Temptation of Jesus

[John81]

We know from Scripture that Jesus was tempted in the wilderness. Scripture also tells us that Jesus was tempted in all points like we are. We also know from Scripture that Jesus never gave in to temptation, Jesus never sinned.

Question: Could Jesus have sinned? Or, was it impossible that Jesus could give in to temptation and sin because He was not only man, but also fully God?

[Seth Doty]

We know from Scripture that Jesus was tempted in the wilderness. Scripture also tells us that Jesus was tempted in all points like we are. We also know from Scripture that Jesus never gave in to temptation, Jesus never sinned.

Question: Could Jesus have sinned? Or, was it impossible that Jesus could give in to temptation and sin because He was not only man, but also fully God?

Who knows? Probably no one but God. Impossible to answer such a question. The devil must have felt there was a possibility of failure at least or else I doubt he would have bothered. Also can a temptation truly be a temptation if there is no real possibility of giving in? On the other hand scripture says God cannot be tempted with evil. The bottom line is being fully God and fully man is not easily explainable or analysed any way you look at if it. It is sort of like trying to analyse the virgin birth. Some things just are not explainable with our knowledge and simply are so because God says as much.

[John81]

Who knows? Probably no one but God. Impossible to answer such a question. The devil must have felt there was a possibility of failure at least or else I doubt he would have bothered. Also can a temptation truly be a temptation if there is no real possibility of giving in? On the other hand scripture says God cannot be tempted with evil. The bottom line is being fully God and fully man is not easily explainable or analysed any way you look at if it. It is sort of like trying to analyse the virgin birth. Some things just are not explainable with our knowledge and simply are so because God says as much.

I was thinking along the lines as you mentioned, how much of a temptation is something if we can't give in. In fact, how could it even be considered a temptation in one couldn't even be tempted? Would you or I be tempted right now if someone offered to let us eat part of a three day old road kill skunk?

It is said that Jesus "set aside" (I don't know how) His Deity when He took on human form and that's how He was fully man. If Jesus was fully man, then He would have to have been subject to temptation in similar manner as was Adam and Eve (the only other humans not born with a sin nature).

Also, as you mention, why would the devil bother with tempting Jesus if Jesus couldn't be tempted? It wouldn't even be a tempting!

If Jesus was never truly tempted, because He couldn't be tempted, then wouldn't that make the verse proclaiming that Jesus was tempted in every way we are untrue? For that matter, wouldn't that make the "temptation in the wilderness" not true either?

[Seth Doty]

I was thinking along the lines as you mentioned, how much of a temptation is something if we can't give in. In fact, how could it even be considered a temptation in one couldn't even be tempted? Would you or I be tempted right now if someone offered to let us eat part of a three day old road kill skunk?

It is said that Jesus "set aside" (I don't know how) His Deity when He took on human form and that's how He was fully man. If Jesus was fully man, then He would have to have been subject to temptation in similar manner as was Adam and Eve (the only other humans not born with a sin nature).

Also, as you mention, why would the devil bother with tempting Jesus if Jesus couldn't be tempted? It wouldn't even be a tempting!

If Jesus was never truly tempted, because He couldn't be tempted, then wouldn't that make the verse proclaiming that Jesus was tempted in every way we are untrue? For that matter, wouldn't that make the "temptation in the wilderness" not true either?

On the other hand if Christ could have sinned then it would have been possible for scripture to fail, and for God to become a sinner, a liar, and change his very character. Is that possible? One would doubt it from what the scripture says on the topic. The basic question boils down to could the humanity of Christ have overpowered the Godhood of Christ and if not because "the weakness of God is stronger than men." then how could he really be fully man and if so because he was "in all points tempted like as we are" how could he do that and be the almighty unchangeable God? Just one of those things that reasoning won't get you anywhere on because we can't reason on a high enough level. Our minds cannot really grasp how Jesus could fully posses both the infinite unchangeable nature of God and the finite changeable nature of man. Our minds view those two natures as a complete contradiction and therefore we cannot conceive how they could combined without one overpowering and destroying the other. Fortunately that was Gods end of it and we don't have to understand it.

[JerryNumbers]

I agree, can we know? I have heard people say that it would have been impossible for Jesus to have sinned. But part of me wants to say, if He could have not sinned, did it prove anything? One thing we do know is that, thankfully he did not and we have a Savior.

I will say this, if Jesus had a human father he would have failed, and that is why His deity is so important. For if He had a human father, the sin nature would have been passed on to him, for the sin nature is passed down by the father, not mother. And yes I know that many refuse to accept that.

[Annie]

On the other hand if Christ could have sinned then it would have been possible for scripture to fail, and for God to become a sinner, a liar, and change his very character. Is that possible? One would doubt it from what the scripture says on the topic. The basic question boils down to could the humanity of Christ have overpowered the Godhood of Christ and if not because "the weakness of God is stronger than men." then how could he really be fully man and if so because he was "in all points tempted like as we are" how could he do that and be the almighty unchangeable God? Just one of those things that reasoning won't get you anywhere on because we can't reason on a high enough level. Our minds cannot really grasp how Jesus could fully posses both the infinite unchangeable nature of God and the finite changeable nature of man. Our minds view those two natures as a complete contradiction and therefore we cannot conceive how they could combined without one overpowering and destroying the other. Fortunately that was Gods end of it and we don't have to understand it.

Good post, Seth. Isn't the theological point y'all are discussing called the "impeccability of Christ"? I love the Hebrews passage in question; it gives me such comfort. I like to look at all of it in order to see what it does and does not say...
Hebrews 4:13-16
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
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.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The contrast in verse 15 is between two phrases. First phrase (in simplified English): we don't have a high priest/mediator/representative before God who doesn't understand human weakness (or how it feels to be human). Second: but was in all ways tempted just like we are, yet without sin. The second is presented in stark contrast to the first. IMO, whether or not Jesus "could have" sinned is irrelevant, and does nothing to increase or diminish the comfort given by this verse, or the result of Christ's being tempted as a human without sinning (that we can come boldly before the throne of grace). The point here is that Jesus knew what it was like to feel exhausted...to have to eat and sleep in order to have energy to accomplish work...to sweat...to bleed...to feel physical pain...to be in anguish emotionally...to fight against the law of entropy. He built things with carpenter's tools, the slow way...the frustrating way. He got sick; he got headaches and hiccups. All of these are human experiences...He was "touched with the feelings of our infirmities" in a way that God the Father never has been nor ever will be. Yet, because Jesus was very God, He could live a sinless life despite experiencing the frustrations of being human. What is the normal human reaction to pain...Like, what does the average construction worker do when he shoots a staple through his hand, or pounds his finger with an ill-aimed hammer blow? Jesus suffered the worst pain imaginable..."yet without sin." Whether he "could have sinned" or not is irrelevant...The point is that He, in human flesh, DID NOT sin. That's all we need to know. According to Scripture, our model, Jesus Christ, understands what it is like to be human; therefore, He dispenses sufficient "grace to help in time of need"...from the throne of GRACE. Our savior, Jesus Christ, never sinned; therefore, it is possible for us to "come boldly unto the throne of grace," where we could not enter had he not lived a sinless life.

All that said, I don't believe Jesus could have sinned. Not only did he have an "unfallen" nature like Adam and Eve...He was very God, unlike Adam and Eve. But that fact (that He could not have sinned) doesn't make the fact that he did not sin any less effective or comforting to me. I am content to know that Jesus was "touched with the feeling of my infirmities, yet without sin." He was tested in the same way we are tested, and He passed the tests. Not only that, but He offers supernatural help (grace) in the times we're tempted. He supernaturally enables us to resist temptation. That's the real issue. Through Him, we have the power, just like He had the power, to resist temptation as humans. Our task is to claim that grace and live victorious lives through His supernatural power. The difference between us and Christ is that we are sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, and, as such, cannot claim that grace as consistently as we ought to...but then, there's unlimited grace for our failures as well. Praise the Lord!

People who say that Christ's inability to sin disheartens them (because they don't have that inability) are looking at this whole thing from the wrong angle. Because of Christ, they are indeed offered a way to avoid sinning! And, our sins are done away with...gone, by the grace of God, as far as the east is from the west, anyway! So, the impeccability of Christ is really a moot issue. Edited March 16, 2011 by Annie

[John81]

Did Jesus truly lay aside his deity and taking on human form, becoming fully man or not?

We would probably agree that Jesus as God could not be tempted and therefore could not sin. What about Jesus as man? If Jesus was truly man then He in that capacity He would be subject to temptation and the potential that He could sin would be there...of course the potential that He would not sin would also be there, the same as it was with Adam and Eve.

God knows the beginning from the end so no doubt God knew Jesus would not sin but that doesn't mean Jesus the man couldn't have sinned. This is something anti-Calvinists should especially get. There are many points throughout Scripture that "if" something had happened different one could say Scripture would have failed, but such didn't happen...those who could have failed didn't. God knows all the "ifs" and somehow works all things together so His plan is fulfilled, such as the remarkable birth of Christ, the destruction of Jerusalem or the coming end of the world.

So, did Jesus the man really face temptation? Scripture tells us after fasting 40 days and nights Jesus was hungry (I would consider myself to be FAR beyond hungry by that point!). If Jesus was hungry (feeling this hunger as a man), as Scripture says, then surely being offered food would have been a real temptation. Jesus then faced the same choice we face when temptation knocks on our door. Would he give in and take the "easy way" or would He, as Scripture commands all of us, obey God and trust Him with the outcome? As Scripture records, He kept His human flesh in check and chose to obey God. Surely all of us here who have been in Christ any length of time has experienced times where we have failed in such times and where we have also stood true with the Lord.

Is Scripture true when it says Jesus was tempted? Is Scripture true when it says Jesus was tempted in all like manner as we are? Is Scripture true that Jesus was a man (as well as God)?

[Annie]

Did Jesus truly lay aside his deity and taking on human form, becoming fully man or not?

No, He did not lay aside his deity; to say that He did would be heretical. Jesus was fully God and fully man.

We would probably agree that Jesus as God could not be tempted and therefore could not sin. What about Jesus as man? If Jesus was truly man then He in that capacity He would be subject to temptation and the potential that He could sin would be there...of course the potential that He would not sin would also be there, the same as it was with Adam and Eve.

No, again, Adam and Eve's nature was not like God's nature. They were fully human, and, although they started out "innocent," they were not deities.

Is Scripture true when it says Jesus was tempted? Is Scripture true when it says Jesus was tempted in all like manner as we are? Is Scripture true that Jesus was a man (as well as God)?

Yes, Jesus was tested just like we are tested. Yes, He was a man. But He was not a man like Adam was a man. His nature was not only "unfallen" (from the human perspective), but it was holy, utterly set against and apart from any sin (from the God perspective). To sin would have gone against his very nature as God.

Let's for the sake of argument just say that his human nature was merely unfallen, like Adam and Eve's. Really, now, think through this. In this case, he would have had an "unfallen" nature from the "human" side and a "completely holy" nature from the "God" side. To sin, then, would still have been impossible. "Not sinning" would NOT have gone against his "unfallen human" nature, and "not sinning" would also be consistent/the only option in accordance with his "God-nature." On the flip side, "sinning" would NOT have gone against his "unfallen human" nature, but it would have been irreconcileable with the "holy God" nature. It could not have happened, because of Who He was. If Christ could have sinned, then He wasn't truly God.

Again, this fact doesn't diminish the comfort I receive from knowing that Jesus Christ passed the test, lived a sinless life, understands what it feels like to be clothed in human skin, and is now dispensing supernatural grace and power to me to live as I ought to live...and is flooding me with grace and forgiveness when I do not live as I ought to live. That's why I really do think the impeccability of Christ is a non-issue, when you get right down to it. Edited March 16, 2011 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

Jesus was God - He couldn't sin.

Jesus was a man - He could sin.

Or could He? When Jesus became a man, His deity was (for lack of a better term) limited. He suffered thirst and hunger and other things that God doesn't suffer. Who's to say His human side wasn't as well? Who to say while He was tempted to sin, He couldn't actually do it?

The only way I've seen to reconcile this is that He couldn't sin, but He didn't know that. When Jesus was on Earth, He admitted He didn't know when the Second Coming would be, but that only the Father knew. Therefore, in a way, He chose not to know. God can choose to forget our sins. This doesn’t mean He's not omniscient; He makes the choice to not remember.

Mind blowing; I'm just a frail human being trying to explain something that is so.... unexplainable.

I think when He came to Earth He laid some things aside, temporarily. He was always God, so there's no way He could sin, but I think for Jesus to really experience temptation like we do (see Hebrews), He had to not realize that He could not sin.

I think the technical term is "hypostatic union," and it has nothing to do with your hair standing straight up when you rub a balloon on it.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Rick Schworer

[Annie]

Here's some info from someone who has thought this through more than any of us have (link below):

The question is simply, is it possible to attempt the impossible? To this all would agree. It is possible for a rowboat to attack a battleship, even though it is conceivably impossible for the rowboat to conquer the battleship. The idea that temptability implies susceptibility is unsound. While the temptation may be real, there may be infinite power to resist that temptation and if this power is infinite, the person is impeccable. It will be observed that the same temptation which would be easily resisted by one of sound character may be embraced by one of weak character. The temptation of a drunken debauch would have little chance of causing one to fall who had developed an abhorrence of drink, while a habitual drunkard would be easily led astray. The temptation might be the same in both cases, but the ones tempted would have contrasting powers of resistance. It is thus demonstrated that there is no essential relation between temptability and peccability. Hodge’s viewpoint that temptation must be unreal if the person tempted is impeccable is, therefore, not accurate.

As Shedd points out, temptability depends upon a constitutional susceptibility to sin, whereas impeccability depends upon omnipotent will not to sin. Shedd writes: “It is objected to the doctrine of Christ’s impeccability that it is inconsistent with his temptability. A person who cannot sin, it is said, cannot be tempted to sin. This is not correct; any more than it would be correct to say that because an army cannot be conquered, it cannot be attacked. Temptability depends upon the constitutional susceptibility, while impeccability depends upon the will. So far as his natural susceptibility, both physical and mental, was concerned, Jesus Christ was open to all forms of human temptation excepting those that spring out of lust, or corruption of nature. But his peccability, or the possibility of being overcome by those temptations, would depend upon the amount of voluntary resistance which he was able to bring to bear against them. Those temptations were very strong, but if the self-determination of his holy will was stronger than they, then they could not induce him to sin, and he would be impeccable. And yet plainly he would be temptable.”

You can read the whole article at http://www.biblemaster.com/qanda/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=3&TopicID=6091&PagePosition=1 I really don't know who Walvoord is, or where he is on other issues. I just think his way of explaining that "temptability" does not necessarily equal "susceptibility" makes a whole lotta sense, and is in line with what we know of Scripture. I'd be interested in specific engagement with his points (not just general repeating of the same questions). Edited March 16, 2011 by Annie

[John81]

By "lay aside" His deity, I'm not saying he cast it aside, I'm using that phrase along the lines of how Rick did, in that Jesus purposefully "limited" his deity. In other words, as He walked earth as a man, Jesus did so in and wit the limitations that come as a man, not drawing on His deity. This is why Jesus got thirsty and hungry, he got tired and He could be tempted.

