How was turning stones into bread a temptation in Matthew 4:3/Luke 4:3?

[JSRG]

The devil's attempt to tempt Jesus is well known from Matthew 4:1-11. The pertinent portion for us is Matthew 4:1-4:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written,

“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

The same account is in Luke (Mark also mentions it, but skips over the specifics of the temptations). Now, the subsequent two temptations were to suggest that Jesus jump off the temple for angels would save Jesus, and the last was to offer Jesus the world in exchange for worshipping the devil.

But there seems a dissonance to me here. The latter two temptations--particularly as demonstrated by the passages Jesus cites--are actually wrong things to do. You shouldn't jump off of a temple roof and you definitely shouldn't worship the devil, even in exchange for the world. But what is wrong with turning stones to become bread? In fact, while not specifically done from stones, we do have the miraculous multiplying of the bread described elsewhere in the Gospels. Even the passage Jesus used to refute the offer doesn't actually condemn the eating of bread in any way; it just says not to live by bread alone. There seems nothing wrong with eating bread, and the miracle of the loaves indicates there's nothing wrong with miraculously creating bread either.

Thus I'm confused, and perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can explain. What exactly was wrong with turning the stones into bread to eat that made it a temptation to be resisted?

 

[trophy33]

The devil's attempt to tempt Jesus is well known from Matthew 4:1-11. The pertinent portion for us is Matthew 4:1-4:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written,

“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

The same account is in Luke (Mark also mentions it, but skips over the specifics of the temptations). Now, the subsequent two temptations were to suggest that Jesus jump off the temple for angels would save Jesus, and the last was to offer Jesus the world in exchange for worshipping the devil.

But there seems a dissonance to me here. The latter two temptations--particularly as demonstrated by the passages Jesus cites--are actually wrong things to do. You shouldn't jump off of a temple roof and you definitely shouldn't worship the devil, even in exchange for the world. But what is wrong with turning stones to become bread? In fact, while not specifically done from stones, we do have the miraculous multiplying of the bread described elsewhere in the Gospels. Even the passage Jesus used to refute the offer doesn't actually condemn the eating of bread in any way; it just says not to live by bread alone. There seems nothing wrong with eating bread, and the miracle of the loaves indicates there's nothing wrong with miraculously creating bread either.

Thus I'm confused, and perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can explain. What exactly was wrong with turning the stones into bread to eat that made it a temptation to be resisted?

Right now, I can think of three hypothesis:
1. Jesus was not supposed to break the fast before time (full 40 days?)
2. Using miracles for His own personal good; The bread would be just for Him, not for others like in other places of gospels. He came to serve (Mt 20:28).
3. Generally, acting according to advice of Satan was considered temptation, even if nothing was technically immoral in the act itself. But it would legalize satan as somebody we can listen to.

 

[friend of]

Thus I'm confused, and perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can explain. What exactly was wrong with turning the stones into bread to eat that made it a temptation to be resisted?

It would defeat the whole purpose of being tempted by the devil.

If Christ were to have done that, then what would have stopped Him from coming down off the cross, mid crucifixion and heal Himself in front of the Jews?

He came to live a human life in order to properly be our propitiation.

 

[disciple Clint]

The devil's attempt to tempt Jesus is well known from Matthew 4:1-11. The pertinent portion for us is Matthew 4:1-4:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written,

“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

The same account is in Luke (Mark also mentions it, but skips over the specifics of the temptations). Now, the subsequent two temptations were to suggest that Jesus jump off the temple for angels would save Jesus, and the last was to offer Jesus the world in exchange for worshipping the devil.

But there seems a dissonance to me here. The latter two temptations--particularly as demonstrated by the passages Jesus cites--are actually wrong things to do. You shouldn't jump off of a temple roof and you definitely shouldn't worship the devil, even in exchange for the world. But what is wrong with turning stones to become bread? In fact, while not specifically done from stones, we do have the miraculous multiplying of the bread described elsewhere in the Gospels. Even the passage Jesus used to refute the offer doesn't actually condemn the eating of bread in any way; it just says not to live by bread alone. There seems nothing wrong with eating bread, and the miracle of the loaves indicates there's nothing wrong with miraculously creating bread either.

Thus I'm confused, and perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can explain. What exactly was wrong with turning the stones into bread to eat that made it a temptation to be resisted?

Turning stones to bread would be yielding to the flesh desire, Jesus was hungry.
Jumping off the temple would be displaying His pride by showing that the angels would save Him as it states in O.T. prophesy. (see how important I am)
Worshiping Satan would be abandoning the mission assigned to Him by the Father thru disobedience to avoid the pain that was to come. (Thus pride again along with disobedience) (placing His comfort above the needs of sinners) ( loving Himself more than mankind)

 

[disciple Clint]

Right now, I can think of three hypothesis:
1. Jesus was not supposed to break the fast before time (full 40 days?)
2. Using miracles for His own personal good; The bread would be just for Him, not for others like in other places of gospels. He came to serve (Mt 20:28).
3. Generally, acting according to advice of Satan was considered temptation, even if nothing was technically immoral in the act itself. But it would legalize satan as somebody we can listen to.

the 40 days had passed.

 

[ewq1938]

Stone flavored bread is horrible, possibly evil.

 

[trophy33]

the 40 days had passed.

Maybe not exactly to the last hour.

 

[johnjanuary1984]

Thats a good question. Maybe Jesus goal was to not break the fast, idk. Nothing wrong with eating bread unless your on the keto diet.

 

[johnjanuary1984]

Turning stones to bread would be yielding to the flesh desire, Jesus was hungry.
Jumping off the temple would be displaying His pride by showing that the angels would save Him as it states in O.T. prophesy. (see how important I am)
Worshiping Satan would be abandoning the mission assigned to Him by the Father thru disobedience to avoid the pain that was to come. (Thus pride again along with disobedience) (placing His comfort above the needs of sinners) ( loving Himself more than mankind)

But Didn't Jesus yield to the flesh in John 19:28 ??? Whats wrong with eating when your hungry?? Is a person only suppose to eat 1 meal every 40 days ???

 

[disciple Clint]

Maybe not exactly to the last hour.

Mat 4
1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, He was hungry. 3The tempter came to Him and said, “If You are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”…
Luke 4:
1Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2where for forty days He was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He was hungry. 3The devil said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.”…

 

[disciple Clint]

But Didn't Jesus yield to the flesh in John 19:28 ??? Whats wrong with eating when your hungry?? Is a person only suppose to eat 1 meal every 40 days ???

OK John 19:28 is in fulfillment of the scriptures (Ps 22:15). No problem with eating allowing the devil talk you into satisfying your flesh is a problem.

 

[trophy33]

Mat 4
1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, He was hungry. 3The tempter came to Him and said, “If You are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”…
Luke 4:
1Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2where for forty days He was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He was hungry. 3The devil said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.”…

Depends on how technically exact these texts are, it was frequent in those days to round numbers up to symbolic amount (7, 14, 40...).

But I do not disagree with you, I am just throwing ideas for the OP to consider.

 

[johnjanuary1984]

Depends on how technically exact these texts are, it was frequent in those days to round numbers up to symbolic amount (7, 14, 40...).

But I do not disagree with you, I am just throwing ideas for the OP to consider.

Well if you believe a day is a thousand years then that must mean Jesus fasted for 40,000 years

 

[trophy33]

Well if you believe a day is a thousand years then that must mean Jesus fasted for 40,000 years

But also a thousand years is just a day... so....

 

[disciple Clint]

Depends on how technically exact these texts are, it was frequent in those days to round numbers up to symbolic amount (7, 14, 40...).

But I do not disagree with you, I am just throwing ideas for the OP to consider.

40 days was used because it is the day per year for the wandering in the wilderness, types and shadows as Jesus proceeds to do the things necessary to take the people to the ultimate promise land.

 

[disciple Clint]

Well if you believe a day is a thousand years then that must mean Jesus fasted for 40,000 years

the 1,000 years to one day applies to prophesy

 

[johnjanuary1984]

But also a thousand years is just a day... so....

Exactly.

 

[trophy33]

40 days was used because it is the day per year for the wandering in the wilderness, types and shadows as Jesus proceeds to do the things necessary to take the people to the ultimate promise land.

Were they wandering in the wilderness exactly 40*365 days, to the last hour? Or is it round up a bit?

 

[disciple Clint]

Were they wandering in the wilderness exactly 40*365 days, to the last hour? Or is it round up a bit?

I have to tell the truth, I was not there at the time.

 

[trophy33]

I have to tell the truth, I was not there at the time.

Yes. And in the similar way Jesus could be still just in the end of the fast, not exactly just one minute after it.

But its just an idea. Hard to prove or disprove.