BIBLE STUDY BOOKLET

Previous Chapter	Index	Next Chapter
	THE TEMPTATIONS OF THE LORD By Theo Todman TEMPTED AS WE

We are now in a position to consider the passages in Hebrews (2:18 and 4:15).

Taking the first passage and reading from various versions we have

Finally, Knox's translation of the Latin Vulgate in the light of the original Greek has

As a careful consideration of the above renderings will indicate, there are three 'critical points' in this verse, the construction (and hence, interpretation) of which is, as Alford says (Greek Testament) 'much doubted' (i.e. much in doubt).

Firstly, is the introductory couplet (Authorised Version 'in that') to be understood simply as 'since' (New English Bible) or 'because' (New International Version, Revised Standard Version) or is it to be viewed as a restriction on the rest of the verse, somewhat like 'as far as', 'in that particular in which' (Alford).

Secondly, what is the relation between the 'sufferings' and the 'temptations'? Are the temptations His sufferings, part of them, or independent of them (cf. Revised Standard Version)?

Thirdly, should we read 'temptations' or 'trials' or 'testings'? As E. C. Wickham (Westminster Commentary on Hebrews) says, "it is one of the standing difficulties of translation in the New Testament that the Greeks had, and we have not, one and the same set of words for 'temptation' and 'trial'. We have to choose between the two aspects, the Greek often (as here) combines them, cf. James 1:2, 12, 13" (So does Weymouth!).

There is a detailed discussion of this passage in Alford. His own translation is

He also quotes the following ways of construing the Greek:-

Alford favours (2), saying that "en ho peponthen is a qualification of peirastheis and thus explains wherein His temptations consisted."

Before we consider these possibilities further, we would be advised to consider the context in which this verse arises. This verse (verse 18) commences with Greek gar (for), throwing us back to the previous verse.

Hence, the truth of verse 18 helps to qualify Him for the position of high priest. What is involved in being the high priest? What are his duties? In Hebrews 5:1-3 we read

Now there is an obvious difficulty in applying this passage as a whole to Christ, for even if we were to admit that sin was a possibility for the Lord Jesus, it is essential for His being a perfect sacrifice that He should never have actually committed sin. But sin is assumed to be the normal experience here for the high priest. The probable explanation for this is the order of priesthood in view. Here, it is that of Aaron. There are many similarities with that of Melchisedec, namely, the (Aaronic) high priest must be taken from amongst men, must offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, must be able to have compassion on those going astray and must be called of God. In all these sectors the Lord Jesus is well qualified. However, as a priest He cannot now be said to be "compassed about with infirmity" (See Hebrews 7:28 and context) (AV), or to have sins of His own, even if we were to posit the thought that He might have been subject to such weaknesses in the days of His flesh, for He was raised in power. In the days of His flesh He was not a priest, having nothing to offer - His own blood not having been shed. So at no time can Hebrews 5:2b-3 be said to apply to the Lord Jesus Christ.

So what have we discovered in this section? Only that the high priest has the dual role of offering sacrifice for sin and having compassion on the sinner. In the case of the Aaronic high priest, sympathy is facilitated by his own constitution, which is that of a sinner. In the case of the Lord Jesus Christ, this sympathy resulted from His experiences. But which ones? It is significant that the passage we have briefly considered in Hebrews 5 proceeds

It was the things He suffered that made Him perfectly suited to the office of High Priest. Hence, we incline to the NEB / Knox view of Hebrews 2:18

In this verse His 'temptations' are His sufferings - and what were His sufferings? Hebrews 5:7 referred to His death and a quick glance in the lexicon under pascho and (less clearly) pathema will confirm that His passion and death are referred to. So, we may widen His temptations to include His sufferings leading up to and during His passion. However, we can also add the buffetings of His daily ministry, for the Apostle Paul says that he (Paul) partook of the fellowship of His (Christ's) sufferings (Philippians 3:10) and that the sufferings of Christ abounded in him (2 Corinthians 1:5).

Finally we come to Hebrews 4:15, probably the most difficult verse to consider on the subject of our Lord's temptations. As with Hebrews 2:18, we begin by quoting all the English versions that come to hand:-

There are six points in this verse that require our attention (taking the RSV text as the basis):

1. sympathy


2. our weaknesses


3. tempted


4. every respect


5. as we


6. without sin

We will briefly discuss various aspects to consider about these critical points.

(a) SYMPATHY. The English word is a transliteration of the Greek sumpathesai 'to feel with'. What this verse is saying is that the Lord Jesus Christ, in His office as high priest, can feel for us in some sphere of our lives (whether partial or complete is to be considered later) because He has felt with us in the days of His flesh by experiencing these things Himself. What we have to decide is the scope of this sympathy. It is interesting to note that the Lord has always had an understanding of our sinfulness and shown mercy towards those that reverence Him even though they fall into sin.

(b) OUR WEAKNESSES. Which weaknesses are here referred to? Moral weaknesses, physical diseases or bodily limitations? Of the twenty-four New Testament references to astheneia (the Greek word used here), nine clearly refer to diseases and eleven to amoral bodily limitations (limitations of body or will because of our natural condition). The remaining four are unclear - Romans 6:19 "I am speaking after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh" (AV; because of your natural limitations - RSV), Hebrews 4:15, Hebrews 5:2 - the high priest "taken from amongst men" is "compassed with infirmity" and Hebrews 7:28 "For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity."

Note that the three 'moral weakness' passages are all of a piece, Hebrews 4:15, 5:2, 7:28. The other reference to astheneia in Hebrews is (in Hebrews 11:34) to various heroes of faith who "out of weakness were made strong"... presumably in mighty deeds rather than in moral perfection.

All we can say from this, is that we are not forced by the meaning of the word astheneia to take it to mean moral weakness - generally it means a natural weakness of an amoral kind - and that its assimilation in this context to that of Hebrews 5:2 and 7:28 is not predetermined (as Grimm / Thayer assume in assigning these three verses (only) to the category of "want of strength and capacity requisite to restrain corrupt desires; proclivity to sin.") Two of the references in Hebrews probably use it in this sense but no other New Testament reference does. It should be noted that in the two references to astheneia (outside Hebrews) that speak of the Lord, one (Matthew 8:17) "He took our infirmities and bore our diseases" is related to His "healing the sick and casting out demons" and the other (2 Corinthians 13:4) "He was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God" refers simply to bodily weakness, on account of which He was able to die (cf. Hebrews 2:9 "made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death"). "Proclivity to sin" (even if successfully resisted) is nowhere attributed to Him.

(c) TEMPTED. This is the subject of our inquiry. What we have to decide is whether, in this context, the word pepeirasmenon means tempted (as usually understood), tried / tested or both. We will have to leave this until after the other critical points have been considered.

(d) IN EVERY RESPECT - KATA PANTA. There must be a measure of hyperbole in this expression, as often in Scripture. Even if peirazein is restricted to trials, it cannot mean that the Lord Jesus underwent every trial that anyone will or has ever been called upon to undergo - if it did it would not be historically accurate. Rather it must be viewed generically - every kind and degree of trial He has undergone. He knows what it is like to suffer hunger, thirst, exhaustion, contradiction, physical torment and desertion. The last He knows to an extent none of us shall ever know. All His disciples, His friends, forsook Him, and this may happen to us, yet though father and mother desert us, the Lord will not - yet His Father, His God, did forsake Him as He bore our sins on the Cross. Assuredly also, He has been in every sort of situation that would have 'tempted' people such as us. He associated with 'sinners' - prostitutes, devious businessmen, etc. - with the proud and self-righteous, with those who wanted to thrust worldly glory upon Him, and so on. But what we must protest against is the notion that these situations, where sin is involved, demanded a struggle of resistance on His part. This has been considered already in the section "God cannot be tempted with evil".

(e) AS WE. This is a translation of kath' homoioteta 'according to (our) likeness.' The word homoiotes only occurs twice in the New Testament, the other occurrence being Hebrews 7:15 "after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest." However, various related words are more frequent. Homoioo (to liken) occurs in the passive in Hebrews 2:17 "Wherefore in all things (kata panta) it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest." Two passages in which homoioma (likeness) is used are worth considering, namely, Philippians 2:7

and Romans 8:3

The marginal note in The Companion Bible is helpful here, where it says on the likeness of sinful flesh - "Not 'sinful flesh' for in Him was no sin, nor 'the likeness of flesh,' because His was real flesh, but 'the likeness of sin's flesh.' " We can take 'likenesses' too far and suggest that the Word became united to a sinful, fallen nature (such as ours) in the person of Jesus Christ, or else not far enough and make the incarnation a sham.

What we need is a middle road. The Lord Jesus' sympathy is with the redeemed, who have a new spiritual nature in a limited body of flesh (in our case sinful flesh) and who are awaiting "the redemption of their bodies" (Romans 8:23). The normal Christian life is not to "fight against every sin," which only provokes it as we put ourselves under law (though we should abhor sin and shun it - reckoning ourselves dead to it) but to take up the promise of Galatians 5:16 "Walk in the spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." There is no reason for the Lord to share in experiences that are not proper to the Christian life, even if all Christians do experience them from time to time.

(g) YET WITHOUT SIN. This phrase in English is somewhat enigmatic - the Greek is choris hamartias. It can be made more explicit, though not necessarily more accurate, by rendering it "yet without sinning" (RSV, cf. Weymouth, Phillips), but can also be rendered "apart from sin" (so the 'interlinear' translation of Marshall and, according to John Owen's Commentary on Hebrews, the Syriac).

What objections are there to either rendering? To the former we say that, while agreeing that the Lord never sinned at any time during His earthly life, it implies that He was tempted to sin, but did not. As we have said before, if we say that he was simply placed in a sinful environment (which He was) and exposed to situations where people such as we would be tempted to commit sin (even if we might successfully resist the temptation) though such temptations found no place in Him, then we agree that such is true of His experience. However, if it is suggested that He was tempted in the sense of 'inclined' to commit sin, but that He overcame His rebellion of will so that no sinful act issued from it, then we have to protest that under such conditions He would have sinned in His heart, have shown a fallen human nature and so be unsuited to His office as the spotless Lamb of God. In such a situation the whole plan of salvation would have broken down.

The objection against the latter rendering seems to be that, if He did not have to struggle against temptations to sin, He would not be able to sympathise with us in our infirmities and so would be unsuited to His office as High Priest. To this we answer that His sympathies lie with those weaknesses and ignorances that are proper to the Christian life on account of our still being in limited bodies. He certainly deals with our day to day sins by the cleaning application of His shed blood, but this is another aspect of His High Priestly ministry.

Has Alford anything to say on this subject? His translation is

At first sight this might seem to support our view, especially when he continues (on 'apart from sin') with the remark "so that throughout these temptations, in their origin, in their process, in their result, - sin had nothing in Him: He was free and separate from it." He takes 'tempted' to mean 'solicited toward, but short of sin'. We agree that our Lord can sympathise with us when external agencies solicit us to sin - for as we have seen, they did so to Him - but not with our internal struggles to suppress sinful impulses, which He never needed to do, for sin found no place in Him. However, Alford continues by opposing the idea of "very many commentators" that the words "apart from sin," imply "that He was tempted in all other points but not in sin: 'sin only excepted'" saying that the Greek construction is not strong enough to bear this translation.

There seems to be a preponderance of translators against the translation 'sin only excepted'. However, though we agree that the translation 'yet without sinning' is certainly true of Him, we feel that, in this context, it reads too much into the situation and assumes meanings for the words 'temptation' and 'weaknesses' that are not intrinsic or necessary to them.