Ship of Fools: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil

Thread: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028397

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

From Matthew 6:13:

quote:
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"

Here is what Strong's has to say about the Greek word translated as "but":

code:

1. but
	a. nevertheless, notwithstanding
	b. an objection
	c. an exception
	d. a restriction
	e. nay, rather, yea, moreover
	f. forms a transition to the cardinal matter

It seems to me that this implies a stronger link between temptation/trials and deliverance from evil (or "the evil one") than the English word "but" implies (but then that fits with my theology).

Any comments or insights on what the text is saying about the relationship between the two? Or on what you personally think the relationship is?

(Sorry for the small "code" font, but it's the only way I found to reproduce the original.)

[ 30. September 2014, 04:35: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

Posted by jrw (# 18045) on :

As far as I can understand, the verse seems to be saying: Help us to avoid temptation whenever possible, but inevitably it will come, and when it does, help us to resist it/not get trapped by it.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

That makes sense to me, but does that way of looking at it imply anything about the relationship between deliverance from evil and salvation? I've always taken the part about deliverance as a reference to salvation, but I'm guessing that maybe not everyone does.

On the other hand, if it is a reference to salvation, what does it imply about the relationship between temptation and salvation? Would that mean that salvation comes from God leading us out of temptation? Is temptation an inevitable, or even necessary part of salvation?

Or is deliverance from evil different than salvation?

[ 02. October 2014, 01:53: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think "lead us not into temptation" is a very human request, we like our easy life! But, I also think we need to put some "if it is possible" caveats in our thinking. If we look forward to Gethsemane, we see Jesus praying that if it was possible he'd ask that he not drink the cup of suffering, I would put "lead us not into temptation" in a similar light. Remember, in Matthews narrative, this prayer (part of the Sermon on the Mount) follows rapidly after Jesus is led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted. Quite clearly then, there are times when it is necessary for us to be led into temptation.

So, we ask not to be led into temptation, because it's not a pleasant place to be. But, if it is necessary then "not my will, but yours". And, at that point when we're facing temptation we pray "deliver us from evil", help us resist the temptations we face and come out the other side.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Remember, in Matthews narrative, this prayer (part of the Sermon on the Mount) follows rapidly after Jesus is led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted. Quite clearly then, there are times when it is necessary for us to be led into temptation.

The Lenten Preface in the APBA 2nd Order includes "He was tempted in every way as we are, yet still He did not sin, etc". Presumably much the same as Anglican liturgies in other parts of the world.

As tiny tots, we were taught that it meant "let us not be led into temptation", and the "but" had the meaning of "rather" or "and moreover" - all of which still makes good sense to me.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

"moreover" has the connation of the two phrases being part of the same thing. Which, of course, may be entirely correct - it's certainly consistent with Hebrew poetry (eg: most of the Psalms), and that's probably the best literary genre to read and understand the prayer in.

In which case, we have this meaning that seems to be "don't lead us where we'll be tempted, lead us where we avoid evil". A negative and positive statement linked together.

Which still leaves us with at least one question. If that's Jesus' prayer, and if that's part of his regular practice of prayer, why did God not answer his prayer? Why did the Spirit lead him into temptation in the wilderness? The narrative is very clear that it's the Spirit doing the leading, it's not because there was no other option, it's not Jesus' weakness and inability to see alternatives that takes him where he shouldn't be ... it's the Spirit of God deliberately leading him, with the temptation part of what he had to go through.

Are we not called to follow Jesus, and if he was led by God into temptation may we not also find at times that God is leading us into temptation?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

He died that we might live; He was tempted so that we might not ourselves fall to temptation - is that possible?

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which still leaves us with at least one question. If that's Jesus' prayer, and if that's part of his regular practice of prayer, why did God not answer his prayer? Why did the Spirit lead him into temptation in the wilderness? The narrative is very clear that it's the Spirit doing the leading, it's not because there was no other option, it's not Jesus' weakness and inability to see alternatives that takes him where he shouldn't be ... it's the Spirit of God deliberately leading him, with the temptation part of what he had to go through.

Are we not called to follow Jesus, and if he was led by God into temptation may we not also find at times that God is leading us into temptation?

This gets to the heart of my question. Does the text imply that we are delivered from evil by combatting or actively resisting it (although only when led to do so by God rather than when we seek it out on our own initiative), rather than completely avoiding it? And is that deliverance the same as salvation?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
He died that we might live; He was tempted so that we might not ourselves fall to temptation - is that possible?

It's possible. Though not falling for temptation and not being tempted are different things. We pray "lead us not into temptation" rather than "protect us from falling for temptation".

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Yes, you are right if you accept your interpretation that the Father might in fact lead us into temptation to see how we react. But if you accept the interpretation which I was given decades ago, to the effect that it is a prayer for protection against being led by Satan into temptation, how would you go from there?

There is some comfort for the interpretation I was taught in the standard modern language version used here: "save us from the time of trial".

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

How do you get from "Our Father .... lead us not into temptation" to a prayer that we not be led into temptation by Satan? I can see the "deliver us from evil" to be about Satan.

And, I'm not sure I'd agree with the idea of God leading us into temptation to see how we react, as some form of test. But, I do believe He will sometimes lead us into temptation because we need to get to the other side - like He led the people of Israel into the wilderness, not as a test (though it worked out to be something they failed) but because that was the route from Egypt to the Promised Land.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

What about this?

No one, when tempted, should say, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one. But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death.

James 1 vv 13ff

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I have no Greek so can't speak of any translation. What I was referring to was how I had been taught - and which appeals to me now as it did then.

As to the Exodus, I'm not sure that the Israelites were being led through temptation to get to the other side. They were being led through areas where they might be tempted, and they of their own will strayed into those temptations. I agree thoroughly with you that God does not let us n\be tempted as a sort of test.

The modern translation gets right away from these problems.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
(Sorry for the small "code" font, but it's the only way I found to reproduce the original.)

It can be done using UBB

Marvin
Helpful Admin [Smile]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I think Alan has got it right about parallelism (and that it is true for much of the rest of the Lord's Prayer as well). These two phrases are a piece of psalm-like (antithetical) parallelism amounting to single plea for God's protection.

I also think we need to beware of the most common understanding of "temptation" as being put in a position of wanting to do something we know we shouldn't.

Rather we should understand it in the now obsolete sense of trial or difficulty. The whole phrase has a sense something along the lines of "Don't bring us to difficulties but rather deliver us from them." Although I am not much in favour of it on other grounds, the translation "Do not bring us to the time of trial" is a much better rendering into contemporary English of the first phrase.

IMHO, because of the way the two parallel phrases interact to produce a whole meaning, there is some danger in dissecting them in too much detail.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
W Hyatt: Here is what Strong's has to say about the Greek word translated as "but":

I really like the option 'nay, rather, yea, moreover'. At least it gives us something to choose from [Smile]

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

quote:
Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil

I have always thought of this text as being "Lead us, not into temptation....
The comma does it all.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I've said this before, but the most common Portuguese-Brazilian translation has "Don't let us fall into temptation" (Não nos deixeis cair na tentação). I rather like this image: Wile E. Coyote is going over the edge, but at the last moment there is a net that catches him before he splashes onto the bottom of the valley.

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :

I like that too. Has the right feel to it as prayer, I'm sure.

Poetic too

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

The arrangement of the two verses (vv 12-13) is interesting – it might be intended as a parallelism, with each side explaining the other:

A: Forgive us (write off / throw away) those debts of ours
B: in the same way as we have also forgiven (written off / thrown away) those owed to us
B': Don't take us to the end result of disloyalty (leading to exile)
A': [but] redeem / deliver us from those evils (negative outcomes)

This may be possible if the verb 'deliver' (hrusai = ῥῦσαι) in A' is taken in one of its senses, to redeem (e.g., from slavery). Then there is a financial metaphor going on here – writing off debts in A, paralleled by clearing of debts caused by temptation in A'.

This would put the “deliver us from (the) evil (one)” in a context where the one praying is acknowledging his/her debt to God, resulting from times when he/she had been disloyal to God. The request is to get rid of those metaphorical debts or write them off, thus releasing the one praying back to freedom from the metaphorical punishment of exile.

The “But” would then relate to that: Forgive us, Redeem us.

Posted by jrw (# 18045) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Does the text imply that we are delivered from evil by combatting or actively resisting it (although only when led to do so by God rather than when we seek it out on our own initiative), rather than completely avoiding it? And is that deliverance the same as salvation? [/QB]

As far as I can see, the prayer only makes sense when temptation is a temptation in itself. Is it possible that the two parts of the prayer really mean the same thing, but are aimed at a legalistic mindset, i.e. "I haven't done anything wrong. I may have deliberately walked into temptation but I haven't given into it...yet"?

[ 04. October 2014, 13:40: Message edited by: jrw ]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

To my mind Jesus led a life that can be a metaphor for us in our lives. The fully human life of Jesus is a guide and example to us on how to deal with the world the way it is.

In that context, Jesus had just been through a sere experience where he was separated from humanity and, from all indications, God. Jesus then prays "Lead us not into temptation." In that context it can have a number of meanings. One meaning could be:

God, you made all this including all of the temptations with which I was faced, please don't do that again. It was no fun.

We face temptation all the time. Everything that causes temptation was created by God. The pretty women that take my mind off of other things and make me think sinful thoughts. The having less money than I would like and less money than those one percent types whom I dislike (envy) for their riches and what they do to get them. The envying youth their vitality and fearing my closer proximity to death. All of those things are temptations that can lead me to sin. Not the least of which is not wanting to experience reality just as it is and needing reality to be different so I can be happy.

Wanting reality to be different so I can be happy can lead to a world of hurting myself in different ways. It is a sin against myself and those around me who have to see it happening.

So, God, lead me not into temptation can be a prayer to seek relief from the way we perceive and react to the world; a world God created and in which we sometimes have a very uncomfortable place.

That prayer is immediately followed by "But deliver us from evil." It is easier to understand as it seems to be "Give us strength to deal with sin," or, "Take temptation and evil away from us." In that light God is a prayer operated machine that makes everything better for us because we pray for it. Y'all tell me about how that works for you.

Look to the rest of the prayer for some of the meaning of the juxtaposed propositions.

Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us: This can be seen as God we don't want you to forgive us until we forgive others. Sounds a little iffy. How about: We can only forgive ourselves and allow God's forgiveness fully into our souls when we can let go of our resentments and fears long enough to forgive others because we recognize that they are fallible and beloved children of God - just as we are.

Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven: let us remember not to separate ourselves from God by not placing God safely up in a far distant place where we are safe from God. Let us actively seek what God wants for us in our lives.

Juxtaposed phrases bring us to a place where we have to think about their meaning and what Jesus was trying to say.

So, Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil could as easily mean "I know I am human. I know I have free choice because you gave me that God. And I know my free choice combined with the way the world works leads me to make choices and have attitudes that harm myself and others. So, I would like to empty myself of myself and seek your will because I know that is where serenity lies."

In that context deliver us from evil is to deliver us not directly into Heaven, but to relieve us of our desires that deny the world the way it is as opposed to how we want it to be.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

But both these two preceding posts depend on reading 'temptation' in the sense of some desire which leads one to sin, and I am fairly sure that is not what the original Greek means, nor what the English meant when the word 'temptation' was first chosen to render the Greek.

Unfortunately the older meaning of temptation as a time of difficulty or testing is wholly lost in contemporary English usage (AFAIK) apart from this lexical fossil in the Lord's prayer.

In England at least, there is a deep sentimental attachment to "the wording that Jesus himself used and Cranmer transcribed into the BCP and King James into the Authorised Version. If AV 1611 and BCP 1611 were good enough for Jesus then they are good enough for me."

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

Nigel M: That's an intriguing possibility, but how does the text support what you label as B'?

shamwari: Thanks - I think those are great verses to keep in mind while trying to figure out the text I'm asking about.

BroJames: I'm completely with you about thinking of "temptation" as a kind of trial or difficulty. I don't know if it's in the Greek, but I'd add the element of doubt as to the outcome, so that temptation is when we are struggling with something and are not at all sure that we are going to prevail or that things are going to turn out as we hope. For example, when we are struggling to live by God's commandments but are facing serious internal doubts about our ability to hold on to that intention in the face of a strong natural inclination to do the opposite.

It seems to me that in English, "but" can have several distinct meanings, with three that I can think of that might apply to the text, which I'll call "but/instead," "but/however," and "but/still." I use "but/instead" to refer to distinct alternatives, as in telling my dentist "I know that removing my tooth will fix my problem, but/instead I want to first see if it goes away by itself." "But/however" is for two things that are inevitably connected, as in "I know that removing my tooth will be painful, but/however I want to have it removed so it doesn't get worse." And "but/still" is for two different points on a scale, as in "I don't want you to tell me every little thing that can go wrong with removing my tooth, but/still I want to know enough to be prepared."

