The message of the Prayer of Manasseh

[atpollard]

[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION]

Andrew wrote:
“The Prayer of Manasseh is a very short read and it really catches the heart of a true repenting believer who is at his lowest, this prayer relates to us all who are humble and fear God knowing that we are chief of sinners and ask for forgiveness.. This prayer is what humbled him in the eyes of the Lord and his confession to God Almighty is what lead to his redemption as told in 2nd Chronicles 33”

THE PRAYER OF MANASSEH
"

O Lord, Almighty God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of their righteous seed; who hast made heaven and earth, with all the ornament thereof; who hast bound the sea by the word of thy commandment; who hast shut up the deep, and sealed it by thy terrible and glorious name; whom all men fear, and tremble before thy power; for the majesty of thy glory cannot be borne, and thine angry threatening toward sinners is importable: but thy merciful promise is unmeasurable and unsearchable; for thou art the most high Lord, of great compassion, longsuffering, very merciful, and repentest of the evils of men. Thou, O Lord, according to thy great goodness hast promised repentance and forgiveness to them that have sinned against thee: and of thine infinite mercies hast appointed repentance unto sinners, that they may be saved. Thou therefore, O Lord, that art the God of the just, hast not appointed repentance to the just, as to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, which have not sinned against thee; but thou hast appointed repentance unto me that am a sinner: for I have sinned above the number of the sands of the sea. My transgressions, O Lord, are multiplied: my transgressions are multiplied, and I am not worthy to behold and see the height of heaven for the multitude of mine iniquities. I am bowed down with many iron bands, that I cannot lift up mine head, neither have any release: for I have provoked thy wrath, and done evil before thee: I did not thy will, neither kept I thy commandments: I have set up abominations, and have multiplied offences. Now therefore I bow the knee of mine heart, beseeching thee of grace. I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge mine iniquities: wherefore, I humbly beseech thee, forgive me, O Lord, forgive me, and destroy me not with mine iniquites. Be not angry with me for ever, by reserving evil for me; neither condemn me to the lower parts of the earth. For thou art the God, even the God of them that repent; and in me thou wilt shew all thy goodness: for thou wilt save me, that am unworthy, according to thy great mercy. Therefore I will praise thee for ever all the days of my life: for all the powers of the heavens do praise thee, and thine is the glory for ever and ever. Amen."​

So let’s just discuss the content with the same critical approach that we would take in studying any other work of Christian literature (either a Book from the Bible or a treatise from an ancient or modern theologian). Since it is “Old Testament” rather than “New Testament”, the first important question is ...

DOES THE PRAYER OF MANASSEH POINT TO JESUS?

[John 5:39 NASB] 39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

There is no “savior” typology presented, like the story of Moses or the Noah or an anointed King like David. There is a very strong message of repentance and forgiveness that is not incompatible with the Gospel that Jesus will ultimately present.

The second important question to be asked is ...

DOES THE PRAYER OF MANASSEH TEACH ANYTHING THAT CONTRADICTS PREVIOUS SCRIPTURE?

This one I leave for the viewing audience.
I find the tone of the prayer not very compatible with the general tone and message of Chronicles, but I am unsure if “repentance” without an act of sacrifice is ever suggested in any of the OT books. So I look forward to the thoughts of others.

 

[Andrew]

[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION]

Andrew wrote:
“The Prayer of Manasseh is a very short read and it really catches the heart of a true repenting believer who is at his lowest, this prayer relates to us all who are humble and fear God knowing that we are chief of sinners and ask for forgiveness.. This prayer is what humbled him in the eyes of the Lord and his confession to God Almighty is what lead to his redemption as told in 2nd Chronicles 33”

THE PRAYER OF MANASSEH
"

O Lord, Almighty God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of their righteous seed; who hast made heaven and earth, with all the ornament thereof; who hast bound the sea by the word of thy commandment; who hast shut up the deep, and sealed it by thy terrible and glorious name; whom all men fear, and tremble before thy power; for the majesty of thy glory cannot be borne, and thine angry threatening toward sinners is importable: but thy merciful promise is unmeasurable and unsearchable; for thou art the most high Lord, of great compassion, longsuffering, very merciful, and repentest of the evils of men. Thou, O Lord, according to thy great goodness hast promised repentance and forgiveness to them that have sinned against thee: and of thine infinite mercies hast appointed repentance unto sinners, that they may be saved. Thou therefore, O Lord, that art the God of the just, hast not appointed repentance to the just, as to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, which have not sinned against thee; but thou hast appointed repentance unto me that am a sinner: for I have sinned above the number of the sands of the sea. My transgressions, O Lord, are multiplied: my transgressions are multiplied, and I am not worthy to behold and see the height of heaven for the multitude of mine iniquities. I am bowed down with many iron bands, that I cannot lift up mine head, neither have any release: for I have provoked thy wrath, and done evil before thee: I did not thy will, neither kept I thy commandments: I have set up abominations, and have multiplied offences. Now therefore I bow the knee of mine heart, beseeching thee of grace. I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge mine iniquities: wherefore, I humbly beseech thee, forgive me, O Lord, forgive me, and destroy me not with mine iniquites. Be not angry with me for ever, by reserving evil for me; neither condemn me to the lower parts of the earth. For thou art the God, even the God of them that repent; and in me thou wilt shew all thy goodness: for thou wilt save me, that am unworthy, according to thy great mercy. Therefore I will praise thee for ever all the days of my life: for all the powers of the heavens do praise thee, and thine is the glory for ever and ever. Amen."​

So let’s just discuss the content with the same critical approach that we would take in studying any other work of Christian literature (either a Book from the Bible or a treatise from an ancient or modern theologian). Since it is “Old Testament” rather than “New Testament”, the first important question is ...

DOES THE PRAYER OF MANASSEH POINT TO JESUS?

[John 5:39 NASB] 39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

There is no “savior” typology presented, like the story of Moses or the Noah or an anointed King like David. There is a very strong message of repentance and forgiveness that is not incompatible with the Gospel that Jesus will ultimately present.

The second important question to be asked is ...

DOES THE PRAYER OF MANASSEH TEACH ANYTHING THAT CONTRADICTS PREVIOUS SCRIPTURE?

This one I leave for the viewing audience.
I find the tone of the prayer not very compatible with the general tone and message of Chronicles, but I am unsure if “repentance” without an act of sacrifice is ever suggested in any of the OT books. So I look forward to the thoughts of others.

God is the same then and now so of course Manasseh is praying for forgiveness and mercy not only for his current world but of his soul just like any OT believer.
It's a great example of a repenting sinner crying out to God who according to Kings and Chronicles, forgave him and blessed him.

It only contradicts previous scripture if you believe that God ignored ones humble repentance and that he later had a change of heart and blessed those that cried out for his mercy.. if not perhaps he was the first to confess his sinful nature to God.
The prayer also states that a few others were blessed by God because they NEVER sinned.. which would make this a difficult passage among many difficult passages we come across in the OT.. I believe he was simply comparing himself to the righteous of God and pleaded guilty of rejecting Gods commands.. in the end, according to Kings and Chronicles, God restored him to his throne and Manasseh ridded himself of his formal idolatry and wickedness toward God and men.

 

[Andrew]

This guy seems to agree with me

 

[atpollard]

This guy seems to agree with me

I am a former atheist, so Luther doesn’t get a free pass from me either (nor would Calvin or Augustine or Spurgeon or Wesley). They all get their statements held up to the test of Scripture.


“ Manasseh is praying for forgiveness and mercy not only for his current world but of his soul just like any OT believer.”
Sorry, no free pass for you either. That was my point. Where are all of the other OT believers praying for mercy for their soul recorded?
Please point out the verses, because I don’t remember seeing them in the OT. Job has a POSSIBLE mention of the afterlife. The first 5 books have nothing at all (the big disagreement between the Pharisees and the Sadducees).

 

[atpollard]

.The prayer also states that a few others were blessed by God because they NEVER sinned.. which would make this a difficult passage among many difficult passages we come across in the OT.. I believe he was simply comparing himself to the righteous of God and pleaded guilty of rejecting Gods commands.. in the end, according to Kings and Chronicles, God restored him to his throne and Manasseh ridded himself of his formal idolatry and wickedness toward God and men.

That is exactly how I read that part as well. Like when God declared Job a righteous man, he didn’t mean that Job was sinless and Paul was mistaken in the book of Romans (which quoted the OT about the sinfulness of men). I agree Manasseh was speaking from humility offering a ‘relative’ comparison rather than a proclamation of sinlessness among the very human fathers of the chosen people. (They tended to play a little loose with the truth).

