The western world hates PATRIARCHY and the church ignores it. By this are we sinning?

[Clare73]

Unlike slavery which is profoundly immoral.

No more so than poverty, disability or terminal cancer which all, without doubt, are profoundly depriving, objectionable and difficult, but none are immoral in the God-breathed Holy Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16).

The distinction is not hard to see.
Sorry you think what God personally authorized in both the OT and NT is immoral.

 

[Philip_B]

No more so than poverty, disability or terminal cancer which all, without doubt, are profoundly depriving, objectionable and difficult, but none are immoral in the God-breathed Holy Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16).

The distinction is not hard to see. Poverty is a social ill that needs as far as possible to be addressed. Disability is sad and unfortunate, and in general not the fault of those who have it, and where they do, a caring and just society tries to ensure they can participate as fully as possible. Terminal Cancer, and I lost one parent to it, is a health issue not a moral issue.

Sorry you think what God legislated in both the OT and NT is immoral.

I am sorry you don't see it a shame that the Church can't do better than the UN Declaration of Human Rights. If your primary defence of slavery is that it is in the Bible, then you are not asking questions of Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ,​

If you are not prepared to ask questions of scripture, then you may be at risk of setting up up as an idol, which is not the intent or purpose of the 2 Timothy 3:16 passage you quote.

I do hope if I asked the question how many slaves do you own the answer would be zero.

 

[Clare73]

I am sorry you don't see it a shame that the Church can't do better than the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

No one is challenging the view of slavery as deprivation, objectionable, and difficult, just as poverty, disability and terminal cancer are likewise difficult, and all should be eradicated if possible.
Rather, it is the human view that slavery is immoral that is not Biblical.

If your primary defence of slavery is that it is in the Bible, then you are not asking questions of Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ,​

If you are not prepared to ask questions of scripture, then you may be at risk of setting up up as an idol, which is not the intent or purpose of the 2 Timothy 3.16 passage you quote.

Well, in addition to looking at the Biblical view of slavery (post #452, previous page), it may also be time to look at Jesus' view of Scripture.

For beginners, he rejected all religions traditions handed down that were contrary to the Scriptures (Mark 7:8, Mark 7:13).

And then, he believed the Scriptures were the "word of God" in every detail (Matthew 15:6; Luke 5:1, Luke 11:28; John 10:35)
He believed that every jot and tittle of the Law (the OT word for the Scriptures) was the very truth of God, vested with the authority of God and backed by by power of God (Matthew 5:17-19).
To emphasize that the OT was the infallible (wholly trustworthy and reliable), inerrant (wholly true) word of God, Jesus used his regular formula for solemn assertion ("Truly, truly I say to you") when he stated "until heaven and earth disappear, not one tittle (smallest stroke of the writing pen) will by any means disappear from the Law" (Scriptures). (Matthew 5:18; Luke 16:17)

He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Matthew 4:4-10; John 10:35). God's Word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?" "Have you not read. . .?" "Go and learn what this means..."
(Mark 12:24; Matthew 12:3-5, Matthew 19:4, Matthew 21:16, Matthew 21:42, Matthew 9:13).

Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the Word of God. He lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Luke 4:17-21; Matthew 8:16-17, Matthew 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Luke 18:31; Mark 8:31, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:33-34; Matthew 26:24; Luke 22:37; Matthew 26:53-56).
When he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Luke 24:44-47, Luke 24:25).
He presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (John 5:39-40, John 5:46-47).

And in asserting to the Jews that the OT bore divine authoritative witness to him, Jesus thereby bore divine authoritative witness to it.
Belief in the authority and truth of the Scriptures was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

And that included the historical accounts:
Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15),
Jonah and the whale (Matthew 12:39-40),
creation account (as God's words, though they are the writer's words, Matthew 19:4-6),
murder of Abel (Matthew 23:35),
Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:37-39),
burning bush and call of Moses (Mark 12:26),
Elijah and the provision for the widow (Luke 4:25-26),
Elisha and Naaman, the Syrian leper (Luke 4:27),
Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt (Luke 17:31-33).
plague of snakes and brazen serpent (John 3:14),
manna from heaven in the desert for 40 years (John 6:31, John 6:49),
Abraham still alive (John 8:39-40).

According to Jesus, the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16) are the absolute authority for the people of God, his ekklesia (called-out assembly), of both the NT and the OT (Acts 7:38).

And so we have:
Word of God eternal (John 1:1)
Word of God Incarnate (John 1:14)
Word of God spoken (Luke 5:1)
Word of God written (Mark 7:13)

I do hope if I asked the question how many slaves do you own the answer would be zero.

As I hope if I asked the question how many in your family are disabled the answer would be zero.

 

[Philip_B]

Philippians 2:12-13
Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.​

John 1:1 and John 1:14 which you use as a support, if referencing the eternal creative word of God which was one with God and was God and called the universe into being, being born - becoming flesh - and tabernacled in our midst - a clear connection with God in the tent on the journey out of Egypt. These are not a references to the Bible, and I believe you do damage to the text suggesting that they do.

 

[Clare73]

Philippians 2:12-13
Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.​

1:1 and John 1:14 which you use as a support, if referencing the eternal creative word of God which was one with God and was God and called the universe into being, being born - becoming flesh - and tabernacled in our midst - a clear connection with God in the tent on the journey out of Egypt. These are not are not references to the Bible, and I believe you do damage to the text suggesting that they do.

Or your assumption asserting that is what I am suggesting does damage to the text.

 

[Philip_B]

Or your assumption asserting that is what I am suggesting does damage to the text.

What other sense could I conclude by how you placed them in your post. Context is still important.

 

[Gregorikos]

By that logic, we should also place motherhood in the same category with sickness, death, poverty, envy, greed, and murder... and we should even strive to grow babies in artificial wombs.

Why would that be? Motherhood wasn't established at the fall. God established that in Genesis 1:28.

Motherhood isn't a fallen condition. Patriarchy is.

 

[Clare73]

What other sense could I conclude by how you placed them in your post. Context is still important.

I agree. . .

The varying ways "Word of God" is used, from animate to "inanimate"
The meaning of the Son of God being the "Word"
All Scripture likewise being the Word, etc.

 

[Gregorikos]

And I find it "revealing" that taking God and Scripture at their word--the meaning of belief, both in regard to marriage (Ephesians 5:12-31) and to slavery (Leviticus 25:39-46; Deuteronomy 20:10-11), emphasizing 1 Corinthians 7:21, is a an "interesting take" to you.


. . .2 Timothy 4:3-4

I don't believe you're taking God at his word at all. You're taking the parts you want and ignoring the parts that contradict you. Every last person I've ever shared the Scriptures I shared with you has changed his position on slavery. And I've done that a lot, considering how few Christians there are anymore who believe human slavery is moral.

And 2 Timothy 4:3-4 is a great passage, but you really want to talk sound doctrine?

Historically, Christianity has worked for the abolition of slavery.
– in 315 AD, Roman Emperor Constantine imposed the death penalty on those who would
kidnap children to bring up as slaves.
– The emperor Justinian (527-565AD) abolished all laws that prevented freeing slaves
– the 4th century Christin, Lactanuis, said that in God’s eyes, there were no slaves.
– St. Augustine saw slavery as sin and contrary to God’s will for humanity.
By the 14th century, slavery had almost disappeared in Europe. Unfortunately, it was revived in England’s colonies in the 17th century. Then it was defeated in all the British Empire by the Christian William Wilberforce and his Christian friends. The American abolitionist movement was largely made up of Christians. By 1835 two thirds of it was Christian ministers. Many southerners, like Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson detested slavery. Lee treated his slaves like family members. He freed his slaves before Union General Grant did his. To those skeptics who deny slavery was first abolished in the western world as a result of Christianity’s influence, answer these questions;
– was slavery first abolished in countries where Christianity had a major or minor
influence?
– did Christianity have a major or minor influence in countries that retained slavery into
the 21st century?
The answers to these questions make it clear that Christianity and slavery are poor bed-fellows. History shows a high correlation between Christianity and the abolition of slavery. Christianity is not a segregated religion. It offers itself without restriction to all people, classes and nations. The largest growth in 21st century Christianity is in third world countries like Africa and South America. Book references:
“How Christianity Changed the World” by Dr. Alvin Schmidt, chapter 11
“That’s Just Your Interpretation” by Dr. Paul Copan, chapter 19
“Christianity on Trial” by Carroll & Shiflett, chapter 2

 

[Clare73]

I don't believe you're taking God at his word at all. You're taking the parts you want and ignoring the parts that contradict you. Every last person I've ever shared the Scriptures I shared with you has changed his position on slavery. And I've done that a lot, considering how few Christians there are anymore who believe human slavery is moral.

