Did We Get the Temptation of Jesus Wrong? Part I

Christ in the Wilderness, Ivan Kramskoy (1837-1887)

In this article, I argue that we have been too apt to accept ancient and popular interpretations of Jesus’ wilderness testing in Matthew 4:1-11. Three issues warrant a fresh interpretation: the translation of πειρασθῆναι, our understanding of Satan’s role in the narrative, and the relationship between the two “sons” of God, Jesus and Adam.

πειρασθῆναι Presents a Theological Problem  

The term πειρασθῆναι is defined in Louw Nida as “to endeavor or attempt to cause someone to sin—‘to tempt, to trap, to lead into temptation, temptation.’” However, the problem with translating ancient texts is that the receptor languages, in our case English, are subject to change. Living in a digital age, most of our congregations will simply perform a Google search to define terms, and if you seek to define “temptation” in Google, you will see the gloss, “the desire to do something, especially something wrong or unwise.” And this is problem: where the Greek usage and English usage at the time of Louw-Nida did not include an inner desire to sin, the current English idiom does. Did our Savior feel an inner desire to do something “wrong or unwise,” i.e. sinful? Because of the change in the receptor language, we should probably translate this term as “testing,” where Jesus was being pressured from an outside source to commit a sinful action, but felt no desire to do so. If we say that Jesus felt an inner desire to do any of these three actions, then by Jesus’ own high moral standards, he is guilty of sin. Our well-meaning congregants need to see the connection because too often they have made a direct correlation between this passage and the book of Hebrews to draw a false comfort which was never meant to be understood the way that they have. This brings us to the second issue with our passage. 

The Testing of Jesus Is Not about How to Defeat Satan

Sermons on Matthew 4:1-11 often link to Hebrews 4:15 — “For we do not have 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.” We want to know that Jesus was human, and we make a philosophical mistake in assuming that “to err is human” (see Alexander Pope’s Essay on Criticism). However, this is theologically mistaken. To err, i.e. to sin, is not human. Humans were created in a state of innocence. Jesus, as the perfect man, was man as man was intended to be: without sin. The same issue plagues this particular verse: πειρασθῆναι is being fallaciously interpreted with a later semantic range that the original term was never meant to uphold. Instead, we should see this example of Christ here in Hebrews 4 as being tested from outside and yet without sin. This gives us a stronger urge and example to desire only the pure life God has for us, and not the sin that the world offers through devilish means. 

However, I suggest that this is not the main point of this passage. Instead, through an examination of Jesus and Satan’s conversation, one can see that this passage has nothing to do with “us” as current readers, or even the original audience and their struggles with testing. 

Satan is trying to ascertain whether or not Jesus is the Son of God. This is what the greater context of the passage shows. In Matthew 3:17, God asserts at Christ’s baptism, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” Immediately Jesus is driven into the wilderness by the Spirit  to test this new divine claim, whether or not Jesus is indeed the Son of God. That is why the first two conditionals are challenges to Christ to prove whether or not He is the Son of God, to prove it by taking certain actions. Jesus, however, validates his divine Sonship through his perfect obedience to the Father revealed in the Law of Moses. The third temptation, however, is conspicuous. It shouts at the reader in the original Greek, and for the attentive reader, you can see the issue in English versions as well. Where the first two temptations are offered as first-class conditionals, the third is offered in a third-class conditional, with a subjunctive verb, and the use of ἐὰν. The third test also is offered backward, starting with the apodosis, and ending with the protasis. For English readers, the “then” statement is offered before the “if” of the conditional. With Jesus’ status as the Son of God proven, Satan now seeks to test the quality of Jesus’ divine Sonship. And that brings us to the last interpretive issue the temptation narrative.  

Jesus Is the Son of God Who Succeeded where Adam, the first Son, Failed

In the third and final temptation in Matthew 4, Satan wants to know whether or not Jesus is willing to take his divine inheritance early. Jesus does not debate whether or not Satan is able to deliver the kingdoms of the world into his hands. However, the Scriptures show us (particularly in Psalms 2 and 8) that this is the inheritance of God’s Son and divine king. What Satan is offering is to receive this inheritance early, without going through the suffering and rejection that Jesus will experience over his three-year ministry. Jesus refuses and proves to be the faithful Son of God, who perfectly obeys the Father, and waits for his Father’s timing for his own exaltation. This is in direct contrast to Adam, the first Son of God (in human terms, see Luke 3:38) who refused to wait for God to reveal more and more to him, and took the fruit to eat of it so that he might be like God. Instead of seeking to understand Christ in light of the failures of the first generation, we should seek to understand Christ as the greater Son of God who overcame the testing of Satan in his willingness to wait on his Father’s vindication.

Conclusion

After a brief analysis of some issues in Matthew 4:1-11, we can see a few important takeaways. The first idea is that continued proficiency in translation is a necessity, especially in light of the constant evolution in receptor languages, which requires us to question if our previous translations are still relevant. In the case of Matthew 4:1-11, our previous understanding can be setting up believers for unorthodox ideas. The second idea we should walk away with is the need to observe syntactic constructions. If we overlook Satan’s conditionals, in light of the context of Matthew 3, we will too easily miss the point of “if you [Jesus] are the Son of God.” Lastly, we see the need to continue to pay attention to the historical context and to apply it consistently. Honor-shame culture is a deep pool, and it can be difficult to navigate. However, the hard part of inheritance practices has been well documented in other Gospel accounts, and it is our job to make all of the other applications that are fitting. These three ideas are basic hermeneutical principles: translate effectively, observe syntactic relationships, maintain an eye on historical context. By practicing these trusted biblical study methods, we can come to a better understanding of the impeccable obedience of our Lord, which made him capable of being our sacrifice for sins. 


Donald C. McIntyre, MAR, is a Ph.D. Student in Old Testament at Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit PA.

Share
Written by
Tavis Bohlinger

Dr. Tavis Bohlinger is Editor-in-Chief of the Logos Academic Blog and Creative Director at Reformation Heritage Books. He holds a PhD from Durham University and writes across multiple genres, including academia, poetry, and screenwriting. He lives in Grand Rapids with his wife and three children.

View all articles
30 comments
  • By “Jesus’ own high moral standards,” I assume you are referring to passages such as Mt 5:28.

  • I thought the first class conditional assumes the condition, meaning that Satan was not questioning that Jesus was the Son of God, but SINCE you are the Son of God, turn these stones into bread. Satan knew who Jesus was. The demons knew who Jesus was. Maybe the author didn’t word this right.

    • Correct, it assumes true however, it assumes for the sake of the argument. That slight nuance however does not imply that Satan believes it. Though he may have, the use of the conditional does not demand it, and we should be sensitive to this nuance. The grammar does not require that Satan believe it only that he is setting up his proposition in such a manner. Furthermore, because of Satan’s character in scripture as the deceiver, it is best not to assume any of his statements as factual. Therefore I worded it to reflect that I was keeping the option open that he did not necessarily believe it to be true, though he may have; what is clear in the grammar is that Divine Sonship “is true for the sake of the argument” Thank you for taking the time to read, I hope you will also read the second article that should be forthcoming.

      • Thank you for writing this! If I could ask… I believe Satan knew who Jesus was. Knowing this, notice the devil left out part of God’s recent divine revelation: beloved, from “this is My beloved Son!” Jesus had the love of the Father in Him, was in the world and not of it (1John 2:15-17 mirrors this) and does not have the lusts nor it’s expression as we battle. But this testing seems to strike at God’s character of goodness and The faithfulness of His word: are you who God says you are? Do you believe it? Receive it? And in light of this, do you submit yourself to God’s love and will? By intentionally leaving this out, could this be as the original sin where God’s goodness was questioned?

  • I would personally just like to thank everyone that took time to read this. I understand how valuable time is as a bivocational pastor and full time student. The fact that you took time out of your day to read this article means a lot to me, and I pray that you were edified by it.

  • I read the article with great interest to see what translational errors he was correcting or what exegetical errors he was exposing. I am still waiting, since everything that he said we already know. Read the Book of Concord or Pieper’s Systematic Theology. We addressed these issues 100-500 years ago. He’s late to the party.

    • Hey brother, thanks for pointing out other sources. Though these issues may have been addressed in Pieper’s Systematic Theology, I have never heard of that work before, or seen it referenced before now. And as a Baptist, the book of Concord is not familiar to my general ecclesiastical setting. Though these issues may have been addressed 100-500 years ago in your tradition, it seems these problems are persistent, and therefore continue a need to be addressed in a way that is accessible to other faiths than that of the Lutherans (Book of Concord) and those who may be familiar with Pieper. Most Systematics used in todays seminaries do not reference Pieper, and if he makes this argument, it may be to their own detriment. But thank you for reading. The bulk of my assertions that I have found to be “new” however will be in the second article, and I hope that you will not have to be waiting long to see those. Thank you for pointing out those documents, since they will help me in further research. This article was meant to deal more with our current understanding among our average church goer, and be presented in a way that helps those who are not familiar with your sources to see the need for a view towards impeccability. I am glad that your tradition does not seem to have these issues, but they are still far too common among mainstream evangelicals, and Baptists (my own tradition) in particular. Thank you for taking the time to read and respond; it means a lot to me.

    • The author’s point at the start of the discussion was that the English word ‘temptation’ can convey an inaccurate understanding of the underlying Koine to a contemporary American audience. The common modern understanding of temptation is based in desire rather than mere opportunity. I am ‘tempted’ to eat a piece of chocolate cake, not by its mere presence, but because I like chocolate cake. I might seek it out if it were not present. The topic of accurately translating usages and implications for contemporary American English speakers is, I say as a Lutheran, independent of what was known or written in 16th century German. It is also far broader than a single word in a single passage. It is rather a cautionary note for anyone drawing on some English text of a passage (KJV, RSV, NIV, or any other V or P) to illustrate for a contemporary American audience some theological or pastoral point. Very few biblical terms, Greek, Hebrew, or borrowed, have any single word translation that conveys the identical meaning of the original text to all hearers, even if we, as sinful humans, were able to discern that original meaning without imposing a personal world view. To me the more important aspect of the ‘temptation’ is not the differentiation of the logical structure. Rather, I see in it that I, a representative of Adam, having fasted forty days, would most likely have wanted to turn the stones into chocolate cake. My Adamic nature would have been tempted in the modern sense, even though the Messiah was not and my nature as a believer opposes it. Certainly, nearly any modern politician, would have been attracted by the offer of the whole world – just think of the ‘greater good.’ I sometimes wonder, . . .. ????

  • “Satan is trying to ascertain whether or not Jesus is the Son of God”.

    Sorry, no. There’s nothing in the “temptation” story that indicates that Satan does not already know who Jesus is. The testing is to see if Jeusus will remain faithful to a commission that both Satan and Jesus know God has given Jesus.

    See my article on this at

    https://www.academia.edu/3604822/Temptation_peirasmos_of_Jesus

    Jeffrey

    • Hey brother, I appreciate your arguments. As we read current understanding on the use of conditional statements, what we find is that the conditionals in first class are assumed true for the sake of the argument, but do not actually imply that the assertion is believed by the speaker. Only that the argument relies on the factuality of the assertion for the argument. Though there is no reason to believe that Satan is ignorant of Christ’s identity, there is no proof grammatically that he believes it either from the conditional with this understanding. And given Satan’s nature as a deceiver, it is best to refrain from making statements about his truthfulness. However, I think we both agree that the ultimate goal as seen in the third temptation was to ascertain his quality and faithfulness as the Son of God. Because of this I must hesitate to agree with your first assertion based on the grammatical evidence not demanding that state and Satan’s revealed character in the scriptures, but agree fully with your second assertion, and I hope that this was seen as climactic in my article. Again, thank you for taking the time to read and engage with my article, it means a lot to me; and I will be reading your article in the near future (I’m swamped this week with assignments at the close of my Summer term in PhD Studies) and hope to find it useful for my monologue paper. If it is useful, I will attempt to contact you to let you know! I hope you are staying safe in the midst of this pandemic.

      • You are neglecting the fact that here Satan is presented as an instrument of God who is implementing God’s will. And it is not clear that what is revealed in scripture about the tester’s character is that he is a deceiver, let alone one without knowledge of divine mysteries such as who Jesus has been commissioned to be. Have you looked at the parallel to Matt. 4:1-11 in B.Sanhedrin 89b? And have you read Joachim Hans Korn’s _Peirasmos; die Versuchung des Gläubingen in der griechischen Bibel_ (Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 1937)?

  • Sorry, it is not Satan but the diabolos who tempts Jesus (4:1,5,8,11). Jesus rejects him using the word “Satan”(4:10) in the same sense he rejects Peter (Matth 16:23). “Satan” in Hebrew means adversary, opponent (cf Num 22:22,23), or prosecutor, attorney like in Job 1. Translating diabolos in modern term rather means devil. The devil can occur as Satan, but Satan is not the devil.

  • So, was Christ tempted, or tested? Aren’t they the same? “If thou be the Son of God,” sounds temptational to me.

  • Thank you Brother Donald for your article. I recently was studying Matthew’s recording of Satan’s attempt to lure Jesus to honor him rather than glorify Yahweh. This is a very complex situation worthy of much study and learning about Jesus Christ and Satan. I believe that Satan is attempting to sabotage Jesus’s ministry, even though he doesn’t completely understand God’s complete plan for ministry and eventual goal for redemption of God’s relationship with human beings through the death, burial and resurrection. Psalm 22 seems to suggest that Satan and the “bulls of Bashan” were seemingly celebrating at the cross during Jesus’ cruficixion, thinking he was successful in killing Jesus. However, Jesus fooled him with the Father’s divinely secret plan, that is now our (all humans) redemption from all sin, past, present, and future, as well as having a divine relationship through the Spirit as believers. Thanks for your article that is helpful for understanding more about God and His Kingdom!!!
    Daniel Marrow

    • Hey Dan, thank you for the kind words and the encouragement. It means a lot to me that you have taken time from a busy day to interact with my article. Though I am not sure of the Psalm 22 point you are referencing, I am actually in the midst of studying Psalm 91 (Satan’s quoted scripture) and its implications. I pray that you are doing well and staying safe during this pandemic, and I am glad that you found it helpful, at the end of the day, that is all I can ask for.

      • Donald, where did you find that Psalm 91 is satans most quoted scripture? I happen to love Psalm 91 & have been reading it a lot. My best friend who saved me at 35 used 91 to make it through the Vietnam war. As many were dying left & right of him he made it home.
        I would personally love any information on Psalm 91?

        • I don’t believe I said most quoted scripture by Satan, I believe I stated it was the psalm most often used in what is known as Apotropaism. There has been a wealth of information written on this idea since the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls since the Psalm is quoted with the “exorcism scrolls.” If you do a search on 11Q11, for the 11th Cave at Qumran, scroll 11, and one for apotropaism, as well as psalm 91, you will quickly find more than you can sort through! However, I intend to have another article written on this issue by the end of the week (I am currently working on the exegetical paper for a course now, due today, which will serve as the basis for that work.) I would be more than happy to send you my longer paper. Feel free to find me on facebook at Chris McIntyre.

  • 1. I found your article an interesting read. Do I agree with you, some yes and some not at all.
    2. I`m a nobody, 5 yrs college, and my only degree is living the Life of “extreme afflictions” some so hard I should have been dead by 20. Instead Jesus Christ had been waiting on me. He saved me at 35. Although I did write a non-fiction book, The Great Rescue. Is what will happen if one allows Jesus Christ to work through their life.
    3. I do not have the vocabulary that you guys have & it`s not needed.
    4. If your not to arrogant here is a little insight from the Lord. Many of you sound like the Pharisees!
    5. From a disabled guy who most people will not give the time of day to. You can have the best vocabulary, the most knowledge, and the most of everything. But if You guys can not LOVE each other and respect each others thoughts. You have NOTHING!!
    And as far as Baptist, Lutheran, or any other religion. There will be no line in Heaven for Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecost, or any other religion. Just those who have Loved others as Jesus did!
    Many blessing gentlemen.

    • Hey brother, I am glad that you are still with us and loving the Lord. Thank you for taking the time to read my article it means a lot to me, I know that everyone who has could have been doing something else. I am glad that you found somethings that you agree with, and I understand that there will always be some who will disagree. I find that even some of the more spirited debate is helpful to a point, so long as we are all doing it with a spirit to grow closer to the truth. I pray that this was everyones intention who did raise questions, and I am thankful for their assistance in locating additional resources for study. I would be interested in your views as well (and I think that the education and vocabulary though helpful is not the extent of how God speaks to and uses His people). I pray that you are doing well and staying safe, and again, thank you for reading. It really has been encouraging to me.

      • My story is much like Abraham, Joseph, David, and some Job. Paralyzed for 120 days in 1958 at age 4, polio left extensive muscle atrophy on my right side, bullied throughout school years, and told I would never amount to much.

        After my mother attempted suicide 4 times during my senior year of high school God was not ready for her. She lived to 82. Following year my father committed suicide after their bitter divorce. I turn to drugs at 19, but Jesus Christ had dropped a bag of golf balls in my path. Even though Scott had NO use of his right arm, shoulder, & hand he won his age group in the Punt, Pass, & Kick contest at 8, caught a baseball like Willie Mayes(bread basket), and shot a basketball as Wilt Chamberlin {granny shot which Scott was shooting 3/poniters & making 75%}.
        Jesus took a bag of golf balls & taught me discipline, He taught me real hard work, and by 30 I had lowered my handicap to an 8. Golf was not my path, but knowing Jesus Christ along with becoming a Warrior Servant became my life.
        Once I turned my life over to Jesus, He gave me an incredible job career @ Verizon in Management, retired at 49 with 26.5 years, and debut free by age 54. From 2004-2019 I became my Pastors right-hand man 2004-2019 at the same time I was visiting kids throughout the Tampa Bay area. I logged a little over 5000-hours Volunteering at our local hospital, courtroom, elementary school reading programs, domestic violence, and many other environments.
        Serving has been my life & Jesus gave me this incredible instinct to read dog behavior & I love it. I wrote a book in August 2019, “The Great Rescue”. A non-fiction book about what God will do if you choose to walk His path in life.
        If you would like a copy let me know.

        I enjoy reading your words.
        Scott

        • Hello Scott.
          Amazing testimony. God is awesome. I enjoyed reading your post. I would love to read your book. How can I get it?

  • Donald:
    You come across to me as a genuine truth seeker. You do have tools and knowledge that many of us do not.

    Moving away from grammatical stuff, and getting into theological, could you write about something relevant to the topic but more puzzling?:

    Some groups think that Jesus was “similar to His brothers (us)”, but not identical.

    I guess what they try to say is that Jesus was more in a pre fall Adam status, so the testing could be fair (similar conditions).

    To an extent it makes sense, because:

    1 Jesus is described by an Angel as a saintly being (meaning not of fallen nature).
    2 John the baptist said that he was to recognize the lamb of God by the remaining of the Holy Spirit on that person that came down to. (impossible to happen if a person had any part of a fallen nature).
    3 Some think that Jesus is the New Temple of God, where the fullness of Deity dwells bodily, and that such Temple is not of this creation.

    So based on some thrusts found in the whole counsel of God, some have come to the conclusion that God put the whole zygote in Mary’s womb, for that would be the only way to have:
    Jesus being saint before birth and after birth.
    Jesus being able to have the Holy Spirit remain on Him after that Holy Spirit came down.
    Jesus fulfilling the requirement of being a perfect Lamb for the atonement.
    etc.

    Seems to me that you have the mental attributes to explore the topic objectively, looking for the facts, and facing the reality of the situation without dogmatism blur critical thinking.

    If you could make a study and share with us about Jesus particular nature as a human (meaning the possibility of God having sent Him in a pre fall nature) would be great.

    Blessings.

  • […] Part 1 of this series dealt with understanding various issues surrounding the testing of Christ in Matthew 4:1-11 in terms of translation, syntax, and historical context. This present survey will examine the same passage in literary context, particularly Jesus’ use of Deuteronomy, as an exercise in intertextuality. You can read Part 1 here. […]

  • Great article, very challenging to current thoughts on that issue. I agree that Jesus was being tested and not tempted in this specific incidence. Yes, there seem to be no real language suggesting that Jesus had to struggle with the choice or with His response.
    However, some disagreement I do have that I am wrestling with is with the Hebrews reference you brought up. Now I understand that his is not an article on that passage, but you did bring it up. 🙂
    How can we have a High Priest that can fully sympathize with our struggles by having been a part of all of them if he was never actually internally tempted.
    I would defer to the garden struggle, the wrestling between the flesh and the spirit on a choice Jesus had to either go to the cross or not. That was definitely an internal struggle and temptation to allow the cup to pass. So, I would say that Jesus did have temptation internally, for that struggle was real.
    However, I do agree that the Desert trials were not that kind of temptation, great article and appreciate your insights.

  • I think it best to rely on the Greek idea of the word for temptation and not the modern. Satan is an “attempter” trying to tempt us into actions contrary to God’s best. James 1:14  “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.” Satan attempted to create a desire for the temptation, not just expose us Jesus to it, however he didn’t succeed. Jesus didn’t possess lust for the things Satan used. He was still tempted yet refused to be carried away and therefore was not enticed because He had no lust to connect with the tempation. If the temptation has no place to land, Satan moves on or tries something else.

  • Hello Scott.
    Amazing testimony. God is awesome. I enjoyed reading your post. I would love to read your book. How can I get it?

Written by Tavis Bohlinger
theLAB