Rome's Revision of the Lord's Prayer and the Coming Hour of Testing

Unsealed ^ | 12-17-2-18 | Jeff

[amessenger4god]

If you regularly check the headlines, then you may have read about the Vatican's efforts to revise a particular verse in what is commonly called "The Lord's Prayer." Led by Pope Francis, Rome wants to change the wording of a long-standing translation that has brought a mixture of comfort and confusion to many.

The verse in question can be found in Matthew 6:13 and Luke 11:4, and in the eyes of the Pope and the leaders of the Roman Catholic institution, they believe that "lead us not into temptation" should be reworded to something like "abandon us not when in temptation." While the Vatican has taken significant time to study ancient versions and do the proper leg work, the faithful student of God's word should wisely question the purpose and validity of this enterprise.

And for those of us who have studied history, how could we forget the unjust power plays from the Popes of Christmas past? When the majority of Christendom doesn't know their right from their left when it comes to the Bible, should we just leave this one up to the self-appointed experts of Rome to solve this translational and interpretative puzzle?

By no means should we follow Rome's lead, or even shrug our shoulders like the rest of the undiscerning world. Instead, let's apply our minds (the mind of Christ; cf. 1 Cor. 2:14-15) and use the tools available to the true body of Christ in order to separate the wheat from the chaff in this translation controversy.

For starters: What does the text actually say in the earliest surviving Greek manuscripts? Next thought: We should understand that even a literal, word-for-word translation requires some interpretation on the part of the translator. There is a wide semantic range for many words and phrases written in the ancient biblical languages and the variety of English versions attests to this fact. Consequently, the answer is not as simple as what does the Greek say. We must also consider the context of the chapter and book in order to gain a biblically-informed understanding of the inspired author's intent.

My aim, however, is not to get into the theory of translation or interpretation right now, so I strongly invite you to read this well-written and thorough blog post authored by Dr. Daniel Wallace, a senior Greek professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, entitled "Pope Francis, The Lord's Prayer, and Bible Translation." He addressed this controversy a year ago when the Vatican first announced their plans to alter the Lord's Prayer.

In this post I want to challenge a particular conclusion reached in one of many news outlets reporting on this issue. Michael Dorstewitz, writing for Newsmax, provides an objective piece for the most part, offering several quotes from both Catholic and Protestant leaders. However, the objectivity abruptly ends with this crude summarization:

...in the meantime, the message for all the detractors should be: No, Pope Francis is not rewriting the word of God" (see, "Pope Francis Calls for Change to 'Lord's Prayer' and Critics Go Mad").

Mr. Dorstewitz's reply is a great example of an all-too-common attitude in our time: What's the big deal, so what? Let the Pope change a word or two in order to smooth out a difficult translation and bring unity among Christians. What's all the fuss about, and why is this news anyway? Nothing to see here, move along.

Well, I beg to differ, because this isn't the first controversial thing the current Pope has said or done—the leader of the Roman Catholic Church has been rocking the boat and helping to pave the way for a one-world religion ever since he was appointed back in 2013 (for specifics, see Gary's post, "The Wolf").

So, on the contrary, Mr. Dorstewitz, Pope Francis is trying to rewrite (re-word, re-interpret) the word of God. Though well-intentioned or not, the Roman Catholic Church is not only twisting the Scripture but also fulfilling end-times prophecy. And there is a tragic irony in the specific verse the Vatican is seeking to emend that relates to Catholics and the coming Tribulation.

...if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit" (Matthew 15:14, ESV).

What Say You, Matthew?

Matthew and Luke are the only biblical authors to record the content of Jesus' model prayer to the disciples known throughout the world as "The Lord's Prayer." Luke appears to have a more condensed version, and so, for the sake of clarity and convenience, we will stick with Matthew's gospel for our purposes here.

When you survey the English versions for Matthew 6:13, you will discover that virtually everyone follows the lead of the KJV and translates the Greek word peraismos as "temptation." However, when you look up the word in most Bible lexicons or dictionaries, you'll find that there is a broad range of meaning available.

For example, I have found three primary definitions in the semantic range for peraismos, Strong's 3986:

(1) Trial
(2) Testing
(3) Temptation

As you can see, these words in isolation evoke different imagery even though they are synonymous. Context, as always, is important in order to narrow down which definition in the semantic range is appropriate for any given verse. Therefore, it is possible that some of the confusion surrounding Matthew 6:13 could be resolved if more Christians understood that the ideas of "testing" and "trial" are legitimate English translations for peraismos.

Nevertheless, some will still confuse this verse in the Lord's Prayer with James 1:13. On this alleged contradiction please refer to Dr. Wallace's article linked above. When peraismos is used with God or Satan as the subject, Dr. Wallace makes an important theological point of distinction, "God tests; Satan tempts."

But the Pope along with many others will object, "God would never lead or bring anyone into temptation, that's the Devil's job." Oh, really? So God would never lead, bring, or send someone to be peraismoed [tested, tried, tempted, etc.]? Well, as it turns out, we don't have to go very far to answer that rebuttal. Just turn back a couple of pages to chapter 4:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted [Grk. peraismos] by the Devil..." (Matthew 4:1, HCSB). 

And, there you have it: Led up by the Spirit...of God. It was God who led Jesus into the desert to be tempted. Now, if you can accept that God led Jesus into temptation, or to be tempted, then how does this affect our interpretation of the controversial verse in the Lord's Prayer?

To further clarify this crucial literary connection within Matthew's gospel, here is Dr. Wallace's brief comment on Matthew 6:13 found in one of his Greek textbooks:

Although the KJV renders [Matt. 6:13] 'deliver us from evil,' the presence of the article indicates not evil in general, but the evil one himself. In the context of Matthew's Gospel, such deliverance from the devil seems to be linked to Jesus' temptation in 4:1-10: Because the Spirit led him into temptation by the evil one, believers now participate in his victory" (in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pg. 233).

And it's little wonder why many Christians, or so-called Christians, misunderstand this verse in the Lord's Prayer. The reason is they are confused about the very gospel itself. To conclude, here are some of Dr. Wallace's most powerful statements in his response to the Pope Francis debacle:

...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...[i]t 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...[t]he original text speaks clearly of God leading, not permitting. To tamper with the wording misses the connection with the Lord's temptation."

Now then. I've shown you how Pope Francis and his cohorts at the Vatican are twisting the Scripture and thereby polluting the waters of the true gospel once again. They are the blind leading the blind. But how is the pontiff also fulfilling end-times prophecy by this latest move?

The Final Exam

The terrible irony in all of this mistranslation mess is the fact that the leader of the largest group of Christians worldwide has no clue that the LORD will not only lead him and the rest of the non-born-again Catholics into temptation, Jesus says most explicitly that He will throw them into the ultimate time of testing—the Tribulation:

Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I will kill her children with death..." (Revelation 2:22-23, NKJV).

Do you see the irony in all of this?!

The Pope wants to alter Matthew 6:13 and Luke 11:4 and absolve God from leading anyone into testing or temptation. However, truth be told, the Lord Jesus doesn't simply lead the Roman church into the Tribulation like a shepherd gently guiding his sheep to green pasture, He throws them into the Trib like a diseased sack of potatoes going into a burning trash heap.

Yikes.

But please note: For all who are willing to examine the Scriptures for themselves and follow the lead of the Holy Spirit, even if you identify as a former or current Roman Catholic, there is still hope for exemption from the Final Exam. There is still time...but it is quickly running out.

Look, the first and last uses of the Greek noun peraismos in the New Testament are book-ended by Matthew 6:13 and a shockingly relevant verse in the book of Revelation:

Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing [Grk. peraismos], that hour which is about to come upon the whole world to test those who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 3:10, NASB).