If Jesus could not be tempted then the Word isn't true. Either Jesus was fully man and subject to all thing things a man would be, or He wasn't. Jesus got thirsty and hungry and tired. If He was fully man, he would be subject to being tempted as well. Jesus didn't call on His deity, He didn't rely upon any aspect of His deity when afflicted in other ways, why should we think that He had some special protection from temptation when Scripture itself indicates otherwise?

Adam and Eve were created in perfection. There was no sin in them. When confronted with temptation, they didn't have to sin. Eve could have said "no". Eve could have run away. Adam could have interceeded. Even after Eve sinned, Adam didn't have to. Adam could have refused. While Eve allowed herself to be deceived and Adam willingly followed her, Jesus was determined to resist the devil and He saw the devil flee from Him...just as Scripture says we too can do and see.

If Jesus was fully man, taking on the positon of the "second Adam", then He had to have allowed Himself to be subject to the limitations of being man. Note that angels came and ministered to Him at certain points, but they never fought a battle for Him. Note how Jesus spent so much time in prayer with the Father, which would serve to fortify Him for battles with Satan and in dealing with other matters as well...just as doing so builds us up in like manner today. The closer we walk with God, the more victory we walk in. When our walk with God becomes less close, the more we fumble in our flesh.

Jesus, as fully man, walking in close communion with the Father, would have had the ability to resist temptation, to resist Satan. Adam could have done this, but we note in Genesis that he failed to either call upon God or to stand firm upon the Word of God he had when Satan struck.

[Annie]

By "lay aside" His deity, I'm not saying he cast it aside, I'm using that phrase along the lines of how Rick did, in that Jesus purposefully "limited" his deity. In other words, as He walked earth as a man, Jesus did so in and wit the limitations that come as a man, not drawing on His deity. This is why Jesus got thirsty and hungry, he got tired and He could be tempted.

If Jesus could not be tempted then the Word isn't true. Either Jesus was fully man and subject to all thing things a man would be, or He wasn't. Jesus got thirsty and hungry and tired. If He was fully man, he would be subject to being tempted as well. Jesus didn't call on His deity, He didn't rely upon any aspect of His deity when afflicted in other ways, why should we think that He had some special protection from temptation when Scripture itself indicates otherwise?

I'm not sure what you mean by "special protection from temptation." Of course Jesus was tempted. "Tempted" does not equal "susceptible."

And...Jesus did indeed draw on His deity at times while He was on earth. I wouldn't say that He "limited His deity"...that still smacks of heresy. He was fully God. He limited the abilities which were His by divine right...but He did not limit His deity.

Adam and Eve were created in perfection. There was no sin in them. When confronted with temptation, they didn't have to sin. Eve could have said "no". Eve could have run away. Adam could have interceeded. Even after Eve sinned, Adam didn't have to. Adam could have refused. While Eve allowed herself to be deceived and Adam willingly followed her, Jesus was determined to resist the devil and He saw the devil flee from Him...just as Scripture says we too can do and see.

Adam and Eve were not God. They were "neutral" and "innocent." They could go either way, as you said.

If Jesus was fully man, taking on the positon of the "second Adam", then He had to have allowed Himself to be subject to the limitations of being man.

Sure...but He didn't change His very nature.

I'd really like you to interact with the points I've made, like I am doing with yours, instead of simply rewording/repeating your ideas. What do you think about Walvoord's opinion? Does "temptability" equal "susceptibility"? Why or why not? Edited March 16, 2011 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

By "lay aside" His deity, I'm not saying he cast it aside, I'm using that phrase along the lines of how Rick did, in that Jesus purposefully "limited" his deity. In other words, as He walked earth as a man, Jesus did so in and wit the limitations that come as a man, not drawing on His deity. This is why Jesus got thirsty and hungry, he got tired and He could be tempted.

If Jesus could not be tempted then the Word isn't true. Either Jesus was fully man and subject to all thing things a man would be, or He wasn't. Jesus got thirsty and hungry and tired. If He was fully man, he would be subject to being tempted as well. Jesus didn't call on His deity, He didn't rely upon any aspect of His deity when afflicted in other ways, why should we think that He had some special protection from temptation when Scripture itself indicates otherwise?

Adam and Eve were created in perfection. There was no sin in them. When confronted with temptation, they didn't have to sin. Eve could have said "no". Eve could have run away. Adam could have interceeded. Even after Eve sinned, Adam didn't have to. Adam could have refused. While Eve allowed herself to be deceived and Adam willingly followed her, Jesus was determined to resist the devil and He saw the devil flee from Him...just as Scripture says we too can do and see.

If Jesus was fully man, taking on the positon of the "second Adam", then He had to have allowed Himself to be subject to the limitations of being man. Note that angels came and ministered to Him at certain points, but they never fought a battle for Him. Note how Jesus spent so much time in prayer with the Father, which would serve to fortify Him for battles with Satan and in dealing with other matters as well...just as doing so builds us up in like manner today. The closer we walk with God, the more victory we walk in. When our walk with God becomes less close, the more we fumble in our flesh.

Jesus, as fully man, walking in close communion with the Father, would have had the ability to resist temptation, to resist Satan. Adam could have done this, but we note in Genesis that he failed to either call upon God or to stand firm upon the Word of God he had when Satan struck.

Great post John, regardless of whether or not I agree.

Wow, if Jesus ever did sin - which I still believe He couldn't - its mind-boggling to think what would have happened. It would have been more disastrous than people never being able to get saved. The entire universe is held together by the word of Christ's power. The whole thing would fall apart, and the Godhead would be split or destroyed permanently.

It kind of makes me think what it must have been like on a supernatural and spiritual level when Christ cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" At that moment, somehow and in a way I certainly can't explain, the Godhead was split temporarily and God the Father turned His back on God the Son because of the sin He bore on Him.

Wow. :( Edited March 16, 2011 by Rick Schworer

[Invicta]

In the early 1800s, Edward Irving taught that Christ had a "propensity to sin" whatever that means. For that he was excommunicated from the Scotch Church for heresy.

[John81]

Great post John, regardless of whether or not I agree.

Wow, if Jesus ever did sin - which I still believe He couldn't - its mind-boggling to think what would have happened. It would have been more disastrous than people never being able to get saved. The entire universe is held together by the word of Christ's power. The whole thing would fall apart, and the Godhead would be split or destroyed permanently.

It kind of makes me think what it must have been like on a supernatural and spiritual level when Christ cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" At that moment, somehow and in a way I certainly can't explain, the Godhead was split temporarily and God the Father turned His back on God the Son because of the sin He bore on Him.

Wow.

No doubt Jesus as God couldn't sin, but the literal reading of Scripture indicates Jesus as man could have, but didn't. Just as Adam didn't have to, but did. Of course we know that God is all knowing so He knew from the foundations of the world that Jesus would not sin.

Can one be tempted to do something they absolutely will not or cannot do? How tempted would you be if somone offered you one hundred dollars to let them stick a knife in your eye? Not at all! However, if someone were to offer you one hundred dollars to perform a legitimate work for him that would only take about a half hour, it's likely that offer would be tempting.

If a struggling alcoholic has someone hold an open bottle of his favorite beer to his face, he's going to be tempted. Someone could hold that same bottle to my face and there would be no temptation. The alcoholic could rightly say he was tempted in such a situation, I couldn't.

Again, the literal reading of Scripture indicates that Jesus was tempted, that the devil knew He could be tempted and offered Him things that would be appealing. Jesus, walking in the Spirit rather than the flesh, used the Word of God to resist the devil and the devil fled. Jesus lived out, proving it can be done, how His Word tells us to live.

As to how Jesus as God and man could be, how that was accomplished, Scripture doesn't tell us and I wouldn't even guess.