The Ministry of Jesus

Herod Antipas in the New Testament

Luke 3:1 Antipas appears in the New Testament more frequently than any other member of the Herodian dynasty—his rule coincided with the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus. The gospel writers refer to Antipas only as “Herod”—Antipas adopted this name in ad 6 (Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 104–06). Apart from several passing references (Mark 8:15; Luke 3:1; 8:3; Acts 13:1), Herod plays a major role in three New Testament stories.

Luke 3:21 A ritual of initiation into a religious community, often through the immersion of a person into a body of water, but also performed in various other ways through sprinkling, washing, or pouring water over a person. In some religions, blood may have been used rather than water. Also: Baptismal Rites; Baptisms; Baptize; Christian baptism

Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Luke 3:21–22)

Unlike Mark’s eis auton (“on him” [1:10]), in Luke the descent of the Spirit upon (epi) Jesus anticipates the citation of Isa. 61:1–2 (“the Spirit of the LORD is upon [ep’] me.…”) in 4:18.

Death of John the Baptist

Antipas was involved in the death of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14–29; Matt 14:1–12; Luke 3:18–20; 9:7–9). When John rebuked Antipas for marrying Herodias, Antipas imprisoned him. According to Mark and Matthew, when Herodias’ daughter danced at Antipas’ birthday party, Antipas was so pleased that he offered to give her anything she desired. Her request—at her mother’s prompting—was John’s head on a platter (Mark 6:21–25; Matt 14:6–8). Antipas reluctantly granted her request (Mark 6:27–28; Matt 14:9–11).

The Temptation of Jesus

Luke 4:1–13 LEB

And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days, and when they were completed, he was hungry. So the devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, order this stone that it become bread!” And Jesus replied to him, “It is written, ‘Man will not live on bread alone.’ ” And he led him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to him, “I will give you all this domain and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I can give it to whomever I want. So if you will worship before me, all this will be yours.” And Jesus answered and said to him, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’ ” And he brought him to Jerusalem, and had him stand on the highest point of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,’ and ‘on their hands they will lift you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’ ” And Jesus answered and said to him, “It is said, ‘You are not to put to the test the Lord your God.’ ” And when the devil had completed every temptation, he departed from him until a favorable time.

Three interweaving traditions can be identified in this account of Jesus’ temptation: Israel’s wilderness experience, Deut. 6–8, and Ps. 91:11–12 (90:11–12 LXX). Because of the interconnectedness of these elements, these citations will be considered together with the narrative framework in which they are placed.

A. NT Context: Jesus the Faithful Son. Luke’s account of Jesus’ temptation follows the baptismal narrative and the lengthy genealogy. Anointed with the Spirit (3:22), Jesus is now “full of the Holy Spirit” and “led by the Spirit in the wilderness” (4:1). After proving to be faithful to God, Jesus was again “filled with the power of the Spirit,” and this focus on the Spirit leads directly to the Isaianic quotation in 4:18–19 that explains the significance of Jesus’ anointment. The issue of Jesus’ status as the Son of God (3:22) resurfaces in this temptation account (4:3; cf. 3:38) when the content of this recognition is clarified through Jesus’ refusal to yield to the plan of Satan. Its connection with the genealogy is evident also through Jesus’ identification with Israel (and maybe even Adam) in his use of Scripture in this account. Situated in this context, this story is no longer one that is concerned with the private life of an individual.

The narrative introduction of this temptation account resembles Mark’s summary statement (Mark 1:12–13): the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness for forty days. The conversation between Jesus and Satan is found only in Matthew and Luke. Many would conclude that Luke is using Q as his source, without ruling out the accessibility of Mark (Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:218–20). The apparently minor and theologically insignificant differences between Matthew and Luke may also point to the use of different versions of Q (see Bock 1994–1996: 365). On the assumption that they share the same source, the different ordering of the temptation events is noteworthy. Most would affirm that Matthew’s order reflects the ordering in Q (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 507–8; Nolland 1989–1993: 177) and that the redactional change in Luke is intended to make the temple scene the climax of the temptations. Others see Luke’s redaction as highlighting Jesus’ final statement in 4:12, which could provide a fitting conclusion for the series of challenges: “Do not put the Lord your God to the test” (see Goulder 1989: 1:294).

B. Deut. 6:13, 16; 8:3; Ps. 91:11–12 in Context. The three responses of Jesus come from Deut. 6–8. These chapters belong to the wider section that starts in 4:44, where one finds the stipulations of the covenant made between God and Israel his covenant partner. The opening section of Deut. 6–8, which focuses on the call to Israel to be faithful and obedient, contains the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (6:4–5). The remaining material in this chapter is framed by references to the exodus events, in which God delivered his people from slavery (6:10–12, 20–25). Significantly, this section contains a note that mentions Israel’s testing of God in the wilderness (6:16). Chapter 7 again focuses on God’s faithfulness in the past and the promise of his continued love and mercy to those who are faithful to him. Chapter 8 points again to God’s work among Israel and how God had disciplined his people as “a parent disciplines a child” (v. 5). This chapter continues the call to Israel to be faithful to their deliverer and concludes with a curse: “Like the nations that the LORD is destroying before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God” (8:20). A cursory survey of this section shows that the call to be God’s faithful partner is grounded in their interaction during the exodus event: while the exodus experience reminds one of God’s faithfulness, it also points to Israel’s disobedience. Echoes of the book of Exodus in particular confirm this observation (13:9–16 [Deut. 6:6, 20–21]; 16:1–36 [Deut. 8:3]; 17:1–7 [Deut. 6:16; 8:15]; 23:20–33 [Deut. 7:12–26]).

The chapters that follow also highlight the theme of faithfulness (or the lack of it) within the context structured by the exodus events. Chapters 9–10, which echo the narrative about the golden calf in Exod. 32–34, provide the prime example of Israel’s disobedience. Themes of apostasy, self-sufficiency, and disobedience found in the preceding material (see McConville 2002: 173) crystallize in this narrative when forgetfulness expresses itself in acts of idolatry. Situated within this wider context, the individual verses that Jesus cites draw on the force of this entire section. Jesus’ response to Satan’s first temptation comes from Deut. 8:3 (Luke 4:4), a verse that points to complete reliance on God and his promises. The responses to the second and third temptations are drawn from the same section in Deut. 6 where the Shema is explicated. The call to worship and serve YHWH alone (6:13; Luke 4:8) becomes Jesus’ response to the temptation to receive “the kingdoms of the world” (Luke 4:5) from the hands of Satan, and Israel’s testing of God at Massah/Meribah (6:16; Luke 4:12) is evoked in Jesus’ rebuke of Satan for his testing of God. The account to which Deut. 6:16 is alluding ends with the question that the Israelites raised in their testing of God: “Is the LORD among us or not?” (Exod. 17:7). It is this questioning of the sovereignty of God and his Messiah that is at the heart of Satan’s three attempts to challenge Jesus.

Psalm 91 (90 LXX), the psalm that Satan uses in his third temptation in Luke, is called in the LXX “Praise, a Song of David” (ainos ōdēs tō Dauid), although its connection to David is not obvious. This psalm serves as a response to Ps. 90, which begins with the affirmation of God as “our dwelling place in all generations” (v. 1) and ends with a call for God’s protection and presence: “Let the favor of the LORD our God be upon us” (v. 17). Using traditional language, Ps. 91 affirms God’s protection by calling him “my refuge” (maḥĕsî [v. 2; cf. 14:6; 46:1; 62:7–8; 71:7; 142:5]) and stating that his people will be found under “his wings” (kĕnāpāyw [v. 4; cf. 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7]). The concluding divine oracle likewise focuses on the assurance of divine protection: “Those who love me I will deliver; I will protect those who know my name” (91:14). Many would see this as a liturgical psalm that anticipates God’s protection in the temple worship (Tate 1990: 450–51), and it is this theme of protection that emerges in Satan’s testing of Jesus (91:11–12; Luke 4:10–11).

As in Deut. 6–8, the exodus journey may have also provided the context for this psalm (Mitchell 1997: 277–78). The “thousand” who “fall at your side” (91:7) may be an allusion to the generation that died in the desert, and the promise of protection from the dashing of one’s foot “against a stone” (91:12) and from “the lion and the adder” (91:13) may likewise assume a wilderness environment. Parallels with Deut. 32, a passage that is closely tied with Deut. 8 in particular, further strengthen this connection. References to “pinions” (ʾebrâ) and “wings” (kĕnāpāyw) in the same context are found only in Ps. 91:4 and Deut. 32:11. Divine protection against “pestilence/destruction” (qeṭeb) in Ps. 91:6 also echoes the “pestilence/destruction” of Deut. 32:24. Finally, the “punishment/vengeance” (šillūmâ) that the wicked will go through in Ps. 91:8 is also the fate of those in Deut. 32:35, 41 (šillēm). If the wilderness setting of this psalm is established, then Satan’s use of Ps. 91 in the context of Jesus’ use of Deut. 6–8 in the wilderness setting becomes all the more significant.

C. Deut. 6:13, 16; 8:3; Ps. 91:11–12 in Judaism. The significance of Deut. 6:4–9, with its focus on the worship of one God, finds its echoes throughout the later writings (cf. Deut. 32:39; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Chron. 17:20; Ps. 86:10; Isa. 43:10; 44:6; 45:18), and this focus of the section dominates later Jewish traditions especially when the Shema is recited (cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.13; m. Ber. 2:2; m. Meg. 4:3; m. Tamid 5:1). Deuteronomy 6:13 continues with this theme and is evoked when the worship of the one God is noted (cf. Apoc. Adam 1:12; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.208). Deuteronomy 8:3 evokes another set of concerns, where the contrast between bread and the word of God can be found. Although the text in its context focuses on the contrast between self-reliance and total dependence on God, it often is evoked to highlight the contrast between material and spiritual nourishment. This is best illustrated in the writings of Philo where, on the basis of this verse, one is called to flee one’s passion (Alleg. Interp. 3.174) and to seek divine laws (Decalogue 13), wisdom (Prelim. Studies. 170–173), and spiritual nourishment (Alleg. Interp. 3.176).

Deuteronomy 6:16 deserves special treatment because it explicitly highlights the prohibition against testing God. This verse alludes to Exod. 17:1–7 (cf. Num. 20:1–13), where one finds the narrative that gave rise to the legend of the well that follows Israel in the wilderness (cf. L.A.B. 10:7; 11:15; Num. Rab. 19:26; Tg. Ps.-J. Num. 21; t. Sukkah 3.11–13; cf. 1 Cor. 10:4; see Ellis 1981: 67–68). It is the negative tradition of Israel’s distrusting their God, however, that contributes to the understanding of Luke 4. Israel’s testing of their deliverer at Massah/Meribah becomes one of the prime examples of disobedience in the wilderness in the later narrative in Deuteronomy (9:22; 32:51; 33:8) and beyond (Ps. 81:7; 95:8; 106:32; cf. Ps. 78:56). This narrative also contributes to the tradition of Israel’s murmuring, which extends beyond the canonical text (cf. CD-A III, 8; Philo, Moses 1.181; T. Mos. 7:7; 4 Ezra 1:15–16; see Bauckham 1983: 98). Thus the evocation of Deut. 6:16 in Luke 4 points beyond one historical event to Israel’s long history of being an unfaithful partner to their God.

Moving to Ps. 91, we see that the theme of divine protection in the wilderness context continues in the Jewish traditions where the foundation story of Israel is transformed into one in which the personal protection against demons becomes the focus of Jewish exegetical traditions (Hugger 1971: 331–33; van der Ploeg 1971: 128–39; Mitchell 1997: 279–81). Already in the LXX the protection from noonday (sunshine) is interpreted as protection from daimoniou mesēmbrinou (“noonday demon” [91:6]), and similar interpretive renderings of this verse can be found in the Peshitta and the Targum (Allison 2000a: 159). In 11Q11, with three other noncanonical psalms, Ps. 91 is understood as a text to be used in exorcistic liturgy. The allusion to this psalm later in Luke 10:19, where Jesus empowers his apostles to subdue the evil powers, fits well within this interpretive tradition. Thus the use of this psalm by Satan in the temptation narrative is striking because the divine power offered to Jesus is actually one to be used against the evil one.

D. Textual Matters. The first quotation of the temptation narrative, in Luke 4:4, is taken verbatim from Deut. 8:3 LXX, which faithfully renders the Hebrew text, and it is identical to Matthew’s quotation, which includes the clause all’ epi panti rhēmati ekporeuomenō dia stomatos theou (“but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” [Matt. 4:4]). This clause is included also in some manuscripts of Luke 4:4, but they are likely secondary, reflecting an attempt to assimilate to the Matthean or septuagintal reading (Holtz 1968: 61; Metzger 1994: 113). The second quotation, in Luke 4:8, is identical to Matthew’s reading (4:10), and they are identical to LXX A of Deut. 6:13, while LXX B (which reflects the Hebrew of the MT) has phobēthēsē (“fear”) instead of proskynēseis (“worship”), and the word monō (“only”) is omitted. T. Holtz (1968: 62–63) argues for Q’s use of LXX A, but others (e.g., New 1993: 58; Kimball 1994b: 85–86) see the reading in LXX A as an assimilation to Q or the NT text. Either influenced by LXX A or as an intentional redactional move, the use of the verb proskyneō (“worship”) in 4:8 corresponds to Satan’s use of the same verb in 4:7. Jesus’ third quotation, in Luke 4:12, is identical to both Matt. 4:7 and Deut. 6:16 LXX, which has a singular ouk ekpeiraseis (“do not test”) rather than the plural lō tĕnassû (“do not test”) of the MT.

Satan’s quotation in Luke 4:10–11 is identical to Ps. 90:11–12 LXX (which accurately translates Ps. 91:11–12 MT) but omits the phrase en pasais tais hodois sou (“in all your ways”). Luke’s citation is identical to Matt. 4:6, although Matthew’s citation is further abbreviated by the omission of the words tou diaphylaxai se (“to protect you”). If these words were not in Q, their inclusion may reflect Luke’s attempt to include them to complete the verb enteleitai (“he will command”) (see New 1993: 56).

E. The Use of Deut. 6:13, 16; 8:3; Ps. 91:11–12 in Luke 4:1–13. Before examining the role of the citations in Luke 4, we should explore both the setting and the combination of the three “tests” in light of the exodus context as evoked by the explicit quotations themselves. It has been noted that the temptation narrative is framed by allusions to Israel’s wilderness experience (see Gerhardsson 1966: 42–44). The reference to “forty days” may evoke Israel’s forty-year journey (cf. Exod. 16:35; Num. 32:13; Deut. 2:7; Josh. 5:6; Neh. 9:21; Ps. 95:10; Amos 2:10), as “forty days” has already come to symbolize the forty-year journey in the OT, especially when the temporal reference applies to an individual rather than a nation (cf., e.g., Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:5–6; see Gibson 1995: 83; Allison 2000a: 26). Luke’s interest in Israel’s forty-year wilderness wanderings is reflected in its reference in Acts 7:30, 36, 42; 13:18. Closer to Deut. 6–8, one also finds reference to Moses’ forty-day fast on Mount Horeb: “I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water” (Deut. 9:9 [see also Exod. 34:28]; cf. Matt. 4:2: “forty days and forty nights”). These references make it unlikely that “forty” is simply used as “a round figure” (cf. Gen. 7:4, 12; 1 Kings 19:8; see Creed 1930: 62).

Equally important is the “wilderness” (erēmos) setting of Jesus’ temptation. In the OT the wilderness journey brings to mind divine revelation as well as Israel’s disobedience, but S. Talmon (1993: 236) has shown that the motif of disobedience and punishment dominates the later references to the wilderness period (with the clear exception of Isa. 40–55). It is this aspect of the wilderness motif that is critical to this temptation narrative, as the disobedience of Israel is evoked to highlight the perfect obedience of Jesus as God’s faithful Son. The numerous details that reflect the wilderness context therefore acquire added significance (Dupont 1957). The “wilderness” is closely tied with the symbol “forty” in the memory of Israel (cf. Num. 32:13; Deut. 2:7; 29:5; Neh. 9:21; Amos 5:25), and the phrase “forty years in the wilderness” appears in a context resembling that in which the quotation of Luke 4:4 appears: “Remember the long way that the LORD your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, in order to humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commandments” (Deut. 8:2). These textual indicators lead the reader to see the testing of Jesus in light of the testing of Israel in the wilderness journey.

