JESUS, FULL OF the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, 2where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry.
3The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.”
4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’”
5The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7So if you worship me, it will all be yours.”
8Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”
9The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here. 10For it is written:
“‘He will command his angels concerning you
to guard you carefully;
11they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”
12Jesus answered, “It says: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
13When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time.
Original Meaning
BEFORE BEGINNING HIS ministry, Jesus faces off with Satan after being led by the Spirit into the desert.1 Luke makes such leading clear by noting both that Jesus was “full of the Holy Spirit” and that he was “led by the Spirit in the desert.” What occurs here, therefore, takes place under God’s direction. Also important to the event’s background is the fact that it takes place after forty days of fasting. Forty is a significant number in the Bible (Gen 7:4; Lev. 12:1–4; Num. 14:33; Deut. 25:3; Ezek. 4:6; on fasting, see Ex. 34:28; Deut 9:9; 1 Kings 19:8).2 Such fasting probably involved minimum drink only. The remark is significant, since Jesus’ testing takes place in an environment opposite to the one Adam faced.
The comparison to Adam is suggested by “the son of Adam, the son of God” conclusion to the preceding genealogy (3:38). The cosmic confrontation of Jesus with Satan recalls that earlier encounter, which had such dire consequences for humanity. Another major biblical event surfacing in this passage is the Exodus, for Jesus uses the book of Deuteronomy to reply to each satanic temptation.
Jesus’ successful encounter with the devil reveals how thoroughly dedicated he is to God’s will and call. Jesus will take only the road God asks him to follow. He will not take any shortcuts. He knows that a successful walk with God only goes where the Father leads.
The event is built around three distinct temptations. Two of them specifically make Jesus’ Sonship the issue (vv. 3, 9). They argue in vivid terms, using a conditional clause in which the word “if” (ei) presents the condition as if it were so, though Satan has more sinister motives. Satan tempts Jesus to act in a way that supports his Sonship. Of course, his goal behind these temptations is the exact opposite: luring Jesus to act independently of the Father and thus creating a rebellious Sonship. In each case, Jesus uses Scripture to counter Satan’s attempt.
The first temptation questions God’s provision and care. Satan’s premise is that Jesus’ Sonship must mean that God does not want him to starve in the desert, so the mighty Son should simply turn stone into bread and meet his basic needs under his own power. But Jesus understands that the request is not a challenge to be strong, but to be independent. Such independence is weakness and leads to failure. Jesus’ reply comes from Deuteronomy 8:3b, arguing that life is run by more than food. In fact, in the priority of things, life is not defined by bread at all. Instead, life is defined by doing God’s will and depending on his leading. In the Deuteronomy citation, the next line refers to living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord. To follow God is to live.
The second temptation is an invitation to worship Satan and abandon loyalty to the Father, a direct challenge to the first commandment (Ex. 20:3). Satan allows Jesus to see all the kingdoms in the world and promises him authority over all of them if he will only worship him.3 The proposal is of an alliance between the Son and Satan. The temptation is not only to join Satan, but for Jesus to excuse himself from all that lies ahead in his ministry. He can leave behind the rejection and suffering for quick access to power.
Though Satan possesses great authority (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2), he really cannot grant this wish. The proposal is a delusion and a lie, as are all of Satan’s attempts to get us off track. Jesus’ reply makes it clear he knows which way is true. Going Satan’s way is not the way to gain power, but to lose it. There is no quick and easy road to messianic glory or to spiritual survival in a hostile world. Jesus opts to receive from the Father what is the Father’s to give. Therefore, Jesus replies with Deuteronomy 6:13. Only one Being is worthy of worship—the Lord God. This text comes from a portion of a passage that follows the Shema (Deut. 6:4–9), which a Jew recited daily. That verse notes one other important reality, that with worship comes service. True service means remaining allied to God.
The third temptation, like the second, involves a vision-like experience. Jesus is taken to the temple in Jerusalem—probably on the Royal Porch on the temple’s southeast corner, which looms over a cliff and the Kidron Valley some 450 feet below.4 Josephus mentions that just looking over the edge made people dizzy (Antiquities 15.11.5 §§ 411–12). To cast oneself down from such a height and survive would take divine intervention. The location of the temple probably underscores the idea of God’s presence to help. There is no indication that this temptation occurred as a public act.5 Rather, it seems to have been a type of creative enactment of a “potential” situation.
Satan adds to his enticement by quoting Scripture himself, citing Psalm 91:11–12, a text that promises God’s protection for his own. The premise is, “If God protects his own and you are his Son, then you can jump and not worry; you can run over the edge and not be crushed.” He suggests such wonder-working protection will enhance Jesus’ unique dependence on God as he flings himself into his caring arms. Furthermore, surely God will not let his own suffer pain.
As spiritual as this sounds, Jesus recognizes the remark as a presumptuous test of God’s care. God has not asked Jesus to engage in such a test, and the action artificially creates a need for God to act. Since it puts God in a “show me” position, the action is really a private test of God and a sign of a lack of faith. These kinds of tests God’s children are not to pursue. So Jesus replies with Deuteronomy 6:16, a text that rebuked Israel for testing God in places like Massah (Ex. 17:1–7). Jesus will not test God or characterize his ministry with a flashy display engaged in for selfish purposes. Jesus’ messianic ministry will not be a traveling road show of the miraculous.
Having failed three times, Satan departs for a while. His departure is not a long one, since confrontation with demons resurfaces in 4:31–44. Through it all, Jesus emerges as a loyal Son. He has shown the qualities that make him a worthy and exemplary Son.
Bridging Contexts
THE TEXT REVEALS both how Satan tempts and how Jesus resists. As noted above, in each case Satan uses a selfish tactic in justifying the action he wants Jesus to take: “Surely you should feed yourself, Jesus”; “Surely the Father wants you to have authority, so just give me your allegiance”; “Surely God will protect his Son, so why not try him out?” Such independence from God is the essence of spiritual defection and desertion. It recalls the original temptations in Genesis 3:1, 5: “Did God really say…?” and, “God knows that when you eat of it … you will be like God.”
While Jesus’ temptations are unique, the satanic challenges to loyalty are not. Satan may not replicate the same temptations with us, especially since we are not the unique Son of God, but he does use the same key issue, namely, a challenge to faithfulness. He tries to subvert our walk with God by offering shortcuts to spirituality—which are really dead ends. In response, we must rely on God and, in some cases, walk the hard road with him. Anything we do independent of the Lord expresses a lack of connection to him. Just as Jesus shows loyalty as the Son, we must show loyalty as God’s children.
Jesus’ knowledge of God’s Word is a bridge. Here is a means by which we come to understand God’s will and direction. Loyalty to him involves loyalty to the Word, and such loyalty is paramount. God uses tests in our lives to show us where we stand before him. Jesus’ temptations shows he stands solidly with God. Our temptations should be resisted in such a way that we reveal a similar character.
A final key issue emerges in how Jesus handles these temptations. He does not think or rationalize his way out of God’s will. He could easily have said that God would not want his own Son to starve, to suffer rejection, or to die. Furthermore, the kingdom was going to belong to him anyway, so what did it matter how it came into his hands? But Jesus avoids this kind of end-justifies-the-means thinking as he responds to these undermining proposals of Satan. We must be careful that the shortcuts that often become possible in life do not in fact reflect rationalization to avoid God’s will.
Contemporary Significance
THE FIRST APPLICATION emerging from this event is about temptation itself. Tests in life are not bad; in fact, they can be divinely sent (James 1:2–4). The main issue is my response to a test. Do I respond in a way that looks to God to guide me through it? Do I trust him, or do I put him to the test? How do I respond to personal struggles in my life? Do I get angry? Do I seek to reassert my control (even when I know I cannot control events!)? Or do I rest in faith, look for God’s hand, and ask him what I should learn from what I am going through? Though I personally wish I could say that I always do the latter, I know I do not, but that should certainly be my goal. If I am to grow spiritually, I can expect trial. If I am to grow spiritually, I need to look to God in the midst of it.
Such trust can extend to provision. Though Satan tested Jesus about the most basic of needs, bread, we sometimes desire to “feed ourselves” with things we feel are basic to life. But those “basic things” frequently involve a larger home, more gadgets, the finest appliances, the most expensive clothes, and a host of other material possessions to say that we have arrived. Yet life is not defined materially; rather, it is defined relationally and spiritually in terms of knowing God and serving him in the context of his will. Sometimes giving resources to the accomplishment of ministry may mean giving up personal material pleasures.
The pursuit of material goals can become a driving force in our lives. But where does God’s Word and leading stand? Will Satan succeed in testing us to take bread that God is not asking us to eat, while we ignore the most basic meal of all, his will? Sometimes God provides marvelously in the midst of a sacrifice made for his will. Seeking to have less materially may mean having much more.
Another way we show lack of trust is to grab for power that is not ours or to take power in a way it is not intended to be received. Satan tempts us to slip into idolatry as directly as he did here with Jesus, using subtle substitutes. Perhaps we worship our work, our status, our possessions, our family, or other unsuitable items that stand in the way of knowing God. Maybe he asks us to take the easy path of “growth” without suffering or facing rejection in our stand for Jesus or for divine values. Sometimes opting for comfort means selling our soul to the prince of this world. Of course, God desires to give us rich blessing, even to share in the benefits of his authority, but to worship Satan and to take his path to get there is to lose whatever access to blessing we may possess.
The implications of such a power grab extend into how we exercise authority in the home, how we conduct our businesses, and how we relate to others. The best authority is one exercised not under threat but because of earned respect. The most genuine authority is not that which is seized, but that which is received from the God who honors faithfulness.
A final way we tend to show a lack of trust in God is to try to force him to act on our behalf. In the test we often set up, we want to see if he is for us or against us. This type of spiritual wagering does not involve leaping from tall buildings, but in walking into events where we say in effect, “If you care for me God, then this situation will turn out this way.” In effect, we test the “emergency broadcast system” of God’s presence and presume on how he should react. This kind of testing is an attempt to control God, not follow his leading. We are setting ourselves up for disappointment, since it may be in our best interest for events to go in a different direction than we desire.
Another way we can sense a problem here is by blaming God whenever suffering occurs, at least indirectly. We may feel that he has abandoned us, when, in fact, he may be getting our attention, revealing a better way to us, or asking us to meet him in the midst of the adversity. I am reminded of how Elisabeth Elliot must have felt when she lost her husband, Jim, to murder and martyrdom by Latin American Indians in the mid-1950s.6 Yet she turned her disappointing experience into an opportunity to listen to God in the midst of uncertainty, only to find a fresh ministry of depth in her testimony about how God cared for her in the midst of such disappointment. She did not abandon God or test him, but accepted the uncharted journey he called her to take. Of course, that journey was uncharted only for her, not for the God who walked with her down that road. As Jesus turned down Satan and consciously chose to follow God down the hard road of his ministry, so too we must be prepared to walk into events under his leading, even where the outcome is not clear.