Was Jesus tempted sexually when he walked this earth?

[PaulSacramento]

My semantics comment was direct at Kurieuo.
Sorry for the confusion.

[Kurieuo]

My semantics comment was direct at Kurieuo.
Sorry for the confusion.

Re: the difference between "tempt" and "test"? Indeed it is semantics, and sometimes they make all the difference. Denominations often split off over such, this system of thought vs that system of thought, YEC vs OEC, end times, etc.

I recently watched a video of Ravi Zacharius preaching Jesus' Temptation on YouTube, and at the start he notes the meaning of "testing". So I'd be in good company with the semantics that such is more intended. But, so long as one has a correct understanding of the word "tempt" I don't mind its use.

That is, Jesus being tempted doesn't mean He ever had a heart that could be tempted by sin, unlike us who carry a broken human nature. Our human nature isn't in its natural state, but I believe was broken in our turning against God. This broken nature gets passed onto offspring as I see.

If anything, it is us who carry an imperfect and broken human nature, rather than Christ who kept such unbroken. It could be argued even that Christ was therefore more human than ourselves.

[Philip]

"For we do not have 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."

Whatever it is that Jesus endured, it has to do with a testing that appeals to the weakness of human flesh - sounds like temptation to me - and this would appear to mean that the very nature of it is common to the appeals to human weaknesses. He can sympathize because He had human experiences that commonly lead men into sin. Of course, Jesus' heart and mind were more than just human - but on some level, He identifies because He went through something that appealed to His flesh - if not, the experience wouldn't be the same "in every respect," and His sympathizing would be merely vicarious. I would say it was indeed possible for Jesus' flesh to be tempted - but His mind and heart were of God's - overriding any temptation.

[Kurieuo]

Paul discusses our weakness of our bodies. Amongsr other things, We grow tired, we grow hungry, we get sick, we bleed. We wrestle with such, get tested during such. Unless one wishes to take it a step further and claim Jesus during such weaknesses also lusted sexually in his heart, rather than merely experiencing his sexuality, then we must say Jesus committed adultery in his heart. If Jesus did such, then He can't attone for us, because He isn't fit to do so. We are therefore still in our sin and our faith in Christ is in vain, since we are being baptized into one who too didn't conquer sin while in the flesh.

[Kurieuo]

As a side when one says Jesus possessed both human and divine natures, each fully so, we must not say one part was more than human. Rather Jesus possessed a human mind and that's it. How to reconcile such with His divine nature, we have some clues in Phil 2, where while Jesus possessed the divine nature, emptied himself of such power when taking on human form. Jesus therefore was subservient to the Father, and had no power except that it be granted to Him.

During Satan's temptation, we see Jesus not really being tested with earthly stuff, but the challenge is much deeper. Christ is being tested as the Son of God, which the Gospels make clear. We know the divine implications of the term Son of God. Why is Satan testing Jesus' divinity, if Jesus' mind was indeed divine? This suggests to me that Jesus Himself had to learn about His own identity, and the Father must have revealed such to Him at some point. Satan was testing Jesus' trust in such. And again returned to test Jesus as the time came to do what was set for Him by the Father.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

I thing you are arguing semantics there my friend.

Who are you talking to?

Me, can't think of anyone else.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

My semantics comment was direct at Kurieuo.
Sorry for the confusion.

Oh.

[patrick]

I thought this analysis was pretty relevant to the topic: http://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most- ... ew-527-28/

Matthew 5:27–28: Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη· οὐ μοιχεύσεις. ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ.

“You heard it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman in order to covet her (emphasis added) has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

I can't really read Greek, but the justification for this interpretation seemed sound. And note that the focus is not "covet" (which was chosen to highlight the parallels between Jesus's word and the Ten Commandments) but rather the "in order to" bit. IOW, the sin is purposefully lusting -- taking a gander because it's arousing. Given that, I think there's good reason to think that Jesus could've had sexual attraction, just simply never let those attractions sway his focus.

[PaulSacramento]

Since sexual desire was given to humans by God, there would be no reason for Jesus NOT to have felt it.
He simply did not given in.
Much like He felt hunger and thirst when fasting, but did not give in.

[Kurieuo]

I thought this analysis was pretty relevant to the topic: http://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most- ... ew-527-28/

Matthew 5:27–28: Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη· οὐ μοιχεύσεις. ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ.

“You heard it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman in order to covet her (emphasis added) has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

I can't really read Greek, but the justification for this interpretation seemed sound. And note that the focus is not "covet" (which was chosen to highlight the parallels between Jesus's word and the Ten Commandments) but rather the "in order to" bit. IOW, the sin is purposefully lusting -- taking a gander because it's arousing. Given that, I think there's good reason to think that Jesus could've had sexual attraction, just simply never let those attractions sway his focus.

Good break down, I couldn't really fault it.

There is a difference between looking at a woman with physical attraction, the natural uncontrolled physical responses, and then the mind giving rational assent to such to continue that provocation of thought through to taking her to one's self. We're being more exact here, as I'd just not considered some young Christian men who think a physical response of attraction (to be separated as a precursor to a continued "rational" entertainment of such), that they believe in such their bodies must always have zero attraction (at some point it will happen, it is natural and proper for us to covet a woman at some point otherwise we might never seek to be married). For myself, I therefore attach improper rational thought, and I think "lust" does capture that. Yet, for some, I can see how "lust" also encompasses much less e.g., your eye catches a woman who is very attractive and perhaps without any real thought other things happen. It is only when suggested to your mind, that you further entertain the what it would be like to have sex with them and you continue the whole fantasy playing out, that such might be wrong.

The verses that immediately follow seem to go with that train of thought too, perhaps being in the company of beautiful women is all too much for some men, that they can't control their thoughts and desires. So Jesus says:

• “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
  
  “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Staples responds to someone about masturbation in the comments section, commenting on the "right hand" verse as a possibly allusion to masturbation:

• Good question, John. While I don’t think the Bible condemns masturbation (the usual interpretation of the Onan story doesn’t get it right), it also doesn’t seem that masturbation is “one of the proper outlets,” either. Actually, Matthew putting “and if your right hand causes you to stumble” immediately after this statement about coveting a woman may be seen as an indirect reference to masturbation. It’s not entirely clear, but it’s the closest thing in Scripture you’ll find to a statement about masturbation. Given the general outlook on sex in Scripture, though, I’d say masturbation would not be included among the “proper outlets,” which are limited to heterosexual marital relations whenever discussed.

As for Jesus, the matter is different since it'd be wrong to compare apples (what is proper for our lives) and oranges (what is proper for His life). Would it had been wrong for Jesus to get married and have a family? In one sense, no because there's nothing wrong with our having a family. Yet, in another sense, yes, because He was given a very specific purpose, and His purpose was not to have a family and settle down, but to do His Father's work.

I think we'd all agree Jesus' purpose was something more than we'd have. Therefore what counts as a "proper covetness" for us (when we're seeking a wife), would always have been improper to rationally entertain for Jesus. But, I largely think it was a non-issue for Him since I think He'd have craved and received satisfaction in a more unique and fulfilling manner. If anything, the one thing He possibly could have craved, was the unity He'd lost in the Godhead in coming in the form of man. Yet, He freely gave up such, in a pure love for us that I think incomprehensible to many of us.

[Blessed]

I always assumed yes and that everyone thought that as well...

But obviously not?

Would like to get people's opinions.

It's pure speculation.I lean towards "no". Because Jesus was the only "person" to walk the earth without sinning. That being said I don't even know how you could survive amougst human kind without sinning. After a while, humans would probably shun or stone you to death. Or crucify you.

There was a series of books called "The Lost Books of the Bible". One of the books claims Jesus was married. These were supposidly books exluded from the New Testemant by the Catholic Church. However I am not an expert on these books. I know nothing about them. I think I read a little. But they seemed out of sync with Jesus's character so I stopped reading.