article13

§7 The Temptation of Jesus (Luke 4:1–13)

Although Mark 1:12–13 records that Jesus was tempted, only Matthew (4:1–11) and Luke (4:1–13) provide us with accounts of the three specific temptations (which would suggest that the three temptations were part of the sayings source used by Matthew and Luke). A comparison of these two Gospels reveals that the second and third temptations found in one are in reverse order in the other (i.e., bread, pinnacle, kingdoms in Matthew; bread, kingdoms, pinnacle in Luke). Fitzmyer (pp. 507–8) believes that Matthew has retained the original order, which is reflected in the logical progression of the temptations (from desert-floor, to pinnacle of temple, to a high mountain) and in the descending order of Jesus’ quotations from Deuteronomy (i.e., Deut. 8:3 in Matt. 4:4; Deut. 6:16 in Matt. 4:7; Deut. 6:13 in Matt. 4:10). (For further reasons see Gundry, p. 56.) If the Matthean order is original, then we must inquire why Luke transposed the second and third temptation scenes. The most plausible answer is that Luke wanted the temptation to climax in Jerusalem. Whereas in the Matthean version of the pinnacle temptation (see Matt. 4:5) Jerusalem is referred to as the “holy city,” Luke wants the reference to be more explicit and so calls the city by its name (4:9). Jerusalem plays a significant part in Luke’s story of Jesus. Only in Luke’s Gospel does Jesus “set his face toward Jerusalem” (9:51) and then take the next ten chapters or so to get there (i.e., 9:51–19:27). The importance of Jerusalem for Jesus is hinted at in Luke 13:33: “surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!” (see commentary on 13:31–35 below). For Luke, Jerusalem is the city of Jesus’ destiny, and therefore it is appropriate that the temptation scenes reach their climax there.

The next question concerns the meaning of the temptation narrative. Here it is necessary to offer answers on two levels. First, the original meaning of this narrative must be determined. Second, Luke’s understanding and usage of the narrative must be determined. Let us first consider the original meaning. The setting in the desert (v. 1) and staying in it for forty days (v. 2), during which time Jesus ate nothing (v. 2), are probably an intentional allusion to Moses’ fast in the wilderness for forty days, at the end of which time he received and proclaimed the word of God (see Exod. 34:28; Deut. 9:9–18; perhaps also Elijah, 1 Kings 19:8). That such an allusion was intentional receives additional support when it is noted that all of Jesus’ replies to the devil are quotations from Deuteronomy. Moreover, it has been shown that each of the three temptations reflects temptations to which the Israelites succumbed during their “desert” wanderings for “forty” years (see Fitzmyer, pp. 510–12).

The first temptation (4:3–4) recalls Israel’s own period of testing: “the LORD your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness … testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments, or not” (Deut. 8:2, RSV). Part of this “testing” was letting the Israelites become hungry so that they would have to trust God for their bread (the manna) and learn that “man does not live by bread alone, but … by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD” (Deut. 8:3, RSV). Israel, however, found this lesson difficult to learn, for the people grumbled against Moses and Aaron and had to be humbled (see Exod. 16:1–21). By refusing the devil’s temptation to satisfy his needs (i.e., by ordering this stone to become bread)—as if God could not or would not meet them—Jesus affirmed his faith and reliance in God’s provision, the very thing that Israel had failed to do (see Deut. 8:1–6).

The second temptation (4:5–8) alludes to Israel’s tendency to chase after other gods: “And when the LORD your God brings you into the land … then take heed lest you forget the LORD.… You shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples who are round about you; for the LORD your God … is a jealous God …” (Deut. 6:10–15, RSV). The devil offers Jesus all the kingdoms of the world (v. 5) if he would only worship him (v. 7). Unlike the Israelites, who so often became ensnared in idolatry, Jesus steadfastly affirms his loyalty to God alone by refusing the devil’s offer and by quoting Deut. 6:13.

The third temptation (4:9–12) recalls Israel’s testing of God with its demands at Massah and Meribah that the Lord provide water (Deut. 6:16b, alluding to Exod. 17:1–7). Unlike the people of Israel, however, Jesus will not put the Lord his God to the test (v. 12; from Deut. 6:16a). In light of these allusions it is clear that the temptation narrative was originally understood as a demonstration of Jesus’ unfailing faithfulness to God and his commandments. Such faithfulness qualifies him for his messianic role.

All of the suggestions put to Jesus by the devil reflect popular ideas and beliefs about what the Messiah would do when he appeared. Just as God had during the wilderness wanderings, the Messiah was expected to bring bread down from heaven, to subject the other kingdoms to Israel, and to perform some dazzling sign that would convince religious leadership (see Luke 11:16).

But the question may now be raised, what new significance, if any, does Luke attach to the temptation narrative? Coming, as it does, right after the genealogy, which concludes with “the son of Adam, the son of God” (3:38), it is possible that Luke sees in the temptation of Jesus (“If you are the Son of God …”; see note below) a parallel to the temptation of Adam, the first “son of God” (see commentary on 3:38 above). Whereas the first son of God fell into sin because of his failure to obey the command of God, the second Son of God remained faithful to God’s commands. The three temptations, however, are probably not meant to correspond to the temptations that were presented to Adam, as one interpreter (J. Neyrey) has recently suggested. Whereas the temptation to eat (fruit in the case of Adam; bread in the case of Jesus) corresponds, at least superficially, the other temptations do not. The temptations of the Gospel tradition reflect the ideas found in Deuteronomy 6 and 8, not those found in Genesis 3. The evangelist offers no more than a general comparison of Jesus and Adam, “sons of God” through whom the destiny of the human race is so drastically affected.

Luke saw in the temptation a foreshadowing of what lay ahead for Jesus in Jerusalem. This is obvious, as has already been pointed out, from the explicit reference to Jerusalem (v. 9) and from Luke’s making the temptation at Jerusalem the final, climactic temptation. Moreover, when Luke says, when the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time (v. 13), he surely anticipates the devil’s return on the scene near the time of Jesus’ passion in Jerusalem (see Luke 22:3, 31–32). For Luke, Jesus is engaged in combat with the devil and has, for now at least, emerged unscathed.

Finally, we may inquire into the nature of Jesus’ actual experience. Does the temptation story reflect a historical, observable event? Or, was it, as some scholars have maintained (Leaney, p. 115), a vision or a parabolic illustration of the devil-inspired opposition to Jesus’ ministry? It is not easy to decide, for problems attend all of these interpretations. But the one that seems the most plausible is the view that Jesus’ temptations were visionary. The context for the temptation would suggest this interpretation. Jesus has spent a lengthy time in prayer, solitude, and fasting. Prayer and fasting often preceded heavenly visions (see Dan. 9:3, 20–21; Acts 10:30 in KJV). During this period of time Jesus meditates on the direction that his ministry should take. While Jesus does this, diabolical temptations are put to him that would divert him from his divine mission. Being fully committed to the word of God and being “full of the Holy Spirit,” however, Jesus thwarts the tempter. (Talbert [pp. 44–46] observes that Jesus defeated Satan through correct use of Scripture.) Having emerged from this ordeal victorious, Jesus is now ready to announce the Gospel.