Jesus Taken by the Spirit Instead of Satan?

[marineland]

This is from Lesson 9 (Religion 250 manual).

34 – Tell students that following His baptism, Jesus was tempted by Satan to do things that 
could be categorized as "my will."  Ask several students to take turns reading aloud from 
Matthew 4:1–11.

Consider pointing out to students that the Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 4:1–11 
clarifies that it was the Spirit, not Satan, who took Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple 
[see verse 5] and then to a high mountain [see verse 8]. After the Spirit took Jesus to 
these places, the devil came to tempt Him.

Are there any Greek manuscripts to confirm the change mentioned in the JST?

Thanks

Tony

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

This is from Lesson 9 (Religion 250 manual).

34 – Tell students that following His baptism, Jesus was tempted by Satan to do things that 
could be categorized as "my will."  Ask several students to take turns reading aloud from 
Matthew 4:1–11.

Consider pointing out to students that the Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 4:1–11 
clarifies that it was the Spirit, not Satan, who took Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple 
[see verse 5] and then to a high mountain [see verse 8]. After the Spirit took Jesus to 
these places, the devil came to tempt Him.

Are there any Greek manuscripts to confirm the change mentioned in the JST?

Thanks

Tony

The Joseph Smith translation is somewhat supported in concept by verse 1 of chapter 4.

1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. (Matthew 4)

Consider the fact that it was only after the Spirit first led the Lord into the wilderness that Satan approached tempting him to turn stone into bread. So in the first of his three temptations, the Spirit first led the Lord to a destination, and only after that did Satan arrive on the scene to tempt him.

So in accord with the sequence set forth in the first temptation, it makes perfect sense the Joseph Smith translation would clarify that it was the power of God that miraculously carried the Lord from the wilderness to the pinnacle of the temple, not the powers of darkness from hell, and only after first being led by the Spirit to that destination did Satan approached him a second time to tempt him. 

Finally, it reasonably follows that it was the miraculous power of God that transported the Savior to the top of an exceedingly high mountain, not the devil, and after being carried by the Spirit to that place Satan arrived to tempt the Lord a third time. So the Spirit of God led, or took, the Lord to predetermined destinations where God would allow Satan to tempt the Son of God in order to try his soul and prove him.

But to those who believe in the strict inerrancy of the Bible, no amount of precedent, logic and reason will suffice to convince them that, in this instance, Christ was led to the above two destinations by the the Spirit of God, not by the devil. What a strange thing to imagine, that the Son of God would allow himself to be led around by the devil.

But there’s another way to harmonize these two seemingly irreconcilable positions. Could it be that Savior was commanded by his Father to go to the physical destinations that Satan had in his diabolical mind thought it most advantageous to go? If this is the case, the Savior was actually being led by and obeying the will of his Father, not inexplicably allowing his obedient soul to be led around by the father of lies and disobedience.
 

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by teddyaware

[marineland]

On 2/17/2020 at 11:58 AM, teddyaware said:

What a strange thing to imagine, that the Son of God would allow himself to be led around by the devil.

Do you also consider it a strange thing to imagine the Son of God allowing himself to be tempted by
the devil?  Getting back to the question about the Greek manuscripts, what was your thought?

Thanks

Tony

[mfbukowski]

On 2/17/2020 at 8:58 AM, teddyaware said:

But there’s another way to harmonize these two seemingly irreconcilable positions. Could it be that Savior was commanded by his Father to go to the physical destinations that Satan had in his diabolical mind thought it most advantageous to go? If this is the case, the Savior was actually being led by and obeying the will of his Father, not inexplicably allowing his obedient soul to be led around by the father of lies and disobedience.

I am  sure you are right. It was necessary to fulfill all righteousness as was his baptism.

[sunstoned]

I think with resent scholarship that what the Joseph Smith "translation" is needs to be re-framed. 

[teddyaware]

18 hours ago, marineland said:

Do you also consider it a strange thing to imagine the Son of God allowing himself to be tempted by
the devil?  Getting back to the question about the Greek manuscripts, what was your thought?

Thanks

Tony

No. In order to be fully qualified to be our Savior, he not only needed to be sinless, but it was also a requirement that he prove himself worthy by overcoming the most powerful and beguiling temptations of the devil. Our Redeemer is a conquering hero who totally defeated Satan in mortal combat, even after the Father allowed him to do all that was in his power to defeat the Lord. 

What do the Greek manuscripts have to say on this matter?

Edited February 19, 2020 by teddyaware

[marineland]

On 2/19/2020 at 2:04 PM, teddyaware said:

What do the Greek manuscripts have to say on this matter?

From the English translations that we get from the Greek manuscripts, none of them have what
the JST has for that section. 

You found it strange to imagine that Jesus would allow himself to be carried to the pinnacle of
the temple and the top of the mountain but I don't see anything degrading to Jesus to have
allowed the devil to do that.

[Calm]

Just now, marineland said:

You found it strange to imagine that Jesus would allow himself to be carried to the pinnacle of
the temple and the top of the mountain but I don't see anything degrading to Jesus to have
allowed the devil to do that.

Would the devil have the ability to exercise power in that fashion?  I think that gives him more power than he actually has.  It isn't about it being degrading to Christ in my view.  It is about inflating the power of those who have chosen evil.

[marineland]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Would the devil have the ability to exercise power in that fashion?  I think that gives him more power than he actually has.  It isn't about it being degrading to Christ in my view.  It is about inflating the power of those who have chosen evil.

The devil has whatever power God allows him to have in my opinion.  I think he also has the
power to perform miracles (to deceive).

[caspianrex]

Regarding the Greek text, it is quite clear that the "devil" (διαβολος) carried Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple, in both the Matthew and the Luke accounts. (Mark doesn't go into any great detail about the Temptation in the Wilderness.) So, no, there is no Greek textual support for the idea that the Spirit was responsible for that bit.

However, as someone else mentioned above, there is the interesting point that, while Matthew and Luke both say the Spirit "led" the Lord into the wilderness, Mark takes a different approach: "And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness." (Mark 1:12, KJV)

[caspianrex]

Meanwhile, it may be worth pointing out that Matthew and Luke differ in their order of describing the three temptations by the Devil.

Matthew's order is: (1) turn stones into bread, (2) top of the temple, (3) high mountain.

Luke's order is: (1) turn stones into bread, (2) high mountain, (3) top of the temple.

[caspianrex]

One more little comment...

The Children's Bible with which I grew up was a very popular one published in 1965 (with a very blond Jesus), and this picture from that edition has haunted me for most of my life (I'm 50 years old). 

[mfbukowski]

On 2/18/2020 at 10:27 PM, sunstoned said:

I think with resent scholarship that what the Joseph Smith "translation" is needs to be re-framed. 

Didn't know you were a fundie.

It was inspiration and clearly a re-write which was clearly as "correct" as the guy who originally wrote it.

Both allege it is inspired.

Only God himself can tell you whether or not it is.

But I guess you're in the "God breathed" camp, so to you there actually is a "correct" revelation directly word for word from God?

Parables are parables.

[mfbukowski]

On 2/19/2020 at 11:04 AM, teddyaware said:

No. In order to be fully qualified to be our Savior, he not only needed to be sinless, but it was also a requirement that he prove himself worthy by overcoming the most powerful and beguiling temptations of the devil. Our Redeemer is a conquering hero who totally defeated Satan in mortal combat, even after the Father allowed him to do all that was in his power to defeat the Lord. 

What do the Greek manuscripts have to say on this matter?

I would think it would be more important that he be actually tempted than anyone else.

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Didn't know you were a fundie.

It was inspiration and clearly a re-write which was clearly as "correct" as the guy who originally wrote it.

Both allege it is inspired.

Only God himself can tell you whether or not it is.

But I guess you're in the "God breathed" camp, so to you there actually is a "correct" revelation directly word for word from God?

Parables are parables.

There are lots of ways to look at this.  What you said, and what some others think: Translation = copying the work of others without attributing the source.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, caspianrex said:

One more little comment...

