Bible Commentator

Matthew 6:7: Do Not Pray Like the Gentiles

Robert Alan King — Sat, 06 Feb 2021 14:46:36 +0000

And when you are praying, do not fluff up your requests like the Gentiles, for they think that they will be heard [and receive a favorable response] because of their many words. But do not be like them, for your Father knows what you have need of before you ask him. (Matt 6:7–8, my translation)

The exact meaning of this passage has been obscure and difficult, primarily because of the extremely rare Greek word I have translated here as “fluff up your requests,” with its origin and exact meaning still debated among scholars. Without going into detail about all that here, suffice it to say that the best understanding of the word in this literary and historical context is a reference to excessive coherent speaking as conveyed in the Latin Vulgate with the translation to multum loqui, which means “speak much.” Though the origin of the Greek word is probably related to the idea of stammering, it stresses here the excessive words rather than focusing on the fact that those words are repetitive ones. Thus, the Greek word does not refer to repetitive words as we find in some translations. The lexical idea is that these excessive words are just as unnecessary as those extra partial repetitive words of one who stutters.

Literary and Historical Context

For Jesus to just bring up a practice of how the Gentiles pray in relation to Jewish prayer at first seems quite odd, especially when we consider the fact that Gentiles generally pray to various other gods, and not to the true God. So, this remark from Jesus only makes sense if this Gentile practice was in fact already taking place in some relevant context among the Jews who do pray to the real God.

Our passage here flows from the text that precedes it where Jesus makes reference to how the hypocrites pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen of men (Matt 6:5–6). He has remarked elsewhere about the scribes who “love salutations in the marketplaces and chief seats in the synagogues,” and who also “for a pretence make long prayers” (Luke 20:46–47 ASV; also see Mark 12:38–40). Furthermore, he accuses the scribes of being hypocrites (Matt 23:13–15, 23, 25, 27, 29). The logical deduction here is that these hypocrites praying in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen of men would have offered long prayers there as well. It seems likely that the thought here now transitions to the idea that the hypocrites being discussed offer up “long prayers” not only to be seen of men, but because they also think that doing so will solicit a favorable response from God. In other words, by offering long prayers in the synagogues, the street corners of the marketplace, and elsewhere, they seek both the honor from men and the favor of God.

Therefore, Jesus is most likely bringing up the Gentile practice of prayer because it is relevant to the way that the Jewish hypocrites were also praying, using long prayers in the hope of gaining a favorable response from God. This interpretation is supported by a similar position conveyed in some early church documents such as a variable of “hypocrites” instead of “Gentiles” in the Greek Codex Vaticanus and the Syriac Curetonian Gospels. This correlation is also probably implied in the Didache, which reads, “Neither pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his Gospel, thus pray, Our Father, who is in heaven . . .” (Did. 8:2, my translation). So though Jesus tells his audience not to be like the Gentiles by praying this way, he is even more so saying to his audience don’t be like those hypocrites that are acting like the Gentiles.

A Prayer of Petition

Another important point about this passage is that it is not referring to praise or thanksgiving. It also does not refer to talking with God as we might a friend of a father. He enjoys talking and fellowshipping with us. It refers only to that type of prayer in which we make a request of God in the sense of asking him for something in the form of a petition or request. In other words, we should not make the mistake of thinking that God does not want to talk to us at length whenever we are willing. Jesus prayed to the Father constantly, setting forth an example for us, and Paul tells us to pray without ceasing (1 Thess 5:17).

Like the Gentiles

The inference here is that the Gentiles speak verbosely or excessively in prayer to the gods when making requests. The Gentiles felt they needed to approach their gods and deal with them like one might a king who has the power to provide them with what they want. R. M. Ogilvie has pointed out the following in regards to Roman prayer:

The first task was to secure the ear of the god [through invoking the right name(s) and the right place(s)]: The next was to convince the god that the request was a reasonable one and within his competence to fulfill. . . . Prayer does not presume a favorable result; it recognizes that divine goodwill is the first requirement and that this goodwill will not always be forthcoming. (Ogilvie, The Romans, 29–30).

Gentiles believed that the gods could be influenced and persuaded by the proper petition if they used the right words to present and make their case. As Gordon Laing remarks, “It is clear that the Romans bargained with their gods, flattered them, reasoned with them, made claims upon them, and on occasion even attempted to force them.” (Laing, “Roman Prayer,” 184). Generally, the Gentiles felt that they needed at times to add explanatory content, persuasive rhetoric, promises and offers, and/or flattery in order to receive a favorable response from their gods. In addition, Ogilvie notes:

the prayer itself had to be worded to cover every possibility. . . . Roman prayers were phrased like legal documents, with repetitions, accumulated synonyms and detailed particularizations . . . to make sure that no loophole should be left. (Ogilvie, The Romans, 34).

Because of all these Roman ideas about their relationship with the gods, many such pagan prayers of petition ended up being quite wordy in an effort to solicit a favorable response. Though there are some extant records of prayers that were short and precise, there are also many records of these longer types of prayers. The prayer below is from the poet Virgil’s (70–19 BC) epic poem, the Aeneid, placed in the mouth of a mythological king named Evander, who is asking for his son’s safe return from warfare as he bids him farewell:

But you, powers above, and you, Jupiter, mighty ruler of the gods, take pity I beg you on this Arcadian king, and hear a father’s prayer. If your will, and fate, keep my Pallas safe, if I live to see him and be together with him, I ask for life: I have the patience to endure any hardship. But if you threaten any unbearable disaster, Fortune, now, oh now, let me break the thread of cruel existence, while fear hangs in doubt, while hope’s uncertain of the future while you, beloved boy, my late and only joy, are held in my embrace, and let no evil news wound my ears. (Verg. Aen. 8.572–82)

Virgil also provides us with another prayer for someone’s safety:

Nymphs, Laurentine Nymphs, from whom is the generation of rivers, and thou, O father Tiber, with thine holy flood, receive Aeneas and deign to save him out of danger. What pool soever holds thy source, who pitiest our discomforts, from whatsoever soil thou dost spring excellent in beauty, ever shall my worship, ever my gifts frequent thee, the hornèd river lord of Hesperian waters. Ah, be thou only by me, and graciously confirm thy will. (Verg. Aen. 8.71–78)

Here is an example of a Gentile prayer from the Roman historian Livy (59 BC–AD 17) that has Scipio asking Jupiter for success in warfare:

O Jupiter, commanded by thy birds, I here laid the first foundation of the city on the Palatine hill. The Sabines are in possession of the citadel, purchased by fraud. From thence they are now advancing hither, sword in hand, having already passed the middle of the valley. But do thou, father of gods and men, keep back the enemy at least from hence, dispel the terror of the Romans, and stop their shameful flight. Here I solemnly vow to build a temple to thee as Jupiter Stator, as a monument to posterity, that this city was saved by thy immediate aid. (Livy 1.12.4–6)

Below is a prayer for blessing recorded by the Roman historian Cato (234–149 BC) that was offered during a purification rite:

Father Mars, I pray and beseech You, to be willing and propitious to me, to our household and to our family, for which I have ordered this [offering of a pig, sheep, and bull] to be driven around my grain fields, my land, and my estate, in order that You may prevent, repel, and avert, seen and unseen disease, deprivation, desolation, calamities, and intemperate weather; I pray You allow the fruits, the grain, the vines, and the bushes, to grow strong and well and be brought to the storage pit. May You also keep the shepherds and their flocks safe, and give good health and vigor to me, to the household, and to our family. To this end it is, as I have said – namely, for the purification and lustration of my estate, my land, and my grain fields, cultivated and uncultivated – that I pray You may be honored and strengthened by this [offering of a pig, sheep, and bull], these suckling sacrificial victims. O Father Mars, to this same end I pray that You bless these sucklings in sacrifice. (Cato Agr. 141)

There are many more such long, wordy Gentile prayers in the extant records, but the above should suffice as sufficient for an understanding on what Jesus is talking about.

