Is temptation, in and of itself, sin?

[GDL]

Are you saying Jesus personally experienced the "sin" problem?
Or just that flesh, in and of itself, is limited and, therefore, "weak"?

The flesh/body itself is limited and weak (resurrection body now, please).

I see what Jesus went through as the most extreme of tests that took Him to the brink in His humanity:

37 "He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed. 38 Then He said to them, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. 39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me....42 Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me...44 So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. (Matt. 26:37-44 NKJ)

42 saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me. 43 Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him...44 And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. (Lk. 22:42-44 NKJ)

The way I see this, on the one hand, when He told His disciples the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak, He was obviously addressing them to be on guard of temptation. On the other hand He is going through mental anguish not said of Him anywhere else but on the cross itself when He cries out to God, so, in His words, I think there is some self-realization and experiential understanding of what we deal with in temptations/tests.

Matthew tells us He was "exceeding sorrowful even to death." Luke helps us to see what the mental agony is doing to His body - His flesh - but not flesh in the sin sense. He's putting so much intense pressure on His flesh by His spirit that His flesh reveals it's weakness of standing against mental pressure. In a way, His body was fighting back against His mental agony and breaking down in the effort. We know He won the battle, but the battle between the flesh & the spirit is intense to the point that it even challenged Him to accept the cup of the Father after 3 requests to let it pass from Him and to learn obedience from what He suffered.

We, go from indulging our flesh at the slightest hint of pressure (temptation) from it, to learning about it and how to deal with it in Christ by the Spirit. But, like I pointed out before, have we been challenged until blood? When Paul says he boxes not as beating the air, but he strikes his body and subjugates it (1 Cor 9:26-27), he's dealing with the same concept.

Jesus was tempted/tested but without sin. The temptations never got past His defenses. He dealt with external temptations and, the way I see it, even an internal temptation to disobedience caused by external agonizing factors He knew He was going to face. But, no matter the mental and emotional agony, the psychosomatic effects on the weak flesh and its efforts to get us to yield to it, the strengthening by an angel, He dealt with it as we are to deal with it - "Your will be done" - no matter how much pressure or metaphorical boxing and striking we need to apply against the flesh to override it.

Long answer, but make sense? Or raise more questions?

 

[hedrick]

I think most Christians would say that temptation, in and of itself, is not sin. However, I came across a contrary view regarding temptation held by John Calvin. Calvin, who usually agrees with virtually anything Augustine says, takes a different view of temptation.

"Content to designate it with the term "weakness," he (Augustine) teaches that it becomes sin only when either act or consent follows the conceiving or apprehension of it, that is, when the will yields to the first strong inclination. We, on the other hand, deem it sin when man is tickled by any desire at all against the law of God. Indeed, we label "sin" that very depravity which begets in us desires of this sort" (Institutes III.III.10).

One possibility is that Calvin is being inconsistent. Perhaps in other places he argues that temptation, in and of itself, is not sin but then fails to be consistent in this passage. As it stands, this passage clearly indicates that temptation is sin. In fact, the nature that could possibly sin (i.e. depraved nature) is itself sin, according to Calvin.

That's an odd position to hold, in my opinion. What would make this opinion even more controversial is the implications it has for our Lord's Incarnation. I think the orthodox position is that our Lord was tempted, but did not sin. If Calvin argues that our Lord was tempted, then (based on this passage) he would also have to conclude that our Lord sinned in even being tempted. I seriously doubt Calvin would be comfortable with that conclusion (although, Calvin is comfortable with all kinds of positions that make most folks uncomfortable). So, assuming the above passage is his settled position, Calvin is not being consistent.

At any rate, what do you think. Is being tempted itself a sin?

I think for Calvin sin is a condition more than an action. There are of course individual sins. But sin is brokenness, alienation from God. Sins are a result.

As to Christ, I think the sinlessness should be read as saying that he didn't commit any sins. But surely in bearing our sin he took on our condition and experienced at least briefly the alienation from God.

 

[TedT]

This is the part that causes the question. If only sinners can be tempted, then Jesus was not tempted, right?

Right... That is why Satan tried to tempt Him but without anything in Him to respond, he only convicted himself.

 

[zippy2006]

Would not his strong natural desire to avoid the pain and suffering of the cross, "overwhelming him with sorrow to the point of death" (Matthew 26:38), constitute subjective temptation?

Am I missing something obvious here?

That's a pretty interesting question. Was Jesus' desire to abandon the cross at Gethsemane an interior desire to sin, and one that he consented to?

I don't really know how to untie that, but Noel Gallagher attempts to do so. Here is an excerpt:

But if Christ’s human will always conformed to the divine will, why did he pray to the Father that the chalice of suffering pass from him in apparent contradiction to the divine will?

Aquinas offers an answer to this intriguing problem. According to Aquinas, Christ possessed three types of human willing which were common to all men: an intellectual will, with a “will-as-reason” and a “will-as-nature,” and a separate sensual will. Aquinas’s presentation of how these three human wills were operative in Christ’s Gethsemane prayer is certainly nuanced. It is perhaps easiest to examine the sensual will as opposed to the will-as-reason first, followed by an examination of the will-as-nature as opposed to the will-as-reason...

-The Gethsemane Event according to Thomas Aquinas
​

From the same article:

...This focus on Christ’s powers and divinity and the avoidance of Christ’s human deficiencies and the Gethsemane event were not surprising, as they were common elements in the theology of Aquinas’s contemporaries and the Church Fathers on whom the medieval writers depended, as Kevin Madigan explains: “Although Jesus’ agony in the Garden may be powerful and even inexpressively poignant to modern readers, it was a plague and embarrassment to patristic and medieval interpreters […] [the Gethsemane event] presents a figure who appears in utterly human form – powerless, ignorant, recalcitrant, and passible.”[6]​

 

[Tom 1]

I think most Christians would say that temptation, in and of itself, is not sin. However, I came across a contrary view regarding temptation held by John Calvin. Calvin, who usually agrees with virtually anything Augustine says, takes a different view of temptation.

"Content to designate it with the term "weakness," he (Augustine) teaches that it becomes sin only when either act or consent follows the conceiving or apprehension of it, that is, when the will yields to the first strong inclination. We, on the other hand, deem it sin when man is tickled by any desire at all against the law of God. Indeed, we label "sin" that very depravity which begets in us desires of this sort" (Institutes III.III.10).

One possibility is that Calvin is being inconsistent. Perhaps in other places he argues that temptation, in and of itself, is not sin but then fails to be consistent in this passage. As it stands, this passage clearly indicates that temptation is sin. In fact, the nature that could possibly sin (i.e. depraved nature) is itself sin, according to Calvin.

That's an odd position to hold, in my opinion. What would make this opinion even more controversial is the implications it has for our Lord's Incarnation. I think the orthodox position is that our Lord was tempted, but did not sin. If Calvin argues that our Lord was tempted, then (based on this passage) he would also have to conclude that our Lord sinned in even being tempted. I seriously doubt Calvin would be comfortable with that conclusion (although, Calvin is comfortable with all kinds of positions that make most folks uncomfortable). So, assuming the above passage is his settled position, Calvin is not being consistent.

At any rate, what do you think. Is being tempted itself a sin?

I suppose you could talk about having a 'sinful character', being orientated towards impulsive behaviour, or something like that. A tendency towards destructiveness. David Rosenberg's idea is that the bible is primarily concerned with character, which makes sense. Character serves as a guide, enables us to make better choices and so on.

 

[hedrick]

On Mat 5:27, the word translated "lust" in that passage is normally translated "covet." It's a desire for what is not yours. Remember that Jesus is commenting on commandments from the 10 commandments. That one he's talking about there is "do not commit adultery." So the desire he's talking about is a desire for someone else's wife, though it could be generalized as a desire for any sexual relationship that is prohibited.

 

[GDL]

I don't think your missing anything. I'm assuming, rightly or wrongly, that Jesus experienced more temptations than just the wilderness experience and the garden experience.

Mostly, I have in mind Hebrews 4:15

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin."

What is the reference of "in every respect"?

Is it the objective forms of temptation, so that he was tempted objectively in all the ways we are tempted. Is it the internal/subjective experience of desiring the objective temptation? Both?

I take it both Aquinas and Calvin would say that Jesus did not experience the internal desire to sin. He was objectively tempted in all the ways we are, but no internal impulse to acquiesce.

I don't think your assumption re: the quantity and variety of the temptations Jesus suffered is wrong at all. And I think you're absolutely correct about Hebrews 4:15.

When you say "internal/subjective experience," I assume you mean external experience when you say "objective," correct?

I think I disagree with what you say in your last paragraph.

When we talk about internal impulses, are there any distinctions to be drawn?

- Due to the way I understand the virgin birth, I don't see Jesus as suffering the impulses of the sinful flesh that we do. I see Him understanding them, but not having them

- But, in considering His Garden experience, there was an intense internal stress He experienced that caused Him to request a change in God's will and plan and to learn obedience that certainly applied to all He experienced, but is highlighted re: His Garden experience.

- My point being, that internal is not so simple. Our mentality is also internal. And we have an internal battle between flesh and spirit. I think Jesus experienced the flesh/body attacking Him, in a way, to defend itself against the mental and emotional pressure He was internally exerting against it in order to remain in God's will. In this sense, Jesus could understand the influence of a weak flesh fighting against His willing spirit.
​

Temptation and testing is an interesting study, When James says this:

- NKJ James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

- As it's fully stated, is James speaking of just being tempted, or is he talking about being tempted and giving in to temptation?

- Is there any of it that can be applied to Jesus?

- Jesus was tempted/tested in every respect.

- Did Jesus have a thought and/or desire to not go through the torture and capital punishment our Father willed for Him?

- Was He ever dragged away and caught by bait by His own desire?
​

- Let's say we get our sinful flesh under control. Might we still have a thought of disobeying God in something He wills for us? Is this sin? Is it temptation? Where does it come from? If not in and from our flesh, then where is the issue re: temptation centered - the world, the flesh, the adversary? A friend and fellow student once asked me where a thought comes from. I still ponder the question.


​

 

[fhansen]

That's a pretty interesting question. Was Jesus' desire to abandon the cross at Gethsemane an interior desire to sin, and one that he consented to?

I don't really know how to untie that, but Noel Gallagher attempts to do so. Here is an excerpt:

But if Christ’s human will always conformed to the divine will, why did he pray to the Father that the chalice of suffering pass from him in apparent contradiction to the divine will?

Aquinas offers an answer to this intriguing problem. According to Aquinas, Christ possessed three types of human willing which were common to all men: an intellectual will, with a “will-as-reason” and a “will-as-nature,” and a separate sensual will. Aquinas’s presentation of how these three human wills were operative in Christ’s Gethsemane prayer is certainly nuanced. It is perhaps easiest to examine the sensual will as opposed to the will-as-reason first, followed by an examination of the will-as-nature as opposed to the will-as-reason...

-The Gethsemane Event according to Thomas Aquinas
​

From the same article:

...This focus on Christ’s powers and divinity and the avoidance of Christ’s human deficiencies and the Gethsemane event were not surprising, as they were common elements in the theology of Aquinas’s contemporaries and the Church Fathers on whom the medieval writers depended, as Kevin Madigan explains: “Although Jesus’ agony in the Garden may be powerful and even inexpressively poignant to modern readers, it was a plague and embarrassment to patristic and medieval interpreters […] [the Gethsemane event] presents a figure who appears in utterly human form – powerless, ignorant, recalcitrant, and passible.”[6]​

That was interesting-and shows that the same struggle with the same theological problem isn't new. The desire to avoid physical pain, especially extreme pain cannot be evil; it's actually a God-given part of our humanity-for the purpose of survival, for one thing. Such a desire could not constitute a sin of the flesh which involves lust, aka disordered desires, as others have said. So while Jesus's will always harmonized with the Father's it would not be disordered for His human flesh to react in revulsion in this case. Since God created the human body with this very aversion His will, itself, might be said to be conflicted in the case of this sacrifice-and both Jesus and the Father are God. And maybe it goes without saying but in the end that only goes to demonstrate just how strong Jesus' will-and His love- to obey the Father and to sacrifice Himself for us really was-while also demonstrating just how fully human He really was.

Anyway, I think anyone can be tempted; a temptation seeks to stir up excuses for exploiting a natural fleshly desire. Adam and Eve, although still innocent as created, were tempted arguably by the most basic sin, pride, which in essence is the desire to be like God, but apart from God. And in both Scripture and historical understandings the desire to be like God is not evil but rather supported; God's own desire is to transform man into His very image. But pride, as a perversion of this natural desire, excludes God and exalts the self, since the highest and greatest good that any being could possibly possess would be Godhood, to have nothing higher than or superior to oneself. Man's most basic lesson is to learn the distinction between Creator and creature: that he's not God-and that, in the case of the real God whom Jesus came to reveal, man's ultimate purpose and perfection and godliness comes to the extent that we're in a full-on communion of love with Him. "Apart from Me you can do nothing." John 15:5

Either way, if we resist the devil he flees. John 4:7 Jesus always resisted.

 

[GDL]

powerless, ignorant, recalcitrant

Taken too far.

That's a pretty interesting question. Was Jesus' desire to abandon the cross at Gethsemane an interior desire to sin, and one that he consented to?

Also an interesting question. Hate to go out there, but sometimes when immersed in studies, at times I come to a point where there is seemingly a fourth to be identified: body, soul, spirit, and I. Or maybe a third: body + spirit (= living soul), and I.

Trying to sort out all this terminology in the Text is quite a project.

 

[GDL]

Such a desire could not constitute a sin

Was the desire a temptation?

 

[public hermit]

When you say "internal/subjective experience," I assume your mean external experience when you say "objective," correct

Right. The objective is the external event that presents the temptation. The subjective would be whatever internal experiences occur on account of the external.

- But, in considering His Garden experience, there was an intense internal stress He experienced that caused Him to request a change in God's will and plan and to learn obedience that certainly applied to all He experienced, but is highlighted re: His Garden experience

Right, so it seems he is experiencing something like what we experience when tempted and having a desire to acquiesce. I think Calvin's position as given in the OP would consider that a sin, perhaps.

I don't agree that the desire to acquiesce to a temptation is, in itself sin. I would say one can have that initial desire, reject it, and thereby not sin. But, apparently there is disagreement. As @zippy2006 and I were discussing above, it's difficult to draw the line between a "first thought" and "dwelling on."

I don't see any problem with Jesus having that first impulse to acquiesce. I think that is part of the human experience in relation to sin. It is his willingness to reject that thought that 1) ensures his experience of temptation is like ours in all respects, and 2) secures his sinlessness. Calvin seems to disagree.

 

[GDL]

the same struggle with the same theological problem isn't new

I'm not sure any of these struggles are new. And some of these posts identify that some still do not accept the thinking of the old strugglers of theology. Amazing process.

 

[GDL]

Right. The objective is the external event that presents the temptation. The subjective would be whatever internal experiences occur on account of the external.

Thanks. Just making certain I read you correctly.

Interesting thread, BTW.

 

[fhansen]

Was the desire a temptation?

I guess it depends on how we define temptation-I still think anyone can simply be asked to do something wrong. And internal desires are evil only when they're disordered in some manner-and Jesus's wasn't. So he suffered His passion and death in spite of a conflicting normal desire, proper to His human nature, a lower or less important desire it could be said. And God was not obliged to sacrifice Himself in human flesh anyway, or to save man at all for that matter, so the suffering was taken on purely freely and gratuitously. Just some thoughts. IOW, I don't know either .

 

[public hermit]

Thanks. Just making certain I read you correctly.

Interesting thread, BTW.

I think you brought this up in your previous post, and it hadn't occurred to me.

My point being, that internal is not so simple. Our mentality is also internal. And we have an internal battle between flesh and spirit. I think Jesus experienced the flesh/body attacking Him, in a way, to defend itself against the mental and emotional pressure He was internally exerting against it in order to remain in God's will. In this sense, Jesus could understand the influence of a weak flesh fighting against His willing spirit

So, one possibility is that even some internal mental states have an external origin. Certainly, some of the Orthodox writers attribute internal, tempting thoughts to demons.

So, perhaps, there can be an internal impulse to acquiesce to an external temptation that has an external origin. Was Jesus wilderness experience wholly internal to him? If one were observing him, would they see two, Jesus and Satan, or just Jesus? It could be that some first impulses are not always our own. But then James comes along and says temptation arises from our own hearts. I don't know. There's a lot of gray area, too fuzzy to analyze completely.

 

[zippy2006]

Right, so it seems he is experiencing something like what we experience when tempted and having a desire to acquiesce. I think Calvin's position as given in the OP would consider that a sin, perhaps.

I don't agree that the desire to acquiesce to a temptation is, in itself sin. I would say one can have that initial desire, reject it, and thereby not sin. But, apparently there is disagreement. As @zippy2006 and I were discussing above, it's difficult to draw the line between a "first thought" and "dwelling on."

I don't see any problem with Jesus having that first impulse to acquiesce. I think that is part of the human experience in relation to sin. It is his willingness to reject that thought that 1) ensures his experience of temptation is like ours in all respects, and 2) secures his sinlessness. Calvin seems to disagree.

What's interesting is that the Gethsemane event seems to go beyond passive solicitation such that Christ's will does become involved in the desire.

According to your OP, "(Augustine) teaches that it becomes sin only when either act or consent follows the conceiving or apprehension of it..." To be averse to suffering is not a sin, but to be averse in an inappropriate way is a sin. To be willfully averse to suffering contrary to the will of God would seem to be inappropriate.

The question, then, is whether Augustine too would consider it a sin. That is, first the non-sinful apprehension is presented, "Christ experiences a desire to avoid suffering even though this desire is contrary to the will of God." But it doesn't stop there. Christ goes on to "act or consent" by asking that the suffering be avoided. That act of prayer/petition goes beyond a passive desire to acquiesce. We are not only in Calvin's territory of sin, but also Augustine's.

It seems to be a pretty tricky problem.

Spoiler: Crux

I think that in the case where an average human being has full knowledge that it is God's will that they suffer in a certain way, they would usually be said to sin if they were to willfully take steps to avoid the suffering.

 

[public hermit]

What's interesting is that the Gethsemane event seems to go beyond passive solicitation such that Christ's will does become involved in the desire.

According to your OP, "(Augustine) teaches that it becomes sin only when either act or consent follows the conceiving or apprehension of it..." To be averse to suffering is not a sin, but to be averse in an inappropriate way is a sin. To be willfully averse to suffering contrary to the will of God would seem to be inappropriate.

The question, then, is whether Augustine too would consider it a sin. That is, first the non-sinful apprehension is presented, "Christ experiences a desire to avoid suffering even though this desire is contrary to the will of God." But it doesn't stop there. Christ goes on to "act or consent" by asking that the suffering be avoided. That act of prayer/petition goes beyond a passive desire to acquiesce. We are not only in Calvin's territory of sin, but also Augustine's.

It seems to be a pretty tricky problem.

Spoiler: Crux

I think that in the case where an average human being has full knowledge that it is God's will that they suffer in a certain way, they would usually be said to sin if they were to willfully take steps to avoid the suffering.

It is a tricky problem, and you laid out quite well exactly why.

It's no wonder that event was an embarrassment to the Patristics. And, it might give us some insight into why John's account is so radically different.

"Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say—‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour." John 12:27

 

[GDL]

I guess it depends on how we define temptation

Always a good response, IMO. How do we define "temptation"?

Some in these posts have said we can be tempted to partake of something not inherently wrong. I've certainly heard the word used this way, but I'm not certain our Text uses it as such.

One of the issues in translating the word is that it can also be translated as "testing." As I recall from some older studies I did, this is a point to consider in some verses vs. others.

 

[fhansen]

To be willfully averse to suffering contrary to the will of God would seem to be inappropriate.

What if the aversion was in line with God's will, along with the overriding of that aversion? Here we have an interplay between God's will and man's will within Jesus, both appropriate, but with God's higher will winning. And related to this, if not for Christ's aversion we surely wouldn't know with the same dramatic effect just how powerful His-God's-will and His love for us is, just how much He desires the greatest good for man, his salvation.

 

[Halbhh]

Good points -- both Augustine and Calvin would be wrong then on some things. (of course, we probably already knew they would be wrong on at least some things; who hasn't made a mistake. Peter did even when usually under the powerful guidance of the Spirit in the special time of the early church)

It is a tricky problem, and you laid out quite well exactly why.

It's no wonder that event was an embarrassment to the Patristics. And, it might give us some insight into why John's account is so radically different.

"Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say—‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour." John 12:27

What's interesting is that the Gethsemane event seems to go beyond passive solicitation such that Christ's will does become involved in the desire.

According to your OP, "(Augustine) teaches that it becomes sin only when either act or consent follows the conceiving or apprehension of it..." To be averse to suffering is not a sin, but to be averse in an inappropriate way is a sin. To be willfully averse to suffering contrary to the will of God would seem to be inappropriate.

The question, then, is whether Augustine too would consider it a sin. That is, first the non-sinful apprehension is presented, "Christ experiences a desire to avoid suffering even though this desire is contrary to the will of God." But it doesn't stop there. Christ goes on to "act or consent" by asking that the suffering be avoided. That act of prayer/petition goes beyond a passive desire to acquiesce. We are not only in Calvin's territory of sin, but also Augustine's.

It seems to be a pretty tricky problem.

Spoiler: Crux

I think that in the case where an average human being has full knowledge that it is God's will that they suffer in a certain way, they would usually be said to sin if they were to willfully take steps to avoid the suffering.