BIBLE STUDY BOOKLET

Previous Chapter	Index	Next Chapter
	THE TEMPTATIONS OF THE LORD By Theo Todman YE WHO HAVE STOOD WITH ME IN MY TEMPTATIONS

The above is a quote from Luke 22:28, when the twelve apostles and the Lord were holding their last supper together. The full text in the RSV is

What were these trials? They do not include the temptations in the wilderness, for the twelve were not then chosen, nor the agony in the garden and subsequent events, for these had not yet occurred. Presumably these trials include the general discomforts, rejections and buffetings of the Lord's preaching, teaching and healing ministry as He went about 'doing good' (Acts 10:38) in Galilee and Judea.

There are, however, six specific episodes in the period of the Lord's ministry when various people rose up to put Him to the test. We shall run through these and try to determine just what these people were trying to find out (or disprove) about the Lord, and what these incidents teach us about Him.

Then follows the 'parable' of the good Samaritan, after which the lawyer is told to "go and do likewise." (verse 37).

This is perhaps the most important question that can be asked. The lawyer, one well schooled in the study of the law and a teacher of the same, asked this question, not because he was ignorant of the answer, but because he knew what the law of Moses said - "Do this, and you will live." (Leviticus 18:5) - and wanted to test the orthodoxy of this teacher of novelties (so he suspected) Who had just said "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou has hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes." When the Lord turned the question back to him, and agreed with his answer, the lawyer could only save face by asking a nit-picking technicality about the meaning of the term 'neighbour'. Again, the Lord (in effect) pointed him back to the law, his speciality, for the law agrees that you should not oppress a stranger (Exodus 23:9) but that the stranger should be as the native born. "You shall love him as yourself" (Leviticus 19:34). In the parable, the injured man was only a stranger (in this sense) to the Samaritan.

Why did the Lord point to the keeping of the law as the road to eternal life? Because the law was still then in force-

Indeed the strictures of the sermon on the mount, from which the last quote was taken, serve rather to strengthen than to relax the law. But why is there no reference to believing that Jesus is the Messiah (John 20:31) or of the necessity to be 'born again' (John 3:3)? A difficult question! Possibly because He wanted to condemn the presumptuous lawyer out of his own mouth and to show him the helplessness of his situation by sending him back to the burden which, as Peter said, "neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear." (Acts 15:10). The Lord Jesus had both new and old things to say (cf. Matthew 1 3:52 - 'the scribe') but here He stops at the old.

The test was to make the Lord prove His Messiahship. However, the Lord's ministry was replete with signs. Indeed, He had just performed a notable one (though in a different place) in the feeding of the 4,000 (Matthew 15:32-38), which is a similar incident to the feeding of the 5,000, the fourth of the eight signs in John (John 6:1-14) given

These signs were His Messianic credentials-

in reply to the question of John the Baptist's disciples

Jesus said

Because His mighty works were signs, He would not perform them when there was a hardened attitude of unbelief - for instance "He did not do many mighty works there (in His own country), because of their unbelief." (Matthew 13:58). When His signs met with determined unbelief, they were attributed to Satan - "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons" said the Pharisees (Matthew 12:24).

By His fulfilment of the prophetic works of Messiah, the Lord Jesus had given those who opposed Him ample reason to believe. But what they wanted was something more spectacular. So, He looks forward to His most spectacular miracle of all, His resurrection from the dead, which was prefigured by Jonah's deliverance from the belly of the great fish. It was by this miracle, pre-eminently, that He was "designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His resurrection from the dead.' (Romans 1:4).

Presumably, the Pharisees knew the Lord's teaching on this matter - witness their prepared answer of Moses' "bill of divorcement." However, their prepared answer was too superficial. There are only three Old Testament references to the bill of divorcement, namely Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (the passage referred to here) where it is written that the bill is to be passed if the husband has found some uncleanness in his wife and Jeremiah 3:8 and Isaiah 50:1 which refer to the 'divorce' of Samaria for adultery (i.e. idolatry) (possibly all Israel in Isaiah 50:1). The divorce was never allowed for any cause. In fact, there does not seem much difference between the conditions of Deuteronomy 24 and the Lord's allowable cause of unchastity (porneia is harlotry), though because Moses' bill was allowed for "hardness of heart", presumably the Lord's exception reflects a narrower, or more persistent, form of uncleanness / unfaithfulness. The bill of divorcement was, in any case, a protection for the wife rather than a liberty for the husband.

Clearly the Pharisees sought to catch the Lord contradicting the Scriptures. Also they may have been trying to embarrass Him by raising a touchy subject and a popular abuse of the law - witness the disciples' response - "it is not (therefore) expedient to marry," (verse 10).

In what way was this a temptation? We see from Luke's account and from the fact that the Pharisees had teamed up with the Herodians (the supporters of the ldumean Herods, whom the Pharisees despised as Helenisers and Roman puppets), that this was an attempt to get the Lord into trouble with the authorities. In Luke 20:20 we read

However, they had His teaching wrong again. In later years, Paul taught likewise

This passage is in many ways similar to the first one of this section concerning Eternal Life. This is the other great question to be asked. The test was for Him to systematise the Law with its mass of rules, especially as elaborated and enlarged by the Pharisees and the rabbis.

This is a difficult passage! It is difficult to decide what the temptation actually was, and what the judgement (under the law) should have been, though the Pharisees clearly expected the Lord to contradict the Law. The problem is that the judgement depends on the circumstances of the woman. If she was a "betrothed virgin" she should have been stoned if the case could be substantiated, as here. (Deuteronomy 22:23-27). If she was a virgin not betrothed, the penalty was marriage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). If she was another man's wife, she should die (method unspecified - Deuteronomy 22:22) if the issue was clear. If she was only suspected, she had to undergo the procedure given in Numbers 5:11-31, involving the water of bitterness which she had to drink after the curses had been washed into it, her guilt or innocence being decided by what ensued. It is to be noted that the Pharisees described the sin as adultery (moicheia verse 4) and since the evangelist agrees with this (verse 3) we can assume that they were telling the truth. Therefore, either the woman or the man with whom the sin was committed must have been married. We must also remember that, under the law polygamy but not polyandry was legal (that is, a man may have a plurality of wives but a woman may not have a plurality of husbands).

Now, did the law require such to be stoned? The procedure of Numbers 5 is obviously inapplicable in this case if the Pharisees spoke the truth when they said that she had been caught in the act of adultery, for that procedure only applies when "There is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act." (Numbers 5:13). So the woman can only escape death if she is a virgin un-betrothed. However if this was the case, why did the Lord not say so? So it seems most likely that, under the Law of Moses, she should have been stoned. Why, therefore, did the Lord not condemn her?

As Son of God, into Whose hands all judgement has been committed (John 5:22) He could have condemned her. However, He had not come into the world to condemn (John 3:17). It was this factor that added tension to the situation and provided the test. Legally it was required of the witnesses to throw the first stones (Deuteronomy 17:7; 13:9), and two or more witnesses were required before a charge could stand (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15). Hence, we see the logic behind the Lord's reply to the Pharisees - by frightening off the witnesses, the woman remained uncondemned. But what about the propriety of the retort "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone?" Legally, this is not relevant, for no man was without sin in Israel yet the law still had to be enforced. However, what was the purpose of the judicial sentences in the Law? Deuteronomy 22:22 (etc.) says "thus you shall purge the evil from Israel." The Law was to keep Israel pure and separate from the practices of the nations among whom they lived. However, by this stage in their history, it was too late. The Law was no longer generally enforced and the Pharisees themselves had invented many subtle methods whereby it could be circumvented. It would be a travesty of justice to condemn a solitary adulteress when the whole nation stood in need of repentance. With this agrees Hosea

* * * * * *

Having reviewed these six passages, how can we draw them together? All but the second seem to be directly testing the Lord's wisdom and knowledge. However, all six passages are related in a passage parallel to the second, namely, Matthew 12:38-42 (Luke 11:16, 29-32). There the Lord is said to be greater than Jonah, greater than Solomon.

Notice the difference in attitude between the Queen of Sheba and the Scribes and Pharisees. Both came to test.

The testimony of Scripture to Solomon's wisdom is

The effect on the Queen of Sheba was "that there was no more spirit in her." (verse 5) and she said

She came with incredulity, but with an open mind and was gladly convinced by the evidence. On the contrary, the Pharisees came with their minds hardened against the, Lord. They came merely to "entangle Him in His talk" (Matthew 22:15), to find something that they could bring against Him (John 8:6). When He answered them well, they were sometimes astonished (e.g. Matthew 22:22), sometimes ashamed (John 8:9). But they went away disappointed rather than convinced.