Theology Thursday Lite: In All Points
I have to say that I’m enjoying my less rigorous read-through this year. I’m finding I’m enjoying the reading more, going at a slower pace. I’ve even got a few Theology Thursday topics rolling around between my ears.
So, it’s my first New Testament post of the year!
Matthew 4 details Christ’s temptation in the wilderness. The three temptations are:
- To change stones to bread, to fill his hunger
- To jump off the Temple, counting on God’s protection
- To worship Satan, in exchange for the kingdoms of the world
You can find any number of creative interpretations of the three temptations and what they represent. But the thing I’ve been pondering is this:
Could Jesus have sinned?
Grand Theological Term Alert! The doctrine of The Impeccability of Christ says that Jesus was incapable of sin. I do not hold to this doctrine, and the reason is simple: I don’t think it’s Biblical.
Hebrews 4:15 (ESV, my emphasis):
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.
Okay, yes, I’ve strayed a bit from Matthew, but in my defense, I did once do a read-through where I read Matthew and then went straight to Hebrews (whoa, and my first Bible-Blog post was about it.)
I think the verse pretty much says it all, but I’ll admit that my thoughts on this are more logical than anything. And in that respect, I’m willing to have my logic adjusted.
I guess my objection is also a bit emotional, because if Jesus couldn’t sin, I’m not sure what was admirable or meritorious about His resisting temptation. How is it even remarkable in any way? And why would the writer of Hebrews think to mention it?
After all, how could Christ sympathize with us if the temptation He experienced was anything but just like ours?
For instance, I can’t really sympathize with an alcoholic, because I have no particular temptation to drink. (In fact, I’m putting it somewhat mildly. I think beer and wine taste alarmingly like vomit. And that’s when trying what others call “the good stuff.”)
Maybe I’m way off base here, but I think I’m making sense. Comments?
January 29th, 2010 - 19:11
This might be a translation issue, but I would think the word “tempted” would mean that he actually considered giving in.
Concerning last week’s Theology Thursday, which I seem to be too lazy to scroll down and look at: Apparently there’s a theory going around at the moment in Christian scholarly circles (maybe just Presbyterian ones) that parents not only pass their genetic information to their children, but also their souls, and original sin seems to be a major point where that theory is concerned. There was some kind of fundamental change in Adam and Eve, and if their children’s souls were in a sense made from Adam and Eve’s, then you have children who start out with a broken connection to God. I’m still not sure how that becomes total depravity, but you’ve got me curious now so I’m still pestering the scholarly types at church.
January 29th, 2010 - 20:19
I think the same word is translated “tempted” and “tested,” so I’m not sure there’s any actual implication in the word. (BTW, lexicon entry here: http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=3985)
With regard to the passing of Original Sin to children, it sounds logical as far as it goes, but I’m not sure what the Biblical case would be for it.