Luke 4:1-13: Order of the Temptations?

When we compare the account of the temptations (or better, testings) of Jesus in Luke 4:1-13 with that in Matthew 4:5-10, we quickly notice that their order is different. Both accounts agree that (1) the testing was initiated by the Spirit (although Matthew makes it clear that this was the purpose of the wilderness time, while Luke does not make it clear that this was the Spirit's purpose), (2) Jesus fasted during this period (Matthew adds the detail of forty days), (3) Jesus was hungry after his fast, (4) at the end of the fast Satan approached Jesus, (5) the tests involved Jesus' sense of identity, particularly his identity as Son of God, and (6) the first test was a demand for him on his own to make stones into bread. After this the two accounts diverge. While the two Evangelists agree on the content of the next two tests, they do not agree on the order. Luke ends with Jesus on the "the highest point of the temple," while Matthew ends with Jesus on "a very high mountain." Why are these accounts different, and doesn't this cast doubt on the accuracy of the Gospels?

To start with we will assume that the two authors are using the same source, a source that had the testings of Jesus in one of the two orders. We say this because there is plenty of evidence that Matthew and Luke had a source in common (although it was probably an oral source) and because these two accounts are so close that a common source seems probable. However, even if they were using separate sources we would still have the same problem, but just pushed back from Gospels we can examine to sources we will probably never see. Thus our assumption of a common source is helpful as well as logical.

Next we notice that none of the Gospel writers claims to be giving a careful chronology. It is true that in Luke 1:3 the author claims to be writing "an orderly account," yet this does not mean that the order he will set things down in is chronological. It was far more important to the ancient historian that we grasp the meaning of history than that we get the chronology straight. Thus Matthew groups the sayings of Jesus in five major "books" by topic: Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5--7), Mission Charge (Mt 10), Parables of the Kingdom (Mt 13), Church Discourse (Mt 18) and Eschatological Discourse (Mt 24--25). Luke has another way of grouping his material, so his Sermon on the Plain (Lk 6) does not contain everything in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount; instead, some of the material is found in Luke's section on God and Mammon (Lk 12) or on Prayer (Lk 11). In each case we get topical groupings, which give us an orderly account in that they order the material so we can better understand it. In neither case do we necessarily get the exact setting in which Jesus said all of the material. To do that would likely have made the material harder to understand, for it would have been split over large portions of the Gospel. Exact chronology is a relatively modern fixation; ancient writers were very happy to compromise chronology if by so doing readers got a better grasp on the inner meaning and real significance of the facts.

It is important, then, to try to see what significance the differing orders point to. Each of the Gospel writers is trying to bring out only some aspects of the character and significance of Jesus, so each of them will be different. Let us look at Matthew first. Matthew begins by noting "forty days and forty nights." Except for 1 Kings 19:8 and the flood account, every time this phrase is used in the Old Testament it refers to Moses on Sinai. Matthew notes this detail because he is quite aware of the parallel. Notice also that all of the responses Jesus gives come from Deuteronomy 6--8, where Moses is exhorting the Hebrews after narrating the story of Israel in the wilderness. So in Deuteronomy 8:3 we read, "He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD." The reference is to the manna, which was given when the people were hungry and did not trust God, but instead demanded food. Jesus trusts God and does not demand food. Deuteronomy 6:13, quoted in this passage, follows Deuteronomy 6:12, "Be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." This verse reminds us of the golden calf at Sinai (the reason for Moses' second fast of forty days) when Israel got tired of waiting for Moses and instead made the calf, of which they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt" (Ex 32:4). Again, we have a reference to the failure of Israel in the wilderness. Finally, look at the full context of Deuteronomy 6:16, "Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah." Again we have a reference to Israel's failure in the wilderness.

Matthew is very conscious of the parallel between Jesus and Israel. In Matthew 2:15 he cites Hosea 11:1, "Out of Egypt I called my son." The Old Testament refers to Israel as this son called out of Egypt. Matthew clearly applies it to Jesus. What, then, is Matthew saying in the testings of Jesus? Israel, God's son, was tested in the wilderness and ten times turned, refusing to trust God, and put him to the test (Num 14:22). They did not show themselves to be true as the collective son of God. Now Jesus comes. He is declared to be God's Son (Mt 3:17), but will he be a false son like Israel or a true son? Like Israel he is led into the wilderness in order to be tested (it is Matthew who stresses this purpose of the Spirit's action). Like Israel there is a forty-day fast (although in Israel's case only Moses is said to fast). Like Israel he is tested with hunger, with putting God's promises to the test (as in Massah, which means "testing"), and with false gods. Unlike Israel, Jesus passes the test every time. He is indeed the true Son, the heir of Israel's promises, able to represent his people. Notice that the test by false gods is the peak of the tests, just as in the Old Testament history the manna and Massah came before the golden calf at Sinai. And it would be false gods that would trip up Israel for centuries until the exile. Jesus conquers all of Israel's failures.

Luke is not writing to a Jewish audience who would see themselves as heirs to the Old Testament and appreciate the points we made above. He uses the same testings and the same responses by Jesus, but his main interest is not in Old Testament fulfillment. Luke's picture is more that of the kingdom of God invading the kingdom of Satan. For example, right after this event we find Jesus announcing the theme of his mission in Luke 4:18-19. We understand about the preaching of good news and the proclaiming "the year of the Lord's favor," and we know about "recovery of sight for the blind," but who are the prisoners who are freed or the oppressed who are released? The fact that the Nazareth incident is followed by the driving out of a demon in Luke 4:31-37 gives us one clue. Another comes in Luke 13:10-17 where the woman crippled by "a spirit" is said to have been "bound by Satan" and is now "loosed" (RSV). Throughout the Gospel we get a picture of Jesus entering the kingdom of Satan and releasing those who are "bound."

What does this have to do with the testing of Jesus? Luke is very directional in his story. It begins with Joseph and Mary traveling from Nazareth to Bethlehem (near Jerusalem), whereas Matthew simply mentions that the birth took place in Bethlehem. Luke has a central section from Luke 9:51--18:34 or perhaps to Luke 19:44 in which Jesus is traveling from Galilee to Jerusalem. Every so often during this narrative there is a notice about where Jesus is on his journey toward Jerusalem, although the section collects material from his whole ministry. Here is the Son of God, starting at the edge of Satan's kingdom, so to speak, and moving steadily toward the center where the final confrontation, the final drama of salvation history will be played out. (Acts, volume two of the story, will start the gospel in Jerusalem and move outward to Judea and Samaria and then on to Rome.) The testing story is this movement played out in miniature. Satan confronts him in the wilderness, then confronts him again on a high mountain (Jerusalem is up in the mountains) and finally confronts him in Jerusalem itself. Each time Satan loses until finally Satan leaves him "until an opportune time." The miniature confrontation is the parable for the larger confrontation of Jesus' ministry. At each juncture when Jesus meets an aspect of Satan's "kingdom" Satan loses, until the final confrontation in Jerusalem. There Satan seems to win, but in fact loses in the end. It is the one who trusts the Father in the testings who on the cross says, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." And it is the cross that he had to suffer before he could "enter his glory" (Lk 24:26).

What was the actual order of the testings of Jesus? We cannot be sure. We know which one was first, but do not know the order of the other two. I personally believe that Matthew had less reason to rearrange the testings than did Luke, so suspect that Matthew's order is the original order, but that is impossible to prove conclusively. Both the Gospel writers give what they promise, a truthful interpretation of the life of Jesus that brings out the true meaning of the different events. Each of the authors sees a different aspect of this true meaning. Matthew focuses on Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament and thus Jesus as the true Son that Israel failed to be. Luke focuses on Jesus moving toward Jerusalem as the Son of God invading Satan's kingdom and bringing God's salvation in history to those whom Satan has bound. Each orders the testings of Jesus and mentions details to bring out their picture. Both pictures are true, but neither is complete in itself. If we lacked either picture we would be poorer. This is why it is important to read each Gospel for itself and to get the distinctive message each author is proclaiming, to see the picture each author is painting. If we try to merge them together to get a homogenized harmony we lose these distinct contributions, moving from books Christians believe God inspired to an interest in mere history. If, instead of imposing our interests on the text, we listen to each author, we will profit as they proclaim to us that aspect of the good news about Jesus that was entrusted to each of them.