Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 7

Troki now attacks the divinity of Jesus, arguing that Satan would not dare to tempt God incarnate:

Matthew 4:1-11, "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterwards an hungered. And when the tempter came to him he said. If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the Devil taketh him into the Holy City, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the Temple, and saith to him. If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee; and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus saith unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the Devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him. Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

The same subject occurs in Luke 4. The reader must certainly perceive by this narrative that the Jesus tempted by Satan, is not intended to pass for a God incarnate. For can any man, in his sound senses, suppose that Satan would have presumed to tempt one whom he knew to be a God; or can it be imagined that he would have dared, as a creature, to lead him away by force against his will? Reason recoils from such a belief.

Where does it say that Satan knew Jesus to be God? There isn't any passage in the New Testament that I know of. 1 Corinthians 2:8 seems to contradict such a notion "None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." This can refer to human rulers, but can also apply to angelic beings. In the book of Daniel, for example, some angels were known as princes.

Troki also does not take into account the extent of the incarnation. Paul explains the incarnations in a passage called the Carmen Christi:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be exploited, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11)

Quite a bit of theological teaching is in this passage. It teaches that Jesus is God. This is the meaning of the form of God. It then uses the Trinitarian name of God the Father (God) to compare Jesus to the Father. Jesus did not count his equality with the Father something to be exploited, or to be held on to, but emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant. He added a human nature to his own divine nature, and by doing so, walked among us. He then went humbly to his execution, and received glorification as a result.

Jesus as God needs no glorification, but remember that Jesus took on a human nature that was not exalted. This new being, which resulted from the combination of the divine Word with a human nature, became glorified and received the name above all names. This superior name is not "Jesus" because if that were the case, anyone named "Joshua" or anyone in the ancient world with the common name of Jesus could claim to have the supreme name. Instead, the name is "Lord."

This is how Jesus could experience genuine temptation, even if he was not able to succumb to it. How can someone freely choose something if they are not able to do otherwise? Philosopher Harry Frankfurt had the answer.

Imagine a guy named Stanley who registers to vote. He shows up at the booth on election day. Unbeknownst to Stanley, a mad scientist has wired Stanley's brain with electrodes so that if Stanley tries to vote for anyone but the United Torah Judaism party, the electrodes will go off and make Stanley vote for the United Torah Judaism candidate. Stanley votes for United Torah Judaism, and the electrodes never go off. Did Stanley freely vote for United Torah Judaism? Most people would say that he did, and that the decision was non-deterministic, even though he was not able to vote otherwise.