Yetzer. Part 4. Hebrews 2 & 4. Jesus Tempted As We Are?

Hebrews 2:14 & Hebrews 4:15

September 2026.

Does Hebrews 4:15 (“tempted in all points as we are”) require identity of inner experience, or only identity of real testing?

That’s where the debate usually lands—both historically and today. And this is exactly where everything comes to a head. Hebrews 4:15 is the text that forces a decision:

“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (KJV)

The debate turns on one question: What does “like as we are” actually require?

1. Two fundamentally different readings

A. The Maximus / Eastern Orthodox reading

Maximus the Confessor represents this clearly. They read the verse like this: “Tempted in all points” means Christ faced every category of testing proper to human life:

• suffering
• hunger
• fear
• pressure
• death
• “Like as we are” means real, not superficial participation in those trials
• “Yet without sin” means not just that He didn’t commit sin, but that He lacked sinful inclination and He lacked inner corruption

So, for them, the verse teaches: the full reality of testing, without inner sinfulness

My response. Note what is being said. Jesus experienced the reality of testing, but most Christians throughout the ages deny that Jesus could have flunked the test or sinned. Therefore, this statement is false. This statement also implies that humans are born with “inner sinfulness,” not just a bent or inclination to sin. There is a big difference between the two.

And at the same time, Maximus and others want us to believe that Jesus was tempted as we are tempted. That is impossible for me to believe because Jesus did not have a sinful inclination, nor did he have inner corruption, both of which humanity has. To claim that Jesus experienced “the full reality of testing” is clearly not true because, according to them, He could not actually be tempted or succumb to sin. This argument is not just weak; it is pitiful in my estimation.

B. The “strong experiential identity” reading

This shows up in various Western and modern discussions. ChatGPT writes, ‘This reading presses your intuition: “Like as we are” must include:

• inner struggle
• inward pull toward sin
• the psychological experience of temptation

Otherwise, the similarity seems incomplete, writes ChatGPT. And I respond by saying that the similarity seems incomplete because it is incomplete.

So, this view tends to say that if Christ didn’t feel what we feel internally, the verse is weakened, writes ChatGPT. And I respond that they actually rewrote this verse, not just weakened it.

2. Where does the real disagreement lie?

It’s not actually about the word “tempted”—both sides agree Christ was truly tempted.

I do not think that is accurate. I believe that most Christians, at least today and for much of the history of the church, do not think Jesus could have sinned, so his temptation was not a real test. Moreover, Christ’s temptations were much less strong than ours because he did not have an inclination to sin, as we do. Temptation is the enticement or allurement to do what is wrong and against the will of God.

ChatGPT writes, ‘It’s about this: Is sinful inclination part of what “temptation” means?

Maximus says: No.

• Temptation is being tested under pressure
• Sinful inclination is a distortion of that experience

My comment is that Maximus’s position does not answer the objection. At best, it is obfuscation.

So, according to Maximus, Hebrews 4:15 means that Christ shared in the testing, not the distortion. My response is that the distortion magnifies temptation, so Christ was not tempted as we are. Is that not true?

ChatGPT continues: Your instinct says:

Yes (or at least “it feels that way”).

• The hardest part of temptation is the inward pull
• So, without that, something essential seems missing because it is missing

3. The grammar of the verse actually matters

The key phrase is: “yet without sin.”

Both sides agree on the obvious meaning (He didn’t sin), but the question is: Does it also qualify the kind of temptation?

Orthodox reading: Yes—it means His temptation was entirely free from anything sinful, including inner inclination.

Alternative reading: It only means He didn’t act on temptation, not that His internal experience differed.

And I fully agree with this alternative reading. I appreciate some Orthodox beliefs, but I cannot yet agree with their interpretation of this passage or their related doctrines. I may be missing something, and if you can convince me, I will change my mind. I want the truth.

4. How earlier fathers tended to read it

Pre-Augustinian and Eastern-leaning fathers (like John Chrysostom) consistently emphasize:

• Christ’s temptations were real and intense

But:

• They reject any idea of inner sinful movement in Him (My response: What does this mean?)

They often stress that He took what is ours except sin. In what ways is sin ours? They reject the Augustinian concept of original guilt and sin. At the same time, they cling to an inner weakness or inclination to sin that seems to constitute sin itself. And I do not see how this is biblical or accurate.

And for them, “sin” includes:

• not just actions
• but disordered desire

My response. What does that mean? Is that the inclination to sin? Was Jesus incarnated with disordered desire? If not, then he doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are. Is that not obvious?

