"Jesus of Nazareth" Chapter Two

"Jesus of Nazareth" by Pope Benedict XVI

Chapter Two: The Temptations of Jesus

I just finished my second full read of Chapter Two, and enjoyed it very much. I'm not going to review the contents because they are in total harmony with my thought and beliefs, and I am very glad that the Holy Father has written such a truthful and inspiring account. He provides such pertinent historical and theological context that it truly gives the reader a "door" into that place and time of Jesus.

I am going to try to offer with each chapter my suggestion of a guiding principle based on what Benedict has written that will help with the contemplation of the chapter after being read. When one reads a book like this one that Benedict has written about Jesus, there is potential for real perspective shifting, excellent faith formation, and a new and renewed vision of what has been written, especially if it is reviewed several times and time is given for discussion and pondering. For this chapter the guiding principle I'd like to offer is to consider what can be gleaned from the actual order of events when evaluating the meaning of the temptations. As a corollary think about how the account of the temptations Jesus must have come directly from Jesus, because the Apostles had not been called yet, and no one was present.

Matthew relates: 1) The baptism of Jesus, 2) The temptation, and 3) Jesus begins preaching in Capharnaum, hearing of John the Baptist's arrest and saying "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 4:17). Then the first disciples are called.

Mark relates: 1) The baptism of Jesus, 2) The temptation, and 3) Jesus begins preaching into Galilee after John the Baptist is arrested, saying "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel." Then the first disciples are called.

Luke relates: 1) The baptism of Jesus, 2) the genealogy of Jesus, 3) the temptation, 4) Jesus begins preaching in the Galilee area "... and the fame of him went out through the whole country. And he taught in their synagogues, and was honored by all." Then Jesus starts to perform miracles in conjunction with the calling of the first disciples.

John relates: 1) The baptism of Jesus, 2) Jesus calls the first disciples, 3) Jesus performs his first miracle at the marriage feast in Cana, at the request of his mother the Virgin Mary who states "Do whatever he tells you."

Now, the first thing that one must be struck with is the remarkable consistency of the order of events, that Jesus is baptized, goes into the desert and is tempted, and then calls the disciples. So what does that immediately tell anyone who reads these accounts? That because no disciples were as yet present, that Jesus himself related to the disciples what had happened in the desert. This was not an event like the Transfiguration where Peter, James, and John were present to witness and record what happened. Jesus himself had to have told the disciples what happened. Three of the gospel authors recognized the significance of the temptation event and recorded it. John found everything that Jesus said and did to be important, but he devoted the bulk of his writing to context and prayerful interpretation in detail of the intimacy of faith. Because he, like Luke, knew the Virgin Mary very well and heard from her stories that only she could have provided, Luke and John both spent more of their writing resources on the intimacy of faith. So John is not giving short shrift to the temptation; it is just that his focus was elsewhere, to everyone's benefit and gratitude, I might add.

So whatever you read about the temptation is not open to the vagaries of memory and witnessing, but they are the deliberate retelling of the events of the temptation by Jesus to the disciples. So in addition to being able to have total confidence that it happened, that it happened in the order of events as related, and that what happened is correct (as it is directly at Jesus' relating and thus truthful and not open to misunderstanding) there is a fourth thing in which everyone can have confidence. That point is that Jesus must have had a purpose in not only having the temptation experience but in the SHARING of what happened with the disciples.

This is where I have a teensy bit of disagreement with one of Pope Benedict's statements in Chapter Two, in the midst of a chapter that otherwise I find totally correct and magnificently analyzed and written. On page 26 Benedict writes, "Jesus has to enter into the drama of human existence, for that belongs to the core of the mission; he has to penetrate it completely, down to its uttermost depths, in order to find the 'lost sheep,' to bear it on his shoulders and to bring it home." So Benedict thinks that the temptation was kind of a spiritual boot camp for Jesus. I'm being a little wry in that expression, but you know what I mean. That is not true. It's an understandable mistake, because it's an attempt to understand why (like the baptism) Jesus would put himself through something that he did not need to. And like the baptism, the answer is again, much simpler and obvious than people realize.

Because Jesus relates what happened to the disciples he is using himself as a living parable and role model. How do we know this is the reason, and not the spiritual boot camp theory? Because Jesus does not report to the disciples any other "boot camp" conversations with God or events in his life prior to that event. This is the first event that Jesus "tells" the disciples about. If this was a part of spiritual boot camp, Jesus would either not have told the disciples about it, since he would have lumped it into his past interactions with God the Father that he has not spoken about to them, or he would have told them about this temptation and a whole litany of other events that "formed his faith." This is so obvious if anyone just pauses to think about it, and look at the facts, and not project. Jesus went into the desert to fast and to experience temptation so that in a human body he could, with the support of the angels and the Holy Spirit, deal with it and then relate how he did so to the disciples. Again, just as I discuss in my previous post about the baptism, Jesus the Son and God the Father are exactly as they appear and say they are.

Look carefully at Luke's words and see the "role modeling" that is taking place. Luke relates the baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:21-22) and then "pauses" to relate genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38), though clearly this is not because everyone was discussing family history right after the baptism. He did it as a prelude for the beautiful writing that introduces the temptation discussion:

Now Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit about the desert for forty days, being tempted the while by the devil (Luke 4:1-2).

Why do I call this beautiful? Because Luke relates how Jesus is baptized and then is "full of the Holy Spirit," and being "led by the Spirit." How would Luke have known this without Jesus telling the disciples this? Jesus is showing the disciples and Luke is faithfully recording the proper order of things: that a man or a woman receives baptism, and then goes to battle against the devil (while in a spiritual and prayerful state of being, filled with and led by the Holy Spirit.) Luke captures this imagery by relating the baptism, and then "engraving" Jesus with the names of his human forefathers to show his lineage to the House of David because baptism puts a human within their Church, within their true home, and gives every person who is baptized their "family album" back to the House of David. In fact, Luke does not stop with tracing back to the House of David, but goes all the way back to "Adam, who was of God" (Luke 3: 38). And this entire section of genealogy occurs immediately after the speaking of God the Father at Jesus' baptism, "Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased." So Luke relates the baptism, the words of God as the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus (and that can be thought of as Jesus spiritual genealogy, Son of God the Father through the Holy Spirit) and then couples this with Jesus physical genealogy (through Joseph and Mary to Adam, who was of God) before undergoing the temptation.

By going to the desert full of and led by the Holy Spirit, Jesus is demonstrating that this is all that people need to survive in harsh life physical circumstances and resist and defeat the devil. This is why Jesus went to the desert full of the Holy Spirit, and this is why he related these events to the disciples. Think about it... Jesus needs nothing else, being full of the Holy Spirit, and being beloved by God the Father. He does not need to prove he is one of the boys (he did that by being human born and having to flee in danger when the innocents were slaughtered) and he did not need spiritual boot camp because he was already full of and led by the Holy Spirit before he even went into the desert, as a result of the baptism.

So this is the reason the temptation happened. Jesus was demonstrating how one arms oneself from life's hardships (the desert) and temptations (the devil) by being baptized, beloved of God, and full of the Holy Spirit, allowing oneself to be led by the Holy Spirit in life, even into the "deserts" and "temptations" of life. Jesus did not need any boot camp experience because he was already in a perfect state of understanding of humankind by virtue of being full of the Holy Spirit, who is the one who informs humankind.