13. Consolation to them, under their temptation; it is none but such as is “common to man,” or “such as man can bear,” “adapted to man’s powers of endurance” [WAHL].
        faithful— (Ps 125:3; Isa 27:3, 8; Re 3:10). “God is faithful” to the covenant which He made with you in calling you (1Th 5:24). To be led into temptation is distinct from running into it, which would be “tempting God” (1Co 10:9; Mt 4:7).
        way to escape— (Jer 29:11; 2Pe 2:9). The Greek is, “the way of escape”; the appropriate way of escape in each particular temptation; not an immediate escape, but one in due time, after patience has had her perfect work (Jas 1:2-4, 12). He “makes” the way of escape simultaneously with the temptation which His providence permissively arranges for His people.
        to bear it—Greek, “to bear up under it,” or “against it.” Not, He will take it away.

        (Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
        The 40-day period in the wilderness when Jesus was tempted by the devil (Matt. 4:1-13; Mark 1:12-13). Jesus’ first temptation (to turn stones to bread) was to use His divine power to satisfy His own physical needs. The second (to jump off the Temple) was to perform a spectacular feat so the people would follow Him. The third was to gain possession of the world by worshiping Satan.
        One motive lay behind all these temptations: Satan wanted to destroy Jesus’ mission. Because Jesus’ death would destroy Satan’s power, Satan wanted Jesus to pollute His life and ministry. The ultimate issue behind these temptations was idolatry. The real purpose of Satan’s temptation was that he might be worshiped instead of God.

        (originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (C) 1988.)
        TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. An experience in the life of our Lord recorded in (Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13). That Christ was tempted on other occasions in other ways than here indicated would seem evident from (Luke 22:28) and (Heb. 4:15). This temptation, however, through which He passed immediately after His baptism and before beginning His ministry, was an event of so much importance as to be regarded as preeminently His temptation. And to this temptation, exclusive reference is commonly made.
        Character of the Narration. Much labor and ingenuity are often expended in seeking to determine to what extent the narrative of the gospels is to be taken literally. How much of it is to be understood as descriptive of actual outward occurrences, and how much was internal, subjective? Did Satan actually bear Christ away to a “pinnacle of the temple” at Jerusalem? Did he also take our Lord to “a very high mountain” from the summit of which he showed Him “all the kingdoms of the world”? Did such changes in the scene of the temptation actually take place in an outward, material sense, or did they simply take place in the mind of Jesus? Is the gospel narrative in these respects marked by the figurative manner common among orientals? Upon these questions the opinions of commentators are greatly divided. There has been no end of discussion, and with little profit. The popular interpretation has been literal. And not a few scholars have attempted to defend this interpretation. But, on the other hand, even as orthodox a scholar as Calvin has held the account to be that of a vision or allegory. But it should be observed that whichever view is taken, the reality of the temptation is in no measure lessened, nor is the fact disguised that the real agent of the temptation was Satan.
        The Temptation as Related to the Character of Christ. How could He, the sinless One, be tempted? Did the temptation imply in any sense the possibility of His falling into sin? As to the first question, it should be remembered that temptation does not necessarily imply a sinful nature on the part of the one tempted. The first man, Adam, though created in the image and after the likeness of God, was tempted and fell into sin. And does not the passage (Heb. 4:15) teach that not only did Jesus successfully resist temptation, but also that His temptation was not such as springs up within a sinful nature? Christ was “without sin” in both these senses. His temptation was wholly from without, from the evil one, though appealing to desires within Him that were wholly innocent. As to the possibility of His yielding to temptation, these views have been held: (1) The Calvinistic view, that Christ had no volitional power to yield to temptation. Edwards strongly advocated this view in his work on the will. (2) The Arminian view, that the man Jesus had such volitional power. (3) The view that “the eternal Logos had the volitional power to sin, having concentrated and reduced himself to finite and human conditions.” Van Osterzee appropriately says, “The sinlessness of the Lord is to be regarded as an attribute of his true humanity, and thus to be clearly distinguished from the absolute holiness of him who cannot even be tempted of evil. The moral purity of the Lord did not in itself exclude even the least possibility of sinning. Had such possibility been absolutely wanting, the former would, even in the Son of man, have lost all moral worth.” The great thing here is precisely this, that He who was exposed to the severest temptation ever so maintained the dominion over Himself that it could be said of Him, He was able not to sin, “potuit non peccare.” As the result of a sustained conflict, He so perfectly vanquished the power of evil that sinning became for Him morally an absolute impossibility; in other words, the “potuit non peccare” was evermore raised to a “non potuit peccare.” He could not sin. And yet discussion upon this theme, as Edersheim says, “sounds, after all, like the stammering of divine words by a babe.” It is a subject for reverent faith rather than exact dogmatizing.
        The Nature of the Threefold Temptation. According to Mark, the temptation was protracted throughout the “forty days.” The temptations described by Matthew and Luke are therefore regarded as the culminating features of the long struggle. The order of the temptations varies in the two gospels named, a matter of little or no consequence. The long fast, once a favorite matter for infidel objections, no longer presents any difficulty whatever. The significance of the separate assaults of evil has been variously interpreted, a fact due in considerable measure to the comprehensiveness of the whole great event. Says Smith: “The three temptations are addressed to the three forms in which the disease of sin makes its appearance in the soul—to the solace of sense, and the love of praise and the desire of gain (1 John 2:16). But there is one element common to them all, they are attempts to call up a willful and wayward spirit in contrast to a patient and self-denying one.” The subject, however, can hardly be summed up thus briefly.
        1. The temptation to change the stones into bread by a miracle was an appeal to Christ to step out of His divinely appointed path for the sake of satisfying His hunger. He had accepted the conditions of a human life, and it was for Him to do His duty and trust in God for sustenance. His power to work miracles was not for Himself but for others (see Kenosis). Had He obeyed the temptation He would have become unlike men who must put their trust in divine Providence. “He would have become his own providence.”
        2. The second temptation was to prove His sonship, to exhibit His faith in His sonship, by casting Himself down from a pinnacle of the Temple. This temptation was at the opposite extreme from the preceding. The first was a temptation to distrust, the second that of extravagant, unwarranted confidence, or presumption. Again was the call to step out of the path divinely appointed, but by presumptuously plunging Himself into needless peril. The Scripture quoted by the adversary was quoted in a mutilated form. “He will give His angels charge concerning you.” “To guard you in all your ways” was left out. As in the former instance all temptation to give unlawful prominence to temporal, material good is illustrated, so in the present instance all attempts to build up Christ’s kingdom by means of display, rather than by the patient, divinely appointed processes, find their rebuke; likewise all forms of fanatical presumption.
        3. The temptation to win power by an act of homage to the devil.
        Inconceivable as this may seem at first, nevertheless this was the bold form in which was embodied the idea of winning power for good and holy ends by a compromise with evil at the outset. It was an appeal to holy ambition, but upon the ground of doing evil that good might come. The kingdom was to be won, but in the way suggested it would have been at the expense of ruining the King. At this point also the great temptation of Christ has its most practical lessons.
        The manner and complete success of Christ’s resistance appear upon the surface of the narrative and call here for no comment. (e. mcc.)
        bibliography: C. E. Macartney, Great Interviews of Jesus (1944), pp. 9-24; id., Trials of Great Men of the Bible (1946), pp. 127-39; G. C. Morgan, The Crises of the Christ (1963), pp. 109-54; F. W. Farrar, The Life of Christ (1982), pp. 54-64.

        (Copyright (C) 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
        1. peirazo, 3985, signifies (1) “to try, attempt, assay”
“... in all the temptations which Christ endured, there was nothing within Him that answered to sin. There was no sinful infirmity in Him. While He was truly man, and His divine nature was not in any way inconsistent with His Manhood, there was nothing in Him such as is produced in us by the sinful nature which belongs to us; ...”

        Temptation - (1.) Trial; a being put to the test. Thus God “tempted [Gen. 22: 1; R.V., ‘did prove’] Abraham;” and afflictions are said to tempt, i.e., to try, men (James 1:2, 12; comp. Deut. 8:2), putting their faith and patience to the test. (2.) Ordinarily, however, the word means solicitation to that which is evil, and hence Satan is called “the tempter” (Matt. 4:3). Our Lord was in this way tempted in the wilderness. That temptation was not internal, but by a real, active, subtle being. It was not self-sought. It was submitted to as an act of obedience on his part. “Christ was led, driven. An unseen personal force bore him a certain violence is implied in the words” (Matt. 4:1-11).
        The scene of the temptation of our Lord is generally supposed to have been the mountain of Quarantania (q.v.), “a high and precipitous wall of rock, 1,200 or 1,500 feet above the plain west of Jordan, near Jericho.”
        Temptation is common to all (Dan. 12:10; Zech. 13:9; Ps. 66:10; Luke 22:31, 40; Heb. 11:17; James 1:12; 1 Pet. 1:7; 4:12). We read of the temptation of Joseph (Gen. 39), of David (2 Sam. 24; 1 Chr. 21), of Hezekiah (2 Chr. 32:31), of Daniel (Dan. 6), etc. So long as we are in this world we are exposed to temptations, and need ever to be on our watch against them.

        21. For—omitted in the oldest manuscripts. The grand reason why they should be reconciled to God, namely, the great atonement in Christ provided by God, is stated without the “for” as being part of the message of reconciliation (2Co 5:19).
        he—God.
        sin—not a sin offering, which would destroy the antithesis to “righteousness,” and would make “sin” be used in different senses in the same sentence: not a sinful person, which would be untrue, and would require in the antithesis “righteous men,” not “righteousness”; but “sin,” that is, the representative Sin-bearer (vicariously) of the aggregate sin of all men past, present, and future. The sin of the world is one, therefore the singular, not the plural, is used; though its manifestations are manifold (Joh 1:29). “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the SIN of the world.” Compare “made a curse for us,” Ga 3:13.
        for us—Greek, “in our behalf.” Compare Joh 3:14, Christ being represented by the brazen serpent, the form, but not the substance, of the old serpent. At His death on the cross the sin-bearing for us was consummated.
        knew no sin—by personal experience (Joh 8:46) [ALFORD]. Heb 7:26; 1Pe 2:22; 1Jo 3:5.
        might be made—not the same Greek as the previous “made.” Rather, “might become.”
        the righteousness of God—Not merely righteous, but righteousness itself; not merely righteousness, but the righteousness of God, because Christ is God, and what He is we are (1Jo 4:17), and He is “made of God unto us righteousness.” As our sin is made over to Him, so His righteousness to us (in His having fulfilled all the righteousness of the law for us all, as our representative, Jer 23:6; 1Co 1:30). The innocent was punished voluntarily as if guilty, that the guilty might be gratuitously rewarded as if innocent (1Pe 2:24). “Such are we in the sight of God the Father, as is the very Son of God himself” [HOOKER].
        in him—by virtue of our standing in Him, and in union with Him [ALFORD].

“Ye are brought unto fountains of living water which ye digged not; do not cast earth into them, ...” Excerpted from The Translators to the Reader Preface to the King James Version 1611 Copyright © 1911, 1998 Trinitarian Bible Society