5. A crucial distinction: “infirmities.”

The verse says: “touched with the feeling of our infirmities.” Orthodoxy leans heavily on that word. Christ shares:

• hunger
• weakness
• suffering
• mortality

These are blameless human weaknesses. Orthodoxy then adds that Christ did not share our:

• sinful desire (Is this not what temptation is? That sounds like Jesus was not tempted at all.)
• inward corruption

So, they read the verse as:

He fully shares our weaknesses, but not our sinfulness, according to ChatGPT’s understanding of the early church fathers.

ChatGPT says the early church thought that Jesus fully shares our weaknesses, as you just read. But that is not true according to themselves because we are born inclined to sin, which is a great weakness, isn’t it?  And Jesus did not share this great weakness. Therefore, Jesus did not fully share our weaknesses.

And maybe the early church actually rejected the idea that we were born inclined to sin. From other quotes I have read, that is a real possibility, since I haven’t read anything they have written that suggests what ChatGPT is saying. I have not read everything they wrote, so maybe I am missing solid evidence.

            ChatGPT writes that many infer that we are born sinners. Most of the early church did not agree. That all changed when, later in his life, Augustine changed Orthodoxy.

6. The strongest pushback to Maximus

ChatGPT writes, ‘Let’s sharpen your objection as strongly as possible. “If temptation without inner pull is fundamentally different from my experience, then ‘like as we are’ doesn’t really hold true.” That’s a serious argument. It basically says similarity must include phenomenological experience (what it feels like inside)

7. Maximus’ counter (in its strongest form)

He would answer in the 3 following ways:

(1) Your experience is not the standard

• It is a fallen version of humanity

(2) The inward pull is not essential to temptation

• It’s what happens when desire is disordered

(3) Christ experienced something deeper

• the full force of suffering
• the full cost of obedience
• the full intensity of testing

Without:

• confusion
• divided will
• attraction to evil

So: He shares what is human, not what is pathological

My response. As I have already mentioned, none of Maximus’s ideas are true to reason, logic, and the Word of God. He simply repeats the same false ideas over and over. If what he says is true about Christ, then Jesus was not tempted as we are tempted, and he did not take on humanity, which contradicts Hebrews 2 (We will consider this passage later in this article)

8. Where this leaves the tension

Now we can state the issue cleanly, writes ChatGPT:

Option 1 (Maximus / Orthodoxy):

• “Like us” is the same human nature plus real testing, but not
• The same inner fallen experience that all humanity experiences

Option 2 (your pressure point):

• “Like us” must include the inner dynamics of temptation
• Otherwise, the identification feels incomplete because it is incomplete

How is it possible that Jesus knows what it is like to be tempted as we are when our desires are disordered and weakened, and his were not? Therefore, it is not true.

9. Why this matters theologically

This isn’t just abstract—it affects how you understand:

Christ’s empathy

• Does he understand you from the inside?

Christ’s sinlessness

• Could he have had an inward pull without being sinful? (And to that I say yes, because that is the essence of what it means to be tempted)

Salvation

• Does He heal by:
  • sharing our condition fully?
  • or restoring it from its root?

10. A fair, honest conclusion according to ChatGPT

Maximus’ view is internally consistent, but it asks you to accept something that runs against intuition and reality: The most “normal” human experience we all know (inner conflict in temptation) is actually not normal at all—it’s a distortion as if that solves the issue. And it doesn’t.

ChatGPT writes, ‘Your hesitation makes sense because:

• existentially, that inner struggle feels central to being human because it is central
• philosophically, it raises the question of whether Christ’s experience is “close enough” to ours. And does that question really belong in this study, and can it ever be answered?

How do Reformed (Calvinist) or Augustinian theologies handle Hebrews 4:15?

ChatGPT claims the Calvinist/Reformed position addresses my concern in almost the opposite way to Maximus the Confessor, and that contrast is very clarifying.

1. Start with the shared commitment

ChatGPT claims that both sides (Eastern Orthodox and Reformed) are trying to protect two truths:

• Christ is truly human and was really tempted
• Christ is completely without sin

The disagreement is how those fit together.

And I agree with both points, but it is simply not true that either side actually agrees that Christ was truly human, like us, in that both deny that Christ entered into this world as we do, with a nature inclined to sin and with a wounded, weakened, or depraved will. They define these terms differently so they can claim to believe in both principles.

2. The Augustinian/Reformed framework

Following Augustine of Hippo and later thinkers like John Calvin, the Reformed tradition typically holds:

Human condition after the fall:

• Total depravity (not meaning “as bad as possible,” but “sin affects every part”)
• The will is not free in a neutral sense—it is inclined toward sin

My comment is that they actually believe we are all born sinners who can do nothing but sin. That is a far cry from being born inclined to sin. It is being consigned to sin.

ChatGPT says, ‘So far, that actually sounds similar to what you’ve been describing. My comment is not really. I reject both the Augustinian-Calvinist view and, apparently, the Eastern Orthodox view. And both are dangerous, in my humble opinion. The Augustinian Calvinist view is the most dangerous.

