Chapter Four

1–11. The temptation of Jesus Christ by the devil in the wilderness. – 12–16. Withdrawal to Galilee and settling in Capernaum. – 17–22. Preaching of Jesus Christ and the choosing of disciples. – 23–25. Further preaching in Galilee, healing of the sick, and the gathering of a great multitude to Christ.

Matthew 4:1. Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. (Compare Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-2.) “Then” serves here not so much to denote time as to connect the speech. However, from a comparison with the accounts of other evangelists, one can conclude that Christ’s temptation was immediately after baptism. In Mark (Mark 1:12) instead of “then”—“immediately” (εὐθύς), in Luke it is indicated not the time but the circumstances, placing the temptation and baptism in the closest connection (Luke 4:1). Luke says, as it were: upon Jesus Christ during baptism the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove, and at the time when He was filled with the Holy Spirit, He returned from the Jordan and so forth. Thus, we should not suppose that there was an interval between baptism and temptation. What in Matthew alone would seem unclear, becomes clear from the accounts of other evangelists. “Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness.” Matthew replaces the more forceful expression of Mark ἐκβάλλει, softly translated in the Russian Bible—“leads,” the precise meaning—throws out, pushes out, with the word “led up” (ἀνήχθη). In Luke—“was being led” (ἤγετο)—an expression by meaning equal to the expression in Matthew, with the only difference that in Matthew the verb, composed with ἀνά, means—to ascend from below upward, to rise (properly, to be led upward). Following Matthew, one should understand some elevated locality compared to the one where the baptism took place. “Into the wilderness.” It is unknown what wilderness is meant here. We saw that John preached in the Wilderness of Judea (Matt 3:1), and by this word cannot be understood a desert in the proper sense (such as, for example, the Sahara), but—a locality, although little, but inhabited and not deprived of all vegetation. Speaking of Christ being led away, the evangelists do not mention the Wilderness of Judea. Given such indefiniteness, some exegetes have in mind here that wilderness through which the Hebrews wandered for forty years. To such a supposition leads obvious parallels existing between the wandering of the Hebrews in the wilderness and the circumstances of the temptation, and namely the following: 1) the crossing of the Hebrews across the Jordan and the baptism of Jesus Christ; 2) hunger in the wilderness and hunger of Jesus Christ; 3) trials of the Hebrews in the wilderness for their moral purification and elevation—and the temptation of Christ by the devil; 4) satisfying the hunger of the Hebrews with manna and the temptation to turn stones into bread to satisfy hunger; 5) the bronze serpent and the cross of the Savior, and namely in dependence on the stay in the wilderness. However, against the opinion that Christ was on the Sinai Peninsula, one can object that the evangelists probably would have mentioned this fact, if it were so. Mark’s account, that the Savior was immediately led into the wilderness and that there, probably also immediately, His forty-day fast began, serves, although partly, as confirmation that these events occurred in closely following and not distant one from another intervals, whereas a journey to Sinai would have required at least three days (Elijah went there forty days and forty nights—1 Sam 19:8). It is supposed that the place of temptation was some solitary and elevated place near the place where John baptized. The word “Spirit” is unclear. In Greek it is used with the article. One can understand here both the Holy Spirit and Christ’s own spirit. In the first case, the expression would mean that Jesus Christ was led into the wilderness by some external force, namely the power of the Holy Spirit; in the second—that He withdrew into the wilderness because of the internal requirements of His own spirit, by His own desire or inclination. The expression in Mark is also ambiguous. In Luke it is more definite: πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου, “filled with the Holy Spirit” and (literally) “in this Spirit” was led... Therefore we must refer the leading into the wilderness to an external (this expression is, of course, imprecise) force of the Holy Spirit, because, although Christ’s own spirit was holy, nevertheless, bringing it into connection with the circumstances of baptism gives the right to assert that Christ was led by the Holy Spirit, who descended upon Him in the form of a dove. “To be tempted by the devil.” The very possibility of temptation is based on the fact that man can commit some sin. Apparently, the temptation of Jesus Christ would have been vain, if He had not sinned before the temptation and could not allow any sin during the temptation. If it is true that He Himself told the disciples about His temptation and the disciples correctly transmitted His words, then the question arises: in speaking of His temptation, did He Himself suppose in Himself the possibility of sin and fall? These questions represent one of the deepest theological problems. Accepting the church teaching that Christ was sinless and not only sinless, but could not sin (see Orthodox Dogmatic Theology of Metropolitan Macarius. St. Petersburg, 1868. Vol. II. P. 79), we leave this question and confine ourselves only to a brief analysis of the expressions used in the Gospel and partly the very facts of the temptation. The expression: “to be tempted”—indicates the purpose for which Jesus Christ was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, and moreover a special, exclusive purpose. He was led into the wilderness and withdrew exclusively for this purpose. If any other purpose had been intended, the evangelists would certainly have said something about it. We saw that, having accepted baptism, Christ accepted upon Himself the form of a servant. This was the greatest feat in the history of mankind. Then He is led into the wilderness and undergoes temptation, not as God, not simply as a man, but as a man-servant, voluntarily accepting upon Himself the duties of servile service to mankind, so that through this service to rule over people. Here one sees the connection of the temptation with the preceding event, baptism. As Israel the servant, having come out of Egypt, was tempted in the wilderness, so Christ, having passed through the waters of baptism (which correspond to the waters of the Red Sea), undergoes such temptation. The word “devil” means literally: the one who scatters, separates one object from another or some people from others. The word is used in this sense, for example, in Xenophon at the beginning of his “Anabasis”: Tissaphernes scatters (so almost literally) Cyrus and his brother, persuading Cyrus that his brother is plotting against him (I, 1, 3). Thus, the word “devil” means generally such a person who causes discord, division, confusion in thinking and feelings. Since this is done chiefly through slander or deception, hence the usual (although figurative) meaning of the word devil—slanderer or deceiver. Hence in a figurative sense—opponent, enemy. The devil is the enemy of men because he tears the bond (as it were scatters, divides) between God and man (Cremer). In the New Testament, the devil is generally not distinguished from Satan, except for a few cases (Rev 12:9), where both words are placed together and apparently serve only as different names of the same “ancient serpent.” Satan is a Hebrew word and means opponent. In the New Testament the word is sometimes applied to men (Matt 16:23; Mark 8:33). But in other cases it always means the “ancient serpent,” the devil, a bodiless spirit, who opposes God and produces evil in the world.

Matthew 4:2. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, He was hungry. (Compare Luke 4:2.) Literally: “and having fasted forty days and forty nights.” This apparently does not mean approximately forty days, since to denote approximation in Greek, special adverbs are used. Regarding the Savior’s fast, apparently, one can pose only a single question: is it possible for a man to go for such a long time without any food and remain alive after this? It is known that a few years ago, experiments of this kind were conducted in America and these experiments under medical observation proved that a man, even an ordinary one, can endure a complete forty-day fast. Regarding the mental state of the Savior in the wilderness, it is, of course, difficult to judge. But the most natural explanation seems to us to be the one according to which this time was spent in unceasing prayer. Such an explanation first of all places the forty-day stay in the wilderness in connection with the circumstances of the baptism itself. “Jesus, having been baptized, was praying,” is said in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 3:21). Why not suppose that His further stay in the wilderness was a continuation of this baptismal prayer? He went into solitude many times afterward to pray. There is no need to suppose that all forty days and nights He spent completely without sleep, as some exegetes think. By nature this would hardly have been possible. In any case, there is no hint of this in the Gospels. But that He did not eat any food is evident from Luke’s testimony, who says that He “ate nothing during these days” (Luke 4:2). In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke it is indicated that He “was hungry at the end.” It is explained that only at the end of His prolonged fast did He feel hunger, but one can think that He felt hunger throughout the fast, which increased progressively toward the end and became at the end the strongest and unbearable. This is what the words ὕστερον ἐπείνασεν point to.

Matthew 4:3. And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread. (Compare Luke 4:3.) Literally: “and, having approached, the tempter said to Him.” Regarding the form which the devil assumed in this case, exegetes have a complete disagreement. Some think that it was a real, external, but purely spiritual appearance, and the devil had no need to assume any external form, which would only have aroused suspicion in the tempted Person, and therefore the temptation would not have had great force. Others—that the devil, having approached the Savior, assumed some external form (most likely that of a man), remaining the devil. The first opinion is based on our own spiritual and internal experience, when we sometimes undergo the strongest temptations without noticing the tempter, and yet we attribute our temptations precisely to him. If one pays attention to the fact that the emphasis in the Gospels is placed more on temptations than on the person of the tempter, which is not clearly described, one can allow that, tempting Christ, the devil did not assume an external form. The first opinion is apparently not hindered by expressions that hint at some realism of the appearance, like “came,” “takes Him,” “places,” “says” and such, because all of them can be explained anthropomorphically, as similar expressions are explained regarding God Himself. If, however, one accepts such an explanation, then one will have to allow that the entire temptation took place in the wilderness, and that the placing of Christ on the roof of the temple and then bringing Him to a high mountain were only apparent phenomena. Objecting to this, exegetes allow that the devil assumed a truly real form of a man. “If You are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” It is correctly noted that in the conditional “if” here does not express doubt by the devil in Christ’s dignity as the Son of God. If the devil doubted this, he would not be able to propose to Christ to perform such a miracle as turning stones into bread. Thus the words of the devil had an inciting sense. You (as a Servant, embodiment of a servant-man) are almost dying of hunger, but You should not die, because both to You Yourself and to me it is well known that You are the Son of God. You were recently openly acknowledged as the Son of God at baptism. For You, therefore, it is not at all difficult to perform such a miracle as turning stones into bread. You need only to speak a word and these stones, which You see, will immediately become bread.

Matthew 4:4. But He answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ (Compare Luke 4:4.) “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” Let us first explain, insofar as it is possible, what meaning these words could have, the first words spoken by the Savior after baptism. The body is sustained by food. But man consists not only of a body. The body cannot feed itself or be fed by itself; it, so to speak, conveys information to the spirit about its needs and requirements, and only with its help does it receive what is needed for its continuation and existence. The spirit provides for the body and its needs; without such providence it would perish. In tempting Christ, the devil, therefore, turned not to the chief source of human life. Wishing to achieve his goal, he turned to the slave (the body) instead of its master (the spirit), and tempted the body to gain dominion over its master, to subject it to its will. But such an order was not normal. The spirit is not dependent on the body, but the body on the spirit. For the body to be alive, the spirit must be alive. But the life of the spirit does not depend on physical nourishment. This only seems so. The spirit is nourished by other food. Since the image and likeness of God is contained not in the body but in the human spirit, the food that nourishes the spirit is given by God—this is the word of God. The devil presented man as primarily a bodily being; the Savior presents man as primarily a spiritual being. The Lord as it were forgot about the nourishment of the body, nourishing His spirit; the devil forgot about the nourishment of the spirit, showing outward concern for the body. The error was exposed and the temptation was repelled. Christ’s answer to the devil is taken from Deut 8:3. According to the Septuagint translation this place reads literally thus: “that he might tell you that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word proceeding through the mouth of God, shall man live.” Literally from the Hebrew: “that not by bread alone shall man live, that by all proceeding from the mouth of Jehovah shall man live.” Our Russian text of Deuteronomy, as is evident, departs both from the Greek and from the Hebrew, and is closer to the Latin text of the Vulgate. It is difficult to say according to which text the citation is given in the verse under examination in Matthew. But it is certain that Matthew departs here both from the Hebrew text and from the translation of the Seventy, which is evident already from the fact that “shall live,” repeated both in Greek and in the Hebrew text, is not repeated in the evangelist. But the genuine and precise meaning of the original is preserved in the Gospel, and instead of the Hebrew “lives” it is said “shall live,” as in the Septuagint. In Deuteronomy, Moses reminds the people of their wandering in the wilderness and says that God there “humbled you, afflicted you with hunger, and fed you with manna... in order to show you that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word proceeding from the mouth of the Lord.” How a man lives by the word of God is shown by the life of the Jews in the wilderness. Despite hunger, Israel remained alive because the Lord commanded it to live, and when needed, according to the word of God, manna fell. Consequently, neither did the Savior have any need to care about bread; God would give Him food when it was necessary. He would not die if He did not turn stones into bread. In Luke, this speech is shortened.

Matthew 4:5. Then the devil took Him up into the holy city and stood Him on the pinnacle of the temple, (Compare Luke 4:9.) “Then the devil took Him”—literally: “then takes Him (the same) devil.” The indefinite “then” does not indicate how much time passed between the first and second temptation. In some (completely unknown) way Jesus Christ was taken “to the holy city.” All exegetes unanimously interpret that “the holy city” is Jerusalem, although it is not named here by name. This is indicated, on one hand, by the article (τήν), and on the other—by the use by the Hebrews of these words to denote precisely Jerusalem (see Matt 27:53; Rev 11:2 and others). There is reason to suspect that in Philo the temple is not only called holy, but also “holy of holies,” that is, by this word Philo denotes not only “the holy of holies” in the temple, but the entire temple. That “the holy city” here means precisely Jerusalem is also proved by the further words of this verse: “and stood Him on the pinnacle of the temple.”

Matthew 4:6. and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written, ‘He will give His angels charge concerning You,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear You up, that You may not strike Your foot against a stone.’ (Compare Luke 4:9-11.) To properly understand these words, we should rephrase them somewhat, substituting for the words “Son of God” the titles of some other high persons, for example: if you are a king, prophet, priest, and so forth, then throw yourself down. If such a proposal were made to ordinary people placed on some height or steep place, and if there were no need to throw themselves down, although it would be safe, they would simply point out the lack of logic in such a proposal. If someone is a king, prophet, priest, or some other official, or even simply a person possessing some special powers, then why should he throw himself down? In the devil’s temptation, this lack of logic is heavily masked and supported by a reference to the words of Scripture, apparently spoken in response to the Savior’s previous word: γέγραπται (it is written), which is repeated by the devil here. The Son of God should possess and does possess miraculous power and should demonstrate it. Before performing other miracles, the Son of God should test, verify the existence of miraculous power upon Himself. For the test, for the trial, a miracle is chosen that would seem, both by the concepts of the ancients and by ours, truly a miracle of miracles, a supernatural feat, and therefore the most convincing to everyone—a miracle that would equal the complete annihilation of all laws of gravity. For the Son of God this is possible and safe. “For it is written: He will give His angels charge concerning You, and on their hands they will bear You up, that You may not strike Your foot against a stone.” The Russian text is translated from the Greek literally, except for the word “bear,” which in the Greek text means properly “lift” (ἀροῦσιν). The text is taken from the 90th Psalm (Ps 90:11-12), which according to the translation of the Seventy reads literally thus: “because He will give His angels (Himself) charge concerning You to guard (preserve, protect) You on all Your paths; they on their hands will lift You up, that You might not strike Your foot against a stone.” Matthew omits the words “to guard You on all Your paths,” and Luke—“on all Your paths.” If in the Greek text of the Seventy one crosses out the words omitted by the evangelist and pays no attention to the connective conjunction “and” (καί) and to ἀροῦσιν instead of ἀροῦσι, then between the text of the Seventy and Matthew one cannot notice any difference. Looking at the Hebrew text, we find that it reads literally thus: “because His angels He will command for You to guard You on all Your paths; on their hands they will lift (from Hebrew ‘nasu’) You up, that You not strike Your foot against a stone.” The texts are so similar that it is difficult to decide which text the evangelist followed. But more likely—the text of the Seventy. In Ps 90:11-12 nothing is said about being placed on a high place, falling from there, and being supported by angels. Upon reading these verses immediately one can see that the devil incorrectly applied the text to the circumstances in which Jesus Christ found Himself. It is remarkable that He does not consider it necessary here to reveal any logical error or incorrectness of thought, but repels the temptation only with a text, apparently having little direct relation to the second temptation, and relating equally to all other temptations.

Matthew 4:7. Jesus said to him, “It is also written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’ (Compare Luke 4:12.) Literally: “Jesus said to him: again it is written: do not test the Lord your God.” The word “again” is used here not in the sense of “but,” but in the sense of “further,” “moreover.” The character of the refutation here differs from what it was in the first temptation. In the first temptation, the thought which the devil instilled in the Savior was the devil’s own thought and therefore it was natural if it were refuted by the words of Scripture. To use the same method of refutation in the second temptation would mean to refute Scripture. The text chosen by the devil was itself correct; its application to people and to the Savior Himself was correct, although not under the circumstances in which He found Himself. The incorrectness lay in the fact that this text was put forward as an instrument of temptation. Therefore Christ, not refuting the devil’s words in themselves, only points to the character of his action or deed. It is not right to tempt God, who gave Scripture and gave it His Divine authority. Therefore, in this case, “the addition by Jesus Christ of an expression from Scripture is a qualification and interpretation of it, but not a refutation” (Alford, 1863). The text cited by the Savior is borrowed from Deuteronomy (Deut 6:16) and contains a reminder to the Jews of the temptations (murmurings, provocations, and so forth) with which they tempted God in Massa, a locality on the Sinai Peninsula. In Matthew and Luke (Luke 4:12) the text is given in exactly the same expressions and is more similar to the translation of the Seventy than to the Hebrew, the latter addition in the Hebrew text and in the Seventy—“as you tempted in temptation”—being omitted in the Gospels. The latter word—“temptation,” in Hebrew “massa”—means both “temptation” and the name of a locality.

Matthew 4:8. Again the devil took Him up on a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, (Compare Luke 4:5.) The verb “takes” (παραλαμβάνει) is the same as used at the beginning of verse 5. From this one can conclude that the devil’s action before the third temptation was the same as before the second. The word “again” also points to this. The impression from the narrative is that the devil took Jesus Christ not from the temple, where he was with Him, but “again” from the same wilderness. And again it is difficult to say what exactly took place here in reality. We can, of course, both imagine and see a very high mountain, and even ascend it. But we do not know of any mountain on earth from which all the kingdoms of the earth were visible. The difficulties which we encounter in explaining the passage in question are completely the same as when explaining the initial proposal of verse 5, if only not greater. In the first case, we are at least pointed to a definite place where the devil “placed” Jesus Christ—the holy city and the pinnacle of the temple. In the second case, there is no such definiteness either in the words of Matthew or of Luke, which borders on complete vagueness. “Mountain” (ὄρος, used without the article) may not have been known even to the evangelist himself. It is called only ὑψηλὸν λίαν—exceedingly high. All attempts by exegetes to break through the impenetrable wall of expressions used here should, apparently, be recognized as unsuccessful. Some say that since the kingdoms of the world were shown to the devil “in a moment of time” (ἐν στιγμῇ χρόνου—Luke 4:5), there was no need to go up the mountain, and that only a vision should be understood here, something like a mirage. Further, they place the third temptation in connection with Rev 21:10, where it is said: “and he carried me” (one of the seven Angels) “in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem.” Since in the Apocalypse it is said “in the spirit” (ἐν πνεύματι), then, in view of the very noticeable similarity of the apocalyptic and evangelical expressions, one can conclude that the placing on the mountain was only spiritual and, consequently, unreal. Some say that Palestine was under the dominion of God, not of the devil, and therefore the devil did not show Christ Palestine from a high mountain, but showed only pagan countries in his power. Some even asserted that the devil simply took and unrolled before Jesus Christ “a geographical map” on which all the earthly kingdoms were drawn. But the previous objection has force here—that for this it would hardly have been necessary to ascend or rise to a very high mountain. “The third temptation,” writes one of the most recent exegetes, “again (πάλιν, verse 8), like the second, is introduced by an indication of Satan’s power to affect the sensory life of Jesus Christ. This time He feels and sees Himself set upon a very high mountain and receives the impression that from there He surveys all the kingdoms of the world together and their glory. How little Matthew thinks that there existed such a mountain on earth from which a man could, with his bodily eyes, enjoy such a vision and such a sight is proved by the words δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ (‘shows Him’). Here something more is communicated than that the devil drew Jesus Christ’s attention to objects which He would have seen anyway or could have seen. The expression, rather, denotes the vision of what Jesus saw, as well as the action of Satan, similar to the placing on the temple wall through ἔστησεν αὐτόν (verse 5). The devil enchants the eye of Jesus with a picture that imposes upon Him the impression expressed through πάσας βασιλείας κτλ. He sees not only the land of Israel, ruled partly by the sons of Herod, partly directly by the Romans, which there is no reason to leave out here, but also all the dominion areas which in another sense were also part of this world-picture; and Christ sees not only these distant views, but also all that serves to adorn or beautify them—scenes of nature as well as works of art, which God has caused to grow and which kings have caused to be constructed” (Zahn, 1905). Such are the modern attempts to clarify this phenomenon. To what has been said, probably for the sake of imparting greater reality to the picture, is sometimes added that Jesus Christ saw “Fluren, Stätte, Paläste, Schätze usw.” (fields, places, palaces, treasures, etc.). To such modern interpretations we may with full right prefer the ancient interpretations. “The glory of the world,” writes Jerome, “which will pass away with the world, is shown on the mountain and in the twinkling of an eye; the Lord, however, descended into the lowlands and fields to overcome the devil through humility. Furthermore, the devil hastens to raise Him upon the mountain so that others also might fall from there, from whence he himself fell, according to the apostle: ‘that he may not become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil’ (1 Tim 3:6).” This interpretation, though of course it does not explain everything and does not penetrate (nor does it aim to penetrate) into the mysteries, is distinguished at least by the simplicity characteristic of the gospel narrative itself. Taking such simplicity as our model, we should interpret the passage in question approximately thus: the devil takes Christ, shows Him on a certain mountain all the kingdoms of the world in an unknown manner. The essence of the temptation consists not in placing Jesus Christ upon a high mountain and alluring Him with the beauty of earthly kingdoms, but in acting upon His human nature to make Him bow down to the tempter and thereby offer insult to God. This is the chief aim which the devil sought to achieve by means unknown and incomprehensible to us, yet such as find constant echo in the human soul and life. The devil also places many other people sometimes upon a very high mountain, and these people diligently bow and serve him, strongly masking their service to the devil as service to God. But Christ took upon Himself the form of a slave. He set for Himself the goal not of lordship but of service to men. Therefore in the third temptation the devil seems to appeal to those people whom Christ intends to serve. People will exalt Christ because of His service to them. According to a psychological law, in voluntary service is implied authority; in voluntary slavery and humiliation lies freedom and greatness. People will exalt Christ, but the devil would do it more easily and quickly if Christ would serve him. People will exalt Christ by His elevation upon the cross; the devil would exalt Him by giving Him with all their glory and beauty the earthly kingdoms which belong to him, causing Christ no suffering. But Christ came to save men, not the devil. The means of saving men could not be applied to the devil. Men represent, though very small, still positive quantities; the devil is a negative quantity.

Matthew 4:9. And he said to Him, “All these things I will give to You if, falling down, You will bow down to me. (Cf. Luke 4:5-7.) In some manuscripts it is “said” or “was saying” (εἶπεν). To understand the meaning of this temptation, it is necessary, apparently, to reason not so much about what belonged to the devil as about what belonged to Christ. In explaining the connection between baptism and temptation, we said that baptism was on Christ’s part an act of submission to John and an acceptance of the form of a slave. The temptation was, so to speak, a continuation of baptism, a transition from the external immersion in the waters of the Jordan to the internal baptism, which consisted of prayer and fasting. At the last stage of this internal baptism, Christ’s slave-like state and appearance reached the extreme degree. He did not even have bread with which to satisfy His extreme hunger. The first temptation had the appearance of the devil’s care for Christ’s body, and whoever has been hungry knows how attractive even a stone turned into bread appears to the hungry. But such a temptation proved too small in quantity and was rejected. In the subsequent temptations the attraction gradually increases. The attraction for a hungry body is replaced by that which attracts the spirit. At the final stage, what is most attractive to a hungry man is offered. It is true that for the rich, poverty is sometimes attractive, but this happens only in rare cases, in cases of satiety. But for the poor and hungry slave, the very idea of lordship, happiness, and well-being is always attractive. Here the matter concerns not only the daily bread but abundance. Thus the third temptation very clearly serves as if as a consequence of the first. Without doubt, not a single ordinary man, even in a better condition than that in which the Savior found Himself, would have stood firm before such a temptation. He would have bowed to the devil and, most wonderfully, would have found it possible to justify himself. Thousands, even millions of people dream only of such a bow. Thus here also we encounter a plus and minus, and the magnitudes placed before them are far from close and disproportionate. On Christ’s side was the minus of every earthly well-being. On the devil’s side was a positive magnitude, and even if it were not particularly enormous, not distinguished by an absolute character, it could still attract one deprived of all possessions and suffering as a slave of Jehovah. But on the other hand, in the spiritual sense, the numbers were completely reversed. The suffering slave, precisely in virtue of this very suffering, was the Lord (Κύριος); He ruled by virtue of the very idea of service which He had taken upon Himself; the devil was a slave. The deceptive invitation to bow was a call for the Lord to bow to a slave. In this lay the logical inconsistency of the temptation, and it was rejected.

Matthew 4:10. Then Jesus said to him, “Get away from Me, Satan, for it is written: ‘The Lord your God you shall worship, and Him alone you shall serve.’ (Cf. Luke 4:8.) Despite their brevity, Christ’s words (especially in Greek) breathe energy and force here. Ὕπαγε in Greek is stronger than “get away,” and means “away from My sight.” The force of the temptation called forth the final and angry expulsion of Satan. The addition ὀπίσω μου, which means “get behind Me,” i.e., almost “follow Me,” found in some comparatively unimportant manuscripts and confirmed by Justin the Martyr (Dialogus cum Tryphone, 103:6), Athanasius of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, is, though consequently and very ancient, considered an insertion from other places in the New Testament (Matt 16:23; Mark 8:33). Origen directly states that it should not be added (χωρὶς τῆς ὀπίσω μου προσθήκης). Ignatius, Irenaeus, Jerome, Eusebius, and others omit it. It is absent from the most important manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vatican. Most likely, these words were omitted in the original text. This presumption is supported by the fact that similar words to Peter (with the addition ὀπίσω μου) do not mean a command to depart from Christ but only not to stand in His way and not to hinder His intentions. From this, if such a command had been given to the devil as well, he would not have been driven away, but either could or should have followed Christ. The devil withdrew from Christ only for a season, but it is very unlikely that Christ could have given a command for the devil to follow Him continually. The text in Christ’s reply is taken from Deuteronomy (Deut 6:13). In the Septuagint this passage reads: “The Lord your God you shall fear and to Him alone you shall serve.” Literally from the Hebrew: “Fear Jehovah your God and serve Him (be His slave).” In view of such a difference, some think that the text was translated in a free rendering from the Hebrew, others that it was taken from the Septuagint translation with small changes. From which source the text was actually borrowed is difficult to determine. Probably from the Septuagint translation. In the Bible the text in question is cited almost immediately after another one, indicated by Christ in the second temptation, and has the meaning that Israel should serve the Lord God (Jehovah God) and worship Him alone. Consequently, in the passage in the Gospel under consideration, the discourse is not about Jesus Christ but about God the Father, and the meaning is that, instead of bowing to the devil, Jesus Christ should bow to God and serve Him. But in a figurative and reflected sense, these words could also have reference to the devil. The Savior speaks to him, as if saying: You tempt Me to bow to You and serve You, but You Yourself should bow to God and serve Him. And since before the devil stood God, equal to the Father and the Spirit in essence, Christ’s words can have the meaning: instead of My bowing and serving You, You Yourself should bow and serve Me. Blessed Jerome in his interpretation briefly and clearly expresses this thought: “The devil, speaking to the Savior: if, falling down, You bow to me, hears in response that he himself should rather bow to Him as his Lord and God.”

Matthew 4:11. Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and served Him. (Cf. Mark 1:13.) The words Luke 4:13: “for a season,” shed some light on the character of all three temptations, showing that they were the chief, outstanding, and strongest, but that the devil tempted Christ afterward as well. Since we do not know that the devil appeared to Christ afterward for temptations in any sensory form, we could conclude from this that the first three main temptations were not also crudely sensory, i.e., that the devil at that time did not appear to Him in any sensory form. “And behold, angels came and served Him.” Luke has not a word about the service of the angels; Mark places the word “angels” with the article; Matthew does so without the article. It is difficult to explain upon what such a difference depended, but it hardly gives the right to consider the similar expressions found in Matthew and Mark (Mark: καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι διηκόνουν αὐτῷ; Matthew: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελοι προσῆλθον καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ) as proof that from the second half of verse 11 Matthew, previously following together with Luke an unknown source, now returns again to Mark 1:12-13. Whether the appearance of the angels was visible or only spiritual is unknown. But whatever it was, it seems arbitrary to attach to the gospel narrative the addition that the angels “served” Christ allatocibo—that they brought Him food. It may have been so, but this is not mentioned in the Gospels and therefore we know nothing of it. The logical emphasis, both in Matthew and Luke, appears to rest not on what the angels served Christ with, but on the fact that they served Him at all. The devil demanded worship from Him; the angels served Him. Such a sharp change in the indication of relationships hardly seems to be merely metaphorical. The word διηκόνουν (served) indicates a certain duration of service, not a brief act of worship. In some cases it indicates “service” or “attending” at table (Luke 4:39; Matt 8:15; Mark 1:31; John 12:2), but is not always used in such a sense, and means more general services. Here we can observe that the service of the angels corresponded to the intention of Christ Himself “to serve.” In contrast to δουλεύειν—διακονεῖν means service that is free, with love. When there was no need, Christ did not use the service of the angels (see verse 6; Matt 26:53), but at the necessary time they began to serve Him as a slave of Jehovah, according to the will of Jehovah Himself.

Matthew 4:12. Now when Jesus heard that John had been arrested, He withdrew into Galilee, (Cf. Mark 1:14.) When did this happen? It is hardly possible to determine precisely. We can only present probable considerations. It is hardly to be assumed that the Baptist’s activity lasted more than two years. If we deduct from this about a year for John’s imprisonment, we get the following. From the baptism of Jesus Christ in January of the year 780 from the foundation of Rome until the conversation with the Samaritan woman about five or six months had passed. During this time John apparently was already in prison (John 4:1-3; cf. Mark 1:14; Luke 4:14) and in the following year 781 or 782—was executed. “He withdrew into Galilee.” This withdrawal into Galilee may be understood as simultaneous with the news about John, though this news was not, however, the cause of the withdrawal. In any case, the reasons for the withdrawal into Galilee are not indicated.

Matthew 4:13. And leaving Nazareth, He came and settled in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali, (Cf. Luke 4:31.) Literally: “and leaving Nazareth, having come, He settled in Capernaum by the sea in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali.” From Hebrew, Capernaum means “village of Nahum” (the prophet). At present the city is in ruins on the northwest side of the Sea of Galilee, on a sloping plain that descends to the lake and then gradually transitions to hilly country beyond the town. The place where Capernaum once stood is now called Tell-Hum, where Hum means “black,” because the stones here, with few exceptions, are of black basalt. The name Capernaum has no relation to Tell-Hum. Among the ruins of the present Tell-Hum are visible the remains of some building, perhaps a fortress, church, or synagogue, built, as some think, by a centurion, though the antiquity of the building is somewhat questionable. Pilgrims, from the fourth century onward, have left records of their travels and agree that the present Tell-Hum was indeed Capernaum in the time of Christ. It may be, however, that local traditions, which are often unreliable, formed the basis of such judgments. The word “by the sea” was probably added because verse 15 speaks of the “sea road.”

Matthew 4:14. So that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled, saying, The evangelist does not indicate the grounds for why Jesus Christ moved to Capernaum but indicates what meaning this settlement had. In this fact an ancient prophecy was fulfilled, which is cited in the next verse.

Matthew 4:15. “The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, Matthew 4:16. “The people who were sitting in darkness have seen a great light, and to those sitting in the land and shadow of death light has dawned upon them. The speech in the given verses (in Greek) is distinguished by extraordinary beauty, almost rhythmical, measured, sonorous, and musical. These verses are taken from Isa 9:1-2. When compared with the Septuagint translation, strong deviations are noted. In the Septuagint it reads literally thus: “Drink first, do quickly, land of Zebulun, you, land of Naphtali, and the rest, which are in the coastal region and beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. The people walking in darkness, behold the great light; those living in the land, shadow of death, light will shine upon you (over you).” In the Septuagint translation the Hebrew text is translated by completely incorrect Greek expressions, but while the structure of speech in them remains rather Hebrew than Greek. The differences between the Septuagint translation and Matthew’s text lead one to suppose that in the present case Matthew took the text not from Greek but from Aramaic or Hebrew. This is indicated by the form ὁδόν (accusative case), characteristic of the Hebrew language. “The meaning of the Hebrew text (Isa 8:23-29:1) is distinguished both in itself by obscurity, and the Septuagint has made it even more obscure by its translation” (Zahn, 1905). Literally from the Hebrew: “In earlier times He regarded the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali as insignificant, but in later times has regarded it as important—the sea road, on the other side of the Jordan, the Galilee of the Gentiles. The people walking in darkness will see a great light; those living in the land of the shadow of death—light will shine upon them.” The Greek text of Matthew can be read in two ways, depending on where the comma is placed: “by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,” or: “by the way of the sea beyond the Jordan.” The first is more probable. As we can see, here are designated various localities, of which Capernaum became the center, namely: 1) the land of Zebulun and Naphtali by the way of the sea, i.e., not all, but only localities adjoining the lake; upper Galilee, a part of it, belonging to the tribe of Naphtali, where Gentiles were mixed with Jews (1 Macc 5:15); 2) the localities lying beyond the Jordan, i.e., Perea. The inhabitants of these localities are characterized as a people living “in darkness” (ἐν σκότει) and in the land and shadow of death (it is unclear why Meyer refers the word θανάτου only to χῶρα). If such they were in the time of Isaiah, did they remain the same in the time of Christ? The prophet, of course, attributes their barbarism to barbarous invasions (Isa 8) and then passes on to depicting better days. In the times of Christ, it hardly seems that the inhabitants of the listed lands were in greater darkness than others, although the judgment upon the cities lying near the lake (Matt 11:21 ff.) does testify to the development among them of unnatural vices, which never, of course, serve as a sign of high intellectual and moral development. The evangelist here contrasts the relative light of national development with the great light that dawned with the coming and activity of the Savior. The first light, national, might seem to the evangelist darkness and the shadow of death in comparison with this great light.

Matthew 4:17. From that time Jesus began to proclaim and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near. These words are almost literally similar to the words Matt 3:1-2, where he speaks of the beginning of the preaching of the Baptist. But what meaning did now the same preaching have from the lips of Jesus Christ? In explaining these words, some (Strauss) even expressed the opinion that it was not John who considered himself the forerunner of Christ, but Christ Himself considered Himself the forerunner of John; but such an opinion is not justified by any historical criticism whatsoever. It is much better to explain the matter thus: that the initial preaching of Christ was a continuation of the preaching of John and, as a continuation, had at first an inner connection with it. However, the meaning of the initial preaching in the mouth of John and Jesus Christ was not the same. The difference, as one may suppose, lay in the following. John spoke, as if to say: Repent, because the King will soon come (appear) and His kingdom has drawn near. Jesus Christ: “the kingdom has drawn near.” Following the order of gradualness, He did not present Himself before the people as the Messiah but preached as a prophet, connecting His activity with the preceding activity of John as a prophet. But Christ’s preaching soon became the Gospel of the kingdom (εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας), whereas this is not said of John (though in Luke 3:18 he is said to have preached the gospel). Thus, the initial preachings of Jesus Christ and John were similar, but soon there came what is called differentiation.

Matthew 4:18. As Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers: Simon, called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. (Cf. Mark 1:16.) The word “walking” (περιπατῶν) indicates repeated visits to the Sea of Galilee, though it does not here have the meaning attached to it in Greek classical prose—for denoting the teaching communion of philosophers (the Peripatetics) with their disciples, and at this time their instruction and arguments. The Sea of Galilee is called a “sea” (θάλασσα) instead of “lake” (λίμνη). It has an oval shape. Its length from north to south is about 18 versts, its width about twelve. On its western side, where Capernaum was, rounded hills with long slopes begin from the very shore. The highest of them is Hattin. In one place only does a limestone rock project into the lake like a cape. Here a path passes, which existed long before Christ and was then, as now, the only way northward, so that at this place one feels one is walking the soil on which the Savior and His disciples walked many times. From the Gospel of John we know that Simon and Andrew were called by Christ earlier, shortly after the temptations, at which time Simon (Hebrew Simeon) was renamed Peter. Here let us note the fact that Matthew already knows that Simon was called Peter (cf. John 1:42). The question of whether the disciples chosen by Christ accompanied Him when He went to the feast of Passover and remained constantly with Him after their calling, is one of the most difficult, because reading the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Mark 1:16) creates the impression that Jesus Christ for the first time “saw Simon and Andrew” (so in Mark—without the addition of the name Peter) and called them to Himself. It is further incomprehensible why Matthew and Mark do not mention other disciples called by the Savior—John, Philip, and Nathanael. One thinks only that the account of the evangelist John excellently supplements the accounts of the Synoptics and by means of John we can well understand their accounts. The apostles, perhaps, set out to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, but not together with Christ. After their calling they occupied themselves with their former work, fishing, as they did after the resurrection. “For they were fishermen.” In John the word “fishermen” (ἁλιεῖς) does not occur, but the verb “to fish” (ἁλιεύειν) is found, applied to the apostles (John 21:3).

Matthew 4:19. And He said to them, “Come after Me, and I will make you fishers of men. (Almost literally Mark 1:17). A few words were sufficient at that time for the disciples to follow the Savior. “Come after Me”—this expression fully corresponds to the Hebrew (“lechu acharai”), which by usage among the Hebrews meant discipleship. The Savior was saying: Come after Me, that is, be My companions and disciples. “And I will make you fishers of men.” Simon and Andrew were fishermen in the literal sense. The Savior says to them that He wants to make them fishermen in the spiritual sense; instead of ordinary fish, the apostles will catch men in the net of the gospel.

Matthew 4:20. And immediately, leaving their nets, they followed Him. (Almost literally Mark 1:18). The meaning of the expression depends on where one places the comma. It is more correct to relate “immediately” to “leaving.”

Matthew 4:21. Going on from there, He saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in a boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and He called them. (Cf. Mark 1:19-20.) Concerning the calling of James and John, the same observations apply as were made about verse 18. John was called earlier along with Andrew, though he does not name himself (John 1:37 ff.). James was called now, apparently for the first time. He is here distinguished from James the son of Alphaeus (Matt 10:3). As for Zebedee, the father of James and John, he did not follow Christ. He did not follow because, as Saint John Chrysostom says, “apparently he did not believe (μὴ πιστεῦσας). Therefore the disciples left him. And not only did he not believe, but he also opposed virtue and piety.”

Matthew 4:22. And immediately they left the boat and their father and followed Him. (Cf. Mark 1:20.) Saint John Chrysostom and blessed Theophylact set forth the deed of the brothers as an example for those following and wishing to follow Christ, who leave for this sake their property and relatives.

Matthew 4:23. And Jesus went about all of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people. (Cf. Mark 1:39; Luke 4:44.) It is to be supposed that Jesus Christ made several journeys throughout Galilee. It is unknown whether the journeys spoken of here by Matthew are identical to those spoken of by Mark and Luke in the indicated places. Traveling throughout Galilee, Jesus Christ taught in the synagogues. John preached in the open air; Jesus Christ also did so, but in some cases and, apparently, many times, in the synagogues. Synagogues arose during the Babylonian captivity, when the temple was destroyed, and were prayer places of the Jews where, however, no sacrifices were made. Synagogue means assembly. The word “their” refers to the inhabitants of Galilee. “And healing every disease and every infirmity among the people.” The word “healing,” in Greek—θεραπεύων—means to heal, to care for the sick, to serve. The following words: “every disease and every infirmity,” indicate the miraculous character which the evangelist attributes to this word.

Matthew 4:24. And His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all who were sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those who were demon-possessed, those who were epileptic, and those who were paralyzed, and He healed them. Literally: “and the report about Him went out into all Syria.” Syria was to the north and northeast of Galilee. Although Jesus Christ went about, taught, and healed in Galilee, His fame went beyond the borders of Galilee. During this journey they brought to Him all who were suffering, those afflicted with various diseases and torments, those possessed by demons, epileptics, and the paralyzed, and He healed them.

Matthew 4:25. And large crowds followed Him from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan. The word Decapolis here requires explanation. It was the name given to a region to the east of the Jordan, which, according to Pliny (Natural History, 18, 74), included ten cities: Damascus, Philadelphia, Raphana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippos, Dion, Pella, Gerasa (Gerasa), and Canatha. Of these, however, only Scythopolis lay west of the Jordan. The exact number of cities cannot be determined. Subsequently, more or fewer cities were added to the group, yet the region continued to be called the Decapolis. This was a league of free Hellenistic cities. The Decapolis ceased to exist at the beginning of the second century of the Christian era, when some of the most important cities of this league were annexed to the Roman province of Arabia (Schürer, Geschichte).