1. In that he submitted to be in a state of infancy, in common with all,
who come into the world. This is the most unactive state of life, in
which we are under a natural incapacity of enjoying, or conversing with
God, or being of any other use, than objectively, to men, inasmuch as
the new-born infant is destitute, at least, of the regular exercise of
thought; and is also exposed to various evils, that attend its infantile
state; sensible of a great deal of pain and uneasiness, which renders it
the object of compassion; and knows not what is the secret cause
thereof, nor how to seek redress. This stage of life our Saviour passed
through, and thereby discovered a great degree of humiliation.
We have no reason to think, with the Papists[211], that, during his
infancy, he had the perfect exercise of his reasoning powers, as though
he had been in a state of manhood, as supposing that the contrary would
have been a dishonour to him. For, if it were in no wise unbecoming the
divine nature to continue its union with his body, when separate from
his soul, and therefore in a state of the greatest inactivity, it could
be no dishonour for it to be united to his human nature, though we
suppose it to have been, during his infancy, in that state, in which
other infants are, as having the powers and faculties of the soul not
deduced into act, as they afterwards are; therefore we can reckon this
no other than a groundless and unnecessary conjecture, and cannot but
admire this instance of his humiliation, while he was an infant. And,
indeed, since he came to redeem infants, as well as others, it was
becoming the wisdom and goodness of God, that he should be like them, in
most other respects, except in their being born guilty of Adam’s sin. If
his passing through the other ages of life was designed for our
advantage, as he was therein like unto us, and as the apostle says, able
to sympathize with us, in the various miseries that attend them; so this
affords the like argument for that peculiar compassion, which he has for
infants, under those evils that they are liable to.
What we have here asserted, against those who think it a dishonour to
him, to suppose, that he was liable to any imperfection, as to
knowledge, during his infancy, is not to be reckoned a groundless
conjecture, without sufficient reason to support it; since it is
expressly said, in scripture, in Luke ii. 52. that he _increased in
wisdom_ as well as _stature_; therefore we suppose, that Christ’s
humiliation began in those natural infirmities, which he was liable to,
that are inseparable from a state of infancy.
2. Another branch of Christ’s humiliation, respecting his birth, was,
that he should be born of a woman of very low degree in the world,
rather than of one, whose circumstances and character therein were
superior to those of all others, and called for an equal degree of
respect from them. The blessed virgin was, indeed in a spiritual sense,
honoured and respected above all women, as the salutation given her, by
the angel, imports, _Hail thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is
with thee; Blessed art thou among women_, Luke i. 28. notwithstanding,
it is plain she was far from being honourable in the opinion of the
world. It is true, she was, of the seed of David, which was a princely
line: But the sceptre was now departed from it; therefore, when our
Saviour is said to have _the throne of his father David_, chap. i. 32.
given him by God, it is certain he had it not from his parents, in a
political sense. It is called, indeed, the throne of David, as referring
to that promise made to David, 2 Sam. vii. 12-16. that one should
descend from him whom God would _set on his throne, whose kingdom he
would establish for ever_. What relates to the establishment of David’s
kingdom, and the eternity of it, certainly looks farther than the reign
of Solomon, or the succession of kings, who were of that line; so that
David’s kingdom continuing for ever, denotes the perpetuity thereof, in
Christ’s being set, in a spiritual sense, on his throne, which seems to
be the meaning of the angel’s words, _He shall sit on the throne of his
father David_. He had not, indeed, a right to David’s crown by natural
descent from him, for that seems contrary to what was foretold of him;
for though it is said, that _a rod shall come of the stem of Jesse, and
a branch shall grow out of his roots_; Isa. xi. 1. which plainly refers
to our Saviour, as being of the seed of David; yet it is as plainly
intimated, that he was not to inherit the crown of David, in a political
sense, by right of natural descent from him, inasmuch as it is said, _He
shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry
ground_, chap. liii. 2.
To this we may add; that his mother’s condition in the world appears to
have been very low, in that she was treated with an uncommon degree of
neglect, as it is particularly remarked, Luke ii. 7. designing to set
forth our Saviour’s humiliation in his birth, that _she brought forth
her first-born Son, and wrapt him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in
a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn_. No room,
because his mother was poor, and therefore was treated in such a manner;
better accommodations were reserved for others, who, at that time, in
which there was great resort to Bethlehem, were better able to satisfy
the mercenary demands of those, at whose house they lodged.
As for Joseph his reputed father, he was not one of the great men of
this world, but lived by his industry, his occupation being that of _a
carpenter_, Mat. xiii. 55. This was sometimes objected against our
Saviour by his enemies, who did not consider, that the mean condition of
his parents was a part of that state of humiliation, which he was to
pass through, in discharging the work for which he came into the world,
and plainly discovered, that he cast the utmost contempt on all the
external pomp and grandeur thereof, and thought no honours worthy of his
receiving, but such as were of a spiritual nature.
3. There is another circumstance of humiliation, taken from the places
of our Saviour’s birth and residence. He was born in Bethlehem, a city,
which though once esteemed honourable when David dwelt there: yet, at
this time, it was reckoned, by the Jews, not as one of the principal
cities of Judah. The prophet Micah styles it, _Little among the
thousands of Judah_, Micah v. 2. But as for the place of his abode,
Nazareth, that was despised, even to a proverb; so that the Jews
reckoned, that nothing good or great could come from thence. Thus
Nathaniel speaks their common sense, when he says, _Can there any good
thing come out of Nazareth?_ John i. 46. And this was afterwards
improved against him, as an argument that he was no prophet; when the
Jews say, not concerning this place alone, but the whole country, in
which it was, to wit, Galilee, _Out of it ariseth no prophet_, chap.
vii. 51. And this, is expressly intimated, as a design of providence,
that it should be a part of his humiliation, as it is said, _He dwelt in
a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by
the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene_, Matt. ii. 23. by which we
are not to understand, that any of the prophets foretold this in express
words, as having particular reference to the place where he lived: But
the meaning is, that as the prophets, with one consent, spake of him, as
being in a most low and humble state, so this was a particular instance
hereof; and, in that respect, what was spoken by them, concerning his
state of humiliation, in various instances, as fulfilled in this[212].
II. Christ’s state of humiliation appeared throughout his whole life,
and that in several instances.
1. In his subjecting himself to the law; and accordingly he was under an
obligation to yield obedience to God in every thing that was required of
him, during the whole course of his life. This, indeed, was the
necessary result of his incarnation; so that he no sooner became man,
but he was under a law, which no creature is, or can be, exempted from.
Nevertheless, it was so far founded on his own consent, as he consented
to be incarnate, which was certainly an instance of infinite
condescension; and his being, in pursuance thereof, actually made under
the law, was a branch of his mediatorial humiliation.
_1st_, He was made under the law, that is, he was obliged to obey the
precepts thereof; and that not only of the moral law, which, as to some
of its precepts, the best of creatures are under a natural obligation to
yield obedience to; but, besides this, there were several positive laws,
which he submitted to yield obedience to, in common with these he came
to redeem, which obligation he perfectly fulfilled, as it is observed in
what he says to John the Baptist, _Thus it becometh us to fulfil all
righteousness_, Mat. iii. 15. _q. d._ it becometh me, in common with all
mankind, to yield perfect obedience to the law; and elsewhere he speaks
of himself, as coming into the world _to fulfil the law_, chap. v. 17.