3. But here’s the key difference about Christ

Reformed theology draws a very firm line:

Christ:

• assumes true human nature
• but not fallen corruption

So, they agree with Orthodoxy on that point, and it actually refutes the idea that Christ assumes true human nature. But here’s where they differ in emphasis:

4. What is temptation for Christ?

Reformed thinkers tend to say:

• Christ experienced real temptation, including:
  • suffering
  • fear
  • pressure
  • desire to avoid pain

But:

He did not have an inward sinful inclination. So far, that still sounds like Maximus. And let me add that it still sounds as though Christ could not have been tempted as we are because we are born with this inclination to sin and Jesus wasn’t. If true, we are clearly at a disadvantage. Christ was not tempted as we are because He had no inner inclination to sin and we do. Is this not obvious from their own words?

5. ChatGPT continues, ‘Then how do they handle your objection?

This is where they answer you more directly than Maximus does. They say: Temptation does not require an inward sinful pull.

My response. That makes no sense at all. Sin is possible only when external pulls and enticements act on internal desires, passions, and lusts. Temptation, to be temptation, requires an inward sinful pull (enticement, allurement), or it is not temptation at all.

Instead, they say temptation can come from:

• external pressure
• natural (non-sinful) desires
• circumstances of suffering

My comment. Yes, temptation can, and most often does, begin externally, but to be temptation, it must pull internally against the law of God.

An example they often use. Hunger is not a sin. But being hungry can tempt you to act wrongly. So, Christ:

• truly feels hunger
• is genuinely tempted (e.g., stones to bread)
• but has no sinful craving driving Him

My response. Christ, in this example, is tempted internally to unlawfully gratify his hunger. He can and does resist this temptation, in part, because, according to ChatGPT, he “has no sinful craving driving him.” But they neglect to mention that the question is whether Christ is truly tempted as we are. They apparently do not believe that Christ could ever yield to temptation. We can’t but yield to temptation, and it is impossible for Jesus to yield to temptation. These are not compatible. Christ’s temptation is not anything like ours.

• Christ is tempted by hunger to turn stones to bread, which would be sinful, but He can’t yield to the temptation
  • Mankind is tempted by hunger plus an inclination to sin,  to steal bread, which would be sinful. And we can’t help but yield to this temptation because our will is weakened.

My comment. If they are correct, who can’t see that mankind’s temptation is much stronger than Christ’s (if we could even say Christ was actually tempted at all)? Therefore, Christ does not know about the aggravated nature of our temptation. His temptation was not like ours if their anthropology is true.

6. Their reading of Hebrews 4:15

They interpret “tempted in all points like as we are” as meaning Christ experienced every kind of testing appropriate to human life, but not every internal condition of fallen humans, and “yet without sin.” And this includes the idea that Christ’s temptation:

• no sinful actions
• no sinful nature
• no sinful inclination

My response. The last two bullet points reveal the qualitative difference between Christ’s supposed temptation and ours. Yet they claim Christ was tempted in all points as we are. I find this impossible to understand and believe, for they claim we do have a sinful nature and a sinful inclination, and Christ didn’t, but somehow we are to believe Jesus was tempted in all points as we are. On its face, this is a blatant contradiction and absurd.

7. ChatGPT writes, ‘Where do they push back on your concern?

Your concern: “If He didn’t feel the inward pull, He doesn’t really know my temptation.”

Reformed response: Actually, your inward pull is part of your sinfulness, not part of temptation itself.

My response. That response is more religious nonsense and empty but pious-sounding rhetoric. The inward sinfulness is absolutely part of temptation itself by definition. The inward pull makes temptation irresistible, according to many Calvinists.

So, they would say:

• Christ knows temptation perfectly

My comment. What does that mean? Does he know it perfectly when he was not born inclined to sin or born totally depraved like us? Please. These are empty, religious, pious-sounding words; they don’t make a good argument or answer the objection.

• You know it in a distorted way

ChatGPT continues, ‘And here’s their strongest argument (very similar to Maximus, but framed differently):

The person who never gives in experiences the full force of temptation.

My response. Seriously? The person who never sinned was Jesus, and they claim he was not born with a sinful nature like us or even born with a bent toward sin like us. Obviously, that greatly helped Jesus to resist sin. And it can explain why we sin and he did not. Is this not another pitiful argument?

8. Where Reformed theology differs from Maximus

This is subtle but important. Maximus:

• builds a whole system around gnomic will vs. natural will
• says Christ lacks the mode of fallen deliberation

Reformed:

• usually doesn’t use that framework
• instead focuses on:
  • Christ’s sinless nature
  • and the distinction between temptation and sin

So:

• Maximus is more philosophical/ontological explanation
• Reformed is more moral/psychological explanation

My comment. And neither makes moral or Biblical sense.

9. Where both traditions agree (against your intuition), according to ChatGPT

Both would say: The inward inclination to sin is not required for real temptation.

My response. Even if that were true, which it is not, it might well explain why Christ didn’t sin, and we do sin. We are born inclined to sin, or even worse, we are born sinners, and Christ was not. No wonder we can’t resist sin, and no wonder Jesus could and did resist sin. All of this nonsense directly contradicts the Word of God.

And both would insist:

• If Christ had that inclination:
  • He would not be sinless in the full sense

My response. I completely disagree with their reasoning. We do not need to posit that Christ has a sinful inclination. That is not the only option. The other option is that mankind is not born totally depraved or with a bent or inclination to sin. Then the problem is resolved.

But even if Christ had, like us, a bent toward sin, that doesn’t make him any less perfect because he never yielded to that bent toward sin. Their arguments fail on all counts as far as I am concerned.

10. Where your objection still stands, according to ChatGPT

Even after both explanations, your concern doesn’t disappear: “But that inward pull is the core of what temptation feels like to me.” That’s the unresolved tension.

The real question becomes this. Is fallen experience:

• essential to being human?
  or
• a distortion of being human?

My comment. ChatGPT presents this as a dichotomy when it is not an either/or. It’s both/and. To be human as we are is both essential to humanity and a distortion. It is not one or the other.

11. The fork in the road

If you say: “That inward struggle is essential to human temptation.” Then:

• Both Maximus and Reformed views will feel incomplete and wrong

My response. I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I don’t believe either one.

If you accept: “That inward pull is a distortion.” Then their explanations start to make more sense.

My comment. No, they do not make any sense at all. The more I study their explanations, the more I am convinced they are contrived. And all this seems like an effort to justify the errors of Augustinian Calvinism. Truly, a little leaven leavens the whole thing.

12. The biggest difference (put simply)

• Your instinct:
  Temptation is an inner pull toward sin
• Orthodox and Reformed:
  Temptation is testing under pressure
  Inner pull is a result of sin, not its definition

My comment. Did you find that helpful? I did not. The Orthodox and Reformed view is that temptation is testing under pressure, the result of sin, not the inner pull toward sin, and not its definition. Christ was supposedly tempted to sin but couldn’t actually yield to sin, so was it really any temptation at all? I do not believe it.

And we are tempted to sin, and the Calvinists think it is impossible for us not to sin, and the Orthodox believe we are tempted to sin, and our sinful inclination makes it nearly impossible for us not to yield to sin. Yet Jesus somehow knows what it is like to be tempted as we are. Is it wrong of me to call this nonsense?

13. A blunt but clarifying way to frame it per ChatGPT

Both traditions are effectively saying: “Christ is like you in everything that is truly human—but not in what is sinful in you.”

My comment. But being sinful and susceptible to sin makes us truly human. Notice again that ChatGPT seems to make the inclination to sin part of our sinful nature that we inherit from Adam. In Augustinian Calvinism, it is a totally depraved nature, while in Orthodoxy it is not a totally depraved nature but nearly so. And this contradicts the Word of God, which clearly tells us that Christ took on our nature and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 2 tells us what?

“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage, For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.” Hebrews 2: 14-18

This passage tells us that Christ took on the nature or seed of Abraham (in all things to be made like unto his brethren – all things, not just some things), that is, not the nature of pre-fall Adam that did not have an inclination to sin or a sinful nature. And if Augustine and Calvin are accurate, that is a totally depraved nature. And no Christian, that I am aware of, believes that Christ was born totally depraved, but we are. So, how does Christ know what it is like to be tempted as we are, when we are born totally depraved, or if not totally depraved, we are born partially depraved and inclined to sin? Impossible.

ChatGPT continues, ‘And you’re asking:

“But what if that ‘sinful part’ feels inseparable from my actual experience and the experience of all other human beings?” According to ChatGPT, that’s the real issue—and it’s not a shallow one.

Final Comments

I honestly do not care if I need to change my views. I am going to follow the truth wherever it leads. I am not married to my views in the sense that I will not divorce them if I find them in error. So far, nothing in the Orthodox or Reformed/Calvinist viewpoints speaks truth to me on this subject in particular. Consequently, I reject their views. Their reasoning and proof texts are not convincing.

I do appreciate some Orthodox doctrines and praise God for them. On the other hand, I accept nothing about the Reformed/Calvinist views as biblical, reasonable, or truthful.

See my other articles for more information on this topic.

• How Free Is Our Will? 4 articles.
• Two Natures
• Ability and Inability
• Original Sin Dogma: Are We Born Sinners?
• Augustine, Parts 1, 2, and 3
• Titus. Chapters 1 through 11
• Original Sin: 11 articles