At the voice brought down from heaven at the baptism, Jesus was declared to be the Messiah promised in the prophecies (Isa 42:1; Ps 2:7). The Messiah, however, is the founder of the new covenant (Jer 31:32; Mal 3:1), who will cast out and overcome the devil, the prince of this world (Gen 3:15). As Moses, the mediator of the old covenant, conversed with God in the sacred solitude and fasting for forty days before the promulgation of the Law, so Christ, the author of the new covenant—after winning a threefold victory over the devil—foreshadows that He will destroy the prince of this world and his kingdom. Therefore the fasting and temptation of the Messiah are a preparation and a kind of prelude to the work entrusted to Him.
Mt 4:1 As the first Adam was driven from paradise into the desert, so the second Adam returns from the desert to paradise (Ambrose, on Luke 4:7). Jesus was led by the Spirit from the region and valley of the Jordan to a higher region. According to ancient tradition, the desert lay to the north of Jericho, later called Quarantana, among the Arabs Jebel Kuruntel (Karantel), a mountain 473 meters high, utterly desolate and full of caves and precipices. This tradition should not be entirely rejected, since from very ancient times many anchorites lived there, devoutly commemorating Christ’s fast and solitude. That Christ was in a place very remote from human habitation is indicated by St Mark, who writes: “and He was with the wild beasts” (Mk 1:13). Others, such as Maldonatus, Schegg, and Schanz, hold that the same desert is meant as in Mt 3:1, “because it was near the Jordan and because it is called simply the desert”; therefore, “He was led from the Jordan into the innermost solitude” (Maldonatus).
The special impulse of the Holy Spirit is declared; indeed: “and immediately the Spirit drove Him (ἐκβάλλει) into the desert” (Mark 1:12), and: “Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert” (ἤγετο, Luke 4:1). Thus the force, efficacy, and zeal of the Spirit present in Christ are noted (Lapide), and it is signified that Christ went forth to meet a matter of the highest importance, and with the greatest diligence, fervor, and immense desire for the salvation of mankind lived that life in solitude.
And why He was thus impelled by the Spirit, and to what that impulse was directed, is indicated: “that He might be tempted by the devil,” namely, that by entering into combat He might conquer the devil, the prince of this world, and begin that struggle and victory already mentioned in the first Messianic prophecy (Gen 3:15 Hebrew). In paradise the first Adam was defeated; the second Adam conquers in the desert. As by that former duel we were all overcome and subjected in Adam, so it was fitting that through the second Adam, the victor, there should arise for us a sure hope of victory, and that the second Adam should restore what we lost in the first combat of Adam with the serpent (Salmanticenses).
The Messiah is described by the prophets as the author and giver of holiness; for this it was necessary that He restrain and conquer him who introduced sin and, a murderer from the beginning, promotes iniquity. Therefore He is led by the Spirit into the desert to undertake this combat (so St Thomas, Albert, Maldonatus, Jansenius, Barradas, Sylveira, Lamy, Lapide, Coleridge, Grimm).
Mt 4:2 “Moses, to receive the Law, fasted a second time for forty days; Elijah abstained in the desert for forty days” (St Gregory the Great, Hom. 16 on the Gospels). As that lawgiver, as Elijah the zealot of the covenant and in a sense its restorer, so the Messiah, who came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, likewise fasted in the desert forty days and forty nights; both ancient and modern commentators do not fail to note this likeness with those two witnesses of the old covenant (cf. Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Rabanus, Thomas, etc.). What the precursor taught by his life and preaching—that the kingdom of heaven begins from repentance and solitude—Christ also wished to demonstrate (Salmanticenses, Sylveira).
That Christ tasted no food during that time is shown by the mention of nights—for when night came the Jews would break the fast (Euthymius, Paschasius, Albert, Salmanticenses, Maldonatus, Jansenius, Lamy, Calmet)—and by the example of Moses, to which the evangelist alludes in the very words (Ex 34:28; Deut 9:9, 18); this is also clear from Luke 4:2: “and He ate nothing in those days.” Both ancient and modern writers also note that the number forty is famous in many works of God: forty days of rain in the flood; Moses twice forty days on the mountain; forty days the spies explored Canaan; forty years the people wandered in the desert; forty days the purification after childbirth of a son; forty days Ezekiel bore the iniquity of Judah; forty days given to Nineveh; forty days Christ remained on earth after the resurrection, and so forth. Therefore they observe that Christ fulfilled a mystical and symbolic number often associated with affliction.
During these days it must be judged that the mind of Christ was occupied and fixed in the highest contemplation, in the vision of the divinity and in communion with the Father, and that He commended to the Father His work, the human race, the Church, and all who would believe in Him, as He later commended them in John 17:6 ff. For Moses too entered into the midst of the cloud, ascended the mountain, and fell before the Lord forty days and nights (Ex 24:18; Deut 9:18).
That Christ spent this time in a kind of ecstasy is also indicated by the fact that He did not feel hunger during that period, as the evangelist explicitly notes, saying “and afterward”—that is, after forty days—“He was hungry”; likewise Luke 4:2: “and when they were completed, He was hungry.” Thus the ancient writers expressly teach (Opus Imperfectum, Hilary, Ambrose, Albert, Faber, Dionysius, Salmanticenses, Jansenius, Maldonatus, Barradas, Sylveira, Lapide, etc.). Indeed Suarez rejects as at least rash the opinion defended by Cajetan that Christ felt hunger during all those days, since it almost openly contradicts the words of the Gospels and is proposed against the common understanding of the Fathers and commentators.
St Chrysostom notes that Adam, the people in the time of the flood, and the Sodomites were overcome by intemperance; but Christ supplies us with the weapons of abstinence and fasting and teaches that even after baptism we need them in order to avoid sins. Christ Himself said that His disciples would fast: “the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast” (Matt 9:15; Mark 2:20; Luke 5:35). From this fast of Christ our Lenten fast takes its origin by ecclesiastical institution, rightly referred to apostolic tradition. Thus, for example, Jerome writes (Ep. 41 to Marcella): “we fast one Lent according to the tradition of the apostles…” Mention of the Lenten fast as an institution known to all and introduced by very ancient practice is found in Origen and in the Apostolic Constitutions. On this fast Salmanticenses, Barradas, and Jansenius discuss more fully; see also the Kirchenlexicon, ed. Kaulen, vol. 4, s.v. Fastenzeiten.
Mt 4:3-4 Christ hungered, as Chrysostom says, giving the devil occasion to approach, so that by the encounter He might show how one ought to overcome and conquer. According to Ambrose, He hungered so that the devil—who, fearing greater things in Him, was cautious—might be enticed by the appearance of hunger to tempt Him as a man. Thus it is commonly held that Christ, by showing hunger, as it were provoked His adversary, and that from this weakness the devil seized the boldness to tempt; and this is confirmed by the evangelist’s words when, after mentioning the hunger, he continues: “and the tempter came and said to Him…” Others note that by this hunger Christ wished to show that He was truly man.
That the devil wished to test whether Jesus was the Son of God seems clearly to follow from his manner of speaking, “If you are the Son of God,” as most commentators also maintain, and at the same time he intended, if possible, to draw Jesus into sin. Well does Leo say: “He (the devil) had seen his pride trampled by the humility of the baptized Lord Jesus; he had understood that by the forty days’ fast all desire of the flesh had been excluded; yet the spiritual wickedness did not despair of the arts of his malice, and promised himself so much from the mutability of our nature that, though he experienced Him as truly man, he presumed that He could be made a sinner.” Similarly the Salmanticenses judge that the demon chiefly intended to induce Christ to sin, in order to destroy the supreme work of God. For as God’s adversary attacked God’s work in Adam, and sought Job—praised by God—for trial, so he envies the honor conferred on Christ at the baptism and, suspecting the plan of redemption, attempts to undermine the counsel of God.
Therefore, seizing the occasion from Christ’s manifested hunger, he said to Him: “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” He had heard the voice from heaven and John’s testimony; then he saw Him hungry—thus he was uncertain, for he could not regard Him as merely a man because of what had been said, nor admit Him as Son of God because he saw Him hungry; therefore, being in doubt, he uttered doubtful words (Chrysostom, Theophylact, etc.). “In the very temptation learn the craft of the devil: he tempts in order to test, and he tests in order to tempt” (Ambrose).
He suggests that it is unworthy for the Son of God to suffer hunger, unworthy to be afflicted by such need and penalty; therefore, if He truly is what the heavenly voice declared, He should use His power and put an end to that condition and hunger to which not even a servant ought to be subject. The tempter therefore wishes to induce Jesus to break off and end by His own initiative the mode of life which He had undertaken under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and thus according to the will of the Father; he wants Him to cast off that hardship accepted by God’s will, contrary to God’s will, and thus to refuse obedience to the Father and govern Himself by His own will and power, while recalling His dignity as Son of God.
Thus the first kind of temptation is sought, not unlike that in paradise: “the woman saw that the tree was good for food… she took and ate…” (Gen 3:6), and to which the Israelites in the desert also succumbed (Ex 16:3; Num 11:33; Ps 78:29-30); indeed the devil most often strives to capture men through gluttony and bodily pleasures and lead them into sins.
Mt 4:4 The devil also attacked the honor of God the Father by insinuating that the Son of God lacked necessary things and therefore should provide for Himself independently of the Father. Christ responds in such a way as to restore honor to the Father (Coleridge), who besides bread has innumerable means by which He can sustain bodily life; at the same time He chooses words from which the devil learns nothing about whether He is the Son of God: “It is written: man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Deut 8:3). By these words Moses had reminded the people how wonderfully they had been nourished by manna in the desert; and the sense is: human life is not preserved by bread alone, but can be preserved in whatever way God wills. Therefore, if God wills that I lack bread and be exercised by hunger, with that same will He will preserve my life; or, as Barradas explains: there is no need for this miracle which the devil proposes, for God can sustain me in this wilderness in whatever way He wishes. Others often understand the words of the observance of God’s commandments, in which man’s perfect life consists; or that for a life worthy of man not only food is required, but above food care must be given to the will of God.
But with regard to Deuteronomy 8:3 and the context, the first explanation fits best. Well does Lamy say: “The wisdom of the Lord shines forth here in marvelous ways; He plays with the tempter, at once refuting and answering him while in no way revealing what he was eager to know. For Jesus does not say that He is endowed with such power—though He does not deny it—but He signifies that such a proposal is foolish, since a man can live by whatever means God wills to sustain him.”
For Christ, as St. Ambrose says, so deceives the devil that He conquers him, and so conquers that He deceives. “He overcomes the adversary by testimonies of the Law, not by the power of might, in order thereby both to honor man the more and to punish the adversary the more, since the enemy of the human race was conquered not as by God already, but as by a man. He fought then so that we also might fight afterward; He conquered so that we likewise might conquer” (St. Leo, Sermon 1 on Lent, ch. 3). Thus they note that Jesus, as man, conquered by employing the common help available to all; and that He wished to conquer by humility, not by power or display of majesty, as St. Leo, Jerome, Gregory, Jansenius, and others teach, because He wished at the same time to instruct us how effective against the devil are the weapons laid up in the word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit cutting off the desires of the flesh and the suggestions of the devil.
“What wonder,” says St. Gregory (Hom. 16 on the Gospels), “if Jesus permitted Himself to be led by the devil, who also endured being crucified by the members of that devil?” It is therefore not unworthy that our Redeemer wished to be tempted, since He came to be slain; He wished to conquer our temptations by His own, just as He came to overcome our death by His death.
Thus in Mt 4:5: “Then the devil took Him into the holy city and set Him on the pinnacle of the temple.” That the demon approached Jesus in visible form and that the temptations occurred externally, as narrated, is made even more evident by this account. For how, says Maldonatus, could He have thrown Himself down in a vision, or how would angels have guarded Him if the fall were not real but only imagined? Moreover, the mode of temptation could only have been by external suggestion and speech, since the devil could not stir Jesus’ affections or inner senses. “For it would have been unfitting to the perfect integrity of Jesus to have within thoughts or movements of imagination or sense opposed to the spirit; but it was not unfitting to hear external persuasions to evil in order to conquer them.”