A Proper Interpretation

There is a lot more going on in this passage than what we see on the surface. Though the primary focus is on the proper way to pray, there are some critical underlying insights. There is a contrast being stressed between the true God and the gods of the pagans, as well as the relationship between God and his people in distinction to the relationship of the Gentiles with their gods. The true God is omniscient and already knows what one needs, what one is going to request, and all the specifics about it. He also loves his people and stands ready to give one anything and everything that they need as long as it is according to his will. All one needs to do is ask in simplicity with this understanding.

Jesus is not telling us to avoid asking for anything specific, but rather telling us that we do not need to fluff up our prayers like the Gentiles do. There is no need to make requests of God with a lot of unnecessary verbiage like we might when pleading with a human being for something or entering into a legal agreement with another. Such manner of praying will not make our prayer more effective. No explanation, detailed particularization, persuasion, offer, promise, or flattery is necessary. In other words, the point of the passage is that our God already knows us, knows what we are going to ask for, cares about us, and responds favorably to us.

Repetitive Praying

The interpretation of some that this passage means that we are only supposed to pray one time for something is incorrect. Such a teaching would contradict other passages in the Bible and so this idea has been refuted even from earliest times by church fathers such as Augustine and Chrysostom. In fact, the Lord’s prayer that follows this passage under review here is a repetitive prayer in the sense that it was a model for daily prayer. Also Elijah, Jesus, and Paul all prayed the same or a similar prayer more than once: Jesus prayed three times to avoid the cross (Matt 26:44), Paul prayed three times to remove the thorn in his side (2 Cor 12:7), and Elijah prayed seven times for the return of rain (1 Kgs 18:42–43); also the biblical text may be inferring that Elijah prayed three times for a boy to be raised back to life (1 Kgs 17:21). Also see Luke 11:8–10 and Luke 18:7.

Final Thoughts

What does this passage teach us? It tells us that we do not need to pray like the Gentiles because our God and our relationship with our God are quite different than the pagan gods of the Gentiles and their relationship with their gods. Our God is omniscient and he wants to give us what we need, but we only need to ask. For this reason, we are to approach God during our requests with straight-forward simplicity. There is no need for explanatory content, detailed particularizations, persuasive rhetoric, promises and offers, and flattery in order to receive a favorable response. Our prayer can include praise and conversation to God as our friend and Father, but it should be sincere without ulterior motive, not as a means in which we think that doing so will incur more good will from God. God is our Father and our friend who already knows us, loves and cares about us, knows what we need, and wants to grant our request if it is according to his will.

Bibliography

Laing, Gordon J. “Roman Prayer and Its Relation to Ethics.” Classical Philology 6, no. 2 (1911): 180–96.

Ogilvie, R. M. The Romans and Their Gods in the Age of Augustus. New York: W.W. Norton. 1969.

***

The Tongues of Pentecost: Miraculous Hearing? Or a Gift of Languages?

Robert Alan King — Mon, 25 Jan 2021 05:10:55 +0000

There is a lot of confusion about tongues. The tongues that took place at Pentecost was a work by the Spirit in which those present in a crowd that had come from different parts of the known world heard the apostles speaking in different languages (Acts 2:1–16). There has been a long-going debate as to whether the apostles spoke an angelic language and the miracle included the understanding of an angelic language by the crowd, or if the miracle was simply the apostles speaking in foreign languages that they themselves had never learned.

Singular and Plural for Tongues

In the account of Pentecost the reference to tongues is always in the plural, which suggests that more than one language was being spoken. If one carefully examines Paul’s use of the singular and plural in regards to this spiritual phenomenon, he always uses the singular for tongue when referring to only one person actually speaking at a specific time, but uses the plural for multiple people speaking at the same time. However, when referring to it simply as a spiritual gift (rather than a reference to actually speaking tongues), even as a gift to only one person, he always uses the plural for tongues. Also, Paul makes a reference to the tongues of men and angels, possibly suggesting that sometimes known languages were spoken and at other times unknown languages (1 Cor 13:1). The gift of interpreting tongues in the Pauline passages would thus be a supernatural ability to understand the specific languages of men and angels during the manifestation of such tongues being spoken in the church (1 Cor 12:10, 30; 14:5, 13, 26–27).

Languages and Drunkenness

When trying to arrive at the proper interpretation of the tongues of Pentecost, we should not ignore the accusation by some that the apostles were drunk (Acts 2:13). There was enough people making such remarks, that Peter felt it was significant enough to defend themselves against the accusation. He responded to the allegation as if it were a reasonable deduction based on their behavior, choosing to defend his group by arguing that it was not the time of the day in which men would normally be drinking together (Acts 2:15).

So what was it about their behavior that led some people to believe that the apostles were drunk? We are told that the crowd gathered because of the sound, which infers that it was multiple people speaking (Acts 2:6). This probably means that the apostles were all prophesying loudly at the same time or immediately one after the other (also see Acts 10:46; 19:6). Certainly, if they all were speaking in different languages, then this might give rise to the accusation that they were drunk, for it is doubtful that any one man could have understood all those languages being spoken. Imagine hearing one person speaking in your language, but at the same time several others with them in a language you don’t understand. You also might think that the men were drunk.

Other Considerations

There are also other factors that support the position that the apostles simply spoke in a variety of foreign languages as given to them by the Spirit. For example, if this is true, then the tongues in Acts and Paul’s remarks about tongues seem to correlate well together. However, if this is not true, and it was a miraculous or angelic language at Pentecost, then this means that a miraculous element of understanding was given to all of the unsaved crowd during that manifestation of tongues. However, considering that the interpretation of tongues is a gift of the Spirit, it is contradictory and nonsensical to assume that those without the Spirit were granted that gift.

In addition, the amazement of the crowds at Pentecost was because the apostles were voicing other languages even though they were Galileans. In other words, they seem to accredit their hearing of such languages because the apostles were actually speaking those languages, not just that they were hearing it so (Acts 2:7–8).

Final Thoughts

I used to believe that the language spoken at Pentecost was a single miraculous or angelic language and that God performed a miraculous act of enabling all to understand what was being said in their own language. However, after careful study and review of the facts within the context of the passage coupled with the other accounts of tongues in Acts and Paul’s remarks about tongues elsewhere, I felt that I could no longer support that position. The most logical deduction is that they were actually speaking in the languages of those present by a miraculous manifestation of the Spirit that enabled the apostles to do this.

Interpretation of tongues is a gift of the Spirit, which means those unsaved people in the crowd during the Pentecost event could not have had the gift of interpretation and so could not have understood a miraculous or angelic language. So, the speaking in tongues of the apostles was speaking in different languages that were unknown to them but known to those who understood that language. The apostles were only understood by the specific people who had comprehensible knowledge of a particular language when it was spoken. Because the apostles spoke in a number of different languages, all of the people got to hear them in their own language, while everyone also heard other languages spoken that they did not understand. This is why we have both recognition of the miracle from some and accusations of drunkenness from others.

***

1 Timothy 3:2: Husband of One Wife? Or a Faithful Husband?

Robert Alan King — Wed, 30 Dec 2020 11:03:52 +0000

When I was in Bible College, there was a fellow student who was absolutely convinced that he could not be a pastor because he was divorced and remarried to another wife. He based his belief on 1 Tim 3:2, which reads, “The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife.” We find the same restriction for a deacon in 1 Tim 3:12, which reads, “Let deacons be husbands of one wife.” Again, in reference to an elder in Tit 1:6, it says, “if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife.” Many people see these verses as signifying that men who have been married more than once in their life are restricted from filling such ministerial roles. However, others interpret these verses as simply referring to a man who is faithful to his wife, thus restricting church leadership roles only to those men who are having sexual relationships outside of a marriage to only one wife.

The Greek Text

What these verses literally say in the Greek is that a man must be a “man of one woman.” The difficulty in interpretation is in determining exactly what Paul meant by this. However, when it comes to resolving the meaning of these verses, we must also take into consideration 1 Tim 5:9, which reads, “Let none be enrolled as a widow under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.” Here, it says in the Greek, a “woman of one man.” The Greek text with its translation for each of the four verses related to our discussions is found below:

μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα (1 Tim 3:2)

man of one woman

μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες (1 Tim 3:12)

men of one woman

μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ (Tit 1:6)

man of one woman

ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή (1 Tim 5:9)

woman of one man

Our verses about the man are in the present tense, stressing that being a “man of one woman” is a present situation in that man’s life. The verse about widows is in the perfect tense, which refers to a past condition with continual effect that is still true in the present of that woman’s life, which is because the husband is now dead. The most reasonable deduction here is that all four of these verses probably carry the same idea. Because of this, any correct interpretation of the meaning will most likely be the same for both church officials and widows.

Probable Exceptions

For those who believe that 1 Tim 3:2 and these other verses are referring to having only been married once, they must admit that there is still at least one exception here. It is quite nonsensical to deny that those who have been married more than once after a spouse has died are still bound by this rule. This is especially apparent because Paul himself tells the widow under 60 to remarry (1 Tim 5:9–15). Thus, if a 59-year-old widow remarries and her new husband dies several years later, it is nonsensical to suggest that Paul is now saying she can’t be a widow on the roster of the church. The reasonable conclusion here is that Paul cannot be talking about a widow having only been the wife of one husband under such conditions. The same must be inferred regarding the man who remarries if his first wife has died.

The second situation we must consider is when a spouse leaves while the one who is left has not done anything worthy of such behavior. If an unbeliever decides to divorce their believing spouse, Paul even tells the believer to let that unbelieving spouse go, assuring them that they are not under bondage in such cases (1 Cor 7:15). He also expects most people to marry (1 Cor 7:9) and instructs married couples not to deny each other sex lest they be tempted by the devil (1 Cor 7:5). Because of this, it is extremely difficult to argue that Paul is going to penalize a widow who has been left and divorced by a previous husband without cause because she then remarries. It is also difficult to insist that a man is going to be penalized from serving God when an unbelieving wife leaves him and he remarries.

Another important scenario to consider is divorce based on fornication or adultery. We must keep in mind that Jesus himself gave an escape clause for divorce if a woman commits fornication (Matt 5:32). Metaphorically, God even permanently divorced the northern kingdom of Israel because of adultery (Jer 3:8). In fact, when a woman committed adultery in Paul’s time, divorce was required both in Judaism and under Roman law.[1] Even Joseph, because he was a righteous man, was going to call off his espousal to Mary for what he assumed was unfaithfulness (Matt 1:19).[2] To suggest that a man who married another woman after his wife cheated on him would be prohibited by God from serving him is implausible in the historical context; it would be much more likely that a man who stayed married to an unfaithful wife would be the one restricted from doing so.

Most Probable Meaning

The meaning of 1 Tim 3:2 and these other related verses is related to the subject’s faithfulness to their spouse, not circumstances of life caused by the death, wrong actions, or immoral behavior of the spouse. In addition, the primary meaning here is in regards to the current wife for the man and that last husband for the widow. It is also most probable that this refers to their current life as a believer, not necessarily that life before they came to know Christ.

For the man trying to be a bishop or deacon, it simply means he must be faithful to one wife. This means that he does not have more than one wife or participate in other forms of sexual behavior outside of his marriage. This does not prohibit him from divorcing his wife and marrying another because of adultery. It also does not restrict him from marrying again if his wife abandons him or divorces him.

For the widow whose husband has died, it means that she must have been faithful to her dead husband. This means that she did not participate in other forms of sexual behavior outside of her marriage. Even if she has remarried after a previous husband unjustly divorced her, this does not prohibit her from being enrolled on the church roster for widows.

Final Thoughts

It is my belief that despite good intentions, some have turned 1 Tim 3:2 and these other passages into a strict restriction of only one lifelong marriage that distorts Paul’s true intention. It is very difficult to correlate such an idea with Paul’s other teachings about marriage, divorce, and sex. This requirement also dismisses the inferred consensus of tolerance for remarriage from Moses, Jesus and Paul. Such a position even ignores the exception clause for divorce given by Jesus himself and penalizes men for doing the same thing God did metaphorically with the northern kingdom of Israel and that Joseph was going to do with Mary. This position also ignores the historical context regarding marriage and divorce in both Judaism and Roman law.

There are some pastors today who do not remarry after their wife has divorced them because if they do so their denomination will then remove them from the ministry and/or withdraw their support. Those denominations who push this position unnecessarily subject these formerly married ministers to the temptation of sexual immorality (1 Cor 7:5). It is my hope and prayer that Christian leaders will open their eyes to the folly of such a position as they come to realize that 1 Tim 3:2 and the other related passages are not restricting a church leader to only one marriage without exception. I can attest with all confidence that the matter here is really just about being a faithful husband.

***

FOOTNOTES

[1] See Robert Alan King, Christian Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Context of Paul’s Teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:10–16, Scholarly Study of the Bible (Casa Grande, AZ: King & Associates, 2017).

[2] Those who believe his righteousness is in relation to him doing so silently are misunderstanding the historical context of the passage.

Luke 12:25: Can’t Increase One’s Height? or One’s Life?

Robert Alan King — Thu, 24 Dec 2020 10:52:43 +0000

It is still an ongoing debate as to whether or not Luke 12:25 refers to an inability of a person to add to their stature or to add to their life. The verse in its surrounding context reads as follows:

Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap, which have neither storehouse nor barn; and God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds? “And which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature? “If you then are not able to do the least, why are you anxious for the rest?” (Luke 12:24-26 NKJV; also see also see Matt 6:26-27)

Though the NKJV translates the Greek in Luke 12:25 as “one cubit to his stature,” most modern versions have incorrectly changed this to “a single hour to his life” or something similar in meaning. The Greek noun for “cubit” is πῆχυς, which refers to a form of measure that is equal to the length of the lower part of the arm, and the noun for “stature” is ἡλικία, which refers to a state of maturity in which bodily growth generally ceases. Though it can sometimes refer to age, it is technically a condition or state of maturity, not age in itself per se. For Luke, it is always related to height as an aspect of maturity: to be short in ἡλικία means to be short in stature (Luke 19:3), to add a cubit to ἡλικία, means to increase the height of one’s stature (Luke 12:25), and to advance in ἡλικία, means to increase in stature (Luke 2:52) [though here the point is that he grew to maturity].

Though a Greek word related to measure can sometimes be related to one’s lifespan (see Ps 39:5), it is highly unlikely that πῆχυς (“cubit”) with ἡλικία (“stature”) is meant to mean a period of time related to one’s life. The principal reason many modern translators have rejected the more probable English translation of “one cubit to his stature” is because they find it awkward in the context. Nevertheless, the other position that it refers to adding time to one’s life is even more problematic in the sense that it simply does not fit the context when it is closely examined in the light of the primary point Jesus is trying to make.

Not Able or Not Allowed?

Most of those who take the position that the statement of Jesus in Luke 12:25 refers to adding time to one’s life interpret this in the sense that we have an exact moment appointed by God to die. This means that man would in fact be able to add time to his life by his own actions if God had not determined an appointed time for him to die. In other words, to loosely paraphrase the idea of such a statement, “You cannot even add one moment to your life because I have set your time of death and thus will not allow you to do so.” When this is thought out to its logical conclusion, it simply does not fit within the context of the passage. Jesus is stressing something man is “not able” to do by his own efforts because of his own innate inability, not something he cannot do because God himself is stopping him from doing so. Luke 12:25 is related to man’s inability in himself, not his inability because of what would be a struggle against God’s will.

Since the whole idea of extending one’s life would really mean going against God’s will in a manner that is absolutely impossible, this cannot then in any way be accurately described in that context as something that is the “least.” The only way such an idea of extended life could fit in this context is if it was something in which God himself did not prevent, but then the statement about not being able to extend one’s life by one’s own efforts before death would definitely be false, not true. In other words, such an idea of extended life against God’s determined time distorts the point that Jesus is trying to make regarding man’s own inability to do something while acting within the freedom of his own innate ability. Taking all this into consideration, the context suggests that the idea is that man cannot even add a cubit of height to his own state of growth. Though some find this concept awkward in the context, this is because they are failing to see the association between stature and one’s bodily needs from the perspective of Jesus.

Meaning of Luke 12:25

Growth to maturity is a simple natural process that doesn’t require any anxious effort on man’s part, while striving to provide food and clothing can be a perpetual task of effort and anxiety for the rest of one’s life. As one matures from an infant to an adult, one reaches their maximum height usually in the mid to late teens. Though the majority of height is determined by genetics, environmental conditions such as nutrition and diet during growth can increase one’s height by several inches more than what would normally be expected. Jesus here makes the remark in Luke 12:25 that they cannot increase their height by a cubit (the length of one’s lower arm). This is why Jesus says, “If you then are not able to do the least,” for increasing the height by several cubits is something that God easily brings about in almost everyone’s growth toward maturity by a natural biological process, but man himself cannot add to this in any significant way. Since we can only increase our stature a few inches by our own efforts, and that only through diet and nutrition during that specific period of growth toward maturity, this statement by Jesus in Luke 12:25 is not only scientifically correct, but it makes reasonable sense in the context.

To loosely paraphrase the primary idea in this passage, “If you are not even able do this lesser thing of increasing the height of your own growth by even a cubit, why are you anxious about what is still necessary to ensure your continued survival and health such as food, drink and clothing. Since God is the one who has enabled you to grow to maturity in the first place, then you should also rely upon him for these other things you now still need to sustain and care for yourselves.” The point is that it is God that has designed and enabled the growth of our body to adulthood, so we should now without anxiety also trust and rely on him to provide those remaining things that we need to sustain the health and life of that body for all the years of our life.

Final Thoughts

God created us, enabled us to grow, cared for us as we matured, and will now continue to provide for us. He provides for all of his creation so certainly he will do so for us. There is no reason to be anxious because God will meet our needs if we simply seek the kingdom of God first. God will provide us with food, water, and clothing just like he does the rest of nature.

***

The Serpent and Satan in Biblical Thought

Robert Alan King — Sun, 20 Dec 2020 06:59:05 +0000

It may come as a shock to many Christians that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was not always associated with Satan in Jewish thought. The association of the serpent with Satan was slow in coming and not found in the Old Testament at all. Instead, it was a progressive revelation that only became solidified in the New Testament. This article will explore the ideas of the serpent and Satan in early Jewish thought, and then show how the association between the two was finally acknowledged and taught by Jesus and his disciples.

The Serpent in the Old Testament

In the Old Testament, the serpent is simply portrayed as a talking animal. Adam and Eve probably did not understand who the serpent was themselves since they did not even have a grasp of good and evil when this took place. The way it is told in Genesis may very well be from the perspective of Adam and Eve describing how they experienced it.

In fact, the first century Jewish historian Josephus, writing after the time of Jesus, still seems to believe that the serpent was one of the many animals God created. He writes:

But while all the living creatures had one language, {e} at that time, the serpent, which then lived together with Adam and his wife, showed an envious disposition, at his supposition of their living happily, and in obedience to the commands of God; and, imagining that, when they disobeyed them, they would fall into calamities, he persuaded the woman, out of a malicious intention, to taste of the tree of knowledge, telling them, that in that tree was the knowledge of good and evil; which knowledge, when they should obtain, they would lead a happy life; nay, a life not inferior to that of a god: by which means he overcame the woman, and persuaded her to despise the command of God. . . . He also deprived the serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition toward Adam. Besides this, he inserted poison under his tongue, and made him an enemy to men; and suggested to them that they should direct their strokes against his head, that being the place wherein lay his mischievous designs toward men, and it being easiest to take vengeance on him that way: and when he had deprived him of the use of his feet, he made him to go rolling all along, and dragging himself upon the ground. (Josephus, A.J. 1:41-43, 150)

The first century Jewish philosopher Philo did not take the story of the talking serpent literally, but instead saw it as portraying allegorical truths (De opificio mundi 1:156-57ff.). Though the work Quaestiones in Genesim by Philo associates the serpent with the devil (Quaestiones in Genesim 136), this statement was probably not written by Philo, but a later copyist, for it contradicts his many other references to the serpent as metaphorical, and he never mentions the devil anywhere else at all in his writings. There is no indication in the Old Testament that the serpent was associated with Satan or the devil. There may be some vague references to the serpent (Job 41:34; Ps 74:14; Isa 27:1), but even so, these do not clearly associate him with Satan. The first clear legitimate reference to an identification of Satan, the devil, with the serpent in Jewish literature is probably found in the apocrypha, which reads, “But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are allied with him experience it” (Wis 2:24 NAB). This may have been originally written as early as the middle of the first century B.C., about 50 years or so before the coming of Jesus. However, a document from the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q543, ms B), probably originally written in the second century B.C. at the latest, may be associating the serpent from the Garden of Eden with the devil.

Satan in the Old Testament

The name “Satan” is satan in the Hebrew and Satanas in the Greek, meaning an adversary or enemy who opposes or resists. What many might find surprising is that Satan is never portrayed in the Old Testament as a deceiver and a liar, but the adversary and accuser. He is mentioned only in Job and Zechariah (Job 1:6-12; 1:1-7; Zech 3:1-2); the reference to Satan in 1 Chron 21:1 should really be understood as an adversary or enemy that stood up against Israel in warfare, which was the reason David decided to number his people. In other words, there is no indication that the ancient Jews of the Old Testament associated the serpent with Satan.

Satan in the New Testament

When we get to the New Testament, however, all of this changes. Satan is also called “the devil” in the New Testament based on the Greek word διάβολος, which means one who slanderers or makes false accusations. In addition, he is also now called “the evil one.” Some have incorrectly asserted that there is still not an association between the serpent and Satan in the New Testament, but they are incorrect. The New Testament clearly teaches a much more broad idea about Satan, for though he is still an adversary and accuser (1 Tim 5:14-15; Rev 12:10), he is also an oppressor, a tempter, a liar, and a deceiver of the world who spreads evil in spiritual warfare against God and his people in whatever ways he can. It is through this broader understanding about Satan that his correlation with the serpent begins to emerge.

The earliest reference to Satan we find in the New Testament is when he tempts Jesus in a similar manner as the serpent did with Eve (Matt 4:1-10; also see Mark 1:13; Luke 4:1-13). In Matthew’s account of this event, we find the titles “tempter,” “devil,” and Satan being used interchangeably. In addition, Jesus later rebukes Peter, calling him Satan, because Peter was speaking as a tempter by telling Jesus he did not have to die and sacrifice himself (Matt 16:22-23; Mark 8:32-33). In the Lord’s prayer, Jesus may also be attributing temptation to Satan as the evil one (Matt 6:13). Satan can even tempt Christians to lie and to commit sexual immorality (Acts 5:3; 1 Cor 7:5).

However, Satan is not just a tempter trying to spread evil in the New Testament, but also a liar and a deceiver who wants to pervert the truth and to keep all of mankind away from God (see Matt 13:19 Mark 4:15; Luke 8:12; Acts 13:10; 2 Cor 11:13-14; 2 Thess 2:9). John even calls him, “the deceiver of the whole world” (Rev 12:9). Jesus says:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. (John 8:44 ASV)

The accusation of being a murderer is probably in reference to bringing death upon all of mankind because of his lies and deception when speaking through the serpent in the Garden of Eden (also cf. 1 John 3:8). John is inferring here that Jesus believed Satan, the devil, and the serpent in the Garden were the same entity.

The Serpent in the New Testament

In the New Testament, Satan has now taken on all the attributes of the serpent and he is now finally correctly associated with the serpent. Not only did John vaguely infer such in the passage up above in which Jesus calls him a “murderer,” but makes this very clear in the following passages:

And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him. (Rev 12:9 ASV)

And he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, (Rev 20:2 ASV)

These passages not only associate Satan with the serpent, but the devil as well. It is quite clear here that John believes that the dragon, the old serpent, the devil, and Satan are one and the same. However, it is not only John that has made that association, but Paul as well. He declares, “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” (Rom 16:20 ASV). This is almost certainly referring to God’s curse upon the serpent when he said, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15 ASV).* This passage contains a veiled prophecy about how Jesus as the seed of the woman would destroy the serpent and the effects of what the serpent had done by Jesus’ work on the cross, though this would not have been understood in the early days of mankind. Whether Satan spoke to Eve through the serpent or was transformed into a serpent for his evil deed is not explained, but it is definitely taken as a real historical event in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Progressive Revelation

God’s revelation was often progressive in which he wanted mankind to learn one foundational truth before they learned another, allowing them to then build on the primary truth. In this way, our insight into the things of God is founded upon a firm and logical foundation. For example, God wanted us to first learn that he was only one being, firmly establishing this in the psyche of mankind before clearly revealing the secondary truth that he has three centers of consciousness (whom we call “persons”). When it comes to the serpent, the foundational idea is the disaster that follows when one chooses to listen to someone else rather than God. Eve listened to the serpent and Adam listened to Eve. In the progression of time, God provided further revelation that the serpent and Satan the accuser were not two beings, but rather one being working against God and mankind. He is the serpent who tempts, lies and deceives to lead mankind into sin against God, as well as Satan who then turns around and accuses mankind of sin to God.

Final Thoughts

The early church fathers understood Satan, the devil, as the serpent, which includes Justin Martyr who penned such ideas about 50 years or so after Revelation was written. The association and implication that the serpent in the garden was Satan, the devil, is only a short leap of logic brought out in the New Testament that necessitates this as the most probable deduction. There is little doubt that Jesus and his apostles understood Satan, the devil, and the serpent as all one and the same.

###

* The Hebrew word shuwph translated here in Gen 3:15 as “bruise” is rare, used only four times in three places in the entire Old Testament. Paul uses a different Greek word to translate the Hebrew word shuwph than the one found in the early Greek LXX translation of Gen 3:15. However, he probably wrote Rom 16:20 with the Hebrew passage of Gen 3:15 in mind, providing his own translation rather than relying on the LXX here. He selected the Greek word συντρίβω for shuwph, which is an acceptable translation of that Hebrew word; this is proven by the LXX translation of the same word in Job 9:17 to ἐκτρίβω, which is, like συντρίβω, a compound using the verb τρίβω.

The Reign of Death Over Mankind: Romans 5:12-14

Robert Alan King — Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:37:44 +0000

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, even so death passed through into all men because all sinned; for before the law sin was in the world. Now sin is not reckoned when there is no law, yet death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam’s transgression, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Rom 5:12-14, my translation)

This passage can be difficult to understand and has been interpreted in various ways by commentators and scholars. The best means of arriving at a proper interpretation is to study it within in the literary context of the rest of the letter, specifically what has already been discussed, examining Paul’s other comments on sin, death, and the law.

The Literary Context

At the beginning of the letter, Paul explains what happened after the fall, insisting that mankind was without excuse and subject to God’s wrath when they rejected God and turned to idols because the truth of his existence was evident within themselves and the rest of creation (Rom 1:18-32). He then insists that even those who sin without the law of Moses will perish without being judged by that law (Rom 2:12), because the demands of the law are written within their heart and their conscience bears witness against them when they sin (Rom 2:14-15). He further insists that all of mankind has in fact sinned (Rom 3:23). So, Paul has thus far established some basic facts:

The truth of God is evident in man and in the entire creation.
Men who turned away from God are without excuse and will experience the wrath of God.
The demands of the law are written upon the hearts of mankind and their conscience bears witness of such.
Men who sinned without the Law of Moses will thus be judged and perish for those sins.

The Spread of Sin and Death

In the passage above, we must start from this foundation of facts just discussed. Paul’s first point is that sin has entered into the world by the means of the sin of Adam, and because of this, death also entered into the world. He then states that in a similar manner “death passed through into all men because all sinned.” Where many interpreters get confused here is in what he means by this statement. Paul is not stating here that somehow we all sinned in Adam as has been taught by some, but infers that these sins are their own sins by saying, “for before the law sin was in the world.” This is further reinforced when he adds, “sin is not reckoned when there is no law.” He is simply repeating his earlier statement that all of mankind has sinned, even using the same exact form of the two Greek words for “all sinned” (Rom 3:23).

Paul also is not teaching that death passed upon each man because of each man’s own sin. He is concerned here primarily with how sin spread death throughout the world to every man. Though Paul does not directly mention the sinful nature here, it is inferred. His point is that as Adam sinned and death entered into the world because we inherit his sinful nature, so death has passed through into all men because they then sin and continue the process of passing on the sinful nature and death to their children. It is an unstoppable pattern within the process of procreation. The basic premise here regarding sin and death is:

Adam + he sins = death enters world

Others + they sin = death passes through into all men

Sin, Death, and the Mosaic Law

One of the difficult parts of this passage is when Paul makes the remark that sin is not reckoned when there is no law. However, we already know that Paul insists that the demands of the law are written within the heart of man and that their conscience bears witness against them when they sin, so that they will still suffer punishment. By “the law” here in this passage, Paul simply means the Mosaic Law. Paul is not saying they were not guilty of their sins, but that they were not guilty of breaking the written Law of Moses because it did not even exist yet (see Rom 4:15). We must keep in mind that the Mosaic law contains many commands that would not be considered sin unless they were first commanded, such as honoring the Sabbath day, etc. So Paul’s premise here is establishing the fact that the problem of sin and death existed long before the Mosaic Law was even given to Israel—his point being that sin and death have an independent existence from the Mosaic Law and the reckoning of breaking that law.

Paul’s other point is that even though many men prior to the law did not commit a sin like Adam based on the violation of a direct command from God, death still reigned over them all anyhow. Like many of the laws of Moses, eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil would not have been a sin unless it was first commanded not to eat thereof by God. However, as explained above, Paul taught in this letter that those without the Mosaic law are held accountable for those sins that are based on the truth about God expressed by the creation and those demands of the law that are written in their hearts, while those under the Mosaic law are also held accountable to those additional commands found therein and will be judged by them as well. In other words, sin and death still reigned over the world even before the law.

The Fallacy of Imputed Sin

Though there have been a lot of faulty theological arguments built up around this passage, many of them miss the mark. For example, it is a common argument that Adam functioned as the representative of mankind, and because of this we are in some sense held responsible for Adam’s sin because of imputed guilt and sin. Not only does such an idea lack biblical support here or elsewhere, but it also rips away the ability of Jesus to atone for the sins of the world. It compels one to the logical implication that Jesus must also be guilty of Adam’s sin. For even though Jesus was without his own sin, he is a descendant of mankind through Mary, fully a man in his humanity. If God imputes sin and/or guilt to mankind through representation by Adam, then Jesus through the incarnation as a man must also partake of this guilt. The fact that he is fully God does not negate the fact that he is also fully human.

One thing I wish to make clear is that the idea of inheriting a sinful nature from our forefather is quite different than that of inheriting the guilt of his sin or having that sin imputed to us. Critics may argue that since Jesus did not inherit a sinful nature, it must be possible that he also did not have Adam’s sin and/or guilt imputed to him. Yet, this does not logically follow since the sinful nature is inherited by the natural generation from a corrupt nature of our father, and is not imputed to us by representation of Adam. Since the real father of Jesus was God, and not a man with a corrupt nature, he did not inherit a sinful nature as other men do.

The fact that Jesus did not receive the inherent attribute of the sinful or corrupt nature at his conception or birth cannot by any means eliminate his guilt as a member of the human race if Adam is our federal head and we have his sin imputed to us. If Adam was representative of our race, Jesus is also part of that race and that guilt and/or sin must also be imputed to him as well. And if this is so, he could not have atoned for the sins of others. Fortunately, Jesus did not partake of an imputed sin or guilt from Adam because nobody does.

Final Thoughts

Though the rest of mankind did not participate in Adam’s sin, all still suffer from its consequences. As I have explained up above, this passage is teaching that sin and death entered into the world because of Adam’s sin, but death then spread throughout the world to all of mankind because all sinned and continued to spread the sinful nature and death through reproduction. Death and sin have existed since the fall of mankind and long before the giving of the Mosaic Law to Israel, thus existing independently from the law. Paul’s main premise in this passage is that through Adam’s sin all of mankind finds itself in a condition in which all are subject to death. Because of the one sin of the one man Adam, death now reigns over all of mankind.

The Babylonian Sun Amulet Dupe

Robert Alan King — Thu, 08 Oct 2020 13:15:31 +0000

There is a teaching among Seven Day Adventists and others in various forms of literature and websites that assert the ancient Babylonians used sun amulets that included sun-squares on their face. These sun-squares (aka magic squares) consist of 36 squares (6 x 6), each numbered as designated with one of the numbers ranging from 1 to 36. The significance is that adding six numbers wherever one can horizontally, diagonally or vertically adds up to 111, so that then adding the six rows or columns that each equal 111 always equals the total of 666 (however, adding all number from 1 to 36 always equals 666).

Anderson provides us below with drawings that he claims were made from photos of such Babylonian sun amulets found in the Berlin Museum in 1910 (125-27). Notice the sun, moon and other symbols on the face and a sun-square on their backside.

Supposed Babylonian Sun Amulets

Babylonian Sun Amulets that Never Existed

Despite these drawings offered by Anderson, he does not provide us with anything substantial regarding where these supposed amulets were discovered, their actual age, etc. However, the drawings he provides offer evidence in themselves that these coins are definitely not from ancient Babylon; if this were so, the language on the coins would then be a Semitic language known as Akkadian, which is not the case for either coin. In fact, the second coin is actually written in Latin. Thus, despite the assertion by Anderson that these are “amulets worn by pagan sun-worshiping priests” (126), that simply is not true.

In fact, I have not been able to find any evidence that such amulets as those in his drawings with the sun-square, or even the idea of such sun-squares in themselves, ever existed in ancient Babylon in the first place. The earliest source that I could find for the existence of an actual sun-square was this iron plate with Arabic numbers from the Yuan Dynasty (1206 to 1368) depicted in the photo below, which was discovered in 1956 in the Shaanxi Province and is now in the Shaanxi History Museum in Xi’an, China.

Yuan Dynasty Iron Magic Square. This photo was taken by BabelStone. Used under Creative Commons license 3.0.

Though the Babylonians did worship the so-called sun-god Shamesh, the claim that ancient priests in Babylon used such amulets and sun-squares in Babylon is not substantiated by the facts. Additionally, the further assertion made by many Seven Day Adventists on various websites that these supposed sun amulets and sun-squares existed in Babylon before Revelation was written and thus is relevant to John’s use of the number 666 in Revelation 13:17-18 is nonsensical and false.

Sunday Worship and the Sun-god?

Even if such sun amulets and sun-squares had been used in Babylonian sun-god worship, their existence would still not substantiate the claims of Seven Day Adventists that Sunday worship is related to the mark of the beast. In fact, there is nothing whatsoever in the biblical text to support such an idea. Additionally, everything we have from church history supports the position that the church from earliest times gathered together on the first day of the week because that was the day that Jesus was raised from the dead. That decision has nothing whatsoever to do with the Sabbath day. Additionally, Sunday worship has nothing to do with the worship of the sun-god; to suggest that it does is almost as nonsensical as suggesting that Jesus worshiped the sun-god because he chose to be raised to life on a Sunday.

Final Thoughts

Though there is a teaching in various works and on many websites that Anderson’s supposed Babylonian sun amulets and sun-squares existed prior to the composition of Revelation, this is simply false as I have shown up above. I welcome anybody that believes they have found supporting evidence that can be validated from a genuine source to send me what you have found. However, unless such evidence is forthcoming, I have no choice but to insist that the entire claim of these Babylonian sun amulets with sun-squares is a dupe (probably unintentional on the parts of most) that perpetuates a false substantiation for one aspect of Seven Day Adventist thought in regards to Sunday worship. What they are portraying as related to Babylonian sun-god worship is in fact nothing more than a magical square of the sun that was formulated long after the empire of Babylon and most likely long after the composition of the Book of Revelation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Roy Allan. Unfolding the Revelation, Revised. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing, 1974.

The photo of the Sun God Tablet at the head of this article is a portion of a photo from the British Museum. Used under Creative Commons license 4.0.

Understanding Love and Hate in the New Testament

Robert Alan King — Sat, 04 Jul 2020 15:04:29 +0000

There has been a lot of confusion in properly understanding certain passages that refer to “love” in the New Testament, especially in the matters where love is contrasted with hate. The reason for this is that the English definitions of “love” and “hate” do not fully convey the exact meaning of the Greek words from which they derive. It is my hope that this article will help other Christians better understand what is meant by the New Testament writers when they use one of the Greek words for “love,” especially when they set up a contrast between two objects in which one is “loved” and the other “hated.”

The Meaning of the Love Words

Usually when we see the word “love” in the New Testament, it comes from the ἀγάπη words (noun ἀγάπη; verb ἀγαπάω). The use of the ἀγάπη words in the Bible generally signifies a focused outgoing favor, fondness, affection and/or concern directed toward someone or something. This is frequently expressed or manifested in some type of action or behavior (John 3:16, 35; 14:15, 21, 23-24, 28, 31; 17:23-24; 21:15-16; etc.); when it is not, the nuance that this love leads to expressive action or behavior is still present, even if it is not stressed by the writer. A love signified by the ἀγάπη words is not focused on any type of reciprocal response nor does it require one. It is important to note that this does not always mean a warm, fuzzy feeling of affection, which may or may not be present depending on the context. For example, when we are told to love our enemies (Matt 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35), the idea is to show a sense of favor toward them that will result in treating them kindly; the actual stress in this context is more on how one acts and behaves toward them rather than any inner feeling in itself.

Another translation of “love” in the English New Testament comes from the φίλος words (noun φίλος; verb φιλέω). These words are related to a close interaction and fellowship with the object loved rather than simply stressing the love flowing out from the subject toward the object as in the ἀγάπη words. When it comes to the φίλος words, the idea of the ἀγάπη words are generally inclusive in their meaning, but the φίλος words are not necessarily inclusive in the meaning of the ἀγάπη words. In other words, one who has φίλος for one, also has ἀγάπη for them, but one who has ἀγάπη for one, does not necessarily also have φίλος for them. Most of the time when we see the English “love” in the New Testament, it comes from the ἀγάπη words. However, sometimes “love” is translated from the φίλος words. Thus, it is important to examine which word is being used for a better clarity of the writer’s point.

Love in a Comparison

The Greek verb ἀγαπάω for “love” is sometimes used in a construction in which one thing is loved above another. When used in a contrast like this, we sometimes find the comparative Greek adverb μᾶλλον, which is usually translated as “rather” or “more” (John 3:19; 12:43). At other times we find the Greek preposition ὑπέρ being used in a comparative sense of “more” or “to a greater degree” (Matt 10:37). In both of these cases it signifies an object loved as favored and preferred over another.

At other times in which a comparison is being made, the Greek verb ἀγαπάω is used for the first object and the Greek verb μισέω, which is often translated as “hate” (Matt 5:43; 6:24; Luke 16:13), for the other. Sometimes there is a contrast in which μισέω is used, but ἀγαπάω is absent from the text, though it is still implied (Luke 14:26; comp. Matt 10:37). When we find a Greek construction like this in which love of an object is contrasted with hate of the other object, this does not necessarily mean that the subject has love for one and does not have love for the other, but rather that the one is favored and the other disfavored specifically within the perimeter of that contrast. In other words, he may love both of them, but one is loved more than the other. At other times the “hate” in such a construction might be closer to our idea of the word (e.g., Matt 5:43; Heb 1:9; 1 John 4:20). This can only be determined by the context.

Important Contrasts Clarified

Now that we have established a foundation of the basics regarding the structure of the Greek verb ἀγαπάω as used in comparison, it will be helpful to take a closer look at some relevant New Testament passages. The first is the following in Luke:

If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26 ASV)

Though the verse above does not contain an ἀγάπη word, it is implied. This becomes clear when we examine another account of the same incident in Matthew, which reads:

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matt 10:37 ASV)

The idea of a contrast is implied in the Luke passage and stated more clearly in the Matthew verse. Thus, the idea in both passages is the same. So, the “hate” in Luke simply means that his disciples must not love their own family more than Jesus.

Another important verse is the following:

Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. (Rom 9:13 ASV)

The idea here is not that God loved Jacob and hated Esau as we understand love and hate, but rather that God favored Jacob over Esau within the perimeter of that comparison. In fact, we can define this further as God favoring Jacob over Esau in the following context of God’s purpose for the two men and their offspring:

And the LORD said to her: “Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.” (Gen 25:23 NKJB)

Final Thoughts

As this article has pointed out, when we see the word “love” in the New Testament, this does not usually mean the same thing as our word for love. The meaning varies depending upon which of the two different words for love is used, with a difference in the operation of love that is either a directed outflow toward an object in the ἀγάπη words, or an interactive reciprocal nuance in the φίλος words. The actual meanings of these words are complex and broader than our words for “love,” and they can vary greatly depending upon the context in which they are found.

The ἀγάπη words also stress a nuance of expected expression in action or behavior. And when the verb ἀγαπάω is used in constructions of comparison between two objects, it stresses favor and/or preference for one object over the other with the affection or fondness understood as variable for each of the two objects depending on the context.

It is my hope that this article can help my Christian brothers and sisters better understand many important passages in which “love” is a factor. I believe it is critical both for comprehending the writer’s intended meaning and better grasping many other areas of theological inquiry. May God be with us all in our study of his word.

The Cyrus Cylinder and God’s Message to Cyrus

Robert Alan King — Fri, 26 Jun 2020 11:58:31 +0000

Cyrus the Great was a famous Persian king and the founder of the Persian Empire under the Achaemenid dynasty that conquered Babylon and many other nations. He was born in 590 BC (or 580 BC) and died in 529 BC. He is looked back upon by some as an advocate of human rights, which has a lot to do with the discovery of the Cyrus Cylinder, though others have argued that this portrayal of him is overstated.

Discovery of the Cyrus Cylinder

In 1879, an amazing discovery was made in the ruins of ancient Babylon. It was a fragmented clay cylinder with inscriptions in Akkadian cuneiform that came to be known as the Cyrus Cylinder. It was named as such because it was probably written upon the order of Cyrus after his capture of Babylon in 539 BC., and contained historical content about his victories and reforms.

Cyrus Honors the God Marduk

What concerns us here as Christians is the claims found inscribed upon the Cyrus Cylinder that assert that the god Marduk chose Cyrus, which thus enabled him to conquer Babylon and other nations. The critical passage we are concerned with reads:

seeking for the upright king of [the god Marduk’s] choice. He took the hand of Cyrus, king of the city of Anshan, and called him by his name, proclaiming him aloud for the kingship over all of everything.

It is important to note here that Cyrus recognized a divine intervention in his rise to world power and his conquests, though he attributed to Marduk, the god of Babylon.

The God Yahweh Speaks to Cyrus

What is remarkable about the passage up above from the Cyrus Cylinder is that God actually speaks about Cyrus in similar terms in Isaiah 44:28-45:7. The passage in Isaiah reads:

That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith [Yaheweh] to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and I will loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut: I will go before thee, and make the rough places smooth; I will break in pieces the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron; and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that it is I, [Yaheweh], who call thee by thy name, even the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel my chosen, I have called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. I am [Yaheweh], and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me; that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am [Yaheweh], and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am [Yaheweh], that doeth all these things. (Isa 44:28-45:7 ASV)

The language and focus of both the passage from the Cyrus Cylinder and Isaiah 44:28-45:7 are so similar that it suggests a likely correlation between the two. However, the first problem here is in determining exactly when Isaiah 44:28-45:7 was written. While there is a general agreement that chapters 1-39 in Isaiah were written by Isaiah in the eight century BC, scholars generally believe the rest of Isaiah was written in the sixth century BC, long after Isaiah was dead. Significantly, the name of Isaiah is used 16 times in chapters 1-39 (Isa 1:1; 2:1; 7:3; 13:1; 20:2-3; 37:2, 5, 6, 21; 38:1, 4, 21; 39:3, 5, 8), but never again after chapter 39. In addition, the content after chapter 39 frequently suggests that at least parts of it were written in the sixth century BC.

The internal implications within Isaiah 44:28-45:7 indicate that this was written while Cyrus was alive and near the beginning of his massive expansion of the Achaemenid Empire. If this is so, at first glance if might seem that Cyrus used the prophecy of Isaiah 44:28-45:7 in writing the Cyrus Cylinder. However, the problem with this solution is that Isaiah 44:28-45:7 seems to be a response to the beliefs conveyed in the Cyrus Cylinder, refuting that it was the god Marduk who helped Cyrus and asserting that it was instead the God Yahweh. Since God is omniscient, perhaps our solution is that God knew what was going to be written in the Cyrus Cylinder beforehand. The dilemma in understanding the exact specifics of the correlation between Isaiah 44:28-45:7 and the Cyrus Cylinder should not prevent us from recognizing that Isaiah 44:28-45:7 is a divine correction of the misinformation that we find in the Cyrus Cylinder.

Comparing Isaiah 44:28-45:4 with the Cyrus Cylinder

I really want to highlight where the content of these two passages are similar so that my readers can ponder just how amazing this is. Lets take a look at the comparisons below:

the upright king (Cyrus Cylinder)

He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure (Isaiah; also see Isa 45:13)

[the god Marduk’s] choice. He took the hand of Cyrus, (Cyrus Cylinder)

[Yaheweh] to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden (Isaiah)

called him by his name (Cyrus Cylinder)

who call thee by thy name … I have called thee by thy name (Isaiah)

proclaiming him aloud (Cyrus Cylinder)

I will go before thee, and make the rough places smooth (Isaiah)

for the kingship over all of everything. (Cyrus Cylinder)

to subdue nations before him, and I will loose the loins of kings (Isaiah)

God Takes the Honor He is Due

Though Cyrus was incorrect in attributing his conquests to the god Marduk, he was in fact being used by the real God according to Isaiah 44:28-45:7. In fact, the basic premise of his claims in the Cyrus Cylinder are true except where he has erred in honoring the wrong god. God tells Cyrus a number of significant things in Isaiah 44:28-45:7. He first corrects him in his error in believing that it was the god Marduk who helped him. Instead, God takes the honor that is properly his by asserting that it is he, Yahweh, the God of Israel, who gave him his victories. He also clearly distances himself from being the same god as Marduk because he tells Cyrus, “thou hast not known me” twice. He also tells him that the reason he helped him in this way was for sake of Israel, his chosen nation. This was because God knew that Cyrus was going to put an end to the Babylonian captivity of the nation of Israel so that the captives would be free to return to their own country, rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple therein. It seems quite possible that this prophecy was shown to Cyrus sometime within the first year of conquest over Babylon, and that it may have been instrumental in his decision to issue a decree for the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their temple (2 Chron 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:3; 5:13-17; 6:3-5). The first century Jewish historian Josephus asserts that such was the case (Josephus, AJ 11:6-7).

Final Thoughts

I find the Cyrus Cylinder an amazing archeological discovery. Not only does it provide historical validation for much of what we find in Isaiah 44:28-45:7, but it shows how God used a foreign king to accomplish his purposes. Though Cyrus did not know the real God and instead honored Marduk, the god of the city of Babylon, the real God made himself known to him through his prophetic message, telling him that it was instead he, Yahweh, the God of Israel, who chose him and led him in his conquests to overpower Babylon and the other nations. God claimed the honor that was due him, for it was he and he alone who accomplished all this through Cyrus.

Muhammad’s Anti-Semitism

Robert Alan King — Sat, 09 Sep 2017 22:39:39 +0000

Muhammad considered Jews as “People of the Book” and initially held a somewhat favorable view of them. However, somewhere along the way in his self-declaration as a prophet, his attitude toward the Jews changed for the worse.

Muhammad’s Jewish Enemies

What I find extremely interesting about Muhammad’s relationship with the early Jews was that many of them rejected his teachings and constantly sided with his enemies, especially in Yathrib (Molloy 428). Molly tells us that he eventually killed or banished these Jewish enemies (Molloy 428). This clash with the Jews over his religious claims and their treachery in siding with his enemies seems to have affected his supposed revelations from God, since he changed the initial Muslim practices of prayer facing toward Jerusalem to facing toward Mecca instead, as well as changing the day of public prayer from the Sabbath Saturday to Friday (Molloy 433).

Muhammad’s Animosity

I believe that Muhammad’s apparent animosity toward the Jews may have set the stage for the anti-Semitism we find in the world among Muslims today. Having probably been offended by their refusal to believe him and angered by their behavior in siding with his enemies, he began the process of rejecting them through banishment and murder while minimizing his dependence upon Judaism for his new religion.

Final Thoughts

It seems to me that Muhammad’s revelations were more subjective with his apparent desire to distance himself from the religion of the supposed infidels who rejected his claims and fought against him. It’s what one might expect from a man bent on glorifying himself as God’s prophet and champion in the face of an enemy that denied him the recognition that he sought.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Molloy, Michael. Experiencing the World’s Religions: Tradition, Challenge, and Change. Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2010.