Family Business (Philemon 1:2)

Who, in addition to Philemon, was that letter written to? Apphia and Archippus (Philemon 1:2)

Paul’s Epistle to Philemon is the shortest of the apostle’s letters preserved in the Bible. It is comprised of just one chapter which spans 25 verses. Written from a prison in Rome, it broaches a very sensitive subject: the delicate case of Philemon’s runaway slave, Onesimus (Philemon 1:10-21).

Despite the epistle’s title, Paul addresses the letter not only to Philemon but to three individuals and their church (Philemon 1:1-2).

Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,
To Philemon our beloved brother and fellow worker, and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house. (Philemon 1:1-2 NASB)

This marks the last reference to a house church in the New Testament.

Philemon’s co-recipients, Apphia and Archippus, are obscure (Philemon 1:2). Mitzi J. Smith (b. 1957) speculates:

Archippus and Apphia may function as two witnesses (as freed or freeborn persons) to the reconciliation that Paul proposes and signs (Philemon 1:19). Slaves could function as witnesses only under torture. (Carol A. Newsom [b. 1950], Sharon H. Ringe [b. 1946] and Jacqueline E. Lapsley [b. 1965], Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated, 606)

Though it is not stated in the text, traditionally Apphia and Archippus are thought of as Philemon’s wife and son respectively. Paul’s silence on the matter has led to much speculation. As countless situations comedies have demonstrated, the number of possible connections between two guys and a girl is virtually limitless.

Carolyn Osiek (b. 1940) surveys:

It is possible that Apphia is Philemon’s wife and Archippus his brother, or that all three are unmarried siblings in the same household, or if married, their spouses do not share the faith. It is less likely that Apphia is the wife of Archippus, since wives would not normally be named before their husbands (but see Prisca and Aquila in Acts 18:26; Romans 16:23; II Timothy 4:19 in contrast to I Corinthians 16:19). Of course, it is also possible that only one of the three hosts the house-church and the other two are the only other members of it that Paul knows. If Onesimus is Philemon’s brother as Allen Dwight Callahan [b. 1957]...argues, the addressees would be aware that his name is conspicuously missing from the list. Perhaps the two men, Philemon and Archippus, have a history of apostolic work known to Paul that Apphia does not share for Paul is not reluctant to name women who have worked in ministerial roles (e.g., Romans 16:3, 6, 12; Philippians 4:2-3), and his title for her is the simple way he would address any female believer. What we can say for certain is that the house is in the name of one person, most likely Philemon, since the house is referred to in Philemon 1:2 as “your (singular) house.” (Osiek, Philippians & Philemon (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 134)

The tradition that Philemon and Apphia are husband and wife has persisted for centuries. In his first homily on Philemon, John Chrysostom (347-407) preaches:

It seems to me that she [Apphia] was his [Philemon’s] partner in life. Observe the humility of Paul; he both joins Timothy with him in his request, and asks not only the husband, but the wife also, and some one else, perhaps a friend. (Chysostom, “Homily I”, Saint Chrysostom’s Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume 13), 547)

The traditional explanation that Philemon and Apphia are married is unsubstantiated but is a natural reading of the text. As such, the majority of contemporary commentators accept it and none can refute it. If this interpretation is correct, like Aquila and Priscilla, Philemon and Apphia are co-hosts of a house church (Romans 16:3-5; I Corinthians 16:19).

Apphia appears only here in the Bible (Philemon 1:2) making her one of only two women to be directly addressed in a New Testament epistle (Philemon 1:2; II John 1:1).

Richard R. Melick, Jr. (b. 1944) introduces:

The second addressee is Apphia, “our sister.” The name occurs often in extra-biblical sources and was a distinctively Phrygian name. She obviously had a Christian commitment since Paul called her a “sister.” From the way he addressed her, apparently she was well-known to him also. Could she have served with Philemon and Paul? Apphia was probably Philemon’s wife. Two factors suggest that: the warm, personal tone of the letter, which addresses house matters, and the close contextual connection with Philemon. (Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon (The New American Commentary), 350)

The name Apphia is Phrygian (present-day Turkey) in origin and is found frequently in western Asia Minor, including Colossae, where tradition holds that Philemon resided.

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

The name Apphia (not to be confused with the Roman Appia) is well attested in Phrygia and elsewhere in Western Anatolia: one Apphia of Colossae is commemorated on a tombstone set up by her husband Hermas. (Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 206)

Paul distinguishes Apphia as “our sister” (Philemon 1:2). James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) analyzes:

She is called literally “the sister” (as Timothy was called “the brother”). This presumably means that she also was a Christian, “our sister”...In contrast to the masculine ἀδελφος [“brother”]...the feminine is rarely used for members of religious associations. This is surprising, since women were active in religious cults of the time, particularly that of Isis. Nevertheless, the designation of a woman who also believed in Christ as “sister” seems to have been particularly characteristic of Christianity (Romans 16:1; I Corinthians 7:15, 9:5; James 2:15; Ignatius, Polycarp 5:1; II Clement 12:5, 19:1, 20:2; The Shepherd of Hermas, Visions 2.2.3, 2.3.1). Although the masculine still predominates in the New Testament and is often used in the plural when a congregation made up of both sexes is addressed (as in Colossians 1:2), the fact that the feminine is used, as here, does suggest that a serious attempt was made (and not least within the Pauline circle) to treat women as individuals and Christians in their own right. (Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 311-12)

Bonnie B. Thurston (b. 1952) and Judith M. Ryan (1952-2010) add:

She, like “the brother” Timothy (Philemon 1:1) is similarly introduced as tē adelphē, best translated as “our sister” as it is modified by the possessive pronoun hēmōn (“our”) that also modifies “our fellow soldier.”...Even if Apphia had been Philemon’s wife with management over the household, the use of tē adelphē could serve to focus attention on Apphia’s role as a Christian of influence within the local church that is to welcome Onesimus back home. Deliberate placement of “the sister” in tandem with “the brother” for Timothy could suggest some parity with respect to the importance and/or influence within the community. Like Phoebe, who is also described as adelphē (Romans 16:1), Apphia is thought to be among Paul’s coworkers...A few manuscripts such as D, and a number of miniscules either replace “sister” with “beloved” or, like manuscript 629, add beloved to sister adelphē tē agapētē. Such changes could reflect assimilation to “beloved” in the previous verse...“Brother” and “sister” are the forms of expressions Paul normally employs to describe both his own coworkers and Christians in general (e.g, Romans 8:29; I Corinthians 3:1). With already existing roots in the Old Testament tradition (Deuteronomy 15:3) and especially given Jesus’ own emphasis (Mark 3:34)...such familial terms are likely to be the earliest ones used by Christians in distinguishing themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. This is certainly a traditional understanding Paul builds upon in forming such close-knit communities (Romans 8:14-16; Galatians 4:5-7). (Thurston and Ryan, Philippians and Philemon (Sacra Pagina), 212)

As Thurston and Ryan allude, some manuscripts identify Apphia as “beloved sister” which would parallel “beloved brother” Philemon (Philemon 1:1, 2).

Conjecture has derived from Apphia’s designation as “our sister” (Philemon 1:2). Ross S. Kraemer (b. 1948) shares:

Mary Rose D’Angelo [b. 1946] has suggested that “sister” may sometimes designate the female partner of a female-male missionary team. Read from this perspective, Apphia might have been part of such a team, perhaps with Philemon, affiliated with the church in Archippus’s house. (Carol L. Meyers [b. 1942], Toni Craven [b. 1944] and Kraemer, Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament, 53)

The one conclusive fact that can be drawn from Paul’s use of “sister” is that Apphia is a believer.

The most common status given Apphia is the traditional belief that she is Philemon’s wife. As the epistle speaks to a domestic matter, if Apphia is indeed Philemon’s wife, Paul addresses her not only as a matter of courtesy but also practicality.

David E. Garland (b. 1947) construes:

As the paterfamilias, the male head of the family, Philemon had absolute authority over all others in the household, and Paul need only deal with him. But since wives were charged with running the affairs of the household, Apphia would have a stake in the disposition of the case concerning their slave. Apphia must also be convinced that this is the right thing to do. (Garland, Colossians, Philemon (NIV Application Commentary), 317)

Sabine Bieberstein (b. 1962) finds the inference that Apphia is Philemon’s wife to be biased:

It is true that the text does not completely rule out this interpretation, but, on the other hand, neither does it give the interpretation any sign of support...The text...has no interest in identifying Apphia as Philemon’s wife. This interpretation is more in keeping with an androcentric way of characterizing women. It involves the danger of reducing women to the functions they perform in a patriarchal household, underestimating their independent role in the early churches and construing their significance as merely derivative. (Luise Schottroff [b. 1934] and Marie-Theres Wacker [b. 1952], “Philemon: A Reading under Apphia’s Critical Eyes”, Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature, 849-50)

Archippus’ relationship to his fellow addressees is even more tenuous than is Apphia’s. In lieu of the presumed family context, some have assigned him the role of Philemon’s son.

Archippus’ name means “commander (or master) of the horse” and he is deemed a “fellow soldier” (Philemon 1:2). Isobel A.H. Combes prefaces:

Archippus is mentioned again in Colossians 4:17. Here he appears as a follower of Epaphras and some ancient authorities hold that he succeeded Epaphras as bishop—he is mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions 7.46 as the bishop of Laodicea. The designation fellow soldier is unusual for Paul and only used by him in one other place (cf. Philippians 2:25). (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], Acts-Philemon (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary), 693)

The appellation “fellow soldier” is unique. James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) inspects:

We must assume at least that he [Archippus] is mentioned here either because he was a member of Philemon’s household or because he was the only other member of the church currently in Colossae to be active in ministry, at least so as to warrant the title “fellow soldier”...The designation “our [Paul’s and Timothy’s] fellow soldier” is applied only to Ephraphoditus elsewhere in the Pauline corpus (Philippians 2:25). Paul does not use military metaphors for Christian service as much as is sometimes assumed: only, strictly speaking, in II Corinthians 10:1-6, itself not particularly typical of Paul’s concept of mission (Otto Bauernfeind [1889-1972], TDNT 5.710-11). The image evoked by the use of συνστρατιώτης (“comrade-in-arms,” NEB/REB) here and in Philippians 2:15, therefore, is probably more that of dedication and discipline than of fierceness and warlike behavior. It probably indicates not that Archippus had been one of Paul’s mission team as such (“fellow worker”), but that he had, like Epaphroditus, served under the banner of the gospel in a more independent commission, perhaps in Laodicea...though in a cooperative and mutually supportive role with Paul. (Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 312-13)

Robert McLachlan Wilson (1916-2010) supplements:

Archippus is addressed in Philemon 1:2 as συνστρατιώτης [“fellow soldier”], and in Colossians 4:17 is charged to look to the διακονία [“ministry”] which he has received. This would seem to imply some degree of seniority, which in turn would mean, if he was Philemon’s son, that Philemon himself would be fairly well on in years. J.B. Lightfoot [1828-1899]...suggests that Archippus was a presbyter, or perhaps ‘belonged to the order of “evangelists”’, and locates his ministry at Laodicea; but this is inference, and...not explicitly stated in the text. (Wilson, Colossians and Philemon (International Critical Commentary), 319-20)

There are many traditions concerning Archippus’ identity. Marianne Meye Thompson (b. 1954) relays:

On the assumption that Philemon and Apphia are husband and wife, Archippus is sometimes identified as their son, an assumption wryly characterized by J.L. Houlden [b. 1929] as “an instance of legend active when history fails.” Other early commentators thought of Archippus as “one of the clergy” (Chrystostom [347-407])...the bishop of the church at Colossae (Jerome [347-420]) and a deacon of the church (Pelagius [354-420]). Archippus is surely the one to whom is given the cryptic instruction “See that you complete the task that you have received in the Lord” (Colossians 4:17). Paul’s further reference to him as “our fellow soldier,” a term used of Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:25, suggests a joint effort in the service of the gospel. So Archippus was apparently a coworker of Paul with some responsibility in the affairs of the house church in view here. (Thompson, Colossians and Philemon (Two Horizons New Testament Commentary), 209)

John Knox (1900-1990) provocatively propagated a theory that Archippus, not Philemon was the intended recipient of the Epistle to Philemon, which Knox argues is the lost letter from Laodicea (Colossians 4:16). Knox posits that Archippus leads the church in Colossae and is Onesimus’ master and that Paul is soliciting funds from Philemon and Apphia to influence Archippus. The theory has become widely known but largely discredited.

Markus Barth (1915-1994) and Helmut Blanke (b. 1955) summarily reject:

In the middle of the nineteenth century, and most vigorously since 1927, it has been proposed that Archippus rather than Philemon was the owner of Onesimus, and that Philemon lived in Laodicea, a major center with which the tiny and insignificant Colossae never could compare. Bold and interlocking reasons are proffered by John Knox in his book Philemon among the Letters of Paul, 1935...in favor of these two theories...It would be completely unusual to mention in Philemon 1:1-2 the real addressee only at the third place, after Philemon and Apphia. There is no solid evidence to demonstrate that Archippus was the main person addressed by Paul. (Barth, The Letter to Philemon (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 127-28)

Those seeking to find family links between the three recipients of the Epistle to Philemon may be barking up the wrong family tree. The relationship that Paul accents is not their connection to each other but rather to the church. The broader Christian family is the family being emphasized.

David W. Pao (b. 1966) notes:

While the household setting may point to the possibility of a family relationship among these three persons, the way they are introduced focuses on their standing within the church...“Our sister”...highlights her [Apphia’s] independent standing as a Christian and possibly as a leader of the church. The fact that she is specifically mentioned may even point to her status as a patron of this Christian community (cf. Romans 16:1)...In this context...“fellow soldier” highlights Archippus’s involvement in the work of ministry...Moreover, the presence of the singular pronoun (“your house”, οἰκον σου) may argue against seeing Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus as family members since one would have expected a plural pronoun as is found in a papyrus letter: “Apollonios to Hippalos and Sarapion and Berenike and Pyrrhos and to all in their house, greetings.” (Pao, Colossians and Philemon (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 364-65)

Sandra Hack Polaski (b. 1964) concurs:

Apphia may...be related by marriage or blood to either Philemon or Archippus...but her familial or marital relationship is not what is of primary importance to Paul. Nor is there any indication that Onesimus was specifically a house-servant, such that her involvement as “lady of the house” would be necessary in determining Onesimus’s disposition. Rather, Paul addresses her as “our sister,” a title that strongly suggests...that she is being addressed as a member of the Christian community. Her leadership within that community, then, would be logically deduced from two facts. She is named along with one or two male leaders of the community (depending on whether the slaveowner is also church leader), and the rest of the church is mentioned without singling out individuals...Apphia’s inclusion in the salutation, then, indicates that she is a person of influence in that community, or, to put it briefly, a leader of the church. (Polaski, A Feminist Introduction to Paul, 44)

In this instance, a person’s inclusion in the Christian community is as significant as membership in her biological family.

Does it matter if Philemon, Apphia and Archippus are related; would it alter the interpretation of the epistle in any way? Do you consider your fellow church members to be family? Do you identify yourself most as a Christian or as a member of your family? Why does Paul include Apphia, Archippus and the church in a letter that is addressing a personal matter?

While the Epistle to Philemon is personal in nature, it is certainly not private as it is addressed not only to Philemon, Apphia and Archippus but also to their church (Philemon 1:2). Philip L. Tite (b. 1969) sees their inclusion as reflecting status:

The inclusion of Apphia and Archippus suggests that these two individuals were also prominent members of the community; but even they are secondary to Philemon. With the individuals included in the adscriptio, this letter takes on a more than private letter function; Philemon represents the community under his leadership, and is a person of authority worthy of Paul’s respect. This broader social dynamic for the letter (even though the letter is likely written for a single recipient) certainly suggests that Paul places Philemon in a position of high regard as a fellow Christian leader. (Stanley E. Porter [b. 1956] and Sean A. Adams, “How to Begin, and Why?: Diverse Functions of the Pauline Prescript Within a Greco-Roman Context”, Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, 71-72)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) asserts:

All the audience is addressed in Christian terms and Paul stresses the co-laborer aspect of his relationship with Philemon. As G.B. Caird [1917-1984] and others have rightly stressed, this is most certainly not a private letter, even though its message is directed at Philemon. Nor is it written simply to a family...The reference to the church at or in Philemon’s house rules out the notion that this is a letter written just to a family, and as Sara C. Winter [b. 1945] remarks this reference cannot be reduced to the idea of the household at worship. Non-household members are among the addressees of this letter. (Witherington, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles, 54)

There are advantages to broaching the subject publicly. Jeffrey A.D. Weima (b. 1960) poses that Paul is exerting social pressure:

While Apphia may well have been Philemon’s wife, there is no conclusive evidence that Archippus was his son and it can hardly be the case that everyone in the church that met in his house was related to him such that “courtesy demanded” their inclusion among the letter recipients. The more plausible explanation for Paul including all these people in the recipient formula is that he deliberately makes the letter’s request a public matter, thereby giving his correspondence greater persuasive power. As any recruiter or fundraiser today knows full well: A request made in public is harder to turn down that one made in private. (D. Francois Tolmie, “Paul’s Persuasive Prose: An Epistolary Analysis of the Letter to Philemon”, Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter, 38)

For Paul, Philemon’s treatment of Onesimus is a matter that concerns the entire church. Douglas J. Moo (b. 1950) evaluates:

The mention of Apphia and Archippus may have been little more than a courteous gesture, but the mention of the entire church cannot function in quite this way. Moreover, Paul gives indications in the letter that he has a larger audience in view. For while the bulk of the letter is addressed to the individual, with second-person singular forms, Paul also uses second-person plural forms [Philemon 1:3, 22, 25]...These references seem to imply that the whole community would have been present as the letter was publicly read. By making the issue of Onesimus a public one, Paul increases pressure on Philemon to respond as he wishes. But we should not view the public nature of the letter as simply a lawyer’s tactic to win his case; it rather reflects the corporate nature of early Christianity, in which no matter was “private” but inevitably affected, and was affected by, one’s brothers and sisters in the new family of God. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (Moo, Pillar New Testament Commentary), 383-84)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) argues:

Paul is concerned that the whole community that gathers in prayer at Philemon’s house be involved in the way Onesimus is to be welcomed back by Philemon. This concern thus gives to the Letter to Philemon a dimension that transcends that of private correspondence...This has to be recognized even if, once the prescript comes to an end, one hears no more in the letter about the household church. For Paul is trying to get Philemon to recognize the symbolic integrity of that congregation, which is made up of brothers and sisters who go beyond the intimate family or household of Philemon. (Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon (Anchor Bible), 81)

Richard B. Hays (b. 1948) cites:

The letter to Philemon, confronting an issue that might have been considered a private personal matter, is addressed not just to Philemon but also to Apphia and Archippus and to “the church in your house” (Philemon 1:2). Paul insists on laying the decision-making process open to the community’s scrutiny. (Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics , 57)

Paul’s inclusion of Apphia, Archippus and their church implies that there are at least times when what a church member does in private is the entire congregation’s business.

Why does Paul take the case of Onesimus before the church? Does he triangulate? What makes Onesimus’ predicament a church issue? Do you think that Paul treats Philemon fairly or is the apostle airing dirty laundry in public? How does Paul’s handling of Philemon compare to Jesus’ strategy for church conflict resolution (Matthew 18:15-20)? When should a personal matter become a community issue?

“No man should advocate a course in private that he’s ashamed to admit in public.” - George McGovern, 1922-2012

Leaping Tall Buildings (Psalm 18:29)

Who by God’s help was able to jump over a wall? David (Psalm 18:29)

Psalm 18 is a lengthy psalm that can be classified as an individual royal psalm of thanksgiving (Psalm 18:1-50).

Richard J. Clifford (b. 1934) introduces:

Psalm 18 shifts the topic from the subject of the three preceding psalms, the Temple, to the king (though the king is often associated with the Temple.) It is the third longest poem in the Psalters (after Psalms 119 and 78). A nearly identical version is found in II Samuel 22 [II Samuel 22:1-51]. (Clifford, Psalms 1-72 (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), 104)

The psalm’s superscription attributes its composition to King David. Geoffrey W. Grogan (1925-2011) notes:

Most scholars now see this psalm as very old, and the possibility that all or much of it is by David is quite widely (but not universally) accepted, even by some denying most other psalms to him. It is sometimes used as a yardstick for measuring whether others headed לדוד, lědāwid, are by him. (Grogan, Psalms (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary), 64-65)

William L. Holladay (b. 1926) adds:

Strikingly, this psalm [Psalm 18:1-50] is duplicated in II Samuel 22 [II Samuel 22:1-51], and there it is specifically attributed to David (II Samuel 22:1). The context given for the Psalm in II Samuel 22 might itself be unhistorical, but that this psalm, which appears to offer archaic language, is preserved in two different parts of the Old Testament suggests that the attribution to David should be taken seriously; most scholars at least date it to the tenth century B.C.E. (Holladay, The Psalms Through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses, 24)

Derek Kidner (1913-2008) defends Davidic authorship:

Although some have assumed from the final verse [Psalm 18:50] that the king in question was not David but one of his descendants, the verse does not require this, and the zest and vividness of the writing point to first-hand experiences such as David pre-eminently had. An incidental pointer to him is the allusion to fighting on foot (Psalm 18:29, 33), since later kings soon took up chariots (cf. I Kings 22:34; II Kings 9:21), which were introduced on a large scale by Solomon. (Kidner, Psalms 1-72 (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 90)

The psalm’s superscription states that the psalm documents “the day that the Lord delivered him [David] from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul.” This heading is highly irregular.

Samuel Terrien (1911-2002) informs:

The editor of the Davidic Psalter not only attributed Psalm 18 in its totality to David but also assigned it to a concrete situation without parallel elsewhere in the completed Psalter. Instead of a specific episode in the life of the young monarch, as was the case in most of the other David superscriptions (Psalms 3, 7, 34, 51-52, 54, 56-57, 59-60, 63; cf. 142), this notice covers all the king’s victories during Saul’s pursuits (II Samuel 5:5-25, 15:1-21:22). The psalm is called “canticle” or “chant” (cf. Deuteronomy 31:30), and the poet insists on the exceptional quality of the singer, whom he names “the servant of the Lord” (cf. Psalm 36:1, 144:10; cf. also “Moses, man of God”; Deuteronomy 33:1). (Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary, Volume 1: Psalms 1-72 (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 196)

Given this context, the psalm is sung as a sigh of relief after the singer has emerged victorious following a long struggle. It functions much the same way as the 1997 ubiquitous Chumbawamba hit “Tubthumping” whose hook is preceded by, “We’ll be singing when we’re winning!”

In recounting the Lord’s assistance, the psalm transitions from defense (Psalm 18:16-19) to attack when David exclaims:

For by You I can run upon a troop;
And by my God I can leap over a wall. (Psalm 18:29 NASB)

James Limburg (b. 1935) contextualizes:

Psalm 18:25-30 consists of praise accompanied by instruction. The king speaks of what the Lord has done for his people (Psalm 18:27). Then, with striking imagery and exaggeration, the king tells what the Lord means for his own life: “Lord, you light my lamp, you give me the strength to take on an entire army, with you I can leap over a wall!” (Psalm 18:28-29 paraphrased). (Limburg, Psalms (Westminster Bible Companion), 56)

Peter C. Craigie (1938-1985) supplements:

The psalmist turns to a personal reflection (Psalm 18:28-29), in which he recalls the crisis from which he had sought deliverance, and the deliverance which came. He had almost been trapped by Death and Sheol (Psalm 18:4-5), which are symbolized by darkness, but in that darkness, God had given him light (Psalm 18:28) and had warded off the ultimate darkness of defeat in death. He had been threatened by enemies (Psalm 18:3), but had been enabled by God to attack a greater force (“a troop”) and “scale a wall” (namely the walls of enemy forts or cities, Psalm 18:29). (Craigie, Psalms 1-50 (Word Biblical Commentary), 175)

Some have seen the verse as out of place. Donald K. Berry (b. 1953) acknowledges:

Douglas K. Stuart [b. 1943] recommends that the entire verse be omitted for metrical and semantic reasons. The verse is tenuously connected to the statements which precede and follow it, but omission is somewhat drastic. (Berry, The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretive Strategies for Psalm 18 (Library Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies), 42)

David asserts that, with God’s help, he can “leap” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “scale” (NIV, NLT) or “vault” (Robert Alter [b. 1935], MSG) a wall (Psalm 18:29).

The Hebrew word for wall is shûr. Stephen D. Renn researches:

Shûr is a noun found in four places, designating a literal wall in each case (cf. Genesis 49:22; Psalm 18:29; II Samuel 22:30; Job 24:11). (Renn, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words: Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew And Greek Texts, 1025)

Colin J. Humphreys (b. 1941) infers:

The Hebrew word translated “wall” here is shur, and clearly it means a high wall that the psalmist can climb with the help of God, not a low wall he can easily step over. (Humphreys, The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist’s Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories, 210)

Because of this presumption, The Message paraphrases the word as “highest fences” (Psalm 18:29 MSG).

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) titled his “Reflections on the Life of David”, Leap over a Wall because he felt that Psalm 18:29 typified the king’s entire life. Peterson characterizes:

The image of David vaulting the wall catches and holds my attention. David running, coming to a stone wall, and without hesitation leaping the wall and continuing on his way—running toward Goliath, returning from Saul, pursuing God, meeting Jonathan, rounding up stray sheep, whatever, but running. And leaping. Certainly not strolling or loitering...David’s is a most exuberant story. Earthy spirituality characterizes his life and accounts for the exuberance. (Peterson, Leap Over a Wall: Earthy Spirituality for Everyday Christians, 11)

The setting of this particular leaping is a battlefield. Craig C. Broyles (b. 1953) situates:

In this section we have the first clear reference to the psalm’s military context: With your help I can advance against a troop; with my God I can scale a wall. In contrast to the theophany, which refers only to Yahweh in the third person...this song is dominated by first and second persons (he is used, however, in Psalm 19:30-34). While the theophany gives focus to divine intervention, and a dramatic one at that, this section gives attention to Yahweh’s equipping...and training...of his agent of victory. (Broyles, Psalms (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 106)

Konrad Schaefer (b 1951) compiles:

God instructs and equips the psalmist for military triumph: a belt of strength, safe passages, fleetness of foot (“like the feet of a deer”), a stronghold out of reach, amazing strength (to “bend a bow of bronze”), and training for battle (Psalm 18:31-35). Military vocabulary and images are preferred as the situation unfolds (Psalm 18:36-42). In an attack and allied victory, the psalmist pulverizes the enemy (Psalm 18:42). (Schaefer, Psalms (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 43)

William P. Brown (b. 1958) concurs:

In Psalm 18, the king can “run over a wall” (Psalm 18:29); he is girded with “strength”; his way is “perfect” (Psalm 18:32); and his “stride” is “lengthened” (Psalm 18:36). Such qualities, among others, establish the king’s prowess in combat (see also Psalm 18:33-34). (Brown, The Psalms (Interpreting Biblical Texts))

Allen P. Ross (b. 1943) analyzes:

Psalm 18:29 says, “By you I can run against a troop,” (a synecdoche, referring to all kinds of conflict in warfare). The second half of the verse may also refer to some aspect of war, although the idea is not readily clear: “I can leap over a wall” (perhaps escaping; see I Samuel 23:2). (Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 1: 1-41 (Kregel Exegetical Library), 454)

Many interpreters see the wall being leaped as reflecting David’s ability to penetrate enemy defenses.

The image depicted is that of a divinely inspired warrior. As such the Contemporary English Version paraphrases: “You help me defeat armies and capture cities” (Psalm 18:29 CEV). A more modern exemplar of Psalm 18:29 is Sergeant Alvin C. York (1887-1964), a Christian who merited the Medal of Honor during World War I for his individual exploits during an assault on October 8, 1918.

Given the indeterminate superscription, the psalm may not refer to any particular battle. Michael Wilcock (b. 1932) speculates:

The effects of grace, God’s undeserved goodness to such people, are to bring light into their life and (what is more) to keep it burning, and to provide the very resources which they lack in coping with both people (a troop) and with things (a wall). David is no doubt thinking of some of the achievements which climaxed with his accession to the throne, for instance his defeat of the Amalekite raiders in I Samuel 30:1-20 and his capture of the Jebusite city of Jerusalem in II Samuel 5:6-16. (Wilcock, The Message of Psalms, Volume 1 (The Bible Speaks Today), 66)

Whoever the opponent, David is elated. Willem A. VanGemeren (b. 1943) restates:

In his newfound deliverance, the psalmist expresses a spirit of confident joy. There is no barrier that the Lord cannot overcome, whether it be a “troop” or the wall of an enemy city (Psalm 18:29). The presence of the Lord gives confidence of victory (cf. Joshua 23:10). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Psalms: Revised Edition (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 209)

Significantly, the psalmist’s confidence does not emanate from within himself but from without in the form of his God (Psalm 18:29; Romans 8:31). John Eaton (b. 1927) elucidates:

In Psalm 18:28-29 the king pictures the effect of his deliverance, and one can easily interpret his hopes as based on the meaning of a foregoing sacrament; God has in symbol ‘saved’ him and confirmed his choice of him, and so the king looks forward to having the divine help in the struggles that lie ahead. In times of darkness God will light his ‘candle’ (the picture will be of a lamp made of a wick set in a saucer of oil). It is a picture of one who has to go through much darkness, but whose little light is sufficient because it is lit by the Lord. Through God this warrior will not fear to run at a whole troop of foes, and a mighty city wall will be no obstacle to him. (Eaton, The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary with an Introduction and New Translation (Continuum Biblical Studies), 106)

The king has assurance that God will equip him with whatever skills he may need, even superhuman abilities such as Superman’s capacity to “leap tall buildings in a single bound”.

James H. Waltner (1931-2007) summarizes:

The loyal God lights my lamp (Psalm 18:28). In that God-given vitality, the king can crush a troop or scale the wall of a hostile city (Psalm 18:29). With God as enabler, he can do the unthinkable. The concluding assertion states the theme of the whole psalm: This God...is perfect (Psalm 18:30, tāmîm, “whole, integral”). God is totally reliable. (Waltner, Psalms (Believers Church Bible Commentary), 104)

After triumphing over numerous obstacles, David’s faith is soaring. The king’s assertion that he can leap over walls is a precursor to Paul’s famous declaration, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.” (Philippians 4:13 NASB).

What is the highest you have ever leapt? Have you ever felt as though you could “leap over a wall” with God’s assistance? What historical figures have illustrated Psalm 18:29 by exceeding their natural limitations? Who receives the credit for your successes? At what point in your life were you most confident in God’s ability to empower you? Is your life characterized by the joy inherent in Psalm 18:29?

David’s intent in penning the eighteenth psalm is not simply to document an historical victory but to inspire future communities of believers. The king’s military might is a community concern as it affects the entire nation.

Robert Davidson (1927-2012) connects:

On the king’s relationship with God and on his God-given vitality depends the well-being of the whole nation. As a warrior, the king can, with God’s help, successfully lead his army into battle. He can storm ramparts...and, taking his enemies by surprise, leap over a defensive wall. (Davidson, The Vitality of Worship: A Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 68)

J. Clinton McCann, Jr. (b. 1951) interprets:

If Psalm 18 is viewed simply as a royal psalm of thanksgiving used by David or one of his descendants upon the occasion of military victory, then it must be viewed essentially as a literary artifact—an interesting museum piece, but not something for contemporary handling and use. Taking a clue from Erhard S. Gerstenberger [b. 1932], however, the interpreter may move in a different direction. Gerstenberger’s proposal that Psalm 18 was intended “to keep hope alive in hard-pressed Jewish communities” is all the more likely when we consider that, in some post-exilic circles, the promises attached to the Davidic monarchy were applied to the whole community...The circumstances and faith of the psalmist, as well as the intent of Psalm 18 to keep hope alive, are captured in Jesus’ parting words to his disciples: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid...I have said this to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world!” (John 14:27, 16:33 NRSV). (1 & 2 Maccabees, Introduction to Hebrew Poetry, Job, Psalms (New Interpreter’s Bible), 749)

Many have been encouraged by David’s experience. Herbert Lockyer, Sr. (1886-1934) documents:

This portion of Scripture was the constant source of inspiration of the Scottish Covenanters...Walter Scott [1771-1832] has embodied in his novels the influence of the Psalms in their lives. It was a Psalm that nerved Manse Headrigg to leap her horse over a wall, Psalm 18:29. (Lockyer, Psalms: A Devotional Commentary, 65)

It continues to provide hope for modern believers. Robert L. Alden (1937-1996) confesses:

Psalm 18:29b is one of this writer’s favorite testimony verses. It comes to mind whenever a human impossibility is faced. “By my God I can leap over a wall!” Joshua and the people of Israel did it literally at Jericho. David and his army did it at Jerusalem. Why can’t we? (Alden, Psalms, Volume 1: Songs of Devotion (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 47-48)

William R. Taylor (1882-1951) generalizes:

Our possibilities, both of mind and body, are far greater than we realize. It is recorded of an athlete that when he was fifteen, he jumped over a five-barreled gate—a feat he never afterward equaled—because he was then chased by a bull. Fear drew out his latent power. If fear can be so great an incentive, how much more may love be? The stories of the martyrs and heroes provide the answers. (George A. Buttrick [1892-1980], Psalms, Proverbs (The Interpreter’s Bible), 99)

It is worth noting that God assists the believer as opposed to eliminating the obstacle. Even David, God’s anointed, does not claim that the wall is flattened, only that God has empowered him to move past it.

When have you been inspired by the triumphs of believers that have preceded you? What is the greatest thing you have accomplished “by” God? What walls do you need to leap over? When you pray, do you pray for your walls to be flattened or the ability to hurdle them? As God did not remove the wall before David, does this imply that there is value in our trials?

“It is not by my own strength but in my God that I shall leap over the wall which sins have built between humankind and the heavenly Jerusalem.” - Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Expositions of the Psalms 1-32 (Works of Saint Augustine, Vol. III, No. 15), p. 194

Zacchaeus: Up A (Sycamore) Tree (Luke 19:4)

What kind of tree did Zacchaeus climb in order to see Jesus? Sycamore

A wealthy tax collector named Zachaeus desires to catch a glimpse of Jesus as the famed teacher passes through Jericho (Luke 19:1-2). A short man, Zacchaeus’ vision is obstructed by the crowd (Luke 19:3). The admittedly unscrupulous publican is presumably unpopular and not someone the masses would accommodate (Luke 19:8). Undeterred, the diminutive tax collector casts his dignity aside, scurries and scales a nearby tree to spot Jesus (Luke 19:4).

The story, found only in Luke’s gospel, provides a curious detail: The tree that Zacchaeus scales in the City of Palms (Deuteronomy 34:3, Judges 1:16, 3:13, II Chronicles 28:15) is a sycamore.

So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way. (Luke 19:4 NASB)

Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) sees the humor in Luke’s setting:

The story begins as a comedy. Zacchaeus is drawn, not by devotion to Jesus or any high-sounding confession of faith, but by simple curiosity to try to get a glimpse of him. Being short, he decides to climb a tree to get a better view. A sycamore tree should provide good cover and let him get away with his covert surveillance without jeopardizing his dignity. No such luck. Jesus not only spots Zacchaeus, but makes a spectacle of him by inviting himself to Zacchaeus’s home. You have to chuckle (unless you happen to be Mrs. Zacchaeus, left with the problem of rearranging household plans to provide dinner for the unexpected guest and his entourage). (Ringe, Luke (Westminster Bible Companion), 232)

This is the only time the word sycamore (Greek: συκομμρέα, sukomōraia) appears in the New Testament, though Luke uses the similar sykaminos in Luke 17:6. The sycamore is native to Egypt and Asia minor and thrives in the warm lowland areas of Palestine. It produces sweet, edible fruit.

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) identify:

The sycamore (or, more correctly, sycomore) referred to here is a type of fig tree, Ficus sycomorous. (Sycamore, spelled with an a, is an American name for a plane tree, genus Platanus. Though the fruit was considered inferior to the true fig (Ficus carica) it was widely consumed and cultivated by some (e.g. the prophet Amos identified himself as a trimmer of sycomore trees [Amos 7:14]). (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 303)

Philip W. Comfort (b. 1950) and Walter A. Elwell (b. 1937) determine:

The word translated “sycamore” in I Kings 10:27; I Chronicles 27:28; II Chronicles 1:15, 9:27; Psalm 78:47; Isaiah 9:10; Amos 7:14; and Luke 19:4 undoubtedly refers to the well-known sycamore-fig, which is also known as the mulberry-fig or fig-mulberry...The sycamore-fig of the Bible is a strong-growing, robust, wide-spreading tree growing 30 to 40 feet (9.1 to 12.2 meters) tall and sometimes attaining a trunk circumference of 20 feet (6.1 meters) or more with a crown 120 feet (36.6 meters) in diameter. It is a tree that is easily climbed and is frequently planted along roadsides, which accounts for the reference in Luke 19:4. It produces an abundant amount of fruit in clusters on all parts of the tree, on both young and old branches and even on the trunk itself. It is very similar to the common fig, only smaller and much inferior in quality. In David’s day it was so valuable that he appointed a special overseer for the sycamore trees (I Chronicles 27:28). (Comfort and Elwell, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, 1058)

Megan Bishop Moore (b. 1972) adds:

This tropical tree grew abundantly in the Shepelah (I Kings 10:27; II Chronicles 1:15, 9:27). It is not the American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), the Old World sycamore (Platanus orientalis), or the sycamine (mulberry, Morus Nigra L.), as earlier thought...Both the wood and the fruit of the sycamore tree are valuable. The soft, porous wood was used in construction of Egyptian tombs and coffins. The sycamore fig is inferior to the common fig, Ficus carica L., but was cultivated and eaten in ancient times. About three days before the sycamore fig harvest, a gash was made in the fruit to hasten ripening...The sycamore fig of biblical times was fertilized by wasps. Modern sycamores produce seedless figs and grow only in cultivated form. (David Noel Freeman, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 1260)

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) sees a connection between the tree and Zacchaeus’ later confession (Luke 19:8):

In Luke’s original Greek there may be a wordplay between “I’ve extorted” (esykophatēsa) and “sycamore tree” (sykomorean), as though before God his extortions “put him up a tree” from which he has now come down in repentance. (Gundry, Commentary on Luke)

Desperate times call for desperate measures and for Zacchaeus, the sycamore tree is a means to an end. His willingness to climb the sycamore is evidence that the resourceful and determined tax collector will stop at nothing to see Jesus.

What types of trees have you climbed? How old were you the last time that you did climb a tree? What would it take to get you to climb a tree today? When has your vision been obstructed from something that you really wanted to see? What would you have done had you been Zacchaeus? Why does Zacchaeus climb the sycamore tree?

Climbing a tree in public would have been deemed highly undignified. Depicting the tax collector in this act is one of many ways that Luke features Zacchaeus in the most embarrassing light possible.

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) explains:

Luke has spared no insulting image to portray Zacchaeus as a pathetic, even despicable character. He paints a derisive and mocking picture of a traitorous, small-minded, greedy, physically deformed tax collector sprinting awkwardly ahead of the crowd and climbing a sycamore tree like an ape. But Luke exploits these conventional tropes only for the purpose of reversing them in the conclusion of the story. (Parsons, Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity, 107)

Some have viewed Zacchaeus’ scaling the sycamore as an attempt to remain inconspicuous; he is attempting to maintain dignity while performing an undignified act.

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) interprets:

The picture of this tiny, rejected man sitting alone, hidden in order to get a glimpse of Jesus, is very touching. He certainly did not want the crowd to know he was there. He had dignity! He would get a private view of Jesus. The crowd would pass, and he would remain unseen, like an orphan peering through a lighted window on a dark cold night. (Hughes, Luke, Volume Two: That You May Know the Truth (Preaching the Word), 223)

Some have accused Zacchaeus of nothing less than hiding in the sycamore. Kenneth E. Bailey (b. 1930) argues:

Luke 19:4...records Zacchaeus’s first action with the words “So he ran on ahead.” Middle Eastern adults do not run in public if they wish to avoid public shame. Furthermore, powerful, rich men do not climb trees at public parades anywhere in the world. Zacchaeus knew this only too well. So he ran ahead of the crowd and, trying to hide, climbed into a tree with dense foliage hoping no one would see him. Why is a sycamore fig mentioned?...Sycamore fig trees have large leaves and low branches. One can climb into them easily and just as easily hide among their thickly clustered broad leaves. Both of these features were important to Zacchaeus. Additionally, such trees were only allowed some distance from town. Zacchaeus chose to climb a tree growing outside Jericho, assuming the crowd would have dispersed by the time Jesus reached Jericho. (Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, 177)

Whatever his motive for climbing the tree, it can be certain that Zacchaeus is determined to glimpse Jesus. Robert H. Stein (b. 1935) deduces:

Such undignified behavior, according to that culture, indicates that more than curiosity was at play here. (Stein, Luke (The New American Commentary), 467)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) concurs:

The crowd might make way for someone who was respected in the community, but it would not do so for someone like Zacchaeus. Running ahead, he shamelessly scurries up a tree and perches on a limb. Zacchaeus’s resolve means that he does not mind looking ridiculous in his quest. (Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 747-48)

Zacchaeus receives more than he bargains for as Jesus will summon Zacchaeus from his perch atop the Sycamore and invite himself to dine at the reviled tax collector’s home (Luke 19:5-6). This awkward position atop a sycamore tree is where Zacchaeus meets Jesus and finds acceptance.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) charges:

The crowd laughs at the lowly, to people walking the way of humility, who leave the wrongs they suffer in God’s hands and do not insist on getting back at their enemies...Say what you like, but for our part, let us climb the sycamore tree and see Jesus. The reason you cannot see Jesus is that you are ashamed to climb the sycamore tree. (Arthur A. Just, Jr. [b. 1953], New Testament, III: Luke (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), 290)

Have you ever functioned as an obstacle to someone else seeing Jesus? What would you be willing to do to catch a glimpse of Jesus? Have you ever sacrificed your dignity in the name of Jesus?

“Obstacles don’t have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don’t turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it.” - Michael Jordan (b. 1963)

A Cloud The Size of a Hand (I Kings 18:44)

Who saw “a cloud no larger than a man’s hand” and knew the three-year drought was over? Elijah’s servant (I Kings 18:44)

One of the most famous incidents in the life of Elijah is his defeat of 450 prophets of Ba’al in a contest to determine whose god would send fire on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18:20-40). Immediately after this great triumph, while in the midst of a drought and with nary a cloud in the sky, Elijah dismisses King Ahab in anticipation of a torrential downpour (I Kings 18:41). The prophet then assumes the fetal position (I Kings 18:42) and instructs his unnamed servant to inspect the horizon seven times (I Kings 18:43). After the first six trips prove fruitless, the servant returns a seventh time having witnessed the smallest of signs (I Kings 18:44).

It came about at the seventh time, that he [the servant] said, “Behold, a cloud as small as a man’s hand is coming up from the sea.” And he [Elijah] said, “Go up, say to Ahab, ‘Prepare your chariot and go down, so that the heavy shower does not stop you.’” (I Kings 18:44 NASB)

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) summarizes:

Elijah goes to the top of Carmel and prostrates himself, with his head between his knees, in a position of prayer. The purpose of this action becomes evident as he bids his servant seven times to look out to the sea. When the boy observes at his seventh attempt a small rain cloud forming over the Mediterranean it is evident that the drought is about to come to an end. (Sweeney, First and Second Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 229-30)

The only evidence the servant produces is a seemingly inconsequential cloud (I Kings 18:44) yet this is enough confirmation to satisfy Elijah.

When James recounts the event, he attributes the downpour to the prophet’s prayers (James 5:17-18). August H. Konkel (b. 1948) interprets:

A sevenfold repetition indicates the fullness of prayer (I Kings 18:43-44); each time the servant ascends one of the peaks of Carmel for the best view. At the first sign of a small cloud the company begins its descent from the mountain lest the rain bog them in the valley below. As Ahab rides furiously towards Jezreel, Elijah runs on ahead [I Kings 18:46]. Running before the king indicates service to the king, now with the intent that the king will fulfill his proper mission in service to God. (Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings (The NIV Application Commentary), 301)

Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) applies:

Unlike the answer to the prayer at the altar, the answer to this prayer didn’t come at once. Seven times Elijah sent his servant to look toward the Mediterranean Sea and report any indications of a storm gathering, and six of those times the servant reported nothing. The prophet didn’t give up but prayed a seventh time, and the servant saw a tiny cloud coming from the sea. This is a good example for us to follow as we “watch and pray” and continue to intercede until the Lord sends the answer...The little cloud wasn’t a storm, but it was the harbinger of the rains that were to come. (Wiersbe, Be Responsible (I Kings): Being Good Stewards of God’s Gifts, 169)

The precursor to rain is a natural one, namely a cloud. Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel (1927-2011) define:

The Hebrew word for “cloud” (’āb) refers to a thick, dark, rainy cloud mass (cf. Judges 5:4; II Samuel 23:4). Ahab’s need for haste in the face of the oncoming cloudburst can be appreciated when one realizes that his chariot must travel seventeen miles through the accumulating mud and across the quickly swelling dry wadis. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel-2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 779)

The cloud is “as small as a man’s hand” (I Kings 18:44 NASB). In her classic devotional Streams in the Desert, L.B. Cowman (1870-1960) remarks:

“A cloud as small as a man’s hand is rising from the sea” (1 Kings 18:44). What a fitting description, for a man's hand had been raised in prayer to God before the rains came. (Cowman, Streams in the Desert: 366 Daily Devotional Readings, 176)

Other authors writing to a popular audience have also found symbolism in the cloud’s comparison to a hand. Clark Strand (b. 1957) sees:

The cloud witnessed by Elijah’s servant is very small—the tiniest cloud you could see, just like a little hand coming up over the horizon. So small is it, in fact, that it might almost seem insignificant, if it weren’t for the fact that it is shaped like a hand. That makes it intimate, and that intimacy gives Elijah an intimation of things to come. When it pops up from the blank horizon of the sea, immediately he leaps up. (Strand, How to Believe in God: Whether You Believe in Religion or Not, 109)

Craig B. Polenz (b. 1948) concurs:

There is a small cloud like a man’s hand on yonder horizon that is rising out of the sea, which is a type of our humanity (I Kings 18:44a). By injecting the human element of a hand, I believe the divine suggestion is that the things such as prolonged draughts, hopelessness, and bitter disappointment must acquiesce to the divinely empowered, small hand of a man. (Polenz, The Chronicles of Elijah: To Jericho and Beyond God’s Path of Enlightenment, 28)

The text’s emphasis, however, is on the cloud’s size, or lack thereof, not its shape. It uses a double description. First, it is described as “small” (ASV, CEV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV) or “little” (ESV, KJV, MSG, NLT, NRSV, RSV).

Then the servant adds the simile “as a man’s hand” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, RSV). More modern translations use the equally accurate but more inclusive language of a “person’s hand” (NRSV) or “someone’s hand” (MSG).

A similar comparison occurred around Chattanooga, Tennessee, in 1917. Coal miners had begun dipping their graham crackers in marshmallow fluff. Noticing that he was selling an excessive number of graham crackers to the miners, Earl Mitchell Sr. (1884-1945), an industrious salesman for Chattanooga Bakery, investigated and decided to combine the two ingredients into a single product. Legend has it that during a moonlit night, Mitchell asked how the product should be packaged. Noting that it would fit into the average lunch pail, a coal miner held up circled fingers and framed the moon to indicate its size. With that, the Moon Pie was born. Despite taking its name from the moon, much like Elijah’s servant, the miner was indicating size, not shape.

The palm sized cloud is minuscule particularly against the backdrop of the vast sky. But it is enough for the prophet. Choon-Leong Seow (b. 1952) relates:

The servant sees a little cloud “no bigger than a person’s hand” arising from the horizon. The approaching cloud, though appearing small in the distance, is reminiscent of the cloud of glory that represented the Lord’s presence at the mountain of God in the time of Moses. (Seow, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Tobit, Judith (The New Interpreter’s Bible), 137)

Interpreting natural phenomena as divine omens is common among religious people. Piotr Sadowski (b.1957) philosophizes:

Sometimes...some reactions produced by non-human systems can be interpreted as “signs” by persons who regard certain natural phenomena, such as the strike of a thunderbolt, a flood, an earthquake, or a pestilence as resulting not just from physical causes but from the actions of some purposeful, supernatural intelligence, variously identified as “god,” “providence,” or “fate.” Interpreted in this light natural phenomena begin to assume human-like characteristics, as when the prophet Elijah’s prayer for rain is answered with “Behold, there ariseth a little cloud out of the sea, like a man’s hand” (I Kings 18:44). Because having a purposeful design about things presupposes an autonomous system equipped with metainformational cognitive faculties, for religious persons the entire universe, created by such a superior being, can indeed be filled with “signs” rather than simply with physical states. (Sadowski, From Interaction to Symbol: A systems view of the evolution of signs and communication (Iconicity in Language and Literature), 69)

The belief in a personal God creates the hope that the deity is attempting to communicate. Joyce Meyer (b. 1943) encourages:

If you and I could just look at our situation really hard, I am sure we could always find a cloud of hope at least the size of a man’s hand. No matter how things may look right now, I am sure that there must be at least that much hope we can hang onto. (Meyer, The Battle Belongs to the Lord: Overcoming Life’s Struggles Through Worship, 175)

Why does the servant describe the cloud? What does the analogy “as small as a man’s hand” add to the story? How would you have described the cloud had you been Elijah’s servant? Do you believe that God speaks through natural occurrences? When have you gained confidence from a seemingly negligible sign? Why do you think that both the king and the servant followed Elijah’s instructions to vacate the vicinity?

Elijah believes in his prayer so much that he employs a lookout. He puts his money where his mouth is, placing his reputation (invaluable to a prophet) on the line. And his faith is rewarded.

Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) elucidates:

It is a long wait but at last a cloud as small as a man’s hand is seen rising from the sea. Though small, it is enough to assure Elijah that the drought is over (cf. Luke 12:54), and after warning Ahab to leave or get wet, he races him to Jezreel in the power of the LORD. As we might expect, in view of the story so far, he wins. It is a fitting conclusion to the chapter. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 139)

Elijah’s forecast is correct marking a rare instance in which a cloud serves as a good omen. The small hand-sized cloud represents the first fruits of the heavy rains that follow (I Kings 18:45).

Jesse C. Long, Jr. (b. 1953) praises:

For Elijah, an unsurpassed stalwart of faith, even a small cloud is enough to know that Yahweh is about to send rain. Ahab is told to hurry back before the rains mire his travel. The sky grows black, the winds pick up, and a heavy rain begins. Ahab sets out in his chariot, and the power of the Lord seizes Elijah, enabling him to run ahead of Ahab to Jezreel (the location of Ahab’s winter palace, not far from Carmel). (Long, 1 & 2 Kings (College Press NIV Commentary), 218)

Richard Nelson (b. 1945) reveals:

The climax comes in I Kings 18:45 with a colorful description of the storm’s sudden onset. The dramatic tension drains away in the denouement of Elijah’s spirit-driven twenty-five kilometer run to Jezreel (I Kings 18:46). Once more, Ahab, who has been either passive or absent during much of the chapter, simply reacts to events. (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 120)

The large faith generated from such a small sign has inspired many. James Joyce (1882-1941) titled the eighth story in his Dubliners collection “A Little Cloud” and the expression “Cloud Like a Man’s Hand” developed from this narrative (I Kings 18:41-45).

David L. Jeffrey (b. 1941) traces:

The expression is often used simply to portend the imminence of greater things. It is of little moment in medieval and Renaissance literature, but emerges to prominence in Protestant preaching of the Puritan tradition in connection with meditations on prayer “in faith believing” (see Matthew Poole [1624-1679]’s commentary in his Annotations upon the Holy Bible; also on James 5:7), and in Sunday sermons on Elijah and Elisha such as Cytherea reflects sorrowfully as she ponders being forced into marriage in Thomas Hardy [1840-1928]’s Desperate Remedies. (Jeffrey, A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, 148)

Elijah is able to see the great potential in such a small sign as he views the world with the eyes of faith ( Matthew 5:8; Ephesians 1:18). He takes action before the sign comes to fulfillment, instructing the king to get while the getting’s good (I Kings 18:44).

John W. Olley (b. 1938) describes:

Elijah is confident as he hears with the ears of faith: there is the sound of a heavy rain – but as yet no cloud (I Kings 18:41, 43). He expectantly commands the king to go up, eat and drink...that is, participate in the meal associated with the sacrifice, here signifying for Ahab a reaffirming of the covenant with Yahweh. (Olley, The Message of Kings (Bible Speaks Today), 177)

Gary Inrig (b. 1943) adds:

Elijah’s confidence that God would answer this prayer was so great that this was all the evidence he needed. He sent the servant to advise Ahab to head for home as quickly as possible, before the storm overtook him. Torrential rain after a drought presented the likelihood of swollen streams, mudslides, and flash floods that would make charioteering dangerous. (Inrig, I & II Kings (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 150)

Elijah’s faith does not merely lead to belief. It transforms into action.

When have you taken an action based upon your faith in an as yet unrealized occurrence? What action do you need to be taking in faith now? How do you know that a sign is from God? How much evidence do you need before acting upon a sign from God?

“Signs must be read with caution. The history of Christendom is replete with instances of people who misread the signs.” - Sheldon Vanauken (1914-1996), A Severe Mercy, p. 190

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rieuwerd Buitenwerf (b. 1973) researches:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinton E. Arnold (b. 1958) chronicles:

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

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) adds:

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

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) differentiates:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) counters:

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

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

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

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

William H. Willimon (b. 1946) interprets:

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

Lloyd J. Ogilvie (b. 1930) praises:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) tracks:

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

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

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

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

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

Derek Carlsen remarks:

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

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

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

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

Loveday Alexander characterizes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cost of Treachery (Genesis 37:28)

How many pieces of silver was Joseph sold for? Twenty (Genesis 37:28)

Joseph’s receiving of his “coat of many colors” is a well-known story, one commonly told to children (Genesis 37:1-11). Before the chapter concludes, however, a dark shadow is cast on this bright story as Joseph is sold into slavery (Genesis 37:18-28). Having reached a breaking point with the pampered seventeen year old, Joseph’s ten older brothers resolved to eliminate him (Genesis 37:18). Seeing him approaching from a distance, they plot to throw him into a cistern and leave him for dead (Genesis 37:19-24).

Inspired by the sight of a caravan of Ishmaelites and reminding his brothers that Joseph “is our brother, our own flesh”, Judah convinces them that they would be better served to sell Joseph as a slave (Genesis 37:25-27 NASB).

John Goldingay (b. 1942) observes:

There is something mafia-like about the way the brothers throw Joseph into the empty cistern to die, then coolly settle down for dinner. It seems strange that Judah’s recognition that “he is our flesh and blood” does not extend to hesitation about selling him into slavery...And it seems strange that this recognition does not extend to hesitation over putting Jacob through his terrible grief, though perhaps the brothers were glad to get back at their father for making Joseph their favorite. The convenient coincidence is the fortuitous arrival of a camel caravan. (Goldingay, Genesis For Everyone, Part Two: Chapters 17-50, 132)

The brothers callously exchange their brother for silver (Genesis 37:28).

So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt. (Genesis 37:28 NASB)

The sale price is twenty “shekels” (ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV) or “pieces” (ASV, CEV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NLT, NRSV, RSV) of silver. There is actually no noun in the Hebrew text.

J.G. Vos (1903-1983) explains:

Note that the word “pieces” is in italics in the King James Version, indicating that it is not found in the Hebrew but was supplied by the translators. Coined money was not used at this period; the money was weighed. (Vos, Genesis, 457)

It has been suggested that the brothers charge an average slave price for the son that their father thought so exceptional. The Code of Hammurabi cites this same price (§§116, 214, 252).

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) surveys:

Joseph is sold for twenty pieces of silver to these traders. This was the average price for a male slave in Old Babylonian times (early 2nd millennium B.C.). The price gradually goes higher. At Nuzi (mid-2nd millennium) it was thirty shekels (for both male and female). At Ugarit (mid- to late 2nd millennium) it was forty shekels. In Neo-Babylonian times (1st millennium) it was fifty shekels. In Persians times (late 1st millennium) the price was ninety to one hundred and twenty shekels. These are, of course, the generals standards from which there were many departures. Joseph’s sale for twenty shekels fits perfectly with the amount a man was to give to the sanctuary if he vows himself or one of his male relatives between the ages of five and twenty (Joseph is seventeen) to the Lord (Leviticus 27:5). (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 422)

Donald B. Redford (b. 1934) counters:

The price of twenty shekels of silver paid for Joseph is simply the rate stipulated by Leviticus 27:5 for a minor above five years of age. It is unnecessary and misleading to adduce “average” slave prices from Mesopotamia (so K.A. Kitchen [b. 1932], Ancient Orient and the Old Testament, [London, 1966], 52f.). The locale of the story is Palestine, not the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. Even so, it maybe pointed out that examples of the sale of sons of a family by other members of the same family in Neo-Babylonian times, range between sixteen and thirty shekels. (Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50) (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Volume XX), 200)

In extrabiblical sources the fee for Joseph varies slightly. In the Qur’an, he is sold “for a reduced price - a few dirhams” (Qur’an 12:20). The noncanonical Testament of Gad reports that twenty is only the recorded sale price.

David A. deSilva (b. 1967) informs:

In Testament of Gad, Gad and Judah sell Joseph for thirty pieces of gold (Testament of Gad 5:6-11), whereas Joseph is sold for twenty silver coins in the original Hebrew text of Genesis 37:28. The change in value is not, however, the result of a Christian author’s or editor’s attempt to make of Joseph a precursor of Jesus, especially since Joseph is sold for thirty gold coins rather than thirty silver coins, as was Jesus. The change in currency from silver to gold coins is the result of the influence of the Septuagint version of Genesis 37:28, where Joseph was sold for twenty gold coins. The author of Testament of Gad increases this to thirty coins to allow for Judah and Gad’s embezzlement of ten coins before showing the twenty remaining coins (the official price in public knowledge, hence the Scriptural record, of the sale) to their brothers. (deSilva, The Jewish Teachers of Jesus, James, and Jude: What Earliest Christianity Learned from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 214)

Joseph’s opportunistic brothers manage to profit from their jealousy. W. Sibley Towner (b. 1933) evaluates:

If the twenty pieces of silver were shekels (Genesis 37:28), the brothers got a good average price for Joseph...By modern silver prices, this sale would have netted the brothers $130-$150—and who can say what purchasing power that amount of money had in the Late Bronze Age! The resale to the Egyptians no doubt was profitable to the traders. Egyptian documents of the second millennium B.C. reveal that at that time a brisk trade in slaves went on between Egypt and “Asia,” that is, Syria and Canaan. (Towner, Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion), 248)

Gordon Wenham (b. 1943) compares:

For shepherds who might expect to earn, if employed by others, about eight shekels a year (cf. Laws of Hammurabi 261), the sale of Joseph represented a handy bonus! (Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (Word Biblical Commentary), 356)

The syntax demonstrates that the Bible does not take this incident lightly as in the Hebrew text Joseph’s name appears three times in the one verse (Genesis 37:28).

Robert E. Longacre (b. 1922) advances:

Certainly three occurrences of the name are hardly needed for participant identification; the repetition has some further function. Here it marks an extremely important and providential event in the family of Jacob and the history of the embryonic nation. (Longacre, Joseph, A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37, 29)

As horrific as slavery is, Judah’s cruel proposal beats the alternative: death. In retrospect, Joyce G. Baldwin (1921-1995) recognizes:

Though he could not know it, Joseph was going through an experience which was to become a major theme of the Bible. The godly Servant was despised and rejected, only to become the rescuer of those who abused him (Isaiah 53:3-6); the Lord’s shepherd was underrated (Zechariah 11:12-13), was struck down and his sheep scattered, but the ‘sheep’ found they were the Lord’s people (Zechariah 13:7-9); the way of the cross involved for Jesus betrayal by a friend, as well as agony and death, but it was the way to life for all believers. (Baldwin, The Message of Genesis 12-50 (Bible Speaks Today), 160)

At the end of the day, Joseph is still alive. And as such, there is hope.

What motivates the brothers to sell Joseph? Is this transaction primarily about money? Why is this particular currency (silver) employed? How much money would it take for you to sell a family member into slavery? What is a life worth? What do Joseph’s brothers do with the silver?

Though Joseph will eventually land in Egypt (Genesis 39:1), there is debate as to the chain of events that transports him there. The trouble arises as Genesis attributes the sale to both Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28, 39:1) and Midianites (Genesis 37:28, 36). Some scholars see this as clear evidence of the book’s multiple sources.

Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) asks:

To whom did the brothers sell Joseph, the Ishmaelites or the Midianites? At first the passage, if read closely, is quite jarring. Those who believe that the book of Genesis is the construction of originally separate sources take this alternating between names as evidence that there were at least two stories of Joseph’s sale, one with the Ishmaelites and another with Midianites. (Longman, How to Read Genesis, 48)

Others see no discrepancy, claiming that Genesis simply uses the terms “Ishmaelite” and “Midianite” interchangeably. Still others pose that the Bible subtly hints that Joseph’s brothers get rooked.

Paul Borgman (b. 1940) posits:

“And they raised their eyes,” the text moves on, “and [they] saw and, look, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead...on their way to take down [goods] to Egypt” (Genesis 37:25). But then “Midianite merchantmen passed by and pulled Joseph up out of the pit and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver” (Genesis 37:27-28). If we accept the discordant mix of Midianite and Ishmaelite here, the outcome is a pointed irony: Judah’s plans for monetary gain are foiled by the Midianites, who manage to beat the avaricious brothers to the pit. (Borgman, Genesis: The Story We Haven’t Heard, 181-82)

Regardless of how the transactions played out, Joseph later attributes his sale to his brothers (Genesis 45:4). Jewish tradition asserts that the brothers receive and spend the money. Though Joseph’s brothers will later pay him for grain in Egypt (Genesis 42:5), this is not where tradition records that the silver is spent: They use the silver to buy shoes (Targum Yonatan to Genesis 37:28)!

David Stern (b. 1949) documents:

While Genesis 37:28 states merely that Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver, the legend that the money was used to buy shoes is an ancient one, attested to both in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the Palestinian Aramaic translation of the Bible, ad Genesis 37:28, and in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Zebulun 4, in both apparently on the basis of a traditional association of Amos 2:6, and possibly Amos 8:6, with the Joseph story. (Stern and Mark J. Mirsky [b. 1939], Rabbinic Fantasies: Imaginative Narratives from Classical Hebrew Literature, 161)

Regardless of what was gained from the silver involved in the sale of Joseph, the cost was far too high.

Judas regretted selling Jesus for silver (Matthew 27:3-5), do you think that Joseph’s brothers ever regretted pawning their baby sibling? What did selling Joseph cost the brothers? What has your sin cost you?

“Money often costs too much.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), The Conduct of Life, p. 107