From: Paul S. Dixon (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jun 29 1997 - 21:42:06 EDT
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:25:23 -0400 Jonathan Robie
>OK, once again I'm really impressed by how much y'all know, and I'm
>grateful for all that you've said. I have now gone from having no
>way to interpret it to having too many reasonable ways to interpret
>they keep coming!
>IMHO, there are a few things that seem to argue against the view that
>PEIRASMOS is being used in an eschatological sense, for the time of
>betrayal of Jesus, or for the great tribulation of 66-70 AD:
>1. In Matthew 6, the phrase does not seem to have a great deal of
>or to need any explanation, and I would think that both would be in
>for hO PERISASMOS if it had one of those senses. Instead, Jesus moves
>forgiveness, brings in temptation, then returns to emphasize and
>part about forgiveness: Matt 6:12 'And forgive us our debts, as we
>have forgiven our debtors 13 And do not lead us into temptation, but
>us from evil. 14 "For if you forgive men for their transgressions,
>heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 "But if you do not
>men, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.
>2. Eschatological teachings or warnings of future trials don't really
>to be what the rest of the Sermon on the Mount is about, or what the
>The Lord's Prayer is about. Eschatology seems to come in during the
>teachings of Christ, not this early in his teachings. (I could be way
>on this, and if so, I count on some of you to point out where...)
>I also have a question about how you all perceive the Greek: to me, if
>MH EISENEGKHiS hHMAS EIS PEIRASMON meant "tempting God" or "bringing
>the test", I would have expected KAI MH EISENEGKHiS hHMAS EIS
>or something like that (who knows if I got that grammar right...).
>I *could* construe KAI MH EISENEGKHiS hHMAS EIS PEIRASMON to mean
>tempting/testing God", it doesn't feel like the most natural
>for the phrase. I'm wondering if we would choose the phrase to mean
>we weren't struggling with what it appears to mean on the surface...
If we assume that the apparent meaning of this verse is that
God may lead us into temptation, if we don't ask Him not to, then
we do have a problem. This, or course, is contradicted by Js. 1:13
where we are told God tempts no man. This assumption, however,
must be rejected because it is another case of the negative inference
fallacy. (Some may not like logical analysis on the b-greek list, but
this is exactly the problem here, and its awareness is the only hope
for resolution of your dilemma).
We can no more infer that from this verse, than we can assume or
infer that if we do not ask Him to give us our daily bread, then He
won't do it. Many times (most of the time?) He has given us our
daily bread when we have not asked for it. And, of course, His
kingdom may come, rather we ask for it or not.
In addition, consider this fact. Of all the petitions given in the
Prayer, only one petition has a bi-conditionality (where the petition
and its negation are both stated) attached to it. Forgive us our debts,
"as" (hWS, Mt 6:12) we forgive our debtors. This, of course, means
"just as". The meaning is further reinforced by the statement of the
conditional and its negation in Mt 6:13-14
EAN GAP AFHTE TOIS ANQRWPOIS TA PARAPTWMATA
AUTWN, AFHSEI KAI hUNIV hO PATHR hUMWN hO OURANIOS.
EAN DE MH AFHTE TOIS ANQPRWOIS, OUDE hO PATHR
uMWN AFHSEI TA PARAPTWMATA hUMWN.
When scripture means for us to affirm the negation, it states it.
Otherwise, it is not valid to infer it.
Paul S. DIxon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT