Pope Finds Fault With The Lord’s Prayer! (Does God Lead Us Into Temptation?)

            Oops! Have we been incorrectly reading and reciting the Lord’s Prayer¹ all these years? To say that 8 out of 10 Christians know and use the Lord’s Prayer may not be farfetched. But when Pope Francis asserted that the Biblical translation of the Lord’s Prayer should be corrected, it did, justly, spark debates in Christendom. Is the Lord’s Prayer incorrectly translated?

            This is the controversy, “Pope Francis’ remarks on the “wrong” translation of the Lord’s Prayer in a TV show hosted by the Italian Bishops’ Conference’s TV2000 network are part of a wider debate that has taken place in Italy for over two decades. The Pope said that the words “non ci indurre in tentazione” – “Do not lead us into temptation,” in the English version – are not correct, because, he said, God does not actively lead us into temptation.” (Emphasis Mine).²

            Pope’s criticism is predicated on the fact that God is not evil to lead people into temptation so that they sin, “The Pope’s intent seems to be to emphasize that God’s active will does not “tempt” men, that, instead, the permissive will of God allows people to be tempted because of their sinfulness…The theological context is complex, but certainly the Pope has not intended to deny the theological and scriptural sense in which God allows, or permits, temptation.” (Emphasis Mine).³

            Fair enough!

            Pope’s criticism motivates us to ask many questions. Thankfully, the three most pertinent questions have been asked and answered by Daniel Wallace, who is Christianity’s premier active textual critic. He is the Senior Research Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He cites three pertinent questions, "A myriad of implications arise from the pontiff’s statement. Among them I list just three:⁴

(1) Have translations of the Bible gotten this verse wrong for 2000 years?

Jerome’s Vulgate—the version that has been the official Bible of the Catholic Church for centuries—reads here ne inducas nos in temptationem: “Do not lead us into temptation.”…In 1979, the Nova Vulgata became the official Catholic translation (after Vatican II, it follows the Greek and Hebrew more closely), yet it too says ne inducas nos. So, the pontiff is not only going against modern translations but even his own Vulgate…

It may be surprising, however, to discover that a few modern translations come close to Pope Francis’s version. The New Living Translation (2nd edition), a Protestant Bible, has “don’t let us yield to temptation.”….Nevertheless, there seems to be an overwhelming consensus that “do not lead us” or the like is how the text should be rendered…

(2) What is the nature of translation?

There are two broad theories of translation today—formal equivalence and functional equivalence. Formal equivalence means that the translation attempts to retain the wording and syntax of the original language as much as possible. Functional equivalence means that the translation gives a higher priority to the semantics of the original, bringing out the force of original text regardless of how it is worded…

All translation is interpretation

It is important to recognize, however, that all translation is interpretation. The reason is that the syntax and lexical mapping in one language never match exactly that of another language. The context determines the meaning. A so-called “word-for-word” translation is quite impossible for anything more than a short phrase or sentence. In this passage, for example, the word translated “temptation” is the same word that is elsewhere translated “testing.” Interpretation is required; translators cannot simply leave the word to allow for both meanings since “temptation” has connotations of sin while “testing” does not. However, in this passage there is good reason to see πειρασμός (peirasmos) as bearing the force of temptation, as we will see below. But the point is that an interpretation of the text is already done in even the most formal equivalent translations of this passage. In one sense, the pope’s rendering is an interpretation of an interpretation…

Ideally, a translation should give the readers of the Bible in their own language the same interpretive options that a reader of the original will have. And this means that it is important for readers of the Bible to struggle with the same, often intentional, ambiguities found in the original text…

So then, should translation be formally equivalent for functionally equivalent? Neither one is adequate. Faithful equivalence is really required—faithful to the meaning of the original…

The Lord’s Prayer and translation

The pope’s rendering certainly is on the functional-equivalent side rather than the formal-equivalent side. But does that make it illegitimate?...Not only is the Greek in both Matt 6.13 and Luke 11.4 textually certain (variants for “do not lead us into temptation” are trivial amounting to minor spelling differences), but the syntax is clear. The verb in the petition “lead” is an aorist active subjunctive (εἰσενέγκῃς); with the negative particle, “do not lead” is the idea. The pope wants it to mean “allow” which speaks instead of God not permitting something rather than him actively leading us. And the pontiff seems to have assumed that the Greek “lead into temptation” means “permit to fall into temptation.” Several lexical, syntactical, and interpretive shifts are seen here.

The broader context of Matthew’s Gospel may give us a clue as to why the Lord said, “Do not lead us into temptation.” Immediately after Jesus’ baptism, we are told that he “was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil” (Matthew 4.1). The Greek text indicates that the purpose of the Spirit’s leading Jesus into the wilderness was so that he would be tempted by the devil (“to be tempted” [πειρασθῆναι] is an infinitive of purpose, giving the purpose of the Spirit’s leading). Mark words this even more starkly: “Immediately the Spirit drove him into the wilderness” (Mark 1.13).

Evidently, there is a sense in which Jesus was delivered into the hands of the evil one, by the Holy Spirit himself, to be tempted. But the Greek here makes an interesting point about who is responsible for what. Two passive verbs are used in Matt 4.1— ἀνήχθη (“he was led”) and πειρασθῆναι (“to be tempted”). The agents are listed with identical prepositions: ὑπό. This is the preposition used especially for ultimate agent. It is rare to see ὑπό followed by πνεύματος (“Spirit”) in the NT (only five passages). Doing so here, Matthew shows that the Spirit is not subordinate to the devil but is the agent ultimately responsible for leading Jesus into the wilderness, while the devil is the ultimate agent of the temptation. The Spirit is not responsible for that. The Spirit did not tempt Jesus, but he did lead him to be tempted. The balance is intentional: leading into temptation is not the same as tempting. God the Holy Spirit led Jesus into temptation, but he did not tempt him. Wrestling with the implications of this requires more than a little reflection.

Although Satan’s purpose was to destroy Jesus before he ever went to the cross, God’s purpose in using Satan was painted on a broader canvas. God tests; Satan tempts. The Son of God went through similar testing as the children of Israel in the wilderness. They were there for forty years; he was there for forty days. Where they failed he succeeded.

Further, the temptation that the Lord faced was the ultimate temptation—the offer of the entire world on a platter. Jesus can ask the disciples to pray that the Father would not lead them into temptation and that God would deliver them from the evil one precisely because Jesus himself faced the ultimate temptation by the evil one. Whereas the Spirit led Jesus to be tempted, Jesus asks the Father not to lead his disciples into temptation; whereas Jesus was delivered over to Satan for tempting (testing from the Father’s perspective), Jesus prays that his followers will be delivered from the evil one. It is precisely because of Jesus’ substitutionary death and life that this prayer can be recited today by Christians with the full assurance that God will answer us.

Pope Francis’s translation, however, subverts all this: “do not let us fall into temptation.” The original text speaks clearly of God leading, not permitting. To tamper with the wording misses the connection with the Lord’s temptation.

(3) What does the original text really mean and do we have the right to change it in translation?

The pope makes a good point that our heavenly Father does not tempt us. And yet, he argues that point from a theological construct derived elsewhere in the Bible (see James 1.13). “Do not lead us into temptation” does not mean that God tempts us; the petition is for God’s protection from the evil one, as the rest of Matt 6.13 says.

Further, the notion that we can change the wording to fit the meaning that we find somewhere else might actually be doing a disservice to the biblical authors’ intentions. The Bible is full of paradoxes, figurative language, jolting imagery. To simplify and pacify such language cuts off the legs of its literary and even spiritual power.

At bottom, what the pontiff is doing is interpretation—but interpretation that removes the tension and paradox from the text, is not true to the force of the original, and buries the connection to Jesus’ temptation. Better to leave the text alone and allow God’s people to experience the joy of discovery of the meaning of Holy Writ."  

Endnotes:

¹The Lord’s Prayer is found in the gospels according to Matthew (6:9-13) and Luke (11:2-4).

²https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/analysis-what-is-the-context-of-pope-francis-words-on-the-lords-prayer-78607

³Ibid.

⁴https://danielbwallace.com/2017/12/12/pope-francis-the-lords-prayer-and-bible-translation/ (Emphases in the quoted text are mine.)

Why Pray When God Knows Our Need?

            Those who have driven in India know what a colossal challenge it is to remain safe and sane. When we are on the Indian roads, we’d hope to get home safe – physically and mentally! Although our driving skills may get us home safe, the conscious irresponsibilities of our fellow drivers may victimize us to road rage to stress and injure us mentally.

            Prayer is thus inevitable while we are on the Indian roads.

            Our need is to be safe. Because we know our need, we pray for our safety.

            God’s knowledge includes the state of our return - safe / limbless / lifeless. But when we pray, we ignore God’s knowledge. We pray earnestly, since we care for our own safety.

            Similarly, while praying for recovery from illness, we ignore God knowledge – whether God would heal or whether this sickness would prolong. Irrespective of God’s knowledge, we pray for healing.

            We ask God because we know our need. We don’t care for what God knows. Our need ignores God’s knowledge and our prayers remain active to the utmost measure.

            If you are in agreement until now, and if the question, “Why Pray When God Knows Our Need?” still rings a bell in you, could you then be a victim of unconscious disingenuousness?

            Being disingenuous is to be insincere. To be unconsciously disingenuousness is to be unconsciously insincere - a state of being ignorant of our insincerity.

            Is this question, “Why Pray When God Knows Our Need?” insincere?

            This question presupposes a one-dimensional nature of prayer – as if prayer is merely to express our needs to God. So it does partially reveal the questioner’s impoverished understanding of prayer.

            Does this question then drag us into the gloomy companionship-dungeons of ignoramuses when, in other instances, our prayer ignores God’s knowledge? Not necessarily!

            This question could be a sincere derivative of a diligent study of Matthew chapter 6.

            Within the context of prayer, Christ delivers two seemingly contradictory statements:

            #1: “…when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Matthew 6: 7-8, NIV, Emphasis Mine).

            #2: Quite immediately Christ said, “Give us today our daily bread” (Matthew 6: 11, NIV, Emphasis Mine).

            So the questioner cannot be dumped into the dungeons of disingenuousness for asking, “Why Pray When God Knows Our Need?” This question contains a certain degree of merit given the seemingly contradictory statements highlighted above.

            In other words, the questioner may well be justified to eliminate the “expression of need” or “give me my daily bread” component of prayer.

            Are these two statements contradictory? No!

            Verse #1 reveals God’s nature – that HE knows it all. Verse #2 reveals our privilege to ask God for just about anything. As much as God knows it all, it is our birthright to ask our Heavenly Father for what we need or want.

            A few other relevant questions could be raised: What’s wrong if we don’t ask God? Won’t God give to us even if we don’t ask HIM?  

            These questions are heavily moored to God’s attributes of grace, goodness, mercy, love and justice.  A gracious, good, merciful, loving and a just God will give that which we need at HIS time, so why bother asking HIM?

            In other words, we may merely praise and thank God for HIS sustaining presence. Why bother God with requests that HE already knows and will anyway give it to us, whether we ask or not.

            Stop for a moment.

            Would God give to us even if we do not ask HIM in prayer?

            Doesn’t the Bible say that unless we ask we do not receive, “You do not have because you do not ask God” (James 4: 2c, NIV)? The more famous counterpart of this verse is, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened” (Matthew 7: 7, NIV; cf. Matthew 21: 22; Mark 11: 24; John 15: 7).

            If the Bible says, ask and you shall receive, does it not infer that if we do not ask, we would not receive? Or would we receive whatever we ask for (cf. John 15: 7)?  

            The answer is not quite simple. Let’s examine the “asking mechanism” in prayer by observing a few verses from the Bible:

            1. Ask and you shall receive (Matthew 7: 7).

            2. If we ask and believe that we have received it, it will be ours (Mark 11: 24).

            3. If we are in Christ and if HIS Words are in us, then whatever we wish will be given to us (John 15: 7).

            4. If we ask according to the will of God, we receive (1 John 5: 14).

            5. Ask with wrong motives, we do not receive (James 4: 3).

            The most crucial aspect of “asking in prayer” is if we are in Christ and if HIS Words are in us. All the other aspects (highlighted above) are subsets of remaining in Christ.

            A. We remain in Christ only if we believe in HIM.

            B. If we are in Christ, we would ask according to HIS will.

            C. If we are in Christ, we will not ask with wrong motives.

            Therefore, the fundamental question that ought to be answered by each one of us personally is if we are in Christ and if HIS words are in us. This fundamental question supersedes the question, “Why Pray When God Knows Our Need?”    

            In order to better understand this dynamic, let us ask if God would give to us even if we do not ask HIM in prayer?

            Let’s consider our spiritual need over the material:

            Would God give us the ability to know and love HIM more than ever or anybody, if we do not ask for it?

            Would God give us the continuously abounding anointing of the Holy Spirit, if we do not ask for it?

            Would God give us the ability to serve HIM tirelessly, if we do not ask for it?

            NO, God will not offer these blessings, if we do not ask for it.

            Why?

            A Christian who does not ask for spiritual blessings is probably more focused on the material aspects of his/her life. This person has not really understood the basic tenet of a Christian life, which is a constant striving for a greater knowledge of God, to love HIM more, and to serve and glorify HIM always.  

            A Christian who does not ask for spiritual blessings could be in a budding stage (an infant Christian) or be plagued with questions about Christianity or stagnant (a lukewarm or a halfhearted Christian) in his/her relationship with Christ.

