This is just a quick thought. Is the reason that the Catholic church gives Mary such a high position, even to claiming that she bodily rose into heaven , [the “assumption” of Mary?] ; to do with the perpetuation of the thinking that Christ was “perfect” at all times, and therefore he may have been afflicted with our sin, but never actually had any internal impurity [deficient of perfection, continually holy, perfect God in man].
On this basis that Mary was as good as perfect, they consolidate the position that Christ DID NOT share in our humanity, in the full meaning of the phrase, because he had perfection on both sides of his family, and that he only came in a fleshly body like ours, that was not a part of the temptation process, because the temptation is represented as being from an external source.
And there lies a problem. If we too, are tempted “by the devil”, externally, not INTERNALLY, then our “sin nature” has to be divorced from desire and temptation itself, unless we have to consider that man can have a desire, which then requires an external tempter to mate up to that desire, before temptation can be said to have taken place.
The word of course, says that “Every man is tempted when, from within, BY his OWN desire, he is led and enticed. [logically this means that what is doing the tempting, is his own desire]. Either his own desire, generated from within, from the “sin nature” is tempting him internally, or the external devil comes to him and latches onto his desire and proceeds to tempt him from an external position.
This then divorces the desire, from the “leading” process. It says that a desire can sit there of itself, needing an external source to come to him, albeit invisibly, and provide the next step towards the fulfillment of that desire, to carry it out so that “…and sin, when it has given birth, brings death” (or similar).
So it is saying that the whole “chain of events” in the temptation/sin process, is complete in itself, OTHER THAN the “bit in the middle” which apparently requires a supernatural tempter to be involved.
When Paul talks about his problem in Romans 7, although he does not specifically mention the word “temptation”, he talks about his inability to do good, because of his captivity to the function of the flesh, which in anyone’s parlance, has to be considered as the “sin nature”. He attributes all of his problems, which have to include temptation, to “therefore it is not me, but sin that dwells in me.”, an internal, not external, process. There is no step in the middle that includes supernatural intervention.
In both the “definition” of temptation,(every man is tempted when FROM WITHIN, BY HIS OWN DESIRES, HE IS LED….in the slavery that leads to death) and in his explanations of captivity to sin in Romans, this external tempter does not appear. In the very places you would expect him to say “we have to blame the devil”, it does not happen.
Therefore, I conclude that this temptation is that which arises from man’s sinful corrupt inner nature, which is what we call “flesh”, and that this flesh is primarily referring to “the body of flesh”, and it is this form of body that Christ participated in when he “joined the human race” via Mary.
It says that Christ had to be made perfect. That he was perfected through suffering, through obedience. And then that “having been made perfect…” So Christ WAS NOT PERFECT IN THE FLESH. He was deficient in the same manner we are, “yet without sin”, whereas we have plenty of sin as a result of having lived in this nature that we and he shared/share.
So in order for his perfection to take place, it meant change had to occur. This change was enacted within himself as he wrestled with this inner problem, deficiency, inadequacy, defect, fault, imperfection in the human species.
What was resurrected in Christ? Was it just his “perfect self”? Did this not include his body? Jehovah’s witnesses used to say that his body dissolved into gasses. But his resurrection was his whole self, body and all. In fact, it is the body that is the main point of all this.
Was just the part that he entered into the world with, even if it was perfect; the exact same thing that he left the world with? If he partook of humanity, it says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” Wasn’t that the point of it all, that he be a partaker of flesh and blood? Therefore he could not be resurrected without first undergoing change. By literally destroying in his flesh, the law of sin and death.
If he, in his lifetime, “learned obedience” through what he suffered, as Paul did, then why did he have to suffer horrifically in the garden and on the cross? Why all the “My God, My God, why have you abandoned me”? It could have been some dramatic symbolism, but more likely it was real anguish, it’s as if he was indeed being the object of “the wrath of God” on sin. But it does not make sense unless the wrath was real, and makes no sense unless the “wrath” was achieving something or destroying something.
If he only came as the perfect one so that he might die ” to make up for or pay for our sins, unjustly” because he took our place in death, then there was no need to torture him further because there was no way this could be done. And he had died, so what more was required. The basic premise is that the one death paid for the all of us. It makes more sense if he was being “tortured” by our sins because he was experiencing the reality of what that sin nature was, because he had, in himself, a sample of it.
So what’s the difference in the two states? The one is that the perfect one came and rejected temptation and survived trial, so that after spreading the gospel, having “learned obedience,” he could die as the one who, by taking our sin, took our death away. And because he was perfect he could be resurrected, although his body had not changed. The other is that he came to us perfect, but in our imperfect body. And by confronting sin nature within this imperfect body, he destroyed/changed it and perfected that body, so that it (he) was worthy of resurrection.
If he bore our sins literally, there is a problem as to how this could be done, the simplistic idea is really that he only had to die, and by dying, that in itself was him bearing our sin, because death is the penalty for sin. So he is the “sin-bearer” in that sense.
But to experience “the wrath of God”, as he appears to have done, as part of that sin bearing, is another thing altogether. In principle they are the same thing, in practice there is more to it. Since “Law brings wrath” ON SIN, it appears that sin (sin nature) is being dealt with. It appears as though the nature of love is to suffer and endure because of the sins of others. We are looking at an internal conflict, just as Paul observed, but in his case one that could not be resolved until he knew Christ.
In Christ’s case, it could not be resolved until sin was fully and completely dealt with, IN HIS BODY and that body then would be a cleansed one. That his suffering WAS HIS PURIFICATION, because it was the actual conflict between his righteousness and the unrighteousness of the sin nature, with the result that he destroyed/converted his own sin nature – “sin in the flesh” and restored it not only to “pre Adamic” state, but in overcoming the “fallen (sinful) Adamic condition, had shown worthiness of eternal life. Which is why his body underwent immortalisation.