Milo

The story of Jesus stands or falls on the trustworthiness of the Gospels. That’s why skeptics pay so much attention to the Gospels’ apparent contradictions. Christianity’s critics cast doubt on the New Testament’s reliability by pointing out disparities in the Gospels. This puts well-meaning—but often unprepared—Christians in a difficult position of trying to reconcile these potential inconsistencies.

So how do we account for the apparent discrepancies in the Gospel accounts? A lot of the problem stems from our expectations. If we expect a level of historical precision that the Gospels didn’t intend to provide, we’re going to run into problems. The truth is that it’s completely normal for ancient (and modern) historical accounts to summarize, paraphrase, omit details, and explain events in a way that highlights their specific points and perspectives.

Why can we expect Gospel variations?
It’s important to point out right off the bat that each of the Gospel writers had a particular intention and focus. Each of them set out to accentuate a specific and unique portrait of Jesus. Through their individual gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—focused on particular elements of Christ’s ministry and message that they felt illuminate their narrative.

Despite the writers’ varied focus, the gospels exhibit a surprising cohesiveness. They all bear witness to Jesus and his ministry, but approach the story with an individual perspective. These four panoramas don’t detract from our understanding of Jesus. On the contrary, they give us a richer, deeper, and clearer glimpse at the mystery of Christ.

For more a more in-depth discussion the gospels’ unity and diversity, check out What Are the Synoptic Gospels, and Where Did They Come From?

Four unique presentations of Jesus
The gospel writers were not only interested in exploring specific points about Jesus’ ministry, but they were also focused on speaking to particular groups. Through their presentation to these audiences, various truths about Jesus and his mission were highlighted:

Matthew Mark Luke John
The Gospel of the Messiah The Gospel of the suffering Son of God The Gospel of the Savior for all people The Gospel of the divine Son who reveals the Father
Most structured Most dramatic Most thematic Most theological
You can get a comprehensive understanding of the gospel’s unique presentations in What Are the Synoptic Gospels, and Where Did They Come From?

Keeping the intentions of the authors in mind, it becomes easier to understand why they focus on events differently. As we look at some of the reasons for the gospels “apparent” contradictions, understanding the focus of the four gospels will give us a clearer understanding.

Let’s look at some explicit explanation for the gospels’ supposed differences.

Four reasons we find apparent contradictions in the gospels

1. Paraphrasing and interpretation
   There were a number of languages spoken in first-century Palestine. Throughout the region, you’d likely hear Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and even Latin. Jesus likely spoke Aramaic. It’s thought to be the primary language spoken by most Jews throughout Palestine during this era.

When you realize that the gospels were written in Greek, the fact that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic becomes very significant. This means that most of his words had to be translated into Greek—making every quote an interpretation. Languages don’t necessarily have equivalent words or phrases to make translating one vocabulary into another a trouble-free endeavor. Each gospel writer had to interpret Jesus’ words and sayings in order to find equivalents in an entirely different language. Translation is interpretation.

This is one of the reasons that scholars have long held that we have Jesus’ “authentic voice” (ipsissima vox) rather than his “exact words” (ipsissima verba). We can trust the essential meaning of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels even though we can’t know precisely what words Jesus used.

The gospel writers’ authority as interpreters of Christ’s story meant that their translation or paraphrase of Jesus’ words would focus on the theological implications.

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is quoted as saying “Blessed are the poor” (Luke 6:20), but Matthew records him saying, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3). Now it could be that Jesus said both of these things at different times, but it’s also likely that Matthew felt it was extremely important to clearly communicate the spiritual significance of Jesus’ words.

We can see another example of this at the foot of the cross. Both Matthew and Mark quote the centurion as saying “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54, Mk. 15:39), but that’s not how Luke records it. In Luke 23:47, the centurion says, “Surely this was a righteous man.” This translation make sense in light of each author’s focus. Both Matthew and Mark are focused on emphasizing Jesus’ position as the Son of God, but Christ’s innocence and righteousness is a recurring theme in Luke’s gospel. The two iterations of the centurion’s comment don’t contradict each other, they simply focus on different theological implications.

If we expect that each other gospel writers are going to give us Jesus’ words verbatim, we’re holding the gospels to a historical standard that no other historical document would be able to meet—classical or modern. Remember, no one was standing around Jesus with a tape recorder.

2. Abbreviation and omission
   If you were to ask a husband and wife what they did last Saturday, you’re going to get different responses. Maybe the husband will tell you that they worked in the yard, went to the hardware store, and went out for lunch. The wife, on the other hand, might tell you, “We planted rosebushes, talked to our friends Jarrid and Allie (who they ran into at the store), and got into an argument (because the husband ordered a milkshake even though he’s lactose intolerant).”

These two stories don’t represent discrepancies; they highlight differences in perspective. For the wife, running into their friends was a bigger deal than going to the hardware store, so she focused on the important point and omitted the other. The husband had already forgotten about the argument, and remembered lunch as a high point. (One could argue that it’s in his best interest to forget the argument.)

This example represents the differences you expect to encounter with people describing the same event. We run into the same kind of thing with the gospel writers. They each focused on some details while ignoring others entirely. On the surface, it’s easy to assume that these omissions are contradictory, but that’s not necessarily so.

In Mark’s account of Jesus cursing the fig tree, it gets cursed one day and the disciples come back to find it withered the next (Mk. 11:12–14, 20–25). In Matthew’s version, the withering happens immediately after Jesus curses it (Matt. 21:18-22). For Matthew, the important part of this story isn’t experienced in its strict chronology, but in the miracle itself.

We see also Matthew omitting details in the story of the centurion’s servant. In Luke’s telling of the story, the centurion sends a contingent of Jewish elders to Jesus (Lk. 7:1–10), but Matthew reports it as the centurion himself coming to Jesus (Matt. 8:5–13). Is that a contradiction? From Matthew’s point of view, the centurion was speaking directly to Jesus through the elders. In the first century, there was no functional difference between a centurion telling you something face-to-face or through an emissary.

What about when one gospel mentions two individuals while another only speaks of one?

Two demon-possessed men (Matt. 8:28) vs. one (Mk. 5:2)
Two blind men (Matt. 20:30) vs. one (Mk. 10:46)
Two angels at the tomb (Lk. 24:4) vs. one (Mk. 16:5)
It’s important to note that Mark never insists that there’s only one person present. He simply shines a spotlight on one individual. It’s very likely that he’s highlighting the most important player and ignoring the other. But ultimately, we should see little discrepancies like these as proof of the accounts’ veracity. After all, they didn’t get together to make sure their stories were entirely free of conflict.

3. Reordering of events and sayings
   Sometimes you run into gospel events that aren’t the same chronologically. You can find this when Jesus is tempted in the desert. Matthew and Luke have the order of the last two temptations reversed (Matt. 4:1–11; Lk. 4:1–13). It makes perfect sense that Luke would make the climax of the temptations occur at the top of the temple since there’s a real focus throughout his gospel on Jerusalem and the temple. Matthew, on the other hand, ends with Jesus standing on a mountain looking at all the nations of the world. For a writer who sees mountains as places of revelation and epiphany, this is understandable, too.

What about Christ’s teachings? Was the Sermon on the Mount one long message or did Matthew—like many argue—pull Jesus’ various teachings together into one place? From reading Luke, it would be easy to make the argument that the Sermon on the Mount is a compilation of Christ’s teachings. But it’s just as likely that Jesus taught the same lessons multiple times throughout his ministry. Either way, rearranging Christ’s teaching doesn’t nullify the gospels.

4. Reporting similar events and sayings
   When did Jesus clear the temple? Did it happen once or twice? If it happened once, when did it happen? The synoptic gospels place this event at the end of Jesus’ ministry (Matt. 21:12–13; Mk. 11:15–17; Lk. 19:45–46), but John puts it at the beginning (Jn. 2:13–17). It’s not outside the realm of possibility that Jesus felt the need to clear the temple multiple times, but the credibility of the gospels doesn’t rest on having to believe that. There’s a possibility that Mark moved this event to the end of the gospel to emphasize its significance as an act of judgement against Israel, or that John moved it to the beginning as a historically symbolic inauguration to his ministry.

The calling of the disciples varies a lot between the gospels:

The Gospel of John: Andrew, a disciple of John the Baptist, brought his brother Simon to Jesus. (Jn. 1:35–42)
The Gospels of Matthew and Mark: Jesus calls two sets of fishermen brothers—Andrew and Peter; James and John—near the Sea of Galilee. (Mk. 1:16–20; Matt. 4:18–22)
The Gospel of Luke: Peter, James, and John experience a miraculous catch of fish and leave everything to follow him (Lk. 5:1–11)
Were these different versions of the same event? Or could they be the gradual unfolding of their experience with Jesus? Luke suggests the latter by discussing the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law before the miraculous catch of fish (Lk. 4:38–39). It’s obvious that the disciples knew Jesus prior to their decision to follow him full time.

There’s also similarities in three scenes in which Jesus is anointed with expensive perfume. Six days before Passover, John describes Mary, the sister of Lazarus who had been raised from the dead, anointing his feet (Jn. 12:1–8). Matthew and Mark tell us about the anointing of Jesus’ head by a woman at Simon the Leper’s home (Matt. 26:6–13; Mk. 14:3–9). There’s a strong likelihood that these describe the same event. Luke describes another circumstance earlier in Jesus’ ministry where he’s anointed (Lk. 7:36–50). In the case of Luke’s account, the anointing happens in the home of a Pharisee named Simon, and even though the account in Matthew and Mark’s story happens in the home of someone with the same name, it appears to be a separate occurrence. Simon is a fairly common first-century Palestinian name. Jesus displayed a tenderness and respect toward women that they were not accustomed to, and it created fierce sense of loyalty—look at the way women supported him financially (Lk. 8:1–3)—it’s not far-fetched to assume that this common sign of honor occurred multiple times.

The case of doublets
Doublets are two episodes which are typically in the same gospel that critics claim came from the same story. Examples of doublets include:

The feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand (Mk. 6:32–44; 8:1–10; Matt. 14:13–21; 15:32–39)
Matthew’s two accounts of the healing of a blind men (Matt. 9:27–31; 20:29–34)
The parable of the great banquet (Matt. 22:1–14; Lk. 14:16–24)
Matthew’s parable of the talents and Luke’s parable of the minas (Matt. 25:14 – 30; Lk. 19:11–27)
Are these all examples of cases where gospel writers treated two separate versions of a story or teaching as different events? Jesus ministered to a lot of people in a lot of different places. There’s no reason we need to believe that he couldn’t repeat a miracle or a teaching.

Differences aren’t contradictions
Consider these two sentences:

There’s a window in my office
There’s no window in my office
This is a true contradiction because for one of these sentences to be true the other has to be false. These are not the kinds of contradictions usually attributed to the gospels. Instead, the discussions tend to center around apparent discrepancies and contrary accounts, but when we look closely at them we find that they’re typically cleared up pretty easily.

Next time you run into what appears to be a conflict in the gospel accounts, ask yourself if you’re looking at one of these four issues:

Paraphrasing and interpretation
Abbreviation and omission
Reordering of events and sayings
Reporting similar events and sayings
Like those who came before us, we can put our full trust in the veracity of the gospel documents.

June 4th

The never-failing God

For He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. Hebrews 13:5.

What line does my thought take? Does it turn to what God says or to what I fear? Am I learning to say not what God says, but to say something after I have heard what He says? “He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.”
“I will in no wise fail thee”—not for all my sin and selfishness and stubbornness and waywardness. Have I really let God say to me that He will never fail me? If I have listened to this say-so of God’s, then let me listen again.
“Neither will I in any wise forsake thee.” Sometimes it is not difficulty that makes me think God will forsake me, but drudgery. There is no Hill Difficulty to climb, no vision given, nothing wonderful or beautiful, just the commonplace day in and day out—can I hear God’s say-so in these things?
We have the idea that God is going to do some exceptional thing, that He is preparing and fitting us for some extraordinary thing by and by, but as we go on in grace we find that God is glorifying Himself here and now, in the present minute. If we have God’s say-so behind us, the most amazing strength comes, and we learn to sing in the ordinary days and ways.

June 4

“The Lord caused the sea to go back … all that night.” (Exod. 14:21)

IN this verse there is a comforting message showing how God works in the dark. The real work of God for the children of Israel, was not when they awakened and found that they could get over the Red Sea; but it was “all that night.”

So there may be a great working in your life when it all seems dark and you cannot see or trace, but yet God is working. Just as truly did He work “all that night,” as all the next day. The next day simply manifested what God had done during the night. Is there anyone reading these lines who may have gotten to a place where it seems dark? You believe to see, but you are not seeing. In your life-progress there is not constant victory; the daily, undisturbed communion is not there, and all seems dark.

“The Lord caused the sea to go back … all that night.” Do not forget that it was “all that night.” God works all the night, until the light comes. You may not see it, but all that “night” in your life, as you believe God, He works.
—C. H. P.

“All that night” the Lord was working,
  Working in the tempest blast,
Working with the swelling current,
  Flooding, flowing, free and fast.

“All that night” God’s children waited—
  Hearts, perhaps in agony—
With the enemy behind them,
  And, in front, the cruel sea.

“All that night” seemed blacker darkness
  Than they ever saw before,
Though the light of God’s own presence
  Near them was, and sheltered o’er.

“All that night” that weary vigil
  Passed; the day at last did break,
And they saw that God was working
  “All that night” a path to make.

“All that night,” O child of sorrow,
  Canst thou not thy heartbreak stay?
Know thy God in darkest midnight
  Works, as well as in the day.

—L.S.P

4 JUNE (PREACHED 2 JUNE 1771)

A sad choice

‘And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar. Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.’ Genesis 13:10–11
SUGGESTED FURTHER READING: Luke 18:18–30

Lot’s choice: though he feared the Lord, his great possessions blinded his judgement. He made too light of the privilege of dwelling with Abraham and was more intent upon providing well for his cattle than for himself. Because the land of Sodom was well watered and fruitful, he went to reside there, though they were notoriously wicked. See what was the consequence—he was soon involved in the effects of war. He had not been long in Sodom before he was taken prisoner and lost all his flocks and herds which had occasioned the strife and had tempted him to take up his dwelling in a place where there was no fear of God. He recovered them afterwards, but this was owing to Abraham’s kindness, who forgot the slight put upon him and undertook his rescue. While he dwelt in Sodom his soul was daily grieved with the wickedness of the inhabitants [2 Peter 2:8], and while Abraham was honoured, he was despised, opposed and persecuted for his profession’s sake. At last he saw the place he had chosen destroyed with fire from heaven [Genesis 19:24] and he was glad to escape for his life, leaving all his substance behind him.
FOR MEDITATION:
How hurtful was the choice of Lot,
Yet still he seemed resolved to stay
Who took up his abode
As if it were his rest;
(Because it was a fruitful spot)
Although their sins from day to day
With them who feared not GOD!
His righteous soul distressed.

A prisoner he was quickly made,
Awhile he stayed with anxious mind,
Bereaved of all his store;
Exposed to scorn and strife;
And, but for Abraham’s timely aid,
At last he left his all behind,
He had returned no more.
And fled to save his life.

SERMON SERIES: GENESIS, NO. 25 [3/4], GENESIS 13:12–13

As many as received Him to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that
believe on His name. JOHN 1:12

Depersonalization, estrangement, isolation, the lonely crowd-these are the terms that characterize our age.

We play the role. We pretend that it doesn’t matter. But inside we’re alone, desperately alone. We seek acceptance and identity in strange ways. We join street gangs, organizations, societies, bridge clubs, peace marches, protest groups, country clubs, service associations, political parties and even churches.

Yet we remain dissatisfied, unfulfilled, unloved. Beneath our thin facade of sophistication we battle disconcerting doubts, haunting fears, and crippling anxieties. Silently we cry out for someone who will listen, who will understand, who will care.

Many of us conclude with the Psalmist of old, I look to the right and watch, but there is none who takes notice of me; no refuge remains to me, no man cares for me. (Psalm 142:4).

Is there, then, anyone who cares?
Is there perhaps someone beyond the world who cares?
Is there even anybody out there?

If there is, is it possible that He, the great infinite God of the universe, is even aware of the individual member of the species homo sapiens on His microscopic planet Earth, let alone concerned?

Jesus Christ-who, confessedly, must be a liar, a lunatic, a legend, or the truth-once asked, What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8: 36).

He plainly implies, in other words, that the soul of one man out values the combined worth of all the world’s treasures. He asked, moreover, Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?

And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s will. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. (Matthew 10: 29-31).

Not only is the God of the universe aware of us, He has numbered the hairs of our heads. To God, the individual matters, matters so much that, He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

To become one of “his own” you must abandon the facade and admit you, too are a lost sinner. You must repent of your sin, be willing to turn from it. You must invite Him to become your Shepherd, and your Lord.

You must ask Him to make you a child of the heavenly Father. You must believe that He will. To deny God’s ability or longing to meet your deepest needs is to deny the authority of His Son. It is to deny the unanimous
testimony of His children down through the centuries.

To accept His offer of love is to find your hope for real peace and real assurance in this age of insecurity. To do so is to find authentic personal identity. It is to find a Friend who has said, I will never fail you or forsake you.

Who cares? God does.
He sent His Son to die for you.
He raised His Son to live in you.
He brought this message to you.