DOI: 10.48224\/COM-205-2019-69<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Jean-Pierre Batut in his article <\/a>analyzes the relationship between Christ’s temptations and His chastity. When Saint Thomas meditates on temptations in the desert (Summa Theologica<\/em>, III, q.41), reminds us that the temptation which Christ underwent is experienced like all mysteries. Nevertheless, he makes a distinction between „of flash and world” temptations and „primary temptation” coming directly from the tempter. If the temptation that comes directly from the tempter does not concern „intra-worldly” objects, the author states, it radically rests with God and God’s promise. This is the temptation from the third chapter of Genesis. Therefore, according to the author, this is the only biblical passage to which we can refer to the temptation of Christ, because as the only one he presents a man who is even younger than sin. For example, we cannot compare the temptation of Christ with the description of David’s sin (2 Sam 11; 1 Chr 20). Because temptation which David succumbs when he sleeps with Bathsheba is „of flesh and the world”; and this is not the original temptation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keywords<\/strong>: Temptation, Christ, sin,<\/p>\n\n\n\n Streszczenie<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Jean-Pierre Batut w swoim artykule analizuje zwi\u0105zek mi\u0119dzy pokusami\nChrystusa a Jego czysto\u015bci\u0105. Kiedy \u015aw. Tomasz medytuje o pokusach na\npustyni (Summa Theologica<\/em>, III, q.41), przypomina nam, \u017ce pokusa, kt\u00f3r\u0105\nprzeszed\u0142 Chrystus jest prze\u017cywana jak wszystkie tajemnice. Niemniej jednak\ndokonuje on rozr\u00f3\u017cnienia mi\u0119dzy pokusami \u201ecia\u0142a i \u015bwiata\u201d, a \u201epokus\u0105 pierwotn\u0105\u201d\npochodz\u0105ca bezpo\u015brednio od kusiciela. \nJe\u015bli pokusa pochodz\u0105ca bezpo\u015brednio od kusiciela nie dotyczy przedmiot\u00f3w\n\u201ewewn\u0105trz\u015bwiatowych\u201d stwierdza autor to\nradykalnie spoczywa na Bogu i na Bo\u017cej obietnicy. Jest to pokusa z trzeciego\nrozdzia\u0142u Ksi\u0119gi Rodzaju. Dlatego, zdaniem autora, jest to jedyny fragment\nbiblijny do kt\u00f3rego mo\u017cemy odwo\u0142ywa\u0107 pokus\u0119 Chrystusa, poniewa\u017c jako jedyny,\nprzedstawia cz\u0142owieka, kt\u00f3ry jest jeszcze m\u0142odszy od grzechu. Nie mo\u017cemy na przyk\u0142ad por\u00f3wnywa\u0107 pokus\nChrystusa z opisem grzechu Dawida (2 Sm 11; 1 Roz 20). Poniewa\u017c pokusa, kt\u00f3rej\nuleg\u0142 Dawid kiedy spa\u0142 z Batszeb\u0105 jest\n\u201ez cia\u0142a i \u015bwiata\u201d; a to nie jest pokusa pierwotna.<\/p>\n\n\n\n S\u0142owa kluczowe<\/strong>: Pokusa, kuszenie, Chrystus, grzech, <\/p>\n\n\n\n A harpagmos is an object\nunduly possessed, The reason we are not in a position to\nspeak about the chastity of Christ is that we cannot do so in an entirely\nchaste manner. We would like to understand it, but we would also like things to\nstand for him as they do for us, even if we do not want to ad\u00admit it to\nourselves. For this reason, the Virgin alone truly un\u00adderstands her Son. The\nChurch alone, in the manner in which she shows Christ to us and gives him to\nus, sets us on the path of conversion, on which, as a matter of course, we\nbegin to un\u00adderstand chastity and to live it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When St. Thomas meditates on the episode\nof the temptations in the desert (Summa\nTheologica, III, q.41), he begins by reminding us that the\ntemptation Christ underwent is lived, like all of the mysteries, \u201cfor us men\nand for our salvation.\u201d As he says in citing St. Gregory, Jesus had to \u201cconquer\nour tempta\u00adtions through his own, as he triumphed over our death through his\nown.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But\nin what way was Christ tempted, and what re\u00adlationship is there between the\ntemptations he underwent and his chastity? Even though St. Thomas does not seem\nto occupy himself with the second question, we hope to show in what fol\u00adlows\nthat the relationship is quite direct. With respect to the first question, as\nis his wont, St. Thomas makes a distinction. And he does it by taking up the\nclassical opposition between the temp\u00adtations\nof the flesh and the world,\nand those which have\nthe tempter as their direct author.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This distinction is fundamental. What is\nmeant by \u201ctemptations of the flesh and the world\u201d is an order of tempta\u00adtions\nwhich presupposes an already sinful person. Is it still nec\u00adessary, once again,\nto caution against the eternal misunder\u00adstanding of the word \u201cflesh\u201d? Let us\nrecall that \u201cthe\nflesh does not mean the human body, as the French word might seem\nto suggest but the totality of human tendencies and decisions in\u00adsofar as they\npossess a purely earthly horizon,\u201d and thus that \u201cthe world corresponds\nto this purely earthly concern; the world\nis the sphere of interest which defines man’s major concern.\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/a> In\nthis order of temptations, the concrete person finds himself, even before the\ntemptation presents itself to his consciousness, in a state of disorder with\nrespect to his end, namely, the knowledge of God. His inner compass no longer\npoints north, but rather sways at the whim of gusts of wind and the various\nsolicitations that call upon it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is essential to remind ourselves that\nthere exists within us a connivance with evil. Let us not forget that if re\u00addemption\nand baptism bring us already into the new world in which we are freed from sin,\nthere remains in us a connivance with it\u2014what theology calls \u201cconcupiscence.\u201d\nTire difference is that, henceforward, concupiscence is no longer invincible.\nOur inner compass, in spite of the storms, once again imperturbably points\nnorth: \u201cThat concupiscence or the seat [foyer]\nof sin re\u00admains in those baptized is confessed and believed by the holy\ncouncil. Left for our battles, it is not capable of harming those who, refusing\nto consent to it, resist with courage through the grace of Christ.\u201d[2]<\/sup><\/a> The\nfact that concupiscence is occasionally called \u201csin\u201d is not because it would be\nsuch (for it is one thing to experience it, another to consent to it, and sin\nresides in this latter alone), but \u201cbecause it comes from sin and it inclines\nto\u00adward sin.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, concupiscence, that is, the\ntendency to sin, comes from sin. If this is how things stand, it is clear that\nChrist never experienced it, since he is without sin. He himself affirms such,\nmoreover, without the slightest equivocation, for example, during the episode\nwith the adulteress. But if this is the case, since \u201ceach person is tempted by\nhis own lust which attracts him and lures him\u201d (Jas 1:14), and since this lust\nis foreign to Christ, in what sense ought we to say that Christ was tempted?<\/p>\n\n\n\n As we were saying earlier, this is the\nsense of the temptation that comes directly\nfrom the tempter, \u201coriginal [origi\u00adnate]\ntemptation.\u201d Of what nature is it? It can in no way con\u00adcern the desiderabilia,\ndesirable \u201cobjects\u201d: the attraction that leads us to put partial goods in the\nplace of the veritable Good, the on\u00adly good than can satisfy us, is an already\nperverted attraction. The man to whom the primordial temptation is addressed\nis, on the contrary, an innocent\nman. How can we define this inno\u00adcence? Not simply by saying that this man has\nnot had the ex\u00adperience of evil, because one can lack an experience of evil and\nbe predisposed to commit it, in the sense that the suggestion of sin finds a\nseat that has been wholly prepared.[4]<\/sup><\/a> We\nhave to add: the innocent man is he whose existence is oriented toward God, and\nwho spontaneously refers all things to God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Christ is, in Person, this very mode of\nexisting. That is why he is the Son.\nSonship is precisely nothing else, in its vis\u00adible effects, than the fact of\nreferring oneself wholly to God in a loving obedience. The worldly dichotomy\nbetween the slave (he who obeys through fear of a thrashing) and the son (he\nwho es\u00adcapes the thrashing, but who allows himself at times to be a re\u00adal\ntroublemaker) is a fundamentally sinful dichotomy. We com\u00adpare the scope of St.\nPaul’s message of freedom: \u201cyou did not re\u00adceive the spirit of slavery to\nfallback into fear; you have received a Spirit\nof sonship by which we cry out: Abba! Father! The Spirit in\nperson joins himself to our spirit in order to attest that we are children of\nGod. If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and coheirs with Christ, because we\nsuffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him\u201d (Rom 8:15-16).[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n If\nthe temptation coming directly from the tempter does not concern \u201cintraworldly\u201d\nobjects, it bears radically on God, and on God’s promise. It seeks to attain\nman’s faith\nin God and in his promise. This temptation is that of the third chapter of\nGenesis. That is why this biblical passage is absolutely\nthe on\u00adly one to which we can, in complete legitimacy, refer\nChrist’s temptation, because it is the only one that portrays a man who is\nstill younger than sin. We cannot, for example, compare Christ’s temptations\nwith the account of David’s sin (2 Sm 11; 1 Chr 20): with such an account, we\nare forthwith in the \u201cdynam\u00adics of sin\u201d spoken of in the letter of St. James: \u201cEach\none is tempt\u00aded by his own desire, which attracts him and lures him; then de\u00adsire,\nhaving conceived, gives birth to sin, and sin, when it has come to term, brings\nforth death\u201d (Jas 1:14-15). The temptation to which David succumbs when he\nsleeps with Bathsheba is \u201cof the flesh and the world\u201d; it is not the original temptation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Christ is thus not \u201ctempted by his own\ndesire\u201d; he is tempted by the tempter.