Jesus' temptation and "use" of the Holy Spirit

[KyleB]

I am coming at this question with the assumption that Jesus did all of His miraculous acts by the power of the Holy Spirit, rather than by some innate supernatural ability. I know this assumption can be debatable, but the question won't make much sense without it.

When Jesus was tempted to turn rocks into bread, this must have been something He could actually have done, otherwise it wouldn't really be a temptation. But if He had given in and done it, it would have been sin. But can you use the Holy Spirit to sin? I mean, that seems to be more of the JW view of an "active force" that can be directed at your will. If the HS is a person, then He can't be bent to serve another's purpose. Does that make sense what I'm getting at?

If you see Jesus as not needing the HS to do miracles, but rather see Him as having innate powers even while in limited human form, then this question doesn't pose any difficulty. I am trying to examine the issue from the assumption mentioned at the beginning.

[steve]

Good question!

[mattrose]

I am coming at this question with the assumption that Jesus did all of His miraculous acts by the power of the Holy Spirit, rather than by some innate supernatural ability. I know this assumption can be debatable, but the question won't make much sense without it.

When Jesus was tempted to turn rocks into bread, this must have been something He could actually have done, otherwise it wouldn't really be a temptation. But if He had given in and done it, it would have been sin. But can you use the Holy Spirit to sin? I mean, that seems to be more of the JW view of an "active force" that can be directed at your will. If the HS is a person, then He can't be bent to serve another's purpose. Does that make sense what I'm getting at?

If you see Jesus as not needing the HS to do miracles, but rather see Him as having innate powers even while in limited human form, then this question doesn't pose any difficulty. I am trying to examine the issue from the assumption mentioned at the beginning.

I share your opening assumption (that Jesus did all of his miraculous acts by the power of the Holy Spirit). I think it is a good question too.

My tentative answer would be that, while Jesus did miracles through dependance on the Spirit rather than by some innate supernatural ability, that does not eliminate the fact that innate supernatural ability was available to Him (does laying it aside necessarily mean it couldn't be re-accessed? I think quite obviously not). Thus, Satan's temptation was, specifically, a temptation NOT to be dependent on the Spirit. It was a 'real' temptation for Jesus to 'do something Himself' (in His own innate power). To give in to the temptation was possible, but would have destroyed a large part of the purpose of incarnation. Indeed, it would have destroyed the incarnation itself.

In other words, giving in to the temptation would have been a sin... but not a sin of manipulating the Spirit to do something.... but a sin of rejecting dependance on the Spirit all-together. It would have been a denial of Christ's self-imposed humiliation.

[Bud]

Cool! I just learned something I didn't know that I didn't know...again, about Jesus no less! Thanks guys.

[Paidion]

As I understand the scripture, Jesus divested himself of ALL of His divine attributes when He became a human being.

Think this within yourselves the thoughts which are in Christ Jesus, who, though in the form of God did not consider equality with God a thing to be seized, but emptied Himself, having taken the form of a slave, having become in the similitude of human beings, and having become recognized in every way as a human being... (Philppians 2:5-7)

I used "similitude" for lack of a better word. The Greek word indicates a likeness such as amounts to identity. I understand this passage to affirm that Jesus emptied Himself TOTALLY of his divine attributes and became FULLY a human being. The only aspect of divinity which he retained was His identity as the Son of God. Thus He was not capable of doing any miracles through His own power. Every miracle which was attributed to Him resulted from the Father (that is, the spirit of the Father) working through Him as He submitted fully to the Father, and coöperated His Father's will and workings.

...I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the father taught me. (John 8:28)
... the Father who dwells in me does His works. (John 14:10)

So if Jesus could do nothing without His Father working through Him, in what way could Satan have tempted Him? I understand that to be the burning question of this thread. My answer is that Satan thought that if he could get Jesus to call upon His Father to do those things which Satan challenged Him to do, he (Satan) would then have power over God Himself! Jesus' response seems to indicate that it is not He who is being tempted, but it is the Father who is being tempted:

Jesus said to him, "It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.’" (Matthew 4:7 )

[Homer]

But what of this case? Jesus indicates that God would honor Jesus' request and do something not in the Father's will if Jesus asked:

Matthew 26:52-54, New King James Version (NKJV)

52. But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54. How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”

If Jesus had made the request, would it have been a sin?

I am not disagreeing with the idea that Jesus did His miracles by faith in God's power to act on His behalf, just thought this is another angle to consider.

[steve7150]

But what of this case? Jesus indicates that God would honor Jesus' request and do something not in the Father's will if Jesus asked:

Matthew 26:52-54, New King James Version (NKJV)

52. But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54. How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”

If Jesus had made the request, would it have been a sin?






Isn't anything outside of God's will called "missing the mark" or in fact "sin." Whether turning the rocks into bread or calling down angels to save him Jesus would have done something his Father did not want him to do. Jesus said he does not his own will but the will of the one who sent him. So apparently Jesus though divesting himself of divine attributes still had accessibility to using divine power if he chose to because that's what made it a real temptation.

[mattrose]

But what of this case? Jesus indicates that God would honor Jesus' request and do something not in the Father's will if Jesus asked:

Matthew 26:52-54, New King James Version (NKJV)

52. But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54. How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”

If Jesus had made the request, would it have been a sin?

I am not disagreeing with the idea that Jesus did His miracles by faith in God's power to act on His behalf, just thought this is another angle to consider.

I think, in this passage, Jesus is essentially saying, "It will take something more powerful than violence to defeat evil once and for all. If violence were the way to overthrow evil, don't you think God would simply destroy his enemies right now? But that's not the way the Father has said He wants to do it."

So, as far as the meaning goes (I know the word order appears otherwise), I don't think Jesus is so much saying... "If I ask, my Father will do it" as he's saying "If my father would do it, I would ask." Jesus knew His Father's will, so it was not the sort of thing He would have asked of Him.

[KyleB]

Thus, Satan's temptation was, specifically, a temptation NOT to be dependent on the Spirit. It was a 'real' temptation for Jesus to 'do something Himself' (in His own innate power). To give in to the temptation was possible, but would have destroyed a large part of the purpose of incarnation. Indeed, it would have destroyed the incarnation itself.

Sounds reasonable, I'm liking the sound of this.

[Singalphile]

Yeah, that's interesting.

KyleB wrote:
If you see Jesus as not needing the HS to do miracles, but rather see Him as having innate powers even while in limited human form, ....

I don't know what difference it makes to anything. That is, I've never known that there was any debate on the matter.

mattrose wrote: Thus, Satan's temptation was, specifically, a temptation NOT to be dependent on the Spirit.
steve7150 wrote: Whether turning the rocks into bread or calling down angels to save him Jesus would have done something his Father did not want him to do.

That's what I've always been taught. It would have been acting outside of God's (the Father's) will, without faith in God.