I was reading about the temptation of Jesus and he says, in essence, "it is written, it is wrong to test the Lord". I wondered why, so I followed the references back to Deuteronomy 6:13-16, and from there to Numbers 20:1-13, where Moses taps the rock twice to produce water. There the Lord says he has sinned. There is a footnote in my bible saying this is probably because the second tap showed Moses' distrust in the Lord. Is that an accurate interpretation? More importantly, why is it wrong to test God? Reading about Jesus temptations, I see the temptations as being temptations of comfort, security, and power. It is the temptation of security, the second one, that puzzles me the most. How is it wrong to ask God to do what he has said he could do? The Devil quotes the scripture saying how no harm could befall Jesus if he jumped off the temple, but Jesus declines, saying it's wrong to put God to the test. Is it because Jesus would be consciously putting himself in harm's way by jumping off the Temple, thereby being reckless...is that the difference? It can't be that it's wrong to expect God to protect us, as it seems we can expect God to provide comfort (food, water, etc) for us and to take control of the forces in our lives...right?
Because it erodes your faith. However, there is a passage where Gideon tests the Lord. Judges 6 (the end of the chapter). In this case, Gideon asks the Lord for a sign because he was lacking in faith and the Lord granted it to him to strengthen his faith. There are cases in which it is wrong to test the Lord, but the Lord understands your worries and will provide a sign if you truly need it. It's just not a good habit to get into (to constantly test the Lord).
So getting back to my initial question... Jesus said it's wrong to test god by jumping off the temple. Is it because it erodes your faith, or because it's reckless to act in such a manner, or what? If it's truly because it "erodes your faith" why is that bad? Why is faith more important than being with God? If I jumped off the temple and god saved me, I'd have stronger faith than any man alive, and I'd be even closer to god. I mean, is it better to have faith, or is it better to KNOW? But damn, I'm off topic again. I just don't see why it's wrong to test god. I feel there is a fundamental point I'm missing. It's not so much that I disagree, just that I don't understand why...
Man its christianity, its not meant to be understood, thats the point of it, you just need to have faith! you think christian's understand their god? if they did, there wouldnt be the saying god works in mysterious ways
No, I feel this is a vital spiritual point. Later, in Matthew 16:22-23, when Jesus is telling the deciples about his coming death and Peter is upset and says it can't be true, Jesus uses similar language, saying to Peter "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as humans do" then in the next passage Jesus tells the desciples that "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me". I think there is a vital connection here. The phrasing of brings the two passages together, then, right after they are connected, Jesus tells us that to be like him, we must do as he did, that is, we must deny our selves (our egos). Just as Jesus did this himself during the temptation in the desert. So the temptations must be understood if we are to be like the Christ.
The point is God made the natural world the way it is for a reason, and we are taught to work within it. You jumping off the building to test God is a rejection of the natural order that God established, in essence, you are asking God to show that the natural order of things is not good by violating the natural order for a petty whim (you are challenging the natural order that God has established in the universe, which is a challenge of God's wisdom in establishing the natural order, and any successful challenge you make to God's wisdom will erode your faith). Faith isn't just saying "God will cause all my actions to work for the best", it is also acknowledging that the physical laws (and the limits they establish) are good in their own right because they were established by God.
what if god didn't save you but you lived and were seriously crippled and stuff? does that mean he doesn't exist?
No, it means that God doesn't want dumbasses to jump off buildings. You would be a living warning to other dumbasses who would tempt God. You might as well count on God to save you from the consequences of punching a police officer (or a baby). Hopefully you learn not to tempt God before God cripples or makes an example of you. You do know better than to jump off a building, don't you?
I believe the bible tells that it is wrong to test God because at some level it shows you do not have full faith. If you look at other scriptures it says that God's will WILL be done, couple that with the fact that people are not typically able to understand God's plan unless He reveals it, so in a sense you are demanding something of God.
I am no expert, but I would submit this as a possibility. The temptations are not recorded so that we could see that Christ was tempted as a man, but to illustrate that He could NOT be tempted. The last line is a direct claim to divinity (it has a double meaning. "do not tempt the Lord your God" could mean that Christ told Satan "I will not tempt the Father" or it could mean "Do not tempt ME." I prefer the latter since Christ summarily dismisses Satan as one would a servant). The temptation of Christ is unique (in the same way that the crucifixtion is unique) and serves to demonstrate His unique character and claims to divinity.
I see your point, but I'm reading this passage differently from the literalist interpretation. I see the devil not as an external figure but as Jesus' ego, tempting him with the three main things that tempt humans: comfort/desire, security/fear, and power. Jesus' refusal to be tempted was his way of rising above his ego and becoming enlightened ("...and the angels ministered to him"). Since God is within us all, I don't see this as unique. I see this as a spiritual guide, in a sense, part of it anyways, useful to us all in the same way it was for Jesus. But I'm not here to debate my views on literalism or mysticism, I'd rather not get into that. I just want help from people who know the Bible better than I in interpreting the second temptation, that of security (from bodily harm, and in my view, security in general, including psychological). Jesus' saying it's wrong to put God to the test confuses me, I don't see why that is the successful answer in denying oneself temptation.
I think this is something that comes out of the 'God-fearing' type of mentality. God is seen in the OT as an angry and vengeful being. The right attitude is one of total submission. Failure to accord fully with His will leads to all manner of destructions, 'houses made dunghills' etc. So with Jehova, you wouldn't want to risk upsetting him in any way, and presumably, since a 'test' would imply doubt, lack of beilief in Him and His absolute power, He would not like it very much. It's somewhat confusing I think. In most religions is some idea that one can somehow come to actually know God, and processes are recommended toward that aim - meditation, yoga and so on. But in a sense, that is putting God to the test. 'I'll say this prayer, see if it works'. Even if a person just believes with a simple faith, and asks God for some benefit or blessing, they might then wait to see if it materializes. That would also seem like a kind of test. On a lighter note, it reminds me of those old-time atheists of the 19th century, who used to go to a public square and loudly berate God asking Him to strike tham dead if He was actually up there! Funnily enough, I think all of them lived to tell the tale.
that's a deep post right there. All's I know is your last sentence is wrong. I mean just think about it. How can we expect ANYTHING from God when He in fact doesn't allways provide help when ppl need it. Obviously it's up to Him the next time it rains in the Sudan or other drought ridden place, no? It's pretty ethnocentric to take the western/north american/usa-stylie living as "blessed". Maybe I am really Dives sitting at a feast while Lazarus begs for scraps from my servants. (I hope they'd give him those f'n scraps tho!) ps: IF you have three-four hours sometime watch the extra long movie "Moses" made i think in the 60s. It is AWESOME. Unbelievable!!!!!
I disagree. I think his temptation is a clear demonstration of his humanity. (See Heb. 2:5-18 & 4:14-5:10) As for the original question on this thread, I think the idea of "testing God" refers to presumptuously demanding miracles from him. Jesus consistently refused to "perform" at the demand of skeptics. (Mt. 12:38-45)
