Matthew 4

CHAPTER IV

IV

Christ Begins His Messianic Work, Chapter 4

Christ’s Temptation in the Wilderness, 4:1–11

We have three accounts of this event. That of Luke alone is a real parallel, and that of Mark only a brief summary. Matthew could not have drawn on Luke, or Luke drawn on Matthew, judging from the two narratives. As far as Matthew is concerned, he wrote in advance of both Luke and Mark. The idea that Mark presents the original tradition on which the accounts of Matthew and Luke were based is cancelled by the other idea of the critics that Mark is the writer who introduces the detailed touches which Matthew is thought to lack. Mark simply abbreviated what Matthew had already narrated at length, adding something from oral tradition. The further questions about the nature of the Temptation and how it must be conceived are answered after the text of the narrative itself has been examined.

Matthew 4:1

1 Then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tried by the devil. Both the adverb “then” and the facts now related show the close connection of this section with the anointing just recorded. There is no reason why ἀνήχθη cannot mean, “was led up,” namely from the Ghor or depression through which the Jordan flows to a lonely spot on the neighboring mountains. If the observation is correct that in the LXX ἡἔρημος is used to designate the wilderness beyond the Jordan in distinction from ἡἔρημοςτῆςἸουδαίας, we may assume that the temptation occurred in that locality although the traditional sites should not be taken too seriously. In view of 3:16, 17, “by the Spirit,” cannot mean “by Jesus’ own spirit” but must mean by the Holy Spirit who had come upon Jesus and remained upon him permanently for his ministry. This passive verb, however, in no way expresses a reluctance on the part of Jesus to meet the tempter.

It intends to bring out the very opposite: the willingness of Jesus to do the divine will. It does even more: it wards off the idea that Jesus entered into this temptation of his own accord when at this very beginning of his ministry it might have been wise to avoid such a decisive test. We often rashly subject ourselves to temptation. Jesus was led into his ordeal by his Father’s own Spirit. And this means that the temptation had to occur, and at this very time. It was God’s own will that this mighty battle should be fought now.

The remarkable combination ought to be noted: God’s Spirit and the devil, ὑπὸτοῦΠνεύματος—ὑπὸτοῦδιαβόλου. The one bestows all his power upon the human nature of Jesus, the other at once puts this power to a supreme test. In a strange way God’s will and the devil’s will meet in a tremendous clash. We may take it that Satan knew all about this man Jesus, miraculously conceived and born by Mary and then living so long and so quietly in Nazareth. As an invisible spectator he beheld what transpired after the baptism at the Jordan. So this was God’s Messiah, come to crush Satan, destroy his works, and to erect the kingdom of God among men.

At once the devil resolved to break this divine champion. He had conquered the first Adam, he would conquer the second, and that at once. Before this Jesus got under way with his work, Satan would lay him low with his old cunning. God willed that it should be so.

The infinitive πειρασθῆναι denotes purpose, and the aorist denotes completeness: to be tested to the finish. The devil was to exert the full extent of his power, God offering no restraint. The verb itself is really a vox media, “to try,” “to test,” “to put to the proof.” It obtains its sinister sense from the context, and because this is often evil, πειράζω has its dark connotation “to tempt,” and ὁπειράζων means “the tempter.” “By the devil” was Jesus to be tempted in a mortal test. Satan would strike in person and would not entrust the issue to a lesser agent. As regards ὁδιάβολος, really an adjective used as a noun, “the slanderer,” “the adversary,” we need not waste time by bringing in the volume of Biblical evidence which reveals “the devil” as the fallen angel Satan, the author of sin, the head of the hellish kingdom, forever opposed to God and devoted to man’s eternal ruin because of this opposition. Consult the details in C.-K., 187, etc. If no devil exists as he is described in the Bible, the whole Bible is false, and man himself is converted into his own devil.

Matthew 4:2

2 And after fasting for forty days and for forty nights he finally was hungry. This statement is the preamble to the temptation that now begins and helps to explain Satan’s first onset. By fasting for so long a time Jesus did not weaken himself for the final battle as some have suggested. It is useless to refer to the two periods of forty days spent by Moses on Sinai without food or drink (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 9:9, 18), or to the forty foodless days of Elijah while traveling to Horeb (1 Kings 19:8), or to other long fasts of ordinary men. Since the body of Jesus was wholly unaffected by sin, its power of enduring abstinence from food by far exceeds ours. An idea of partial fasting, living without ordinary food due to wandering in the desert, is wholly shut out by Luke 4:2: “he did eat nothing in those days.” Matthew writes: “afterward (ὕστερον) he was hungry”; and Luke: “and when they were completed (the days), he hungered.”

This long fast should not be regarded as a preparation for the coming temptation. We nowhere read that Jesus fasted and prayed. This is not a retirement of Jesus such as he at other times sought for communion with God. Jesus did not spend these forty days in the happy enjoyment of the good pleasure of his Father and thus forgot all about food. He was led up into the mountainous wilderness for quite a different purpose, namely, “to be tempted by the devil.” Mark uses ἐκβάλλει, “he is thrown out into the desert,” and then adds that he was there πειραζόμενοςὑπὸτοῦΣατανᾶ, “being tempted by Satan,” namely during the entire time which he spent in the desert. This durative participle after ἦν does not indicate purpose: “in order to be tempted,” and thus the temptation should not be restricted to the three attacks at the end of the forty days.

Luke also has this present participle: πειραζόμενοςὑπὸτοῦδιαβόλου. Since Luke has it after ἤγετο, if he had purpose in mind and thus only the three fully recorded temptations, he would have employed the infinitive or a purpose clause. During the entire forty days Jesus endured the temptation of the devil, and this experience caused him to forget all about food. He gained no breathing spell whatever to allow his mind to turn to the wants of his body. It is not necessary to assume that Jesus did not sleep during these forty nights; that would surely have been mentioned if it had been a fact.

We have no revelation regarding the continuous temptation. The supposition that it was so severe and of such a nature that human language is unable to convey what it was, is untenable, for then we should have a description of only the minor temptations, which is certainly not the case.

When thinking about the long days full of temptation the ὑπό phrase used by all three evangelists must be kept in mind. This is the preposition used for the personal agent with passives. Satan alone caused this long temptation. None of it arose from the thoughts and the desires in Jesus’ heart concerning either his Sonship or his Messiahship. Deductions from temptations arising in our sinful thoughts and desires are inadequate for giving us the inwardness of the temptation endured by the sinless Son of God. The fact that the hunger was not felt for just forty days, no more and no less, cannot be considered accidental. We read about other periods of precisely forty days in the Scriptures, so that it seems as though some mysterious law underlies this number.

Matthew 4:3

3 And when the tempter had come he said to him, If thou art a son of God, say that these stones shall become bread. The circumstantial participle is temporal. Not until this time did the tempter appear in person. How he launched his previous assaults is not indicated. The fact that Satan now appeared in some tangible form is generally admitted. But the supposition that all angels possess an etherial form of some kind and by this are able to appear, is unbiblical speculation, usually also ending in ascribing some tangible form even to God.

As πνεύματα angels differ from men in having no bodily form of any kind. Yet good angels freely appear to men when they are sent by God; men see them and hear them speak. God appears in the same way (3:16, 17). Apart even from 2 Cor. 11:14, Satan too, who is an angel, must have the power to appear. The supposition that, because he here quotes the Scriptures, he must have come as a Jewish scribe, or, if that is too specific, as a man of authority, is answered by the last two temptations. He came as what he was, Satan; and Jesus knew with whom he was dealing and that Satan had come to put him to the supreme test.

Exactly as he did in Gen. 3:1 and in Job 1:9; 2:4, 5, Satan starts the temptation by raising a cloud of doubt. While he uses a condition of reality: “if thou art a son of God,” the “if” really questions the fact, for Satan demands that Jesus furnish the proof. We see that Satan questions the very word of the Father spoken from the opened heavens. When doing so, he cunningly modifies the Father’s word. He does not say, “the Son of God,” the one and only eternal Son, but, “a son of God,” one of a class, related to God only by the divine favor (ἀγαπητός, “beloved,” 3:17) and chosen only thus to be the Messiah. Our versions translate (also Luke), “the Son of God,” and it must be admitted that the unarticulated υἱὸςτοῦΘεοῦ may be so rendered; it is like a title.

As far as Satan’s demand of proof is concerned, no real difference would obtain. Satan says, “a son,” because Jesus is man, a fact strongly emphasized by his present hunger for food. “Only such a son art thou,” he suggests. And even that, Satan implies, needs proof. The thought that, if Jesus would furnish this proof, Satan himself would also accept this sonship of Jesus plus his Messiahship, is out of line; for this is a temptation for Jesus by submitting the proof to prove even this kind of sonship. Note that all who today deny the deity of Jesus or his eternal Sonship agree with the devil in calling Jesus only “a son of God” and are better than the devil only in this regard that they regard him to be such “a son” whereas the devil implies that he doubts it.

How is Jesus to prove that he is “a son of God”? “Say that these stones shall become bread.” The ἵνα clause is the object of εἰπέ; it states what Jesus is to say, R. 993. The temptation lies in this bidding on the part of Satan. The tempter did not really doubt that a word spoken by Jesus could turn the stones lying there into bread. Satan knew that as the Messiah Jesus could perform this and other miracles, for even the Jews expected miracles of the Messiah. Like the tempter, the Jews asked for peculiar miracles, which, if they had been wrought by Jesus, would have plunged him into sin. In this respect the Jews were simply tools of the devil, continuing the temptations here advanced by Satan in person.

Ordinary Christians have the right idea when they say: “If Jesus would have done what Satan said he would have obeyed Satan instead of God.” So, by acceding to the Jews’ request he would have done their wrong and wicked will and not the Father’s. But this involves much more. We cannot say that it would have been wrong for Jesus to supply himself with bread by means of a miracle. Most likely Jesus himself ate of the bread gathered after the feeding of the 5, 000 and of the 4, 000, the bread he had himself miraculously produced. Why should he on those occasions have remained hungry when all the rest were fully fed? But here all is different.

The Greek has no word for “loaves” but merely uses the plural of “bread” when it wants to indicate a number of the flat cakes into which bread was baked (contra R. V. margin and others).

By the very act of miraculously transforming these stones into bread to prove himself “a son of God” Jesus would prove himself a false “son.” That act would imply distrust of his Father. By the Father’s own Spirit Jesus was here to undergo the severest temptation. The Father’s own will had brought him to this hunger. For forty days the Father had supported the body of Jesus so that it did not even feel the hunger resulting from the fasting. Now Jesus is no longer to look up to his Father with a true son’s trust but is to look down to these stones, to use them for evading this hunger? Does it seem strange that the Father should leave a son of his to hunger thus, or unworthy for a son of this Father to be in such a state of hunger; so that, in order to make sure he is a son, the son must provide food for himself? Was not this son, who is even the eternal Son, to suffer infinitely greater agony than the present hunger?

The judgment that this first temptation is one that does not directly concern the Messianic mission of Jesus overlooks the essential point which appears in the conditional clause: “if thou art a son of God.” Both the hunger and the making of bread out of stones are connected with the devil’s method of proving sonship, and sonship in this case involves Messiahship; for as the Son Beloved, Jesus was the one chosen (see 3:17).

Matthew 4:4

4 Jesus conquers the tempter by acting as a true “son” should act, to say nothing about “the Son.” The devil’s suggestion is not for one moment entertained by Jesus’ mind. The implied distrust the devil wants Jesus to show toward his Father is at once met by the most perfect trust and reliance on the Father. But he answering said (compare 3:15), It has been written, Not on bread alone shall a man live, but on every utterance going forth through God’s mouth. The sum and substance of this reply is trust: the trust of any true son of God, the trust of the incarnate Son. This trust rose in its might and crushed the very suggestion of distrust or mistrust and thus overcame the temptation.

The importance of the reply is indicated by the preamble: “he answering said.” The remarkable thing is that Jesus meets every assault with a word of Scripture: γέγραπται, “it has been written,” the perfect tense with the implication: “and once written, now stands forever.” Hence we may translate, “it is written.” Jesus smites the devil with “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God,” Eph. 6:17. He who could himself say, “Verily, verily, I say to you!” and could speak with divine authority in every utterance of his own, turns to the Word already written and uses that and only that. The quotation from Deut. 8:3 stamps the Pentateuch as the Word of God; for the formula “it has been written” is used only with reference to the divine Word. What God wanted Israel to learn during the forty years in the desert when he humbled Israel, suffered it to hunger, and fed it with manna, that Jesus did not need to learn, that he knew perfectly even now when he was distressed with hunger. Israel was a type of the Messiah in many phases of its history, and that is the case here with regard to these forty days of fasting in the desert. Israel often murmured and sinned when it was hungry or thirsty, not so Jesus, God’s true Son.

The word Moses spoke for God rings out from the lips of Jesus as the innermost conviction of his heart and voices his absolute trust in God. By this word and this act this “son” in the true way proved that he was “a son.”

Note the gradation: “the Son” (thus the Father in 3:17)—“a son” (thus the devil)—“a man” (thus Jesus in the quotation). Does the devil lower Jesus and refer to him only as “a son,” one of a class? Jesus does not reply, “I am the Son.” He is not debating with the devil and has no call to enlighten the fiend of darkness. He is here to conquer Satan. So Jesus meets the insult, which questions even his sonship, by a reply which pertains to all men merely as men. This actually makes the devil ridiculous.

Did he himself really imagine that it was bread that kept a man alive; or did he really think that Jesus could be fooled by such a false notion? That is true with regard to all lies and lying assumptions: when they are exposed by the light of truth they appear as what they actually are, ridiculous, preposterous, the notions of fools. The devil’s bidding that Jesus hurry and appease his hunger with stones made into bread, wants Jesus to believe the silly notion that a man’s life, to say nothing about the life of “a son of God,” rests “on bread alone,” ἐπʼ ἄρτῳμόνῳ, on this ground or basis (R. 604) “alone” and thus apart from God, the Creator of both the man and the bread. In his blind folly the devil may think so, Moses knew better, Israel learned better, every “son of God” knows better, only fools blinded by the devil do not know better. The future “shall live” is probably volitive, the tense expressing the divine will; not merely futuristic regarding what shall occur (R. 889).

“On the contrary,” ἀλλά (after a negative statement), whether a man knows it or not, he lives only “on every utterance going forth (ἐκ in the participle) through God’s mouth” (a Hebraistic turn, R. 649). The sense is beclouded when the question is put as to whether ῥῆμα refers to merely the uttered word or to the thing uttered. None of the utterances of God are just words and thus mere sounds. The Hebrew term motsa’, when it is used in connection with lips or mouth, means Ausgehendes (Ed. Koenig, Woerterbuch, on Deut. 8:3) and could thus be expressed by the neuter participle ἐκπορευόμενον without the addition of ῥῆμα. We may thus lay no stress on the latter word; the real sense lies in the participle: “what goes forth through God’s mouth,” on that the life of a man rests.

The addition “every” thus also becomes clear. What goes forth through God’s mouth is what God orders, and his orders for maintaining a man’s life may be varied. See the orders by which Israel was kept alive in the desert, Moses without food on Sinai, Elijah while travelling forty days and nights on one meal, and again when being fed by ravens, and again when making the widow’s meal and oil abound for many days (1 Kings 17:1–16; 19:4–8); Jesus when fed by angels, v. 11. No amount of bread or other food will keep a man alive without a word and an order from God’s mouth.

The first temptation resembles the one that occurred in Eden. It deals with food and uses food to awaken distrust of God and of God’s Word. What succeeded in Eden, in the land of plenty, failed in the destitute wilderness. What succeeded in the case of Adam and Eve who were well-fed, failed in the case of Jesus who was in great hunger. The temptation assailed Jesus from his human side; he resisted it, not by means of his divinity, but as man, with his trust in God and in God’s Word. By doing it in this way he enables us today to follow his example. All true sons may follow this “son.”

Matthew 4:5

5 The second attack reverses the first. Failing on one flank, the devil turns swiftly against the other. The first two temptations thus form counterparts; the two are halves which form a whole. Then the devil takes him with himself into the holy city and placed him on the wing of the Temple and says to him, If thou art a son of God, throw thyself down. For it has been written,

To his angels he will give injunction concerning thee;

And on their hands will they bear thee up

Lest ever thou strike thy foot against a stone.

We have noted παραλαμβάνειν in 1:20 and in 2:13, 20; here it has the same sense: “to take possession of and thus also to take along.” The present tense pictures the devil taking Jesus with him in this manner. The aorist, “and placed,” or “stood him,” simply states the fact. “The holy city,” the Temple, and then the quotation of the Holy Scriptures to Jesus, the Holy One of God, certainly are in strong contrast to “the devil,” to whom nothing is holy when prosecuting his unholy work. There are interpreters who deny the actuality of what Matthew describes as facts. Since the devil is a spirit, we are told that what is here stated must have taken place “in the spirit.” The devil’s power did not actually place Jesus on the wing of the Temple but only controlled his senses so that Jesus “felt himself” standing on the wing of the Temple. It is also added that this included dizziness because Josephus, Antiquities, 15, 11, 5, mentions this feeling in describing the height above the rocks below. But is Jesus only mentally to throw himself down from this height? And if the second temptation occurred only in the mind, are the other two different?

Like Job, Jesus was placed into Satan’s power so that the latter might tempt him to the uttermost. The transfer of Jesus to the Temple was a physical transfer. There is no difficulty as to willingness on Jesus’ part; he consented to the Father’s will to be tempted as the devil might will to tempt him. We need not say that Jesus transferred himself to the Temple; παραλαμβάνει and ἔστησε indicate that the devil provided the motive power. Throughout, Jesus only submits to the tempter’s operations. The devil was permitted to take Jesus where he desired for the purpose of temptation.

The ἱερόν is not the ναός or Sanctuary (the building housing the Holy and the Holy of Holies) but the entire Temple area with all its buildings and courts. The πτερύγιον is “the wing of the Temple”; note the article: not some wing but the one specifically so called. The diminutive has lost its force in the Greek. This “wing” was most likely the one from which James was thrown down, Acts 12:2; Eusebius 2, 23. This was a part of the outer wall that encircled the entire Temple area. The most acceptable location is the στοὰβασιλική or royal porch on the south wall, a deep ravine lying between it and the opposite suburbs; others think of the east wall along Solomon’s Porch where the drop Isaiah 400 cubits or 600 feet.

Josephus describes both locations in Ant. 15, 11, 5, and the latter also in 20, 9, 7. Not a word is said about people in the Temple courts, before whom Jesus was to make a display by throwing himself from a great height and remaining unharmed. This idea, which is wholly foreign to the text and contrary to the very nature of the second temptation, has led some to think of the roof parapet or of the roof gable of the Sanctuary.

Matthew 4:6

6 The conditional clause in the tempter’s bidding is the same in form and in thought as in v. 3. But the temptation runs in the opposite direction. As a true son Jesus had just demonstrated his absolute trust in God regarding his bodily needs. And as a true son he has just pointed to the Word of God on which his trust rested. At both points the new assault is aimed. If Jesus is such a true and trustful son of God, let him demonstrate the fact by something more decisive than continued patient hunger.

That, the devil implies, is a cheap way of showing real trust. And yet, like the liar that he is, this cheap method was the very one he assailed but a moment ago when he sought to entice Jesus to distrust God by not waiting for bread from God but by rushing himself to provide it. The heroic way to display trust, Satan says, is to test some promise of God to the limit and on the instant. Let Jesus throw himself down from this great Temple height and prove that God’s promise in Ps. 91:11, 12 is true. If Jesus has real filial trust, the devil intimates, he will not hesitate a moment; and, of course, if God fails to keep his Word, that Word is nothing, and Jesus might as well be dead as to live and to rely on empty promises.

The cunning of the temptation is doubled by the devil’s use of Scripture. By himself quoting Scripture the devil would block any further resort of Jesus to Scripture; he would wrest the sword of the Spirit from Jesus’ hand. The devil here shows himself an expert in handling Scripture. Luther well calls him a doctor non promotus sed expertus. The passage he quotes seems to fit the proposal he makes in the most perfect way. Read the entire Psalm and see how all of it fits quite exactly.

All that Satan has done is to invent an act to match the two verses quoted, one in which God’s angels can bear a man up and prevent him from crashing his feet on the stones beneath. They will catch him under the arms and let him light on the rocks below as gently as feather down. The devil’s art of quoting Scripture has been spread far and wide in the devil’s school, and some of his pupils and graduates are doctors that are quite as expert as he is.

In this case the deception does not lie in misapplying to Jesus what really does not apply to him. Psalms 91 applies to any son of God and certainly also to this Son. Satan abbreviates by omitting the line, “to keep thee in all thy ways.” Some find the deception in this omission as though the promise of God were conditional: to protect us only when we walk in the path of divine duty. But then the words should read, “to keep thee in all his ways.” If the deception lay in omitting this line, it would have been rather easy to overthrow Satan. A misquotation is removed by the corrected quotation. Jesus, however, makes no correction, does not point to the omitted line but accepts the quotation as being substantially correct.

The deception in the use of this quotation by Satan lies in setting one Scripture against another. One statement is stressed, and others that should go with it are quietly disregarded. The trick is constantly practiced, often on a large scale, when a mass of passages are combined in such a way that it makes the Bible say what it most certainly does not say, in fact, openly contradicts elsewhere in the plainest language. This type of deception easily catches the unwary, especially the devout who regard the Scriptures highly; it is also the delight of those who love to harass devout believers while they think they are fortifying themselves behind impregnable walls.

Matthew 4:7

7 Jesus said to him, Again it has been written, Thou shalt not test out the Lord, thy God. The temptation is overcome with a single word. A true son knows what his father says and means; so Jesus knows that all the great promises of his Father’s protection are intended for our humble trust in him and never once for our presumption. It would be a caricature of humble trust to take a gracious promise of God and by some foolhardy act to challenge God to see whether he will, indeed, do what he has said, or, still worse, simply to presume that he must do what his words say. As the first temptation, under the plea of acting like a true son, tries to lead to distrust of the Father, so the second temptation, under the same plea, tries to lead to a false trust of the Father. What such false trust really is the Father himself has declared in plainest language, and as a true son, who knows all that his Father has said, Jesus sets at the side of the word quoted by the devil another word that must be considered together with it.

On the use of ἔφη as an aorist see R. 311. The adverb πάλιν never has the sense of contra or opposition. Jesus does not set one Scripture against another. The adverb means “again,” rursus. Jesus places one Scripture beside another and thus establishes the great principle of all true interpretation: Scriptura ex Scriptura explicanda est, Scripture is explained and must be explained by Scripture. Any false conclusions or deductions from one passage are eliminated by comparing other pertinent passages.

No man dare press into a passage a thought that contradicts another passage. Here all exegesis that operates with contradictions in the Scripture has its answer. It is generally the easy way out where the real solution of what looks like a contradiction is not readily found. In the present case all is clear: Ps. 91:11, 12 dare not be pressed to clash with Deut. 6:16: “Thou shalt not test out the Lord, thy God.”

This word of God rests on the incident recorded in Exod. 17:7 when the people demanded that God furnish them water with the challenging cry, “Is the Lord among us or not?” Their sin was the fact that they tested out God, tried or tempted him. Instead of praying and trustfully relying on God, leaving the fulfillment of his promises of help in need to his abounding grace, the people chided and challenged God. They did it in the bad situation in which they found themselves. They did it by presumptuous lack of trust. They virtually said: “If God does not do what we demand, then there is no God among us, then his promises amount to nothing.” In this negative way they tempted or tried him out. And this was their sin.

The devil wants Jesus to commit this sin in the opposite or positive way, which is far worse. Jesus is in no danger but is deliberately to throw himself into mortal danger. And he is to do this for no reason whatever save to try out God regarding his promise—as though God had not proved often enough that he helps his own and keeps his Word. Without necessity plunging into mortal danger may look like supreme, heroic trust in God and thus as supreme proof of truly being a son of God. That is the lure of this temptation. In reality this is false trust and thus, as Jesus points out, nothing but tempting God, of which no true son of God would ever be guilty as little as he would be guilty of lack of trust.

All lack of trust and all false trust are closely akin. Both tempt and challenge God with their presumptions as to what he must do to keep his promises. If Jesus were to throw himself down from the Temple height he would presumptuously go beyond God’s promise and thus tempt God and sin against him and his promise. By pointing out that truth from the written Word itself the tempter and his temptation are vanquished.

Matthew 4:8

8 Again the devil takes him with himself to a very high mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; and he said to him, These all will I give to thee if thou, by falling down, wilt worship me. Luther says that he who in the first temptation showed himself as a black devil, and in the second as a light, white devil, using even God’s own Word, now displays himself as a divine, majestic devil, who comes right out as though he were God himself. Satan drops his mask and appears as the prince and ruler of this world. He no longer operates with the appeal, “if thou art a son of God,” suggesting some ungodly way by which Jesus is to prove that he is such a son. Cunningly he accepts the fact that Jesus is a son, even the one chosen to be the Messiah, and on this Satan rests the final temptation.

Those who regard the transfer of Jesus to the Temple wing as a mental act, thrust into the mind and thought of Jesus by Satan, think of the transfer “to a very high mountain” in the same way. Jesus feels himself to be on such a mountain; in reality he never left the wilderness. Seeing the kingdoms of the world, we are told, was only a mental act; so why not also the being on a mountain? For no physical mountain affords a view of all the kingdoms of the world. One answer to this is that, if the showing of the kingdoms was mental only, no mental mountain was necessary, it would be wholly superfluous. The second is that the plain verbs of both Matthew and Luke shut out this hypothesis.

The third is that, if by his mere volition Satan could project thoughts and feelings into the mind of Jesus and could make Jesus think he was where he actually was not, the mind of Jesus would be utterly helpless under the will of Satan. The statement that Jesus “still remained master of his thinking and willing” is the assertion of the commentator who would harmonize his view with the Gospel accounts. Only by means of the words which Satan spoke could he present thoughts to the mind of Jesus; and these lying thoughts Jesus promptly rejected.

The verb δείκνυσιν (Luke, ἔδειξεν) can scarcely mean that Satan flashes the thought of all the kingdoms of the world and of their glory into the mind of Jesus. “And shows” means “shows to the eyes of Jesus.” Luke adds that this was done ἐνστιγμῇχρόνου, “in an instant of time.” This phrase does not refer symbolically to the transient nature of all these kingdoms and their glory, flashing brightly for an instant and then being as quickly gone. This στιγμή is an actual instant. Before the very eyes of Jesus as he looked out over the world from that mountaintop the prince of this world, by his occult power, flashed in an instant a view of the mighty realm he ruled. “And the glory of them” brings out the feature that made “all the kingdoms of the world” so desirable and attractive to Jesus who was to be the true king of this vast realm but only by achieving the kingship through suffering and death. How this showing was performed, especially how the glory was made to appear, and that all in an instant, is beyond us.

Matthew 4:9

9 We need not trouble about the neuter plural ταῦταπάντα which refers to “all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them.” Luke has: “all this authority and the glory of them.” The devil offers Jesus the rule of this grand domain and the glory that would go with this rule. Luke adds the devil’s explanation as to how he is able to make this grand offer: “for to me it has been delivered, and to whom I will I give it.” He speaks as though he were the rightful ruler of all these kingdoms, and as though God himself had given him this rule. This, of course, is a lie, for he is an illegitimate ruler who has usurped his authority and will be brought to book for his usurpation. Also his presumption that he is so supreme in his rulership that he is able to make a gift of it to whomever he may will is a lie. A usurper’s gift is spurious, and whoever would accept his gift makes himself a party to his usurpation. All the arrogant pride of the devil who first fell away from God through pride comes out in his offer: “These all will I give thee.”

The boldest stroke, however, lies in the little condition attached to the offer: “if thou, by falling down, wilt worship me.” The circumstantial aorist participle πεσών enhances the act of worship and, like the aorist subjunctive προσκυνήσῃς, signifies a single act. The verb is used with reference to Oriental prostration before great human lords but especially also with reference to prostration before God in the deepest religious reverence and adoration (2:2, 8, 11, the latter also with the participle). The reply of Jesus shows that the latter meaning is in the devil’s mind. Satan’s proposition is this: God has turned all these kingdoms over to him, and he is willing to turn them over to Jesus if, as Satan is under God, Jesus will place himself under Satan. Satan offers to make Jesus the Messiah-King just as God wants him to be this King. It can all be done by means of one little act of prostration before Satan. Instead of a long, bitter road to the throne one short step will reach the crown.

The whole proposition intends to appeal to the human nature of Jesus. Like a god Jesus can rule at once. There is no need to face shame, agony, and ignominious death. Instead of the bitter cup only a single obeisance. Satan would place himself in harmony with God by making Jesus the King. Yet the whole proposition is false from beginning to end.

Satan does not bow before God in worship as Jesus is to bow before Satan. Satan has not received the kingdoms from God, he rules them as the enemy of God, as a rebel against God, as a usurper whom God is dethroning through Jesus. By the one act of worship Jesus would also become a rebel against God and at the same time a tool of Satan. The kingdoms and their glory, promised to Jesus by Satan, would remain Satan’s. The transfer would be an illusion. Instead of being a King, Jesus would be a slave of Satan.

The way in which Satan tried to buy Jesus is the way in which he bought Eve: “Ye shall be as gods.” Thus he bought Judas, but the price was the trivial thirty pieces of silver. Ever he still buys men in this way, but never at a price so great as the offered Jesus. It may seem foolish on Satan’s part to offer such a temptation to Jesus and to think that Jesus might be caught thus. But after succeeding with his proffers to other men in thousands of instances, Satan felt that this man Jesus would certainly succumb to an offer that was more magnificent than any he had ever made. The author of all evil lies most completely under the blinding power of evil. As men, when they are submerged in sin, lose all moral judgment, so by his fall Satan lost all sense of righteousness and truth and moves only in absolute, moral darkness.

Matthew 4:10

10 Then Jesus says to him, Begone, Satan! For it has been written, The Lord, thy God, shalt thou worship, and him alone shalt thou serve. The holy indignation of Jesus is apparent. Not until this time does Jesus add a word of his own to the Scriptures with which he smote the tempter, and this word is the command to Satan to begone. He calls him “Satan,” because this is the fiend’s personal name. Certainly, its significance, “adversary,” receives its full weight in the exclamation of Jesus.

The supposition that until this time Jesus did not know that he was dealing with Satan, and that, if he had known, he would have ordered him away at once, is untenable. Jesus was to be tempted by the devil and knew this from the start. The first two temptations fully reveal Satan. The reason why Jesus delayed until this time to order away Satan is not the fact that Satan had now thrown off his mask; as far as Jesus was concerned, Satan was never masked. The plain reason is the fact that Satan has exhausted his temptations. Jesus was by the Spirit of God exposed to all the tempting power Satan possessed.

By ordering away Satan Jesus did not withdraw himself from further and more severe assaults. When Satan made his third effort he had no temptation that could possibly prove stronger. The ordeal was finished. The command to Satan to begone is the announcement of victory on the part of Jesus. Satan is ordered to begone because he has been utterly vanquished.

The blow of final victory is another word of Scripture. Even now the last stroke is delivered by the sword of the Spirit. We are to know that the written Word is the one and only shield and weapon by which to overthrow the evil one. If Jesus had at the last used a word of his own, we might think that the written Word is after all not enough. The quotation is taken from Deut. 6:13; but “thou shalt fear” in the Hebrew and in the LXX is rendered by “thou shalt worship,” conforming to the tempter’s word. Yet yare’ denotes the fear of reverence which is expressed by the humble and reverent act of worship.

The Hebrew has: “and serve him,” to which the LXX adds: “him alone.” Since this is the true sense of the original, Jesus retains it. The service of λατρεία or worship (often with offerings) belongs to deity alone. Rendered to others, it becomes the abomination of idolatry. Satan attempted to lure Jesus into a flagrant transgression of the First Commandment, the most fundamental of all, in which the whole law centers. Since no greater commandment exists, and no more essential part of this greatest commandment than the act of reverent worship, Satan is at an end.

As he had done in the other two temptations, so also in this third Jesus speaks only as “a son,” a true Israelite. As man, Jesus, too, was under God, under the law of God and hence honored and worshipped God and kept all his commandments as all men ought to keep them. In the battle with Satan, Jesus made no use of his divine prerogatives and powers. He vanquished Satan as man. And thus “we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,” Heb. 4:15.

Matthew 4:11

11 Then the devil leaves him. And lo! angels came to him and engaged in serving him. “Leaves him,” ἀφίησιναὐτόν, means more than that the devil departed; he desisted from further attacks upon Jesus, “stood away from him,” as Luke writes with the significant addition: “for a season,” literally, “until a suitable season.” Utterly routed in this set and formal attack, the devil afterward tried to dissuade Jesus from his holy course and finally brought about his death through Judas’ betrayal. In one form or in another the third temptation was repeated (Matt. 16:22, 23; John 6:15; 14:30).

Matthew leaves Jesus, as far as we know, on the mountain whither Satan had carried him. Whether the angels, who now came to him and “were engaged in serving him” (διηκόνουν, the durative imperfect), bore him back into the wilderness, where the devil first attacked him, or to some other place, who can say? The verb signifies service freely rendered for the benefit of the person concerned. We may be quite sure that this service included furnishing food for the hungry body of Jesus. Others include solatium, augmenting the victory of Jesus, and helping him to celebrate the triumph.

Matthew presents the three temptations in their historical order; Luke arranges the places in a climax: desert—mountain—Jerusalem and the Temple. The fact that Matthew’s order is the historical one is evident from the command at the end of the third temptation, ordering Satan to leave.

The account of Christ’s temptation is not a parable, or a myth, or a legend. Either of the latter two would make this portion of Scripture a human invention. Then other portions may be of the same empty nature, and we should be at sea regarding any and all portions. Some think of a dream or a vision. There is no report that Christ ever had dreams or visions, and where such means are used in the case of others Matthew and the Scriptures say so. A victory over Satan in a dream or a vision would not be an actual victory. Communications are received by men in dreams, though not from Satan, but battles are not fought in dreams or in visions.

Some regard the entire occurrence as a mental one. Jesus fought out the battle with the spurious and perverted Messianic ideal of the Judaism of his day in a long inner, mental struggle. One version of this makes everything mental: the wilderness, the devil, the wing of the Temple, the mountain, the angels, etc. Instead of dreaming it all or having it come to him in a vision, Jesus thought it all. If this is true, then the entire temptation rose out of the mind and the heart of Jesus himself and took such a hold on him that he wrestled with it for forty days. Ethically this is incredible.

The pure and holy heart of Jesus is incapable of producing Satanic thoughts, incapable, too, of dallying with them for an instant, to say nothing of forty days. If the entire temptation was only mental, the evangelists did not present it thus. A less radical view compromises. The devil and the wilderness are real but not the wing of the Temple or the mountain. The stones are real, and Jesus is to change them into real bread, but he is not really to leap from the wing of the Temple to real rocks below —he is to do this only mentally. He does not see real kingdoms, actual glory, although he is to snatch at these unreal gifts by a real act of worship.

The evangelists describe realities throughout. They also seem to have a proper conception of what the devil is able to do. Even their psychology is sane and sensible. Satan is able to present thoughts to the mind of Jesus and to suggest acts to his will only by means of words, Jesus instantly rejecting both the thoughts and the acts. He is not able to invade the mind of Jesus without the use of words, making Jesus think things by mere volitions of Satan’s will. The latter assumption lays Jesus’ mind open to Satan, and such a view cannot be accepted by believing commentators.

It is often also assumed that the temptation of Jesus must have been like ours also in this respect that Jesus might have succumbed to it. It is usually presented in this form; if Jesus could not have fallen, his temptation was not a real temptation (meaning: like ours); it is presented in the Scriptures as having been real, hence Jesus might have fallen. These conclusions would be sound if Jesus could be placed on the same level with us believers in our present state, or with Adam and Eve in Eden, or with the angels prior to Satan’s fall in heaven. But the Scriptures attest that Jesus was not merely “a son of God” (v. 3 and 6) but the Son of God, the incarnate second Person of the Godhead. God cannot fall into sin. This is absolutely true regarding all three Persons. Only by the theory of a kenosis which empties Jesus of the Godhead and leaves him nothing but man could a fall into sin under temptation be possible for him.

Neither the Father nor the Spirit could be tempted by Satan because both are only God. The Son could be tempted because he became man. He alone of the three persons, by assuming our human nature, could suffer human hunger and could be asked to appease that hunger in a sinful way. He alone, by his human nature, was made dependent on his Father and could thus be asked to abuse his dependence by a false trust in his Father. He alone, in his human nature, faced the cross and could thus be asked to evade it and follow an easier course. Temptation was possible to Jesus only on the side of his humanity.

The verb πειράζω means to try or test. The greatness of the strength tested changes nothing regarding the reality of the test to which it is subjected. The strain applied is just as real when the strength endures it as when the strength is too weak to endure it. Jesus, the Stronger, remained unmoved under all the force Satan, the strong one, brought against him. Thus the test or temptation was real in every way and not an illusion. We see this more readily when we think of the test made, not by immoral solicitation, but by suffering and death for the world’s sin. When the test was made, the outcome was not for a moment in doubt. Yet the agony and the death were real although Jesus bore them triumphantly.

Christ’s Work in Galilee—a Summary, 4:12–25

The baptism of Jesus was followed by his temptation. From this Jesus returned to the Jordan, won six disciples (John 1:35–51), and returned to Galilee. The Baptist continued his work, Jesus attended the festivals at Jerusalem (John 2:13, etc., 5:1). Matthew is not concerned with these events. He is not writing a chronological history; his method is pragmatic: to present a great life-picture of Jesus as the Messiah. At this point he presents a summary survey of the ministry of Jesus in Galilee when the work was at its height.

Matthew 4:12

12 Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew into Galilee and left Nazareth and came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali. Matthew offers no connection in time between the temptation and the present account. Yet the temporal participle marks a point of time that lay far beyond the temptation. This gap covers the rest of the Baptist’s work, for he is now in prison, and the tragic news has reached Jesus. By this participial clause Matthew also indicates that he is acquainted with all the preceding events although in following the plan of his Gospel he passes them by without mention. We cannot say that this is due to the fact that he was called later and consequently had no personal knowledge of these events, for he narrates both the baptism and the temptation.

Still less can we assume a contradiction with John’s Gospel which reports some of the events omitted by Matthew. It is taken for granted that the readers know the story of the Baptist and his tragic end. Later in his Gospel Matthew utilizes some of the details of the Baptist’s later life (11:2; 14:3). Here only the fact of the arrest is introduced to mark the general point of time; even the name of Herod Antipas who ordered the arrest is omitted.

The Baptist’s arrest indicates the time when Jesus resolved to do his main work in Galilee. The verb ἀναχωρεῖν, “to withdraw,” often implies fear of danger as a motive for the withdrawal, but not always, and not here; for Jesus did not flee to Galilee in order to escape a fate similar to that which had come to the Baptist. Herod Antipas was the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea and certainly had full power in his own dominion. In this instance to withdraw means to retire. Instead of seeking the fullest publicity in Jerusalem, the great center of the Jewish world, Jesus transferred his main activity to Galilee, the Jewish province that was farthest removed from the capital and quite generally looked down upon by the proud inhabitants of that center. Wisdom and prudence dictated this decision on the part of Jesus; it conserved best the interest of the work which he had come to do.

Matthew 4:13

13 John 2:12 reports that Jesus transferred his home from Nazareth to Capernaum shortly after he first returned to Galilee from the Jordan. When Matthew writes, “and having left Nazareth, having come, he dwelt in Capernaum,” these aorists merely mark facts without particular reference to the exact past moment of time. We are simply to know that, when the Baptist was imprisoned, Jesus no longer lived in Nazareth but in Capernaum. Both cities are regarded as feminine nouns with πόλις understood, R. 759. It seems as though Jesus had planned his extensive Galilean ministry long before the arrest of the Baptist and had moved his home to Capernaum quite early; then, when the arrest occurred, the plan was put into operation.

Capernaum (εἰς is static, R. 593) was far more suitable for the purpose of Jesus than Nazareth could be, since it was situated on the populous shores of the Sea of Galilee and on the great trade route, the via maris, which extended from Damascus and the East to the Mediterranean coast. It was easy to radiate out to all parts of Galilee from this center. The adjective παραθαλασσίαν, “beside the sea,” R.a 613, points to the shipping; Jesus himself often crossed this sea in boats. Yet to Matthew the transfer of residence to Capernaum is important only as being connected with the selection of Galilee for Christ’s extensive Messianic ministry. To Jewish minds this is really astounding, and Matthew writes for just such minds. In Jewish eyes the only fitting place for the Messiah’s work was Judea and in particular Jerusalem; a Galilean Messiah seemed an impossibility to them.

The addition, “in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali,” points to the Galilean land in general and is drawn from the prophecy which Matthew at once appends. But the phrase ἐνὁρίοις is not intended to point to the two tribes Zebulun and Naphtali, as though Capernaum lay near or upon this line. These old boundary lines had long ceased to divide the country. Capernaum lay in Naphtali with the old boundary line being to the south. The phrase means “in the regions” (fines) and is added to indicate that this territory of the two tribes could easily be reached from Capernaum as a center in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. Zebulun and Naphtali are combined as one territory in which Capernaum lay.

Matthew 4:14

14 All Jews who were perplexed because of the Messiah’s working so extensively in Galilee are pointed to Isa. 9:1, 2: in order that it might be fulfilled what was spoken through Isaiah, the prophet, saying:

The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,

Along the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,

Galilee of the Gentiles,

The people sitting in darkness

Saw a great light,

And to them sitting in death’s region and shadow,

Light rose up for them.

On Matthew’s formula of quotation see 1:22 and 2:17. In the present instance a direct prophecy concerning the Messiah is fulfilled by Christ. The passive τὸῥηθέν implies Yahweh as the speaker, and διά marks the prophet as his mouthpiece; the reference is to a word that was first spoken and then written by Isaiah. This presents divine inspiration exactly as it occurred.

Matthew 4:15

15 We need not concern ourselves with the difficulties encountered in the Hebrew of Isa. 9:1, for all that Matthew quotes from this verse are the territorial designations: “the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles”; and these he adds as appositions to the subject of v. 2, not in the least altering the substance of the prophet’s words. R. 469 regards these nouns as vocatives, but they may also be regarded as simple nominatives in apposition with ὁλαός, or simply as nominative absolutes. And there are five: 1) land of Zebulun, 2) land of Naphtali, 3) along the way to the sea, 4) beyond the Jordan, 5) Galilee of the Gentiles. All five denote stretches of territory. The ὁδὸνθαλάσσης, Isaiah’s derek hayyam, is not the road that leads to the Mediterranean but the stretch of country to which this great ancient road, the via maris, led. The accusative ὁδόν is adverbial to denote extent, and this adverbial with a genitive is used as a nominative or as an independent expression.

The same is true regarding the phrase: πέραντοῦἸορδανου, “beyond the Jordan,” i.e., Perea, which lies at the extreme east, while “along the way of the sea” lies at the extreme west. The fifth term: “Galilee of the Gentiles,” is not Galilee as such but the northern stretch of Palestine beyond Naphtali. All this territory Jesus covered during his ministry, radiating out from Capernaum as the general center.

This entire region had suffered severely during past ages. Delitzsch writes: “Since the days of the Judges all these stretches of country were by reason of their proximity exposed to corruption by heathen influences and by subjugation through heathen enemies. The northern tribes on the other side suffered most by reason of the almost constant wars with the Syrians and the later war with the Assyrians, and the deportation of the inhabitants gradually increased under Phul, Tiglatpileser, Salmanassar until a total depopulation resulted.” While in Christ’s time this region was populous enough, the people of Galilee were to a large extent a mixed race, and their spiritual condition, in spite of their connection with the central sanctuary at Jerusalem, was deplorable in every way, especially also since that sanctuary had long ceased to represent the true worship of Jehovah.

Matthew 4:16

16 Isaiah’s description is entirely correct: “the people sitting in darkness.” They are still called ὁλαός, a term frequently used to designate Israel as the chosen “people” in distinction from τὰἔθνη, “the nations” or “the Gentiles.” Isaiah has “walked in darkness,” which the LXX retain, but which Matthew renders freely “sitting.” “Darkness,” however, is more than the absence of the light, the divine truth of salvation; the Scriptures use the term with reference to the power of evil, especially as represented in delusion and religious falsehood. The true gospel light had gone out under the power of Jewish formalism and work-righteousness. Now the astounding fact is that this most benighted portion of the entire Jewish land should be chosen to receive the light through the extended ministry of Christ. Isaiah foretold this event: they “see a great light,” which the evangelist, since the prophecy was now fulfilled, replaces with the past tense: they “saw a great light.” This is the Messianic salvation embodied in Christ and proclaimed by him.

In the parallelism of Hebrew poetry a second synonymous couplet repeats this wonderful thought with variation. The description of the people is intensified. “Darkness” is not enough to express their sad condition: they sit (Isaiah has “dwell”) “in death’s region and shadow,” from which they are unable to escape. Matthew translates beerets tsalmaveth, “in the land of the black shadow,” ἐνχώρᾳκαὶσκιᾷθανατοῦ, “in the region and shadow of death.” Compare tsalmaveth, “valley of the shadow of death” (black shadow) in Ps. 23:4. The genitive is evidently to be construed with both datives, and the datives constitute a hendiadys: “death’s black shadowland,” which is a fine rendering of the Hebrew construct chain (LXX: ἐνχώρᾳσκιᾷθανάτου). Delitzsch: “We must conceive the apostate mass of the people as having been destroyed, for if death has cast its shadow over a land, it is a desert. In this situation those who remain in the land see a great light breaking through the black-bordered sky.

The people who looked up vainly with cursing, Isa. 8:21, are no more; it is the remnant of Israel which sees the light of spiritual and bodily redemption above its head.” In the prophet’s description of this light in the following verses (6, 7) note: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given,” etc. Matthew again has the aorist: “light rose up for them.” In this way “they saw a great light”: God let it rise for them. The redundant αὐτοῖς helps to emphasize the dative “to them sitting.” The figure is that of a glorious sunrise after a black and deadly night. In both the prophecy and its fulfillment we must not miss the strong note of undeserved grace. The people were at their lowest ebb, all spiritual light was gone, there was absolutely no hope or help in themselves: then God stepped in and in pure grace sent them a heavenly gift, the help of salvation in Christ Jesus.

Matthew 4:17

17 From then on began Jesus to herald and say, Be repenting! for the kingdom of the heavens has come near. Prepositions may be used with adverbs, R. 576; so here: “from then on.” The aorist “began” marks the point of beginning, and the following present infinitives, “to herald and say,” indicate the continuous work thus set in motion. Matthew has the same verb which he used to describe the Baptist’s work: κηρύσσειν, “to herald,” generally rendered, “to preach,” but always signifying to announce publicly as a herald, to proclaim. The point to be noted is that to preach is not to argue, reason, dispute, or convince by intellectual proof, against all of which a keen intellect may bring counterargument. We simply state in public or testify to all men the truth which God bids us state. No argument can assail the truth presented in this announcement or testimony. Men either believe the truth as all sane men should, or refuse to believe it as only fools venture to do.

It is evident that Matthew wants us to understand that Jesus took up the work of the Baptist’s heralding, now extending it throughout Galilee, whither the Baptist had not been sent. Many Galileans had heard the Baptist (11:7–9), but to many regions of Galilee the Baptist’s message had not come, save perhaps through more or less reliable reports. Now Jesus himself sounds the great announcement to them. On the announcement itself see the exposition in 3:2.

Matthew 4:18

18 The account which now follows is merely incidental in the summary description of the Galilean ministry of Jesus. The readers are to picture Jesus as being accompanied by a number of disciples who were not merely attached to him personally but were under his training for the great future work awaiting them. The insertion of the present incident into this summary section is, therefore, without a mark of time. All we are able to gather is that the disciples named were called to follow Jesus when his Galilean ministry got well under way.

Now, when walking along by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon, called Peter, and Andrew, his brother, throwing a casting net into the sea; for they were fishermen. This scene is entirely distinct from the one described in Luke 5:1, 2. No multitude is here pressing upon Jesus, he is alone. He is walking along not standing. The fishermen are in the boat, busy throwing out their casting net, and have not disembarked to wash their nets. Already these differences show that Matthew does not want to record the same incident as Luke.

Simon and Andrew are introduced in the simplest manner. They are brothers, and their profession is that of fishermen. We see them in the midst of their work. This could not have been the place where they usually kept their boats and prepared their nets as was the case in Luke 5:2; but they were somewhere along the shore where successful fishing could be done. In v. 21 Jesus walks forward a distance to the place where the boats were kept. Simon and Andrew, however, are introduced as Matthew’s readers have always known them: the former as the one “called Peter,” and the latter as “his brother.” In this way Matthew intimates that both men had already become followers of Jesus as John 1:35, etc., reports, who also informs us that Simon had been given the name Peter.

The attachment first formed at the Jordan associated these men with Jesus as his disciples who followed him as the Messiah (John 1:41), of whom Moses and the prophets wrote (v. 45), the Son of God and King of Israel (v. 49). This following did not preclude a return to their old occupation as fishermen especially when Jesus remained at Capernaum and in the neighborhood. What Matthew now records is an advance upon this discipleship, a call to apostleship, to be followed eventually by a formal instatement as apostles, 10:1, etc. It is thus that we now find these men βάλλοντας, “throwing,” the present participle marking their act as regular work, even also as they were professional fishermen. The ἀμφίβληστρον is a net that can be thrown from either side of the boat, while a σαγήνη is a dragnet, and a δίκτυον a net of any kind.

Matthew 4:19

19 And he says to them, This way, after me! and I will make you fishers of men! The adverb δεῦτε is used as the plural of the adverb δεῦρο in calling someone hither; it has the force of an imperative, R. 1023, and “after me” means that Jesus intends to go on. But the imperative, hortative, subjunctive, or, as here, future indicative, which follows, states the purpose for which one is called hither. This purpose is the chief point. Hence we should not regard this expression as a command to follow Jesus and a promise as to what Jesus will do. R. 949 misconceives the force of the adverb when he makes it equivalent to a conditional clause with ἐάν: “if you come after me, I will make,” etc.

The entire call is a gracious expression of Jesus’ will, and the adverb “hither” or “this way” is merely incidental. The call is stated in transparent figurative language and is adapted to these fishermen who were even now busy with their task. “I will make you fishers of men” means that Jesus will train them for the great work of winning men for the gospel and salvation. This call does not imply that they are to join Jesus for their own sakes as was the case with reference to the call which John 1:35, etc., reports. This call presupposes that these men had already followed that other call, were already disciples and believers, already knew the gospel and the work of spreading its salvation. This call is for the sake of others, ἄνθρωποι, “men,” human beings. The term is universal and not restricted to Jews.

A grand prospect is opened to these two brothers. Their previous attachment to Jesus had prepared them so that they would be ready when this call came. Not yet were they ready to go and to catch men. They would need further intensive training, and this Jesus would now begin with them. Because of the wording of this call it has often been identified with Luke 5:10: “from henceforth thou shalt catch men.” But only the imagery of the two calls is similar. The call recorded in Luke comes later, follows a miracle after preaching to a multitude from Peter’s boat, and is addressed to Peter alone. The call recorded in Matthew and in Mark is preliminary; that in Luke has the distinct addition, that, by the miracle of the great catch of fish, tremendous success is promised to the fishers of men.

Matthew 4:20

20 And they immediately, having left the nets, followed him. Peter and Andrew at once obeyed the call. They dropped their ordinary profession, left “the nets” on the shore, no doubt in the hands of their helpers, and followed Jesus for the schooling they were now to receive for a far greater calling.

Those who identify Luke’s account with that of Matthew and of Mark state in support of their view that the disciples could not have twice left all; and they add that if the disciples returned to their former work after the first call they would have been apostates. But Matthew and Mark do not say that the disciples left all or left their old work for good and all. What they did was to follow Jesus and thus to signify their acceptance of his great call. Jesus certainly did not want them to throw away their property. And while Jesus remained at Capernaum they could certainly, without prejudice to the call they had accepted on the first invitation, occasionally earn a little at their old work. Even after the resurrection of Jesus seven of the disciples worked a night long at fishing, John 21:1, etc.

Matthew 4:21

21 And, having walked forward from there, he saw other two brothers: James, the son of Zebedee, and John, his brother, in the boat with Zebedee, their father, engaged in repairing their nets; and he called them. The two pairs of brothers are some distance apart, for the participial clause draws attention to the separation. As Jesus “saw” the first two, so he “saw” the second two The first two are called away from their actual fishing, the second from their repairing the nets. All this is quite distinct from the scene presented in Luke. What we know about Peter and about Andrew in their relation to Jesus applies equally to James and to John, who are identified as the sons of Zebedee for Matthew’s readers. The call to these sons is, of course, the same as that extended to the other pair of brothers.

Matthew 4:22

22 And they, having left the boat and their father, followed him. They respond with the same alacrity. Since their father was mentioned as being with them, Matthew remarks that they left him. Zebedee was not called to the ministry. But he consents to the call of his sons and remains behind alone. So he, too, believed in Jesus and rejoiced in the great work for which Jesus chose his sons.

Matthew 4:23

23 Matthew now completes his general description of Jesus’ Galilean ministry. In these last three verses he surveys the entire work as it constantly increased throughout the regions already named, with reports of it reaching Syria, the great territory to the north. The survey thus presented takes us to 21:1, etc., when Jesus entered Jerusalem for his passion. Nothing is said about Judea and Samaria or about Jerusalem in particular. The fact that Jesus taught and wrought also in the capital was not remarkable, but it certainly was noteworthy that he covered all of Galilee. The fact that Jesus called men for the ministry at the beginning of his activity in Galilee prepares us for 10:1, etc., where we are told that he sent all twelve of the men so called to have their first taste of this work by assisting Jesus in Galilee.

And Jesus kept going about in all Galilee, continuing to teach in their synagogues and to herald the gospel of the kingdom and to heal every disease and every weakness among the people. The Baptist chose one spot, then another; Jesus travelled over all of Galilee, and the imperfect περιῆγεν pictures him doing so. The three present participles do the same. Only in v. 17, where Jesus takes up the Baptist’s work, is the unmodified κηρύσσειν f.175 used regarding the preaching of Jesus. In the case of the Baptist only this verb is used to describe his activity, on which see 3:1. Ordinarily the activity of Jesus is characterized by the word διδάσκειν, “to teach,” which is never used with reference to the Baptist.

The latter always preached out-of-doors, Jesus very frequently in the synagogues before the audiences which gathered regularly every Sabbath day and probably at this time already on the second and the fifth day of the week to hear the reading of the Scriptures and to engage in public prayers. Since the days of the Babylonian captivity synagogues, i.e., assemblies, had become a fixed institution among the Jews. In addition to the service indicated, whenever competent persons were present, addresses connected with the Word were delivered to the people.

The second participle, “continuing to herald the gospel of the kingdom,” recalls the Baptist’s heralding and intimates that this continued throughout the ministry of Jesus. The content of this heralding was τὸεὐαγγέλιον, “the glad news,” since the burden of the proclamation was salvation and life everlasting. The glad news dealt with “the kingdom,” and we may recall all the parables, in which Jesus revealed now this now that feature of the kingdom. The genitive may be objective; on the kingdom compare the exposition in 3:2.

The Baptist wrought no miracles, but Jesus wrought them in great numbers: “continuing to heal every disease and every weakness among the people.” The tangible evidence was thus presented that in Jesus the kingdom with all its heavenly blessedness was actually present. The object is not only doubled for the sake of emphasis, but “every” is repeated for the same purpose. The word νόσος refers to disease, and μαλακία to the soft, weakened condition resulting from disease. No type or kind of disease, and no case, whatever its stage of development, did Jesus leave unhealed. And this healing was always perfect restoration to health in an instant by word or by touch or by both. It is true, λαός is used extensively with reference to the Jewish people.

Yet we are not ready to state that “among the people” here means that the healings were restricted to Jews. We cannot think that any among the mixed population of Galilee were turned away; note, for instance, 8:1–13.

Matthew 4:24

24 And the report of him went forth into the whole of Syria; and they brought to him all that were ill, seized with all kinds of diseases and tortures, demoniacs and moon-struck and paralytics; and he healed them. The imperfect tense used in v. 23, with its accompanying present participles, is now followed by aorists which state so many facts. “The report of him,” ἡἀκοὴαὐτοῦ has the objective genitive. The whole of Syria heard about Jesus. This does not refer to Galilee as being included in the general term “Syria,” but to Syria proper, the region north of Galilee toward Damascus, Antioch, etc. In these cities many Jews were living who kept in close touch with their native land. Besides, intercourse for commercial purposes was constant and lively.

Beginning with v. 23, Matthew links his sentences with the simple paratactic καί, R. 428. He adds that all the sick were brought to Jesus. This does not mean that the whole of Syria brought the sick but that, wherever Jesus went, the people did not wait for him to discover some sick person or other but at once brought them to him. “All that were ill,” τοὺςκακῶςἔχοντας‚ is general, and with an adverb ἔχειν means “to be.” In v. 23 the diseases are stressed, here the persons suffering from them. To the first participle a second is added predicatively: “seized with all kinds of diseases and tortures,” i.e., grave cases, many of them in severe pain. Appositionally three classes are added, those of the very worst type: “demoniacs, moon-struck, paralytics.”

There is a strong tendency among modern commentators to deny the reality of demoniacal possession as recorded in the Scriptures. The demoniacs are thought to have been people who were afflicted with some mania, an unbalanced condition of mind, perhaps were lunatics or epileptics. But what is gained? The great miracles remain even when such a view is taken. These views, however, may lead to serious results. Either Jesus knew or did not know that these were demoniacs.

If he did not know their real condition, we have a Savior who was as ignorant as the people of his own day. If he did know that these people were not devil-possessed, then he acted as if they were, and we have a Savior who could act a lie. To say that Jesus “accomodated himself” to the popular opinion leaves his case under a fatal, moral stigma. The fact is that he never descended to any falsehood, however widely and strongly held.

The Scriptures distinguish clearly between all ordinary forms of disease and the peculiar affliction of demoniacal possession. Jesus, for instance, addressed the demons, and these replied to him and often did so in statements which the human sufferers themselves could not have made. “It is in vain to clear away from these Gospel narratives the devil and his demons. Such an exegesis is opposed to the whole faith of the world at that time. If we are now to make these statements mean just what we please, why did not a single man of the ancient world understand them so? Are we becoming wiser? Then let us congratulate ourselves on our good fortune; but we cannot on that account compel these venerable writers to say what in their own time they neither could nor would say.” Horst, Zauber-Bibliothek, Matson, The Adversary, 177, etc., settles the question as to presentday cases; some still occur in heathen lands. “A certain abnormal state of mind exists, which is not insanity according to the legal definition of the term.

It is a state unaffected, so far as science can prove, by any physical condition of the body; on which medicine appears to have no effect, and on which religion alone seems to exercise a beneficial control.” Christ gave his apostles power to drive out possessing spirits. The supposition that Christ accomodated himself to the views of the people in order to help these sufferers denies his omnipotent power as the Son of God and reduces him to the level of modern “healers.” Nor can anyone show why he did not enlighten at least his chosen disciples but permitted them to remain under the old delusion. What Jesus told the seventy when they returned to him after driving out devils also more than establishes the reality of such terrible possession, Luke 10:18, etc.

Some regard the “moon-struck,” σεληνιαζόμενοι, as being epileptics (R. V., for instance), others as being lunatics (A. V.), and these latter are correct. Those who think of epileptics suppose that their ailment fluctuated with the phases of the moon; but this view cannot be substantiated. The old word “lunatic,” one affected by the moon, corresponds exactly to the Greek term, but neither word has anything to do with the moon’s phases. The “paralytics” are those who have suffered paralysis, which may be due to a number of causes and produces many incurable cases. “And he healed them,” i.e., without the least difficulty and without a single exception.

The aorist states the historical fact. In this simple way, without an effort to excite the reader over the tremendousness of the fact here presented, inspiration records the miracles of Jesus. These healings (the verb occurs twice) are acts of grace and mercy, performed as such, and thus they distinguish the character of Jesus as the Messiah and of the message he brought. These miracles still stand as the divine seals attesting the message to which they were appended. And this attestation, once made and forever fixed in a divinely inspired record, needs no repetition and, therefore, has none.

Matthew 4:25

25 Matthew completes the summary of Jesus’ wonderful Galilean ministry by adding one more feature. And great multitudes followed him from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and beyond the Jordan. Of course, this occurred when the ministry of Jesus was at its height. Naturally, crowds were drawn from Galilee, flocking to him from every corner. But Galilee became the magnet for other lands. Decapolis is the region northeast of Samaria beyond the Jordan, so named after the ten cities which formed a kind of federation.

Most of the inhabitants were Gentiles. Among these cities were Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippo, and Pella. Samaria is omitted, for the Samaritans hated the Jews to such an extent that they would not respond. Syria has already been named, and evidently sent its contingent. But even Jerusalem was stirred together with Judea in general so that many were attracted to despised Galilee. “Beyond the Jordan” (v. 15) is regarded as a noun in the genitive and designates Perea, the territory south of Decapolis, east of the river, toward the Dead Sea. These crowds followed Jesus about in many places, at times gathering by thousands, so that Jesus often found little time for rest and privacy.

Before this great audience Jesus spoke and wrought his miracles.

In this section, v. 12–25, Matthew presents the general program of the main body of his Gospel. We see the type of book he intends to write. It is not a mere chronological account of the life of Jesus but a presentation of the great facts which reveal Jesus as the Messiah, yet all are recorded in due chronological order. The chronology only serves, it does not govern. In this respect Matthew resembles John. The entire conception of his Gospel is masterful and grand.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.