I have a problem with temptation
If I am tempted does this mean that there is within me a potential to sin? Or does being tempted indicate that I have sinned already? What about Jesus? When he was on this earth was he ever tempted? You see there’s a disturbing ambiguity in our English word tempt. Without further information there isn’t any way to know whether the temptation is strictly an offer on one side or whether the person being tempted is considering that offer as an attractive possibility.
For example, tempt me to gamble. Go ahead and try. You can offer me a room full of slot machines and a pocket full of coins, a stack of lottery tickets and even an Internet poker site tied to my credit card, but I will not be tempted. You could glue monitors to my head and a blood pressure cuff to my arm but you are going to find no reaction whatsoever. Gambling doesn’t tempt me.
But there are other things that do tempt me. Movies can tempt me. If I discover that a movie I am watching has an explicit sex scene in it I am going to have to struggle with myself to turn off that movie. Because that’s something you can tempt me with. And I can be tempted to keep sitting on my duff when I see my wife scurrying around the house working while I’m relaxing in my chair. Maybe not as heinous a sin as viewing pornography but possibly just as damaging to my marriage in the long run.
This is a test
Back to the subject of the temptation of Christ. He was fully God. And fully man. Could he be tempted? I mean really tempted. Was there anything that the Devil could offer him that he would actually find attractive? Here are some verses on the subject:
1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.
(Matt 4:1, NIV)
14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin. 16 Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
(Hebrews 4:14-16, NIV)
13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
(James 1:13-15, NIV)
Now we’re going to try a little experiment. I’ve taken those three passages and replaced the word tempt with the word test. How do these sound?
1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be TESTED by the devil.
(Matt 4:1, NIV-modified)
14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been TESTED in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin. 16 Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
(Hebrews 4:14-16, NIV-modified)
13 When TESTED, no one should say, “God is TESTING me.” For God cannot be TESTED by evil, nor does he TEST anyone; 14 but each one is TESTED when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
(James 1:13-15, NIV-modified)
The Matthew example sounds fine to me. The Hebrews example sounds OK. But the James example really doesn’t sound quite right.
A trial in which we attempt to test the word “tempt” (or at least we try…)
The example from James is evidence that solving our problem with temptation is not merely a matter of replacing tempt with the word test. Perhaps Greek-speakers had some way of distinguishing between different senses of the word tempt (πειράζω) that isn’t apparent to us in reading an English translation.
There are some clear cases where πειράζω can’t be translated as tempt:
Matthew 16: 1: “The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and TEMPTED him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.”
Matthew 22:18: “But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to TEMPT me?”
Acts 5:9: “Peter said to her, “How could you agree to TEMPT the Spirit of the Lord?”
Acts 9:26: “When he came to Jerusalem, he TEMPTED to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple.”
Hebrews 3:9: “where your fathers TEMPTED and tried me
and for forty years saw what I did.”
[Note: tried in Heb. 3:9 is a different word: δοκιμασία]
Revelation 2:2: “I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have TEMPTED those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.”
Based on these samples, πειράζω can be translated in at least six different ways:
1. To attempt to do something, try. (Acts 9:26)
“When he came to Jerusalem, he TRIED to join the disciples.”
2. To put someone to the test. (Revelation 2:2)
“You have PUT TO THE TEST those who claim to be apostles but are not”
3. To be a source of irritation to someone else. (Hebrews 3:9)
“where your fathers EXASPERATED ME and tried me”
4. To try to trick someone into saying or doing something self-condemnatory. (Matthew 22:18)
“why are you trying to TRIP ME UP?”
5. To deceive someone (Acts 5:9)
“How could you agree to DECEIVE the Spirit of the Lord?”
6. To entice someone to do something wrong. (James 1:14)
“but each one is TEMPTED when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed”
Now I’m going to tempt you
Jesus was never tempted. Pharisees and Sadducees tried to trick him. Satan tested him with the intent of causing him to sin. He was tested in every way like we are but was without sin. Why is Jesus tested but we’re tempted? The answer is found in James 1:14: We are tempted by our own sin nature. Jesus, having no sin nature, could not be tempted.
In English we have a way of distinguishing between temptation in which something is offered and the recipient is attracted to it and where something is offered but the recipient isn’t attracted to it:
- My wife tempted me with a piece of chocolate cake.
- My wife tried to tempt me with a big bowl of rice pudding.
In the first sentence, my wife is hoping that I will succumb to her offer of a piece of chocolate cake and I really want that piece of cake. In the second sentence, my wife is hoping that I will succumb to her offer of a bowl of rice pudding, but rice pudding grosses me out so she’s not going to get anywhere.
To capture that difference in our Bible translations we should say something like this:
“Jesus was led into the desert by the Spirit where he was tested by the devil.”
OR
“The Spirit led Jesus into the desert where the devil tried to tempt him.”
Earlier I said the following:
Perhaps Greek-speakers had some way of distinguishing between different senses of the word tempt (πειράζω) that isn’t apparent to us in reading an English translation.
But I think the truth is actually the opposite. The word πειράζω meant less in Greek than tempt does in English. The core meaning of πειράζω is “to test.” In English, tempt has a core meaning of “to present someone with something that appeals to their evil nature.” Therefore English translations that say that Jesus was tempted are making a serious error.
I’m tempted to look at the difference between πειράζω and δοκιμασία but this post is way too long as it is. Maybe we’ll try some other time.
Good post, but I have one little quibble: you introduced the idea of temptation related to our evil nature, but my perception of the temptations of Jesus (at least the “all kingdoms of the earth thing) is that Satan was tempting Jesus based upon his desire for good. He was tempting Jesus to do something good (a chance to, quickly and easily, take over the world politically, so that he could change it) at the cost of something evil (worshiping Satan), so, it was not the evil with which Jesus was tempted, but the good (which he certainly felt a desire to do).
BTW 4.10 in the NAS has one of my favorite out- of- context quotations ever:”Then Jesus said to him, ‘Go, Satan!’ “
I have a few questions and thoughts that have stuck with me since reading this:
1. If the spirit of the Greek word you’re translating “test” is best illustrated in the 2nd option:
a. My wife tempted me with a piece of chocolate cake vs.
b. My wife tried to tempt me with a big bowl of rice pudding.
….how does successfully not sinning after that type of test enable you to sympathize with my weaknesses (say for example, my obsession with self-medicating my pain with M&Ms)? Your resisting rice pudding is neither a consolation to me that you understand my temptation or an encouragement to me that you are able to help me learn to resist temptation. How does Jesus’ being tested (vs. tempted) connect to me (as Heb. 4 suggests)? I’m not saying I think your argument is wrong, I’m just wondering about this.
2) If tempt has a core meaning of “to present someone with something that appeals to their evil nature”, did Satan actually tempt Eve in the garden? Did she have an evil nature before she sinned?
3) My understanding of tempt (in English) is closer to, “To present a sinful solution that appeals to our longings or needs.” Obviously, our longings and needs are highly tainted by sin in a way that Jesus’ were not. But, are the longings (and often even valid needs) that temptations deeply appeal to inherently sinful? Again, I’m not sure. But here’s my take on it, prompted by what you wrote:
Temptation in one way is an appeal to our God-given longings. In another way, Satan counts on our sin nature to make us want to choose the “easy and quick way” to satisfy God-given longings. There’s where Jesus called Satan’s bluff. Jesus never chose the easy way, but rather trusted His Father’s will and way to accomplish His purposes.
I would think that Jesus had the same deep longings and intensities, which would have made temptations appealing (did the offer of bread after 40 days of fasting have zero appeal to him?). But He didn’t have to do anything at any cost to satisfy the craving for food. Because He trusted His Father (which implies trusting His ways and plans). He could, as it were, stay hungry, stay “unsatisfied” (this presupposes a worldview that I have which does not equate being unsatisfied with the sin of being discontent). He could stay deeply hungry and deeply longing for food. He could continue to find the offer of bread after fasting appealing. He could long for food and feel a pull towards getting food. But He would not and could not sin to make the food happen. He would not take the food (or the kingdoms of the earth or anything) on Satan’s terms. He would not not go to the cross, no matter how much His longing not to suffer made not going appealing.
To me, the trust issue (resulting in ability to resist temptation, no matter how appealing) would be, “Even though a loaf of bread might be the most attractive thing in the world to me right now, I choose to trust my Father enough to believe He will provide and I don’t have to take up on the Devil’s offer or surely die.” (Which also pressuposes another thing that Jesus knew deeply, which I have a hard time remembering except in theory–there are worse things in life than dying).
Now I’m wondering–for Jesus, was it the difference between intense longing and lust? (He might have longed deeply for food, but didn’t lust after it like I would have been doing in the same situation). Which brings me back to one of your earlier questions. Have I sinned in being tempted because of the lusts of the flesh stirred up by the temptation, or only if I give in? No easy answers, but thanks for asking the hard questions.
D,
The cake vs. rice pudding analogy (also gambling) is meant to show that you can’t tempt someone with something that doesn’t tempt them! In other words, in English we tempt someone with the intent to make them do something wrong. But in Jesus’ case that was impossible since because of his sinless nature. The “temptation of Jesus” would be better translated as “testing of Jesus.” He experienced all the same tests that we face: hunger, thirst, tiredness, emotional exhaustion, but was without sin (Hebrews 2:18; 4:14-16).
I like your point #2. You might be on to something there…
As for M&M’s as a medicinal treatment, I’m right with you!
Okay, it’s becoming a little clearer. I think I keep getting muddled thinking about it, because I’m confusing (or maybe combining) the semantic point you were making with the theological issues.
I can see your point now about the semantic accuracy of “test” vs. “tempt” in the Hebrews passage. I can’t figure out, though, the significance of why Satan would even bother to test Jesus if there was zero appeal for Jesus in anything offered. (Not that I have to figure it out for it to be true
)