Is the Pope Mistaken in his Revision of the Lord's Prayer?

Pope Francis is recommending that the Lord's Prayer be revised in one clause, for use in the Roman Catholic Church.

Namely, he says: "Lead us not into temptation" should be rendered "Do not let us fall into temptation."

There are deep problems with this change, and it is not a matter of distinction between the Roman church on the one hand, and the Orthodox and Protestant communions, on the other. It is a matter of the biblical text to which we all name allegiance.

My concerns are lexicographical, grammatical and theological.

Let's walk through the concerns.

1. Lexicography: In the Greek of Matthew 6:13, the verb in play is eisphero, and most simply means to "bring in." It cannot be rendered "fall into."

2. Grammatically, this verb is rendered eiseinegkes, which means it is in the subjunctive aorist active tense. Subjunctive refers to "possibility" (to be brought or not to be brought into temptation); aorist refers to a simple past or indefinite tense with no sense of duration; and the active refers to actions directly taken, as opposed to falling into something passively. Thus, the actual text in the prayer is: "Do not bring us into temptation."

But the Pope changes it to "Do not let us fall into temptation." Now, the prior renderings of the Lord's Prayer -- in Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism -- use "Lead us not" or "Do not lead us" as a way to say "Do not bring us." And this nuance of difference is not problematic. In both these different renditions, it remains a prayer about how God leads us. He does lead us, he does bring us (or "carry us forward" as it can be additionally rendered in the Greek).

The problem for the Pope is that "lead us not," as opposed to "do not let us fall," suggests that God tempts us to sin, not the devil or sinful human nature (e.g., James 1:13-14). The Pope wants, as it were, to protect God's character as holy, apart from the devil or human sin.

So, out of concern to protect Roman Catholics from such a wrong view of God, the Pope is willing to change the lexicography and grammar of the biblical text. Why? This leads us into theological factors, or how we study and understand the whole Bible.

3. Theology: In Matthew 4:1, we read: "Then Jesus was led (anago) into the wilderness under the Spirit, to be tested [or tempted] by the devil." And in v. 3, "the tempter" comes to test him. When the Lord's Prayer is read by the Jewish audience of Matthew's gospel, in chapter six, it is very soon after the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness in chapter four. These readers, and we, can easily see how Jesus -- as the Son of God -- faces the devil head-on. The devil misquotes Scripture, twisting it to try and deceive Jesus. But Jesus knows the written Word inside out, himself being the Living Word (logos in John 1:1) to begin with, and the devil cannot comprehend/overcome it (katalambano in John 1:5). So the devil departs, and the temptations are vitiated.

Accordingly, we we pray, "Do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one," we do so in light of two realities. First, Jesus has been led into the most severe of temptations to overcome them on our behalf. And second, we know we cannot handle such temptations in our own persons. Thus, there is no sense that God tempts us. He has brought Jesus into the path of temptation so that he delivers us from it.

Thus, I do not see in the Greek text the fear that people will think God tempts them. I am glad for any input.

*** In this language change for the Lord's Prayer, Pope Francis inadvertently renders an active faith passive, and robs believers of spiritual authority in the face of temptation, indeed, of the tempter himself.***

Addendum 16 July, 2018:

In Jeremiah 35, Yahweh instructs Jeremiah to ask the Recabites to drink some wine, to dishonor their Nazirite vows. They refuse, Yahweh vindicates them powerfully, and uses them as an example as to why Judah now faces judgment for their sins. Thus, Yahweh does bring temptation to them as a test, and they pass the test, thus sealing judgment on sin, including the sin they refused to commit. The same ethic of testing is also seen in Ezekiel 3:20, as Yahweh puts a stumbling block before a rebellious Israel, to test them. We pray for the Lord not to bring us into temptation, and hopefully, because we do not want to be in such a place as ancient Israel and Judah, where it was necessary.


###

The 50th Anniversary of my Conversion

[excerpted from The Six Pillars of Biblical Power by John C. Rankin, see johnrankinbooks.com]

From age seven, I grew up in a church in the Unitarian-Universalist Association (UUA), and there I was taught to be a skeptic of the Bible. My father had moved from a Presbyterian church where he was affronted by judgmentalness, then from a Congregational church where he was dismayed by serious hypocrisy, and wound up in the UUA because the minister was intelligent and faithful to his wife.

