The temptation of Jesus-Case 1

[Matthew]

Here is what I thought one of the contradictions was. I would be very willing to learn from the Greek teacher on this one. I forgot his name..so that wasn't intended sarcasm.

Here it is:

I honestly thought that James 1:13 contradicted Hebrews 2:18 and Hebrews 4:15.

The Greek word "peirazo" is used. The lexicon that I used says that this has a few different meanings. One of which is to entice by evil.

In the gospels it's clear that Jesus was tempted by the devil. The Greek word for "tempted" in the synoptics is "peirazo". Thus here is what I thought the contradiction was:

James 1:13

"When (peirazo), no one should say, 'God is (peirazo) me'. For God (apeirastos) nor does he (peirazo) anyone"

In Hebrews 2, ( will highlight vs 18)

"14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendents. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was (peirazo) he is able to help those who are being (peirazo)"

From the text Jesus had to become a human being to experience being tempted by evil so we can partake in our suffering and help us to overcome it. It's clear that he's being tempted to sin so he can help us when we are being tempted to sin.

In Hebrews 4:15

"For we do not have a high priest who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been peirazo in every way, just as we are-yet was without sin

That is my first example. I really hope the Greek graduate student can respond. I am not thinking "I'd love to see him worm his way out of this" but "I would honestly like to see if this problem really can be solved"

Matthew

[Sozo]

Maybe I'm missing something, but are you trying to say that God tempted Jesus, or that Jesus could not be tempted because He is God?

[Chuck_D]

Hi Matthew,

I never had a problem with this issue because, as you state


Matthew:

From the text Jesus had to become a human being to experience being tempted by evil so we can partake in our suffering and help us to overcome it.

So as I understand it, He couldn't have been tempted had He not "made himself of no reputation" and taken on the likeness of men. (Phillipians 2:6-8). (See also Heb. 2:9, 16, 17). He had to be "re-elevated" to His Godhood after the Resurrection (Matt. 28:18). Therefore, it was as a man that He was tempted. This also clears up for me the passages where Jesus sleeps, gets hungry, etc.

Of course, this explanation is by no means unique to me, and I'm pretty sure you've heard it before, so I'm curious as to why you feel it's inadequate.

[Matthew]

Well what I meant was that I thought that Jesus could not be tempted by the devil. I thought that even if Jesus did assume human form, he still couldn't tempted. I thought that the Greek word for "not be tempted" in James 1:13 was (apeirastos). I thought Jesus couldn't be tempted wether he was in a "glorious" state or wether we was in human form. To sin bascially means to "miss the mark" if I am not mistaken. It means to go against the will of God.

I thought that if Jesus was human, then there would have to be a human spirit in addition to the divine Personage incarnating the human flesh-and hence the human spirit that would suffer and struggle to overcome evil. But this idea is so absurd and far-fetched, I felt forced to conclude that a contradiction really existed.

The only way I can possibly see in terms of a resolution is if the Greek word for "cannot be tempted" is better translated as "won't allow himself to be temtped". If (apeirastos) means this..then I clearly revise my conclusion that a contradiction really exists. I have no problem with the concept of God who won't allow himself to be tempted but could be if he wanted himself to.

Now can Jaltrus either confirm/refute this for me?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Matthew, I will get back to this when I get a chance, but as I said in the other thread, you are looking at this merely lexigraphically, and hoping some nuances in the Greek words are going to resolve this, thus your request to Jaltus. But it is not nuances in the Greek words that is the resolution but a coherent context and Christology.

[Matthew]

Dee Dee,


Matthew, I will get back to this when I get a chance, but as I said in the other thread, you are looking at this merely lexigraphically, and hoping some nuances in the Greek words are going to resolve this, thus your request to Jaltus. But it is not nuances in the Greek words that is the resolution but a coherent context and Christology.

Well if resolution doesn't come about in the form of nuance loopholes, then you are going to have to show me the resolution in terms of coherent context and Christology. I quoted the part of the passage in Hebrews 2 to show that I thought I had a good grip on the context, as well as Hebrews 4:15, where it says "..he was tempted is every way....yet was without sin".

So Dee Dee, I leave the argument up to you.

