According to ChatGPT, there’s a well-known debate about whether Christ had a “gnomic will” (a deliberative, wavering will like ours). That gets right to the razor’s edge of your question.
I asked to hear more about Maximus the Confessor and how he understood this. How can Jesus relate to us if he was not born inclined to sin? And tempted in all points as we are? Yet he did not sin. If we are inclined to sin and Jesus was not, then he can’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are. Is that not true?
ChatGPT responds, ‘You’re pressing exactly where Maximus the Confessor spent a lot of energy, because this is the sharp edge of the issue: what kind of ‘temptation’ did Christ experience, and what kind do we experience?
If we don’t get his distinctions, it really does feel like Christ’s temptations are a watered-down version of ours, according to ChatGPT and me.
1. Maximus’ key move: two kinds of “will.”
Maximus says we have to distinguish between:
(a) The natural will of humanity
This is simply:
- the built-in human orientation toward the good
- the desire for life, truth, God
- This belongs to human nature itself.
My response. I have claimed that we were born to love virtue and hate vice. Maximus apparently saw it that way also. This seems very much like the Jewish idea of Yetzer Ha Tov.
(b) The gnomic will (this is his famous idea), according to ChatGPT
This is:
- the deliberating, wavering, choosing process
- where you feel torn, uncertain, pulled between options
This exists because:
- We are ignorant, divided, and not fully united to the good, per ChatGPT
Let us remember that perfect Adam and Eve also had a deliberative, wavering, and choosing process. They were torn, uncertain, and pulled between options. And apparently, they were divided and not fully united to the good before they sinned. Their wills were free. Is that not true? Of course it is true, and yet they fell. And no Christian, that I know of, ever posited that Adam and Eve were created inclined to sin. Adam and Eve had to choose to follow God under temptation and say no to their lusts and passions. Why did God allow them to be tempted?
Temptation exists because God created us as free moral agents. It is how God tests us to determine whether we are worthy of eternal life. Why else would God test Adam and Eve? The test of free will showed whether Adam and Eve would love and trust God and obey Him when tempted. Without the test, we would not know whether we would stand with God. It is unknown whether any of us actually love God for Himself rather than for what He can do for us.
When God created Adam and Eve, he created them to give and receive love. Love is not possible if the will is not free. God created a universe with love as the supreme virtue.
But why did Maximus claim that we are divided and not fully united to the good? Were Adam and Eve ignorant, divided, and not fully united to the good? They were not until they were tempted, yielded to the temptation, and sinned.
Maximus the Confessor’s comments seem like another way of smuggling in a degree of inability and corruption into human nature to explain why we sin. That is not needed because perfect Adam and Eve sinned when tempted.
Why does this matter?
Maximus says:
- Christ has a natural human will (otherwise He’s not human)
- But Christ does not have a gnomic will
This is nonsense to me. To have a natural human will is to have a gnomic will, as Adam and Eve had before they sinned. To be tempted, as Christ was, is to be human, and temptation means something.
- There is no temptation without the deliberating, wavering, choosing process
- where you, including Jesus, feel torn, uncertain, pulled between options
I thought Jesus was actually tempted to sin in a meaningful way. If not, then His temptation is meaningless.
ChatGPT continues. Why? Because the gnomic will is not essential to humanity—it’s a feature of our fallen, confused condition. Yet, Adam and Eve had a gnomic will.
I strongly disagree. Adam and Eve had a gnomic will before they sinned. The gnomic will is essential to humanity (and angels) because, to be a moral agent, one must be able to choose between good and bad. Jesus took on our nature in the fullest sense; otherwise, he doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are tempted.
The gnomic will is essential to humanity and to every moral being in the universe, contrary to what Maximus believed.
2. ChatGPT continues, ‘So, what is our experience of temptation?
In us, temptation usually looks like this, according to Maximus and ChatGPT:
- a desire arises (sometimes disordered)
- we feel inner conflict
- we deliberate (“should I or shouldn’t I?”)
- We are pulled in two directions
That whole inner struggle = gnomic willing, writes ChatGPT. So, when you say: “That’s what temptation feels like.”
Maximus would say: Yes—but that’s fallen temptation, not temptation as such.
I regard this as more religious nonsense. He wants us to believe that there is fallen temptation, distinct from regular temptation. Where in the Bible is such a thing even hinted at? And fallen temptation must be stronger than regular temptation. That means Christ was not tempted in all points as we are, which directly contradicts what the Bible teaches.
3. ChatGPT writes, ‘What was Christ’s experience of temptation?
Maximus insists Christ’s temptations were fully real, but structured differently.
Christ’s experiences:
- hunger, then temptation to misuse power (stones to bread)
- suffering, then temptation to avoid the cross
- pressure, then temptation to abandon His mission
(think of Matthew 4 and Gethsemane)
But crucially:
- There is no inner confusion
- no divided desire
- no pull toward evil from within
So, according to ChatGPT reflecting Maximus, Christ’s temptation is pressure without inner corruption.
My response. But we humans have both Adamic inner corruption and external pressure. But Christ only has external pressure and no inner corruption. Yet we are supposed to believe that Christ is tempted as we are? Unbelievable.
This also suggests that even the perfect Adam and Eve had inner corruption prior to the fall. I do not know of any Christian who believes that. Do you?
We come back to the truth that we are handicapped or disadvantaged, and Jesus was not. Therefore, he doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are. No matter what clever argument they come up with, there is no escape from that truth.
Anytime it is necessary to invent novel, pious-sounding arguments to sustain a questionable theological position, there is reason to question and reject it if it doesn’t ultimately make sense and fit a plain reading of the Word of God.
4. ChatGPT continues, your objection (put sharply)
You’re saying: “If Jesus doesn’t feel that inward pull, then He doesn’t really know what temptation is like for us.” That’s a strong objection—and Maximus does not dodge it. He basically flips it.”
My comment. Prepare for some clever theological gymnastics.
5. Maximus’ counterintuitive answer
ChatGPT argues that Maximus would argue: Christ actually experiences temptation more deeply, not less.
Why is that true? Because:
- We often give in to temptation early (My comment: After all, we crave sin, right?)
- We don’t experience the full force of temptation (My comment: Says who?)
But Christ:
- never yields to temptation
- endures temptation to its absolute limit
That is because Christ had advantages we don’t have, as he was not born craving sin as we are. Maximus fails in proving his point.
Think of all the martyrs who died by being burned alive, skinned alive, and other such awful tortures, and never denied Christ. They were also pushed and tempted to the absolute limit, were they not? Of course, they were.
ChatGPT writes, ‘A modern analogy (not Maximus, but consistent with him):
- Someone who resists torture to the end knows its full weight
- Someone who gives in quickly does not
So, Christ knows the full intensity of temptation—without the distortion of sin.
That statement is self-refuting. One can’t know the full intensity of temptation unless they know the distortion of sin. And Christ doesn’t know the distortion of sin. This argument of Maximus also fails.
6. ChatGPT writes, ‘But what about “inclination”?
Here’s the crux. You’re equating:
- temptation
with
- inclination toward sin
Maximus separates them:
- Temptation = being tested, pressured, enticed
- Inclination (fallen) = being internally bent toward evil
ChatGPT continues: Maximus would say, “The inclination you’re describing is not what makes temptation real—it’s what makes it disordered.”
My response. This is simply not true and sounds like gibberish to me. Why does this still sound like more theological sophistry? The temptation I am describing is more real to humanity and more difficult to refuse because of the bent or inclination to sin we inherit from Adam. And Adam never had this inner inclination, but he still sinned? Explain that.
Jesus was never tempted as we are because he did not inherit the corruption of human nature from Adam. Therefore, Jesus did not truly take on human nature, contrary to Scripture, if their argument is true, which it is not.
7. Gethsemane is the key example, according to ChatGPT
Look at Christ in Gethsemane:
- “Let this cup pass from me… nevertheless not my will but yours…”
Maximus reads this very carefully:
- Christ has a real human will that naturally recoils from death
- That’s not sin—that’s human nature (My comment.I agree thus far.)
But:
- There is no rebellion
- No sinful hesitation
- No “maybe I’ll choose against God.”
So, this is real human struggle, without sinful inclination
My response. If Jesus was not tempted to refuse to suffer and die, then he was not tempted at all. If he were not in the real possible position of “maybe I’ll choose against God,” then he was not tempted at all.
Without a sinful inclination, there is no temptation and no test. If we are not tempted to go against God’s will, then there is no temptation. If we are only inclined to virtue, then there is no vice or virtue. If we are only inclined to vice, then there is no virtue or vice. Yetzer is the inclination to both virtue and vice. And we must choose between the two. That must also be true of Jesus, for reasons already stated.
8. So, does Christ “relate” to us?
Here’s the Orthodox answer, at its strongest:
Christ does not relate to:
- our confusion
- our inner corruption
- our disordered desires
And I contend that if this is true, then Jesus does not know what it is like to be tempted as a human being. It also means that he did not take on our human nature, as already discussed. See part 4 of this series for a review of Hebrews 2 and 4.
But He does relate to:
- suffering
- pressure
- fear
- pain
- the cost of obedience
And He does so without the distortion that sin introduces, according to ChatGPT.
My response. Jesus relates to suffering, pressure, fear, pain, and the cost of obedience, but without the distortion sin introduces. He has advantages other humans do not. Plain and simple. But the rest of us must relate to suffering, pressure, fear, pain, and the cost of obedience with the distortion that sin introduces. Can you tell me with a straight face that Jesus was tempted like we are?
9. ChatGPT, ‘Where your intuition is pushing back
ChatGPT continues, you’re basically saying: “The hardest part of temptation is the inward pull—and Jesus didn’t have that.”
ChatGPT writes, ‘That’s fair. And here’s the honest tension:
- Orthodoxy:
→ That inward pull is not essential to being human
→ It’s a defect Christ came to heal - Your instinct:
→ That inward pull feels central to the human experience of temptation
That’s not a small disagreement—it’s about what counts as “fully human.”
And I agree with this assessment. The inward pull is essential to being human, contrary to the Orthodox claim. And how does Christ “heal” us from this defect? This is where the medical analogy needs help and clarification.
Sin is not a disease that we can be healed from as a physician heals patients with surgery and medication. Sin is an evil choice and is an active rebellion against the will of God. How does Jesus heal us from that? He persuades us by his grace to come to reason with him, acknowledge our sins, and forsake them.
As we seek God in truth, we find both God and the truth, which sets us free from the bondage of sin. Titus 2 tells us that the grace of God appears to all men, telling them to live righteously and forsake unrighteousness. That is the surgery and medicine that God gives so that we are healed.
10. The bottom line (Maximus’ position)
- Christ has a real human will (My response: Not true.)
- He experiences real temptation (My response: Not true.)
- He lacks fallen deliberation (gnomic will) (My response: True.)
- He has no inclination toward sin (My response: True.)
- Yet He endures temptation more completely than we do (My response: Not true because his temptation is not as severe as ours.)
The hardest question?
According to ChatGPT, if the “gnomic will” is part of our actual experience, can Christ truly heal what He didn’t assume? Maximus has a very specific answer—and it’s where even many theologians say, “this is the most difficult part of his system.”
This is exactly the pressure point in Maximus the Confessor, and he knows it. The objection you’re raising is not a side issue; it’s the central challenge:
“If Christ didn’t assume the very thing I experience (this inner, wavering, conflicted will), how can He heal it?”
Maximus’s answer is subtle, and honestly, not immediately satisfying unless you see the structure he’s working with, writes ChatGPT.
1. The principle he starts with
Maximus fully agrees with the famous patristic rule (from Gregory of Nazianzus):
“What is not assumed is not healed.”
So, he cannot say:
- Christ just ignored part of the human experience
He has to explain:
- how Christ heals what we experience
without
- making Christ internally divided or sinful
2. His key distinction (this is everything) according to ChatGPT
Maximus draws a hard line between: Nature (what you are) versus the mode of using that nature (how you operate it).
What does that mean? Maximus is attempting to distinguish between nature and what you actually do. But that is a fiction of his own imagination.
Human nature includes:
- a will oriented toward the good
- the capacity to choose
That’s what Christ assumes fully.
My response. But that is not what human nature entails, according to these folks. Humans have a will oriented toward both good and evil (yetzer). Maximus now seems to deny this, as does Orthodoxy, apparently. Moreover, they teach that humanity now has an added liability: an inbred inclination to sin.
The “gnomic will” (our wavering, conflicted choosing) is:
- not part of human nature itself
- but a damaged way of operating it
In other words: The gnomic will is not something we are—it’s something we do because we’re broken
My response. This is not true. We are what we do. Those who do what is right are righteous. Those who do evil are wicked. Read the following verses carefully.
“Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” 1 John 3:7
“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Romans 2:13
Those who live in sin are unrighteous and are not born of God. We reap what we sow. Jesus said that a good tree can’t bring forth bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t bring forth good fruit. A tree is known by the fruit/works it produces.
Maximus claims that we are broken. Was Jesus broken also? If not, then he doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are. If Jesus is unbroken and we are broken, then he doesn’t know what our temptation is like. How can it be otherwise?
3. So how does Christ heal it if He doesn’t have it?
Here’s Maximus’ answer, step by step:
(1) Christ assumes the true human will
Not a damaged version—but the real thing as it was meant to be.
My response. This is not true, for the true human will is broken, whereas Jesus was not, according to Maximus.
(2) He lives it out perfectly and consistently
At every point of pressure, suffering, and testing.
My comment. This also is not true. See previous comments.
(3) By doing that, He reorders and restores human nature itself
So instead of:
- entering into our confusion
He:
- corrects it at the root
Again, this is not true. See previous comments.
Analogy (very important)
Maximus’ logic is more like this:
- A doctor heals blindness
- Not by becoming blind himself
- But by restoring sight
So:
Christ heals the divided will not by sharing the division, but by restoring the will to its proper function.
My comments. Sin is not a disease or a physical disability, so that analogy is misleading and inadequate. This last statement should actually read as follows: for almost no Christian actually believes that our blindness is ever fully healed, but that we will sin daily for the rest of our lives.
Christ partially heals our divided will, even though he is not tempted as we are. Jesus doesn’t share our divided will because he resists temptation and is not human as we are, who are inclined to do evil. Christ does not restore the will to its proper function, for all moral beings are created with free will that must choose between good and evil. Christ brings sinners to repentance and faith that they may be saved. In this way, Christ heals our divided will.
4. Then what exactly is being “healed”?
What we experience:
- indecision
- inner conflict
- being pulled both ways
And all this makes us moral agents with human nature. But Maximus wants us to believe that Christ shared in none of this. Maximus says: That’s not a ‘thing’ Christ needs to assume—it’s a malfunction.
So, what gets healed is:
- the underlying human will
- which, once restored, no longer operates in that fractured way
My response is that this is not true, as already pointed out.
5. But doesn’t that still distance Him from us?
ChatGPT writes, ‘This is where your objection still bites, and Maximus doesn’t deny the tension.
You’re saying: “But my lived experience of temptation includes inner struggle—Jesus didn’t have that.” Maximus would respond:
- Christ did experience struggle (My comment: but not like we do)
- but not sinful inner division (My comment: But we do have this, and Christ didn’t)
Example: Gethsemane
- real human shrinking from death
- real agony
- real cost
But:
- no confusion about whether to obey
It is not just confusion; it is a deliberate choice of evil on our part, partly driven by our bent or inclination to sin. And he wants us to believe that Jesus heals what He never experienced.
- Not a pull toward disobedience
If true, then Jesus doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are. That directly contradicts the truth of God’s Word.
Maximus then states that he experiences the weight of obedience, without the distortion of sin
My response to Maximus is that this is but religious speak that does not answer the question.
6. The deeper claim (this is his boldest move)
Maximus is actually redefining what “fully human” means.
He’s saying:
- What you and I experience is not the baseline
- It’s a damaged version of humanity
So:
Christ is not less like us—He is what we are supposed to be
I do not believe it at all. What we experience is the baseline of what it means to be human. Maximus denies that Jesus took on human nature and is tempted as we are. It is what Adam and Eve experienced. What we are supposed to be is not the question. We all know we are supposed to be holy and live as Christ in this world. That is the issue.
7. Where this leaves your objection
Let’s state it cleanly. Your concern:
“If He didn’t feel the inward pull toward sin, He doesn’t really know my temptation.”
Maximus’ answer:
“He knows something deeper (My response is that this is not true):
- the full force of temptation (My response: that is not true.)
- the full cost of obedience (My response: Think of the millions of martyrs who also know the full cost of obedience)
- the full reality of human suffering
—but without the distortion that makes your experience confusing and divided.”
My response to this unsatisfactory explanation is this. None of this is biblical, true, or accurate. I must reject it all, for it makes no sense to me. It is unreasonable, and I believe it is unbiblical.
8. The honest tension (not a cheap resolution)
ChatGPT continues, ‘Even after all that, there’s still a real philosophical and theological question: Is a “healed” humanity truly continuous with our present experience?
Maximus says:
- Yes, because the nature is the same
You might still feel:
- It’s different in a way that matters existentially
And that’s a legitimate pressure point—many have felt it.
I agree. All of this bridges the gap between Augustine’s anthropology and the views of Pelagius and some early church fathers on human nature and free will. This is another example of the lengths people will go to to import a degree of depravity and inability into their theological beliefs.
Maximus the Confessor has not convinced me that he understands the issue or that he has a legitimate explanation for it.
In Part 4, we will look closely at Hebrews 4:15 and Hebrews 2, which state that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are and that he took on our nature from Abraham, not Adam, before the fall.
