Question
In your book, “Satan and His Plan of Evil”, you say that Christ was tempted twice in the wilderness. I’ve re-read your chapter on this and re-read the Scriptures. Could elaborate a little on how you came up with that conclusion.
Response
As you already know, the basic reasons why I think this was so are set forth in chapter six of “Satan and His Plan of Evil”. However, even those basic reasons are only briefly stated, enough so that the gist of the reasons behind my understanding can be recognized. So I will elaborate a little more upon them.
The main reason has to do with the Lord qualifying Himself to function as a “redeemer”. And if my understanding of things is correct, in view of what is set forth in Genesis through Malachi regarding the Christ functioning as a Redeemer He would need to legally qualify Himself on two counts before being able to function as such.
As God set forth and prescribed in the Law, there are specific legal requirements pertaining to redemption; with those requirements varying depending upon the kind of redemption in view. When the redemption involves legally delivering someone from a judicial predicament that he is in, as the book of Ruth particularly relates the one needing redemption has to find someone who can legally function for him as his redeemer. And finding that someone means that the person has to satisfy all of the specific requirements pertaining to the redemption, including legally qualifying himself as being able to redeem in the sight of the Law and in the sight of whoever has a legal claim or stake in the man’s judicial predicament.
Now in connection with the issue of redemption and the doctrine of the Christ, there are two specific needs for redemption that are set forth in Genesis through Malachi. Two specific needs for redemption in which both God and the devil have a legal claim or stake, and for which Christ would function as a Redeemer. Simply put, the first pertains to man in general and his judicial predicament of being under sin and subject to the devil’s “power of death” in view of Adam’s fall in Genesis 3. The second pertains to Israel in particular and its judicial predicament of becoming Satan’s “lawful captive”, having eventually succumbed to his policy of evil against them and thereby becoming legally enslaved to him. In accordance with the requirements for redemption in both cases, and in accordance with the doctrine of the Christ as it specifically pertains to Him being the Redeemer in both cases, the Christ would bear two legal ‘kinsman names’, or designations, which would be descriptive of Him purposing to be the Redeemer in both cases. He would be both the “Son of man”, being the promised ‘seed of the woman’ specified in Genesis 3; and He would be the “son of David, the son of Abraham,” being the promised contender who would be the redeemer and ransomer of Jacob as specified in the Davidic Covenant.
Hence in becoming the “Son of Man”, the Lord Jesus Christ met the first legal requirement for functioning as man’s Redeemer in view of the judicial predicament arising from man’s fall of Genesis 3. He was legally man’s kinsman as the “Son of man”. And in becoming the “son of David, the son of Abraham” the Lord Jesus Christ met the first legal requirement for specifically functioning as Israel’s Redeemer and Ransomer in view of its judicial predicament arising from historically becoming Satan’s “lawful captive”. As the “son of David, the son of Abraham” the Lord was legally Israel’s specific kinsman, both royally and naturally.
However, being a legal “kinsman” was not the only requirement that must be satisfied. It was only the first one. Other requirements must be proven and satisfied, including those stipulated by the claimants who held a claim, or a stake, in the predicaments for which the redeemer wanted to produce redemption for the ones that were in the predicaments. Wherefore, regarding both man’s general predicament and Israel’s specific predicament both God Himself and the devil had some stipulations that needed to be met. Hence the Lord Jesus Christ needed to satisfy these other requirements, including that of being subject to the devil’s tempting of Him to prove whether or not He was implicated in either predicament, or could be induced to become implicated in either one. The devil, therefore, had the legal right to tempt the Lord so as to try to disprove or disqualify Him regarding His ability and legal right to function as both man’s Redeemer in general and Israel’s Redeemer in particular.
Moreover, not only did the devil have the legal right to tempt Christ on both counts, but he actually had to tempt Him on both counts. For on the basis of what is set forth following both man’s fall in Genesis 3 and following Israel later on becoming Satan’s “lawful captive” the devil readily accepted the challenge, so to speak, to withstand the work of the Christ. In other words, on both counts the devil set himself in the position of determining to directly oppose “the Christ” and in so doing more or less banking his ability to succeed with his plan of evil (and legally “be like the most High”) upon his ability to effectively withstand Christ and legally overcome Him. For this reason, in such places as Isaiah 49 and 50 he is referred to has the one who has taken Israel ‘lawfully captive’ ‘contends’ with them, will ‘contend’ with Christ, and specifically will be His ‘adversary’. Hence, in so being the devil would not only want to, but would need to, pursue every legal avenue in his attempts to withstand Christ. Moreover, God Himself would also want to, and would need to, have every legal option or recourse taken, so that no legal ‘loophole’ or charge of injustice could ever be found or laid against the redemptive work of Christ. For this cause when God also through Isaiah prophesied to the rulers of Israel about Him taking the “stone” which they would reject and laying it “in Zion for a foundation” He first called the stone “a tried stone”. For in order for the house of Israel to be built after it had become Satan’s “lawful captive” it would need to be redeemed and ransomed. And its Redeemer and Ransomer would need to be “tried” so that the redemption and ransom He produced would be perfectly and legally sound, being completely probed and tested. Hence, (as God went on to say to Israel’s rebellious rulers), the “stone” would not only be “tried” but having been “tried” and having accomplished redemption and ransoming when it was rejected, it would be “a precious corner stone, a sure foundation” and “he that believeth shall not make haste”.
So it is then that I understand from Genesis through Malachi, (before I ever begin to deal with what the Gospel accounts set forth), that when Christ comes He is going to function as a Redeemer on two specific counts. Two separate judicial predicaments are going to be addressed by Him, and for which He will present Himself as wanting to function as the Redeemer for each. And as such when He comes, He is going to need to be legally “tried” in connection with both counts, and so qualify Himself to be able to legally function both as the Redeemer being the “Son of man” and as the Redeemer being the “son of David, the son of Abraham”.
Wherefore, in view of what is set forth in the doctrine of the Christ as it pertains to redemption, I know that I should expect to find two accounts of Christ qualifying Himself to legally function as a Redeemer, and that I should expect to find those accounts as part of the particular testimonies that God gives regarding the one who is the Christ being both the “Son of man” and the “son of David, the son of Abraham.” And this, of course, is just what I do find in the Gospel accounts, specifically in Matthew’s Gospel and Luke’s Gospel.
Moreover, when I examine those two accounts of Christ being “tempted of the devil” I find that their respective details testify to two sets of similar temptations taking place at the devil’s hands at that time; with what Matthew records describing the temptation that pertained to whether Christ could legally function as Israel’s kinsman Redeemer being “the son of David, the son of Abraham” in accordance with Jesus’ Israelite and royal genealogy, which Matthew set forth in chapter one; and what Luke records describing the temptation that pertained to whether Christ could legally function as man’s Redeemer being the “Son of man” in accordance with Jesus’ natural ‘seed of the woman’ genealogy, which Luke set forth in chapter 3. I find then that the exact details in each account, (including the details about the order of the temptations and the Lord’s response to the devil at the end, along with the devil’s own action at the conclusion of the temptations), are not the same. But, once again, based upon the doctrine of the Christ from Genesis through Malachi I do not expect to find them the same. For I expect to find the devil tempting Christ on two separate counts with two distinct attempts. And therefore, I am not surprised if I should find the temptation on one count to possibly differ from the temptation on the other count; and for Christ’s response to the devil at the conclusion of the first temptation to differ from His response to him at the conclusion of the second temptation; and for the devil’s own response to also differ at the conclusion of the first temptation from how he responds at the conclusion of the second. Such things would be perfectly consistent with Christ being legally “tried” on the two counts for which He has come to function as Redeemer. And, once again, such differences in Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts is just what I do find, which testifies to me that two sets of similar temptations took place when Christ was tempted of the devil, in perfect accordance with the need for Christ to qualify Himself to function as the Redeemer in connection with being both the “Son of man” and the “son of David, the son of Abraham”.
This is a bit more of an elaboration on my understanding. Hope it is of some help. However, whatever you do, don’t believe anything to be so because I believe it to be so. For at the judgment seat of Christ you and I will be responsible for, and accountable for, not what others believe, say, or teach, but what we ourselves understand and believe based upon our own individual handling of God’s word.
Keith Blades
Enjoy The Bible Ministries
20040525 B67 IP tp a