            A Christian in love with Christ would desire to know, love and serve HIM more. This Christian knows that the greater anointing of the Holy Spirit is necessary to love Christ and be of greater service to HIM. So this person will evidently desire these great spiritual blessings.

            If our minds are not in Christ, we would not desire spiritual blessings. So once again the question narrows down to whether we are in Christ or not.

            God, who offers HIS sun and rain upon those who hate HIM, will offer the necessary blessings to everyone irrespective of their status in Christ. But, I believe, HE will offer HIS spiritual blessings to only those who desire them.

            The question, “Why Pray When God Knows Our Need?” is a question that focuses on material needs than spiritual. This question will not be asked by Christ-loving Christians, for they would constantly plead for the greater spiritual blessings. When we plead for the spiritual the material will also be added unto us.

            It’s man greatest desire to live in peace. But it’s only the prince of peace, the Lord Jesus Christ, who can offer us peace to live amid trials and tribulation.

            This peace from the Lord, which the Bible describes as the peace that transcends human understanding, is only available to those who ask HIM, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4: 6-7, NIV, Emphasis Mine).

            May we pray continually seeking God’s blessings upon our lives. 

Repentance in Forgiveness

Christians are called to forgive extensively (Matthew 18: 21-22). Should they forgive those who do not apologize for their offense? What does the Bible teach about forgiveness?

Gladys Staines, wife and mother of the brutally burnt husband and sons, stated, "I have forgiven the killers and have no bitterness … God in Christ has forgiven me and expects His followers to do the same.” ¹ Here is a case of forgiveness where the offenders did not repent of their sin. Yet, can Christian parents forgive the killers of their brutally murdered child? I think they would struggle to forgive them – with or without repentance. Forgiveness isn’t an easy task.

Sin, repentance and punishment are the main factors involved in forgiveness. The Bible seems to state that God forgives a man under three conditions. The concern, however, is that these three conditions contradict each other:

(1) When a sinner repents of his sin (Luke 13: 3; Acts 2: 38, 8: 22 et al.).

(2) When a sinner forgives the one who sinned against him (Matthew 6: 12).

(3) When the sinner remains unrepentant (Luke 23: 34; Acts 7: 60).

Forgiving a repentant sinner is not difficult to comprehend. But (2) and (3) are difficult to comprehend. One could misinterpret the Lord’s prayer thinking God would forgive an unrepentant sinner who forgives the one who sinned against him. E.g. I don’t repent of my sins to God. But I have forgiven a person who sinned against me. Should I now expect God to forgive me – an unrepentant sinner? Is God’s forgiveness based on my forgiveness of another’s sin against me or on my repentance to God? This is the doctrinal knot we should untangle. But answering (3) would untangle the doctrinal knot of (2). If we can infer that God does not forgive an unrepentant sinner, then it would preclude every other situation that seems to indicate that God forgives an unrepentant sinner.

Does God forgive an unrepentant sinner?

Although Christ and Stephen appealed to God for the forgiveness of their enemies, the Bible does not explicitly state that God forgave their enemies. When the Bible isn’t explicit, doctrine should not be dogmatic. Thus we can reasonably infer that God does not forgive an unrepentant sinner.

However, there is a tricky situation to decrypt. Why did the Lord Jesus (God incarnate) appeal to God the Father when HE knew (through HIS omniscience) that God wouldn’t forgive an unrepentant sinner? Did Christ utter this statement meaninglessly? No! I think Christ would have forgiven those who perpetrated evil against HIM from the perspective of HIS humanity and not HIS divinity.² (Divine forgiveness is different from human forgiveness.³) Christ forgave an unrepentant sinner to teach an invaluable lesson to mankind that those harmed could forgive the sinners, so to love them, even if they remain unrepentant. So Christ’s appeal to God does not offer us a sound proof that God forgives an unrepentant sinner. 

Would God forgive an unrepentant sinner who forgives the one who sinned against him? If this be true, we must resolve two problems about our understanding of God:

1. Is God sovereign? Is God’s forgiveness predicated on man’s forgiveness (of another)? Doesn’t God have an ability to act independently? Or is man wiser than God?

2. God cannot contradict HIMSELF. The Bible explicitly states that God forgives a repentant sinner. But if the same Bible also states that God forgives an unrepentant sinner, then it amounts to God contradicting HIMSELF i.e. God is a liar.

The sovereign God’s actions cannot be based on man, unless HE so wills it. God will not state that forgiveness of sins is only through repentance, and in the same breath forgive those who remain unrepentant.

