Casting Shadows Part 2: St. Matthew and the OT
Still chipping away at this essay ... take a gander at this section.
**********************************
Why was Herod "troubled" at the news of a newborn "king of the Jews?" Do you think perhaps it might have had something to do with the fact that this baby-king's birth was accompanied by a star?
Absolutely.
Those two elements - royalty on the one hand, astronomy on the other - are linked together in a very ancient Old Testament prophecy. Not Isaiah, not Jeremiah, not Elijah ... all the way back to Balaam, who prophesied to the Israelites in the wilderness. He said:
The star and the scepter, coming out of "Israel." This was Herod's clue that a very ancient prophecy was coming to its fulfillment. But what really goes a long way towards explaining his "troubled" reaction, and his incredible solution of killing all the baby boys in Bethlehem under two years old, is the fact that Balaam's prophecy does not stop there.
First of all, however, you need to ask, "who is Herod?"
Any good Bible Dictionary will tell you that King Herod the Great was an "Idumaean," or an "Edomite." And who was the father of the Edomites?
From this new perspective, we can see a little something more in the political situation at the time of Jesus' birth. That Herod (a descendant of Esau) was ruling over Jerusalem (which belonged to the descendants of Jacob) was a gross reversal of what God had said of these two men before they were born, when He said "the elder shall serve the younger" - that is, Esau shall serve Jacob. At the time of Jesus' birth there was more than just a foreign king on the throne; there was a sibling rivalry being played out.
But back to Balaam's prophecy. King Herod, descendant of Esau/Edom, obviously knew the prophecy - or else he wouldn't have flinched at the mention of a Jewish king and a rising star.
Let me anticipate an objection here: it may be suggested that King Herod would have felt threatened at the mention of a "king of the Jews," period. Even if he didn't know the prophecy, wouldn't he still have wanted the baby-king dead?
I don't think so. Sending out hordes of soldiers to slaughter hundreds of babies in order to be certain that you had killed off your opponent - this is not normal behavior. Sending out soldiers is something you would do if wise men came to you and said, "There is a warrior on a white horse with a massive army headed this way, and he says he is the king of the Jews."
Now that's a reason to circle the wagons and start shedding blood. But this is a baby we're talking about! A normal reaction would have been for King Herod to take note of the birth, and keep a close eye on the situation as the years rolled on - you know, maybe see if this Jesus kid decides to pursue a political career later in life, and so on.
The hypothesis that King Herod knew Balaam's prophecy makes much more sense out of his horrible reaction. The prophecy runs like this:
Makes a little more sense, doesn't it? The rising up of this Jewish "star and scepter" was meant to directly cause the downfall of Edom (Esau) and Seir - which we just saw, from Genesis 36, is where Esau and his descendants took up their dwelling ("These are the descendants of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir." Gen. 36:9).
In other words, King Herod, an Edomite, a son of Esau, knows that this Jewish scepter and star which has just been born means that his time is up. He is about to be dispossessed and thrown down. So he takes immediate action.
It is the stampede of soldiers upon Bethlehem that causes the angel Gabriel to appear to St. Joseph and warn him: "take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt." St. Matthew records that the Holy Family does indeed make their flight into Egypt, and that this is also a fulfillment of prophecy: "Out of Egypt have I called my son."
Now, to the average modern-day reader, there is no mystery here whatsoever. No doubt, they think, there is some prophecy somewhere in the Old Testament that speaks of Jesus going to Egypt, and God says "out of Egypt have I called my son."
But if we stop for a moment and actually hunt down that prophecy, we find something interesting: that prophecy isn't talking about Jesus! So did St. Matthew misinterpret the passage?
This is where we have to roll up our sleeves and start digging. The New Testament writers do not proof-text when they quote from the Old Testament. If they did, would they have convinced their original readers? We have to remember that much of the New Testament was written for the benefit of non-Christian Jews and newly-converted Jews who were living in the years immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The writers of the New Testament are constantly laboring to prove that Jesus is the fulfillment of everything the Old Covenant foreshadowed - but how convincing would their arguments be if they were so sloppy in their use of the Old Testament texts?
Think of it this way: would you be convinced if I said that my new-born son was the Messiah, and if I tried to prove this by first taking him on a trip to Egypt, and then saying, "this fulfills what the Old Testament said: 'out of Egypt have I called my son'?"
Well, what does the original prophecy say? Which prophet was it that said these words? It was Hosea, prophesying before the fall of the Northern Kingdom:
"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." (Hos. 11:1)
So who is the "son" who is called out of Egypt? Jesus? No, it's Israel. God spoke to Moses and said, "you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son.'" (Ex. 4:22)
Now, you would read that prophecy and say to me, "Hey, this passage is talking about Israel - it's not talking about your new-born son." You wouldn't accept my obvious misinterpretation of the passage - do you think first-century Jews would have accepted St. Matthew's misinterpretation of the same passage?
But if we dig deeper, we discover something fascinating: St. Matthew is not ripping this passage out of its context; he's incorporating the context into his message, and expecting you to understand his strategy.
God's "son" is Israel; in fact, Israel is God's "first-born son," according to Exodus 4. Who else is God's "first-born" son? Jesus. Already we see some major parallels coming to the forefront, but St. Matthew is about to give us several more.
In fact, this is precisely why St. Matthew quotes this verse, at this specific time. To what event is that original prophecy referring? Out of Egypt I called my son ... when did God call Israel out of Egypt? The night that He sent them out across the Red Sea, into the wilderness, right?
So the sequence of events is like this:
1) Israel goes down into Egypt (during Joseph's time)
2) Israel is called out of Egypt
3) Israel leaves Egypt by crossing the Red Sea
4) Israel enters the wilderness for a 40-year testing period
And what has St. Matthew just showed us? Jesus goes down into Egypt, and then Jesus is called back up out of Egypt.
What was the significance of the Red Sea crossing? St. Paul puts it this way: "all [of our fathers] were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." (1 Cor. 10:2)
The New Testament writers saw in the Red Sea crossing a foreshadowing of the sacrament of Holy Baptism - which is precisely why St. Matthew takes us from chapter 2 (Jesus is sent down into Egypt) into chapter 3, where Jesus is baptized (Matt. 3:13-17).
Closely paralleling Israel's experience, St. Matthew then shows us Jesus, heading into the wilderness for a period of 40 days. In other words, St. Matthew is showing us that Jesus is a New Israel, the Ideal Israel - the first-born Son who will be obedient to God in the areas where Israel failed.
And it is for this reason that St. Matthew so carefully quotes from Hosea 11:1 here, at this point, before he goes on to show us how Jesus retraces Israel's steps. The reader should recognize the parallels of Jesus' experience (Egypt, baptism, the wilderness) with Israel's experience, and ask why there are so many similarities. St. Matthew's answer is there, in his use of Hosea 11:1: "out of Egypt have I called my son."
That prophecy goes on in this way: "The more I called them, the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Baals, and burning incense to idols. Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took them up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of compassion, with the bands of love, and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws, and I bent down to them and fed them. They shall return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me." (Hos. 11:2-5)
You see, this prophecy is ideal for St. Matthew, because it portrays Israel as a first-born failure, it portrays Israel as an infant ("I taught Ephraim to walk"), and it speaks of Israel going back down to Egypt. Enter Jesus, the first-born of God, an infant at the time, returning to the place of Israel's captivity - Egypt.
[As a side note, when King Herod slaughters the infants in Bethlehem, St. Matthew says "Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: 'A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were no more.'" What might be the meaning of this prophecy and its fulfillment? What did the prophet originally mean? Where is Ramah? Who is Rachel? Why is Rachel weeping? I leave it to you to have some fun with this prophecy and see if you can uncover the deeper meaning. Send me a note when you start to formulate some ideas about this!]
That St. Matthew wants to show us how Jesus retraces Israel's steps, healing their broken history by succeeding where they failed, is born out by his account of the wilderness temptation.
What has Jesus just quoted? Here, as with all of the quotations used by Jesus during the temptation, he draws on a passage from Israel's book of the Law, Deuteronomy (a word literally meaning "second law").
In other words, Israel failed their first test in the wilderness when they became hungry and grumbled against God: "And the whole congregation of the people of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, and said to them, 'Would that we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate bread to the full; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.' Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you...'" (Ex. 16:2-4)
See how "hunger" continues to be a prominent theme in these accounts. This is why St. Matthew takes the time to point out at the beginning of the temptation narrative, "[Jesus] fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry."
But where Israel failed their hunger test, Jesus succeeds by not succumbing to the temptation to use His Divine power for purely selfish motives. Never once in the Gospels does Our Lord flex His Divine muscles, as it were, for His own purposes. He always does so for the benefit of others.
Another quote from the book of Deuteronomy, and another reference to a specific failure of Israel in the wilderness:
What was it that took place at Massah? Why would Jesus want to recall this event in Israel's life?
Israel once again failed as a first-born son, in that they doubted their Father's care for them - in effect, they did more then just falter in their faith, they demanded that God give them some kind of proof. It's one thing to hesitate for a moment before making some kind of life-changing decision; it's another thing to lose all trust and pessimistically hope against hope that everything will turn out alright; it's another thing entirely to assume the worst ("God is out to get me"), and demand that God prove you wrong.
This is, in essence, what Jesus is being asked to do. It is interesting that the Devil cites the 91st Psalm in this case, because it becomes a perfect example of how not to proof-text the Scriptures: he quotes verses 11-12: "For he will give his angels charge of you to guard you in all your ways. On their hands they will bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone."
But what else does this Psalm say? Interestingly, it is a Psalm about the righteous man who trusts in God - a fitting description of Jesus. It says that this man will "not be afraid of the terror of the night," that he will not fear "the arrow that flies in the day," and that he will not be troubled by "the noonday devil." After the passage that Satan quotes, the text goes on to say that the righteous man will "walk upon the asp and the lion," and will "trample under foot the young lion and the dragon." Of course, these are all metaphors in the New Testament for Satan himself - an asp (a kind of snake), a lion, a dragon. Satan appeared to Eve as a snake, St. Peter calls him a "roaring lion," and St. John calls him "the dragon, that ancient serpent."
Satan proof-texts the Psalm, interpreting it to mean something it never meant (it never meant that we should jump off high buildings to see if the angels would protect us), and in the process he misses the larger context, which actually condemns him under all of his names.
He wants Jesus to do exactly what Israel did: put God in a situation where He has no choice but to prove His word. Israel demanded a sign of His care; to leap off the temple would demand the same. And so, once again Jesus is tempted to put His Divine power to work for purely selfish reasons, and again He succeeds where Israel failed.
Here Our Lord gives His final quote from Deuteronomy, and sends the Devil on his way.
As you well know, Israel failed this test repeatedly. They worshiped the Golden Calf; they worshiped Baal of Peor; the history of the kingdom of Israel is one sustained repetition of the theme, "King X ruled in Israel, and he did evil in the sight of the Lord, worshiping the idols and false gods, etc."
Israel never did quite learn this lesson. From the moment they left Egypt (the Golden Calf) to the moment they were exiled into Babylon and Assyria, they worshiped false gods.
Satan tempts Jesus to pass up the cross, to reject the bitter cup that is His to drink. He will be king, He will receive the nations as His inheritance - but only after meriting that right by going to Calvary. Satan offers Him the chance to by-pass the suffering and run straight to the possession of the nations and their kingdoms - the only price will be His own soul.
I sometimes wonder if we assume too much of Our Lord in this moment; do you think that, in His humanity - which, we know from Scripture, was afraid of death and despised the thought of suffering - Our Lord may have been strongly tempted to accept Satan's offer? If He wasn't, was it really a temptation at all?
Let's give the Devil his due! These kingdoms, apparently, are his to give. Indeed, the Devil does have power over material things (insofar as God allows that power), and if you wanted to trade your soul for great power, more money, a whole harem of beautiful women, etc., you can be certain that Satan would be able (and more than willing) to produce those things for you.
He can do that. This was no empty temptation on his part. Thousands and thousands of men have fallen for this very thing; "my soul for this kingdom." Let's not underestimate the powerful draw of this temptation, and let's not assume that any one of us would be able to withstand it. This is why we pray, "lead us not into temptation," because if we were offered the kingdoms of this world - however that may appear: a billion-dollar corporation, the presidency, a position of influence in the upper echelons of the world's power-brokers, etc. - we would no doubt surrender our very souls to have that immediate gratification.
Our Lord resists the temptation, making reparation for Israel's sins, and showing Himself to be the New Israel.
This is how St. Matthew sees the Old Testament; this is how he interprets the prophecies of old.
**********************************
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him." When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled ...
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him." And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Mt. 2:1-3, 13-15)
Why was Herod "troubled" at the news of a newborn "king of the Jews?" Do you think perhaps it might have had something to do with the fact that this baby-king's birth was accompanied by a star?
Absolutely.
Those two elements - royalty on the one hand, astronomy on the other - are linked together in a very ancient Old Testament prophecy. Not Isaiah, not Jeremiah, not Elijah ... all the way back to Balaam, who prophesied to the Israelites in the wilderness. He said:
I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh: a star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel ... (Num. 24:17)
The star and the scepter, coming out of "Israel." This was Herod's clue that a very ancient prophecy was coming to its fulfillment. But what really goes a long way towards explaining his "troubled" reaction, and his incredible solution of killing all the baby boys in Bethlehem under two years old, is the fact that Balaam's prophecy does not stop there.
First of all, however, you need to ask, "who is Herod?"
Any good Bible Dictionary will tell you that King Herod the Great was an "Idumaean," or an "Edomite." And who was the father of the Edomites?
"And Esau said to Jacob, 'Let me eat some of that red pottage, for I am famished!' (Therefore his name was called Edom.)" (Gen. 25:30)
"These are the descendants of Esau (that is, Edom). Esau took his wives from the Canaanites: Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, Oholibamah the daughter of Anah the son of Zibeon the Hivite ... " (Gen. 36:1-2)
"So Esau dwelt in the hill country of Seir; Esau is Edom." (Gen. 36:8)
From this new perspective, we can see a little something more in the political situation at the time of Jesus' birth. That Herod (a descendant of Esau) was ruling over Jerusalem (which belonged to the descendants of Jacob) was a gross reversal of what God had said of these two men before they were born, when He said "the elder shall serve the younger" - that is, Esau shall serve Jacob. At the time of Jesus' birth there was more than just a foreign king on the throne; there was a sibling rivalry being played out.
But back to Balaam's prophecy. King Herod, descendant of Esau/Edom, obviously knew the prophecy - or else he wouldn't have flinched at the mention of a Jewish king and a rising star.
Let me anticipate an objection here: it may be suggested that King Herod would have felt threatened at the mention of a "king of the Jews," period. Even if he didn't know the prophecy, wouldn't he still have wanted the baby-king dead?
I don't think so. Sending out hordes of soldiers to slaughter hundreds of babies in order to be certain that you had killed off your opponent - this is not normal behavior. Sending out soldiers is something you would do if wise men came to you and said, "There is a warrior on a white horse with a massive army headed this way, and he says he is the king of the Jews."
Now that's a reason to circle the wagons and start shedding blood. But this is a baby we're talking about! A normal reaction would have been for King Herod to take note of the birth, and keep a close eye on the situation as the years rolled on - you know, maybe see if this Jesus kid decides to pursue a political career later in life, and so on.
The hypothesis that King Herod knew Balaam's prophecy makes much more sense out of his horrible reaction. The prophecy runs like this:
I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh: a star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the forehead of Moab, and break down all the sons of Sheth. Edom shall be dispossessed, Seir also, his enemies, shall be dispossessed, while Israel does valiantly. By Jacob shall dominion be exercised, and the survivors of cities be destroyed! (Num. 24:17-19)
Makes a little more sense, doesn't it? The rising up of this Jewish "star and scepter" was meant to directly cause the downfall of Edom (Esau) and Seir - which we just saw, from Genesis 36, is where Esau and his descendants took up their dwelling ("These are the descendants of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir." Gen. 36:9).
In other words, King Herod, an Edomite, a son of Esau, knows that this Jewish scepter and star which has just been born means that his time is up. He is about to be dispossessed and thrown down. So he takes immediate action.
It is the stampede of soldiers upon Bethlehem that causes the angel Gabriel to appear to St. Joseph and warn him: "take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt." St. Matthew records that the Holy Family does indeed make their flight into Egypt, and that this is also a fulfillment of prophecy: "Out of Egypt have I called my son."
Now, to the average modern-day reader, there is no mystery here whatsoever. No doubt, they think, there is some prophecy somewhere in the Old Testament that speaks of Jesus going to Egypt, and God says "out of Egypt have I called my son."
But if we stop for a moment and actually hunt down that prophecy, we find something interesting: that prophecy isn't talking about Jesus! So did St. Matthew misinterpret the passage?
This is where we have to roll up our sleeves and start digging. The New Testament writers do not proof-text when they quote from the Old Testament. If they did, would they have convinced their original readers? We have to remember that much of the New Testament was written for the benefit of non-Christian Jews and newly-converted Jews who were living in the years immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The writers of the New Testament are constantly laboring to prove that Jesus is the fulfillment of everything the Old Covenant foreshadowed - but how convincing would their arguments be if they were so sloppy in their use of the Old Testament texts?
Think of it this way: would you be convinced if I said that my new-born son was the Messiah, and if I tried to prove this by first taking him on a trip to Egypt, and then saying, "this fulfills what the Old Testament said: 'out of Egypt have I called my son'?"
Well, what does the original prophecy say? Which prophet was it that said these words? It was Hosea, prophesying before the fall of the Northern Kingdom:
"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." (Hos. 11:1)
So who is the "son" who is called out of Egypt? Jesus? No, it's Israel. God spoke to Moses and said, "you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son.'" (Ex. 4:22)
Now, you would read that prophecy and say to me, "Hey, this passage is talking about Israel - it's not talking about your new-born son." You wouldn't accept my obvious misinterpretation of the passage - do you think first-century Jews would have accepted St. Matthew's misinterpretation of the same passage?
But if we dig deeper, we discover something fascinating: St. Matthew is not ripping this passage out of its context; he's incorporating the context into his message, and expecting you to understand his strategy.
God's "son" is Israel; in fact, Israel is God's "first-born son," according to Exodus 4. Who else is God's "first-born" son? Jesus. Already we see some major parallels coming to the forefront, but St. Matthew is about to give us several more.
In fact, this is precisely why St. Matthew quotes this verse, at this specific time. To what event is that original prophecy referring? Out of Egypt I called my son ... when did God call Israel out of Egypt? The night that He sent them out across the Red Sea, into the wilderness, right?
So the sequence of events is like this:
1) Israel goes down into Egypt (during Joseph's time)
2) Israel is called out of Egypt
3) Israel leaves Egypt by crossing the Red Sea
4) Israel enters the wilderness for a 40-year testing period
And what has St. Matthew just showed us? Jesus goes down into Egypt, and then Jesus is called back up out of Egypt.
What was the significance of the Red Sea crossing? St. Paul puts it this way: "all [of our fathers] were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." (1 Cor. 10:2)
The New Testament writers saw in the Red Sea crossing a foreshadowing of the sacrament of Holy Baptism - which is precisely why St. Matthew takes us from chapter 2 (Jesus is sent down into Egypt) into chapter 3, where Jesus is baptized (Matt. 3:13-17).
