How could Satan make the promise of all the kingdoms of the world?

Explanation:

The devil tempts Jesus by offering him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, if only Jesus would bow down and worship Satan (Matthew 4:8–9). We know that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, and therefore true God (John 1:1). We also know that any being other than God is created by God (John 1:3), so the devil is a created being. If the devil is a created being and Jesus is God, how could the devil offer Jesus the kingdoms of the world?

It’s important to understand that Jesus is the incarnate one. This means that Jesus has both a divine and a human nature. Since Jesus is human, while he is unlimited in his divinity, he is limited by his humanity and suffers as humans suffer. The devil knows this, so he appeals to Jesus’ human nature in order that Jesus would forsake his divinity by forsaking God the Father. The devil does this by offering Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and all their glory.⁴ We know from the text that the temptation for Jesus was real. Matthew says that when Jesus resists Satan and rebukes him, he leaves, after which the angels come and minister to Jesus (Matthew 4:11). That the temptation was real implies that the devil could in some way offer the kingdoms of the world to Jesus. Of course, we know from Scripture that the devil is the father of lies, so we should not be surprised that he left out a critical fact, which is that the only world he can offer is a world of sin.⁵ Also, the devil only has power as God allows him to, which means that even if the devil has some power over the kingdoms of the world, this power could be snatched by God at any time (see argument b).

Counterargument:

If the devil is the father of lies, then there is no reason to think his offer to give Jesus the kingdoms of the world was not a complete lie. And if Jesus was tempted in his human nature, his human nature might not have fully appreciated the fact that the devil could not follow through on his offer. In other words, we could say that the devil’s offer to give Jesus the kingdoms of the world was a complete fabrication, because he has no such right, but still, the temptation was real because Jesus was tempted by the prospect of instant dominion without having to suffer.

Response to counterargument:

This view does not disagree with the notion that the devil’s offer was a complete fabrication on the most fundamental level. The fact is, the universe belongs to God because God is the creator of all, and without God’s conserving power, the devil would not exist. Still, as long as God allows the devil is remain in existence and operate, the devil can take things through violence and deception, and offer those to Jesus. In this sense, the devil’s offer may not be legitimate, but it is still a real offer. An analogy might be that of a thief who steals a painting and sells it at an auction. The thief offers the painting, even though he is not it’s legitimate owner. For the art collector, there might be a certain appeal to own the painting, even on the knowledge that it is stolen.

Explanation:

It is hard to see how the devil, who is the enemy of God, could offer anything to Jesus, especially the kingdoms of the world. At the same time, we know from other places in Scripture that God allows the devil to operate in some capacity over the world. For example, in Job 1:1–22, Satan comes before God and suggests that the only reason Job praises God is because he allows Job to thrive. If only God would remove Job’s earthly comforts, he would curse God. God hears Satan’s suggestion and then allows him to bring some material calamity to Job (Job 1:12). It is a clear indication that God allows the devil to operate in the world. We also know from passages such as Ephesians 6:12 that there are dark spiritual forces operating in the world against which the Holy Spirit helps us resist.

There are other more subtle allusions to the devil’s operation in the world from the Gospel of Matthew. For example, in Matthew 16:26 Jesus asks, What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? The implication is that there is a possibility to gain the world, but to gain it would mean giving up one’s soul, which is far more precious. If the world is such that gaining it is contrary to the well-being of the soul, it is no surprise that the devil has some power over it.

Counterargument:

It might be that the devil is able to operate in the world, but this does not mean that he has the authority to give Jesus the kingdoms of the world. The devil only operates as far as God allows him to exert his power, but since God has ultimate power, he could restrict the devil or annihilate him altogether.

Response to counterargument:

Interpretation 1 is not contrary to this counterargument, but rather consistent with it. We agree that the devil has power only insofar as God allows him to operate. Still, the devil does operate and have the power to tempt people to sin, and people fall for the devil’s temptations. The quintessential example is the temptation of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. There, the devil tempted Eve to eat of the tree and Adam and Eve fell to the pressure. The devil had something to offer, albeit something diminished and contrary to truth, and Adam and Eve accepted his offer. In the same way, the devil offers Jesus the kingdoms of the world, and the temptation is real. The caveat is that, to have authority over the kingdoms of the world as the devil has, is to have authority through deceit and violence.⁶ Such authority is real, as far as God allows the devil to operate, but it is infinitely diminished authority compared to God’s authority, which is built on righteousness, holiness, justice, and mercy.

In the end, we agree that there is a fundamental caveat to the devil’s offer. The devil offers Jesus the kingdoms of the world insofar as God allows the devil and those kingdoms to remain in existence, and only as an imposter.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view has been exposed in the counterarguments. We must put a large asterisk beside the notion that the devil can give the world to Jesus because technically the world is not the devil’s to give. The devil takes the world and presents it to Jesus as though it were his to offer, but the devil only operates as God allows him to. In the end, the world and everything in it belong to God. Still, since God created beings with a capacity to choose, there is a real possibility that beings will use their freedom to try and take the world from God, as though it were possible to overpower the omnipotent God.

Explanation:

We know from Luke that Jesus spoke about victory over Satan in a different context than the story from Matthew (Luke 10:18; Luke 11:21–22). This implies that the story is a late creation of the church designed to portray real events in mythical language.⁷ It is possible that Jesus had an unusual experience but since the story was developed by the church after Jesus’ ministry, we should not assume that it is based on historical recollection.⁸ What we have is a myth which personifies the devil in order to demonstrate that evil is an active force in the world. We sometimes think that evil is due to personal choice, but the story explains that evil can influence a person from the outside. Likewise the angels are a personification that represents God’s presence with Jesus after he resisted evil.⁹

Counterargument:

There are several problems with this argument. First, the argument is unsound that since Jesus speaks about the devil differently in other contexts, this implies that the story is not based on real events. For one, there is no explanation as to why the texts from Luke imply that Matthew 4:1–11 is not a real event. Second, a brief reading shows that the texts from Luke are in no way inconsistent with the events of Matthew 4:1–11. Third, even if there was a different portrayal of the devil between Matthew and Luke, the difference would have to be highly significant and even contradictory in order for one event to disregard the historicity of another, and there is no argument to show that this is the case. Therefore, there is no ground for the claim that the story from Matthew is a later addition by the church. Fourth, it is not clear what it means that the story was a later addition by the church. Does this mean the story was added in the second century or the third? What evidence is there that this story in particular, of all the stories in Matthew, is written any time after the first century? Fifth, even if the story was a later addition, this argument does not give us any reason to think that the event is unhistorical. In fact, we have the same story in Luke, and Mark mentions the fact that Jesus was tempted in the wilderness. This means that if the story from Matthew is a later addition, so is the story in Luke, and possibly even Mark, but with no evidence to shore up this claim.

Of course, if the story is not an unhistorical later addition by the church, there is no reason to think that the genre of the account is myth. Instead, Matthew (and Luke) present the account as historical narrative.¹⁰ There is no indication that Jesus is making a sermon or telling a parable. Further, many of the people who had access to Matthew’s account would have been alive when Jesus began his ministry. Thus, they could easily verify with Jesus’ disciples whether he had spent considerable time in the wilderness, and what the master had told them about the event.¹¹ This gives us reason to think that Matthew would not fabricate the story.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that it reads the text through a sort of anti-supernaturalism that presupposes that there is no being such as the devil. Since there is no such being as the devil, and the account portrays the devil as real, the genre of the story must be myth. This is a poor move because the reader forces his lens on the text rather than allowing the text to speak to the reader. Beyond the presupposition that there are no such things as the devil or angels, it is hard to see why one would count the text as mythical.