Tackling Tradition 35 : Matthew 4 (Temptation Narrative)

 It isn’t uncommon for someone to interpret the temptation narratives in a manner that paints Satan as a moral agent seeking to get Christ “off ministry.”  I recently ran across an Instagram post in which the speaker said that was the case (which is true) but framed the temptation as an attempt to get Christ to do things that would not be congruent with the nature of His ministry. 

There is certainly truth to that, but there!: a bit more to it.   Remember — these 3 temptations function like headers for a topical outline of the Gospels in which they appear.    In addition, in Matthew, the temptation narrative introduces the Sermon On the Mount.   In addition, if the Sermon On the Mount is analogous to Moses & Sinai, these 3 incidents are analogous to Abraham journeying his way through from Ur to Canaan & to his sojournings in Canaan. 

Abraham, as the 3rd transitional prophet, holds the offices of Prophet, Priest, & King but is not the Redeemer - Mediator.  Incidentally, the baptism narrative can be rightly construed as a reference to how Christ is like Noah.    That which precedes it tells something about Christ is like Adam.    When we see him in the temple & constantly reminding His audience that to obey is better than sacrifice & lawsuiting Israel while teaching about the Kingdom, we are reminded that He is the Living Torah & is like Samuel who was there when both Saul & then David became King.  When we see Him during Holy Week, He is very like John the Baptist.   I would also say that His post-resurrection ministry is tells us something about the last transitional prophet to whom I have occasionally referred as David.    

In the first temptation (stones to bread) He is challenged to change stones into bread autonomously (in an invidious sense) on his own terms.   In Matthew, the stones/bread relationship appears again in Chapter 7 where it’s about refusing to live life characterized by the angry religious bigotry so prevalent at the time.  

The challenge isn’t to do something contrary, ie antithetical, to the nature of his ministry.   Rather, it’s a challenge is to do something that is congruent with the nature of his ministry & yet also congruent with the terms of the challenger.    

In addition, Satan here isn’t just an individual.  Rather, he also represents the villians in the story - the majority of the Sanhedrin, the Roman Occupiers, the Zealots hell bent on stoking the hate & bigotry machine.   

This particular challenge is a challenge to the office of Prophet & the 3 uses of the Law.   The Sanhedrin was in the habit of giving serpents & stones to people who wanted bread.  They weren’t up for paracleting people whom they viewed as swine.  The challenge is to water down His teaching in Chapter 7 enough to placate the Sanhedrin & Zealots & adopt a POV that was more congruent with their ideas — ideas that frequently conducted to works righteousness, and in the Zealots’ case, violence.    The Prophetic office applies peculiarly to them, insofar as prophets often arise from the People, like Zealots. 

His reply that man doesn’t live by bread alone is a rebuke of living life in a manner in which the ends justify the means, which is how works righteousness operates.  Motives matter, a theme taken up in Matthew 5. 

These themes appear in the next two temptations.  Temptation 2 is on the Temple Mount.  Its focus on Ecclesiastical Authority.   The 3rd is about Civil Authority, the Kingly Office.   These kingdoms already belonged to Christ.  He is also Chief High Priest.  There’s no need to draw attention to Himself.  The ends do not justify the means. 

O LORD, Hear our prayer(s)!