Jesus Prays (Luke 6:12)

What did Jesus do before He chose His twelve disciples? He prayed all night (Luke 6:12)

With opposition mounting in regards to his compliance with Sabbath observance (Luke 6:1-11), Jesus retreats to a mountain where he prays throughout the night (Luke 6:12).

One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. (Luke 6:12 NASB)

The following day, Jesus makes a critical move: he installs the twelve disciples who will serve as his inner core throughout the remainder of his life (Luke 6:13-16).

The length of time between Jesus’ nightlong prayer (Luke 6:12) and the preceding controversy surrounding healing on the Sabbath (Luke 6:6-11) is not indicated. Luke adds the imprecise time stamp that the prayer occurs on “one of those days” (Luke 6:12). As “those days” presumably contain continued criticism, the modern exasperated connotation of “one of those days” applies.

Such nondescript segues are common in Luke. Justo L. González (b. 1937) catalogs:

We come to a series of passages that begin with phrases that are chronologically vague, such as “once” (Luke 5:1, 12), “one day” (Luke 5:17), “one sabbath” (Luke 6:1), “on another sabbath” (Luke 6:6). At other points, however, Luke does imply a chronological connection: “after this” (Luke 5:27), “then” (Luke 5:29, 33), “during those days” (Luke 6:12). (González, Luke (Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible), 73)

The selection of the disciples is a pivotal scene in Luke’s narrative. Mark C. Black (b. 1956) outlines:

This passage begins a new section for Luke. It is not by accident that he narrates Jesus’ choosing his disciples just before the “Sermon on the Plain.” [Luke 6:17-49] Luke makes it clear that Jesus’ sermon is directed to them. The choosing of 12 disciples is such a momentous activity that Jesus does not attempt it before getting away to a mountainside and spending all night praying to God. (Black, Luke (College Press NIV Commentary), 138)

Before making the crucial announcement of the election of the Twelve, Jesus withdraws to a mountain to pray (Luke 6:12). The setting is as vague as the time marker though Luke designates the mountain with a definite article: Jesus is at the mountain (ASV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), not a mountain (CEV, KJV, MSG, NIV, NLT).

Michael F. Patella (b. 1954) locates:

There is a noticeable shift of direction in this scene. Away from the synagogues, towns, and people, Jesus goes “to the mountain to pray” (Luke 6:12) in an all-night vigil. The exact mountain is unknown, though the use of the definite article indicates that Lukan tradition must have had some specific mountain in mind. Galilee has many high places that could qualify as quiet retreats for prayer, but two are the most likely promontories: Mount Hermon, rising from the northeast corner of the Sea of Galilee, and Mount Tabor, south of the sea, visible from Nazareth and on the Jezreel Plain. They both have been traditional places of prayer from earliest antiquity (see Psalm 89:13), although Tabor is the more accessible of the two. (Patella, The Gospel According to Luke (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), 43)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) studies:

The mountain referred to is not specified (William Hendriksen [1900-1982] 1978: 326 mentions the Horns of Hattin). Many speculate on a motif associated with the mountain: as a symbol for a place of revelation (so Frederick W. Danker [1920-2012] 1988: 134-35, citing Exodus 24:1-18) or a picture of being close to God (Joseph A. Fitzmyer [b. 1920] 1981: 616; Werner Foerster [1897-1975], Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 5:481). The latter is more likely, though there is no reason to turn the reference into a mere theological symbol. (Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 540)

Mark L. Strauss (b. 1959) offers:

This is also the hill on which Jesus gives his great sermon (see Luke 6:17). Luke’s reference to “a mountainside” is vague and the location is uncertain. It has traditionally been identified with the “Mount of Beatitudes’ at Tabgha, a mile and a half from Capernaum. Others identity the location as the Horns of Hattum near Tiberias. [Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 60)

Perhaps, most significantly the mountain is where people are not. Jesus has been in demand and the remoteness of the mountainside marks a stark contrast with the crowds to which he has become accustomed (Luke 4:42, 5:3, 5:15). With so much of his life on public display, Jesus finds it necessary to seek private time with God. The setting is stripped down with Jesus’ physical isolation commensurate with his inner solitude. This excursion is not for show; the crowds will have no influence on what unfolds on the mountain.

Retreating is normative behavior for Jesus; this is the third time in Luke’s gospel that he seeks isolation (Luke 4:42, 5:16, 6:12). John T. Carroll (b. 1954) addresses:

This is a familiar rhythm of Jesus’ ministry, although here Jesus withdraws not to the desert (or isolated places, as in Luke 4:42, 5:16) but to a mountain, literally “the mountain”...The mountain setting has rich symbolic meaning, and not just as a generic location for contact with the divine and divine disclosure. Moses received divine revelation on the mountain (Sinai) and then descended to the base of the mountain to impart that revelation to the people (e.g., Exodus 19:3, 14, 20, 25). Also on a mountain, Jesus receives God’s guidance, selects twelve apostles, and then descends with them to the plain, where he teaches a large crowd of disciples and the rest of the people (Luke 6:17). (Carroll, Luke: A Commentary (New Testament Library, 141)

Jesus values solitude. J. Norfleete Day (b. 1945) discerns:

Solitude is more than simply being alone. It is choosing to be alone with God so that we can be who we truly are and come to acknowledge this reality to ourselves and to God. It is as much a state of mind and heart as it is a place. We remove ourselves for a time from the distractions of the world and the responsibilities of community to reorient ourselves. It is a time to confront what Kenneth Boa [b. 1945] calls the “inner patterns and forces that are alien to the life of Christ within us.” Note also the words of M. Robert Mulholland, Jr. [b. 1936]: “In the classical Christian spiritual tradition...solitude is...beginning to face the deep inner dynamics of our being that make us that grasping, controlling, manipulative person; beginning to face our brokenness, our distortion, our darkness; and beginning to offer ourselves to God at those points.” (Timothy George [b. 1950] and Eric F. Mason [b. 1969], “Spiritual Theology for the Evangelical Church”, Theology in the Service of the Church: Essays Presented to Fisher H. Humphreys [b. 1939], 105)

While on the mountain, Jesus prays (Luke 6:12). Prayer is also a habit for Christ. This practice is especially emphasized in Luke’s gospel where prayer is a pervading factor in the gospel’s depiction of Jesus. Luke records that prayer “was his custom” (Luke 22:39 NASB).

David E. Garland (b. 1947) portrays:

Luke is the evangelist of prayer. Nine references to Jesus’ praying or teaching about prayer appear in Luke, seven on which are not recorded in the other gospels. Luke is the primary source both for knowledge of Jesus’ prayer life and for instruction in prayer. Luke alone tells us that prayer was associated with many of the redletter days in Jesus’ life. (Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 977)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) focuses:

This text is one of several where Luke associated an event with prayer (Luke 1:13, 2:37, 3:21, 5:16, 6:12, 28, 9:18, 11:1-2, 18:1, 22:41, 45). Dialogue with God is crucial to spirit well-being for Luke, particularly a humble attitude as one approaches God in prayer (Luke 18:9-14). For Luke prayer is a concrete way of expressing our necessary dependence on God. (Bock, Luke (IVP New Testament Commentary), 118)

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) researches:

The prayers of Jesus are highlighted in Luke’s Gospel at the crucial events in the story of Jesus. They have, of course, occasioned considerable discussion among Lucan scholars (cf. P.T. O’Brien [b. 1935], “Prayer in Luke-Acts”). The most extensive treatment of them is by David Crump [b. 1956] (Jesus the Intercessor), who has argued (1) that Jesus as the Son of God in Luke is the interceding mediator who prays for his disciples, and (2) that in Luke there is a self-revelatory function to Jesus’ prayers, so that through them the disciples come to a deeper realization of who he is. (Richard N. Longenecker [b. 1930], “Jesus — Example and Teacher of Prayer in the Synoptic Gospels”, Into God’s Presence: Prayer in the New Testament, 118)

Luke’s attention to Jesus’ prayer life is especially evident in the recounting of the selection of the disciples as Luke alone documents the preceding prayer (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-17).

Dennis M. Sweetland (b. 1946) compares:

In rewriting Mark’s introduction, Luke has introduced the motif of prayer into this story (cf. Mark 3:13-19). Throughout the gospel Luke portrays Jesus as one who prays (Luke 3:21, 5:16, 6:12, 9:18, 28, 29, 11:1; cf. Luke 23:34, 46). Jesus teaches his disciples a prayer (Luke 11:2-4), and urges them to pray always and not lose heart (Luke 11:5-8, 18:1-8; cf. Luke 22:40). In Acts, the early church is pictured as following Jesus’ teaching and example concerning faithfulness in prayer (e.g., Acts 1:14-24, 2:42, 46, 47, 4:24-31, 12:5, 12, 20:36, 21:5). This has led many to conclude that Luke considers prayer to be among the more important elements of discipleship. (Earl Richard [b. 1940], “Following Jesus: Discipleship in Luke Acts”, New Views on Luke and Acts, 113)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) interprets:

Luke’s portrait of Jesus highlights prayer. He prays before receiving the Spirit (Luke 3:21-22), all-night prayer precedes the selecting the Twelve (Luke 6:12), and two parables focus on prayer (Luke 11:5-13, 18:1-8). The answer to the dilemma of prayer is that it is not intended to do something for God, but for us. It is one of the mechanisms of relationship that God gives to his children to be in touch with him. God may not need prayer, but we do. (Bock, Luke (IVP New Testament Commentary), 291-92)

There is a trend in Luke’s placement of prayer as the gospel repeatedly employs prayer at important junctures in the narrative. Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1934) associates:

The comparatively frequent references to Jesus’ prayer in Luke almost always precede an important new development or crisis (Luke 3:21, 5:16, 9:18, 9:28-29, 22:40-46). Jesus’ prayer in Luke 6:12 also fits the pattern of Acts where prayer regularly accompanies appointment of people to special positions (Acts 1:24, 6:6, 13:2-3, 14:23; cf. John Nolland [b. 1947] 1989, 272). (Tannehill, Luke (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 113)

John F. O’Grady (b. 1939) inventories:

Luke...portrays Jesus as a man of prayer. He prayed just before his baptism (Luke 3:21). After he worked miracles he withdrew to pray (Luke 5:16). He prayed all night before choosing his disciples (Luke 6:12) and prayed after the miracle of the loaves (Luke 9:18). Jesus prayed as a prelude to the transfiguration (Luke 9:28-29), and was praying when his disciples asked him to teach them to pray (Luke 11:1). He prayed in the garden (Luke 22:39-45) and from the cross (Luke 23:46). By Luke’s account, Jesus always remains in close contact with God. (O’Grady, Men in the Bible: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, 114)

Richard J. Foster (b. 1942) depicts:

Like a recurring pattern in a quilt, so prayer threads its way through Jesus’ life...The teachings are matched by continual practice, not only of prayer itself but intense times of solitude. Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness for forty days (Matthew 4:1). He “withdrew...to a deserted place by himself” after learning of the beheading of his dear friend and cousin, John the Baptizer (Matthew 14:13). Following the incredible experience of the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus immediately “went up the mountain by himself to pray” (Matthew 14:23). When the disciples were exhausted from the demands of ministry, Jesus told them, “Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest a while” (Mark 6:31). After Jesus’ healing of a leper Luke seems to be describing more of a habitual practice than a single incident when he notes that Jesus “would withdraw to deserted places and pray” (Luke 5:16). (Foster, Streams of Living Water: Celebrating the Great Traditions of Christ, 4-5)

The text does not specify what Jesus prays, instead noting only that he prays (Luke 6:12). Perhaps he says nothing but merely listens. Given the resultant action, the logical inference is that Jesus seeks guidance regarding who to include among his closest associates.