Matthew

[Jaltus]

Easy. Jesus was human. Jesus was divine. Jesus could be tempted because He was human. Part of the definition of humanity is that one is able to be tempted. However, part of the definition of God seems to be that God is not temptable, but is that in fact true?

Why is it that God cannot be tempted? Sin is going against God's will. How could God go against His own will? If He did, then He would still be going WITH His will, for it would be what He chose to do.

With Jesus, however, there are two natures in one person. He emptied Himself in order to become human, so He was now temptable because He could chose OTHER than what God wanted, for He was no longer ONLY God, He was now also human.

One of the key themes in the book of John is the submission of the Son to the Father. This submission means NOTHING if they are not different people. Hence, it is the Father (at the least, probably also the Spirit since Jesus is set up as separate in James 1:1, contrasting Lord with God the rest of the book) who is not temptable, for He cannot go against His own will. john makes it clear that not sinning means being in line with the Father's will, which is exactly what Christ did. The Father cannot be tempted because by definition He cannot go against His own will.

There really are no Greek nuances here. It is a theological difference that makes the matter. Jesus is God, but He is not God alone.

[jpholding]

I'm going to have to wait until I get home (still at Cocoa Beach Library tonight) to drop in my two cents fully here...but while the theological argument has some merit I think there are linguistic considerations and practical ones as well. Back tomorrow or Thu. on this.

[Chuck_D]

Jaltus:
Easy. Jesus was human. Jesus was divine. Jesus could be tempted because He was human. Part of the definition of humanity is that one is able to be tempted. However, part of the definition of God seems to be that God is not temptable, but is that in fact true?

Why is it that God cannot be tempted? Sin is going against God's will. How could God go against His own will? If He did, then He would still be going WITH His will, for it would be what He chose to do.

With Jesus, however, there are two natures in one person. He emptied Himself in order to become human, so He was now temptable because He could chose OTHER than what God wanted, for He was no longer ONLY God, He was now also human.

One of the key themes in the book of John is the submission of the Son to the Father. This submission means NOTHING if they are not different people. Hence, it is the Father (at the least, probably also the Spirit since Jesus is set up as separate in James 1:1, contrasting Lord with God the rest of the book) who is not temptable, for He cannot go against His own will. john makes it clear that not sinning means being in line with the Father's will, which is exactly what Christ did. The Father cannot be tempted because by definition He cannot go against His own will.

There really are no Greek nuances here. It is a theological difference that makes the matter. Jesus is God, but He is not God alone.

Great post Jaltus! Why couldn't I put it like that? :D Darnit Jim I'm a lawyer, not a theologian! :rofl:

[Matthew]

Hey Jaltus,

I appreciate your response. When I first started reading it..I thought "Oh terrfific..the dualism theory again (my nickname for this idea)". But however you brought up a point that I didn't think of. Your solution is brilliant, but it rests on an assumption (which isn't bad because my objection also rested on one, so it's a matter of which is the more reasonble assumption) which I will ask you very shortly below:


With Jesus, however, there are two natures in one person. He emptied Himself in order to become human, so He was now temptable because He could chose OTHER than what God wanted, for He was no longer ONLY God, He was now also human.

What did Jesus empty himself of? This has been something I never understood.

The assumption that I made was that it being that Jesus Christ was God in human flesh, it would be impossible for Jesus to have any will apart from God the Father himself. After all the three Personages of the God-head trinity are the same divine substance (?) so I thought it would be impossible for any one Personage to have a will apart from the other two. The assumption underlying your proposal is that it is possible for one personage of the God-head to have a will different from any other personage of the God-head trinity. I thought it was impossible for Jesus to have any will apart from that of the Father merely by definition of his divinity?

Any flaws in my assumption?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Well this gets into the whole peccability, impeccability argument. I certainly would not hold that it was possible for Jesus to have sinned. His life was the demonstration of the human will in perfect conformity with the divine will as the example for us, and for what we can look forward to. That does not mean that He could not appreciate the temptation being fully sympathetic as to its allure, but He would never give in to it. The point of Hebrews was His sympathy for our weaknesses, not the possibility that He could have fallen into our weaknesses. As a man with the limitatiosn of man, He experienced the temptations.

