Exegesis of Jesus' Temptation (Matthew 4:1-17)

Temptation of Jesus

Examining and Contrasting the Narratives: Source Criticism

To begin our study of the temptation narratives found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke we will try to uncover their similarities and difference. We will look at possible reasons for differences, and how this relates to source criticism. Did one author use another author's writings and why did differences come into play.

To begin the study we will look at the narrative of Matthew, whom most scholars agree gives the best chronological order.

Matthew 4:1-17 The Temptation of Jesus

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"

Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written,
'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU';
and
'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP,
SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'"

Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"

Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'" Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.

Matthew begins with showing that (1) the Spirit led Jesus to the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, (2) then after forty days and nights of fasting, (3) He became hungry, then Satan begins his tempting (testing) of Jesus. The first temptation is to (4)turn stones into bread, (5)then to throw Himself of the pinnacle of the temple, and finally to (6)bow and worship Satan. On the last temptation Jesus displayed His obedience to the Father resulting in (7) Satan leaving and then (8) angles came to minister to Him.

The next narrative we will look at is from the Gospel of Luke, which has some differences.

Luke 4:13 The Temptation of Jesus

Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He became hungry. And the devil said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread." And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.'"

And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, "I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. "Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours." Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'"

And he led Him to Jerusalem and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here; for it is written,
'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU TO GUARD YOU,'
and,
'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP,
SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'"

And Jesus answered and said to him, "It is said, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"

When the devil had finished every temptation, he left Him until an opportune time.

Luke begins with showing that Jesus was (1) led by the Spirit to the wilderness for forty days, (2) being tempted by the devil. We are then told that (3) Jesus ate nothing during that time and at the end (4) became hungry. Then the devil begins his last three temptations. One of them is (5) bread to stones, (6) showing Jesus the world and promising to give it to Him if He will worship him, and (7) casting Himself off the temple. When the devil had finished his temptations and (8) left (9) until the next opportune time.

Out last narrative to look at is by the author of the Gospel of Mark. It is the shortest of all the narratives and doesn�t really go into any detail about what happened.

Mark 1:12-13 The Temptation of Jesus

Immediately the Spirit impelled Him to go out into the wilderness. And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him.

Mark simply says that Jesus was (1) impelled to go to the wilderness. He was there being (2) tempted for 40 days by Satan, while being around (3)wild animals and had (4) angles minister to Him. Now let us take these narratives and contrast them to see what is revealed.

From this chart, we can see that there are some differences. How do these differences affect the narrative and what can they show us about possible use of other documents. Many modern scholars have accepted the idea of the two source hypothesis (Class Notes; Word, 62). The problem with this is that none of the authors of the gospels speak of some second source (known as Q), and no such source has ever been located. This does not mean that such a source does not exist though. We have found many manuscripts that are now available to us that were not available to the early church. Another problem with this idea is that it suggests that Mark was written first, but the early church was unanimous that Matthew was written first.

To evaluate this we will approach it from three points of view: the two source hypothesis, Matthew was the first written source and other authors used his writings or had direct contact with him, or the work of the co-authoring Holy Spirit. Let us begin to look at the two source hypothesis.

Two Source Hypothesis

It is thought, by many scholars, that Mark was written some time between A.D. 65-70. Then the later synoptic authors who wrote Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q. This would explain why so much of Matthew and Luke are the same, even word for word. Now using the system of thought brought by the two source hypothesis, lets look at the temptation of Jesus.

All three agree that Jesus was lead by the Spirit to the wilderness for temping. A slight difference comes in regard to the forty day period. Mark and Luke seem to suggest that testing was taking place for the entire forty days, but Matthew states that the tempting didn�t happen until after the forty days of fasting. How can these views, by the different authors, be found in agreement? It appears that Jesus was fasting in the wilderness for a forty day period and was being tempted the entire time. At the end of the forty day period, because of fasting, He was very hungry and that is when the final three temptations would take place as recorded by Matthew and Luke. These extensions would have come out of Q.

Without having Q it is difficult to know what was in it. So in the first temptation of Jesus, Matthew adds to what Luke has, "BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD." Now this doesn't affect the meaning of the passage, instead it appears that Matthew was trying to add a positive end to something that was lacking in Q (Word, 62). We could be wrong though and it could be that Luke shortened Q for some reason.

The next major difference comes in the arrangement of the last two tests. Matthew says that Jesus was taken to the temple where Luke jumps to the mountain. Why the difference? It appears that Matthew tried to keep a chronological order where Luke tries to keep a rational order. When reading the text it makes since. Matthew uses the word "then" to suggest a chain of events; where Luke uses "and" to suggest that these events took place, but doesn't suggest in any certain order. In the book of Luke, the temple holds a high importance and that might be why he ended with the temple, showing that Jesus' messiahship didn't come though a miraculous event, but through His suffering.

With that change being made Luke does away with Jesus' command for Satan to leave and simply states that he left till the next opportune time. Then both Matthew and Mark state that angles minister to Jesus, which is excluded from Luke. So how does Q state it? Which order is correct? Again, without having this document it is impossible to know for sure.

Matthew Came First

Another answer to this source criticism is that the church fathers were right and Matthew was the first written. This next idea of source criticism isn't new, but I have never seen it before and have not been able to do any study on it. Matthew appears too have been written by a very devout Jew who knew the Scriptures well. The church fathers believed that he was the companion of Jesus and his understanding of the Law and Old Testament Scriptures might have come from Him. They believed that Matthew was the first document and this was unchallenged from almost 1700 years. Could it have been that Matthew was the first document to be written and that the other authors of Mark and Luke used Matthew for their writings? It was common for people to take long documents and shorten them for the purpose of teaching. Now Mark and Luke seem to have been written for a Gentile/Greek audience were as Matthew was more for Jews. Could have Mark and Luke pulled text from Matthew in writing to their audience which would be beneficial and leave out things that were viewed less important and add in other things, maybe learned from other Apostles or word of mouth, that were important for their audiences.

Co-authoring Holy Spirit

The final view is that all of the authors wrote independently of sources and gained their information by direct contact with either Jesus or His apostles. According to tradition Matthew was written by Matthew, the disciple of Jesus, who was called Levi and he had first hand contact with Jesus. So why should he need to use Mark, a document written by Mark, a companion of Peter and Paul? It is likely that both Mark and Luke, a companion of Paul, met Matthew and discussed the historical Jesus, which would explain the similarities between all three of them. But let us not forget that all Scripture is inspired by God and He, through means of His Spirit, might have dictated parts of Scripture for His purpose.

The Correct One

Which is correct? I don't know. I like to agree with the tradition of the church fathers that the gospels were written by either Apostles or those directly associated with them. With that being said, it doesn't make since that Matthew, an Apostles of Jesus, would use a document written by Mark (however it could be possible since Mark was a companion of Peter). It makes more since to me that Matthew wrote his document, and it could have been used by Mark and Luke, or it could have been that they shared so much in common with Matthew because of being around him or that all the Apostles shared the same ideas and memories of Jesus. With this idea, it would be hard to do away with the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I am not very dogmatic on the subject, but I like to think that the truth is found some where between the last two or solely in the third.

Jesus' Testing in Relation to His Vocation

The first thing to keep in mind is what it is to tempt some one. We say that Jesus was tempted. To tempt someone is try to cause them to sin. So we use the word tempt in relation to Satan because he tries to get us to sin. However, more generically the word can mean to test one. As we will see, the temptation period was a testing period for Jesus. Jesus was given a vocation from God. A vocation is (1) the particular occupation for which you are trained, (2) a regular occupation, especially one for which a person is particularly suited or qualified, (3) an inclination, as if in response to a summons, to undertake a certain kind of work, especially a religious career; a calling (Webster's, Dictionary). Some view a vocation and an occupation to be two different things. At times this might be the case. But, I think that God has gifted all people to be able to do something and do it well. The career one chooses should be their vocation, which God has gifted them to do well. Some times we like to think of a vocation as some high calling only given to the special people called to be pastors, ministers, evangelist, and missionaries. That is a bad understanding of a vocation though. Some are gifted to work on the assembly line of Ford, others are gifted to be doctors, others are gifted to be mothers and wives. For them, that is their vocation.

Another obstacle is confusing vocation with purpose. We all have but one purpose and that is to glorify God. And, I find that such a purpose can be broke down into three groups: our sanctification or holiness (1 Thessalonians 4:3), to worship Him (Deut. 6:13), and minister to others [to the lost (Matt. 28:19-20) and to the saved (1 Thessalonians 5:11)]. When we do all of these things we are obedient to God and He is glorified. Those are apart of our life in Christ and can and should be related to our vocation, but they are not our vocation. We are all uniquely gifted to fill a certain vocation, but we are all gifted to fill our purpose.

Jesus' vocation is hard to define. While alive, it appears He was to teach of the coming kingdom and the truth, and to show that way to the Father. But a vital part of His vocation was to die on the cross (Mark 10:45). With those being two parts of Jesus' vocation, let us look at how He was tested prior to entering into His public ministry.

The Holy One, blessed be His name, does not elevate a man to dignity until He has first tested and searched him; if he stands in temptation then He raises him to dignity. William Barclay (Communicator's, 48)

Before Jesus could enter into His public ministry, He had to be tested. This time of testing was His inaugural passage (Communicator's, 48). One thing to keep in mind, none of the authors were present at this time. This time in Jesus' life was somewhat of a spiritual autobiography for His disciples (Communicator's, 48). This is why the writer of Hebrews could say, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).

To start our study of how and why Jesus was tempted I want to look at two charts that contrast Jesus to Adam and Israel.

As Hebrews 4:15 says, "One who has been tempted in all things as we are", and 1 John shows how all are tempted, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world" (2:16). Satan does the tempting, but he uses the world to draw us in. Above is a chart that shows how both Adam and Jesus were tempted in the same ways, the same ways that we ourselves are tempted. If you look at any temptation that comes your way you will find that you can put it into one of these three categories. The thing to notice is that where Adam failed, Jesus pasted the test. And that is why we can rejoice, "For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19).

To continue our study of in relation to Jesus' vocation let us look at all the temptations as a whole to see what is common to them all. They all seem to have some key themes: (1) Jesus as the Son of God, (2) obedience and trust in the Father, (3) His messiahship, and (4) contrast with Israel's experience (Word 63). They also all have the same pattern: (1) it gives the setting, (2) Satan's words, and (3) Jesus' response. Even Jesus' response is similar to all three as when He quotes scripture He either says "it is written" (Matthew) or "it is said" (Luke).

Now let's hit on some of the technical stuff in the verses. When Satan acknowledges Jesus' Sonship, in the first and second trial, the term 'ei' is used in the Greek, which has usually been translated as 'if.' The question then becomes whether or not Jesus is sure of His Sonship. Both Matthew and Luke go beyond what Mark says to show that Jesus was born under divine means. Luke goes far enough to suggest that Jesus knew who He was at the age of twelve. So is Satan attacking the knowledge of Jesus to whether or not He is the Son of God just revealed to Him at baptism? This is possible. Even believers today struggle at times to whether or not they are sons of God.

However, another way to look at this verse is to translate the Greek word 'ei' as 'since', instead of 'if'. When we do this, we must re-interpret what was said and meant. No longer is Satan spurring on doubt, but he is spurring on self-interest (Communicator's, 49). Is Jesus going to use His messianic power to satisfy His physical hunger? Is He going to use His messianic power to gain allegiance of political Israel? Is He going to gain the world through means other then the way the Father has willed (His suffering and death)? These are all test to see if He will remain obedient to the Father's will.

In Matthew 3:15 it says that John, the Baptist, baptized Jesus and then three verses later in 4:1 the Spirit led Him into the wilderness. Much the same was Israel baptized in the Red/Reed Sea as they passed out of Egypt and into the wilderness led by the Spirit [pillar of cloud/fire] (Exodus 3:21). These were times of testing to see if they would remain obedient.

In the first temptation of Jesus, He was hungry after fasting for forty days and nights. Now why does Matthew state that He fasted for forty days and nights? Fasting was not always perceived as something you do for a full twenty-four hour period. Much like the Muslims do today during their religious season of Ramadan, they will fast all day and then eat during the night. Matthew wanted to make it clear that He had not eaten for a full 960 hours. Why is this forty days and night important? It could be seen as an atonement or cleansing period before a major task, such as when Moses receives the tablets (Word 63) in Deuteronomy 9:9, "When I went up to the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD had made with you, then I remained on the mountain forty days and nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water." Jesus could have been going though a cleansing period before His entrance into the ministry. However, it is also to bring to remembrance the forty years in the wilderness by Israel.

The first of the final three test that Jesus would have to endure was that of making stones into bread. "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." Again, on the surface this doesn't look like a test that could result in a sinful act. So would it have been a sin for Jesus to turn the stones to bread and eat? Yes. "The testing then amounts to this: shall Jesus exercise his messianic power for his own ends in a way that avoids difficulty and pain, or shall he accept the path of suffering (and death) that is his Father's will?" (Word, 65).

To deal with this test Jesus goes to the only authoritive source on the issue, Scripture. "MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD", quoting from Deuteronomy 8:3,

He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.

Jesus, like Israel, was tested so that He might know that man does not live by bread alone, but by the things, which proceed from the mouth of God. If Jesus would have turned the stones into bread he would have been placing food over God's Word and would not have been humbled.

Jesus later spoke on the subject of food, found in John 4:34, "Jesus said to them, 'My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.'" And in 6:35, "Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.'" This further goes to show that Jesus fully grasped the truth that food was of little importance in the eternal scheme of things.

When looking at this temptation it is important to remember that Jesus was human. The Church has held for the most part of twenty centuries that Jesus was fully man and God. Many times we seem to place more significance of the divine than we do the human. I don't know if you have ever attempted fasting, but it is one thing that I find myself horrible at. I have tried it multiple times and I usually find myself failing. Even going a day or two without food is very difficult. I guess if food wasn't readily available it might be easier, but this wasn�t the case for Jesus. He, through His messianic power, was more than capable of feeding himself by turning stone into bread. This wasn't a test to see if He could, but rather to see if He would.

Another confession that the church has held to is that Jesus was sinless. Jesus was fully obedient to the Father and fulfilled the great command, "And He said to him, 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND'" (Matt. 22:37, Deut. 6:5). But Jesus had to learn obedience, "Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from what he suffered", which is seen in the revelation to obedience to the Word of God (Heb 5:8).

The next temptation is to jump from the temple, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE'" (Matt. 4:6, Psalm 91:11). This is the only time Satan uses Scripture to test Jesus. An odd thing about this quotation is that it is not at all messianic. Psalm 91 is meant for the faithful Israelite, but this is not in contradiction of its use in the Gospels as Jesus was an Israelite and a representative for Israel.

Another odd thing to be noticed when reading this text is that the jump was by no means a jump into some sort of danger. Satan made it clear that if Jesus jumped He would be rescued. [Now whether or not this is an actual jump or one in a vision is not really known (same thing for the last temptation). It is possible that Jesus was actually standing on the temple and that He could actually jump off. But this could be a vision. Fasting and visions are common companions and for good reason (Dan. 10:3). Also, no where else is Scripture is Satan given some sort of power by which He can teleport from one place to another, no report was ever given by which some one saw Jesus standing atop the temple, and there is no mountain by which the entire world can be seen (in the third temptation)] (Word, 63). The important thing to understand is that if Jesus would have jumped He would have been rescued, but by not jumping He remains in the will of God which resulted in His suffering and death.

Jesus' rebuttal against jumping was, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST'" (Matt. 4:7) and is found in Deut. 6:16, "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah." When Israel was passing through the wilderness they became thirsty because there was no water. So they began to grumble among themselves and grumbled against Moses asking if he brought them out to die. So Moses went before the Lord and God gave them water by the rock, and the place was named Massah because they tested the Lord by saying, "Is the LORD among us, or not?" (Exodus 17:7). If Jesus would have jumped it would have been just like the people who grumbled because He would have been second guessing the will of God.

The final temptation is quite different because in the first two an imperative is given, but in the final one a promise (Word, 68), "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me" (Matt. 4:9). In Deuteronomy Moses warns Israel about false allegiance: "But you shall remember the Lord your God, for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth, that He may confirm His convent which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day"; and "You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree" (8:18: 12:2). This was a call for idolatry and if Jesus had followed Satan; he would have given Him everything. Question, can you trust Satan to keep his end of the deal? Well, possibly Jesus could have. The thing that Satan desired was to be above God, and if part of the Triune God would have bowed to him that would have surely fulfilled part of, if not all of, that desire. Interestingly these were already promised to the Messiah, "Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession"; "May he also rule from sea to sea And from the River to the ends of the earth" (Psalm 2:8; Psalm 72:8). However to obtain this obedience was required. What Satan offered was a way around the suffering that would be in Jesus' future.

So what did Jesus choose? He once again submitted Himself to God through obedience to the Word and quoted Deuteronomy 6:13, "YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY" (Matt. 4:10). The verses that follow in Deuteronomy 6:14-15 put it quite simple,

You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the LORD your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth.

Jesus could have gained the world by going around what the Father wanted, but what would that have profited Him. "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?" (Matt. 61:26).

When this period of tempting was over Satan left, Luke says until an opportune time, which can be seen why as Jesus is later tempted to find other means to do His Father's purpose other than suffering. Matthew and Mark both state that Jesus was ministered to by angles, which is fulfillment of the prediction that Satan made by quoting Psalm 91. Jesus remained faithful to God and obedient to the Word and the angles tended to Him.

This idea of obedience to the Father is a vital theme to the theology of the Gospels. His victory comes not though power and authority, but by humility, service, suffering--true greatness.

It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." Matt 20:26-28

The sonship of a Christian must lead to obedience with Christ as its example, though there will be much testing and difficulties. The testing will not be the same, but they will call for self-sacrificing, which is obedience to the Father alone and the measure of true discipleship (Word, 69).

Class Notes, taken by

Michael Naaktgeboren, from

Lecture given by Dr. Paul Redditt, at

Georgetown College Georgetown, Kentucky

Spring 2006

The Communicator's Commentary: Matthew

Lloyd J. Ogilvie: General Editor

Myron S. Augsburger: Author

Word Books, Publisher Waco, Texas

August 1982 by Waco, Inc.

Dictionary.Com

Vocation.

Webster's Online Dictionary

Vocation.

Word Biblical Commentary

Volume 33A Matthew 1-13

Donald A. Hagner

Word Books, Publisher Dallas, Texas 1993