William Loader
Lent 1 26 February Matthew 4:1-11
What could be more fitting than to begin the season of Lent with this passage. The passage is rich in images and ideas and lends itself to be extended in so many directions. It is probably good from the start to note some directions which would be a long way from where it appears to be heading. One is to reduce it to a lesson about facing temptations in the area of private morality: I shall resist the temptation to swear or watch X rated videos or some other such trivia. The little world of little things is not the focus of the passage. There is an immorality about such morality because it neglects the weightier matters (see Matt 23:23!).
Even trying to hear the passage in its first
century setting confronts us with a rich variety of possibilities. One is to see
Jesus in the wilderness, the outback, living off what nature provides, almost an
idealistic, paradisal picture, ministered to by angels. Locusts and wild honey,
John’s fare, were, if anything delicacies, not the strange diet they are to us. It
fits well with the Q sayings of Jesus about trusting providence in nature, as John the
Baptist did. Consider the flowers of the field or the birds; trust (Matt 6:25-34).
Before rubbishing this as naive idealism (or
suppressing this thought!), let us, at least, note its alternative character. It is an
alternative lifestyle which implicitly protests against the common lifestyle of the day
(our day, too). Much of Jesus’ behaviour had this kind of protest element to it: his
abandonment of home and possessions and his questioning of the priority they generally
received. The itinerant lifestyle enjoined by Jesus on his group of followers was not
sustainable once the movement grew; nor was the idealised diet and living off
nature’s provisions. That accepted, is something then lost which need not be lost,
when such practice is left behind? There is a sense in which protest against norms is of
the essence of Christianity (and terribly difficult to sustain when it, itself, sets the
norms, but then even more urgent - to protest against itself!).
Perhaps the above approach matches Mark’s
brief account (1:12-13) better, which does not imply fasting and has more of nature about
it - though the animals may have been thought of as a source of threat and danger.
Mark’s Jesus wins the battle against Satan (it was not a battle against the animals!)
for God and God’s reign. This is a significant part of the good news (1:14-15).
Matthew follows Mark’s order at this point but, like Luke (4:1-13), incorporates the
account which he found in Q. In Matthew the focus is primarily on Jesus as the obedient
Son - this is also why God was well pleased with him, as the voice at the baptism had just
announced (3:17). The quotations from Deuteronomy in Jesus’ responses, the location,
the time (40 days) all recall Israel’s time in the wilderness when Israel failed.
This Jesus, already linked typologically with Israel in the birth narratives, stands in
stark contrast to Israel. He continues to fulfil all righteousness.
The sequence of temptations is different here
from what we find in Luke. What Luke has second, the temptation to accept from the devil
dominion over the nations, comes as the climax of the three temptations in Matthew. What
the devil offered will be given by the Father, as 28:18 indicates: that power will be
exercised through the teaching of all nations (28:19-20). Matthew creates another
significant echo of the scene when he expands the mockery of Jesus on the cross. The
mockers repeat the phrase, ‘If you are Son of God..’ (27:40). The parallel is
instructive. Jesus refuses to exercise the power which Matthew assumes he has, because he
remains obedient to his call, his mission. Matthew makes the same point quite dramatically
in the arrest scene, where Jesus reminds his supporters that he could summon legions of
angels to his aid, but chooses not to (26:53). Matthew assumes the alternative was there
(we may not); but the major focus is what Jesus did choose: to follow the path of
obedience, the path of servanthood.
In Matthew the focus of the temptations is
clearly vocational rather than a lesson about private morality. They are a symbolic
testing of Jesus of a kind not uncommon in the accounts of the lives of great heroes in
the ancient world. Take time out to face who you are and what is your calling. Face up to
the alternatives! In Lent, in particular, we are reminded of the importance of doing so
for ourselves. This is something not just for heroes. What agenda drives us?
While Matthew’s major focus is on Jesus as
faithful in contrast to Israel, the narrative invites further reflection. You could read
it as a lesson in christology. Jesus says no to certain models which might have been
options (for christology at that time; also for Jesus, himself, and for any who sought to
execute God’s will with success). One is to gain followers through stunts/miracles, a
common option in christology, then and now (against which many New Testament writers
protest, while not denying miracles; see Matt 7:21-23; John 2:23-25; 1 Cor 13). It is very
much alive today. Another is to take the military option - achieve dominion by force or at
least achieve rule, the opposite of weakness and failure. Would the third temptation have
been heard as a commentary on the revolutionary movements of the day? Is it the approach
of Peter who confesses Jesus, Christ, and then immediately rebukes Jesus for contemplating
suffering and death (16:13-23; Mark 8:27-31; John 6:14-15)? Is the food supply miracle
another option? Certainly the place is significant in Israel’s hope and especially in
the first century where would-be saviours and liberators retraced the great epic of
crossing the Jordan and entering the land, often with fantasies of miracles of manna and
the like, but also often connected with predictions of wonders at the temple itself. Such
traditions and expectations colour the gospel accounts of Jesus’ ministry. We can be
sure that many would have listened to the fantasy of Jesus’ great trial with such
things in mind.
Like a parable, a fantasy narrative such as the
temptation story invites elaboration and creative reflection. Its historical truth is
doubtless based on the conviction that Jesus must have faced such an ordeal and did have
connections with John and the wilderness lifestyle. The narrative has been a favourite
place of reflection on options facing every age: the will to power (OK; but whose power?
what kind of power? what for?); the materialism (usually extrapolated from the temptation
to turn stones into bread - a distant connection); the spirituality of the sensational.
Ultimately the focus is what it is in Matthew: doing the will of God alone and saying no to other gods. But doing the will of God needs unpacking: what is God’s will? What is God about? What then am I about? There are plenty of spiritualities, including within Christianity. Which is the way to go? This calls for critical, theological reflection, because ultimately it depends on who and what we understand God to be. Within Christianity we find all the options, including those attributed in the passage to the devil. - and more!
Epistle: Lent 1: 26 February Romans 5:12-19