BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Theology => Topic started by: Betho on February 03, 2024, 09:57:20 PM
-
Matthew 26:42-43 King James Version
He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.
The scene underscores Jesus' submission to the Father's will and his redemptive sacrifice. This event is central to Christian theology, representing Jesus' surrender into the hands of soldiers as part of the divine plan for humanity's redemption.
Matthew 26:53 King James Version
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
This passage seems to suggest that, in stating that He could summon angels through prayer to the Father, Jesus was highlighting His authority over circumstances, including the Father's already established will. This prayer would represent a channel to express, if necessary, the adjustment of the Son's will in line with the already established redemptive plan, disregarding the Father's will.
In summary, does the fact that Jesus changes the will of the Father make Him coequal to Him?
-
Jesus did not change the Fathers will
Jesus is co-equal with the Father and co-equal with the Spirit in essence and nature, regardless of whom of the three are submitting the the other at the time.
-
Jesus had neither the desire nor inclination to oppose God's will, but is simply demonstrating that the sacrifice of His flesh and blood was voluntary. As He Himself said, He had the power to lay down His life and the power to take it back up again. (John 10:17-18)
-
Matthew 26:42-43 King James Version
He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.
The scene underscores Jesus' submission to the Father's will and his redemptive sacrifice. This event is central to Christian theology, representing Jesus' surrender into the hands of soldiers as part of the divine plan for humanity's redemption.
Matthew 26:53 King James Version
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
This passage seems to suggest that, in stating that He could summon angels through prayer to the Father, Jesus was highlighting His authority over circumstances, including the Father's already established will. This prayer would represent a channel to express, if necessary, the adjustment of the Son's will in line with the already established redemptive plan, disregarding the Father's will.
In summary, does the fact that Jesus changes the will of the Father make Him coequal to Him?
50 Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.”[d]
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
Jesus is talking to one of his disciples and making a rather obvious point regarding the absurdity of trying to thwart His purpose by using a sword.
-
When I read this title, I was sure the person who wrote it meant to say, Was the Son's will always subordinate to the Father's will.
That makes sense, but the answer can be known by intuition. Before the Trinity decided to create the universe and all the people, the Godhead was all co-equal. There was no subordination among the Members of the Trinity.
-
When I read this title, I was sure the person who wrote it meant to say, Was the Son's will always subordinate to the Father's will.
Yeah, I thought so too
That makes sense, but the answer can be known by intuition. Before the Trinity decided to create the universe and all the people, the Godhead was all co-equal. There was no subordination among the Members of the Trinity.
My position as well. Their respective positions are only a result of their roles in creation and redemption
-
The are still not subordinate
-
The are still not subordinate
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying Jesus is not in submission to the Father's will?
-
The are still not subordinate
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying Jesus is not in submission to the Father's will?
How are you distinguishing between ontic and economic "submission"?
-
The are still not subordinate
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying Jesus is not in submission to the Father's will?
How are you distinguishing between ontic and economic "submission"?
I am talking about this:
1 Co 15:24-28
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
-
The are still not subordinate
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying Jesus is not in submission to the Father's will?
How are you distinguishing between ontic and economic "submission"?
I am talking about this:
1 Co 15:24-28
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
That's why I asked my question.
-
The are still not subordinate
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying Jesus is not in submission to the Father's will?
How are you distinguishing between ontic and economic "submission"?
I am talking about this:
1 Co 15:24-28
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
[/
I am not sure how you would classifyquote]
That's why I asked my question.
Neither....it's total. as in every respect.
-
The are still not subordinate
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying Jesus is not in submission to the Father's will?
How are you distinguishing between ontic and economic "submission"?
I am talking about this:
1 Co 15:24-28
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
[/
I am not sure how you would classifyquote]
That's why I asked my question.
Neither....it's total. as in every respect.
That's a both, not a neither. Your view is really that the Son, the Second Person of the Godhead, becomes subordinated to the Father both ontically, i.e. concerning nature/being/substance, and economically, i.e. concerning those things that God does?
-
The are still not subordinate
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying Jesus is not in submission to the Father's will?
How are you distinguishing between ontic and economic "submission"?
I am talking about this:
1 Co 15:24-28
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
[/
I am not sure how you would classifyquote]
That's why I asked my question.
Neither....it's total. as in every respect.
That's a both, not a neither. Your view is really that the Son, the Second Person of the Godhead, becomes subordinated to the Father both ontically, i.e. concerning nature/being/substance, and economically, i.e. concerning those things that God does?
Only as in respect to creation and redemption. I believe any member of the trinity could have fulfilled the role of the father or son or holy spirit and in eternity past they were co equal. However, I don't pretend to fully comprehend the mystery of the trinity so I am not dogmatic about it's inner workings.
I sum it up like this:
The Father is YHVH
The Son is YHVH
The Holy Spirit is YHVH
These three are one (or "echad" as in unity of of plurity)
-
The are still not subordinate
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying Jesus is not in submission to the Father's will?
How are you distinguishing between ontic and economic "submission"?
I am talking about this:
1 Co 15:24-28
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
[/
I am not sure how you would classifyquote]
That's why I asked my question.
Neither....it's total. as in every respect.
That's a both, not a neither. Your view is really that the Son, the Second Person of the Godhead, becomes subordinated to the Father both ontically, i.e. concerning nature/being/substance, and economically, i.e. concerning those things that God does?
Only as in respect to creation and redemption. I believe any member of the trinity could have fulfilled the role of the father or son or holy spirit and in eternity past they were co equal. However, I don't pretend to fully comprehend the mystery of the trinity so I am not dogmatic about it's inner workings.
I sum it up like this:
The Father is YHVH
The Son is YHVH
The Holy Spirit is YHVH
These three are one (or "echad" as in unity of of plurity)
So economically, but not ontically?
-
These three are one (or "echad" as in unity of of plurity)
Don't bring in Hebrew. "Echad" simply means "one", same as in English.
-
These three are one (or "echad" as in unity of of plurity)
Don't bring in Hebrew. "Echad" simply means "one", same as in English.
Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one(echad) flesh.
-
Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one(echad) flesh.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
"Echad" means the same thing in English as it does in Hebrew: "One".
Or are you arguing that the word "one" in English means "unity of of plurity"?
-
These three are one (or "echad" as in unity of of plurity)
Don't bring in Hebrew. "Echad" simply means "one", same as in English.
Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one(echad) flesh.
"Echad" is just the Hebrew word for the number one. It's incorrect to say that echad denotes a "unity of [a?] plurality".
When saying "These three are one", what are you suggesting is plural? I've sort of skipped over your suggestion that any one person of the Godhead could have "fulfilled the role" of the Father. That's an interesting choice of words. Are you suggesting that the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are roles and not persons?
-
"Echad" is just the Hebrew word for the number one. It's incorrect to say that echad denotes a "unity of [a?] plurality".
This is usually a Christian Apologetic for Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one". "Oh but Gen 2:24 says a man and his wife become one flesh, so "Echad" doesn't mean one, it means "a compound unity" and Det 6:4 means the trinity". Something like that.
-
"Echad" is just the Hebrew word for the number one. It's incorrect to say that echad denotes a "unity of [a?] plurality".
This is usually a Christian Apologetic for Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one". "Oh but Gen 2:24 says a man and his wife become one flesh, so "Echad" doesn't mean one, it means "a compound unity" and Det 6:4 means the trinity". Something like that.
yeah, that's my typical defense too. In any case, have you ever done a study on the Jewish doctrine of the two powers? (from the Tanakh)
-
yeah, that's my typical defense too.
Well, that isn't what the word means.
In any case, have you ever done a study on the Jewish doctrine of the two powers?
No, I haven't. Because there's no such Jewish doctrine.
-
yeah, that's my typical defense too.
Well, that isn't what the word means.
It's how it is used in Gen 2:24
In any case, have you ever done a study on the Jewish doctrine of the two powers?
No, I haven't. Because there's no such Jewish doctrine.
