Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > why would Jesus want me to pray this?

Forum Quick Jump

60 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

kingsaint
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80

Posted 12/5/2004 3:18 PM (GMT -6)

I do want to inject one small point: we should not forget that "lead us not" in Greek is a translation of what Jesus probably said in Aramaic. It has been argued that what could have been the phrase in Aramaic might have be translated as:

(1) And do not allow us to come to the [final, great] test

or

(2) cause us not to come to the [final, great] test

In either case we are not told that God "leads" us to anything. The facts could be as follows: natually we are headed toward the final tribulation (which is for the whole world), so we pray to God that we be spared. If the prayer is not answered (see Jesus' prayer about the cup passing), then we would have to give some story about other factors (spiritual warfare, some higher good, etc.).

"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."

--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard"

spenlake
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050

Posted 12/5/2004 3:35 PM (GMT -6)

King,

Your interjection Greek/Aramaic may be interesting but is pure speculation. The book was written in Greek by authors who knew and understood Greek and thay used words that they intended to communicate their thoughts with. It says what it says.

I appreciate the escatological argument and, in some sense, all the NOW builds to the ultimate end. This does not overturn the current NOW of Jesus prayer. The "give us this day" is certainly current and this immediately preceeds our plea that He wouldn't lead us into temptation/testing. It seems that the eschatological aspect is clearly stated in the beginning of the prayer when He says "Thy kingdom come... All those prepared for His coming with the wedding garments will not be tempted/tested any more.

Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world.

Spen Lake

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/5/2004 3:36 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Selah-

It's a non-denominational church. The pastor is my brother-in-law (actually his wife is my wife's sister, hmmm). Oh well. I've never visited myself. Not yet at least. The pastor, Alex, used to be A/G. But (it's a long story) he's not anymore. He's a great guy.

Here's their website: http://www.churchintheson.com/

I thought the "make a donation" option on the first page was kinda cheesy. But anyhow.

Blessings,
Tom

kingsaint
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80

Posted 12/6/2004 2:17 AM (GMT -6)

spenlake,

I agree that I am "speculating", but some speculations are better than others. "Lead [bring]" says what it says, but did the Aramaic word have all the connotations that the Greek word translated into English has? Even if it did, did the concept of God leading or bringing, carry the theological weight we think it does? My case does not depend, however, on just one speculative point.

Here is some more speculation (see Jeremias): "Our daily [epiousios] bread" ought to be translated "the bread of tomorrow" because the word for "daily" was in Aramaic mahar (literally "tomorrow"). The evidence for this comes from Jerome and the lost Gospel of the Nazarenes. The argument is that the word in this gospel is the result of the remebrance of the Aramaic word that Jesus spoke delivered through oral tradition. This would make this petition definitively eschatological, which can be argued on other grounds. For example, Jesus depicted the eschatological banquet in his parables and was probably symbolically acted out in his table fellowship. Is this "speculation", sure, but when one wants to build a case all evidence ought to be brought forward.

"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."

--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard"

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/6/2004 3:39 AM (GMT -6)

On 2 Chron 32:31 ("Even in the matter of the envoys of the rulers of Babylon, who sent to him to inquire of the wonder that had happened in the land, God left him alone only to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart"), this is a direct, God-initiated, God-carried-out test of Hezekiah. No demons. No third parties. That God "left him alone" doesn't make the test indirect or one of permission. It's a purposeful absence God determines specifically to test Hezekiah. I appreciate Spen's fortitude in denying that God directly tests people, but this is no longer an issue.

Kingsaint, good thoughts. I'm tracking with ya. But I don't think the possible Aramaic behind the Lord's prayer helps us very much.

Voilin: You just got me thinking about one more thing... about the placement of "not". I wish I actually knew Greek, but I've been learning a lot about translation and word order does in fact affect the meaning as well. For example, there's a slight but important difference between "Do not let us be brought into temptation" and "Do let us be brought NOT into temptation".

Tom: In Greek the prohibitive "not" is placed before the verb "lead"--"Do not lead us into temptation." Now, the adversative "but" means something, and so "but deliver us from evil" should help us understand what the first clause means. Oh, I see Jeff caught that already. Right.

And the fact that the prohibitive "lead" is an aorist subjunctive doesn't help I don't think. It's still an "active" aorist subjunctive. Were it the "middle" voice, perhaps. But it seems we have a common aorist imperative, "Don't lead us into..." which views not commencing the act in question. Don't do it. Don't lead us there. The subjunctive doesn't give us "Don't let us be lead there [by some force other than you]...."

Still looking,
Tom

spenlake
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050

Posted 12/6/2004 4:03 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:On 2 Chron 32:31 ("Even in the matter of the envoys of the rulers of Babylon, who sent to him to inquire of the wonder that had happened in the land, God left him alone only to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart"), this is a direct, God-initiated, God-carried-out test of Hezekiah. No demons. No third parties. That God "left him alone" doesn't make the test indirect or one of permission. It's a purposeful absence God determines specifically to test Hezekiah. I appreciate Spen's fortitude in denying that God directly tests people, but this is no longer an issue.

Spen:
Tom,

To state that God Himself tested Hezekiah in 2 Chron 32 would be in conflict with James. In this test, Hezekiah sinned and James states clearly that God Himself does not tempt anyone to sin. In spite of your statement that there were no third parties, we see clearly stated that the king of Babylon and his envoys are third parties. Beyond this, the kingdom of Babylon is an enemy of the children of God and this is confirmed when Isaiah states that they will be taken by them. This seems to be a God-allowed test carried out by third parties in which Hezekiah sinned. God doesn't tempt Hezekiah Himself but "left him" and allowed the envoys to do so, and Hezekiah sins.

Spen Lake

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/6/2004 7:44 AM (GMT -6)

Spen: To state that God Himself tested Hezekiah in 2 Chron 32 would be in conflict with James.

Tom: Not if we distinguish between different meanings/uses of peirosmos, one meaning "entice to sin" ("tempt") which James says God never does, and a second meaning "test" which is consistent with God's performing as the rest of Scripture shows. You want to do whatever is needed in the passages that show God testing people to know what's in their hearts to show God wasn't directly involved in testing people. But that's because you equate two distinct meanings/uses of peirasmos. You've got to show God is NEVER directly responsible for any peirasmos whatsoever. But if we let the word mean different things in different contexts, we don't have to work so hard to disassociate God's direct involvment with ONE of those meanings.

Spen: In this test, Hezekiah sinned and James states clearly that God Himself does not tempt anyone to sin.

Tom: God didn’t “tempt” Hezekiah to fail the test and so sin. That would involve God setting up the test (by withdrawing his presence) and then ALSO enticing Hezekiah to failfure. God didn't whisper in Hezekiah's ear "Dont' trust me. Sell out to the Babylonians." THAT would amount to God's "tempting" Hezekiah. But God's removing himself form the event to “test” Hezekiah to see what he was made of does not involve God in "tempting" Hezehiah to distrust God and sell out to the Babylonians.

Spen: In spite of your statement that there were no third parties, we see clearly stated that the king of Babylon and his envoys are third parties. This seems to be a God-allowed test carried out by third parties in which Hezekiah sinned. God doesn't tempt Hezekiah Himself but "left him" and allowed the envoys to do so, and Hezekiah sins.

Tom: We’re splitting hairs with no hope of agreeing on this. So let’s agree to disagree. The presence of the envoys does not itself constitute a test. God’s deciding to leave Hezekiah alone in the presence of the envoys constitutes the test. God knows his absence is required to make it a test, and so what God and God alone can do to make the event a test, God does. You have the idea that God’s removing himself is not a positive act God performs without which there would be no test.

Tom

spenlake
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050

Posted 12/6/2004 9:11 AM (GMT -6)

Tom: We’re splitting hairs with no hope of agreeing on this. So let’s agree to disagree. The presence of the envoys does not itself constitute a test. God’s deciding to leave Hezekiah alone in the presence of the envoys constitutes the test. God knows his absence is required to make it a test, and so what God and God alone can do to make the event a test, God does. You have the idea that God’s removing himself is not a positive act God performs without which there would be no test.

Spen: I am sure that we will not agree on everything, but I would like to better understand your position. Why do you state," The presence of the envoys does not itself constitute a test?" The test itself is defined by the envoys.

Spen Lake

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/6/2004 10:37 AM (GMT -6)

If the presence of the envoys ALONE constitutes the test God was looking for, why would God have to withdrawal his presence at all? The text suggests that the test involves more than just envoys walking through the palace door. It involves God doing something, namely, staying out of it this time. God's not going to advise, guide, speak to, or otherwise reveal himself on this occasion because he wants to know if Hezekiah will act rightly given what he already knows. So yes, the envoys provide the "occasion" for the test. But what God is wanting to know on this occasion about Hezekiah requires MORE than just envoys. It requires that God take part and do something unique, i.e., withdraw his presence.

At least that's how I'm reading it,
Tom

spenlake
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050

Posted 12/6/2004 11:01 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by TGB

If the presence of the envoys ALONE constitutes the test God was looking for, why would God have to withdrawal his presence at all? The text suggests that the test involves more than just envoys walking through the palace door. It involves God doing something, namely, staying out of it this time. God's not going to advise, guide, speak to, or otherwise reveal himself on this occasion because he wants to know if Hezekiah will act rightly given what he already knows. So yes, the envoys provide the "occasion" for the test. But what God is wanting to know on this occasion about Hezekiah requires MORE than just envoys. It requires that God take part and do something unique, i.e., withdraw his presence.

At least that's how I'm reading it,
Tom

Tom,

This is exactly how I believe "allowing" works and how God "allows" evil. He simply withdraws and evil is allowed. He could remain and prevent evil, for Hezekiah or for Zosia, or He could withdraw. Why does He do this, I don't know. I only know that He has demonstrated that He is good and I believe it. His withdrawing is "permission" for tempting unto sin to occur in the case of Hezekiah. He also "removes" His hand of protection on Job and Satan is allowed to do evil - but God doesn't do evil because He is altogether good. God does allow evil and He does allow temptation. In both cases He tells us to cry out to Him in prayer, when we suffer and before we are tempted. We pray to Him because He told us we could and that he cares. Sometimes He intervenes now, sometimes He withdraws. This is how I see Providence working. I am not sure, but it seems like we are not too far apart on the "how."

Where we probably differ most is that I believe that God foreknew what would happen to Hezekiah. What He already knew, because he knows mens hearts and there is nothing hidden from Him, He allowed to become manifest in withdrawing. Man didn't know, Satan didn't know, and most of all Hezekiah didn't know. But I believe God knew.

I think that you would say that God only suspected. But you wouldn't state that God Himslef tempted Hezekiah to sin, He allowed the envoys to do this in His absence.

Spen Lake

60 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:18 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual