Why is the order of the temptations in Matthew different from Luke?

Matthew 4:1–11 (ESV)

1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

In short

The order of the temptations is different between Matthew and Luke because

Matthew follows temporal chronology while Luke alters the order of temptations two and three and presents the temptation in logical chronology.

Matthew and Luke both recall Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, and both accounts are remarkably similar. Still there is a slight difference in the fact that Luke reorders temptations two and three. How should we account for this difference?

It is interesting to note that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all share material with each other. At the same time, there is material that is only shared between Matthew and Luke. This has led scholars to believe that Matthew and Luke either relied on each other’s work, or there is another source that Matthew and Luke used to compile their gospels. In either case, we notice that the material shared between Matthew and Luke will sometimes have near identical wording, with slight variations. This seems to be the case with the temptation narrative, with the main variation being that Luke has switched the order of temptations two and three. So why would Luke do this?

We have to keep in mind that ancient authors are not as concerned with temporal chronology as modern historians. Of course, this does not mean that temporal chronology is completely unimportant to the authors of the Gospels. Still, the writers sometimes grasp the significance of an event as a whole, irrespective of temporal chronology, and present it accordingly. This seems to be what Luke has done with the temptation narrative.

We have good reason to think that Matthew perseveres the original temporal order because he uses temporal language such as the adverb then throughout his account, while Luke replaces then with and. Further, Matthew includes the imperative command, Be gone, Satan! after which Satan leaves, while Luke leaves this out. The likely reason is because the phrase forces a temporal perspective on the event and Luke wants to avoid this.

So if Matthew contains the original temporal sequence and Luke alters it slightly, he likely does so for rhetorical purposes. What might Luke’s rhetorical purpose be? Two possible options are on the table. For one, Luke might want to finish the sequence with Jesus in Jerusalem. Notice that Luke includes the idea that after the last temptation, Satan left but waits for a future opportune time. Does this imply that when Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified shortly thereafter, Satan returned to tempt in full force? In any case, Luke thinks it is important to end the account with Jesus in Jerusalem.

Added to this, Luke’s account implies the divinity of Jesus. That is because he ends with Jesus’ exhortation that you shall not tempt the Lord your God. After this Satan leaves. In other words, Jesus is God, and Satan should not tempt him.

While Matthew’s account does not lack rhetorical effect, it does have temporal indicators that are not in Luke’s account. Likely, Luke rearranged the material slightly to serve his literary aims which might include the correlation between temptation and Jerusalem, or to highlight Jesus’ divinity.

Interpretation 1:
Matthew follows temporal chronology while Luke alters the order of temptations two and three, presenting the temptation in logical chronology.

Summary:

When we look closely at the New Testament, we find that Mark, Matthew, and Luke all share some content. We also find that Matthew and Luke share content that is not contained in Mark. Either Matthew and Luke used each other’s work, or they relied on a shared source that is now lost to history. In either case, it is likely that Matthew’s account is based on temporal chronology of events because he uses grammatical indicators such as then where Luke does not. Luke is more concerned with logical chronology.

Matthew and Luke sometimes slightly rearrange their accounts in order to convey important theological insights. In this case, it is important to Matthew to retain the temporal chronology of Jesus’ temptation, while Luke highlights Jesus’ divinity and the city of Jerusalem. Thus, the Gospels offer four distinct but united accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus.

Advocates:

Donald Carson
Ulrich Luz
Eduard Schweizer
David Turner
Jakob van Bruggen

Minor differences:

Our authors agree that Matthew’s account either depicts the original sequence of events as learned through Jesus himself or at least reproduces the order presented in a source no longer available to us. In either case, it is Luke who has altered the temporal chronology by switching temptations two and three. The fact that Luke switches the temporal order of temptations two and three might alarm modern interpreters, but this should not be so. It is important to understand that ancient authors did not esteem temporal chronology as highly as modern historians. Instead, ancient authors were sometimes motivated to arrange their material from a literary perspective. Of course, temporal chronology is a reality and not completely unimportant, and so ancient authors often preserve temporal chronology. This is likely how Matthew approached the material pertaining to Christ’s temptations. Luke, on the other hand, understood the importance of the event as a whole and presented it in a logical sequence for climatic effect. So, while our advocates agree that Matthew’s account reproduces the temporal chronology and Luke alters the second and third temptations for rhetorical effect, they differ slightly on the rhetorical effect Luke intended to produce.

For Turner and Luz, Luke switched temptations two and three because he wanted to end the account with Jesus in Jerusalem.^1,2 They explain that Luke concludes his account with the ominous notes that although the devil stopped tempting Jesus, he was simply waiting for a future opportune time.³ This note is missing from Matthew. The idea is that the next time Jesus would be tempted is when he was arrested and crucified in and around Jerusalem.

Eduard Schweizer and Jakob van Bruggen agree that Luke was motivated to end his account with Jesus in Jerusalem, but he may also have had another motive.^4,5 One way to view the temptation account is in terms of quantity. The devil tempted Jesus not once, not twice, but three times, and Jesus resisted. Another way to view the temptations is in terms of quantity and progression, and Luke may have recognized this. First, Jesus resists by explaining that man shall not live by bread alone. Next, he explains that man shall worship and serve the Lord only. In other words, Jesus has explained that God is the giver of life, and the one to serve. Still, the devil continues so Jesus explains that you shall not tempt the Lord God. Here we see an interesting progression. God is the source of life; therefore, God is to be served, and not to be tempted.⁶ Further, Luke may have wanted to highlight the divinity of Jesus because the devil relents after Jesus tells him that God is not to be tempted, thus inferring that Jesus is God.⁷

Arguments

Explanation:

In order to understand why it is likely that Matthew retains the temporal chronology whereas Luke opts for logical chronology that serves his rhetorical purposes, we need to compare Matthew and Luke. When we do this, we find that the accounts are very similar on a number of fronts, which suggests literary dependence.^8,9 At the same time, there are differences that suggest that Matthew is the account that preserves temporal chronology.

First, Matthew uses the temporal indicator then throughout his account, whereas Luke uses and. For example, after Jesus resists the first temptation Matthew explains, Then the devil took him to the holy city. Luke, on the other hand, follows up the first temptation with, And [καί] the devil took him up…

Second, when we reach the final temptation, Matthew includes Jesus' imperative command, Be gone, Satan! After this, Satan leaves. Luke does not include this phrase because there is a temporal connection between Jesus’ telling Satan to leave and Satan’s leaving. Since Luke is not recounting the event temporally, it is not fitting for him to include such a statement.¹⁰ The notion of Satan being given an order, and subsequently leaving, only makes sense temporally.

Counterargument:

While it is true that Luke uses and where Matthew uses then, and can also be used to denote a result that comes from what proceeded it.¹¹ In other words, Satan tempted Jesus and Jesus resisted the temptation. The result of this resistance is that Satan took Jesus to the next place and tempted him again. In other words, καί essentially denotes a temporal sequence.

Response to counterargument:

In fact, it is not precisely the case that if καί is used to denote the result of some cause, the entire Lukan account is temporal. Rather it means that a result followed from some cause, regardless of the precise sequence of the cause. For example, if someone’s car was hit and they had to make an insurance claim, the cause of their having to make the claim is the fact that their car was hit. Of course, there is a sequence of temporal events that connect the car being wrecked and the subsequent insurance claim. For example, a dog may have run onto the road so that the car swerved to miss the dog and hit the parked car. Or did the driver fall asleep and hit the parked car? Or was it raining that morning so that the car could not stop at a red light and so hit the parked car? In any case, the temporal sequence of events does not add to the fact that the car is wrecked with the result that you need to claim insurance.

On the other hand, the insurance company might be highly interested in the exact sequence of events that caused the collision. In this case, τότε is the appropriate adverb to explain the precise temporal sequence of events. That is because then is used to specifically denote what follows in time.¹² Given the fact that Matthew uses then where Luke uses and to introduce each subsequent temptation, it is likely that Matthew has temporal succession in mind whereas Luke has the event as a whole in mind.

Explanation:

Given the similarities between Matthew and Luke, we have good reason to think that these depended on each other or another source for their respective accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry.¹³ Still, even within the material that seems obviously shared, like the temptation account, we find some differences between Matthew and Luke. In this case, the difference has to do with altering the order of materials. Both Matthew and Luke agree on the order of the first temptation, but they switch temptations two and three. So how do we explain this? One way to look at the issue is to assume that one of the two accounts has the correct temporal sequence. The other slightly rearranged that sequence for rhetorical purposes. If we assume this is the case, then we can ask, Which account has more rhetorical force based on its chronology, Matthew’s or Luke’s?

When we compare these we find that Luke ends with Jesus in Jerusalem, a highly important Israelite city, and Satan being told not to tempt God. On the other hand, Matthew ends with Jesus on a faraway mountain. Since Jerusalem is an important Israelite city, whereas the far away mountain has no obvious historical connection, it is more likely that Luke made the change by ending the account with Jesus in Jerusalem.¹⁴ Thus, Matthew preserves temporal chronology and Luke alters the account slightly for rhetorical effect.

Counterargument:

It is difficult to ascertain which account offers temporal order and which orders Jesus’ temptation for rhetorical purposes. Still, if we agree that the best way to decide which one retains the temporal chronology is by deducing which ending likely has greater rhetorical effect, our efforts are sure to fail. The reason for this is that both accounts offer strong rhetorical effect. If Luke’s account was slightly reordered for rhetorical effect, then the account purposely ends in the historic city of Jerusalem, or, Luke indicates Jesus' divinity by highlighting that Satan left once Jesus told him not to tempt God.

Of course, Matthew’s ending is just as riveting and displays obvious progression. First, Satan tempts Jesus with the basic essentials of life because he is hungry. Next, he tempts Jesus to test whether God truly is enough. Finally, puts all his cards on the table and offers him every kingdom on earth. There is a clear progression of thought on Satan’s part as the drama builds, but Jesus resists every step, before finally commanding Satan to leave. Further, the elevation of Matthew’s account grows progressively higher. First Jesus is on the ground, next he is on the temple, and finally he is on a high mountain. It is a remarkable event that builds into an obvious climax.

Possible weaknesses:

The only weakness of this view is that it is developed on the assumption that one of the two accounts must be in temporal chronological order. Of course, it is possible that both Matthew and Luke rearranged the temporal order for a logical order that suited their rhetorical aims. If this is the case, then we cannot say that Luke reordered the account for rhetorical purposes because then both accounts have done this. Rather, the differences would amount to different rhetorical aims which should be articulated appropriately. Still, given the temporal language of Matthew’s account, we have good reason to think that he is retelling the temporal order as originally collected from Jesus himself.

Interpretation 1:Matthew follows temporal chronology while Luke alters the order of temptations two and three, presenting the temptation in logical chronology.

Interpretation 1:
Matthew follows temporal chronology while Luke alters the order of temptations two and three, presenting the temptation in logical chronology.