There is a semantic difference between 'test' and 'tempt'. An examination of a complete English dictionary will verify this. Note that some of the meanings carry positive connotations, while some carry negative connotations.

In Genesis 22:1 the root of the Hebrew verb rendered 'tempted' in the KJV (and the more idiomatically-true-to-the-meaning 'tested' in the NIV) is nasah. Hebrew lexicons show that both 'test' and 'tempt' are appropriate renderings of this verb. As with any mode of human communication, context determines the shading being used. To build an argument for error on an English translation instead of referencing the Hebrew fails to account for this nuance.

In James 1:13 the verb peirazo is used. Greek lexicons show that there is a wide range of semantical meanings, both positive and negative, attached to this word. Again, context determines the meaning. It is perfectly appropriate to let context determine usage and to let the text interpret itself. A robust historical methodology avoids pressing a wooden and literalistic meaning onto ancient documents, which can create artificial tensions.

The mention of Matthew 6:13 as refuting the claim of St. James that God does not tempt men introduces an interesting point. There is a difference between God acting as the author of sin and God permitting situations where our faith is tested or where our fallen nature might struggle. What James is stating is that God is not the direct agent in a man's temptations; He will not cause one's favorite vice to appear before one's eyes so as to induce sin in the man. On the other hand, as God is omniscient and ruler over all, everything that happens in the universe is known and seen by Him.

When a man sins, surely God could step in and prevent it, couldn't He? In essence, every sin is 'allowed' by God in the fashion just described. The petition in the Lord's Prayer can be understood in a passive sense -- in His divine mercy may He not allow us to fall into situations where our weak nature will succumb to sin. To press it against James 1:13 is to make various texts clash when there is a reasonable solution which makes the texts harmonize.

When Deuteronomy 4:34 is cited as being problematic, it relies on the particulars of the KJV translation, which here translates the Hebrew noun root massah as temptation. However, we must analyze texts by the original language, not a particular translation. It is a fact that massah has a variety of semantic shadings: testing(s), trial(s), and it is debatable about whether or not temptation(s) is a shading of the word. In fact, the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon does not allow 'temptation' as a proper shading of the word. The NIV is more idiomatically faithful to the Hebrew by its replacement of the KJV's 'temptation' by 'testing'.

James 1:13 brings up a secondary issue. It says God cannot be tempted; but what about the Temptation of Jesus? God cannot be tempted with evil. The word behind 'evil' means sickness or depravity. Satan made some offers, but none of them were depraved or perverse. And again, the word used here has varying shades of meaning that must be determined by context and subject. Furthermore, it is helpful to differentiate between the external offering of temptation and the internal yielding to it. While one might attempt to 'tempt' God, the divine nature cannot be corrupted. James' comment indicates that God cannot be lured by evil, whereas the Gospels speak of Christ enduring the external presentation of temptation without inner capitulation.

Regarding the objection that since God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it follows that 'tempt' should be understood in the negative sense: Abraham had obtained a promise of a nation through Isaac. Abraham himself was confronted with an apparent contradiction. Would God be true to his promise regarding Isaac? If so, then Abraham could proceed to honor the divine command in confidence that God did not intend that Isaac should die.

In his February 12, 2009 debate with Kyle Butt, Dan Barker alleged that he “knows” the God of the Bible cannot exist because “there are mutually incompatible properties/characteristics of the God that’s in this book [the Bible—EL] that rule out the possibility of His existence.” Seven minutes and 54 seconds into his first speech, Barker cited James 1:13 and Genesis 22:1 as proof that the God of the Bible cannot exist. Since James 1:13 says: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (KJV), and Genesis 22:1 affirms that “God did tempt Abraham” (KJV) to sacrifice his son, Barker asserted that God is like a married bachelor or a square circle—He cannot logically exist.

If Genesis 22:1 actually taught that God really tempted Abraham to commit evil and sin, then the God of the Bible might be a “square circle,” i.e., a logical contradiction. But, the fact of the matter is, God did not tempt Abraham to commit evil. Barker formulated his argument based upon the King James Version and only one meaning of the Hebrew word (nissâ) found in Genesis 22:1. Although the word can mean “to tempt,” the first two meanings that Brown, Driver, and Briggs give for nissâ in their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament is “to test, to try” (1993). Likewise, the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (1997) defines the word simply “to test” (Jenni and Westermann, 1997, 2:741-742). The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament agrees that nissâ is best translated, whether in secular or theological contexts, as “testing” (Botterweck, et al., 1998, 9:443-455). For this reason, virtually all major translations in recent times, including the NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, and RSV, translate Genesis 22:1 using the term “tested,” not tempted.

When David put on the armor of King Saul prior to battling Goliath, the shepherd realized: “I cannot walk with these, for I have not tested (nissâ) them” (1 Samuel 17:39, emp. added). Obviously, this testing had nothing to do with David “tempting” his armor; he simply had not tested or tried on Saul’s armor previously. God led Israel during 40 years of desert wanderings “to humble…and test” them (Deuteronomy 8:2, emp. added), not to tempt them to sin. Notice also the contrast in Exodus 20:20 between (1) God testing man and (2) trying to cause man to sin. After giving Israel the Ten Commandments, Moses said: “Do not fear; for God has come to test (nissâ) you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin” (Exodus 20:20, emp. added). If one were to use Barker’s reasoning that nissâ must mean “to tempt,” regardless of the context, then he would have to interpret Exodus 20:20 to mean that God tempted Israel to sin, so that they will not sin.

When a person interprets the Bible, or any other book, without recognizing that words have a variety of meanings and can be used in various senses, a rational interpretation is impossible. Many alleged Bible contradictions, including several of those that Dan Barker mentioned in the Butt/Barker Debate, are easily explained simply by acknowledging that words are used in a variety of ways. Is a word to be taken literally or figuratively? Must the term in one place mean the exact same thing when in another context, or may it have different meanings? If English-speaking Americans can intelligibly converse about running to the store in the 21st century by driving a car, or if we can easily communicate about parking on driveways, and driving on parkways, why do some people have such a difficult time understanding the various ways in which words were used in Bible times? Could it be that some Bible critics like Barker are simply predisposed to interpret Scripture unfairly? The evidence reveals that is exactly what is happening.

Rather then contradicting James 1:13, Genesis 22:1 actually corresponds perfectly with what James wrote near the beginning of his epistle: “My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing” (1:2-4, emp. added). By instructing Abraham to sacrifice his promised son (cf. Hebrews 11:17), God gave Abraham another opportunity to prove his loyalty to Him, while Abraham simultaneously used this trial to continue developing a more complete, mature faith.

Problem: The Bible says “God tempted Abraham” (Gen. 22:1, kjv), and Jesus taught His disciples to pray to God, “do not lead us into temptation” (Matt. 6:13). How then can James say of God, “nor does He Himself tempt anyone” (James 1:13).

Solution: God did not tempt Abraham (nor anyone) to sin. Rather, He tested Abraham to see if he would sin or be faithful to Him. God allows Satan to tempt us (cf. Matt 4:1–10; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8–9), but James is correct in saying, never does God “Himself tempt anyone.” God cannot be tempted by sin, since He is absolutely and unchangeably perfect (Matt 5:48; Heb. 6:18), nor can He tempt anyone else to sin (James 1:13). When we sinful human beings are tempted, it is because we allow ourselves to be drawn away by our own lustful desires (James 1:14–15). The source of temptation comes from within, not from without. It comes from sinful man, not from a sinless God.

While God does not and cannot actually tempt anyone to sin, He can and does allow us to be tempted by Satan and our own lustful desires. Of course, His purpose in permitting (but not producing or promoting) evil is to make us more perfect. God allowed Satan to tempt Job so that Job could say “When He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold” (Job 23:10). God allowed evil to befall Joseph at the hands of his brothers. But in the end Joseph was able to say to them, “you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20).