Form my term paper in Theology last semester I wrote the following paper. It was based on my research question - In what sense was Jesus tempted? - and the verse Hebrews 4:15.
One of my favourite Bible verses is Hebrews 4:15, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.” This verse makes an important contribution to our understanding of the nature of God. Although he is transcendent and omnipotent, having authority and power over everything, and although he is just and unable to be in the presence of sin, yet our God understands the challenges that we face as humans living in a fallen word. This is the great mystery of the incarnation. We see that God is able to sympathize with us. Yet, the extent of this sympathy has been called into question by some. James 1:13 clearly states that, “God cannot be tempted by evil...”. If we hold to the belief that Jesus is God, then doesn't this imply that Jesus cannot sin? And if Jesus cannot sin, was his temptation truly genuine? The answer to these questions will determine whether or not Jesus is truly able to sympathize with us. We will find that, although he cannot sin, Jesus did become fully human, which means that he took on the sinful nature and faced the full force of temptation.
Before we can understand how Jesus was tempted, we will have to look at two issues that will provide a framework for our discussion. We will first look at the issue of Christology. We must properly understand who Jesus was by looking at both his humanity and divinity. It would be easy to emphasize one of these aspects while ignoring the other, but the best answer to our question will hold up both of these. Next, we need to understand exactly what temptation is. This term 'temptation' is somewhat ambiguous and if we are not careful to define it, this paper will be in danger of falling into an argument of mere semantics.
The orthodox Christian view of Jesus has traditionally asserted that he is fully human. He experienced all of the limitations of humanity, he experienced the full range of human need, and he faced trials and temptations. John 11:35 portrays Jesus' humanity in a concise yet beautiful way: “Jesus wept.” Scripture has made it clear that Jesus was not immune from human experience.
Some critics have tried to discredit Jesus' claim of full humanity on the basis of the fact that he never sinned. Indeed, it is true that he never did. Paul writes that Jesus, “knew no sin...”. Our primary passage for this paper, Hebrews 4:15, also proclaims his sinlessness. We will explore shortly the divine nature of Christ which also requires his undeniable righteousness. Some have set these two natures in opposition, claiming that if Jesus did not share in the sinfulness of man, then he did not fully experience what it means to be human. We must remember, however, that man was created in God's image. When Adam was first made, he also shared the sinless condition of God. It was only because of the fall that our humanity became corrupted. Since Jesus lived a perfect life it could actually be said that he is more truly human than we are. Millard Erickson sums it up this way, “Our humanity is not a standard by which we are to measure [the humanity of Jesus]. His humanity, true and unadulterated, is the standard by which we are to be measured.”
In the same way that the humanity of Jesus has been accepted by the church, the divinity of Christ has been equally upheld. Daniel Migliore asserts that, “The classical creeds declare the divinity of Jesus Christ without reservation.” The scriptures also declare that Jesus is, “in very nature God...”. It is clear, then, that Jesus was both fully man and fully God. The recognition of both of these natures will be important as we continue to explore the significance of his temptation.
Let us now move to a discussion of temptation itself. To begin, we will define temptation as: “The desire to have or do something sinful.” It is important that we define sin in this way, since some have taken 'temptation' in Hebrews 4:15 to simply mean a hardship or a trial. Using such a definition would be unhelpful in discovering the answers to the questions we are asking.
The next thing we must ask is whether or not temptation, in and of itself, is sinful. If we determine that it is, then we will be forced to accept the conclusion that Christ was not truly tempted, since God cannot sin. Thomas Oden suggests, however, that any such view is not backed up by real life evidence. If only sinners can be tempted, then sinners must have the best understanding of what temptation is. What we actually find is that a person feels the burden of temptation the most when they do not give in. Once they submit to the temptation, they are no longer struggling against it. The person who gives in has not yet felt the full force of temptation's power. The person who does not give in is required to confront it at its greatest magnitude. Based on this experience, we cannot conclude that temptation and sin are the same. Augustine held a similar view, theorizing that the three stages to temptation are suggestion, imagined pleasure, and consent. Of these three stages, only consent is sin.
The early Christian writers compared temptation to the testing of metal. If, for example, you had a piece of pure gold, you could use various methods to test its authenticity. In the end, you would always discover that it was, in fact, gold. There would be no possibility of discovering otherwise, since it truly was gold. In a similar way, Jesus was put through various trials and temptations, but there was no possibility that he would sin. Despite the fact that the results would always be the same, it was important that a metal underwent testing to verify its authenticity. Jesus also proved his sinlessness by successfully facing temptation. As we begin to look at the arguments both for and against a temptation that was identical to ours, this metaphor will be important. It establishes the fact that, no matter what kind of temptation Jesus faced, we know that Jesus would not sin. What we are really asking, then, is whether or not Jesus participated in the part of human nature that responds to sin, which is the sinful nature.
Our first look will be at those who claim that Jesus did not share the inclination towards sin that other humans do. Stanley Grenz sums up this position well with his statement that, “Jesus' relationship to temptation differs from ours in one important way: He did not experience its enticement in the manner that we do.” The central argument here is that Jesus, being in very nature God, cannot sin. Our discussion on temptation, however, has indicated that just because one sins, that doesn't mean their temptation was any less genuine. In fact, the one who does not sin has felt the power of temptation to its fullest extent.
The other argument against a genuine temptation is largely based on verses such as James 1:14, “each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.” It may seem initially as if temptation itself is the evil desire. Our look at temptation, however, has shown us that temptation not sinful. Only the actions that follow are sin. So what do we do about James 1:14? Can we simply ignore it? A proper look at this verse also requires us to look at is context. The next verse tells us that, “after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin...”. This would seem to imply that the desire itself is not sin. Similar to what we find in Augustine, we see that sin only occurs when the desire is allowed to take root and to be acted upon in some way.
It is important at this point to consider the implications of an incomplete temptation with regards to our key verse, Hebrew 4:15. If Jesus did not participate in our sinful nature, then has he really been tempted “just as we are”? The Bible gives Christ the role of mediator between God and man. Oden has suggested that, “There can be no mediation between God and humanity without positing a mediator capable of empathy with ordinary humanity and of equal dignity with God.” It would seem that, if he was not fully tempted, than Jesus cannot fill this important role.
On the other side of the issue, we have those who believe that Jesus fully participated in our sinful nature and was tempted in the same way that we are. Several authors have pointed out that in the temptation narratives, there seems to be an assumption that Jesus' temptation was very real. Jesus temptations “were real appeals to his real freedom.” Bonhoeffer argued that “If he was to help man, who is flesh, he had to take upon himself the whole temptation experience of the flesh.” Only by experiencing full humanity, even to the extent of taking on the sinful nature, can Jesus relate to us and mediate on our behalf.
It cannot be stressed enough that, even though he may have participated in the sinful nature, he did not sin nor was there even the possibility that he would sin. As pure gold will always be proven to be pure gold, so it was certain that he would withstand the test and that his righteousness would be demonstrated. By upholding the case for a participation in the sinful nature, we are suggesting that his sinlessness was not driven by an external necessity. He is not bound by some outside force that is greater than him. He could freely choose, but yet the outcome of that choice was always certain. Because he was God, he would never sin. His will, his free choice, would always will a righteous decision. This is a great paradox. Jesus had the free choice to sin or not to sin, yet his divine will would always choose the later.
It is not my intention to make light of the view that Jesus could not have shared in our sinful nature. Certainly there are many significant theologians who promote this view and a complete look at their arguments would take many more words than this paper can cover. It is important that we keep their view in mind, since it emphasizes the divine and sinless nature of Christ. As a word of caution, we must never forget the importance of these aspects. Although we will accept that Jesus participated in the sinful nature, which emphasizes his human nature, we cannot forget that he was also fully divine and that he remained sinless.
Let us ask again the two questions that we began with. If hold to the belief that Jesus is God, then doesn't this imply that Jesus cannot sin? We have discovered that Jesus cannot sin, but this is not due to some external force that prevents him from doing so. It is due to his divine nature and perfect will. Secondly we ask, if Jesus cannot sin, was his temptation truly genuine? Although Jesus cannot sin, we have concluded that he did share our sinful nature, that he had free will, and that he felt the full power of temptation. Therefore, we can see that we do indeed have a high priest who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses. He is not asking us to face anything that he himself has not faced and he is able to fully represent us as the mediator between God and man.
Bibliography
Oden, Thomas C. The Word of Life: Systematic Theology, vol. 2. Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1989.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.
Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2004.
Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.
Footnotes:
- Mae
- Copeland
- Copeland
- Anberlin
- The Classic Crime
- Jeremy Camp
- Mae
- The Classic Crime
- Emery
Posts