My upbringing was healthy, where my father as a physician loved to care for people, loved and respected my mother (who died just after I finished college), loved the five of us children. My early years were not polluted by poverty, fratricide, divorce or one of a number of other toxins that assault children. Thus, I was free to wonder about the universe. When I was reading an early manuscript of this book to my father, then 90 with failing eyesight, and I came to this juncture, he mused with laughter, and said, “You know John, as a young boy you were always thinking.” The gift of thinking – so very precious, and something I have always pursued.

As an eight-year old, in the fall of 1961, our Sunday School teacher read to us the story of Jesus feeding the five thousand men (plus women and children). She said up front, “And of course, we know that miracles cannot occur.” I thought to myself, Why not? I was skeptical. She continued to explain how what really happened was that Jesus inspired thousands of selfish people to unstuff their tunics, which were full of bread and fish, and share them with each other, all because Jesus inspired one little boy to bring forth his five small barley loaves and two small fish.

I thought she was explaining too much, even though I had yet to learn of the social impossibility of such in first-century Jewish life, where modern individualism is a foreign concept. The people are away from the town spontaneously, it is late, no provisions have been made, and whatever food they have they naturally share with one another, beginning with the needs of the children.

Then, in the winter of 1962, our teacher turned to the Old Testament, starting with Genesis. She gave a detailed explanation of how Genesis was a primitive myth among primitive people who did not know science or other modern means of knowledge. So I thought, If it is a myth, why bother? I was again skeptical.

Skepticism is good if used in pursuit of the truth. The goal is to test everything equally to see what proves true and what does not. That which proves true can be embraced with confidence, along with the freedom for the risk-taking nature of faith that follows. But skepticism employed to avoid the truth does not serve the good, nor true power. Thus, to be skeptical of the Bible is fine; it is a question of why, and to what end. Truth proves itself to the honest skeptic – and the truth of the six pillars of biblical power proves satisfying.

In reading this portion of the manuscript to my father, he again laughed heartedly and in agreement, quoting the Latin for being “skeptical of skepticism.”

In my skepticism of skepticism at this early age, I was rooted in a prior amazement at my existence in the face of an awesome universe. I remember wondering where space ended. To find out, I hitched a ride with Flash Gordon (that will date me and define my reference) and traveled to the end of the universe. And do you know what we found? A brick wall with the words posted on it, “End of Universe.” Now it was a little comforting that in the age of Sputnik that the sign was in English and not Russian. But it was also unsatisfying. What was on the other side? And what was on the other side of the next wall?

Then there are the questions about time and number. What happens one minute after time ends, or what is the biggest number? What is the biggest number plus one? And on and on. No one can deny the reality that this known universe, in which we can measure our existence, is bounded by the necessary and helpful concepts of space, time and number. And we all acknowledge that since we can describe the limitations of these measurement devices, there must be something greater. And yet we cannot wrap ourselves around that which is greater, for we are finite and limited. Where does such a trajectory take us?

In the face of this trajectory, I was nonetheless a self-conscious agnostic by age 14. An “agnostic” is usually a term for someone who does not know if there is a God (from the Greek roots a + gnosis, “to be without knowledge”). But it was an open-ended and positive agnosticism, which is to say I was always impressed by the beauty of the universe and amazed by my own existence and self-awareness. I was open to whatever truth proved to be, open to the idea of God. But I did not know one way or the other in the summer of 1967.

I was in Boy Scout camp, and each Sunday we were required to attend chapel service. One Sunday morning, as I was getting dressed, one of my tent mates was resting on his bunk bed. I asked him why he was not getting ready. He answered, “I am an atheist.” So I asked him, “What is an atheist?” He said that it meant he does not believe in God, and all I had to do to get out of chapel was to tell the scoutmaster that I was an atheist. I said, “But I don’t know.” So I went to chapel.

That September, I began ninth grade (“third form”) at South Kent School, a small prep boarding school for boys in the Housatonic highlands of western Connecticut. South Kent had a daily chapel schedule rooted in the Episcopal liturgy.

It was required, but I determined not to participate, saying to myself, I don’t believe this stuff. So I did not sing, recite, pray, genuflect or take communion. But that proved a “dangerous” thing to do. For while other students were participating at one level or another, I ended up occupying my mind reading the words of the liturgy and hymns, as they were recited and sung. I was interested in the possible existence of God.

On November 1, 1967, All Saints Day in the Anglican calendar, I was standing outside the chapel in the interlude before walking down the hill to dinner. As the air pricked my spine, I felt alive. It was delightfully cold, and in those rural hills the Milky Way was exceptionally clear that evening – like a white paint stroke against a black canvas. I considered its awesome grandeur and beauty, and then I posed to myself this sequence of thought:

If there is a God, then he must have made all this for a purpose, and that purpose must include my existence, and it must include the reason I am asking this question. And if this is true, then I need to get plugged into him.

I wanted to know either way, and I was convinced that if there were a God, then it would be most natural to become rooted in my origins. To be radical before I knew what radical meant. But I wanted verification. The “if” clauses were real.

This was a commitment to myself, in the sight of the universe, in the sight of a possible God. It was in fact a prayer to an unknown God.

The next evening, November 2, All Souls Day in the Anglican calendar, I was the first student into chapel, taking my assigned seating in the small balcony. As I sat down and looked forward in the empty sanctuary, I said under my breath, “Good evening God.” Immediately I retorted to myself, “Wait a minute John. You don’t even know if there is a God. How can you say ‘good evening’ to him?”

But also immediately, I became aware of a reality that was prior to and deeper than the intellect, of a truth that held the answer to any and all of my questions. There was a God, I knew deep within me, and I knew that I had just lied to myself by saying I did not know, even though it was only now that I knew I knew. My heart knew before my mind knew, but as part of the whole that my mind was now grasping. I had yet to speak it (see Romans 10:9-10). Thus, I mark my conversion from the night before when I posed the question of God’s existence in the face of his beautiful universe.

In this moment, God’s presence ratified the reality of my belief as I simultaneously discerned a Presence literally hovering over me, filling the entire balcony. And, critically, this Presence was hovering and waiting for my response. It was powerful, inviting and embracing. This all happened within a moment’s time, and I realized that I did believe. No sooner had I exhaled my agnostic retort, did I then inhale and say, “Yes I do (believe).” As I did, this literal presence of God descended upon and filled my entire being – heart, soul, mind and body.

Now I knew nothing at the time of the divine name and nature of Yahweh’s presence and glory, as experienced by the Israelites in the exodus community with the tabernacle, and later in Solomon’s temple. Nor did I know anything of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Yet the grace of God came into my life that November evening, as he but gently crossed my path with a touch of his Presence. I asked an intellectual question in view of an awesome universe, and was answered by the Presence of the awesome Creator.

Senators Murphy & Blumenthal: Have You Read the 1844 Gun Control Critique by Nathaniel Hawthorne?

I have met Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal face-to-face, exactly one time each. They are the two U.S. Senators from Connecticut, my home state.

In both cases, they were condescending as they sought to cut off any honest questions about subjects they do not want to talk about.

And when it comes to certain gun violence, such as the Las Vegas massacre, their answers are to draft laws that force people into compliance with their own senatorial self-righteous sermonettes.

What, though, is the source of such evil? The good is anything that humanizes people, and evil is anything that dehumanizes people.

In 1844, Nathaniel Hawthorne publishes a short story entitled Earth's Holocaust. On a wide plain in the Midwest United States, all the world leaders decide to gather and burn everything evil, to a crisp, especially all weapons and war munitions.

An observer to this holocaust is delighted. But then, a man standing next to him points out that Cain needed no weapon to kill his brother. As well, the burning of all evil instruments fails to purify the "foul cavern" of the human heart. Thus, he says, after this great fire consumes all forms of weapons, new ones will be manufactured.

Senators Murphy and Blumenthal: Have you read this short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne? Can you argue that he is mistaken? How do your proposed laws purify the human heart and stop gun violence?

Transgender Pain for Mother and Son

As we read about a mother and son in Detroit seeking to “transition” to a “father” and “daughter” – and apart from politics – what is the human story underneath?

In terms of the “transgender” question, this is just the new word for cross-dressing, an update to the old word, transvestite. But now add to it hormone manipulation ...

In ministry in Boston many years ago, I learned the reality that men (or boys) who dress as women do so in order to become their own “women,” wanting the feminine but not being able – for various reasons – to trust or know how to relate to real women. And this is overwhelmingly in the absence of a loving and present father who knows how to treat the boy’s mother.

Which brings us to the mother in this equation. Three lesbians at Harvard, with whom I was studying in the 1980s, told me that every lesbian they knew had been sexually, physically and/or emotionally abused in their youth by some man, usually a step-father, live-in boyfriend, some other older male in the immediate or extended family, or outside of it, but quite rarely the biological father himself. The same reality is found in the male homosexual world, but with different dynamics at play.

When the biological father chooses to absent himself, this is the prior, and indeed, the deepest trauma and rejection. All the sufferings of those whom he abandons find their source in what precedes and leads to his departure.

The testimony of these Harvard women is anecdotal as it is dynamic, and over the years I have discovered how it is very prevalent. These violated girls and young women cannot later trust men, and in their midst, those who seek to become “trans” are seeking to become their own “men” as a means by to protect themselves from abusive men. This is also true for heterosexual women who identify with the “GLBTQ” world, who for their own and oftentimes similar reasons, seek a sense of safety in becoming their own “men.”

Thus, here, to what extent are the divorced mother and her son complementary sufferers? What might Dad have wrought, he who, in this case, is “okay” with their “transgendering?” The “transgendered” mother now calls herself the “second father” to the “transgendered” boy who calls himself a “girl.” Ontology reversed.

The Three Concepts of Deity -- and the Political Consequences

[also posted on YouTube]

In my prior post, I looked at a one-sentence Hebrew answer to Muslim questions about the Trinity. This definition also leads to two other realities worth discussion. I will address the first one here.

Across human history, in reverse chronological order, there are three basic concepts of deity. In Islam, Allah is singular, and proclaimed to be the greatest. In Hinduism, beginning with Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, and in other polytheisms, there are many finite gods and goddesses. And in the Bible we have Trinitarian monotheism in Yahweh Elohim, and as fulfilled in Jesus and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In essence, Allah equals unity without diversity, as he has "no companions," and is thus defined by the human number 1. In political terms, this understanding leads to imposed conformity.

In essence, polytheism equals diversity without unity, and is thus defined by multiples of the human number 1. In political terms, this understanding leads to competing local claims on power, and thus, social chaos.

In essence, in Yahweh Elohim, we have diversity in service to unity, defining the One who is greater than the concept of human number. In political terms, this reality serves checks and balances on power, and thus religious, political and economic liberty for all people equally.

A One-Sentence Hebrew Answer to Muslim Questions About the Trinity

[This post can also be seen on YouTube]

Recently, I visited Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, London, and happened upon some Muslim Salafists seeking to convert Christians to Islam. One such preacher, Hashem, wanted to disprove the Trinity as a biblical concept. But after a good amount of discussion, he abruptly left at a critical point.

So it seems good to me to issue an invitation to any and all interested Muslims.

It begins with:

A One-Sentence Hebrew Answer to Muslim Questions About the Trinity.

Namely:

The Hebrew name for Yahweh Elohim is the only written concept in history for the One who is greater than space, time and number, and thus, the concept of the Trinity follows.

This one sentence answer proves comprehensive, and invites a thousand questions. Can it be sustained? I invite any and all Muslims to question me.

A Muslim Salafist in Hyde Park Chooses Not to Continue the Conversation ...

On Sunday afternoon, 28 August, 2016, I visited Speaker's Corner at the Marble Arch, Hyde Park, London. There were many Muslim Salafists there trying to convert Christians, and a good number of African Christians preaching the Gospel and singing hymns.

I was in a prayerful mind as I wandered through and past the 200-300 onlookers, especially paying attention to the Muslim preachers. I stopped at a place where a Muslim was trying to persuade a Christian man from Northern Europe that the Trinity is not true. The Christian man, knowledgeable in the Bible, was interested in probing some of the depth of what the Bible means by Father, Son and Holy Spirit (with a crowd of some twenty, mostly Muslims, listening in). But the Muslim preacher was only interested in trying to corner the Christian, demanding "yes" or "no" answers to manipulative questions. A mismatch in purpose and nature.

So I interjected, asking the Muslim preacher (whose name turns out to be Hashem) if I could ask two questions. He responded: "Are you a Christian?" I said yes. He then asked if I wanted to debate the Trinity. So I said that we cannot talk about the Trinity, and its biblical underpinnings, without probing far deeper. Could I thus ask a question in that regard?

So he assented, and I asked him what he knew about the Hebrew nature of the name Yahweh Elohim. He said Elohim was "a" name for God, and that Jesus did not call himself Yahweh (showing where he wanted to take the conversation, and assuming I was aiming for the same). Now of course, Genesis 1:1 says in the Hebrew: bereshith bara elohim eth ha’shamayim w’eth ha’eretz (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”). In other words, Elohim is the first name used of God in the Bible, the One who is greater than the human concept of number.

As the discussion continued for quite some time, he interjected often, trying to take it into his line of reasoning. I would always return it to my question in seeking his understanding of Yahweh Elohim. I said several times that my interest was in first arriving at an honest definition of terms between us, so that an actual debate could then happen. And so we had a pleasant give and take, even when, as I said he was my equal in the sight of the one true Creator, he instead said we were not equals (referring to a definition of Muslim superiority to all others). I smiled and moved on.

At one juncture he was trying to talk about Yahweh in Exodus 3 not being whom Jesus claimed to be. I said I wished I had my Bible with me so we could look at the text. So he took out his cell phone, and scrolled to the text in question, so I peered over his shoulder and we read vv. 14-15 together.

What fun. It was an app designed by Muslims to win debates with Christians. So the actual Hebrew is not there, but only an English transliteration, and the transliteration makes a classic error. In v. 14, when Elohim says to Moses that his name is Ehyeh, I AM, this Hebrew word is the first person masculine singular imperfect term of the verb "to be." Literally: I AM (who was and who is and who is to be), the Divine Presence, the Ontology of the one true Creator who is greater than the concept of space and time. Then in v. 15, the text speaks of the full divine name, Yahweh Elohim. Here, Yahweh in the Hebrew is the third person masculine singular imperfect of the verb "to be," HE IS.

But the English transliteration renders Yahweh as LORD, not as HE IS. "Lord" in Hebrew is adonai, and some years after the Babylonian Exile in 586 B.C., the Jews stopped pronouncing the name of Yahweh and replaced it by saying adonai whenever the text says Yahweh.

Now this involves a detailed history. But Hashem suddenly got scared, for his argument that Jesus does not call himself Yahweh (e,g, I AM in John 8:58, ego eimi in the Greek) falls apart. Jesus did not call himself by a third person reference, Yahweh, HE IS, designed for Moses and all others to use, but he called himself by the first person Ehyeh in calling himself the I AM, the ego eimi.

In other words, he confused Yahweh with Ehyeh, thinking that Yahweh means I AM, when it means HE IS in referring to the I AM; which is to say Jesus calls himself the God of creation incarnate in the flesh – in the first person, not the third person. Hence the language of the Trinity comes into view. Yahweh Elohim is the only One or written idea in history who is greater than space, time and number.

As I tried several times to explain this, he kept saying I was wrong, calling me a liar, then all of sudden he grasped what I was saying. He looked at me and said, "I thought you were sincere, but you are insincere. I have to go." And he left quickly through the crowd. I then talked with his friend, a physician from Dubai named Ahmed, and we had a very pleasant conversation for some 45 minutes. He told me that Hashem was a professional Muslim preacher, and had done some 100 such debates at Speaker's Corner. And later I saw him in many YouTube postings at Hyde Park.

I enjoyed Hashem's humanity, and I was interested in real communication. So when he departed so quickly, I was immediately disappointed in that I wanted to converse more. Only later did it sink in to me that he had forfeited the debated he wanted, indeed, he had chosen to silence his opposition to the Gospel.

###