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.

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.

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.

So, you want to be like Jesus?

Then answer the question: Why?

Why do you want to be like Jesus? To please the Father? To be better than you are? Were those the motivations of Christ, or did He have something else in mind?

\”Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him …\” (Philippians 2:4-9)

\”Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner\” (John 5:19)

\”But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.\” (Luke 11:20)

Before we can answer the question #1, \”why do I want to be like Jesus\”,

we must answer the question, #2 \”who did Jesus want to be like?\”

But before we can answer question #2, we must answer question #3: was Jesus trying to be like God, or was He simply watching the Father, and doing what He did, doing His will?

Someone once said, \”I will be like The Most High\”, and it didn\’t go to well for him. (Isaiah 14:13-15)

We can only be who we are, who God has molded us to be. He does not want us to all look the same, but He does want all of us to be about His business.

Once we\’ve learned that there is grace and mercy for our sins, and teachings and doctrines enough to keep us from sin if we will only take the time and patience to learn, then we can be about His business and doing what Jesus did: \”nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, humble of mind and regarding others more important than ourselves, not just looking out for our interests, but the interests of others, emptying ourselves of our pride, and looking to the Father for our next marching orders.\”

So, why do you want to be like Jesus? Do you want to do the will of the Father, or do you have other motives?

Do you just want to be happy, or are you willing to be battered and bruised doing the work of the Lord? Is happiness the goal, or is Glory of God the goal? One is incorrect, the other is not.

Do you think being like Jesus will make you accepted of God, or do you want to put the needs of others before your own? One is a lie, the other is how we live in the Kingdom.

Desire the best gifts, but not for yourself: desire them so that you may edify others, so that you may build up others through love.

\”Therefore it says, \’WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN … for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; \” … for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; \” (Ephesians 4:8,12)