Please explain the validity or not of this answer

Question

From this question: Jesus was tempted, but God cannot be tempted. How, then, do we reconcile James 1:13 and Heb. 4:15?

Can anyone please explain how this answer (accepted and very highly regarded) is;

1. Suitable for Biblical Hermeneutics
2. Or simply a theological answer

A brief synopsis.

• Is the referenced passage's addressed? No.
• Is the content biblical? Marginally in 1 or 2 of the 5 notes.
• Is it opinion driven? Very highly.
• Are other relevant Biblical passages used to support the answer? No.

Answer 1

Contradiction questions are a bit of an oddity. They're not the normal exegetical questions that get asked on this site, and so their answers will sometimes look a little different too.

There are basically three ways that apparent Biblical contradictions get resolved:

1. Posit one of them is a scribal error. This is probably most common with numbers that don't add up, but it could be claimed for other contradictions too. Sometimes there is actual text critical evidence in support of an error, but sometimes there are no other variants and it's just hypothesised.

2. Better exegesis. Sometimes good exegesis is enough to resolve a contradiction, particularly if the contradiction is caused by poor translations.

3. Theological synthesis. Two passages may seem contradictory but when read together and with the rest of the Bible, a coherent theological understanding can be developed. This is the discipline of systematic theology. For example, on the surface Romans 3:28 and James 2:24 might seem to be contradictory. But almost all Christians recognise both books as inspired truth, and have come up with several specific understandings of justification that take both verses into account. Rather than being contradictory, they each provide a different perspective on the one truth.

Now the question you're asking about didn't receive any text critical answers, which isn't surprising. Some of the answers focus on exegesis, but most focus on theology, which I'd say is to be expected, as the two verses are really only potentially contradictory if you come to them already believing that Jesus is God. These verses mostly present a theological conundrum, not an exegetical one (though there's always the potential for better translations.)

Given that this type of question expects theological answers, Nigel's answer is, in my opinion, actually pretty much exemplary. That's because it gives a brief explanation of the theological position that it represents, and discusses a few of the implications, and then stops. It uses terminology that will allow readers to find other more detailed explanations, and perhaps the only deficiency is that it doesn't itself link to questions on Christianity.SE about the hypostatic union.

I don't know if Nigel was thinking this way, but I think it's best not to have detailed justifications of systematic theology in answers on this site. First because it's not this site's main purpose, and second because it risks duplicating work in all the questions that might have the same theological answer. When theology is used to answer questions on this site, then I think it's best to

1. Name the theological position
2. Give a brief explanation
3. Explain its relevance to the specific question and how this theology resolves the question
4. Give links for more reading on the position

Or, in other words, on this site show how systematic theology is applied to exegesis, but leave the justifications of systematic theology to the Christianity.SE site (or the Judaism.SE site for Jewish systematic theology). Unlike more exegetical answers where we might expect them to fully justify their claims, if a question on this site is answered through theological synthesis, then I don't expect a full justification for its theological position to be given. And honestly, I'd probably upvote a more succinct answer than one which tries to do that.

Answer 2

Curious addressed the "what if it's theological" aspect very well. And, the point where I most adamantly agree is point 1: Name the theological position, the rest also being necessary.

Steve often reminds us that the site is community driven, which seems to be more Nigel's point: The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

In my experience, "contradiction questions" ('POV' is my preferred wording) usually go back to the "point of view" issue, that difference (without deep contradiction) is necessary for multiple testimonies in court to prove an event was real. IMHO, that is the answer here, and that was essentially the answer that was marked "correct".

I'll take the minimalist approach so precedent doesn't sprawl. This is the thought I first had a few days ago and it hasn't changed since I let it bake.

It is a hermeneutical answer

The answer gives definitions. Definitions are hermeneutical.

The first verse is about God. That's divine, et cetera.

The second verse is about Jesus. That's human nature, et cetera.

That works for both Trinitarian and Oneness views.

I thought about whether this needed sources, which was my only concern. But, the problem is that the definitions are so self-evident, it would be like asking for a source to claim that a circle is round. These two God and human definitions aren't really definitions; they are more or less reminders that explain it all.

The Bible verses later in the answer satisfy the need for sources and/or research.

Not only is it a great answer, it's probably the most acceptable answer that could be given, and it shows pure hermeneutics at their best.