 

[atpollard]

“O Lord, Almighty God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of their righteous seed;”

Does this seem to anyone else to run contrary to the message of Scripture?

Who is the “righteous seed”? Was it EVER the children of Adam? Was it ever the chosen nation? As far back as Adam and Eve, it was the SEED of the woman (pointing to the singular righteous messiah) that was to restore what had been lost. In Moses and the Passover we have the typology and image of a singe righteous man saving a ‘stiff necked’ people that cannot and will not obey ... pointing us to the Righteous Messiah that will save us from sin and death. In King David we have God anointing his selected servant and giving a promise that no mortal man can fulfill ... and only Christ did fulfill.

So I cannot help but question if the suggestion that Israel and Judah are somehow a ‘righteous seed’ runs contrary to everything that the OT had presented thus far. It certainly runs contrary to the historic narratives of Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles where the nation is judged, carried into captivity, the wall is rebuilt and the temple is rebuilt ... but the Glory of God does not return to the temple. The world must wait 70 weeks of years for God to restore His Righteousness to the Earth ... right on schedule with the birth of EMANUEL to a Virgin in a manger.

“Their righteous seed” was a mystery waiting to be revealed. God could make children of Abraham from the stones (or so I’ve heard).

 

[Andrew]

I am a former atheist, so Luther doesn’t get a free pass from me either (nor would Calvin or Augustine or Spurgeon or Wesley). They all get their statements held up to the test of Scripture.


“ Manasseh is praying for forgiveness and mercy not only for his current world but of his soul just like any OT believer.”
Sorry, no free pass for you either. That was my point. Where are all of the other OT believers praying for mercy for their soul recorded?
Please point out the verses, because I don’t remember seeing them in the OT. Job has a POSSIBLE mention of the afterlife. The first 5 books have nothing at all (the big disagreement between the Pharisees and the Sadducees).

Psalms was written about the same century as Judges give or take half a century or so, in the 5th century BC.
David believed in a resurrection from the grave.. "For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption"

Also..
"Wherefore the LORD brought upon them the captains of the host of the king of Assyria, which took Manasseh among the thorns, and bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon. And when he was in affliction, he besought the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, And prayed unto him: and he was intreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD he was God"
2 Chronicles 33:11-13

So independent of what you think may contradict previous scripture or not, Manasseh indeed prayed a prayer and God indeed blessed him and Manasseh indeed repented and took down his idols.

Read on in 2nd Chronicles and you will see that the Prayer of Manasseh had been written down.. so the prayer did exists in written Hebrew form for sure.. whether or not it's from the same Hebrew that the Septuagint was based on will never be known for those Hebrew sources are lost, one thing is for sure, it was no Christian writing.. also since it was recorded in the Greek translation and the sources for the greek are not the same as the Masoretic, it would not be so far fetched that the Greek translation is what they dated the "Prayer of Manasseh" to, which was around the 2nd Century BC during the time the greek language had usurped the modern Hebrew language (due to the greek conquest and influence)

All in all I can prove this just as much as you or anyone can prove that every OT and NT canon scripture was written by who we assume it was written by... Much controversy as to who, when and where certain books were written is completely incidental to the value of the written Word.
Many NT writers may or may have not been the actual authors of whom the books are attributed to especially considering the publishing dates we are given compared to the dates of the actual events.

 

[Andrew]

“O Lord, Almighty God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of their righteous seed;”

Does this seem to anyone else to run contrary to the message of Scripture?

Who is the “righteous seed”? Was it EVER the children of Adam? Was it ever the chosen nation? As far back as Adam and Eve, it was the SEED of the woman (pointing to the singular righteous messiah) that was to restore what had been lost. In Moses and the Passover we have the typology and image of a singe righteous man saving a ‘stiff necked’ people that cannot and will not obey ... pointing us to the Righteous Messiah that will save us from sin and death. In King David we have God anointing his selected servant and giving a promise that no mortal man can fulfill ... and only Christ did fulfill.

So I cannot help but question if the suggestion that Israel and Judah are somehow a ‘righteous seed’ runs contrary to everything that the OT had presented thus far. It certainly runs contrary to the historic narratives of Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles where the nation is judged, carried into captivity, the wall is rebuilt and the temple is rebuilt ... but the Glory of God does not return to the temple. The world must wait 70 weeks of years for God to restore His Righteousness to the Earth ... right on schedule with the birth of EMANUEL to a Virgin in a manger.

