|
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not a sin to tempt God. For
God has not commanded sin. Yet He has commanded men to try, which
is the same as to tempt, Him: for it is written (Malach.
3:10): "Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there
may be meat in My house; and try Me in this, saith the Lord, if I
open not unto you the flood-gates of heaven." Therefore it seems not
to be a sin to tempt God.
Objection 2: Further, a man is tempted not only in order to test
his knowledge and his power, but also to try his goodness or his will.
Now it is lawful to test the divine goodness or will, for it is
written (Ps. 33:9): "O taste and see that the Lord is
sweet," and (Rm. 12:2): "That you may prove what is the
good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God." Therefore
it is not a sin to tempt God.
Objection 3: Further, Scripture never blames a man for ceasing
from sin, but rather for committing a sin. Now Achaz is blamed
because when the Lord said: "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy
God," he replied: "I will not ask, and I will not tempt the
Lord," and then it was said to him: "Is it a small thing for you
to be grievous to men, that you are grievous to my God also?"
(Is. 7:11-13). And we read of Abraham (Gn. 15:8)
that he said to the Lord: "Whereby may I know that I shall possess
it?" namely, the land which God had promised him. Again Gedeon
asked God for a sign of the victory promised to him (Judges
6:36, sqq.). Yet they were not blamed for so doing. Therefore
it is not a sin to tempt God.
On the contrary, It is forbidden in God's Law, for it is written
(Dt. 6:10): "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), to tempt a person is
to put him to a test. Now one never tests that of which one is
certain. Wherefore all temptation proceeds from some ignorance or
doubt, either in the tempter (as when one tests a thing in order to
know its qualities), or in others (as when one tests a thing in order
to prove it to others), and in this latter way God is said to tempt
us. Now it is a sin to be ignorant of or to doubt that which pertains
to God's perfection. Wherefore it is evident that it is a sin to
tempt God in order that the tempter himself may know God's power.
On the other hand, if one were to test that which pertains to the
divine perfection, not in order to know it oneself, but to prove it to
others: this is not tempting God, provided there be just motive of
urgency, or a pious motive of usefulness, and other requisite
conditions. For thus did the apostles ask the Lord that signs might
be wrought in the name of Jesus Christ, as related in Acts
4:30, in order, to wit, that Christ's power might be made
manifest to unbelievers.
Reply to Objection 1: The paying of tithes was prescribed in the
Law, as stated above (Question 87, Article 1). Hence there
was a motive of urgency to pay it, through the obligation of the Law,
and also a motive of usefulness, as stated in the text
quoted---"that there may be meat in God's house": wherefore they
did not tempt God by paying tithes. The words that follow, "and try
Me," are not to be understood causally, as though they had to pay
tithes in order to try if "God would open the flood-gates of
heaven," but consecutively, because, to wit, if they paid tithes,
they would prove by experience the favors which God would shower upon
them.
Reply to Objection 2: There is a twofold knowledge of God's
goodness or will. One is speculative and as to this it is not lawful
to doubt or to prove whether God's will be good, or whether God is
sweet. The other knowledge of God's will or goodness is effective or
experimental and thereby a man experiences in himself the taste of
God's sweetness, and complacency in God's will, as Dionysius says
of Hierotheos (Div. Nom. ii) that "he learnt divine thing
through experience of them." It is in this way that we are told to
prove God's will, and to taste His sweetness.
Reply to Objection 3: God wished to give a sign to Achaz, not for
him alone, but for the instruction of the whole people. Hence he was
reproved because, by refusing to ask a sign, he was an obstacle to the
common welfare. Nor would he have tempted God by asking, both
because he would have asked through God commanding him to do so, and
because it was a matter relating to the common good. Abraham asked for
a sign through the divine instinct, and so he did not sin. Gedeon
seems to have asked a sign through weakness of faith, wherefore he is
not to be excused from sin, as a gloss observes: just as Zachary
sinned in saying to the angel (Lk. 1:18): "Whereby shall I
know this?" so that he was punished for his unbelief.
It must be observed, however, that there are two ways of asking God
for a sign: first in order to test God's power or the truth of His
word, and this of its very nature pertains to the temptation of God.
Secondly, in order to be instructed as to what is God's pleasure in
some particular matter; and this nowise comes under the head of
temptation of God.
|
|