The Testing of Jesus

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
In Matthew the devil takes Jesus to a high mountain and shows him all the Kingdoms of the world and their glory. He tells Jesus he will give them all to Him if He falls down and worships him.

This left me wondering why the devil thought the world and its glory were his to give.

Luke embellishes this idea a bit. He has the devil claiming the authority and the glory has been given over to him and he can give it to anyone he chooses. Again it can belong to Jesus if He worships the devil.

Why does the devil desire to be worshipped? Why does the devil believe he has so much power?

What would it have meant for Jesus to have accepted the deal?
 
According to Walter Wink, if these are good questions I should be able to come up with at least two good answers. I don't even have one good answer yet. :rolleyes:
 
If Satan is the self-centered option for Jesus and he is the Anointed One, then he might have considered putting himself first, like many of the greedy evangelists.

The world then and now deems dominated by greed and the lust for power. Satan could be understood as the choice to seek power, worshiping the perceived way of the world.

Satan might be deluded into believing he/it is control because of the dominance of greed and violence in the world around the Mediterranean.

The first two answers are my preferred answers.
 
paradox3 said:
Why does the devil desire to be worshipped? Why does the devil believe he has so much power?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that in the ancient world, rulers were often worshipped. Egypt, Persia, even Rome in the Imperial period, had divine rulers. In that era, worship was an act of acknowledging the being you worshipped had power over you. So, Satan was power-tripping, trying to get Jesus to acknowledge that Satan had power over him. Doesn't mean Satan actually believed he was equivalent to God, only that he wanted Jesus to acknowledge that Satan had power over him. As for what Jesus giving in would mean, it would be a victory for Satan to have the "Son of God" acknowledge Satan's power and it would be a humiliation for Jesus and God.

Of course, if you go with the metaphorical interpretation, then worshipping "Satan" would mean Jesus giving in to the temptations of worldly power and worshipping the trappings of power rather than God.
 
Mendalla said:
Keep in mind that in the ancient world, rulers were often worshipped. Egypt, Persia, even Rome in the Imperial period, had divine rulers. In that era, worship was an act of acknowledging the being you worshipped had power over you. So, Satan was power-tripping, trying to get Jesus to acknowledge that Satan had power over him. Doesn't mean Satan actually believed he was equivalent to God, only that he wanted Jesus to acknowledge that Satan had power over him. As for what Jesus giving in would mean, it would be a victory for Satan to have the "Son of God" acknowledge Satan's power and it would be a humiliation for Jesus and God.

Of course, if you go with the metaphorical interpretation, then worshipping "Satan" would mean Jesus giving in to the temptations of worldly power and worshipping the trappings of power rather than God.
Click to expand...

There is a sense of ideal and advocate of the ideal! Does it depend on what side of the advocated line one is on ... as baffling? This could make for a chaotic turbulence demanding more intellect of those that elected to dump it ... and thus the vast image of Gehenna ... all that smouldering in that deep void ... much of it over and above us!

Henna was once an inking process ... sometimes a story writ on the individual hide ... thus we carry some of the ancient myths ... it gets under our's kin by times (time being a mysterious domain)!

Reconsider the your's, mine and ours as common ground in the darker and deeply unconscious zone ... given the little bit we are in virtue of grip ... adds to the chaos and planned enigma that some strange power wishes us to unravel ... thus dissemination instead of emanating ... the bifurcation of fish and reptiles from mammalian ... fish have kohl 'r geneses ... genes are a particular spelling ... apart from English spelling protocol!

The unknown is a vast challenge ... unless one questions much; a whole pile!
 
Last edited:
@Mendalla
So traditionally worship means acknowledging power? I have been told it is correct to talk about worshipping God but not Jesus.

One progressive definition of worship is "to hold up as worthy". Using this definition I would think we could speak of worshipping Jesus.
 
paradox3 said:
So traditionally worship means acknowledging power? I have been told it is correct to talk about worshipping God but not Jesus.
Click to expand...
I am speaking of how worship was practiced and viewed in many societies of that era. Obviously, Jews and early Christians viewed worship somewhat differently given that they would only worship YHWH/God and that worship was not just acknowledging God's power over them (though that is part of it, to be honest) but God's role as their protector and as the source of their existence. This is, of course, where Jews and Christians got into trouble with the Roman authorities, since it meant they would not worship the emperor and not doing that was basically seen as treason.
 
What does it mean to worship the devil? I think we can acknowledge the power of evil without worshipping it.

Not trying to be argumentative here. Just thinking something through
 
paradox3 said:
What does it mean to worship the devil? I think we can acknowledge the power of evil without worshipping it.
Click to expand...
Worship would be to bow before the Devil, offer ourselves or sacrifices to them, and obey them to some degree. Essentially accept Satan (literal or figurative) as our ruler. At least that's what it would mean to me.

Which is not the same as acknowledging or even knowingly doing evil, for sure.
 
Another thing that comes to mind:

The Testing of Jesus​

12 And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. 13 He was in the wilderness forty days, tested by Satan, and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels waited on him.

In Mark's reference to the 40 days in the wilderness, nothing is mentioned about fasting.

Also, it could be read as though Jesus faced temptation throughout the 40 days, whereas in Matthew and Luke the temptations seem more like a final exam. Any thoughts or reflections about that?
 
Since he probably grew up in a town, being in the wilderness would have been a test from the first day. The testing would have been about more than the three tests.
 
Another difference is that Matthew and Luke have the angels appear at the end. Mark implies they are present with Jesus all along.

Mark can be a man of few words.

Mark alone has the spirit driving Jesus into the wilderness. And he is the only one to mention the wild beasts.

It seems that all three writers want us to understand Jesus went through an ordeal. Maybe they have just chosen different details for their descriptions of this time.
 
paradox3 said:
In Matthew the devil takes Jesus to a high mountain and shows him all the Kingdoms of the world and their glory. He tells Jesus he will give them all to Him if He falls down and worships him.

This left me wondering why the devil thought the world and its glory were his to give.

Luke embellishes this idea a bit. He has the devil claiming the authority and the glory has been given over to him and he can give it to anyone he chooses. Again it can belong to Jesus if He worships the devil.

Why does the devil desire to be worshipped? Why does the devil believe he has so much power?
Click to expand...
There are some passages in the NT that refer to Satan as the ruler of this world or the prince of the air.
Even Jesus before his crucifixion,in John 14:30, acknowledges Satans authority.
 
Waterfall said:
There are some passages in the NT that refer to Satan as the ruler of this world or the prince of the air.
Even Jesus before his crucifixion,in John 14:30, acknowledges Satans authority.
Click to expand...
Now that I think of it, I have heard the claim that the devil controls the airwaves.
 
Maybe my mom told me about the devil and the airwaves. She cited people who believe the devil controls radio waves as being too literal with their biblical interpretation.
 
paradox3 said:
Maybe my mom told me about the devil and the airwaves. She cited people who believe the devil controls radio waves as being too literal with their biblical interpretation.
Click to expand...
There are much more that refer to Satan as ruler of the world, ruler of the age and ruler of the air.
John 12:31-33
John 16:11
1 John 5:18-19
John 12:31(Jesus refers to him as the ruler of the world)
2 Corinthians 4:4
Ephesians 2:2( Paul calls him the prince of the air)
It reminds me (personally) of a bit of gnosticism belief, as they believe that most people worship the God of the world(demi god) and not the one true God who is above all.
 
Last edited:
paradox3 said:
The gospel writers are silent about the period of time between his baptism and his time in the wilderness. This was not necessarily a short interval although the events are related one right after the other.
Click to expand...
No, Mark reports that His baptism and wilderness sojourn happened in rapid succession: "And the Spirit immediately drove Him into the wilderness (1:12)."
The wedding feast at Cana must have happened soon after Jesus' wilderness sojourn and is the last time Jesus and His brothers are happily together. then t they go with Him to Capernaum. That's where the change of Jesus' self-understanding after His baptism and wilderness experience transformed His brothers into meddling opponents of Jesus' ministry (Mark 3:20-21, 31-35). Our first symptom of this rift is their effort to restrain Him when they learn He is imposing a short fast on His audience during His long teaching sessions. The brothers' rage here, I think. betrays their negative reaction to His long last in the wilderness.
paradox3 said:
Is it possible Jesus spent years coming to terms with his call from God?
Click to expand...
That's the implication of Luke's report that "the Devil left Him until an opportune time."

Redbaron: "Jimkenney12's thought was that there were many gospel in circulation. You admit that Luke was aware of many gospels. How does that refute jimkenney12? It doesn't. "

No, you miss the point: Jim contradicted the modern scholarly consensus by claiming that Luke probably used Matthew and that the Q hypothesis is unnecessary. I countered that Mark is the only Gospel that we know Luke read, but that he was made aware of a plethora of other Gospels. for which there is no evidence of wide circulation or extensive recopying. I also provided several arguments against Lucan use of Matthew, which neither you nor Jim have been able to answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top