Is that then a denial of "fully God" ... making Jesus a "perfect Man" in His incarnation? Truly a "second Adam"!
How was "fully God" capable of sin and thus actually "tempted as we are" ... to face temptation with no ABILITY to fail is not really "as we are". What does God know (experientally) of being a man? [Not an accusation, but an honest question of one seeking to understand the mystery and paradox.]
The human nature of Jesus the man was never separate from the Logos. We can never come to appreciate fully what it's like to have two natures. But we can look at the Scripture and understand only that which is revealed about the Son of God. One thing I see in the temptation is that it says He was hungered. This would apply to His human nature. His flesh.
At His baptism the Holy Spirit came and 'lighted' upon Him. The 'hupostasis' means a "
setting under" which to me means that although having two natures - one human the other deity - it was the Logos that [
was] "setting under" the human aspect or nature. In other words, although being conceived of the Holy Spirit and clothed with human flesh it was the humanity that took center stage and the "
lighting" of the Holy Spirit upon Him was the One by whom Jesus Christ was able to heal the sick and raise the dead. The human nature nor the Deific nature did nothing in these miracles and events. So, applying this to His temptation the human nature alone was being tempted "
as we are" yet He was without sin ("
choris harmatia") and was able to overcome the temptation ("
longing" is the English for the Gr. translated as "
lust" and there's nothing sinful in
longing for bread since He was hungered not eating for 40 days) through sheer will to obey the Father leaving us a model of how we are to deal with our "
longings." Submit to God, resist the "
traducer" of our human flesh and [he]
it will flee from thee, right?
Let me add that even if He wanted to turn the stones into bread He could not for the miracles are ALL performed by the Holy Spirit and I don't think IF Jesus would have even asked the Father in prayer that the Father would have granted this for it would have been sin and the Holy Spirit would not be party to sin in any form and not do it. Not here. Not ever.
What God knows 'experimentally' of being a man is experienced through the Son in "
hupostasis."
Jesus knew from at least the age of 12 who He was and His '
origin.' He was completely aware. He knew. And He was completely aware of what was [in] man and kept His distance (God commanded Israel to not mingle with the Goyim (nations) nor learn their ways) and Jesus was obedient in doing this. The assaults upon Christ were real and powerful, through the channel of His human nature, but they had no answering chord in Him to strike. He said, "the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me" (Jn. 14:30.)
The fact that Christ was almighty and victorious in His resistance, does not unfit Him to be an example for imitation to a weak and sorely tempted believer. Because the Lord overcame His temptations, it does not follow that His conflict and success was an easy one for Him. His victory cost Him tears and blood. His visage was so marred more than any man (Is. 52:14.) There was 'the travail of His soul' (Is. 53:11.) In the struggle He cried, "O my Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me!' (Matt. 26:39.) Because an army is victorious, it by no means follows that the victory was a cheap one.
Like you, I don't NEED to understand to accept ... but I do keep picking at it to try and understand.
