Jesus' temptation
Guess i haven't had much motivation to write lately, but a funny thought hit me on my way to work yesterday, and i want to try to flesh it out. Whilst dodging covered wagons and potholes on the interstate, i spaced out and gave myself over to a Large Vision. i was considering the economy, the physics of humanity; the very many injustices and horrors in the world, and the possibility of living with those in the light of the seeming infinitude of possibilities for even greater injustice, greater horror that blessedly fail to materialize instead; the dread-- even anger-- it evokes in me that so very many of the things i am most thankful for are things that didn't happen, and that so many of the things i'm most hopeful for are things i pray won't happen; that people generally tend to falter in the absence of the antagonist, or without, at the very least, the threat of the antagonist; that wars, battles, feuds, and billions upon billions of fractures in relationships have been leant a kind of demonic life by the unwillingness in each of us to wage the same on our own pride for the sake of understanding the other; that we employ ourselves with little games, little doctrines, little problems, little thoughts, little fears, little relationships, little gods, little hopes in order not to feel obliged to try to spread our terribly finite minds out to net the Infinite; that in spite of how terrifyingly predictable, selfish, fragile a herd of sheep we are, we're still cathected with a value by God.
Somehow that led me to think of the temptation of Jesus.
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'"
Unless you dwell on that a while, and are given to flights of creative extrapolation (filling in the dramatic swell of orchestral to a cymbal wash as Jesus musters the wherewithal to rebuke, etc.), it's hard to build up a sense of the painful internal equivocation He must have felt if this was actually a temptation for Him-- the sort of temptation we mortals can relate to. There's hardly time to get that gripped feeling of blood-in-the-tears anguish; or the exquisite, focussed passion; or the prayerful, mortifying struggle against His own humanity and the tempter to suppress His own will. To begin, there's Jesus starving in the desert (to the point that he was tempted to do something culinarily with a rock) for the sake of being tempted-- tried-- and then we have a skeletal paragraph, a couple of sentences in which to rally to His cause and cheer for Him before He's dimissed it all. It almost seems like the writer was a little nervous about Jesus being tempted, about what that would need to mean. we can have Jesus being intellectually baited. He can be smacked around, taunted, lashed, hurt, saddened, betrayed. But if the 'temptation' actually tugs on His heart strings, takes hold of His viscera, evokes some hormone production, shakes His soul, spins His head, causes His mouth to water, drags Him to His spiritual knees, then maybe He's edging a little too close to the fire; how could we be sure He didn't sin in His heart? Focussing on the pain and the passion of the temptation tends to feather that line between the external temptation and the internal sin simply by way of making it the object of attention, and in that sense glorifying it and vitalizing it for the observer.
On the other hand, skimming over the pain of the temptation leaves the impression that it wasn't really a temptation at all. Satan cast a barbed line at Jesus, and Jesus deflected it without bothering His central nervous system to process it first. There's no reason to believe that that's true. Jesus was tempted. (That is, after all, the gist of the story; not to mention the chapter heading.) But what about it, i wonder, was tempting for Him? For it to have been a temptation, it would have had to make sense in some wise that He could have all the kingdoms of the world if He bowed to Satan. There had to be some grain of truth in the proposition, and Jesus had to be aware of that grain, or it wouldn't have been tempting. And that's fascinating.
i wonder what Jesus saw when He stood on that mountain. i wonder what He saw that He wanted, and i wonder what He saw that He understood was Satan's to give (or lose). i wonder in what sense He could have gained the kingdoms of the world if He had bowed down. Did He somehow see the soul of each person beneath Him? It says He saw all the kingdoms from atop a mountain, but the earth is round. Barring a Dr. Seuss/Tim Burton-esque mountain, it makes sense that it was more of a psychedelic tour from a symbolic mountain, but even the staunchest literalist would have to agree that the locale and chemistry of the mountain isn't nearly as important to the text as is the existence of the mountain qua aerie for Jesus' point of view. In a moment He saw from a high place something very large and very dear to Him. i wonder if He saw each of our faces in that moment, or if He saw all those "kingdoms" as sets or categories or limiters serving more as a reminder to Him of His difference from and distance to us at that moment than as endearing names for us. i wonder what the process was, the movement from seeing all the kingdoms and being offered them to understanding that He had to say, "Away from me, Satan!"
If it was any kind of actual temptation for Him, it must have been clear to both Satan and Him that He had come for the world. If it was any kind of temptation, it must have been clear that Satan was entitled to the world according to the rules. If it was any kind of temptation, it must have been clear to Him that He actually could in some sense gain the world by pledging fealty to Satan. If it was any kind of temptation, it must not have been perfectly clear in that first moment that the only sense in which He could be given the world would be twisted, hollow, incomplete.
i've stood on mountains and felt the people beneath me. i've hurt for millions and millions of lost and blind and mute and damaged. i've felt the dynamic electrical energy between people; i've felt sometimes that i could understand it and even own it. i've seen how very easy it is, for a small price, a small compromise, to manipulate and rule the masses. But i don't have the wisdom or the oratory skills to keep a houseful of friends from falling asleep, let alone to cause them to invite everyone they know to follow me around begging for more. i don't have enough charisma to cause anyone with any sense to seek out my opinion on things that matter, let alone to cause thousands and thousands to try to force me to be their king. i hardly speak with enough authority to get my kids to mind me, let alone to induce people i don't even know to leave their livelihoods in order not to miss a word emanating from me. (Words, in fact, don't emanate from me at all; they just leave.) It may be that i've been tempted to own the world, or at least the parts of it that matter to me; but for whatever vantage i've ever been given, for whatever compromise i've had to wrestle with to overcome, i'm certain that i haven't begun to imagine the power or the vision or the glory that Jesus found the strength to relinquish on that mountain. i'm certain i haven't begun to appreciate the temptation of the Christ.
Somehow that led me to think of the temptation of Jesus.
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'"
Unless you dwell on that a while, and are given to flights of creative extrapolation (filling in the dramatic swell of orchestral to a cymbal wash as Jesus musters the wherewithal to rebuke, etc.), it's hard to build up a sense of the painful internal equivocation He must have felt if this was actually a temptation for Him-- the sort of temptation we mortals can relate to. There's hardly time to get that gripped feeling of blood-in-the-tears anguish; or the exquisite, focussed passion; or the prayerful, mortifying struggle against His own humanity and the tempter to suppress His own will. To begin, there's Jesus starving in the desert (to the point that he was tempted to do something culinarily with a rock) for the sake of being tempted-- tried-- and then we have a skeletal paragraph, a couple of sentences in which to rally to His cause and cheer for Him before He's dimissed it all. It almost seems like the writer was a little nervous about Jesus being tempted, about what that would need to mean. we can have Jesus being intellectually baited. He can be smacked around, taunted, lashed, hurt, saddened, betrayed. But if the 'temptation' actually tugs on His heart strings, takes hold of His viscera, evokes some hormone production, shakes His soul, spins His head, causes His mouth to water, drags Him to His spiritual knees, then maybe He's edging a little too close to the fire; how could we be sure He didn't sin in His heart? Focussing on the pain and the passion of the temptation tends to feather that line between the external temptation and the internal sin simply by way of making it the object of attention, and in that sense glorifying it and vitalizing it for the observer.
On the other hand, skimming over the pain of the temptation leaves the impression that it wasn't really a temptation at all. Satan cast a barbed line at Jesus, and Jesus deflected it without bothering His central nervous system to process it first. There's no reason to believe that that's true. Jesus was tempted. (That is, after all, the gist of the story; not to mention the chapter heading.) But what about it, i wonder, was tempting for Him? For it to have been a temptation, it would have had to make sense in some wise that He could have all the kingdoms of the world if He bowed to Satan. There had to be some grain of truth in the proposition, and Jesus had to be aware of that grain, or it wouldn't have been tempting. And that's fascinating.
i wonder what Jesus saw when He stood on that mountain. i wonder what He saw that He wanted, and i wonder what He saw that He understood was Satan's to give (or lose). i wonder in what sense He could have gained the kingdoms of the world if He had bowed down. Did He somehow see the soul of each person beneath Him? It says He saw all the kingdoms from atop a mountain, but the earth is round. Barring a Dr. Seuss/Tim Burton-esque mountain, it makes sense that it was more of a psychedelic tour from a symbolic mountain, but even the staunchest literalist would have to agree that the locale and chemistry of the mountain isn't nearly as important to the text as is the existence of the mountain qua aerie for Jesus' point of view. In a moment He saw from a high place something very large and very dear to Him. i wonder if He saw each of our faces in that moment, or if He saw all those "kingdoms" as sets or categories or limiters serving more as a reminder to Him of His difference from and distance to us at that moment than as endearing names for us. i wonder what the process was, the movement from seeing all the kingdoms and being offered them to understanding that He had to say, "Away from me, Satan!"
If it was any kind of actual temptation for Him, it must have been clear to both Satan and Him that He had come for the world. If it was any kind of temptation, it must have been clear that Satan was entitled to the world according to the rules. If it was any kind of temptation, it must have been clear to Him that He actually could in some sense gain the world by pledging fealty to Satan. If it was any kind of temptation, it must not have been perfectly clear in that first moment that the only sense in which He could be given the world would be twisted, hollow, incomplete.
i've stood on mountains and felt the people beneath me. i've hurt for millions and millions of lost and blind and mute and damaged. i've felt the dynamic electrical energy between people; i've felt sometimes that i could understand it and even own it. i've seen how very easy it is, for a small price, a small compromise, to manipulate and rule the masses. But i don't have the wisdom or the oratory skills to keep a houseful of friends from falling asleep, let alone to cause them to invite everyone they know to follow me around begging for more. i don't have enough charisma to cause anyone with any sense to seek out my opinion on things that matter, let alone to cause thousands and thousands to try to force me to be their king. i hardly speak with enough authority to get my kids to mind me, let alone to induce people i don't even know to leave their livelihoods in order not to miss a word emanating from me. (Words, in fact, don't emanate from me at all; they just leave.) It may be that i've been tempted to own the world, or at least the parts of it that matter to me; but for whatever vantage i've ever been given, for whatever compromise i've had to wrestle with to overcome, i'm certain that i haven't begun to imagine the power or the vision or the glory that Jesus found the strength to relinquish on that mountain. i'm certain i haven't begun to appreciate the temptation of the Christ.
21 Comments:
Hi Cody,
I've considered the temptation account before but not from your perspective before. You've provoked some questions in mind that I will post at another time. Hopefully, the questions will lead to a search for truth and the Spirit will give some answer to a finite person like me.
The temptation story must be interpreted from a biblical perspective first, i.e. what's the writer's point in including the story? Then we can look at the story from a psychological/spiritual perspective, i.e. in what sense was Jesus vulnerable?
For Matthew/Mark/Luke the temptation narrative presents Jesus as the champion of Israel in particular and humanity in general. Where Israel (and we)failed the wilderness test, Jesus (God's unique Son) passed the test with flying colors. Whatever else we grapple with in the text, this should always be kept in the forefront of our minds.
Now about Satan. What do we know about him? He is the father of lies (John 8). He is subject to God's rule. The kingdoms of the world belong to our heavenly Father. And any power that he has was given to him by our heavenly Father. What he offers Jesus is what he offered our first parents and us ... a kingdom/knowledge/prosperity. And how did our first parents achieve knowledge? By rebelling against God. And how do we achieve prosperity? By sacrificing family, making crooked deals, stepping on others to climb the ladder of success. And what if Jesus yielded to Satan? He probably would have gained the kingdoms of the world in the same way Satan empowered Rome to gain the kingdoms of the world - through brute force and military power. And at what cost? His soul.
Hey Sean,
Right. In actuality, i think i dig the main point of the narrative: namely, as you say, that Jesus is the champion of humanity and triumphed over temptation and sin where we failed (and keep failing). So for the benefit of Clarity, i only really wanted to drag out, hang up, and take a few dialectical swings at the (seeming) tautology that if He was actually tempted (or was even temptable), then the temptation must have to at least some degree been tempting for Him, in order to find out if there is any candy inside. Now perhaps you'll argue that it's not at all tautologous, but that's what i want to find out. Then i couched that in several pages of rhetorical and possibly tangential questions because i'm incapable of thinking in a straight line and just getting to the point.
Clearly, Jesus came to the realization that whatever Satan was offering Him already belonged to the Father--- was already His. i just wonder about the path He took to get to that realization. The text skips over that entirely, and perhaps for a reason. i just wonder; and if i shouldn't, then i wonder about that too.
i do agree with your last paragraph there (not that i disagree with the rest) about how, perhaps, Jesus might have gained the world from Satan. Very interesting. i just think it's important to keep in mind that it could have happened differently than it did, that Jesus was free to choose, that He could have accepted Satan's offer just like we do; thus the temptation. Or could He have chosen differently?
Thanks for your comment, brutha'. Keep it coming.
Hey Cody,
Good thoughts.
The James 1 passage on temptation is a very interesting one and should certainly be used to confuse the issue further. :)
I like to believe that God does not tempt anyone and that He is not able to be tempted.* James says that we are not tempted by God (of course not)but each man is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own desires.
Its hard to imagine Jesus being "carried away" by anything. On the other hand, Satan did "take" Him to the top of a mountain and he "took" Him to the top of the temple. A moralist could easily ask, "Why did Jesus go with Satan at all?"
This passage with the Gospel accounts and the Hebrews notation gives us an interesting picture of temptation. It is not easy, simple or mundane. Jesus was dealing with real, valid and strong temptation. It was the ultimate battle against pride, the flesh and the eye.
Yet Jesus emerged victorious - by everyone's estimation - and became for us and for Israel...our Champion.
*Some people believe that Jesus was 100% man / 100% God. I find that 200% rule a bit off both mathematically and theologically - for we know and it was confirmed by the apostles and prophets - Jesus was tempted in all things as we are. If he is 100% God -then temptation would be impossible, eh?
P.S. I think it is time for Sean Katinga to open a blog. Come on Sean...do it...do it...everyone else is...
More good thoughts. Gracias.
To regress further, before He went with Satan (to high places), He went to Satan in the desert. He went out there in order to be tempted. That's an interesting strategy. Normally, when i go out in order to be tempted, i'm really going out to fall. Not always, but usually. Obviously that wasn't Jesus' goal, but there's something to explored in the idea of "going out in order to be tempted."
i guess i haven't given much thought to the 100% man/ 100% God thang. On the one hand, i feel where yer coming from. On the other... it could be said that i'm 100% man and 100% white. i wonder if there's a necessary barrier between being God and being man (except insofar as God typically seems not to be man and created the whole idea of man.) That's an interesting direction to sniff in, though.
Bonhoeffer said in his Creation and Fall book that we should never be so bold as to seek out temptation - as the moralist might - rather we should pray, "Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one.
I do wonder what the purpose behind going into the desert was. Sean already touched on this a bit.
I think that Jesus was God in the flesh. So he technically was both man and God. On the other hand, Jesus could not have all things (powers, for instance) within his immediate grasp or we would find it very hard to see Jesus as a man of faith or tempted in all things as we were.
I will have to consider the God/Man barrier thing a bit more before I spiel.
Hello again brothers,
I think this discussion is really then about the nature of Christ's humanity as it relates to the temptation account. Scholars talk about the impeccability (those who believe that Christ could not sin) and peccability (those who hold that he did not but could have sinned) of Christ. The issue must be decided on theological/philosophical grounds since there is no explicit scripture to support either side. I don't want to get into the debate about whether he could or could not sin but I offer this simply to say that it has been around for a long time. I think it is safe to say that all evangelicals agree that Jesus was completely without sin (Heb.4:15). The whole problem of the relation of sin to the Savior raises the question, why was Jesus tempted? Was it to prove that he could not sin as some theologians affirm? Or does it affirm that he could have sinned and, therefore, the genuineness of the temptation? I lean more to the peccability of Christ. The difference between Adam's offspring and Christ is that he did not have a sin nature. He temptation (more accurately, his test) came from an external source. Nothing within him moved him to sin. Satan was that external source. And Satan's test was to get Christ to bypass the cross. For Jesus is was a choice (free will) to obey or disobey. He learned in the wilderness what the Hebrews writer refers to "he learned obedience from the things he suffered." This simply means that Christ learnt the cost of obedience. Obey God and embrace the cross. Yield to Satan and avoid the cross.
I think I've missed the issue in all my ramblings ... sorry. Let me know where I've goofed up so that I can take on more go at it.
Love to all
"...Jesus could not have all things ... within his immediate grasp or we would find it very hard to see Jesus as a man of faith or tempted in all things as we were."
That's the crux, i think. Jesus, "...being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped..."
i want to say something about Him like "...though being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped..."
or
"...being in very nature God, did not, notwithstanding, consider equality with God something to be grasped..."
But i don't think that's correct. i think it must be read that He "...being in very nature God, did not because of that nature consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing..."
If that's so, then you could say that either the nature of God (i.e., His nature, Jesus' nature) required Him to lay down equivalence with God, or else at the very least allowed for Him to do so. But what could that mean, that His being in nature God might require Him to not be God (i.e., equivalent to or equal with God)? How can that be?
For a comparison, it certainly would make no sense for me to say that "i, being in very nature cody, am thereby required to not be cody." But that leads to the thought that His "being in very nature God" is something altogether and essentially different from, and in no way juxtapositionable to His "taking on the very nature of a servant['not-God']." In other words, His taking up of the latter didn't necessitate His laying down of the former. So while, in order to become a servant/ man, He did have to lay down God-hood, He did not also (apparently) have to lay down the nature of God.
Does that sound like a right track, or am i missing something important?
And hey Sean... seems we were writing at the same time there, so i haven't addressed your last comment yet. i will though. i have to sleep first. Just got home from work and my eyes are crossing. i'll have gained from this conversation, i think, even if i end up adding nothing to it.
Grace and Peace.
To briefly take up the thread from yesterday, i was trying to make this point: There seems to be an essential difference between being God (or being equal to God (which seems like the same thing to me)) and being in very nature God. So how are we to understand that difference without in any way watering down His 'being in very nature God'? How can He be in very nature God without being God?
Sean,
i am unfamiliar with the arguments for the "peccability" or "impeccability" of Christ, except insofar as i have wrestled with them in my own head or in a fairly insular fashion with brothers as we're doing here. But i gotta say that an argument for the impeccability of Christ sounds like a knee-jerk, legalistic reaction born out of fear for the fragility of someone's gilded, frescoed idea of the Christ. i mean, if He couldn't be tempted at all, then He couldn't very well have been tempted in every way as we are.
You said this, though, that sorta bugs me: "His temptation (more accurately, his test) came from an external source. Nothing within him moved him to sin." Maybe you could clarify that a bit. How do you know that? That was my point in the article. If nothing inside Him moved Him to sin-- if He was a marble pillar in the maelstrom, so to speak-- then in what sense was He tempted? If His own humanity didn't try to betray Him, as mine does me, then in what sense was He human? If His peccability only means that Satan was allowed to shoot arrows at Him in the same way that i might be allowed to shoot arrows at the moon, then i'm afraid "peccability" doesn't have a meaning.
And a hardy "Hear, hear!" to the Seanblog idear.
Cody,
Your questions are very good and I don't know if I have it all worked out in my mind. So I'll try and take another shot at it. First comment has to do with the word "temptation." The word can either refer to a solicitation to evil or simply a test. Both Matt.4:1 and Luke 4:1 says that Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert for the specific purpose of being tempted by the devil. If the idea of solicitation to evil is in mind, then it would seem as if this contradicts James 1:13 which says that "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God' for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one." I could be wrong about my deductions here. I can see an argument being made here that the Spirit only arranged the opportunity for the temptation but Satan was the tempter. An interesting verse need to be considered from the LXX version of the OT. In Deut.8:2 it says, "Rembember the whole way by which he has brought you these forty years through the desert so that he might, by humbling you, test (in the gospel accounts translated tempt) to see whether deep within yourselves you would keep his commandments or not." Here God is the tempter (not in the solicitation to evil sense as used by James).
Now let me address your questions-in what sense was Jesus tempted? in what sense was he human?
He was/is human in the sense that he became flesh and blood (Heb.2:14) and thus shared in our frailties like hunger, thirst, being tired, etc. Even though he became like us, he still differed from us in the sense that he did not inherit our sinful/fleshly/fallen nature from Adam because he was born of the Spirit. All of Adam's descendants must experience the new birth/salvation because flesh gives birth to flesh (John 3:6-7). All, except Jesus. Being born of the Spirit doesn't mean that it was impossible for him to sin. Jesus, like Adam, could still choose to obey or disobey God and this freedom of choice creates the possibility of sin and the reality of temptation. So you ask, "In what sense was he tempted?" In the sense that he was confronted with a choice to obey or disobey his heavenly Father. Satan's tests in the wilderness was directly aimed at getting Jesus to disobey God by bypassing/averting the cross. Jesus could have yielded just like Adam did in the garden.
We, on the other hand, are not just tested from without (Satan/God) but we are tempted from within (our evil desires). The good news is that Jesus, the last Adam, is our champion. He succeeded where the first Adam failed. And where God's son "Israel" failed in the wilderness, he passed with flying colors.
One more thing. The impeccability of Christ teaches the impossibility of sin and not temptation. They also would affirm that he was tempted in all points such as we. Their point of disagree with you and me would be that it was impossible for Jesus to sin.
Hey Sean,
Thanks for more clarification and more thoughts. Once again, i'm just home from work, and am about to fall over; but i've been considering this all night at work and will try to say something coherent.
This seems to be a sticky point, that God cannot be tempted to sin and does not, Himself, tempt [to sin]. That is problematic. It is problematic because the further we regress to simpler and simpler accounts of temptation-- fewer rules to break, fewer characters involved, fewer plot twists, fewer contrivances, etc.-- the closer God seems to be to the temptation. Consider Job. It wasn't God who encouraged him to curse God and die; nor was it God--directly-- who set the whole tragedy up. But God certainly did put His seal of approval on the event and gave Satan free rein to do his worst.
Now go further back to the garden of Eden. Here you have God basically setting up a trap, telling Adam and Eve it's a trap, and then waiting for them to fall into it. Putting it that way is not an attempt to shift blame: their being baited doesn't absolve them of taking the bait. But when their entire purpose in life, their singular challenge seems to have been to avoid that one particular tree in the forest, how long could they manage that before that tree was the only thing they could think about? You could rightly say that it wasn't God who encouraged them to eat the fruit (exactly the opposite, in fact), but how big a step is it from setting them up in every way for the temptation and just tempting them outright?
Now regress a bit further to a more general, less personal scene. Why did God create us in the first place? i don't mean to ask what God's motive is for having us exist-- that's His business. But why create us here in the state we're in? Why make us hungering, thirsting, lusting, myopic plexuses of sensation? Why give us cataracts and then make us to see just a little way? Why make us finite and then give us the tools with which to begin to appreciate our finiteness? Why start us here with mere faith, hounded by the sensation of distance from Him, fully assailable, peccable, unperfected, incomplete? Why not start us off in heaven?
To tempt us, i think. our being here in hypoperfection only seems to make sense as a test.
----------------------------------------------------------------
i left off there to sleep this morning, and since then have skyped with you (Sean) a bit. Thank you for calling—as always, i’m a better and more challenged person for the conversation. i won’t go on a lot longer because i need to pray about it and think some more. But i’ll say a few more things and repeat some things we talked about so that JW (or whoever else is following this) can add to it.
1) i'm wrestling with, and am totally unresolved on the differentiation you're trying to make between temptation as 'test' and temptation as 'solicitation to do evil'. Prima facie, it seems the solicitation to do evil is the test—at least insofar as there is no test without the solicitation to do evil. With respect to temptation, i can certainly see that there is a difference (as in the examples above) between the one who sets up the test, puts the goal at the end and equips us with the tools to fail (i.e., the opportunity, the law—without which there’d be no test), and the one who actively tries to entice us to fail. Fair enough. The problem is that the incitation to fail is also an integral part of the test, without which there’d be no test. What i mean is this (and feel free to disagree at this point): By the nature of the test—to obey God or to rebel against Him—you can’t accidentally fail the test; you can’t accidentally sin because it hinges on our intent. So even if one were to somehow argue that the possibility or option for us to fail could exist independently of our motive to fail, we could only do so as a result of our inability or ill-equipment to succeed—for which we could hardly be blamed, in which case we wouldn’t have failed.* In other words, it seems to me that the difference between the tester and the inciter is obviated in the [seemingly apparent] fact that there would be no test without the incitation to fail. Example fo’ tha’ brethren: If my goal is to get from one mountain crest to another along an exposed razor’s-edge of rock with a horrible drop on either side, there certainly exists the possibility that i could accidentally fall to my death and fail. But then i’d not have failed in my motive. To do that, i’d have to jump off. Let me just say that, barring a really convincing argument for why i should do that, i ain’t gonna. So if my test is to either make it to the other side, or else to desire to make there until i’m blown off the edge, then there’s not really a test unless i get one seriously happy vision of what awaits me in the chasm.
2) You argue that Christ didn’t have the bent to do evil that we are born with (because of His immaculate conception), but was, nevertheless, tempted just as we are, and had the option of choosing to sin. i don’t understand how, if He wasn’t entirely human just as we are (bent and all), it could be said that He was tempted in every way just as we are. If He felt the tug of temptation less than we do, how could it be said that He was tempted in every way just as we are? Flesh your argument out for me here, my friend, do.
Thank you guys for your patience with my tediousness. i look forward to your upbuilding.
* we could easily slope off into predestination, etc. here, but that wouldn’t really get us anywhere. The issue is our responsibility within the context of our free will, which we’d all readily admit we could only have just so long as it’s been given to us by God.
“It isn’t flatly circular, but takes on the form of a closed curve in space.” --W.V.O. Quine
Principle:
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God" for God cannot be tempted by evil, and he himself tempts no one (James 1:13)
Application:
Did God tempt Job to sin?
Did God tempt Adam and Eve to sin?
No, but he used the occassion of temptation to test our first parents and Job's resolve to obey him despite Satan's efforts to veer them off the path of obedience.
Why did God create us? To tempt us? This seems (and is, in my opinion) contrary to what Scripture teaches and is contrary to the character of God. In fact, Paul's answer to the question is, "so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us" (Acts 17:27).
Here is the heart of the matter. Jesus took upon himself flesh and blood. He shares humanity's basic needs, whether physiological, psychological or spiritual. He, like the rest of humanity, was free to choose to obey God or to sin. As a man, he was "subject" to temptation and tempted in everyway such as we are. Satan entices mankind (Jesus included) to sin by offering a wrong course of action to meet their basic human need. For Jesus the temptation first temptation had to do with a physiological need - he was hungry and Satan used the occasion to tempt Jesus to sin by turning stones into bread. How this would have been a sin, I frankly do not know. The second and third temptation has to do with a psychological need - a need for self-worth. Again, Satan used this occassion to tempt Jesus to sin by seeking his worth from others and power. Perhaps a rejection of God is at the heart of every temptation. In all three replies of Jesus to Satan's offer, he affirms his trust in God and his provision, plan and priority over our lives.
This being said, have I then changed my mind? I really don't know. This is a definitely a truth in which we will grow over time.
Thank you for a very uplifting discussion so far.
Well said. That demands a note of clarification from me. i was afraid when i posted that last bit that my implications might be unclear, or would at least stand without enough qualification. It wasn't at all my goal to paint a picture of God as a big bully in the sky just looking for an excuse to zap us. Nor was it my intent to in any way equate God with the pusher, the inciter. Rather, i think God empowers and advocates the inciter-- in which case the difference between temptation as "test" and temptation as "solicitation to do evil" is rendered meaningless.
To be clear, i do not believe that God created us to tempt us. i do believe, though, that He created us here to tempt us. You say that Paul's answer would be, "so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us", but i can't help but think that if God wanted us to see Him-- and that were His top priority-- that He could manifest Himself to us in such a way that we could not avoid Him or doubt Him. On the contrary, i feel like the passage you used there agrees: the "perhaps" is terribly important from Paul. i think we were put here so there could exist the possibility of not seeing God, not finding God.
When it's all said and done, i'm confident that God created us so that we would love Him. But we couldn't love Him unless we knew what love is; and we couldn't know what love is (because of its nature) unless it were demonstrated. And just as love requires that we, insofar as we're able, understand love before we can love, love also requires that we be free not to love; and that freedom, i think, requires the possibility of not finding God. If we weren't free to deny God, then we also wouldn't be free to love Him.
So yes, i believe our sole reason for being put here is to be tempted; our sole goal here is to make it through the temptation with our faith intact. That isn't a bleak or dark picture at all. we were put here so that perhaps we could discover what love is in freedom. In that possibility, we're blessed above the angels who see God's face always.
Tell me if that helps or is any clearer. Grace and peace
I like that so much better. Too say that we were created with a free will, and therefore, temptable is very different from saying that the reason God created us is to tempt us. Creation must always be viewed in a positive light. Look at the creation account ... "it was very good" the Lord said. If your point is the above, then I totally agree. The wording makes God sound unfair but the explanation obviates it.
What did you think of my explanation of Jesus' humanity as it relates to temptation. I think it helps to clarify things in my mind.
I'm shooting from the hip this morning. Gotta run ... off to work. I'll check back in tonight.
Love to Steph, Annie and little Ian
The Afrikaner
i want to say, "Just so, gentlemen. That's a wrap. Cut and print. C'est finis," but i can't. i don't know that we necessarily disagree here, and i'm not gonna try to make it out that way (if we really were in fundamental disagreement, i doubt we'd be having this particular conversation) only-- forgive me-- i tweak for neat, tied-up ends on this string like a heroine addict wants that one last push.
Understand first of all that i'm not trying to swing you to my way of thinking precisely. To be sure, i'm trying to nail down what my way of thinking is. With that said, and in the context of the rest of the conversation, elucidate this for me, which we talked about on the phone a piece:
"Even though he became like us, he still differed from us in the sense that he did not inherit our sinful/fleshly/fallen nature from Adam because he was born of the Spirit."
What do you think that means with respect to His temptation? How does that fit with His being "tempted in every just as we are"? i mean, i think it's likely that many believers would hold the "impeccable" picture of Christ. On that view, Jesus would be a sort of extrusion of God in a mortal shell just waiting to be loosed by death to return to infinity. On that view Jesus was practically unassailable. Being unassailable, though, wouldn't (as i gather you'd agree) allow Him to be tempted as we are. A 'temptation' to which He couldn't possibly fall-- even if He wanted to-- isn't a temptation. If that's the case, if He was indeed tempted in every way just as we are, what practical consequence would not inheriting a fleshly nature have on His temptation?
The Bible teaches us that while Jesus walked on the earth, he was both fully God and fully man.
Does being fully human necessitate a fallen nature?
Did being fully human necessitate a fallen nature for Adam and Eve?
I would propose that the sinful/fleshly/fallen nature is the result of original sin. All those born of Adam are born with a fallen nature as a result of Adam's sin. I could be wrong here. There is no grounds for being dogmatic here. All I have to go by is my observation of my own little ones and the many kids that I observe at McDonalds. Scripture speaks very generally about the effects of the fall.
We know for a fact that Jesus was immaculately conceived (born of the Spirit) and I, thereby, deduce from that that he did inherit the propensity to sin that came as a result of original sin. The propensity to sin does not make us sinners contrary to what most evangelicals think. It is only as we come to understand the difference between right and wrong (the law) and choose the wrong that we die spiritually. There is a time in every person's life that he is alive (spiritually speaking) according to Romans 7:9-11. Again, this is contrary to Calvinism that teaches that a person is born spiritually dead.
Ok, I've drifted a bit.
My point is simply that being fully human has nothing to do with sin or the sinful nature. In fact, Jesus came to show us what it means to be fully human. When we choose sin, we are choosing in a sense to be less than human.
I've said in the beginning that Jesus was both fully human and divine while he walked on this earth. He was fully human in the sense that he became flesh and blood (the incarnation, i.e. God becoming human, John 1:14), experienced every human need, and was free to either obey or disobey God.
I think we would agree that all humans have the same basic need - whether physiological, psychological, spiritual. You may want to add more.
I would further add that as a human, Jesus shares these basic needs with the rest of humanity. He experienced every one of them.
And although he experienced every one of them, he did not respond the same way to everyone of them.
And if he experienced every human need, he was also tempted in every way that we are because human need is the occassion for every temptation. Temptation has an appeal precisely because we are thinking, feeling, and seeing beings. Jesus was no less tempted by Satan's offer in the desert than we are when he offers us an illicit sexual fantasy. Without this physiological need, Satan's enticement would be rendered powerless. Jesus was no less human than us in this sense.
As the fallen nature shows the effect of Adam's sin, so the regenerated spirit (new creation, 2 Cor.5:17) shows the effect of salvation through Jesus. Here is a truth that flows from this point. We become sinners through acts of disobedience, and we become saints (Christlike) through acts of obedience.
Let me know what you think
Cody,
I went to Stonebrook church of Christ this morning and the preacher used Phil.4:19 as his text. Here's what it says:
"And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus."
Let me connect this with our discussion about temptation. In the previous post I made the comment that our needs are the occassion for temptation. If this is correct, then I can easily see how Satan wants to place doubt in our minds about God's ability and/or faithfulness to do just that. When we are tempted, we are usually tempted to doubt God's ability to meet all our needs. So we have a choice to make - obey God and trust him to meet all of our needs or find an alternate way of meeting that need.
Sean,
As is becoming customary, you've swept in with impeccable timing to slap me out of a corrupt logic cascade. You ever feel like you're a robot running bad software? i'm starting to appreciate the idea of the fallen nature.
Hopefully i'll have some time to write more tonight. i like what you said there. Thanks brutha.
Hello again Cody,
I just wanted to let you know how much I've enjoyed our discussion of this very interesting topic. I've learnt so much. Before entering the discussion I had some opinions/views that needed to be stretched and clarified. Our discussion has given clarity in foggy areas. If you don't have anything else to add or disagree or agree with, I just wanted to say "adios" until the next topic.
Love you and remember the invitation to come to Dallas is still open.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home