In my neck of the woods, morality is not determined by popular personal belief. It's determined by the Word of God written.

And 2 Timothy 4:3-4 is a great passage, but you really want to talk sound doctrine?

Historically, Christianity has worked for the abolition of slavery.

You didn't read my posts, did you, or you would know this argument does not address my point and its clarifications.

– in 315 AD, Roman Emperor Constantine imposed the death penalty on those who would
kidnap children to bring up as slaves.
– The emperor Justinian (527-565AD) abolished all laws that prevented freeing slaves
– the 4th century Christin, Lactanuis, said that in God’s eyes, there were no slaves.
– St. Augustine saw slavery as sin and contrary to God’s will for humanity.
By the 14th century, slavery had almost disappeared in Europe. Unfortunately, it was revived in England’s colonies in the 17th century. Then it was defeated in all the British Empire by the Christian William Wilberforce and his Christian friends. The American abolitionist movement was largely made up of Christians. By 1835 two thirds of it was Christian ministers. Many southerners, like Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson detested slavery. Lee treated his slaves like family members. He freed his slaves before Union General Grant did his. To those skeptics who deny slavery was first abolished in the western world as a result of Christianity’s influence, answer these questions;
– was slavery first abolished in countries where Christianity had a major or minor
influence?
– did Christianity have a major or minor influence in countries that retained slavery into
the 21st century?
The answers to these questions make it clear that Christianity and slavery are poor bed-fellows. History shows a high correlation between Christianity and the abolition of slavery. Christianity is not a segregated religion. It offers itself without restriction to all people, classes and nations. The largest growth in 21st century Christianity is in third world countries like Africa and South America. Book references:
“How Christianity Changed the World” by Dr. Alvin Schmidt, chapter 11
“That’s Just Your Interpretation” by Dr. Paul Copan, chapter 19
“Christianity on Trial” by Carroll & Shiflett, chapter 2

 

[Ohorseman]

Why would that be? Motherhood wasn't established at the fall. God established that in Genesis 1:28.

Motherhood isn't a fallen condition. Patriarchy is.

Yes, motherhood began before the Fall. Work was also before the Fall.

So, what do you make of Adam naming the animals without the woman? If Eden, before the Fall, was about equality and human hierarchy was not intended, why was this task not done after the creation of the woman? Did God make a mistake there. It seems this is at least a precursor for patriarchy is it not, to say the least?

This seems to be the translation egalitarians like. I got it from here:
Genesis 3:16 Analyzed by Don Johnson

Gen 3:16 He said to the woman, I will greatly increase your sorrow and your conception; you shall bear sons in sorrow, and your desire shall be toward your husband; and he shall rule over you.​

Sorrow increased. Bear sons in sorrow - this shows hardship beyond birth. Is that not motherhood since motherhood is more than just giving birth? Sorrow... the curse... infused everything, motherhood included. The sorrow of motherhood indeed is a fallen condition.

FUTHERMORE, Adam worked before the Fall. So by your reasoning work is not part of the curse. But work becoming part of the curse occurred after the Fall. Same with sorrow of motherhood. Same with patriarchy.

Your uneven reasoning shows your bias.

 

[Paidiske]

No one is challenging the view of slavery as deprivation, objectionable, and difficult, just as poverty, disability and terminal cancer are likewise difficult, and all should be eradicated if possible.

The difference, in this case, between slavery and disability or cancer is that disability or cancer may arise due to no human action; but slavery is always caused by an enslaver.

It is immoral to enslave someone or to perpetuate their slavery, just as it would be immoral to impoverish someone or perpetuate their poverty, disable someone or perpetuate their disability, and so on.

Since slavery cannot exist without humans enslaving one another, there can be no instance of slavery which is not immoral.

 

[Philip_B]

I agree. . .

The varying ways "Word of God" is used, from animate to "inanimate"
The meaning of the Son of God being the "Word"
All Scripture likewise being the Word, etc.

However that is patently untrue. The Greek word in 2 Timothy is graphos, whereas the Greek word used in the Gospel of John is logos. This may highlight a deficit in English, and it is important that we do not translate the deficits in translation to deficits in Theology.

