Singing Jehoshaphat (II Chronicles 20:21)

Whose army went into battle singing? Judah’s, under King Jehoshaphat (II Chronicles 20:21)

King Jehoshaphat becomes the fourth king of Judah when he succeeds his father Asa (I Kings 15:23-24; II Chronicles 17:1). He reigns for twenty-five years (I Kings 22:42; II Chronicles 20:31) and is remembered as one of the few kings faithful to God, the Old Testament benchmark for royals (I Kings 22:43; II Chronicles 17:3-6).

Jehoshaphat is far more prominent in Chronicles, where he is featured in four chapters (II Chronicles 17:1-20:37), than Kings, which devotes only ten verses to his reign (I Kings 22:41-50).

Brian E. Kelly observes:

Jehoshaphat plays a much more extensive and important role in Chronicles than in Kings, where his reign is described only briefly (I Kings 22:41-50) and he is a secondary figure compared to Ahab (cf. I Kings 22:1-38; II Kings 3:4-27). (Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles, 98)

The last notable event of Jehosphat’s reign occurs when an eastern coalition forms primed to invade Judah. This assailing confederation is comprised of Moabites, Ammonites and Meunites (II Chronicles 20:1). Naturally alarmed in the face of daunting odds (II Chronicles 20:3), Jehoshaphat responds radically: He prays, declares a national fast and assembles his country (II Chronicles 20:3-13). Prayer is Jehoshaphat’s first, not last, resort.

After being encouraged by a prophecy assuring that Judah would attain victory without having to fight (II Chronicles 20:14-17), Jehoshaphat consults his constituents and the army marches to the would-be battlefield praising God (II Chronicles 20:18-21). The king implores the people, “Put your trust in the Lord your God and you will be established. Put your trust in His prophets and succeed” (II Chronicles 20:20 NASB).

Paul K. Hooker (b. 1953) interprets:

King and people assemble at Tekoa, east of Jerusalem in the Judahite highlands. As they assemble, Jehoshaphat gives them what in other situations might have been battle instructions. Here, however, we have...religious admonition: “Believe in the LORD your God and you will be established [II Chronicles 20:20].” One final time, the Chronicler returns to the theme of trust. The language here is reminiscent of Isaiah 7:9: “If you do not stand firm in faith, you shall not stand at all” (the verb translated “stand firm” in Isaiah is the same as that translated “be established” here). The link between faith and victory is explicit: Belief, not strength of arms, is the key to the deliverance of God. (Hooker, First and Second Chronicles (Westminster Bible Companion), 213)

Leslie Allen (b. 1935) concurs:

Jehoshaphat’s battle speech on the morrow places a premium on faith. It echoes the message of Isaiah in a similar context of military threat , a message rendered more effectively by its Hebrew wordplay: “Have firm faith, or you will not stand firm” (Isaiah 7:9 NEB). In expression of such faith orders are given for anticipatory praise to be sung afresh, as on the day before in the temple precincts. The praise looks forward to a manifestation of God’s “steadfast love” (RSV), promised “forever” (II Chronicles 20:21) and so for today. The praise here replaces the shout associated with Holy War (see Judges 7:20; II Chronicles 13:15). It accentuates the fact that the people’s part was not to fight but to be spectators of the divine defeat of the foe, in accord with the prophet’s promise (II Chronicles 20:15, 17). (Allen, 1, 2 Chronicles (Mastering the Old Testament), 308)

Jehoshaphat’s faith has blossomed. J.G. McConville (b. 1951) charts:

The Jehoshaphat of II Chronicles 20:20 is one who has come from his initial fear (II Chronicles 20:3) to a new confidence that God is for him. His exhortation to Judah, “Believe in the Lord your God and you will be established (II Chronicles 20:20), is similar to the prophet Isaiah’s appeal to Ahaz (Isaiah 7:9). The thought may be paraphrased. Trust in the Lord your God, and you will find him trustworthy. There is in the exhortation a call to commitment. The trustworthiness of the Lord cannot be known until one begins to make decisions on the basis of his promises, staking wealth and welfare on the outcome—just as it is impossible to know certainly that a chair will bear one’s weight without actually sitting on it. (McConville, I & II Chronicles (The Daily Study Bible Series), 195)

As David had done in preparing the ark of the covenant (I Chronicles 13:1), the monarch collaborates rather than dictates. Sara Japhet (b. 1934) comments:

The Chronicler’s familiar ‘democratizing’ tendency...with its constant reference to the active participation of the people...is epitomized, with the king actually taking counsel with the people in a matter of military tactics, or cultic activity, ordinarily defined as a kingly prerogative. After having been made his full partners in his initiative and responsibility, his subjects will deservedly share the reward of victory. (Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 797)

The people collectively resolve to praise God while entering battle.

When he [Jehoshaphat] had consulted with the people, he appointed those who sang to the Lord and those who praised Him in holy attire, as they went out before the army and said, “Give thanks to the Lord, for His lovingkindness is everlasting.” (II Chronicles 20:21 NASB)

Jehoshaphat appoints a choir to lead the nation onto the battlefield. Frederick J. Mabie (b. 1965) surmises:

The men appointed by Jehoshaphat to lead singing to God and praise for the “splendor of his holiness” (II Chronicles 20:21) are presumably Levites (on the musical service of Levites, cf. I Chronicles 6:31-48, 23:2-32, 25:1-7). Going to battle in song is found in several key battles of faith in the Old Testament and seems to underscore an especially intentional focus on God and his strength (cf. Joshua 6:1-21; II Chronicles 13:3-20). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b.1947], 1 Chronicles–Job (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 245)

Singing en route to battle is not entirely unique in the annals of the Old Testament (Joshua 6:4-20; Judges 7:18-20; II Chronicles 13:12; Psalm 47:5) and the story also has extra-biblical parallels. Kenneth C. Way (b. 1975) compares:

This account shares interesting similarities to the Old Aramaic memorial stela of Zakkur (The Context of Scripture 2.35:155), king of Hamath, who also faced a coalition of enemy nations, cried out to his god, and received a similar divine response by means of cultic personnel...The date of the events in II Chronicles 20 is difficult to determine, but an early setting in Jehoshaphat’s reign seems likely. References to the “terror of God” being upon Judah’s enemies and to Judah enjoying a period of peace both occur at the end of this episode and in a passage describing the early events of Jehoshaphat’s reign (II Chronicles 17:10, 20:29-30) (see Gary N. Knoppers [b. 1956] 1991, 518). Furthermore, the mention of the “new court” of the temple (II Chronicles 20:5) may hint that the repairs made by his father, Asa, were relatively recent II Chronicles 15:8]. (Bill T. Arnold [b. 1955] and H.G.M. Williamson [b. 1947], Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, 532-33)

In the midst of crisis, the nation sings the opening line to the 136th Psalm (II Chronicles 20:21; Psalm 136:1), a recurring refrain in Chronicles (I Chronicles 16:34; II Chronicles 5:13, 7:3, 20:21). Martin J. Selman (1947-2004) chronicles:

Both the form and content of this song of praise are based on the use of psalms in temple worship. The appointed ‘musicians’...were Levites (cf. I Chronicles 6:31-32, 25:1-31), their song was taken from Chronicles’ favorite psalm (Psalm 136:1; cf. I Chronicles 16:34; II Chronicles 5:13, 7:3) and the phrase the splendour of his holiness...is found elsewhere only in the Psalms (Psalm 29:2, 96:9; I Chronicles 16:29). The outstanding feature, however, is that as they began to sing and praise (II Chronicles 20:22), the Lord started the battle. There can be no clearer indication that this was neither an ordinary battle nor a traditional holy war, but Yahweh’s war in which he acted on his own. In that sense, it anticipates Jesus’ victory on the cross, though that was accompanied by silence rather than singing. (Selman, 2 Chronicles (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 428)

The battle becomes an opportunity for worship. Winfried Corduan (b. 1949) comments:

The same spirit of praise continued as Jehoshaphat and his army set out for the Judean desert the next morning. As the troops left Jerusalem, the king turned the military mission into a “singspiration.” He reassured everyone of God’s promise and appointed song leaders to lead the soldiers in praise choruses. Soon everyone joined in the familiar tune, Give thanks to the LORD, for his love endures forever. This anthem was associated with the occasions when David and then Solomon moved the ark of the covenant (I Chronicles 16:41; II Chronicles 5:13). God was on the march again! (Corduan, I & II Chronicles (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 277)

Steven S. Tuell (b. 1956) determines:

The advance of Jehoshaphat’s host is more a liturgical procession than a military maneuver. (Tuell, First and Second Chronicles (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 183)

Andrew E. Hill (b. 1952) agrees:

H.G.M. Williamson [b. 1947], almost humorously, has commented that the battle cry has been replaced by the Levitical chorale. The report of an army going into battle singing the praises of God is unique in the Bible, although music accompanies the appearance of the divine warrior when he executes judgment on the earth (Psalm 47, 96, 98). The event gives new meaning to the psalmist’s declaration that God’s “pleasure is not in the strength of the horse, not his delight in the legs of a man; the LORD delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love” (Psalm 147:10-11). (Hill, 1 and 2 Chronicles (The NIV Application Commentary), 491)

The nation of Judah praises God before victory has been secured. John C. Endres (b. 1946) remarks:

Levites arise to praise God with a very loud voice, which they are appointed to do, but here it seems premature, for the victory is still in the future. Jehoshaphat then rises and delivers a speech that sounds like a sermon. Believe God and you will be set firm (II Chronicles 20:20)...The Chronicler gives a theological commentary on this event: Jehoshaphat faces a test of faith, just as Ahaz faced a test of faith when Isaiah uttered the word to him. (Endres, First and Second Chronicles (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), 103)

Jehoshaphat passes the test. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) favorably contrasts Jehoshaphat with his father, Asa:

When attacked by King Baasha of Israel, Asa goes the alliance route, and as a result is chided by a prophet (II Chronicles 16:7-8). Asa’s sad story is one of a shift from trust in God to trust in human power, and the tragic consequences that befall...The opposite of Asa’s latter strategy is that of Jehoshaphat when he is attacked by a military coalition (II Chronicles 20:1-30). The text records absolutely no military response by Jehoshaphat and his soldiers. Instead, they engage in liturgical acts like singing and praying, and Yahweh defeats the enemy (“As they began to sing and praise, the Lord set to ambush against the Ammonites...so that they were routed” [II Chronicles 20:22]). Philip R. Davies [b. 1945] (1992: 45) captures well the scene here: “If your cause is just and you are faithful to your deity (and if that deity is YHWH), you will not need an army to protect you. Spend your defense budget on hymnbooks and musical training for your brass band! The only army you need is the Salvation Army.” (Hamilton, Handbook on the Historical Books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther , 492-93)

Jehoshaphat responds to the disastrous events with a sign of trust and his faith is rewarded. As the Lord had promised, Judah never even engages in battle. The tenuous alliance disbands as the opposition turns on one another (II Chronicles 20:22-25).

Andrew E. Hill (b. 1952) explains:

Whether God terrifies the coalition armies with the appearance of his heavenly army (as in II Samuel 5:24; II Kings 7:5-7) or sends a spirit of confusion and mistrust among the allies (as in Judges 7:22; II Kings 3:23) is unclear. What is clear is that God stirs the Transjordan armies into a spirit of frenzied self-destruction (II Chronicles 20:22-23). First, the armies of Moab and Ammon slaughter the soldiers from Seir, perhaps out of distrust (II Chronicles 20:23a). Then the Moabites and the Ammonites destroy each other so that no one escapes (II Chronicles 20:23b-24a). (Hill, 1 and 2 Chronicles (The NIV Application Commentary), 492)

Through some undisclosed mechanism God delivers Judah and the conflict is remembered as one of Jehoshaphat’s greatest triumphs.

Regardless of what had happened in the battle, in choosing to praise God, Jehosphapat has already scored a far more important victory: His faith has been demonstrated. What begins as an invasion story evolves into a classic story of faith.

Why does Jehoshaphat dismiss military strategy in favor of divine consultation? What leaders are you familiar with who have prayed publicly when facing a national crisis? What armies have gone into battle singing? Is there ever an inappropriate time to worship? Did the singing in any way trigger the discord between Judah’s adversaries? When have you not had to fight a seemingly inevitable battle? Do you truly believe that God is for you? When have you praised God before victory has been secured?

While most contemporary believers will not be surrounded by armies from multiple nations, Jehoshaphat sets a precedent. Worship is a proper response in the face of crisis and worshiping God can be done in the midst of catastrophe.

Neil T. Anderson (b. 1942) and Rich Miller (b. 1954) apply:

In response to the word of God, all the people worshiped God (II Chronicles 20:18). Worship became their battle plan to defeat the enemy. “And when he [Jehoshaphat] had consulted with the people, he appointed those who sang to the LORD and those who praised Him in holy attire, as they went out before the army and said, “Give thanks to the LORD, for His lovingkindness is everlasting.’ And when they began singing and praising, the LORD set ambushes against the sons of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, who had come against Judah so they were routed” (II Chronicles 20:21-22)...Worship brings to our minds the awareness of God’s presence and fear flees! When the first hint of fear or anxiety comes into your mind, worship God. (Anderson and Miller, Freedom from Fear: Overcoming Worry and Anxiety, 274)

Worship reminds us that we are never alone. This is especially beneficial at times when we feel abandoned. Creflo A. Dollar (b. 1962) advises:

When you are faced with a life-and-death crisis, the most important thing you can remind yourself is that God’s mercy endures forever. It will stir your faith. It will move to tap in to the power of praise. (Dollar, In the Presence of God: Find Answers to the Challenges of Life)

Worship makes us keenly aware of God’s presence. Anthony De Mello (1931-1987) connects:

When we praise God for his goodness and for the good things he has given to us and to others, our hearts become lightsome and joyous...There are few forms of prayer so effective for giving you the sense that you are loved by God, or for lifting depressed spirits and overcoming temptation. Psalm 8 says, “You have established praise to destroy the enemy and avenger [Psalm 8:2],” and it was the custom among the Jews to march out into battle singing praises to the Lord. This was considered a mighty weapon for defeating the foe. (De Mello, Contact with God, 116)

Though often neglected, praising God is a useful tactic when facing trials.

How do you respond to adversity? Do you turn toward God or away from God? Do you blame or praise? How do you enter into battle?

“This is not the time to panic, this is the time to praise!” - Cynthia A. Patterson (b. 1964), It Had to Happen: Understanding that Everything You Go Through in Life is for God’s Purpose

Living up to Barnabas (Acts 4:36)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) interprets:

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

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

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

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

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

Douglas A. Hume (b. 1969) informs:

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

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) comments:

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

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

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

John Phillips (b. 1927) embraces the ambiguity:

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

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

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

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

Bernd Kollmann (b. 1959) acknowledges:

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

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

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

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

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

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) reasons:

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

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

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

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) concludes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steven M. Sheeley [b. 1956] encapsulates:

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

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

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

C. Peter Wagner (b. 1930) agrees:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) connects:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alice L. Laffey (b. 1944) comments:

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

Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) observes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Nelson (b.1945) resolves:

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

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

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

Jerome T. Wash (b. 1942) elaborates:

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

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

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

Martin J. Mulder (1923-1994) critiques:

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

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

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

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) speculates:

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

Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) theologizes:

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

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

Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) applies:

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

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

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

Rod in the Box (Hebrews 9:4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) teaches:

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

David L. Allen (b. 1957) adds:

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

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

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

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

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

David A. deSilva (b. 1967) notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William L. Lane (1931-1999) relays:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gareth Lee Cockerill (b. 1944) condenses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Famous Last Words (Psalm 150:6)

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

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

Samuel Terrien (1911-2002) analyzes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hans-Joachim Kraus (1918-2000) explains:

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

Stanley L. Jaki (1924-2009) imagines:

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

The song ends with a doxology:

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

John Stott (1921-2011) lauds:

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

Robert L. Alden (1937-1996) observes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Konrad Schaefer (b. 1951) expounds:

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

James L. Mays (b. 1921) posits:

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

Donald Williams (b. 1937) clarifies:

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

William P. Brown (b. 1958) concurs:

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

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

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

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

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

John Eaton (b. 1927) agrees:

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

Craig C. Broyles (b. 1953) cautions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James L. Mays (b. 1921) ratiocinates:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Artur Weiser (1893-1978) explicates:

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

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

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

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

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

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