Actually you are partially correct. It was a well known and accepted doctrine in the 2nd temple time frame. However, it was eradicated and condemned by the Pharisees after the advent of Christ. Watch the video I posted for a surface view. You can then dig deeper into Heiser's 8 hour video on the subject.
-
Actually you are partially correct. It was a well known and accepted doctrine in the 2nd temple time frame. However, it was eradicated and condemned by the Pharisees after the advent of Christ.
The whole idea that Jews prior to the Pharisees were some sort of proto Christians and they were somehow "deceived by the rabbis" is just silly and not supported by any biblical texts, including the Christian bible.
The Jews were a highly literate society even during the first temple era. You're comparing them to Christians in the medieval era, who could be led astray by Catholic priests because the priests were the only ones who could read the bible. That didn't apply to Jews, and probably never did. Judaism is a religion of deeds, not faith, and only biblically literate individuals could know what God expected and how to carry that out.
Christianity was a new way of looking at the bible. This is why it did not attract many Jewish followers, who could already read the bible and had a tradition on how it was understood going back to Sinai. That you think Jews were somehow duped "by the rabbis" who, after Jesus appeared on the scene, changed what everything meant, is just silly.
-
Actually you are partially correct. It was a well known and accepted doctrine in the 2nd temple time frame. However, it was eradicated and condemned by the Pharisees after the advent of Christ.
The whole idea that Jews prior to the Pharisees were some sort of proto Christians and they were somehow "deceived by the rabbis" is just silly and not supported by any biblical texts, including the Christian bible.
The Jews were a highly literate society even during the first temple era. You're comparing them to Christians in the medieval era, who could be led astray by Catholic priests because the priests were the only ones who could read the bible. That didn't apply to Jews, and probably never did. Judaism is a religion of deeds, not faith, and only biblically literate individuals could know what God expected and how to carry that out.
Christianity was a new way of looking at the bible. This is why it did not attract many Jewish followers, who could already read the bible and had a tradition on how it was understood going back to Sinai. That you think Jews were somehow duped "by the rabbis" who, after Jesus appeared on the scene, changed what everything meant, is just silly.
I never compared them to proto christians or questioned their literacy. What I did do...was actually read some of rabbinical scholar Alan Segal's research. I also listened to Heiser. (video below)
"Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the two powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship." More: https://twopowersinheaven.com/
Dr Heiser's research confirms many of Segal's assertions. Therefore it is not some "silly" idea easily dismissed but one that requires careful research and an open mind.
-
rabbinical scholar
I have no idea what this means.
Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff.,
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire
Sounds like God to me.
Exo 23:20-23
“See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you.
The Hebrew word for "angel" is "מַלְאָךְ֙ ", literally "messenger". How is someone conflating this to be some other incarnation of God?
and Exo 15:3.
The Lord is a Master of war; the Lord is His Name.
Uses YHVH, literally God. Not someone/something else.
Dr Heiser's research confirms many of Segal's assertions. Therefore it is not some "silly" idea easily dismissed but one that requires careful research and an open mind.
Taking three verses and torturing their translation to mean something that the text doesn't say is not "scholarship". It's silly. Dan Brown's books are based on such a premise. Are they "scholarship" too?
-
13 I saw in the visions of the night, and behold with the clouds of the heaven, one like a man was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was brought before Him. 14 And He gave him dominion and glory and a kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and tongues shall serve him; his dominion is an eternal dominion, which will not be removed, and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.
Fenris, we agree that the Ancient of Days is God, but who's the individual Daniel saw being transported before Him on the clouds of heaven? And where did he come from?
-
Fenris, we agree that the Ancient of Days is God, but who's the individual Daniel saw being transported before Him on the clouds of heaven? And where did he come from?
The messiah. Why is this even a question?
-
Well, I thought the Jewish messiah was an ordinary man, rather than someone hitching a ride on the clouds into heaven. BTW, one can hardly miss the similarities between what Daniel describes here and Jesus, who ascended to the throne of God on clouds. Just sayin'.
-
Well, I thought the Jewish messiah was an ordinary man, rather than someone hitching a ride on the clouds into heaven.
Moses was an ordinary man, and he ascended to heaven and was there for 40 days and 40 nights. Elijah was an ordinary man, yet he ascended to heaven on a fiery chariot. Who are you to limit God and decide who he can and can't bring to heaven?
BTW, one can hardly miss the similarities between what Daniel describes here and Jesus, who ascended to the throne of God on clouds. Just sayin'.
Only if one believes the NT to be holy writ. Just sayin.
-
It wasn't my intent to question who God does and does not permit into heaven. I was just looking for a better understanding of what kind of individual you perceive the messiah to be. Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.
-
I was just looking for a better understanding of what kind of individual you perceive the messiah to be.
No, you were trying to pigeonhole this specific prophecy to apply to Jesus, and you explicitly stated so.
Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.
No feathers ruffled.
You know me a long time, and you know that I'm biblically literate. If you present me with a biblical verse, you know that I already know it exists, and I know how Jews understand it, and the Jewish understanding is going to be different from the Christian understanding.
-
Well, I thought the Jewish messiah was an ordinary man, rather than someone hitching a ride on the clouds into heaven.
And we could revisit this.
Christians have spritualized so much of the Bible. "Israel" isn't Israel, it's Christians, or the church. "Jerusalem" isn't Jerusalem, it's heaven or where ever. But this one prophecy has to come true literally, as described, it can't be metaphorical or poetic.
-
And that leads me to another line of thought.
I can see how Christians arrive at their conclusion.
Christians (for the most part, overwhelmingly) can't see how Jews arrive at our conclusion.
I can follow the internal logic of the NT. I think it's wrong, of course, which is why I am not a Christian. But I can see why Christians are Christian.
But Christians don't understand why Jews are Jewish. They look at the Jewish bible and can't see what Jews see, and perhaps have no interest in seeing what Jews see. Jews are not Christians "because of the rabbis and Pharisees", as someone said in this discussion, and they leave it at that. Or because of "spiritual blindness". Or because we don't know what words mean in Hebrew; in English we count "one, two, three", but in Hebrew (apparently) we count "compound unity, two, three..." Or maybe it's because "the rabbis don't let us read Isaiah 53" because if we did, we'd all be converting tomorrow.
Someone asked me to be "open minded", but is anyone here open minded enough to try and understand the bible the way that Jews understand it?
Some time ago I started a topic on the book of Deuteronomy. (https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=331.msg6993#msg6993) All I did was post verses from the book, and reiterate what they said. Not even pushing a Jewish perspective. Just verses. Not one single person responded.
-
Probably because of two things.
One, very few evangelicals have any appreciation for the Jewish writings, and even though they give lip service to doctrines of canonicity and inerrancy, they hold to the Jewish writings with suspicion, uncertainty, a sense of irrelevance, and superiority.
Two, given the emphasis on faith and works in the New Testamnet writings, most evangelicals get really nervous when you suggest that DOING or obedience has any value despite James’ warnings about faith without works or Paul’s admonition that we were created in Christ for good works.
It’s easier to tell someone why they are wrong than it is to simple “give an account for the hope that it within you with meekness and gentleness.”
Most of us evangelicals are too busy trying to be right that trying to simply say “this is what God did for me.”
That’s a sad commentary
-
One, very few evangelicals have any appreciation for the Jewish writings, and even though they give lip service to doctrines of canonicity and inerrancy, they hold to the Jewish writings with suspicion, uncertainty, a sense of irrelevance, and superiority.
So why not just proclaim to be a follow of Marcion and have done? Or admit that the Jewish bible is good for proof texts and nothing else?
Two, given the emphasis on faith and works in the New Testamnet writings, most evangelicals get really nervous when you suggest that DOING or obedience has any value despite James’ warnings about faith without works or Paul’s admonition that we were created in Christ for good works.
And that is a shame.
Everyone wants to be an "intellectual" but limits it to creatively finding Jesus everywhere, including in the Hebrew word "the" (yes, it happened on the old forum). Why not try reading the bible and trying to understand it how Jews do? Wouldn't that be interesting and even "intellectual"?
