Wow . . . Read This Book, Seriously (or "Satan The Clever Idiot pt. 2")

So . . . I just started reading this book by my pastor in Ohio, Dennis McCallum. The title is Satan and His Kingdom. I don't want to give a summary, because I need to go to bed, but I just read a paragraph here in chapter five that totally cleared up a thought that always bothered me. (This book is SUPER good, by the way. If you can find it, read it! . . . And read the Bible references he points out. Super great.)

Anyways, I was always bothered by the fact that at the cross Jesus said, "My God, My God, Why have You forsaken Me!" I know that Jesus was quoting from Psalm 22 and that had always been explained to me, but . . . I couldn't for the life of me figure out why He would bother doing that. Everyone always said that Jesus said it to fulfill Scripture . . . Um . . . Is it just me, or does that seem like a weird thing to say after Jesus had just lived 30+ years spouting teachings about how great and loving God is? Just to fulfill Scripture He decides to tell God that He was unfaithful to Him? You know? I mean, Jesus did every single thing God every required of anybody . . . Thats a past-cruel way to repay His only begotten Son. Also, it seemed like Jesus was actually being the pansy victim of circumstance that the writers of Jesus Christ Superstar would have all of us believe. Anyways, the thought never sat well with me.

But Pastor McCallum explained...--Here. Lemme just retype the paragraph:

"Imagine Satan looking on when Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (NASB). Perhaps only at that moment did he realize that this psalm (which he would have known by heart) fully predicted the crucifixion. He may have suddenly realized, too late, that he had done exactly what Jesus wanted him to do. At the cross, Satan disproved his own accusations against God."

(That last italicized sentence has to do with a point Ps. Mc made earlier that Satan was always accusing God of being too holy for love. In other words, "Why would a loving God require imperfect people to be perfect, and then punish them for their disobedience?" But...there it was. The entire disproof of the lie in the Person hanging before him on the cross.)

I just love that! Jesus wasn't actually telling God that He'd forsaken Him at all! He was actually almost taunting Satan . . . in this moment of seeming to be at his complete wits end, and Satan thinks he has the upper hand, Jesus, as a picture of humility and suffering, beats Satan at his own game!

With that perspective, I reread Psalm 22 as though I were Satan bringing it to mind in that moment. It's like when you bet everything on three aces because you know your opponent has some low cards, but then they pull out a straight flush. You had part of the story, which made you arrogant, but the very part of the story you missed served as your own undoing. Imagine the sheer devastation to Satan as he watched Jesus, remembering this passage with phrases like, "the band of spoilers have hemmed Me in, piercers of My hands and My feet" and " They divide My garments among them and cast lots for My clothing" as these very actions had just happened.

Then imagine finally realizing this last verse of Psalm 22 for what it REALLY means: "They shall come, and shall declare His righteousness to a people that shall yet be born, that He has done this."

In those few words, Christ wasn't claiming God's unfaithfulness, He was, in fact, proclaiming straight to Satan's innermost being what a true idiot he really is. Jesus was always one for efficiency, after all. I mean, remember when Jesus said it and the crowd all thought He was calling out for Elijah? I think He said those words purely for Satan's benefit, and in the old language that Satan, and a select few scholars, would have actually known!

Brilliant!


1Co 2:6 But, we speak wisdom among those who are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, that come to nothing.
1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, which God has hidden, predetermining it before the world for our glory;
1Co 2:8 which none of the rulers of this world knew (for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory).

Hypocrisy of Atheism pt. 3

Freud and other vocal Atheists have stereotypically used the "Fall of Man" as a point of hypocrisy in the Christian faith. This is their selling point: How can Adam and Eve's choice to eat fruit in the garden curse ALL of mankind? That doesn't seem fair. They feel it is hypocritical of Christians to proclaim love and in the same breath doom people for hell at birth, just because their ancient ancestors ate some fruit.

I found something interesting while reading Freud's book, Civilization and Its Discontents, with his explanation of the origin of guilt. He says that once non-rational chimps figured out how to become sentient humans they began to form tribes. Every tribe had a leader, and every family unit had a father. You see, every son both loved and hated his father. He loved the father because the father was protector and provider. However, he hated the father because every son loved his own mother (See Oedipus Complex); every son wanted to be the father because of the father's higher status; and every son saw his father's weak points and resented him for them. The father didn't make the son happy, and the ultimate goal of every human is to be happy by fulfilling his libido. So what happened? The son killed his father. What happened next is the interesting part.

According to Freud, this is where we got our concept of guilt: As soon as the son killed his father, he remembered how much he'd initially loved the father. He also saw how the murder affected his mother--the object of his love--and he realized his premature and insurmountable tasks of both providing for and protecting himself. The feeling that arose out of all the emotions involved is what we now term "guilt." This is still the going thought for most of the Atheist scholastic world.

Since we have this guilt in our memory from our ancestors, we need redemption, so Freud explains how we, much later, created redemption for ourselves. Naturally, wishfully thinking Christians came up with the image of Jesus Christ and that fixed all the nasty guilt problem. He was at once our "Father" whom we killed and our "Redeemer" who took away the nasty sin. But since He's just a made-up guy, there is actually no hope and so we currently live blissfully on in this false sense of hope. (See my next blog for thoughts on how "no hope" isn't a logical answer.)

This is the Atheist hypocrisy in this thinking: Atheists are simply replacing one "ancestral memory" for another. Either we are sinners because we are born into Adam's curse, or we are born into guilt because caveman ancestors killed their fathers. Either way, guilt...sin...whatever you want to call it, is an inevitability. Either way, all humanity is doomed.

(Furthermore, the Christian view actually explains why women feel guilt. Freud's view doesn't. Freud never mentions women in this equation at all--except being the mother who is grievous over the loss of her husband. Doesn't that seem a little horrible for women to feel a guilt for which they weren't even responsible? Yet . . . Women are statistically quicker and more likely to admit guilt than men. No accounting for that. Oh well. Maybe I just don't have a good understanding of Freud. I've studied his theories for awhile, but this is the first actual book of his that I've read, so maybe he explains it in another book?)

Okay, so let's be fair. I suppose the Christian claim that God is Love is what upsets Atheists. How could a loving God doom all mankind for simply eating fruit? That's just silly. So...do we just replace fruit with killing a guy? Is that more logical? Does it make it easier for me to bear the weight of an ancestral sin if I say that my ancestors were greater sinners than Adam and Eve? Does that somehow make the sin more transferable to starving little babies born in Africa?

Now, I suppose one could argue that the Freudian view doesn't claim that the world was created perfect, like the Christian view does. There is more at stake in the Christian view, because the Christian view says that the world was created perfectly, and that ALL things were cursed after the Fall--which accounts not only for sin, but also for famine, flood, cancer, etc.. However, a naturally caused universe simply evolved sentient beings who act as they've always acted--with the famines, floods, and cancers always having been present.

But isn't there actually more logically at stake in the second view? Let's think about something for a moment. Freud's case states that guilt originated from ancestors killing their fathers. This means, up to that point, no one felt guilt, get it? This means that everyone went about doing things that didn't make them feel guilty. Do you see the problems here? Freud is either repeating the Christian view which accounts for something like a "perfect sinless environment" where no one felt guilty yet, . . . or else Freud's view must be that killing their fathers wasn't something our ancestors cared about until that magical point in time when they became rational enough to realize what they'd done; in which case we must abandon reason in our analysis of such a theory, because why would our ancestors have cared about an act they'd never cared about before? Either way, he's tracing sin back to a starting point and dooming all humanity to lives ridden with guilt, yet he gives no way out of this. There is vastly more at stake here. Again, no hope. (Next blog. For reals.)

As harsh as it is for a Christian to say, "We are all fallen," I would argue that it is just as harsh to say, "We are all guilt-ridden because of our murderous ancestry." Either way, it still affects the starving babies, right? That the inescapable problem.

That was Bart Ehrman's very issue with Christianity in his book God's Problem. He kept pointing out that Christianity is flawed in its promoting this concept of being "fallen" and then saying that poor little starving babies in Africa are just as much to blame for imperfection as the killer on death row. Ehrman is an agnostic and so therefore finds no answers in Scriptures, having supposedly studied them inside and out. His conclusion? He believed that if we all just band together and do our parts, we can make this a beautiful place. Of course, that is a sweet, sentimental thought, but that never happens. Why do people think that if we all put forth a small contribution, that we will eventually make this place wonderful? Does history show us anywhere where that was even close to possible? Compared to the belief that all the horrible, terrible, demonic people could somehow suddenly stop being so detrimental to the rest of humanity (And that's what it would take, you realize? Not for everyone to do some small piece of good, but rather for everyone to stop being evil.), a belief in God doesn't seem as much of a pipe dream, actually.

[A question arises: "So why have charities and helpful organizations in place, if small contributions can't fix the problem anyway?" Ah, but you see, I am not an Atheist; I am a Christian. I believe that these organizations are good, not because we can fix anything, but because we are all created in God's image, and He commands us to help each other.]

Besides all this, the Freudian view of the origin of guilt comes with no fair warnings! No one warned the cavemen that there were direct consequences to their actions. There was no "All-Knowing Being" around to tell them anything, because there is a "No All-Knowing Beings Allowed" sign on the Atheist's philosophical door. There is no hope in the Atheist worldview, because it dooms everyone everywhere to guilty feelings that cannot be ignored and can only be repressed for a short time, only to resurface tenfold later (or drive a person to insanity). Guilty feelings are unavoidable. Perhaps Freud could muse them away and blame them on Christians, yet he admitted the fact that guilty feelings are within us and cannot be escaped. A person can only live guilt-free in this world if he is blissfully ignorant of the horrors of this world, and the horrors within himself--in which case, he is a plague upon all his friends and family.

We all know Adam and Eve were warned:

Gen. 2:15-17
¹⁵ The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. ¹⁶ And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; ¹⁷ but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

(They understood, because Eve repeats the ramifications later in Chapter 3.)

Being born into sin is not a purely Judeo-Christian worldview. It is a staunchly Atheist worldview as well. For an Atheist to claim that original sin is a mind-trap created by Christians is a huge logistical problem, let alone vastly hypocritical. This is because guilt and sin are inevitable and unchangeable by human actions and are paid for by the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Pale Blue Eye

I've been watching some videos on the earth, universe, and cosmos.

One of these videos called "The Privileged Earth," put together from current scientific research, shows further evidence that the earth is not just the Sagan-esque "Pale Blue Dot" that the 1970s wished to teach us. Without going into much explanation, suffice to say the argument put forth is that...

"The most habitable places in the universe also offer the best opportunity for scientific discovery. I believe this implies purpose." ~ Astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez

In other words (although, he said it very clearly the first time), our universe is not only finely tuned to support life, our very position in the galaxy and the universe is also finely tuned to support this place for life. Not only that, but we are in a rare and intensely unique position for observation of the universe.

For instance, if we were not positioned perfectly between two arms of the Milky Way, but instead were nestled into one or the other, there would be too much cosmic dust and star clutter around us for our distinguishing other galaxies from our own. Also, our galaxy is unique in that it is very flat so as not to impede our view of the rest of the universe. Also, the earth's atmosphere is uniquely clear (as opposed to other atmospheric planets) so that we are able to observe the universe clearly. Also, the size of the moon and the sun during a solar eclipse are almost perfectly the same to our eyes, which allows us a privilege of observing the sun's atmosphere which helps us to understand the makeup of the sun and other stars. Also....other things...

I hadn't thought about all that before.

Something else:

One of the special features on this particular DVD is titled "Journey to the edge of the universe," and takes you on a CGI journey from earth to the outer edge of the known universe. Being a nerd, I love seeing all those stars and supernovas zooming past...

Then something hit me.

In the main portion of the video, the scientists came to a conclusion that if we are positioned in such a great place, not only for Darwinian acts such as procreation and base survival, but also in a position for observation for curiosity's sake--a completely unnecessary skill for survival--then that fact implies that perhaps we are supposed to reach out from our unique life-sustaining planet, study the beautifully simple laws of the complex universe, study the outer regions of the universe, and perhaps further realize our purpose for being in this specific position.

Consider this: If we (facing Earth) traveled at the speed of light toward Alpha Centauri, we would hit Mars in four minutes. If we arrived (still facing Earth) at Alpha Centauri, it would take us five years. Further travel would then take us 100 light years just to get to the point of seeing the patterns of light and dust from the two arms of the Milky Way converge. That's as far as we would get in 100 years. And that's without traveling back to the earth to share our findings, you realize.

We haven't yet built any spaceship capable of traveling at the speed of light, let alone sustaining our lives within it traveling that fast. We came to these light year conclusions based on mathematical systems that we figured out and super telescopic cameras we put in space from the safe confines of our little planet.

This is what hit me: we are the only known species of beings that can observe the universe from our little pale blue dot in the sky. Our planet is very like an eye. We were made to observe outwardly, yet....we are incapable (at least for the time being...until we learn to travel faster than the speed of light) of physically traveling outside our very galaxy.

It seems, therefore, that Something wants us to look outside ourselves, yet--at least for the time being--wants us to remain on this lovely finely tuned, uniquely beautiful planet.

Perhaps our best work is supposed to be done within.

Become As Children

Jesus repeatedly tells us that in order to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, we must first become as little children. This is a problem for most intellectuals because they feel that being a child is the opposite of being an open-minded adult.

Six Reasons for Becoming a Child:

First of all, "The Emperor's New Clothes." The Emperor was naked; however, the people were told that only stupid people could see him naked. The adults allowed the deeper, more intellectual argument to control them--because no one wanted to be thought a fool--till they convinced themselves that the Emperor was wearing the most beautiful garment they'd ever witnessed. Instead, the child--seeing the situation at face value and not caring whether he was called a fool--admits that the Emperor was, in fact, naked. Nakedness was the reality. The Truth lay in the simplest answer.

Secondly, humility is the only way that we can know real Truth. Why? This seems like such a simple-minded answer, yet it's the only answer that makes any shred of sense. Being stripped of agenda equals humility in its truest sense. Children are sponges and soak in what they are told. Talk to anyone who has taken a class anywhere. The ones who don't want to learn anything the professor has to teach, don't. Those who humble themselves--even if they do not agree with the professor--do the learning. How can one know Truth if he is not willing to learn?

Thirdly, if the simple could not receive Truth, then Truth would be elitist. Therefore God would be a prejudiced bastard and not loving at all. People from all walks of life are Christians: doctors, lawyers, tribesmen, vegans, NRA members, college professors, toddlers, etc. God must design Truth so that the simplest people can grasp it immediately and the intellectual can grasp it eventually.

Fourthly, God is smarter than we are. If this is really true, then we must be at least children before Him, in that we cannot fathom Him. If God is not smarter than we are, then He is not fit to be called God.

Fifthly, children trust more readily than adults. Tell a child he is a sinner and he understands. Tell an adult, and you have just offended him.

Lastly, Jesus tells us that we have to become as children. In other words, He realizes that there will be many people who do not naturally think as children, but rather want to think deeply--seeing all sides of something. Seeing all sides of something is wonderful and needful; however, as history has shown us, a person can get completely off-track in his thinking quite easily (Copernicus, Nazis, cults, etc.). He tells us to become like children so that we don't veer off the path and buy into a lie. But the point is that He tells us. That means that we, as adults, need to evaluate His reasoning for telling us to do so. Is He trying to brainwash us? Is He trying to pull one over on us? Is He actually telling us the Truth? The fact that He tells us and doesn't force us to become like children shows that the decision is up to us, but that the answer will be always be there staring us in the face until we simply open our eyes to look at it.

Satan: The Clever Idiot

this
Mat. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-14

Above are two parallel passages about Christ's temptations in the wilderness. If you ever went to Sunday School, you are familiar with this story: Christ is in the wilderness for 40 days and receives three temptations from the Devil.

Teachings of this story tend to focus on two things: (1) that Jesus was in a weak state (hunger) from fasting yet did not give into temptation, and so therefore He is an example to us of passing a hard test with shining colors, and (2) that when we are tempted, we have but to quote Scripture and that will make the temptations go away.

I'm being kind of flippant, I realize, and my purpose is not to offend anyone. If those two points are all you get from this story, then you have probably gotten a good thing to some extent: We should use Christ as our example, and we should memorize Scripture. However, I think there is much more to be gained from this than the surface teachings. I am not trying to be esoteric here, but when I looked at this passage for myself the other day, I felt like I needed to share what I learned, because it all hit me like a ton of bricks.

First of all, let's look at where this story happens in the chronology of Christ's life. Both passages happen right after John the Baptist had baptized Jesus. Not only that, but God Himself had openly hailed Jesus as His Son, proclaimed He loved Him, and He was pleased with Jesus.

This is interesting because the last time God had said He was pleased with something was in the Garden of Eden before the fall. God looked at what He created and said that everything was very good. Maybe this is not worth bringing up, but . . . I just think it's interesting that God is similarly pleased with perfect things--both in the Garden and then with Christ.

Since the beginning of time, God has made a way for us to please Him. Originally, He created man without sin, so that pleased Him. But after sin, man had no way to please God, so what did God do? He gave the pleasing Person of Himself to us: Jesus (Phil 2:5-11).

Now, this is something really important to think about, what I'd never thought about before, and what jumped out at me when I was studying these passages: At the start of both Matthew 4 and Luke 4, Satan now had conclusive evidence that Jesus was the Messiah. I mean, of course He knew that the Messiah would be born sometime around the time Christ was born, because of Daniel's 70 Weeks--a prophecy that, strangely enough, you don't hear preached very often today, yet is a prophecy that conclusively points to a date around A.D. 30-34 as the time that the Messiah would be "cut off, but not for Himself" (Daniel 9).

Jewish scholars of that age all knew about this prophecy and other similar prophecies or else Herod wouldn't have freaked out so much when the wise men told him about the star (Matthew 2). Everyone knew a Messiah was due to come around the time Christ came, yet no one really had any idea how it would happen (Anna and Simeon at the end of Luke 2). This is why movies like Monty Python's Life of Brian are funny to only the uninformed. Sure, it seems funny for a bunch of ancient people to be expecting a Messiah all at once, but . . . like . . . they were, so it's not actually that funny. (It's like saying: "Knock knock" "Who's there?" "Red" "Red who?" "Red Apple! Hahahahah!" It's not funny because apples are red and it's not even a play on words. You would hope that no one over the age of seven would say something as sub-juvenile, because below seven it would be cute, but over seven you'd start to wonder if the kid had mental problems . . . Frankly, I think seven is pushing it.)

People were expecting the Christ to come at this point in history. They even asked John the Baptist if he was the Messiah. This is also why there are a few men recorded in history at this time claiming to be the Christ, but the only one that held any validity was Jesus, which was why the Gospels were written in the first place. People of that day all knew of Jesus first-hand, but what about the generations to follow? The Gospel writers didn't want people to get confused over a different Messiah (Jn. 20:31).

If you read all the prophecies about Jesus' coming, you will see that they kind of fall into two groups: a Suffering Servant, and a Coming King. Some people thought this meant there were going to be two Messiahs, and you can see why, because kings and servants are so utterly opposite one another--especially back then. Most people disregarded the suffering prophecies entirely. I mean, a suffering servant doesn't seem Messiah-like at all. No wonder none of the disciples understood Jesus when He blatantly told them over and over, "I'm going to be put to death soon, and then I will rise from the dead." (Mk. 9:31; Mt. 16:21). It doesn't make sense for someone who will ultimately conquer evil to suffer and die, so we can understand the disciples confusion. Of course nowadays, Christians realize that the prophecies point to two times that Christ has and will come to earth: first, the Servant; next, the King.

So the obvious question is why did God make these prophecies so open to interpretation? The answer I once heard a pastor offer is that God knew that Satan was and is a Bible scholar. This makes perfect sense. God specifically presents His prophecies in such a way that those with open eyes can watch for them and realize them when they happen, and so that the Devil and his followers will be completely baffled. The Devil is really clever. He knows His Bible better than any Jew or Christian. He knows the signs, he just doesn't know where they point all the time. Why not? Because fortunately his arrogance completely blinds him up until the point that it is too late for him to do anything about it. For instance, the point I just made about Jesus' telling the disciples that He would be killed. He told his disciples this in confidence, but when He talked to the masses He always said that they would destroy "this temple" and in three days He would raise it again (Jn 2:19). Of course Judas, even though he was a disciple and ostensibly on the inside, had dealings directly with Satan (Lk 22:3; Jn. 13:2), but this didn't give Satan any more information than he already had, and probably confused him even more. If Satan had ever realized what Christ was going to do, he would have done what he could to stop Christ from dying on the cross. As it turned out, Satan played a HUGE role in actually sending Christ to the death that would atone for sin. . . which is the kind of irony that I find hilarious.

Now, with all this in mind, these passages seem ten times clearer to me. Why did Satan tempt Jesus with bread, falling from the temple, and kingdoms of the earth? Simply this: because He thought Jesus was coming as a reigning King and could be flattered into failure--not just to get Jesus to fail in a moment of weakness. I have various reasons for believing this.

First of all, as I've already mentioned, God had basically hung a big blinking neon "Messiah" sign on Jesus at his baptism. Jesus was now out in the open and on display. So Satan had no more reason to wonder who the Messiah was. I'm sure he'd had a pretty good idea that He was Jesus because of the angels, shepherds, wise men, star, and the "I have to be about My Father's business" episodes. But if there was any doubt as to Jesus' being legit, the baptism pretty much put it to rest. (Probably another and better conclusion would be to say that God simply didn't let Satan near Jesus until this point in the wilderness.) Anyway, Satan knew how easy it had been to get Adam to fall. I mean, Jesus is the Son of God, right? Does that mean He's going to be as consistent as God or can He be tripped up like Adam? Would he almost crack like Job? You wonder these things when you are Satan. (This shows that the 100% God and the 100% man conundrum is hard for the spirit world to fathom too, so don't feel bad if you can't wrap your head around it. You are a created being, so it's hard. I know. That's why God gives us Biblical prophecy and faith.)

Both passages talk about Jesus being in the wilderness for 40 days and nights and how hungry He was. I have heard many pastors focus on this so that they could point out that the evils of this world are so strong and that we should never underestimate the power of the Devil, because even Christ Himself had to struggle and fight against temptation. However, I find that point to be completely extra-Biblical. Jesus wasn't weak because He was hungry. He was hungry because he had no food in His system. There is no way Jesus was weakened in this situation. In fact, science has shown us that after an extended period of time of fasting, the body actually stops desiring food. But besides that and the point that is so often missed is that Jesus was fasting on purpose. A Christian doesn't fast by mistake. He fasts for the express purpose of spending time alone with God (or maybe for health reasons . . . but still there is a purposeful reason). This was a time of spiritual strengthening.

How do I know He wasn't weak? Because He shows no signs of being weak. He doesn't skip a beat after Satan offers each lie. He doesn't falter or hesitate or consider Satan's ramblings for one second. After all, the only time in the Bible when we see Christ in a stressed out, perhaps faltering state is in the Garden of Gethsemane when He was sweating, "as it were, drops of blood" (Lk. 22:44) and asking the Father to "let this cup pass from Me." Even then, He wasn't weak. A weak man does not deliver Himself into the hands of the enemy to be slaughtered. So to say Jesus was somehow in a state of weakness in the wilderness, disgusts me to say the least.

Okay, so now let's get into the temptations themselves. I find some strange things when I study these temptations. Something especially odd is that there seems to be an obvious temptation missing. Think about these two words: "Temptation" and "Man." What pops into your head? Probably something like "lust" or "sex." However, none of Satan's temptations have to do with sex--at least not on the surface. It seems kind of weird of me to bring this up, and this is where I hope I'm not being esoteric, because no one can prove anything based on what Satan didn't say to Jesus. I just find this omission really interesting. If I had been Satan and Jesus had actually been in a weakened state, I would have appeared as a beautiful woman, because the success rate of the temptation working would have been so much more likely. Who really knows. At the very least, in my mind, this omission further negates the whole "Jesus being in a weakened state" theory. We all know what men can do in a moment of weakness--it's cliche--and Satan didn't even bother with it. Be that as it may, I realize the lack of a sexual temptation is not a great point, because it's actually a non-point; I just find it interesting.

Actually, before I leave this sexual temptation conundrum alone, I want to make one more point about it. Satan is the Father of Lies. He's not the Father of Fornication. He uses lies to tempt people into sins that he is almost 100% sure they will give into. He probably knew that fornication would never work on Christ since Christ views marriage as a picture of Himself and the church, and so he went for temptations that would be more compelling to a potential King wandering in the wilderness without food.

. . . Okay . . . Enough speculations.

As foolish as it would be for Satan to appear as a beautiful woman, the three actual temptations seem extremely foolish as well. I'm going to point out their foolishness first and then I will tell you how Satan was actually pretty clever.

The first temptation was for Jesus to turn the rocks around Him into bread. How stupid is that? First of all, wouldn't that have occurred to Jesus, Creator of the Universe, within the 40 days prior to this temptation? As I've said, Jesus' purpose was to make Himself physically hungry so He could become spiritually strong. In other words, He was in something of a more focused spiritual state than if He'd been physically full.

So why did Satan offer such a dumb temptation? Well, first of all, Satan doesn't understand the strength of the Holy Spirit. If he did, he never would have thought himself capable of being as great as God (Isaiah 14). All Satan can see is physical and emotional strength and weakness. Look at his tormenting of Job. He was 100% sure that he could get Job to curse God if he made his life a living hell, but it didn't work because of the strength of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the person of God who works directly with our faith; we give Him a little, and He does a lot. He does this great lot for our sakes, but most importantly so that He will receive glory through us even though we are sinners (Rom. 8:12-17).

So imagine a Being who doesn't just have that "mustard seed" of faith, but rather is the Culmination of All Faith; then imagine Him being full of the Holy Spirit. That's not really a Force to reckon with, is it? . . . Yet, Satan did, because he is not wise. Still, you have to hand it to Satan. Jesus was 100% man, so I guess tempting Him with bread was worth a shot. However, Jesus didn't even blink an eye, so Satan had to try something else.

(Now, if you read both passages, you will notice that the second and third temptations are switched. [By the way, I am going to explain them in the Matthew order]. Why is that? If the order really bothers you, please study the texts and let me know what you discover. Currently, this order problem doesn't bother me, because I think that in God's sovereignty He knows that the order of the temptations is not important. I mean, that has to be the answer because Luke wrote his book after Matthew, and Luke would have read Matthew's account before writing his own--especially since Matthew's account was first-hand and Luke had never met Jesus. The point of Luke's book was to inform his friend, Theophilus--which is an honorary title and probably denotes that this friend was some kind of educated person [especially if he had the ability to read this letter]--and would not have made that big of a mistake in a letter to an educated person, so there is little to no reason to think that it even is a mistake. [Look, just read Luke 1:1-4. He explains himself better than I am here, anyway. He's a doctor for heaven's sakes . . .] Therefore, the point is not the order of the temptations, but rather the fact that the temptations had no effect on Christ.

[This is yet another reason why I don't hold to every word of the Bible being somehow mystically perfect. The Bible has proven glitches in it--the end of Mark, the story of the adulteress in John, etc.--but those mistakes never destroy the message as a whole. However, you can only see that message if you read the Bible systematically--applying every verse against every other verse in the Bible. If there is a verse that negates your interpretation of another verse, then your interpretation needs to be reworked. Likewise, it does no good to nit pick semantics when there is a bigger picture. That's how cults start.])

Since Jesus proved Himself stronger than physical hunger, Satan had to try something else. Perhaps if Jesus were coming as a King, He had the arrogance of a king? All earthly kings that Satan knew had high opinions of themselves. Since Jesus' arrogance was (and is) non-existent, this temptation failed too, but let's delve a bit into this second temptation and see exactly why it is so foolish.

I mean, think about how stupid it was to tell Jesus to jump off a building.

You know? I've always thought that was a dumb temptation even when I was little, because why would Jesus even need angels to protect Himself? Jesus could have flown by Himself. Jesus could have landed soft as a daisy. He could have fallen, brushed Himself off, and then walked away. I think this really just shows Satan to be the father of the unsaved theologians of the world. They have all this Biblical knowledge, yet . . . they still somehow reject Christ, because they read the Bible with blinded eyes. He, like those theologians, just wanted to show Jesus that he knew the Bible inside and out in hopes of intimidating Jesus. Satan has the knowledge of a scholar, but the brains of a five-year-old bully when it comes to application of that knowledge. I think Satan figured on one hand that if Jesus did it and the angels did save Him then He was indeed God, but if he wasn't God, Jesus would at the very least kill Himself (?!). Why anyone would think Jesus would be dumb enough to fall into that obvious trap, is beyond me. Even the Pharisees and Sadducees came up with more thought-out ways to stump Jesus.

This is such a big let-down to those of us expecting more from Satan, because his first lie to humanity was so intelligent! Start out speaking truth, flatter the hearer, and then mix in a little white lie. Fool-proof. No doubt Satan was hoping that jumping off the temple would flatter Jesus. I mean, the temple was like the biggest, most well-known structure in Jerusalem. Of course jumping off it and surviving would be huge proof one's Messiah-hood. This is might work on other humans, but doing tricks wasn't Christ's purpose.

The third lie is the dumbest of all. Here, Satan tells Jesus that he will give Him all the kingdoms of the earth if Jesus will bow to him. This is totally stupid for three main reasons. First of all, God created all the kingdoms of the earth by and for Jesus (John 1) . . . so Jesus already owned them. However, maybe Satan was talking about the parts of the kingdoms that Jesus didn't own? Maybe he was telling Jesus that He could have all the sinful pleasures of the world? But what would a Man who spends most of His time at the right-hand of the Almighty want with transient worldly treasures? Stupid. Lastly, and the dumbest of all, is that the qualification for gaining these kingdoms was prostration before Satan. So . . . if Jesus had worshipped Satan, this act would have made Satan not only master of Jesus, but also supreme master of all the kingdoms that he had just promised to give Jesus--so Jesus would actually gain nothing and lose everything. Grrrrrreat. Any five-year-old could see right through this plan! This seems to be the cheapest and most unlikely attempt of all for Satan to get Jesus to fail. It causes one to wonder if maybe Satan made these temptations up at the last minute . . .?

Now, I can't just leave it there, and I hope you realize when I'm being "tongue in cheek," because Satan is actually, in fact, not an idiot. So why did He offer Christ such stupid temptations? Well, I believe that Satan was testing Jesus--not to get Him to crack in a moment of weakness--but to see exactly of what Christ was made. He wanted to see what he really was up against. Any information you can gain about your enemy will potentially help you to know how to attack them later. The really funny thing is that Jesus didn't give him much to work with! I mean, all of these temptations would have had potential if Jesus were indeed a mere man. All three of Satan's temptations had worked on real men before. Men eat when they are hungry, so Satan tested Christ's physical endurance--(see: Esau's Birthright). Men like to show off, so Satan tested Christ's humility (see: David Counts his Fighting Men). Men like to get power the easiest way possible, so Satan offered Him ultimate power for one small act of failure (see: The Fall of Man).

Also, maybe Satan was actually smarter than it seems. Maybe he was playing the fool so that Jesus would get over-confident and fail? Maybe he was fronting stupid arrogance in hopes that Christ wouldn't see his real motives? Either way, it didn't work.

I think this story is really the fabric of the point C.S. Lewis made in the Screwtape Letters. Temptations of this world are actually ridiculously foolish because we have been offered so much more from God. Demons don't realize this, so they tempt us with what they do understand. This is why we should read our Bibles. On the surface, this story shows us that a memorized Bible verse can go a long way in fighting Satan, but that's not what makes Satan go away. I mean, Satan knows Bible verses too, but he leaves Jesus alone after a mere three temptations?! Is his leaving really because Jesus threw three in-context Bible verses at Him? I mean, when you talk to someone of a different faith, do they ever leave you alone after you quote three Bible verses? No. So that's not the real point here. Satan didn't leave because of the verses Christ quoted. He left because, well, for one thing, Jesus commands Him to leave (Mt. 4:10 "Go Satan!. . ." and Lk. 4:12, ". . . you shall not put the Lord your God to the test."). Satan, whether he wants to admit it or not, is actually a slave to Christ's commands and had no other alternative but to leave. But besides that, I think the reason Satan left was because Christ wasn't acting like the conquering hero he was expecting and this puzzled him. Luke 4:13 says that he left until he could come back at an opportune time. This denotes that he had enough information to think about, he was probably frustrated because nothing was working like he'd hoped, and he needed time to rethink some things . . . Also, and this is just my opinion, but I'm pretty sure that Satan was petrified after he saw what he was up against. I'd get out of there as soon as I could too.

Now let me get back to why I don't like the use of Bible verses as some magic wand to fight temptations. First of all, I don't think that memorizing Scripture is bad. It isn't bad; it's good. It's the Word of God. Is there anything better with which to fill your mind? Absolutely not. However, this does not mean using the Bible as a big debate forum with which to cut people down to size. Yes, Hebrews 4:12 says that the Bible is a two-edged sword, but in context this verse is saying that God's Word is Truth so much so that it can cut through the most skeptical of hearts, change lives, and has staying-power throughout history. It is not, however, telling us that we should run around using Bible verses as holy hand grenades. That is immature at least and malicious at worst.

Have you ever been in a debate with someone where you both just hurled verses at each other? If you want this experience, find a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon. If all you do is hurl verses, you end up not getting anywhere. You are both hurling verses and no one ends up backing down, because each side is more interested in one-upping the other rather than helping the other side to find Truth. Trust me; I've (ashamedly) been there, done that. If the interpretation of this story is merely that we should fight the Devil with Bible verses, then why does the Devil, who is sooooo much stronger than we, leave after only three verses? I mean, discussions I have with mere people last much longer than three.

The main and final reason that Satan left Christ after three temptations (which Lk 4:13 kind of leaves room for perhaps more than three, but still...) was because Christ had a perfect understanding of what His Father had to offer and what the world had to offer. Everything versus nothing. There was no reason for Jesus to crack. This is why Jesus is our example in this situation. Yes, it's good to fight temptations in our minds with a Bible verse, but that's not what gives God glory (Obviously just quoting Scripture alone doesn't give God glory because Satan does it!). God is glorified when we realize that ultimately there was no reason for Jesus to give in to temptation because temptations are empty traps, so there is no reason for us to give into them either. C.S. Lewis said it best: "Choose the world and you get nothing. Choose Christ and you get Him and the world thrown in" (paraphrased).




addendum:

Something else occurs to me when reading this. Both passages refer to Christ having the Holy Spirit with Him before Satan enters the scene. Also, He tells Satan that "You will worship the Lord your God, and Him only will you serve." Now thinking about us Christians, it makes perfect sense why we should not worship anyone but God. Of course worshippers of a deity would probably only worship that deity . . . but a Christian especially should, because by bowing before another god, he is actually making the indwelling Holy Spirit bow before another god! Therefore, anyone who says they are a Christian, yet worships another god, is obviously not a Christian because the Holy Spirit cannot worship anything lower than Himself! (This is not to say that we shouldn't treat people of other religions with respect! There is a huge different between respecting someone created in God's image and worshipping a false god.)

The Hypocrisy of Atheism Pt. 2

Atheists don't accept Christianity because Christianity states that God cannot dwell with sin, so therefore ANY sin, no matter how small, keeps a person out of heaven. They cannot accept that a person who generally makes good choices, doesn't kill, doesn't steal, etc. is still unworthy of heaven because of a few small sins.

yet

Most of them would agree that points like equality, respect, kindness, gentleness, fairness, integrity, bravery, love, loyalty, grace, mercy, helpfulness, faithfulness, and truth are good. These aspects are main themes of the Bible. Yet, atheists reject the entire Bible simply because of a few things like the creation account, old laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and God saying that He is supreme.

Why do they have a problem with these verses? Well, obviously, because the doctrines in these small verses are the medium through which people understand the rest of the Bible. For instance, if God isn't supreme, then loving my neighbor as myself comes from a completely different motivation. (Google search: "Freud" and "Libido")

God views our sin similarly. In order for something to be pure, it must be 100% pure. An impure diamond is actually not a full diamond. It is more like 99% diamond and 1% something else. We were made to be pure, but if we do one impure thing, then we are no longer what God made us to be. God is therefore forced to see our good deeds through the context of our bad ones. Think of this: if there were a spot of ketchup on your shirt, you wouldn't go around telling people that it's a clean shirt, even if--save for the spot--the rest was spotless. If there is a sin in your life, then you are not being 100% of what you were created to be. If you spend your day doing 90% of what God wants, but 10% of what Satan wants, then you can't say you were 90% living for God. You were either living for God the entire time, or you weren't. If you are 10% Satan's then you are actually 100% Satan's. Or think of it another way. If a wife is 90% faithful to her spouse and has affairs 10% of the time, is she faithful or unfaithful? That little 10% actually makes her 100% unfaithful. Furthermore, any faithful acts she performs to her husband, become nothing less than a lie to hide the adultery. She is not being a wife anymore but a 100% liar and adulteress. However, she was intended to be 100% wife.

Do you see? This is why God died for you, so you can accept Him and God can view you through Jesus' perfection instead of your own failures. You are GOING to fail. That's a given. But guess what, you don't need to stress out, because you don't have to be recognized a failure unless you reject God's payment.

God fixes His "discrimination" problem by dying for us. What do atheists do to fix their discrimination problem? Nothing. Therefore, their rejection of the whole Bible for some picayune details is hypocritical if they are going to further reject God because of His condemnation of unbelievers for every sin they commit.

