Problem: Mark merely refers to the temptation of Jesus (Mk. 1:12-13), but doesn’t give specifics. John omits the event altogether. Luke and Matthew both describe the temptation, yet they contain the conversation in a different order:

Is this a contradiction?

Solution: No. Commentators believe that Matthew most likely captured the temptations chronologically, while Luke captured them topically. Craig Evans writes, “Fitzmyer[1] believes that Matthew has retained the original order, which is reflected in the logical progression of the temptations (from desert-floor, to pinnacle of temple, to a high mountain) and in the descending order of Jesus’ quotations from Deuteronomy.”^[2] Nolland writes, “Most [commentators] rightly recognize the priority of the Matthean order which allows the first two closely related temptations to be juxtaposed, and sets the quotations from Deuteronomy in simple reverse order.”^[3]

Ancient historians did not hold chronological ordering as a priority. For instance, if someone asked you, “How was high school for you?” You might say, “I graduated with a 4.0, I played football my sophomore year, and I was in a major car accident when I got my license.” Of course, this account is not chronological. But based on this, would it be reasonable for them to call you a liar for recounting your experience in this way? Of course not. We can record events topically and still tell them truly.

NT scholar Richard Longenecker notes that almost all ancient historians wrote topically, rather than chronologically. He writes, “In writing their histories the ancients frequently grouped their material per species, without always specifying chronological relationships.”^[4] He cites a number of examples of ancient historians who adopted this view: (1) Satyrus’ Life of Euripides, (2) Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, (3) all Roman historians besides Tacitus, and (4) Suetonius’ Augustus.^[5]

Why do Matthew and Luke choose to recount this event in two different ways? Luke most likely wanted to emphasize Jesus going to Jerusalem. Jesus ultimately defeats the temptations of Satan by going to Jerusalem to die on the Cross. We agree with Darrell Bock who writes, “Luke will highlight Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem (9:51–19:44), the nation’s central city, as the place Jesus is fated to go and suffer death. So Satan’s offer to circumvent that suffering is a truly sinister effort to thwart God’s plan. The placement of this temptation last foreshadows the strategic role Jerusalem will have in Luke’s story.”^[6] Craig Evans adds, “Jerusalem plays a significant part in Luke’s story of Jesus. Only in Luke’s Gospel does Jesus “set his face toward Jerusalem” (9:51) and then take the next ten chapters or so to get there (i.e., 9:51–19:27). The importance of Jerusalem for Jesus is hinted at in Luke 13:33: “surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!” (see commentary on 13:31–35 below). For Luke, Jerusalem is the city of Jesus’ destiny, and therefore it is appropriate that the temptation scenes reach their climax there.”^[7]

On the other hand, Leifeld holds that Matthew might want to emphasize the importance of the Gentiles or nations in Jesus’ plan. After all, Matthew’s gospel ends with the Great Commission to “all nations.” He writes, “It may be that Matthew preferred to conclude with a kingdom reference. Possibly Luke wants to center on the city of Jerusalem (v. 9), which Matthew does not mention by name, because of his theme of the progression of the gospel from Jerusalem to the Gentile nations.”^[8] Surely both views are possible.

[1] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 2 vols., AB 28 and 28a. Garden City: Doubleday, 1985. 507-508.

^[2] Evans, C. A. (1990). Luke (p. 65). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

^[3] Nolland, J. (2002). Luke 1:1–9:20 (Vol. 35A, p. 177). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

^[4] Longenecker, Richard. The Acts of the Apostles. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 9: John and Acts (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. 1981. 213.

^[5] Longenecker, Richard. The Acts of the Apostles. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 9: John and Acts (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. 1981. 213.

^[6] Bock, D. L. (1994). Luke (Lk 4:1). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

^[7] Evans, C. A. (1990). Luke (p. 65). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

^[8] Leifeld, W. L. (1984). Luke. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Vol. 8, p. 864). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Problem: Twice in the New Testament one can read of the drought of Eljiah’s day that lasted for three and a half years. Jesus once referred to this famine while addressing fellow Jews in His hometown of Nazareth (Luke 4:25-26), while James mentioned it near the end of his epistle (5:17-18). Some have a problem with the drought of “three years and six months,” because 1 Kings 18:1 says: “The word of the Lord came to Elijah, in the third year, saying, ‘Go, present yourself to Ahab, and I will send rain on the earth’” (emp. added). Soon thereafter, “there was a heavy rain” (18:45; cf. 18:15). The question is, did the rain come “in the third year” (1 Kings 18:1, emp. added) or after “three years and six months” (Luke 4:25; James 5:17)?
Continue reading →

Problem: Numerous times in the gospel accounts, the Bible writers recorded statements made by Jesus while He was on Earth. Puzzling to some Bible readers is the fact that, although Bible writers frequently recorded the same statements, they are not exactly (word-for-word) alike. For example, whereas Matthew recorded that Jesus told Satan, “It is written again (palin gegrapti), ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (4:7), Luke wrote: “It has been said (eiratai), ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (4:12). Although this difference is considered minor, and is referring to the same thing (the Old Testament), Matthew and Luke still recorded Jesus’ statement using different words. Why? Why did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John not always record the words of Jesus exactly alike?
Continue reading →

Problem: In Matthew chapter four, we read about Jesus’ temptation by Satan in the wilderness. The text says that Jesus “fasted forty days and forty nights.” How could Jesus possibly live that long without eating? Does the length of Jesus’ fast cast doubt on the reliability of the Bible?
Continue reading →

Problem: 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.
Continue reading →

Problem: According to both Matthew and Luke, the first temptation was to turn stones into bread to satisfy Jesus’ hunger. The second temptation listed by Matthew took place at the pinnacle of the temple. The third temptation listed by Matthew involved all the kingdoms of the world. However, although Luke mentions these same two events, he lists them in reverse order—the kingdoms of the world are mentioned second and the pinnacle of the temple is mentioned third. Which is the correct order?
Continue reading →

Problem: 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?
Continue reading →

Problem: If Jesus is God’s “only begotten Son,” then how can angels and Christians also be God’s sons?

It is clear from verses such as the following that one title for Jesus is “Son of God.”
Continue reading →

Problem: Luke 3:36 is the only verse in the Bible where one can read of the patriarch Arphaxad having a son named Cainan. Although another Cainan (the son of Enosh) is mentioned seven times in Scripture (Genesis 5:9-10,12-14; 1 Chronicles 1:2; Luke 3:37), outside of Luke 3:36, Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, is never mentioned. He is omitted in the genealogies of Genesis 10 and 11, as well as in the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1:1-28. When the son of Arphaxad is listed in these genealogies, the name always given is Salah (or Shelah), not Cainan. According to some skeptics, either Cainan’s omission from the genealogies in Genesis and First Chronicles represents a genuine mistake, or Luke was in error when he wrote that Arphaxad had a son named Cainan.
Continue reading →

Problem: Does the genealogy in Luke 3:36 give an extra Cainan not found in similar genealogies, such as Genesis 11:12?

There is an alleged error in Luke 3:36. The genealogy gives an extra Cainan not found in similar genealogies, such as Genesis 11:12.

Expositor Dr. John Gill gives ample reasons why this was a copyist error.1
Continue reading →

Problem: For many people, the belief that the Bible contains contradictions and inaccuracies is an excuse for not believing.

A Christian talk radio show in America frequently broadcasts an advertisement for a product. In this ad, a young lady explains her take on Scripture: “The Bible was written a long time ago, and there wasn’t a lot of knowledge back then. I think that if you read between the lines, it kinda contradicts itself.” The show’s host replies, “Oh no, it doesn’t!” but nevertheless her view is a common view among many people.
Continue reading →

Problem: How can Jesus be the Messiah when he has both Moabite and Ammonite ancestry listed in his genealogies (per Deuteronomy 23:3)? Also did the author of Deuteronomy 23:3–4 “forget” that in Numbers 22:7 it was Midian and not Ammon who with Moab, hired Balaam to curse Israel. How can the Holy Spirit be “real” if it allowed Moses to err and write in Deuteronomy 23:3–4 that it was Ammon instead of Midian who with Moab hired Balaam to curse Israel? The Holy Spirit is not supposed to contradict itself and make mistakes, yet did here, unjustifiably cursing Ammon for all eternity for an action initiated by the “elders of Midian.” And why then were Midian’s descendants not cursed by God and forbidden to enter the Holy Congregation, but only Ammon and Moab are cursed?
Continue reading →

Problem: If a teenage boy whom you just met told you that his parents were “David and Marie,” but then a few minutes later you overheard him tell a county clerk that he was the son of “John and Joanne,” you might assume that the teen had lied either to you or to the county clerk. The fact of the matter is, however, the teen could be telling the truth. It may be that most people recognize his parents by their middle names—David and Marie, but for more official business his parents use their first names—John and Joanne. Or, perhaps the boy had been reared by his grandparents because his parents had died in a tragic car accident when he was an infant. The boy may refer to his grandparents as “mom” and “dad” since they were the only “mom” and “dad” he ever really knew (experientially). In turn, the grandparents may refer to him as their “son.” In most all unofficial documents and casual conversations the terms “mom,” “dad,” and “son” are used. For nearly all official documents and in most formal conversations, the terms “grandparents” and “grandson” are used. These are two very real possibilities as to why a teenage boy may refer to his parents by different names. Assuming and alleging the worst about the teen without knowing all of the facts would be unfair and inappropriate.
Continue reading →

Problem: One of the charges of contradiction brought by skeptics against the Bible is the surface appearance of contradiction between Matthew’s genealogical list (1:1-17) and the one provided by Luke (3:23-38). As is always the case, the charge of contradiction is premature and reflects an immature appraisal of the extant evidence. In every case of alleged contradiction, further investigation has yielded additional evidence that exonerates the Bible and further verifies its inerrancy. The alleged discrepancies pertaining to Matthew and Luke’s genealogies were explained and answered long ago (e.g., Haley, 1977, pp. 325-326; McGarvey, 1910, pp. 344-346; McGarvey, 1974, pp. 51-55; cf. Lyons, 2003).
Continue reading →