<h3>Chapter # 4 Paragraph # 1 Study # 2<br />Lincolnton, NC<br />July 2, 2006</h3>

<259>

AV Translation:
<br />2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered. 
<br />3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. 
<br />4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. 
 
1901 ASV Translation:
<br />2 during forty days, being tempted of the devil. And he did eat nothing in those days: and when they were completed, he hungered. 
<br />3 And the devil said unto him, if thou art the Son of God, command this stone that it become bread. 
<br />4 And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone. 

Luke's Record:
	<ul><li>I. The Temptation to Turn Stones to Bread. 
		<ul><li>A. The text tells us that Jesus was &quot;being tempted&quot; (perhaps implying an on-going process during the forty days), but the &quot;temptation&quot; to convert stones to bread would, obviously, have its greatest appeal <b><i><u>at the end</u></i></b> of the 40 days (though at any time up to that end, Jesus would have been hungry). 
		<li>B. This temptation was not about &quot;feeling hunger pains&quot;; it was about sustaining &quot;life&quot;. The ability to go without food for 40 days varies with different individuals because of the amount of &quot;excess&quot; reserves that are being carried about. Once a person reaches the &quot;end&quot; of the reserves, death ensues. 
		<li>C. The &quot;tempter&quot; is called &quot;the devil&quot;. The &quot;name&quot; is a descriptive title that focuses upon the essential characteristic of &quot;deceptive slander&quot; (Revelation 12:9 and 20:10). 
		<li>D. The objective of the temptation was, at root, to generate antagonism between Jesus and His Father. It was to be achieved by attempting to generate antagonism between the &quot;aspects&quot; of Jesus' human makeup -- setting the body against the soul (1&nbsp;Peter 2:11), or the soul against the spirit, or any number of combinations of body/soul/spirit issues -- so that that antagonism could be used as a lever to drive a wedge of antagonism between the Son and the Father. 
		<li>E. The details of the temptation consisted of ... 
			<ul><li>1. The deliberate, &quot;If 'Son' you are of the God...&quot;. 
				<ul><li>a. The deliberate claim of Luke 1:35 was that Jesus would be called &quot;the Son of God&quot;. 
				<li>b. &quot;The God&quot; is, fundamentally, the Executor of Power (Genesis 1; Romans 1:20). 
				<li>c. To be &quot;Son&quot; is, fundamentally, to execute power as the mirror-image (Hebrews 1:3). 
				<li>d. The issue: does the &quot;Son&quot; have the authority to exercise power in view of two questions? 
					<ul><li>1) Is the &quot;Son's&quot; authority to exercise power subject to the &quot;Father's&quot;? [John 8:28] 
					<li>2) Can the &quot;Son&quot; exercise power to &quot;preserve&quot; Himself? [Matthew 26:53] 
					</ul>
				</ul>
			<li>2. The directive: &quot;Say to this stone that it become bread.&quot; 
				<ul><li>a. Almost all of the advice of everyone who is currently giving advice about &quot;fasting&quot; has this in common: &quot;Do not break your fast with solid food.&quot; Clearly, this is not valid advice. The devil did not tempt Jesus to turn the stone into &quot;soup&quot;. 
				<li>b. The issue is not &quot;bread&quot;; it is the legitimacy of turning a stone into nourishment. 
					<ul><li>1) Jesus, on a later occasion, asked this question, &quot;And of which of you that is a father shall his son ask a loaf, and he give him a stone? or a fish, and he for a fish give him a serpent? (Luke 11:11; ASV). 
						<ul><li>a) He was saying that no legitimate &quot;father&quot; would respond to the request for food with a stone...indicating that He knew that turning stones into bread could not possibly be the Ultimate Father's will. 
						<li>b) On the other hand, what legitimate &quot;father&quot; would respond to a request for food with a &quot;No&quot;? This is not a question that can be answered in an absolute way -- for it is possible for a legitimate &quot;father&quot; to deny a child food for good reasons. 
						</ul>
					<li>2) At this level, Jesus was deliberately answering the question of whether the &quot;Son&quot; had a legitimate authority to act on His own and the question of whether the &quot;Son&quot; could independently act to preserve Himself. There is this fact in the third of Luke's &quot;temptations&quot; -- that the Father had promised the Son that the angels would &quot;protect&quot; Him...indicating that the Son was not to protect Himself. 
					</ul>
				</ul>
			</ul>
		<li>F. Jesus' Response. 
			<ul><li>1. Luke's record of Jesus' response cuts off a part of the quote of Deuteronomy 8:3 (which Matthew includes in Matthew 4:4) [the quote is precisely the wording of the Septuagint]. 
				<ul><li>a. The automatic question for us (not Luke's readers who may not have had Matthew's record in their possession) is why Luke only focused upon the negative. 
				<li>b. The statement that &quot;NOT upon bread only shall live the man&quot; is a statement of absolute fact: the text tells us that &quot;humility/affliction&quot; is required so that God might &quot;make thee know&quot; where life comes from. 
				<li>c. Clearly Luke has included the major issue: Life does not come only from the physical realm. 
				</ul>
			<li>2. This response by Jesus was <b><i><u>heavily</u></i></b> prejudiced by His knowledge of the Word of God (He said, &quot;It stands written...&quot;).
			</ul>
		</ul>
	</ul>
</ul>