By the words “took” (παραλαμβάνει, paralambanei — “takes along”) and “set,” it is indicated that Jesus allowed Himself to be transported and placed on the pinnacle, that is, on the edge or summit of the temple roof. Just as bodies can be moved swiftly by angelic power, so Jesus permitted Himself to be suddenly placed on the lofty summit. The idea that Jesus walked there on foot with the devil seems ridiculous; although not excluded by the word “takes,” it is sufficiently ruled out by “set.”
Jerusalem is called the holy city because it was chosen by God and held in reverence, especially because it contained the temple; it was the center of the theocracy and therefore belonged to God in a special way.
Mt 5:6 By His first reply Christ had shown supreme confidence in God, and the devil, having been overcome by confidence drawn from Scripture, seizes the opportunity to try to overcome Him by a presumptuous confidence, again using Scripture. He places Jesus in a situation where such confidence might be displayed—on the highest point of the temple, from which no escape seemed possible. It would seem unworthy for the Son of God to descend cautiously like a mere man; therefore he says: “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written…” As formerly he detracted from God’s word in Eden, so here he insinuates that the heavenly declaration was empty unless proved.
Since Jesus had answered from Scripture, the devil attacks Him with Scripture, fraudulently twisting its meaning. The psalm teaches that God protects the faithful and guards them by angels in dangers; it does not suggest that angelic help is promised to those who rashly expose themselves to peril. Thus the devil misinterprets Scripture, showing how error can be suggested by tearing words from their context.
Mt 5:7 But Jesus breaks the devil’s false arrows with the true shields of Scripture, replying gently and without display, and concealing that He is the Son of God. He answers what any devout person might answer: “Again it is written: You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” The measure of what we may hope from God is His promises; to exceed this by presumption or fall short by distrust is to tempt God. Here, therefore, to tempt God is to cast oneself rashly into danger as if to test whether God will rescue by miracle.
Most observe that in this temptation the devil sought to draw Jesus to vain glory: that by a striking miracle—descending through the air into the crowded temple courts—He might be immediately acknowledged as Messiah and applauded by all, so that He would not need to begin His mission through labor and humility but with instant glory. Though not explicitly stated, this is reasonably inferred, since in the first and third temptations the devil tries to make Jesus depart from the path assigned by God; it is probable he attempts the same here.
The Messiah was expected to manifest Himself in the temple (Malachi 3:1), and there was a common opinion that when Christ came no one would know whence He was. If Jesus had descended miraculously, the people—eager for wonders—would easily have believed Him sent from heaven. Thus the devil urges Him to choose a path of immediate recognition and glory rather than obedience.
Mt 4:8 To the Messianic king dominion over the kingdoms of the earth was promised, yet Isaiah shows how much suffering was required to obtain it. The devil therefore proposes an easier way: “Again the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.” In which mountain this occurred is futile to determine; some suggest Tabor or Nebo, others the Mount of Quarantana.
How he showed the kingdoms is debated. It is insufficient to say he merely pointed them out; nor can it be reduced to an internal vision, since the devil could not act directly on Christ’s inner senses. It is better to say that the devil presented appearances or images before Christ’s eyes—spectral representations of kingdoms, splendor, wealth, pleasures, and glory—in a moment of time (στιγμῇ χρόνου, stigmē chronou — “in an instant of time”).
Mt 4:9 “And he said: All these I will give you if you fall down and worship me.” He proposes the shortest path to magnificent promises but thereby reveals his pride and falsehood. Some rightly think that by this dreadful proposal he also sought to discover whether Jesus was the Son of God, even feigning divine authority (“to me they are delivered,” Luke 4:6) and demanding worship due to God alone. He hoped that if Jesus were truly the Son, He would react by claiming divine honor; if merely a favored man, He might be overcome by ambition and desire for dominion.
Mt 4:10 But Jesus answers so that the devil is frustrated in both expectations: “Begone, Satan! For it is written: You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.” He rejects the suggestion as any worshiper of God could, and now rebukes the devil openly, vindicating the honor of God, while patiently bearing insults against Himself. He declares that He will fulfill His mission entirely according to God’s will.
Mt 4:11 After the devil is rejected, to show the dignity of the victor: “Behold, angels came and ministered to Him.” One angel would have sufficed, but many come to testify to His excellence, serving Him so that the devil may see that angels truly stand ready to serve Jesus. Adam, defeated, was barred from paradise by angels; Christ, victorious, is honored by their ministry.
Thus Christ underwent three kinds of temptation, commonly understood as gluttony, vain glory, and avarice. These summarize all temptations. As St. Gregory says, the ancient enemy rose against the first man in three temptations—by food, by pride (“you will be like gods”), and by covetousness (“knowing good and evil”)—and by the same means by which he overthrew the first man he was overcome by the second.
Likewise Israel in the desert fell into these same temptations. Christ, by quoting Scripture from Deuteronomy, recalls those events and shows Himself as representing the people, making satisfaction for their sins. Israel murmured for bread; God gave manna, teaching that man does not live by bread alone. They tested God at Massah; Moses warned not to test the Lord. They murmured again from weariness; the devil urges Jesus to abandon the path of suffering. They fell into idolatry; Moses commanded worship of God alone.
God led His people into the desert “to afflict you and test you, to know what was in your heart” (Deut 8:2). The people failed; Christ stands victorious, drives away the tempter, and clings to the Father’s will. Hence God says through Isaiah: “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified” (Isa 49:3). He is called Israel because He takes upon Himself the role of the people who refused to be the Lord’s servant, expiates their sins, and makes satisfaction for them (cf. Isa 53:4 ff.).
Christ conquers the devil so that we also may be able to conquer him; what He says, “Take courage, I have overcome the world,” applies here in the same way. Therefore they rightly observe that Christ taught us the manner and method of victory. For from a threefold source all temptations arise: “all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh and the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16). In this threefold class—gluttony, avarice, pride—Christ permitted Himself to be tempted.
He willed to be tempted, as St. Thomas teaches, reviewing the footsteps of the Fathers (III, q. 41, a. 1): first, in order to bring us help against temptations; for it was fitting, says St. Gregory (Hom. 16 on the Gospels), that He should thus conquer our temptations by His own, just as He came to overcome our death by His death. Second, for our caution, that no one might think himself secure and immune from temptation; hence He willed to be tempted after baptism, so that we might learn that temptations arise after we have entered upon the service of God (similarly Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Hilary, Ambrose, Albert, and others). Third, He gave us an example of how to overcome temptations. Fourth, He grants us confidence in His mercy; for He knows how to sympathize, since He Himself was tempted in all things according to likeness, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).
Jansenius adds that Christ wished to be tempted before undertaking His evangelical ministry, to teach that this task can be rightly carried out only when one has first been tested by various temptations and has become superior to every desire for pleasure, honor, and riches; similarly Maldonatus, Salmeron, Barradius, Coleridge; see also Augustine, Tract. 2 on the First Epistle of John, and City of God IX, 21.
St. Luke (4:5) places the temptation on the high mountain second and that on the pinnacle of the temple third. Which order actually occurred? Since Luke professes that he writes “in order” (καθεξῆς, kathexēs — “in sequence,” “in orderly succession”) and since this word signifies not just any arrangement but a temporal sequence, and since elsewhere it is clear that Matthew does not always observe chronological order whereas Luke does, it is natural to think that Luke relates the events as they happened. Thus already the Gloss says: “Matthew proceeds not according to the order of history but according to the temptation of Adam; Luke, however, as the matter happened.” Likewise Paschasius, Albinus, and among the more recent Reischl, Coleridge, and Grimm think Luke preserves the historical order; others attribute it to Matthew, for example Dionysius, Suarez, Maldonatus, Sylveira, Barradius, Schanz, Arnold, Filion, Keil.
For this opinion Suarez argues from the phrase “again the devil took Him.” But this does not prove the case; the particle πάλιν (palin — “again”) can simply announce another temptation or continuation, as in Matthew 5:33; Mt 13:44–47; Mt 18:19; Mt 19:24. Therefore it need not mean a second or repeated taking, but merely another temptation.
If the triple concupiscence (of flesh, eyes, pride of life) is considered, and if with many one sees in Matthew the order gluttony, vain glory, avarice, then the order of Luke seems preferable from internal reasons, since temptation to gluttony and avarice concerns lower goods, whereas pride and ambition concern higher goods. And alas, not infrequently those who have generously trampled underfoot pleasures and riches fall miserably through pride and ambition. This gradation can also be shown from the words of St. Thomas (III, q. 41, a. 4), who says of Matthew’s order that the second temptation proceeds to what spiritual men sometimes fail in, and the third to what belongs to the carnal—namely, to desire riches and worldly glory even to contempt of God. Hence according to Thomas, the first and third temptations concern the carnal, the second the spiritual; thus the gradation appears rather in Luke.
Nor can it be denied that Christ’s words “You shall not tempt the Lord your God” could just as well forbid further temptation as “Begone, Satan.”
Others think each evangelist arranged the order pastorally, to address all types of people; sometimes vain glory precedes avarice, sometimes pride arises from avarice. Others follow Augustine: “It is uncertain which happened first; it matters not, since it is clear that all occurred.” Others commend Matthew’s order because the second temptation involves only presumption, while the third stirs all desires together—wealth, pleasures, honors—so that the final assault is the most comprehensive.
Reischl thinks the temptations are directed against the threefold order established by God: the order of nature, the order of the Church, and the order of the human race. Grimm attempts to explain each order by the evangelists’ intentions: Luke describing events as they happened and foreshadowing the calling of the Gentiles before Israel; Matthew avoiding at the outset what would be painful to Israelites—that Israel would find grace only at the end. On the mountain Christ rescues the nations from the devil; on the temple pinnacle He confronts presumption, a principal sin of the Jews, and declares that Israel too will ultimately be saved.
Yet it is doubtful whether such conclusions follow merely from the differing sequence; rather, Christ’s scriptural replies recall Israel’s temptations in the desert, which were types for us (1 Corinthians 10:6). Thus the fall of God’s people is in a certain way repaired by Christ, and a remedy is provided lest the messianic people perish by the same fall.
All things considered, one may conclude with the author of the unfinished work: “The first and strongest evils are three: gluttony, avarice, vain glory. Against these the Lord, undertaking the battle of temptation, fought for us: against gluttony in the desert, against avarice on the mountain, against vain glory on the temple.”
Those who do not accept the narrative in its plain sense wander into very diverse opinions. Some say it was not the devil but certain men, or members of the Sanhedrin, who tried to win Jesus over or destroy Him. Others say everything occurred in a vision—whether sent by the devil, by God, or arising naturally. Others prefer to say it was a dream. Others interpret the temptations symbolically as inner experiences; others say Jesus related them as a parable to teach His disciples not to perform miracles for personal advantage, not to be carried away by rashness, and never to bargain with the devil. Others explain the whole as myth arising from the idea of a struggle between Messiah and Satan.
Some say the symbolic account arose partly from events in the wilderness (Exodus 16; Numbers 11; 21; Exodus 17; 32) and partly from episodes of Jesus’ life such as the multiplication of loaves or requests for signs. How forced such derivations are needs little explanation.
Rather, what we have seen elsewhere applies: no one would have thought to invent such temptations of the Messiah, and the only sufficient reason for their narration is that Jesus Himself communicated to His disciples that He had been tempted in this way. For in all we know of Jewish messianic expectation there is no trace that the Messiah would be tempted by the devil or that the devil would dare attack Him. On the contrary, as soon as the devil sees the Messiah he is said to tremble and confess defeat; the rabbis even say that when the Messiah comes he will stand on the roof of the sanctuary and proclaim redemption, while enemies lick the dust at his feet.
It is equally evident that the disciples did not invent this to honor Jesus. For that the devil should dare to approach Him, transport Him, and even demand worship could appear unworthy of Christ, the Son of God; one would expect a far more glorious display of power. Therefore it is not enough to say the temptations were modeled on Eden or the wilderness; that does not explain how anyone would be led to narrate such things of the Messiah.
Nor is there need to explain that Christ did not propose these as a mere parable. As for the objection that the devil acts foolishly—it would be true if he fully knew the mystery of the Incarnation; but he did not. He seeks to discover who Jesus is and attempts what once succeeded with Adam, to make Him disobedient. Finally, if someone wished symbolically to portray the conflict between Messiah and the devil and declare the Messiah’s victory, he would surely have used other images—“he shall crush your head,” or types from David and Goliath, the defeat of the Assyrians, or passages from Isaiah or Ezekiel.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment