16. Professor Godet's views on this subject are very far from satisfactory, whether
exegetically or dogmatically. Happily, they fall far short of the notion of any internal
solicitation to sin in the case of Jesus, which Bishop Ellicott so justly denounces in
strongest language.
17. U.s. p. 110, note 2.
18. Deut. xxxiv. 1-3.
19. According to Siphré (ed. Friedmann p. 149 a and b), God showed to M oses Israel in
its happiness, wars, and misfortunes; the whole world from the Day of Creation to that of
the Resurrection; Paradise, and Gehenna.
But in saying this we have already indicated that, in such circumstances, the boundary-
line between the outward and the inward must have been both narrow and faint. Indeed,
with Christ it can scarcely be conceived to have existed at such a moment. The past, the
present, and the future must have been open before Him like a map unrolling. Shall we
venture to say that such a vision was only inward, and not outwardly and objectively
real? In truth we are using terms which have no application to Christ. If we may venture
once more to speak in this wise of the Divine Being: With Him what we view as the
opposite poles of subjective and objective are absolutely one. To go a step further: many
even of our temptations are only (contrastedly) inward, for these two reasons, that they
have their basis or else their point of contact within us, and that from the limitations of
our bodily condition we do not see the enemy, nor can take active part in the scene
around. But in both respects it was not so with the Christ. If this be so, the whole question
seems almost irrelevant, and the distinction of outward and inward inapplicable to the
present case. Or rather, we must keep by these two landmarks: First, it was not inward in
the sense of being merely subjective; but it was all real - a real assault by a real Satan,
really under these three forms, and it constituted a real Temptatio n to Christ. Secondly, it
was not merely outward in the sense of being only a present assault by Satan; but it must
have reached beyond the outward into the inward, and have had for its further object that
of influencing the future Work of Christ, as it stood out before His Mind.
A still more difficult and solemn question is this: In what respect could Jesus Christ, the
Perfect Sinless Man, the Son of God, have been tempted of the Devil? That He was so
tempted is of the very essence of this narrative, confirmed throughout His after- life, and
laid down as a fundamental principle in the teaching and faith of the Church. 20 On the
other hand, temptation without the inward correspondence of existent sin is not only
unthinkable, so far as man is concerned,21 but temptation without the possibility of sin
seems unreal - a kind of Docetism.22 Yet the very passage of Holy Scripture in which
Christ's equality with us as regards all temptation is expressed, also emphatically excepts
from it this one particular sin,23 not only in the sense that Christ actually did not sin, nor
merely in this, that 'our concupiscence'24 had no part in His temptations, but emphatically
in this also, that the notion of sin has to be wholly excluded from our thoughts of Christ's
temptations.25
20. Heb. iv. 15.
21. St. James i. 14.
22. The heresy which represents the Body of Christ as only apparent, not real.