Jesus' human nature had temptation; but did it have concupisence?

[Odell]

So Jesus’ human nature may have experienced temptation; however, his person which is God would not have acted on those temptations. This is because persons are the ones who act and not our nature. Jesus was a divine person.*

Concupiscence is disordered desire and inclination to sin. This is an impossibility for Jesus because again his person was divine.*

Can natures have desires as they can have temptation?

My hang up is that last night a Protestant friend said Jesus had the same temptations we do because he was fully human. I think he was confusing concupiscence with temptation because to be fully human is to no longer have disordered desires. He was trying to say Jesus is like us in every way but sin. I should have defined for him desire can be sinful but temptation is not. * * *

How would you address this issue, and has it come up before? I always thought all Christians believed Jesus’ human nature not to be tainted. Could he have been mistaken; or is this common among certain Protestant groups?

 

[KindredSoul]

I think you are on the right path. Scripture, if I recall correctly, does say that Jesus was tempted in all ways we are, but without sin. But the root meaning of temptation is to be tested. We often think temptation must mean you have an inordinate attraction to sin, but all it really requires is that you have the sin set before you, perhaps in situations where sin would be the “easy” way out and thus might look attractive for that reason, so that you are being tested to show what you would do. That’s the literal meaning of temptation; this does not require that you actually “pine” for sin the way we as humans often do due to concupiscence, only that sin is made possible and available.

Hope this helps.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Nita]

I think you are on the right path. Scripture, if I recall correctly, does say that Jesus was tempted in all ways we are, but without sin. But the root meaning of temptation is to be tested. We often think temptation must mean you have an inordinate attraction to sin, but all it really requires is that you have the sin set before you, perhaps in situations where sin would be the “easy” way out and thus might look attractive for that reason, so that you are being tested to show what you would do. That’s the literal meaning of temptation; this does not require that you actually “pine” for sin the way we as humans often do due to concupiscence, only that sin is made possible and available.

Hope this helps.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

One could give as an example Adam and Eve, who in their original state as humans were free from concupiscence, yet were tempted. They failed; Jesus did not.

*Heb. 4:15 For we have not 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. *

 

[Odell]

One could give as an example Adam and Eve, who in their original state as humans were free from concupiscence, yet were tempted. They failed; Jesus did not.

*Heb. 4:15 For we have not 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. *

I think this is the simplest approach. In the beginning we, “our nature” was pure and had no disordered desires. The temptation itself was not the sin and had nothing to do with human nature because again it was pure. They failed as you claimed and lost santifiying grace. We inheret now original sin in that we lack the grace our first parents lost. This does not mean one will necessarily be tempted and that the temptation in itself is sin; but the desire to to follow through with the temptation is. Jesus never desired to follow through by desiring what was placed before him.

Has any of you come across the false teaching in that Jesus desired to sin because that is part of the human nature but that he never acted on it?

 

[po18guy]

I see no room in His perfect human nature - perfectly fused with His Divinity, for the fallen trait of concupiscence. From the catechism:

470 Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”,97 in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ’s human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ’s human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from “one of the Trinity”. The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity:98

The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.99

520 In all of his life Jesus presents himself as our model. He is “the perfect man”,191 who invites us to become his disciples and follow him. In humbling himself, he has given us an example to imitate, through his prayer he draws us to pray, and by his poverty he calls us to accept freely the privation and persecutions that may come our way.192

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68

1426 Conversion to Christ, the new birth of Baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Christ received as food have made us “holy and without blemish,” just as the Church herself, the Bride of Christ, is "holy and without blemish."13 Nevertheless the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life.14 This is the struggle of conversion directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never ceases to call us.15

97 GS 22 § 2.
98 Cf. Jn 14:9-10.

191 GS 38; cf. Rom 1 5:5; Phil 2:5.
192 Cf. Jn 13:15; Lk 11:1; Mt 5:11-12.

67 Council of Trent (1546): DS 1515.
68 2 Tim 2:5.

13 Eph 1:4; 5:27.
14 Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1515.
15 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1545; LG 40.

 

[po18guy]

I think this is the simplest approach. In the beginning we, “our nature” was pure and had no disordered desires. The temptation itself was not the sin and had nothing to do with human nature because again it was pure. They failed as you claimed and lost santifiying grace. We inheret now original sin in that we lack the grace our first parents lost. This does not mean one will necessarily be tempted and that the temptation in itself is sin; but the desire to to follow through with the temptation is. Jesus never desired to follow through by desiring what was placed before him.

Has any of you come across the false teaching in that Jesus desired to sin because that is part of the human nature but that he never acted on it?

Concupiscence negates the need for the immaculate conception, does it not?

 

[Odell]

Seems more common than I thought.

The fact that one human parent was organically involved in the birth of Jesus is sufficient to indicate His indebtedness to human heredity. To suggest that He was born free from the liabilities of heredity is to go down the same road that Roman Catholicism started upon when it confused sin with physical substance. After this confusion, the doctrine of the Immaculate Concep- tion became a theological necessity. In turn, that doctrine led to the assumption that Christ took a pre-Fall human nature.

 

[po18guy]

Seems more common than I thought.

The fact that one human parent was organically involved in the birth of Jesus is sufficient to indicate His indebtedness to human heredity. To suggest that He was born free from the liabilities of heredity is to go down the same road that Roman Catholicism started upon when it confused sin with physical substance. After this confusion, the doctrine of the Immaculate Concep- tion became a theological necessity. In turn, that doctrine led to the assumption that Christ took a pre-Fall human nature.

Your position sounds distinctly Arian. As I see it, you are thoroughly humanizing our Lord. Just wondering: are you a Jehovah’s Witness?

 

[Odell]

Your position sounds distinctly Arian. As I see it, you are thoroughly humanizing our Lord. Just wondering: are you a Jehovah’s Witness?

Not at all. This is the position a friend is taking. I’m asking for held refuting him.

He would claim that Jesus was fully man because he had a sin nature but didn’t act on or actually sin. I have been saying to sin is not the way of being fully man but the way of misusing our humanity. Christ never misused his humanity so therefore more completely human.

I asked when we are in heaven do we cease to be human? I believe in heaven we are more perfectly humanized.

 

[po18guy]

Not at all. This is the position a friend is taking. I’m asking for held refuting him.

He would claim that Jesus was fully man because he had a sin nature but didn’t act on or actually sin. I have been saying to sin is not the way of being fully man but the way of misusing our humanity. Christ never misused his humanity so therefore more completely human.

I asked when we are in heaven do we cease to be human? I believe in heaven we are more perfectly humanized.

OK, I understand now.

All sin stems from a disordered use of the freedom that God gave us. But, human sin was not first, it followed from the rebellion in heaven. God does not tempt, and without the devil, there would have been no fall, and no temptation of Christ. However, the doorway which delivers us from sin could not be made of sin. That is nonsensical in both human and theological terms. As well, Jesus’ human and divine natures were perfectly fused. Sin, even if existing only in potentiality, cannot co-exist with the divine in such a union.

I can see from your OP that your friend is probably relying on a single verse for his opinion. And yet, he has probably taken that out of context, and does not have any further revelation to depend upon. It is actually his opinion that makes our Lord more human and less divine.

What is this friend’s authority to make those claims? It always and everywhere depends upon the issue of authority. If it is the old “As I read it…” justification, I would remind him of 2 Peter 1:20 (which he probably wiggles around, as well).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So Jesus’ human nature may have experienced temptation; however, his person which is God would not have acted on those temptations. This is because persons are the ones who act and not our nature. Jesus was a divine person.*

Concupiscence is disordered desire and inclination to sin. This is an impossibility for Jesus because again his person was divine.*

Can natures have desires as they can have temptation?

My hang up is that last night a Protestant friend said Jesus had the same temptations we do because he was fully human. I think he was confusing concupiscence with temptation because to be fully human is to no longer have disordered desires. He was trying to say Jesus is like us in every way but sin. I should have defined for him desire can be sinful but temptation is not. * * *

How would you address this issue, and has it come up before? I always thought all Christians believed Jesus’ human nature not to be tainted. Could he have been mistaken; or is this common among certain Protestant groups?

You won’t be able to prove it from the Bible, not in so many words. I would just point out to him what it says in the Catechism and then tell him, this particular teaching has been handed on by the Tradition of the Church from the beginning and has been so taught by the Magisterium. Point out to him that the writing of the New Testament did not begin until about forty years after Christ’s death and was not completed until the death of the last Apostle. And after that it was perhaps a hundred years before there existed many copies. So Tradition was the only the Good News could be taught for a long time. And by the way Tradition continues this day along side the Magisterium and the Scriptures.

Also ask him, would it be edifying for our Lord to have been subject to such a base
condition? Really, it is one of those notions, that a sane person just dismisses out of hand.

 

[Nita]

The fact that one human parent was organically involved in the birth of Jesus is sufficient to indicate His indebtedness to human heredity. To suggest that He was born free from the liabilities of heredity is to go down the same road that Roman Catholicism started upon when it confused sin with physical substance.

?? When did Roman Catholicism confuse sin with physical substance? Could you cite some examples from bishops, councils, popes… that express this confusion? I’ve never come across any.

After this confusion, the doctrine of the Immaculate Concep- tion became a theological necessity. In turn, that doctrine led to the assumption that Christ took a pre-Fall human nature.

Again - ??? re the theological necessity…
The Church does not teach that Jesus assumed a pre-Fall human nature. He assumed a post-Fall human nature in every way except concupiscence. Pain, suffering and death became part of the human condition/nature after the Fall. Jesus’ human nature was subject to these conditions.

 

[Odell]

?? When did Roman Catholicism confuse sin with physical substance? Could you cite some examples from bishops, councils, popes… that express this confusion? I’ve never come across any.
Again - ??? re the theological necessity…
The Church does not teach that Jesus assumed a pre-Fall human nature. He assumed a post-Fall human nature in every way except concupiscence. Pain, suffering and death became part of the human condition/nature after the Fall. Jesus’ human nature was subject to these conditions.

Nita this seems to be more common than I originally thought in Protestantism. I have never came a cross this before the other day.

What’s being said here is that by believing that Jesus inherited a pr-fallen nature that it leads to teachings such as the immaculate conception. Makes sense to me because I have argued Jesus inherited his human nature from his mother whom was made pure from conception.

My job is to convince that Jesus inherited a pre fallen nature and I’m needing some help doing this.

 

[Bookcat]

As to concupiscence --Christ was free from such as he was from the original sin.

It is good to add too that the Immaculate Conception was not necessary for Christ. It was certainly fitting that his Mother be preserved from original sin but it was not a necessity.

 

[Odell]

As to concupiscence --Christ was free from such as he was from the original sin.

It is good to add too that the Immaculate Conception was not necessary for Christ. It was certainly fitting that his Mother be preserved from original sin but it was not a necessity.

 

[Nita]

…My job is to convince that Jesus inherited a pre fallen nature and I’m needing some help doing this.

But Jesus didn’t inherit a pre-fallen nature. Human nature consists of a material human body and an immaterial human soul. If you say Jesus had a prefallen human nature, that means both His human body and His human soul were like Adam’s prior to Adam’s fall. Now, prior to the fall, pain,suffering and death were not present in Adam’s body. Therefore, if Our Lord’s body had been one like Adam’s before he sinned - prefallen - then Jesus’ body would not have been one that could experience suffering, pain and death. “Prefallen nature” is too broad a term. It would be better to say that Jesus’ human soul was like Adam’s soul before he sinned.

 

[Nita]

What’s being said here is that by believing that Jesus inherited a pr-fallen nature that it leads to teachings such as the immaculate conception. Makes sense to me because I have argued Jesus inherited his human nature from his mother whom was made pure from conception.

I think you’ll have trouble with that logic. Jesus’ sinless human soul doesn’t necessitate a mother who’s soul was sinless from conception — for a couple of reasons:

1. if it did, then one would have to say Mary’s parents would have to have been sinless; and then, her parent’s parents,…
2. we do not inherit our human souls from our parents. Each soul is directly created by God and infused into the body.

 

[Odell]

But Jesus didn’t inherit a pre-fallen nature. Human nature consists of a material human body and an immaterial human soul. If you say Jesus had a prefallen human nature, that means both His human body and His human soul were like Adam’s prior to Adam’s fall. Now, prior to the fall, pain,suffering and death were not present in Adam’s body. Therefore, if Our Lord’s body had been one like Adam’s before he sinned - prefallen - then Jesus’ body would not have been one that could experience suffering, pain and death. “Prefallen nature” is too broad a term. It would be better to say that Jesus’ human soul was like Adam’s soul before he sinned.

Idk because I always believed our body is a manifistation of our spirit. Meaning we do not have a disembodiment of spirit and body we have a union of the two, and this is what it means to be fully human. “Where the flesh is one, one also is the spirit.” CCC 1642

Just because the consequence remains pain, suffering and death does not mean we have not been restored to, and by sanctifying grace and made fully human. Remember “by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so many were made righteous by one mans obedience.” What Adam lost Christ restored. Againsin is not the way of being fully man but the way of misusing our humanity.

Pain and suffering and death remain as do our temporal consequences to sin. This is the point of penance; openly accepting the temporal consequences to our sin. The consequences remain even when fully forgiven and fully restored. As with David and his son. David was forgiven/restored yet still suffered the loss of his son. * * *

 

[Odell]

I think you’ll have trouble with that logic. Jesus’ sinless human soul doesn’t necessitate a mother who’s soul was sinless from conception — for a couple of reasons:

1. if it did, then one would have to say Mary’s parents would have to have been sinless; and then, her parent’s parents,…
2. we do not inherit our human souls from our parents. Each soul is directly created by God and infused into the body.

Yes original sin is passed on and inherited from the parent to the child throughout generation to generation.

The question is can we do anything to restore our own nature ? The answer is no; we can do nothing. However God can and he does through the cross and through baptism.

Even though Original Sin has been removed our nature as Christians we are still inclined to sin because we still suffer from the effects of Original Sin.

Since it is the intervening work, and free gift, can see that it would not be necessary for Mary’s parents to have been likewise “immaculate” themselves at the time of Mary’s conception.*

And just as each of us receive this gift of divine intervention regardless of the state our parents happen to be in (and therefore a pagan, for example, can become an adopted son or daughter of the New Covenant even if their parents remain un-regenerated pagans), so too Mary’s reception of her gift was not dependent on the state of her parents.

If this is not so then*Jesus would not have taken on a sinless and uncorrupted human nature, but our fallen nature, and so He could not have been the New Adam, but a fallen son of Adam.