The Children's Bible with which I grew up was a very popular one published in 1965 (with a very blond Jesus), and this picture from that edition has haunted me for most of my life (I'm 50 years old). 

Hey man, if that dude tried to get me to follow him, NO WAY!  Look out!   It's the DEVIL!!

If anything (just kidding!) I would imagine the way the REAL devil would actually look would be kind of nice looking and amiable, a friendly sort of guy you might just like because he looked so friendly and nice you would know you could instantly trust him!

A guy that looked....  well.... exactly like YOU!   

 

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Islander]

On 2/20/2020 at 5:32 PM, marineland said:

The devil has whatever power God allows him to have in my opinion.  I think he also has the
power to perform miracles (to deceive).

Your point is well articulated. God IS NOT the author of evil but He wills it for His own Glory and purposes. The scriptures are clear on that point. And, Satan "threw" at Jesus everything he had, including pouring his evil mind into the heart of those that crucified the Lord. Jesus was tempted in every possible way by the greatest foe mankind will ever know and He defeated him. 

In Isa. 45:6-7 more clearly we read: "There is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; [Heb. bā·rā‘ : evil] I am the Lord who does all these." 

God is sovereign over evil. In a sense, evil is part of His eternal plan. It did not take Him by surprise. It is not an interruption to His eternal design/plan for His creation/creatures. He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:9-10). We worship an all-powerful, omniscient God that is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good (Romans 8:28). The worse possible evil (putting to death His Only Begotten Son) brought to pass the ultimate good (the salvation of mankind).

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Islander said:

God IS NOT the author of evil but He wills it for His own Glory and purposes. The scriptures are clear on that point.

Could you please quote a scripture that says that God wills evil for his own glory?

[Islander]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Could you please quote a scripture that says that God wills evil for his own glory?

Without getting into an explanation of what the "glory of God" means, it is clear in scriptures that whatever God does is right because He is ALWAYS right and everything that He does fulfills a purpose bound to the Holy Council of His Will. 

Isaiah 48:9-11 where God says, "For my name’s sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another."

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” (Romans 9:17)

 “And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host; and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord . . . And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I have gotten glory over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen”. (Exodus 14:4, 18; cf. v. 17)

[a_little_taller]

The other thing that isn't made obvious from the New Testament accounts (or from the JST for that matter) is the fact that these two are brothers who knew each other intimately. From the record, Christ did know he was Satan, but it makes me wonder if a) Christ had some degree of veil over his memory as we do, or if b) the authors just didn't write in a way that the familiarity comes across in scripture.

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, a_little_taller said:

The other thing that isn't made obvious from the New Testament accounts (or from the JST for that matter) is the fact that these two are brothers who knew each other intimately. From the record, Christ did know he was Satan, but it makes me wonder if a) Christ had some degree of veil over his memory as we do, or if b) the authors just didn't write in a way that the familiarity comes across in scripture.

or c) the writers just didn't know that Jesus and Satan were brothers or had known each other before when they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to share what they did know.

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, a_little_taller said:

The other thing that isn't made obvious from the New Testament accounts (or from the JST for that matter) is the fact that these two are brothers who knew each other intimately. From the record, Christ did know he was Satan, but it makes me wonder if a) Christ had some degree of veil over his memory as we do, or if b) the authors just didn't write in a way that the familiarity comes across in scripture.

I think it's made clear in the New Testament that they both knew each other well.  For example with Jesus:

"And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."  (Luke 10:17-18)

That's a pretty clear statement of firsthand knowledge of events that transpired in the beginning.  Either Jesus had memory of those events, or it was otherwise made known to him that he was present and had witnessed those events.

And Satan certainly knew who Jesus was, and that is made even more clear through statements from Satan's followers, like in the story of the man who called himself "Legion" because of the many unclean spirits possessing him.  When Jesus approached the man he said: "What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not."  (Mark 5:7).  In the Matthew account the spirits also make it clear that they are aware of a future time of their punishment that will Jesus inflict upon them (Matthew 8:29).