Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness are different (Matthew 4:1–11; Luke 4:1–13): The second and third temptations recorded by Matthew are flip-flopped in Luke’s account. Matthew recorded that, in his second temptation, Satan tried to persuade Jesus to throw Himself off the pinnacle of the temple. For the third temptation, Matthew listed Satan’s attempt to get Jesus to worship him. Even though Luke mentioned the same two events, he listed them in reverse order. How are these accounts not contradictory?
In short, this question is based upon an assumption. Those who claim that the order of temptations is a contradiction assume that events are always written (or spoken) chronologically. However, that simply is not the case. 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 (ad 1000–1300). Yet, in the very next chapter, you might learn about Medieval India (150 bc–ad 1400). Authors arrange world history textbooks thematically in order to reduce the confusion that would arise if they tried to record every event chronologically.
Even when we tell life experiences to friends and family, we often 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. Rather than mentioning all of them in the exact order he rode them, he may start with the most exciting one and end with the least thrilling one, or vice versa.
Had both Matthew and Luke claimed to have arranged the temptations of Jesus chronologically, skeptics would have a legitimate criticism. The fact is that at least one of the writers could have written topically and never intended for readers to assume a strict, sequential ordering of the events.
Although Bible writers often are accused of having written contradictory statements, an honest, in-depth study shows the so-called “contradictions” are merely accusations of contradictions and not valid, proven discrepancies. Remember, assumptions are not contradictions!
—Eric Lyons
