Temptation of Christ
TEMPTATION OF CHRIST
The temptation of Christ, of which we read in the 4th chap. of Matthew, has been much the subject of infidel ridicule, and some ingenious writers, to avoid the difficulties of a literal interpretation, have reduced the whole to vision and allegory. But perhaps this has increased rather than removed those difficulties. Is it not best always to adhere as close as possible to the language of inspiration, without glossing it with fancies of our own? And, after all, what is there so inconsistent with reason in this account? That, when our Lord retired to the interior part of the wilderness, the enemy of mankind should assume a disguise (whether human or angelic is not important, ) and present the most plausible temptation to our Redeemer, under these trying circumstances, is perfectly consisted with the malevolence of his character; but how far he was permitted to exert his power in forming them, is not necessary to be inquired. The grand objection is, why was Satan suffered thus to insult the Son of God? Wherefore did the Redeemer suffer his state of retirement to be thus disturbed with the malicious suggestions of the fiend? May it not be answered that herein,
1. He gave an instance of his own condescension and humiliation.
2. He hereby proved his power over the tempter.
3. He set an example of firmness and virtue to his followers.
And,
4. He here affords consolation to his suffering people, by showing not only that he himself was tempted, but is able to succour those who are tempted, Heb 2:13. Heb 4:15. Farmer on Christ’s Temptation; Edwards’s Hist. of Redemption, note 334. Henry, Gill, and Macknight, in loc.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Temptation of Christ
In the Catholic translation of the Bible, the word “temptation” is used in various senses, the principal of which are the following: the act of testing or trying (Deuteronomy 4:34; Tobit 2:12; Luke 22:28; etc.); enticement to evil (Matthew 26:41; 1 Corinthians 10:13; etc.); the state of being tempted (Matthew 6:13; Luke 4:13; etc.); that which tempts or entices to evil (James 1:12; 2 Peter 2:9; etc.); the name of a place (Exodus 17:7; Deuteronomy 6:16; etc.) Taken in an unfavourable sense as denoting enticement to evil, temptation cannot be referred directly to God or to Christ, so that when we read in Gen., xxii, 1, for instance, “God tempted Abraham”, and in John, vi, 6, “Hoc autem dicebat tentans eum”, literally: “This He [Jesus] said tempting him [Philip]”, the expressions must be taken in the sense of testing, trying. According to St. James (i, 12 sqq.), the natural source of man’s temptations is concupiscence, or that proneness to evil which is the result of the fall of Adam, and which remains in human nature after baptismal regeneration, and even though the soul is in the state of sanctifying grace (cf. Romans 8:1). Concupiscence becomes sinful only when freely yielded to; when resisted with God’s help it is an occasion of merit. Together with inward concupiscence, and outward creatures, which may be the occasion of sin (I John ii, 15 sqq.), the chief cause of temptation is Satan, “the tempter” (Matthew 4:3), bent on man’s eternal ruin (Ephesians 6:10 sqq.). In the Lord’s Prayer, the clause “Lead us not into temptation” is an humble and trusting petition for God’s help to enable us to overcome temptation when His Fatherly Providence allows us to experience the allurements of evil. Prayer and watchfulness are the chief weapons against temptation (Mark 14:38; etc.). God does not allow man to be tempted beyond his strength (1 Corinthians 10:13).