Therefore, you must hear what the Spirit is saying (Rev. 2:29; 3:13) and believe the one and only true gospel of salvation. It's under heavy attack right now and has been for many centuries. But now that we are nearing the day of the Final Exam, you must examine your beliefs and find out whether or not you are trusting in Christ alone and His finished work alone (Heb. 10:10-13; Rev. 2:26, emphasis "My works").

If you are trusting in the once-and-for-all atoning sacrifice of Jesus, then you are exempt from the Final Exam according to the correct translation and interpretation of Matthew 6:13 and Revelation 3:10. Rest assured, the LORD will not lead the true body of Christ into the testing period of the Tribulation. We will all be led in another direction—up, up, and away!

After this I looked, and there in heaven was an open door. The first voice [Jesus] that I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, 'Come up here..." (Revelation 4:1, HCSB).

[nikos1121]

I think I agree with him. I don’t like the verse in question either.

[Red Badger]

How about:

Protect us from temptation...................?......

[rjsimmon]

The Greek (καί (kai) μή (mē) εἰσφέρω (eispherō) ἐγώ (egō) εἰς (eis) πειρασμός (peirasmos).) from my understanding, is better said to be: "And God forbid that we be lead into temptation." The key is "μή mḗ" which is a qualified negation.

[broken_arrow1]

After saying it the same way for 60+ years, I think I know the meaning.

[onedoug]

Isaiah 45:7

[elbook]

Lead us NOT INTO TEMPTATION of believing WE are the makers/understanders of all things, and that God doesn’t exist, or that we could create an infinitesimal bit of what God created.

God does NOT abandon ....

[jjotto]

Isaiah 45:7

[the_daug]

“self-appointed experts of Rome” What are you correcting again?

[ealgeone]

Blowhard.

One small correction: the Pope is not “self appointed” but the author of this piece is.

Did you read the article?

No where does the article say the pope is self appointed.

Perhaps you should take off your Roman Catholic colored glasses and read.

When the majority of Christendom doesn't know their right from their left when it comes to the Bible, should we just leave this one up to the self-appointed experts of Rome to solve this translational and interpretative puzzle?

[Chainmail]

You should remove your anti Catholic and prejudiced glasses and re-read that sentence all over again. Nobody in the Church is "self-appointed".

The author of this article was self-appointed - and apparently, so are you.

[ealgeone]

Hey, you were the one who called out the author for saying something he didn't say.

Deal with it.

[edwinland]

Actually, the author did say it:

"And for those of us who have studied history, how could we forget the unjust power plays from the Popes of Christmas past? When the majority of Christendom doesn't know their right from their left when it comes to the Bible, should we just leave this one up to the self-appointed experts of Rome to solve this translational and interpretative puzzle?"

Now I also don't believe the pope is self appointed. I believe he was appointed by the bishops who were appointed by the bishops ... who were appointed by Jesus himself. So I think the author is wrong on that part. But on the other hand being legitimately appointed for a task doesn't necessarily make you any good at it, and the author makes a pretty good argument on this point, in my opinion.

[ealgeone]

I think he may be conflating how the pope is chosen and someone saying they’re an expert on such and such a topic.

[sauropod]

bkmk for later study

[the_daug]

The pontiff observed that the phrase, “lead us not into temptation,” is problematic, and is calling to replace those words with “abandon us not when in temptation.”
Are there many variants of this in the Greek Manuscripts?
I guess Mathew a tax collector for the Roman’s didn’t know Greek.

[Tex2Fla]

I don’t think we get to pick and choose the verses we like and don’t like. Most of us have a lot of verses we don’t particularly like. (Steps on on toes)

[Campion]

We will all be led in another direction—up, up, and away!

SCRIPTURE DOES NOT CHANGE! However, nobody prior to the 19th Century believed in the "secret rapture," so clearly evangelical Protestantism does, and will, change.

[ealgeone]

SCRIPTURE DOES NOT CHANGE! However, nobody prior to the 19th Century believed in the "secret rapture," so clearly evangelical Protestantism does, and will, change.

Save for Paul.