Q: Jesus says in Matthew 4:7 (quoting Deuteronomy 6:16), Do not tempt the Lord your God. Doesnt this seem poorly founded, since according to James 1:13, God cannot be tempted?
A: Not when one considers the different concepts involved in each passage. Although one could fairly respond that the relevant phrase in James 1:13 is capable of being translated to mean for God is impervious to temptations toward evil, the real illuminating solution to this question is to realize that there are two different meanings for the word-root which Matthew and James employ.
Matthew uses the Greek term ekpeirazeis, a compound (as did the Septuagint rendering of Deut. 6:16). The ek is not present in James 1:13. With or without the ek, though, the difference in contexts indicates that the words represent different concepts. James was writing about temptations which human beings endure as they go through various trials. They are temptations /to do evil/ -- which is why his sentence does not stop with the word tempted (as one might think if one reads only the SABs question); he says God cannot be tempted with evil. Jesus, though, was referring to the act of presumptuously testing Gods promises, or daring God. And this is what the devil was tempting Jesus to do here in Matthew 4, at the temple-pinnacle.
Lets have a look at a few other passages about tempting God.
Deut. 6:16 -- Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted Him at Massah. Whats the Massah that is referred to? Its the location of the scene in Exodus 17:1-7 where the Hebrews, rather than carefully collect and ration water themselves, insisted that God provide them with water so that they would not die of thirst. They had asked, Is the LORD among us, or not? -- the idea being that there was no need to take responsibility for ones own well-being since the LORD was providing for them. (This was shortly after their deliverance at the Red Sea and the provision of manna and quail, in chapters 15-16.)
Clearly it would not have been /evil/ for God to provide water for the Hebrews; after all that is what He proceeded to do in 17:6. But it was wrong for the Hebrews to insist on being divinely spoon-fed, so to speak, when they were perfectly capable of using common sense and carrying their own water. They were /testing/ God by deliberately setting up an obstacle for Him to surmount, but not tempting Him in the sense that James 1:13 is talking about -- i.e., tempting toward evil.
Acts 15:10 - Here, at the first church council, where the predominant issue was, Should Gentiles be required to be circumcised before becoming Christians? Peter -- who emphatically denied that circumcision should be required -- asked his opponents, Now therefore why tempt ye God? Peter did not mean that the pro-circumcision people were tempting God to do evil; he meant that they were putting an obstacle in the way of the fulfillment of Gods promise to share salvation with the Gentiles. Peter was picturing them as people /testing/ God, inasmuch as they were challenging God to an unnecessary test of His strength.
Finally, Malachi 3:15 says, "And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered." But these words -- which refer to cases of presumptuously /testing/ God -- are not statements by Malachi; Malachi is simply citing a statement made by others, as he does throughout the book of Malachi. A plain reading of the surrounding verses (3:13-18) will verify this. The NASB uses test in 3:15 rather than tempt.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: Not when one considers the different concepts involved in each passage. Although one could fairly respond that the relevant phrase in James 1:13 is capable of being translated to mean for God is impervious to temptations toward evil, the real illuminating solution to this question is to realize that there are two different meanings for the word-root which Matthew and James employ.
Matthew uses the Greek term ekpeirazeis, a compound (as did the Septuagint rendering of Deut. 6:16). The ek is not present in James 1:13. With or without the ek, though, the difference in contexts indicates that the words represent different concepts. James was writing about temptations which human beings endure as they go through various trials. They are temptations /to do evil/ -- which is why his sentence does not stop with the word tempted (as one might think if one reads only the SABs question); he says God cannot be tempted with evil. Jesus, though, was referring to the act of presumptuously testing Gods promises, or daring God. And this is what the devil was tempting Jesus to do here in Matthew 4, at the temple-pinnacle.
Lets have a look at a few other passages about tempting God.
Deut. 6:16 -- Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted Him at Massah. Whats the Massah that is referred to? Its the location of the scene in Exodus 17:1-7 where the Hebrews, rather than carefully collect and ration water themselves, insisted that God provide them with water so that they would not die of thirst. They had asked, Is the LORD among us, or not? -- the idea being that there was no need to take responsibility for ones own well-being since the LORD was providing for them. (This was shortly after their deliverance at the Red Sea and the provision of manna and quail, in chapters 15-16.)
Clearly it would not have been /evil/ for God to provide water for the Hebrews; after all that is what He proceeded to do in 17:6. But it was wrong for the Hebrews to insist on being divinely spoon-fed, so to speak, when they were perfectly capable of using common sense and carrying their own water. They were /testing/ God by deliberately setting up an obstacle for Him to surmount, but not tempting Him in the sense that James 1:13 is talking about -- i.e., tempting toward evil.
Acts 15:10 - Here, at the first church council, where the predominant issue was, Should Gentiles be required to be circumcised before becoming Christians? Peter -- who emphatically denied that circumcision should be required -- asked his opponents, Now therefore why tempt ye God? Peter did not mean that the pro-circumcision people were tempting God to do evil; he meant that they were putting an obstacle in the way of the fulfillment of Gods promise to share salvation with the Gentiles. Peter was picturing them as people /testing/ God, inasmuch as they were challenging God to an unnecessary test of His strength.
Finally, Malachi 3:15 says, "And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered." But these words -- which refer to cases of presumptuously /testing/ God -- are not statements by Malachi; Malachi is simply citing a statement made by others, as he does throughout the book of Malachi. A plain reading of the surrounding verses (3:13-18) will verify this. The NASB uses test in 3:15 rather than tempt.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
