The Testing of Jesus

This week as I have been doing my lectio divina on Jesus’ temptation in Matthew 4:1-11, I have made brief forays into the other Gospels to compare the accounts, which are different from each other. Mark 1:12-13 is very brief with no specifications of the nature of the tests. But Mark says that the Spirit “drove” Jesus into the wilderness, while Matthew 4:1 and Luke 4:1 say that the Spirit “led” Jesus into the wilderness. John’s Gospel includes no account of Jesus’ temptation.

We typically call this the “temptation” of Jesus, which is a legitimate translation of the Greek word peirasmos. However, in other contexts (both within and outside of the New Testament) it is properly translated “testing” or “proving.” Using “testing” would seem consistent with the use of hasatan in Job 1-2 as a sort of prosecuting attorney bringing charges against Job and “accuser of our comrades” (NRSV) [“our brethren” RSV,KJV] in Revelation 12:10. Thus, the testing of Jesus may not be so much about tempting him to commit some sin as about challenging his qualifications for the redemptive mission on which he was about to embark.

With that thought in mind, I compared the different order of Jesus’ tests in Matthew and Luke. Matthew has them: stone to bread, leap from pinnacle of temple, worship Satan to have the kingdoms of the world. Luke reverses the second and third so have them: stone to bread, worship Satan to have the kingdoms of the world, leap from pinnacle of temple. I am not at all concerned that this detracts from either the accuracy or significance of the accounts. One curiosity here is that, whatever this was, Jesus experienced it alone (except for the wild beasts and angels, of course). So unless you posit a direct mystical revelation to Matthew and Luke, Jesus must have told them or other disciples about the experience for them to record it in their Gospels. Speculating on that will scramble your brain indefinitely.

However, I am interested in the distinct emphases of Matthew and Luke with this variation in the order of the tests. As I have been focusing on Matthew this week, I have a speculation of the order there. I can’t say that I have seen any scholarly opinion on this, but then I haven’t preached on this passage for six years and am not giving too much attention to commentaries lately. I would, however, be interested in responses from any who read this.

Starting with the hypothesis that the encounter between Jesus and Satan was more about his qualifications for his impending redemptive mission than about luring him into some specific sin, this explanation of Matthew’s sequence has emerged in my mind. Twice Satan challenged Jesus to prove he was the Son of God, qualified for the upcoming mission, by using his divine power. Twice Jesus refused. Is it possible then that Satan is implying to Jesus, “Since you must not be the Son of God, not having used that power, why don’t you worship me and get the power I can give you to rule the world?” Mind you, I am not offering this as an interpretation, only as a pondering to which I invite responses.

I am posting this as an essay in my Writing Workshop rather than my Pilgrim Path explorations of my personal spiritual journey. I haven’t identified what this exploration might (or might not) mean for my own relationship with Jesus. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, only that it’s not clear to me at this point. Maybe someone’s response will prompt my awareness of such a connection.