# Quotations of Satan



## KMK (May 29, 2009)

> Matt 4:6 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.





> Luke 4:10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: 11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.





> Ps 91:11,12 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. 12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.



Are the differences due to:

1) Satan deliberately editing Scripture?
2) Matthew and Luke recording the events using different sources?
3) Satan is quoting the Septuagint?
4) Problems with the TR?
5) Something else?

Given the way Satan deliberately edited God's Word when speaking to Eve, I assume it is number 1, but I want to be sure.


----------



## KMK (May 29, 2009)

With what language would Satan have spoken? Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic?


----------



## he beholds (May 29, 2009)

great Qs!!!


----------



## KMK (May 29, 2009)

BTW, I understand that Satan _misapplies_ Scripture here, but does he also _misquote_ Scripture?


----------



## py3ak (May 29, 2009)

Between Matthew and Luke it's just a question of how much detail they report. So Matthew truncates Satan's words, while Satan doesn't quite Psalm 91:11 in its entirety. I know a lot of commentators have made a big deal over the omission of "in all thy ways" but I am not sure it is correct to do so. For one thing, the variation between Matthew and Luke suggests that we may not have _all_ of Satan's exact words in any case. For another thing, I have never been able to see how eliding "in all thy ways" is going to make the temptation that much more subtle and hard to see through.


----------



## KMK (May 29, 2009)

py3ak said:


> Between Matthew and Luke it's just a question of how much detail they report. So Matthew truncates Satan's words, while Satan doesn't quite Psalm 91:11 in its entirety. I know a lot of commentators have made a big deal over the omission of "in all thy ways" but I am not sure it is correct to do so. For one thing, the variation between Matthew and Luke suggests that we may not have _all_ of Satan's exact words in any case. For another thing, I have never been able to see how eliding "in all thy ways" is going to make the temptation that much more subtle and hard to see through.



What about the fact that both Luke and Matthew agree that Satan added the words, "at any time"?


----------



## Theognome (May 29, 2009)

At a glance, it looks like someone's having a conversation with themselves- your avatars are identical, and screen names close, too. 

Silly bat people.

Theognome


----------



## KMK (May 29, 2009)

Matthew Henry:



> See here, 1. How he misquoted it; and that was bad. The promise is, They shall keep thee; but how? In all thy ways; not otherwise; if we go out of our way, out of the way of our duty, we forfeit the promise, and put ourselves out of God's protection. Now this word made against the tempter, and therefore he industriously left it out. If Christ had cast himself down, he had been out of his way, for he had no call so to expose himself. (Matt 4:1-11))



John Gill:



> ...but what Satan failed in, and that wilfully, and wickedly, was, in omitting that part of it,
> to keep thee in all thy ways;
> which he saw was contrary to his purpose, and would have spoiled his design at once; and also in urging this passage, which only regards godly persons, in the way of their duty, to countenance actions which are out of the way of a man's calling, or which he is not called unto; and which are contrary to religion, and a tempting God. (Matt 4:6)



I have read some commentaries that claim Satan deliberately misquoted Scripture and some do not mention Satan misquoting Scripture, but I have not read any that specifically refute the idea.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (May 29, 2009)

Theognome said:


> At a glance, it looks like someone's having a conversation with themselves- your avatars are identical, and screen names close, too.
> 
> Silly bat people.
> 
> Theognome



 I'll leave this to those who are wiser than I.


----------



## KMK (May 29, 2009)

From Foote:



> It has been well remarked, however, that the passage is here both misquoted and misapplied. It is misquoted, as an important clause is omitted, namely, that God was to keep his people "in all their ways;" that is, in every proper way, in every way in which duty called them to walk. Lecture 15, pg. 176


----------



## py3ak (May 29, 2009)

KMK said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Between Matthew and Luke it's just a question of how much detail they report. So Matthew truncates Satan's words, while Satan doesn't quite Psalm 91:11 in its entirety. I know a lot of commentators have made a big deal over the omission of "in all thy ways" but I am not sure it is correct to do so. For one thing, the variation between Matthew and Luke suggests that we may not have _all_ of Satan's exact words in any case. For another thing, I have never been able to see how eliding "in all thy ways" is going to make the temptation that much more subtle and hard to see through.
> ...



That is consistent with the LXX rendering.


----------



## MW (May 29, 2009)

KMK said:


> 5) Something else?



Most incidental differences in synoptics is put down to the fact that the Evangelists reported the "ipsissima vox" rather than the "ipsissima verba" of the speaker, that is, his own sense rather than his own words. Hence Matthew and Luke agree in giving the sense of what the Tempter spoke. As to the omission of the same phrase where there is no verbal or oral "source" requiring it, this would seem to indicate that Satan did in fact omit an important qualification to the promise he quoted.


----------



## KMK (May 29, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> [ As to the omission of the same phrase *where there is no verbal or oral "source" requiring it,* this would seem to indicate that Satan did in fact omit an important qualification to the promise he quoted.



By 'source' do you mean the LXX?


----------



## TimV (May 29, 2009)

> That is consistent with the LXX rendering.



Yes, it seems another of the many examples where the LXX was quoted rather than the Hebrew.


----------



## KMK (May 29, 2009)

TimV said:


> > That is consistent with the LXX rendering.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it seems another of the many examples where the LXX was quoted rather than the Hebrew.



Did Matt and Luke quote the LXX, or did Satan?


----------



## MW (May 29, 2009)

KMK said:


> By 'source' do you mean the LXX?



The "source" could have been oral or written considering it concerns a Messianic reference.


----------

