All this sounds, after all, like the stammering of Divine words by a babe, and yet it may
in some measure help us to understand the character of Christ's first great Temptation.
Before proceeding, a few sentences are required in explanation of seeming differences in
the Evangelic narration of the event. The historical part of St. John's Gospel begins after
the Temptation - that is, with the actual Ministry of Christ; since it was not within the
purport of that work to detail the earlier history. That had been s ufficiently done in the
Synoptic Gospels. Impartial and serious critics will admit that these are in accord. For, if
St. Mark only summarises, in his own brief manner, he supplies the two - fold notice that
Jesus was 'driven' into the wilderness, 'and was with the wild beasts,' which is in fullest
internal agreement with the detailed narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke. The only
noteworthy difference between these two is, that St. Matthew places the Temple -
temptation before that of the world-kingdom, while St. Luke inverts this order, probably
because his narrative was primarily intended for Gentile readers, to whose mind this
might present itself as to them the true gradation of temptation. To St. Matthew we owe
the notice, that after Temptation 'Angels ca me and ministered' unto Jesus; to St. Luke,
that the Tempter only 'departed from Him for a season.'
To restate in order our former conclusions, Jesus had deliberately, of His own accord and
of set firm purpose, gone to be baptized. That one grand outstanding fact of His early life,
that He must be about His Father's Business, had found its explanation when He knew
that the Baptist's cry, 'the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,' was from God. His Father's
Business, then, was 'the Kingdom of Heaven,' and to it He consecrated Himself, so
fulfilling all righteousness. But His 'being about it' was quite other than that of any
Israelite, however devout, who came to Jordan. It was His consecration, not only to the
Kingdom, but to the Kingship, in the anointing and perma nent possession of the Holy
Ghost, and in His proclamation from heaven. That Kingdom was His Father's Business;
its Kingship, the manner in which He was to be 'about it.' The next step was not, like the
first, voluntary, and of preconceived purpose. Jesus went to Jordan; He was driven of the
Spirit into the wilderness. Not, indeed, in the sense of His being unwilling to go,28 or
having had other purpose, such as that of immediate return into Galilee, but in that of not
being willing, of having no will or purpose in the matter, but being 'led up,' unconscious
of its purpose, with irresistible force, by the Spirit. In that wilderness He had to test what
He had learned, and to learn what He had tested. So would He have full proof for His
Work of the What - His Call and Kingship; so would He see its How - the manner of it;
so, also, would, from the outset, the final issue of His Work appear.
28. This is evident even from the terms used by St. Matthew (ανηχθη ) and St. Luke
(ηγετο ). I cannot agree with Godet, that Jesus would have been inclined to return to
Galilee and begin teaching. Jesus had no inclination save this - to do the Will of His
Father. And yet the expression 'driven' used by St. Mark seems to imply some human
shrinking on His part - at least at the outset.
Again - banishing from our minds all thought of sin in connection with Christ's
Temptation, 29 He is presented to us as the Second Adam, both as regarded Himself, and
His relation to man. In these two respects, which, indeed, are one, He is now to be tried.
Like the first, the Second Adam, sinless, is to be tempted, but under the existing