And we may observe, that it was not one single act, but a course of
obedience, that he performed, during his whole life, as it is said, in
this answer, he perfectly fulfilled the law, which is agreeable to that
sinless perfection, which is ascribed to him in scripture.
_2dly_, He was made under the law, that is, he was subject to the curse
thereof, that was due to us for sin; which is called, by divines, the
maledictory part of it; as it is said, _Christ hath redeemed us from the
curse of the law, being made a curse for us_, Gal. iii. 13. As he obeyed
what the law enjoined, so he suffered what it threatened, as a
punishment due to us for sin.
2. Our Saviour conflicted with the indignities of the world. When he was
an infant, _Herod sought his life_; and, had not his parents been warned
by God, to flee into another country, he had been slain, as well as the
children that were barbarously murdered in Bethlehem, Mat. ii. 13. But
he was most persecuted, and met with the greatest indignities, after he
appeared publickly in the world; for before that time, till he was about
thirty years of age, it might be reckoned a part of his humiliation,
that he was not much known therein, and was, at least, a considerable
part of that time dependent on, and subject to his parents. It is true,
he did not then meet with much opposition from the Jews, while they were
in expectation that he would appear as an earthly monarch, and deliver
them from the Roman yoke: But when their expectation hereof was
frustrated, and they saw nothing in him but what was agreeable to his
state of humiliation, they were offended; and, from that time, the
greatest injuries and indignities were offered to him, as will appear,
if we consider,
(1.) That they did not own his glory as the Son of God, nor see and
adore his deity, that was united to the human nature, when, being made
flesh, he dwelt among us; and therefore it is observed, that though _the
world was made by him, the world knew him not_, John i. 10. or, as the
apostle says, concerning him, (for so the words may be rendered) _Whom
none of the princes of this world knew_, 1 Cor. ii. 8. they knew, or
owned him not to be the Lord of glory; and, as they knew him not, so
they desired not to know him; therefore the prophet says, _We hid, as it
were our faces from him_, Isa. liii. 3.
(2.) They questioned his mission, denied him to be the Christ, though
this truth had been confirmed by so many incontestable miracles: This is
that unbelief which the Jews are so often charged with. Thus when they
come to him, and tell him, _How long dost thou make us to doubt? tell us
plainly, whether thou be the Christ or no?_ To which he replies, _I told
you, and ye believed not_, and appeals to _the works which he did in his
Father’s name_, John x. 24-26. which one would think were a sufficient
evidence hereof: But yet they were obstinate and hardened in unbelief;
and not only so, but,
(3.) They reproached him, as though he wrought miracles by the power of
the devil, which was the most malicious and groundless slander that
could be invented, as though Satan’s kingdom had been divided against
itself, or he would empower a person to work miracles, as a means to
promote the interest of God, and thereby to weaken his own, as our
Saviour justly replies to that charge, Mat. xii. 24-26. And, indeed,
they knew, in their own consciences, that this was a false accusation,
and hereby sinned against the greatest light, and fullest conviction;
which occasioned him to denounce that terrible and awful threatning
against them, that this _sin should never be forgiven them, neither in
this world, nor in the world to come_.
(4.) They reproached him as to his moral character, for no other reason,
but because he conversed, in a free and friendly manner, with his
people, and went about doing them good. If he, at any time, accepted of
the least common instances of kindness, or conversed with sinful men,
with a design to promote their spiritual advantage, they revile him for
it: Thus he says, _The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they
say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans,
and sinners_, chap. xi. 19.
(5.) It was a matter of common discourse amongst them, that he was a
deceiver of the people, though the evidence of truth shone like a
sun-beam in every thing that he said and did; Thus it is said _There
were much murmuring among the people concerning him; for some said, He
is a good man, others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people_, John vii.
12.
(6.) Sometimes they were uneasy at his presence, and desirous to be rid
of him, and his ministry. Thus the Gergesenes, because they had suffered
a little damage in the loss of their swine, unanimously _besought him to
depart out of their coasts_, Matt. viii. 34. Thus they knew not their
own privilege, but were weary of him, who was a public and universal
blessing to the world.
(7.) Many refused to give him entertainment in their houses, or to treat
him with that civility, which a common traveller expects; which
occasioned him to complain, that _the foxes have holes, and the birds of
the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head_,
chap. viii. 20.
(8.) At some times, even before his last sufferings and crucifixion,
they attempted to take away his life, and thereby expressed the greatest
degree of ingratitude and hatred of him. Their attempts, indeed were to
no purpose, because his hour was not yet come: Thus, when he had
asserted his divine glory, they not only charged him with blasphemy, but
_took up stones to stone him_, John viii. 59. and even his
fellow-citizens, among whom he had been brought up, and to whom he had
usually _read_ and expounded the scripture, _on the sabbath-days_; these
not only _thrust him out of the city_, but _led him to the brow of an
hill_, designing to put him to death, by casting him down from it, but
_he passed through the midst of them_, and for the present, escaped
their bloody design: This was a more aggravated crime, as it was
committed by those who were under peculiar obligations to him, Luke iv.
16. compared with 29, 30. Thus _he endured_, not only, as the apostle
says, _the contradiction of sinners against himself_, Heb. xii. 3. but
the most ungrateful and injurious treatment from those, to whom he had
been so great a friend, which was a great addition to his sufferings, so
that during his whole life, he might be said to have been, as the
prophet styles him, _A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief_, Isa.
liii. 3.
3. Our Saviour conflicted with the temptations of Satan: Thus it is
said, _He was in all points, tempted, like as we are, yet without sin_,
Heb. iv. 15. or, _He suffered being tempted_, chap. ii. 18. though we
are not to understand by his being, in all points, tempted, like as we
are, that he had any temptations arising in his own soul, as we have,
from the corruption of our nature; for this would have been inconsistent
with his perfect holiness; and therefore what the apostle says
concerning us, that _every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his
own lust, and enticed_, James i. 14. is, by no means applicable to him;
but that he was tempted by Satan, is very evident from scripture. Some
think, that Satan, was let loose upon him, and suffered to express his
utmost malice against him, and to practise all those usual methods
whereby he endeavours to ensnare mankind, in those remarkable seasons of
his life, namely, in his first entrance on his public ministry, and
immediately before his last sufferings; the former of these none deny;
the latter some think we have ground to conclude from his own words, in
which he says, _The Prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in
me_, John xiv. 30. where it seems, that by the _prince of this world_,
he means the devil, inasmuch as he is so called elsewhere, chap. xii.
31. as well as _the god of this world_, 2 Cor. iv. 4. _and the prince of
the power of the air_, Eph. ii. 2. If this be the sense of our Saviour’s
words, _The prince of this world cometh_, it is as if he should say, I
expect that, together with my other sufferings, I shall be exposed to
the last and most violent efforts that Satan will make. As he assaulted
me when I first entered on my public ministry, so he will do it now I am
about to close my work on earth: Then he endeavoured to ensnare me with
his wiles; now he will endeavour to make me uneasy with his fiery darts.
This was, as it were, _the hour_ of the powers of darkness: and we may
suppose, that if they were suffered, they would attempt to discourage
our Saviour, by representing to him the formidableness of the death of
the cross, the insupportableness of the wrath of God due to sin, and how
much it was his interest to take some method to save himself from those
evils that were impending: Thus we may suppose, that our Saviour
apprehends the tempter as coming: but we may observe he says, he _hath
nothing in me_, that is, no corrupt nature, that shall make me receptive
of any impressions, arising from his temptations. His fiery darts,
though pointed and directed against me, shall be as darts shot against a
rock, into which they cannot enter, but are immediately repelled.
But some think, that by _the prince of this world_, our Saviour does not
mean the devil, any otherwise than as he instigated his persecutors to
accuse, condemn, and crucify him; and that this is most agreeable to the
words immediately foregoing, _Hereafter I will not talk much with you_,
q. d. I have not much time to converse with you; for he who will betray
me, and those that are sent to apprehend me, are ready to come; I must
in a very little time, be accused and tried, and, as the consequence
hereof, condemned, though they will find nothing in me worthy of death;
I say, since it is questioned, whether this be not as probable a sense
of this text, as that above mentioned, and therefore that this cannot be
reckoned an instance of Christ’s temptation, which was more immediately
from Satan, we shall pass it over, and proceed to consider that
conflict, which, without doubt, he underwent with the devil, in his
first entrance on his public ministry.
This we read of in Matt. iv. 1-11. and Luke iv. 1-13. And, because there
is a small difference between these two evangelists, in the account they
give of this matter, from whence the enemies of divine revelation take
occasion to reproach it, as though it were inconsistent with itself, we
shall briefly consider and vindicate it from calumny. We may observe,
that Matthew says, _When he had fasted forty days, the tempter came to
him_; whereas Luke says, _He was forty days tempted of the devil_; and
Mark speaks to the same purpose, Mark i. 13. Matthew seems to speak of
his temptations as at the _end of the forty days_; the other two
evangelists intimate, that he was tempted more or less, all the forty
days. There is no contradiction in these two accounts; Luke only adds a
circumstance which Matthew omits, to wit, that Satan assaulted him with
various temptations, all the time he was in the wilderness; whereas
these, which are recorded by both the evangelists, were towards the end
of the forty days.
Again, Matthew, speaking concerning the first of these temptations,
introduces the devil, as saying to our Saviour, _If thou be the Son of
God command that these stones be made bread_; whereas Luke speaks but of
one stone; _Command_ that _this stone be made bread_. This seeming
contradiction may easily be reconciled, by considering, that by these
_stones_ in Matthew, may be meant one of these stones, which is a very
common hebraism; as when it is said, that Jonah _was gone down to the
sides of the ship_, Jonah i. 5. that is, one of the sides; and elsewhere
it is said, that, when Christ was upon the cross, the _thieves_, which
were crucified with him, reviled him, Matt. xxvii. 44. which hebraism
Luke explains, when he says, _One of the malefactors_ railed on him,
Luke xxiii. 59. So in this temptation, Satan pointing at some large
stone, tempted him to turn it into bread; and Matthew intends no more,
when he says, _Command that these stones_, that is, one of them, _be
made bread_.
Again, we observe another difference in the account given by Matthew,
from that given by Luke, respecting the order of the temptations.
Matthew speaks of Satan’s tempting him _to fall down and worship him_,
as the third and last temptation, which, as it is more than probable, it
was; but Luke, inverting the order, lays down this temptation in the
second place. However, there is no contradiction between these two; for
the credit of an historian is not weakened, provided he relate matters
of fact, though he does not, in every circumstance, observe the order in
which things were done, especially when nothing material depends upon
it; so that, upon the whole, the difference between the accounts of
these two evangelists, is so inconsiderable, that it is needless to say
any thing farther on that head. We shall therefore proceed to consider
Christ’s temptation, as we find it here recorded. And,
1. We may observe the time in which he was exposed thereunto, to wit,
immediately after his baptism, when he first entered on his public
ministry, having but just before received a glorious testimony, by a
voice from heaven saying, _This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased_, Matt. iii. 17. upon which it is said, _Then was he led into
the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil_, or, as Mark farther
explains it, _Immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness_,
Mark i. 12. From whence we may take occasion to infer,
(1.) That God’s children have reason to expect, in conformity to Christ
their Head, that, after extraordinary manifestations of divine love,
they may sometimes meet with great temptations; so that, as grace is
excited by the one, it may be exercised, tried, and the truth thereof
more plainly evinced by the other; and, indeed, in us, there is a
particular reason for it, which was not applicable to our Saviour,
namely, that after great honours conferred upon us, when God is pleased
to manifest himself to us, we may be kept, as the apostle says,
concerning himself on the like occasion, from being _exalted above
measure_, 2 Cor. xii. 7.
(2.) We may, from hence, observe, how Satan shews his malice and envy at
God’s people, so that when they are raised nearest to heaven, he will
use his utmost endeavours to bring them down to hell; and hereby he
shews his opposition to God, by attempting to rob him of that glory,
which he designs to bring to himself, by these extraordinary
manifestations, as well as his people, of the blessed fruits and effects
thereof, whereby he thinks to counteract what God is doing for them.
(3.) As our Saviour was tempted just before his entrance on his public
ministry, we learn, from hence; that when God designs that his people
shall engage in any great, useful, and difficult work, they are like to
meet with great temptations, which God suffers that he may put them upon
being on their watch, and fortify them against many other temptations,
which they may expect to meet with, in the discharge thereof. Many
instances of this we have in scripture; particularly in Moses, when
called to go into the land of Egypt, Exod. iv. 1, 10, 13. and the
prophet Jeremiah, when sent to a _people, whose faces he was afraid of_,
Jer. i. 6, 8. Satan suggested several unwarrantable excuses, to
discourage them from undertaking the work to which they were called.
2. The next thing to be observed is, the place in which Christ was
exposed to these conflicts with the tempter, namely, the _wilderness_.
It is not our business to enquire what wilderness it was, whether one of
the smaller wildernesses in the land of Judea, or the great wilderness
on the other side Jordan, since the scripture is silent as to this
matter; though the latter seems more probable, since there are higher
mountains in it than in the other; and we read, that that wilderness, in
which Christ was tempted, had in it an exceeding high mountain, from
whence the devil shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory
of them. There was in that wilderness mount Nebo, from the top whereof
Moses took a view of the whole land of Canaan: But, passing by the
consideration of the particular wilderness, in which Christ was tempted,
we shall observe, that the place which providence designed for this
conflict was a wilderness,
(1.) That he might fast during the time of his being there, that being a
place destitute of necessary food: And this was ordered by providence,
not only as a particular instance of his humiliation, but that Satan
might, from hence, take occasion to suit one of his temptations to his
condition, as being an hungred.
(2.) Another reason was, that being separate from all his friends and
acquaintance, he might be neither helped nor hindered by them, that so
Satan might have the greatest advantage he could desire against him, as
solitude is a state most adapted to temptations; and consequently that
his affliction herein, and the victory he should obtain, should be more
remarkable: As none was with him to offer him any assistance, so none
could take occasion to claim a part in his triumph over the adversary.
As to what is said, in the text, concerning his being _led by the
Spirit, into the wilderness to be tempted_, we humbly conceive that it
is the Holy Spirit who is there intended, as the words seem to import;
for it would not be so proper to say, he was led by the impure spirit,
the devil, to be tempted of the devil; and Luke says, that, _being full
of the Holy Ghost, he was led by the Spirit_, that is, the Holy Ghost,
with whom he was filled, _into the wilderness_, Luke iv. 1. Besides
this, it doth not seem agreeable to the holiness of Christ, to suppose,
that he went into the wilderness at the motion and instigation of the
devil; for that would have been an unjustifiable action. We may lawfully
go, in the way of temptation, when providence leads us there; but it is
not lawful for us to go within the verge of Satan’s temptations, by his
own instigation. And this seems farther probable, inasmuch as it is
said, that, _after the devil was departed from him, he returned in_, or
_by the power of the Spirit, into Galilee_, ver. 14. If he returned by
the power of the Holy Spirit out of the wilderness, have we not equal
ground to conclude that he was led by him into it at first.
But if it be said, that he did not go into the wilderness by the
instigation of the devil, but was carried thither with violence by him:
though this would clear our Saviour from the guilt of going by the
devil’s persuasion in the way of temptation; yet we can hardly allow
that God would suffer the devil to have so much power over Christ’s
body, as to carry him where he pleased, by a violent motion.
If it be replied to this, that the devil might as well be said to carry
him into the wilderness, as to take him up into the holy city, and set
him upon a pinnacle of the temple, by a violent motion; in which sense
some understand that passage in the second temptation, wherein it is
said, that the devil did so, in ver. 5. what answer may be given to
this, will appear from what may farther be said, when we speak of this
temptation in particular.
3. We shall now consider the three temptations, mentioned in this
scripture, which he was exposed to. And that,
(1.) More generally; and accordingly we may observe,
_1st_, That the two first of them were very subtil: so that some would
hardly have discerned wherein the sin lay, had he complied with them;
but that will be considered under a following head. We need only remark,
at present, that herein the devil acted like a deceiver, and appeared to
be, as he is elsewhere called, _The old serpent_. In the third
temptation, he openly discovered his own vileness, and blasphemously
usurped that glory which is due to God alone, when he tempted our
Saviour to fall down and worship him.
_2dly_, In these temptations, he insinuates, that some advantage would
accrue to our Saviour from his compliance therewith. This he generally
does when he tempts us, wherein he makes an overture of some advantage
which we shall gain by our compliance. The advantage he proposed, by the
first temptation, was, that hereby he might prevent his starving with
hunger. By the second, he proposed, that he might gain popular applause,
by casting himself down from the temple, among the people that were
walking near it, that they might admire him for his wonderful action;
and, in both these temptations, he urges him to give a proof of his
being the Son of God, by which means his doctrine might be more readily
received. In the third temptation, indeed, the advantage is altogether
carnal, and such as, had Satan considered the holiness of the Person he
was speaking to, and his contempt of the kingdoms of the world, and the
glory thereof, he might easily have supposed that our Saviour would have
despised the overture, as well as abhorred the action.
_3dly_, We may observe, that in the second temptation, the devil refers
to a promise contained in scripture, and so puts him upon that which
carries in it the appearance of duty, namely, his depending upon the
divine protection, in expectation that God would give the angels charge
over him: but he quotes the scripture fallaciously, by leaving out a
very material thing contained in it, _He shall give his angels charge
over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways_, Psal. xci. 11. whereby it is
implied, that none have a right to depend on the divine protection, but
they who are in the way of duty, which Christ would not have been, had
he complied with this temptation.
_4thly_, Another thing we observe is, that our Saviour not only refused
to comply with the temptation, in all these three instances, but he
assigned a reason of his refusal, whereby it appears that he did this
with judgment; and hereby we are instructed not only to refuse to comply
with Satan’s temptations, but we should be able to give a reason of our
refusal. And, as we farther observe, that our Saviour answers all these
temptations, by referring to scripture, which he adhered to, as a rule
to direct his conduct, and therein expressed the greatest deference to
it: so he teaches us to do the same, as the Psalmist says, _By the word
of thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer_, Psal. xvii.
4. it is by the _sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God_, that we
_quench all the fiery darts of the wicked_, Eph. vi. 16, 17.
(2.) We shall now proceed to consider the three temptations in
particular, together with our Saviour’s answer to each of them, and that
in the order in which they are related by the evangelist Matthew, in
chap. iv.
_First_, The first temptation was, that he would prove his being the Son
of God, by commanding stones to be made bread. The subtilty of this
temptation consists,
1. In that it seemed not only lawful, but necessary, for Christ, on some
occasions, to give a proof that he was the Son of God; and his working
miracles was the way by which this was to be done. And it would not
seem, to some, unlawful for him to work a miracle in turning stones into
bread, since we read, among other miracles, of his multiplying the
loaves and fishes to feed the multitude; therefore why may he not
produce bread, in a miraculous manner, as well now, as at any other
time?
2. Satan puts him upon working this miracle, from a principle of
self-preservation which is a duty founded in the law of nature, to
supply himself with necessary food, being an hungred; and, if it was
lawful for him to produce bread to feed others, was it not lawful to do
the same for his own subsistence, especially since he was in a place in
which food was not to be obtained by any other means?
3. He pretends to have a great concern for our Saviour’s welfare, that
so he might not perish with hunger: thus he thought to gain an advantage
over him, by a pretence of friendship, as he often does in those
temptations he offers to us, to promote our own welfare by unlawful
means.
Let us now consider wherein the snare lay, which our Saviour was
thoroughly apprized of, and in what respects he would have sinned, had
he complied with this temptation. This will appear, if we consider,
(1.) That it was not lawful for him to work a miracle to gratify the
devil; and that for this reason in particular, because it would have
been contrary to the general end and design of his working miracles,
which was only for the advantage of his people, who are the proper
subjects of conviction thereby; for him to work them with any other
design, would have been to prostitute a sacred ordinance, or to apply it
to whom it did not belong. When _the woman of Canaan_ came to him,
beseeching him to work a miracle, in casting the devil out of her
daughter; she being not a member of the Jewish church, or one _of the
lost sheep of the house of Israel_, our Saviour tells her, _It is not
meet to take the children’s bread, and cast it unto dogs_; and that he
was not _sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel_, Matt. xv.
24, 26. that is, he was only to work miracles for the conviction of
those who were the proper subjects thereof; and, doubtless, he would not
have wrought this miracle at her request, had she not been a proper
subject of conviction, which she was, as an elect person, though not by
nature an Israelite. Now, to apply this to our present purpose, the
devil was not a subject of conviction, and therefore Christ was not
obliged to prove himself the Son of God to him; for which reason he
would have sinned, had he complied with this temptation.
(2.) Had it been otherwise, it doth not seem necessary, at this time,
for him to prove himself to be the Son of God, since that had, but a
little before, been sufficiently attested, by a voice from heaven; and
therefore to work a miracle to confirm it at present, would argue a
disbelief of that testimony.
(3.) For Christ to work a miracle for his own subsistence, seems
disagreeable to the main design of his working miracles, which, as was
before hinted, was his people’s conviction that he was the Messiah; and
therefore it does not sufficiently appear that he ever provided for the
necessities of himself, or his family in such a way.[213] But suppose he
had at any time, subsisted himself by working a miracle, it would have
argued a distrust of the providence of God to have supplied his hunger,
at present, that way; as though God, who had hitherto preserved him
without food, could not have continued so to do, as long as he was in
the wilderness. And it would also have been contrary to one design of
his being led there by the Spirit; which was, that he might humble
himself by fasting, as well as conflict with Satan’s temptations. Thus
concerning the first temptation that was offered by the devil.
Let us now consider Christ’s answer to it. This is contained in ver. 4.
_It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God._ The scripture here referred
to, is in Deut. viii. 3. where we have the very same words; which, as
they are applied by our Saviour to repel this temptation, imply in them
two things:
_1st_, That man hath a better life to secure, than that which is
maintained by bread, to wit, the life of the soul: thus it is said, _A
man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he
possesseth_, Luke xii. 15. If we take it in this sense, it is as though
he he should say, If I comply with this temptation, I should sin against
my own soul; and, by using unlawful means to support my natural life,
should lose that spiritual life, which consists in the divine favour; or
rather the meaning is,
_2dly_, That it is by the word of God’s power that our lives are upheld;
which power, though it be ordinarily exerted in the use of means, by
applying that proper food, which God gives us; yet this power can
sustain us without it, when we are called, in an extraordinary manner by
him, to depend upon it, and have ground to conclude, as our Saviour now
had, that our dependence should not be in vain. Hitherto he had depended
upon it, for almost forty days, since he was first brought into the
wilderness; and therefore he concluded, that it was his duty to exercise
the same dependence, so long as he was there.
_Secondly_, The second temptation was that, in which Satan endeavoured
to persuade him to cast himself down from a pinnacle of the temple,
expecting that God would preserve him safe from danger; pretending that
_he would give his angels charge concerning him, and in their hands they
should bear him up, lest, at any time, he should dash his foot against a
stone_. This was a snare laid by the subtle adversary, for his life; and
herein we may observe,
1. That as, in the former temptation, he solicited him to distrust the
providence of God, and our Saviour’s reply to it, contains an intimation
of his firm resolution to depend upon it, for his farther preservation,
though without the necessary food of life; now he tempts him, since he
is resolved to depend upon the power and providence of God, to do it, in
an unlawful way, which is no other than a presuming on the divine
protection, without a sufficient warrant.
2. He tempts him to the sin of self-murder, which would be the
consequence of his presumption; for, if providence did not preserve him,
which he had not sufficient ground to conclude that it would, when
engaged in an unlawful action, such as throwing himself down from the
temple would have been, this certainly would have proved his death. And
the tempter had something farther than this in view, namely, to put a
stop to the work of our redemption, and defeat the great design of
Christ’s coming into the world; for, if he had died this way, by his own
hands, he would have contracted guilt, and brought a dishonour to the
divine name, rather than have given satisfaction to divine justice, and
finished the work he was sent into the world about.
3. In this, Satan tempts him also to a vain-glorious, and fruitless
action, which was far from answering any valuable end: his throwing
himself down from the top of the temple, among the people, who were
gathered together in that public place of resort, might, it is true,
have amused them, when seeing a person flying through the air; but it
would not have been an expedient to confirm their faith, since there was
no explicit appeal to this miracle for the confirmation of any contested
doctrine; and therefore it would have contradicted the general design of
his working miracles, and, in that respect, been unlawful. Had he been,
indeed, at this time, at the bottom of the temple, disputing with the
Jews about his mission, and offering to confirm it, by such a miracle as
they should chuse; and, had they insisted on it, that he should go up to
the top of the temple, and cast himself down amongst them, and signified
that this miracle should decide the controversy, for their conviction, I
don’t apprehend that it would have been unlawful for him to have done
it; nor would it have been an instance of presumption for him, to expect
the divine protection in so doing. But the case was otherwise
circumstanced at present; the devil, who was assaulting him in the
wilderness (as was before observed) was no proper subject of conviction;
and none of his people were present, to desire that this miracle should
be wrought, that they might believe.
Having thus considered the matter of the second temptation in general,
it may not be amiss for us to enquire into the meaning of those words,
in ver 5. which are generally considered, as preparatory to it: thus it
is said, _The devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on
a pinnacle of the temple_. The most common opinion of those, who give
their sense of this scripture, is, that the devil had power over the
body of Christ, to carry it from place to place; which they reckon not
to be an improbable supposition, from the account that some give, who
write on the subject of witchcraft, of persons being so carried by him
in a preternatural way: but these relations have not much weight in
them; and many persons of judgment question the truth thereof; but
whether they be true or false, it makes nothing for this purpose, for
which they are brought. We do not question, but that the devil, by
divine permission, might carry persons, by a violent motion, from place
to place; but whether our Saviour was carried by him from the wilderness
to the top of the temple, is the question to be debated. They, who
suppose this to have been really done, either think that Christ went
there together with, and at the instigation of the devil, without any
thing preternatural in his being conveyed there by him; or else, that
the devil carried him there from the wilderness through the air; the
latter of which is the most commonly received opinion: but we cannot see
sufficient reason to acquiesce in either of them.
(1.) As to the former of these opinions, I cannot think it lawful for
our Saviour to go from the wilderness to the temple at the instigation
of the devil, for that would be to go in the way of temptation, without
a divine warrant. Had the Spirit of God carried him thither, and
encouraged him to throw himself down from thence, it had been his duty
to have done it, as much as it was to abide in the wilderness, being led
there by the Holy Spirit: But as it would have been unlawful for him to
come into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, so it would be no
less unlawful to go from thence to the temple, at his desire.
Moreover, it may be greatly questioned, whether our Saviour was fit to
take so long a journey, as from the wilderness to the temple, after he
had fasted forty days, and, it may be, his strength impaired thereby.
And, indeed, when we read, Luke iv. 14. of his return out of the
wilderness into his own country, it was by the power of the Spirit,
which supplied his want of strength, for so great a journey; therefore,
as his coming there was by the Spirit, his safe conduct back again was
by the same Spirit. And we cannot suppose that he went out of the
wilderness till the Spirit carried him out into his own country;
therefore it does not appear that he went to the temple by the
solicitation of the devil, to be tempted by him there, and afterwards
returned to the wilderness, to submit to his last temptation.
(2.) We cannot altogether give into the other opinion, which, as was
before observed, is the most common, namely, that the devil was
permitted to carry our Saviour through the air, and set him on a
pinnacle of the temple, (which seems to be the more direct and literal
sense of the words of the evangelist, relating to this matter) for the
following reasons.
_1st_, The pinnacle of the temple, upon which the devil is supposed to
have set our Saviour, was, as some writers observed, the sharp point, or
apex, or extremity, of a cone, on which it was not possible for the
smallest bird to perch; therefore a man could not stand upon it, and
consequently Christ could not be said to be sit upon it.
To this, it is true, it is generally replied, that by his being set on a
pinnacle of the temple, is meant his being set upon one of the
battlements, near one of the spires of the temple, on which men may
conveniently stand. Here they suppose the devil placed our Saviour, and
then tempted him to cast himself down from thence. But suppose this be
sufficient to account for those words that speak of Christ’s being set
on a pinnacle of a temple, and so enervates the force of this reason
against it, let it be farther considered,
_2dly_, That it does not seem probable that the devil should have so
much power over our Saviour, so as to carry him from place to place at
his will: But if it be replied to this, that it contains no absurdity
for God to suffer it; nor was it any moral evil in Christ to be thus
carried, who must be supposed herein to be altogether passive; let it be
farther considered,
_3dly_, That if the devil really carried him through the air, from the
wilderness to the temple, this could not well be done, in an invisible
way; for that is contrary to the nature of things; for even the motion
of a bird, which is a far less creature, through the air, if it be in
the day time, is not invisible. Now if this preternatural motion of our
Saviour’s body through the air was visible, how comes it to pass that no
notice was taken of it by the Jews, which would have been as remarkable
an occurrence, as his flying from a pinnacle of the temple to the
ground? Some of them, doubtless, would have been amused at it, and
probably it would have given them occasion to have said something
concerning this preternatural event; and others, it may be, would have
reproached him for it; and from his flying by the power of the devil,
would have taken occasion to say, that his other miracles were wrought
by the same power, which would have given umbrage to the objection, when
they said, _He casteth out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the
devils_.
