If you have ever compared Matthew’s account of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness with Luke’s account, you quickly will notice that there is a difference in the sequence of the recorded events (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). Both Matthew and Luke agree that Satan first tested Jesus by challenging Him to turn stones to bread. However, while the two disciples of Jesus agree on the content of the next two tests, the second and third temptations recorded by Matthew are “flip-flopped” in Luke’s account. Matthew recorded that Satan’s second temptation involved him trying to persuade Jesus to throw Himself down off the pinnacle of the temple. The third temptation listed by Matthew was Satan’s attempt to get Jesus to worship him. Even though Luke mentioned the same two events, he listed them in the reverse order— Satan first desired adoration from Jesus, and then he challenged Him to throw Himself down off the pinnacle of the temple. Based upon this difference, skeptics claim we have a clear-cut discrepancy.

The problem with this allegation is that it is based upon an assumption. Those who claim that the “disorder” of temptations is a contradiction, presuppose that history always is written (or spoken) chronologically. However, common sense tells us otherwise. Open almost any world history textbook and you will see that even though most events are recorded chronologically, some are arranged topically. For example, in one chapter you may read about the European civilization in the late Middle Ages (A.D. 1000-1300). Yet, in the very next chapter you might learn about Medieval India (150 B.C.-A.D. 1400). Authors arrange textbooks thematically in order to reduce the confusion that would arise if every event in world history textbooks were arranged chronologically. Even when we rehearse life experiences to friends and family, oftentimes we speak climactically rather than chronologically. A teenager may return home from an amusement park and tell his father about all of the roller coasters he rode at Six Flags. Likely, rather than mentioning all of them in the order he rode them, he will start with the most exciting ones and end with the boring ones (if there is such thing as a “boring” roller coaster).

Had Matthew and Luke claimed to arrange the temptations of Jesus chronologically, skeptics would have a legitimate case. But, the fact of the matter is, neither Matthew nor Luke ever claimed such. Either one of the two gospel writers recorded these events in the order they happened, or both of them wrote topically. Most biblical scholars believe that Matthew was concerned more with the order of events in this story because of his use of words like “then” (4:5, Greek tote) and “again” (4:8, Greek palin). These two adverbs seem to indicate a more sequential order of the temptations. Luke simply links the events by using the Greek words kai and de (4:2, 5-6, translated “and”). [The NKJV’s translation of kai as “then” in Luke 4:5 is incorrect. It should be translated simply “and” (cf. KJV, ASV, NASV, and RSV)]. Similar to the English word “and” not having specific chronological implications, neither do the Greek words kai and de (Richards, 1993, p. 230). In short, Luke’ s account of the temptations of Jesus is arranged topically (or possibly climactically), whereas Matthew’s account seems to be arranged chronologically.

This is just one more example of an alleged Bible contradiction that has been refuted rather easily by a proper use of both “reason” and “revelation.”

Most people who have done much study from the synoptic gospels are aware that following the baptism of Jesus, He “then” (Matthew 4:1; Luke 4:1) “immediately” (Mark 1:12) was sent out by the Spirit into the wilderness where He fasted for forty days while being tempted by the devil. Skeptics likewise are “well informed” of this story. In fact, some skeptics presume to know about this time in Jesus’ life so well, they have argued that the apostle John contradicted the synoptic writers (see “Inerrancy;” “Contradictions;” Wells, 2001). Allegedly, John placed Jesus at the wedding in Cana of Galilee just three days following His baptism (John 1:19-2:1), whereas Mark indicated that Jesus went into the desert for forty days “immediately” following His baptism. Is this a real chronological contradiction, as some suppose?

Like so many of the other occasions when skeptics contend that two or more passages of Scripture are at odds with one another, this is just another example of where a particular text has been misunderstood. John 1 does not teach (as has been alleged) that “three days after the events where Jesus and John the Baptist meet [and when Jesus was baptized—EL]…, Jesus was attending a wedding in Cana” (“Inerrancy”). Notice what the first chapter of John’s gospel account actually teaches the following:

• Verses 19-25 contain John the Baptizer’s testimony regarding who he is. (“Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, ‘Who are you?’ ”—vs. 19.)
• In verses 26-27, John explains to the priests and Levites that there is One Who is greater than himself—Jesus.
• “The next day,” John sees Jesus and proclaims, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (vs. 29). John then explains to those around him that this Man is the One about Whom he was speaking the previous day (vs. 30).
• In verse 31, John the Baptizer explains to his listeners how Jesus was “revealed to Israel” at His baptism (vs. 31). Then, in the following three verses, John bears witness about that baptism, saying,

> I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God (32-35, emp. added).

• Verses 35-37 indicate that the day after John revealed the above facts to his listeners, he saw Jesus again, and two of John’s disciples began following Jesus that very day.
• The next day, Philip and Nathanael began following the Lord.
• Then, “on the third day” following John’s testimony of Jesus’ baptism and the Spirit Who descended upon Him, Jesus and His disciples are said to be at a wedding in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1ff.)

Nowhere in John 1 does a person learn that Jesus and His disciples are in Galilee at a wedding three days after His baptism. The gospel of John does not even contain the actual account of Jesus’ baptism. The apostle John records only what John the Baptizer testified about the baptism of Jesus, which occurred some time in the past (exactly when, we are not told). While John and the others looked at Jesus, he related to them (in the past tense) the event of Jesus’ baptism and its significance. It is erroneous to assume that His baptism actually was taking place at the very time John the Baptizer was speaking the words recorded in John 1:29-34. Thus, the apostle John, in writing his gospel account, did not “deny” (as Steve Wells alleged) what the other gospel writers wrote concerning the days immediately following Jesus’ baptism. He merely supplemented the synoptic gospels by revealing to his readers that sometime after Jesus’ baptism and wilderness temptations, He saw John the Baptizer again—and three days later went to a wedding in Cana of Galilee.

Luke 4:1–13
—Is there a mistake in the temptation of Jesus recorded by Matthew and Luke?
(See comments on
Matt. 4:5–10
.)