Closely paralleling Israel's experience, St. Matthew then shows us Jesus, heading into the wilderness for a period of 40 days. In other words, St. Matthew is showing us that Jesus is a New Israel, the Ideal Israel - the first-born Son who will be obedient to God in the areas where Israel failed.
And it is for this reason that St. Matthew so carefully quotes from Hosea 11:1 here, at this point, before he goes on to show us how Jesus retraces Israel's steps. The reader should recognize the parallels of Jesus' experience (Egypt, baptism, the wilderness) with Israel's experience, and ask why there are so many similarities. St. Matthew's answer is there, in his use of Hosea 11:1: "out of Egypt have I called my son."
That prophecy goes on in this way: "The more I called them, the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Baals, and burning incense to idols. Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took them up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of compassion, with the bands of love, and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws, and I bent down to them and fed them. They shall return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me." (Hos. 11:2-5)
You see, this prophecy is ideal for St. Matthew, because it portrays Israel as a first-born failure, it portrays Israel as an infant ("I taught Ephraim to walk"), and it speaks of Israel going back down to Egypt. Enter Jesus, the first-born of God, an infant at the time, returning to the place of Israel's captivity - Egypt.
[As a side note, when King Herod slaughters the infants in Bethlehem, St. Matthew says "Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: 'A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were no more.'" What might be the meaning of this prophecy and its fulfillment? What did the prophet originally mean? Where is Ramah? Who is Rachel? Why is Rachel weeping? I leave it to you to have some fun with this prophecy and see if you can uncover the deeper meaning. Send me a note when you start to formulate some ideas about this!]
That St. Matthew wants to show us how Jesus retraces Israel's steps, healing their broken history by succeeding where they failed, is born out by his account of the wilderness temptation.
And the tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." But he answered, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" (Matt. 4:3-4)
What has Jesus just quoted? Here, as with all of the quotations used by Jesus during the temptation, he draws on a passage from Israel's book of the Law, Deuteronomy (a word literally meaning "second law").
"And you shall remember all the way which the LORD your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments, or not. And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know; that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD." (Dt. 8:2-3)
In other words, Israel failed their first test in the wilderness when they became hungry and grumbled against God: "And the whole congregation of the people of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, and said to them, 'Would that we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate bread to the full; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.' Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you...'" (Ex. 16:2-4)
See how "hunger" continues to be a prominent theme in these accounts. This is why St. Matthew takes the time to point out at the beginning of the temptation narrative, "[Jesus] fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry."
But where Israel failed their hunger test, Jesus succeeds by not succumbing to the temptation to use His Divine power for purely selfish motives. Never once in the Gospels does Our Lord flex His Divine muscles, as it were, for His own purposes. He always does so for the benefit of others.
Then the devil took him to the holy city, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, 'He will give his angels charge of you,' and 'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'" Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'" (Matt. 4:5-7)
Another quote from the book of Deuteronomy, and another reference to a specific failure of Israel in the wilderness:
You shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples who are round about you; for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; lest the anger of the LORD your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth. You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah. (Dt. 6:14-16)
What was it that took place at Massah? Why would Jesus want to recall this event in Israel's life?
Therefore the people found fault with Moses, and said, "Give us water to drink." And Moses said to them, "Why do you find fault with me? Why do you put the LORD to the proof?" But the people thirsted there for water, and the people murmured against Moses, and said, "Why did you bring us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?" ... the LORD said to Moses, "Pass on before the people ... I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, that the people may drink." And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel. And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the faultfinding of the children of Israel, and because they put the LORD to the proof by saying, "Is the LORD among us or not?" (Ex. 17:2-7)
Israel once again failed as a first-born son, in that they doubted their Father's care for them - in effect, they did more then just falter in their faith, they demanded that God give them some kind of proof. It's one thing to hesitate for a moment before making some kind of life-changing decision; it's another thing to lose all trust and pessimistically hope against hope that everything will turn out alright; it's another thing entirely to assume the worst ("God is out to get me"), and demand that God prove you wrong.
This is, in essence, what Jesus is being asked to do. It is interesting that the Devil cites the 91st Psalm in this case, because it becomes a perfect example of how not to proof-text the Scriptures: he quotes verses 11-12: "For he will give his angels charge of you to guard you in all your ways. On their hands they will bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone."
But what else does this Psalm say? Interestingly, it is a Psalm about the righteous man who trusts in God - a fitting description of Jesus. It says that this man will "not be afraid of the terror of the night," that he will not fear "the arrow that flies in the day," and that he will not be troubled by "the noonday devil." After the passage that Satan quotes, the text goes on to say that the righteous man will "walk upon the asp and the lion," and will "trample under foot the young lion and the dragon." Of course, these are all metaphors in the New Testament for Satan himself - an asp (a kind of snake), a lion, a dragon. Satan appeared to Eve as a snake, St. Peter calls him a "roaring lion," and St. John calls him "the dragon, that ancient serpent."
Satan proof-texts the Psalm, interpreting it to mean something it never meant (it never meant that we should jump off high buildings to see if the angels would protect us), and in the process he misses the larger context, which actually condemns him under all of his names.
He wants Jesus to do exactly what Israel did: put God in a situation where He has no choice but to prove His word. Israel demanded a sign of His care; to leap off the temple would demand the same. And so, once again Jesus is tempted to put His Divine power to work for purely selfish reasons, and again He succeeds where Israel failed.
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; and he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! for it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'" (Matt. 4:8-10)
Here Our Lord gives His final quote from Deuteronomy, and sends the Devil on his way.
And when the LORD your God brings you into the land ... and when you eat and are full, then take heed lest you forget the LORD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve him, and swear by his name. You shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples who are round about you. (Dt. 6:10-14)
As you well know, Israel failed this test repeatedly. They worshiped the Golden Calf; they worshiped Baal of Peor; the history of the kingdom of Israel is one sustained repetition of the theme, "King X ruled in Israel, and he did evil in the sight of the Lord, worshiping the idols and false gods, etc."
Israel never did quite learn this lesson. From the moment they left Egypt (the Golden Calf) to the moment they were exiled into Babylon and Assyria, they worshiped false gods.
Satan tempts Jesus to pass up the cross, to reject the bitter cup that is His to drink. He will be king, He will receive the nations as His inheritance - but only after meriting that right by going to Calvary. Satan offers Him the chance to by-pass the suffering and run straight to the possession of the nations and their kingdoms - the only price will be His own soul.
I sometimes wonder if we assume too much of Our Lord in this moment; do you think that, in His humanity - which, we know from Scripture, was afraid of death and despised the thought of suffering - Our Lord may have been strongly tempted to accept Satan's offer? If He wasn't, was it really a temptation at all?
Let's give the Devil his due! These kingdoms, apparently, are his to give. Indeed, the Devil does have power over material things (insofar as God allows that power), and if you wanted to trade your soul for great power, more money, a whole harem of beautiful women, etc., you can be certain that Satan would be able (and more than willing) to produce those things for you.
He can do that. This was no empty temptation on his part. Thousands and thousands of men have fallen for this very thing; "my soul for this kingdom." Let's not underestimate the powerful draw of this temptation, and let's not assume that any one of us would be able to withstand it. This is why we pray, "lead us not into temptation," because if we were offered the kingdoms of this world - however that may appear: a billion-dollar corporation, the presidency, a position of influence in the upper echelons of the world's power-brokers, etc. - we would no doubt surrender our very souls to have that immediate gratification.
Our Lord resists the temptation, making reparation for Israel's sins, and showing Himself to be the New Israel.
This is how St. Matthew sees the Old Testament; this is how he interprets the prophecies of old.
<< Home