 

[Clare73]

However that is patently untrue. The Greek word in 2 Timothy is graphos, whereas the Greek word used in the Gospel of John is logos. This may highlight a deficit in English, and it is important that we do not translate the deficits in translation to deficits in Theology.

Yes, graphos is the word of God written, while logos is the Word of God Incarnate.

Nor do graphos and logos have to be the same thing in order to be related.

 

[Philip_B]

As I hope if I asked the question how many in your family are disabled the answer would be zero.

sadly not

 

[Gregorikos]

Yes, motherhood began before the Fall. Work was also before the Fall.

So, what do you make of Adam naming the animals without the woman? If Eden, before the Fall, was about equality and human hierarchy was not intended, why was this task not done after the creation of the woman? Did God make a mistake there. It seems this is at least a precursor for patriarchy is it not, to say the least?

This seems to be the translation egalitarians like. I got it from here:
Genesis 3:16 Analyzed by Don Johnson

Gen 3:16 He said to the woman, I will greatly increase your sorrow and your conception; you shall bear sons in sorrow, and your desire shall be toward your husband; and he shall rule over you.​

Sorrow increased. Bear sons in sorrow - this shows hardship beyond birth. Is that not motherhood since motherhood is more than just giving birth? Sorrow... the curse... infused everything, motherhood included. The sorrow of motherhood indeed is a fallen condition.

FUTHERMORE, Adam worked before the Fall. So by your reasoning work is not part of the curse. But work becoming part of the curse occurred after the Fall. Same with sorrow of motherhood. Same with patriarchy.

Your uneven reasoning shows your bias.

That last line really takes the cake. Are you dishonest? Or are you simply unable to follow the conversation?

It's a lot of work talking to you, because when you are countered, you deflect and change topics. This is a classic example.

You said: "The western world hates PATRIARCHY and the church ignores it. By this are we sinning?"

I responded: "No, because as I pointed out, patriarchy is a result of the fallen condition of mankind as described in Genesis 3:16. It is in the same category with sickness, death, poverty, envy, greed, and murder."

You replied: "By that logic, we should also place motherhood in the same category with sickness, death, poverty, envy, greed, and murder... and we should even strive to grow babies in artificial wombs."

I answered: "Why would that be? Motherhood wasn't established at the fall. God established that in Genesis 1:28. Motherhood isn't a fallen condition. Patriarchy is."

Caught in a clear error, you acknowledge my point that motherhood began before the fall, but you ignore how that point refutes your earlier point that motherhood is comparable to a fallen condition. And you deflect to attempt to switch the topic to when work began and a discussion of when the animals were named. This is a debate tactic intended to bypass the error in your own logic and continue the debate without addressing your own error. Please stop it. Let's have an honest conversation or just be done with it.

 

[Clare73]

The difference, in this case, between slavery and disability or cancer is that disability or cancer may arise due to no human action; but slavery is always caused by an enslaver.

It is immoral to enslave someone or to perpetuate their slavery, just as it would be immoral to impoverish someone or perpetuate their poverty, disable someone or perpetuate their disability, and so on.

Since slavery cannot exist without humans enslaving one another, there can be no instance of slavery which is not immoral.

A distinction without relevance.
The issue is morality. God himself authorized slavery, and it is nowhere presented as immoral in the NT.

 

[Clare73]

sadly not

I'm sorry to hear that.

 

[Philip_B]

Genesis 9:18-28
Noah and His Sons
The sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was peopled.

Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backwards and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said,
‘Cursed be Canaan;
lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.’
He also said,
‘Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem;
and let Canaan be his slave.
May God make space for Japheth,
and let him live in the tents of Shem;
and let Canaan be his slave.’

After the flood Noah lived for three hundred and fifty years.​

Charitable and Evangelistic Reasons

• Slavery removes people from a culture that “worshipped the devil, practiced witchcraft, and sorcery” and other evils.
• Slavery brings heathens to a Christian land where they can hear the gospel. Christian masters provide religious instruction for their slaves.
• Under slavery, people are treated with kindness, as many northern visitors can attest.
• It is in slaveholders’ own interest to treat their slaves well.
• Slaves are treated more benevolently than are workers in oppressive northern factories.

Social Reasons

• Just as women are called to play a subordinate role (Eph. 5:22; 1 Tim. 2:11–15), so slaves are stationed by God in their place.
• Slavery is God’s means of protecting and providing for an inferior race (suffering the “curse of Ham” in Gen. 9:25 or even the punishment of Cain in Gen. 4:12).
• Abolition would lead to slave uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. Consider the mob’s “rule of terror” during the French Revolution.

Political Reasons

• Christians are to obey civil authorities, and those authorities permit and protect slavery.
• The church should concentrate on spiritual matters, not political ones.
• Those who support abolition are, in James H. Thornwell’s words, “atheists, socialists, communists [and] red republicans.”

Copyright © 1992 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine.
Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?​

Well it seems that Slavery is descriptive of social conditions, rather than proscriptive. James Thornwell's arguments in support of the practice of slavery present the practice in what most of us would consider a somewhat idealised light, and perhaps no-where close to reality.

Slavery is specifically excluded by Article 4 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833 - Slavery Abolition Act
Slavery was abolished in the French Colonies in 1848
Slavery was abolished in the United States in 1865 - 13th Amendment

Slavery is legal in around 100 countries today - including the six largest being

1. India (18.4 million)
2. China (3.4 million)
3. Pakistan (2.1 million)
4. Bangladesh (1.5 million)
5. Uzbekistan (1.2 million)
6. North Korea (1.1 million)

I believe that we should be doing all we can to end slavery:

Isaiah 61
The Good News of Deliverance
The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me;
he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the broken-hearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners;
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour, and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all who mourn; to provide for those who mourn in Zion
to give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit.
​

 

[Clare73]

Genesis 9:18-28
Noah and His Sons
The sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was peopled.

Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backwards and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said,
‘Cursed be Canaan;
lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.’
He also said,
‘Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem;
and let Canaan be his slave.
May God make space for Japheth,
and let him live in the tents of Shem;
and let Canaan be his slave.’

After the flood Noah lived for three hundred and fifty years.​

Charitable and Evangelistic Reasons

• Slavery removes people from a culture that “worshipped the devil, practiced witchcraft, and sorcery” and other evils.
• Slavery brings heathens to a Christian land where they can hear the gospel. Christian masters provide religious instruction for their slaves.
• Under slavery, people are treated with kindness, as many northern visitors can attest.
• It is in slaveholders’ own interest to treat their slaves well.
• Slaves are treated more benevolently than are workers in oppressive northern factories.

Social Reasons

• Just as women are called to play a subordinate role (Eph. 5:22; 1 Tim. 2:11–15), so slaves are stationed by God in their place.
• Slavery is God’s means of protecting and providing for an inferior race (suffering the “curse of Ham” in Gen. 9:25 or even the punishment of Cain in Gen. 4:12).
• Abolition would lead to slave uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. Consider the mob’s “rule of terror” during the French Revolution.

Political Reasons

• Christians are to obey civil authorities, and those authorities permit and protect slavery.
• The church should concentrate on spiritual matters, not political ones.
• Those who support abolition are, in James H. Thornwell’s words, “atheists, socialists, communists [and] red republicans.”

Copyright © 1992 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine.
Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?​

Well it seems that Slavery is descriptive of social conditions, rather than proscriptive.

And again. . .God himself personally authorized slavery in Leviticus 25:39-46.
God does not authorize immorality.

Nowhere in Scripture is it presented as immoral, including the NT.

The only immorality associated with it is the 8th commandment--stealing someone's slave, because that is stealing someone's property which is immoral.

James Thornwell's arguments in support of the practice of slavery present the practice in what most of us would consider a somewhat idealised light, and perhaps no-where close to reality.

Slavery is specifically excluded by Article 4 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833 - Slavery Abolition Act
Slavery was abolished in the French Colonies in 1848
Slavery was abolished in the United States in 1865 - 13th Amendment

Slavery is legal in around 100 countries today - including the six largest being

1. India (18.4 million)
2. China (3.4 million)
3. Pakistan (2.1 million)
4. Bangladesh (1.5 million)
5. Uzbekistan (1.2 million)
6. North Korea (1.1 million)

I believe that we should be doing all we can to end slavery:

Isaiah 61
The Good News of Deliverance
The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me;
he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the broken-hearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners;
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour, and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all who mourn; to provide for those who mourn in Zion
to give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit.​

​