Matthew 4:1-11 and a barrier between Jesus and....?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JonathanBradley

Puritan Board Freshman
Right now, my family and I are looking for a new church home. There is one church that we like and we have visited several times and have attended Sunday School twice now. During this most recent lesson this past Lord's Day, the teacher stated that Jesus' use of Scripture to defeat the temptation of Satan were a cry to God the Father for help, because there was a "barrier" (his word) between Him (Jesus) and God (or maybe he said Jesus' God-ness, His ability to resist temptation). He said it was because He's human that He couldn't resist the temptation on His own.
My wife and I both looked at each other at this point and the image that flashed through my head was the John MacArthur "Wat" meme that was popular at one point.

This does not sound right to me and I am trying to figure out if he read this somewhere or where this idea would have come from (or maybe I'm the wrong one). I just see that in saying that Jesus was unable to do this on His own takes away from the fact that He is 100% God.

Can someone point me in the right direction on where I can find more about this line of thought, if it exists?
 
Well I've just preached recently on Matthew 4 and I didn't approach it that way, and I don't think I read that anywhere in any of the commentaries etc. that I read in preparation. I assume his application was that we need to use Scripture to defeat Satan, which is correct, but that does not mean that Jesus "needed" to use Scripture to overcome some barrier of his own making, in taking flesh, so to speak, or anyone else's.
 
That's the direction I was leaning on this. The way it was taught in the Sunday School class made it sound like Jesus was "unable" to resist the temptation without the Father's direct help because of some "barrier". It was really unsettling for me and my wife.
 
I asked my wife if I was missing any details. What he said came about after he asked the question "Why did Jesus use Scripture here?" (in Matthew 4:1-11). We responded "as an example for us", to which the teach replied yes, but why else?
After a short silence, he said that Jesus' use of Scriptures was a crying out to God the Father for help because He couldn't do it on his own. That there was a "barrier" between Jesus and God or something (I don't remember if he said it was between Jesus and God or Jesus and His fullness as God, or something to that effect).
 
Where Adam failed, Jesus – the last Adam – resisted Satan's temptation. There was no barrier between Jesus and His heavenly Father. But the devil sought to have Jesus, in His time of great hunger, distrust His Father's care and provision for Him, and – if He was really the Son of God – He should take matters in His own hands and work a miracle to satisfy His hunger. But Jesus, trusting His Father to provide for His needs, responded with the "sword of the Spirit", wielding also the "shield of faith", saying that "man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God", indicating He would not trust in His own efforts. In Matt 4:11 we read that, after all three temptations, angels (no doubt sent by the Father) came to Jesus and ministered to Him, providing for all His needs, which would include food.

Jesus protected Himself by the word of truth on all three occasions, a sword and shield against a cunning assault. He remained in communion with His Father.

It would be good when you lunch with the pastor to ask him for clarification. You will be able to see if there is anything "off" in his understanding. Be gracious.
 
I asked my wife if I was missing any details. What he said came about after he asked the question "Why did Jesus use Scripture here?" (in Matthew 4:1-11). We responded "as an example for us", to which the teach replied yes, but why else?
After a short silence, he said that Jesus' use of Scriptures was a crying out to God the Father for help because He couldn't do it on his own. That there was a "barrier" between Jesus and God or something (I don't remember if he said it was between Jesus and God or Jesus and His fullness as God, or something to that effect).
You don't need to be steeped in historic Christian theology to recognize the heretical (if unintentional so) teaching within the teacher's expressions. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, as I hope he is not wedded to the interpretation he has come up with. I hope it is the result of a certain ignorance, not unlike Apollos in the NT, and he's open to correction when it is offered, ala Act.18:26. Unfortunately, the man is in a teaching position where it is generally assumed he has demonstrated his fitness for the position he holds. Many such teachers, having labored over their interpretation, prove resistant to counsel. But I hope he is open to hearing you and your concerns, and ready to value your experience and knowledge.

Let's get specific. Jesus' use of Scripture does point every ordinary man who would resist temptation to God's revelatory word, as a bulwark of truth against the lie at the core of every temptation. Ordinary people of ordinary human nature, by help of the indwelling Spirit find strength in the word. God is to be believed of both his promises and his threats. Let God be true, and every man or devil a liar. His values must be our values, if we would enjoy the life that comes from him alone.

Jesus has for himself the common human nature; but also he has (and always had) his divine nature. He also has eternally his filial relation to God the Father, and there is no barrier in the Godhead. There is no barrier between the natures possessed by God the Son; they are not confused or mixed, but one is not sealed off from the other. Otherwise, Scripture would avoid applying a characteristic of one nature to the other improperly, as is famously done in Act.20:28. Nor is there a barrier between Jesus' human nature and God the Father; this is impossible without making Jesus schizophrenic. Jesus is not first of all a man then "taken over" by divine presence and power, such an act overcoming a native concupiscence.

This idea: "because He's human that He couldn't resist the temptation on His own," is basically Roman Catholic theology. The RCC teaches that human nature in its created state, even before sin, was susceptible to corruption unless it had the needed infusion of grace, the donum superadditum, an extra measure of divine help that raised man above his raw creaturely instincts, lusts, and passions. With the withdrawal of that grace, Adam left on his own fell into sin, inevitably and inexorably. The mystery of the fall is taken away--how someone who was holy and happy in his obedient, loving relation with God turned to his own purpose against his Maker and Lord--and is rationalized by distinguishing Adam's blessed condition from his created condition.

"Concupiscence" is the tendency in man toward sin. This tendency is not natural, but it is sinful of itself. RC doctrine contradicts this, and teaches that bare concupiscence is natural and not sinful per se. Corruption in this view is part-and-parcel of creation. So, does Jesus born of Mary and possessing human nature have bare concupiscence? The RC has no problem asserting this, but the Protestant view says: no way. Jesus born of Mary but not of ordinary generation, has common human nature with the quality of Adam's original possession of that nature. Jesus has no concupiscence, no tendency to sin or corruption at all. Jesus is "the last Adam," 1Cor.15:45, "the second man," 1Cor.15:47.

Jesus could, and for our sake needed to resist temptation as a man. He also was God the Son in perfect power and devotion, knew and went to the word of God for comfort, and prayed to his heavenly Father, and enjoyed the Spirit's presence without limitation. There was never any chance Satan would have a victory over the Savior of the world. But it is important to affirm that the man Christ Jesus did what the man Adam failed to accomplish. He did not succumb to concupiscence in his flesh, because there was none of it--but nor was there any of it in Adam. Jesus withstood the devil, and the devil departed unfulfilled in his ambition, but determined to return vigorously, Lk.4:13.

Jesus' victory was in the Spirit, but it was not on account of the Spirit the way our victories are on account of the Spirit, on account of Christ's strength in us, on account of the word of God our reliance, on account of the Father's electing love toward us. Jesus has been tempted in every way like we are, yet he remained without sin, Heb.4:15. He didn't do it because of special grace he had, that we too must have in order to overcome our weakness as he overcame his weakness (our common weakness).

One more thing that may be of use. Some doubt that so powerful a resistance in Jesus, the impossibility of him sinning, means that he wasn't actually tempted, that he brushed it off, that it wasn't even an annoyance to someone like him. This idea fails to grapple with the nature of temptation. Temptation is genuine, not because it might succeed, but because it possesses the similitude of value, a counterfeit. What was tempting to Jesus was the proposal that he could have the thing he desired by a route that bypassed the express will of God--will that included suffering, trial, difficulty, fear, and deferred gratification, even death. Could he not see the attraction in skipping all that?

Of course he could. However, he was able to see through the subterfuge to remember his mission, the word of his Father, and his love for the sinners for whom he came to be obedient. In the third temptation, the devil basically offered Jesus the chance to take his place. The devil would succeed in thwarting God's design, if need be by his own self-immolation. What result could come? It mattered little, if God the Son took over from God the Father, or if everything in earth and heaven ceased, or if the devil found himself again--his hatred of God is boundless. But Jesus wasn't going to bite the hook. He set his face like flint and go to the cross. He had come to destroy the works of the devil.

He's the kind of man we always needed, the kind of Son his Father (our heavenly King) was well-pleased with, the kind of son his father Adam (according to the flesh) could admire.
 
This is my advice, though limited in scope, or expertise. First, you are a visitor, not a member. Correcting a person in a teaching position while not even a member is going to put you in the precarious position of an outsider coming in as a know it all. You have only been there twice, and now you are trying to correct their established, tested, and ordained/positioned teachers. It oozes of fault finding and I can only imagine the pastor inwardly rolling his eyes as a person who has been there two weeks mentions the doctrinal incorrectness of a brother he has probably known for years. If I were you, I wouldn't go to the pastor, but to the teacher of the class, next Lords Day, and ask him if he could explain what he meant by that statement; in further detail, and reason with him if you are still in disagreement. God hates, again, hates division and a divisive Christian. Better to find another church, then show up at one and plant seeds of distrust between a Shepherd and his under-shepherds.

I highly doubt God has sent you there to be a Luther in the midst of a Catholic Christendom, so, if you cannot work it out between the teacher, either find another church, or switch Sunday school classes; or, become a member and pray God would enlighten the teacher, and/or, that his slights of theological imperfections would come to light so he would be better suited to facilitate his position.

Follow the Bible prescript.

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
 
Last edited:
This is my advice, though limited in scope, or expertise. First, you are a visitor, not a member. Correcting a person in a teaching position while not even a member is going to put you in the precarious position of an outsider coming in as a know it all. You have only been there twice, and now you are trying to correct their established, tested, and ordained/positioned teachers. It oozes of fault finding and I can only imagine the pastor inwardly rolling his eyes as a person who has been there two weeks mentions the doctrinal incorrectness of a brother he has probably known for years. If I were you, I wouldn't go to the pastor, but to the teacher of the class, next Lords Day, and ask him if he could explain what he meant by that statement; in further detail, and reason with him if you are still in disagreement. God hates, again, hates division and a divisive Christian. Better to find another church, then show up at one and plant seeds of distrust between a Shepherd and his under-shepherds.

I highly doubt God has sent you there to be a Luther in the midst of a Catholic Christendom, so, if you cannot work it out between the teacher, either find another church, or switch Sunday school classes; or, become a member and pray God would enlighten the teacher, and/or, that his slights in theological imperfections would come to light so he would be better suited to facilitate his position.
I don't see OP seeking to correct or fault find. He is asking where such a line of thought comes from. I think you are way overstating the case.
 
I don't see OP seeking to correct or fault find. He is asking where such a line of thought comes from. I think you are way overstating the case.
I was mainly responding to the comment he made that he is going to bring it up to the Pastor when they have lunch. I just believe this should be first brought up between him and the teacher as the proper order of rebuke/reproof.

I deeply apologize if I took it too far. I was able with a quick Google search to find the idea of "total dependence" on the Father, especially as it regards why, if Jesus is God, did he need to pray to the Father; one example is below from GotQuestions: If Jesus was God, how could He pray to God?

To understand Jesus as God on earth praying to His Father in heaven, we need to realize that the eternal Father and the eternal Son had an eternal relationship before Jesus took upon Himself the form of a man. Please read John 5:19-27, particularly verse 23 where Jesus teaches that the Father sent the Son (also see John 15:10). Jesus did not become the Son of God when He was born in Bethlehem. He has always been the Son of God from eternity past, still is the Son of God, and always will be.

Isaiah 9:6 tells us that the Son was given and the Child was born. Jesus was always part of the tri-unity, along with the Holy Spirit. The tri-unity always existed, the Father God, the Son God, and the Spirit God, not three gods, but one God existing as three persons. Jesus taught that He and His Father are one (John 10:30), meaning that He and His Father are of the same substance and the same essence. The Father, Son and Spirit are three co-equal persons existing as God. These three had, and continue to have, an eternal relationship.

When Jesus, the eternal Son of God, took upon Himself sinless humanity He also took on the form of a servant, giving up His heavenly glory (Philippians 2:5-11). As the God-man, He had to learn obedience (Hebrews 5:8) to His Father as He was tempted by Satan, accused falsely by men, rejected by His people, and eventually crucified. His praying to His heavenly Father was to ask for power (John 11:41-42) and wisdom (Mark 1:35, 6:46). His praying showed His dependence upon His Father in His humanity to carry out His Father’s plan of redemption, as evidenced in Christ’s high priestly prayer in John 17. His praying demonstrated that He ultimately submitted to His Father’s will, which was to go to the cross and pay the penalty (death) for our breaking God’s law (Matthew 26:31-46). Of course, He rose bodily from the grave, winning forgiveness and eternal life for those who repent of sin and believe in Him as the Savior.

There is no problem with God the Son praying or talking to God the Father. As mentioned, they had an eternal relationship before Christ became a man. This relationship is depicted in the Gospels so we can see how the Son of God in His humanity carried out His Father’s will, and in doing so, purchased redemption for His children (John 6:38). Christ’s continual submission to His heavenly Father was empowered and kept focused through His prayer life. Christ’s example of prayer is ours to follow.

Jesus Christ was no less God on earth when praying to His Father in heaven. He was depicting how even in sinless humanity it is necessary to have a vital prayer life in order to do His Father’s will. Jesus’ praying to the Father was a demonstration of His relationship within the Trinity and an example for us that we must rely on God through prayer for the strength and wisdom we need. Since Christ, as the God-man, needed to have a vibrant prayer life, so should the follower of Christ today.

In my opinion, maybe the words the teacher used "crying out" was a way to say "praying" for the strength to resist temptation; as we see numerous places, especially illustrated in the Garden of Gethsemane before his passion. That is, though Jesus is God, there was, in his humanity, a dependence on the Father, even if the explanation of such is a very complex subject.

Again, I apologize if my words were too strong or insensitive; but I have had to learn the hard way there is no perfect church. That is still no excuse if my assumption went to far, so, I admit I was wrong and humbly ask for forgiveness.
 
Last edited:
It seems I read the OP too hastily – as I was thinking the SS teacher was also the pastor. So, yes, I would agree with those who said speak to the teacher, asking for clarification, instead of the pastor. (Was the pastor even there to hear the teaching?)
 
Not only do I believe Jesus was the last Adam in not giving into temptation, but he showed the sovereignty of God. Satan's lie to Jesus was if you worship me I will give you the kingdoms of the world. Newsflash God owns all things Psalm 24:1; Daniel 4:35.
 
Hey everyone. I am going to talk to the Sunday School teacher about this, for clarification. I did speak to the pastor about it (it was not the main point of our meeting, we had that set up before this most recent Lord's Day), mainly to find insight about the church. He encouraged me to talk to the teacher about this and think it might be good for both of us, that we may strike a friendship through this (we are of similar age).
Thank you for all of your feedback in this. I appreciate all of it.
 
I was mainly responding to the comment he made that he is going to bring it up to the Pastor when they have lunch. I just believe this should be first brought up between him and the teacher as the proper order of rebuke/reproof.

I deeply apologize if I took it too far. I was able with a quick Google search to find the idea of "total dependence" on the Father, especially as it regards why, if Jesus is God, did he need to pray to the Father; one example is below from GotQuestions: If Jesus was God, how could He pray to God?

To understand Jesus as God on earth praying to His Father in heaven, we need to realize that the eternal Father and the eternal Son had an eternal relationship before Jesus took upon Himself the form of a man. Please read John 5:19-27, particularly verse 23 where Jesus teaches that the Father sent the Son (also see John 15:10). Jesus did not become the Son of God when He was born in Bethlehem. He has always been the Son of God from eternity past, still is the Son of God, and always will be.

Isaiah 9:6 tells us that the Son was given and the Child was born. Jesus was always part of the tri-unity, along with the Holy Spirit. The tri-unity always existed, the Father God, the Son God, and the Spirit God, not three gods, but one God existing as three persons. Jesus taught that He and His Father are one (John 10:30), meaning that He and His Father are of the same substance and the same essence. The Father, Son and Spirit are three co-equal persons existing as God. These three had, and continue to have, an eternal relationship.

When Jesus, the eternal Son of God, took upon Himself sinless humanity He also took on the form of a servant, giving up His heavenly glory (Philippians 2:5-11). As the God-man, He had to learn obedience (Hebrews 5:8) to His Father as He was tempted by Satan, accused falsely by men, rejected by His people, and eventually crucified. His praying to His heavenly Father was to ask for power (John 11:41-42) and wisdom (Mark 1:35, 6:46). His praying showed His dependence upon His Father in His humanity to carry out His Father’s plan of redemption, as evidenced in Christ’s high priestly prayer in John 17. His praying demonstrated that He ultimately submitted to His Father’s will, which was to go to the cross and pay the penalty (death) for our breaking God’s law (Matthew 26:31-46). Of course, He rose bodily from the grave, winning forgiveness and eternal life for those who repent of sin and believe in Him as the Savior.

There is no problem with God the Son praying or talking to God the Father. As mentioned, they had an eternal relationship before Christ became a man. This relationship is depicted in the Gospels so we can see how the Son of God in His humanity carried out His Father’s will, and in doing so, purchased redemption for His children (John 6:38). Christ’s continual submission to His heavenly Father was empowered and kept focused through His prayer life. Christ’s example of prayer is ours to follow.

Jesus Christ was no less God on earth when praying to His Father in heaven. He was depicting how even in sinless humanity it is necessary to have a vital prayer life in order to do His Father’s will. Jesus’ praying to the Father was a demonstration of His relationship within the Trinity and an example for us that we must rely on God through prayer for the strength and wisdom we need. Since Christ, as the God-man, needed to have a vibrant prayer life, so should the follower of Christ today.

In my opinion, maybe the words the teacher used "crying out" was a way to say "praying" for the strength to resist temptation; as we see numerous places, especially illustrated in the Garden of Gethsemane before his passion. That is, though Jesus is God, there was, in his humanity, a dependence on the Father, even if the explanation of such is a very complex subject.

Again, I apologize if my words were too strong or insensitive; but I have had to learn the hard way there is no perfect church. That is still no excuse if my assumption went to far, so, I admit I was wrong and humbly ask for forgiveness.
David,
I really like your take on this, and I can totally see what the teacher was saying being of this thought. I am looking forward to the conversation I have with him, and no worries about the voracity of your initial response, I, personally, took it well and it gave me both pause and thought towards this situation.

-Jonathan
 
Hey Brother. Sorry to rehash the thread, I was in Isaiah tonight for my daily devotional, and came across this set of verses. I couldn't help but see a parallel between the idea of Jesus' dependence on God, and the text of these verses. Especially verses 8 & 9.

“The Lord God has opened My ear;
And I was not rebellious,
Nor did I turn away.

6 I gave My back to those who struck Me,
And My cheeks to those who plucked out the beard;
I did not hide My face from shame and spitting.

7 “For the Lord God will help Me;
Therefore I will not be disgraced;
Therefore I have set My face like a flint,
And I know that I will not be ashamed.

8 He is near who justifies Me;
Who will contend with Me?
Let us stand together.
Who is My adversary?
Let him come near Me.

9 Surely the Lord God will help Me;
Who is he who will condemn Me?
Indeed they will all grow old like a garment;
The moth will eat them up.

10 “Who among you fears the Lord?
Who obeys the voice of His Servant?
Who walks in darkness
And has no light?
Let him trust in the name of the Lord
And rely upon his God.”


Isaiah 50:5-10
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top