Temptation

Luke 4:1-13
This is a very revealing occurrence.  We see that in the first instance, the enemy waits until a very desperate moment and then tempts Jesus with the the now exposed weakness, offering a perfectly natural and innocent "way out".  He has not eaten in 40 days (vs. 2), so the enemy naturally comes to him tempting him with food.  Eating when hungry is not wrong in any sense, but the enemy perverts this natural action by adding the phrase "If you are the Son of God".  He takes eating and makes it about Jesus, about his own rights and satisfaction and provision.  He is the Son of God and deserves to eat, after all it has been 40 days now, isn't that enough already?  But it is in the self denial that he proves he is the Son of God, not in the provision.  It is the same with us.  Our denial of self proves our heritage, not the provision for self (Luke 9:23)  This displays our complete trust, or lack thereof, in God alone, not in our own abilities and desires, even in the seemingly innocent things.
The second instance the enemy offers a most tempting deal.  He will give the nations to Jesus in exchange for his worship.  At face value this seems so ridiculous that we would all say absolutely not.  But think about it, if Jesus has the authority and glory of the nations, couldn't he turn it towards God, and then give the nations to him for salvation of souls?  What the enemy means for bad here could mean good for the nations.  Jesus can turn it.  But the cost is too high, is it not?  It would cost Jesus his very soul, and directly disobey scripture (vs. 8).  But is this not what we do today?  Do we not rationalize that we can use authority and power and the world, the sinful, the distracting, and the carnal to reach people for Christ?  Do we not envelope ourselves in authoritative worldliness, in direct disobedience of scripture (vs. James 4:4), in the hopes of reaching the lost?  We embrace being at the forefront of culture, leading the way through ingenuity and innovation, and marketing our attractiveness and similarities.  The whole time though Jesus warns against these kinds of things very clearly (Luke 9:23, Matthew 20:25-28).  So if the cost were too high for Jesus, why is it not too high for us today?  The ends did not justify the means for him, so why does it for us today?  Why do we think we are so different from Jesus?  He would not disobey scripture to reach the lost, and yet we will.  Once again Jesus proves his deity and godliness in self-denial, not self-satisfaction.  The enemy offers him power and worldly authority but Jesus embraces servanthood and godliness.  He will not reach the world through leadership but through servanthood.  Do we follow Jesus or Satan?
We are always told that when the enemy comes at us with temptation that we should quote scripture to him and he will be defeated and flee.  But, at the end here, we see that is not true, neither is that advocated in scripture as the means to victory.  It is surely a basis for resisting, offering us assurance of our position of resistance, the foundation we stand on as proof to resist, but it does not offer us the victory.  Jesus uses scripture throughout all three instances here and the enemy does not flee until Jesus has fully resisted (vs. 13), which coincides with James 4:7.  Our victory lies in submitting to God not independently quoting scripture or fleeing; he is our victory, not scripture or fleeing.  If we just start quoting scripture, he will simply do the same thing back to us, as he did with Jesus (vs. 10, 11).  And he probably knows a lot more scripture than we do.  Instead, we submit ourselves to God, trusting him to lead us through and out (I Corinthians 10:13, James 4:7), and rely on Christ's power and strength to get us through (Hebrews 2:18, 2 Corinthians 12:9).  He will show us to flee (like Joseph Genesis 39) or endure under it, like Jesus did here.  Only after this submission and full resistance will the enemy flee, but only for a time.  He will return later at another opportune time (vs. 13).  It is in his resistance and standing against that Jesus once again proves his deity, not giving in to the temptation.  It is not in his defending and proving, answering the critics that he shows his godliness.  It is his submission and rising above, in all three instances.  Which route do we take?  Defense or denial?