From: Jeffrey Gibson (jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu)
Date: Sat Jun 28 1997 - 21:03:34 EDT
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Jonathan Robie wrote:
> Luke 11:4 KAI MH EISENEGKHiS hHMAS EIS PEIRASMON
>
> I grew up saying "and lead us not into temptation", but doesn't this
> translate more literally into "do not bring us into temptation"? Regardless,
> what exactly does it mean? Is it a prayer that God will not bring us into
> temptation, as though God is the one who brings us into temptation, and we
> are asking him not to? Somehow, I'm not convinced that I'm reading this
> correctly...
Jonathan,
You are not alone in feeling the difficulty of this interpretation
of the phrase. Assuming that the PEIRASMOS in view is a testing to
which believers are subject and over which God has some control (he
can "lead" believers into it or not) and responsibility (he permits
the testing ala Job or initiates it himself ala Gen 22, Deut 8),
there is on the one hand the apparent contradiction between the
petition of Mt 6:13//Lk 11:4 and James 1:13 which asserts that God tests no
one, and on the other between the petition and the idea, rife
throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and the LXX, that the believer
welcomes PEIRASMOS and sees it as something desirable (cf. Ps 26:2;
Wis. 3; Sir. 2:1: compare 1 Peter 1PE 1:6-7; 4:12-13). This has
caused many exegetes from Origen to Jeremias to render the
expression "do not let us succumb in temptation".
A way out of this, and, incidently, a way that is gaining favour
amongst some exegetes (and one that I am in the initial stages of
writing about) is a view which sees the object of the PEIRASMOS
spoken of in the petition NOT as believers but as God. What Jesus
tells his disciples they are to pray for is to saved from *testing
God* as Israel did in the wilderness by doubting his power and
covenantal faithfulness, specifically by falling away from trust
that the ways he deems appropriate for those he calls are
sufficient to get God's work done.
There are several advantages to this view. Among them are the facts
that it involves no contradictions between other biblical
pronouncements or assumptions on PEIRASMOS. Second, it coheres well
with what follows the petition in Matthew , i.e., the further
petition that God deliver believers from the evil one = Satan), for
a strong case can be made that, according to Matthew, the Devil in
the temptation story is one who tries to get Jesus to put God to
the test by doubting the effectiveness of the cross in fulfilling
the task God has given to Sons of God. Third, it coheres also with
what the Markan Jesus at Gethsemane tells his disciples they are to
pray for (not that they succumb to the test, but that they turn
their backs on God's ways and thus test God).
If you wish to explore this further, I suggest you look at an
article by C.B. Houk, "Peirasmos, the Lord's Prayer, and the Massah
tradition [Ex 17:1-7]," Scottish Journal of Theology 19 (1966), pp.
216-225 and another from the same journal entitled something Like
"the Decline of Temptation" published last year (I don't have the
reference close to hand, so I can't be more specific). Also one you
must look at is by C.F.D. Moule, `An Unresolved Problem in the
Temptation Clause in the Lord's Prayer', RThRev 33 (1974), pp. 65-
75.
Incidently, while Edward Hobbs is correct in asserting that many (a
majority of?) scholars think that the PEIRASMOS of the petition is
the so-called great eschatological testing, there really is little
to recommend this view. Nowhere in Jewish apocalyptic nor (with the
possible exception of Rev 3:10) in the NT is the term PEIRASMOS an
apocalyptic technical term. If it were, we would expect it to be
accompanied by the article. Moreover, if it were a TT, the petition
would be irrelevant to the daily life of the believer.
Jeffrey Gibson
jgibsonacfsysv.roosevelt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT