Anf-03 v.iv.v.xix Pg 18), so, when it makes no mention of temptation, it does not admit the interpretation of temptation. However, although I do not allow this sense, I may as well ask, by way of a superfluous refutation, for the reasons of the alleged temptation, To what purpose could they have tempted Him by naming His mother and His brethren? If it was to ascertain whether He had been born or not—when was a question raised on this point, which they must resolve by tempting Him in this way? Who could doubt His having been born, when they4200
Luke xx. 20.
4200 Singular in the original, but (to avoid confusion) here made plural. saw Him before them a veritable man?—whom they had heard call Himself “Son of man?”—of whom they doubted whether He were God or Son of God, from seeing Him, as they did, in the perfect garb of human quality?—supposing Him rather to be a prophet, a great one indeed,4201
Anf-03 v.iv.v.xxxviii Pg 30 For He had affirmed the resurrection, by describing the form5009
Luke xx. 39.
5009 Formam: “its conditions” or “process.” thereof in opposition to the opinion of the Sadducees. Now, He did not reject the attestation of those who had assumed His answer to bear this meaning. If, however, the Scribes thought Christ was David’s Son, whereas (David) himself calls Him Lord,5010
Anf-03 v.iv.vi.xix Pg 31