Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 4:1 - 4:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(The Gospel for Invocavit, or First Sunday in Lent)
We have no right, with Ewald and Meyer, to infer from the mysterious character of the history before us, and from the detailed and circumstantial manner in which it is related, that the account given by Matthew (and by Luke) is a later embell shment of the more simple and older tradition recorded in the Gospel by Mark. Evidently, Mark furnishes only a general summary of the event, which requires to be supplemented by the details furnished by Matthew and Luke.
Mat_4:1. Then was Jesus.— Ôüôå , i. e., after the Spirit had descended upon Him. The first operation of the Holy Spirit, when the Lord had attained to the full consciousness of His character as the God-Man, and of His work as the Redeemer, was, not to lead Him into that world which He was to save, but to drive Him out of it into the wilderness. No doubt the primary object of this was to afford an opportunity for blessed rest and joy, in the consciousness of His character and mission. But, secondly, the Saviour had now to consider the difficult question, how to reveal Himself to His people, without conforming to their spurious, secularized views and hopes concerning the Messiah. It was this counterfeit of the true Messiah among Israel which, so to speak, repelled Him, and drove Him into the wilderness The third motive for His going into the wilderness lay in the fact, that the reign of Satan was the cause of all the misery in the world. Hence Christ had to commence His work by conquering Satan; and this He did for the whole world, when He met and overcame him in the personal contest here described.
He was led up, ἀíÞ÷èç ,—i. e., from the desert banks of the river to the wilderness of Judæa properly so called. Tradition has given to this wilderness the name of Quarantania (wilderness of Jericho, Jos_16:1). Comp. Robinson II. 552 [i. 567]; Schubert iii. 73; v. Raumer, p. 47. “From Joppa, on the Mediterranean, the road leads by Ramlah for about seven hours through the beautiful plain of Sharon. Other six hours’ journey over the calcareous and desert mountain tract of Judah brings you to Jerusalem. The road is exceedingly difficult, going alternately up and down hill. From Jerusalem the mountain tract extends for other five hours eastward, when it descends into the valley of Jordan by Jericho. At this eastern slope of the chain is the steep mountain called Quarantania, where, according to tradition, the temptation of Christ took place. The name is derived from the Lord’s fasting for forty days. According to Hasselquist, the mountain is high and conical, and most dangerous of ascent. A deep precipice descends at the side of it. On the summit are the ruins of an ancient Greek monastery, perhaps that built by the Empress Helena. All along the mountain are caves and holes, which formerly were tenanted by hermits; at the base a brook springs,—according to tradition, the same which Elisha healed (2Ki_2:19-22).” For further particulars, comp. v. Raumer, as above, Note 78. The district is better explored in the direction from the Mount of Olives. “The wilderness of Jericho, extending between that town and the Mount of Olives, or rather Bethany, is a district full of precipitous rocks and deep hollows (comp. Joseph. Antiq. x. 8, 2). The scene presents the appearance of a most desolate wilderness, especially after passing the Caravansary which now bears the name of the Khan of the Samaritan (comp. Luk_10:30), about two hours from Jerusalem: comp. Maundrell, Journey, p. 109. From this wilderness the road descends, after a further journey of two hours, down a precipitous height into the plain of Jericho. At the northern boundary of this plain rises a steep, calcareous mountain, very difficult of ascent, which bears the name of Quarantania, because, according to tradition, Jesus passed forty days fasting in one of the many caves on its side. The northern portion of this desert was connected with the wilderness of Bethany, Jos_18:12.” Winer, art. “Wüste,” No. 4.—As the wilderness of Quarantania lies close by the banks of Jordan, there is no sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of this tradition. The wildness of this desert, as indicated in the expression of Mark: “He was with the wild beasts,” points to the same conclusion.
Of (by) the Spirit.—The context shows that the Holy Spirit is here meant. The idea that it referred to the personal spirit of Christ, or to a state of ecstasy (Paulus), could only have been broached from defective theological views. The expression ἀíÞ÷èç implies, indeed, an extraordinary state of mind on the part of the Lord, indicating a wonderful impulse, but not a miraculous transportation (which is not meant even in Act_8:39, or in 2Ki_2:16)—an idea still more clearly expressed in the parallel passage in Mar_1:12. Meyer aptly remarks: “The two opposite principles, ὑðὸ ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò and ὑðὸ ôïῦ äéáâüëïõ , are evidently here placed in pragmatic correspondence or juxtaposition. Besides, the whole circumstances of this history, occurring immediately after the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus, show that the Evangelist intended to relate the victory of Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, over the devil (comp. Luk_4:1-2). This consideration alone is sufficient to refute the arbitrary invention of Olshausen, that, during the forty days in the wilderness, Jesus had been forsaken by the Spirit.”
To be tempted of (by) the devil; ðåéñáóèῆíáé .—Such was the final object. The Holy Spirit led Him purposely to this contest with Satan. In this conflict He was to be tempted by the devil, to show whether or not, in the exercise of His free determination, He would prove Himself, and continue, the organ of the Holy Spirit in opposition to that satanic principle, or spirit of the world, by which the hopes of Israel concerning the Messiah had been perverted, so as to become even matter of temptation to Him. The basis and commencement of the work of salvation was necessarily a personal contest and victory of the Saviour over the principle of evil, as manifested in the corruption of the world. For further remarks on the tremendous collision between these antagonistic principles, comp. the author’s “Leben Jesu” ii. 1, p. 205.— ÄéÜâïëïò , from äéáâÜëëù , to row over, carry across, to slander, accuse, calumniate; hence äéÜâïëïò , the slanderer in general, and also, in the most particular sense (Job 1; Rev_12:10), the accuser. In the Old Testament he is called Satan, ùָֹׁèָï (Job_1:6-12). The term means, adversary in general, adversary in war (1Ki_5:4—in the Hebr. text, Mat_5:18; Mat_11:14); and with the article, äַùָּׂèָï , the adversary or enemy êáô ’ ἐîï÷Þí : the prince of the fallen spirits (Genesis 3; 2Co_11:3; Rev_20:2; Joh_8:44, etc.).
As the cause and origin of the fall of man, Satan is the prince of the kingdom of darkness, which has sprung up and developed on earth in opposition to the theocracy; the seducer of man to their destruction, and hence the principal enemy of Jesus (Mat_13:28). Comp. works on Dogmatics (among others my Positive Dogmatik, p. 559 sqq.) on the question whether the devil should be regarded as a person, or merely as the symbol of what is called the principle of evil (as if what is evil could have a real, and not what merely appears to be a principle).
Mat_4:2. And when He had fasted forty days.—Besides the mythical theory, which we at once set aside, there are four different views entertained by commentators in connection with this event. First, as regards Christ’s fasting, some refer it only to the want of His common nourishment (Rosenmuller, Kuinoel, Kuhn, etc.); while most interpreters understand it as meaning absolute and entire abstinence from food (comp. Luk_4:2; Deu_9:9). Secondly, as regards the duration, some critics regard the “forty days” as a sacred number, and hence as denoting an indefinite period of time (Köster, Henneberg, Neander); while most commentators take it literally. In favor of the literal view, we refer to the circumstance that Moses and Elijah fasted for forty days (Exo_34:28, and 1Ki_19:8), in both which instances we have a record of supernatural, and miraculous events. Besides, the addition of the clause, “forty nights,” and the remark in Luk_4:2, “He did eat nothing,” show that both the time and the act are not meant figuratively. Still the expression must not be understood as implying a legal and absolute fast of forty days. Similarly, Jesus said of John that he came “neither eating not drinking,” although we know that his nourishment consisted of locusts and wild honey. The feature which characterized this solemn fast, and distinguished it from every similar event, was, that the Saviour was wholly absorbed by spiritual realities; a state which, although never fully attained by any person, yet, even in the modified degree reached by ordinary men, renders them, for a considerable period, independent of the common necessaries of life. The fast of Jesus formed a striking contrast to the worldly-mindedness of the Jews (as that of Moses and of Elijah had been); it was a higher expression of the feelings and of the fasting of the Baptist; and at last, when, after the lapse of forty days, He was an hungered [or hungry], it became the occasion for the grand assault of the tempter. Comp. our remarks on the freedom of some men from common wants under extraordinary circumstances in the “Leben Jesu” ii. 1, p. 212; Heubner, p. 34.
Mat_4:3. And the tempter came to Him.—The participle ðåéñÜæùí is here used as a substantive, as characteristic of the person. It is one of the chief characteristics of Satan that he is the tempter. First, the tempter in the guise of a friend, then the accuser and open enemy. Various views are entertained as to the manner in which the tempter approached the Lord, or, in other words, as to the mode of this temptation. We may reduce the different explanations to five classes. The temptation has been regarded, 1. as an external occurrence; 2. as a supernatural internal occurrence, or a vision; 3. as an inward ethical transaction, or a psychological occurrence; 4. as a parable; 5. as a myth.—Again, viewing it as an objective or external occurrence, it has been regarded, (a) as real, in the sense of having been a literal apparition of Satan in the form of a man or an angel. This is the view of many orthodox commentators. But against this, we set the fact, that under no other circumstances, and at no other period, Satan had ever assumed human form; and also, that there are other circumstances in this narrative which cannot be taken in their literal sense,—such as, that Satan took the Lord to the holy city, or that he placed Him on a high mountain, from which all the kingdoms of this world and their glory could be seen. It has been argued, (b) that what the Evangelist here describes as a real objective occurrence, must be traced to earliest tradition, which invested the symbolical idea of a contest between Messiah and Satan in this mythical form (Strauss); or else, that the misunderstanding must be ascribed to the Evangelists themselves, who viewed and recorded as something external what in reality was an inward transaction, and either told them in the form of a parable, or else was only intended as a parable (Schleiermacher). To this view, in a somewhat modified shape, we shall again advert in the sequel. Meantime suffice it to say, that the idea of a myth must be at once discarded, whatever we may say of the other suggestions advanced. Or, (c) it has been maintained that an external occurrence is here described in symbolical language, and that the tempter was an ordinary man. “This,” says Meyer, “is the case with the absurd suggestion of some interpreters, who substitute for the devil an ordinary personage, such as a member of the Sanhedrin, or a priest, who had come to question and to gain over Jesus, or to lay a snare for Him.” (V. der Hardt, Venturini, Möller, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, Feilmoser; see also Bengel, who thinks that Satan had appeared “sub schemate ãñáììáôÝùò quia ôὸ ãÝãñáðôáé ei ter opponitur.”) However, the suggestion that the devil employed some member of the Sanhedrin as his special instrument—which, of course, Rationalists would repudiate [since they deny the existence of one devil, though they cannot get rid of the many devils—P. S.]—can scarcely be characterized either as rationalistic or as absurd. We know that Satan did employ Judas as his special instrument (Joh_13:27), and that “this devil” came out against the Lord as His enemy (Joh_14:30). Still, this view does not quite agree with the symbolical elements contained in the narrative before us.—According to the second interpretation above mentioned, the whole occurrence was merely a vision. In that case, it may be regarded, (a) as a vision called forth by the devil (Origen, Cyprian, Theodorus of Mopsuestia on Luk_4:1, Olshausen, and latterly again Heubner, p. 39). Against this we urge, that the devil could not have possessed the power of presenting to the Lord in a vision, either his own apparition, or the pictures of these temptations. (b) As called forth by God Himself (Farmer, Enquiry, etc., London, 1761),—a view which would render this occurrence wholly mysterious and unintelligible; or (c) as called forth by natural causes (Clericus, Paulus, Gratz, and many other commentators),—not a historical event, but a psychological and ecstatic state of mind; or lastly, (d) a “significant morning dream” (Meyer [not the commentator, H. A. W., so often quoted in this work, see below] in the “Studien u. Kritiken” for 1831, p. 319 sqq.). But it is sufficient to reply that decisive ethical conflicts do not take place in the form of dreams.—According to the third view above mentioned, this narrative must be considered as an inward ethical transaction or conflict: (a) A conflict which took place in the imagination of Christ (Eichhorn, Dereser, Weisse, etc.). Against this view it has been urged, that such an inward conflict, arising from a felt sense of the allurements of evil, could not be reconciled with the sinlessness of Jesus. (b) An inward conflict excited by the devil (Krabbe); but we are at a loss to know the medium through which the enemy assailed Christ, (c) An inward transaction to which the disciples gave an objective form, as if it had been an external event (rejection of the false conceptions concerning the Messiah—Ullmann); but if we dismiss the idea that they consciously and purposely clothed the event in a symbolical form, we are shut up to the mythical theory. (d) A fragmentary, symbolical representation of transactions in the inner life of Jesus (Neander). But this were to spiritualize away and to weaken a great historical fact.—According to the fourth view above mentioned, we are to regard this narrative as a parable, not so much of what Jesus Himself had experienced, but of what His disciples should keep in view and guard against (J. E. Chr. Schmidt, Schleiermacher, Usteri, Alex. Schweizer, Baumgarten-Crusius). But de Wette rightly objects, that in that case the whole meaning of a temptation would be lost—and, let us add, of the temptation êáô ’ ἐîï÷Þí . (Against this parabolic view, comp. also Hasert, in the “Stud. u. Krit.” for 1830.)—Lastly, according to the fifth view above proposed, we must regard this narrative as a pure myth (Strauss, de Wette, Gfrörer, Meyer). Thus Meyer boldly asserts, that “nothing is left but to conclude that what the Evangelists considered and described as an actual event, was merely an ideal event, or a myth.” In reply, we simply remark that modern theology has happily overcome the mythical theory. The only thing mythical, in our opinion, is the view entertained by some divines, by which the sacred history, so full of symbolical significance and religious life, is transformed into a purely external transaction.—The main objection to the various explanations which we have just sketched, is that they proceed on the old scholastic plan of predicating an absolute alternative (a mode of interpretation which has frequently obstructed the right interpretation of Scripture), and that they do not sufficiently appreciate the various moral agencies brought into play, and their mutual influence. Nothing appears to us more natural, than that immediately after the baptism, in which Christ entered upon His work as Saviour of the world, He should have encountered and entered upon a spiritual conflict with the spurious ideas which the men of His age entertained about the Messiah. The influence of these perverted views concerning the Messiah upon His own mind, would necessarily give rise to an assault and temptation of Satan. In truth, Satan had thus perverted the hope of Israel concerning the Messiah, for the very purpose of turning aside the Messiah Himself. Thus far, then, the narrative presents an inward transaction indeed; but, at the same time, also a real and actual transaction between Christ on the one hand, and the popular expectations and the kingdom of Satan on the other. But what had at first been an inward transaction, concluded with an outward event, which in some respects is mysterious. Satan really employed, it seems to us, some of the chief priests and scribes as his instruments to tempt Christ to undertake the part of such a worldly Messiah as the Jews at the time expected. (Comp. the ὀðßóù ìïõ here and Mat_16:23.) The whole history of this temptation—both in its inward and outward phases—Jesus afterward communicated to His disciples in the form of a real narrative, clothed in symbolical language. The difference between this and a mere myth lies in the simple fact, that it really took place, partly as an inward, and partly as an outward transaction; and in the circumstance that speaker and hearers employed and listened to the symbolical language in which the narrative was partly clothed, in the full consciousness that it was such. The various interpretations to which we have above adverted ignore several important circumstances; such as, that, in accordance with his mission, it was the duty of John to point out the Messiah to His people, and, of course, more especially to the representatives of the people; that, at the very time when Jesus was in the neighborhood, a deputation from the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem had arrived to inquire whether he was the Messiah; that John returned, and must have returned, a truthful reply; and lastly, that this deputation could not but take some notice of the directions which the Baptist had given them. Besides, we must remember that, at the commencement of Christ’s work, it was not merely some kind of temptation, but the great temptation, which had to be overcome—i.e., the temptation arising from the lust of the world, even as, at the close of His course, He had to encounter the temptation from the burden and grief of the world. Lastly, it is manifest that so decisive an inward conflict could not be merely the result of an extraordinary state of mind, without having been called forth by some deep historical antagonism; and that, as it could be neither wholly internal nor wholly external, it must have combined both these elements, or, in other words, that it was caused and excited by the devil, and carried into execution through a human medium. We can readily conceive how human sympathies, more particularly Jewish chiliastic influences, may have acted upon the human nature of Christ. Nor can we doubt that a definite outward instrumentality was employed. Such could not have been wanting in this grand decisive moment of the history of the kingdom of God; and the glorious reality and the consequences of such an era, are themselves sufficient to sweep away the cobweb structures of any mythical theory. Hence we agree, 1. with Ullmann, in admitting that the transaction was inward, but caused by external agency; 2. with v. d. Hardt and Bengel, in believing that the transaction concluded with an outward event, to which only allusion is made in the narrative; 3. with Schleiermacher, in concluding that the history is clothed in a symbolical and parabolic garb.
Mat_4:3-4. First temptation.—The first temptation is occasioned by a feeling of hunger on the part of Jesus, and by the expression of it. If Thou be the Son of God, v. 3—couched in the form of a doubt to incite the Saviour to prove Himself such. The word õἱüò is put first, to lay emphasis on the Sonship. The expression implies three things: First, that if the Son of God had come, He must be the expected Messiah. Secondly, that the Messiah could not be any lower personage than the Son of God Himself, in the metaphysical sense of this term. Thirdly, that the greatest miracles might be expected to be wrought by Him.— Åἰð ὲ , ἵíá , Speak, in order that. The effect is to be produced by a creative, or rather a magical utterance. It may be asked whether the tempter meant this in the literal or the symbolical sense, like the statement of the Baptist: “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Whatever view we take of this point, it was a covert suggestion to give Himself up to the satanic principle, either by arbitrarily perverting the spiritual power of working miracles into an unholy art of magic, or as a call, in pompous Oriental phraseology, to transform the wilderness into a storehouse, by pronouncing a formula of surrender to the vanity of the world. Probably the tempter intended that it should bear a double meaning, as was also the case with the second temptation. The point of the temptation lay in the suggestion that it seemed incompatible for the Son of God, who could do all things, to suffer hunger. But—doubt would add—to suffer hunger seems to imply that you are not the Son of God. Thus, in the present instance, the doubt would appeal to His power, to His reason, and even to the duty of confirming the declaration that He was the Son of God. The Son of God cannot be limited or hardly beset; He cannot suffer or participate in the wants of humanity; He must at once sweep away every difficulty and want by an act of omnipotence. The Lord resisted this temptation by quoting the Scripture, Deu_8:3,—the passage being quoted by the Evangelist according to the Septuagint. The original (addressed to Israel) reads: “Jehovah suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna (which thou knowest not, neither did thy fathers know), that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread (upon bread) only, but by everything (upon everything) that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.” The Septuagint renders: ἀëë ’ ἐðὶ ðáíôὶ ῥÞìáôé ôῷ ἐêðïñåõïìÝíῳ äéὰ óôüìáôïò ÈåïῦæÞóåôáé ä ᾰíèñùðïò . In the Gospel of Matthew we have ἐí instead of ἐðß —in, or by, every word (not thing) that proceedeth out of the mouth of God shall man live. According to Olshausen, the Saviour intended to point out an antithesis between earthly and heavenly food. De Wette suggests the following explanation: “If ordinary means of nourishment fail, the Lord will employ extraordinary means to preserve us alive by His creative Word.” But these extraordinary means—the manna—are here generalized as “everything that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord,” and applied in a symbolical sense, to indicate that man is not absolutely dependent upon any kind of external nourishment, and that his real life is sustained by the word of God. Hence the meaning of Christ’s reply is this: If even man is not absolutely dependent upon the bread that perisheth,—if he does not live upon bread only, but rather upon the word of God,—how much more must this be true of the Son of God, whose life flows from the Father, and not from the bread of earth, and who accordingly depends for the preservation of His earthly life, not on any arbitrary interference, nor on satanic device or agency, but on the Father? But the Son of God has condescended to become man, and as such is willing to share the wants and sufferings of humanity. In conclusion, the difference between the idea of miracles as laid down in the Bible, and that entertained by the tempter—or even by some modern theologians—deserves notice.
