Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile?
Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile?
A Question from Loretta…
I have always assumed Luke was a Gentile. I guess because it is so widely taught and accepted. I have never questioned it. (and really still don’t). However I was in a bible study group earlier this evening and Luke came up, because we are studying Acts. We have a new person in our group who is very Jewish minded, for lack of a better word. So, she insisted quite strongly that Luke was in fact Jewish. Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile?
It’s great to look at things that people say or just assume in the Bible, and to ask ourselves: “How do we really know that?”
So, how do we really know if Luke was a Christian from a Jewish background, from a Gentile background, or maybe we just can’t know at all?
- We know that Luke was a companion of Paul.
Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and the next day came to Neapolis.
2 Timothy 4:11
Only Luke is with me.
Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow laborers.
- We know that Paul called Luke the beloved physician.
Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you.
Luke was a doctor and therefore a man of science and research, and this is reflected in his history of the life of Jesus.
- We’re pretty sure that Luke was a Gentile.
By every indication, Luke was a Gentile. Colossians 4:10-11 and 4:14 show that he wasn’t Jewish, because he was not included in the group who are of the circumcision.
Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him), and Jesus who is called Justus. These are my only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are of the circumcision; they have proved to be a comfort to me.
Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you.
One more thing: the name Luke is a Gentile name, of Greek/roman background.
Something I found on the internet:
Luke is an English form of the Latin Lucas, from the Greek name Loukas meaning “from Lucania,” referring to the region in southern Italy.
This doesn’t “prove” that Luke was a Gentile, because Jews could have Greek or Roman names, but it points in the direction that Luke was a Gentile.
All this makes Luke unique in that he is the only New Testament writer who was a Gentile.
God gave this lone Gentile writer a great privilege. Because he also wrote the book of Acts (which makes up the second volume of this Gospel), Luke wrote more of the New Testament than any other human writer did (assuming that Paul did not author the letter to the Hebrews).
What is the difference between the false worship of the true God, and the worship of false gods?
In your commentary on 2 Kings 13:5-9, you talk about Israel’s false worship of the true God under Jehoahaz. Can you explain this and possibly give examples of how this might happen today?
2 Kings 13:5-6 – Then the LORD gave Israel a deliverer, so that they escaped from under the hand of the Syrians; and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents as before. Nevertheless they did not depart from the sins of the house of Jeroboam, who had made Israel sin, but walked in them; and the wooden image also remained in Samaria.
Here’s the idea. The northern ten tribes were called the Kingdom of Israel, and their capital was Samaria. The capital of the southern Kingdom of Judah was Jerusalem. Jeroboam’s central sin was that he did not want the people of the northern kingdom of Israel going down to Jerusalem in the southern Kingdom to worship. So he said, “We will worship the God of Israel, Yahweh, but we will worship Him at our own appointed places, and in the figures of altars that we will make.”
Jeroboam claimed that they were worshipping the true God, Yahweh, the God of Israel, but he was doing it in a wrong and false way. And Jehoahaz followed in the sins of Jeroboam.
Everybody understands that the Hindu gods are false gods. If someone worships those gods, they’re consciously turning from the worship of the God who is revealed in the Bible to the worship of a false god. And that’s a temptation for people for sure. Now, of course, we make idols in many lesser ways for ourselves today, but that would be an obvious way of idolatry. That’s a sin.
The sin of Jeroboam (and Jehoahaz following after him) was that they claimed to worship Yahweh, the God of Israel, but they did it in a way which God did not sanction or approve. So it was the false worship of the true God.
Someone today might say, “I’m going to worship the Lord today with an animal sacrifice.” Listen, God has made it clear that in light of the finished work of Jesus Christ, He does not want to be worshipped by animal sacrifices. That would be a worship of the true God, at least in some way, but in a way that God has not prescribed. And it can happen other ways as well.
If somebody says, “Listen, I want to worship God in any number of ways that aren’t commanded or allowed by Scripture. I want to worship the true God, by having a seance with the dead.” No, you may claim you’re worshiping the true God, but you’re doing it in a way that God has not permitted or allowed at all.
So, this is the distinction that I would make. Both of these are obviously sins; they’re just different kinds of sins. One is to intentionally worship a different God, a false god. Another is to claim you’re worshipping the true God, but to do it in a way or manner that He has not prescribed. It’s the false worship of what you claim to be is the true God.
Why does Matthew 27:9 mention a prophecy by Jeremiah? Where is this prophecy?
Matthew 27:9 reads in part, “Then that which was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled.” Do you know where to find the prophecy by Jeremiah?
Here’s a segment from my commentary on Matthew 27:9 – “There has been much question about the quotation attributed to Jeremiah, because it is found in Zechariah 11:12-13. Matthew says the word was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, though we find it recorded in Zechariah. Some think it could be a copyist error. Perhaps Matthew wrote Zechariah, but an early copyist mistakenly put Jeremiah instead, and this rare mistake was repeated in subsequent copies. Some think that Jeremiah spoke this prophecy and Zechariah recorded it – the word spoken by Jeremiah, but recorded by Zechariah. Some think that Matthew refers to scroll of Jeremiah, which included the book of Zechariah.
So, Matthew is referring to a prophecy that comes from Zechariah, but he mentions it in connection with Jeremiah. I think those three suggestions I offered in the commentary are probably the best way that you could deal with it.
Now, for those of you who are viewing, I’ll explain what I just referenced. I have a written commentary on the entire Bible, and some people find it helpful. So, instead of trying to explain this passage from memory, I looked up my notes in my commentary in that particular section, and we looked at it together. You can find my complete commentary at enduringword.com. You can also use it on your smartphone with the Enduring Word App. I have to say, I’m pretty excited about our Enduring Word App.
We’ve made some wonderful changes in it lately. It’s really doing well and we’re getting a lot of use on it. We encourage you to just go ahead and download it. It’s available absolutely free for both iOS and Android. With the exceptions of the print books we’ve published, our commentary resources are offered to people absolutely free online. The entire commentary is available on our website, plus audio and video files, resources on YouTube, of course, and the app – we are happy to provide all of things for free and translated into as many different languages as we possibly can.
What do we mean when we ask God to bless our food?
I taught on this just last night at the midweek Bible study at our church. Calvary Chapel Santa Barbara is the church of which I am no longer the pastor, but where we still attend. And I love to teach there from time to time. So last night I was teaching on the feeding of the five thousand. In the feeding of the five thousand, before Jesus distributed the food to the multitude, He blessed the food. He blessed it. The idea there is simply that He thanked God for the food.
The real biblical pattern is not that when we pray before a meal, we’re asking God to bless the food. Now there’s nothing wrong with asking God to bless the food; that’s entirely good. But that’s really not what the Bible gives the pattern for, in a prayer before a meal. The biblical pattern in praying before a meal is to thank God for the food.
We live in such a strange world today. More than ever before, a greater percentage of the world today enjoys remarkable material abundance. It’s really striking. We have food and shelter and clothing and resources spread across the world population in adequate measure more today than at any other time in history, by a longshot. It was much more common in Bible times for people to be incredibly thankful that they had food to eat. And it was not uncommon in those previous centuries for people to often go without food. They just didn’t have food to eat. So the idea of giving thanks for the food that you had was very important and very strong.
So, that’s the fundamental idea behind praying before a meal. The idea is not primarily of asking God to bless the food. The idea is more about thanking God because you have food. And like I said before, there’s nothing wrong with asking God to bless the food that you have. That’s entirely good. But don’t forget to thank Him just for the fact that you have the food.
Is working in another country without a work permit clearly a sin or could it be part of the freedom of the believers?
Is working in another country without a work permit clearly a sin, or could it be part of the freedom of the believers? Almost all my church is in that situation, even the leaders.
This is a difficult situation, because it touches on a lot of things. In general, Christians are commanded to submit to the laws of the place where they live. So it would just be easy to say, “Well, if you’re working without a work permit, that’s against the law.” But there is also another principle that needs to be paid attention to: if laws are fundamentally unjust, and against the higher law or principle of God, then someone can say, “I don’t have to observe that law, because there’s a higher law of God.”
I could see where somebody could give this reasoning. God commands that people be supported by the work of their hands, and that they support their families this way. This is a pattern shown not only in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament as well. The Bible says that we should work with our own hands to provide not only for our own needs, but also for the needs of others, so that we have enough to give unto others. This is stated in the New Testament in some of the letters of Paul. In fact, Paul goes so far to say that if someone will not work to support his family and household, he is worse than an unbeliever.
So we have the biblical principle that people, particularly believers, should work to provide for their families. Well, if a government has unjustly made laws that prevent people from doing that, I can see where someone would reason and say, “I have a higher law than the law of the state or the place where I’m living.”
Now, here’s the problem. And this is why I admit this is a very complicated situation. It would be possible for somebody to make excuses for doing what they wanted to do, and simply claim that the laws were unjust. All I can do is give you the general principle here.
The general principle is, yes, we are to obey the laws that are existing in the place that we live. But we do have a higher law than the laws of the city, state, or nation where we live. And the higher law of God is to be observed above the law of the state. I believe that is a valid principle. We need to be careful that we’re not excusing sin on our behalf under that general principle. We do have the secure and firm law of God, and we have the laws of the state. God commands us to prioritize the law of God over the law of the state.
If Father God is transparent like air, then how do you explain Matthew 18:10 and John 6:46?
Matthew 18:10 – Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.
John 6:46 – Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
I’m going to take issue with the fundamental way you frame the question: “If Father God is transparent like air then how do you explain…?” I’ve never heard anybody use that terminology about God the Father. Now, the Bible says that God the Father is not visible, and it says that He dwells in unapproachable light. Those are passages from the New Testament. But that’s different from saying that “Father God is transparent like air.” We say that God is a Spirit, speaking of God the Father, and that’s true. But we’re not denying that a spirit can’t have also some bodily or corporeal presence.
So, I would just push back on that initial idea. We can’t see God the Father. But it does not mean in an absolute way that God the Father has no bodily form, or that the angels or God the Son or other glorified beings cannot see Him. He is invisible to us, but it doesn’t mean that He is transparent like air.
Is there evidence that Luke was martyred or lived a full life?
I don’t have that in my mind. There are certainly no well-known stories of what happened to Luke. I would suppose that there are legends or stories from the early Church. I would assume that he was martyred, because if he had some remarkably long life and died a natural death, that would be notable and well known. I would have to look into it. But I think we should assume that Luke, as a companion of Paul, and someone who was so boldly associated with Jesus Christ and the gospel of Jesus, died a similar death. I would assume that he was martyred, but I can’t recall any of the specific legends.
What are your views on psychotherapy for believers?
I would be down on psychotherapy. Now, I don’t pass myself off as an expert and an authority on these areas, so I’m not even going to pretend that I understand all the terminology. When you say psychotherapy, I understand that to mean someone who’s not addressing the medical issues involved with a person’s health and how medical things may influence a person’s thinking and emotive state. Instead, when I hear psychotherapy, I think of somebody who’s dealing with Freudian or Jungian approaches to psychological therapy upon a person. And for me, I’m pretty much down on that.
I don’t doubt that, in some cases, it’s probably done good for some individuals. There’s a saying that we have in English, “Even a blind squirrel can occasionally find an acorn.” So, you know, good things can happen in unexpected situations. But to me, the whole basis of Freudian or Jungian or other schools of psychotherapy are not built on a foundation of truth which comes from God and revealed by the Scriptures.
I think that there can be a lot of help in people talking to other people, whether that be a therapist, a counselor, a friend, or a professional. There can be great help, especially in those people who understand some of the physical dynamics that lie behind these things. But as far as the classic psychotherapeutic categories, no, I don’t think much of them. I think people should be turning to biblical understanding and counselors for non-medical and purely psychological sorts of things.
Are babies from miscarriages, stillbirths, and abortions in the 1,000-year Millennium? What happens with these children?
First, I think that you are asking if there will be miscarriages, stillbirths, and abortions in the Millennium. I think I can pretty categorically tell you that there will be no abortion in the Millennium. I’m very confident of that. Because it will be under the righteous reign of Jesus Christ. It won’t be under the reign of man. And I can’t see that Jesus would allow a system where babies could be murdered in the womb. So, there won’t be abortion in the Millennial Kingdom.
But as for miscarriages and stillbirths, I would say it’s very possible. There will still be sin, there will still be death, and the effects of sin and death will still be present. In light of that, I think that it’s very possible that there would still be miscarriages and stillborn births in the Millennial Earth. Because there will still be death, and sin will still be present. It’s just that the world will be ruled perfectly in its administration by Jesus Christ and those whom He appoints to do that.
Your secondary question is, “What happens to these children?” Well, I would say the same thing that would happen to children now who are miscarried or stillborn. I believe that they are in the arms of a loving Savior, and that since they have never been accountable for personal sin, God judges them mercifully. I don’t think that they are innocent of sin in the womb because they inherit sin from Adam. But they are free of guilt for any committed sin, and God will judge them with great mercy. That’s the way that I would see it.
If a child requests to be baptized, what are some questions to ask to determine if they are ready for baptism?
If a child (aged 10-13) requests to be baptized, what are some questions to ask to determine if they are ready for baptism?
That’s a great question. The main thing I would want to know from that child is whether they have an awareness of sin; this is often lacking in children. They have little or no awareness of their need for a Savior. I think this is very important. We can’t truly put our trust in Jesus Christ until we are well aware of our need for a Savior. We don’t need a Savior only because we are sinners guilty of sin. There are other aspects very much involved in our need for a Savior. But that’s certainly one predominant way in which we need a Savior.
I would put the focus on whether a young person is aware of their need for a Savior. I believe that young people ages 10 to 13 definitely can be aware of their need of a Savior, and they can definitely trust in Jesus as their Savior. Children definitely can be believers and can put their faith in Jesus Christ. So, it’s good for parents to sort of be aware and try to lead their children to Christ, especially as they see that the children have a greater and greater sense of need for that.
As a pastor, have you ever felt as if you were being treated like a god? How do you respond to people who tend to put you in that light?
As a pastor, have you ever felt as if you were being treated like a god, similar to the attention that Paul and Barnabas, Peter and John received when they used to perform miracles? How do you respond to people that tend to put you in that light?
What a wonderful question. I don’t ever remember feeling that people were treating me as if I were a god. But I do have the sense that at times people have thought more highly of me than they should. Maybe I preached and God has used it, or I’ve written something, and God has used it, and people are expressing their gratitude. I have felt more than one time that people are thinking more highly of me than they actually should. I would not put that in the category of being treated like a god. But I have to say, when I sense that people are thinking more highly of me than they should, it makes me uncomfortable. I don’t want to be the focus of the attention. I want Jesus to be the focus. I want God and His Word to be the focus. So, I’m anxious to deflect the attention or the praise off of me.
I am grateful if God uses me in anybody’s life. And I’ll be very honest with you: when it comes to making an impact for God’s kingdom, I would prefer to make a larger impact than a smaller one. I have no apology for that.
But in whatever impact I make, I like to stay “under the radar.” That phrase means to simply not draw so much attention to yourself. I’m pleased for whatever ways that my work may touch people, but I’m happy if the attention is on the Lord, on His Word, on Jesus, on someone else, just not on me. I would respond just by deflecting or channeling the attention away from myself and towards other people or other things. That’s the best way that I would explain it.
What use is knowledge from the Webb telescope and its discoveries for Christians today?
I don’t know of any direct connection between the things that are discovered through great technology, like the Webb telescope and other things, and Christians. But I would say that Christians should rejoice in the work that scientists do.
Proverbs 25:2 – “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter.”
I think it’s the glory of God to keep some things concealed. But it’s the glory of humanity to search things out. The writer of Proverbs even puts it in the figure of a king. It’s the highest of humanity to search things out, to try to discover as much as we can about this world in which God has created us. I know that sometimes people get kind of anxious, because it seems that scientists claim to discover things that might contradict what the Bible says about things. That doesn’t really bother me at all. I just say to the scientists, please stay humble, because you don’t know everything; you don’t know most things. But secondly, keep searching! Because I think that the more science knows, the more it is brought into consistency with God and His Word.
I do think that it’s the glory of God to conceal a matter, but it’s the glory of humanity, of kings even, to search things out. And I think that technology like Webb telescopes and other technology, from the greatest telescopes down to the smallest microscope, are things that reveal to us in some way the glory and the grandeur of God. As far as specific discoveries from the Webb telescope, I just don’t know, so I can’t really say.
Who is the bobblehead guy on your shelf (Vin Scully)?
I was wondering if somebody would ask this question. This is a bobblehead of Vin Scully, a radio announcer for the Los Angeles Dodgers, an American baseball team. About a week ago, he died. Vin Scully was a very notable baseball announcer. I know that we have an international audience for these videos, both live and then later on. I apologize if you may not know or understand American baseball, and you may not know or be familiar with a particular baseball team called the Los Angeles Dodgers.
But I grew up playing baseball. It was a wonderful thing with my family, with my dad and my brothers. Baseball has a dear place just as a sport and a hobby in my own mind. I’ve been a big fan of the Los Angeles baseball team, the Dodgers, since I was a little boy. It’s just a hobby and enjoyment for me.
This man, Vin Scully, was a very notable announcer for them. He retired in the year 2016, and last week, he died. So, there was a lot of commemoration, and that’s just my little honoring of him.
Just a day ago, I recorded a video titled, “Nine Things that Preachers Can Learn from Vin Scully.” You can view it now on our YouTube channel and learn more about him.
Is Zechariah 12:7 a basis for the view of the Lord’s arrival during His second coming at Bozrah instead of Jerusalem?
Zechariah 12:7 – The LORD will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall not become greater than that of Judah.
It could be. We can attempt to construct the scenario of what will happen when Jesus returns. The Bible tells us that the Messiah in His glory will come to three places. We’re told of Him coming to Jerusalem, the Mount of Olives. We’re told of Him coming to Bozrah, the former territory of Moab and Edom, which is in modern day Jordan. And we’re told of Him coming to the Valley of Megiddo, with the with the battle of Armageddon. Those three places are mentioned in different Old Testament passages in reference to the return of Jesus. Jerusalem, Bozrah, and the Valley of Megiddo, for the battle of Armageddon.
Now, these places are relatively close to each other, but they are three distinct places. It is of interest to Bible students, and people who like to examine these things, to wonder in what order Jesus will go to those particular places. I believe that there’s a reference to the Messiah coming to the Valley of Megiddo with His robes red from Bozrah.
By the way, the purpose of His return at Bozrah is to protect the Jewish people who have fled to that area as refugees, and who are under attack. That’s the main idea of the visit to Bozrah.
The main purpose of the visit to the Valley of Megiddo, for the battle of Armageddon, is for Him to exert His authority over the armies of the earth that have gathered to do battle against the Messiah.
And the purpose of His visit to the Mount of Olives is for Him to establish His sovereignty as king over all the earth, with His new capital at Jerusalem.
In which order does He make that visit? We don’t exactly know. Off the top of my head, I think you could say that He comes perhaps to Jerusalem first, and then to Bozrah, and then to the Valley of Megiddo. But it could be that He starts in Bozrah, and then to Jerusalem, and then to Megiddo. Or it even could be that He begins in Bozrah, and then goes to the Valley of Megiddo for the Battle of Armageddon, and then to Jerusalem to establish that sovereignty, arriving at the Mount of Olives.
But that’s the way to frame it. The Old Testament understands that the Messiah returns to three places. And again, we don’t regard this as a contradiction; not at all. It’s just that there is a sequence in His return: to Bozrah, then Megiddo, then Jerusalem may very well be the order of events. But it’s not so clear that we would be dogmatic about this.
Can you recommend ways I can encourage other people within my community to be prayer warriors and seek to be more like Jesus in the way He prayed to God the Father?
Can you recommend ways that I can encourage other people within my community to be in prayer and to be prayer warriors, and to be more like Jesus in the way that he prayed to God the Father?
Let me give you a few ideas. I don’t think it’s effective when people are nagged into prayer or guilted into prayer. That may bring an immediate response, but I don’t see that it does a lasting good very often of getting people to really persist in prayer. So, I wouldn’t be looking to nag people or to guilt people.
The number one thing you can do to inspire a spirit of prayer among other people is for you to pray that God would send a spirit of prayer. There’s something that happens remarkably among people who can be stirred by the Spirit of God, to simply become people of prayer or greater prayer, when they were not before. That’s something that very much can and should be prayed for.
So, number one, pray for a spirit of prayer. And then I would say this: do whatever you can to personally invite people to pray with you. Just say, “Hey, could we take 10 minutes out to pray together?” There are times when people feel very intimidated by the idea of an hour-long prayer service with other people. But surely, there will be more people who will respond to requests of praying together for five or ten minutes.
So, I would say that praying for prayer is always good and always valid. And then number two, that simple idea of inviting people to pray in very entry level ways with you is another thing that I would do. But as God gives you the wisdom and the ability, avoid trying to nag people or guilt people into praying more.
How do I overcome past errors, especial ones that continuously disturb the conscience?
I think the thing to do is just to continually come back to the understanding that what Jesus did on the cross is enough for our forgiveness and our cleansing from sin. We need to be very secure in that knowledge. What Jesus did on the cross was enough. There’s really nothing that we can do to add to it. We need to come to that place of peace. We need to come to that place of just being settled in the finished work of Jesus Christ.
It sounds to me that your conscience may be troubled by the work of Satan and his agents. Satan is called the accuser of the brethren. When you feel Satan accusing you and trying to condemn you for your sins, whether those sins are in the past or the present, I think it’s very important that you don’t try to debate the issue with him. Don’t try to convince the devil or any of his agents, that you aren’t as bad a sinner as he’s accusing you of being. In fact, you can even say to the devil, “You know what, I am a great sinner. I’m an even greater sinner than you’re accusing me of being. No doubt, there are some sins you’re leaving out when you accuse me of sin, Satan. But I will say this, that even though I am a great sinner, Jesus Christ is a great Savior.”
Get away from a focus on the greatness of your sin; there’s nothing wrong with recognizing that. But even more so, focus on the greatness of Jesus as a Savior. Let that be lifted up in your heart and your mind.
Is it acceptable to change the Lord’s Prayer?
I attended a morning service last Sunday and the Lord’s Prayer was changed. Is this acceptable when it’s the Lord’s Prayer when it’s the Lord’s Prayer, given to us by our Lord and Savior Jesus, at the beginning of His ministry? I.E. the “trespasses against us” was replaced with “sin” and “sinners.”
Okay, this is a good question. I would be against changing the wording of the Lord’s Prayer in any substantial way. If you want to pray your own prayer, or lead a congregation in your own prayer, great, and that’s fine. Just don’t make it the Lord’s Prayer. However, would give this proviso. If people are just substituting words for other words, I wouldn’t be so upset about it.
In other words, if the issue is the word trespasses, and somebody substitutes the word sin for that, I don’t see that as a change I would be concerned about at all. Because sin and trespasses are largely the same thing. Now I did hear of somebody changing the Lord’s Prayer, where they changed it from trespasses or sins, to “mistakes.” I would be very much against that particular substitution because it changes the wording in a way that changes the meaning of it.
But to be honest, I don’t see a substantial difference between “trespasses” and “sins.” I mean, I could go into the minutiae and discuss the difference between the two different words at their root, but the concept is the same. So, if somebody is just changing vocabulary, but largely keeping the meaning the same, I’m not so concerned about that. But if they’re changing the words and thereby changing the meaning, then I think they should just pray their own prayer that isn’t meant to track alongside with what we commonly call the Lord’s Prayer.
How do we know whether to continue praying for something versus leaving it to God by trusting Him to handle as He see fit?
I’ll give you a general principle that I’ve used. I have some Scriptural foundation for this, but it’s really more just wisdom that I hope I’ve gained in my own Christian life. I will persist in prayer for something or someone until I feel the Lord guiding me to stop praying, or until I feel that there’s an answer to the prayer. It is okay to say, “Lord, I’m not going to ask You about this anymore. I’ll just leave this here.” That’s okay. But it is okay to continue to persist in prayer in it. That’s entirely okay.
So, I would leave this up to the leading of the Holy Spirit. But every time we pray, we’re leaving things for the Lord to handle as He sees fit. Isn’t this the pattern of prayer that we should have? Just a surrendered heart before God, where we genuinely have the heart that says, “Lord, in everything that I pray, I’m leaving this in Your hands.” That’s why we’re praying.
But the principle of persistence in prayer should make us continue on, because God wants us to be persistent with prayer. Look, we’ve all heard of stories where people say, “I was praying for this for twenty years, and God finally answered.” I think that’s something that gives honor and glory to God. But again, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, I think we can say, “I will no longer pray for this, and now just leave this in God’s hands.”