Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the Evil One

If you grew up anywhere in the English-speaking world and have had even the slightest exposure to organized religion at some stage of your life, there is an excellent chance that you are familiar with The Lord's Prayer as it appears in the King James Version. You have almost certainly heard it; you have probably recited it; and you may well have memorized it.

The ending of the prayer runs like this: "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (Matthew 6:13 KJV)

It might surprise some readers to know that analysis of ancient manuscripts by textual critics has revealed that the prayer in Matthew probably originally ended with 'deliver us from evil'; the rest was likely added at a later stage because "it was felt that this ending was too abrupt and negative."¹ (See also the abrupt ending preserved in Luke 11:1-2).

Our main focus here, however, is on the line, "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." If you read this text in various modern translations, you will see that the majority of them translate the latter clause, "but deliver us from the evil one" (NKJV; NRSV; NIV; NET; NLT; HCSB). Some of these include 'from evil' as a marginal rendering. The ESV and NASB retain the KJV rendering 'from evil' but include 'from the evil one' in the margin.

Why is it that the majority of translators and commentators² today favour the reading, 'the evil one'? Are they simply biased by their belief in a personal devil, as a Christadelphian recently suggested to me? Or does this translation reflect the results of careful, responsible scholarship?

Ayo notes that "virtually all the Greek patristic writers" (that is, Christian writers in the earliest period of the church after the apostles) saw a reference to the devil in this verse.³ Now, post-apostolic church tradition generally carries no weight with Christadelphians, and might be discounted as 'biased' in the same way as modern translations. However, before we thrust aside the patristic testimony, we ought to remember that we are much further removed from New Testament Greek than they were.

From a grammatical point of view, both translations are possible. Matthew 6:13b in Greek reads, alla rhusai hemas apo tou ponerou. The crucial grammatical observation is that poneros ('evil') has the definite article, the Greek version of the word 'the'. The definite article in ancient Greek does not correspond exactly to the word 'the' however. It can perform many different functions; Wallace devotes 86 pages to this part of speech in his Greek grammar!⁴ One of these functions is that of a "substantiver" meaning that it can transform various parts of speech into nouns. Poneros is properly an adjective; yet in this verse the article transforms it to be a noun. But what sort of noun is it? Is it a definite noun referring to a particular individual called 'the evil one'? Is it a generic noun referring to any 'evil one'? Or is it an abstract noun referring to 'evil'? The answer is that grammatically, it could be any of these; and if it was the latter, we would best omit the definite article from our translation. Hence, "the Evil One", "the [generic] evil one" and "evil" are all, grammatically speaking, legitimate translations of this Greek phrase.⁵

There is an interesting literary parallel in a rabbinic prayer recorded in the Talmud which reads thus:

May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, and God of our fathers, to deliver us from the impudent and from impudence, from an evil man, from evil hap, from the evil impulse, from an evil companion, from an evil neighbour, and from the destructive Accuser, from a hard lawsuit and from a hard opponent, whether he is a son of the covenant or not a son of the covenant! (b. Ber. 16b)

In this prayer all three possibilities are explicitly mentioned: various types of evil men, two more abstract concepts (evil hap and the evil impulse), and the destructive Accuser (i.e. Satan). This serves as a reminder that the various interpretive options are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and that within an ancient Jewish context it was customary to pray for deliverance from various kinds of evil. Which of these possibilities, however, is most likely the primary referent of ho poneros in Matthew 6:13?

There is one other grammatical point which is helpful although not decisive. The verb rhuomai (to deliver or rescue) occurs 12 times in the New Testament with an indirect object from which someone is delivered. It is always linked to its indirect object by means of one of two Greek prepositions, ek or apo, which in this case both mean 'from'. In Matthew 6:13 the preposition is apo. If we look at the other 11 instances in the New Testament, we find that ek is usually used for deliverance from things (Romans 7:24; 2 Corinthians 1:10; Colossians 1:13; 2 Timothy 3:11; 2 Timothy 4:17; 2 Peter 2:9) whereas apo is usually used for deliverance from persons (Romans 15:31; 2 Thessalonians 3:2). There are two possible exceptions to this pattern and one clear exception. In Luke 1:74 ek is used where the indirect object is "the hand of our enemies." This is personal but it is not necessarily an exception because the immediate referent is 'hand', a thing. In 1 Thessalonians 1:10, the indirect object is a thing, "wrath to come." There is textual uncertainty about the preposition here because some manuscripts have ek while others have apo. If apo were the original reading then this would be an exception to the pattern. The one clear exception is in 2 Timothy 4:18, where the indirect object is "every evil deed" but the preposition is apo. There is nothing like a rule of grammar stating that rhuomai + apo implies a personal indirect object, but the pattern of usage nudges the balance of probabilities toward the reading, 'the evil one.'⁶

The decisive factor, however, must be the context. If we look at the broader context of Matthew there is no clear use of ho poneros (with article) to refer to evil as an abstract noun (either as in 'evil' generally or 'the evil impulse' specifically). Such a reading is possible in Matthew 5:37, but the meaning of ho poneros is disputed here too with most modern translations opting for 'the evil one.' ho poneros does refer to evil abstractly elsewhere in the New Testament (Luke 6:45; Romans 12:9). Within Matthew there is one use of ho poneros which most likely refers to 'an evildoer' in a generic sense (Matthew 5:39), though here too some scholars take it as a reference to the evil one.⁷ There are at least two uses of ho poneros to refer to 'the Evil One' in an individualized sense (Matthew 13:19; 13:38). That ho poneros in Matthew 13:19 means 'the Evil One', an epithet for the devil or Satan, can be ascertained by comparing it with the parallel accounts of the parable of the sower (Mark 4:15; Luke 8:12). In Matthew 13:38 ho poneros is identified as 'the devil' in the immediate context (v. 39). In both of these texts 'the Evil One' is evidently either a person or a personification, and not a generic or abstract noun, since the Evil One is described as 'coming and snatching' the word away, and as a father to the wicked. This "Evil One" thus figures prominently in Jesus' teaching in the Gospel of Matthew.

There are a number of other New Testament instances of ho poneros which virtually all modern translations (including NASB and ESV) render 'the evil one' (John 17:15; Ephesians 6:16; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; 1 John 2:13-14; 3:12; 5:18-19). The KJV follows an abstract reading in Ephesians 6:16, 2 Thessalonians 3:3, John 17:15 and 1 John 5:19, but in the other passages even it reads 'the wicked one', indicating virtual unanimity among major English translations. John 17:15 is particularly noteworthy since, like Matthew 6:13, it occurs in a prayer of Jesus. Note also that the context of both Ephesians 6:16 (v. 11) and 1 John 3:12 (vv. 8, 10) imply an identification of ho poneros with ho diabolos, the devil.

The decisive point supporting the rendering 'the evil one' is the need to read the Lord's Prayer in light of the wilderness temptation accounts. The petition, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from [the] evil [one]" draws on Matthew 4:1-11 in which Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. Chase argued that every clause of the Lord's Prayer is clarified when read in light of the temptation narrative, and that "It is difficult to imagine that the analogy between the two breaks down in the last clause, and that the prominence of the tempter in the history has no counterpart in the Prayer."⁸

In view of the above evidence, it is best to understand ho poneros in Matthew 6:13 as synonymous with ho diabolos just as in Matthew 13:19 and 13:38-39. The grammatical and contextual evidence leads us to the conclusion that Jesus actually instructed us to pray for deliverance from the individualized 'Evil One.' This leaves open the question of whether he understood the devil to be an actual personal being or a personification. In my papers The Devil in the Wilderness and The Enemy is the Devil I have argued at length that the Gospel writers (and Jesus himself) intended to convey to their audiences that the devil is a supernatural personal being. This conclusion is supported by an overwhelming majority of modern New Testament scholars.

If we don't share Jesus' view that there is a real, external enemy who seeks to turn us away from God, it seems inevitable that we will fall short of his admonition to "pray in this way" (Matthew 6:9). On the other hand, if we appreciate the reality of this enemy and all the forms of evil that characterize his dark domain, we will pray earnestly for deliverance, taking heart in the fact that Jesus has already overcome him and broken his power (Hebrews 2:14).

---

1 Bruner, F.D. (2004). Matthew: The Christbook, Matthew 1-12. Eerdmans, p. 315.^↩
2 See for example Bruner (op. cit., p. 314); Carson, D.A. (2010). Matthew. In The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Matthew-Mark. T. Longman and D. Garland (Eds.). Zondervan, p. 208; Evans, C.E. (2012). Matthew. Cambridge University Press, p. 148.^↩
3 Ayo, N. (2002). The Lord's Prayer: A Survey Theological and Literary. Rowman and Littlefield, p. 95.^↩
4 Wallace, D.B. (1996). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an exegetical syntax of the New Testament. Zondervan, pp. 206-291.^↩
5 Wallace himself argues based on the relationship between the wilderness temptation narrative and the prayer that tou ponerou here refers to the evil one, the devil (op. cit., p. 233).^↩
6 This analysis has been made by scholars such as Zerwick, who notes that the same general pattern holds in the Septuagint (Zerwick, M. (1963). Biblical Greek: illustrated by examples. Gregorian Biblical Bookshop, p. 29).^↩
7 Bruner, op. cit., pp. 248-250.^↩
8 Chase, F.H. (1891). The Lord's Prayer in the early church. Cambridge University Press, p. 105.^↩

False signs and wonders: by whose power?

In the next couple of posts I'm planning to offer some preliminary observations on a couple of topics which are peripherally related to the biblical doctrine of Satan.

On a few occasions, the Bible refers to the ability of wicked people to perform signs and wonders. For those of us who are prepared to take the biblical testimony at face value as an authoritative record of historical events, prophecy and teaching, this begs the question, by what power were and are these deceitful wonders performed? For Christians who acknowledge the existence of supernatural forces of evil headed by Satan, a logical explanation of such phenomena exists: it is Satan who empowers these wicked people. For Christians (such as Christadelphians) who deny the existence of any supernatural evil beings, the only possible explanations are (1) that these miracles were performed by the Holy Spirit, and therefore caused directly by God; or (2) that these miracles were merely illusions and had no supernatural content whatsoever. As we go through the instances in Scripture, we will investigate whether either of these explanations is credible.

Narrative Examples

One well known instance concerns the confrontation between Moses and Aaron and Pharaoh in Egypt. God gives Moses and Aaron the power to perform wonders before Pharaoh and induce plagues. In the first case, Aaron turns his rod into a snake (Exodus 7:10). Pharaoh's wise men, sorcerers and magicians also manage to turn their staffs into snakes, "by their secret arts" (Exodus 7:11-12). The superior power of God is demonstrated in this case, not by exposing the Egyptian magicians as illusionists or frauds, but by Aaron's snake devouring their snakes. The account is thus best understood as reporting that Pharaoh's magicians were actually able to turn their staffs into snakes. In like manner, Pharaoh's magicians are able to replicate the plague of turning water into blood and of mass-producing frogs (Exodus 7:22; 8:7).

However, Pharaoh's magicians are unable to replicate the miracle of the gnats, which they confess is due to "the finger of God" (Exodus 8:18-19). Their inferior power is further demonstrated when they themselves are afflicted in the plague of boils (Exodus 9:11). In short, the Torah clearly distinguishes between the superior power at work in Moses and Aaron and the inferior power at work in the Egyptian magicians, but does not offer any distinction between the reality of the Egyptian magicians' miracles and those of Moses and Aaron. The text gives us no reason to think that the rods were replaced with snakes using sleight-of-hand or any other non-supernatural means. The plain meaning of the text is that the Egyptian magicians were able to perform certain miracles. They obviously did not do so by God's power; by what power then did they do so?

A second instance is found in 1 Samuel 28:7-19, where Saul consults a medium who succeeds in bringing up the deceased prophet Samuel as an 'elohim'. Supernatural activity is undeniable here, since Samuel prophesies. Was the medium empowered by the Holy Spirit to resurrect Samuel or otherwise induce his presence? (Nothing in the text suggests that this was a resurrection, and the fact that only the medium could see Samuel suggests otherwise.) Samuel rebukes Saul for "disturbing" him, which is odd language if this were in fact a divine miracle. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that God would implicate Himself in the work of a medium, given the strongly worded condemnations of such activity in the law of Moses (Leviticus 19:31; 20:6; 20:27). The best interpretation from the text itself is that the medium did supernaturally bring up Samuel, but by a power other than God's.

A third instance is found in the account of 'the Adversary' (Hebrew ha'satan) in Job 1-2. In this case the miracles are not necessarily performed by a wicked human; most scholars are agreed that the satan here is a supernatural being (and not necessarily a wicked one). Christadelphians, however, have tended to identify the Adversary with some sort of human agent. What is clear from this account, however, is that the Adversary had supernatural power to cause calamity (although this power was subject to and constrained by God). In Job 1:12, God tells the Adversary, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand." We then read of the Adversary departing from the presence of the Lord, and thereafter of calamities befalling Job's household. These included natural disasters, which no human hand could have caused. Indeed, the idiom of stretching out one's hand is used throughout the Old Testament for causation of supernatural events (Exodus 3:20; 7:5; 7:19; 8:5; 9:22; 10:12; 10:21; 14:16; 14:26; Joshua 8:18; Psalm 138:7; 144:7; Jeremiah 6:12; 51:25; Ezekiel 6:14; 14:9; Zephaniah 1:4; cf. Acts 4:30).

In Job 2:7, after the Lord tells the Adversary, "[Job] is in your hand" but constrains him from killing Job, the text explicitly says that it was the Adversary who "struck Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head." This again implies supernatural activity on the part of the Adversary. If the Adversary was a human being, we are left to explain how he came by this supernatural power. It was permitted and constrained by God, and thus Job's trials could be ascribed to God in an ultimate sense (as in Job 42:11). However, the Adversary was motivated by an overzealous desire to find fault and induce Job's destruction, which makes it hard to believe that God granted him supernatural powers especially to enable his persecution of Job.

A final historical instance of miracles performed by wicked people is the account of Simon Magus in Acts 8:9-11. The narrator of Acts (Luke) twice tells us that this man had amazed the people of Samaria with his magic. His reputation was such that he was known as the Great Power of God. "Magic" here refers to occultic arts, and not to harmless conjuring tricks like those of today's popular magicians. Luke says nothing that gives the impression that he doubted the reality of Simon's magic. However, since Simon subsequently tried to buy the Holy Spirit from the apostles and was struck blind for it, the implication from the context is that God was not really the source of his power. This suggests a source of supernatural power other than God's.

In summary, we have found biblical testimony to supernatural acts being carried out by persons opposed to the will of God. The implication is that there is a source of supernatural power which is opposed to the will of God. However, this does not represent a clash between two equal and opposite powers; instead, the power opposed to God is far inferior to Him in strength, and seemingly cannot even be exercised without His consent. Indeed, the exercise of supernatural power by wicked people is the exception rather than the rule. In many cases, those opposed to God are utterly impotent (the classic example, perhaps, being the showdown between Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18:17-40).

Prophetic Examples

Deuteronomy 13:1-3 commands the Israelites not to listen to prophets or dreamers of dreams who practice idolatry, even if the prophet gives a sign or a wonder which "comes to pass." In other words, the Law of Moses specifically legislates for the possibility of ungodly prophets who are nevertheless able to perform signs and wonders successfully (which requires supernatural power). The stated rationale for such cases is that they are occasions of testing from the Lord, which might suggest that such prophets derive their power from God. However, the idea that God might give the Holy Spirit to idolatrous men in order to test His people is difficult to reconcile with His revealed character. In a narrative that is somewhat analogous in 1 Kings 22:19-23 (though there the prophets prophesy falsely), the Lord allows a 'lying spirit' (clearly not the Holy Spirit) to enter into the mouth of Ahab's prophets.

The possibility of false prophets performing signs and wonders, first stated in the Law, is picked up in later biblical prophecies. In the Olivet discourse, Jesus warned, "For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect" (Matthew 24:24). The qualifying adjective "great" implies some reality to these signs and wonders; although they lead astray, they are not empty of power. The same phraseology is used in Acts 6:8 to describe the works of Stephen who was "full of power."

The same idea appears in Paul's prediction of the "lawless one" in 2 Thessalonians 2:9: "The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders". Here, the lawless one's activity is explicitly connected with that of Satan (who was posited at the beginning to be the immediate source of supernatural evil powers wielded by humans). Secondly, it is evident that this individual possesses great power, which in the context of 'signs and wonders' is evidently supernatural power (as opposed to political power, for instance). The signs and wonders are identified as "false" (pseudos), but this cannot mean they are empty of real power (which would contradict the previous assertion). Rather, it means that they deceive and lead astray (cf. vv. 10-11) in contrast to divinely ordained signs and wonders which impart truth and inspire faith.

This idea appears again in Revelation. The two-horned beast in Revelation 13:13-14 is said to perform "great signs" by which it deceives those who dwell on the earth. Again, the signs are not devoid of power but are "great"; their falsehood lies in their motive. A specific example of one of these signs is given: "making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people". The symbolic nature of Revelation does not take away the clear implication that this wicked entity wields supernatural power; and indeed this text sheds light on the kinds of 'signs and wonders' referred to in Matthew 24:24 and 2 Thessalonians 2:9. In Revelation 16:14 we again have "demonic spirits, performing signs" and in Revelation 19:20 a reiteration of the false prophet's work of performing signs to deceive people.

Conclusion

In both narrative and prophetic portions of Scripture, we encounter the idea that real, supernatural signs and wonders are sometimes performed by ungodly people. If there are no supernatural evil beings then such phenomena are explicable only by attributing them directly to the hand of God, which creates serious philosophical problems. A better explanation is to attribute them to supernatural evil forces operating under the dominion of Satan; forces which oppose God's will but, paradoxically, are constrained by that same will, and can be used by God for good ends, such as spiritual growth (as in Job's case) or the judicial hardening of the wicked (as in the apocalyptic false prophet). 

The idea that God may be responsible for all evil in an ultimate sense but not in a direct sense is something most Christians assume within their worldview. For instance, if you were severely injured in a car accident or a natural disaster, you would probably experience a crisis of faith because you would hold God responsible in an ultimate sense: after all, He is omnipotent and yet He allowed it to happen! On the other hand, it is unlikely that you would hold God responsible in an immediate sense, as though He caused the car accident or natural disaster by direct intervention. In many cases, it is possible to understand the immediate cause of such events in purely naturalistic terms. However, as we have seen, the Scriptures testify that in at least a few cases, there are events which demand an immediate cause which is supernatural and yet incompatible with God's character. Such phenomena thus provide implicit evidence for the existence of supernatural evil being(s).

The devil in early post-apostolic Christianity

The term "Apostolic Fathers" refers to a collection of writings which 

are considered to be consistent with the general principles and theologies of an apostolic tradition that circulated among the churches from the end of the first century into the middle of the second century. These texts, only tentatively defined, are generally seen to include the following works: Epistle of Barnabas, 1-2 Clement, Didache, Epistle to Diognetus, Epistles of Ignatius, Epistle of Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Shepherd of Hermas, and the fragments of Papias.¹

They were not ultimately not included in the New Testament canon but were also not viewed as scandalous or heretical, and “for some Christians at least, a few of the texts that came to form the Apostolic Fathers were viewed with a reverence that may have approached that of Scripture.”² Their relevance to us is due not any claim that their testimony is inspired or authoritative, but because “As a combined voice they speak loudly about the origins of early Christian faith and culture.”³

Christadelphian apologist Jonathan Burke has implicitly affirmed the importance of these writings as a witness to early Christian faith and culture by appealing to them in support of what he calls the "Christadelphian model" of the early church as a gradually maturing community which put away belief in literal demons (and, by implication, a literal Satan).⁴

Burke argues that this trend can be observed in the "marginalization" of Satan and demons within the New Testament, outside the Gospels and Acts.⁵ As far as Satan is concerned I addressed this claim in a previous post, The Statistics of Satan. 

However, Burke also claims support for the Christadelphian model in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. In the case of demons he appeals to the entire body of writings.⁶ However, in the case of Satan, for reasons that will become apparent, he appeals to only one text - the Didache. He calls it "significant" that this work makes no reference to Satan.⁷

Now, before looking at Burke's claims regarding the Didache, let us examine the rest of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Do they bear out the idea that belief in Satan was progressively being jettisoned by the early church?

Epistle of Barnabas

"We take earnest heed in these last days; for the whole [past] time of your faith will profit you nothing, unless now in this wicked time we also withstand coming sources of danger, as becometh the sons of God. That the Black One may find no means of entrance, let us flee from every vanity, let us utterly hate the works of the way of wickedness...Each will receive as he has done: if he is righteous, his righteousness will precede him; if he is wicked, the reward of wickedness is before him. Take heed, lest resting at our ease, as those who are the called [of God], we should fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked prince, acquiring power over us, should thrust us away from the kingdom of the Lord. (Barnabas 4)⁸ 

“But let us now pass to another sort of knowledge and doctrine. There are two ways of doctrine and authority, the one of light, and the other of darkness. But there is a great difference between these two ways. For over one are stationed the light-bringing angels of God, but over the other the angels of Satan. And He indeed [i.e., God] is Lord for ever and ever, but he [i.e., Satan] is prince of the time of iniquity.” (Barnabas 18)

Comment: some scholars have seen other references to the devil in Barnabas 15:5 (which translates literally as 'the lawless one' and could refer to Satan or the man of sin as in 2 Thess. 2:8); Barnabas 20:1 (which could be rendered 'the way of the Black One' or 'the way of darkness'), and Barnabas 21:3 ("For the day is at hand on which all things shall perish with the evil [one].")⁹

1 Clement

“For all our transgressions which we have committed through any of the wiles of the adversary, let us entreat that we may obtain forgiveness” (1 Clement 51)

Comment: The word translated 'adversary' here is a form of the Greek verb antikeimai. This verb is used of the "man of sin" in 2 Thess. 2:4, who is closely associated with Satan (2 Thess. 2:9). It is also used in 1 Tim. 5:14, possibly of Satan, but certainly in connection with Satan (cf. 1 Tim. 5:15).

This text from 1 Clement is taken to be a reference to the devil by the best lexical authority,¹⁰ and the word clearly refers to the devil in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (see below).

2 Clement

"For I myself too, being an utter sinner and not yet escaped from temptation, but being still amidst the engines of the devil, do my diligence to follow after righteousness, that I may prevail so far at least as to come near unto it, while I fear the judgment to come." (2 Clement 18)

Epistle to Diognetus

This document contains no reference to the devil.

Epistles of Ignatius 

There are seven epistles of Ignatius extant which are generally regarded as authentic. There is a longer and shorter version of most of these, so to be conservative we will limit ourselves to references from the shorter version. Going by the shorter version, six of the seven epistles refer to the devil. Only the epistle to Polycarp does not. In addition to "the devil" (ho diabolos) Ignatius uses the term "prince of this world" (archontos tou aionos toutou) which is close to the term used in John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; cf. 2 Cor. 4:4.

"Flee therefore the wicked devices and snares of the prince of this world, lest at any time being conquered by his artifices, ye grow weak in your love." (Philadelphians 6)

"...I commend the Churches, in which I pray for a union both of the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ, the constant source of our life, and of faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred, but especially of Jesus and the Father, in whom, if we endure all the assaults of the prince of this world, and escape them, we shall enjoy God." (Magnesians 1) 

"Not that I know there is anything of this kind among you; but I put you on your guard, inasmuch as I love you greatly, and foresee the snares of the devil." (Trallians 8) 

"I therefore have need of meekness, by which the prince of this world is brought to nought." (Trallians 4) 

"Let fire and the cross; let the crowds of wild beasts; let tearings, breakings, and dislocations of bones; let cutting off of members; let shatterings of the whole body; and let all the dreadful torments of the devil come upon me: only let me attain to Jesus Christ." (Romans 5) 

"The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be ye on my side, that is, on the side of God." (Romans 7) 

"and let us seek to be followers of the Lord (who ever more unjustly treated, more destitute, more condemned? ), that so no plant of the devil may be found in you, but ye may remain in all holiness and sobriety in Jesus Christ, both with respect to the flesh and spirit." (Ephesians 10) 

"For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end." (Ephesians 13) 

"Be not ye anointed with the bad odour of the doctrine of the prince of this world; let him not lead you away captive from the life which is set before you." (Ephesians 17) 

"Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence by God." (Ephesians 19) 

"He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil." (Smyrnaeans 9)

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;" and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan." (7:1)

Martyrdom of Polycarp

"For the devil did indeed invent many things against them; but thanks be to God, he could not prevail over all." (Martyrdom of Polycarp 3) 

"But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh." (Martyrdom of Polycarp 17)

Shepherd of Hermas

This document contains no less than 23 references to the devil, of which the following are a sampling:

“For the Lord, knowing the heart, and foreknowing all things, knew the weakness of men and the manifold wiles of the devil, that he would inflict some evil on the servants of God, and would act wickedly towards them. The Lord, therefore, being merciful, has had mercy on the work of His hand, and has set repentance for them; and He has entrusted to me power over this repentance. And therefore I say to you, that if any one is tempted by the devil, and sins after that great and holy calling. in which the Lord has called His people to everlasting life, he has opportunity to repent but once.” (Fourth Commandment, chapter 3)

“For if thou art long-suffering, the Holy Spirit that abideth in thee shall be pure, not being darkened by another evil spirit, but dwelling in a large room shall rejoice and be glad with the vessel in which he dwelleth, and shall serve God with much cheerfulness, having prosperity in himself. But if any angry temper approach, forthwith the Holy Spirit, being delicate, is straitened, not having [the] place clear, and seeketh to retire from the place; for he is being choked by the evil spirit, and has no room to minister unto the Lord, as he desireth, being polluted by angry temper. For the Lord dwelleth in long-suffering, but the devil in angry temper. Thus that both the spirits then should be dwelling together is inconvenient and evil for that man in whom they dwell.” (Fifth Commandment, chapter 1)

“But fear not the devil; for, if thou fear the Lord, thou shalt be master over the devil, for there is no power in him. [For] in whom is no power, neither is there fear of him; but in whom power is glorious, of him is fear likewise. For every one that hath power hath fear, whereas he that hath no power is despised of all. But fear thou the works of the devil, for they are evil. While then thou fearest the Lord, thou wilt fear the works of the devil, and wilt not do them, but abstain from them.” (Seventh Commandment, chapter 1)

"He pointed out to me some men sitting on a seat, and one man sitting on a chair. And he says to me, "Do you see the persons sitting on the seat?" "I do, sir," said I. "These," says he, "are the faithful, and he who sits on the chair is a false prophet, ruining the minds of the servants of God. It is the doubters, not the faithful, that he ruins. These doubters then go to him as to a soothsayer, and inquire of him what will happen to them; and he, the false prophet, not having the power of a Divine Spirit in him, answers them according to their inquiries, and according to their wicked desires, and fills their souls with expectations, according to their own wishes. For being himself empty, he gives empty answers to empty inquirers; for every answer is made to the emptiness of man. Some true words he does occasionally utter; for the devil fills him with his own spirit, in the hope that he may be able to overcome some of the righteous. As many, then, as are strong in the faith of the Lord, and are clothed with truth, have no connection with such spirits, but keep away from them" (Eleventh Commandment, chapter 1)

These, then, are the evil desires which slay the servants of God. For this evil desire is the daughter of the devil. You must refrain from evil desires, that by refraining ye may live to God. But as many as are mastered by them, and do not resist them, will perish at last, for these desires are fatal. Put you on, then, the desire of righteousness; and arming yourself with the fear of the Lord," (Twelfth Commandment, chapter 2)

"I say to him, "Sir, listen to me for a moment." "Say what you wish," says he. "Man, sir," say I, "is eager to keep the commandments of God, and there is no one who does not ask of the Lord that strength may be given him for these commandments, and that he may be subject to them; but the devil is hard, and holds sway over them." "He cannot," says he, "hold sway over the servants of God, who with all their heart place their hopes in Him. The devil can wrestle against these, overthrow them he cannot. If, then, ye resist him, he will be conquered, and flee in disgrace from you. As many, therefore," says he, "as are empty, fear the devil, as possessing power. When a man has filled very suitable jars with good wine, and a few among those jars are left empty, then he comes to the jars, and does not look at the full jars, for he knows that they are full; but he looks at the empty, being afraid lest they have become sour. For empty jars quickly become sour, and the goodness of the wine is gone. So also the devil goes to all the servants of God to try them. As many, then, as are full in the faith, resist him strongly, and he withdraws from them, having no way by which he might enter them. He goes, then, to the empty, and finding a way of entrance, into them, he produces in them whatever he wishes, and they become his servants." (Twelfth Commandment, chapter 5)

Fragments of Papias

These brief fragments contain no reference to the devil.

In summary, aside from the Didache, all but three works of the Apostolic Fathers refer to the devil at least once (Epistle to Diognetus, Ignatius' epistle to Polycarp, and the fragments of Papias being the exceptions). Many of these undeniably refer to the devil as a personal being. This is far more significant in appreciating the satanology of the early post-apostolic church than the supposed absence of the devil from the Didache!

Is the devil absent from the Didache?

What of the Didache itself? The focus of this document is practical guidelines for the initiation of converts:

“As an oral tradition, the Didache encapsulated the lived practice by which non-Jews were initiated into the altered habits of perceiving, judging and acting characteristic of one branch of the Jesus movement during the mid-first century.”¹¹

Note that in spite of the quotation above, most scholars date the Didache to the end of the first century.¹²

At any rate, it is plausible that the original text of the Didache did contain an explicit reference to the devil, and the extant text may contain a second implicit reference. The Didache tradition survives in only one complete manuscript dating from the 11^th century.¹³ It is likely that the ending of the Didache is lost. The ending in chapter 16 is “abrupt and unresolved...obviously only half-complete”¹⁴ , and the way in which the scribe uncharacteristically left space at the end of the work and omitted the usual punctuation mark indicating the end of a literary work suggests that he “knew his exemplar was defective”.¹⁵

The Apostolic Constitutions are a “moderately edited version of the Didache included in a larger church manual compiled around 380 C.E.” Milavec explains that “The longer ending found therein has been widely accepted as providing a ‘very loose reproduction’ (Niederwimmer 1998: 227) of the ‘lost ending’ of the Didache.”¹⁶ Aldridge states, “There is good evidence that this is the Didache’s true ending (approximately).”¹⁷

Aldridge renders what he believes to be the proximate true ending of the Didache as follows:

“8 Then the world will see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven with the angels of His power, in the throne of His kingdom, 9 to condemn the devil, the deceiver of the world, and to render to every one according to his deeds. 10 Then shall the wicked go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous shall enter eternal life, 11 to inherit those things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, such things as God hath prepared for them that love Him. 12 And they shall rejoice in the kingdom of God, which is in Christ Jesus.”¹⁸

Since the Apostolic Constitutions contain interpolations in its version of the Didache, even if Aldridge is correct that it preserves the Didache’s true ending it cannot be said with certainty that the devil was mentioned in the original. On the other hand, the possibility cannot be discounted.

Moreover, the full 11th century manuscript of the Didache contains a reference to the “world-deceiver” at 16:4: "and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands". There is an apparent link between the tradition recalled here and that of 2 Thess. 2:3-10, where the person so described is likened to Satan. Milavec observes that the Didache does not endorse this link,¹⁹ but Jenks states that “the description seems to be a clear allusion to the satanic connections of this figure.”²⁰ Verheyden concurs that “This character calls forth associations with traditions on the Antichrist and Satan.”²¹ Peerbolte even argues on the basis of linguistic similarity with Rev. 12:9 that Didache 16:4 refers to Satan himself: “it is best to regard the title ‘deceiver of the world’ as a description of Satan.”²²

In summary, it is at least plausible that the original text of the Didache contained one or two references to the devil. As such, Burke's argument from silence rests on very thin ice.

The reality, as we have seen, is that the Apostolic Fathers witness to a robust doctrine of the devil and Satan in the post-apostolic church of the late first and early second century. This is not surprising given that a robust doctrine of the devil and Satan is also found within the New Testament; but it is exceedingly difficult for the Christadelphian model of the early church to explain.

