Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 4:1 - 4:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_4:1-11. Temptation of Jesus. Mar_1:12 f.; Luk_4:1 ff.; Alex. Schweizer, exeg. hist. Darstellung d. Versuchsgesch. in s. Kritik d. Gegensätze zw. Rationalism, u. Supernat. 1833; P. Ewald, d. Versuch. Christi mit Bezugnahme auf d. Versuch. d. Protoplasten. 1838; Kohlschütter in the Sächs. Stud. 1843; Ullmann, Sündlosigk. Jesu, ed. 7, 1863; Graul in Guericke’s Zeitschr. 1844, 3; Pfeiffer in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1851, No. 36; Koenemann (purely dogmatic) in Guericke’s Zeitschr. 1850, p. 586 ff.; Laufs in the Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 355 ff.; Nebe, d. Versuch. d. Hernn e. äussere Thatsache, 1857; v. Engelhardt, de Jesu Chr. tentatione, 1858; Held in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1866, p. 384 ff.; Haupt in the Stud. u. Krit. 1871, p. 209 ff.; Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1870, p. 188 ff.
The narrative in Matthew (and Luke) is a later development of the tradition, the older and still undeveloped form of which is to be found in Mark.
τότε ] when the Holy Spirit had descended upon Him.
ἀνήχθη ] He was led upwards, i.e. from the lower ground of the river bank to the higher lying wilderness. Luk_2:22; Luk_22:66.
τὴν ἔρημον ] the same wilderness of Judea spoken of in ch. 3. According to the tradition, we are to think of the very rugged wilderness of Quarantania (wilderness of Jericho, Jos_16:1), Robinson, Pal. II. p. 552; Schubert, Reise, III. p. 73; Raumer, p. 47. But in that case a more precise, distinctive designation must have been given; and Mar_1:13, ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων , is a point which has a sufficient basis in the idea of the wilderness in general. Nothing in the text points to the wilderness of Sinai (Chemnitz, Clericus, Michaelis, Nebe).
ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος ] by the Holy Spirit, which He had received at His baptism. ἀνήχθη ) does not indicate (Act_8:39; 2Ki_2:16) that He was transported in a miraculous, involuntary manner, but by the power of the Spirit, which is expressed still more strongly in Mar_1:12. Others (Bertholdt, Paulus, Glöckler) understand Jesus’ own spirit, Paulus regarding it as an ecstatic condition. This would be opposed to the context (Mat_3:16), and to the view of the matter taken by the Synoptics, which, in Luk_4:1, is expressed without any doubt whatever by the words πνεύματος ἁγίου πλήρης . Euth. Zigabenus well remarks: ἐκδίδωσιν ἑαυτὸν μετά τὸ βάπτισμα τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι καὶ ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ ἄγεται πρὸς ὃ ἂν ἐκεῖνο κελεύῃ , καὶ ἀνάγεται εἰς τὴν ἔρημον ἐπὶ τῷ πολεμηθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου .
πειρας θῆναι ] designates the purpose for which the Spirit impelled Jesus to go into the wilderness: πειράζειν , to put to the proof, receives its more precise definition in each case from the connection. Here: whether the Messiah is to be brought to take an unrighteous step which conflicts with His calling and the will of God.
ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου ] In what shape the devil appeared to Him, the text does not say; and the view of the evangelist as to that is left undetermined. Yet the appearance must be conceived of as being directly devilish, not at all as taking place in the form of an angel of light (Ambrose, Menken), or even of a man.
REMARK.
The two opposed principles, ὑπὸ τοῦ πν . and ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβ ., are essentially related to one another; and the whole position of the history, moreover, immediately after the descent of the Spirit on Jesus, proves that it is the victory of Jesus, filled with the Spirit (Luk_4:1-2), over the devil, which is to be set forth. It appears from this how erroneous is the invention of Olshausen, that the condition of Jesus in the wilderness was that of one who had been abandoned by the fulness of the Spirit. The opinion of Calvin is similar, although more cautiously expressed, Mat_4:11 : “Interdum Dei gratia, quamvis praesens esset, eum secundum carnis sensum latuit.”