MATTHEW 4:8

I was asked how Jesus, in his temptation by Satan, could have seen all the kingdoms of the earth from atop a mountain, no matter how high the mountain might have been, due to the curvature of the earth. This question is actually quite similar to one I have seen coming from atheistic circles regarding Daniel 12:1-4: “How could there be a tree so tall that it could be seen anywhere in the earth?” Of course, addressing that question is absurdly easy since that particular tree appeared in a dream given to Nebuchadnezzar by God, and dream logic is not exactly the same as scientific logic. But the difference here is that Jesus' temptations are seemingly presented in a narrative context.

Somewhat similar approaches have been taken to understanding the meaning of this third temptation in Matthew's Gospel. They may be categorized as mystical, symbolic, visionary, typical, hallucinatory, or theological. But in any case, I have yet to run across any serious Bible scholar who feels that this temptation was strictly literal in all respects. And as the conservative scholar Hendricksen puts it, “This is not at all a question of believing Scripture or not believing it. It is simply a question of how best to interpret what we accept.” Even flat-earth proponents would have trouble explaining it in literal terms.

As Hendricksen points out, leaving aside the rather important question as to how Jesus and Satan managed to make the long journeys to a great mountain and to the temple in Jerusalem from the middle of the wilderness, “would not some kind of miracle have been required to enable the devil from there to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, and this not just in dim outline, but very distinctly, so that 'all their splendor (or glory)' would be plainly visible; and again, not little by little during a lengthy period of time, but, as Luke adds, 'in a moment.'?” And Blomberg adds, “Nothing in Scripture suggests the devil has the power to alter this situation.”

I will not note all the scholars who subscribe to the idea that this particular temptation constituted some sort of visionary experience due to the physical impossibility of a literal understanding. However, an additional factor leads in this same direction. Hendricksen notes: “Scripture contains two comparable passages in which we are told that someone is 'set on' or 'carried to' a high mountain. These two are Ezek. 40:2 and Rev. 21:10. Ezekiel plainly states that this happened 'in the vision of God.' To the seer of Patmos visions were shown while he was 'in the Spirit.' It was 'in the Spirit' that he was carried away to a mountain great and high.” One could also add Paul's comment in II Corinthians 2:1-4 where “a person [probably referring to himself] was caught up to the third heaven – whether in the body or out of the body I do not know.”

Comparison of Parallel Accounts

The first difficulty with a rigidly literal interpretation is that one immediately runs into contradictions with the parallel account in Luke 4:5, which reads: “Then the devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.” For one thing, Luke presents this temptation as the second one Satan gave to Jesus, not the third as in Matthew's account. It seems obvious that the same original source of material was utilized by these two writers in slightly different ways to make their respective theological points. Unfortunately, there is no universal agreement as to which gospel preserves best the original order.

In most lists of three items, the intended emphasis is on the final one. So, it has been explained that Matthew stresses this temptation by placing it last since it occurred on a mountain. As Albright and Mann point out, “Matthew's account places several significant events in such a setting: the Great Instruction (5:1), the Transfiguration (17:1), and the farewell to the disciples (26:16). In the same vein, J.K. Brown notes: “One setting that receives attention in Matthew and has some theological import is the mountain. Key revelatory and eschatological moments occur on mountains.”

On the other hand, it has been noted by other scholars that Luke's theology places a heavy emphasis on the role of Jerusalem and the temple. Thus, he places the temptation on the pinnacle of the temple as the final and crucial event of the three. In either case, we see that theological concerns have shaped the way each evangelist shapes the narrative.

Somewhat related to the above consideration is the fact that Luke's account does not even mention a mountain at all. Instead, it just reads that the devil “took him up.” Wilkins feels, “This may indicate that this temptation came through some type of visionary experience, since no mountain could make visible all of the kingdoms on earth's sphere.”

Among those thus feeling that it was Luke who purposely omitted the mention of a mountain from his original source here, there are two reasons given as to why he may have wanted to do so. The first possibility is that, as Wilkins said, he realized the physical impossibility of such a mountain existing. This is also Marshall's belief. Alternatively, Fitzmyer feels that “Luke has omitted the mention of the mountain because such a locality in his Gospel means a place of prayer and of heavenly communication or revelation.”

Alternatively, Luke's version may be closer to the original source while it is Matthew who has expanded on it for one reason or another. “Luke does not mention a mountain in his narrative, and seems to imply that this temptation experience was wholly mystical. Matthew gives concreteness to his description by introducing Old Testament influence the very high mountain.” (Hill)

One powerful reason for Matthew introducing a mountain at this point in his Gospel is a literary one. Allison (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels) says, “The mountain in Matt 4:8...serves a literary function. It relates a scene near the beginning of the Gospel to the Gospel's conclusion.” (See Matt. 28:16-20 where Jesus declares that he has all authority in heaven and earth.” “The lesson...is that only after the passion, and only from God, can Jesus accept legitimate authority.”

Supporting Allison's contention is my own literary analysis of Matthew's Gospel, which takes the overall symmetrical shape shown below:

Structure of the Gospel of Matthew

    I. Birth and Preparation for Ministry (1:1-4:17)

        II. Early Ministry [in Galilee] (4:18-8:34)

            III. Ministry and Conflict (9:1-12:45)

                IV. Teaching in Parables (12:46-13:58)

                    V. Contrasting Responses to Jesus (14:1-16:4)

                IV'. Jesus' Identity (16:5-17:23)

            III'. Late Ministry [in Jerusalem] (17:24-23:39)

        II'. Eschatological Discourse (chs. 24-25)

    I'. Death and Resurrection (chs. 26-28)

The two matching mountaintop experiences thus occur at the ends of sections I and I', a parallelism strengthened by the following key words and concepts appearing in both narratives: Galilee, worship, mountain, world/earth, give, say, nations, all, kingdoms, behold, and commands from Jesus to “go.”

Thus, “what the devil offered in return for worship Jesus has achieved through faithful obedience that led to death (Philippians 2:10-11; Revelation 1:5).” (Mounce)

Another way of characterizing the difference between the two Synoptic accounts is given by Craddock: “Luke says the devil's showing Jesus the kingdom of the world is a temporal experience ('in a moment of time'), whereas it is spatial in Matthew ('to a very high mountain').”

Old Testament Background

It helps greatly to put this narrative, especially in Matthew's version, into an OT context:

    Barbieri compares Jesus' three temptations with with those of Eve in the garden – physical appetite, personal gain, and glory.

    The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states that “a balance to the temptation of Adam and Eve is Satan's temptation of Jesus in the wilderness...Christ, the second Adam undoes what the first Adam did, thwarting Satan and robbing him of final victory.”

Other commentators compare the temptations to the Jews' experience in the wilderness.

    Blomberg: “In this context we see Jesus the man obeying God's law, without inappropriately relying on his divine nature, and thereby thwarting the devil, as Israel in the wilderness centuries earlier should have done but did not.”

    Twelftree: “The Old Testament theme of God's testing the faithfulness of his people, notably in the wilderness, is reflected preeminently in the temptation of Jesus...” Thus, it is no coincidence that Jesus in countering Satan quotes only from the book of Deuteronomy.

    Hill: “The Jesus-Moses theme is here taken up again. Dt. 34:1-4 describes the panoramic view over the promised land shown to Moses by God on Mount Nebo. As the Lord showed and promised to give all Canaan to Moses, so the devil shows and promises the entire world to Jesus...”

Mountains

Riesner admits that “a symbolic understanding [of the mountain] would also be possible” as well as an actual geographical location. Similarly, Nixon says, “'A very high mountain' seems to be symbolic.” But symbolic of what?

“Mountains and hills are a master image of the Bible, through which one can trace the whole course of biblical history and doctrine in microcosm...As symbols they declare the nature of God. As the place where humans encounter the divine, they epitomize how God and people relate to each other, both in history and in the eschaton!” (DBI)

Kingdoms of the World

Fitzmyer expresses a minority opinion: “'All the kingdoms of the world' is possibly an allusion to the Roman empire, but it is not clear.” The more usual consensus is that “'kingdoms of the world' and parallel expressions “refer to the world of humanity.” (DBI)

One of the main issues here is the Greek word for “world” utilized in each Synoptic version. “Luke uses oikoumene to bring out the political sense in a way that Matthew's use of kosmos does not.” (DBI)

Guhrt characterizes the two words as follows: “In Gk. philosophy kosmos is the basic term for the world-order, the world system...It can mean the world as the sphere or place of human life, the earth, the oikoumene. This usage takes precedence in the Synoptics.

Does or did Satan have possession of the world?

This is another controversial issue brought up by this temptation. Bell soundly rejects this idea: “Although Satan does in fact have his 'kingdom', the temptation narrative hardly suggests that the devil is in possession of the 'kingdoms of the world.'”

Holding to the opposite view are other scholars:

    Barbieri points to NT passages such as II Corinthians 4:4 where Satan is called “the god of this Age” as well as John 12:31and Ephesians 2:2 in which he is “the prince of this world.” He therefore states, “He had the power to give all these kingdoms to Jesus at that time.”

    Jacques Ellul is one of several commentators who point out that Jesus never disputed Satan's claim to the kingdoms he promised to Him.

Blomberg holds to a plausible middle position: “Satan still has access to the kingdoms of this world, but only to the extent that God in his sovereignty permits. God remains the master of all creation and of all creatures, and so he alone merits worship.”

Caution

Hendricksen warns readers that a spiritual understanding of the event should not be used as an excuse to dismiss it when he says, “This view must not be confused with that according to which the temptations were of a merely subjective nature.”

In a similar manner, Bell in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels explains, “Although there are 'visionary' and 'mythological' elements, neither view does full justice to the narrative or to the life of Jesus. Having fasted, Jesus was in a state of consciousness such that he was able to access deeper levels of reality where the usual categories of time and space no longer apply.”

Keep in mind that to dismiss a spiritual vision since it couldn't have taken place physically is to also reject large portions of Scripture as meaningless including much of the OT prophets and the whole book of Revelation.

Application

Wilkins points out that “Jesus' temptations also have commonalities to the experiences of believers today. Jesus succeeded where Adam and Israel/Moses failed. And the way he succeeded becomes the example for the way that his followers can succeed under similar types of temptations.”