Could Jesus have refused to die on the cross for our sins?

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Hmm? I always thought the reason satan tempted Him was so Jesus could rebuke him to his face and show that He was truly the Son of God. . . .

"Satan tempted Jesus so that He could rebuke him to his face"? No, I don't think so! Satan tempted Jesus hoping that He would sin and therefore be unable to die in our place for our sins. </font>[/QUOTE]So you think God could sin?

 

[Craigbythesea]

So you think that God was dead for three days?

 

[HankD]

No, His mortal body was dead. The Logos (God is a spirit) Himself lived on. A dead man can not bring himself back to life.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Please answer my question:

Did Jesus possess a sin-nature?

HankD

 

[dianetavegia]

Jesus, Himself, answered the question 'Could He have refused to die on the cross for our sins' in this verse:

Matthew 26:53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?"

These are his words spoken during his arrest in the garden.

Diane

 

[Craigbythesea]

Did Jesus possess a sin-nature?

Did Adam possess a sin-nature before he sinned?

The answer to YOUR question: No.

The answer to My question: No.

If you disagree with MY answer, please post scriptures to support your view.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Jesus, Himself, answered the question 'Could He have refused to die on the cross for our sins' in this verse:

Matthew 26:53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?"

These are his words spoken during his arrest in the garden.

Diane

Thank you, Dianne!

 

[HankD]

Did Adam possess a sin-nature before he sinned?

I don't know.

HankD

 

[Craigbythesea]

Jesus was the second Adam.

Adam chose to sin; Jesus chose not to. Jesus fully understood that he was free to obey God and say “No!” to sin. He also fully understood the consequences of both sin and obedience.

Christians have been redeemed from the power of sin and they, too, are free to obey God and say “No!” to sin; but very many Christians today do not know this because they are being taught a false doctrine. How very important it is today that those who preach and teach the Bible preach and teach victory in Jesus and the consequences of both sin and obedience. And how very much we need to sing such praises to God in our congregations today!

VICTORY IN JESUS

I HEARD AN OLD,
OLD STORY
HOW A SAVIOUR CAME
FROM GLORY
HOW HE GAVE HIS LIFE
ON CALVARY
TO SAVE SOMEONE LIKE ME

I HEARD ABOUT
HIS GROANING,
OF HIS PRECIOUS BLOOD'S
ATONING
THEN I REPENTED
OF MY SIN
AND WON THE VICTORY

OH, VICTORY IN JESUS,
MY SAVIOUR FOREVER
HE SOUGHT ME
AND HE BOUGHT ME
WITH HIS REDEEMING BLOOD

HE LOVED ME
ERE I KNEW HIM
AND ALL MY LOVE
IS DUE HIM
HE PLUNGED ME TO VICTORY
BENEATH THE
CLEANSING FLOOD

I HEARD ABOUT HIS
HEALING,
OF HIS CLEANSING POW'R
REVEALING
HOW HE MADE THE LAME
TO WALK AGAIN
AND CAUSED THE
BLIND TO SEE

AND THEN I CRIED
"DEAR JESUS,
COME AND HEAL
MY BROKEN SPIRIT"
AND SOMEHOW JESUS
CAME AND BROUGHT
TO ME THE VICTORY

OH, VICTORY IN JESUS,
MY SAVIOUR FOREVER
_________________________________________

NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS

What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Refrain
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

For my pardon, this I see,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
For my cleansing this my plea,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Refrain

Nothing can for sin atone,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
Naught of good that I have done,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Refrain

This is all my hope and peace,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
This is all my righteousness,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
______________________________________________

THERE IS POWER IN THE BLOOD

Would you be free from the burden of sin?
There's power in the blood, power in the blood;
Would you over evil a victory win?
There's wonderful power in the blood.

There is power, power, wonder working power
In the blood of the Lamb;
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb.

Would you be free from your passion and pride?
There's power in the blood, power in the blood;
Come for a cleansing to Calvary's tide;
There's wonderful power in the blood.

There is power, power, wonder working power
In the blood of the Lamb;
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb.

Would you be whiter, much whiter than snow?
There's power in the blood, power in the blood;
Sin stains are lost in its life giving flow.
There's wonderful power in the blood.

There is power, power, wonder working power
In the blood of the Lamb;
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb.

Would you do service for Jesus your King?
There's power in the blood, power in the blood;
Would you live daily His praises to sing?
There's wonderful power in the blood.