Mat_4:5-7. Second temptation.—In the Gospel of Luke this is mentioned as the third temptation. This divergence arises not from any historical inaccuracy, but from the symbolical view which each of the Evangelists connected with these assaults. The symbolical element which appeared in the first temptation, “Command that these stones be made bread,” comes out more distinctly in the present instance. We trace it, first, in the significant expression, ðáñá ëáìâÜíåé áὐôüí , he takes Him by force with him, or takes Him to himself as a companion (in his journey); and, secondly, in the term åἰò ôὴí ἁãßáíðüëéí , öִéø äָ÷ֹּãֵù (Isa_48:2; Neh_11:1), to denote Jerusalem,—so called on account of the temple. (To this day the Arabs call Jerusalem the place of the Sanctuary, or the Holy City.) The devil is here represented as having free access to the most sacred places, and as familiar with them: He setteth Him ( ἵóôçóéí )—not by force, for such he cannot exercise; besides, he had not yet dropt the mask and shown himself the evil one. He appears as wearing a religious garb, as one who had authority in the temple, and setteth Jesus as his guest in a spot which commanded the most extensive view. The supposition of Jerome, that Jesus was carried thither through the air, is purely fantastic; equally unsatisfactory is the suggestion of Olshausen, that He was in a state of mental transport. It is quite possible that Jesus had at the time gone for a day to Jerusalem, and that this circumstance may have formed the external basis for this temptation. Be this as it may, the fact that Satan set Jesus on the (not a) pinnacle [literally: the wing] of the temple ( ôὸ ðôåñýãéïí ôïῦ ἱåñïῦ ), implied the suggestion that He should by satanic means become the priest-king of that temple. It is true, the expression ôïῦ ἱåñïῦ here used, was applied to the whole set of buildings connected with the temple, while the word íáüò referred to the principal building of the temple. But the more general expression of course included the temple itself, to which, besides, the word ðôåñýãéïí specially points. Nor is there anything inconsistent in the account of Josephus, that the roof of the temple was covered êáôὰ êïñõöÞí with pointed rods to protect it from being occupied by birds, as the êïñõöÞ of the temple was probably only the most holy place. Nor can the great sacredness of the locality be urged as an argument, since the special object in view was to place Jesus in the most sacred locality. The real difficulty of taking the statement, that the Lord was set upon a pinnacle of the temple, in its literal meaning, lies in this, that Christ was neither priest nor Levite, and that the idea of setting Him publicly in such a place is entirely incompatible with a secret conflict between Christ and Satan. On the same ground we must dismiss the notion, that the devil set him on any other prominent place of the temple. Some commentators have supposed that this “pinnacle” belonged to an out-building of the temple, such as the hall of Solomon on the east side (Joseph. Antiq. xx. 9, 7), or the óôïὰ âáóéëéêÞ on the south side (ibid. xv. 11, 5), both of them rising along a frightful precipice. Kuinoel, Meyer, and others suppose that the scene must have occurred at the south side of the temple, from the description which Josephus gives of its dizzy height. But this would necessitate the strange supposition, that the Evangelist represented the tempter as proposing to the Lord a descent, either into the poor valley of Kidron, or into that of the Cheesemakers. If the narrative is taken literally, the object must have been rather to work some ostentatious miracle for the proud city of Jerusalem itself. In this respect, also, the temptation had its double meaning, the main point lying in the suggestion that Jesus should yield to Satan, place Himself at the head of the priesthood, and in that character be presented to the people. With this object, and in this sense, Jesus was set on the pinnacle of the temple, and probably somehow or somewhere in the temple itself. The spiritual attitude which He was to assume is the main point.
As Jesus had turned aside the first suggestion of the tempter by the word of God, the enemy supported his second assault, If Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down, by a quotation from Psa_91:11-12, “For He shall give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways: they shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.” This passage seemed all the better suited for the purpose in view, since in its primary application it referred not exclusively to the Messiah. The plain inference was, that if such a promise had been granted to all pious men, it must apply all the more forcibly to the Messiah. But the application of this promise was evidently false, as the expression, in all thy ways, was not equivalent to the ways of thine own choosing. Indeed, the tempter wholly omitted this clause when adducing the passage. Jesus replied to this quotation—which in its original form was a poetical description of the promised help, and now was grossly misinterpreted in its literal application—by referring to a passage in the law: Ye shall not tempt Jehovah your God, Mat_4:7. Deu_6:16. In the present instance, Christ addressed it to Satan personally, Thou, instead of Ye,—a change all the more appropriate, that every tempting of God on the part of man is directly caused by the enemy of souls. ÐÜëéí does not mean “on the other hand” (Erasmus and others), but again (Meyer, Engl. C. Ver.). Bengel: Scriptura per Scripturam interpretanda—more especially a poetical phrase by the precise statements of the law. This reply to Satan is already an attack upon him, since he is here characterized as tempting the Lord.