-
Most evangelicals have no idea who Marcion is.
Further, most have a pop hermeneutic that begins with the end in mind and works backward.
A proper evangelical hermeneutic, on the other hand, must FIRST:
1. Understand the Hebrew text... not what some idiot like Jonathan (Conman) Kahn says it means because he wears a funny hat and calls himself "Rabbi"
2. Understand what the original hearer or reader would understand the text to meant.
3. Understand what eternal moral or spiritual principal God is teaching or requiring compliance with.
4. Apply that principal to modern realities.
Many Christians skip straight to step 4... Yes, a solid evangelical hermeneutic is going to take the Torah, and the Prophets, and the Writings, and eventually make an application that a historical Jew or even a modern Jew may not make, but they have to do that based on a rational application of all four steps.
-
Something that happened today:
An American-Israeli named Edan Alexander, who was taken hostage by Hamas on October 7, 2023, was freed after being held in captivity for 584 days.
Today happens to be an interesting day on the Hebrew calendar.
It's the 14th of the Hebrew month of Iyar.
What significance does this have? Let's look at Numbers 9:
The Lord spoke to Moses in the Desert of Sinai in the first month of the second year after they came out of Egypt. He said, “Have the Israelites celebrate the Passover at the appointed time. Celebrate it at the appointed time, at twilight on the fourteenth day of this month, in accordance with all its rules and regulations.”
So Moses told the Israelites to celebrate the Passover, and they did so in the Desert of Sinai at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. The Israelites did everything just as the Lord commanded Moses.
But some of them could not celebrate the Passover on that day because they were ceremonially unclean on account of a dead body. So they came to Moses and Aaron that same day and said to Moses, “We have become unclean because of a dead body, but why should we be kept from presenting the Lord’s offering with the other Israelites at the appointed time?”
Moses answered them, “Wait until I find out what the Lord commands concerning you.”
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites: ‘When any of you or your descendants are unclean because of a dead body or are away on a journey, they are still to celebrate the Lord’s Passover, but they are to do it on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight. They are to eat the lamb, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations.
The Israelites in the desert celebrate the Passover holiday, including the eating of the sacrifice. But some of them can't eat the sacrifice, because they're ritually impure on account of having been in proximity of a human corpse. They bring up the issue to Moses, who consults with God. God says, no worries, if for some reason you can't eat the sacrifice on the appointed day, you'll get your chance to partake of the Passover sacrifice a month later instead.
In Hebrew this is referred to as the "Pesach Sheni", the "Second Passover".
Referencing the date and the situation, Edan's grandmother said "Today Edan gets to celebrate Pesach Sheni, because today he has been freed", referencing not only the date on the calendar, but also the fact the holiday if Passover celebrates the Israelites being freed from bondage in Egypt.
And I think that's beautiful.
-
I had forgotten about the second chance in the event of ceremonial uncleanliness
So glad he is home
The video was priceless.
PS…. I can preach an entire sermon on “2nd chance Passover!”
🫢🫢🫢
-
On June 7, 1981, Israel launched an attack against an Iraqi nuclear reactor that was about to come online. The video above has the details if anyone is interested, and it's a compelling story.
The jets flew to their target low, to stay under radar detection. On their flight back, they flew at a higher altitude and with as much speed as they could muster.
The leader of the mission, Ze’ev Raz, describes what happened:
It takes an hour and a half to get back from Iraq to Israel and we were flying 40,000 feet above the ground.
The General Staff originally wanted us to carry out the bombing after sunset so it would be harder for the Iraqis to attack us on the way back. But I was opposed to that. I thought if we did the bombing after sunset there wouldn’t be enough light and our planes would miss their target — so I insisted that the bombing take place before sunset.
As a result, we flew back as the sun was setting. But since the planes were traveling so high and at such a fast speed, the sun was out all the time and never set. It was as though it remained standing in the middle of the horizon.
At that time we pilots all radioed each other reciting the same exact biblical verse — Joshua 10:12: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and moon, over the Valley of Ayalon.”