irreverence, for us to bring our Lord into this controversy: let us therefore take a step

down and cite two fellow-beings as examples. First, the "chief of sinners", Paul, the

Apostle. Is it conceivable that, had Paul entered a synagogue and found the place

unattended, the presence of a piece of money lying uncollected would be the slightest

temptation to him? Our answer must be "No". The second example, dear reader, is

yourself. Were you to come into the Chapel of the Opened Book and discover that the

offering had not been taken charge of by the Treasurer, would that be a temptation to you

to steal? You rightly repudiate the thought. Why? Because the grace of God and the gift

of the new nature make temptation of that kind virtually impossible.

So we return to the Lord Himself. As He had no corrupt and depraved nature, He

could never be "led away" by lust and enticed and, that being the case, no amount of

emphasis upon the words "in all points" can ever teach the evil and destructive doctrine

we have been considering. The very presence of temptation to sin pre-supposes evil

already within. He, the Saviour, could mingle with publicans and sinners and remain

undefiled. Contrary to all law, He could touch a leper and remain immune. We might as

well consider that a sunbeam gathers contamination by shining on a rubbish heap as that,

even in the presence of the most gilded opportunity, Christ could be tempted to sin.

It is possible that the reader's mind may have turned back to Gen. 3: and questioned

how far all that we have said would apply there. For the moment, our answer is that the

words "tempt", "temptation" and "tempter" are never once used of the Fall of Man, in

either the Old Testament or New and, therefore, believing in the inspiration of all

Scripture, we must abide by this fact and exclude the passage from our present

Turning to the other Circumcision epistles we find that Peter alone uses the word

peirasmos, translated "temptation", and that three times.

Let us note: these tempted believers are, at the same time, "greatly rejoicing" in

salvation; the temptations are "for a season" and "if need be", and as a result they are

"in heaviness", or as the word is elsewhere translated, "grieved" (Eph. 4: 30);

"sorrowful" (II Cor. 6: 10). It sounds a contradiction to say that a believer who thus

rejoiced, and who was thus grieved, could at the same time be yielding to, or tempted to,

actual sin. But we have no need to interpose on our conjectures, for Peter himself goes

on to expand and explain his meaning. "That the trial of your faith, being much more

precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto

praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ" (I Pet. 1: 7). Here, "That" is

"In order that"; "trial" is to dokimion, "the proof after testing", and the result of the trial,

"praise and honour and glory" at the appearing of the Lord. It is utterly impossible to

import temptation to sin into I Pet. 1: 6. It is the trial of faith that is in view. If it were

needed, the fullest confirmation of this interpretation is contained in I Pet. 4: 12.