From Lectio Divina

 

Luke, with the refinement of a narrator, mentions in 4: 1-44 some aspects of the ministry of Jesus after His baptism, among them the temptations of the devil. In fact, he says that Jesus, “Filled with the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the desert, for forty days” (Lk 4: 1-2). Such an episode in the life of Jesus is something preliminary to His ministry, but it can also be understood as the moment of transition from the ministry of John the Baptist to that of Jesus. In Mark such an account of the temptations is more generic. In Matthew, it is said that Jesus “was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil” (Mt 4: 1), these last words attribute the experience of the temptations to an influence which is at the same time heavenly and diabolical. The Lukan account modifies Matthew’s text in such a way as to show that Jesus, “filled with the Holy Spirit”, leaves the Jordan on His own initiative and is led by the Spirit into the desert for forty days, where “He is tempted by the devil” (4: 2). The meaning which Luke wants to give to the temptations of Jesus is that those were an initiative of the devil and not a programmed experience of the Holy Spirit (S. Brown). It is as if Luke wanted to keep clearly distinct the person of the devil from the person of the HolySpirit.

Another element to be kept in mind is the order in which Luke places the temptations: desert – sight of the kingdoms of the world – pinnacle of Jerusalem. In Matthew, instead, the order varies: desert – pinnacle – high mountain. Exegetes discuss which is the original disposition, but they have not arrived at a unanimous opinion. The difference could be explained beginning with the third temptation (the culminating one): for Matthew the “mountain” is the summit of the temptation because in his Gospel he places all his interest on the theme of the mountain (we just have to remember the Sermon onthe Mount, the presentation of Jesus as “the new Moses”); for Luke, instead, the last temptation takes place on the pinnacle of the temple of Jerusalem because one of the great interests of his Gospel is the city of Jerusalem (Jesus in Luke’s account is on the way toward Jerusalem where salvation is definitively fulfilled) (Fitzmyer).

Another element to be kept in mind is the order in which Luke places the temptations: desert – sight of the kingdoms of the world – pinnacle of Jerusalem. In Matthew, instead, the order varies: desert – pinnacle – high mountain. Exegetes discuss which is the original disposition, but they have not arrived at a unanimous opinion. The difference could be explained beginning with the third temptation (the culminating one): for Matthew the “mountain” is the summit of the temptation because in his Gospel he places all his interest on the theme of the mountain (we just have to remember the Sermon onthe Mount, the presentation of Jesus as “the new Moses”); for Luke, instead, the last temptation takes place on the pinnacle of the temple of Jerusalem because one of the great interests of his Gospel is the city of Jerusalem (Jesus in Luke’s account is on the way toward Jerusalem where salvation is definitively fulfilled) (Fitzmyer).

Did these temptations take place historically? Why do some, among believers and nonbelievers, hold that such temptations are only some fantasy about Jesus, some inventionof a story? Such questions are extremely important. Certainly, it is not possible to givea literal and unsophisticated explanation, or perhaps to think that these could have happened in an external way. Dupont’s explanation seems to offer an alternative: “Jesusspeaks about an experience which He has lived, but translated into a figurative language, adapted to strike the minds of His listeners” (Les Tentations de Jesus au Desert, 128). More than considering them as an external fact, the temptations are considered as a concrete experience in the life of Jesus. It seems to me that this is the principal reason which has guided Luke and the other evangelists in transmitting those scenes. The opinions of those who hold that the temptations of Jesus are fictitious or invented are deprived of foundation, neither is it possible to share the opinion of Dupont himself, when he says that these were “a purely spiritual dialogue that Jesus had with the devil”(Dupont, 125). Looking within the New Testament (Jn 6: 26-34; 7: 1-4; Heb 4: 15; 5: 2;2: 17a) it is clear that the temptations were an evident truth in the life of Jesus.The explanation of Raymond Brown is interesting and can be shared: “Matthew and Luke would have done no injustice to historical reality by dramatizing such temptationswithin a scene, and by masking the true tempter by placing this provocation on his lips”(the Gospel According to John, 308). In synthesis we could say that the historicity of the temptations of Jesus or the taking root of these in the experience of Jesus might be described with a “figurative language” (Dupont) or “dramatized” (Raymond Brown). One must distinguish the content (the temptations in the experience of Jesus) from its container (the figurative or dramatized language). It is possible that these two interpretations are much more correct than those which interpret them in a purely literal sense.