Parchment and Pen » Inerrancy and the Problem of Matthew 4:8

Inerrancy and the Problem of Matthew 4:8

“The devil took him [Jesus] up into an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.”
- Matthew 4:8

What is being communicated here? It seems rather bizzare. How could Satan have shown Christ all of the kingdoms of the earth from a single mountin? There is simply no mountin that can carry such a task. Does Matthew make a blunder here, exposing his archaic flat-earth worldview?

How do we interpret such a passage as those who believe in inerracy?

Options:

1. The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. There was a mountain that actually was this high and Christ could see all the kingdoms of the earth. (Ouch! Really?)

2. The devil had the supernatural power to show Christ all the kingdoms of the earth.

3. It was not really all the kingdoms of the earth, but a representation of the kingdoms (maybe one or two kingdoms).

4. Deny inerrancy.

Hagner simply says that this is not to be taken literally (Word).

Calvin says “It is asked, was he [Jesus] actually carried to this elevated spot, or was it done in a vision? … What is added, that all the kingdoms of the world were exposed to Christ’s view … in one moment … agrees better with the idea of a vision than with any other theory. In a matter that is doubtful, and where ignorance brings no risk, I choose rather to suspend my judgment than to furnish contentious people with an excuse for a debate.”

According to Leon Morris “The fact that there is no mountain from which all the world may be seen literally favors the view that the tempter brings all this before the mind of Jesus” (Pillar)

What do you do with this passage?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

54 Responses to “Inerrancy and the Problem of Matthew 4:8”

John C on 17 Nov 2009 at 3:14 pm #

Honestly? I don’t wonder if God incarnate and the mightiest angel ever created could have found a way to see all the kingdoms of the earth, and to be standing on a mountain doing so.
Cadis on 17 Nov 2009 at 3:34 pm #

The mountain was ‘exceedingly’ high. I wonder why it doesn’t say that Christ was taken to the highest mountain on earth? or just the ‘highest’ mountain. It says an exceedingly high..exceeding what?
Truth Unites... and Divides on 17 Nov 2009 at 4:05 pm #

I don’t see how this passage poses a problem for the doctrine of inerrancy (as expressed through the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 17 Nov 2009 at 4:14 pm #

I don’t think it poses any issue for inerrancy. I personally think this was in a form of a vision.
Andrew McN on 17 Nov 2009 at 4:23 pm #

Yea I would tend to agree with the other posters who said that this isn’t really an issue for inerrancy. I guess even Matthew (or whoever) was quite aware that there aren’t any mountains this tall
The idea that Christ was given a vision fits rather nicely.
Jugulum on 17 Nov 2009 at 4:25 pm #

TUaD,

What’s the detail in the Chicago Statement that makes the difference here?
Paul J on 17 Nov 2009 at 4:30 pm #

You know I never thought about it, so used to teaching the story in Sunday school, I’m ashamed to say I took the story for granted.
Daniel on 17 Nov 2009 at 4:33 pm #

I’d have to go with Option 2 or 3. Though I’m leaning more toward #2. I think it was a vision, though I suppose it’s possible that he did take Him to a high mountain overlook some vast plain so that this vision could be cast upon the “blank canvas” if you will, without existing cities and such.

That, and for dramatic affect. After all, satan knows drama.
Cadis on 17 Nov 2009 at 4:37 pm #

I don’t think this was a vision. Christ was being tempted or tested of Satan, where ever they were if Christ had jumped he, in his humanness, would most certainly have died unless angels were to intervene and catch him…this was part of what Satan tested and was trying to intimidate Christ with. There is a realm that we do not see , In Daniel we are given a glimpse into that world when Gabriel (?) tells Daniel he would have been sooner with the answer to his prayer but the king of Persia withstood him so much that Michael had to assist in this fight.
It is not a vision but I do not believe it is an earthly mountain but the earth was below and Christ was between natural and the spiritual.
EricW on 17 Nov 2009 at 5:02 pm #

Luke 4:5 says the devil showed Him all the kingdoms of the inhabited world in a stigmê (prick/point/instant) of time. I.e., it occurred outside normal physical space-time processes or by enhanced space-time processes; the devil could have shown them to Him in a closet, let alone on a mountaintop, since it was a combination of physical sight and supernatural vision, and likely, IMO, included all the kingdoms of the world, past, present, and future. The mountaintop trip/view/location was for heightened dramatic effect.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 17 Nov 2009 at 5:18 pm #

Jugulum,

Take a look at CSBI and see if you can figure it out. I have high regard for your intelligence.

Most of the time anyways.
Cadis on 17 Nov 2009 at 5:33 pm #

Don’t you greek geeks laugh at me for pulling out Strongs, but it’s all the greek knowledge I have
Am I right that oros may not have been intended to communicate a literal mountain?

G3735
ὄρος
oros
or’-os
Probably a from an obsolete word ὄρω orō (to rise or “rear”; perhaps akin to G142; compare G3733); a mountain (as lifting itself above the plain): – hill, mount (-ain).
Scott F on 17 Nov 2009 at 5:56 pm #

The problem I have with the vision thingie is that it doesn’t actually say that this all occurred in a vision. The plain reading is the challenge. Are we to take the plain reading when it suits us but root around for something (anything) else when we get in trouble.
Greg Gibson on 17 Nov 2009 at 5:59 pm #

5. Hyperbole?
Jugulum on 17 Nov 2009 at 6:31 pm #

TUaD,

As you will–but I was asking for the general edification of our fellow readers. To draw out discussion & answers, as was Michael’s purpose. If you want to be coy… *shrug*
Wm Tanksley on 17 Nov 2009 at 7:36 pm #

Scott, one saying is “when plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.” I think here the plain sense doesn’t make common sense.

At the same time, I also have to say that I don’t see a crucial problem. The devil showed both all the kingdoms, AND their glory. That last wouldn’t be visible from hundreds, let alone thousands of miles away, so clearly something other than simply looking with human eyes from a mountainous height was being done.

The odd part of this verse isn’t the being shown kingdoms and glory, since the devil might have done that by any number of means (visions, teleportation to the kingdoms, apportation of items from the kingdoms); the odd part is going to a mountain to DO that. Perhaps the devil had prepared a room full of photographs and plasma TVs running DVD loops to show Christ, and he wasn’t allowed to do that where any people could possibly find them? (I’m not serious. But I don’t know.)

BTW: Cadis, the Greek word being used there is just the standard Greek for ‘mountain’. There’s no ambiguity or obsoleteness in the word itself; it appears many, many times.

-Wm
Pastor Michael on 17 Nov 2009 at 8:19 pm #

If Star Trek can have a holodeck, why can’t Satan?
Scott F on 17 Nov 2009 at 8:30 pm #

Wm, I agree that the mountain is the curiosity – it is what makes one think that we were meant to envision Jesus surveying from on high. It can still be metaphor… if you don’t insist on literal truth in your Bible. Of course, one is still left with the challenge of separating literal passages (moving from city to city) from figurative ones (being driven into the wilderness?).
Wm Tanksley on 17 Nov 2009 at 11:15 pm #

Wm, I agree that the mountain is the curiosity – it is what makes one think that we were meant to envision Jesus surveying from on high. It can still be metaphor… if you don’t insist on literal truth in your Bible.

I find that last sentence excessively hostile. You’re implying that if I think the mountain isn’t literal, I don’t want ANY literal truth anywhere in the Bible. That’s silly; we should read the Bible literally where it’s written literally, and metaphorically where it’s metaphoric, and demanding either 0% or 100% metaphor is just a recipe for illiteracy.

Of course, it so happens that the mountain looks entirely literal to me; I see no clue that it’s not. On the other hand, “showing all the kingdoms and their glory” is emphatically not to be read simply as “telling Jesus to look around”. No author could intend it to be taken that way, because while such an action might reveal that there are kingdoms, it wouldn’t reveal any glory. Satan did something, it doesn’t matter what, to show off to Jesus the kingdoms of Earth and their glory.

-Wm
Truth Unites... and Divides on 18 Nov 2009 at 1:20 am #

William Tanksley: “You’re implying that if I think the mountain isn’t literal, I don’t want ANY literal truth anywhere in the Bible. That’s silly; we should read the Bible literally where it’s written literally, and metaphorically where it’s metaphoric, and demanding either 0% or 100% metaphor is just a recipe for illiteracy.”

Quite right. The doctrine of inerrancy does not entail wooden literalness. A frequent and horrible mistake that critics of inerrancy love to make.
Michael T on 18 Nov 2009 at 3:51 am #

“Quite right. The doctrine of inerrancy does not entail wooden literalness. A frequent and horrible mistake that critics of inerrancy love to make.”

I’m not so sure that this is a mistake that just critics of inerrancy make. It seems to me that there are many on the more conservative side of the spectrum who adhere to wooden literalness and then call it inerrancy. Thus the problem isn’t just those on the liberal side of the spectrum criticizing inerrancy, but those on the conservative side of the spectrum as well taking inerrancy to mean something it’s not. This in turn just confuses everyone as to what inerrancy really is and what we mean when we say the Bible is inerrant.
phil_style on 18 Nov 2009 at 5:35 am #

I’ve heard some real bizzare attempts to justify this one, the best of which being:

A) Satan took him to a mountain on the moon, from which he could see the earth as it span .. . YOUCH! now that’s literary gymnastics!

My personal opinion is this: The writer knew full well that there was no single mountain from which the whole earth could be viewed. Simply becasue there is no single mountain top that is visible from everywhere…. If I can see you, you can see me…

So, this leaves us with two probably ’solutions’, if you’re into solutions.

1. Visionary experience
2. Hyperbole

I prefer hyperbole. “all the kingdoms” . . . seems hyperbolic to me.
John Roberts on 18 Nov 2009 at 7:11 am #

Firstly, I think we would have to determine who the Devil or Satan was who met with Jesus, and who basically said, “IF you are the Son of God then do this and that”. It’s as if the Devil sought signs of proof that Jesus was the Messiah.

Luke says that after the Devil ended the temptation he departed from Jesus for a season (or another opportune time).

Do we read of other opportune times when the Devil says to Jesus “IF you are the Son of God then do this or that”?

One of those opportune times (of temptation), that comes to mind, is when Jesus was on the cross. The scribes, elders, and high priest said to him: “IF you be the Son of God then come down off that cross, he saved others, lets see him save himself”.

Since Paul writes in his letters that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, then it seems most likely that his first temptation came from the scribes, elders and high priest.

I don’t think “wilderness”, “high mountain” and pinnacle of the Temple” have to be taken literally.
j on 18 Nov 2009 at 8:01 am #

To defend inerrancy, it seems best to just take “all” as hyperbole, or take “the world” as referring only to the “civilized world” as it was understood in the 1st century. Visionary experience is not bad, but doesn’t seem likely to me from the context (unless you read the entire temptation as an unmarked visionary experience—but do temptations in dreams and visions count?).

But I really don’t think it impacts the message much if Matthew did think the world was flat and did literally mean “all the kingdoms of the world.” (Hmm, I suppose we didn’t yet ask what constituted a “kingdom” in his view.)

This is not really a big question to me.
Greg on 18 Nov 2009 at 8:31 am #

The gospel writer was using the common view of the earth prevalent in that area at that time. Not spherical, but round and flat. Why wouldn’t he use the common view of his day?

With a round and flat earth you could see all the kingdoms of the world (theoretically at least).

This doesn’t affect inerrancy at all if you define inerrancy using the standards of the gospel writers, not our own. Its wrong to assume they knew as much about the world as we do today, so its wrong to hold ancient writers to standards they had no knowledge of.

We use this approach when interpreting scripture, i.e. the historical-grammatical method, so why not when thinking about inerrancy?

This preserves the integrity of scripture by acknowledging the historical and cultural context the gospel author lived and wrote in. If we bring our science and our view of the world into the interpretation, then that’s inserting our own meaning into it and not necessarily that of the original author. Last I checked that was generally frowned upon if you wanted an accurate interpretation.

The scriptures are both a divine and human product, each containing the words of God and the words of man in equal measure. Kinda like Jesus.

And kinda like various heresies regarding Jesus, the divine nature of scripture tends to be emphasized over the human nature more than is necessary. In this context the claim that the Bible contains ancient near eastern science is nothing but pure scandal.

But I can’t imagine why God would try to reach ancient people using the modern standard that we’ve arbitrarily defined as the “absolute truth” of the matter, and which may or may not change in the next hundred years.

Its like saying the only valid language God could have used is modern English to talk to people, regardless of when and where they lived.

This is just my solution to all these problems though. No need to create hyped-up spiritual interpretations or find unmentioned visions in the passage.

Just go back to the total context of the passage.

Daniel B. Wallace said this about inerrancy that I think is helpful: One thing that I have learned in thinking about inerrancy is that I must define it by the data supplied by the text of scripture. I cannot import my twentieth-century presuppositions to the text and call it the inner witness of the Spirit. These two things are not the same thing. The Spirit bears witness to what the text says; I cannot base a doctrine on what goes beyond the text. If I do, I fail to recognize that it is in fact my own cultural values that have influenced me more than the Spirit of God. This means that we must define inerrancy on the basis of scripture’s testimony itself, and subject all theological formulations about inerrancy to scripture. Otherwise, we succumb to the very thing that the Reformers were adamantly opposed to: tradition—a tradition that supersedes the authority of the Word of God.

http://bible.org/article/my-take-inerrancy
John on 18 Nov 2009 at 8:38 am #

OK, who said the mountain was on earth? A guy called Neil Armstrong saw all the kingdoms of the earth from one spot.
phil_style on 18 Nov 2009 at 9:48 am #

John, see my comment at 22….. the moon is really pushing the boundaries!
John T III on 18 Nov 2009 at 9:54 am #

I believe that it was a literal very high spot that Jesus and Satan were standing on and that anything that was beyond human was shown either through some sort of mental picture or in some sort of supernatural display.

If you take what Satan did in Job and compare it to this section it is not that abstract an event.
Cadis on 18 Nov 2009 at 10:30 am #

Where ever they were, Satan and Jesus didn’t walk in and hike to the top. A ladder wasn’t set up to get to the pinnacle of the temple. If you owned all the kingdoms of the earth and could pick the God man up and set him on the pinnacle of a temple and ask him to jump, I think the power and ability to display all the kingdoms of the earth would be at your disposal. When it was over the angels needed to minister to Jesus. No where is it stated that this was a dream or a vision . I think if someone is laying an accusation that inerrancy some how fails here because you cannot possibly see “all” kingdoms from one mountain is not contemplating the awesome power of what is being recanted here in a few verses.
j on 18 Nov 2009 at 10:34 am #

Regarding the Neil Armstrong comment (#26),

I think cloud cover obscured some of Neil’s view of all the kingdoms and he missed a few. Further, during the 23rd hour of his observation of said kingdoms, NASA called which interrupted his viewing.
Jim on 18 Nov 2009 at 11:18 am #

Lots of interesting insight into this post. I’ll add a couple of my own thoughts.

The use of “exceedingly” high seems to reference the idea that the writer sees the necessity of one having to be very, very high up to see the kingdoms of the world, which with we of todays world understand that physically this is impossible for a man. Jesus I believe was not hovering around between a man state and a spirit. He was flesh, thus the use of a mountain to gain the advantage of height was a necessary word.

The concept of how Satan “took” him is interestiing. It doesn’t appear they walked or hiked..did they even leave the dessert or wilderness for the forty days.

This leads me to think that maybe the writer was simply conveying the message , whether in vision I don’t know, using the best words and application he knew. Message still appears the same whatever slant you want to put on it.
EricW on 18 Nov 2009 at 11:29 am #

There are bigger inerrancy fish to fry or problems to tackle than this one – e.g., reconciling the order of events and the particulars of the events & persons among/between the Synoptic accounts (or maybe just Matthew and Mark) of the Triumphal entry, cursing of the fig tree and cleansing of the Temple (Matthew 21 and Mark 11).
Greg on 18 Nov 2009 at 6:27 pm #

CMP,

What do you say should be done with this passage?
C Michael Patton on 18 Nov 2009 at 6:54 pm #

I think the key is in the parallel passage in Luke 4:5:

“Luke 4:5 And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.” (Luk 4:5 ESV)

Assuming Marian priority, it is interesting as Mark is the shortest of the synoptics with this narrative. Matthew and Luke probably used a common source or Matthew used Luke (or, even, vice-versa). It would seem reasonable for Luke to add this rather than to take it away. If this is the case (from whatever source Luke added it to Q? L?), then it makes sense that it would be further explained.

Luke adds that it happened “in a moment of time.” This is the Greek word stigmn. It is a rare word, but we do find it here in 1 Cor 15:51. There it refers to the change “in a moment” (or the more popular “in the twinkle of an eye”) that will occur to believers at the resurrection.

This addition ads a supernatural element to it. Therefore, I do think it is literal. I believe Satan supernaturally took him to the top of the mountian and from there supernaturally showed him the kingdoms of the world (probably through some sort of vision). Theologically, this would work as it seems in other places demonic powers are able to give visions.

Why did Satan take him up to the top of a mountian to show him this vision? Quite possibly, he showed him a kingdom and then a vision. It could have been for the sake of dramatics. The higher he takes him the more it is symbolic of his position of authority that Satan is willing to bestow upon him.
Wm Tanksley on 18 Nov 2009 at 7:02 pm #

Firstly, I think we would have to determine who the Devil or Satan was who met with Jesus, and who basically said, “IF you are the Son of God then do this and that”. It’s as if the Devil sought signs of proof that Jesus was the Messiah.

That’s an deficient exegesis, because this is specifically described as a temptation, not an inquisition; and indeed the other temptations don’t include anything that you could interpret as asking whether Jesus is the Son.

Further, it makes no sense whatsoever for the scribes, and Pharisees to chase after Jesus into the desert.

-Wm
Wm Tanksley on 18 Nov 2009 at 7:37 pm #

j,

Visionary experience is not bad, but doesn’t seem likely to me from the context (unless you read the entire temptation as an unmarked visionary experience—but do temptations in dreams and visions count?).

I don’t see why it should be all or nothing; the devil took Him to the mountain, and then “showed” Him. What the showing involved might be different from what the taking involved.

But I really don’t think it impacts the message much if Matthew did think the world was flat and did literally mean “all the kingdoms of the world.” (Hmm, I suppose we didn’t yet ask what constituted a “kingdom” in his view.)

I somewhat agree, but the reason is that Matthew may not know more than he’s saying — Jesus told him, of course, and the other apostles, but they weren’t eyewitnesses. So in that sense it doesn’t matter what Matthew thought Jesus was saying.

The poster above who pointed to Luke (I wish I’d done that!) has the right idea, I think. Matthew might not have remembered “in an instant” (perhaps because he didn’t know how big the world really was), but it looks like the apostles Luke talked to remembered that, and Luke was educated enough to know that it was an important part of the story. And it is — it tells us that this was some kind of vision, not a matter of Satan pointing out details in all those kingdoms until Jesus had seen all of them.

This is not really a big question to me.

Agreed.

-Wm
Greg on 18 Nov 2009 at 10:52 pm #

CMP,

That seems sufficient to get around the problem with the event in question, but aren’t we still left with what Matthew actually wrote? There isn’t a possible mention of a vision in Matthew’s account.

From a high enough mountain, could you see all the kingdoms of the world in a moment’s time?

For example, when I climbed a mountain in New England, I could see, in a moment’s time, all the way to the horizon’s edge and everything in between.

But aside from that, I wonder what kingdoms Jesus was shown. Every kingdom in existence at that time? North and South American kingdoms, Asian kingdoms, African kingdoms? Or just local kingdoms?

Would just local kingdoms be sufficient to fulfill the “all” part of the passage, kinda like how in Genesis 41:57 “all” most likely refers to all known people at that time in that area and not every person on Earth?
C Michael Patton on 18 Nov 2009 at 10:57 pm #

That is why I would say it was a miraculous vision. The periphery of the kingdoms would be sufficient. In other words, I doubt he would see kingdom 1 then 2 then 3 and so on. I imagine he saw them all all at once. Hope that makes sense.
EricW on 18 Nov 2009 at 11:25 pm #

In Exodus God summons Moses to come up a very high mountain so He can show him the pattern for building the Tabernacle.
Exodus 25:9 καὶ ποιήσεις μοι κατὰ πάντα, ὅσα ἐγώ σοι δεικνύω (deiknumi) ἐν τῷ ὄρει, τὸ παράδειγμα τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ τὸ παράδειγμα πάντων τῶν σκευῶν αὐτῆς, οὕτω ποιήσεις.
Septuaginta : With morphology. 1996. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

In Matthew the devil takes Jesus to a very high mountain and “shows him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.”
Matthew 4:8 Πάλιν παραλαμβάνει αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν καὶ δείκνυσιν (deiknumi) αὐτῷ πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν
Aland, B., Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., & Wikgren, A. (1993). The Greek New Testament (4th ed.) (7). Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies.

I vote for Jesus having a visionary experience, not simply a literal seeing of as many cities as one can physically see from the top of that mountain.
ScottL on 19 Nov 2009 at 5:38 am #

My biggest pondering about these textual ‘inconsistencies’ (I don’t like that word, by the way) is not so much Matt 4:8, but rather in such places like Matthew & Mark reporting one angel at the tomb and Luke & John reporting two angels. Now, I personally don’t have a problem with this. I believe the Scriptures are God’s Word. The point was not to get exact detail on how many angels were at the tomb. Something greater and purposeful was being reported – the resurrection of the Son of God.

But, my struggle is that, if we want to fully accept statements like the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy, then I think it does not allow for these minor discrepancies. Again, I don’t think this negates the reality of God’s Word as found in Scripture, but I am not sure those original authors meant inerrancy as we can so strictly define inerrancy in the modern period.

But I do love reading, praying, teaching and pondering the Scriptures. They breathe life! So don’t think I am some liberal whacko.

In all, I do like what Jesus said about Scripture: You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me (John 5:39).
Mike B on 19 Nov 2009 at 6:29 am #

My initial thoughts are similar to Greg in #37, why must “all the kingdoms of the world” be every kingdom past, present, and future. Why can’t it be a high mountain that could see a large portion of the Mediterranean region that would represent the center of power at that time.

What was Satan even offering Jesus? Was it all the kingdoms in time or just the kingdoms (Rome) of that day? Maybe I am assuming too much but Jesus in the flesh can’t go back in time and given His body of flesh likely could not live beyond a reasonable old age so “all the kingdoms of the world” must have been the kingdoms during His lifetime wouldn’t it?

Expanding on the full temptation the standing on the pinnacle of the temple makes me wonder what happened here, which may influence how to take the high mountain experience too. Did what would likely appear as two men really stand in Jerusalem on the top of the temple or was that a vision too?
j on 19 Nov 2009 at 7:08 am #

#40 – Nicely stated ScottL. I think this tension will continue for some time. I was just reading some notes from Norm Geisler the other day about ETS in the 70s-80s —- he mentioned there being those who supported Bob Gundry and continued to sign the ETS inerrancy statement. Others who were “intellectually honest” withdrew their ETS membership.

Intellectual honesty is a real bear at certain points. And if a person believes/is persuaded by arguments for inerrancy 5 out of 7 days a week, then what? Just sign the statement on one of the 5 days (But consider yourself revoked on the other 2).
Greg on 19 Nov 2009 at 8:28 am #

CMP,

Thanks. That does help!
Wm Tanksley on 19 Nov 2009 at 8:47 am #

Mike, I really like your question about why Satan chose the temple to tempt Jesus to cast himself off, and I agree that the answer to that question might cast light on the specific reason for the mountain. I haven’t studied the cultural and textual context enough for my guesses to have value, but I think that’s the right starting point.

Greg, it’s technically true that there’s not a mention of a vision in Matthew’s account, but neither does Matthew’s account doesn’t rule out visions. It’s just not important to him; it’s not part of the story he’s trying to tell. It’s nonetheless unmistakably a story about the same event that Luke was describing, and doesn’t contradict it in any details, so we can conclude that any detail pulled from Luke’s account can inform our reconstruction of the event from Matthew — so long as we remember that Matthew had a purpose for telling the story the way he did, and his purpose should not be ignored in our eagerness to reconstruct the scene.

-Wm
Dallas on 19 Nov 2009 at 9:18 am #

There is a consistent pattern of historical specificity in literal interpretation in the Bible. By this I mean that particular places and events are often specified in passages that are to be taken as “wooden literal”. When God would speak in a way that was to to have an allegorical or exclusively other-worldly sense, then there was less specificity. Matt 4:8 does not specify the particular mountain that Satan took Jesus. This would indicate a symbolic or spiritual interpretation in a way consistent with the principles of literal interpretation.

There is a certain amount of vagueness in this passage so I would not be dogmatic about this, but the most sensible interpretation for me is that the location is heavenly. The Bible speaks of a heavenly mountain (Psalm 24:3-4;Ezekiel 28:13-14;Heb 12:18-22;Rev 14:1 and others). They were on the “Mountain of God” looking down upon the earth.
EricW on 19 Nov 2009 at 9:20 am #

So, is there any validity to my implied suggestion that a possible reason the devil shows the kingdoms and their glory to Jesus on a mountain was because it was also on a mountain that God – whom the devil opposed himself to, and who Jesus referenced in response to the devil’s temptations – showed Moses how He wanted Moses to build a place for God’s glory to dwell?
jeromy on 19 Nov 2009 at 12:47 pm #

If this is interpreted as a vision, it opens up the discussion of whether Satan has the power to put a vision into the mind of the Son of God, even if he IS in the flesh. I often wonder what Satan can put into the mind of believers, since the word tells us that, “A man is tempted when he is lured away of his own lust.” Does this mean that all Satan can do is put something before us that he has seen us succumb to before? I have had discussions with other believers that believe keeping a journal is just letting Satan read your thoughts. So the ultimate question for me is: what can Satan put into our heads and what can he take out?
J.R. on 19 Nov 2009 at 4:31 pm #

If one could see all the kingdoms from a mountain top then one would assume all the kingdoms would also be able to see the mountain top. Therefore I don’t believe the mountain should be taken too literally. A high place, yes, but not necessarily the highest place. I believe it all to be part of the visual effect (a high place) satin used in the temptation process.
Wm Tanksley on 20 Nov 2009 at 11:41 pm #

jeromy, this doesn’t provide evidence than Satan can put things into our head; but it does show that Jesus could see and speak to him, and he could “show” things to Jesus. That may involve visions that Jesus couldn’t distinguish from reality (which is what you’re implying), but it could also be dream sequences, or for that matter a PowerPoint show using an OLED monitor.

I think the Bible would have been a lot clearer on the issue if Satan could operate in the ways your friends feared, I’d expect.

At the same time, I’ve talked to missionaries and MKs who report a LOT more demonic activity in newly opened missionfields. Perhaps Satan’s kingdom is driven back by the Gospel when it’s proclaimed — there’s some evidence for that in the Bible.

-Wm
Jason C on 21 Nov 2009 at 1:03 am #

1166 deiknuw deiknuo dike-noo’-o

a prolonged form of an obsolete primary of the same meaning; TDNT-2:25,*; v

AV-show 31; 31

1) to show, expose to the eyes
2) metaph.
2a) to give evidence or proof of a thing
2b) to show by words or teach

From my online bible. The word “show” has metaphorical meanings that allow as little as telling someone about something.

Satan took Jesus to a high mountain and showed him the kingdoms of the world in an instant. I’d be inclined to go with “vision” as it’s much the same as me showing someone the town of New York with a power point presentation.

However going back to the question from #25, at that time was there a widespread belief in a flat Earth? Greek mathematicians had calculated the shape and size of the Earth about 2-300 years earlier. Had that knowledge become widespread at the time the gospels were written?
Eileen Pacetti on 21 Nov 2009 at 1:41 pm #

Well, I don’t know Greek, but this reminds me of Daniel 2 and Nebuchadnezzar’s vision. The kingdoms throughout time are destroyed by a rock that becomes an huge mountain that filled the earth. Not to get all Christological with the OT or anything, but I think we agree that Jesus is that mountain, and He would inherit all the kingdoms of the earth.

So maybe the Father “led” Satan to take Jesus to the high mountain because Jesus as well as the Jews would have known that passage from Daniel, and it made a perfect context for Jesus, knowing the Scripture, to say to Satan in effect, “No deal, B’ub, I’m going to destroy both you and all the kingdoms of the earth and all of those who choose to bow down to you instead of the Father.”

So, I think it was a literal mountain but the “all kingdoms” part was a vision because there is no way to show all the kingdoms both *across all time* and *geographically* without a vision.
Greg on 22 Nov 2009 at 12:04 am #

Jason C,

While the Greeks certainly did come up with the idea of a global earth, whether it had spread into the Hebrew conception of the world is an important one to consider. I don’t think we see any of that in the New Testament though.

Its entirely reasonable to believe that Matthew, raised as a Levite, would be familiar with the Old Testament’s conception of the universe and simply follow through with it in his gospel. I actually can’t think of any reason why he wouldn’t follow the beliefs of his culture.

Many of the Biblical authors viewed the world differently than we modern Westerners do. There’s no reason to believe their cosmology would reflect ours in any significant degree once you get out of their field of vision.

Its not that they are stupid, just ignorant of future advances in science. Just like we are.

If you want to look into this idea any further, do an internet search for John H. Walton, or read some of his recent books on Genesis. He really helps bring it all together.
rey on 28 Nov 2009 at 12:52 am #

Jesus says in John 6:51 “I am the bread that came down from heaven” and also “the bread I will give is my flesh” which together means he came down from heaven already having his flesh.

Combine that with Matthew 11:11 “of those born of women, there is none greater than John” by which Jesus shows He Himself was not born of a woman, and with John 2:4 where a supposed mother character is told by Jesus “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” and Luke 11:28 where a woman who says “blessed are paps that you sucked” hears Jesus’ response “Nay rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it,” and Mark 3:32-35 where one says to Jesus that his mother is outside and he says “Who is my mother, or my brethren?” motioning that the crowd is, saying “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.”

Again, the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 is about the virgin-born child being a sign of when Ahaz’ two enemy kings, Rezin and Pekkah son of Remaliah, the kings of Damascus and Samaria will be defeated, for the prophecy says in verse 16 “For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.” And Isaiah 8 shows that Mahershalalhashbaz, a child virginally born of the prophetess, is the fulfillment, by Yahweh Himself saying “Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz, for before the child shall have knowledge to cry my father or my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away by the king of Assyria.” All the prophecies the Catholics have added to Matthew chapters 1 and 2 about Jesus’ birth are found to be taken out of context. Rachel weeping is about exile not death, for Yahweh says to Rachel in that prophecy, in Jeremiah 31:16-17 “Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border.” Out of Egypt I have called my son is no prophecy but a historical statement concerning the Exodus, for it comes from Hosea 11:1 “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” The Bethlehem birth prophecy is about a physical warrior to defend the land against Assyrian incursion, for Micah 5:5 says “And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land…” And of course, the prophecy cited in Matthew 2:23 “He shall be called a Nazarene,” doesn’t even exist in the OT.

The Catholics have corrupted our Bibles, all of them, with lies about Jesus’ birth. Jesus actually descended from Heaven already having his flesh. 1st John 4:2 says “he came in the flesh.” HE CAME IN THE FLESH; He was not born INTO the flesh. The word BECAME flesh. Mary was John Mark’s mother, not Jesus’ mother, and thus he says to John…
EricW on 28 Nov 2009 at 1:10 am #

Must be something in the water, ’cause there’s not a full moon tonight.