Trophimus Left Behind (II Timothy 4:20)

Where did Paul leave Trophimus ill? Miletus (II Timothy 4:20)

Traditionally, II Timothy is considered to be Paul’s last letter. In the epistle, the imprisoned apostle corresponds with his protégé, Timothy (II Timothy 1:2), encouraging him to visit as soon as possible (II Timothy 4:9, 21). Timothy’s presence is all the more desired as Paul has been abandoned by his followers, with the exception of Luke (II Timothy 4:11, 16).

Paul concludes his letter with the customary list of his personal concerns (II Timothy 4:9-22), The embattled apostle includes a passing reference to a mutual friend: he has left Trophimus ill in Miletus (II Timothy 4:20).

Erastus remained at Corinth, but Trophimus I left sick at Miletus. (II Timothy 4:20 NASB)

Trophimus was a native of Ephesus (Acts 21:29) and had accompanied the apostle from Greece to Troas (Acts 20:4) and on his final trip to Jerusalem (Acts 21:29). In fact, Trophimus was the indirect cause of Paul’s arrest (Acts 21:29). Scholars have attempted to use Trophimus’ presence and presumed recent illness to retrace the apostle’s footsteps and date the letter, a difficult task which has produced an array of results.

Trophimus is said to be sick. The Greek term used is astheneo, a term with a broad range of meaning translated as either “sick” (ASV, CEV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT) or “ill” (ESV, NRS, RSV). George W. Knight III (b. 1931) diagnoses:

Paul left Trophimus at Miletus because Trophimus was ἀσθενουντα. The verb ἀσθενέω was used generally of the state of being weak. All its New Testament occurrences refer to physical illness (e.g., Matthew 25:39; John 4:46; Philippians 2:26ff; James 5:14). Though Paul on other occasions was the instrument through which individuals were healed (Acts 14:9-10, 19:11-12, 20:10, 28:8-9; cf. II Corinthians 12:12), he did not always heal: On this occasion he left a fellow worker “sick” (cf. II Corinthians 12:7-10). The implication of the verb “I left behind” (ἀπέλιπον) is that Paul was with Trophimus in or near Miletus when Trophimus stopped traveling. (Knight, The Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 477)

The term “sick” is as broad in Greek as it is in English and encompasses the potentiality of Trophimus simply being exhausted. John Wimber (1934-1997) and Kevin Springer (b. 1947) acknowledge:

There is the possibility, based on the Greek word translated in this verse “sick,” that Trophimus had overworked and weakened his body...Indeed, the illnesses...could have been associated with...ministries...In other words, they may have been guilty of what many pastors...do today: abuse of their bodies by disobeying the natural laws of health, which include good exercise, enough sleep, proper eating, recreation, and so on. (Wimber and Springer, Power Healing, 151)

Whatever the nature of his condition, Trophimus is too weakened to continue ministering and is left in Miletus, located on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor. Miletus was situated only 30-35 miles from Trophimus’ home and the church in Ephesus.

Trophimus is out of sight but clearly not out of Paul’s mind. There have been many suggestions as to why Paul includes his friend’s condition in his letter. Some suggest that he is merely informing Timothy of the plight of their mutual friend. Others see an implicit suggestion for Timothy to check on Trophimus.

Paul seldom worked alone and some have seen Paul as using Trophimus’ illness to accentuate why he is lonely – the absence of his team – in an effort to bring Timothy to him quicker.

The apostle is not blaming Trophimus for his desertion. In fact, the teacher can be seen as granting an excused absence. Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) comments:

Six of the apostle’s seven companions are no longer with him. Demas, Cresens, and Titus have abandoned Paul, leaving Luke alone with him...Tychichus has been sent on a mission to Ephesus (II Timothy 4:12). Erastus remained behind in Corinth (II Timothy 4:20), and Trophimus, a sick man, was left behind in Miletus (II Timothy 4:20). The absence of these three is not presented as having contributed to Paul’s solitude. Their absence is the result of the apostle’s own initiative. (Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 278)

Regardless of why Paul makes the reference, Trophimus’ illness is conspicuous. George T. Montague (b. 1929) observes:

That he was sick, and not healed by Paul, is one of the rare mentions of illness in the apostolic workers of the New Testament. Paul himself seems to have suffered from some kind of eye infirmity when he was in Galatia (Galatians 4:15), and the weakness, or “thorn in the flesh,” of II Corinthians 12:7-9 may refer to an illness. It can be consoling to modern ministers to know that early ministers were not supermen or superwomen, but as St. John Chrysostom [347-407] notes, were able to accept God’s plan for them even if this included illness. (Montague, First and Second Timothy, Titus (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture), 208)

Walter L. Liefeld (b. 1927) teases, “It may be significant in connection with Paul’s involvement in miraculous acts, including healing (Acts 14:8-10, 28:7-9) that Trophimus was left ‘sick in Miletus.’ (Liefeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (The NIV Application Commentary), 302)”

Dispensationalists have interpreted Trophimus’ sickness as the end of the age of miracles. John MacArthur (b. 1939) is an exemplar, writing:

It is important to note that Paul made no effort himself to heal Trophimus, who, incidentally, was present at the late-night service in Troas when the apostle miraculously restored to life Eutychus, a young man who went to sleep during the sermon and fell out a window to his death (Acts 20:9-10; cf. Acts 20:4). The sign gifts were coming to an end. There is no evidence that any of the apostles, including Paul, performed miracles of any sort during their later years. As more and more of the New Testament was revealed and made available to the church, God’s Word no longer needed the verification of miracles. (MacArthur, 2 Timothy (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary), 215)

Dispensationalists read too much into the text. The New Testament does not claim that Paul did not try to heal his friend and it certainly makes no claims that the age of miracles is over.

Do miracles still exist? Do you pray for them? Why didn’t Paul heal Trophimus? Does Paul reference Trophimus’ illness for his own benefit or that of his ill friend? Is there sadness or regret in Paul’s tone when writing of Trophimus? Which is worse, Trophimus’ illness or being left by his friend?

It is uncertain what happened to Trophimus. Tradition says that he did not succumb to his illness but rather to beheading at the command of Nero. It is difficult not to sympathize with his plight and wonder about his fate.

E. Frank Tupper (b. 1941) internalizes:

“Trophimus I left in Miletus.” Grace, but not grace enough. Ill, not healed. Ill, perhaps sustained? Ill, and left. Left sick, left behind, left out, left to somebody else, left to himself. Left, not healed. Left, not blessed. Left, not coping? Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus: Abandoned? Abandoned broken? Abandoned bereft? Abandoned to whomever and whatever and whenever? We do not know. II Timothy 4:20 is only a fragment, a story untold, a story no one knows...It is a story...of providence that we would like to know. We, too, are fragments in the correspondence of others. (Tupper, A Scandalous Providence: The Jesus Story of the Compassion of God, 307-08)

It is interesting that Paul finds himself in the same lonely predicament as Trophimus. We do not know if Timothy ever it made it to see his mentor. Likewise, Jesus, was also abandoned by his followers at the end of his earthly life (Matthew 26:31; Mark 14:27).

Abandonment is a universal human experience. Yet Christians have the assurance that though they may feel abandoned, they are never truly alone. Our predecessors in the faith had the same experience and God is with us just as God was with them.

Why do you think that Paul left Trophimus in Miletus? Have you ever had to leave someone you love when they were ill? What abandoned person can you visit? What can you do for someone who is suffering when you cannot physically be with them? Have you ever felt abandoned? Do you realize that with God, you are not alone?

“I am not so different in my history of abandonment from anyone else after all. We have all been split away from each other, the earth, ourselves.” - Susan Griffin (b. 1943), A Chorus of Stones: The Private Life of War, p. 360

Drinking a Paycheck (Proverbs 23:21)

Who will come to poverty according to Proverbs 23:21? The drunkard and the glutton.

Proverbs 23:19-21 is an earnest appeal from father to son (Proverbs 23:19) admonishing not to associate with drunkards and gluttons (Proverbs 23:20). The father’s rationale is quite practical:

For the heavy drinker and the glutton will come to poverty,
And drowsiness will clothe one with rags. (Proverbs 23:21 NASB)

Midrash argues that a drunkard will eventually sell all of her possessions in the pursuit of wine (Leviticus Rabbah 12:1). This counsel stands in stark contrast to the opinion held by many that excessive comfort food and/or adult beverage relieve stress and lead to happiness.

While the motivation for abstinence or moderation here is pragmatic, elsewhere in Proverbs, drunkenness and gluttony are rejected on moral grounds. Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) notes:

Drunkenness and gluttony are here castigated. Elsewhere the rationale for criticizing getting drunk has to do with clouding one’s ability to think and make decisions. In other words, it disrupts one’s wisdom. The same can apply to overeating, which would lead to lethargic behavior, not the kind of diligent work so frequently encouraged in the book. However, the explicit motive given here against overdrinking and eating is that such overindulgence would lead to poverty. Spending too much money on too much food and too much drink would be foolish, not wise. For other teaching against overdrinking, see Proverbs 20:1, 23:29-35, 31:1-9. (Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 428)

This utilitarian argument for abstaining from excess fits the book’s perspective on poverty. Timothy Keller (b. 1950) acknowledges:

Another cause of poverty, according to the Bible, is what we would call “personal moral failures,” such as indolence (Proverbs 6:6-7) and other problems with self-discipline (Proverbs 23:21). The book of Proverbs is particularly forceful in its insistence that hard work can lead to economic prosperity (Proverbs 12:11, 14:23, 20:13), though there are exceptions (Proverbs 13:23) (Keller, Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just), 34)

Kathleen A. Farmer (b. 1943) summarizes:

The fourteenth “saying” (Proverbs 23:19-21) sees a relationship between overindulgences and poverty, as did several of the Solomonic sentences (e.g. Proverbs 20:12, 21:17). The drunkard, the glutton, and the chronically drowsy will all be clothed in rags, warns the sage. (Farmer, Who Knows What is Good?: A Commentary on the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (International Theological Commentary), 111)

Here, extravagant drinking and eating are to be interpreted as a collective representing the epitome of overindulgence. The father’s message is that leading an extravagant lifestyle will eventually lead to poverty.

The Bible does not discourage drinking any more than eating. It is the excess that is frowned upon and this excess was a serious offense. The same words for “heavy drinker” and “glutton” are found in the Law characterizing a rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). If found guilty, the stubborn child was to be executed (Deuteronomy 21:21)! Passages like these underscore how heavy a charge opponents levied on Jesus in deeming him “a glutton and a drunkard” (Luke 7:34 NASB).

Given this aggregate interpretation, the proverb is reminding that time, energy, money and opportunity are often wasted in the pursuit of indulgence . Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) conclude:

Overindulgence will prevent a person from making a living, and poverty will be the result. The author needs to warn the reader that self-control in all things is a prerequisite for those wishing to counsel those in power. Lose control and you lose your power and your job. (Kravitz and Olitzky, Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs, 228)

What did your parents teach you about alcohol and gluttony? What is the connection between excess and poverty? Has this proverb been proven true? Who can you think of whose extravagant lifestyle resulted in destitution? Have you ever known someone who gave up a vice for financial reasons? Is alcohol consumption more a moral or economic issue? Why does gluttony receive so little press relative to drinking?

Though the verse makes no distinction between gluttony and drunkenness, Proverbs does what most modern readers do when reading about drunkards and gluttons - it abandons gluttony and follows with a discourse on the dangers of excessive drinking (Proverbs 23:29-35).

Duane A. Garrett admits (b. 1953):

Those who live like Shakespeare’s Falstaff soon exhaust their resources. Christians should note that both drunkenness and gluttony are condemned. We often eschew the former and practice the latter. (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (New American Commentary), 196)

Many of the arguments against excessive drinking also apply to gluttony. Max Anders (b. 1947) deduces:

Modern Christians often focus on alcohol, forgetting verses like these that speak against gluttons who lack self-control and gorge themselves on meat. In each case, the problem is the urge to indulge too much!...Either problem leads to the same result. The alcoholic pours all his resources into his drinking habit and eventually lands in poverty. The laziness and drowsiness that accompany such behavior lead inevitably to financial embarrassment. (Anders, Proverbs (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 198-99)

For all practical purposes, most do not perceive gluttony to be a sin. A gluttonous preacher railing against the depravity of inebriation is commonplace. This has not always been the case. In fact, gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins.

Perhaps the Enlightenment’s emphasis on intellect led to a modern docetism in which we accept things that harm the body more readily than those that affect the mind. Francine Prose (b. 1947) recounts:

As the Renaissance and later the Industrial Revolution and eighteenth-century rationalism refocused the popular imagination from heaven to earth and adjusted the goals of labor to include the rewards of this world as well as those of the next, gluttony lost some of its stigma and eventually became almost a badge of pride. Substance, weight, and the ability to afford the most lavish pleasures of the table became visible signs of vitality, prosperity, and of the worldly success to which both the captains and the humble foot soldiers of industry were encouraged to aspire. (Prose, Gluttony (The Seven Deadly Sins), 3)

Culture’s perception of gluttony has clearly changed. Has God’s?

Do you feel gluttony is a sin? If you had to presume a hierarchy of sin, which is worse, drunkenness or gluttony? Why? What are other sins associated with drinking and gluttony? What is the connection between the body and soul?

“Our fear of hypocrisy is forcing us to live in a world where gluttons are fine, so long as they champion gluttony.” - Jonah Goldberg (b. 1969), “Booking Bennet”, May 5, 2003

It’s All in the Hands (Exodus 17:9-13)

What did Moses do during the battle of Rephidim? Stayed on top of a hill holding up his hands with the rod of God in them (Exodus 17:9-12)

While wandering in the wilderness, Israel not only faces challenges from nature (Exodus 16:1-8, 9-36, 17:1-7) but also from new military rivals. The nascent nation’s first battle comes when the Amalekites ambush them at Rephidim (Exodus 17:8).

Presumably between gradual attacks, Moses instructs Joshua to piece together a makeshift army with the assurance that he would remain perched atop a hill holding the staff of God (Exodus 17:9). The Bible records that Moses’ posture was the deciding factor in a seesaw daylong battle (Exodus 17:11).

So it came about when Moses held his hand up, that Israel prevailed, and when he let his hand down, Amalek prevailed. (Exodus 17:11 NASB)

To ensure that Moses’ hands remain raised, he is propped up on a stone and realizing that six hands are better than two, Aaron and Hur hold his hands prostrate (Exodus 17:12). Israel wins the battle (Exodus 17:13).

The narrator leaves much to the imagination. Though both will play prominent roles later in the Exodus story, Joshua and Hur enter the biblical text for the first time with no introduction. The Amalekites also appear as a people for the first time (Genesis 14:7, 36:12). Not only is no introduction given them but no reason is given for their assault.

John Goldingay (b. 1942) speculates:

Exodus gives no reason for the attack. Perhaps they thought they could appropriate the Israelites’ flocks and herds. Living in the wilderness south of Canaan, perhaps they felt threatened by the Israelites’ advancing their way. Greed, resentment, and fear have often fueled anti-Semitism. But Exodus gives no reason and this underlines the link between the mystery of hostility to Israel and the Jewish people that has been a recurrent aspect of Israelite and Jewish experience. (Goldingay, Exodus and Leviticus for Everyone, 73)

The Amalekites, presumed to be a hostile nomadic tribe, are traditional enemies of Israel and they simply enter the story donned in their customary black hats (Judges 6:3-4; I Samuel 15:1-9, 27:8). They serve almost as stock characters in the Bible and are not referenced outside of it. The Israelites would later remember the attack as a cowardly affront to a vulnerable people (Deuteronomy 25:17-18). In appearing from seemingly out of nowhere, the text captures the unexpectedness of the attack felt by the original victims.

Perhaps the passage’s most glaring omission is that no explanation is given as to how Moses’ flagging equates to victory. The reader is left to speculate as to what he is doing or saying while raising his arms and why he is positioned high above the battlefield.

John I. Durham (b. 1933) notes that Moses’ position is conducive to his activity:

The reason for Moses’ position on the brow of the hill can be seen in what he does during the battle. Moses lifted his hands, in symbol of the power of Yahweh upon the fighting men of Israel, surely, but in some miraculous way Moses’ upraised hands became also conductors of that power. (Durham, Exodus (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 3), 236)

Military historian Richard A. Gabriel (b. 1942) does not find Moses’ isolation irregular for a military commander:

Here we see the ancient dictum that commanders must be seen by their soldiers to be effective. Egyptian pharaohs were always portrayed as leading their troops in battle, as was Alexander. Caesar, it was said, wore a red cloak so his men could easily identify him during battle, and both George S. Patton (who seriously contemplated wearing a red cloak!) and Irwin Rommel were both known for their presence on the battlefield in plain sight of their soldiers. (Gabriel, The Military History of Ancient Israel, 82)

The real question is not Moses’ placement but what his actions symbolize -what is he doing with his hands? Many explanations have been posited.

Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) explicates:

Both Jewish and Christian commentators have been quick to assume that Moses’s stance was that of prayer. What else would he be doing? However, there is no indication whatever in the text which would confirm this. No words are spoken, but the battle is decided simply by the raising and lowering of his hands. The same effect results from Moses’ stance even when his weary arms are physically supported by others. Hugo Gressmann [1877-1927] and Georg Beer [1865-1946] have described the scene as magical, with Moses playing the role of cult magician. Additional parallels from the Ancient Near East have been suggested...Without discussing at length the validity of these extra-biblical parallels, certainly the Old Testament offers the closest parallel in the figure of Balaam (Numbers 22:1ff). He is hired to curse Israel, and the point of the narrative turns on the automatic effect of a curse (or a blessing) which, once it has been unleashed, continues relentlessly on its course. In Exodus 17 the hands are the instruments of mediating power, as is common throughout the Ancient Near East...This amoral element of the unleashing of power through an activity or a stance is still reflected in the story. Nor can it be rationalized away, as already in the Mekilta, by assuming that Moses’ role was essentially psychological. His uplifted hands encouraged the Israelites to exert themselves fully, whereas without the encouragement they slackened in battle. (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 314-15)

Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) admits:

The significance of this gesture is unclear. The hand, often the symbol of action and power, is also the instrument of mediation. The expression “the laying on of the hands” exemplifies this idea. Moses’ action might therefore be interpreted as a sort of mysterious focusing of super natural power on Israel. If so, it is noteworthy that Moses is here presented as being subject to ordinary human frailties, in possession of no superhuman or innate magical powers. Another interpretation, highly plausible, is that of Rashbam, according to which Moses held up a standard bearing some conspicuous symbol that signified the presence of God in the Israelite camp. (Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, 95)

Peter Enns (b. 1961) summarizes:

Some commentaries suggest this is some sort of “magical” feat” performed by Moses, perhaps some power emanating from the staff. Others assign to Moses’ gesture a psychological explanation, that his raised hands are a sign of encouragement to the troops. Neither explanation seems satisfying...But can a better explanation be found?... No proposed explanation is problem-free. This problem is a classic example of what interpreters run into when attempting to explain a cryptic text. (Enns, Exodus (The NIV Application Commentary), 348)

Moses has raised his hands previously to produce miraculous results but not for an extended period (Exodus 9:22, 10:12, 14:16). Many have looked to the staff for answers as it is now called the “staff of God”, a term that has not been used since the item’s introduction in Exodus 4:20.

J. Gerald Janzen (b. 1932) describes:

Up to this point Moses’ use of the staff has been a simple matter of raising it and accomplishing the result, whether sign, plague, parting of the waters, or water from the rock. But this time the struggle is drawn out, to the point where Moses becomes so tired that from time to time he has to lower his arms...Interestingly...when Moses gets tired, the help does not come directly from God, but through Aaron and Hur, as each one supports one of Moses’s arms after seating him on a stone. What is this symbolism, of Moses seated on a stone, holding up his and God’s staff, and supported on both sides by Aaron and Hur? (Janzen, Exodus (Westminster Bible Companion), 122)

As Moses intervenes for the people and Aaron and Hur raise Moses’ hands, not their own, it is not surprising that many interpreters have seen this passage as an image of intercessory prayer.

Maxie D. Dunnam (b. 1934) comments:

The soldiers on the field of battle were not determining the issue of victory by themselves, but the intercessors on the mountain were playing an integral role. See that beautiful picture of those intercessors on the mountain in your imagination?...It’s a stirring picture—a picture of the Lord’s intercessor. (Dunnam, Exodus (Mastering the Old Testament), 214)

Many popular books on prayer prominently feature this story. In Too Busy Not To Pray, Bill Hybels (b. 1951) writes:

More than any other biblical passage, one story in the Old Testament has persuaded me that prayer yields significant results. It is found in Exodus 17:8-13...Moses stretches his arms toward heaven again and brings the matter to the Lord...Moses discovered that day that God’s prevailing power is released through prayer. (Hybels, Too Busy Not To Pray, 18-19)

In his book on intercessory prayer, Dutch Sheets (b. 1954) analyzes:

The victory was not decided by the strength or power of Israel’s army. If this had been the case, they would not have faltered when the staff was lowered. Nor was it a morale thing – they weren’t watching Moses for inspiration while in hand-to-hand conflict! An unseen battle in the heavenlies actually decided the outcome on the battlefield. And when the rod, representing the rule or authority of God, was lifted by the authorized leader of Israel, Joshua and the army prevailed. In other words, it was not power on the battlefield – though it was necessary – that was the deciding factor, but authority on the mountain. Authority is the key issue; power never had been. (Sheets, Intercessory Prayer: How God Can Use Your Prayers to Move Heaven and Earth, 190)

While the mechanics of how Moses’ arms correlated to victory are speculative, the text is clear that they did. In Israel’s first battle as a nation, the focus is on the hill, not the battlefield. The direction off stage upstages the actors on the stage. In modern sports terms, the camera is focused on the fans changing their posture or switching to their rally caps as it is the deciding factor in the contest. No exploits on the battlefield are remembered; only the result is recorded: victory.

How long can you hold up your arms? What would a national leader in Moses’ era have been expected to do during battle? Who is most responsible for the Israelites’ victory at Rephidim? Whose part in the story do you most relate to: the warriors, Aaron/Hur, Moses, Joshua? Who can you prop up spiritually when they are weakened? Who is praying for you? Where is God in this story?

God is not explicitly involved in this text. William H.C. Propp (b. 1957) acknowledges:

Unlike the previous wilderness episodes, Moses responds to the crisis without seeking divine instructions, at least so far as we are told. But he gives God proper credit in the end. (Propp, Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Notes and Comments (Anchor Bible), 617)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) adds:

After Amalek starts the battle, the initiative for the defense of Israel is taken entirely by Moses, demonstrating the leadership role he has assumed. God does not become the subject of a sentence until Exodus 17:14 but is not uninvolved in the prior verses. (Fretheim, Exodus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 192)

Despite not being referenced categorically, in Moses’ actions, there is little doubt that the battle is God’s. Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) comments:

Exodus 17:11 does not teach the efficacy of “prayer without ceasing” but rather the fact that Israelite holy war was God’s war. God reinforced this in the consciousness of Moses, Aaron, and Hur as well as the Israelite army by correlating the position of the staff with the fortunes of the army. It was important that the Israelites understand unmistakably that the only reason they could win against the Amalekites was that God was fighting for them, giving them the victory. The staff functioned in the case of this battle just as it had in the case of the plagues. As long as the staff of God was raised high, just as in the miraculous plagues and the miracle of the water from the rock immediately preceding, God’s decisive role was properly acknowledged symbolically and the army prevailed. When the staff was lowered (because Moses grew tired, as Exodus 17:12 makes explicit), “the Amalekites were winning.” Thus the staff portrayed God’s sovereignty in the consequences of battle. (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary, Vol. 2), 398)

Thomas B. Dozeman (b. 1952) concludes:

The circumstances indicate that the power to wage holy war resides in the magical staff of God, not in Moses, and certainly not in Joshua or the Israelite warriors. The staff of God, is like a lightning rod at the summit of the hill channeling power down to the Israelites in the battle. When the antenna is down, the power ceases. The eventual weakness of Moses even to raise his arms underscores further that the power in the battle does not reside with him but with God. (Dozeman, Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 395)

Victory did not rest in Moses’ hands, but rather in the hands that they represented.

If Moses is a conduit of God’s power, why is he himself weakened in channeling it (Exodus 17:12; Mark 5:30)? Does God still decide wars today? What do you need to relinquish and place into God’s hands?

“I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess.” - Martin Luther (1483-1546)

It’s All Good!?!?! (Romans 8:28)

What works for good with those who love God? Everything (Romans 8:28)

Romans 8 is one of the most encouraging chapters of the Bible. Its thrust is assurance and its most famous verse is Romans 8:28.

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (Romans 8:28 NASB)

Romans 8:28 marks the beginning of the end of a prominent section of the epistle (Romans 8:18-30) and is, not surprisingly, one of the Bible’s most beloved verses.

Robert J. Morgan (b. 1952) acclaims:

Romans 8:28 is the favorite verse of millions around the world. It’s arguably the greatest promise in the Bible, for it summarizes all the others. It’s the biblical basis for optimism and the promise that morphs us into resilient sanguines, whatever our temperament. It’s God’s darkroom in which negatives become positive. It’s His situation-reversal machine in which heartaches are changed into hallelujahs. (Morgan, 100 Bible Verses Everyone Should Know by Heart, 114)

This same affirmation can also be one of the Bible’s most difficult lines. D. Edmund Hiebert (1910-1995) explains:

Faced with the sufferings and catastrophic experiences of life, many believers and even Christian leaders have found it difficult to accept this categorical assertion. During World War II a prominent preacher designated Romans 8:28 as “the hardest verse in the Bible to believe.” (Zuck, “Romans 8:28-29 and the Assurance of the Believer”, Vital Biblical Issues: Examining Problem Passages of the Bible, 142)

The verse is also one of the most Bible’s misunderstood and misused passages. Larry Osborne (b. 1952) tantalizes:

No verse gets misquoted more often when it comes to trying to make sense out of life’s trials. Christians and even non-Christians who have a nodding acquaintance with the Bible quote it more often than all other verses combined. It’s the favorite proof text for the everything-is-good-if-you-wait-long-enough crowd. It’s plastered on coffee mugs, posters, greeting cards, and all kinds of junk...It sounds well. It sells well...But Romans 8:28 doesn’t say or mean what most people think it does. It doesn’t even apply to a large percentage of those who turn to it for comfort. (Osborne, 10 Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe, 89)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) agrees:

It is a statement whose precise meaning is obscure in any case but has also become dangerously distorted by being used out of context. For some Christians the verse has become a kind of pious slogan used to mollify grief or assuage anger in the face of hard experience, having the bromidal effect of, “Don’t worry, God will make everything turn out all right.”...In fact, Paul does not claim that absolutely everything works out fine for every person, whether they “love God” (one of the few times he uses this traditional designation for the pious; see I Corinthians 2:9; James 1:12, 2:5) or not. (Johnson, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 141-42)

A lot of the misunderstanding is attributed to the passage’s traditional translation, particularly the King James Version. Robert Jewett (b. 1933) discloses:

The old-fashioned translation of Romans 8:28 is somewhat misleading: “Everything works together for good to those who love God.” This translation often led to the false conclusion that God causes everything, including all evil, and that every evil intent has a specific purpose in the divine plan. Paul is actually stating something much more limited and more reasonable. It is not that God causes all evil, but that in everything, whether good or bad, God works for good. (Jewett, Romans (Basic Bible Commentary), 100)

Most modern translations have altered the wording to demonstrate this reality.

