Can God be tempted by evil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lisa44
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lisa44

Guest
In the Letter from James we read: 1:13
No one when tempted should say, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one.

So if James says that God cannot be tempted by evil, then why do Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was tempted by Satan?

Matthew 4:1
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

Mark 1:12
And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan;…

Luke 4:1
Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the spirit in the wilderness, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil.
 
Because Christ is both human and God through the hypostatic union. So, while Christ could be tempted through His human side, the will of God within Him would have felt no inclination and would not have been tempted at all by this. You might also want to look up what words for tempted are used in each of those instances because those words could translate both to tempted but mean completely different things.
 
Because Christ is both human and God through the hypostatic union. So, while Christ could be tempted through His human side, the will of God within Him would have felt no inclination and would not have been tempted at all by this. …
Your answer is: Christ could be tempted and would not have been tempted?
 
Your answer is: Christ could be tempted and would not have been tempted?
The human will within Christ would have been tempted since Christ is true man. However, Christ is also true God and that side of Him, the will of God was not at all tempted by this.
 
The human will within Christ would have been tempted since Christ is true man. However, Christ is also true God and that side of Him, the will of God was not at all tempted by this.
So I guess this begs the question: did both sides say “no,” or did God’s will (in Christ) “overshadow” (for lack of a better term) the human will in Christ? Did Christ-as-God not allow Christ-as-human to say yes?
 
On questions of Christology it is better to read the Catechism and not attempt to speculate or take educated guesses. It’s very easy to make a mistake in this area. So, here is what the CCC says on the matter:

IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?

470 Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”,97 in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ’s human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ’s human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from “one of the Trinity”. The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity:98

The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.99
Christ’s soul and his human knowledge

471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.100

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”,101 and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.102 This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.103

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.104 "The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God."105 Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.106 The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.107

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.108 What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.109

Christ’s human will

475 Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation.110 Christ’s human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."111

Christ’s true body

476 Since the Word became flesh in assuming a true humanity, Christ’s body was finite.112 Therefore the human face of Jesus can be portrayed; at the seventh ecumenical council (Nicaea II in 787) the Church recognized its representation in holy images to be legitimate.113

477 At the same time the Church has always acknowledged that in the body of Jesus "we see our God made visible and so are caught up in love of the God we cannot see."114 The individual characteristics of Christ’s body express the divine person of God’s Son. He has made the features of his human body his own, to the point that they can be venerated when portrayed in a holy image, for the believer “who venerates the icon is venerating in it the person of the one depicted”.115

The heart of the Incarnate Word

478 Jesus knew and loved us each and all during his life, his agony and his Passion, and gave himself up for each one of us: "The Son of God. . . loved me and gave himself for me."116 He has loved us all with a human heart. For this reason, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced by our sins and for our salvation,117 “is quite rightly considered the chief sign and symbol of that. . . love with which the divine Redeemer continually loves the eternal Father and all human beings” without exception.118

Footnotes:
97 GS 22 § 2.
98 Cf. Jn 14:9-10.
99 GS 22 § 2.
100 Cf. Damasus 1: DS 149.
101 Lk 2:52.
102 Cf. Mk 6 38; 8 27; Jn 11:34; etc.
103 Phil 2:7.
104 Cf. St. Gregory the Great, “Sicut aqua” ad Eulogium, Epist. Lib. 10, 39 PL 77, 1097A ff.; DS 475.
105 St. Maximus the Confessor, Qu. et dub. 66: PG 90, 840A.
106 Cf. Mk 14:36; Mt 11:27; Jn 1:18; 8:55; etc.
107 Cf. Mk 2:8; Jn 2 25; 6:61; etc.
108 Cf. Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 14:18-20, 26-30.
109 Cf. Mk 13:32, Acts 1:7.
110 Cf. Council of Constantinople III (681): DS 556-559.
111 Council of Constantinople III: DS 556.
112 Cf. Council of the Lateran (649): DS 504.
113 Cf. Gal 3:1; cf. Council of Nicaea II (787): DS 600-603.
114 Roman Missal, Preface of Christmas I.
115 Council of Nicaea II: DS 601.
116 Gal 2:20.
117 Cf. Jn 19:34.
118 Pius XII, encyclical, Haurietis aquas (1956): DS 3924; cf. DS 3812.
 
So I guess this begs the question: did both sides say “no,” or did God’s will (in Christ) “overshadow” (for lack of a better term) the human will in Christ? Did Christ-as-God not allow Christ-as-human to say yes?
Greetings The_Scott,

Hypostatic questions are very hard to understand at times.

Christ had a human will and a Divine Will. He had free Will as all of us. His human Will submitted to that of the Divine Will, as when we submit our will to that of God’s Will. However he did it in a perfect way that he did not sin nor was he overcame by any temptation.

No Christ as God would have had allow Christ as human to have a free will as we do.

Hopefully this makes sense, this stuff is hard to explain.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit
 
for God cannot be tempted by evil
It can be attempted to tempt God, but the
temptation will not be successful. The verse doesn’t say,
‘for it cannot be attempted to tempt God with evil’. If I
was wicked I’d have the free will to attempt to tempt
God with evil. But it wouldn’t work.

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit
into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot
be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in
all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Psa 95:8-9 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation,
and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When
your fathers tempted me.
 
It can be attempted to tempt God, but the
temptation will not be successful. The verse doesn’t say,
‘for it cannot be attempted to tempt God with evil’. If I
was wicked I’d have the free will to attempt to tempt
God with evil. But it wouldn’t work.

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit
into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot
be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in
all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Psa 95:8-9 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation,
and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When
your fathers tempted me.
Well, it says he was tempted. Not that he went into the wilderness where Satan tried to tempt him.
It is saying that Jesus could be tempted. It is suggesting that this is a trail that Jesus has to undergo as some sort of test to see if he passes or fails it.

I wonder if that is true or if that is what the three gospels are saying? Because it does seem odd that Jesus would be tested.

Doesn’t anyone else find this odd?
 
Well, I am confused by this, I don’t think Jesus can be tempted by Satan. I think that either this story is to show that Jesus cannot be tempted by the devil, and that is what is meant in the letter from James, that it is not possible. Or, perhaps something else. Perhaps this interaction with Satan was meant to happen to challenge his authority. Who else can challenge Satan’s authority but God?

Maybe Jesus had to have this interaction with Satan to remind him that he might rule over earth, but he doesn’t rule over God.

Satan can influence humans, but he is not able to influence Jesus.

Thoughts anyone?
 
Well, I am confused by this, I don’t think Jesus can be tempted by Satan. I think that either this story is to show that Jesus cannot be tempted by the devil, and that is what is meant in the letter from James, that it is not possible. Or, perhaps something else. Perhaps this interaction with Satan was meant to happen to challenge his authority. Who else can challenge Satan’s authority but God?

Maybe Jesus had to have this interaction with Satan to remind him that he might rule over earth, but he doesn’t rule over God.

Satan can influence humans, but he is not able to influence Jesus.

Thoughts anyone?
My thoughts are the “evil” and “Satan” are being confused.

Evil = Absense of good
Satan = A spiritual being created by God who made the choice to be etenally separated from God.

Based on this "for God cannot be tempted by evil " is not the same as “tempted of the devil”.

If you don’t think the Jesus could have been tempted by Satan, why does Scripture record that He was?
 
Well, it says he was tempted. Not that he went into the wilderness where Satan tried to tempt him.
It is saying that Jesus could be tempted. It is suggesting that this is a trail that Jesus has to undergo as some sort of test to see if he passes or fails it.

I wonder if that is true or if that is what the three gospels are saying? Because it does seem odd that Jesus would be tested.

Doesn’t anyone else find this odd?
Hi Lisa44,
I see what you’re saying. I think all I meant to point out is that someone/thing can attempt to tempt God with evil, or to just say ‘tempt God with evil’ (meaning tempting God to do something evil, like Jesus bowing down to Satan), but the temptation will never be successful with God. The attempt to tempt is temptation but it doesn’t have to be a successful temptation.

if someone attempts to tempt me (or just, tempts me) to steal a huge sum of money by putting the money in front of my face and saying ‘take it’, all I say is ‘you shall not steal’ and walk away, and the person in effect has not tempted me, ie the temptation was not successful.

Jesus was tempted in many ways but not successfully, the ‘successful’ idea is important other wise you have Jesus falling into (giving in to) temptation many times.

so, with temptation there is
  1. the actual attempt: like Satan saying ‘bow down to me’. (again, the attempt is temptation)
  2. either the giving in to -or- resisting of that temptation.
  3. if temptation resisted, then the person has not been (successfully) tempted.
    if fall into temptation, then the person has been (successfully) tempted.
sort of like two sides of the word tempt:
just the attempting to tempt is spoken of as ‘tempt’
and the success of that temptation is also spoken of as ‘tempt’
so that have:
‘He tempted me to do evil’ only attempt was there but no success, ‘I didn’t do evil’
‘He tempted me to do evil’ successful temptation, ‘I did evil’.

anyway…that’s the way I think about it, could be wrong, maybe someone else can give more insight. 🤷
 
Well, it says he was tempted. Not that he went into the wilderness where Satan tried to tempt him.
It is saying that Jesus could be tempted. It is suggesting that this is a trail that Jesus has to undergo as some sort of test to see if he passes or fails it.

I wonder if that is true or if that is what the three gospels are saying? Because it does seem odd that Jesus would be tested.

Doesn’t anyone else find this odd?
Greetings Lisa44,

I see you are back with us after an absence. Welcome back.

No I do not find it at all odd.

From the Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church which has said to be a sure and norm for teaching the Catholic Faith by Blessed John Paul II.
#538 The Gospels speak of a time of solitude for Jesus in the desert immediately after his baptism by John. Driven by the Spirit into the desert, Jesus remains there for forty days without eating; he lives among wild beasts, and angels minister to him. 241 At the end of this time Satan tempts him three times, seeking to compromise his filial attitude toward God. Jesus rebuffs these attacks, which recapitulate the temptations of Adam in Paradise and of Israel in the desert, and the devil leaves him “until an opportune time”. 242
241 - Cf. Mk 1:12-13
242 - Lk 4:13
#539 The evangelists indicate the salvific meaning of this mysterious event: Jesus is the new Adam who remained faithful just where the first Adam had given in to temptation. Jesus fulfils Israel’s vocation perfectly: in contrast to those who had once provoked God during forty years in the desert, Christ reveals himself as God’s Servant, totally obedient to the divine will. In this, Jesus is the devil’s conqueror: he “binds the strong man” to take back his plunder. 243 Jesus’ victory over the tempter in the desert anticipates victory at the Passion, the supreme act of obedience of his filial love for the Father.
243 - Cf. Ps 95:10; Mk 3:27
#540 Jesus’ temptation reveals the way in which the Son of God is Messiah, contrary to the way Satan proposes to him and the way men wish to attribute to him. 244 This is why Christ vanquished the Tempter for us: “For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sinning.” 245 By the solemn forty days of Lent the Church unites herself each year to the mystery of Jesus in the desert.
244 - Cf. Mt 16:21-23
245 Heb 4:15

God Bless.
Anathama Sit
 
My thoughts are the “evil” and “Satan” are being confused.

Evil = Absense of good
Satan = A spiritual being created by God who made the choice to be etenally separated from God.

Based on this "for God cannot be tempted by evil " is not the same as “tempted of the devil”.

If you don’t think the Jesus could have been tempted by Satan, why does Scripture record that He was?
That is what I have been asking!
I answered this in post #10. To show that Satan cannot influence Jesus.🙂 Only God has authority over Satan.
 
Hi Lisa44,
I see what you’re saying. I think all I meant to point out is that someone/thing can attempt to tempt God with evil, or to just say ‘tempt God with evil’ (meaning tempting God to do something evil, like Jesus bowing down to Satan), but the temptation will never be successful with God. The attempt to tempt is temptation but it doesn’t have to be a successful temptation.

if someone attempts to tempt me (or just, tempts me) to steal a huge sum of money by putting the money in front of my face and saying ‘take it’, all I say is ‘you shall not steal’ and walk away, and the person in effect has not tempted me, ie the temptation was not successful.

Jesus was tempted in many ways but not successfully, the ‘successful’ idea is important other wise you have Jesus falling into (giving in to) temptation many times.

so, with temptation there is
  1. the actual attempt: like Satan saying ‘bow down to me’. (again, the attempt is temptation)
  2. either the giving in to -or- resisting of that temptation.
  3. if temptation resisted, then the person has not been (successfully) tempted.
    if fall into temptation, then the person has been (successfully) tempted.
sort of like two sides of the word tempt:
just the attempting to tempt is spoken of as ‘tempt’
and the success of that temptation is also spoken of as ‘tempt’
so that have:
‘He tempted me to do evil’ only attempt was there but no success, ‘I didn’t do evil’
‘He tempted me to do evil’ successful temptation, ‘I did evil’.

anyway…that’s the way I think about it, could be wrong, maybe someone else can give more insight. 🤷
Yes, I think I am agreeing with you in post #10. Satan could not tempt Jesus to do evil.
And this is why I found it odd that he would try, because how could Satan influence Jesus? He can’t. So the episode must have happened because Jesus needed to have this one on one session with Satan. Why exactly I’m not entirely sure. Perhaps this is the moment where Satan knows that his rule on earth will be coming to an end. Maybe Jesus was giving him one last opportunity to obey him. Maybe the test was for Satan and not for Jesus! 😃

But the letter of James and the gospel stories do not contradict each other. 🙂 At first I thought maybe they did but as you pointed out they do not contradict each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top