Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the mode and order of the temptation were unbecoming. For the devil tempts in order to induce us to sin. But if Christ had assuaged His bodily hunger by changing the stones into bread, He would not have sinned; just as neither did He sin when He multiplied the loaves, which was no less a miracle, in order to succor the hungry crowd. Therefore it seems that this was nowise a temptation.

Objection 2: Further, a counselor is inconsistent if he persuades the contrary to what he intends. But when the devil set Christ on a pinnacle of the Temple, he purposed to tempt Him to pride or vainglory. Therefore it was inconsistent to urge Him to cast Himself thence: for this would be contrary to pride or vainglory, which always seeks to rise.

Objection 3: Further, one temptation should lead to one sin. But in the temptation on the mountain he counseled two sins---namely, covetousness and idolatry. Therefore the mode of the temptation was unfitting.

Objection 4: Further, temptations are ordained to sin. But there are seven deadly sins, as we have stated in the 1.2, Question 84, Article 4. But the tempter only deals with three, viz. gluttony, vainglory, and covetousness. Therefore the temptation seems to have been incomplete.

Objection 5: Further, after overcoming all the vices, man is still tempted to pride or vainglory: since pride "worms itself in stealthily, and destroys even good works," as Augustine says (Ep. ccxi). Therefore Matthew unfittingly gives the last place to the temptation to covetousness on the mountain, and the second place to the temptation to vainglory in the Temple, especially since Luke puts them in the reverse order.

Objection 6: Further, Jerome says on Mt. 4:4 that "Christ purposed to overcome the devil by humility, not by might." Therefore He should not have repulsed him with a haughty rebuke, saying: "Begone, Satan."

Objection 7: Further, the gospel narrative seems to be false. For it seems impossible that Christ could have been set on a pinnacle of the Temple without being seen by others. Nor is there to be found a mountain so high that all the world can be seen from it, so that all the kingdoms of the earth could be shown to Christ from its summit. It seems, therefore, that Christ's temptation is unfittingly described.

On the contrary is the authority of Scripture.

I answer that, The temptation which comes from the enemy takes the form of a suggestion, as Gregory says (Hom. xvi in Evang.). Now a suggestion cannot be made to everybody in the same way; it must arise from those things towards which each one has an inclination. Consequently the devil does not straight away tempt the spiritual man to grave sins, but he begins with lighter sins, so as gradually to lead him to those of greater magnitude. Wherefore Gregory (Moral. xxxi), expounding Job 39:25, "He smelleth the battle afar off, the encouraging of the captains and the shouting of the army," says: "The captains are fittingly described as encouraging, and the army as shouting. Because vices begin by insinuating themselves into the mind under some specious pretext: then they come on the mind in such numbers as to drag it into all sorts of folly, deafening it with their bestial clamor."

Thus, too, did the devil set about the temptation of the first man. For at first he enticed his mind to consent to the eating of the forbidden fruit, saying (Gn. 3:1): "Why hath God commanded you that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?" Secondly to vainglory by saying: "Your eyes shall be opened." Thirdly, he led the temptation to the extreme height of pride, saying: "You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." This same order did he observe in tempting Christ. For at first he tempted Him to that which men desire, however spiritual they may be---namely, the support of the corporeal nature by food. Secondly, he advanced to that matter in which spiritual men are sometimes found wanting, inasmuch as they do certain things for show, which pertains to vainglory. Thirdly, he led the temptation on to that in which no spiritual men, but only carnal men, have a part---namely, to desire worldly riches and fame, to the extent of holding God in contempt. And so in the first two temptations he said: "If Thou be the Son of God"; but not in the third, which is inapplicable to spiritual men, who are sons of God by adoption, whereas it does apply to the two preceding temptations.

And Christ resisted these temptations by quoting the authority of the Law, not by enforcing His power, "so as to give more honor to His human nature and a greater punishment to His adversary, since the foe of the human race was vanquished, not as by God, but as by man"; as Pope Leo says (Serm. 1, De Quadrag. 3).

Reply to Objection 1: To make use of what is needful for self-support is not the sin of gluttony; but if a man do anything inordinate out of the desire for such support, it can pertain to the sin of gluttony. Now it is inordinate for a man who has human assistance at his command to seek to obtain food miraculously for mere bodily support. Hence the Lord miraculously provided the children of Israel with manna in the desert, where there was no means of obtaining food otherwise. And in like fashion Christ miraculously provided the crowds with food in the desert, when there was no other means of getting food. But in order to assuage His hunger, He could have done otherwise than work a miracle, as did John the Baptist, according to Matthew (3:4); or He could have hastened to the neighboring country. Consequently the devil esteemed that if Christ was a mere man, He would fall into sin by attempting to assuage His hunger by a miracle.

Reply to Objection 2: It often happens that a man seeks to derive glory from external humiliation, whereby he is exalted by reason of spiritual good. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12): "It must be noted that it is possible to boast not only of the beauty and splendor of material things, but even of filthy squalor." And this is signified by the devil urging Christ to seek spiritual glory by casting His body down.

Reply to Objection 3: It is a sin to desire worldly riches and honors in an inordinate fashion. And the principal sign of this is when a man does something wrong in order to acquire such things. And so the devil was not satisfied with instigating to a desire for riches and honors, but he went so far as to tempt Christ, for the sake of gaining possession of these things, to fall down and adore him, which is a very great crime, and against God. Nor does he say merely, "if Thou wilt adore me," but he adds, "if, falling down"; because, as Ambrose says on Lk. 4:5: "Ambition harbors yet another danger within itself: for, while seeking to rule, it will serve; it will bow in submission that it may be crowned with honor; and the higher it aims, the lower it abases itself."

In like manner in the preceding temptations tried to lead from the desire of one sin to the commission of another; thus from the desire of food he tried to lead Him to the vanity of the needless working of a miracle; and from the desire of glory to tempt God by casting Himself headlong.

Reply to Objection 4: As Ambrose says on Lk. 4:13, Scripture would not have said that "'all the temptation being ended, the devil departed from Him,' unless the matter of all sins were included in the three temptations already related. For the causes of temptations are the causes of desires"---namely, "lust of the flesh, hope of glory, eagerness for power."

Reply to Objection 5: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): "It is not certain which happened first; whether the kingdoms of the earth were first shown to Him, and afterwards He was set on the pinnacle of the Temple; or the latter first, and the former afterwards. However, it matters not, provided it be made clear that all these things did take place." It may be that the Evangelists set these things in different orders, because sometimes cupidity arises from vainglory, sometimes the reverse happens.

Reply to Objection 6: When Christ had suffered the wrong of being tempted by the devil saying, "If Thou be the Son of God cast Thyself down," He was not troubled, nor did He upbraid the devil. But when the devil usurped to himself the honor due to God, saying, "All these things will I give Thee, if, falling down, Thou wilt adore me," He was exasperated, and repulsed him, saying, "Begone, Satan": that we might learn from His example to bear bravely insults leveled at ourselves, but not to allow ourselves so much as to listen to those which are aimed at God.

Reply to Objection 7: As Chrysostom says (Hom. v in Matth.): "The devil set Him" (on a pinnacle of the Temple) "that He might be seen by all, whereas, unawares to the devil, He acted in such sort that He was seen by none."

In regard to the words, "'He showed Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them,' we are not to understand that He saw the very kingdoms, with the cities and inhabitants, their gold and silver: but that the devil pointed out the quarters in which each kingdom or city lay, and set forth to Him in words their glory and estate." Or, again, as Origen says (Hom. xxx in Luc.), "he showed Him how, by means of the various vices, he was the lord of the world."

Articulus 4

Argumentum 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit conveniens tentationis modus et ordo. Tentatio enim diaboli ad peccandum inducit. Sed si christus subvenisset corporali fami convertendo lapides in panes, non peccasset, sicut non peccavit cum panes multiplicavit, quod non fuit minus miraculum, ut turbae esurienti subveniret. Ergo videtur quod nulla fuerit illa tentatio.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, nullus persuasor convenienter persuadet contrarium eius quod intendit. Sed diabolus, statuens christum supra pinnaculum templi, intendebat eum de superbia seu vana gloria tentare. Ergo inconvenienter persuadet ei ut se mittat deorsum, quod est contrarium superbiae vel vanae gloriae, quae semper quaerit ascendere.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, una tentatio conveniens est ut sit de uno peccato.

Sed in tentatione quae fuit in monte, duo peccata persuasit, scilicet cupiditatem et idololatriam. Non ergo conveniens videtur fuisse tentationis modus.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, tentationes ad peccata ordinantur. Sed septem sunt vitia capitalia, ut in secunda parte habitum est.

Non autem tentat nisi de tribus, scilicet gula et vana gloria et cupiditate.

Non ergo videtur sufficiens tentatio.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, post victoriam omnium vitiorum, remanet homini tentatio superbiae vel vanae gloriae, quia superbia etiam bonis operibus insidiatur, ut pereant, sicut dicit Augustinus.

Inconvenienter ergo matthaeus ultimam ponit tentationem cupiditatis in monte, mediam autem inanis gloriae in templo, praesertim cum Lucas ordinet e converso.

Argumentum 6

Praeterea, Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., quod propositum christi fuit diabolum humilitate vincere, non potestate.

Ergo non imperiose obiurgando eum repellere debuit, vade retro, Satana.

Argumentum 7

Praeterea, narratio evangelii videtur falsum continere. Non enim videtur possibile quod christus supra pinnaculum templi statui potuerit quin ab aliis videretur. Neque aliquis mons tam altus invenitur ut inde totus mundus inspici possit, ut sic ex eo potuerint christo omnia regna mundi ostendi.

Inconvenienter igitur videtur descripta christi tentatio.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est Scripturae auctoritas.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod tentatio quae est ab hoste, fit per modum suggestionis, ut Gregorius dicit.

Non autem eodem modo potest aliquid omnibus suggeri, sed unicuique suggeritur aliquid ex his circa quae est affectus. Et ideo diabolus hominem spiritualem non statim tentat de gravibus peccatis, sed paulatim a levioribus incipit, ut postmodum ad graviora perducat.

Unde Gregorius, XXXI Moral., exponens illud iob XXXIX, procul odoratur bellum, exhortationem ducum et ululatum exercitus, dicit, bene duces exhortari dicti sunt, exercitus ululare. Quia prima vitia deceptae menti quasi sub quadam ratione se ingerunt, sed innumera quae sequuntur, dum hanc ad omnem insaniam pertrahunt, quasi bestiali clamore confundunt.

Et hoc idem diabolus observavit in tentatione primi hominis. Nam primo sollicitavit mentem primi hominis de ligni vetiti esu, dicens, Gen. III, cur praecepit vobis deus ut non comederetis de omni ligno Paradisi? secundo, de inani gloria, cum dixit, aperientur oculi vestri.

Tertio, perduxit tentationem ad extremam superbiam, cum dixit, eritis sicut dii, scientes bonum et malum.

Et hunc etiam tentandi ordinem servavit in christo. Nam primo tentavit ipsum de eo quod appetunt quantumcumque spirituales viri, scilicet de sustentatione corporalis naturae per cibum.

Secundo, processit ad id in quo spirituales viri quandoque deficiunt, ut scilicet aliqua ad ostentationem operentur, quod pertinet ad inanem gloriam. Tertio, perduxit tentationem ad id quod iam non est spiritualium virorum, sed carnalium, scilicet ut divitias et gloriam mundi concupiscant usque ad contemptum dei. Et ideo in primis duabus tentationibus dixit, si filius dei es non autem in tertia, quae non potest spiritualibus convenire viris, qui sunt per adoptionem filii dei, sicut et duae primae.

His autem tentationibus christus restitit testimoniis legis, non potestate virtutis, ut hoc ipso et hominem plus honoraret, et adversarium plus puniret, cum hostis generis humani non quasi a deo, sed quasi ab homine vinceretur, sicut dicit leo Papa.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod uti necessariis ad sustentationem non est peccatum gulae, sed quod ex desiderio huius sustentationis homo aliquid inordinatum faciat, ad vitium gulae pertinere potest. Est autem inordinatum quod aliquis, ubi potest haberi recursus ad humana subsidia, pro solo corpore sustentando miraculose sibi cibum quaerere velit. Unde et dominus filiis Israel miraculose manna praebuit in deserto, ubi aliunde cibus haberi non potuit. Et similiter christus in deserto turbas pavit miraculose, ubi aliter cibi haberi non poterant. Sed christus ad subveniendum fami poterat aliter sibi providere quam miracula faciendo, sicut et ioannes baptista fecit, ut legitur Matth. III; vel etiam ad loca proxima properando. Et ideo reputabat diabolus quod christus peccaret, si ad subveniendum fami miracula facere attentaret, si esset purus homo.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod per humiliationem exteriorem frequenter quaerit aliquis gloriam qua exaltetur circa spiritualia bona.

Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de sermone domini in monte, animadvertendum est non in solo rerum corporearum nitore atque pompa, sed etiam in ipsis sordibus lutosis esse posse iactantiam.

Et ad hoc significandum, diabolus christo suasit ut, ad quaerendum gloriam spiritualem, corporaliter mitteret se deorsum.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod divitias et honores mundi appetere peccatum est, quando huiusmodi inordinate appetuntur. Hoc autem praecipue manifestatur ex hoc quod pro huiusmodi adipiscendis homo aliquid inhonestum facit. Et ideo non fuit contentus diabolus persuadere cupiditatem divitiarum et honorum, sed induxit ad hoc quod propter huiusmodi adipiscenda christus eum adoraret, quod est maximum scelus, et contra deum. Nec solum dixit, si adoraveris me, sed addidit, si cadens, quia, ut dicit Ambrosius, habet ambitio domesticum periculum, ut enim dominetur aliis, prius servit; et curvatur obsequio ut honore donetur; et, dum vult esse sublimior, fit remissior.

Et similiter etiam in praecedentibus tentationibus ex appetitu unius peccati in aliud peccatum inducere est conatus, sicut ex desiderio cibi conatus est inducere in vanitatem sine causa miracula faciendi; et ex cupiditate gloriae conatus est ducere ad tentandum deum per praecipitium.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut dicit Ambrosius, super Luc., non dixisset Scriptura quod, consummata omni tentatione, diabolus recessit ab illo, nisi in tribus praemissis esset omnium materia delictorum. Quia causae tentationum causae sunt cupiditatum, scilicet carnis oblectatio, spes gloriae, et aviditas potentiae.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de consensu evang., incertum est quid prius factum sit, utrum regna terrae prius demonstrata sint ei, et postea in pinnaculum templi locatus sit; aut hoc prius, et illud postea. Nihil tamen ad rem, dum omnia facta esse manifestum sit.

Videntur autem evangelistae diversum ordinem tenuisse, quia quandoque ex inani gloria venitur ad cupiditatem, quandoque e converso.

Ad 6

Ad sextum dicendum quod christus, cum passus fuisset tentationis iniuriam, dicente sibi diabolo, si filius dei es, mitte te deorsum, non est turbatus, nec diabolum increpavit. Quando vero diabolus dei usurpavit sibi honorem, dicens, haec omnia tibi dabo si cadens adoraveris me, exasperatus est et repulit eum, dicens, vade, Satanas, ut nos illius discamus exemplo nostras quidem iniurias magnanimiter sustinere, dei autem iniurias nec usque ad auditum sufferre.

Ad 7

Ad septimum dicendum quod, sicut chrysostomus dicit, diabolus sic christum assumebat (in pinnaculum templi) ut ab omnibus videretur, ipse autem, nesciente diabolo, sic agebat ut a nemine videretur.

Quod autem dicit, ostendit ei omnia regna mundi et gloriam eorum, non est intelligendum quod videret ipsa regna vel civitates vel populos, vel aurum vel argentum, sed partes in quibus unumquodque regnum vel civitas posita est, diabolus christo digito demonstrabat, et uniuscuiusque regni honores et statum verbis exponebat.

Vel, secundum Origenem, ostendit ei quomodo ipse per diversa vitia regnabat in mundo.