ccolinh

Two things...

I recently heard the assertion by a Christian that Jesus, by his divine nature, could not have chosen to accept the temptations of Satan in the desert.

Doesn't this imply that J didn't have free will and thereby could not be a human?

Does this assertion have any biblical support?


Secondly...

Biblically, was Satan given dominion over the earth?? And, if so, was it before or after Adam's fall?

Where can I find this info in the bible?

Chad

Diogenes the Cynic

The answer to the first question is that yes, it would mean that Jesus did not have free will and no, such a position has no Biblical support.

The answer to the second question is that Revelation 12:9 says that Satan was "hurled to Earth with his angels," and a couple of other verses imply some sort of Satantic dominion on Earth (2 Cor. 4:4 calls him "God of this world," and John 14:30 calls him "Prince of this world.") There is nothing that specifies a time for this "dominion" (and this is purely a Christian conception. Satan in the HB and in Judaism is not the Devil). Since this is a pretty late developing idea and not much fleshed out in the NT, I don't think a time can be extropolated from these meager textual allusions.

For the record, though, the "serpent" in Genesis is not Satan. It's literally just a talking snake.

Spaz

I guess technically satan couldn't possibly be given dominion over the earth before adam's fall since at the time of the writing of that part of the bible there was no satan. Satan as a concept (adversary to God) wasn't developed until much later.

Docevil

As others have mentioned, there are verses that Christians use to say Satan was given dominion of the earth. I honestly can't remember when they believe it occured. Since Adam was supposed to be king of the world (I'm assuming this because Jesus is referred to as a 'Second Adam' in one of Paul's letters), I would guess it would have had to have taken place after the Fall, not before it.

Doc

spin

The problem here is that "sin" equates to going against the will of God. If Jesus is God as per the trinitarians that's impossible, and if Jesus is simply the chosen of God he is acting for God and going against that will is improbable.


spin

Diogenes the Cynic

I just meant that there is nothing in the Gospels which exlicitly says that he couldn't give into temptation. You make a good point about implicit contradictions, though.

I'm going to think about it and maybe do some reading of the passages in question.

spin

I think there is a similar problem with temptation as well. Tempt God not to do the will of God?

(There's a lot of interesting problems in this area. My favourite is that God cannot meaningfully be good, for if he is the standard for all goodness, there is nothing that can be a standard for him.)


spin

Docevil

Well, technically, he could be a standard to himself (hence the whole 'I swear by myself, stuff), but that were so, he's done an abysmal (sp?) job of it.

Doc

spin

I think it's meaningless to have the referent and the reference being the same. This car goes as fast as it goes. He is as strong as he is. Her age is her age. That plant's greenness is the greenness of that plant.


spin

Diogenes the Cynic

Another good example of this contradiction is Jesus asking God to "remove the cup.'

"Not my will but yours be done" makes no sense if Jesus is God. How could they have opposing wills?