can't tempt God, Jesus was Tempted

[dan666]

James 1:13
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;

Jesus was Tempted, therefore he is not God!

so, goes the argument from Jw's.

How do we answer this question?

[evanescence]

Jesus did not fall into temptation.
Evil cannot "tempt" God into anything. The fact that Jesus did not fall into temptation just gives more proof that he is God.

Evanescence

[evanescence]

Oh and Welcome Dan666!!

Evanescence

[heretic]

Welcome dan666

Because he was also fully man, and as such 'he was tempted in every way as we are, but he did not sin' (sorry don't have the scripture reference to hand)

[gkchesterton]

While I fully admit to still being Arian, Heritics answer would seem to be the correct one. The creedal Catholic profession of Jesus is that he was fully man and fully God. Jesus therefore could be tempted (at the same time that he couldn't). This is considered a fundamental and acceptable paradox.

It should also be noted that Trinitarianism is not Modalism. Most scripture that refers to God is refering to the Person of the Father. I understand that to mean that the Father is untemptable.

Again, I'm having a hard time shucking Arianism so the above may not be a traditional approach. It would be nice if Jeff S. could get his cousin to stop by for any correction.

[onpatmos]

Interesting article touching on it here:
www.newadvent.org/cathen/14504b.htm

The article starts out by saying "In the Catholic translation of the Bible [I'm guessing they're referring to the DRV-C], the word 'temptation' is used in various senses".

Consider two hypothetical statements; one says "so-and-so attacked God", and the other says "God cannot be attacked". We would acknowledge that language usage would allow that in one sense, God can be attacked, but in another sense, He can never really be "attacked". It seems that the above article is taking this sort of approach, and it seems to me more in line with Ev's explanation.


I agree with GK. Maybe Jeff can get his S.J. cousin to pipe in.

[catholicxjw]

Hi Guys:

Here is Father Rodney's response to your question. (I told him that you guys were reading his website and he really appreciates that):

Jeff, The answer to that and many other similar questions is that Jesus is true God and true man.

As God he cannot be tempted but as man he can be tempted and he was tempted from immediately after his baptism in the Jordan to his death on the cross
when the bystanders tempted him, "Come down from the cross and we will believe."

God cannot die either but Jesus as man did die on the cross.

I am honored that your former JW friends are reading my website.

God bless. Fr. Rodney

[johnnyc]

The problem with all this thought is that Satan is not stupid. If Jesus was God, Satan's attempt would have been ridiculous, and nothing more than a show for all of us reading the response. Satan really tried to convince Jesus the same way he did other Angles.

[gkchesterton]

Satan is indeed not stupid, but he was confounded, which is a different thing entirely. Its clear that Satan never understood the whole purpose of Salvation, since, being utterly corrupted, he'd lost the ability to understand Love.

[johnnyc]

I can't see how it could be said Satan did not understand love, or how that might effect the decision to tempt Jesus. Read that passage again - Satan's questions and offers were very much in line with understanding why Jesus was there, and the overall plan.

For example, by offering Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth, it was a valid offer since it was God (Jehovah) who had given Satan that domain - and yet something promised to Jesus in the future. Satan made the offer so that Jesus would be truly tempted. Otherwise Satan would have been going along with some role play that we would benefit from in reading Jesus response. I am sure it is safe to say that Satan would not oblige in that manner.

To say Jesus is the same person as the Father does "track" well with this whole issue of Satan's temptations - it always has been a problem for those who believe the Trinity.

[gkchesterton]

To quote the cliche, "says you." You're assuming the reading implies a certain knowledge. I won't dispute that Satan was worried or that he knew the game was coming to a close. However, for a sense of how bright you can be but how confusing love can be I suggest Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters".

Now to your question specifically. First we should note that under Witness/Arian theology the presumption of Satan's perfect knowledge is non-sensible. Consider what Jesus would have gained from worshiping an inferior as Arius affirms the Devil would be. Therefore we are confident that the Devil was unsure of the nature of Jesus. Remember that Paul tells us that the wise of this world, which would include the Devil, would be confounded by the Wisdom of God. This is a rather poetic verse in that, as confirmed in John, the Christians saw Jesus as the Logos, that is, the Wisdom of God.

Which brings us to the first temptation. In response Jesus declares that bread alone is not needed but the Word of God. This nicely ties together the response of Moses to the Israelites when mana is provided. Again, Jesus is the Word. Paul goes so far as to call him the Bread of Heaven and therefore the Mana of the New Covenant. So, when Jesus responds, the response is oddly self-referential for a sub-qualitative entity.

The second likewise is _again_ self referential. A theme is developing. Jesus is the Living Temple of God. This, believe it or not, is continued in the Third. We should remember that, "when Micheal the Archangel had a dispute with the Devil over the body of Abraham," he left the devil to God's judgment. That is, he announced that the devil was not under his authority. That's a pretty stunning admission from someone understood to be the General of God's Armies. Jesus however has no such restraint. Immediately after rebuking Satan with the words that, "you should not tempt God," He demands that Satan leave. _He_ demands. _He_ has the authority to do so and Satan is compelled, without struggle (which given the account of Micheal and the lesser "Prince of Persia" is especially confounding to Witness theology).