Sin becomes sin after completing specified stages in its inner development.

The first stage is when some spiritual influence approaches from without, which may, to begin with, be quite vague and shapeless. The initial stage in formation is the appearance in the field of man’s inner vision of an image — and as this does not depend on one’s will, it is not regarded as a sin. Images in some cases appear to take on visible form, while others are mostly products of the mind, but more often it is a combination of the two. As visible images also generate some thought or other, ascetics label all images ‘intrusive thoughts’.

The man who is not in thrall to the passions can recognise the force of an intrusive thought and yet remain completely free from its power. But if there is some ‘place’ in one — some suitable soil for the development of the intrusive thought — the thought will strive to take possession of one’s psychic being — of the heart, the soul. It achieves this because it prompts a feeling of the delight to be afforded by one or another passion. The delight figures ‘temptation’. But even the fleeting pleasure, though it testifies to man’s imperfection, is not yet to be reckoned as sin. It is only a ‘proposal’ for sin.

The further development of a sinful intrusive thought can be portrayed roughly as follows: the mind is attracted by the delectation to be afforded by the passion, and this is an extremely important and crucial moment because the fusion of mind with tempting ideas provides fertile soil for passion. If the mind does not by an exercise of the will tear itself away from the suggested delights but continues to dwell on them, it will find itself pleasantly attracted, then involved and finally positively acquiescent. After that, the ever-increasing delight in the passion may take possession of — make captive — mind and will. Lastly, the whole strength of the one enslaved by passion is directed to a more or less determined actualization of sin, if there are no outside impediments — or, where there are, to seeking ways of getting round them.

Such captivity may happen once only and never recur if it had come about because of the inexperience of someone engaged in the ascetic struggle But if the enchantment repeats itself, passion becomes second nature, and then all man’s natural forces are at its service.

The only way to overcome this (and the earlier it is overcome the better and easier)?

… to stay the mind in prayer in the heart… Shutting the doors of his heart, stationing his mind on guard like a sentinel, unfettered by imagination and cogitation but armed with prayer and the Name of Jesus Christ…

In a wider and all-comprehensive sense victory over the passions is achieved by keeping Christ’s commandments…

“I am like a man sitting in the shade of a tall tree, who sees wild beasts and snakes coming at him and knows his danger and rushes to climb the tree to safety. I sit in my cell, and see temptations coming at me: and when I cannot stand up to them, I rush to take refuge in God by prayer, and so I find safety from the enemy’s attack.”

– Abba John the Short, commemorated 9 November

Sometimes, perhaps, I don’t see the wild beasts and snakes coming, and that is why I do not seek refuge and get devoured. But it seems to me that usually it is inattention, either accidental or deliberate. I may have some vague awareness of their approach, and yet I really don’t want to have to think about it, and so I get devoured. Sometimes I even have the presumption to think I am ready to stand up to them when I am not, with the same result.

Green, after a brief paragraph mentioning how the experience of temptation is a feature of the Christian life, goes on to say that “it would be a great mistake to suppose that the story of the temptations is included in the Gospel primarily to provide an example to Christian disciples, though they do provide that example. These temptations were messianic.” On the other hand, Chrysostom, in his only sermon on the temptations in this collection, Homily XIII, spends the bulk of his time precisely in relating Christ’s temptations to ours. While it is true that the story of the temptations as presented by Matthew and Luke very clearly presents what kind of Messiah Jesus is – against the expectations of the Jewish people of the day, I think Green is overstating the case when he wants to divide these two aspects of the passage elevating its messianic nature far above the exemplary nature. Chrysostom (p.83) points out how beautifully this summary[1] of the temptations is framed to provide us with the three most common basic forms of temptation: through sensual appetites and desires (‘the belly’ as he puts it), through vainglory and self-importance, and through wealth and power. If we are in Christ, if we form the body of Christ, then there is no distinction between what kind of Messiah Jesus is and what our own temptations and struggle with the devil involve, especially since it is ‘in Christ’ by the Holy Spirit that we overcome. In contrast to Green’s dividing of our experience of temptation from the messianic nature of the account of Christ’s temptations, Irenaeus, in putting the temptations of Christ at the centre of his account of how Christ recapitulates Adam’s fall without giving into sin[2], brings together the messianic nature of Christ’s temptations with the basic experience of human sin in Adam which we all share.

Neither Green nor Chrysostom miss the parallel between Christ’s temptation with the bread and Adam and Eve’s with the fruit, though this is not explicit in the text. Here is a hint in Matthew of Christ as the ‘new Adam’ expressed by Paul[3] and detailed so thoroughly by Irenaeus in his exploration of the divine economy. But there are other parallels too, not least Israel in the wilderness, succumbing to the devil’s temptations instead of overcoming them (Green p.83 with reference to Deut.8:2 as the verse immediately preceding Jesus’s quotation).

One other interesting point about the temptation to turn stones into bread is pointed out by Chrysostom: this is not a temptation to break any law. In fact, were we to receive such a temptation, we may not even see it as such, as it contravenes no ethical instruction. Nonetheless, just as Paul cast out a demon (Acts 16:18) that was doing nothing but identify him as a preacher of salvation, we have to be wise to all the devil’s wiles, and learn to discern when the devil speaks, as even when we cannot see the evil in what the devil suggests, we should know that he is using something not necessarily bad in itself to lead us down to a darker place. Once we have started on that downward path it is hard to climb back up from it.

Green points out the messianic expectation of the Jews based on the experience of the manna given by God in the wilderness of the Exodus: the Messiah would do the same[4]. However, apart from this, Green doesn’t speak of the significant place that eating has in this pericope (perhaps because of his separation between the ‘messianic’ nature of the text in terms of showing who Christ is and the nature of Christians as the Church, the body of Christ, now on earth[5]). Chrysostom shows no such division, and therefore sees the connection here between the fasting of Jesus mentioned in Matthew and the baptismal candidates’ fasting, the temptation to turn stones into bread, Adam’s taking of the forbidden fruit, and even the indication in Ezekiel 16:9 that the basic sin of Sodom was “fullness of bread” which resulted in all their other sin. He also says that, just as with Job, the devil loves to begin with the weak and most base appetites, only progressing to the more beguiling (vainglory and riches) when these fail. Thus, fasting, following Jesus’s example, is a key way to be prepared to do battle with the devil.

Speaking of battle with the devil, Green draws an excellent parallel between Christ’s use of the expression ‘it is written…’ and Eph. 6:17: ‘the sword of the Spirit… is the word of God’. Indeed the whole of the passage Eph 6:10-20 is useful parallel reading to Mt 4:1-11 in terms of the spiritual struggle. Finally, John Chrysostom points out, that after the battle, Matthew tells us that angels came and ministered to him, and that this is a promise also to us, that having stood up and done battle with the devil, we will not be left comfortless.

[1] He suggests that Luke, in his version of this story, by the use of his phrase ‘when the devil had ended every temptation’ (Lk 4:13) implies that there were more than the three specified in the text.

[2] Against Heresies 5:21: “recapitulating all things he also recapitulated the war against our enemy… utterly crushing him, and striking his head with his heel.”

[3] Rom 5:12-21 and 1 Cor 15:21-23

[4] And hence, according to Green, the excitement in Jn.6:5-15.

[5] Although his mention of the manna in the wilderness and the comparison with the passage in John’s gospel implies the close connection between the manna and the Eucharist (especially reading further in Jn 6:22-66), Green doesn’t follow this up.