“Their righteous seed” was a mystery waiting to be revealed. God could make children of Abraham from the stones (or so I’ve heard).

Amen, God's chosen seed were not just those who were born of a Hebrew "maiden", many turned idolatrous and the gentile nation had no covenant with God in any way whatsoever, the time had not come yet for the revealing yet God changes not.

 

[Albion]

So independent of what you think may contradict previous scripture or not, Manasseh indeed prayed a prayer and God indeed blessed him and Manasseh indeed repented and took down his idols.

Aren't there innumerable accounts in history, of people praying, then being blessed in return, and having it change their lives?

In other words, I keep reading about how the contents of the Apocrypha have value, which is something no one has denied.

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[Josiah]

The apocryphal Prayer of Manasseh was included by Luther as an appendix

Yup. Your quote says it is apocryphal. And that Luther (not Lutheranism, not Lutherans) included it as an appendix (in his own German translation of the common German Catholic biblical tomes of his day in Germany).

In other words, I keep reading about how the contents of the Apocrypha have value, which is something no one has denied.

Yup. We probably could all list at least 100 books that have value but that no one on the planet (much less officially every church and denomination that has ever existed) declares is the inerrant, verbally inspired, divinely inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice at least equal to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans.




.

 

[Albion]

Yup. We probably could all list at least 100 books that have value but that no one on the planet (much less officially every church and denomination that has ever existed) declares is the inerrant, verbally inspired, divinely inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice at least equal to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans.

Yes. I had the feeling that I'd confused the issue with my abbreviated comments, but this ^ is the point.

It's not as though someone who says the Apocrypha isn't part of the Bible is also saying that it is worthless, and yet it seems as though defenders of the idea of treating these books as part of the Bible insist upon telling us that there is something to be gained from reading them. Well, yes. There is. And by the way...'So what??'

 

[Andrew]

[MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION]
If it's valuable and was valued by early Church fathers who wrote exegesis using quotes from many of these books, then why discourage it by promoting a "who cares" attitude? Would you have felt so confident saying this to Clement of Rome and to the early Christians if you were given the chance? You would have held a very unpopular approach to the scriptures God entrusted to the greek speaking majority of their time.

I enjoyed Atpollards deliverance of this thread as a discussion of exegesis or at least observance and examination of said prayer.
I found it interesting myself that I had agreed with Luther, I posted the image of his commentary after the fact, we both praised it in the same manner, go figure lol

Perhaps it would prove that you Albion hold to your view that they are valuable if you were to explain specifically how it's valuable to you
Maybe I could start topics on other "valuable" apocrypha books like how Atpollard did with this thread, although this is probably the easiest since it's a short prayer, but you get the idea.

 

[Andrew]

Yup. Your quote says it is apocryphal. And that Luther (not Lutheranism, not Lutherans) included it as an appendix (in his own German translation of the common German Catholic biblical tomes of his day in Germany).






Yup. We probably could all list at least 100 books that have value but that no one on the planet (much less officially every church and denomination that has ever existed) declares is the inerrant, verbally inspired, divinely inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice at least equal to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans.




.

SO, even though they are valuable good reads they should be especially overlooked because they were in the early church bible (greek) and aren't anymore, they are as special as Christmas songs according to your input and discussing these books makes you defensive because they are no longer in your protestant bible.
Calling them "apocrypha" and including them as such in the bible is a lot different from dropping the "apocrypha" entirely and shelving them next to "Silent Night"..
I get where you're going with this Patrick

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[Josiah]

SO, even though they are valuable good reads they should be especially overlooked

As you said, they are "valuable good reads" (like perhaps like a million other religious books) but I disagree that every good read is ERGO the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice. This is not "overlooking" it, it simply is not confusing a good read with canonical Scripture.

they were in the early church bible (greek) and aren't anymore

1. Which "they?" And are their 7 or 8 or 10 or 13 or 14 or 15..... we can't find even two denominations that agree on that.


2. LOTS of books were used and read in the early church, MANY of them are not in ANY Bible today (including yours). And of course, people often quoted St. Ignatius or St. Augustine or others MORE than they quoted Hebrews or Revelation or Amos yet you don't have those in your Bible.

they are no longer in your protestant bible

1. Which "they?" Which "Protestant Bible?"


2. Of course, you didn't say "Lutheran Bible" because there is no such thing. And actually, my Concordia Publishing House Study Bible (in two volumns) DOES have one unique set of "them" in it.


