The Falls of the Righteous (Proverbs 24:16)

According to Proverbs, how many times does a righteous man fall and rise again? Seven times (Proverbs 24:16)

Proverbs 24:16 is a straight forward maxim which highlights the resilience of the righteous.

For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again,
But the wicked stumble in time of calamity. (Proverbs 24:16 NASB)

The Message paraphrases, “No matter how many times you trip them up, God-loyal people don’t stay down long; Soon they’re up on their feet, while the wicked end up flat on their faces”.

Emerson Eggerichs (b. 1951) internalizes:

Proverbs 24:16...gives me such hope. Good people are not perfect, but God says: “A righteous man [or woman] falls seven times, and rises again.” (Eggerichs, The Love & Respect Experience: A Husband-Friendly Devotional that Wives Truly Love, 2)

This proverb is attached to its predecessor: “Do not lie in wait, O wicked man, against the dwelling of the righteous;/Do not destroy his resting place” (Proverbs 24:15 NASB).

Christine R. Yoder (b. 1968) connects:

The second proverb [Proverbs 24:16] explains why the ambushes [Proverbs 24:15] are doomed to failure. Seven times, a number that signifies completeness, the righteous will fall and get up again (Psalm 20:7-8)...By contrast, the wicked, who by “lying in wait” [Proverbs 24:15] assume that they have an upper hand, are tripped up by their own wickedness. Lack of a parallel “arise” or similar verb of recovery in Proverbs 24:16b underscores the finality of their fate. They do not get up again. (Yoder, Proverbs (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), 240-41)

Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) expounds:

The unit’s first prohibition [Proverbs 24:15-16] cautions the disciple not to join the ranks of wicked to take away the abode of the righteous by cunning deceit and violence (Proverbs 24:15). The prohibition rests on the godly person’s faith and conviction that the righteous will recover from their fall and the wicked will finally fall through their evil and never recover from their misery. For signals the connection between the admonition (Proverbs 24:15) and its validation (Proverbs 24:16), a connection strengthened by the catchwords righteous (Proverbs 24:15a, 16a)..and wicked (Proverbs 24:15a, 16b)...The double prohibition uses imagery from the field of animal husbandry, that is, “pasture” and “bed for animals” (cf. Proverbs 24:15; cf. Isaiah 35:7, 65:10), and the double rationale uses the metaphor of travel (“stumble and fall”; Proverbs 27:16). The rationale entails that the wicked kill the righteous to plunder them (see Proverbs 1:10-19) and that they may not get their deserts until the end when the righteous triumphantly rises from his destruction...In sum, the rationale of Proverbs 24:16 adds to the promise of Proverbs 24:14 that before the wise/righteous enjoy an eternal future they may first be utterly ruined. It also adds the threat that the wicked are damned. Both promise and threat demand faith that the LORD stands behind this moral order (cf. Proverbs 3:5-6, 22:23, 23:11, 24:18, 21). (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 15-31 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 282)

Richard J. Clifford (b. 1934) interprets:

The words for “house”—nāweh “pasture, dwelling,” and rēbes, “resting place” [Proverbs 24:15]—are a pair fixed in Isaiah 35:7 and Isaiah 65:10. In this saying, the ambusher rather than the ambushed is the one actually in danger, for the righteous person always (“seven times” [Proverbs 24:16]) makes a comeback. The wicked person, however, is tripped up by only one fall—perhaps the very act of ambushing. The proverb can be extended to ethics generally, where it is a sign of a righteous person to be able to rise up after a fall (Alonso Schökel [1920-1998]). (Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 215)

Proverbs 24:16’s wisdom is paralleled in the Psalms. Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) correlates:

If the righteous man suffers harm—such as an encroachment on his field—he will recover, but wickedness is a dead-end road. A Wisdom Psalm states this principle theologically: “Many are the misfortunes of a righteous man, but the Lord will save them from them all” (Psalm 34:20). (Fox, Proverbs 10-31 (Anchor Bible), 749)

Proverbs 24:16 directly contrasts the falls of the righteous and the wicked. Roland Murphy (1917-2002) notes:

Hebrew rāšā (wicked) of the Masoretic Text is taken by the NIV as a kind of apposition; others understand it as a vocative. (Murphy and Elizabeth Huwiler [b. 1952], Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series))

Though the fate of the righteous is ultimately superior to that of the wicked, their path is not necessarily clear. In fact, they may endure as many as seven falls (Proverbs 24:16). Here, the number seven is proverbial (pun intended): It indicates the potential for repeated falls.

Ellen F. Davis (b. 1950) deciphers:

The number seven may be a conventional round number, similar to our use of “a dozen” (see Proverbs 24:16, 26:16). (Davis, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Westminster Bible Companion), 71)

Roger N. Whybray (1923-1997) concurs:

Seven times...means an indefinite number of times [Proverbs 24:16]. The point is that the good man may suffer temporary misfortune at the hands of the rascal, but virtue will triumph in the end. (Whybray, The Book of Proverbs (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament), 140)

Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) reveals:

Seven times...Even seven times...is equivalent to “many” (Sa‘adia). The Syriac Ahiqar (version S2) says: “My son, the wicked falls and does not arise, while the honest man is not shaken, because God is with him” (§21) This is based on the present verse [Proverbs 24:16]. (Fox, Proverbs 10-31 (Anchor Bible), 750)

This usage of the number seven is a common biblical trope. Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) survey:

While numbers have great religious symbolism, few are given any real significance in the Bible. There are, however, a few exceptions to this. The number seven, for instance, is most prominent. It is reflected in the seven days of creation [Genesis 2:2-3], the Sabbath as the seventh day [Exodus 16:26, 20:10, 31:15, 35:2, Leviticus 23:3, Deuteronomy 5:14], the Sabbatical year [Exodus 23:10–11; Leviticus 25:4, 8; Nehemiah 10:31; Jeremiah 34:13-14], the Jubilee year of seven times seven [Leviticus 25:8-13], and the Omer cycle of seven times seven days [Leviticus 23:15-16; Deuteronomy 16:9-10]. In Jericho seven priests blew seven shofars seven times on seven days in seven circuits (Joshua 6:1ff). (Kravitz and Olitsky, Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs, 68)

Oftentimes, the righteous are frequent fallers; they are not exempt from falling consistently and perhaps even completely.

The adage has a two-fold purpose (Proverbs 24:16): It encourages the righteous to remain steadfast in the face of adversity while discouraging the temptation to shortcut righteousness for temporary gains.

Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) considers:

As it in the Masoretic Text, the passage [Proverbs 24:15-16] is most naturally understood as addressed to the wicked. If so, then the proverb serves as a warning against trying to undermine the righteous on the basis of its futility. However, it might be that this is a fictional address and that the actual hearer of the proverb is the student of the sage, in which case the proverb would serve as an encouragement in the light of the attacks of the wicked. (Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 439)

In the face of the facade of the wicked’s prosperity, the righteous could be tempted to circumvent their principles. Duane A. Garrett (b. 1953) asserts:

Saying Twenty-Seven (Proverbs 24:15-16)...is a warning addressed to the evildoer to leave the righteous alone...The resilience of the good man (expressed in his getting back up seven times [Proverbs 24:16]) is such that the evil cannot win. (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (New American Commentary), 199)

Dave L. Bland (b. 1953) advises:

Do not bother to bring about the downfall of the righteous man’s house because it will only be a waste of time [Proverbs 24:15-16]. The righteous are a hardy bunch. They will continually recover from adversity or temptation (seven times) and be even stronger (notice a different scenario in Proverbs 25:26). In contrast, the wicked are brought down when they face a single crisis. (Bland, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Solomon (College Press NIV Commentary), 217)

Allen P. Ross (b. 1943) understands:

It is futile and self-defeating to mistreat God’s people, for they survive, whereas the wicked do not [Proverbs 24:16]! The warning is against attacking the righteous; to attack them is to attack God and his program, and that will fail (Matthew 16:18). The consequence, and thus the motivation, is that if the righteous suffer misfortune any number of times (= “seven times,” Proverbs 24:16), they will rise again; for virtue triumphs in the end (R.N. Whybray [1923-1997], 140). Conversely, the wicked will not survive; without God they have no power to rise from misfortune. The point, then, is that ultimately the righteous will triumph and those who oppose them will stumble over their evil. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Proverbs ~ Isaiah (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 200)

In short, in the long run, crime doesn’t pay.

Other interpreters have focused on the call to perseverance (Proverbs 24:16). As the cliché asserts, tough times don’t last but tough people do.

Roland Murphy (1917-2002) characterizes:

Proverbs 24:15-16 [is]...an admonition with motivational rationale. The admonition warns against ruling the dwelling place of the righteous [Proverbs 14:15]. It grants that the latter can suffer repeated adversity (the proverbial seven times [Proverbs 24:16]), but in the long run he will prevail and the wicked will not. (Murphy and Elizabeth Huwiler [b. 1952], Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series))

David Hubbard (1928-1996) professes:

The long-range vindication and prosperity of the wise is affirmed...here. The motivation tells us how (Proverbs 24:16). The “righteous” person, loyal to the Lord and His people, may come on hard times (“fall”) repeatedly...but each time he will “rise,” as the Lord, whose hand is at work though His name is not mentioned, vindicates him in due season (see the delayed timing of Proverbs 23:18, 24:14). “Wicked” people (the noun is plural here, but singular in Proverbs 24:15) are made to stumble (“fall”” in Proverbs 24:16 translates two different Hebrew words; the second ka shal describes stumbling over an obstacle or being tripped up; Proverbs 4:12, 19; see noun form at Proverbs 16:18) and never get up. “Calamity”...hits them as divine judgment and lays them low once and for all. (Hubbard, Proverbs (Mastering the Old Testament), 375)

Alyce M. McKenzie (b. 1955) preaches:

Perseverance is a crucial quality for...Christians to cultivate...because we live in a society where not all perseverance is fueled by faith in God and directed toward the good of the community...A great deal of perseverance...is fueled by the pursuit of material possessions that make for a life rich in things and poor in soul...Then there is the perseverance fueled by the desire for improving the quality of our lives in community in the best sense of the word quality: “Persistence prevails when all else fails”...The Korean proverb “Fall down seven times and get up eight” expresses the quality of tenacity for which the Korean people are renowned...Then there is the perseverance that is fueled by faith toward godly goals...Perseverance continues to build communities’ resolve and self-esteem. (McKenzie, Preaching Proverbs: Wisdom for the Pulpit, 143-44)

Though unstated, the righteous’ perseverance can surely be attributed to God. Crawford H. Toy (1836-1919) presumes:

The righteous, it is said, shall never be permanently cast down (Micah 7:8); the wicked, on the contrary, has no power to rise above misfortune — once down, he does not rise. The couplet probably refers not to the natural inspiriting power of integrity and the depressing effect of moral evil, but to divine retribution [Proverbs 24:16]. (Toy, Proverbs (International Critical Commentary), 448)

Raymond C. Van Leeuwen (b. 1948) agrees:

These verses [Proverbs 24:15-16] form an admonition against attacking the righteous (see Proverbs 1:11, 23:10-11). Its point is in the motive clause: Although the righteous are not free from troubles, even though they fall again and again, they get up and go on (Psalm 20:7-8). The wicked, however, are brought down (literally, they stumble and fall), like the wicked in Proverbs 4:12, 16, 19 (see also Proverbs 24:17). The underlying premise is that God rewards people according to their deeds (see Proverbs 24:12, 29). (Van Luewen, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Book of Wisdom, Sirach (New Interpreter’s Bible, 211)

John M. Perkins (b. 1930) confesses:

We will stumble and fail along the way. Our purest motives and sincerest efforts will not protect us from failure. We need to mentally accept this ahead of time. We must go through the fiery trial of failure before we are able to fully accept the fact that failure “comes with the territory.” In this struggle we will confront the cultural value of success. Says Robert D. Lupton [b. 1944]: “Success is not an automatic consequence of obedience. ‘A righteous man falls seven times and rises again’ (Proverbs 24:16). Saint and sinner alike must take their lumps and go on to the next risk. But for the believer there is one guarantee. We have a dependable God who made a trustworthy commitment that no matter what happens—success or failure—He will use it for our ultimate good.” (Perkins, Beyond Charity: The Call to Christian Community Development, 172-73)

Some have imagined the divine not only walking by the side of the righteous but picking them up after their falls. Jan Silvious (b. 1944) envisions:

As each of my three boys learned to walk, our hands were always there. They fell to their knees, many times, but we never let them fall on their heads or get permanently hurt. In the same way, the Lord is always there to keep us. He will not let us be cast down. “For though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again” (Proverbs 24:16). (Silvious, The Five-Minute Devotional: Meditations for the Busy Woman, 126)

Neil T. Anderson (b. 1942) and Joanne Anderson (b. 1941) encourage:

We probably learn more from our mistakes than we will ever learn from our successes. A mistake is only a failure when you fail to learn from it: “For though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again” (Proverbs 24:16 NIV). If you make a mistake, get back up and try again and again and again. This is not a question of self-confidence. Our confidence is in God. (Anderson, Overcoming Depression, 75)

The righteous cannot fall so frequently, completely or lowly that God cannot lift them up. There is hope, even for the wicked who can repent and become counted among the righteous.

Proverbs 24:16 affirms that both the righteous and wicked fall. This circumstance is a universal part of the human condition. The difference is in the result: The righteous emerge from the fall. And the determining factor is God. Proverbs agrees, you can’t keep a good man (or woman) down.

Is Proverbs 24:16 written more to deter wickedness or encourage the fallen righteous? Why is Proverbs 24:16 true: is the universe designed to self correct in this way or does God intervene? Is the resilience of the righteous the reason for the wicked’s ultimate defeat? What raises the righteous that the wicked lack? What is the correlation between righteousness and resilience; is perseverance intrinsic to Judeo-Christian faith? When have the wicked prospered while the righteous fell?

Implicit in Proverbs 24:16 is the recognition that the righteous are not promised sure footing: They do fall. Jesus echoes this in the Sermon on the Mount: “He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45 NASB).

Intrerpreters have long realized the inevitability falling. Augustine (354-430) restates:

The text, “For a just man shall fall seven times and shall rise again” [Proverbs 24:16], means that he will not perish, however often he falls. There is here no question of falling into sins but of afflictions leading to a lower life. CITY OF GOD 11.31. (J. Robert Wright [b. 1936], Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), 152)

The fall of the righteous is so common that the assurance of their triumph must be reiterated repeatedly. Tomáš Frydrych (b. 1969) realizes:

The premise about prosperity of the wise and destruction of the fools has to be reiterated again and again. This suggests at least indirectly that in the real world to which the sages are addressing themselves, this principle might not always be so obvious, and therefore, persistent reinforcement is required. Consider...Proverbs 1:10-13...Proverbs 10:30...Proverbs 19:10...Proverbs 24:15-16...Proverbs 25:26...These sayings, and other[s] like them, only make adequate sense if in the sages world at least occasionally those who ambush the innocent fill their pockets with loot, the righteous stagger, the wicked have the upper hand and fools live lives of luxury. Thus, there are both explicit and implicit indications that the proverbial sages were aware that the picture of the world they paint is not entirely accurate. (Frydrych, Living Under the Sun: Examination of Proverbs & Qoheleth, 38)

Daniel J. Treier (b. 1972) analyzes:

The last command [Proverbs 3:11-12], regarding divine discipline, tacitly acknowledges that simplistic forms of retributive theology, according to which God makes good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people, are wrong. Good people do not always enjoy good circumstances, or else this exhortation would not be necessary for such people to interpret their lives and respond rightly. Proverbs 24:16 provides even more obvious nuance about righteous suffering: “The righteous falls seven times and rises again,/but the wicked stumble in times of calamity” (ESV). So-called retribution, not always manifest in circumstantial moments, ultimately pertains to final ends. (Treier, Proverbs & Ecclesiastes (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 25)

Albert H. Baylis assures:

Proverbs knows there is no mechanical guarantee about these formulas. Some good people die young. You and I could both name some. The righteous have their setbacks (Proverbs 24:16). The wicked often do so well that the righteous are tempted toward envy (Proverbs 24:1-2, 23:17, 3:31). But as our own folk wisdom recognizes, those people are “living on borrowed time.” They are swimming against the tide. The odds will catch up with them. (Baylis, From Creation to the Cross: Understanding the First Half of the Bible))

Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) acknowledges:

The sages understood that the righteous wise would suffer in life, but they also have the endurance to withstand the attacks of life [Proverbs 24:16]. Life may beat them down, but they both have hope...because of wisdom. They see beyond the present misfortune. (Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 439)

Given the seeming contradiction between Proverbs 24:16’s assertion and the present reality, many have long looked to the next life for its fulfillment.

Cassiodorus (485-585) dissects:

A Christian is said to rise again in two senses; first, in this world when he is freed by grace from death of vices, and he continues being justified by God; in the words of the most wise Solomon, “A just man falls seven times and rises again” [Proverbs 24:16]. Second, there is the general resurrection, at which the just will attain their eternal rewards. EXPOSITIONS OF THE PSALMS 19.9. (J. Robert Wright [b. 1936], Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), 152-53)

Milton P. Horne (b. 1956) associates:

The instruction [Proverbs 24:15-16] is important because it provides insight on the nature of “future hope” that the preceding instruction mentions (Proverbs 24:14). It does not mean that the righteous will not fall, but that they will recover. Or to put it another way, the future hope for the righteous does not preclude suffering; it simply assures success and fulfillment in the long run. By comparison, the wicked is swept away. (Horne, Proverbs–Ecclesiastes (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 292)

Though there is undoubtedly hope for justice in the next life, the Bible is also replete with examples of righteous believers who have overcome numerous falls. Cody L. Jones (b. 1949) relates:

Do not...raid [a] righteous man’s house. Though they fall seven times, the upright will rise again; but the wicked are overthrown by calamity (Proverbs 24:15-16). When King Chedorlaomer raided Sodom, he inadvertently raided the house of Abram by carrying off Lot [Genesis 14:12]. Abram followed and routed Chedorlaomer’s party and rescued his nephew [Genesis 14:13-16]. (Jones, The Complete Guide to the Book of Proverbs, 188)

John Phillips (1927-2010) illustrates:

The classic example of Proverbs 24:15-16 is the story of David and King Saul. King Saul was the man who lay in wait “against the dwelling of the righteous” [Proverbs 24:15]. After Saul threw a javelin at David and missed, David escaped and made his way home [I Samuel 18:10-11, 19:10]...David, on the other hand, was the just man who fell seven times, only to rise up again [Proverbs 24:16]. In spite of all his faults and failings, David loved the Lord. (Phillips, Exploring Proverbs, Volume Two: An Expository Commentary, 275)

The most obvious biblical example of rising from a fall is Jesus’ rise, even from death. T.D. Jakes (b. 1957) exhorts:

The whole theme of Christianity is one of rising again. However, you can’t rise until you fall. Now that doesn’t mean you should fall into sin. It means you should allow the resurrecting power of the Holy Ghost to operate in your life regardless of whether you have fallen into sin, discouragement, apathy, or fear. There are obstacles that can trip you as you escalate toward productivity. But it doesn’t matter what tripped you; it matters that you rise up. People who never experience these things generally are people who don’t do anything. There is a certain safety in being dormant. Nothing is won, but nothing is lost. I would rather walk on water with Jesus. I would rather nearly drown and have to be saved than play it safe and never experience the miraculous. (Jakes, Can You Stand to Be Blessed?, 14)

The righteous’ ability to rise is at the core of Christianity. The good may not win every battle but the war has been won. This proverb is both evidenced and ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Do you find Proverbs 24:16, with its admission that the righteous may endure repeated setbacks, encouraging? Do the righteous get stronger through their falls? Are there benefits to falling, from emerging from setbacks? Are the righteous assured of rising in the present world; is there justice in this life? Are there benefits to being righteous; what is the reward of the righteous? Who or what best embodies the wisdom of Proverbs 24:16?

I get knocked down
But I get up again
You’re never gonna keep me down
I get knocked down
But I get up again
You’re never gonna keep me down
– Chumbawamba, “Tubthumping”, 1997

The Joy of the Lord (Nehemiah 8:10)

Who said, “the joy of the Lord is your strength”? Nehemiah (Nehemiah 8:10)

The book of Nehemiah is largely a first person memoir recounting the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s city walls during the 5th century BCE. After the wall is completed (Nehemiah 6:15) and guards are installed (Nehemiah 7:1-3), the people are assembled and Ezra reads “the book of the law of Moses” (Nehemiah 7:73-8:8).

Lester L. Grabbe (b. 1945) recaps:

The people, both men and women, are gathered on the 1st day of the 7th month (the Festival of Trumpets according to Leviticus 23:23-25) in the space before the Water Gate, which was probably the main open square of the city (Nehemiah 8:1-2). Ezra reads from early morning to midday, with various individuals standing on both sides of him (Ezra 8:3-4)...Ezra begins by pronouncing a blessing on Yhwh, to which the people respond (Nehemiah 8:5-6). Then various individuals (presumably priests) and Levites clarify the reading to the people (Nehemiah 8:7-8). (Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 51)

The reading triggers an emotional roller coaster. Initially, the people weep (Nehemiah 8:9) before Nehemiah reorients them (Nehemiah 8:9-10).

Then he said to them, “Go, eat of the fat, drink of the sweet, and send portions to him who has nothing prepared; for this day is holy to our Lord. Do not be grieved, for the joy of the Lord is your strength.” (Nehemiah 8:10 NASB)

The priests affirm Nehemiah’s summons, dismissing the congregation with reassuring words (Nehemiah 8:11). The people then disburse to celebrate (Nehemiah 8:11-12).

J.I. Packer (b. 1926) assesses:

The course of action that the leaders pressed on them was better from every point of view. “The joy of the Lord is your strength,” said Nehemiah (one imagines him shouting it from the platform); so rejoice!—feast in joyful generosity, rather than fast in sad self-absorption! “Go and enjoy...Do not grieve.” Thus he brought the meeting to an end. (Packer, A Passion for Faithfulness: Wisdom from the Book of Nehemiah, 158)

Penance will come soon, in fact in the next chapter (Nehemiah 9:1-37). Now, however, is the time to celebrate as God is renewing the covenant.

Mark A. Throntveit (b. 1949) understands:

This...scene, together with the next...functions as the first part of the covenant renewal that these chapters present: proclamation. The “joy of the LORD” (Nehemiah 8:10), freshly renewed through the teaching of Ezra and the Levites, will strengthen the people for the soul-searching that lies ahead in chapters 9 and 10. (Throntveit, Ezra–Nehemiah (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 97)

Stan Purdum (b. 1945) concurs:

Both Ezra and Nehemiah told them to rejoice...because “the joy from the LORD is your strength!” (Nehemiah 8:10). In other words, God was calling them to be the current community in covenant with him. God was giving them the teaching that make for a wholesome and holy life, which is a source of joy. (Purdum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Immersion Bible Studies), 44)

Nehemiah 8-10 is distinct from the rest of the book. Rather than being narrated by the titular character these chapters are composed in the third person. This portion is about Nehemiah not by him. Further, Nehemiah 8 focuses on the figure of Ezra (Nehemiah 8:1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13). This chapter represents one of the few instances that Ezra and Nehemiah appear together.

Lester L. Grabbe (b. 1945) critiques:

In this chapter the attention suddenly turns from Nehemiah to Ezra. In the combined writing Ezra-Nehemiah this would cause no problem for the reader since Ezra was already the subject of an extensive section of the book a few chapters earlier; nevertheless the appearance of Ezra without warning or separation, with the almost non-mention of Nehemiah, still looks rather abrupt. The subject of the chapter is the reading of the law. Again, the focus on this makes some sense in the context since the completion of the wall allows the people to gather together and the wall was finished on the 25th of Elul (Nehemiah 6:15), the 6th month while this chapter begins on the 1st day of the 7th month (Nehemiah 8:2). In the context, one might expect that the people would gather, the law be read, and then the wall be dedicated in a mainly religious celebration. This is not what happens, however, for the dedication does not come until much later (Nehemiah 12:27-43, though no date is given), after the question of mixed marriages is dealt with. This is difficult to explain from a purely literary analysis...as is the thirteen-year wait from the time of Ezra’s first coming during which time he supposedly did nothing about the law. (Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 50)

Ezra’s having been in possession of the law without utilizing it has generated speculation (Ezra 7:10). Kyung-Jin Min asserts:

In the case of Nehemiah 8, few doubt that it originally belonged with Ezra 7-10. The dating system in Nehemiah 8 fits with Ezra 7-10, and Ezra is one of the central figures in Nehemiah 8 even though it is located in the middle of the Nehemiah narrative, whereas the single reference to Nehemiah (Nehemiah 8:9) is normally treated as a later insertion. (Min, The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah, 106)

Joseph Blenkinsopp (b. 1927) construes:

As the singular verb in Nehemiah 8:9 and Nehemiah 8:10 suggests, the admonition was delivered by Ezra alone in the earlier form of the narrative. Nehemiah the governor and the Levites were added at a later stage. (Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 288)

It is Ezra who reads “the book of the law of Moses” (Nehemiah 8:1-5). The text does not record which passage is read but instead emphasizes the people’s response.

Gordon F. Davies (b. 1954) notes:

The important point here is not the stipulations of the Law as read: these details are omitted in this telling of the event. The first question is its reception—how the Law, designed as a constitution for a sovereign realm, can be observed afresh in a subject province of a pagan empire. How can it be proclaimed in a way that is current and engaging but at the same time free from the vicissitudes of Israel’s political fortune?...The people’s reception of the Law becomes the paradigm for Israel’s faith. Although not politically powerful, Israel can have an autonomous faith that is sincere about conversion and structured within tradition. (Davies, Ezra & Nehemiah (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 112)

The people instinctively weep upon hearing the law. Mark A. Throntveit (b. 1949) exclaims:

What a shock to the reader...when the people’s response to the law, reverently read, painstakingly interpreted, and worshipfully received, issues in weeping (Nehemiah 8:9)! Not that grief over their laxity with regard to the law was inappropriate. Under similar circumstances in Josiah’s time, their ancestors had also responded with mourning and weeping in repentance (II Kings 22:11; II Chronicles 34:19, 27). But this day, New Year’s Day (Leviticus 23:24), was “holy to the LORD” (Nehemiah 8:9, 10, 11), set aside for another purpose, namely rejoicing and the blowing of trumpets (Leviticus 23:24; Numbers 29:1). Lest the reader miss this emphasis, the final verses of the text employ a narrative “double strike” to drive the lesson home. In parallel proclamations both Ezra and the Levites prohibit grief and enjoin rejoicing. (Throntveit, Ezra–Nehemiah (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 97)

Presumably, the law serves it purpose by revealing transgression (Romans 7:1). Joseph Blenkinsopp (b. 1927) argues:

It is remarkable how often Ezra-Nehemiah, generally thought to be gloomy and jejune, reports demonstrations of anger, grief, and joy. The reason for the weeping and mourning in this instance is the sense of inadequacy and failure vis-à-vis the law and the threat posed by the curses appended to it. (Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 288-89)

Mark Roberts (b. 1957) discusses:

When the people heard and understood the Law, they began to weep (Nehemiah 8:9). We can only imagine why. Perhaps they were convicted of sin, or perhaps they realized that their suffering could have been prevented if only they and their ancestors had obeyed God precepts. Whatever their reason, although it seems an appropriate response to the Law, the leaders (including Nehemiah, Ezra, and the Levites) rebuked the people for their tears: This day is holy to the LORD your God; do not mourn nor weep” (Nehemiah 8:9)...Weeping in response to the Law will be encouraged later, in chapter 9, but rejoicing comes first. (Roberts, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester (Mastering the Old Testament), 239)

While it seems a shame to waste the rare occurrence of an uncontrived wellspring of contrition, here it is inappropriate. There is a time to mourn (Ecclesiastes 3:4) but this is not it. Forlorn tears during festival days are as inappropriate as laughing in the midst of tragedy. Nehemiah reminds the people not to rain on God’s parade: There’s no crying in holidays!

Lester L. Grabbe (b. 1945) apprises:

The day is made into a festival day for eating, drinking, and rejoicing (Nehemiah 8:9-12)...Although the people have been read the Torah, nothing is said about this day as the Day of Trumpets. It is said to be a holy day but not because of the instructions given to Moses; on the contrary, the day is apparently declared holy because ‘they made them understand all the words which they taught them’ (Nehemiah 8:12). (Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 52)

Leslie C. Allen (b. 1935) informs:

There is a triple refrain in Nehemiah 8:9-11 concerning the holiness of This day as a festival day and the obligation not to grieve. The monthly New Moon festival and the longer festivals were to be days of rejoicing, according to Numbers 10:10, while Deuteronomy stipulates that joyful celebration was to be a regular feature of the festivals (Deuteronomy 12:7, 12, 18, 14:26, 16:11, 14). The tension between the people’s weeping and the leaders’ exhortation to rejoice is reminiscent of Ezra 3:12-13, where official rejoicing mingled with lamenting dissatisfaction. Here, however, the grief was evidently due to the content of the reading, which prompted a healthy recognition of falling short of its standards...Yet the sacred duty of the day as devoted to the joyful worship of God made tears inappropriate. Rejoicing over the Lord is described as a source of protection, the people’s “strong-hold” (NJB). Such a positive attitude supplied a stimulus to comply with the moral will of God in the future, and so gave protection against the divine wrath for disobedience that had loomed in Ezra 9. The special, party-like fare that expressed their joy and generous sharing with those who had no food are both reminiscent of Deuteronomy 12:18-19 and Deuteronomy 14:26-27. The end of Nehemiah 8:12 resumes Nehemiah 8:8: it was not simply the holiday that sparked communal joy, but the appreciation of the reading and the exposition of the Torah. (Allen and Timothy S. Laniak [b. 1958], Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series))

Johanna W. H. Van Wijk-Bos (b. 1940) accuses the Israelites of selective hearing:

The people have heard and understood, but even with understanding one may hear all too selectively. This is a time, so the leaders say, to rejoice, for the people’s strength is located in their joy rather than in their grief. Three times the motivation for abstaining from tears is provided with the statement that this is a holy day...To declare a day “holy to the Lord,” means for the community to set it aside, to dedicate it to God in joyful remembering of who they are and who God is. (Wijk-BosEzra, Nehemiah, and Esther (Westminster Bible Companion), 75-76)

The people are assured that the joy of the Lord is their strength (Nehemiah 8:10). As is often the case, joy succeeds sorrow.

Edwin M. Yamauchi (b. 1937) analyzes:

“The joy” (hedwá) occurs only here and in I Chronicles 16:27 (cf. Aram in Ezra 6:16). Most commentators interpret this joy as having the Lord as its object. In other words, our joy in the Lord as we eat and labor before him will sustain us (Deuteronomy 12:7, 12, 18, 14:26, 17:11, 14). However, arguing from the fact that “strength” (mā‘ōz) means “stronghold, fortress” (cf. Psalm 27:1, 37:39; Jeremiah 16:19), Gordon C.I. Wong [b. 1961] has argued for “the joy of the LORD” as a subjective genitive, that is, the Lord’s joy in us, as that makes more sense. He suggests, “In other words, it is Yahweh’s joy over his people that is the basis for the hope that they will be saved or protected from his anger.” (John H. Walton [b. 1952], 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 441)

The joy of the Lord will be the people’s “strength” (ASV, ESV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “stronghold” (HCSB). The mighty fortress that is the joy of the Lord will protect the people.

H.G.M. Williamson (b. 1947) comments:

In this context “protection” must be against the judgments of God, it follows that on occasions when God’s earlier acts of salvation were recalled it was appreciated that grace was an overriding characteristic of his nature. “The joy of the Lord” was the joy each Israelite felt at these festivals as he identified himself afresh with the community of God’s people and so appropriated in his own generation the salvation once bestowed upon his ancestors. In this act of identification—which took the form of joyful celebration and worship—lay his protection from the judgment that might otherwise fall on those outside of the covenant. Naturally, the sacred recital of the original event formed a vital part of this process. Ezra, therefore encouraged the people to regard his reading of Scripture in this light. Though it might challenge their consciences, it was to be regarded first and foremost as a declaration of God’s grace to his people. (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (Word Biblical Commentary), 292)

Instead of mourning the people are to do just the opposite; they are to party. Keith Schoville (b. 1928) details:

Rather than fasting and mourning, this was a day for joyous feasting. The people were encouraged to eat delicacies not a part of their normal diets. Special days call for special foods in all cultures. Choice food is literally “of the fat,” as in the KJV and RSV, that is, the choicest portions. Sweet drinks may have been sweet wine; the Vulgate indicates wine mixed with honey. The instruction to send some to those who have nothing prepared is taken by a Jewish commentator to refer to the poor. The day was holy to the Lord and all of the people should share in the joy of it. All are to receive renewed strength by rejoicing in the Lord. The Levites must have helped the people to understand the grace of God so that they could celebrate with great joy. H.G.M. Williamson [b. 1947] points to the importance of Ezra’s interpretation of the Torah to the people: “In this late period, when circumstances had changed so much from the time of the original law-giving, there had arisen the danger that the Law would slip into being a document of only antiquarian interest. It was Ezra’s hermeneutic that brought it to life again for the community. Although in theory the text of Scripture alone was normative, in practice it could only be that text as it came to be interpreted that would shape the future bold of Judaism.” Every generation needs to be confronted afresh with the meaning of God’s word and will for that generation. (Schoville, Ezra-Nehemiah (The College Press NIV Commentary), 217)

Joseph Blenkinsopp (b. 1927) remarks:

The admonition is to put aside sadness and enjoy the good fare and fellowship associated with festal sacrifices (cf. Numbers 29:2-6). The theme of rejoicing, closely associated with worship in Deuteronomic-Chronistic preaching (e.g., Deuteronomy 12:12, 14:26; II Chronicles 29:36, 30:25), is rounded off with a psalmlike asseveration: joy in YHVH is your strength...The passage ends, therefore, on a note which calls into question the indictment—so often repeated in the modern period—of early Judaism as fearful and joyless. (Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 289)

Knute Larson (b. 1941) and Kathy Dahlen (b. 1952) reason:

Ezra concluded, Do not grieve, for the joy of the LORD is your strength. The emphasis was on God’s grace. Although they had sinned and had not fulfilled the law, God was celebrated as the gracious Sovereign who “does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him” (Psalm 103:10-11). Their protection came from God’s grace. (Larson and Dahlen, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 219)

The festivities should continue into the present day. Michael Frost (b. 1961) affirms:

I believe that celebration is a core practice of those who live in a world under God’s reign, but I’m not sure whether a rip-roaring “contemporary worship service” is going to quite to do it. I’d prefer a celebration similar to that which Nehemiah commends: “Go and enjoy choice food and sweet drinks, and send some to those who have nothing prepared. This day is sacred to our Lord. Do not grieve, for the joy of the LORD is your strength” (Nehemiah 8:10). Celebration, beauty, and generosity are a godly combination. (Hirsch, The Road to Missional: Journey to the Center of the Church, 144)

Though Nehemiah’s command not to grieve could prove difficult for some, God’s grace always gives cause to celebrate and be thankful. Pleasing God produces joy and a heart infused with joy is strong. The joy of the Lord will sustain the Israelites just as the wall that is built will stabilize the city itself.

Does Nehemiah instruct the Israelites to compartmentalize their emotions? Why is it so important that the nation celebrate in this instance? When have you misheard the intent of a speaker? How is celebrating different when building as opposed to rebuilding? Which is more unifying, corporate celebration or mourning? Should tears ever be rebuked? When have you responded inappropriately at a public event? Have you ever attended a party where you did not feel like celebrating? What should you be celebrating today? Which Scripture do you think that Ezra read? What is typically your response to the reading of Scripture; have you ever wept? Should reading Scripture always produce joy? From what source(s) do you draw strength? Is the joy of the Lord your strength?

The joy of the Lord empowers believers. It strengthens us to endure hardship. John Piper (b. 1946) cites:

From the beginning of his Christian life in 1785 until he died in 1833, William Wilberforce [1759-1833] lived off the “great doctrines of the gospel,” especially the doctrine of justification by faith alone based on the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is where he fed his joy. Because of these truths, “when all around him is dark and stormy, he can lift up an eye of Heaven, radiant with hope and glistening with gratitude.” The joy of the Lord became his strength (Nehemiah 8:10). And in this strength he pressed on in the cause of abolishing the slave trade until he had the victory. (Piper, The Roots of Endurance: Invincible Perseverance in the Lives of John Newton [1725-1807], Charles Simeon [1759-1836], and William Wilberforce [1759-1833], 160)

Andrew Murray (1828-1917) endorses:

There is no proof of the reality of God’s love and the blessing He bestows, which people so quickly feel the strength of, as when the joy of God overcomes all the trials of life. And for the Christian’s own welfare, joy is just as indispensable; the joy of the Lord is his strength (see Nehemiah 8:10), and confidence, courage, and patience find their inspiration in joy. With a heart full of joy no work can make us weary and no burden can depress us; God himself is our strength and song. (Murray, Abiding in Christ, 152)

Joy is a cardinal Christian virtue. Leonard Sweet (b. 1947) distinguishes:

Nehemiah declared, “The joy of the LORD is your strength.” Followers remain mindful of their joy quotient while guarding against an addictive dependence on happiness. Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann [1921-1983] contends, “It is only as joy that the Church was victorious in the world, and it lost the world when it lost the joy, when it ceased to be the witness of it. Of all accusations against Christians, the most terrible was uttered by Friedrich Nietzsche [1844-1900] when he said that Christians had no joy...‘For behold I bring you good tidings of great joy [Luke 2:10]’—thus begins the Gospel, and its end is: ‘And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy [Luke 24:52].’” (Sweet, I Am a Follower: The Way, Truth, and Life of Following Jesus, 114)

How does your enjoyment of God give you strength for living? How does this fortitude translate to your family and friends? How essential is being joyful to the Christian life? Is your church joyful? Are you?

“Joy as a moral quality is a Christian invention.” - Dean William Ralph Inge (1860-1954), “St. Paul,” Outspoken Essays, p. 226

Note: The painting featured in this post, “The Joy Of The Lord Is Your Strength”, was rendered by Kathy Clark (b. 1953).

Living up to Barnabas (Acts 4:36)

What was Barnabas’ original name? Joseph (Acts 4:36)

In a summary statement at the conclusion of its fourth chapter, Acts communicates how the earliest Christians are in one accord and share their possessions (Acts 4:32-35). The book then offers a brief concrete example in the form of a Cyprian Levite named Joseph whom the apostles dub Barnabas (Acts 4:36-37).

Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (Acts 4:36-37 NASB)

Barnabas liquidates his assets and donates the funds to the apostles (Acts 4:37). Even though Barnabas’ act matches the community description (Acts 4:32-35), his is still an exceptional gesture, an exemplar of Christian generosity. The notation also functions as a segue as Barnabas’ model behavior contrasts sharply with the duplicity of Ananias and Sapphira that immediately follows (Acts 5:1-11).

The apostles affectionately bestow Joseph with the added cognomen Barnabas (Acts 4:36). David J. Williams (1933-2008) records:

Literally, “Joseph who was called Barnabas from the apostles.” The preposition “from” used in the sense of “by” is odd but not without precedent. Luke employs it in this sense in Acts 2:22. Arnold Ehrhardt [1903-1965]’s suggestion that he was called “Barnabas of the apostles,” having purchased from them his right to this office is hardly convincing. (Williams, Acts (New International Biblical Commentary), 95)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) interprets:

His introduction at precisely this point in the narrative is not accidental...In the biblical idiom, the giving of a name to others signifies having authority over them (see e.g., Genesis 2:19, 17:5, 19:39, 25:26, 36; also Joseph and Aseneth 15:7). Barnabas is therefore shown to be doubly submissive to the apostles: he receives a new name from them and lays his possessions at their feet. (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 87)

The apostles may have felt the need to give the Cyprian disciple a nickname to distinguish him from Joseph Barsabbas (Acts 1:23). Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) considers:

Joseph is a very common name, which may explain why the apostles called him Barnabas. It is also not unusual for a person to bear two names (e.g., Saul, Paul; Peter, Simon). The meaning of the less-common name, “son of encouragement” (υἱὸς παρακλήσεως, huois parakleseos) well summarizes the way Barnabas will function in the book, as he will embrace Paul’s conversion, minister with him, and be an evangelist. (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 216)

The name Barnabas sticks as Acts never again refers to Joseph.

Acts glosses the sobriquet for the reader, noting that Barnabas means son of “encouragement” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “comfort” (MSG), “consolation” (KJV) or “exhortation” (ASV). The Greek employed is paráklesis.

Douglas A. Hume (b. 1969) informs:

ρακαλέω means literally “calling to one’s side.” Barnabas is repeatedly portrayed as metaphorically “calling to his side” characters who, like Paul before the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 9:28), need his advocacy to gain acceptance with others or, like the church in Antioch (Acts 11:23), need encouragement to grow in new found faith. (Hume, The Early Christian Community: A Narrative Analysis of Acts 2:41-47 and 4:32-35, 141)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) comments:

The term παρακλησεως refers to some sort of speech activity, and to judge from Luke’s use elsewhere (cf. Luke 5:34, 10:6, 16:8, 20:34, 36 and, especially of Barnabas, Acts 11:23) the translation “encouragement” can be argued to have the edge...Since Luke does indeed have a concern to portray Barnabas not just as an encourager but perhaps even more as a preacher and missionary, on the whole the translation “son of exhortation” (=preacher) seems preferable. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 209)

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) and Martin M. Culy (b. 1963) counter:

It is unclear whether this term refers to “encouragement” (cf. Philippians 2:1) or “exhortation” (II Corinthians 8:4). In the latter case, the description “son of exhortation” would probably indicate that Barnabas was a noted preacher...Such a view, however, does not seem consistent with the fact that Paul was the primary speaker when he and Barnabas worked as a team (Acts 14:12). (Parsons and Culy, Acts: A Handbook on the Greek Text, 84)

John Phillips (b. 1927) embraces the ambiguity:

The name means either Son of Consolation, which would indicate something of the man’s grace, or it means Son of Exhortation, which would indicate something of this man’s gift—he had the gift of prophecy. Perhaps the vagueness is deliberate. From what we learn later of this man, he was both a son of consolation and a son of exhortation. Grace and gift were well wedded in his soul. (Phillips, Exploring Acts: An Expository Commentary, 92)

It is fortunate that Acts supplies the name’s meaning as it is doubtful that this particular interpretation would have been derived otherwise. Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) and Richard I. Pervo (b. 1942) evaluate:

The narrator of Acts translates the names of characters as a means of identifying them. This technique conforms to Greek practice, and the fact that the Third Gospel does not employ it is another point of differentiation...In Acts, the narrator is willing to exploit this technique...The narrator glosses “Barnabas” as “Son of encouragement” (=“one who encourages,” Acts 4:36). In actual fact this is wrong. (Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts, 69)

Acts’ translation is faulty on strictly linguistic grounds. While bar unequivocally means “son”, the second part of the compound is problematic. There is no decisive explanation as to its etymology.

Bernd Kollmann (b. 1959) acknowledges:

Etymologically the name Barnabas, unknown outside the New Testament, presents considerable problems, including its purported definition, “son of encouragement.” While bar is obviously traceable to the Aramaic...son...it is unclear from which Semitic word the second part of the name, nabas, derives. Barnabas is occasionally considered a version of Bar nebuah (“son of prophecy”), but this is not synonymous with “son of encouragement.” (Kollmann, Joseph Barnabas: His Life and Legacy, 13)

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

It is not...clear how this meaning is to be derived from the name Barnabas. The simplest suggestion is that ‘ναβας’ is derived from the name א’בנ (son of a prophet or from אחא’בנ (or אחאו’בנ), son of prophecy, inspiration. This may well have been in Luke’s mind, or perhaps in the mind of the apostles...It is however a piece of popular rather than scientific etymology; this makes it no less probable as a popular opinion. The name is familiar in Palmyrene inscriptions (see H.J. Cadbury, [1883-1974] in FS J. Rendel Harris [1852-1941], 47f., and on the whole question Sebastian P. Brock [b. 1938] in JTS 25 (1974) 93-8)...and there seems to be little doubt that there it was originally Bar nebo, Son of Nebo (the Babylonian god). One may be confident that the apostles did not rename Joseph in this sense, and Brock...suggests that ‘Luke analysed Βαρναβας as br + nby’ (nbayya) meaning, “Son of Comfort”...A further suggestion with little to commend it is that ‘ναβας’ may be derived from נוחא, consolation; it is not clear that this word exists in Aramaic (it is not to be found in the dictionaries of Marcus Jastrow [1829-1903] and of Gustaf Dalman [1855-1941]), or how, if it does, it could give rise to the Greek letters in question. A more important observation is that Son of consolation, or comfort, could well be the meaning of the name Manaen (Acts 13:1) which is derived from the Hebrew name Menahem...Manaen shares with Barnabas a connection with Antioch; is it possible that there has been confusion between the two men? This is not impossible but can be nothing but a guess. (Barrett, Acts 1-14 (International Critical Commentary), 259)

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

“Barnabas” might be the adaptation of a form like Palmyrene Bar-Nebo (cf. G.A. Deissman [1866-1937], Bible Studies, E.T. [Edinburgh, 1909], p. 188); another suggestion is that it represents Aram. bar newāhā’ (literally, “son of soothing”); cf. August Klostermann [1837-1915], Probleme im Aposteltexte (Gotha 1883), pp. 8-14. See Theodor Zahn [1838-1933], Die Apostelgeschichte des Lucas pp. 183-88; Sebastian P. Brock [b. 1938], ΒΑΡΝΑΒΑΣ...JTS N.S. 25 (1974) pp. 93-98. (Bruce, The Book of the Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 101)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) reasons:

The name may be closer to a nickname. Barnabas can be seen as a “son of a prophet,” whose function is given encouragement (Alfons Weiser [b. 1934] 1981: 138). The origin of the name is disputed. A literal rendering of the name is said by some to be “son of Nebo” (e.g., Hans Conzelmann [1915-1989] 1987:36, who says Luke is simply incorrect). On the other hand, a popular wordplay can be at work here, as often is the case in the giving of names. Such a nickname rooted in a wordplay on nabi’ would make the name’s sense “son of a prophet” (that is, a prophet, on analogy with the phrase “son of man,” meaning a human being. By extension, then, the name refers to what the prophet does by way of encouragement...Which option is likely? Against “son of Nebo” is the unlikelihood that a Jewish Levite would carry the name of a Babylonian god, which is what Nebo is (Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975] 1987: 232n2). Haenchen (1987: 232n1) rejects the connection to “son of prophet” as not possible because this expression does not equal “son of consolation.” But this ignores the connection between the prophet, what he does, and the likely wordplay nature of the name. Sebastian P. Brock [b. 1938] (1974) appeals to Syriac and the more direct idea of a “son of comfort,” which also is possible although not without linguistic obstacles of its own. Joseph A. Fitzmyer [b. 1920] (1998:321)...rejects any connection to “son of a prophet” or any other alternative, offering no elucidation of the explanation given in Acts 4:36 for the name (also John B. Polhill [b. 1939] 1992:154n80). He regards the connection simply as problematic. One wonders, however, if nicknames hold to firm linguistic rules, so that the etymology may well be a wordplay rooted in Barnabas’s prophetic function or in his established role as a comforter. (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 217)

In this instance, the scientific etymology is far less significant than the intended meaning which Acts provides. Anthony B. Robinson (b. 1948) and Robert W. Wall (b. 1947) determine:

Even though Barnabas does not literally mean “son of encouragement,” Luke’s purpose is to stipulate the subtext of Joseph’s name change to Barnabas: according to Scripture, name changes indicate God’s favor (Matthew 16:17-20). (Robinson and Wall, Called to Be Church: The Book of Acts for a New Day, 75)

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) concludes:

That the apostles have given this name is another indication that Barnabas has submitted himself to the authority of the apostles. Peter is the only other apostle to receive a new name, and his is given by Jesus. The name itself is also interesting, or more specifically the translation that the narrator provides for this name, son of encouragement (Acts 4:36b; on the rhetorical figure of appositio [Quintilian [35-100], Institutio Oratoria 8.6.40-43])...The significance lies less in the etymology of the aramaic bar-anaba than in the role Barnabas will play later in the story. Here is an interesting character study; the same spirit of submission and liberality—“of encouragement”—is seen throughout the subsequent scenes in which Barnabas appears. (Parsons, Acts (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 74)

Regardless of how his name is contrived, Barnabas, is without a doubt a “son of encouragement.”

Who would you put forward as an exemplar of the values that your community stresses? What is a child of encouragement? If you had to apply this moniker to one person you know, who would it be? Who has given you a nickname? Did it suit you?

Barnabas will become a major player in Acts’ narrative, including becoming Paul’s first missionary partner (Acts 11:19-30). Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) probes:

He is referred twenty-three times in the book (Acts 4:36-37, 9:27; in Antioch: Acts 11:22, 29-30, 12:25-13:2; in mission with Paul: Acts 13:7, 43, 46, 50, 14:11-12, 14-15, 20; at the Jerusalem Council: Acts 15:2, 12, 22-26, 35-40). Barnabas will be well qualified for a mission to Gentiles, since he came from one of these Gentile areas. Part of the function of the unit is to introduce him to Luke’s audience. He surely is one of Luke’s heroes. (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 216)

Introducing a future member of the full-time cast with a cameo appearance is characteristic of Acts. Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1934) notifies:

In Acts 4:36-37 a certain Joseph Barnabas is introduced as a concrete illustration of those who sold property and brought the money to the apostles for distribution. The two verses give no indication that Barnabas will later play an important role in the story. Barnabas is a first example in Acts of the tendency to introduce an important new character first as a minor character, one who appears and quickly disappears. Philip (Acts 6:5) and Saul (Acts 7:58, 8:1, 3) are similarly introduced before they assume important roles in the narrative. This procedure ties the narrative together, and in each case the introductory scene contributes something significant to the portrait of the person. (Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, Volume 2: The Acts of the Apostles, 78)

Barnabas proves to be a true son of encouragement. William J. Larkin, Jr. (b. 1945) portrays:

Luke translates the nickname for us: Son of Encouragement, that is one who habitually manifests this quality...Barnabas is a “bridge person,” bringing diverse parties together so that the cause of Christ advances and both older and newer believers are encouraged (Acts 9:27 11:22-23, 25, 15:3, 12, 15, 30-35). For Luke he embodies the fully integrated life of external witness and care for the church’s internal needs of “a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith” (Acts 11:24). (Larkin, Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary), 83-84)

Steven M. Sheeley [b. 1956] encapsulates:

Each time the reader encounters Barnabas in the narrative, Barnabas is living up to his name by encouraging or exhorting those around him.” (Sheeley, Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts, 11-13)

As such, Barnabas is the son of encouragement both by identification and characterization. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) praises:

Barnabas was named after his spiritual gift — “Son of Encouragement,” son of exhortation, son of consolation! Every mention of Barnabas in Acts pictures him as an encourager. For example, when Paul dropped poor John Mark, Barnabas came alongside and patched him up, so that he went on to live a productive Christian life [Acts 15:36–41]. (Hughes, Acts: The Church Afire (Preaching the Word), 72)

C. Peter Wagner (b. 1930) agrees:

Barnabas was an encourager. The apostles thought so highly of this man, whose original name was Joses, that they give him a nickname, Barnabas, meaning Son of Encouragement. William LaSor [1911-1991] says, “Barnabas was good at exhorting, encouraging, comforting. He must have been a wonderful man to have been given such a wonderful name!” It seems that Barnabas had a pastor’s heart and was a phlegmatic personality type; quite a contrast from Paul, with whom a significant conflict arises almost 20 years later. (Wagner, The Book of Acts: A Commentary, 107)

Encouragement is not a trait typically listed high on most people’s preferred list of skills but it defines Barnabas and through him subsequently shapes the early church.

Who do you know whose name fits them? Does yours? What organizations can you think of who live up (or down) to their names? How would Paul and the early church have been different without Barnabas’ encouragement? If you were named for your spiritual gift, what would you be called?

“Instruction does much, but encouragement everything.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), “Letter to A.F. Oeser [1717-1799], November 9, 1768)”, Early and Miscellaneous Letters of J. W. Goethe: Including Letters to His Mother, with Notes and a Short Biography, p. 27

Jahaziel: You can do it! (II Chronicles 20:17)

Who told Jehoshaphat that his army did not need to fight “in this battle”? Jahaziel (II Chronicles 20:17)

During the reign of Jeshoshaphat, an alliance of Moabites, Ammonites, and Meunites camped at Engedi and prepared to invade Judah (II Chronicles 20:1-2). Ironically, these same nations had received clemency during the conquest of the Promised Land (Judges 11:15).

Jehoshaphat was left with few options. His army was outmanned against “a great multitude”(II Chronicles 20:2 NASB) and he was also out of time as his enemies had utilized the element of surprise. Engedi was a small site on the western coast of the Dead Sea located within 25 miles of Jerusalem (Joshua 15:62; I Samuel 23:29, 24:1; II Chronicles 20:1; Song of Solomon 1:14; Ezekiel 47:10). It was not a standard attack route as Jerusalem was only accessible using narrow paths up steep cliffs. In taking this unconventional passage, the opposing armies were too close for comfort and the king faced a desperate situation.

In the face of overwhelming odds, Jehoshaphat responded as a model Davidic king should. Recognizing that he was out of options, he proclaimed a national fast (II Chronicles 20:3) and the king prayed on behalf of his subjects (II Chronicles 20:5-12). The people assembled, but instead of preparing for battle, they prayed and fasted (II Chronicles 20:4, 13). It was the only thing left to do.

God responded to Jehoshaphat’s humble prayer with an encouraging prophetic word (II Chronicles 20:14-17). The word of the Lord enveloped Jahaziel and prompted his lone voice to ring out from the multitude (II Chronicles 20:14). Jahaziel functions like the encouraging “Townie” (Rob Schneider, b. 1963) in The Waterboy (1998) who often shouted, “You can do it!” from the crowd.

Then in the midst of the assembly the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, the Levite of the sons of Asaph; and he said, “Listen, all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and King Jehoshaphat: thus says the LORD to you, ‘Do not fear or be dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God’s. Tomorrow go down against them. Behold, they will come up by the ascent of Ziz, and you will find them at the end of the valley in front of the wilderness of Jeruel. You need not fight in this battle; station yourselves, stand and see the salvation of the LORD on your behalf, O Judah and Jerusalem.’ Do not fear or be dismayed; tomorrow go out to face them, for the LORD is with you.” (II Chronicles 20:14-17 NASB)

This dramatic speech marks Jahaziel’s only appearance in the Bible. Jahaziel was a worship leader, not a prophet (II Chronicles 20:14). Yet in this instance, Jahaziel prophesied as evidenced by the fact that he is introduced by the prophetic-type description “the Spirit of the LORD came upon” (II Chronicles 20:14 NASB) and he adopts the prophetic messenger formula “thus says the LORD to you” (II Chronicles 20:15 NASB). This wording may also indicate spontaneity.

Jahaziel is provided an irregularly long genealogy that emphasizes his pedigree (II Chronicles 20:14). A lineage of five generations links him with Asaph, a worship leader at the time of David (I Chronicles 15:16-17) who is credited with penning twelve psalms (Psalms 50, 73-83). For some interpreters, Jahaziel’s ancestry seems too good to be true.

Sara Japhet (b. 1934) explains:

“The figure of Jahaziel has many artificial features: his name, ‘the one who sees God’, his affiliation with the singers, who are conceived in Chronicles as prophets (I Chronicles 25:1, 2, 3, 5), and his direct descent from Asaph, the assumed head-singer of David’s time, all point to the ‘literary’ nature of this figure.” (Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 793)

In Jahaziel’s case, a voice quite literally emerged from the choir to speak for the Lord.

When have you been caught dead to rights with prayer left as your only resort? When in your desperation has God supplied a voice of encouragement? Why is such a long lineage ascribed to Jahaziel? Why did God choose to speak in these circumstances through a worship leader as opposed to a military tactician?

H.G.M. Williamson (b. 1947) notes that Jahaziel’s prophecy is modeled as a “salvation oracle” (Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (New Century Bible Commentary, 297-299). His speech is carefully constructed and closely follows the prescribed speech for a priest before battle (Deuteronomy 20:2-4). The prophecy also met Judah’s needs as it responded to each point in Jehoshaphat’s prayer (II Chronicles 12:5-12) by providing reassurance (II Chronicles 20:15, 17), reasons for confidence - namely that the battle is God’s (II Chronicles 20:15, 17) and precise instructions on how to proceed (II Chronicles 20:16, 17).

Among Jahaziel’s words of encouragement is the assertion that the Israelites will win the battle without engaging in combat (II Chronicles 20:17). For them, this fight was to be a spectator sport as their directions amounted to “Don’t do something, just stand there!” This “strategy” reinforced the king’s reliance on God as the battle became God’s (not Jehoshaphat’s) and God promised to defeat the invaders.

Jahaziel’s oracle also subtly alludes to another time when God famously defended Israelites as the speech has many uncanny parallels to Moses’ charge prior to the Exodus (Exodus 14:13-14). Most notably, Israel won an improbably victory while being onlookers - “Do not fear! Stand by and see the salvation of the LORD which He will accomplish for you today” (Exodus 14:13 NASB).

Judah was to simply assume a defensive position at the Ascent of Ziz and encounter the enemy at the end of the wadi, by the wilderness of Jeruel (II Chronicles 20:16). There, God would fight for them. It is as if God was providing ringside seats for a battle they had bet their lives upon. In this case, doing nothing required a great act of faith.

Gary N. Knoppers (b. 1956) explains:

In other words, the people are to leave the relative safety of Jerusalem, journey into open terrain, and encounter the enemy at a specific location. They are to put themselves in harm’s way, but they are told explicitly not to fight. (Richard S. Hess [b. 1954] and Gordon J. Wenham [b. 1943], “Jerusalem at War in Chronicles”, Zion: City of our God, 70-71).

William Johnstone (b. 1936) expounds:

“The instruction by Jahaziel was not quietism (any more than Jehoshaphat’s prayer was fatalism). It is pure sacramentalism: Israel’s role is totally participatory—it goes fully armed into battle (II Chronicles 20:21); but the battle is the LORD’s. Israel, as the LORD’s host under the LORD’s anointed, is caught up unreservedly and with no volition on its own part into the action of God against the invading hordes of nations. With total openness to God and entire dependence upon him, it is borne irresistibly to victory (compare such sacred battles as Joshua 6 and I Samuel 7).” (Johnstone, 2 Chronicles 10-36: Guilt and Atonement (1 and 2 Chronicles: Volume 2), 101)

As is often the case, when a courageous person stands alone, Jehaziel was soon joined (II Chronicles 20:18). Morale was boosted, the people obeyed God’s edict (II Chronicles 20:20-22) and God fulfilled his promise as the unholy alliance disbanded and the enemy armies killed one another (II Chronicles 20:23-25). Judah did not fight, but instead worshiped.

It is fitting that a worship leader was the one whose voice rang out as the event marked a worship service, not a battle. Tragedy was transformed into worship. Steven Shawn Tuell (b. 1956) quips, “The advance of Jeshoshaphat’s host is more a liturgical procession than a military maneuver (Tuell, First and Second Chronicles (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 183).”

Simon J. de Vries (b. 1921) concurs writing that God “moves them to a good place of observation; this is like a liturgist moving the worshipers in a procession...This is a model of true worship: to express pure devotion while driving away every demon that assails the faithful (de Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (Forms of the Old Testament Literature, Volume XI), 328.”

Roy D. Bell notices that “worship and praise became central to the whole encounter. II Chronicles 20:10 tells us that Jehoshaphat bowed his face to the ground and all the people of Judah and Jerusalem fell down and worshiped before the Lord. The Levites stood and praised the Lord with a loud voice...sometimes our praise is so quiet...that if God were not a supernatural being, He would not be able to hear it. The absence of worship, adoration and praise impoverishes our lives and even our churchgoing (Bell, Biblical Models of Handling Conflict, 61-62.)”

Has God ever reminded you of past successes to comfort you during a present trial? When have you accomplished something just by showing up? Have any of your tragedies been transformed into worship? Is your worship audible?

“Without worship, we go about miserable.” - A. W. Tozer (1897-1963)