10 - Temptation of Christ

CHAPTER 10.

- The history of the trial of our Lord.

- The rule to guide as to a passage of Scripture being interpreted literally or figuratively.

- This rule applied to the three trials of Christ, and the impossibility of the account being literally true OUR Lord’s trial, taking the word peirasmos to mean trial and not temptation, is recorded in the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and not in the testimony of John. In Matthew and Luke the description is full; in Mark the narrative is very brief. In Matthew and in Luke three distinct classes of trials are enumerated; in Mark no individual trial is specified. The best plan, therefore, will be to gather the general description by joining all the various facts recorded by the three.

Jesus, after being baptized of John in Jordan, received the Holy Spirit without measure. “And then Jesus, being full of the Holy Spirit, having returned from Jordan, was immediately led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil; and he was there in the wilderness with the wild beasts forty days, tempted of Satan, the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he afterwards hungered. And when the tempter came to him he said ‘if thou be Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.’ But he answered and said, ‘It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.’ Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and, setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, ‘If thou be Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, ‘He shall give his angels charge concerning thee to keep thee: and in (their) hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.’ Jesus said unto him, ‘It is written again, Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God.’ Again, the devil, taketh him up into an exceedingly high mountain, and showeth him all the; kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, ‘All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto rue; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.’ And Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.’ Then the devil leaveth him, and behold, angels came and ministered unto him And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.” Such is the general account, gathered from the three histories. It may be now useful to point out the differences in the statements. In reference to the being led into the wilderness. Luke represents that Jesus was “led,” egeto; Matthew “led up,” ancethe; Mark “driven,” ekballei: terms expressive of a strong impulse, constraining him to depart from the haunts of the children of men, to be as Mark adds, with “the wild beasts,” these being representative of the animal feelings in man’s nature.

Many think that the three great trials that our Lord experienced were the only ones that he had: but it is evident, from the account given by Mark, that he was tried the whole of the forty days: “And he was there in the wilderness forty days tempted by Satan” and the statement of Mark is confirmed by the statement of Luke: “Being forty days tempted of the devil.”

It is worthy of remark that, the one who tries is called by Mark “Satan;” . . . by Matthew and by Luke “the devil.”

Matthew and Luke both agree in representing that the first trial took place after he had fasted forty days, and when he was hungry: Matthew, in our translation states - “he was afterward an hungered”; Luke, “he afterward hungered”: the Greek words are exactly the same in both and therefore putting aside the bad English of the translation of Matthew, they both can be rendered, “he afterward hungered.” The second temptation, as recorded by Matthew, is the temptation of being carried up to the temple: this is recorded as the third by Luke. Matthew says “Then (tote) the devil taketh (paralambanei) him to the holy city:” Luke writes, “And he brought (egagen) him to Jerusalem.” Matthew adds, “and setteth,” histesin: Luke “set” him (hestesin) on a pinnacle of the temple.” In reference to temptation, the third by Matthew the second by Luke, there is some difference. . . Luke describes the mountain as high (hupselon). Matthew describes it as exceeding high (hupselon lian). Matthew adds, that “he showed him the kingdoms and the glory of them.” Luke refers to the kingdoms only. Luke adds the time that the devil took to show them “in a moment of time.” Matthew represents the devil as promising to give all these things to Christ. Luke, “to give all this power (it ought to be authority, exousian), and the glory of them:” and Luke adds an assertion of the devil: “for that (hoti) is delivered (paradedotai) unto me; and to whomsoever I will, I give it.” Matthew gives Jesus’s answer, “Get thee hence (hupage), Satan”; Luke, “Get thee behind me (opiso mou)”. At the conclusion of the trials Matthew represents that - “the devil leaveth (aphiesin) him.” Luke, `”departed from him” (apeste). Luke adds, “for a season “- (achri kairou) this departure took place. Mark states, in reference to the whole industry, “and the angels ministered unto him”: Matthew, “and behold angels came and ministered unto him.” This analysis of the various accounts of the trials of our Lord has been given, because all the particulars are necessary to enable the mind to ascertain the meaning of the divine writer. The question now comes, “How are these trials to be understood?” The common opinion is, that these descriptions are records of literal events. Is this opinion justified by the narratives? How are we to decide this? Is there any rule by which a question of this kind can be settled? There is! It is this: That no passage of Scripture admits of a literal interpretation, unless all the parts of the same admit fairly, and in accordance with common-sense, of such literal interpretation. It is upon this principle that the Protestant rejects the Papistical interpretation of the statement of our Lord, -”This is my body”; - “this is my blood”; because the phrases do not admit, in all particulars, of a literal interpretation.

