Matthew 4:1-11

The Conflict with Evil

Matthew had almost set the stage for the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. There was one more point that he wanted to make, however, that would serve to provide further backdrop to the whole ministry: the on-going engagement of Jesus with the power of evil. 

Matthew 4:1-11     The Temptation of Jesus

In his discussion of Jesus’ temptations, Matthew relied heavily on the Gospel of Mark, and on the source that he shared with Luke. The description is highly imaginative, created by the earlier author of the source shared by Matthew and Luke. Though placed at the beginning of Jesus’ public life, it was intended to express in graphic terms the temptations that Jesus would face as his life unfolded. The context was the clash of the two kingdoms – God’s Kingdom and the Kingdom of Herod, the vassal of Rome, symbolic of all earthly kingdoms (and, colluding with both, the Jewish Sanhedrin). The dialogue was heavy with references to the period of Israel’s journey through the wilderness of Sinai, on its way from oppression in Egypt to liberation in the Promised Land of Israel. Like Israel before him, Jesus, the son of God, was tempted to betray his destiny.

The vocabulary of devil, demons, Satan, Beelzebul and, along with them, of angels, principalities powers, cherubim and seraphim, was a factor of Jewish folklore, rather than of theology. People of the time had little knowledge of natural laws governing cosmology, psychology and medical issues. What they could not explain, they tended to attribute to the agency of superhuman agents. Particularly with regard to evil, they recognised that much of the world’s evil seemed to be bigger than the malice of individual people. Much of the imagery (and words) had come from Babylonian beliefs. Within the folklore, many of the concepts had evolved and changed their meanings over time.

The temptation was directed to something more than the satisfaction of Jesus’ hunger. One stone, turned into a loaf of bread, would have been enough to meet Jesus’ need. In the context of the clash of kingdoms, it may have been the temptation to resolve the people’s hunger and oppression, irrespective of their cooperation or personal conversion. Though there would be talk, later in the narrative, of reversal of fortunes, of the radical relief of the poor in spirit and those who mourn, Jesus’ approach was essentially a call to conversion and inner change. God’s Kingdom would be a kingdom of free persons, attuned to the heart of God and acting in accord with God’s righteousness.

In itself, the temptation was not to do anything obviously wrong or against the law. In fact, Jesus would later feed crowds in the desert [14:13-21], but his ministry went beyond that. His feeding them served, primarily, to illustrate the blessings of the Kingdom (which would not eventuate without their cooperation). As well as feeding them, he would teach them.

In contrast, the approach of Rome was to quieten (and sweeten) the Roman masses with “bread and circuses”, without educating them to any sense of their own dignity, or removing the causes of their poverty and oppression. It served to distract them from engaging with the problems of systemic oppression.

Usually, Jesus’ healings flowed from people’s faith and trust in the Kingdom, and served to sharpen the hope for change in both the healed and the observers. Jesus’ intention was the more difficult and dangerous task of inspiring and empowering a general commitment to God’s Kingdom and its values. But the temptation to the easy option was always there.

Probably, Matthew followed the order of the common source he shared with Luke, placing this temptation as the second (rather than Luke’s third).

The devil had learnt his lesson. Since Jesus had rejected the first temptation by quoting from the Scriptures, this time, the devil justified the temptation by citing a scriptural text.

The location of the temple in Jerusalem was significant. Jerusalem would be the place of Jesus’ suffering and death. 

Again, the context of the clash of kingdoms is important. Such a “heavenly descent” into a crowded temple courtyard might serve as a spectacular, but cheap, way of securing the acclaim and support of people without asking for real, and costly, conversion of heart.

Prescinding from the purpose of any spectacular descent, to trust in God’s angels was hardly a temptation to do something wrong in itself. In fact, angels would soon wait on Jesus to satisfy his hunger. What mattered was to act according to God's ways – namely, that Jesus wait for, and listen attentively to, the will and direction of God, and not perform otherwise neutral undertakings on his own initiative.

The providential care of God does not normally change situations nor alter the normal chain of cause and effect to suit the wants or desires of God’s creatures. Rather, God is present in all situations, whether normal or chaotic or in-between, revealing, inspiring, calling, empowering and sustaining. God "makes all things work to the good of those who [trust in] love". Neither God, nor God’s angels, protected Jesus from death: they did not bear him up on their hands. God did empower Jesus, however, to face into death and, in so doing, to redeem the world.

This was the first of several mountain-top experiences that Matthew would recount. The location served to highlight the importance of each event. In the Hebrew tradition, mountains were favoured places of encounter with God.

Though encountering God was not a factor of this first occasion, the location served to emphasise the significance of the options facing Jesus: worship Satan by opting for the splendour and power of the kingdoms of the world, or worship God. There was no middle ground.

The temptation assumed that the devil controlled the kingdoms of the world. The clash of kingdoms was brought into the open. The choice was clear: to choose human power, glory and apparent effectiveness, or to opt for God’s way of love and respect for human dignity (and the surrender of coercive and manipulative power consequent on it).

Later in the narrative, when Jesus encountered the determined opposition of the various Jerusalem power brokers – a committed group of priests, scribes and Pharisees – he may have felt the temptation simply to destroy them. At his arrest in Gethsemane, he said to one of his disciples: “Put your sword back into its place.  All those who take up sword will perish by sword.  Do you think that I could not ask my Father and he would provide me with more than twelve legions of angels?  But then how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that things would inevitably happen this way?” [Matthew 26.52-54]. Jesus would not adopt the world’s way, the way of violence.

In Matthew’s mind, the temptations that confronted Jesus challenged his own community of disciples as well, just as they confront and challenge the Church of the twenty-first century.

The Church, too, can be easily tempted to opt for its own comfort and security by taking too much care of its members and protecting them from the challenges involved in growing up: namely, developing their own consciences, enduring criticism and grappling with the possibilities of systemic change. It can hope that God will adjust situations in its favour, rather than face reality, search for God’s presence, listen to God’s call and be open to challenge assumptions and accustomed ways of doing things. It can shirk the pain of change. 

It can adopt the ways of worldly kingdoms and seek popularity by means of numbers, the media, personality cults and entertainment, rather than follow Christ along the path that leads to the cross. 

It can use power to stifle criticism or loyal dissent, relying on threat and sanction, rather than on the intrinsic power of truth. In the past, it has cooperated with civil powers in the violent crushing of other religions or Christian churches.

In attempting to avoid the damage of scandal, Church leaders know the temptation to conceal crimes of other members, deny justice to victims, and avoid responsibility for these injustices.

The World’s Sin and Systemic Evil

Behind the assumption that the devil controlled the kingdoms of the world seems to lie the sense that the evil done by them is greater than the individual malice of the participants: some evil superhuman power is at work, consciously or unconsciously working through humans.

The assumption holds some truth. However, it needs to be approached carefully. Human kingdoms, and lesser human communities, are not thoroughly evil themselves. They allow much good to happen. The constant danger is to absolutise, to demonise, and to categorise societies and communities as good or evil, right or wrong. Life is more complex. Individuals and communities are neither totally good nor totally evil. They are mixtures of both.

Both individuals and communities can be partially or totally blind to what they are doing. They can be ignorant or evasive.

Yet, the fact remains that most people would never think of doing, as individuals, what they are prepared to do as members of a community. 

• People, who love and courageously protect members of their own family, can act violently and without regret towards members of different groups, whom they label as enemies – whether the difference be ethnic, religious or national. 
• Military personnel can, under orders and without questioning, drop bombs on targets, fully knowing that citizens and children will be inevitably destroyed. 
• Political leaders, who normally would never think of deceiving, can feed the public with half-truths or untruths. 
• Members of corporations can use shady methods, or, under cover of the law, drive their competitors into poverty. 
• Family members can interact violently with each other, but never dream of acting similarly with others.
• Church members, who preach a message of love, can be totally dismissive of others’ ideas, destroy reputations, and think nothing of dividing whole congregations.

In some ways, Matthew himself succumbed to the danger of demonising others. Due largely to recent bitter disputes with members of some local synagogues, he tended to demonise continuing mainstream Judaism. He seemed to leave no room for exceptions when criticising scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees and chief priests. 

Unfortunately, Matthew’s somewhat violent polemic carried over into later Christianity and, in part, was responsible for the anti-Semitism that has been so destructive across the centuries.

The angels who took care of Jesus, given his hunger, presumably served him food. Their initiative expressed the will of God.

Though the text stated that the devil left him, the reality was that Jesus’ engagement with the evil of the world was about to begin. He would immediately address the oppression of the people of Galilee, teaching them the good news of the imminent advent of the Kingdom of the heavens, healing their sicknesses – and, in so doing, encounter the determined opposition of those in power.

Next >> Matthew 4:12-17