King Solomon’s Wives (I Kings 11:3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Stanley (b. 1958) exclaims:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gene Rice (b. 1925) compares:

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

Steven Weitzman (b. 1965) illustrates:

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

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

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

Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) discounts:

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

Linda S. Schearing (b. 1947) pronounces:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) comments:

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

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

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

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

Steven Weitzman (b. 1965) notices:

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

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David C. Hopkins (b. 1952) accounts:

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

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

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

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

Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) dissects:

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

August H. Konkel (b. 1948) classifies:

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

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

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

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) concurs:

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

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

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

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

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

J. Maxwell Miller (b. 1937) detaches:

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

Paul S. Evans concurs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John W. Olley (b. 1938) examines:

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

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

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

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

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

Richard D. Nelson (b. 1945) appraises:

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

Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) supports:

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

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

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

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

Cutting Off the Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40)

Name the queen that the Ethiopian eunuch served. Candace (Acts 8:27)

Philip establishes a wildly successful ministry in Samaria (Acts 8:4-8). Incredibly, later in the very same chapter, an angel of the Lord abruptly instructs him to leave the thriving Samaritan mission and relocate south to a desert road descending from Jerusalem to Gaza (Acts 8:26). (Contrary to popular belief, God can call a minister to a less prominent position.) Philip accepts his assignment and while en route encounters a man by the side of the road. (Acts 8:27).

So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, (Acts 8:27 NASB)

In context, the account reads like a non sequitur as it does not flow from the story that precedes it nor does it advance the subsequent narrative. Its subject, the Ethiopian eunuch, will play no role in the remainder of the book.

James M. Scott (b. 1955) situates:

As it stands, Acts 8:26-40 is isolated in the narrative of Acts and not immediately connected with anything that precedes or follows it. Having finished the story of Peter and John among the Samaritans (Acts 8:14-25), Luke abruptly begins the account of the Ethiopian eunuch with the angel of the Lord instructing Philip to go from Jerusalem to Gaza (Acts 8:26), and he also ends it abruptly with Philip being caught up by the Spirit and taken to other regions (Acts 8:39-40). Therefore, the text gives the impression of being a separate section in the narrative structure of Acts. (David W.J. Gill [b. 1946] and Conrad Gempf [b. 1955], “Luke’s Geographical Horizon”, The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting, 533)

Gerd Lüdemann (b. 1946) speculates:

The story circulated independently because it played no role in the rest of Acts. (Lüdemann, The Acts Of The Apostles: What Really Happened In The Earliest Days Of The Church, 122)

Connected or not, the providential encounter results in the New Testament’s first example of one-on-one evangelism.

Acts accents the introduction of its newest character. Beverly Roberts Gaventa (b. 1948) observes:

The word “behold” (idou; NRSV: Now), as often in biblical narrative, commands attention for what follows (e.g. Acts 1:10, 5:9, 7:56). Precisely here Luke introduces a dramatic figure he identifies as “an Ethiopian male, a eunuch, treasurer of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasury” (author’s translation). (Gaventa, Acts (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 141)

More translations omit the antiquated particle “behold” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV) than retain it (ASV, KJV, NKJV, RSV).

The man is depicted at length with five descriptors. He is: 1. a man, 2. an Ethiopian, 3. a eunuch, 4. employed as a court official; 5. a worshiper.

The traveler is identified as an “Ethiopian”(ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, KJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). While this moniker refers to a well-established country, David Tuesday Adamo (b. 1949) suggests that the word is best translated by the broader “African” (Adamo, Africa and Africans in the New Testament, 89–91).

The biblical Ethiopia does not correspond to modern-day Ethiopia but rather is located in what is today Sudan. F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) identifies:

Αἰθίοψ...The kingdom of Ethiopia, south of Aswan, had existed since the eighth century B.C. Its two chief cities were Meroe and Napata. In the conversion of this Ethiopian Luke or some of his readers may have seen a fulfillment of the promises of Psalm 68:31; Zephaniah 3:10 (see Eusebius [263-339] Historia Ecclesiastica 2.1.13). Since Homer [800-701 BCE]’s time the Ethiopians (Odyssey 1.23)...were regarded as living on the edge of the world (cf. Acts 1:8). (Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 225)

Jews had a long history with Ethiopia, known as Cush in the Old Testament (Genesis 2:13; Psalm 68:31; Jeremiah 38:7). Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) canvasses:

The biblical tradition gives a certain picture of the place. Ethiopia was a remote and distant land (Ezekiel 29:10; Esther 1:1, 8:9), renowned for its wealth (Job 28:19, Isaiah 45:14) and its military prowess (II Kings 19:9; II Chronicles 14:9-13; Isaiah 37:9; Jeremiah 46:9). The Ethiopians were a dark complexioned people (Jeremiah 13:23; cf. Herodotus [484-425 BCE] 3.20; Philostratus [170-247], Life of Apollonius 6:1), one of the wicked nations of the world (Isaiah 20:3-5, 43:3; Ezekiel 30:1-9; Nahum 3:9; Zephaniah 2:11-12), who were to be among those foreigners who would be converted and acknowledge the true God of Israel (Psalm 68:31-32; Zephaniah 3:9-10). The curiosity of the educated classes of the Mediterranean world in Ethiopia was aroused by two Roman expeditions into the region, one military in 23 BC, and one scientific in AD 62 (Dio Cassius [155-235] 54.5; Pliny [23-79], Natural History 6.35; Seneca [4 BCE-65 CE], Natural Questions 6.8.3). The stereotyped image of Ethiopia and its people from antiquity is reflected in Heliodorus’s romance An Ethiopian Story. (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 75)

As has been alluded, the reference to an Ethiopian likely piqued the curiosity of the original readers. J. Bradley Chance (b. 1954) apprises:

The civilization of Cush lasted until c. AD 350. The culture was a source of fascination to the ancients. Pliny the Elder [23-79] (Naturalis Historia VI.186-92) speaks of reports that certain regions of Ethiopia produced human monstrosities: people without noses, upper lips, or tongues. Some tribes were said to follow a dog as their king. Awareness of these popular stereotypes of Ethiopians makes God’s directing of Philip to invite an Ethiopian into the fold of God’s people especially provocative. The gospel really is for all types of people! (Chance, Acts (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 136)

Beverly Roberts Gaventa (b. 1948) supports:

The description importantly plays on well-established interest in Ethiopians. Homer [800-701 BCE] speaks of the “far-off Ethiopians...the farthermost of men” (Odyssey 1.22-23), and Herodotus [484-425 BCE] describes them as the tallest and most handsome of all the peoples (3.20). Strabo [64 BCE-24 CE] remarks that Ethiopians come from the extremities of the inhabited world (Geography 17.2.1; see also Diodorus Siculus [90 BCE-30 BCE] 3.1-37; Pliny [23-79], Natural History 6.35; Dio Cassius [155-235] 54.5.4). Old Testament and patristic texts also portray Ethiopia as the border of the known world (e.g., Esther 1:1, 8:9; Ezekiel 29:10; Zephaniah 3:10; see Frank M. Snowden, Jr. [1911-2007], 1970, 1983)...He [the Ethiopian eunuch] comes from Meroe, a kingdom established and powerful since before the time of Alexander the Great [356-323 BCE]...Recent events would have placed Meroe in the spotlight since Augustus [63 BCE-14 CE]’s general Gaius Petronius [b. 75 BCE] had led a military campaign against the Candace’s army when Ethiopians pushed into Elephantine. Scientific expeditions into Meroe were conducted under Nero [37-68] around 62 CE, and he had also planned, though never executed, a military campaign against Meroe (Dio Cassius 54.5.4; Strabo [64 BCE-24 CE], Geography 17.1.54; Pliny [23-79, Natural History 6.35; Erich Dinkler [1909-1981] 1975, 91). (Gaventa, Acts (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 141-42)

In witnessing to an Ethiopian, Philip expands the gospel into new regions.

The Ethiopian also stretches the gospel’s racial boundaries. Ethiopians were phenotypically black and the ancient reader would have assumed that the eunuch was ebony. In fact, the name “Ethiopia” derives from a compound meaning “burnt face”. Some church fathers even made the appalling allegation that he was made white when he was baptized (Ephrem the Syrian [306-373], Hymn III “The Pearl, Seven Hymns on the Faith,”); Jerome [347-420], “The Letters of St Jerome: Letter 69, to Oceanus”).

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) notes:

In antiquity, skin color was an Ethiopian’s most distinctive feature (Homer [800-701 BCE], Odyssey. 19.244-248; Herodotus [484-425 BCE], Historiae 2.29-32, 3.17-24, 4.183, 197; and Seneca [4 BCE-65 CE], Naturales quaestiones 4A.218). What is the ethnographic significance of the Ethiopian’s conversion?...The allusion...may not have been altogether positive; it certainly was not in the physiognomic handbooks. About Ethiopians, pseudo-Aristotle says, “Those who are too swarthy are cowardly; this applies to Egyptians and Ethiopians” (Physiognomia 812a12-13). If this negative view of Ethiopia/Ethiopians is in the cultural repertoire of Luke’s audience, Luke encourages the setting aside of those prejudices. (Parsons, Acts (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 119)

Analysis of the Ethiopian eunuch in relation to race has escalated in recent times. F. Scott Spencer (b. 1956) surveys:

Recently African-American scholars have called attention to this man’s identity as a black-skinned, African official (Cain Hope Felder [b. 1943], pp. 182-86; Clarice J. Martin [b. 1952] pp. 791-94; Abraham Smith [b. 1957]). In marked contrast to the tragic oppression and vilification of black Africans in modern Western history, Ethiopians in particular were idealized in ancient classical writings as people of great piety and beauty. Homer [800-701 BCE] spoke of ‘blameless Ethiopians’ (Iliad 1.423-34); Herodotus [484-425 BCE] extolled the ‘burnt-skinned’ Ethiopians as the tallest and most handsome of all humankind (History 3.20); and Diodorus of Sicily [90-30 BCE] commented that ‘it is generally held that the sacrifices practiced among the Ethiopians are those which are most pleasing to heaven’ (3.3.1). (Spencer, Acts (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 91)

Eric D. Barreto (b. 1980) examines:

Clarice J. Martin [b. 1952] outlines three basic approaches to the eunuch’s race. “Uncertainty” is the first interpretive strategy. Unsure and perhaps even uncomfortable with questions of ethnicity, some scholars argue for the eunuch’s ethnic ambiguity and, more important, question, whether his ethnicity has any function in the narrative. In the end, “uncertainty” resembles neglect. A second kind of effort acknowledges the eunuch’s ethnic provenance “but usually with only a cursory discussion of Nubia, and rarely with any explicit identification of Nubians (or ‘Ethiopians’...as they were called in the Common Era) as black-skinned people.” Finally, the third overarching approach fully and explicitly acknowledges the eunuch’s ethnic identity and the various corresponding – especially physical – marks of Ethiopian ethnicity...Martin’s own approach falls within the third category, and she ultimately concludes “that the story of a black African Gentile from what would be perceived as a ‘distant nation’ to the south of the empire is consistent with the Lucan emphasis on ‘universalism,’ a recurrent motif in both Luke and Acts, and one that is well known.” Thus, the presence of a black person within the narrative of Acts is one way in which Luke indicted the universal reach of the gospel. No matter how exotic, there is no land or person that cannot come to know the goodness of God. (Barreto, Ethnic Negotiations: The Function of Race and Ethnicity in Acts 16, 9-10)

Rodney S. Sadler, Jr. (b. 1967) pronounces:

That he was converted indicates that black Africans were never excluded from full participation in the promises of Christianity because of their supposed “racial” designation. (Brian K. Blount [b. 1956], “The Place and Role of Africa and African Imagery in the Bible”, True to Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary, 28)

Gay L. Byron (b. 1961) echoes:

The Ethiopian eunuch was used by Luke to indicate that salvation could extend even to Ethiopians and Blacks. (Byron, Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature, 105)

While the Ethiopian’s race is only implied, careful attention is paid to the eunuch’s social status. He is in the employ of Candace, queen of Ethiopia. Candace (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NKJV, NRSV) or Canda’ce (RSV) or Kandake (NIV, NLT) is a hereditary dynastic title (Pliny the Elder [23-79], Naturalis Historia 6.186; Pseudo-Callisthenes, Life of Alexander of Macedon 3.18). This is the only occurrence of this name in the Bible. Kandakē is a more accurate rendering of the name than the modern sounding Candace.

The Kandakē was the ruler of the country. Eusebius (263-339) mentions that Ethiopia was still governed by a woman in his era (Historia Ecclesiastica 2.1.13). F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) explores:

Κανδάχης Βασιλίσσης...Candace was a hereditary title of the Ethiopian queen mothers, who reigned in Meroe. An inscription from Pselchis (Dekkeh) in Nubia (13 B.C.) calls an earlier Candace τὴν χυρίαν Βασιλίσσαν (Gustav Adolf Deissmann [1866-1937], Light from the Ancient East, p. 352). The queen mother was the effective head of government; the king her son was regarded as a divine personage, the child of the sun-god. So Bion of Soli, Aethiopica 1. (Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 226)

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

Luke seems to have taken Candace as a personal name; in fact it appears to transliterate the title that appears in Ethiopic inscriptions as k(e)ut(e)ky, and to be reduplicated by Βασίλισσα. (Barrett, Acts: Volume 1: 1-14 (International Critical Commentary), 425)

Jo Ann H. Seely (b. 1958) denotes:

According to Bion of Soli (Aethiopica 1, ca. 2nd century B.C.E.), the Candace was the head of the government in the Nubian kingdom of Meroe (located in modern Sudan). The title Candace is also attested in several classical sources (cf. Strabo [64 BCE-24 CE] Geographica 17.154; Dio Cassius [155-235] Historia Romana 54.5.4-5; Naturalis Historia 6.35.186; Pseudo-Callistus 3.18). (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 215)

Mal Couch (1938-2013) relates:

The name means “Queen or Ruler of Children.” Candace is not a proper name. It is a title once assumed by the dynasty of the royal family of the Ethiopians, much as pharaoh was the title of the Egyptian king and caesar was the title of Roman emperors...George Reisner [1867-1942] has identified pyramid tombs of the Candaces of Ethiopia constructed from c. 300 B.C. to A.D. 300. (Mal Couch, A Bible Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles, 268)

William J. Larkin, Jr. (b. 1945) identifies:

Candace, queen of the Ethiopians (better “Queen Mother, ruling monarch of the Ethiopians,” since candace is a title, not a proper name), cared for the duties of state. The king was regarded as a god, “child of the sun,” to sacred to engage in administration. The candace in this instance was Amanitare (A.D. 25-41; David W. Wead [b. 1936] 1982:197; Piers T. Crocker 1986:67). (Larkin, Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary Series), 132-33)

The Ethiopian eunuch is a foreign dignitary. He is described as a dynástēs, translated variously as one with “great authority” (ASV, KJV, NKJV, NLT), a “court official” (ESV, NASB, NRSV),“minister” (MSG, RSV), “chief treasurer” (CEV), “high official” (HCSB) or “important official” (NIV).

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

As a δυνάστης he was a leading man, a man of power, in his own country. The word has in itself no precise meaning, and translates a number of Hebrew words in the Old Testament. He had power as an agent. (Barrett, Acts: Volume 1: 1-14 (International Critical Commentary), 425)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) adds:

It was not uncommon for castrated males to hold positions of importance in oriental courts (see Herodotus [484-425 BCE], Persian Wars 8:105; Philostratus [170-247], Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1:33-36). Indeed, in the Septuagint Jeremiah 41:19, the Hebrew term for eunuch is translated as dynastēs, the term here translated as “official.” (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 155)

More specifically, the chamberlain’s function is defined as supervising the nation’s treasury. He is the minister of finance.

The Greek word for treasury is similar to the destination of the road where the eunuch is found. Gerhard A. Krodel (1926-2005) professes:

On the road to Gaza the official in charge of the queen’s treasure (Greek, gaza) will receive new treasures, the good news of Jesus, understanding the Scriptures, Baptism, and joy. (Krodel, Acts (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 168)

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

γάζης...“treasure,” “treasury,” [is] a loanword from Persian (not related to the place name Gaza). Cf. Plutarch [45-120], Demetrius 25.5. (Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 226)

In his homeland, the eunuch is clearly well respected. His possessing a scroll (Acts 8:28) is likely an indication of his wealth. Given his standing, many imagine the eunuch as an older man. He is unquestionably a person of influence.

The Ethiopian is most famously characterized as a “eunuch” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, KJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). Luke-Acts frequently notes the physical condition of those entering its text (Luke 5:12, 9:39, 13:11; Acts 3:2, 7, 28:8).

In today’s world, eunuchs are seldom discussed. They are no longer prevalent and not an especially pleasant topic. Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) defines:

Eunuchs were castrated men who often served as keepers of harems (BAGD 323 § 1; BDAG 409; in the New Testament they appear only in this scene and in Matthew 19:12; Philostratus [170-247], Life of Apollonius of Tyana. 1.33-36; Jeremiah 48:16 LXX; Esther 2:14). They often served as treasurers (John B. Pohill [b. 1939] 1992: 223). His condition would not allow him full participation in Jewish worship (Deuteronomy 23:1; also 1 QSa 2.5-6). In the eschaton, eunuchs will be restored to full worship (Isaiah 56:3b-5). (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 341)

Barbara K. Lundblad (b. 1944) relays:

Luke presupposes that readers have a particular knowledge of eunuchs. I am indebted to New Testament scholar Cottrel Rick Carson [b. 1960] for his in-depth-study of eunuchs. His reading of primary sources on eunuches ranges widely among classical Greek and Latin texts, as well as the Septuagint. Two kinds of eunuchs are described in classical texts: those castrated from birth and those castrated after reaching physical manhood. Both ended up alienated from their birth families, making loyalty to the monarch a matter of life and death. Eunuchs were involved in three primary tasks: 1) personal domestic service, often tutoring royal children; 2) the military—what could be better, they could never covet hereditary power; and 3) positions in the bureaucracy. (Lundblad, Marking Time: Preaching Biblical Stories in Present Tense, 52)

In biblical times it was not uncommon for boys to be sold for the purpose of being made into eunuchs. Derek W.H. Thomas (b. 1953) discusses:

In some countries a commoner might elect to become a eunuch (and therefore be surgically altered) in order to serve in the royal palace. The reason was that eunuchs ensured sexual fidelity. Sometimes there is the suggestion that such alteration enhanced single-hearted loyalty. Such men traded the hope of family for wealth, security, and a status among the elite. However, eunuchs could never attain the status of royalty and were always servants, even if wealthy ones. (Thomas, Acts (Reformed Expository Commentary), 238)

The papal choir employed eunuchs or “castrati” as recent as the 19th century.

Being a eunuch would have engendered certain perceptions. The text itself alludes to the fact that the eunuch would have been humiliated without the prospect of descendants (Acts 8:33).

Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) portrays:

Eunuchs in antiquity were viewed in two different ways. On the one hand they were regarded positively. Herodotus [484-425 BCE] 8.105 says that among barbarians eunuchs were especially prized as servants because of their trustworthiness. Heliodorus [third century CE], An Ethiopian Story, connects eunuchs with Ethiopian royalty. On the other hand, there was also a negative view of eunuchs among some in antiquity. Lucian [second century CE], The Eunuch 6, tells a tale of a eunuch who applies for a chair of philosophy at Athens. His chief competitor says such people ought to be excluded not only from philosophy but also from temples and holy-water bowls and all places of public assembly. The Jewish Scriptures were hostile to such people (Leviticus 21:20, 22:24: an emasculated man is physically blemished and in a permanent state of ritual impurity; Deuteronomy 23:1: they are not to be admitted to the assembly of the Lord). This attitude was continued in postbiblical Judaism (Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], Special Laws 1.324-25, 3.41-42: they belong to the unworthy barred from entering the sacred congregation; Josephus [37-100], Antiquities 4.8.40 §§ 290-91: total separation from eunuchs is enjoined; Midrash Megillah 2:7; 1 QSa excludes those with physical defects from the assembly of God; 1 QM 7.3-6 also excludes the maimed). (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 75)

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) investigates:

