1st Sunday in Lent
Matthew 4:1-11
Exegetical Notes by Brian Stoffregen
1 Lent A: Matthew 4:1-11 -- Exegetical Notes
Each year in the RCL, the First Sunday in Lent centers on Jesus'
Temptation.
I like this quote by Kenneth A. Halstead (_From Stuck to Unstuck:
Overcoming Congregational Impasse_). It isn't from a commentary on
this text, but a commentary on church life.
Evil may be wrong, but it is not stupid, at least not at its most
powerful. It does not deal in honest, straightforward, and fair
competition. It fights dirty and deceptively, using every clever,
double-binding trick to trap us and rob us of our humanity and our
eternal birthright. [p. 176]
From the beginning in the Garden, to Jesus' temptations, and ours; the
Liar entices us with things that appear to be good -- not with things
that appear to be evil.
A TEST? A TEMPTATION? A TRIAL?
It is difficult to know how to translate _peirazo_ (4:1) and the more
intensive _ekpeirazo_ (4:7) -- "to test" or "to tempt".
The word is often used in the LXX of God testing people:
God *tested* Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son (Gn 22:1).
When God rained bread from heaven, God asked that they gather only
enough for that day. "In that way I will *test* them, whether they
will follow my instruction or not" (Ex 16:4).
Why does God test people? One reason is given in Dt 13:3b: "for the
LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the LORD
your God with all your heart and soul." A slightly different reason is
given in Dt 8:16: "to humble you and to test you, and in the end to do
you good."
On one hand, I don't like the idea of testing that will do me good,
but on the other hand, I have an appointment for a test at the
doctor's office. The reason a doctor prescribes tests is for the good
of the patient.
Perhaps the reason for Jesus' "testing" in the wilderness is given its
best expression in Dt 8:2-3 (v. 3 is quoted by Jesus in answer to the
first "test"):
Remember the long way that the LORD your God has led you these forty
years in the wilderness, in order to humble you, testing you to know
what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his
commandments. He humbled you by letting you hunger, then by feeding
you with manna, with which neither your ancestors were acquainted, in
order to make you understand that one does not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.
There is this positive side of _peirazo_ and _ekpeirazo_ -- they refer
to a test. Generally when teachers or driving instructors or doctors
give tests, they are not trying to flunk the testees, but to help
discover what they know and what they can do. This is one way of
looking at "being tested by God." God wants Jesus/us to pass the
test -- to prove our abilities to God and to ourselves.
_peirazo_ and _ekpeirazo_ can also have negative connotations: "to
tempt" or "to try and cause someone to make a mistake" or "to try and
cause someone to sin"
At the same time that God is "testing" to discover the depths of one's
faithfulness, the "Tempter" may be "tempting" someone to sin. God's
purpose is to strengthen faith. Satan's purpose is to weaken faith.
Note that Jesus is led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be
tempted/tested (v. 1). This is softening of Mark's account where the
Spirit "throws Jesus out" into the wilderness (1:12). As Boring
(_Matthew_, NIB) notes: "... [Jesus'] submission to temptation is not
an accident or a matter of being victimized by demonic power, but is
part of his obedience to God" [p. 163].
THE TEMPTER
The "tempter" (4:3) in our text is also referred to as _diabolos_
(4:1, 5, 8, 11) and _Satanas_ (4:10).
I don't think that most of our temptations come from Satan, but from
other people. Every other time _peirazo_ is used in Matthew, the
tempters/testers are human beings: Pharisees and Sadducees (16:1);
Pharisees (19:3); Pharisees and Herodians (22:18); and a legal expert
(22:35). Jesus always responds to these tests with scriptures --
either direct quotes or allusions -- as he does in our text.
The Greek _Satanas_ is a transliteration of the Hebrew word for
"adversary." In the Hebrew scriptures the _satans_ or "adversaries"
are primarily other people, not supernatural beings. This word is used
in two other verses in Matthew. The first is 12:26, where it seems to
refer to a supernatural being or power: "If *Satan* drives out
*Satan*, he is divided against himself. How can his kingdom stand."
Its other use is 16:23, where it refers to a human being: "Jesus
turned and said to Peter, 'Out of my sight, *Satan*! You are a
stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but
the things of men.'"
The "satanic" is that which opposes God and the coming kingdom. It may
come from evil forces, evil beings, or human beings with misplaced
minds.
TEMPTATION IS NOT COERCION
Wherever it comes, the tempter/tester does not have the power to make
someone do something. Temptation is not coercion. The serpent in the
garden didn't make Eve and Adam eat the apple. The devil in our text
can't make Jesus turn stones into bread. "To tempt" means to try and
convince someone to do something. It means enticing someone to *want*
to do something. Tempters can't make someone do something bad, but try
to make the temptee *want* to do something bad. They don't take away
the will. Rather, they try to change one's will.
In my own experience, often when I sin, it is not a problem of
knowledge. I usually know what is good and bad. It is a problem of the
will. I just want to do the bad. Or there are times I just don't want
to do the good. More often than not, it is not a question of
ignorance -- of not knowing the difference between good and bad. It is
a question of one's will or conviction -- what do I want to do and
what will I do.
It is the responsibility of the parents and of the church not only to
teach its baptized members the difference between right and wrong; but
also to help motivate them to want to do the right thing. The devil
(and much of society) is still around trying to make us want to do the
wrong thing.
_diabolos_ usually translated "Devil" literally means "the slanderer"
or as an adjective: "slanderous". (This other meaning is used in 1 Tim
3:11; 2 Tim 3:3; Tit 2:3.) It is the word used in the LXX to translate
the Hebrew _SaTaN_, which, as I noted above, literally means
"adversary". (Besides the four instances in our text (vv. 1, 5, 8, 11;
it also occurs in 13:39 and 25:41 of Matthew.)
The way _diabolos_ seeks to change our wills is by lying, by
stretching the truth. Generally, _diabolos_ entices us not to do great
evil acts, but to good things for the wrong reasons. It could be
argued that none of Jesus' temptations were to do anything grossly
evil, but to do good things for the wrong reasons or at the wrong
time.
What's wrong with turning stones into bread (if one can do it) to feed
the hungry? Later, Jesus will turn a couple fish and five loaves of
bread into a feast for 5000.
What's wrong with believing scriptures so strongly that he trusts the
angels to protect him? Later, Jesus will walk on water, perhaps
slightly less difficult than floating on air.
What's wrong with the King of kings and Lord of lords assuming control
over the kingdoms of the world? Isn't that what we are expecting at
the parousia?
The Slanderer entices Jesus with good things -- perhaps even proper
things for one who is the Son of God. NOTE: The "if" (Gk _ei_) may be
better translated "Since". The assumption is made (especially after
the voice at his baptism) that Jesus is the Son of God. This truth is
not questioned. As Boring (_Matthew_, NIB) states: "The disputed issue
is not whether Jesus is the Son of God, but what it means for Jesus to
be the Son of God" [p. 163]. Parallels might be made with "Since you
are a Christian . . . ." or "Since we are a Christian congregation . .
. ." What kind of actions should be expected from us? What does it
mean to be a Christian or a Christian community? Which of those
actions are fruit of believing or testings from _diabolos_?
What's demonic about these good requests? A general answer is given by
Jesus' first quotation of scriptures, Dt 8:3, which I quoted above. A
problem with all three temptations is that they come from a word other
than God's. If Jesus does what the Slanderer asks -- even if they are
very good things, he is then living by a word that is not coming out
of the mouth of God.
I wonder how any minister or congregational leader (or Christian) can
faithful perform their duties if they are not steeped in the word of
God. This might be a fitting way of connecting this text with last
week's command, "Listen to him."
Gundry (Matthew) offers a slightly different answer: "The Devil does
not tempt Jesus to doubt his divine sonship, just pronounced at his
baptism, but to rely on that sonship in self-serving ways that would
lead him disobediently from the path to the cross" [p. 55].
How many of us and our congregations are guilty of "self-serving"
ways?
Boring (_Matthew_, NIB) raises an important question and provides some
good answers:
Is Satan language passe? The interpreter's first question today may
be whether there is still a place in our thinking for images of
Satan, especially since such images can be abused by a literalism
that uses "the devil made me do it" as an escape from personal
responsibility and that brands its opponents as tools of the devil.
Yet, language and imagery of the demonic played an important
theological role for Matthew, and it can continue to do so for us.
Such imagery provides a way of acknowledging the reality of an evil
greater than our own individual inclinations to evil, a
supra-personal power often called "systemic evil" today. Another
valuable aspect of such language is that it can prevent us from
regarding our human opponents as the ultimate enemy, allowing us to
see both them and ourselves as being victimized by the power of
evil. [p. 165]
Could the demonic be involved in many of our church conflicts? Should
we name Satan as the diabolical enemy, rather than that problematic
parishioner? Could our self-serving desires be coming from evil forces
outside of ourselves? How do we talk about the NT world with its
assumption of invisible powers to a world that has largely discounted
or laughed at the phrase, "the devil made me do it"? When is that a
copout of personal responsibilities? When might a person be possessed
by evil?
THE FIRST TEMPTATION
The first temptation presents an opposition which I suggested was part
of Jesus' conversation with John at his baptism. Jesus is not
motivated by needs -- John said that he "needed" to be baptized by
Jesus, but Jesus doesn't do it. Jesus is motivated by the word of God
or fulfilling all righteousness (which certainly leads Jesus at times
to care for human needs).
Boring (_Matthew_, NIB) notes the following about Matthew's wording:
Matthew has changed the singular "stone" and bread" ("loaf") in Q to
the plural "stones" and "loaves." Since one loaf would more than
suffice for Jesus, the devil's argument is not only for Jesus to use
his divine power for his own advantage, to alleviate his hunger (but
denying his humanity and the trust in God Jesus teaches in 6:24-34),
but also to use his divine power to provide food for all, meeting an
obvious human need, corresponding to popular messianic expectations,
and carrying enormous political power. [p. 163]
A significant contrast is presented in this temptation. As I noted
above, the assumption is made that Jesus is the Son of God; but Jesus
responds by quoting a verse that insists on his own humanity.
Literally translated: "Not by bread alone shall the human
[_anthropos_] live...." This suggests that Matthew's view of Jesus'
life on earth was that of a mere human being, not that of a
superman -- which tends to be closer to the American idea of a
messiah.
Was it in the second Superman movie where he gives up his powers to be
just like one of us? I remember my anger at that scene. I didn't want
a human hero. I wanted a Superman. Robert Capon as part of a wonderful
section on the humanity of Jesus in a chapter called "Superman,"
concludes with:
The human race is, was and probably always will be deeply unwilling
to accept a human messiah. We don't want to be saved in our
humanity; we want to be fished out of it. We crucified Jesus, not
because he was God, but because he blasphemed: He claimed to be God
and then failed to come up to our standards for assessing the claim.
It's not that we weren't looking for the Messiah; it's just that he
wasn't what we were looking for. Our kind of Messiah would come down
from a cross. He would carry a folding phone booth in his back
pocket. He wouldn't do a stupid thing like rising from the dead. He
would do a smart thing like never dying. [_Hunting the Divine Fox_,
p. 91]
THE SECOND TEMPTATION
Note: the second and third temptations are in reverse order in Luke.
Last is a more significant place than "in the middle". Mountains are
more important in Matthew than in Luke. Conversely, the Temple plays a
more important role in Luke than in Matthew. This may be a reason for
the change in order.
Since Jesus is motivated by the Word of God, the next temptation
centers on the word of God. More properly it deals with the proper use
of the Word of God. Note also that this temptation doesn't take place
in the wilderness, but at the temple. Could there be temptations even
in church?!? I presume that there were high precipices in the
wilderness from which Satan could have tempted Jesus to jump. Gundry
(Matthew) suggests that the "selection of the Temple implies the
public display of a messianic sign" [p. 56]. How do we balance the
public display of our faith, e.g., letting our light shine before
others (Mt 5:16); and not practicing our piety before others to be
seen by them, and thus losing our reward from our Father in heaven (Mt
6:1)?
The "messianic sign" that God has decreed for Jesus is the cross. Not
superman-type performances.
One may use scriptures like the Tempter -- to try to change God's
will -- to seek to manipulate God. Rather than seeing it as promise, a
gracious gift of God. When it is used to test God, it becomes an
instrument of judgment, testing God's and our own faithfulness.
Nearly every speaker I've heard with a handicapping condition has
commented about being told: "If you had enough faith, you would pray
and God would heal you." As a child, I can remember praying, "God, if
you really exist, then do this or that for me." We can turn the
promises of God around to try and manipulate God. Rather than living
by the Word of God, we seek to have God act according to our words.
(One of those speakers then gave her response to such people: "If you
just had enough faith, you would pray for me and God would heal me.")
Jesus' response from Dt 6:16 provides more direction about this
temptation. The entire verse reads: "Do not put the LORD your God to
the test, as you tested him at Massah." In order to discover how they
tested God at Massah (the Hebrew word for "test"), we need to look at
Ex 17:7: "He called the place Massah and Meribah, because the
Israelites quarreled and tested the LORD, saying, 'Is the LORD among
us or not?'"
The "test" was questioning God's presence among us. How do we know the
Lord is among us? By God's word promising to be with us. Like in a
marriage, as soon as one starts wondering or asking, "If you really
love me, then ...." then one is no longer living by the marriage
promise, but using it to manipulate the other. When we start looking
for miracles to prove God's presence, we are not living by God's word.
(This isn't to deny divine miracles or loving deeds by spouses, but
when they are *required* to prove the promise of love, they become
signs of unbelief in that word.)
Boring (_Matthew_, NIB) adds an interpretive note concerning Matthew's
community and ours:
Matthew is not merely reporting a once-upon-a-time encounter between
Jesus and Satan, but is illustrating that even the well-intentioned
theologies and interpretations of Scriptures in his own community
can become the vehicle of a demonic alternative to the path of
obedient suffering that Jesus has chosen as the path of messiahship.
[p. 164]
THE THIRD TEMPTATION
The third temptation is on a high mountain (the same phrase used in
the transfiguration). It also could be another connection with Moses.
He went to the top of Mount Nebo "and the LORD showed him the whole
land" (Dt 34:1). (Throughout the temptation story, Jesus is more
closely related to people's failure during the Exodus than to the
failure of Adam and Eve in the garden.)
The power and authority over the kingdoms of the world comes at too
high a price -- selling his soul to the devil by worship him. I wonder
if sometimes our congregations' desires to be bigger and better might
mean selling out to powers other than God. I recently read an essay
called: "Shall we schedule a menu of worship services?" by Paul Bosch.
He raises this question: "But is numerical growth an inherent good?
Could it be that some growth is achieved at too high a cost: at the
expense of faithfulness to the gospel and its welcome of diversity?
Jesus, after all, did not urge 'success' on his followers; he urged
faithfulness."
Whether or not he is right in his opposition to "a menu of worship
services," I think that he does challenge us about the distinction
between worldly success and kingdom faithfulness.
Does the devil have the kingdoms of the world to give to Jesus? Jesus
doesn't argue this point, but as the "slanderer" and "father of lies"
(Jn 8:44), the devil will use every deceit to entice Jesus to turn
away from God. I don't think that this passage can be used to support
the demonic control of the world.
Yet, Carter (_Matthew and the Margins_) notes:
Roman imperial theology declares that Rome rules by Jupiter's will.
Here Rome is shown to be allied with the devil's reign. The devil's
claim discloses the hidden power manifested in the external actions
of the empire and vassals such as Herod. ...
...At issue is sovereignty -- "To whom does the world belong?" To
God (cf. Gen 1; Lev 25:23; Ps 24:1) or to the devil? If Jesus
receives the devil's offer, he acknowledges the devil's authority
and rule. But it is God's empire that Jesus is commissioned to
manifest (1:21, 23). ... The play on the noun _basileia_ (="reign")
in 3:2 and 4:17 and the plural form used by the devil in 4:8
(_basileias_ = "empires/kingdoms") must not be missed. God, not the
devil, has commissioned Jesus to this role. [pp. 110-111]
This passage is a warning that what may seem to be good and right and
proper for us as Christians and Christian congregations to pursue may
be only a lie from the devil to entice us to sell out the gospel to
some other words not from the mouth of God. Especially if there is a
relationship to this temptation and the Roman Empire, how should we be
"ruling" our congregations in a way that is godly rather than
following the business ways of the world -- even if those ways are
highly effective and efficient?
Jesus' response is almost a quote from Dt 6:13: "The LORD your God you
shall fear; him you shall serve, and by his name alone you shall
swear." The word for "serve" is the same in Matt and LXX
(_latreuseis_). Specifically this word means "to perform religious
rites as part of worship" and it is translated "service" or "worship,"
which probably led to the parallel with _proskuneo_, which is usually
translated "worship," although it also has the sense of "to bow down
or fall down before". It refers both to body position or an attitude
and activity of reverence or honor. Only the Lord our God deserves
this honor.
THE END?
The word from the mouth of God is powerful -- even over Satan. Jesus
says, "Go away, Satan!" and the Devil leaves. God has authority over
the tempter. While this text is a warning to all about the dangers of
temptations, it also expresses Jesus' power over the Tempter -- his
will is not changed and with a word he dismisses Satan. But the ordeal
was not easy. At the end angels come and waited on (_diakoneo_) him.
_diakoneo_ (from where we get "deacon") is a word that original
referred to "waiting on tables," i.e., to serve food. Boring
(_Matthew_, NIB) notes the irony in this concluding verse: "By placing
the kingdom of God first, even though it meant rejecting food and the
help of angels, Jesus finally receives both, thus becoming an
anticipatory example of his own teaching (6:33)" [p. 164].
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Ave., Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com