Mat_4:8-10. Third temptation.—“The high mountain ( Mat_4:8) from which all the kingdoms of the world could be seen, must not be looked for upon any of our maps; it neither refers to the Mount of Olives, nor does êüóìïò mean Palestine (Kuinoel), but it applies to the heathen world over which Satan held exclusive dominion” (Meyer). Luke adds, ἐí óôéãìῇ ÷ñüíïõ , to indicate the magic character of the vision. And the glory of them, ôὴí äüîáí áὐ ôῶí . “The rich country, the splendid cities and palaces, perhaps also the riches which they contained (although these could scarcely have been seen from the top of a mountain).”—De Wette. The idea of any magical influence of Satan upon the vision of the Lord seems to us quite inappropriate (comp. Lange: “Worte der Abwehr,” p. 41). It is not worth while to show at length that Satan could not have exercised such influence over the eyes of the Saviour. In our opinion, the prospect from such a high mountain as that of the wilderness of Quarantania, or near Jerusalem, was sufficient to offer an appropriate basis for a rhetorical description of the world, its kingdoms, and their glory. Of course the mountain must still be viewed as a symbolical expression, to designate the political and chiliastic prospects which the Jews portrayed to themselves at the time when Messiah should come to conquer the world by worldly means. Nor must we, with Meyer, exclude Palestine from this vista, since the course of the ambitious conqueror, as sketched by the enemy, was to commence at the temple itself. For, although it is true that Satan had greater power over the heathen world than over Palestine, we must not confound (as Meyer does, p. 105) the later views of the Jews (as given in Eisenmenger’s “Entdecktes Judenthum,” ii. p. 820, etc.) with those of the New Testament. In the New Testament Satan is designated as ἄñ÷ùí ôïῦ êüóìïõ (Joh_12:31), with special reference to his sway over Palestine in opposition to Jesus; while the expression êïóìïêñÜôùñ , in Eph_6:12, alludes more particularly to the heresies by which the Church of Christ was endangered. We must not look in the word of God for the gross, fanatical, and mythical ideas of later rabbinical Judaism. The passage before us refers to the moral reign of darkness which extended over the whole ancient world, although we must ever be careful not to admit the validity of Satan’s pretension that he exercised in any sense absolute sway over the world.
In this third temptation, Satan appears in his proper character. Hence also it is not prefaced by “If Thou be the Son of God.” On the contrary, he rather seems to claim this honor for himself, as Luke plainly indicates in the words, ὅôé ἐìïὶ ðáñáäåäïôáé . The awful proposal, that Jesus should fall down and worship Satan, and do him homage, is to some extent modified, when we bear in mind the peculiar political and religious import of the word ὅôé ἐìïὶ ðáñáäåäïôáé among Orientals. We do not imagine that Satan intended to demand an act of absolute adoration, but an act of homage, which, however, necessarily implied worship. Primarily, it was not (as Strauss supposes) a temptation to idolatry, though it is true that, in its ultimate meaning and bearing, all idolatry is devil-worship. Nor does this demand involve a direct threat on the part of Satan that he would let loose against Jesus the whole power of evil (Ebrard), although Satan’s claim to absolute sway over the whole world implied that he was its lord and master. Viewed in this light, the third temptation, from the lust of the world, pointed already to that which Christ had to endure at the close of His course from the sorrow and misery of the world. The incredible presumption and impudence of Satan’s demand (which, indeed, was covertly implied even in the first and second temptations) is in some measure accounted for by his well-known axiom, “that every man has his price at which his virtue may be bought.” The point of the temptation lay in the boldness of the design—Satan spreading out all at once a rushing picture of absolute sway over the world and of its glory, and then offering all this to the lowly and rejected Son of David, who of right could claim all the nations of the world as His inheritance, and the utmost ends of the world as His possession. Gerlach suggests that the proposal to found the kingdom of Messiah by outward power and pomp, and not that of paying outward worship to Satan, formed the main point of the temptation. But this must evidently have been the consequence of a surrender and homage to Satan.
Mat_4:10. Then saith Jesus unto him.—At last the mask was thrown off: Satan appears in his real character, and is treated accordingly. Hitherto the Lord had, in compliance with the usual forms of intercourse, dealt with him according to his assumed character, as one who seemed anxious to promote the mission of the Messiah, although He sufficiently showed that he had read the motives of Satan,—having in His first reply designated him as one who held men in contempt, and in His second as the tempter. But now he meets the pretensions of Satan to absolute power by a display of His own supreme authority. Get thee hence, Satan. [In Greek a single word, ὕðáãå , begone, out of my sight.] (The addition ὀðßóù ìïõ is not sufficiently authenticated, and apparently an ancient interpolation derived from Mat_16:23, which seems to apply not to Satan, but to Peter, whose right place as a follower of the Lord was behind, not before Him.) The passage with which Christ dismisses the enemy (Deu_6:13) is none other than the fundamental principle of Monotheism. It is given in the form of a free quotation from the Septuagint; the word ðñïòêõíÞóåéò , which Satan had used, being retained, instead of öïâçèÞóῃ . Laying emphasis on the main idea of the Old Testament passage, our Lord says, “Him only shalt thou serve.” The devil is expressly designated as Satan, because in this temptation he displayed his real character as the adversary of christ. Lastly, the answer of the Lord conveys the expression of His enmity to all that is satanic in the world, and to the carnal hopes and views entertained about the Messiah. It is, so to speak, a declaration of war on the part of Jesus against Satan, and that on account of the daring promise to make Jesus Lord of the world if He only submitted to his conditions. “Tentatorem, quum is maxime favere videri vult, Satanam appellat.”—Bengel.
In looking back on this threefold temptation, we conclude that Satan offered to the Lord immediate possession of His Messianic inheritance on condition of His employing satanic agency, in the form of magic, of false religious enthusiasm or fanaticism, and of false and demoniacal worship. His first proposal was to confer on Jesus the office of a magician-prophet; his second, to make Him the chief and prince of a grand hierarchy; his third, to invest him with the office of demoniacal and all-powerful monarch of the world. But, manifestly, these were the three great traits of the carnal and perverse expectations which Israel entertained concerning the Messiah: the first temptation representing more especially the erroneous tendency of the Essenes, who lived in the wilderness; the second, the spurious religion of the Pharisees, whose centre was the temple service; and the third, the godless policy of the Sadducees, whose ruling passion was worldliness. The common psychological applications of this narrative—such as, that the first temptation was to sensual enjoyment, the second to fanatical pride, and the third to ambition—do not exhaust the deep bearing of the event, although they are implied in the interpretation above proposed.
The following is the chronological order of events: 1. The baptism of Jesus. 2. The forty days’ fasting. 3. The deputation to John the Baptist from Jerusalem (John 1). 4. The temptation of Jesus. 5. The return of Jesus to John by the banks of Jordan (Joh_1:35). 6. His return to Galilee ( Joh_4:43).
Mat_4:11. The victory.—The triumph of the Saviour appears in these two facts: The devil leaveth Him; angels come and minister unto Him, thus paying Him real homage, äéçêüíïõí áὐôῷ . Bengel: “Sine dubio pro ceo, ac tum opus erat, sc. allato cibo [undoubtedly, by doing that which was then necessary, namely, by bringing Him food]. Comp. the feeding of Elijah by an angel, 1Ki_19:5.” Thus Piscator, Wolf, and many others,—among them, Meyer. Others understand the expression as denoting supernatural Divine support (Maldonatus, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Kuhn, Ammon, Ebrard). It deserves notice, that most critics who at present defend the view that the text implies a miraculous supply of food by the ministry of angels, characterize the whole narrative as a mere myth. When Jesus had undergone these temptations, He returned from the wilderness into the company of men. Hence any such miraculous supply of food for the body by angels would have been unnecessary. In our view of the passage, the Lord having conquered Satan, and established His glorious supremacy not only over man, but also over the spiritual world, now entered into converse with ministering angels (Joh_1:51), realizing in the supernatural and heavenly support which He now enjoyed, in the fullest sense, His own declaration, that man lives not by bread alone.
2. Solemn celebration in the wilderness of His full attainment to consciousness of His character and vocation, victory over the temptations of Satan, and maturing of the plan for His work—such are the three great phases in the preceding narrative, none of which can be separated from the other.
The first of these three phases was that of solemn celebration. Bearing in mind that Jesus was led into the wilderness by the Spirit, we infer that He went up in the full and deep consciousness of His vocation as the God-man. Heaven had been opened over him the wings of the blessed Spirit had been upon and around Him. He had the testimony of His Sonship, and of the delight of the Father in Him. In the blessed enjoyment of these glorious realities, forty days passed without His feeling the common wants of humanity. But Jesus did not shut up within His own breast this His “being equal with God,” as if it had been robbery (Philippians 2),—least of all when He had just submitted to that baptism, in which, while humbling Himself to become the companion in sorrow of sinners, He had also attained the full consciousness of His theanthropy. Hence the solemn inward feast celebrated in the wilderness served as preparation for His work: the fulness of the Spirit, the fulness of love, the fulness of life within His soul—all summoned Him to be the Deliverer of His people and the Saviour of the world, even as the Father had called Him by His baptism and by the Holy Ghost; and in the depth of His sympathy with humanity, He heard not only His own people but a fallen world entreating deliverance.
But this very cry of the world contained a shrill discord which constituted His temptation. With infinite longing Israel waited for the advent of Messiah. But this glorious hope had become fearfully distorted in the false theology of the synagogue, in the ideas current among the people, in the hierarchical tendencies of the age, and in the general vanity of this world. Hence, while this longing for salvation in the inmost heart of humanity was a loud call for Jesus to reveal Himself to the world as the long-expected Redeemer, He was repelled by the false and unspiritual picture of the Messiah who was the object of the carnal hopes of Israel. The Holy One recognized in these perversions the agency of Satan. Thus far there could be neither doubt nor temptation. But that which in itself was evil had assumed a human form; it had been embodied in human representations, ideas, and aspirations; and in this its human form it made its appeal to His sympathies. This spurious and unholy Messianic expectation appeared most closely intertwined with the loftiest aspirations and the holiest hopes of humanity. It was this seeming combination of two very different elements which might give rise to doubt and difficulty. The Saviour must now discern the spuriousness of this combination; and, to separate its heterogeneous elements, He had to overcome the temptation arising from the fanatical sympathies of His people and of the world. This constituted His temptation. Its point lay in the attractions of human sympathy, allurement, and entreaty; as also, in the apparent connection between what was perverse and what was holy. In His conflict with this temptation, it assumed a threefold form. In the first assault, the Prophet, in all the pride and self-sufficiency of a Magician, stands before His mind’s eye; in the second, the High Priest, in all the pride and self-sufficiency of hierarchical pomp; and in the last, the King, in all the pride and self-sufficiency of secular policy and power. All these pictures are presented in their most attractive features, as painted in the bright anticipations of an expectant world, as drawn with all the cunning of Satan, and as reflecting in a distorted form His own person and vocation.
But He has overcome the threefold inward assault upon His soul (comp. the Gospel of Luke)—and the cravings of hunger indicate the weariness consequent upon this tremendous conflict. The victory which He has achieved in inward conflict, must now also appear in actual and historical incidents, and the outward temptations of Satan succeed His inward struggle.
This threefold historical victory of the Lord over the tempter also marks the grand scheme on which His work as the Saviour of the world was to be carried on. In opposition to the false principle of the world, He clearly realized the truth; in opposition to the spurious plans of Messiah’s kingdom cherished by the world, He chose what was spiritual; in opposition to the false ideas entertained about the work of salvation, He manifested Himself as the true Prophet, Priest, and King. To reject the spurious plans of the synagogue, was at the same time to adopt the true scheme of His mission. Modern [German evangelical] theology commenced with a more full appreciation of the human nature [and sinless perfection] of Jesus, and first spoke of His plan or design. Thus Reinhard has written a work on the Plan of Jesus; Ullmann has rejected the idea of any such scheme, but Neander has vindicated its higher bearing. If by the expression, “plan,” or “scheme,” we mean that the Saviour was distinctly conscious of the principle, the development, the means and the goal of His work, the Lord had undoubtedly a matured “plan.” But it was the leading characteristic of this plan, that it rejected and eliminated all that was merely external, every secular calculation; and that, in unfolding its own glorious proportions and spiritual phases, it proved mainly a negation of all the chiliastic schemes of the synagogue. One of its principal features consisted in this, that while these spurious pictures of the Messiah presented a Saviour who was such in name and appearance only, Jesus would manifest the character and the works of the true Messiah, and that He would avoid even the designation of Messiah, until by His working He had redeemed and purified its idea, which had been so fatally perverted (comp. the “Leben Jesu,” ii. 1, p. 231). Then Jesus chose the path of suffering instead of that of joy; humiliation unto obedience, instead of glory by self-exaltation. Hence, when at the close of His course the accuser tempted Him to despair, amidst the sorrows and under the burden of a guilty world, the Redeemer once more conquered, and entered upon the path of glory. Indeed, the most difficult part of His work was accomplished at the outset of His mission, when, in the power of the Spirit, He overcame Satan and the satanic temptation, connected with the spurious messianic expectations. He conquered Satan as the tempter in all the temptations of worldly allurement. Thus was the kingdom of darkness shaken in its inmost principle. This threefold victory unfolded and appeared in His ministry upon earth; and His triumph over the temptations of allurement, or over the tempter, in the strictest sense of the term, formed the prelude to His victory over the temptations of sorrow and suffering, or over the accuser, which awaited Him at the close of His course.
Thus the history of Christ’s temptation is of infinite import. The destruction of the foundations on which rested the kingdom of darkness, and the structure of the basis on which the salvation of man was reared, are connected with the mystery of those solitary conflicts which had been fought and gained before He entered on the discharge of His public ministry.
3. The following contrasts are significant for christology. The first Adam in paradise, Christ in the wilderness.—Moses (Exo_34:28; Deu_9:9; Deu_9:18) and Elijah (1Ki_19:8) in the wilderness, Christ in the wilderness.—The fasting of John, the fasting of Christ.—The magic of the world, the prophetic office of Christ.—The hierarchy of the world, the priesthood of Christ.—The political despotism of the world, and the kingdom of Christ.—Essenism and Christ.—Pharisæism and Christ.—Sadducæism and Christ.—Chiliastic tradition and perversion of Scripture by Satan; the word of God, and ever only the word of God, as adduced by Christ.—Christ in the wilderness tempted by the allurements of the world.—Christ in the garden tempted by the sorrow and burden of the world.—The tempter at the commencement of the public ministry of Jesus; the accuser at the close of it.—The offers of Satan, and the triumph of Christ and its results.
4. The symbolical import of the number 40 lies in this, that it contains multiples of ten and four:—ten is the perfect number for life, law, and freedom; four is the number for the full circle of the world. During these forty days, Christ, by the free act of his will, really overcame the world and the spirit of the world, even as Moses had done typically.
5. As it was fitting that Christ should commence His work by conquering Satan, so also was it in keeping with the tendency of evil to overturn the kingdom of God first of all in its Founder—and that by means of pretended but false friendship.
6. By His victory over the tempter, Christ has for ever separated His kingdom from the demoniac principles, plans, and manifestations of Jewish and carnal Christian chiliasm.
7. The first consequence of Christ’s threefold renunciation of the world in His victory over Satan, was, that He betook himself to Galilee.
The first temptation. Christ has undergone for us the temptation of human want and suffering.—Let not the contrast between our spiritual high estate and our outward circumstances become a snare to us.—According both to the Old and the New Testament, temptation commences with doubt.—The tempter in the form of an angel of light.—Temptation to distrustfulness.—Magic and miracles.—The magician and the prophet.—Miraculous sustenance and magical sustenance are two different things.—The magical manna [das Zauberbrod] which the world prepares for itself in its wilderness. 1. Its origin: (a) by wicked devices; (b) by wicked works. 2. Its apparent character: (a) boundless wealth; (b) boundless enjoyment. 3. Its real character; (a) guilt; (b) bankruptcy. 4. Its final consequences: (a) poverty and want of the inner man; (b) poverty and want of the outer man.—He who would selfishly seek to convert stone into bread, will in reality convert even bread into stone.—Satan watches for the distress of man, to make it an occasion for transforming him into a beast of prey and a wicked spirit.—Such is the high calling of man, that he lives not by bread only.—Whoso depends on the mouth of God, his mouth shall not want food.—The judgment of Satan and that of Christ concerning man, in his want and distress. Satan in effect says: Man is a wretched being, suffering hunger; Christ says: So far as the real life of man is concerned, he is infinitely e