TEMPTATIONS OF JESUS CHRIST. - Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert of Judea, between Jericho, Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. The exact place can no longer be determined. A tradition, which perhaps goes back to the 4th century, places the forty days and the temptation on the mountain, called today by the Arabs "of the Quarantine" (Gebel Garantà), west of Jericho. Mk. 1:12-13 briefly alludes to the event. Mt. 4:1-11 and Lk. 4:1-13 are more extensive and, with slight divergences, relate three t. of J. C. in particular; the second in St. Matthew is the third in St. Luke and vice versa: the order of the former seems to be the original, because it presents a more natural gradation.
The first temptation starts from hunger and seeks to induce Jesus to vain self-display and to the useless use of supernatural power for sustenance. The disordered recourse to miracle is rejected by Christ, who shows trust in God. The devil repeats the attack. Citing a biblical verse out of place (Ps. 90:11-12) he wants to push Jesus to vainglory and to the ostentation of his power: let him throw himself down, the Angels will support him and the people, seeing him fall unharmed, will acclaim him Messiah. With a citation (Deut. 6:16) Christ corrects Satan's scriptural nonsense: it is not lawful rashly, without necessity, to await or provoke a miracle of God. The tempter reaches the height of audacity, asking Jesus for adoration with the promise, in exchange, of dominion over the world; but Christ commands him to withdraw, since one must serve only God (Deut. 6:13). Satan departs, but to return at the opportune time (Lk. 4:13), that is, when, in the Passion, he will launch the final attack.
The t. of J. C. is literarily and historically joined to his Baptism. The two facts are the preamble of Jesus' public ministry. The ancients considered the t. of J. C. in a moral sense, as an example in the struggle against the common temptations of gluttony, vainglory and greed. Today the messianic meaning is held. The devil saw in Jesus an extraordinary man, and suspecting, because of the episode of the Baptism, that he was the Messiah, he tempted him to induce him to a temporal and political messianism, accompanied by empty thaumaturgic displays.
Outside of Catholics, almost no critic admits integrally the historicity of the account. G. H. Venturini and Lange mistook the tempter for a Pharisee, first a friend and then an enemy, or for an envoy of the sanhedrin. Fr. Schleiermacher considered the t. of J. C. a parable for instruction, transformed into history by the disciples. The mythical school spoke of a myth, arising from the influence of the Old Testament texts concerning the trials of the people of Israel, the collective son of God (Fr. Strauss), or from the influence of the Old and New Testament together (H. J. Holtzmann). The students of the comparative history of religions explained the origin of the myth with analogous facts from pagan and Babylonian mythologies (R. Seydel, H. Gunkel, W. Bousset, A. Meyer). In the t. of J. C. some have also seen the symbol of the apostolic struggles. For A. Loisy these are visions, of psychological travail, concretized by tradition into an exterior scene.
These rationalist interpretations, subjective and arbitrary, start from the a priori denial of the supernatural, of the divinity of Christ and of the value of the sources. External and internal criticism demonstrates the authenticity and historicity of the fact. Also for the t. of J. C. the primitive catechesis, of which the informant could only have been Jesus, transmitted the truth.
Unlike man, in Jesus there was no inclination to evil. Because of the Hypostatic Union (v.) he had, nor could have had, neither sin nor concupiscence. The lower part, without disordered motions, was entirely subject to reason. The temptation therefore could come only from outside; it could also be proposed, besides to sight and hearing, to the imagination, thus indirectly affecting the intellect. It cannot be established whether the suggestion was worked by Satan in the imagination directly or indirectly, since the texts do not specify. The ancients and some more recent writers (Maldonado, Knabenbauer) judge that the t. of J. C. were external and sensible. Almost no one follows such a position integrally. Many, with E. Le Camus, explain the t. of J. C. as real suggestions of the demon, but internal. The presence of the devil was invisible and the kingdoms of the world were shown to Christ in vision. According to some, however, corresponding to the suggestion there was a local movement of Jesus, who spontaneously followed Satan (Lagrange). The suggestion could not be accompanied, in Jesus, by instinctive defect, because of his perfect nature, nor by consent, because of his impeccability, but it provoked aversion and horror. There was, however, struggle and therefore victory and merit. St. Paul shows the fitness for men of the t. of J. C., who can thus better sympathize with human weaknesses (Hebr. 2:18; 4:15). - See plate CXXXVII.
Bibliography5 works
Vincenzo Carbone