Was Christ Tempted to Sin ?

[BornAgain]

The seed, which is the word of God.

How did David recognize and apply the principle taught here? "Thy word have I laid up in my heart, that I might not sin against thee." Psalm 119:11.

How did Jesus resist the seductions of Satan? By relying on the same power.

 

[Osgiliath]

I wonder if you guys are listenig at all. If you are, then you really need to find some way around these facts. Whether or not you think Jesus was tempted by women, wine, song, gambling, whatever, you have to face these facts.

Osgiliath has stated the matter very correctly, and has been totally ignored.

Here's my 2 pennyworth for you all to ignore.




We've now got the distinction being aired, of a distinction between 'tempted' and 'enticed'. There is such a distinction, but the problem lies further back than that. The problem (for the trinitarian) lies in the word 'tempted'.

What does James really say?

First: God cannot be 'tempted' (551)

551 απειραστος apeirastos ap-i’-ras-tos

from 1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of 3987; TDNT-6:23,822; adj

AV-cannot be tempted + 2076 1; 1

1) that can not be tempted by evil, not liable to temptation to sin




NAS Lexicon:
Definition

1. that can not be tempted by evil, not liable to temptation to sin

Notice, even the lexicographer has picked this up. Why can't you?

CAN NOT (that's the force of the 'a-') be TEMPTED.

Second: Jesus was 'tempted' (3985) in all points like as we are, yet without sin.

3985 πειραζω peirazo pi-rad’-zo

from 3984; TDNT-6:23,822; v

AV-tempt 29, try 4, tempter 2, prove 1, assay 1, examine 1, go about 1; 39


You notice the two opposites.

The word apeirastos is the opposite derivative of peirazo:

A-peirastos = cannot be tempted

peirazo = tempt

God cannot even be tempted. Jesus was.

ENTICED is another word entirely:

1185 δελεαζω deleazo del-eh-ad’-zo
from the base of 1388; ; v

AV-entice 1, beguile 1, allure 1; 3

1) to bait, catch by a bait
2) metaph. to beguile by blandishments, allure, entice, deceive




So Jesus was tempted (such as God cannot be), but not enticed (you are correct enough there), and did not sin (and correct enough there too).

That is the trinitarian problem, which cannot be resolved.

This whole thing about tempted is the finish of any question of 'equality', being 'of the same nature' and all the other descriptions of Jesus in the creeds. The creed compilers failed to recognise these simple facts above, and spent (and will spend) forever trying to show that black is white and vice versa.

Whether it's loyalty, or respect for Jesus that makes you all fight tooth and nail against the extremely plain language of Hebrews 4 and Matthew 4, it really isn't good enough.

By denying that Jesus COULD sin, you completely wreck the value of His sacrifice.

In fact His death was a waste of time, since He is no Captain of our salvation. There was no battle at all.

As it refers to Jesus, the word 'sinless' becomes meaningless, and deprived of its meaning. A marble statue is 'sinless' because it can never sin. It can never be tempted. It has no lusts, desires of the flesh, NOTHING RELEVANT TO THE HUMAN CONDITION.

Is that the Jesus you believe in? It's not the Jesus of the Bible who was, as Osgiliath and Hebrews vainly try to point out, 'in all points tempted LIKE AS WE ARE, yet without sin'.

Well, Ace; being in CFNET for a number of years (as you have been), if there is one thing I have learned, it is that the majority of members are not concerned with what Scripture has to say with regard to a topic, especially if Scripture is at odds with their "idols of the heart" which they hold so dear. The "Man of Sin" within the Temple (which YE ARE) will not be de-throned without a fight, even when he is up against the the double-edged Sword, which is the Word of God. But we always have to keep in mind that it is God Himself who prevents them from seeing.

This particular "idol of the heart" in question is not new. In fact, the same debate was taking place in the days the Apostle John was living..... and writing. And he warned "everyone who reads" about this very thing:

• 1 John 4:1-3 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits (test them) whether they are of God: because many false prophets (serpents) are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already it is in the world."

