Basic Principle of Bible Interpretation - Matthew 4:5-7

[- DRA -]

Matthew 4:5-7 (ESV - the latest of the literal translations) ...
4:5
Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple
4:6
and said to him, If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, He will command his angels concerning you,and On their hands they will bear you up,lest you strike your foot against a stone.
4:7
Jesus said to him, Again it is written, You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.

In the midst of Jesus' temptations by the devil, Jesus is taken to the top of the temple where the devil quotes Psalm 91:11-12, trying to get Jesus to deliberately jump. As I look at Psalm 91:11-12, I think the devil quoted it accurately. And, I think the passage applied to Jesus as much as it does to anyone else. However, Jesus doesn't jump from the temple. Instead, He quotes Deuteronomy 6:16. This passage doesn't say anything specifically about jumping from the top of the temple, but in its context seems to be addressing those who worshipped idols. In essence, God tells them through Moses that this such action is tempting or testing God. It is my understanding that Jesus applies the principle taught in Deut. 6:16 to the devil's request for Him to jump from the temple. Therefore, I see Jesus' point being that to deliberately jump from the top of the temple would be to "test God," which would be a sin. Therefore, Jesus would not jump -- and did NOT sin. Does this make sense to anyone else?

Now, to me, the big issue is what we should learn from the text in Matthew 4:5-7. I believe Jesus is teaching us that our understanding from a particular passage or text of Scripture should agree or harmonize with other passages. In essence, I believe that Jesus is showing us that although God does indeed offer protection (i.e. Psalm 91:11-12), that doesn't mean that we can go out and deliberately test Him (i.e. Deut. 6:16). In essence, I believe He is showing us that passages will harmonize when the truth is obtained. From another angle, when passages conflict or contradict each other, the truth has NOT yet been reached. Does this make sense to anyone else?

I bring this text up for a reason. Frequently, in the midst of studies on various topics, someone will express an understanding of a passage or text that clearly contradicts another passage. In the heat of the battle (i.e. contending earnestly for the truth - Jude 3), I have found folks are very reluctant to discuss what Jesus taught in Matt. 4:5-7. Therefore, what I would like to accomplish in this thread, is just to study and discuss what Jesus reveals to us in this text concerning Bible interpretation. I think He reveals a necessary -- but often overlooked -- step to understanding God's word and how we come to the understanding of His word that God wants us to have.

So, without any particular topic in mind other than the text itself in Matthew 4:5-7, I would like to know what you understand this text to teach. I believe Jesus is revealing something to us about Bible interpretation, and I sure don't want to misunderstand Him. Therefore, let's discuss the passage ...

:idea:

[Thomas74053]

I agree. I think there should always be 2 or 3 witnesses found elsewhere.

[JoeV]

I agree. I was in a religious debate one time and the atheist was saying that the Bible contradicts itself (I don't remember the passages). Then I told him that you have to consider the WHOLE BIBLE, and then come to a logical conclusion. This is what you have to ask: What do other passages relating to this one tell us about how to interpret it? What is the context of the passage? Is there something in the passage that is implied?

[- DRA -]

I agree. I think there should always be 2 or 3 witnesses found elsewhere.

Thanks for your response. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand the "witnesses" to be other relevant passages. Kinda' like a checks and balances system. Is that correct? That's the way I view the Scriptures. Things are linked. Therefore, when the truth is understood, things harmonize from different angles. However, when things don't harmonize, then I conclude I've messed up somewhere. :scratch:

[- DRA -]

I agree. I was in a religious debate one time and the atheist was saying that the Bible contradicts itself (I don't remember the passages). Then I told him that you have to consider the WHOLE BIBLE, and then come to a logical conclusion. This is what you have to ask: What do other passages relating to this one tell us about how to interpret it? What is the context of the passage? Is there something in the passage that is implied?

Thanks for your comments.

For sure, if there were any errors in the New Testament books, the Jews that opposed Jesus and His disciples would have pointed them out and used them to discredit the N.T. Scriptures. I don't know of any credible evidence where they were able to do that.