Eunuchs in antiquity “belonged to the most despised and derided group of men” (F. Scott Spencer [b. 1956] 1992a, 156). This claim would certainly find support in the writings of Polemo [d. 270 BCE], who notes that “eunuchs are an evil people, and in them is greed and an assembly of various (evil) qualities” (Physiognomonica. 1.162F). This attitude was prevalent among Greek-speaking Jews of the first century as well (Josephus [37-100] Antiquities 4.290-291)...Why were eunuchs thus demonized and ostracized in antiquity? In part, the answer lies in their ambiguous sexual identity. Lucian of Samosata [second century CE] argued that a eunuch “was an ambiguous sort of creature like a crow, which cannot be reckoned either with doves or with ravens...neither man nor woman but something composite, hybrid and monstruous, alien to human nature” (Eunuch. 6-11; cf. Josephus [37-100], Antiquities. 4.291; cf. Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], De specialibus legibus. 1.324-325). In a culture in which honor was gender-based, to be sexually ambiguous was to blur clear-cut gender roles and expectations and thus to bring shame upon oneself and one’s community (see Spencer 1992a, 157)...Further, eunuchs, by belonging neither to the cultural expectations of male nor female, had violated purity codes. This was especially true in Judaism, which prohibited the physically defective, like eunuchs, from entering the temple and interacting with the larger social body. (Parsons, Acts (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 120)

Though the eunuch’s bureaucratic position was often possessed by a castrated male, some have posited that in Greek writings “eunuch” may have been a governmental title and as such the holder may not necessarily be emasculated.

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) analyzes:

There is some evidence that the word functioned simply as an official title. Genesis 39:1 reports that “Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar an officer (Septuagint, εὐνουχός) of Pharaoh.” Since Potiphar was married, “eunuch” here probably refers to his standing in Pharaoh’s court. Some early Christian writings developed the notion of eunuch as a reference to those who remain celibate. Athenagorus [133-190] wrote in A Plea for Christians: “If to remain a virgin and abstain from sexual intercourse (εὐνουχία) brings us closer to God...” (33.3; cf. Clement of Alexandria [150-215], Stromata 3.1; Matthew 19:12). Nonetheless the overwhelming majority of instances of “eunuch” from the classical period to late antiquity refer to one who was sexually mutilated (see Philostratus [170-247], Vita Apollonii 6.42; Lucian [second century CE], Saturnalia, 12) or, much more rarely, born with a congenital defect (see Aristotle [384-322 BCE], De generatione animalium 2.7.25). (Parsons, Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity, 133)

Sean D. Burke (b. 1972) charts:

The first Christian interpreters to suggest that “eunuch” could function as a title of rank applied to persons who were not castrated were Theodore (c. 602-690), archbishop of Canterbury, and Hadrian (died 710), abbot of a monastery in Canterbury, although they noted that among the Persians and the Romans, all eunuchs were castrated. Later, based on his understanding of the three categories of eunuchs in Matthew 19:12, Nicholas of Lyra [1270-1349] argued that eunuchus in Acts 8:27 should not be understood with regard to genitals (membrorum genitalium) but rather with regard to chastity (casitate). In a reading that has profoundly influenced the rest of the history of interpretation, especially among Protestants, John Calvin [1509-1564] claimed that, because the terms man and eunuch are both used of this character, the latter must be a title, and he argued that the practice among ancient Near Eastern rulers of setting castrated males over important affairs resulted in the indiscriminate use of the title eunuch even for those who were actually men (that is, not castrated). In light of Nicholas of Lyra’s understanding of the eunuch as a model of chastity, it may be significant that Calvin’s interpretation, which reduced the term eunuch to a title, was produced in a context in which he and other reformers were challenging the enforced celibacy of clergy and the glorification of the voluntary celibacy of those in religious orders. (Burke, Queering the Ethiopian Eunuch: Strategies of Ambiguity in Acts, 10-11)

William J. Larkin, Jr. (b. 1945) evaluates:

Eunuch in ancient times could mean a castrated male (Leviticus 21:20; Deuteronomy 23:1); a castrated male who served in high government office, particularly under a woman ruler or in duties involving women (such as oversight of a harem) or in a treasury (Plutarch [45-120], Vitae Parallelae: Demetrius 25:5); or any male high government official (Jeremiah 34:19). It is difficult to determine which use Luke is making here. I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934] (1980:162) says that the piling on of phrases, dynastēs immediately following eunouchos, renders the former redundant if it does not indicate the physical condition (compare Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975] 1971: 310). (Larkin, Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary Series), 132-33)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) determines:

Jacob Jervell [b. 1925] (1998: 270-71) questions whether this man in a high office should be seen as literally a eunuch. He suggests that the Ethiopian is one who by his position functions as a celibate and this symbolically a “eunuch.” In this case, however, there would be no need to call him a eunuch, as Acts 8:27 does. So a literal eunuch is likely in view (Gerd Petzke [b. 1940], EDNT 2:81). (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 341)

A literal reading of the text is most natural and less redundant. Further, the story highlights the expansion of the gospel, and including a eunuch breaks further boundaries. The Ethiopian eunuch is most likely a eunuch.

In spite of the other biographical details provided, when he is referred to elsewhere in the text, he will be known as “the eunuch”. He is not referred to as the court official or the Ethiopian. He is the eunuch. This designation defines him.

Keith H. Reeves (b. 1957) inspects:

The operative term that Luke uses to refer to this man is the word for eunuch. Luke uses the term fives times (Acts 8:27, 34, 36, 38, 39). In the Septuagint the term (used thirty-eight times overall) often refers to a high official (as in the case of Potiphar, Genesis 39:1), but it is equally used to refer to a castrated male, typically related to work in the harem. The only other occurrences of the term in the New Testament are three times in Matthew 19:12, where it clearly refers to a castrated male...The term here denotes a castrated male rather than merely an official, because he has already been adequately identified as a minister. Were “eunuch” simply understood as minister, it would be redundant. Indeed, the repetition of the term for eunuch emphasize’s the man’s physical defect. This is his dominant trait in the narrative. (Robert L. Gallagher [b. 1949] and Paul Hertig [b. 1955], “The Ethiopian Eunuch: A Key Transition from Hellenist to Gentile Mission”, Mission in Acts: Ancient Narratives in Contemporary Context, 117)

The eunuch is not referred to by name, but is rather identified by his “deformity” or “impairment.” This is no different than the non-personal identities levied upon contemporary people who do not conform to societal norms. Academicians who refer to the eunuch otherwise in an effort to give him dignity the text does not afford mitigate the impact of his eventual inclusion in the Christian community.

In spite of the numerous details Acts provides, the eunuch’s religious standing remains murky. Philip discovers the eunuch contemplating a scroll (Acts 8:32-33), specifically Isaiah 53:7-8, on a road leading away from Jerusalem (Acts 8:28). Presumably the eunuch has gone on a pilgrimage to worship.

Richard N. Longenecker (b. 1930) confesses:

It is difficult to determine from the text itself how Luke wanted his readers to understand the Ethiopian eunuch’s relation to Judaism. Furthermore, it is uncertain how first-century Judaism would have viewed a eunuch coming to worship at Jerusalem. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Acts (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 158)

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

Luke...intentionally leaves the man’s religious status obscure: he could not call him a proselyte, because his source said he was a Gentile; and he could not call him a Gentile without anticipating the theme of Acts 10-11. Also, in this way Luke could give the impression that the Church’s mission had taken a step beyond the Jews and Samaritans, but not quite to the Gentiles, with all the problems which that involves. It may well be that Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975] and Hans Conzelmann [1915-1989] are right in thinking that the original version made it clear that the eunuch was a Gentile. But it is unlikely that Luke knew this and deliberately covered it up, for it would have been a simple enough matter to position this narrative at a later point, after chapters 10-11, as he has done with Acts 11:19f. It is more likely that Luke did not realize that the eunuch was a Gentile, maybe because the tradition he received did not make this clear. If the eunuch was a Gentile, then this narrative affords yet one more example of the way in which Luke’s idealistic picture of the extension of the Church’s mission is betrayed by stories which he himself relates. For Luke the narrative has significance as the story of the conversion of a semi-Jew, a conversion in which God is the main actor. (Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series), 172)

As Wilson alludes, there has been discussion as to whether the eunuch should be deemed a Gentile. If so he is a God-fearer, a Gentile sympathetic to the Jewish religion. If he qualifies, the eunuch is perhaps the first Gentile convert. And this might prove problematic.

Ernst Hanechen (1894-1975) asserts:

Luke cannot and did not say that the eunuch was a gentile; otherwise Philip would have forestalled Peter, the legitimate founder of the Gentile mission! [Acts 10:1-48] (Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, 314)

Some have suggested that the eunuch be considered a proselyte within Jewish religious milieu though Acts recognizes full proselytes (Acts 6:5).

Michael A. Salmeier (b. 1969) researches:

Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975], Acts, 314; Luke Timothy Johnson [b. 1943], Acts 150; Rudolf Pesch [1936-2011], Apostelgeschichte, I, 287-95; Gerhard Schneider [1926-2004], Apostelgeschichte, I, 498) indicate to varying degrees the possibility that the man was either Jewish or a proselyte. C.K. Barrett [1917-2011] (Acts, 420, 424-26) argues that neither conclusion is possible given that Luke’s characterization that he is Ethiopian and a eunuch. (Salmeier, Restoring the Kingdom: The Role of God as the Ordainer of Times and Seasons in the Acts of the Apostles, 119)

Loveday Alexander characterizes:

On the mental map of the ancient Mediterranean world, Ethiopia is part of the ‘ends of the earth’ (Acts 1:8). But in religious terms, the Ethiopian is a figure of the borderlands, halfway between Jew and Gentile, either a God-fearer or (more likely) a full convert to Judaism. (Alexander, Acts (Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer), 74)

Regardless of his technical status, the eunuch is an outsider. Fred B. Craddock (b. 1928) describes him as someone who would have been made “to stand outside the church looking in”. Eunuchs were indeed excluded from Jewish worship.

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) informs:

It is best to consider the Ethiopian as one of the marginal among the people of Israel. He is so because, despite his wealth and exalted social position (in charge of the royal treasury), he is a eunuch. According to Deuteronomy 23:1, a condition of sexual mutilation precluded full participation in the life of the people, and this restriction was certainly practiced by the covenanters at Qumran as well...By indicating that the eunuch had “come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home” (Acts 8:27-28), Luke portrays him as a righteous man who affirmed the covenant of God with Israel — a fact confirmed by his sedulous reading of the prophet Isaiah as he rode in his chariot (Acts 8:28). (Johnson, Prophetic Jesus, Prophetic Church: The Challenge of Luke-Acts to Contemporary Christians, 152)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) contends:

From the point of view of Judaism, this put this man permanently on the fringes of the religion in which he was showing great interest. Deuteronomy 23:1 was regularly interpreted to mean that eunuchs were to be excluded from God’s assembly, though Isaiah 56:3-5 held out promise of fuller participation in biblical religion in the future as a full member of Gods people. In view of the focus on the Servant Songs in this very passage, it may be that Luke wishes us to see this story as a whole being about the fulfillment of that promise in Isaiah 56. The point would be that nothing hindered the eunuch from being a full-fledged follower of the one in whom Isaiah’s promises were being fulfilled in the present, even though he could not be a full-fledged Jew. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 296)

The eunuch is one who has been “cut off” from the worshiping community (pun intended) leaving him to wonder if there is any god for him. His experience in Jerusalem has evidently left him unsatisfied as evidenced by his directionality.

F. Scott Spencer (b. 1956) highlights:

Significantly, the direction of his transforming trek through the desert is the reverse of the Israelites’ wilderness course: he is heading away from Judaism’s holy land back to his native African country (Acts 8:27-28). More specifically, he is returning from a worship pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The results of this visit are not detailed, but the thrust of the eunuch’s questions to Philip suggest a prior experience in the Jewish capital of receiving inadequate assistance in understanding the Jewish scriptures (‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ Acts 8:31) and of being denied full access into the fellowship of God’s people (‘What is to prevent me from being baptized?’, Acts 8:36). (Spencer, Acts (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 91)

In Jesus, as interpreted through the lense of Isaiah 53, the eunuch found a savior to whom he could relate. They were both mutilated for someone else’s benefit. Both were humiliated in the midst of their mutilation. Both had given up a potential family to serve. The eunuch could not have been reading a more appropriate text. He responds by confessing Jesus as the “Son of God” and requests baptism (Acts 8:36-37). Philip consents (Acts 8:38).

David Seccombe assesses:

He is an Ethiopian...but has been to Jerusalem to worship, so is presumably a proselyte. However, his emasculate condition would have barred him from sharing fully in the worship of the temple. He stands next to the Samaritans in Acts representing the circumcised worshipper of Israel’s God who is nonetheless not fully acceptable. At the sight of water the eunuch asks the critical question, ‘What prevents me being baptised?’ [Acts 8:36] Luke employs such rhetorical questions to stir his readers to agreement with the divinely led expansion of the boundaries of the people of God. Had the eunuch asked what prevented him entering the temple, he would have been reminded of his physical imperfection. Nothing hinders his full inclusion amongst the people of Jesus and he goes on his way rejoicing. (I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934] and David Peterson (b. 1944), “The New People of God”, Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, 360)

David Schnasa Jacobsen (b. 1961) and Günter Wasserberg (b. 1953) reflect:

This Ethiopian eunuch is the first boundary dispute. In spite of his status as a castrated man, which would make it impossible for him to become a Jewish proselyte, he behaves like a God-fearing Gentile: he prays and worships in the temple, in the section reserved for non-Jews (Acts 8:27). This God-fearing habit suffices for him to be baptized and to become a believer in Christ. (Jacobsen and Wasserberg, Preaching Luke–Acts, 115)

The Ethiopian eunuch continues to influence disputed boundaries. Given the eunuch’s rejection on the basis of his sexual orientation, many have seen an equivalency to the contemporary homosexual. Some have even speculated that the eunuch is a “natural” eunuch, i.e. a homosexual.

Some interpreters have viewed the eunuch’s inclusion as marking a paradigm shift in the Bible’s view of homosexuals. Philip is directed by the Holy Spirit to someone who is ostracized by the Old Testament regulations regarding sexuality and proceeds to include him in the Christian community on the basis of his profession in Christ. The argument is bolstered by its proximity to God’s similar updating of levitical dietary laws (Acts 10:9-16).

John J. McNeill (b. 1925) acknowledges:

Nowhere is this new attitude concerning human sexuality more evident than in the account of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 8:26-39). (McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, Fourth Edition, 63)

Jack Rogers (b. 1934) implores:

The repeated and direct involvement of the Holy Spirit, the significant reference to the liberating prophecies of Isaiah, and the fact that the first Gentile convert to Christianity is from a sexual minority and a different race, ethnicity and nationality together form a clarion call for the inclusiveness, radical grace, and Christian welcome to all who show faith. (Rogers, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church, 135)

The parallel between the eunuch and the homosexual is not universally accepted. Detractors note that the eunuch’s inclusion was prophesied (Isaiah 56:1-8) and that the prophecy was ratified by Jesus (Matthew 19:12). The same claim cannot be made of homosexuals.

Ronald J. Allen (b. 1949) cautions:

Preachers sometimes take the Ethiopian eunuch as a poster child for exclusion and inclusion. Preachers are wont to say Judaism excluded the eunuch whereas the church welcomed the eunuch. The sermon calls the church to include people today...in situations similar to that of the eunuch. Unfortunately, this approach oversimplifies attitudes towards eunuchs in ancient Judaism while buttressing anti-Jewish sentiments. A preacher needs to respect the fullness of Judaism’s concern around eunuchs and help the church recognize its own ambiguity and even faithlessness with respect to persons represented by the eunuch. (Allen, Acts of the Apostles (Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries), 78)

It cannot be argued that the Ethiopian eunuch represents an exotic convert and may correlate to Acts’ internal outline, Jesus’ admonition to spread the gospel “to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8 NASB), a phrase lifted from Isaiah 49:6.

Clinton E. Arnold (b. 1958) connects:

Before his ascension, Jesus said that the disciples would be witnesses to “the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The conversion of the Ethiopian marks an enormous stride toward fulfillment of this goal. To Greeks and Romans, Ethiopia was at the ends of the earth. In describing Poseidon’s trip to the Ethiopians, Homer [800-701 BCE] said that they lived “at the world’s end.” Herodotus [484-425 BCE] claimed that Ethiopia “stretches farthest of the inhabited lands in the direction of the sun’s decline.”...The conversion of the Ethiopian also represents the inaugural step of the gospel going out to the Gentiles. In many ways, this is a more radical step forward than the conversion of Cornelius and his household [Acts 10:1-48]. Not only is the Ethiopian a Gentile, but he is from a distant land and in some ways an outcast with respect to Judaism since, as a eunuch, he is regarded as in a constant state of ritual impurity. (Arnold, Acts (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 68)

Richard I. Pervo (b. 1942) extols:

Not only does Ethiopia stand for “the ends of the earth”—note that a triumphant psalm summons God to conquer the nations: “Let bronze be brought from Egypt; let Ethiopia hasten to stretch out its hands to God” (Psalm 68:31)—but the eunuch carries symbolic weight. He is a great catch, both as a marginal figure (inasmuch as actual eunuchs were theoretically excluded from the people of God) and as a member of the ruling class. And his acceptance would fulfill his promise of Isaiah 56:3-7. To top all this off, Philip has converted a person of high social status. This is the kind of acquisition about which people will brag. (Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists, 34)

The Ethiopian breaks new ground as a man representing a new race, region and sexual classification is welcomed into the kingdom of God. The eunuch is emblematic of all who have had their vitality stripped and been forced to conform to another’s system. As such, his question reverberates through the centuries, “What prevents me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36 NASB)

How is the reader supposed to view the eunuch? Who do you refer to by an identifier rather than their name? What associations do you have with eunuchs? Why does Philip, who is credited with miracles (Acts 8:6-7), not “restore” the eunuch? Why was this passage, which presumably features a prominent black believer, not more prevalent in pulpits during the Civil Rights movement? Who today is like the Ethiopian eunuch socially, religiously? How is the ancient eunuch different and similar to the modern homosexual? Is this comparison fair? How are you similar to the eunuch? If you were described using only five facts, what would they be? What does this story teach about personal evangelism? What barriers, if any, did you overcome to join your church? Who today is cut off from the worshiping community? Should anyone be excluded from Christian fellowship?

The Ethiopian eunuch’s story is open ended (Acts 8:26-40). After his baptism, the eunuch “went on his way rejoicing.” (Acts 8:39 NASB) and is effectively written out of the text leaving the reader to about his fate and “the rest of the story”.

Loveday Alexander remarks:

Luke resists the temptation to take his primary narrative into these unexplored regions, though the episode of the Ethiopian eunuch allows the reader to feel that the narrative has touched the exotic at one remove (much as Chariton is able to bring a southern dimension into his tale through the secondary narrative of the Egyptian king). (Alexander, Acts in its Ancient Literary Context, 79-80)

Leaving a character’s fate undetermined is not uncommon in Acts. Clare K. Rothschild (b. 1964) archives:

Even with its uncommonly frequent recourse to summaries, Acts’ narrative leaves much open-ended. The fates of Matthias (Acts 1:23, 26), of the eunuch on his return to Ethiopia (Acts 8:39), or of Cornelius (Acts 10:48), for example. (Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History, 235)

Church tradition has filled in some of the gaps. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo tradition refers to the eunuch as Bachos while the Eastern Orthodox faith knows him as Simeon the Black (the same name appears in Acts 13:1), an Ethiopian Jew.

It is said that the eunuch became a missionary in his native Ethiopia. Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202) relays:

This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, that there was one God preached by the prophets, but that the Son of this [God] had already made [His] appearance in human nature (secundum hominem), and had been led as a sheep to the slaughter; and all the other statements which the prophets made regarding Him. (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, 3.12.8)

History confirms that Christianity entered Ethiopia at an early date. It would appear that the Ethiopian used his clout to share the inclusive gospel that enveloped him.

Who do you know with influence? With whom do you have influence? How do you use it? Have you ever introduced anyone to Christ?

He drew a circle that shut me out —
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in!
Edwin Markham (1852-1940), “Outwitted”, The Shoes of Happiness: And Other Poems (1913)

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