Is this a puzzle?

Philippians 2 - Jesus took on the form of a servant. In that form He allowed Himself to be tempted in the fashion of a man.

 

I think we just need to understand the different uses of tempt in the English language.

James 1:13
13 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:

Genesis 22:1
1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

What is this saying, God did tempt Abraham? It is not speaking of God enticing Abraham to evil (although he certainly had opportunity to sin), but trying Abraham to know his heart, to prove him. God does tempt us, but not to evil. It is not because He desires us to sin that temptations enter into our lives, but because He wants us to overcome the temptations. The trying of our faith (temptation) worketh patience.

 

The man Jesus was tempted. God cannot be tempted. Satan tried to make Jesus stumble, thereby tempting Him. Yet, He relied on the written Word to withstand the temptations of the devil.

It was the flesh that was tempted, not the Spirit itself.

 

The word translated "tempt," peirazo has more than one meaning.

If you have a Strongs, it is listed under 3985 and will give you the different meanings. The context bears out which use is meant.

 

God doesn't get hungry - Jesus did.
God doesn't get tired - Jesus did.
God doesn't need His feet washed - Jesus did
Etc.

 

AMEN

Jesus (God) took on all the attributes of "MAN" (flesh) in order to be "VICTORIOUS OVER SIN",

Unless you battle "against sin", you can be victorious "OVER SIN".

(God can't be tempted to commit sin)

Ga 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son,

made of a woman, (Flesh)


made under the law, (subjected to the law, or subject to breaking the law, possible to sin)

Heb 4:15 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.

 

Just so you know, Me4, I am not following you around.

Jesus could not have possibly sinned. He was tempted, but there is no indication that He could have sinned. If he could have, then we go back to "why". Did He have a sin nature? Of course not. Was God so foolish as to leave open the possiblity that His only hope at saving the human race could be thwarted by an accidental slip-up by His Son? Ridiculous.

Jesus was not half-man (able to sin) and half-God (unable to sin). Chalcedon in the 400's correctly stated that He was 100% God and 100% man. Because of that fact, He was unable to sin, even though He was able to be tempted.

 

To be honest I simply don't know if Jesus could have sinned, but would not, or if He was incapable of sin.

I never have worked this one out all the way.

I do know He was able to be tempted while in the form of a servant, we have Bible proof for that.

I lean toward Calvibaptist's view in the possibility of sin.

 

Just so you know, Me4, I am not following you around.

Jesus could not have possibly sinned. He was tempted, but there is no indication that He could have sinned. If he could have, then we go back to "why". Did He have a sin nature? Of course not. Was God so foolish as to leave open the possiblity that His only hope at saving the human race could be thwarted by an accidental slip-up by His Son? Ridiculous.

Jesus was not half-man (able to sin) and half-God (unable to sin). Chalcedon in the 400's correctly stated that He was 100% God and 100% man. Because of that fact, He was unable to sin, even though He was able to be tempted. </font>[/QUOTE]Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Sin is the temptation to obey the "lust of the flesh", and scripture say Jesus was tempted in every manner we are tempted to fulfill the "lust of his flesh", but didn't.

If the "lust" is not there, how can you be tempted, the "possibility" to sin had to exist, or he could have been "tempted" and victorious over sin.


1Co 15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory (over sin) through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Isa 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory;

1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Jesus was "fully man" in the flesh,

But "fully God" in the "Spirit".

The "flesh" was crucified for sin, not the spirit.

 

Tempt
TEMPT, v.t. [L. tento; teneo; Gr. the primary sense is to strain, urge, press.]

1. To incite or solicit to an evil act; to entice to something wrong by presenting arguments that are plausible or convincing, or by the offer of some pleasure or apparent advantage as the inducement.

By definition alone, we can assume that Jesus had the opportunity to sin, but didn't. If He was tempted, He had the choice. Jesus Himself even admitted as much in Matthew 26.

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Mat 26:54 But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Doing this would have gone against God the Father's plan, which I assume would be considered sin against Him.

 

Do you really believe the things you write? You just said "sin is the temptation to obey the lust of the flesh." SIN IS NOT TEMPTATION. According to your statement Jesus sinned because He was tempted. If Jesus sinned then we have no hope. SIN IS NOT TEMPTATION. Sin is yielding to temptation. Jesus could not yield because He was perfect. Therefore, Jesus could not sin.

I didn't say that desire (lust - same word) wasn't there. I said He couldn't sin. He couldn't yeild to the lust. There is a big difference between desire and following through on desire.

This view is unbiblical and heretical.

This is a gnostic view that unduly separated the physical from the immaterial. The gnostics believed that either Jesus was the man and Christ was the Spirit and the Spirit left at the cross, so as not to die. Or they believed that Jesus was really just a phantom, because God cannot die. You've got the man dying and the spirit just kind of hanging around in limbo. You cannot separate the two.

Jesus died, period. He became sin for us and when that happened, he face spiritual death for us and conquered it. If he did not, then we have no hope because then WE must conquer it.

 

You're right, Calvi - Me4Him's views are flirting with (if not already engaged with) Gnosticism.

 

Jesus could not sin because He was perfect because He could not sin.

Got that?

Simple logic based on Truth.

 

I like you Tim. You're funny!

 

If He couldn't have sinned, He couldn't have been tempted.

 

You make a bold statement without any Scriptural support. You are making a philosophical argument. My argument that He could not have sinned is a theological one. It is based on the fact that He was God and God cannot sin. It is based on the sovereign plan of God that would not have been left up to "what ifs" like the possibility that Jesus might screw everything up by giving in to temptation.

He was also a man so He could be tempted. But He did not have a sin nature, so His will was not in bondage to sin like ours. He did not have the same problems we have.

Although, I am not surprised by the answers here. People who believe that individuals are born with a sin nature, but that they are blank slates and neutral as far as sin and God are concerned would believe that Jesus was also a blank slate and could possibly choose wrong. But He was not a blank slate. He was completely righteous and would never give that up for sin.

 

mima said:

How can this be possible?

Simple. There are two aspects to temptation: the one doing the enticing, and the one being enticed by him.

The devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness (Matt. 4), and so in that respect he was tempted. However he did not actually give in to the temptation, so in that respect he was not tempted. It all depends on how the word is used.

We could also say that Jesus was tested but not tempted. I believe the same word is used for both in Greek.

 

You make a bold statement without any Scriptural support. You are making a philosophical argument. My argument that He could not have sinned is a theological one. It is based on the fact that He was God and God cannot sin. It is based on the sovereign plan of God that would not have been left up to "what ifs" like the possibility that Jesus might screw everything up by giving in to temptation.

He was also a man so He could be tempted. But He did not have a sin nature, so His will was not in bondage to sin like ours. He did not have the same problems we have.

Although, I am not surprised by the answers here. People who believe that individuals are born with a sin nature, but that they are blank slates and neutral as far as sin and God are concerned would believe that Jesus was also a blank slate and could possibly choose wrong. But He was not a blank slate. He was completely righteous and would never give that up for sin. </font>[/QUOTE]I supplied Scripture that shows Christ could have done as He pleased, including going against the will of the Father...His words. Even if the greek word could be tested, tested then from what? It could be tested by satan to see what His answers were going to be, but we don't know. By definition of temptation, there is a choice to sin. Of course coming from someone who thinks one can have a choice between one thing and one thing I can see how temptation can be confusing.

 

Of course Christ could have done as He pleased! What pleases Christ? To do the Father's will. He made that statement over and over. This is what we Calvinists mean by bondage of the will. Man that is born in sin is pleased to reject and disobey God. Therefore, they always choose to reject and disobey God. Christ was not born in sin. So He would always choose to do His Father's will.

You guys throw up a straw man every chance you get! I, nor any other Calvinist, has never said there is only one choice. There are always two choices - obey or disobey. But natural man will always choose wrong. This is not because the choice is not there, but because of the sin nature. Being dead in sin even affects the will.

You free-willers will say that every aspect of man is affected by the fall except the will. How come God says that "every imagination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually?"

Jesus did not have a sin nature. So, even though the choice to sin was out there, it was not even desireable to Him. His meat was to do the will of the Father.