The account of Jesus being tempted by the devil in Mt. 4 -
Mt.4:1 KJV "tempted" is Greek peirazo, Strong's #3985 "to test (objectively), i.e. endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline". The BDAG on this verse "to entice to improper behavior, tempt"
Mt.4:7 KJV "tempt" is Greek ekpeirazo, Strong's #1598 "to test thoroughly" with KJV Margin Note here "tempt: or, try, or, put to trial, or, proof". The NRSV reads "Do not put the Lord your God to the test." The AMGL on this word here: "to put to the proof or test, make trial of, tempt" and the BDAG "to subject to test or proof, tempt".
In v7 Jesus has quoted Deut. 6:16 in his answer to the devil. Which reads: "Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah."KJV, or "Do not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah", NRSV. In this reference, "tempt" is the Hebrew nacah, which Strong's defines as "1. to test. 2. (by implication) to attempt." In the Greek Septuagint, the KJV "tempt" is again the same Greek as Jesus is recorded using in Mt. 4:7, ekpeirazo.
Can a person be tempted if he has no sin nature, no original sin? If no original sin or sin nature is present, must the enticement be a test or trial, rather than a temptation as it is with us sinful men?
"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: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." (Jas 1:13-14, KJV)
If God cannot be tempted with evil, could Jesus Christ be tempted with evil, or is he more accurately tested in all the usual human needs?
"For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Heb 2:18, KJV)
"Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested." (Heb 2:18, NRSV)
"Because he himself has passed through the test of suffering, he is able to help those who are in the midst of their test." (Heb 2:18, REB)
Jesus did not have the sin nature as we have. Jesus was impeccable therefore could not sin. The phrase from John 14:30 as explained by Albert Barnes seems to speak to this:
"Hath nothing in me - There is in me no principle or feeling that accords with his, and nothing, therefore, by which he can prevail. Temptation has only power because there are some principles in us which accord with the designs of the tempter, and which may be excited by presenting corresponding objects until our virtue be overcome. Where there is no such propensity, temptation has no power. As the principles of Jesus were wholly on the side of virtue, the meaning here may be that, though he had the natural appetites of man, his virtue was so supreme that Satan “had nothing in him” which could constitute any danger that he would be led into sin, and that there was no fear of the result of the conflict before him." https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bnb/john-14.html
From Robert L. Dabney's Systematic Theology:
"Now, none will say that the second Person, as eternal Word, was, or is peccable. It would seem then, that the trait can only be asserted of the humanity. But, first, it is the unanimous testimony of the Apostles, as it is the creed of the Church, that the human nature never had its separate personality. It never existed, and never will exist for an instant, save in personal union with the Word. Hence, (a.) Since only a Person can sin, the question is irrelevant; and (b.) Since the humanity never was, in fact, alone, the question whether, if alone, it would not have been peccable, like Adam, is idle. Second, it is impossible that the person constituted in union with the eternal and immutable Word, can sin. For this union is an absolute shield to the lower nature, against error. In the God man "dwells the fullness of the God head bodily," Col. 2:9. Third, this lower nature, upon its union with the Word, was imbued with the full influences of the Holy Spirit. Ps. 14:7; 61:1, 3; Luke 4:21; and 4:1; John 1:32; 3:34. Fourth, Christ seems to assert his own impeccability, John 14:30. "Satan cometh and bath nothing in me." So Paul, 2 Cor. 5:21, Christ "knew no sin," and in Heb. 13:8, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to day and forever." John 10:36, "The Father hath sanctified and sent Him in the world." Fifth, if this endowment of Christ’s person rose no higher than a posse non peccare , it seems obvious that there was a possibility of the failure of God’s whole counsel of redemption. For, as all agree, a sinning sacrifice and intercessor could redeem no one. There must have been then, at least a decretive necessity, that all his actions should be infallibly holy."
https://www.grace-ebooks.com/library/Robert Dabney/RLD_Systematic Theology.pdf
Mt.4:1 KJV "tempted" is Greek peirazo, Strong's #3985 "to test (objectively), i.e. endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline". The BDAG on this verse "to entice to improper behavior, tempt"
Mt.4:7 KJV "tempt" is Greek ekpeirazo, Strong's #1598 "to test thoroughly" with KJV Margin Note here "tempt: or, try, or, put to trial, or, proof". The NRSV reads "Do not put the Lord your God to the test." The AMGL on this word here: "to put to the proof or test, make trial of, tempt" and the BDAG "to subject to test or proof, tempt".
In v7 Jesus has quoted Deut. 6:16 in his answer to the devil. Which reads: "Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah."KJV, or "Do not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah", NRSV. In this reference, "tempt" is the Hebrew nacah, which Strong's defines as "1. to test. 2. (by implication) to attempt." In the Greek Septuagint, the KJV "tempt" is again the same Greek as Jesus is recorded using in Mt. 4:7, ekpeirazo.
Can a person be tempted if he has no sin nature, no original sin? If no original sin or sin nature is present, must the enticement be a test or trial, rather than a temptation as it is with us sinful men?
"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: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." (Jas 1:13-14, KJV)
If God cannot be tempted with evil, could Jesus Christ be tempted with evil, or is he more accurately tested in all the usual human needs?
"For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Heb 2:18, KJV)
"Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested." (Heb 2:18, NRSV)
"Because he himself has passed through the test of suffering, he is able to help those who are in the midst of their test." (Heb 2:18, REB)
Jesus did not have the sin nature as we have. Jesus was impeccable therefore could not sin. The phrase from John 14:30 as explained by Albert Barnes seems to speak to this:
"Hath nothing in me - There is in me no principle or feeling that accords with his, and nothing, therefore, by which he can prevail. Temptation has only power because there are some principles in us which accord with the designs of the tempter, and which may be excited by presenting corresponding objects until our virtue be overcome. Where there is no such propensity, temptation has no power. As the principles of Jesus were wholly on the side of virtue, the meaning here may be that, though he had the natural appetites of man, his virtue was so supreme that Satan “had nothing in him” which could constitute any danger that he would be led into sin, and that there was no fear of the result of the conflict before him." https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bnb/john-14.html
From Robert L. Dabney's Systematic Theology:
"Now, none will say that the second Person, as eternal Word, was, or is peccable. It would seem then, that the trait can only be asserted of the humanity. But, first, it is the unanimous testimony of the Apostles, as it is the creed of the Church, that the human nature never had its separate personality. It never existed, and never will exist for an instant, save in personal union with the Word. Hence, (a.) Since only a Person can sin, the question is irrelevant; and (b.) Since the humanity never was, in fact, alone, the question whether, if alone, it would not have been peccable, like Adam, is idle. Second, it is impossible that the person constituted in union with the eternal and immutable Word, can sin. For this union is an absolute shield to the lower nature, against error. In the God man "dwells the fullness of the God head bodily," Col. 2:9. Third, this lower nature, upon its union with the Word, was imbued with the full influences of the Holy Spirit. Ps. 14:7; 61:1, 3; Luke 4:21; and 4:1; John 1:32; 3:34. Fourth, Christ seems to assert his own impeccability, John 14:30. "Satan cometh and bath nothing in me." So Paul, 2 Cor. 5:21, Christ "knew no sin," and in Heb. 13:8, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to day and forever." John 10:36, "The Father hath sanctified and sent Him in the world." Fifth, if this endowment of Christ’s person rose no higher than a posse non peccare , it seems obvious that there was a possibility of the failure of God’s whole counsel of redemption. For, as all agree, a sinning sacrifice and intercessor could redeem no one. There must have been then, at least a decretive necessity, that all his actions should be infallibly holy."
https://www.grace-ebooks.com/library/Robert Dabney/RLD_Systematic Theology.pdf
-
1
- Show all
