# Jesus and Temptation



## chbrooking (Apr 17, 2009)

Last month, my wife posted a question on the OPC web page. She had asked me, of course, but I pointed her to the OPC site, thinking she could get a much better answer than I could give -- I wasn’t sure I could give her much of an answer at all. Not being satisfied with the answer she was given, and being a bit confused about the matter myself, now that she raised the issue, I thought I’d post the question here. In other words, her question has become mine.

Though temptation came to Jesus wholly from without -- he was not, as James says "lured and enticed by his own desire," as sin could hold no appeal for our savior -- his temptation is said to have a comprehensive qualitative identity with my own temptations. 

I am trying to wrestle with two things. I want to maintain opposition to the RCC doctrine that the desire toward sin is not sin, but only when that desire has borne fruit is sin born from it. The tenth commandment teaches otherwise. 

I also want to be able to appreciate and take comfort in the empathetic help my savior provides. I find it very difficult to separate desire from temptation. I don't see temptation where I have no desire for the object of my temptation. How am I to understand, then, Jesus' temptation? I have a hunch that the answer to my question will also help me reconcile James 1:13 (that God cannot be tempted) with Hebrews 2:18 and 4:15 (that Jesus was tempted).​
Any insights would be appreciated.


----------



## Theognome (Apr 17, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> Last month, my wife posted a question on the OPC web page. She had asked me, of course, but I pointed her to the OPC site, thinking she could get a much better answer than I could give -- I wasn’t sure I could give her much of an answer at all. Not being satisfied with the answer she was given, and being a bit confused about the matter myself, now that she raised the issue, I thought I’d post the question here. In other words, her question has become mine.
> 
> Though temptation came to Jesus wholly from*without -- he was not, as James says "lured and*enticed by his own desire," as sin could hold no*appeal for our savior -- his temptation is said to*have a comprehensive qualitative identity with my*own temptations. *
> 
> ...



Since we know that God does not tempt (though He does test), I think the word 'Temptation' itself, if applied to the work of God, is problematic. Note that it is Satan who did the tempting, not God the Father- thus God did not tempt God. Therefor, the onus for tempting is upon Satan, for although he tried to tempt Christ, Christ could not be so tempted due to His divine nature. In short- as long as we understand Satan being the tempter, no dichotomy exists.

Theognome


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 17, 2009)

Theognome said:


> Therefor, the onus for tempting is upon Satan, for although he tried to tempt Christ, Christ could not be so tempted due to His divine nature. In short- as long as we understand Satan being the tempter, no dichotomy exists.
> 
> Theognome



If I understand you correctly, you are distinguishing "test" or "try" from "tempt". I wonder if we ought to use the word "entice" instead of "tempt", since the same Greek word is translated "test", "try" or "tempt."

So are you saying that Jesus was tried, but he wasn't enticed by the trial?


----------



## Theognome (Apr 17, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> > Therefor, the onus for tempting is upon Satan, for although he tried to tempt Christ, Christ could not be so tempted due to His divine nature. In short- as long as we understand Satan being the tempter, no dichotomy exists.
> ...



Indeed I am. Tempting is an unction of evil, and thus outside the auspice of the Godhead. Within the context of His humanity, he would have felt the effects that we all sustain from such demonic tempts, but unlike us fallen beasts would not nor could not succumb. Thus in one context it can be said that he was 'tempted' inasmuch as the attempt to seduce Him was made by Satan. This attempt was of course fortuitous- and again the onus is upon Satan and his thrusts and not upon Christ's response.

Theognome


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 18, 2009)

Theognome said:


> Within the context of His humanity, he would have felt the effects that we all sustain from such demonic tempts,
> Theognome



This is helpful. I guess "the effects that _ sustain", though, include enticement. The fact that the cake is on the counter is a trial. But what particularly makes it trying is that I WANT THE CAKE. I'm enticed by it. 

Like I said, this is very helpful. But I'd like you to flesh out "the effects that we all sustain." Obviously, you are excluding enticement -- desiring the thing we are being tried by. So what are the effects, aside from enticement, that we sustain?_


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 18, 2009)

I always think of His sympathizing with us not as wanting the sin but instead the degradation (not a good word) that sin brings upon us after we have been exposed to it. He knows the horridness/death that sin brings to His people because He has seen it with His eyes (which are more piercing into sin because He is God-man) when He was tempted by Satan. He could always see the vastness of His holiness and sin when He was just God, but when He became man He understood the devastation it brought upon a regenerated heart. Not because He sinned and thus felt that devastation, but because He was God, He could transfer that knowledge into His man heart and know the whole extent of sin and its consequences . He does not sympathize with us in wanting sin He sympathizes with us in its devastation and thus gives us a window of escape.


----------



## Theognome (Apr 18, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> > Within the context of His humanity, he would have felt the effects that we all sustain from such demonic tempts,
> ...


_

Certainly. As Christ explained with much emphasis in the sermons on the mount and plain, thoughts of sin are equal to effectual sin. Thus we cannot impart upon the person(s) of Christ such thoughts and at the same time insist upon His divine nature. Let's not forget that there are other contexts in which we see the concept of 'tempting' ie- bringing God to the brink of judgment, seen in scripture. Malachi 3:13-15 is one such example, where evil is declared good, and thus God is 'tempted' to judge them, but are let loose out of His mercy for a time (but go free).

But I digress. The temptation in enticement is problematic of those whom Christ has saved- and through this is placed upon the cross with Him. 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 shows this context, as Christ is 'tempted' through the sin of His visible people and thus are shown to be goats as opposed to sheep. Those who failed to take up the cross in obedience to the Lord were declared to be tempters of Christ. Thus the visible Church that strive after sinful lusts had succumb to the wiles of Satan and had fallen to the enticement. Such falling is condemned in 1 Corinthians as having been tempted by Satan and followed said temptation- to the 'temptation' of Christ to judge His people. Compare this to Sodom and the arguments Abraham had with God concerning the righteous therein. This is the temptation of the righteous- the seeking of the Godly amongst a fallen and wicked people. This is a temptation foreign to mere man, but fully described in Scripture in reference to God in Christ. Again, we see how the temptation of Christ is towards exercising His judgment and forgoing His mercy.

Theognome_


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 18, 2009)

Thanks Sarah,
I agree with both of you -- how could I not?
But something in all this still seems to come short of plumbing the depth of Heb 4:15.
What do I do with "weakness", or the almost over-emphasis on the complete and utter identity in every respect with our temptations? 

What IS temptation, if not being pulled toward disobedience by something that is enticing?

That's what I'm after, though. If Jesus wasn't enticed, how can he be said to have been tempted just as we are?

What was offered to him were good things -- he was being tempted to gain them inappropriately. So the temptation wasn't the things themselves, but the cross-evading path to them. He later prayed for another path. So obviously a non-cross path held some appeal for him. 

Thank you, though. I think your comments are spot on, and very helpful. And maybe it's just that I'm dense, but I still can't get my head around this issue.


----------



## Theognome (Apr 18, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> Thanks Sarah,
> I agree with both of you -- how could I not?
> But something in all this still seems to come short of plumbing the depth of Heb 4:15.
> What do I do with "weakness", or the almost over-emphasis on the complete and utter identity in every respect with our temptations?
> ...



There are three basic means by which man is tempted- through his flesh, through his ego and through his importance. We see all three being used against Christ in Matthew 4. His flesh was tempted through hunger, his ego through the challenge to throw Himself down and His importance (self worship) by being offered all nations. He denied all three. Thus He was tried in the same basic ways that all men are, but resisted. 

Consider this verse from the Olivet Discourse:

"And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.' Matthew 24:22

This shows how Christ may be tempted as I mentioned before- through not delaying the judgment rightly due to all who oppose Him. As much as we are all worthy of annihilation, it is through Christ's resistance of temptation that we are indeed saved- yes, salvation is dependent in many ways upon this. His ability to withstand our temptations upon His judgment and continue to be merciful to us unto the end is tribute to his divine nature and how He completes His work in us despite our fallen natures.

Theognome


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 18, 2009)

The weakness wouldn't be in wanting to sin but in seeing/knowing with His wisdom the devastation/death/separation etc that sin brings with it. We are weak because we commit sin He knew the weakness (even more than we do because He is God) from being tempted and that sin being thrown into His face as it were. He wasn't weak in wanting sin but in seeing/knowing the weakness sin brings as only God-man can. He knows its devastating effects more than we do even though it is us who does the sinning and goes through all the guilt etc. Why? Because He is pure holiness which is 180 degrees from sin. He KNOWS AND CAN SYMPATHIZE! Think that He cannot! Him not wanting sin doesn't render Him useless. Sin renders us useless in knowing just how wicked it really is. Him being without sin and completely holy and yet as God-man seeing as a human its effects give Him the ability to sympathize with you more than He would if He had actually felt the tug of sin. He can sympathize with your sin (lying ie) than I can with your sin which is mine (lying ie) because He knows the other side of sin...as it were.


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 18, 2009)

Sarah,
I understand what you are saying. But if I take this as the full explanation, I don't see why he had to be made like me in every respect. His knowledge of the devastating effects of sin is not enhanced by his humanity. In his deity he knows those effects exhaustively. Human knowledge, on the other hand, would be finite. The text points to an experiential knowledge that makes him a compassionate High Priest. As I read your response, it still seems as if his knowledge and experience are totally other than mine. He still seems, if this is the full explanation, to be viewing the whole thing from outside. His trial isn't really a trial -- at least there's no challenge in it.

Bill,
That's a very helpful breakdown -- though I'm not sure I see the difference between the ego and importance trial. But again, if none of this had any appeal, was it really a temptation? I think we are back to the issue of trial vs. temptation. But the scriptures use the same word for both. I know that God doesn't tempt. And James is clear that God cannot be tempted (different, but cognate terminology). But I'm plainly told that Jesus was tempted. I know Jesus is God. So I'm a little confused. Then when I see that the author of Hebrews makes much of his identity with us, particularly with respect to temptation, I'm desperate to get relief from my confusion. But so far, I can't see any identity between Jesus' trials and mine if he senses no "tug". In my experience, if there's no tug, it's not much of a trial. If anything, Jesus' trial has to be MORE than mine, not less. I know he withstood to the end -- he knows the full brunt of temptation in a way that we don't because we have never seen it through to the end as he has. But if he wasn't enticed at all, then was that any big deal? It's easy for me to resist, if you're tempting me with coconut cake. I hate coconut. Not much of a temptation in that.

I promise you that I'm not trying to be obstinate. You're probably answering my question and I'm just too dense to see it. But try to understand what I DON'T see answered in your replies. If you are answering it, dumb your answer down a little so I don't miss it this time.

Thanks again. And please don't get upset by my persistence. I'm not just trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to understand.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 18, 2009)

No, as God He *knew* and as man He *knew and felt*. You're right that as man He knew and felt finitely but that is how He relates to us. As God He knows infinitely sin's consequences. We cannot separate His God nature and man nature. We can only distinguish between them. The two natures make a completed and perfect High Priest for us. He was made a little lower than angels in order to "feel" and "know" sin's effects as man does. We must not think then that He has an upper hand on God the Father or even a lower hand on the Father. What I mean is this: Some might think that we can do something God cannot do.....sin. This isn't an ability we have that God doesn't have. It is instead a crippling agent. To be able to sin, is to take away not give an ability. (I hope that makes sense). So we are in the minus zone because of sin and God is in the addition zone because He doesn't have sin. Now remembering that let's look at why Christ had to be tempted so that He could be our High Priest. As God-man He was able to stay free from sin and remain in the addition zone and yet feel sin's effects ... the minus zone. But not because He sinned but because He was tempted by Satan. Let's maybe look at the word tempted. I can tempt you all day to beat your child to death. *I *indeed am being the tempter. You are my object to tempt, but are you tempted in any way to beat your child to death? Do you have the urge or desire to beat him/her or do you look upon my tempting of you as horridness and feel the evil that temptation brings with it? When it says that God cannot be tempted it not only means He cannot or ever could sin, it means that He (God the Father and Holy Spirit) cannot feel the effects as man does which does not lessen their ability as I mentioned before. Christ as man did but without sin. So He stayed in the addition zone while "entering" the minus zone to only know and feel as we do it's consequences. He can know how we feel without producing that feeling via sin. Hope that makes some sense....many times I don't express myself well.


----------



## D. Paul (Apr 18, 2009)

sjonee said:


> He could always see the vastness of His holiness and sin *when He was just God*, but when He became man He understood the devastation it brought upon a regenerated heart. Not because He sinned and thus felt that devastation, but because He was God, He could transfer that knowledge into His man heart and know the whole extent of sin and its consequences .



I hate to barge into the conversation with contention, but sjonee, are you certain this is the language you want to use? While the discussion is about Jesus and temptation, it is also regarding the vry Nature and Character of God Himself. This particular statement seems to be one that the Open-Theist would affirm; that God "learns" or has no understanding without actual experience, and must adjust accordingly. 

Please accept my plea for forgiveness if this is beyond what you intended.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 18, 2009)

D. Paul said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > He could always see the vastness of His holiness and sin *when He was just God*, but when He became man He understood the devastation it brought upon a regenerated heart. Not because He sinned and thus felt that devastation, but because He was God, He could transfer that knowledge into His man heart and know the whole extent of sin and its consequences .
> ...



I'm not sure what you mean by Open-Theist. I don't know the term. I'm not saying that Christ learned because He was deficient. I was hoping to show that knowing sin (committing sin) isn't to gain or in your words learn....but instead is to take away. Sort of like cancer. I might have cancer and you are free of cancer. Do I have something you don't? Yes but is it an addition or does it make me superior to you? No in fact it make my physical body less superior to yours. But He did become man so as to experience the devastation that sin brings with it. He did not experience that devastation as a aftermath of sinning. Instead, He experienced it outside Himself in the same way He became sin who knew no sin. When He became sin He didn't learn anything because knowing sin isn't to learn.... also by knowing sin's effects as a man didn't take away from Him because He is God also and was kept free from sin, but He did feel the full extent of sin's consequences and received God's full wrath.


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 18, 2009)

If I understand you, there's no difference between Jesus' humiliation and his temptation. Under this interpretation, why was the temptation narrative necessary? It certainly did not challenge Jesus in any way. His knowledge of the effects of the fall were not enhanced by it. I feel sure that I must be mis-charactarizing your view. Can you tell me where I'm misunderstanding you?


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 18, 2009)

There is a difference in His humiliation and temptation. First in order to be tempted He had to become man. God (Father and Holy Spirit) cannot be tempted in all the spectrums of temptation...or He cannot know the guilt that sin produces. Christ was able to know this guilt because he knew the effects of sin as man via the temptation thrown at Him and not by sinning. He didn't have to sin or want to sin in order to know what we know and sympathize with us. He knew without sinning. So just like at the cross He became sin who knew no sin. I think I must make clear that Christ nor God the Father or Holy Spirit sympathizes with us in *wanting* to sin. I think that's where people get unhung up at. Instead, Christ sympathizes with us because of the effects of sin. Remember He knows the good thing which is sinlessness. Sin is devastating and causes death....that is what He sympathizes with us about....not wanting what causes it.


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 18, 2009)

sjonee said:


> First in order to be tempted He had to become man. God (Father and Holy Spirit) cannot be tempted in all the spectrums of temptation...or He cannot know the guilt that sin produces. Christ was able to know this guilt because he knew the effects of sin as man via the temptation thrown at Him and not by sinning.



I'm not sure I understand you here. What you are saying he came to know isn't guilt, since you acknowledge that that is caused by sin. 

It sounds as if you are raising this to an epistemological issue -- the incarnation was necessary to complete God's knowledge -- something I'm sure you aren't meaning . . . but that's what it sounds like.



sjonee said:


> He didn't have to sin or want to sin in order to know what we know and sympathize with us. He knew without sinning.



Agreed . . . Just so we're clear, I'm well aware that he didn't sin. What I'm after, though, is the last sentence in this quote -- "He knew without sinning." What about the temptation, particularly -- beyond what was observable and experienced in the humiliation itself -- gave him this experiential knowledge?

And I think we can agree that Christ doesn't sympathize with our wanting to sin. But we are at the heart of the issue, then, since, wanting to sin is sin. And so, if he did, he would be sinning. What I'm wrestling with, though, is this (and I still haven't heard something that settles it for me) . . . What is the NATURE of Christ's temptation? I think Heb 4:15 indicates that the incarnation is not the sum of what's in view. There is an experiential component that is related particularly to temptation. What I want to know is, how was Christ tempted? 

To say that he saw the devastation that sin causes is true enough, but it's not temptation. He could die. And there's an important experiential component of his being able to identify with us and be our High Priest. But I'm really trying to understand the temptation aspect of it. So far, I haven't gotten an answer that.

Perhaps we need to work on definitions.

What is the meaning of peirazo in its various relevant uses? Test? or Entice? Let's avoid "tempt", since that's where we are talking past one another.

Another matter of definition might be to consider whether Jesus merely sympathizes with us, or can he empathize? -- focusing on how the temptation (I leave this deliberately ambiguous, as I don't know your response to the first definition question yet) affects that sympathy or empathy.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 18, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> I'm not sure I understand you here. What you are saying he came to know isn't guilt, since you acknowledge that that is caused by sin.



No, He did know the guilt but not because He sinned but because that temptation was thrown at Him Satan, He saw/knew the consequences of sin, and the guilt that sin would have on His people. Because able to know this because He was God-man. Had He only been man then He would have known it but only because He would have sinned. Instead, He knew it by experience which He experienced on the outside of Himself. Had it been on the inside it would have been sin coming from within Himself. 



chbrooking said:


> sounds as if you are raising this to an epistemological issue -- the incarnation was necessary to complete God's knowledge -- something I'm sure you aren't meaning . . . but that's what it sounds like.



Again, to know sin is not to give knowledge and therefore add to someone's character, or knowledge data base, or increase who that person is. It is in fact, to take away from all those things. When Adam and Eve learned sin they did not improve upon their situation as Satan promised them, but instead became less. That sin lessened them because they did the actual sinning. For Christ to "learn" or feel the consequences of sin in a human way was a sacrifice for Him on our behalf. He now "learned" or felt sin's consequences as a human being, BUT because this learning didn't come from within Him it took nothing from Him as it does us. I'm not sure that Him learning in this fashion is altogether a strange and heretical thought. Before He became man, He knew not what it was like to get tired as a human knows. As God He knew what it was like to get tired in a infinite manner because He knows all things, but until He became man He didn't know (know as in experience) how it felt to be tired or hungry etc. Maybe instead of saying "learning" or "know" we should replace those words with "actual experience". We would agree that God doesn't experience hunger even though in His infinite knowledge He knows all about it...more than we do.



sjonee said:


> He didn't have to sin or want to sin in order to know what we know and sympathize with us. He knew without sinning.





chbrooking said:


> . . . Just so we're clear, I'm well aware that he didn't sin. What I'm after, though, is the last sentence in this quote -- "He knew without sinning." What about the temptation, particularly -- beyond what was observable and experienced in the humiliation itself -- gave him this experiential knowledge?



Let me ask you this question, "Wouldn't you feel and know the consequences of the sin of beating your child to death without even having the desire to do so much less acting upon that sin?" Because He was perfect He had that same distaste or repulsion towards every sin that was thrown at Him. He felt the sin and its consequences as one would felt much thrown at him. Our mud (sin) comes from within and we feel sin's consequences etc. His mud (sin) was thrown at Him (thus He didn't sin) and He was able to feel what we do. The only difference is that He didn't want to sin or sin. 



chbrooking said:


> I think we can agree that Christ doesn't sympathize with our wanting to sin. But we are at the heart of the issue, then, since, wanting to sin is sin. And so, if he did, he would be sinning. What I'm wrestling with, though, is this (and I still haven't heard something that settles it for me) . . . What is the NATURE of Christ's temptation? I think Heb 4:15 indicates that the incarnation is not the sum of what's in view. There is an experiential component that is related particularly to temptation. What I want to know is, how was Christ tempted?



The nature of Christ's temptation is what I've been saying this whole time. It was for Him to experience sin's consequences. Christ truly was tempted by Satan. Satan was the tempter and Christ his object of temptation. But as Satan threw each sin upon Christ and Christ felt the consequences of those sins He rejected the sin throwing it off Himself and didn't not want to or did not sin. Christ never felt the tug to sin because that would be sinning and He would not have been able to be our High Priest. He felt the consequences of sin without sinning and is therefore able to sympathize with us and be our High Priest. 



chbrooking said:


> say that he saw the devastation that sin causes is true enough, but it's not temptation. He could die. And there's an important experiential component of his being able to identify with us and be our High Priest. But I'm really trying to understand the temptation aspect of it. So far, I haven't gotten an answer that.



Well, we have to start with a known fact which is our foundation from which we cannot divert....He did not sin either in wanting in the slightest way or in actual sinning. There was no sin found in Him. So starting from there we have to view temptation for Him in a different light. Christ was tempted because the act of temptation was placed upon Him by Satan. Again, I can tempt you to beat your child to death...I indeed am the tempter tempting you. However, that doesn't mean you ever wanted to beat your child to death. Christ was tempted by Satan but Satan never succeeded in tempting Him. Again, Christ feeling the tug of sin would not have added to Him and thus given Him the ability to identify with us. It instead would have taken away from Him...made Him less. He certainly wouldn't have been able to sympathize with us. I can say that I can sympathize with you on a particular sin because I have the same sin. But that is not true. I don't sympathize with you in the true sense. I can only identify with you as a sinner because I am a sinner too. In order to sympathize with a person, one has to be free from that situation which causes the response of sympathy. Christ truly can sympathize with us because He knows perfect freedom of sin and knows how it is to be free from sin and yet He also knows the consequences of sin. 



chbrooking said:


> we need to work on definitions.
> 
> What is the meaning of peirazo in its various relevant uses? Test? or Entice? Let's avoid "tempt", since that's where we are talking past one another.
> 
> Another matter of definition might be to consider whether Jesus merely sympathizes with us, or can he empathize? -- focusing on how the temptation (I leave this deliberately ambiguous, as I don't know your response to the first definition question yet) affects that sympathy or empathy.



I prefer to use the word tempt since that is what Scripture says and I hope I explained it already.


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 18, 2009)

Sarah,
Let me first say thank you for taking the time and effort to work through this. With every exchange, however, we don’t come closer together. 

I cannot agree with you that Jesus knew guilt in the context of his temptation. Perhaps we could say he knew guilt when he bore our sins on the cross. But Heb 4:15 talks about him being tempted --yet without sin. His suffering in this context has to do with temptation.

I don’t know what you mean by 


sjonee said:


> temptation was thrown at Him.


Your illustration about beating my child to death doesn’t help, because for one thing that wouldn’t tempt me. Suggesting something awful isn’t the same thing as temptation. And for another, it doesn’t even illustrate our own temptation. Seeing the consequences of a suggestion doesn’t equate to being tempted by the suggestion. And if that’s your definition, I still don’t understand how you see the experiential element here. The Son didn’t have to become flesh to appreciate the consequences of sin. 

I don’t know what you mean by “He knew it by experience which He experienced on the outside of Himself.” Undoubtedly, as the initial question phrased it, temptation came to him from without. But that doesn’t mean he experienced it outside of himself. I don’t even know what that means.

I would agree that the knowledge of sin is a negative, not a positive. But the text isn’t talking about Jesus knowing SIN. It’s talking about him knowing temptation. As I mentioned, I’m unwilling to grant sin OR guilt in Jesus’ experience. 

Clearly Jesus learned many things -- it’s part of his humanity. But I don’t see “learning the consequences of sin” as temptation. He could and did acquire that knowledge by revelation -- another part of his humanity. The scriptures were plain on this the consequences of sin. No temptation was necessary to acquire that knowledge. All he had to do was read or listen.

Finally, you continue to distinguish what Hebrews identifies. 


sjonee said:


> Our mud (sin) comes from within and we feel sin's consequences etc. His mud (sin) was thrown at Him (thus He didn't sin) and He was able to feel what we do.


I’m not sure what you mean by “He was able to feel what we do.” But where you draw a contrast, Hebrews says Jesus can sympathize because of identity. The emphasis on being exactly like us in every respect is important to this discussion, particularly because it touches on our temptation. In other words,, Jesus would be included in 1 Cor. 10:13.

You are probably growing impatient with me, judging by 


sjonee said:


> The nature of Christ’s temptation is what I’ve been saying this whole time.


I didn’t get it before, because I didn’t think it was temptation you were talking about at all. But now I see that you are defining temptation as recognizing or appreciating the consequences of sin. And if you push it to an event, it is the mere suggestion of something awful, regardless of its appeal.

For starters, I don’t think that squares with the temptation narrative of Genesis. Nor do I think it squares with our experience of temptation. Your repeated appeal to the suggestion to beat one’s child to death as an example of temptation has convinced me that we are at an impasse. I don’t see how suggestion = temptation. 



sjonee said:


> I prefer to use the word tempt since that is what Scripture says and I hope I explained it already.


“Tempt” is a translation. I was asking for synonyms that highlight the particular area of the semantic range you are after. I wanted to clarify the ambiguity. I do think I finally understand what you mean by “tempt”. But your definition bears no resemblance to any English definition of tempt. Nor, I think, does it help elucidate Heb 4:15.

Please don’t misunderstand this post. I am very grateful that you took the time to help. But I don’t see how we can progress beyond this point, given that we so radically differ on what tempt means.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 18, 2009)

Clark,
I"m not known as expressing myself well. I will not go any further as I am not helping you. Please just forget all I've said and allow a pastor to answer these questions as I'm sure they will be better able to help you. Thanks for taking the time to read though. Peace.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Apr 18, 2009)

sjonee said:


> Clark,
> I"m not known as expressing myself well. I will not go any further as I am not helping you. Please just forget all I've said and allow a pastor to answer these questions as I'm sure they will be better able to help you. Thanks for taking the time to read though. Peace.




You didn't fail to express yourself..there is just a difference of definition. I agree it is at an impasse because of that.


----------



## Confessor (Apr 18, 2009)

Here's how I see it: temptation involves the spontaneous emergence of a specific option, one to sin, along with another option, not to sin. There can be more than one variance of these options, but always it ultimately boils down to sin or righteousness. For instance, if I notice an attractive lady out of the corner of my eye, I have the options of either lusting or not lusting. These options emerge spontaneously in a sense, for I do not choose to place myself in a given situation; it occurs outside of my control.

Now, after these different options/lines of reasoning emerge, my choice ultimately comes down to whether my desire to sin overrides my desire for righteousness or not. And deliberation and intense struggle occur when these desires are at about the same "power." In my previous example, if my desire not to lust barely superseded my desire to lust, it would be a very rigorous tribulation, and a hard decision, but I would eventually win the struggle and not sin.

If Jesus, seeing as He has wholly without sin (wholly holy ), could not have had a desire to sin, then it follows that He still had the experience of being _confronted_ by these options (to sin or not to sin) without ever having an inclination (i.e. desire) pushing him to sin. Therefore Jesus is tempted as we are in the sense that He, like us, was also confronted with options to sin. But He is not tempted in the sense that He is ever pushed toward the sin-option, for that would negate His sinlessness.

-----

However, this does not seem to work, per your coconut cake example. No one could meaningfully call that a _temptation_ if you had absolutely no desire to eat coconut cake. Or, as another example, if I were to be truly disgusted at the act of murdering a baby, such that I would never possess the desire to carry that out, then I would not be _tempted_ to murder a baby at any point in time. Temptation seems to presuppose a desire to effectuate the option. Yet if desire is itself sin, then temptation presupposes sin. But Jesus is sinless, so how could He have been tempted?

I think that if we want to answer this question, we want to make a good deal of qualifications involving our desires, temptations, and especially the fact that God always provided a way out in times of tribulation. If pure desire were enough to be counted as sin, then there is no outlet during times of temptation. But that is absurd, and contradictory to Scripture. That would mean that, in order to be victorious through temptation, we must have absolutely no desire whatsoever to sin. But in this case, then, we are not being victorious over anything, for our enemy never existed in the first place. Such a view of desires -- such that any desire to sin is itself a huge sin -- would kill the notion of temptation, and much less victory over it. We need to be very specific.

Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount does not say that any desire to sin _per se_ is a sin. What He stresses is that the Mosaic law emphasizes internal holiness as well as external holiness; therefore we can still sin internally. However, this does not deny the fact that we can have desires to sin internally without effectuating these internal sins. As an example, Jesus said that we should not be angry, for that transgresses the sixth commandment. What He does _not_ say is that if we have some desire to be angry at our brothers (and subsequently suppress that desire), then we have sinned. That would be a mockery of the concept of victory over temptation.

What this demonstrates is that it is possible to have some urge to sin, some sense of enticement, _that is not itself a sinning of the mind_. What we do with that urge or enticement -- whether we effectuate that internally (e.g. getting angry) or externally (e.g. murder) -- is then sin or non-sin.

Therefore Jesus could have had some type of enticement to sin, and He could have felt somewhat of an urge, but He could have handled this in a sinless way.

If anyone has anything to add or detract, feel free. I just took a few thoughts of mine and did my best to take them to their logical conclusions.


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 18, 2009)

Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks. 
Let me ruminate on this a bit before replying.
Also, I'd love to hear others chime in.


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 20, 2009)

Confessor said:


> These options emerge spontaneously in a sense, for I do not choose to place myself in a given situation; it occurs outside of my control. . . .
> 
> However, this does not seem to work, per your coconut cake example. No one could meaningfully call that a _temptation_ if you had absolutely no desire to eat coconut cake. . . . Temptation seems to presuppose a desire to effectuate the option. Yet if desire is itself sin, then temptation presupposes sin. But Jesus is sinless, so how could He have been tempted?
> 
> ...



I don't see an escape to your conclusion. But since this challenges the traditional understanding of, among other things, the tenth commandment (see initial post), I would REALLY appreciate it if others would weigh in. I'm always distrusting of my own reasoning abilities. 

To put a fine point on it, there is a sense in which Jesus COULD have felt the "tug", COULD have felt enticed, without thereby having sinned.

As I consider this, I think we might all tend to push the sin of Adam further back than necessary. The WSC says "the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherin they were created was their eating the forbidden fruit." It wasn't "thinking about it," or "weighing their options." It was the act. That doesn't necessarily detract from Jesus' point in the Sermon about internal sin, does it? Doesn't looking at a woman lustfully indicate that our minds have made a move toward evil? Putting an even finer point on it, the question is this: Is noticing a woman's attractiveness -- even sexual appeal -- sin, or does the sin come when our minds move toward fantasy or desire. Is recognizing desirableNESS the same as desire?


----------



## Confessor (Apr 20, 2009)

In response to the fact that coveting is a desire and also a sin, I would say this: coveting seems to be another internal sin that can be desired sinlessly prior to being sinfully effected -- just like lust or anger.

Coveting occurs at the point when one person wants a possession of someone else's, but it is possible to have a desire to covet prior to actually coveting. For instance, if I see a guy walk by with an attractive girlfriend, I can feel an urge to covet his girlfriend without actually coveting her. After I deliberate -- e.g. "She's so attractive"; "True, but only externally; she shows no love for Christ"; etc. -- then I choose to covet or not to covet. Coveting is an internal sin, like lust (7th) or anger (6th) or a concealed aversion to parental commands (5th), that can be desired but subsequently crushed sinlessly.

And, just to reiterate a point in my post above, if there were no sense in which desires to sin could be sinless, then the entire concept of temptation is obliterated. There still is a sense in which desires to sin are sinful, but not plenarily.


----------

