In our previous issue, we included our response to a correspondent regarding the position taught in the Logos magazine that the Lord Jesus never experienced internal temptation. In this issue we reprint the response that was given by the then Logos Editor, Graeham Mansfield (GEM) to that correspondence, and our reply.
“Firstly, I do not teach that the Lord was “not tempted in all points like as we are,” but hold that such temptation came from a carnal mind (the source of sinful thoughts, which such temptation to sin, always is). The Master was not guilty because being tempted, as guilt comes from the manifestation or suggestions of evil. I feel that you misunderstand our position, but also believe that you are mistaken if you believe that thoughts of transgression are not sin. The Lord clearly says that they are (Mark. 7:21) and shows in the example of a man “who lusteth after a woman” that he has committed sin already in his heart. This is not to say that the Lord did not experience the impact of temptation, but it does say that he did not develop the carnal mind which is enmity against God; he did not originate the desire to tempt himself to sin, because that would of itself be sin. “Sin in the flesh” is a physical condition; the “thinking of the flesh” is a moral situation. It is incorrect to confuse them as being the same. You quote Romans 7, which shows that a man in such a “wretched” condition of the warfare between mind and flesh has no salvation apart from “God which is in Christ Jesus.” Therefore, if Christ was identical in condition to the apostle Paul, he would have been a “wretched man,” and not able to escape from the situation in which he finds himself. This was the teaching of Bro. Thomas, Bro. Roberts, Bro. H.P.Mansfield, all of whom taught that the Lord was challenged by an external tempter, which tempter, by the way, constantly appears in the Gospel records, since scripture claims that the “devil departed from him for a season.” The devil obviously returned at the end of that time.
Some of your expressions are confusing. For example you say that “temptations arise from our flesh,” but this is incorrect. Temptations arise from the mind, called “the minding of the flesh” (Rom. 8:6).
You appear to claim that the Lord “experienced the temptation of covetousness” which Paul claims to be sin (Rom. 7). I cannot agree that the Lord manifested the moral issues of sin.
You further claim that the Lord experienced all the kinds of temptation we do. I suffer from the temptation of having sinned already!! My mind develops the spirit of experienced sin. Do you consider this was also experienced by Christ! I hope not.
Kind regards,
Graeham
Reply:-
There does indeed appear to be some confusion. The plain teaching of Logos, as we demonstrated by copious citations in the last issue, is that the Lord’s experience of temptation differed from that of his brethren, in that he was never tempted from within: “temptation to sin was, of necessity, introduced from external sources …” (Statement of Logos policy, Logos Oct 1999, p7). Again, in speaking of Heb 4:15, “if we use the other definition (“tempted to sin”) we have him involved in failure which is unthinkable” (Logos, Sept 1999, p 372). And in his reply, GEM again suggests that the Lord never experienced the temptation of Covetousness: “You appear to claim that the Lord “experienced the temptation of covetousness” which Paul claims to be sin (Rom. 7). I cannot agree that the Lord manifested the moral issues of sin”. In addition, GEM implies that the Lord never experienced the thinking of the flesh. Therefore, the teaching which states that the Lord’s experience of temptation differed from his brethren in these respects, does say that the Lord was “not tempted in all points like as we are.” And this is confirmed by GEM himself in the last paragraph of his reply: “You further claim that the Lord experienced all the kinds of temptation we do. I suffer from the temptation of having sinned already!! My mind develops the spirit of experienced sin. Do you consider this was also experienced by Christ! I hope not”.
The reason why we do not accept the teaching of Logos is not because we do not understand it (I have discussed it fully with a number of members linked with the magazine, including the Editor himself some years ago), but because it is different to what Scripture teaches, saying that the Lord “was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15). We maintain that if we say that the Lord was never tempted from within, yet we are, he was not tempted “in all points like as we are”, and that also his perfect example of overcoming sin would provide us with no example of how to overcome the temptations which emanate from our own hearts. And as we said in our article, such an assertion also greatly diminishes the 2-fold victory of Christ in overcoming his own nature as well as external promptings, to merely resisting the temptations put to him by others.
GEM claims we are mistaken in claiming that thoughts of transgression are not sin, whereas “The Lord clearly says that they are” (Mark. 7:21). Yet when we look up Mark 7:21, this is not what we find: “for from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders”. So then, the Lord does not say “the thoughts of transgression are sin”, but that “evil thoughts” come from within! And with this, we fully agree. With regard to the Lords teaching that “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mat 5:28) we demonstrated in the article that the Lord is here referring to a man who is lusting purposefully – “to lust after her”. The deliberate choice of wanting to lust is different from an involuntarily temptation which has been instantly overcome. These are the “evil thoughts” which the Lord refers to in Mark 7:21, purposeful ideas, or thoughts to do evil, which are actively encouraged and nurtured by those whose only desire is to fulfil the natural lust of the flesh.
If the Lord Jesus was tempted “in all points” like us, it is wrong to say that he could never have experimentally known what covetousness is, as GEM claims. In Romans 7, the Spirit through Paul does not state that to experience the temptation of covetousness is sin, but rather, “I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom 7:7). So then, the giving of the Law which commanded “thou shalt not covet” taught Paul what lust was. That Law demonstrated that it was wrong to deliberately cultivate lustful thoughts, and that they must needs be overcome – which our Lord Jesus did perfectly. GEM’s reference to our citation of Rom 7 in the article is disingenuous, for we did not claim that “Christ was identical in condition to the Apostle Paul”. The position of the Lord was manifestly different, in that he had the strength to overcome the “law of sin” within his members, whereas the Apostle Paul (like us) did not, meaning therefore, that he was not “a wretched man”. The point of comparison, however, is that Paul had the “law of sin” residing in him (Rom 7:17,23), as did our Lord, for God through him “condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3), and as Bro Thomas reasoned, this he could not do, unless it were there to condemn!
The reference to the teaching of the Pioneers, and HP Mansfield to the wilderness temptations of the Lord is again disingenuous. We do not deny that the Lord was tempted externally – but neither do we deny that he was tempted internally (as do Logos). The wilderness temptations, according to the Pioneers, provides an example of where the Lord was tempted externally – but they did not use this to claim that all the temptations of Christ were external, as the reference to their teaching in this context implies.
Finally, with reference to some of our expressions being confusing, Bro Graeham only presents one example, where we allegedly said “temptations arise from our flesh”. We agree that this phrase is confusing – which is why we never used it once in the article. To claim that this is what we teach is not true, since we did not use the phrase. To be precise, lusts emanates from the principle of sin which dwells within us: “sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence …” (Rom 7:8). Thus, the Scripture uses the term “lust of the flesh” to summarise this (Gal 5:16, 1Jno2:16) – that is, lust emanating from the law of sin in the flesh.
It is notable that GEM does not deal with most of the points made in the article; most particularly, our reference to the fact that at Gethsemane, the Lord Jesus did pray, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Mat 26:39). So then, the Lord did have a “will” which was at variance with his Father – which means thoughts – and thoughts which were not in harmony with the Father’s thoughts. He was “tempted in all points like as we are”, and the example of Gethsemane provides a powerful example of how he overcame every temptation – both within, and without, that with gentle resignation, he submitted himself to do his Father’s Will. The Lord Jesus then does provide a powerful example to us, that we, like him, might seek to make the Father’s will our own, striving to overcome the inherent lust of the flesh.
Christopher Maddocks
