A Rebuttal of the How to Pray Meme

In this blog, I am presenting a rebuttal to the “God never taught you to pray that way” meme. I will attempt to remain grounded in Greek command language, and the juridical semantics of the Hebrew term תפילה (tefillah).

The aim is not to defend every phrase in the prayer depicted in the meme, but to reject a false dilemma that underlies the meme itself. I will argue that directive speech can be legitimate when exercised within delegated authority and that biblical prayer cannot be reduced to polite requests or the normative begging posture often taught by church leaders or depicted by popular media.

The Meme’s False Dilemma

While the meme is rhetorically clean and theologically satisfying to many, it rests on a major unstated assumption:

Prayer must be fundamentally petitionary (begging) and command-form speech is therefore inherently unbiblical.

That assumption does not survive contact with:

the Greek grammar of Jesus’ commands
how authority actually functions in the New Testament world
the Hebrew semantics underlying what Scripture calls “prayer”

Part I: The Greek Frame

ἐντέλλομαι (entellomai, “to command or charge”) and Delegated Authority

Jesus Explicitly Frames Discipleship as Obedience to Commands

In Matthew 28:20, Jesus commissions the apostles to teach:

πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν
(panta hosa eneteilamēn hymin)
“everything I commanded or charged you.”

The verb derives from ἐντέλλομαι (entellomai), which means to command, charge, or direct with authority. This verb belongs to contexts where directives are meant to be executed, not merely remembered. The Great Commission is therefore not framed as “teach them what I said,” but “teach them what I charged you to obey.”

This implies several things:

Authority flows from Jesus downward
The disciple is expected to act, not merely speak
The charge includes imitation of authoritative practice, not just verbal doctrine

This is where the meme’s critique becomes overbroad. It treats prayer posture as though Jesus authorized only deferential asking, when Jesus also authorized commissioned execution under his authority.

Delegated Authority Is Explicit: ἐξουσία (exousia)

Just prior to using ἐνετειλάμην (“I commanded” or “I charged”), Jesus grounds the entire mission in this declaration:

ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία
(edothē moi pasa exousia)
“All authority has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18)

ἐξουσία (exousia) refers to authority or delegated power. This is the operating logic of the commission. Jesus possesses authority and delegates action under that authority.

In ancient command structures such as military, household, and legal systems, a subordinate does not request permission for every operational step. He executes within the scope of what has been authorized. That does not mean the subordinate outranks the superior. It means he functions as an agent.

So the relevant question is not whether command-form speech is always wrong. The relevant question is this:

Is the speaker acting as a delegated agent under Christ’s authority, or as a sole originator of power?

Rabbinic Authority and Charismatic Authority Are Not Opposites

Modern debates often frame this as a binary, one or the other argument:

Rabbinic authority is textual, interpretive, and disciplined
Charismatic authority is experiential, miraculous, and power-oriented

This opposition is anachronistic when applied to Jesus and the apostles.

In first-century Jewish life, disciples often functioned as authorized agents under shaliach logic. A disciple was expected to:

learn not only the rabbi’s words but the rabbi’s way
imitate patterns and methods
represent the teacher’s authority within the teacher’s domain

Jesus functions as both a rabbinic teacher shaping interpretation and ethics, and a charismatic authority exercising power over illness and hostile spiritual forces.

Crucially, Jesus treats that power as delegable (e.g., commissioning of the 70/72). He authorizes his followers to act under his commission.

Charismatic action, when delegated and bounded, is not anti-rabbinic. It becomes an expression of rabbinic agency. Disciples execute the teacher’s charge.

Jesus Himself Used Directive Speech

A central weakness in the meme is the implication that Jesus did not model command-form engagement with the world.

Yet Jesus repeatedly uses directive speech toward non-divine targets:

to sickness: “Be clean.”
to spirits: “Come out.”
to nature: “Peace, be still.”
to bodies: “Get up and walk.”

These are performative speech acts. The language is intended to effect change, not merely to request it. Jesus never begs the Father to heal a person in these encounters.

Observers explicitly identify this mode of speech as authority. “He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him” (Mark 1:27).

If the Great Commission’s commands include embodied imitation, then directive speech, when exercised as delegated authority, cannot be dismissed as un-Jesus-like.

The real debate is not directive speech versus biblical prayer. The debate is directive speech within scope versus directive speech that claims self-originating power.

The Real Fault Line: Grammar Toward God Versus Standing Under God

Critics often focus on an imperative phrase such as “God, you bless me right now.”

Two clarifications are essential.

Imperative Grammar Is Not Automatically Theological Domination

In biblical prayer, imperatives toward God are common, especially in the Psalms. “Hear,” “remember,” and “listen” appear frequently. The imperative form can express covenantal urgency, confidence, and appeal without implying metaphysical superiority.

Grammar alone does not settle the issue.

The Real Issue Is Attribution of Authority

The legitimate correction is not:

“God never taught you to pray that way.”
The precise correction is:
“You were never authorized to speak as though authority originates in you.”

The meme collapses this distinction, assuming readers will infer it – hoping you will “catch” a meaning that is not there. The New Testament framework of authority does not allow that collapse.

The Hebrew Frame: Prayer Is Not Primarily Begging

When we move beneath the New Testament into Israel’s conceptual world, the meme’s assumption collapses further.

Hebrew Has No Single Word Equivalent to “Prayer”

Biblical Hebrew distributes what English collapses into “prayer” across multiple verbs and postures:

crying out
appealing
seeking favor
requesting
interceding
arguing a case
covenantal complaint
confession

English flattens this diversity. Hebrew does not.

The Root פלל (palal)

פָּלַל (palal) carries the sense of intervening, arbitrating, judging, or interposing oneself. The noun תְּפִלָּה (tefillah), commonly translated “prayer,” frequently carries juridical and covenantal overtones.

The primary verbal form for praying appears in the Hitpael stem:

הִתְפַּלֵּל (hitpalel)

Hitpael often indicates reflexive or self-involving action. To pray, in this sense, is to place oneself into the matter before God. It is active positioning, not passive piety.

This juridical sense does not exclude devotion or dependence. It defines the structural posture in which devotion occurs.

Covenant Complaint and Appeal

Hebrew prayer frequently includes pleading, lament, protest, argument, and appeal to covenant faithfulness. This is why prayers such as Psalm 44 or Habakkuk 1 can sound confrontational in English while remaining fully legitimate.

Biblical prayer is not defined by a single tone or grammatical mood. It is defined by covenantal standing and alignment with rightful authority.

Reframing the Debate: Prayer as Standing and Delegation

When the Greek and Hebrew frameworks are brought together, a clearer picture emerges.

The Greek lens shows:

Jesus commissions with ἐντέλλομαι
the commission is grounded in ἐξουσία
disciples act as delegated agents

The Hebrew lens shows:

prayer as tefillah is covenantal interposition
praying as hitpalel is entering the matter before God

Therefore, the meme’s categorical dismissal fails.

Command-form speech toward hostile forces or conditions is not automatically illegitimate when practiced as delegated authority under Christ.

Bold speech toward God is not automatically illegitimate because Hebrew prayer often operates covenantally and juridically.

The decisive test is standing and attribution:

Are you positioned under God’s authority?
Are you acting as an authorized agent, or as a self-originating source?

“In Your Name”: Why Formula Without Standing Fails

In Matthew 7, speakers appeal to Jesus:

“Did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, and do mighty works in your name?”

Jesus responds:

“I never knew you.”

The issue is not activity, grammar, or terminology. It is standing.

They speak toward Christ but are not positioned under Christ’s authority.

“In your name” is not a formula. It is a relational and legal status. Invocation without recognition fails.

Final Synthesis

Prayer and action are not validated by formulas.
Authority is not validated by results.
Standing is not created by invocation.

The biblical framework consistently returns to the same axis:

Position before performance.
Relationship before results.
Delegation before declaration.

That is where the meme fails, and that is where Scripture insists the conversation must remain.

The Lord’s Prayer

Framing Principle

The Lord’s Prayer does not teach prayer as begging. It teaches prayer as positioning under authority, followed by authorized engagement.

This is exactly what both models expect.

The Two Models, Stated Precisely

Hebrew Model (תְּפִלָּה / הִתְפַּלֵּל)

Prayer is:

covenantal standing before rightful authority
juridical orientation
entering the matter under God’s rule
appeal grounded in relationship, not leverage

Core question: On what standing do I speak?

Greek Model (προσεύχομαι)

Prayer is:

directed speech toward God
relational orientation
acknowledgment of dependence
alignment with divine will and authority

Core question:
Toward whom am I directing myself, and in what posture?

The Lord’s Prayer satisfies both questions simultaneously, line by line.

Line-by-Line Analysis

1. “Our Father in heaven”

Greek consistency

Direct address toward God (pros + euchomai)
Establishes relationship before request
Dependence is explicit

Hebrew consistency

Covenant identity is declared first
“Father” implies standing, not distance
This is court entry language, not supplication

Key point
No request is made yet. Position precedes petition.

2. “Hallowed be your name”

Greek

Orientation toward God’s holiness
Reverence establishes relational posture

Hebrew

Sanctifying the Name is covenantal allegiance
The speaker aligns with God’s reputation and authority
This is a loyalty declaration

Key point
This is not asking God to become holy.
It is placing oneself under God’s holiness.

3. “Your kingdom come”

This is imperative grammar, directed toward God.

Greek

Imperatives in prayer are permitted
The direction remains toward God, not away from Him

Hebrew

This is covenant invocation
Calling for the manifestation of God’s rule
Equivalent to covenantal appeal for rightful authority to act

Key point
This is not domination.
It is invoking rightful authority.

4. “Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”

This line governs everything that follows.

Greek

Explicit submission of desire to God’s will
Prevents self-originating authority

Hebrew

Aligns the speaker with the heavenly court
Earth is petitioned to conform to divine order
The speaker positions themselves inside that alignment

Key point
Nothing in this prayer authorizes action outside God’s will.
This is the scope clause.

5. “Give us today our daily bread”

Greek

Legitimate petition
Dependence is acknowledged

Hebrew

Covenant provision language
Echoes wilderness provision
Appeal based on relationship, not merit

Key point
Request flows from standing, not desperation.

6. “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”

Greek

Relational repair
Moral alignment with God

Hebrew

Explicit juridical language
Debt, forgiveness, obligation
The speaker submits themselves to covenant standards

Key point
The petitioner places themselves under judgment, not above it.

This is hitpalel in action: self-involving positioning.

7. “Do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one”

Greek

Directed plea for protection
Dependence acknowledged

Hebrew

Appeal for covenant safeguarding
Recognition of hostile forces
Request for rightful authority to intervene

Key point
This is not passive fear.
It is appeal to the rightful protector.

8. Doxology (traditional):

“For yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory”

Greek

Reorients all authority to God
Ends where it began: with God’s supremacy

Hebrew

Explicit attribution of authority
Prevents any misreading of earlier imperatives
Reinforces non-self-originating power

Key point
Authority is named, located, and returned to God alone.

Structural Summary

The Lord’s Prayer follows a deliberate architecture:

Establish covenantal standing
Align with God’s authority and will
Invoke rightful rule
Make bounded requests
Submit to moral accountability
Acknowledge dependence and threat
Reaffirm God as sole authority source

This is textbook Hebrew tefillah and Greek proseuchomai operating together.

Why This Matters for the Debate About “Command-Form Prayer”

The Lord’s Prayer contains imperatives:

“Hallowed be”
“Your kingdom come”
“Your will be done”

Yet no one claims it is arrogant or illegitimate.

Why? Because:

authority is not claimed by the speaker
standing is covenantal, not performative
will and scope are explicitly bounded
attribution is consistently returned to God

This is the same framework as outlined earlier.

Final Synthesis

The Lord’s Prayer does not teach:

prayer as begging
prayer as technique
prayer as self-originating declaration

It teaches:

prayer as position before authority
prayer as alignment before action
prayer as delegated dependence

Which means:

The Lord’s Prayer is not a counter-example to bold or directive prayer.

It is the governing model that determines whether such prayer is legitimate or illegitimate based on standing, delegation, and attribution, not on grammar or tone.

That is why it coheres cleanly with both the Hebrew and Greek models of prayer.

Be aware of what teachers expect you to catch vs. what they actually teach.

Truth, Moral Failure, and the Limits of Discernment

Truth does not derive its authority from the moral consistency of the one who speaks it, but from the reality God created that the truth describes.

Debates about whether the work of a Christian author should be discarded after the discovery of moral failure often hinge on an unexamined assumption. The assumption is that three distinct forms of judgment belong to the same category. They do not. Moral evaluation, epistemic evaluation, and discernment serve different purposes, operate by different criteria, and answer different questions.

Moral evaluation asks whether an action or life conforms to ethical norms. Epistemic evaluation asks whether a claim is true, coherent, or reliable. Discernment concerns how a reader or community should engage with a work in light of both truth and moral considerations. Confusion arises when a failure in the first category is treated as a decisive judgment in the second, rather than as input to the third.

Christian theology has historically grounded epistemic authority not in personal righteousness but in creation itself. Scripture affirms that the world is intelligible because it is ordered by God, not because it is observed by the morally consistent. “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1) regardless of who studies them. Human beings, made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27), possess genuine though finite capacities to perceive and articulate truth.

This framework underlies what theologians have described as common grace. John Calvin argues that God distributes real insight broadly, even among those whose lives are morally compromised (Institutes, II.2). Scripture reflects this reality repeatedly. David’s psalms remain central to Christian worship despite grave moral failure. Solomon’s wisdom continues to instruct despite his eventual corruption. Paul explicitly acknowledges that Christ can be proclaimed from corrupt motives while remaining genuinely proclaimed (Philippians 1:15–18).

If moral failure automatically invalidates epistemic authority, then truth becomes unstable. Knowledge would remain provisionally acceptable only until new biographical information emerges. Epistemic evaluation would be displaced by moral investigation, and truth would be treated as morally contagious rather than as correspondence to reality. This is not how Scripture treats truth, nor how responsible scholarship operates.

A common counterargument holds that continuing to use such work implicitly endorses the author or normalizes their sin. This objection confuses epistemic evaluation with discernment. Discernment may indeed require contextualization, caution, or limitation of use. It does not require pretending that true insights become false once their messenger is exposed as broken. Reading Augustine does not endorse his sexual immorality, nor does praying the psalms endorse David’s abuse of power. Christian maturity consists precisely in holding moral clarity and intellectual honesty together.

Another objection claims that spiritual formation materials differ categorically from scientific or academic works because they shape character. Yet Scripture itself refuses this separation. Wisdom literature, prophecy, and apostolic teaching are mediated through deeply flawed individuals, and readers are consistently instructed to test what is taught rather than to certify the moral completeness of the teacher (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). Formation depends on truth rightly received, not on the moral perfection of its source.

Applied consistently, the rejection principle leads to untenable conclusions. It would require Christians to exclude non Christian sources from psychology, literature, or philosophy unless their authors are converted, and perhaps only to accept work produced after conversion. This position conflicts with the Christian doctrine of creation and with historic Christian engagement with learning. As Proverbs 2:6 states, “The Lord gives wisdom,” not “only through morally unblemished messengers.”

Philosophically, the distinction is well established. Thomas Aquinas grounds truth in the conformity of the intellect to reality, not in the virtue of the knower (Summa Theologiae, I.16). Alvin Plantinga similarly argues that Christian belief explains why human cognition can reliably produce true beliefs without requiring moral perfection as a prerequisite (Warranted Christian Belief).

None of this minimizes the seriousness of moral failure. Moral evaluation must remain uncompromising. But epistemic evaluation must remain principled, and discernment must remain disciplined. When these categories are collapsed, truth is destabilized and discernment is reduced to exclusion rather than wisdom.

Christian maturity requires holding these distinctions clearly. Truth remains grounded in the reality God has made, not in the moral consistency of those who describe it. Recognizing this does not weaken holiness. It makes discernment possible.

Three Distinct Forms of Judgment (Often Confused)

Much of the confusion in debates about moral failure and authorship arises from collapsing three distinct categories of judgment. Clarifying these categories is essential for disciplined discernment.

1. Moral Evaluation
Question: Is this action or pattern of behavior ethically wrong?
Focus: Character, conduct, responsibility, accountability.
Standards: Moral law, Scripture, conscience, ethical norms.

Moral evaluation addresses whether an individual’s actions conform to what is right and good. It is concerned with sin, repentance, accountability, and the protection of others. Moral failure rightly demands clear judgment and appropriate response.

2. Epistemic Evaluation
Question: Is this claim true, coherent, or reliable?
Focus: Truth value, accuracy, correspondence to reality.
Standards: Evidence, reason, coherence, fruitfulness.

Epistemic evaluation assesses whether an idea, insight, or argument is true or useful. It does not ask whether the speaker is morally upright, but whether what is being said corresponds to reality.

3. Discernment
Question: How should this work be engaged, used, limited, or contextualized?
Focus: Wisdom in application and reception.
Standards: Love of truth, moral clarity, pastoral sensitivity, prudence.

Discernment integrates moral and epistemic judgments without collapsing them. It considers audience, context, potential harm, and formative impact. Discernment may lead to caution, reframing, or limitation of use, but it does not require denying truth because of moral failure.

Category Collapse Occurs When:

Moral failure is treated as proof that a claim is false.
Using a work is assumed to endorse the author’s life.
Discernment is reduced to exclusion rather than wise engagement.

Understanding Ontological, Lived, and Formative Realities

Ontological reality concerns what is; lived reality concerns how what is is experienced; and formative reality concerns what a person is becoming through attention and choice over time.

In the next few posts, I’m going to discuss spiritual abuse. To kick things off, here’s a primer, the definitions pinning the foundations of spiritual abuse.

Why These Distinctions Matter

Understanding the distinctions between these reality categories helps to:

Prevent spiritual abuse.
Protect individual agency.
Honor trauma reality without resorting to mysticism.
Enable growth without moral judgment.
Integrate theology and neuroscience in a coherent way.
Recognize the differences among these realities.

Ontological Reality

Definition

Ontological reality refers to what exists and is true independently of human perception, interpretation, or belief.

Key characteristics

Exists whether or not it is perceived.
Is not created by thought, emotion, or belief.
Includes facts, events, moral truths, and historical occurrences.
Provides the ground against which all experience is measured.

Examples

A harmful act occurred.
Gravity operates.
God exists.
A boundary was violated.
A contract was breached.

Common errors

Denying ontological reality by appealing to perception (“that’s just how you feel”).
Treating belief as causative of truth (“if you believed rightly, this wouldn’t be true”).

Lived / Perceptual Reality

Definition

Lived or perceptual reality refers to how reality is experienced, interpreted, and embodied by a person through perception, memory, emotion, and meaning-making.

Key characteristics

Subjective but real.
Mediated by the nervous system.
Shaped by memory, trauma, culture, and expectation.
Determines what feels true or threatening.
Does not define what is true.

Examples

Feeling unsafe despite being physically safe.
Experiencing shame after a boundary violation.
Interpreting silence as rejection.
Trauma memories activating fear in the present.

Common errors

Dismissing lived reality as imaginary or sinful.
Elevating lived reality into ultimate truth.

Formative / Volitional Reality

Definition

Formative or volitional reality refers to what is becoming true over time through attention, choice, habit, practice, and repetition.

Key characteristics

Developmental and process-oriented.
Shaped by volition and sustained practice.
Influences identity, character, and future behavior.
Bridges present experience and future outcomes.
Neither fixed nor instantaneous.

Examples

Neural pathways being rewired through grounding.
Character formed through repeated choices.
Trust rebuilt over time.
Patterns of avoidance or engagement becoming habitual.

Common errors

Treating formation as fixed moral status.
Moralizing unfinished development.
Expecting instantaneous transformation.

Turning the Other Cheek is not Passivity

The Backhanded Slap

In Jewish law, not all slaps were equal. The Mishnah tells us that if you slap a man with your palm, there’s a fine. But if you backhand him—well, now you’ve doubled it (Mishnah). Why? Because the backhand wasn’t just about sting, it was about shame. It was a master’s way of saying, “You’re beneath me.”

That little detail sheds a lot of light on Jesus’ words. When He said, “Turn the other cheek,” He wasn’t telling people to stand there and take a beating. He was telling them: don’t play their game of humiliation. Offer the other cheek, and suddenly the insulter can’t treat you like an inferior anymore without breaking his own code of conduct.

Josephus and the Weight of Insult

To Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived through the Roman wars, being humiliated was nearly the same as being wounded. He gives us story after story about how insults sparked violence.

One Roman governor, Florus, took money from the Temple treasury. When the Jews begged him not to commit such sacrilege, he mocked them and sent soldiers to beat and crucify the petitioners (Flavius Josephus, Wars 2.224–227).

Another story, from Antiquities 17.163, shows men punished severely for insulting Herod by tearing down one of his dedications. Insult was rebellion. Shame was a wound to the whole community.

That’s the world Jesus spoke into. That’s what makes His words so jarring.

Other Voices of the Time

And Josephus wasn’t alone. Seneca, the Roman Stoic, said it was small-minded to count up insults—better to ignore them. Philo, the Jewish philosopher, praised those who endured wrongs instead of inflicting them (Dialogues, Cato)

In other words, there was a countercurrent of thought in the ancient world: real strength is shown not by striking back, but by refusing to be ruled by insult.

4. The Subversive Message of Jesus

Put it all together, and you see the sharp edge of Jesus’ teaching:

The Mishnah shows us just how shameful a backhanded slap was.
Josephus shows us how honor and insult could lead to bloodshed.
Seneca and Philo remind us that endurance was seen as a higher way.

But Jesus didn’t echo philosophers. He turns the notion on its head and teaches something contrary to popular doctrines.

In going further, He says, “Turn the other cheek,” don’t play their honor-shame game. Instead, expose the injustice by refusing to accept the terms of humiliation.

That’s not a weakness. That’s a dignified, honorable display of defiant strength. It’s the quiet word of someone who knows their worth in God’s eyes, not in the approval of men.

Side-by-Side Comparison

(Josephus, the Mishnah, and contemporaneous voices)

Source	Content	Emphasis
Mishnah Bava Kamma 8:6	“If he slapped him on the cheek with the back of his hand, which is more degrading than a slap with the palm, he must give him four hundred dinars.”	A backhand is twice as humiliating as an open-palm slap. Insult, not injury, is the main issue.
Josephus, Wars 2.224–227	Florus robs the Temple, mocks the Jews’ pleas, unleashes soldiers to kill and flog, and crucifies many.	Humiliation as a tool of domination. For Josephus, insult is as intolerable as physical attack.
Josephus, Antiquities 17.163	Rebels insult Herod by destroying what he had dedicated. He punishes them harshly.	Honor and insult drive political response. Public shame is treated as rebellion.
Jesus, Matthew 5:39	“If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”	A radical command to refuse humiliation without retaliation. Dignity is preserved through nonviolent resistance.

The Teaching At that Time

In Jesus’ world, the backhanded slap was the ultimate way to belittle someone. The Mishnah shows us the legal weight: it cost double the fine of an ordinary slap. Josephus shows us that insults could spark riots, even war. To be shamed in public was as serious as being wounded.

And yet when Jesus said to “turn the other cheek,” He was not suggesting our popular notion and doctrine of becoming passive doormats. He’s not saying abuse is okay. He’s telling His followers: ‘Don’t live by the old honor, don’t play another man’s game.’

A Comparison

Someone tries to embarrass you, cutting you down with a sarcastic remark

Popular doctrine: shy away, be passive, don’t confront, allow them to hit you again – just hide away and pray for them.
Jesus’s teaching: confront with dignity and honor; be angry, but don’t sin.

The idea of being angry without sinning feels strange to many of us. Why? Because somewhere along the way, we were taught that certain emotions—especially the uncomfortable ones like anger, grief, or frustration—were automatically wrong. They couldn’t be displayed, voiced, or even acknowledged. So rather than learning how to handle these emotions honestly, we learned to bury them. We suppressed instead of expressed, mistaking silence for holiness. But suppressed emotions don’t disappear; they simmer. Over time, the pressure builds, and the body keeps score. We wear our “badges of courage” not as medals of faithfulness, but as ulcers, anxiety, sleepless nights, and other disorders that remind us: ignoring what we feel is not the same as overcoming.

Final Thought

Josephus and the rabbis show us that a backhanded slap was more than pain—it was about stripping someone of their honor. Jesus flips the script: our honor doesn’t come from men, but from God. When we turn the other cheek, we demonstrate that we know who we are in Christ. That’s why we don’t have to fight insult with insult. We can stand with dignity, even when the world tries to put us down.

In short: turning the other cheek is not weakness—it’s faith. Faith that God will vindicate us, faith that our worth is secure, and faith that His Kingdom operates on different rules than the world’s.

Understanding His teaching in the context of history sets the common doctrine, ‘I am but a worm,‘ on its head.

AI is Getting Better

Phase 1: Origins of AI (Pre-1950s to 2000s)

Era	Milestone	Description
Antiquity	Mythical automata	Legends like Talos (Greek mythology) and Pygmalion hinted at artificial beings
1940s	Turing’s Universal Machine	Alan Turing conceptualized machines that could simulate any computation
1956	Dartmouth Conference	Birth of AI as a formal field; John McCarthy coined the term “Artificial Intelligence”
1960s–70s	ELIZA & Shakey	First chatbot and mobile robot; early symbolic reasoning systems
1980s	Expert Systems	Rule-based systems used in medicine and finance; limited adaptability
1997	Deep Blue defeats Kasparov	IBM’s chess AI beats world champion—symbolic victory for narrow AI

Phase 2: Current State of AI (2000s to 2025)

Milestone	Description
2006–2012	Rise of machine learning and deep learning; neural networks outperform symbolic AI
2017	Transformer architecture introduced—foundation for modern LLMs like GPT, Claude, Gemini
2022–2023	ChatGPT and generative AI go mainstream; multimodal models emerge
2024–2025	GPT-5 released; achieves human-level performance on many benchmarks
Enterprise Adoption	AI used in healthcare, finance, education, and government (e.g., 2M federal employees now have access)
Agentic AI	Models begin to reason, plan, and execute tasks autonomously; early signs of Artificial General Assistance (AGA)

Phase 3: Future Trajectory (2025–2035+)

Expected Stages of AI Evolution

Stage	Capability	Description
1. Rule-Based Systems	Static logic	Already widespread (e.g., RPA, autopilots)
2. Context Awareness	Retention & adaptation	AI in cancer diagnosis, legal analysis, and other applications.
3. Domain Expertise	Superhuman specialization	AI in cancer diagnosis, legal analysis, etc.
4. Reasoning Machines	Theory of mind	Models that negotiate, infer intentions, and plan
5. AGI (Artificial General Intelligence)	Human-like cognition	Unified intelligence across domains; still theoretical
6. ASI (Artificial Superintelligence)	Beyond human	Solves global problems, invents new sciences
7. Conscious AI	Self-awareness	Speculative—machines with subjective experience or synthetic emotion

Where We Are Now

We’re currently between Stage 3 and Stage 4:

GPT-5 and similar models show domain expertise and early reasoning.
Agentic behavior is emerging—models can plan, use tools, and adapt dynamically.
Multimodal capabilities (text, image, voice) are converging into unified systems.

What’s Next?

Near-Term (2025–2027)

Personal AI agents with memory and voice
Automated coding and research
Swarm intelligence: collaborative AI systems
AI governance frameworks to manage ethical risks

Mid-Term (2028–2030)

AGI prototypes capable of general reasoning
AI-run economies and governments
Universal basic income discussions as automation scales

Long-Term (2030+)

Artificial Superintelligence (ASI): solving climate change, curing diseases
Synthetic emotion and consciousness: speculative but increasingly explored

Understanding Biblical Readiness Beyond Salvation

Why Readiness Isn’t About Salvation, But It Still Matters

The Bible is full of people saved by God’s grace who had to make real decisions to prepare themselves for what was coming. Noah built an ark. Lot fled Sodom. Israel crossed the Red Sea and later the Jordan. Each story is unique, but one theme echoes: God saves, but the wise prepare.

Too often, we reduce readiness to moral effort or religious performance. But actual biblical readiness is something else: it’s prophetic insight. It’s the capacity to perceive what God is doing in history and act in faith before the moment comes.

Jesus called us to be ready, not because He wanted us to fear being “left behind,” but because He wants us to live in alignment with His kingdom now. Readiness doesn’t secure your salvation. Salvation influences your readiness if you choose to walk in it.

Just as Revelation pictures the saints enduring, witnessing, resisting the beast, and standing with the Lamb, we are called to live as those who know what’s coming and prepare accordingly.

Are you saved? Good.

Are you ready? Maybe, maybe not. That’s the next question.

Ready or Not: A Biblical Theology of Readiness Beyond Salvation

I. Introduction

Define: the distinction between salvation and readiness.
Emphasize: Salvation is a gift; readiness is a prophetic response.

Key Scriptures: Matthew 24:42-44, 1 Thessalonians 5:1-8, Revelation 3:2-3

II. Biblical Case Studies in Readiness

1. Noah (Genesis 6-9)

Saved by grace (Gen. 6:8), but “ready” because he obeyed.
Hebrews 11:7: “By faith Noah… prepared an ark.”
Readiness = long-term obedience based on faith that you are 1) hearing God’s direction, 2) God is speaking.

2. Lot (Genesis 19)

Not portrayed as morally exemplary, yet delivered.
“Ready” when he obeyed the angels and fled.
Readiness = responding to urgent divine instruction.

3. Israel at the Red Sea (Exodus 14)

Saved by God’s deliverance, but had to choose to leave Egypt.
Readiness = willingness to step into the unknown in faith.

4. Israel at the Jordan (Joshua 3-5)

The new generation sanctifies itself and follows God.
Readiness = preparation and courage to inherit the promise.

5. The Foolish Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13)

All were invited, but only the prepared entered.
Readiness = spiritual vigilance, not last-minute scrambling.

III. Readiness in Revelation

1. The Saints (Rev. 12:11, 14:12)

Described as those who keep faith and endure.
Readiness = perseverance and spiritual alertness.

2. The Two Witnesses (Rev. 11)

Symbolic of the “One New Man” (Eph. 2:15): Jew and Gentile Church.
Readiness = prophetic witness in a hostile world.

3. The 144,000 (Rev. 7, 14)

Symbolic totality of God’s people, sealed and standing with the Lamb.
Shows us the One New Man in two tribes (Gentile and Jew) complementing each other (12 squared) and then multiplied by 1000, which is God’s overwhelming empowerment.
Readiness = sealed identity, obedient and powerful Saints following God.

The Thief in the Night (Matt. 24, 1 Thess. 5)

In no way is a thief in the night a good time, even when you’re ready to confront him.
Readiness = the awareness of the difficulties associated with Christ’s return: the rise of the Beast, the deception of the False Prophet, and the trials of the tribulation period.

IV. Overcoming the Beast: A Biblical Profile of the Saints

1. Daniel 7:21-22 – The beast wages war, but judgment is rendered for the saints who then possess the kingdom.

2. Daniel 11:32-35 – The people who know their God stand firm and instruct many during persecution.

3. Revelation 12:11 – Saints conquer the Beast by the blood of the Lamb and their testimony.

4. Revelation 13:7-10 – The beast is permitted to conquer saints physically, but spiritual endurance is their victory.

5. Revelation 14:12 – Saints are defined by their obedience and faith in Jesus amid tribulation.

6. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 – The man of lawlessness is revealed, but the faithful are not deceived.

These passages show that the saints do not overcome by escaping the world, the Beast, or the False Prophet, but by faithfully enduring and conquering with insight, courage, and hope.

V. Theological Implications

Salvation = Position in Christ.
Readiness = Prophetic alignment with God’s purposes.
It is not about works or righteousness, but sanctified awareness and action.

Summary: Readiness is not what saves us, but it shows we have understood what God is doing. It is the mark of mature faith.

The Fallacy of Easy Believism

Easy believism ignores and discounts the requirement of personal responsibility. It says, “I can just believe and be saved.”

“So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!”

Faith is the confluence of belief, trust, and expectation. These three working together produce fruit. In the context of salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-10), the fruit (or works) of faith is repentance from sins.

Without trust and expectation, there is no accessing the Works (salvation) of the One who says, I can, and I will do as I promise. Without trust and expectation mixed with belief, there is no basis to act in repentance from sins, which are non-refutable qualities of the gospel of the kingdom of God.

So, to button it up: Is Jesus key? Yes. Can we access the salvation that Jesus provided through is death, burial and resurrection without repentance? No.

Processing the Miraculous

Would you like to learn about the Five Stages of the Miracle Experience? If so, read on.

Just as with the Five Stages of Grief, encountering a genuine, unexpected miracle compels one to navigate through these five stages. Similarly, akin to the stages of grief, it is possible to become trapped in any phase and prematurely terminate the process without full resolution.

Surprise

The initial shock and amazement at witnessing the impossible.

Denial

This is where we first deny and attempt to shift responsibility for what has just occurred in our presence.

Uncertainty

This stage is predominantly occupied with the question of “Why,” and doubting our memory of the events surrounding the miracle. We explore plausible, alternate scenarios to explain the miraculous.

Reasoning

In our struggle to comprehend the nature or meaning of the event, we attempt to stabilize our psyche through understanding and comprehension. We seek or construct answers as we develop a framework about its meaning and significance.

Acceptance

We accept the miraculous event as literal and natural for our relationship with God; we find peace and awe in the experience. Most importantly, our faith grows as a result. In other words, our “God Box” gets bigger.

You can ask me how I know, but I’m not telling. When you do experience yours, those steps above are generally how it will play out for you. And like grief, we don’t progress through these stages one after the other but jump between them during the process.

The Unexpected

This quality is important: the unexpected nature of the event pushes us into this processing framework.

Many of us have experienced what we may have called a miracle. But because of faith or disinterest, we immediately had a framework in which the experience was quickly processed, categorized, and perhaps even discarded.

Just a Sinner, Saved by Grace

When a person gives their life to Jesus, that person will be changed, never wanting to go back to their old sinful ways.

I wish it were that easy and simple. It never was for me. I became aware of some things—literally overnight—and some behaviors changed immediately. But through no fault of my own, others hung around for a lifetime.

Being a good Baptist, I learned how to thrive on the condemnation routinely spewed like raw sewage from the pulpit. I doubted my salvation; I prayed the sinner’s prayer weekly, if not daily, and confessed the same sins over and over, but nothing changed. So, I embraced the sewage and self-condemnation, figuring this was what I needed to keep me straight.

At some point in my journey, I had begun to learn Father’s voice—thanks be to God because the Baptists I hung out with couldn’t teach that if their lives depended upon it—when during one of my groveling confession sessions, Father spoke so clearly that had it been any louder, I would have heard Him with my ears, bellowing in the room: “Never confess those sins to me again. Don’t bring it to me if you don’t remember when it happened or remember doing it.”

For you see, I knew—as aptly taught—that I was just a worm, a sinner saved by grace, so it didn’t really matter what sin I confessed because, at some point, I’d certainly done it in some fashion. Hence, repeat, ad nauseam.

After that encounter, I didn’t pray again for two weeks because I had nothing else to say or talk about.

That was probably the turning point in my learning who I am in Christ.

Look up Neil T. Anderson and get the book.

Debunking the Blind Faith of Hebrews 11:1

Warning: this will bake your noodle.

It has been suggested that the definition of faith is believing in something without proof or evidence to substantiate said thing: a typical Evangelical Christian definition based chiefly on a verse found somewhere in the book of Hebrews (chapter 11, verse 1, to be precise).

However, I would suggest that there’s not only archeological evidence but also other tangible evidence that God is and keeps His word—the Bible, right?

After all, some say that today, God only speaks to us through the Bible.

So then, how is the Bible used, and what does it have to do with blind faith?

We use it as a historical record illustrating that God is trustworthy and His nature is Good. By any definition of the word, the Bible becomes our record of evidence of His existence and nature. But therein is the rub.

Using their definition, that faith must be blind, that faith must not rely on tangible evidence, then believing in and trusting God solely based on what one has read in the Bible does not constitute an application of faith, because – according to them – the very essence of faith must transcend the need for empirical validation resting instead on a profound sense of trust and conviction that is literally based upon nothing:

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11%3A1&version=ESV

They Believe that Faith Must be Blind

What we see, then, is that these people try to define faith as empty and convince you that faith is blind. They take Hebrews 11:1 out of context and propose a new, seemingly better definition.

However, in adhering to their wishes and using their own definitions, we discover their blindness to the very nature of their origins.

What do they possess, then? Nothing more than a commitment to a logical conclusion drawn from historical evidence found in both the Bible and extrabiblical sources – because their faith must be blind and based upon no observable evidence at all.

Really Understanding Faith

While our reference to the text of the Book of Hebrews is correct, and the words found therein are true, we must move beyond blind, unsubstantiated faith. Perhaps a further reading of the text will bring elucidation:

For by it {faith} the people of old received their commendation.

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks.

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God.

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011&version=ESV

In all of the examples provided, each one is backed up by tangible evidence.

The Word of God was spoken throughout history so that those from Adam and beyond knew from whence they came, this being the evidence of testimony.
How did Able know what to bring as an offering? Not through the Bible, but by having a living conversation with God – trusting and believing His testimony.
Enoch believed and trusted God that he would not see death but be taken up instead. He had reason to believe and trust God’s word.
Noah acted on God’s tangible word after being warned and instructed.

A Better Understanding of Faith

In any court, testimony is considered evidence. Even so, without trust there can be no faith.

Suppose you want to hire Yardman to mow your grass, as you have an acre of grass to maintain. To that end, you interview a few people.

The first person arrives with scissors and promises to show up on time every week. He asserts that he will cut your grass with his scissors and be done in about an hour. The second person you interview arrives with useful lawn equipment that seems to be seldom used. Your neighbors have warned you that he’s unreliable and may not show up but only once a month, if that. The third person arrives looking tattered, hot, and with grass clippings stuck in his hair. He provides, like the others, a fair price for the job.

Which one do you hire, and why?

You avoid Scissor Man because you don’t believe he can do the job.
You avoid Seldom Man because you don’t trust him to do the job.
You hire Tattered and Dirty Man because you believe he can do the job and trust that he will keep his word.

So, you hired the Tattered and Diry Man, because why? Because of the faith generated by the evidence provided.

The Scientific Method

Whether supernatural or natural, faith is always based on the evidence provided. It is generated and grows by believing the evidence and trusting its Maker. As such, the Scientific Method is the best example of our generation of natural faith.

Something is observed, and a curiosity is formed along with an idea of why the thing is. Tests are devised and investigated for their applicability and trustworthiness. The tests are performed, and the results are evaluated as conforming to the qualifications previously devised. Once the results are confirmed, we let someone else run the same experiments. The more times they’re run, the more times they show the same results, the more our belief in the original hypothesis and theories increase, along with the trust in the validity of the devised tests. All because of trust placed into the original systems of belief and the qualities of trustworthiness of the tests performed.

We have faith because we know the One who speaks, and we believe because we have found Him to be Trustworthy.

Thus, faith is never blind, regardless of how often someone removes Hebrews 11:1 from its context.

So, the next time someone tells you that faith is blind, ask them if they believe the Bible provides evidence of a Creator, Moral Giver, and Judge. If they assert that as true, then remind them they have simply believed a logical construct, seeing that their faith must, by their definition, be blind.