MATTHEW 3:1–4:17, JESUS IN RELATION TO JOHN THE BAPTIST

OVERVIEW
A new subsection begins at 3:1. This is signaled by the disjunctive particle—"now," "but," etc. (de" de; left untranslated by both the NRSV and the NIV)—by the passing of considerable time between 2:23 and 3:1; by the appearance of John the Baptist without preparation or warning; by the solemn, biblical-sounding "In those days"; and by the fact that both of Matthew's major sources (Q and Mark; cf. Introduction) begin at this point.

This section, which begins with the appearance of John, extends through the pericope 4:12-17, narrates the arrest of John, signaling the beginning of Jesus' own ministry. The opening scene of this section pictures John preaching, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near." It concludes, after noting the arrest of John, with Jesus preaching this identical message (3:2; 4:17). Thus 3:1–4:17 forms a unit of Matthew's story bracketed by references to John the Baptist and preaching of the kingdom, in which the significance of Jesus' ministry is presented in relation to John. This section forms a chiastic structural counterpart to 11:2-19 (see Introduction). John's announcement of "the coming one" (3:11) corresponds to his question in 11:3, "Are you the one who is to come?" In chapter 3, the Baptist is the primary speaker, and the reader receives the Baptist's view of Jesus and himself. In chapter 11, John is offstage, Jesus is the primary speaker, and the reader receives Jesus' view of the Baptist and himself.⁸⁵
-----------------------

Matthew 4:1-11, The Temptation
COMMENTARY

There was no Jewish tradition that the Messiah would be tempted by Satan. The story is an early Christian creation that appeared independently in Q and Mark. In Mark, the confrontation between Jesus and Satan is a test of strength, not a moral temptation, and no words are exchanged. The much more extensive Q story, followed by Matthew with only minor variations,⁹⁰ is a verbal battle between Jesus and Satan, in which the tempter tries to divert the obedient Son of God from his path. The Q version resembles haggadic tales of rabbis who battle each other with Scripture, and thus has something of the form of a controversy dialogue. The closest parallels are the debates between Jesus and the Jewish leaders (high priests, elders, Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes) in Matt 21:23-27; 22:15–23:36. It appears that a Christian scribe in the Q community composed the story on this model to portray Jesus' victory in his confrontation with Satan at the beginning of his ministry. Matthew creates a literary bracket by crafting this dispute with Satan so that it corresponds to the disputes with the Jewish leaders at the end of Jesus' ministry, thereby suggesting the underlying cosmic conflict that surfaces in the confrontation between Jesus and the Jewish leaders.

Matthew 4:1-11 does not begin afresh, but continues the narrative of the preceding scene(see Overview for 3:1). This scene is connected with 3:1-17 by "Spirit," "wilderness," "Son of God," the motif of the voice of God (central to Deuteronomy, from which Jesus quotes), and, more subtly, by the resistance that both John and Satan offer to the obedient response of the Son to the Father's will.

Conflict with Satan is not limited to this pericope, but is the underlying aspect of the conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world, which is the plot of the whole Gospel of Matthew. The friction between Jesus and the Jewish leaders throughout the Gospel, already anticipated in the conflict with Herod, the high priests, and the scribes (and even the hesitation of John to baptize Jesus) is actually a clash of kingdoms. Jesus is the representative of the kingdom of God; Satan also represents a kingdom (12:26). Thus elsewhere in the Gospel, "test" or "tempt" (peira"zw peirazo) is used only of the Jewish leaders (16:1; 19:3; 22:18, 35), and Jesus always resists them by quoting Scripture, as he does here. The conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders is a surface dimension of the underlying discord between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. This is what Matthew is about. God is the hidden actor, and Satan is the hidden opponent, throughout the Gospel; but God is always offstage, and Satan appears only here as a character in the story.⁹¹ Satan is worked into theoutline at strategic points, but the conflict between Jesus and Satan is not to be reduced to any one scene. In Matthew's theology, Satan, though defeated (12:28-29) continues to tempt Jesus during his ministry (16:23), at the crucifixion,⁹² and into the time of the church (13:19, 39); Satan is finally abolished at the end time (25:41). The narrative of Jesus' ministry, which now begins, is told at two levels. It not only portrays the past life of Jesus, but also looks ahead to the post-Easter time, when the disciples must still confront demonic resistance to the gospel message (5:37; 6:13; 13:19, 39)—and not only from outsiders, but from other disciples as well (16:23).

4:1. Jesus came from Galilee for the purpose of being baptized (3:13), and now he is led by the Spirit to be tempted. All is part of the divine plan, and his submission to temptation is not an accident or a matter of being victimized by demonic power, but is part of his obedience to God.

Like his Jewish context and Q tradition, Matthew uses "devil," "Satan," "the evil one," and "Beelzebul" the "ruler of demons" as synonyms for the figure that had come to represent the personalized power of evil, also called "Beliar" and other names in early Judaism and the NT. In the Hebrew Bible, the satan (literally, "accuser") was a member of the heavenly court, the divine prosecuting attorney who implemented the will of God the heavenly Judge, by putting suspected offenders to the test (Job 1–2). With the development of apocalyptic thought between the testaments, Satan became a proper name for one sometimes thought to be a fallen angel who had rebelled against God, and who continued to resist God's will in the present age by attempting to lure human beings into sin.⁹³

4:2. The period of forty days and forty nights is reminiscent of Moses (Exod 34:28; Deut 9:9; see Matt 5:1). The story also has overtones of the experience of Israel, the "son of God" (Exod 4:22-23; Deut 8:2-5), who passed through the waters into the wilderness, was tested—and failed, because of disobedience and worshiping other gods. Jesus, the true Son of God, who recapitulates Israel's experience in coming out of Egypt (Matt 2:15), is tested in the wilderness and remains obedient to God, specifically refusing to worship another. The whole story can be seen as a typological haggadic story reflecting on Deut 8:2-3 (Jesus quotes exclusively from Deuteronomy). In contrast to Israel in the wilderness, whose faith wavered until it was restored by the miraculous manna, Jesus is hungry but remains faithful without a miracle.

Matthew pictures Jesus as voluntarily fasting, using the technical term for the cultic practice current in Matthew's church (6:16-18; 9:14-15, changing Mark). In Matthew, the temptation begins only after the forty-day period of fasting has ended, which has strengthened and prepared Jesus for the encounter with Satan, but has also left him hungry. Jesus' humanness is documented before the conflict begins.

4:3. "If" (eij ei ) takes the statement at its face value, considering it a real case (as in 6:30, etc.); the word may also be translated "since." Thus the devil is not attempting to raise doubts in Jesus' mind, but is making an argument on a fact assumed to be true. The disputed issue is not whether Jesus is the Son of God, but what it means for Jesus to be the Son of God. It was a feature of some Jewish expectations of the Messiah that he would reproduce the miracle of the manna and that there would be a lavish supply of food in the messianic time. Jesus is challenged to show that he qualifies as Messiah by these criteria. 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. In 21:18-22, Jesus does use his miraculous power to curse a fig tree that cannot provide him food when he is hungry, and he twice accomplishes a feeding miracle for the hungry multitudes (14:15-21; 15:32-38)—thus the problem of taking literally Jesus' power to provide food miraculously, whether he refuses to do so or not. (See Excursus "Interpreting the Miracle Stories in Matthew," 241-51.)

4:4. Jesus responds only in the words of Scripture, each time from Deuteronomy (cf. 4:2). Jesus' words and deeds will later show the vital importance of providing food for hungry people (6:11; 14:13-21; 15:32-39; 25:31-46), but here he insists that a truly human life must be nourished by the Word of God. Although "Son of God" is an important christological title for Matthew, Jesus here insists on his own humanity by juxtaposing "human being" to the devil's "Son of God."⁹⁴

4:5-7. The reference to the holy city is Matthew's addition. This somewhat rare phrase, like the expectation of manna in the first temptation, has eschatological overtones (Isa 48:2; 52:1; Dan 9:24; Matt 27:53; Rev 11:2; 21:2, 10). The identity of the pinnacle of the Temple is unclear, but it was not the roof or a spire. Although spectators are not mentioned, the temptation must be for Jesus to make some sensational demonstration that he is Son of God. The action is not obviously wrong or demonic (angels had protected Jesus in 2:1-23, and angels do come to serve him in 4:11), nor is the devil's quotation of Scripture for his purpose a case of obviously perverse exegesis.⁹⁵ 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 Scripture 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. The alternative between angelic help and obedience to God's will that leads to the cross is pointedly expressed in 26:36-53 (esp. v. 53). Again, Jesus resists the temptation with words from Scripture (Deut 6:16).

4:8-10. The "high mountain" is Matthew's addition, which he seems to have adopted from Mark 9:2 (cf. 5:1; 17:1 = Mark 9:2; 28:16). It strengthens the allusion to Moses. The offer of "all the kingdoms of the world" strikes the note of the struggle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan (12:26), which reverberates throughout the Gospel, and reveals the real conflict inherent in the temptation scene. The temptation is for Jesus to rule the kingdoms of the world—i.e., to assume the role presently played by the Roman emperor, and to do it by capitulating to the devil's kingship. The devil's command challenges Jesus to accept the status quo of the rebellious state of the world, to acknowledge that selfishness and practical atheism prevail, and to fit in with it. With Jesus' power, he could have it all. At the end of this section, Jesus takes up his task of proclaiming the advent of God's rule (4:17) and teaches his disciples to pray for it to occur in this world (6:10). Jesus will not deviate from worshiping the one true God, even for the noble-sounding purpose of taking over all the kingdoms of the world. At the conclusion of the story, on another mountain, Jesus announces that he has received all authority on earth, but it is from God—and after the cross (28:18).

For the third time Jesus resists the devil's proposal with the word of Scripture (Deut 6:13). For the first time, however, he adds his own words, "Away with you, Satan!" (v. 10). Only two Greek words comprise this text, expressing Jesus' authoritative command to which even Satan must now be subject.⁹⁶ Jesus and his disciples will continue to struggle against demonic powers throughout the Gospel, but it is a defeated enemy they face (see 12:26).

4:11. "Attended"/"waited on" here has the connotation of Jesus' being served food. 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).

REFLECTIONS

1. Is Satan language passé? 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.⁹⁷ From this perspective, Matthew's portrayal of the struggle between Jesus and the Jewish leaders as a cosmic conflict between God and Satan can be viewed as not only anti-Jewish but also as a theological move with some positive aspects.

2. How should Jesus' encounter with Satan be interpreted? The story of the temptation of Jesus has been interpreted in basically three ways.

The biographical/psychological interpretation understands the story as a reflection of Jesus' own inner turmoil after his baptism, as he attempted to sort out the meaning of his baptismal experience and his dawning messianic consciousness. Jesus is pictured as toying with various ways to exercise his messiahship. Such an approach does violence to the gospel genre, comprehending it as "report," and is uninterested in understanding the text in its concreteness.

The ethical interpretation seems more valid, since it makes contact with our own experience of being tempted. Jesus is presented as a model for resisting temptation (he quotes Scripture, refuses to use his power selfishly, prefers the Word of God to "material things," etc.). There may be some indirect value in this approach, but the interpreter should not move too quickly from this text to his or her own experience in quest of relevance. The text is not about the general activity of Satan in tempting people to do evil, for the temptations are not to lust and avarice, but to do things that were always considered good, supported by tradition and Scripture.

The third approach is christological, understanding this scene as an expression of one dimension of Matthew's christology. The issue is not the biographical/psychological one of how Jesus once thought of himself, but of how the Christians of Matthew's church (and ours) should think of Jesus as the Son of God. Matthew presents Jesus as the Son of God, who will work many miracles during his ministry, which is about to begin. Yet this opening scene presents us with a picture that not only rejects violence and miracles, but also considers them a demonic temptation. It is too easy to say, "He only rejected miracles performed in his own interest," for later in the story the Jesus who refuses to jump off the top of the Temple will show that he is the Son of God by walking on water (14:22-33); and he will match his refusal to turn stones into bread by turning five loaves into enough bread to feed thousands (14:13-21). Likewise, in 17:24-27, Jesus pays his taxes by means of a miraculous catch of a fish with a coin in its mouth.

A broad stream of New Testament christology pictured the earthly Jesus as weak and victimized, devoid of miraculous power, and saw God's saving action to be Jesus' obedience and identification with the victimized human situation. (See Excursus "Matthean Christology," 353-61.) In 4:1-11 Matthew presents Jesus from the christological perspective that pictures his earthly life as that of one who fully shares the weakness of our human situation (cf. Phil 2:5-11; Heb 2:5-18). The picture of Jesus as the obedient Son of God does not abolish or compromise the image of Jesus as truly human. The Christian community did not merely defineJesus in terms of his messiahship, but redefined the meaning of that messiahship in terms of the Jesus who went to the cross. Instead of the bread, circuses, and political power that "kingdom" had previously meant, represented in Jesus' and Matthew's day by the Roman Empire ("kingdom" and "empire" are from the same Greek word), in the Matthean Jesus we have an alternative vision of what the kingdom of God on earth might be. This is what was at stake in the temptation.

Thus we do not have in this pericope an example of a Jesus who "could have" worked miracles but chose not to do so as an ethical example for the rest of us. So understood, the text is of little help to us mortals who do not have the miraculous option. The same is true when the tempter reappears at the cross (27:40-44). To the extent that Jesus' temptation serves as a model for Christians, it might teach us that to be a "child of God" (a Matthean designation for Christians; see 5:9; cf. 28:10) means to have a trusting relationship to God that does not ask for miraculous exceptions to the limitations of an authentic human life.

Exegesis Section:
D. THE BEGINNING OF JESUS' MINISTRY (3:13—4:25)

The Synoptic Gospels picture a definite and formal beginning for Jesus' ministry at the time of the Baptism and Temptation (cf. Mark 1:1-15; Luke 3:21-22; 4:1-30). It seems certain that Jesus was baptized by John and shortly afterward entered for the first time upon his public activity, preaching repentance, as John had done, but adding to this his own distinctive good news. The chief questions debated by historians concern the temptations and the revelation of his sonship to Jesus, at the time of the Baptism.

Our oldest Gospel, Mark, depicts the vision, and perhaps the voice also, as coming to Jesus, not to the crowd. Matthew reproduces this exactly. The story therefore rests on what must have purported to be Jesus' account of his own experiences, or else on a divine revelation to the author of the source. The difficulty often raised is that elsewhere Jesus gives little direct teaching about his own mission and person; and this story is very formal and stylized and much like other epiphany stories known to us. It would be very natural for early Christians to assume that Jesus' ministry must have begun with such a revelation of the divine favor, whether he himself told the story or not. Furthermore, the Son of God Christology is almost lacking in the Synoptic material except in the Baptism, the Temptation, and in 11:25-30. On the other hand, it may well be that the form of the story was given it by Christian reflection, while the essential kernel goes back to Jesus. If so, he told his disciples that at the Baptism he received the divine commission to begin his work.

What word describes this vocation? "Messiah," "Son of God," "Son of man," "prophet"? Not Messiah, as the term was then understood, for Jesus resisted the use of this title; perhaps Messiah in our sense, but Christians have transformed the meaning of the word. Perhaps Son of God, but this term, like the others, calls for more definition. Certainly prophet, at the very least. But it is better to suppose that Jesus did not try to find a name or title describing himself and the work he had to do; he simply followed the will of God as it was revealed to him. The question is further discussed in the general notes on 16:13-20 and 21:1—23:39.
---------------------------------
2. THE TEMPTATION (4:1-11)

The temptation story is "double tradition" (i.e., it is found also in Luke, but not in Mark), and therefore it is usually supposed to be from Q. But its theology is not identical with that of other Q material, and some form of the incident is known to Mark (see Intro., p. 237). Similar stories are told of the testing of founders of religions and prophets, e.g., Zoroaster (H. P. Houghton, "On the Temptation of Christ and Zarathustra," Anglican Theological Review, XXVI [1944], 166-75; Mary E. Andrews, "Peirasmos, a Study in Form Criticism," ibid., XXIV [1942], 229-44). This highly stylized anecdote, in which each temptation is answered by a quotation from the LXX, could easily be derived from Christian preaching. It would seem appropriate that Jesus should have his vocation tested, and that his ministry should begin with a struggle between God's kingdom and Satan's, in which both God and his Son are vindicated. One can, however, suppose that Jesus set forth his inner experiences in some dramatic form such as this for the edification of his disciples. Certainly the three temptations—to work miracles for the satisfaction of immediate need, to give a convincing sign, and to exercise political power—continually recurred in the course of his ministry.

4:1. Mark 1:12 gives a more lively picture of the Spirit's activity; and the Gospel According to the Hebrews reads, "Just now my mother the Holy Spirit took me by one of my hairs and brought me up to the great mount Tabor" (in Hebrew and Aramaic the word for "spirit" is feminine). (See M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924], p. 2.) The devil (oJ dia6bolov, the slanderer) is the term usually found in the later N.T. books. Paul and the earlier gospel pericopes call him "Satan" (the "adversary" or "accuser"; Zech. 3:1-2; Job 1:6-9, etc.; Rev. 12:9-10). The rabbis taught that Satan stirs up the yeçer hArA ( or evil impulse in man, seduces him into sin, denounces him before God, and then punishes him with death.

2. Forty is a round number. Moses fasted "forty days and forty nights" when he was in the mountain with Yahweh (Exod. 34:28) and the Israelites were tested forty years in the wilderness. He was hungry might be translated as an inceptive aorist: "he got hungry."

3. The O.T. and Jewish literature apply the term Son of God to angels or divine beings (Gen. 6:2; Job 38:7), to the Israelite nation (Hos. 11:1), and occasionally to an anointed king (Ps. 2:7). In Semitic idiom it should mean "godlike" or "specially related to God." When used by the O.T. to refer to an individual or to the nation, it usually calls attention to the moral relationship of love and filial obedience which should exist between a father and his son. In Judaism it never became a standard messianic title, and it is applied to the Messiah in only a few apocalyptic books (Enoch 105:2; II Esdras 7:28-29; 13:32, 37, 52) and occasionally in a late rabbinical source. Christians used it very early to refer to Jesus. The term is found frequently in the letters of Paul (e.g., Rom. 1:3-4) and the Gospel of Mark; and in John 1:1-18 it denotes the metaphysical relationship between God and his incarnate Logos. When Gentile converts first heard it used, they would naturally think of Jesus as a savior and healer like Asclepius, who had both human and divine traits, though they would understand that there was and could be only one Son of God (see Ludwig Bieler, QEIOS ANHP [Vienna: O. Höfels, 1935-36], 2 vols.). In this passage "Son of God" calls attention to Jesus' unique relation to God and his superhuman powers, and Matthew connects this sonship with the Virgin Birth.

4. God, being omnipotent, can sustain life without bread, for he once gave manna (Exod. 16:1). The contrast between stone and bread is found also in 7:9.

5. The holy city is Jerusalem. Maccabean coins bear the inscription "Jerusalem the Holy," and the Arabic name is El-Quds, "the holy." The pinnacle of the temple may be an eminence on the royal cloister on the south side of the temple enclosure, which consisted of four rows of Corinthian columns. Josephus says there was a steep precipice there (Antiquities XV. 11.5).

6-7. Jesus is tempted to put God's promise of protection (Ps. 91:11-12) to the test; but this would really be "unfaith clamoring to be coined to faith by proof." It would contravene Deut. 6:16, and this kind of test is forbidden by Ecclus. 3:26 and rabbinical literature. What is the motive of the temptation? One suggestion is that Jesus would thereby convince the doubtful. A rabbinical tradition reads, "When the King Messiah reveals himself, then he comes and stands on the roof of the Holy Place." That Jesus refused to perform signs to prove his authority is well known (12:38-42; Luke 16:19-31). It has also been suggested that he was tempted to reassure himself, rather than others, that his vocation was genuine. Matthew's third temptation (vss. 8-10) is a more obvious climax, but this second one might well be the most subtle and dangerous to one who was spiritually sensitive. It is interesting that in Luke 4:9-11 it stands in third place.

8. The "taking up" may be in a vision or in the imagination.

9. The story assumes, as Luke 4:6 says, that the devil actually possesses all these things. This is the only temptation which may be called "messianic." If Jesus could obtain this secular power, he might be able to enforce his reforms; but he must acknowledge the devil's kingship to get the power.

10. Matthew adds to the source Begone, Satan! In 16:23 (=Mark 8:33), Peter is addressed as Satan because he tempts Jesus.

11. The angels serve him, in accordance with the promise of Ps. 91:11-14. Matthew now begins again to copy Mark (cf. Mark 1:13).

Exposition Section:

4:1, 11. Temptation.
There is no contradiction between led up of the Spirit and tempted of the devil. God's ordaining had been laid on Jesus, and he must think through this mission. How could it best be fulfilled? The exaltation was inevitably followed by a reaction. The vision faded "into the light of common day." The Spirit led him into this searching of heart, yes, and into the accompanying testing. Yet the testing and the period of letdown were the devil's chance. Notice the O.T. doctrine of the devil. He is personal. Are not the seductions that beset us personal persuasions, and not merely of ourselves? He is chief of testers. Is not the world's evil, as in Hitlerism, organized into hierarchies of wickedness? He is ultimately under God's control and sovereignty.

Thus we see here the nature of temptation. It is a fork in the road, the leading of the Spirit and the opportunity of the devil, and we must choose. It is a chance to rise as much as it is a chance to fall.

When the fight begins within himself,
A man's worth something,8
for men and steel are alike uncertain until they are tested.

We see here the issue of temptation. Angels came and ministered unto him. The Red Indians have a legend that the strength of the slain foe enters into the victor. Better, the strength of God comes upon the victor in temptation. It comes as trust, as sympathy for tested folk, and as strong confidence.

4:1-11. The Temptation of Jesus.
His struggle, as one commissioned to a task alone and eternal, was so intense that he forgot food for an indefinite time. Characteristically his first act after the celestial voice ("This is my Son") was to pray. How to fulfill God's will? How to accomplish the task? He must now go out, more than Abraham, "not knowing whither he went" (Heb. 11:8). The story is obviously his own account. The fact that it is highly dramatic in form is testimony, not solely or mainly to the poetry and vigor of his mind, but to the fierceness of the struggle. Again the word "subjective" confronts us: the epochal strife was within him, yet his soul was a battleground of ultimate antagonisms between which he must choose. The battle was not a sham encounter, despite an assumption that dies hard. It was not mere shadowboxing. It was real because it followed (humanly) on his ecstasy. It was real because of his physical hunger. It was real because of its setting of wilderness and wild beasts, that is to say, in its accentuated loneliness: there was no touch of elbow-to-elbow in the ranks, no bugle blown: temptation is always lonely business. It was real in that Jesus might have failed. It was dramatic, but not play acting: the devil was there as if with audible voice. Thus the story does not mock our human straits, but is our strength. Tremendous issues hung on that encounter, and because Jesus overcame we can sing:

In the hour of trial,
   Jesus, plead for me.

4:3-4. The First Temptation.
Notice the approach of temptation: If thou be the Son of God. Had doubt begun? Suppose the intimations received on Nazareth hills were false, and the Voice at baptism only a trick of the imagination. That is always the devil's central plea—that conscience is a figment, that prayer is a projection, and that God (unproved) is only a defense mechanism. Notice the proposals of temptation: Command that these stones be made bread. Many elements entered to strengthen the false plea. Christ's physical hunger at that moment was a factor. Should he presume on the power, which by fair inference the commission of God had given him, to satisfy his own craving and to defeat the barrenness of the desert? The need of men was a factor. Jesus had seen how Roman taxes ground down the poor, and man's pathetic struggle for livelihood touched his heart. His sonship was perhaps the main factor. Surely it is righteous and merciful to overturn social injustice; surely by that path the kingdom shall come. A subtle temptation! Yet it leaves unanswered the profounder questions. From what motive? By what power? Toward what end? Evident injustice and Christ's compassion give this temptation a terrific force. Notice the answer to temptation. Jesus would not forsake the comradeship, or ever use for himself powers given only for use in love. Jesus would not center his mission in an economic crusade. He would not live merely for time, or forsake a Cross for a bakeshop. Man does live by bread, and economic righteousness is Christian concern; but man does not live by bread alone. The famished Bedouin, finding treasure in the desert, cried, "Alas, it is only diamonds." Man in his deepest hunger always cries, "Alas, it is only bread." He lives by bread, but not mainly by bread. The bread is the means, not the end. He lives in God, and the circumference of life cannot be rightly drawn until the Center is set. Carlyle said that not all the "Finance Ministers and Upholsterers and Confectioners of modern Europe ..., in joint stock company," could "make one shoeblack happy ... above an hour or two."9 We live by forgiveness, the Presence, and eternal life; and only from these can any true economy grow and live.

4:5-7. The Second Temptation.
Again there is the subtle insinuation of a doubt: If thou be. ... The pinnacle is perhaps a tower (used by Roman guards?) on which a man could be seen by crowds in Jerusalem. Maybe the Messiah was expected thus to appear. The ninety-first psalm was at that time given a messianic interpretation. The temptation again has both a personal and a social impact. As for its personal force, if Jesus should cast himself headlong in some utter risk, he could prove both his own trust and God's power. As for its social force, he might startle a shallow generation out of its indifference into sudden belief. Noble spirits are tempted to the sensational for the sake of God. Jesus felt the temptation, and was ready to court instant death for the cause of the kingdom. He could imagine the crowd watching: "Surely he is not going to jump! Look, he has jumped! He is safe! Is this the Messiah?" Again the suggestion is probed. Would the multitude thus find God, and follow him? Perhaps men live by portents even less than they live by bread. "Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31). Conviction goes deeper than the eyes. God is not proved by sleight of hand: the soul has its own testimony, and God is his own interpreter. But this scrutiny was not the main rebuttal to the devil's proposal. The answer came through the ancient truth, newly given, that man has no right to force God's hand. How often we try, not only to dictate the way of Providence, but to play our own providence! That sin disfigured the old Israel in the desert (Deut. 6:13-14). Jesus realized that it must not disfigure the new covenant. He would not choose his own way: he would live his life and fulfill his ministry waiting upon God and trusting in him.

4:8-10. The Third Temptation.
Could Jesus in his physical weakness endure further assault? There was yet another and a worse temptation. Mark its nature. The devil drops the "if thou be the Son of God," but brings now his keenest weapon: He showeth [Jesus] all the kingdoms of the world. The appeal was to political leadership, a dream that had long haunted Jewry. They had visioned the day when "all nations" should honor Israel and Israel's God. The ambition had been provoked: Israel had been a buffer state, often trampled in the midst of mightier powers. At that moment the Romans had a garrison in every sizable town, by which they levied crushing taxes and ruthlessly suppressed any attempt at revolt. There were six million Jews scattered through that ancient world. If the right leader came to make them a confederacy, perhaps in alliance with the Pathians ...! That was the temptation. Its danger gave it appeal, and the commission at baptism guaranteed "right leadership." How he hungered for those kingdoms—both for his people's peace and for the glory of God! But the temptation was temptation. The bane of political leadership is its expediency and compromise: "The end justifies the means." Actually means and ends are joined, like a river flowing into a lake. If there is poison in the means, we arrive at a poisoned lake. The devil was so sure of his last appeal (All these things will I give thee) that he made no attempt to hide the price: If thou wilt fall down and worship me. He knew how Jesus chafed at narrow limits—for God's sake. But Jesus had stronger defense than the devil's attack. Meditation on the Bible until the mind glowed, and constant prayer, now stood Jesus in good stead. He summoned every resource of will: It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. He would follow God's leading day by day, in wide or narrow limits, known or unknown, without any self-will. Temptation did not end for Jesus in that wilderness. It often recurred. It came again with terrific power when the Cross neared, and in Gethsemane. But he had made answer in the wilderness, and chosen his path: "Not my will, but thine, be done" (Luke 22:42).

This passage is not to be reckoned a historical narrative in the strict sense. Its intent is not to convey objective, biographical data. This we understand by comparing it with similar rabbinic stories. It constitutes a piece of haggadic midrash, that is, it is a fanciful story whose purpose is to interpret Scripture. There may well be an underlying kernel of historical truth, since other passages suggest that Jesus regarded himself as involved in a struggle against Satan (see Mt. 12:29; Luke 10:18). In its present form, however, the story is less involved with the vanquishing of Satan than with the meaning of Jesus' divine Sonship. It is, in effect, a theological meditation on the baptismal narrative, addressing the question: What is implied in the heavenly declaration, "This is my Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased"? This is suggested by the fact that the first two temptations both begin with the premise, "Since you are the Son of God." (The "If" of the RSV and other translations is a too literal rendering of the Greek ei, which was often used with the meaning "since," "in view of the fact that," as in Mt. 6:30. There is no indication in the narrative that Satan is seeking to establish Jesus' identity.)

A second, critically important connecting link is provided by "the Spirit." The Spirit that descended upon Jesus at the Jordan now leads him into the wilderness with the express purpose of subjecting him to a confrontation with the devil (Matthew employs an infinitive of purpose, where Luke has simply a participle, "being tempted by the devil"). The infinitive is normally translated "to be tempted." This is not incorrect; the Greek verb peirazein is often so used, and Satan is sometimes referred to by means of the participle as "the tempting one," that is, the tempter (v. 3). Peirazein also means "to test," however, as in John 6:6 and (in a compound form) in our passage, Mt. 4:7: "You are not to put the Lord your God to the test" (NEB; see also 1 Cor. 10:9; Heb. 11:17). In Mt. 4:1 the verb clearly has both meanings. God, through the Spirit, intends to test Jesus; Satan, God's indirect agent, seeks to tempt the Messiah designate. (A similarly ambiguous use of the verb occurs in Rev. 2:10.)

Because God's intention must be regarded as taking priority over Satan's, the passage is to be seen as a story about the testing of God's Son. It has a parallel in God's testing of Abraham (Gen. 22:1). In this case, however, Jesus is both Abraham and Isaac; eventually he must lay his own life on the altar. (Some scholars trace a connection with the Genesis story through the use of "the beloved" in the Septuagint of Gen. 22:2 and in Mt. 3:17.) The content of the passage, however, suggests that a closer parallel can be found in Israel's testing by God in the wilderness. The "forty days and forty nights" of verse 2 is reminiscent not only of Moses' fast (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 9:9, 18) but also of Israel's forty-year wilderness sojourn. The responses to the temptations are all drawn from Deuteronomy (Deut. 8:3; 6:16, 13). The three temptations in Matthew's order reflect the chronological order of three tests faced by Israel. Whereas Israel, called "son" by God (Hos. 11:1; see Deut. 8:5), failed each of the tests, Jesus demonstrates his worthiness to be the Son of God by responding to the tests with resolute faithfulness.

The first temptation has its point of departure in Jesus' hunger. The parallel here, of course, is Israel's hunger prior to the gift of bread from heaven (Ex. 16:1-4). The nature of the test is described in Deut. 8:2-3: "Remember the whole way by which the LORD your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness to humble and test you, and to discover whether or not it was in your heart to keep his commandments. So he afflicted you with hunger and then fed you on manna . . . to teach you that people cannot live on bread alone, but that they live on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD" (REB). Although in this instance God's grace prevailed over strict justice in the gift of manna, the grumbling of Ex. 16:3 reveals utter faithlessness; God's son Israel does not trust God to provide and thus betrays the covenant relationship that requires confident trust in God's readiness and ability to fulfill his self-imposed covenant obligations (see Gen. 15:6). By contrast, the latter-day Son of God refuses to give way to mistrust by exploiting the Spirit's power and thus providing himself with bread from stones instead of confidently awaiting bread from heaven (see v. 11). He draws strength to resist the temptation from Deut. 8:3: Human beings possess life not by consuming bread but simply and solely because it is God's will that they live. ("Every word from the mouth of God" includes not only Scripture but God's will as it pertains to each human life.) Jesus faithfully remembers that he is totally dependent upon God.

The point of the second temptation is to be similarly inferred from Jesus' response, which quotes Deut. 6:16: "You must not put the LORD your God to the test as you did at Massah" (REB). The sorry affair is related in Ex. 17:1-7, which concludes with an etymology of the place-names: "He named the place Massah and Meribah, because the Israelites had disputed with him and put the LORD to the test with their question, 'Is the LORD in our midst or not?'" (REB; cf. Deut. 9:22; 33:8; Ps. 95:8; Heb. 3:8). The rebellious people challenges its covenant partner, the Lord God, to fulfill his covenant obligations and, in so doing, proves itself unworthy of the covenant. Jesus, on the other hand, refuses to demonstrate God's presence with him by leaping from the "wing" of the temple (the location of the pterygion is a matter of pure speculation). He refuses, not because of any lack of faith in God's power and providential care (this faith has been amply demonstrated in his first response to the tempter), but because honoring God excludes every kind of manipulation, including putting God to the test. Later the Son of God will indeed leap into the abyss, but only because he is convinced that it is God's will that he do so (see Mt. 26:39, 53; 27:46).

The concern of the third temptation is idolatry, as seen in the sequel to Jesus' deuteronomic response. Immediately following the command, "You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve him, and swear by his name," we read, "You shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples who are round about you" (Deut. 6:13-14). Despite this and many other warnings, Israel repeatedly "played the harlot" with other gods (Ex. 32:1-6; Judg. 2:17; etc.). Their love for the Lord their God (Deut. 6:4) was "like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away" (Hos. 6:4).

The connection between the third temptation and idolatry was probably clearer to Matthew's first readers than it is to us. First, the gods of the Greco-Roman pantheon were regarded by Jews as demons (see 1 Cor. 10:20) and hence as Satan's minions. Second, idolatry was a genuine temptation for many Jews who wished to participate fully in the politics and economics of the Greco-Roman establishment. A classic case, well known to Jews of the day, was provided by Tiberius Alexander, nephew of the famous Jewish philosopher Philo, who apostatized from Judaism to enter Roman service. There were probably many others who did not abandon Judaism but who were willing to accept "a pinch of idolatry" to further their personal careers. It is unlikely that any of Matthew's readers believed that Jesus had been so tempted. They were well aware, however, of the compromises that public office seems to require of even the best-intentioned. What kind of king would Jesus have become? For good ends would he have sacrificed the means? The third scene in the triptych assures us of Jesus' undivided loyalty. He will not ride two horses. He will worship and serve God only. Here is the purity of heart so prized by Kierkegaard: to will one thing.

This passage (4:1-11) is often appointed by lectionaries for the first Sunday of Lent. The presumption is that the narrative is of direct relevance for Christians as they enter a period of penitence. Ordinary Christians are unlikely to perceive it so, and with good cause. The story does not correspond with our experience; we do not hold conversations with a visible devil, nor are we whisked from place to place as Jesus is in the story. Moreover, the temptations that Jesus faces are peculiar to him; they seem very remote from those we face day by day. This passage may in fact prompt some to doubt the validity of Heb. 4:15: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." What did Jesus know of the temptations that are faced daily by the recovering alcoholic and substance abuser? the lonely divorcée? the struggling business owner? the teenager who covets peer acceptance above all? There is, however, a common denominator that links all of these with the temptations ascribed to Jesus. The basic, underlying temptation that Jesus shared with us is the temptation to treat God as less than God. We may not be tempted to turn stones into bread (we are more apt to turn butter into guns), but we are constantly tempted to mistrust God's readiness to empower us to face our trials. None of us is likely to put God to the test by leaping from a cliff, but we are frequently tempted to question God's helpfulness when things go awry; we forget the sure promise, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Cor. 12:9). Pagan idolatry is no more a temptation for us than it was for Jesus, but compromise with the ways of the world is a continuing seduction. It is indeed difficult for us to worship and serve God only. We should be continually grateful that we have a great high priest who, tempted as we are, was able to resist all such temptations by laying hold of Scripture and firmly acknowledging that only God is God.

The Wilderness Test (4:1-11)

This mythical scene of Jesus' encounter with Satan in the wilderness continues Matthew's overture to the public ministry of Jesus. It is a blend of Mark's cryptic account of Jesus' desert test (1:12-13) and the more elaborate dialogue with Satan drawn from Q (cf. Luke 4:1-13). The wilderness setting, the reference to the Spirit (v. 1), and the emphasis on Jesus' fidelity as God's Son are all strong links to the preceding baptism scene.

Mark's material, which describes Jesus being driven into the wilderness to be tested by Satan (1:12) and afterward being ministered to by angels (1:13), now serves as the beginning and conclusion of Matthew's passage (4:1, 11). Mark's enigmatic reference to the presence of the “wild beasts” (1:13, which may be an allusion to the messianic reconciliation with nature as in Isa 11:6-9) is replaced by the threefold dialogue with the “tempter” (Matt 4:3). In Matthew's version, the various tests intensify from the first exchange in the wilderness itself (vv. 3-4), then to the “holy city” and “the pinnacle of the temple” (vv. 5-6), and finally to a “very high mountain” (vv. 8-10). Luke's order places the temple encounter last (Luke 4:9-12). It is difficult to determine which version is more original since each arrangement fits the perspective of the particular Gospel.

The scene takes its inspiration from Deut 6–8 where Moses reviews the wilderness test of Israel prior to its entry into the promised land (Gerhardsson 1966). This serves Matthew's style and purpose well. Standing as this scene does on the brink of Jesus' public ministry, its parallel to Israel's moment of test before the entry into the land ties Jesus once again to paradigmatic moments of Israel's sacred history. Demonstrating Jesus' fidelity to God's word (in contrast to the failure of Israel) also presents Jesus as fulfilling the biblical promise. Embedded in this section of Deuteronomy is Israel's great creed or the “Shema” (“Hear, O Israel . . . ,” Deut 6:4-9) whose emphasis on wholehearted obedience to God is a distillation of Deuteronomy's theology and has strong resonance with Matthew's perspective (Frankemölle 1974).

THE TEMPTATIONS OF CHRIST
Matthew 4:1-11

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After he had deliberately gone without food for forty days and forty nights he was hungry. So the tempter came and said to him, "if you really are the son of God, tell these stones to become bread." He answered: "It stands written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceeds through the mouth of God,' " Then the devil took him to the holy city, and set him on the pinnacle of the Temple. "If you really are the son of God," he said to him, "fling yourself down, for it stands written, ' He will give his angels orders to care for you, and they will lift you upon their hands, lest at any time you should strike your foot against a stone.' " Jesus said to him, "Again it stands written, 'You must not try to put the Lord your God to the test.' " Again the devil took him to a very lofty mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory, and said to him, "I will give you all these things, if you will fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! Fo it stands written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him alone you will serve.' " Then the devil left him alone, and behold, angels came and gave him their service.

There is one thing which we must carefully note right at the beginning of our study of the temptations of Jesus, and that is the meaning of the word to tempt. The Greek word is peirazein. In English the word tempt has a uniformly and consistently bad meaning. It always means to entice a man to do wrong, to seek to seduce him into sin, to try to persuade him to take the wrong way. But peirazein has a quite different element in its meaning. It means to test far more than it means to tempt  in our sense of the word.

One of the great Old Testament stories is the story of how narrowly Abraham escaped sacrificing his only son Isaac. Now that story begins like this in the Authorized Version" And it came to pass after these things that God did tempt Abraham" (Genesis 22:1). Quite clearly the word to tempt cannot there mean to seek to seduce into evil. It is unthinkable that God should try to make any man a wrong-doer. But the thing is quite clear when we understand that it means: "After these things God tested Abraham." The time had come for a supreme test of the loyalty of Abraham. Just as metal has to be tested far beyond any stress and strain that it will ever be called upon to bear, before it can be put to any useful purpose, so a man has to be tested before God can use him for his purposes. The Jews had a saying, "The Holy One, blessed be his name, does not elevate a man to dignity till he has first tried and searched him; and if he stands in temptation, then he raises him to dignity."

Now here is a great and uplifting truth. What we call temptation is not meant to make us sin; it is meant to enable us to conquer sin. It is not meant to make us bad, it is meant to make us good. It is not meant to weaken us, it is meant to make us emerge stronger and finer, and purer from the ordeal. Temptation is not the penalty of being a man, temptation is the glory of being a man. It is the test which comes to a man whom God wishes to use. So, then, we must think of this whole incident, not so much the tempting, as the testing of Jesus.

We have to note further where this test took place. It took place in the wilderness. Between Jerusalem, on the central plateau which is the backbone of Palestine, and the Dead Sea there stretches the wilderness. The Old Testament calls it Jeshimmon, which means The Devastation, and it is a fitting name. It stretches over an area of thirty-five by fifteen miles.

Sir George Adam Smith, who traveled over it, describes it. It is an area of yellow sand, of crumbling limestone, and of scattered shingle. It is an area of contorted strata, where the ridges run in all directions as if they were warped and twisted. The hills are like dust heaps; the limestone is blistered and peeling; rocks are bare and jagged; often the very ground sounds hollow when a foot or a horse's hoof falls upon it. It glows and shimmers with heat like some vast furnace. It runs right out to the Dead Sea, and then there comes a drop of twelve hundred feet, a drop of limestone, flint, and marl, through crags and corries and precipices down to the Dead Sea.

In that wilderness Jesus could be more alone than anywhere else in Palestine. Jesus went into the wilderness to be alone. His task had come to him; God had spoken to him; he must think how he was to attempt the task which God had given him to do; he had to get things straightened out before he started; and he had to be alone.

It may well be that we often go wrong simply because we never try to be alone. There are certain things which a man has to work out alone. There are times when no one else's advice is any good to him. There are times when a man has to stop acting and start thinking. It may be that we make many a mistake because we do not give ourselves a chance to be alone with God.

Matthew 1:1—4:16
Part 1     Jesus' Origins and Calling
PREVIEW

Each of the four Gospels begins with an account of the roots or antecedents of Jesus' ministry. Mark relates Jesus' work to the earlier activity of John the Baptist in the wilderness. The other Gospels also refer to John but push the question of Jesus' roots even further back. In both Matthew and Luke, we find records of Jesus' ancestry and stories related to his birth. In the Fourth Gospel, the author traces Jesus' origins all the way back to the Word of God which was active in the world from creation on. Common to these introductory accounts is an attempt to link the story of Jesus with the story of God's prior activity in the life of the people of Israel.

The account of Jesus' roots in the Gospel of Matthew runs from 1:1 to 4:16. In this section we find a number of different types of material: a genealogy, stories about Jesus' infancy (modeled in part after popular stories about Moses' infancy), quotations of OT (Old Testament) texts which are fulfilled in the story of Jesus, sayings attributed to John the Baptist, and narratives of Jesus' baptism and temptation. Some of this content Matthew found in earlier written sources (see "Matthew's Sources" in Glossary and Essays). Other material is peculiar to Matthew and may come either from Matthew's community or from his own Spirit-guided reflection on Jesus' origins.

Whatever his sources, Matthew has taken this diverse material and developed a coherent narrative which sets the stage for Jesus' public ministry. Throughout this section Matthew focuses on Jesus' identity and calling, making certain that readers know who Jesus is. Along the way he emphasizes some of the places where Jesus appears: Bethlehem, Egypt, Galilee, the wilderness, the river Jordan. The association of these places with earlier biblical events and promises confirms, for Matthew, the messianic character of Jesus' coming and calling.
OUTLINE

Jesus' Family History,     1:1-17

Jesus' Birth and Infancy,     1:18—2:23

     1:18-25     A Child Conceived by the Spirit

     2:1-12     A Child Acclaimed as King

     2:13-23     A Child Delivered from Destruction

Jesus' Preparation for Ministry,     3:1—4:16

     3:1-12     John's Work as the Forerunner

     3:13-17     Jesus' Baptism by John

     4:1-11     Jesus' Temptation in the Wilderness

     4:12-16     Jesus' Return to Galilee

----------------------------
Jesus' Temptation in the Wilderness

Matthew 4:1-11

PREVIEW

The sequel to the story of Jesus' baptism is the account of his temptation in the wilderness. Like Israel of old after crossing the Red Sea (Deuteronomy 8:2), Jesus must be tested after he comes out of the water: Will he or won't he remain true to his calling as God's chosen one? Once again, the setting of the test is the wilderness, the occasion for the test is hunger, and the issue at stake is loyalty. What is different in Jesus' case is the outcome. To paraphrase the author of Hebrews 4:15, Jesus is "tested as Israel was, yet without sin." That outcome, however, is not a foregone conclusion. Jesus' test is a real test, a test in which he might have turned away from God's will.

In constructing the story before us, Matthew has drawn on two earlier reports of Jesus' ordeal. Some of the language used to introduce and conclude the story appears to come from Mark 1:12-13. There the emphasis falls on the wilderness itself as a place of wild beasts and evil spirits, which Jesus survives with the help of angels. Mark says nothing in his brief account, however, about a conversation between Jesus and Satan. For the latter Matthew is indebted to a fuller version of Jesus' temptation found in another source he shares with Luke (cf. Luke 4:1-13). Here the struggle centers on fidelity to God's will, a theme of utmost significance to Matthew.

The form of the story as we find it in Matthew 4:1-11 can be viewed in several ways. As the dialogue between Jesus and Satan takes shape, with each party appealing to Scripture at one point, it sounds much like a rabbinic debate. In the midst of this debate, however, lines are spoken which call to mind stories of another type, stories concerned with the legitimacy of one who claims divine authority. When Satan challenges Jesus to validate his sonship by turning stones into bread or by jumping off the temple, the taunts are similar to the demand for signs which we encounter later on (Matthew 12:38-39; 16:1-4; 27:40; John 6:30ff.). In each case Jesus is invited to "prove" that he acts with divine authority. And in each case Jesus refuses to jump to the tune of those who pose the challenge.

Matthew 4:1-11 reads like the script of a drama. It begins with a brief prologue, then develops the plot through three scenes of mounting intensity, and concludes finally with an appropriate epilogue.

OUTLINE

Into the Wilderness,     4:1-2

A Test of Priorities,     4:3-4

A Test of Confidence,     4:5-7

A Test of Allegiance,     4:8-10

Over at Last,     4:11

EXPLANATORY NOTES
Into the Wilderness  4:1-2

Immediately after his baptism, Jesus is led up by the Spirit into the wilderness. Taken literally, the phrase describes a normal journey from the Jordan valley to the rugged slopes of the Judean wilderness. The text could mean, however, that Jesus is taken up by the Spirit and transported to the wilderness in a rapture or vision (cf. Revelations 17:3; Ezekiel 8:3; 37:1; 1 Enoch 17:1ff.; 2 Corinthians 12:1-4). Whatever the manner of Jesus' entry into the wilderness, the reason the Spirit takes him there is quite clear: He is to be tempted, tested by the devil.

According to Matthew, Jesus fasts for forty days and forty nights prior to the test. The duration of Jesus' ordeal confirms that he is reliving Israel's experience of long ago. Forty years the people of Israel wandered in the wilderness, dependent on God for sustenance (Exodus 16:35; Deuteronomy 2:7; 8:2). And for "forty days and forty nights" Moses fasted on Mt. Sinai before he received the tablets of the covenant from God (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:9-11). After the fast, Matthew tells us, Jesus was hungry—and vulnerable. Now the test can begin.
A Test of Priorities  4:3-4

In verse 3 (and again in v. 5) the devil appeals to Jesus with the words, If you are the Son of God. . . . The phrase assumes rather than questions Jesus' sonship and refers back to the revelation of Jesus' identity at his baptism. In each of the tests which Jesus faces, then, the tempter is proposing ways for Jesus to claim and demonstrate his messianic role. Jesus responds by quoting texts from the OT which challenge these propositions. All of the texts come from Deuteronomy and, appropriately, all deal with Israel's wilderness experience.

The first of the devil's three propositions is that Jesus command stones to become loaves of bread. At one level the appeal relates to the immediate situation of Jesus' hunger after forty days of fasting. At another level the story poses the question of how Jesus will exercise his messianic power throughout his ministry. Jesus "is asked to become a self-serving wonder-worker, flexing his power for his own ends" (Senior, 1977:49). The reply of Jesus in verse 4 makes clear that he is not about to act independently of God and use his power to gratify his own desires. In his reply Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 8:3, which interprets Israel's dependence on manna as a lesson on feeding on God's will for our lives. That is the food for which Jesus hungers above all else.
A Test of Confidence  4:5-7

For the second test (the order differs in Luke's account), the actors move in some manner from the wilderness to the holy city, Jerusalem (cf. 27:53). The pinnacle of the temple to which the devil takes Jesus has been variously interpreted as a corner of the outer court wall, a balcony, the lintel of a high gate, or the peak of the temple proper. In any event, Jesus is invited to throw himself down from this lofty place. Once again the test may have more than one meaning. From one perspective, it is a subtle attempt to get Jesus to destroy himself (through false confidence). From another perspective, it is an appeal to Jesus to seek public acclaim for his work through miracle and magic.

This time the devil himself quotes Scripture (Psalm 91:11-12), bolstering his challenge with the promise that God will protect those who trust him against all harm. But Jesus is not deceived and shows himself to be a more faithful interpreter of biblical texts. Quoting Deuteronomy 6:16, he reminds his adversary that it is a mistake for us to try to force God's hand. At Massah in the wilderness (see Exodus 17:1-8), the people of Israel did just this when they "tested the Lord" by demanding water. Such demands reveal unfaith rather than faith. Jesus, however, neither needs nor seeks miraculous proof that God is with him.
A Test of Allegiance  4:8-10

Again the scenery changes as the devil takes Jesus to a very high mountain for the third test. Mountains provide the setting for several narratives in Matthew (4:8; 5:1; 15:29; 17:1; 28:16), all of them dealing with power and authority. Here the mountain is unusually majestic, and clearly figurative, for from it Jesus can survey all the kingdoms of the world (cf. 2 Bar. 76). We are reminded of the story in Deuteronomy 34:1-4 where Moses ascends Mount Nebo and God shows him "all the land" which Israel one day will possess. We are also reminded of God's offer to the king in Psalm 2:8: "Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession." Only here it is the devil who makes the offer—and the price he demands is Jesus' allegiance.

To appreciate this offer, we need to remember that the NT itself speaks of the devil as the present world ruler (cf. John 12:31; 16:11; Ephesians 2:2; 6:12). It would seem that he is in a strategic position to grant dominion to Jesus, at least the dominion that a conventional Messiah might seek. Once again, however, Jesus refuses to succumb. He commands Satan to depart, in much the same way that he does when Peter tries to divert him from the way of the cross (cf. 4:10; 16:21-23). And he reminds Satan of the basic tenet of Israel's faith that only God deserves our worship and allegiance (Deuteronomy 6:13).

All along the reader knows, of course, that Jesus will receive dominion over the nations (cf. 28:18-20). This dominion, however, will not come from an opportunistic alliance with the present evil order. Instead, it will come from the triumph of God's reign through Jesus' death and resurrection.
Over at Last  4:11

When the third and final test is over, there is really little left to say. Jesus has rejected each of the ploys of the tempter, and the latter has no choice but to obey Jesus' order to leave (v. 10). Further testing, to be sure, awaits Jesus later in the story (cf. 16:1; 16:23; 26:36-46; 27:39-44). For now, however, there is a moment of respite. As the devil exits, angels arrive and wait on Jesus. Here the text recalls the wilderness experience of the prophet Elijah, who was fed by the angels before undertaking a journey of "forty days and forty nights" to Mount Horeb (1 Kings 19:1-8). In both episodes the angels represent the comfort and strength which God provides to those who are tested. And on that note the story of Jesus' temptation concludes.

THE TEXT IN BIBLICAL CONTEXT

The report of Jesus' ordeal in the wilderness is by no means the only place the Bible looks at temptation or testing. As noted earlier, Matthew's account alludes in various ways to the story of Israel's test in the wilderness. Elsewhere we find accounts of the testing faced by ancient patriarchs such as Abraham (Genesis 22:1-14) and Job (Job 1—2), the tests posed by Jesus' adversaries (Matthew 22:18), the testing which comes with persecution (1 Peter 4:12), and the trials related to the endtime (Romans 3:10). Sometimes testing comes from our own evil desires (James 1:14) or from the powers of darkness which seek our downfall (1 Thessalonians 3:5). At other times God conducts the test (Deuteronomy 8:2), not to entice or entrap us but to probe the depth and genuineness of our loyalty. Whatever the source, testing comes again and again to God's servants in the biblical story.

Matthew 4:1-11 links Jesus with this larger biblical context. It lets the reader know that Jesus too had to prove his faithfulness in the midst of testing (cf. Hebrews 2:17-18; 4:14-16; 5:7-10). To be sure, Jesus' test has its own distinctive character. In this particular struggle we are dealing with a cosmic conflict, a collision of divine and demonic authority which will characterize Jesus' ministry from beginning to end. Further, the test does not deal with faithfulness in a generic sense but with faithfulness in the context of a messianic calling: How will Jesus act as the Son of God?

At this point the story serves at least three purposes: (1) It gives a preview of the way Jesus will approach his mission in the stories to follow. (2) It suggests that any discrepancy between the shape of Jesus' ministry and traditional views of the Messiah's role results not from a lack of credentials on Jesus' part but from his adherence to God's will. (3) It provides clues on what it means for the church to be faithful as the messianic community which acts in Jesus' name.

THE TEXT IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

As we have already noted, Jesus' temptation by Satan was in fact a test. Here the meaning of tempt goes beyond our everyday use of the term. Sometimes we use the word in a neutral way to describe anything we find appealing: That's very tempting, we may remark. At other times we connect temptation with the urge to do something wrong, especially misconduct in the areas of money and sex. One thinks of the classic line: "The devil made me do it!" Jesus, however, was facing neither a neutral appeal nor a lure to misbehave. His temptation went to the core of who he was and what he was about. As in well-known later stories of persons persuaded to sell their souls to the devil (tales indebted to the biblical account), Jesus is tempted to trade his true calling for instant power and glory. It is at this point that the story invites us to reflect on temptation in the life of the church.

All too often, the record shows, the church has succumbed to temptation, coveting the power which Jesus rejected and betraying the loyalty which Jesus modeled. The sharpest commentary on all this is Dostoyevski's story of "The Grand Inquisitor" in The Brothers Karamazov. As the Inquisitor speaks to Christ (who has returned to earth), he boasts that the church has "corrected Thy work and founded it upon miracle, mystery, and authority." He describes how the church has achieved control and dominion, accepting the very options rejected by Jesus in the wilderness.

Much has changed in the church since the time described in Dostoyevski's story, particularly in our perceptions of the power appropriate to Jesus' community. Nevertheless, the church today still confronts the temptations of Jesus, whether as a temptation to serve its own institutional needs, or to esteem charismatic gifts above the weakness of the cross, or to make success the criterion of the church's mission, or to give allegiance to alien ideologies and causes.

Similar tests come to us in our individual experience. For some, the test may occur as they make decisions about life vocations. For others, the occasion is a position of leadership, where the abuse or misuse of power is an ever-present possibility. For still others, faithfulness is tested in everyday moral choices, where conflicting values compete for our attention and loyalty. Whenever and however the temptation comes, we need to listen afresh to Matthew 4:1-11.

Matthew 4.1–11.
SECTION HEADING: “The Temptation of Jesus.” This often needs to be expressed as a short sentence, as in “Jesus is tempted by the Devil” or “The Devil tries to make Jesus do wrong.” As we point out below (4.1), the word translated here as “tempted” can be translated as “tested.” The section heading will then be “The Devil puts Jesus to the test” or “The testing of Jesus.”
The first part of this chapter divides easily into five sections: the three temptation accounts (verses 3–4; 5–7; 8–10), which are held together by a narrative introduction (verses 1–2) and a conclusion (verse 11). It should be noticed that the shorter temptation account of (Mark 1.12–13) is quite different in its outlook than the accounts of (Matthew 4.1–11) and (Luke 4.1–13). According to Mark, the angels took care of Jesus’ needs throughout the entire period, and there is no suggestion of fasting. Matthew contains essentially the same material as Luke, except that the order of temptations differs. In translation each of the three accounts should be allowed to make its own unique emphasis, and the order of the temptations should be allowed to stand, without an attempt to harmonize one Gospel with another. See further at 4.8.

 Matthew 4.1.
4.1 Matthew 4.1.
Then indicates that the events described here occurred immediately after the baptism described in chapter 3. Translators can use “Next” or “After that.”
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit is transformed into an active construction by TEV: “Then the Spirit led Jesus.” (Mark 1.12) uses an active form and a stronger verb: “the Spirit made him go.” It is characteristic of Matthew that he changes Mark’s active voice into a passive (see 9.25; 14.11; 16.26; 18.8; 19.13; 24.22 [twice]; 26.57; 27.38; and 28.6); however, this stylistic feature of Matthew’s Gospel must not be carried over automatically into translation. Instead the translator must choose in each instance the form that is most satisfactory for his own language (whether active or passive), rather than following the form of either Matthew or Mark.
The root meaning of the verb used by Matthew is “to lead up” (see RSV, TNT, Phps). However, most translations do not render the verb literally, even though from the Jordan River valley one would have to go “up” to get into the Jordan wilderness.
The word translated was led up is not as strong as the one used in Mark (“was made to go”), but it is nevertheless important to avoid a word that means simply that the Spirit “went before him” or “showed him the way.” Translators should use “was taken” or “was conducted,” or if the active form is used, “took” or “conducted.”
GeCL explicitly identifies the Spirit as the “Spirit of God.” In fact, there are many languages where it will be necessary to do the same thing, or perhaps to use “Holy Spirit.” Otherwise, in cultures where everyone is believed to have a spirit in him, it could appear that it was Jesus’ own spirit that led him, or that he went entirely at his own inclination.
Translators should use the same word for wilderness here that they did in 3.1.
Matthew sees divine purpose involved in Jesus’ going to the wilderness, as is indicated by the structure to be tempted (see comment at 3.13). Although to be tempted is the rendering represented by most translations, the context seems better satisfied by “to be put to the test” (GeCL, TNT). In the same way that God put his son Israel to the test during the days of Moses, so now his son Jesus is put to the test in the wilderness. However, in keeping with later Jewish thought, it is the Devil, rather than God, who now puts Jesus’ loyalty to the test.
When translating to be tempted, it is first necessary to find a solution for “tempted.” As we pointed out, “put to the test” is probably closer to the meaning in this context. Brc has “to undergo the ordeal of temptation.” Some translations have “prove” or “test to see how strong he was.” Others have used “to be tried” (but in the sense of testing, not in a juridical sense of being on trial). There are translators who have followed the more traditional understanding of “tempted” and said “so the Devil could try to make him do wrong.”
The construction shows purpose. He was led into the wilderness “in order to be tested” or “so that he could be tested.” Often an active sentence is better than a passive one: “so that the Devil could put him to the test” or “so that there the Devil would test him.”
The devil is the translation of the Greek word that means “the accuser, opponent.” This is one of the titles for “Satan”—which is just one of his names. As part of the same exercise that translators go through to find a good way to translate “Holy Spirit,” a word is usually discovered that can be used for “spirits,” supernatural beings that have the power to act in the world in various ways. Sometimes these are seen by people as inherently evil, so that the word can stand alone to translate “evil spirits,” “demons,” and “unclean spirits.” In other cultures, these spirits are thought to do both bad and good, and the adjective “evil” or “bad” must be used with the noun in translation. Often there will be a name for one evil spirit that is the source of evil or the source of power for the other evil spirits, and this name can then be used for “Devil.” Otherwise, the word “chief” or “head” is used with the word chosen for “evil spirits,” so that “Devil” is “chief (or, head) evil spirit.” If possible, translators should then use this title in places where the text has “Devil,” and reserve “Satan” for the places where that proper name is used.

 Matthew 4.2.
4.2 Matthew 4.2.
Jesus spends forty days in the wilderness, as Moses spent forty days on Mount Sinai, where he received the Law.
And is a transition leading on from verse 1. Translators might use “After” or “Then,” or perhaps no transition will be needed at all.
Jesus fasted. “To fast” means to voluntarily go without food. It is sometimes done as a religious duty. The custom is known in many parts of the world and poses no translation problem, but where it is not known, the voluntary aspect of it should be included in the translation so that it does not appear Jesus did not eat simply because there was no food. Brc has that “he had deliberately gone without food.” “He refrained from eating” would be another possibility.
In some languages it is more natural to say simply “forty days” than forty days and forty nights. Other languages would say “forty full days” or “forty days and nights.” The impression must not be given that he fasted only in the daytime (and ate at night).
Afterward can be “after that time,” “at the end of the forty days and nights,” or “after he had fasted for forty days and nights, he became hungry.”
He was hungry translates a Greek aorist tense which may well be translated “He got hungry” or “and so he was hungry.” Brc has “he was attacked by pangs of hunger.”

 Matthew 4.3.
4.3 Matthew 4.3.
The tempter (so most translations) is changed by TEV to “the Devil” for the sake of its intended readers, since the same being is first referred to as “the Devil” in verse 1. That he comes “to tempt” is clear from verse 1, and so TEV uses the same title here as in verse 1, so that the readers will not think a different person is involved. For “Devil” see verse 1. If tempter is used, then translators can say “the One who tempts people” or “the One who tries to get people to do wrong.” Also possible is “the Devil came to tempt him.”
As in other cases of came, some languages have to say “went.” In addition, the destination may be necessary, as in “went to him” or “came to where he was.”
In the Old Testament the term Son of God may be used of angels or of divine beings (Gen 6.2; Job 38.7), of the Israelite nation (Hos 11.1), or of the chosen king (Psa 2.7). The Jews rarely used Son of God as a Messianic title. But when they did, the primary reference was to “the moral relationship of love and filial obedience which should exist between a father and his son.” In the present passage the title calls attention to Jesus’ unique relation to God, as well as to his divine powers. See also 5.9 and discussion.
The Devil is probably not wondering whether or not Jesus is God’s Son. He assumes he is. The word If here is better translated “Since you are God’s Son,” “In that you are God’s Son,” or “You are God’s Son, and therefore ....” However, it is also possible to understand him to be saying “If you are God’s Son, prove it by ....”
Command these stones to become loaves of bread represents the temptation for Jesus “to misconstrue divine sonship as the power to do miracles.” But it also recalls the wilderness experience of Israel. It is the temptation to make bread from the stones of the wilderness in a similar way to which God miraculously provided manna and water for the Israelites during their wilderness journey. It is also closely related to the events narrated in John 6, when the people wanted to make Jesus the Messianic King, because he had miraculously fed the crowds.
Luke 4.3 has the singular “this stone.” The use of the plural stones is characteristic of Matthew’s style. For example, he frequently uses “crowds” in place of “the crowd” of Mark. Compare also the following passages with their Marcan parallels: 8.26 (“winds” for “wind”); 13.11 (“secrets” for “secret”); and 26.15 (Matthew uses the Greek plural for “silver,” while Mark uses the singular). These stones refers to the stones lying about where Jesus and the Devil were: “these stones here” or “some of these stones lying here.”
The Devil suggests Jesus command the stones to become loaves of bread. In some languages direct speech may be necessary: “Say to these stones ‘Turn into bread (or, Become loaves of bread).’ ”

 Matthew 4.4.
4.4 Matthew 4.4.
But he answered: see comment at 3.15.
For many readers, making “Jesus” explicit as TEV has done will prove helpful. Otherwise “he” might be understood to refer to the Devil.
Some languages have to specify whom he answered: “answered the Devil” or “answered him.”
It is written refers to scripture, and so TEV has “The scripture says,” and GeCL translates “In the Holy Scripture it stands.” Most translations need to make it clear that it is written introduces a quote from scripture. They can say “In God’s book it says” or “In God’s writing it says.” Translators should be careful not to use the word “Bible” or any expression which would be understood to mean “the Bible,” that is, both the Old and the New Testaments, since the New Testament had not yet been written. They can try “In the holy book of us Jews, it says ...” or “In our holy book ....”
The quotation which follows is from Deuteronomy 8.3 in the language of the Septuagint. Most translations render the quotation rather literally, but compare Brc (“It takes more than bread to keep a man alive; man’s life depends on every word that God speaks”) and NEB (“Man cannot live on bread alone; he lives on every word that God utters”). In the context man means “people,” “humanity,” and it is interesting to note how Jesus identifies with humanity in this quotation. For Jesus to be Son of God does not deny his humanity, but it does mean “that he can hear and obey God totally, leaving everything up to him.”
For man, many translations will say “people” or “human beings,” or whatever expression refers to mankind and not just human males.
Bread is here used in a general sense, in reference to the basic food of the Israelites. It is generally translated as “food” so that readers do not think specifically of bread when they read the passage. However, since in verse 3 the reference is to bread, some translators will retain that even here.
As seen by the examples above, live really means more than physical existence here. “Man’s life does not depend only on food” or “Man’s existence does not depend only on having food.” Rather, for man to have real life, he must have every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, that is, “what God speaks” or “what God commands.”
Above we cited several ways this quote has been translated, including those of Brc and NEB. Other ways translators may try are “Man’s existence does not depend only on food, but on what God has spoken,” “For man to have real life, he needs more than food; he needs also the words that God speaks,” or “In order to really live, man needs every word from God. Food alone is not enough to sustain him.”

 Matthew 4.5.
4.5 Matthew 4.5.
Then: “Next” and “After that” are possible translations.
Throughout verses 5–10 Matthew uses a number of the so called “historical presents,” which is a vivid way of narrating past events. See comment on “appeared” at 2.13.
Took could give the impression that the Devil used physical force to take Jesus to the holy city. Translators should make sure they do not give this impression. They can use instead words such as “led,” “went with,” or “made him go.”
Whether translations have him or “Jesus” depends on what would be most natural in those languages.
The Greek text of this verse reads the holy city, which TEV identifies as “Jerusalem, the Holy City,” assuming that some readers of TEV may not know what city is intended. Most translations render merely “the Holy City,” while GeCL 1st edition simply has “Jerusalem.” In the Lukan parallel (4.9) only “Jerusalem” is used. For Jerusalem as the Holy City see Matthew 27.53; Revelation 11.2; 21.2, 10; 22.19. If translators render the holy city literally as in the text, it is a real possibility that many of their readers will not realize that Jerusalem is the city being referred to. For this reason they should consider either “Jerusalem” or “Jerusalem, the Holy City” (as in TEV).
Set him could give the impression the Devil carried Jesus to the pinnacle and set him down there. A better translation is “had him stand there” or “caused him to stand there.”
The precise meaning of the word translated pinnacle (TEV “highest point”) is in dispute. It literally means “little wing,” and the only other time it is used in the New Testament is in the Lukan parallel (4.9). The word may possibly mean “little tower” or “parapet,” and at least one scholar tentatively identifies it with “an eminence on the royal cloister on the south side of the temple enclosure, which consisted of four rows of Corinthian columns.” Most translations have pinnacle, and a few others have “parapet” (NJB, NEB, NAB); Brc has “the highest spire.” In the following verse Psalm 91.11–12 is quoted, and one commentator notes that in the Septuagint of Psalm 91.4 there appears the word “wings,” which sounds very similar to the word used in this account. It is therefore quite possible that the word in Psalm 91.4 has influenced the usage here, especially since this psalm was used in the Temple worship and occasionally linked with Israel’s wilderness wandering. Whatever exact part of the temple is being referred to by pinnacle or “parapet,” it is clear that it is a very high place. Translators can say “the highest place,” “a very high place,” or “the very top.”
When translators look for a way to translate temple, they need to consider “synagogue” and “church” in its modern usage, to be sure the three terms do not overlap too much. Of course, in the New Testament, “church” was not a building at all, but referred to the community of believers. “Synagogue” is often translated as “a meeting house” or “a prayer house,” and “Temple” as “house of God.” If this term coincides with the term people use for a modern church, then in order to keep “Temple” distinct, translators sometimes say “House of God of the Jews” or “Jewish House of God.” Another way is to emphasize the Temple’s function as the place where sacrifices were offered. This is done with a phrase such as “House of sacrifice,” “House of sacrifice of the Jews,” or “House of sacrifice to God.”
The Temple was actually a complex of buildings and courtyards, so “place” is sometimes better than “house” or “building.”
TEV regularly uses upper-case for the first letter of “Temple” when it refers to the Temple in Jerusalem, to keep the reference distinct from other temples. Translators should do whatever is appropriate in their own language.
It is worth noting that many translators find that an excellent way to show the relationship between “priest” and “Temple” is to translate the one as “sacrificer” and the other as “place of sacrifice.”

 Matthew 4.6.
Newman, B. M., & Stine, P. C. 1992. A handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. Originally published: A translator's handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, c1988. UBS helps for translators; UBS handbook series . United Bible Societies: New York

4.6 Matthew 4.6.
The narration continues from verse 5, so that and said to him is part of the same sentence. However, many translators begin a new sentence at this point.
The use of If in the clause If you are the Son of God is like that in verse 3: “Since you are God’s Son” or “Seeing that you are God’s Son,” as well as “If you are God’s Son.”
Throw yourself down means “Jump down” or “Fling yourself,” or possibly “Let yourself fall.” In some languages it may be necessary to add “to the ground” or “to the bottom.”
The relation shown by for is usually indicated by a similar word in the translation; for example, “because.” However, there are languages where it is better to make more explicit the connection between what the Devil suggests Jesus should do and the scriptural justification for it. For example, translations may have “You can do that because of what it says in the scripture. It says....”
For the expression it is written, see comments on verse 4.
The quotation from Psalm 91.11–12 closely follows the Septuagint, except that here the second line of verse 11 (“to guard you in all your ways”) is omitted, since it has no relevance for the context. Quite possibly this psalm was chosen because verse 11 tells how God appointed his angels to protect the faithful believer, and verse 13 tells how the believer will triumph over wild animals.
He: in the quotation from the psalm, both TEV and GeCL specifically identify the subject He as “God.”
The phrase give his angels charge of you can be “God will have his angels be responsible for you” or “God will tell his angels to take care of you.”
On their hands they will bear you up expresses the idea that the angels would actually hold Jesus on his way down, as in “They will hold you (in their hands) on your way down” or “They will hold you safe as you fall.”
They will do that lest you strike your foot against a stone, that is, “so that you won’t be hurt at all, you won’t even hurt your foot on the stones,” or simply “so you won’t even hurt your foot on a stone.” TEV does only slight restructuring: “so that not even your feet will be hurt on the stones.” Although the text mentions the foot, here the foot probably represents the whole body, and the idea is that he will escape all injury. But translators should try to retain the image of the foot, so that this quotation will be close to an eventual translation of the psalm.
As we pointed out above, this quotation is from Psalm 91.11–12, but part of verse 11 has been left out. For this reason, RSV has treated it as two quotations, separated by and. Translations that follow this lead may even introduce the second part of the citation with “It is also written” or “And it also says.” Other translations, among them TEV, feel that it is better to show this as one quotation. These translations drop the and altogether, with a transition such as “so that.” For example, “God will tell his angels to take care of you so that they will hold you in their hands ....”

 Matthew 4.7.
4.7 Matthew 4.7.
Again it is written is similar in form to the structure in verse 4; TEV has “But the scripture also says.” Other possibilities are “In another place the scripture says” or “Another passage of scripture says.”
You shall not tempt the Lord your God comes from the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 6.16.
The You in the quotation does not refer to the Devil but to the people of Israel, to whom this statement was originally made. The translator should take care that the reader will not be confused about this. Translators may have “You people,” “None of you,” or the impersonal “One.”
Tempt translates a compound form of the verb made from the same root as the one used in verse 1; either may mean “put to the test” or “tempt,” depending upon the context. Elsewhere in the New Testament this compound form of the verb appears only in Luke 4.12; 10.25; and 1 Corinthians 10.9, where it is used in parallel with the verb of 4.1. The Deuteronomy passage refers to the time when the Israelites put God to the test at Massah (see Exo 17.1–7). They were thirsty and demanded that God work a miracle, but here Jesus refuses to put God to the test by demanding a miracle of him. The sense of tempt that people first think of is “to try to get someone to do wrong,” an idea that would certainly not fit in this context. Translators will do better to follow TEV, “Don’t put the Lord your God to the test,” or to use an expression such as “Don’t try to force God to prove himself,” “Don’t try to test God,” or, as in Brc, “You must not try to see how far you can go with the Lord your God.”
It is not possible here to give a complete discussion of how to translate Lord. Translators look for a term used for someone to whom others owe allegiance. This is sometimes the same term as “chief” or “elder brother.” In some languages it is “the owner of the people” or even “our owner.” (Translators can discuss this with their translation consultant.)
It is used here with your God. The “your” in the quotation meant the God the people of Israel worshiped. Therefore “you” should not refer to the Devil. But translations can say “the Lord, the God of Israel” or “the Lord who is God.” It can also be in the third person, as in “No one must put the Lord his God to the test.”

 Matthew 4.8.
4.8 Matthew 4.8.
As noted in the introduction to this section, the sequence of the second and third temptations differs in Matthew and Luke. Luke’s arrangement avoids the double change of scene that is found in Matthew: desert to Jerusalem, Jerusalem to a high mountain.
Again (TEV “Then”) translates the same adverb used in verse 7; there it was equivalent to “also,” while the meaning here is “next in sequence.” A literal rendering may lead to the faulty conclusion that this is the second time that the Devil had taken Jesus to a very high mountain: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain” (NEB). A number of translations have attempted to avoid this erroneous impression; for example: “Next, taking him to a very high mountain” (NJB). Translators can also use “After that.” In some languages it may not be necessary to use any transition word at all.
Instead of took ... to a very high mountain, (Luke 4.5) has simply “took ...up.” But a number of scholars are convinced that Matthew intends a parallel between this experience and that of Moses, when he was taken up to a high mountain to see “all the land” (Deut 34.1–4). Matthew places several other important events of Jesus’ ministry on a mountain top: the sermon (5.1), the transfiguration (17.1), and the ascension (28.16).
For a translation of took, see comments on verse 5.
If translators are working in areas where mountains are unknown, they usually say “where the land was very high” or “to where the land was high so a person could see a great distance.” Of course, no mountain is high enough so that someone could see all over the world from that spot. But translators should retain this exaggerated style in any case.
Kingdoms here means “countries,” “nations,” or “lands,” not just areas ruled over by kings.
And all their glory, a Hebraism, is rendered “in all their greatness” by TEV; GeCL has “in their greatness and beauty”; NEB “in their glory”; NAB “in their magnificence.” Translations can also use “all their powers” or “all their wealth.” They can also make this a separate sentence: “He showed him how great and beautiful they were.”

 Matthew 4.9.
4.9 Matthew 4.9.
In the clause and he said to him, the pronoun he refers to the Devil (see TEV). Many translations will find it better for their readers, too, if they say “The Devil said to him.”
All these, emphatic in the Greek text, may be translated collectively as in TEV (“All this”); Mft has “all that,” and Phps “everything there.” Since the plural form “all these” is purely stylistic, having no theological significance, one should then choose the structure which best suits the receptor language. In the Lukan parallel (4.6) a different construction is used: “all this authority and all their glory.” Other ways to express this may be “all these countries” or “all you can see.”
The phrase All these is given emphasis by its placement before the subject. The Devil is claiming he controls and can give to Jesus all the countries on earth. Many translations will not be able to use this RSV order, but they should nevertheless try to retain the emphasis that is there. Sentences such as “What you see, I will give it all to you” or “I will give to you all these things here” may carry the correct emphasis in some languages. Translators can also say “You can have all this that you see.”
The meaning of fall down is not to fall accidentally, but rather to “bow down low to the ground,” or “prostrate yourself,” or “kneel down” for worship or to show great respect. See comments on 2.11.
For comments on worship, see 2.11. Here what the devil is asking is that Jesus “acknowledge me as your master (or, God)” or “respect me in the way you do God.”

 Matthew 4.10.
4.10 Matthew 4.10.
Begone (TEV “Go away”) is the same verb used in 16.23, where it is followed by the pronoun construction “from me.” A few ancient manuscripts include the words here, a translational device that may be necessary in some languages. In both instances the command is given to persons (here the Devil, later Peter) who attempt to lead Jesus in a path that would avoid suffering. Translators should try to find an expression for Begone that is some kind of sharp retort or rebuke, as in “Leave!” or “Leave me alone!” “Get away from me” may be acceptable, although slang should be avoided.
Whereas the word “Devil” is of Greek origin, the word Satan is of Hebrew origin, but the reference is to the same being. Originally he was conceived of by the Jews as an almost neutral being, with the responsibility of pointing out to God the failures of his people. However, by New Testament times he was described as a totally evil being in complete opposition to God. As we pointed out in verse 1, Satan is used as a proper noun and should be written in the way it would be pronounced in the language of the translation.
Again, as in verses 4 and 7, we see the formula it is written, as Jesus once more quotes from scriptures in replying to the Devil. Translations should have the same formula here as in those verses. It is written (TEV “The scripture says”) is a reference to Deuteronomy 6.13. In the Septuagint the word only is omitted, and the verb worship appears as “fear” in the major Septuagint tradition (the word “worship” is a favorite in Matthew: 2.2, 8, 11; 4.9; 8.2; 9.18; 14.33; 15.25; 18.26; 28.9).
Translators must not mistake you shall worship for a simple future tense. It is an imperative, as is clearly seen in TEV. As with the second person “your” in verse 7, you meant Israel in the quotation from Deuteronomy. If “you” in the translation will make readers think the command was addressed to Satan, then it can be changed to an impersonal “one should worship” or “a person should worship.”
For comments on worship, see 2.11. Here it can be translated as “to acknowledge as divine,” “to pray to,” “to respect greatly,” or “to accept as Lord.”
The idea that Israel was to worship only the Lord is emphasized by putting him only before the verb. This same emphasis can be done in several ways: “Worship the Lord your God. He is the only one you should serve” or “Worship the Lord your God; serve no one but him.”
Serve translates a verb which may be used in the technical sense of “the carrying out of religious duties, especially of a cultic nature.” However, in the present context worship and serve are used with the same meaning, the second verb forming a parallel to the first.

 Matthew 4.11.
4.11 Matthew 4.11.
To avoid ambiguity in the phrase left him, TEV and GeCL identify him as “Jesus.”
Left means “went away from him.” The translators must not take it to mean that he deposited Jesus somewhere.
For comments on and behold, see 1.20. “And then it happened that ...” or “and then.”
For comments on angels, see 1.20. In keeping with the promise of protection in Psalm 91.11–14, angels came and ministered to him. GeCL 1st edition identifies these angels as “the angels of God.” According to Matthew, angels come to help Jesus only at the end of the period of forty days, whereas Mark describes them as helping him throughout the entire period of the temptation (Mark 1.13).
The verb ministered (TEV “helped”; GeCL 1st edition “served”) is used elsewhere in the Gospel at 8.15; 20.28 (twice); 25.44; 27.55. For ministered, translators usually use a phrase such as “took care of him,” “helped him,” “took care of his needs,” or “gave him what he needed.”
Newman, B. M., & Stine, P. C. 1992. A handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. Originally published: A translator's handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, c1988. UBS helps for translators; UBS handbook series . United Bible Societies: New York