Matthew 4: 1-11
Subsequent to his baptism by John, Jesus was guided by an inner impulse to a desolate place, there to be tested by an opposing force. He fasted for 40 days and 40 nights and therefore at the end was famished. The force that would try him spoke to his inner self and said, "To make clear that you are the Son of God, instruct these stones here to turn into loaves of bread." But he remembered the words that were written [in Torah]: "One does not live only by eating bread alone, but by taking in every word that comes from the mouth of God." Then Jesus had a daydream wherein the opposing force had taken him to the holy city and had somehow taken him to the very top of the temple, saying to him, "To prove that you are the Son of God, go ahead and jump. Remember it is written [in the psalms], "God will order His angels to take care of you; [if you jump] they will catch you so neither of your feet will be broken." Jesus answered that temptation from memory, saying [to himself]: "It's written in Torah that no one should test God." Next Jesus had a vision of all the empires of the known world as if from a mountain peak and thought, "If I just give in to the force that opposes me in my way and bow down to him, I'll own all that I can see." To which [inner] temptation Jesus said, "Perish the thought! Get away from me, you opposing force! It is written [in Torah] that one is to bow down to none but Yahweh and praise only Him." Whereupon, the opposing force retreated, and Jesus' better angels gathered round to support him. (Translated and paraphrased by Harry T. Cook.)
* * * * *
The move known as the cross-body block in football is meant to divert or disrupt the path of an offensive player. Ideally executed, the block comes at the player diagonally or at some angle across his path. That image captures the exact sense of the New Testament Greek word διαβαλλω meaning to "throw across' -- διαβαλλω becomes, διαβολος which, strictly, means "slanderer, accuser" or in our common parlance, "devil." It is related to a Hebrew root transliterated stn, whence "satan." The idea is that διαβολος or stn is an opposing force -- opposing or blocking a path along which one has chosen or has been instructed to go. In football, the player who can properly execute an effective cross-body block has by doing so opposed his opposite number, held him back or, at the very least, diverted him and quite possibly stopped him altogether. That is the governing image of the passage at hand.
Under the aegis of taking the Bible seriously rather than literally, and armed with contemporary translations and paraphrases that deliver first century Greek vocabulary and syntax into usable English, the homilist or class leader is advised to dump the idea of temptation in the conventional moral sense of the word as well as the common and commonplace personification of temptation in the image of a devil.
Matthew 4: 1-11 and its parallels in Mark and Luke are about the inner struggle of a human being who has sensed that he must encounter power and speak the truth to it. The Jesus as variously depicted in the synoptic gospels as well as in Thomas would have lived in an era of tumultuous events when what is now Israel was for all intents and purposes a Roman colony.
Galilee and Perea were governed in part by Herod Antipas under the aegis and with the permission of Rome. Herod's reign (4 BCE-39 CE) just about comprehended the life of the Jesus of the canonical gospels as best it can be calculated. For the economic and social class from which the Jesuses we encounter in Thomas and the synoptics almost surely would have come, life in that era was difficult. Resources, both human and financial (occasionally supported by heavy taxation), were being expended in building and refurbishing monumental cities in honor of the emperor. There seemed to have been a constant climate of unease and unrest in which opposition to rulers and the government thrived. The presence of the σικαριος (terrorist) was felt here and there, now and again.
The Jesus of the synoptic witness seems to have been an irenic character or at least to have operated as an advocate of peace. If he was as charismatic a figure as the gospels suggest, he might have led an armed revolt against the troubles of political and economic oppression "and by opposing end[ed] them." Of course, neither he with or without a rag-tag peasant rabble could by force have ended oppressive government behavior successfully. Thus, as the gospels suggest, Jesus chose the path of passive resistance to the end of justice. (Love your enemy -- Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27.) It must have been a hard choice, requiring patience and the reining in of the impulsive excesses of followers who thought they knew better.
I submit that any Jesus resembling the ones depicted in the New Testament certainly would have entertained such musings again and again. Yes, of course such a one, under pressure, would have been inclined to overreach in such exhibitionistic ways as depicted by "the devil's temptations." Jesus apparently ended up thinking that it was smarter to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile rather than to react in predictable ways. Here both Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. come to mind.
For any human being, plotting out and sticking to such a way against such overwhelming odds would require a certain inner resolve acquired in just such a way as is depicted in Matthew 4: 1-11 -- wrestling with the alternatives, rejecting stupid and unhelpful ones and, in the end, choosing the path of justice-seeking, truth-speaking passive resistance to malign power.
Matthew 4: 1-11 is a manual of operation for those who are moved to challenge the blunt force of oppressive governments or immoral societies through declining to play the game their way. To press on in such a way without being tripped up by διαβολος and/or stn is the desideratum for seekers of justice and makers of peace. Working toward such ends whilst respecting the dignity of every human being is the core, perhaps even the entirety of what it means to be a human in the highest sense.
Inasmuch as the story told in the passage at hand was told (or passed on from oral tradition) first by Mark some time after 70 CE and later picked up by both Matthew and Luke, it is a fair bet that it represents a widely held perception of the Jesus figure during the last third of the first century. Discounting the mythical aspects of the story, one can glimpse in it a kind of heroic figure of legend submitting to the rigors of what was sure to be a hard but compelling way to go even after he had considered the alternatives.
