Enjoying God
When People see You, does God look Good?
Jan 22, 2008In case you skipped it, let me repeat the question in the title: "When People see You, does God look Good?" Not many of us phrase it in precisely that way or even think in those terms. It's far more natural for us to ask, "When people see me, do I look good?" Do I impress them with my charisma? Are they captivated by my wit? Are they attracted by how I dress? Did they take note of my intelligence? Do they still think of me an hour or two later?
We are obsessed with what others think of us. We are elated when they find in us something to praise and are crushed when they are offended. That is why we are so given to self-commendation, self-promotion, and self-improvement. So often our very identity and thus our value hang suspended on the opinion of those who "see" us.
But wait a minute. If this sort of concern for self is so sinful, why did Paul "commend" himself to the Corinthians here in 2 Corinthians 6:4a? And doesn't this conflict with his earlier denunciation of self-commendation in 3:1? It would appear from these two texts that there are at least two sorts of self-commendation, one good (6:4a) and the other bad (3:1).
Let's take a closer look at this passage (6:4a), for Paul does not "commend" himself and leave it at that, as if his efforts were devoted to securing a positive response from the Corinthian church. It is as "servants of God", or more accurately, "ministers" of God, that he and his co-workers labor to elicit their approval. And the criteria to which he appeals as grounds for their acceptance are not very appealing: afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, hunger, slander, sorrow, etc. Not the sort of things one would typically include on a resume!
Evidently Paul believed that commending oneself as a minister of God was not only permissible, but mandatory, even godly. How so? What does it mean to draw attention to oneself as a minister of God and how does it avoid the sinful self-serving that Paul and other biblical writers so consistently condemn?
I want to suggest that commending oneself as a minister of God consists of living and acting and speaking in such a way that others think not of you but of him. They don't so much look to you as through you, and in the light of your life see him. Again, to use the words of the title above, it means conducting yourself in such a manner that when others see you, God looks good! Let me explain this by asking a series of pointed (and painful) questions.
When you pray, do people comment on your eloquence or God's excellency?
When you intercede in a corporate gathering, are those present impressed with your godliness or God's goodness?
On those occasions when your life is subject to public scrutiny, do people think of the heights of your abundance or the depths of your need? Are they inclined to think about your devotion, and how fortunate God is to have you as his "minister", or are they awakened to your utter dependency and God's endless supply?
When people see how I spend money, do they conclude that God is a priceless treasure, exceedingly valuable above all worldly goods?
When people observe my relationship with others, are they alerted to the power of Christ's forgiveness of me that alone accounts for my forgiveness of them?
When we open our mouths and speak of others in public (or private), are they made to think of Jesus in whose mouth no "deceit" was found (1 Peter 2:22), the one who, when reviled, "did not revile in return" (1 Peter 2:23)?
When we respond to injustice or mistreatment, are our words and ways the sort that lead them to glorify the God-man who "did not threaten" those who abused him "but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly" (1 Peter 2:23)?
When I am seen interacting with people of another race, do observers instinctively fix their thoughts on God's love for all without regard to color of skin or ethnic heritage?
If I am complimented for some accomplishment, does the way I receive it drive onlookers to give thanks to the Lord?
Do I preach the Word in such a way that eyes are riveted on me or turned upward to behold the beauty of Christ?
Is my use of leisure time or devotion to a hobby or how I speak of my wife the sort that persuades others that my heart is content with what God is for me in Christ?
Does my reaction to bad news produce in you doubt or fear, or does it inspire confidence to trust in God's providence?
When I feel disappointment or experience a shattered dream, is your trust in his promises diminished or enhanced?
Does my reaction to suffering inspire your comfort in him?
To use Paul's word, when I "minister" among you, are you captivated by my credentials or energized to find satisfaction in God's merciful sufficiency?
Paul couldn't have cared less about his own reputation, unless by seeing him they savored God. If his weakness magnified God's power, then by all means, watch. So long as his life was a window through which others might behold the goodness and grace of Christ, he was more than happy to commend himself to their scrutiny.
"Don't look at or to me," said Paul, "but through me, as a minister of God, to the fountain of all goodness and grace."
So again, when others see you, does God look good?
Sam
The Most Eloquent Advertisement for the Gospel (2 Cor. 6.3)
Jan 21, 2008Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, recently made news by announcing his intention to investigate several prominent Christian ministries to determine whether or not they have exploited their tax-exempt status as churches to provide themselves with opulent and lavish lifestyles. Those who've been asked by the Senator to submit financial records include Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, Eddie Long, and Paula White.
Without intending to pass premature judgment on these individuals, Senator Grassley's action is indicative of a belief that exists among most people, both Christian and non-Christian, that the conduct of a "minister" ought to be consistent with the content of his/her "message". Grassley evidently shares the opinion of many who believe that the church and its ministry are discredited by the disreputable behavior of those who are its leaders and members. Conversely, the message can be enhanced and adorned by the godliness, humility, and self-sacrifice of those who proclaim the gospel of Christ crucified.
Whether or not these six are living in a way that undermines the message or in some way brings reproach on the name of Christ is for each person to decide. But the fact remains that how we as Christians conduct ourselves in the sight of others has massive repercussions on their assessment of the gospel we preach.
No one knew this better than the apostle Paul. In fact, most of 2 Corinthians is concerned with his conduct as a gospel minister and whether or not it condemns or commends him as a genuine apostle of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 6:3-10 is perhaps the most explicit example of this in the entire book. We will spend several meditations unpacking its rich and instructive content. Here is what Paul said:
"We put no obstacle in anyone's way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry, but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything" (2 Cor. 6:3-10).
My concern in this meditation is solely with v. 3, where Paul writes, "We put no obstacle in anyone's way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry."
Although the ESV translates the verb simply as "we put", the present tense of the Greek should probably be rendered something along the lines of "we are trying to put no obstacle in anyone's way" with the emphasis on Paul's customary and repeated modus operandi. This is the consistent and committed posture of his labors as an apostle. There simply are no circumstances under which Paul would act any other way. There is never, ever an excuse for speaking or "ministering" in such a fashion that "fault" may be found with the good news of eternal life in Jesus Christ.
Paul's preeminent concern is with the "ministry" God has entrusted to him, not his own reputation or position or influence. The only self-commendation he cares for is as a "servant/minister" of God. He is more than willing to be slandered and ridiculed, beaten and imprisoned, just so long as the glorious good news of Christ crucified suffers no reproach.
The word translated to find "fault" (ESV) or be "discredited" (NASB) is a verb related to the noun momus, a name given to the Greek god of ridicule or mockery. Paul wants nothing in his life to be used by others as an excuse for laughing at the truth. If offense is to be taken at the gospel, let it be because of the content of what he proclaims and not any misconduct in his own life.
The "obstacle" or cause for offense is any questionable action or self-serving speech that would prompt people to doubt Paul's integrity or sincerity and thereby bring the gospel he proclaimed into disrepute or cause it to be ridiculed or censured. In the immediate context, in relation to the Corinthians, Paul might have in mind anything on his part that would hinder their acceptance of him or their fellowship with one another or their commitment to proclaim and advance the message of the gospel.
Of course, there is no guarantee that in conducting himself properly and in purity that Paul (or we) will avoid the condemnation of others. "He is thinking of unnecessary offense and unjustified censure" (Harris, 469; emphasis mine). The notion that eternal life is available only by faith in a crucified and risen messiah is inherently foolish "to those who are perishing" (1 Cor. 1:18). The Jews in Paul's day found it to be a "stumbling block" (1 Cor. 1:23a) and the Gentiles mocked it as "folly" (1 Cor. 1:23b). But where Paul was able to avoid putting an obstacle in anyone's path, "he professed to be scrupulously careful" (Harris, 469).
To illustrate Paul's point, consider this hypothetical conversation between a Christian ("Steve") and his unbelieving co-worker ("Mike").
Steve: "Mike, did you have an opportunity to read that book I gave you about Christianity?"
Mike: "Yes, and I have to be honest in saying that I was offended by much of what it said. I don't particularly like being told I'm morally depraved and a sinner! That's not the sort of language that ‘wins friends and influences people'! It's a ‘PC world', Steve, and people don't want to hear it."
Steve: "You're right. They don't. But what they want isn't of paramount importance. What they need is the truth, even if it hurts or causes offense. By the way, what was your impression of what the author said about Jesus Christ?"
Mike: "Honestly, I found it a bit ridiculous. That there is only one God who became a human being named Jesus is one thing. But to tell me that he lived a perfect life, died on a cross where he suffered for the sins of people like me, and then came back to life again; well, I felt like I was back in my college course on Greek mythology! Worst of all, though, is the argument that I need to ‘repent' of my sins and put my faith in this Jesus as my only hope for reconciliation with God. How absurd! How arrogant of you people!"
Steve: "I understand your reaction, Mike. Really, I do. But I want you to know that I'm praying for you, asking that the Spirit of God will give you eyes to see the beauty in what you now find ugly as well as a new spiritual taste for what you now find bitter. But let me ask you one more thing. Have I behaved in an offensive way? Do you see in me any hypocrisy or insincerity or do my words or actions come across as incompatible with what you know about Christianity? If so, I need to change."
Mike: "No, my beef isn't with you. Your life is remarkably consistent with your message. I wish I could say that of everyone I've known who called themselves Christians. But I can't."
Steve: "I appreciate that, Mike. But you should know that if there's anything ‘good' in me it's all because of the grace of God."
Mike: "See, that's just what I mean. I compliment you and you're so darn humble! That's a rare thing these days. In fact, if there's anything that makes me want to read the book again and at least think about the claims of Christ, it's the way you're so unashamed about your faith and your love for God. You seem so content and I've never heard you make a sexual comment about the girls in the office. Yeah, maybe I'll read it again and we can get together and talk about it."
Although not apostles, you and I are "servants of God" and have a "ministry" no less so than Paul. What "obstacles" do we put in the way of others seeing the glory of God revealed in the face of Jesus Christ? Do they find "fault" with your life? Or are they, like Mike, curious about why you turn from immorality and delight in marital fidelity? Are they intrigued by your passion for the beauty of God and your disdain for the tawdry and unseemly trivialities of this world?
When they speak of you behind your back, do they marvel at your contentment or mock you for joining others in fudging on your time sheet? Is it obvious, in the way you talk and work and live, that your happiness is rooted in a transcendent power that cannot be explained in mere earthly terms? To live in such a way that God looks good is costly. Treasuring him above all may not comport well with the ambitious and materialistic ethos of our day. But it pays a rich and eternal reward.
Let us never forget that the gospel itself is more than sufficient to offend self-centered and arrogant sinners. May it never be that we aggravate this effect with our boorish and self-aggrandizing behavior. "It is always true," writes Murray Harris, "that the life of the Christian is the most eloquent advertisement for the gospel" (469).
Sam
Receiving the Grace of God in Vain (2 Cor.6.1-2)
Jan 15, 2008I struggle to think of a more glowing endorsement than that which Paul gave the church in Thessalonica. He applauds them for the fact that when the gospel was preached they "received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit" (1 Thess. 1:6). Again, "when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers" (1 Thess. 2:13). Needless to say, no one would ever suggest that the Thessalonians had received the grace of God "in vain"!
Sadly, the same can't be said of everyone. Consider Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians:
"Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. For he says, ‘In a favorable time I listened to you, and in a day of salvation I have helped you.' Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation" (2 Corinthians 6:1-2).
What does Paul mean by "the grace of God"? And what does it mean to "receive" it "in vain"?
The first question is the easier of the two. It may be that "the grace of God" is simply Paul's shorthand way of referring to the gospel and its benefits. In light of the immediately preceding context, he may have specifically in mind the new attitude of 5:16, the new creation of 5:17, the reconciliation of 5:18-19, the righteousness of God of 5:21, etc. All of this is wrapped up in the word "salvation" in 2 Corinthians 6:2. Murray Harris is correct in pointing out that "within the wider context of the letter, ‘the grace of God' will also refer to the present opportunity that the Corinthians have to become fully reconciled to Paul" (458).
The second question, obviously, is more difficult to answer. Some believe he is urging them not to forfeit the grace of salvation which they had earlier received. In other words, it is an exhortation to persevere and to avoid apostasy.
Others suggest that the exhortation in vv. 1-2 is not directed to those Corinthians who are already born-again, but to those in Corinth who had repeatedly heard the gospel but had made no decision. Paul was not so naïve to think that everyone in the professing church was necessarily truly converted. Therefore, his command not to receive the grace of God in vain is equivalent to an exhortation to all men not to reject the gospel of Jesus Christ. But is "to receive in vain" really the same as to utterly "reject"? I don't think so, as I'll point out below.
God's grace may be received in vain when it is received superficially or externally, as in the parable of the soils (Luke 8:4-15; Matt. 13:18-23). There the seed (gospel) falls upon rocky ground or among thorns, to be snatched away or choked by the temptations of this world. This view is similar to the previous one, insofar as the people in view are unbelievers. The difference is that, according to this interpretation, people don't explicitly reject the gospel but "receive" and "believe" it, but only in a superficial way. Their so-called "faith" is spurious and therefore temporary.
Perhaps receiving the grace of God in vain pertains not so much to salvation per se, or its forfeiture, but to the loss of potential blessings related to spiritual growth, knowledge, and joy that they would suffer by rejecting Paul as their apostle. In other words, the people are truly saved. They have genuinely received the gospel and believed it, but they have failed to progress in their Christian growth and stand in danger of losing those spiritual blessings and rewards they otherwise might have obtained. Philip Hughes embraces a similar view and suggests that
"for them to receive the grace of God in vain meant that their practice did not measure up to their profession as Christians, that their lives were so inconsistent as to constitute a denial of the logical implications of the gospel, namely, and in particular, that Christ died for them so that they might no longer live to themselves but to His glory" (218-19).
In other words, the passionate conviction which accompanied their salvation had not as yet performed its transforming work in their lives. It is to that progressive transformation of their daily experience that Paul is urging and exhorting them.
Judith Gundry-Volf suggests that to receive the grace of God in vain may be referring largely, if not exclusively, to their opposition to the apostle himself. The context surrounding this statement is Paul's description of his ministry on their behalf and his attempt to restore good relations with the Corinthians (5:13-14; 5:18-6:1; see especially his impassioned appeal in 6:11-13). In Paul's opinion, to reject him is to reject the divine grace of which he is a minister. Gundry-Volf then argues that Paul's appeal is simply "for the sake of argument only" (280). I.e., he does not believe they will reject or deny him, but if they were to do so it would be tantamount to receiving the grace of God, which was his message to them, in vain.
I think the key to this difficult text is found in the word translated "vain" (Gk., kenos; cf. its use in Gal. 2:2; Phil. 2:16; 1 Thess. 3:5). It typically means either "empty" or without content or, as here, "vain" or without purpose or result. Harris argues that "to receive God's grace ‘in vain' (eis kenon) is not to ‘reject' it . . . or even to ‘neglect' it . . . but to receive it without profit, without the intended effect being achieved. The grace is accepted, but it never attains its goal; it comes to nothing" (458-59). If so, "Paul is exhorting his Corinthian converts not to fail to profit from the proffered divine grace, or, expressed positively, to give God's grace an effective welcome, to capitalize on opportunities for spiritual growth" (Harris, 459).
But how might they let God's grace come to no end?
Consider Paul's exhortation to the Colossians that they conduct themselves wisely "toward outsiders, making the best use of the time" (Col. 4:5) or "making the most of the opportunity". Similarly, if the Corinthians "squandered God-given opportunities for bringing spiritual benefit to themselves and to unbelievers . . . , and if they failed to exercise the ministry of reconciliation (5:18) and to fulfill their role as Christ's ambassadors (5:19); more specifically, if they accommodated the false apostles (11:13-15), or embraced a ‘different gospel' (11:4), or failed to repudiate paganism (6:14-18) and personal sin (7:1; 12:20-21), or spurned Paul's overtures of reconciliation (6:13; 7:2)" (Harris, 459), they would be guilty of having received the grace of God "in vain".
If this view is correct, and I'm inclined to think it is, Paul's appeal is to Christians that they avail themselves of God's gracious enabling so that the purpose or aim of their salvation might be attained. The "grace of God" is designed to equip believers to proclaim Christ and not themselves (4:5) and to live for Christ and not themselves (cf. 5:15). I also agree with Harris that "if God's grace flows continuously, a single failure to benefit from it would not stem the flow. What would be compromised, however, would be the receipt of commendatory recompense at Christ's tribunal (5:10)" (459).
To receive the grace of God in vain, therefore, is not to reject it altogether and live as an unbeliever, nor is it to receive the grace of God and subsequently forfeit or lose its saving power. Rather, Paul is talking about the urgency and importance of the Corinthians responding to God's grace in humble obedience and seizing every opportunity to "please" the Lord (2 Cor. 5:9) in how they live, speak, act, and perhaps especially in how they respond to his efforts to rebuild and restore a relationship that had been undermined by suspicion, false reports, and the sinister efforts of the false teachers in their city.
God's grace comes to us not simply once in the gospel but as a constant and never-ceasing flow of merciful enablement and sanctifying power. Like the Corinthians, we must be diligent to avail ourselves of it at all times, taking advantage of every occasion to do "good" (rather than "evil") so that it might attain to the goal for which God has bestowed it and so that we might receive "what is due" for what we, by means of that very grace, have "done in the body" (see 2 Cor. 5:10).
Sam
Could Jesus have Sinned? (2 Cor. 5.21)
Jan 08, 2008I "know" sin. I say this not because I can define sin, although I can. I say this not because I can identify sin when I see it, although I can also do that. I say it because I am a sinner. I "know" sin because I commit it, sadly, on a daily basis. My acquaintance with sin, therefore, does not come from associating with others who transgress or from reading a book on Hamartiology (the technical, theological term for the study of Sin). I "know" sin, as I said, because I, like David, was "brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). I "know" sin because I sin.
Jesus, on the other hand, "knew no sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Again, the apostle Paul doesn't mean by this that Jesus was unaware of the existence of sin or that he lived in isolation from those who commit sin. He was not intellectually ignorant of sin or unacquainted with its devastating consequences. He "knew no sin" in the sense that he never personally committed one. He was sinless.
How often do we pause and give thanks for the sinlessness of Christ? Were he not sinless, the entire scheme of reconciliation that Paul outlines in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 would fall flat on its face. The glorious and gracious work of God in reconciling the world to himself hinges on God "not counting" our trespasses against us because he has counted our trespasses against Christ. But this would be to no avail if Christ himself had committed trespasses which ought to have been "counted" against him. The reckoning or imputing of our guilt to Jesus, for which he then suffers the wrath of God in our stead, is only redemptive if he is himself personally guilt free.
The New Testament is crystal clear on this point. Although 2 Corinthians 5:21 is the only explicit affirmation of Christ's sinlessness in Paul's writings, we should also take note of his reference to the "obedience" of the Son in both Romans 5:19 and Philippians 2:8.
Jesus gave the religious leaders of his day every opportunity to identify some sin in his life. "Which one of you convicts me of sin?" he asked them in public (John 8:46a). The author of Hebrews reminds us that "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" (Heb. 4:15). Jesus, he later tells us, was "holy, innocent, [and] unstained" (Heb. 7:26). He was "a lamb without blemish or spot" (1 Peter 1:19) and "committed no sin" (1 Peter 2:22).
That he didn't sin is a settled and undeniable fact. But could he have sinned? Was it in any way a possibility for him to have sinned or was it in every way impossible that he should ever have transgressed? Or, to use theological terms, was Jesus impeccable (incapable of sinning), or peccable (capable of sinning, although remaining sinless)?
I intentionally avoid technical theological language in these meditations, but bear with me for a moment as I appeal to four Latin phrases that shed light on this issue. The first is non posse non peccare, which means "not able not to sin". This describes unregenerate people and the fallen angels (i.e., demons). In other words, they necessarily sin.
Two other phrases are posse peccare ("able to sin") and posse non peccare ("able not to sin"). These describe Adam before the fall, regenerate people, and Jesus, if one denies his impeccability. Finally, there is non posse peccare, or "not able to sin". This would be true of God, the saints in heaven, and Jesus, if one affirms his impeccability.
My question is this: Was Jesus Christ sinless because he could not sin (non posse peccare) or because he would not sin? Was he constitutionally incapable of sinning or merely volitionally unwilling to sin? To say that Jesus could have sinned, even though he did not, is to say he was peccable. To say that Jesus could not have sinned, and therefore didn't, is to say he was impeccable.
The most helpful concrete illustration of this issue is the confrontation Jesus had with Satan in the wilderness (cf. Luke 4:1-13). When Satan came to him with those three temptations, could Jesus have succumbed? We know he didn't, and we are eternally grateful. But was it possible for him not to have resisted? Those who affirm impeccability respond with a definitive "No"! Those who deny impeccability counter with three observations, only two of which, in my opinion, are helpful.
First, those who deny impeccability argue that if he could not sin, he was not truly human. After all, "to err is human." This argument is weak, for it is not necessary to human nature that one be capable of sinning. When finally in heaven, having been glorified, the saints will be incapable of sinning, but they will not for that reason be less human then than they are now on earth.
A second argument often heard is that if Jesus could not have sinned, he was not genuinely tempted. True temptation requires the possibility of sinning. That he refused to yield to Satan's temptations no one denies. But yielding must have been possible or the encounter was a sham.
Some respond by saying that perhaps Jesus didn't know he was impeccable. In other words, even though he couldn't yield to temptation, he was unaware of the impossibility. Therefore, at least so far as his own conscious experience is concerned, the temptation would have been quite genuine. But I find it hard to believe that Jesus lacked such self-awareness. Even if he did, we don't, so what benefit is there to us in his having resisted the Devil's overtures? In other words, we find encouragement in Jesus' example only if we know he could have sinned, but didn't (1 Peter 2:21-23). So long as we know that his sinning was absolutely impossible, the force of his example is undermined, regardless of what he may have known.
A third and final argument by those who deny impeccability is that the doctrine is based on the belief that Jesus resisted the devil from the strength of his divine nature. Satan was tempting God and God, by definition, cannot sin. Regardless of the strength of his seductive appeals, Satan didn't stand a chance. After all, the finite cannot conquer the infinite. The presence within the incarnate Second Person of the Godhead of a holy and omnipotent divine nature made it impossible for him to have yielded to Satan's overtures.
For many years I strongly advocated the impeccability of Christ, insisting that because he was God incarnate he was incapable of sinning. Now, make no mistake, he was and forever is God incarnate. But I'm not so sure about his impeccability, and here's why.
As I have argued extensively elsewhere (http://www.samstorms.com/, "Kenotic View" in Christology, Theological Studies), I believe Jesus lived and ministered as a human, dependent on the power of the Holy Spirit. As a human, the possibility existed that he could have sinned, but by virtue of his unceasing reliance on the power of the Holy Spirit he did not sin. Like the first Adam, Jesus could have sinned. But as the second Adam, he chose not to.
This means that in becoming a man "the Son of God willed to renounce the exercise of his divine powers, attributes, prerogatives, so that he might live fully within those limitations which inhere in being truly human" (Hawthorne, The Presence and the Power, 208). That which he had (all the divine attributes), by virtue of what he was (the second person of the Trinity), he willingly chose not to use. Thus we see a human being doing super-human things and ask "How?" The answer is: Not from the power of his own divine nature, but through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Thus the Son chose to experience the world through the limitations imposed by human consciousness and an authentic human nature. The attributes of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience were not lost or laid aside, but became latent and potential within the confines of his human nature. They are "present in Jesus in all their fullness, but no longer in exercise" (Hawthorne, 208). The incarnation thus means that Jesus "actually thought and acted, viewed the world, and experienced time and space events strictly within the confines of a normally developing human person" (210).
Look again at the various accounts of Jesus' temptation by Satan. We are told that he was not only led into the wilderness by the Spirit (Mt. 4:1) but was also being led by the Spirit in the wilderness during the entire course of the forty days (Luke 4:1; it was, no doubt, the Spirit who led Jesus to fast). "If he was being tempted by Satan for forty days (Mark 1:13), he was being led by the Spirit for those same forty days (Luke 4:1). It is impossible to escape the conclusion that these Gospel writers want their readers to understand that Jesus met and conquered the usurping enemy of God not by his own power alone but was aided in his victory by the power of the Holy Spirit" (Hawthorne, 139). He was fortified and energized by the continual infusion of divine power from the Spirit of God (see also John 3:34).
If someone should ask, "But why or how did the human Jesus always choose to rely on the power of the Spirit and thereby not sin?" The answer would be that the Spirit was always antecedent to any choice that Jesus was to make, enabling and energizing him to continue in his conscious reliance on the power the Spirit was providing. Is that not also the case with us? To whatever degree and however frequently we choose not to sin, it is because the Spirit antecedently empowered us to choose to avail ourselves of his presence and supply.
It could conceivably be said, therefore, that Jesus was peccable when it came to the metaphysical potential for sin in his own human nature (in other words, there was nothing inherent within the person of Christ that made it impossible for him to sin, any more than it was so in the case of Adam), but impeccable insofar as it was impossible for the Spirit to fail to energize Jesus' will to depend upon the power that the Spirit supplied.
The implications of this for you and me are profound, and I defer, in conclusion, to the words of Hawthorne to make the point:
"Not only is Jesus their [our] Savior because of who he was and because of his own complete obedience to the Father's will (cf. Heb. 10:5-7), but he is the supreme example for them of what is possible in a human life because of his own total dependence upon the Spirit of God. Jesus is living proof of how those who are his followers may exceed the limitations of their humanness in order that they, like him, might carry to completion against all odds their God-given mission in life - by the Holy Spirit. Jesus demonstrated clearly that God's intended way for human beings to live, the ideal way to live, the supremely successful way to live, is in conjunction with God, in harmony with God, in touch with the power of God, and not apart from God, not independent of God, not without God. The Spirit was the presence and power of God in Jesus, and fully so" (234).
Sam