Poythress Vern Inerrancy and The Gospels

I N E R R A N C Y
A N D
T H E G O S P E L S
I
N
E
R
R
A
N
C
Y

A
N
D

T
H
E

G
O
S
P
E
L
S
A G OD - C E N T E R E D
A P P R OA C H T O
T H E C H A L L E NG E S OF
H A R MON I Z A T I ON
V E R N S H E R I D A N
P O Y T H R E S S
P
O
Y
T
H
R
E
S
S
Serious Bible readers all recognize that there are differences
between accounts of the same events in Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John, and no responsible reader can simply sweep these
differences under the rug. But can each unique account still be
reconciled with a belief in biblical inerrancy?
Responding to the questions surrounding the Gospel narratives,
New Testament scholar Vern Poythress provides an informed
case for inerrancy in the Gospels and helps readers understand
basic principles for harmonization. He also tackles some of the
most complicated exegetical problems, showing the way forward
on passages that have perplexed many, including the centurions
servant, the cursing of the g tree, and more.
All those interested in the authority of Scripture will nd in
this volume great encouragement and insight as Poythress has
provided an arresting case to stem the tide of skepticism.
This is a study well worth reading and considering, regardless of
whether one accepts the self-authenticating model or not.
Darrell L. Bock, Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies,
Dallas Theological Seminary
When Vern Poythress has chosen to write on a particular subject,
the resulting book has always been the best book on that subject.
This one is about the inerrancy of Scripture, dealing particularly
with problems in the Gospel narratives, and I know of nothing
better in the eld.
John M. Frame, J. D. Trimble Chair of Systematic Theology and Philosophy,
Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida
VERN SHERIDAN POYTHRESS is professor of New Testament
interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary in
Philadelphia. He has six earned degrees, including a PhD
from Harvard University and a ThD from the University of
Stellenbosch, South Africa. Poythress has authored over a dozen
books on various disciplines.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION / APOLOGETICS
U
.
S
.

$
1
7
.
9
9
Icanthinkofnooneintheworldbetterqualiedtowriteadefenseofbiblicaliner-
rancythanmylifelongfriendVernPoythress.SeriousBiblereadersallrecognizethat
therearedierencesbetweenaccountsofthesameeventsinMatthew,Mark,Luke,
andJohn,andnoresponsiblereadercansimplysweepthesedierencesunderthe
rug.Butcanalloftheaccountsstillbereconciledwithabeliefinbiblicalinerrancy
Inthisbook,Poythressprovidesanoutstandingresourcethatcarefullyanalyzes
everyimportantGospelpassagewhereaninconsistencyoracontradictionhas
beenalleged.Hedrawsontherichresourcesofcenturiesofchurchhistoryandhis
ownremarkablewisdominanalyzinghumanlinguisticcommunicationtoprovide
asure-footed,thoughtful,humble,andevenspirituallychallengingguidetothese
keypassages.TisisthebestbookIknowoffordealingwithGospeldiculties.It
isprofoundlywise,insightful,andclearlywritten,anditwillsurelystrengthenevery
readerscondenceinthetrustworthinessoftheBibleastheverywordsofGod.
Wayne Grudem,ResearchProfessorofTeologyandBiblicalStudies,
PhoenixSeminary
Shallwedefendbiblicalinerrancywithargumentsthatarenaveandunconvincing
OrshallweassumethatdiscrepanciesamongtheGospelscannotberesolvedVern
Poythressshowsusthatweneednotmakesuchachoice.Clear,convincing,acces-
sible,andpractical,Inerrancy and the Gospelsiseverythingweneedinabookon
thistopic.Whilesharpeningreadersskillatharmonization,Poythressalsodevelops
athoughtful,God-honoringfoundationforaddressingGospeldicultiesandthe
spiritualchallengesthataccompanythem.Iwanteverystudent,everypastor,and
everyskepticIknowtoreadthisbookandrecommendittotheirfriends.
C.D. Jimmy Agan III,AssociateProfessorofNewTestament,
DirectoroftheHomileticsProgram,CovenantTeologicalSeminary
WhenVernPoythresshaschosentowriteonaparticularsubject,theresultingbook
hasalwaysbeen(inmymemory)thebestbookonthatsubject.Tisoneisaboutthe
inerrancyofScripture,dealingparticularlywithproblemsintheGospelnarratives,
andIknowofnothingbetterintheeld.Itisfullycogent,veryhelpful,linguistically
sophisticated,and,aboveall,faithfultotheScripturesasthewordofGod.
John M. Frame,J.D.TrimbleChairofSystematicTeologyandPhilosophy,
ReformedTeologicalSeminary,Orlando,Florida
Itisalltoocommontodaytobemoanharmonization,butthereisvalueinpursuing
therealpossibilitythatdierencesintheGospelscanandshouldbeseenascomple-
mentingoneanotherintheirpresentationoftruth.VernPoythresssInerrancy and the
Gospelsusesaself-authenticatingapproachtoScripturetoarguethatharmonization
doesgiveinsightinhowtheGospelswork.Tisisastudywellworthreadingand
considering,regardlessofwhetheroneacceptstheself-authenticatingmodelornot.
Darrell L. Bock,ExecutiveDirectorofCulturalEngagement,Centerfor
ChristianLeadership,SeniorResearchProfessorofNewTestamentStudies,
DallasTeologicalSeminary
VernPoythresshastheuniqueabilitytomakeacomplexsubjectunderstandable
toanyone.Inthisbookhetackleshead-ontheage-oldissueofhowtoharmonize
thefourGospels.Insodoing,hehelpsusunderstandhowtheyshouldbenotonly
harmonized,butalsoappreciatedfortheiruniqueandvitalwitnesstothetruths
ofthepersonandworkofourincarnateSavior.Tisisanexcellentintroductionto
thestudyoftheGospels.
S. M. Baugh,ProfessorofNewTestament,WestminsterSeminaryCalifornia
VernPoythresssInerrancy and the Gospelsisofperennialvalue,butisespecially
timelygivenboththepopularizationofcriticaltheoriesabouttheGospelsandthe
migrationofsomescholarsfromevangelicaltocriticalapproaches.Heexemplies
hisforebearNedStonehousesengagementwithcriticalscholarshipbynotonly
playingdefense,butalsogleaningpositiveinsightsfromsynopticcomparisons.
TehermeneuticalprinciplesthathearticulatesareinkeepingwithScriptures
self-authenticatingcharacteranddemonstrateaknowledgeofcontemporaryde-
velopmentsinhermeneutics.Teexamplesheusestoillustratethoseprinciples
arevariedwhileincludingthetypicallymostchallengingharmonizations.Scholars
andpastorsalikewhowishtounderstandandproclaimtheunityandvarietyofthe
EvangelistswitnesswillwanttothoroughlydigestwhatDr.Poythressprovideshere.
Michael J. Glodo,AssociateProfessorofBiblicalStudies,
ReformedTeologicalSeminary,Orlando,Florida
Letsbehonest.Bible-believingChristianssometimesstruggletounderstandap-
parentdiscrepanciesintheGospels.PoythresssbookInerrancy and the Gospelsis
nowonthetopofmylisttorecommendtostudentswhoareseekingabiblically
faithfulresourceonthisissue.Itisup-to-date,balanced,andhistoricallyinformed.
IplantoadoptInerrancy and the GospelsasarequiredtextbookformyNewTesta-
mentsurveycourse.
Robert L. Plummer,AssociateProfessorofNewTestamentInterpretation,
TeSouthernBaptistTeologicalSeminary
Inthiswork,VernPoythress,oneofevangelicalismsleadingproponentsanddefenders
ofinerrancy,traversesthedicultterrainofGospelharmonization.Withtheological
acumenandexegeticalsensitivity,Poythressequipsthereaderwiththecategories,
distinctions,andreadingstrategiesneededtostudytheGospelsinthewaythatGod
hasintended.TeresultismagnicentPoythressshowsushowaproperunder-
standingofharmonizationenhancesourappreciationoftherichunityanddiversity
oftheGospels.Iwarmlycommendthisworktostudents,pastors,andscholarsalike.
Guy Prentiss Waters,ProfessorofNewTestament,
ReformedTeologicalSeminary,Jackson,Mississippi
I N E R R A N C Y
A ND
T H E G O S P E L S
Other Crossway Books by Vern Sheridan Poythress
Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach
In the Beginning Was the Word: LanguageA God-Centered Approach
Redeeming Sociology: A God-Centered Approach
Inerrancy and Worldview: Answering Modern Challenges to the Bible
I N E R R A N C Y
A ND
T H E G O S P E L S
A God-Centered Approach
to the Challenges of harmoni zati on
P O Y T H R E S S
WH E AT ON , I L L I NOI S
Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization
Copyright2012byVernSheridanPoythress
PublishedbyCrossway
1300CrescentStreet
Wheaton,Illinois 60187
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,
ortransmittedinanyformbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopy,recording,or
otherwise,withoutthepriorpermissionofthepublisher,exceptasprovidedforbyUSAcopyright
law.
Coverdesign:StudioGearbox
Coverimage:Dover
Interiordesignandtypesetting:LakesideDesignPlus
Firstprinting2012
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
Unlessotherwiseindicated,ScripturequotationsarefromtheESV
`
Bible(The Holy Bible, English
Standard Version
`
),copyright2001byCrossway.Usedbypermission.Allrightsreserved.
ScripturequotationsmarkedivarefromtheKing James VersionoftheBible.
ScripturequotationsmarkedsnarefromTheNew American Standard Bible
`
.Copyright
TheLockmanFoundation1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995.Usedby
permission.
ScripturequotationsmarkedivarefromtheHoly Bible, New International Version
`
.Copyright
1973,1978,1984Biblica.UsedbypermissionofZondervan.Allrightsreserved.TheNIVand
NewInternationalVersiontrademarksareregisteredintheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademark
OfficebyBiblica.UseofeithertrademarkrequiresthepermissionofBiblica.
ScripturereferencesmarkedivarefromTheNew King James Version.Copyright1982,
ThomasNelson,Inc.Usedbypermission.
AllemphasesinScripturequotationshavebeenaddedbytheauthor.
TradepaperbackISBN: 978-1-4335-2860-6
ePubISBN: 978-1-4335-2863-7
PDFISBN: 978-1-4335-2861-3
MobipocketISBN: 978-1-4335-2862-0
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Poythress,VernS.
InerrancyandtheGospels:aGod-centeredapproachtothechallenges
ofharmonizationiVernSheridanPoythress.
p.cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferences(p. )andindexes.
ISBN978-1-4335-2860-6(tp)
1. Bible.N.T.GospelsHarmoniesHistoryandcriticism.2. Bible.
N.T.GospelsCriticism,interpretation,etc.3. Bible.N.T.Gospels
Evidences,authority,etc.I. Title.
BS2562.P692012
226'.013dc23 2012017161
CrosswayisapublishingministryofGoodNewsPublishers.
VP 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12
14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Iamgratefulformyteachers
atWestminsterTheologicalSeminary,
whotaughtmetohonorandsubmittoGodsWord,
andsetanexampleofsubmissionthemselves,
andIamgratefulforgenerationsbeforethem,
whofoughtthegoodfightoffaith.
Contents
PART ONE THE CHALLENGE OF HARMONIZATION
1 DifficultiesintheGospels 13
2 AnExample:TheCenturionsServant 17
PART TWO PRINCIPLES FOR HARMONIZATION
3 InitialPrinciplesforHarmonization 27
4 History,Theology,andArtistry 33
5 TheHistoricalClaimsoftheGospels 40
6 TheAuthorityoftheGospels 45
7 AMental-PictureTheory 48
8 TruthinaBiblicalWorldview 53
9 TruthfulnessversusArtificialPrecision 62
10 VariationsinWritingHistory 66
PART THREE ATTITUDES IN HARMONIZATION
11 ConfidenceandDoubt 77
12 SeekingGod 87
13 LimitationsinHumanKnowledge 90
14 IntellectualSuffering 96
15 PositivePurposesforDifficulties 106
PART FOUR SPECIAL ISSUES IN HARMONIZATION
16 TheSynopticProblem 117
17 TemporalOrderofEvents 124
PART FIVE INDIVIDUAL CASES
18 CleansingtheTemple 133
19 TheRejectionofJesusatNazareth 138
20 CursingtheFigTree 144
21 CommissioningtheTwelve 149
PART SIX REPORTING SPEECHES
22 StillingtheStorm 157
23 VariationsinCitations 163
24 MeaningandIntention 174
25 SpeechWhenJesusStillstheStorm 180
26 AugustineonReportingSpeeches 189
27 TheRichYoungRuler 193
PART SEVEN MORE CASES
28 RaisingJairussDaughter 203
29 BlindBartimaeus 212
Conclusion 217
Bibliography 219
GeneralIndex 226
ScriptureIndex 232
PAR T ONE
The Challenge
of harmonizaTion
13
1
Difficulties in the Gospels
InthecenturiesaftertheBiblewaswritten,thechurchrecognizedthatit
wasthewordofGodandtreateditscontentsastrustworthy.
1
Butinmodern
timessomepeoplehavecometoquestionthatconviction.Moreover,there
aredifficultiesinsomeofthedetailsintheBible.Forexample,comparisons
betweenaccountsinthefourGospels,Matthew,Mark,Luke,andJohn,
turnupalargenumberofdifferences,someofwhichareeasytoappreciate
positively,butothersmoredifficult.Inthisbookwearegoingtolookata
samplingofthesedifficulties,withthegoaloftreatingtheminharmonywith
theconvictionthattheBibleisGodsword.
Wearelookingatthistopicpartlybecausewecanoftenlearnmorefrom
theBibleifweconsiderdifficultiescarefullyanddonotmerelyskirtaround
them.Butwewillalsotrytolayoutsomeprinciplesfordealingwithdif-
ficulties.Otherbookshaveconsideredthebroadquestionofthehistorical
reliabilityoftheGospels.
2
Stillotherbookshavediscussedthegeneralissue
oftheauthorityoftheBible,andsomeofthesebookshavedoneaverygood
jobindeed.
3
1
See,forexample,JohnD.Woodbridge,Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal(Grand
Rapids:Zondervan,1982).TeJewishrecognitionthattheOldTestamentwasthewordofGodlaidthe
foundationforChristiansunderstandingoftheOldandNewTestamentstogether.
2
Ondefendinghistoricalreliability,seechap.11below.
3
IthinkofBenjaminB.Wareld,Te Inspiration and Authority of the Bible(repr.,Philadelphia:Presbyterian
andReformed,1967),Archibald A.HodgeandBenjamin B.Wareld,Inspiration,withintroductionby
Roger R.Nicole(repr.,GrandRapids:Baker,1979),Te Infallible Word: A Symposium by the Members of the
Faculty of Westminster Teological Seminary,3rded.,ed.N. B. StonehouseandPaulWoolley(Philadelphia:
14
TeChallengeofHarmonization
The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible
Withoutre-coveringthegroundofthesebooks,wemaybrieflysummarize
theteachingoftheBibleonthesubjectofinspiration.
4
TheBibleistheword
ofGod,Godsspeechinwrittenform.WhattheBiblesays,Godsays.Two
classictextssummarizethemeaningofinspiration.
AllScriptureisbreathed out by Godandprofitableforteaching,forreproof,
forcorrection,andfortraininginrighteousness,thatthemanofGodmaybe
complete,equippedforeverygoodwork.(2Tim.3:1617)
Fornoprophecywaseverproducedbythewillofman,butmenspoke from
Godastheywerecarried along by the Holy Spirit.(2Pet.1:21)
Inaddition,JesustestifiestotheauthorityoftheOldTestamentinhis
explicitstatements,inthewaysthathequotesfromandusesit,andinthe
waythatheunderstandshisownlifeasthefulfillmentofit.
DonotthinkthatIhavecometoabolishtheLawortheProphets,Ihavenot
cometoabolishthembuttofulfillthem.Fortruly,Isaytoyou,untilheaven
andearthpassaway,not an iota, not a dot,willpassfromtheLawuntilallis
accomplished.(Matt.5:1718)
Scripturecannotbebroken.(John10:35)
DoyouthinkthatIcannotappealtomyFather,andhewillatoncesendme
morethantwelvelegionsofangelsButhowthenshouldthe Scripturesbe
fulfilled,thatit must be so(Matt.26:53)
IfweclaimtobefollowersofChrist,weshouldsubmittohisteaching.
ManyaspectsofScripturetestifytoitsdivineorigin.Butitisthroughthe
HolySpiritworkinginwardlyintheheartthatpeoplebecomefullyconvinced
thatitisthewordofGod.
5
PresbyterianandReformed,1967),Richard B.GanJr.,Gods Word in Servant-Form: Abraham Kuyper
and Herman Bavinck on the Doctrine of Scripture(Jackson,MS:ReformedAcademic,2008),Woodbridge,
Biblical Authority,HermanBavinck,Reformed Dogmatics,vol.1,Prolegomena,ed.JohnBolt,trans.John
Vriend(GrandRapids:Baker,2003),353494,D. A.CarsonandJohn D.Woodbridge,eds.,Scripture and
Truth(GrandRapids:Zondervan,1983),John M.Frame,Te Doctrine of the Word of God(Phillipsburg,
NJ:P&R,2010).Readersshouldalsonotetheprincipialqualicationswithrespecttopresuppositionsand
methodinCorneliusVanTilsIntroductiontothe1967editionofWareld,Inspiration,368.
4
SeealsothesummaryinJohnMurray,TeAttestationofScripture,inTe Infallible Word,154.
5
WemaybemovedandinducedbythetestimonyoftheChurchtoanhighandreverendesteemofthe
HolyScripture.Andtheheavenlinessofthematter,theecacyofthedoctrine,themajestyofthestyle,
theconsentofalltheparts,thescopeofthewhole(whichis,togiveallglorytoGod),thefulldiscovery
itmakesoftheonlywayofmanssalvation,themanyotherincomparableexcellencies,andtheentire
15
DicultiesintheGospels
Dealing with Difficulties
WhenwehavebecomeconvincedthattheBibleisGodsword,wecancon-
sidertheimplications.Wecanask,Howshouldweproceedinparticular
casesofdifficultywhenwecometotheBiblewiththeconvictionthatitis
Godsspeechtous
Myprimarychallengeinaccomplishingthistaskismyself.Iamafinite,
falliblehumanbeing.Iamalsoaffectedbyremainingsin.Andsinaffects
biblicalinterpretation.SoIcannotbeanidealexample.Ofcourse,neither
cananyoneelsesubsequenttotheapostles.Goddesignedthechurch,the
peopleofGod,toworktogether.Westrivetogether,withallthesaints,to
comprehendwhatisthebreadthandlengthandheightanddepth,andto
knowtheloveofChristthatsurpassesknowledge,thatyoumaybefilledwith
allthefullnessofGod(Eph.3:18).Wehelponeanother.Inparticular,any
contributionImaymakebuildsontheinsightsofothersbeforeme.Andif
Idoagoodjob,mycontributionbecomesinturnasourceofhelpforothers
afterme.Soyoumustunderstandthatthisbookrepresentspartofapath
towardafuturefullnessofknowledge,whenwewillknowGodevenas[we]
havebeenfullyknown(1Cor.13:12).
Foundations
BecauseIambuildingonwhatothershavedone,Iwillnotrepeatthework
ofotherpeoplewhohavearguedfortheauthorityoftheBibleasthewordof
God.NorwillwerevisittheissuescoveredinmyearlierbookInerrancy and
Worldview.
6
ThereIindicatewaysinwhichanunderstandingandacceptance
ofthebiblicalworldviewcontributestounderstandingtheBiblepositively
andhonoringitsauthority.
IfwereckonwiththefactthatGodispersonalandthatherulestheworld
personally,wehaveapersonalisticworldviewthathasnotablecontrasts
withtheimpersonalismthatcharacterizesalotofmodernthinking.
7
The
robustpersonalismoftheBiblehelpstodissolvesomedifficultiesthattrouble
perfectionthereof,areargumentswherebyitdothabundantlyevidenceitselftobetheWordofGod:yet
notwithstanding,ourfullpersuasionandassuranceoftheinfallibletruthanddivineauthoritythereof,is
fromtheinwardworkoftheHolySpiritbearingwitnessbyandwiththeWordinourhearts(Westminster
ConfessionofFaith1.5).
6
VernS.Poythress,Inerrancy and Worldview: Answering Modern Challenges to the Bible(Wheaton,IL:
Crossway,2012).
7
WemaynotethatthepersonalGodoftheBibleisdistinctfromspiritsandgodspostulatedinother
religions.Animisticreligionbelievesinmanypersonalspiritualbeings.Butsinceitdoesnotacknowledge
onepersonalCreator,thedeepestrootsfortheworldstillendupbeingimpersonal.Islambelievesinone
Allah,butitsadherentsfollowruleswithouthavingapersonalrelationshiptohim.Soevenamonotheistic
religioncanbecharacterizedbyanimpersonalisticatmosphereinpractice.
16
modernpeopleiftheyreadtheBibleagainstthebackgroundofmodern
impersonalism.Thiscontrastbetweenpersonalismandimpersonalismis
importantwhenwedealwiththeGospels.Iwilldrawonthecontrastwhen
necessary,butwillnotrepeatindetailthereasoningintheearlierbook.
Inaddition,boththisbookandInerrancy and Worldviewrelyonabroader
understandingofGod,science,language,history,andsociety,anunder-
standinginformedbytheBibleandatoddswithmodernthinking.
8
When
wetakebiblicalteachingseriously,itcertainlyleadstoarevisedapproachto
howweunderstandtheBible.Butitalsoleadsustorevisehowweanalyze
virtuallyallmodernideas,includingideasaboutmeaningandinterpreta-
tion.Wewilldrawonthisunderstandingwhenneeded,withoutreviewing
theentireterritory.
8
SeeVernS.Poythress,God-Centered Biblical Interpretation(Phillipsburg,NJ:P&R,1999),Poythress,
Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach(Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2006),Poythress,In the Beginning
Was the Word: LanguageA God-Centered Approach(Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2009),Poythress,Redeem-
ing Sociology: A God-Centered Approach(Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2011).
IcannotwithinthisbookenterintoextendeddiscussionofmoderncriticalapproachestotheBible.
Ioeronlythefollowingsummary:weshouldpracticehumilityandself-criticalawarenessaboutouras-
sumptions,weshouldtakeseriouslythefallibilityofhumansourcesoutsidetheBible.Butweshouldnot
endorsemodernity.Oneofthepointsinmybooksisthatawholespectrumofassumptionsandinterpre-
tiveframeworksbelongtothemodernworld,andthatcriticalinterpreterswithinourmodernsituation
arenotnearlycriticalenoughoftheseframeworks.Teycannotbe,becausetheyhavenosolidplaceto
standfromwhichtoengageincriticism.TeyhavenotbeenwillingtoaccepttheBibleasasecureguide
onthebasisofwhichtheycansiftthroughthegoodandbadintheworldofideas.
17
2
An Example:
The Centurions Servant
We begin with an example. Matthew 8:513 and Luke 7:110 contain
accountsaboutJesusshealingacenturionsservant.Howdowedealwith
thedifferencesHerearethetwoaccounts,
1
sidebyside:
Matthew 8:513 Luke 7:110

5
When he had entered Capernaum,
a centurion
1
After he had finished all his sayings in the
hearing of the people,
he entered Capernaum.
2
Now a centurion had
came forward to him, appealing to him,
6
Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed
at home, suffering terribly.
a servant who was sick
and at the point of death,
who was highly valued by him.
3
When the centurion heard about Jesus,
he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking
him to come and heal his servant.
4
And
when they came to Jesus, they pleaded
with him earnestly, saying, He is worthy to
1
InthisbookIusetheEnglishStandardVersion(ESV).IfweusetheoriginalGreektext,wecannowand
thenseefurthersmallsimilaritiesanddierencesnotfullyvisibleinEnglish.Butmanyofthemostimportant
dierencescomethroughwellenoughinEnglish.So,forsimplicity,wewillcustomarilyuseEnglish.Iwill
referdirectlytotheoriginallanguagesonlyattimeswhenasignicantextrafeatureneedstobenoticed.
John4:4654hasanaccountofhealingatadistance,showingsomesimilaritiestotheaccountsin
MatthewandLuke.Butitconcernsanocialsson,whichindicatesthatitisadierenteventfromthe
onenarratedinMatthewandLuke(Luke7:2hasservant,slave,[Greekdoulos],whichcontrastswith
beingason,seeR. T.France,Te Gospel of Matthew[GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2007],312).
18
Matthew 8:513 Luke 7:110
have you do this for him,
5
for he loves our
nation, and he is the one who built us our
synagogue.
7
And he said to him, I will come and heal
him.
8
But the centurion replied, Lord,
I am not worthy to have you come
under my roof,
6
And Jesus went with them. When he was
not far from the house, the centurion sent
friends, saying to him, Lord,
do not trouble yourself, for
I am not worthy to have you come
under my roof.
7
Therefore I did not presume to come to
you.
but only say the word, and
my servant will be healed.
9
For I too am a man under authority,
with soldiers under me. And I say to one,
Go, and he goes, and to another, Come,
and he comes, and to my servant, Do this,
and he does it.
10
When Jesus heard this,
he marveled and
said to those who followed him,
Truly, I tell you, with
no one in Israel have I found such faith.
11
I tell you, many will come from east
and west and recline at table with Abra-
ham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of
heaven,
12
while the sons of the kingdom
will be thrown into the outer darkness. In
that place there will be weeping and gnash-
ing of teeth.
13
And to the centurion Jesus
said, Go; let it be done for you as you
have believed.
But say the word, and
let my servant be healed.
8
For I too am a man set under authority,
with soldiers under me: and I say to one,
Go, and he goes; and to another, Come,
and he comes; and to my servant, Do this,
and he does it.
9
When Jesus heard these things,
he marveled at him, and turning to the
crowd that followed him, said,
I tell you,
not even in Israel have I found such faith.
And the servant was healed at that very
moment.

10
And when those who had been sent
returned to the house,
they found the servant well.
Themostnotabledifferencebetweenthetwoaccountsliesintheroleof
theeldersoftheJewsandthecenturionsfriendsinLuke7.Therethe
eldersandthefriendsserveasintermediaries,Lukedoesnotindicatethat
thecenturionmeetsJesusfacetoface.Bycontrast,inMatthew8thereisno
mentionofintermediaries.Whatdowesayaboutthisdifference
The Possibility of Multiple Events
Inanycasethatdealswithparallelpassageswehavetoaskwhetherthey
recountthesameincidentortwodifferentincidents.Inthiscasethere
aremanysimilaritiesbetweenthetwoaccounts.Thecenturionsspeech
giveninMatthew8:9isalmostidenticaltoLuke7:8.Wecansafelycon-
cludethatwearedealingwithtwoaccountsofoneevent.Sothereisa
genuinedifficulty.
19
AnExample:TeCenturionsServant
A Solution by Several Stages of Events
Wecanprofitfromtheinsightsofpreviousgenerations.Consideronesolu-
tionthathasbeenoffered.NorvalGeldenhuysandothershaveputforward
theideathattherewereseveralstagesintheencounterbetweenJesusand
thecenturion.
2
ThecenturionfirstsenteldersoftheJews(Luke7:35),then
sentfriends(Luke7:68),thencameinpersonandrepeatedsomeofwhat
hadbeensaidearlier(Matt.8:59).Geldenhuysgivesthisexplanation:
WhenwebearinmindtheparallelaccountinMatthewviii.513,wemust
picturetoourselvesthatafterthecenturionhadsenthisfriendstoJesushe
alsowenttoHimhimself.Owingtotheseriousnessofthecircumstancesand
hisinnerurgetogotoJesushimself,notwithstandinghisfeelingofunwor-
thiness,heovercamehisinitialhesitation.Lukeemphasisesthefactthatthe
centurionsentfriends,whileMatthewonlystatesthatthecenturionwentto
Jesus.AndsothetwoGospelssupplementeachother.
3
ThispossibilityresultsinacleanexplanationinwhichMatthewandLuke
eachmentionacomplementaryportionofthetotalinteraction.Suchan
explanationiscustomarilycalledaharmonization,becauseitattemptsto
showthatthetwopassagesareinharmony.
Geldenhuysrecognizesthatthereisstillaminordifficulty.InLuke,the
centurionstatesexplicitlythatheisunworthy(7:6),andthatiswhyhehas
sentothersinstead:ThereforeIdidnotpresumetocometoyou(7:7).Yet,
accordingtoGeldenhuys,thecenturionneverthelesschangedhismindand
didcomeintheendforaface-to-facemeeting.Onthesurface,hiscoming
inpersonappearstobeintensionwithhisexpressedplannottocome.But
Geldenhuyssuppliespossiblemotivationsbyremindingusoftheserious-
nessofthecircumstances,bypostulatinganinnerurgetocometoJesus,
andbylabelinghisoriginalattitudeinitialhesitationratherthanafirm
resolvenottocomebecauseofhisunworthiness.IsallthispossibleItis.
Humanmotivationsanddecisionmakingarecomplexandofteninclude
somewaveringorchangeofmind.
Geldenhuysspictureoftheeventsalsoresultsinacertainnotablerepeti-
tion.InLuke7:68thefriendsgiveaspeechexpressingthecenturionsrequest
andhisreasoningaboutauthority.ThesamespeechoccursinMatthew8:89,
usingalmostidenticalwords.Geldenhuyssreconstructioninterpretsthese
accountsasrecordsoftwodistinctspeeches,onebythefriendsandone
bythecenturioninperson.Thistooispossiblesincethefriendsweresent
2
NorvalGeldenhuys,Commentary on the Gospel of Luke(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1950),220,likewise
Gleason L.Archer,Encyclopedia of Bible Diculties(GrandRapids:Zondervan,1982),322.
3
Geldenhuys,Commentary on the Gospel of Luke,220.
20
bythecenturion,andthecenturiontoldthemwhattosay.InGeldenhuyss
pictureoftheevent,thecenturionrepeatedinpersonwhathehadsaidto
hisfriendsearlier.Wemayaskwhythecenturionthoughthehadtorepeat
hisspeech,sincehisfriendshadalreadydeliveredit.Buthumanmotivations
arecomplex.Particularlyinasituationofdistress,suchastheemotional
turmoilthecenturionexperienced,hemightinspiteofhimselfrepeatwhat
heknewhadalreadybeensaid.
SoGeldenhuyssreconstructionoftheeventsispossible.Isittheonly
possibilityAugustineandCalvinhaveofferedanotherexplanation.
Representatives Acting on Behalf of the Centurion
SaintAugustineinaboutAD400wroteThe Harmony of the Gospels,inwhich
hediscussedalargenumberofdifficulties.
4
HebelievedthattheGospels
havedivineauthority,
5
andheconsistentlytriedtoshowthatthedifferences
betweentheGospelswerenotduetoerrorbutexhibitedharmony.Hiswork
hasformedthebackgroundformanylaterattempts.
6
Whencomparing
Matthew8:513andLuke7:110,Augustineexplains:
HowcanMatthewsstatementthattherecametoHimacertaincenturion,
becorrect,seeingthatthemandidnotcomeinperson,butsenthisfriends
Theapparentdiscrepancy,however,willdisappearifwelookcarefullyinto
thematter,andobservethatMatthewhassimplyheldbyaveryfamiliarmode
ofexpression....This[thepracticeofusingarepresentativeorintermedi-
ary],indeed,isacustomwhichhassothoroughlyestablisheditself,thateven
inthelanguageofevery-daylife...[wecallmen]Perventoreswho...getat
theinaccessibleears,asonemaysay,ofanyofthemenofinfluence,bythe
interventionofsuitablepersonages.If,thereforeaccess[toanotherpersons
presence]itselfisthusfamiliarly[ineverydayspeech]saidtobegainedby
themeansofotherparties,howmuchmoremayanapproachbesaidtotake
place,althoughitbebymeansofothers.
7
JohnCalvinoffersasimilarexplanation:
ThosewhothinkthatMatthewandLukegivedifferentnarratives,areledinto
amistakebyameretrifle.Theonlydifferenceinthewordsis,thatMatthew
4
Augustine,Te Harmony of the Gospels,invol.6ofA Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
of the Christian Church,ed.PhilipScha(repr.,GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1979),65236.Augustinestext
ishereaftercitedinNPNF1bybook,chapter,andparagraph.
5
Ibid.,2.12.28:thatwordofGodwhichabideseternalandunchangeable. . .themostexaltedheightof
authority,seealsoelsewherethroughoutthework.
6
See,forexample,M.B.Riddle,introductiontoAugustine,Te Harmony of the Gospels,6770.
7
Augustine,Te Harmony of the Gospels,2.20.49.
21
saysthatthe centurion came to him,whileLukesaysthathesentsomeofthe
Jewstopleadinhisname.ButthereisnoimproprietyinMatthewsaying,that
thecenturiondidwhatwasdoneinhisnameandathisrequest.Thereissuch
aperfectagreementbetweenthetwoEvangelistsinallthecircumstances,that
itisabsurdtomaketwomiraclesinsteadofone.
8
Amorerecentscholar,R.T.France,writesasfollows:
His[Matthews]omissionofthemeansofthecenturionsapproachtoJesusis
avalidliterarydevicetohighlightthemessageoftheincidentasheseesit(on
theprinciple,commoninbiblicalandcontemporaryliterature,thatamessenger
orservantrepresentstheonewhosenthimtothepointofvirtualidentity).
9
Asafurtherillustrationoftheprinciple,CraigBlombergpointstoMatthew
27:26andMark15:15.
10
BothversesreportthatPilatescourgedJesus,but,
giventhesocialandmilitaryprotocoloftheRomanworld,Pilatewouldnot
havetakenupthescourgeinhisownhands.TheversesmeanthatRoman
soldierswouldhavephysicallyhandledthescourge,actingonPilatesorders.
Thatistosay,theRomansoldiersrepresentedPilatebecausetheyactedunder
hisauthority.PilatedidscourgeJesus,thoughhedidnotdoitinperson
butthroughrepresentativesactingonhisbehalf.Likewise,thecenturion
reallydidaddressJesus,buthediditbymeansofpersonsactingunderhis
authorityandonhisbehalftheeldersandfriendsrepresentedhim.
IssuchareconstructionoftheeventspossibleAccordingtoAugustine
andCalvin,itis.Infact,theyobviouslypreferittoamoreelaboraterecon-
structionsuchasGeldenhuysoffered.Theyregardtheirsimplerreconstruc-
tionasmorelikely.BothAugustineandCalvinarevigorousdefendersofthe
divineauthorityoftheBible.Theyexpressnodoubtsabouttheaccounts
beingtruthfulandcorrect.Rather,theyshowthattheyassumeeachaccount
tobetruewhentheyundertaketogiveanexplanationthatharmonizesthe
two.ThemaindifferencetheyhaveincomparisonwithGeldenhuysisthat
theyconsiderthepossibilitythatthecenturionactedthroughrepresentatives.
ThoughAugustineandCalvinthinkthattheirreconstructionislikely,itis
stilltentative.SoisthereconstructionbyGeldenhuys.Wehavetheaccounts
inMatthewandLuke,whichareinspiredbyGod.TheyarewhatGodsays
andarethereforetrustworthy.Thatistheconvictionwehaveandthebasis
onwhichwework.Butwedonothaveathirdaccount,alsoinspired,totell
8
JohnCalvin,Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke,3vols.,trans.
WilliamPringle(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,n.d.),1:378.
9
RichardT.France,InerrancyandNewTestamentExegesis,Temelios1(1975):17.
10
CraigL.Blomberg,Te Historical Reliability of the Gospels,2nded.(DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsity,
2007),176.
22
usexactlyhowtheoriginaltwoaccountsfittogether.Wemakeourown
reasonedguesses,buttheyarefallible.Wedonothavecompleteinforma-
tion.Ourreconstruction,thoughitmaybeplausible,issubordinatetothe
Gospelaccountsaswehavethem.
Positive Role of Differences
WecanalsoaskwhatpositivecontributioneachGospelrecordmakesinits
distinctiveness.TheGospelofMatthewoffersasimpleraccountinsome
ways.Itdoesnotrequiretheadditionallinguisticcomplexitythatariseswhen
anaccountmakesexplicittherolesoftheeldersoftheJewsandthefriends
thatthecenturionsends.Forexample,thematerialinLuke7:35aboutthe
JewisheldersdoesnotneedtobepresentinMatthewsversion,andLuke
7:6,whichmentionsthefriends,findsasimpleranalogueinMatthew8:7.
ThestatementinLuke7:7,ThereforeIdidnotpresumetocometoyou,is
alsonotinMatthew.Byomittingsomedetails,Matthewputsgreatercon-
centrationonthemainpoint:Jesushaspowertohealatadistance,merely
byspeakingaword.
ThoughMatthewsaccountisshorter,itdoescontainonesignificantpiece
thatdoesnotoccurinLuke,namelyMatthew8:1112:Itellyou,manywill
comefromeastandwestandreclineattablewithAbraham,Isaac,andJacob
inthekingdomofheaven,whilethesonsofthekingdomwillbethrowninto
theouterdarkness.Inthatplacetherewillbeweepingandgnashingofteeth.
AsimilarsayingoccursinLuke13:2830,inthecontextofadifferentepisode.
In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see
AbrahamandIsaacandJacobandalltheprophetsinthekingdomofGod
butyouyourselvescastout.Andpeoplewillcomefromeastandwest,and
fromnorthandsouth,andreclineattableinthekingdomofGod.Andbehold,
somearelastwhowillbefirst,andsomearefirstwhowillbelast.
In both passages Jesus warns hearers about religious presumption. In
Matthew8:513thecenturionsfaithcontrastswiththelackoffaithwithin
Israel(8:10).ThiscontrastmakesitappropriateforJesustowarnIsraelites
nottopresumeonenjoyingmessianicsalvationmerelybecausetheyare
Israelites,apartfromfaithontheirpart.Similarly,Luke13:2230warns
IsraelitesnottodependonthemerefactthatJesusministeredamongthem
(13:26)orthattheyseethemselvesasheirsofthepatriarchs(13:28).
11
11
Tus,IseetheparallelsbetweenMatt.8:1112andLuke13:2830asduetothefactthatJesussaidsimilar
thingsinsimilarcircumstances.Weleavethisissuetoonesideinordertoconcentrateonthemorenotable
diculty,whichhastodowiththerelationbetweenMatt.8:513andLuke7:110.
23
MatthewshowsrepeatedconcernfortheuniqueroleoftheJewsandthe
issueofJewishrejectionofJesus.Matthewalonehastheexpressionsonsof
thekingdom:thesonsofthekingdomwillbethrownintotheouterdark-
ness(Matt.8:12).ThesesonsofthekingdomareJewswhoareresistinghis
ministry.Theyhavetheprivilegeofhavingacertainnearnesstothekingdom,
thatisthekingdomofGod,andyet,tragically,theywillbethrownintothe
outerdarkness.Matthewaloneincludesthepointedthreat,ThereforeItell
you,thekingdomofGodwillbetakenawayfromyouandgiventoapeople
producingitsfruits(Matt.21:43).Matthew,morethantheotherGospels,
emphasizestheJewishnessofJesus(Matt.1:117).TwiceJesusemphasizes
hisministrytothelostsheepofthehouseofIsrael(Matt.10:6,15:24).But
Jewswhopresumeontheirheritageareindangerofbeingleftout.
12
ThisthemeisimportanttoMatthew.Itcomesoutpointedlyinourfirstpas-
sage,Matthew8:513,becauseJesuscommendsthecenturionforhisfaithand
contraststhiscommendationwiththefailureinIsrael:Truly,Itellyou,withno
oneinIsraelhaveIfoundsuchfaith(Matt.8:10).ThecenturionwasaRoman
soldier,notaJew.HisGentilecharactercomesmorestarklytotheforeground
inthatMatthewdoesnotmentioneldersoftheJewsasintermediaries.
Luke,bycontrast,explicitlymentionstheJewishintermediaries.Theinter-
ventionoftheintermediariesisnotthefinalreasonwhyJesusanswersthe
centurionsrequest.Itisthecenturionsfaith,notthemeritoftheJews,thatleads
toblessing(Luke7:9).ButJewswhowantedtorelyontheirprivilegesmight
neverthelessbetemptedtooverlookthispointandtakerefugeinthespecialrole
thatthecenturionappearstocreateforthem.ThepassageinMatthewhelpsto
removethismistakennotion.Allinall,LukeandMatthewdonotdisagreein
substanceabouttheroleofthecenturionsfaithortheroleofJewishreligious
privileges.Theydodifferinemphasis.Andthatdifferenceinemphasishas
practicalvaluewhenMatthewisaddressingaJewishsenseofprivilege.
NowletusturntoLuke.Whatkindofemphasisdowefindwhenweread
theaccountinLukeLikeMatthew,LukemakesthepointthatJesushas
thepowertohealatadistance.Inaddition,thefactthatthecenturionisa
GentilestillcomesoutinLuke7:9.TheGospelofLukeasawhole,together
withActs,hasatheologicalinterestinthethemethatsalvationisgoingout
tothenations(Luke24:47,Acts1:8).Thisthemeisconfirmedwhenwesee
Jesusministeringtothecenturion.MatthewandLukeagreeinthisrespect.
ButdoesLukehave,inaddition,somedistinctiveemphasisBymentioning
theJewishelders,Lukemakesplainerthecenturionshumility.Theelderssay
prominently,Heisworthytohaveyoudothisforhim(7:4).Thecenturion
himself,bycontrast,statesplainlythatheisnotworthy(7:6).Thatis,he
12
SeeFrance,Gospel of Matthew,31011.
24
meansthatheisnotworthyofhavingJesusperformahealingforhim,which
iswhyhesenttheeldersoftheJews,whomheconsidersmoreworthythan
himself.Andinaddition,heisnotevenworthytohaveyoucomeundermy
roof (7:6)!Therefore,hesays,Ididnotpresumetocometoyou(7:7),
whichagainexpresseshishumility.
TheGospelofLukehashumilityasatheme.He[theLord]hasbrought
downthemightyfromtheirthronesandexaltedthoseofhumbleestate
(Luke1:52).Foreveryonewhoexaltshimselfwillbehumbled,buttheone
whohumbleshimselfwillbeexalted(Luke18:14,see14:11).Lukedevotes
attentiontosocialoutcastsandmarginalizedpeople:women,thepoor,the
sick,taxcollectors,Gentiles(Luke4:18,7:2123).Luke7:110,byexplicitly
includingtheroleoftheintermediariesandbyincludingthecontrastbetween
worthy(7:4)andnotworthy(7:6),hashighlightedthethemeofhumility
andofJesussmercytotheunworthy.
Inaddition,LukeindicatesthatJesusscompassionextendseventopeople
whoarenotdirectlypresentinfrontofhim.Hetakesthetroubletoanswer
arequestfromsomeonewhomhehasnevermetfacetoface.
Insum,MatthewandLukehavedistinctiveemphases,Matthewempha-
sizesthecenturionsGentilestatus,andLukeemphasizeshishumility.Both
oftheseemphasessaysomethingsignificantaboutthekingdomofGodand
Jesussministry.First,thekingdomofGodwillincludeGentilesandallwho
cometoJesusinfaith.JewswhodonottrustinJesusareexcluded.Second,
thosewhoenterthekingdommustcomeinhumility,recognizingthatthey
donotdeservethebenefitsthatGodoffers.
Bothemphasesarevalid.Bothareactuallyexemplifiedintheincidentwith
thecenturionsservant.Infact,atadeeplevelthetwoemphasesimplyone
another.IfGodwelcomesthehumble,itimpliesthatpeopledonotreceive
Godskingdomandhissalvationbecauseoftheirsupposedqualifications
orworthiness.Therefore,Jewscannotdependontheirprivilegedreligious
position.Conversely,ifJewsdonotenterthekingdomofGodonthebasis
oftheirreligiousprivileges,itimpliesthatnotonlytheybuteveryoneelse
mustenterinhumility.IncomingtoGod,noonemaytakeprideinhimself
orhisallegedworthiness,everyonemusthumblehimself.
Itisworthwhiletothinkabouthowthetwoemphasesharmonizeinthe
twoaccountsofthesameepisode.Itisimportantthatwerespectthetrust-
worthycharacteroftheGospels.Butitisalsovaluabletoacknowledgetheir
distinctiveness.WearericherbyhavingthetwoGospelsdrawattentionto
distinctaspectsofthemeaningoftheeventsandthemeaningofthekingdom
ofGod.WecanappreciatewhatGodisdoingmoredeeplythanifwejust
hadoneaccount,orifwejustpaidattentiontoourreconstructedideaof
theeventsandnottotheGospelsdistinctivewaysofexplainingtheevents.
PAR T T WO
PrinCiPles
for harmonizaTion
27
3
Initial Principles
for Harmonization
Byworkingthroughoneexampleaboutthecenturionsservant,wehave
alreadyillustratedseveralprincipleswithbroaderapplicability.Letuspause
toconsiderthem.
Inspiration: The Trustworthiness of the Bible
TheBibleisGodsspeakinginwrittenform.BecauseGodistrustworthyand
true,soistheBible.BecauseGodknowseverythingandisall-powerful,he
willnotfailinthewaythathumanbeingscanfailthroughmisinformation
orlapseofattention.
OurassumptionsabouttheBibleandaboutGodplayacentralrolein
howweunderstandandstudytheBible.Theseassumptionsaresoimportant
thattheydeservemuchmorediscussionthanwecangivethemherethey
deservewholebooks.Accordingly,Iamreferringreaderstobooksthat
havealreadydoneagoodjob,suchasthefoundationalworkofBenjaminB.
Warfield,The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.
1
1
BenjaminB.Wareld,Te Inspiration and Authority of the Bible(repr.,Philadelphia:Presbyterianand
Reformed,1967).SeealsoArchibald A.HodgeandBenjamin B.Wareld,Inspiration,withintroductionby
Roger R.Nicole(GrandRapids:Baker,1979),Richard B.GanJr.,Gods Word in Servant-Form: Abraham
Kuyper and Herman Bavinck on the Doctrine of Scripture(Jackson,MS:ReformedAcademic,2008),John D.
Woodbridge,Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal(GrandRapids:Zondervan,1982),
28
PrinciplesforHarmonization
Ourassumptionsabouttruthalsomakeadifference.Wewillhaveocca-
siontoreflectonthenatureoftruthandtruecommunicationlateron.But
wemayatthisearlypointmakeaclarification.WhenwesaythatGodspeaks
truthfullyandthathisspeechcanbetrusted,weareincludingallofhis
speech.Hisspeechincludesinstanceswherehemakesspecificassertions,
butalsootherkindsofspeech.
Peoplesometimesusethewordtrueinanarrowsensetodescribethetruth
ofassertions,indistinctionfromcommands,requests,questions,wishes,and
longer,complexdiscourses.
2
Forexample,Jillmaysay,Thedoorisopen.In
thiscontext,Thedoorisopenisanassertion.Itistrueorfalse,depending
onthepositionofthedoor.ButsupposeJillsays,Pleaseopenthedoor.We
wouldnotnormallysaythatherrequestistrue.Nevertheless,requests,
questions,andlongerdiscoursesusuallyalsoimplycommitmentsonthe
partofthespeakertovariousrelatedstatements.Jillimpliesthatthedoor
isnotyetopen,oratleastnotfullyopen.ConsiderthecommandYoushall
notstealinExodus20:15.Thoughnotanassertion,itimpliesanumber
ofassertions.Itimplies(1)thatstealingiswrong,(2)thatGodsays,You
shallnotsteal,and(3)thatGoddoesnotapproveofstealing.Allofthese
implicationsaretrue.
LongerdiscoursesliketheGospelscontainparablesofJesus,andthese
havetobereceivedforwhattheyareasparablesifwearegoingtoappreci-
atetheirtruthproperly.ParablesimplytruthsaboutthekingdomofGod,but
suchimplicationsmustbesoughtoutbyappreciatinghowparablesdotheir
job.WhenwesaythatGodsspeechisalwaystruthful,weshouldendeavor
topreservetherichnessofhisspeechandnotinsistthatonlysomekinds
ofdiscourseoronlysomepieceswithinadiscoursehaveauthorityoverus.
3
Help from the Past
Wecanreceivehelpfromotherpeoplewhohavethoughtaboutdifficulties
intheBible.ThefourGospelshavebeenwithussincethefirstcentury.The
churchthroughthecenturieshashadmuchopportunitytothinkaboutthem
andcomparethem.Weshouldrememberthatapparentdiscrepancieswe
HermanBavinck,Reformed Dogmatics,vol.1,Prolegomena,ed.JohnBolt,trans.JohnVriend(GrandRapids:
Baker,2003),353494,John M.Frame,Te Doctrine of the Word of God(Phillipsburg,NJ:P&R,2010).
2
Onspeechacts,seeVernS.Poythress,In the Beginning Was the Word: LanguageA God-Centered Ap-
proach(Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2009),appendixH.
3
Frame,Doctrine of the Word of God,makesclearthatGodsauthoritybelongstoallaspectsofhisspeech,
includingquestionsandcommandsaswellasstatements.Ps.119:151says,Allyourcommandmentsare
true,applyingthewordtruetocommandments,notmerelyassertions.Tiskindofuseshowstheap-
propriatenessofusingthewordtruewithrespecttocommunicationsofotherkindsbesidesassertions.
Seealso,Yourlawistrue(Ps.119:142),Yourwordistruth(John17:17).
29
InitialPrinciplesforHarmonization
findhavebeenaroundforalongtime,andpeoplebeforeushavetrustedin
GodsWordwhileknowingaboutthesedifficulties.Notallproposedhar-
monizationswillbeequallyattractive.Butbyconsultingmanysourceswe
mayoftenfindoneormorethatofferreasonableexplanations.
HerearesomeoldersourcesthatIhavefoundhelpful:
Alford,Henry.The Greek Testament....Vol.1.7thed.London:Longmans,
Green,1898.
Andrews,SamuelJ.The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth: Considered in Its
Historical, Chronological, and Geographical Relations.GrandRapids:
Zondervan,1954.
Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan,1982.
Augustine.The Harmony of the Gospels.Invol.6ofA Select Library of the
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church.Series1,edited
byPhilipSchaff,65236.Reprint,GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1979.This
workissometimesalsocalledHarmony of the Evangelists.
Bengel,JohannA.Gnomon of the New Testament.2vols.Philadelphia:
PerkinpineandHiggins,1860.
Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew,
Mark, and Luke.3vols.TranslatedbyWilliamPringle.GrandRapids:
Eerdmans,n.d.
.The Gospel according to St John.2vols.TranslatedbyT.H.L.Parker.
EditedbyDavidW.TorranceandThomasF.Torrance.GrandRapids:
Eerdmans,1959.
Hendriksen,William.A Commentary on the Gospel of John.London:Banner
ofTruth,1959.
.Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke.GrandRapids:Baker,1978.
.Exposition of the Gospel according to Mark.GrandRapids:Baker,
1975.
.Exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew.GrandRapids:Baker,
1973.
McClellan,JohnBrown.The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, a New Translation . . . . Vol.1.London:Macmillan,1875.
Stonehouse,NedB.The Witness of the Synoptic Gospels to Christ: One Volume
Combining the Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ and the Witness
of Luke to Christ.2nded.GrandRapids:Baker,1979.
Moremightbeaddedtothisbasiclist.Notallofthesesourcesareofequal
valueforharmonizationquestions,someoftheharmonizationsareless
30
plausiblethanothers.Butthesesourcesregularlyaddressharmonization
questionsandtrytomakecontributionstounderstanding.
Inaddition,manycommentarieswrittenbyevangelicalsaddressharmo-
nizationquestionsatleastsomeofthetime.Thesecommentariesaretoo
numeroustomention.
4
Amongrecentworksweshouldalsomentionthe
ESV Study Bible,
5
whosenotesregularlyaddressquestionsofharmonization.
6
Accounts of Two Distinct Events
Sometimesdifferingaccountshavetodowithtwodistinctincidents.Inthe
caseofthecenturionsservant,Calvinquicklydismissesthatpossibility.
7
The
numberofsimilaritiesbetweenthetwoaccountsshowsthatwearedealing
withthesameevent.Butothercasesarenotsoclear-cut.Jesustraveledaround,
especiallyinGalilee.Giventhevariationsinlocationandaudience,hewould
haverepeatedhimselfinhisteaching.Sosimilar-soundingteachingmay
sometimesderivefromtwoormoredistinctincidents.Jesusalsoengagedin
aministryofhealingandexorcismwhereverhewent.Invariousplacesthere
wereboundtobesimilarcasesofleprosy,blindness,anddemonpossession.
Omission of Detail
Oneaccountmaylegitimatelyomitadetailincludedinanother.Inthecase
ofthecenturionsservant,Matthewdoesnotmentiontheintermediaries,
eithertheeldersoftheJewsorthefriendsofthecenturion.Inaddition,he
doesnotmentionthatthecenturionsays,Donottroubleyourself (Luke
7:6).LukedoesnotmentionthatJesustalksaboutmanycomingfromeast
andwest(Matt.8:1112).However,thedifficultydoesnotmerelyconsist
invarioussmallomissions.Matthew,bycompletelyomittingtheinterme-
diaries,hasleftoutadetailinawaythatmaytroublesomepeoplebecause
theywonderwhethertheresultoftheomissionissatisfactorywithrespect
toitstruthfulness.Augustine,Calvin,andR.T.Franceanswerthisconcern
bypointingoutthattheintermediaryactsonbehalfoftheoneherepresents,
andsothetwoareidentified.Wewilladdressthisconcernfurtherinsome
ofourlaterprinciples.
4
2007),309n48,providesausefulstartinglist.
5
ESV Study Bible: English Standard Version(Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2008).
6
NotealsoBlomberg,Historical Reliability,15295.Forside-by-sidecomparison,seeoneoftheharmo-
nieswithparallelcolumnsforeachGospel.TestandardsourceisKurtAland,ed.,Synopsis quattuor
evangeliorum,5thed.(Stuttgart:WrttembergischeBibelanstalt,1967).
7
31
InitialPrinciplesforHarmonization
Considering the Environment of the Gospels
GodgaveustheGospelswithintheenvironmentofthefirstcentury.Indoing
so,Godtookintoaccounttheassumptions,expectations,andmind-setof
thetimeandsettinginwhichtheGospelswereoriginallywritten.Weshould
avoidmerelyimposingourownmodernexpectations.
NoteR.T.Francescomment.
His[Matthews]omissionofthemeansofthecenturionsapproachtoJesusis
avalidliterarydevicetohighlightthemessageoftheincidentasheseesit(on
theprinciple,commoninbiblicalandcontemporaryliterature,thatamessenger
orservantrepresentstheonewhosenthimtothepointofvirtualidentity).
8
Franceappealstoaprinciple,commoninbiblicalandcontemporarylit-
erature.Purelyindividualisticthinkingfromamodernsettingmaybring
mistakenexpectationstotheBible.Thehumanauthorswhowrotebiblical
books,andthosewhofirstreadthem,hadanappreciationforcorporate
wholessuchasafamilyoranation.Theyunderstoodthatarepresentative
tooktheplaceoftheoneherepresented.Francethenimpliesthatanancient
reader,whounderstoodtheexpectationswithintheenvironmentinwhich
Matthewwaswritten,wouldnothavebeendisturbedinthesamewayas
wouldamodern,individualisticthinker.
WemaymakethesamepointbyconsideringthedivineauthorofMatthew,
notmerelythehumanauthor.Consistentwithhischaracter,Godspeaks
withincontexts,contextsthathehimselfcontrols.Themeaningofapar-
ticularspeechtakesintoaccountsuchcontextsandinteractswiththem.
9
GodasCreatorestablishedtheprincipleofrepresentationinthefirstplace.
Adamrepresentedthewholehumanracewhenhefellintosin.Godhasalso
establishedrepresentativesinother,morespecializedcases.Thehighpriest
representedthewholenationwhenhecamebeforeGod(Lev.16:5,15,16,
21).ThekingofIsraelrepresentedthewholepeopleandledthem.Afather
representshisfamily.Godhasalsoestablishedaworldinwhichhuman
beingscanappointrepresentativesofatemporarysort.Jeroboamappears
tohaveheadedupthedelegationthatcametoRehoboam(1Kings12:3,12).
JoabrepresentedAbsalomscasetoDavid(2Sam.14:33).
ThesestructuresofrepresentationordainedbythesovereigntyofGod
werealreadyinthebackgroundwhenthecenturionundertooktohavethe
eldersoftheJewspresenthispetition.GodinwritingtheGospelofMatthew
8
RichardT.France,InerrancyandNewTestamentExegesis,Temelios1(1975):17.
9
Crossway,2012),chap.11,Poythress,In the Beginning Was the Word,especiallychaps.7and11.
32
tookintoaccountthestructuresofrepresentationthatheordained.And
heshapedtheheartsofpeopleinthosetimestoappreciatethemeaningof
representation.Godtookaccountofthefactthat,inthefirstcenturyenvi-
ronment,hewaswritingtopeoplewhounderstoodthevirtualidentity
betweenanintermediaryandtheonewhomherepresents.
Theological Emphasis
EachGospelmayhighlightparticulartheologicalemphasesthroughtheway
inwhichitpresentsitsaccountofanepisode.Aswehaveobserved,Matthew
emphasizesthecenturionsstatusasaGentileandthedangerofJewsnot
havingfaithintheMessiah.Lukeemphasizesthecenturionshumility.These
twoemphasesfitintolargertheologicalthemes,thethemesofsalvationby
faith,opentoGentiles,andthethemeofhumility.Bothofthesethemeshave
apositiverolewithinbiblicaldoctrine.Andtheybothbecomemanifestin
theepisodewiththecenturion.
Thus,thedifferencesbetweentheGospelsareanintegralandsignificant
partoftheGospels.Thedifferencesarethereforapurpose:theyhelpus.
AlltheGospelsaretalkingabouteventsthatactuallyhappened,theyarenot
makingitup.Buttheyaretellingabouttheeventsinwaysthathelpusto
grasptheirsignificanceandtheirtheologicalimplications.Wedonotneed
tofeelasifwehavetorollbackthesignificanceandtheimplicationsin
ordertogettobareevents.
TheGospels,sincetheyarewrittenwithGodsauthority,deserveourulti-
mateallegianceandtrust.Theyarethereforemore ultimateandmore reliable
accountsoftheeventsofthelifeofChristthanisanyhumanlyconstructed
harmonization,whichwouldtrytofigureoutwhatreallyhappened.Itis
legitimateforustotrytoseehowthevariousGospelaccountsfittogether
intoalargerpicture.Butthislargerpictureshouldincludeeverythingthat
theGospelsgiveus,ratherthanonlyaminimumcoreintheformofour
modernhumanreconstructionofwhathappened.
Humanreconstructionscanhelp,butwhenreconstructionsoftheevents
gointoallthedetails,theyoftencontainacertainamountofguesswork.
Theguessworkmeansthatourownfallibilityandtheincompletenessof
ourinformationcomeintoplay.Ifwearehonest,wehavetoadmitthatwe
cannotbesureabouteverythinginourreconstruction.Bycontrast,wecan
besureabouttheGospelsthemselves.Theirdifferences,aswellastheareas
theyholdincommon,belongtotheBible,whichGodintendedtofunction
asthefoundationinourreligiousinstructionand,indeed,inourwholelife.
33
4
History, Theology,
and Artistry
Wecanaddsomeotherprinciplestotheoneswehavejustlisted.Butfirst
wetakeupalargerissue,theissueofhowhistory,theology,andliterary
artistryrelatetooneanother.Letusbeginbyfocusingprimarilyonhistory
andtheology.Laterwewillconsiderliteraryartistryaswell.
Bare Facts
Somepeoplethinkthathistorymeansjustbarefacts.Theythinkthatany
theologicalsignificancehastobetreatedasanafterthought.Accordingtothis
wayofthinking,themeaningoremphasisofanyhistoricalwriterbecomes
somethingthattheindividualwriterpastesontothefactsmerelyonthebasis
ofhissubjectivejudgmentsandinterests.Inotherwords,accordingtothis
viewtherealthinginhistoryconsistsinthebareevents.Allinterpretation,
selection,andcommentarehumanadditions.Theology,literaryelegance,and
personalmeaningarehumaninventions.
Thisviewoftherelationbetweenhistoryandtheology,thoughitmay
seemnaturaltomanymodernears,isdeeplyatoddswiththeBiblesunder-
standingofhistoryandtheology.Wetouchhereontheissueofhowworld-
viewsandassumptionsaffectourinterpretationoftheBible.Theissueof
worldviewreceivesfullerdiscussioninthecompanionbookInerrancy and
34
Worldview.
1
Weneedtopickupsomeofthesameissueshere,drawingalso
ontherelationofhistorytolanguageandsociety.
2
Multiple Perspectives
First,theinvolvementofpersonsandtheirperspectivesinknowledgedoes
notinitselfunderminethevalidityofknowledge.Animpersonalistworld-
viewmaysuggestthattruthmustultimatelybeimpersonal.ButGodisthe
ultimatestandardfortruth,andheispersonal.Wemayexpressthisreality
bysayingthattruthiswhatGodknows.Sopersonalinvolvement,namely
Godsinvolvement,isnecessaryfortheexistenceoftruth.Andofcourse
humanpersonsmustbecomeinvolvedas personswhentheycometoknow
somethingtrue.Thisinvolvementtakesplaceaccordingtothedesignof
God.Itisnotinnatelyalienorcorrupting.
Second,GodisoneGodinthreepersons.Matthew11:27indicatesthe
involvementofpersonsoftheTrinityinknowledge:Allthingshavebeen
handedovertomebymyFather,andnooneknowstheSonexceptthe
Father,andnooneknowstheFatherexcepttheSonandanyonetowhom
theSonchoosestorevealhim.EachpersonoftheTrinityhashisdistinct
personalperspectiveonknowledge.GodtheFatherknowsallthingsby
beingtheFather,andinbeingtheFatherheknowstheSon.TheSonas
SonknowstheFather,andindoingsoknowsallthings.Similarly,theHoly
Spiritknowsallthingsinconnectionwithhisdistinctiveroleinsearching
thedepthsofGod(1Cor.2:10,seealso2:11).Personalperspectivesare
thereforeinherentinknowledgeatthedeepestlevel,thedivinelevel.By
implication,personal,perspectivalknowledgeoftruthamonghumanbeings
belongstotheverycharacterofthetruth,itisnotadistortionofanoriginal
allegedlyimpersonaltruth.
Thisperspectivalcharacterofthetruthhasimplicationsforourattitude
towardtheGospels.Whentheywrote,thehumanauthorsMatthew,Mark,
Luke,andJohnbroughttotheirwritingtheirowndistincthumanperspec-
tivesonthelife,death,andresurrectionofJesus.Theseperspectivesbelong
integrallytotheaccountandmustnotbeviewedasimposedonoriginally
impersonalfacts.
TheseperspectiveshavetheireffectonthewholeofeachGospel.Each
Gospelinvitesustoreaditasaunifiedstory,settingfortheventsinthelife
1
TeissueofhistoryandtheologyreceivesdiscussioninVern S.Poythress,Inerrancy and Worldview:
Answering Modern Challenges to the Bible(Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2012),chaps.11and26.
2
SeeVernS.Poythress,In the Beginning Was the Word: LanguageA God-Centered Approach(Whea-
ton,IL:Crossway,2009),andPoythress,Redeeming Sociology: A God-Centered Approach(Wheaton,IL:
Crossway,2011).
35
History,Teology,andArtistry
ofJesusandleadinguptohisdeathandresurrection.Moreover,because
GodisthedivineauthorofeachGospel,eachGospelrepresentsnotonly
adistincthumanperspective,butalsoadistinctdivineperspective.God
speaksnotonlywhatiscommontotheGospelssomekindofcorebut
whatisdistinctineachone.GodraisedupthefourEvangelists:Matthew,
Mark,Luke,andJohn.Heshapedeachoftheirpersonalitiesandbackgrounds
accordingtohisdesign,andthroughtheHolySpiritheempoweredthemto
writeexactlywhattheywrote.AllofitisGodsword.
3
Testimony from Irenaeus and Augustine
ObservationsaboutthedistinctivenessofeachGospelgobackatleastas
farasIrenaeus.HecomparedthefourGospelstothefourwindsandtothe
four-facedcharacterofthecherubiminRevelation4:7.
4
Thefourliving
creaturesorcherubiminRevelation4:7havefourdistinctfaces,likealion,
anox,aman,andaneagle.IrenaeusunderlinedhisclaimabouttheGospels
byattemptingtoindicatewaysinwhicheachoftheGospelscorrespondsin
itsparticularemphasisandapproachtooneofthefacesofthecherubim:
Matthewcorrespondstothehumanface,Marktotheeagle,Luketotheox,
andJohntothelion.
Augustinemadesimilarpoints.InhisbookThe Harmony of the Gospels
henotedthattheGospelofJohnisdistinctincharacterfromtheotherthree
Gospels(1.4.7,1.5.8).Hesawdistinctiveemphasesintheotherthreeaswell
(1.3.56,1.6.9).Healludedtoearlierinterpreterswhotriedtoseeaconnec-
tionbetweenthefourGospelsandthefourlivingcreaturesofRevelation4:7.
AugustinepreferredthecorrelationthatlinksMatthewwiththelion,Mark
withtheman,Lukewiththeox,andJohnwiththeeagle.
5
AlltheattemptsatlinkagesshowthatearlyChristianswereawareof
importantdifferencesbetweentheGospels.Bycorrelatingthedifferences
withthelivingcreatures,interpreterswerealsoindicatingthatthediffer-
enceshadaheavenlyandnotmerelyhumanorigin.Godauthorizedthe
differences,aswellasthesimilarities.
DoeseachGospelreallyimitateoneofthefourlivingcreaturesThe
ancientsdifferedintheiropinionsaboutwhichGospelshouldbelinked
withwhichlivingcreature.Thedifferingopinionsshowthattheideaofeach
3
Archibald A.HodgeandBenjamin B.Wareld,Inspiration,withintroductionbyRoger R.Nicole(repr.,
GrandRapids:Baker,1979),1129,Vern S.Poythress,Symphonic Teology: Te Validity of Multiple Per-
spectives in Teology(repr.,Phillipsburg,NJ:P&R,2001), Poythress,Inerrancy and Worldview,chap.11.
4
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,inTe Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down
to A.D. 325,vol.1,ed.AlexanderRobertsandJamesDonaldson(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1979),3.11.8.
5
Augustine,Te Harmony of the Gospels,invol.6ofNPNF1,1.6.9.
36
Gospelhavingaspecificlinkagetoexactlyonelivingcreatureisdoubtful.
Buttheancientwritersstillrecognizedimportanttruths,namely,thatthe
fourGospelsofferdiversepointsofview,thatthisdiversitycomesfromGod,
andthatithonorsGod,justasthelivingcreaturespraiseGodcontinually
(Rev.4:8).
TheseancientChristianreflectionsagreewithwhatweourselvescanseein
theGospels.TheGospelsareintrinsicallyinharmony,butalsocomplemen-
tary.NooneGospelsayseverythingthatcouldbesaid.Eachoneiscompletely
trueinwhatitpresentsaboutChristandhislife.Ifwehadaccesstoonlyone
Gospeloutofthefour,itwouldgiveusknowledgeofGodinChrist,andwe
wouldbesavedbytrustinginChristasheispresentedinthatGospel.We
wouldhavetrueknowledge.Butitwouldnotbealltheknowledgewecould
everhave.WelearnmorewhenwereadasecondGospelbecauseitbrings
outaspectsofChristthatwerenotsomuchintheforegroundinthefirst.
ThefourGospelstogethergiveusgreaterrichesthananyonealone.They
harmonizeinasymphonyratherthangivingaunisonperformance.
6
This
symphonicharmonyagreesmagnificentlywiththeverycharacterofGod,
whoismagnificentlyrich,andwiththecharacterofChrist,whorevealsGod
tousinhisfullness.Therichnessisinexhaustible.Thedifferencesamong
theGospelsmakeknownthemanifoldwisdomofGod(Eph.3:10).
Theological Meaning of Events
Nowletusconsidertherelationofhistoricalfactstotheologicalmeaning.
Luke24:4447indicatesthatthesuffering,death,andresurrectionofChrist
wereplannedbyGodbeforehand,andthattheywereanticipatedinthe
OldTestament.TheseeventsthatChristaccomplishedareattheheartof
redemption.Butmorebroadly,theentiretyofhistorytakesplaceaccording
toGodsplan(Eph.1:11,seealsoIsa.46:911,Lam.3:3738).Godsplan
hasmeaningwithinhismind.Divinemeaningactuallyprecedestheevents
themselves.Godhadplannedallofhistoryevenbeforehecreatedtheworld.
Fromthebeginning,therewasmeaning.Godhaspurposesinallevents,but
especiallyinthecentraleventsofredemption:thelife,death,andresurrec-
tionofChrist.Sothesecentraleventshadmeaningbeforehand.
Thecentraleventsinredemptionalsoreceivedinterpretationafterward
astheapostleslookedbackonthelife,death,andresurrectionofChrist,and
ontheOldTestamenthistorythatleduptohiscoming.Becausetheapostles
wereofficiallycommissionedbyChrist(Acts1:8),theirinterpretationisnot
merelyhumanbutdivineinterpretation.Historicalevents,accordingtothe
6
Poythress,Symphonic Teology,especiallychap.5.
37
Biblesworldview,arenotbareevents,brutefacts,buteventswithmeaning
accordingtotheplanofGod.Theyhavetheologyinherentinthem.Therefore
thetheologicalsignificanceshighlightedintheGospelsandinotherplaces
intheBiblearenotarbitraryadditionstobareevents.Thereisactuallyno
suchthingasabareevent.Thatideaisafigmentproducedbyantibiblical
assumptions.
7
TheGospelsdrawoutmeaningsandimplicationsthatGods
planassignedtotheeventsfrombeforethefoundationoftheworld.
Therealizationthattheologicalmeaningisinherentineventsdissolves
manydifficultiesthatareproducedwhenmodernpeopletrytodigunder-
neaththetheologicalsignificanceandtheologicalinterpretationinthe
Gospelsinordertoobtainreality.Whatthisdiggingactuallyobtainsis
notreality,butareflectionoferroneousassumptionsabouthistory.
8
Having the Right Foundations
ManymodernscholarslookatmattersdifferentlyfromwhatIhavejust
described.MyapproachmayseemdogmaticandnaivetothemIamjust
acceptingwhattheBiblesaysandwhattheGospelssay.Yes,Idothat.Ido
itbecauseIthinkthatresponseiswhattheBibledeserves,itisGodsword.
Wewilldiscussmattersconcerningourattitudesatalaterpoint(seepart
three).Trustisneitherdogmaticnornaivepejorativewordsbutrather
theappropriateresponse.
Dogmaticisthelabelthatproponentsofmodernworldviewsgivetothose
whodonotaccepttheirassumptions.
9
Wecanrespondnotonlybypositively
explainingtheappropriatenessoftrustingtheBible,butalsobyquestioning
thealternative.Modernworldviewshavetheirownassumptions.Andthose
assumptionsturnouttohaveaflimsybasisreallynobasisatall.TheBible
givesgoodreasonsfordoubtingthem.
Goddoesnotintendforustofunctionwithourselvesasthefinalauthority,
pretendingtobeautonomousinourjudgments.Heintendsthatwefollow
hisinstruction.Whenwedoso,wecanlearnagreatdealfromtheGospels,
includingthosepartsthatchallengeuswithdifficulties.Showinghowthat
7
SeePoythress,Inerrancy and Worldview,chaps.11and26,CorneliusVanTil,A Christian Teory of
Knowledge(Philadelphia:PresbyterianandReformed,1969),3437.
8
SeePoythress,Inerrancy and Worldview,chaps.57.Ofcourse,thereisanoppositeerrorwherereality
isradicallysubjectivized.Inasubjectivisticview,realityisonlywhateachpersondecidestomakeit.
GodsWordgivesusthestandardbywhichweoughttorejectsuchdeviantviews.
9
Forexample,peoplemayjudgethatsimpletrustintheBibleisunfalsiable.Butinpracticepeoplewill
worryaboutfalsiabilityonlywhentheyhavedoubtsabouttruth.Wediscussdoubtsinchap.11,andthe
worldviewsthatincludeassumptionsabouttruthandhistoryinPoythress,Inerrancy and Worldview.A
biblicallybasedworldviewincludesdistinctiveattitudestowardlifeingeneralandintellectuallifeinpar-
ticular(seechap.1115inthisbookandchaps.2735ofPoythress,Inerrancy and Worldview).
38
processoflearningworksoutinpracticeisonegoalofthisbook.Debating
thefundamentalassumptionsofworldviewbelongstomypreviousbook,
Inerrancy and Worldview,andtomanyotherbooksonapologetics.Iam
sorrytodisappointreaderswhoatthispointmayexpectafullerdiscussion
offundamentalassumptions.ButhereIwanttobuildonassumptionsthat
arealreadyinplace.
Principles about History and Theology
Wemaynowsummarizebasicprinciplesabouttherelationofhistoryto
theologicalinterpretation.
1. Divine meaning in events
GodasLordofhistorygivesmeaningtoevents.BecauseintheplanofGod
theeventsthemselveshavemeaningandpurpose,theologicalinterpretation
isnotabiasedimpositiononneutralorbruteeventsbut,whensoundly
based,anexpositionofwhattheeventsthemselvesactuallymeant.
2. Theological selectivity
BecausetheeventsarerichinmeaningwithinthetotalplanofGod,all
theologicalexpositionoftheeventsisnecessarilyselectiveinemphasis.
ThedifferencebetweentheemphasisoninclusionofGentilesinMatthew
8:513andtheemphasisonhumilityinLuke7:110offersanexampleof
thistypeofselectiveemphasis.
3. Harmony between history and theology
Wedonotputtheologicalsignificanceandhistoryinoppositiontoone
another,becauseGodhimselfhasplacedthetwoinharmony.HeisLord
ofboth.
Artistry
Nowletusconsiderthetopicofliteraryartistry.Godemploysrichspeech.
HowdoweknowthatWecanseeitconcretelybylookingatthepoetry
inthePsalmsandtheOldTestamentProphets.Wecanalsoseethatitis
consistentwithhischaracter.WhenGodspeaks,hisspeechexpressesthe
richnessofhischaracterandhisplan.
Wehavespokenofhistoryandtheology.Theybothbelongtoaspectsof
Godsspeech.Thereareotherdimensionsaswell.Forexample,Godmeans
toengageusandtochangeus.Whenhespeaks,heprovidesinformation.
39
Buthealsogivesuscommunionwithhimselfandheworkstotransform
us.Godisbeautifulinhischaracter.Sohisspeechexpresseshisbeauty.
Andsometimeshisspeechmayexhibitliteraryartistryasonemeansthat
underlineshisbeautyandthebeautyofhisthoughts.Theartistrymayalso
drawusin,movingusandfascinatingus.ItbecomesameansthatGoduses
intheprocessoftransformingus.Artistryisnotincompetitionwithhistory
ortheologyallthreeservethesameend,eachreinforcing,complementing,
andpointingtotheothers.Godistruthful,beautiful,andsovereignover
history.Thethreegotogether.
Wemaythereforeformulatetheseadditionalprinciples:
4. Literary artistry
Godemploysliteraryartistry.Hespeaksinharmonywithhisownbeauty
andwisdom.Heusesadornment,metaphor,allusions,patternsfornarra-
tives,andmanyotherresourcesoflanguageswhenhecommunicatestous.
Theseenhancecommunicationandshowustherichnessofhischaracter
ratherthancreatingtensionwithtruthfulness.
5. The Gospels as literary wholes (narratives)
Allthreeaspectshistorical,theological,andliteraryworktogetherin
eachGospelasacompletebook.Theologicalemphases,historicalselectiv-
ity,andliterarysensitivityarepresentineachGospelasaunifiednarrative.
EachGospelisdesignedbyGodtobereadasaliterarywholethattellsthe
historyofJesusslife,death,andresurrectionandshowsusthetheological
significanceofhislifeandwork.Distinctivetheologicalemphasesappear
notonlywhenwecompareasinglepassagewithparallelpassagesinother
Gospels,butalsowhenweconsiderhowapassagecontributestotheover-
allmessageoftheGospelinwhichitlies.Eachindividualpassagewithina
Gospelneedstobereadaspartofthelargernarrativetowhichitbelongs.
40
5
The Historical Claims
of the Gospels
WemustconsiderwhatsortofbookstheGospelsclaimtobe.Sincetheyare
Godsownword,theywillbewhollytruthful,justasGodistrue.Butthat
fact,byitself,leaveswidescopeforwhattypesofcommunicationGodmay
choose.God,havinggivenuslanguage,possessesinhimselffullcapability
forusingallitsresources,includingtheresourcesofvariousgenresand
typesofcommunication.
1
Genres
TheBibleasawholecontainsmanykindsofdiscourse.Wehavethebook
ofProverbs,songsandprayersinthebookofPsalms,prophecies,riddles,
historicalrecords,andmore.Jesustoldparables,whicharestoriesthatdo
notclaimtobeaccountsofeventsthatactuallyhappenedatoneparticular
time.Nooneistroubledbytheirfictionalcharacter,becauseparablesdo
notclaimtobeanythingelse.Godcanusefictionforhispurposes.Butwe
knowthathedoesnotpresentfictionasifitwerefact,forthatwouldbe
inconsistentwithhistruthfulness.Itisthereforeimportanttoconsiderwhat
sortofclaimstheGospelsmakeaboutwhattheypresent.
1
SeeVernS.Poythress,In the Beginning Was the Word: LanguageA God-Centered Approach(Wheaton,
IL:Crossway,2009),especiallychap.23ongenre.
41
TeHistoricalClaimsoftheGospels
Wecannotexploreallthedimensionsofthesequestionswithoutradi-
callyexpandingourdiscussionandproducingaverylongbook.Wemust
becontentwithabeginning.Wewillsummarizeprinciplesthathavebeen
morefullydevelopedincommentariesandbook-lengthdiscussionsofthe
characteroftheGospels.
The Gospel of Luke
TheGospelofLukebeginswithaprologue,thefirstfourverses.
1
Inasmuchasmanyhaveundertakentocompileanarrativeofthethingsthat
havebeenaccomplishedamongus,
2
justasthosewhofromthebeginningwere
eyewitnessesandministersofthewordhavedeliveredthemtous,
3
itseemed
goodtomealso,havingfollowedallthingscloselyforsometimepast,towrite
anorderlyaccountforyou,mostexcellentTheophilus,
4
thatyoumayhave
certaintyconcerningthethingsyouhavebeentaught.(Luke1:14)
SeveralfeaturesinthispassageindicatethatLukeisconcernedtotellusabout
whatreallyhappened.Hereferstothethingsthathavebeenaccomplished
amongus(1:1).Heistalkingaboutevents,thingsthathavetakenplace.
Hementionseyewitnesses(1:2),indicatingthatheisawareofthevalue
ofeyewitnesstestimonyincontrasttosecond-handorthird-handreports.
Heindicatesthathehasfollowedallthingscloselyforsometimepast
(1:3).Hehasgivenconcentratedattentiontothetopic.Andheaimstogive
Theophilusandotherreaderscertainty(ortheexacttruth,1:4,sn).
Inaddition,thispassageinLukecorrespondsinseveralofitsthemesto
FlaviusJosephussprologuetohisJewish War.
2
Evensomeparticularkey
wordscorrespond.Lukesprologuehaslooserassociationswithsomeother
writingsofthetime:2Maccabees2:1931,DiodorusofSicily,The Library
of History1.3.2,4.1,6.2,andDionysiusofHalicarnassus,Roman Antiquities
1.5.4.Itthusrangesitselfwithinthebroadcategoryofhistorywritinginthe
Hellenisticworld.
3
Butthereismore.BeginningwithLuke1:5theGreekstyleshiftstoastyle
imitatingtheSeptuagint,theGreektranslationoftheOldTestament.By
sodoing,theGospelofLukelinksitselftothepatternofhistorywritingin
theOldTestament.Lukereferstothethingsthathavebeenaccomplished
2
FlaviusJosephus,Te Jewish War,withEnglishtranslationbyH. St. J.Tackeray(London:Heinemann,
Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1967),1.1.13.
3
JoelB.Green,Te Gospel of Luke(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1997),16,Darrell L.Bock,Luke, vol.1,
1:19:50(GrandRapids:Baker,1994),5167.SeealsoLoveday C. A.Alexander,Luke-ActsinItsCon-
temporarySettingwithSpecialReferencetothePrefaces(Luke1:14andActs1:1)(DPhildiss.,Oxford
University,1977).
42
amongus(1:1).Theseaccomplishedeventscontinuetheredemptiveline
ofactsandwordsofGodthatgoesthroughthecourseofhistorylaidoutin
theOldTestament.Lukethereforeorientsitsnarrativetodivineacts,which
involvetheologicalsignificance,andinthisrespectittakesaviewpoint
distinctfrommoresecularHellenistichistories.
DarrellBockcomments:
Many[commentators]suggestthattheuseofaliteraryconventioninthepro-
loguetomakeclaimsaboutaccuracyprovesnothingabouttherealhistorical
characterofLukeswork....Itmustbenoted,however,thatthegoalofwhat
Lukewishestoaccomplish,assurance,isgreatlyaffectedbyhisaccuracy.
Also,unlikemanyofthehistorianstowhomLukeiscompared,hiswritingis
virtuallycontemporarytotheeventshedescribes.Asaresult,hisabilityto
becarelesswiththefactsislimited....
Onecouldalsoquestionthemoralsofawriterwhobelievesinareligion
thatstressesthetellingofthetruth,andwhoyetmisrepresentsthehistoryhe
describes.Suchreligiousconstraintsdidnotexistformanyancientsecular
writers.
4
Whenwecombinethesehumanconsiderationswiththerealityofdivine
authorshipofLuke,wemaybeconfidentthatLukenotonlyaimedattruth
butachievedit.
Other Gospels
WecannowconsiderbrieflytheotherGospels.Broadlyspeaking,theyclearly
belongtothesamegenre,Gospel,asdoesLuke.
5
Hence,theytooaregiving
ushistoricalaccountsofrealevents.Ithusdisagreewiththosewhothink
thatthestrongtheologicalinterestsintheGospelofJohnmoveitawayfrom
historicalreality.AndIdisagreewithM.D.GoulderstheorythattheGospel
ofMatthewoffersusnonhistoricalmidrashinimitationofJewishmidrash.
6
4
Bock,Luke,1:6667.
5
RichardT.France,Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher(DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsity,1989),12327.
6
M. D.Goulder,Midrash and Lection in Matthew: Te Speakers Lectures in Biblical Studies, 196971
(London:SPCK,1974),similarly,RobertGundry,Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Teological
Art(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1982).SeeresponsesinD. A.Carson,GundryonMatthew:ACritical
Review,Trinity Journal3(1982):7191,R. T.FranceandDavidWenham,eds.,Studies in Midrash and
Historiography,GospelPerspectives3(Sheeld:JSOT,1983),France,Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher,
2025,CraigL.Blomberg,Te Historical Reliability of the Gospels,2nded.(DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsity,
2007),7587.ItshouldbenotedthatamongtheJewsmidrashicpracticetookplaceinacontextwhere
Jewishtraditionanchoreditselfinapreviouslyxed,centuries-old,inspiredtextthatwasrecognizedby
alltheJewsbeingaddressed.TeGospelsofcoursealludetotheprecedingpropheciesintheOldTesta-
ment.But,unlikeJewishmidrash,theygiveusaccountsofnewevents.R. T.Franceobserves,Fullment
andhistoryarenotinconict,ratherthefullmenttakesplaceinthehistory.Indeeditisnoteasytosee
quitewhatfullmentmightmeanifthereisnoactualhistoryinwhichthepatternisfullled.Matthews
43
TeHistoricalClaimsoftheGospels
WeneedtoconsiderbrieflywhatitmeansfortheGospelstobelongto
agenre,inthiscasetheGospelgenre.Considerfirstthegeneralconcept
ofagenre.Roughlyspeaking,agenreisagroupingofmaterialsthathave
commonalitiesrecognizedbypeoplebelongingtoaparticularcultureand
languagegroup.Itisaninsiderscategorywithinacultureorlanguage.
AllgenresthroughoutallculturesaresovereignlycontrolledbyGod.Any
genrehasaspectsof(1)contrastandidentification,(2)variation,and(3)dis-
tribution(inlargerliteraryandculturalcontexts).
7
Theaspectofcontrast
and identificationimpliesthatitisadistinctgrouping,withfeaturesthat
distinguishitfromothergenres.Variationmeansthatthereisarangeof
possibilities,orvariantmanifestations,ofagenre.Eachinstanceofagenreis
differentfromotherinstances,withoutbeingoutsidethegenre.Forexample,
thegenreofHellenistichistorywritingpresentsuswitharangeofworks.
Itincludesdifferentinstances.Atthesametime,itcontrastswithother
kindsofliterature,suchasHellenisticworksofphilosophy,astronomy,
andmathematics.
NowconsidertheGospelsasagenre.ThegenreGospelbelongsto
Godinaspecial,directway,becausehebroughtthegenreintobeing
incomposingthefourGospels.Godcreatedthegenreaccordingtohis
wisdom.Hetookintoaccountthepeoplehewasaddressing.Peoplein
thefirstcenturycouldrecognizethisgenreandseethatitwassimilar
insomewaystosecularhistorywriting,butthatitdifferedaswell,both
initsdivineauthorityandintheredemptiveuniquenessoftheeventson
whichitfocused.
ThisgenreofGospel,likeothergenresthatGodhasordained,includes
arangeofinstanceswhatwecallvariation.EachGospelisdifferentfrom
theothers.Andthedifferencesmayincludedifferencesinhistoricalfocus
andselectivity.Wemustnottooquicklydecidethatwritinghistorycantake
placeinonlyoneway,orwithonlyonesetofexpectations.Wewillreturn
toconsiderthisissueingreaterdetailafterwehavetalkedatgreaterlength
aboutexpectationsfortruthinwritinghistory.
Principles concerning Genre
Inthemeantime,wemayformulatethefollowingprinciples:
undoubtedenthusiasmfordiscoveringpatternsoffullment,andthesubtletyoftheinterpretativemeth-
odshehasemployedtodrawattentiontothem,whichhasledtothecomparisonofhisworkwithsome
aspectsoflatermidrash,shouldbeseennotasweakeninghissenseofhistoricalresponsibility,butrather
asdemandingacarefulrecordofthefactsonwhichthewholeclaimtofullmentdepends(France,Mat-
thew: Evangelist and Teacher,205).
7
Poythress,In the Beginning Was the Word,chaps.19and23.
44
1. The genre of Gospel
ThefourGospelshaverecognizablecommonfeaturesandconcernsthat
implytheybelongtoacommongroupofliterature,thegenreGospel.
2. Gospel as a distinct genre
ThegenreGospelisdistinctfromothergenresinitstime.Godbrought
intobeingthisspecializedgenreinthecontextoftheearlychurch,with-
outanyexactparallelsprecedingit,becausetheeventsandtheirmeaning
wereunparalleled.IthassomesimilaritiestoHellenistichistorywriting,to
Hellenisticbiographies,andtoOldTestamenthistorywriting.Butthegenre
Gospelisalsodistinctive.
3. The genre of history writing
LukesprologueplacesLukeinthelargergenericcategoryofHellenistic
historywritings.
4. Other Gospels in comparison with Luke
TheotherGospels,thoughvaryinginfocus,technique,andtheological
emphasis,haveobvioussimilaritieswithLuke.Godhastherebyshownread-
ersthattheotherGospelsaredoingsomethingsimilartoLuke.
5. Fulfillment in history
TheGospelsconcernforfulfillmentdemandsthattheeventsdiscussed
actuallyhappened.
8
8
France,Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher,205.
45
6
The Authority of the Gospels
WehavealreadydiscussedthefactthattheGospelsaspartoftheBibleare
thewordofGodandthereforehavespecialauthority.AsGodsspeech,they
haveGodstruthfulness.Letusdrawoutsomeimplications.
Gods Word Exercising Authority over Us
BecauseGodistrue,theGospelsspeaktruly.Butwecansaymore.Gods
speechabouthistoricaleventsisnotonlytruthful,butdefinitiveinitsaccount
ofevents.Amerelyhumanaccountofeventscansometimesturnoutto
bewhollytruthful.Butifitismerelyhuman,itisneverdefinitive.Itnever
occupiesakindoftoplevel,bywhichitwouldbecomedeterminativefor
everyotheraccount.ButGodsWord,asthewordoftheCreatorandasthe
absoluteauthority,hasadefinitiverole.Itdefinesthecharacterofevents
ratherthanbeingmerelyasecondaryaccountindependenceonevents.We
maysaythatitisontologically definitive.
GodsWordisalsoepistemologically definitive.Peopleshouldbebuilding
theirknowledge,andthefoundationsoftheirknowledge,onGodsinstruction
asthesecurestartingpoint.Ofcourse,wedonotunderstandGodsWord
infallibly.Butoftenourunderstandingissound,anditshouldplayabasic
role,notmerelyanancillaryrole,aswesiftthroughmodernclaimsabout
knowledge.TheBibletestifiesbothdirectlyandindirectlytoitscharacter
asthewordofGod.TheHolySpiritopenshumanheartstopayattentionto
46
thistestimony,andsopeoplehavedivineconfirmation,notmerelyhuman
confirmation,fortheepistemologicalrolethatGoddesignedtheBibletoplay.
1
ApersonawakenedbytheHolySpiritisweighingmanyquestionsand
manyclaimsinhismind.Suchapersonwillnotalwaysimmediatelybelieve
everythingsaidintheGospels.Theprocessofclearingoutsin,including
sinfulpredispositionsinthemind,maybeagradualone.Butthecorrectgoal
forthispathofgrowthinknowledgeisafirmtrustinGod,whichincludes
firmtrustinwhatGodsays.Hence,asapersoncontinuestogrowinfaith,
theGospelsandalltheotherpartsoftheBibleincreasinglytakeacentral
roleinsiftingclaimsfortruthandclaimsforknowledgeineveryareaoflife.
Finally,GodsWordisethically definitive.Godistheultimatestandardfor
whatisright.GodsWordalwaysshowsethicalpurity.Soitbecomesamodel
forourownethicalthinking,notmerelywhenitdirectlyproclaimsmoral
standards(Youshallnotsteal),buteverywhereitspeaks,becauseitisalways
anuprightexampleofethicallypurespeech.ThisexemplarycharacterofGods
Wordhasimplicationsforhowwereacttoit.IfGodsWordseemstousethi-
callydeficient,itiswe,notGod,whoareinthewrongandwhomustchange.
Dependingonwhatkindofdifficultyweconfront,wemayhavetochange
inmorethanoneway.Sometimesthedifficultyismerelythatwehavemis-
understoodaparticularverseorportionwithintheBible.Sometimeswe
havemisunderstoodthecontext.SometimeswemisunderstandhowGods
characterisinharmonywithwhatweread.Sometimeswehavedistorted
moralstandardsourselves,internally,andthosedistortionsaremeanttobe
undonethroughtheworkofGodsWordandGodsSpiritonus.
Principles for Interpretation
Wemaysummarizeourfindingsinthefollowingprinciples:
1. The Bible as the word of God
TheGospels,likeothercanonicalwritings,arethewordofGod:theyare
whatGodsays.
2. Gods Word as ontologically definitive
TheWordofGodpresentsontologicallydefinitivedescriptionandinter-
pretationoftheeventsitpresents.
1
See1 Tess.1:5,2:13,2 Tim.3:16,2 Pet.3:16,1 John2:2021,Rev.22:1819,andthediscussiononthe
internaltestimonyoftheHolySpirit,JohnMurray,TeAttestationofScripture,inTe Infallible Word: A
Symposium by the Members of the Faculty of Westminster Teological Seminary,3rded.,ed.N. B. Stonehouse
andPaulWoolley(Philadelphia:PresbyterianandReformed,1967),154,esp.4254.
47
TeAuthorityoftheGospels
3. Ultimacy of Gospel accounts
TheGospels,nothypotheticalreconstructionofeventsbehindthem,are
ultimaterepresentations.
4. The Gospels as epistemological foundation
GodwantsustotrusttheGospelsandreceiveguidancefromthemaswe
siftclaimsaboutknowledgeandtruth.
5. Possibility of harmonization
HarmonizationispossiblebecauseGodisconsistentwithhimself.
6. Harmonization as meaningful
HarmonizationisasignificantandmeaningfulendeavorbecauseGodreally
didacttosaveusthrougheventsthattookplaceinspaceandtime.
Harmonizationworkinpastcenturies,includingtheworkofAugustine
andCalvin,frequentlyhadanapologeticfocus.ItaimedtodefendtheBible
againstchargesofinconsistencyanderror.Thisgoalislegitimatesince
beingfaithfultoGodincludestrustingwhathesays.Harmonizationefforts
couldinfluencebothChristianbelieversandthosewhodonotyetbelieve.
Theseeffortsmayhelpbelieversovercomedoubts,andtheymayhelpnon-
ChristiansconsiderseriouslytheclaimsoftheChristianfaith.
7. Secondary importance of harmonization
Harmonizationisofsecondaryimportancebecausewealreadyhavedefini-
tiveaccountsintheGospelsthemselves.
8. Keeping the text in view
BecauseoftheprimacyoftheGospelsaswehavethem,harmonizationmay
notbedoneatthecostofviolencetothetext.
9. Adjustment in our standards
GodsWordisalwaysethicallypureandisastandardforthepurityofour
speechandourthoughts.Ourstandardsoferrorandcorrectspeech,not
thetexts,mustsometimesundergoadjustment.Butthetotaladjustment
ofourstandardsmustbringthemmoreinlinewiththetotalityofScripture
andthecharacterofGod.WeshouldnotinterpretonepieceofScripturein
awaythatcreatesdisharmonywithsomeotherpiece.
48
7
A Mental-Picture Theory
Inourdiscussionoftheepisodeofthecenturionsservant(chap.2),wesaw
thatMatthewdoesnotmentiontheintermediarieswhocametoJesuson
behalfofthecenturion.InhisaccountwedonothearabouteithertheJewish
elders(Luke7:34)orthecenturionsfriends(Luke7:6).Tosomepeople
theseomissionsseemtroubling.SomemayboldlyclaimthatMatthewhas
committedanerrorandsaythathehasnottruthfullyrepresentedthefacts.
ButMatthewiscompletelytrue.Thedifficultyactuallyliesinfallible
humanexpectationsaboutMatthewandtheotherGospels.Peoplehave
expectationsastowhat,intheirminds,constitutesatrustworthyaccount.
Theseexpectationsmaysometimesgoastrayandcreateanunnecessary
difficulty.Peoplemayfindthemselvesdisappointedandtheirexpectations
frustratedwhentheyhearthatthecenturionsenteldersandfriends.Sowe
needtothinkabouttheseexpectationsandaskourselvescarefullywhatthe
Gospelsclaimtogiveusandwhattheydonotclaimtogiveus.
Developing a Mental Picture
AswereadMatthew8:513,wemaytrytoformamentalpictureofthe
scene.WemaypopulateourmentalpicturewiththethingsthatMatthew
8:513tellsus.Supposewetryit.Inourmindseyeweimaginewhatitwould
belikewhenJesusenteredCapernaum(8:5).Wepicturethecenturionand
hisservantatthecenturionshome(8:6).Wepicturethecenturioncoming
49
AMental-PictureTeory
toJesus(8:5).WhenthecenturioncomesneartoJesus,headdressesJesus
(8:6),andJesusresponds(8:7).
Inthisprocess,wepicturethecenturionasstandinginJesusspresence.
Wehavenopictureofeldersorfriends.Thepicturethatwederivefrom
Matthewthereforedoesnotcorrespondexactlytotheactuallocationof
thecenturionaswemightinferitfromLukesaccount.Anditdoesnot
correspondtoarealityinwhichotherpeopleareinthepicture,namely,the
eldersandlaterthefriends.Ourpictureomitsthesepeople,ithas,asitwere,
ablankspaceinthementalphotographwheretheelderswouldappearin
aone-to-onepicture.
Amental-picturetheoryoftruthexpectsthatatrueaccountwillproduce
inreadersamentalpictureindirectcorrespondencetotheactualevents.
Ideally,suchapicturewouldenjoyaone-to-onecorrespondence.Eachpar-
ticipantintheeventswouldcorrespondtoapersonpresentinthemental
picture.Thesequenceofeventswouldcorrespondinone-to-onefashiontoa
sequenceofmentalpictures.Thepositionsofthepersonswouldcorrespond
tothepositionsinthementalpicture.Andsoon.Ifwepushexpectations
farenoughinthisdirection,wemightcalltheresultavideo-recording
conceptoftruth.Atruenarrative,accordingtothistheory,producesa
mentalpictureequivalenttoavideorecordingoftheentireepisode.
Butthisconceptionisunworkable.Aliteralvideorecordingofreasonable
qualityprovidesmassivedetailaboutcolors,textures,shapes,andpositionsof
everypersonandobjectinascene,allthemotionsofthevariouspersonsand
objects,andallthesoundsaudiblewithinthescene(including,forexample,
thesoundofadogbarkinginaneighboringyard).Verbalcommunication
doesnotequalavideorecording.Verbalcommunicationissparse.Itdoes
notmentionallthecolorsorallthepositionsofallthepersonsandobjects.
Typically,itdoesnotmentionallthebystandersinascene.Weresomeof
theapostlespresentwhenthecenturionsenteldersWhichonesWhat
weretheexpressionsontheirfacesWesimplydonotknow.Inourmental
pictureswemay,ifwewish,begintofilloutinourimaginationmanyof
thesedetails.ButneitherMatthewnorLukegivesusmassivedetails.Even
iftheydid,theywouldstillfallshortofavideorecording.
Andevenavideorecordingpresentsadifficulty.Modernvideorecord-
ingtakesplacefromaparticularcameralocationandcameraangle,with
particularlighting,aspecificplacingofmicrophones,aparticularfocusfor
thelens,aparticularspeedforshootingtheindividualframes,andspecific
sensitivitiestobrightnessandcolorsinthelight-detectingsurfacewithin
thevideocamera.Dowerequiremultiplecameras,multiplecameraangles,
50
andmultiplemicrophonesDowerequiremultipleperspectivesNoone
spatialperspectiveproducesthedefinitivevideorecordingoftheepisode.
Ordinarypeopleknowintuitivelythatverbalcommunicationdoesnot
supplyallthisdetail.Peoplemaystillsometimeschoosetoformadetailed
mentalpictureoftheeventsonthebasisofverbalcommunication.That
istheiroption.Buttheyknowtacitlythattheyareaddingdetailintheir
imagination,andthattheycannotholdtheoriginalreporterresponsible
forwhattheyadd.
Whathasgonewrongwiththemental-picturetheoryoftruthItdoes
notrespectthenatureofverbalcommunicationassparse.Wemaywonder
whetheritiscontaminatedwithadesireforcompleteandevenabsolute
knowledgedivineknowledge.Inanapproachlikethis,anythingshortof
exhaustivedivineknowledgemightberegardedasdefective.
IshumanknowledgedefectiveGodsknowledgeisindeedcomplete,it
isexhaustive.Oursisnot.Butthatdoesnotmeanthatourknowledgeis
somehowdefective.Increatingus,Goddesignedustohavelimitedknowl-
edge.Itisagoodandwisedesign,notadefect(Gen.1:31).Wecanstillknow
manytruths,includingthethingsthatGodtellsusinhisaccountsofthe
centurionsservant.
Sothedemandforhumanbeingstohavedivineknowledgeresultsinan
unbiblicalnotionoftruth.Wemaysuspectthatthisnotioniscontaminated
withthedesireforautonomy,thedesireforahumanbeingtohaveaposition
suchthathecanbetheultimatestandard.Inthiscase,hewantstobethe
ultimatestandardformakingpronouncementsabouttheepisode.Human
beingsenduptryingtodisplacetheuniqueroleofGod,whosimultaneously
knows,forexample,howeverythinglooksfromeverypossiblecameraangle
ateverypossiblemoment.
Truth in a Statement
Wemayfurtherillustratethedifficultieswiththemental-pictureapproachby
consideringanordinaryhumanscene.SupposeCarolandDonnaaresitting
inthelivingroomofCarolshouse.CarolsaystoDonna,Onmykitchen
floorthereisatriangledrawnwithink.NowDonnatriestopictureinher
mindthesituationthatCarolhasdescribed.Letussupposethatshecomes
upwiththementalpictureinfigure1.DoesDonnasmentalpictureexactly
matchwhatshewouldactuallyfindifshewentintothekitchen
Infigure2weseesomepossibilitiesforwhatmightactuallybethere.In
thefirstrowoffigure2,thefirsttriangleissimilartowhatDonnapictures,
butupside-down.Thesecondtriangleisanobtusetriangle,adifferentshape.
51
AMental-PictureTeory
Thethirdhasadifferentorientation.Thefourthisverythin.Inthesecond
row,thefirst(no.5)isverysmall.Triangle6hasthickedges.Triangle7is
filledinblack.Number8isfreehand,andsotheedgesarenotexactlystraight.
Number9isatrianglecoveredupbyarectangularrug!Inthelastrow,10
hasacircleaswellasatriangle.Triangle11isdrawnnotdirectlyonthefloor
butonapieceofpaperonthefloor.Number12hasapersonstandingon
thetriangle.Thirteenhasatrianglewithoneofitscornersgoingunderthe
wallatoneedgeofthekitchenfloor.Anyofthesepicturesmightrepresent
thatactualsituationthatCarolswordsdescribed.
Thelessonshouldbeclear.Mentalpicturesdonotcorrespondtoverbal
languageinaneatway.Languageissparse.Mentalpicturescanfailtomatch
languageinmanyways.Thisfailureinmatchisnotafailureinlanguageor
intruth.Godgaveuslanguagethatoperateswiththissparseness.Thefailure
Figure 1. Mental picture of a triangle
Figure 2. Possible drawings of a triangle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
52
isthefailureofthemental-picturetheoryofwhatitmeansforlanguageto
expresstruth.
Principles regarding Mental Pictures
Wemaysummarizeourfindingsinthefollowingprinciples:
1. Sparseness in language
Humanverbalaccountsofeventsaresparse.Theyinevitablyleaveoutmuch
detail.
2. Mental pictures as supplementing
Mentalpicturesofeventsderivedfromaverbalaccountfilloutdetail.
3. Lack of correspondence in mental pictures
Mentalpicturesdonotcorrespondexactlytotheevents.Reasonablepeople
donotexpectthemto.
4. Gods wise use of language
GodindescribingeventsintheBibleoffersdescriptioninharmonywiththe
wayinwhichhehasordainedlanguagetofunction,assparsedescription.
5. Gods not endorsing mental pictures
Goddoesnotguaranteethatourmentalpicturesofeventsdescribedinthe
Biblewillpreciselymatchthoseevents.Goddoesguaranteethateverything
hesaysistrue.
53
8
Truth in a Biblical Worldview
Ifamental-picturetheoryoftruthisinadequate,whatalternativesdowe
haveWewanttoletGodbeGod.AndweshouldlettheGospelsbethe
Gospels,tocommunicatetousinthewaytheychooseratherthanwhatour
distortedexpectationsmightdictate.
God as the Standard for Truth
UltimatelyGoddefinestruth.AndGodisinexhaustible.Sowecancontinue
tolearnandcontinuetoadjustanddeepenourexpectationsaboutGodas
wecometoknowhimmoredeeplythroughoutthislife.Thislifeisnotthe
end,butleadstoaconsummationinwhichIshallknowfully,evenasIhave
beenfullyknown(1Cor.13:12).Sononeofuswithinthislifecanprovide
theabsolutelyfullestanswersabouttruth.
Butwecanmakeabeginning.TheBiblehasmuchtosayabouttruth
anditsorigininGod.Christisthetruth(John14:6).
1
StartingwithGod
himself,wemaymakeprogressinourexpectations.
A Triad of Perspectives: Contrast, Variation, and Distribution
Aspartofawaytohelp,Iproposeusingaperspectivaltriadaboutmean-
ingthathasbeenmorefullydevelopedinanearlierbook.
2
Thisapproach
1
IL:Crossway,2009),chap.35,Poythress,Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach(Wheaton,IL:
Crossway,2006),chap.14.
2
Poythress,In the Beginning Was the Word,chap.19.
54
tomeaningsaysthatunifiedpiecesofpersonalaction,includingverbal
communication,canbecharacterizedbycontrast,variation,anddistri-
bution.Thesethreeinterlockingfeaturesapplyinparticulartotruthin
communication.
Truecommunicationhascontrast,variation,anddistribution.Letustake
theseaspectsoneatatime.First,theworddistributionindicatesthatwords,
sentences,andspeechesoccurinregularwayswithinlargercontexts.They
aredistributedwithincontexts.Forexample,CarolsspeechtoDonnain
thepreviouschaptertalksaboutmykitchenfloor.Donnausesthecontext
inordertounderstandCarol.SinceCarolisthespeaker,mykitchenfloor
mustmeanCarolskitchenfloor.Donnamustalsouseherknowledgethat
sheisinCarolshouse.AndifCarolalsoownsavacationcabin,Donnamust
inferfromthecontextwhetherCarolistalkingaboutthevacationcabinor
thehouseinwhichtheyaresitting.
Second,thewordcontrastservesasashorthandlabeltoindicatethat
whatwesayalwayshascontrastswithotherexpressionsthatwecouldhave
choseninstead.Italsoindicatesthatwearesayingsomethingdefinite.If
Carolsaysthereisatriangle,thatstatementcontrastswithhersayingthat
thereisapentagonoralandscapepainting.Ifshesaysthetriangleisinthe
kitchen,thatcontrastswithsayingthatitisinoneofthebedrooms.Specific
meaningsdobelongtowhatwesay.
Third,thewordvariationindicatesthatwordsandsentencescovera
rangeofinstances.Justaseachdogisavariationofthedogspecies,so
eachuseofawordorasentenceisavariationontherangeofitspossible
uses.Variationisneededinanaccountoftruth,becauseitisanotherway
oflookingatthefactthatpiecesoflanguagedonotcommunicatebyusing
infinitesharpness,theydonotdirectlysayeverythingthatcouldpossibly
besaid.Carolsaysthatthereisatriangleonthekitchenfloor.Thatleaves
openmanydetailsabouttheshape,orientation,size,thickness,andenvi-
ronmentofthetriangle.Thatis,itallowsvariationinthespecificswith
respecttothetriangle.
Variation
Variationisessentialtohumanlanguage.Awordthatcoulddesignate
onlyoneveryspecificobjectorspecificsituationcouldneverbereused.
Forpracticalpurposesitwouldbeworthless.Andsinceitwouldneverbe
reused,itwouldnotbelearnedbyanewgeneration.Evenifhypotheti-
callysuchawordexisted,itwoulddropoutofthelanguageinthenext
generation.
55
TruthinaBiblicalWorldview
Withthenumberofwordsavailableinonehumanlanguage,peoplecan
producemany,manyshortsentences.Butnoneofthesesentencescanbeinfi-
nitelyspecificbecausethereareonlysomanychoicesofwords.Fortunately,
wecanbecomemoreandmorespecificbywritingalongersentenceand
expandingadiscourseintomanysentencesandparagraphs.Butthistakes
time.Weconfronthereaspectsofhumanfiniteness.
IsvariationthenaconcessiontohumanfinitenessAnalysisofthe
originoflanguageinGodandinGodsspeechindicatesthatvariationin
humandiscoursereflectsanaspectinGodsownTrinitariancharacter.
Howisthisso
Godscharacterdoesnotchange(Mal.3:6).Hedoesnotvaryinthat
sense.SowhatdowemeanGodisthreepersons.ThewordGodhasarange
ofapplication.ItappliestoGodtheFather,GodtheSon,andGodtheSpirit.
Thesethreeapplicationsofthewordshowitsvariation.Inaddition,contrast,
variation,anddistributionincommunicatingtruthreflecttheapplicationof
particle,wave,andfieldviewsonlanguage,andtheseviewsinturnreflect
theFather,theSon,andtheHolySpirit.
3
HumanbeingsarefiniteandGodis
infinite,buthumanbeingsmadeintheimageofGodreflectintheirfinite-
nessGodinhisinfinitude.
Thusvariationandthesparsenessthatgoeswithitarenotinthemselves
defectsorfailuresintruthfulness.Rangeofapplicationorrangeofpossible
referencedoesnotmeanerror,butflexibility.
Contrast
ThenwhatdoesconstituteafailureintruthTruthcontrastswitherror.If
Carolsaysthereisatriangleonherkitchenfloorwhenthereisnot,sheis
deceivingDonna.Thereisacontrastbetweenherclaimandtheactualtruth
thatthereisnotrianglethere.
Ofcourse,asfinitehumanbeingswecanfailinotherwaysbesidesdelib-
eratelylying.Ineverydayhumancommunicationwesometimesseeerrors
duetoignorance.PerhapsCarolsaysthereisatrianglethere,butdoesnot
knowthatithasbeencleanedupsincethelasttimeshelooked.Whatshe
says,shesaysinallmoralinnocence,butstillthereisacontrastbetweenthe
twostatementsthatthereisatriangleonthefloorandthatthereisnot.
BecauseGodisall-knowing,hedoesnotfailbecauseofignorance.Because
3
Ibid.,chap.7,pp.5657,chap.19,pp.15457.SeealsoPoythress,ReformingOntologyandLogicin
theLightoftheTrinity:AnApplicationofVanTilsIdeaofAnalogy,Westminster Teological Journal57,
no. 1(1995):187219.
56
GodisaGodoftruth,hedoesnotlie,andsohedoesnotfailusbylying.So
wheneverhespeaks,whathesayscontrastswitherror.
Contrastscomeupnotonlywithrespecttothemainpointortheobvi-
ouspointsthatapassageintheBiblemakes.Contrastsexistinthedetails
aswell.Nodetailshouldbeignored.ItistherebecauseGodwanteditthere.
Itcontrastswithotherthingsthathecouldhavesaid(includingomittinga
particulardetail).
HowdoesthisprincipleworkwiththeGospelsInthestoryaboutthe
centurionsservant,Matthew8:513doesnotspecifyexactlyhowthe
centurionsrequestreachedJesus.Inthecontextofthefirstcentury,where
theculturesometimesusedrepresentativesormediatorstocarrycom-
munication,Matthewsaccountleavesopenthepossibilities.Itpermits
variationinthewaythecommunicationwasactuallyrealized.Itisinthat
respectvagueornonspecific,butnotinerror.ButMatthewstillsayssome-
thingdefinite.Thatis,theaccountstillproducescontrasts.Accordingto
Matthew,thecenturiontoldJesusthathisservantwassick,andindicated
thathewasunworthytohaveJesuscometohishouse.Thecenturion
didactuallycommunicatetoJesusthesethoughtsandintentions,justas
Matthewsayshedid.
Lukesaccountprovidesgreaterdetail.Thecenturionsenteldersofthe
Jews,andthensentfriends.Thesedetailscontrastwithlackofdetailand
withotherpossibilities,suchassendingJewswhowerenotelders,orsending
thecenturionswife,orsendingadetachmentofsoldiers,orsendingfriends
firstandthentheeldersoftheJews.WewouldrightlyfeelthatLukehas
misledusif,hypothetically,weweretofindthathehadsimplyinventedthe
partabouttheeldersoutofthinairinordertomakethetheologicalpoint
thatthecenturionwashumbleanddeferential.
An Example of Variation
Wecanusethesameprinciplesinothersituations.Forexample,allthree
SynopticGospelsMatthew,Mark,andLukecontainanaccountofthe
healingofademoniacinwhichthedemonsafterwardgointoaherdof
pigs(Matt.8:2834,Mark5:120,Luke8:2639).Matthewsaysthattwo
demon-possessedmenmethim[Jesus](Matt.8:28),whileMarkandLuke
bothmentiononlyone.SohowmanywerethereIsthisanerror
Inamental-picturetheoryoftruth,apersonsmentalpicturemusthave
eithertwomenorone.Thementalpicturefillsindetailsinitsimagination.
ButneitherMarknorLukedoesthisfillingin.Eachmentionsonedemoniac.
Theydonot,however,sayexplicitlythattherewasonlyone.Iftheyhadsaid
57
therewasonlyone,thatclaimwouldhavecontrastedwithtwo.Butonly
mentioningoneleavesopenthepossibilities.Itleavesvariation.Thelanguage
thattheyuseleavesopenthepossibilitythattheremighthavebeenonlyone,
italsoleavesopenthepossibilitythatonemayhavebeenrepresentativefor
morethanone.Thisrangeofpossibilitiesisvariation.Ontheotherhand,
whenMatthewsaysthatthereweretwo,thatcontrastswithone.Sothere
weretwoatleasttwo.
MarkandLukeomitthisdetail.Butomissionisnoterror.Calvincomments:
ThereisprobabilityintheconjectureofAugustine,whothinksthattherewere
two,butaccountsfornotmorethanonebeingmentionedherebysaying,that
thisonewasmoregenerallyknown,andthattheaggravationofhisdisease
madethemiracleperformedonhimthemoreremarkable....Thecircumstance
oftheir[MarkandLuke]holdinguptocommendationonesingularinstance
ofChristsdivinepowerisnotinconsistentwiththenarrativeofMatthew,in
whichanother,thoughlessknownman,isalsomentioned.
4
Diagramming Contrast and Variation
WecanrepresenttheinformationgiveninthedifferentGospelsdiagram-
matically.Matthewchoosestospecifyhowmanydemoniacswerehealed.
MarkandLukechoosetofocusonone.Thischoiceoftwopossiblefocican
berepresentedalongahorizontalaxis(fig.3).
Figure 3. Focus options: one versus many
Focus on One Specify How Many
Onasecond,verticalaxiswecanplotthealternativesastowhatiscom-
municatedabouthowmanywereactuallyhealed.Theresultisfigure4.
Figure 4. How many healed? (grid)
Focus on One;
Mention One
Specify
How Many
Indicate two healed
At least one healed
Indicate only one healed
4
WilliamPringle(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,n.d.),1:42829,Augustine,Harmony of the Gospels,invol.6
ofNPNF1,2.24.56.
58
Ifthefocusisononedemoniac,thetextwillnottellusthatthisonecon-
trastswithsomeothernumber.Variationallowsseveralpossibilities.Onthe
otherhand,ifMatthewspecifiesthatthereweretwo,thisdoescontrastwith
one.Wecanrepresentthepossibilitiesinthediagram.Theviablecombina-
tionsofpossibilitieswithfigure4canbemarkedwithacheckmark to
indicatethatthecombinationisviable,whilethesymbol0indicatesthata
particularcombinationisnotreallyanoption.
Afilled-indiagramwillthenappearasinfigure5.Twoinstancesof0
appear.Thecombinationofanarrativedecisiontofocusononeandaspecific
assertionthattherewasexactlyoneisnotviable(0inlowerleft).Neither
isthecombinationofanarrativedecisiontofocusononeandaspecific
assertionthatthereweretwo(0inupperleft).SowhenMarkandLuke
choosetofocusononedemoniac(asintheleft-handcolumnoffig.5),they
arenotmakinganystatementthatcontrastswiththepossibilitythatthere
weretwodemoniacs.
Round Numbers
Similarprinciplesapplytotheevaluationofroundnumbers.Aroundnumber
isvagueratherthanerroneous.Supposeanordinaryhumanwriterusesthe
number600asaroundnumber.Hedoesnotintendthisnumbertocontrast
with602.Thenumber600faithfullyrepresentsthetruthbyindicatingthat
theactualfigureisaround600.
Suchanapproachcouldapplyto1Corinthians10:8.Paulmentionsthat
twenty-threethousandfellinasingleday.Heispresumablyalludingtothe
eventinNumbers25:9,buttheverseinNumberssaystwenty-fourthou-
sand.Wastheprecisenumberhalfwaybetween,at23,500CharlesHodge
comments:Bothstatementsareequallycorrect.Nothingdependedonthe
precisenumber.Anynumberbetweenthetwoamountsmay,accordingto
Figure 5. How many healed?
Focus on One;
Mention One
Specify
How Many
Indicate two healed 0
At least one healed
Indicate only one healed 0

variational range;
no contrast

contrast
59
commonusage,bestatedroundlyaseithertheoneortheother.
5
Hodge
speaksofwhathappensaccordingtocommonusage.Peopleinavarietyof
cultureshaveunderstoodtheuseofroundnumbers.Thesepeopleunder-
standbecauseitiscommonusage.
Wemayrepresenttheworkingofroundnumbersinfigure6.Ifawriter
decidestouse600asaroundnumber,600doesnotcontrastwith599or
602.Thereisnoerrorifwefindoutlaterthattheexactfigurewas602.On
theotherhand,ifheundertakestogiveanexactfigure,600doescontrast
with599,602,andeveryothernumberinthevicinity.
Ourdiscussionofcontrastandvariationdoesnotalterthecommonunder-
standingofroundnumbersinanyfundamentalway,butsimplyexplainsmore
explicitlywhathasbeengoingonallalonginmanyculturesandlanguages.
6
Itputsthepracticeofusingroundnumberswithinabroadercontextofthe
operationoflanguage.Peopletacitlyunderstandthatlanguageisflexible.
Godmadeitthatway.Andinmanysituations,outsideofcontextswherewe
haveanexpectationforspecialexactitude,roundnumbersareoneinstance
ofthisflexibility.
Hodgeadds,Nothingdependedontheprecisenumber.Thatstatement
seemstobeHodgeswayofindicatingthatinthecontextofPaulscommunica-
tion,nopositiveevidenceappearsthatwouldindicatethatGodisdeviating
fromcommoncommunicativeneeds.Intheabsenceofsuchaspecialcontext,
wecannotrightlyexpectGodtogiveussomethingmoreexactthanwhat
normallybelongstoaroundnumberincommonusage.Peopledonotneed
5
CharlesHodge,An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians(NewYork:RobertCarter&Broth-
ers,1882),178.
6
TeChicagoStatementonBiblicalInerrancyagrees:WefurtherdenythatinerrancyisnegatedbyBiblical
phenomenasuchasalackofmoderntechnicalprecision,irregularitiesofgrammarorspelling,observational
descriptionsofnature,thereportingoffalsehoods,theuseofhyperboleandround numbers,thetopical
arrangementofmaterial,variantselectionsofmaterialinparallelaccounts,ortheuseoffreecitations
(italicsmine,fromarticle13,accessedJuly12,2011,http:iiwww.bible-researcher.comichicago1.html).
Figure 6. Round numbers
Choice to Use
Round Number
Choice to Use
Exact Number
599 0
600
602 0

variational range;
no contrast

contrast
60
toknowanexactnumberoffatalities,andthereforeGoddoesnotofferto
supplyit.Hesupplieswhatreadersneedinordertoknowwhatincidentin
theOldTestamentisbeingreferredtoandthatabout23,000died.Healso
indicatesthattheoccurrencehasmeaningandimplicationsfortheattitude
oftheCorinthiansasthepeopleofGod.
Contrast and Variation in Matthew 8:513
Wecangivethesamekindofanalysisanddiagrammaticrepresentationforthe
situationinMatthew8:513.Anyonewritinganaccountoftheepisodehadto
makedecisionsastowhattoincludeandwhattoomit.Matthewdecidedto
bebriefandtoconcentrateontheessentials.Healsodecidedtohighlightthat
JesuswasbeinggracioustoaGentile.Havingmadethosedecisions,hecould
notsimultaneouslyenterintoeverydetailoftheevents.Itwouldhavebecome
distractingtobringinexplicitlytheinformationabouttheJewisheldersand
thefriends.Wecanseethechoicesmadeintwodimensions.Onedimension
wasthechoicetobebriefratherthanexpansive.Theotherwasthechoiceof
whethertoincludethespecificactionsbytheeldersandthefriends(seefig.7).
Havingdecidedforbrevity,Matthewwasinasituationwheremention
oftheextrastageswasnotarealisticoption.Hisaccountdoesnothavea
specificcontrastbetweeneldersandnoelders.Itwouldhaveacontrastifhe
hadmentionedtheeldersorifhehadsaidthattherewasnointermediary.
Principles of Contrast, Variation, and Distribution
Wemaythereforesuggestthefollowingprinciplesaboutcontrast,variation,
anddistribution:
Figure 7. Brevity
Brief Expanded
Two stages;
intermediaries
0
One basic exchange
narrated

variational range;
no contrast

contrast
61
1. Truth as contrastive
Truthcontrastswitherror.
2. Gods claims for truth
GodmakesdefiniteclaimsfortruthwheneverhespeakstousintheBible.
Thoseclaimscontrastwithotherthingsthattheoreticallycouldhavebeen
saidinstead.
3. Gods use of variation
GodswritingsintheBibleshowthelinguisticfeatureofflexibilityorvaria-
tion,whichmeansthatthelanguageemployedcoversarangeofpossibilities
orvariants.Weoughtnottoexpectthatsuchlanguagewouldenableus
tochooseconfidentlyandexplicitlywithintherangeofpossibilitiesthatit
covers.
4. Variation versus error
Flexibilityorrangeofvariationinitselfisnoterror.
5. Round numbers
Roundnumbersandomissionsofdetailareinstancesthatallowarangeof
possibilitieswithrespecttothedetailsthatarenotmentioned.
6. The influence of context
Thecontextordistributionofwords,sentences,andactsofcommunica-
tionhelpsustodeterminewhatkindsofcontrastsandvariationsarebeing
employedinaparticularcase.Thecontextoftenallowsustodecidebetween
twopossiblemeaningsandindicateswhetherinformationisintendedtobe
minutelypreciseortocoveralargerrange.
62
9
Truthfulness versus Artificial
Precision
Theprincipleofflexibilityorvariationinlanguageisimportant.Itsteersus
awayfromexpectingordemandingartificialprecisionwhenwecometothe
Bible.InthepreviouschapterweincludedquotesfromAugustine,Calvin,and
Hodge.ThesesaintsandmanyothershaveunderstoodthattheBiblespeaks
accordingtowhatHodgecalledcommonusage.Godknowscompletelythe
resourcesoflanguage,sinceitishisgifttohumanbeings.Hehasfashioned
languagewithcontrastsandwithflexibility.Hespeaksusingthoseresources.
Thatmeansthataccordingtohisowninfinitewisdomhemayspeaktruthand
stillchoosenottoadoptakindofpedantic precision.Hegivesustruththatis
indeedfullytruewithoutgivingalltruth.Heisomniscientwhilewearenot.
Itisworthwhiletounderlinethisprinciplewithsomefurtherquotesfrom
pastgenerationsofsaints.Thesequotes,ofcourse,arenotthemselvesinfal-
lible.Theyareneverthelessvaluablebecausetheyreexpressinavarietyof
wordsthefactthattheBibleisinfallibleandatthesametimenotprecisionistic.
Reflections from Ned B. Stonehouse
InhisbookOrigins of the Synoptic GospelsNedB.Stonehousediscussesat
somelengthdifficultiesabouttheincidentwiththerichyoungruler.
1
Inthat
1
Ned.B.Stonehouse,Origins of the Synoptic Gospels: Some Basic Questions(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,
1963),chap.5,pp.93112.StonehousewaspresidentoftheEvangelicalTeologicalSocietyin1957.See
alsothediscussionoftherichyoungrulerinchap.27ofthepresentvolume.
63
TruthfulnessversusArticialPrecision
contextheoffersbroaderprinciplesfordealingwithdifficulties.Hiswords
areworthquotingatlength.
VarioustendenciesinthehistoryofharmonizationoftheGospelsmayberecalled.
Onetendency,thatisbothconservativeandsimple,hasbeentojoindivergent
featuresandtoseektoweavethemtogetherintoaharmoniouswhole.Where,
however,thedivergentelementsareexceedinglydifficulttocombineinthatway,
itisinsistedthatthenarrativesmustberegardedasreportingdifferentevents
ordifferentsayings.ThisapproachisindeedonethatIregardasfundamentally
unobjectionableinprinciple,andattimesitsapplicationleadstosatisfactory
results.Andingeneralitcertainlyistobepreferredtothetendency,which
seemstobecharacteristicofmanymodernwriters,tocrydiscrepancy!atthe
presenceofevenminorlinguisticdifferences.Orinthesamespirititmaybe
declareddogmatically,withoutthebenefitofanyobjectiveevidence,thattwo
highlydivergentnarrativesorrecordsofteachingnecessarilymustbeenvisioned
astheresultofradicaleditorialmodificationsofasinglesource.Nevertheless,
thereis,inmyjudgment,asounderattitudetomostproblemsofharmonization
thanthatwhichwascharacterizedaboveasconservativeandsimple.Itismarked
bytheexerciseofgreatercareindeterminingwhattheGospelsasawholeand
indetailactuallysayaswellasgreaterrestraintinarrivingatconclusionswhere
theavailableevidencedoesnotjustifyreadyanswers.Inparticular,thereisthe
possibilityofgenuineprogressifonedoesnotmaintainthatthetrustworthi-
nessoftheGospelsallowstheevangelistsnolibertyofcompositionwhatsoever,
anddoesnotinsistthatinreportingthewordsofJesus,forexample,theymust
havebeencharacterizedbyakindofnotarialexactitudeorwhatProfessorJohn
Murrayhascalledpedanticprecision.Inasmuchasthispointseemsconstantly
tobeoverlookedordisregardedinthemodernsituationitmaybewelltostress
againthatorthodoxexpositorsanddefendersoftheinfallibilityofScripture
haveconsistentlymadethepointthatinfallibilityisnotproperlyunderstood
ifitissupposedthatitcarrieswithittheimplicationthatthewordsofJesusas
reportedintheGospelsarenecessarilytheipsissima verba[exactwords].What
isinvolvedratheristhattheHolySpiritguidedthehumanauthorsinsuchaway
astoinsurethattheirrecordsgiveanaccurateandtrustworthyimpressionof
theLordsteachings.
2
Reflections of John Murray
WecontinuebyquotingfromthefootnotethatStonehouseappendstothe
quotationjustgiven.
JohnMurray,Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty(GrandRapids:Baker,
1960),p.30,declares:Itmustbeemphaticallystatedthatthedoctrineofbibli-
2
Ibid.,10910.
64
calinerrancyforwhichthechurchhascontendedthroughouthistory,andfor
whichagreatmanyofusstillcontend,isnotbasedontheassumptionthat
thecriterionofmeticulousprecisionineverydetailofrecordorhistoryisthe
indispensablecanonofbiblicalinfallibility.Toerectsuchacanonisutterly
artificialandarbitraryandisnotonebywhichtheinerrancyofScriptureis
tobejudged....TheScriptureaboundsinillustrationsoftheabsenceofthe
typeofmeticulousandpedanticprecisionwhichwemightarbitrarilyseek
toimposeasthecriterionofinfallibility.Everyoneshouldrecognizethatin
accordwithacceptedformsofspeechandcustomastatementcanbeperfectly
authenticandyetnotpedanticallyprecise.Scripturedoesnotmakeitself
absurdbyfurnishinguswithpedantry.Quotedbypermission.
The view presented here is that which has been maintained by lead-
ingReformedtheologians.Cf., e.g. Murray,ibid.,pp.11ff.,29ff.,35ff.,B.B.
Warfield,Revelation and Inspiration(NewYork:Oxford,1927),pp.205f.,
420,Christology and Criticism,pp.108f.,A.Kuyper,Encyclopaedie der Heilige
Godgeleerdheid,2nded.(Kampen:Kok,1909),II,505f.(Eng.trans.,Principles
of Sacred Theology[GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1954],p.550),H.Bavinck,
Gereformeerde Dogmatiek,3rded.(Kampen:Kok,1918),I,469ff.,L.Berkhof,
Introduction to the New Testament(GrandRapids:Eerdmans-Sevensma,1915),
p.42.ParticularattentionmayalsobedirectedtothestatementofA.A.Hodge
andB.B.Warfield,intheirfamousarticleonInspirationinThe Presbyterian
Review,II(April,1881):Thereisavastdifferencebetweenexactnessofstate-
ment,whichincludesanexhaustiverenderingofdetails,anabsoluteliteralness,
whichtheScripturesneverprofess,andaccuracy,ontheotherhand,which
securesacorrectstatementoffactsorprinciplesintendedtobeaffirmed
(p.238,cf.pp.229ff.,237,242,244ff.).Cf.alsoA.Kuypersconclusion,loc. cit.,
WheninthefourGospelsJesus,onthesameoccasion,ismadetosaywords
thataredifferentinformofexpression,itisimpossiblethatHeshouldhave
usedthesefourformsatonce.TheHolySpirit,however,merelyintendstomake
animpressionontheChurchwhichwhollycorrespondstowhatJesussaid.
3
Stonehousecommentsfurtherontheissueofharmonization.
Weconfessthatmuchthathasbeenattemptedintheinterestofdemonstrat-
ingtheunityofthegospelshasbeenextremeandfar-fetched,notbecause
ofanypositiveproofofactualdisunity,butbecauseithasproceededfroma
fundamentallyfalseconceptionoftheaimoftheevangelistsandthedistinctive
characterofthegospels.Tomakethisconfessionis,tobesure,notalateand
regretfulacknowledgmentofthefaultsofallorthodoxscholarsinthepast,
fornolessanexponentoftheauthorityandunityoftheScripturesthanJohn
3
Ibid.,110n17.
65
TruthfulnessversusArticialPrecision
CalvinprotestedinhisdayagainstthefaultyapproachofOsiander.
4
Ifthe
evangelistsaimedtocomposeahistoryorbiographyofChrist,ascomplete
indetailaspossible,withscrupulousattentiontoitineraryandchronologi-
calsequence,andtoreportthewordsofJesuswithstenographicaccuracy,
therewouldbeverylittleinonegospelthatcouldberegardedasfindingits
counterpartinanyother.Since,however,noneofthesefeaturesissupported
bytheevidence,andsinceparticularlynoneoftheevangelistsaimstosupply
acompletehistoricalframework[chronologically]ofthelifeofChrist,itfol-
lowsthatmuchofthedisparagementofharmonisticsisbaseduponradically
erroneousconceptionsofthecharacterofthegospels.Thedefenderofthetruth
andauthorityofthegospelsdoesnotfacethenecessityoffittingallthedetails
oftherecordsintoacontinuous[chronological]framework.Theevangelists
donotprovidesufficientdataforsuchaneffort,anddidnotintendtodoso.
5
IagreewithStonehousessentiments.OthersmustjudgehowwellIsuc-
ceedincarryingthemoutinmyownreflectionsonharmonization.
4
Stonehouseaddsafootnotehere:E.g.,inhiscommentonMt.20:29(Ned B.Stonehouse,Te Witness of
the Synoptic Gospels to Christ: One Volume Combining Te Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ and
Te Witness of Luke to Christ,2nded.[GrandRapids:Baker,1979],163n5).
5
Ibid.,16364.
66
10
Variations in Writing History
Languageexhibitsflexibilitynotonlyatthelevelofwordsornumbers,but
alsoatthelevelofgenres.Historicalwritingrepresentsagenreinabroad
sense.Withinthisbroadgenre,therearemanyvariations.Ahumanaccountof
historicaleventscanbedetailedorsparse,colloquialorinhighstyle,trueor
falseorpartlyboth.Itcanhaveavarietyofpurposes:moral,religious,social,
orlegal.Genresarenotinfinitelyprecise,soevensomeonewhoimmediately
recognizesthegenreofaparticulartextmuststilladjustwithinthatbroad
genretotheparticularitiesoftheonetextheisstudying.Andauthorsmay
choosetostretchtheboundariesofanexistinggenreorcombinegenres.
1
Readerscomingfromotherculturesmaysometimesnotbefamiliarwith
alltheinsandoutsofagenrespecifictooneculture.Butcommonalitiesof
humannaturehelpunderstanding.Peopleineveryculturehavethecapability
forproducingnarrativesaboutwhathappened.
2
WehavealreadyconcludedthattheGospelsarehistoricalaccounts(chap.
5).TheclaimsinLukesprologue(Luke1:14)andthesimilaritiesbetween
LukeandtheotherthreeGospelstellusthatallfourGospelsnarratewhat
happenedratherthaninventingeventsoroverlayingfactwithfiction.But
thebroadgenreGospelstillallowsvariationsinpointofviewandemphasis
(chap.4).Inprinciple,thesevariationsinviewpointmayincludevariations
inthewayinwhicheachGospeldescribestheevents.
1
VernS.Poythress,In the Beginning Was the Word: LanguageA God-Centered Approach(Wheaton,IL:
Crossway,2009),188.
2
See,forexample,RobertE.Longacre,Te Grammar of Discourse(NewYork:Plenum,1983),36.
67
VariationsinWritingHistory
SowemayconsiderthefourGospelsonebyone.Whatdoeseachone
indicateaboutitsapproachtowritingthehistoryoftheevents
Lukes Approach
BecausetheGospelofLukeincludesaprologueinLuke1:14,wecanunder-
standitsclaimsmoredirectly.Aswehaveseen(chap.5),itplacesitselfalongside
theOldTestamenthistoricalwritingsandalsoshowsanalogiestoHellenistic
historicalwritings.Atthesametime,itlinksitselfwiththetheologicalinterest
inpromiseandfulfillment.Luke1:1speaksaboutthethingsthathavebeen
accomplishedamongus,hintingattherelationtoOldTestamentpromises
thathavenowbeenbroughttorealizationbywhathasbeenaccomplished.
TheideaoffulfillmentbecomesexplicitespeciallyattheendofLuke.
Andhesaidtothem,Ofoolishones,andslowofhearttobelieveallthat
theprophetshavespoken!WasitnotnecessarythattheChristshouldsuffer
thesethingsandenterintohisgloryAndbeginningwithMosesandallthe
Prophets,heinterpretedtotheminalltheScripturesthethingsconcerning
himself.(Luke24:2527)
Thenhesaidtothem,ThesearemywordsthatIspoketoyouwhileIwas
stillwithyou,thateverythingwrittenaboutmeintheLawofMosesandthe
ProphetsandthePsalmsmustbefulfilled.Thenheopenedtheirmindsto
understandtheScriptures,andsaidtothem,Thus it is written, thattheChrist
shouldsufferandonthethirddayrisefromthedead,andthatrepentanceand
forgivenessofsinsshouldbeproclaimedinhisnametoallnations,beginning
fromJerusalem.(Luke24:4447)
Inaddition,Luke1:5makesasuddentransitionfromtheelegantGreekof
1:14toastyleliketheSeptuagint,remindingreadersofitsrelationtothe
OldTestament.BecauseLukeisinspiredbyGod,itbelongswiththeOld
Testamentwritingsitisauthoritativeandcanonical.Ontheissueofhistori-
calclaims,Lukeshowsthatitisdescribingrealevents,asisunderlinedbyits
relationshipbothtoOldTestamenthistoricalwritingsandtowhatHellenistic
historiansclaimedtooffer.Atthesametime,theseeventsfitintotheplan
ofGodforredemption.Historyandtheologythusgotogether(chap.5).
Matthews Approach
NowconsidertheGospelofMatthew.Matthewopenswithagenealogy.
Actually,itgivesustwogenealogicallists.Thefirstisasummary:The
bookofthegenealogyofJesusChrist,thesonofDavid,thesonofAbraham
(Matt.1:1).Thenfollowsanextendedlist:AbrahamwasthefatherofIsaac,
68
andIsaacthefatherofJacob,andJacobthefatherofJudahandhisbrothers,
andJudahthefatherofPerezandZerahbyTamar,andPerezthefatherof
Hezron,andHezronthefatherofRam,andRam...(Matt.1:24).These
genealogiescalltomindthegenealogiesinGenesis5,10,and11:1032,
thelargergenealogicalstructureofthehistoryinGenesis(e.g.,2:4,5:1,6:9,
11:27),andthegenealogiesin1Chronicles19.Inthisrespect,aswellas
others,MatthewhasmoreofaJewishfeel,andprobablyhadespeciallyin
mindJewishandJewish-Christianreaders.Thegenealogyimmediatelycon-
nectsitwithOldTestamenthistories.
Theopeninggenealogicallistinverse1offersonlyasummary.Jesus
ChrististhesonofDavid,thesonofAbraham.Theexpressionsonof in
thiscontextdoesnotmeannarrowlythatonepersonisthefirst-generation
directmaledescendantoftheother,aswecommonlyusethewordsonin
English.
3
TheunderlyingwordinGreek(huios)hasflexibilityorvariation.It
cancovernotonlyfirst-generationdescentbutanynumberofgenerations.
4
TheexpandedgenealogyinMatthew1:216fillsinmanyoftheintermediate
generations,butnotall.AcomparisonwiththeOldTestamentlistofkings
ofJudahshowsthatMatthew1:8iscompressed.Forexample,Matthew
reads,JoramthefatherofUzziah.KingsandChroniclesgivemorecom-
pleterecords:Joram(orJehoram)fatheredAhaziah,whofatheredJoash
(orJehoash),whofatheredAmaziah,whofatheredUzziah(alsocalled
Azariah).WhenwecompareMatthew1:8withKingsandChronicles,we
seethatMatthew1:8omitsAhaziah,Joash,andAmaziahandskipsfrom
JoramdirectlytoUzziah.ThedetailedwordinginMatthew1:8inGreek
actuallygivesustheexpressionJorambegat[Greekegennsen]Uzziah.
TheGreekwordforbegatincludesvariation:itmaydenoteeitherone-
generationimmediatedescentordescentoveraspanofmoregenerations.
Hence,Matthewisusingthekeywordbegatflexibly,inaccordwithitsnormal
meaning,andnoterroneously.
BothMatthewandhisJewishreaderswouldhaveknowntheOldTestament
listofthekingsofJudah.Byusingacasewherethefactswerealreadyknown,
andbyusingthesummarylistinMatthew1:1,Matthewindicatesclearly
thatheiscomfortablewithcompression.
ThecompressionthatMatthewusesisnotarandomoperation.Consider
firstthesummarylistinMatthew1:1.ItincludesAbraham,David,and
JesusChrist.WhythesethreeChristastheendpointofthegenealogyis
3
Somewhatlesscommonly,perhaps,thaninGreekorHebrew,Englishalsoatteststheuseofsonfor
maledescendantwithpossibleintermediategenerations(Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary,11th
ed.[Springeld,MA:Merriam-Webster,2008],son,1c).
4
SeeFrederickWilliamDanker,ed.,A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Chris-
tian Literature,3rded.(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2000),under(son),1c.
69
clearlytheclimax.DavidisincludedbecauseGodspromisetoDavid(2Sam.
7:516)guaranteesalineofkingsdescendingfromDavid,andlaterprophetic
promisesindicatethattheMessiahistocomefromthisline.Abrahamis
includedbecauseheisthefatherofthewholeJewishnation.Godspromise
toAbraham(Gen.12:13andelsewhere)laidthefoundationforthedistinc-
tiveblessingsandprivilegesthatcametotheJewishpeople.
ThiskindofselectivityindicatesthatMatthewhasthoughtcarefullyabout
whatheincludesinthegenealogies.(AndofcourseGodasdivineauthor
hasordainedwhatiswritten.)OnceweunderstandthecareinMatthew,we
cannoticeotherdetailsthatdoubtlesshavesubtlesignificance.Forexample,
Matthewincludesintheexpandedgenealogythenamesoffivewomen:
Tamar,Rahab,Ruth,Bathsheba,andMary(1:3,5,6,16).Thesewerefamous
women.Butwealsoknowthatallcametoplayaroleasmothersinthe
Messianiclineinunusualways.Tamarpretendedtobeaprostituteand
becamepregnantthroughherfather-in-lawJudah(Genesis38).Rahabwas
aprostitutebeforecomingtofaithinGod(Josh.2:1),RuthwasaMoabite
(Ruth1:4),BathshebabecameDavidswifeinconnectionwithadulteryand
murder(2Samuel11),Maryconceivedasavirgin(Matt.1:18,23).Moreover,
allexceptMaryseemtohavehadGentileancestry.Bathshebaismentioned
notbyherownnamebutasthewifeofUriah(1:6),whowasaHittite
(2Sam.11:3).AndtheexpressionthewifeofUriahremindsreadersofthe
sordidstoryofDavidsadulteryandmurder.Theinclusionofthesewomen
subtlyremindsusaboutthegraceofGodinthegospel.Godbringsgood
outofevil.Heincludespeoplewhodonothavespecialhumanprivileges.
Matthews Subtleties
MatthewplainlyprovidesthecentralfactsaboutJesussancestry.Butthetext
alsoincludessubtleties.Itinvitesreflectiononthesignificanceofdetailslike
theinclusionofthewomen.Oncewehavenoticedsomesubtleties,others
cometoourattention.
Matthewgroupsthegenealogyintothreesectionsoffourteengenera-
tionseach(Matt.1:17).Thenumberfourteenforthemiddlegroup(Matt.
1:611,fromDavidtoJechoniah)hasbeenproducedonlybyomittingsome
ofthekingsofJudah.Thisintentionalcompressionindicatesthatthepoint
isnotthatwehaveliterallyfourteengenerationswithnoomissions,but
thatsomethemeisbeingemphasized.WhatthemeItisnotimmediately
clear,thepointissubtle.Fourteenistwiceseven,thenumbersymbolizing
completeness.Inaddition,thekeynumberfourteenispossiblyrelatedtothe
factthatifoneaddsupthenumericalvaluesassociatedwiththelettersin
70
DavidsnameinHebrew,thetotalcomestofourteen.(TheJewsofthefirst
centurywerefamiliarwiththispracticeofgematria,inwhichoneadded
upthenumericalvaluesofletters.)Ifthisispartofthepointofthenumber
fourteen,MatthewisunderliningfurthertheimportanceofDavid,andso
recallstheOldTestamentpromisesaboutthecomingoftheMessiahinthe
lineofDavid(seeMatt.2:6).Thegroupingintothreesetsoffourteenalso
drawsattentiontothemiddlegroup,whichconsistsofthekingsofJudah
duringthemonarchyperiod.Thesekingsanticipatedthecomingofthe
Messiahasthegreatking(seeMatt.2:2,6).
Wealsofindthattwoofthenamesinthelistofkingshaveunusual
spellings.AmonthesonofManassehisspelledAmos(Matt.1:10),Asa
thesonofAbijahisspelledAsaph(Matt.1:78).SomeGreekmanu-
scriptshavethemoreusualspellingsAmonandAsa.Scribesmaking
copiesofamanuscripthaveatendencytosmoothoutirregularitiessuch
asanunusualspelling.Theylookatthewordtheyarecopying,andtheir
memoryofthecommonspellinginterfereswiththeirimmediatememory
oftheunusualspellingonthecopyinfrontofthem.Thatinterference
sometimesleadstosubstitutingthemorecommonspelling.Sotheunusual
spellingsalmostcertainlyrepresenttheoriginalspellingintheautograph
ofMatthew.
5
WhatsignificancedotheseunusualspellingshaveInthefirstplace,an
unusualspellingisnotanerror.Technicallyspeaking,avariationofthiskind
isagraphologicalvariationthatpreservesthecorrectreferentandthere-
forepreservesthecorrectgenealogicalrelations.Itisallthemoreharmless
becauseallthenamesrepresenttransliterationsfromHebrew,andsystem-
aticphonemicandgraphologicaldifferencesbetweenHebrewandGreek
meanthatthereisnoonewaytoaccomplishtransliteration.Transliteration
allowsvariation.
ButinMatthewscasetheremaybesomethingmore.Likemanyother
aspectsofthegenealogy,itissubtle.ByspellingAsaasAsaph,Matthew
referstokingAsa,thesonofAbijah,atthesametime,ontopofthismain
connection,itcreatesaliteraryallusiontoorreminiscenceofAsaph,ofthe
tribeofLevi,theheadoftheLeviticalsingers(1Chron.25:1).Thisallusion
subtlysuggeststhatJesusisnotonlyliterallytheheirtothekinglylineof
David,throughkingAsa,butfigurativelyandspirituallyheirtotheLevitical
lineofpriestlyactivity.ByspellingAmonasAmos,Matthewreferstoking
Amon,thesonofManassehandatthesametimecreatesaliteraryallusion
5
Inaddition,someofthekeymanuscriptswiththeunusualspellingsareofbetterqualityandearlier.
71
toAmostheprophet.ItsuggeststhatJesusisspirituallytheheirtotheOld
Testamentprophets.
Matthewsgenealogyoffersusanadvantageforinterpretationbecause
wehaveaccesstotheOldTestamentgenealogicalrecords.Wecansee
boththatMatthewisfaithfullyfollowingandaffirmingtheserecordsand
thatMatthewengagesinhighlightingandcompressioninordersubtly
todrawattentiontosomethematicconnectionsandtheologicaltruths.
Matthewtherebyinvitesustoexpectthesamesortofthingthroughout
theGospel.
Wesummarizewiththefollowingprinciples:
1. Real events in Matthew
MatthewrecordedwhathappenedinthelifeofJesus,justasherecordedthe
actualgenealogy,aspreviouslyrecordedintheOldTestament.
2. Compression
Matthewusedcompressioninrecountingtheevents.Weseeaninstanceof
compressioninMatthew8:513,thestoryofthecenturionsservant.Matthew
leavesoutallmentionoftheJewisheldersandthecenturionsfriends,who
servedasintermediaries.Thenarrativegetscompressedbyomittingthese
extrapersonagesandextrastages.
Similarly,Matthew9:1826compressesthestoryofthehealingofJairuss
daughter.IncomparisonwithMark5:2243,Matthewomitsthemention
oftwostagesinthedevelopment,inthefirstofwhichJairussdaughterisat
thepointofdeath,andinthesecondofwhichmessengerscometoJairusto
announcethathisdaughterhasjustdied.InMatthew,theeventsarecom-
pressed:thedaughterhasdied,andJesusbringshertolife.
6
3. Highlighting of themes
Matthewthematicallyhighlightsthemesandtheologicalsignificancesashe
tellsabouttheevents.InMatthew8:1012,thecenturionsGentileorigin
ishighlighted,anditunderlinesMatthewslargerpointthatGentilesare
nowbeingadmittedtothekingdomofGod,whileJewishunbelieversare
leftout.
6
See chap. 28 for a further discussion of the incident with Jairuss daughter. Another instance of
compressionoccursinMatt.21:1822,whichisdiscussedinchap.20.SeealsoCraig L.Blomberg,
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels,2nded.(DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsity,2007),17780.
72
Marks Approach
WeneedtosayonlyalittleaboutthedistinctiveapproachintheGospelof
Mark.Markbeginswiththeannouncement,Thebeginningofthegospel
ofJesusChrist,thesonofGod(Mark1:1).Afterthisopeningtherefollows
aquotationfromtheOldTestament(Mark1:23).Andthenweplungeinto
action.MarkisaGospelofaction.
ButMarksbeginningindicatesthatthisactionhastheologicalsignificance.
First,MarksGospelrevealsJesusastheChrist,theSonofGod,indicating
thatheisfulfillingtheOldTestamentpromisesconcerningthecomingofthe
Messiah.Second,itisthegospel,thegoodnewsofsalvationasprophesied
inOldTestamentpassageslikeIsaiah52:710.Third,theactionsthatMark
recordscorrespondtospecificprophecies.
Forexample,inMark1:23theOldTestamentquotationscomefromtwo
differentprophets,Malachi3:1andIsaiah40:3.Inintroducingthequotations
MarkmentionsonlyIsaiah:AsitiswritteninIsaiahtheprophet(1:2).
7
Is
thisaproblemIsaiahisthemoreprominentofthetwoprophets,andthe
verseinMalachi3:1,writtenlaterthanIsaiah,mayactuallyalludetothe
verseinIsaiah40:3.WhetherornotMalachioffersadefiniteallusion,the
twopropheciesareorganicallyrelated,becausebothpropheciespromise
thecomingofamessengerinpreparationforthecomingofGod.Markhas
groupedthetwotogetherforgoodreasonandhasfurtherunderlinedtheir
unitybymentioningonlyIsaiahastheearlierandmoreprominentprophet.
Thiskindofcitationshouldbeseenasaninstanceofflexibility,thatis,of
variation.MarksmentionofIsaiahindicatesthatatleastaportioncomes
fromIsaiah,andthatonecanfindthemainthrustthere.Moreover,Marks
mentionofIsaiahcontrastswithvarioustheoreticallypossiblealternatives,
suchasmentioningAmosorJonah,whomhedecidesnottoquote.Atthe
sametime,Markscitationisnotprecisionistic,itallowstheflexibilitythat
othermaterialcanalsobeincluded.Andofcoursereasonablereaderswho
knowtheirOldTestamentwouldunderstandMarkandwouldgetthepoint.
Markchoosesflexibilityherebecauseheisfocusingonmainpoints.
Bycontrast,apedantic,precisionisticapproach,interestedonlyinsetting
forththemostthoroughinformationabouteverysource,wouldinsiston
mentioningexplicitlybothsources,MalachiandIsaiah.ButMarkspurposes
andhisgenre,hismannerofcommunication,haveotherfoci.Wemayrep-
resentthisinfigure8.
7
TedierentmanuscriptcopiesoftheGospelofMarkshowavariationinwordinghere.Copiesbelonging
totheByzantinefamilyoftextshavethewording,Asitiswrittenintheprophets.Tiswordingeliminates
alldiculty.ButthebestmanuscriptshavethewordingwithIsaiah.Andweknowthatscribeswhocopied
manuscriptstendedtointroducechangesthatsmoothoutdicultieslikethisone.Soweinferthatthe
autographofMarkhadthewordingreferringtoIsaiah.
73
Johns Approach
TheGospelofJohnbeginsnotwiththeearthlylifeofJesus,butwiththeo-
logicalreflectionsthatgobacktocreationandtoeternity.Inthebeginning
wastheWord...(John1:1).Lateritannounces,theWordbecameflesh
anddweltamongus,andwehaveseenhisglory...(John1:14).John,likethe
otherGospels,isinterestedintellinguswhathappenedinspaceandtimein
theflesh.Like1John,itisagainstdocetismandallformsofreligionthat
evaporatemateriality(1John1:12,4:13,noteJohn19:3436,20:25,27).It
promisestogiveusrealhistory,eventsinspaceandtime.
8
Atthesametime,
itgivesusdeeptheologicalinterpretationofthesignificanceoftheevents.
Thedisciplesunderstoodthesignificanceofeventsonlypartiallywhenthe
eventswerehappening.JesusindicatesthatthecomingoftheHolySpiritwill
bringadecisiveadvanceinunderstanding:Ihavesaidthesethingstoyou
infiguresofspeech.ThehouriscomingwhenIwillnolongerspeaktoyou
infiguresofspeechbutwilltellyouplainlyabouttheFather(John16:25).
WhenJesusgivesthegiftoftheHolySpirit,theSpiritwillguidethemin
understanding.
Istillhavemanythingstosaytoyou,butyoucannotbearthemnow.When
theSpiritoftruthcomes,hewillguideyouintoallthetruth,forhewillnot
speakonhisownauthority,butwhateverhehearshewillspeak,andhewill
declaretoyouthethingsthataretocome.Hewillglorifyme,forhewilltake
whatismineanddeclareittoyou.(John16:1214)
Inthelightofthesepromises,Johnsprologue(John1:118)suggeststhat
Johnisgoingtoexpoundtheologicalsignificance.Hespeaksasonetowhom
theHolySpirithascome.SoJohnislookingattheeventsofJesussearthly
8
SeeF.F.Bruce,TeTrialofJesusintheFourthGospel,inGospel Perspectives: Studies of History and
Tradition in the Four Gospels,vol.1,ed.R.T.FranceandDavidWenham(Sheeld:JSOT,1980),18.
Figure 8. Citation
Brief Expanded
Malachi as source 0
Isaiah as source

variational range;
no contrast

contrast
74
liferetrospectively,fromthestandpointofonetowhomtheSpirithasgiven
furtherunderstanding.
OfcoursethesameistrueinageneralwayforallfourEvangelists.All
fourwroteundertheinspirationoftheHolySpirit,theSpiritwhohadbeen
giveninafullerwayafterJesussresurrectionandascension.AllfourGospels
communicatetoChristianswholiveaftertheresurrectionofChristand
Pentecost.Atthesametime,theGospelofJohnbyitsintroductiongivesmore
emphasistointerpretingintheologicaldepth.Andthatemphasishelpsto
explainsomeofthemanydifferencesbetweenitandtheotherthreeGospels.
9
Wethereforehavethefollowingsummaryprinciples:
1. Real events in John
TheGospelofJohntalksaboutrealevents.
2. Theological significance in John
TheGospelofJohnunveilsthetheologicalsignificanceofevents,andthe
fulldepthofthisunveilingbelongstothetimeafterthegivingoftheHoly
SpiritatPentecost.
Differences between the Gospels
EachofthefourGospelsgivesusthetruthaboutthelifeofJesus.Noone
Gospelisexhaustive,nordoesitclaimtobeeachisselective.Andeach
makeschoicesabouthowitisgoingtotellthehistory.Eachisinterestedin
highlightingtheologicalsignificancesandrelationshipstotheOldTestament.
MatthewisnoteworthyforhisJewishness,forhiscompression,andforthe
introductionofsubtlehintsofextrasignificance.Markisnoteworthyfor
actionandforconcentrationonthemainpoints.Lukeisnoteworthyforcare
inhistoricalresearch.Johnisnoteworthyfortheologicaldepthininterpret-
ingthesignificanceofevents.
WeshouldalsorememberthatallfourGospelsareGodswriting,not
simplytheproductofthehumanauthors.Thedifferencesbetweenthemin
theirapproachestowritinghistoryillustratethatGodhimselfiscomfort-
ablewithusingdistinctperspectivesinrevealingwhathappenedandits
significance.ThesignificanceinGodsmindisinfinitelydeep.Heenriches
usbyprovidingusfourwindowsonhiswisdomratherthanmerelyone.
9
SeeBlomberg,Historical Reliability,23334.
PAR T THR E E
aTTiTudes
in harmonizaTion
77
11
Confidence and Doubt
HumanstudyoftheGospelsorhumanstudyoftheBibleasawhole,likeany
otherhumanactivity,takesplacewithinacontextofethicalresponsibility.
Mostfundamentally,ascreaturesmadeintheimageofGod,wehavean
obligation:lovetheLordyourGodwithallyourheartandwithallyoursoul
andwithallyourmind(Matt.22:37).Godinhismajestyisworthyofallour
commitment.OurobligationstowardGodimpingeonusineveryareaof
life.Intunewiththisoverarchingobligation,wealsohaveanobligationto
becomedisciplesofChristandtofollowhim.
1
Wearenotoff-dutywhen
westudytheGospels.
Wecanappreciatemoralobligationsbyusingthethreeperspectiveson
ethicsdevelopedbyJohnFrame:thenormative,thesituational,andtheexis-
tentialperspectives.
2
Thenormativeperspectivefocusesonthenorms,that
is,Godscommands.Thesituationalperspectivefocusesonthesituationin
whichapersonacts,anditaskswhatwillpromotethegloryofGodwithin
thatsituation.Theexistentialperspectivefocusesonthepersonwhoacts,
anditinquiresabouthisorhermotives.Theexistentialperspectivecanalso
becalledthepersonalperspective.Thethreeperspectivesinterlock.Rightly
1
SeeVernS.Poythress,Inerrancy and Worldview: Answering Modern Challenges to the Bible(Wheaton,
IL:Crossway,2012),especiallychap.31.
2
JohnM.Frame,Te Doctrine of the Christian Life(Phillipsburg,NJ:P&R,2008),Frame,Perspectives on
the Word of God: An Introduction to Christian Ethics(Phillipsburg,NJ:PresbyterianandReformed,1990,
repr.,Eugene,OR:WipfandStock,1999).
78
AttitudesinHarmonization
understood,eachleadstotheothers.Ifwefollowouttheirimplications,each
encompassestheothers.Butwecanfocusprimarilyonone.
Inourdiscussionofprinciplesforharmonizationinparttwo,wehave
mostlyfocusedonthenormativeperspective.Eachprincipleforharmoniza-
tionisanormativeprinciple.Itexpressesawayinwhichweoughttoseekto
dojusticetotheclaimsoftheGospels.Theoughtcharacteroftheprinciples
iscloselyrelatedtothenormativeperspective.Theprinciplesderivefrom
ournormativeobligationtolistencarefullyandrespectfullytotheGospels
becausetheyareGodsword.
WhataboutthesituationalperspectiveInchapter10andinpartofchap-
ter5wefocusedmoreonthesituationalperspective,becausewelooked
atthegenreoftheGospelsandattemptedtoreckonwiththeirhistorical
environment.Luke,forexample,hasaprologuethatshowssimilaritieswith
Hellenistichistorywriting.ThebeginningofMatthewshowssimilaritieswith
OldTestamentgenealogies.Ifwestartwiththenormativeperspective,itleads
naturallytoanaffirmationofthesituationalperspective.Godsnormstell
usthatweareresponsibletoloveGodandtolovethehumanauthorsofthe
Gospels.Thisresponsibilityimpliesthatwewillattendwithcaretohowthey
wanttheirwritingtobeunderstoodwithinahistoricalenvironment,aswell
aswithinthelinguisticenvironmentformedbythecapabilitiesoflanguage
(e.g.,chap.8).Thus,thenormativeperspectiveaffirmstheimportanceof
thesituationalperspective.
Godsnormsalsospeakaboutourresponsibilitiesaspersons.Weneed
topayattentiontoourattitudes,becauseattitudesandmotivationsaswell
asovertactionsareevaluatedbyGod.Theseattitudescomeintofocusin
thepersonalorexistentialperspective.Inthisandthenextfewchapters,we
focusonthisareaofattitudes.Whatshouldourattitudebeinapproaching
thetasksandthechallengesofinterpretingtheGospels,especiallyinthose
areaswheretheydifferfromoneanother
Accepting the Bible as the Word of God
ThemostfundamentalattitudinalissueinstudyingtheBibleconsistsin
makingapersonaldecisionaboutwhatkindofbookitis.Whatdowe
thinkIsitGodsspeechinwriting,orisitmerelyahumanrecord,parts
ofwhichmightbefalliblyrespondingtodivineactivityWehavealready
consideredthisquestioninchapter1.
3
Wemustleavetootherbooks,and
ultimatelytoGodhimself,theprimarytaskofpersuadingpeoplethatthe
3
SeealsoPoythress,Inerrancy and Worldview,chap.32.
79
CondenceandDoubt
Gospelsaredivinewords.
4
Persuasioncomesboththroughtheevidence
oftheGospelsthemselvesandthroughthepresenceofGod.Godbyhis
HolySpiritopenspeopleseyesandgivesthemtheconvictionthatitis
hewhoisspeaking.ThepresenceofGodisnotsomethingthatwecan
control.Sowecannotexpectjusttomakeupourmindsonthiscrucial
questionasifwewerecomingwithpureandunprejudicedattitudesfrom
thebeginning.
5
WemustaskGodforhiscleansingandpowertoworkin
ourmindsandourhearts.
IftheGospelsarethewordofGod,whatconclusionsfollowwithrespectto
ourresponseWecantrustwhattheysay.Itnolongermakessensetoapply
tothemthesamecriticalattitudeswewouldusewithamerelyhumansource
forhistoricalinformation.WelistentoGodwitharespectthatisreserved
forhimalone.Doubtinghiswordsrepresentsfoolishnessanddisloyalty,
becauseheiscompletelytrustworthy.
Wrestling with Doubt
Butweshouldbehonestthatdoubtsremainreal.Andinafineranalysiswe
needtodistinguishdifferentkindsofdoubts.First,theremaybedoubtsas
towhetherwhatwearereadingisreallythewordofGod.Satanintroduced
doubtswhenhespoketoEve(Gen.3:45),andheusesthesamestrategy
today.
6
Second,atemptationtodoubtcanbedistinguishedfromgivingwayto
doubt.SatantemptedEveandputtheideaintohermind.Shedidnotsin
merelybyhearingtheidea,butshedidsinbygivingwaytothetemptation
thatSatanintroduced.
Third,wemayhavedoubtsaboutwhetherwehaveunderstoodapar-
ticularverseorpartoftheBible.Somepartsaredifficult,anditismorally
responsibletoassesswiselyourowndegreeofcompetence,maturity,and
understanding.Butofcoursewecanalsofallintothetemptationofusing
ourfinitenessasanexcusenevertoobey.Wedeferobedienceindefinitely.
Overagainstthistemptation,wemusthaveawiseandrobustsenseof
whereweareinthelifethatGodhasgivenus.Somepeoplearecalledby
Godtogivedetailedattentioneventosmalldifficultiesininterpretation.
4
OntheissueofGodsgivingcondence,seeJohnM.Frame,Te Doctrine of the Word of God(Phillips-
burg,NJ:P&R,2010).
5
Onthecorruptionofthemind,seePoythress,Inerrancy and Worldview,chaps.2830.
6
Wecannotundertakehereadiscussionofthenatureofcanonandhowwebecomeconvincedthatthefour
Gospelsbelongtothecanon,thebodyofwritingswithdivineauthority.SeeHermanRidderbos,Redemp-
tive History and the New Testament Scriptures(Phillipsburg,NJ:PresbyterianandReformed,1988),and
Michael J.Kruger,Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books
(Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2012).
80
Theymayweighmanyissuesoveralongtimebeforehavingtoact.Most
people,however,mustactinpracticalwayswithouthavingaverymeticu-
louslyworked-throughandcriticallyweighedinterpretation.Theymust
trustthatGodwillguidethemusingthepartsoftheBiblethatareclear,
evenwhentheymayhavemisjudgedthemeaningofamoreobscuretext
oramoreobscureaspectofonetext.
GodtookourlimitationsintoaccountwhenhedesignedtheBible.What
ismostimportantintheBibleisclearandgetssaidinmultipletextsandin
avarietyofways.AstheWestminsterConfessionofFaithsays,
AllthingsinScripturearenotalikeplaininthemselves,noralikeclearuntoall:
yetthosethingswhicharenecessarytobeknown,believed,andobservedfor
salvation,aresoclearlypropounded,andopenedinsomeplaceofScriptureor
other,thatnotonlythelearned,buttheunlearned,inadueuseoftheordinary
means,mayattainuntoasufficientunderstandingofthem.
7
Fourth,wemayrightlydoubtourselvesandotherhumaninterpreters.
Criticalquestioningofhumanarguments,assumptions,andlimitationsis
appropriateforourpresentstateasfinite,fallenhumanbeings.Thiscritical
questioningofothersourcesshouldbeinsharpcontrasttotrustingGod.
WeshowhonortoGodnotonlybypositivelytrustinghimbutalsobynot
trustingothersourcesinthesamewaythatwetrusthim.
Fifth,wemustrecognizethatGodknowsourhearts,evenbeyondwhat
weourselvesknow.IfwehavedoubtsaboutGodandhisWord,itdoesno
goodtoimaginethatwecanhidethemfromGod.Someofthepsalmsshow
theboldnessofpsalmistsinsettingouttheirstrugglesbeforeGod(see,
e.g.,Psalm73).Doubtandmentalstrugglebecomeoccasionsforprayer.
Doubtsmayarisenotonlyfromcircumstancesofbodilysuffering,butalso
frommentalperplexity.Andsuchperplexitymayincludeperplexityover
apparentdiscrepanciesintheGospels.Weshouldnotpanicwhenwemeet
perplexity,norshouldweimaginethatGodisshockedtoseeourfrailty
orourwaveringfaith.Hebrews4:1416ispertinent.
Sincethenwehaveagreathighpriestwhohaspassedthroughtheheavens,
Jesus,theSonofGod,letusholdfastourconfession.Forwedonothavea
highpriestwhoisunabletosympathizewithourweaknesses,butonewhoin
everyrespecthasbeentemptedasweare,yetwithoutsin.Letusthenwith
confidencedrawneartothethroneofgrace,thatwemayreceivemercyand
findgracetohelpintimeofneed.
7
WestminsterConfessionofFaith1.7.
81
CondenceandDoubt
The Temptation to Neutrality
FollowersofChristgivetheirloyaltytoChrist,andthereforetheyalsoshould
beloyaltohiswords.OurattitudetowardtheBibleandtowardtheGospels
differsfromthosewhoseprimaryloyaltyistothemselvesortomodern
orpostmodernideas.Thesedifferencesinloyaltyproducedifferencesnot
onlyinattitudebutalsoinmethodwhenwestudytheGospels.Whenwe
giveourloyaltytoChrist,wewillgrowinconfidenceintheGospels,even
ifotherpeopledonot.
Moreover,loyaltytoChristleadsustoadefiniteviewaboutmeaning.
Someradicalreader-responsetheoriesofmeaningmultiplymeaningswith
littleregardfortheintentionsofspeakersandauthors.Butpeoplegener-
allyknow,eitherinstinctivelyorbyconsciousreasoning,thatspeakersand
authorsdeserveourattentionoutofrespectforthem.Sowemakeaneffort
tounderstandtheirmeanings.
8
IfGodistheprincipalauthoroftheGospels,thenweshouldattendto
whathemeans.Thatimpliesthatweshouldreckonwitheverythingwe
knowabouthimwhenweread,andweshouldtrythroughthepowerofthe
HolySpirittointerpretwhatwereadinthelightofwhatweknowabout
him.Ananalogousapproachwouldordinarilytakeplaceevenwithahuman
author.Butdifferencesinreadingareparticularlyintensewhenweconsider
Scripture.Theorientationofourheartmakesadifference.Webeginthis
lifeassinners,withheartsinrebelliontoGod.Godneedstochangeour
hearts,torenewthemsothatwearereceptive(seeEzek.36:2527).Until
ourheartsarerenewed,wetrytoevadetherealityofGodsauthorship,and
wehavedistortedideasaboutGodwhenweread.Sodifferencesinpeoples
heartsresultinmanydifferentstrategiesandreadingsoftheGospels,not
justone.Manyoftheseareethicallywrong,becausetheyrisefromhearts
inrebellionagainstGod.
WemustalsoreckonwiththefactthatGodisactivelyinvolvedinthe
receptionofhisWord.TheFatherandtheSonandtheSpiritrevealthem-
selvesintheBiblenottoall,buttothehumble.
9
AtthattimeJesusdeclared,Ithankyou,Father,Lordofheavenandearth,that
youhavehiddenthesethingsfromthewiseandunderstandingandrevealed
themtolittlechildren,yes,Father,forsuchwasyourgraciouswill.Allthings
havebeenhandedovertomebymyFather,andnooneknowstheSonexcept
8
IL:Crossway,2009),chaps.2022.
9
Onhumility,seePoythress,Inerrancy and Worldview,chap.33.
82
theFather,andnooneknowstheFatherexcepttheSonandanyonetowhom
theSonchoosestorevealhim.(Matt.11:2527)
Sinceweinheritprideandself-centerednessfromAdam,noonestartsout
humble.Godchangesusbyhispower:ForGod,whosaid,Letlightshine
outofdarkness,hasshoneinourheartstogivethelightoftheknowledge
ofthegloryofGodinthefaceofJesusChrist(2Cor.4:6).
Thesphereofacademicbiblicalstudiesandreligiousstudiescontainsa
widespreadattitudethatweneedtotreattheBibleinawaythatusescom-
mon-groundassumptionsforinterpretation.Somemaysaythatwemust
considermattersinareligiouslyneutralway,independentoftheso-called
prejudicesofreligiouscommitments.Butofcoursethosewhocallreligious
commitmentsprejudicesshowtheirprejudiceagainstreligiouscommit-
ments.Theyhaveacommitmenttothiskindofconvictionaboutreligion,
andthatcommitmentforthemismoreultimatethantheircommitment
toanyparticularreligion.Thisultimatecommitmentisanidol,competing
withallegiancestoothergods.Itisinnatelyreligious.Itisalsoinrebellion
againstGod,sincepeopleindicatebytheirattitudethattheyaresuppressing
thetruththeyknowaboutGod(Rom.1:1823).
Thereisnoneutralityaboutsuchcommitments.Thereisnocommon
groundtobefoundonwhichwemayconductourdiscussionsneutrally.
Peoplehavedifferenthearts,andwiththedifferencesintheheartcome
differencesinassumptionsandcommitments.
10
Weoughtnotbedisloyal
toChristbypretendingthatourloyaltycanbeputaside,orsubordinated
tosomeotherstandards,ordeclaredirrelevanttothediscussion.Sincelove
forGodandthelordshipofChristextendtoeveryareaoflife,aChristian
oughtnottotrytoleapoutofhiscommitmentwhenheentersliteraryor
historicalorreligiousdiscussions.
Wemayneverthelessfindagrainoftruthintheideaofadjustingtoother
peoplesexpectations.Wemusttrytofindwaystocommunicateourown
convictionsandthemessageofthegospelofChristclearlytothosewithdif-
ferentcommitments.Forinstance,dependingonapersonspresentcommit-
ments,hemaybeopentoconsideringwhethertheGospelsaremoreorless
reliablehistoricaldocuments.Ifweshowhimevidenceofhistoricalveracity,
11
suchascorrespondencesbetweenthebookofActsandextrabiblicalRoman
historicalinformation,hemaygainsomeconfidenceinthehistoricalclaims
10
TeseassumptionsandcommitmentsarecalledpresuppositionsinCorneliusVanTilstraditionof
presuppositionalapologetics(VanTil,Te Defense of the Faith,2nded.[Philadelphia:Presbyterianand
Reformed,1963]).Iamindebtedtothattradition.
11
See,e.g.,F.F.Bruce,Te New Testament Documents,2nded.(London:Inter-Varsity,1970),Craig L.
Blomberg,Te Historical Reliability of the Gospels,2nded.(DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsity,2007).
83
CondenceandDoubt
ofLuke,enoughtostarthimreadingLukewithaseriousinterest.TheHoly
SpiritmayusehisreadingtoleadhimtofaithinChrist.Butduringthatpath
ofcomingtofaith,untilheactuallyputshisfaithinChrist,hewouldstillbe
infundamentalrebellionnotonlyagainstChristbutagainstthecharacter
oftheGospelofLukeasGodsword.
12
PeoplecometofaithinChristthroughmanystrangepaths.Godhasmercy
onthem.Heusestheirpaths.Buthisuseofthesepathsdoesnotimplyhis
ethicalendorsement.
Weshouldbeawareofmanyresourcesavailabletoday.Bookswritten
byevangelicalstodefendhistoricalreliabilitycontainmuchcarefulweigh-
ingofevidencefromtheGospelsthemselves,fromotherpartsoftheNew
Testament,andfromhistoricalsourcesoutsidetheBible.Thereismuch
herethatisgoodanduseful.Thiskindofmaterialcanhelpskepticsto
reconsidertheirskepticism,aswellashelpingChristianstogainconfidence
inthehistoricalclaimsintheGospels.Booksofthiskindinmanyrespects
complementthereasoninginthisbook,sinceIhavechosentofocusonlyon
oneissueoutofmany,namely,thequestionofwhethertheGospelaccounts
areinharmony.
ButIamnotalwaysfullysatisfiedwiththewayinwhichsuchbooks
approachtheevidence.Bookspresentmassiveevidence,andpresentitarticu-
lately.Good.Butwithwhatattitudesandassumptionsabouthistoryandtruth
doweapproachtheevidenceIfwehavecometotheconvictionthatthe
BibleisGodswordaconvictionthatGodhimselfwantsustohaveitis
notrighttosetthatconvictionasidewhenitcomestomethods,argumenta-
tion,orspecificclaimsthatwemaymakeasweaddressthelargerworldof
biblicalscholarshiporordinaryrun-of-the-millunbeliefordoubt.Norisit
righttosuggestthatpeoplewhoarestillsiftingthroughthisevidencefrom
apositionoutsideofcommitmenttoChristaredoingsoneutrally.Theyare
suppressingtruthsthattheyknow,accordingtoRomans1:1832.
Circular Reasoning?
Somepeoplefeeluncomfortablewithaprocedureinwhichwestartwith
beliefinthedivineauthorshipoftheGospels.Notonlydowestartwithit,
butitbecomesthefoundationforwhateverelsewedo.Objectorsmight
12
ItisworthwhileconsideringthewarningofGaussen:TisdispositionwhichjudgestheScriptures,and
doubtsbeforehandoftheiruniversalinspiration,isoneofthegreatestobstaclesthatwecanopposeto
theiractingwitheect.Tewordspoken,saysStPaul(Heb.iv. 2),didnotprot,notbeingmixedwith
faithinthemwhoheartit(LouisGaussen,Teopneustia: Te Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures:
Deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History and Science,rev.ed.[Chicago:
BibleInstituteColportage,n.d.(1915)],12).
84
allegethatsuchaprocedureengagesincircularreasoning.Westartwith
aconvictionofdivineauthorship,andthenthedetailedinvestigationnot
onlyservesvariousothergoals,butalsoconfirmsthisdivineauthorship
bysearchingouthowwemightseeharmonyamongthedifferentGospel
accountsinrelationtothemindofGod.
Weshouldbearinmindseveralpoints.First,nooneisfreefromassump-
tionsorpresuppositions.IfwearefollowersofChrist,webelievethatheis
trueandtrustworthyandthatheisworthyofourallegiance.Thesearegood
presuppositions.Goodpresuppositionshelpusforwardinunderstandingthe
truth.Naturally,someonewhoisstillalienatedfromChristwillnotagree.
ButwhatbasisdoeshehaveforhisdisagreementIfheadmitsthathedoes
notknowwhetherChrististheway,thenheshouldhumblehimselfandtry
tofindoutthetruthratherthancriticizepeoplewhohavealreadyfound
thetruth.IfhethinkshealreadyknowsthatChristisnottheway,thenhis
ownreligiouscommitmentstosomeotherwayareclearlyshowing.Andyou
willfindthathisownreligiouscommitmentshavenosolidbasis.
13
Sucha
personishimselfengagingincircularreasoning.
Second,ourmaingoalinstudyingtheGospelsshouldbetolistento
Godinallthewaysandallthedimensionsofhisspeaking,andtoservehim
faithfullyinresponse.Understandingwhathappenedisoneimportant
dimensionofthisresponse.Butitisonlyonedimension.Anyconfirmation
orstrengtheningofourconvictionthattheGospelshaveGodastheirauthor
isanotherdimension.Buttherearemanyotherdimensions,suchasgrowing
inlovingGodandlearningwhoJesusis,whatheaccomplished,andwhat
itmeanstofollowhim.
Third,ourownstudyoftheGospelsinvolvesprimarilyinteractionwith
Godasapersonandaspeakerandonewholovesus.Weshouldnotconfuse
suchinteractionwiththeinterestsofapologeticsinhavingdialoguewith
thoseoutsidethefaith.Thoseoutsidethefaithdonotunderstandthespiri-
tualthingsoftheGospels:Thenaturalpersondoesnotacceptthethingsof
theSpiritofGod,fortheyarefollytohim,andheisnotabletounderstand
thembecausetheyarespirituallydiscerned(1Cor.2:14).
Fourth,instudyingtheGospelswemustnotworrytoomuchaboutwhat
unbelieversandskepticsthinkaboutus.Iftheyfindoutwhatweareactually
thinkingandhowwearegoingaboutourstudy,theywillconsiderusfools.
ButsuchhasalwaysbeenthecasewithChristianbelief.Tryingtoincorporate
13
Iamheresummarizinginaveryshortcompassarichexpanseofmaterialonpresuppositionalapolo-
geticsinthetraditionofCorneliusVanTil.See,e.g.,John M.Frame,Apologetics to the Glory of God: An
Introduction(Phillipsburg,NJ:P&R,1994).
85
CondenceandDoubt
principlesbelongingtounbeliefwithinourownapproachleadstodisloyalty,
confusion,anddisaster.
Fifth,Christiansaswellasnon-Christiansmaystrugglewithdoubtsand
unbelief.Weshouldhavecompassiononanyonehavingsuchstrugglesrather
thanbrushingthemaway.Weshouldrecognizethatfrankdiscussionof
difficultiesandcarefulweighingofevidencemayoftenhelpthestruggling
individual.Weshouldexercisepatience.
Butwemayalsohaveoccasiontoraisequestionsaboutlargerassumptions,
assumptionsaboutthenatureofhistory,thenatureofhumanresponsibility,
andGodsexpectationsfortheuseofourhumanrationalpowersinstudy-
inghisWord.
14
Weshouldbeready,asopportunityoffers,toalertfellow
Christianstothespiritualandethicaldimensionsofhowweapproachthe
Bible.Indoingso,nooneofusshouldlookdownonthosewhostruggle.In
practice,anysinexpressesunbelief,thatis,alackoftrustinGodwhohas
redeemedusandwhosewaysarewiserthanours.Sononeofusisfreefrom
theunderlyingproblem.
Sixth,intherealmofthought,thebasicissueseparatingChristiansfrom
non-Christiansistheissueofautonomyofthought.Eversincethefallof
Adam,non-Christianshavewantedtobeautonomousjudgesandthink-
ersanddecisionmakers.Theywantultimatecontroloftheirlives.Andto
theextentthatweChristiansgivewaytosin,wedothesamething.Toan
autonomousthinker,theprocessofstudyingScripturewithacommitment
toGodandhisWordseemscircular,becauseitinvolveswhathethinksis
abadcommitment,acommitmenttotreatasultimatesomethingoutside
ofhimself.Tosomeonewhoworshipsautonomy,autonomyisultimate.
CommitmenttoScriptureseemstobeabetrayalofwhoheis.Beforehemakes
anycommitment,theautonomousthinkerwantstobeallowedautonomously
tojudgethewisdomofsuchcommitment.
Wewerecreatedinsuchawaythatweweremeanttolivebyeveryword
thatcomesfromthemouthofGod(Matt.4:4).Wewerenotmeantfor
autonomousindependencefromGod.Andstrivingforsuchindependence
doesnotwork.Itleadstodarkness,confusion,disaster,andcondemnation.
15
TheChristianhasacommitmentthatleadstomorelightandtruth.The
non-Christianhasadestructivecommitment.
Moreover,non-Christianstypicallydonotnoticethecircularityoftheir
commitment.Theyappealtotheirsensethatautonomousthinkingisnatu-
ralandcorrectwhentheycondemnaChristianapproachascircularand
14
SomeoftheseissuesareaddressedinInerrancy and Worldview,especiallychaps.56onhistory.
15
SeePoythress,Inerrancy and Worldview,chaps.3436.
86
irrational.Theyappealtoautonomytoestablishautonomy.Sowhoisbeing
circular
Presuppositionalapologeticshasdiscussedmattersofallegedcircularity
atlength.
16
Ultimatecommitmentsbynatureareultimate.Sothecircular-
itythatbelongstoChristianfaithactuallyappearsinanalogouswaysin
allhumanliving.Weneednotgointoitallhere.Themainpointisthat
autonomouscircularityhas,inmoderntimesintheWesternworld,cometo
seemcompletelynormal,notonlytoindividualsdesiringtobethemastersof
theirworld,buttoawholeculturalatmosphere.Thenormalityofitmakes
itmostlyunnoticed,whileChristiancommitmentsstandout.Againstthe
backgroundofstandardculturalassumptions,suchcommitmentsappear
asnotonlydifferentoroddbutperverse.Thefeelingofnormalityandthe
judgmentthatChristiansaremistakenprovesnothingexceptthedepthof
moderncaptivitytosinfuldelusion.
Principles concerning Confidence and Doubt
Wemaysummarizeourreflectionsintheseprinciples:
1. An attitude of receptivity
ChristiansshouldreadtheGospelsforwhattheyare,thewordofGod.We
maybeconfidentthattheyaretruthful.
2. No neutrality
Christiansindialoguewithdoubtersandunbelieversshouldnotpretendto
beneutral,butacknowledgewhatitmeanstofollowChristinthearenaof
thoughtandknowledge.
3. Autonomy
One principal obstacle to understanding the Gospels is the desire for
autonomy.
16
SeethediscussionofcircularityinJohnM.Frame,Te Doctrine of the Knowledge of God(Phillipsburg,
NJ:PresbyterianandReformed,1987),12933.
87
12
Seeking God
Godcaresaboutourattitudes.Godopposestheproud,butgivesgracetothe
humble(James4:6).
1
InthepreviouschapterwementionedMatthew11:2527,
whereJesusindicatesthatknowledgeofGodcomestohumblechildren.
Prayer for Understanding
SinceweneedGodtogiveusunderstanding,weshouldcometohimnot
onlyhumbly,butprayerfully.Weshouldaskforunderstanding.Askingis
importantGodwantstobeasked:Ask,anditwillbegiventoyou,seek,
andyouwillfind,knock,anditwillbeopenedtoyou.Foreveryonewho
asksreceives,andtheonewhoseeksfinds,andtotheonewhoknocksit
willbeopened(Matt.7:78).
Andyetaskingisnotthewholeofit.Jameswarnsthatsomekindsofasking
remainfruitless:Youaskanddonotreceive,becauseyouaskwrongly,to
spenditonyourpassions(James4:3).Thelanguagespenditonyourpas-
sionsmaymakeusthinkfirstaboutsomeoneprayingtoobtainanexpensive
newcaroraplushnewjobortheaffectionsofadesiredperson,thatis,a
prayerforpleasureormaterialwell-being.Butungodlypassionscaninterfere
alsowiththelifeofthemind.DowewanttounderstandtheGospelsfor
thesakeofthegloryofGodandtoloveChristmore,ordowewanttolook
betterandwiserinourowneyesandintheeyesofadmirersEvenourgood
1
SeeVernS.Poythress,Inerrancy and Worldview: Answering Modern Challenges to the Bible(Wheaton,
IL:Crossway,2012),chap.33.
88
works,includingourpursuitofknowledgeofGod,becomecontaminated
withsinfuldesiresthatminglewithgodliness.Christiansstillneedthemercy
ofGod.Weneedhisforgivenessforhiddensinsaswellasforopensins.
Soweshouldincludeaprayerforgodliness.Weshouldpraythatwewill
seekGodfortherightreasons.Weshouldpraythat,beingmadepureinheart,
weshallseeGod(Matt.5:8).Theprincipleinthebeatitudesthatweshallsee
GodprobablyappliesprimarilytoseeingGodintheconsummation,inthenew
heavensandthenewearth.But,whenappliedinabroaderway,theprinciplehas
relevanceforseeingGodinametaphoricalsensebyunderstandinghimandhav-
ingcommunionwithhimthroughhisWord,includinghiswordintheGospels.
Punishment of the Wayward
Thesameprincipleappliesinreversetopeoplewhoseheartsoperatein
rebellionagainstGod.TheirheartsarenotintunewithGod,andthedesires
oftheirheartsareopposedtoactuallyseekingGod.Howevermuchthey
maylearnaboutcertainaspectsoftheGospels,theymissthemainpoint
communionwithGodthroughChrist.Theydonotunderstand.
Thelackofunderstandinghasmorethanonecause,onmorethanone
level.Onthedivinelevel,peopleinrebelliondonotunderstandbecause
Godbringsajudgmentofdarknessonthemaspunishmentfortheirrebel-
lionandunbelief.
ThewrathofGodisrevealedfromheavenagainstallungodlinessandunrigh-
teousnessofmen,whobytheirunrighteousnesssuppressthetruth.(Rom.1:18)
AndsincetheydidnotseefittoacknowledgeGod,Godgavethemuptoa
debased mindtodowhatoughtnottobedone.(Rom.1:28)
Wereadofaparticularlyintensecasein2Thessalonians2.
ThereforeGodsends them a strong delusion,sothattheymaybelievewhatis
false,inorderthatallmaybecondemnedwhodidnotbelievethetruthbut
hadpleasureinunrighteousness.(2Thess.2:1112)
Next,onthehumanlevel,peopledonotunderstandbecausetheirhearts
arenotintunewiththethingsofGod.
ThenaturalpersondoesnotacceptthethingsoftheSpiritofGod,fortheyare
follytohim,andheisnotabletounderstandthembecausetheyarespiritually
discerned.(1Cor.2:14)
89
SeekingGod
They[Gentiles,unbelievers]aredarkenedintheirunderstanding,alienated
fromthelifeofGodbecauseoftheignorancethatisinthem,duetotheir
hardness of heart.(Eph.4:18)
Finally,Satanandhisagentsacttoconfuseandblocktrueunderstanding.
ThecomingofthelawlessoneisbytheactivityofSatanwithallpowerand
falsesignsandwonders,andwithallwickeddeception for those who are perish-
ing,becausetheyrefusedtolovethetruthandsobesaved.(2Thess.2:910)
Andevenifourgospelisveiled,itisveiledtothosewhoareperishing.Intheir
casethe god of this world [Satan] has blinded the mindsoftheunbelievers,to
keepthemfromseeingthelightofthegospelofthegloryofChrist,whois
theimageofGod.(2Cor.4:34)
Godmayperhapsgrantthem[opponentsofthegospel]repentanceleadingtoa
knowledgeofthetruth,andtheymaycometotheirsensesandescapefromthe
snare of the devil, after being captured by himtodohiswill.(2Tim.2:2526)
...andbythesignsthatit[theFalseProphetasanagentofSatan]isallowed
toworkinthepresenceofthebeastitdeceivesthosewhodwellonearth,tell-
ingthemtomakeanimageforthebeastthatwaswoundedbytheswordand
yetlived.(Rev.13:14)
Humanhardnessofheartandsatanicdeceitbecomemeansinthehands
ofGodbywhichheworksjudgmentagainstunbelief.
Pertinence for Believers
ThepassageswehavejustcitedfromtheBiblemostlydealwithovertunbe-
lief.ButcovertunbelieflurksevenintherecessesofthemindsofChristians.
Allthemoredoweneedtopray,notonlyfordeliverancefromsinandfor
purityofheart,butforgracefromGodinthemidstofremainingsin.Such
seekingofGodmakessensewhenwereckonwiththefactthateversince
thefallofAdam,ourheartsandmindshavebeenworkingcorruptly,even
whentheyworkverycleverly.Evenafterourmindsarerenewedthrough
unionwithChristandtheSpiritofGod(Rom.12:12,Col.3:10),there
remainsubtlecorruptions,andweremainabnormalincomparisonwith
whatwewerecreatedtobe.
WegrowinunderstandingtheGospelsorotherpartsoftheBiblethrough
Godsworkindeliveringusfromsinfulcorruptionsthatinterferewithour
humblyreceivingwhatGodsays.
90
13
Limitations in Human
Knowledge
EvenwhenwestudytheGospelscarefully,prayerfully,andattentively,we
donotunderstandeverything.Andwhatwedounderstand,westilldonot
understandtotheverybottom.Weremainhumanandfinite,andcontami-
natedbysin.Weremainlimitedinknowledge.Theselimitationsoperate
inallourunderstandingoflife,includingourunderstandingoftheBible.
Limitations with Respect to Issues in Harmonization
MostoftheissuesinharmonizationintheGospelshavetodowithappar-
enthistoricaldiscrepanciesordifferencesbetweentwoormoreaccounts
intheGospels.BecausetheGospelsareGodswords,weoughttobelieve
thateachaccountineachGospelgivesustruthaboutwhathappenedand
itssignificance.AndbyGodswisdomeachaccountcontainsresourcesthat
helpustounderstandGodandtolovewhatwecometounderstand.We
shouldconfidentlybelievethatGodknowswhatheissayingandthatheis
speakingtruthfullyateverypointwhenwereadtheGospels.
Butwesometimesstilldonotknowhowitallfitstogether.Howdowe
holdtogetherapparentlydiscrepantaccountsIfweknewabouttheevents
inmassivedetail,andifwehaddirectaccesstoGodsmindordirectanswers
fromGodtoallthequestionswemightask,wecouldbeconfidentthatwe
wouldseethesolutiontomanydifficulties.
91
LimitationsinHumanKnowledge
ThingsrelatedtoGodsinfinityandeverythingrelatestoGodsinfin-
ityincludemystery.WewillneverbecomeGod.Wewillneverunderstand
exhaustively,inthesamewaythatGodunderstandshimself.Butifweknew
enoughdetailsandenoughofhismindyetstillwithinthecapacityofour
finitenessmanyofourdifficultieswouldhaveaclearsolution.
WeknowthatGodknowsallthesolutions.Yetwecannotdemandaclear
solutiontoallourdifficultiesrightnow.Wedonothavemassiveinformative
detailabouteachepisoderecordedintheGospels.Wehaveonlywhatthe
Gospelsthemselveschoosetotellus.Andwehavecertainbitsofextrabiblical
knowledge,whicharemoreorlessreliablebutnotinfallible.Forexample,we
canfindoutaboutJewishcustomsofthetimes,thegeographyofPalestine,
thepracticesofgovernmentintheRomanEmpire,andtheviewsofvarious
partieslikethePharisees,theSadducees,andtheEssenes.Wetrytopiece
italltogether.
Godknowsallthedetailsaboutwhathappened.Itallmakessenseinhis
mind.Butwehaveourpiecemealknowledge.WecannotinsistbeforeGod
thathemustalwaysgiveusenoughinformationinordertosolveordis-
solveallthedifficultiesthatweperceive.HeisGod.Hedoesashepleases
(Ps.115:3).Heactsaccordingtotheinfinitudeofhiswisdom,awisdomthat
hehasrevealedinawonderfulandspectacularwayinthemysteryofthe
crucifixionandresurrectionofChrist.Heiswise,butwecannotalwayssee
thatwhenwewanttohavemoreinformationthantheGospelsprovide.We
mustpatientlysubmittohiswisdominsuchcases.
Thismeansthatwemaynotalwaysbeabletoenvisionawaytoexplain
theeventssothatwecansee(ratherthanjustbelieve)thatthevariousGospel
accountsareinharmony.Evenifwestruggleandworkhardandresearch
wellandprayardently,wemaystillhavetosay,IdontknoworIcant
yetseehowtheyharmonize.Thatisthekindoflifewearein.Wearefinite
anddonotknowallthereistoknow.Nordoweknowallwewouldliketo
knoworallthatwethinkinourwisdomweshouldknowinordertolive
mosteffectivelyasChristians.Wemustbecontent(Phil.4:11)toletGodbe
Godandnottoinsistthatwehavetheprivilegeoflookingoverhisshoulder
inordertocheckoutwhetherhehasitright.
OLovo,myheartisnotliftedup,
myeyesarenotraisedtoohigh,
Idonotoccupymyselfwiththings
toogreatandtoomarvelousforme.
ButIhavecalmedandquietedmysoul,
likeaweanedchildwithitsmother,
likeaweanedchildismysoulwithinme.
92
OIsrael,hopeintheLovo
fromthistimeforthandforevermore.(Psalm131)
Butsupposethataftercarefulworkandprayer,wedocomeupwitha
harmonization.Usuallywecanonlysaythatourproposedsolutionispossible
ormaybeprobable.Aharmonizationfillsindetailstakenfrommorethanone
account.Andinsofillingin,itaddstowhattheBibledirectlysays.Butthere
maybeotherpossiblewaysthatthedetailsfrommultipleaccountscould
fittogether.Weshouldnotpretendinthissituationtobemoreconfident
thanwehavearighttobe.
The Ultimacy of the Gospels
AnyoneaccountwithinoneGospelisstillcompletelytrue.Wecantrustwhat
itsays.Weknowsomethinginfact,agooddeal.Butwecannotconfidently
fillinallthedetails.Aswehaveobserved(chap.6),theaccountswithinthe
Gospels,becausetheyareGodsownword,alwaysremainmoreultimate
thanahypotheticalreconstructionthatweundertaketoprovideonthe
basisofseveralGospels,becauseourreconstructionbringsinspeculative
elements.GodchosetopresenttheaccountsastheyareintheGospels.We
donotneedtogobehindthemtogettherealtruth.Wealreadyhavethe
realtruthineachGospelaccount.Butwehavetherealtruthinthecontext
ofremainingmysteriesconcerningdetailsandconcerningimplications.That
isthewayitisinlisteningtoGodsWord,notonlyintheGospels,butevery
biblicaltext.GodinvitesustocomedeeperintohisWordandtodeepen
ourfellowshipwithhim.Thuswemaysummarize:
1. Finiteness
Nothavingalltheanswersispartofoursituationasfinitecreatures.
2. Having enough
Wedonotneedalltheanswers.Scriptureisasufficientinfallibleguidefor
faithandlife.
3. Mystery
WehaveknowledgethroughtheGospelsinthecontextofremainingmystery.
Wedonothaveallthedetails,norcanwealwaysknowdefinitivelyhowthe
differentaccountsintheGospelsfittogether.
93
Limitations in Apologetics
WhatdowedoinaddressingunbelieversInapologeticdialogueswith
unbelievers,wemustsimplydothebestwecan.Wemustremainconsis-
tentwithourcommitmenttobeingfollowersofChrist,consistentwithour
understandingofthefollyofunbelief,andconsistentwiththecompassion
thatweshouldhavetowardpeoplewhoareonaveragenobetterorworse
thanwewouldbeapartfromthegraceofGod.
Itisnoteasy.Wearetemptedeithertobecomeunrighteouslyirritated
atthefollyofunbelieversortosympathizesomuchwiththeirfollythatwe
nolongerconsideritfolly.Wecompromisewithunbeliefbyslidingpast
itssinfulnessandtooeasilyagreeing.Orwecompromisebyadoptinga
pretendedneutralapproach.Whenwehaveadialoguewithpeoplewho
inhabitanunbelievingcontext,wehavetobediscerningaboutwhatisfolly
andwhatisagrainoftruthperhapsevenatruththatweourselveshave
notyetacknowledged.Apologeticsishard,andthereismuchtobesaid.
WithrespecttotheGospelsandtheirharmonization,wemustavoid
expectingtoomuchorpromisingtoomuch.Wecannotguaranteethatwe
cansolveallharmonizationproblemseventoourownsatisfaction,much
lesstothesatisfactionofanunbeliever.Itispartofourfinitenessthatwe
havetosay,Idonotknow.Sometimes,ofcourse,unbelievershaveaspecific
problemwithoneortwopassages.Andsometimeswemaybeabletohelpby
offeringapossibleharmonization.Butweshouldadmitthatourharmoniza-
tionisonlyapossibility.Wedonotknowittobethedefinitiveexplanation.
Atothertimesanunbelieversobjectionsmaybemorefar-reaching.He
wantstocheckouteverythingandhaveallproblemssolvedbeforehe
seriouslyconsiderschanginghislife.Doesthischeckingoutincludethe
principleofautonomousthoughtunderneathManytimesitdoes.Then
thecheckingoutcanneverleadtofaith,becausetheunderlyingattitude
alreadyrebelsagainstsubmittingtoGodsways.Asopportunityoffers,we
maystillexplainhowwedealwithapparentdiscrepancies.Butwemayalso
findanoccasiontoindicategentlyandfirmlythatthedeepestproblemlies
elsewhere.Unlessanunbelieverseestheproblemsofhisownlifeandhis
ownwould-beautonomyasmorelife-threateningthantheallegedproblems
intheGospels,onahumanplaneheisunlikelytowarmuptothemystery
ofthegospel.
Moreover,weshouldreadilyacknowledgetounbelieversthatwehave
placedourfaithinChristandhavetrustedintheGospelsandtheiraccounts
becausetheyareGodsword.Wehavegiventhistrustandthiscommit-
mentbeforewehavesolvedalltheproblems.Thatispartofwhatitmeans
torejectautonomyinthought.WerejecttheserpentsinvitationtoEveto
94
judgeforherselfindependentofGodsword.Thatispartofwhatitmeans
tobeadiscipleofChrist.Ifthiskindoftopiccomesupfordiscussionin
apologeticsandofcourseitmaynotitisjustaswellthatanunbeliever
knowsomethingaboutthecostofdiscipleship(Luke14:2633).
Dialogue with Fellow Christians Who Are Not Sure
Analogousprinciplesapplywhenweareindialoguewithfellowbelievers
whohavedoubts.Wehavealreadyspokenaboutdoubts.Theyareofmany
kinds.Weshouldnotdealwithotherpeoplesdoubtsinawaythatsuggests
thatweareimmunefromdoubtsourselves,includingdoubtsthatembody
sinfulattitudes.Wearesavedbygrace.Thatisagoodprincipleneverto
forget,butrathertoapplytothewholeChristianlife,notjustitsbeginning.
WemayaddressdoubtsabouttheclaimsoftheGospelsonseverallevels:
byofferingevidencefortheirbeingthewordofGod,byofferingpossible
harmonizationsthataddressallegeddiscrepancies,andbytalkingabout
generalprinciplesforaddressingdifficulties,moreorlessaswearedoing
inthisbook.Muchdependsonthepersonweareaddressing.Peoplehavea
varietyofstrugglesanddoubts.Somepeoplearemoretroubledemotionally.
Othersaremoretroubledintellectually.Notallofthedoubtsarenecessarily
sinful.Somearetrials,inwhichSatanandhisagentsassailabeliever,but
thebelieverhasnotyetgivenin.
ItisneverwrongtobehonestbeforeGodaboutwhereweareinour
struggles.Itissometimesnotwisetorevealtoomuchofourstrugglestoa
fellowbelieverwhohaslittleunderstandingorsympathy.Orafellowbeliever
maybepronetoweaknessinthisareaandfallintotemptationhimselfrather
thanhelpingusout.ButwecanoftenfindhelpfromthebodyofChrist,
whichGodgaveusforouredification.Especiallygodlypastors,scholars,
andwisepeoplefrompreviousgenerationsmayhelp.
RespondingtotheBible,aswehavealreadyindicated,involvesethical
responsibility.WehaveresponsibilitybeforeGod.Somattersofdoubtneed
tobeaddressedethically,usingthenormative,situational,andexistential
perspectives.Somepeoplemaybehelpedbyemphasisonthenorms,such
asGodstruthfulnessandourobligationtotrusthim.Othersmaybehelped
byemphasisonthesituation,whichincludesamodernculturalatmosphere
ofautonomy,thefinitenessofourknowledge,andourvulnerabilitytotemp-
tation.Othersmaybehelpedbyemphasisontheexistentialaspect.With
themwemaytalkaboutattitudesofautonomyandpride,orsubmission
andhumility,ordistressandcomfort,ordoubtandconfidence.Allthese
95
areopentoGodsinspection,evenwhenhumanbeingsdonotfullyknow
whatisgoingonintheirhearts.
ForthewordofGodislivingandactive,sharperthananytwo-edgedsword,
piercingtothedivisionofsoulandofspirit,ofjointsandofmarrow,anddis-
cerningthethoughtsandintentionsoftheheart.Andnocreatureishidden
fromhissight,butallarenakedandexposedtotheeyesofhimtowhomwe
mustgiveaccount.(Heb.4:1213)
ThissameholyGodhascompassionandmercyinChrist,evenwhenhe
looksontheuglinessandunholinessofsinfulattitudes.Letusthenwith
confidencedrawneartothethroneofgrace,thatwemayreceivemercyand
findgracetohelpintimeofneed(Heb.4:16).
96
14
Intellectual Suffering
Whathappenswhenwedonotsucceedinexplaininganapparentdiscrepancy
intheGospelsorelsewhereintheBibleWecontinueworking,inthehope
thatwewillfindaresolutionandthusadvanceourunderstandingofwhat
Godsays.Wemayworkforalongtime.Often,effortoftherightkindyields
fruit.Butsupposenothingcomes.Orwefindthatotherpeoplebeforeushave
suggestedsolutions,butnoneofthemseemsattractive.Noneseemsright.
Thenmaybeweshouldjustgoontosomeothertask.Weallhavelimited
timeonthisearth,andwemustusethattimefruitfully:Lookcarefullythen
howyouwalk,notasunwisebutaswise,makingthebestuseofthetime,
becausethedaysareevil(Eph.5:1516).Ifwehavetoabandonourefforts
withoutfruit,ithelpsifwekeepinmindthewaysofGodwetouchedonin
thepreviouschapter.Goddoesnotguaranteeorpromisethatweasfinite
creatureswillalwaysfindsatisfyinganswerstoallourquestions,evenour
questionsabouttheBible.Itisforhimtodecidehowmuchinformation
andhowmuchinsightwehave.Wewalkbyfaith,notbysight(2Cor.5:7).
Struggles
Sometimes,dependingonthecircumstancesandthepeopleinvolved,we
mayfindthatwecannotjustwalkawayfromadifficulty.Ittroublesus.It
eatsonourmind.Oritdepressesus.Perhapsittemptsustogreaterdoubts.
Thequestionrisesinourmind(atemptationfromSatan),Maybethisisnot
reallyGodsword.OrmaybeyouhavetoreassesshowGodcommunicates
97
IntellectualSuering
tohumanbeings,maybeheadoptserroneouschannelsforhispurposes.
Sometimessuchthoughtsdonottroubleus.Theyjustflitthroughthemind
andoutagain.Butsometimestheystay.Whethertheydostaydependsbut
onwhatWedonotalwaysknow.Wedonotknowourselvestotheverybot-
tom.NordoweknowthepurposesofGodtothebottom.Nordoweknow
whenforhisownwiseandsovereignpurposesGodmaypermittemptations
fromthevoiceofSatanorhisdemonstoassailus.Wedonotknowallthe
hiddensinsburiedinourhearts.
Intellectual Suffering
Intellectualsufferingforbelieversdoesnotalwaysoccurmerelybecause
oftheirfoolishnessorpride.LookatJob.Hesufferedinthebodyfromhis
sores(Job2:78).Hesufferedemotionalgrieffromthelossofhischildren
andhispossessions(Job1:1319).Hesufferedintellectuallybecauseofthe
barbsofhisfriends,Eliphaz,Bildad,andZophar.Hesufferedspiritually
becauseGoddidnotansweratleastnotimmediatelyandwhatGodwas
doingtohimmadenosensetohim.
Abrahamdidnotknowalltheanswerswhenhewasabouttosacrifice
Isaac(Heb.11:1719).ItseemedtomakenosensethatGodwouldcommand
himtosacrificetheverysonwhowasheirtoGodsownpromises.
ThepsalmistinPsalm73strugglesovertheprosperityofthewicked.
ForIwasenviousofthearrogant
whenIsawtheprosperityofthewicked.
Fortheyhavenopangsuntildeath,
theirbodiesarefatandsleek.
Theyarenotintroubleasothersare,
theyarenotstrickenliketherestofmankind....
ButwhenIthoughthowtounderstandthis,
itseemedtomeawearisometask,
untilIwentintothesanctuaryofGod,
thenIdiscernedtheirend.(Ps.73:35,1617)
Psalm73isnotableforitswrestlingwithwhythewickedprosper.Quitea
fewotherpsalmswrestlewithwhytherighteoussufferinparticular,why
thepsalmisthimselfissuffering.MyGod,myGod,whyhaveyouforsaken
me(Ps.22:1).
98
Suffering in Fellowship with Christ
Theinfluencesofsinandevilintheworldaremany.Sinandevilproduce,
asoneindirectresult,mentalconflictforthebeliever.Believerssometimes
strugglewiththeirfaith,withanapparentabsenceofGod,withtension
betweenGodspromisesandhisdelayinfulfillingthem,withthefactthat
sufferingcomestotherighteous.Thissufferingincludesmentalsufferingin
circumstanceswherebelieversdonotfindimmediateintellectualanswersto
theirquestions.AllthissufferingcomestoaclimaxinthesufferingofChrist
onthecross.Andthatsuffering,thoughitcanbedoctrinallyexplained,isalso
mysterious,inthesensethatweashumanbeingsneverfathomthebottom
ofitorcompletelytakeitin.Itseemsfoolishtotheworld.
Insomeofthepsalms,aswellasinJob,thementalsufferingsinclude
mentalanguishoverthetensionbetweenGodspromisesandhisseeming
inactionwhentherighteoussuffer.Righteoussuffererscryout,Howlong
(Ps.13:12),WhydoyouhideyourfaceiWhydoyouforgetourafflic-
tionandoppression(Ps.44:24),Why,OLovo,doyoustandfaraway
(Ps.10:1).ThesepsalmistsstrugglewithhowallGodspromisescouldfit
togetherharmoniously.Maybeweshouldnotbeshockedtofindthatitcan
attimesbedesperatelyhardforustofitdisparateScripturestogether,and
tofitthemtogetherwithourownlives,particularlywhenwearestruggling
withtemptationtodoubtGod.
Sointellectualstrugglesprovideaglimpse,offeredbyGodhimself,into
thesufferingsofothers,likethosewhocryoutinthePsalms.According
totheNewTestament,thePsalmspointforwardtoChrist.Therighteous
sufferinginthePsalmsanticipatesandforeshadowsthesufferingofthe
oneuniquelyrighteoussufferer,Christonthecross.InhisanguishChrist
criedout,MyGod,myGod,whyhaveyouforsakenme(Ps.22:1).This
cryseemstoshowthatChristsrelationtothePsalmsincludesarelation
totheelementofintellectualsufferinginthePsalms.DarewethinkitDid
Christhimselfsufferinthisintellectualwayalsoasaman,yetwithoutsin
(Heb.4:15)Whatdoesitmeanthathecriedout,MyGod,myGod,why
haveyouforsakenmeWhatdoesthewhymeanDidSatanattackhim
withdoubts
Christrepulsedtheattacks,whatevertheywere.Hedidnotsuccumb
whentempted.ButSatandidtempthim,accordingtoMatthew4:110.Did
Christsufferevenmoreintenselythanwedowhenweexperienceintellectual
strugglesIsthisoneaspectofourbeinggiventheprivilegeofsharinghis
sufferings(Phil.3:10)Withaweandreverence,wemayunderstandhow
intimatelyChristsympathizeswithourweaknesses(Heb.4:1516).
99
IntellectualSuering
Dying and Rising with Christ
Intellectualaswellasspiritualgrowthcomesinahealthywaythroughunion
withChrist.Thiskindofintellectualgrowthmeansdyingandrisingwith
Christ.Inasense,thedyingandrisingwithChristtakesplaceonce,when
webecomeChristiansandarefirstunitedtohim(Rom.6:4,8,Col.2:20,
3:1).Butthepatternisthenrepeated,inalowerkeyasitwere,throughout
thislife.
...alwayscarryinginthebodythedeathofJesus,sothatthelifeofJesusmay
alsobemanifestedinourbodies.Forwewholivearealwaysbeinggivenover
todeathforJesussake,sothatthelifeofJesusalsomaybemanifestedinour
mortalflesh.Sodeathisatworkinus,butlifeinyou.(2Cor.4:1012)
Godandmanhavebeenreconciled,andsotherewillbefruitinthe
progressivereconciliationtakingplaceinourhearts.Ourheartsbecome
reconciledtoGodnotonlyinthesensethatGodforgivesoursins,butin
thesensethatourheartscomemoreandmoreintosubmissionandcon-
formitytothemindofGodandofChrist,whoistheLogos,expressing
himselfinScripture.Christcallsusashisdisciplestobearourcrossdaily
thatwemayknowhim[Christ]andthepowerofhisresurrection,and
maysharehissufferings,becominglikehiminhisdeath(Phil.3:10).We
maythereforeexpecttohaveourmindsandourhermeneuticalprinciples
andallthatisintellectuallydeartoussufferandbecrucifiedandraised,
intheprocessofhavingourmindsconformedtotherationalityofthe
Logos(Rom.12:12).IntellectualanguishamongGodspeopleisforour
good(Heb.12:511).
WemayconcludethatintellectualdifficultieswiththeBiblearenot,in
theend,alientothemysteryofthesufferingofChrist.InknowingGods
Wordweknowtruly,butnottransparently,andnotwithoutbeingbesetby
mentalanguishattimes.Allthesereflectionshaveaplacewithinorthodox
thinkingabouttheunityoftheteachingofScripture.
Intellectual Pride
WhydopeopleavoidtherouteofintellectualsufferingPartoftheanswer
isthatweareprotectiveofourowncomfortandpreferacertainkindof
intellectualcomforttomentalsuffering.Butthereisanother,complemen-
taryanswerthatalsogetsclosetotherootofthematter.Humansinalways
hasatitsroothumanprideandself-centeredness.YouwillbelikeGod,
Satanpromises(Gen.3:5).Andoneformofprideinintellectualcircleslike
thoseofbiblicalscholarshipisintellectualpride.Humanintellectualpride
100
reflectsadesiretobelikeGodinthearenaofknowledge.Apersonwants
tobeautonomousinknowledge,bothinordertositinjudgmentonalleged
revelationsfromGodandtobeabletoescapetheclaimsofGod(whenthey
proveuncomfortable)throughintellectualexcuses.
Spiritual War
Temptationssometimesfindaholdbecauseweleavehiddensininour
lives,andthisremainingsinbecomesakeypointofentryformoretemp-
tation.Thesameistruefortemptationsofanintellectualsort.Wemay
haveinourheartsaremnantofintellectualpride.Wetellourselvesthat
wearesmartandthatwecanfigureoutthisorthatapparentdiscrepancy
intheBible.Thedisappointmentinnotfiguringitoutopensaplatform
fortemptation.Theremnantofautonomyinourheartsays,Iwilldecide
onwhattermsanswerswillcome,andinthiscaseIinsistthatananswer
mustcome.SuchautonomypresumestotellGodwhathemustdo.And
then the heart may say, If I find no answer, there is no answer. This
reasoninghasunderneathittheattitudethatthehumanmindisthefinal
arbiterforanswers.Itsays,ThispieceintheBiblerepresentsanerror,it
isnottrustworthy.
Suchthoughtsmaygothroughourmindsevenasourmindspartlyshrink
backfromthem.Amentalwarrages.Itisaninstanceofspiritualwarfare.
Finally,bestrongintheLordandinthestrengthofhismight.Putonthewhole
armorofGod,thatyoumaybeabletostandagainsttheschemesofthedevil.
Forwedonotwrestleagainstfleshandblood,butagainsttherulers,against
theauthorities,againstthecosmicpowersoverthispresentdarkness,against
thespiritualforcesofevilintheheavenlyplaces.Thereforetakeupthewhole
armorofGod,thatyoumaybeabletowithstandintheevilday,andhaving
doneall,tostandfirm.Standtherefore,havingfastenedonthebeltoftruth,
andhavingputonthebreastplateofrighteousness,and,asshoesforyourfeet,
havingputonthereadinessgivenbythegospelofpeace.Inallcircumstances
takeuptheshieldoffaith,withwhichyoucanextinguishalltheflamingdarts
oftheevilone,andtakethehelmetofsalvation,andtheswordoftheSpirit,
whichisthewordofGod,prayingatalltimesintheSpirit,withallprayerand
supplication.Tothatendkeepalertwithallperseverance,makingsupplication
forallthesaints.(Eph.6:1018)
Theequipmentforthewarisjustwhatthepassagedescribes.Knowledge
ofthegospelandofGodandhisWordarevital.Thebattleisnoteasyour
wholeheartisinvolved.
101
IntellectualSuering
Accumulations in Situational and Personal Perspective
Sometimesdoubtsandtemptationstakeholdnotafteroneapparentdifficulty,
butafteranaccumulationofthem.Astudentfromabelievingbackground
mayattendacollegeoraseminarywhereprofessorsprofesstobepiousbut
raindownonthestudentanever-largeraccumulationofdifficultiesaboutthe
Bible.PerhapstheyenlistmultipleinstancesofdiscrepanciesintheGospels.
Theyalsopromoteanatmosphereorframeworkforknowledgeandinves-
tigationthatredefinesthesignificanceofsuchapparentdiscrepancies.The
professorsoffertotelluswhathassignificance,howweassessit,andwhya
modernist,postmodernist,materialist,neoorthodox,orotherframework
makesthemostsense.
Astudentinsuchasettingneedstoassessthesituationandnotnaively
concedethatitisgivinghimtherightnorms.Thestudentneedsnorma-
tivelytoaskwhetherGodiscallinghimtoremaininasituationwhenhe
hasthefreedomtowalkaway.Hemaygotosomeotherschoolandlearn
frompeoplewhomtheBiblepronounceswiser(Prov.1:7).Heneedstoask
existentiallywhetherhisprideinhiscapabilitieskeepshiminasituation
thathenormativelyshouldavoid.
Intellectualpridecanexposeus.WhenIwasinadoctoralprogramin
NewTestament,IwasconcentratingonthewritingsoftheapostlePaul
andhistheology.Iremembervividlytothisdayonebookthathadplayed
aprominentroleinthehistoryofscholarlythinkingaboutPaul.Iwillnot
mentionwhichone.IjudgedthatIhadtoreaditbecauseitrepresentedquite
originalthinkinginitstime.Ireadthroughitall,butfoundmyselfhaving
toreaditinsmallpiecesbecauseitmademealmostphysicallysickbyits
blasphemousattitude.
Anordinarybeliever,Iwouldsay,shouldputsuchabookdownafterafew
pagesonceitstendencybecomesvisible.Thereisnoneedtodootherwise,
andnotimeeither.Wemustusethetimewisely(Eph.5:16).Wemustbe
circumspect,ratherthanshowpridebyreadinganythingandeverythingand
showingthatwearesmartenoughandhardyenoughtosurvive.
1
Finally,
brothers,whateveristrue,whateverishonorable,whateverisjust,whateveris
pure,whateverislovely,whateveriscommendable,ifthereisanyexcellence,
ifthereisanythingworthyofpraise,thinkaboutthesethings(Phil.4:8).I
neverthelessreadthebookbecauseIjudgedthattheLordwascallingme
tospecializedwork.AndIbelievethattheLordprotectedme,partlybythe
1
IL:Crossway,2009),chap.21.
102
physicalrevulsionthatheallowedthebooktoproduceinme.Thephysical
revulsionhelpedtowarnmeagainstitsspiritualpoison.
Imentionthiscasebecauseitisbettertowalkawayfromsoul-destroying
attacksincollegeorseminaryordoctoralworkthantopressonpridefullyto
provetoyourselfandothersyourintellectualabilityandspiritualstamina.I
amnotsayingthatapersonshouldretreatintoaghettowherehenolonger
asksorhearschallengingquestions.Iamsayingthatapersonmayhave
tostepbackforawhileinordertohavetimeandthoughtandprayerand
resourcesfromothergodlypeople,andaboveallfromGod.Resourcesthat
theHolySpiritprovidesenableapersoninthelongruntogrowinabili-
tiesnotonlytoresisttemptationhimselfbutalsotoimpartskillsthathelp
inrescuingothers.Thereisaspiritualwaron,myfriends,andintellectual
attackisapartofit.
Pride within Orthodoxy
Mainstreamcriticalscholarshiprepresentsonlyoneformofintellectual
pride.Intellectualpridecanalsocontaminatetheologicalworkwithinthe
orthodoxcamp.Butthetemptationsdifferfromonepersontoanother.
Manypeoplearenottemptedinthisarea.TheyhumblyreceivetheBibleas
Godswordanddonotworryaboutdifficulties.TheysimplytrusttheLord
andareconfidentaboutwhattheBibleteaches.Theyleavetoexpertsthe
considerationofpuzzlesanddifficultiesinharmonization.Theirattitude
iscommendable.
Butwhataboutthosewhodoenterintoaconsiderationofdifficulties
Challengesconfrontthem.Forexample,aBiblestudentmayidentifyhis
humanunderstandingoftheBiblewithdivineunderstanding.Theprideful
orthodoxmaythink,TheBibleissotransparentlycleartomethatIcan
masteritsmeaningasthemeaningofGodwithoutifs,ands,orbuts.Thus
hesubtlytwiststhedoctrineoftheclarityofScriptureintoanabolitionof
theCreator-creaturedistinctionintheareaofepistemology.Hethinks,
WhenIreadtheScriptureinareasonablemood,mythoughtispurely
identicalwithGodsthought.Andsohemakeshimselfdivine,inhispride
andhisimagination,andthenbeginstolorditoverothersonthestrength
ofhisallegeddivineunderstanding.Fewpeopleexercisethiskindofpride
inathoroughgoingway.Butthetendencycanstillbethereinsubtlerforms.
Whenwedealwithdifficultiesinharmonization,thiskindofpridecan
misleadinmorethanonedirection.Inonedirectionlieswoodenharmoni-
zation.Overconfidencecancreateharmonizationaccountsthatareforced
andartificial.Itcanpushtextsindirectionstheydonotinviteoutofpres-
103
IntellectualSuering
suretocomeupwithananswer.Andsometimestheartificialansweristhe
productofartificialstandardsforprecisionorexactitude,standardsthatdo
notfullyappreciatetheGospelsthemselves,withtheirordinarylanguage
andtheiromissionofdetails.
Intheseconddirectionlietemptationsforpeoplewhowanttodeny
thatdifficultiesexist.Suppose,forexample,thatTomdoesnotwantthere
tobeanydifficulties.TomhasarobustdoctrineofScripture,thedoctrine
summarizingtheBiblesteachingaboutitself.Thatisalltothegood.Heis
confidentabouthisdoctrine,butdoesnotwanttoanswerotherpeoples
questionsaboutdetaileddifficulties.Hewouldratherbrushasidethedif-
ficultiesbecausetheycreatetensionswithacomfortableworldofthought
hehasmadeforhimself,inwhichheimaginesthattherearenodifficulties.
Heisimpatientwiththepeoplewhobecometroubledwiththedifficulties.
Hemayimpatientlydismissotherpeoplewithasimplerecipethattheir
questionsareunspiritual.
Mirroring Pride
Infact,intellectualprideamongthecriticsandamongtheorthodoxcanbe
mirrorimagesofoneanother,inthesensethateachcanfeedofftheother.
Theorthodoxinreactiontothecriticspridefulrefusaltosubmittotheplain
meaningofScripturechampionstheplainmeaning,evenwheninparticu-
larcasesitisnotasplainashethinks.Heisangryaboutthecriticssinof
unbelief.Buthisangerisnotwhollyrighteousanger.Itiscontaminatedby
theprideinhissupposedsuperioritytothecritics,inthathehasseenthe
fallacyanddisloyaltytoGodthatunderliecriticalapproaches.Hisrighteous
angermoveshimtodestroytheopponentsheresy.Butthecontamination
byhumanpridetemptshimtotriumphoverautonomousintellectualswith
thepowerofhisownreason,andthismoveconcealsautonomousdesire
onhisownpart.
Andtheconverseholds:thecritic,detectingtheprideandwoodenness
anddefensivenessonthepartoftheorthodox,reactstotheoppositeside
ofthependulum.Throughhisintellectualkeennesshedetectstheintellec-
tualdishonestyinthepridefulorthodox.Hetakesprideinhisintellectual
honestyandinhavingseenthroughtheprouddishonestyofhisopponent.
Hethinksheclearlyseestheproperfixfortheauthoritariandogmatismof
thepridefulorthodox.Sohetriestofixorthodoxybyreinterpreting
actually,misinterpretingthetranscendenceofGodasifitmeantthatGods
thoughtswerecompletelyinaccessible.Hisviewisthatnooneisallowed
tobeauthoritarianbecausenoonecanknow.Andsothecriticattackshis
104
opponent,notwithprinciplesofbiblicaltruth,butwithhisprouddistortion
ofthoseprinciples.
Prideexistsonbothsides:anautonomouslyconceivedbiblicalexegesisis
allowedbymodernisttheologyandneoorthodoxy,adictatorialtheological
dogmatismcanspringupwithintheboundsoforthodoxy.Godgivesusthe
Bibleasalighttomypath(Ps.119:105).Wecanhavegenuineconfidence
whenwereceivehisinstruction.Butthisconfidencecanbepervertedthrough
sinintopride.Thepridefulorthodoxthinkshehasanexactmasteryof
everyquestion,andhecanlookdownonanyonewhodoesnotagreewith
hisopinions.Thepridefulneoorthodox,emphasizingthewhollyhidden
godderivingfromhisconceptionoftranscendence,intendstocutoffthe
prideoftheorthodox.Butheallowsforautonomousreasontofeelthatit
hascompetencetoexposefallibilityanderrorinparticulartextsandintheir
allegeddisharmonywithoneanother.
Wemayillustratetheoperationofpridebyreturningtoourexamplewith
thecenturionsservant.Theorthodoxpersonmightpridefullycomewith
apreconceivedideathattheBiblemustpresentuswithacorrectmental
picture.SincereadingMatthewaloneleadstoamentalpictureinwhichthe
centuriontalksdirectlytoJesus,adirectexchangemusthavetakenplace
subsequenttothemessagesconveyedbytheJewisheldersandthecenturions
friendsinLuke7:110.Intheearlierdiscussionofthesepassages(chap.2),I
haveindicatedthatIthinkitispossiblethatthecenturioncameinpersonat
aseparatestage,butsuchasequenceofeventsshouldnotbeinsistedonas
ifitweretheonlypossibility.Ifsomeoneinsiststhatitistheonlypossibility,
basedonamental-picturetheoryoftruth,Ibelieveheisofferingawooden
harmonization.Itpresumestoexpecttoomuchandhasbecomedistorted
byrelianceontheflawedmental-picturetheory.
Infact,IthinkthesolutionofferedbyAugustineandCalvinismorelikely.
ButtheninmakingthesejudgmentsIamnotcompletelyfreefrompride
myself.Perhapsmypridehasledmetooquicklytodismissalternatives,to
whichIshouldlistenrespectfully.
Ontheotherside,wecanimagineacriticoverconfidentlytakingthe
referencetothecenturionsservantasaclearcaseoferrorthatallegedly
underminestheignorantviewthattheBibleisGodsword.Thecriticis
likelytobebringinginunwarrantedexpectationsandstandardsabouterror
andaboutwhatadivinecommunicationwouldlooklike.Pridemaybeafac-
torkeepinghimfromquestioninghisassumptions,aswellaskeepinghim
fromadmittingthatheneedsasupernaturalremedynotonlyfromhissins
ingeneral,butfromthesinfuleffectsonhisintellectualjudgments.
105
IntellectualSuering
Summary Principles about Suffering
1. The reality of intellectual suffering
Peoplemaysufferintellectuallyandspirituallybecauseofdifficultiesinthe
Bible,includingapparentdiscrepanciesforwhichtheyfindnosatisfying
solutions.
2. Gods understanding in Christ
Godunderstandsoursufferings,andChristourhighpriestsympathizes
withourweaknesses(Heb.4:15).
3. Suffering revealing Christ
Godcanuseintellectualsufferingformakingusgrowinappreciationofthe
sufferingofChristonourbehalf.
4. Pride avoiding suffering
Pridemaytrytoavoidsufferingbyproducingsimplebutheavy-handed
solutions.
106
15
Positive Purposes
for Difficulties
WhydidGodwriteaBiblewithdifficultiesinitSomedoctrines,likethe
doctrineoftheTrinity,areinnatelymysterious.Difficultiesforhumanunder-
standingnecessarilyaccompanysuchadoctrinebecauseGodisinnately
beyondourabilitytocomprehend.ButwhydoesGodincludeintheBible
extra,seeminglyunnecessarydifficultiesliketheapparentdiscrepancies
inMatthewsandLukesaccountsaboutthecenturionsservant
Gods Transforming Us
Godalwaysspeakswisely.Buthedoesnottelluseverythingabouthiswisdom.
Hedoesnottellusallthewhys.Butwemaysometimesgetaglimmering
aboutsomeofthepossibilitiesastowhy.Inthecaseofthecenturionsser-
vant,thedifferenceshelpMatthewtohighlightthecenturionsGentilestatus
andtohighlightthecontrastbetweenhisfaithandJewishunbelief(Matt.
8:1012).LukesmentionoftheeldersoftheJewsandthecontrastbetween
worthy(Luke7:4)andnotworthy(Luke7:6)highlightsthecenturions
humilityandtherebyunderlinestheimportanceofhumilityinthelivesof
thosewhowouldfollowJesus.
Ifwepaycarefulattentiontothedistinctnuancesinthetwoaccounts,we
maybericherthanifwejusthadoneaccount(seechap.2).Thedifficulty
inthedifferencesbetweenthetwoaccountsmaybeusedbyGodtoforce
107
PositivePurposesforDiculties
ustopaycloserattentioninthehopeoffindingsomesolution.Aswepay
attention,Godhashispurposesnotmerelytoprovideinformation,butalso
totransformus.
Engendering Humility
Godmayusethedifficultiesinalessobviousway,notsomuchtoteachthings
thatwemightotherwiseoverlook,buttoengenderhumilityinourattitudes.
Anydifficultythatdoesnotquicklyyieldtoourinvestigationtestifiestothe
factthatGodisgreaterthanweareandthatheunderstandswhatwedonot.
Moreover,whenweconfrontadifficulty,itmaytestwhetherwethinkwe
arerightandGodiswrong.Wethenhaveanopportunityforreflection.We
cantaketimetorememberthatourmentalabilitiesandourdiscernment
andourinsightsbelongunderthesupremacyofGod.
Wemayalsogrowinhumility.Weexercisehumilityifweresistthetempta-
tiontothinkourselvessuperior.Weacknowledgeourweakness,ourfallibility,
ourlimitedknowledge,andthepossibleinterferenceofsin.Weacknowledge
Godssuperiority.WedeepenourworshipofGodandgrowinourdesire
tohonorhimratherthanourselves.Weacknowledgethesethingsbothto
ourselvesandtoGod,and,asappropriate,toothers.
Intellectual Pride
ThedifficultiesintheBibleservetoraisetheissueofpride.Pridereally,
theworshipofselffindsitselfattherootofmanysins.Insomesenseit
maybetherootofthemall.AdamandEvevaluedtheirownjudgmentover
Gods.Andthatwasthebeginningofprideinthehumanrace.Toreconcile
ustoGod,Godhastodestroythatpride.
Shoulditbesurprisingthatinintellectuals,pridefrequentlytakestheform
ofintellectualpride,prideinonesabilitytothink,discern,evaluate,separate
truthfromerrorAfterall,theintellectuals,iftheyallowedthemselvesto
admitit,mightsaythattheyhaveplentytobeproudabout.Theymightsay
thatmentalpowerisworthmorethanmerephysicalpower,asthebuilderof
abomborofaskyscrapercouldsayaboutaditchdigger.Knowledgeispower.
Andmentalpowerispowertogainknowledgeandmasterknowledge.Of
courseitisallthegiftofGod(1Cor.4:7).Butwhatevergiftswemayhave,
wefinditconvenientinpridetoforgetthegiver.
Allpeoplearevulnerabletobeingproudofwhattheyaregoodat.So
intellectualstakeprideinintellectualability.WhenGodrescuesus,hehas
tocrucifythispride.
108
Crucifixion with Christ
Crucifixionmeanspainfuldeath.Christunderwentdeathforoursake.He
borethepunishmentofsinasoursubstitute.Ifwetrustinhim,wearefree
(Rom.8:1).ButChristscrucifixionanddeathapplytousinanotherway.
Wearejoinedwithhim,unitedwithhim,insuchawaythathiscrucifixion
anddeathhaveeffectsintransformingus.Weknowthatouroldselfwas
crucified with himinorderthatthebodyofsinmightbebroughttonothing,
sothatwewouldnolongerbeenslavedtosin(Rom.6:6).Wehavetodieto
prideandtoouroldlife.Intellectualshavetodietointellectualpride.They
havetoundergomental crucifixion.Itisagonizing.Itispossibleonlybecause
Christiswiththem.Heunderwentitfirstnotthathehadanysinfulpride,
butinhiscrucifixionheunderwenttheagonyinordertodeliverusfrom
ourpride.Andthisdeliveranceincludesdeliverancefromintellectualpride.
Thatisonereasonwhysufferingisnecessary.Andforintellectuals,intel-
lectualsufferingisnecessary.Donotbesurprised.Donotseektoavoidthe
Lordsdisciplineinthisarea(Heb.12:314).
Encouraging Faith in God
Intellectualsufferingmayhaveotherbenefits.Godmaybeglorifiedand
honoredinthemidstofsuffering.GlorymaycometoGodinwaysofwhich
wearenotaware.Butinaddition,weourselvesmaybenefit.Wegrowin
faithwhenwelearntotrustGodforwhatwedonotyetunderstand,aswell
astotrusthiminwhatwedounderstandfromhisWord.Difficultcases
challengeusmoreradicallybecausetheyconfrontuswiththechallengeto
trustGodwhenitlooksasthoughhecannotbetrusted.Thisexperience
isnotneworuniquetothepresenttime.WhatdidAbrahamthinkwhen
GodcalledonhimtosacrificeIsaacDiditseemtoAbrahamthatGodwas
nottrustworthyinthisoneinstanceWhatdidDavidthinkwhenhewas
pursuedbySaulWhatdidJobthinkSupremely,whatdidJesusthinkwhen
heconfrontedthecross
Thescoffersatthecrosssaid,HetrustsinGod,letGoddeliverhimnow,
ifhedesireshim.Forhesaid,IamtheSonofGod. (Matt.27:43).Hetrusts
inGod.Yes,hedid.Hedidsoinspiteofthefactthatsuperficiallyallthe
supposedevidenceappearedtoshowthatGodhadabandonedhimand
waslettinghimdieinasituationofhorridinjustice.Superficially,therewas
anintellectualandspiritualdiscrepancybetweenhisbeinglefttodieand
Godsexplicitcommitmenttodelivertherighteous.HetrustedinGod.We
shouldtoo.
109
Inafundamentalway,trustinthematterofintellectualquestionsorhis-
toricaldifficultiesorapparentdiscrepanciesorbiblicalparadoxesremains
partofthegeneralobligationtotrustGodineveryareaoflife.Wehavegood
groundsfortrust,becauseofGodscharacterandthefaithfulnessofhis
Word.Heisinfinitelygood.Wehavegroundsalsointhedemonstrationofhis
goodnessandfaithfulnessthroughouthistory.Supremely,wehavegrounds
inthecrucifixionandresurrectionofChrist.Godshowstherehissupreme
commitmenttorighteousness:Christwasvindicatedandsinreceiveditsdue
paymentinChristassubstitute.Godshowedtherehissupremecommitment
totruth:hispromisesofredemptionprovedtrue,atsupremecosttohimself.
Heshowedhissupremecommitmenttousinthelovethathemanifestedin
thecross.Hedisplayedthegloryofhischaracterandofhislove.
Godshowshisloveforusinthatwhilewewerestillsinners,Christdiedfor
us.(Rom.5:8)
IfGodisforus,whocanbeagainstusHewhodidnotsparehisownSon
butgavehimupforusall,howwillhenotalsowithhimgraciouslygiveusall
thingsWhoshallbringanychargeagainstGodselectItisGodwhojustifies.
Whoistocondemn(Rom.8:3134)
InPaulsexpressionofconfidenceinRomans8,heincludesreflections
aboutsuffering.
WhoshallseparateusfromtheloveofChristShalltribulation,ordistress,
orpersecution,orfamine,ornakedness,ordanger,orswordAsitiswritten,
Foryoursakewearebeingkilledallthedaylong,weareregardedassheepto
beslaughtered.No,inallthesethingswearemorethanconquerorsthrough
himwholovedus.(Rom.8:3537)
WeshouldtrustGodwhenwesuffer.Itgivesusanoccasiontoremem-
berGodspromisesandtoreflectonthewonderinvolvedinthesuffering
ofChristforus.Inparticular,intellectualsufferinggivesusopportunityto
exercisefaithindifficultcircumstances.Sufferingproducesendurance
(Rom.5:3)andothergraces.
Godalsosendstrialstotestpeople.HetestedtheIsraelitesinthewilder-
ness.Testingcanconfirmandstrengthenfaithorreveallackoffaith.What
istruefortestingingeneralistrueforintellectualtestinginparticular.The
difficultiesintheBiblehavepurposes,evenwhenwemaynotbeawareof
thosepurposes.
110
Simple Relief
SomemodernpeoplewhowouldliketohelpouttheChristianfaithattempt
togiveusaneasywayoutofintellectualsuffering.Themostcommonoutlet
consistsinjustgoingalongwiththecrowd.Thevoicesofferingreliefmay
say:Peoplenowadaysjustcantbelievethatoldstuff.Christianitymust
jettisonallitsancientunnecessarybaggageandgetdowntotheessenceof
thematter,whichconsistsinlovingGodandlovingneighborasifthat
allegedessencewereeasy,orasifpracticinglovebyitselfwereananswer
tothethreatofpunishmentforsinsalreadycommitted.
Otherdetractorsoffermoredetailintheirnotionsofhelp.Herearesome
proposals:
The Bible is a mix of good and bad. Accept the fact.
The Bible has errors in it. Just accept it. You can still hold to the main points.
The Bible is merely a human report of divine action or divine revelation. The
difficultiesaremerelytheproductofthehumanchannel.
God is okay with errors in his book as a witness to the humanity of the chan-
nelheuses.
The Bible becomes the word of God when God uses it. There are errors in it,
butthesetoocanbecomeachannelforGodscomingtoyou.Donotconfuse
thechannelwithGod.
Peoplehaveputouttheseandstillotherrecipes.Wemayexpecttoseemore
inthefuture.Andwehavecertainlyseensimilarformulasinthepast.Satans
originaltemptationconsistedinthrowingdoubtonthereliabilityofGods
word(Gen.3:45).Hewillnotgiveuponthiskindofattack.
Peoplewhoputoutsuchrecipesaresearchingforsomewaytolivewith
twosides:(1)Theywantinsomesensetoaffirmareligiouspresenceinthe
Bible,perhapsevenavoicefromGod.(2)Theywanttoassureusthatonce
wehavetheirsolution,thediscrepanciesorourintellectualstrugglesover
thediscrepanciesmayquicklydissolve.Thesepeopleappeartomeanwell.
ManyofthemlookcompassionatelyattheChristiancollegestudentslabor-
ingtoholdupundertheloadsdeliveredbyskepticalprofessors.
Despitetheapparentlygoodintentions,allsuchrecipesappeartoboil
downtooneconclusion:intellectualcrucifixionisnotnecessary.Thiscon-
clusionischeapreligion.Itisalie.Acomfortablelie,butalienonetheless.
Peoplewhohavecomeupwiththeseproposedsolutionsmaydosofor
agreatvarietyofreasons.Someofthemmayhavesufferedintellectual
agoniesthemselvesatanearlierpointintheirlives,whentheyheldtothe
viewthattheBiblewasinfallible.Idonotdepreciatetheirsufferings.But
therenunciationofsufferingshort-circuitsthetruthaboutChristianliving.
111
And,attheendoftheday,itfailsatthecenter:thecrossofChrist.Christ
suffered.AreyouwillingtosufferwithhimAbrahamsufferedwhenhe
wenttoofferupIsaac.
IsaidthatIdonotdepreciatetheagoniesofintellectualsufferingthat
somepeoplemayhavegonethrough.OnlyGodknowsthestoryofeachof
us.ButforthesakeofbalanceIshouldalsonotethatsometimeswegivein
totemptationunderlessviolentcircumstances.Mostofushavenotcome
tothepointofbeingscreamingmartyrsstretchedontherackorwhipped
untilunconscious(Heb.12:4).Instead,wegiveinforfearofsnickers!We
swallowthepropagandathattheBibleisoutmodedforfearofbeingthought
foolishorignorantoruncool.Ormaybeweyieldwhenwefacethethreatof
losingagradeorajoboradiploma.
Ormaybe,withoutadmittingittoourselves,wetoywithdisloyaltytothe
WordofGodbecausethatisconvenientforourpleasures.Wecreatefor
ourselvesspaceforsomeindependenceofjudgmentinonearea(historyor
science).Butitleadstosomethingelse.Itofferstheopportunity,byasubtle
transition,toloosenupelsewhereconcerningthedemandsofGodsholiness.
Wemakesspaceforourselvestoparticipateinourhedonisticenvironment,
butretainagoodconsciencebyrefrainingfromthegrossestexcesses.Weare
luredbyBabylonthegreat,motherofprostitutesandofearthsabomina-
tions(Rev.17:5).Weexcuseourselvesbytellingourselvesthatweareonly
adaptingtotheworldforthesakeofwinningsoulswhoareintheworld.
Thetemptationismoreinsidiousbecauselessviolentandlessdirect.How
muchwillwesellforthesakeofprideorpleasure
Judgmental Purposes in the Difficulties
Godspurposes,wehavesaid,aremysterious.Butwecanseesomepurposes.
AndonefurtherpurposethatGodsWordservesistobringjudgmenton
thosewhoresistit.
Forwe[proclaimersofthegospel]arethearomaofChristtoGodamongthose
whoarebeginsavedandamongthosewhoareperishing,tooneafragrance
fromdeathtodeath,totheotherafragrancefromlifetolife.(2Cor.2:1516)
Andhe[God]said,Go,andsaytothispeople:
Keeponhearing,butdonotunderstand,
keeponseeing,butdonotperceive.
Maketheheartofthispeopledull,
andtheirearsheavy,
112
andblindtheireyes,
lesttheyseewiththeireyes,
andhearwiththeirears,
andunderstandwiththeirhearts,
andturnandbehealed.(Isa.6:910)
FirstCorinthians3:19says,Forthewisdomofthisworldisfollywith
God.Foritiswritten,Hecatchesthewiseintheircraftiness. Difficulties
intheBiblecancatchthewise.Theycatchthosewhoareproudintheir
vauntedwisdom.Theproudknow,theythink,whentheyseeanerror.
ButGoduseshisWordtobringdarknessonthem,thedarknessofhaving
misunderstoodandmistakenlyevaluated.
Godiswise.Anintellectualwillnotwininaduelagainsthim.
Principles concerning Purposes in Difficulties
1. Mystery in difficulties
WedonotknowallthereasonswhyGodhasseenfittoputdifficultiesin
theBible.
2. Positive divine purposes in the difficulties
Godhaspurposesinthedifficulties.Heencouragescare,attention,human
transformation,humility,faith,endurance.Hereceivesgloryandhonor,
perhapsinwaysofwhichwearenotaware.
3. Intellectual suffering
IntellectualsufferingistobeexpectedasoneaspectofChristiancalling
tofollowChrist.Intellectualsuffering,properlyreceived,givesusfellow-
shipwiththesufferingofChrist(Phil.3:10).WehonorGodbysuffering
forhissake.
4. Crucifixion of pride
Intellectualsuffering,properlyreceived,isusedbyGodtodestroypride,
particularlyintellectualpride.WelearntohonorGodasGod.
5. Recipes for relief
Simplisticformulasforrelievingintellectualsufferingoverthedifficulties
intheBibleevadethenecessityofthecross.Theyopenthedoortomaking
manautonomous.
113
6. Trapping the wise
GodusesthedifficultiesintheBibletobringdarknesstotheproudin
particular,thosewhofancythemselvesabletositinjudgmentoverwhatis
trueandfalseintheBible.
Itiswise,thenfornegativeaswellaspositivereasonsthatwecometo
Godanddiligentlyaskhimtogiveusopenearsandhumblehearts.Mayhe
freeus,throughthecleansingbloodofChristandthepowerofhisresurrec-
tion,fromthehauntingcurseofpride.Mayheleadusasthegoodshepherd
intoalifeoffreedominservinghimandlovinghim.Maywehonorhimas
Godanddisplayhisglorybyourobedience,especiallywhenthatobedience
ishard.Suchserviceandloveshouldplayacentralroleinourstudyofthe
Gospels,aswellasinthestudyoftherestofGodsWord.Theyhavearole
inalloflife.
PAR T F OUR
sPeCial issues
in harmonizaTion
117
16
The Synoptic Problem
Wehavenowconsideredthenormative,situational,andpersonalperspec-
tivesontheethicsofstudyingtheGospels.Wearealmostreadytoplungeinto
astudyofparticularpassagesandtheirdifficulties.Buttwomorespecialized
issuesremaininthewings.Wewillconsiderthembrieflyinthisandthenext
chapter.Ourfirsttopicisthesynopticproblem.Whatisit,andhowdoesit
affectourinterpretationoftheGospelsintheirdetails
The Nature of the Synoptic Problem
Briefly,thesynopticproblemisthenamescholarshavegiventodiscussions
abouttheliterary relationshipbetweenthethreeSynopticGospels,namely
Matthew,Mark,andLuke.
1
IncomparisonwiththeGospelofJohn,Matthew,
Mark,andLukeshowmanycommonalities,notonlyintheepisodesthatthey
include,butalsointhemannerinwhichtheypresenttheevents.Thesethree
Gospelshavebeencalledsynopticbecausetheyshareacommonview.As
wehaveseen,eachofthethreeSynopticGospelsatafinerlevelofanalysis
hasitsowndistinctiveness.Buttheyhavemanysimilarities.
Thesimilaritiesincludeconsiderablecommonalityintheorderofepi-
sodesthoughtherearevariationsaswell.Andthesimilaritiesextendtothe
1
See,e.g.,D.A.CarsonandDouglas J.Moo,An Introduction to the New Testament,2nded.(GrandRapids:
Zondervan,2005),85103,DonaldGuthrie,New Testament Introduction,rev.ed.(DownersGrove,IL:
InterVarsity,1990),136208,102945,Richard T.France,Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher(Downers
Grove,IL:InterVarsity,1989),2449,David AlanBlackandDavid R.Beck,eds.,Rethinking the Synoptic
Problem(GrandRapids:Baker,2001).
118
SpecialIssuesinHarmonization
wordsdescribingtheevents,notmerelytheeventsthemselves.Thesimilari-
tiesaresoextensivethatmanyscholarshavesuspectedthattheSynoptic
Gospelshaveadirectorindirectliteraryrelationshiptooneanother.The
mostcommontheoryisthatMatthewandLukebothusedMark.Matthew
andLukealsosharematerialthatisnotfoundinMark,composedmostlyof
sayingsofJesus.SomescholarshavehypothesizedthatinadditiontoMark
thereonceexistedanothersource,Q,whichcontainedthesesayings.
Two Ways of Using a Source
Letusbeginbyconcentratingontwopiecesofthispuzzle.DidLukeuse
MarkAndifhedid,whatdifferencedoesitmakeinhowwereadLuke
First,didLukeuseMarkWouldsuchusebeconsistentwithGodsinspir-
ingLukeandmakingtheGospelofLukeGodswritingaswellasLukes
Inspirationaffirmsthedivineauthorityoftheproduct,thetextofLuke.By
itself,itdoesnotspecifythemeansthatGodmayhaveusedintheprocesses
leadinguptotheproduct.Somebooks,likethebookofRevelation,came
aboutasaproductofspecialvisionsthatGodgavetothehumanauthor.
Luke1:3indicatesthatLukeengagedinhistoricalresearch:Itseemedgood
tomealso,havingfollowed all things closely for some time past,towritean
orderlyaccountforyou.Godsuperintendedthisresearch.Attheendof
thisperiodofresearch,GodthroughhisHolySpiritempoweredLukein
hiswritinginsuchawaythattheGospelofLuke,theproduct,wasGods
speechinwrittenform:Fornoprophecywaseverproducedbythewillof
man,butmenspokefrom Godastheywerecarriedalongby the Holy Spirit
(2Pet.1:21).Wecanhaveconfidenceintheproductwithoutknowingallthe
meansthatGodusedinLukeandinhisresearchtobringabouttheproduct.
Luke1:2mentionseyewitnessesandministersoftheword.Itislikelythat
Lukeinterviewedsomeofthem.Healsomentionswrittensources:many
haveundertakentocompileanarrative(1:1).NothingforbadeLukefrom
usingMarkifMarkwasoneofthesewrittensourcesavailabletohim.In
addition,nothingforbadehimfromusingordinary,noninspiredsourcesas
well,aslongasweunderstandthattheHolySpiritsupervisedhisuseofallhis
sourcesandthattheresultingproductreallyisGodswritingthroughLuke.
How Do We Weigh the Use of a Source?
SoLukecouldhaveusedMark.Supposehedid.Whatdifferencedoesit
makeinhowwereadLukeItdependsonhowLukeusedMark.Whatdoes
LukeindicateabouthisuseWecanconsideravarietyofwaysinwhichone
authorusesanother.Consideranordinaryhumansituation.SupposeSue
119
TeSynopticProblem
usesawritingbyDonna.SuecouldstateexplicitlythatsheisusingDonnas
material.ShecoulddosowithoutdirectlyevaluatingDonnasmaterial,or
shecouldexpressapprovalordisapprovalofthisorthatpieceofit.IfSue
choosestomakeDonnasmaterialanexplicitsubjectfordiscussion,weobvi-
ouslyhavetoconsidertheinteractionbetweenwhatDonnasaysandwhat
Suesaysaboutit,becauseSueherselfconstrainsustodoso.ButLukedoes
notdothat.HedoesnotexplicitlyquoteMarkorexplicitlyindicatethathe
isapprovingordisapprovingofsomesource.
WhatifSueusessomeofDonnasmaterial,butmakesnoexplicitmen-
tionofwhatsheisdoingandgivesnospecialindicationofhersourceor
sourcesInourdaywehaveexpectationsandsocialconventionsabout
so-calledintellectualproperty.Intellectualpropertyisactuallyadebatable
labelandinvolvesmanyissues.
2
Priortothelastfewcenturies,inordinary
communicationpeoplelikeSuefreelyusedotherpeoplesideasandwords
withoutalwaysexplicitlyacknowledgingit.IfSuequotedfromaculturally
well-knownsource,herrecipientscouldbeexpectedtorecognizewhatshe
wasdoing.Ifthesourcewasregardedasauthoritative,thatmightmakea
differenceinreinforcingorgroundingwhatSueclaimed.Forexample,the
JewsregardedtheOldTestamentasauthoritativebutmanyGentilesinthe
RomanEmpiredidnot.ButwhetherornotSueusedauthoritativesources
asfurthersupport,shewouldhavetotakeresponsibilityforwhatshesaid.
WhathappensifweassumethatLukeusedMarkLukesuseofMarkis
notquitelikeLukesexplicitlycitingtheOldTestament.Anexplicitcita-
tionmakesvisiblethesource,andthesourceintheOldTestamentwould
havebeenwellknownatthetimewhenLukewrote.IncontrasttotheOld
Testament,Markwouldhavebeenarecentwriting.Lukecouldnotbesure
thatallhisreaderswouldbesofamiliarwithitthattheywouldimmediately
recognizewhathewasdoing.Eveniftheydidrecognizeit,Luke,bynot
makingMarkvisibletoreaders,madeacommitmenttotakeresponsibility
himselfforwhathewaswriting.Hetookresponsibilityforwhatheadded
toMark,andforwhathealteredfromMark,andforwhatheleftthesame.
So-calledredactioncriticism,whenitwasfirstused,paidspecialatten-
tiontochangesthataneditormadetohissources.ItaskedhowLukediffers
fromMark.Highlightingthedifferencescansensitizeustosubtletiesand
nuancesthatwemightotherwiseoverlook.Thissensitizationcaninfactbe
valuable,whetherornotLukeusedMark.Evenifweassumethatthetwo
Gospelsjustappearedsidebyside,withnoliterarydependence,theirdiffer-
enceshighlightsomeofthedistinctiveconcernsbothofLukeandofMark.
2
SeeVernS.Poythress,CopyrightsandCopying:WhytheLawsShouldBeChanged,2005,accessedJune
7,2010,http:iiwww.frame-poythress.orgipoythress_articlesi2005Copyrights.htm.
120
Integrity of a Single Discourse
Butthereisadangerthatinproceedingthiswaywemayinfactexaggeratethe
differences.Infact,intheuseofredactioncriticism,somescholarsfellinto
thepatternofthinkingthatwhatLukeaddedorchangedwashis,whereas
whatwasthesameasinMarkcouldbeignored.ThatisnotfairtoLuke.If
heincludedapassagefromMarkcompletelyunchanged,itwasbecausehe
wantedtoincludeitunchanged.Byincludingithemadeithisown.Itiswhat
Lukesays,justasmuchasarethethingsthathesaysthatdonothappento
appearinMark.Itisallhis.Moresignificant,itisallGods:Godspeaksall
ofit.Weshouldreaditallandpayattentiontoallofit.
Wecanmakeasimilarpointbyconsideringtheprocedureofaredaction
critic:hereadsLukelinebyline,orevenwordbyword,withMarkconstantly
athisside,doingline-by-lineandevenword-by-wordcomparisons.Hetries
tosecond-guesswhycertainchangesweremade.Heaskshimself,What
wasthemotivationhereButthiskindofreadingisartificial.Itisnotreally
thewayLukeinvitesustoreadhiswriting.Hewantsusnottoreadwhathe
wroteinacomparativeway,linebyline,buttoreaditoriginallyweare
supposedtotreathisbookasafull-bloodedwritinginitsownright.When
LukesaysthesamethingthatMarksays,Godwantsustoreaditjustas
seriouslyaswhenheputsinsomethingthatMarkdidnotsay.Bothkinds
ofpiecesareGodscommunicationthroughLuke.
Inotherwords,GodinvitesustoreadLukeasawholepiece.Yes,God
wroteotherdiscourses,includingtheGospelofMark.Buthewroteeachas
adistinctwhole.WeneedtopayattentiontowhatGodsaysinallofLuke,
takingthewholebooktogether.Andwepayattentiontowhathesaysinall
ofMark,takentogether.Thisattentivenessincludesbothwhatisdistinctive
andwhatiscommontoboth.Becausebothbooksarepartofalargercollec-
tionthebiblicalcanonGodalsoinvitesustoreadthetwotogether.But
whenwedoso,wedoitinawaythatalsorespectswhateachsaysasawhole
book.ThatmeansthatwhetherLukeusedMarkorMarkusedLukeorboth
usedacommonsourceorbothwroteindependentlyhaslittleeffect.Each
writingistobetakenashavingfullcommunicativepower,bothaccording
toGodsdesignandaccordingtothedesignofthehumanauthorworking
underGodspower.R.T.Francemakesasimilarpoint.
ToapproachMatthewwithoutafirmconvictioneitherofthepriorityofMark
orofthatofMatthewdoesnotpreventonefromlisteningtohisgospelasa
whole,allowingittomakeitsowndistinctiveimpactthroughitsstructure,
itsselectionofthemes,anditsrecurrentemphases.Nordoesasuspensionof
judgementonthequestionofliteraryrelationshipspreventonefromcompar-
121
TeSynopticProblem
ingMatthewfruitfullywitheachoftheothergospels,notintermsofoneof
themusing,followingorchanginganother,butinordertoseewherethe
differenceslie.TobeunwillingtosaythatatthispointMatthewhasaltered
Markstext(orviceversa)inaparticularwaydoesnotdisqualifyonefrom
noticingthattheypresentthesamestoryorthesameteachingindifferent
ways,andfromdrawingtheappropriateconclusionsastotheirdistinctive
theologicalinterests.
3
Wecanputitanotherway.Themeaningofadiscourse,thatis,ofaver-
balcommunication,consistsinwhatitsays,notinthehistoryofitsorigin.
Thisprincipleinfactholdsevenwhenadiscourseexplicitlycitesfromand
discussesanearliersource.Eveninthiskindofspecialcaseofcitation,the
authorcallsonustoattendtowhathesays.Whathesaysinvokesanearlier
source,andhissayingsoinvitesustoreflectonthatsourceaspartofwhat
hewantstocommunicate.Theearliersourceinthiscasebecomesexplicitly
partofthesubjectmatterinthecommunicationtakingplaceatthelatertime.
Howtheauthorcametoknowabouttheearliersource,orhowhegradu-
allydevelopedtheviewsthathehasfinallycometoarticulatesuchissues
arepartofthehistoryoftheorigin.Buttheyarenotpartofthemeaning,
unless,ofcourse,theauthormakeshissourcesanexplicittopicandbegins
todiscusswithushowhereceivedhisinformation.Thenthehistoryofhis
investigationsbecomespartofthesubjectmatterwithinthecontemporary
discourseinitsownpropermomentofcommunication.
TheupshotofallthisisthatwhetherLukeusedMarkhaslittleornodirect
bearingonhismeanings.NordoesitaffectthefactthatLukeisaninspired
writingwithfulldivineauthority.WefindthemeaningsoftheGospelof
LukebyreadingLuke.Wedonothavetosolvethesynopticproblemfirst.
The Gospels in Context
WeareundertakingtointerprettheGospels.Godwrotethem.WhenGod
speaksorwrites,hetakesaccountofcontexts.Theseincludethecontext
ofhisowncharacterandplan,thecontextofthehumanbeingswhomhe
haschosentoconveyhiscommunication,thecontextoftheidentityofthe
recipients,andthecontextoftheirsocialandhistoricalsituation.Themean-
ingsofwhathesayscoherewiththesecontexts.Thereismuchtoconsider.
Wecannotdoitallindetail.Manygoodcommentariesundertakethetask.
AmongthesecontextsarethecontextsofLukeorMarkasanauthor.Itis
possiblethatknowingmoreaboutLuke,includingwhetherheusedMark,
3
France,Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher,48.
122
canfillinamoredetailedpictureofwhohewas.Andancientreaderswere
beinginvitedtoreadtheGospelofLukeagainstthebackgroundofwhatthey
couldbeexpectedtoknowaboutboththehumanandthedivineauthors.
Butweshouldnotgetconfused.Authorsdonotdemandorexpectthatwe
knoweverythingthatcouldpossiblybeknownaboutthem.Theyhaveto
makeallowanceswhenwritingforalargeaudience,suchasLukewasdoing.
Themeaningofatextdoesnotincludethebiographyofitsauthor.Westill
havetoattendtowhatthetextsays,thoughwedosoagainstthebackground
ofwhateverbasicknowledgeoftheauthorthatwehave.
IndealingwithapparentdifficultiesinthedifferencesbetweentheGospels,
wewillthereforefocusonwhattheGospelsthemselvessayandtheclaims
thattheyimply.WeneedtorecognizethattheGospelsarewritingsinspired
byGod.Butwedonotneedtoknowinadditiontothisbasicfactadetailed
historyoftheirorigins.
Addressing the Synoptic Problem
Wemayneverthelessbrieflyconsiderthemostlikelydirectionsforaddressing
thesynopticproblem.WehavealreadymentionedthatitispossiblethatLuke
usedMark,orthatMatthewusedMark,orthatMarkusedMatthewthere
arevariouscombinations.Isanyoneofthesemorelikelythantheothers
Ordoweneedtoconsiderstillfurtheroptions,suchasthepossibilitythat
alltheEvangelistsusedoralteachingbytheapostlesDidMatthewusehis
memoryoftheevents
Ihavefoundhelpfromtwosourcesespecially.First,considertheprologue
inLuke1:14.Lukesaysthatmanyhaveundertakentocompileanarra-
tive.Ithasbeenclaimedthatthewordmanyisconventional.Butevenif
thereareotherinstancesofsuchrhetoricinHellenistichistorywriting,Luke
makesapositiveclaimbychoosingtoputinthewordwhenhehadother
alternatives.Therefore,wecaninferthatthereweremany.Markmayhave
beenoneofthemany,butwemayinferthattherewereothersmany
others.Mostofthesehaveevidentlybeenlost(byGodsprovidentialdesign).
Next, consider an article by E.Earle Ellis, New Directions in Form
Criticism.
4
Inbrief,EllisobservesthatJesuswasanitinerantpreacher,and
thatfromfairlyearlyinhisministryhehadsomefollowing.Peoplewere
interested.Atthesametime,manypeoplewereabletoseeandhearhim
onlywhenhecametotheirtownortoatownnearby.Sotheywouldhave
anaturaldesireforfurtherinformation.Withinthiscontext,Elliswonders
4
E.EarleEllis,NewDirectionsinFormCriticism,Jesus Christus in Historie und Teologie,ed.Georg
Strecker(Tbingen:Mohr,1975),299315.
123
TeSynopticProblem
whethertheapostlesortheirhearersproducedsomewrittenmaterialfor
thesefollowers.Wecanalsoaskwhethersomepeoplewouldnaturallyhave
askedrelativestotellthemwhatJesussaidanddidwhenhewasintowns
inwhichtheirrelativeslived.Ellisindicatesthattherewasconsiderableuse
ofGreekinPalestine,sosomeofthesewrittenpieceswouldhavebeenin
GreekaswellasAramaic.
5
Wemaythereforesuspectthatnotoneortwobuthundredsofwritten
materialswouldhavebeeninsomecirculationevenwhileJesuswasstill
carryingouthisministryonearth.Someofthesewrittenmaterialswould
havebeensmallinscope.Some,perhapspartlycompiledusingearlierpieces,
mighthavebeenmoreextensive.
Inadditiontothesewrittenmaterials,wewouldofcoursehaveoralma-
terials.Intheearlychurchtheapostleshadaprominentrole.Theirteaching
andpreachingwouldhavebeenattendedto.Otherswouldhavespokenabout
Jesussearthlyministryastheywereable.
OverthisentiresituationGodsovereignlyruled,byhisprovidentialcon-
trolofhistory.Heruledovereachpieceofcommunication,whetherwritten
ororal.Eachpiececameaboutinaccordancewithhiscomprehensiveplan.
Asaresultofthejointpresenceofmanyfactors,weconfrontthepos-
sibilityofmanysources,bothwrittenandoral.Wehaveasituationwhere
MatthewandLukemayhaveusednotonesource(Mark)ortwo(Markand
Q),butpossiblymany,mostofwhichhavenowperished.Thissituation
isanightmareforanyonetryingtoconstructadefinitivemodernsolu-
tiontotheoriginsoftheGospels.Thepresenceofmanypossiblesources
producesasituationfartoocomplexforustodrawfirmconclusions.Luke
clearlyknewaboutmanysourcesandprobablyusedsome,maybemany.
Wedonotknowwhattheywere.Weneverwillwithinthislife.Thesame
mayhavebeenthecaseforMattheworMark.Asaresult,Ithinkthatthe
synopticproblemisunsolvable.
SowehaveanotherreasontoconcentrateontheGospelsaswehavethem.
5
Ibid.,3078.
124
17
Temporal Order of Events
TheGospelsdonotalwayspresenttheeventsinthesameliteraryorder,that
is,thewrittenorderonthepage.Forexample,Matthewincludesthenarrative
aboutthehealingoftheparalyticfollowinghisnarrationabouttheGadarene
demoniacs(Matt.8:289:7).InMarkthehealingoftheparalyticoccurs
betweenthehealingoftheleperandthecallofLevi(Mark1:402:17),asit
doesinLuke(5:1232).TheepisodewiththeGadarenedemoniacappears
lateroninMarkandLuke(Mark5:120,Luke8:2639).Howdowetreat
differencesinorderlikethisone
Thebasicprinciplehereistodistinguishbetweenwrittenorderand
chronologicalorder.Thewrittenorderorliteraryorderistheorderonthe
page.ThechronologicalorderistheorderofeventswithinJesussearthly
ministryasitactuallyunfoldedintime.AtmanypointstheGospelwriters
donotofferexplicitinformationaboutchronologicalorder.Themerefact
thattwoeventsoccurinaparticularwrittenorderdoesnotbyitselfneces-
sitatethattheyarearrangedinchronologicalorder.Ontheotherhand,if
oneormoreGospelwritersprovideexplicitinformationaboutchronological
order,thatinformationistrueandreliable.Suchinformationallowsusin
someparticularcasestoreconstructachronologicalorder.Inothercases,
wheretheGospelsdonotprovidetheinformation,theexactchronological
orderofeventsmayhavetoremainuncertain.
1
1
AugustinehasadiscussionofchronologyintheGospelsinHarmony of the Gospels,invol.6ofNPNF1,
2.21.5152,whereheadvocatesthesamebasicstance:Whentheorderoftimes[chronologicalorder]
isnotapparent[thetextdoesnotspecifyanorder],weoughtnottofeelitamatterofanyconsequence
125
TemporalOrderofEvents
Dealing with Evidence
LetusconsidertheeventsinvolvingtheGadarene
2
demoniacs.Wemust
firstask,asusual,whetherwearedealingwiththesameeventsinallthree
Gospels.Thedetailsinthenarrativescorrespondwell,soitseemsreason-
abletoassumethatwearedealingwiththesameevents.
Next,whatinformationdotheGospelsactuallyprovideaboutchronologi-
calsequenceMark4:3541recordsthestillingofthestorm.Atthatpoint
thediscipleswereinaboat.InMark5:2Jesushassteppedoutoftheboat.
Theexpressiontheboatrefersbacktotheboatinwhichthediscipleswere
travelingwhenthestormcame.Mark5:2says,WhenJesushadstepped
outoftheboat,immediatelytheremethimoutofthetombsamanwithan
uncleanspirit.InthissentenceMarkdoesseemtogiveusachronological
sequence:heplacestheincidentwiththeGadarenedemoniacchronologi-
callyafterthestillingofthestorm.Goingbackwardinthetext,wecometo
Mark4:35,theopeningversetellingaboutthestillingofthestorm.Itsays,
onthatday.WhatdayItseemstorefertoatimewhenJesustoldparables,
beginningwithMark4:1:Againhebegantoteachbesidethesea.Thetext
doesnotgivefurtherinformationaboutwhenJesusgavetheteachingsin
parables.Thus,thefactthatinMarkthistimeofteachingoccursinwritten
orderafterthenarrationofthehealingoftheparalytic(Mark2:112)does
notimplyanychronologicalclaim.TheeventoftheGadarenedemoniacmay
haveprecededthehealingoftheparalytic.Lukealsoisnotspecific,hesays,
Oneday,tointroducetheepisodeofthestillingofthestorm.
Matthewatfirstglancemayappeartobemorespecific.Theepisode
with the paralytic is introduced by the expression, And getting into a
boathecrossedoverandcametohisowncity(Matt.9:1).Presumablyhe
crossedoverfromsomeotherpartoftheSeaofGalilee,andtheregionof
theGadarenes,mentionedinMatthew8:28,istheobviouscandidate.Yet
Matthewdoesnotactuallysaythatthecrossingwasfromthatregion.Nor
doeshesaythatthecrossingtookplaceimmediatelyaftertheepisodewith
thedemons.Theinformationissparse.Idonotthinkwecandrawdefinite
conclusionsaboutthechronologyfromMatthew.Itseemslikelythatthe
healingoftheparalytictookplacerightaftertheincidentwiththeGadarene
demoniacs.ButcanwebecertainIamnotcertain.
whatorder[writtenorder]anyofthemmayhaveadoptedinrelatingtheevents.Butwhenevertheorder
isapparent,iftheevangelistthenpresentsanythingwhichseemstobeinconsistentwithhisownstate-
ments,orwiththoseofanother,wemustcertainlytakethepassageintoconsideration,andendeavourto
clearupthediculty(2.21.52).
2
SomemanuscriptshaveGergeseneorGerasene.SeeGleason L.Archer,Encyclopedia of Bible Diculties
(GrandRapids:Zondervan,1982),32425.AlltheSynopticshaveanexpressioncountryoftheGadarenesi
GerasenesiGergesenes,designatingthecountryratherthanamoreexactlocation.
126
Likewise,MarkandLukedonotsupplyexactchronologicalinformation
abouttheparalytic.Theyplacethehealingoftheparalyticatanearlypoint
literarily.Butneitherofthemprovidesdetailedchronologicalinformation.
LukeindicatesthatJesusscalltoLevicameafterthehealingoftheparalytic
(After thishewentout,Luke5:27).Butthatisall.Wedonotknowhow
longafterward.TheGospelofLukedoesnotofferfurtherinformationthat
wouldenableustoconstructadetailedchronology.
Flexibility in Ordering
Wemayconsiderbroaderprinciplesforchronologicalorder.EachGospel
hasagreatdealofflexibilitywithregardtoorder.TheGospelscommitthem-
selvestowritingwhathappened.Buttheyhaveflexibilityastotheorderin
whichtheytellabouttheeventsthewrittenorder.Insomecasestheymay
choosetowritethingsupinchronologicalorder.Buttheymayalsogroup
theeventsintermsofcommonthemes.Tosomeextentwemusttreateach
particularcaseonitsownterms.InsomeinstancestheGospelsdooffer
chronologicalinformation,inotherinstancestheydonot.Thedetailswill
differdependingonwhichpassagesweconsider.
Forexample,allthreeSynopticGospelsappeartohavegroupedtogether
Jesussparablestosomeextent.TheymayhavedonesopartlybecauseJesus
toldparablesingroups(Andhewasteachingthemmanythingsinparables,
Mark4:2).Butashetraveledaround,hemayalsohaverepeatedparables,
sometimeswithvariations.TheGospelshavedoubtlessbeenselective.As
Johnsays,NowtherearealsomanyotherthingsthatJesusdid.Wereevery
oneofthemtobewritten,Isupposethattheworlditselfcouldnotcontain
thebooksthatwouldbewritten(John21:25).
Ithelpsforustoseeparablesgroupedtogether,inordertoconfront
theirsimilaritiesmoredirectly.Gospelsmayalsogroupmaterialtogether
inbroader,looserways:miraclescanbegroupedwithothermiracles,ten-
sionswithJewishleadershipmaybedisplayedinseveraldifferentepisodes,
andwemayseegroupedtogetherintersectingissuesliketherelationship
betweenparables,miracles,fellowshipwithsinners,andopposition.Such
groupingsareilluminatingandhelpful,sincethecomingofthekingdomof
Godisthecomingofaunifiedworkofsalvation,allofwhoseaspectsare
relatedtooneanotherincomplexways.
Thus,wemayexpectflexibilityinordering.WheneveraGospeltells
eventBaftertellingeventA,atypicalreadermaytendtodevelopamental
pictureinwhicheventBnotonlyfollowseventAinthetext,thatis,inthe
writtensequenceofwordsonthepage,butalsofollowseventAinactual
127
time.Theeasiestmentalpicturecontainseventsinatemporalorderexactly
matchingthewrittenorder.Butifwehavesuchamentalpicture,weought
nottodeducethatourmentalpicturemustrepresentthecorrectchrono-
logicalorder.Mentalpicturesfillindetails.Theyputinmoredetailthan
verbalcommunicationwarrants.Ifwewanttoknowwhatthetextactually
promises,wemustgotothetextandnottothementalpicture.
InthosecaseswheretheGospelsdonotprovideexplicitchronological
claims,theEvangelistshadflexibilityintheirdecisionsabouttheorderin
whichmaterialisstructuredonthepage.
3
Butwemustalsotakeintoaccount
contrastiveclaimsabouttemporalorder.Sometimes,butnotalways,the
Gospelsmakeexplicitclaimsabouttemporalorder.Theseclaimsareusually
notthemainpoint.Buttheymayneverthelessbeaminorpoint.Whenever
theGospelsdomakeclaimsaboutchronology,weshouldbelievetheseclaims
becauseoftheirdivineauthority.
WhendotheGospelsmakeexplicitclaimsabouttemporalorderJesuss
resurrectionappearancesfollowedhisresurrection.Hisresurrectionfollowed
hisdeath.Hisdeathfollowedhiscrucifixion.Hiscrucifixionfollowedhistrial.
Histrialfollowedhisarrest.HisarrestfollowedhisjourneytoJerusalem.
Theseconnectionsarefairlyobviousandbelongtothenatureoftheevents.
Consideranotherexample.Mark4:3541tellsaboutthestillingofthe
stormwhileJesusandhisdiscipleswereinaboat.InMark5:2Jesusissaid
tohavesteppedoutoftheboat,whichseemstoimplyacontinuationfrom
theearlierepisode.Mark5:21beginsanotherepisodewiththeexpression,
AndwhenJesushadcrossedagainintheboattotheotherside,agreat
crowdgatheredabouthim,andhewasbesidethesea.
4
Thegatheringofthe
crowdbesidetheseacomeschronologicallyafterthehealingofthedemon-
possessedmaninMark5:120.HereMarkatleastimplicitlymakessome
claimsaboutatemporalorder.Wecanthenreconstructtheactualorder
ofevents.
Ontheotherhand,inotherpassagesMarkpresentsuswithmanylooseor
flexibleconnectionsbetweenevents.OneSabbath...(Mark2:23).Again
heenteredthesynagogue...(Mark3:1).Jesuswithdrew...(Mark3:7).
3
IfoneappliestheprincipleofassumingachronologicalconnectionbetweentwoportionsoftheSynoptics
onlywhenthetextexplicitlypresentsone,thentheapparentcontradictionsofsequencevanish(Craig L.
Blomberg,Te Historical Reliability of the Gospels,2nded.[DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsity,2007],169).
4
TewordingaboutcrossingtheseainMark5:21issimilartothewordinginMatt.9:1.YetIhaveearlier
expresseduncertaintyastowhetherMatthewisclaiminganexplicitchronologicalorder.Matthewsays,
gettingintoaboat.Tereisnoexplicitconnectionwithearlierevents.Mark5:21says,crossedagain
intheboat.(Terearesometext-criticalvariationsintheGreekofbothverses,butthestrongertextual
alternativeleadstowhattheESVgivesusinEnglish.)InMark5:21againandthelittlewordsby
themselvesbuildastrongerconnectionwiththeeventsinMark5:120.Teseconnectionsintimatethe
presenceofachronologicalsequencemuchmorethandoesMatthewsgenericwording.
128
Andhewentuponthemountain...(Mark3:13).Andthescribeswho
camedownfromJerusalemweresaying...(Mark3:22).Inmyjudgment,
alloftheseexpressions,whichintroducenewepisodes,showflexibility.They
donotspecifyanyexplicittemporalorder.Maybetheeventsareputtogether
onthepageinthesameorderastheiroriginaltemporalorder.Butmaybe
not.Markdoesnotsayonewayortheother.
5
Thereisthereforenoreason
forpeopletoallegeinconsistencyiflaterweshouldfindthattheeventson
thepageareinadifferentwrittenorderthantheirorderintime.
Weshouldalsoadmitthatitmaynotbeclearinsomeindividualcases
whetherthetextimpliesaclaimabouttemporalorder.Commentatorsmay
disagree.Insomecasesaclaimaboutordermaybeexplicit.Thenweshould
haveconfidence.Inothercasesadefiniteclaimismadeeveniftheclaim
isindirectorimplied(aswithMark5:2).Instillothercaseswemayhavea
hint.ButhowdefiniteisthishintWemustunderstandthattheGospels
maypossiblyinviteustoseetwoeventsascloselyrelatednotonlybecause
oneeventimmediatelysucceededtheotherintime,butalsobecausethe
twoarerelatedthematicallyinvariousways.Wemustbewillingtofollow
theleadoftheGospelsevenwhenthisleadtakestheformofanintimation
ratherthananexplicitstatement.Ontheotherhand,wemustassesscare-
fullywhatkindofintimationwehave.Wemustbesatisfiedsometimeswith
tentativeknowledge.
Ishouldalsounderlinethefactthatinthesequestionsmyownpersonal
judgmentsarefallible,asarethoseofanycommentator.Inexpressingsome
judgments,mydesireisnottogiveanoverconfidentjudgmentinanyone
case,buttotalkaboutwhatkindsofprocessesleadtomakingjudgments
thatrespectthecharacteroftheGospelsasthewordofGod.
Calvins View
JohnCalvinunderstandstheflexibilitywithregardtochronologyinthe
Gospels.Inconnectionwiththeepisodeofthecursingofthefigtreehe
statesmoregeneralprinciples.
...forthoughtheyappeartoindicateanuninterruptedsuccessionofevents,
yetastheydonotnameaparticularday,therewouldbenoimproprietyin
dividingwhatwefindtobeconnectedintheirwritings....anyonewhowill
considerhowlittlecaretheEvangelistsbestowedonpointingoutdates[i.e.,
5
Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History,trans.KirsoppLake(London:Heinemann,Cambridge:HarvardUniversity
Press,1965),3.39.1416,quotesPapias,whosaysthatMarksGospeldoesnotpreservechronologicalorder:
MarkbecamePetersinterpreterandwroteaccuratelyallthatheremembered,not, indeed, in order,of
thethingssaidordonebytheLord(italicsmine).
129
theyusuallyomittedthisinformation]willnotstumbleatthisdiversityinthe
narrative.
6
The Word for Then in Matthew
Finally,wemaynoteonedetailaboutMatthewthatisusefulwhendealing
withquestionsaboutchronologicalorder.ItconcernstheGreekwordtote,
whichisoftenrenderedasthenintheESVandotheressentiallyliteral
translations.Thiswordsometimesstandsatthebeginningofanewepisode
inMatthew.
7
ThenHerod,whenhesawthathehadbeentrickedbythewisemen...(Matt.
2:16)
ThenJesuscamefromGalileetotheJordantoJohn....(Matt.3:13)
TheEnglishtranslationthenmaymakeitsoundasifthereisanimme-
diatechronologicalsuccession:theoneepisodechronologicallyfollowsthe
other.ButalookattherangeofmeaningoftheGreekwordtoteshowsthatit
hasabroadervariationofusage.ThestandardNewTestamentGreeklexicon
offerstwosenses:(1)at that time,and(2)tointroducethatwhichfollows
intime...then, thereupon.
8
Thesecondsenseindicateschronologicalsuc-
cession.ButwhataboutthefirstsenseItisusedtoindicatethatoneevent
happenswithinacertaintimeframework,butnotnecessarilyinimmediate
chronologicalsuccessiontoanotherspecificevent.Forexample,2Peter3:6
speaksoftheworldthatthen[Greektote]existed,meaningtheworldat
the timebeforeNoahsflood.
WhenMatthewintroducesanepisodeusingtheGreekwordtote,then,
itoftenmeansthattheepisodesointroducedtookplacewithinthesame
generaltimeframeasthepreceding.Ineffect,heissayingthatatthattime
suchandsuchhappened.Theepisodemayhaveimmediatelyfollowedin
chronologicalorder(thenthishappened,rightafterthat).Butitmight
alsobethecasethatithappenedduringthesamebroadertimeperiod.
9
Matthew,byusingtheconnectingwordtote,indicatesthatweshouldsee
6
7
Bymycount,thewordtote(then)occurs90timesinMatthew,6timesinMark,15timesinLuke,and
10timesinJohn.BycomparisonwiththeotherGospels,itisafavoritewordforMatthew.
8
FrederickWilliamDanker,ed.,A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature,3rded.(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2000).
9
Augustinealsonotesthepossibilityofthemeaningatthattime(Harmony of the Gospels,invol.6of
NPNF1,2.34.81).
130
theepisodeinrelationshiptowhatprecedes.Butthekindofrelationship
remainschronologicallyflexible.Arangeofpossibilitiesremainsopen.
Summary of Principles for Chronology
Wemaysummarizetheprinciplesforchronologicalordering.
1. Flexible chronological order
IftwoepisodeslieliterarilysidebysidewithinaGospel,buttheGospeldoes
notgiveanindicationabouttheirchronologicalrelation,theymayormay
notbeinchronologicalorder.
2. Specified chronological order
IftwoepisodesliesidebysidewithinaGospel,andtheGospelgivesindication
thatonechronologicallyfollowsanother,wemaybeconfidentthatthisisso.
3. More than one event
Ifwefindadifficultyoverthechronologicalorderofevents,weshould
explorethepossibilitythatdistinctaccountsindifferentGospelsreferto
distinctevents.
OverthecourseofJesusspublicministry,hemayfromtimetotime
haveencounteredsimilarcircumstancesandmaythenhaverespondedin
similarways.Peopleinvariouslocationsneededtoreceivesimilarteaching
aboutthekingdomofGod,peopleneededtobehealed,demonsneededto
becastout,thetemplemayhaveneededcleansingmorethanonce(seethe
nextchapter).
4. Uncertainties
SometimesoneGospelmaylinktwoepisodesinsuchawaythattheGospel
maybe indirectlyprovidingasuggestionthattheyareinchronologicalorder.
Becauseoftheindirectness,wemaynotalwaysbesure.Itmaysometimes
notbeeasytodecideiftheGospelisprovidinginformationaboutchronol-
ogy,becausesuchinformationisnotinfocus.
5. Limited human knowledge of chronology
WemaysometimesnothaveenoughinformationfromtheGospelstodeter-
minewithconfidencedetailsinthechronologicalorderofevents.
PAR T F I V E
individual Cases
133
18
Cleansing the Temple
Letusnowconsidersomeothercases,beginningwiththosewheretemporal
orderisoneoftheissues.JesusscleansingofthetempleoccursinJohnnear
thebeginning,inJohn2:1322.Matthew,Mark,andLukeallincludethe
cleansingofthetempletowardtheend,inassociationwiththeeventsof
thefinaldaysleadingtoJesusscrucifixion(Matt.21:1213,Mark11:1519,
Luke19:4546).Whatdowedowiththedifferenceinorder
Asusual,weshouldaskwhetherwearedealingwithoneeventortwoor
more.ThereislittledifficultyindecidingthatMatthew,Mark,andLukeare
describingthesameevent,becauseallthreelocateitataboutthesametime
inJesussministry,incloseconnectionwithJesussfinalentryintoJerusalem.
CommentatorsdisagreeabouttheeventinJohn2.Isitthesameeventas
theonedescribedintheSynoptics
1
Forconveniencewemayviewthetextofthefouraccountssidebyside.
Matthew 21:1217 Mark 11:1519 Luke 19:4546 John 2:1322

15
And they came
to Jerusalem.

13
The Pass-
over of the Jews
was at hand, and
Jesus went up to
Jerusalem.

12
And Jesus en-
tered the temple
And he entered
the temple

45
And he entered
the temple
14
In the temple he
found those who
1
SeediscussioninAndreasJ.Kstenberger,John(GrandRapids:Baker,2004),111,D. A.Carson,Te Gospel
according to John(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1991),17778.
134
IndividualCases
were selling oxen
and sheep and
pigeons, and the
money-changers
sitting there.
and drove out
all who sold and
bought in the temple,
and he overturned
the tables of the
money-changers
and the seats
of those who sold
pigeons.
and began to drive
out those who sold
and those
who bought in the
temple,
and he overturned
the tables of the
money-changers
and the seats
of those who sold
pigeons.
and began to drive
out those who sold,
15
And making a
whip of cords,
he drove them
all out
of the temple,
with the sheep
and oxen. And
he poured out
the coins of the
money-changers
and overturned
their tables.
16
And he told
those who sold
the pigeons, Take
these things away;
13
He said to them,
It is written,
My house
shall be called
a house of prayer,
but you make it
a den of robbers.
16
And he would
not allow anyone
to carry anything
through the temple.
17
And he was
teaching them and
saying to them, Is
it not written,
My house
shall be called
a house of prayer
for all the nations?
But you have
made it
a den of robbers.
46
saying to them,
It is written,
My house
shall be
a house of prayer,
but you have made it
a den of robbers.
do not make my
Fathers house
a house of trade.
17
His disciples
remembered that it
was written, Zeal
for your house will

14
And the blind and
the lame came to him
in the temple, and he
healed them.
consume me.
15
But when the
chief priests and the
scribes saw the won-
derful things that he
did, and the children
crying out in the tem-
ple, Hosanna to the
Son of David! they
were indignant,
16
and they said to
18
And the chief
priests and the
scribes heard it
135
CleansingtheTemple
him, Do you hear
what these are say-
ing? And Jesus said
to them, Yes; have
you never read,
O ut of the mouth
of infants and
nursing babies
yo u have prepared
praise?

18
So the Jews
said to him, What
sign do you show
us for doing these
things?
19
Jesus
answered them,
Destroy this
temple, and in
three days I will
raise it up.
20
The
Jews then said, It
has taken forty-six
years to build this
temple, and will
you raise it up in
three days?
21
But
he was speaking
about the temple of
his body.
22
When
therefore he was
raised from the
dead, his disciples
remembered that
he had said this,
and they believed
the Scripture and
the word that
Jesus had spoken.
17
And leaving them,
he went out of the city
to Bethany and
lodged there.
and were seeking
a way to destroy
him, for they feared
him, because all
the crowd was
astonished at his
teaching.

19
And when
evening came they
went out of the city.
Theaccountssharesomesignificantcommonfeatures.InJohn,Jesus
droveoutthesellers,withtheoxenandsheep,andpouredoutthecoins
ofthemoney-changersandoverturnedtheirtables.Lukeisnotspecific
136
IndividualCases
aboutthedetails,butMatthewsaysthatJesusdroveoutallwhosoldand
bought,andheoverturnedthetablesofthemoney-changers.Mark11has
similarwording.
Whatthepassageshaveincommonisfairlygeneral.Hedroveoutthe
peopleengagingincommercialactivity.Thewhipofcordsismentioned
onlyinJohn,asisthepouringoutofthecoins.Johnindicatesthathedrove
outtheoxenandsheepalongwiththeirsellers.Thatisnotmentionedin
theSynoptics,thoughitispresumablyimplied.
Thereisenoughcommonalitythatwecanappreciatethetendencyof
commentatorstoseeoneevent.Ontheotherhand,isitnecessarilyonly
oneeventLetusconsiderthetwoalternatives.
Two Cleansings?
Whatif,earlyinhispublicministry,Jesushadgonetothetempleanddid
whatJohndescribesinJohn2Didthecommercialvendorsorthepriestly
officerswhogavepermissiontothesevendorstaketoheartwhatJesusdid
DidtheyrepentandrealizethattheywereprofaningGodshouse(John2:16)
Giventhespiritualconditionamongthepowerful,itseemslikelythat
manyofthemdidnotrepent.Iftheydidnot,theyprobablydecidedtolie
lowwhileJesuswasswayingthecrowds.ButwhenhewentbacktoGalilee,
wouldtheynotgobacktobusinessasusualIfsomeyearslater,Jesus
cametoJerusalemforthelasttime,isitprobablethathewouldhavefound
asituationsimilartowhathehadfoundearlierIfhedid,wouldasimilar
reactionhavebeenappropriateThatwouldexplainallofthecommonalities
betweenJohnandtheSynoptics.Thecommonalitiesarisefromthesimilarity
ofthetwosituationsandthesimilarityintheappropriaterighteousreaction
tothesituation.Allofthesereasonings,inmyopinion,opentherealpos-
sibilitythattherewereinfacttwodifferentcleansingsofthetemple,attwo
differenttimesduringJesussministry.
2
AugustinereasonsthatthisactwasperformedbytheLordnotonasingle
occasion,buttwiceover,butthatonlythefirstinstanceisputonrecordby
John,andthelastbytheotherthree.
3
One Cleansing?
Weshouldalsoexploretheoppositeside.Dothetextsrequireustosaythat
thereweretwocleansingsWehavetobecareful.Onceagain,wemustavoid
2
SeealsoCraigL.Blomberg,Te Historical Reliability of the Gospels,2nded.(DownersGrove,IL:Inter-
Varsity,2007),21619.
3
Augustine,Harmony of the Gospels,invol.6ofNPNF1,2.67.129.
137
CleansingtheTemple
committingourselvestoamental-picturetheoryofmeaning.Perhapsweread
JohnandpicturethecleansingdescribedinJohn2:1415inimmediatecon-
nectionwiththeprecedingandfollowingpartsofJohnsnarrative.Wepicture
itasoccurringnearintimetothefirstofhissignsnarratedin2:11.Wepic-
tureitnearthebeginning.Butthisisamentalpicture,notnecessarilyreality.
WehavetoaskwhetherJohnoranyofthesynopticaccountsmakecon-
trastiveclaimsabouttemporallocation.John2:13says,ThePassoverof
theJewswasathand,andJesuswentuptoJerusalem.WhichPassover
Wearenottold.ItisnaturalforreaderstoseethisgoinguptoJerusalemas
proceedingfromthelocationlastmentioned,namelyCapernaum,where
Jesusstayedafewdays(John2:12).ButJohndoesnotexplicitlytellusabout
adirecttemporalsuccessionhere.Thehint,ifthereisone,issimplythe
juxtapositionoftwoepisodesinthewrittenneighborhoodofoneanother.
ButmightJohnhavehadotherreasonsforajuxtapositionlikethisone
DowegetanyhelpfromwhatfollowsthecleansingofthetempleWhatfol-
lowsisJohn3:1ff.,thepassageaboutNicodemus.Thematically,itisconnected
withthegeneralstatementinJohn2:25thatJesusknewwhatwasinaman.But
thereisnoexplicittemporalconnection.Wedonotgetinformationaboutthe
chronologyofevents.Theplacementoftheepisodeinthetextis,inmyopinion,
chronologicallyflexible.SowoulditbepossiblethatJohntoldthenarrativeabout
thesamecleansingofthetemplethatisthereintheSynoptics,butthatheplaced
itheretointroduceathemeofwhichhewantsustobeawareaswereadfurther
Ithinkitispossible.Godcouldhavesodesignedit.
Ifso,wedonotknowforsurewhethertherewasonlyonecleansingof
thetempleortwo.Butevenwiththislackofexhaustiveknowledge,weknow
agooddeal.WeknowthatJesuscleansedthetemple.Andweknowabout
hiszealandhisreasonsfordoingit,whetherithappenedonceortwice.We
needtopayattentiontoJohnsspecialemphasisonJesusszeal(John2:17),
whichfulfilledtheScriptures,andonthesymbolismaboutJesussbodybeing
themoreultimateandsatisfactorytemple(John2:22).Wealsoneedtopay
attentiontotheemphasisinMatthewandMarkaboutthemisuseofthe
temple.Theypointoutthatthepracticeofbuyingandsellingundermined
Godspurpose,thatthetemplewouldbeaplaceofprayerforthenations.
Instead,thetemplewaspervertedtoservecommercialismandprofiteering
(robbers).Notealsotheconnectionwithusingthetempleforteachingand
forcompassionontheweak(theblind,thelame,children).Wecanprofit
fromthesepointsmadeintheGospelswithoutknowingeverything.The
secretthingsbelongtotheLovoourGod,butthethingsthatarerevealed
belongtousandtoourchildrenforever,thatwemaydoallthewordsof
thislaw(Deut.29:29).
138
19
The Rejection of Jesus
at Nazareth
NextweconsiderthenarrativesabouttherejectionofJesusatNazareth.
ThereareaccountsineachofthethreeSynopticGospels,whichwemay
viewsidebyside.
Matthew 13:5458 Mark 6:15 Luke 4:1630
54
and coming to his
hometown
1
He went away from there
and came to his
hometown,
and his disciples followed
him.
16
And he came to
Nazareth, where he had
been brought up.
he taught them in their
synagogue,
2
And on the Sabbath he
began to teach in the
synagogue,
And as was his custom,
he went to the synagogue on
the Sabbath day,
and he stood up to read.
17
And the scroll of the
prophet Isaiah was given to
him. He unrolled the scroll
and found the place where it
was written,
18
The Spirit of the Lord is
upon me,
because he has anointed
me
to proclaim good news to
the poor.
139
TeRejectionofJesusatNazareth
He has sent me to pro-
claim liberty to the
captives
and recovering of sight to
the blind,
to set at liberty those who
are oppressed,
19
to proclaim the year of
the Lords favor.
20
And he rolled up the scroll
and gave it back to the atten-
dant and sat down. And the
eyes of all in the synagogue
were fixed on him.
21
And he
began to say to them, Today
this Scripture has been ful-
filled in your hearing.
so that they were
astonished,
and many who heard him
were astonished, saying,
22
And all spoke well of him
and marveled at the gracious
words that were coming from
his mouth.
and said,
Where did this man get
this wisdom and
these mighty works?
Where did this man get
these things? What is the
wisdom given to him? How
are such mighty works
done by his hands?
And they said,
55
Is not this the carpenters
son? Is not his mother
called Mary?
And are not his brothers
James and Joseph and
Simon and Judas?
56
And are not all his sisters
with us?
Where then did this man
get all these things?
57
And they took offense
at him.
3
Is not this the carpenter,
the son of Mary and
brother of James and
Joses and Judas and
Simon?
And are not his sisters here
with us?
And they took offense at
him.
Is not this Josephs son?
23
And he said to them,
Doubtless you will quote to
me this proverb, Physician,
heal yourself. What we have
heard you did at Capernaum,
do here in your hometown
as well.
But Jesus said to them,
A prophet is not with-
out honor except in his
hometown
and
in his own household.
4
And Jesus said to them,
A prophet is not with-
out honor, except in his
hometown
and among his relatives
and in his own household.
24
And he said, Truly, I say
to you, no prophet is accept-
able in his hometown.
25
But in truth, I tell you, there
were many widows in Israel
in the days of Elijah, when
the heavens were shut up
three years and six months,
140
IndividualCases
and a great famine came
over all the land,
26
and Elijah
was sent to none of them but
only to Zarephath, in the land
of Sidon, to a woman who
was a widow.
27
And there
were many lepers in Israel
in the time of the prophet
Elisha, and none of them
was cleansed, but only Naa-
man the Syrian.
28
When
they heard these things, all
in the synagogue were filled
with wrath.
29
And they rose
up and drove him out of the
town and brought him to the
brow of the hill on which their
town was built, so that they
could throw him down the
cliff.
30
But passing through
their midst, he went away.
58
And he did not do many
mighty works there,
because of their unbelief.
5
And he could do no
mighty work there,
except that he laid his
hands on a few sick people
and healed them.
Two Events?
Weshouldfirstaskwhetherwearedealingwithmorethanoneevent.The
GospelofLukeplacesitsaccountnearthebeginningoftheaccountofJesuss
publicministry,whileMatthewandMarkplaceitsomewhereinthemiddle,
closetothedeathofJohntheBaptist(Matt.14:112,Mark6:1429)andthe
feedingofthefivethousand(Matt.14:1321,Mark6:3044).Itcertainly
looksasthoughMatthewandMarkaretellingaboutthesameepisode.The
dissimilaritiesbetweenthemareminordifferencesastowhatdetailsthey
includeandwhatexactwordingtheygive.ButwhataboutLukeIsLuke
talkingaboutanotherepisodeatanothertimeWeretheretworejections
Itispossiblethatthereweretwo.Somepeoplemaybestruckbythe
similaritiesbetweenLukeandtheothertwoaccounts.Butthesesimilarities
couldhavebeenproducedbysimilaritiesintheeventsthemselves.
SupposethattheepisodeinLuketookplaceearlyinJesusspublicministry.
WhenthepeopleofNazarethrejectedJesus,hemayhavedecidedneverto
return.Butthenagainhemayhavedecidedoutofcompassiontogivethem
onemorechance.Ifandwhenhewentback,theirreactionwasstillthesame.
Itisquitepossiblethat,becausetheyremainedinopposition,theyproduced
thesamebasicreasonsforoppositionthattheyhadusedbefore.Theyasked,
141
IsnotthisJosephssonandsoon.Jesusinresponsemightfittinglyhave
remindedthemasecondtimeoftherejectionofOldTestamentprophets:
Aprophetisnotwithouthonorexceptinhishometown(Matt.13:57,Mark
6:4).Thereisnothingunreasonableaboutsimilarcircumstancesleadingto
asimilarinteraction.
One Event?
Wemustalsoaskwhethertheaccountscouldallrefertothesameepisode.
Oneoftheissuesconcernsthechronology.DoestheGospelofLukegiveus
adifferentchronologicalplacementfortheeventthatitnarrates
Lukeplacestheaccountat4:1630,shortlyafterthematerialdescribing
Jesusstemptationinthewilderness(Luke4:113).ButbeforeLukecomes
totheepisodeatNazareth,itgivesusasummarystatement:AndJesus
returnedinthepoweroftheSpirittoGalilee,andareportabouthimwent
outthroughallthesurroundingcountry.Andhetaughtintheirsynagogues,
beingglorifiedbyall(4:1415).ThenLukeintroducesthetimeatNazareth:
AndhecametoNazareth(4:16).WhenJesuscameisnotindicated.This
transitiongiveschronologicalflexibility.Itdoesnotspecifywhen.Thepre-
cedingsummaryin4:1415indicatesthatmuchwasgoingon.Lukesimply
doesnotindicatewhen,inthemidstofallJesussactivity,thevisittoNazareth
tookplace.Moreover,JesussmentionofCapernaum(4:23)indicatesthat
hehaddonemiraclesinotherplaces,andthatenoughtimehadpassedfor
thepeopleofNazarethtohearaboutsuchthings.
Dowegetspecificchronologicalinformationfromthetransitionatthe
endofthetimeatNazareth,inLuke4:30Wedonot.Luke4:31continues
withanotherepisode,AndhewentdowntoCapernaum,acityofGalilee.
Itgivesnoexplicitchronology.Therefore,Lukeprovidesnoindicationof
whenJesusvisitedNazareth,otherthanthefactthatitwasafterhehaddone
miraclesatCapernaum.
Other Difficulties in Relation to Matthew and Mark
Themainremainingquestionconcernshowtheepisodesend.Luke4:30
endswithJesusescapingfromamurderousmob.Matthew13:58andMark
6:5endquietly.Ifweassumethatallthreeaccountsarereferringtothesame
visittoNazareth,canweaccountforthesedifferences
Thereareseveralpossibilities.ItiseasytoassumethatLuke4:30marked
theterminationofJesussactivityinNazareth.Hewentawayfromthetown
becauseofitsmurderousintent.Maybeso,butIdonotthinkthatiscertain.
Thetextdoesnottellus.Itis,atthatpoint,silent.Itiseasytofillinour
142
IndividualCases
mentalpicture,butthementalpicturethenfillsinwhatthetextdoesnot
claim.ItispossiblethatJesuswentawayback toNazarethfromthebrow
ofthehill,ratherthanleavingthecitycompletely.Hisescapefromthemob
seemstohavebeenmiraculous.Somehow,thepeopleinthemobfound
thattheycouldnotdowhattheywereintentondoing.Sohecouldsafely
gobacktothetown,wheretheystillwouldnotbeabletomurderhim.Or
maybeJesuswentawayfromthetownuntillaterintheevening,andthen
returnedwhenthepeopleinthemobhadcooleddown.Maybeheministered
quietlyforafewmoredays.Thetextdoesnotsay.Silenceisnotanerroror
acontradiction.
ItmightalsobethatJesussreadinginthesynagogueasdescribedbyLuke
4tookplaceafterhehadalreadybeeninNazarethquietlyforsomedays.
Maybehehadhealedafewsickalready,butnotinapubliccontext.The
peopleatNazarethexpectedmore(Luke4:23).
Iconcludethatthesynopticaccounts,takentogether,donotprovide
enoughdetailed,positivechronologicalinformationtoenableustoknow
thepreciserelationshipbetweenthehealingmentionedinMark6:5andthe
synagogueepisodeinLuke4:1630.Itispossiblethatbothcouldhavetaken
placeduringonevisittoNazareth.Itisalsopossiblethattheyrepresenttwo
separatevisits,oneearlierinJesussministryandtheotherlater.Wecan
beconfidentthateventstookplaceastheGospelsdescribethem.Butwith
ourlimitationsinhumanknowledge,weremainwithsomeuncertainties
aboutthechronologicalrelationsofthedetails.ItwasnotGodspurposeto
provideuswithallthedetails,buttoprovideuswithmeaningfulsparse
accountsthatgiveusagraspofJesusandhisministry.Theseaccountsare
historicallyreliableandexpoundtousthemeaningofJesusslife.Hehas
accomplishedsalvation.
Paying Attention to Lukes Placement
IfwedecidethattherewasonlyonevisittoNazareth,describedinallthree
Gospels,itmightbetemptingtojuggletheeventsaroundinourmind.We
mentallytransposeLuke4:1630toitsproperchronologicalplaceinJesuss
ministry,namely,theplacebeforethedeathofJohntheBaptist,asgivenin
MatthewandMark.
Havingachronologicaloutlineinmindisofsomevalue.TheGospels
allprovideuswithatleastabasicoutline:(1)atimebeforeJesusspublic
ministry,(2)hispublicministry,(3)hisfinaldaysatJerusalem.Beyondthese
basicfacts,itisimportanttounderlinethattheeventsofJesusslifewere
realeventsintimeandspace.Sincetheywereeventsintime,theydidhave
143
adefinitechronologicalorder.ButGodhasnotbeenpleasedtogiveusall
theinformationaboutthischronologicalorder,andwemustsometimesbe
satisfiedwithguessesandprobabilitieswhenwetrytospeculateaboutthe
details.
ButweshouldalsoreckonwiththefactthatGodthroughLukehasapur-
poseinplacingtheaccountaboutNazarethwherehedid.Itisprogrammatic.
InLuke4:1819JesusquotesfromIsaiah61:12,whichannouncesthefinal
yearofjubilee,theyearoftheLordsfavor(Luke4:19).Thisannounce-
mentgivesusanindicationofsomeofthemeaningofJesussentirepublic
ministry.Hisentireministryisaboutannouncingandbringingtheyearof
jubileepromisedintheOldTestament.
TheYearofJubileeinLeviticus25wasthefiftiethyearinacycleofyears
forIsrael.Inthatyeardebtswerecanceled,slavesreleased,andrentedland
returnedtotheoriginalowner.Thesepracticespointedforwardtoafinal
spiritualjubilee(asindicatedinIsa.61:12),whenwewouldbefreedfrom
sinandspiritualslaverythroughtheworkofChrist.
SoLuke4givesusatheologicalstatementwiththeologicalsignificance.
JesussreadingfromIsaiah61isalsosignificantbecauseofthemurderous
reactiontoit.ThenearmurderinLuke4:1630anticipatestheantagonism
thatJesuswouldreceivethroughouthispublicministry.Andthisantagonism
culminatedinactualmurderthecrucifixion.ByplacingLuke4:1630near
thebeginning,Lukehighlightstheominousthemeofopposition.Itturned
outtobethecaseinaprincipialwaythatJesusasaprophethadnohonor
amonghisownpeople,theJews.
LukeandGodwritingthroughLuketellsustotakethissignificance
intoaccountasafundamentaltruthwhenwereadallthewaythroughthe
restofLuke.IfwesupposethatJesusspokeaboutIsaiah61somewherein
thechronologicalmiddleofhisministry,itisstillthecasethatchronology
isnoteverything.EverypartofJesussministryhelpsustointerpretevery
otherpart,becauseitallbelongstogetherasaministryofthecomingofthe
kingdomofGod,whenGoddelivershispeople.Weneedtointerpretthe
wholeofJesussministryinthelightofwhathesaysaboutIsaiah61:12
atthisonepointintime.TheGospelofLuke,byplacingtherejectionof
Nazarethatakeypoint,givesussomethingthatwewouldnotnoticeso
easilyifinourmindswetransposedittoanotherplaceinthenarrative.We
canbegratefulwhentheGospelsarrangematerialthematicallyinsteadof
merelychronologically,becausethiskindofarrangementcanhelpusto
taketheaccounttoheart,understanditmoredeeply,andloveourSavior
morefervently.Godtherebyrevealsmoreofwhoheisandwhathewants
ustoknow.
144
20
Cursing the Fig Tree
Wemaycontinuebyconsideringanothercasewithachronologicaldifficulty,
namely,theaccountofthecursingofthefigtree.Herearethetexts:
Matthew 21:1722 Mark 11:1115, 1925
[in vv. 1216, Jesus cleanses the temple.]
17
And leaving them,
he went out of the city to Bethany and
lodged there.
18
In the morning,
as he was returning to the city,
he became hungry.
19
And seeing a fig tree by the wayside,
he went to it and
[see Mark 11:1518]
11
. . . as it was already late,
he went out to Bethany with the twelve.
12
On the following day,
when they came from Bethany,
he was hungry.
13
And seeing in the distance a fig tree in
leaf, he went to see if he could find any-
thing on it. When he came to it,
found nothing on it but only leaves.
And he said to it, May no fruit ever come
from you again!
he found nothing but leaves,
for it was not the season for figs.
14
And he said to it, May no one ever eat
fruit from you again.
And his disciples heard it.
[see vv. 1216]
15
And they came to Jerusalem. And he
entered the temple and began to drive out
those who sold . . . .
[vv. 1518 describe the cleansing of the
temple.]
[see v. 17.]
19
And when evening came they went out
of the city.
[see v. 18]
And the fig tree withered at once.
20
When the disciples saw it, they mar-
veled, saying, How did the fig tree wither
at once?
20
As they passed by in the morning, they
saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.
21
And Peter remembered and said to him,
Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed
has withered.
145
CursingtheFigTree
Matthew 21:1722 Mark 11:1115, 1925
21
And Jesus answered them, Truly, I say
to you, if you have faith
and do not doubt, you will not only do what
has been done to the fig tree, but even if
you
say to this mountain, Be taken up and
thrown into the sea,
22
And Jesus answered them,
Have faith in God.
23
Truly, I say to you, whoever
says to this mountain, Be taken up and
thrown into the sea,
and does not doubt in his heart, but be-
lieves that what he says will come to pass,
it will happen. it will be done for him.
24
Therefore I tell you,
22
And whatever you ask in prayer,
you will receive, if you have faith.
whatever you ask in prayer, believe that
you have received it, and it will be yours.
25
And whenever you stand praying, forgive,
if you have anything against anyone, so
that your Father also who is in heaven may
forgive you your trespasses.
Analysis
Manyofthedifferencesareminor,buttwoareprominent.First,inMatthew
thenarrationofthecleansingofthetemplecomesinwrittenorderbefore
theepisodewiththefigtree.InMark,theinteractionswiththefigtreeoccur
overaperiodoftwodays.Thecleansingofthetempletakesplaceinbetween,
namely,onthefirstofthesedays,afterJesushasalreadypronouncedacurse
onthefigtree.Onthesecondday,astheyaregoingtowardJerusalem,the
disciplesnoticethatthetreehaswithered.
Second,inMatthewthewitheringappearstotakeplaceatonce(Matt.
21:19).InMarkitappearstotakesplaceoveraperiodofawholeday.
Commentators
Amongtheexplanationsofferedbycommentators,Calvinsays:Only
MarkstateswhatMatthewhadomitted,thattheoccurrence[thefigtree
withered]wasobservedbythedisciplesonthefollowingday.Sothen,
thoughMarkhasstatedmoredistinctlytheorderoftime,hemakesno
contradiction.
1
SamuelAndrewssays:
Greswell,whosupposesthatthemaledictioninstantlytookeffect,andthat
thetreebeganatoncetowither,wouldmakeMatthewandMarkrefertotwo
distinctconversationsbetweentheLordandthedisciples,onethatday,and
1
146
IndividualCases
theotheruponthenext.Moreprobably,Matthewbringstogetherallthat
occurreduponbothdays,inordertocompletehisnarrative.
2
AugustinesimilarlysaysthatMatthewrecordstogetherJesusscurseof
thefigtreeononedayandthedisciplesreactiononthenextday.
3
Proposed Solution with Compression
IbelieveitislikelythatwehavehereanothercasewhereMatthewhas
employedcompression.Matthewhasgivenusaminimalaccount,tak-
inguptwoverses(21:1920)fortheheartoftheaction.Marktakesfour
versesforthesameactions(Mark11:1314,2021).Moreover,Markhas
madethewholeaccountmorecomplexbyseparatingthetwostagesofthe
actionintotwodistinctdays,withthecleansingofthetempleinbetween.
Matthew,bycomparison,givesthewholehistoryoftheinteractionwith
thefigtreeinoneblow,sotospeak,andletsusquicklygraspthecurse
anditsconsequence.Thereisclearlysomethingtobegainedbythiscom-
pressedapproach.
IfMatthewtakesacompressedapproach,iteliminatessomecontrastive
possibilities.Withamoreextendednarrative,suchasMarkundertakes,
thenarratorcanchoosetomakethepointthattheactiontookplacein
twostagesoveraperiodoftwodays.Andthisextendedexplanationofthe
actioncontrastsinvariouswayswithdirectlyassertingthatalltheaction
tookplaceononeday,ordepictingthedistinctpiecesofactionwithother
kindsofextendedwording.Matthew,bychoosingtocompress,losessome
ofthiscontrast.
Wecandrawupatableillustratingthepossibilities.Ifwechoosean
expandednarrative,wehaveacontrastbetweenstatementsthatconstrue
theactioninonestageorintwo.Ifwechooseacompressednarrative,we
losethiscontrastinpractice.Weretainonlytheabilitytodescribeinmore
generictermsthegistoftheaction.ThatiswhatMatthewhaselected.There
isnoerror,becauseinMatthewthereisnocontrastivestatementthatthere
wasonlyonestageratherthantwo(seefig.9).
2
SamuelJ.Andrews,Te Life of Our Lord upon the Earth: Considered in Its Historical, Chronological, and
Geographical Relations(GrandRapids:Zondervan,1954),437.
3
Augustine,Harmony of the Gospels,invol.6ofNPNF1,2.68.131.Augustinealsodiscussesotherchrono-
logicaldetails,asdoesCalvin(Harmony of the Evangelists,3:910).OnemaynotealsoNed B.Stonehouse,
Te Witness of the Synoptic Gospels to Christ: One Volume Combining Te Witness of Matthew and Mark
to Christ and Te Witness of Luke to Christ,2nded.(GrandRapids:Baker,1979),16064.
147
CursingtheFigTree
Immediate Withering
Matthewsaysthatthewitheringtookplaceatonce(Matt.21:20,NKJV
hassosoon,NIVhassoquickly).Againithelpstorealizethatwords
havevariationinmeaning.Theyarenotinfinitelyprecise.Thisprincipleof
variationholdsfortheexpressionatonce(Greekparachrma).
4
Therapid
witheringofthefigtreecontrastswithmanycommonwitheringprocesses,
whichwouldtypicallytakeseveraldaysorseveralweeks.Thefigtreewithered
withunusualrapidity.Matthewisnotpreciseaboutjusthowlongittook.
Maybethewitheringtookplaceoveraperiodofabouttwenty-fourhours,
betweenthetimewhenJesuspronouncedthecourseinthemorningbefore
cleansingthetemple(Mark11:14)andthetimewhenthedisciplesnoticed
thewitheringonthemorningofthefollowingday(11:20).Ormaybethe
witheringtookplacewithinaperiodofafewsecondsorafewminutes,right
afterthediscipleswentonfromthelocationofthetreetothetemple(11:15).
Thediscipleswouldthenhavenoticedthewitheringonlyonthefollowing
day(11:20).NeitherMatthewnorMarksuppliesminutedetailsaboutthe
processofwithering.
Hereagainthemental-picturetheoryoftruthcangetinourway.Matthew
doesnotfillinthedetailsaboutwhethertheactionwasspreadoveraperiod
oftwodays.Ifwestartfromhissparsenarrativeandtrytomakeamental
picture,ourpicturewillhavealltheactiontakingplacewithinonedayin
fact,withinaperiodofminutes.Wemightevenpicturethefigtreeaswith-
eringwithinseconds.Poof!
NodoubtJesushadpowertoaccomplishaninstantaneouswithering.And
maybethatisthewayithappened.ButMatthewsnarrativedoesnotsupply
4
Stonehouse,Witness of the Synoptic Gospels,162,discussestheGreekwordparachrmaandnotesthat
MoultonandMilligangiveanexampleoftheuseofparachrmainacaseinvolvingadelayofamonth
(JamesHopeMoultonandGeorgeMilligan,eds.,Te Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from
the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources[GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1930],491).
Figure 9. Effect of compression
Compressed Expanded
Two stages 0
Only one stage narrated

variational range;
no contrast

contrast
148
IndividualCases
thedetailsthatwemightliketofillinwithamentalpicture.Themental
picturedoesnotcorrespondtotheevents,andthenwearedisappointed.
Butasusualtheproblemwithmentalpicturesisours.Narrativesaresparse
incomparisonwithmentalpictures.
BothMatthewandMarkachievedistinctiveemphasesthroughtheways
theypresenttheevents.Matthew,byputtingthewholeinteractionwiththe
figtreetogetherinoneplaceonthepage,emphasizesthepowerofJesus,
thepoweroffaith,andthequicknessoftheresult.
5
Mark,bydividingup
thefigtreeincidentintoitsdistinctiveparts,invitesustonoticetherela-
tionbetweenthefigtreeandthetemple.Thecleansingofthetemplestands
betweenthetwohalvesofthefigtreeincident.Thecleansingofthetemple
hassomethingtosayaboutthefailureofIsraeltofollowtheLordwiththe
appropriatepuritypurityofheartandofbehavior.Thefigtreeincidentis
inasenseaddressingthesameissue,becausethefigtreeisintendedfigu-
rativelytorepresentthefruitlessnessofIsrael.
5
SohereMatthewapparentlysubordinatesstrictchronologicalordertothehomileticaimofstressingthe
lessonoftheg-treeepisodeintermsofthedramaticeectoffaith(R. T.France,InerrancyandNew
TestamentExegesis,Temelios1[1975]:15).
149
21
Commissioning the Twelve
JesussinstructionsincommissioningtheTwelvefortheirmissionoccurin
allthreeSynopticGospels.Belowarethetextsforcomparison:
1
And he called to him his
twelve disciples
and gave them authority
7
And he called the twelve
and
began to send them out two
by two,
and gave them authority
1
And he called the twelve
together
and gave them power and
authority
over unclean spirits, to cast
them out, and to heal every
disease and every affliction.
2
The names of the twelve
apostles are these: first,
Simon, who is called Peter,
and Andrew his brother;
James the son of Zebe-
dee, and John his brother;
3
Philip and Bartholomew;
Thomas and Matthew the
tax collector; James the
son of Alphaeus, and Thad-
daeus;
4
Simon the Zealot,
and Judas Iscariot, who
betrayed him.
over the unclean spirits. over all demons
and to cure diseases,

5
These twelve Jesus
sent out,
instructing them, Go no-
where among the Gentiles
and enter no town of the
Samaritans,
6
but go rather
2
and he sent them out
150
IndividualCases
to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel.
7
And proclaim as you go,
saying, The kingdom of
heaven is at hand.
to proclaim
the kingdom of God
8
Heal the sick, raise the
dead, cleanse lepers, cast
out demons. You received
without paying; give without
pay.
9
Acquire
and to heal.
no gold or silver or copper
for your belts,
8
He charged them
to take nothing for their
journey
except a staff
3
Take nothing for your
journey,
no staff,
10
no bag for your journey, no bread, no bag,
no money in their belts
nor bag, nor bread,
nor money;
or two tunics
or sandals or a staff,
9
but to wear sandals and
not put on two tunics.
and do not have two tunics.
for the laborer deserves his
food.
11
And whatever town or vil-
lage you enter,
find out who is worthy in
it and
10
Whenever you enter a
house,
4
And whatever house you
enter,
stay there until you depart. stay there until you depart
from there.
stay there, and from there
depart.
12
As you enter the house,
greet it.
13
And if the house is worthy,
let your peace come upon
it, but if it is not worthy, let
your peace return to you.
[Luke 10:56]
14
And if anyone will not re-
ceive you or
listen to your words,
11
And if any place will not
receive you and
they will not listen to you,
when you leave,
5
And wherever they do not
receive you,
when you leave that town
shake off the dust from
your feet
when you leave that house
or town.
shake off the dust that is on
your feet
shake off the dust from
your feet
as a testimony against
them.
as a testimony against
them.
15
Truly, I say to you, it will
be more bearable on the
day of judgment for the land
of Sodom and Gomorrah
than for that town.
[vv. 1642 contain further
instructions]
12
So they went out
6
And they departed and
went through the villages,
and proclaimed that people
should repent.
13
And they cast out many
demons and anointed with
oil many who were sick and
healed them.
preaching the gospel
and healing everywhere.
151
CommissioningtheTwelve
Inaddition,Luke10:112containsdirectionsthatJesusgivestothesev-
entyorseventy-two(thereistextualvariationinthemanuscriptsoverthe
exactnumber).Thiscommissioninginvolvesadistinctgroupandadistinct
time,soitneednotreceivedetailedattention.
Wecanseetwomainapparentdiscrepancies.Matthewsaysnostaffor
sandals,whileMarkpermitsboth.Lukesays,nostaff,butsaysnothing
aboutsandals.
A Proposed Solution
Thesharp,directdifferencesamongthethreeaccountsmightseematfirst
topermitnosolution.ButHenryAlfordhasofferedareasonableexplana-
tion.
1
Someofthekeyslieintheparticularwordinginthethreeaccounts,
andcomparisonswithLuke10:112.Luke10:4says,Carry...nosandals.
Thediscipleswerenottohaveasecondpair.Buttheycouldweartheones
theyalreadyhad.Itwouldbecompletelyunrealistictogobarefoot.Jesus
wasaddressingthefactthatonalongjourneysandalscouldwearout.The
disciplesmighthavethoughtthattheyhadtomakeprovisionbeforehand
bybuying(acquiring)asecondpair.
InMatthew10:910theoperativeverbisacquire(Greekktssthe),that
is,purchase.ThecorrespondingverbinMarkistake(Greekairsin),
which,Alfordobserves,hasnotquitetheprecisionoftheother[verb].They
werenottoprocureexpressly for this journeyevenastaff:theyweretotake
withthemtheirusualstaffonly.
2
Bengeloffersasimilarsolution:Hewhohadnostaff,wasnottocare
aboutprocuringone,forourLordsaysdonotprocure,hehoweverwho
possessedastaff,mighttakeitwithhim,forconvenience,notdefence.
3
Thedifficultyarisespartlybecauseoftherangeofmeaningintheverbfor
takewithinitssentence.Itmayormaynotincludepurchasing,depending
onthecontext.Thisdifficultyisparticularlyinstructivewhenwecompare
MarkandLuke.Mark6:8andLuke9:3containthesameverbtake(Greek
air).Theyalsocontainthesamewordforstaff (Greekrhabdon).Mark
saysyoumaytake.Lukesaysyoumaynot.Itlookslikeaflatcontradiction.
ButMatthewintroducesthewordacquire,whichshowsthattherearemore
dimensionstotheprocessofpreparingforthejourney.Ifwedidnothave
Matthew,wemightneverrealizethattherewasapossiblesolutiontothe
1
HenryAlford,Te Greek Testament...,vol.1,7thed.(London:Longmans,Green,1898),103.
2
Ibid.
3
JohannA.Bengel,Gnomon of the New Testament,2vols.(Philadelphia:PerkinpineandHiggins,1860),
1:239.SeealsoGleason L.Archer,Encyclopedia of Bible Diculties(GrandRapids:Zondervan,1982),326.
152
IndividualCases
difficulty,consistinginthedifferencebetweenacquiringastaffexpresslyfor
thejourneyandmerelytakingtheonetheyalreadyhad.
Alternative Explanations
Sincethisparticularcasepresentsachallengingdifficulty,wemayexpect
thatothersolutionshavebeenproposed.Calvinoffersthefollowing:
ButthereisanambiguityintheuseoftheHebrewword ,(shebet;)[for
staff ]andtheEvangelists,thoughtheywroteinGreek,usedtheword
invarioussenses.MatthewandLukemeanbyitarodwhichwouldbeburden-
sometothepersonwhocarriesit:whileMarkmeansbyitawalking-stickto
supportandrelieveatraveller.Itisevident,thatinmakingajourneyitwas
customarytocarryastaff.
4
JohnMcClellanssolutionissimilar.
5
Itappealstovariationinthemeaning
ofstaff.Suchvariation,aswehaveobserved,ischaracteristicoflanguage
(chap.8).IpreferAlfordssolution(above)becauseitreliesmoredirectly
onpositiveevidenceinthetext.
AugustinesaysthatMarkistalkingaboutaspiritualstaff,namely,the
powerthattheLordhadgiventhem.
6
TheimmediatecontextinMarkdoes
indeedmentionthattheapostlesareempoweredthroughJesusscommission
(Mark6:7).Butwhenstaff israngedalongsideotherarticlessuchasbread,
bag,andmoney,thecontextindicatesthatweshouldtakeitassignifyinga
physicalstaff.Augustinesinterpretationisthereforenotdoingfulljustice
tothetext.Inacaselikethis,wearebetteroffadmittingthatthisisnotan
adequatesolution,evenifwehavenobettersolution.Wewouldthenbe
acknowledgingthelimitationsinourknowledge.
Next,M.-J.LagrangequoteswithapprovalMaldonat(onMatt.10:10):
Both[MatthewandMark]expresselegantlythesamesensewithcontrary
words.Forboth,givingnotthewordsofChristbutthesense,wishedto
signifythatChristorderedtheApostlesthattheyshouldnothaveanything
butwhatwasnecessaryforthepresent.
7
LagrangeaddsthatJesuswanted
themtoentrustthemselvestoProvidence.Thetraditionhaspreservedthis
4
5
JohnBrownMcClellan,Te New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, a New Translation...,
vol.1(London:Macmillan,1875),1:652.
6
7
Marie-JosephLagrange,vangile selon Saint Marc,correctedandaugmented(Paris:Gabalda,1947),
151n8.TewordsaremytranslationfromMaldonatsLatin.
153
CommissioningtheTwelve
counselintwoforms....
8
Lagrangeisrighttocounselustofocusonthe
mainpoint,whichallthreeaccountsserve.Andheisrighttofocusonthe
senseofthewords,ratherthanmerelyonthewordsthemselves.Butdetails
inthewordingstillcontainelementsofcontrast.Itisnotenoughtoabsorb
themainpoint.Wealsowanttotakeinthedetails.Andinthisrespectother
commentatorsarerighttodevotesomeenergytotryingtounderstandthe
significanceofthestaffandthesandals.
Distinctive Emphases
CanweappreciatesomedistinctiveemphasisineachaccountByleavingout
qualifications,Lukeemphasizesthemainpoint,whichisthatthedisciples
aretodependonGodfortheirprovision,andsubordinatelytodependon
thehospitalityofthosewhoreceivethem.Byputtingindetailsaboutthe
staffandthesandals,Markprovidesarealisticpictureofwhatthedisciples
wouldactuallyhavehadwiththem.
Supplyingthiskindofdetailcouldrunthedangerofdistractingsome
peoplefromthemainpoint.Butthereisareversedanger:peoplemightget
distractedwonderingaboutthedetailsiftheyjusthadLukesaccount(as
indeedwearelikelytogetdistractedfromthemainpointifweonlypursue
thedetailswhenwecomparethethreeaccounts).
Withthewordacquire,Matthewhelpsustorealizethatoneoftheaspects
atissuewouldbepreparationsforthejourney,includingpossiblepurchases.
Wecanseetheselectivenessoftheaccountsbyfocusingonthediffer-
encebetweenacquiringastaffandtakingastaff.Thetwoverbsfocus
ontwodistinctstagesinthecomplexofactionsinvolvedinthejourney.If
anarratorwantstobepedanticallyprecise,hemayofcourseenterintoan
extendeddiscussionandmakeanexplicitdistinctionbetweenthestageof
acquiringastaffandthestageofactuallytakingitonthejourney.Butsuppose
thenarratorhasdecidedtowriteasimpler,morefocusedaccount.Having
madethatdecision,hedoesnothavethelibertytodistinguishexplicitlythe
twostagesandtheirnuances.Hemustbecontentwithasummary.Wecan
thereforesummarizethecommunicativesituationusingtwodimensions
(fig.10).Inonedimensionwehavethechoicebetweenanelaboratenarra-
tiveandasimplernarrative.Intheotherdimensionwehavethedistinction
betweenonestageandtwostages.
Whenanarratordecidesforacompressednarrative(theleft-handcolumn
offig.10),heisnolongermakingacontrastiveclaimaboutdistinctions
8
JesusavouluquonseconatlaProvidence.Latraditionapuconservercetavissousdeuxformes . . .
(ibid.,15152n8).
154
IndividualCases
betweenacquiringandtaking.Heisvaguerinthatrespect,buthehas
gainedinsimplicityandfocusonthemainpoint.
Insum,allthreeaccountsagreeonthecentralpoints.Inaddition,the
detailsareharmonizable.Butevenintheprocessofseekingapossiblehar-
monization,weneedtorealizethat(1)wedonotneedtoknoweverything
inordertoknowthemainpoints,(2)ourparticularharmonization,though
possible,doesinvolvesomeguessworkonourpart,(3)eachdetailineach
Gospelissuppliedforapurposeandisnottobebrushedasideordismissed
byvagueargumentsthatitspurposeismerelytheologicalandnothistorical,
and(4)effortsforharmonizationinthiscaseinvolvedetailsanddorunthe
dangeroftemptingustolosefocusonthemainpoints.Inaddition,weneed
torecognizethatGodhaspurposesingivingusdifficulties(partthree).He
humblesus,increasesourdependenceonhim,andmakesusrealizethe
limitationsofourknowledgeandourassumptions.
Figure 10. Effect of compressed narration
Compressed Expanded
Two stages 0
No explicit distinction
of stages

variational range;
no contrast

contrast
PAR T S I X
rePorTing sPeeChes
157
22
Stilling the Storm
Wenowconsideracaseinvolvingreportedspeech.
Comparing the Passages
AllthreeSynopticGospelsMatthew,Mark,andLukedescribeasituation
inwhichthedisciplesandJesuswereinaboatontheseaofGalilee,andhe
calmedastorm.
1
Herearethethreepassages,arrangedsidebyside:
23
And when
he got into the boat, his dis-
ciples followed him.
35
On that day,
when evening had come,
22
One day
he got into a boat with his
disciples, and
he said to them, Let us go
across to the other side.
36
And leaving the crowd,
they took him with them in
the boat, just as he was.
And other boats were with
him.
he said to them, Let us go
across to the other side of
the lake.
So they set out,
23
and as they sailed he fell
asleep.
24
And behold, there arose
a great storm on the sea, so
that the boat was being
37
And a great windstorm
arose, and the waves were
And a windstorm came
down on the lake, and they
1
TissetofpassageswasdrawntomyattentionbyRobertH.Gundry,Matthew: A Commentary on His
Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution,2nded.(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1994),625.Idonot,
however,agreewiththeconclusionsthatGundrydrawsfromthisandotherpassages.
158
ReportingSpeeches
swamped by the waves;
but he was asleep.
25
And they went and woke
him, saying, Save us, Lord;
we are perishing.
breaking into the boat, so
that the boat was already
filling.
38
But he was in the
stern,
asleep on the cushion.
And they woke him and said
to him, Teacher, do you not
care that we are perishing?
were filling with water and
were in danger.
[see v. 23a]
24
And they went and woke
him, saying, Master, Mas-
ter, we are perishing!
[see v. 26b]
39
And he awoke and re-
buked the wind and said to
the sea, Peace! Be still!
And the wind ceased, and
there was a great calm.
And he awoke and rebuked
the wind and the raging
waves,
and they ceased, and
there was a calm.
26
Why are you afraid,
O you of little faith?
Then he rose and rebuked
the winds and the sea, and
there was a great calm.
40
He said to them,
Why are you so afraid?
Have you still no faith?
[see v. 39]
41
And they were filled with
great fear
25
He said to them,
Where is your faith?
[see v. 24]
And they were afraid,
27
And the men marveled,
saying, and said to one another,
and they marveled,
saying to one another,
What sort of man is this, that
even winds and sea
obey him?
Who then is this, that
even wind and sea
obey him?
Who then is this, that he
commands
even winds and water,
and they obey him?
WewillfocusparticularlyonJesussstatementaboutthediscipleslack
offaith.
Why are you afraid,
O you of little faith?
Why are you so afraid?
Have you still no faith? Where is your faith?
Howdowedealwiththedifferencesbetweenthethreeaccounts
The Same Incident?
First,weshouldaskwhethertheaccountsinMatthew,Mark,andLukeare
recordingthesameincident.Thethreehavemanysimilarities,andallthree
accountsarefollowedbyaccountsaboutaGadarenedemoniac.Wehave
goodreasontothinkthatallthreearetalkingaboutthesameincident.
Different Wordings
WemustconsiderwhetherJesuscouldhavesaidallofthethingsrecorded
inthethreeGospels,oneaftertheother,moreorlesslikethis:Whyare
yousoafraid,OyouoflittlefaithWhatisthematterwithyouWhereis
yourfaithYouhavebeenwithmeforsometime.Youhaveseenthethings
159
StillingtheStorm
thatGodhasdone.HaveyoustillnofaithInfact,hecouldhavesaidmuch
moreeventhanthis.TheGospelsmayhavegivenusonlyasmallportion
ofthetotalofwhathesaid.Thiskindofsituationisnotmuchdifferent
fromwhatwehaveseeninothercases.TheGospelsreporttruly,butthey
areselective.Theydonotincludeeverypossibledetail.Thesameprinciple
appliestospeeches.
SomepeoplemaybetemptedtomakefunoftheideathatJesusmighthave
saidthingsseveraldifferentwaysononeandthesameoccasion.Butactually
wedonotknow.Wewerenotthere.Weneedtobecautious.Weshouldnot
overestimateourknowledgeorourintuitionsastowhatispsychologically
likely.Atfirstitmayseemabsurdforsomeonetorepeathimself.Wethink
thatsayingitonceisallapersonneeds.Butwhenmothersaredisappointed
withtheirchildren,theysometimesgiveoutawholestreamofrebukes.
Theymayrepeatthemselves,withslightlydifferentwording:Whydidyou
dothatWhatisthematterwithyouWhatwereyouthinkingDidntyou
realizeitwouldbeunkindtoyoursisterWhereisyourcommonsense
Dontyoueverdoitagain.Whatmakesyouthinkyouarethecenterofthe
worldWhatdoyousayforyourselfWhydidyoudoitWhatgotinto
youYouwereselfish,werentyouThestreamandrepetitionmayissue
frommerepetulance,ortheymaybeaproductoflovelovethathopesthat
reinforcementandmultiplequestionsmaybreakthroughtheobtusenessof
afoolishheartandfoolishbehavior.
Assumptions about Logic and Contradiction
Jesusswordstohisdisciplesmaystillappeardifficultinthiscasebecause
somepeoplemightclaimthatthereisanactualcontradiction.Aobjector
mayreasonasfollows:AccordingtoMatthew8:26thediscipleshavelittle
faith.MarkandLukeindicatethattheyhavenofaith.Nofaithisnotthe
sameaslittlefaith.Thisdiscrepancyisanout-and-outcontradictionthat
cannotbebridged.
Butsuchreasoningisflawed.Wecannotenterhereintoallthedetails.But
wecanmakeabeginning.Whatabouttheexpressionsnofaithandlittle
faithTrue,thesetwoarenotidentical,nordotheyhaveexactlythesame
meaning.ButtheirmeaningsdonotfunctionwithintheGospelsinisola-
tionfromthefullsentencesinwhichtheyoccur,andthesentencesdonot
functioninisolationfromthewholeGospelsinwhichtheyoccur.Meaning
inrobustnaturallanguageiscoloredbycontext,whereasAristotelianlogic
hasanartificialitytoit:itrequiressentencesthatfunctioninpureisolation
160
ReportingSpeeches
andinprinciplewithinfiniteprecision.Whenuseduncriticallyitcan
pushustowardawoodenconceptionofhowlogicandlanguagefunction.
2
Appreciating the Meanings in Detail
Soweneedtoconsiderhowwordsfunctionwithintheircontexts.When
wedothat,nuancesbecomeevident.Matthew8:26doesnotassertdirectly
thatthediscipleshavelittlefaith.ItputstheGreekexpressionforlittle
faithintheGreekvocativecase,sothatitisalabelfortheaddressees.Itis
notthemainpoint.Butitisindeedaminorpoint,attachedsubordinately
tothemainpoint,whichisarhetoricalquestionaboutthedisciplesfear.
Clearlywecaninferthattheirfearfulreactionstemsfromhavinglittlefaith.
ThisremarkaboutfaithfitsintoalargerthemedevelopinginMatthew
aboutlittlefaith(Matt.6:30,14:31,16:8,17:20).Usingaworldviewwith
bareevents(seechap.4),peoplecouldclaimthatthisthemeisaMatthean
addition.ItisindeedacontributioncomingfromMatthewasahumanauthor.
Itisalsoadivinecontribution,becauseGodisthedivineauthoroftheGospel
ofMatthew.Inaddition,thethemeoflittlefaithisarealityintheworldthat
Godgoverns.Itisarealitynotonlyfortheworldofthedisciplesduring
Jesusslifetime,butalsofortheworldofpresent-daystrugglesofpresent-day
discipleswiththeirtendenciestounbelief.Jesushadthisrealityinmind.
Thepassageispastorallyrelevant.Acritic,seeingthepastoralrelevance,
mightclaimthatitmustbeaninventionoranaddition.Butthatisincorrect.
Thepastoralimplicationsthatwecanseearemakingexplicitthemeaning
alreadyinherentintheeventsameaningthatinvolvesrelationshipsnotonly
tothemindofGodbutalsotostrugglesthroughouthistory.Historyhangs
togetheraccordingtothecomprehensiveplanofGod.Differentinstances
ofunbelieforstrugglingbeliefhaveanorganicrelationtooneanother.Only
withadefectiveviewofhistorydowegeneratedifficultiesforourselves.
WhenMark4:40says,Haveyoustillnofaiththatisaquestion,nota
directassertion.Itmightseemtoimplythatthediscipleshavenofaith.Butthe
questiondoesnotimmediatelyansweritself.Wecanimagineamothersaying
toherchild,DoyouhavenobrainsObviouslythechilddoeshavebrains,
intheliteralsense.Butthemothermaybeeffectivelymakingtherhetorical
pointthatheisnotactingasifhedid.Herquestionisarhetoricalquestion
anddoesnotcallforastraightforward,simplenoanswer.Moreover,even
ifweconvertJesussquestionintoanassertion,itmightbehyperbolic.Ifwe
2
Onlogic,seeVernS.Poythress,ReformingOntologyandLogicintheLightoftheTrinity:AnAppli-
cationofVanTilsIdeaofAnalogy,Westminster Teological Journal57,no. 1(1995):187219.Seealso
Crossway,2012),chap.11.
161
StillingtheStorm
weretosaythatsomeonehasnofaith,wecouldbespeakinghyperbolically
toassertinastrikingwaythathehaslittlefaith.
3
Weshouldalsotakenoteofthewordstill.
4
Mark4:40hasanintegral
relationtootherversesinMarkthatshowthedisciplesstrugglingwithfaith.
Mark4:40occursfairlyearlyintheGospel,soitisnotclearwhatsortof
progressintimeisinviewwhenJesussaysstill.ThediscipleswereJews.
ManyofthemhadafaithofsomekindinGodevenbeforetheybecame
disciplesofJesus.TheyhadnofaithspecificallywithrespecttoJesusuntil
theybecamehisdisciples.Marklaterpaintsanunflatteringpictureofthe
disciples,indicatingthattheirheartswerehardened(6:52),likewiseJesus
said,DoyounotyetperceiveorunderstandAreyourheartshardened
(8:17).
Partoftheproblemthatpeopleperceivemaybewiththewordfaith.It
isasingleword,butitcanhavearangeofusages(chap.8).Whatcountsas
faithItdependsonthecontext.IsitfaithinGod,orfaithintheMessiah
whoistocome,orfaithinthepromisesofGod,orfaithinaspecificpromise,
orfaithinJesusnowthathehascomeAndwhatqualityoffaithisitJames
pointsoutthatthedemonsbelieveandshudder!(James2:19).Thatsort
offaithisnotsufficientforsalvation.
IfwetravelbeyondtheGospelofMarkandusethewholeBibleasour
anchor,webegintoobtainsomeinsightsintothesematters.Faith,infact,
isacomplexreality.Weneedarobustviewoffaiththatleavesroomfor
manykindsofvariation.Faithappearsinmanyforms,withmanydegreesof
strength,weakness,andfailing.Thisvariationoccursintheexamplesfound
inScripture.And,ifweareatallobservant,weseethatitoccurstodayaswell.
Finally,weneedtoincludetheGospelofLuke.Lukesays,Whereisyour
faithAsimplisticreadermightconcludethatLukeisassertingthatthe
discipleshavenofaith.Butthatitnotpreciselywhathesays.Hegivesusa
question.Anditisnotaquestionthatnecessarilyhasaclear-cutanswer.
Jesusischallengingthedisciples.Theiractionshavenotbeenexhibiting
faith.Butthatispartofthewholechallengethatheispresentingtothem.
3
TeChicagoStatementonBiblicalInerrancyhelpfullyremindsus:Wefurtherdenythatinerrancyis
negatedbyBiblicalphenomenasuchasalackofmoderntechnicalprecision,irregularitiesofgrammaror
spelling,observationaldescriptionsofnature,thereportingoffalsehoods,the use of hyperboleandround
numbers,thetopicalarrangementofmaterial,variantselectionsofmaterialinparallelaccounts,orthe
useoffreecitations(italicsmine,fromarticle13,accessedJuly12,2011,http:iiwww.bible-researcher
.comichicago1.html).
4
AmongtheGreekmanuscriptsthereareseveralvariantreadings.Onenotablevariant,characterizingthe
Byzantinetexttype,canbetranslatedWhyareyousoafraidin this way? How is it thatyoudo nothave
faithText-criticalcriteriafavorthereadingrepresentedintheESVtranslation,Haveyoustillnofaith
or,moreliterally,Doyounotyet[Greekoup]havefaithIproceedwiththeassumptionthatthisvariant
representstheoriginaltext,butthediscussionwouldbesimilarifoneofthetextualalternativesisoriginal.
162
ReportingSpeeches
Thechallengecanhelpthedisciplestoevaluatethemselvesrealistically,to
repent,andtoturnmoreheartilytoJesustherebygrowinginfaith!Jesuss
questionissomehownotthekindofquestionthatmostsuitsacontextwhere
would-bediscipleshavenofaithwhatsoeverinanysense.Infact,Luke8:25,
whentakenincontext,supplementswhatwefindintheotherGospels.
Theological Emphases
ThedifferencesbetweentheGospelsincludedifferencesinthematicpatterns.
Matthew,wenoticed,includesathemeoflittlefaiththatoccursnotonlyin
8:26butalsoin6:30,14:31,and16:8.Luke12:28containsastatementparallel
toMatthew6:30,buttheotheroccurrencesoflittlefaithinMatthewhave
noexactparallelsintheotherGospels.ItappearsthatGodgaveMatthew
adistinctiveemphasisonthistheme.Thisdistinctivenessagreeswithwhat
wehaveearlierobservedaboutdifferentemphasesintheGospels(chap.4).
ItisnotaproblemwhenunderstoodinthelightofGodspurposesforthe
diversityaswellastheunityofthefourGospels.
163
23
Variations in Citations
Inthepreviouschapter,weconsideredthepossibilitythatJesussaidthings
inmorethanoneway.Hisrebuketothedisciplesmayhavebeenawhole
stringofrebukesthatincludedtheprecisewordingfoundinallthreeof
theSynopticGospels.Butisthattheonlypossibilitycompatiblewiththe
fulldivineauthorityandinerrancyoftheGospelsWemustconsiderthe
questioncarefully.
JesusisGod.SoJesussspeechesaredivinespeech.ThefourGospelwrit-
ersarehumanbeings,buttheywereinspiredbytheHolySpiritsothatwhat
theywroteisalsodivinespeech.WhenevertheGospelwritersreportthings
fromJesussspeeches,weareseeingGodsreportofwhatGodhimselfsaid.
Citations from the Old Testament
RatherthanlookingonlyattheGospels,wemayfirstconsiderothercases
whereGodgiveswordsthatciteanearlierdivinespeech.Specifically,we
mayconsiderNewTestamentcitationsfromtheOldTestament.Consider
firstMatthew21:13:He[Jesus]saidtothem,Itiswritten,Myhouseshall
becalledahouseofprayer,butyoumakeitadenofrobbers. Thekey
citation,Myhouseshallbecalledahouseofprayer,comesfromIsaiah
56:7,whichsays,
...myhouseshallbecalledahouseofprayer
forallpeoples.
164
ReportingSpeeches
MatthewciteswhatJesussaid,andJesusciteswhatIsaiahsaid,sothere
areactuallythreedistinctlevels,allinspiredbyGod:Matthewswriting,
Jesussoralspeech,andIsaiahswriting.Matthewcitesonlypartoftheverse
inIsaiah,butwhathedoescitehasidenticalwordingtoIsaiah.
Therearestilldifferences,becauseinthiscasethethreelevelsusetwo
orthreedifferentlanguages.IsaiahwaswrittenoriginallyinHebrew.The
PalestinianJewsofJesussdayspokeprimarilyAramaicastheirmother
tongue.ButGreekandHebrewwerealsoknowninPalestine.Jesusprobably
usedAramaicmostofthetimeinhispreaching,buthecouldalsohaveused
GreekorHebrewonoccasion.Finally,theGospelofMatthewwaswritten
inGreek.WhentheGospelofMatthewcitesJesusortheOldTestament,it
doesnotreproducetheHebrewofIsaiahoranAramaicsayingfromJesus
syllablebysyllable.ButMatthewdoesrepresentthemeaningofIsaiah.And
inthiscase,therepresentationinMatthew21:13matchesIsaiah56:7word
forword.IntheESV,thewordinginEnglishisthesameinthetwoverses,
therebyexhibitinginEnglishtheclosematchbetweentheHebrewofIsaiah
andtheGreekofMatthew.
ButtherearetechnicaldetailswhenweleaveEnglishanddirectlyinspect
theHebrewofIsaiahandtheGreekofMatthew.Wemaybeginwiththe
phrasemyhouse.TheGreekinMatthewformyhouseconsistsinthree
words,whichcanberenderedwoodenlyasthehousemy.TheHebrewin
Isaiahhasonlyoneword,anounwithasuffix,whichrepresentsmyhouse.
Next,theexpressionshallbecalledtranslatesonewordinGreekandone
wordinHebrew.AhouseofprayertranslatestwowordsinGreekandtwo
inHebrew.Thewordorderfortheversealsodiffers.TheGreekandHebrew
bothhavetheorderhousemyhouseprayershall-be-called.Translators
rearrangetheorderinEnglishinordertohaveagrammaticalsentence.
Inaddition,otherEnglishtranslationsshowslightvariations.TheKJVhas
MinehouseinIsaiah56:7andMyhouseinMatthew21:13.TheNASB
haswillbecalledinIsaiah56:7andshallbecalledinMatthew21:13.The
NKJVhaswordingidenticaltotheESV.
A Difference in Wording
ThetextinMatthewandtheoneinIsaiahareveryclose,ascloseasisfea-
siblewhenmovingbetweentwolanguages.ButotherinstancesintheNew
Testamentshowdifferences.Forexample,considerthedescriptionsofJesuss
mentionofthegreatestcommandment.WecompareMatthew22:37and
Mark12:30,bothofwhichcitefromDeuteronomy6:5.
165
VariationsinCitations
Deuteronomy 6:45 Matthew 22:37 Mark 12:2930
And he said to him,
29
Jesus answered,
The most important is,
4
Hear, O Israel: The
LORD our God, the LORD is
one.
Hear, O Israel: The
Lord our God, the Lord is
one.
5
You shall love
the LORD your God
with all your heart and
with all your soul and
with all your might.
You shall love
the Lord your God
with all your mind.
30
And you shall love
the Lord your God
with all your mind and
with all your strength.
TheoriginallanguageofDeuteronomy6:5isHebrew,whileMatthew
and Mark are in Greek. So the variation between the word might in
DeuteronomyandthewordstrengthinMarkisthesortofvariationthat
caneasilyariseintranslation.Themeaningisessentiallythesame.More
noteworthyistheoccurrenceoftheextraphrasewithallyourmindin
MatthewandMark.MindinMarkcannotbemerelyasubstituteformight
inDeuteronomy,sinceMarkincludesatotaloffourphrases,insteadof
thethreeinDeuteronomy.Deuteronomyhasheart,soul,andmight.
Markhasheart,soul,andstrength,correspondingtothethreewords
inDeuteronomy,plusmind.
WefirstneedtoaskwhetherMatthewandMarkarerecountingthesame
episodefromthelifeofJesus.InbothGospelstheepisodeappearsinthe
textrightaftertheepisodeinwhichtheSadduceesaskabouttheresurrec-
tion(Matt.22:2333,Mark12:1827).TheinquirertowhomJesusrepliesis
identifiedinMatthewasalawyer,whileinMarkheisoneofthescribes.
Thesecaneasilybetwodescriptionsofthesameperson.Itcertainlyappears
thatwearedealingwiththesameepisodeinbothtexts.
ThemainquestioniswhatwemakeofthecitationfromDeuteronomy.
TheeasiestexplanationforthevariationbetweenMatthewandMarkisthat
MarkincludedafulleraccountofwhatJesussaid,whileMatthewleftoutthe
phrasewithallyourstrength.WhatMatthewincludedwasindeedwhat
Jesussaid.Hesimplydidnotincludeallofit.Thiskindofselectivityisin
accordwithwhatwehavealreadyobserved.TheGospelwritersareselec-
tiveintheirdescriptionoftheevents.Theymayalsobeselectiveintheir
descriptionofspeeches.Theyreportwhatvariouspeoplesaid,buttheydo
notpromiseusthattheywillalwaysincludeeverythingthatpeoplesaid.
WemayrecalltheprinciplethattheGospelofJohnstatesexplicitly:Now
therearealsomanyotherthingsthatJesusdid.Wereeveryoneofthemto
bewritten,Isupposethattheworlditselfcouldnotcontainthebooksthat
wouldbewritten(John21:25).
166
ReportingSpeeches
WhatdowesayabouttherelationshipofJesusswordstoDeuteronomy
ThephrasewithallyourminddoesnotoccurexplicitlyinDeuteronomy
6:5.Buttheverseincludesthisideaimplicitlyasanaspectofitsmeaning.In
Deuteronomy6:5theexpressionsallyourheartandallyoursouloverlap
intheircoverage,andtogethertheycoverthesamekindofmeaningthat
occursintheexpressionallyourmind.Sothemeaningallyourmindis
impliedbyDeuteronomy6:5.HeartinHebrewisnotmerelythesourceof
emotions,aswetendtothinkofitinEnglish.Itisthecenterofonesbeing.
WefindintheOldTestamentthatpeoplethinkwiththeirheart(Gen.6:5,Isa.
10:7,rsv,Est.6:6,iv,Prov.23:7,iv).SoJesusscitationfromDeuteronomy
bringsoutanimplicationoftheversethatisactuallythere.
IsthischangeofwordingcompatiblewithinerrancyOfcourseitis.We
canunderstandwhatisgoingon.JesusreferstoDeuteronomy6:5inaway
thathelpstomakeplainthefullnessofitsimplications.SinceJesusisGod,
hehastheauthoritytoindicatetherealdivinemeaningoftheearlierwords
inDeuteronomy.Hecanrepeatthemexactlyifhewishes.Suchrepetition
occursinMark12:29b,Hear,OIsrael:theLordourGod,theLordisone.He
canalsodrawoutthemeaning,ashedoesinMark12:30whenheincludes
theexpressionwithallyourmind.
The Nature of Referring to Earlier Words
AdifficultymayariseforsomepeoplebecausemodernEnglishtranslations
usequotationmarks.IntheESVofMark12:2930thereareactuallytwo
setsofquotationmarks,anouterone(doublequotationmarks)andaninner
one(singlequotationmarks).TheouterquotationmarksindicatethatMark
isprovidinguswhatJesussaid,whiletheinnerquotationmarksindicatethe
partwithinJesussspeechwhereheiscitingDeuteronomy6:45.Butthese
quotationmarksarepartoftheEnglishandarenotpresentintheorigi-
nallanguages.TheBibleintheoriginallanguageshasnospecialgraphical
symbollikeaquotationmarktoindicatethebeginningandtheendofany
quotation.Asfarasweknow,suchmarkswerenotpartofthewrittenform
ofancientHebrewandGreek.Theancienttextssimplydidnothaveany
suchgraphicalconvention.
ThatisGodschoiceforhowheiscommunicating.Hedoesnotmake
everythingexplicit.Whathesays,healwayssaystruly.Buthedoesnot
providemarksforthebeginningsandendsofpassagesthatrefertoearlier
words.WhenweturntotheKingJamesVersion,wefindessentiallythe
samething.TheKJVdoesnothavequotationmarks.Therearejustwords.
167
SotheBibleintheoriginallanguagesandintheKJVleavesituptothe
readertofigureoutwhethersomethingisareferencetoanearliertextoran
earlierspeech.And,significantly,wealsohavetoaskwhatkindofarefer-
enceitis.Isitaverbatimcitation,ordoesitrephrasesomeearlierspeechto
reexpressitsmeaningOurearlierexample,Matthew21:13,givessomething
morelikeaverbatimcitation(withintheconstraintsofgrammaticaldiffer-
encesbetweenlanguages).Matthew22:37andMark12:30giveusamore
interpretiverenderingorinterpretivecitation.
Inmodernformalacademicwriting,quotationmarksareusedtoindicate
anexact,verbatimquotation.Therulesareverystrict.Anyomissionshave
tobemarkedwithellipsispoints(...),andanythingaddedforclarification
mustbeclearlymarkedusuallyenclosedinbracketsorelseplacedcom-
pletelyoutsidethequotationintheformofacommentaryorexplanation.
Theseproceduresaremodernconventions.Theyarequiteconvenientin
theirownwaywhenpeoplewanttospecifyunambiguouslywhatistheexact
wordingfromanoriginal.
Butinmodernlifewemeetothersituationsinwhichpeoplereporta
speechbygivingthemeaningbutnotclaimingtogivetheexactwording.
Inordinarylife,particularlywhennoquotationmarksappear,onepersons
reportofanothersspeechmaygivethegistofit,butusedifferentwords
toexpressthegist.Anewspaperreportmaysummarizeinasinglepagea
half-hourorhour-longpoliticalspeech.
Thiskindofthinghappensevenincourttestimony,whereissuesoftruth-
fulnessbecomeweighty.Forexample,awitnessonthestandmaytestify
thatheheardtheaccusedpersonmakeapromise:JohntoldDonnathathe
wouldpayitallbackinaweek.Thedefenseattorneysays,Werethosehis
exactwordsThewitnesscantruthfullyanswer,No,butthatiswhathe
said.Inotherwords,thewitnessisnotclaimingtogivetheexactwording,
butheisclaimingtogivethemeaning.
NowtheBibleisdivinetestimony,notmerelyhumantestimony.Soitis
notcompletelyparalleltoanyofthesemoderncases.Weneedtotakethe
Bibleonitsownterms.WeoughtnottoforcetheBibleintoourmodern
mold,inwhichacademicliteraturehaspreciseconventionsforexactquota-
tions.TheBibleintheoriginaldoesnothavequotationmarks.Itdoesnot
makeexplicitthemoderndistinctionbetweenanexactquotationandan
interpretivecitation.
Thislackofexplicitnessallowsflexibility.SometimestheBiblegivesan
exactquotation,sometimesitgivesaninterpretivecitation.Weknowthat
bothkindsofcitationarefaithfultotheoriginalthatisbeingcitedbecause
Godisalwaysconsistentwithhimself.Heisfreetorepeathisearlierwords
168
ReportingSpeeches
exactlyatalatertime.Heisalsofreetociteanearlierspeechinawaythat
bringsoutimplications.Godknowstheendfromthebeginning(Isa.46:10).
Heintendsfromthebeginningtheimplicationsthathemaymakeexplicit
byalaterinterpretation.
Citations with Application
Inaddition,sometimesGodindicatesthesignificancethatanearlierpas-
sagehaswhentakeninthelightoflaterfulfillment.Consider,forexample,
2Corinthians6:17,Touchnouncleanthing.Thiswordingcomesfrom
Isaiah52:11.IntheimmediatecontextofIsaiah52:11,Godisgivinginstruc-
tionaboutnottouchingtheuncleantoyouwhobearthevesselsofthe
Lovo.TheinstructionhasinmindthefactthatonlytheLeviteswere
supposedtocarrytheholyobjectsusedintheserviceofthehouseofGod
(seeNum.4:133,18:47).Theyhadtobeceremoniallycleanwhenthey
didthisspecialservice.Theseregulationsforceremonialholinesscameto
anendwhenChristaccomplishedhisworkasthefinalhighpriest(Heb.
10:9).SpeakingthroughtheapostlePaulin2Corinthians6:17,Godtakes
accountofthesechangesandappliestheprincipleoftouchnounclean
thingtothesanctificationofbelieversandtheirseparationfromsinful
practices.Godisapplyingthemeaningofthepassagetoanewepochin
thehistoryofredemption.
TheBiblealwayshasdepthstoitbecauseitisthewordofGod.Butitis
alsoaccessible.WecanunderstanditasGodopensourheartsandovercomes
ourresistancetoitsmessagethroughtheworkoftheHolySpirit.Wecan
understandthatGodcanfromtimetotimeciteearlierspeechesinmore
thanoneway.
1
The Principle of Truthfulness
Butwemustintroduceanimportantqualification,whichdependsonGods
truthfulness.GodsowncharacterasthefaithfulandtrueGodmeansthat
wecanalwaysrelyonhimtospeakthetruth.IfGodweretoindicateinhis
speechthatheisprovidinganexact,verbatimrecordofanearlierspeech,
wecouldrelyonhimandconfidentlybelievethatwhatwehaveisindeedan
exact,verbatimrecord.EvenwhenGoddoesnotexplicitlyindicatethathe
isprovidingaverbatimrecord,weseefromcaseslikeMatthew21:13that
1
WecouldaddstillmorekindsofusesoftheOldTestamenttothosediscussedsofar.SeeG. K.Bealeand
D. A.Carson,eds.,Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament(GrandRapids:Baker,
2007),G. K.Beale,Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation
(GrandRapids:Baker,2012).
169
hecandosoifhewishes.Buthecanalsoprovideaninterpretivecitation,
ashedoesinMark12:30.Itisuptohim.Remember,there are no quotation
marks in the original.
TheChicagoStatementonBiblicalInerrancy,drawnupbytheInternational
CouncilonBiblicalInerrancyin1978,acknowledgesinitsformulationsthis
principleaboutreferencestoearlierScripture.
WefurtherdenythatinerrancyisnegatedbyBiblicalphenomenasuchas
alackofmoderntechnicalprecision,irregularitiesofgrammarorspelling,
observationaldescriptionsofnature,thereportingoffalsehoods,theuseof
hyperboleandroundnumbers,thetopicalarrangementofmaterial,variant
selectionsofmaterialinparallelaccounts,ortheuseoffree citations.
2
WhatthestatementcallsfreecitationsareusesofearlierScripturesuch
aswehavejustseen.
Another Example: Matthew 15:79
Consideranotherexample.WemaycompareIsaiah29:13,Matthew15:79,
andMark7:67.
Isaiah 29:13 Matthew 15:79 Mark 7:67
And the Lord said:
Because this people
draw near with their
mouth
and honor me with their
lips,
while their hearts are far
from me,
and their fear of
me is
a commandment taught
by men . . .
7
You hypocrites!
Well did Isaiah prophesy
of you,
when he said:
8
This people

honors me with their
lips,
but their heart is far from
me;
9
in vain do they worship
me,
teaching as doctrines
the commandments of
men.
6
Well did Isaiah prophesy of
you hypocrites,
as it is written,
This people

honors me with their
lips,
but their heart is far from
me;
7
in vain do they worship
me,
teaching as doctrines
the commandments of
men.
Matthewpicksupinthemiddleoftheverse29:13inIsaiah,withhonor
me,butsuppliesthispeoplefromthebeginningtotheverse.Theirfear
ofmeinIsaiahcorrespondstotheexpressioninvaindotheyworshipme
2
TeChicagoStatementonBiblicalInerrancy,article13(italicsmine),accessedJuly12,2011,http:iiwww
.bible-researcher.comichicago1.html.SeealsoArchibald A.HodgeandBenjamin B.Wareld,Inspiration,
withintroductionbyRoger R.Nicole(repr.,GrandRapids:Baker,1979),44.
170
ReportingSpeeches
inMatthew.AcommandmenttaughtbymeninIsaiahbecomesteaching
asdoctrinesthecommandmentsofmeninMatthew.
Theexactwordingisdifferentintheseexpressions,butwecanseethat
thesubstanceisstillthere.Isaiah29:13referstoIsraeliteworshipinthe
earlypartoftheverse,intheexpressiondrawnearwiththeirmouth.The
expressiondrawnearevokestheOldTestamentcustomofdrawingnear
tothepresenceofGodinthetabernacleandthetemple.Theexpression
withtheirmouthindicatesthattheIsraelitesengageinprayerandpraise.
TheyareworshipingGod.Buttheirworshipishypocritical.Thecitationin
MatthewandMarkexplicitlyusesthewordworship,whichsuperficially
doesnotmatchthecorrespondingexpressioninIsaiah,namely,theirfear
ofme.Butsubstantivelyitdoesmatch.ThefearofGodcanbeexpressed
eitherinformalworshiporindailybehavior.InIsaiahthecontextisatleast
partlyoneofformalworship.SoMatthewandMarkintheirwordingthey
worshipmedocorrespondtothesubstanceofwhatIsaiahistalkingabout.
GodissayingthatthebehaviorofreligiousleadersinJesusstimeislikethe
hypocriticalworshipthatIsraelitesofferedinIsaiahstime.
Isaiahimpliesthattheirfearisinvain,thoughIsaiahdoesnotusethose
precisewords.Byincludingtheexpressioninvain,MatthewandMarkbring
outtheimplicationofthetextinIsaiah.Thepointfitsthecircumstancesin
Jesussearthlylife.JesuswasobjectingtothePharisaicandscribaltraditions
thatobscuredandevencontradictedthelawofMoses.Thesituationhe
addressedwassomewhatdifferentinitsdetailsfromtheroteworshipthat
Isaiahfacedduringhislifetime.Buttheprincipleisthesame:bothconfronted
instanceswherepeoplepracticedroteworshipandfollowedtraditionrather
thanGod.ThecitationofIsaiahisappropriate,butthenewwordinghelps
tobringouttheimplicationsofIsaiahforthetimeinwhichJesuslived.
3
IsthischangeofwordingcompatiblewithinerrancyItis.Thecitation
fromIsaiahhelpstomakeplainhowthePhariseesandscribeswereviolat-
ingthewordofGodforthesakeoftheirtradition.Godusesinterpretive
wordingthathelpstobringouttheimplications.
Other Cases
WecanlookatothercasesintheBible.Theseconfirmtheinferencesthat
wehavealreadymade.Forexample,compareDeuteronomy29:4andIsaiah
29:10toRomans11:8.
3
TesituationismorecomplicatedbecausethewordingintheGospelsisquitesimilartothewordingin
theSeptuagint,theancientGreektranslationoftheOldTestament.Temainpointstillholds:thewording
doesbringouttheimplicationsoftheHebreworiginalofIsaiah.
171
Deuteronomy 29:4 Isaiah 29:10 Romans 11:8
But to this day
the LORD has not given
you
a heart to understand or
eyes to see or
ears to hear
[see Deut. 29:4a]
For the LORD has poured
out upon you
a spirit of deep sleep,
and has closed your eyes

(the prophets),
and covered your heads
(the seers)
. . . as it is written,
God gave
them
a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not
hear,
down to this very day.
ThebookofRomansreadsGodgavethemwhereDeuteronomy29:4and
Isaiah29:10bothhaveyou.
4
Theadjustmentinwordingisappropriate,since
Deuteronomy29:4andIsaiah29:10arebothdirectlyaddressingpeoplewho
arespirituallyblind.ThebookofRomans,bycontrast,isdirectlyaddressing
theChristiansatRome,whoarenolongerblind,andisinstructingthem
aboutthemeaningoftheblindnessthatremainsamongunbelievingJews.
GodisshowinghowhisearlierwordinIsaiahappliesinthecircumstances
oftheNewTestament.
Instancesofso-calledfreecitationscouldbemultiplied.Hereisonemore:
Isaiah 42:14 Matthew 12:1721
1
Behold my servant,
whom I uphold,
my chosen,

in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon him;
he will bring forth justice.
to the nations
2
He will not cry aloud or lift up
his voice,
or make it heard in the street;
3
a bruised reed he will not break,
and a faintly burning wick
he will not quench;
he will faithfully bring forth justice.
4
He will not grow faint or be discouraged
till he has established justice in the earth;
and the coastlands wait for his law.
17
This was to fulfill what was spoken by the
prophet Isaiah:
18
Behold, my servant

whom I have chosen,
my beloved
with whom my soul is well pleased.
I will put my Spirit upon him,
and he will proclaim justice
to the Gentiles.
19
He will not quarrel or cry aloud,
nor will anyone hear his voice in the
streets;
20
a bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick
he will not quench,
until he brings justice to victory;
21
and in his name the Gentiles will hope.
Inadditiontoothersmalldifferences,itmightbenotedthattheGospelof
MatthewdoesnothaveanequivalenttotheexpressionIupholdinIsaiah
4
Inaddition,Rom.11:8andIsa.29:10havesomesimilaritywithIsa.6:910,whichinv.10doesusetheir.
172
ReportingSpeeches
42:1.InsteadofwhomIuphold,mychosen...MatthewhaswhomIhave
chosen,mybeloved.TheexpressionmybelovedinMatthew12:18hasno
directequivalentinIsaiah42:1.ButIsrael,forwhomtheservant(Jesus)isa
representativehead,isaddressedinthenextchapterofIsaiahasprecious
inmyeyes,andhonored,andIloveyou(43:4).GodthroughMatthewis
bringingtoexpressionmeaningsthatarealreadyimpliedinIsaiah42and
aremademoreexplicitinIsaiah43:4.
InanotherexampleRomans9:3233usesIsaiah28:16andIsaiah8:14.
Isaiah 8:14 Isaiah 28:16 Romans 9:3233
And he [the Lord] will
become
a sanctuary and
a stone of offense and
a rock of stumbling
to both houses of Israel,
a trap and a snare to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Therefore thus says the
Lord GOD,
Behold, I am the one who
has laid as a foundation
in Zion,
a stone, a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone, of a
sure foundation:
Whoever believes

will not be in haste.
32
They have stumbled over
the stumbling stone,
33
as it is written,
Behold, I am
laying
in Zion

a stone of stumbling,
and
a rock of offense;
and whoever believes
in him
will not be put to
shame.
Romans9:33introducestheversewiththeexpressionasitiswritten,
indicatingthatwhatfollowsisintheOldTestament.Therestoftheverse
apparentlycombineselementsfromIsaiah8:14and28:16.Thiscombination
makessense,sincebothpassagesinIsaiahusethelanguageofstoneto
describeafutureclimacticworkoftheLordthatwillbringsavingsecurityto
some(asanctuary,asurefoundation)anddestructiontoothers(arock
ofstumbling,refugeofliesinIsa.28:17,compare28:15).
5
Asusual,mostEnglishtranslationsofRomans9:33usequotationmarks.
ThequotationmarksareausefulconventioninEnglishtohelpreaders
tellwhichpartiscomingfromtheOldTestament.Butthequotation
markscanalsobemisleadingbecause,iftheyareinterpretedstrictly,they
seemtopromiseusthatwehaveanexactquotationfromasingleplace
5
ForfurtherdiscussionofRom.9:33andtheotherNewTestamentusesoftheOldTestament,seeBeale
andCarson,Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.
173
intheOldTestament.ThereisnosuchindicationintheoriginalGreek
ofRomans9:33.
InallthesecasesGodisfreetousewordingthatbringsoutimplications
ofhisearlierwords.
174
24
Meaning and Intention
HowdoweunderstandinstanceswheretheNewTestamentuseoftheOld
TestamentinvolvesarewordingoracombinationofpassagesTheNew
TestamentisunlikeotherhumanwritingsbecauseitisinspiredbyGod.
SinceitisGodsspeech,andGodalwaysspeakstruly,itiswithouterror.In
addition,itdoesshowsimilaritiestohumanwritings,becauseGodisspeak-
inginhumanlanguages.Heordainedlanguageitselfinallitsvariations.So
atpointswemaybeabletomakehelpfulcomparisonsbetweentheBible
andnoninspiredhumancommunication.
Tobeginwith,weknowthatmodernpreachers,whoarenotinspired,
willsometimesexpressthemeaningoftheBiblebycombiningpassagesor
rewordingthem.Thisworriesnoone.Suchareexpressionisfair,provided
(1)themodernusedoesnotclaim to be an exact, verbatim quote,and(2)it
derivesmeaningfromtheoriginalratherthandistortingtheoriginalmean-
ingintosomethingelse.
1
WemaythenconcludethatsomethingsimilarcangoonwhentheNew
TestamentusestheOldTestament.TheNewTestamentpassagegivesthe
meaningofoneormorepassagesoftheOldTestament.Attimes,itdraws
1
Speakersmayalsosometimesreusebiblicalphraseologyfornewpurposeswithoutanyclosetietothe
meaningintheBible.Forexample,apersonmaysay,Iescapedbytheskinofmyteeth.Heisreusing
phraseologyfoundinJob19:20.Buttheexpressiontheskinofmyteethhasbecomeastockexpressionin
English,sothatthepersonusingtheexpressionmayormaynotbeawarethatheisreusingsomethingfound
inJob.Evenifheisawareofthesource,heistypicallymakingacommentnotaboutthemeaningofJob,but
onlyaboutthemeaningofhisownexperience.Weneednotconsidertheseadditionalcomplexitieshere.
175
MeaningandIntention
outimplicationsthatarenotcompletelyexplicitintheoriginalwordingin
theOldTestament,butareneverthelessintendedbyGod.
A.A.HodgeandB.B.Warfieldintheirbookoninspirationconcur:
Quotation,beingessentiallydifferentfromtranslation,anyamountofdevia-
tionfromtheoriginal,in form,isthoroughlyallowable,solongasthesense
oftheoriginalisadheredto,providedonlythatthequoterisnotprofessing
togivetheexactform.
2
WhatHodgeandWarfieldhavecalledquotation,
Ihavepreferredtocallcitation,inorderfurthertoclarifythatwearenot
talkingaboutexactquotation.
Perspectives on Meaning
Wecanconfirmtheimportanceofmeaningbyconsideringmeaningandcom-
municationinageneralcontext.Considerhumancommunication.Human
communicationinvolvesaspeaker,adiscourse,andanaudience.Forexample,
JohntheBaptistannounced,Repent,forthekingdomofheavenisathand
(Matt.3:2).Johnwasthespeaker,theannouncementwasthediscourse,
andtheaudienceconsistedinthosewhocametohearhim.InJohnscase
Godhimselfwasthedivinespeaker,inadditiontoJohnthehumanspeaker,
becauseJohnwasaprophet.ButJohntheBaptistcanstillillustrateforus
thecharacterofhumanspeech.
Inadditiontooralcommunication,weshouldconsiderwrittencommu-
nication.Forwrittencommunication,wehaveanauthor,atext,andreaders.
Forconvenience,wewilltemporarilyusethelabelsfororalcommunica-
tionspeaker,discourse,andaudiencetocoverbothoralandwrittenforms.
Ahumanspeakerintendstoexpressmeanings.Thosemeaningscometo
expressionindiscourse,andtheaudiencereceivesmeaningsbyattending
tothediscourseanditsspeaker.Ifcommunicationissuccessful,themean-
ingsagree.
Adeeperanalysisofcommunication,withinthecontextofbiblicalteach-
ing,showsthatGodisthefoundationforallcommunicationwhatsoever.
GodtheFatherspeakshisWordfromalleternity(John1:1).Healsospeaks
particularutterancesinbringingaboutthecreationoftheworld.AndGod
said,Lettherebelight,andtherewaslight(Gen.1:3).AfterGodcreated
humanbeings,hespoketothem(Gen.1:2830).
Godscommunicationistheoriginal,whilehumancommunicationis
derivative.ExceptforspecialcaseswhereGodspeaksthroughhumanbeings
2
GrandRapids:Baker,1979),63(italicsareoriginal),similarlyLouisGaussen,Teopneustia: Te Plenary
Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures: Deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History
and Science,rev.ed.(Chicago:BibleInstituteColportage,n.d.[1915]),16264.
176
ReportingSpeeches
ininspiration,humanspeechisnotinspired.Butitstillshowsanalogiesto
divinecommunicationbecausewearemadeintheimageofGod.
Soletusconsiderdivinecommunication.Themostfoundationalcom-
municationofallisthecommunicationintheTrinity,expressedinthestate-
ment,InthebeginningwastheWord,andtheWordwaswithGod,andthe
WordwasGod(John1:1).InGod,intentionandexpressiongotogether.God
theFathersmindisexpressedinadiscourse,namelytheWord,thesecond
personoftheTrinity.BetweentheFatherandtheSonthereisfellowship
andcoinherence.ThisfellowshipisuniquetoGod.Butitisreflectedona
createdlevelwhenahumanbeingspeakshismind.
Insuchhumanspeechwecanseecoherencebetweenthemindofthe
speakerandtheexpressionofhismindindiscourse.Ifthespeakerhasa
receptiveaudience,thereisacoherencebetweenintention,expression,and
whattheaudiencereceives.Thus,afocusonintentionisimpliedwhenwe
trytounderstandadiscourse.ItisnaturalfortheNewTestamenttofocus
onthemeaningandintentionoftheOldTestamentwhenitusestheOld
Testament.
Reexpression of Meaning
Inordinarycommunication,wemayalsoreexpresswhataspeakersaysusing
differentwords.ThisabilitytoreexpressmeaningalsoderivesfromGod.
AshumanbeingsmadeintheimageofGod,wecanknowGod.Wecan
imageinourmindthetruthsinGodsmind.Ofcoursewearecreatures,
nottheCreator.Godsmindisoriginal,oursisderivative.Butthereisstilla
senseinwhich,whenweknowtruth,wearereexpressinginourmindwhat
Godhasinhismind.
ThispatternofreexpressionhasanorigininGodhimself.TheSonisthe
exactimprintofGodsnature(Heb.1:3).Heistheimageoftheinvisible
God(Col.1:15).ThisimagingonthepartoftheSonistheoriginalinstance
ofakindofreexpression.TheSonreexpressesthecharacteroftheFather.
TheSonsreexpressioniscompletelyfaithfultotheoriginal:Whoeverhas
seenmehasseentheFather(John14:9).TheSonistheperfectimageof
theFather.Godsspeechestousexpressmeaningsthatcanbefoundfirst
ofallintheFather,intheSon,andintheSpirit,intheircommunionwith
oneanother.
Whenhespeakstous,Godcanreexpresswhathehassaidearlier.Whenhe
doesso,hemayexpresshimselfindifferentwordsfromanearlierspeech.Or,
whenhewishes,hemayrepeatexactlythesamewords.TheNewTestament
usesoftheOldTestamentareinstancesofsuchreexpression.Inallsuchcases,
177
MeaningandIntention
themostimportantthingtorecognizeisthatGodspeaksbothaddresses,
theearlieroneandthelaterone.
InthecaseoftheGospels,wherewemayhavemorethanoneparallel
account,Godspeakseachoftheaccounts,notjustwhatiscommontothem
all.ThesameistrueforparallelpassageswithintheOldTestament.First
andSecondChronicleshavemanyparallelsin12Samueland12Kings.
Someparallelshavenearlyidenticalwording,butatsomeplacesthereare
smalldifferences.Psalm18isparallelto2Samuel22,withmostlythesame
wording,butsomesmalldifferences.Insomecases,alaterspeechfromGod
maybringoutmoreclearlyimplicationsthatwerelessimmediatelyvisible
inanearlierwording.
Hebrews1:12indicatesthatGodsspeechtohispeoplehasaprogressive
character.WhatGodsayslateron,inthetimeoftheNewTestament,builds
onwhatGodsaidbefore.SometimesGodreiterateswhathesaidearlier,as
inthecaseofword-for-wordquotesfromtheOldTestament.Sometimes
Godsupplementswhathesaidearlier.Sometimeshealsodrawsoutimpli-
cations.GodindicatesthatpromisesarebeingfulfilledinChrist,andwhat
heaccomplishedinChristbringstoaclimaxwhatheintimatedintheOld
Testament:IntheselastdayshehasspokentousbyhisSon(Heb.1:2),
incontrasttothepreliminarycharacterofthecommunicationwhenGod
spoketoourfathersbytheprophets(1:1).WhenChristmadepurification
forsins(1:3),hebroughttofulfillmenttheOldTestamentceremonialrites
ofpurification(Heb.10:1114).Godsaysmorewhenhedrawsoutthesym-
bolicmeaningoftheOldTestamentbyexplainingitsfulfillmentinChrist.
3
Inallthesecases,Godsnewexpressionimagestheoriginal.Thispatternof
reexpressionimitatestheeternalreexpressionofGodtheFatherinGodthe
Son.ItisthoroughlycompatiblewithwhoGodisandwithhistruthfulness.
TheSon,letusremember,isthetrueimageoftheFather,andatthesame
timetheSonisdistinctfromtheFather.HeisnottheFatherasecondtime,
asiftherewerenodifferentiation.Byanalogy,Godcanreexpresshimself
usingdifferentwordsifhesochooses.
Weascreaturesarenotonthatdivinelevel.Butweareimagesofthe
Creator.Ifweashumanbeingsreceiveamessagefromsomeone,andthen
reexpressitindifferentwordsthathavethesamemeaning,theresultmay
befaithfultothemeaningofoursource.
4
Ofcourse,becausewearefallible,
3
OntheprogressivecharacterofGodsspeechandhisworkofredemption,seeGeerhardusVos,Biblical
Teology: Old and New Testaments(Carlisle,PA:BannerofTruth,1975).
4
Ontruth,seeVernS.Poythress,In the Beginning Was the Word: LanguageA God-Centered Approach
(Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2009),chaps.30,3536.
178
ReportingSpeeches
theremaybeothertimeswhenourhumanreexpressionisnotfaithfultothe
source.OurfallibilitymeansthatourspeechdiffersfromthespeechofGod.
Itfollows,then,thatin principlereexpressionusingdifferentwordsmay
legitimatelyconveymeaning.Some,butnotall,humanspeechlegitimately
reexpressesmeaning.WithGodsspeech,thereexpressionisalwaysfaithful
becauseGodisalwaysfaithfultohimself.
Thesameprinciplebecomesevenclearerwhenweconsidertranslation
fromonelanguagetoanother.IfwearedealingwithtranslationfromAramaic
toGreekorGreektoEnglish,wenecessarilyusedifferentwordsinthedif-
ferentlanguages.Godhasgivenuslanguagewithrichresources,sothatwe
canaccomplishsuchreexpression.
5
Whenhumantranslatorsorinterpreters
rendermeaningsfromonelanguagetoanother,theyareofcoursefallible.
Ontheotherhand,whenGoddoesit,heisinfallible.Godprovidesjust
suchrenderingswhenevertheBiblegivesusspeechesinGreekthatJesus
originallyspokeinAramaic,andwheneveritgivesinGreekmeaningsfrom
theOldTestamentthatwereoriginallyinHebrew.
Distorted Meanings
Wehavealreadyobservedthathumanbeings,unlikeGod,maydistortmean-
ingsaswellasreexpressthemfaithfully.Adistortionmaycreepineither
deliberatelyoraccidentally.Distortioneasilyensueswhenapersongives
onlyavagueparaphrase.Butitcanalsohappenevenwhensomeonereports
wordswithcomparativeexactitude.Inmoderntimes,peoplesometimes
complainthattheyhavebeenquotedoutofcontext.Theirwordsmaybe
accuratelyreported,andyetnottheirmeaning.
Infact,theDevilcanquoteScriptureforhisownpurposes.
Thenthedeviltookhimtotheholycityandsethimonthepinnacleofthetemple
andsaidtohim,IfyouaretheSonofGod,throwyourselfdown,foritiswritten,
Hewillcommandhisangelsconcerningyou,
and
Ontheirhandstheywillbearyouup,
lestyoustrikeyourfootagainstastone.
5
Tepossibilityofreexpressionbelongstolanguage,becauselanguageitselfshowscoherenceaswellas
distinctionsbetweenmeanings,ontheonehand,andtheirexpressionsinparticulargrammaticalforms
andsounds,ontheother.Seeibid.,chap.32.
179
MeaningandIntention
Jesussaidtohim,Againitiswritten,YoushallnotputtheLordyourGod
tothetest. (Matt.4:57)
TheDevilemploystwocitationsfromScripture:Psalm91:11and91:12.The
citationsinMatthewmatchtheOldTestamentoriginal:TheESVtranslation
hasexactlythesamewordinginPsalm91andinMatthew4:57,ifwegotothe
originallanguages,theHebrewofPsalm91andtheGreekofMatthew4:57
areveryclose.Thewordsareright,buttheDevilsmeaningiswrong.TheDevil
twiststhemeaningbyurgingJesustotreattheversesasiftheywereakindof
magicformulafromGod.HeimpliesthattheycouldbeusedtomanipulateGod
togethimtodowhatyouwantratherthansubmittingtohiswill.TheDevils
interpretationradicallymissesthepointbecauseitdetachestheversesfrom
thecontextofPsalm91,wherethepersondesignatedbyyouultimatelythe
MessiahistrustinginGodandnottryingtoinventhisownway.TheDevils
interpretationalsodetachestheversesfromthecharacterofGod.Godisnot
aGodwhocanbemanipulatedtoperformourbidding.
AndsothewordsofPsalm91:1112,whichGodspeaksaspromises,can-
notmeanwhattheDevilsays.Theycannotmeansomethingthatcontradicts
thecharacterofGod.Inaddition,theirmeaningshouldbeinterpretedinthe
lightofwhatthewholeOldTestamentteaches,bothaboutthecharacterof
Godhimselfandabouttheappropriategodlyresponsetohiswords.Jesus
masterfullyrefutestheDevilsinterpretationbycitinganotherverse(Deut.
6:16),whichindicatesthenatureofagodlyresponsetoGod,andwhichis
reinforcedbythewholerestoftheOldTestament.
Wordstakenoutofcontext,eventheverywordsofScripture,havebeen
pervertedbytheDeviltohaveameaningatoddswiththeiractualmeaning
aswordsspokenbyGod.Thetruemeaningbecomesclearaswelistento
whatJesussaysaboutthem,andasweconsiderthewordsintheircontext
intheOldTestament.
Sowehavefoundtwocomplementaryprinciples.First,meremechani-
calrepetitionofearlierwordsdoesnotinitselfguaranteethataspeakeris
doingjusticetothemeaning.TheDevilcanpervertthemeaning.Second,
reexpressionofmeaning,usingeitherthesameordifferentwords,canat
timesfaithfullyrepresentmeaning.Butitdependsonwhetherthespeaker
isreliable.TheperfectreliabilityofGodshouldgiveusconfidencethathis
speechisalwaysreliableinitsmeanings.TheunreliabilityoftheDevilshould
makeuswatchout.Humanbeings,ofcourse,areinthemiddle.Sometimes
theyarereliable,andsometimesnot.Thismiddlekindofreliabilitycan
includecasesoffaithfulreexpressionofmeaningandothercasesofdistor-
tion,eithermajororminor.
180
25
Speech When Jesus Stills
the Storm
WereturntotheparallelpassagesthatdescribeJesussstillingthestorm:
Matthew8:2327,Mark4:3541,andLuke8:2225(seechap.22).What
dowedowiththeharmonizationquestions
OurprimaryprincipleisthatGodisreliable.Soallthreeaccountsfaith-
fullyrepresenttheevents,includingwhatJesusandhisdisciplessaid.All
threeaccountsareselective,sothattheydonotnecessarilyincludeevery
detail,nordotheynecessarilyincludeeverythingthatJesusorhisdisciples
said.Wealreadysawinchapter22thattheaccountsareharmonizable.
Despiteallegedtensionsbetweenexpressionslikelittlefaith(Matt.8:26)
andnofaith(Mark4:40),theexpressionsaresubstantivelyinharmony.
Thedisciplesarenotshowingfaith.
WhataboutthewordingofJesussspeechandthedisciplesspeechPeople
mayaskwhatexactwordstheysaid.Itseemslikelythatthespeecheswere
originallyinAramaic,thoughitispossiblethattheywereinGreek.Peopleare
curiousandmightwantspeculativelytoreconstructtheAramaicwordforword
(eventhoughinfactGodhasnotsuppliedusenoughinformationtodoso).
Comparison with Citations from the Old Testament
CanwelearnfromthepatternsthatweobservedincitationsfromtheOld
Testament(chap.23)Therearesomesimilaritiesbetweencitationsfromthe
181
SpeechWhenJesusStillstheStorm
OldTestamentandreportsofspeechintheGospels.Ineachcasethereport
itself(theNewTestamentpassageaswehaveit)isGodsword.Theearlier
speech(theOldTestamentcitation)beingreportedisalsoGodsword.In
somecasesintheGospels,namely,whentheyrefertoaspeechofJesus,the
earlierspeechbeingreportedisGodsword.Inothercases,however,the
Gospelsgiveinspiredreportsofearliernoninspiredspeeches,speechesfrom
eitherthedisciplesorJesussopponents,orstillothers.Forexample,Matthew
22:16saysthatthePhariseessenttheirdisciplestohim[Jesus],alongwith
theHerodians,saying,Teacher,weknowthatyouaretrueandteachthe
wayofGodtruthfully. ThisverseintheGospelofMatthewprovidesan
inspiredreportofanearlierspeechandfaithfullyindicateswhatthisgroup
ofpeoplesaidtoJesus.ButtheinspirationofMatthewsreportdoesnot
implythatthegroupofpeoplewerethemselvesinspired.Infact,theywere
deceitful,andJesusdetectedit:hewasawareoftheirmalice(Matt.22:18).
WhenweconsidertheNewTestamentcitationsfromtheOldTestament,
thereisachangeoflanguagefromHebreworAramaic(theoriginallan-
guagesoftheOldTestament)toGreek.InsomeofthecasesintheGospels,
wehavereportsthatrefertospeechesoriginallyinAramaic,butwedonot
knowwhichspeecheswereoriginallyinAramaicandwhichwereinGreek
orperhapseveninHebrew.
1
ThecitationsfromtheOldTestamenthavenoquotationmarkswhen
welookattheGreekoftheNewTestament.Somegiveusword-for-word
representationsofthemeaning,whileothersdrawoutimplications.May
weexpectthesamethingtohappenwhentheGospelsreportwhatvarious
peoplesaid
TheGospelsintheGreekoriginaldonotincludequotationmarks.So
theparallelwiththeNewTestamentcitationsfromtheOldTestamentsug-
geststhattheymaysometimeshaveword-for-wordrepresentationandmay
sometimesreexpressthemeaninginotherways.Thepointtobeunderlined
isthat,becauseGodisfaithfulandreliable,everycasegivesusafaithful
representationofthemeaning.Everycasegivesusthetruthintheexact
wordsthatGoddecidedtousewhenhewroteeachGospelthroughthe
humanauthor.
ButthereisatleastonesignificantdifferencebetweentheGospelsandthe
NewTestamentcitationsfromtheOldTestament.Inthecaseofcitations
fromtheOldTestament,theBibleasawholegivesusboth(1)theearlierOld
Testamentpassage,thatis,thepassageorpassagesbeingcited,and(2)the
laterNewTestamentpassage,thepassagethatdoestheciting.TheNew
1
AnexceptionoccurswhenaGospeldirectlytransliteratesanAramaicexpression:e.g.,Mark5:41,14:36,
15:34.
182
ReportingSpeeches
Testamentwriters,andGodhimselfspeakingthroughthem,knewthattheir
readerscouldaccesstheoriginalpassage.ThetaskoftheNewTestament
writing,asdesignedbyGod,wasnotmerelytoreportthemeaningofthe
OldTestamentinsuchawaythatthereadercouldknowforthefirsttime
whatitis.Rather,thetaskwastocommentonthemeaning.Thecomments
oftenoccurinthelargerparagrapharoundthecitation.ThereGodpoints
outsomeofitsimplicationsforunderstandingtheworkofChristorfor
bringinghomesomeapplicationforthereaders.
Nowsometimesthisprocessofdrawingouttheimplicationscanbegin
withthewordingofthecitationitself.Aparticularchoiceofwordingin
reportingthepassagebeginstoindicatewhattheOldTestamentpassage
sayswhenwetakeintoaccountthatGodintendedittofunctioninpointing
forwardtoChristandininstructingusonwhomtheendoftheageshas
come(1Cor.10:11,seeRom.15:4).
Bycontrast,inthecaseoftheGospels,wedonothaveanyadditional,
earliercanonicaldocument(outsidetheGospelsthemselves)thatreportsthe
verysamespeechwehaveintheGospels.Godandthehumanwriterinspired
byhimtakeintoaccountthissituation.Asaresult,wecanexpectthatthe
Gospelsareextra-sensitiveinthewayinwhichtheyreportthemeaningof
thespeeches.Theyaccuratelygiveusthemeaning.Buttheymaynotalways
giveusaverbatimreport.Theydonotexplicitlyclaimtogiveaverbatim
report,soinanyonecase,wedonotknowwhethertheyaregivinganexact
quoteorasummaryorareexpression.
Hodge and Warfield on Inspiration
ArchibaldA.HodgeandBenjaminB.Warfieldintheirbookoninspiration
confirmthisprinciple.Theystartwithattentiontothepurposeofapar-
ticularbiblicalpassage.
Wedonotsupposethatinspirationmadeawriterfalsetohisprofessedpurpose,
butratherthatitkepthiminfalliblytruetoit.Noobjection[toinerrancy]is
valid,therefore,whichoverlookstheprimequestion:Whatwastheprofessed
orimpliedpurposeofthewriterinmakingthisstatement
2
Theythenapplythisprincipletotheissueoffreecitationsandreportsof
speeches.
2
GrandRapids:Baker,1979),42.
183
[Theprincipleofpayingattentiontopurpose]destroystheforceofevery
objection[toinspiration]whichistacitlyfoundedontheideathatpartial
andincompletestatementscannotbeinspired,nodocumentscanbequoted
exceptverbatim,noconversationsreportedunlessatlength,etc.,andwhich
thusdeniestherightofanothertospeaktothepresentpurposeonly,appeal
tothesense,notwordingofadocument,giveabstractsofdiscourses,and
apply,byatrueexegesis,thewordsofapreviouswritertothepresentneed.
Thesumofthewholematterissimplythis:Nophenomenoncanbevalidly
urgedagainstverbalinspirationwhich,foundoutofScripture[insomeother,
merelyhumandocument],wouldnotbeavalidargumentagainstthetruthof
thewriting.Inspirationsecuringnomorethanthistruth,simpletruthno
phenomenoncanbeurgedagainstverbalinspirationwhichcannotbeproved
toinvolvean indisputable error.
3
InthisparagraphfromHodgeandWarfield,twoexpressionsareespecially
pertinent:(1)appealtothesense,notwordingofadocument,and(2)give
abstractsofdiscourses.Thesetwoexpressionshavelinksrespectivelyto
twoearlierexpressions,nodocumentscanbequotedexceptverbatim,
andnoconversationsreportedunlessatlength.Inthecontext,Hodge
andWarfieldarediscussingthefactthatcriticshaveaccusedtheBibleof
beingdeficientandthereforenotinspired.Thesecriticsinsist,amongother
things,thatnodocumentscanbequotedexceptverbatim.Overagainstthis
artificialstandard,HodgeandWarfieldplacethepracticeinwhichawriter
canappealtothesense,notwordingofadocument.Thispracticehasalso
beencalledfreecitation,whichwehaveseeninchapter23.Inaddition,in
thecaseoforaldiscourses,thatis,conversations,thecriticshaveinsisted
thatnoconversations[canbe]reportedunlessatlength.Opposingthis
insistence,HodgeandWarfieldobservethatawritercangiveabstractsof
discourses.Abiblicalwritercanprovideanabstract,thatis,asummaryor
condensation.ThatformofreportingmaytakeplacebothintheGospels
andelsewhereintheBible.
WecanfurtherclarifyHodgeandWarfieldsstatementsbyobservingthat
inthequotationabovetheyarefocusingontheissueofverbatimquotation,
notverbalinspiration.Theymakeitclearelsewhereintheirbookthatthey
believethattheinspirationoftheBibleextendstothewords,notmerely
thethoughts.
4
TheyrightlymaintainthattheBiblegivesus,wordforword,
exactlywhatGodsays.Thatisadifferentpointfromtheobservationthat,
intheBiblesword-for-wordinspiredtext,itmaygiveusthesenseor
abstractofearlierspeechesordocuments.
3
Ibid.,4344.
4
Ibid.,22.
184
ReportingSpeeches
HodgeandWarfieldsstatementsfirstappearedin1881asanarticlein
The Presbyterian Review(2:22560),andthenwerepublishedthesameyear
inthebook,Inspiration.Earlier,in1879,Warfieldhadalreadyexpressed
thesameideasinhisinaugurallectureatWesternTheologicalSeminary.
Inspiration,securingabsolutetruth,securesthatthewritershalldowhathe
professestodo,notwhathedoesnotprofess.Iftheauthordoesnotprofessto
bequotingtheOldTestamentverbatim,unlessitcanbeprovedthathepro-
fessestogivetheipsissima verba,thennoobjectionarisesagainsthisverbal
inspirationfromthefactthathedoesnotgivetheexactwords.Ifanauthor
doesnotprofesstoreporttheexactwordsofadiscourseoradocumentif
heprofessestogive,oritisenoughforhispurposestogive,anabstractor
generalaccountofthesenseorthewording,asthecasemaybe,thenitisnot
opposedtohisclaimtoinspirationthathedoesnotgivetheexactwords.This
remarksetsasideavastnumberofobjectionsbroughtagainstverbalinspira-
tion....Itsetsaside,forinstance,allobjectionagainsttheverbalinspiration
oftheGospels,drawnfromthediversityoftheiraccountsofwordsspoken
byChristorothers,writtenoverthecross,etc.
5
IndefendingtheinerrancyoftheBible,Warfieldindicatesexplicitlythatthe
verbalinspirationoftheGospelsisfullyconsistentwiththediversityof
theiraccountsofwordsspokenbyChristorothers.Heseesthatanauthor
cangiveageneralaccountofthesense.
WecanrelyonGodsfaithfulnessinreporting.Butwecannotreallygo
muchbeyondthisgeneralprinciple.WemustbecontentwithwhatGod
hasbeenpleasedtoprovideusintheGospelsthemselves.Wecanusewith
confidencealltheinformationtheyprovide.Butwhenwetrytogobeyond
whattheyprovide,weconfrontuncertainty.Wecaneasilyinvolveourselves
inunfruitfulspeculation.
The Idea of Reconstructing Exact Wording of Speeches
Inparticular,attemptstoreconstructexact,verbatimwordingforspeeches
involveuncertainties.Weareuncertaininmostcasesofwhatlanguage
wasused.Inaddition,theoriginalspeechmayhaveinvolvedmorewords
besidesthoserecordedinwrittenform.Consider,forexample,thedisciples
speechesintheincidentofthestillingofthestorm.Herearethethreepas-
sages,sidebyside:
5
Ibid.,ix.
185
Matthew 8:25, 27 Mark 4:38, 41 Luke 8:2425
25
And they went and
woke him, saying,
Save us, Lord;
we are perishing. . . .
27
And the men marveled,
saying,
What sort of man is this,
that
even winds and sea
obey him?
38
And they
woke him and said to him,
Teacher, do you not care
that we are perishing? . . .
41
And they were filled with
great fear and
said to one another,
Who then is this,
that
even wind and sea
obey him?
24
And they went and
woke him, saying,
Master, Master,
we are perishing! . . .
25
. . . And they were
afraid,
and they marveled,
saying to one another,
Who then is this,
that he commands
even winds and water,
and they obey him?
Wecanseegoodsubstantiveagreementamongallthreepassages.But
therearesmalldifferences.Andthedifferencescouldleadtoattemptsto
reconstructanoriginal.Forexample,TeacherinMark4:38andMaster
inLuke8:24mightbothgobacktotheAramaicwordRabbi,whosemean-
ingcombinesaspectsofteacher(John1:38)andmaster.Inaddition,a
reconstructionmightspeculatethatthedisciplessaid,Rabbi,rabbi,repeat-
ingthewordrabbi,andthatLukehasincludedthisdoubleaddressinthe
formMaster,master,whileMarkhasomittedtherepetitionforbrevity.The
reconstructionmightalsosaythatthedisciplessaid,Doyounotcare...
butthatextraparthasbeenomittedbyMatthewandLuke.Andsoon.But
suchattemptsatdetailedreconstructioneasilygetintospeculation.Wehave
thespeechesonlyastheGospelsgivethemtous.
Thetaskismademoredifficultinthatseveraldiscipleswereinvolved.Itis
possiblethatwhenthediscipleswereindistressinthestorm,onlyonespoke
up,theotherssawthattheyhadnoneedtospeakbecausetheirspokesman
hadalreadyexpressedtheirthoughts.Butsurelyitisalsopossiblethata
numberofthemspokewithexcitedejaculationsandpleasofvariouskinds.
Intheexcitementthevariousspeechesmayhaveoverlapped.Wecannot
possiblyreconstructachronologicalsequenceofseveralsuchspeeches.All
threeGospelsmaybesummarizingarathercomplicatedsetofpleas.Each
summaryistrustworthyandgivesuswhatweneedtoknowaboutthesitu-
ation.TheGospelsdonotoverwhelmuswithdetailabouteachindividual
speechoutofthreeorfiveorevenmoreutterancesbythedisciples.
SimilarobservationsholdforthedisciplesresponseafterJesusstilled
thestorm.Theytalkedtooneanotheraboutit(Matt.8:27,Mark4:41,Luke
8:25).Itseemslikelythatseveralofthemspoke,andtheymayhavesaidquite
abit.Ifso,theGospelsgiveusonlyashortsummary.IsthatallrightYes.
Thesummaryreliablycondenseswhattheysaidandthought.Godistelling
ustruthfullywhathewantsustoknow.
186
ReportingSpeeches
Desire for Exact Wording
ThemainpointhereisthattheGospelsgiveusinformationaboutspeeches,
butnotexhaustiveinformation.Humancuriosityisnatural.Wearecurious
toknowmore.Itwouldbeinterestingtohearafullverbatimtranscriptof
everythingthedisciplessaidtoJesusandtooneanother.Butwedonothave
it,nordowereallyneedit.Ifwetrytoimagineit,wearesimplyspeculating.
Thoughcuriosityisnatural,othermotivesmaydrivesomeoftheattempts
atreconstruction.Whydopeoplewantmore
First,incasesofordinaryhumancommunication,havingexactwording
allowsustocheckoutfalliblehumanclaims.Supposetwopeoplelistento
thesamepoliticalspeechonTV.Onepersonmayreportoneimpression,
whilethesecondreportsquiteadifferentimpression.Sometimesthetwo
impressionsmaybecompatible,butsometimestheymaybeindeeptension.
Wemayfindourselvesdesiringtocheckoutthetwoclaimsbylisteningto
thesamespeechourselves,oratleastobtainingawrittentranscript(butthe
writtentranscriptlacksintonation,gestures,andfacialexpressions,soitis
stillpossibletomisssomethingquitesignificant).
Likewise,inthecaseoftheGospels,peoplewhohavedoubtsaboutthe
veracityoftheGospelsorabouttheirinterpretationsofthesignificanceof
eventsmightliketohaveanexactwording,afullverbatimtranscript.The
Gospels,however,aredifferentfromfalliblereportsofmerelyhumanorigin,
becausetheyarethewordofGod.Godhasnotbeenpleasedtogiveusa
fullverbatimtranscript,butwhathehasgivenusisfullytrustworthy.We
donotneedtoworry.
6
Second,inordinaryhumancommunicationwemaywantexactwording
becausewefearthatwewilllosesomethingwithanyreportthatinvolves
rewording.Therearesomegroundsforthisconcern.Agoodhumanattempt
toreexpressmeaningconveysbasicallythesamemeaning.Butareexpres-
sionoftenchangesnuancesandshadesofmeaninginsubtleways.Evena
slightrewordingcanresultinsomechange.
Thechangesbecomeevenmorevisiblewhen,say,areportercondenses
anhour-longpoliticalspeechintoafive-minutesummary.Thesummary
necessarilyomitsmanydetails.Butdoesthatmeanthatitisunfairorinac-
curateNo.Aslongasthesummarydoesnotpretendtobemorethana
summary,itcanaccuratelyrepresentthemainpointsofthespeech,and
bequiteusefulinhighlightingthemainpoints.Afterall,thereisalways
thedangerofmissingtheforestforthetrees,ofbeingsotakenupwiththe
detailsthatwefailtoseethemainpoints.
6
ForuseoftheGospelsinapologeticcontext,seechap.11.
187
InthecaseoftheGospels,weconfrontthefactthattheGospelsarequite
selectiveinwhattheyreport.Again,theGospelofJohnsaysitwell:Now
therearealsomanyotherthingsthatJesusdid.Wereeveryoneofthemto
bewritten,Isupposethattheworlditselfcouldnotcontainthebooksthat
wouldbewritten(John21:25).TheGospelsthemselvesaresummaries,
inasense,whenwecomparethemtowhatitwouldbeliketohaverecords
ofeverythingthatJesussaidanddid.Theyaresparse.Godplanneditthat
way.WehavetotrustGodswisdom.Heknewwhatwouldbebestforusto
have.HegaveittousinthefourGospels.Aninsistenceonhavingmorecan
easilyrepresentalackoftrustandalackofcontentmentwithGodschoice.
Critical Reconstruction
ScholarlystudyoftheGospelssometimesattemptsreconstructionoforigi-
nalwording.WhatshouldwethinkofthisThereareatleasttwoopposite
motives.First,somemoderncriticsdonottrustthedivineauthorityofthe
Gospels.SotheywanttofindoutwhatJesusorthedisciplesreallysaid.
ThecriticscometotheGospelswiththesuspicionthatwhatthecharacters
reallysaidcontrastswithwhattheGospelsreportthemtobesaying.They
wanttocheckouttheGospelsaccordingtotheirownindependentjudg-
ment.Theresult,ofcourse,involvesspeculationandendsinuncertainty.If
theywillnotacceptthetestimonyintheGospels,theyhavenofirmwayof
extricatingthemselvesfromahostofuncertainties.
Infact,thesituationisstillworse.Suppose,forthesakeofargument,that
amoderncriticsucceedsbychanceinconstructinganexactwordingatsome
point.Hestillhasnostablecontextforhiswording.And,aswehaveseenfrom
theDevilsuseofScripture,themeaningofsuchawordingcaneasilybeper-
verted.Inpracticeitfrequentlyis,becauseacriticcanattributetoJesusmean-
ingsthatareatoddswiththerestofScripturebutthatarepleasingtothecritic.
InthecaseofJesussmeanings,thedifficultiesarecompounded.Jesus,
whoisGod,inspiredtheGospelwriterstowritewhattheydid.Notonlythe
citationsfromhisspeechesinhisearthlylifebuteverythingintheGospelsis
hisspeech.SotheattempttogetbehindtheGospelstofindallegedlythe
realJesusonlysucceedsinrejectingtherealJesuswhoisspeakingtodayin
whattheGospelsthemselvessay.Thisrouteisreallyarecipeforfrustration
ordelusion,orboth.AndneedwesayititisdisobedienttoGod.
Infact,Jesusknewthathisworkonearthwouldhavelong-rangeeffects.
AccordingtoOldTestamentprophecy,theeffectsoffinalsalvationinclude
theendsoftheearth(Isa.45:22,52:10).WhenJesusspokeduringhis
earthlylife,heintendednotonlythathiswordsshouldbeunderstoodinthe
188
ReportingSpeeches
immediatecontextbyhisdiscipleswhowerepresentatthetime,butalso
thattheyshouldbeunderstoodafterwardinthelightoffurtherrevelation.
WhatIamdoingyoudonotunderstandnow,butafterwardyouwillunder-
stand.(John13:7)
Ihavesaidthesethingstoyouinfiguresofspeech.Thehouriscomingwhen
Iwillnolongerspeaktoyouinfiguresofspeechbutwilltellyouplainlyabout
theFather.(John16:25)
Gothereforeandmakedisciplesofall nations,...teaching themtoobserve
all that I have commanded you.(Matt.28:1920)
ItislegitimatefortheGospelwriterstodrawoutthiskindofintention,which
Jesushadfromthebeginning.JesusasrisenandascendedLordpouredoutthe
HolySpiritatPentecost(Acts2).HealsoprovidedtheHolySpirittotheGospel
writers,whowroteaccordingtotheempowermentoftheSpirit(2Tim.3:16,
2Pet.1:21).SotheGospelwriterswroteinharmonywithJesussintentions.
Answering Critics
Wemayalsoconsideranoppositemotiveforattemptingtoreconstruct
speeches:wemaywantareconstructionsothatwecananswerthecritics.
Buttherearelimitations.Weshouldbehonestwithourselvesandwiththe
critics.Reconstructionsalwayshaveaprobabilisticcharacterandeasily
involvespeculation.
Wehavealreadyaddressedsimilarconcernsindiscussingthegeneral
principleofhistoricalreliabilityoftheGospels.Thesameprincipleapplies
forreconstructingspeeches.Thereissomevalueinaddressingcriticsontheir
ownterms.WemayprovideevidenceforthegeneralreliabilityoftheGospels,
evidencethatmanyunbelieversmayfinddifficulttoevade.Thisevidence
mayhelptopersuadesomepeopletoreadtheGospels,andtoreadtheir
testimonyseriouslyandsoberly.Godmayuseitasastepping-stonetofaith.
Butsuchevidence,whentakenbyitselfandwithinthepresuppositions
ofunbelief,canneverrisehigherthansomekindofrelativecredibility.We
shouldstillhopethatifpeoplecometogenuinefaithinChrist,theymayalso
cometoseethefulldivineauthorityoftheBible,andtheymaythenhave
groundsforfullconfidenceineverythingintheBible,ratherthanmerely
anill-definedsensethatmuchofitmaybecredible.Oncewehavefull
confidence,wedonotdependonreconstruction.Wehavewhatweneed
whenwereadtheGospelsthemselves.TheGospelsdogiveuswhatJesus
andotherbiblicalfiguresactuallysaid.
189
26
Augustine on Reporting
Speeches
TheideathatScripturegivesusthemeaningofearlierspeechesisfoundin
SaintAugustine.Hecounselsustoascertainwhatisthemindandintention
ofthepersonwhospeaks.
1
Itisworthwhilelisteningtohisviews.
Speeches of John the Baptist
AtanearlypointinhiskeyworkHarmony of the Gospels,Augustinediscusses
reportedspeechforthefirsttimewhenheconsidersthespeechesofJohnthe
Baptist.
2
Hediscussestheissuesatsomelengthbecausethespeechesfrom
Johnprovideveryearlycasesofspecificharmonisticdifficultiesinvolving
speeches.
AugustineconsidersitfoundationaltoaccepttheauthorityoftheGospels.
SincethetruthoftheGospel,conveyedinthatwordofGodwhichabides
eternalandunchangeableaboveallthatiscreated,butwhichatthesame
timehasbeendisseminatedthroughouttheworldbytheinstrumentalityof
temporalsymbols,andbythetonguesofmen,haspossesseditselfofthemost
exaltedheightofauthority,weoughtnottosupposethatanyoneofthewriters
isgivinganunreliableaccount,if,whenseveralpersonsarerecallingsome
1
2
Ibid.,2.12.2529.AugustinesdiscussioncouldeasilyreceiveevenmoreextendedreectionthanIdevote
toithere.
190
ReportingSpeeches
mattereitherheardorseenbythem,theyfailtofollowtheverysameplan,or
tousetheverysamewords,whiledescribing,nevertheless,theself-samefact.
Augustinealsomakesitplainthatnolapsethroughordinaryhumanfor-
getfulnessoccursintheGospels:Itisonlyseemly,however,thatnocharge
ofabsoluteunveracityshouldbelaidagainsttheevangelists,andthat,too,
notonlywithregardtothatkindofunveracitywhichcomesbythepositive
tellingofwhatisfalse,butalsowithregardtothatwhicharisesthrough
forgetfulness.
3
Consistentwiththistruthfulness,AugustinethinksthattheGospelwrit-
ershaveflexibilitywithregardtoexactwording.
Neithershouldweindulgesuchasupposition[ofunreliability],althoughthe
orderofthewordsmaybevaried,oralthoughsomewordsmaybesubstituted
inplaceofothers,whichneverthelesshavethesamemeaning,oralthough
somethingmaybeleftunsaid,eitherbecauseithasnotoccurredtothemind
oftherecorder,orbecauseitbecomesreadilyintelligiblefromtheotherstate-
mentswhicharegiven.
4
...anyonewhowiselyunderstandsthattherealrequisiteinordertogetat
theknowledgeofthetruthisjusttomakesureofthethingsreallymeant,
whatevermaybetheprecisewordsinwhichtheyhappentobeexpressed.
Foralthoughonewritermayretainacertainorderinthewords,andanother
presentadifferentone,thereissurelynorealcontradictioninthat.Nor,again,
needtherebeanyantagonismbetweenthetwo,althoughonemaystatewhat
anotheromits.Foritisevidentthattheevangelistshavesetforththesemat-
tersjustinaccordancewiththerecollectioneachretainedofthem,andjust
accordingastheirseveralpredilectionspromptedthemtoemploygreater
brevityorricherdetailoncertainpoints,whilegiving,nevertheless,thesame
accountofthesubjectsthemselves.
5
Augustine,speaksoftherecollectionandpredilectionsofthehuman
authorsoftheGospels.Butweshouldrememberthathealsovigorously
affirmsdivineauthorshipofthedetails.Thedifferingdispositionsofthe
EvangelistscomeunderthecontrolofGodandissueinthatwhichisfully
thewordofGod.
6
3
Ibid.,2.12.29.
4
Ibid.,2.12.28.
5
Ibid.,2.12.27.
6
SeealsoArchibald A.HodgeandBenjamin B.Wareld,Inspiration,withintroductionbyRoger R.Nicole
(repr.,GrandRapids:Baker,1979),1117.
191
AugustineonReportingSpeeches
Inourpresentcontext,someadditionalclarificationsareinorder.Augustine
ispointedlynotsayingthatthewordsoftheBiblearedispensable.Only
throughwordsdoweaccessmeanings.AsA.A.HodgeandB.B.Warfield
pointout,Theslightestconsiderationwillshowthatwordsareasessential
tointellectualprocessesastheyaretomutualintercourse....Thoughtsare
weddedtowordsasnecessarilyassoultobody.
7
NorisAugustineadopting
themodernideathatinspirationbelongsonlytothoughtsandnottowords.
8
TheGospelhaspossesseditselfofthemostexaltedheightofauthority
andistheverywordofGod.Rather,AugustineissayingthatGodhasthe
authoritytoreexpresshimself,tosaythesamethingindifferentwords.Since
itisGodwhospeaks,eachreexpressionineachGospelisfullyreliableand
faithfullyrepresentsthemeaningofspeechesthatitreports.
Augustinecontinues:...withtheviewofillustratinghismeaning,and
makingitthoroughlyclear,thepersontowhomauthorityisgiventocompose
thenarrativemakessomeadditionsofhisown,notindeedinthesubject-
matteritself,butinthewordsbywhichitisexpressed.
9
Augustinespeaks
aboutthepersontowhomauthorityisgiven.Theauthorityinquestion
comesfromGod.Godgavedivineauthoritytothehumanwritersofthe
Gospels.UnderinspirationoftheSpirit,thewritercoulduseanalternate
wordingthatindicatedmoreclearlythesenseorimplicationsofwhatsome-
onesaid.
10
Inallsuchcases,theGospelsdonotdistortthemeaningofwhat
thepersonhassaid.
Augustinealsoanticipatesanobjectionfromapersonwhowantsperfect
precision.
Moreover,ifanyoneaffirmsthattheevangelistsoughtcertainlytohavehad
thatkindofcapacityimpartedtothembythepoweroftheHolySpirit,which
wouldsecurethemagainstallvariationtheonefromtheother,eitherinthe
kindofwords,orintheirorder,orintheirnumber,thatpersonfailstoper-
ceive,thatjustinproportionastheauthorityoftheevangelists[undertheir
7
Ibid.,22,quotedfromBrookeFossWestcott,Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, with Historical and
Explanatory Notes,5thed.,1415.Idonothaveaccesstothefthedition,butthesamequoteisfound
inthesixthedition(CambridgeiLondon:Macmillan,1881),14,andtheAmericaneditionof1902(New
York:Macmillan,1902),40.SeealsoLouisGaussen,Teopneustia: Te Plenary Inspiration of the Holy
Scriptures: Deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History and Science,rev.ed.
(Chicago:BibleInstituteColportage,n.d.[1915]),27579.
8
SeetherefutationofthisideainHodgeandWareld,Inspiration,1823.
9
Augustine,Harmony of the Gospels,2.12.28.
10
Augustineistacitlyassumingtheprinciplethatwehavealreadydiscussedconcerningtheabsenceof
quotationmarks.TerearenoquotationmarkseitherinAugustinesLatinwritingsorintheLatinver-
sionoftheBiblethatheused.TerearenoquotationmarksintheoriginalGreekmanuscriptseither,but
AugustineworksprimarilyfromtheLatinversionoftheBible.AugustineknowsthattheBibleisnotgiving
explicitindicationsaboutwhichwordingsrepresentverbatimquotationsandwhichwordingsrepresent
summariesorreexpressions.
192
ReportingSpeeches
existingconditions]ismadepre-eminent,thecreditofallothermenwhooffer
truestatementsofeventsoughttohavebeenestablishedonastrongerbasis
bytheirinstrumentality:sothatwhenseveralpartieshappentonarratethe
samecircumstance,noneofthemcanbyanymeansberightlychargedwith
untruthfulnessifhediffersfromtheotheronlyinsuchawayascanbedefended
onthegroundoftheantecedentexampleoftheevangeliststhemselves.Foras
wearenotatlibertyeithertosupposeortosaythatanyoneoftheevangelists
hasstatedwhatisfalse,soitwillbeapparentthatanyotherwriterisaslittle
chargeablewithuntruth,withwhom,intheprocessofrecallinganythingfor
narration,ithasfaredonlyinawaysimilartothatinwhichitisshowntohave
faredwiththoseevangelists.
11
Weshouldnoteanall-importantdifferencehere.TheEvangelistswere
inspired,whileothernarrators,operatingmerelyasordinaryhumanbeings,
arenot.Thetwoarenotonthesamelevel.Augustineismakingacomple-
mentarypoint,namely,thatinspiteofthedifference,wecanlearnsome-
thingaboutstandardsforhumantestimony.Augustineseesinthevariations
amongtheEvangelistsapositivebenefit,namely,thattheyestablishbytheir
absoluteauthorityaguidelineforassessingtruthinthecaseofordinary
humantestimony.
Hemighthaveadducedotherbenefitsaswell.Sayingthingsinmorethan
onewaycanmakethesubstanceclearertous,helpusfocusonthemain
points,makeusmoreconfidentthatwehavegraspedwhatwassaid,and
enableusthroughdifferingemphasestonoticeadditionalrichnessinthe
meaningofthewhole.AllofthesebenefitsoperatewhenweconsiderJesuss
wordsduringthestillingofthestorm.
11
Augustine,Harmony of the Gospels,2.12.28.
193
27
The Rich Young Ruler
WenowconsiderthethreeaccountsofJesussdialoguewiththerichyoung
ruler.Herearethetextssidebyside:
16
And behold,
a man came up to him,
saying,
Teacher,
what good deed must I do
to have eternal life?
17
And he said to him,
Why do you ask me about
what is good? There is only
one who is good.
If you would enter life, keep
the commandments.
18
He
said to him, Which ones?
And Jesus said,
You shall not murder, You
shall not commit adultery,
You shall not steal, You
shall not bear false witness,
19
Honor your father and
mother,
and, You shall love your
neighbor as yourself.
17
And as he was setting
out on his journey,
a man ran up and knelt be-
fore him and asked him,
Good Teacher,
what must I do
to inherit eternal life?
18
And Jesus said to him,
Why do you call me
good? No one is good ex-
cept God alone.
19
You know the
commandments:
Do not murder, Do not
commit adultery,
Do not steal,
Do not bear false witness,
Do not defraud,
mother.
18
And a ruler
asked him,
Good Teacher,
what must I do
to inherit eternal life?
19
Why do you call me
good? No one is good ex-
cept God alone.
20
You know the
commandments:
Do not commit adultery, Do
not murder,
Do not steal,
Do not bear false witness,
mother.
194
ReportingSpeeches
20
The young man said to
him, All these I have
kept.
What do I still lack?
21
Jesus said to him,
If you would be perfect,
go, sell what you possess
and give to the poor, and
you will have treasure in
heaven; and come, follow
me.
22
When the young man
heard this he went away
sorrowful,
for he had great
possessions.
23
And Jesus
said to his disciples,
Truly, I say to you,
only with difficulty will
a rich person enter
the kingdom of heaven.
20
And he said to him,
Teacher, all these I have
kept from my youth.
21
And Jesus, looking at him,
loved him, and said to him,
You lack one thing:
go, sell all that you have
and give to the poor, and
me.
22
Disheartened by the
saying, he went away
sorrowful,
for he had great
possessions.
23
And Jesus looked around
and said to his disciples,
How difficult it will be for
those who have wealth to
enter
the kingdom of God!
21
And he said,
All these I have
kept from my youth.
22
When Jesus heard this,
he said to him,
One thing you still lack.
Sell all that you have and
distribute to the poor, and
me.
23
But when he heard these
things, he became very
sad,
for he was extremely
rich.
24
Jesus, seeing that he had
become sad, said,
How difficult it is for
those who have wealth to
enter
the kingdom of God!
Differences
ThesetextsexhibitanumberofsmalldifferenceswhereoneGospeladds
adetailnotfoundinanother.Inaddition,Lukeliststhecommandment
againstadulterybeforethecommandmentagainstmurder(Luke18:20),while
MatthewandMarkhavethereverseorder(Matt.19:18,Mark10:19).But
wehavedealtwithsimilardifficultiesinourearlierdiscussionsofchrono-
logicalorder(chaps.17and18).NoneoftheGospelsgivesusanexplicit
commitmentalwaystosticktoastrictlychronologicalorder.Sothereisno
contrastiveclaimintheGospelsnecessarilyimplyingthatJesussaidone
commandmentchronologicallyinfrontoftheothers.
Themostnotabledifficultyliesintheopeninglines.MarkandLukehave
basicallythesamewording,Goodteacher,whatshallIdotoinheriteternal
life(Mark10:17,Luke18:18).Jesusrespondedbypickingupontheword
good:WhydoyoucallmegoodNooneisgoodexceptGodalone(Mark
10:18,Luke18:19).Matthew,bycontrast,putsthewordgoodwithgood
deed:Teacher,whatgood deedmustIdotohaveeternallife(Matt.19:16).
Jesussresponsediffersinacorrespondingway:Whydoyouask me about
what is goodThereisonlyonewhoisgood(Matt.19:17).
1
1
Forextendeddiscussion,seeD.A.Carson,RedactionCriticism:OntheLegitimacyandIllegitimacyof
aLiteraryTool,inScripture and Truth,ed.D. A.CarsonandJohn D.Woodbridge(GrandRapids:Baker,
195
TeRichYoungRuler
Alternatives
Commentatorsoverthecenturieshavesuggestedseveralexplanations.We
willconsiderafew.
Augustinesays,Accordingly,thebestmethodofdisposingofitisto
understandboththesesentencestohavebeenuttered,Whycallestthou
megoodand,Whyaskestthoumeaboutthegood
2
Thisispossible.But
isittheonlypossibility
JohnMcClellan
3
hasfollowedtheByzantinefamilyofGreekmanuscripts,
whichhaveinMatthew19:1617thewording:Goodteacher,whatgood
deedmustIdotoinheriteternallifeAndhesaidtohim,Whydoyoucall
megoodNooneisgoodexceptGodalone. Thistextualvariantessentially
eliminatesthemostprominentdifferencesbetweenMatthewandtheother
twoaccounts.Thewordgoodappearstwiceintheyoungmansquestion:
Goodteacherandgooddeed.Itresultsinaneasyharmonization.On
someoccasions,imperfectionsintextualtransmissionmayexplaindifficul-
tiesinthecopiesthatwenowhave.Butweshouldnotautomaticallyprefer
aparticulartextualreadingjustbecauseitisusefulforharmonization.We
needtoweighwhichreadingrepresentstheoriginal,thatis,theautograph
ofMatthew.
WhileByzantinemanuscriptsofferthereadingthatMcClellanprefers,
otherGreekmanuscriptshavethewordingthatwehavereproducedabove
forMatthew19:1617.Thesemanuscriptsareofbetterquality.Wemayalso
observethatscribeshaveatendencywhencopyingtointroduceharmoniza-
tionsliketheonethatappearsintheByzantinetextfamilyinthiscase.A
scribesmemoryoftheexpressionGoodteacherintheparallelsinMark
andLukemayhaveinterferedintheprocessofcopying,andascribemay
haveendedupaccidentallyinsertingtheextrawordgoodbyconfusingthe
passageinMatthewwithitsparallels.Becausescribessometimessmoothed
outdifficulties,themoredifficulttextistheonemorelikelytorepresent
theoriginal.WemayconcludethattheoriginalofMatthewprobablydid
containthemoredifficultwording.
Asafinalpossiblesolutiontothedifficulty,wehavethefollowingcom-
mentfromJohannBengel:Agoodmangivesgoodinstructionconcerning
thegood,Johnvii.12.
4
1992),13137,Ned B.Stonehouse,Origins of the Synoptic Gospels: Some Basic Questions(GrandRapids:
Eerdmans,1963),93112.
2
3
vol.1(London:Macmillan,1875),65960.
4
JohannA.Bengel,Gnomon of the New Testament,2vols.(Philadelphia:PerkinpineandHiggins,1860),
1:235.
196
ReportingSpeeches
Wording and Intention
Bengelsshortcommentmightappearatfirsttobrushoverthedifferences.
ButIbelieveitisinsightful,itopensthedoortofurtherreflection.Infact,the
richmansconcern,atthelevelofunderlyingintention,necessarilyembraces
severaldimensions.(1)Hesoughtgoodinstruction,beyondwhathealready
knew,orhewouldnothavecometoJesus.(2)Hisactofseekingimpliesthat
hethoughtJesuswasagoodteacher.And(3)thecontentofhisquestion
concernedwhattodoinordertoinheriteternallife.Inthisquestionhe
soughtforJesustogivehimaspecificationofgooddeedsthatheshoulddo.
Whatevertheexact,verbatimwordingofhisquestionorquestionsforhe
mayhaveposedmorethanoneallthreefoci(13)belongtohispurpose.
AllthreeGospelsarticulateaspectsofhispurposes.
5
Itispossiblethattheyoungmanaskedawholeseriesofquestionsand
thateachGospelhasselectedonlyone.Whethertheyoungmanactually
utteredaseriesofquestionsoronequestiononly,hehadcomplexinten-
tions,whichincludedmanydimensions.Asusual,therearenoquotation
marksintheoriginal.Whatwehavearethreereportsofwhattheyoung
mansaid.Butwedonotobtaininformationastowhetheranyofthereports
givesusaverbatimtranscript.TheGospelwritersmaychooseiftheywish
toexpressthecontentandsubstanceofwhatwassaidwithoutgivingthe
exactwords.Theymayalsoexpressthatsubstanceselectively.AsNedB.
Stonehouseargues:
Itisobviousthereforethattheevangelistsarenotconcerned,atleastnotatall
times,toreporttheipsissima verba[exactwords]ofJesus.Andonthisback-
groundonemustallowforthepossibilitythatMatthewinhisformulationof
19:16,17hasnotonlybeenselectiveasregardssubjectmatterbutalsothathe
usedsomefreedominthepreciselanguagewhichheemployed.Thesingular
[i.e.,distinctive]useoftheadjectivegoodmightthenbeaparticularlyclear
exampleofhisuseofthatfreedom.
6
WilliamHendriksenhassimilarcommentsaboutthisincident.
[Thedifferences]donotchangethesubstanceofthestory.Theyindicatethat
eachGospel-writerhadhisownstyle.Adocumentcanbefullyinspiredand
inerrantwithoutbeingpedanticallyprecise.Theevangelistsarenotreelingoffa
recording.Whateachofthemisdoingisreproducingthehappeninginhisown
5
NotetheremarkofStonehouse,ButitisbynomeansevidentthatMatthewsaysanythingthatisnot
implicitintheMarcanaccount(Stonehouse,Origins of the Synoptic Gospels,101).
6
Ibid.,1089.ItisworthwhiletoconsiderStonehousesfullerdiscussion,93112,whichincludesthequote
earlierreproducedinchap.9above.
197
TeRichYoungRuler
characteristicmanner.Forthisweshouldbethankful.Itmakesthecombined
accountthatmuchmoreinteresting.Besides,itissurelynottobesupposed
thatallthewordsofJesusspokenateachoccasionwerewrittendown.Itis
entirelypossiblethatinthecourseoftheconversationwiththeyoungman,
thelatter,inaddressingtheLord,usedbothformsofaddress,Teacherand
GoodTeacher.Andsoalsoinconnectionwiththeotherslightdifferences:
anevangelisthastheperfectrighttosubstituteasynonymfortheactualword
thatwasspoken,aslongasthissynonymconveysthesamemeaning.
7
WhattheGospelsdointheseinstancesaccordswiththetruthfulnessof
God.Therearenoquotationmarksintheoriginal,andtheGospelsarenot
claimingtogiveusexactwordsconcerningwhatwassaidearlier.Theyare
claimingtogiveusthemeaning.TheirwordingisexactlywhatGodsaysin
givinguseachGospel.Asusual,wecanrelyoneachGospelwithouthaving
toreconstructsomehypotheticalwordingbehindtheGospels.
Distinctive Emphases
Matthewchoosestoemphasizetheyoungmansfocusongooddeeds,which
theyoungmanwantstohearaboutinordertoknowthepathtoinherit
eternallife.MarkandLukefocusmoreonhishopethatJesusasagood
teachermightsatisfyhisdesire.Bothelementsbelongtotheyoungmans
totalintentionality.ItislegitimateinadditionforeachEvangelisttochoose
toemphasizewhatfitsinwithalargerthemeinhisGospelasawhole.
Afterall,thecomingofthekingdomofGodthroughJesusandhisministry
presentsuswithmanyconcerns,allofwhichareaspectsofthetotalpicture.
GodthroughtheEvangelistsmaychoosetoemphasizeoneaspectinany
oneGospel.
Matthew,accordingtoGodsdesign,hasaparticularconcernforthecom-
mandmentsofGod,asisvisibleintheimportantdiscussionsinMatthew
5:1748,19:39,23:23,28:20,andotherpassages.Theemphasisongood
deedinMatthew19:16strengthensthetieswiththislargerthemeand
therebyencouragesustonoticetherelationshiptotheseotherpassagesand
toabsorbthisparticularmeaning,whichactuallybelongstotheepisodewith
therichyoungman,butmightotherwisenotbesoeasilynoticed.
Stonehouse,incommentingonthispassage,observesthebenefitsof
carefullystudyingthedifferencesaswellasthecommonalitiesamongthe
threeGospels:Moreover,theratherdetailedobservationsandjudgments
7
WilliamHendriksen,Exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew(GrandRapids:Baker,1973),724.
HendriksenalsodirectsreaderstoStonehouse,Origins of the Synoptic Gospels(725n692).
198
ReportingSpeeches
concerningtheagreementsanddivergencesinthethreeformsofthestory
serve...toenhanceourunderstandingofthepassageasawhole.
8
Jesuss Response to the Young Man
TheremightstillseemtobeadifficultywithJesussresponse.Accordingto
Matthew,Jesussays,WhydoyouaskmeconcerningwhatisgoodInMark
andLukethewordingruns,WhydoyoucallmegoodThetwowordings
differnotably,andtheirmeaningsdiffer.Eachwordingisanappropriate
responsetotheantecedentquestionfromtherichyoungman,givenwithin
itsownnarrative.ButthewordinginMarkandLukedoesnotfitthequestion
inMatthew,nordoesthewordinginMatthewfitthequestioninMarkand
Luke.HowdoweunderstandwhattheGospelspresentus
InallthreeGospelsJesussinitialresponsetakestheformofarhetorical
question.Thequestiondoesnotreallyexpecttherichyoungmantoanswer
immediately.Jesusisratheraskinghimtoreflectonwhathereallywants,and
whathisinitialquestionorquestionsmaypresuppose.Jesusthencontinues
withastatement.InMatthewhesays,Thereisonlyonethatisgood.Mark
andLukehave,NooneisgoodexceptGodalone.Thesetwowordingsare
effectivelyparaphrasesofoneanother.Itisdifficulttosaywhichiscloserin
itsdetailstobeingaword-for-wordcopyofwhatJesussaid.Hemayhave
spokentotheyoungmaninAramaic,inwhichcasetheGreekisalreadya
translation.Thetranslation,witheitherwording,conveyswhathemeant.
Sothereisnodiscrepancy.
Thereremainstherhetoricalquestion:Whydoyouaskmeaboutwhat
isgood(Matt.19:17)andWhydoyoucallmegood(Mark10:18,Luke
18:19).Onceagain,wecannotbecertainwhichofthetwowordingscor-
respondsinamoreword-for-wordfashiontowhatJesusspoke,probablyin
Aramaic.ItisalwayspossiblethatJesusrespondedtotheyoungmanwith
amoreextensivediscoursethanwhatanyoftheGospelshasprovided.All
threemayhavecondensedorsummarized.Jesusmayhaveposedboththe
questioninMatthewandtheoneinMarkinexactlythosewords.Wedo
notknow.AllthreeGospelsareintentongivingaccuratelythemeaningof
whatwassaid.AndthemeaningmayincludeintentionsofJesusthatwere
implicitratherthanexplicitintheexactwording.
Thereisstillanapparentdifferenceinmeaning.Withtheonewording,
Jesusaskstheyoungmantoreflectonwhatheintendsanddesiresand
presupposesaboutwhatisgood.Withtheotherwording,heasksthe
youngmantoreflectonwhathethinksaboutJesusasateacher,andwhy
8
Stonehouse,Origins of the Synoptic Gospels,93.
199
TeRichYoungRuler
hechoosestodescribeJesusasgood.But,asBengelnotes,thetwoconcerns
aredeeplyrelatedtooneanother.Iftheyoungmanshouldaskhimself
aboutone,heshouldalsoaskhimselfabouttheother.Hence,evenifthe
youngmanaskedonlyasinglequestion,Jesusmayhavegivenanextended
responseinwhichhemadeexplicitinquiriestotheyoungman,inquiries
thatexploredbothissues.OrJesusmayhavegivenonlyashortresponse.
Butinthatshortresponse,withinasinglerhetoricalquestion,wecanstill
seeimplicitlyachallengeinbothdirections:concerningtheyoungmans
attitudetowardwhatisgoodandtowardJesusasallegedlyareliable(and
thereforegood)teacher.
Further Reflections on Language
Languagecontainsimplicationsandrevealsintentions.Theseintentions
includenotonlytheintentionsthataspeakerchoosestoexpressmost
explicitlyanddirectly,butalsosubtler,lessdirectconcernsthatonlyfurther
reflectionmayreveal.Moreover,verbalcommunicationisinmanysitua-
tionsinteractive.Noonesentencestandsalone.Andnoonemonologue
standsalone,butbelongstoalargerdialoguethatisgoingsomewhere.The
particularmonologueshaveintentionstomovebeyondthemselvestoward
largerpersonalgoals.
SuchiscertainlythecaseinJesussinterchangewiththerichyoungman
because,thereisdynamicdevelopmentintheinterchange.Onepointinthe
dialogueleadstoanother.First,theyoungmanraisestheissueoftheway
toeternallife.Thatissueleadstothetopicofkeepingthecommandments.
Thenthementionofthecommandmentsleadstotheyoungmansclaim
tohavekeptthem.TheyoungmansclaimleadsinturntoJesusschallenge
togiveawayhisrichesandtofollowJesus.Finally,Jesusschallengeleadsto
theyoungmansdisappointment.
Giventherichpotentialoflanguageandtheobliquenessofrhetorical
questions,wecanseeineitherofthetwowordingsoftherhetoricalques-
tionslargerintentions,whichleadthedialogueforward.Bothwordingsare
thereforeexpressionsofaspectsofJesussintentionsandaspectsofJesuss
challengetotheyoungman.TheydifferintheirmeaningsbecauseGod
choosestohighlightdifferentaspectsinthedistinctnarratives.Andthis
highlightingharmonizeswiththelargercontext,whetherofMatthew,Mark,
orLuke.
Linguisticallyspeaking,therhetoricalquestionshavecontrast,variation,
anddistribution(seechap.8).ThemeaningsinMatthewaredistinguishable
insomedetailsfromthoseinMarkandLuke.Butthesedistinctionscon-
200
ReportingSpeeches
tributetoalargerpictureinwhichJesussintentionhasseveraldimensions.
ThedistinctiveaspectsineachGospelcontributeharmoniouslytoatotal
intention,forGodsgloryandmanssalvation.
Eachwordingalsocontainsvariation.Thesparsenessoflanguageallows
thattheremaystillbearangeofpossibilitiesconcerningwhatwastheexact,
verbatimformofwhatJesussaidinAramaic.
ThedistributionincludesdistributioninthecontextofaparticularGospel.
ThewordingcontributestothethemesoftheGospelinwhichitisset.
Contrast,variation,anddistributionasaspectsoflanguage,mirroringthe
Trinity,
9
functiontogetherinfullcommunication.Jesussintentionsinthis
oneinterchangeintentionsthatarealreadyrichintheirimplicationshave
tieswiththecontextofmanythemesaboutthekingdomofGodthatcomeup
throughouttheGospels.Themeaningsofthepartscontributethemeaning
ofthewhole.ThiswholemeaningwasintendedbyGodfromthebeginning,
andheintendedthatthedialoguebetweentheyoungmanandJesuswould
contributetothatwholeasitinfactdoesineachofthethreeGospels.
9
Seechap.8,andVernS.Poythress,In the Beginning Was the Word: LanguageA God-Centered Approach
(Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2009),chap.19.
PAR T S E V E N
more Cases
203
28
Raising Jairuss Daughter
NextweconsidertheaccountsoftheraisingofJairussdaughter.Hereare
thetexts:
18
While he was saying
these things to them,
behold,
a ruler came in and
knelt before him,
saying,
My daughter has just died,
but come and lay your hand
on her,
and she will live.
19
And Jesus rose and
followed him, with his
disciples.
20
And behold, a woman
who had suffered from
a discharge of blood for
twelve years . . .
[vv. 2122]
22
Then came one of the
rulers of the synagogue,
Jairus by name,
and seeing him,
he fell at his feet
23
and implored him ear-
nestly, saying,
My little daughter is at the
point of death.
Come and lay your hands
on her, so that she may be
made well and live.
24
And he went with him.
And a great crowd fol-
lowed him and thronged
about him.
25
And there was a woman
who had had
twelve years. . . .
[vv. 2634]
41
And there came a man
named Jairus, who was a
ruler of the synagogue.
And falling at Jesus feet,
he implored him to come to
his house,
42
for he had an only daugh-
ter, about twelve years of
age, and she was dying.
As Jesus went,
the people pressed around
him.
43
And there was a woman
who had had
twelve years. . . .
[vv. 4448]
204
MoreCases
23
And when Jesus came to
the rulers house
and saw the flute players
and the crowd making a
commotion,
24
he said, Go away,
for the girl is not dead but
sleeping.
And they laughed at him.
25
But when the crowd had
been put outside,
he went in
and took her by the hand,
and the girl arose.
35
While he was still
speaking, there came from
the rulers house some
who said, Your daughter
is dead. Why trouble the
Teacher any further?
36
But overhearing what they
said, Jesus said to the ruler
of the synagogue,
Do not fear, only believe.
[see v. 38]
37
And he allowed no one to
follow him
except Peter and James
and John the brother of
James.
38
They came to the
house of the ruler of the
synagogue,
and Jesus saw a commo-
tion, people weeping and
wailing loudly.
39
And when he had entered,
he said to them, Why are
you making a commotion
and weeping?
The child is not dead but
sleeping.
40
And they laughed at him.
But he put them all outside
and took the childs father
and mother and those who
were with him and went in
where the child was.
41
Taking her by the hand he
said to her,
Talitha cumi, which
means, Little girl,
I say to you, arise.
42
And immediately
the girl got up
and began walking (for she
was twelve years of age),
and they were immediately
overcome with amazement.
43
And he strictly charged
them that no one should
know this,
and told them to
give her something to eat.
49
While he was still
speaking, someone from
the rulers house came
and said, Your daughter
is dead; do not trouble the
Teacher any more.
50
But Jesus on hearing this
answered him,
Do not fear; only believe,
and she will be well.
51
And when he came to the
house,
he allowed no one to enter
with him,
except Peter and John and
James,
and the father and mother
of the child.
52
And all were weeping and
mourning for her,
but he said, Do not weep,
for she is not dead but
sleeping.
53
And they laughed at him,
knowing that she was dead.
54
But taking her by the hand
he called, saying,
Child,
arise.
55
And her spirit returned,
and she got up at once.
[see v. 56]
And he directed that
something should be given
her to eat.
205
RaisingJairussDaughter
26
And the report of this went
through all that district.
[see v. 43]
56
And her parents were
amazed, but he charged
them to tell no one what
had happened.
Allthreetextscontainintheirmiddleanaccountofthehealingofthe
womanwiththeflowofblood(Matt.9:2022,Mark5:2534,Luke8:4348).
Thetableabovehasnotreproducedthefulltextofthissmallerepisode,we
concentrateonthehealingofJairussdaughter.
The Same Event?
Thethreeaccountshavesomanydetailedsimilaritiesthatwecanbeconfident
wearedealingwiththesameevent.Manyofthedifferencesinvolvemere
omissionorinclusionofsomedetail.Theyposenodifficulty.Thereremain
twobasicissues:thepointatwhichJesusexcludedallbutPeter,James,and
John(Mark5:37,Luke8:51),andthequestionofwhenthedaughterdied.
Excluding the Multitude
First,Mark5:37andLuke8:51bothindicatethatJesuspermittednoone
tocomewithhimexceptPeter,James,andJohn.Lukeadds,andthefather
andmotherofthechild.ItbecomesclearlaterinMarkthatthefatherand
motherandthosewhowerewithhimwentinwherethechildwas(Mark
5:40).WeinferfromtheearlierinformationinMark5:37thatthosewho
werewithhimwerePeter,James,andJohn.SoMarkandLukeagreeabout
thecompositionofthegroupthatwentintothegirlsroom.Thedifficulty
liesinthefactthatinMarkthenarrowingdowntoPeter,James,andJohn
appearstohavetakenplacewhiletheywereonthewaytothehouse.InLuke
itappearstohavetakenplacewhentheyarrivedatthehouseandwereabout
togointothegirlsroom.
Mostofthedifficultyliesinamental-picturetheoryoftruth.Tohave
acorrectmentalpictureofthisevent,wewouldhavetoascertaintheone
uniquechronologicalpointatwhichthenarrowingofthegrouptookplace.
Butfurtherthoughtshowsthatthesituationismorecomplex.
Jesuscouldhaveaskedthecrowdsandtheotherdisciplesnottoaccom-
panyhimwhilehewasstillatsomedistancefromthehouse.Hepresumably
anticipatedthattherewouldbemournersandcommotionatthehouse
already,evenwithouttheadditionoffurtherpeople.Heavoidedincreasing
thecrowdingbyexcludingmostofthetwelveapostles.
206
MoreCases
WhenJesusarrivedatthehouse,hewouldforsimilarreasonshavedealt
asecondtimewiththeproblemoftoomanypeople.Onlyheandthreedis-
ciplesandthefatherandmotherenteredtheroomnoadditionalcurious
onlookers.ThereisnorealincompatibilitybetweenMarkandLuke.They
happentofocusondifferentpointsatwhichJesushadtodevoteattentionto
thepressure,confusion,anddistractionproducedbytoomanypeople.Both
narrativesalsoallowustoseeJesussconcernforpeoplewhowerehurting,
notformakingaspectaclethatcouldbeobservedbyalargegroup.
ItcouldalsobethatMark5:37mentionsthenarrowingdowntoPeter,
James,andJohnproleptically.MaybeMarkmentionsitslightlybeforemen-
tioningthecomingtothehouseinorder,sotospeak,togetthatdetaildealt
withbeforegoingontothemoreimportantaction.Ibelievethisispossible,
sinceMarkdoesnotbecomeexplicitorpedanticaboutexactchronological
relations.However,itstillseemstomemorelikelythatJesusundertook
tonarrowdownthegroupbeforehearrivedatthehouse.Giventhelikely
circumstances,thatwouldhavebeenakindthingtodoforthesakeofundis-
tractedministryandsensitivitytotheparentsandtheirdaughter.Weare
dealingwithwhatismoreprobable,giventhenatureofthesituation.
Jairus and His Daughters Death
Themorechallengingdifficultyhastodowithwhenthedaughterdied.In
MatthewJairussays,Mydaughterhasjustdied(Matt.9:18).InMarkand
Lukewehavetwostages.First,JairusasksJesustocomebecausemylittle
daughterisatthepointofdeath(Mark5:23).Next,whileJesusissayinghis
finalwordstothewomanhealedfromherbleeding,someonecomesfrom
Jairusshouseannouncing,Yourdaughterisdead(5:35).
HereitmaybeusefultorememberMatthewstendencytocompressma-
terial.Wesawcompressionclearlyintheopeninggenealogies.Inthisaccount
ofJairussdaughter,Matthewsistheshortestofthethreeaccounts,bothinthe
numberofversesandinthenumberofwords.Hehasnineversescompared
totwenty-twoinMark.MatthewomitsthenameJairus.Hementionsthat
thefatherisaruler,butomitsthedetailofwhatheisarulerofaruler
ofthesynagogue.HeomitsthecrowdaroundJesus.Heomitsthesecond
stageinwhichsomeonecomestosaythatthedaughterhasdied.Heomits
thementionofPeter,James,andJohn.Heomitstheparentsgoingintothe
roomwithJesus.HeomitsJesussdirectiontogivethegirlsomethingtoeat.
Heomitsthechargetotellnoone.
207
Thecollapseintoonestagethedaughterhasdiedisinharmonywith
thekindofthingthatMatthewindicatesinhisopeninggenealogy.Itis
compression.Calvinseesitclearlyenough.
He[Matthew]representsthefatherassaying,My daughter is dead,whilethe
othertwosaythatshewasinherlastmoments,andthat,whilehewasbringing
Christ,herdeathwasannouncedtohimontheroad.Butthereisnoabsurdity
insayingthatMatthew,studyingbrevity,merelyglancesatthoseparticulars
whichtheothertwogiveinminutedetail.
1
CalvinsaysthatMatthewisstudyingbrevity.Iamofferingcompression
asanotherlabelforthesamething,butonethattiesinthisepisodewith
MatthewsgenealogyandwithapracticeelsewhereintheGospelofMatthew.
Augustinesthinkingissimilar.
Itbecomesnecessaryforus,therefore,toinvestigatethisfact,lestitmayseem
toexhibitanycontradictionbetweentheaccounts.Andthewaytoexplainit
istosupposethat,byreasonof brevityinthenarrative,Matthewhaspreferred
toexpressitasiftheLordhadbeenreallyaskedtodowhatitisclearHedid
actuallydo,namely,raisethedeadtolife.ForwhatMatthewdirectsouratten-
tionto,isnotthemerewordsspokenbythefatherabouthisdaughter,but
whatisofmoreimportance,hismindandpurpose.Thushe[Matthew]has
givenwordscalculatedtorepresentthefathersrealthoughts.Forhehadso
thoroughlydespairedofhischildscase,thatnotbelievingthatshewhomhe
hadjustleftdying,couldpossiblynowbefoundyetinlife,histhoughtrather
wasthatshemightbemadealiveagain.Accordinglytwooftheevangelistshave
introducedthewordswhichwereliterallyspokenbyJairus.ButMatthewhas
exhibitedratherwhatthemansecretlywishedandthought.Thusbothpeti-
tionswerereallyaddressedtotheLord,namelyeitherthatHeshouldrestore
thedyingdamsel,orthat,ifshewasalreadydead,Hemightraisehertolife
again.ButasitwasMatthewsobjecttotellthewholestoryin short compass,
hehasrepresentedthefatherasdirectlyexpressinginhisrequestwhat,itis
certain,hadbeenhisownrealwish,andwhatChristactuallydid.
2
Augustineisinvokingtheprinciplethatareportmayexpressaspeakers
intentionsratherthanhisexactwords(chaps.2426).
1
JohnCalvin,Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke,3vols.,trans.Wil-
liamPringle(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,n.d.),1:40910,similarlyD. A.Carson,Matthew,inD. A.Carson,
Walter W.Wessel,andWalter L.Liefeld,Matthew, Mark, Luke,vol.8ofTe Expositors Bible Commentary
(GrandRapids:Zondervan,1984),230.
2
Augustine,Harmony of the Gospels,invol.6ofNPNF1,2.28.66(italicsmine).
208
MoreCases
Contrast and Variation
WecansummarizewhatisgoingoninMatthewusingthecategoriesof
contrastandvariationthatwedevelopedinchapter8.MarkandLuke,when
theychoosetotakemorespaceingivingtheiraccounts,havetheopportunity
toprovidevariousdetails.Andeachdetailpossessescontrast.Itcontrasts
withanalternativewherethedetailisomitted.Anditalsocontrastswith
varioushypotheticalalternativewordingsconcerningdetails.Forexample,
Jairussearlydescriptionatthepointofdeath(Mark5:23)isfairlyspecific.
Itcontrastswithherbeingwell,ormildlysick,oralreadydead.Mark5:35
saysthatsomeonecamefromthehousewiththemessagethatthedaughter
wasdead.Thatcontrastswithnoonecomingandwithsomeonecomingto
announcethatshewasbetter.Andsoon.Weshoulddigestallthesecontras-
tiveelementsinthetexts.
Matthewmakesachoicetogiveusacompressednarrative.Howmuch
canapersonsayoncehehaschosenthiskindofoptionToillustratethe
challenge,wecanplotthealternativesintwodimensions(fig.11).Inthe
horizontaldimensionweplacethetwomainalternatives:tocompressor
totakemorespace.Obviouslythisisasimplification.Theremightbestill
otheralternativesonaspectrumofcomplexityinseveraldimensions.Buta
simplifiedrepresentationcanstillmakethepoint.Onasecond,verticalaxis
wecanplotthealternativesastowhetherornotanaccountmentionstwo
stages,withagradualdevelopmentfromthedaughterbeingatthepointof
death,toherbeingdead,andthentotheannouncementthatshehasdied.
Figure 11. Narrative options: stages versus snapshot
Compressed Expanded
Two stages
One compound snapshot
picture of the daughters
condition
Ifthenarrativeisgoingtounfoldtwodistinctstages,thereneedstobe
somethingthatintervenestodifferentiatethem.Inpractice,thisdifferen-
tiationrequiresnotonlymorespecificinformationabouttimingofvarious
events,butalsotheadditionofareporttoJairus,sothatJairuscomesto
knowofhisdaughtersdeath.Soacommitmenttonarratingtwostages
leadstotheinclusionofanexplicitmentionofpeoplefromJairusshouse
whodeliverthemessagetoJairusandtoJesus.Somecomplexitymustbe
addedtothenarration.
209
Butthen,ifapersonhasdecidedtogiveacompressednarrative,itdoes
notreallyleavespaceforafullexplanation.Thenarratormustbecontent
withasummary.Hence,whenweintersectthetwodimensions,onlycertain
alternativesareviable.Infigure12,marksoptionsthatremainviable,and
0marksoptionsthatwillnotwork.
Itisnotviablebothtohavetwostagesandtohaveacompressedaccount.
Nowwearereadytoobservethecontrasts.InMarksandLukesexpanded
accounts,theyhavedistinctoptionsastohowtheyelaborate.Iftherewere
onlyonestageintheactualevents,theycouldsayso.Ifthereweretwo
stages,theycouldsayso.Thetwokindsofnarrativechoicecontrastwith
oneanother.InacompressedaccountsuchasMatthews,onestagedoes
notactuallycontrastwithtwo.Compressionreducesthenumberofoptions
available.Hence,Matthewsaccount,whichwrapstogetherwhatinMark
andLukearetwostagesinJairussinteractionwithJesus,doesnotcontradict
MarkandLuke.Heisnotmakingacontrastiveassertionthatstandsover
against(contrastswith)atwo-stagenarration.
Tomakehispoint,Matthewmustindicatesomewherethatthedaughter
isdeadandnotmerelysick.Thisheindicatesinthecompactsummaryof
JairussinteractionwithJesus.
Ibelieve,alongwithAugustineandCalvin,thatthisapproachoffersa
reasonablesolution.ItshowsthatthereisnoerrorinMatthewoncewe
understandtheconstraintsthathehaschosen.Reckoningwiththemental-
picturetheoryoftruthalsoshowswhyapersoncouldbedisturbedifhe
comestothetextwithawrongviewofhowlanguagefunctionstocommu-
nicatetruth.Themental-picturetheorywouldcriticizeMatthewbecausehe
producesamentalpicturethatlacksthedetailssplittingtheactionintotwo
stages.Butthatdissatisfactionisduetothedeficiencyinthemental-picture
theory.ThereisnodeficiencyinMatthew.
Figure 12. Effect of compression
Compressed Expanded
Two stages 0
Only one stage narrated

