The Temptation of Jesus

[amanda]

Earlier today, I listened to part 4 of the Mark study (it was a slow morning, and I was working all the while - really), which covers Mark 1:12-13. The lesson primarily focuses on the temptation of Jesus. According to the gospels, Jesus was led out into the wilderness by the spirit to be tempted. He fasted 40 days and nights and is ministered to by angels. Enter satan, the eeeVIL one, with his temptations - stone to bread, throw yourself down from the pinnacle of the temple, gain the kingdoms of the earth through worship of satan.

While meandering in and out of scripture, JB poses two questions:

1. Could Jesus have sinned?
JB says no because he's not only the perfect human but, well, he's God, and God is not able to sin. Why? Because Jesus was born of the spirit not the flesh, so he doesn't have our "natural bent" to sin. Now, he was still tempted in all points like we are, YET....JB states that his temptation is different.

2. If he's God, how can he be tempted, especially if it's not possible for him to fail (sin)?
JB asserts that the absence of a fall does not make the temptation void.

My question is, what is the point of the temptation if Jesus is, in fact, not able to sin? How does that work? It seems kind of screwball to me, and seems to lesson the meaningfulness of his temptation. What do you think?

[Jeff]

I have not listened to lecture 4 yet, but this seems one of the obvious problems with thinking that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Given this standard mystrian interpretation of the Incarnation, I think the contradiction is unavoidable.

[Tyler]

Of course he's able to sin. All he'd have to do would be to say: "Jesus, I command you not to drink this milk." and then drink it. He's then disobeyed the word and command of God. This is one of those crazy thoughts like "Could God create a rock that he couldn't move?". Of course he could, and then He'd move it.
The truth is that most trial and tribulation that man faces is in the not knowing. So, unless Jesus was born and raised ignorant of his divinity, he was never really just a man at all. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the idea that Jesus suffered as man does seems nonsensical unless most of the stories in the new testament are false. If he knew he was one with El Shaddai then it seems like he'd have been just biding time on the cross. I mean, who really sweats a thorny crown when you know that you could melt the guy who put it on you.

[rickus]

From the other side... What the hell was Satan thinking trying to bribe God (or God as man: Jesus) with the Earth, his own creation?

If you read Mt 4:1-11 Satan seems to know that Jesus is the "Son" of God. So what is Satan doing? God's created the earth and the Heavens and, well, Satan for that matter.

It's like Justin's dog (can't remember it's name) trying to get Justin to worship her by offering him, the couch he already owns.

This is a good test of the argument for the divinity of Jesus.

[amanda mcbride]

Some people explain this by asserting that Satan is the ruler of the (fallen) world, and therefor it was within his rights to offer the kingdoms of the earth to Jesus.

[Guest Justin]

Rick,
I don't have that dog anymore. I gave her to my li'l brother Matthew--partly because I was indeed scared that she'd attempt such shenannigans.

[Jeff]

Hey Rickus! Nice to see you back here. I expect a full report somewhere on the board about your mountain climbing. Well, maybe I should ask, eh? Would you be so kind as to tell us about it?

As for this discussion: Let’s ask ourselves the general question. What is the relation of God and man in Jesus? The standard line is that Jesus was fully God and fully man, but that is a contradiction, or as the faithful would term it, a mystery. Now, I like mysteries, which should be distinguished from problems. Perhaps we can tolerate contradiction at the level of mystery, even if it vitiates any solution to a problem. Gabriel Marcel—my favorite existentialist—writes of this distinction. Here are some suggestive quotes, which might offer a kind of understanding of this matter. I will just post them and you can decide if you think there is anything fruitful down this road:

1. "A problem is something which I meet, which I find completely before me, but which I can therefore lay siege to and reduce. But a mystery is something in which I am myself involved, and it can therefore only be thought of as a sphere where the distinction between what is in me and what is before me loses its meaning and initial validity" Marcel; Being and Having (1949).

2. “The mysterious is not the unknowable, the unknowable is only the limiting case of the problematic” Marcel; Being and Having (1949).

3. “When I am dealing with a problem, I am trying to discover a solution that can become common property, that consequently can, at least in theory, be rediscovered by anybody at all. But…this idea of a validity for “anybody at all” or of a thinking in general has less and less application the more deeply one penetrates into the inner courts of philosophy…” Marcel; The Mystery of Being, vol.1, Reflection and Mystery (1951).

4. [The world of broken pieces is] “on the one hand, riddled with problems and, on the other, determined to allow no room for mystery” Marcel; The Philosophy of Existentialism (pub1995).

5. “problem that encroaches on its own data” Marcel; The Philosophy of Existentialism (pub1995).

6. “The meta-problematic is a participation on which my reality as a subject is built… and reflection will show that such a participation, if it is genuine, cannot be a solution. If it were it would cease to be a participation in a transcendent reality, and would become, instead, an interpolation into transcendent reality, and would be degraded in the process…” Marcel; Being and Having (1949).

7. “At the root of having [and problems, and techniques] there lies a certain specialization of specification of the self, and this is connected with partial alienation of the self…” Marcel; Being and Having (1949).

Jeff

PS Here are two nice resources on Marcel:
1. The Gabriel Marcel Society: www.lemoyne.edu/gms/
2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcel/
(I found most of the quotes above here, so I didn’t have to retype them all!)

Jeff

[Jeff]

On the subject of mystery: If we go this way with interpretation the first casualty is literalism in any form. I think this is why JB has such a problem. Literalism wants to say that the Bible is understandable and revealing of truth, even moral truth, across many cultures and changing mores. But this means that Jesus' miracles, attitudes, and moral pronouncements are not symbolic or mysterious but able to be reduced to logic and codified with complete certainty into laws which demand activism. Here is one of the more recent examples:

boycottford.com/
www.afa.net

(If you visit the first site be sure to visit the second, since the first is sponsored by afa, and it tries to do something very unchristian: It attempts to hide is Christian prejudices.)

I promise almost not to even mention how goofy these people are ( ), rather their attitude toward the nature of scripture is what is at issue. I would contend that such an interpretation of the Bible must minimize mystery. For mystery stands in the way of settling anything. And as the possibility of mystery is removed from literalism, it is forced to live with its illogical and contradictory nature. In the end, conceived as a logically complete and closed system the religion, history, and morality, Christianity is a complete mess.

Jeff

[Tyler]

Jeff,
I was trying to log on as admin earlier, so that I could cause the board to replace the word "mystery" with the word "hooey", but found that I couldn't since the board was upgraded. Would you mind doing that for me. I think it will be a sight more accurate.