Temptation of Jesus

[John81]

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.

I can understand that, as a propensity towards sin would mean He was inclined toward sin. We, born in sin, are inclined to, have a propensity to sin. Jesus, who didn't have the sin nature, would not have been inclined toward sin as we are.

There have been many arguments regarding the issue of the deity and humanhood of Jesus. Some have argued the extremes, that Jesus was totally God, not actually human at all. Some have argued that He was totally human and had no aspect of God while He was in human form.

Scripture indicates that somehow, we are not told how, Jesus was fully God and fully man at the same time.

A literal reading of Scripture tells us that Jesus as man was subject to the same human limitations and temptations as we are. What Jesus did, He did in the will and the power of the Father.

[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.

One of his ex followers, Robert Baxter, said his 2nd heresy was worse, in that he taught an actual righteousness of the believer, rather than an imputed righteousness from Christ.

[heartstrings]

......I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..........

Jesus is pure and Holy. He is light and in Him is no darkness at all. He is and always was God,;
There are a few things God cannot do.....He cannot deny Himself, He cannot lie.....and He cannot sin.

[John81]

......I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..........

Jesus is pure and Holy. He is light and in Him is no darkness at all. He is and always was God,;
There are a few things God cannot do.....He cannot deny Himself, He cannot lie.....and He cannot sin.

Agreed, Jesus as God cannot sin. Yet Scripture says that somehow Jesus was also FULLY MAN. From Adam onward we see that man, even when created perfect, can sin. The first man and woman didn't have to sin because they didn't have a sin nature, they chose to sin.

God can't experience hunger, thirst and being tired, yet Jesus the man did. God can't be tempted, according to Scripture, yet Scripture says that Jesus the man was tempted. Scripture tells us that Jesus the man faced all that we do and yet without sin because of His closeness to the Father.

[Seth Doty]

Agreed, Jesus as God cannot sin. Yet Scripture says that somehow Jesus was also FULLY MAN. From Adam onward we see that man, even when created perfect, can sin. The first man and woman didn't have to sin because they didn't have a sin nature, they chose to sin.

God can't experience hunger, thirst and being tired, yet Jesus the man did. God can't be tempted, according to Scripture, yet Scripture says that Jesus the man was tempted. Scripture tells us that Jesus the man faced all that we do and yet without sin because of His closeness to the Father.

John, though Christ was "fully man" that doesn't mean he was a "normal" man per se. While yes he hungered, thirsted, felt physical pain, was tired etc. scripture also says he "knew their thoughts", knew how to read without having ever learned, and other such decidedly un-unhuman things. That is why I think it is best to classify these things as simply unknowable at this point in time. Fully God and fully man cannot be reasonably explained by anyone and it can't be reasoned through very well.

[heartstrings]

Agreed, Jesus as God cannot sin. Yet Scripture says that somehow Jesus was also FULLY MAN. From Adam onward we see that man, even when created perfect, can sin. The first man and woman didn't have to sin because they didn't have a sin nature, they chose to sin.

God can't experience hunger, thirst and being tired, yet Jesus the man did. God can't be tempted, according to Scripture, yet Scripture says that Jesus the man was tempted. Scripture tells us that Jesus the man faced all that we do and yet without sin because of His closeness to the Father.

....and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.......

He had a body alright, but unlike us, He didn't have a sin nature. He was "the second man" (1Cor. 15). Not only that, but HIS body, even though it died, never decayed or corrupted, and is still alive today.


The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:47

[JerryNumbers]

Some Bible thoughts to think about.

Not the 1st Adam brought salvation to man, but the 2nd Adman
Not the 1st son of Adam was righteous {Cain}, but the 2nd son {Abel}
Not the 1st son of Abraham, {Ishmael}, was the child of promise, but the 2nd, Isaac
Not the 1st leader of Israel {Moses} was able to lead them into the ‘Promise Land’ but the 2nd, {Joshua}
Not the 1st covenant of the Law brought salvation of grace, “He taketh away the 1st,” that He may establish the 2nd Heb 10:9
Not the 1st king of Israel {Saul} was the man after God’s own heart, but David, the 2nd king
Not the 1st birth of man makes him a child of God, but the 2nd birth
Not the 1st body of man will endure forever, but the 2nd body
And where shall we serve our God in the glorious immortal body? Not in the present heaven & earth. Why? Because; Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

[John81]

John, though Christ was "fully man" that doesn't mean he was a "normal" man per se. While yes he hungered, thirsted, felt physical pain, was tired etc. scripture also says he "knew their thoughts", knew how to read without having ever learned, and other such decidedly un-unhuman things. That is why I think it is best to classify these things as simply unknowable at this point in time. Fully God and fully man cannot be reasonably explained by anyone and it can't be reasoned through very well.

Where does it say Jesus could read without having learned how? Scripture indicates all the "beyond human" acts Jesus did was a result of His closeness with the Father, not that he was a "above normal human".

I will accept the literal reading of the Word. Why should we accept the literal meaning in Revelation and other areas but not with regards to this?

[JerryNumbers]

I know of know where in the Bible that this is stated.

{Jesus} "knew how to read without having ever learned,"

[Annie]

....and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.......

He had a body alright, but unlike us, He didn't have a sin nature. He was "the second man" (1Cor. 15). Not only that, but HIS body, even though it died, never decayed or corrupted, and is still alive today.


The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:47

Great use of Scripture, heartstrings! As God, Jesus could not sin. It would have gone against His very nature. Not sinning would also be consistent with his nature as an unfallen human (as John puts it, although he was deity, not merely "unfallen" in the same sense A & E were unfallen). Not sinning would, then, be consistent with the whole of His "combined" nature as fully God and fully man. But, although sinning would not theoretically have gone against his "unfallen human" nature, it would have been irreconcileable with His deity. Jesus could not be fully God and sin. Edited March 20, 2011 by Annie

[Seth Doty]

Where does it say Jesus could read without having learned how?

"John 7:14-15 Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?"

Since the Jews were looking for reasons NOT to believe I seriously doubt they would have "marveled" and said that unless they were quite sure he had not been taught "letters". After all a couple of verses later they are saying he had a "devil". The word used for "letters" is gravmma, from which we get the word "grammar". Some think this is just speaking of rabbinical doctrinal teaching in the law because of how Jesus responded. "Letters" would seem an odd translation if that is the case, but it may depend on how you look at it and I suppose I could be wrong.

Scripture indicates all the "beyond human" acts Jesus did was a result of His closeness with the Father, not that he was a "above normal human".

Christ said: "I and my father are one". Yes that is close. No one else can say that thats for sure. I would think that being fully God as well would make it pretty obvious that he was "above normal human". "Normal" humans are not perfect, don't always know the thoughts and hearts of others, don't have the power to forgive sins, should not receive worship, do not make armed soldiers fall on their backs with a mere statement of who they are, etc.

"John 2:24-25 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. " Edited March 20, 2011 by Seth-Doty

[John81]

When Scripture speaks of those "unlearned", as it also does of the Apostles, it is referring to those who had not the education of the religious elites. That doesn't mean Mary, Joseph or another didn't teach Jesus how to read. Jesus' uncle surely knew how to read and it's likely others in His earthly family did as well.

In any event, if Jesus the man couldn't be tempted to sin, then the Word is untrue. I believe the Word as written.

[Seth Doty]

When Scripture speaks of those "unlearned", as it also does of the Apostles, it is referring to those who had not the education of the religious elites. That doesn't mean Mary, Joseph or another didn't teach Jesus how to read. Jesus' uncle surely knew how to read and it's likely others in His earthly family did as well.

You may be right on that, I won't argue with that position as it may be accurate.

In any event, if Jesus the man couldn't be tempted to sin, then the Word is untrue. I believe the Word as written.

It depends what is meant by "tempted".

tempt [tɛmpt]
vb (tr)
1. to attempt to persuade or entice to do something, esp something morally wrong or unwise
2. to allure, invite, or attract
3. to give rise to a desire in (someone) to do something; dispose their unfriendliness tempted me to leave the party
4. to risk provoking (esp in the phrase tempt fate)

No one would argue that Christ was tempted in the sense of definition one, or that God can can be tempted in the sense of definition number 4, the sticking point is definition number three.

"James1:13-16 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: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren."

If you think Christ dealt with temptation in the sense of definition three, then you would have to take the position that Christ was "drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." Obviously lust to do wrong in and of itself is a product of imperfection. Neither God the Father or Christ has any interest or desire to do evil. That would conflict with their very nature.

[Invicta]

Since the Jews were looking for reasons NOT to believe I seriously doubt they would have "marveled" and said that unless they were quite sure he had not been taught "letters". After all a couple of verses later they are saying he had a "devil". The word used for "letters" is gravmma, from which we get the word "grammar". Some think this is just speaking of rabbinical doctrinal teaching in the law because of how Jesus responded. "Letters" would seem an odd translation if that is the case, but it may depend on how you look at it and I suppose I could be wrong.

I see this as Jesus not having been taught in their rabinic schools. We speak today (sometims) of a "Man of Letters" as someone who is well educated. The Jews marvelled because Jesus knew the law without having been to their schools. Perhaps he was home educated?

[JerryNumbers]

Did Adam have a sin nature before his fall in the garden? Of course not, it came upon him when he chose to disobey God, them he passed this sin nature on to his children, and of course ever since that day the sin nature has been passed down to all children thought their fathers.

And of course Jesus did not have the sin nature, for his Father was not human, the Holy Ghost conceived Jesus thus God was His Father so He started off like the 1st Adam, no sin nature.

Another thought, Adam sinned when tested, so he had free will. An angel sinned, and what was it, 1/3 of the angles rebelled with him, so it would seem at least those angles had the free will to disobey God.

Now, you going to say that Jesus, when tempted, had no free will and could not have possibly chosen disobedience?

Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Joh 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

Joh 14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

Joh 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do

It really seems that Jesus had a choice, yet He always chose to do the will, those things, which pleases the Father.

We have the same option, we can do that which please the Father by obeying, or we can displease the Father choosing to be disobedient while following the ways of this world.

That said, I still don't feel there is enough information to prove either side of this issue, we ought to be just thankful that we have a Savior that will saved us from our sin and the depths of hell.