Is temptation, in and of itself, sin?

[Mark Quayle]

@Cormack has never claimed that about himself. Is it possible you're projecting something here?

lol, If Cormack had said what you just did, I would say he sounds like he's reversing his earlier statement. Put to answer your question, of course it is possible I'm projecting. My point to Cormack is that he is also frail humanity like the rest of us. It is as obvious to me that his presuppositions, his theology, his worldview, govern his mind, his thinking, more than he seems to realize, just as he no doubt thinks (and rightly so) that mine govern mine.

 

[public hermit]

Well written, and thoughtful. Enjoyed reading it and thinking about it.

Calvin was, like any of us, not entirely consistent in his terminology, and being Reformed in his theology, he was also open to improvement, and did to some degree change some views, or at least, changed how he stated of defended them. I don't take that as entirely 'inconsistent' as you conjectured in your OP. For example, I, in some circles, use 'freewill' to mean simply that we do have real choice and have a real, effectual will. But when others who have a completely different use for it claim that it is uncaused, unfettered, etc, then I don't use it. Maybe the use of the term is inconsistent, but my position on it hasn't changed.

So when Calvin says, '..it is sin..' I take the whole sentence. We know he wasn't ignorant or stupid enough to think that Christ's temptation was Christ's sin, and that Christ was tempted as we are. Therefore, the "it" (as the structure of the sentence allows) probably could be used in our English, not to refer to the temptation, but the whole scenario where temptation is entertained, considered, perhaps sometimes even fostered and nursed. That, you would agree, would certainly be sin. It could also be his mindset, or worldview, hating depravity as he did, that when the fount of temptation is from within that it is the work of the 'old man', the flesh, and therefore at least of sin, and just spoken of as sin. Again, I can't believe he equates Jesus' temptations with sin. That just doesn't add up that he would.

BTW, I have not ignored the rest of what you said; I just wanted to explain in more detail what I thought of Calvin's remarks.

I agree that Calvin would not say Jesus sinned in being tempted. I don't have a passage to point to, but I just can't imagine it. I was just drawing the implication.

So the options you suggest make sense. Perhaps his rhetoric, coupled with his robust notion of depravity, got away with him. The Institutes is, like Luther's writing, passionate. So, imprecision should be allowed for (or at least expected).

 

[Saint Steven]

I think the orthodox position is that our Lord was tempted, but did not sin.

Sorry, I'm late to the party.

I wonder if the translation is in question. Should have been "tested" instead of tempted. Allowed in the NT Greek. peirazó: to make proof of, to attempt, test, tempt

Hebrews 4:15 NIV
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.


Hebrews 4:15-16 The Message
14-16 Now that we know what we have—Jesus, this great High Priest with ready access to God—let’s not let it slip through our fingers. We don’t have a priest who is out of touch with our reality. He’s been through weakness and testing, experienced it all—all but the sin. So let’s walk right up to him and get what he is so ready to give. Take the mercy, accept the help.

 

[Saint Steven]

James seems to think it springs from our own desires.

"But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death." James 1:14-15.

I usually connect that verse to this one. The remaining (unchecked) desires are a potential foothold. We need to be slipperier. - lol

Ephesians 4:27 NIV
and do not give the devil a foothold.

 

[public hermit]

Sorry, I'm late to the party.

I wonder if the translation is in question. Should have been "tested" instead of tempted. Allowed in the NT Greek. peirazó: to make proof of, to attempt, test, tempt

Hebrews 4:15 NIV
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

I looked it up a few post back. It's rather arbitrary which one is used since it's the same word. The word can be used in a positive sense, such as testing one to reveal their character. Or, it can be used in a malicious sense to get one to fail, i.e. sin.

If I were a translator, I would always use test in relation to God and tempt in relation to Satan. Of course, the religious leaders tested Jesus, which makes sense. They weren't always trying to get him to sin, but their intentions were malicious. Yeah, it's ambiguous. It's better just to use the Greek word and let the context determine the meaning, lol.

 

[public hermit]

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin

So, you make a good point. Maybe testing is the better notion. If testing merely means to place one in a situation to reveal their character, the problem of Jesus being "tempted" disappears (assuming as Calvin does, that temptation itself is sinful). That makes sense.

 

[public hermit]

@Saint Steven, if you had come to the party earlier, you could have saved us a lot of typing!

I need to change your rating to "winner!"

 

[Clare73]

Pardon my rambling thoughts:

One of the ways I've looked into this is in the Scriptures re: Jesus in the garden with His disciples before His arrest and execution. His struggles between flesh and spirit were at a peak there. Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22 (re: sweating blood).

Note how He goes back and forth from private prayer to His disciples 3 times. Just for them or looking in some way for some support in this intense struggle? Luke says an angel ultimately came to strengthen Him.

He obviously had a thought/desire to not have to go through this ordeal - "Abba, Father, all things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me;"

But His in the same breath mindset is to do God's will: "nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will." (Mk. 14:36 NKJ)

I think this is the divider. In any test/temptation, it needs to be our will to do God's will. Jesus had the struggle between flesh and s(S)pirit. But He never crossed the dividing line into His own will against God's will. He was never at cross-purposes with God, nor in disobedience to Him.

But, Luke's writing shows His great agony:

Luke 22:42-44 saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done." 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. (the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak).

I think this event is what Hebrews is addressing:

Hebrews 5:7-9 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

It's obvious Jesus was struggling with obedience, because the flesh is weak, while successfully submitting to obedience, because the spirit is willing. And Hebrews says He learned obedience from this.

And, for us:

NIV Hebrews 12:1-4 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. 4 In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. (literally "until blood").

I think James addresses the dividing line that Jesus never crossed, because His true and to-His-core desires and ultimate abilities were to always do what He saw the Father do, and say what He heard Him say. He was never "dragged away" and enticed (which means lured [into sin] / caught with bait) - by His own desires being opposed to God:

James 1:14-15 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

Paul addresses his and our battles and failures with this in Rom 7, before he breaks into the solution in Romans 8. Jesus won this battle at every test/temptation, even when He had to basically break His body/flesh to do so. And He was taught from infancy what God's will is.

I don't see temptation as a sin. Temptation can be sin as James explains it.

Jesus handled temptation/testing perfectly. He's training us to get better and better at handling it. We have a promise from God about it in 1 Corinthians 10:13.

When Jesus said this: NKJ Matthew 5:28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." - the grammar in the Greek is speaking of a purpose. The following translations are bringing this out:

CJB Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that a man who even looks at a woman with the purpose of lusting after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

ESV Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

What's your purpose? Self-deceit is quite the thing to overcome, even in Christ by His Spirit.

This post causes me to think about those who regard deep involvement with Scripture as bibliolatry.
They have no idea what the word of God is to the heart, mind and spirit of the believer.

We have here why the word of God is given to the people of God--for the transforming of their minds, informing of their hearts, growing into the likeness of Christ, the knowing of God's mind, will and ways, the knowing of Jesus Christ, training in his righteousness, a light unto our path and a lamp unto our feet. We have here why God gives teachers to the church, to open God's word and bring these treasures of his truth to his own.

To minimize and marginalize the word of God written in the name of one's own personal individualized leading so misses the mark.

 

[Saint Steven]

So, you make a good point. Maybe testing is the better notion. If testing merely means to place one in a situation to reveal their character, the problem of Jesus being "tempted" disappears (assuming as Calvin does, that temptation itself is sinful). That makes sense.

This is interesting as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew 4:1-3
Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

Footnotes:
Matthew 4:1 The Greek for tempted can also mean tested.

 

[public hermit]

This is interesting as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew 4:1-3
Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

Footnotes:
Matthew 4:1 The Greek for tempted can also mean tested.

See, that's why I say it's ambiguous, and really a translation choice. When I think of Jesus being tempted, I'm specifically thinking "tempted to sin" in some way or another, i.e. go against God's will. Testing seems more general. In general, it's not a sin to shrink from death. One might be tested to see if they fear death. Plenty have faced it without shrinking.

But if it's God's will that you die in that instance and you know it... That's why his request in the garden is so...funky. It tells me something deeper than just fear of death was happening. I think Jesus was asking to not be separated from the Father. It wasn't death he wanted to avoid, but the nadir of human separation from God.

 

[Saint Steven]

See, that's why I say it's ambiguous, and really a translation choice. When I think of Jesus being tempted, I'm specifically thinking "tempted to sin" in some way or another, i.e. go against God's will. Testing seems more general. In general, it's not a sin to shrink from death. One might be tested to see if they fear death. Plenty have faced it without shrinking.

But if it's God's will that you die in that instance and you know it... That's why his request in the garden is so...funky. It tells me something deeper than just fear of death was happening. I think Jesus was asking to not be separated from the Father. It wasn't death he wanted to avoid, but the nadir of human separation from God.

I have heard it explained (by Brad Jersak - the Gospel in chairs) that Jesus was actually quoting Psalm 22 on the cross, which contains some important messianic prophecies about his death. And look at verse 24. (he has not hidden his face from him)

Psalm 22:1 NIV
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?

Psalm 22:24 NIV
For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

 

[Carl Emerson]

OK back again...

First off I define temptation is that which comes form the Tempter - therefore is external to ones self.

For Jesus we have some detail of His temptations - all recorded as directly Satanic. We also know from Genesis, that the cunning of Satan is much greater than our flesh.

So any giving into selfish desire is on our part sinful, a sin which Jesus never committed.

But the extent of Jesus temptation was greater than any mans by eons.

So the temptation James is referring to is minuscule compared to what Jesus endured.

In this sense, Satan's attempts to have Jesus compromise were exhaustive and extensive not Just what we have recorded pertaining to the trial in the wilderness. Surely journey to the Cross presented extreme temptations beyond what we could ever comprehend. So the challenge to give into His own fallen nature, Jesus never had, however He did experience this through the fallen nature of others - Peter is a good example.

I think the temptations from the Tempter are such a different animal compared to self deceit that they deserve a different word in our language but hey He is not limited by our language to convey truth.

 

[Cormack]

Are you in the habit of beating dead horses?

Only if it’s the dead Manichean Gnostic horse that saint Augustine rode into the church on.

 

[Cormack]

LXE Isaiah 45:7 I am he that prepared light, and formed darkness; who make peace, and create evil; I am the Lord God, that does all these things.

Calamity, it’s not evil, that rendering of the verse doesn’t convey the authors intention and most modern translators are aware that the proper word to use would be something like disaster, calamity etc. Writing “evil” causes confusion and leads people away from what the verse actually means.

Other than that I really enjoyed your message, especially the part about Gods law having a higher function. Really interesting.

 

[Cormack]

Yes, thank you. I just have a really hard time thinking that, when God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit, He secretly wanted him to.

That’s the real issue with the two wills doctrine. It’s not like wanting to eat chocolate cake (because it’s a craving,) while not wanting to eat chocolate cake because you know it’s unhealthy. Those desires vs. cravings aren’t in explicit contradiction or against the nature of man.

God however saying “Don’t sin, I’m holy. I can’t look upon sin, commands to sin don’t even enter my mind nor was I party to your sin.” Those words are blown up if we also believe that the “holy” God orchestrated Adams fall into sin, or that he’s had sin entered into his mind from the beginning.

That’s a blow to both the trustworthiness of Gods words and an indictment on his character.

 

[Hmm]

Can anyone explain this? It's something I've never understood. I believe that Jesus was tempted/tested yet never sinned. The idea that He did sin just doesn't seem right somehow. But I'm at a loss as to why it's important, or more accurately crucial. Why did Jesus have to be free from sin and resurrected in order to achieve or make possible our reconciliation with God? I hope this isn't too off topic.

 

[Cormack]

Why did Jesus have to be free from sin and resurrected in order to achieve or make possible our reconciliation with God?

It’s probably been connected to the “spotless lamb” imagery. God used to see Jews bringing their gimpy, lame, broke down goats (physically sick sheep and goats,) while those same Jews would give the best of their animal property to rich men, foreign dignitaries and the like.

The poor health or quality of the animals can easily be argued in connection to the sickness of sin, as that’s how sin is described often.

Jesus comes healing every kind of sickness and disease, then He heals the world of its sin. I don’t think there’s a trivial connection to the ministry work of healing and exorcism that Jesus took part in and the ultimate big picture purpose of the Resurrection.

I guess to answer in the most direct sounding way I’m able, sick people, guilty people, low quality people (like sick animals) can’t heal, pronounce innocences or raise up the low quality of others.

You need a healthy mother hen to best protect her chicks. You need a just judge to properly mediate between warring parties aright.

The sinlessness is about being a step above so to help raise us up.

 

[Cormack]

You could say that the world has been inverted, @Hmm.

So long as people are lost in their sin, they’re trapped in the upside down hierarchy that Satan rules, he’s the worst of the worst, and as a result he’s the head of the problem.

God tricking Satan and his earthly lower powers into killing Christ leads into those same powers discovering their own inability to hold power over Jesus, he’s part of the upside down madness only insofar that He’s been incarnated here on earth.

The devil mistook this human man as being part of the wicked system of sin too, his system, and as a result Satan believed he could subject Jesus to his misused laws.

But Christ’s sinless, spotless, immune to the wicked system of things (though part of the world) and able to make a real difference.

Jesus was the first unchained slave.

 

[Hmm]

It’s probably been connected to the “spotless lamb” imagery. God used to see Jews bringing their gimpy, lame, broke down goats (physically sick sheep and goats,) while those same Jews would give the best of their animal property to rich men, foreign dignitaries and the like.

The poor health or quality of the animals can easily be argued in connection to the sickness of sin, as that’s how sin is described often.

Jesus comes healing every kind of sickness and disease, then He heals the world of its sin. I don’t think there’s a trivial connection to the ministry work of healing and exorcism that Jesus took part in and the ultimate big picture purpose of the Resurrection.

I guess to answer in the most direct sounding way I’m able, sick people, guilty people, low quality people (like sick animals) can’t heal, pronounce innocences or raise up the low quality of others.

You need a healthy mother hen to best protect her chicks. You need a just judge to properly mediate between warring parties aright.

The sinlessness is about being a step above so to help raise us up.

That's very helpful, thanks.

 

[Cormack]

That's very helpful, thanks.

And thank you for the question. I genuinely had to think it through.