Not only does the setting evoke memories of the history of Israel, but also the three “temptations” may reflect Jewish interpretive traditions. In the psalms one already finds a listing of Israel’s disobedient acts in the wilderness. In Ps. 106, for example, there are references to the sin of “wanton craving” (vv. 14–15; cf. Exod. 16:1–12; Num. 11:1–6), idolatry (vv. 19–23; cf. Exod. 32:1–15), and the “testing” of God at Massah/Meribah (vv. 32–33; cf. Exod. 17:1–7; Num. 20:1–13). These traditions seem to lie behind Jesus’ three temptations, as they involve the craving of food, worshiping of a false god, and testing of God. Moreover, in Jewish traditions one can also find the listing of three particular sins to characterize Israel’s disobedience in the wilderness, although the sins listed may not be the same in the different lists (cf. Tg. Neof.; Frg. Tg.; Deut. Rab. 1:2; see Stegner 1990: 14).

In light of the allusions to the OT behind the various elements of this narrative, the point of the entire narrative is clear: unlike the Israelites who failed in the wilderness, Jesus is the faithful Son of God. Therefore, the three individual citations from Deut. 6–8 should be read together as establishing this point. With the first temptation, Jesus quotes from Deut. 8:3 to point to his total reliance on God. With the second, Jesus reaffirms the central point of Deut. 6, which emphasizes the need to worship God only. With the third, the use of Deut. 6:16 makes it clear that the point is the refusal to force God to provide a sign of his presence, since God is the one to be trusted. In all three, then, the focus is on the faithful obedience to the one God of Israel. In their context, however, all three temptations also point to the nature of Jesus’ messianic ministry. The use of divine power, the means to accomplish the plan of God, and the way the dawn of the eschatological era is to be manifested are issues that this narrative introduces, and they will be further developed in Luke’s narrative.

Most would agree that the missing phrase “in all your ways” should not be considered as the key to Satan’s use of Ps. 91:11–12 (see Bock 1994–1996: 381; Bovon 2002: 144). On a rhetorical level, it is ironic to have Satan using a psalm that had been understood as an excorcistic text (Allison 2000a: 159). In light of the wilderness context of this psalm, one also can see how Satan is using Scripture to tempt Jesus to test the presence of God as Israel did in the times of old. The possible connection between the pterygion (“pinnacle” [Luke 4:9]) of the temple and the pterygas (“wings” [Ps. 90:4 LXX]) of God’s protection further confirms this point, as it is the way that God’s presence is to be experienced that is at issue (Brawley 1992: 428–29).

F. Theological Use. With the use of Scripture, an Israel typology is clearly developed. Unlike Israel, which failed in the wilderness, Jesus has proven to be the faithful Son of God. In Luke’s narrative the story of Israel’s failure continues to be documented in accounts of their refusal to respond to the gospel (cf. Acts 13:46; 18:6; 28:28), and this failure is explicitly linked with Israel’s rebellious acts in the wilderness (cf. Acts 7:35–42, 51–53). In ecclesiological terms, Jesus also “fulfills” the destiny of Israel as he accomplishes what Israel was called to perform as God’s son (cf. Deut. 8:5). When the foundation story of Israel is evoked, Jesus does not simply embody Israel, but rather becomes the foundation of God’s people in the eschatological era. As he did in the past, God is once again calling a “people [laon] for his name” (Acts 15:14).

Building on the significance of the wilderness context, some have further argued for a Mosaic Christology behind this text. This view would be strengthened if the use of Deut. 34:1–4 could be established in Luke’s account of Jesus’ second temptation when the devil “showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world” (4:5) (see Stegner 1990: 9). Luke’s further portrayal of Jesus as the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22; 7:37) would also be consistent with this view. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how Deut. 34:1–4 contributes to the main point of the second temptation. More importantly, the focus throughout the narrative is on Jesus as the true Israel, and there is no explicit attempt to portray Jesus as the new Moses in this account.

Equally questionable is the presence of an explicit Adam typology in this text (see Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:214). Although the testing of Adam in the Garden of Eden would provide an attractive parallel, the use of Deut. 6–8 strongly links this testing with Israel’s wilderness experience. Nevertheless, Luke’s genealogy, which ends with Adam as the son of God immediately before the temptation narrative, argues for the presence of thematic links on some levels, and clearly the creation story often was linked with the exodus story (cf. Exod. 15; Deut. 32:7–14; Ps. 74:12–17; 77:12–20; 89:5–37; 114), especially when the new creative act of God is expected (cf. Isa. 43:15–21; 45:9–18; 51:12–16).

David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 283–287.