We all know the story. Jesus, in Matthew 4:8-9 is taken to a high mountain (where worship happened back then) by Satan. Satan offers Jesus the kingdoms of the world if only he bows and worships him. Interesting, isn’t it? 
I think evangelicals are extremely uncomfortable with this passage of Scripture. Why would they be uncomfortable? Precisely because Satan, in this pericope, seems to have authority over the “kingdoms of the world.” It’s uncomfortable for two reasons: 1) it possibly messes with our understanding of God’s sovereignty; 2) we are modern men, although we claim to, we don’t really act like we believe in angels, demons, and their hierarchal ruler, Satan. It seems like Bultmann’s influence really did have a lasting effect.
So what do I think this is about? When Satan offers Jesus the kingdoms of the world, it is a temptation precisely because he has something to offer Jesus, namely, the kingdoms of the world. How could this be? Isn’t God sovereign? A lot of literature written during Second Temple Judaism attempted to answer the question of evil, suffering, and sin in the world. They often assumed the cause was fallen angelic beings. As well as this, they went so far to assume that fallen angelic beings had authority and dominion over nations. The book of Jubilees, a book dependent on the book of Watchers places fallen angels as bound before the great deluge. After this, their leader Mastema (a Satan or Beelzebul equivalent) asked God for permission to release one tenth of the evil spirits to execute dominion over humanity. Another example of fallen angels having authority and dominion over the world or nations is found in Pseudo-Moses. Israel was subject to angels of destruction, which were demonic figures who symbolized the rule of the Diadochian kings. We also see it within our own canon in Daniel 10:13. The “Prince of Persia” seems to have been an angelic figure influencing Persia. Other literature such as the Damascus Document also understands Israel at times to be subject and ruled by these fallen angels during their time of lawlessness.
When I read Matthew 4, I understand Satan’s offer to Jesus as an actual offer. In my opinion, the three temptations for Jesus were temptations to accomplish parts of the mission God placed before him without actually relying on God (for passing where Israel failed, for a messianic following, and for becoming King). Yes, Deuteronomy 6-8 are definitely in mind. Israel’s exodus from Egypt is in mind, but also is the apocalyptic dimension we find in much Second Temple literature.
What Jesus accomplished on the cross and by resurrection was the defeat of Satan. As Paul explicitly makes it clear in Philippians 2:6-11, Jesus was not always the Lord over all. He became Lord. Jesus was not always the king, he became king by God’s exaltation of him. So, in the Matthew 4:1-11 narrative, Jesus overcame the temptation from Satan. What did he do? We see it all throughout his ministry in the Gospels, we see it in Acts 10:38 (Jesus healing those oppressed by the devil), we see it in Colossians 2:15: Jesus overthrew Satan’s rule over kingdoms.
I think this bears a lot of implication for today, especially in third world countries for missionaries. What does it mean to say Jesus is Lord? It means the Satan is not. It means that when there is one controlled by demonic forces, there is authority in the name of Jesus. It means for “power encounters” that the power of Satan and his forces means nothing next to the power of the Spirit.
Perhaps you’ll think I’m a wacky Pentecostal. Tell me anyways, what are your thoughts about this passage? Do you have a different interpretation? Do you think this misses the mark?
Update: I am in no way denying the pre-existent divinity of Christ in what I say above. See comment section for more information.
Sources:
Evans, Craig A., and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2000.
March 26, 2012 at 9:14 am
If Satan is a free agent (theologically) it seems you’ve hit upon a rather interesting and unique way to refute theological determinism.
Of course, most who affirm theological determinism (namely some Calvinists) could simply jump it up a notch and hold that even Satan’s actions are pre-determined. However, even most determinists believe Satan had been given some degree of free-agency.
March 26, 2012 at 9:21 am
Your view of Jesus’s three temptations are also interesting. I’ve also seen His temptations were the three ways sinful man can be tempted:
1. Tempted by one’s own flesh;
2. Tempted by the false values of the world; and
3. Tempted directly by the devil.
I like our view.
March 26, 2012 at 9:58 am
Outstanding post, Brian. So many things to think about. Wish I had the answers.
March 26, 2012 at 11:36 am
No one connects it to Adam and Eve giving their God given authority to have dominion over the world over to Satan (and thus making him the ruler of the world until Jesus fulfills the Gen. 3 prophecy and takes it back)? I vaguely remember Leithart having some discussion on this in his Constantine book, but it’s on loan so I can check.
March 26, 2012 at 11:37 am
*can’t check
March 26, 2012 at 11:55 am
Good post. No easy answers, but wrestling with a subject Jesus took seriously is obviously the right thing to do. It’s sad that the commentaries avoid it.
Pingback: Satan, the Ruler of the World? « Near Emmaus | Current Events in Light of the Kingdom of God
March 26, 2012 at 12:17 pm
@Ryan: Well that’s an interesting line of thought too!
God gives man dominion over creation (except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as a way of preserving God’s sovereignty); man gives the dominion he’s been entrusted over to Satan because of his sin (which is why there is forever enmity afterwards [Gen 3.15].
Perhaps this should be connected back to Adam and Eve.
March 26, 2012 at 12:27 pm
@Andrew: Thanks for your thoughts, Andrew. Perhaps it could be used in work towards refuting theological determinism.
@Craig: Thanks, Craig. I appreciate it.
@Ryan: It’s an interesting thought, but I’m not sure that’s what’s in mind when we consider the book of Jubilees, but perhaps.
@Mike: Thanks, it really is sad it’s avoided.
March 26, 2012 at 12:27 pm
I will be expounding this thought next year for a paper presentation at the Society for Pentecostal Studies.
March 26, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Fascinating discussion. And you’re right that we evangelicals tend to be all too afraid of certain “sharper” corners of holy scripture, like this one.
What I’d like to explore further: in this passage, is Satan attacking Jesus in his Adamic humanity (natural human essence; that which is created after the image and likeness of YHWH) or in his Cainite humanity (that which has been damaged by habitual sin and willful corruption)?
Why does this matter at all? I think it’s because when Jesus takes on humanity perfectly, he takes on both the Adamic and the Cainite humanity. As the New Adam, he restores Adamic humanity (through the mediation of the Spirit) to its prelapsarian condition. However, the Cainite humanity remains untouched, unjustified, and unsanctified. Why does Christ not save the entire man? The answer requires close attention to the narrative of Genesis. YHWH had placed a mark on our father Cain’s forehead. Whosever molests him will suffer sevenfold vengeance. Thus, the divine Word, while fully divinizing Adamic humanity, is not permitted–because of an eternal covenant intrinsic to the triune Godhead–to touch Cain at all. As his Father’s perfectly obedient Son, he obeys.
So which part of Jesus’ humanity does Satan tempt? I think the way we answer this question has all sorts of implications not only for our satanology, but for christology, ecclesiology, soteriology, etc!
March 26, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Maybe it shows us that the people of the time had a lot of unusual superstitions for which there is no logical way to account. The author had not yet been taught Christian doctrine so he assigned control of the world to Satan. Because, well, duh, if God was in control then Israel would be in control.
And since Israel clearly was an oppressed country subservient to the Romans, then clearly some other supernatural force must have been in authority.
And since Jesus was more powerful than other supernatural authorities then clearly the only explanation for the sorry mess Israel was in was that he could have been in control but turned it down. Why? Because he was waiting for the right moment. Why? Hey, that’s too many questions for one day.
March 26, 2012 at 3:31 pm
I don’t think Satan did have the authority to give those cities to Jesus. Nor were they actually his to give.
Within the framework of Scripture and how Jesus teaches about him, Satan is a liar, a thief and a murderer. Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus was the creator of all things. Isaiah says that the whole earth is but a foot stool for Gods feet. What a great metaphor for belonging to God and being in the throne room / presence of God.
So when Satan says to Jesus, bow down to me and I will give you these because they are mine… he would have only ‘owned’ them if Jesus had of bowed down to him. Therefore I believe the great temptation here is for Jesus to take the ‘easy’ way out..
Within the scope of Jesus teaching about Satan being a murderer, thief and liar, we see this happening within the 3 temptations. Satan tries to kill Jesus. He tries to steal his obedience to God and lies to him about who actually owns the world.
March 26, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Craig, as I’m sure you know, I disagree. No one disagrees that Jesus was the Creator of all things. The metaphor is great, but unfortunately doesn’t work. We see this worldview I’m talking about evidently expressed in second temple Judaism, Daniel 10:13-21 and also Deut. 32:8.
March 27, 2012 at 5:37 am
DJL,
Can you point me to a source or sources for the second sentence from this excerpt of your post?
“A lot of literature written during Second Temple Judaism attempted to answer the question of evil, suffering, and sin in the world. They often assumed the cause was fallen angelic beings.”
March 27, 2012 at 5:48 am
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for this.
I wonder if evangelical commentators are hesitant about going in this direction precisely for political reasons. It seems to me that American evangelicalism has too much invested in current political and economic structures, whether on the right or on the left, to buy into it. In other words, we’re too busy trying to baptize the system to notice the possibility that Satan might be the lord of it.
Your thoughts?
Best,
Chris Cotten
March 27, 2012 at 5:53 am
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for this.
I wonder if the commentators you’ve been reading are hesitant precisely for political reasons. It seems to me that American evangelicalism has too much invested (whether on the right or on the left) in current political and economic structures to be able to hear a claim like this. In other words, we’re too busy trying to baptize the system to notice that Satan is the lord of it.
Best,
Chris Cotten
March 27, 2012 at 7:17 am
i’m not sure i understand the idea that Jesus was not always Lord. the philippians reference states clearly that he was in very nature God, (but) did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage. doesn’t that mean he actually started out as ‘Lord,’ but put that aside? the first half of the referenced verses are about Jesus humbling himself; the second half is about how God exalted him.
March 27, 2012 at 10:55 am
I have a similar question as sam. How does John’s theology of a Logos that existed from the beginning with the father explained in light of Phil 2 – Jesus, a human, being exalted at his death & resurrection?
March 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Mike: I wasn’t citing anything particular. I do believe the NT Background commentary has mention of it under the section “Belial.” Also, for a more thorough treatment of the topic, check out John Collins’ book, “The Apocalyptic Imagination.”
Chris: I wish I could say, man. It could very well be possibly the case, but I personally doubt it. I don’t think that scholars like Keener, Witherington, and France are so invested in American society that they wouldn’t portray what the Scripture say.
Sam and Jake: I want to note that I, in no way, deny the pre-existent divinity of Christ. I am a Trinitarian Christian entirely. There are two possibilities here and I think they are both relatively speculative. In both cases, Jesus’ pre-existent divinity is still present. 1) Jesus did not have the divine tetrgrammaton (YHWH) before his exaltation. Or 2) Jesus eternally had the name YHWH, but had to lay it down in his emptying of himself and did not receive it again until exaltation. In either case, Jesus receives the tile Kyrios when God the Father gives it to him.
March 27, 2012 at 1:15 pm
DJL: Thanks. Are you referring to “The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament” by Craig Keener?
March 27, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Mike: Yes, I am. It’s quite the resource!
March 27, 2012 at 1:25 pm
DJL, thanks and keep up those Second Temple Judaism posts. They give such relevant context to the New Testament, and help bridge it to the Old.
March 27, 2012 at 6:47 pm
I am a Pentecostal, hopefully sans wackiness, and I agree with your interpretation. Have you read Greg Boyd’s “Satan and the Problem of Evil” or “God at War”? I don’t agree with all of Boyd says in the book, but he takes something of a similar line you do. At the risk of sounding out there, especially to any Reformed readers lurking, is that I think God in his sovereignty delegated authority to us. The problem of evil isn’t so much why an all-powerful, all-good God allows so much evil, but why does the church in whom he has invested authority does. (At least in some sense)