Saddles at Blue Bell Lodge, ND
An Early Luke

Luke’s resequencing of the temptations of Jesus

October 12, 2026 - By 

What novel insights might be discerned (or speculated!) by reading Luke’s Gospel under the premise that it was published in the early AD 50s, for the benefit of churches being planted in Macedonia and Achaia (Greece) during Paul’s second missionary journey? This is the publication scenario that arises if one accepts that 2 Corinthians 8:18 is referring to Luke and his Gospel. But further, what if we also presume that Luke had full knowledge of a chronologically-accurate Matthew, published within a decade of the resurrection, along with Mark, published shortly thereafter, as proposed in A Trustworthy Gospel and A Gospel for Cornelius?1

In this article we consider Luke’s resequencing of Jesus’ three temptations, whereby Luke 4:1–13 (with its temptations concerning bread, power, and preservation) is assumed to have intentionally rearranged the temptation order found in Matthew 4:1–11 (bread, preservation, power). First, we’ll look at the transitional language in Luke and affirm that Luke is not claiming to present a chronological sequence that might conflict with Matthew’s (assumed) chronological sequence. Then, we’ll survey several scholars for their proposals as to why Luke might have resequenced the three temptations. Finally, I’ll offer a novel proposition for why Luke might have made the change, under the premise of an early AD 50s publication. I do recognize that the proposition is speculative and only mildly insightful; yet, perhaps the approach will productively combine with insights to be gained elsewhere in Luke, as we continue to view such through the lens prescribed above.

TRANSITIONAL LANGUAGE

Before conducting a survey of possible reasons for why Luke might have rearranged the three temptations, it is appropriate to affirm that the transitional language in Luke, connecting the three temptations, does not assert a chronological sequence that conflicts with Matthew’s sequence. We start by recognizing that the transition into Luke’s second temptation (Luke 4:5–8), where the devil offers to give Jesus power over the kingdoms of the world, begins with a simple conjunction (kai), while the third temptation (Luke 4:9–12), where the devil invites Jesus to test God’s commitment to Jesus’ preservation, is introduced with a simple contrastive conjunction (de). These conjunctions do not necessarily assert a specific sequence, and therefore do not present a conflict with Matthew’s presumably chronologically accurate sequence.2 On the other hand, Matthew itself uses an adverb (then/tote) that does convey sequence; although the sequence may be either temporal or logical. However, Matthew also leverages another adverb (again/palin), which in combination with tote does suggest a chronological sequence: “then (tote) the devil took him to … the pinnacle of the temple … Jesus said to him, ‘Again (palin) it is written’ … again (palin) the devil took him to a very high mountain … then (tote) Jesus said to him” (Matt. 4:5–10).3

WHAT DO SCHOLARS SUGGEST, FOR WHY LUKE MIGHT HAVE REARRANGED THE TEMPTATIONS?

Of those scholars who affirm that it is Luke who has departed from Matthew’s sequence, what motivations are proposed? Marshall suggests that Luke has rearranged the sequence in order to “lay stress on the [subsequent] conclusion of the temptations in the temple.”4 Garland offers a similar assessment, noting that “In Luke’s extensive travel narrative beginning in 9:51, Jerusalem is the goal of Jesus’ ministry and [the place of] his ‘exodus’ … When he finally arrives in the city, he faces his greatest temptation and prays that God might, if possible, rescue him from his impending death.”5 Yet, despite Jesus’ appeal for deliverance, Jesus will still press ahead towards the cross. Geisler and Howe also suggest that Luke has arranged the three temptations “to express the climax he desired to emphasize”; namely, the temptation at the temple.6 Garland adds that Luke’s temptation arrangement allows for the corresponding OT citations to follow a sequence that aligns with the events recalled in Psalm 106 (106:14–15 to 106:19–20 to 106:32–33), events in which Israel had failed by succumbing to temptation.7 More broadly, Bock credits Schulz as asserting that “Luke has a theological motive for his rearrangement. For Luke, Jerusalem is the climactic locale of conflict in Jesus’ life”; hence, “Luke’s rearrangement places emphasis on the Jerusalem temple.”8 Each of these speculations are insightful. Yet, within the context proposed above, whereby Luke is presumed to have been written in the early AD 50s for the benefit of the churches being planted in Macedonia and Achaia, perhaps the climactic emphasis on the temple temptation is driven by something beyond the mere anticipation of events in Jerusalem.

A SPECULATIVE PROPOSAL

According to Luke’s travelogue of Paul’s missionary activity, Paul was in Troas when he had a vision of a man from Macedonia who implored Paul to “Come over to Macedonia and help us” (Acts 16:6–10), to bring the gospel into a region where Greek and Roman culture flourished. Significantly, it was in Troas where Luke joined the team, per the “we” passages in Acts. Was it a mere coincidence that Luke joined the mission at this point? As readers, we are aware that Luke would ultimately write a Gospel that appears to target this more sophisticated audience, that employs a more “polished style than the other Gospel writers.”9 Therefore, rather than being a chance encounter, I suggest that Paul’s vision and the appearance of the one who was destined to write a Gospel for the benefit of those in the region were not unrelated. If an early AD 50s date for the publication of Luke’s Gospel is to be accepted, along with Luke’s claim to have “followed all things closely for some time past” (Luke 1:3), then this suggests that Luke had already largely completed his research, such as interviewing Mary, prior to joining Paul in Troas. Per this scenario, it appears that a divine appointment brought Luke to Troas, that he might share in the vision’s mandate to take the gospel/Gospel to the region (Acts 16:10).

Luke initially traveled with Paul, Silas, and Timothy only so far as Philippi, a city that Luke described as a leading city of Macedonia and a Roman colony (Acts 16:11–24; 17:1). Notably, Philippi was a city that had prospered greatly under Roman rule, after being the site of a great battle in 42 BC when “the forces of Octavian and Anthony defeated the conspirators who had murdered Caesar.”10 It was a city boasting a “rectangular forum surrounded on three sides by the columns of a stoa” (a covered walkway), beside which “stood two Corinthian temples.”11 And, “in a terrace above the city stood a sanctuary of five shrines for the worship of the Egyptian gods.”12 Indeed, across the cities surrounding the Aegean Sea, imposing temples to a plethora of gods could be found. And in many cities, Jewish synagogues could also be found. Accordingly, Paul and his traveling companions would pass many a temple and visit many a synagogue as they journeyed through Macedonia and Achaia on the second missionary journey. In fact, Luke’s travel narrative appears quite attentive to these fixtures of society.

While scholars generally speculate that Luke shifted the Jerusalem temple temptation last in order to establish a connection with the events that would occur later in Jerusalem, I suggest that Luke is instead emphasizing the temple temptation with the intent of connecting this event with the world of Luke’s audience. For the Jewish portion of Luke’s Christian audience, we may speculate that they would connect the temple event with both Jesus’ Jewishness and his exalted position over the temple, given his ascension to the pinnacle. More significant though, for the Greco-Roman portion of Luke’s Christian audience, we may speculate that they would recognize the significance of Jesus’ ascension to the temple’s pinnacle as symbolic of his authority over all temples. Nicholas Perrin highlights the significance of pagan temples: “in the ancient world, the temple, typically perceived as the microcosm and center of the universe, defined reality as a whole.”13 For those already recognizing Jesus’ elevated position as Son of God and Savior, his confident stance above the Jewish temple defied not only the devil, but false gods worshiped elsewhere.

Furthermore, in this final temptation Jesus allows the devil’s mocking recognition of Jesus’ title as “Son of God” to stand unchallenged (Luke 4:9–12)—Jesus only responds to the sinful enticement to put the Lord to the test by stepping off the pinnacle (4:12). Yet, more so than in Matthew’s account of events leading up to the temptations, Luke’s Gospel has already placed an emphasis on pronouncements that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, savior of Israel, and a light to the nations—as announced by the angel to Mary (Luke 1:32–35), as declared by angels to shepherds (2:11), as recognized by Simeon and Anna in the temple (2:30–31, 38), as declared by the voice from heaven at his baptism (3:22), and as asserted in Luke’s genealogy (3:38). Thus, given Luke’s precursor attestations and the defacto positional emphasis placed on Luke’s third temptation, even the devil effectively adds his voice to the choir of those recognizing Jesus as God’s Son.

SUMMARY

In sum, I suggest that Luke has resequenced the temptations relative to Matthew’s account, by placing the temptation at the temple third in order to elevate such, not for the sake of drawing a connection with subsequent events at the temple in Jerusalem, but for the sake of connecting with the world of Luke’s audience. Believing Jews would identify with Jesus’s Jewishness and exalted position over the temple, while believing Greco-Romans would recognize his authority over local temples and the false gods worshiped therein. Again, in Acts, Luke is quite attentive to synagogues and temples as fixtures of society, as Paul ministers in Macedonia and Achaia. In addition, the temptation arrangement brings further attention to Luke’s emphasis on identifying Jesus as the Son of God. Finally, whether or not my insights/speculations are more correct than those of the cited scholars, it should be recognized that publication presuppositions do indeed impact exegesis.

  1. Daniel B. Moore, A Trustworthy Gospel: Arguments for an Early Date for Matthew’s Gospel (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2024); Idem, A Gospel for Cornelius: Discovering Mark’s Affinity with Matthew (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2026). ↩︎
  2. Norman L. Geisler and Thomas A. Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992), 328–29. ↩︎
  3. Bock states that “The clearest temporal adverbs occur only in Matthew.” Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994), 366. ↩︎
  4. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Exeter, UK: Paternoster, 1978), 167. ↩︎
  5. David E. Garland, Luke, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 178. ↩︎
  6. Geisler and Howe, Big Book, 329. ↩︎
  7. Garland, Luke, 178. Garland includes a reference to Hannah Swanston, “The Lukan Temptation Narrative,” JTS 17 (1966). ↩︎
  8. Siegfried Shultz, Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972), 177, 177n2, as cited in Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, 366. ↩︎
  9. A productive survey of Luke’s style is found in Mikeal C. Parsons, Martin Culy, and Joshua J. Stigall, Luke, Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2003), xix–xxii. “Luke writes on a much more sophisticated Greek level than Mark.” Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019), 31. ↩︎
  10. M. R. Palairet, Macedonia: Vol. 1, From Ancient Times to the Ottoman Invasions: A Voyage Through History (Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015), 106, 109–10. ↩︎
  11. Ibid., 109. ↩︎
  12. Ibid. ↩︎
  13. Nicholas Perrin, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Westmont, IL: InterVarsity, 2022), 1–2. ↩︎

NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *