Was Christ Tempted to Sin ?

[rrowell]

Smaller, I pictured you much thinner and not so big a smile

 

[Sparkey]

It is well accepted within orthodoxy that Jesus was sinless in flesh.

There was no 'enmity' therein. If you believe there was, then you are dancing on gnostic ground, believing the 'flesh/matter' is evil and only the spirit good/perfect.

There are a few old gnostics even at these threads.

s
____________________________________________________________

Was that supposed to be dismissive, 'Mr. I've-Got-Kookaid?'

In the future if you have a question about my belief, rather than trying to state it for me, you may ask me. I do not believe (as you suggest I do) that there was enmity in Jesus, nor did I say anything that c/would even imply such.

Have I witnessed enmity between brothers? You bet'cha. Pardon my insistence, but before you start handing out Kookaid, kindly read the part of my post that you didn't quote in reply again: As those who look forward to seeing each other at the Wedding Feast

Cordially,
~SparrowH

 

[smaller]

Was that supposed to be dismissive, 'Mr. I've-Got-Kookaid?'

In the future if you have a question about my belief, rather than trying to state it for me, you may ask me. I do not believe (as you suggest I do) that there was enmity in Jesus, nor did I say anything that c/would even imply such.

Have I witnessed enmity between brothers? You bet'cha. Pardon my insistence, but before you start handing out Kookaid, kindly read the part of my post that you didn't quote in reply again: As those who look forward to seeing each other at the Wedding Feast

Cordially,
~SparrowH

Well pardon me for seeing your setup questions unaddressed:

Can flesh be tempted? (see Heb 4:15)
Did Jesus come in the flesh? (see 2John 1:7)
The enmity is between Spirit and Flesh.

In accordance with the thread, Jesus tempted in His flesh? yeah or nay?

There are issues when placing 'temptation' within Jesus in any way, particularly as it pertains to 'sourcing same.'

s

 

[Sparkey]

I am quite ready to pardon you, and appreciate your humility in asking. I also forward your request for pardon to our Father with my "amen" attached. Also, I do see the wisdom within StoveBolts (whom in the past, I've called SteveBolts, lol), when he posted his reponse: Tire ourselves in knots [Tie ourselves in nots?]

 

[smaller]

Heaven forbid a view for specificity

 

[Sparkey]

Is Proverbs 1:17 specific enough? . o O EMOTE: This little sparrow simply hops away.
Your question is asked and answered, sir.

 

[Sparkey]

smaller your demand for an answer is based upon your misquote of my (so-called) set-up questions. Recall my original post and the 3 questions:

Can God be tempted with evil or to do evil? (see James 1:13)
Can flesh be tempted? (see Heb 4:15)
Did Jesus come in the flesh? (see 2John 1:7)
__________________________
To which you replied, asking my pardon, while misquoting me by omitting the 1st question and including my 1st statement:

Well pardon me for seeing your setup questions unaddressed:

Can flesh be tempted? (see Heb 4:15)
Did Jesus come in the flesh? (see 2John 1:7)
The enmity is between Spirit and Flesh.

I believe that your question (regarding the intent of my post) can readily be resolved when you correctly read my thought with the understanding that I posited three (3) "set-up" questions and two (2) followup statements. I am unable to resolve the problem you are having until you first go back and examine the basis of your assumption.

Kindly notice that I have already declared that the "Mind of Christ" is not carnal. The implication you draw, that I have somehow twisted the truth in order to declare that Jesus had a mind filled with carnal thoughts is beyond me. How is it that you fail to understand that I am not making any such assertion regarding your implication when all you would have to do is re-read after dismissing your assumptive conclusion contrawise? Stop trying to bait a brother, and if this is not your intent, pardon me for thinking it was.

Clearly my questions and conclusion (that our High Priest was tempted like as we, and is able to be touched by the feeling of our infirmities) are in accord with Heb 4:15 no matter how much you wish I may have said otherwise.

 

[wayseer]

I agree that the more we try to understand and put our theologies into neat little boxes, the more we "tire ourselves in knots".
Actually, I prefer the Coptic point of view on the matter. We see early in History when the East and West were knotting themselves all up with the idea of trinity and the Coptics just took a step back and didn't engage and I think they showed some wisdom we could all learn a bit from.

I know better than to argue about the trinity and history affirms that when people argue about such matters, it only causes division.

Was Jesus tempted? I believe he was.
Did Jesus sin? Absolutely no.
Do I question my salvation? Absolutely not.

Nice summarization - I agree.

 

[reba]

This is good thread . A topic for good discussion.... not everything needs to go to our personal pet ideals.

Posters who are discussing should not have to step around others who wish to do nothing more than bring descension.

 

[Osgiliath]

OP - Was Christ Tempted To Sin?


Matthew 4:1 "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil."

Obviously Christ was tempted by the tempter just as we all are. How is that possible? It is possible because Christ was "the son of... Adam" (Luke 3:23-38). Christ's Adamic flesh revolted at the thought of enduring the cross, just as does the flesh of any man. The fact of this matter is that we are told in no uncertain terms that Christ was tempted just as we all are tempted:

Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

NOT being born of a physical father does not make Christ any less a fleshly son of Adam than Adam - WHO HIMSELF [Adam] was lacking both a physical father and a physical mother.


Was Christ's flesh really "the same" flesh that Adam and his descendants had? What do the scriptures teach?

Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil."

Originally posted by StoveBolts,

Was Jesus tempted? I believe he was.
Did Jesus sin? Absolutely no.
Do I question my salvation? Absolutely not.

I agree.

 

[smaller]

smaller your demand for an answer is based upon your misquote of my (so-called) set-up questions. Recall my original post and the 3 questions:

Demand for an answer? It's topic matter. Seeking understanding from a poster is not a foul, even in the press to actually 'get one.'

I believe that your question (regarding the intent of my post) can readily be resolved when you correctly read my thought with the understanding that I posited three (3) "set-up" questions and two (2) followup statements. I am unable to resolve the problem you are having until you first go back and examine the basis of your assumption.

Kindly notice that I have already declared that the "Mind of Christ" is not carnal. The implication you draw, that I have somehow twisted the truth in order to declare that Jesus had a mind filled with carnal thoughts is beyond me. How is it that you fail to understand that I am not making any such assertion regarding your implication when all you would have to do is re-read after dismissing your assumptive conclusion contrawise? Stop trying to bait a brother, and if this is not your intent, pardon me for thinking it was.

You might notice I bolded your conclusion statement about Jesus' flesh.

Can flesh be tempted?
Did Jesus come in the flesh?

The enmity is between Spirit and Flesh

Jesus had zero such enmity.

Clearly my questions and conclusion (that our High Priest was tempted like as we, and is able to be touched by the feeling of our infirmities) are in accord with Heb 4:15 no matter how much you wish I may have said otherwise.

There is a common notion that the temptation of Jesus was 'like ours.' And that His flesh was 'like ours.'

And to that angle I would only point out that there was a MAJOR DIFFERENCE on both counts, that being WITHOUT SIN.

Was Jesus then tempted 'like us?' Uh, yeah, except for that MAJOR DIFFERENCE.

Was the flesh of Jesus 'like ours?' Uh, yeah, except for that MAJOR DIFFERENCE.

Paul gives a great example of 'internal temptations' or SIN within mind/heart in Romans 7:

"the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence."

Did Jesus have this manner of 'sin issue?'

Uh, no. He had no 'indwelling sin' in HIS FLESH to make that manner of response within Himself.
In this way He was NOT LIKE US whatsoever.

The temptation of Jesus by an entity that was not Him was also entirely DIFFERENT than the temptations (internal) that any of us experience.

We all, down to the last one of us, have 'internal temptations' via the TEMPTER. (Yeah, I know, some will deny deny deny this fact)

Jesus did not have 'this particular issue' either. Satan had exactly ZERO 'in Him.' Not even a whiff of tainting.

s

 

[smaller]

The 'order' of Jesus' Temptation fell exactly on the LINES OF TEMPTATION that were brought to Israel as noted by Matthew.

The first 'stress test' was hunger. Hunger itself is NOT a temptation, but a 'natural need' of our flesh. Jesus fasted for 40 days, knowing then hunger. The Israelites utterly FAILED to understand this temptation and what subsequently happened to them in that temptation. They FELL in that temptation. Jesus didn't, understanding as a Living Reality, His Respone to Satan.

It was then, when He hungered the tempter came to attempt him, to 'feed' Himself. I even appreciate that it was a very logical temptation by Satan, a basic 'if then' construct that would seem very logical to a natural man:

Matt. 4:
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

Jesus response was exactly along the lines of the notation in the Old Testament in this regards:

Deut 8:
3 And he [GOD] humbled thee, and suffered [CAUSED] thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.

There are very few 'believers' today who even understand and accept this conclusion of temptation and response, and like they, most including myself have utterly failed to grasp this matter.

Jesus 'got it' it right. When believers understand what Jesus said to be a fact, then they also have passed this TEMPTATION. Until then, they too UTTERLY FAIL in a form of UNbelief.

The second 'station' of temptation came in this order and again was along the lines of the temptation of Israel in the dessert:

Matt. 4:
5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 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' response, again, right out of that second station in the dessert:

Matt. 4:
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

This follows the SECOND tempation in the desert at MASSAH.

Deut 6:
15 (For the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.
16Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

Even Moses FELL in unbelief at Massah, and it was a cause for even him NOT TO ENTER the promised land. To dissect this account would take too long for this post.

In brief, MASSAH actually means TEMPTATION (despair/testing/proving/trial.) It also is noted as MERIBAH, the place of 'bitter waters.' It is noted as such because of the VOICE OF FAILURE that came even from Moses in striking the ROCK twice:

Meribah: saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?

Ah yes, that good old QUESTIONING faith. LOL

The TEST PATTERN continues to the last stage:

Matt. 4:
8 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;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 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.

In essence, the FIRST COMMANDMENT, fulfilled IN JESUS.

The second COMMANDMENT was then brought forth IN HIM in His engagements with the people of Israel in His Ministry when He left the dessert.

Was the temptation of Jesus then 'like yours and mine?'

Uh, no. Not EVEN close.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Sparkey]

Jesus had zero such enmity.

s

Asked and answered, smaller. Asked and answered.
I've not stated that the enmity between Spirit and Flesh (which exists) existed in Jesus. You're redirecting your internal battle outward onto me and I've asked you to stop doing that.

I ask again that you read the context for my statement regarding the Enmity found between the carnal mind and Mind of the Christ.

(1) [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (5) For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. (6) For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. (7) Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. - Rom 8:1-7 KJV

My statement that there is Emnity b/w Flesh and Spirit does not support your suggested conclusion. Again if you had simply asked me instead of jumping to your favored (forgone) conclusion we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You might notice I bolded your conclusion statement about Jesus' flesh.

Yes, I did notice. And to use your device, I bolded your assumption that it was Jesus that I was speaking of when in fact I was speaking about the carnal mind and not Christ. There is NO SIN in Jesus. Period.

Now, I don't really expect you to apologize for your misunderstanding, nor for your presumption, but I would again ask that you stop using me as a foil to your internal debate.

:yes PS I enjoyed reading your post: Post #112 Thank you.

 

[smaller]

Asked and answered, smaller. Asked and answered.
I've not stated that the enmity between Spirit and Flesh (which exists) existed in Jesus. You're redirecting your internal battle outward onto me and I've asked you to stop doing that.

I ask again that you read the context for my statement regarding the Enmity found between the carnal mind and Mind of the Christ.

And I really would like you to stop spinning our conversation as some kind of battle. Requests for clarifications are not 'battles.' It's not like you'd be the first guy to lay SIN into Jesus in whatever form it can be plastered.

My statement that there is Emnity b/w Flesh and Spirit does not support your suggested conclusion. Again if you had simple asked me instead of jumping to your favorite conclusion we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes, I did notice. And to use your device, I bolded your assumption that it was Jesus that I was speaking of when in fact I was speaking about the carnal mind and not Christ. There is NO SIN in Jesus. Period.

Great. Then we finally have an answer!

You do understand however that more 'believers' than not will place SIN in the form of TEMPTATION into Jesus.

And that really is the fulcrum of the matters.

Was Jesus tempted? Of course. Was that temptation 'like ours' is the real question.

And the answer to that is NO. God is NOT tempted.

Now, I don't really expect you to apologize for your misunderstanding, nor for your presumption, but I would again ask that you stop using me as a foil to your internal debate.

I would say that as it pertains to temptation of Jesus, you have not yet entered the conversation.

s

 

[Sparkey]

And I really would like you to stop spinning our conversation as some kind of battle. Requests for clarifications are not 'battles.' It's not like you'd be the first guy to lay SIN into Jesus in whatever form it can be plastered.



Great. Then we finally have an answer!

You do understand however that more 'believers' than not will place SIN in the form of TEMPTATION into Jesus.

And that really is the fulcrum of the matters.

Was Jesus tempted? Of course. Was that temptation 'like ours' is the real question.

And the answer to that is NO. God is NOT tempted.



I would say that as it pertains to temptation of Jesus, you have not yet entered the conversation.

s

You say that as it pertains to temptation of Jesus, I've yet to enter the conversation. I can understand how you can conclude that, but would caution you again about forgone conclusions. I did try to enter the conversation but my intent was misdirected.

If we are able to go back to my thought (without interference) we can see that this is the very battle that forms today within the body of Christ. It is a battle within us. In as much as there is leaven within the loaves, so also is there sin (carnality) within the Body of Christ as seen in the church.

That is WHY I said that we (Christians) must be bold as we go before the Throne of Grace, knowing that our High Priest can be touched by the feeling of our infirmities. That is WHY I said that we are to ask God when we see our brother sinning, knowing that He shall give life.

I'll give you a moment to ponder my "spin" on the "body of Christ" before you respond and thank you in advance for your consideration of the matter. Kindly re-read the contexts that were quoted or if there are questions you'd like to ask, feel free to do so.

 

[smaller]

You caution me not to have you address the matter? lol

 

[Sparkey]

You know better. I've cautioned you because of your habit of twisting my words against their meaning.

I can understand how you can conclude that, but would caution you again about [your] forgone conclusions.

This is good thread . A topic for good discussion.... not everything needs to go to our personal pet ideals.

Posters who are discussing should not have to step around others who wish to do nothing more than bring descension.

 

[smaller]

Certainly wouldn't want you to actually commit to anything sparrow.

I do however like to know who puts temptation within Jesus in any form.

And from there interesting conversations come about as to what that might be or consist of.

s

 

[Sparkey]

Well, that's clear enough. Care to address Hebrews 4:15-16 a bit more to show your understanding of the Word spoken by the Holy Spirit?

My take on the phrase "Like as we" regarding Jesus comes from the use of the Greek preposition, KATA. To me, the Scripture can be understood as an admonition that we are to be bold (confident) as we come before the Throne of Grace, because we know that Jesus is sympathetic to us and can be touched by the feeling of our infirmities.

The preposition KATA does not mean "EK" (out from) or EN (within). Hope that helps.

 

[smaller]

My take on the phrase "Like as we" regarding Jesus comes from the use of the Greek preposition, KATA. To me, the Scripture can be understood as an admonition that we are to be bold (confident) as we come before the Throne of Grace, because we know that Jesus is sympathetic to us and can be touched by the feeling of our infirmities.

The preposition KATA does not mean "EK" (out from) or EN (within). Hope that helps.

OK, I think your statement is clear.

Certainly wouldn't want you to actually commit to your own statement though.

s