On Tue, 10 Sep 1991 07:00:22 -0700 Jay said:

> And what about 'lead us not into temptation'? I have always felt
> it was a rather strange request to ask God not to
> LEAD us into something He doesn't approve of. Of course,
> when traditional Christians are explaining the Our Father,
> they skim over this line.

I said:

Jay, when you say 'what about', I assume that you are asking for further information, which is what exegesis, which you elsewhere described as needing to be 'interpreted by the brains of the times', is all about.

I believe this falls into the category of 'mistranslation'. An alternate translation of this verse in the Lord's Prayer is: "Lead us through the trials, but deliver us from evil." Jesus is advising us to rely upon God, and God only, to help us through those things in our lives which we find to be too hot to handle.

Jay <AB12JAY@VCUVM1.BITNET> write:

> How stupid of me. I forgot to mention, in my last posting,
> that if something in the Bible seems a contradiction,
> traditional bible believing Christians complain that people
> like James Meritt (or myself) are taking it out of context,
> or that we need to consult the scholars because Jesus wasn't
> talking to the average person, but was addressing His teachings
> to the 'intellectuals'. Of course, Now it is all CLEAR!
> They are just 'MIS-translations..' --- now how many of you
> on this list believe the Lords Prayer was mis-translated!?
> Is is 'lead us not into temptation" or is it "lead us through
> our trials". If it is 'lead us through our trials', what ELSE
> do you think might just be a mis-translation?

Jeff Shirton <SHIRTON@MCMASTER.BITNET> writes:

> Huh? You're saying that where most mainline translations say, "lead
> us not into temptation", a valid translation could be, "lead us
> through the trials"? I may be missing something, but these two
> translations appear to be saying the exact _opposite_ thing! I'm
> sorry, but I can't accept this alternate translation.
> > Comparing the two translations, we have:
> > Lead us not into temptation,
> and Lead us ------ through the trials
> > With the confidence I have in the number and expertise of the
> scholars who translated the NIV, RSV, etc., I can only accept their > translation as accurate.
> > > The explanation that you offer for your interpretation is indeed
> true, but Matt. 6 is _not_ where this truth is revealed to us, and I
> don't agree with changing the Scripture to "move the truth around".
> The truth that you speak of is properly found in such places as Heb.
> 4:16, 1 Cor. 10:13, etc.

Grant Pair <JPAIR@UA1VM.BITNET> writes:

> If you want to compare the two versions (lead us not into temptation
> vs. lead us through the trials) looking at the language as if it
> were mathematical, you would indeed run into some problems. But if
> you read the trials statement as meaning "lead us successfully
> through the trials that we are going to encounter," for instance,
> this would not be the exact opposite of "lead us not into
> temptation." A trial and a temptation don't have to be the same
> thing.
> > Just a small point.
> > Grant

Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM> writes:

> > I believe when we say 'Lead us not into temptation', we are asking God
> to disallow all UNNECESSARY temptation in out life....
> > Some temptation is necessary as it builds up perseverance and faith..
> It is not God that does the tempting, but Satan.. (see Mat 4?, Job).
> God gave permission for the people to be tempted as a testing of their
> faith... To ask God to remove ALL temptation is a bit niave, but to
> ask Him to disallow all unnecessary temptation is beneficial..
> > God will never allow us to be tested beyond our capability to cope and
> to withstand.. We are given this promise in Scripture....

I respond:

Jay, please note. What I am examining here is what the audience of Jesus' day would have heard, and how they would have understood what they heard. Most of them were not scholars. Nor did they have to be. Understanding today the same thing that hearers understood back then is the process of exegesis. It is not, strictly speaking, in the domain of the 'intellectuals'. Everyone engages in it whenever they open a newspaper. Even you.

I am reminded at this point of a story related by C.S. Lewis in his book, "Miracles". He relates the story of an American Indian who was educated in an English University. He became proficient in several languages and quite a learned scholar. At one point, someone asked him if he could compose a grammar of his own native language. To this he replied that he could not because his language had no grammar.

Well, of course it had a grammar. All languages do. It is just that his native language was so familiar to him that he was unaware of its own complexity. Everything about it, the regular and irregular verbs, the sentence structure, the possessives, etc, just fit. When you are proficient at a language you don't have to think about it. You are unaware of exactly how much complexity and mental activity goes into comprehending a magazine article or a menu selection.

The same thing can happen to us when we entertain a new or unfamiliar opinion. Our own thought patterns, arguments, and logic are as familiar to us as the native American's syntax, paradigms, and declensions. So much so that we are unaware that we even have them. Another person's opinions may seem terribly complex, tenuous, and contrived to us while our own seem clear, obvious, and intuitive. What we may miss is that the other person feels the same way about his conclusions and views ours with equal mistrust.

Please resist the temptation to write this whole article off as irrelevant because what you really want to do is look at the the things Jesus was saying 'to the average person' instead of needing to 'consult the scholars'.

Jon. ======================================================================

The Lord's Prayer Petition Number 6 Matthew 6, Verse 13 by J.H. Loux Summer, 1991 Copyright (c) 1991 by J.H.Loux

And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from evil.

I have asserted that this verse is a mistranslation and that the following alternate translation is more true to the meaning of the original text:

Lead us through the trials, but deliver us from evil.

This essay is an attempt to justify this alternate rendition through linguistic considerations, textual criticism, and external commentary.

It's all Greek to me:

Looking at the original text, the sentence in question reads:

Kai mN eisenegkNs Nmas eis peirasmon, alla rusai Nmas apo tou ponNrou.

where the capital letter 'N' is used to represent the Greek Eta and is pronounced like a long 'a'.

Or literally,

And not lead into us into the trials, But rescue us away from the badness.

Or, perhaps;

And do not lead us into the testing, But take us out of calamity.

These are possible word for word translations of the phrases as they exist in another language, spoken by another culture, in another time. The question is: What do they say in our language, to us, now?

On the word "Temptation":

The word here translated as 'Testing', 'Trials', or, traditionally, 'Temptation', is variously interpreted to mean a trial, an attempt, to prove, to assay, to tempt, to afflict, to endeavor, or even to provoke. In the following passages, words in all caps are English renditions of the same Greek word: Peirasmon.

Some Quotes:

For instance, Hebrews 11:29 reads, "By faith they passed through the Red Sea as though they were passing through dry land; and the Egyptians, when they ATTEMPTED it, were drowned." Later, in vs 36 we read; "And others EXPERIENCED mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment." The clear sense of these two passages is of a struggling attempt and a painful endurance.

Hebrews 4:15 reads, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been TEMPTED in all things as we are, yet without sin." And in the next verse, "Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need." The temptations of Christ, to which he did not succumb, are here compared to our own time of need. By successfully overcoming the world, ie, by enduring his trials to the end, Christ has provided a means whereby we can do the same with ours.

Elsewhere, in Matt 16:1, we read, "And the Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and TESTING him asked him to show them a sign from heaven," which Jesus refused. However, in Matt 22:35, we read, "And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, TESTING him," to which he succumbed. Our Lord was, in both cases, tested. In the first case, he refused to respond to the test. In the second case, he took this test as an opportunity to respond.

Is it correct to say that he passed the first test and failed the second? Hardly. He passed them both. In the first case by refusing to be bated. In the second case by penetrating a trick question to its root. The question, "What is the greatest commandment?" may at first seem like a trick question. The lawyer undoubtedly had all of the hundreds of Mosaic laws in mind, and he wanted Jesus to choose one over the rest. He probably had in mind to say, "Ah, you chose this one. Yes, but, what about this one over here?" Or, "What makes THIS LAW any greater than any other?" Jesus, of course, was able to choose one and choose them all at the same time.

Acts 16:7, "And when they had come to Mysia, they were TRYING to go into Bithynis, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them;" The meaning here is of merely a failed attempt, and does not even carry any sense of struggle or hardship. It merely states that they put in an effort to do something, and they were prevented.

Acts 24:6, Speaking of Paul before the governor, the lawyer Tertullus says, "And he even TRIED to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him." Again, the meaning is merely of an alleged attempt to do some thing, which was thwarted. Please note, in this case I believe that the charges were trumped up and, therefore, never happened. However, the Lawyer is describing them in subtle language to convey a mental picture. The picture is of someone struggling to do something against opposition.

I Cor 10:13, "No TEMPTATION has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be TEMPTED beyond what you are able, but with the TEMPTATION will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it." Here, the promise is not that God will take away the temptation, but that he will not allow you to be overcome by it.

1 Peter 4:12, "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your TESTING, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the suffering of Christ, keep on rejoicing; so that also at the revelation of his glory, you may rejoice with exultation." Our testing here is taken for granted as something we shouldn't be surprised about. Of course we will be tested, is Peter's message. But by doing so we are sharing in Christ's suffering, which is a cause for rejoicing.

Heb 3:8, "Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked me, as in the day of TRIAL in the wilderness, where your fathers TRIED me by TESTING me, and saw my works for forty years." The sense in this verse carries three different meanings. First, the trial in the wilderness is an ordeal to be endured. Second and third, that they tried God by testing him seems almost to be saying that they provoked him.

Add to this the statement that they hardened their hearts gives me an image of a people who are not really interested in an answer. They only wanted to provoke God with demands and then gloss them over when they received an answer. This is much like the children in Jesus parable who would not dance when they heard a flute and would not mourn when they heard the singing of a dirge (Lu 7:32). These people were just not satisfied with anything.

Ma 26:41, "Keep watching and praying, that you may not enter into TEMPTATION; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." This could mean struggle. It could mean sin. It could mean distraction. Any of these translations would work.

Acts 9:26, "And when he had come to Jerusalem, he was TRYING to associate with the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple."

Acts 26:21, "For this reason some Jews seized me in the temple and TRIED to put me to death." Again, more images of someone attempting to do something and meeting opposition.

Some Comments:

Common late Twentieth Century American usage of the word 'Temptation' usually carries an image of little devils with pitch forks sitting on our shoulders persuading us to eat that extra piece of chocolate cake or overly admire a colleague's tight sweater, while there is a corresponding haloed angel on the other shoulder going, "Naughty, naughty!" The temptation consists of deciding which one to listen to. Presumably, this is the temptation that we are imploring God not to lead us into. At the surface, it looks as if we are asking God not to trip us up. As if to say that God might intentionally place us into a situation where we would succumb to sin. Or even more importantly, if we do not enter into a place or situation where we might succumb to sin, that would be a good thing.

But if you look carefully at this supposition, it becomes clear that it is built on a misconception about sin. Sin is looked upon as something 'out there' that we may be tempted by. I am tempted by that sweet desert or that particularly beautiful person. It always seems that God allows the worst temptation to fall right in front of us! If only I didn't have to make this choice, we might lament. If only God hadn't put this difficult moral dilemma in front of me. Why did I ever have to run into THIS situation? Why did this person or thing have to show up in MY life? We may resort to fault finding. That person tempted me. The Devil made me do it. Or even God.

But the reality of the situation, which many of us do not want to entertain, is that for temptation to work it must already have an inroad into our own selves. We must have some weakness or vulnerability much in the same way that a virus must have a host. A virus which effects cats has no chance of surviving in a human. Plant molds should not effect mammals.

For the same reason, a person who is not an alcoholic, does not have alcoholism in his family, has never been exposed to substance abuse, and, in fact, hates the very smell of alcohol, will not be tempted to over drink. He is quite simply immune to this type of temptation. Or even more fundamentally, it has no hold on him at all. A person like this may, unless he has shouldered burdens of another nature, not understand why other people do succumb to a disease like alcoholism. Since it does not effect him, he cannot understand why it should effect anyone else. There is a certain naivete about a person like this that most people would consider shallow.

However, it should be noted that in many of the passages quoted in the beginning of this article, trials seem to be considered an inevitable part of life. Even desirable. Temptations, as variously translated by the word 'peirasmon', involve more that just succumbing to an selfish desire.

The Devil made me do it:

Matt 4:1, "And Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be TEMPTED by the devil." The same root is used in vs. 3 for TEMPTER. See also Luke chapter 4. The experience of the temptations in the wilderness is an essay all into itself. I will just offer a few observations:

The Tempter, or the Tester, or, elsewhere, the Adversary, is treated almost as an office or a role. The purpose of the Tempter is to look for weaknesses and try to exploit them. When we succumb to temptation, we may instinctively try to blame someone else; Adam and Eve. The Devil made me do it. Society. That flirt. My spouse. Children. Parents. God. (Of course, we fail to see the times when we adopt the role of Tempter in someone else's life.)

It may be possible for someone else to gain an inroad into our personalities, but only because that inroad existed in us in the first place. Part of repentance is acknowledging that I have met the enemy, and he is me. I am the one who is temptable.

However, the purpose of temptation is not merely to rub our faces in our own shortcomings, but to help us overcome them. A God who tells us that we have problems and then stops there is no God at all. He is no more that a roadside mocker and wound picker. And the world has enough of those already.

Stone sharpens steel, as the saying goes. Testings, or temptations, serve to improve the quality of the material being tempted, much like a blacksmith's forge improves the quality of the heated steel that is being wrought upon it. Provided we do not succumb, that is. So also, if the blade brakes, it goes into the scrap heap. If it retains its temper, it goes into the armory a better weapon that otherwise.

It might be argued that Jesus, being the perfect Son of God, had no need of temptations in this sense. He could not succumb any more than two plus two could ever stop being four. Nor was he in need of improvements through adversity any more than a thousand iterations on a computer can make two plus two equal four any more efficiently.

Perhaps, although it is unlikely that he was born with all of the endurance capabilities of an adult. Presumably, he had to learn basic human life's skills through trial and error and gentle correction just like the rest of us. He grew and matured, bruised his knees and cried. He learned to speak, read, and write. He learned a trade and became proficient at it through effort and repetition.

It is impossible to believe that he never made a mistake as a child, or mispronounced a word, or had a trial chair that he was working on end up as firewood, or had a morning when he wanted to sleep in but forced himself to get up, instead. Indeed, we are told that he emptied himself of all that was God-like about him and became a man. For "...although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became to all those who obey him the source of eternal salvation." (Heb 5:9,10). Christ's temptations were not for his own sake. They were for ours.

It has been said that Christ did not die so that we would not have to die. He died so that we would be able to die. He went ahead of us in all things, harrowing the hell of each one of our lives and blazing a path through them, through life, through death, and straight to the Father. In everything Christ became like us so that in everything we might become like him.

From a child's first encounter with a splinter to an adult's trauma of facing the loss of a loved on, we are constantly beset with trials. Christ's good news for us is that he has gone on before us and faced them all. Faced them without succumbing. And through him, so can we.

James 1:2-4 reads, "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various TRIALS, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." Here, we encounter, again, 'peirasmois', trials, in verse 2. The word used for testing in verse 3 is 'dokimion'. This carries the sense of being proved after an examination, to assay metals, to pass a test, or to be shown to have adhered to a set of criterion. It is the goldsmith's stamp on the ingot after it has come out of the fire.

A Trial by Fire:

Luke 22:24-30, "And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. And he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.' But not so with you, but let him who is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. For who is greater, the one who reclines at table, or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves. And you are those who have stood by me in my TRIALS; and just as my Father has granted me a kingdom, I grant you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Immediately following this is the statement by Jesus that Satan has demanded permission to sift Peter like wheat. Followed, also by his prophesy that Peter would deny him. Compare this also with Matt 20:20ff.

This is an intriguing passage in that our Lord draws a direct correspondence between the amount of trials one successfully endures and one's status in heaven. He who is least in this world will be greatest in the next. Those who are closest to him in his trials will be granted places in his kingdom in positions of authority. The fact that this dissertation is followed immediately by a double wammy against Peter is very telling.

First, Jesus informs Peter that the Adversary, Satan, has wanted to 'sift him like wheat'. A clear indication here that Satan has detected a weakness in Peter and wishes to exploit it to the point where Peter succumbs. Second, Jesus informs Peter of his imminent denial of him, Jesus. This may seem like quite a bit of a let down. Jesus is speaking in heady words about servants and how to be the greatest and kingdoms and thrones, then he throws in a couple of wet blankets about trials and even predicts a failure as being inevitable!

Why does every good experience have to have a bad one (or several) associated with it? Why does every rose bush have thorns? Every honey comb have bees? I think because they are the same thing. Peter's denial was, after all, Peter's denial, not Satan's. Satan just brought it out. I do not believe that this was the real temptation, the real trial. Jesus knew that Peter would deny him, the risk was that Peter would then abandon him and never come back. Peter would encounter his Room 101 (1). And what he found himself face to face with, his 'worst thing in the world', was himself. Then he betrayed his Lord. Had he stopped there and not allowed Jesus to still be Lord of his Life, he, like Winston, would have been a pathetically broken man.

But to be able to look at yourself, to see your own 'worst thing in the world' and still say, 'Lord, not my will, but thy will,' to let God have the worst of you as well as the best, that is to triumph. That is to loose your life that you might gain it. That is to be the least that you might be the greatest. That is to let God work through your weakness.

The purpose of trials seems to be precisely so that we can arrive at that plateau of perfection. Trials will come. Trials must come. They are an inevitable part of life. Without them, there is no growth. With them, there is the possibility of failure, succumbing, and dying on the vine. If we persevere, there is the possibility of growing into a stronger, deeper, richer walk with Christ.

In Dante's Paradise, each soul experiences as much of the Beatific vision as it is capable of seeing. No soul is jealous of another because each is like a glass filled with light to its own brim. Patiently enduring through trials is one means whereby we can encompass more of the Divine nature. Enduring trials turns us into spiritually bigger glasses, able to hold more grace.

"These things I have spoken to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." (John 16:33).

The existence of trials is central to the Christian message, spoken of by Jesus throughout the Gospels, illustrated throughout Acts, spoken of extensively by Paul, the author of Hebrews, Peter, James, and John. We are taught by metaphors such as the gold put through the fire, the potter working at his wheel, a woman in travail delivering a child, and a runner pressing on toward a victory. Can so pivotal a theme as this have been left out of the one central prayer that our Lord taught us to use in our own supplications to God? I think not.

That the Temptations referred to in the Lord's Prayer mean times of trial or endurance I think is undeniable. That the whole phrase, taken together, can be interpreted to mean, "Do not allow us to succumb to those ordeals that we must inevitably encounter, but instead deliver us from falling into permanent damage or failure", is not only possible or highly probable but is preferred. This context makes sense, is consistent with the rest of Scripture, and, more to the point, is relevant to each and every one of our lives, each and every day of our lives. This is what Christ was giving us: a prayer that we could pray every day.

Every day we must pray: "God. Take me through those times of testing, but don't let me fall into them."

Some Traditional Christians speak out on Temptation:

Saint Augustine, in his commentary of the Sermon on the Mount, draws a very sharp distinction between being led into temptation and being tempted. He saw a curious duality which exists in many things. That being that two things, seemingly equal, or quite similar, can actually be the exact opposite.

"But it is one thing to be led into temptation, another to be tempted." (A Select Library of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church", Vol VI, St Augustine, Sermon on the Mount, Ed. by Philip Schaff, Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich:1956, p.43)

Augustine's understanding of temptation is that God already knows what a person will do in any given situation. But that person does not. Augustine cites John 6:6, where Jesus asks Philip where they will buy bread for the multitude of people. Jesus asked Philip this question 'to tempt him' because he already knew what he was going to do. "But in reality, that was done in order that he who was tempted might become known to himself," (IBID, p.44) A frightening thought.

And later in the same article: "...were it necessary that any one should be examined by fire, he should pray, not that he should not be touched by the fire, but that he should not be consumed." (IBID)

St. Chrysostom adds an interesting twist in his homilies on Saint Matthew: "Here he teaches us plainly our own vileness, and quells our pride, instructing us to deprecate all conflict, instead of rushing upon them, for so both our victory will be more glorious, and the devil's overthrow more to be derided. I mean, that as when we are dragged forth, we must stand nobly; so when we are not summoned, we should be quiet and wait for the time of conflict; that we may show both freedom from vain glory, and nobleness of spirit." (IBID, Vol X, p.136). St. Chrystosom clearly interpreted this passage to be referring unambiguously to trials, particularly persecutions of Christians who are 'dragged forth'. A sobering thought for Modern Christians.

I mention in passing that the Jerome Bible Commentary interprets this to refer, not to our daily encounter with evil, but to the great, eschatological test at the end of the age. Delivery from evil here refers to the end time catastrophe. An interpretation that, I must admit, has little to say to our daily struggles.

Finally, I would like to quote a gem of a commentary called the "Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism", Vol 37 on Prayer, by Jean Daujat, Hawthorn Books, NY:1964, pp. 97ff. "Up to this point the current translation of the Lord's Prayer, which we have attempted to improve, is free from fault, but the usual translation of this particular petition is a flagrant nonsense which does violence to the word of Christ: whether we take the original Greek text or its Latin translation the original prayer does not ask God not to lead us into temptation, but not to expose us to temptation."

Daujat goes on to explain that we all encounter trials, but we are asking God to give us the wherewithal to endure them. 'Expose' is a good word, he says, because it brings up the image of a person out in the cold. Without proper clothing we would be 'exposed' to the effects of the cold and succumb. We are asking God to provide us with the adequate protection so that we can endure the evil that we encounter. Please note that he takes it for granted that the word 'Temptation' is to be taken to mean struggles, trials, or affliction and not its alternate interpretation of 'Compelling to commit vice or evil' or 'Spiritual entrapment.'

The last two statements in the Lord's Prayer must be taken together as a single prayer. "The last petition of the Lord's Prayer is purely and simply a petition not to fall back into sin, sin being absolute evil in so far as it turns us away from that filial attitude of which the Lord's Prayer is the perfect expression." (IBID).

Referring back a few pages to the beginning of this commentary on the Lord's Prayer, the whole prayer can be summed up in the first two words: Our Father. Everything else is an expansion on what it means to belong to a community of believers with God as their Father.

Other Mistranslations?:

Jay also writes:

> If it is 'lead us through our trials', what ELSE > do you think might just be a mis-translation?

That depends on what you mean by a mistranslation. My Hebrew New Testament, for instance, translates the word 'Peirasmon' from the Greek into 'nsyvn'. This, in current day, Twentieth Century Israeli Hebrew, conveys the same sense as the English word Trial. An Israeli who was not particularly versed in Biblical exegesis or New Testament Christian theology, who happened to pick up a copy of the New Testament and skipped open to this chapter, would read that verse to literally say, "And don't bring us into the presence of trials, but rescue us from evil". How he would personally understand this, however, is anybody's guess.

I can't speak for other languages, but it would be interesting to find out how this verse is translated into Russian, for instance. Or French, or Swahili. Sometimes, an English translation may become too much of an institution to be challenged.

Speaking about other mistranslations, Jean Daujat, author of the Catholic Encyclopedia volume on Prayer referenced above, cites a few others. He says, for instance, that the verse, "Peace to men of good will" is a mistranslation. It gives the reader the impression that God's peace is only for men who are already of charitable disposition. Not so, says Daujat. "The original text refers rather to the good will of God toward men, so that a literal translation would be: 'Peace to men who are the object of divine goodwill' or 'Peace to men whose good God wills', in other words 'Peace to men who are beloved of God'" (IBID, p. 98).

Another mistranslation mentioned by Daujat is the verse that says, "Many are called but few are chosen'. "The original text is not 'few are chosen' but 'less are chosen', so that the true meaning is: 'Many are called but not all are chosen'." (IBID).

I mention these for your contemplation. I have not looked at them personally.

=================================

Notes:

1. Winston, in George Orwell's, "1984", is being 'reintegrated' into the Party, which he has rebelled against. His rebellion is represented by his affair with fellow party member, Julia. The enjoyment of sex in any form is strictly against party regulations, and is seen as a power play, a challenge to the Party's authority, in a rather Freudian manner. Their affair is seen as an affront to the Party and must be stopped. But even more subtly, it must be undermined from within. Oppression is one thing. Submission is another.

In the end, Winston is faced with his worst fear, according to his psychological profile, which happens to be the very real threat of having his face eaten off by starving rats. He finally breaks, after all other forms of torture have failed, and cries out, 'Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don't care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!" After this, the ordeal ends. He is finally and irretrievably a broken man.

Winston had encountered his greatest temptation. And he failed. It is interesting to note the the Apostle Peter did the same thing. He failed his temptation by crying, in effect, "Not me! Jesus!" This failure was inevitable, as foretold by Jesus, himself.

But Jesus, unlike Julia, accepted it. Peter's next trial, undoubtedly the greater of the two and the one that Jesus prayed most over, was for Peter to let Jesus take it.