The temptation of Christ ...

[Guest]

steve, homer and micah--

it seems we are now changing the definition of "sin" to explain how Jesus didn't "sin" when he was a child. either a 5 year old can sin, or he can't. i undertstand that wisdom, etc comes into consideration. i understand that an adult understands the consequences of their actions when a child may not. this does not mean that the child is not sinning. i remember sinning as a 5 year old-- one particular occasion sitting at the dinner table when my dad told me to do something and I told him that "he couldnt talk to me that way." as Bill Cosby says in his famous routine, "i dont remember much after that." the point is-- did jesus throw tantrums as a child? did he sass joseph and mary? did he ever refuse to share? if he did, then he was sinning. therefore, i dont think that he did. the question remains-- how did he not?

TK

My point was that he was able not to sin because he did not inherit the sin nature that is passed down through Adam. To me that is the the whole reason he was born of a virgin. However, if you want specifics you probably aren't going to get it because the Bible doesn't quote much from his youth. Sorry, if that doesn't help much.

[Guest]

TK, I agree with you on this one. There's no doubt in my mind that little children's trantrums and rebellion is just as sinful as it is later in life. The only difference is that the selfishness and rebellion is better disguised as the person becomes older. As for the "age of accountability" that others brought up, I see nothing of this in the Bible. I think this an invented human concept in order to set one's mind at ease that these little rebels won't go to hell for eternity if they should die while they are still young children.

Jesus is called "the second Adam". The first Adam was not created with these selfish tendencies. But Adam and Eve became that way through their rebellion, and all of their descendents inherited that sinful nature.
It is possible that, though Jesus was fully human, he did not inherit the sinful nature since He had no human biological father. That is not to say that as a baby, He did not cry when He was hungry like any other child ( in spite of the Xmas carol). But I think He never threw a tantrum or shouted an angry "no" to His parents.

Even other children exhibit gentle and trusting natures and never throw tantrums. Can you imagine that the little child to be a tantrum thrower whom Jesus set in the midst? The child of which Jesus said, " "Truly, I tell you, unless you turn around and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3

Indeed, Jesus said followed this with, "Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

Would the tantrum throwing child who screams, "Noooooooo!" humble himself? I don't think so.

I am in no way suggesting that the little child that Jesus called did not have a sinful nature. But if a child with a sinful nature could humble himself, and comply with his parents' wishes, then surely Jesus could do so, especially if He were born innocent, and like the first Adam did not have a sinful nature.

[Guest]

Paidion-- i agree with you as well. thus i am satisified that the reason jesus did not sin as a young child is that he was not born with a sinful nature.

this gets us up to the point where he is older, and able to resist temptation. i believe the fact that he had no sin nature assisted him, and perhaps entirely enabled him, to resist temptation where others have failed. this does not mean that the temptation wasnt real, but rather that he, because of his nature, was able to resist same.

unlike others, i perhaps find more comfort in this than less; i.e. it doesnt bother me one iota that Jesus wasnt "just like me." clearly he wasnt, which in my mind is a good thing, and biblical to boot. the key is that Jesus didnt sin, which is all that really matters to me. even if he was "inpeccable" it doesnt bother me, because as i indicated earlier i think he can sympathize with my struggles even if he was unable to sin. that's just a personal thought, however.

TK

[Guest]

Premises:

Jesus is God: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 (ESV)

Jesus was tempted: “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.” Matthew 4:1 (ESV)

Jesus was tempted in the same way we are, yet without sin: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Hebrews 4:15 (ESV)

But God cannot be tempted: “Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.” James 1:13 (ESV)

Questions:

How real was Jesus’ temptation?
Was it possible for Jesus to sin?
Is the tension in these statements real or imagined?

When Jesus was in the flesh he was subject to the same temptations as anyone else. God, however, is not in the flesh and therefore not subject to fleshly temptations.

Todd

The real answer is "Jesus is not God". Very simple very Biblical.

[Guest]

The real answer is "Jesus is not God". Very simple very Biblical.

As I see it, that is the "unreal" answer!

The term "God" is used in two distinct ways in the New Testament:

1. THE FATHER
The term "God" often refers to the Father. Whenever the word is prefixed by the definite article, "The God", it refers to the Father. Clearly Jesus is not the Father. He prayed to the Father as to another person. He stated that there were TWO witnesses to Himself. The Father was the first, and He was he second.

2. DEITY
The term "God" is often used in a generic sense to refer to deity. Jesus is deity. The Father is deity. No one else is deity. Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, begotten before all ages. He was another exactly like His Father, or as the scripture states "the express image of His essence."


Both senses are used in John 1:1

"The Logos was with God (first sense. "Theos" is preceded by the definite article) and the Logos was God (second sense. No definite article. Reversed word order)

The second sense is also used in John 1:18, where Jesus is referred to as "the only begotten God" (earlier manuscripts).

[Guest]

Imagine a man has two sons, one a few years older. The older son goes off to war and returns home after being wounded. His injury has made him a eunuch. His has neither any desire for, nor is he capable of sexual relations. Meanwhile his younger brother struggles with a teenager's raging hormones. There is a beautiful, flirtatious, promiscuous girl next door. Though ignorant of the older son's condition, she flirts and hints of her availability to both young men. The younger son falls into sin with her.

Was the older son tempted in the same way as the younger son? Was he tempted at all? Would you say the younger should have looked to his older brother as an example to inspire him to do better?

"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathasize with our weaknesses. but who was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 5:15)

IMHO it is meaningless to talk of temptation when there is no possibility of giving in to the temptation.

There may be another explanation of this seeming dilemma. I have for many years been on a strict low fat, low cholesterol diet. I began it when I flunked a stress test. Through diet and exercise (and God's help of course!) I improved year after year. After several years of annual sophisticated tests my doctor said I had "done my own bypass". My last test showed no abnormality.

You may be wondering what this has to do with temptation. Before I knew I had a problem I loved fried chicken, the fatter the better. The same with country style ribs and similar foods. They were a great temptation to me, not so today. I am determined and resolute in my refusal to eat those foods. Not because they have no appeal; I'm sure they would taste just as good as they ever did. I am convinced they are harmful to me and by refusing to give in even once in these many years, doing so is unthinkable. I do not believe I can be tempted to eat them.

Could this be the sense in which Jesus was tempted, yet His knowledge of how bad sin really is, and His resolve to not sin, were both so strong that in effect the temptation had no effect on Him? Imagine One whose recognition of the real evil in every sin and complete rejection of all the ways we rationalize sin as not so bad, or even not bad at all, enabled Him never to sin.

[Guest]

i believe the fact that he had no sin nature assisted him, and perhaps entirely enabled him, to resist temptation where others have failed. this does not mean that the temptation wasnt real, but rather that he, because of his nature, was able to resist same.

I'm just curious why you find this to be true. Adam and Eve had the same nature before the fall. I don't think it necessarily gave them any kind of advantage.

The biggest difference I see is when Jesus was tempted in the desert, he countered with God's word. Adam and Eve didn't remember God's commands and therefore fell for the lie. I think it is in this way we can have the same power Jesus had when he resisted temptation and that is through the Word of God. I believe part of Jesus' ministry was how he was an example to all of us in living a right relationship with God. If he had an advantage, than couldn't one accuse Jesus of not really being made in the likeness of men?

Jesus may not have had a tendancy toward sin like we do, but I believe his temptation was just as real as ours. It is in this way he can relate to us and we to him.

Hebrews 2:18 -

18For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

[Guest]

micah wrote:

TK wrote:
i believe the fact that he had no sin nature assisted him, and perhaps entirely enabled him, to resist temptation where others have failed. this does not mean that the temptation wasnt real, but rather that he, because of his nature, was able to resist same.


I'm just curious why you find this to be true. Adam and Eve had the same nature before the fall. I don't think it necessarily gave them any kind of advantage.

i don't necessarily find this to to be true-- i was just throwing out a discussion point. i find this topic very interesting. Jesus was obviously very different from us, being able to resist all temptation to sin. whether there was a supernatural element to this ability is the question. i can see both sides equally well, and I dont have a problem, from a theological or personal perspective, of either view.

one thing to remember is that jesus did use "supernatural" abilities in other areas of his life (apart from doing miracles), as when he told the samaritan woman all about her past, and possibly when he told nathaniel he saw him sitting under the fig tree.

which of course raises another discussion point-- was it Jesus himself doing the miracles, or was it the Spirit working through him?

TK

[Guest]

Imagine a man has two sons, one a few years older. The older son goes off to war and returns home after being wounded. His injury has made him a eunuch. His has neither any desire for, nor is he capable of sexual relations. Meanwhile his younger brother struggles with a teenager's raging hormones. There is a beautiful, flirtatious, promiscuous girl next door. Though ignorant of the older son's condition, she flirts and hints of her availability to both young men. The younger son falls into sin with her.

Was the older son tempted in the same way as the younger son? Was he tempted at all? Would you say the younger should have looked to his older brother as an example to inspire him to do better?

"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathasize with our weaknesses. but who was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 5:15)

IMHO it is meaningless to talk of temptation when there is no possibility of giving in to the temptation.

There may be another explanation of this seeming dilemma. I have for many years been on a strict low fat, low cholesterol diet. I began it when I flunked a stress test. Through diet and exercise (and God's help of course!) I improved year after year. After several years of annual sophisticated tests my doctor said I had "done my own bypass". My last test showed no abnormality.

You may be wondering what this has to do with temptation. Before I knew I had a problem I loved fried chicken, the fatter the better. The same with country style ribs and similar foods. They were a great temptation to me, not so today. I am determined and resolute in my refusal to eat those foods. Not because they have no appeal; I'm sure they would taste just as good as they ever did. I am convinced they are harmful to me and by refusing to give in even once in these many years, doing so is unthinkable. I do not believe I can be tempted to eat them.

Could this be the sense in which Jesus was tempted, yet His knowledge of how bad sin really is, and His resolve to not sin, were both so strong that in effect the temptation had no effect on Him? Imagine One whose recognition of the real evil in every sin and complete rejection of all the ways we rationalize sin as not so bad, or even not bad at all, enabled Him never to sin.

Great analogies Homer!
It does seem a fallacy to assume that for Jesus to be tempted as we are, He must also value sin as we do. The desire of something is in direct relation to the value we place on it.

Hebrews 1:14-15:
14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

[Guest]

Was Jesus good because He was able to not sin or because He was unable to sin? Which is more creditable?