DETERMINACIÓN DE CARACTERÍSTICAS FÍSICAS.

Now we turn to explore how Jesus' refusal of the bread in the wilderness anticipates his refusal of the wine at Golgotha and the narrative and theological connections between the two pericopes. One of the main ways in which these two passages are connected is through the shared theological questions raised by the similar situations in which Jesus finds himself and by the way in which the significance and meaning of these situations are explained through the OT intertextual allusions underlying them.275

3.3.1. Matthew 4:2-4; Exodus 16; and Deuteronomy 8:2-3

As we have already seen, it is commonly accepted among scholars that Matt 4:1-11 is an example of OT typology in which Jesus relives the experiences of Israel in the wilderness described in Exod 16, 17, and 32. In each of the three tests that Jesus undergoes, he responds

274 _{Green lists the refusal of the wine as an example of the way in which Jesus accepts his fate (Joel B. Green, The}

Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative [Tübingen J.C.B. Mohr, 1988], 315-316). 275 _{Graham's research supports the above statement. In assessing the intertextuality of 27:39-44, she has already} noted, “On the surface, then, Matthew has drawn on two complexes of terms and images, one related to the language of impious mockery, and the other to the Son of God title. This vocabulary, found also in the Wisdom of Solomon, echoes the language of the Psalms, Lamentations, 2 Kings, Exodus, and Deuteronomy, both by direct allusion and by allusion to other Matthean passages, especially the Temptation narrative. By making use of this language, Matthew, no doubt intentionally, has created an interpretative context for the pericope which would be readily recognizable to those Greek-speaking readers and hearers of his gospel who were familiar with Jewish scriptures” ("A Strange Salvation," 507).

185 to Satan with quotations from Moses' speech in Deut 6-8 in which Moses recounts those

wilderness experiences and highlights the Israelites' failures within them.

The particular experience that Jesus "relives" in the first temptation, which we will refer to as the bread test, is described in Exod 16 where the Israelites complain because they are starving in the wilderness. The theological question raised by the Israelites during that experience is why God would let his people die from hunger. The Israelites accuse God by saying that he has brought them there "to kill this whole assembly with hunger" (ajpoktei'nai

pa'san thVn sunagwghVn tauvthn ejn limw/'; 16:3).

In Moses' review of that experience in Deut 8:2-3, which Jesus quotes from in Matt 4:4, he explains why the Israelites were allowed to starve in the wilderness. Moses says that God led (a!gw)276 them into the wilderness (e!rhmo") to test (ejkpeiravzw) them.277 In the LXX, God is

said to have mistreated or done evil (kakovw) to them and caused them to go hungry

(limagconevw)278 in order to teach them "that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives

by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord." When the Israelites face this theological dilemma, instead of continuing to trust in God's provision, their response in Exod 16:3 is first to long for the good old days in Egypt when they could get their own bread and meat and second to wish for death rather than starvation.279

Once again in another wilderness, the same theological question is raised as to whether or not God will let his righteous one, his own Son, die from hunger. Unlike the Israelites, Jesus refuses to complain against God and does not prefer to return to a place where bread can be

276 _{Note both the connection with}

ajnavgw in 4:1 and with ajpavgw in 27:31.

277 _{The words}

e!rhmo" and peiravzw also occur in Matt 4:1.

278 _{Interestingly, this is the only occurrence of}

limagconevw in either the LXX or the NT, but there is one example

of a similar word limoktonevw, which means "to let go hungry" or "to let starve to death" occurring in Prov 10:3a.

There it says, "The Lord will not allow the righteous to hunger [limoktonevw]" (NAS). It is not surprising that the

Israelites might question why they were starving if they thought that God did not let such things happen to the righteous.

279 _{As we see with the allusion to Deut 8:2-3, Boyd's Satan may have biblical precedent for his critique of God's} treatment of Israel. Causing someone to hunger certainly is not a "good" action and is even considered "evil" according to the LXX version of these verses, and it calls into question the character of God.

186 gained by his own strength. Instead, as the Son of God, Jesus trusts in God and waits for his provision.280

3.3.2. Jesus and the path of suffering

In this way the test of bread in the wilderness is a scene that anticipates the wilderness that Jesus will again experience on the cross when he, like the Israelites before him, felt very much abandoned by God (note the cry of dereliction later in 27:46). Once again by taking a

substance that is offered to him, Jesus will have the chance to alleviate his pain, if not altogether end it through an early death, if we accept the suicide theory regarding the gall additive to the wine,281 _{much as the Israelites had once wished.}

Throughout Matthew, Jesus, unlike the Israelites, consistently chooses to accept the path of suffering and never opts for an early end or an easing of his suffering. Just as Jesus says no to the bread that would have ended his painful fast (4:2-4), no to Simon Peter when he tries to deter him from a path of suffering (16:21-23), no to calling on angels to deliver him from the soldiers (26:53-54), no to avoiding the pain of his Father's cup in Gethsemane (26:39, 42, 44), Jesus now says no to drinking the wine that would have alleviated his pain on the cross (27:34). Instead of taking matters into his own hands by providing bread for himself in the wilderness or by drinking the wine at the cross, Jesus chooses to undergo the test given to him until God himself sees fit to provide relief.

280 _{This interpretation of the underlying theological questions posed by the OT intertextual allusions in both Matt} 4:2-4 and 27:34 is similar to Gerhardsson's. Just as Israel once was tempted to do, Jesus is now tempted to doubt the goodness of God because of the human afflictions of hunger and thirst that he undergoes. Yet Jesus, unlike Israel, offers the perfect example of Shema obedience. He chooses to love God with his whole, undivided heart and refuses to doubt God's goodness even in the face of these trials (Gerhardsson, Testing, 76-79; “Gottes Sohn,” 102; “Judéo-Christianisme,” 28-30).

281 _{Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (SPS; Collegeville, Minn: The Liturgical Press, 1991), 395; cf.} Davies and Allison, Matthew 19-28, 613.

187 3.3.3. Matthew 27:34; Psalm 69:21

This question of whether or not God will let his righteous one, his own Son, die resurfaces and is presented most strongly at the Crucifixion. Although not caused by hunger this time, the death of God's child is still very much the theological dilemma at hand. Once again, as with the OT allusions underlying the bread temptation (Exod 16, Deut 8:3), the question is tied to another OT allusion, Ps 69:21. This verse is part of a larger psalm that is the cry of a righteous sufferer. The psalmist describes the ways in which his enemies afflict him and also how they are afflicting the one whom God has struck down and wounded (69:26). Thus, not unlike the OT background to the bread test, we find in this OT allusion that God is at the heart of the affliction that Jesus endures as the righteous sufferer, an identification that will grow throughout the Crucifixion as Matthew draws on other intertextual allusions depicting the suffering of a righteous one, including Ps 22, Is 53, and Wis 2.282 _{By rejecting the relief that}

could have been his through the bread and the wine offered at the beginning of each experience, Jesus continues on the path of suffering laid out for him by his Father and continues the testing in both the Temptation and Crucifixion narratives.