Why it was not possible for Christ to sin
Aug 3, 2016 4:12:54 GMT
Post by Colossians on Aug 3, 2016 4:12:54 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
Forward
There are many in the church who believe that it was possible for Christ to sin.
They think this because
1. of references to His being “tempted”.
2. they feel it would be ‘cheating’ if He was not capable of sinning – that He wouldn’t be representing humanity in such case.
___________________________________________
WHY IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR CHRIST TO SIN
Concerning His being “tempted”
Beginning theologians often pin their biblical interpretations on word meanings.
But words take on differing meanings by virtue of the words to which they are linked, the structures in which they occur, the particular (grammatical) form in which they appear, and social, logical and idiomatic implications. And so the number of possibilities will often be so large that, although semantics will be the primary basis for analysis, pragmatics will (often) have the final say.
Consider the following two statements:
a) “I am tempted to take up the job offer.”
b) “I am being tempted to take up the job offer.”
Because “tempted” is a participle, it can lean either toward a verb 1 interpretation or an adjectival interpretation. In (a) the speaker might in fact be relating that it is distinctly he (as opposed to someone else) who will at some time in the future be subject to an act of tempting by a tempter. For example, the director of a stage production might be asking his troupe to remind him which particular actor is playing the part of one tempted by his boss to take up a job offer, and the actor playing the part might pipe up with (a). This then is the verb interpretation of the participle because it focuses on the tempter’s act of tempting rather than the resulting state of the ‘temptee’.
1 We have used “verb” here rather than “verbal” to avoid confusing the issue with that which implies “what is spoken” (what is verbalised).
Contrasting, as a result of having (already) been subject to an act of tempting by his boss in a real-world situation, the speaker in (a) might be relating that he is now as a result of such act in a state where he actually feels tempted to take up the job offer. This is the adjectival interpretation of the participle because it focuses on the state of the ‘temptee’ rather than on the tempter’s act of tempting.
And so and as we have said will often be the case, the meaning of the language itself (the semantic) is not here sufficient to conclude on the speaker’s intent, and we must indeed turn to pragmatics. Specifically, we will presume that, given that the adjectival option can only be expressed without an agent (without reference to a tempter) but the verb option either with or without, then given that no agent is in fact specified in (a), the speaker intends the adjectival option.
The focus in (a) then is (by default) on the state of the ‘temptee’ rather than on the act of the tempter: the speaker is relating that he is in a state aptly described as “tempted” ... that he feels tempted. And we note accordingly that the statement is said to be in the statal passive voice – the passive voice with no agent specified.
By contrast, but not completely opposite, whilst it is true that the speaker in (b) might also intend to focus our attentions on a similar – albeit this time ongoing – tempted state, in the absence of further information we must conclude that, given that the vocalisation relevant to such state is rather and most usually (a), the verb interpretation is the more appropriate here and the focus is in fact on the act of the agent of temptation – the act of the tempter – rather than on any (resultant) state of the ‘temptee’: we are being told that someone is making an (ongoing) attempt to cause the speaker to feel tempted.
It should be clear then from these two examples, that a linguistically-oriented analysis of the issue at hand is not as straight-forward as one might think. Nevertheless, a complete absence in scripture of an unqualified statal passive along the lines of “Jesus was tempted” will provide a good head start in our bid to show that Jesus never felt enticed to do what the particular tempter would have had Him do, and was accordingly never the least bit capable of sinning.
Scriptural references to the tempting of Christ, and according conclusions
(1) “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil” Mt 4:1.
The agent of temptation is specified here, so there is no statal passive construct. The default interpretation is therefore the verb interpretation: the focus is on the act of the tempter rather than any resultant state of the ‘temptee’.
(2) “The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired Him that He would shew them a sign from heaven” Mt 16:1.
The tempting by the Pharisees here is cognate with their demand that Jesus show them a sign. The focus here is therefore on the act of the tempters rather than on the state of the ‘temptee’.
(3) “The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Mt 19:3
As per (2).
(4) “And they sent out unto Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto Him a penny. And He saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto Him, Caesar's. Then saith He unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's” Mt 22:16-21.
As per (2).
(5) “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” Mt 22:35,36.
As per (2).
(6) “And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him” Mark 1:13.
As per (1).
(7) “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Lk 10:25.
As per (2).
(8) “And others, tempting Him, sought of Him a sign from heaven” Lk 11:16.
As per (2).
(9) “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations” Lk 22:28.
The sense here is that the temptations Jesus was referring to would have been at least to some degree identifiable by the disciples – that they could at least to some degree relate to the (their) loyalty to which He was referring.
If, however, such was rather in reference to His having felt tempted, it would have been be nonsensical for Him to point His disciples to any (accompanying) loyalty on their part: they wouldn’t have had a clue what He was talking about for they wouldn’t have felt what He had (in such hypothetical case) felt. What is more, in so reminding them of such (hypothetical) inner wrestlings on His own part, the Lord would have run the risk of reigniting such wrestlings within Himself.
The focus here is therefore on the (many) acts of tempting directed toward Jesus by His adversaries – acts which his disciples could outwardly identify – rather than on any resultant state in Jesus Himself.
(10) “This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not” John 8:6.
As per (2).
(11) “Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents” 1 Cor 10:9.
As per (1), and doubly so given that the result of any such temptation here would be retribution from the Lord (as it was for those whom He destroyed with serpents): one who feels tempted is hardly in a position to bring retribution against his tempters.
(12) “For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted …” Heb 2:18.
As per our opening analysis of example sentences (a) and (b) (see that analysis) this “being tempted” here maps to the default (verb) interpretation of sentence (b). Our analysis is therefore as per (1).
(13) “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” Heb 4:15.
This “like as” is adverbial and thus attaches to the verb aspect – the act of tempting – rather than the state of feeling tempted. Our analysis is therefore as per (1).
A very explicatory contrast
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God … James 1:13
Pragmatics here are more than ever depended upon for a proper conclusion. Pre-eminently, we will note the implication in this text that the apparent need the ‘temptee’ feels to level the blame at God (for the temptation), reveals him to be in a state where he actually feels tempted. And so this tempting here of one other than Christ, outworks itself in stark contrast to the instances detailed above.
Accordingly, we are in the very next verse told:
“But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed”
: to be “drawn away … and enticed” can hardly be the mark of One to whom the Spirit was given without measure. Commensurately, we note once again that this “every man is tempted” is in the statal passive voice: no agent of temptation is specified and so the focus is by default on the state of the temptee – he feels tempted – and thus the subsequent reference to “his own lust” : to possess lust is to feel lustful and therefore to feel tempted.
(Intermediate) (Linguistic) Supplement
We are of course fully aware that the Greek work rendered “tempt” (together with its inflectional variants) in the KJV is more modernly rendered “test” or “try”. We have however dealt with the more-ominous KJV rendering because
1. many Christians hold an almost obsessive adherence to the KJV and thus must be ministered to on such basis.
2. although not all testing/trying consists of what we more pointedly refer to as “temptation”, temptation is nevertheless an instance of testing: saying that one feels tested is in hamartiological terms no ‘better’ than saying one feels tempted.
Theological affirmation
Moving from a linguistically-oriented analysis to a theological one, it should be clear that one who at the tender age of 12 declared to His (earthly) parents that He had to be about His (heavenly) Father’s business (Luke 2:49), moreover one who was given the Holy Spirit without measure (John 3:24), would be simply too taken up with spiritual things, to be able to be enticed.
Accordingly Paul tells us that if we walk in the Spirit we shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh,2 with ramification that in such case we won’t be enticed. That is, such walking will not be that of the preacher’s in Somerset Maugham’s Rain, who despite great resistance eventually succumbed to the temptations of the promiscuous Sadie Thompson, but will be that which rather circumvents such lusts altogether. For God has called us to peace (1 Cor 7:15), and arguing with lust is the very antithesis of peace.
2 This is not to say that we can choose to walk in the Spirit, for then the Spirit would not need to be “given”: we would simply access Him of our own accord, and that necessarily without the Spirit, which of course were contradictory, for what then the need for the Spirit? And so rather, Paul is simply saying that if (in God’s sovereignty) we happen to be walking in the Spirit, we shall not in such case fulfil the lusts of the flesh. For it is all of God, lest any man should boast. (See also our work: “Sin and righteousness, structurally explained”.)
It is therefore strange that those who declare that it was theoretically possible for Christ to feel tempted, have no trouble declaring Paul to have been gifted in the Spirit in such a way as to have lacked a desire for a woman: given that – as regards the flesh – the primary temptation for male man is female man, somehow in the minds of these liberal theorists the servant Paul was more focussed on things above than was his Master.
But the very reason Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost and given the Spirit without measure, was that He would always be walking in the Spirit. For if always walking in the Spirit, then always walking in faith. And if always walking in faith, then never walking by the law, for “the law is not of faith” (Gal 3:12). And if never walking by the law, then never enticed, for “the strength of sin is the law” (1 Cor 15:56).
The tempting of Christ then refers not to any looking sideways on His part to consider whether the price was right in Eden, but to the testing/trying/certifying of His spirit to see whether it in fact was of God.
It was Christ’s authority that was being tested, and when one who is in authority knows he is in authority, he simply cannot be made to know otherwise.
“And they were astonished at His doctrine: for He taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes” Mk 1:22.
Concerning His representation of us
Although the church commonly proclaims “grace”, such is more often than not that which answers to the law, and as such is no grace at all.
Accordingly, most think that Christ came to ‘have another crack at it’ on man’s behalf and keep the law which Adam failed to keep. But rather, the law is not of faith, and as we have intimated earlier, Christ walked by faith.
And so rather, Christ was in fact sent to demonstrate that “there is none good but God” (Mt 19:17), which is, given that the word “good” is, at least in English, etymologically linked to the word “God”, actually to say that no-one but God is God.
Indeed it is actually not possible for God to prove that He is God by keeping the law anyway: God being the absolute, He is by definition not answerable to anything or anyone: in order for Him to keep the law, He would not only have to resign from His position as God, but as is the case with all resignations, hand His resignation to one higher than He!
And so and rather, Christ was not sent to feel temptation and overcome it, but simply to walk in the Spirit and so stay out of temptation’s way in the first place. Analogously, Paul tells married couples to come together regularly lest Satan tempt them to infidelity: they are to circumvent such temptation by staying out of its way in the first place. (See 1 Cor 7:5.)
For when one feels tempted one is by definition double-minded, and a double-minded man will not receive anything from the Lord, and we know that the Lord was in perpetual receipt of the wisdom and direction of the Father.
In a nutshell, Christ would demonstrate for us just what the following is all about:
“There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into [God’s] rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His” Heb 4:9,10.
___
But we must needs deal further with Hebrews 2:18 before we finish.
“For in that He himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted” Heb 2:17-18.
Specifically, although we have earlier dealt (linguistically) with this “being tempted” , we are nevertheless told here that such act of tempting of Christ was so that He might be able to succour us against whom similar acts of tempting are waged.
That is, the impression most will get from this passage is that Christ’s experience with regard to temptation must have been the same as ours when we are not walking in the Spirit – the same as ours when we feel tempted – for else how could it be said that as a result of such experience He is able to succour us?
But how indeed does He succour us? On what basis does He succour us? For one, does He not succour us (at the very least) with the written word? And does not the written word at Romans 7:20 declare that when I do that which I do not want to do, it is no longer I that do it, but sin in me that does it? Does this declaration then not succour me? Does it not make me free? Shall any succouring achieve anything greater?
