the Week of Proper 28 / Ordinary 33
Click here to learn more!
Bible Dictionaries
Hunger
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
or HUNGER.—The substantive ‘hunger’ (Authorized and Revised Versions) is the equivalent of a Greek word (λιμός) which in the NT is used either of the suffering of an individual (Luke 15:17, cf. 2 Corinthians 11:27), or, more generally, of the widespread plague of famine (cf. Mark 13:8, Luke 4:25 etc.; see Blass’ Gram. of NT Greek, p. 299, for the combination λοιμοὶ καὶ λιμοί [parechesis]). The more frequently occurring verb is an altogether different word (πεινᾷν), and it is sometimes found where we might expect λιμός or its cognates (Matthew 5:6 and Luke 6:21). The latter occurs in but 6 places in the Gospels, while the former is found no fewer than 17 times.
There is, perhaps, no feature of Jesus’ human experience so vividly instructive as that which is portrayed for us in the simple incidental expression ‘He hungered’ (Matthew 4:2 = Luke 4:2, Matthew 21:18 = Mark 11:12). This is noted twice by the Synoptists; and though we have no such direct statement by St. John, we are not left by the latter without a reference to this side of ‘the humiliation of Christ.’ The story of Jesus’ conversation with the woman of Samaria conveys the same impression as to the physical limitations to which He was subject with which we are struck in the Synoptic writings. The anxiety of the disciples for the satisfaction of their Master’s needs (John 4:31 Ῥαββεί, φάγε) explains at least one cause of the bodily weariness which compelled Him to rest ‘thus by the well.’
It is of the greatest interest to notice that, on the two occasions when it is definitely stated that Jesus suffered the pangs of hunger, the writer has pointedly attached to the narrative a lesson of psychological and spiritual value. St. Matthew and St. Luke both inform us not only that on the completion of His forty days’ fast ‘he hungered’; they also tell us that the Tempter attacked Him on the side of His consequent weakness. ‘If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread’ (Matthew 4:3, cf. the stronger and more graphic mould in which St. Luke casts the narrative by adopting the singular τῷ λίθω τούτῳ for οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι and ἄρτοι for ἄρτοι, Luke 4:3), expresses the subtle nature of this temptation in a manner which is profoundly in keeping with all human experience (see F. W. Robertson’s sermon on ‘Elijah,’ second series).
It is surely more rational to accept the Synoptic statement that this was, in point of fact, the first of the three temptations, for the reason given above, than to adopt the order given in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as O. Holtzmann is inclined to do (cf. his Leben Jesu, English translation pp. 94 and 140–150). The author of this Gospel places the temptation by hunger after that on the high mountain, which he puts first in the series. Holtzmann, moreover, argues that the first temptation, according to the First and Third Evangelists, occurred last of all. Among other reasons for this inversion, he bases his statement on the fact that Jesus met the suggestion to convert the stone into a loaf by a quotation taken from Deuteronomy 8:3, whereas His answers to the other two are quotations from an earlier part, of the same book (Deuteronomy 6:13; Deuteronomy 6:16). To the present writer this looks like trifling with the evidence, and seems to expose this author to the charge of adopting any statement as having prima facie claims to being historical provided it be a contradiction of the sacred books. The very simplicity of the narratives as we have them forbids us to assume that the writers manufactured an order by means of ‘a gradation as regards localities,’ or by presenting a series of grand climacterics—‘satisfaction of hunger, miraculous action, and sovereignty of the world.’ [For the curious passage in the Gospel according to the Hebrews (… ἕνθα αὑτὸς ὁ Σωτήρ φησιν· ἄρτι ἔλαβέ με ἡ μήτηρ μου τὸ ἁγιον τνεῦμα ἐν μιᾶ τῶν τοιχῶν μον, καὶ ἀτήνεγκέ με εἰς τὸ ὅρος τὸ μεγα Θαβώρ) which makes Mt. Tabor the scene of the Temptation, see Origen, in Joann. tom. ii. § 6f., given in Nestle’s Graecum Supplementum, p. 77. The same passage is quoted more than once by Jerome, who each time refers it to the Evangelium quod secundum (juxta) Hebraeos (e.g. in Isa 15:11)].
The other recorded occasion on which Jesus suffered from hunger was at the end of His ministry, and during that week when His last conflict with the religious authorities of His nation culminated in His Passion and Death. The incident affords an example of the way in which the Evangelists, in their choice of literary material, were guided to subordinate the selection of historical facts to the moral and spiritual importance attaching to them. Neither St. Matthew nor St. Mark was deterred from relating the story of the fruitless fig-tree by a fear lest the appearance of harshness and petulance should detract from the moral dignity of their Master. Their portrait of Him was too faithful and their insight too keen to permit any suggestion, to themselves at least, of an unworthy display, in an angry moment, of thaumaturgical energy. See art. Fig-tree.
The union between Christ and His people, so repeatedly insisted on by Jesus as indispensable to their higher life (see, e.g., John 15:4 ff.), is postulated in His great eschatological discourse. The sufferings of redeemed humanity are His sufferings, and the loving service, which clothes the naked and feeds the hungry, is hallowed because it is done, not merely in His cause, but for Himself (Matthew 25:35 ff; cf. Matthew 10:40 ff.) There is something more in these words than an expression of sympathy by a brother who has himself experienced deprivation and suffering (cf. Hebrews 4:15), and who feels for one who is passing through similar stages. We have in them a vivid portraiture of that essential and spiritual oneness upon which the writer of the Fourth Gospel lays such emphasis (cf. John 14:20; John 17:21; John 17:23; John 17:26 etc.; see also Acts 9:5 Ἑγώ εἰμι Ἰησοῦς δν σὺ διώκεις).
It is not without significance that not only have we this mystic union adumbrated by the Synoptists which is elaborated and, inchoatively at least, systematized by St. John; we have also recorded in the writings of all three an incident illustrative of that complete companionship in privations as well as in privileges which He demanded as the essence of discipleship from the scribe who would follow Him whithersoever He went (Luke 9:38 = Matthew 8:20; cf. Matthew 10:38; Matthew 16:24, Luke 9:23, Mark 8:34 etc.). The fact that the disciples suffered hunger is specifically mentioned by St. Matthew, though it is only to be inferred from the parallel passages in the other two Synoptists (cf. Mark 2:23 ff. = Matthew 12:1 ff. = Luke 6:1 ff.). On this occasion Jesus takes advantage of the opportunity afforded by the carping criticism of the Pharisees to emphasize, by an appeal to the case of the hungry David, His teaching on the Sabbath question. A fine touch is added by each of the Synoptists which beautifully illustrates the spirit of camaraderie existing between Jesus and His disciples. The touch is incidental, and therefore the more effective. Each of the writers expressly states that it was the disciples who were plucking the ears of corn and not Jesus, though each commences the narrative by making Jesus the subject of the story (ἐπορεύθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς, κ.τ.λ., Matthew 12:1; … αὐτὸν διαπορεύεσθαι, Mark 2:23, Luke 6:1). It was through the disciples that the Pharisees attacked Him (cf., however, Luke 6:2); and it was in their defence that Jesus met them with the unanswerable argument taken from their own armoury—the OT.
It will not surprise us to find Jesus transferring the idea of physical hunger to the spiritual life and experience, as this habit of transposition forms one of the most attractive and powerful features in His teaching. Just as in man’s physical life hunger is a sign of health, and becomes an evil only when its cravings cannot be satisfied, so Jesus counts those blessed whose soul’s health is robust enough to cause them to cry out from hunger after righteousness (note the peculiar construction which has the accusative τὴν δικαιοσύνην after πεινῶντες instead of the genitive of classical writers; cf. Od. xx. 137; Xen. Cyr. viii. iii. 39; Plato, Rep. 521 A; see Blass’ Grammar of NT Greek, p. 89 f.; and Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon). That need, because it is felt, shall be met in the fullest possible way, hence their blessedness (ὅτι αὐτοί χορτασθήσονται, Matthew 5:6; cf. Luke 6:21).
On the other hand, they are to be pitied whose spiritual appetite is so deranged that they feel no need at all, because the day shall come when they must feel, and the pangs of hunger shall remain without hope of alleviation (ὅτι πεινάσετε, Luke 6:25). That He possessed the power of permanently satisfying the deepest needs of the human soul, Jesus categorically asserts on more than one occasion (John 6:35, cf. John 4:14 and John 7:37). In these express assurances we may see the profoundest explanation of the words of the Magnificat: ‘The hungry he hath filled with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away’ (Luke 1:53), which are but the echo of the words in which the Psalmist long before had clothed his experience (Psalms 107:9).
J. R. Willis.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Hunger'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/h/hunger.html. 1906-1918.
