The Temptations of Jesus: Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13 - Report Example

The Temptations of Jesus: Matthew 4 11 and Luke 4 13: A Comparative Analysis Introduction Inasmuch as understanding God’s message to humanity appears the focal point of each and every one of the traditions within Christianity, biblical scholarship from across the whole confessional spectrum is understandably concerned with the interpretation of the New Testament. Indeed, ever since the apostolic age, when the newly formed Christian community began spreading across the Roman Empire, the need for elaborate accounts of Jesus Christ’s life, teaching and redeeming act, which would elucidate the truth of God’s revelation for the salvation of mankind and thus refute the emerging false teachings, called forth the writings that later on constituted the New Testament1. There are divergent perspectives on the very essence and character of the New Testament – some scholars define it as a book of history, which “narrates and interprets the events of the life of Jesus and his followers”2, whereas others consider it a genuine scripture that compiles texts by some of the original apostles and their immediate disciples, who, being under divine guidance and inspiration, wrote them down to preserve and disseminate the infallible lead in eternal life34. Another perspective emphasizes the coherence between history and revelation, i.e. considering both to have their origin in God, and, in fact, denotes the orthodox Christian conviction that providing a detailed account of historical events – written in different times and for different audience – the human authors of the New Testament presented “a coherent and divinely inspired message” to mankind5. Insofar as there are certain differences between the authors of the New Testament canon, most notably in the four Gospels, regarding the description of identical events, all of the above-mentioned perspectives have their arguments. Having employed various approaches, tools and forms of scientific study, their proponents understandably come to differing conclusions; nonetheless, scholars in the field widely agree that the New Testament is an expression of the faith “that God acted in the life of Jesus and events in the early church”67. Therefore, as Branick points out, the New Testament is beyond any doubt “a book of faith and theology”, where the latter, being expressed in conceptual, linguistic form, is considered to be the result of the former; or, in St Anselm’s words, which enjoyed wide currency in the medieval universities, theology is defined as fides quaerens intellectum – “faith seeking understanding”89. Two Greek nouns, namely evxh,ghsij, h,,, which is translated as exposition, explanation, as well as history, story, etc., and evrmhnei,a, h, - as interpretation, explanation, and translation10, along with their derivatives, are thought to have given the origins of the terms exegesis, and hermeneutics – according to Corley, both denote “an understanding or meaning derived from an object of reflection and study”, hence there is a functional linkage between them, which is present not only in the Greek literature, but also in the New Testament itself11. Not surprisingly therefore, the usage of both terms in the field of theology invariably refers to the interpretation of the Bible; as Corley points out, Papias, like other ancient authors, has considered exegesis and hermeneutics overlapping concepts12. Employing largely exegetical tools and strategy, this paper is intended to analyze and compare one of the Gospel parallels – parallel passages that relate the same events – namely the narrative of the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness, as found in two of three synoptic Gospels, Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13 respectively. Thus, the paper attempts to identify the theological implications of the text, and to draw practical conclusions in regard to the contemporary church. Three more sections besides the introductory one are presented below, the first of which provides general information concerning the two synoptic Gospels in terms of authorship, audience, a historical setting and situation that occasioned the writings, the language and wording of the two Gospels, overall purpose and major concerns of their authors, and last but not least, evidence that is found among the early Christian literature, i.e. in manuscripts, lectionaries, and writings of the Church Fathers, etc. The second section identifies and expounds the differences and similarities between Matthew and Luke in regard to both Gospels’ pericopes containing the narrative of the temptation of Christ in wilderness, as well as elucidates the theological implications of the text. The third section is the concluding one, which inter alia draws together practical conclusions for the contemporary church. General Information on the Gospel According to Matthew and Luke The Gospel According to Matthew Evangelist Matthew is considered one of the twelve original apostles and disciples of Jesus, who was born and brought up in Capernaum, Galilee, where he served as a tax-collector before being called by Christ13; subsequently, he received the name Matthew – which is variously interpreted by the scholars in the field, most notably as ‘a gift of God’. According to the ancient tradition, he wrote the Gospel eight years after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, i.e. in 41 AD; correspondingly, as Morris points out, the testimony of antiquity unanimously name Matthew as the author of the earliest of the four canonical Gospels – St Irenaeus and Origen, for example, indicate that the Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, or, to be precise, not later than the early 60s AD14. On the other hand, New Testament scholarship disagree on the dating issue; thus, being based on certain dependence on Mark – insofar as the passages in Mark common to those in Matthew could hardly suggest the opposite – as well as given the time when the Gospel according to Mark is thought to have been written, namely not before 65 AD, many scholars date the Gospel according to Matthew “at the earliest in the 70s AD”15. Nevertheless, since Mark could not be yet certainly dated, such evidence appears not that trustworthy16. Other scholars rely on references to the destruction of Jerusalem, as found in Matthew, which indicate that the Gospel was written after the city had been destroyed17. Both St Irenaeus and Origen, the latter being cited by Eusebius, state that the Gospel according to Matthew was written in Hebrew; the author of the Greek translation of this Gospel is unknown. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence that the Greek translation was used by the early church writers, including Barnabas, St Justin, etc. Palestine is widely considered the place of origin of the Gospel according to Matthew, which claim is supported by Papias, hence the Gospel was written for Hebrews18. Other sources, however, suggest Antioch in Syria as a probable place of origin of Matthew’s Gospel. The Gospel According to Luke According to the ancient tradition, Luke is a Gentile by birth, a Jewish proselyte, as well as highly educated person, physician, artist, and obviously a capable writer, who was influential in the early church1920. Critical scholarship, however, challenges his authorship of the Gospel21; nevertheless, given the evidence found in early manuscripts, like the Muratorian Canon, as well as in St Irenaeus’s work, Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses), Origen, etc., it appears that certain Luke, a physician and Paul’s companion, has written the Gospel. According to Johnson, the place of origin of Luke’s Gospel is difficult to be determined, just as the time of writing; moreover, the text itself provides no reliable clues22. The ancient tradition, based on evidence from St Irenaeus, Origen, etc., suggests that the Gospel according to Luke is written after those of Matthew and Mark, namely during the first imprisonment of Apostle Paul in Rome, hence it is considered the third Gospel of the New Testament. Luke’s audience is thought to have largely consisted of Gentiles23, moreover educated Gentiles, who possessed the level of culture required to comprehend his work. The Temptations of Jesus in the Wilderness – Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13 Historical and contextual background As Branick points out, Matthew’s great emphasis on the fulfilment of scriptures, hence the “constancy and consistency of God”24, has made scholars consider his version of the Gospel rather conservative and highly interconnected with Judaism25. Even though there are “turmoil and revolution” on the surface, evangelist Matthew points out that these are part of what God had planned long ago; which, according to Branick, is indicative of Matthew’s intention and desire to fit his Jewish roots into his new faith in Jesus26. Not surprisingly, in this train of thought, Matthew refers to, and cites the Old Testament about thirty-six times, which is far more frequently that all the other Gospel authors put together27. Branick states that the historical background of the New Testament authors forms “a presupposed bedrock” on which they stand28. Therefore, given Matthew’s audience – the Jewish Christians in Palestine – along with the obvious purpose of the Gospel, namely to bring to the fore that Jesus is Christ, the anointed one, the promised Messiah and Redeemer of the Jewish nation29 - it is noteworthy that Matthew uses the name ‘Christ’ for Jesus by far more often that the other Synoptic authors, and also clearly designates Jesus as the Messiah, a descendant of David30 – and the mankind as a whole, under the conditions of political oppression and persecution, the emphasis on the fulfilment of scriptures, and continuity of divine action in history is quite understandable, if not natural. In turn, the historical setting of Luke is largely defined by the chronological, cultural and geo-political markers found in his book, the third Gospel in the New Testament canon3132 – “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea”33; on the other hand, there is no certain, clear and detailed evidence of the time when this Gospel was written. In the preface of the Gospel according to Luke, the author not only defines his socio-cultural situation – as a highly educated person, physician, and capable writer, who was influential in the early church3435 – but also that of his recipients, who were necessarily possessed of certain level of education and rhetorical culture demanded by Luke’s work itself36. Given the dedication in the preface, which reads “…to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus”37, some authors come to the conclusion that this Gospel is intended for a noble Gentile. Green, for example, considers this form of address a title “normally reserved for Roman political officials”, or someone of advanced status, whereas, being based on the etymology of “Theophilus”, which means “dear to God”38, Origen and St Epiphanius claim that the Gospel is intended for everyone who loves God. As Patella points out, Luke provides much more historical details than any other evangelist, including information about emperors, kings, and governors – especially in the passages describing Jesus’s birth and the ministry of John the Baptist – which may well be described as “close to accurate”39. Thus, much of the information on Pontius Pilate, for example, comes from Luke while his account of Herod’s dynasty nearly matches that of the historian Josephus Flavius40; however, Luke’s account is far from being considered elaborate to a degree that captures all “diverse ingredients of the real world of first-century Palestine”41. Rather, having presented a theological program “deeply embedded in the cultural currents of the first-century Mediterranean world”, Luke’s narrative in fact portrays a world, which it claims to represent42. On the other hand, the opening verse of the Gospel indicates that the author is concerned not only with history, but also with the social and political settings of his world43; thus, the phrase “in the days of King Herod of Judea”44 inevitably draws the attention to a particular period of political tension characterized by the problematic - in economic and cultural terms – reign of Herod and the resistance to his power among the elders in Jerusalem45. According to Patella, the message of Luke represents his theological interpretation of the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, viewed together as a great salvation act, which “affected the whole cosmos”46. Limits of the Passage and Textual Analysis Several modern English translations of the New Testament, including the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New American Standard Version (NASV), and most notably the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which is thought to have received the widest ecumenical support – the latter provides the references and textual material for this research – indicate a clearly discernible narrative unit dealing with the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, which is found in the three Synoptic Gospels. In Matthew, this unit begins after the scene of Jesus’s baptism, where the descending Spirit of God and the solemn assertion from heaven, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased”47 clearly demonstrate the inauguration of Jesus’s messianic mission, as perceived by the author of the Gospel48. Thus, Matthew 4:1 depicts the beginning of the final preparatory episode before Jesus could start His public ministry in Galilee, hence the beginning of the end of John the Baptist’s ministry49 - “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil”50. According to Turner, the temptation narrative itself, or pericope, consists of three distinct episodes, delimited by an introduction, as mentioned above, and a conclusion – “Then the devil left him, and suddenly angels came and waited on him”51 – i.e. when the devil arrives and departs52. Subsequently, the end of the ministry of John the Baptist in the wilderness came to an end and the public ministry of Jesus in Galilee has begun – “Now when Jesus heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew to Galilee”53, which, however, is considered another narrative unit from a thematic point of view. Luke’s narrative of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness begins after a pause in the narrative denoted by the detailed account of Jesus’s genealogy leading to Adam, and God54. As Green points out, Luke’s account of the temptation of Jesus is considered a discrete unit within the narrative as a whole55; which, according to Turner, significantly differs from that of Matthew56. Following the aforementioned pause in the narrative, although one would hardly discern a rupture in the chronology of events, Luke takes up the development of the action again – “Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness”57 – drawing the reader’s attention “back to Jesus’s reception of the Spirit at the Jordan”58. Subsequently, verse 2 not only separates Jesus from the communal life, but also juxtaposes Him, the Holy Spirit, and the devil, thus preparing the scene for the temptation story as whole59. All in all, as Turner points out, Luke agrees with Matthew in pericope’s structure, namely in regard to three clearly discernible stages of temptation, but rather differs in their order60. On the other hand, while both Matthew and Luke present the introduction to, and the first stage of Jesus’s temptation almost similarly, describing Jesus’s forty-days fast, at the end of which He was famished, along with the first temptation by the devil – the possibility of turning the stones into bread – they differ in the wording, some circumstances, hence the implied meaning of their narratives61. Thus, in verse 1, Mathew states: “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit in the wilderness to be tempted by the devil”62, whereas Luke commences his introduction, as follows – “Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness”63. According to Turner, Matthew explicitly indicates that Jesus’s arrival in the wilderness under the lead of the Spirit was with the “express purpose of Jesus’s temptation”64, whereas Luke, apart from his obvious passion for geography and chronology, doesn’t mention it, necessitating deductions and inter alia allowing for more than one possibility65. Both Matthew and Luke, however, use the passive form of the verb “lead”, in contrast to Mark. The second and third verses in Matthew and Luke describe Jesus’s fasting, which lasted for forty days – according to Luke, as against forty days, and forty nights, as pointed by Matthew, and which consequently brought Him to starvation; the difference that is seen here, however, is not in the stated period of the fast, but rather in the chronology and wording, namely the use of “fasting”66. Thus, according to Matthew, “He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished”67; and only then “The tempter came and said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread’”68. From Luke’s perspective, on the other hand, the abstinence from food and temptations took place simultaneously, or even with certain precedence of the latter – “where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing at all during those days, and when they were over, he was famished”69. Thus, Luke may well imply about the strength and ultimate superiority of Jesus, the Son of God, being “full of the Holy Spirit”70 over the devil – the “source of all kinds of evil on earth71” in Old-Testament terms, or, alternatively, Jesus’s abstinence from food could be either interpreted as a “departure from the norm” or as a “corollary of spiritual struggle”72. Matthew, in turn, apparently emphasizes the insidiousness of the evil spirit, as opposed to the righteousness and spiritual strength of the Son of God. The answer of Jesus to the first test is apparently similar in both Matthew and Luke, namely via the biblical response: “It is written, One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God”73, although in Luke 4:4 is a bit shorter, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone”74. As was mentioned earlier, the second and third temptations appear in different order in Mathew and Luke, i.e. vv. 5-10, and vv. 5-12 respectively; thus, while Matthew puts as second the devil’s attempt to urge Jesus into jumping from the pinnacle of the temple, using his powers as the Son of God in order to avoid being dashed against the stone, Luke describes a setting where Jesus is allowed to see “in an instant all the kingdoms of the world”, which would be given to him if he worshiped the devil, and vice versa75. The phrase “the devil took him”, in Matthew 4:5, is considered a visionary experience, rather than physical one while Jerusalem is referred to as “the holy city”76; this wording certainly corresponds to Matthew’s Jewish background. The answers of Jesus to the tempter, in regard to the second and third test, once again strictly adhere to the Scripture and, in fact, are nearly identical in both Matthew and Luke, with the same wording and syntax – “it is written, worship the Lord your God, and serve only him”77 and “Do not put the Lord your God to the test”78. Whether the reversed order in Luke is due to his emphasis on Jesus’s orientation toward Jerusalem79, or to other considerations, like his geographical concern, etc., is under discussion; however, the sequence of Jesus’s temptations and responses actually renders credibility to the good news, namely the proclamation of the kingdom of God80. Finally, the concluding verses of Matthew and Luke reveal another difference between the two Gospels, namely the angels that appear at the end of the temptation story of Matthew – only after Jesus has shown his obedience to the Father81 – and which are not mentioned at all in Luke’s conclusion of the passage. On the other hand, Luke explicitly, and somehow ominously – as Turner aptly points out – states that the Satan “departed from him until an opportune time”8283. Conceptual Analysis Two broad concepts appear noticeable in the respective narratives of Luke and Matthew concerning Jesus’s temptation in the wilderness, as follows – that of the Son of God, which depicts Jesus as “true minister of God’s kingdom, obedient to the one who commissioned him”84, and that of Satan, or the devil, as the universal evildoer, whose main function is “to oppose the redemptive purpose of God”85. Furthermore, these concepts are visualized via the fundamental struggle between God and the evil powers86; thus, both temptation narratives are thought to have evolved from the assumption that being the Son of God, Jesus inevitably behaves as such, hence resists and rejects everything that goes against God’s redemptive plan reflected in the Scripture87. On the other hand, the temptation narratives tacitly juxtapose the apparently difficult choices faced by Jesus, the Son of Man, such as using divine powers and assistance to satisfy his physical needs, along with the tempting possibility of ruling over the whole world and performing pointless miracles, with His acceptance of “divine sonship”88. Last but not least, Matthew’s temptation narrative implies that, having succeeded to reject the temptations in the wilderness, where Israel failed, Jesus in fact fulfilled the vocation of Israel89. Not only the very concept of evil spirits, which is thought to have stemmed from the Old Testament where they appear in various forms but invariably are “the source of all kinds of evil on earth”90, is clearly visible in Mathew 4:1 – “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil”91, but also the transcendent salvation plan of God. This is the very same Spirit of God, who is present in the Creation, who has inspired the judges of Israel to lead their people and overwhelm the enemies, and who restored Israel after the Babylonian captivity92, that has lead Jesus to be tempted by the devil. Ladd points out that Satan – the appellation has a Hebrew background, namely a verb meaning “to oppose”, or “obstruct” – is commonly depicted in the Synoptic Gospels as a supernatural evil spirit, who heads a host of inferior spirits named ‘demons’93. In the Old Testament, this is the serpent, according to the patristic interpretations, that tempted Adam and Eve in Eden; thus, the temptation narratives invariably refer to the Scripture, the salvation plan of God to be precise, which sometimes involves the efforts of evildoers, even the Satan himself, in order to proceed with His salvation purposes94. In that train of thought, God, the Father, has led Jesus in the wilderness through the agency of the Holy Spirit to be tested, not because He aimed to let the devil to discredit Jesus, but with the obvious aim to accredit him; hence although the devil is possessed of superhuman powers, he “merely reacts to the plan and purpose of God”95, thus confirming his position of a fallen creature, by far inferior to God and His power. Despite some prima facie indications of the existence of antithetical relationship between a kingdom of evil opposing the kingdom of God, such an absolute dualism is neither implied by the temptation narratives nor found in the New Testament as whole; rather, the evil spiritual powers are considered merely creatures, subject to God’s power96. On the other hand, the temptation narratives, as related to other stories from the Old Testament, accentuate that the participation in God’s purpose is by no means guaranteed, hence the realization of His redemptive intentions and aims necessarily depends on the responsive behavior of other actors, let alone the existence of hostile powers, though inferior to God, which are “at work to prevent the consummation of God’s purpose”97. In regard to the aforesaid, the temptation narratives, especially Luke, aim to assure that Jesus, being the Son of God and responding correctly to the high expectations that stem from this ”sonship”, will undertake His divine mission and serve eschatological purpose in spite of opposition98. All in all, both synoptic evangelists present their expositions of Jesus’s temptation in wilderness – “where no one could observe and where “the inner dispositions laid bare by true hunger were challenged”99 – with the clear message that Jesus is the “truly and obedient” Son of God100. Additionally, Luke and Matthew, especially the latter, tend to relate the temptations of Jesus to the temptation of Adam in Eden, as well as Israel’s testing in the wilderness101; however, not only does the temptation narrative emphasize “key aspects of the value system” that characterizes Jesus’s ministry102, it also goes “far deeper” for Luke’s readers, insofar as Jesus’s decision to reject power over nature to serve his needs, over human kingdoms for the sake of his own glory, and, most notably, the appeal to God for his physical survival, in fact, depicts more or less their own destiny, namely the “path of peace”103. Conclusion A number of practical conclusions for the contemporary church could be derived from the narratives of Jesus’s temptation in the wilderness. First and foremost, it is the denial of the material world, in terms of material benefits, which not only led Jesus, the Son of God into the wilderness, but also made Him to reject the seduction of reigning supreme over the world; in modern terms such a denial could denote much less attention to material wealth and surface expressions of either prosperity or piousness, but rather selfless and straightforward devotion to God, hence to the spiritual needs of the members of Christian communities, and congregations. Second, but equally important, is the requirement for contemporary church leaders, and ministers not only to preach about the need for behavior, which is responsive to God’s salvation plan for the mankind, but also to behave in accordance with the high standard set by Jesus Christ, “the true minister of God’s Kingdom”104, namely unconditional submission to, and participation in God’s purpose. Thus, just as Jesus discerned the nature of His divine mission, firmly opposing “the counterfeit offered him by the devil”105, present-day priests, ministers, and church leaders should correctly understand their mission – which, in fact, is derivative from His life, teaching and redeeming act – to advise, console, and lead the people of God to eternal life through Christ. Last but not least, Jesus’s fasting in the wilderness, as against the seductions offered by the Satan, as well as the rejection of the “violent way to be Messiah”106, set forth a marvelous example of selflessness, and unconditional devotion to God, which need to be closely followed by the contemporary church. Bibliography Alexander, Loveday, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Boring, M. Eugene, An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012. Branick, Vincent P., Understanding the New Testament and Its Message: An Introduction. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1998. Corley, Bruce, “A Students Primer for Exegesis”, in Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, eds. Bruce Corley, Steve Lemke, and Grant Lovejoy. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2002. Green, Joel B., The Theology of the Gospel of Luke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Green, Joel B., The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997. Johnson, Luke T., The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina Series). Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1991. Ladd, George E., A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993. Leland, John, The Divine Authority of the Old and New Testament Asserted: With a Particular Vindication of the Character of Moses, and the Prophets, Our Saviour Jesus Christ, and His Apostles, Against the Unjust Aspersions and False Reasonings of a Book, Entitled, the Moral Philosopher. London: T. Tegg and Son, 1837. Morris, Leon, The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992. Patella, Michael F., The Gospel According to Luke, Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2005. Rev. Groves, John, A Greek and English Dictionary, Comprising All the Words in the Writings of the Most Popular Greek Authors with the Difficult Inflections in Them and in the Septuagint and New Testament: Designed for the Use of Schools and the Undergraduate Course of a Collegiate Education. Boston: Hilliard, Gray and Company, 1839. Turner, David L., Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008. Wenham, David. “Appendix: Unity and Diversity in the New Testament”, in A Theology of the New Testament, by George E. Ladd, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993 Read More