Luke 4:1

This chapter has Luke's account of the temptation of Christ (Luke 4:1-14), his preaching at Nazareth (Luke 4:15-30), the cure of a demoniac at Capernaum (Luke 4:31-37), the healing of Peter's wife's mother (Luke 4:38-39), the mention of many healings (Luke 4:40-41) and Jesus' withdrawal from Capernaum, to preach throughout Galilee (Luke 4:42-44).

THE TEMPTATION

And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led in the Spirit in the wilderness during forty days, being tempted of the devil. And he did eat nothing in those days: and when they were completed, he hungered. (Luke 4:1-2)

Full of the Holy Spirit ... The Holy Spirit dwelt without measure in the sinless Christ; and his being "led in the Spirit in the wilderness" is a reference to the fact that God intended the temptation to take place just as it was recounted here.

Led in the Spirit ... exactly the same meaning as Mark's "the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness" (Mark 1:12). See fuller comment on this in my Commentary on Mark.

Being tempted of the devil ... One should not fail to see in the placement of this phrase the subtle hand of critical scholarship. The placement here seems to indicate that the temptation was continuous throughout forty days; but a glance at Matthew 4:1-4 shows that this was not the case. Satan came to Christ after the forty days of fasting ended. Advocates of the rendition here evidently had the purpose of making Luke agree with Mark against Matthew to support the Markan theory of synoptic criticism; but this rendition is incorrect. As Lamar said:

The punctuation recommended by many of the learned, and adopted by the Bible Union is as follows:

And he was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan, and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him (Mark 1:13).

And he was led in the Spirit in the wilderness forty days, tempted by the devil (Luke 4:1,2).

As Lachman said, "In this way even the appearance of a discrepancy between Matthew and Luke, in regard to the actual point when the temptations began, is avoided." This view is justified by the language of both Mark and Luke, and expressly taught by Matthew.[1]

REGARDING THE PECCABILITY OF CHRIST

The view that Christ COULD HAVE SINNED is expressed by the word PECCABILITY; the view that it was impossible for him to have sinned is expressed by IMPECCABILITY. The view here is that the capability of Jesus to commit sin was a necessary and inherent result of the incarnation, in exactly the manner as was his mortality. "Temptation in Christ indicated the possibility of sin."[2] If it was impossible for Christ to sin, how could there have been any temptation? No man can be tempted to do that which it is impossible for him to do; but Christ was tempted in "all points" like as we are tempted (Hebrews 4:15). The emotional treatment of this subject by some who hold the contrary view is represented by the words of Best, "A peccable Christ would mean a peccable God";[3] but this is not logical, being equivalent to saying that a mortal Christ is equivalent to a mortal God. See more extensive treatment of this subject in my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 4:14.

Forty days ... There are many examples of men fasting for forty days, and some even longer; and thus there is no reason to suppose any supernatural support of Jesus during this period. There was indeed supernatural support, but it came afterward. The number "forty" was significant in Israel's history, that being the number of days Moses fasted (Deuteronomy 9:9), the time Elijah fasted (1 Kings 19:8), the number of days of uncleanness following childbirth (Leviticus 12:1-4), and the number of years Egypt was to suffer (Ezekiel 29:11).

The devil ... The proper name of this being is Satan; and he must be understood, not as a mere principle of evil, nor as a personification of iniquity, but as a malignant creature of the highest order, and one who is the conscious enemy of God and man. Ezekiel 28:11-19 appears to speak of the origin of Satan, designated there as "King of Tyre," who was at one time "the anointed cherub that covereth," and who had "been in Eden the garden of God," and whose eternal overthrow was prophesied. "And never shalt thou be any more." See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 4:1.

Satan's malignant hatred of humanity, first manifested in Eden, has continued unabated throughout history, his purpose as the destroyer having been evident in every case in which the holy Scriptures have given any knowledge of it (see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 8:32); and his strategy of opposing Jesus the Son of God was discernible throughout the whole life of the Saviour. Satan attempted to murder the Christ child, made another attempt to kill him in this very chapter, and finally, with God's permission accomplished his death on Calvary. Regarding a more extensive view of the satanic strategy against Christ, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:39. The prayer Jesus taught his disciples to pray closes with the line, "Deliver us from the evil one." Thus there is universal witness to the personality and malignancy of Satan.

The wilderness ... mentioned here cannot be exactly located. It could have been anywhere on the western side of the Jordan river. "Tradition locates the place as Quarantania, a mountain just west of Jericho."[4] Wherever it was, it was a howling wilderness, alive with wild beasts (Mark 1:12f), and contrasting vividly with the garden of Eden where the first Adam succumbed to the wiles of Satan. Satan seemed to have that encounter in mind, as indicated by his approach to the second Adam with regard to eating, the same strategy that had succeeded in Eden, and reinforced here by circumstances much more favorable to the evil one.

He hungered ... Luke here recorded the condition of Jesus after the forty days had ended; and, by his doing so before relating the series of temptations, plainly indicated that the temptation was not continuous throughout the forty days, but was the climactic aftermath. "It was more in keeping with the wily cunning of Satan to wait until his intended victim was enfeebled with hunger."[5]

[1] J. S. Lamar, New Testament Commentary, Vol. II, Luke (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1871), p. 74.

[2] Ibid.

[3] W. E. Best, The Impeccable Christ (Houston, Texas: Park Place Grace Church, n.d.), p. 4.

[4] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 79.

[5] J. S. Lamar, op. cit., p. 74.