---

1 Jefford, Clayton N. 2005. The Apostolic Fathers: An Essential Guide. Abingdon Press, pp. 7-8.^↩
2 Jefford, Clayton N. op. cit., p. 7.^↩
3 Jefford, Clayton N. op. cit., p. 8.^↩
4 The correspondence between myself and Burke can be viewed here. The claim in question is from Burke's correspondence of 13/05/2013, p. 12.^↩
5 Burke, Jonathan. Correspondence of 10/10/2012, p. 1.^↩
6 Burke, Jonathan. Correspondence of 13/05/2013, p. 10.^↩
7 Burke, Jonathan. Correspondence of 10/10/2012, p. 2.^↩
8 All translations are taken from Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, Sir James. 1867. Ante-Nicene Christian Library: The Apostolic fathers. T&T Clark.^↩
9 See Russell, Jeffrey B. 1987. Satan: The Early Christian Tradition. Cornell University Press, p. 38ff; Boyd, James W. 1975. Satan and Mara: Christian and Buddhist Symbols of Evil. Brill Archive, p. 15; Byron, Gay. 2003. Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature. Routledge, p. 60ff.^↩
10 Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., and Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. University of Chicago Press, p. 88.^↩
11 Milavec, Aaron. 2003. The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis and Commentary. Liturgical Press, p. ix.^↩
12 Draper, Jonathan. 1996. The Didache in Modern Research. BRILL, pp. 244-245.^↩
13 Milavec, Aaron. op. cit., p. xiv.^↩
14 Aldridge, Robert E. 1999. The Lost Ending of the Didache. Vigiliae Christianae 53(1), p. 3.^↩
15 Aldridge. op. cit., p. 4.^↩
16 Milavec, Aaron. 2003. The Didache: Faith, Hope and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities. Paulist Press, p. 833.^↩
17 Aldridge. op. cit., p. 5.^↩
18 Aldridge. op. cit., pp. 12-13. Emphasis added.^↩
19 Milavec, Aaron. 2003. The Didache: Faith, Hope and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, p. 648.^↩
20 Jenks, Gregory C. 1988. The Origins and Development of the Antichrist Myth. University of Queensland, p. 310.^↩
21 Verheyden, J. 2005. Eschatology in the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew. In Matthew and the Didache, ed. H. van de Sandt. Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, p. 204.^↩
22 Peerbolte, L.J. Lietaert. 1996. The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents. Brill, p. 181.^↩

The devil's demand of worship from Jesus

In the previous two posts we looked at the setting of the third of Jesus' wilderness temptations (second in Luke's ordering) and then more specifically at the devil's offer of world power to Jesus. We now turn our attention to what the devil tempted Jesus to do. Our main objective is again to assess the Christadelphian interpretation that the temptation narratives are figurative representations of an internal struggle, in which ho diabolos (the devil) is a personification of the evil inclination (Hebrew yetzer hara) within Jesus' heart.

Our focus is again on the third temptation (second in Luke's ordering) because it is the most problematic for Christadelphians:

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; 9 and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’” (Matthew 4:8-10 NRSV)

5 Then the devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And the devil said to him, “To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. 7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” 8 Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’” (Luke 4:5-8 NRSV)

Anthony Buzzard succinctly stated the difficulty that the Christadelphian interpretation faces here: "It is most unnatural to think that Jesus invited himself to fall down before himself and worship himself!".¹ To this, Christadelphian apologist Jonathan Burke responded:

It is not argued that Jesus 'invited himself to fall down before himself and worship himself'. It is argued that the narrative represents the internal struggle in Christ using the language of personification.²

In this response, Burke does not say what Jesus was actually tempted to do. Following on the precedent of the other two temptations, it stands to reason that Jesus was actually tempted to do something concrete, and the text tells us what it was: to fall down and worship the devil (ho diabolos). Burke, however, proposes a figurative interpretation of what Jesus was tempted to do:

"The temptation represents Christ as the one having power to elevate himself, and self-worship, rather than the worship of God, is both the requirement and result."³

Thus, although Burke denies that Jesus was tempted to fall down before himself and worship himself, he affirms that Jesus was tempted to self-worship (i.e. worship himself!) The only difference between what he denies and what he affirms is the 'falling down' part. Thus it appears that Burke believes Jesus was tempted to worship himself in mental attitude and not in a physical act of obeisance. The problem is that the text of Matthew says "fall down and worship me". That this is a demand for a physical act of worship is even clearer in the Greek than in the English.

The Greek verb translated "worship" in both Matt. 4:9 and Luke 4:7 is proskuneo. The most respected lexicon of ancient Greek defines this verb thus: "to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority figure, (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully".⁴ While Christadelphians might seize on the words "in attitude", it is plain from the list of synonyms that even this refers to an outwardly expressed attitude and not merely a mental state.⁵

There is no known evidence that proskuneo was ever used as a reflexive verb (i.e. in relation to oneself) in ancient Greek. The only known use of this verb with an abstract direct object is a reference to worship of wealth by Philo, in which he explicitly stated he was using "figurative language".⁶

Greeven further emphasizes the "concreteness" of the term, observing that, as used in the New Testament, "Proskynesis demands visible majesty before which the worshipper bows".⁷. Thus, in order to take proskuneo in the sense of figurative self-worship instead of physical other-worship, one must give it an unprecedented meaning.

Furthermore, although the mere use of the word proskuneo virtually settles the matter, both Matthew and Luke qualify it with another word which makes the physicality of the worship even more explicit. In Matthew, the qualifier is the participial form of the verb pipto, which means "to move with relative rapidity in a downward direction, fall".⁸ It usually has a literal sense, and one of the lexical meanings is "fall down, throw oneself to the groundas a sign of devotion or humility, before high-ranking persons or divine beings".

There are also figurative meanings of pipto which include to fall in a transcendent or moral sense. It might be argued that Jesus' evil impulse tempted him to fall (morally) and elevate himself in self-worship. However, this would again be an utterly unprecedented meaning. The words proskuneo and pipto modify each other in two passages of the LXX and eleven other passages in the New Testament, and in every single instance they clearly denote a physical act of worship (2 Chr. 20:18 LXX; Dan. 3:4-15 LXX; Matt. 2:11; Matt. 18:26; Acts 10:25; 1 Cor. 14:25; Rev. 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:16; 19:4; 19:10; 22:8). Particularly noteworthy are the two other Matthean texts:

"On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down (pipto) and paid him homage (proskuneo). Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh." (Matt. 2:11)

"So the slave fell to the ground (pipto) and prostrated himself (proskuneo) before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’" (Matt. 18:26)

Thus, when used together, pipto and proskuneo depict a physical act of homage. It is all but certain that this is what the devil demanded of Jesus in Matt. 4:9; this is undoubtedly how most readers in the first century would have understood the narrative. To take this text as a temptation to figuratively worship oneself requires abandoning the usual lexical and syntactical meaning of these words and giving them a sense which is foreign to Matthew, to the New Testament, and to the ancient Greek language!

