Interesting question up at Prosblogion. Did Jesus desire to sin? It's an interesting and obviously controversial question. Allow me to outline the argument from Prosblogion along with my initial thoughts, reconsiderations, and the place the question has in LDS theology.
Consider the following argument:
Now add in this additional argument that makes use of (3).
Now Mormons, given our materialism or at least quasi-materialism might at first glance appear to be able to have no trouble with (3) and (5). This would be for two reasons. The first would be that our body, which is us in a fundamental way, has instincts, cognitive structures and the like which all lead us to have desires for sin. Jesus, if he were truly fully human, would have these too. As I've discussed here before, I think a common reading of the atonement scriptures in the Book of Mormon is that one crucial aspect of the atonement is the resurrection which changes our bodies and thus can change the brain and by extension the physical component to the cognitive structures.
Here's the place where we run into difficulties. The concept of being born again in the Book of Mormon as well as the teachings on restoration at our judgement. The key text here is Alma 41. Now we can perhaps try to escape the dualist language a bit by considering the Jewish context of the two inclinations I mentioned the other day. In other words the issue is less having the desire than determining which of the two classes of desires dominate. While that might seem to resolve the issue, at least partially, consider this verse from the chapter following.
If he has desired to do evil, and has not repented in his days, behold, evil shall be done unto him, according to the restoration of God. (Alma 42:28)
Also this earlier chapter on being born again.
...and they did all declare unto the people the selfsame thing—that their hearts had been changed; that they had no more desire to do evil. (Alma 19:33)
Now the easy way out of this conundrum is simply to say that there is an equivocation over desire here. Certainly, one might say, temptation only makes sense as temptation if there are competing desires. For example no one would say that one is tempted to break ones diet when a plate of dog feces is put on the table. Yet we do say that one is tempted if a bowl of ice cream (or some other desirable food) is placed before them. Why is that? Because the competing desires (not eating versus eating) must be present and in conflict. The overcoming of temptation is the sacrificing of base desires for better ones.
Let us thus say that we have Desire1 which are individual desires for classes of events. We then arrange all of these into Desire2, which are the ultimate desires, of which there are two members - the desire for good and the desire for evil. God judges us in terms of Desire2 and not in terms of having Desire1.
Note how this makes sense. For instance the same desire might be good or evil in different circumstances. Context matters. So if I am hungry I desire to eat. If I am fasting it might be good not to eat. Thus we distinguish them.
There's obviously more I can write on this. But I posted this question to LDS-Phil and there's a bit of activity on it there.
Just one note, I think I want to do a followup post on this bringing in Heidegger's notion of for-the-sake-of-which that I think is illuminating. (Although I think you can also use some aspects of Aristotle to get at the same thing)
An other way of looking at the issue was brought up in the comments at Prosblogion.
Sin isn't the desiring of something sinful. Rather it is the desire to disobey God. So I could desire something wrong, but it is the higher desire of whether I want to disobey God in this that end up being the real decision. And that does fall naturally into the dualistic tendency in the Book of Mormon. (That's also where I was going to head with Heidegger)
Was Jesus actually tempted to sin, or was it just that Satan was tempting him to sin? Huge difference.
Do you mean by that last part that Satan tempted him or that Satan tried to tempt him? They mean different things. If he just tried, then your division works. If Satan tempted him then Jesus actually was tempted.
The issue of whether he was tempted versus tempted to sin is a key difference though, as I mentioned in the comment above.
The main reason many people think Jesus has to really be tempted is that this is part of being human - having desires one must subjugate.
I meant that perhaps Satan just tried to tempt him. Like putting the plate of rubbish in front of someone who's fasting - not much of a temptation really. I guess I just imagine Jesus being so strong as to be above it, even if Satan was trying like crazy to tempt him. But, I'm a lousy scriptorian, so I can't really back it up with anything substantial, i'm afraid!
Perhaps I am not sufficiently trained in the philosophical method to understand this quote:
"Sin isn't the desiring of something sinful. Rather it is the desire to disobey God."
If I have a word of wisdom problem, and I want to have my cup of Starbucks, and in fact do, how is it that I desire to disobey God? Aren't I really succumbing to my desire for the Starbucks? I don't really want to disobey God. I really want the Starbucks. I want to obey God, but my Starbucks desire is greater and I fail. Help me out here.
Guy, perhaps if you look at the example of the fasting Christ. Was it a sin that he was hungry? I think not. When you go without food, you are hungry. Eating isn't a sin in most situations. However, presented with a situation where eating would be sinful (in the instance when Christ was tempted), Christ's desire to eat remains without sin. It would be the desire to act out of harmony with the Father to fill that desire that is sinful. No?
You succumb to your desire for the Starbucks because you desire to knowingly act against what God asked you. i.e. you let the desire to coffee control you such that you desire to act against God. An other way of looking at it is that we have multiple competing desires and we decide which desires we privilege or let reign. That's more the way that I think the ancient Jews looked at it with their notion of the evil inclination that I discussed the other day.
Admittedly the Starbucks things isn't the best example since that aspect of the Word of Wisdom isn't really a moral sin in the sense of say adultery but is more part of our covenant which God has asked us to do. i.e. he's not necessarily asking it because it is intrinsically wrong. And obviously even in the 19th century Mormons viewed the Word of Wisdom quite different from today - and lots of even Church leaders drank alcohol or coffee in the 19th century with a somewhat difficult transition in the 1930's when the modern view was introduced.
When I saw the picture that accompanied your post, I thought you would bring up the example of Christ asking in Gethsemane that the cup be taken from him. Christ's prayer seems to indicate the following:
1) Christ's will was not in harmony with the Father's in this instance.
2) Christ didn't know for sure what the Father's will was.
3) Christ put the Father's will above his own.
I realize there are other ways to interpret his prayer, but my interpretation gives me comfort when my desires are contrary to God's will, or when I don't know his will but I know that I would follow it if I knew it.
I think the problem is with proposition two. It misses the point of the temptation narrative -- we need to think in terms of reader response. It is not Jesus who is tempted in the temptation narrative, but the *reader*. The narrative awakens the reader to his fallen nature by showing that "temptation" only remains so to the sinner who is fundamentally unlike Christ. By making us aware that we have fallen, the text opens up the possibility of a return (through the dialectic?), that is, of grace.
I'm not sure that the tempting of Jesus by Satan in the narrative is the only source for the idea. I think one could argue (as has been done in the LDS-Phil discussion) that for Jesus to be fully human he'd have to have desires like us that he overcomes.
The idea that the tempting narrative isn't really about Jesus being tempted but about our being tempted sounds difficult to accept, I confess. I can see why one might read it that way. (And once again, there were several on LDS-Phil who took the view that Jesus really wasn't tempted) I'm afraid I just have a hard time buying that without some extra textual clues. Mainly because of the context that Jesus is a man.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble