Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 4:1

"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." — Matthew 4:1 (ASV)

The narrative of the Temptation is admittedly one of the most mysterious in the Gospel records. In one respect it stands almost, if not entirely, alone: it could not have come, directly or indirectly, from an eyewitness. We are compelled to view it as either a mythical addition, a supernatural revelation of facts that could not otherwise be known, or, finally, as originating from our Lord’s own account of what He had experienced.

The first of these views is natural for those who apply the same theory to everything marvelous and supernatural in our Lord’s life. As a theory for interpreting the Gospels in general, however, that view has not been adopted in this Commentary. There are certainly no reasons why we should accept it here when we have rejected it elsewhere. If it had been based on the narrative of the first Adam’s temptation in Genesis 3, we would have expected the same symbolism to recur—that of the serpent and the trees. Nothing else in the Old Testament, and nothing in the popular expectations of the Christ, could have suggested anything of the kind. The ideal Christ of those expectations would have been a great and mighty king, displaying his wisdom and glory like the historical son of David, not a sufferer who was tried and tempted.

The forms of the Temptation, and even more so the answers to them, have a distinct individuality. This is something one might just conceive of in the work of a consummate artist, but it is utterly unlike the beautiful or grand imagery found in most myths. Therefore, this narrative will be treated here as the record of an actual experience. To assume that this record was miraculously revealed to St. Matthew and St. Luke, however, is to introduce a hypothesis that cannot be proven and is, at the very least, not in harmony with their general character as writers. They are distinctly compilers from many different sources—one by his own statement, the other by inference from the structure and contents of his Gospel—with all the incidental variations that such a process entails. There is no reason to view this narrative as an exception to the general rule. The very difference in the order of the temptations is, as far as it goes, against the idea of a supernatural revelation.

This leaves, then, the conclusion that we have here something that originated in a communication from our Lord’s own lips to one of His disciples—His own record of the experience of those forty days. Viewed this way, it becomes clear that everything is coherent and, in a sense, natural (as marvelous as the whole event is). It throws light on our Lord’s past life and explains much that followed in His teaching.

Led up of the spirit — Each narrator expresses the same fact in slightly different language. St. Luke writes that Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, was led in the wilderness (Luke 4:1). St. Mark, more vividly, says, Immediately the Spirit driveth Him into the wilderness (Mark 1:12). What is meant by such language? The answer is found in analogous instances involving seers and prophets. St. John was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day (Revelation 1:10). The Spirit lifted up Ezekiel so that from his exile by the banks of the Chebar he might see the secret sins of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 8:3). The Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip (Acts 8:39). Those who spoke with tongues spoke by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:2). The result of this induction leads us to think of the state described as being, more or less, in the nature of an ecstasy, in which the ordinary phenomena of consciousness and physical life were largely suspended. That gift of the Spirit had something of the same overpowering mastery on the human nature of the Son of Man that it has had over other sons of men. A power mightier than His own human will was urging Him on—it might almost be said He did not know where—bringing Him into conflict not with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers in heavenly places.

To be tempted of the devil — At the outset of the narrative, we are brought face to face with the problem of the existence and personality of the power of evil. Here, that existence and personality are placed before us in the most distinct language. Whatever difficulties such a view may seem to present, and whatever objections may be brought against it, are altogether outside the scope of the interpreter of Scripture. It may be urged that the writers of what we call the Scriptures inherited a mistaken creed on this point (though all deeper experience is opposed to this). It might also be argued that they accommodated themselves to the ideas of a creed they did not hold (though there is not a particle of evidence for such a hypothesis). But it would be the boldest of all paradoxes to assert that they do not teach the existence of an evil power whom they call the Enemy, the Accuser, the Devil.

From where the name came and how the belief arose are, on the other hand, questions that the interpreter is bound to answer. The name "devil" (diabolos, meaning accuser or slanderer) appears in the Septuagint version of 1 Chronicles 21:1; Job 1:6; and Job 2:1 as the equivalent for the Hebrew "Satan" (the adversary). He appears there as a spiritual being of superhuman but limited power, tempting people to evil and accusing them before the Throne of God when they have yielded to the temptation. In Zechariah 3:1–2, the same name appears in both the Hebrew and the Septuagint, connected with a similar character, as the accuser of Joshua the son of Jozedek. In Wisdom 2:24, the name is identified with the Tempter of Genesis 3. Since that book belongs to the half-century before, or more probably the half-century after, our Lord’s birth, it may fairly be taken as representing the accepted belief of the Jews in His time.

Our Lord was now brought into conflict with such a Being. The temptations that come to other people from their bodily desires, or from the evils of the world around them, had no power over Him; they had not brought even the sense of effort or pain in being overcome. But if His life had continued this way to the end, the holiness inseparable from it would have been imperfect in at least one respect: it would not have earned Him the power to understand and sympathize with sinners. As the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches, there was a divine appropriateness in Him also suffering and being tempted as we are, so that He might be able to succour them that are tempted (Hebrews 2:18).

The scene of the Temptation was probably not far from that of the Baptism and, as it implies solitude, likely on the eastern rather than the western side of the Jordan. The traditional Desert of Quarantania (a name referring to the forty-day fast) is in the vicinity of Jericho. The histories of Moses and Elijah might suggest the Wilderness of Sinai, but in that case, it would have probably been mentioned by the Evangelists.