This post is a splinter thread from my earlier post entitled "Original Guilt". In some ways this may appear to be a bit of a tangent, but I believe it is a link in a chain of several interdependent issues. The question at hand is in regard to the temptations Jesus experienced, and is derived largely from these three passages:
"Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." (Hebrews 2:17)
"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)
"Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death." (James 1:13-15)
Since Jesus is God, and God can't be tempted by evil, how could Jesus have been tempted in every respect as we have been? How are we to interpret the phrase "he had to be made like his brothers in every respect" in light of our being born in sin?
One possible clue is that James seems to be making a distinction in that passage between desire and sin. He also specifically says "tempted by evil", which leaves room for the question of whether or not there are other forms of temptation. For example, in Matthew 4 it says that Jesus was hungry. As best I can understand that passage, Jesus desired food at the time when he knew his Father did not want him to eat any. He obeyed his father, but it looks like he would have still wanted the food. If he hadn't wanted it, then how else could he have ever "suffered when tempted"? (Hebrews 2:17) How else can someone suffer when tempted but by having a desire of which we are denying ourselves satisfaction?
As to Hebrews 2:17, one reasonable interpretation of that passage is that the writer of Hebrews is referring to Jesus being made like the ideal version of his brothers, the way humanity was originally intended to be without sin. I think there is some truth to that, but that idea by itself does not reconcile all the issues at hand. For one thing, Adam was a human without sin, and yet he still coveted what the devil offered him and gave in to that temptation. (Come to think about it, there are a lot of parallels between the temptation of Adam and Eve and the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. I'll look more into that.) Before the fall, Adam did not have a sinful nature, but he must've had some kind of nature, and I can only think that must have been a human nature. Thus, not only is it possible for a sinful nature to be to sin, but a human nature is well. If both can cause the effect of sin, what useful distinction is really being made by suggesting that Jesus was made in the likeness of his brothers by having not a sinful nature but a human nature?
Also, I would be hesitant to interpret the "in every respect" part of Hebrews 2:17 as simply meaning ideal humanity when the specific context of that passage is his propitiations for our sins and helping us in our temptations, (and in the larger context of sympathizing with us referred to in Hebrews 4:15), since I have not yet found any evidence in the rest of the book (though my studies have not been completely exhaustive) that such a distinction was in the author's mind. Not to say that such an interpretation is wrong, but that it is a delicate inference I would not put too much weight on without more evidence.
So those are some of my thoughts on these questions. I'm looking forward to all of your responses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You might want to think about a different possibility, is it possible that Adam didn't "covet what the devil offered him and gave in to that temptation", but instead gave himself up for his wife willingly (laid his life down for her like Christ did for us, his bride)? I don't see where the devil (the serpent) offered anything to Adam, only to Eve (see Gen 3:1ff): "And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression." (1 Tim 2:14), "But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." (2 Cor 11:3), "...Because you have listened to the voice of your wife..." (Gen 3:17b). Also look at Phil 2:5-8 in regard to some other points that you brought up about the humanity/deity of Jesus: "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."
It is true that Genesis does not say that Adam coveted what Satan offered him. When I wrote that one sentence my subconscious was getting ahead of my foreconscious. I think a case could be made that Eve's temptation in the garden was a template for all human temptation throughout history, and thus a pattern that every sin Adam ever committed would have fallen under, but that would be too much of a rabbit trail to pursue, so for now I'll just take back that sentence about Adam coveting what the devil offered him and replace it with a general "somehow or another Adam's sinned".
With that said, I'm not entirely sure what you meant in the first part of that comment. I love patterns, and the parallel between Adam and Christ that you described has an almost poetic quality, but it doesn't quite make sense to me. Adam did not lay down his life for his bride (at least not in any sense that Jesus did) because Adam disobeyed God. Laying down our lives like Jesus and disobeying God are mutually exclusive. Beside that, right after he ate the fruit, Adam was blaming the woman (Genesis 1:3). That response doesn't sound very self sacrificial to me. But perhaps I misunderstood your meaning.
As to the second part of your comment, I agree that Eve was deceived. But I think Adam's eating up the fruit was still wrong whether or not he was deceived, and it is Adam's failure that the rest of Scripture points to as the cause of mankind's fallen state.
But that was beside my point in that paragraph. Regardless of whether Adam sinned or Eve sinned, both of them originally possessed human natures untainted with sin, and yet at least one of them gave into temptation. Unless someone has a case for the idea that Adam and Eve were created sinful, then the question still stands: if it was possible for humans to sin before there was sin in them, why would it be okay to say that Jesus was born with a human nature but not a sinful nature? What properties within Adam and Eve caused them to eat the fruit, and does Jesus lack those properties, or are those properties somehow overridden by his divine nature like I was hypothesizing in the other thread?
As to Philippians 2:5-8, a love that passage and could definitely see it potentially having relevance on the questions at hand, but I think you would need to expound on exactly how you see it connecting to these issues. The only thing that jumps out at me right now from that passage is that, as with other verses, it emphasizes Jesus being in the "likeness" of man. But does that mean he only looked like a man? I've always been taught that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. Could that not be entirely correct, so that he was more God than man? (Here I am not raising an argument but simply throwing out questions I am curious about and will also study myself.)
(I know I'm raising a lot of questions, but I think a lot of them will answer each other.)
Adam sinned because God spoke to him (Gen 2:15-17) directly (not to Eve, she wasn't created yet until Gen 2:21-25, God only spoke to Adam, apparently he was responsible to tell Eve what God said, which is an interesting pattern of what the chain of command should be), and Adam disobeyed God's direct commandment, and instead of listening to God, he "listened to his wife" (Gen 3:17) oops. In using the "possible" typology of Adam laying his life down to be with his bride, what I was getting at was not that Adam didn't sin (he did for sure, but to my knowledge, the Bible never says that he was deceived, but that only Eve was), but that he did it (after Eve had already eaten of the forbidden fruit) with the full knowledge of the consequences that God had pronounced to him [just a little side note of interest to me here, notice that God said in Gen 2:17b "... in the day that you eat from it you WILL die.", it could be construed as "when" you do eat it, not "if" you do, you WILL, not "might" die] (which is why I say that it is "possible" that he laid his life down to be with his bride), and that in a similar way Jesus Christ with full knowledge of the consequences laid down his life to be with His bride. Also notice, that not only did Adam blame Eve, but he was really also blaming God "the woman that YOU gave me", which proves that he/they have now become sinners, where they were not before the fall. But I will say that even though they were not sinners before the fall, God in His sovereignty did design them to desire to eat the fruit (and/or designed the fruit to be irresistible to them) (Gen 3:6: 1Jn 2:15-17), in order to carry out His overarching divine plan (See Acts 2:23 for a similar concept). Remember that we were chosen to be saved by God "before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4-5), so the fall was part of God's plan, the same as Jesus being put to death by the Jews was part of God's plan (Acts 2:23, cf Gen 50:20). That's all for now.
I think I understand better where you were coming from. I agree with what you said, though I probably woudn't use the term "Laid down his life" for Adam, not that it is incorrect, but at least for me when I hear that phrase I picture a certain selflessness that I don't think Adam possessed, but that is based on external associations and I see now that there is nothing inherantly wrong with that phrase.
I like the idea you conveyed about God's use of "When". It is new to me but it seems to sync up with the rest of scripture.
Post a Comment