If it be farther objected, that the devil might carry him to the top of
the temple by night, and so his motion through the air not be observed.
This seems very improbable; for then he must continue there all night,
till the people were gathered together the next day on the plain, at the
foot thereof, otherwise his casting himself down from thence, would not
have answered the end designed thereby, there being none of the Jews
present to observe the miracle; and so the devil might have spared the
pains of carrying him to a pinnacle of the temple, and might have as
well tempted him to have cast himself down from a precipice in the
wilderness. We own, notwithstanding, that it might be replied to this,
that the devil might raise a thick fog in the air in the day-time, so
that the people could not see him conveyed from the wilderness to the
temple: But, though this be possible, it doth not seem probable,
especially when we consider the other reasons brought against this
supposition in general; therefore we must have recourse to some other
sense, in which this scripture is to be understood.
Accordingly some suppose that this was only done in a vision, and that
he continued all this time in the wilderness; which will in some
measure, account for several difficulties, that would arise from the
supposition, of the devil’s having power over him to carry him from
place to place; and this agrees with those other scriptures, that speak
of his being tempted forty days in the wilderness. Nevertheless, this
sense does not appear very probable, as it supposes the devil to have
had a greater power over Christ’s imagination, than can readily be
allowed of. And it seems to contain an absurdity in this respect; that
Christ could not be said to work a miracle, by throwing himself from a
pinnacle of the temple, if he were all that while standing in the
wilderness; and what proof would that have been of his being the Son of
God?
_Object._ If it be objected to this, that many things are said to be
done, in vision, by the prophets, which could not well be said to be
done otherwise; as the prophet Ezekiel, when he was among the captives
in Babylon, is said _to be took by a lock of his head, and, by the
Spirit, lifted up between the earth and the heaven, and brought in the
visions of God to Jerusalem_, Ezek. viii. 3. the meaning of which is,
that he had an impression hereof made on his imagination, not much
unlike to a dream, which inclined him, at the same time, to think
himself carried to Jerusalem, and to behold the idolatry that was
practised there.
_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that this was a divine impression
upon the soul of the prophet; and we are not, from hence, inclined to
think, that because God has sometimes appeared in vision to his people,
that the devil was suffered to do so, with respect to our Saviour, or to
have power over his imagination, to give it that disturbance, that would
result from hence.
Therefore there is another sense, a little different from this, in which
we cannot but acquiesce, though not without great deference to those who
are otherwise minded, namely, that the devil had neither power over
Christ’s body, nor actually carried him from the wilderness to a
pinnacle of the temple, on the one hand, nor had he power to give
disturbance to his imagination on the other: But that he tempted, or
endeavoured to persuade him to go with him to Jerusalem, which is called
the holy city, and then to go up to the top of the temple, and so cast
himself down among the people.
_Object._ The principal objection that is brought against this sense of
the words, is taken from its being contrary to the literal, or
grammatical sense thereof, inasmuch as the devil is said _to take him up
into the holy city, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple_; which does
not seem to imply barely his discoursing with him of going there, and
casting himself down from thence.
_Answ._ The only answer that need be given to this objection, is, that,
since what is done in vision, is represented in scripture as though it
had been actually done, why may we not suppose, that what is offered in
conversation, may be represented as though it had been actually done,
especially considering, that what was only discoursed of between two
persons, is sometimes said to be done. As when the chief butler reports
the conversation which he and the chief baker had with Joseph in the
prison, he represents Joseph as doing what he only spake of, when he
says, _Me he restored unto mine office, and him he hanged_, Gen. xli.
13. Therefore there is no absurdity in supposing, that the devil’s
carrying our Saviour to Jerusalem, and _setting him on a pinnacle of the
temple_, denotes nothing else but his tempting him to go there. And, if
we take it in this sense, the temptation is no less subtle, or
pernicious, in the design thereof; and our Saviour’s answer to it, is
equally opposite, and to the purpose, as though we suppose the devil had
power to carry him there.
We shall now consider Christ’s answer to this temptation, which is
contained in these words, _Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God_, in
which he refers to the words of Moses, Deut. vi. 16. which though they
more immediately relate to the peoples murmuring, and questioning,
whether _God was among them or not_, Exod. xvii. 7. upon which occasion
the name of the place was called Massah; yet, inasmuch as there are
various ways of tempting God, this general prohibition might well be
applied by our Saviour to his own case, in answer to Satan’s temptation;
and then it is as though he should say, I will not tempt the Lord my
God, either by desiring a farther proof of my Sonship, which has so
lately been attested, by a voice from heaven; or rather, I will not
tempt him, so as to expect his protection, when engaged, according to
thy desire, in an unlawful action.
_Thirdly_, The third and last temptation, which was the most audacious,
vile, and blasphemous of all, is contained in ver. 8, 9. in which Satan
makes an overture of the _kingdoms of the world, and the glory thereof_,
to him, provided _he would fall down and worship him_; in which we may
observe,
1. Something preparatory to it, when it is said, _The devil taketh him
up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of
the world, and the glory of them_. Whether this was actually done, or he
only tempted him to go up into an high mountain, which was more
convenient for this purpose, I will not peremptorily determine. There
are not so many difficulties attending the supposition, that it was
actually done, as there were in the former temptation. If it be
concluded, that it was actually done, it is very much to be doubted,
whether there was any mountain so high, as that he might, from thence
have a prospect of the kingdoms of the world; or if there was an
exceeding high mountain in the wilderness where Christ was tempted, yet,
if we consider the nature of the vision, there are two things that would
hinder a person’s seeing the kingdoms of the world, though it were from
the highest mountain.
(1.) The convexity, or unevenness of the surface of the earth, which
would hinder the strongest eye from seeing many kingdoms of the world;
besides, the sight would be hindered by other mountains intervening.
(2.) If there were several kingdoms, or countries, which might be beheld
from the top of an exceeding high mountain, yet the organ of sight is
too weak to reach many miles. Therefore, when Moses was commanded, by
God, to go up to the top of mount Pisgah, to take a view of the whole
land of Canaan, it is generally thought there was something miraculous
in his strengthening his sight, to see to the utmost bounds thereof;
accordingly it is said, that the _Lord shewed him all the land_, Deut.
xxxiv. 1. Now this can hardly be applicable to the case before us,
relating to the devil’s shewing our Saviour all the kingdoms of the
world; therefore the best and most common sense that is given hereof,
is, that he made a representation of the kingdoms and glories of the
world in the air, and presented them to our Saviour’s view in a moment;
and a mountain was more convenient for this purpose, than if he had done
it in a valley; which seems to be the most probable sense of this text.
