Listening to Jesus’ Donkey (Matthew 21:1-3)

On which animal did Jesus ride into the city of Jerusalem? A donkey [The foal of an ass, KJV]

In contrast to is his usual low key mode of operating, all four canonical gospels depict Jesus’ final entry into Jerusalem as occurring before a substantial and enthusiastic crowd (Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:28-44; John 12:12-19). In short, Jesus makes an entrance. Jesus’ approach to the Holy City marks a major turning point in Matthew’s gospel and in many ways begins the Passion narrative. Often referred to as the “Triumphal Entry”, the church commemorates the event annually on Palm Sunday.

In preparation for his entry, Jesus’s gives very explicit instructions to his followers on where to secure his ride: Jesus will enter Jerusalem atop a donkey. .

When they had approached Jerusalem and had come to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.” (Matthew 21:1-3 NASB)

Donald Senior (b. 1940) summarizes:

Jesus prepares for his entry into Jerusalem by sending two disciples into the village to procure a donkey and a colt (Matthew 21:2-3). The whole tone emphasizes Jesus’ messianic authority—he commands the disciples; they do exactly what he says; and everything is as “the Lord” predicts. (Senior, Matthew (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 230)

The city where the disciples procure the donkey is undetermined as Jesus refers only to the “village opposite” (Matthew 21:2). Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) contemplates:

It is difficult to know whether Jesus sent the two disciples to Bethphage (D.A. Carson [b. 1946]) or Bethany (Donald A. Hagner [b. 1936], David L. Turner [b. 1949]). The text could point to either. It is also difficult to know whether Jesus had made prior arrangements or knew supernaturally that the donkeys would be there. Either way, he deliberately plans the event as a messianic fulfillment, possibly connected with three passages: Zechariah 14:4, which prophesied Yahweh would stand on the Mount of Olives on the day of the Lord...the lion of Judah (Genesis 49:10-11, a messianic figure within Judaism) who “tethers his donkey...[and] colt” (so John Nolland [b. 1947]), and David’s return to Jerusalem (after his son Absalom...forced him to flee) on a donkey in II Samuel 15:30-31, 16:1-2 (so R.T. France [1938-2012], Stanley Hauerwas [b. 1940]). (Osborne, Matthew (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 753-54)

W.F. Albright (1891-1971) and C.S. Mann (b. 1917) explain the vagueness:

At first sight, this little incident is full of mystery. This account is one of many in the gospels in which the relevant circumstances were still so well known to the people when the oral tradition became fixed that they were not included. This can be very baffling for the reader in search of exact biographical detail. The high incidence of background information which is assumed or omitted as taken for granted is eloquent proof of the immediacy of the New Testament material—the transmitters of the oral tradition were not concerned beyond the immediate accuracy of transmission. (Albright and Mann, Matthew: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible), 251)

Whatever city the disciples frequent, their mission is to secure an ónos, a “donkey” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV) which some translations render with the more antiquated “ass” (ASV, KJV, RSV) and its colt, polos (Matthew 21:2). In this era, the donkey was bred as a beast of burden and was a prominent means of distributing goods (Matthew 21:2, 5, 7; Luke 13:15; John 12:15).

W. D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) define:

ὄνος (most often for hamôr in the LXX) means ‘donkey’ (male of female; here the latter.) πωλος (cf. ‘ayir, ‘he ass’) according to Walter Bauer [1877-1960] means ‘horse’ or, when used in conjunction with another animal, ‘young animal’. But Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn [b. 1934]...and Otto Michel [1903-1993]...have established that the word standing by itself, can mean ‘ass’...Rabbinic literature makes the ass a messianic animal. Zechariah 9:9 was the key text in this development. It in turn arose out of the use of the ass in the ancient Near Eastern royal ceremony. I Kings 1:33 (cf. I Kings 1:38) supplies an Old Testament example: Solomon rode on David’s ass to Gihon to be anointed king (cf. II Samuel 18:9, 19:26). For the mules of nobility see Judges 5:10, 10:4, 12:13-14; II Samuel 13:29. Riding on a mule for ceremonial entry into a city is already an established act of kingship in ARM 6.76, a text from the royal archives of Mari; ANET 1, pp. 44-7, translates a Sumerian text (‘Gilgamesh and Agga’) in which those ‘who are raised with the sons of the kings’ are referred to as those who ride donkeys. (Davies and Allison, Matthew 19-28 (International Critical Commentary), 116-17)

John Nolland (b. 1947) adds:

In Mark there is a single animal.: ‘a πωλον tied up [masculine form] on which no one has ever sat’. In Matthew there is a ‘donkey tethered [female form], and a πωλον with her. πωλον is capable of a range of meanings. In secular Greek it often means ‘horse’, but it means ‘donkey’ in the Septuagint and documents showing Septuagint influence. Originally it had meant the young of an animal, and it still did in appropriate contexts. The reference to a female donkey and the quotation to come in Matthew 21:5 make clear that for Matthew πωλον means a young male donkey. (Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 833)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) interprets:

It is...a royal entry. The heir of David who was to be anointed as king rode a donkey to his coronation. When Absalom’s hair got caught in the branches of a large terebinth, he was riding a donkey, which was symbolic of his claim to kingship (II Samuel 18:8). Mephibosheth rode a donkey as a symbol of his royal claim that he would make for the old house of Saul had the insurrection of Absalom succeeded (II Samuel 19:27). David, anxious to secure Solomon’s claim to the throne over that of Adonijah’s, instructs his comrades to mount Solomon on his donkey to ride to his anointing as king (I Kings 1:32-40; see also II Kings 9:13). Jesus’ approach to the city from the east, from the Mount of Olives, is also suggestive, since some expected that the messiah would come from the east, from the Jordan valley (see Josephus [37-100], Antiquities 20.8.6 § 169; Jewish War 2.13.5 § 261; Genesis Rabba 98:9; Qoheleth Rabba 1:9; Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 98a; 99a; and Zechariah 14:1-5). (Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 213)

From this passage, some Christians have applauded the often neglected donkey. Howard Clarke (b. 1929) relays:

In the Middle Ages these biblical associations made the donkey the transportation of choice for wandering preachers. G.K. Chesteron [1874-1936] honored this humble animal in his poem “The Donkey.” After three stanzas describing how the donkey has always been ridiculed and mistreated he concludes: “Fools! For also had my hour:/One far fierce hour and sweet:/There was a shout about my ears,/And palms before my feet.” (Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers: A Historical Introduction to the First Gospel, 174)

Regardless of its symbolism, to its owners the more important fact is that the donkey has monetary value. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) assesses the ass:

A donkey could cost between two months’ and two years’ wages, depending on its age and condition, but most peasants who could save enough would buy one, as they were extremely important even in small-scale farming. If a farmer had two, however, he sometimes rented one out (Naphtali Lewis [1911-2005] 1983: 130). (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 490)

Commentators often play for humor the fact that Matthew actually implies that Jesus rides both animals simultaneously (Matthew 21:2, 5, 7). This fact has also been referenced by critics. One such skeptic was John William Gott (1866–1922), the last person in Britain to be sent to prison for blasphemy. In 1921, he was arrested and tried publicly at the Old Bailey. In response to his appeal, Lord Chief Justice Alfred Lawrence (1843-1936) wrote, “It does not require a person of strong religious feelings to be outraged by a description of Jesus Christ entering Jerusalem ‘like a circus clown on the back of two donkeys’.”

Eduard Schweizer (1913-2006) explains the purported discrepancy:

Taken literally, it speaks of a donkey and (the “and” appears only in the Septuagint) a colt (Genesis 49:11 likewise), but only because Hebrew writers often use hendiadys (cf. for example Psalms 2:1-5, 33:10-12; also Numbers 21:28; Deuteronomy 32:2; I Samuel 2:6-7; Isaiah 47:1). Matthew has thus made the Markan reference to the prophetic passage explicit and at the same time emphasized its literal fulfillment...Something similar has taken place in Matthew 27:34...and John 19:23-24. (Schewizer, The Good News according to Matthew, 404)

Many have seen the reference to Jesus riding both animals as Matthew misinterpreting Zechariah’s prophecy (Zechariah 9:9). John P. Meier (b. 1942) has even suggested that this is evidence that, contrary to tradition, the author of Matthew’s gospel is not Jewish.

Donald Senior (b. 1940) summarizes:

Meier...thinks this...shows that Matthew misunderstands the Hebrew parallelism of Zechariah 9:9 where the reference to a donkey and a colt is not to two animals, but to one. Meier contends that only someone unfamiliar with Hebrew poetic forms, and, therefore, not a Jew, would be this literal on such an insignificant detail. Therefore, Matthew was not a Jew who became a Christian but a Gentile Christian who became well versed in the Hebrew scriptures and things Jewish. (Senior, What Are They Saying About Matthew? A Revised & Expanded Edition, 16)

Others have explained the alleged discrepancy by comparing Matthew to Mark’s parallel account which notes that “no one yet has ever sat” on the animal (Mark 11:2 NASB), a detail not recorded in Matthew.

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) sees the two gospels as saying the same thing in different ways:

Matthew inserts ὄνον, “a donkey”, to correspond with ὄνον in his coming quotation of Zechariah 9:9 (Matthew 21:5) and to substitute for Mark’s clause “on which no man [literally ‘no one of men’] has ever sat.” As it turns out, this donkey was a mother and had been ridden. That her colt accompanied her eliminates any need to describe him as unbroken, for after being broken a colt would be taken from the mother. (Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 407)

Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) concurs:

Only Matthew mentions two animals. He is often accused of misinterpreting what in the Old Testament was intended to be synonymous parallelism. But irrespective of the correct reading of Zechariah 9:9, it would be natural for the mother to come along if her colt had never previously been ridden (Mark 11:2). Matthew 21:5 can easily be taken as implying that Jesus rode only on the young donkey, appropriate symbolism for his purity and holiness. (Blomberg, Matthew (New American Commentary), 312)

Bruce B. Barton (b. 1943) further defends:

Matthew highlighted the prophetic fulfillment by noting a second donkey, the colt’s mother. Jesus didn’t ride her, nor is she essential to the story. But she provides a detail of fact. Her calming presence also explains the handling of an unbroken colt. (Barton, Matthew (Life Application Bible Commentary), 406)

Robert H. Smith (1932-2006) sees the imagery as intentional:

Has Matthew misunderstood poetic parallelism? Hardly. Playfully, insistently he portrays Jesus as the pluperfect fulfillment of prophecy. And he pictures Jesus the way ancient oriental gods and kings are frequently depicted: enthroned above a pair of animals. He comes meek but royal nonetheless. (Smith, Matthew (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 61)

The disciples are instructed to take the animal and, if confronted, respond with a cryptic line befitting a cloak and dagger caper: “The Lord has need of them.” (Matthew 21:3 NASB). The implication is that this answer will be sufficient and there will no questions asked. Jesus’ word is sufficient.

The intended meaning of “the Lord” is replete with potential interpretations. Some have even viewed it as a codeword. Leon Morris (1914-2006) details:

“Lord” is patient of more than one meaning. It could mean the owner of the animals, but against this is the fact that, though Luke has the same expression at this point, a little later he says that the owners (“lords”) questioned the disciples when they came for the animal; there was more than one owner, and the owners were with the donkey, not where the donkey was to go. It could mean God, for the animal was to be used in God’s service, but it is not easy to see how those standing near the donkey could have understood this. Another possibility is that “Lord” means himself...if this is the way of it, we should notice that he says “the” Lord, not simply “our” Lord; it is the Lord of all that is in mind. This cannot be ruled out, but Jesus did not usually apply this word to himself. All in all it seems better to understand the words as a prearranged password. This means that Jesus had somehow made arrangement with the owners of the animals. None of the Evangelists gives any indication who the owners were or how the arrangement was made. But that it was made shows clearly that Jesus has had more dealing in and around Jerusalem tan Matthew has so far indicated. (Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 519-20)

John Proctor (b. 1952) adds:

The fetching of the donkey has the feel of a royal command, as of the king commandeers any animal he needs. But it much more likely reflects an agreement with a sympathetic local contact. Even so, there is a curiously cryptic feel to the matter—almost like something out of a spy novel—and it may be that Jesus was even now being careful and how and where he attracted attention. (Proctor, Matthew (Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer), 170)

As Jesus asks his followers to take property they do not own, the legality of Jesus’ request has been addressed. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) reflects:

The response testifies first of all to the man’s respect for Jesus: rulers (as Jesus is here) and officials could impress animals (Sallust [86-25 BCE], Jugurthine War. 75.4; Richard A. Burridge [b. 1955] 1994: 54); Jewish teachers (as the man presumably regards Jesus) could also borrow animals among those who respected the, (J. Duncan M. Derrett [b. 1922] 1971). (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 490)

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) reminds that a king may commandeer a donkey any time he pleases:

“And if anyone should say anything to you” is indefinite and ambiguous both as to possibility and content, and the succeeding verses will say nothing about anyone’s saying anything to the two disciples when they untie the animals. So the entire stress lies on Jesus’ telling the disciples to call him the animals’ “owner” in saying he needs them. “Owner” translates the word otherwise translated “Lord” and therefore alludes to Jesus’ lordship. As Lord, his ownership of the animals obliterates anyone else’s owning them and gives him the right to use them. Matthew includes nothing about Jesus’ returning the animals. So the stress stays on his divine ownership of them (contrast Mark 11:3). And their being sent to Jesus by the possible “anyone.” underlined with “immediately,” caps the stress on his owning them. (Gundry, Commentary on Matthew)

Jesus’ memorable procession into Jerusalem has historical precedent, many with similarities to Christ’s. Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) chronicles:

Jesus’ celebrated entry is one of as many as twelve similar entries, as recorded in I and II Maccabees and in Josephus [37-100]. These entries follow a more or less fixed pattern. Entries involving major figures include Alexander [356-323 BE], who enters Jerusalem, is greeted with ceremony, and is escorted into the city, where he participates in cultic activity (Antiquities 11.325-39); Apollonius, who enters Jerusalem accompanied by torches and shouts (II Maccabees 4:21-22); Judas Maccabeus, who returns home from a military victory and is greeted with hymns and “praising God” (I Maccabees 4:19-25; Josephus, Antiquities 12.312); Judas Maccabeus again, this time returning from battle and entering Jerusalem amidst singing and merrymaking, followed by sacrifice (I Maccabees 5:45-54; Antiquities 12.348-49); Jonathan, brother of Judas Maccabeus, who is greeted by the men of Askalon “with great pomp” (I Maccabees 10:86); Simon, brother of Judas Maccabeus, who enters Gaza, expels idolatrous inhabitants, cleanses idolatrous houses, and enters the city with “hymns and praise” (I Maccabees 13:43-48); Simon, brother of Judas Maccabeus, again, ths time entering Jerusalem, where he is met by crowds “with praise and palm branches, and with harps and cymbals and stringed instruments and with hymns and songs” (I Maccabees 13:49-41); Antigonus [382-301 BCE], who with pomp enters Jerusalem and then the temple precincts, but with so much pomp and self-importance he is criticized by some for imagining that he himself was “king” (Jewish Wars 1.73-74; Antiquities 13.304-6); Marcus Agrippa [64-12 BCE], who enters Jerusalem, is met by Herod, and is welcomed by the people with acclamations (Antiquities 16.12-15); and Archelaus, [23 BCE-18 CE] who, hoping to confirm his kingship, journeys to enters Jerusalem amidst acclamation and his procession (Antiquities 17.194-239). (Evans, Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 357-58)

In light of this history, for once Jesus does something that might be expected of the long awaited Messiah. And as usual, he will turn this expectation on its head. And one way he does this is with his ride of choice: the donkey.

Entering riding a donkey is unique and Jesus is undeniably intentional about its selection. D.A. Carson (b. 1946) comments:

The distinguishing feature of the synoptic accounts, as opposed to John 12, is that Jesus arranged for the ride. The applause and the crowds were not manipulated; they would have occurred in any case. But the ride on a colt, because it was planned, could only be an acted parable, a deliberate act of symbolic self-disclosure for those with eyes to see or, after the resurrection, with memories by which to remember and integrate the events of the preceding weeks and years. Secrecy was being lifted. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Matthew and Mark (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 493-94)

R.T. France (1938-2012) accedes:

Jesus’ ride was a matter of deliberate choice, and indeed probably of careful planning, rather than a matter of necessity. Among a crowd of pilgrims on foot the rider on the donkey intended to be noticed and expected his supporters to draw the appropriate conclusion. He can not have been surprised or displeased when they did. Such a deliberately provocative approach to the city is also consistent with the equally public and provocative action which Jesus was to take on his arrival in the temple area (Matthew 21:12-13). Among the Passover crowds coming into the city it would have been impossible for Jesus and his disciples to arrive without drawing attention to themselves, but Jesus has not come to slip quietly into Jerusalem. (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 774)

If riding this donkey was so important to Jesus, why does he not secure it himself? Why does Jesus choose to enter Jerusalem riding a donkey? What do you associate with this animal? What would you have named the donkey? When have you wanted to make a grand entrance? What is the best entrance you have ever witnessed? Who would you lend something valuable to, no questions asked? When have you gone to great lengths to create the proper ambiance for an event? Does Jesus stage anything elsewhere in his ministry? Why now? Why is this event so important? What message is he attempting to convey?

Larry Chouinard (b. 1948) surmises:

It is doubtful...that Jesus’ instructions for obtaining a donkey were simply to secure transportation for the final two miles of his journey. Rather, it appears that Jesus intends to deliberately stage the manner of his entrance into Jerusalem in terms of the prophetic expectations of Zechariah 9:9. Thereby, his entrance becomes a prophetic act which implicitly makes a Christological statement. The focus of the account is upon the Lord’s foreknowledge and sovereign awareness of his conformity to God’s will as expressed in Old Testament prophecies (Chouinard, Matthew (The College Press NIV Commentary), 366)

Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) agrees:

Matthew is conveying a theological truth here, and he risks the somewhat improbable picture of Jesus straddling two beasts in order to make his point: King Jesus’ humble entrance into Jerusalem was, in the deepest sense, a fulfillment of God’s intent to save humanity as declared in Scripture. (Long, Matthew (Westminster Bible Companion), 235)

A large factor in Jesus’ rationale for riding a donkey is its consistency with Zechariah 9:9. Douglas R.A. Hare (b. 1929) deciphers:

It may very well have been an “acted parable” in which Jesus consciously acted out the prophecy of Zechariah by riding into the holy city on a donkey. While it was customary for pilgrims to arrive by foot, his action would have seemed only slightly unusual to outsiders. According to John 12:16, not even the disciples perceived the event as the fulfillment of prophecy until after the resurrection... In Matthew’s account the underlying prophecy is not only explicitly quoted but is placed before the event to emphasize that Jesus actively fulfills the messianic prophecy. (Hare, Matthew (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 237-38)

Matthew stresses the prophetic association by inserting a fulfillment citation (Matthew 21:4-5); John’s gospel makes a similar reference (John 12:14-15). Matthew introduces the verse with the usual prefixed formula for Old Testament testimony. Though it captures the verse’s meaning well, the gospel’s rendering of Zechariah 9:9 is neither an exact match of the Hebrew or the Greek and it is conflated with introductory words from Isaiah 62:11.

Robert H. Mounce (b. 1921) acknowledges:

Matthew identifies this event as a fulfillment of a prophecy by Zechariah that Israel’s king will come gentle and riding on a donkey. The first line of the quotation (which Matthew says was spoken through the prophet, singular) comes from Isaiah 62:11 and the rest from Zechariah 9:9. Eduard Schweizer [1913-2006] says this is “constant with rabbinic hermeneutics, in which a passage containing the same word as another serves to interpret the latter”...Of interest is the omission from Zechariah of the descriptive phrase “righteous and having salvation.” It appears that Matthew was interested mainly in emphasizing the humility of the Messiah. (Mounce, Matthew New International Biblical Commentary)

Stuart K. Weber (b. 1945) provides an overview of Zechariah’s original context:

Zechariah 9 begins an oracle predicting the destruction of all Israel’s enemies and the ensuing peace in Jerusalem. All of Israel’s chariots, war horses, and battle instruments would be taken away (Zechariah 9:10), and Jerusalem’s king would enter peacefully, “righteous and having salvation” (Zechariah 9:9). The king would be gentle, since there was no longer any need for war, and he would arrive by the humble means of a donkey. (Weber, Matthew (Holman New Testament Commentary), 362)

Stanley D. Toussaint (b. 1928) analyzes:

Rather than use the first clauses of Zechariah 9:9, Matthew introduces the Zechariah passage with a phrase from Isaiah 62:11, “Say to the daughter of Zion.” The Zechariah passage actually has, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem.” But this would not fit into Matthew’s argument since Jerusalem failed to recognize its King. Jerusalem had to have its King pointed out; therefore the Evangelist substitutes the words of Isaiah to give the passage more meaning. “The substitution is interpretive.” (Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew, 238)

Brendan Byrne (b. 1939) concurs:

The text quoted from Zechariah 9:9 omits the epithets “triumphant and victorious is he,” so as to focus all attention on “humble” (Greek praus) and on the mode of transport. (Byrne, Lifting the Burden: Reading Matthew’s Gospel in the Church Today, 158)

This stress on humility is well represented in eastern iconogaphy which depicts Jesus riding the donkey side saddle, a style associated with a woman not a warrior (pictured).

R.T. France (1938-2012) asserts that the original audience would have gleaned Jesus’ meaning:

Even without an explicit quotation of that prophecy in the text, any Jewish reader of the story could hardly fail to be reminded of it and of the royal ideology which underlies it. Zechariah’s prophecy of a humble and peaceful king coming to Jerusalem “vindicated and saved” is based on the story of David’s return to the city after the defeat of Absalom’s rebellion, when he came in triumph as king, and yet humbly and in peace (II Samuel 19:1-20:22). When the Son of David chose to ride down to the city from the Mount of Olives on a donkey, the acted allusion was unmistakable...Zechariah’s prophecy pictures David retracing his outward route over the Mount of Olives (II Samuel 15:30) and riding on the donkey which has been provided for him in II Samuel 16:1-2. A donkey is a suitable mount for a king, but only for a king in time of peace. (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 773-74)

Stanley P. Saunders (b. 1953) sees many layers to Jesus’ insistence on the donkey:

This image is sometimes regarded as Matthew’s clumsy, literalistic misreading of the Hebrew parallelism in Zechariah 9:9. It is, rather, a deliberate literary device–the kind that works best in oral presentations. It signals: (a) Jesus’ royal, messianic identity as Son of David (the donkey is associated with coronations of kings, cf. I Kings 1:33-48); (b) Jesus’ identification with what is meek or humble (Matthew 21:5; cf. Matthew 5:5,11:29)...(c) Matthew’s identification of Jesus with Moses (Moses rides a donkey in Exodus 4:19-20; cf. Matthew 2:19-21); and (d) a strong affirmation of Jesus’ fulfillment of the messianic vision of Zechariah 9-14 (cf. Matthew 21:12-13, 26:15-16, 26:26-29, 26:30-35, 27:3-10, 27:51-53), where the messiah not only restores Israel and shatters her enemies, but brings peace to the nations and sets prisoners free (Zechariah 9:9-11). (Saunders, Preaching the Gospel of Matthew: Proclaiming God’s Presence, 208)

Riding the donkey sends the message not only that Jesus is a king but also conveys the type of king he is. Stanley Hauerwas (b. 1940) determines:

Jesus identifies himself as Lord, but one that will ride on ass, a creature not normally associated with what it means to be a king. Victors in battle do not tide into their capital cities on asses, but rather they ride on fearsome horses. But this king does not and will not triumph through force of arms. (Hauerwas, Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 181)

Jesus presents himself as a new type of conquering hero, a nonviolent one. George Martin (b. 1939) details:

Pilgrims normally entered Jerusalem on foot, but Jesus will ride into Jerusalem like the king in Zechariah’s prophecy to indicate that he is not a warrior messiah bent on establishing an earthly kingdom. Jesus is “meek and humble of heart” (Matthew 11:29), not a man of violence (Matthew 12:19-20); he forbids his disciples from following the way of violence (Matthew 5:38-39, 26:51-52). (Martin, Bringing the Gospel of Matthew To Life: Insight & Inspiration, 437)

Myron S. Augsburger (b. 1929) notes:

Jesus entered Jerusalem not on a white charger, but on a lowly beast of burden, not on a horse as a symbol of power, but on a colt of an ass as a symbol of humility. He is the peaceful King of the people of God, not a revolutionary with political interest (Isaiah 11:1-2). Note the care with which Matthew stresses identity: the identity of the location, the identity of a colt rather than a white charger, the identity with Old Testament prophecy (Matthew 21:4-5), the identity in the cry of the crowd (Psalm 118:26), and the identity as the prophet from Nazareth (Matthew 21:11). (Augsburger, Matthew (The Preacher’s Commentary), 227)

All together Jesus uses the donkey to make a grand statement. Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) asserts:

There are two closely related and yet contrasting points here. (1) In this story...Jesus, as it were, “comes out of the closet” and publicly acknowledges his Messiahship. (2) Yet by choosing a donkey for this “confession,” Jesus perfectly illustrates his modest Messiahship. Thus was have another text in which the two great truths about Jesus are illumined — what early theologians called the doctrine of the two natures (Jesus’ true identity and true humanity) or what modern exegesis calls the authority and lowliness of Jesus. (Bruner, The Churchbook: Matthew 13-28,353)

The donkey provides a striking image and serves to parody the expected regal processions. As usual, Jesus flips the script. Mike Graves and David M. May (b. 1958) conclude:

If we choose to retain the “Triumphal Entry” title, we must do so with the greatest sense of irony. This entry by Jesus into Jerusalem is unlike any other triumphant processional familiar to first-century people. If it is triumph, then we need to accept Matthew’s definition of triumph. It is not an imperial Roman grand propaganda parade heaping accolades on a king/warrior for the successful incorporation of another province into the empire that was Rome. It was a parade, certainly, but not that type of parade. The sad-eyed man riding into Jerusalem on a donkey that day was leading a funeral parade—his own. (Graves and May, Preaching Matthew: Interpretation and Proclamation , 76)

Warren Carter (b. 1955) adds:

Jesus’ meekness consisting of compassion and service challenges such a power structure. His act of entering the city employs some features of the entrance processions and triumphs in order to contrast or reframe them, to parody them with a very different vision of human interaction. Jesus rides a donkey, not an intimidating warhorse representative of strategies to dominate and exploit, an everyday common beast and one that was often a symbol used by Gentiles to deride and scorn Jews (Josephus [37-100], Contra Apion 2.80-88, 112-20; Tacitus [56-117], Histories 5.3-4). He is not welcomed by the city’s leadership with escort speeches, only by his followers. And he is a very different sort of king, meek not triumphant, a compassionate servant not a powerful imperial official. (Carter, Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations, 129)

Most Christians would prefer the Jesus who rides in on a white horse as seen in the Bible’s final book (Revelation 19:11). But Jesus enters Jerusalem as the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), not to abolish Rome. And he conveys this sentiment through his ride. In this way, Jesus’ donkey speaks more than Balaam’s famed talking donkey without ever saying a word (Numbers 22:28).

If you had to make a grand entrance on a major thoroughfare and had any vehicle at your disposal, what transportation would you choose? How would Jesus enter Jerusalem in our time? Did the original audience grasp Jesus’ intent? Do we?

“There were only a few shepherds at the first Bethlehem. The ox and the donkey understood more of the first Christmas than the high priests in Jerusalem. And it is the same today.” - Thomas Merton (1913-1968)

Too Many Friends? (Proverbs 18:24)

Complete this Proverb: “There are friends who pretend to be friends, but there is a friend is a friend ________________________________.” Who sticks closer than a brother (Proverbs 18:24)

The term “friend” has a wide range of meanings, especially in the age of Facebook. One of the strongest Biblical affirmations of friendship occurs in the final verse of the eighteenth chapter of Proverbs (Proverbs 18:24).

A man of too many friends comes to ruin,
But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother. (Proverbs 18:24 NASB)

Here, the sage breaks from offering advise and instead simply calls ’em like he sees ’em. Richard J. Clifford (b. 1934) observes:

Like many observations, this verse simply records a fact—many friends (plural) are quite happy to socialize. How different is their company from the love of a friend (singular) who does not walk away in adversity. (Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 174)

The verse serves as a fitting conclusion to Proverbs’ eighteenth chapter. Robert Alter (b. 1935) analyzes:

Although the chapter divisions are not original to the text, the textual unit from Proverbs 18:1 to Proverbs 18:24 is neatly marked by an antithetical inclusio: in the first verse, we see someone who is isolated or separated from others, focusing on his own desire, and who consequently gets into trouble; this last verse affirms the sustaining power of friendship. (Alter, The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes: A Translation with Commentary, 273)

While the second clause of the proverb is easily understood and consistently translated, the first is highly problematic as evidenced by surveying commentators who provided their own translations of the text:

• Robert Alter (b. 1935): There is a companionable man to keep company with
• Richard J. Clifford (b. 1934): There are friends who spend time with you
• Michael V. Fox (b. 1940): There are companions for socializing with
• Duane A. Garrett (b. 1953): A man of many companions may come to ruin
• Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954): To friends, a person must show oneself to be friendly
• Tremper Longman III (b. 1952): There are friends who want to associate
• Roland E. Murphy (1917-2002): Friends—for one to associate with
• Allen P. Ross (b. 1943): A man of many companions may come to ruin
• Daniel J. Treier (b. 1972) : Some friends play at friendship
• Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930): A person who has unreliable companions is about to be broken

Christine R. Yoder (b. 1968) explains the reason for the discrepancies:

The first line is obscure. Following a few ancient versions, NRSV interprets the first words (’îš, “person” or “man”) as a particle of existence (yēš, “there are”; but cf. NIV, NASB). Confusion between the two terms occurs elsewhere (e.g. II Samuel 14:19; Micah 6:10) and the emendation affords a good parallel with the second line—the first word of which is yēš. A second concern is lěhitrō‘ēa‘, which NRSV interprets as from the Hebrew root meaning “to associate with” (rā‘â) but which may be from the root “to be beaten up” or “shattered” (rā‘a‘, Isaiah 24:19; e.g. NIV, NASB). The proverb apparently distinguishes between many (plural) who appear to be friends—and possibly do harm—and the one who, even more than family members, “clings to” a person through thick and thin (e.g., Proverbs 17:17, 19:4, 25:19; Wisdom of Sirach 6:10). (Yoder, Proverbs (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), 201)

Some translations (KJV, NKJV) interpret that the proverb’s first cola is advising as did Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), “The only way to have a friend is to be one.” This reading is consistent with the Greek, Syriac, Targum and Vulgate translations.

Others believe that the verse is setting up a dichotomy between casual friends and true friends. David Atkinson (b. 1943) guesses:

This probably means that there are different sorts of ‘friendship’. There is the sort of nominal friendship found among those who seek others’ company only in order to exploit it for themselves (‘a man of many companions’); such ‘friends’ bring only disaster. A true friend is there when needed, will stand by you when things are really hard, and can be relied on even more, sometimes, than one’s relatives. (Atkinson, The Message of Proverbs (Bible Speaks Today), 108)

It is equally possible that the expression intends to describe those who feign friendship (NRSV, RSV). Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) explicates:

Another understanding of the hitpael of r‘h II is “to pretend to be friends”...If so, the contrast between the two cola would be between false friends and true friends rather than between casual acquaintances and true friends. Other versions (REB, NAB, NJB) repoint the verb as a form of r‘‘ (“to be bad, harmful”). Here the contrast is between people who harm and people who help. (Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 353)

Translations commonly assert that having too many nominal or false friends can actually lead to destruction (ASV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NLT). From this perspective, the verse reads like modern quip, “With friends like these...”

The underlying assumption of this reading is that true friends are essential to survival. Daniel J. Treier (b. 1972) asserts:

Help is necessary at times for everyone, and God graciously meets this need through family, friends, and neighbors. However, some are truer friends than others: “Some friends play at friendship / but a true friend sticks closer than one’s nearest kin” (Proverbs 18:24). Given the strong dependence on family in the context from which this proverb stems, it contains a remarkable affirmation of friendship! (Treier, Proverbs & Ecclesiastes (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 81)

Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) note:

Rashi [1040-1105] adds that the reason that one should be friendly to others is that when friends are needed, they will be available. At such a time, friends may be even closer than family. (Kravitz and Olitsky, Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs, 185)

One of the problems with the first cola is that all of the interpretations can be construed as truisms.

While first half of Proverbs 18:24 is difficult to translate, it is clear that it is antithetical to the second. Dave L. Bland (b. 1953) deduces:

Regardless of the decision one makes in translating the first line, there is an obvious contrast between the first and second lines. In the first line, companions is plural. In the second line, friend (אהב, (’ōheb ; “he who loves”) is singular. The contrast is between casual friends on the one hand and a close friend on the other; it is the contrast between the appearance of friendship and real friendship. The friend who sticks (דבק, dābaq) closer than a brother reminds one of the story of Ruth, who clings dābaq to Naomi [Ruth 1:14]. The friend/neighbor took on new meaning for the Jews during the postexilic period when the clan (extended families with a common ancestor) no longer lived in close proximity. A neighbor became more important than even a brother for the sake of support and moral development of community. (Bland, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of songs (The College Press NIV Commentary), 172-73)

The proverb invites the question, just what constitutes a true friend? The Hebrew vocabulary provides little help as the term “friend” is layered with as many nuances as its English counterpart.

Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) examines:

Rēa‘ is glossed “neighbor,” “another,” or “companion” when it refers to a neutral or somewhat negative relationship and by “friend” when it refers to a positive relationship (Proverbs 17:17, 22:11, 27:9-10, 14 [?]). In Proverbs 17:17, 22:11 “the friend” is qualified by ’ōhēb, (“a lover [i.e., a true friend]”). The absolute plural found here is used four other times: of superficial sexual partners (Jeremiah 3:1) versus true ones (Song of Solomon 5:1), of companions attracted to wealth (Proverbs 19:4), and of falsely denounced neighbors (Job 17:5). Here also companions (i.e., partners who fail to come through in adversity) are in view. (1) With them one is on the verge of being shattered. (2) They are contrasted with the ’ōhēb (the singular true friend; cf. Proverbs 17:17, 22:11). (3) The rē‘îm rabb´îm of Proverbs 19:4, 6, who also belong to this unit, are also pseudo, for they rally to the rich and abandon the poor. (4) This interpretation admirably suits the next unit warning against the folly of hastening after money. The person who has these fair-weather friends is a rich person according to Proverbs 19:6, linking Proverbs 18:24 to Proverbs 18:23...One who sticks (dābēq) mixes both an essentially psychological stative notion of clinging with the activity of adhering tightly to someone or something (cf. Deuteronomy 4:4), so closely that even death could not separate them (Ruth 1:14-17). The comparative closer than a brother...uses the blood relative as a basis of comparison for sticking to someone through thick and thin but which the subject has to an even greater degree (see Proverbs 17:17). Economic survival was precarious in ancient Israel, and one needed the “insurance” of a true friend. One also needed such a friend in court. The similar proverb in Proverbs 17:17 shares with this proverb three keywords, “friend” (’ōhēb and rēa‘) and brother (’āh). A friend more loyal than a brother is needed because even a brother inwardly “hates” a poor relative (Proverbs 19:7). The friend in view is a wise person who belongs to the community of the faithful and/or possibly God. The significance of friends is found in their quality, not quantity. Thus, the proverb implicitly warns the disciple against pursing wealth and having pseudo-friends, or of belonging to their company, but exhorts him to pursue wisdom and pick his friends among the wise (cf. Proverbs 12:26, 13:20, 22:24, 28:7, 29:3). (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 15-31 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 96-97)

According to this proverb, the status of a friendship is determined during hardship. Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) notes:

A true friend is contrasted with a less constant companion, the sort one spends time with socially but cannot expect more of. Though the latter is not necessarily “superficial” or “untrustworthy” (Crawford H. Toy [1836-1919]), he is not as close and reliable as the true friend, here designated ’oheb, literally “one who loves.” The words ’oheb “friend” and rea‘ “companion” or “friend” do not in themselves distinguish the degree of fidelity. An ’oheb my be opportunistic (Proverbs 14:20), and a rea‘ may “love at all times” (Proverbs 17:17). The implication of higher fidelity comes from the distinction between socializing” and “cleaving closer than a brother.” (Fox, Proverbs 10-31 (Anchor Bible Commentaries), 646-47)

The proof is in the pudding: true friendship reveals itself during adversity. Will a person assert that a friend in need is a friend indeed or that a friend in need is a pest?