The Hypocrisy of Atheism Pt. 1

We all know that Christians are hypocrites. This fact is well explained and parodied throughout modern media. Today, even with movements like "Intelligent Design" and books like "Darwin's Black Box" people who believe in God or at least acknowledge the possibility of a Creator are considered unintelligent to a degree. Let me put it another way with a dialogue that I heard a few years ago:

Woman 1: Do you believe in God?

Woman 2: Yes, I grew up Catholic. But my husband doesn't believe in Him.

Woman 1: Why?

Woman 2: Well,...He's a scientist.

Woman 1: OoooOOoooh. I see.

Woman 2: Yes.

Okay, before you think this is going to be another Evolution vs. Creation blog, don't worry. It's not. My thesis for this series is: Atheists criticize Christians for being hypocritical, when they themselves are hypocrites as well.

Before I go into my point for today, let me begin by saying that hypocracy, unfortunately, is simply a human trait. There is really no complete escaping of it. It's one of those "as soon as you realize that you are humble, you are proud" things. There are two reasons this is so unfortunate. First of all, Christians SHOULDN'T be hypocritical because they have "The Truth." Secondly, the rest of the world uses this hypocrasy to keep from becoming Christians. As long as they can find fault in the followers, they don't have to follow the Leader.

Today, atheism is considered the "smart man's philosophy." I am in Korea and there is a forum here for English teachers and one of the topics a few weeks ago was, "Why are Christians so stupid?" It was a forum created by a bunch of atheists...who quite obviously have it all together, because they are the experts on everything, because they KNOW for a fact that there is no God.

That said, one of the reasons that Atheists say that Christians are hypocritical is that we believe in a loving God who at the same time wants people to go to heaven, but also condemns people to hell. How could a loving God do such a thing? Well, immediately the well-taught Christian gets out his pocket Bible and starts quoting verses about how God is so perfect. But then the well-taught atheist....wait. Let me just do another dialogue:

Atheist: You are a hypcrit.

Christian: How so...this time?

A: Because you say your God is so loving, yet He condemns people to hell.

C: But He doesn't WANT to. II Pet. 3:9.

A: That's not the point. The point is that he DOES it.

C: Well...but God is perfect, and He cannot dwell with sin.

A: But...I don't do bad things. I've never robbed a bank and I've never killed anyone.

C: Have you ever lied or cheated? Have you ever hated?

A: Yes. So? I know what you are getting at, but I don't buy it.

C: What am I getting at?

A: You are going to tell me the old tired explanation that just a little bit of sin makes you worthy of hell, and I just can't accept that.

C: Why not?

A: Because it's terrible. Just because I cheated on a test in 10th grade doesn't mean I should burn for all eternity.

C: Okay, I get it. You are saying that the punishment should fit the crime, and that a life-time of torment is a huge price to pay for messing up once or twice.

A: Exactly.

Now...there are many ways of looking at this, and there are many other further explanations as to why this is actually the logistical fallacy of "Over Simplification." For one thing, none of us have only messed up once or twice. Rather, if we are honest with ourselves, we will realize that, yes, we mess up once or twice . . . every couple of hours. For another thing, the Bible tells us that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" (Gal. 5:9). Or to coin an English cliche: "One bad apple ruins the whole bunch." In other words, all it takes to make purity no longer pure is to have one impurity. Jewel experts understand this or else they would never make a living. A pure diamond is priceless not only because it is so rare, but also because it--more than other diamonds--is actually 100% diamond. When a diamond is 90% pure, this is another way of saying that it is 90% diamond. It is 10% impurity. We were created to be 100% perfect by a 100% perfect God, therefore, for us to be ANY less is to go against our very basis of existing.

Atheists don't like this because it sounds so final and doesn't give them any choice. However, they are obviously given choice since they are allowed to refuse God. The fact that they aren't struck down by lightening for rejecting God is because God gives them a choice.

But that's not really my point today. My point is that Atheists say that Christianity is hypocritcal because God claims to be loving, yet cannot tolerate even a little bit of sin. However, they do the same exact thing. Let's go back to the dialogue:

A: Your religion is hypocritical because your "loving" God condemns people to hell even if they've tried to be good all their lives.

C: But you do the same thing.

A: How so?

C: Do you believe the Bible?

A: Absolutely not.

C: Absolutely not?

A: Yes.

C: So, the parts about loving your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18), or equality (Gal 3:28), or kindness (Eph. 4:32), or peace (Rom 12:18), or showing respect (Eph. 5:21), or protecting widows and orphans (Jms. 1:27)--

A: Okay stop quoting verses, that is driving me insane. I don't believe in the Bible, so you don't need to allude to it.

C: Okay, fine. Or justice, or safety, or honesty, or faithfulness, or integrity, or bravery, etc.--all that stuff is just a bunch of baloney, then.

A: No. We both know that stuff is good. What is your point?

C: But you just said you absolutely didn't believe the Bible.

A: Well, I believe those things are true, but I don't believe in the parts of the Bible where women are supposed to be repressed, or where it says that God created the world 6,000 years ago, or that I am going to hell because I don't believe Jesus was anything more than a man.

C: So because of a few verses you don't like, you are going to write off the entire book. You won't even let me quote from the verses you DO happen to agree with simply because of a few misrepresented verses taken out of context?

A: Yeah, so?

C: Nothing. It's just hypocritical. You have a problem with God condemning you for a few little sins, yet you reject the entire Bible because of a few little verses. You, more than me, should understand why God has a problem with "a few little things."