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) clarifies:

“Spending the whole night in prayer” heightens the accent on this sort of piety. Though many commentators deduce that Jesus was praying for divine guidance in selecting and naming the twelve apostles (Luke 6:13-16), Luke doesn’t relate the content of Jesus’ praying. So the accent falls on praying as such. Consistently, Luke portrays Jesus as a paragon of piety. (Gundry, Commentary on Luke)

Jesus could as easily be praying regarding the storm brewing in the passage that precedes the prayer (Luke 6:1-11) as the selection of the disciples which follows (Luke 6:13-16). The two topics could also be connected as there has previously been no mention of a need for an inner circle. As such, the installation of the Twelve may in some way be connected to the growing opposition.

François Bovon (b. 1938) assures that Jesus does not pray “for secular goods but for the unfolding plan of salvation by means of obedient faith in response to the revealed Word of God.” (Bovon, Luke 1 (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible), 208). Based upon his other prayers, it is likely that Jesus does not pray for “success”, but rather seeks conformity to God’s will (Luke 22:42).

Luke incorporates an odd phrase which appears only here in Scripture, typically translated as prayer “to God” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). Not only is this wording redundant (who else would he be praying to?) but it does not represent a literal rendering of the Greek.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) identifies:

Literally “in the prayer of God”...Tou theou has to be understood as an objective genitive; it is omitted in manuscript D, probably because of its awkwardness, or perhaps because Jesus’ prayer is mentioned in neither Mark nor Matthew. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (The Anchor Bible), 616)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) expounds:

The phrase “in prayer with God” (ἐν τη προσευχη του θεου, literally, “in the prayer of God”) is an objective genitive and implies that Jesus “speaks to God not for the sake of talking but to listen.” As the people come to listen to him, he listens to God, and tying his choice of the Twelve to prayer means that this decision has a “divine impetus” and purpose. They have not applied for the job. (Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 272-273)

David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) adds:

The additional phrase proseuchē tou theou (“prayer to God”) marks Jesus’s role as Son of the Father and intercessor; for Luke it is of the essence of our understanding of what follows that we perceive that Jesus has sought the will of the Father specifically before acting. As prolegomena, it is here especially striking: in the words of Pope Benedict XVI [b. 1927], “the calling of the disciples is a prayer event; it is as if they were begotten in prayer, in intimacy with the Father.” (Jeffrey, Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible, 90))

In praying, Jesus partners with God.

It is not coincidence that Luke, the “evangelist of prayer”, also stresses Jesus’ humanity: there are few tasks more human than prayer, with its implicit dependence. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) speaks of Jesus’ “consciousness of utter dependence on God”.

The question of why Jesus, as God incarnate, prays “to God” or “with God” is not an issue for the gospel writers. Instead, they stress the constancy of Christ’s prayers. After emptying himself of his deity (Philippians 2:7-8), the presumption is that Jesus prays for the same reason we all do, save for repentance and forgiveness of sins. Being fully human, prayer is as essential for Jesus as anyone.

Strikingly, on this occasion, Jesus prays all night (Luke 6:12). I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) defines:

διανυκτερεύω, ‘to pass the night’ (Job 2:9), is used of an all-night vigil (cf. Luke 22:39-46) and stresses the solemnity of the occasion...The choice of the Twelve is made only after seeking God’s guidance (Acts 13:2, 14:23; cf. Luke 1:24-26). (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 238)

A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) comments:

He spent the whole night (ἠν διανυκερεύων), a periphrastic imperfect active clause. It is here alone in the New Testament, but common in the Septuagint and in later Greek writers. Medical writers used it for whole night vigils. (Robertson, The Gospel according to Luke (Word Pictures in the New Testament), 98)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) annotates:

Before choosing the Twelve, Jesus withdraws and spends the entire night in prayer. Διανυκερεύων (dianyktereuōn) refers to an all-night prayer vigil and appears only here in the New Testament (Job 2:9c; Josephus [37-100], Antiquities 6.13.9 §311; Alfred Plummer [1841-1926] 1896: 171)....Jesus’ actions follow a long communion with God. This is how Jesus deals with the rise of opposition. Solemnity and a note of guidance open the account...The early church learned to imitate this practice of prayer before decisions (Acts 6:6, 13:2-3, 14:23; I Timothy 4:14; II Timothy 1:6). Having spent the night in prayer, Jesus is ready to act. (Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 540)

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) envisions:

If he began after sundown at, say, 8:00 P.M. and prayed until sunup (6:00 AM), he spent ten hours in focused prayer (the Greek translated “spent the night” expresses persevering energy). As Jesus prayed on the mountainside, the moon ran its nocturnal course, the night’s temperature modulated with the hours, and morning dew dampened his robes. (Hughes, Luke, Volume One: That You May Know the Truth (Preaching the Word), 606)

The length of this prayer vigil is telling. Though Jesus routinely seeks God, praying all night is irregular. Though the psalms reference nightlong prayers (Psalm 6:6, 119:148), this is the only time Jesus is said to pray throughout the night. The session’s duration is indicative of the intensity of the prayer and the seriousness of the situation. Jesus ups the ante.

Justo L. González (b. 1937) understands:

The passage begins with prayer. The naming of the Twelve is not a random event, nor a decision taken lightly. Before naming them the next day, Jesus spent the night in prayer. This is the only time Luke depicts Jesus as praying all night—which shows the importance of the decision about to be made. (González, Luke (Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible), 90)

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) contends:

It is clear that for Luke an important stage in the founding of the church is to be seen here, the choice of those from among the company of Jesus’ companions from the beginning of his ministry who were to be in a special sense the witnesses to his resurrection and the messengers of the gospel. (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 237)

As a point of comparison, choosing his disciples is comparable to Jesus praying to select the proper spouse. The Twelve will be the people with whom he will live and with whom he will spend the majority of his time. The disciples are the firstfruits of the church, the bride of Christ (Revelation 18:23, 19:7, 21:2, 9, 22:17). The extent of Jesus’ prayer pays deference to the imperativeness of the situation.

Genuine prayer can be painstaking and Jesus is willing to put in the necessary effort. Wayne Grudem (b. 1948) correlates:

Just as Moses twice stayed on the mountain forty days before God for the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 9:25-26, 10:10-11), and just as Jacob said to God, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me” (Genesis 32:26), so we see in Jesus’ life a pattern of much time given to prayer. When great multitudes were following him, “he himself was often withdrawing into the wilderness regions and praying” (Luke 5:16, author’s translation)...Another time, “all night he continued in prayer to God” (Luke 6:12). (Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 387)

Wayne Grudem (b. 1948) instructs:

It is important to allow enough time for the various aspects of corporate worship. Genuine prayer can certainly take time (see Luke 6:12, 22:3-46; Acts12:12, 13:2). Solid Bible teaching can often take a long time as well (Matthew 15:32; Acts 20:7-11). Moreover, genuine, heartfelt worship and praise will also take quite a bit of time if it is to be effective. (Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 1012)

Significantly, Luke accentuates that prayer often precedes an important task (Luke 3:21-22, 5:16). Like pumping a shot gun before shooting, prayer should precipitate action.

It is also noteworthy that solitude precedes community. Kenneth Boa (b. 1945) informs:

In a series on “Moving from Solitude to Community to Ministry,” Henri Nouwen [1932-1996] uses Luke 6:12-19 to illustrate the combination of these three disciplines in the life of our Lord. Jesus spent the night in solitude with God, and in the morning he formed community by gathering his disciples around him. Then in the afternoon Jesus ministered with his disciples to the physical and spiritual needs of the people who came to hear him. In the same way, we should imitate this inside-out order that flows from devotion to Christ (solitude), to devotion to the community, to devotion to the gospel (ministry). Community is the bridge that connects solitude (intimacy with God) with ministry to believers and unbelievers. (Boa, Conformed to His Image: Biblical and Practical Approaches to Spiritual Formation, 394)

Luke offers a rare glimpse behind the scenes of Jesus’ ministry into the less glamorous realm of his spiritual life. As he has not yet selected the disciples, he is not merely modeling proper behavior.

Scot McKnight (b. 1953) characterizes:

Jesus was truly a religious man. The normal features of his intense religious fervor can be inferred from the records about his life. Jesus prayed frequently (Luke 5:16) and fervently (Mark 1:35, 6:46), even all night (Luke 6:12). His baptism and transfiguration were accompanied by prayer (Luke 3:21, 9:28-29). In fact, Luke tells us that Jesus’ prayers were so noticeable that his disciples asked him to teach them how to pray (Luke 11:1). The distinguishing characteristic of Jesus’ prayers was that he addressed God as Abba (the Aramaic term for “father”; cf. Matthew 6:9, 11:25-26; Mark 14:36). Scholars have found a surprising and perhaps unique degree of intimacy with God in this form of address; at the minimum, it reflects how Jesus experienced God. (Michael J. Wilkins [b. 1949] and J. P. Moreland [b. 1948], “Who is Jesus? An Introduction to Jesus Studies”, Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, 58)

Though many contemporary followers of Jesus claim to be “spiritual but not religious”, Jesus is in fact a highly religious, praying person.

How important is prayer to Jesus’ ministry? How does he occupy his time in prayer? Did Jesus struggle to discern the will of God? Why does Jesus pray in solitude? Do you consider yourself a “religious” person? Where do you go to pray? When have you needed time alone? Is God among those with whom you talk on a daily basis? What is the longest that you have prayed? Do you typically act or pray first? Why does Jesus, God incarnate, pray? Why do you pray? If Jesus needs prayer, how more so do we?

All of the details of Luke’s account of the selection of the disciples support that God’s will is being done. Robert J. Karris (b. 1938) contends:

As he does so often in his Gospel, Luke spotlights Jesus at prayer (Luke 6:12)...The selection of the Twelve is not only Jesus’ decision, but also God’s will revealed in prayer. (Karris, Invitation to Luke, 82)

Joel B. Green (b. 1956) explains:

In spite of the Lukan view that all Jesus does is done as one anointed by the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1, 14, 18), the Third Evangelist periodically reminds his audience that his fundamental interest is in demonstrating that, within this narrative, the purpose of God is coming to fruition. In his account of the selection of the twelve this is evident, first, in its topography; Jesus goes out to a mountain, a locale often associated in Jewish literature with theophanic episodes and divine revelation. Second, in an unusual turn of phrase (“in prayer to God”), combined with an emphatic description of Jesus’ prayer, Luke draws attention to the divine impetus for the selection of the twelve to serve as “apostles.” Luke has not previously established a narrative need for the election of apostles, a reality that underscores its origination in the divine will, discerned in prayer. As Luke presents it, the idea of choosing itself, the election of twelve persons, and the choice of these particular persons from among the larger group of disciples — all three are divinely sanctioned. Jesus thus acts as God’s agent and in continuity with the divine will. (Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 258)

The presumption is that Jesus chooses wisely. Scripture never laments nor regrets the choice of the Twelve. In fact, Jesus seems to affirm the choice (John 15:16). Robert H. Stein (b. 1935) notes:

In Acts 1:2 Jesus’ prayer and choice of the twelve is described in The Jerusalem Bible as having occurred “through the Holy Spirit.” It is uncertain, however, whether the phrase “through the Holy Spirit” goes better with the participle “giving instructions” (NIV) or the verb “chosen.” (Stein, Luke (The New American Commentary), 192)

Even with divine endorsement, the disciples are not flawless. Alfred McBride (b. 1928) assesses:

He [Jesus] did not pick perfect candidates, but people with a mixture of talents, flaws, gifts and frailties. They were pilgrims, not saints. They represented a range of human foolishness: vanity, ambition, jealousy, cowardice, doubt, bravado, betrayal, and overreaching...Still, in the end, they proved to be made of the stuff of saints. The Holy Spirit led them to be loving, truthful, brave, loyal, assured, humble, and saintly. Most of them witnessed Christ even to the point of martyrdom. Only one of them failed Christ’s expectations. (McBride, The Human Face of Jesus: Meditation and Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, 62-63)

Bruce B. Barton (b. 1943) characterizes:

Whatever Jesus’ specific reasons for choosing each disciple, as a group they were often hot-tempered, unbelieving, and “clueless” about the spiritual realities behind Jesus’ ministry. One became a traitor, and all of them abandoned Jesus when following him meant sacrifice and hardship. The apostles proved the truth of Jesus’ words: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last” (John 15:16 NIV). (Barton, Luke (Life Application Bible Commentary), 144)

Bruce Larson (1925-2008) reminds:

Remember, Jesus chose twelve disciples, and one of them was Judas. That raises the question of whether or not Judas was an answer to prayer—one of the big theological questions of all time. God may give us some brothers and sisters who are not easy to love and who may even disappoint us and betray us, but the good news is that we need not be afraid of failure. God will be with us in our failures. (Larson, Luke (Mastering the New Testament), 119-20)

The enduring prayer before the selection of the disciples accents that the goal of prayer is to join with God’s will wherever that may lead. Doing so does not come with a guarantee that life will be perfect. Unifying with God’s will, however, is incentive enough.

Where does picking the Twelve rank among the important decisions Jesus makes during his earthly ministry? Is Jesus’ prayer effective; did he choose his disciples well? What is Jesus’ criteria for drafting the Twelve? Were the disciples selected based upon product or potential? Was Judas supposed to be selected? When has answered prayer not led to the results that you expected?

“The value of consistent prayer is not that [God] will hear us, but that we will hear Him.” -William McGill (1732-1807)

Moses: The Meekest Man (Numbers 12:3)

Who was the meekest of all men? Moses (Numbers 12:3)

While leading the burgeoning Israelite nation through the wilderness, Moses not only faces criticism from its concerned citizens but also from Miriam and Aaron, his siblings and co-leaders (Numbers 12:1-2). Though the Book of Numbers states that the complaints reach God there is no mention of Moses’ response or even the degree of his awareness (Numbers 12:2). Instead the text bestows a superlative: Moses is the most humble man on the planet (Numbers 12:3).

(Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.) (Numbers 12:3 NASB)

This statement is generally perceived as a parenthetical aside. Though parentheses do not occur in the Hebrew text, translations are just as apt to supply them (KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT) as not (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NRSV, RSV).

Martin Noth (1902-1968) assesses:

Numbers 12:3 is a later addition which disrupts the close connection between Numbers 12:2b and Numbers 12:4. (Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 95)

R. Dennis Cole (b. 1950) detects a narrative purpose:

A parenthetic statement by the narrator concerning the character and quality of Moses as a man and as a leader of Israel is interjected into the flow of the narrative, heightening the dramatic effect of the passage. (Cole, Numbers (New American Commentary), 202)

In Hebrew, the first word in the text emphasizes Moses’ humanity as for the third and final time in the biblical record, Moses is characterized as “the man” (Exodus 32:1, 23; Numbers 12:3). This appellation is not conferred in the contemporary complimentary sense of the idiom.

Jonathan Kirsch (b. 1949) comments:

“There is nothing divine about Moses,” observes the eminent Bible scholar Gerhard Von Rad [1901-1971], and as if to remind us of this crucial fact, the Bible refers to him with a simple, sturdy, and straightforward phrase—“the man Moses.” (Exodus 32:1, 23; Numbers 12:3). (Kirsch, Moses: A Life, 1)

Robert Alter (b. 1935) expounds:

Alone among biblical characters, he is assigned an oddly generic epithet, “the man Moses.” There may be some theological motive for this designation, in order to remind us of his plainly human status, to ward off any inclination to deify the founding leader of the Israelite people, but it also suggests more concretely that Moses as forger of the nation and prince of prophets is, after all, not an absolutely unique figure but a man like other men, bringing to the soul-trying tasks of leadership both the moral and temperamental resources and the all-too-human weaknesses that many men may possess. In regard to our experience of the character and the story, all this means that “the man Moses” remains somewhat distanced from us, that we never get the sense of intimate acquaintance with his inner life and his distinctive traits of personality that we are so memorably afforded in the stories of Jacob and Joseph. (Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, 300-01)

Moses is characterized as the most “humble” (HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV) or “meek” (ASV, ESV, KJV, RSV) human of his era. This type of description is rare in the Old Testament. Aaron B. Wildavsky (1930-1993) acknowledges:

The few direct characterizations of Moses in the Bible are elusive...The closest approach to delineating the man himself—“(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth)” (Numbers 12:3)—is the most elusive of all. (Wildavsky, Moses as Political Leader, 199)

“Humble” is more prevalent than “meek” in newer translations. Clyde M. Woods (b. 1936) and Justin M. Rogers (b. 1982) deliberate:

A discussion rages over the definition of the term ענו (‘ānāw). Many are insistent upon the fact that the term ‘ānāw does not mean “meek,” but rather “humble”...or, as Baruch A. Levine [b. 1930] interprets, “humble before God” (Numbers, p. 329). Jacob Milgrom [1923-2010] goes so far as to state, “It never means ‘meek’” (Numbers, p. 94). Actually, the term ’ענ (‘ānî) often denotes a condition of oppression or weakness, either materially or emotionally (see The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1.856). Thus, the idea of a “bowing” [in dejection] may be altogether appropriate (see The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1.855). In this case, “humble” seems to be a better choice than “meek” (Woods and Rogers, Leviticus–Numbers (The College Press NIV Commentary), 249)

Gordon J.Wenham (b. 1943) prefers:

‘Humble’ conveys the sense of the Hebrew ‘ānāw better than meek. It is a word that elsewhere is used only in poetry. It sometimes refers to those in real poverty (Amos 2:7; Isaiah11:4). Such people must look to God for aid, because they are unable to help themselves. But more frequently the word seems to denote an attitude of mind, more characteristic of the poor than of the rich, one of humility and dependence on God. The Psalms repeatedly assure the humble that God will deliver them, ‘The LORD lifts up the humble’; ‘he adorns the humble with victory’ (Psalms 147:6, 149;4; cf. Psalms 22:26, 25:9, 37:11, 76:9; cf. Matthew 5:5; I Peter 5:6). (Wenham, Numbers (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 111)

John Sturdy (1933-1996) adds:

The word is ‘ānāw, a key term in the religious language of the psalms for the ideal religious man (e.g. Psalms 25:9 ‘He guides the humble man in doing right’), and from here inherited by Christianity (Matthew 5:5, translated ‘of gentle spirit’ in the N.E.B.). Absence of self-assertiveness in the presence of God gives the right relationship with him. Moses is here given the highest valuation that Israelite piety has. (Sturdy, Numbers (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament), 90)

George W. Coats (1936-2006) questions:

The key term ‘ānāw refers to a leading virtue of Moses who exemplifies the virtue better than any other person in the land. It is not, however, clear that the words, ‘meek’ or ‘humble’, do justice as tools for translating the term...What kind of virtue...belongs to Moses more than to all other persons who are on the face of the earth?...The basic thesis is that the word derives from a root ‘nw, connoting responsibility or integrity...If ‘ānāw derives from such a stem, ‘nw, with denotation of obedient response, the connotations of the word in Numbers 12 should follow in unforced sequence...The context highlights...obedience within the context of personal responsibility...The range of connotation in the word emerges even more clearly when one compares the virtue with ‘honor’...Numbers 12:3 might thus read: ‘The man Moses was the most honorable of all persons who are on the face of the earth.’ (Coats, The Moses Tradition, 92-94)

Richard S. Briggs (b. 1966) responds:

The etymological argument is probably weak on its own. As noted in one review of his proposal, “If the point of the editorial comment is to emphasize Moses’ honour, then there are far more direct and unambiguous ways of doing it than by using ‘ānāw” (Stephen B. Dawes 1990:337). (Briggs, Virtuous Reader, The: Old Testament Narrative and Interpretive Virtue, 52)

Contextually, it is obvious that the comment is a compliment, even when translated “meek” which presently carries pejorative baggage. Walter Riggans (b. 1953) clarifies:

The description of Moses as “very meek” is important for understanding what God prizes in mankind. It does not mean a whimpering, spineless, uncommitted weakling. (Riggans, Numbers (Daily Study Bible Series), 102)

J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988) reminds:

It is stated of Moses and our Lord Jesus that they were meek. Remember that meekness is not weakness. Meekness is being obedient to God and doing his will. (McGee, Numbers (Thru the Bible), 82)

Regardless of how the term is translated the trait for which Moses is applauded is directly connected to his relationship with God. Raymond Brown (b. 1928) delineates:

The word humble is from a root meaning ‘bowed down’; in leadership he was genuinely ‘subordinating his personal interests to those of God and his cause’. His sensitive spirit must have been profoundly disturbed when members of his own family questioned his divinely appointed role and, particularly, his responsibility as the Lord’s mouthpiece. (Brown, The Message of Numbers (Bible Speaks Today), 107)

Dennis T. Olson (b. 1954) interprets:

The word “humble” does not refer so much to a general personality trait of meekness as it underscores Moses’ devotion or humility before God (George Buchanan Gray [1865–1922], p. 123; cf. Zechariah 2:3). The narrator’s parenthetical comment instantly undercuts Miriam and Aaron’s complaint and seeks to persuade the reader to stand with Moses in his defense against his siblings. (Olson, Numbers (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 71)

R. Dennis Cole (b. 1950) inspects:

The term ‘ānāw used is not the normal Hebrew word for humility, meekness or weakness but one that conveys an individual’s devout dependence upon the Lord. It may also describe a state one must experience before one is honored by God or man. In his first encounter with the Lord at Horeb in the burning bush, Moses realized his human limitations—“Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?” (Exodus 3:11). But with the assurance of the divine presence—“I will be with you” (Exodus 3:12)—he went forth by faith, even though initially reluctant, and was used by God in ways that far surpassed human comprehension. His humility in this manner far exceeded that of any other person on the earth. (Cole, Numbers (New American Commentary), 202)

Humility entails an awareness of one’s identity in relationship to God. No other human of his time had a closer relationship to God than Moses and consequently, none would be more mindful of his own relative inadequacy.

This trait is on full display during the conflict with his siblings. Moses does not waste time attempting to subjugate his peers on the basis of his own importance. Instead he concentrates on his appointed objective, namely establishing a nation under God.

Iain M. Duguid (b. 1960) observes:

The grumbling of Moses and Aaron was not answered by Moses. His behavior in this chapter is a living affirmation of the narrator’s description of him as more humble than anyone else of the face of the earth (Numbers 12:3). Moses knew who he was before God; so he didn’t feel the need to fight to stand up for his own rights and status. A servant doesn’t feel the need to stand up for his own rights and status. It is only when we misconceive Christian leadership as being like the world’s model that we start to defend our turf. (Duguid, Numbers: God’s Presence in the Wilderness (Preaching the Word), 162)

Glen S. Martin (b. 1953) remarks:

Moses never thought so highly of himself as to be offended by these remarks. They may have even made sense to Moses! The reason for this came from the character he embodied. He was a very humble man...Moses reflected the spirit of Christ, who “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6), but took on the form of a servant. Moses did not cling to his position and rank, but apparently stood silent. (Martin, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 299)

Moses is not motivated by gaining personal advantage over others. Numbers 12:3 implies that Moses faces the criticism in dignified silence. Timothy R. Ashley (b. 1947) speculates:

The narrator wishes the reader to know that Moses himself would probably have let this challenge go unanswered. It was Yahweh who heard it and who took it upon himself to answer it. (Ashley, The Book of Numbers (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 224)

David L. Stubbs (b. 1964) compares:

In contrast to the jealousy and presumption of Miriam and Aaron, the humility of Moses is pointed out...Moses’s humility is exhibited here by his not responding directly or angrily to the murmurings of Miriam and Aaron. While Miriam and Aaron want to use their intimacy with God in order to increase their status among the people, Moses enjoys the greater good of such intimacy—friendship with God: “Moses...is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak face to face—clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the LORD” (Numbers 12:7-8). (Stubbs, Numbers (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 124)

W.H. Bellinger, Jr. (b. 1949) infers:

The parenthetical comment in Numbers 12:3 indicating that Moses was more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth immediately displays a bias against the position of Miriam and Aaron. While modern readers may understand the adjective “humble” as “self-effacing,” here it probably indicates Moses’ discipline, integrity, trust, and dedication in relationship with God. This comment contrasts with the brutally honest dialogue between God and Moses in chapter 11 [Numbers 11:16-23]. Perhaps this passage should lead us to redefine humility similarly. The complaints of Miriam and Aaron are contrasted to Moses’ qualities. (Bellinger, Leviticus, Numbers (New International Biblical Commentary), 225)

Even so, the plaudit’s existence is noteworthy. Stephen K. Sherwood (b. 1943) recognizes:

Such direct characterization is rare in biblical narrative, but it is necessary here for the development of the plot. Is Moses inventing a religion in which he gives himself exaggerated authority?...The fact that the narrator felt it necessary to address this question indicates that someone was asking it with sufficient credibility to require a response. (Sherwood, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 155-56)

The parenthetical aside accentuates Moses’ innocense in the face of all charges levied against him (Numbers 12:1-2). In making this claim, the narrator vindicates Moses even before God does. Contrary to his siblings’ objections (Numbers 12:1-2), Moses is in fact unique (Numbers 12:6-8).

If God is offended by Aaron and Miriam’s criticism (Numbers 12:5-9), should Moses be also? Is Moses bothered? As the nation’s leader, should Moses have responded to his siblings’ complaints? Who do you know who has been vindicated without defending themself? What quality most characterizes Moses? Who is the most humble person on earth today? If you were given one superlative what would it be?

The assertion that Moses is the most humble man on earth has garnered unique criticism due to the book’s traditional authorship. Roy Gane (b. 1955) explains:

For those who believe the traditional view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, Numbers 12:3 raises a question: If Moses wrote that he was the humblest man on the face of the earth, wouldn’t this constitute a boast that would invalidate his humility? We understand the boxing champ Muhammad Ali [b.1942]...when he claims the epithet “The Greatest.” But “The Humblest” is a different matter. So it can be argued that...Numbers 12:3...was written by an editor of the Pentateuch, not by Moses himself (cf. Genesis 12:6; Deuteronomy 34:1-12). (Gane, Leviticus, Numbers (The NIV Application Commentary), 592)

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (b. 1933) ranks:

Numbers 12:3 is the most difficult text in the whole book of Numbers. Critical scholars (and others) have correctly observed that it is rather unlikely that a truly humble person would write in such a manner about himself, even if he actually felt the statement was true. Many critical scholars are so convinced of the inappropriateness of recording such a note that they have used this as a strong mark against the Mosaic authorship of the whole book. (Kaiser, Peter H. Davids [b. 1947], F.F. Bruce [1910-1990] and Manfred T. Brauch [b. 1940], Hard Sayings of the Bible, 165)

Eugene H. Merrill (b. 1934) defends:

This statement is often adduced as evidence that Moses could not have written the Book of Numbers for he would not have boasted of his own humility. On the contrary, the declaration concerning his humility is the strongest possible support for the traditional view that Moses wrote Holy Scripture as an inspired penman. Only one led by the Holy Spirit could make such a statement about himself, probably against his own natural inclination. (John F. Walvoord [1910-2002] and Roy B. Zuck [1932-2013], The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, 228)

James E. Smith (b. 1939) supposes:

Modern critics have argued that these words are incongruous with Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Interpreted as braggadocio this verse would be difficult to square with Mosaic authorship. Perhaps Moses, however, intended the words to be understood as a confession of weakness in leadership. Because of his very low self-esteem he did not exercise boldness in dealing with the rebels (Numbers 12:3). (Smith, The Pentateuch, 430)

Ardent defense of traditional authorship has generated other unique responses. Richard S. Briggs (b. 1966) illustrates:

Those who hold to the notion that the “Torah of Moses” requires an idea of Moses as “author”...tend to...suggest that ‘ānāw must mean something else. When this concern is driven simply by the desire to safeguard Mosaic authorship at all costs, it can have little to commend it. One example shall suffice. Cleon Rogers [b. 1955], taking it as a given that one must find a way around the “concern and consternation” caused by Moses’s apparently inappropriate statement, concludes, on the basis of an etymological root meaning “to be bowed down; afflicted” (e.g., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament 776), that the meaning of Numbers 12:3 must be ‘miserable.’ He concludes, “Moses was saying that in the light of the burden of the people and the complaint of his family he was the most ‘miserable’ person in the world” (Cleon Rogers 1986: 263). The sheer implausibility of this line of thought is highlighted by the one remaining sentence in the article: “Who has not made this statement about himself at some point in life?” whereby a text affirming a unique characteristic of Moses has come to be a truism of every person. (Briggs, Virtuous Reader, The: Old Testament Narrative and Interpretive Virtue, 52)

Most interpreters understand Numbers 12:3 simply as a redaction by a later editor which enhances the narrative.

Which would bother you more, that Moses professed to be the most humble man on earth or that a later redactor inserted the comment? Could the most humble person on earth make that claim of herself? Is humility still considered a virtue? How would you define humility?

“Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it’s thinking of yourself less.” - C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)

Voice Recognition: (I Samuel 3:1-14)

Whose voice did young Samuel think he heard when God called him three times? Eli’s (I Samuel 3:4-8)

The third chapter of First Samuel describes a time of limited prophetic activity (not unlike our own) when “word from the Lord was rare” and “visions were infrequent” (I Samuel 3:1 NASB). The priest Eli and his young protégé Samuel are lying down at the Shiloh temple (I Samuel 3:2), the former resting by the ark of the covenant (I Samuel 3:3). After three verses establishing a highly ordinary setting, the pace picks up when God initiates action.

The Lord called Samuel; and he said, “Here I am.” Then he ran to Eli and said, “Here I am, for you called me.” But he said, “I did not call, lie down again.” So he went and lay down. (I Samuel 3:4-5 NASB)

When called, Samuel excitedly runs to answer the priest (I Samuel 3:5). His youthful enthusiasm is misdirected as he mistakenly interprets the voice’s origin. Fortunately, God’s call is deliberate and persistent. Undeterred, the Lord awakens Samuel four times (I Samuel 3:4, 6, 8, 10). In a comedic scene, three times the confused young man awakens Eli. After the third attempt, the seasoned priest recognizes that God is calling Samuel and instructs his pupil to respond in kind (I Samuel 3:8-9). The fourth time is the charm as Samuel receives the revelatory word (I Samuel 3:10-14). As such, Samuel first hears the voice of God while literally lying down on the job (I Samuel 3:4).

The setting is significant, symbolic of the nation’s theological predicament. Richard D. Phillips (b. 1960) observes:

The setting for Samuel’s calling is provocatively stated: “The lamp of God had not yet gone out” (I Samuel 3:3). This indicates that it was in the early hours before dawn that God called to Samuel, since the lamps were kept lit until morning. But this was also symbolically true: the lamp of God’s presence in Israel was dim but not completely out. In such a setting, the voice of the Lord was once more heard within his house. (Phillips, 1 Samuel (Reformed Expository Commentary), 65)

The light is scarce but it is not yet extinguished. The voice in the darkness mirrors the hope for renewal embodied in Samuel.

Kevin J. Mellish (b. 1968) adds:

The location where Eli and Samuel slept at the time of the theophany is also symbolic. Eli was in his own room and separated from the ark. Samuel was lying down in the temple...where the ark of God was (I Samuel 3:3). Based on this description, Samuel must have slept in the inner sanctuary where the ark resided. It is noteworthy that Samuel, the prophet/priest designate, remained near the presence of God, which was symbolized by the ark of the covenant. Eli, the soon to be deposed priest, slept at a distance from it. The imagery is fitting considering that Yahweh’s presence no longer abided with Eli as it was with Samuel, This is also the first, albeit brief, reference to the ark in Samuel. (Mellish, 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 61)

Some have posed that Samuel’s position indicates that he is seeking just such a divine encounter. V. Philips Long (b. 1951) explains:

That Samuel is described as “lying down in the temple of the LORD, where the ark of God was” (I Samuel 3:3), has led some to speculate that he may have been engaging in a well-attested ancient Near Eastern practice called “incubation.” Incubation involves spending a night in the temple precinct in the hope of receiving a divine or oracular dream. The practice is attested among the Egyptians, with manuals of dream interpretation being used as early as the New Kingdom period, among the Hittites of Anatolia, and in Canaan during the biblical period...Extrabiblical examples of such theophanies, or auditory message dreams as they are sometimes called, come from Egypt (Thutmose IV, fifteenth century), Ugarit (in both the Kirta Epic and ‘Aqhatu Legend), Hatti (Hattušiliš, thirteenth century), and Babylonia (Nabonidus, sixth century). (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 282-83)

Ralph W. Klein (b. 1936) counters:

We are not told why Samuel slept by the ark. The view that he was participating in some kind of incubation ritual seems contradicted by his repeated suspicion that Eli—and not God—was calling him. (Klein, 1 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary), 32)

Instead, Samuel is likely taking his turn in fulfilling priestly duties. Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) assumes:

While Samuel was fulfilling the Torah obligations to tend the lamp of God (cf. Leviticus 24:3; Numbers 18:23), the Lord called the youth and delivered a message of judgment to him. In a form paralleling Abraham, Jacob, and Moses’ obedient responses to divine calls (Genesis 22:1, 11, 31:11; Exodus 3:4), Samuel responded, “Here I am” (I Samuel 3:4). Because he did not initially know the Lord, however, Samuel at first went to Eli for further instructions (I Samuel 3:5-6, 8)...It is...probable that the writer included this note to demonstrate Samuel’s diligence in fulfilling Torah mandates. As a son of Aaron, Eli was required “to keep the lamps burning before the LORD from evening till morning” (Exodus 27:21; cf. Leviticus 24:3; also Numbers 18:23). However, since Eli apparently was too old for active service before Yahweh as a priest (cf. Numbers 8:23-26), the Levite Samuel was permitted to act as his surrogate in this matter (cf. Numbers 18:23). (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 86)

God calls Samuel while he is already on duty. Though Samuel does not know who is calling, he responds promptly and politely. Josephus (37-100) records that Samuel is only twelve years old at the time (Antiquities of the Jews 5.10.4).

It is clear that Samuel perceives the voice audibly, originating outside of himself. T.M. Luhrmann (b. 1959) determines:

The striking phenomenonological detail is that Samuel looked for the source of the voice. When someone gives you that detail—they heard a voice and then looked to see who was speaking—it is good evidence that they heard the voice with their ears. (Luhrmann, When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God, 344)

Samuel’s call marks a rare instance of a human hearing the audible call of God. Steven J. Andrews (b. 1954) and Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) characterize Samuel’s experience:

Being so physically close to the Lord’s throne, Samuel was bound to meet him. All of chapters 1 and 2 has led up to this point. God was going to do something wonderful with this young man who was dedicated by his parents to minister before the Lord...Here was the moment of contact. Here was God’s call. It was personal and face-to-face. It was private when no one else was around. It came in God’s house in the early morning. Samuel answered...but he didn’t know who called him. He heard, but he wasn’t listening...God is certainly persistent. The verb call occurs eleven times in I Samuel 3:4-10. Anyone who has ever experienced a call from God can tell you that sometimes it is relentless. God does not give up. (Andrews and Bergen, I & II Samuel (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 32-33)

Samuel incorrectly assumes that the voice he hears is Eli’s. To explain this error, the text offers a narrative aside to remind the reader that Samuel has yet to hear the voice of God; Samuel is not yet the legendary prophet (I Samuel 3:7). One can hardly blame Samuel for his failure to recognize the voice. God has not spoken to him previously and Eli’s is the most likely voice. In this secluded setting, who else would be calling him?

Mary J. Evans (b. 1949) muses:

The story continues with the young Samuel asleep in the area where the ark of God was kept, a fact that shows how fully he had been integrated into priestly service. He hears a voice and immediately goes to Eli—maybe it was a regular occurrence for the almost blind Eli to need help. Samuel’s willingness to get up three times in the night, apparently without complaint, to attend to the ailing old man speaks well for the character of the young priest and draws attention to his worthiness to receive the prophetic word. (Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel (New International Biblical Commentary), 28)

Samuel’s mistake is also natural as the voice of God is often filtered through human beings. Kenneth Chafin (1926-2001) acknowledges:

How easy it still is not to be able to discern God’s voice from other voices. It would be so much easier if all of God’s messages to us came with a clearly printed label: “From God.” But, as my colleague, Frank Tupper [b. 1941], says, “God speaks to us through familiar voices.” While there is a tendency to think of the more dramatic revelations of God as normative, most people experience God’s guidance in quite ordinary ways: through experiences good and bad, while reading the Scripture, through the counsel of another, or out of a growing interest. (Chafin, 1, 2 Samuel (Mastering the Old Testament), 46)

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) adds:

Learning to discern the difference between human words and God’s word is basic to his prophetic and priestly life: Samuel listens. Listening is an act of personal attentiveness that develops into answering. The emphatic “Let anyone with ears listen!” with which Jesus concluded his parables (Matthew 13:9, 43) is repeated in the Spirit’s urgent messages to the churches in the Revelation (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22)...Samuel answers, which is to say, he prays...Samuel’s very existence is a result of prayer, the prayer of his praying mother, Hannah. The story of his call in the temple, introducing his prophetic vocation, shows him learning how to pray for himself, that is, listen to God’s personal word to him and then respond. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 38-39)

Ironically, Eli the priest is seldom depicted speaking for God. Yet here it is Eli, not Samuel, who correctly discerns the voice of God. Eli is finally doing his job: presenting a worldview with God at its center.

Alister E. McGrath (b. 1959) writes:

On the first three occasions, Samuel assumes that the natural sound he has heard has a natural referent, and behaves accordingly...The turning point of the narrative takes place when Eli offers an alternative interpretive framework. Confronted with the evident failure of the most obvious schema, Samuel is invited to consider an alternative explanation of his experience (I Samuel 3:9). Eli can here be seen as a representative of the tradition of Israel, which offers an alternative way of interpreting nature – in this case, as a gateway to the transcendent. God is made known through the natural order. (McGrath, The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology, 176)

It might have even been presumptuous for Samuel to assume that God is calling him. Jack M. Sasson (b. 1941) elucidates:

It is not a lack of intelligence that prevents Samuel from understanding what Eli does comprehend but rather a profound psychological block. Is it possible that God is calling him rather than Eli the priest? Conversely, Eli apprehends what Samuel fails to see, not because of superior intelligence or experience, but because he lacks the inhibitions generated by self-interest. Nothing deters him from assuming that God might turn to the young servant and pass over the old priest! In this way, Eli’s humility compensates for Samuel’s. (John Kaltner[b. 1954] and Louis Stulman [b. 1953], Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon [b. 1933], 179)

God speaks to Samuel in such a way that causes Eli to fulfill his primary duty as priest: directing his congregant to God. In some small way, Eli redeems himself. In a sad irony, God’s message to Samuel is confirmation of the fall of Eli’s household (I Samuel 3:11-14). Tragically, Eli’s most effective act as priest occurs while mediating his displacement.

Dallas Willard (b. 1935) praises:

How wonderful that Eli recognized what was happening to young Samuel and could tell him what to do to begin his lifelong conversational walk with God! Otherwise, it might have been years before Samuel would have found his way by himself. We must not mistakenly assume that if God speaks to someone, he or she automatically knows what is happening and who is taking. If Samuel did not know, surely many others also would not. (Willard, Hearing God, Updated and Expanded: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God, 143-44)

In this case, as in many, effectively hearing God is an act of collaboration. For God’s voice to be heard, the lad needs to be open to it, but he also needs guidance from an elder.

Though the passage illuminates the struggle that clergy experience in discerning their calling, discerning the voice of God and distinguishing it from one’s own is a universal challenge that plagues clergy and laymen alike. Hearing God’s voice is often difficult. But it does not mean that God is not speaking.

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) asserts:

God speaks to Samuel. That God speaks is the basic reality of biblical faith. The fundamental conviction of our faith is not so much that God is, as that God speaks. The biblical revelation begins with God creating by word, speaking the cosmos into being (Genesis 1:1-31). It concludes with Jesus, the Word of God, speaking in invitation, “Come...” (Revelation 22:17). All the pages in between are packed with sentences that God speaks—in creation and invitation, in judgment and salvation, in healing and guidance, in oracle and admonition, in rebuke and comfort. The conspicuous feature in all this speaking is that God speaks in personal address. God does not speak grand general truths, huge billboard declarations of truth and morals; the Lord’s speaking is to persons, named persons: Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul. And Samuel. Personal address, not philosophical discourse or moral commentary or theological reflection, is God’s primary form of speech. Whenever we let the language of religious abstraction or moral principles (and we do it often) crowd the personal address, we betray the word of God. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 38)

Though God speaks, hearing is not often easy. Even Samuel, who literally lives in the temple, struggles to do so. Samuel’s experience demonstrates that a person can even be in the precarious position of encountering God without knowing it.

Norman J. Cohen (b. 1943) cautions:

Samuel reminds all of us how difficult it is to truly hear, see, and meet the other in our lives. When we finally do experience a moment of recognition and engagement, we sometimes are so overwhelmed that we cannot find the right words to express what we are thinking and feeling. As we are overcome with emotion, both elation and fear at the same time, words may seem impossible. (Cohen, “The Difficulty of Discerning the Call”, Hineini in Our Lives: Learning to Respond to Others Though 14 Biblical Texts & Personal Stories, 81)

Like all prophets, Samuel’s first prophetic act is to listen. His experience demonstrates that disambiguating the voice of God is a learned skill. This provides both a challenge and hope for us all as we echo Samuel’s words: “Speak, for your servant is listening (I Samuel 3:10 NASB).”

Why does God not make his identity more obvious when dealing with Samuel? When have you been called by an unfamiliar voice? If God called you, how would you know? Have you ever audibly heard God? In your mind, whose voice is most like God’s? What would have happened to Samuel had Eli failed to direct him? When has God spoken to you through a “familiar voice”? In what ways has God spoken to you? How have you been changed by the voice of God?

God speaking to Samuel forever changes his and his nation’s history. James E. Smith (b. 1939) notes:

One night (literally, “it came to pass on that day”) suggests that the day was special, a milestone in Samuel’s rise to leadership, and consequently in redemptive history. (Smith, 1 & 2 Samuel (The College Press NIV Commentary), 74)

The third chapter of First Samuel relays a coming of age story as Samuel is moving from “lad” to prophet. Samuel does not become a renowned prophet over night.

Richard L. Schultz (b. 1952) clarifies:

Hearing God’s call did not suddenly move Samuel from childhood to adulthood; following this encounter he still had to “grow up” (I Samuel 3:19). This text emphasizes God’s judgment on blatant sin in the family of Eli, Israel’s religious leader. It also portrays God’s careful preparation of Samuel for significant spiritual and political leadership as one who was open to hearing God’s voice and obeying. (Schultz, Out of Context: How to Avoid Misinterpreting the Bible, 86)

Samuel’s experience invites a discussion of calling. John Goldingay (b. 1942) projects:

Speaking with students often suggests to me that we think of ministry as something that enables us to find fulfillment, as it makes it possible for us to give expression to the gifts God has given us. Discernment thus begins as our seeking to perceive what our gifts are and how we may express them. There’s none of this way of thinking in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Samuel is not called because this will be the way he finds fulfillment...Given that the connotations of the word “call” have changed, we might do better to use the word “summons” rather than “call” to describe what happens to Samuel or Paul. Samuel gets the idea when he recognizes in the middle of the night that his boss has summoned him to do something, so he reports for duty; he just doesn’t realize which boss it is...There is nothing wrong with people using their gifts to serve God...It just has nothing to do with calling. (Goldingay, 1 & 2 Samuel for Everyone, 31)

As the message Samuel receives concerns Eli, many note that I Samuel 3:1-21 is not technically a call narrative. Anthony F. Campbell (b. 1934) advances:

The initiative is...given to Eli, and the focus of interest moves to his reaction. The story comes to rest with his acceptance...It is important to recognize that this is not a prophetic call narrative; there is no call. It may serve in place of a call narrative, since after this first experience of God’s word Samuel continues as a trustworthy prophet of the Lord. For all that, it is not a call narrative. (Campbell, 1 Samuel (The Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 57)

In contrast, Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) offers:

The literary genre of I Samuel 3 has usually been considered a prophetic-call narrative in the grand tradition of Exodus 3 (Moses), Isaiah 6, Jeremiah 1, and the like. Recently, however, on the basis of ancient Near Eastern parallels, Robert Gnuse [b. 1947], in The Dream Theophany of Samuel: Its Structure in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Dreams and Its Theological Significance has theorized that I Samuel 3 is best analyzed as an auditory message dream theophany. Although he sometimes tilts the evidence in his direction...his arguments are impressive...Of course, the genre could turn out to be a blend of both types (a not uncommon feature of Old Testament literature)—prophetic-call narrative plus auditory message dream theophany. But the advantage of Gnuse’s analysis is that it deals adequately with the fact that the Lord speaks to Samuel at night—a matter not handled convincingly by the theory that I Samuel 3 is a prophetic-call narrative and nothing more. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel-2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 65)

Some argue that as Samuel is awake as the story unfolds, the story cannot accurately be labeled a dream theophany. What cannot be argued is that this story marks a new era for Samuel and Israel. Samuel becomes an agent of change in both the nation’s religion (as a prophet) and politics (as the anointer the kings). His authorization to do so is significant.

Robert Alter (b. 1935) remarks:

The idea of revelation...is paramount to the story of Samuel, whose authority will derive neither from cultic function, like the priests before him, nor from military power, like the judges before him and the kings after him, but from prophetic experience, from an immediate, morally directive call from God. (Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 109)

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) expounds:

The narrative takes great care to show that Samuel’s credibility does not rest on any conventional political confirmation. Rather, Samuel is presented as having an authorization rooted in nothing other than the freedom and promise of God. Samuel’s freshly authorized voice in Israel’s public life stands over against all conventional modes of power and brusquely displaces them. Surely the old Israelites—and the storytellers—are political realists. They understand how political-priestly power works, how it is secured, maintained, and exercised. They want to assert, at the same time, a holy governance that matters in concrete life, a holy governance that is not bounded by accustomed power, by ordained authority, by conventional leadership. There is a chance for newness. (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 27)

Samuel is authorized to lead, but more importantly Samuel becomes Samuel through the process. His purpose is completely changed as he finds his identity in connection to God.

Francesca Aran Murphy (b. 1960) analyzes:

In order to become a moral individual, a person, Samuel must be called out of the familial collective and enter a direct relationship to God. God does not, here, just call an individual to effect a change in Israel’s culture: he creates an individual so to do...Only when the Lord calls with a single voice and reveals his unity, and only when the recipients of this revelation absorb communication of “Who he is,” can they become unified individuals, persons who act on history and cocreate it. (Murphy, 1 Samuel (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 29)

Merold Westphal (b. 1940) informs:

It takes little imagination to hear the resonances of Emmanuel Levinas [1906-1995]’s me voici, whose origins in any case are biblical, in Samuel’s “Here am I.” While this speech act is an expression of Samuel’s freedom, there is more heteronomy than autonomy in it. He does not originate the conversation but is called, called forth, even called into being by a voice not his own. The meaning of the situation in which he finds himself is not determined by his horizons of expectation, which are simultaneously surprised and shattered. Nor is it just his situation that is changed; his very identity is changed, as he becomes no longer merely Hannah’s son or Eli’s helper, but the one who stands coram deo, in God’s presence, by a call that is at once invitation and command. Everything begins with “you called me.” Prayer is the beginning of responsibility because it begins as response...He identifies himself as the servant before his Lord...Actually, when he responds in accord with Eli’s instruction, he does not name the speaker, but simply says, “Speak, for your servant is listening.”...The heavy lifting is done by Samuel’s self-identification as the servant of the speaker, whose divinity he now recognizes. He calls himself ebbe, a bond-servant. (Bruce Ellis Benson [b. 1960] and Norman Wirzba [b. 1964], “Prayer as the Posture of the Decentered Self”, The Phenomenology of Prayer (Perspectives in Continental Philosophy), 17)

Samuel’s awakening is intended to awaken us to our calling as well. Though we may not be called to be prophets or national leaders, our true identity is to be found as servants of God.

Who are today’s change agents? What have you been authorized to do? What has God called you to do? Have you found your identity in God?

“Not only do we not know God except through Jesus Christ, but also we do not know ourselves except through Jesus Christ.” - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pensées, p. 7

Trusting Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2)

In what city was Phoebe a deaconess? Cenchreae (Romans 16:1)

Paul’s longest and most influential letter is the Epistle to the Romans. After communicating doctrine throughout the book’s first fifteen chapters (Romans 1:1-15:21), the letter concludes with customary salutations (Romans 16:1-27), equivalent to modern “shout outs”. This section incorporates 26 names representing a hodgepodge of people; Paul greets Jews and Gentiles, men and women alike. The chapter is so thorough that some have posited that it constitutes a self contained letter.

The most extensive salutation is devoted to endorsing Paul’s associate, Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2).

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well. (Romans 16:1-2 NASB)

This passage is a letter of recommendation. Letters of introduction, known as sustatikai epistolai, were common in the ancient world (Acts 18:27; II Corinthians 3:1, 4:2, 5:12, 10:12; III John 1:9-10; I Maccabees 12:43; II Maccabees 9:25). These affirmations were important as the ancient traveler had to rely on networking in an age where communication was far scarcer and slower than in modern times.

Paul’s endorsement features standard form and content. Efrain Agosto (b. 1955) outlines:

Romans 16:1-2 includes some typical terms from Greco-Roman commendation letter-writing: συνίστημι, synistēmi (“commend”); προσδέχεσθε, prosdechesthe (“receive”); and παραστητε, parastēte (“assist” or “help”). Paul clearly states Phoebe’s credentials for commendation. She is a “sister,” a διάκονος, diakonos (“servant”), someone “worthy [ἀξίως, axiōs]of the saints,” and a προστάτις, prostatis. Except for the final term, Paul uses language found elsewhere in his letters, including commendation passages (cf. “service [διάκονια, diakonia] to the saints,” I Corinthians 16:15; “receive [προσδέχεσθε, prosdechesthe] him in the Lord,” Philippians 2:29). Finally, the action Paul requests from the Roman churches on Phoebe’s behalf is ambiguous. She is to be welcomed and assisted in whatever she needs. Such ambiguity is also typical of Greco-Roman commendation letters. (J. Paul Sampley [b. 1935], Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, 123)

Paul does add weight to the common formula. Arland J. Hultgren (b. 1939) explains:

Paul’s commendation has a fourfold structure, in which he (1) identifies Phoebe by name; (2) mentions her credentials (a sister and deacon); (3) expresses a desired action from his readers (to receive her and to assist her); and (4) adds further credentials (calling her a benefactor of many and of Paul). Typically the first three items (identification, credentials, and desired action) appear in Pauline commendations. But in this case Paul adds an additional statement concerning Phoebe’s credentials. That is especially appropriate in this instance, since it sets up reciprocity. Paul asks that the Roman Christians receive Phoebe and assist her, for she has assisted others, including Paul himself. (Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, 569)

Despite employing routine form and content, this unit and Phoebe herself have come under much scrutiny. The mystery surrounding Phoebe’s role has perplexed scholars attempting to reconstruct the flow chart of the early church. The enigma surrounding Phoebe has projected her into the debate regarding what ministerial activities she and other women are authorized to perform and has made her a highly controversial figure.

Though her name was common, Phoebe is mentioned only here in the New Testament (Romans 16:1-2). She is otherwise unknown. Her name means “bright” or “radiant”. It is the feminine form of Phoebus (φοἰβος), a famous epithet given to the god Apollo, “the Bright One”.

Slaves were routinely issued pagan names because figures from Greek mythology commonly substituted for the godfather during the naming process. When slaves became Christian they typically retained their pagan names if not their meaning. In view of this practice, some have speculated that Phoebe is a freedwoman.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) theorizes:

The name Phoibē suggests her pagan background and probably connotes her status as a freed slave (so Heinrich Schlier [1900-1978], Römberbrief 441). The name was of mythological origin, that of a Titaness, daughter of Heaven and Earth (Hesiod, Theognis 136), wife of Coeus, and mother of Leto, grandmother of Apollo (Phoebus) and Artemis. The name means “shining, beaming, bright”; it was commonly used in the Greco-Roman world of the time. (Fitzmyer, Romans (The Anchor Bible), 729)

At the very least, it can be inferred that Phoebe is a Gentile as a Jewess would not have used such a name.

Phoebe is referenced with no mention of a father, husband or sons. Paul ignores all other biographical data and emphasizes her role in the church at Cenchreae. Cenchreae was a port situated on the Saronic Gulf, on the southeastern side of the narrow isthmus that connects southern Achaia to northern Achaia (and Macedonia further north). This locale would provide plenty of opportunity for the practical expression of Christian compassion (Romans 16:2).

Located eight miles from the city, Cenchreae served as Corinth’s eastern port to the Aegean Sea; one of two Corinthian ports. The reference to Cenchreae supports the common belief that Romans is written at Corinth (Romans 16:1). Paul spent eighteen months in Corinth (Acts 18:1-18) and the apostle sailed from Cenchreae in traveling from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts 18:18). In all likelihood, Phoebe was well known in Corinth.

In his glowing recommendation, Paul asserts that Phoebe is a sister, a deacon/servant, a saint, and a helper (Romans 16:1-2). In describing her as “our sister” and “saint”, Paul informs that she is a fellow believer and appeals to their common bond: Christ. Early Christians commonly referred to women believers with the familial appellation “sister” (I Corinthians 7:15, 9:5; Philemon 1:2; James 2:15; Ignatius Epistle to Polycarp 5.1; II Clement 12:5, 19:1, 20:2; The Shepherd of Hermas Vision 2.2.3, 2.3.1).

Paul evokes Phoebe’s status as a diakonos, a shadowy term with a broad range of meaning. Paul uses the same designation earlier in the letter (Romans 13:4 twice). The intent of this term has sparked much discussion. The question is whether the word indicates a general use (“servant”) or the ecclesiastical office of “deacon”, albeit an undeveloped form of this position.

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) assesses:

Paul uses the language of “service” (diakonia) in a variety of ways, as we might expect for a term so broad in its possible applications. In this letter, he uses it for his own ministry of preaching (Romans 11:13), his collection for the saints in Jerusalem (Romans 15:31) and for the work of Phoebe (Romans 16:1). A separate ministry of “deacons” appears in I Timothy 3:8, 12, but the “gift of service” may extend beyond that office (see I Corinthians 16:15; II Corinthians 8:4, 9:1; Ephesians 4:12). (Johnson, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 193)

Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) adds:

He uses the same word he employs regularly to describe both himself and others as servants of God (II Corinthians 6:4), servants of the gospel (Ephesians 3:7; Colossians 1:23), servants of a new covenant (II Corinthians 3:6), servants in the Lord (Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7), and servants of Christ (Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7; I Timothy 4:6). Only here in Romans 16:1 do we find anyone described as ‘a deacon of the church’, and this appears to be the earliest reference to such a ministry in ‘the church’. In Colossians 1:24-25 Paul does speak of the body of Christ, the church, of which he became a ‘servant’. All this suggests that the apostle recognized Phoebe as a servant of the church similar to his other colleagues and himself. (Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 553)

The diverging opinions on the term’s purpose are evidenced by the variance among translations. Many opt for the general meaning, “servant” (ASV, CEB, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV) as it used of servants drawing water (John 2:5, 9). Others go with the more formal title, “deacon” (NIV, NLT, NRSV) or “deaconess” (AMP, RSV). Still other translations utilize broader designations like “leader” (CEV) or “key representative” (MSG).

Deacon was one of the first offices to emerge in the early Christian movement (Philippians 1:1; I Timothy 3:8; Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians 2.1, Epistle to the Magnesians 6.1). Today, it is a loaded term as “Deacon” means different things depending on the denomination or person speaking. Paul’s casual use of the word shows that it has not yet developed the baggage it carries today.

Translations often demonstrate their bias in their rendering of Romans 16:1. Sojung Yoon exposes:

Διάκονος appears a total of nineteen times in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline letters. Sixteen times the KJV and ASV translate it as “minister,” while in Philippians 1:1 and I Timothy 3:8,12 they translate it as “deacon.” and in Romans 16:1 as “servant.” Therefore one can say that the KJV and ASV imply that διάκονος refers to an official position within the church, since normally they translate it as “minister.” Only in Romans 16:1 do they translate διάκονος as “servant,” thus implying that Phoebe was not a leader in the church but a devoted lay person. The RSV translates διάκονος as “deaconness,” also differentiating Phoebe’s leadership from other male διάκονοι by making the masculine noun διάκονος feminine, a distinction not found in the Greek. (Holly E. Hearon[b. 1956], Distant Voices Drawing Near: Essays in Honor of Antoinette Clark Wire [b. 1934], 20)

Alvin J. Schmidt (b. 1932) chronicles:

Phoebe...was a diakonos, not “deaconess” as male theologians have mistranslated this work in many Bible versions. (The feminine form of diakonos) did not appear in literature until about 300 years after St. Paul addresses Phoebe in the Epistle to the Romans. The Apostolic Constitutions [a Syriac document of about A.D. 375] is the first known Christian writing to use the feminine form of diakonos). The word diakonos appears many times in the New Testament. In the King James Version (KJV) it is most often translated as “minister” when it speaks about a man holding this office. Three times the KJV translates the word as “deacon.” Only in one place does it use the word servant, and that occurs in Romans 16:1, where Phoebe in mentioned...Evidently, beginning with the KJV, English translators were overwhelmed by sexist values because the Miles Coverdale [1488-1569] edition, about seventy years earlier (1535), still translated diakonos in Romans 16:1 as “minister.” Closer to our time, the Revised Standard Version renders diakonos as “deaconess.” while the New International Version, like the KJV, has “servant.” (Schmidt, Veiled and Silenced: How Culture Shaped Sexist Theology, 180)

As Yoon and Schmidt allude, “deaconess” is an especially incorrect translation (AMP, RSV, J.B. Phillips [1906-1982]). Kristina LaCelle-Peterson (b. 1960) corrects:

The fact that Paul used the masculine nominative form of the word suggests that she held a particular recognized role of “deacon” or “servant” that carried the same responsibilities as when a man held that role. If Paul is not referring to a specific office that Phoebe held, we have to assume that he simply confused the endings, but that would be like using the wrong gendered pronoun (as in, Phoebe had his mission to fulfill). No educated person would do that, particularly not someone as articulate as Paul. When an English translation renders the word as deaconess it leaves the inaccurate impression that Paul is drawing a distinction of roles based on gender. (Fortunately this is less common in more recent translations.) (LaCelle-Peterson, Liberating Tradition: Women’s Identity and Vocation in Christian Perspective, 62)

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

In a church context the word should be rendered ‘deacon’, whether masculine or feminine. That the duties of a deacon could be performed by either men or women is suggested by I Timothy 3:11, where ‘the women’ are to be understood as ‘deacons’ (like the men of I Timothy 3:3-10). (Bruce, Romans (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 252)

Scholarly opinion is as divided as the translators regarding the meaning of diakonos. Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) surveys:

She is a “deacon”...of the church in Cenchrea, which could refer to a general service to the church (NIV; NASB; Kazimierz Romaniuk [b. 1927] 1990:132-34) or an official office in the church (NRSV; REB; NLTL; C.E.B. Cranfield [b. 1915] 1979; James D.G. Dunn [b. 1939] 1988b; Leon Morris [1914-2006] 1988; Douglas J. Moo [b. 1950] 1996; Thomas R. Schreiner [b. 1954] 1998). Most accept the latter, for the term referred to that office (Philippians 1:1; I Timothy 3:8, 12), and women at times did hold the office (I Timothy 3:11). Moreover, this is the masculine noun (diakonos), and if it did indicate a general “serving,” one would have expected the feminine diakonia. In fact some have concluded that she was the pastor of the congregation (Elizabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza [b. 1938] 1986:425-26; Robert Jewett 1988:148-50), but there is too little evidence that this term was used of the position of pastor over “overseer” in the first century. Most likely she held the office of “deacon,” but there is little evidence regarding what this office entailed...Most likely deacons dealt with the practical needs of the church, for example, caring for the needy...and financial oversight. (Osborne, Romans (IVP New Testament Commentary), 402-3)

The debate is not new, it has persisted for centuries. Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) documents:

Some early church fathers believed that she fulfilled an official role. Origen [184-253] said: ‘This passage teaches that there were women ordained in the church’s ministry by the apostle’s authority...Not only that — they ought to be ordained into the ministry, because they helped in many ways and by their good services deserved the praise even of the apostle’. Pelagius [354-420] said, ‘Even today, women deaconesses in the East are known to minister to their own sex in baptism or even in the ministry of the Word, for we find that women taught privately, e.g., Priscilla, whose husband was called Aquila.’ Some recent commentators agree. (Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 553-54)

The majority of scholars assert that Phoebe served in some official capacity. Many have concluded that since Paul’s qualification “of the church” (Romans 16:1) connects diakonos to a specific church it also indicates a specific office. This is the first time “church” is used in Romans and in this epistle it always speaks of a local, not the universal, church (Romans 16:1, 4, 5, 16, 23).

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

It is perhaps just conceivable that the word διάκονος should be understood here as a quite general reference to her service of the congregation; but it is very much more natural, particularly in view of the way in which Paul formulates his thought...to understand it as referring to a definite office. We regard it as virtually certain that Phoebe is being described as ‘a (or possibly ‘the’) deacon’ of the church in question, and that this occurrence of διάκονος is to be classified with its occurrences in Philippians 1:1 and I Timothy 3:8, 12. And, while it is true that the functions of a διάκονος are not expressly indicated in Philippians 1:1 or in I Timothy 3:8ff or in the present two verses, there is nothing in any of these passages in any way inconsonant with the inherent probability that a specialized use of διάκονος in New Testament times will have corresponded to the clearly attested specialized use of διακονειν and διακονία with reference to the practical service of the needy, and there are some features, for example, what is said about Phoebe in Romans 16:2b, which would seem to afford it some support. (Cranfield, Romans 9-16 (International Critical Commentary), 781)

David L. Bartlett (b. 1941) argues that Phoebe is best described as a “minister”:

Phoebe...is designated as a diakonos. This Greek word often means “minister,” even as Paul applies it to himself (see, for instance, I Corinthians 3:5; II Corinthians 3:6, 6:4, 11:23). Clearly Phoebe has a role of some importance in the early community, and “minister” is probably a better translation than “deacon.” Sometimes a “minister,” or diakonos, is a person who carries out a commission from another. (In II Corinthians 11:15, Paul refers to false apostles as “deacons” or “emissaries” from Satan.) Phoebe may be Christ’s emissary in the church at Cenchreae, as Paul has been Christ’s emissary in Corinth. In Philippians 1:1, “deacons” are apparently local church leaders, though they may not yet be officers in any institutionalized way. Older translations sometimes called Phoebe a “deaconess,” but the Greek word gives not reason to think that she has a leadership role reserved for women. She is a “deacon” or “minister.” (Bartlett, Romans (Westminster Bible Companion), 140)

James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) states unequivocally, “Phoebe is the first recorded ‘deacon’ in the history of Christianity (Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Word Biblical Commentary), 887).”

If Dunn is correct, there is still great discussion as to what a deacon’s duties entailed. Women holding the office were known to conduct baptisms for women and to preach. The degree to which the term designated an actual office at the time Paul wrote Romans is also unclear.

It is for this reason that many, even those who object to women in ministry, have no problem conceding that Phoebe served as a deacon. Wayne Grudem (b. 1948) explains:

It does not matter very much...whether Phoebe is called a faithful “servant” or a “deacon” in Romans 16:1. In neither case does this passage show that she had any teaching or governing authority in the church. Teaching and governing the whole church are functions given to “elders,” not deacons, in the New Testament (see I Timothy 3:2, 5, 5:17; Titus 1:9; also Acts 20:17, 28). (Grudem, Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism: Biblical Responses to the Key Questions, 154-55)

The word translated “helper” is as contested as “deacon” (Romans 16:2 NASB). It is prostatis, which literally means someone who stands in front of something else. The word is translated variously “been helpful” (NLT), “helper” (ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV), “she’s helped” (MSG), “succourer” (KJV), “benefactor” (HCSB, NIV, NRSV), “patron” (ESV) and “respected leader” (CEV). The terminology represents distinguished service. The word connotes great honor. The Roman emperor even boasted that he was the state’s supreme benefactor.

Douglas J. Moo (b. 1950) defines:

The Greek word prostatis is found only here in biblical Greek. It comes from a verb that means (1) “care for, give aid to,” or (2) “direct, preside over.” If Paul is applying to the noun this first meaning of the verb, he would simply be characterizing Phoebe as a “helper” of many Christians...But if we use the meaning of the cognate verb to define prostatis, Pauline usage would favor a different rendering. For Paul seems to use the verb only to mean “direct,” “preside over.” Noting this, some recent scholars have argued that Paul intends to characterize Phoebe as a “leader” of the church. But it is difficult to conceive how Phoebe would have had the opportunity to be a “leader” of Paul. Moreover, the fact, that Paul designates her as the leader “of many” rather than as the leader of “the church” (contrast Romans 16:1) suggests that the term here does not denote an official or even semi-official, position in the local church. The best alternative, then, is to give to prostatis the meaning that if often has in secular Greek: “patron,” “benefactor.” A “patron was one who came to the aid of others, especially foreigners, by providing housing and financial aid and by representing their interests before local authorities. Cenchreae’s status as a busy seaport would make it imperative that a Christian in its church take up this ministry on behalf of visiting Christians. Phoebe, then, was probably a woman of high social standing and some wealth, who put her status, resources, and time at the services of traveling Christians, like Paul, who needed help and support. (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 915-16)

Leander E. Keck (b. 1928) concurs:

The word here surely means more than “a good friend” (REB), for it appears to be the Greek equivalent of the Latin patrona, one who “came to the aid of others, especially foreigners, by providing housing and financial aid and by representing their interests before local authorities”...Acts 16:14-15, 40 suggests that Lydia served as Paul’s patron in Philippi. Phoebe, then, was a “benefactor,” from whose generosity Paul too benefitted (Gaius was another; Romans 16:23). Like Lydia and Gaius, Phoebe had financial resources; what sort of business took her to Rome is not indicated. By making her role in the church a reason to welcome her in Rome, Paul, in effect, says, “She deserves it.” Having assisted travelers like Paul, she would now be given assistance herself. (Keck, Romans (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 369-370)

Some have seen Paul’s use of prostatis as further evidence of a position of leadership. The word is derived from the same root (proistemi) as the word Paul uses for “leads” in Romans 12:8.

Alan F. Johnson (b. 1933) glosses:

The word “help” (Greek prostatis) in Romans 16:2 is found only here in the New Testament and its sense is not entirely clear...The word is found eight times in the Greek Old Testament (LXX) and thirteen times in the first-century Jewish writer Josephus [37-100], in each of the twenty-one cases with reference to a person who holds a publicly recognized service-oriented leadership role, the word may be stronger than simply a benefactor...Its choice here by Paul seems to clearly affirm that Phoebe has not only some social position, wealth, and independence, but that she is recognized as an official leader in the church as well. (Johnson, Romans (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 259-60)

Thomas R. Schreiner (b. 1954) counters:

That Phoebe is being called a leader here is improbable for three reasons. (1) It is highly improbable that Paul would say that Phoebe held a position of authority over him. He says that about no one except Christ, not even the Jerusalem apostles (Galatians 1:6-7, 11), so confident is he of his high authority as an apostle (cf. I Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:8-9; II Thessalonians 3:14). (2) There seems to be a play on words between the word prostatis and the previous verb paristēmi, in Romans 16:2. Paul says to help (paristēmi) Phoebe because she has been a help ( prostatis) to many, including to Paul himself. It fits the context better understand Paul as saying “help Phoebe because she has been such a help to others and to me.” (3) Although the related masculine noun prostatēs can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun (prostatis) does not take the meaning “leader” but is defined as “protectress, patroness, helper.” (John Piper [b. 1946] and Wayne Grudem [b. 1948], Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, 219-220)

Whatever her official position, Paul’s argument is clear: Phoebe has helped others and deserves any assistance the Roman Christians can provide. She has good kharma. In making this assertion, Paul is diplomatically reiterating his previous charge to contribute “to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality (Romans 12:13 NASB).”

It is uncertain what assistance Phoebe might need. Rudolf Schumacher (b. 1884) was the first to espouse that the language (pragma, Romans 16:2) connotes a lawsuit (Schumacher, Die beiden letzten kapitel des Römerbriefes, 49). While others have adopted this stance, it is far from certain.

Regardless of her gender, position and whatever needs she might have, it can be certain that Phoebe is special and a leading figure in the church at Cenchraea.

Which part of the letter was most important to the Romans, the teaching or the greetings? Is the recommendation of Phoebe an afterthought? When have you received a letter of recommendation? Who vouches for you? Who have you known that fits Phoebe’s description? Who are the leading women in your church? Can women serve as deacons there? In your opinion, what functions should a woman not perform? Is there anything that God cannot accomplish through a woman?

Though it is not stated in the letter, the prevailing opinion is that Phoebe is the bearer of the Epistle to the Romans. (To acknowledge her as courier in the letter might be considered stating the obvious.) The Roman Empire had no public postal system and many believe that she is delivering the correspondence while conducting “whatever business” she is tending to (Romans 16:2). Subscriptions in some ancient manuscripts even indicate as much (337, 424, 1881, Majority text). This theory is also attested in early Christian documents, e.g. Pseudo-Constantius, The Holy Letter of St. Paul to the Romans (on 16:1); dated 405.

Margaret Y. MacDonald (b. 1961) notes:

It was quite common for ancient letters to include praise of their bearers, and sometimes letters were written for the sole purpose of commending their bearers. Paul’s instructions concerning Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2 appear to reflect this conventional practice (cf. I Corinthians 16:15-18). It is impossible to be certain whether this commendation is made only to guarantee that the Romans offer her the best kind of hospitality or whether Paul intends that she might play a specific role in the life of the Roman community. (Ross Shepard Kraemer [b. 1948] and Mary Rose D’Angelo, Women & Christian Origins, 207-208)

Phoebe is accustomed to serving and her toting Paul’s epistle fits her character. A courier would have need of food and lodging and thus her being the bearer of the letter would account for Paul’s instruction to the Romans (Romans 16:2). At the very least, Phoebe and the letter arrive at roughly the same time.

As courier, Phoebe would be expected to interpret the letter and supplement content, filling in the gaps. This would make her the first commentator of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.

Robert J. Karris (b. 1938) describes:

It is highly likely that Phoebe not only carried Paul’s letter to the Romans to the house churches but also read it to them. You see, Phoebe was likely among the five percent of the population who could read. Further, in reading Romans, she surely had to know what it was about. Ancient letters (and manuscripts) did not have spacing, chapters and verses, and subheadings. I give a simple example. Suppose I put a recent headline in capital letters without spacing: FLORIDAKEYDEERREBOUNDS. Without too much effort you read: Florida key deer rebounds. But is “key” an adjective meaning “principal”? Does “key” refer to the Florida Keys? Is “key deer” a technical name for a species of deer? The reader would have to know answers to these questions in order to read this simple sentence out loud meaningfully. Just think of the skill Phoebe must have if she is to navigate successfully through all the elements of scholastic diatribe that Paul used in composing his letter! (Karris, Galatians and Romans (New Collegeville Bible Commentary: New Testament), 94)

Phoebe is Paul’s representative to the leaders of the house churches. In a very real sense, Paul and Phoebe endorse one another. In authenticating her, Paul gives his own work credibility. Paul trusts Phoebe implicitly. Some have speculated that he is sending her to set up operations in Rome and to financially support a mission to Spain (Romans 15:24, 28). More importantly, Paul entrusts Phoebe with his opus, his most complete work. Its survival is evidence of her success.

Brendan Byrne (b. 1939) praises:

Brief though it is, Paul’s commendation of Phoebe is an important indication of the leadership roles exercised by women in the early Christian communities. It is also not without significance that the document many have judged to be the most influential in Christian history (Paul’s letter to Rome) was entrusted to this woman on the long and risky journey to its destination, its ultimate reception very much dependent upon the impression she herself was to make on the recipient community. (Byrne, Romans (Sacra Pagina), 448)

Phoebe is entrusted with nothing less than the gospel. As are we.

Does it matter whether or not Phoebe held an official office? What does having a formal title mean to you? What is the bigger responsibility, being a deacon or bearing the letter to the Romans? What have you been entrusted with?

“This is a staggering fact. God has entrusted to people like us, redeemed sinners, the responsibility of carrying out the divine purpose in history.” - George Eldon Ladd (1911-1982), The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God, p. 134