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.”
REFERENCES
Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Grand Rapids, MI:
Revell).
Copyright © 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
