Is temptation, in and of itself, sin?

[Hmm]

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.

Another very helpful answer, thanks.

 

[Saint Steven]

... 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. ...

Thanks for adding this aspect to the discussion, Carl. This is significant, I think.

Were Adam and Eve tempted by their own evil desires? They were not yet fallen. What evil desires? The tempter had to suggest some. And did so by taking advantage of the situation. I see something in the story that I rarely if ever hear anyone talking about.

Where did this issue of not touching the fruit come from? Not from the command of God.

It seems to me, if you follow the order of events, the God gave the command to Adam before Eve was created. It was therefore Adam's job to relate the command to Eve. And it seems that he added the extra measure of "and don't even touch it" to the command. I imagine the serpent touching the fruit to demonstrate that it wasn't deadly to the touch. Thus bringing into question the whole command.

Then came the full sell-job on the benefits and why God was withholding it from them. Sold. We have a buyer. Desire implanted.

Genesis 3:6 NIV
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

 

[GDL]

They have no idea what the word of God is to the heart, mind and spirit of the believer.

Thanks, Clare. Precisely my thoughts as well.

 

[GDL]

It wasn't death he wanted to avoid, but the nadir of human separation from God.

I also think this is a big part of it as Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 seem to reveal. The first time in His existence He was separated. I don't think any of us can remotely even imagine this.

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

But why was the tree in the center of the garden? Or why was there a tree at all?

It seems as if the second person of the godhead, the Son, was awaiting his eternal purpose. Without the Fall, what was his role in human history?

It seems to me that this whole dramatic story was laid out at the beginning. The redemption of humankind. We are even given key plot elements as early as Genesis chapter three. The seed of the woman crushing the serpent's head.

 

[Saint Steven]

It’s probably been connected to the “spotless lamb” imagery. ...

Spot on. Err... spot off? - lol
I think it was commanded in the law that the lamb for a sacrifice must be spotless. Which may have started with the original Passover lamb. The most strong connection to Christ.

Even in the story of Cain and Abel, we see Abel bringing the fatty portions. (his best) And Cain brought "some" of his produce. (not his best)

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

 

[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.

In this scripture there is a strong metaphor of the product of the reproductive process. A progression of sorts that is significant. Desire>enticement>conception>full term>birth>death --- Literally pregnant with meaning. - lol

We tend to think of it as a simpler process. Desire>Temptation>Sin
Remove the Desire, remove the Temptation, prevent the Sin.

It may be more complex than that.

In human conception, the act usually happens more than once before conception takes place. Any couple attempting to conceive a child knows this all too well. And will even track the cycle of ovulation hoping to "hit" the best window of opportunity and then hope for the desired result. And then try again the next month if that doesn't work. After that, fertility counseling.

And interestingly, the scripture in question doesn't say "evil" desire, only "one’s own desire". Makes me wonder if it is more of a reference of seeking one's own way, rather than trusting God. Go after it on our own instead of putting it in God's hands and waiting for His timing. Just thinking out loud here. (the danger zone)

 

[fhansen]

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.

Jesus is the new Adam. Adam led humanity away from God and towards sin while Jesus leads us back to God and away from sin. How could our model, our exemplar, sin, as sin only leads to death and His purpose is to bring us back to life? His perfection, itself, cost Him His life as it won for Him the cross because of man’s preference for darkness over light, for ourselves over the God who had now shown us the light, shown true righteousness for man by everything He said and did-and demonstrated that such was possible for us as well to the extent that we do what He did as a human being: remain in continuous union with the Father, once we’ve entered relationship with Him, by faith, made possible as Jesus reveals to us His true “face”. And that true God then dramatically confirms all this by the resurrection, physically proving His power over the death that sin won for man, the death that always threateningly portends meaninglessness and futility to our existence, while showing His will that we live eternally, with Him.

At the end of the day God, alone, can save man, and that’s what Jesus did, by Himself becoming man. Jesus shows us the face of love, which cannot sin and which beckons us to love in that same way. That love, His and ours, is our restoration, our salvation.

 

[GDL]

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.

You are a translator and have every right to work in the Text. Learning Greek can be tough, but I doubt it's out of your abilities.

I don't know if the choice is as cut and dry as "always," but I've had the same thought.

Many of us have thought the same about just using the Greek here and there as you say. Some of us in fact do so. When I was teaching I always brought out these seemingly ambiguous words and delved into them in extensive word studies to sort them out as best we could. I often found those who sat with me would latch onto some of these words and just end up using them as you say. Some still use them in email addresses and such. When we speak we can still recall all the work we did and the meanings we ended up with and how full our thinking is on the topic.

I've never done the comprehensive work on peirazo. Comparably, it's probably not that tough. One thing, unless it's speaking of the one doing the tempting, it's likely always in the passive voice, so it's not us doing the tempting, but something apart from us attempting to tempt us. How are we at fault for this? Even if it's our own desires doing the tempting/testing, we're told to handle the matter, so there is a separation between us and our desires - IOW our desires are not necessarily us. Read Paul in Romans 7 and see how he's discussing this and how he determines there is something in him that is not him.

It's likely that to study this out would reveal why we don't want to always go with one translation or another. One verse that probably does deserve to be translated as tempt vs. test is James 1:13. As Clare and I discussed, God does test (Hebrews 11:17 (?) and He allows testing (1 Corinthians 10:13), but He does not tempt to evil (James 1:14). In this context, that comes from inside of us per 1:14 (but it is not us).

You should do the study and tell us the conclusion. I think we'd find that "test" is predominately the meaning and "tempt" is used to denote failing the test (as in James 1:13). This is why 1:14 says God cannot be tempted of evil (He cannot fail against evil even when plenty attempt to test Him) and He tempts no one (He is not responsible for our failing a test and thus being tempted - It's not His will for us to fail). Here's the list of NT verses from one Greek manuscripts version:

NKJ Matt. 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
NKJ Matt. 4:3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."
NKJ Matt. 16:1 Then the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing Him asked that He would show them a sign from heaven.
NKJ Matt. 19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"
NKJ Matt. 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?
NKJ Matt. 22:35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying,
NKJ Mk. 1:13 And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan, and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to Him.
NKJ Mk. 8:11 Then the Pharisees came out and began to dispute with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, testing Him.
NKJ Mk. 10:2 The Pharisees came and asked Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" testing Him.
NKJ Mk. 12:14 When they had come, they said to Him, "Teacher, we know that You are true, and care about no one; for You do not regard the person of men, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?
NKJ Lk. 4:2 being tempted for forty days by the devil. And in those days He ate nothing, and afterward, when they had ended, He was hungry.
NKJ Lk. 11:16 Others, testing Him, sought from Him a sign from heaven.
NKJ Lk. 20:23 But He perceived their craftiness, and said to them, "Why do you test Me?
NKJ Jn. 6:6 But this He said to test him, for He Himself knew what He would do.
NKJ Jn. 8:4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.
NKJ Jn. 8:6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
NKJ Acts 5:9 Then Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."
NKJ Acts 15:10 "Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
NKJ Acts 16:7 After they had come to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them.
NKJ Acts 24:6 "He even tried to profane the temple, and we seized him, and wanted to judge him according to our law.
NKJ 1 Cor. 7:5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
NKJ 1 Cor. 10:9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents;
NKJ 1 Cor. 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.
NKJ 2 Cor. 13:5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?-- unless indeed you are disqualified.
NKJ Gal. 6:1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.
NKJ 1 Thess. 3:5 For this reason, when I could no longer endure it, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter had tempted you, and our labor might be in vain.
NKJ Heb. 2:18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.
NKJ Heb. 3:9 Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, And saw My works forty years.
NKJ Heb. 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
NKJ Heb. 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented--
NKJ Jas. 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
NKJ Jas. 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
NKJ Rev. 2:2 "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;
NKJ Rev. 2:10 "Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.
NKJ Rev. 3:10 "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

 

[GDL]

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.

I agree that calamity or disaster is predominate. I also agree that the Hebrew word can carry that meaning. After looking at it a bit more yesterday, I'm not opposed to it being translated either way. "Evil" does what it made me do, look at it in more detail.

One of the issues there is that "create" is said to always be used only of God. In context Isaiah is speaking about Cyrus and how God is making the point that He is sovereign and there are no other god's doing anything that Cyrus will be doing. The "calamity" seems to be in the context of punishment against nations and Isaiah is saying that God is this sovereign punisher and no one else.

Part of the interest for me with "evil" used there, is that many of us may tend to see an attack against a nation as evil. But Isaiah is pointing out that such is God creating the situation. Even then it takes some thought and parsing to see how God "creates" this. Also, He is said to harden hearts of some, to put them into position for punishment.

This was kind of my point with fhansen. Sorting out how God handles these things and how He uses our volition to disobey Him for the end result He desires, is not as simple as we tend to want it to be.

Thanks for your other comment.

 

[Hmm]

Jesus shows us the face of love, which cannot sin and which beckons us to love in that same way. That love, His and ours, is our restoration, our salvation.

Another great answer, thanks. I thought this part particularly is a great summation. It always seems to come down to God's infinite love and how little we understand and appreciate it.

 

[GDL]

Were Adam and Eve tempted by their own evil desires? They were not yet fallen. What evil desires?

Yet, if there was not something internal, what would make her consider and accept, rather than just reject? Isn't this one of the issues of free will? The temptation appealed to something in her for some reason. The appeal was to be like God. Independence. Orientation to Authority. Always the issue in all of this, including the OP.

I see something in the story that I rarely if ever hear anyone talking about.

Where did this issue of not touching the fruit come from? Not from the command of God.

Not too rare in my experience. I've heard this from several sources at several times and it's obvious when one reads closely. It is a good consideration and discussion and conclusions seem to have to come from an argument of silence.

 

[GDL]

It seems to me that this whole dramatic story was laid out at the beginning. The redemption of humankind. We are even given key plot elements as early as Genesis chapter three. The seed of the woman crushing the serpent's head.

Some teach it goes back even earlier and can be seen in the beginning of light and dark and how the design of the universe carries the implication and capability for the light vs. dark struggle. IOW the whole creation provides for what God intended to accomplish to end up with what He desires.

Others see some of the Hebrew pointing back to pre-creation and also deal with a re-creation.

Truly fascinating, including what you've said re: Gen3.

 

[GDL]

or that he’s had sin entered into his mind from the beginning

Then sin would have had to catch Him by surprise. And His universe seems to be designed to provide for the sin potential.

Once again, I'm pretty certain He knew what would take place when He provided free will to His creatures, and what would be required to resolve the matter, so He'd end up with the creation He desired.

 

[Clare73]

"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."

you could gave saved us a lot of typing!

Scripture seems to use that sense of peirazo as intentional by God (Genesis 22:1; Exodus 15:25, 16:4, 20:20; Deuteronomy 8:2-3; Job 23:10; Psalm 66:10, etc.).

It doesn't seem to fit for a divine Son.

 

[Clare73]

"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,)

Where do we find this in the texts?

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.

John called those miracles signs (John 2:11, 23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 14, 26, 30, 12:37, 20:30),
signs which show the nature of gospel grace and salvation (Luke 7:22), healing of spiritual blindness, deafness, lameness, disease and death (no eternal life).

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.

It's about a whole lot more than that.

 

[Clare73]

You could say that the world has been inverted,

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.

Not according to Mark 1:24-27.
Jesus had to silence the demons (Mark 1:25) to keep them from telling who he was (Mark 3:11).

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.

Don't know where you got that, but it wasn't from the word of God written.

 

[Clare73]

Thanks for adding this aspect to the discussion, Carl. This is significant, I think.

Were Adam and Eve tempted by their own evil desires? They were not yet fallen. What evil desires? The tempter had to suggest some. And did so by taking advantage of the situation. I see something in the story that I rarely if ever hear anyone talking about.

Adam loved the creature (Eve) more than the Creator, he didn't want to be without Eve, so he joined her in her fate--sinful.

That inordinate love was the stronghold Satan employed for his dirty work.

Where did this issue of not touching the fruit come from? Not from the command of God.

It seems to me, if you follow the order of events, the God gave the command to Adam before Eve was created. It was therefore Adam's job to relate the command to Eve. And it seems that he added the extra measure of "and don't even touch it" to the command. I imagine the serpent touching the fruit to demonstrate that it wasn't deadly to the touch. Thus bringing into question the whole command.

Then came the full sell-job on the benefits and why God was withholding it from them. Sold. We have a buyer. Desire implanted.

Genesis 3:6 NIV
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

 

[Clare73]

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.

The atoning sacrifice had to be a perfect specimen of the animal, and Jesus had to be a perfect specimen (as was Adam) of the human.
How could anything sinful offered to God be pleasing to him?

Sin cannot be involved in the atonement for sin, the presence of the problem can't be the solution which requires the absence of the problem.

You don't cure an infection with more of the same bacteria.

And he had to be resurrected for the same reason we are resurrected. . .it is God's destiny for us.

The resurrection is likewise the irrefutable proof that Jesus is who he said he was, the ransom for the sin of many, and accepted by God as that effective ransom.

 

[Clare73]

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.

Or he constructed a test he knew Adam would fail, for the sake of showing forth the glory of his love, mercy and justice in the creation of material children for himself, to be his treasure, personal inheritance (Ephesians 1:18; Psalm 33:12), and possession (Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 7:6, Deuteronomy 2:18; Malachi 3:17).
.