[Jaltus]

What did Jesus empty himself of? This has been something I never understood.

The assumption that I made was that it being that Jesus Christ was God in human flesh, it would be impossible for Jesus to have any will apart from God the Father himself. After all the three Personages of the God-head trinity are the same divine substance (?) so I thought it would be impossible for any one Personage to have a will apart from the other two. The assumption underlying your proposal is that it is possible for one personage of the God-head to have a will different from any other personage of the God-head trinity. I thought it was impossible for Jesus to have any will apart from that of the Father merely by definition of his divinity?

Any flaws in my assumption? Ok, two different questions.

First, I am not sure what He emptied Himself of, but it would be anything contrary to humanity, so I would probably just say His glory and possibly some of His knowledge.

Second, I'll answer that tomorrow.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am hoping to be able to get back with you soon Matthew on the subject of the emptying... kenosis. And I have no problem confessing that the complete implications of what that means are probably beyond our creaturely full understanding. It should bring us to awe.

[jpholding]

OK,

Now that I'm home, here's where I drop in -- and it happens that I agree with Dee Dee against Jaltus, but Jaltus, if I am wrong on anything or think I am let me know.

To me the issue actually revolves upon the fact that "temptation" involves two parties -- the tempter and the temptee. (No, not the brand of cream cheese, though I love that stuff!)

When James says God cannot be "tempted" this obviously does not mean that you can't go outside with a box of chocolates and hold it in the air and say, "Mmmmm, God, aren't these chocolates luscious? Would't you like some?" It like "tempting" (as a friend pointed out :) ) Bill Gates with $10,000 to steal a car. Is that going to do any good? No. You can tempt Bill but he won't BE tempted. So the meaning is clearly that God can't react to such offers with an experience of temptation. (I think James "by evil" qualification indicates that, but it need not.)

But with this in mind, when Hebrews says Jesus was "tempted" -- well, here I part company with Jaltus, I think. If the meaning is the same as in Hebrews, then of course Jesus was tempted -- there were things and persons all around him tempting him, but it was like offering Bill Gates the 10K. Useless. But that still enabled Jesus to intellectually apprehend what we went through.

To me this answer is more in line with the social science aspects of the issue. And actually my POV need not be incompatible with Jaltus'. But thoughts are welcome.

[Sozo]

jpholding...

I just got on this site tonight to post the same thoughts that you just expressed.

In any case... I agree 100%

[Gavin]

Easy. Jesus was human. Jesus was divine. Jesus could be tempted because He was human. Part of the definition of humanity is that one is able to be tempted. However, part of the definition of God seems to be that God is not temptable, but is that in fact true?

Why is it that God cannot be tempted? Sin is going against God's will. How could God go against His own will? If He did, then He would still be going WITH His will, for it would be what He chose to do.

With Jesus, however, there are two natures in one person. He emptied Himself in order to become human, so He was now temptable because He could chose OTHER than what God wanted, for He was no longer ONLY God, He was now also human.

One of the key themes in the book of John is the submission of the Son to the Father. This submission means NOTHING if they are not different people. Hence, it is the Father (at the least, probably also the Spirit since Jesus is set up as separate in James 1:1, contrasting Lord with God the rest of the book) who is not temptable, for He cannot go against His own will. john makes it clear that not sinning means being in line with the Father's will, which is exactly what Christ did. The Father cannot be tempted because by definition He cannot go against His own will.

There really are no Greek nuances here. It is a theological difference that makes the matter. Jesus is God, but He is not God alone.

Excellent, Jaltus! :thumb:

[Jaltus]

Comp crashed last night, which is why I did not finish my response.

The concept of wills in God is a bit more complicated than the discussion you gave.

Some of it is going to depend on your definition of "person." If God has three persons but literally only one will in Him, is He really three persons?

I would say no. it is through a multiplicity of wills that enables the Godhead to have three persons. Now, those three wills work together, and Christ does the will of the Father, but that does not mean that Christ has no will of His own, otherwise His prayer in Gethesemane would be a mockery of humanity, and not truly showing it. Besides, Jesus says, "Not my will, but your will be done."

That gives us indisputible proof that at least the Father and Son have separated wills, even if they are the same in content.

[Matthew]

I was doing a Bible study and I noticed something very odd in the Bible. So far, I have been wondering if it's truly possible for God to be one Being and yet to exist in three Personages. It would seem that three Personages each have their own will, their own mind, their own sense of "conciousness" to speak. However, by my reckoning it would seem that each member of the Godhead is a separate and distinct "Spirit" in itself.

There are several verses which seem to me to indicate this. In Luke we hear that God the Father is a Spirit (as distinct from the Holy Spirit) when Jesus says " God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth"(John 4:24). Jesus himself seems to have a distinct Spirit apart from the Father and Holy Spirit. Jesus says " Father, into your hands I commit my spirit"( Luke 23: 46). And in Acts 16:7 it says "When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to". In 1st Corinthians 15:45, we read "So it is written: 'The first man Adam become a living being"; the last Adam, a life giving spirit " Perhaps the greatest evidence of all (at least to me) is 2 Corinthians 3: 12-18:

"(12) Therefore, since we have a hope, we are very bold. (13) We are not like Moses, who would put a viel over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. (14) But their minds were made dull, fro to this day the sme veil remains when the old convenent is read, It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. (15) Even to this day when Moses is read, a viel covers their hearts. (16) But whenever anyone turns to the Lord the viel is taken away. (17) Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is , there is freedom. (18) And we, who with unvieled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that there are three seperate and distinct Spirits. If we hold to the doctrine of the trinity, would we be inclined to say that there is one God existing in three separate and distinct Spirits? I think the trinity imlies this, if it doesn't outright state this.

However we read of other interesting things as well. Angels are also spirits. We read in Hebrews 1:14 "Are not all angels ministering spirits ?". We don't say that there is only one angel, whose angelic "substance" exists in the form of many ministering spirits, I observe.

Even every individual man seems to have his own spirit. Psalms 31: 5 seems to indicate that David had a spirt. Hebrews seems to indicate that mankind has a spirit in Hebrews 4:12. And in her song, Mary says that she has both a soul and spirit , "My souls glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. (Luke 1: 46-47).

Now here is an interesting question. Why is it logically coherent to speak of each man having his own unique, individual spirit, and all the angels each being a unqiue, separate, distinct, individual ministering spirit, yet we say that God is one God in three separate, distinct, individual Spirits? Shouldn't we have three Gods instead of one?

This is pertinent to the question I raised earlier about how can Christ be tempted, being that he is God. If Christ is a Spirit in himself, having a seperate and distinct identity from the Father and the Holy Spirit, replete with individual emotions, thoughts, wills, his own distinct mind/conciousness, being co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, then it would seem that Christ can be temtped.

But why would it be logically coherent to have one God in substance with three Spirits in manifestation, instead of having three Gods made from the same "divine matter, substance, or essence", just like many different angels, each of them made with the same "angelic matter, substance, or essence" and many different human beings, each of them with his/her own unique spirit, each individual spirit made from the same "human spirit matter, substance, or essence".

How is it logically coherent beyond the claims of the New Testament? In order to successfully resolve how it's possible that Christ can be temtped and still be God, this question must first be answered.

[jpholding]

Matt, I see no one got back to you on this. Interested in discussion?

[johnransom]

02-09-2003 @ 05:33 PM
Matthew:

I was doing a Bible study and I noticed something very odd in the Bible. So far, I have been wondering if it's truly possible for God to be one Being and yet to exist in three Personages. It would seem that three Personages each have their own will, their own mind, their own sense of "conciousness" to speak. However, by my reckoning it would seem that each member of the Godhead is a separate and distinct "Spirit" in itself.

There are several verses which seem to me to indicate this. In Luke we hear that God the Father is a Spirit (as distinct from the Holy Spirit) when Jesus says " God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth"(John 4:24). Jesus himself seems to have a distinct Spirit apart from the Father and Holy Spirit. Jesus says " Father, into your hands I commit my spirit"( Luke 23: 46). And in Acts 16:7 it says "When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to". In 1st Corinthians 15:45, we read "So it is written: 'The first man Adam become a living being"; the last Adam, a life giving spirit " Perhaps the greatest evidence of all (at least to me) is 2 Corinthians 3: 12-18:

"(12) Therefore, since we have a hope, we are very bold. (13) We are not like Moses, who would put a viel over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. (14) But their minds were made dull, fro to this day the sme veil remains when the old convenent is read, It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. (15) Even to this day when Moses is read, a viel covers their hearts. (16) But whenever anyone turns to the Lord the viel is taken away. (17) Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is , there is freedom. (18) And we, who with unvieled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that there are three seperate and distinct Spirits. If we hold to the doctrine of the trinity, would we be inclined to say that there is one God existing in three separate and distinct Spirits? I think the trinity imlies this, if it doesn't outright state this.

However we read of other interesting things as well. Angels are also spirits. We read in Hebrews 1:14 "Are not all angels ministering spirits ?". We don't say that there is only one angel, whose angelic "substance" exists in the form of many ministering spirits, I observe.

Even every individual man seems to have his own spirit. Psalms 31: 5 seems to indicate that David had a spirt. Hebrews seems to indicate that mankind has a spirit in Hebrews 4:12. And in her song, Mary says that she has both a soul and spirit , "My souls glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. (Luke 1: 46-47).

Now here is an interesting question. Why is it logically coherent to speak of each man having his own unique, individual spirit, and all the angels each being a unqiue, separate, distinct, individual ministering spirit, yet we say that God is one God in three separate, distinct, individual Spirits? Shouldn't we have three Gods instead of one?

This is pertinent to the question I raised earlier about how can Christ be tempted, being that he is God. If Christ is a Spirit in himself, having a seperate and distinct identity from the Father and the Holy Spirit, replete with individual emotions, thoughts, wills, his own distinct mind/conciousness, being co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, then it would seem that Christ can be temtped.

But why would it be logically coherent to have one God in substance with three Spirits in manifestation, instead of having three Gods made from the same "divine matter, substance, or essence", just like many different angels, each of them made with the same "angelic matter, substance, or essence" and many different human beings, each of them with his/her own unique spirit, each individual spirit made from the same "human spirit matter, substance, or essence".

How is it logically coherent beyond the claims of the New Testament? In order to successfully resolve how it's possible that Christ can be temtped and still be God, this question must first be answered.

Some very quick thoughts:

Matthew, I think your problem lies in a confusion over the word "spirit". You seem to be assuming that the word means essentially the same thing in al cases. This is not true. Check your Strong's and you will see that there are five distinct usages of the word, all of which have nuances below that level (Crosswalk's online version is here (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151&version=nas)).

Sometimes these varying meanings appear in close proximity, such as in John 4:24 "God is [a] spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth". I believe Jesus is punning with equivocation here - he is saying that a spiritual God has to be worshipped spiritually. Obviously, if God is a spirit, that means he is an incorporeal supernatural being. Equally obviously, human worshippers are corporeal natural beings, so evidently the seond instance of spirit here means something else. But even this remains unclear. It could mean the Holy Spirit, which would make sense, since John is quick to point out that the Spirit's ministry is to manifest truth (John 16:13) and we would have a nice juxtaposition here. However, it could also refer to a personal disposition - Matthew Henry thinks this refers to the new man as opposed to the old man. Of course, it could also mean both, thus making a very complex pun.

Note also that when speaking of the human spirit, this is not to be thought of as somehow independent of the body. It is rather, for fear of sounding a bit new agey, the animating force of the body. In Jewish thought, the body and spirit form a coherent whole, in complete opposition to the dualistic view of human nature in Hellenistic thought. So when Christ, as a human says "into thy hands I commit my spirit" he is not necessarily yielding something up for reception into heaven (although this is a possible interpretation, because spirit is sometimes used to mean "soul"). He is in fact quoting Psalm 31:5 anyway, a general praise of God as redeemer and protector.

So, I don't think it valid to conclude that the Bible states that God is three spirits, meaning that He is three separate beings. But it is certainly true that each person of the Trinity can have a distinct spirit in the sense of personality, disposition or essence.