Matthew Chapter 4 verse 3 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 3. - The tempter (1 Thessalonians 3:5 only; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3). Came; came up to him (προσελθών). The word expresses local nearness, and suggests, though we cannot affirm it as certain, that he appeared visibly. The thought of physical nearness is continued in "taketh him" (vers. 5, 8), and "the devil leaveth him" and "angels came near" (ver. 11; cf. ver. 5, note). On the other hand, such expressions may be parabolic, and intended to express the closeness of the spiritual combat. To him; not after "came," but after "said" (Revised Version, with manuscripts). If thou be; art (Revised Version) (εἰ... εϊ) - the "if" of assumption (cf. Colossians 3:1). The devil does not attempt to throw doubt on the truth of the utterance in Matthew 3:17. His words rather mean, "Thou knowest what was said, thou bast been gradually realizing that assurance of Sonship; use, then, that privilege which thou undoubtedly hast" (comp. Matthew 27:40, where, in mockery, the same truth is assumed). Wetstein, following Origen and pseudo-Ignatius,' Philipp.,' § 9, says that the tempter did not know, or at least doubted, whether Jesus was really God, for otherwise he would never have tempted him. This is, surely, to miss the meaning of the temptation for our Lord himself; for he was tempted as Man. Satan might well haw known that he was God incarnate, and yet not have known whether as Man he might not yield. Weiss ('Life,' 1:343) mistakenly thinks that the object of this first temptation was to insinuate doubt in the mind of Jesus as to his Messiahship. "Command that these stones become bread, and if thou canst not do so, then thou art not the Son of God." Command that; εἰπὸν (cf. Westcott and Hort, 2. App., p. 164) ἵνα (cf. Matthew 20:21, and Winer,§ 44:8). These stones, ie. lying about. Farrar (on Luke 4:3; and especially in 'Life of Christ,' illustrated edit., pp. 99, 100) suggests that there is a special reference to the "loaf-shaped fossils," septaria, which are found in Palestine - as, indeed, in most other countries. But though these "flattened nodules of calcareous clay, ironstone, or other matter" (Page, ' Handbook of Geolog. Terms,' etc., 1859, p. 327) often assume fantastic shapes, perhaps even distantly resembling either an English loaf or a fiat Jewish cake (vide infra) , it seems quite unnecessary to see any allusion to them here. (For the comparison of bread and a stone, cf. Matthew 7:9.) Be made; Revised Version, become; rightly, because there is no thought of the process of manufacture in γένωνται, Bread; Revised Version margin, "Greek, loaves" (ἄρτοι). "The Israelites made bread in the form of an oblong or round cake, as thick as one's thumb, and as large as a plate or Platter; hence it was not cut, but [e.g. Matthew 14:19] broken" (Thayer). In Luke the devil points to one stone only, and tempts him to bid it become a loaf.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(3) When the tempter came.--Nothing in the narrative suggests the idea of a bodily presence visible to the eye of sense, and all attempts so to realise it, whether as Milton has done in Paradise Regained, or as by rationalistic commentators, who held that the Tempter was, or assumed the shape of, a scribe or priest, are unauthorised, and diminish our sense of the reality and mystery of the Temptation. The narrative is not the less real and true because it lies altogether in the spiritual region of man's life.If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.--"These stones," as if in union with glance and gesture, pointing to the loaf-like flints of the Jordan desert. The nature of the temptation, so far as we can gauge its mysterious depth, was probably complex. Something there may have been, suggested from without, like that which uttered itself in Esau's cry, "What profit shall this birthright do to me?" (Genesis 25:32). Hungry, exhausted, as if life were ebbing away in the terrible loneliness of the desert, the "wild beasts" around him, as if waiting for their victim, what would it avail to have been marked out as the Son of God, the long-expected Christ? With this another thought was blended. If He were the Son of God, did not that name involve a lordship over nature? Could He not satisfy His hunger and sustain His life? Would He not in so exercising the power of which now, for the first time it may be, He was the conscious possessor, be establishing his status as the Christ in the eyes of others? That thought presented itself to His mind, but it was rejected as coming from the Enemy. It would have been an act of self-assertion and distrust, and therefore would have involved not the affirmation, but the denial of the Sonship which had so recently been attested.