Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Forest Keeper; annalex; Kolokotronis; Quix; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; kawaii
I think I can agree with where you're coming from here. "I and the Father are one". Perhaps part of the reason for the temptation in the desert was to be instructional to us

FK, God doesn't tempt anyone (+James 1:13), but He does allow it (1 Cor 10:13). That's a far cry from Jesus (I imagine the Apostle here use the name to denote His human nature) was led intentionally by God (Holy Spirit), to be tempted! (+Mat 4:1)

Which brings me to the another mention of temptation, namely in the Lord's Prayer, "and do not lead us into temptation," and how is doesn't "square" with above references to +James and +Paul.

No matter how you twist things around on this, it is clear that Matthew 4 does not see Jesus as being both God and man in one Person, but man favored (adopted) by God (ergo "This is My [adopted] Son]"), as is evident when Matthew described Jesus' baptism (+Mat 3:16).

Otherwise, +Mat 4:1 makes no sense, for neither God tempts man intentionally, nor can God be tempted! And neither would the devil try to tempt God.

14,747 posted on 05/18/2007 5:37:21 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14744 | View Replies ]


To: kosta50; annalex; Kolokotronis; Quix; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; kawaii
FK, God doesn't tempt anyone (+James 1:13), but He does allow it (1 Cor 10:13). That's a far cry from Jesus (I imagine the Apostle here use the name to denote His human nature) was led intentionally by God (Holy Spirit), to be tempted! (+Mat 4:1)

Yes, that's right, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Maybe I should have said: "Perhaps part of the reason for GOD ALLOWING the temptation ..." satan did all the tempting, not God.

Which brings me to the another mention of temptation, namely in the Lord's Prayer, "and do not lead us into temptation," and how it doesn't "square" with above references to +James and +Paul.

You're right, they don't appear to square. I agree with you that God does not tempt anyone. But when we take the totality of scripture, including your sources (repeated below), we see that this verse must be interpreted. Jesus cannot contradict His own Holy Book! :) I found Barnes' reconciliation to be reasonably plausible:

"Verse 13 (Matt. 6) [And lead us not into temptation] A petition similar to this is offered by David, Ps 141:4: "Incline not my heart to any evil thing, to practice wicked works with the workers of iniquity." God tempts no man. See James 1:13. This phrase, then, must be used in the sense of "permitting." Do not "suffer" us, or "permit" us, to be tempted to sin. In this it is implied that God has such control over the tempter as to save us from his power if we call upon him. The word "temptation," however (see the note at Matt 4:1), means sometimes "trial, affliction," anything that "tests" our virtue. If this be the meaning here, as it may be, then the import of the prayer is, "Do not afflict or try us." It is not wrong to pray that we may be saved from suffering if it be the will of God. See Luke 22:42." (from Barnes' Notes.)

Here is the relevant part of the note to Matt. 4:1, referenced in the quote. I did not consult it when I made my earlier comments, but it looks like I agree with him that there could have been a learning component for us in the story of the temptation:

"[Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit] Led up by the Spirit. Luke says (Luke 4:1) that Jesus was "full of the Holy Spirit;" and it was by his influence, therefore, that he went into the desert to be tempted. It was not done by presumption on the part of Jesus, nor was it for a mere display of his power in resisting temptation; but it was evidently that it might be seen that his holiness was such that he could not be seduced from allegiance to God. When the first Adam was created he was subjected to the temptation of the devil, and he fell and involved the race in ruin: it was not improper that the second Adam-the Redeemer of the race-should be subjected to temptation, in order that it might be seen that there was no power that could alienate him from God; that there was a kind and a degree of holiness which no art or power could estrange from allegiance. (from Barnes' Notes.)

---------------

Otherwise, +Mat 4:1 makes no sense, for neither God tempts man intentionally, nor can God be tempted! And neither would the devil try to tempt God.

It depends on how you define "tempted". I am fine with including temptation that has no chance of success within the definition. I agree with Barnes, and you, that satan had no chance of winning this one. But I disagree that satan didn't try. Why do you think that? I mean, satan is going to show up for the final battle, right? Why would he do that if he believed he was going to lose? satan showed ignorance by doing what he did to get thrown out of Heaven in the first place.

14,984 posted on 05/22/2007 2:03:03 PM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14747 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson