Matthew 4:1-11 Affirming Our Identity in God
It is so easy to get lost in debating whether a story recounted in the Biblical text is historically factual. But the question of whether a passage is literally true or not often distracts from the larger questions being asked. For example, my childhood church prided itself on taking the Bible literally and a good portion of our time was spent trying to prove to ourselves and others why every single passage was historically and scientifically accurate.
Doing so did allow ourselves to feel superior to other Christians, especially Roman Catholics and Mainline Christians, who we accused of never reading the Bible. But this emphasis on “proving” the Bible is accurate often caused us to miss out on the deeper questions the Biblical text was asking.
Take Matthew 4:1-11. Because we were concerned with proving that this story occurred just as described, we often focused on satan’s power. We believed that the world was under the gripe of satan and that everything from women wearing pants and having short hair, to secular music was evidence of satan’s power. I mean even the Disney channel was viewed as satanic.
But is there another way to interpret this passage? Yes. I argue that the central question of this passage is not whether or not satan literally exists but what does it mean to affirm one’s identity in God?
Now just because I do not think the point of the passage is to debate whether or not this actually happened or whether or not satan is real, does not mean I don’t think historical context is important. It is.
In fact, it is helpful to note that in the larger Roman empire, the title Son of God was pretty common. Roman emperors and their supporters often used the title to affirm the idea that the gods themselves appointed this specific ruler.
Meaning, if the gods want this ruler in power, then the rest of us better shape up and follow them. The idea that the emperor had the favor of the gods was used to justify whatever exploitative power trip they wanted to embark on and to ensure that those under the domination of the empire, were obedient and fell in line.
But the gospels ‘ preach that the God of Israel’s understanding of what it means to be the son of God is in direct challenge to the Roman empire’s definition. And in this passage, we can see satan probing and prodding Jesus to get him to embrace the Roman Empire’s false definition.
In the empire’s understanding, the son of God has access to all manner of decadence and food, even as the majority of residents and occupants of the empire struggled to feed their families. Jesus turning the rocks into bread to care for himself even as the rest of the empire struggles to survive, would be very in line with the empire’s understanding of being God’s favored.
In the Roman Empire, the emperor’s status as the son of God was determined, in part, by whether or not they remained in power in the face of assassination attempts and coups. If they survived, that was clearly an indication of the protection of the gods. If they didn’t survive or remain in power, then for whatever reason the gods had transferred their favor to someone else. In other words, in the Roman world, one’s identity as the son of God was tied to whether or not they could avoid death.
But the God presented in the Hebrew Bible and the gospels is one that confronts and defeats death. Jesus as the son of God is expected to accept death, not run away from it. The satan figure in this passage, however, is hoping for Jesus to conform to the empire’s understanding of death: which is one to be avoided at all costs.
And finally, Roman emperors demonstrated their divine status by maintaining their wealth and power over others. Ethics, morality, and even religious loyalty were of secondary importance. In this final temptation, the satan figure is hoping Jesus will accept the empire’s emphasis on the importance of power and reject the God of Israel.
In a similar way, we are often encouraged by dominant society to forget our identity as children of God. Now the specific temptations we face will obviously be different than those described in this passage (for instance, NO ONE has yet offered me a vast kingdom or massive amount of money) but the overall themes are similar. Accepting our identity as children of God means rejecting the values that dominate society.
Dominant society says that we only matter if we are wealthy and it encourages us to do whatever we can do gain power. For those born into families of privilege, we are told we need to do whatever it takes to protect our money and we are to ignore how wealth is often tied to the exploitation of others. In that scenario, embracing one’s status as a child of God means being willing to ask tough questions about one’s wealth and position in society.
If we are struggling to survive, we are told by dominant society we are worthless and we need to do whatever it takes to become wealthy, even if it means supporting policies that ultimately make income inequality worse.
In this case, embracing our identity as children of God means rejecting the idea that our worth is tied to how much money we do or don’t have, and it means rejecting the temptation to believe that in order for us to succeed, others need to fail.
This week’s passage isn’t about whether or not a literal satan exists. But it centers around whether Jesus will truly embrace his identity as a child of God. This passage encourages us to ask ourselves: will we embrace our identity as children of God?
Reflection question:
How do you interpret this passage and how/why is it still relevant to readers
today?
What would it look like for us as a community and as individuals to truly embrace our identity as children of God?
Image: Black background with a giant question mark. Text: the central question of this passage is not whether or not satan literally exists but what does it mean to affirm one’s identity in God?