)

Unlike much of the material that precedes it, the song deals with Israel’s present situation though scholars debate exactly what crisis is being endured. Hans Wildberger (1910-1986) deciphers:

It has been explained...that the enemy city cannot be identified. There is also virtually nothing in the specific vocabulary that would help to set the piece in any particular epoch; generally it uses the relatively timeless vocabulary of cultic lyric. (Wildberger, Isaiah 13-27: A Continental Commentary, 545)

Proximity to the Babylonian invasion is the usual suspect though it cannot be stated with any certainty. What can be established is that times were not good when the song was penned. Even so, the lyric assures that one can find peace amidst chaos (Isaiah 26:3).

“The steadfast of mind You will keep in perfect peace, Because he trusts in You.” (Isaiah 26:3 NASB)

The song promises “perfect peace” (ASV, CEV, ESV, KJV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, RSV) or being “completely whole” (MSG). The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translates the promise literally “in peace—in peace”. Peace (shalowm, as used in the standard Jewish greeting) is listed twice in succession, “peace, peace”. Unlike English, where this redundancy would represent poor grammar, in Hebrew the repetition indicates accent, like underlining or bolding would in English.

Robert J. Morgan (b. 1952) explains:

The original Hebrew says that God will keep in shâlom, shâlom those whose minds are stayed on Him. The word shâlom means more than a cessation of conflict. It conveys the idea of wholeness, quietness of spirit, safety, blessing, happiness of heart. The double use of the word multiplies its intensity. (Morgan, 100 Bible Verses Everyone Should Know by Heart, 98)

This doublet is the rationale for the translation “perfect” or “complete” peace. In regards to the other prominent noun in the text, John N. Oswalt (b. 1940) writes:

“mind,” comes from the root idea “to form.” Thus as a noun it frequently refers to that which is formed (Isaiah 29:16; Psalm 103:14; Habakkuk 2:18), often thoughts, purposes, or intentions (cf. Genesis 6:5, 8:21; Deuteronomy 31:21; I Chronicles 28:9, 29:18). As reflected in the present translation, the Hebrew seems to place “the steadfast mind” in an emphatic position in an independent clause at the beginning of the sentence. (Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 468)

Gary V. Smith (b. 1943) clarifies:

The song confidently states that certain people will have perfect peace. Two factors characterize these people...they have a “frame of mind, perspective, constitution” (yēser) that is “steadfast” (sāmak), which implies an undeviating commitment to a purpose, conviction, or person. The root meaning of the translation “steadfast” is “to support” but the Hebrew passive participle carries the idea of “leaning on, depending on, resting on” something...Thus the prophet confidently confesses that the people who have a “despondent perspective” (as opposed to a proud self-confident demeanor) will have complete peace because they trust in God. (Smith, The New American Commentary: Isaiah 1-39, Vol. 15A, 442)

Where do you find comfort in times of peril? When times are bad, do you lean on God? If one is not in perfect peace does it imply that her mind is not fixed upon the divine? How often is your mind focused on God?

Isaiah does not promise that strife will not come, only that one can find peace amidst it. Terry Briley (b. 1956) summarizes:

The song stresses confidence in God as the one who strengthens his people and enables them to accomplish his purpose for them. This confidence does not deny the difficulties and frustrations along the way, but it does encourage the faithful to wait patiently for God. (Briley, Isaiah, Volume 1 (College Press NIV Commentary), 243)

As noted, there is no specific context for this song, making its message all the more timeless. It assures that faith in God is the way to peace. There is always hope for internal peace even amidst the most challenging of trials.

In fact, peace is listed among the “fruits of the Spirit”, Paul’s catalog of nine tangible attributes that characterize the Christian life (Galatians 5:22-23).

Does peace come from an external or internal source? Have you experienced the perfect peace of which Isaiah spoke? Are you experiencing it now?

“We are not at peace with others because we are not at peace with ourselves, and we are not at peace with ourselves because we are not at peace with God.” - Thomas Merton (1915-1968)

Citizen Paul: Trusting The System (Acts 24:7)

What was the chief captain’s name who rescued Paul from the mob in Jerusalem? Lysias (Acts 24:7)

When Paul’s nephew learned of an assassination plot on his uncle’s life, he immediately alerted the imprisoned apostle (Acts 23:12-16). In turn, Paul sent the lad to Lysias, the commander responsible for him (Acts 23:17-19, 26). Lysias acted swiftly and went to great lengths to ensure his prisoner’s safety (Acts 23:22-35). At Paul’s trial the prosecutor, Tertullus, lamented:

But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him [Paul] out of our hands, ordering his accusers to come before you. By examining him yourself concerning all these matters you will be able to ascertain the things of which we accuse him.” (Acts 24:7-8 NASB)

Lysias ensured that Paul received due process of law.

While Lysias was certainly largely responsible for Paul’s safe arrival to his trial, Tertullus’ implicating of Lysias does not appear in all of the early manuscripts. J. Bradley Chance (b. 1954) explains, “The so-called Western text of Acts adds the following after ‘and we seized him’ (Acts 23:6): ‘and we would have judged him according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came and with great violence took him out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come before you.’ It is not readily explainable why later copyists would have struck these words had they been a part of the original text of Acts (Chance, Acts (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 445).”

Outside of his intervening on Paul’s behalf, Lysias is unknown in the Bible. The text does inform that he was also referred to as Claudius Lysias (Acts 23:26). I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) speculates:

Claudius will be the Roman name which he adopted when he became a citizen, and was probably chosen because it was the reigning emperor’s name. Lysias will then be his original Greek name, which became his cognomen on his assumption of Roman citizenship; it may indicate that he came from the Greek-speaking coastal area of Samaria. (Marshall, Acts (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 371)

Lysias was a man of authority, a chilarchos, a position translations variously interpret as “commander” (CEV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT), “tribune” (ESV, NRSV, RSV), “chief captain” (ASV, KJV) or “captain” (MSG).

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) describes:

The chiliarchos (“leader of a thousand”) is the head of a “Cohort” (speira) which ideally consisted of a thousand soldiers, though the numbers in reality could vary. Since this unit could muster two centurions and some four hundred and seventy soldiers as an escort for Paul’s journey to Caesarea (Acts 23:23), it must have been at full strength. (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 382)

Despite being relatively high on the chain of command, in the Bible, Lysias is a middle man. He intercedes on Paul’s behalf by writing a letter to his superior, governor Felix (Acts 23:26-30).

Has anyone ever written a letter of recommendation on your behalf? Who has interceded for you? Why does Lysias go to such great lengths to aid a prisoner? Lysias could not afford to lose a prisoner, but especially not one of Paul’s social standing. Most commentators concur that Lysias acted as he did in part due to social convention, namely that Paul was born a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37, 38, 22:25, 26, 27, 29, 23:27). Lysias himself admits that the turning point in his attitude toward Paul came when he learned that the prisoner was a citizen (Acts 23:27).

Not only was Paul a Roman citizen, but a lifelong one; an important factor in the relationship between jailer and prisoner. Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) notes: “Since it was customary to take the name of the emperor in whose reign citizenship was acquired, the tribune’s name, Claudius Lysias (Acts 23:26), may suggest the time of his purchase, namely, during Claudius’s reign (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 194).” As Claudius was a contemporary ruler, Lysias’ citizenship was likely a relatively new development.

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) speculates,

That Paul was a Roman citizen by birth...threatened great damage to Claudius Lysias’ person and career...a severe breach of social convention would have been involved if a more “honorable” Roman citizen had been mistreated by one who had merely bought his citizenship...Probably Lysias had worked his way up through the military ranks but would have been barred from the rank of tribune because he was not already a citizen of equestrian rank. He solved this problem through a bribe. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 681.)

In short, most believe that Lysias aided Paul in deference to his higher social status. If this is the case, not much has changed in two thousand years.

Throughout the plot to ambush him, Paul trusted the government and in fact, worked the system for passage to Rome. When the conspirator’s plot reached him, the apostle trusted his captors to do the right thing. This seems consistent with Paul’s public stance on the Christian’s relationship to the government (Romans 13:1-7).

Paul lived by the system and he would eventually die by the system as well. Tradition asserts that Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero at Tre Fontane Abbey.

Have you ever changed your attitude towards someone based upon acquiring a new piece of information about them? Do you trust the system to work for you? Should you? Would Paul have trusted the government as much had he not been a Roman citizen? For Paul, was trusting the government an extension of trust in God?

“The trust of the people in the leaders reflects the confidence of the leaders in the people.” - Paulo Freire (1921-1997), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 169