Far more persistent has been the impression that sinlessness is inconsistent with genuine temptation ; and as it is certain that Jesus was tempted, it may- be argued that He cannot have been sinless.
Under the stress of this consideration, Schleiermacher, who made the sinlessness of Jesus the very basis of his speculative system, practically denied the reality of the temptations of Jesus. Edward Irving, on the other hand, appealing to such texts of Scripture as Ro 82 and Col 122, taught that the human nature of Jesus had in itself the principle of sin and error, and not only was capable of erring and falling, but was disposed to all evil ; although, by the energy of the Holy Ghost within Him and the energy of His holy will, He overcame every temptation as it arose.
What Irving and others who have agreed with him or adopted kindred notions have felt has been that, without such imperfec- tion in the human nature of (Ihrist as they postulate, there can have been no real conflict with evil, and that so the accounts of our Lord's temptation, which are intended to be so priceless to His tempted disciples, lose their virtue, the conflict being reduced to a sham fight. To this it has been replied, by Dorner and others, that the presence in the human nature of our Lord of the contrast between knowing and willing makes real conflict possible ; for the knowledge is antecedent, and then the will has to be brought up to the level of knowledge. Further, the con- trast between body and spirit makes conflict possible, because the body may, without sin, feel strongly all the instincts of life ; yet the spirit may discern the necessity for overcoming these and accepting, as Jesus did, suffering and death in loyalty to a peculiar vocation. As a faultless man, Jesus had a right to all the rewards and pleasures which ought, in the nature of things, to ensue vipon well-doing ; and it could not be without conflict that He resigned His rights and embraced a lot so contrary to His deserts. In the little work of Meyer, mentioned below, the greater part of the space is devoted to the solution of these riddles.
However the enigma is to be solved, certain it is that Jesus was tempted. The scenes in the Wil- derness, in Gethsemane, and on the Cross, when He is represented as in conflict with the powers of evil, were not less severe than the similar experiences of ordinary mortals, but far more so. His purity made the inrush of temptation more painful. His humanity had not the stolid calm of a lethargic temperament, but was sensitive at every pore ; He felt not less but more than others the condemnation of unjust authority, the desertion of friends, and the ajiparent frustration of Providence. Even if the attempt to reconcile the two should be beyond the reach of human wisdom, we will not surrender either member of the great assertion, that He was tempted ' like as we are, yet without sin ' (He 4'^).
(b) The other kind of objection relates to specific statements of the Gosjjel history which are held to be inconsistent with sinlessness. Thus, it is con- tended that His staying behind at Jerusalem, when He was twelve years of age, and His answer to Joseph and Mary, were not worthy of an obedient child ; and objection is, in like manner, taken to His sharp reply to His mother when she tried to turn Him back from the fulfilment of His vocation. In cleansing the Temple, He is charged with dis- playing undue vehemence, and it is held that He exhibited an arrogance unbecoming His youth and His position in His attacks on the scribes and Pliarisees. In cursing the fig-tree, it is claimed, He gave way to temper ; and, in the casting of the
demons out of the possessed man of Gadara and giving them jjermission to enter the swine, with the result that two thousand of these were lost to their owners. He displayed a lack of respect for the rights of property. Most of such charges are venerable with age and have been answered so often that it may be scarcely necessary to attempt to answer them again ; but there are two more, of which something may require to be said.
It has been held that the action of Jesus in pre- senting Himself before John to receive ' the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,' betrayed a consciousness of guilt. This objection has been recently revived by O. Holtzmann, who quotes from the Gospel to the Hebrews — a document to which he attaches great importance — a statement to the effect that, when solicited by His mother and His brethren to accompany them to the Jordan, Jesus demanded wherefore He should go, as He had no sin to wash away, but immediately checked Him- self by adding, * Unless, indeed, this is uttered in ignorance' ; and the author adds that, unless Jesus had said this, no writer of a Gospel would have invented it. Much more,. however, than is known of the Gospel to the Hebrews would require to be ascertained before this could be asserted ; it may have been the organ of an Ebionite tendency in the early Church, to which such an invention A\ould have been congenial (cf. Euseb. HE iii. 27). The movement of John had a positive as well as a negative side : it was not only a ' baptism of re- pentance,' but a gi'eat new consecration to God and country, in which Jesus was bound to take the lead ; and many have believed that, even at this stage, He so identified Himself with His people that He felt their sin to be His own, and in the act of baptism symbolized that washing of it away which was to be accomplished through His death.