God cannot be tempted. What about Jesus?

[MadeByFire]

James 1:13 tells us that God cannot be tempted. Jesus was tempted. Does that mean that He was/is not God? Please help me understand.

with love,
matt

 

[SonWorshipper]

He was tempted as a man, to show that he was obedient to the L-rd G-d so that it could not be said of him that he never had temptation so then he did not truly live as we did.

I guess to understand this look at it this way, G-d does not have to eat to live but while in the flesh that was required of Him as the son.

Shalom!

 

[MadeByFire]

Thanks for your thoughts.

Do you believe that Yeshua was both man and G-d?

matt

 

[oneiric]

http://www.carm.org/islam/obj_Jesus-sin.htm

 

[duster1az]

There shouldn't be any questioning of Christ's deity. Christ was impeccable and we should honor the Son as we honor the Father (John 5:23).

Because Christ was man He could be tempted, but because He was God He couldn't sin.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[Philip]

Because Christ was man He could be tempted, but because He was God He couldn't sin.

This is not quite accurate. If Christ could not sin, then He couldn't truly be tempted. It is more accurate to say that because Christ is God, He chose not to sin.

 

[duster1az]

Philip writes: "This is not quite accurate. If Christ could not sin, then He couldn't truly be tempted. It is more accurate to say that because Christ is God, He chose not to sin."

You're entitled to your view, but I don't agree.

The question is reduced to whether or not God could sin; for Jesus Christ is God. If it's admitted that God cannot-not just would not-sin, it must be conceded that Christ couldn't-not just wouldn't-sin.

The contention that Christ could, but would not, sin either denies His Deity or else dishonors God with the assertion that God is Himself capable of sinning.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[Philip]

All men are capable of sinning.
Christ was truly man.
Therefore, Christ was capable of sinning.

To deny that Christ could sin, but didn't, is to deny his Humanity.


Could you explain how one can be tempted if one cannot sin?

 

[SonWorshipper]

Thanks for your thoughts.

Do you believe that Yeshua was both man and G-d?

matt

Absolutely!

Want to learn more about my beliefs on this?

Did Yeshua come instead of the Father?

 

[duster1az]

My original post was in response to MadeByFire's question regarding the Deity of Christ.

Philip writes: "All men are capable of sinning.
Christ was truly man.
Therefore, Christ was capable of sinning.

I don't agree for the following reason.

Christ was theanthropic, having both human and divine natures. His divine nature was neither peccable or temptable (as the original poster stated; James 1:13).

His other nature, being human, was both peccable and temptable, even though He didn't possess a fallen nature (Hebrews 4:15); but what His human nature could have produced had it been alone and unsupported by the divine is only conjecture. The human element in Christ was never seperated from the divine nature, but the divine was always dominant in His theanthropic being. In other words, He wasn't a man to whom the divine nature had been added, but He was God, who took upon Himself the form of man. After that point He became an indivisible Person. Whatever either nature did, His whole being did. Had His humanity been able to sin, then God would be able to sin. I will say that Christ being both divine and human could in some respects show human weakness without compromising His Deity, but He could hardly be both peccable and impeccable without doing so.

Philip writes: "Could you explain how one can be tempted if one cannot sin?"

An impeccable person can be tempted in the same sense that an unconquerable city may be attacked. Christ was tempted, but through it only proved to everyone Who He was.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

if Jesus sinned he would have died for his sins not the whole world thus we would have take a ticket straight to hell

 

[sJoon]

Jesus was God in man's form. Man can be tempted so he was tempted by the Devil.

 

[Ragman]

His other nature, being human, was both peccable and temptable, even though He didn't possess a fallen nature (Hebrews 4:15);
Tracey

Heb. 4:15 does not state that Jesus did not possess a fallen nature, it states that He was tempted in all points as we are, yet did not sin.

As a matter of note, early church fathers, Gregory of Nanziansus and Athanasisus, held to the belief that all of our humanity including its fallen state must need have been "asssumed" by the Son in order to bring healing to it. Their statement, "that which is unassumed is unhealed" reveals their belief that it was because the Eternal Son became "like us in every way" (Heb. 2:17) including becoming sin (2Cor. 5:21) that we have victory over sin in Him, since He overcame sin in the flesh (sarx Rom. 8:3).

Western Christians tend to have a difficult time with this view since to assert that Christ assumed a "fallen" nature would disqualify him as a spotless sacrifice. The tendancy in that view is to see the atonement more as a "legal transaction" than a relational recovery and healing.

But to the question, of course Jesus "could" have sinned, but more importantly He did not, but believed that He was the beloved of His Father and delighted in doing His Father's will. This "living out" His passionate relationship with His Father in our fallen, sinful flesh is what brings our redemption; our healing; our recreation. For He took our flesh to the grave, raised it up again and raised us up to sit in the heavenlies with His Father.

 

[Philip]

As a matter of note, early church fathers, Gregory of Nanziansus and Athanasisus, held to the belief that all of our humanity including its fallen state must need have been "asssumed" by the Son in order to bring healing to it. Their statement, "that which is unassumed is unhealed" reveals their belief that it was because the Eternal Son became "like us in every way" (Heb. 2:17) including becoming sin (2Cor. 5:21) that we have victory over sin in Him, since He overcame sin in the flesh (sarx Rom. 8:3).

Western Christians tend to have a difficult time with this view since to assert that Christ assumed a "fallen" nature would disqualify him as a spotless sacrifice. The tendancy in that view is to see the atonement more as a "legal transaction" than a relational recovery and healing.

Great Post!

 

[Kim Varner]

Tracey said,

"Christ was theanthropic, having both human and divine natures."

My question is, how was this divine nature different from the divine nature that Peter says in 2 Peter 1:4 that we are partakers of?

If deity is no different from divinity, then do we become god-humans as well when we are saved? If not, then how is deity and divine nature different?

This is something that very few believers in the deity of Christ dare to examine, at least the ones I've come in contact with.

Kim

 

[Philip]

My question is, how was this divine nature different from the divine nature that Peter says in 2 Peter 1:4 that we are partakers of?

St. Peter states that we are partakers of the Divine Nature. That is, we are companions of and have fellowship with that Divine Nature. Peter does not say that we have a Divine Nature.

 

[Ragman]

Tracey said,

"Christ was theanthropic, having both human and divine natures."

My question is, how was this divine nature different from the divine nature that Peter says in 2 Peter 1:4 that we are partakers of?

If deity is no different from divinity, then do we become god-humans as well when we are saved? If not, then how is deity and divine nature different?

This is something that very few believers in the deity of Christ dare to examine, at least the ones I've come in contact with.

Kim

Great Question! As a matter of interest many of the early church fathers (and mothers) saw salvation very differently than western evangelicals see it today. Today, in evangelicalism, salvation is viewed as salvation from hell, primarily. Of course relationship with God and being saved from sin are apart of that, but if you took hell out of the salvation equation, many evangelicals would have little to talk about.

On the other hand, many early fathers saw salvation as Christ Himself. For in Christ, they saw themselves bound up together with God. Man and God brought together in this One. And the goal of this salvation was "divinization". Not that man would become God, but that we would become full, knowing and choosing participants in the divine life of the Father, Son and Spirit.
hmmmmmmmm.

 

[Philip]

On the other hand, many early fathers saw salvation as Christ Himself. For in Christ, they saw themselves bound up together with God. Man and God brought together in this One. And the goal of this salvation was "divinization". Not that man would become God, but that we would become full, knowing and choosing participants in the divine life of the Father, Son and Spirit.

We call it Theosis. It is the life of the Orthodox Church.