[6]<\/a>\nTemptation does not concern the ob\u00adjects of the world, but God and his Word. We\nhave, here, the con\u00adtent of the first\ntemptation in the desert\u2014the only decisive sin, as we intend to\nshow further on: \u201cThus Jesus was led into the desert by the Spirit in order to\nbe tempted by the devil. He fasted for forty days and forty nights, after which\nhe was hungry. And, drawing near, the tempter said to him, 'If you are the Son\nof God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread.’ But he responded, It is\nwritten: man does not\nlive on bread alone, but from every word that issues from the mouth of God\u2019\u201d\n(Mt 4:3-4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n We will hold ourselves to two comments\non this text, which could provoke many others:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The sin is the rejection of sonship. We\nmight offer the following definition of this rejection: to be no longer a son\nmeans to stop desiring that what one possesses exist only in be\u00ading given and\nreceived. And, if this definition seems a bit com\u00adplex, we could simplify it by\nsaying: the original sin begins the moment man distrusts\nGod. The image of the Father who loves and who gives is substituted with that\nof the avaricious, self- serving Master. His promise of life places me in\nuncertainty; it renders me entirely dependent on him. And if he were to change\nhis mind, if he were to stop giving? Would it not be better if I took into my own\nhands that which, for the time being, I pos\u00adsess only by receiving it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, sin is not first the act, which is\nonly the con\u00adsequence of sin, but a disfigurement\nof God, suggested by the tempter and to which man has consented.\nIn Genesis 3, the tempter begins by destroying the true representation of God\nby misrepresenting his word (Gn 3:1). The moment this misrepre\u00adsentation is\naccepted, the evil is done. The commandment of life appears arbitrary (Gn 3:3),\nand even wicked (Gn 3:4); and, be\u00adcause the true reality has been lost from\nsight, that which\ndoes not exist begins to exist (Gn 3:6). For the desirable\ncharacter of\nwhat we substitute for God is but a construction of our minds. It is God alone\nwho is desirable, and it is for this reason that the rest is good and quite\ntruly belongs to us when we receive it from him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There\nIs No Happy Love?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In the original drama, man was\n\u201cpossessed.\u201d He was unhooked\n[d\u00e9croch\u00e9]\nfrom God in order to cling [accrocher] to what is not God. This vocabulary\nmight seem strange. Nevertheless, it corresponds to the vocabulary of\nScripture, to a remarkable word which suffices unto itself for a definition of\nanti-chastity. The Greek word is harpagmos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Everyone knows the Harpagon of Moli\u00e8re. Perhaps\nfewer people are aware that \u201cHarpagon\u201d evokes\nin Greek the harpon. That is, to be\nprecise, a tool that allows one to cling, to grasp, to seize for oneself, by\ntearing off if need be, the object of one’s desire. Just like the vandals who\nuproot flowers in a park. Also, just like those who know nothing about grace\nand who, seeking to capitalize on it, lose what they think they are holding\nonto, \u201clike those who, seeking to enclose the light, enclose only darkness.\u201d[8]<\/sup><\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n A harpaginos\nis an object unduly possessed, the fruit of a theft, a plunder; in short, a\ngood poorly acquired, and which therefore never yields profit. From this\nperspective, every sin is, in essence, a sin against chastity\u2014in its effects,\nbut also in its roots. For chastity, as we might have guessed, bears first of\nall on God.\nThe most radical question is knowing whether the eye we lay upon God is chaste\nor not. If it is, God can communicate to us, not\nthings, but his own divine condition (moreover, he has nothing else to give but\nhimself). If it is not, then what we think we possess no longer\namounts to anything, as in the case of the \u201cprodigal\u201d son, whose riches, as things\ncoveted, slip through his fingers like sand the moment they are separated from\ntheir source.[9]<\/sup><\/a> Or like the disabused verses of Aragon (in which we will\nunderscore certain characteristic words): \u201cRien n’est jamais acquis \u00e0 l’homme, ni sa force \/ Ni sa faiblesse, ni son coeur, et i|uand il croit \/\nOuvrir ses bras, son ombre est celle d’une croix \/ Et quand il veut serrer son\nbonheur, il le broie \/ Sa vie est\nun \u00e9trange et douloureux divorce \/ Il n’y a pas d’amour heureux. \u201d[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere is no happy love\u201d in this context\nmeans \u201cThere is no chaste\nlove,\u201d no love that lacks any stench of the de\u00adsire to take and, having taken,\nto destroy. An observation fright\u00adening in its lucidity. A false observation,\none will say, in its very exaggeration. And one will be right in saying so. But\nwhere is there a totally pure love? Who has ever encountered it and lived it to\nits end?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nRefusal to Grasp: The Condition for the Fulfillment of the Promise<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The hymn of chapter two of the letter to\nthe Philippians tells us of such a love. It was lived in a human way by a\ndivine Person, and its chastity is radical: it bears, as we will show, on\ndivinity itself.[11]<\/a>\n\u201cJesus Christ, who was in the condi\u00adtion of God, did not deem equality with God\nsomething to\nbe grasped at (harpagmos).\nBut he emptied\nhimself and took the form of a slave, being born in the likeness\nof men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto\ndeath, even death on a cross\u201d (2:5-8). The Person of the Son, who did not know\n\u201coriginal sin,\u201d thus knew the original\ntemptation humanly, and victoriously overcame it. The fact that he did not know\n\u201cthe temptations of the flesh and of the world\u201d is thus proof of this initial\nvictory. Affirming this fact is essential to our faith in Christ the redeemer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But, one might ask, why the two\ntemptations that follow? There is no univocal response to this question. Never\u00adtheless,\nwe can observe that the evangelists Matthew and Luke present them in a\ndifferent order, as if the order held little sig\u00adnificance, while it is\nessential that the first temptation stand at the head. We can also observe,\nmoreover, that this same temp\u00adtation recurs at the end of the gospel of Matthew,\nwhen Jesus is on the cross: \u201cIf you are the Son of God, save yourself and come\ndown from the cross!\u201d (27:40,42-43). At the end of the forty days in the\ndesert, Jesus \u201cwas hungry\u201d – let us translate this: he was at the point of\nstarving to death. He found himself before the perspective of his coming death,\nand before the following dilem\u00adma: either\ncontinue to adhere to the promise of the Father to bring him to life, or cease to adhere\nto it and give life to himself. The same will occur on the cross, with the\n\u201ctwelve legions of angels\u201d who do not come and who will come no longer. The\nFather’s promise of life thus becomes a hope against hope: a promise of life\nbeyond death. At the pitch of dereliction, in the situation of the sinner,\nJesus the innocent one adheres to this promise with his whole being. It is\nmanifest in his prayer. Jesus dies praying, with all that the fact of praying\nimplies (prayer presupposes chastity because it is an attitude of hope); and it\nis for this rea\u00adson that he is resurrected.[12]<\/sup><\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn the days of\nhis flesh, he offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears,\nto God who was able to save him from death; and he was heard for his godly\nfear\u201d (Heb 5:7). Was he really heard, if, in spite of everything, he died? He\nwas heard beyond death, and he brought death to death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Chastity is not\ncharity; but, insofar as it is a refusal to grasp and an indefectible adherence\nto Him who gives, it forms its necessary condition. That is why the sign of\nchastity is the same as that of love: the eis telos (John 13:1), the \u201cto the ex\u00adtreme,\u201d the fact of\nleaning upon God even in the case where he withdraws himself; the fact of\nrenouncing all human fecundity in order that God’s fecundity be manifest\nwithout mediation. A chaste life is thus a given life. \u201cYou must give over your\nlife as you would toss a flower,\u201d Madeleine Danielou said to her \u201cdaughters\u201d of\nthe apostolic Community of Saint Francis Xavier. For \u201cthe grass dries up and\nthe flower wilts, but the Word of our God abides forever\u201d (Is 40:7-8; 1 Pt 1:24). <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n T\u0142umaczenie z j\u0119zyka francuskiego David Louis Schindler, Jr.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Nota\no Autorze: <\/strong>Jean-Pierre Batut \u2013 urodzony w 1954\nroku w Pary\u017cu, francuski teolog, doktor teologii. Swoje badania naukowekoncentruje\nna kwestiiboskiej wszechmocy w teologii\npatrystycznej przed Soborem Nicejskim (325). 28 listopada 2008 papie\u017c\nBenedykt XVI mianowa\u0142 go biskupem pomocniczym archidiecezji Lyon a 22\nlistopada 2014 papie\u017c Franciszek mianowa\u0142 go ordynariuszem diecezji Blois. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Bibliografia :<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Duquoc C., Christologie, vol. 1, Paris 1968.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nCouncil of Trent, 5th Session. The decree on original sin<\/em>, DS1515.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pascal, Lettre \u00e0 madame P\u00e9rier, October 1651 (p. 488 in the Pl\u00e9iade edition).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ratzinger J., Le\nRessascite: Retraite au Vatican, Paris 1986. [1]<\/sup><\/a> C. Duquoc, Christologie, vol. 1, Paris 1968, p. 64.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]<\/sup><\/a> Cf.\nThe Council of Trent, 5th Session (the decree on original sin), DS1515.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [3]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [4]<\/sup><\/a>Herein\nlies the common misunderstanding over the innocence of the child. The fact that\nhe does not yet have an experience of evil does not mean that he is innocent in\nthe sense that Christ is. This distinction does not come to us spon\u00adtaneously:\npriests who prepare parents for the baptism of their child can evince the evil\nthey have in order to provoke a proper understanding of the notion of original\nsin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [5]<\/sup><\/a>As we\ncan see, Paul’s affirmations are not specifically \u201cirenic.\u201d On the con\u00adtrary,\nthey emerge from a background of \u201cagony,\u201d of struggle. This is true to such an\nextent that the fact of becoming like\nChrist in this world of sin puts us ipso\nfacto in a relation of contradiction, like Christ, with the\ncompromises and connivances of the world. The choice is between being like him and\nsharing his tribulation or, rejecting tribulation, to slide over to the enemy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [6]<\/a> Which obviously does\nnot mean that, in our case, the tempter is not at work. It simply means that\nwhat he finds in us greatly facilitates his task.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [7]<\/sup><\/a> We\nfind here a precious element for ordering the three temptations into a\nhierarchy and for preferring Matthew’s version to that of Luke. For the third\ntemptation in Matthew’s account, Satan no longer has any citation from\nscripture at his disposal. Christ, for his part, still has scripture at hand,\nand this ci\u00adtation is the first commandment of the Decalogue. Having begun at\nthe root, the trial returns to the root: the filial relation. But this circular\nroute is a virtu\u00adous circle, a triumphal path (cf. Ps 67:1ff.). At every stage,\nthe tempter is de\u00adfeated. In order for this triumphal path to be communicated\nto us, it remains to be retraced through the via\ncrucis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, in proportion\nas the drama of temptations progresses, it becomes increasingly manifest that\nSatan does not\nunderstand the true meaning of the words he cited. The reason for\nthis is that he does not\nunderstand the iden\u00adtity of the One who stands before him. The\nreason for which the Word was made flesh\nentirely escapes him, so much so that he is gradually unmasked. One can\napproach this reality, which is clearly fundamental insofar as it is the\nrevelation of God’s love, only in an indirect way. Cf. C.S. Lewis, Screwtape Let\u00adters,\nespecially chapters 18-21.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [8]<\/sup><\/a> Pascal,\nLettre \u00e0 madame\nP\u00e9rier, October 1651 (p. 488 in the Pl\u00e9iade edition).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [9]<\/sup><\/a> For\nthis reason, absolutely\nnothing of what has not been informed by charity can pass into\neternal life. Outside of charity, there is nothing but anti-being (which,\nthough we cannot do so here, must be rigorously distinguished from lion-being).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [10]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cNothing\nis ever secured\nto man, neither his strength \/ Nor his weakness, nor his heart, and when he\nthinks \/ That he’s opened his arms, his shadow forms a cross \/ And when he\nseeks to clasp his happiness, he shatters\nit \/ His life is a strange and painful divorce \/ There is no happy love.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n [11]<\/a> There is nothing\nsurprising in this: the original temptation is worded thus: \u201cyou will be like\ngods\u201d (Gn 3:5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nthe fruit of a theft, a plunder…. From
\nthis perspective, every sin is, in
\nessence, a sin against chastity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n