[Image]  [Hi-Res Image]

Page 297

Lewis, The Holy Places of Jerusalem, ib. 1880; W. Warren, in TSBA, vii (1880), 309 aqq:; F. Spiess, Dar Jerusalem des Josephus, Berlin, 1881; idem, Der Tempel . .

On the temples in Egypt consult: E. Sachau, Drei aramaische Papyruskunden aus Elephantine, Berlin, 1908; L. Belleli, An Independent Examination of the Assuan and Elephantine Aramaic Papyri, with eleven plates and two appendices on sundry items, London, 1909; JBL, asviii. pp. 71-81 (an excellent article reviewing the Asaouan papyri and recent literature on it).

TEMPORAL POWER. See CHURCH AND STATE; PAPAL STATES.

TEMPTATION: The most general expression

for every motive that incites man, especially the

Christian, to sin (Buddeus, Institutianes theologies

dogmatices, III., ii. 30, 1724). The Bib

Origin kcal usage, however, is less definite.

and In the Old Testament the word is from

Meaning. nasah (Gk., parazean [Gen. xxii. 1;

Ex. xvii. 2; Deut. vi. 16]), and bahan

(of the people tempting God, Ps. xcv. 9; Mal. iii.

15; Gk. dokimazein in Ps. xxvi. 2, Lyvi. 10, lxxxi.

7, in the sense of II Cor. xiii. 5). The root meaning

of these two verbs is to test or prove, as rendered

in most of the passages. However, there is a dis

tinction between proving and tempting, in the mod

ern sense. To prove is to establish a matter of fact,

either known or assumed, or to augment its cer

tainty. To tempt means simply to make an at

tempt, and this with the application of power, with

which is combined more or less indefinitely, in per

sonal reference, the collateral concept of enmity

(I Kings x. 1). A circumstance of temptation with

out a personal tempter is unknown in the Old Tes

tament; but this occurs frequently in the New,

hence the perspicuity of the term peirasmos. This

is implied in advance in the idea of incitement to

sin, prepared in the New Testament by the efforts

to entrap Jesus unwarily into some fatal assertion.

Theology limits this New-Testament term by dis

tinguishing precisely temptation from proving and

enticement. Faith or the ethical motive is tested

by suffering in order to come to assurance (Jas. i.

12-13; Rom. v. 3-4; II Cor, viii, 2). On the con

trary the susceptible will is tempted with the pos

sible result that it turns to evil, or if purpose may

be admitted, with the design of inducing it to turn to evil. But inasmuch as that result does not necessarily follow, and because so long as there is temptation that result is not actualized, temptation is to be distinguished from enticement. Evident design or plotting may be a special mark of the latter (Matt. xxiv. 4, 5, 11, 24; Eph. iv. 4; II Cor. xi. 3). In the Lord's Prayer the relation of man to sin is presented from the standpoints of guilt and temptation (Luke xi. 4), and the latter is given a broad significance. Sin is not the consequence of constraint, but occasioned, not always by the perceptible action of a tempting being, rather by circumstances in which the human subject happens to be (Jas. i. 2; Matt. xxvi. 41; I Pet. iv. 12). Yet the peril is according to the constituent character of the one affected. With reference to the persons tempted the New Testament speaks of disciples, but the statements of Jesus do not imply the regenerate in the dogmatic sense; James (i. 13-15), who points to the person's own lust as the source of temptation, does not give this any special Christian application; and Paul looks upon the Jews as special prototypes of tempted Christians (I Cor. x. 1-13). Therefore, temptation may be assumed to have universal reference. It occurs in different degrees in individual cases, coming into consciousness in the awakened conscience and being heightened by resistance. The Bible nowhere calls the experience of the first parents a temptation, but rather an enticement, according to the distinction previously made; yet quite generally and properly the fall as well as the trial of Jesus in the Synoptical narrative are held to be types of temptation. The question arises whether the principle laid down by James applies also to them; or, in other words, whether temptation merely brings to light sin existing already before the act (Rom. vii.). Neither Gen. iii. nor Rom. v. 12, nor the Synoptic account postulates that a perverted desire determines and defiles the inner self of the tempted. Yet the presumption of Scripture that sin is in no wise of God and consequently not necessarily due to the conditions of finite existence is only to be dogmatically established. Even the sinlessness of Jesus is a dogma.

The desire responds to a proffered good. Jesus reminds of the weakness of the flesh, as occasion to the tempting passion (Matt. xxvi. 41); the tempting power of the circumstances of the passion

is specially emphasized in the New

I Cor. vii. 5). The division into temptations through lust and through passion is also justified. Apart from evil and temptation by passion, which is the exercise of the moral government of this world, there certainly remains no proneness to evil in the possibility for the appropriation of some good and in the experienced stimulus. The fall, therefore, appears in Scripture as enticement, and not as merely arising from circumstances; and the temptation of Christ not only presupposes the " sin of the world" but comes from the " tempter." The influence of the existent immorality is thus