And,

• 2 John 1:7-11 "For many deceivers are entered into the world, WHO CONFESS NOT THAT JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

John is talking about "Jesus" coming in the flesh...... the very same thing we are talking about. This is not talking about denying that Jesus "came at all" and actually walked the Earth. This is talking about Jesus coming "IN THE FLESH."


"Come in the flesh" is a phrase means exactly what it says; "in the flesh" - a flesh-and-blood man who was 100% mortal. A flesh-and-blood man who was "IN ALL POINTS tempted as WE ARE."

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."

Hebrews 2:18 "For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."

It does not mean a flesh body "encasing" an immortal "spirit." Doctrines such as the trinity doctrine portray a Christ that didn't actually die. It claims He was an eternal spirit being occupying "a flesh container," and then escaped the flesh when He died on the cross. In other words, He didn't really "come in the flesh." Therefore, He didn't really die...... and any Jesus that did not DIE on the cross is ANOTHER JESUS – not our Savior. According to John, he is antichrist.


This is precisely what John is warning us against. Those who say Christ didn't really "come in the flesh" are actually promoting precisely what John describes as the "doctrine of antichrist."


Hebrews 2:14 "Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same"

It is a message of a 'different' christ that did not really "die." They are denying the death of Jesus; and denying Jesus came in the flesh, denying that "in ALL POINTS, He was tempted as WE are" and denying that "as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself LIKEWISE SHARED in the SAME"; they are therefore, according to John, antichrist.

 

[smaller]

Well, Ace; being in CFNET for a number of years (as you have been), if there is one thing I have learned, it is that the majority of members are not concerned with what Scripture has to say with regard to a topic, especially if Scripture is at odds with their "idols of the heart" which they hold so dear. The "Man of Sin" within the Temple (which YE ARE) will not be de-throned without a fight, even when he is up against the the double-edged Sword, which is the Word of God. But we always have to keep in mind that it is God Himself who prevents them from seeing.


It does not mean a flesh body "encasing" an immortal "spirit." Doctrines such as the trinity doctrine portray a Christ that didn't actually die. It claims He was an eternal spirit being occupying "a flesh container," and then escaped the flesh when He died on the cross. In other words, He didn't really "come in the flesh." Therefore, He didn't really die...... and any Jesus that did not DIE on the cross is ANOTHER JESUS – not our Savior. According to John, he is antichrist.


This is precisely what John is warning us against. Those who say Christ didn't really "come in the flesh" are actually promoting precisely what John describes as the "doctrine of antichrist."


Hebrews 2:14 "Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same"

It is a message of a 'different' christ that did not really "die." They are denying the death of Jesus; and denying Jesus came in the flesh, denying that "in ALL POINTS, He was tempted as WE are" and denying that "as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself LIKEWISE SHARED in the SAME"; they are therefore, according to John, antichrist.

Os, that is quite a false equation you have going there. You have basically tried to equate sights of Jesus NOT being an internal sinner as it pertained to claims of God not having arrived in flesh. They are assuredly not the same matters.

If you are in agreement with Async here please just 'come out' say so and stop beating around the fact bush.

I wonder if you guys are listenig at all. If you are, then you really need to find some way around these facts. Whether or not you think Jesus was tempted by women, wine, song, gambling, whatever, you have to face these facts.

Osgiliath has stated the matter very correctly, and has been totally ignored.

Async was much more forward in this matter than the entire balance of you who make Jesus tempted WITHIN by His Own LUSTS.

There are legitimate reasons NOT to see that to be the case as scriptures make no such specific case, that Jesus was tempted within by His Own supposed lusts OR the imposed 'weaknesses' of His Own FLESH by having same.

And it does come down to the bold red matters that Async has stated.

Jesus lusted after the good looking chick next door? yeah or nay?

s

 

[iLOVE]

Temptation can never work when you realize you are God's Beloved!

