Thirty-fourth
Argument: That Christ Was Tempted by the Devil
The fourth argument of this kind
is that Christ, as the gospel history relates, was tempted by the devil and
even solicited to worship him (Matt 4:1ff.; Luke 4:1ff.), and that for this
very purpose, that he might be tempted, he was driven by the divine spirit into
the wilderness. For this would by no means have happened if he were the supreme
God. For, first, what would be more unworthy of God than to expose himself to
an impious and wicked enemy, whom he had thrust out of heaven for contempt of
his majesty, once most clearly beheld, to be tempted and solicited to worship
that enemy himself, and of his own accord to offer himself so that his majesty
might be mocked?
Secondly, to what end would this
have been done? Was it so that it might be established that the supreme God can
withstand and overcome the temptations of the devil? Could anyone have doubted
that, so that a trial was needed? Furthermore, how would the devil have dared
to undertake so great a thing? I will not now mention that the demons too
tremble at the sight of the divine majesty, and indeed shudder at the very
remembrance of him (Jas 2:19), since they have been cast down from heaven by
him and thrust into Tartarus. For suppose now that in this malicious spirit,
who is very well aware both of the wrath and of the invincible powers of God,
and who well remembers the chains with which he is held bound by him, there
dwells as much impudence and audacity as you please: yet you will at the same
time admit that he is supremely cunning. Would that one did not have to admit
it! But how can it come about that the most cunning spirit should tempt the
supreme God, try to seduce him, and finally bring himself to solicit him to the
most unworthy and detestable thing, namely to the worship of himself? Can it be
that he either undertakes a thing which he well knows to be impossible, or does
not perceive that this thing is most plainly impossible? Neither applies to
anyone who has even a crumb of wit, let alone to a most subtle and cunning
spirit. Add that when he says, “If you are the Son of God, command that these
stones become bread”, and again, “If you are the Son of God, cast yourself
down”, he shows clearly enough that he is working to make Christ in some way
begin to doubt whether he is really the Son of God, as he had shortly before
heard himself declared from heaven to be (cf. Matt 3:17), and further to seek
fuller proofs, as of a matter in some way doubtful. But how could he in any way
hope to achieve this with that Son of God who is supposed to have been begotten
from the divine essence? Do we perhaps think that the enemy so practised in
this kind of fighting, whom people commonly even call the architect of a
thousand deceits, here used a kind of temptation which would be the most inept
of all for deceiving, and brought out such futile and ridiculous weapons for
attacking the bravest and wisest of commanders? What would Satan achieve if he
tried by some reasonings to bring even an ordinary man, provided only he is of
sound mind, to doubt about himself whether he was a man and not rather a
substance inferior to man? Would this not be play rather than temptation? But
it would have been far more laughable to try to persuade by reasonings the Son
of God, who is supposed to have been begotten from the divine essence, to doubt
whether he is the Son of God or not.
But you will see that the matter
stands quite otherwise if you observe that Christ had been declared the Son of
God by God in a manner that did not pertain to his essence, but in truth rested
on divine love and consisted chiefly in this, that by designation he was
already the Messiah, that is, the heavenly and eternal King of the people of
God, which he afterwards actually became. For then you will easily see that the
most crafty enemy did not fight so ineptly when he called this into doubt, and
that the shield of faith was needed to catch his darts. I pass over now other
things which occur in that history of the temptation of Christ: for instance,
that Satan, having led him up onto a very high mountain, showed him all the
kingdoms of this world and their splendour, as if this were not sufficiently
known to him or not sufficiently before his eyes, in order to entice him the
more easily to worship him; and that for the same purpose he dared to say in
his presence: “To you I will give all this power and their glory; for it has
been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will” (Luke 4:6). For it is evident
that Satan had well understood that he was dealing not with the supreme God,
but with one who was a man in respect of substance, but by the singular love of
God his Son. Because God had of his own accord offered him to Satan to be
tempted, so that he might give proof of his virtue and piety, Satan did not
think it wholly impossible to draw him away from God by his arts. But this and
certain other things the discerning reader will notice for himself.
Defence of the Argument
But there is no ground for anyone
to say that what we have deduced from that history does not follow, on the
ground that Christ was tempted only according to the human nature, not
according to the divine. For, not to repeat now other things said above more
than once, the same absurdities follow none the less, even if you suppose that
Satan tempted only the human nature, which was nevertheless personally united
with the supreme God and joined to him by an indissoluble bond, and that God
willed that it should be tempted. For it would have been unworthy of the
supreme God to offer himself, in the nature personally united with him, to an
impious and most foul enemy, to be held up to mockery and solicited to worship
him. For the human nature could do nothing without the consent of the divine.
Therefore Satan, in soliciting the human nature of Christ to worship him, would
at the same time have solicited the divine nature to consent to so horrible a
crime and to permit it to the human nature.
It would also have been
superfluous to show that a nature personally united with the supreme God can
withstand and overcome the temptations of Satan. For who could have doubted
that? Hence it is also clear that Satan could not conceive even the slightest
hope of overcoming it. For what? Could Satan believe it possible that the
divine nature would so far forsake the human, personally united with it, that
the latter would succumb to him, commit the most atrocious crime, and moreover
become liable to eternal damnation? Did Satan not see that he would have to
deal not with the human nature alone, but at the same time with the divine as
well, and that this too would have to be seduced and persuaded to crime, if the
former were to be overcome? What remains, then, but to say that Satan knew
nothing of that union of the human nature with the divine? But what? Did Satan,
who had taken as the very object of his attack this, that Jesus was the Son of
God, not understand what those words signified? Yet, if the opponents’ view is
true, they signify that that man Jesus is one person with that Son of God who
is supposed to have been begotten from eternity out of the substance of God.
Who would believe that Satan knew nothing of this matter, if, as the opponents
hold, that incarnation of the Son begotten from eternity out of the essence of
God was foretold in Holy Scripture, announced to the Virgin Mary, and
afterwards actually accomplished, acknowledged both by Mary herself and by
others, and declared at the baptism of Christ by a heavenly voice? Especially if
he once in heaven beheld God, and in him all his decrees (for these are, for
the opponents, in reality the same as God or his essence), and consequently
understood that the second person of the Trinity would become incarnate in
those times. But in a clear matter more words are not needed. We add only this:
since Satan wished to bring Christ to doubt whether he was the Son of God —
namely that Son which he had shortly before heard himself declared to be by the
divine voice —, it would not be consistent that in tempting him he passed over
that nature according to which he was the Son of God. This, however, the
opponents hold to be the divine. Therefore they must renounce either this view
or the limitation by which they restrict that temptation to the human nature.
We do not, however, think that
any sensible man will say that this argument is derived from the testimony of
the devil, who is a lying spirit. For we, on the contrary, against what the
devil’s words aim at, insist that that very man whom the devil was tempting was
and is the Son of God, who not long before had been commended at his baptism by
a heavenly voice. The argument, therefore, is not derived from the testimony of
the devil, as though he had said exactly what we maintain, but partly from the
act of God, who willed that Christ should be tempted and exposed to the snares
of Satan, partly from the mind, words and deeds of Satan, as effects which
could not have come about unless our view were true. (Johannes Crell, On the
One God, the Father: Two Books, in Which Much is Also Discussed Concerning the
Nature of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit [trans. Marcin Poholski;
2026], 202-5)
