Introduction
Biblical contradictions (real or perceived) are used by sceptics to deny the inspiration of Scriptures and the doctrine of inerrancy. Nowhere is this more apparent than with the Gospel narratives, as they cover much of the same ground. Harmonization is used to inter-relate the materials of the Gospels so that they tell a single and continuous story. The first attempt at synchronization was by Tatian (2nd century), called the Diatessaron. Harmonisation is used to iron out perceived inconsistencies or contradictions; when appropriately applied it is a valid technique, but sometimes differences are meant to stand. The fact that we have four different Gospels means that we should first try to understand the differences before explaining them away. Our study will look at one of these “discrepancies”—the triumphal entry of Jerusalem by Jesus on Palm Sunday.
Two Stories
Matthew sometimes records two stories that are similar:
| Matthew |
|---|
| Matt 9:32-34; 12:22-34 – healing a dumb demoniac |
| Matt 9:27-31; 20:29-34 – healing of two blind men |
| Matt 12:38-39; 16:1-4 – request for a sign |
This is not exceptionable and easily accounted for by the fact that Jesus must have said and done very similar things throughout his ministry.
Two Characters
Matthew also has stories with two characters where the other gospels have one:
| Matthew | Mark//Luke |
|---|---|
| Matt 8:28 – two possessed with devils | Mark 5:2//Luke 8:27 |
| Matt 20:30 – two blind men; cf. 9:27-31 | Mark.10:46-52//Luke 18:35-43 |
| Matt 21:2 – two animals | Mark.11:2-10//Luke 19:30-40// John 12:12-15 |
This can lead to problems of harmonization. For example, Matthew has two blind men whereas the other synoptic have Blind Bartimaeus. Various attempts have been made to harmonize the accounts. Among the solutions proposed is that they are an extended account. Bartimaeus appealed to Jesus as he entered the city (Luke) but had no response. Later, when Jesus left Jericho (Matt), Bartimaeus and a fellow sufferer were waiting by the Jerusalem gate and pleaded again to be healed. This is probable and is supported by the Greek verbs ‘passing through’ (diaporeu,omai, Luke 18:36) contrasting with ‘leaving’ (para,gw, Matt 20:30; cf. .9:27). However, although the attempt to harmonize is driven by our need to square the narratives, it is largely irrelevant to the point that Matthew is making. Jesus must have healed hundreds of blind men – but here, only in Matthew’s Gospel – two blind men; Jew and Gentile at the place where the nation had first entered the kingdom (and where the faithful Gentile woman Rahab had been saved).
Triumphal Entry
Jesus entered Jerusalem riding an ass – this was obviously, consciously, done by Jesus in order to fulfill the prophecy in Zech 9:9. The people also understood the significance of the procession against its OT background. Why then does Matthew’s report of the incident differ from that of the other Gospel accounts? Matthew reports Jesus riding on two donkeys (instead of one Matt 21:2-3, 5, 7) – naturally the sceptics have a field day with this, depicting Jesus astride two donkeys (like some sort of circus act). Bad attempts have been made to harmonize the accounts; Clement of Alexander, for example, suggested that an oriental throne was supported by the two animals. Not only is this unlikely, it ignores the fact that Matthew often has duplicate stories and stories with two characters.
The prophecy in Zechariah 9 is in the form of a parallelism, referring to one animal not two:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and (even) upon a colt the foal of an ass. Zech 9:9 (KJV revised)
This prophecy becomes two animals in Matthew’s version:
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. Matt 21:5-7 (KJV)
The donkey in the OT represents Israel; riding or owning a donkey is a metaphor for sovereignty over Israel, and therefore by extension of the metaphor it symbolizes leadership or royalty. Matthew was obviously aware of the parallelism in the Zechariah prophecy, yet he deliberately mentions two animals. Many scholars believe that Matthew’s urge to duplicate rests on the OT validity of establishing everything on the testimony of two witnesses (Deut 17:6). However, this seems very unlikely; a far more likely motive is that the urge to duplicate rests on the need to represent both Jew and Gentile.
Matthew’s Gospel is at one and the same time the most particular and the most universal. He includes statements in conjunction with his healings and those of his disciples which reserve their miracle working power for Israel (Matt 10:5-6; 15:24). In his healing ministry towards the crowds, he is presenting himself as the healer of Israel, where the nation’s healers have failed. Yet, upon seeing the Canaanite woman’s faith, he is persuaded to heal her daughter (Matt 15:28). The resolution of this apparent tension is to recognize Matthew’s view of salvation-history: God’s call for repentance comes to the Jews first, but after they have had a chance to respond it must go forth into the entire world.
Jesus was presented with the first animal – which refused to move (the Jews rejecting Jesus) and then was brought the foal (the Gentiles) which carried him into Jerusalem. This would be a valid explanation but we cannot know this for sure – the facts are largely irrelevant to Matthews point – the greater Son of David brings salvation to both Jew and Gentile and is sovereign over both.
Conclusion
Scholars of the Gospels are too quick to dismiss the accounts when there is an apparent inconsistency or contradiction. The differences force the reader to think outside the box and look for an inspired deeper harmony.
Evidence for the existence of Jesus in the New Testament