You make some excellent points. I agree wholeheartedly that other related passages offer insight into interpretation. However, I have seen some folks use other passages to disregard or undermine what a passage says. I don't think that is how Bible interpretation is supposed to work. Here's a non-controversial example of the principle I have in mind:
Proverbs 26:4-5 (ESV)
4 Answer not a fool according to his folly,lest you be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,lest he be wise in his own eyes.

So, do I accept verse 4 and disregard or ignore verse 5?
Or, do I accept verse 5 and disregard verse 4?
Or, do I disgregard both verses because they seem to contradict each other (i.e. reasoing like the atheist)?
Or, do I accept both verses and recognize there is a particular way I shouldn't repond to a foolish person, and also a particular way that I should respond to the fool to help/her realize their spiritual condition?

My understanding is that I have to accept both verses ... not one or the other. Does that make sense?

[oberland]

Hi DRA,

One of the unique things about the Bible is its ability to teach different things to different people from the same passage, depending on where they are in their walk with the Lord, truly the living Word!

Given the above, one take on that passage is that Jesus was being tempted to act outside the timing of our father, and he was refusing to do so, as he said in the gospel of John and elsewhere:

Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner

Its one of the reoccurring messages in the gospel story that Jesus didn’t do anything outside the will of our father, including the sin of presumption, if only that were true in my life!

Oberland

[oberland]

Hi all,

I saw this and I thought it might be helpful:

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I don’t think that these passages are contradictory, although to our modern way of writing and thinking it might seem that way, it’s a question of timing, and discernment, the following from Gill (via e-sword)


Pro 26:5 - Answer a fool according to his folly,....
The Targum is,

"but speak with a fool in thy wisdom;''

and the Syriac version,

"yea, speak with a fool according to thy wisdom;''

which would at once remove the seeming contradiction in these words to the former, but then they are not a true version; indeed it is right, and must be the sense, that when a fool is answered, as it is sometimes necessary he should, that it be done in wisdom, and so as to expose his folly; he is to be answered and not answered according to different times, places, and circumstances, and manner of answering; he is to be answered when there is any hope of doing him good, or of doing good to others; or of preventing ill impressions being made upon others by what he has said; when the glory of God, the good of the church, and the cause of truth, require it; and when he would otherwise glory and triumph, as if his words or works were unanswerable, as follow;

lest he be wise in his own conceit; which fools are apt to be, and the rather when no answer is given them; imagining it arises from the strength of their arguments, and their nervous way of reasoning, when it is rather from a neglect and contempt of them.

[- DRA -]

Hi all,

I saw this and I thought it might be helpful:

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I don’t think that these passages are contradictory, although to our modern way of writing and thinking it might seem that way, it’s a question of timing, and discernment, the following from Gill (via e-sword)


Pro 26:5 - Answer a fool according to his folly,....
The Targum is,

"but speak with a fool in thy wisdom;''

and the Syriac version,

"yea, speak with a fool according to thy wisdom;''

which would at once remove the seeming contradiction in these words to the former, but then they are not a true version; indeed it is right, and must be the sense, that when a fool is answered, as it is sometimes necessary he should, that it be done in wisdom, and so as to expose his folly; he is to be answered and not answered according to different times, places, and circumstances, and manner of answering; he is to be answered when there is any hope of doing him good, or of doing good to others; or of preventing ill impressions being made upon others by what he has said; when the glory of God, the good of the church, and the cause of truth, require it; and when he would otherwise glory and triumph, as if his words or works were unanswerable, as follow;

lest he be wise in his own conceit; which fools are apt to be, and the rather when no answer is given them; imagining it arises from the strength of their arguments, and their nervous way of reasoning, when it is rather from a neglect and contempt of them.

:wave:

Thanks for insight. I believe we are in agreement. The passages don't contradict each other. There is a way to NOT respond to a fool -- and a way to respond. I believe Bible interpretation demands that we accept both passages (i.e. "All Scripture is breathed out [inspired] by God ... 2 Tim. 3:16a - ESV), not one or the other. Agree?

[mysterychristian]

Matthew 4:5-7 (ESV - the latest of the literal translations) ...
4:5
Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple
4:6
and said to him, If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, He will command his angels concerning you,and On their hands they will bear you up,lest you strike your foot against a stone.
4:7
Jesus said to him, Again it is written, You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.

In the midst of Jesus' temptations by the devil, Jesus is taken to the top of the temple where the devil quotes Psalm 91:11-12, trying to get Jesus to deliberately jump. As I look at Psalm 91:11-12, I think the devil quoted it accurately. And, I think the passage applied to Jesus as much as it does to anyone else. However, Jesus doesn't jump from the temple. Instead, He quotes Deuteronomy 6:16. This passage doesn't say anything specifically about jumping from the top of the temple, but in its context seems to be addressing those who worshipped idols. In essence, God tells them through Moses that this such action is tempting or testing God. It is my understanding that Jesus applies the principle taught in Deut. 6:16 to the devil's request for Him to jump from the temple. Therefore, I see Jesus' point being that to deliberately jump from the top of the temple would be to "test God," which would be a sin. Therefore, Jesus would not jump -- and did NOT sin. Does this make sense to anyone else?

Now, to me, the big issue is what we should learn from the text in Matthew 4:5-7. I believe Jesus is teaching us that our understanding from a particular passage or text of Scripture should agree or harmonize with other passages. In essence, I believe that Jesus is showing us that although God does indeed offer protection (i.e. Psalm 91:11-12), that doesn't mean that we can go out and deliberately test Him (i.e. Deut. 6:16). In essence, I believe He is showing us that passages will harmonize when the truth is obtained. From another angle, when passages conflict or contradict each other, the truth has NOT yet been reached. Does this make sense to anyone else?

I bring this text up for a reason. Frequently, in the midst of studies on various topics, someone will express an understanding of a passage or text that clearly contradicts another passage. In the heat of the battle (i.e. contending earnestly for the truth - Jude 3), I have found folks are very reluctant to discuss what Jesus taught in Matt. 4:5-7. Therefore, what I would like to accomplish in this thread, is just to study and discuss what Jesus reveals to us in this text concerning Bible interpretation. I think He reveals a necessary -- but often overlooked -- step to understanding God's word and how we come to the understanding of His word that God wants us to have.

So, without any particular topic in mind other than the text itself in Matthew 4:5-7, I would like to know what you understand this text to teach. I believe Jesus is revealing something to us about Bible interpretation, and I sure don't want to misunderstand Him. Therefore, let's discuss the passage ...

:idea:
Hello, The main thing to learn here is HOW Jesus Christ resisted the temptations of the devil, which is very important for a Christian to learn, the renewed mind is a very unknown subject to most Christians, but in these verses we are to learn that when we are tempted by the adversary we are to immediatly reply, "IT IS WRITTEN" in other words the word of God that fits the situation at hand should be confessed in our minds and at times if needed out loud, it is the introduction of light that dispells all darkness.

This is HOW we battle, our major battle which is the battle of the mind, the old man nature verses the new man nature, replacing old thoughts with new and when tempted with something contrary to the word, confront it with the WRITTEN WORD.... This is exactly HOW the devil works to take down unknowledgable christians, it is HOW he deceived EVE in GENESIS 3 1-5, GOD had said "thou shalt surely die" and the adversary said "has GOD said" questioning God's word, and then EVE conversed with the serpent amd she questioned the word and changed the word and added to the word then she no more had God's Word and the fall of man resulted, this Could have been prevented had she done what Jesus Christ did, "IT IS WRITTEN" GOD has said that in that very day thou shaly surely die... Do you see wha I am getting at???

I Do believe that a basic principle in biblical research is that verses cannot contradict each other, ,that is true but there is much more to it than that and I believe that these verses you are talking about are to teach us HOW to stand against the temptations of the advesary in a practical way that we can learn and apply in our daily lives...

Bless