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? I know this is the Jewish forum, but since Jesus' tempation references back to Moses in nearly identical language, I thought someone here might be able to help.
Sorta. Well, according to the Jewish understanding the problem is that Moses struck the rock instead of speaking to it like he was asked. So instead of having the faith in God to sancitify Him (by speaking words which would attribute the miracle to God), Moses struck the rock and made it look like it was his power that made the water come forth. In Moses' case was it wrong to give the masses the opportunity to attribute God-power to him instead of to Him? I'd say so. I mean it really seems like he was aggravated and tired and fed up with everything. You know? : "You people with the whining and complaining and the heckling from the back. What a pain! What's that God? Miracle at the rock? STOP IT IN THE BACK! You want your water? Here's your water!" Traditionally this is the sin which kept him from entering the land. I'm not familiar with Jesus' temptations. From a Jewish perspective there's nothing wrong with asking, but at the same time we should be trying to make things better ourselves. We can't wait for God. Well, as a Jew who has never read the text, taking our lives for granted through clearly life-threatening activities is testing God. Yeah. Well we can expect God to protect us from those things that God protects us from. But we can't jump off buildings and expect miracles just as we can't shoot a loaded gun at our heads and expect miracles. God gives life AND God takes it away. I hope some of that was helpful. Dauer
could god even be tested? I mean that if everything is some big plan, then nothing can be considered wrong for it is all part of that plan, and so are the so called "tests". and if there is no big plan and we are responsible to are own acts without any intervention of god, then tests are useless for they test nothing at all.
Well, traditionally God gave us the mitzvot, which tell us what is the right thing for us to do. It is our choice whether or not to rebel from them. I think you're talking about free will vs omniscience and this has never been an argument I've really understood. If God knows everything, that in no way limits a person's ability to choose freely. The fact that God knew does not limit free will. The individual still makes a choice and that choice is theirs. If they were going to make a different choice, then that choice God would know instead. Another issue is that God transcends time. So while for us we do experience time, for God it's as if He sees it all spread out over a table, all happening at once (and that is all entirely figurative and there is nothing literal I am implying.)
i wasn't talking about free will vs omniscience. one of the subjects raised by first post was whether god should be tested. in my post I was just trying to display the pradox of the notion that god could be tested. god can't be tested for another reason. all religion is based upon faith, which is, basically, belife in a thing without proof of it. testing god is an atempt to prove his existence. in order to keep religion, god can not be tested. Im am not saying it's a bad thing. to me it seems alot more chlaging, and therefore rewarding, to have true faith, which dose not seek proof. it's an act of choice, and of trust, in god. that about summs it
I don't 100% agree with your definition of faith..Especially considering everyone has faith in very quantifiable things. I have faith that the sun will rise and set every day. This has been tested, and why it happens has been investigated, and my faith has been proven. Does that make it a lesser faith? We can test g-d, but g-d doesn't have to play along. We can't say that if something happens then g-d would react in a certain way- we don't know how g-d would act at all- so it's not a valid test.. Further (correct me if im wrong) but didn't g-d say he wouldn't have a direct involvement in the world anymore? I was always told to question things and seek out the truth, especially in judaism. I'm not sure if that's backed up by scripture but that's what I'm always told...Also I was told that temptation is a good thing, that to be someone who is tempted and stays true to mitzvot is perhaps a stronger person than someone who has never been tempted at all. Just my 2c
Disarm, you dont belive in the sunrise, you know that the earth revolves around itself, and that at some point the sun will emerge on the horizon of your part of th world. you might belive that nothing will happen to stop these events from occurring, but you have no, and need no, faith in the sunrise itself. faith is required only when there is doubt, and, to my opinion - the less doubt, the "lesser" is the faith. to say that the more doubt there is the more you need faith to overcome it. I agree with you. god can not be put to a valid test. god's existence has no proof. since it has no proof, it is in total doubt, and therefore beliving in god is an act of total faith I never heard of a religion that allows its followers to question the existence of its gods. though judaism is less dogmatic then other religions, it too has things that can't be questoined. the mitzvot, for example, and for that matter the whole torah, are considered the word of a living god, and though they can be interpreted, their truth can't be questioned. would you want be put to the test, not knowing if you will be tempted or overcome temptation, or will you prefer living a quiet, peaceful life, where faith isn't such a chalenge? its a hard choice, and most of the time its not even a choice, it's simply hard. the thing is that you never know if you are strong enough to resist temptation, you got to have faith. salam, shalom, peace.
But my point is this: however you see Jesus, be it prophet, enlightened one, or God incarnate, it seems clear that he has no doubt of God's existance. Why then would he still declare that it is wrong to put God to the test? Do you think it might be about spiritual pride? "God said he will save me if I jump, I'll prove it". Sort of a way of showing how favored you are to God? Or is it really about lack of faith? Or something else entirely?
But to those who ask, proof is sometimes given. When Thomas demanded proof, Jesus said put your hand into my wounds and be no more unbelieving. Why should any of us presume to be on equal terms with God. Isn't testing (though within the nature of the child) a form of rebelliousness that just might get the child a spanking? In a related vein, we should be careful what we ask for - as the axiom goes, you just might get it. I read a story of a small town in New Mexico that had been without rain for 11 (could be wrong on that, maybe 7) years. The townsfolk got together and prayed for rain. When they got the answer to their prayer, the rain washed all the adobe home down main street.
