The NT has four words to signify “ask” or one of the synonyms of that verb. All of them are used frequently. It is no easy matter to sort out the different inflexions of meaning which these carry, but the effort is worthwhile because of the finer nuances of meaning which can then be traced in not a few places.

“Aiteo” expresses the idea of petition, asked by an inferior of a superior. This very clear implication of the word puts Trench (“New Testament Synonyms”) in rather a flap because of Martha’s appeal to Jesus: “I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee” (Joh 11:22). Trinitarian Trench does not like the implied notion that Jesus was not of equal status with his Father, and therefore he expresses himself somewhat scornfully about Martha’s lack of spiritual insight. But, indeed, if the apostle John felt equally disapproving, would he have included this in his record uncorrected?

1Jo 5:16 is a very problematical passage using this word “aiteo”. One problem arises from lack of nouns to the verbs. “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask (Jesus), and he (the Father) shall give him (Jesus) life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he (Jesus) should beseech (God) for it.”

“Erotao” seems to have two distinct flavours:

1. It is used as equivalent of the English “enquire”. Thus, “Jesus asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” (Mat 16:13). And in reply to the Pharisees’ interrogation about his own authority, Jesus replied: “I also will ask you one thing…” (Mat 21:24). Similarly, concerning the disciples’ mystification: “Jesus knew the disciples were desirous to ask him. Do ye enquire (seek) among yourselves of that I said, A little while and ye shall not see me…?” (Joh 16:19), to be followed by the assurance: “In that day ye shall ask me nothing (erotao, question, enquire)… Whatsoever (understanding) ye shall ask (“aiteo”, petition) the Father in my name, he will give it you” (16:23).

2. But this word is also used often as equivalent to “beseech”. It describes importunity: The Syrophoenician woman pleading on behalf of her daughter (Mar 7:26); the rich man begging that his five brothers be warned (Luk 16:27). In this sense, often enough. It is rather surprising, then, to find it used of Jesus “praying Simon” to let him use the fishing boat as a pulpit — a measure perhaps of how hard-pressed Jesus was by the crowd (Luk 5:3,1). And it is equally surprising to find Pharisees more than once beseeching Jesus to accept their hospitality (Luk 7:36; 11:37). Mere Pharisee hypocrisy? And in John 14:16 this supposedly Trinitarian gospel throws a spanner in the Trinitarian works with this word of Jesus: “I will pray (beseech, beg) the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter…”, with reference to what could be expected at his ascension to glory!

“Eperotao” is the same as “erotao” with the intensive prefix “epi” added to it. Accordingly, it means either (a) specially earnest enquiry, (b) an insistent pressing interrogation, or (c) enquiry with a certain legal formality about it — in this respect not markedly different from “punthanomai” below.

1. Women chattering during the service about matters which provoke their interest are bidden pursue this earnest seeking from their husbands at home (1Co 14:35). It is this word which describes the eager thirst for knowledge on the part of the boy Jesus as he heard the learned elders in the temple and “asked them questions” (Luk 2:46). Somewhat remarkably, the same word comes in Mar 8:23 to describe Jesus’ healing of the blind man by stages: “he asked him if he saw aught”. The word implies a special eagerness on the Lord’s part in the performance of this miracle. The symbolism here helps to explain. When a lawyer came “tempting Jesus”, asking the question: “Which is the great commandment in the law?” (Mat 22:35), by using “eperotao” the narrative acquits him of hypocrisy or evil purpose.

2. But there is no good meaning behind the summary phrase at the end of that day of debate in the temple: “No man durst ask him (press upon him) any more questions” (22:46). The same word describes the eagerness of the Pharisees to bring about his discomfiture: “He was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come” (Luk 17:20).

3. Pilate’s questioning of Jesus (Mat 27:11), and the high priest’s interrogation of the apostles (Acts 5:27) both seem to give to “eperotao” a certain flavor of legal procedure. Yet not necessarily (there being another word for this: see below), for in both of these places it may be the intense feeling or strong pressure of these worldly men that is being described.

Lastly, “punthanomai” very clearly describes (a) the question put by a superior to his inferior, and (b) akin to this, the formal legal enquiry.