No rather, we understand that in our being told that if the Son shall make us free, that is enough.
But/and shall not this freedom from condemnation then free me from the very propensity to do that which might otherwise condemn me in the first place? For if I am free from condemnation is not this because I am free from the law? And if I am free from the law am I not then free from the strength of sin? If then I am free from the strength of sin, what is that strength which might make me do that which I do not want to do?
And so:
“sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but grace” Rom 6:14
: if the very strength of sin is taken away, then of necessity is also the sin that might have (otherwise) occurred, taken away.
And if the sin that might have occurred is taken away, then so also the need to be succoured after the fact of it. That is, the succouring of the Lord shall properly be expected to lead to a lesser need to be succoured, else what the wisdom in succouring? Will God be found to be a fool after all is said and done?
No rather, the succouring of the Lord shall result in joy, and joy, praise. And we may count on a fingerless hand the number of us who feel tempted by anything of this world when we are absorbed in praise to the Lord.
But/and with regard to the issue at hand, might we not at such times of the Spirit’s moving upon us, assimilate to Him who was given the Spirit without measure, and therefore understand such (albeit intermittent) freedom from temptation as a diminutive of the state of mind of Him who was given the Spirit without measure?
Ending at the Beginning
Those who stray toward the notion that it was possible for Christ to sin, never stop to ask themselves just what would have happened if He had actually sinned.
Specifically, they fail to see that given that God’s spiritual ‘structure’ is irresistibly triune, then if the Second Person of the Godhead had in fact sinned, God would have of necessity ceased to be.
And if ceased to be, then given that God is not only the end but also the beginning, then of necessity never there in the first place and therefore never come in the flesh so that He might ever sin!
When there can be no possible effect from an hypothetical cause, such hypothetical is best repatriated to the land of air-filled vacuums. God who was manifested in the flesh in between the beginning and the end, could not possibly have disannulled that very same beginning and end which He also was.
“Before Abraham was, I am” John 8:58.
Amen.
Forward
There are many in the church who believe that it was possible for Christ to sin.
They think this because
1. of references to His being “tempted”.
2. they feel it would be ‘cheating’ if He was not capable of sinning – that He wouldn’t be representing humanity in such case.
___________________________________________
WHY IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR CHRIST TO SIN
Concerning His being “tempted”
Beginning theologians often pin their biblical interpretations on word meanings.
But words take on differing meanings by virtue of the words to which they are linked, the structures in which they occur, the particular (grammatical) form in which they appear, and social, logical and idiomatic implications. And so the number of possibilities will often be so large that, although semantics will be the primary basis for analysis, pragmatics will (often) have the final say.
Consider the following two statements:
a) “I am tempted to take up the job offer.”
b) “I am being tempted to take up the job offer.”
Because “tempted” is a participle, it can lean either toward a verb 1 interpretation or an adjectival interpretation. In (a) the speaker might in fact be relating that it is distinctly he (as opposed to someone else) who will at some time in the future be subject to an act of tempting by a tempter. For example, the director of a stage production might be asking his troupe to remind him which particular actor is playing the part of one tempted by his boss to take up a job offer, and the actor playing the part might pipe up with (a). This then is the verb interpretation of the participle because it focuses on the tempter’s act of tempting rather than the resulting state of the ‘temptee’.
1 We have used “verb” here rather than “verbal” to avoid confusing the issue with that which implies “what is spoken” (what is verbalised).
Contrasting, as a result of having (already) been subject to an act of tempting by his boss in a real-world situation, the speaker in (a) might be relating that he is now as a result of such act in a state where he actually feels tempted to take up the job offer. This is the adjectival interpretation of the participle because it focuses on the state of the ‘temptee’ rather than on the tempter’s act of tempting.
And so and as we have said will often be the case, the meaning of the language itself (the semantic) is not here sufficient to conclude on the speaker’s intent, and we must indeed turn to pragmatics. Specifically, we will presume that, given that the adjectival option can only be expressed without an agent (without reference to a tempter) but the verb option either with or without, then given that no agent is in fact specified in (a), the speaker intends the adjectival option.
The focus in (a) then is (by default) on the state of the ‘temptee’ rather than on the act of the tempter: the speaker is relating that he is in a state aptly described as “tempted” ... that he feels tempted. And we note accordingly that the statement is said to be in the statal passive voice – the passive voice with no agent specified.
By contrast, but not completely opposite, whilst it is true that the speaker in (b) might also intend to focus our attentions on a similar – albeit this time ongoing – tempted state, in the absence of further information we must conclude that, given that the vocalisation relevant to such state is rather and most usually (a), the verb interpretation is the more appropriate here and the focus is in fact on the act of the agent of temptation – the act of the tempter – rather than on any (resultant) state of the ‘temptee’: we are being told that someone is making an (ongoing) attempt to cause the speaker to feel tempted.
It should be clear then from these two examples, that a linguistically-oriented analysis of the issue at hand is not as straight-forward as one might think. Nevertheless, a complete absence in scripture of an unqualified statal passive along the lines of “Jesus was tempted” will provide a good head start in our bid to show that Jesus never felt enticed to do what the particular tempter would have had Him do, and was accordingly never the least bit capable of sinning.
Scriptural references to the tempting of Christ, and according conclusions
(1) “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil” Mt 4:1.
The agent of temptation is specified here, so there is no statal passive construct. The default interpretation is therefore the verb interpretation: the focus is on the act of the tempter rather than any resultant state of the ‘temptee’.
(2) “The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired Him that He would shew them a sign from heaven” Mt 16:1.
The tempting by the Pharisees here is cognate with their demand that Jesus show them a sign. The focus here is therefore on the act of the tempters rather than on the state of the ‘temptee’.
(3) “The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Mt 19:3
As per (2).
(4) “And they sent out unto Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto Him a penny. And He saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto Him, Caesar's. Then saith He unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's” Mt 22:16-21.
As per (2).
(5) “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” Mt 22:35,36.
As per (2).
(6) “And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him” Mark 1:13.
As per (1).
(7) “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Lk 10:25.
As per (2).
(8) “And others, tempting Him, sought of Him a sign from heaven” Lk 11:16.
As per (2).
(9) “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations” Lk 22:28.
The sense here is that the temptations Jesus was referring to would have been at least to some degree identifiable by the disciples – that they could at least to some degree relate to the (their) loyalty to which He was referring.
If, however, such was rather in reference to His having felt tempted, it would have been be nonsensical for Him to point His disciples to any (accompanying) loyalty on their part: they wouldn’t have had a clue what He was talking about for they wouldn’t have felt what He had (in such hypothetical case) felt. What is more, in so reminding them of such (hypothetical) inner wrestlings on His own part, the Lord would have run the risk of reigniting such wrestlings within Himself.
The focus here is therefore on the (many) acts of tempting directed toward Jesus by His adversaries – acts which his disciples could outwardly identify – rather than on any resultant state in Jesus Himself.
(10) “This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not” John 8:6.
As per (2).
(11) “Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents” 1 Cor 10:9.
As per (1), and doubly so given that the result of any such temptation here would be retribution from the Lord (as it was for those whom He destroyed with serpents): one who feels tempted is hardly in a position to bring retribution against his tempters.
(12) “For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted …” Heb 2:18.
As per our opening analysis of example sentences (a) and (b) (see that analysis) this “being tempted” here maps to the default (verb) interpretation of sentence (b). Our analysis is therefore as per (1).
(13) “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” Heb 4:15.
This “like as” is adverbial and thus attaches to the verb aspect – the act of tempting – rather than the state of feeling tempted. Our analysis is therefore as per (1).
A very explicatory contrast
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God … James 1:13
Pragmatics here are more than ever depended upon for a proper conclusion. Pre-eminently, we will note the implication in this text that the apparent need the ‘temptee’ feels to level the blame at God (for the temptation), reveals him to be in a state where he actually feels tempted. And so this tempting here of one other than Christ, outworks itself in stark contrast to the instances detailed above.
Accordingly, we are in the very next verse told:
“But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed”
: to be “drawn away … and enticed” can hardly be the mark of One to whom the Spirit was given without measure. Commensurately, we note once again that this “every man is tempted” is in the statal passive voice: no agent of temptation is specified and so the focus is by default on the state of the temptee – he feels tempted – and thus the subsequent reference to “his own lust” : to possess lust is to feel lustful and therefore to feel tempted.
(Intermediate) (Linguistic) Supplement
We are of course fully aware that the Greek work rendered “tempt” (together with its inflectional variants) in the KJV is more modernly rendered “test” or “try”. We have however dealt with the more-ominous KJV rendering because
1. many Christians hold an almost obsessive adherence to the KJV and thus must be ministered to on such basis.
2. although not all testing/trying consists of what we more pointedly refer to as “temptation”, temptation is nevertheless an instance of testing: saying that one feels tested is in hamartiological terms no ‘better’ than saying one feels tempted.
Theological affirmation
Moving from a linguistically-oriented analysis to a theological one, it should be clear that one who at the tender age of 12 declared to His (earthly) parents that He had to be about His (heavenly) Father’s business (Luke 2:49), moreover one who was given the Holy Spirit without measure (John 3:24), would be simply too taken up with spiritual things, to be able to be enticed.
Accordingly Paul tells us that if we walk in the Spirit we shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh,2 with ramification that in such case we won’t be enticed. That is, such walking will not be that of the preacher’s in Somerset Maugham’s Rain, who despite great resistance eventually succumbed to the temptations of the promiscuous Sadie Thompson, but will be that which rather circumvents such lusts altogether. For God has called us to peace (1 Cor 7:15), and arguing with lust is the very antithesis of peace.
2 This is not to say that we can choose to walk in the Spirit, for then the Spirit would not need to be “given”: we would simply access Him of our own accord, and that necessarily without the Spirit, which of course were contradictory, for what then the need for the Spirit? And so rather, Paul is simply saying that if (in God’s sovereignty) we happen to be walking in the Spirit, we shall not in such case fulfil the lusts of the flesh. For it is all of God, lest any man should boast. (See also our work: “Sin and righteousness, structurally explained”.)
It is therefore strange that those who declare that it was theoretically possible for Christ to feel tempted, have no trouble declaring Paul to have been gifted in the Spirit in such a way as to have lacked a desire for a woman: given that – as regards the flesh – the primary temptation for male man is female man, somehow in the minds of these liberal theorists the servant Paul was more focussed on things above than was his Master.
But the very reason Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost and given the Spirit without measure, was that He would always be walking in the Spirit. For if always walking in the Spirit, then always walking in faith. And if always walking in faith, then never walking by the law, for “the law is not of faith” (Gal 3:12). And if never walking by the law, then never enticed, for “the strength of sin is the law” (1 Cor 15:56).
The tempting of Christ then refers not to any looking sideways on His part to consider whether the price was right in Eden, but to the testing/trying/certifying of His spirit to see whether it in fact was of God.
It was Christ’s authority that was being tested, and when one who is in authority knows he is in authority, he simply cannot be made to know otherwise.
“And they were astonished at His doctrine: for He taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes” Mk 1:22.
Concerning His representation of us
Although the church commonly proclaims “grace”, such is more often than not that which answers to the law, and as such is no grace at all.
Accordingly, most think that Christ came to ‘have another crack at it’ on man’s behalf and keep the law which Adam failed to keep. But rather, the law is not of faith, and as we have intimated earlier, Christ walked by faith.
And so rather, Christ was in fact sent to demonstrate that “there is none good but God” (Mt 19:17), which is, given that the word “good” is, at least in English, etymologically linked to the word “God”, actually to say that no-one but God is God.
Indeed it is actually not possible for God to prove that He is God by keeping the law anyway: God being the absolute, He is by definition not answerable to anything or anyone: in order for Him to keep the law, He would not only have to resign from His position as God, but as is the case with all resignations, hand His resignation to one higher than He!
And so and rather, Christ was not sent to feel temptation and overcome it, but simply to walk in the Spirit and so stay out of temptation’s way in the first place. Analogously, Paul tells married couples to come together regularly lest Satan tempt them to infidelity: they are to circumvent such temptation by staying out of its way in the first place. (See 1 Cor 7:5.)
For when one feels tempted one is by definition double-minded, and a double-minded man will not receive anything from the Lord, and we know that the Lord was in perpetual receipt of the wisdom and direction of the Father.
In a nutshell, Christ would demonstrate for us just what the following is all about:
“There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into [God’s] rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His” Heb 4:9,10.
___
But we must needs deal further with Hebrews 2:18 before we finish.
“For in that He himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted” Heb 2:17-18.
Specifically, although we have earlier dealt (linguistically) with this “being tempted” , we are nevertheless told here that such act of tempting of Christ was so that He might be able to succour us against whom similar acts of tempting are waged.
That is, the impression most will get from this passage is that Christ’s experience with regard to temptation must have been the same as ours when we are not walking in the Spirit – the same as ours when we feel tempted – for else how could it be said that as a result of such experience He is able to succour us?
But how indeed does He succour us? On what basis does He succour us? For one, does He not succour us (at the very least) with the written word? And does not the written word at Romans 7:20 declare that when I do that which I do not want to do, it is no longer I that do it, but sin in me that does it? Does this declaration then not succour me? Does it not make me free? Shall any succouring achieve anything greater?
No rather, we understand that in our being told that if the Son shall make us free, that is enough.
But/and shall not this freedom from condemnation then free me from the very propensity to do that which might otherwise condemn me in the first place? For if I am free from condemnation is not this because I am free from the law? And if I am free from the law am I not then free from the strength of sin? If then I am free from the strength of sin, what is that strength which might make me do that which I do not want to do?
And so:
“sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but grace” Rom 6:14
: if the very strength of sin is taken away, then of necessity is also the sin that might have (otherwise) occurred, taken away.
And if the sin that might have occurred is taken away, then so also the need to be succoured after the fact of it. That is, the succouring of the Lord shall properly be expected to lead to a lesser need to be succoured, else what the wisdom in succouring? Will God be found to be a fool after all is said and done?
No rather, the succouring of the Lord shall result in joy, and joy, praise. And we may count on a fingerless hand the number of us who feel tempted by anything of this world when we are absorbed in praise to the Lord.
But/and with regard to the issue at hand, might we not at such times of the Spirit’s moving upon us, assimilate to Him who was given the Spirit without measure, and therefore understand such (albeit intermittent) freedom from temptation as a diminutive of the state of mind of Him who was given the Spirit without measure?
Ending at the Beginning
Those who stray toward the notion that it was possible for Christ to sin, never stop to ask themselves just what would have happened if He had actually sinned.
Specifically, they fail to see that given that God’s spiritual ‘structure’ is irresistibly triune, then if the Second Person of the Godhead had in fact sinned, God would have of necessity ceased to be.
And if ceased to be, then given that God is not only the end but also the beginning, then of necessity never there in the first place and therefore never come in the flesh so that He might ever sin!
When there can be no possible effect from an hypothetical cause, such hypothetical is best repatriated to the land of air-filled vacuums. God who was manifested in the flesh in between the beginning and the end, could not possibly have disannulled that very same beginning and end which He also was.
“Before Abraham was, I am” John 8:58.
Amen.