The verb pipto does not appear in Luke's parallel account. Nevertheless, while most Bible translations render the key phrase in Luke 4:7 simply as "if you worship me", there is also a qualifying word in the Greek here which makes the physical nature of the temptation explicit. This is the adverb/preposition enopion, which primarily means "before; in the sight of; in the presence of".⁹ Thus a more literal translation of this phrase in Luke 4:7 is, as the NASB has it, "if you worship before me" (the NASB has 'bow down before me' as a marginal rendering; Young's Literal Translation also translates 'bow before me'). This makes it clear that the worship was to take place in front of or in the presence of some external party. This word is superfluous if the temptation refers to self-worship.

Once again, if we look at other occurrences of proskuneo with enopion in Scripture, we find that it always denotes a physical act of worship (2 Kings 18:22 LXX; Ps. 22:27-29 LXX; Ps. 86:9 LXX; Isa. 66:23 LXX; Rev. 3:9; 15:4). Typical is Rev. 15:4b: "All nations will come and worship before you, for your judgments have been revealed".

Responding to Buzzard's analysis of the verb proserchomai in Matthew 4:3 (also problematic for Christadelphians), Burke writes that Buzzard

"deliberately over translates the Greek...in order to create the sense of a greater distinction between Christ and the satan, giving the false impression that the text wishes us to understand that Christ and the satan are two separate individual beings".¹⁰

Regardless of whether or not Burke's statement is accurate with regard to Matt. 4:3, we have seen that the Greek text of Matt. 4:9 and Luke 4:7 unmistakably create a distinction between Christ and the devil/Satan, demonstrating that they are two separate individual beings. Given that Matthew and Luke use the language of physical worship, it simply is not plausible that Jesus was tempted to engage in an act of obeisance either to himself, or to his personified 'evil inclination'.

We can say with certainty, then, that the text indicates Jesus was tempted to physically bow down before the devil. In view of this, the only way to sustain the Christadelphian 'internal struggle' interpretation is to take the temptation narrative figuratively at a more fundamental level. That is, none of the temptations actually happened as such; instead, they use vivid pictures to portray Jesus' battle with his evil inclination.

The problem with this approach is that the other two temptations are clearly concrete: Jesus was literally in the wilderness, was literally hungry and was literally tempted to turn stones into bread to satisfy his hunger. Similarly, Jesus was literally placed atop the temple pinnacle and tempted to throw himself down to test God's providential care. Neither 'turning stones into bread' nor 'throwing himself down' can be understood metaphorically. Consistency thus dictates that we take the temptation narratives at face value as concrete events in the life of Jesus. The idea that ho diabolos refers to a personification of an abstract entity is grammatically impossible and must be rejected. Jesus was tempted to physically worship a concrete personal being external to himself.

In fact, this conclusion brings Christadelphians back to the interpretations of the founders of their movement, John Thomas and Robert Roberts, both of whom identified ho diabolos in the temptation narratives as an unknown human tempter.^{11 12} This earlier interpretation makes better grammatical sense, but is also fraught with difficulties. It fails to account for the definite article: the tempter as opposed to a tempter. It also fails to account for the reappearance of ho diabolos/ho satanas elsewhere in the Gospels, and indeed, the prominence of this theological term throughout the New Testament.

If we attempt to ascertain the identity of ho diabolos just from what the temptation narratives tell us, we can infer that the tempter (a) knew Jesus' identity at the outset of his ministry (as the demons also did), (b) had the supernatural power needed to place him atop the pinnacle of the temple or induce a visionary experience, and (c) could make a credible claim to absolute temporal power. As there was no human being external to Christ who met these three criteria, we are left with only one possibility: ho diabolos refers to a supernatural personal being.

---

1 Buzzard, Anthony F. Satan, the Personal Devil. http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/satan.htm ^↩
2 Burke, Jonathan. 2007. Satan and Demons: A Reply to Anthony Buzzard. Can be downloaded from https://sites.google.com/a/dianoigo.com/dianoigo/Jonathan_Burke_Satan_and_Demons.pdf, p. 40.^↩
3 Burke, Jonathan. op. cit., p. 181.^↩
4 Arndt, W., Danker, F.W. and Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 882.^↩
5 See, for instance, the first definition of 'attitude' at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/attitude^↩
6 Philo of Alexandria. Delineation of the Mosaic Legislation for non-Jews, Book 27, IV.25.^↩
7 Greeven, H. 1968. proskuneo. In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 6. ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, tr. Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 765.^↩
8 Arndt, W., Danker, F.W. and Bauer, W. op. cit., p. 815.^↩
9 Arndt, W., Danker, F.W. and Bauer, W. op. cit., p. 342.^↩
10 Burke, Jonathan. op. cit., p. 37.^↩
11 Thomas, John. 1867. Elpis Israel: Being an Exposition of the Kingdom of God; with Reference to the Time of the End, and the Age to Come. 4th edition, p. 78.^↩
12 Roberts, Robert. 1880. Seasons of Comfort at the Table of the Lord: Being Fifty-two Addresses, Etc. Birmingham, No. 51.^↩

The devil's offer of the world to Jesus

This is the second part of a trilogy on the wilderness temptation narrative recorded in Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13. More specifically the series is examining the third temptation (second in Luke's ordering) and evaluating the Christadelphian view that the temptations were an internal struggle in Jesus' mind, with ho diabolos (the devil) being a personification of the evil inclination (in Hebrew, the yetzer hara). The previous installment looked at the setting of this temptation. Now we will examine the devil's offer to Jesus. In this case we will follow Luke's account because it offers more detail:

5 Then the devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And the devil said to him, “To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. 7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” 8 Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’” (Luke 4:5-8 NRSV)

A key feature of the Lucan narrative that must be explained is the devil's claim to exercise power over the kingdoms of the world and give it to whomever he pleases. Under the Christadelphian interpretation this statement comes from the personified yetzer hara, representing the dark side of Jesus' thought process which is opposed to the will of God. It is attempting to persuade Jesus to take a wrong course of action. If this is really what this passage conveys, it does so in very odd language.

