Here's the key to Christ's failure:
If Satan was to succeed in corrupting Jesus, it was not going to be through His flesh. The only way to corrupt Jesus was the same way that he corrupted Adam and Eve - get Him to reject God's word. And such rejection, whether by Jesus or Adam or us, only happens in the mind, not the flesh.


He went for almost 6 weeks with no food. Then Satan tempts Him to make bread. You don't think that's difficult? You think Adam could have done that, in his Eden state? Christ's body wasn't even in that state of perfection.

Yes, Jesus had to do something difficult. It would have been easier for Him to make that bread than it would be for me to get potato chips right now. And after going hungry for 40 days, that's as real a temptation as you would ever like to meet.


A month and a half of no food, and Satan suggests that He could turn the stones, which were abundant and accessible, into bread, which He could have easily done. Don't you think Jesus was hungry and wanted to eat? I think so.

But would that have been taking God at His word? Was God telling Him to eat at that time, in that way? No. So, Jesus had to deny Himself.

But note that Christ's self-denial was not on a point that was inherently sinful. His desire was to eat, which is not sin. However, His Father's will at that time was different from His. This time, as at Gethsemane, Jesus said in submission, "Not My will, but Thine be done."

Is that denying self? Absolutely! But it was not denying the sinful clamors of corrupt appetite. Rather, it was the denial of normal, God-given desires that would have been against God's will to gratify at that moment and in that way.

Lest you think that this is a matter of flesh, since this temptation was on the point of the lust of the flesh, consider the other temptations:

Pride of life, which leads to presumption - Satan tempted Jesus to exercise His faith that was not according to God's will. It's OK to exercise faith, but not that way. This happens in the mind, not the flesh.

Lust of the eyes - Satan tempted Jesus by showing Him the kingdoms of this world, and offering to exchange that for His suffering. Is it a sin to avoid suffering? No. But it would have been sin if He did it according to Satan's suggestion. This happens in the mind, not the flesh.

Note how this temptation was presented:
To make it tempting, Satan hid the traces of evil. In stark contrast is our bent TOWARD evil.

What I find is that Jesus was tempted by attacking His mind, not His flesh. The thrust of the temptations brought to bear upon Him was to receive "the words of Satan in the place of the words of God." And as long as He loved and trusted God, He could not fail, regardless of His flesh. So it may be with us.

"Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss." So let's not think that if Jesus had perfect flesh, He could not have failed. Inspired commentary tells us clearly that such perfection provides no safety. The only guarantee of safety that has ever been or ever will be, is in knowing God. And if Jesus was our example in anything, it is on this point.

I think we'll just have to disagree, Arnold.

In answer to the fasting question, no, I don't think it would have been difficult. I also don't see any connection between these theoretical temptations that Christ could have had had He had flesh like Adam's and our actual temptations.

I also don't see how this interpretation is even remotely possible considering our SDA history. That is, EGW endorsed Jones and Waggoner's teaching of justification by faith, of which the human nature of Christ was a linch pin. She also preached with them on this very subject, and defended what they were preaching, saying, "If Christ did not have our nature, He could not have been tempted as we are."

It seems very clear to me what happened. The church had one point of view. We started sending our teachers to non-SDA seminaries, because ours did not have a phd program, while we were having conversations with Evangelicals about whether or not SDAism was a cult. There was incentive to change our theology, so Bible Readings for the Home was pulled from the shelves, and EGW was reinterpreted.

That being said, I see a post-lapsarian Christology being widely misused. It's often used to prove a theory in regards to perfectionism, which I think turns many people off. When Jones started preaching about it in his 1895 sermons, he began by pointing out that Christ took our sinful nature in order to reveal God, which was the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission, according to the SOP. Also emphasized was Christ's taking our flesh in order to have compassion upon us, having suffered in the flesh as we do. I don't see these points often emphasized, so I don't talk much about this. I may say something in passing, but I think in the last 7 years I've only preached on this maybe once, about 5 years ago. I talk about it here sometimes though.

For some reason the "preview reply" doesn't work on this computer, but fortunately the "Submit" does. So I don't get to edit my replies before sending them. Maybe I can edit it after the fact, if needed.

My primary point in this thread is that as long as Jesus loved and trusted God, He could not fail, regardless of His flesh. IOW, Satan's point of attack was His mind, not His body. Don't you agree with that?

A secondary point is that the way Jesus overcame Satan - by completely trusting and loving God - is exactly the same way we overcome Satan. The battle against sin is in the mind, not the body. This goes along with what you've said regarding deception about God's character as the reason we sin.

A tertiary point goes along with your last post that claims that "Christ took our sinful nature in order to reveal God." Obviously, the sinful nature itself does not reveal God, since God does not have a sinful nature. Yet, Jesus was the express image of God. Did Jesus reveal God by taking on a characteristic that God does not have? That would be silly. However, because God's nature is a matter of spirit, Jesus revealed God to us in spite of taking on a characteristic that God does not have.

Again, all this should tell us that the battle hinges on the mind, not the body. If after all this you still cannot agree with that, I'll have to go back to the drawing board.

I agree with you, Arnold, and I like the way you present this subject.

I think Satan was trying to use Jesus' flesh to reach His mind, and as long as He said "no," then He was fine (just like us).

I don't see how Christ could have been tempted in any meaningful way had He not taken our flesh. I think His overcoming in this case would have been trivial.



Agreed.



Right.



He revealed God to *us* by taking a characteristic that *we* have.



Yes, of course the battle hinges on the body. However, since the fall of Adam, we have baggage, which makes things more difficult. It's not a coincidence that only our world has lost people in it.

Arthur, any comment on the points I raised in post #100642?

You're no slouch yourself.

As a member of Larry Kirkpatrick's church, I'm sure you can imagine how this topic manages to creep into my thoughts on a regular basis. So I have considered this from many angles, and have many ways of looking at it.

Since Satan does not normally have direct access to our minds, he always goes through the various avenues of the flesh - our senses. That's what he did with Eve, that's what he did with Jesus, that's what he does to us today.


The same goes for the rest of us. And where is it that we say "No" to Satan? It happens in the mind, not the flesh.


Considering that half the unfallen angels of Heaven fell for it, and all of the unfallen humans in Eden fell for it, I don't see why you would consider it trivial. "Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss."

Why do you still insist that Christ's body could have caused Him to yield His mind?


I assume you meant "mind" in that sentence.

We do have baggage from Adam's fall, and the succession of falls since then. This baggage encompasses our entire being. When it comes to being more susceptible to sin, I fully believe that it is the baggage of the fallen mind that causes all the trouble. The baggage of the fallen body is inconsequential IF we have the mind of Christ.

Do you agree with that? Or do you believe that the body can still cause us to sin even if we had the mind of Christ? Given your stand on deception being the root of sin, I expect that you agree with my statement. Right?


My first comment is that my name is Arnold, not Arthur.

As for your post, I do have thoughts on it, but I hesitate to comment on them here because they're not really relevant to this thread. And you know how I hate mixing threads.

Now I understand why you've studied so much about this topic.

First of all, I said it would be trivial for Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ had a fully developed, and correct, knowledge of God. Angels and men did not have this. Thus they could be deceived. Satan wasn't likely to deceive Jesus Christ. The danger lay in the strength of the temptations themselves, strength which comes from fallen flesh.

Secondly, there were millions of worlds created with quadrillions or quintillions of beings. Of all these beings only a few billion have fallen. So considering the universe as a whole, only something like 0.00000001% of all created beings fell. So sin is extremely rare considering the universe as a whole. Made point didn't really have to do with this however. It's still interesting to point out, however, because it would have been very easy, in terms of numbers, for God to simply have set aside this world. But God is love, and love motivated Him to give all He had to save us, in spite of the quadrillions of other children He has.

Which of you, having 999,999,999 other sheep would not go and rescue the lost 1?



I didn't say this. I have emphasized that His temptations were as difficult as they were, to a large extent, because of his flesh.



As long as we have fallen flesh, we will be tempted. It is not inconsequential. By faith, we can overcome, as Christ did.



The body doesn't "cause" anyone to suffer. We are tempted through the flesh. The mind controls the will.



To me this (not being historically viable) is a huge flaw in the whole theory. I've brought this up to you many times, and a number of different threads, and don't recall your responding to it. It's easier to interpret Ellen White or Paul in various ways than to deal with the historical realities involved.

By the way, I think overall I agree more with your way of seeing things than LK. Christ's human nature is just one thing to consider. Accompanying theories may have a part to play in your rejecting the theory (e.g. perfectionism).

Just a quickie...


First, this thread is focused on the necessary factors to effect Christ's failure. Yes, it does touch on the debate on Christ's human nature, but it is not about that. It is very specifically about "how could Jesus have failed?"

On that front, I don't think there's any historical dissent about the fact that the battle was in the mind, as it is in our own experience. Essentially, unless Jesus chose to disbelieve God, which all happens in the mind, everything was fine.

As for the "whole theory" regarding Christ's human nature, I don't have a problem with historical viability there either. I'm guessing that you do not completely understand how I see the pieces of the "whole theory" fit together, or even what all the pieces are. For instance, you were claiming that since I am not a postlapsarian, I must necessarily be a prelapsarian.

If you see what I'm looking at, I expect you'll agree that the way I have the puzzle is historically viable. More importantly, it is consistent with the inspired commentary on the subject.


I do have a problem with using Christ's human nature as the motive force toward perfectionism. I think it is a waste of time at best, and logically inconsistent at worst.

I haven't met a postlapsarian who believed in perfection more strongly than I do. My beef lies in the motivation(s) for perfection. (Then, of course, there's the definition of sin.)

However, after long discussions with LK, we have come to believe that if you dig down really really deep, we are pretty much on the same page. We just choose to emphasize different things. My biggest problem with his emphasis is that it misleads his hearers, who sometimes have heretical beliefs on fundamental issues.

Anyway, more next time.