When the devil had finished every temptation tempting Jesus, he left Him until the next opportunity came.Luke 4:13
Many see in the comment “every temptation” the idea that the three temptations fall into categories which sum up all the possible temptations we face. This notion is contrasted with the idea that three temptations were selected by Matthew and Luke or by tradition but were by no means the only temptations Jesus faced in the wilderness.
Let’s return to Shelley’s input or challenge related to the temptations of Jesus and those Adam and Eve faced. I have clipped Shelley‘s comments below to pique your curiosity and spark friendy debate as Shelley says:
“The pillar I am covering this time is ‘Dependence versus Independence: the DNA of temptation. Anyway, all that to say that Genesis 3 is the core of my message where we will look at what I consider the DNA the foundational lies we each have to consider when we are tempted.
The enemy said three things to Eve,
“Did God really say….?; (in today’s language, there is no such thing as absolute truth) “you shall not die” (there are no consequences, you can get away with it…) “God knows that when you do …” (God is a killjoy, being a Christian is a narrow life etc).
So when it comes to the temptation of Jesus in the gospels, I (Shelley) absolutely see this, not as a test of whether or not Jesus will fall for the enemy’s temptation, for Jesus is God, are you seriously considering that He can sin ??? what would happen!!!
I (Shelley) am convinced that the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness because Jesus was to take back, as the second Adam, what the first Adam lost. He did not go to be tempted, he went to take back, to succeed where Adam had failed. I cannot see that at any time Almighty God was in a position of being subjugated to the devil – do the areas of temptation that Adam and Eve fell in, find a parallel in the temptation of Jesus? I think so.”
My Wycliffe friend and colleague Michael says the following:
“You’re (meaning me, Ian) probably of the insight that Matthew presents the three temptations in the order of: “lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, boastful pride of life” (1 John 2:16). But what is more likely: that Matthew changed the order to fit this three-fold statement on the source worldly temptations? That the Apostle John wrote this three-fold statement based on Matthew’s temptations stories? Or that the way that Matthew’s temptation stories happen to line up with 1 John 2:16 is — well, let’s not say coincidence, let’s say Providence!
Modern Evangelicalism often divides the sources of temptation into: the world, the flesh, the devil. The context of 1 John 2:16 is about the world. The context of the Temptation stories in Matthew and Luke is the devil, though he uses fleshly things like hunger and the desire for fame and power.”
Others feel the three temptations represent the appetites, the nerves and the ambitions. Still others feel it represents an attack on Jesus person, the second the nature of His work and lastly the test for Him to use divine aid to help Him succeed in His work.
What do you think? The ball is in your court for a day to see what you make of it all. Remember to ponder these temptations in the light of the temptations Adam and Eve faced in Genesis.
Problem for Eve was that she let some snake tell her what to do!Harvey Cox
To defeat temptation you must first recognize how it happens.Anon
Opportunity may knock once but temptation bangs on the front door forever.Anon