Featured Was Jesus ever disobediant?

Zaac---from the center of my heart I want you to know how much I appreciate your post here!!! Have a great day, Friend!!:type::thumbs::thumbs:

 

I believe I know what you are trying to say, but sinlessness does not mean that a person does not benefit from learning. I would posit that Jesus would learn to express the good that He possessed in His nature.

Remember, Jesus continually grew in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and humankind.

It is difficult for our minds - so influenced by 2000 years of Christian teaching about the sinfulness of humankind - to differentiate between what is "human" and what is "sin." If we don't think carefully about it, we can come up with some strange ideas that assume that all bodily functions are inherently sinful and so a person who hopes to please God cannot experience physical pleasure without sinning. Therefore, no good food, no sexual relations in marriage (except for the unfortunately necessary obligation to procreate), no enjoyment of the good things in life.

It is human to have to learn how to control one's body (the primary goal of early childhood) and develop one's mind (a God-mandated calling, BTW), as well as grow in our relationship to God. It is not sin if Jesus hit His thumb with a hammer while learning the trade in Joseph's shop. It is not a sin that Jesus more likely had to learn to walk. It is not sin that Jesus had to learn the Torah, the prophets and the writings as he grew up instead of just having all of that when He was born. It was not sin that He asked the greatest Jewish minds sincere questions when He was at the temple at 12 years old. (They were amazed at the profundity of His questions, His blazing intellect, and His ability to lay bare the weaknesses of their presuppositions. The great minds of Jewish life and Jesus could not get enough of each other, so much so that they were only interrupted when His parents came to get Him a few days later.) It is not sin that Jesus could not carry the heavy cross beam all the way to the site of His crucifixion because He was so weak from His torture and sufferings.

The Incarnation is a very difficult and challenging thing to meditate on, because it has enormous implications for the way we are to live our lives in Christ.

 

Zaac, I appreciate the tone of what is being said here, but if we are to be disciples of Christ (which is what He has called us to do - not just believe certain propositions that we might passively go to heaven), these questions are extremely important.

If we are going to make process in sanctification by cooperating with God to learn to do the things that Jesus taught us to do, then we are going to need to persevere and work with the Spirit by expending effort. When we fail - as we will - we shouldn't give up, but figure out where things went wrong and try again. That's how we grow in grace. When we were children learning to walk, we didn't just start walking never to fall again. There was a long process of tentative steps, falls, and holding on to the hands of our parents. In the same way, the Jesus holds our hand - and sometimes, hands off, calls us into something he is doing - and we are empowered by the Spirit to take those steps of faith well beyond what we have been capable of doing on our own. Just like a human parent, God is not angry with us when we fail trying to do good, but picks us up, binds our wounds, and asks us to try again.

We are called to model Jesus. Reflection on how Jesus prepared Himself for ministry is essential to Christian growth.

 

I said Impassable-my bad

I meant impeccability. Christ eas incapable of sin since He is God

 

If disobedience = sin then no, Jesus was never disobedient.

He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death-- even to death on a cross. - Philippians 2:8

 

But why are they extremely important Baptist Believer? To make disciples and to teach them to obey everything that He has commanded kinda demands that one believe that Jesus is God. And God is perfect.

One of the reasons God sent Himself to save us is because one covered in sin wasn't capable of forgiving the same sin, let alone saving another fellow sinner.

It demanded the PERFECT, SINLESS Lamb of God.

So to the Believer saved by grace through faith, why would it even be an afterthought to debate whether or not Jesus was disobedient?

How can God be disobedient when He is the measure of obedience? How can a house divided of itself stand?

This is just one of those questions that probably fascinates people, but just doesn't need to be thought about too much because the answer for a follower of Christ is simply NO.

Indeed. But reflection on whether or not he was disobedient is not. If anyone gets bogged down on that, perhaps we need to put on the brakes and find out what god it is they think saved them?

 

I am not one of them but there are those (or used to be those) here at the BB who believe it was possible for Christ to have sinned whilst He was here in the flesh.

HankD

 

It seems like you have boiled down all of Jesus' teaching to the affirmation that Jesus is Divine (co-equal with the Father and the Spirit). While Jesus is certainly Divine - He was/is the very image of God - He didn't actually spend as much time on that issue as some people seem to preach. Once to take that Jesus is God as a given (and I do), then you should pay careful attention to what He says to do. He calls us to do all sorts of things like loving our enemies. When was the last time you heard of a church advertising a class on how to love one's enemies? It doesn't just happen. We can cooperate with the Spirit to learn to love others. Jesus, and Paul, also taught us how to make enormous progress in setting aside sin and living and moving in the power of the Spirit. Of course folks immediately get upset when you talk about victory over sin and they'll start dismissing any success in that area, demanding that we must provide an example of someone who is now completely sinless, but that's a false dichotomy. The New Testament, as well as the Old, is clear that we can make enormous progress leaving behind our sinful habits and desires.

Having said that, our example for all of this is Jesus. We need to think deeply about the difference between being human and indulging in sin. The Incarnation of Jesus is the perfect example of that and the Gospels paint that picture vividly.

It sounds like you would have us just assert our conviction that "Jesus is God" and be done with the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus also came as a living example of life as God would have us live it.

So you are holding atonement theory against the direct teaching of the Gospels that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and humankind?

You can hold to both at the same time.

Furthermore, the real issue here is whether or not disobedience is always sin. Among other things, it depends upon who is being disobeyed.

He is the measure of obedience, but He's much more than that. He demonstrates how to act in all kinds of situations. Should Jesus have obeyed the religious leaders of His day at all times? Should He have repented in the Nazareth synagogue when the fellowship of the synagogue got so angry at His message that they tried to kill Him?

Jesus is not opposed to Jesus. I'm not sure why you think this is relevant.

I'm glad you've done the thinking for everyone. Saves a lot of time. Unfortunately, it is not biblical and is actually DISOBEDIENT to God since we are called to love God with our minds. Moreover, God inspired Luke to tell us about Jesus growing in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and humankind. How can the sinless and obedient Son of God grow in wisdom? How can the sinless and obedient Son of God grow in favor with God? What does that mean for us? Oops. I'm not supposed to think about these things since you've told me not to do it...

I find it interesting that you put salvation in the past tense, as if it is essentially complete and we are waiting for death of the Second Coming. Jesus doesn't call people to a passive - "saved" - position, He calls people to enter into His life, the life of the Kingdom. His essential message (as was John the Baptist's and the early church - including Paul) was "repent for the Kingdom of God (or the Heavens) is at hand." We are called into activity in God's Kingdom which involves learning how to have Christ formed in us through modeling Jesus. This is not a "what would Jesus do" kind of thing, but a lifetime of training and disciplines that break our sinful habits and allow the Spirit to more easily work in us, building new habits of righteousness.

 

I hopeunderstands that believing in the peccability of Christ is heresy. BTW, at one time I believed it as well

 

He's an ogre. Don't expect anything but obnoxiousness from him. You're handling him just fine here. :thumbsup:

Whew, thanks for that. I was scratching my head trying to recollect something pertaining to the impassibilty of Christ!

 

Good stuff.

Many years ago I set aside the education I had received in church and started over with agnosticism - leaning heavily toward atheism.

Over the course of about 18 months, I studied a number or religious texts and rather quickly was able to dismiss most of them because they were not tied into the world I experienced. I landed again upon the Bible, a book that I had avoided until the very end so that I would not be unfairly influenced by its familiarity.

I read it from cover to cover several times, and the New Testament more than a dozen times over the course of about 14 months - reading, on average, about four hours a night. I spent almost all of my free time getting familiar with the story as a reader, not a theologian. Over the course of that time, I started putting together a theology based upon my reading, not what I had always been told. Among many surprises were that the Old Testament "heroes" were not very heroic most of the time. That Jesus had a lot of trouble with His disciples and actually had quite a bit to say that wasn't taught in my Baptist church. And I noticed that the first century New Testament church had massive problems, even though God was using it in an amazing way.

But one of the biggest things that captured my imagination what that Jesus was actually human - really human. He was also divine, but folks in my circles love to camp out on that side of things. What makes Jesus' humanness so compelling to me is that He dealt with many of the same issues I did, yet did not sin. He life was ruled by love - sometimes hard love - and redemption.

When in the pages of the Gospels He called me to "follow," I knew it was in a very different way that my home church wanted me to walk the aisle, get baptized, and stay out of trouble so I would go to heaven instead of burning forever in a fiery hell. The call was for life, not for the afterlife, although I would have to die to my way of living and adopt His way.

The discussion here is about His way of life. Sometimes that involves disobeying persons using authority in an ungodly way. It also means that life is about growing in grace, not obsession about sins. We can make enormous strides in overcoming sin in our lives. This teaching that wants us not to consider the Incarnation works against that calling.

 

...and I agree with Aaron, I can't imagine Him being anything but extraordinary in every way His entire life.

 

I certainly would never deny that Jesus "learned" intellectually and experientially or that he did not grow in both wisdom and knowledge.

However, if you will look at the context from which you drew my statement from, I am contrasting the immoral inclination that comes with the fallen nature which manifests itself by evil attitudes and actions, regardless, if the conscience is capable of discerning it is evil IN INFANTS, versus the nature of Christ as a child who was inclined to righteousness from birth.

The difference here is one of moral inclination which needs no training as it naturally expresses itself. In the regard to fallen mankind there is an evil inclination that operates within them as a law, in contrast in regard to Christ there is a righteous inclination that operated within him as a law. Neither had to be learned. In the fallen child by nature it had to be restrained by discipline but never had to be trained to naturally express itself.

However, the evil inclination in fallen beings can grow and learn to express evil in more devious ways, just as Christ as a child could learn to express that righteous inclination in more additional righteous ways.

The point is that sin could not be found "in him" but it can be found in all fallen humans from birth. Neither did Christ have to be trained to be inclined to righteousness as that came natural, just as fallen man never had to be trained to be inclined to unrighteousness as that came naturally.

 

I think we all agree that Jesus did not sin. But COULD he? If he was unable to sin, what was the point of the Temptation?

 

How do you define the word "temptation"? Certainly, exposure to evil would manifest his inherent inclination to righteous. However, are you suggesting that the nature in Christ was neutral and could be morally tempted to be inclined toward sin?

 

A lot Tom.

One could also ask the question - What was the point of His Baptism?

It was one more evidence of His "impeccability" though He was truly man, truly God.

Also, The account was not just about Christ but Satan and the confrontation with Christ.

It says something about Satan as well as it does about Christ.


HankD

 

I believe the greatest temptation of the Christ, Jesus was in the garden. I believe Hebrews 12:4 is speaking of Jesus resisting unto blood striving against sin.The sin of, not being obedient unto death even the death of the cross. Of not being able to say, "It is finished."

From Albert Barnes on Hebrews 5:7 1st para containing what other men had to say.

In that he feared - Margin, “For his piety.” Coverdale, “Because he had God in honor.” Tyndale, “Because he had God in reverence.” Prof. Stuart renders it, “And was delivered from what he feared.” So also Doddridge. Whitby, “Was delivered from his fear.” Luther renders it, “And was heard for that he had God in reverence” - “dass er Gott in Ehren hatte.” Beza renders it, “His prayers being heard, he was delivered, from fear.” From this variety in translating the passage, it will be seen at once that it is attended with difficulty. The Greek is literally “from fear or reverence” - ἀπὸ της εὐλαβείας apo tēs eulabeiasThe word occurs in the New Testament only in one other place, Hebrews 12:28, where it is rendered “fear.” “Let us serve him with reverence and godly fear.” The word properly means “caution, circumspection;” then timidity, fear; then the fear of God, reverence, piety.

I believe Jesus the Son of God, born of woman feared. the death. Even after the Father sent an angel to comfort him he was still in anguish unto the sweating of blood.

And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Heb 2:15

Did Jesus not also have to experience that fear and be raised from the dead in order to release us from that fear?

Jesus's obedience became the faith, the belief of God the Father in the blood (wherein was his life Lev 17:11) of his Son, when Jesus obediently gave his life for our sins and therefore was raised from the dead by God his Father, giving him a name above all names.

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Phil 2:8

That word, "wherefore," is relative his being in form of man and becoming obedient unto death.

Yes Jesus born of the virgin Mary could have sinned. He could have rejected being obedient unto death even the death of the cross and had he, he would have died, as a man, and there would have been no salvation. In dying, one would have surely died.

Jesus was the faith of God and became the substance of things hopped for the evidence of things not seen. The Promised Hope, Eternal Life.

The promise God made before the world begin. A promise made for the Son of God, born of woman, taken from man, created in his image for obedience.

Would that promise be made for a man who would not remain in obedience or for a man who would remain in obedience?

Show me from the word of God where this is not correct.