Like Adam, Christ (the second Adam) endured temptation only from without, inasmuch as His human nature was free from all concupiscence; but unlike Adam, He withstood the assaults of the Tempter on all points, thereby affording His mystical members a perfect model of resistance to their spiritual enemy, and a permanent source of victorious help (Hebrews 4:15-16). In our first three Gospels (Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13), the narrative of Christ’s temptation is placed in immediate connexion with His baptism on the one hand, and with the beginning of His public ministry on the other. The reason of this is clear. The Synoptists naturally regard the baptism of Christ as the external designation of Jesus from above for His Messianic work to be pursued under the guidance of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon Him on this occasion; and they no less naturally regard Christ’s sojourn in the desert where He was tempted, as His own immediate preparation for that great work under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit. As our first three Gospels agree concerning the time to which they assign the temptation of Christ, so they are at one in ascribing the same general place to its occurrence, viz. “the desert”, whereby they no doubt mean the Wilderness of Judea, where Jesus would indeed be, as St. Mark says: “with beasts”. From St. Mark (i, 13) — with whom compare St. Luke iv, 2 — we learn that Jesus Christ was tempted during the forty days which He spent in the desert (cf. St. Augustine, “Harmony of the Evangelists”, II, xvi), so that the three onsets given in detail by St. Matthew and St. Luke are apparently the three final assaults of Satan against Christ. The first of these assaults is directly connected in both St. Matthew and St. Luke with the prolonged fast of Jesus in the wilderness. The Tempter suggested to Jesus that He should use His miraculous power to relieve His hunger, by changing into bread the loaf-like flints of the desert. The two other assaults are given in a different order, St. Matthew adhering probably to the order of time, and St. Luke to that of place. The spot pointed out by tradition as the summit from which Satan offered to Jesus dominion over all earthly kingdoms is the “Quarantania”, a limestone peak on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. As regards the Temple’s pinnacle from which the Tempter bade Jesus cast Himself down, it was not the top of the House of Yahweh, but probably the roof of Solomon’s portico from which, at a later date, St. James was actually hurled to the pavement below (Eusebius, “Hist. eccl.”, IV, xiii).
According to St. Luke (iv, 13), after having subjected Christ to all kinds of temptations — the Messianic import of which is undoubted — Satan withdrew, awaiting a favourable opportunity like that which followed Christ’s prolonged fast in the desert. The later conflict thus alluded to is no other than that of Christ’s Passion (cf. Luke 22:53; John 14:30). The ministry of angels to Jesus, in connection with His temptation, is mentioned in Mark, i, 13. Satan’s exact manner of appearance to Jesus is not stated by the Evangelists. Despite the difficulties urged, chiefly by non-Catholic scholars, against the historical character of the three temptations of Jesus, as recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke, it is plain that these sacred writers intended to describe an actual and visible approach of Satan, to chronicle an actual shifting of places, etc., and that the traditional view, which maintains the objective nature of Christ’s temptations, is the only one meeting all the requirements of the Gospel narrative.
(Catholic Authors are marked with an asterisk). Life of Christ: *CIGOI (Klagenfurt, 1896-1905); *DIDON (tr. New York, 1891); EDERSHEIM (New York, 1884); FARRAR (London, 1874); *FORNARI (Rome, 1901); *FOUARD (tr. New York, 1891); GEIKIE (New York, 1886); *GRIMM (Ratisbon, 1876); HOLTZMANN (tr. London, 1904); KEIM (tr. London, 1876-83) *LE CAMUS (tr. New York, 1906-08); NEANDER (tr. London, 1871); PRESSENSÉ (Paris, 1884); ROBINS0N (London, 1898); *SCHEGG (Freiburg, 1875); *SEPPAND *HANEBERG (Ratisbon, 1898-1902); WEISS (tr. Edinburgh, 1883-4). For Commentaries see bibliographies under MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF ST.; MARK, GOSPEL OF ST.; LUKE, GOSPEL OF ST. For the literary analysis of the Synoptical accounts of Christ’s temptation, see New York Review, Oct.-Nov., 1905.
———————————–
FRANCIS E. GIGOT Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Temptation Of Christ
Immediately after the inauguration of his ministry, Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil; and after enduring for forty days the general assault of Satan, he suffered three’ special solicitations, which are recited in detail (Mat 4:1-11; Mar 1:12-13; Luk 4:1-13). SEE JESUS CHRIST.
I. Particulars and Drift of the Trial. In the first temptation the Redeemer is hungered, and when the devil bids him, if he be the Son of God, command that the stones may be made bread, there would seem to be no great sin in this use of divine power to overcome the pressing human want. Our Lord’s answer is required to show us where the essence of the temptation lay. He takes the words of Moses to the children of Israel (Deu 8:3), which mean, not that men must dispense with bread and feed only on the study of the Divine Word, but that our meat and drink, our food and raiment, are all the work of the creating hand of God, and that a sense of dependence on God is the duty of man. He tells the tempter that as the sons of Israel standing in the wilderness were forced to humble themselves and to wait upon the hand of God for the bread from heaven which he gave them, so the Son of man, fainting in the wilderness from hunger, will be humble and will wait upon his Father in heaven for the Word that shall bring him food, and will not be hasty to deliver himself from that dependent state, but will wait patiently for the gifts of his goodness.
In the second temptation, it is not probable that they left the wilderness, but that Satan was allowed to suggest to our Lord’s mind the place and the marvel that could be wrought there. They stood, it has been suggested, on the lofty porch that overhung the valley of Kedron, where the steep side of the valley was added to the height of the Temple (Josephus, Ant. 15:11, 5), and made a depth that the eye could scarcely have borne to look down upon. Cast thyself down perform in the holy city, in a public place, a wonder that will at once make all men confess that none but the Son of God could perform it. A passage from Psalms 91 is quoted to give a color to the argument. Our Lord replies by an allusion to another text that carries us back again to the Israelites wandering in the wilderness: Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah (Deu 6:16). Their conduct is more fully described by the psalmist as a tempting of God: They tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust; yea, they spake against God: they said, Can God furnish a table in the wilderness? Behold he smote the rock that the waters gushed out and the streams overflowed. Can he give bread also? Can he provide flesh for his people? (Psalms 78). Just parallel was the temptation here. God has protected thee so far, brought thee up, put his seal upon thee by manifest proofs of his favor. Can he do this also? Can he send the angels to buoy thee up in thy descent? Can he make the air thick to sustain and the earth soft to receive thee? The appropriate answer is, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
In the third temptation it is not asserted that there is any mountain from which the eyes of common men can see the world and its kingdoms at once displayed; it was with the mental vision of One who knew all things that these kingdoms and their glory were seen. Satan has now begun to discover, if he knew not from the beginning, that One is here who can become the King over them all. He says, All these things will I give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me. In Luke the words are fuller: All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them, for that is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will, I give it; but these words are the lie of the tempter, which he uses to mislead. Thou art come to be great to be a King on the earth; but I am strong, and will resist thee. Thy followers shall be imprisoned and slain; some of them shall fall away through fear; others. shall forsake thy cause, loving this present world. Cast in thy lot with me; let thy kingdom be an earthly kingdom, only the greatest of all a kingdom such as the Jews seek to see established on the throne of David. Worship me by living as the children of this world live, and so honoring me in thy life then all shall be thine. The Lord knows that the tempter is right in foretelling such trials to him; but though clouds and darkness hang over the path of his ministry he must work the work of him that sent him, and not another work: he must worship God, and none other. Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. As regards the order of the temptations, there are internal marks that the account of Matthew assigns them their historical order. Luke transposes the last two, for which various reasons are suggested by commentators (Mat 4:1-11; Mar 1:12-13; Luk 4:1-13).
The three temptations are addressed to the three forms in Which the disease of sin makes its appearance on the soul-to the solace of sense, and the love of praise, and the desire of gain (1Jn 2:16); But there is one element common to them all-they are attempts to call up a willful and wayward spirit, in contrast to a patient self-denying one. SEE TEMPT. The author of Ecce Homo, although he takes too subjective a view of the last temptation scene, has admirably developed the thought, as lying at the foundation of Christ’s whole public demeanor, that he was constantly on his guard against the prevailing notion of an establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom by force instead of the influence of love; and he well observes that the temptation to this course was one that must have presented itself at some time to the Redeemer’s mind.
II. Credibility and Design of the Narrative. That when our Lord retired to the interior part of the wilderness the enemy of mankind should present the most plausible temptation to our Redeemer, under these trying circumstances, is perfectly consistent with the malevolence of his character. The grand question is, Why was Satan suffered thus to insult the Son of God? Wherefore did the Redeemer suffer his state of retirement to be thus disturbed with the malicious suggestions of the fiend? It may be answered that herein (1) he gave an instance of his own condescension and humiliation, (2) he hereby proved his power over the tempter, (3) he set an example of firmness and virtue to his followers, and (4) he here affords consolation to his suffering people by showing not only that he himself was tempted, but is able to succor those who are tempted (Heb 2:13; Heb 4:15).
III. Historical Character of the Scene. As the baptism of our Lord. cannot have been for him the token of repentance and intended reformation which it was for sinful men, so does our Lord’s sinlessness affect the nature of his temptation, for it was the trial of one who could not possibly have fallen. This makes a complete conception of the temptation impossible for minds wherein temptation is always associated with the possibility of sin. But while we must be content with an incomplete conception, we must avoid the wrong conceptions that are often substituted for it. The popular view of this undoubted portion of our Savior’s history is that it is a narrative of outward transactions; that our Savior, immediately after his baptism, was conducted by the Spirit into the wilderness-either the desolate and mountainous region now called Quarantania by the people of Palestine (Kitto, Phys. Hist. p. 39, 40), or the great desert of Arabia, mentioned in Deu 8:15; Deu 32:10; Hos 13:5; Jer 2:6, etc. where the devil tempted him in person, appeared to him in a visible form, spoke to him in an audible voice, removed him to the summit of an exceeding high mountain, and to the top of a pinnacle of the Temple at Jerusalem; whereas the view taken by many learned commentators, ancient and modern, is that it is the narrative of a vision, which was designed to supply that ideal experience of temptation, or trial, which it was provided in the divine counsels for our Lord to receive previously to entering upon the actual trials and difficulties of his ministry (Bishop Maltby, Sermons [Lond. 1822 ], 2, 276). Farmer also considers it a divine vision, and endeavors with much learning and ingenuity to illustrate the wise and benevolent intention of its various scenes as symbolical predictions and representations of the principal trials attending Christ’s public ministry (Inquiry into the Nature and Design of Christ’s Temptation [Lond. 1776, 8vo], preface).
On behalf of the popular interpretation, it is urged that the accounts given by the evangelists convey no intimation that they refer to a vision; that the feeling of hunger could not have been merely ideal; that a vision of forty days’ continuance is incredible; that Moses, who was a type of, Christ, saw no visions, and that hence it may be concluded Christ did not; that it is highly probable there would be a personal conflict between Christ and Satan when the former entered on his ministry. Satan had ruined the first Adam, and might hope to prevail with the second (Trollope, Analecta [Lond. 1830], 1, 46). Why, too, say others, was our Lord taken up into a mountain to see a vision? As reasonably might Paul have taken the Corinthians into a mountain to show them the more excellent way of charity (1Co 12:31).
On the contrary side, it is rejoined that the evangelists do really describe the temptation as a vision. Matthew says, ; Mark, ; and Luke, . Do these phrases mean no more than that Jesus went by the guidance or impulse of the Spirit to a particular locality.? Do they not rather import that Christ was brought into the wilderness under the full influence of the prophetic spirit making suitable revelations to his mind? With regard to the hunger, the prophets are represented as experiencing bodily sensations in their visions (Eze 3:3; Rev 10:10). Further arguments, derived from an unauthorized application of types, are precarious that the first Adam really had no personal encounter with Satan; that all the purposes of our Lord’s temptation might be answered by a vision, for, whatever might be the mode, the effect was intended to be produced upon his mind and moral feelings, like Peter’s vision concerning Cornelius, etc. (Act 10:11-17); that commentators least given to speculate allow that the temptation during the first forty days was carried on by mental suggestion only, and that the visible part of the temptation began when the tempter came to him (Mat 4:3; Luk 4:3; Scott, ad loc.); that with regard to Christ’s being taken up into an exceeding high mountain, Ezekiel says (Eze 40:2), in the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, etc.; and that John says, he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem (Rev 21:10). But certain direct arguments are also urged on the same side. Thus,’ is it consistent with the sagacity and policy of the evil spirit to suppose that he appeared in his own proper person to our Lord uttering solicitations to evil? Was not this the readiest mode to frustrate his own intentions? Archbishop Seeker says, certainly he did not appear what he was, for that would have entirely frustrated his intent (Sermons, 2, 114).
Chandler says,. The devil appeared not as himself, for that would have frustrated the effect of his temptation (Serm. 3,178). Seeker supposes that Satan transformed himself into an angel of light; but was it likely that he would put on this form in order to tempt our Lord to idolatry? (Mat 4:9). Chandler thinks he appeared as a good man; but would it have served his purpose to appear as a good man promising universal dominion? The supposition that the devil disguised himself in any form might indeed constitute the temptation a trial of our Lord’s understanding, but not of his heart. Besides, Christ is represented as addressing him as Satan (Mat 4:10). It is further urged that the literal interpretation does but little honor to the Savior, whom it represents as carried or conducted by the devil at his will, and therefore as accessory to his own temptation and danger; nor does it promote the consolation of his followers, none of whom could ever be similarly tempted. Our Lord indeed submitted to all the liabilities of the human condition; but do these involve the dominion of Satan over the body to the extent thus represented? The literal interpretation also attributes miraculous powers to the devil, who, though a spiritual being, is represented as becoming visible at pleasure, speaking in an audible voice, and conveying mankind where he pleases-miracles not inferior to what our Lord’s preservation would have been had he cast himself headlong from the Temple. Suppose we even give up the old notion that the devil hurried Christ through the air, and carried him from the wildernesss to the Temple (Benson, Life of Christ, p. 35), and say, with-Doddridge and others, that the devil took our Lord about with him as one person takes another to different places, yet how without a miracle shall we account for our Savior’s admission to the exterior of the Temple, unless he first, indeed, obtained permission of the authorities, which is not recorded (comp. Josephus, Ant. 15:11; 3, 5; War, 5, 5).
The difficulty is solved by the supposition simply of a change in our Lord’s perceptions. How can we further understand, except by the aid of a vision or a miracle, that the devil showed our Lord all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them in a moment of time ( ), a phrase referring to the mathematical point, and meaning the most minute and indivisible portion of duration, that is, instantaneously; yet in this space of time, according to the literal interpretation, the devil showed our Lord all the kingdoms of the world and all the glory of them, i.e. whatever relates to their magnificence, as imperial robes, crowns, thrones, palaces, courts, guards, armies, etc. Scott and Poddridge resort to the supposition of an illusory show; but it may be asked, if one of the temptations was conducted by such means, why not the other two? Macknight endeavors to explain all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them as relating only to the land of promise (Harmony of the Gospels [Lond. 1822], p. 350, note).
Farmer conceives that no mountain in Palestine commands so extensive a prospect. It is a further difficulty attending the literal interpretation that Satan represents all the kingdoms of the world and their glory to be at his disposal; an assertion denied by our Lord, who simply rejects the offer. It may readily be conceived that it would answer all purposes that Jesus should seem to have the proposal in question made to him. It is next observed that many things are spoken of in Scripture as being done which were only done in vision. See the numerous instances collected by bishop Law (Considerations of the Theory of Religion [Lond. 1820], p. 85,86). The reader may refer to Gen 32:30; Hos 1:3; Jer 13:25; Jer 13:27; Ezekiel 3; Eze 4:5. Paul calls his being caught up into the third heaven and into Paradise a vision and revelation of the Lord (2Co 12:1-4). It is plain from this instance in the case of Paul, and from that of Peter (Act 12:7-9), who had already experienced visions (Act 10:10, etc.), that neither of the apostles could at first distinguish visions-from impressions made on the senses. In further illustration it is urged that the prophets are often said to be carried about in visions (Eze 8:1-10; Eze 11:24-25; Eze 37:1; Eze 40:1-2). The phrase by the spirit, etc., is said to be equivalent to the hand of God, etc., among the prophets (1Ki 18:46; 2Ki 3:15; Eze 1:3). A comparison of the parallel phrases in the Sept. of Ezekiel and in the evangelists, in regard to Christ’s temptation, is thought to cast much light upon the subject; the phrase the devil leaveth him being equivalent to the phrase the vision I had seen went up from me (Eze 11:24).
Another form of the above theory is that the presence of the tempter, the words spoken, etc., were merely conceptual, i.e. mental phenomena or impressions upon the Savior, similar to the suggestions ordinarily experienced by saints in temptations of peculiar vividness or pungency. This view is confuted by the following considerations:
1. The language (came, said, taketh him, etc.) implies, if not a physical, certainly at least a visional presentation as distinct as if actual. Such expressions as The word of the Lord came, urged as parallel, are not in point; for in these the subject presented being necessarily immaterial of itself, defines the presentation as being merely mental.
2. The comparison of our Savior’s psychology in this case with that of common mortals is inapposite, since they, being fallen, are always, in some sense at least, tempted ab intra (Jam 1:14), whereas Jesus, being immaculate, could have no evil thoughts of his own surmising; nor could they arise in his mind except as directly suggested from some absolutely external source. And even supposing they could have occurred as an intellectual proposition to his mental perception, they must have instantly passed away without any of that vividness and pertinacity which the whole narration implies, unless they had been enforced and sustained by the personal solicitation of a palpable being and a formal conversation.
3. The parallel with the temptation of Adam in Paradise requires more than an imaginary scene. Some, indeed, have by a like process of interpretation taken the record of the Fall in Eden likewise out of the province of actual history; and it is difficult to see why one event is not as fit a subject for this eviscerating rationalism in hermeneutics as the other (see Townsend, Chronological Arrangement [Lond. 1828], 1, 92). In short, there must have been a substantial basis of fact in the case of our Savior to justify the marked character of the transaction as recorded by the evangelists.
We conclude, therefore, that all these suppositions set aside the historical testimony of the gospels; the temptation as there described arose not from the sinless mind of the Son of God, where, indeed, thoughts of evil could not have harbored, but from Satan, the enemy of the human race. Nor can it be supposed that this account is a mere parable, unless we assume that Matthew and Luke have wholly misunderstood their Master’s meaning. The story is that of a fact, hard indeed to be understood, but not to be made easier by explanations such as would invalidate the only testimony on which it rests (Heubner, Practical Commentary on Matthew).
IV. Literature. See, besides the works cited above, Bagot,-Temptation in the Wilderness (Lond. 1840); Hall, Sermons on Our Lord’s Temptation (ibid. 1845); Dallas, Christ’s Temptation (ibid. 1848); Krummacher, Christ in the Wilderness (from the Germr., 3d ed. ibid. 1852); Smith [T. T.], Temptation of Our Saviour (ibid. 1852); Monod,: Temptation of Christ (from the French, ibid. 1854); Macleod, Temptation of Our Lord (ibid. 1872); and the Am. Theol. Rev. July, 1861; Bost. Rev. March, 1863; also the monographs cited by Wolf, Curce in N.T. 1, 66; by Volbeding, Index Programmatum, p. 23; by Hase, Leben Jesu, p. 89; and by Mever, Commentary on Matthew 4 (Edinb. ed.), 1, 129.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Temptation of Christ
1. The Sources:
The sources for this event are Mar 1:12, Mar 1:13; Mat 4:1-11; Luk 4:1-13; compare Heb 2:18; Heb 4:15, Heb 4:16, and see GETHSEMANE. Mark is probably a condensation; Mt and Luke have the same source, probably the discourses of Jesus. Matthew is usually regarded as nearest the original, and its order is here followed.
2. Time and Place:
The Temptation is put immediately after the Baptism by all the synoptists, and this is psychologically necessary, as, we shall see. The place was the wilderness; it was up from the Jordan valley (Matthew), and was on the way back to Galilee (Luke). The traditional site, Mt. Quarantana, is probably a good guess.
3. Significance:
At His baptism, Jesus received from heaven the final confirmation of His thought that He was the Messiah. It was the greatest conception which ever entered a human mind and left it sane. Under the irresistible influence of the Spirit, He turned aside to seek out in silence and alone the principles which should govern Him in His Messianic work. This was absolutely necessary to any wise prosecution of it. Without the slightest precedent Jesus must determine what a Messiah would do, how He would act. Radical critics agree that, if such a period of meditation and conflict were not recorded, it would have to be assumed. By this conflict, Jesus came to that clearness and decision which characterized His ministry throughout. It is easy to see how this determination of guiding principles involved the severest temptation, and it is noteworthy that all the temptation is represented as coming from without, and none from within. Here too He must take His stand with reference to all the current ideas about the Messiah and His work.
4. The Reporter:
Jesus alone can be the original reporter. To this Holtzmann and J. Weiss agree. The report was given for the sake of the disciples, for the principles wrought out in this conflict are the guiding principles in the whole work of the kingdom of God on earth.
5. Exposition:
(1) Fasting.
Jesus was so intensely absorbed that He forgot to eat. There was nothing ascetic or ritualistic about it, and so this is no example for ascetic fasting for us. It is doubtful whether the text demands absolute abstinence from food; rather, long periods of fasting, and insufficient food when He had it. At the end of the forty days, He woke to the realization that He was a starving man.
(2) The First Temptation.
The first temptation is not a temptation to doubt His Messiahship, nor is the second either. If thou art the Son of God, i.e. the Messiah, means, simply, since thou art the Son of God (see Burton, Moods and Tenses, sections 244, 245; Robertson, Short Grammar, 161). There was not the slightest doubt on this point in Jesus’ mind after the baptism, and Satan knew it. There is no temptation to prove Himself the Messiah, nor any hint of such a thing in Jesus’ replies. The very point of it all is, How are you going to act, since you are Messiah? (Mat 4:3 parallel Luk 4:3).
The temptation has these elements: (a) The perfectly innocent craving for food is imperious in the starving man. (b) Why should He not satisfy His hunger, since He is the Son of God and has the power? Jesus replies from Deu 8:3, that God can and will provide Him bread in His own way and in His own time. He is not referring to spiritual food, which is not in question either here or in Deuteronomy (see Broadus’ just and severe remark here). He does not understand how God will provide, but He will wait and trust. Divinely-assured of Messiahship, He knows that God will not let Him perish. Here emerges the principle of His ministry; He will never use His supernatural power to help Himself. Objections based on Luk 4:30 and Joh 10:39 are worthless, as nothing miraculous is there implied. The walking on the water was to help the apostles’ faith. But why would it have been wrong to have used His supernatural power for Himself? Because by so doing He would have refused to share the human lot, and virtually have denied His incarnation. If He is to save others, Himself He cannot save (Mat 27:42). In passing, it is well to notice that the temptations all turn on the conflict which arises, when one, who is conscious of supernatural power, feels that there are occasions, when it would not be right to exercise it. So the miraculous is here most deeply imbedded in the first principles of Messianic action.
(3) The Second Temptation.
The pinnacle of the temple was probably the southeast corner of the roof of the Royal Cloister, 326 ft. above the bottom of the Kidron valley. The proposition was not to leap from this height into the crowd below in the temple courts, as is usually said, for (a) there is no hint of the people in the narrative; (b) Jesus reply does not fit such an idea; it meets another temptation entirely; (c) this explanation confuses the narrative, making the second temptation a short road to glory like the third; (d) it seems a fantastic temptation, when it is seriously visualized. Rather Satan bids Jesus leap into the abyss outside the temple. Why then the temple at all, and not some mountain precipice? asks Meyer. Because it was the sheerest depth well known to the Jews, who had all shuddered as they had looked down into it (Mat 4:5-7 parallel Luk 4:5-8).
The first temptation proved Jesus a man of faith, and the second is addressed to Him as such, asking Him to prove His faith by putting God’s promise to the test. It is the temptation to fanaticism, which has been the destruction of many a useful servant of God Jesus refuses to yield, for yielding would have been sin. It would have been (a) wicked presumption, as though God must yield to every unreasonable whim of the man, of faith, and so would have been a real tempting of God; (b) it would have denied His incarnation in principle, like the first temptation; (c) such fanaticism. would have destroyed His ministry. So the principle was evolved: Jesus will not, of self-will, run into dangers, but will avoid them except in the clear path of duty. He will be no fanatic, running before the Spirit, but will be led by Him in paths of holy sanity and heavenly wisdom. Jesus waited on God.
(4) The Third Temptation.
The former tests have proved Jesus a man of faith and of common sense. Surely such a man will take the short and easy road to that universal dominion which right-fully belongs to the Messiah. Satan offers it, as the prince of this world. The lure here is the desire for power, in itself a right instinct, and the natural and proper wish to avoid difficulty and pain. That the final object is to set up a universal kingdom of God in righteousness adds to the subtlety of the temptation. But as a condition Satan demands that Jesus shall worship him. This must be symbolically interpreted. Such worship as is offered God cannot be meant, for every pious soul would shrink from that in horror, and for Jesus it could constitute no temptation at all. Rather a compromise with Satan must be meant – such a compromise as would essentially be a submission to him. Recalling the views of the times and the course of Jesus ministry, we can think this compromise nothing else than the adoption by Jesus of the program of political Messiahship, with its worldly means of war, intrigue, etc. Jesus repudiates the offer. He sees in it only evil, for (a) war, especially aggressive war, is to His mind a vast crime against love, (b) it changes the basis of His kingdom from the spiritual to the external, (c) the means would defeat the end, and involve Him in disaster. He will serve God only, and God is served in righteousness. Only means which God approves can be used (Mat 4:8-11 parallel Luk 4:9-13). Here then is the third great principle of the kingdom: Only moral and spiritual means to moral and spiritual ends. He turns away from worldly methods to the slow and difficult way of truth-preaching, which can end only with the cross. Jesus must have come from His temptation with the conviction that His ministry meant a life-and-death struggle with all the forces of darkness.
6. The Character of the Narrative:
As we should expect of Jesus, He throws the story of the inner conflict of His soul into story form. So only could it be understood by all classes of men in all ages. It was a real struggle, but pictorially, symbolically described. This seems to be proved by various elements in the story, namely, the devil can hardly be conceived as literally taking Jesus from place to place. There is no mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen. This view of the matter relieves all the difficulties.
7. How Could a Sinless Christ Be Tempted?:
The difficulty is that there can be no drawing toward an object unless the object seems desirable. But the very fact that a sinful object seems desirable is itself sin. How then can a sinless person really be tempted at all? Possibly an analysis of each temptation will furnish the answer. In each ease the appeal was a real appeal to a perfectly innocent natural instinct or appetite. In the first temptation, it was to hunger; in the second, to faith; in the third, to power as a means of establishing righteousness. In each ease, Jesus felt the tug and pull of the natural instinct; how insistent is the demand of hunger, for instance! Yet, when He perceived that the satisfaction of these desires was sinful under the conditions, He immediately refused their clamorous appeal. It was a glorious moral victory. It was not that He was metaphysically not able to sin, but that He was so pure that He was able not to sin. He did not prove in the wilderness that He could not be tempted, but that He could overcome the tempter. If it is then said that Jesus, never having sinned, can have no real sympathy with sinners, the answer is twofold: (1) Not he who falls at the first assault feels the full force of temptation, but he who, like Jesus, resists it through long years to the end. (2) Only the victor can help the vanquished; only he, who has felt the most dreadful assaults and yet has stood firm, can give the help needed by the fallen.
Literature.
Broadus on Matthew in the place cited.; Rhees, Life of Jesus of Nazareth, secs. 91-96; Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, section 13; Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 67 f; J. Weiss, Die Schriften des New Testament, I, 227 f; Weiss, Life of Christ, I, 337-54; Dods, article Temptation, in DCG; Carvie, Expository Times, X (1898-99).