There is power, power, wonder working power
In the blood of the Lamb;
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb.

Words & Music by Lewis E. Jones, 1899
Jones wrote this song at a camp meeting at Mountain Lake Park, Maryland.

 

[HankD]

Dear Brother Craig,

RE:

Jesus was the second Adam.

Actually Jesus is the last Adam...

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

A "second" Adam implies the possibility of more Adams to come.

But whether or not Adam had a sin nature before he sinned I don't know but allow me to expand this thought. It seems unlikely that Adam had a sin nature before he sinned since God looked at His creation and said that it was "very good"

However satan (the originator of sin) came to Adam/Eve and found something in Adam to respond to his temptation (and Adam was not deceived).

But Jesus...

John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

If we say that the Son could/can sin then we also say that the Father could/can sin.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

James 1
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:...

17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

HankD

 

[showard93]

I say yes he could have but he knew it was the only payment for our sin. I think a preacher I heard at campmeeting this year said it well when he said he couldn't have saved himself and me too....WOO HOO!!! That should make us all want to shout....Oh what a Saviour

 

[Craigbythesea]

Dear Brother Craig,

RE:
quote:

Jesus was the second Adam.

Actually Jesus is the last Adam...

A "second" Adam implies the possibility of more Adams to come.

Dear Brother Hank,

I can see that we are off to a good start in our relationship.

That being the case, please allow me to comment that the expression “Second Adam” does not necessarily imply the possibility of more Adams to come, at least no more than does the use of the superlative rather than the comparative imply that there are more than two Adams. The expression “Second Adam” is commonly used by theologians who I assume have probably read, at one time or another, 1 Corinthians 15:45, although it is possible enough that the exact wording of the verse slipped their mind when they were writing, just as it did mine. Nonetheless, the expression “Last Adam” (both expressions should be capitalized) was good enough for Paul and Silas, so it is good enough for me.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (?)

1 Corinthians 15:45. So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam {became} a life-giving spirit. (NASB)

But whether or not Adam had a sin nature before he sinned I don't know but allow me to expand this thought. It seems unlikely that Adam had a sin nature before he sinned since God looked at His creation and said that it was "very good"

OK

However satan (the originator of sin) came to Adam/Eve and found something in Adam to respond to his temptation (and Adam was not deceived).

What Satan “found” was Adam’s human nature

But Jesus...

John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

Lewis Sperry Chafer quotes this same verse to prove the impeccability of Christ, but fails completely to tie it in (probably because it is irrelevant to the discussion) and simply writes,

As it is possible for an unconquerable city to be attacked, so an impeccable theanthropic Person may be assailed.”

Apparently Chafer uses a thesaurus that he wrote himself because the Scriptures do not say that Jesus was merely assailed; the Scriptures say that Jesus was tempted.

If we say that the Son could/can sin then we also say that the Father could/can sin.

Who is “we” is this sentence? It certainly does not include me, and it should not include you either. Many of the attributes of Jesus were such that they could never have been shared by his father, and his peccability was one of them.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Dear brother, you are really going out on a limb with this verse. Jesus did do things that he had never seen his father do. Jesus ate, slept, used the toilet, and died on the cross.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

There you are again, out on a limb. Only in His Divinity was Jesus one with His Father.

James 1
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:...

There you are yet again, out on a limb. Jesus in His Divinity could not be tempted, but in his humanity he could be, or it would not be humanity but a mere sham. Neither Jesus nor has Father were playing games with us. Jesus really did become a man, a human being with a human nature. And he really chose to obey His Father. And he was an example for us, a real example that we could really emulate.

17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

These attributes of the Father were not the attributes of the Son in HIs humanity.

 

[HankD]

Brother Craig writes:

Lewis Sperry Chafer quotes this same verse to prove the impeccability of Christ, but fails completely to tie it in (probably because it is irrelevant to the discussion) and simply writes,

As it is possible for an unconquerable city to be attacked, so an impeccable theanthropic Person may be assailed.”

Apparently Chafer uses a thesaurus that he wrote himself because the Scriptures do not say that Jesus was merely assailed; the Scriptures say that Jesus was tempted.

I believe this has to do with the use of the word “tempted” according to English versus Koine usage.

Hebrews 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Tempted – Peirazo Strongs 3985:
Succour – Botheo Strong’s 998.

Peirazoo
1)to try whether a thing can be done
a) to attempt, endeavor
2) to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself
a) in a good sense
b) in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments
c) to try or test one's faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin
1) to solicit to sin, to tempt
a) of the temptations of the devil
d) after the OT usage
1) of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith
2) men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted
3) by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.

My view is the use of the word as in 1 and 2 in relationship to "test", "try".

I see Jesus temptation as a test to authenticate to all via the Scripture (eventually) that He unlike us would not sin because He could not being God come in the flesh.

Botheo
1) to help, succour, bring aid

Jesus, having suffered Satan’s arrogance and hateful testing knows His craftiness:

I would also be willing to say that Jesus felt the effects of the flesh (sarx) but it was not possible for Him (the Logos) to yield to those demands of the flesh.

Hebrews 4:16
Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace,that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Dear brother, you are really going out on a limb with this verse. Jesus did do things that he had never seen his father do. Jesus ate, slept, used the toilet, and died on the cross.

In one way you are correct in that I took this passage out of its context (from the preceding verse) therefore causing confusion. I am sorry.

John 5:18
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

The issue was a moral one concerning an accusation of sin. In effect Jesus responded to the Pharisees that He was unable to sin because His Father could not.

John 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Here Jesus, in effect, (IMO) is saying that the Father will not allow His children to perish because He is greater than ALL as is the Son (the Logos) "I and my father are one" is a statement declaring that He cannot fail in saving His children being God Himself.

James 1
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:...


There you are yet again, out on a limb. Jesus in His Divinity could not be tempted, but in his humanity he could be, or it would not be humanity but a mere sham. Neither Jesus nor has Father were playing games with us. Jesus really did become a man, a human being with a human nature. And he really chose to obey His Father. And he was an example for us, a real example that we could really emulate.
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

These attributes of the Father were not the attributes of the Son in HIs humanity.

No, I don't believe it is that easy to dismiss.

And he was an example for us, a real example that we could really emulate

To this date no one has been able to emulate His sinlessness.

Christ is fully or perfectly man in that He is what Adam was meant to be (without sin).

Our view has to do with one’s choice as to the nature of the person of Christ

There are at least four major choices:

Christ is two persons with two wills (Nestorian heresy).

These are the “orthodox” views (though some may feel otherwise):

Christ is one person with two wills and two natures.
Christ is one person with one will and two natures.
Christ is one person with one will and one unique God-man nature though fully and fully man.

My preference would be number 3 or 4, leaning toward number 4. To me to say that Christ has two wills implies that He is two persons which would be close to the Nestorian heresy (IMO). I am not saying that is your view.

I believe number four is the position of the Orthodox Church (Greek, Russian, etc…).

Rather than cause a fire-storm, I will simply say that Christ as a singular person had no possibility of a sin choice due to His God-nature.
The Logos lost none of His strength (including His absolute hatred of sin) when he came in the flesh.

Let me repeat, these are the summary of the two views, let the readers choose. I believe we have covered them both.

It is important that we know them and not pass a judgment on each other reserved ONLY for God.

Not that God would judge us for any other than the Nestorian view.

However this is one dogmatic place where Christians seem to like to play God with the souls of their brethren.

I am willing to leave it here unless you provoke me to answer by implying that I have recapitulated my position due to my silence.

Thank you brother for not being judgmental.

HankD

 

[Craigbythesea]

Our view has to do with one’s choice as to the nature of the person of Christ

There are at least four major choices:

Christ is two persons with two wills (Nestorian heresy).

These are the “orthodox” views (though some may feel otherwise):

Christ is one person with two wills and two natures.
Christ is one person with one will and two natures.
Christ is one person with one will and one unique God-man nature though fully and fully man.

My preference would be number 3 or 4, leaning toward number 4. To me to say that Christ has two wills implies that He is two persons which would be close to the Nestorian heresy (IMO). I am not saying that is your view.

I believe number four is the position of the Orthodox Church (Greek, Russian, etc…).

From my point of view, none of the four views that you mention above explain the scriptures regarding the temptation of Christ. Nor do they adequately deal with the other Scriptures that speak of the will and nature of Christ. For example:

Luke 22:41. And He withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and He knelt down and {began} to pray,
Luke 22:42. saying, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done."

My approach to the Scriptures is detailed exegesis followed by a study of the history of the interpretation of relevant passages. I avoid like the plague systematic theology because I believe that it results much more in distortion than it does in clarification.

Your interpretation of the Greek word peirazō is very much at variance with the view of the great majority of Bible scholars and translators of the New Testament who believe that the word expresses in Matthew 4 and other places where it is used of Jesus the concept of temptation rather than testing.

If you choose to excuse yourself from further discussion in this thread, please allow me to say that I will not interpret that to mean that you now agree with me on any points where we were in disagreement. There are, however, very many facets of the discussion of impeccability that we have not touched upon and I would enjoy exploring them with you if you believe that it would be pleasing to our Savior to do so.

Thank you for your friendship. I pray that our sharing together will draw both of us closer to our Savior and to each other in the bond of Christian fellowship.

 

[HankD]

OK Craig,

Later this evening I will respond.

As you can tell, I'm shell-shock from previous "Inquisitions" RE: The impeccability of Christ.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Brother Craig writes...

Your interpretation of the Greek word peirazo is very much at variance with the view of the great majority of Bible scholars and translators of the New Testament who believe that the word expresses in Matthew 4 and other places where it is used of Jesus the concept of temptation rather than testing.

Freiberg Greek Lexicon 04066 Perirazo 1) To make an attempt, try. 2) Put to the test, examine , try. 2.2) Prove, put to the test, try.

UBS Greek Dictionary: Peirazo: Test, put to the test, tempt, try.

Louw Nida Lexicon Peirazo : a) Examine, b) try to trap, c) Tempt d) attempt.

Liddell Scott Lexicon; peirazo: To make proof or trial of, to attempt to do, put to the test, to try or tempt a person.


Vine Expository Dictionary of the New Testament: peirazo

Prove peirazo "to try," either in the sense of attempting, e.g., Acts_16:7, or of testing, is rendered "to prove" in John_6:6. See EXAMINE, TEMPT.

Tempt
peirazo signifies

1. "to try, attempt, assay" (see TRY);

2. "to test, try, prove," in a good sense, said of Christ and of believers, Heb_2:18, where the context shows that the temptation was the cause of suffering to Him, and only suffering, not a drawing away to sin, so that believers have the sympathy of Christ as their High Priest in the suffering which sin occasions to those who are in the enjoyment of communion with God; so in the similar passage in Heb_4:15; in all the temptations which Christ endured, there was nothing within Him that answered to sin. There was no sinful infirmity in Him. While He was truly man, and His Divine nature was not in any way inconsistent with His Manhood, there was nothing in Him such as is produced in us by the sinful nature which belongs to us; in Heb_11:37, of the testing of OT saints; in 1_Cor_10:13, where the meaning has a wide scope, the verb is used of "testing" as permitted by God, and of the believer as one who should be in the realization of his own helplessness and his dependence upon God (see PROVE, TRY); in a bad sense, "to tempt"
(a) of attempts to ensnare Christ in His speech, e.g., Matt_16:1; Matt_19:3; Matt_22:18,35, and parallel passages; John_8:6;
(b) of temptations to sin, e.g., Gal_6:1, where one who would restore an erring brother is not to act as his judge, but as being one with him in liability to sin, with the possibility of finding himself in similar circumstances, James_1:13,14 (see Note after A1 below); of temptations mentioned as coming from the Devil, Matt_4:1; and parallel passages; 1_Cor_7:5; 1_Thess_3:5 (see TEMPTER);
(c) of trying or challenging God, Acts_15:10; 1_Cor_10:9 (2nd part); Heb_3:9; the Holy Spirit, Acts_5:9: cp. ekpeirazo.
Note: "Jas. Acts_1:13-15 seems to contradict other statements of Scripture in two respects, saying
(a) that 'God cannot be tempted with evil,' and
(b) that 'He Himself tempteth no man.' But God tempted, or tried, Abraham, Heb_11:17, and the Israelites tempted, or tried, God, 1_Cor_10:9. James_1:14, however, makes it plain that, whereas in these cases the temptation or trial, came from without, James refers to temptation, or trial, arising within, from uncontrolled appetites and from evil passions, cp. Mark_7:20-23. But though such temptation does not proceed from God, yet does God regard His people while they endure it, and by it tests and approves them." [ From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 97.]

Try
peirazo is rendered "to try" in Heb_11:17; Rev_2:2,10; Rev_3:10. In Acts_16:7 it is rendered "assayed;" in Acts_24:6, RV, "assayed" (AV, "hath gone about"): see GO. See EXAMINE, PROVE, TEMPT. Cp. peirao in Acts_26:21, RV, "assayed" (AV, "went about"); see GO.
Notes:
(1) In Rev_3:18, AV, puroo, in the Passive Voice, "to be purified by fire" (RV, "refined"), is rendered "tried."
(2) For dokimion, James_1:3, AV, "trying," see PROOF.
(3) For dokimos, James_1:12, AV, "tried," see APPROVED.
(4) In 1_Pet_4:12, AV, the phrase pros peirasmon, lit., "for trial," i.e., "for testing," is rendered "to try (you)," RV, "to prove (you)."

Here are some uses of peirazo in the koine meaning of the word...

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying... (tempting – peirazo)

Mark 12:15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? (tempt – peirazo)

John 6
5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
6 And this he said to prove (peirazo) him: for he himself knew what he would do.

"tempt" or "peirazo"
Stongs 3985 peirazo {pi-rad'-zo}
Meaning: 1) to try whether a thing can be done 1a) to attempt, endeavour 2) to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself 2a) in a good sense 2b) in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments 2c) to try or test one's faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin 2c1) to solicit to sin, to tempt 1c1a) of the temptations of the devil 2d) after the OT usage 2d1) of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith 2d2) men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted 2d3) by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.

Our English word "tempt" has a focused nuance toward sin.
The scope of this koine word is wider than our English word "tempt".
That is why James adds "with evil" because as others have indicated the object of "tempt-peirazo" is not always sin or evil but for good as well. The context determines the focused meaning.
IMO, it is proper to substitute "tempt-peirazo" with the English word "to test", "to prove" or "to try" if the original language syntax and context supports it.

John 6
5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
6 And this he said to prove him peirazo: for he himself knew what he would do.


HankD

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by HankD:
Christ is one person with two wills and two natures.
Christ is one person with one will and two natures.
Christ is one person with one will and one unique God-man nature though fully and fully man.

Natures don't make decisions, spirits do. Christ only had one Spirit and that was His own. That Spirit cannot sin. Adam didn't begin with a sin nature but his spirit was his own. That spirit could and did sin.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by HankD:
OK Craig,

Later this evening I will respond.

As you can tell, I'm shell-shock from previous "Inquisitions" RE: The impeccability of Christ.

HankD

Hank

,

I'm very sorry. I thought that you were only being sarcastic in your first post in this thread. I had no idea that you had been hurt in the past when this subject was "discussed." Some people can be so desperate to prove themselves right that they totally forget that their "opponent" is there brother for whom Christ died. I pray that I will never forget that.

My primary field of study is the atonement of Christ as taught in the Pauline Epistles, especially in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. My favorite Gospel is Luke’s, partially because I very much love the man we know as Paul, and Luke was his very special friend and probably his physician.

Col. 4:14. Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and {also} Demas.

2Ti 4:11. Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service.

I also very much like Luke’s Gospel because I like its immediate author, Luke, and the way that he writes and introduces his gospel,

1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write {it} out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Birth of John the Baptist Foretold.

However, I do not have as good a grasp on the Gospels as I do on the Pauline Epistles. I do not believe that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews for a number of reasons, but I very much like that Epistle had I hope to soon begin a serious study of it. And although Paul had little to say about the temptations of Jesus, the writer to the Hebrews had some very important things to share with us, and he also had some very interesting things to say about the development of the personality of Christ during his ministry years.

If you would like to continue on with this thread, I would like to discuss with you, and any other interested individuals, the development of the personality and nature of Christ during his ministry years and the role that his temptations had in that development. But much more than that, I value you as a friend and brother, and my desire is that you and I both be edified and our Savior glorified.

But before we go any further down that road, I must respond to what you posted in your next post regarding the Greek word translated either “test” or “tempt.” And I shall endeavor to do that in my next post. May our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ bless you those close to your heart with every good thing. In Jesus name, Amen.

 

[blackbird]

Thank you, Artamaeus!!!!

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!!! Son, if I were standing right in front of you---I'd give you a big ole Cajun hug and say thank you again!!!!

Brother David

 

[HankD]

Thanks Craig,

A spirited discussion doesn't bother me but
I have received some crude and puzzling emails in the past concerning this and other topics.

Natures don't make decisions, spirits do. Christ only had one Spirit and that was His own. That Spirit cannot sin. Adam didn't begin with a sin nature but his spirit was his own. That spirit could and did sin.

I believe you have said it well! Thank You Art.

HankD

 

[Craigbythesea]

I wrote,

Your interpretation of the Greek word peirazo is very much at variance with the view of the great majority of Bible scholars and translators of the New Testament who believe that the word expresses in Matthew 4 and other places where it is used of Jesus the concept of temptation rather than testing.

Hank replied,

IMO, it is proper to substitute "tempt-peirazo" with the English word "to test", "to prove" or "to try" if the original language syntax and context supports it.

Hank

,

The Greek-English Lexicon by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker gives two basic uses of the word πειράζω .

1. try, attempt [when followed by the infinitive]

2. try, make trial of, put to the test, to discover what kind of a pers. someone is—
a.
b.
c.
d. in a bad sense also of enticement to sin, tempt Gal. 6:1; Js 1:13a (s. απο V 6), b, 14. Above all the devil works in this way; hence he is directly called ὁ πειράζων the tempter Mt 4: 3; 1 Th 3: 5b. He tempts men 1 Cor 7:5; 1 Th 3:5a; Rv 2:10. But he also makes bold to tempt Jesus Mt 4: 1; Mk 1: 13; Lk 4: 2.
e.

This understanding of the word is used in virtually every English language translation of the New Testament, including the following:


-- King James Version
Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

-- Revised Version
Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

-- American Standard Version
Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

-- Revised Standard Version
Matthew 4:1 THEN JESUS was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

-- New American Standard Bible, 1995
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

--New International Version
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.

-- New King James Version
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

--New Century Version
Matthew 4:1 Then the Spirit led Jesus into the desert to be tempted by the devil.

-- New American Bible
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.

--New English Bible
Matthew 4:1 Jesus was then led away by the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted by the devil.

--Revised English Bible
Matthew 4:1 Jesus was then led by the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted by the devil.

-- New Revised Standard Version
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

--English Standard Version
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

-- The Jerusalem Bible
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit out into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

--The New Testament in the Language of the People
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was guided by the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil.

--The New Testament in the Language of Today
Matthew 4:1 Then the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

--The New Testament in Modern English
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit up into the desert, to be tempted by the devil.

--The Simple English Bible
Matthew 4:1 Then the Spirit led Jesus into the desert to be tempted by the devil.

--The Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was carried away by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

--Murdock’s Translation of the Syriac New Testament from the Peschito Version
Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led by the Holy Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the Calumniator.

--The New Testament Critically Emphasisd
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the adversary.

--New Berkeley Version
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil;

-- Young's Bible
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up to the wilderness by the Spirit, to be tempted by the Devil,

-- Darby's Bible
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was carried up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted of the devil:

-- Weymouth's New Testament
Matthew 4:1 At that time Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the Desert in order to be tempted by the Devil.

-- Webster's Bible
Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led by the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted by the devil.

-- New Living Translation
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led out into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit to be tempted there by the Devil.

-- International Standard Version
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

-- William's NewTestament
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was guided by the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil.

-- Montgomery New Testament
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up into the desert by the Spirit, to be tempted by the devil.

--Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the Devil ["Slanderer"].

--Bible in Basic English
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was sent by the Spirit into the waste land to be tested by the Evil One.

--Contemporary English Version
Matthew 4:1 The Holy Spirit led Jesus into the desert, so that the devil could test him.

--Rheims New Testament
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil.

--English Majority Text Version
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit, to be tempted by the devil.

--Geneva Bible
Matthew 4:1 Then was Iesus led aside of the Spirit into the wildernes, to be tempted of the deuil.

--Good News Bible, Second Edition
Matthew 4:1 Then the Spirit led Jesus into the desert to be tempted by the Devil.

--God’s Word
Matthew 4:1 Then the Spirit led Jesus into the desert to be tempted by the devil.

--Hebrew Names Version
Matthew 4:1 Then Yeshua was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

--International Standard Version
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

--Literal Translation of the Bible
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit, to be tempted by the Devil.

--Modern King James Version
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit up into the wilderness, to be tempted by the Devil.

--The Message
Matthew 4:1 Next Jesus was taken into the wild by the Spirit for the Test. The Devil was ready to give it.

--World English Bible
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.


In the Latin Vulgate we read:

-- Latin Vulgate
Matthew 4:1 tunc Iesus ductus est in desertum ab Spiritu ut temptaretur a diabolo


However, we find:

-- New Jerusalem Bible
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit out into the desert to be put to the test by the devil.