One of the issues raised in the concupiscence debate is about the extent to which we can distinguish between external and internal temptation. In fact, in some respects the whole debate is about what we distinguish. So, first of all, there is the question about whether we need to distinguish temptation, desire and sin from each other. However, we also have this question about distinctions between kinds of temptation.
On one level, it is helpful to note that whilst there is external temptation, directly from Satan or indirectly through our culture, peers, the voices of others in our upbringing. On the other hand, there is the way in which James describes our own desires as tempting us into sin. I guess you could argue that if I am in effect tempting myself, then yes, I am sinning. However, I think this over dwells on a possible personification of desire in James 1 and treats the passage as an exercise of applied systematic theology which I would suggest goes beyond its intent.
The distinction can be helpful in terms of understanding how temptation works but if we over distinguish and separate, then I believe it becomes unhelpful. Indeed, it offers analysis that is neither Biblical nor in line with human experience.
First, in terms of Scripture, I’ve notice that the argument made for how we should understand Jesus’ temptation relies more on this attempt at systematic distinction between temptations that what Scripture actually says. What the bible tells us is that Jesus was tempted in every way bu without sin. This stops a long way short of the kind of speculation we are seeing in the current debate.
As I’ve observed previously, when Satan tempts, he does so by engaging with our desires and potential desires. These desires are to do with identity, security and comfort. We see this both in Genesis 3 and in Jesus’ experience of temptation.
Similarly, whether or not we attribute temptation directly to the devil or not (my inclination is not to given that he is not omnipresent), I believe that we can observe how temptation is normally an interaction between those external voices from culture, advertising, parenting, education, peer pressure, images and perhaps unhelpful/false advice and teaching and our internal desires so that desires are distorted.
So, it is never so simple in our case as to say that the temptation was internal or that it was external. The two combine in order to lead us astray. It remains the case that Christ was said to be without sin because he did not yield to temptation and that Adam and Eve did sin, not because they were tempted, even though they very clearly were tempted by desires but specifically because they acted on the temptation and the desire.
Faithroots 