The second temptation (Matt.4:5-7) is when the Devil takes Him up on the pinnacle of the temple and asks Him to cast Himself off (we know the drop is high enough to kill as this was how James was assassinated). A point to ponder is that the Devil didn’t push Him:- he can’t makes us do something we don’t want to do and he is limited by God in what he can do. Besides, if he “pushed” him where would be the sin? As a side issue, some commentators suggest that this scene literally happened because that to suggest that the Devil could inject a mental image in Jesus’ mind indicates either perversity in Jesus or Satan’s power over His mind. But if that is power over His mind then wouldn’t literally taking Him up to the pinnacle of the temple indicate power over His body? To make a suggestion, say, by words, would result in Jesus hearing those words and mentally formulating the action being asked for. This is not perversity! The nature of temptation is initially mental, but there is no sin in the receiving of the proposition in the mind. When Peter tried to dissuade Jesus from going to the cross, Jesus’ response was to say “Get thee behind me Satan!…” Jesus obviously mentally understood what Peter was saying and reacted against it with no sin involved.
When you try to dislodge a stump, how do you go about it? You push it one way and then you push it the other way – so the Devil. In affect, he says, my mistake – you were right- man doesn’t live by bread alone – you should trust in God – here is another opportunity for you to trust in God – you quoted Deut. 8:3 and trusted in its truth so here’s another to trust – Ps. 91:11 – He shall give His angels charge over you…. So where he failed to excite distrust, he approaches by way of presumption. To show continual patient hunger is trust, yes, but show it by something more decisive and spectacular! Why would the Devil quote scriptural truth, after all he’s a liar? He can twist it to his own ends.
Why the pinnacle of the temple? Why not just a high cliff? Perhaps this would appear to be close to God, but perhaps more importantly, if Jesus fell from the pinnacle of the temple there would be those present to see this amazing event and acclaim Him. Why suffer? As Jesus contemplated the road His ministry was beginning to take – the road of the suffering Saviour – this temptation may have had more appeal than we might imagine. Walk out of this stinking desert, throw yourself off the temple and you’ve won the people! You are superior – you know you are – assert your superiority and men will bow down to you and give you their allegiance.
That would have been quite a sign with which to launch a ministry and obtain a huge following. But the signs Jesus did were in recognition of the fact He only wanted the humble believers in truth to fill His entourage. He upset many crowds just when he was on the verge of stardom and acclaim (cf. John 6), and He told them one sign would be given – that of the prophet Jonah. (It’s true Jesus did signs and people were convinced, but they were of a character in keeping with the maxim – ‘not to serve self’. Besides, the Devil intimates, if God fails to keep His promise, His word is nothing and Jesus might as well be dead as to live and rely on empty promises. The cunning of the temptation is doubled by the Devil’s use of scripture. Maybe, he thought, if I get in with the first quote, I’ll be wrestling the sword of the Spirit from Jesus’ hand and He won’t be able to use it. Ah, but there’s more than one scripture in the book – and there’s a tale in that.
The Devil is an expert with scripture – the passage seems to fit the proposal in a very neat way. His art has been spread. It was not a misquote: if it was that would be easily overcome with a correct requote. The deception was in using one scripture against another. Jesus quotes Deut. 6:16 to give the right balance to the matter. A basic law of scriptural hermeneutics, and of evidence, is to not expound one passage so as to falsify or to be repugnant to another. That method of interpretation is correct which harmonizes scripture. Every passage is intended to be in compassion with every other and the balance of truth is found. A false conclusion gotten from the misunderstanding of one scripture can be eliminated by introducing pertinent information from other scriptures.
For example Luke 14:26 may seem to teach hate, but a comparison with Matt.10:37 will solve the problem. Billy Graham’s garbled treatment of 1 Cor. 1:17 (ie. preaching the gospel does not include preaching baptism) is exposed by passages as Mark 16:15,16; Acts 8:35,36; and the simple fact Paul had baptised some of the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:14-16) but was glad he had not baptised anymore since this would have contributed to the “preacheritis” in the place (cf. vs 12,13), and who does the baptising is not important. (When I am in India I do not baptise anyone but let the local brethren do that in case it creates a problem by creating at “status” for those who have been baptised by a “white” man.)
The first temptation was a distrust of the Father and the second was a false trust in the Father. There is a brand of belief that whilst acknowledging God, tries to make Him into a puppet. For example, Ex.17:7 records that the Israelites put the Lord to the test because they were thirsty. At least they were thirsty, but here it is far worse – Jesus is in no danger but is asked to throw Himself into mortal danger and for what purpose?! There is a thing called “uncommanded danger” – God is not adverse to “common sense” – cf. Matt.10:23 the disciples are told to flee persecution (what if you can’t flee? – then die for the truth).
Christians perplexed by the apparently thin line between the “prayer of faith” and “putting God to the test” should note that the Devil’s suggestion was an artificially created crisis, not of trusting God in the situation which results from obedient service. In doing God’s will it is right to ‘prove’ God (cf. Mal. 3:10). And so Jesus did – Satan held out two roads, one quick, one slow and Jesus took the slow. If the first can be called an appeal to fleshly lusts, the second can be called an appeal to pride. Ever seen pop stars throw themselves off the stage, fully expecting their fans to catch them? I guess they get the ego boost they want and the fans, the satisfaction they provided it. Church’s get into gimmicks, not content with the pure gospel, in order to appear ‘with it’, ‘modern’, ‘avante guarde’ in the eyes of the crowd.