Verses that imply a doctrine ought to be interpreted in light of the verses where the doctrine is outlined explicitly (demanding repentance for forgiveness of sins). One of the fundamental principles for biblical hermeneutic is “Sacred Scripture is its own interpreter.”

Furthermore, if God forgives an unrepentant sinner, we need to contend with more problems, for instance:

1. The many passages that teach forgiveness through repentance should be misinterpreted by employing a faulty hermeneutic.

2. Repentance loses its existence and meaning. (There is no need to repent to God.)

3. Promotes willful disobedience of man against a holy God. What holds me back from sinning willfully, if I am forgiven though being unrepentant?

Hence I submit that God will not forgive an unrepentant sinner. Therefore, we summarize as follows:

1. God forgives a repentant sinner; the forgiven person will not be punished.

2. God does not forgive an unrepentant sinner; the unforgiven person will be punished.

3. The sinner in the Lord’s prayer prays for forgiveness of his sins (repents) primarily.⁴ So God would forgive this sinner, since he repented of his sins.

Thus, from the divine perspective, repentance is necessary for forgiveness. If repentance is necessary for God to forgive man, how should man practice forgiveness in a human relationship? Asking a few leading questions could provide us with answers:

1. Should man forgive only those who repent? If the answer to this is ‘no,’ then how can love be ignited inside a broken relationship?

2. How do we identify a genuine repentance from false?

When a person repents of his sins, we ought to forgive (Luke 17: 3-4). We should also forgive an unrepentant sinner for love to be reestablished and for hatred and bitterness to disappear. This is in obedience to God’s command to love our neighbor as Christ loves us (John 13:34; cf. Hosea 3:1). A model for this forgiveness is provided by Hosea, Christ and Stephen. We should not speak maliciously or take revenge of any form or size against the one who wronged us. But restoration of relationship is only predicated on genuine repentance (cf. Hosea 3: 3). If someone has wronged me and remains unrepentant, I should forgive and not harbor bitterness or hatred. But unless this person genuinely repents, I cannot resume a perfectly normal relationship!⁵ By forgiving an unrepentant sinner, I am paving way for love to be reestablished in the relationship. Genuine repentance paves way for restoration of a normal relationship.

Distinguishing genuine from false repentance consumes time. The blessed Holy Spirit will guide us through life situations to recognize the genuineness of repentance. If someone has falsely accused me and eventually repents of that sin, I will definitely resume a normal relationship. After some time and in a similar situation, if this person makes another false accusation against me, it would prove that his/her repentance was false.

Forgiveness ought to proceed from the intrinsic to the extrinsic - from the heart to the mouth. It is quite possible to say that we have forgiven the perpetrator of evil, but to forgive the person from the heart is another spiritual battle that needs to be won through prayer (for forgiveness does not come easy to many). From this perspective, one cannot take Gladys’ words for granted, but only God knows the true state of a human heart. However, by issuing a statement that she has forgiven the killers, Gladys Staines did something extraordinary which an ordinary Christian would find very difficult to do. In Christian life, we ought to take small steps to monumental spiritual achievements.

To conclude, I submit the following:

1. God forgives a repentant sinner. HE does not forgive an unrepentant sinner.

2. A Christian ought to forgive the one who repents of his sin.

3. Even if the offender remains unrepentant, the Christian ought to forgive him for love to be reestablished in that relationship.⁶ However, restoration of a normal relationship is predicated on a genuine repentance. (Christian parents can forgive the killers, through prayer, and by God’s power.)

I bless you in the name of our Lord. Amen.

References & Notes:

Repentance: A heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p1253.)

¹ http://www.hindu.com/2003/09/23/stories/2003092305471200.htm

²  My assumption is based on the explicit assertion of the Bible that God does not forgive an unrepentant sinner. Understanding of “Incarnation” or “hypostatic union” is mandatory to understanding the concept of Christ’s humanity and divinity in one hypostasis.

³ The divine forgiveness is an instance where the perfect God forgives an imperfect human. God forgives man from within HIS attribute of omniscience and eternality. Human forgiveness is from the perspectives of a temporal and an inadequate knowledge. This subject should be examined in isolation and not within the scope of this blog.

⁴ Will God not forgive a man who genuinely repents of his sins to HIM, but hasn’t forgiven his debtor? We could consider this subject at a later point in time.

⁵ The unrepentant man would not have changed his offensive / sinful ways. He will continue in his sinful ways.

⁶ In God’s perspective, this could be correlated to the “common grace” of God.