Christ,Temptation, and the Flesh

Status
Not open for further replies.

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Professor
Was Christ tempted via fallen flesh? I have always thought not. So, I am wondering how does He sympathize if only tempted externally? Just something that came to my mind, I haven't read a lot on it.
 
Jesus did not have to be able or free to sin, for temptation to be real. By virtue of His human nature Our Lord certainly experienced temptation from that human perspective.

Being able to sin is not an essential attribute of human nature. A sinful nature was taken up, rather it was an unfallen human nature (no original sin present) assumed by the Second Person of the Trinity.

For example, from LBC 8:2:

The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with Him who made the world, who upholds and governs all things He has made, did, when the fullness of time was complete, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities of it, yet without sin;​

These infirmities of the human nature made temptation possible. But, temptation and sin are not the same. Persons sin, not natures.

Sproul has an interesting take in Now, That's a Good Question:

Did Jesus have the ability to sin? The problem hidden in that question is that if Jesus did have the ability to sin, does that mean he had original sin and participated in a fallen nature? If that were the case, he wouldn't even be qualified to save himself, let alone us. If he did not have the ability to sin, was his temptation (so central to God's giving him the crown of glory for his obedience) just a charadewas he really not subjected to real temptation?

The New Testament tells us that Jesus was like us at every point save one: He was without sin. It tells us that Jesus became incarnate and took upon himself human nature. It also tells us that he is the second Adam. Generally, classical Christology teaches that when Jesus was incarnate and became the new Adam, he came born with the same nature that Adam had before the Fall. Adam didn't have original sin when he was created. So Jesus did not have original sin. So we would ask the same question: Was Adam capable of sinning? Yes, he was. Christ, the second Adam, was also capable of sinning in the sense that he had all of the faculties and all of the equipment necessary to sin if that's what he chose to do.

Could Jesus have sinned if he had wanted to? Absolutely. Of course, he didn't want to. So if you ask it a different way, could Jesus sin if he didn't want to? No, he couldn't sin if he didn't want to any more than God could sin because God doesn't want to sin. Wanting to sin is a prerequisite for sinning.

But then we have to push it one step further: Could Jesus have wanted to sin? Theologians are divided on this point. I would say yes, I think he could have. I think that's part of being made after the likeness of Adam. When we're in heaven and are totally glorified, then we will no longer have the power and ability to sin. That's what we look forward to; that's what Jesus earned for himself and for us through his perfect obedience. Christ's perfect obedience was not a charade. He actually was victorious over every conceivable temptation that was thrown his way.​
 
This is a question with which my wife has struggled, as well.

The issue a lot of people have with temptation is that James seems to define temptation as when a person "is lured and enticed by his own desire." The problem is that Jesus obviously did not have evil desire by which to be lured and enticed. So how, on this definition, was he tempted?

I have explained to my wife and others who share this concern that, first, James here is talking to fallen human beings who have a different experience than Jesus had. I explain that there are two sources of temptation—internal and external. My own sinful desire often tempts me. This is something Jesus never experienced. But we also experience external temptation, too. And the external temptation doesn't have to be successful to be successful to be real. This is the case with Christ and Satan. He was actually tempted by external forces, but they were quite unsuccessful. They were still real, however.

Second, and in some ways even more important than that, I have tried to explain how "tempt" in the Greek (πειράζω) can also mean "test." Since "tempt" often has sinful connotations, I usually try to say that Jesus was "tested." The NRSV actually takes the same route in Hebrews 2:18 (cf. its treatment of James 1:14). I am not sure if this has any undesirable Christological ramifications to say Jesus was "tested" simply for connotations' sake. Perhaps @Ask Mr. Religion can speak more to that.
 
Wanting to sin is a prerequisite for sinning.But then we have to push it one step further: Could Jesus have wanted to sin? Theologians are divided on this point. I would say yes, I think he could have. I think that's part of being made after the likeness of Adam. When we're in heaven and are totally glorified, then we will no longer have the power and ability to sin. That's what we look forward to; that's what Jesus earned for himself and for us through his perfect obedience. Christ's perfect obedience was not a charade. He actually was victorious over every conceivable temptation that was thrown his way.

The problem with this logic is that "wanting to sin" is sin. One could replace the word desire or willing with "wanting" and see the logic of this illogical thinking.
 
The problem with this logic is that "wanting to sin" is sin. One could replace the word desire or willing with "wanting" and see the logic of this illogical thinking.
I do not read it as you have quoted. I read it as Jesus could have wanted to sin, that is, the ability to not not sin was there just as it was in the mutable unfallen human nature of Adam.
 
I do not read it as you have quoted. I read it as Jesus could have wanted to sin, that is, the ability to not not sin was there just as it was in the mutable unfallen human nature of Adam.

I understand, and as discussed in the past here it boils down to impeccability and Pastor Sproul's view on how Jesus was not impeccable.

The below though posed as a hypothetical affirms that Jesus was like us in the wants we sinner have. In other words, this statement is not a hypothetical but an assertion.

"Could Jesus have wanted to sin? Theologians are divided on this point. I would say yes, I think he could have. I think that's part of being made after the likeness of Adam."
 
The simplest way to think about this is that there are two types of temptation: (1) external and (2) internal. Jesus was tempted externally (see Matthew 4). But He could not have been tempted internally (that is, from his own sinful desires) because He did not have sin or a sinful nature. But an external temptation is a real temptation. That is exactly where Adam failed - in the garden he did not have a sinful nature either. The Second Adam succeeded where the First failed.
 
Second, and in some ways even more important than that, I have tried to explain how "tempt" in the Greek (πειράζω) can also mean "test." Since "tempt" often has sinful connotations, I usually try to say that Jesus was "tested." The NRSV actually takes the same route in Hebrews 2:18 (cf. its treatment of James 1:14). I am not sure if this has any undesirable Christological ramifications to say Jesus was "tested" simply for connotations' sake. Perhaps @Ask Mr. Religion can speak more to that.
Well, we can certainly say Our Lord was tested in many ways. Consider 40 days in the wilderness, where we can imagine how hungry He must have been, when afterwards the devil then tested Him. These tests were clearly temptations.

I think judicious use of "test" versus "temptation" will lead one astray a wee bit when it comes to Christology. We should not be hesitant to say Our Lord was actually tempted. Temptation includes a desire, good or bad. Test, in the context before us, implies some measures taken to reveal the strengths or capabilities of someone by putting them under strain. Both terms have a place in Christology and reveal things about Our Lord. To eliminate one in favor of the other will likely reduce what we may learn about the Person of Our Lord.

In one sense, we can say all temptations are tests. There is no sense in which we can say all tests are temptations. Accordingly, to substitute "test" for "temptation" seems imprudent if one is hoping to escape some claim that Our Lord was not really tempted. Better that we explain what we mean rather than couch the situation in words that may suggest to the uninformed we are being coy.
 
Last edited:
Well, we can certainly say Our Lord was tested in many ways. Consider 40 days in the wilderness, where we can imagine how hungry He must have been, when afterwards the devil then tested Him. These tests were clearly temptations.

I think judicious use of "test" versus "temptation" will lead one astray a wee bit when it comes to Christology. We should not be hesitant to say Our Lord was actually tempted. Temptation includes a desire, good or bad. Test, in the context before us, implies some measures taken to reveal the strengths or capabilities of someone by putting them under strain. Both terms have a place in Christology and reveal things about Our Lord. To eliminate one in favor of the other will likely reduce what we may learn about the Person of Our Lord.

In one sense, we can say all temptations are tests. There is no sense in which we can say all tests are temptations. Accordingly, to substitute "test" for "temptation" seems imprudent if one is hoping to escape some claim that Our Lord was not really tempted. Better that we explain what we mean rather than couch the situation in words that may suggest to the uninformed we are being coy.

That’s very insightful. Thank you. This is something I’ve been thinking about as of late, and your thoughts have only added to that helpfully!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top