Josh McDowell (b. 1939) and Ed Stewart (b. 1940) philosophize:

Friendships are as different as flowers. Some are beautiful yet delicate, needing special care. Others grow anywhere in practically any conditions, even in the blistering desert. And you find out quickly which ones wilt when the temperature starts to rise. (McDowell and Stewart, One Year Book of Josh McDowell's Youth Devotions 2, 263)

Charles Stanley (b. 1932) applies:

Casual, shallow friendships crumble in a crisis. People you thought were your friends tend to disappear in times of persecution, criticism or trouble. “Ruin” in this verse means to be shaken so badly that you fall to pieces. Casual friends do nothing to help you keep yourself together emotionally and spiritually in times of severe loss, rejection, or sickness. Casual friendships have no bonds of strength or tenacity. (Stanley, Walking Wisely: Real Guidance for Life’s Journey, 163)

Allen P. Ross (b. 1943) summarizes:

It is better to have one good, faithful friend than numerous unreliable ones. The first line of the contrast...is difficult...The idea may be that there are friends to one’s undoing...If a person has friends who are unreliable, he may still come to ruin, especially if these nominal friends use him. The second line is clearer: “there is a friend...who sticks closer than a brother.” This is indeed a rare treasure! (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Proverbs-Isaiah (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 166)

Who a person associates with is a matter of extreme importance. Not all “friends” are good friends as true friends are rare. The proverb tacitly advises to be discerning and to appreciate a true friend wherever she is found.

How would you restate this proverb? In Proverbs 18:24, is the sage trying to get the reader to take action? Can you have too many friends? Have companions ever contributed to your downfall? Who have you incorrectly labeled “friend”? How many true friends do you have who stick as close as family? Are you this type of friend? Who is your best friend?

Many may not feel as though they have the type of friend that is depicted in Proverbs 18:24. Countless devotional writers have reminded that Jesus is the embodiment of this verse.

Robert J. Morgan (b. 1952) exemplifies:

The second part of Proverbs 18:24 describes an ultimate Friend for each of us, a Friend who is closer than a brother, a Friend who is truly interested in us with no thought of what’s in it for Him. Somewhere there’s someone who cares about us more than anyone else. There is someone who sees us and quietly interprets every line on our faces, every care in our hearts, every tear in our eyes...In the Upper Room, Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. You are my friends...I have called you friends (John 15:13-15)...You have a Friend Who Sticks Closer Than a Brother and He’s as near right now as He was to those twelve disciples. (Morgan, He Shall Be Called: 150 Names of Jesus and What They Mean to You, 250-51)

Have you accepted Jesus’ friendship? How is the friendship of Jesus different from other relationships you have?

“A friend is one who walks in when others walk out.” - Walter Winchell (1897-1972)

Family Business (Philemon 1:2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carolyn Osiek (b. 1940) surveys:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David E. Garland (b. 1947) construes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert McLachlan Wilson (1916-2010) supplements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David W. Pao (b. 1966) notes:

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

Sandra Hack Polaski (b. 1964) concurs:

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

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

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

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

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

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) asserts:

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) argues:

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

Richard B. Hays (b. 1948) cites:

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

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

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

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

Leaping Tall Buildings (Psalm 18:29)

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

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

Richard J. Clifford (b. 1934) introduces:

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

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

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

William L. Holladay (b. 1926) adds:

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

Derek Kidner (1913-2008) defends Davidic authorship:

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

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

Samuel Terrien (1911-2002) informs:

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

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

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

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

James Limburg (b. 1935) contextualizes:

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

Peter C. Craigie (1938-1985) supplements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colin J. Humphreys (b. 1941) infers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Konrad Schaefer (b 1951) compiles:

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

William P. Brown (b. 1958) concurs:

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

Allen P. Ross (b. 1943) analyzes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James H. Waltner (1931-2007) summarizes:

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

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

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

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

Robert Davidson (1927-2012) connects:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William R. Taylor (1882-1951) generalizes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Megan Bishop Moore (b. 1972) adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) explains:

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

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

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) interprets:

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

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

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

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

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

David E. Garland (b. 1947) concurs:

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

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

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) charges:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) summarizes:

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

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

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

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

Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) applies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig B. Polenz (b. 1948) concurs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) elucidates:

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

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

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

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

Richard Nelson (b. 1945) reveals:

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

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

David L. Jeffrey (b. 1941) traces:

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

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

John W. Olley (b. 1938) describes:

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

Gary Inrig (b. 1943) adds:

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

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

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

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