# Jesus and lustful thoughts?



## shackleton (Jan 3, 2009)

A few years ago when I was first becoming reformed I was listening to a very popular preacher, Calvinistic, who stated that when Jesus was eating with the Pharisee's and the women came in and washed his feet with perfume this most likely caused him to have lustful thoughts and this was so that he could be tempted in all ways like we were. Up until recently I thought this sounded good since he stated this made him a better high priest but know I do think this is the case. Technically, if Jesus had lustful thoughts then he would have sinned since in other places Jesus himself mentions that to lust is the same as adultery.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 3, 2009)

[Moderator]Moved to _Theological_ forum.[/Moderator]


----------



## discipulo (Jan 3, 2009)

Some Passages come to my mind, knowing the Lord Jesus fulfilled a perfect and complete obedience to the Father and all the Law.

Watch over your heart with all diligence,for from it flow the springs of life. Proverbs 4:23

Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation Matthew 26:41

He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth 1 Peter 2:22

(…) with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ 1 Peter 1:19

but One (High Priest Jesus Christ) who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 3, 2009)

Since lustful thoughts are a sin, and since all are agreed that Jesus did not sin (even those who mistakenly believe that Jesus could have sinned), Jesus did not have sinful thoughts.


----------



## Rocketeer (Jan 3, 2009)

shackleton said:


> Technically, if Jesus had lustful thoughts then he would have sinned since in other places Jesus himself mentions that to lust is the same as adultery.



Not _technically_, but _actually_. Jesus himself said:



Matthew 5:28 said:


> But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.



Therefore, He did not lust. On the other hand, He might have been tempted; Satan tempted Him openly, so why not in a more 'concealed' manner as well?



Matthew 4:1-11 said:


> Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
> And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
> Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
> Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
> Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him


*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT][/FONT]*


----------



## APuritansMind (Jan 3, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Since lustful thoughts are a sin, and since all are agreed that Jesus did not sin (even those who mistakenly believe that Jesus could have sinned), Jesus did not have sinful thoughts.


----------



## shackleton (Jan 3, 2009)

Not arguing but asking, is it possible to be tempted by a woman rubbing her hair on your bare feet with out it becoming a lustful thought? How would it be an outward temptation that does not enter the mind? I know it would most likely cause me to lust, depending on how she looked.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 3, 2009)

I suppose the question becomes how can one be tempted in this manner without lusting?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 3, 2009)

shackleton said:


> Not arguing but asking, is it possible to be tempted by a woman rubbing her hair on your bare feet with out it becoming a lustful thought? How would it be an outward temptation that does not enter the mind? I know it would most likely cause me to lust, depending on how she looked.



He was tempted to have lustful thoughts by her mere presence in that posture - but that's not the same as having those thoughts. We *know* he didn't sin, and so we *know* he *didn't have* lustful thoughts, period. 

I think we confuse temptation with actual falling to that temptation. I think that oftentimes when we are actually having lustful thoughts we somehow write that off as mere temptation. Temptation is provided when the circumstances to lust are present. The minute thoughts move to "boy, I'd like to..." you've lusted. Jesus never did that. Ever.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 3, 2009)

I believe He did not, certainly! But like the o.p. I am curious as to where the temptation in regard to this sin starts and stops and then the sin begins.

-----Added 1/3/2009 at 11:18:48 EST-----



> Temptation is provided when the circumstances to lust are present.



With many men, couldn't that be nearly all the time? Wouldn't/couldn't that lead to women being asked to cover themselves like Muslim women do?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 3, 2009)

PuritanBouncer said:


> I believe He did not, certainly! But like the o.p. I am curious as to where the temptation in regard to this sin starts and stops and then the sin begins.



It's when the thought enters the mind. I'm not sure delineating further is helpful.



> > Temptation is provided when the circumstances to lust are present.
> 
> 
> 
> With many men, couldn't that be nearly all the time? Wouldn't/couldn't that lead to women being asked to cover themselves like Muslim women do?



Yes, with many men that could be nearly all the time. It could lead that way, but it needn't necessarily.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 3, 2009)

I find this discussion very interesting, not in regard to Christ as I trust fully in His sinlessness, but in regard to us as followers. I'm just very curious how we as men defeat lustful thoughts. I'm gonna take this to the mens forum


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 3, 2009)

I just wanted to give my  
I do not think Jesus sinned.
And we can not explain how Jesus felt, because when we sin (in this case covet) it is because something out side of us, meets with the sinful desires already in our hearts as a result of the fall.
Jesus would not have had this being without sin and the result of the fall.
There we as human can not explain what it would be like to be tempted and not feel the sin with in, because this is outside of our nature.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 3, 2009)

Awesome post Martin!


----------



## Davidius (Jan 3, 2009)

It sounds like he was just saying that Jesus was probably tempted to lust after her.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 3, 2009)

Being tempted to lust and lusting (which is the definition of having lustful thoughts) are two different things. We must be very careful when we attempt to describe our Lord's life and actions.

Better to say nothing than to insinuate (even unintentionally) that our Lord sinned.


----------



## discipulo (Jan 3, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> I think we confuse temptation with actual falling to that temptation. I think that oftentimes when we are actually having lustful thoughts we somehow write that off as mere temptation. Temptation is provided when the circumstances to lust are present. The minute thoughts move to "boy, I'd like to..." you've lusted.



This seems a good definition. So as soon as the thought is forming we must resist it and fight it back. I think concerning this, it was Martin Luther who said:

_You can't stop birds from flying over your head, but you can stop them from making a nest in your hair._


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 3, 2009)

Even suggesting that Jesus was possibly tempted there seems quite speculative to me. What might tempt me to lust might not be the same for another man.

We are guilty as soon as the thought comes into our minds, because our minds are already sinful. We may deal properly with the temptation, but there is still guilt associated with the entry.

With Jesus, there was no guilt associated with the entry of temptation whenever it took place, because he did not have a corrupt mind to begin with. Sin had not found "residence" there. Like Adam before he fell. It was not a sin to be tempted, but once corruption dwelt, then the entrance of sin would invariably be itself sinful.

Think of a nice, shiny basin, stainless steel. No rust. Put water in there (temptation) pour it out, wipe it up. No corruption. But if that water finds one place to stay, now rust has ruined the pot. Now, any water that gets in instantly contributes to the problem.

Jesus always dealt with every temptation (whatever the form) as perfectly as could be. He did not have a sinful mind that had to fight the corrosive effect of sin, but a uncorrupted mind (and an incorruptible mind, thanks to his reliance upon his Holy Spirit) that never allowed sin its first toehold.

And remember also that every sin resisted translates to strength gained against sin, and sin's power (though it be great) is far from limitless. Jesus, so well practiced against sin's device, was sin's most powerful foe ever, better still than Adam. So, to say that he possibly was tempted to lust in that hour is really superimposing one man's weakness on a Christ at the height of his "human" power to resist sin and temptation.

It would be like saying that a great general probably forgot to cover his exposed flank, because that's such a normal battlefield failure; he probably just caught his mistake later. No, we've no right to even suppose that, but to admit that he probably had it covered before we would have thought of it, were we in his place.


----------



## shackleton (Jan 3, 2009)

If I can take this a slightly different direction about something else I have wondered, in the Garden, were they sinning when they thought of disobeying God and taking the fruit or did they have to actually take the fruit and eat to sin? They, at least Eve, or "the Woman", was obviously standing there lusting and plotting in her mind about what God had forbidden, so did she sin before taking the fruit?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 3, 2009)

I think so. I don't think that the _expression_ of her sin (the pluck, the bite, the chew, the swallow) can be the reducible of her sin. Her sin was in her determination to act according to her own natural judgment, instead of the authority of God. When that threshold was crossed, sin was entered into.

Eve's sin, I believe, can be described as a species of empiricism, the notion that true knowledge can be gained apart from God's revelation (general or special) through the senses, or by experimentation.

Adam sinned in the other main branch, in the mind. His sin was rationalism. He reasoned his way to justify his participation in the sin. Paul is clear: she, _*and not he,*_ was deceived. Among other things, he let Eve sin, and judged her post-fall condition as "not that bad, what has she gained? should be OK for me too, musn't let her move beyond me."


----------



## discipulo (Jan 3, 2009)

Joshua said:


> What a ridiculous statement for a minister to say if, in fact, he did.



Can you please explain what you mean?


----------



## discipulo (Jan 3, 2009)

Joshua said:


> discipulo said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...



Thank you. Yes, it's absurd and a complete blasphemy.


----------



## shackleton (Jan 3, 2009)

discipulo said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > What a ridiculous statement for a minister to say if, in fact, he did.
> ...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 3, 2009)

James 1:13-15,



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



Given the two natures and the clear testimony of Hebrews, we must say that Jesus was tempted but we must also remember his utter and unique moral purity. He was not fallen. We are. We cannot imagine, perhaps, _not_ being tempted by the woman, but Jesus is not fallen. We look at the woman as an object but Jesus saw her as a person, as a sinner, as one of his children, as his sister (Hebrews calls him our older brother), so that he loved her purely and with an eternal love. Because he was human he suffered and was tempted as we are yet without sin. 

At the same time, on the basis of James 1, perhaps we should distinguish between types of temptation. James seems to consider temptation, in this instance, as tantamount to sin or as implicit sin ("lured and enticed"). As he thinks of it here, it is to enter into a relation to evil which, by definition, is impossible for God. Jesus was never "lured and enticed." He was tempted. The devil offered him temporal power and glory and Jesus rejected it. He struggled against sin in the garden. He prayed for deliverance from the cross, but he submitted, he obeyed.


----------



## shackleton (Jan 3, 2009)

So the inward drive that we feel towards something is a result of sin and if Jesus was without sin he did not have this inward yearning for things. He was tempted outwardly but did not feel the inward yearn that we feel. (Romans 7:14-25) The war of the flesh and Spirit. He did not have this war and so therefore would not have had lustful thoughts.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 3, 2009)

shackleton said:


> So the inward drive that we feel towards something is a result of sin and if Jesus was without sin he did not have this inward yearning for things. He was tempted outwardly but did not feel the inward yearn that we feel. (Romans 7:14-25) The war of the flesh and Spirit. He did not have this war and so therefore would not have had lustful thoughts.



Our theologians described this inward desire as concupiscence (pron. con-qu-pisc-ence). 

Contra Rome, concupiscence is the result of the fall. Jesus was sinless therefore Jesus was without concupiscence.


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 3, 2009)

PuritanBouncer said:


> Awesome post Martin!



Thank you for the kind words


----------



## steven-nemes (Jan 3, 2009)

I don't see why a woman washing your feet with perfume necessitates lust in a normal person... It isn't possible to have a woman wash your feet and not feel lust at all, even if you were not Jesus? Why not?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 3, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> I don't see why a woman washing your feet with perfume necessitates lust in a normal person... It isn't possible to have a woman wash your feet and not feel lust at all, even if you were not Jesus? Why not?



I don't think anyone said it necessitates it - only that it presents a temptation. Certainly one could reject the temptation toward impure thoughts (as Jesus certainly did) - but it's hard to deny that the situation lends itself to a temptation toward those thoughts.


----------



## shackleton (Jan 3, 2009)

The pastor I was referring to was trying to make the point that Jesus as a man was tempted in all ways just like we are and that would mean to be tempted sexually, because we are tempted sexually.


----------



## Herald (Jan 3, 2009)

shackleton said:


> The pastor I was referring to was trying to make the point that Jesus as a man was tempted in all ways just like we are and that would mean to be tempted sexually, because we are tempted sexually.



What does the text say? Does the text indicate that Jesus was tempted? It seems to me, based on what you have shared, that this pastor took license to understand the mind of God, apart from the clear teaching of scripture. It's one thing to contemplate the depth of God's revealed character such as His mercy, love and holiness. It's quite another to guess whether He had lustful thoughts in a given situation. It borders on obscene and blasphemous. I would not proceed any further than what scripture clearly reveals.


----------