variational range;
no contrast

contrast
210
MoreCases
Alternatives?
Weshouldalsoconsidersomealternativeexplanationsthathavebeenoffered.
C.J.EllicottthinksthatJairusspokefromwhathisfearssuggested,andthathe
regardedthedeathofhisdaughterasbythattimehavingactuallytakenplace.
3
Ellicottdoesnotelaborate,buthemayintendtoimplythatJairusinhisdistress
spokebothabouthisdaughterdyingandabouthisdaughterbeingdead,the
latteroutoffearfortheworst.Suchadualspeechisfarfromimpossible.People
indistressandunderpressuremayblurtoutawholestreamofwordswithout
regardforcompleteconsistency.EachoftheGospelsgivesusasparseaccount.It
maybethatJairussinitialspeechtoJesuswasinitsentiretymuchmoreelaborate
thanwhatwehaveinanyoneoftheGospelrecords.
JohnMcClellanismoreelaborate,offeringusthefollowingsequence:
(1)Jairusmadeafirstrequest,suchaswehaveinMarkandLuke,indicating
thathisdaughterwasdying.(2)Jesuswenttowardthehouse.(3)Jairusmade
asecondrequest,usingthewordsofMatthew,becausehenowsupposed
thathisdaughterhaddied.(4)Jesushealedthewomanwiththeflowof
blood.(5)Peoplecamefromthehousewiththemessagethatthedaughter
haddied.Andsoon.
4
Thisscenarioispossible.ButIbelievethatCalvins
andAugustinesexplanationsaresimplerandmorelikely.
A Greek Word with Variation
WeshouldconsideranissuearisingfromadetailinMatthew9:18.TheESV
reads,Mydaughterhasjustdied.Renderedverywoodenly,theGreektext
comesout,Mydaughternowfinishedicame-to-an-end.Thekeywordin
Greekiseteleutsen,theaoristtenseofteleuta.Teleutameansto come to
an endordie.
5
TheGreeklexiconofLiddell,Scott,andJonesinformsus
furtherthatitsbroadermeaningistoaccomplish,finish,orcome to an end.
Itcanbeusedintheexpression,finishthe(ones)life.
6
ThecommonGreek
wordfordieintheNewTestamentisapothnsk,teleutaislesscommon.
Itappearstobeaeuphemism,muchaswemightsayinEnglish,shepassed
3
C.J.Ellicott,Historical Lectures on the Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Being the Hulsean Lectures for the Year
1859. With Notes, Critical, Historical, and Explanatory(Boston:GouldandLincoln,1872),180n2.Ellicott
citesAugustineinhisfavor.ButAugustinesaccountisslightlydierent,becausehedistinguishesbetween
whatJairussaidandwhathethought.EllicottthinksthatJairusliterallyspokewhatwehaveinMatthew.
4
vol.1(London:Macmillan,1875),43941.
5
FrederickWilliamDanker,ed.,A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature,3rded.(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2000),seealsoHenryGeorgeLiddell,Robert
Scott,andHenryStuartJones,eds.,A Greek-English Lexicon(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1973).
6
Ibid.
211
on,orshebreathedherlast,orshewenttobewiththeLord.TheBible
alsohastheexpressionsleepasaeuphemismfordeath(1Thess.4:15).
InthecontextofMatthew9:18,teleutadoesnotmerelyhavethegen-
eralmeaningfinish.Itmusthaveitsnarrower,euphemisticmeaning.Itis
talkingaboutthegirlsdeath.Butitisdoingsoindirectly,aseuphemisms
do.Literally,thetextsays,Mydaughterhasnowfinished.Finishedher
lifeiswhatisimplied.Teleutacanbeusedinacontextwheresomeoneis
in the process of dying:ByfaithJoseph,atthe end of his life[literally,while
finishing],madementionoftheexodusoftheIsraelites...(Heb.11:22).
ButinMatthew9:18teleutaisintheaoristindicative.Itwouldnotdoto
translateitwasfinishing,butratherfinished.Shehasnowfinished.
Still,thewordingisnotperfectlyprecise.Wordsalwaysexhibitvariation,
thatis,flexibilityorrangeofmeaning.Shehasfinishedherlifedoesthat
meanthatshehasdiedMostofthetime,yes,thoughtheinferenceinvolves
theinterpretationoftheeuphemism.Butcoulditmeanthatshehascome
totheendofherlifeinthesensethatshehasnomorelifetolivebutisat
thepointofdeathIsuspectIcannotproveitinamatterofdelicacylike
thisonethatthereissomerangeofmeaninghere.Thewordisnotper-
fectlyspecific.AndwhyshouldweexpectittobeTheancientcontextdid
nothavespecialapparatusfrommodernmedicaltechnologytodetermine
theexactmomentofdeath.Evenwithourtechnology,thereisaregionof
uncertainty,since,forexample,ittakessometimeforcellsinthebrainto
dieaftertheheartstopsbeating.
Isuspect,then,thatshehasfinished(herlife)isnotquiteasdefinite
asshehasdied.Itleavesarange,thatis,variation,inacontextsuitable
forthatpurpose.Matthewisnotquitespecificabouttiminginthedetails
oftheevents,becauseinhiscompressionhedoesnotgetintosuchdetails.
Benefits from the Three Narratives
Whatcanwelearnwhenwepayattentiontothedistinctwaysoftellingthe
storyAllthreeGospelsclearlyrevealJesussmiraculouspower,apowerthat
evenincludesraisingthedead.MarkandLuke,withtheirmoreextended
narratives,cangiveusasenseofhowJesussupportedJairussfaithasthe
crisisdeepened:Donotfear,onlybelieve(Mark5:36).JesusgaveJairus
morethanheinitiallyaskedfor.Matthewwithhiscompressionfocuseson
themainpointmorestarkly.Jesusraisedthedead.
Wemayunderlineapointthatwehavealreadymade:God,aswellasthe
humanauthors,hasgivenusallthreenarratives.Godwantsustoabsorb
thedistinctiveemphasesofeach,aswellaswhatiscommon.
212
29
Blind Bartimaeus
Weturn,finally,tothehealingofblindmeninthevicinityofJericho.We
havethreeaccounts.
29
And as they went out of
Jericho,
a great crowd followed him.
30
And behold, there were
two blind men
sitting by the roadside,
and when they heard that
Jesus
was passing by,
they cried out,
Lord, have mercy on us,
Son of David!
31
The crowd rebuked them,
telling them to be silent, but
they cried out all the more,
Lord, have mercy on us,
Son of David!
32
And stopping, Jesus
called them
46
And they came to
Jericho. And as he was
leaving Jericho with his dis-
ciples and
a great crowd,
Bartimaeus, a blind beggar,
the son of Timaeus,
was sitting by the roadside.
47
And when he heard that
it was Jesus of Nazareth,
he began to cry out and
say, Jesus, Son of David,
have mercy on me!
48
And many rebuked him,
telling him to be silent. But
he cried out all the more,
Son of David, have mercy
on me!
49
And Jesus stopped and
said, Call him. And they
called the blind man,
saying to him, Take heart.
35
As he drew near to
Jericho,
a blind man
was sitting by the roadside
begging.
36
And hearing a crowd
going by, he inquired what
this meant.
37
They told him, Jesus of
Nazareth is passing by.
38
And he cried out,
Jesus, Son of David, have
mercy on me!
39
And those who were in
front rebuked him,
telling him to be silent. But
he cried out all the more,
Son of David, have mercy
on me!
40
And Jesus stopped and
commanded him to be
brought to him.
213
BlindBartimaeus
and said,
What do you want me
to do for you?
33
They said to him,
Lord, let our eyes be
opened.
34
And Jesus in pity touched
their eyes,
and immediately they re-
covered their sight and fol-
lowed him.
Get up; he is calling you.
50
And throwing off his cloak,
he sprang up and
came to Jesus.
51
What do you want me
to do for you?
And the blind man said to
him, Rabbi, let me recover
my sight.
52
Go your way; your faith
has made you well.
And immediately he
recovered his sight and fol-
lowed him on the way.
And when he came near,
he asked him,
41
What do you want me
to do for you?
He said,
Lord, let me recover my
sight.
42
Recover your sight; your
faith has made you well.
43
And immediately he
recovered his sight and fol-
lowed him,
glorifying God. And all the
people, when they saw it,
gave praise to God.
Inaddition,Matthew9:2731hasanotheraccountofhealingtheblind.
Butthishealingappearsnottobeatthesametimeorlocationastheother
accounts.Itappearstobeadistinctevent.
Analysis
AllthreeSynopticGospelsplacetheeventinthevicinityofJericho.Inall
threeitfallsinasectionjustbeforeJesussarrivalinJerusalemforhislast
daysthere.Moreover,therearestrikingsimilaritiesindetail.Soweappear
tobedealingwiththesameepisode.Justaswithmanyotherepisodes,there
aresmalldifferencesindetail.Forexample,MatthewsaysthatJesustouched
theireyes(Matt.20:34),whileMarkandLukerecordthatheverballydeclared
theirhealing(Mark10:52,Luke18:42).Itakeitthathedidboth.
AmorenoteworthydifferenceisfoundinthefactthatMatthewspeaks
oftwoblindmen.MarkandLukementionone.Butinmentioningone,they
donotmakeastatementincontrasttotwo.Theydonotsaythattherewas
onlyone.Iftwowerehealed,itimpliesthatatleastonewashealed.Asin
thecaseoftheGadarenedemoniacs(chap.17),thereisnoerror.
Finally,MatthewandMarkappeartosaythatthehealingtookplaceas
JesuswasleavingJericho(Matt.20:29,Mark10:46).LukehasJesuscoming
neartoJericho(Luke18:35).Thisdifferenceisthemostdifficult.
Proposals
Wefindseveralproposalsincommentaries.HereisCalvin:
214
MoreCases
Myconjectureis,that,whileChristwasapproachingthecity,theblind
man cried out,butthat,ashewasnotheardonaccountofthenoise,he
placedhimselfintheway,as they were departing from the city,andthen
wasatlengthcalledbyChrist.AndsoLuke,commencingwithwhatwas
true,doesnotfollowoutthewholenarrative,butpassesoverChristsstay
inthecity,whiletheotherEvangelistsattendonlytothetimewhichwas
nearertothemiracle.
1
Calvinusesthewordconjecture,indicatingthatthoughheissatisfiedthat
hisproposalispossible,hecannotbesure.Thereisnotenoughinformation
intheGospelsthemselves.
CraigBlombergpostulatesatemporalgapbetweenLuke18:35and18:36.
LukehasprobablyjustabbreviatedMark,ashedoesconsistentlyelsewhere,
leavingoutthereferencetothedeparturefromJericho.Mark,afterall,begins
hispassageinagreementwithLuke,byreportingthatJesusfirstcameto
Jericho,buthisstyleissomewhatinelegantinstating,literally,thattheycome
toJericho,andasheisgoingoutofJericho...(Mark10:46).Luketherefore
improvesthestylebyexcisingthelatterclause,sothatonemustnotpresshim
tomeanthatthemiraclenarratedin18:3643occurredimmediatelyafter
theactionofverse35.LukesimplyrecordsJesusarrival,Markpresupposes
hisentranceintoandexitfromthetown,whichLukeomits,andthenboth
describethehealingasJesuswasonhiswayout.
2
BlombergsfullexplanationdependsontheassumptionthatLukeused
Mark.Ifwedonotmakethisassumption(seechap.16),thepointmight
neverthelessholdthatLukehasnotundertakentosupplyallthedetailsabout
locationthatarefoundinMarkhehasomitteddetails.Markgivesmore
detailsaboutlocationbymentioningbothJesussentranceandhisdeparture
fromJericho.ButMarkdoessoatthecostofsomelackofsmoothness:in
MarksaccountJesusentered,onlytodepartinthenexthalfversewithout
anymentionofhishavingdoneanythingwhileinthecity(Mark10:46).
Matthew(20:29)omitsthedetailaboutenteringJerichoandmentionsonly
thedeparture.Thisomissionresultsinasmootherandmorecompactnar-
rative.Butanotherdifficultyisintroduced,namely,thatwearenotgiven
anyindicationthatJesushadpreviouslycometoJericho.Thepreceding
1
JohnCalvin,Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke,3vols.,trans.Wil-
liamPringle(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,n.d.),2:429.LouisGaussen,Teopneustia: Te Plenary Inspiration
of the Holy Scriptures: Deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History and Science,
rev.ed.(Chicago:BibleInstituteColportage,n.d.[1915]),214,givesasimilarexplanation.
2
2007),170.
215
BlindBartimaeus
materialinMatthewmentionsthatJesusleftGalileeandcametotheregion
ontheeastoftheJordan(Matt.19:1).ThenthenameJerichoappearsfor
thefirsttimeinMatthew20:29,wherewefindthatJesuswasalreadythere
andwasleaving.
LukementionsonlyJesusdrawingneartoJericho,andnothisleaving.Luke
thushasmorecompactnessthanMark.Healsoprovidesmorecontinuity
thanMatthew:bytellingusthatJesuswascomingtoJericho,hegivesusa
smoothtransitionfromtheearlierstagesofJesussjourneyingtoJerusalem
(Luke9:51).
AccordingtoBlombergsinterpretation,theblindmanidentifiedinLuke
18:35wassittingbytheroadsideeveryday.Inparticular,hewassittingthere
atthetimewhenJesusfirstenteredJericho.SowhatLuke18:35recordswas
completelytrue.ThenJesussencounterwiththeblindman,describedin
verses3643,tookplacewhenJesuswasleavingthecity,butLukesimply
omitsthedetailaboutthepassageoftime.
LukeplacesthehealingatJericho,asevidencedbytheinformation
aboutthesettingin18:35.Verse35alsosuppliesalargerchronologicaland
geographicalframeworktoindicateJesussmovementtowardJerusalem
forthefinaldaysbeforehiscrucifixion.ButLukedoesnotsayonewayor
theotherwhethertherewasatimegapbetweentheentryin18:35and
thehealingin18:3643.Inthisrespect,heleavesthedetailsofchronol-
ogyunspecified(thereisremainingvariation).Sofar,thisinterpretation
hassomeappeal.
ThesituationismoredifficultforBlombergsinterpretationbecause
inthenextpassage,inLuke19:1,JesusisdescribedasenteringJericho,
wherehemeetsZacchaeus.Then,byLuke19:28,JesushasleftJericho.On
asuperficialreading,Lukeseemstogiveaclearlinearprogressioninloca-
tion:drawingnearin18:35,enteringin19:1,andleavingeitherby19:11
orby19:28.BlomberganticipatesthisobjectionandpointsoutthatLuke
doesnotexplicitlyindicateachronologicalorderin19:1.Couldthenar-
rationofthehealingin18:3643bechronologicallydisplacedBlomberg
providespossiblereasonsforatopicalarrangement.
3
Blombergsexplanation
seemstomestilltocontainsomeawkwardness.Yetithassomethinginits
favor:BlombergissayingthatLukecontainsnoerror,butomitsdetailsin
transitionsthatwouldhaveallowedustopindownanexactchronology.
4
Omissionisnoterror.
3
Ibid.,171.
4
WhenwereadLukeasacontinuousnarrative,ignoringMatthewandMark,itmayproduceamental
pictureofapurelylinearchronologicalandgeographicalsuccession.Butwehaveseenthedicultiesin
amental-picturetheoryoftruth(chap.7).
216
MoreCases
WilliamHendriksenofferssomethingmoreingenious.
WhilehewasgoingoutofthecityhesawZacchaeusupinthetree,andtold
thatlittlepublicantocomedown.So,withZacchaeushere-enteredthecity
tolodgeatthetax-collectorshomeforthenight.Accordingtotheproposed
solutionitwasduringthisre-entryofthecitythatthemiracletookplace.
5
HendriksenalsoconsidersthepossibilitythatJerichomightrefertomore
thanonelocation.ThesitethoughttobethelocationofJoshuasJerichowas
knownatthetimeofJesus.
6
Butitisnotclearwhetheritwasoccupiedatthe
time.
7
ThemaincityofJericho(HerodianJericho)wasatadifferentsite.
Archaeologicalinvestigationhasfoundremainscoveringhundredsofacres.
8
HendriksensuggeststhattheoneGospelwritermightrefertotheoldsitefor
JoshuasJerichoandanothertoHerodianJericho.Butthisdifferenceofrefer-
encewouldbeplausibleonlyifJoshuasJerichowasstilloccupied.Evenifit
wasnot,thecenterofJerichomightconceivablybetheHerodianpalace,or
themainmarketplace,orsomeothercenter,dependingononespointofview.
Thisrangeofoptionsdisplaysthephenomenonofvariationthatexistsinallthe
synopticaccounts.Noneareperfectlypreciseabouttheexactspotfromwhich
Jesuswasleavingortowardwhichhewasdrawingnear.Thevariationallows
fordifferencesinreferenceinthecomparisonofLukewithMatthewandMark.
Hendriksenalsoconsidersthepossibilitythatwemighthavemorethan
oneepisodeofhealing:oneeventasJesuswasenteringandanotherasJesus
wasleaving.Augustineactuallyprefersthisexplanation.
9
Calvin,however,
rejectsthispossibilitybecauseoftheimpressivesimilaritiesbetweenthe
threeaccounts.
10
Afterconsideringthedifficultieswithproposedsolutions,
Hendriksenconcludes:Thebestansweris,Thereis,indeed,asolution,
forthisScripture,too,isinspired.However,we do not have that solution!
11
Formyself,IprefertheconjecturethatLukewasthinkingintermsofadiffer-
entcitycenterfromthatwhichMatthewandMarkpresuppose.Butthistooisno
morethanaconjecture.Godhasnotchosentoprovidecompleteinformation.
5
WilliamHendriksen,Exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew(GrandRapids:Baker,1973),752.
6
SeeFlaviusJosephus,Te Jewish War,withEnglishtranslationbyH. St. J.Tackeray(London:Heinemann,
Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1967),4.8.3.
7
D. A.Carson,Matthew,inD. A.Carson,Walter W.Wessel,andWalter L.Liefeld,Matthew, Mark, Luke,
vol.8ofTe Expositors Bible Commentary(GrandRapids:Zondervan,1984),435.
8
R.A.Coughenour,Jericho:III.HasmoneanandHerodianJericho,inTe International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia,vol.2,rev.ed.,ed.Georey W.Bromileyetal.(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1982),99596.
9
10
Butallthecircumstancesagreesocompletely,thatnopersonofsoundjudgmentwillbelievethemto
bedierentnarratives(Calvin,Harmony of the Evangelists,2:429).
11
Hendriksen,Matthew,75253.
217
Conclusion
Itisfittinginawaytostopwithaninstance(blindBartimaeus)inwhich
wedonothaveaclearanswer.Indoingso,wedisplaytheprinciplearticu-
latedinchapter13:ourknowledgeislimited.Eventheknowledgeofthe
humanauthorsoftheGospelswaslimited.Weshouldtrustwhattheywrote,
becausetheywroteundertheinspirationoftheHolySpirit,andGodhimself
speaksinallthattheywrote.TheirwritingshavethesamestatusastheTen
Commandments,writtenwiththefingerofGod(Ex.31:18,Deut.9:10).
WereceivetrueknowledgefromtheGospels.Butthistrueknowledgeis
alsoincompleteknowledge.Wearesocreatedthatwecanknowsomethings
withoutknowingeverything.
Godsodesignedit.Hegaveuslanguage.Herulesoverhistory.And
inthislanguageandhistorythereoperatetherealitiesofcontrast,varia-
tion,anddistribution(chap.8).Choicestakeplaceinverbalcommunica-
tionabouthowpeoplecommunicate,whatistheirfocus,andwhatare
theirgoals.Verbalcommunicationtousisalwayssparse,accordingto
Godsdesign.Andverbalcommunication,throughitsmysteriesaswell
asitsclarities,servestosanctifyusandrebukeourpride(chaps.1415).
ArealisticrespectforwhoGodisandhowwiseheisencouragesusto
growinappreciatinghowheusesthefullresourcesoflanguagewhenhe
speaks.Hedoesnotconfinehimselftotheone-dimensionalwoodenness
incommunicationthatsomecriticsofScriptureandsomedefendersas
wellhaveimprudentlyimposed.
Itisfittingalso,byadmittingthatwedonotknowallthedetailsabout
Bartimaeusshealing,forustounderlinethefactthatGodexpectsusto
trusthimbecauseheisworthyoftrust,notbecausewecanfirstofallcheck
thingsoutaccordingtoourownstandards.Weoughtnottoseekassurance
218 Conclusion
inourownindependentlypositionedintellectualorcriticalpowersbefore
wecommitourselvestoGodscareandsubmittohisvoice.Apursuitof
securitythroughautonomouscriticismpresupposesautonomy.Itisalready
intrinsicallyinrebellionagainstwhatwewerecreatedtobe,childrenofour
heavenlyFather.
219
Bibliography
Aland,Kurt,ed.Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek-English Edition of the
Synopsis quattuor evangeliorum . . . . Stuttgart:GermanBibleSociety,
1989.
. ed. Synopsis quattuor evangeliorum.... 5th ed. Stuttgart:
WrttembergischeBibelanstalt,1967.
Alexander,LovedayC.A.Luke-ActsinItsContemporarySettingwith
SpecialReferencetothePrefaces(Luke1:14andActs1:1).DPhildiss.,
OxfordUniversity,1977.
Alford,Henry.The Greek Testament....Vol.1.7thed.London:Longmans,
Green,1898.
Andrews,SamuelJ.The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth: Considered in Its
Historical, Chronological, and Geographical Relations.GrandRapids:
Zondervan,1954.
Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan,1982.
Augustine.The Harmony of the Gospels.Invol.6ofA Select Library of the
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church.Series1,edited
byPhilipSchaff,65236.Reprint,GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1979.This
workissometimesalsocalledHarmony of the Evangelists.
Bahnsen,GregL.TheInerrancyoftheAutographa.InInerrancy,edited
byNormanL.Geisler,14993.GrandRapids:Zondervan,1980.
Bauckham,Richard.Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness
Testimony.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2006.
Bavinck,Herman.Reformed Dogmatics.4vols.EditedbyJohnBolt.Translated
byJohnVriend.GrandRapids:Baker,20032008.
220 Bibliography
Beale,G.K.Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament:
Exegesis and Interpretation.GrandRapids:Baker,2012.
Beale,G.K.,andD.A.Carson,eds.Commentary on the New Testament Use
of the Old Testament.GrandRapids:Baker,2007.
Bengel,JohannA.Gnomon of the New Testament.2vols.Philadelphia:
PerkinpineandHiggins,1860.
Berkhof,Louis.Introduction to the New Testament.GrandRapids:Eerdmans-
Sevensma,1915.
Black,DavidAlan,andDavidR.Beck,eds.Rethinking the Synoptic Problem.
GrandRapids:Baker,2001.
Blomberg,CraigL.The Historical Reliability of Johns Gospel: Issues and
Commentary.DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsity,2002.
.The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.2nded.DownersGrove,IL:
InterVarsity,2007.
.Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey.2nded.Grand
Rapids:Baker,2010.
.TheLegitimacyandLimitsofHarmonization.InHermeneutics,
Authority, and Canon,editedbyD.A.CarsonandJohnD.Woodbridge,
13974.GrandRapids:Zondervan,1986.
Bock,DarrellL.Luke. Vol.1, 1:19:50.GrandRapids:Baker,1994.
Bromiley, Geoffrey W., et al., eds. The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia.4vols.Rev.ed.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1982.
Bruce,F.F.The New Testament Documents.2nded.London:Inter-Varsity,
1970.
.TheTrialofJesusintheFourthGospel.InGospel Perspectives:
Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels.Vol.1.,editedby
R.T.FranceandDavidWenham,720.Sheffield:JSOT,1980.
Calvin,John.Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark,
and Luke.3vols.TranslatedbyWilliamPringle.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,
n.d.
.The Gospel according to St John.2vols.TranslatedbyT.H.L.Parker.
EditedbyDavidW.TorranceandThomasF.Torrance.GrandRapids:
Eerdmans,1959.
Carson,D.A.The Gospel according to John.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1991.
.GundryonMatthew:ACriticalReview,Trinity Journal3(1982):
7191.
. Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of a
LiteraryTool.InScripture and Truth,editedbyD.A.CarsonandJohnD.
Woodbridge,11542.GrandRapids:Baker,1992.
221 Bibliography
Carson,D.A.,andDouglasJ.Moo.An Introduction to the New Testament.
2nded.GrandRapids:Zondervan,2005.
Carson,D.A.,WalterW.Wessel,andWalterL.Liefeld.Matthew, Mark, Luke.
Vol.8ofThe Expositors Bible Commentary.GrandRapids:Zondervan,
1984.
Carson,D.A.,andJohnWoodbridge,eds.Hermeneutics, Authority, and
Canon.GrandRapids:Zondervan,1986.
.eds.Scripture and Truth.GrandRapids:Zondervan,1983.
ChicagoStatementonBiblicalHermeneutics.InternationalCouncilon
BiblicalInerrancy,1982.ReproducedinNormanL.Geisler,Explaining
Hermeneutics: A Commentary.WithexpositionbyJ.I.Packer.Oakland,
CA:InternationalCouncilonBiblicalInerrancy,1983,1925.Accessed
July12,2011.http:iiwww.bible-researcher.comichicago2.html.
TheChicagoStatementonBiblicalInerrancy.InternationalCouncilon
BiblicalInerrancy,1978.ReprintedinCarlF.H.Henry,God, Revelation
and Authority.Vol.4.Waco,TX:Word,1979,21119.Alsoavailableat
severalInternetsites.AccessedJuly12,2011.http:iiwww.bible-researcher
.comichicago1.html.
Coughenour,R.A.Jericho:III.HasmoneanandHerodianJericho.InThe
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.Vol.2.Rev.ed.,editedby
GeoffreyW.Bromileyetal.,99596.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1982.
Danker,FrederickWilliam,ed.A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature.3rded.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress,2000.
Ellicott,C.J.Historical Lectures on the Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Being
the Hulsean Lectures for the Year 1859. With Notes, Critical, Historical,
and Explanatory.Boston:GouldandLincoln,1872.
Ellis,E.Earle.NewDirectionsinFormCriticism.InJesus Christus in Historie
und Theologie,editedbyGeorgStrecker,299315.Tbingen:Mohr,1975.
ESV Study Bible: English Standard Version.Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2008.
Eusebius.Ecclesiastical History.2vols.TranslatedbyKirsoppLake.London:
Heinemann,Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1965.
Feinberg, Paul D. The Meaning of Inerrancy. In Inerrancy, edited by
NormanL.Geisler,265304.GrandRapids:Zondervan,1980.
Frame,JohnM.Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction.Phillipsburg,
NJ:P&R,1994.
.The Doctrine of the Christian Life.Phillipsburg,NJ:P&R,2008.
.The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God.Phillipsburg,NJ:P&R,1987.
.The Doctrine of the Word of God.Phillipsburg,NJ:P&R,2010.
222 Bibliography
.Perspectives on the Word of God: An Introduction to Christian Ethics.
Phillipsburg,NJ:PresbyterianandReformed,1990.Reprint,Eugene,OR:
WipfandStock,1999.
France,RichardT.The Gospel of Matthew.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2007.
.InerrancyandNewTestamentExegesis,Themelios1(1975):1218.
.Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher.DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsity,
1989.
France, Richard T., and David Wenham, eds. Studies in Midrash and
Historiography.GospelPerspectives3.Sheffield:JSOT,1983.
Gaffin,RichardB.,Jr.Gods Word in Servant-Form: Abraham Kuyper and
Herman Bavinck on the Doctrine of Scripture.Jackson,MS:Reformed
Academic,2008.
Gaussen,Louis.Theopneustia: The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures:
Deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History
and Science.Rev.ed.TranslatedbyDavidScott.Chicago:BibleInstitute
Colportage:n.d.(1915).
Geisler,NormalL.,ed.Inerrancy.GrandRapids:Zondervan,1980.
Goulder,M.D.Midrash and Lection in Matthew: The Speakers Lectures in
Biblical Studies, 196971.London:SPCK,1974.
Green,JoelB.The Gospel of Luke.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1997.
Gundry,RobertH.Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed
Church under Persecution.2nded.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1994.
.Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art.Grand
Rapids:Eerdmans,1982.
Guthrie,Donald.New Testament Introduction.Rev.ed.DownersGrove,IL:
InterVarsity,1990.
Hendriksen,William.A Commentary on the Gospel of John.London:Banner
ofTruth,1959.
.Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke.GrandRapids:Baker,1978.
.Exposition of the Gospel according to Mark.GrandRapids:Baker,1975.
.Exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew.GrandRapids:Baker,
1973.
Hodge,ArchibaldA.,andBenjaminB.Warfield.Inspiration,The Presbyterian
Review2(April,1881):22560.
.Inspiration.WithintroductionbyRogerR.Nicole.GrandRapids:
Baker,1979.
Hodge,Charles.An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians.New
York:RobertCarter&Brothers,1882.
223 Bibliography
The Infallible Word: A Symposium by Members of the Faculty of Westminster
Theological Seminary. 3rd ed. Edited by N.B.Stonehouse and Paul
Woolley.Philadelphia:PresbyterianandReformed,1967.
Irenaeus.Against Heresies.InThe Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the
Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325.Vol.1.EditedbyAlexander
RobertsandJamesDonaldson.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1979.
Josephus,Flavius.The Jewish War.6books.WithanEnglishtranslationby
H.St.J.Thackeray.London:Heinemann,Cambridge:HarvardUniversity
Press,1967.
Kstenberger,AndreasJ.John.GrandRapids:Baker,2004.
Kruger,MichaelJ.Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority
of the New Testament Books.Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2012.
Kuyper,Abraham.Principles of Sacred Theology.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,
1968.
Lagrange,Marie-Joseph.vangile selon Saint Marc.Correctedandaug-
mented.Paris:Gabalda,1947.
Liddell,HenryGeorge,RobertScott,andHenryStuartJones,eds.A Greek-
English Lexicon.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1973.
Longacre,Robert.The Grammar of Discourse.NewYork:Plenum,1983.
McClellan,JohnBrown.The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, a New Translation . . . . Vol.1.London:Macmillan,1875.
Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary.11thed.Springfield,MA:Merriam-
Webster,2008.
Moulton,JamesHope,andGeorgeMilligan,eds.The Vocabulary of the Greek
Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources.
GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1930.
Murray,John.Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty.GrandRapids:
Baker,1960.
Packer,JamesI.God Has Spoken: Revelation and the Bible.GrandRapids:
Baker,1994.
Plummer,RobertL.DoestheBibleContainErrorChap.4in40 Questions
about Interpreting the Bible.GrandRapids:Kregel,2010.
Poythress,VernS.God-Centered Biblical Interpretation.Phillipsburg,NJ:
P&R,1999.
.Inerrancy and Worldview: Answering Modern Challenges to the Bible.
Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2012.
.In the Beginning Was the Word: LanguageA God-Centered Approach.
Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2009.
224 Bibliography
.Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach.Wheaton,IL:Crossway,
2006.
. Redeeming Sociology: A God-Centered Approach. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway,2011.
. Reforming Ontology and Logic in the Light of the Trinity: An
ApplicationofVanTilsIdeaofAnalogy,Westminster Theological Journal
57,no.1(1995):187219.
.Symphonic Theology: The Validity of Multiple Perspectives in Theology.
Reprint.Phillipsburg,NJ:P&R,2001.
Ridderbos,Herman.Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures.
Phillipsburg,NJ:PresbyterianandReformed,1988.
Sanders,E.P.,andMargaretDavies.Studying the Synoptic Gospels.London:
SCM,Philadelphia:TrinityPressInternational,1989.
Silva, Moises. Ned B. Stonehouse and Redaction Criticism (Part I),
Westminster Theological Journal40,no.1(19771978):7788.
.NedB.StonehouseandRedactionCriticism(PartII),Westminster
Theological Journal40,no.2(19771978):281303.
.OldPrinceton,Westminster,andInerrancy,Westminster Theological
Journal50,no.1(1988):6580.
Stonehouse,NedB.Origins of the Synoptic Gospels: Some Basic Questions.
GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1963.
.The Witness of the Synoptic Gospels to Christ: One Volume Combining
the Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ and the Witness of Luke to
Christ.2nd.ed.GrandRapids:Baker,1979.
Strauss,MarkL.Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the
Gospels.GrandRapids:Zondervan,2007.
Van Til, Cornelius. A Christian Theory of Knowledge. Philadelphia:
PresbyterianandReformed,1969.
Vos,Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments.Carlisle,PA:
BannerofTruth,1975.
Warfield,BenjaminB.Christology and Criticism.NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press,1929.
.The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.Reprint.Philadelphia:
PresbyterianandReformed,1967.
.Revelation and Inspiration.NewYork:Oxford,1927.
Wescott,BrookeFoss.Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, with Historical
and Explanatory Notes.6thed.CambridgeiLondon:Macmillan,1881.
WestminsterConfessionofFaith.1646.
225 Bibliography
White,KennethJ.AVoiceCryingintheFourGospels:AGuidetotheUse
ofHarmonizationasaHistoriographicToolwithSpecialEmphasison
theRelationshipofJohntotheSynoptics.MAthesis,TrinityEvangelical
DivinitySchool,1997.
Woodbridge,JohnD.Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim
Proposal.GrandRapids:Zondervan,1982.
226
General Index
Abijah,70
Abraham,97,111
abstractsofdiscourses,183
Alford,Henry,29,151
Amon,70
Amos,71
Andrews,SamuelJ.,29,14546
animisticreligion,15n7
apologetics,84
limitationsof,9394
Aramaiclanguage,164,178,181
Archer,GleasonL.,29,125n2
artistry,3839
audience,175
Augustine,29,124n1,129n9
oncenturionsservant,2021,104
oncommissioningofTwelve,152
oncursingoffigtree,146
ondistinctivenessofeachGospel,
35
onhealingofBartimaeus,216
onhealingofdemoniac,57
onJairussdaughter,207,209,210
onreportingspeeches,18992
onrichyoungruler,195
authority,comesfromGod,191
autonomy,8586,9394,100,218
circularitywithin,86
barefacts,33
Bartimaeus,healingof,21216,217
Bathsheba,69
beauty,39
begat,68
Bengel,JohannA.,29,151,195,196,
199
Bible
clarityof,102
divineauthorof,31
asdivinetestimony,16768
inspirationandauthorityof,13,14
moderncriticalapproachesto,16n8
sufficiencyof,92
trustworthinessof,27,37
aswordofGod,13,14,46,7879,
168
Bibledifficulties,2829
purposesof,10613
Blomberg,Craig,21415
Bock,Darrell,42
bodyofChrist,94
brutefacts,37
Byzantinetextfamily,195
Calvin,John,29
oncenturionsservant,2021,30,
104
onchronologyinGospels,12829
227 GeneralIndex
oncommissioningofTwelve,152
oncursingoffigtree,145
onharmonization,65
onhealingofBartimaeus,21314,
216
onhealingofdemoniac,57
onJairussdaughter,207,209,210
canon,79n6
centurionsservant,1724,30,48,56,
104
certainty,41
ChicagoStatementonBiblicalIner-
rancy,59n6,161n3,169
chronologicalorder,12427,130,
14243
circularreasoning,8386
citations
exactandinterpretive,167
andimplications,168,182
variationin,72
cleansing,oftemple,13337
asoneevent,13637
astwoevents,136
commissioningofTwelve,14954
commonusage,59,62
communication,4952,121,175,176
communionwithGod,39
complexity,ofnarrative,208
compression
andcontrast,146,153
inMatthew,6869,71,146,2067
confidence,81,8283,94,104,109,
118,188
conjecture,214,216
context,61,187
contradiction,15960
contrast,43,54,5556,5761,72,
199200,208,217
andcompression,146,153
courttestimony,167
Creator-creaturedistinction,102,176,
177
critics,188
crossofChrist,111
crucifixionwithChrist,108
curiosity,186
cursing,offigtree,14448
darkness,88
detail,pastoralimplicationsof,160
Devil,useofScripture,17879,187
differences,positiveroleof,2223
DiodorusofSicily,41
DionysiusofHalicarnassus,41
discourse,175
distortedmeanings,17879
distribution,43,54,60,199200,217
divineauthorship
anddetails,190
ofGospels,74
divinecommunication,176
divineinterpretation,36
divinemeaning,36,38
divineperspective,35
divinespeech
Jesussspeechesas,163
progressivecharacterof,177
docetism,73
dogmatic,37
dogmatism,104
doubts,37n9,7980,85,86,94,101
offellowChristians,94
dyingandrisingwithChrist,99
Ellicott,C.J.,210
Ellis,E.Earle,12223
emphases,differencesin,2324,32,38
epistemologicallydefinitive,wordof
Godas,45
epistemology,102
error,70
vs.variation,61
ESV Study Bible,30
ethicallydefinitive,WordofGodas,46
ethicalresponsibility,94
euphemism,21011
228 GeneralIndex
Eusebius,128n5
Evangelists,inspirationof,192
exactquotation,172
existentialperspective,77,78,101
expansion,ofnarrative,208
eyewitnesses,41,118
faith,16162
growingin,1089
fearofGod,16970
figtree,cursingof,14448
fingerofGod,217
flexibility.See also variation
incitations,72
ininterpretivequotations,167
inlanguage,59,61,62,66,190,211
regardingorder,12630
foolishness,97
fourteen(number),assymbolic,69
Frame,JohnM.,28n3,77,86n16
France,R.T.,21,30,31,4243n6,
12021,148
freecitations,169,170,183
fulfillment,177
incitations,168
inhistory,4243n6,44
Gadarenedemoniacs,125,213
Gaussen,Louis,83n12
Geldenhuys,Norval,1920,21
gematria,70
genealogy,ofMatthew,6771,78
genre,40,4344
God
beautyof,39
compassionof,95
exhaustiveknowledgeof,50
faithfulnessof,184
foundationofallcommunication,
175
infinityof,91
aspersonal,34
purposesinourdifficulties,10613,
154
asreliable,18081
sovereigntyof,31,39,123,217
andtruth,53,61,168
unchangingcharacterof,55
useoflanguageof,52
godliness,88
Gospels
arrangedthematically,143
authorityof,4547
ascomplementary,36
distinctiveemphasesof,2224,
3536,74,148,153,162,197
asepistemologicalfoundations,47
flexibilitywithexactwording,190
genreof,4344,78
ashistoricalaccounts,66,8283
asnarratives,39
selectivityof,159,165,187
assummaries,187
ultimacyof,47,92
unityanddiversityof,162
Goulder,M.D.,42
Greeklanguage,164,178,181
hardnessofheart,89
harmonization,19,2932,47,78
involvesguesswork,154
limitationsof,9092
aspossibleandprobable,92
secondaryimportanceof,47
Stonehouseon,63,6465
heart,166
Hebrewlanguage,164,178,181
Hendriksen,William,29,19697,216
HerodianJericho,216
history
asbarefacts,33
andfulfillment,4243n6,44
Johnon,7374
Lukeon,4142,44,67
Markon,72
Matthewon,6771
andtheology,3637,38,67
229 GeneralIndex
Hodge,A.A.,64,175,18284,191
Hodge,Charles,5859,62
HolySpirit
illuminationof,4546
inspirationof,163,191
inJohn,7374
humanauthors
anddivineauthorityofBible,191
limitationofknowledgeof,217
recollectionsandpredilectionsof,
190
humancuriosity,186
humanknowledge,limitationsof,50,
9095,130,217
humanperspective,35
humantestimony,standardsfor,192
humility,16n8,81,94,107
hyperbole,16061
imageofGod,55,176,177
impersonalisticworldview,1516
inspiration
HodgeandWarfieldon,18284
modernideaof,191
intellectualcrucifixion,108,110,112
intellectualpride,99102,107,108,
112
intellectualproperty,119
intellectualsuffering,97,98,105,
11011,112
intention,81,176,188,196,198200,
207
InternationalCouncilonBiblicalIner-
rancy,169
interpretation
ashumananddivine,36
principlesof,4647
interpretivecitation,167,169
ipsissima verba,63,184,196
Irenaeus,35
Isaiah,72,164,170,172
Islam,15n7
Jariussdaughter,20311
Jericho,21316
JesusChrist
crucifixionanddeathof,108
asGod,166
rejectionatNazareth,13843
sympathizeswithourweaknesses,
98,105
temptationsof,98
Job,97,98
John,approachtohistory,7374
JohntheBaptist,175,189
Josephus,41
jubilee,143
judgment,11112
KingJamesVersion,166
knowledge,perspectivesin,34
Kuyper,A.,64
Lagrange,M.-J.,15253
language,217
flexibilityin,59,62,66
implicationsandintentionsof,199
assparse,51,52
woodenconceptionof,160
literaryorder,124
littlefaith,15962
logic,15960
Luke,approachtohistory,4142,44,
67
Malachi,72
Mark,approachtohistory,72
Mary,69
Matthew
approachtohistory,6771
compressionin,71,146,2067,208
genealogyof,78
McClellan,JohnBrown,29,152,195,
210
meaning,36,54
andintention,81,17479,18788
reliabilityof,179
230 GeneralIndex
mental-picturetheoryoftruth,
4852,56,14748,205,209,
215n4
midrash,42
minds,corruptionof,89
modernbiblicalcriticism,16n8,187
modernisttheology,104
monotheism,15n7
moralobligations,77
Murray,John,6364
mystery
concerningdetailsandimplications,
92
ofdifficulties,112
ofGodspurposes,111
neoorthodoxy,104
neutrality,8182,86
NewTestament,useofOldTestament,
17475,176
Nicodemus,137
nofaith,15960
normativeperspective,77,78,101
nuancesandshadesofmeaning,186
obedience,79
OldTestament,citationsfrom,16373,
17475,18081
omissions,30,48,57,215
ontologicallydefinitive,WordofGod
as,45,46
oralcommunication,175
Osiander,65
overconfidence,102
parables,28,126
pedanticprecision,6264,72
personalisticworldview,1516
perspectives,inknowledge,34
persuasion,79
Phariseesandscribes,violatedWordof
God,170
prayer,forunderstanding,8788
precision,6265,72,161n3,19192
prejudices,commitmentsas,82
presuppositionalapologetics,86
presuppositions,14n3,82n10,84
pride,82,94,97,99,105,107
amongcritics,1012,1034
amongorthodoxy,1024
crucifixionof,112
promiseandfulfillment,67,177
prophecies,Markon,72
providence,123
Qsource,118,123
quotation,HodgeandWarfieldon,175
quotationmarks,16667,169,172,
181,191n10
Rahab,69
reader-responsetheories,81
rebellionagainstGod,88,218
receptivity,attitudeof,86
reconciliationwithGod,99
reconstructionofspeeches,uncertain-
tiesof,18485,188
redactioncriticism,119,12021
redemption,36
reexpression,17778,179
rejectionofJesus
asoneevent,141,142
astwoevents,14041,142
relief,fromintellectualsuffering,
11011,112
repetition,inspeech,1920,159
reportingspeeches,189
responsibilities,7778
rhetoricquestions,19899
richyoungruler,6265,19399
roundnumbers,5860,61
Satan,blockstrueunderstanding,89
self-centeredness,82
seven(number),assymbolic,69
simplicity,154
231 GeneralIndex
simplification,208
sin
affectsbiblicalinterpretation,15
corruptionof,89
situationalperspective,77,78,101
Son,astrueimageoftheFather,176,
177
sonof (expression),68
sources,useof,11819,123
speaker,175
speculation,inreconstructions,188
spelling,70
spiritualwar,100,102
stillingofthestorm,15762,18088,
192
Stonehouse,NedB.,29,6263,6465,
147n4,196,19798
storm,stillingof,15762,18088,192
subjectivism,37n8
suffering,96105,108
symphonicharmony,36
synopticproblem,117,12223
Tamar,69
temple,cleansingof,13337
temporalorder,12729,133
temptation,todoubt,79
text,violenceto,47
textualvariants,161n4,195
thematicarrangement,ofGospels,143
then,andchronologicalorder,129
theologicalemphases,32,38,39
theology,andhistory,3637,38,67
transliteration,variationin,70
Trinity,34,176,200
trustinGod,1089
truth,53
assumptionsabout,28
ascontrastive,61
versuserror,55
perspectivalcharacterof,34
Twelve,commissioningof,14954
ultimatecommitments,86.See also
presuppositions
unbelief,8485
understanding,8788
VanTil,Cornelius,14n3,82n10
variantreadings,161n4
variation,43,5455,5661,199200,
208,217
inwords,21011
verbalcommunication,4952,121,
199,217
verbalinspiration,183
verbatimcitation,167,174,18284,
186
video-recording,conceptoftruth,
4950
Warfield,BenjaminB.,27,64,175,
18284,191
WestminsterConfessionofFaith,
1415n5,80
wisdom,oftheworld,112,113
women,inMatthewsgenealogy,69
woodenharmonization,102
WordofGod,4546,186
words,variationin,211
worldview
assumptionsof,38
andbiblicalauthority,15
andbiblicalinterpretation,33
writtencommunication,175
writtenorder,124
YearofJubilee,143
Zacchaeus,216
232
Scripture Index
Genesis
1:3 175
1:2830 175
1:31 49
2:4 68
3:45 79,110
3:5 99
5 68
5:1 68
6:5 166
6:9 68
10 68
11:1032 68
11:27 68
12:13 69
38 69
Exodus
20:15 28
31:18 217
Leviticus
16:5 31
16:15 31
16:16 31
16:21 31
25 143
Numbers
4:133 168
18:47 168
25:9 58
Deuteronomy
6:45 165,166
6:5 164,165,166
6:16 179
9:10 217
29:4 170,171
29:4a 171
29:29 137
Joshua
2:1 69
Ruth
1:4 69
2 Samuel
7:516 69
11 69
11:3 69
14:33 31
22 177
1 Kings
12:3 31
12:12 31
233 ScriptureIndex
1 Chronicles
19 68
25:1 70
Esther
6:6 166
Job
1:1319 97
2:78 97
19:20 174n
Psalms
10:1 98
13:12 98
18 177
22:1 97,98
44:24 98
73 80,97
73:35 97
73:1617 97
91 179
91:11 179
91:1112 179
91:12 179
115:3 91
119:105 104
119:142 28n3
119:151 28n3
131 9192
Proverbs
1:7 101
23:7 166
Isaiah
6:910 11112,171n
6:10 171n
8:14 172
10:7 166
28:15 172
28:16 172
28:17 172
29:10 170,171,171n
29:13 169,170
40:3 72
42 172
42:1 17172
42:14 171
43:4 172
45:22 187
46:911 36
46:10 168
52:710 72
52:10 187
52:11 168
56:7 163,164
61 143
61:12 143
Lamentations
3:3738 36
Ezekiel
36:2527 81
Malachi
3:1 72
3:6 55
11:2527 82
Matthew
1:1 67,68
1:117 23
1:24 68
1:216 68
1:3 69
1:5 69
1:6 69
1:611 69
1:78 70
1:8 68
1:10 70
1:16 69
1:17 69
1:18 69
234 ScriptureIndex
1:23 69
2:2 70
2:6 70
2:16 129
3:2 175
3:13 129
4:110 98
4:4 85
4:57 17879
5:8 88
5:1718 14
5:1748 197
6:30 160,162
7:78 87
8 18
8:5 48,49
8:59 19
8:513 1718,19,20,22,22n,
23,38,48,56,60,71
8:6 48,49
8:7 22,49
8:89 19
8:9 18
8:10 22,23
8:1012 71,106
8:1112 22,22n,30
8:12 23
8:2327 157,158,180
8:25 185
8:26 158,159,160,162,180
8:27 185
8:28 56,125
8:2834 56
8:289:7 124
9:1 125
9:18 206,210,211
9:1826 71,203,204,205
9:2022 205
9:2122 203
9:2731 213
10:115 149,150
10:6 23
10:910 151
10:10 152
10:1642 150
11:2527 87
11:27 34
12:1721 171
12:18 172
13:5458 138,139,140
13:57 141
13:58 141
14:112 140
14:1321 140
14:31 160,162
15:79 169
15:24 23
16:8 160,162
17:20 160
19:1 215
19:39 197
19:16 194,196,197
19:1617 195
19:1622 193,194
19:17 194,196,198
19:18 194
20:29 213,214,215
20:2934 212,213
20:34 213
21:1213 133
21:1216 144
21:1217 133,134,135
21:13 163,164,167,168
21:17 144
21:1722 144,145
21:18 144
21:1822 71n
21:19 145
21:1920 146
21:20 147
21:43 23
22:16 181
22:18 181
22:2333 165
22:37 77,164,165,167
23:23 197
235 ScriptureIndex
26:53 14
27:26 21
27:43 108
28:1920 188
28:20 197
Mark
1:1 72
1:2 72
1:23 72
1:402:17 124
2:112 125
2:23 127
3:1 127
3:7 127
3:13 128
3:22 128
4:1 125
4:2 126
4:35 125
4:3541 125,127,157,158,180
4:38 185
4:39 158
4:40 158,160,161,180
4:41 185
5:120 56,124,127,127n4
5:2 125,127,128
5:21 127,127n4
5:2243 71,203,204,205
5:23 206,208
5:2534 205
5:2634 203
5:35 206,208
5:36 211
5:37 205,206
5:38 204
5:40 205
5:41 181n
5:43 205
6:15 138,139,140
6:4 141
6:5 141,142
6:7 152
6:713 149,150
6:8 151
6:1429 140
6:30 162
6:3044 140
6:52 161
7:67 169
8:17 161
9:1 127n4
10:17 194
10:1723 193,194
10:18 194,198
10:19 194
10:46 213,214
10:4652 212,213
10:52 213
11 136
11:1115 144,145
11:1314 146
11:14 147
11:15 147
11:1518 144
11:1519 133,134,135
11:1925 144,145
11:20 147
11:2021 146
12:1827 165
12:29b 166
12:2930 165,166
12:30 164,166,167,169
14:36 181n
15:15 21
15:34 181n
Luke
1:1 41,67,118
1:14 41,41n3,66,67,122
1:2 41,118
1:3 41,118
1:4 41
1:5 41,67
1:52 24
4 142
236 ScriptureIndex
4:113 141
4:1415 141
4:16 141
4:1630 138,139,140,141,142,
143
4:18 24
4:1819 143
4:19 143
4:23 141,142
4:30 141
4:31 141
5:1232 124
5:27 126
7 18
7:110 1718,20,22n,24,38,
104
7:2 17n
7:34 48
7:35 19,22
7:4 23,24,106
7:6 19,22,23,24,30,48,
106
7:68 19
7:7 19,22,24
7:8 18
7:9 23
7:2123 24
8:2225 157,158,180
8:23a 158
8:24 158,185
8:2425 185
8:25 158,162,185
8:2639 56,124
8:4156 203,204,205
8:4348 205
8:4448 203
8:51 205
8:56 204
9:16 149,150
9:3 151
9:51 215
10:112 151
10:4 151
10:56 150
12:28 162
13:2230 22
13:26 22
13:28 22
13:2830 22,22n
14:11 24
14:2633 94
18:14 24
18:18 194
18:1824 193,194
18:19 194,198
18:20 194
18:35 213,214,215
18:36 214
18:3543 212,213
18:3643 214,215
18:42 213
19:1 215
19:11 215
19:28 215
19:4546 133,134,135
24:2527 67
24:4447 36,67
24:47 23
John
1:1 73,175,176
1:118 73
1:14 73
1:38 185
2 133,136
2:11 137
2:12 137
2:13 137
2:1322 133,134,135
2:1415 137
2:16 136
2:17 137
2:22 137
2:25 137
3:1ff. 137
4:4654 17n
237 ScriptureIndex
7:12 195
10:35 14
13:7 188
14:6 53
14:9 176
16:1214 73
16:25 73,188
17:17 28n3
19:3436 73
20:25 73
20:27 73
21:25 126,165,187
Acts
1:1 41n3,42
1:8 23,36
2 188
Romans
1:18 88
1:1823 82
1:1832 83
1:28 88
5:3 109
5:8 109
6:4 99
6:6 108
6:8 99
8:1 108
8:3134 109
8:3537 109
9:3233 172
9:33 172,172n,173
11:8 170,171,171n
12:12 89,99
15:4 181n
1 Corinthians
2:10 34
2:11 34
2:14 84,88
3:19 112
4:7 107
10:8 58
10:11 182
13:12 15,53
2 Corinthians
2:1516 111
4:34 89
4:6 82
4:1012 99
5:7 96
6:17 168
Ephesians
1:11 36
3:10 36
3:18 15
4:18 89
5:1516 96
5:16 101
6:1018 100
Philippians
3:10 98,99,112
4:8 101
4:11 91
Colossians
1:15 176
2:20 99
3:1 99
3:10 89
1 Thessalonians
1:5 46n
2:13 46n
4:15 211
2 Thessalonians
2:910 89
2:1112 88
2 Timothy
2:2526 89
238 ScriptureIndex
3:16 41n,188
3:1617 14
Hebrews
1:1 177
1:12 177
1:2 177
1:3 176,177
4:2 83n
4:1213 95
4:1416 80
4:15 98,105
4:1516 98
4:16 95
10:9 168
10:1114 177
11:1719 97
11:22 211
12:314 108
12:4 111
12:511 99
James
2:19 161
4:3 87
4:6 87
2 Peter
1:21 14,118,188
3:6 129
3:16 46n
1 John
1:12 73
2:2021 46n
4:13 73
Revelation
4:7 35
4:8 36
13:14 89
17:5 111
22:1819 46n
worldview-based defense
of scriptural inerrancy
Backmatter Ad for Inerrancy and the Gospels
A wide-ranging analysis that exposes the faulty intellectual assumptions
that underlie challenges to the Bible from every major academic
discipline in the modern university world. I think every Christian
student at every secular university should read and absorb the
arguments in this book.
Wayne Grudem, Research Professor of Bible and Theology, Phoenix Seminary
The book gets deeper into the question of inerrancy than any other
book I know.
Every new item that Vern Poythress writes is thoughtful, creative,
and worth reading. This book is no exception. Besides its crucial
contribution to his own subject in clarifying how it is that God
communicates to us through the Bible, I think this basic idea will
be fruitful for a good number of other topics as well. Thanks, Dr.
Poythress, and thanks, God, for giving him to the church.
C. John Collins, Professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary;
author, Science & Faith
Visit crossway.org for more information.
I N E R R A N C Y
A N D
T H E G O S P E L S
I
N
E
R
R
A
N
C
Y

A
N
D

T
H
E

G
O
S
P
E
L
S
A G OD - C E N T E R E D
A P P R OA C H T O
T H E C H A L L E NG E S OF
H A R MON I Z A T I ON
P O Y T H R E S S
P
O
Y
T
H
R
E
S
S
Serious Bible readers all recognize that there are differences
between accounts of the same events in Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John, and no responsible reader can simply sweep these
differences under the rug. But can each unique account still be
reconciled with a belief in biblical inerrancy?
Responding to the questions surrounding the Gospel narratives,
New Testament scholar Vern Poythress provides an informed
case for inerrancy in the Gospels and helps readers understand
basic principles for harmonization. He also tackles some of the
most complicated exegetical problems, showing the way forward
on passages that have perplexed many, including the centurions
servant, the cursing of the g tree, and more.
All those interested in the authority of Scripture will nd in
this volume great encouragement and insight as Poythress has
provided an arresting case to stem the tide of skepticism.
This is a study well worth reading and considering, regardless of
whether one accepts the self-authenticating model or not.
Darrell L. Bock, Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies,
Dallas Theological Seminary
When Vern Poythress has chosen to write on a particular subject,
the resulting book has always been the best book on that subject.
This one is about the inerrancy of Scripture, dealing particularly
with problems in the Gospel narratives, and I know of nothing
better in the eld.
VERN SHERIDAN POYTHRESS is professor of New Testament
interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary in
Philadelphia. He has six earned degrees, including a PhD
from Harvard University and a ThD from the University of
Stellenbosch, South Africa. Poythress has authored over a dozen
books on various disciplines.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION / APOLOGETICS

Poythress Vern Inerrancy and The Gospels

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Poythress Vern Inerrancy and The Gospels

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

I N E R R A N C Y

Potrebbero piacerti anche