The verse begins with the appeal to a shared understanding - “we know.” Paul uses this expression six times in Romans (Romans 2:2, 3:19, 7:14, 8:22, 26, 28). Solomon Andria(tsimialomananarivo) (b. 1950) supposes:

Paul uses the words we know to introduce a truth that would be well known to both Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Rome. But knowing something intellectually is not the same as understanding it and grasping its implications. So Paul sets out to explain the truth. (Andria, Romans (Africa Bible Commentary Series), 157)

Some have seen this shared understanding as emanating from an accepted axiom. Peter Stuhlmacher (b. 1932) informs:

The tradition concerning which the apostle reminds the Romans extends...further. According to a common Jewish teaching, a person should get in the habit of saying, “Everything which the All-merciful does, he does for the good” (Babylonian Talmud Berakoth 60b). Paul takes up this tradition and applies it to the matter...discussed. (Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, 136)

Consequently, Romans 8:28 did not represent an entirely new paradigm for the Romans. Even so, though similar expressions were prevalent during the period, Paul is not appealing to tradition as the basis for his statement is something new - Jesus.

Leon Morris (1914-2006) determines:

It is not difficult to cite sayings from the ancient world of the “In the end everything will turn out all right” type, and it is urged that Paul is not simply repeating a commonplace, and moreover one that leaves God out. Nor is it likely in the sense in which we find this thought in the Old Testament and Jewish writings (cf. Genesis 50:20; Ecclesiastes 8:12; Sirach 39:24-27), in the first instance because they do not say what Paul is saying and in the second because of necessity they omit what Christ is doing and that is central in Paul’s present argument as it moves on to the way of salvation. (Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 330)

As Morris alludes, some have seen the Joseph saga (especially Genesis 50:20) as an exemplar of Romans 8:28. Matthew N.O. Sadiku (b. 1955) compares:

Joseph is a good example of how God works evil plans for good for those who love him. All things worked together for Joseph’s good because God’s purposes could not be thwarted. Like in the case of Joseph, what happens to us at times may not be “good,” but God has a way of making it work for our ultimate good. (Sadiku, Romans: A Pentecostal Commentary, 131-32)

Donald R. Sunukjian (b. 1941) disagrees:

The story of Joseph does not really fit the teaching of Romans 8:28. The point of Genesis 50:20 is that God used the brothers’ evil intentions to bring about good circumstances in Joseph’s life. But that’s not the point of Romans 8:28...The point of Romans 8:28-30 is that God will work in your sufferings and weaknesses to produce the good character of Christlikeness. (Sunukjian, Invitation to Biblical Preaching: Proclaiming Truth With Clarity and Relevance, 133)

Paul is not drawing from popular wisdom, Old Testament experience or brilliant conjecture. Romans 8:28 is developed from conviction and personal experience.

Manfred T. Brauch (b. 1940) reminds:

Apart from anything else which might be said about this text, it is clear within the context of Romans 8 that it expresses Paul’s deep faith and trust in the loving purposes of God. We must remember that this affirmation is not the result of abstract rationalization or theologizing. It is, furthermore, not a word which emerges from the lips of one whose life coasted along in serenity, uninterrupted by the stresses and strains, the pains and perplexities, the turmoil and tragedies which most human beings experience to one degree or another. (Brauch, Hard Sayings of Paul, 48)

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

‘We know’ that this is so, says Paul, speaking as one who had proved its truth in his own experience, finding, for example, that his hardships turned out for the furtherance of the gospel (Philippians 1:12) and that his sorest and most disagreeable trials were the means by which the power of Christ rested on him (II Corinthians 12:9-10). (Bruce, Romans (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 162)

Given Paul’s experience and the context, there has been discussion as to what is included in the term “all things” and even what part of speech it entails. This expression could technically be the grammatical subject of the verse (instead of “God”). Some manuscripts eliminate the confusion.

F. Leroy Forlines (b. 1926) explains:

Some Greek manuscripts have a longer reading, adding “God” (Greek, ho theos) as the subject of the verb “works together”...Neither the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text nor the United Bible Society Text includes this...The commonly accepted reading is referred to as the “shorter reading.” (Forlines, Romans (Randall House Bible Commentary), 230)

Contextually, God is the more likely subject. Romans 8:28 marks a turning point in the chapter as the prime mover shifts from “the Spirit” to “God”. God is the subject of most of the verbs, evidence that God is also the one doing the work in the processes discussed.

As to what “all things” entails, Brendan Byrne (b. 1939) defines:

“All things” could refer to or at least include the non-human created world (“creation” [Romans 8:19-22]) and the Spirit (Romans 8:26-27). But Paul is more likely to have in mind the sufferings of the present time (Romans 8:18) that form the context for hope. Other things being equal, these would normally be considered “evil.” But for those whose lives are enveloped in God’s love even these things work for “good”. (Byrne, Romans (Sacra Pagina Series) , 267)

Kenneth Boa (b. 1945) and William Kruidenier (b. 1948) concur:

The suffering (Romans 8:17) and groaning (Romans 8:23) that Paul has been discussing is what is in view in Romans 8:28. When we find ourselves in trying circumstances in life, we can know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Boa and Kruidenier, Romans (Holman New Testament Commentary), 259)

Thomas R. Schreiner (b. 1954) determines:

In saying that all things work together for good πάντα [“all things”] focuses especially on sufferings and tribulations, but the all-encompassing character of the term should not be ignored. What is remarkable, though, is that even suffering and tribulation turn out for the good of the Christian. The idea expressed here cannot be compared to Stoicism or to a Pollyanish view of life. The former is excluded in Paul’s creational theology, which posits God as the Lord, creator, and personal governor of the world. The latter is a misunderstanding of the text, for the text does not say all things are intrinsically good or pleasant, but instead that the most agonizing sufferings and evils inflicted on believers will be turned to their good by God. (Schreiner, Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 449-450)

Given that suffering is included prominently beneath the umbrella of “all things”, many find the passage difficult to stomach. Anne Graham Lotz (b. 1948) admits:

You may immediately question how the pregnancy of your unmarried daughter can work for your good, or how God can work even a divorce for your good, or how the loss of your job can be for your good, or how your terminal illness can be for your good. If, by “good,” Romans 8:28 meant your comfort, convenience, health, wealth, prosperity, pleasure, or happiness, we would all question it! But your ultimate good is conformity to the image of Jesus Christ. And when you are in God’s will—“called according to his purpose”—everything God allows into your life is used by Him to make you like Christ. Everything! (Lotz, The Vision of His Glory, 27)

As Lotz underscores, one of the keys to interpreting the verse is one’s definition of good. Ernst Käsemann (1906-1998) acknowledges, “In the underlying tradition of antiquity it means the happy outcome of strange earthly events, and the use in Judaism is much the same (Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 243).”

In this context, the term takes on a different meaning. Karl Barth (1886-1968) defines:

The Good is the beholding of the Redeemer and of Redemption, the attainment of the living Point beyond the point of death, the beginning of that awaiting which is no awaiting, of that not-knowing which is the supreme apprehending, and of that apprehending of sin and death, devil and hell, which is the supreme not-knowing. The Good is the very love of God towards men who stand before Him rich and well-clothed, because they are still poor and naked. (Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 320)

D. Stuart Briscoe (b. 1930) distinguishes:

It is eternal rather than temporal good which God has in mind. He works “according to His purpose,” which is far grander than the alleviation of the unpleasantness of the present or a guarantee of plain sailing under cloudless skies in the foreseeable future. He is in the “good” business of making redeemed sinners like their elder brother, the Lord Jesus, and even a cursory glance at the way the Father exposed the Son to the realities of life and death should be sufficient to remind us that we can expect the same kind of processes to work in our lives with the identical and ultimate result—conformity to Him. (Briscoe, Romans (Mastering the New Testament), 176)

Randy Alcorn (b. 1954) clarifies:

Romans 8:28 declares a cumulative and ultimate good, not an individual or immediate good...When Paul says, “for good,” he clearly implies final or ultimate good, not good subjectively felt in the midst of our sufferings. As his wife, Joy, underwent cancer treatments, C.S. Lewis [1898-1963] wrote to a friend, “We are not necessarily doubting that God will due the best for us: we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be.”...We define our good in terms of what brings us health and happiness now; God defines it in terms of what makes us more like Jesus. (Alcorn, If God Is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil, 288-89)

An improper view of what is “good” has led to an improper understanding of the passage. Henry T. Blackaby (1935) and Richard Blackaby (b. 1961) note:

People often misunderstand Romans 8:28. Some assume that this promise means God will turn every bad situation into a good situation. But the Bible doesn’t say that. It says that God can use any situation—even the worst experience—to produce good results in a Christian’s life. (Blackaby and Blackaby, TruthQuest: TQ120a, 40)

While this discussion of “good” does not eliminate suffering, it is equally comforting. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) advises:

These words have eternal rather than our temporal good in mind...The specific good will be seen when we are glorified as we are conformed to the image of Christ. The Christian should not view present distresses and reversals as ultimately destructive. In some manner they are preparing us for the future revelation of God’s glory. (Hughes, Romans: Righteousness from Heaven (Preaching the Word),167)

Not all actions are good, but they are being worked towards a good purpose. This is a powerful promise but its benefits are not universal. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) cautions:

It is crucial to the argument here that Paul is talking about Christians. For Christians who are called, all things work together. Paul is not talking about some evolutionary or inevitable process that happens like magic for believers. He is referring to the sovereignty and providence of God over all things and processes. God is the one who works things out, as the alternate textual reading, which inserts ho theos, “God,” makes even clearer. (Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 226-27)

Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) analyzes:

This is promised to those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. In the Greek, the two frame the promise, with “to those who love him” at the beginning of the verse. The question is whether this is restrictive (it works only for Christians when they love God) or comforting (by nature all Christians love God and are called). The latter is far more likely, for this is a passage of encouragement rather than warning. (Osborne, Romans (IVP New Testament Commentary), 220)

Paul J. Achtemeier (b. 1927) sees a parallel in a parable:

There is another parable of Jesus appropriate to this passage from Romans...and that is the parable of catching and sorting of fish (Matthew 13:47-50). It is a parable of final judgment, when good is separated from bad. To those who find in Jesus the expression of God’s faithfulness to his commitment to the redemption of creation, anticipation of such a judgment is a matter of joy rather than fear, since judgment is another expression of the certainty of the future being in God’s hands. That of course is the point emphasized in Romans 8:28-30. Judgment that apart from Christ can only induce fear can, with the guarantee of his presence provided by the Spirit, be a cause of joyful anticipation. Taken together, these two passages tells us of a coming judgment (Matthew 13:47-50) which we may face with confidence. (Achtemeier, Romans (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 147)

Arland J. Hultgren (b. 1939) summarizes:

Paul is saying that God works for the good of all who love him in every conceivable situation. Whatever one faces (including suffering), God is present and active to work for a good outcome, which may well be realized only eschatalogically in final salvation, but ultimately the promise is sure. That perspective coheres theologically with the rest of this section (Romans 8:18-30), which sees suffering – both on the part of humans and of the rest of creation – in light of eschatalogical hope. (Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, 326)

Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984) adds:

Returning to Romans 8:28, it is not that in some magical way everything really is fine, even when our observation and experience sees and feels the sorrows of the present world. No, it is because God is the infinite God He is that in spite of the abnormality of all things now, He can in the midst of the battle bring good for His people out of abnormality. (Schaeffer, A Christian View of Spirituality, 206)

The verse presumes a God who is not only active in the world but present with us in our suffering. N.T. Wright (b. 1948) illumines:

Romans 8:28 is a much-loved promise for many who have learned by it to trust God in the many varied and often troubling circumstances of our lives. The world is still groaning, and we with it; but God is with us in the groaning, and will bring it out for good. (Wright, Paul for Everyone: Romans, Part One, 156)

This should provide the Christian with blessed assurance. John Piper (b. 1946) expounds:

Once you walk through the door of love into the massive, unshakable structure of Romans 8:28 everything changes. There come into your life stability and depth and freedom. You simply can’t be blown over any more. The confidence that a sovereign God governs for your good all the pain and all the pleasure that you will ever experience is an incomparable refuge and security and hope and power in your life. When God’s people really live by the future grace of Romans 8:28—from measles to the mortuary—they are the freest and strongest and most generous people in the world. (Piper, Future Grace, 123)

How would you put this verse into your own words? How do “we know” the truth of Romans 8:28? Is this a hard verse for you to believe? What is the hardest Bible verse for you to accept? Have you ever found comfort in Romans 8:28? What is your favorite part of Paul’s affirmation? Does “all things” include our own sinful acts? Whose good is being worked towards? What do all things work towards to those who do not believe? Does this verse imply that everything falls within the scope of God’s will? What elements are working together to produce good?

Much ink has been spilled as to what is working together for the ultimate good. John Murray (1898-1975) recounts:

Some of the ablest expositors maintain that “work together” does not mean that all things work in concert and cooperation but that all things work in concert with the believer or with God. But it is unnecessary and perhaps arbitrary to depart from the more natural sense, namely, that in the benign and all-embracing plan of God the discrete elements all work together for good to them that love God. It is not to be supposed that they have any virtue or efficacy in themselves to work in concert for this end. Though not expressed, the ruling thought is that in the sovereign love and wisdom of God they are all made to converge and contribute to that goal. Many of the things comprised are evil in themselves and it is the marvel of God’s wisdom and grace that they, when taken in concert with the whole, are made to work for good. Not one detail works ultimately for evil to the people of God; in the end only good will be there lot. (Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, 314)

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

The...rendering ‘work together’ makes too much of the separate meanings of the components of the Greek compound verb: it is better translated by some such expression as ‘prove advantageous’, ‘be profitable’. Paul’s meaning is that all things, even those which seem most adverse and hurtful, such as persecution and death itself, are profitable to those who truly love God. (Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary, 204)

Douglas J. Moo (b. 1950) concurs:

This verse may not be promising that all things will work together for good. I have heard the verse preached with just this point as the central emphasis. God, so the preacher argued, does not promise to bring good to us in every situation. Rather, as a cook combines ingredients to make a tasty dish of food, so God mixes together the circumstances of life in such a way as to ultimately bring good to us...There are two reasons for hesitating to embrace this “mixing” idea. (a) The verb used here (synergeo) may not mean “work together.” To be sure, in its three other New Testament occurrences, it does seem to have this meaning (see I Corinthians 16:16; II Corinthians 6:1; James 2:22). But the verb often lost the “with” idea in the period Paul was writing...(b) Even if we do translate “work together,” it is by no means clear that “all things” are working with each other. It is equally plausible that Paul means that all things work together with the Spirit, with God, or with believers to produce good. (Moo, Romans: The NIV Application Commentary, 277)

The practical question is whether the believer has a part in the working out of all things together for good. Dale Moody (1915-1992) descries:

Romans 8:28 says that God “co-operates for good with those who love God, and are called according to his purpose” (NEB), yet for centuries now the KJV of 1611 has been followed which says “all things work together for good,” as if human co-operation is excluded from God’s purpose. The human co-operation of faith, hope and love has been blasted as synergism, yet Paul uses the Greek verb synergei! (Moody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation, 314)

David L. Bartlett (b. 1941) concludes:

Paul is not saying that for Christians everything is always for the best. He is saying that in everything God works towards the best in partnership with those who love God...Christians do not need to say that every tragedy or loss is part of God’s plan. We can say that in every tragedy or loss God is still God and still moves our lives and all of history toward what is good...Even when contemplating the enormous tragedies of human history, natural disaster, or human viciousness, faith reminds us that God is still at work in the midst of evil, working toward the good. The question, Why did God let this happen? is unanswerable. The questions we may begin to answer are, What can God do with this evil to help bring about the good? How can we be God’s partners, God’s servants in the work? (Bartlett, Romans (Westminster Bible Companion) 78)

“If all things do not always please me, they will always benefit me...This is the best promise of this life.” - Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892)

The Prophet’s Chamber (II Kings 4:10)

What did the Shunammite woman do for Elisha? She built him a room (II Kings 4:10)

On his travels, the prophet Elisha forges a lasting friendship with an unnamed Shunammite woman (II Kings 4:8-37; 8:1-6). Their relationship begins when the “prominent” woman provides the prophet with a meal (II Kings 4:8 NASB). This starts a tradition as not only does the prophet repeatedly return to the Shunammite’s home, throughout the centuries grateful clergy have been fed by parishioners.

Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) relays:

II Kings 4:8 says that the woman “persuaded” (KJV: “constrained”) Elisha to eat the food that she had prepared. What preacher has not had an identical experience—a talented cook in the church family who delights in frustrating every good intention of pastoral weight control by “constraining” him to eat a second helping...? No wonder Elisha “as often as he passed by...would turn in there to eat some food.” (Dilday, 1 & 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 294)

The two grow closer and eventually the Shunammite woman asks her husband to build an addition on to their home to host the prophet (II Kings 4:10)!

Please, let us make a little walled upper chamber and let us set a bed for him there, and a table and a chair and a lampstand; and it shall be, when he comes to us, that he can turn in there.” (II Kings 4:10 NASB)

August H. Konkel (b. 1948) speculates that the prophet’s holiness led to the addition of the extra room:

Elisha has occasion to pass the location regularly on his journeys from Carmel (II Kings 4:9); like Samuel (I Samuel 7:15-17), he probably follows a circuit in the administration of his duties. Elisha is regarded as a holy man, distinguished from the other prophets who continue to have regular vocations. This status may have been the reason for providing a separate room for him; separate quarters protect the family from having inappropriate intimacy with this man of God. The woman’s reverence is also expressed in the vocabulary used to describe her hospitality (II Kings 4:13); Elisha says she “trembled” (hāradt) with “fear” (b^erādâ) for him, expressing the care she has taken not to infringe on his sanctity as a man of God. (Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings (The NIV Application Commentary), 413-14)

This dwelling is ideal for the prophet as he travels to and through the Jezreel Valley. Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) details:

Joshua 19:18 locates Shunem in the territory Issachar. It is identified with the modern site of Sulam at the foot of Mount Moreh in the northern portion of the Jezreel Valley opposite Mount Gilboa and the site of Jezreel to the south. The site is strategically located as it guards the eastern approaches to the Jezreel Valley and the western approaches into the northern regions of the Jordan Valley around Beth Shean. It thereby aids in controlling the trade routes through the Jezreel that connect the Transjordan to the Mediterranean coast. Elisha’s relationship with the Shunammite woman portends the growth of a base of support for the prophet, who will be instrumental in the recovery of her own property (II Kings 8:1-6) and in Jehu’s revolt (II Kings 9-10). (Sweeney, First and Second Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 289)

Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) adds:

Shunem, which is also mentioned in Joshua 19:18 and I Samuel 28:4, is to be found at Sōlem on the eastern border of the Jezreel plain. (Shunem is also the place of origin of Abishag, who cared for David toward the end of his life; see I Kings 1:1-4.) The geographical position requires that Elisha would occasionally leave his sphere of influence in the south of Israel, although the destination of his wanderings is not mentioned. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary, 250)

The Shunammites expand their home upward as the prophet’s quarters were located atop the roof. J. Robinson (b. 1927) details:

Why not build...a little roof-chamber: the N.E.B. has paraphrased because the Hebrew is not entirely clear. The houses had flat roots which were often used to provide extra accommodation. Tents could be pitched on the roofs or temporary wooden rooms built. The suggestion here is that a permanent rather than a temporary room should be provided. The wall of the house would be higher than the roof to provide a parapet. The N.E.B. makes the woman suggest that a part of the wall should be raised and a permanent room built against it. She may have suggested building a walled chamber anywhere on the roof (cp. the Revised Standard Version). The justification for his expense and for the luxurious conditions provided – travellers usually sat, ate and slept on the floor – was her acknowledgement of Elisha as ‘a holy man of God’. (Robinson, The Second Book of Kings (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament), 43)

The room was large enough to walk around in (II Kings 4:35) and was apparently spacious enough to also host Gehazi, Elisha’s servant (II Kings 4:13). The prophet’s apartment was furnished modestly with predominantly indispensable items. One of the items was a “lamp”, pottery containing oil and shaped to hold a wick.

Philip J. King (b. 1925) and Lawrence E. Stager (b. 1943) note the anomaly:

The only reference [in the Bible] to a household lampstand (měnôrâ) is included in a list of furnishings in Elisha’s quarters (II Kings 4:10). Ordinarily lampstands were used in cultic rather than domestic contexts. (King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Library of Ancient Israel), 30)

It was not the opulence of the room that was noteworthy, but its availability. Such edifices have been built for traveling holy people many times since and are commonly referred to as the “Prophet’s Chamber”.

Christine D. Pohl (b. 1950) chronicles:

The possibility of welcoming Jesus into one’s home shaped ancient church teachings on home-based hospitality. John Chrystostom [347-407] instructed his parishioners: “Make for yourself a guest-chamber in your house: set up a bed there, set up a table there and a candlestick. [cp. II Kings 4:10]...Have a room to which Christ may come; say, ‘This is Christ’s cell; this building is set apart for Him.’” Christ’s room, Chrystostom wrote, would be for the “maimed, the beggars, and the homeless.” Even if it were inadequate, “Christ disdains it not.” (Pohl, Making Room: Recovering Hospitality As a Christian Tradition, 154)

Have you ever had a room in someone else’s home? Why does the Shunammite make the offer to host the prophet? Have you ever demonstrated hospitality when it was inconvenient? Do you have a guest room? Who is welcome there? What do you do to show gratitude to the holy people in your life? What does your pastor need that you can provide? (Definitely the most self serving question in the blog’s history.)

Despite not being identified by name, the woman is described by the Hebrew word gadowl (II Kings 4:8). This word has produced a wide array of translations: “great” (ASV, KJV), “leading” (MSG), “notable” (NKJV), “prominent” (HCSB, NASB), “rich” (CEV), “wealthy” (ESV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “well-to-do” (NIV).

Despite these many interpretations, the word is quite simple - the woman is great. Jesse C. Long, Jr. (b. 1953) comments:

The Shunammite is literally named “a great woman” (...’iŝŝāh g’dōlāh), with the nuance of a person of wealth. By the end of the story, however, there will be reason to believe that the narrator intends more in this designation than financial means. (Long, 1 & 2 Kings (College Press NIV Commentary), 311)

Robert L. Cohn (b. 1947) praises:

Although she is unnamed, she is called a “great woman,” and by the end...we know why...Not only does she urge Elisha to stay and eat on this first occasion but she provides for him each time he comes to Shunem. Moreover, she declares to her husband her intention to furnish a guest room for he “holy man of God” for his use whenever he is in town. The initiative is all hers; Elisha asks for nothing and her husband does not encourage her. Indeed, everywhere in the story he is defined in relationship to her: “her husband.” Her “greatness” is also reflected in her recognition of the holiness of this man of God before he offers any demonstration of it. (Cohn, 2 Kings (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 28)

The woman demonstrates great initiative as she, not her husband, is the catalyst for the action in the story. (Though in my experience, the woman being the one to suggest a house addition is as cliché as being the cook in the family.)

Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) admits, “We get the impression that her husband lacked his wife’s spiritual insight, but at least he didn’t oppose her hospitality to the itinerant preacher (Wiersbe, Be Distinct: 2 Kings & 2 Chronicles), 42).”

Tikva Frymer-Kensky (1943-2006) admires the Shunammite’s remarkable independence:

She is not identified as her father’s daughter or her husband’s wife, for these relationships do not define her destiny or her role in the story. She is identified by the name of her village because her attachment to a particular location will turn out to be important in her life and in her story...The Shunammite is strikingly free in her dealings with the prophet...She acts on her own, without asking her husband’s permission, as she provides food and hospitality to him in his journeys. Her wealth may contribute to her boldness, for wealthy women have greater freedom of action than poor women, and sometimes even more than poor men. But poor women could also be close to the prophets. The prophet Elijah lodged with a poor widow without worrying about gossip, and no one would react badly to the Shunammite’s entertaining Elisha. A wife can dispense food without her husband’s supervision: another woman of means, Abigail, brought great amounts of food to David without her husband’s knowledge. The Shunammite brings her husband into the picture only when she wishes to add an addition to her house. (Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories, 65)

Claudia V. Camp (b. 1951) exalts:

The portrayal of this unnamed woman is one of the most remarkable in the Bible. Both independent and maternal, powerful and pious, she brings to mind a number of other female characters, yet surpasses them all. She is observant in both practical and spiritual ways: she notices not only Elisha’s regular passing through Shunem but also the aura that marks him as a “man of God.”...The Shunamite takes the initiative that might have been her husband’s. She has an upper room built and furnished for Elisha’s use (compare Elijah’s lodging with the Sidonian woman). (Carol Ann Newsom [b. 1950] and Sharon H. Ringe [b. 1946], The Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition, 113)

His connection to the great Shunammite woman will add to the prophet’s own greatness. The account of her house addition is only the background exposition to the story which follows (II Kings 4:11-37). Alice L. Laffey (b. 1944) notes:

Elisha acts...on behalf of the powerless...Though married and wealthy, she is nevertheless dependent upon her husband in the society’s social structure. Elisha rewards this woman who provided lavishly for him and for his servant by promising her that she will bear son. (Laffey, First and Second Kings (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), 98)

The Shunammite’s hospitality pleased the prophet so much that he looked for a way to bless her (II Kings 4:11-14). She had yet to bear children and the prophet promises her a child (II Kings 4:15-17). He eventually will raise that child from the dead, a feat which rivaled his predecessor (II Kings 4:28-37).

Paul R. House (b. 1958) compares:

Despite all he has done, Elisha has not yet matched Elijah’s greatest feat, for he has not been used to raise the dead. Even this difference is removed when a...woman and her family enter Elisha’s life. (House, 1, 2 Kings (New American Commentary), 267)

In making room for the prophet in her home, the Shunammite also makes room for a miracle in her life.

There are many explanations drawn from many lenses as to why the Shunammite woman was “great”. Most simply, Elizabeth George (b. 1944) appraises:

So what did the Shunammite do that was so great? So heroic? She did what you and I could do and should do—She looked out and saw a need, she reached out and extended a helping hand, and she gave out of a heart of love for another person. (George, Young Woman After God’s Own Heart, 183)

What makes this woman great? What makes any person great? Does Christian hospitality always bring reciprocal blessing (Luke 6:38)? What needs do you see in your community? How can you personally meet them?

“We don’t need more strength or ability or opportunity. What we need is to use what we have.” - Basil S. Walsh

Satisfaction Guaranteed! (Matthew 5:6)

Complete: “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness ________________________.” For they shall be filled (Matthew 5:6)

The gospel of Matthew is structured around five discourses made by Jesus (5-7, 10, 13, 18, 24-25). The first, the Sermon on the Mount, is the most famous (Matthew 5:1-7:29). This discourse begins with nine paradoxical sayings known as the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-11). The term Beatitude is derived from the Latin beatus which corresponds to the first word in each declaration. This word is typically translated “blessed”.

The fourth Beatitude reads:

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” (Matthew 5:6 NASB)

In referencing hunger and thirst, Jesus appeals to universal and basic needs. The combination of the two conditions presents a holistic longing. Whereas extensive physical hunger is generally unhealthy, Jesus depicts a healthy hunger.

In relating the imagery of starvation to spirituality, Jesus draws upon the Old Testament tradition. Charles Quarles (b. 1965) comments:

The Old Testament used hunger and thirst not only to portray one’s longing for the satisfaction of one’s physical needs but also for one’s deepest spiritual needs. The psalmist, for example, thirsted for God like a weary deer panted for streams of water (Psalm 42:1-2). Jesus applied the imagery in a similar fashion...The true disciple hungers and thirsts for righteousness. He longs to live a godly life as much as a starving man longs for his next piece of bread or a parched tongue yearns for a drop of water. (Quarles, Sermon On The Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the Modern Church (NAC Studies in Bible & Theology), 59)

The analogy also relates back to Jesus’ personal experience of being tempted in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11). R.T. France (1938-2012) explains:

The metaphor of hunger and thirst here recalls Matthew 4:4, the idea of living not on physical food but on every word that comes from God. It is a matter of priorities. Such hunger and thirst will be fully satisfied: chortazomai, a graphic word used also for fattening animals, implies being well filled, as in Matthew 14:20, colloquially being “stuffed.” (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 168)

While for most of us (who have access to a blog) hunger is a periodic condition, Jesus speaks of habitual hunger. Carl G. Vaught (b. 1939) explains:

It has often been suggested that hungering and thirsting are the most fundamental human cravings and that Jesus speaks to something embedded deeply in our consciousness when he speaks in these terms. However, it is also important to notice that the reference to hungering and thirsting is expressed in the text in present active participles, which in Greek denotes activities that occur continuously. In English the present tense usually refers to a particular moment; but in the Greek text, the participles suggest continuous action, not only occurring now, but also stretching out into the future. Thus, Matthew 5:6 should be rendered, “Blessed are those who keep on hungering and thirsting for righteousness, for they will be satisfied. (Vaught, The Sermon on the Mount: A Theological Investigation, 23-24)

To properly develop, the disciple of Jesus is to be in a perpetual state of hunger. J. Dwight Pentecost (b. 1915) deduces:

In Matthew 5:6 we find the secret of spiritual gianthood...Our Lord...stated that the secret to spiritual growth is spiritual appetite. Those who eat little will grow little: those who eat much will grow much. Those with a voracious appetite for the Word of God and the Person of Jesus Christ, and who satisfy that appetite by feeding on the Word and by communing with the Lord, will grow to spiritual maturity...A doctor can tell much about the progress of his patients by seeing how much they eat. Physical development is related to physical appetite. It is no less true that in the spiritual realm. Spiritual growth, spiritual development, and spiritual health are inseparably united to spiritual appetite. (Pentecost, Design for Living: Lessons on Holiness from the Sermon on the Mount, 40-41).

R.T. Kendall (b. 1935) concurs:

What Jesus is talking about in this beatitude is that you are blessed if you have such an appetite that you can’t live without what you are hungry for. The Greek word for thirst refers to what you can’t live without. You’ve got to have it, or you can’t live. He is not merely talking about being “peckish,” as the Brits would say when they want a bite to eat. He is talking about desperation for food! (Kendall, Sermon on the Mount, The: A Verse-by-Verse Look at the Greatest Teachings of Jesus)

Though this level of physical hunger is not typically desired, Jesus assures that those who desperately seek righteousness will be satisfied. Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) explains:

What is meant by shall be satisfied? Psalm 107:9...and Isaiah 61:11...together with Testament if Levi 13:5 and Proverbs 21:21 show that the hunger is satisfied by that for which one is hungry. Those who long for God’s saving activity will find their hunger and thirst satisfied by that very saving activity. (Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the Mount: Character Formation and Decision Making in Matthew 5-7, 52)

What is the hungriest you have ever been? What is currently the object of your greatest hunger? How badly do you want righteousness? Where does being a righteous person rank among the priorities of the typical citizen? Is prayer for righteousness a petition that is always granted? If you are perpetually hungry, how can you be satisfied? At what point, if any, can one become satisfied with their own righteousness? What is righteousness?

Jesus’ implicit directive to pursue righteousness is counter-cultural (Matthew 5:6). D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) instructs:

We are not meant to hunger and thirst after experiences; we are not meant to hunger and thirst after blessedness. If we want to be truly happy and blessed we must hunger and thirst after righteousness. We must not put blessedness or happiness or experience in the first place. No, that is something that God gives to those who seek righteousness. (Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, 64)

“Righteousness” (Greek: dikaiosune) is one of the critical terms in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g. Matthew 6:33). There has been much debate as to what type of righteousness Matthew addresses.

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) surveys:

Because Christ declares that hunger for righteousness is essential to spiritual health and satisfaction, we must carefully consider what it means. Some have supposed that it is the objective righteoussness described in Romans that God reckons to the believer’s account, sometimes called imputed righteousness — “the righteousness from God” (Romans 1:17, 3:21, 22; cf. Philippians 3:9). However, while the gift of such righteousness is foundational to every believer’s salvation, that is not what is meant here...Others have confined the meaning to social righteousness, the righteous treatment of the poor and oppressed...However, the root meaning here is determined by the seven occurrences of “righteousness” in the Sermon on the Mount that indicate it means a subjective righteousness, an inner righteousness that works itself out in one’s living in conformity to God’s will —righteous living. Thus, those who “hunger and thirst for righteousness” long to live righteously, and for righteousness to prevail in the world. (Hughes, The Sermon on the Mount: The Message of the Kingdom (Preaching the Word), 40)

Emmet Fox (1886-1951) concurs:

Righteousness means, in the Bible, not merely right conduct, but right thinking on all subjects, in every department of life. As we study the Sermon on the Mount, we shall find every clause in it reiterating the great truth that outside things are but the expression (ex-pressed or pressed out) or out-picturing of our inner thoughts and belief; that we have dominion or power over our thoughts to think as we will; and thus, indirectly, we make or mar our lives by the way in which we think. Jesus will constantly tell us in these discourses that we have no direct power over outer things, because these outer things are but consequences, or if you like, resultant pictures of what goes on in the Secret Place. If it were possible for us to affect externals directly without changing our thought, it would mean that we could think one thing and produce another; and this would be contrary to the Law of the Universe. Indeed, it is just this very notion which is the basic fallacy that lies at the root of all human trouble—all sickness and sin, all strife and poverty, and even death itself. (Fox, The Sermon on the Mount: The Key to Success in Life, 31)

There are many scholars who argue that social justice is a large component of the righteousness to which Jesus speaks. Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) delineates:

The term righteousness has been taken by scholars in two different ways. On the one hand, some have understood righteousness in all Matthean passages as the conduct expected by God: as e.g., in Proverbs 21:21...and Testament of Levi 13:5 (“Do righteousness on earth, in order that you might find it in heaven”). On the other hand, others have taken righteousness, at least in some passages, as the activity of God that establishes justice: as e.g., in Isaiah 51:6...and Isaiah 51:5...Scholarly opinion is divided in its use in Matthew. It seems entirely possible, however, that Matthew 5:6 may echo the second connotation. The hunger and thirst is for the future kingdom and God’s vindication of the right. (Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the Mount: Character Formation and Decision Making in Matthew 5-7, 52)

David Yount (b. 1969) argues:

The usual translation of the fourth Beatitude favors the word “righteousness” rather than “true goodness,” obscuring Jesus’ demand for both integrity and the pursuit of social justice...The disciple must be good within and without. Those who would imitate Christ cannot be satisfied with their own righteousness as their ticket to salvation. Rather, they must hunger and thirst for God’s justice for others. (Yount, What Are We to Do?: Living the Sermon on the Mount, 13-14)

David Buttrick (b. 1927) agrees:

The word “righteousness” appears often in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, and righteousness certainly includes concern for social justice. Have we Protestants, with our emphasis on justifying grace, often overlooked the word? The phrase “hunger and thirst for righteousness” is not to be understood as a personal virtue. No, those who hunger and thirst are a community of faith hankering for the coming of God’s kingdom. Hebrew thought did not reduce righteousness to a list of do and don’t commandments. The Israelites believed in a way of righteousness; a whole faith-filled life of righteousness, including prayer, ritual worship, fasting, charity. And a profound desire for the justice God demands. Righteousness is a much bigger word than doing good works. Righteousness is the substance of the Torah. (Buttrick, Speaking Jesus: Homiletic Theology and the Sermon on the Mount, 69)

David L. Turner (b. 1949) sees the term as holistic, incorporating both personal spirituality and social justice:

The righteousness here must not be reduced either to personal piety or to social justice. In Matthew, righteousness language speaks of right behavior before God. Protestant Christians who are used to reading Paul may think that Matthew is speaking of the imputed righteousness of Christ (cf., e.g. Romans 5:1-2), but this forensic sense is not a Matthean nuance. Here the emphasis is on the practical side, the upright lifestyle (see also Matthew 1:19, 3:15, 5:10, 20, 45, 6:1, 33). Those who realize their lack in attaining right behavior before God, rather than those who boast of their righteous accomplishments, will receive what they long for. Those who repent in view of the nearness of the kingdom long not only for personal righteousness but also for righteous living to permeate society as a whole (cf. Isaiah 51:1-5). Only when God’s will is done on earth as it is done in heaven (Matthew 6:10) will social justice be fully achieved. (Turner, Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 151)

Ronald J. Allen (b. 1949) agrees, presenting two “screens” by which a person can test themselves to determine if they are truly hungering and thirsting for righteousness:

First screen: Those hungering and thirsting for righteousness are people who are “Serious Believers.” You know who I mean? Folk who can’t get to church enough for Bible Study. Far be it from a preacher to pour cold water on getting to church, but second screen: In the world of Matthew, righteousness is a word that describes the quality of life in the realm–when all relationships are right–that is, the way God wants them to be. You are blessed when you hunger and thirst for right relationships. (Dave Fleer [b. 1953] and Dave Bland [b. 1953], “The Surprising Blessing of the Beatitudes ”, Preaching the Sermon on the Mount: The World It Imagines, 89)

How would you define righteousness? What is the relationship between righteousness and justice? Is there a hunger and thirst for righteousness in you? Is it being satisfied?

“No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” - Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), “I Have a Dream”, August 28, 1963

Elijah & The Ravens (I Kings 17)

Who was fed by ravens? Elijah

Elijah bursts onto the Biblical scene seemingly from out of nowhere. (I Kings 17:1). The prophet makes an explosive entrance with what amounts to a hit and run prophecy as immediately after declaring a three-year drought in Israel, God sends Elijah east to the brook Cherith (I Kings 17:1-3). Some have interpreted the immediate voyage to the brook as evidence of an instantaneous stoppage of rain.

Under the direction of King Ahab, Israel had been engaging in idolatry (I Kings 16:31-32) and the drought asserts that Yahweh, not the pagan deity Ba’al, controls the weather.

Amid the drought, God promises to sustain the prophet through the brook’s water and food fed to him by ravens (I Kings 17:4). Elijah follows instructions and God fulfills his promises as twice daily ravens dutifully come with provisions (I Kings 17:5-6).

The ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning and bread and meat in the evening, and he would drink from the brook. (I Kings 17:6 NASB)

Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) summarizes, “During a drought, Elijah drinks from a wadi (a seasonal stream) for days and eats the food brought by ravens. Yahweh makes a ‘garden’ in the midst of the wilderness, as he had done for Israel centuries before (Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 127).”

Elijah is sent on a mission that few would envy; a reminder that God’s call does not always lead to places the servant would have otherwise chosen. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) acknowledges:

Elijah leaves Ahab’s presence to hide in an inhospitable atmosphere east of the Jordan where, we deduce, there is no normal food supply. God has saved him from Ahab and Jezebel, it is implied (I Kings 17:3; cf. I Kings 18:4, 19:1-2), but under normal circumstances he will now die of hunger. God is, however, able to provide for him. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 132-133)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) adds:

This seems almost as risky as staying near Ahab; he is to drink from a wadi and be fed with food provided by ravens...Elijah obeys...and God provides—in an extravagant way for the culture (meat twice a day!)—through unlikely sources. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 97)

Elijah demonstrates faith worthy of a prophet. Gary Inrig (b. 1943) commends:

This demanded faith because the brook that ran through the Kidron was a wadi, a stream that flowed only during the rainy season—hardly a long-term source of water when a drought was on the way. And ravens were untamed scavengers, not providers. How could they serve as a food source?...Nevertheless, Elijah followed God’s instructions. He made his way to the wadi Kerith, where he spent a period of time. It was a place of total dependence upon God, and the Lord demonstrated his sufficiency. (Inrig, 1 & 2 Kings (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 134)

God provides abundantly for the prophet through both natural and supernatural means. Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) dissects:

While the provision with water happens in a natural way, the provision of food by ravens points to a miracle. Ravens, which are normally regarded as scavengers and as aggressive birds, serve as carriers of food. The daily meat included in the provision moves beyond the average diet since meat was normally eaten only on feast days. Because of the miraculous supply, Elijah is free from concerns; as a man of God he does not need any help and the drought does not concern him. Elijah is already portrayed as an obedient prophet, led by the word of Yahweh because he does not act on his own initiative but follows the orders of Yahweh. It is not his own power but the help of Yahweh that secures his survival in time of need triggered by a drought. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary, 183)

There is a stark contrast between the prophet’s circumstances and the nation’s. While Israel dries up, Elijah drinks cool water. While Israel starves, Elijah enjoys a veritable feast. While the constituents of Ba’al suffer, the prophet of Yahweh prospers.

Like God had done during the wilderness wandering, food was available to God’s people even amidst a barren environment (Exodus 16:8, 12). Richard Nelson (b. 1945) notes:

The story of Elijah and the ravens (I Kings 17:2-6) reflects the common folktale motif of the hero being fed by beasts and reminds the reader of the canonical traditions of wilderness feeding. (The LXX caught this implication and makes specific reference to Exodus 16:8, 12.)...The narrator emphasizes that the word of God is the prime mover in the story; Elijah is passively obedient (I Kings 17:2-5a). (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 109)

Paul R. House (b. 1958) affirms:

Regardless of harsh physical circumstances, the Lord provides for the prophet. The drought has begun, but Elijah has resources because his God controls all natural resources. God directs him to a brook that has water and where ravens will feed him. Also God has protected Elijah by taking him out of Ahab’s reach (cf. I Kings 18:10). Nothing he needs has been withheld. (House, 1, 2Kings (New American Commentary), 213)

Bruce Wilkinson (b. 1947) applies:

How does God’s sending ravens to feed Elijah during a drought (I Kings 17:6) apply to us today? Obviously this does not mean God desires to feed Christians by means of birds. Instead the principle is that God sometimes meets human needs by unusual means. The application of this principle is that believers can trust the Lord to supply all their needs. (Wilkinson, Almost Every Answer For Practically Any Teacher, 171)

If you could be fed by any animal what would it be? If God is sustaining the prophet, why does he go into exile? When have you experienced a personal drought? How did God provide? Is being fed by a raven sanitary? What do you associate with ravens? Why were ravens enlisted for this task?

Ravens, unclean animals (Leviticus 11:13-15; Deuteronomy 14:12-14), are agents of God. A raven was utilized by Noah to confirm that the flood had not subsided (Genesis 8:6-7). In contrast, it is implied that ravens devour the sons of evil kings who die in the field (I Kings 14:11, 16:4)

In this passage, ravens acts against their nature. Working against type, they share food with Elijah. Frederick Buechner (b. 1926) envisions:

When the ravens came and fed Elijah bread and meat by the brook Cherith (I Kings 17:6), we’re told they did it because the Lord commanded them to. However, I suspect that since, in spite of Edgar Allan Poe [1809-1949], ravens are largely nonverbal, the Lord caused the sight of the old man to be itself the command the way the smell of breakfast is a command to the hungry or the sound of your best friend on the stair a command to rejoice...If the ravens could have talked, they would probably have tried to talk either the Lord or themselves out of doing anything about it. As it was, there was simply nothing for it but to bring him two squares a day till he moved on somewhere else. The sleek, black birds and the bony intractable prophet—since all life is one life, to save another is to save yourself, and with their wings, and beaks, and throbbing birds’ hearts all working at once, the ravens set about doing it. (Buechner, Whistling in the Dark: An ABC Theologized, 7-8)

Being fed by ravens is highly unusual and not surprisingly attempts have been made to naturalize the text. Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) surveys:

Interpreters with antisupernatural presuppositions are uncomfortable with the miraculous element in passages like this. Some have gone to extremes to provide natural explanations for the ravens. For example, some suggest that the Hebrew word for “ravens,” oˉrbîm. could be changed a little to stand for “Arabs” or “Orebites,” natives of an imaginary city called “Oreb.” Others say the word means “steppe-dwellers,” suggesting Elijah was fed by friendly bedouins or itinerant traders. But the supernatural miracles belong in the passage and are acceptable to persons of faith, who see them as consistent with the omnipotent power of the Lord who made the universe. (Dilday, 1 & 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament)), 204

In this case, eliminating the supernatural from the narrative defeats the text’s purpose. God is presented as the Beastmaster as the obedient ravens are further proof that Yahweh, not Ba’al is in control.

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) comments:

YHWH’s statements that the prophet will drink the water of the Wadi Cherith and eat the food brought to him by the ravens highlight the contention that YHWH controls nature to support the prophet. The reference to ravens presupposes their ability to scavenge for food (cf. Proverbs 30:17), to live in inhospitable environments (cf. Isaiah 34:11), and to find their way generally (cf. Noah’s use of ravens in Genesis 8:7). Job 38:41 indicates that YHWH cares for the ravens, which is analogous to the use of the raven to care for Elijah in the present context. This motif suggests associations with the wilderness tradition of the Pentateuch in which YHWH sustained the people by providing water, manna, and quails (Exodus 16:1-17:7; Numbers 11:1-35, 20:1-13; cf. Jeremiah 35:1-19, which refers to the Rechabites, who live in the desert in keeping with the traditions of their ancestors). (Sweeney, First and Second Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 212)

In the midst of drought, God, unlike Ba’al provides. Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) concludes:

Communication between God and the nonhuman is not an uncommon Old Testament theme (even for ravens, Psalm 147:9). But the point...is not miracle or micromanagement. Rather, it stakes a claim that Israel’s God, not Baal, is the Creator, who provides water and who works through nonhuman creatures that are not usually among the animals who provide food in order to sustain the faithful. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 99)

The prophet’s food source (ravens) like the prophet’s proclamation (drought) reminds that Yahweh is superior to Ba’al. And the contest is not close.

How can we, like the ravens, act against our own selfish impulses to benefit God’s cause? What is the most surprising way in which God has provided for you? Have you ever been fed by an animal? Where have you seen animals assisting humans? What is the nicest thing an animal has ever done for you?

“Animals are not humans with reduced capacities. They have their own capacities, their own spectrum of aptitudes and behaviors.” - Jean Kazez, Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals, p. 95