3. Publishing houses - nearly all for profit companies - publish and print what they want (mostly because of customer demand). Yeah, in the USA, probably most tomes you'll find at the bookstore have just 66 books in them (although they probably have at least a few with more). Why? Likely because that's what customers want. They would publish tomes with 104 books in it (including 1 & 2 Clement, the Revelation of Peter, the Protoevangelum of James and works by St. Ignatius and St. Augstine) if the publisher and the bookstore thought customers would buy it.

Calling them "apocrypha" and including them as such in the bible is a lot different from dropping the "apocrypha" entirely and shelving them

1. Which "them?" The RCC's post trent set? Luther's personal set? The Anglican Church set? The Greek Orthodox set? The Syrian Orthodox Church set? The Ethiopean Orthodox Church set? Everything associated with the LXX? Everything found with the Dead Sea Scrolls? What is "them?"


2. If you want a Bible with more books that 66 in them, such is EASILY available (although you may have to buy on the internet rather than at your corner Mom and Pop bookstore). Here is where you an buy mine: https://www.cph.org/p-19305-The-Apocrypha-The-Lutheran-Edition-with-Notes.aspx




.

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[Andrew]

As you said, they are "valuable good reads" (like perhaps like a million other religious books) but I disagree that every good read is ERGO the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice. This is not "overlooking" it, it simply is not confusing a good read with canonical Scripture.








1. Which "they?" And are their 7 or 8 or 10 or 13 or 14 or 15..... we can't find even two denominations that agree on that.


2. LOTS of books were used and read in the early church, MANY of them are not in ANY Bible today (including yours). And of course, people often quoted St. Ignatius or St. Augustine or others MORE than they quoted Hebrews or Revelation or Amos yet you don't have those in your Bible.







1. Which "they?" Which "Protestant Bible?"


2. Of course, you didn't say "Lutheran Bible" because there is no such thing. And actually, my Concordia Publishing House Study Bible (in two volumns) DOES have one unique set of "them" in it.


3. Publishing houses - nearly all for profit companies - publish and print what they want (mostly because of customer demand). Yeah, in the USA, probably most tomes you'll find at the bookstore have just 66 books in them (although they probably have at least a few with more). Why? Likely because that's what customers want. They would publish tomes with 104 books in it (including 1 & 2 Clement, the Revelation of Peter, the Protoevangelum of James and works by St. Ignatius and St. Augstine) if the publisher and the bookstore thought customers would buy it.






1. Which "them?" The RCC's post trent set? Luther's personal set? The Anglican Church set? The Greek Orthodox set? The Syrian Orthodox Church set? The Ethiopean Orthodox Church set? Everything associated with the LXX? Everything found with the Dead Sea Scrolls? What is "them?"


2. If you want a Bible with more books that 66 in them, such is EASILY available (although you may have to buy on the internet rather than at your corner Mom and Pop bookstore). Here is where you an buy mine: https://www.cph.org/p-19305-The-Apocrypha-The-Lutheran-Edition-with-Notes.aspx




.

Read the ante nicene volumes of writings, they make it perfectly clear what books they considered scripture, put two and two together, process of elimination, it all points to what was included in the septuagint and what the early church fathers wrote to other Christians to mediate on..
You seem to imply that the church fathers had no universal sense of discernment nor could they possibly agree with each other because modern Christians can't agree, they agreed with what God had entrusted them through the greek translations and they wrote about it

 

[Albion]

Read the ante nicene volumes of writings, they make it perfectly clear what books they considered scripture, put two and two together, process of elimination, it all points to what was included in the septuagint and what the early church fathers wrote to other Christians to mediate on..
You seem to imply that the church fathers had no universal sense of discernment nor could they possibly agree with each other because modern Christians can't agree, they agreed with what God had entrusted them through the greek translations and they wrote about it

If this were as you describe, the Apocrypha would have been considered Scripture no different from the (rest of) the Old Testament when the Bible was canonized.

 

[Andrew]

If this were as you describe, the Apocrypha would have been considered Scripture no different from the (rest of) the Old Testament when the Bible was canonized.

There was no Masoretic then, only the Greek translations thus no "Apocrypha", I can't explain it any easier than that