Sunday Message: Lord's Prayer finale

In preparation for this post, I have been looking over the celebrated "the Pope's changing the Lord's Prayer" to-do that erupted several weeks ago.  First of all, what is it he's changing?  Well, it begins with the section we have on our plate this week.  From the Modern KJV:

Mat 6:13  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil. For Yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen. 

From the Guardian:

Now Pope Francis has risked the wrath of traditionalists by approving a change to the wording of the Lord’s Prayer. Instead of saying “lead us not into temptation”, it will say “do not let us fall into temptation”.

And if you look at what the commentators say, they would agree with Francis when he said, "“It is not a good translation because it speaks of a God who induces temptation,” also from the Guardian article.  But they question the WORD 'temptation', not its genesis:

It is a mistake to define this word as only solicitation to evil. It means trial of any kind, without reference to its moral quality. (Vincent's Word Studies)

And if you read some of those who attack Francis' change, the reasoning is somewhere on the boundary between reason and nitpicking:

Right side up, we would say, “The Bible teaches that God does such and such. Therefore, we should seek to discover the wisdom and goodness of why he would act that way.” But standing on our heads, we would say, “We already know what is wise and good before the Bible tells us. So, if this text tells us God acts contrary to what we know, we will conclude that the text can’t mean that, or it’s mistaken.”...         

... The pope says, “A father doesn’t [lead his children into temptation]. A father helps you to get up immediately. It’s Satan who leads us into temptation. That’s his department.” This is upside down. God is a good father to his children. A perfect father. And since he is God, and not a mere human, his perfections should not be forced into the mold of our fallible views of what good fathers do. Having perfect wisdom, and knowing all things, our heavenly Father does things no human father should do.  (John Piper, desiringGod.org)

So he has no problem changing the phrasing (which, by the way, only applies IN ITALIAN; the See is still looking into how to phrase it in other languages), but with the rationale of arguing "what a good father would do".  Actually, I have to agree here, in a way;  but from the arguments I have had with diehard Catholics, the Pope would be virtually crucified if he used the Bible to base his arguments rather than the Church Fathers.  So what DOES the Bible actually say?

This time, I think I will try to learn by arguing backwards; using the concordance to analyse the word from the first root, and come forward to the word finally used by Matthew.

And that first root word is, πέραν, peran, which means 'to pierce through to the other side.'

So, "Lead us not to be pierced clear through..."

The next step is πεῖρα, peira, "(through the idea of piercing); a test, that is, attempt, experience".

So, "Lead me not into the test that pierces clear through..."

The next step is πειράζω, peirazō, " to test (objectively), that is, endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline..."

Here we see VWS's contention that the word does not reference a 'moral quality'; what is beginning to emerge is yes, an objective test, but a test to destruction.

And with that, we hit the actual word used, πειρασμός, peirasmos, ' a putting to proof', whether by 'experiment, experience, solicitation, discipline or provocation; by implication, adversity.'

This is NOT God setting evil before us; the Pope is right when he says, "“It is not a good translation because it speaks of a God who induces temptation", but he's missing the point when he says, " I am the one who falls. It’s not him pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen." It isn't about falling at all.

It's about Job.  Huh?

When Satan sought to 'put Job to proof', God put limits to what he could do:

Job 2:4  Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. 

Job 2:5  But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face." 

Job 2:6  And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life." 

See?  God sets a limit.  Now He set it high for Job, because of who Job was...

Job 2:3  And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason." 

But he set a limit for Peter, as well...

Luk 22:31  "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 

Luk 22:32  but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." 

Jesus had prayed for a line to be set, that Peter would even fall, but get back up.  And that's what Jesus tells them to pray for.  And the evil being delivered from?  Well, let's again dig in to the word used.  The concordance not only tells us what it is, but what it isn't.  

What it isn't:  The concordance points out two other specific words elsewhere translated 'evil':  one is basically, 'worthless', the other, 'rotten, corrupt'.  In other words, what we would normally think of as sinful evil.

What it IS:  'hurtful in effect or influence', rather than 'essential character' or 'degeneracy'.

So perhaps Francis might have changed the phrase to, "Put us not to the test that destroys, but protect us from the harm in falling."

Thus, to sum up:  Despite the howls of his detractors, Francis was not wrong in looking for a better translation.  Where he failed is that he found the actors in error, and not the action.  In saying that 'a good father would not do' what the phrase implies, he misses God saying that He 'destroyed Job with no reason', to allow Satan to test him.  Piper was right to say, "His perfections should not be forced into the mold of our fallible views of what good fathers do. "  Francis could not see beyond a human vision of God as Father, and thus tried to amend the Word of God to fit HIS limited intellect.  He should have studied the ACTUAL WORD and been led by the Spirit to what it was REALLY saying.

Is that where I am?  I am a learner, just like you- and my vision is likely not a lot better than Francis', if at all.  You read the Word.  You study the context, and decide.  The battle isn't over who's right, but for your salvation and soul, and you shouldn't be trusting that to anyone but God.