A Tale of Two Houses (I Kings 7:1)

How many years did it take Solomon to complete work on his palace? Thirteen years (I Kings 7:1)

King Solomon ushers in unprecedented opulence as he undertakes two monumental building projects, Yahweh’s temple and his palace. Conspicuously sandwiched between accounts of the building of the temple (I Kings 6:1-38) and its furnishings (I Kings 7:13-51) is a description of Solomon’s royal complex (I Kings 7:1-12).

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) connects:

The proximity of the temple and royal palace reflects the intimate association between the Davidic king and YHWH, who is consistently portrayed with royal imagery in the ideology of the Judean state. The Davidic king is authorized to rule by the creator G-d, YHWH (II Samuel 7; Psalm 89, 110, 132, cf. Psalm 2), and the worship of YHWH is authorized by the Davidic king, who erects the sanctuary for YHWH’s honor. (Sweeney, I and II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 116)

The palace’s propinquity to the temple seems to be as close geographically as it is literarily. Philip J. King (b. 1925) and Lawrence E. Stager (b. 1943) note:

The palace appears to have been built alongside the Temple, to its south, on the acropolis. The juxtaposing of palace and temple was established by the Canaanites early in the second millennium B.C.E., probably by 2000 in North Syria (e.g., Alalakh, a Syrian city-state). (King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 203)

The discussion of Solomon’s palace begins with a notice of the project’s duration (I Kings 7:1).

Now Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house (I Kings 7:1 NASB)

Solomon’s “house” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or “palace” (CEV, HCSB, MSG, NIV, NLT) is actually comprised of multiple buildings. Marvin A. Sweeney(b. 1953) outlines:

I Kings 7:1 discusses the time taken to build the temple complex. The complex includes five buildings: the house of the forest of Lebanon (I Kings 7:2-5), the hall of columns (I Kings 7:6), the hall of the throne or the hall of justice (I Kings 7:7), and the private quarters of Solomon and the daughter of Pharaoh (I Kings 7:8). I Kings 7:9-11 discusses construction details common to these buildings, and I Kings 7:12 discusses the surrounding courtyard. (Sweeney, I and II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 116)

Burke O. Long (b. 1938) classifies I Kings 7:1-12:

The unit is a REPORT...made up of a series of brief reports dealing with specific details according to a clear schematic style. The form of the brief reports, and of the whole which is an aggregate of these parts, is clearly paralleled in priestly materials in the Old Testament. (Long, 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature (Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 89)

The palace’s architecture was typical of royals of the era. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (b. 1943) encapsulates:

Solomon’s “palace” was a complex of six structures just south of the Temple. Its layout followed the so-called bit-hilani plan, an architectural style typical of palace-complexes in northern Syria. Archaeologists have found two “palaces” of this type built by Solomon at biblical Megiddo. Basically, the design featured a series of buildings centered on a long, large assembly hall whose entry was in its broad side through a portico with pillars...I Kings 7:1-5 describe the main building, I Kings 7:6-9 the satellite structures. We cannot be certain whether all the buildings in Solomon’s palace structurally were joined to each other. In the ancient world, palace-complexes typically covered many acres, and this royal center was no exception. (Hubbard, First & Second Kings: Everyman’s Bible Commentary, 46)

Despite its grandeur no archaeological evidence of Solomon’s palace has been unearthed. August H. Konkel (b. 1948) documents:

No remains have been linked to the palace of Solomon at Jerusalem. Remains of palaces are evident in their size, layout, elaborate decorations, and contents, such as expensive furniture and state archives. The ground plans of buildings at Megiddo from Solomon’s time are similar to the palaces at Zinjirli (the ancient Aramean city of Sam’al), suggesting that this may have been the plan of the Jerusalem palace. Walls and towers surround the three palaces and storehouses; to enter the complex it was necessary to pass through two gates. Solomon develops a similar complex at Jerusalem, where the citadel encloses a number of buildings. (Konkel, 1 and 2 Kings (The NIV Application Commentary), 119)

No archaeological confirmation is needed to determine that Solomon resided in quarters fit for a king.

Why is the account of the palace inserted between details about the temple? What are the longest building projects of which you are aware? If you could build your dream house without financial restraints, what would it entail? Is the palace more a wise investment for the nation or a vanity project for its king? Is there any way in which Solomon’s palace glorifies God?

Strikingly, the note regarding the palace’s thirteen year construction (I Kings 7:1) immediately follows a formal summary statement of the building of temple which specifies that the temple took only seven years to complete (I Kings 6:38).

Alice L. Laffey (b. 1944) comments:

Whereas the final verse of chapter 6 [I Kings 6:38] functions as both a climax and a statement of completion, the narrator introduces chapter 7 with a seemingly deliberate literary contrast. Whereas it took seven years to build the house of the Lord, it takes thirteen years to build the house of a king. Although thirteen is not a number used frequently in the biblical texts, it too may be used symbolically to indicate completion (ten and three). The unusual character of the number may be a literary device that the authors use to subtly imply some inappropriateness related to the king’s palace. The fact that it takes almost twice as long to build the king’s house as it does to build the Lord’s house can imply that the king’s house was not worked on by as many builders, or with as much zeal as was the Lord’s house. Or, it could imply that the grandeur of the Lord’s house paled beside the grandeur of the king’s. If the latter is true, the text is hinting at future difficulties. (Laffey, First and Second Kings (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), 33)

Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) observes:

Chapter 7...turns attention away from the temple and unexpectedly fixes upon another of Solomon’s building projects, the palace complex. The introduction to this description, reporting that the palace complex took thirteen years to build, contrasts sharply with the conclusion to chapter 6 reporting that the temple was a seven-year project. Initial impressions might argue that the temple was this king’s priority. Thus it received most attention and was completed speedily and first. However, the brief sketch (I Kings 7:2-12) of the state buildings and the king’s own house challenges such easy assumptions. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary), 68)

The contrast between the two projects is drawn intentionally. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) asserts:

The NIV suggests the nature of the connection between I Kings 6:38 and I Kings 7:1 and the force of the transition from one to the other, but it does not fully capture it. A translation that better brings out the relationship between them, and particularly the significance of the word order, runs as follows: “He completed (khl) the temple (bayit)...he spent seven years building it (bnh). But his own house (bêtô) Solomon spent thirteen years building (bnh) and he completed (klh) the whole of his house (kol-bêtô).” There are two “houses” in view, and an emphatic contrast is made between them. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 69)

The Hebrew syntax further accentuates the disparity. John W. Olley (b. 1938) discerns:

The contrast is expressed intentionally by the chiastic Hebrew sentence structure of I Kings 6:38-7:1 (obscured by the much later chapter division and further in some Bibles by a heading; there is no paragraph division in the Masoretic Text). (Olley, The Message of Kings (Bible Speaks Today), 86)

It is possible that the two building projects were undertaken concurrently. Martin J. Mulder (1923-1994) recognizes:

The statement in our verse [I Kings 7:1], when combined with the conclusion of the previous chapter, yields the number 20, which in I Kings 9:10 is in fact the time given for the construction of the 2 ‘houses.’ But the relation between the 2 verses is hard to determine. In our opinion, Martin Noth [1902-1968] is correct when he says that the sequence of the construction: first the temple and then the palace, is improbable and that it is better to picture the construction as simultaneous. (Mulder, 1 Kings, Volume 1:1 Kings 1-11 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), 286)

Richard Nelson (b.1945) resolves:

There is a chronological distortion in that Kings understands the thirteen years of I Kings 7:1 to have come after the seven years of temple construction (I Kings 9:10). But by moving these buildings forward in time, sandwiching them between material on the temple and integrating them architecturally with the temple (I Kings 7:12), the narrator firmly subordinates these secular buildings to the house of the Lord. Both the house of the forest of Lebanon and the complex described in I Kings 7:6-8 are substantially larger than the temple, but have been effectively relegated to the status of interesting footnotes. They highlight Solomon’s glory without diminishing the wonder of the temple. (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 45)

Some have seen the relative lengths of the projects as an indictment against the king. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) accuses:

Solomon spent much more time building his own house...than he did building God’s house. This is not surprising, because just the first of its several buildings was much bigger than the temple (I Kings 7:2; cf. I Kings 6:2). The temple had quite a bit of cedar of Lebanon in it (I Kings 6:9-10, 15-16, 18, 20, 36); this building, however, is packed with so many cedars (I Kings 7:2-3, 7, 11, 12) that it is called the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon—and this for a building apparently designed only as a treasury of armory (cf. I Kings 10:17, 21; Isaiah 22:8)! The suggestion is that the king was much more concerned about his palace than about the LORD’s temple. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 69-70)

Jerome T. Wash (b. 1942) elaborates:

Since the palace complex houses the central administration of the whole empire, the issue is not a simple contrast between Yahweh’s Temple and Solomon’s private residence, as if Solomon were being accused of spending all that time on his own luxury and glory. Nonetheless, the juxtaposition of I Kings 6:38 and I Kings 7:1 invites us to infer that the governmental buildings are far more important to Solomon than the religious one. In view of the ruinous annual tariff Solomon is paying Hiram [I Kings 5:11], it is quite clear which project brings Solomon to the brink of bankruptcy. (Walsh, 1 Kings (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 106)

Backlash against Solomon has persisted for centuries. Presumably in response, Josephus (37-100) skewed his account in favor of the king. Louis H. Feldman (b. 1926) relays:

By deferring the account of the building of the palace until after the completion of his description of the dedication of the Temple, Josephus stresses the importance of the Temple and diminishes that of the palace. In I Kings 9:10 it is simply stated that it took 20 years to build the two houses, 7 years for the Temple (I Kings 6:38) and 13 years for the palace (I Kings 7:1). Josephus (Antiquities 8.30), apparently aware of the objection that Solomon devoted almost twice as much time to building his palace for his own glory as to building the Temple for the greater glory of G-d, emphasizes Solomon’s piety by adding the significant comment that the palace was not built with the same industry (ἐσπουδάζετο) with which the Temple was built. Josephus (Antiquties 8.131) adds an extra-biblical remark that the palace was much inferior in dignity (ἀξίας) to the Temple since the building materials had been prepared not so long in advance, with less expense, and was intended as a dwelling place for a king and not for G-d. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Josephus’ View of Solomon”. The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 365)

Martin J. Mulder (1923-1994) critiques:

Josephus and other Jewish commentators have attempted to explain the ‘offensiveness’ of this longer duration of palace construction. Among other things Josephus says (Antiquities VIII §§130ff.) that the palace was not built with the same zeal as the temple. The temple was even finished before the time appointed, since God so obviously cooperated with the builders. This was not the case with the construction of the palace, while also the material used was of an inferior quality, because the building was only intended for kings, not for God. This motive is further elaborated in later Jewish legends (cf. Louis Ginzberg [1873-1953], Legends of the Jews, IV, 155f.; VI, 294f.). The truth, of course, is that the complex of palaces was larger and more beautiful than the temple and therefore took more time. (Mulder, 1 Kings, Volume 1:1 Kings 1-11 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), 285-86)

Solomon also has contemporary apologists. Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) exemplifies:

The conjunction “but” in I Kings 7:1 is intended to contrast the thirteen years required to build Solomon’s own house with the seven years required to build the temple (I Kings 6:38). However, what this difference implies is not clear. To some commentators it seems to condemn Solomon for spending twice as much time building his own house as he spent building the temple of God. Were worldly power and luxury already going to the young king’s head? Were secular ideals beginning to overshadow spiritual ideals in his court? It is true that in later years Solomon began to minimize the high priority he had given to serving the Lord, but that was not the case in these early years...A better interpretation of I Kings 7:1 is that Solomon purposely allowed the construction of his house to drag on for thirteen years, while he had accelerated the temple construction and finished it in seven years. Also, we must remember that many years of preparation, planning, and accumulation of materials had preceded the seven-year temple project, while the work on the palace apparently had no such head start. Furthermore, while the temple was more elaborate and intricate, the palace complex was more widespread, involving a number of separate buildings, and thereby more time-consuming. Considering these factors, Solomon probably gave priority to the temple and put more attention and time on its construction than on his palace. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 96-97)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) speculates:

Almost twice as much time is taken to build it as the temple, though that is probably not a negative judgment, given the buildings necessary for the state to function. The lack of clear detail may indicate a lack of interest (and/or knowledge) apart from highlighting Solomon as a wise builder. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 43)

Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) theologizes:

Commentators sometimes suggest that the time Solomon spends on his own house, nearly double the time he spends on the temple, is an early sign of his later apostasy...Yet Solomon is nowhere criticized for this. Apparently the logic is similar to the logic of the tithe: once Solomon pays his firstfruits, his time is “desanctified” so that he can devote his attention to building his own house. The objection that Solomon’s glory challenges Yahweh’s assumes a false doctrine of God. God’s glory does not compete with human glory, nor does God glorify himself by siphoning glory from his people. He glorifies himself by freely and abundantly bestowing glory, just as the Father glorifies himself in the Son through the Spirit, and the Son in the Father through the same Spirit. Yahweh gives Solomon glory, but this makes the name of Yahweh glorious among the Gentiles, precisely because it makes the name of Solomon glorious. (Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 60)

Regardless of what light is being cast upon Solomon, the comparative building durations of the temple and palace invite the reader to evaluate her own priorities and how those priorities are played out in her budget.

Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) applies:

It would be better for us to put a lower priority on a comfortable living situation and a higher priority on the kingdom of God. First Kings takes this perspective in the way it tells the story of Solomon. The major emphasis in chapters 5 through 8 is the house that Solomon built for God [I Kings 5:1-8:66]. The Bible gives us the full details of the temple’s structure and furnishings, plus a lengthy account of its dedication. Solomon’s own house took longer to build, but receives much less attention–just twelve verses for five buildings. Even for all its splendor, Solomon’s palace receives only brief mention. As far as the Holy Spirit is concerned, this is all it deserves, because Solomon’s house was not nearly as important as the house he built for God. By de-emphasizing Solomon’s palace, the Bible is keeping things in their proper priority. (Ryken, 1 Kings (Reformed Expository Commentary), 165)

Why do you think it took longer to build the palace than the temple? Which building project do you think is more important to Solomon? What is meant by the intentional contrast between the time spent building God’s temple and the king’s palace? How does this incongruity reflect upon Solomon? Which building do you take more pride in maintaining, your church or your residence? Do you spend more time and energy devoted to God or yourself?

“Action expresses priorities.” - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

Rod in the Box (Hebrews 9:4)

Whose rod was kept in the gold covered chest, the Ark of the Covenant? Aaron’s rod

Hebrews is a self described “word of exhortation” to early Christians (Hebrews 13:22). In its ninth chapter, the imperfect earthly sanctuary is contrasted with its perfect heavenly counterpart to display the obvious superiority of the latter (Hebrews 9:1-12).

In making this argument, Hebrews depicts the earthly sanctuary (Hebrews 9:1-5). Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) describes:

In this very inventive passage, the Preacher takes the congregation on a guided tour of the old desert tabernacle, the first sanctuary of Israel under the old covenant (the Preacher’s narration is not absolutely precise, but it roughly follows the description of the design and furnishings of the tabernacle woven through Exodus 25-40). The Preacher even takes the congregation where they would not have been allowed to go: into the very inner sanctum, the Holy of Holies. (Long, Hebrews (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 93)

While recounting the furnishings of the holy of holies, Hebrews mentions three items enclosed in the ark of the covenant: a jar of manna, Aaron’s rod and the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed (Hebrews 9:4).

Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant; (Hebrews 9:3-4 NASB)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) teaches:

The “ark of the covenant”...is a box or chest (kibōton) that is also called by the Septuagint the kibōtos martyriou (“ark of the testimony”) (Exodus 25:10). Exodus 25:16 says simply that Moses is to put into the ark “testimonies” (ta martyria) that I will give you.” The term means “evidences,” and the author elaborates three such concrete pieces of evidence for God’s presence among the people—only one of which Exodus itself specifies, namely “the tables of the covenant” (see Deuteronomy 10:1-5; I Kings 8:9; II Chronicles 5:10) given to Moses from the hand of God (Deuteronomy 9:9-10). The other two items were also signs of God’s presence and protection. The miraculous manna (Exodus 16:31) fed the people in the wilderness, and some of it was preserved in a jar (Exodus 16:32-34) that the Septuagint characterizes as “golden” (Exodus 16:33; see also Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], Preliminary Studies 100). Moses was told to place the jar “before God,” but not specifically in the ark. The flowering rod of Aaron was equally a sign of “evidence” of God’s protection, through the selection of Aaron as the one whom God wanted to approach the tent of testimony, and put an end to the murmuring of the people (Numbers 17:16-26). Once more, Moses is instructed to place the rod before the testimony “as a sign for the sons of rebellion” (Numbers 17:25), though not in the ark, as Hebrews has it. (Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 220)

David L. Allen (b. 1957) adds:

The “ark of the covenant” is described in the Greek text with a perfect tense participle “covered around,” an adverb meaning “on (from) all sides” and the dative “with gold.” William L. Lane (1931-1999) and the NIV both translate this Greek phrase as “gold-covered,” a descriptive phrase that gets at the meaning, but as J. Harold Greenlee [b. 1918] noted, such an attributive rendering violates Greek grammar. (Allen, Hebrews (New American Commentary), 461)

This passage marks the last of three references to Aaron, Israel’s first high priest, in Hebrews (Hebrews 5:4, 7:11, 9:4). It also represents the only reference to Aaron’s “rod” (ASV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or “staff” (ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT) in the New Testament (Hebrews 9:4).

Aaron’s rod was a sacred object which originally symbolized his tribe’s selection as the nation’s priests (Numbers 17:1-11). Alan C. Mitchell (b. 1948) recounts:

The budding rod of Aaron, according to Numbers 17:1-9, was placed by Moses in the Holy of Holies. Twelve staffs with the names of the heads of the tribes were to be placed in the sanctuary, before the Lord. Aaron’s name was to be inscribed on the staff of Levi. When Moses returned the next day he saw that Aaron’s rod had sprouted a flower. This indicated that he was chosen by God for the priesthood, which was supposed to be a warning to rebels and to put an end to complaints. God instructed Moses to place his rod in the sanctuary before the covenant, but not in the ark itself. (Mitchell, Hebrews (Sacra Pagina), 175)

The inclusion of Aaron’s rod in the ark of the covenant is not referenced in the Old Testament. While the Ten Commandments are said to be placed in the ark (Exodus 25:16; Deuteronomy 10:2), the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod’s are not. At the dedication of the temple it is definitively stated that the tablets are the only items situated inside the ark (I Kings 8:9; II Chronicles 5:10).

David A. deSilva (b. 1967) notes:

The contents of the ark are not explicitly described in the Pentateuch save for the two tablets of stone containing the ten commandments (Deuteronomy 10:2; I Kings 8:9). The jar of manna (Exodus 16:32-34) and Aaron’s rod...(Numbers 17:10) were to be placed within the inner sanctum as a perpetual “testimony,” but the author of Hebrews actually has them stored within the ark (suggested perhaps by Exodus 18:21: “in the ark you shall put the testimony that I will give you.”). (deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “To the Hebrews”, 297-298)

Not only does the Old Testament fail to mention that the manna and the rod are not fixed in the ark of the covenant but this detail is also absent from rabbinic literature. Paul Ellingworth (b. 1931) acknowledges:

Rabbinic tradition, which in other respects goes beyond scripture in describing the contents of the ark, is more faithful to the Exodus text than Hebrews at this point in locating the pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod, not in but beside the ark...These details appear to have no independent significance for the author; he does not, for example, relate the gift of manna to Israel’s status as a wandering people. (Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 428)

In the Old Testament, the manna and Aaron’s rod were deemed sacred objects but were to be placed in front of the ark, not in it. It has been argued that Hebrews is indicating as such. David L. Allen (b. 1957) reveals:

The location of the jar of manna and the staff “in” the ark is problematic when compared to both the Hebrew and Septuagint texts of Exodus 16:33 and Numbers 17:10...In the Hebrew text, the same preposition lipnê, “in front of” or “before” is used to describe the location of the jar as before “the Lord” and the rod as in front of “the testimony.” The question is whether the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod were placed inside the ark or in front of the ark. The linguistic ambiguity of the preposition lipnê in the Old Testament texts above can be interpreted either way. (Allen, Hebrews (New American Commentary), 461-62)

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

According to Exodus 16:33ff Moses commanded Aaron to put an omer of manna (about four pints, one-tenth of an ephah) in a jar, “and place it before Yahweh, to be kept throughout your generations”; and Aaron accordingly “placed it before the testimony, to be kept.” Similarly, when twelve rods or sceptres, one for each tribe of Israel, had been laid up “in the tent of meeting before the testimony,” Aaron’s rod, the rod of the tribe of Levi, was found the next day to have put forth buds, blossoms, and ripe almonds—a token that Aaron was the man whom God had chosen for the priesthood (Numbers 17:1-10). Moses was then directed to “put back the rod of Aaron before the testimony, to be kept as a sign for the rebels” (Numbers 17:10). Does the phrase “before the testimony” imply that these objects were placed inside the ark, or simply that they were laid in front of it? Franz Delitzch [1813-1890] thinks that the former “is a natural conclusion” from the phrases “before Yahweh” and “before the testimony”; this is by no means clear, especially as regards the phrase “before Yahweh,” for this phrase is used of other installations in the tabernacle, which were certainly not inside the ark. On the other hand, it will not do to say that the antecedent of “wherein” is not “the ark” but “the tent called the holy of holies” (Hebrews 9:3); this puts an intolerable strain on the natural construction of the sentence by the distance which it places between the relative and its antecedent. It is not to be doubted that our author represents the jar of manna and the rod as having been inside the ark along with the tables of the law. (Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 203)

William L. Lane (1931-1999) relays:

The statement that the ark contained, in addition to the stone tablets of the covenant, the golden jar of manna and Aaron’s rod that blossomed, it is not attested elsewhere...According to all of the texts and versions known of the Old Testament, only the tablets of the covenant were actually placed within the ark (Exodus 25:16, 21; Deuteronomy 10:1-2; cf. I Kings 8:9; II Chronicles 5:10). Johannes van der Ploeg [1909-2004] (Revue Biblique 54 [1947] 219) suggested that the writer adopted a tradition according to which subsequently other objects were placed within the ark, a tradition presupposed in certain strands of rabbinic evidence (cf. Bava Batra 14a; Tosefta Yoma 3.7; ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan 41 [67a]). (Lane, Hebrews 9-13 (Word Biblical Commentary), 221)

These additional items could have fit in the ark but would likely have filled it. Joseph Ponessa (b. 1948) and Laurie Watson Manhardt (b. 1950) measure:

Exodus gives the dimensions 3.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cubits, or 45 x 27 x 27 inches, just large enough to hold “a golden urn holding manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant. (Ponessa and Manhardt, Moses and the Torah (Come and See Catholic Bible Study), 97)

In surveying the Holy of Holies, Hebrews positions three sacred items into one sacred object. The ark of the covenant and the holy of holies where it is housed are truly sacred. Yet they pale in comparison to the future sanctuary (Hebrews 9:11-12).

Should the manna and the rod have been placed into the ark of the covenant? Who do you think did so and when? Is the ark magnified in any way by the inclusion of these items? Does placing the manna and the rod in the ark, where the items would be unseen, detract from their purpose to serve as a “testimony”? Is there anything you cherish that you conceal or hide? What objects are sacred to you? What do the ark’s contents mean individually and collectively?

The three items housed by the ark and the ark itself are tangible monuments of Israel’s connection to God. All of these objects come from the same period in Israel’s history, the formative period of the Exodus. Thomas D. Lea (b. 1938) assigns:

The ark contained three treasures. “The gold jar of manna” (Exodus 16:32-34) was a reminder of God’s faithful provision during the wilderness wanderings. Aaron’s staff that has budded (Numbers 17:1-11) reminded readers of God’s powerful warnings against complaint and faultfinding. The stone tablets of the covenant (Exodus 25:21-22) reminded them of God’s expectations, and pointed...to the ministry of Christ. (Lea, Hebrews & James (Holman New Testament Commentary), 167)

Gareth Lee Cockerill (b. 1944) condenses:

If the Ten Commandments were the foundation of God’s covenant, manna was evidence of his provision, and the rod symbolized his choice of Aaron as priest. (Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 378)

There may be a more significant reason for Hebrews’ allusion to Aaron’s rod. Donald A. Hagner (b. 1936) conjectures:

The reference to Aaron’s rod may be seen to have special importance, given the argument of chapter 7 [Hebrews 7:1-28]. The budding rod demonstrated the sole legitimacy of Aaron and the tribe of Levi in priestly service at the altar (cf. Numbers 18:7). But that uniqueness has now been displaced—indeed canceled—by the high priest of the order of Melchizedek. (Hagner, Hebrews (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 132)

In including the symbol of Aaron’s priesthood among the items that pales in comparison to Jesus’ priesthood (Hebrews 4:14-15, 5:6), Hebrews may be reiterating its point that Jesus is far superior to his predecessors. In comparison to Jesus, the old signs lose a little luster.

Do the ark of the covenant, the tablets containing the ten commandments, the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod still hold meaning? If so, what is it? What is the effect of Jesus on their significance? What are the tangible monuments to Jesus’ life? What serves as a “testimony” to your faith?

“If you’d rather live surrounded by pristine objects than by the traces of happy memories, stay focused on tangible things. Otherwise, stop fixating on stuff you can touch and start caring about stuff that touches you. - Martha Beck (b. 1962)

Famous Last Words (Psalm 150:6)

Complete: “Let everything that hath breath _______________.” Praise the Lord (Psalm 150:6)

The Book of Psalms is comprised of 150 hymns. The psalter’s last five entries begin and close with the identical charge to “praise the LORD” (Psalm 146:1, 10, 147:1, 20, 148:1, 14, 149:1, 9, 150:1, 6). The book’s final offering is a simple, repetitive song comprised of six verses which repeatedly echo the clarion call to “praise the LORD” (Psalm 150:1-6). Each verse of the song begins with this edict and the song reiterates the command 13 times in varying grammatical forms.

Samuel Terrien (1911-2002) analyzes:

The final hymn of praise is composed of three quatrains, of two bicola each. The last of these appears to be shorter (Psalm 150:6b) since it summarizes the whole psalm with its summons to anyone who has breath (Psalm 150:6a). The naming of the deity moves from “God” to “the Lord” (Yahweh; Psalm 150:1 and Psalm 150:6), which indicates a movement from the theme of creation to that of salvation. The meter is regular (3+3), with the first stichos shorter (2+3). The imperative verb, “Praise God,” or “Praise him,” is used ten times, while the last exhortation to all creatures that breathe selects the optative (Psalm 150:6b). The orchestra is enlisted with seven groups of musical instruments, no doubt by respecting specific numbers. (Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 928)

Cas J.A. Vos (b. 1945) encapsulates:

Psalm 150 focuses on praising God. The song begins and ends with the exclamation, ‘Praise the Lord!’ or ‘Praise Yahweh!’ (Yah, the last syllable of the exclamation hallelujah, is a variant of the divine Name, Yahweh). This also occurs in the last five songs of the Psalter (cf. Psalms 146-149). However, in Psalm 150, this exclamation occurs ten times with precise regularity....Each colon from verses 1 to 5 begins with the exclamation and is always placed with the third person, masculine singular suffix, except the first time, when El (God) is the object. The effect of this regularity is that the visual appearance of the words emphasises [sic] the nature of praise in this song...Psalm 150:6, the final verse, also contains an exhortation to praise and uses the same verb, but switches the word-order around and uses a different form, i.e. the third person, feminine, singular jussive. This is the only verse which does not consist of hemistichoi with equal meter (3+3), but which consists of a single four-word verbal clause. It is apparent that the song, which contains the same appeal thirteen times, in six verses and also has this appeal as its first and last words, is comprised almost exclusively of the motif of praise. (Vos, Theopoetry of the Psalms, 276-77)

Stephen B. Dawes classifies the psalter’s final piece:

Psalm 150 is...both an extended ‘call to praise’, in which the worshipping community is called to praise God for what he is and what he has done and express that praise by using all the musical instruments they have, and a doxology, a song which is itself an expression of praise to God. As such it forms a powerful crescendo to Psalms, crowning the shorter doxologies found at the end of Books 1-4. (Dawes, Psalms (SCM Studyguide), 35)

The psalter’s coup de grace is a symphony that invites consonance from a variety of instruments (Psalm 150:3-5). It would seem that no instrument is out of bounds when praising God. Reproducing the song as it was originally performed, however, is problematic.

Hans-Joachim Kraus (1918-2000) explains:

Psalm 150 is an exhortation to engage in the praise that was heard in the holy place and probably should be dated in a late time. The praise of Yahweh is intoned to music and dance...The method of playing and singing is still a great problem. Naturally, clear indications are missing. In general, it is assumed that the pentatonic system, without half-steps, was predominant, but various ways of singing and making music are considered possible. It is conceivable that individual instruments, thus, e.g. the horn, only had the significance of signaling the praise, while the other musical apparatus principally performed rhythmic leading tones. (Kraus, Psalms 60-150 (Continental Commentaries), 570)

Stanley L. Jaki (1924-2009) imagines:

This psalm is meant to sound as a symphony orchestra does when the conductor motions the whole choir and all the instruments to perform the final bars of a great composition. The verses of this psalm prompt us to do what the psalms urged from the start: to sing the praises of God who is in His holy place and, of course, in His place in the highest heaven. The Book of Psalms is a book of praises even when the psalmists groan. (Jaki, Praying the Psalms: A Commentary, 236)

The song ends with a doxology:

Let everything that has breath praise the Lord.
Praise the Lord! (Psalm 150:6 NASB)

John Stott (1921-2011) lauds:

This doxology forms a magnificent conclusion to the Psalter. As a summons to worship, it is unsurpassed in grandeur. Every verse is an invitation to praise, instructing us where, why, how, and by whom the praise of God should be expressed. (Stott, Through the Bible, Through the Year: Daily Reflections from Genesis to Revelation, 100)

Robert L. Alden (1937-1996) observes:

Each of the five books within the Psalter ends with a doxology. (Note Psalm 41:13, 72:18-19, 89:52, 106:48). Psalm 150 in its entirety is a doxology. It concludes not only the fifth book of the Psalter, but the entire collection of psalms...No other psalm is quite like it for its repetition of the summons to honor God. (Alden, Psalms, Volume 3: Songs of Discipleship (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 109)

The psalm’s final doxology has been popularized in contemporary Christian music by Matt Redman (b. 1974). His composition, “Let Everything That Has Breath” (1998), has become a staple at many modern worship services.

Though the paean’s final verse continues with the hymn’s entrenched theme, the last line changes the established timing. This change of pace has precedent. John Goldingay (b. 1942) notes:

As happens in Psalm 148, a sequence of imperatives gives way to a jussive at the end (cf. also Psalm 149, though there the balance of imperatives and jussives is reversed)...I take the closing “praise Yah” as constituting the second colon of the final line as well as forming an inclusion with Psalm 150:1a, much as the opening “Praise Yah” was part of the opening line in Psalm 147 [Psalm 147:1] and even more as it was part of the closing line in Psalm 104 [Psalm 104:35]. (Goldingay, Psalms, Volume 3: Psalms 90-150 (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 749)

The line encourages everything who has “breath” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV) or “breathes”(HCSB, NLT, NRSV, RSV) to praise the Lord (Psalm 150:6). Willem A. VanGemeren (b. 1943) defines:

All God’s creation that “has breath” (n‘šāmâ, GK 5972)—particularly humankind (cf. Isaiah 2:22)—is summoned to praise the Lord (cf. Psalm 148:7-12). The word n‘šāmâ denotes all living creatures—all endowed with life by the Creator (Genesis 1:24-25, 7:21-22) but all distinct from the Creator (cf. Isaiah 2:22). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Psalms (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary),1010)

Konrad Schaefer (b. 1951) expounds:

The change of person, “everything that breathes praise the LORD” (Psalm 150:6), sums up the universal command to praise. Breath (něšāmâh) is the vitality which all beings receive from God (Genesis 2:7; cf. Job 32:8, 33:4; Isaiah 42:5). If God were to withhold the breath, we would return to dust (Job 34:14-15; Psalm 104:29). The last line of the Psalter, addressed to all creatures, invites a simultaneity of praise with life. It might be paraphrased with a moral tone, “As long as you breath, praise God.” (Schaefer, Psalms (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 345)

James L. Mays (b. 1921) posits:

The breath of life is, in the long last, the human being’s only possession, and in this the human being is dependent upon the LORD (Isaiah 2:22). No other use of breath could more right and true to life than praise of the LORD. No other sound could better speak the gratitude of life than praise of the LORD. So the psalm concludes with a vocative addressed to all of humanity calling for a simultaneity of praise with life. The final call echoes the promise that “all flesh will bless his holy name forever and ever” at the end of Psalm 145 [Psalm 145:21]; the promise and the call form a significant inclusion around the fivefold “Hallelujah” that concludes the Psalter. (Mays, Psalms (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 451)

Donald Williams (b. 1937) clarifies:

As this psalm and the Psalter concludes, there is a final exhortation, which refers us back to Psalm 150:1: “Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.” The animals have breath, they are to praise the Lord. The birds have breath; they are to praise the Lord. Humans have breath; they are to praise the Lord. This is the purpose of breath—the spirit (rûah) which God breathed into us (Genesis 2:7). We are to breathe it back to Him in praise as we offer the essence of our life up to Him. Indeed, as the psalm ends, “Praise the LORD!” (Williams, Psalms 73-150 (Mastering the Old Testament), 543)

William P. Brown (b. 1958) concurs:

The final psalm climactically enlists all living (i.e. breathing) creation, human and nonhuman alike, to join the orchestral chorus: “Let everything that breathes praise YHWH! Hallelujah!” (Psalm 150:6). In short, all of God’s works, animate and seemingly inanimate, that is, all “livingkind,” are to render praise and thanksgiving (Psalm 145:10). (Robert L. Foster [b. 1970] and David M. Howard [b. 1952], “‘Night to Night,’ ‘Deep to Deep’: The Discourse of Creation in the Psalms”, My Words Are Lovely: Studies in the Rhetoric of the Psalms, 64)

James Limburg (b. 1935) sets the parameters of this expression:

Psalm 104 indicates that those beings that God gives breath (Psalm 104:29) range from the tiniest creatures in the sea to birds and storks and wild asses and even sea monsters romping in the world’s oceans. If one could hear all the sounds of praise emanating from this blue planet, one would be able to detect not only the elegies of Duke Ellington [1899-1974] or the cantatas of Johann Sebastian Bach [1685-1750] but also the gentle whir of a hummingbird’s wing or the sturdy cantus firmus and counterpoint of the humpback whale. (Limburg, Psalms (Westminster Bible Companion), 506)

The scope of this great symphony is all living things. Herbert Lockyer, Sr. (1886-1934) argues:

C.J. Ellicott [1819-1905] confines this sixth verse to Israel—“We naturally wish to give these words their largest intent, and to hear the Psalter close with a n invocation, ‘the earth with her thousand voices’ to praise God. But the Psalm so distinctly and positively brings us into the Temple, and places us among the covenant people engaged at their devotions, that we are compelled to see here a hymn specially suited to the close of the collection of hymns of the covenant, as the first and second were to begin it. It is, therefore, not all breathing beings, but only all assembled in the sanctuary, that are addressed; and the loud Hallelujah, with which the collection of Psalms actually closes, rise from Hebrew voices alone.”...Needless to say, we disagree with such a limitation for the simple reason that the poet said let “everything that hath breath praise the Lord’—which surely includes all animate beings, whether on earth or in Heaven. The Vulgate Version puts it, “Let every spirit praise the Lord.” Perhaps breath is used in contrast to the musical, material instruments, but creatures able to offer vocal, articulate, and intelligent praise. Beasts and birds have breath and in their own way magnify their Creator. So, let the gnat make music with the vibrations of its wings! (Lockyer, Devotional Commentary on Psalms, 791)

John Eaton (b. 1927) agrees:

In keeping with the psalm’s economy of wording, the summarizing conclusion says much in few words. Much indeed, for it summons every ‘breath’, meaning every creature given life by God, to praise him. Concluding a psalm that has addressed all in the heavens and in the temple, symbolic centre of the universe, this last summons will be meant with all the scope of 96, 98 and 148. Every being in which the Creator has breathed his life (cf. Genesis 2:7) is to direct that life to him, rejoicing to know and behold him, to trust him, to honour his will, to testify to him and to exalt him above all else. (Eaton, The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary, 485)

Craig C. Broyles (b. 1953) cautions:

The psalm closing the book of Psalms concludes with a summons that extends to the farthest reaches beyond the chosen people of God: Let everything that has breath praise the LORD. No one is to be barred from the worship of God, though we must be mindful this verse is an invitation, not a statement. Yahweh in his greatness is worthy of a concert by an orchestra and choir that include every creature. (Broyles, Psalms (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 519)

Paul Westermeyer (b. 1940) sees the open invitation as characteristic of the justice inherent in the psalms:

Justice is on every page of the Psalter...Justice is sung throughout the psalms. Justice and song lead back and forth to one another, and the whole Psalter with all its concerns for justice leads to the song of praise in Psalm 150 toward which the whole cosmos is moving. The telos of praise to God contains justice within it as part of its very essence. (Westermeyer, Let Justice Sing: Hymnody and Justice (American Essays in Liturgy), 30-31)

All living creatures are invited to praise the Lord. George A.F. Knight (1909-2002) prescribes:

This psalm is in no sense a mere shout of empty and superficial praise. It sounds forth praise from the heart of a world that has discovered the cost to God of the world’s redemption, that has in fact glimpsed that in the heart of the Living God there is a Cross. Consequently it summons us in our turn to praise God, not only with our lips, but with our lives...The total pattern of God’s redemptive plan of activity has been glimpsed and fitted into the liturgy of Israel. What, then, is there left for not just Israel, but for everything that breathes, except to shout the one comprehensive word “Hallelujah!” (Knight, Psalms, Volume 2 (Daily Study Bible Series), 365)

Strikingly, no reason for this praise is cited. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) documents:

Psalm 150 lacks the usual rhetorical movement and development of Israel’s hymns. The hymn structure of Old Testament praise characteristically includes a summons to praise and the reasons or motivations for praise...Obviously both the summons and the reasons can be endlessly multiplied and restated...Psalm 150 is remarkable because it contains no reason or motivation at all. It is the only psalm that completely lacks motivation. It is the most extreme and unqualified statement of unfettered praise in the Old Testament. Psalm150 is situated literally at the end of the process of praise. It is also located theologically at the end of the process of praise and obedience, after all of Israel’s motivations have been expressed and no more reasons need to be given. By Psalm 150, Israel fully knows the reasons for praise, perhaps learned through the course of the book of Psalms. At the end of the book, Israel will not restate them. Instead, this psalm is a determined, enthusiastic, uninterrupted, relentless and unrelieved summons that will not be content until all creatures—all life—are “ready and willing” to participate in an unending song of praise that is sung without reserve or qualification. The psalm expresses a lyrical self-abandonment, an utter yielding of self, without vested interest, calculation, desire, or hidden agenda. This praise is nothing other than a glad offer of self in lyrical surrender to the God appropriately addressed in praise. The one who speaks in this psalm is utterly ceded over to God in praise. The Psalter, in correspondence to Israel’s life with God, when lived faithfully, ends in glad, unconditional praise: completely, and without embarrassment or distraction, focused on God. No characterization of God is given; it is enough that the one to be praised is fully and utterly God and therefore must be praised. (Brueggemann, The Psalms and the Life of Faith, 192-93)

Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (b. 1954) concludes:

This “unfettered” praise is only possible at the end of the story of the Psalter. The postexilic community must understand where it has come from...and where it is going...before it can participate in the praise of YWHH the king. Thus the Psalter becomes a story of survival in the changed and changing world with which the postexilic Israelite community is confronted. (Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter, 103)

It is clear that circumstance does not affect the admonition to praise God. There is always motivation for worship. One of those reasons is implicit in the description of the worshipers, namely that they possess the very breath to do so.

How are you praising God? What different ways can you think of to praise God? For what reason do you praise God? Is anyone excluded from the invitation to praise God in Psalm 150:6? Who benefits more from this praise, the creation or the Creator?

The Book of Psalms concludes on a decidedly high note. Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) praises:

The Psalter concludes in a cannonade of praise: booming salvos of joy shake the air with “artful thunder” (Ralph Waldo Emerson [1803-1882], “Merlin”). Every means (eight instruments are listed) is put to use for the great end. Every creature is enlisted as a voice in the climactic chorus. (Peterson, Praying with the Psalms: A Year of Daily Prayers and Reflections on the Words of David, 365)

Psalm 150 is strategically placed at the end of the book. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) determines:

As a poem for the conclusion of the collection, this psalm is a good match for Psalm 1. We have suggested that Psalm 1 is a formal and intentional introduction to the Psalter. It asserts in a decisive way that life under torah is the precondition of all these psalms. In relation to that, Psalm 150 states the outcomes of such a life under torah. Torah-keeping does arrive at obedience, yet obedience is not the goal of torah-keeping. Finally, such a life arrives at unencumbered praise. As Israel (and the world) is obedient to torah, it becomes free for praise, which is its proper vocation, destiny, and purpose. In this light the expectation of the Old Testament is not finally obedience, but adoration. The Psalter intends to lead and nurture people to such a freedom that finds its proper life in happy communion that knows no restraint of convention or propriety. That is the hope for Israel and for all creation. (Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary, 167)

James L. Mays (b. 1921) ratiocinates:

As the final psalm in the Psalter, the 150th tells us something about the book...The book the began with a commendation of Torah of the LORD as the way of life ends here with an invitation to praise of the LORD as the use of life. The correspondence between the repeated verb “praise” (hillel) and the title of the book in Hebrew, “Praises” (tehillim), argues that those who gave the book its name understood the book itself to contain the praises of the LORD offered to all that have breath. The book is the language by which life can say its dependence and obligation and gratitude to the LORD. Hallelujah! (Mays, Psalms (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 451)

The verse and its charge serve as a fitting end to the psalter. Robert Alter (b. 1935) declares:

Appropriately, the psalm and the book conclude on a note of universalism: Not Israel alone but every living thing is exhorted to praise the God of all creation. From this grandly resonant conclusion, one can see how the Book of Psalms has spoken to people through the ages across the borders of nations, languages, and sectarian divisions. (Alter, The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary, 516)

The psalm’s invitation is to participate in an activity that persists from this world into the next: worship. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) affirms:

In such singing, we are in the company of the abiding singing of the saints of the world (Revelation 4:10-11). That singing in the age to come, however, is already underway in this age among those for whom this narrative is re-performed. It is no wonder that life in this re-performed poetry culminates in such unrestrained praise; it is no wonder that the Psalter ends in the same way, as do our lives in the presence of God, (Dave Bland [b. 1953] and David Fleer [b. 1953], “Psalms in Narrative Performance”, Performing the Psalms, 29)

The verse serves not only as an invitation, but an objective; the Westminster Catechism affirms, “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.”

Artur Weiser (1893-1978) explicates:

The keynote of all the last hymns of the Psalter has been that of a song of praise, and at the very end the great Hallelujah...now swells into a mighty final chord. The last psalm is simply and solely a call to sing the praise of God...In praising God the meaning of the world is fulfilled. To praise the abundance of his power is the purpose which links together the most diverse voices in heaven and on earth in a tremendous symphonic hymn of praise. In that prose the members of the cult community join; for them it is given in a special way to bear witness to God’s mighty deeds, which entail the realization of salvation, their salvation, which at the same time implies the salvation of the whole world. It accords with this train of thought that in conclusion ‘everything that breathes’ is called upon to join the praise of God, who as the Lord of the world has revealed himself in power. (Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 841)

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

In short, praising God is the goal of every living thing, the goal of all creation! The Hebrew for “everything that breathes” is kōl hanněšāmâ (literally, “all the breath”). The word breath recalls the Genesis traditions: the creation of humanity (Genesis 2:7) and the flood story in which the proper goal of human and animal life was not realized (see Genesis 7:22). Against this background of destiny gone awry, Psalm 150 teaches us that the proper mode of existence for humankind and all creation is relatedness to God. In short, to live authentically is to praise God, and to praise God is to live. (McCann, A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah, 56)

In the psalter’s concluding hymn, praise resounds and receives the final word. It is a good ending.

Whose “famous last words” are you familiar with? What is your favorite last line of a book or song? What would you want your last words to be? How would you wish to use your last breath?

“I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation. It is not out of compliment that lovers keep on telling one another how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete till it is expressed.” - C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), Reflections on the Psalms, p. 95

What Did He Do To Deserve This? (John 9:2-3)

In John 9, why was the man born blind? That the works of God might be made manifest in him.

In passing, the Gospel of John records that Jesus crosses paths with a “man blind from birth” (John 9:1). The unnamed man is evidently familiar to Jesus and his disciples as they are aware that his sightlessness is congenital (John 9:2). Intrigued, the disciples ask their teacher who is to blame for the man’s lack of vision.

And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. (John 9:2-3, NASB)

Jesus refuses to be encumbered by the disciples’ limited options and offers an alternative explanation (John 9:3-5) before repairing the man’s vision (John 9:6-7).

This incident is found only in John’s gospel. Its setting is vague with no mention of a concrete time or place. The passage maintains only a tenuous connection to the preceding material.

Leon Morris (1914-2006) notes:

There is no time note. John does not relate this incident to others in his story, and we are left to guess at its place in the sequence. Sir Edwyn Hoskyns [1884-1937] says that the incident took place on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, but this is pure assumption. It is likely that some time has elapsed since the attempt on Jesus’ life (John 8:59), but more than this we cannot say. John simply tells us that Jesus passed by (where?) and saw a man blind from birth. Nothing is said as to how Jesus knew that the man had been blind from birth, which argues that he was a well-known figure. (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 424)

The story is rooted more in theological argumentation than in time and space (John 9:1-5). This conversation, with its emphasis on the blindness emanating at birth, prepares the reader for a more incredible miracle. Being blind from birth is, biblically speaking, highly unusual. Outside of the gospels only one blind person is healed in the Bible (Acts 9:1-19) and this is the only miracle in the gospels where the sufferer is said to be afflicted from birth (Acts 3:2, 14:8).

It will not be this chance encounter but rather the disciples’ question that triggers the story’s action. The disciples, reappearing in John’s narrative for the first time in two chapters (John 6:70), are fascinated by the blind man (John 9:2). Their instinct is not pity or compassion but curiosity. The blind man’s condition poses a theological dilemma and as such, the disciples do not see a human being but a theological case study, a strawman to be blown down. Like many who have followed, they are haunted by the question of why, a problem theologians label theodicy.

The disciples rightly seek the insight of their “rabbi” (John 9:2) but they attempt to set parameters on his response, choosing to explore the relationship between sin and tragedy. John Chrysostom (347-407) argues that their question is prompted by John 5:14 (Homily 56.1). Whatever their motivation, it is clear that the disciples are operating under a system characterized by a tight cause-and-effect relationship; they assume that there is a direct correlation between suffering and sin. Theirs is a basic and ancient mind set, exemplified in the Book of Job (Job 8, 15, 18). On this point, the disciples have not progressed beyond Job’s ineffective “comforters”. Later in the chapter, the Pharisees will employ the same argument, only more forcefully (John 9:34).

Daniel J. Harrington (b. 1940) explains their rationale:

As an explanation for suffering, the law of retribution focuses principally on the victims. Of course, one might attribute the suffering to the wrath of God against human sinfulness or to demonic forces having power over humans. But most religious people take for granted the omnipotence and the justice of God. It is these assumptions that are examined critically in what is the fullest biblical investigation of the mystery of suffering—the Book of Job. (Harrington, Why Do We Suffer?: A Scriptural Approach to the Human Condition, 28-29)

For the disciples, the man’s condition is indicative of sin. Gail R. O’ Day (b. 1954) and Susan E. Hylen (b. 1968) clarify:

In the Fourth Gospel, “sin” is not a moral category about behavior but a theological category about one’s response to the revelation of God in Jesus...Jesus’ subsequent actions are a response to the disciple’s perspective on sin as well as to the condition of the blind man himself. (O’Day and Hylen, John (Westminster Bible Companion), 98)

From their perspective, the disciples’ question is perfectly logical as they present Jesus with the only two plausible explanations: Either the man somehow sinned at or before birth or his parents did. There is some Old Testament basis for blindness being the direct result of sin (Genesis 19:11; Exodus 4:11; II Kings 6:18). The more general connection between sin and ailment is exemplified by Job’s counselors, especially epitomized in Eliphaz’s opening argument (Job 4:7).

Given this tradition, it has been posited that the disciples are echoing conventional wisdom. Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) locates:

The disciples’ statement can be placed squarely within the context of contemporary rabbinic views. Underlying the disciples’ statement is the concern not to charge God with perpetrating evil on innocent people (cf. Exodus 20:5; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 5:9). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 281)

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

The notion that sin caused suffering was common in the New Testament period...Stereotypical thinking at the time would have Israelites perceive that given the justice of God, suffering could only be the result of some sin, whether conscious or unconscious. As the later Pharisaic tradition [Rabbi Ammi (ca. 300)] put it, “There is no death without sin and no suffering without iniquity” (b. Shabbath 55a). (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 169-70)

Blindness in particular was often examined in this light. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) relays:

Blindness was often associated with sin; in many cultures it is natural to associate another’s affliction with a specific avoidable cause to prevent anxiety on the part of those who speculated about the causes (cf. Job 6:21). Thus one source suggests that a person was struck blind because he failed to perform sacrifices properly, though some thinkers did object that blindness could happen to anyone. Jewish literature provides many examples of the connection; one who saw a blind, lame, or otherwise seriously afflicted person should praise God as the righteous judge. (Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 777)

Though some obviously held a close connection between sin and affliction, this belief was not universal. Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) cautions:

One should not infer from the disciples’ question that blindness was automatically equated with sin in Second Temple Jewish societies. This story stands between evidence to the contrary. Tobit (ca. third century BC) is the tale of a man whose blindness is an accidental result of his righteous actions (Tobit 2:7-10). A review of later rabbinic literature reveals that the blind were categorized with the destitute and those incapable of being valid witnesses and not with sinners. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 153)

Regardless of how widespread this conviction was, the disciples take it for granted and the fact that the man’s condition existed at birth poses a unique theological dilemma. They presume that suffering is the direct result of sin and therefore if suffering is evident sin must be also. To justify this belief, the sin must be uncovered. So they offer Jesus the only two possibilities which they can see.

In doing so, the disciples provide overly facile answers to a complex question. Bruce Milne (b. 1940) reviews:

For the disciples...the answer is simple. Personal suffering of this nature is due to personal sin. The only uncertainty concerns who is directly responsible. Since the sin concerned must have been congenital, the options were either that this man committed it during his antenatal life in the womb, or his parents had committed it before his birth. While the Bible allows a general relationship between suffering and sin, due to the fall (cf. Genesis 3:1-24; Romans 5:12ff), it refuses to permit the principle to be individualized in every case. Sin has produced a suffering world, but an individual’s personal suffering is not always attributable to his or her personal sin. Sometimes of course it may be...But Scripture refuses to universalize such instances. That was the issue between Job and his friends, and the lesson of the book of Job is God’s dismissal of that simplistic theology of suffering. It is here dismissed by Jesus...The simplistic view is met today however, in much ‘popular religion’ which lives in fear of breaking the rules lest some punishment be visited. Specifically it is expressed in Hinduism with its doctrine of karma, the notion that the immortal soul has to go on working out, in a whole series of lives, the consequences of its actions, so that good is rewarded by a ‘higher’ life in the next reincarnation, and evil punished by a ‘lower’. Hindu thought would therefore offer a further possible answer to the implied question in John 9:2: ‘Did he sin in a previous life?’ This eastern idea has permeated the West through the New Age movement, which in many of its popularizers embraces the idea of multiple lives, and links what happened in previous existences to problems faced in the here and now. The Bible fundamentally rejects such notions. (Milne, The Message of John (Bible Speaks Today), 137)

The disciples’ first suggestion is that the man himself sinned prenatally. There is later rabbinic reflection on prenatal sin (Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932], Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch 2:527-29).

J. Ramsey Michaels (b. 1931) explicates:

Behind the disciples’ question is not only the biblical notion that children are sometimes held accountable for the sins of their parents (e.g., Exodus 20:5; discussed and countered in Ezekiel 18:1-32), but the view proposed by certain rabbis that a child in the womb was already involved in sin (see, e.g., Genesis Rabbah 63, 6...based on Genesis 25:22 and Psalm 58:3). It is unlikely that Hellenistic ideas about the pre-existence of the soul contributed to the raising of the question. There is little evidence that such ideas were widely held in Judaism (cf., perhaps, Wisdom of Solomon 8:20) or that they were used to explain physical misfortune. (Michaels, (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 163)

Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) speculates:

How could the man himself have previously sinned if he was born blind? Some interpreters said that one could sin pre-natally in the womb. (Remember Jacob and Esau struggling with each other in the womb of their mother Rebekah, Genesis 25:22 and Genesis 25:26, and the womb-knowing Lord of Psalm 58:3 and Jeremiah 1:5). (Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 564)

Though not prevalent, this belief still has advocates. Some contemporary Christian counseling training courses espouse that people may suffer because of sins committed in utero.

The disciples’ other alternative is that the parents are at fault for their child’s blindness. There are several rabbinic passages which speak to this possibility (Canticles Rabbah 1.6§3; Ruth Rabbah 6.4; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deuteronomy 21:20). For instance, if a pregnant woman worships in a pagan temple her unborn fetus was regarded as participating in the pagan rite (Canticles Rabbah, I.6,§3).

Gerald L. Borchert (b. 1932) investigates:

Like the disciples, the rabbis normally would have argued from their texts the basic thesis that an individual’s burden of sin (cf. Ezekiel 18:4, 20; Jeremiah 31:29-30) was the cause for illness. Such a view would relate personal distress to a person’s own acts of transgression, particularly if the person was an adult. In the case of children the issue was not totally clear, but the Palestinian Targum (on Deuteronomy 21:20) would seem to argue that it was the duty of parents to confess their transgressions for deviations of children. But that perspective was not fully determinative among the Jews. (Borchert, John 1-11 (The New American Commentary), 313)

A contemporary scientific example of a parent’s indiscretion resulting in the blindness of a child is the case of chlamydia conjunctivitis or trachoma, a leading cause of preventable blindness worldwide. A mother having the sexually transmitted disease chlamydia can infect her child’s eyes as the baby traverses the birth canal resulting in congenital blindness. While there is no cure for this condition, if the mother is given antibiotics prior to giving birth, the occurrence is preventable.

While some Scriptures appear to support the belief that congenital illness is the result of parental transgression, other passages in both the Old Testament and Second Temple literature strongly challenge the notion that children suffer for their parents’ sin (Jeremiah 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18:1-32; Tobit 3:3).

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

While it is correct that Scripture draws a connection between sin and physical suffering (see Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 28:15; Ezekiel 18:4), it is incorrect to conclude that each and every instance of physical ailment or disability is the direct result of sin. We know from our own experience that sinful lifestyle choices may lead to disease...but that certainly not all disease may be traced to sinful behavior...We all suffer because of our own sins, and because of the general sinfulness of our culture, but this does not mean that degree of disability or illness is a measure of a person’s moral failure. To hold such a view is a way to justify a lack of mercy and compassion to those who are suffering, since it assumes they suffer justly because of God’s punishment of sin. Elsewhere, Jesus refuses to accept such a theology of sin and suffering (Luke 13:2-5). (Bryant and Krause, John (The College Press NIV Commentary), 214)

Craig Groeschel (b. 1967) distinguishes:

Just because God can use what happens doesn’t mean he causes everything. God does cause some pain (Hebrews 12:7-11 talks about God “disciplining” his children), but much pain—especially that caused by the sins of other people—is not caused by God. He may allow it, but he doesn’t cause it. That’s an important distinction. Recognizing this fact might still leave us angry with him (and I’m guessing he probably understands when it’s a person in pain). We learn to overcome this anger as we get to know God. And as we do, we learn how to trust that he is still good, loving, and wise in everything he does, even if we don’t know why things happen. (Groeschel, The Christian Atheist: Believing in God but Living As If He Doesn’t Exist, 106)

Both of the disciples’ solutions carry implicit problems which may be why they felt the need to consult the rabbi. Herman N. Ridderbos (1909-2007) critiques:

Their reaction is a question of theodicy that assumes the dogma of direct relationship between sin and sickness (and misfortune in general). Naturally, in the case of a man born blind, that belief was problematic. For who then was the guilty party? Was there a way in which the man could be responsible? Just how that could be the disciples do not say. Perhaps that is precisely the subject on which they wanted Jesus’ opinion. Or were the parents guilty of sin and hence punished in their son? Apparently both possible assumptions produced problems in the minds of the disciples. Whether with these questions they intended to challenge the entire matter in which the rabbis made a direct connection between sin and sickness (and the like) is something we cannot say. But for the disciples of Jesus that would not be so strange. (Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, 332-33)

In asking this question, the stakes are high. Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) unravels:

In this view such suffering appears to be a punishment, part of a process which seems implacable, even vindictive. What is at stake ultimately is the entire problem of evil, a problem which, insofar as it consists of sin, had just been attributed to the human will and then, even more fundamentally, to an underlying diabolical force (John 8:44). In that case Jesus had not denied the reality of sin and its diabolical roots, but he had gone on to set the evil in a positive context; he had moved from a negative emphasis to an emphasis on sinlessness and God (John 8:45-47), and so in a certain sense the image of evil was swallowed up in the image of a greater good...To a significant degree, that is what Jesus does here also. The issue now...is suffering rather than sin...He discounts the sin theory of the disciples, and he accepts the reality of the suffering in a positive context, a context wherein the virtually lifeless man is to reveal the works of God (John 9:3). (Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 346)

Thankfully perspectives on illness have changed. Gerard Sloyan (b. 1919) cautions:

Great delicacy is required in preaching on this chapter effectively because the world of the first century was not alerted to the physically handicapped in the same way ours is. Using the blind and leprous as examples of the morally culpable or the spiritually insensitive may have been usual in those days. It is intolerable today. At the same time, the confusion over physical impairment and moral fault characteristic of that age still lingers. This means that this major theme of John 9 can be put to pulpit use with ease only by the exercise of consummate skill. (Sloyan, John (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 113)

While attitudes toward the disabled have changed, many religious people today hold similar beliefs, albeit often tacitly. This often comes out as people attempt to make sense of the world around them and utter some variation of the question, “What did I do to deserve this?”

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) relates:

Thinking like this is a way of trying to hold on to a belief in God’s justice. If something in the world seems ‘unfair’, but if you believe in a God who is...all-powerful, all-loving and all-fair, one way of getting round the problem is to say that it only seems ‘unfair’, but actually isn’t. There was after all some secret sin being punished. This is a comfortable sort of thing to believe if you happen to be well-off, well fed and healthy in body and mind. (In other words, if nobody can accuse you of some secret previous sin.) (Wright, John For Everyone, Part 1: Chapters 1-10, 133)

D. Moody Smith (b. 1931) augments:

The belief that illness or misfortune is the result of sin (John 9:2-3) is an ancient one (cf. Exodus 20:5; Luke 13:1-5), and dies hard: “What did I do to deserve this?” It is important to maintain the moral balance of one’s personal universe. Jesus, however, rejects the notion that the man’s blindness is the result of sin (John 9:3; Luke 13:1-5; but cf. John 5:15; Mark 2:5, 9). But Jesus’ explanation for its existence is scarcely more acceptable to modern sensibilities (cf. John 11:4). (Smith, John (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 191)

The disciples view the blind man through old lenses and consequently their eyes are clouded by ancient religiosity. Their question about the man’s blindness reveals their own spiritual blindness. Lest we feel superior, we must remember that we are all blind to something and are in need of opening our eyes that we might see more clearly.

Is the disciples’ question unreasonable? Who is most blind in this passage? Which kind of “blindness” is harder to correct, physical or spiritual? When you see tragedy is your instinct to care or condemn? How are you blind; what notions do you have that could be incorrect? Why was the man born blind?

Jesus responds to the disciples but rejects their assumption and refuses to enter into such futile discussion. He evades generalities and instead speaks to the specific case at hand. After all, that is what they ask about (John 9:2).

The disciples, like many believers who have followed them, have framed their petition to Jesus poorly. Jesus refuses to confine his answer to their box. His response exposes the fallacy of their false dilemma. This is not an either/or proposition. They have neglected the tertium quid; there is another option. In bypassing their limitations, Jesus exonerates the man and his parents.

Instead, Jesus posits that through man’s condition, the “works of God” might be “displayed.” Stephen D. Renn defines “displayed”:

The verb phaneroō occurs about sixty times with the consistent meanings of “reveal” (i.e., cause to appear), “appear” throughout...The passive sense “to be revealed” is found in a number of places, occurring with reference to God’s work in the lives of human beings (cf. John 9:3); the righteousness of God (cf. Romans. 3:21); the love of God (cf. John 4:9); eternal life through God’s word (cf. Titus 1:3); the life of Jesus in the bodies, lives of believers (cf. II Corinthians 4:10ff; Colossians 3:4); and the mystery of Christ and the gospel, communicated to the saints (cf. Colossians 1:26; I Timothy 3:16; II Timothy 1:10; I Peter 1:20; I John 1:2). The revelation of Christ to Israel is indicated in John 1:31; and to the world at large at the end of the age in I Peter 5:4; I John 2:28, 3:2). (Renn, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words: Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew And Greek Texts, 47)

The translation of Jesus’ phrasing is highly problematic. The man’s blindness happened “but that” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, RSV), “so that” (HCSB, NIV, NASB, NRSV) or “so the” (NLT) workings of God might be displayed (John 9:3). The nuance makes all the difference; from the causal “so that” to the more purposeful “but that”. “So that” could imply that God subjected a bystander to years of blindness for the sole purpose of producing later divine glory. The varying thoughts also shift the underlying focus from predestination to opportunity.

Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) delineates:

Jesus’ answer is different depending upon the punctuation preferred. (a) “It was neither this man nor his parents who sinned, but that the works of God might be manifested in him. It is necessary for us to work the works of the one who sent while it is day. Night is coming when no one is able to work.” Here the blindness is not due to human sin, but it exists to heighten the glory of God’s acts (e.g., Exodus 7:3-5; John 11:4). Given this purpose, Jesus needs to do the works of God. (b) “It was neither this man nor his parents who sinned. But in order that the works of God might be made manifest in him, it is necessary for us to work the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one is able to work.” Here blindness is not due to human sin, but no other explanation for it is given. Since the problem exists (for whatever reason), there is a divine necessity for Jesus to do God’s work so that it may be manifest in the man...Either way, the text does not function as Jesus’ exclusion of sin as a cause of suffering in all cases...Only in this particular case is sin as a cause excluded. The major difference is that the first option gives an alternative explanation for the cause of the blindness, while the second does not. (Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and Johannine Epistles, 164)

Linguistically, both are viable possibilities. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) asserts:

The question to be raised about John 9:3 is whether we are being told that the man was born blind for the purpose of revealing God’s work in his life, or that he was born blind and the result of this is that God has chosen to reveal his work in this man’s life. I suspect the latter, which is grammatically quite possible, is meant here, in which case we are not being told that God caused a person to be born blind just to use him as an illustration of divine power later in life. The man’s blindness will be made to serve God’s larger purposes; it will be the occasion for God to reveal his works. One should compare what is said of the case of Lazarus in John 11:4. (Witherington, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 182-83)

Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) determines:

Most English translations invite gross confusion with Jesus’ answer. The NIV reads: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” It hardly takes a careful reader to see the theological implications following this line of thought: God brought suffering to this man so that he might glorify himself in his healing. While a sound theology cannot doubt God’s sovereignty to do as he pleases, thoughtful Christians may see this as a cruel fate in which God inflicts pain on people simply to glorify himself...However, the “purpose clause” of John 9:3b (“so that the work of God...”) can just as well be applied to John 9:4, and no doubt it should. Such clauses (introduced by Greek hina) may begin the main sentence rather than follow it. Of eleven uses of the Greek all’ hina (“but so that,” John 9:3b) in John, four of them precede their main sentence (John 1:31, 13:18, 14:31, 15:25). If John 9:2-4 follows this pattern, we may translate it as follows: “‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus. ‘But so that the work of God might be displayed in his life, we must do the work of him who sent me while it is still day.’”...The purpose clause now explains that Jesus must work so that God’s work may be displayed in this man’s life. God had not made the man blind in order to show his glory; rather God has sent Jesus to do works of healing in order to show his glory. The theological nuance of the two translations cannot be more different. (Burge, John (The NIV Application Commentary), 272-73)

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

The clause ‘that he should be born blind’ has in Greek the form of a purpose clause (hina with the subjunctive) but the sense requires us to take it as a clause of result. On the other hand, the clause in Jesus’ reply, ‘that the works of God might be manifested...’ (again hina with the subjunctive) is a clause of purpose in meaning as well as in form...The purpose of his blindness was that a divine work should be wrought in him and the divine glory be revealed (as it is revealed in all the ‘signs’ of this Gospel). This does not mean that God deliberately caused the child to be born blind in order that, after many years, his glory should be displayed in the removal of the blindness; to think so would again be an aspersion on the character of God. It does mean that God overruled the disaster of the child’s blindness so that, when the child grew to manhood, he might, by recovering his sight, see the glory of God in the face of Christ, and others, seeing this work of God, might turn to the true Light of the World. (Bruce, The Gospel of John, 209)

Theologically, the differing translations transition from what Leslie Weatherhead (1893-1976) classified as the “intentional will of God” to the “circumstantial will of God”: God uses a negative situation for God’s purposes but did not originally plan for the situation to exist.

Regardless of one’s interpretation of the purpose clause, Jesus’ retort disconnects the man’s blindness from sin. Jesus, however, does not claim the man is without sin or that there is never a connection between sin and suffering.

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

Although Jesus does not disavow the generalizing connection between sin and suffering, he completely disavows a universalizing of particular connections. In this instance, he insists that neither this man nor his parents sinned. Rather, this happened so that the work [literally ‘works’] of God might be displayed in his life. Formally, the concluding clause could be taken as a result clause (‘with the result that’) or a purpose clause (‘in order that’); either way, John certainly does not think that the occurrence of blindness from birth was outside the sweep of God’s control, and therefore of his purpose. (Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 362)

Jesus’ response turns the disciples’ attention from the blame game to God’s creative work, from the blind to the One who gives sight.

Gail R. O’ Day (b. 1954) observes:

Jesus’ answer indicates that the disciples’ question is not the right way to see what is before them. The disciples ask about the cause of the blindness; Jesus answers about the purpose. (O’Day, The Word Disclosed: Preaching the Gospel of John, 67)

Anthony J. Kelly (b. 1938) and Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) appraise:

Jesus refuses to accept their theological judgment of the situation, with its easy imputation of guilt to the sufferer and of vindictive justice to God. He brings his disciples back to the fundamental truth of what the Father is doing. The true God does not legitimate negative judgment on a suffering human being. The God of salvation is at work within the darkness and blindness shrouding the human condition. In what Jesus will do, God is revealing himself (John 9:3). God’s works are not aimed at judgment, but to bring healing, enlightenment, and new birth into the otherwise hopeless situation of the sufferer. Despite the darkness gathering around him, and the obscurity that will inevitably affect all human beings, Jesus, “the light of the world,” associates his disciples with him in his light-giving mission to the world: “We must work the works of him who sent me.” (John 9:4). (Kelly and Moloney, Experiencing God in the Gospel of John, 206)

Rodney A. Whitacre (b. 1949) applies:

We should not be concerned with assigning blame. Trying to figure out the source of suffering in an individual’s life is futile given our limited understanding, as the book of Job should teach us. (Whitacre, John (IVP New Testament Commentary), 236)

As usual, Jesus serves as a model. Max Lucado (b. 1955) applauds:

What a perspective! The man wasn’t a victim of fate; he was a miracle waiting to happen. Jesus didn’t label him. He helped him. Jesus was more concerned about the future than the past. (Lucado, A Gentle Thunder: Hearing God Through the Storm, 160)

In doing so, Jesus removes all dichotomic categories by which the disciples attempt to understand their world (e.g. righteous/sinner, insider/outsider, etc.). Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) discloses:

Blindness is connected in the minds of the citizens of this community with sinfulness. Blindness is a manifestation of sin, so the blind man is more than just a “blind man”; he is the community’s “designated sinner.”...Even Jesus’ disciples accepted this moral world...What Jesus said points not just to a different attitude but to a different moral world, and what happened next is astonishing. Like God in Genesis, Jesus bent down and took mud and created a new world and a new humanity. (Dave Fleer [b. 1953] and Dave Bland [b. 1953], Preaching John's Gospel: The World It Imagines, 55)

The disciples see only a blind man and wonder why he is blind. Jesus sees the same man and envisions ministry and a way to glorify God.

David Rensberger (b. 1948) concludes:

Theodicy here is the disciples’ interest, and Jesus’ answer says that it is the wrong one. Grammatically, he changes the man’s blindness from a result to a cause. The disciples’ question, and the viewpoint behind it, are rejected altogether. They see suffering as an occasion for moralizing about the victim. Jesus sees it as an occasion for doing the works of God, that is, for relieving the suffering. John refuses the question of technical theodicy and points instead to the need that the works of God should be “made manifest,” that they should appear, and therefore that what they are should also appear. The “work of God,” it turns out, is not punishing sinners with suffering but overcoming suffering. (Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community, 44)

Jesus gives sight to the blind and ensures that darkness and blindness do not get the last word (John 9:6-7). As the light of the world (Matthew 5:14) and Jesus’ representatives on earth, it is the job of Christians to similarly counter suffering in the world. A good way to start is to view everyone we encounter as nothing less than a miracle waiting to happen.

How do you explain prenatal maladies? When something horrible happens, do you try to assign blame? Is their always a connection between sin and suffering? When have you asked a misguided question? When have you been so blinded by your religious understanding and traditions that you missed a ministry opportunity? Are you cooperating with God so that his works might be displayed in you?

“Judgments prevent us from seeing the good that lies beyond appearances.” - Wayne W. Dyer (b. 1940)

The Original Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-14)

Who was a great grandson of Noah, “the first on earth to be a mighty man”? Nimrod (Genesis 10:8)

The tenth chapter of Genesis is comprised of a genealogy commonly referred to as the Table of Nations (Genesis 10:1-32). This passage immediately succeeds the account of the Great Flood (Genesis 6:1-9:28) and traces the lineage of Noah’s three surviving sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Genesis 10:1).

The Table of Nations follows a standard formula and much like Enoch (Genesis 5:21-24) in the Bible’s previous genealogy (Genesis 5:1-32), one character breaks the pattern, a descendant of Ham named Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-14). Nimrod is the son of Cush and great-grandson of Noah.

Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.” The beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city. Mizraim became the father of Ludim and Anamim and Lehabim and Naphtuhim and Pathrusim and Casluhim (from which came the Philistines) and Caphtorim. (Genesis 10:8-14, NASB)

Nimrod is a true outlier. He stands out from his contemporariess as the only character in the genealogy provided with biographical details. The deviation recounting Nimrod’s enterprises is especially striking in context as the chapter is meticulously structured and the information concerning Nimrod disrupts the arrangement.

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) observes:

The only major departure from the stylized narrative is the treatment of Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-9). In a structural way, the peculiar digression on Nimrod is parallel to that of Enoch in Genesis 5:22-24. The difference is that Enoch is assessed theologically whereas Nimrod is celebrated politically. This is what might be expected as the narrative moves closer to identifiable historical reality. (Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 92)

Laurence A. Turner notes:

The reference to Nimrod has all the indications of being a parenthetical note in the genealogy. Interestingly there are six genealogical lists in Genesis 10:2-7 (Japheth, Gomer, Javan, Ham, Cush and Raamah). Genesis 10:8 begins the seventh list. However, it reverts to Cush, who has already been mentioned (Genesis 10:7a), and concerns the exploits of Nimrod, son of Cush who was omitted from the previous list. The deletion of Nimrod, highlighted and distinguished in this way from the other genealogical elements, would reduce the actual total to 70. (Turner, Genesis (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 51-52)

Despite relaying several facts about Nimrod, most of the information provided in the table is ambiguous. Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) speculates:

The statements are so general, and connected to one another so loosely, that one senses how remote and legendary the information about Nimrod was even in the ancient Israelite period; only particular recollections have been preserved. Our list considers Nimrod as the first wielder of power of earth, the first ruler of historical significance, the first in the series of those great men whose will become determinative for the fate of entire nations. (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 146)

Even Nimrod’s name is enigmatic. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) researches:

The etymology of Nimrod is...uncertain. Most writers have connected it with the Hebrew verb mārad, “to rebel.” In the Haggadah (T.B. Hag. 13a; Pes. 94b) Nimrod is pictured as the prototype of rebellion, the builder of the Tower of Babel, and the one who led the people in rebellion against God. Mitchell J. Dahood [1922-1982] has noted that at both Ebla and Ugarit some proper names combine an animal and a deity. He notes particularly Ugar. ni-mi-ri-ya (which translates “panther of Yah”), which leads him to suggest that Nimrod means “panther of Hadd” (i.e., Baal), analogous to nqmd (“victory of Hadd”). (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 338)

Nimrod is so lauded that it might be assumed that he would be featured prominently throughout the Bible as well as extra-biblical sources. This is simply not the case. The potentate’s name appears only four times in the Biblical text: twice in the Table of Nations, in another genealogy in I Chronicles and in Micah which refers to northern Mesopotamia/Assyria as the “land of Nimrod” (Genesis 10:8, 9; I Chronicles 1:10; Micah 5:6).

More surprisingly, Nimrod is evidently unknown elsewhere in ancient literature. To bridge the gap between Scripture and history, many have conjectured as to which known luminary could correspond to Nimrod. Ironically, commentators have spent a great deal of time trying to identify the most famous man of his time. Humans, deities, demigods, an archetypical ideal (as opposed to real person) and a composite character have all been suggested.

Claus Westermann (1909-2000) surveys the usual suspects:

Benno Jacob [1862-1945] gives a detailed account of the explanations offered for the name Nimrod and concludes: “But there is no sign at all of a Nimrod or similar name.” Likewise John Skinner [1851-1925] and others, and the situation has not changed despite more recent attempts. The name is linked with Marduk, the tutelary god of Babylon (A.H. Sayce [1846-1938], Julius Wellhausen [1844-1918]); with Nuzi-Maruttash, a king of the Kassite dynasty (Paul Haupt [1858-1926], H.V. Hilprecht [1859-1925]); as nu-marad (man from Marad) with the middle Babylonian city Marad (Franz Delitzsch [1830-1890]); with the constellation Orion, who appears as a mighty hunter in Greece and later as a hunter translated to the sky; in Syriac the constellation is known as gabbār; with Amen-Hotep III (1411-1375) who is called neb-ma-re, in the Amarna letters Nimmuri (Kurt Sethe [1869-1934]); with Gilgamesh, who is described as gibbōr in the epic, and presented as a hunter in sculpture (so many interpreters); with the Babylonian god of war and hunt Ninurta (Heinrich Zimmern [1862-1931], KBL); more recently (E.A. Speiser [1902-1965], Eretz-Israel V[1958] 32-45) with Yukulti-Ninurta I, of the 13th century, the first Assyrian master of Babylon; as Ninos a figure of Greek story. (Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary, 515)

Joseph Blenkinsopp (b. 1927) updates:

The list of candidates includes Sargon, founder of the dynasty of Akkad in the late third millennium BC (Yigal Levin [b. 1963] 2002); Tikulti-Ninurta I (ca. 1244-1208 BC), a great builder who was the first Assyrian ruler to conquer Babylon (E.A. Speiser [1902-1965] 1958; 1964: 72-73), Ashurnasirpal II (878-707 BC), who made Calah (Kalhu, now Nimrud, on the east bank of the Tigris south-east of Mosul) his capital; and Sargon II (721-705 BC), whose new capital at Dur Sharrukin (Khorsabad) was abandoned after his death (Christoph Uehlinger [b. 1958] 2003; Arie van der Kooij [b. 1945] 2006). To these we may add Ashurbanipal (668-627 BC), last significant ruler in the long succession of Assyrian kings, in spite of the fact that “the beginning of his kingdom’ was Assyria not Babylon. (Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A discursive commentary on Genesis 1-11, 161-162)

Each suggestion has its limitations and there is no consensus among scholars.

Whoever Nimrod was, he was impressive. Three times the text uses the word “mighty” (Hebrew: gibbôr) to describe him (Genesis 10:8-9). The only other time this word occurs in Genesis is in relation to the Nephilim (Genesis 6:4). In Genesis 10:8, in addition to “mighty” (ASV, CEV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), the word is also translated “great” (MSG) “heroic” (NLT) and “powerful” (HCSB). The word means “strong, mighty” and can be equated with “champion” though the context is clearly does not fit sports or games.

Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) defines:

The association of “mighty warrior” (Genesis 10:8) with the prowess of the hunt (“mighty hunter,” Genesis 10:9) reflects the early traditions of Egyptian and Mesopotamian kings famous for this practice. In both expressions gibbor (“mighty”) refers to the strength of Nimrod as a champion warrior. It is reminiscent of Genesis 6:4, which describes the infamous heroes of the past. Usually the term occurs in the context of military achievement (e.g., Joshua 10:2; Amos 2:14, 16). (Mathews, Genesis 1- 11:26 (The New American Commentary), 450)

Nimrod is characterized as a mighty hunter (Genesis 10:9); Esau is the only other hunter mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 25:27). Robert Alter (b. 1935) analyzes:

The Hebrew, which says literally, “he began to be a mighty man,” uses the same idiom that is invoked for Noah’s planting a vineyard. The implication, is that Nimrod, too, was the founder of an archetypical human occupation. The next verse suggests that this occupation is that of hunter, with his founding of a great Mesopotamian empire then introduced in Genesis 10:10-12 as an ancillary fact. Perhaps his prowess as a hunter is put forth as evidence of the martial prowess that enabled him to conquer kingdoms, since the two skills are often associated in the ruling classes of older civilizations. Numerous Neo-Assyrian bas-reliefs depict royal lion hunts or royal bull hunts. (Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary, 43)

Some have supposed that his fellow humans are the game that Nimrod hunts. Martin Kessler (b. 1927) and Karel Deurloo (b. 1936) interpret:

The cultural innovation was no cause for rejoicing. Anyone who knows the Assyrian hunting reliefs in the British Museum in London understands that Nimrod was not a prince on a safari. The king was the “lord of animals,” a caricature of the (exemplary) man of the stripe of Noah who dominates the animals as a human in God’s image. A man like Nimrod hunted predators of the semi-chaotic field that adjoined the cultivated land. He was superhuman in his power, “a hero in hunting before the face of YHWH.” A greater superlative cannot be imagined. Or does the author intend to express a limitation of his power? (Kessler and Deurloo, A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, 89-90)

Yael Shemesh documents:

The midrash views Nimrod, of whom the Bible reports that “he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Genesis 10:8-9), with extreme disfavor. According to Midrash Aggadah...on Genesis 10:8, Nimrod was the first person to eat meat: “Before Nimrod human beings did not eat meat, until Nimrod came and hunted and ate them. This is why it says that ‘he began to be a [that is, was the first] mighty hunter.’” The midrash’s disapproval of the hunter is evident from what comes next: “‘He was a mighty hunter’: This means that he hunted men [beriyot] and killed them. ‘Before the Lord’: This means that he knew his Master and intended to rebel against him: “He was a mighty hunter before the Lord’: This refers to Esau, who is called ‘a skillful hunter’ (Genesis 25:27).” The midrash evidently draws a link between harming animals and harming human beings: someone who overcame the basic human revulsion at shedding the blood of animals is a villain who also hunts and kills human beings. As for “before the Lord,” which might be interpreted as favorable, the midrash reads it negatively: even though he knows the Lord, Nimrod intends to rebel against Him. (Athalya Brenner [b. 1943], Archie Chi Chung Lee, Gale A. Yee [b. 1949], Genesis (Texts @ Contexts), 117)

Unlike the shepherd kings from the Ancient Near East applauded in the Bible, Nimrod is able to exert his will and parlay his unique skills into becoming the world’s first potentate. He builds an empire. Before Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE), Genghis Khan (1162-1227) and Adolph Hitler (1889-1945), there was Nimrod.

John Goldingay (b. 1942) portrays:

Nimrod is the Bible’s first individual “champion” or outstanding warrior, following on the Fallen of Genesis 6 who were also “champions” or warriors; there will be no more “champions” in the Torah (except God). Further, Nimrod is the only hunter in the Old Testament except Esau. And he is this “before Yahweh”: even by God’s standards, Nimrod is impressive. Yet further, he is the first person in Scripture with whom words such as king or reign are associated, the first person in the Bible with a kingdom. The comments about him suggest an anticipatory judgment on earthly kingship and kingdom. The existence of powerful states and powerful rulers is at best an ambiguous development in the world’s unfolding story. (Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone, Part One: Chapters 1-16 123)

Nimrod vastly expands his territory. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) traces:

Four (or three?) cities are connected with Nimrod. Three of them are well known: Babylon, the ancient capital city of Mesopotamia, situated on a branch of the Euphrates, southwest of Baghdad; Erech (ancient Uruk, modern Warka), an important Sumerian city (especially 4th-3rd millennium B.C.), located about 160 miles southeast of Baghdad; Accad (also spelled Akkad or Agade), the capital city of the dynasty of Sargon of Akkad, situated on the Euphrates in northern Babylonia, though its site has never been discovered...The city about which there is uncertainty is Calneh. Amos 6:2 mentions a city by this name, along with Carchemish, Hamathm and Arpad, as cities conquered by the Assyrians, and hence pointing to northern Syria. It is difficult, however, to identify this northern Calneh with the one in Genesis 10, which is specifically designated as being in the land of Shinar, that is Sumer, which is in the south, unless the northern Calneh (Amos 6:2), is to be seen as a commercial colony named after the mother city in the south (Genesis 10:10). Furthermore, the extant cuneiform literature has no references to a southern (i.e., Babylonian) Calneh. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 339)

Nimrod became so celebrated that a proverbial saying developed around his name, the way a great basketball move today might be described as “Jordanesque” in deference to Michael Jordan (Genesis 10:9).

Robert Davidson (1927-2012) compares:

Just as biblical names have come down to us embedded in proverbial sayings – we speak, for example of someone having ‘the patience of Job’ –so the Hebrews knew of a proverbial saying in which the name of an ancient non-Hebrew hero Nimrod appeared. (Davidson, Genesis 1-11 (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament), 102)

Like most of the material involving Nimrod, the aphorism is cryptic. Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) explains:

The proverb “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD” is unclear about how the author interprets the expression. “Before the LORD” has been taken as God’s favor toward Nimrod, or conversely, suggesting sinful rebellion as in the thought of Psalm 66:7: “He [God] rules forever by his power, his eyes watch the nations—let not the rebellious rise up against him.” Some conclude alternatively that the phrase is neutral, only expressing a superlative, thereby indicating that Nimrod’s activities stood out especially. Lexical connections between the Nimrod narrative and the tower event (Genesis 11:1-9), however, encourage the reader to interpret Nimrod’s activities, as the founder of Babel, in the same negative light the Lord “saw” the efforts of the tower builders. (Mathews, Genesis 1- 11:26 (The New American Commentary), 450)

Bill T. Arnold (b. 1955) views Nimrod’s exploits as indicative of far reaching ramifications:

This note also gives the etiological understanding of an early aphorism in ancient Israel (Genesis 10:9): “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Yahweh.” This presumably hints that post-flood humanity has already reverted to pre-flood despotism. (Arnold, Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 116)

The name Nimrod persists today with two widely disparate meanings, a hunter and a person deemed silly or foolish. The prevalence of the latter has trumped the former. Amazingly, the second meaning likely derived from the cartoon character Bugs Bunny. The wily rabbit used the term in its original sense to refer to his nemesis, the asinine hunter Elmer Fudd, whom he called a “poor little Nimrod.” Eventually, the name became more associated with the characteristics of the inept animated hunter than the great biblical warrior.

The original Nimrod, however, was the most influential person of his and the surrounding generations. Nimrod utilized his entrepreneurial spirit to become a world changer.

Who are today’s “mighty men”? What historical figures are comparable to Nimrod? Who will stand out in your generation? How is the world different because of Nimrod; what impact did he have? How did the original readers view Nimrod, as a hero or a villain? How should Nimrod be remembered?

Nimrod is remembered for personal prowess and political power, traits loved by the world. Yet the Bible is not so clear as to whether Nimrod should be as revered as he was in his own lifetime.

Donald E. Gowan (b. 1929) remarks:

The note is neutral in tone, like Genesis 4:17-22 and Genesis 9:20. It does not follow the pattern of the stories of Cain and Abel or the tower of Babel, which express negative judgments about what has gone wrong in human culture. This is somewhat remarkable in that the list of cities includes Israel’s deadly enemies, Babel and Nineveh. (Gowan, Genesis 1-11: From Eden to Babel (International Theological Commentary), 113)

Miguel A. De La Torre (b. 1958) expounds:

Not much is said about Nimrod, except that he is reckoned as the world’s first potentate. Although we are not told anything about his relationship with God except that he was a mighty hunter in Yahweh’s eyes, his name might betray his character. The Hebrew word “to rebel” (marad) may be the root of the Hebrew word Nimrod. But what was it about Nimrod that was rebellious? Nimrod is credited with building an empire that included Babel (Babylon), Erech, and Achad. From there he continued to Assyria and built Nineveh, the capital city of the Assyrian Empire. If there is any connection with the word “rebellion” and Nimrod’s name, Walter Brueggemann [b. 1933] suggests it might be that empire building is a rebellion against Yahweh. (De La Torre, Genesis: Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, 132)

Traditionally, Nimrod is typically depicted negatively. Later Jewish traditions portray the potentate as the builder of the infamous Tower of Babel and the originator of idolatry. Josephus (37-100) envisions Nimrod (called Nebrodes following the Septuagint) as a tyrant who is actively hostile towards God and builds the Tower of Babel in preparation for another Flood (Jewish Antiquities I.113-199). Philo (20 BCE-50 CE) stretches by translating his epithet as the condemning “a mighty hunter against the Lord” (Questions and Answers on Genesis II.82).

Though tradition links Nimrod as the impetus behind the Tower of Babel, he is not included in the biblical account (Genesis 11:1-9). Even so, Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) sees a linguistic connection:

The narrator foreshadows the Tower of Babel narrative by key words in the biographical note about Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-12). Both Nimrod and the tower builders “build,” bānâ, “cities,” ‘îr (Genesis 10:11-12, 11:4-5), in “Babylon” and “Shinar” (Genesis 10:10, 11:2, 9). Moreover, in both of these narratives the narrator inserts the only two references to “the LORD” in the book. Both pertain to God’s sovereignty over the godless humans and their cities. Nimrod’s deeds were “before the LORD” (Genesis 10:9), and the “LORD came down to the city [Babylon]” (Genesis 11:5; cf. Genesis 11:6, 8-9). (Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary, 163)

Interpretations of Nimrod hinge on the enigmatic expression “before the LORD” featured in the proverb (Genesis 10:9). It can mean either in the Lord’s presence or in the Lord’s estimation.

John E. Hartley (b. 1940) examines:

The text states twice that Nimrod achieved fame as a hunter “before Yahweh.” This phrase elevates Nimrod’s achievement to a superior level. It also shows that Yahweh was involved in the course of the development of the nations. (Hartley, New International Biblical Commentary, 121)

Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) and Stephen J. Bramer (b. 1953) posit:

The relevance of this expression is not clear. Nimrod was in the line of Ham, not Shem, through whom Abram would descend. Perhaps this statement about the Lord was included to signify that not all of Ham’s descendants would be under the curse of Canaan (Genesis 9:25), or it could signify that this was done in God’s presence, as Genesis 11:5 points out. (Gangel and Bramer, Genesis (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 105)

W. Sibley Towner (b. 1933) deduces:

The interesting thing about him here is that the narrator offers a proverbial saying, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD” (Genesis 10:8-9). Whoever Nimrod was, he was not outside the interests of Yahweh. In the view of the Priestly genealogist, he lived out his life of greatness by the grace of the creator of all peoples. (Towner, Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion), 104)

Despite many traditions to the contrary, Nimrod has found supporters. He has been seen as a reminder that God can use those outside of the chosen people, like Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28, 45:1), to accomplish the divine will.

John Rogerson (b. 1935) presents:

A possible key verse for the understanding of the chapter is Genesis 10:9, where Nimrod is described as a ‘mighty hunter before the LORD’...If, as seems most likely, the verse is taken to be a compliment to Nimrod, then we have a non-Israelite described both as a founder of civilization in Babylon and Assyria, and as standing in some sort of relationship to God. From this we could conclude that the chapter is saying not only did the nations consist of men and women created by the God worshipped by Israel, but that among these nations were individuals who enjoyed the favour of the God worshipped by Israel. We must not overlook the fact that the Old Testament has a strong sense that foreign nations can be used of God (cf. Isaiah 10:5, 45:1), and that God’s purpose in calling Abraham is to bring blessing to all nations (Genesis 12:3). (Rogerson, Genesis 1-11 (T and T Clark Study Guides), 74)

Joseph Coleson (b. 1947) adds:

The significant prepositional phrase, lipnê yhwh, occurs twice in Genesis 10:9. Most often it is translated, “before the Lord/Yahweh,” but that does not reflect its full significance in this context. It was not just in Yahweh’s presence, or estimation, that Nimrod was a master of the hunt. It was by God’s will, even by God’s grace (E.A. Speiser 1902-1965] 1964, 51, 64; Victor P. Hamilton [b. 1952] 1990, 335, see, e.g. Numbers 32:20-22). This insight militates against understanding the name Nimrod as meaning “rebel.” Taken seriously, it also has the potential to revise our (usually negative) opinions of Nimrod. (Coleson, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 273-74)

Leon R. Kass (b. 1939) justifies the potentate by noting that Nimrod’s actions are understandable:

He was...the founder, presumably by conquest, of an empire of cities in the plain of Shinar, and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel (Genesis 10:8-10). By means of a large kingdom, Nimrod attempts to overcome by force the division of mankind. We should not be too quick to blame him: if what lies behind the human world is only chaos and instability, man must make his own order. Human ordering is the theme fo the story of Babel. (Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis , 222)

In spite of this praise, the context is flooded with negative associations. The term “mighty” connects Nimrod with the cause fo the “flood’ (Genesis 6:4). In the preceding chapter, Nimrod’s grandfather, Ham, and his descendants are cursed (Genesis 9:20-27). On top of this, as a son of Cush, he appears to be a Hamite, yet his entire kingdom is in Shemite territory.

Paul J. Kissling (b. 1957) connects:

That Nimrod became a mighty warrior...(gibbōr) probably alludes to the “heroes”...(hěggibbōrîm) of Genesis 6:4. Nimrod’s violence is thus linked to the violence that brought on the divine judgment of the Flood. That Nimrod is later associated with the founding of the great kingdoms of Israel’s experience leads the audience to be reminded of the violence of kingdoms with their secular views of authority (whether it be Egypt who enslaved them or Babylon who exiled them matters little.) They start from a man whose name means “we will rebel” and who became a warrior like the warriors destroyed in the Flood. (Kissling, Genesis, Volume 1 (The College Press NIV Commentary), 365)

Joseph Blenkinsopp (b. 1927) contextualizes:

Like Cain, Nimrod built a city (Genesis 4:17), and like the Nephilim destroyed in the deluge, he was one of the gibbōrîm, the ‘mighty men’ of old, though clearly a different type of gibbôr. While the brief narrative about Nimrod is not explicitly prejudicial and negative, in the broader context of Genesis 1-11 these associations suggest a negative verdict on his political and military accomplishments and a further stage of deterioration according to the Yahwist’s realistic and disenchanted view of human affairs. (Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A discursive commentary on Genesis 1-11, 161)

Mark G. Brett (b. 1958) sees empire building in general as problematic:

A unifying principle among the Hamites is urbanism, and this feature is reflected especially in...Nimrod...who somehow founds the urban centres both of Babylon and of Assyria. Nimrod is an empire builder, indeed the prototype of empire builders. And the implicit suggestion from the editors of Genesis is that empire builders...are guilty of crimes of dominance...More than that, empire builders are guilty of improper ambition. (Brett, Genesis: Procreation and the Politics of Identity, 46)

Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) concludes:

He should have been a terrifying figure—the personification or incarnation of overwhelming power. But the story demystifies him. In the figure of his ancestor Ham, the weakness of his foundations have already been seen; ultimately his fate is not mightiness but servitude. The description of him as “mighty...mighty...mighty” recalls the mighty men who were washed away by the mightier flood (Genesis 6:4, 7:18-20). To emphasize God’s presence, Nimrod’s hunting is placed “before Yhwh,” in other words, subject to Yhwh (Genesis 10:9). (Brodie, Genesis As Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary, 194)

The final verdict on Nimrod’s virtue is left to the reader. Perhaps he is like most people, possessing both good and bad traits. From the Biblical perspective, a person’s greatness should not be assessed based upon worldly accomplishments but rather relationship to God. By this standard, Enoch who leaves no political legacy (Genesis 5:21-24) is far greater than Nimrod who shaped the ancient world (Genesis 10:8-14).

What is Nimrod’s relationship to God? Is there anything intrinsically wrong with building empires? What is the barometer for greatness? Who do you consider to be great?

“Greatness lies, not in being strong, but in the right using of strength; and strength is not used rightly when it serves only to carry a man above his fellows for his own solitary glory. He is the greatest whose strength carries up the most hearts by the attraction of his own.” - Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887), Life Thoughts: Gathered from the Extemporaneous Discourses of Henry Ward Beecher, 1858