We discussed in the previous post how a figurative dialogue between a person and a personification is quite foreign to the genre of the Gospels. Yet even if we allow the possibility of internal temptations being narrated in this way, it makes little sense for the personified yetzer hara to base its offer on a grandiose claim to temporal power. Notice that the other two temptations begin, "If you are the Son of God..." and thus use Jesus' privileged status as their jumping-off point. Why does the narrative deviate from that formula in this case? An appeal to Jesus' Messianic prerogative would be even more persuasive here. If this temptation consists of an urge from within to usurp temporal political power, it might have been phrased something like this:

"If you are the Son of God, march into Jerusalem and declare yourself king, for that is your right, as it is written, ‘Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom.’"

Instead, the tempter makes no reference to Jesus' right to rule but instead asserts his own! Christadelphians need to provide an explanation for why the introductory formula is so different for this temptation. Furthermore, if this dialogue is strictly internal and involves no third party, then what does "I give it to anyone I please" mean? To whom might Jesus' yetzer hara even hypothetically give authority over the kingdoms of the world other than himself?

It is apparent, then, that the way the devil phrases his offer to Jesus in Luke's account presents serious difficulties for the Christadelphian view. However, Christadelphians have suggested that to be a temptation must be plausible in order to truly tempt,NUM¹ and a claim to absolute political power from a fallen angel is not plausible. Let us then assume for the sake of argument that ho diabolos in this passage is an angelic being, and assess the plausibility of the claim and offer he made to Jesus.

We may first observe that, within the narrative, it is not necessarily the case that Jesus was aware from the beginning who his interlocutor was. Elsewhere in the New Testament we read that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14), so it is not impossible that the devil presented himself to Jesus as an angel. The devil does not introduce himself to Jesus; it is the narrator who makes the reader of the Gospel aware who the tempter was. In Matthew's account, after the final temptation Jesus says, "Away with you, Satan!" which makes it possible that the offer of illicit political power and the demand for worship gave away the tempter's identity. However, this is only a conjecture, and perhaps not a likely one given Jesus' remarkable powers of discernment (Matt. 9:4; Luke 9:47; John 1:48; 2:24; 6:64).

If we judge that Jesus knew who stood before him, would this then render the temptation a "sham" as Christadelphian writer Thomas Williams put it?² Scholars have identified the devil's statement in Luke 4:6 as an allusion to God’s claims in Jeremiah 34(27E):5 LXX and Daniel 4:31LXX, and as such “Luke pictures Satan as usurping God’s prerogative to confer authority on whomever God wishes.”³ Does this mean the devil's offer was implausible? Yamazaki-Ransom provides useful insights on this point:

“In the Lukan temptation narrative, Satan claims to be the lord of the world. Is he telling the truth? The answer is both yes and no. On the one hand, although Satan is not a reliable character in the narrative, the implied reader is expected to take Satan’s claim at face value. First, Jesus does not deny Satan’s claim. Second, Paul later describes his ministry as opening the eyes of the people ‘so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power (exousia) of Satan to God’ (Acts 26.18). This assumes the reality of Satan’s exousia over people, although it is undermined by God through Paul’s ministry. Thus Satan’s power over the world is a real, not an illusory, one. On the other hand, as was just shown, he is not the true lord who deserves worship. For Luke the true Lord is God and Jesus, but not Satan. Thus Satan’s lordship over the world is a real but illegitimate one, one that is to be dismantled. The reality of diabolic authority over the world, and Jesus’ refusal to receive this authority from Satan, has great significance in Luke’s narrative.”⁴

Indeed, there are numerous New Testament passages which state or imply that the devil or Satan possesses power. Importantly, some of these texts are in Luke's writings (Luke 10:19; Acts 26:18). In John's Gospel, Jesus himself refers to the devil as "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11),⁵ and in John's first epistle he writes that "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19).⁶ Paul too describes Satan as a powerful ruler (Eph. 2:2; 6:11-12). Finally, in Revelation the dragon (symbolic of the devil) gives power and authority to the beast (symbolic of an earthly empire) (Rev. 13:2 cf. 12:9). In this last case the devil's power is explicitly political in nature.⁷ Hence, as one commentator writes concerning the devil's claim to Jesus, “In a way clearly parallel to the scenario painted in Revelation 13, we discover that the world of humanity is actually ruled by the devil.”⁸

Where did this notion of the devil possessing political power come from? Behind it lies "the idea of angelic beings ruling over earthly kingdoms" which "has a long tradition, both before and after the New Testament."⁹ Several Old Testament texts develop this idea, most notably Daniel 10, and while it is not prominent in the New Testament, it is found in Revelation 12-17 and may be presupposed in other New Testament texts such as Luke 10:1, Acts 16:9, 1 Cor. 4:9, 6:3 and 1 Tim. 3:16.¹⁰

Therefore, far from being preposterous we find that the devil's claim here is consistent with the overall testimony of the New Testament. The devil did have some basis for claiming to wield great political power, and as such his offer to confer this power on Jesus in exchange for worship was at least plausible. It is to this demand for worship that we shall turn our attention in the next post.

---

1 See the entry on the temptations of Jesus in the Wrested Scripture resource at http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/b07satan/matthew4v1-11.html^↩
2 Williams, Thomas. The Devil: His Origin and End. See under The Devil that Tempted Christ at http://www.republic-christadelphians.org/files/The_Devil_-_His_Origin_and_End.htm^↩
3 Carroll, John T. 2012. Luke: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press, p. 103.^↩
4 Yamazaki-Ransom, Kazuhiko. 2010. The Roman Empire in Luke’s Narrative. Continuum, pp. 95-96.^↩
5 For an important study of this title in John, see Kovacs, Judith L. 1995. "Now shall the Ruler of this world be driven out": Jesus' death as cosmic battle in John 12:20-36. Journal of Biblical Literature 114(2): 227-247. ^↩
6 That 'the evil one', 'the devil' and 'Satan' are synonyms can be seen by comparing the three parallel accounts of the parable of the sower in Matt. 13:19, Mark 4:15 and Luke 8:12; cf. Matt. 13:38-39. That John also uses the term in this way is apparent from comparing the similar language in 1 John 3:12 and John 8:44.^↩
7 See comments in Morris, Leon. 1988. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary. Eerdmans, p. 113.^↩
8 Green, Joel B. 1997. The Gospel of Luke. Eerdmans, p. 194.^↩
9 Yamazaki-Ransom. op. cit., p. 93.^↩
10 Wink, Walter. 1984. Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament. Fortress Press, pp. 34-35.^↩