In the Synoptic Gospels, the devil does not acknowledge Jesus as divine, either. While in
the Old Testament, the devil tries to undermine God’s power,134 in the Gospels, the devil does
not seem to recognize that Jesus possesses any power above that of an ordinary human. As
Mather’s interlocutor asks, “If Christ were God, why should He be Tempted? There could be no
Doubt, that God could overcome ye Divel” (“BA” 7: Matt. 4:1). Instead of addressing directly
any contemporary radicals that might raise this question, Mather dismisses their originality, with his answer, quoting Whitby: “The Ancients were not ignorant of this Objection. It was made by
134 For example, Eve’s temptation by the serpent, whom Christians in Mather’s time believed was the devil (Gen. 3:1-6). The devil also challenges God directly in Job (Job 1:6-12).
the Ebionites,135 the Elder Brethren of the Photinians and Socinians” (“BA” 7: Matt. 4:1, c.f.
Whitby 29). Whitby refutes their argument by quoting Irenaeus,136 who, he observes, was quoted
by Theodoret,137 “and that showes, that the latter Father did approve of such a solution of ye Difficulty” (“BA” 7: Matt. 4:1). However, while Theodoret may have been satisfied with Irenaeus’s rebuttal, the resurfacing of the issue suggests that the second-century bishop’s doctrine had not satisfied critics.
Irenaeus grumbles that Jesus is the only human described as “God, or Lord” in the Scripture and, furthermore, since Jesus was both the Word and man, while he was tempted as a
man, the Word was glorified. Irenaeus adds that for Jesus to be tempted, “the Word was
Quiescent” (“BA” 7: Matt. 4:1, c.f. Irenaeus 56, Whitby 30). In other words, although Jesus was believed by Trinitarians to be both man and God, the divine part of him was minimized when the devil tempted the human part. Even though Jesus was God, it was his weak human side that was tempted and theoretically capable of yielding to temptation. Neither Irenaeus nor Mather use the text at hand to illustrate that Jesus was the Word. They rely on John’s phrasing, as the
description of Jesus as the Word of God appears only in the Fourth Gospel. This conjecture that Jesus’s divinity was “quiescent” is not based on an assertion made in Matthew. After Irenaeus, Whitby presents his own idea that the temptation and triumph of Jesus was also a demonstration of Jesus’s human capacity. Mather, paraphrasing Whitby, suggests that the passage is intended to comfort Christians since “we may combate and conquer Satan, with the Same Aids that were
135 The Ebionites were early Jewish-Christians who produced one of the earliest harmonies of the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of the Ebionites, which urges the abolition of Jewish sacrifices (Ehrman, New Testament, 197).
136 Irenaeus (ca. 140-202), bishop of Lyon, famously criticized Gnostics as heretical (Norris 10). In Against Heresies, Irenaeus remarks that “the Logos became quiescent so that he could be tempted” (Irenaeus 56).
137 Theodoret (ca. 393-457), bishop of Cyrus, who brought thousands of so-called heretics into the Catholic Church (Baur).
afforded unto Him” (“BA” 7: Matt. 4:1).138 Jesus is like a regular person inasmuch as “that He did overcome Satan, & repell all his Assaults, might be, because He was Anointed, and filled with ye Holy Spirit” (“BA” 7: Matt. 4:1). Any Christian could relate to the anecdote, Mather hopes. He adds another gloss to echo Whitby’s second comment on this passage in Matthew.
This note addresses contemporary “Socinians” who questioned why the devil would bother to
tempt Jesus (“BA” 7: Matt. 4:9, c.f. Whitby 30). Citing Johann Bisterfield,139 Mather,
paraphrasing from Whitby, observes that such was the unbounded pride of the devil, and this daring was in keeping with the temptation at Eden (“BA” 7: Matt. 4:9, c.f. Whitby 30). It is in character with this figure to scoff at challenges.
In a similar vein, instead of stopping there, Whitby continues to write further
interpretations. He remarks: “But ye Ancients add another Answer; That when ye Divel tempted
Christ, he was ignorant of this Mystery” (“BA” 7: Matt. 4:9, c.f. Whitby 30). Evidently Mather and Whitby worried that the devil’s behaving irrationally out of pride was not a satisfactory answer. He notes that Ignatius140 and Origen141 both believed that the devil did not know
everything. Mather, paraphrasing Whitby, says as much about the devil: “All his Temptations
intimate, that he look’d on our Saviour, not as God, but only as one, who might be very dear to
God” (“BA” 7: Matt. 4:9).142 Unintentionally indicating that critics might have a more realistic
138 Whitby: “We, who have the same Unction from the Holy One, may also hope to do it by his Aid” (30). 139 Johann Bisterfield (c.1605-1655) was a student of Johann Alsted and is known to have impacted Leibniz’s philosophy (Murray 123).
140 Ignatius of Antioch or Theophorus (ca.50-ca.117), bishop of Antioch, who wrote epistles to church bodies, credited by Lightfoot though the authenticity of them has long been questioned (O’Connor). The letters were republished by Archbishop Ussher in 1644 and by Le Clerc in 1698 (O’Connor).
141 Origen (185-ca.254), a Platonist teacher at Alexandria and Caesarea, believed that the Logos was the mediator between God and the world (Norris 15). In addition to blending Platonism with Christianity, he wrote commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and John (Prat). His philosophy is known for embracing allegorical interpretation and subordination of the Logos (Prat).
142 Whitby: “All his Temptations shew, he looked upon our Saviour, not as a God, but only as one who might be dear unto him” (31).
understanding of early Christian theology, Mather wittily concludes: “This Argument of ye Socinians, will not prove, That our Saviour was not really GOD; it only proves, That the Divel was a Socinian” (“BA” 7: Matt. 4:9).143 It did not occur to Mather that the author of the Gospel of Matthew may have been a “Socinian” as well.