1. It is the word used of the nobleman enquiring of his servants the precise hour of his son’s recovery (Joh 4:52), of the prodigal’s older brother asking for explanation of the unexpected celebration (Luk 15:26), and of the Roman soldier sent by Cornelius enquiring, as of one of an inferior race, the way to Simon Peter’s house (Acts 10:18) — yet it is also Peter’s word, as from the Lord’s representative, when meeting Cornelius: “I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me” (Acts 10:29).

2. The “legal enquiry” aspect of “punthanomai” is readily discernible: the chief priests cross-questioning Peter (Acts 4:7), the Roman captain and Felix making enquiry about Paul (Acts 21:33; 23:19,34). But it is somewhat startling to find the same word used of Peter’s eagerness to identify the traitor Jesus had spoken about: “Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him (to John), that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake” (Joh 13:24). Peter doubtless wished not only for inquisition but also summary condemnation of the guilty one.

Assyria emerged as a territorial state in the 14th century BC. Its territory covered what is now the northern part of modern Iraq. From the beginning, Assyria was a strong military power bent on conquest and expansion. By the 9th century BC, Assyria had consolidated its control over all of northern Mesopotamia (the land “between the rivers” — ie the Tigris and the Euphrates). Then the Assyrian armies marched beyond their own borders — in brutal and efficient waves — to expand their empire, seeking booty to finance their plans for still more conquest. By about 850 BC, the Assyrian menace posed a direct threat to the small Jewish states to the west and south — Israel and Judah, the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of the Old Testament.

During the period from 850 to 700 BC, the Assyrian empire reached its zenith. During part of this time, the kings of Assyria, ruling in Nineveh on the Tigris, also exercised dominion over ancient Babylon on the Euphrates about 200 miles to the south; they were quite pleased to refer to themselves as “kings of Babylon” (much as Queen Victoria of England claimed the additional title “Empress of India”).

It was also during the latter part of this period (approx 720-700 BC) that king Sargon of Assyria conquered and occupied the Northern Kingdom of Israel (2Ki 17:1-6). His successor Sennacherib carried many thousands of captives away to Nineveh and Babylon (Mic 4:10; Psa 137:1-4), defeated 46 fortified cities of the Southern Kingdom of Judah (Isa 8:7,8;10:5,6), and finally threatened even the city of Jerusalem — before meeting a titanic defeat — at the hand of the Angel of the Lord (Isa 37:1-36).

This might seem like so much dry-as-dust history, except for these facts:

1. The modern-day Iraq of Saddam Hussein occupies the same territory as the OT Assyria. Its leader behaves in the same brutal fashion as did the ancient kings of Assyria — his mind ever set on the acquisition of land, wealth, and power. His lack of concern for human life allows him to use threats other world leaders would shrink from — and, when provoked, to carry out such threats. He styles himself the head of the whole Arab world, and he demonstrates an intense hatred for the Arabs’ common enemy Israel. And he is perhaps the greatest threat to the peace of the Middle East and the world.

2. A number of OT prophecies, about the coming and work of the Messiah, were written by prophets (most notably, Isaiah) who lived in Jewish lands under the long shadow of the Assyrian threat at the time of its greatest expansion. It is clear that many of their prophecies had immediate (but incomplete) fulfillments in:

• The deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib, through the faith of righteous king Hezekiah;

• The destruction of the Assyrian oppressors by the power of God;

• The return from captivity of many Jews whom Sennacherib and his predecessors had carried into slavery; and

• A new period of peace in a regenerated nation of Judah.

But it is even more clear that a number of such prophecies still await their final (and perfect) realization at the return of Christ.

It is possible that the development of a modern-day “Assyrian”, with avowed designs to expand its territory and, in the process, annihilate the people of Israel, is a precursor to a coming divine deliverance. This last deliverance will be so stupendous as to dwarf all previous revelations of God, for it will be none other than the return of the Lord Jesus Christ in great power and glory to vanquish the “Assyrian” and all his allies, to save his people Israel, and to establish God’s millennial (1,000-year) Kingdom on this earth.

A summary of Bible references to Assyria helps us to develop a fuller picture of the Last Days:

Is all this the fate of an Iraqi coalition led against Israel by that modern-day “Assyrian” Saddam Hussein (or some even-more-powerful successor)?

At the Judgment at Christ’s coming we will be accepted by Christ if we have these attitudes and traits while believing the Truth:	At the Judgment at Christ’s coming we will be rejected by Christ if we have these attitudes and traits even if we believe all the Truth:
Showing a gentle attitude toward all (Phi 4:5).	Hard and austere (Luk 19:21,22).
Being generous in mind, spirit, and pocket, whether others are deserving or not (Luk 6:27-35).	Unforgiving of real or imagined wrongs (Mat 18:34,35).
Genuinely forbearing, forgiving and being easy to live with (Col 3:13).	Unmerciful, harsh and critical (Mat 7:1-5).
Insistent that a place be found every day for prayer and Bible reading whatever the distractions (1Th 5:17,18).	Concerned with routine ecclesial duties, while ignoring immediate needs of the stranger (Luk 10:30-32).
Actively seeking for opportunities to help others less fortunate than ourselves, irrespective of whether they share our faith, or are likely to do so (Gal 6:10).	Making demands of others while offering little help (Mat 23:3,4).
Willing to consider fairly others’ points of view, and assume that their motives are genuine (Jam 1:19).	Lack of fellow-feeling for those who are tempted or fall (Joh 8:1-7).
Ready to delegate authority and duties, to share responsibilities and encourage others, especially the young (2Ti 2:2).	Always trying to be in the spotlight (Jam 3:1).
Providing a stable, warm, loving, home atmosphere to attract others; ready to use home at all times as the greatest place from which to witness (1Ti 3:2-5).	Applying class, racial or group stereotypes to others (Jam 2).
Grieving at condition of “sheep without a shepherd” (Mat 9:36).	Having little time or concern for those “in the world” or who differ from us (Isa 65:5).
Having compassion on the ignorant, and those out of the Way, and in danger of being “lost” (Heb 5:2).	Shunning and condemning those considered to be sinners, and treating some as “beyond the pale” (Mat 23:13).
Joyful in welcoming the returning wayward (Luk 15:32).	Coldly and grudgingly accepting the returning wayward (Luk 15:25-28).
Showing mercy towards those who have doubts (Jud 1:22).	Neglectful of the lonely, aged, and afflicted; concerned only with the “strong” and the “good attendees” (Mat 25:45).
Friend of sinners, “despairing of no man” (Luk 7:34).	Bigoted and unreasonable (Jud 1:16).
Willing to be patient in negotiation, seeing compromise in proper circumstances as strength (1Th 5:13).	Considering any compromise on anything, or any moderation, as weakness (2Co 10:12).
Avoiding controversy wherever and whenever possible, seeking instead to find strength in things that are shared in common (2Ti 2:24).	More concerned with controversial matters than the fostering of harmony and finding common ground (1Ti 6:4,5).
Unflinching in our loyalty to Christ at whatever cost (Mat 10:32-39).	Not prepared to make a clear commitment of faith or loyalty (Mar 8:38).
Willing to accept shame and even suffer cheerfully the “loss of all things” for the Truth (Phi 3:7,8).	Afraid of persecution, loss of prestige, worldly goods, or livelihood because of the Truth (Gal 6:12).
Encouraging our children, chiefly by our example, to accept the Truth (Eph 6:4).	Partial and over-indulgent toward our own children (1Sa 3:12,13).
Treating “fellowship” as a door through which to draw others into the security and warmth of God’s family (Rev 3:20).	Treating “fellowship” as a wall to keep others out of our special clique (3Jo 1:9,10).
Eager to extend the wonderful good news of salvation “everywhere”, worldwide, with no limit of race, language, color or class; optimistic in regard to witnessing (Rom 10:14-18).	Convinced that this is “the day of small things”; therefore doing little or nothing to propagate the Truth in the world; pessimistic as regards witnessing (Mat 25:26,27).

(AE)

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

[Exact date uncertain; generally assumed to be 5th or 6th century.]

The only problem that arises regarding this verb and noun (“ekdikeo”, “ekdikesis”) is whether they always mean just that, or whether there is a milder, more impersonal meaning: “do justice”. Rom 13:4 might seem to fall into this category: “he (the ruler) is… a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Yet what might be impersonal administration of justice in a human ruler is a very personal anger — “wrath” — in an Almighty God who sees His laws being flouted. And the context also suggests vengeance: “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto the wrath (of God): for it is written, Vengeance is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord” (Rom 12:19).

There can be no doubt about the meaning of the Lord’s prophecy of the horrors of AD 70: “these be the days of vengeance” (Luk 21:22). Israel had violently rejected the Son of God, and continued to do so; and the Father was angry.

The parable of the importunate widow, a problem to our translators, ceases to be a problem when the context is allowed to do its work. The second half of Luk 17 is all about the Second Coming; and Luk 18:8 rounds off with: “when the Son of man cometh…” Then is there not here a plain directive to apply the intervening parable to the Second Coming? In that case, who is the widow? — Israel or the new Israel? The former, doubtless: Isa 54:5-8; Lam 1:1 (ct Mat 28:20; Heb 13:5).

For centuries Israel has seen herself undeservedly bereft of help and at the mercy of her enemies. To the Jews their God has seemed like an unjust judge, callously heedless of their needs and their rights. Only when Israel turns to God in a persistent importunity not to be gainsaid will there be response to their plight. “And shall not God (then) avenge his own elect, they crying day and night unto him, he being (hitherto) longsuffering (with their persecutors) regarding them? Then (when they are importunate) he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man (the Messiah: Dan 7:13) cometh, shall he find faith (in God’s power to save) in the Land?” — implying: Only in a small remnant.

In the parable, the widow cries: “Avenge me of mine adversary” (Luk 18:3), and this is right. But the Revisers, missing the point of the parable and uneasy about a widow crying for vengeance, have turned it into: “Do me justice” (RV mg.). The RSV has “Vindicate”. NEB: “Demanding justice.” But the AV is right.

An acrostic psalm is one where the first letters of consecutive verses (in Heb) make up a word, or the alphabet. The Heb alphabet consists of 22 letters, which are listed as headings in Psa 119.

Psalms 9,10: In each the letter Waw is omitted and the letter Pe is duplicated (in vv 16 and 22). Poss these two psalms were originally complete alphabetical acrostics.

Psalms 37, 111, 112, 119: These are complete acrostic psalms (the last being an 8-fold acrostic).

Psa 145: The letter Nun is missing in the Heb text. Many of the ancient translations insert an additional v between 13 and 14 which begins with this letter: “Faithful is the Lord in all his words and holy in all his works” (RSV, NEB, LXX).

Other acrostics are to be found in Pro 31:10-31 and Lam 1,2,3,4 (chs 2,3,4 have 2 letters transposed).

Acrostics are an aid to memory, in an age when written copies of the psalms (or any other Bible portions) were few, and when quite a number of ordinary people were not able to read (Lam 30,31).

The Scriptures abound in warnings against alien marriage. The sons of God marrying the daughters of men resulted at last in the Flood. Abraham and Isaac, faithful sojourners looking for the Kingdom, opposed such marriages for their sons (Gen 24:3; 28:1). The Law forbade the yoking together of the clean ox and the unclean ass (Deu 22:10). Moses said to take no alien spouses (Deu 7:3,8). Solomon’s alien wives turned his heart from God (1Ki 11:1-11). Ezra (Ezr 9; 10) and Nehemiah (Neh 13:23-29) tell us of the evils of such alliances, and Paul has stressed the same:

“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: ‘I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.’ ‘Therefore come out from them and be separate,’ says the Lord. ‘Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty’ ” (2Co 6:14-18).

All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the university mountain, but there in the sand-pit at kindergarten. These are the things I learned:

• Share everything.

• Play fair.

• Don’t hit people.

• Put things back where you found them.

• Clean up your own mess.

• Don’t take things that aren’t yours.

• Say you are sorry when you hurt somebody.

• Wash your hands before you eat.

• Flush the toilet.

• Warm cookies and milk are good for you.

• Live a balanced live — learn a little and think a little and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day a little.

• Take a nap every afternoon.

• When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together.

• Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the yogurt carton: The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.

• Cats and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the yogurt carton — they all die. So do we.

• And then remember your first reading book and the first word you learned — the biggest of all — LOOK.

Everything you need to know is in there somewhere. The Golden Rule (treat the others as you would like them to treat you) and love and basic sanitation. Ecology and politics and equality and sane living.

Take one of these items and extrapolate it into sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your family life or your work or your government or your world, and it holds true and clear and firm. Think what a better world it would be if we all — the whole world — had cookies and milk at three o’clock every afternoon and then lay down with our blankets for a nap. Or if all governments had a basic policy to always put things back where they found them and to clean up their own mess.

And it is still true, no matter how old you are — when you go out into the world, it is best to hold hands and stick together.

(From “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten”, by Robert Fulghum)