It sounds like using the first meaning (but/instead) is a common way to interpret the "but" in the text, but is that supported by the text? As an uneducated reader of the Strong's notes, I have to wonder if that really is consistent with the original Greek because it sounds to me like the second (but/however) or third (but/still) options would be more consistent. So instead of deliverance from evil being a distinct alternative to temptation, temptation is either an inevitable side effect of deliverance, or deliverance involves a mild degree of temptation. Of these two latter options, the "inevitable side effect" makes more sense to me, but I hoping some posters familiar with Greek will help me figure out just what the likely range of meanings is. Would the same Greek word have been used if the intended meaning was what I refer to as "but/instead," or is there a different word that would have been used for that?

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
...but how does the text support what you label as B'?

There's a couple of approaches for this: one would be to say that the other three lines (A, B, and A') appear to resonate with each other in the parallelism style common to ancient near eastern rhetoric and that therefore B' should fit into it; the second approach would be to focus on the words being used to see what light their use can throw on a meaning.

Showing a complete lack of decision-making, I'll try both approaches.

There are four lines in this part of the prayer, in two sets of two. The first two deal with forgiving debts, the second with temptation of some kind. There then follows a summary of sorts, not part of the prayer,* which reads “For if you forgive others their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive you your sins.” Interestingly this summary really appears to relate to the first two lines – the forgiveness theme – yet it sandwiches the second two lines. It suggests that the summary was intended to cover the whole 4 lines as one linked entity.

So there's a thesis here: all 4 lines that make up versus 12 and 13 are linked thematically. Does that work with the actual words used?

In line A (“...forgive us our debts”) we have a verb (aphiemi = ἀφίημι) that can be used in the sense of freeing, letting go, releasing. Some examples from Greek literature can be found here (click the "LSJ" hyperlink on that page), but I admit to being more interested and impressed by instances in Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures (LXX group) because I have been convinced that Jesus (and the NT writers) drew their language use and underlying meanings primarily from that source rather than from Greek philosophical roots. Aphiemi is used to translate the concept of canceling debts, e.g., in the section on Jubilee in Deut. 15:1ff (“At the end of every seven years you must declare a cancellation of debts. This is the nature of the cancellation...”). In fact it was a bit of a surprise to me to find that aphiemi is very rarely used to translate the Hebrew word for “forgiveness”. To me at any rate, this suggests that the common rendering in English of the Lord's prayer should not really be “...forgive us our debts”, but rather something closer to the financial context of writing off, releasing from, etc.

In turn, this maps quite nicely on to the verb hrusai (= ῥῦσαι) in the fourth line (which I labelled A') and which I mentioned in my last post as having a financial sense – redeeming from.

That brings us to the B' line – the third line of the four. This, which is usually translated into English along the lines of: “...do not lead us into temptation”, could be translated “...do not lead us into testing” and it's this angle that can supply some more support. The support comes from the way the noun is used in its Hebrew/Aramaic contexts. The word peirasmos (= πειρασμός) is used to mean a testing to see if someone is being loyal to a covenant. An example is Ex 17:7 - 'He [Moses] called the name of the place Massah... because of their testing the Lord saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?”'

So potentially the thesis works out. The four lines (A, B, B' A') are cocooned, and the words used overlap thematically.

* I'm assuming it's not part of the prayer, but I'd be surprised if I was the only one who had heard people always turning their prayers into sermons...

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

Very interesting and thought-provoking - thanks.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Rather we should understand it in the now obsolete sense of trial or difficulty.

This is exactly right.

However, I wouldn't usher this sense of trial so fast to its grave. We still have clinic trials and athletic time trials. Then there is trial by fire, but we don't do that much any more.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Rather we should understand it in the now obsolete sense of trial or difficulty.
This is exactly right.

However, I wouldn't usher this sense of trial so fast to its grave. We still have clinic trials and athletic time trials. Then there is trial by fire, but we don't do that much any more.

You're right that we still do have those kinds of trials, and we can also speak of a difficult experience or person as being a trial, but the use of the word "temptation" for these things is obsolete.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0