Theological issues have a way of emerging unexpectedly. One of the surprising debates in recent years has been about the place of temptation in the life of Christ.
The question comes up because of discussion of same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria.1 If we understand homosexual sexual activity and gender transition to be sinful (and I think that is the case for both, though the Bible says less about gender transition); then what is the status of the desire for those actions? It seems right to say that they are “temptations”, a desire to act in a way that is against God’s command and his design for human life.
As we think about any temptation, but especially these personally and socially complex experiences, it is comforting to remember that Jesus himself was tempted. The writer to the Hebrews encourages us along that line, with the assurance that Christ is a high priest who empathises with our weakness because he has been “tempted in every way, just as we are”. In the face of temptation, he was “without sin” (Heb 4:15).
So not only does Jesus understand our temptation, he also shows that temptation is not sin.
So far, so good. But that leaves us with a puzzle over Jesus’ temptations.
Our temptations, as sinners, are not only about actions, but also about desires. The ten commandments prohibit coveting, the desire to have something to which you do not have a right (Ex 20:17). Jesus himself teaches that anger and lust break the commandments against murder and adultery (Matt 5:21-22, 27-28). If illicit desire is sin, how can Jesus be tempted and yet not sin? How is that like our temptation? What should we say about Jesus and sexual and gender temptations?
Here are some things to keep in mind about Jesus and temptation.
1. Humans have, since Adam, faced a battle with sin (e.g. Gen 4:7), which we have lost. We are enslaved to sin, death and Satan (Jn 8:34; Rom 6:6; Heb 2:14). The incarnate Son enters into this situation, to free us from the guilt, penalty and power of sin
2. Thinking about Jesus’ experience of temptation highlights the mystery of his person. Since Jesus is fully God and fully human, and Creator and creature are infinitely different; then there must be mysteries, and even paradoxes in what we affirm about Jesus. 2 He is the self-existent and unchanging God, and yet he suffers and dies. At one level it seems straight-forward to parse these mysteries in terms of Jesus divinity and humanity. So, as God he is the self-existent Creator, as human he is dependent and mortal. Yet such parsing is not so straight forward as it may seem, (Christology has continued to be matter of debate, even among those who agree of the broad pattern of orthodoxy).
The mystery becomes more intense when we consider Jesus experience. What can it be like to know yourself as the Creator, and also as a dependent creature? For instance, he is the Word who is the Truth of all created truth — he not only knows all things, but is their rationale; yet he says there are things he does not know (Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32), he grew in wisdom (Lk 2:40, 52) asked questions (Matt 20:32; 21:19; Mark 5:9; 8:30; John 11:34) and he learnt from others (Mt 4:12; Mt 14:13; Mk 6:38; Mk 9:21; Jn 9:35).
At this point, we are at the limit of human understanding. We cannot describe Jesus inner experience of knowing and not knowing. The same must go for Jesus experience of facing temptation. We can affirm certain things — as I will here, but we cannot hope to describe Jesus’ inner experience.
3. The New Testament the word translated “tempt” (peirazo) means mean test or try, it does not always mean “entice to do wrong” (what we could call moral trial). The same goes for the noun “temptation” (peirasmos). The earlier reference in Hebrews to Jesus being “tempted” (Heb 2:18) is in the context of a discussion of his suffering (Heb 2:9-10, 17) and so probably more about general trial than moral enticement. We should not assume that every time the New Testament speaks of temptation it means the experience of inner desire toward sin. Such inner seduction is described in James 1:13-15.
4. Jesus faced the trials of suffering and death (Lk 22:28), he also faced moral trial as the Tempter sought to divert him from his devotion to God (Matt 4:3).
5. Jesus’ temptations are central to his mission. He is the second Adam, the new Israel and the true Son of God, and he faces the temptations which Adam and Israel failed.
6. The gospels highlight Jesus’ moral trials at the start of his ministry (Matt. 4:1-11 Mk 1:12, 13; Lk 4:1-13). These Satanic temptations continued through his whole life (Luke 4:13). Peter’s objection to Jesus’ prediction of his sufferings was a Satanic attempt to divert Jesus from his mission (Mk 8:33).
7. Jesus’ death was the height of his trials, both general and moral (Luke 22:28). As his death approached, he was troubled (John 12:27) and struggled to obey (Lk 22:42).
8. Jesus’ temptations were particularly focused on his messianic task, they were opportunities to turn from the path of suffering and death. Since Jesus’ work as messiah required him to stand in the place of Adam, Israel and his people; his messianic temptations are also general human temptations. His messianic temptations were also Adamic temptations. For instance, the temptations in the wilderness, while focussed on his identity as the Son of God, were also common human temptations to doubt God’s goodness, test God’s faithfulness and turn to false worship. In these temptations, Satan appeals to Christ’s human desires and needs — hunger, reassurance, success. Jesus did not have to face every particular and specific temptation in order to be “tempted in every way” (Heb 4:15). He faced all the kind of temptations humans encounter, in the form of temptations to turn from his messianic calling.
9. Jesus’ had to experience temptation and resist it as in his work as Messiah and Saviour of his people. He fully experienced the difficult human struggle to obey and he “learned” what it means to obey. Through this, Jesus was fully qualified (“made perfect”) to be saviour and the high priest for God’s people (Heb 2:10). Here “made perfect” (teleioo) means fully equipped for God’s purpose; it is not correcting Jesus’ life to lead him away from sin.3
10. Jesus lived and faced temptation by the power of the Spirit (Matt. 1:18; 3:16; 4:1; 12:18, 28; Luke 1:35, 80; 4:1, 18; 10:21; John 1:32-33; 3:34; 6:63). The Holy Spirit sanctified his humanity, equipping him as Son of God to be the Saviour of men. The Westminster Confession affirms that Christ was “sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure” and was “holy, harmless [blameless], undefiled, and full of grace and truth” (WCF 8:3, quoting Heb 7:26). The Spirit led him into trial (Matt. 4:1; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1), but also sustained him through it. By the Spirit he offered himself to God in his death (Heb 9:14).
John Owen (1616 – 1683) developed this theme in depth showing the work of the Spirit in Christ. “It is an axiom, then, for Owen: The Spirit works on the Head of the New Creation, Jesus Christ, and thus creates the source, cause, and pattern of his working throughout the new creation, in believers. …The consequence of the Spirit’s ministry in the Head of the new creation is that he is truly man and truly holy. In Jesus, holiness and humanity become one and the same thing, perfectly, for the first time since Adam.” 4
11. Jesus did not sin. He is “without sin” (Heb. 4:15 cf 7:26” and “he committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22 cf Jn 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Jn 3:5). He did not have fallen human nature (what Paul calls ‘flesh’).
“He was free from inherent sin. Nowhere in the structures of his being was there any sin. Satan had no foothold in him. There was no lust. There was no affinity with sin. There was no proloctivity to sin. There was no possibility of temptation from within. In no respect was he fallen and in no respect was his nature corrupt”. 5
12. If we ask, “Could Jesus have sinned?”, we arrive at a point of paradox. As God, he could not sin; as a human there must be some sense in which he could sin. The very fact of temptation implies the possibility of sin. How can the One who cannot sin face the prospect of being enticed into sin? Who can imagine?
13. Jesus’ temptations are entirely real. He entered our battle and lived under the conditions of our struggle, seeing it to the very end.
14. Enticement for Christ to turn from God’s way came from outside of himself. Satan could use Jesus’ valid human desires, which in a fallen world are weaknesses (Heb 5:2). In this sense, Jesus’ temptations were certainly ‘inner’. The enticement, and the sinfulness, came to Christ from the Tempter.
15. Jesus’ temptations were more intense than those endured by any other person. The New Testament witness to the Satanic activity around Jesus ministry highlights the intensity of his temptations.
Jesus was intimately aware of and dependent on fellowship with his Father and was fully devoted to his Father’s will. As he approached his death he faced the prospect that following his Father’s will would lead to suffering and death in apparent estrangement from his Father. Hence the agony of Gethsemane as he strained to commit himself to follow his Father’s will (Matt. 26:37–39; Luke 22:41–44). Jesus’ endurance without sin, meant that he experienced the full depth and suffering of temptation. All sinners, at some point, relent from the pressure of temptation and succumb; Jesus did not. This point is underline in famous words from Westcott on Hebrews 2:18.
“Sympathy with the sinner does not depend on the experience of sin but on the experience of the strength of the temptation to sin which only the sinless can know in its full intensity. He who falls yields before the last strain”.6
15. The great point, then, is not how it is possible for Jesus to be tempted, but that the God-man consecrated himself by the Spirit and was enabled to remain faithful to God.
Conclusion
The temptations of Christ are central to his work. They also lead us to see the mystery of the incarnation.
No doubt, like our temptations, Satan appealed to Christ’s human desires and weaknesses. In some form, he faced sexual and gender temptations.
There are two great difference between Christ’s temptations and ours. First, our temptations arise, in part, from our own distorted desires; to the extent that they were enticement to sin, his came from without. Second, Christ resisted temptation entirely and utterly, continually dedicating himself to his Father’s will. He alone knows the full pain and cost of resisting temptation. Thank God, he did that for us.
The Gospel Coalition Australia have published a summary version of this post here.
- 1. Here’s the most recent discussion, note Ed Shaw’s final answer and the editorial comment
- 2. J. Anderson, Paradox in Christian Theology: An Analysis of Its Presence, Character, and Epistemic Status (London: Paternoster Press, 2007), 241
- 3. See D. Peterson, Perfection: achieved and experienced’, in J. Griffiths (ed.), The Perfect Saviour: Key Themes in Hebrews (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity, 2012), 125-145.
- 4. S. Ferguson, “John Owen on the Spirit in the Life of Christ” https://www.the-highway.com/Spirit-in-Christ_Ferguson.html
- 5. D. Macleod, The Person of Christ (Leicester: IVP, 1998), 222. Since the 19th century there has been a stream of theology which rejected the idea that Christ took on an ‘unfallen’ nature, while affirming that he did not sin. Edward Irving (1792-1834) claimed that Christ’s sinlessness is due to work of Spirit rather than an inherent inability to sin. Barth warns that the idea of Christ sinlessness denies his likeness to us (Rom 8:3), Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957–69), I/2, pp. 147–59. Two of the great recent theologians agree: T.F. Torrance, Incarnation (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 61-65 and Thomas Weinandy, In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993). Those who assert that Christ assumed a fallen nature, affirm that he sanctified this nature and did not sin, so, at least he did not have illicit desires for which he was morally responsible. For a good overview of the discussion see Kelly M. Kapic, “The Son’s Assumption of a Human Nature: A Call for Clarity.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 3.2 (July 2001). In my view we should maintain that Christ is not ‘fallen’. He comes as the head of a new humanity. While he enters into the curse of sin for us he can bear that curse for us and create a new humanity just because he is the second Adam, not a member of the first Adam. To be truly human does not require a fallen nature, in fact the fall distorts and corrupts our humanity, true humanity is only restored in Christ.
- 6. B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Macmillan, 1903), 59.