Applying this principle to the recorded trial of our Lord, let us see whether literal interpretation can be admitted. That our Saviour might be led, led up, or driven, into the literal wilderness may be admitted, although this admits of some objection; but let this pass. It is there that, it is supposed, a being came to him in person, appearing before him in visible form, speaking to him with an audible voice, removing him also corporeally from place to place, and presenting himself in his real character: this being is called “Satan,” also “the devil.” This person, or being, is represented as trying our Lord by certain suggestions. The circumstances connected with these suggestions will be hereafter noticed: the attention may, for the present, be confined to the personal appearance of the devil to Christ. Can his be true? If so, it will accord with common sense as applied to the point in relation to which the devil appears. It was to deceive our Lord, to induce hint to act in a way contrary to the laws of the Moral Governor of the Universe. If a well-known knave wished to deceive a person, would he come as a knave? If a noted debauchee, such as the late Marquis of Headford, wanted to obtain possession of any innocent female would he tell his name, would he come as a debauchee? If a gamester, such as Lord Rous, who, having been found guilty of using false dice, was obliged to flee the country, wished to win money by gambling, would he proclaim himself Lord Rous? And is the devil, taking him as a being so intelligent, so shrewd, so talented as he is represented to be, so stupidly blind as to be less cunning than a frail man? Would he, by a personal and undisguised appearance, attempt the virtue of one who had the spirit beyond measure? Even when he attacks a frail mortal, not endowed as was the Saviour, he is supposed never to attack him except by secret suggestions, which are so akin to the thoughts of his own mind that he cannot very well distinguish the passage through which the false-accuser has entered - the seducing object is held forth, but the hand that holds it is concealed. No; the popular devil would have too much sagacity and policy to attempt to try our Lord by making himself known: as Dr. Secker remarks, “The devil did not appear what he was, for that would have entirely frustrated his intent.” But it has been asserted that he did not appear as the devil. Both Archbishop Secker (Secker’s Sermons, vol. 2., p. 113) and. Chandler (Chandler’s Sermons, p. 177, 178) assert that he came to Christ in the form of a good angel. The only answer to such assertion is, Who told them so? The same reply applies to the conjecture that Satan appeared as a man! No, no; this concealment of a difficulty will not do; for Jesus knew who be was, “Get thee behind me, Satan”; that is, supposing the personal appearance to be true. It appears then that, in this particular, to take the account as literal is unreasonable in reference to the first point, unreasonable in reference to the first point, the appearance of the devil as a personal being before Christ: such appearance would have defeated the devil’s very object. The next trial that this being is supposed to have presented to our Saviour is that he brought or took him, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple. Some people have interpreted this bringing, this taking as carrying Jesus. Though many hold this, it is so ridiculously absurd as hardly to merit refutation. But, as even absurd things act as impediments to the discovery of truth until driven from the mind, it will be well to ask, first, What would have been thought of Jesus being carried by the devil and placed oil a pinnacle of the temple? And it may be asked, as a second point, Can it be supposed that the devil could possess the powers of carrying a being through the air? This might be believed by those who believe in witches riding on broomsticks and such priestcraft nonsense of the middle ages but to believers, enlightened by the truths of the volume of creation, such absurdity must he scouted. But, say the more enlightened advocates of the personal appearance of the devil, we do not mean that the devil carried Jesus, but that, as the passage reads, he brought or took him to the pinnacle of the temple. But, then, if he had a personal appearance, he must have been visible, and what would the Jews have thought to see the Lamb of God, so described by John walking with Satan? It will not do. But how would Jesus be persuaded to go with the devil when he knew it to be a duty not to court trial? Here he would put himself in the very jaws of the enemy. Instead of resisting the devil, which he commands through his apostle, here Christ accompanies him of his own accord; for, although the devil may, for the sake of argument, be able to force us, how could he force him who had the spirit beyond measure? Oh, say those who advocate that did go with the devil, “it was done to show the power Jesus had to resist the trial; and the more difficult the struggle, the more glorious the victory.” But to this it is answered, We are taught to follow Christ’s example; and if Christ was at liberty to enter into the sphere of bad company, we may too. No wonder that people, believing this, believe in the power of the being they call the devil, and fear him almost more than they fear God; because if Christ “was in all points tempted as we are,” the poor terrified believer in a personal devil may expect some dreadful trials from this devil. But to return. Others who believe in the literal account of the trial of our Lord by a personal Satan maintain that Christ was led to the temple, and then ascended of his own accord to the pinnacle. To ascertain whether this was possible the following facts are worthy of record. Josephus states:

(Josephus’s Antiq. Jude 1:15, c. 11. 5 § B. J. 1. 5. c. 5), - “Some parts of the temple (being built upon the edge of a rock, under which was a valley of prodigious depth), were of a height so vast that it was impossible to look down without making the head to swim.” It appears by the description given of the temple by Josephus and from some from other Jewish writers, that it was so encompassed by walls, and, so guarded, that all access to it was impracticable but by such persons, and under, such conditions, as the law allowed. Now, by law, no foreigner could pass the first enclosure or court under pain of death; the Jewish people could not pass the second; the priests alone could enter the third. The temple itself was within this court, from which Christ was excluded, not being a Jewish priest. As, to the devil, those who know under what different disguises he imposed upon Christ can with equal certainly inform us by what stratagems he might advance forward to the temple. Christ, however in whom there no guile, could not have been permitted to follow. With regard to the temple itself, properly so called, on the top of it there were spikes, with sharp points to prevent so much as a bird from resting upon it. The wings of the temple stretched out on either side at the eastern front of it, which was by far the most magnificent, and commanded a view of the entire body of worshippers. These wings were twenty cubits higher than the temple; the height of the temple being one hundred cubits, and the height of the “pinnacle” (pterugion) one hundred and twenty cubits, at the top of which, the narrative (according to the common interpretation) affirms the devil did set our Saviour. That the word ptertugion denotes the wing (not the pinnacle) of the temple, that most valuable expositor, Dr. Lightfoot, long since observed (Works, vol. ii., p. 130). And his opinion was adopted by the learned Dr. Prideux (Farmer on the Nature and Design of Christ’s Temptation, 5th edit., 20, 21-Connect. vol. i., p. 200), and lately by Dr. Benson (Life of Christ, p. 35). It is impossible, therefore, that Christ could have reached the pinnacle of the temple, except the devil carried him through the air in his arms, which it is too ridiculous, too blasphemous, too atheistical, for any Christian man to credit. From these facts it is quite certain that the second trial of our Saviour is not to be understood literally. The third trial may now be noticed. “The devil taketh Jesus into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them.” This is the statement. Is it literally true? It cannot be. Where is the mountain from which any man can see one thousandth part of the earth, the mere solid earth? There is none: and therefore the statement is at once seen to be literally untrue. God showed Moses from Mount Nebo the land of Canaan, narrow indeed; but for the devil to be able to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world would have been a miracle so stupendous as to surpass the miracle performed by the Almighty. If a man were placed in the sun, and could see the world thence, he could see but one half of the world at a time.

Dr. Macknight, to get rid of the difficulty, translates the word to mean the kingdom of Judea, or rather the land of Judea; but there was no mountain from which Christ could see the whole of the land of Judea: for the land of promise, in its largest signification, reached from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, east and west, and from Egypt, on the south, to beyond Sidon northwards, a tract of country that no mountain commands, and no eye could take in (Macknight, p. 67). That this limitation to the kingdom of Judea, however, is not proper, is proved by the phrase, “All the kingdoms of the world,” [oikouincile = inhabited (earth)]: a phrase demonstrating that all the various parts of the world, where rule existed, are referred to. From what mountain could such kingdoms be seen, embracing both hemispheres? But that the literal interpretation cannot be the correct one, it is stated that the devil showed Jesus the glory of them. The glory of a kingdom consists of its institutions, its wealth, its power, its intellectual character, and a multitude of matters which could be seen only in close position: the very height of the mountain, necessary to see the territorial kingdom, would exclude the power of seeing the glory of the kingdom. To meet this difficulty, some persons have laboured to prove that the showing was merely a description. But then why take Jesus to a high mountain, if it was merely to be by a description? Here they desert the literal interpretation and fly to a figurative one. But this will not do. One or the other must be adopted: and that the literal cannot be recognised as the proper one needs no more argument.