2. We shall now consider the temptation itself, which is mentioned in
ver. 9. _All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and
worship me_. The evangelist Luke adds something that is omitted by
Matthew, as a farther illustration of this temptation namely, that the
_power_ of conferring a right to the kingdoms of the world, was
_delivered unto him_; and that _to whomsoever he will he gives it_, Luke
iv. 6. In this temptation, we may observe,
_1st_, The abominable pride and insolence of the devil, and his
appearing herein to be the father of lies, nothing could be more false,
than for him to assert that the world was given to him to dispose of, as
he pleased; whatever hand he may have in disposing of it among his
subjects, by divine permission: yet he has no right to do this; so that
herein we may observe his proud and blasphemous insinuation, in
pretending to have a grant from God to dispose of that which he reserves
in his own hand, to give as he pleases.
_2dly_, All that he pretends to give our Saviour, is only _the kingdoms
of the world_; and, in exchange for them, he must quit his right to that
better world, which he had, by inheritance, a right to, and a power to
dispose of, which the devil has not.
_3dly_, He pretends to give our Saviour nothing but what, as God and
Mediator, he had a right to. This Satan maliciously questions, when, by
the overture he makes thereof, he insinuates, that he must be beholden
to him for it.
_4thly_, This he proposes, as an expedient for him, to arrive to glory
and honour an easier way, than to attain it by sufferings; therefore it
is as though he should say; thou expected a kingdom beyond this world,
but there are many troubles that lie in the way to it; whereas, by
following my advice, and complying with this temptation, thou mayest
avoid those sufferings, and enter into the present possession of the
kingdoms and glories of this world; by which, it is probable, he makes
him an overture of the whole Roman empire: But this our Saviour
despises, for he offered it, who had no right to give it; and the terms,
on which the overture was made, were very dishonourable; and the honour
itself was such, as he did not value, for his kingdom was not of this
world. If he had aimed at earthly grandeur, he might easily have
attained it; for we read, that he might once, not only have been made a
king, but that the people intended to come and _make him so by force_,
John vi. 15. upon which occasion, he discovered the little value he had
for this honour, by his retiring from them into a _mountain himself
alone_, rather chusing to continue in the low estate, which he designed
to submit to in this world, as a man of sorrows, and acquainted with
grief.
Thus concerning the overture made by Satan to our Saviour. Now let us
consider the condition on which he made it, namely, that he _should fall
down and worship him_; in which we may observe his pride, in pretending
to have a right to divine honour, and how he attempts to usurp the
throne of God, and that to such a degree, that no one must expect
favours from him, without giving him that honour, that is due to God
alone.
Again, he boldly and blasphemously tempts Christ to abandon and withdraw
himself from his allegiance to God, and, at the same time, to deny his
own deity, as the object of worship, and thereby to cast away that crown
of glory, which he has by nature, and to put it on the head of his
avowed enemy. Thus concerning the third and last temptation; we may
consider,
3. Christ’s reply to it, together with the repulse given to the
adversary, and victory obtained over him, who hereupon _departed from
him_; where we may observe,
(1.) That he again makes use of scripture, referring to what is said
therein, in different words, though the sense be the same, _Thou shalt
fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and to him shalt thou cleave_,
Deut. vi. 13. and chap. x. 20. This is a duty not only founded in
scripture, but in the law of nature, and may be proved from the
perfections of God, and our relation to him, as creatures.
(2.) Our Saviour detests the temptation with the greatest abhorrence,
can no longer bear to converse with the blasphemer, and therefore says,
_Get thee hence, Satan_. He commands him to be gone, and Satan
immediately leaves him, being, as it were, driven away by his almighty
power. This is more than we can do; nevertheless, in the like case, we
ought, as the apostle did, to _beseech the Lord that he might depart
from us_, 2 Cor. xii. 8. or, to use our Saviour’s words on another
occasion, _The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan_. Thus Christ’s temptations,
though very grievous and afflictive, were not only surmounted, but the
adversary, that assaulted him, was overcome by him, in his own
Person,[214]
From what hath been said, concerning Christ’s temptations, we infer,
_1st_, The desperate and unparalleled boldness of Satan, in that though
he knew well enough that Christ was the Son of God, and therefore able
not only to resist, but to destroy him; yet he should venture thus to
assault him: whereas, at other times, he seems to be afraid of him,
which occasioned him to say, _Art thou come to destroy us before the
time?_ Mark i. 24. and elsewhere, _Art thou come to torment us before
the time?_ Matt. viii. 29. Besides, he knew, that by this action, his
own guilt and misery would be increased; but what will not malice, and a
deep-rooted hatred of God and godliness, prompt persons to! The attempt
was certainly most unfeasable, as well as prejudicial to himself. Did
Satan suppose that he should gain a victory over him? Could he think,
that he, who was God, as well as man, was not more than a match for him?
It may be, he might hope, that though the human nature of Christ were
united to the divine, yet it might be left to itself; and then he
thought it more possible to gain some advantages against it, which was a
groundless supposition, and altogether unbecoming the relation that
there is between these two natures: and it was also impossible that he
should be overcome, inasmuch as he was filled with the Holy Ghost from
his first conception, and the unction which he had received from the
Holy Ghost, would have effectually secured him from falling. Whether the
devil knew this, or no, he did not consider it; and therefore this
attempt against our Saviour, was an instance of the most stupendous
folly in him, who is described as the old serpent for his great
subtilty.
_2dly_, From Christ’s temptation, we may infer the greatness of his
sufferings. It could not but be grievous to him to be insulted,
attacked, and the utmost endeavours used to turn him aside from his
allegiance to God, by the worst of his enemies. And, as Satan’s
temptations are not the smallest part of the affliction of his people,
they cannot be reckoned the smallest part of his own; nevertheless, the
issue thereof was glorious to himself, and shameful to the enemy that
attacked him.
_3dly_, This affords encouragement to believers, under the various
temptations they are exposed to. They are not, indeed, to think it
strange that they are tempted, inasmuch as they are herein conformed to
Jesus Christ, the Captain of their salvation; but they may, from
Christ’s temptation, be instructed that it is not a sin to be tempted,
though it be a sin to comply with Satan’s temptations; and therefore
that they have no ground to conclude, as many do, that they are not
God’s children, because they are tempted. Moreover, they may not only
hope to be made partakers of Christ’s victory, as the fruits and effects
thereof redound to the salvation of his people; but to receive help and
succour from him when they are tempted, as he, who _suffered, being
tempted, is able to succour them that are tempted_, Heb. ii. 18. Thus
concerning Christ’s humiliation, as tempted.
4. Christ humbled himself, in being subject to those sinless
infirmities, which were either common to the human nature, or
particularly accompanying that low condition in which he was. Some of
those afflictions, which he endured, took their rise from the sin or
misery of others: thus he is said to have been _afflicted in all the
afflictions of his people_, Isa. lxiii. 9. which is an instance of that
great sympathy and compassion which he bare towards them. Sometimes he
was grieved for the degeneracy and apostacy of the Jewish nation, the
contempt they cast on the gospel, whereby his ministry, though
discharged with the greatest faithfulness, was, through the unbelief of
those among whom he exercised it, without its desired success: thus he
is represented by the prophet, as complaining, _I have laboured in vain;
I have spent my strength for nought and in vain_, chap. xlix. 4. and,
when he had almost finished his ministry among them, and looked upon
Jerusalem as a self-ruined people, _He beheld the city and wept over
it_, Luke xix. 41. And, besides this, he was sometimes grieved for the
remainders of corruption, and the breakings forth thereof in those whom
he loved, in a distinguishing manner; thus he was sometimes afflicted in
his own spirit, by reason of the hardness of the heart of his disciples,
and the various instances of their unbelief.
These afflictions, more especially, might be called relative, as the
occasion thereof was seated in others: but there were many afflictions
which he endured that were more especially personal; such as hunger,
thirst, fatigue, weariness in travelling to and fro in the discharge of
his public ministry; and that poverty and want of the common necessaries
of life, which he submitted to, whose divine bounty supplies the wants
of all creatures. These, and many other sufferings, he endured in life,
which were agreeable to that state of humiliation, in which he was,
during the whole course thereof. And this leads us,
_Secondly_, To consider his humiliation immediately before, as well as
in and after his death.
Footnote 208:
Εαυτον εκενωσε.
Footnote 209:
_When we consider Christ as Mediator, from all eternity, we include,
in this idea, his human nature, as what was to be assumed in time.
There is a prolepsis in such a mode of speaking; as, when he is said
to be_ the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; _in the same
sense he might be said to be man from the foundation of the world; and
so we understand it, when we speak of him as God-man Mediator, from
all eternity._
Footnote 210:
_By Christ’s mediatorial acts, we mean every thing that he did and
suffered, in the whole course of his obedience, unto death. This is
not to be considered in a proleptic sense, as what he did as Mediator,
before his incarnation, may be said to be, as he might then, in some
respects, be said to execute his prophetical or kingly offices, as
Mediator, or as one who designed in the fulness of time, to take our
nature into union with his divine Person._
Footnote 211:
_See Bellarm. Tom. I. Lib. IV. cap. 1. who pretends that it is
universally held by them, when he says_, Catholicorum, communis
sententia fuit, Christi animam ab ipsa sua creatione repletam scientia
& gratia; ita ut nihil postea didicerit quod antea nesciret, nec ullam
actionem fecerit aut facere potuerit quæ emendatione eguerit. Ita
docent cum magistro omnes Theologi & etiam omnes Patres. _This he
endeavours to maintain by arguments, which I shall not enter into the
particular account of._
Footnote 212:
_This seems to be a better sense of the text, than what is given by
some, who suppose, that is was an accomplishment of what is foretold,
by the prophets, concerning his being_ נצר _Netzar, the Branch, in
Isa. xi. 1. Jer. xiii. 5. Zech. vi. 12. for that refers to his being
of the seed of David, and not to the place of his abode, so that he
could not be called the Branch because he dwelt in Nazareth. Others
suppose, he is so called from_ נזיר _Nazir, which signifies, in its
application, one that dwelt in Nazareth, and, in its derivation, one
that is separated, and that either to God, as the Nazarites were of
old, or from men, by some peculiar marks of infamy, or reproach, cast
upon him, as Joseph is said to have been, in Gen. xlix. 26._ separate
from his brethren. _These do, in effect assert the same thing that we
have observed, viz. that it is the concurrent sense of all the
prophets, that he should be in a low and humble state, of which his
residing in Nazareth was a particular instance._
Footnote 213:
_Some ancient and modern writers have supposed, that our Saviour
provided for the necessities of his parents in a miraculous way; but
the argument, which they bring to prove this, is not sufficiently
conclusive, namely, that when he wrought his first public miracle_, in
Cana of Galilee, _mentioned in John_ ii. _his mother desired him to
work a miracle to supply them at the marriage-feast with wine, ver. 3.
which, they suppose, she would never have thought of, had he not, some
time before this, wrought miracles in private to supply her
necessities, or provide food for her family: but this does not follow,
from her desiring him to do it now, since she might know, that, when
he was entered on his public ministry, he was to work miracles: and
therefore desired him, on this occasion, to put forth the first
instance of his divine power therein. Again, this is said to be the_
beginning of miracles which he did in Cana of Galilee, _ver. 11. and,
probably, the first miracle that he wrought in any place; and, indeed,
his reply to her, when she desired that he would work this miracle,
seems to imply, that he had never wrought miracles to provide for her
family, when he says_, Woman, what have I to do with thee? _q. d._ _my
working miracles is no part of that obedience Which I owe to thee, nor
art thou to expect any private advantage thereby, for these are to be
wrought with another view._
Footnote 214:
This portion of scripture has been subjected to much examination,
which has resulted in a variety of opinions with respect to the things
contained in it. We suppose the major part of Christians take the
whole as a literal representation of the facts; such seem to choose
the safest side. There is another opinion, which is entertained by
many; that the whole was a vision; the Saviour’s being in the
wilderness; his fasting for forty days; the several temptations; and
the relief afforded by the angels.
This latter interpretation is an assumption of unwarrantable latitude
in the interpretation of the word of God. All are realities, even the
presence and temptations of Satan, and the resistance given him; but
the temptations may have been proposed to the Saviour, when exhausted
with hunger, and when sunk into some species of waking vision, little
distinguishable from a dream.
Satan has not the power of forcing men into sin; his temptations are
always disguised; for the knowledge that they are such, is the
strongest motive for resisting them; if therefore Satan had discovered
himself to Jesus in a visible form, it would not only have been
contrary to his usual course, but must have ensured him a defeat.
The replies of Christ were in every instance by scriptures
recollected, which leads us to think that it was all before the eye of
his mind only; also one of Satan’s temptations was from scripture;
these things well accord with its having been in vision.
The changes of place seem to have been too sudden, and also
impracticable. He was in the wilderness when the temptations began,
and when they ended; which agrees with the supposition that his rapid
transition to a pinnacle of the temple, and from thence to a very high
mountain, were only in idea.
It is very unaccountable that he should have been transported to the
battlements of the temple for a dangerous place, when the country
afforded precipices enough, and still more so, that this could have
taken place without publick observation; but such flights of the
imagination, when the body is fainting with hunger, would not be
extraordinary; nor would it excite any wonder, if the person in such
exigency should find Satan occupied in giving a turn to his ideas.
There is not a mountain on earth from whence all the kingdoms are
visible; here therefore we are obliged to give up the literal sense,
and may discover an index to the interpretation of the other
temptations.
It is not called a vision; in like manner neither did Micaiah nor
Jacob denominate their visions. They represented what appeared to
them; and so we presume Jesus related these things to his disciples
just as they appeared to his mind.
Satan, though he can and does in various ways, by external and
internal means, through the medium of our bodies, suggest thoughts,
and thus take possession of our hearts in a certain sense; yet he
knows not our thoughts; it is the attribute of God only to search the
heart. Every thing acted by Satan in this instance could have taken
place without his knowing the mind of Christ.[215] If it had not been
in vision, then Jesus must have spoken audibly his respective answers;
Satan would have known them, and, we presume, in some instance
replied; but there is not one reply of Satan, which is an additional
proof that he suggested the temptations, and the Saviour resisted them
by mental answers, with which the enemy was unacquainted. Adopting
this general view, the particular parts will be easily understood.
Footnote 215:
It is highly probable that Satan did not know that this was the
Christ; he speaks doubtfully of his being the “Son of God;” this he
had heard, we suppose, at his baptism, a short time before. Satan is
not omnipresent, nor omniscient, and probably knew less than the
angels of these things which they desired to pry into. Christ’s
divinity was chiefly concealed thirty years, not always shown in his
life, nor at his death. It was the man only that could be thus humbled
and tempted; God neither tempts nor can be tempted by any.
Quest. XLIX., L.