 

[Osgiliath]

Os, that is quite a false equation you have going there. You have basically tried to equate sights of Jesus NOT being an internal sinner as it pertained to claims of God not having arrived in flesh. They are assuredly not the same matters.

If you are in agreement with Async here please just 'come out' say so and stop beating around the fact bush.



Async was much more forward in this matter than the entire balance of you who make Jesus tempted WITHIN by His Own LUSTS.

There are legitimate reasons NOT to see that to be the case as scriptures make no such specific case, that Jesus was tempted within by His Own supposed lusts OR the imposed 'weaknesses' of His Own FLESH by having same.

And it does come down to the bold red matters that Async has stated.

Jesus lusted after the good looking chick next door? yeah or nay?

s

How much more forward can I be smalls without "exceeding that which is written?"

1 Corinthians 4:6 "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed that which is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."


What does "IN ALL POINTS" mean to you? What meaning does the word ALL have for you?

Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an high priest ....... who.... was IN ALL POINTS TEMPTED LIKE AS WE ARE, yet without sin."

We are not talking about whether or not Jesus "willfully sinned." We know He did not. But that is not what this discussion is about. If you believe what I posted was "vague," then there is nothing else I can do for you. Most would agree that the post in question was far from being "vague."

 

[smaller]

How much more forward can I be smalls without "exceeding that which is written?"

The continuing attempt regarding the temptation of Jesus is to 'liken' it to 'all and every' temptation we have.

There is however a bit of a major difference, that being without sin. And yes, that is a MAJOR difference.

You understand that once the door to 'every temptation' like OURS is opened, that also brings a myriad of difficulties into the picture.

Let's see, God has both male and female characteristics, so He must have been tempted both by heterosexual lusts and male to male lusts.

And so we are clear, to be tempted in 'all points' as we are would include not only the above, but every imaginable form of temptation within.

1 Corinthians 4:6 "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed that which is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."


What does "IN ALL POINTS" mean to you? What meaning does the word ALL have for you?

Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an high priest ....... who.... was IN ALL POINTS TEMPTED LIKE AS WE ARE, yet without sin."

We are not talking about whether or not Jesus "willfully sinned." We know He did not. But that is not what this discussion is about. If you believe what I posted was "vague," then there is nothing else I can do for you. Most would agree that the post in question was far from being "vague."

I asked you a VERY SPECIFIC question regarding Jesus potentially lusting after the good looking chick next door. And I also see you conveniently bypassed providing an answer.

Async's list was actually much more comprehensive and you do give the impression you agreed with that.

I would point out however that there are difficulties in bringing in temptation INTO Jesus in any way:

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

footnoted to add: EXCEPT FOR THAT POCKET OF TEMPTATION of every imaginable sort.

Prolly not.

s

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by smaller,

I asked you a VERY SPECIFIC question regarding Jesus potentially lusting after the good looking chick next door. And I also see you conveniently bypassed providing an answer.

No, I was very specific - and careful not to "EXCEED THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN."


1 Corinthians 4:6 "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed that which is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."



Here is my very specific answer:

What does "IN ALL POINTS" mean to you? What meaning does the word ALL have for you?

Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an high priest ....... who.... was IN ALL POINTS TEMPTED LIKE AS WE ARE, yet without sin."

 

[smaller]

No, I was very specific - and careful not to "EXCEED THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN."

Well, you are certainly quick to emphasize 'all points as we are' and exclude the 'without sin' portion.

Hard to play it both ways isn't it?

Async jumped right on in.

s

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by smaller,

Well, you are certainly quick to emphasize 'all points as we are' and exclude the 'without sin' portion.

Read the first two sentences in my last paragraph of post #145. I excluded nothing of the sort!



What's up with you smalls? You're mind is usually in the Spirit, so I'm not sure why you are crawling in the dust of the Earth here, putting words in my mouth, or rather, taking them out.


You are asking me for specifics because you missed the spiritual significance of what I posted in #142. Let me back up so we can look at the bigger picture.


Luke, by tracing Christ's genealogy, demonstrates for us that Christ was a son of the first Adam just as much as He was the Son of God:

Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."


Anyone who says otherwise is labeled by the scriptures an "antichrist".

1 John 4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."


Most of the Christian world denies that Christ's flesh was "sinful flesh", which is what I believe you are also doing - in spite of the plain scriptural assertion that it was just that:

2 Corinthians 5:21 "For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."


The words 'to be' are not in the Greek. The scriptures declare that Christ was "made of a woman, made under the law... for the lawless... made sin". That is what flesh is. It is corruption. It misses the mark of the perfected spiritual body which comes only through the death of our 'earthy, first man Adam'.

1 Corinthians 15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam WAS MADE a quickening spirit.
1 Corinthians 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1 Corinthians 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."



The fact that Christ's flesh was sinful flesh like ours in no way denies that He is the sacrifice for our sins. How else could He be our "sin offering" unless "He made Him sin"?


2 Corinthians 5:21 "For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."


Being "made sin", and committing a trespass are two separate things. That is why God gave Israel 1. a 'sin offering'; and 2. a 'trespass offering'.

The sin offering is for what we are by nature, and the trespass offering is for what we do in that sinful body which we are.


Romans 8:3 "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."


The sin offering is not burnt on the altar like the sweet savor offerings. It is burnt on wood on the bare ground, outside the camp:


Leviticus 4:11 "And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung,
Leviticus 4:12 Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt."


"The whole bullock... the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head and with his legs and with his inwards and his dung," was to be "burned on wood with fire, where the ashes are poured out."

This is exactly what happened to Christ. The 'fire' burned up the wood and the flesh, "without the camp."


Hebrews 13:11 "For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
Hebrews 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
Hebrews 13:13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach."


The sin offering was for being sinful flesh, the trespass offering was for sinning while in that sinful flesh.


Christ "was made sin." He was not made trespass. Christ took on Him the seed of Abraham, sinful flesh:


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;
Hebrews 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels [a special 'sin free' ovum]; but he took on him the seed of Abraham [sinful flesh needing to be resisted and overcome, just like each of us].



If Christ were in any way different, then these words are meaningless:

Hebrews 2:10 "For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings [Not through a birth which made him anything other than "the son of man."]
Hebrews 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [Adam and "all living"] are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren."


Did Christ willfully sin? Absolutely NOT! However, Christ's flesh was "the same" as the children's flesh, and He was tempted "IN ALL POINTS like as WE ARE." If it were anything else, then He could not know what we endure in this "body of death". But He does know what we endure because "He made Him sin, who knew no sin".

 

[wayseer]

Or maybe you just don't want to say?

What I find staggering is, as a Christian, you don't know - yet such connection is essential to your faith.

As I said, if you are unaware of that connection then I, nor anyone else, can help you.

 

[wayseer]

I wonder if you guys are listenig at all.

By denying that Jesus COULD sin, you completely wreck the value of His sacrifice.

In fact His death was a waste of time, since He is no Captain of our salvation. There was no battle at all.

I fear you are right - not many are listening. Worse - many are not willing to listen.

 

[Asyncritus]

Matt 4.1 ¶ Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

James 1.13

13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

How does that happen?

Mk 7.20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man [i.e. they are already in there!], that defileth the man.

21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

[Again, they are already in there! They are NOT inserted from outside. Provoked, may be. Stimulated, may be. Encouraged, may be. But inserted? No.]

In our cases, they DO COME OUT.

In HIS case, they DIDN'T.

Isn't this us to the life?

Rom.7.18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do..[..]

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.]

 

[BornAgain]

I fear you are right - not many are listening. Worse - many are not willing to listen.

Listen to who?

 

[BornAgain]

Matt 4:1

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

The original post above:

Matt 4:1:

The temptation of Jesus ends with Matthew's account of events connected with Jesus' entrance upon his public work. That work was now beginning.

Immediately after His baptism and after God had acknowledged Him as his Son, and at the very beginning of his public work, the temptation of Jesus came. Satan begins his work in an active way as never before so soon as the Son of God begins his active work in the redemption of man.

"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit". This shows that Jesus was subjected to temptation according to the will of God, a deliberate purpose of the will of God, and not a purpose of His own, was carried out in his temptation, for He was "led up of the Spirit"; the Spirit carried him away, "the Spirit driveth him forth" Mark 1:12. He "was led in the Spirit" Luke 4:1.

 

[Asyncritus]

Jesus reminded Satan not to tempt THE LORD.

Why? Because HE IS LORD.

I don't think you've got this right S.

If He IS the Lord, then He cannot be tempted with evil. James and common sense tell us so.

He is in fact quoting Deut.6

16 Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

But notice, He changes 'YE shall not tempt' to 'Thou shalt not tempt...'

Why?

Because Israel tempted God at Massah by asking an evil question from an evil heart:

Exodus 17:7 And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?

So here.

If He jumped off the pinnacle, He would be tempting God - because He, of all people, should know that the Lord was with Him, and should not need proof of that. It would have been a demonstration of utter faithlessness, as it was with Israel.

Having just been given the Holy Spirit without measure, He must have been sorely tempted to put it to the test, and would have done just that had He jumped.

And tempted God, as Israel did, to destroy them.

No, He said, Thou (meaning ME) SHALT NOT TEMPT THE LORD THY GOD.

And further, He restates the fact that the Lord is His (Jesus') God. The Lord is definitely NOT satan's God now, is He?

 

[Asyncritus]

[...]

Jesus' "father" was the Holy Spirit, therefore Jesus did NOT have our fallen sin nature,
which somehow is passed on from generation to generation through the male.

But His mother was human. He was 'born of a woman' in the fulness of time; He obtained the human nature from her, the daughter of Adam. He was the 'seed of the woman', the 'son of Abraham, David' and there are 2 genealogies to prove this in Matthew and Luke.

Jesus, having a soul (mind, will, and emotions), certainly was tempted to sin,

Absolutely.

but because He did NOT have our sin nature, He did NOT have to sin.

There is no compulsion laid on us to sin either - but we still manage pretty well, don't we!

Jesus did NOT have to sin.

No one does.

Jesus overcame the temptations placed before Him.

Absolutely right. The point being made here, is that He WAS capable of being tempted. but...

Jesus never did sin.

Again, absolutely correct.

 

[smaller]

Read the first two sentences in my last paragraph of post #145. I excluded nothing of the sort!

What's up with you smalls? You're mind is usually in the Spirit, so I'm not sure why you are crawling in the dust of the Earth here, putting words in my mouth, or rather, taking them out.

You are asking me for specifics because you missed the spiritual significance of what I posted in #142. Let me back up so we can look at the bigger picture.

Luke, by tracing Christ's genealogy, demonstrates for us that Christ was a son of the first Adam just as much as He was the Son of God:

Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."

Anyone who says otherwise is labeled by the scriptures an "antichrist".

Again a side show. You think it 'un'spiritual practice if one does not seek to make Jesus Christ a sinner like you, I or anyone else?

lol

"Like us" does not extend to internal violation in the case of God in Christ/flesh.

If one wants to make a case for 'internal temptation' of Christ, then it is but a very small step to get to this point of fact or not for Jesus:

Matt. 7:
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.


I suspect many posters 'excuse' all of such as neither temptation nor sins nor defiling.

1 John 4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

Most of the Christian world denies that Christ's flesh was "sinful flesh", which is what I believe you are also doing - in spite of the plain scriptural assertion that it was just that:

I would find that quite impossible for the factual scriptural case of being without sin.

Like 'sinful flesh' being 'without sin' is not like after that fashion.

So it is disingenuous to make that kind of comparison.

Notice above your statement of fact, which is in fact quite contrary to text.

2 Corinthians 5:21 "For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

The words 'to be' are not in the Greek. The scriptures declare that Christ was "made of a woman, made under the law... for the lawless... made sin". That is what flesh is. It is corruption. It misses the mark of the perfected spiritual body which comes only through the death of our 'earthy, first man Adam'.

Again, being without sin, a blameless and perfect sacrifice does not extend to making Jesus a sinner 'like us.'

As to how that matter relates to the cross or what you mention above is perhaps another matter of topic.

1 Corinthians 15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam WAS MADE a quickening spirit.
1 Corinthians 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1 Corinthians 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."


The fact that Christ's flesh was sinful flesh like ours in no way denies that He is the sacrifice for our sins. How else could He be our "sin offering" unless "He made Him sin"?

If your claim is that Jesus was a sinner like us, I would only submit that case is not made by scriptures.

To insert internal temptation into the MIND OF CHRIST takes on 'all' the details of Matthew 7's internal defilement.

2 Corinthians 5:21 "For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Being "made sin", and committing a trespass are two separate things. That is why God gave Israel 1. a 'sin offering'; and 2. a 'trespass offering'.

The sin offering is for what we are by nature, and the trespass offering is for what we do in that sinful body which we are.

I would make some observations about the fact of Jesus' physical death.

A. At the point of death The Spirit was no longer 'in that dead body.'
B. At the point of 're-vivification' it was no longer a matter of His dead body, but a 'resurrected' and 'glorified one.'
C. 'Propitiation' or 'appeasement' does not include the position of 'having sin' and has everything to do with 'mediation' or making a 'separation' between us and the wrath of God.

None of that has anything to do with the subject matter of internal temptation or defiling.

Romans 8:3 "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."

The likeness did not extend to having sin, which by text is 'specifically excluded' OR one is forced into a re-write:

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.

John 8:46
Which of you convinceth me of sin? -

1 Peter 2:
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

1 John 3:5
And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

God in Christ did not come to convince us He was a 'sinner' like you, I or anyone else.

The sin offering is not burnt on the altar like the sweet savor offerings. It is burnt on wood on the bare ground, outside the camp:

Leviticus 4:11 "And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung,
Leviticus 4:12 Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt."

"The whole bullock... the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head and with his legs and with his inwards and his dung," was to be "burned on wood with fire, where the ashes are poured out."

This is exactly what happened to Christ. The 'fire' burned up the wood and the flesh, "without the camp."

Uh, Jesus was not burned to ashes in the fashion and manner of those sacrifices.

Hebrews 13:11 "For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
Hebrews 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
Hebrews 13:13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach."

The sin offering was for being sinful flesh, the trespass offering was for sinning while in that sinful flesh.

While certain 'similitudes' in these matters can be made, they were not in fact 'identical.' God did not suffer His Holy One to see corruption, period.

Christ "was made sin." He was not made trespass. Christ took on Him the seed of Abraham, sinful flesh:

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;
Hebrews 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels [a special 'sin free' ovum]; but he took on him the seed of Abraham [sinful flesh needing to be resisted and overcome, just like each of us].

If Christ were in any way different, then these words are meaningless:

Hebrews 2:10 "For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings [Not through a birth which made him anything other than "the son of man."]
Hebrews 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [Adam and "all living"] are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren."

The claim you are trying to make is that Jesus was just a common sinner like 'us' but that was clearly not the case NOR would it have to be the case as you suppose above.

Did Christ willfully sin? Absolutely NOT! However, Christ's flesh was "the same" as the children's flesh, and He was tempted "IN ALL POINTS like as WE ARE." If it were anything else, then He could not know what we endure in this "body of death". But He does know what we endure because "He made Him sin, who knew no sin".

Like us remains with the unique distinction of being without sin in any fashion.

God did not accept 'blemished' sacrifices.

Hebrews 7:26
For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

I fail to see what kind of advantage you seek in trying to make Jesus a sinner.

s

 

[smaller]

I don't think you've got this right S.

If He IS the Lord, then He cannot be tempted with evil. James and common sense tell us so.

Ah, yes, He Is Lord. That is why He was 'not tempted' like you or I may be as God can not be tempted.

His 'temptation's' were always 'external' and from others. Never was His temptation an 'internal' matter of defilement.

For the balance of us this is NOT true. Our evil thoughts are defiling thoughts, period.

He is in fact quoting Deut.6

16 Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

But notice, He changes 'YE shall not tempt' to 'Thou shalt not tempt...'

Why?

Because Israel tempted God at Massah by asking an evil question from an evil heart:

He quoted His Own Words to Satan.

Of course we should not expect that Satan heeds those Words of God, but always resists, as he was made to do so.

Exodus 17:7 And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?

So here.

If He jumped off the pinnacle, He would be tempting God - because He, of all people, should know that the Lord was with Him, and should not need proof of that. It would have been a demonstration of utter faithlessness, as it was with Israel.

Jesus was not taken to the temple in Jerusalem nor was Jesus carried to a high physical mountain from which was viewed 'all the kingdoms of this world.' There is no physical mountain that high, nor was the temple in Jerusalem 'holy' other than 'wholely defiled.'

Having just been given the Holy Spirit without measure, He must have been sorely tempted to put it to the test, and would have done just that had He jumped.

Or Jesus had Greater Things in mind.

And tempted God, as Israel did, to destroy them.

No, He said, Thou (meaning ME) SHALT NOT TEMPT THE LORD THY GOD.

And further, He restates the fact that the Lord is His (Jesus') God. The Lord is definitely NOT satan's God now, is He?

Of course He Is. He Is Lord of ALL. There was no petty little evil sock puppet that could have prevailed against Him. God Himself made the tempter to do what He does.

John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Col. 1:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.


If God did not fully intend for there to be a tempter and sin, they would in fact not exist.

The matter to ask is how can God do this and not be this? To mistake God to be the same as His creation is a form of pantheism.

Gods 'appearance' within creation is rightfully deemed a great mystery.

And God certainly did not appear 'as a sinner.'

s

 

[rrowell]

It is quite suprising to me as to where this thread has gone, Jesus was God, lowering himself to our level, not calling upon the powers of God while he spent his 40 days with the tempter... had he done so he could not have placed himself in our stead or be called "Son of Man".

If Jesus could not sin, incapable of it, then the 40 days was a staged drill.

Jesus did not sin, but he did bare all of mans sin in the end, so much of mans sin (not his own) was upon him that God the Father could not look upon him.

2 Corinthians 5:21 (KJV)
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

God and Sin cannot coexist therefore Jesus let go of his Godly Attributes only holding to those of man... so through his life up to the cross he was never alone, but for the time on the cross when so "filled" with mans sin he in fact felt alone like man does without God, God turned his face from him.

What happened to Jesus is what happened here:


Leviticus 16:20-22 (KJV)

20. And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:
21. And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

Did this Goat Sin?

Likened to how "the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities" and then of the goat "he shall let go the goat in the wilderness" all the sins of man were bore upon Jesus, so much sin God turned away, Jesus for the first time felt alone (in the wilderness without God), and mans sin died with him...

Now what is so hard about that?

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally Posted By smaller,

Again a side show. You think it 'un'spiritual practice if one does not seek to make Jesus Christ a sinner like you, I or anyone else?

^^^That is dishonest rubbish! And I can't believe it is you, of all people, I'm saying this to. :dunno

How on Earth do you come to that conclusion from what I posted? Either you are completely lost with regard to this subject, or you are being intellectually dishonest. Do you understand the difference between "sinful flesh" (ALL flesh is), and "committing sin?" What would Christ have "overcome" if His flesh was not corruptible, sinful flesh? By attempting to 'make holy' His 'sinful flesh', you are diminishing His 'divine' accomplishment, that is, "overcoming the world."


John 16:33 "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me you might have peace. In the world you shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."