Christ in the Four Gospels (Part 1 of 1)

The Christ of Luke: Son of Man — Son of Adam.

"The third living creature had a face as a MAN." (Rev. 4 : 7). "I drew them with cords of a MAN." (Hosea 11 : 4).

How very human is this narrative by Luke ! His preface is characteristic, beginning with an address to his friend Theophilus. The gospel thus displays in the opening, that human attachment which continues throughout and closes with that touching human incident, recorded by Luke alone, of the penitent dying thief being assured of a place in paradise.

The gospel begins like a simple tale touching the sons of men : “There was in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias,” and seeing this gospel was to all people, and the Christ was to be “a light to lighten the Gentiles” we are introduced to many matters outside purely Jewish interests. For instance we read “And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Cesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed1 and then conies a fact which we look for in vain in Matthew’s gospel, that Joseph and Mary went up to be taxed among the rest who went “every one to his own city.,”

Luke tells us Tiberius Caesar is reigning and Pontius Pilate governs Judea, Herod is tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip, tetrarch of Ituraea and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, while (and this is not without purpose) two men are named as the high priests of that people which had once been God’s elect.

Two high priests in Israel ! What a tale this tells of the fall of the elect ! “In strict propriety there could be but one high priest at the time who held the office for life. But after the reduction of Judaea to the Roman yoke great changes were made, and the occupants of an office which had enjoyed almost regular authority were changed at the will of the conquerors. Hence some have supposed that the office had become annual and that Annas and Caiaphas, occupying it by turns, each or both might be said to be the High Priest.”2

Both Matthew and Mark record the fact that after his baptism “Jesus went into Galilee and began to preach,” but only Luke gives the particulars of his ministry.

Luke records that “he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up : and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read” ; and applying one of the prophecies of Isaiah to himself, “he closed the book, and gave it again to the minister,” and said unto them, “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”3

Their reaction to such a statement was incredulity and resentment, and they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” and were offended in him. Here only, in Luke’s gospel to the Gentiles, have we Christ’s Old Testament reference to Elijah and Elisha being sent, the one to Sarepta, a city of Sidon to a widow there, the other to Naaman the Syrian (that is to two Gentiles), in spite of the fact that there were many widows in Israel in these days of famine to which the prophets were not sent.

The Jews at Nazareth were filled with wrath “and led him to the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.4 The other gospel writers omit this unseemly scene at Nazareth and this murderous attempt of the Nazarene’s upon their own townsman, simply because Gentile affairs belong entirely to Luke’s gospel which exhibits Christ “as a light to lighten the Gentiles” and to be the Saviour of all people.

This gospel records six miracles, all of which are omitted from the other gospel narratives, being peculiar to Luke’s presentation of Christ. They are as follows :

  1. The draught of fishes.5
  2. The raising of the widow’s son at Nain.6
  3. The woman with the spirit of in­firmity.7
  4. The man with the dropsy.8
  5. The ten lepers.9
  6. The healing of Malchus.10

Surely the omission by the other gospel writers of such supreme events of which they are eye-witnesses should cause intelligent men to stop and reverentially en­quire as to these strange omissions (that would feature so largely in any human production), instead of dismissing them with the parrot cry of “discrepancies.”

In these repeated references to “discrepancies” we are not referring solely to individual comments of critics, but also to that great authoritative body of leading prelates specially appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to consider these vital matters and who after 16 years deliberation issued their report in February 1938. Respecting these Gospel records they state :—

“There is reason to think that in some cases the words attributed to our Lord reflect rather the utterances of the Christian prophets (i.e., the Gospel writers) or the experiences of the primitive Church, than the actual words of Jesus.

What appear to be the same sayings, are sometimes recorded in different forms.”11

Matthew and John were, doubtless, personal witnesses of at least five of these six miraculous events, and yet they say not one word about them, leaving it to a Gentile convert solely to record such convincing proofs of the divinity of Christ ; and were it not for Luke’s record we should know nothing of these miraculous happenings.

These omissions should at least cause any fair minded person to inquire as to the reason for such singular guidance of these gospel writers in restraining three from mentioning such vital and irrefutable public events.

That inquiry, with the use of the keys of the Kingdom of God, would remove any doubts as to human fallibility and establish the great truth that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

No human biography, past or present, would omit such capital “copy,” especially when we remember that the claim of Jesus to the unbelievers of his day (outlined by each gospel writer) was that if they did not believe in him, they should surely believe because of the works which he did.

Miracles and the Critics.

The strongest case presented by the critics in their charge of “discrepancies” is that in which an apparently identical miracle is recorded differently. Let us look at two such circumstances as occasion this adverse criticism, and unfortunately lead men to believe that the Bible contains error.

We read in Luke 8, “And, behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue . . . . and besought him that he would come into his house ; for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a-dying.” Whilst Jesus waits, a messenger comes saying “Thy daughter is dead ; trouble not the Master.” But Jesus proceeds to the house and raises the maid, after telling the wailing friends “She is not dead, but sleepeth,” at which they laugh him to scorn.

Turning to Matthew 9, of the supposed same incident we read, “Behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshiped him, saying, ‘My daughter is even now dead : but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live’.” Again Jesus proceeds to the house, uses the same language, receives the same scornful rebuff and likewise raises the maid.

Seeing that both records show that this visit of the ruler was made about the same time, and apparently on the same journey, the question is asked, how can Luke’s record represent the ruler as saying his daughter was not dead, “she lay a dying,” while Matthew’s record states definitely that the daughter was dead? The ruler in Luke comes that Christ may go and save his daughter before she is dead and it is too late, whereas the ruler in Matthew, whilst admitting that his daughter is dead, has the supreme faith, lacking in the ruler of Luke, to state that Christ could easily bring her back to life. This is a real difficulty, and on the face of it there appears a real “discrepancy” that cannot be answered.

What contempt and indignation is aroused upon further investigation, when we find that these very critics (who were fully acquainted with the original Greek tongue) must know full well that, although both passages were rendered “ruler” and “daughter,” nevertheless, two entirely different Greek words are used in each case. For the “ruler” in Matthew was a civic authority (Gr. archon), probably a civil magistrate, and his daughter a little girl, whereas the “ruler” in Luke (Gr. archi-sunagogus), was an ecclesiastic, clearly named Jairus, and his daughter, comparatively, a young woman, as the word in the original indicates. Jesus, whilst using the word rendered “maid” in each case, uses an entirely different word to suit each individual. In other words, were these pas­sages correctly rendered, it would show at once two different men holding two different positions, although referred to as “rulers” ; and again, their respective offspring, although rendered “daughters,” were, in one case, a little child (Gr. korasion), and in the other, a young woman (Gr. to paidion) both receiving back their offspring by the miracle Jesus wrought ; this in spite of the fact that the requests were apparently made about the same time, on the same journey.

One feels constrained to state that many of these so-called “discrepancies” are “manufactured” by the critics, when similar miracles are willfully assumed to be identical, in order that the supposed discrepancy might be “engineered” and foisted upon the ignorant. We have other double miracles, such as the lepers of Luke 5: 12 and of Matthew 8: 2, in which case again, upon investigation, the “dis­crepancy” is similarly found to be nonexistent.

Why should not similar words be repeated, at different times, and under other circumstances?

There were many people suffering in various places from similar diseases, so why should we not expect to find similar, yet separate, miracles? Why assume that two miracles which are apparently alike in general character are identical, and then talk about the two accounts being contradictory, when the antecedents and consequent’s, sometimes of time and place and circumstance, are all different ? Furthermore, when the critic is acquainted, by his knowledge of the original tongue, with such diversity, why this dishonest and bitter treatment ? The four gospels are treated by some critics as four culprits brought up on a charge of fraud, instead of four witnesses whose testimony has to be received, and a verdict has been passed on the “culprit,” by many of the critics, even before the trial begins !

The one great fact which stands out in connection with the whole of the books which we call the Bible, is that they form the “Word of God” and are made up of “words” of God.12 This is the claim that is made by the book itself and it is ours to receive it as such. We, therefore, should not set out to discuss it, nor to prove it, without this primary definite claim being kept continually before us. “God hath spoken” ; and this for our learning, not for our hypercritical reasoning ; for our faith, hope and comfort, not for foregone higher critical questioning ; for the Word which He hath spoken is to be our judge “in that day.”

It is declared in Hebrews, “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit . . . . and is a discerner (Gr. kritikos, hence our word critic) of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”13 The word critic (Gr. kritikos) occurs only once in the scriptures and so God here claims His Word to be the critic, and John records Jesus as saying “the same shall judge him in the last day.”14 Yet, in spite of this, sinful men claim the function of the critic and dare to sit in judgment on that very Word which is to judge them. What is “Higher Criticism” but mere human reasoning, based on the deceit and darkness of man’s unenlightened heart ?

Who by searching can find out God? No one, unless he adopts the divine formula, because it is written, “It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” This formula is that “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of the Lord.”

When the “word of the Lord” is rejected by the highest Ecclesiastical authority in England, comprising twenty-four members, including Archbishops, Bishops and Professors of Divinity, what hope for “faith” is left ? Although the Committee was appointed because of tensions between different schools of thought in the Church of England which were imperiling the unity and impairing the Church’s effectiveness,” vet this is the lamentable result :-

”The tradition of the inerrancy of the Bible commonly held by the Church from the beginning of the nineteenth century, cannot be maintained in the light of the knowledge now at our disposal. The belief in the Bible’s inerrancy is in our judgment in no way necessary to a full acceptance of the Bible.”15

The result of such latitudinarianism finds deplorable expression on the question of miracles in the Bible, leading to “a great confusion of thought” as Doctor Temple expresses it in his introduction. So this “confusion” in their deliberations is overcome by the following statement :

“On the question of whether or not events occurred which are miraculous the Commission is divided.”16

The Synoptic Gospels.

A great mistake is made, and wrong conclusions reached, by regarding the four gospels as giving the same viewpoint and endeavoring to harmonize that viewpoint into a general one, instead of seeing that these are four different aspects of Christ.

It was Griesbach who introduced what are known as the Synoptic Gospels, i.e., the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (Gr. synopsis) syn with, together ; apsis, a view ; it being contended that these three gospels present Such a similarity in matter and form that they readily admit of being brought under one and the same combined view ; the only exception being made is that of the gospel by John which, so obviously is different from the others.

These articles have been written to illustrate that each gospel writer presents an entirely different view-point of the Christ, and the first three Gospels are not synoptical but definitely diverse in their presentation of the purpose Christ came to fulfill ; and while this is agreed upon as to the fourth gospel, we have given ample evidence to show that the principle applies to the whole four. We repeat that that purpose was to exhibit Christ in Matthew as Jehovah’s appointed King ; “Behold, thy king”17 this kingship being more clearly outlined in Psa. 72; in Mark as Jehovah’s servant; ‘Behold my servant”18 and again “Behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch”19 ; hence there is no genealogy given ; in Luke as Jehovah’s MAN; “Behold the man whose name is the Branch”20 ; hence the human genealogy as distinct from the royal one in Matthew ; and finally, in John, the divine aspect : “Behold your God.”21

All these aspects find expression, as shown in our first article, in the symbolical living creatures before the throne, as the Lion, Ox Man, and Eagle, representing not only the aspects of Christ himself, but also of the multitudinous Christ, when the throne of his glory is set up in his king­dom.22

How, possibly, could these different aspects of Christ be represented synoptic­ally? This was never intended, and all attempts to prove this, by endeavoring to establish a “Harmony” of the gospels, has led to confusion ; as witness the fact that more than thirty such attempts have been made with hardly two of them agreeing, and certainly not one being satisfactory.

  1. Luke. 2: 1, 3
  2. Bloomfield’s Greek Testament.
  3. Luke 4: 16-21.
  4. Luke 4: 29.
  5. Luke 5: 4-11.
  6. Luke 7 : 11-18.
  7. Luke 13: 11-17.
  8. Luke 14: 1-6.
  9. Luke 17: 11-19.
  10. Luke 22: 50, 51.
  11. “Doctrine in the Church of England, page 33.
  12. Jer. 15: 16; John 17 : 8
  13. Heb. 4: 12.
  14. John 12: 48.
  15. Church of England Commission Report 1938. Page 29.
  16. Ibid, page 10.
  17. Zech. 9: 9.
  18. Isaiah 42 : 1.
  19. Zech. 3 : 8.
  20. Zech. 6 : 12.
  21. Isaiah 40: 9.
  22. Rev. 5: 11, 14.

Responses

J.B. responded in The Testimony, Vol 11, No 123, March, 1941

  • “J .B.” has drawn attention to the article  in the November issue where we dealt with the critics objection that because Matthew and Luke give diverse accounts of the raising of the Ruler’s daughter, this displays an obvious discrepancy.1 We endeavored to dispose of this contention by showing there were two separate miracles wrought, hence the diversity.

    Whilst our correspondent admits “the explanation was very convincing” he stresses the fact that both these events recorded create a difficulty inasmuch as both miracles happened immediately after the healing of the woman with an issue of blood.

    “J.B.” states :

    “I am afraid a closer examination of the immediate events rather destroys the whole line of reasoning, as each of the women had been afflicted for 12 years, and each touched the hem or border of Christ’s garment, it surely must follow that they are one and the same. It would have been possible by coincidence that both Matthew and Luke had placed these narratives together, but for the fact that in each case the account of the Ruler’s daughter was interrupted by that of the latter miracle, and was afterwards resumed. In view of the facts therefore . . . . it seems that two apparently different miracles were wrought at precisely the same moment of time, thus unfortunately strengthening the argument of the critics.”

    This is a very strong point “J.B.” makes. Were this healing of the woman one and the same event it certainly would strengthen the critics’ objection that the raising of the Ruler’s daughter was one and the same event, otherwise we have the singular record of raising the Ruler’s daughter being two simultaneous miracles, and therefore the diverse records of this event in Matthew and Luke would still prove in their opinion, the discrepancy. But against that, we have shown from the “original” that these were two separate events involving two different rulers, whose daughters were of different ages,2 and so even this objection could not dispose of the records of these two events.

    We must remember Jesus purposely spoke in parables to the people, and when asked by the disciples why he did so, he stressed the fact that he used this obscure method of discourse “because they seeing see not ; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and should be converted, and should heal them.”3 This is a hard saying. Whilst we could personally wish it were otherwise, and thus avoid much unnecessary contention, we have to bow to divine wisdom.

    It would almost appear that these events under review were recorded with the same object in view, for they could easily have been recorded in such a way as to obviate this misunderstanding. But this does not decrease our faith—rather, upon fuller investigation, it increases it. This is generally the case when these supposed proofs of error are minutely examined with an impartial mind.

    Looking now more closely at this case of the woman with the issue of blood in the query. Whilst it would appear, as our correspondent states, that this was the same person in both records, seeing they both had the same complaint for 12 years, and appeared to Jesus on the same journey, yet upon investigation one feels compelled to conclude that there were two women.

    A three years ministry of continual healing must have made an imposing list of cures, and we must remember there were numerous cures effected as a result of touching Christ’s garment, other than the one under review, as specially men­tioned by each gospel writer.4

    In view of this testimony why should it be regarded as improbable that two women should have the same affliction, even for the same period of time, and that they should seek a cure on this particular journey ?

    John records at the concluding verse of his gospel : “There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should e written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.”5 We recognize the hyperbole here, but we recognize also the magnitude of the unrecorded events.

    Taking Matthew’s account, the woman referred to here seems to have watched her opportunity under entirely different circumstances from the one in Luke. Verse 21 says “she said within herself, If I do but touch his garment I shall be made whole.”

    We notice four particulars in the incident in Matthew diverse from the one in Luke.

    1. Jesus turned him about and “saw her” speaking probably before the healing was effected. (v. 22).
    2. He voluntarily healed her without any query. (v. 22).
    3. There was no multitude pressing him on this occasion and of necessity no comment from the disciples on this head.
    4. This woman does not fall down trembling before him and confess her act, simply because there was no need.

    In the case recorded by Luke the woman did not say “within herself,” but had said all she could to the physicians who could not heal her although “she had spent all her living,” (v. 43) all of which is omitted in Matthew.

    Contrary to Matthew’s record, and taking the same four points, Luke records :

    1. Jesus did not see her and did not speak to her till after the healing was effected. (v. 48).
    2. He, if we might say so, involuntarily healed this woman, because he claims that whilst not recognizing who it was, he nevertheless said “virtue is gone out of me” and questioned as to whom it might be. (v. 46)—all omitted in Matthew.
    3. The multitude was pressing him on this occasion so closely that Peter remonstrated at the unreasonableness of Christ’s query. (v. 45)—all omitted in Matthew.
    4. This woman revealed her identity by falling down before him trembling, and declaring “before all the people” how she had been healed. (v. 47) all omitted in Matthew.

    These records instead of revealing discrepancies very strongly suggest, if they do not compel belief that two women were healed of the same disease on this journey at different times. Furthermore, that there were two double miracles performed on this journey ; one the healing of the “Ruler’s Daughter” (the Ruler as explained in November issue—a civil magistrate) after curing the diseased woman in Matthew’s record ; and the other the healing of the “Ruler’s Daughter” (ecclesiastical authority) “The Ruler of the Synagogue,” after the public demonstration before the multitude recorded by Luke.

F. Whiteley responded in The Testimony, Vol 11, No 124, April, 1941

  • In the March issue of the Testimony, “J.B.” drew attention to what has the appearance of an obvious discrepancy between the accounts commencing Matt. 9: 18, and Luke 8: 41, which record the raising from the dead of the Ruler’s Daughter ; the account in each case being interrupted by the healing of the Woman who had suffered from an Issue of Blood 12 years. The point was that the latter miracle being found in each account would seem to be clear proof that in recording the miracle of the Ruler’s Daughter, Matthew and Luke were dealing with the same event. Consequently, the diversities of detail found between the two accounts of the latter miracle, constitute the “dis­crepancy” mentioned.

    The matter arose out of the article The Christ of Luke, by Fred Bilton, in the November issue, p. 346, where the writer, after outlining the points of difference in the two accounts, advanced the view, based upon those very points of difference, that we have there independent records of two separate events. To the objection by J.B. that the interrupting miracle, which is common to the two accounts, would seem to prove they dealt with the same things, F.B. replied in the March issue, page 95, that although performed in response to requests made apparently about the same time, on the same journey, by rulers, each with a daughter, who was raised from the dead, which work was in each case interrupted by a woman having the same complaint, for the same number of years—yet, in spite of that formidable array of coincidental circumstances, we were to understand that other circumstantial differencies, which he outlined, strongly suggest, if they do not compel, the belief that there were two women healed on this journey in peculiarly parallel circumstances. This would leave us free to understand there were two Ruler’s Daughters raised also, as the accounts in that case could be understood as not being of the same events, and their differences would thus cease to be “discrepancies.”

    As a footnote to the discussion of this Problem, we should like to remark that however unlikely, even extremely so, such a duplication of a “double miracle,” presenting such nearly parallel features, may be, the mind convinced by so many infallible proofs of the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, will still be prepared, in face of all balance of probabilities against it, to accept such a reasonable, if surprising, statement of the case, which indicates a way in which two Scripture passages can be understood harmoniously, rather than to retain a view which followed to its logical consequence, reduces the Gospels to ordinary, fallible human records, contradictory in detail and consequently utterly valueless and fraudulent—which position would present far more problems than we should care ever to be faced with in this Section ! The miracles of unbelief would tax our credulity infinitely more than the reception of one case of duplicated double miracle.

    Upon the possibility of such a duplication of events, which seem unlikely almost to the point of incredibility, we should like to direct the attention of readers to the account of an actual case in the life of Dr. Thomas, and to an obscure reference to the matter by Robert Roberts which had every appearance of error, and yet was true to fact ! The bearing of this upon alleged discrepancies in Scripture is remarked upon by our contributor Islip Collyer in his article Dr. John Thomas (XXII.) in this issue, p. 99, the appearance of which whilst this matter was before us, itself constitutes something in the nature of a remarkable coincidence.

J. Price responded in The Testimony, Vol 11, No 11, June, 1941

  • In the November issue of the Testimony, F.B. “endeavored to dispose” of the critic’s contention that “because Matthew and Luke give diverse accounts of the raising of the Ruler’s daughter, this displays an obvious discrepancy”, by showing that two separate miracles were performed.

    The original “discrepancy”, alleged to be discovered by the critics, lies in the fact that, whereas in Matt. 9 :18, “There came a certain ruler, and worshiped him, saying, ‘My daughter is even now dead . . .’,” in Luke 8 :41, “There came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue.” He had an “only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a-dying.” How could the records refer to the same occasion when in one instance the daughter is “even now dead”, and in the other “she lay a-dying.” ?

    The idea that the records, so similar in so many ways, should refer to two different occasions seems distasteful, even absurd in fact. Theoretically, it must be admitted that the Gospel writers might have been recording the performance of two almost identical miracles, but are we sure that this is really a case of “dis­crepancy” ?

    F.B. argues that the case for there being two different miracles is supported by the words used in the original for “ruler” and “daughter”. We are told that “although both passages are rendered ‘ruler’ and ‘daughter’, nevertheless, two entirely different Greek words are used in each case. For the ‘ruler’ in Matthew was a civic authority (Greek archon)… and his daughter a little girl, (Greek korasion), whereas in Luke the ‘ruler’ was an ecclesiastic (Gk. archisun-agogus)…………………. and his daughter, comparatively, a young woman (Gk. paidion).”

    Using the Greek Text as set out in the Emphatic Diaglott, we find that the word used in Matthew for ruler is archon, and on looking up Luke we find that the same word is used for ruler, with “of the synagogue” added (Gk. archon tes sunagog­us). Similarly in the Vulgate the word used for “ruler” is in both cases “prin­ceps”. Thus the first point is disposed of, the same word for ruler being used in both Gospels. Mark’s is the Gospel which uses the word synagogue-ruler (Gk. archi-sunagogus), not Luke’s. If there still remains any doubt that the “ruler” of Matthew’s Gospel is a religious ruler, we can add that Nicodemus is referred to by the word “archon” in the phrase “a ruler of the Jews”, and he was no civic authority but a member of the Jewish Council (John 7 :50). Moreover, we find that this word “archon”, throughout the Gospels and Acts, is used of ecclesiastics rather than civic authorities (John 3 :1, etc.).

    The words used for “ruler”, therefore, might quite well refer to the same person. But what of his daughter? The word “girl”, in Matthew, is translated from the Greek word korasion; in Luke, from the word paidion, as the writer indicates. In Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, both paidion and korasion are translated “child”, “little girl”, “maiden”, “damsel”. No distinction as to the age of the girl is indicated. If this were not enough, Mark’s Gospel comes to our aid. In his narrative he uses the word paidion in the phrase “father and mother of the damsel”, yet when he records the words of Christ, “Girl, I say unto thee arise”, he uses the word korasion. Surely it would not be urged that two different girls were healed in the same house?

    Having disposed of the buttresses of the argument, however, the original difficulty still remains :—

    “My daughter is even now dead.”
    His daughter “lay a-dying.”

    At this point it is interesting to compare versions, as shewn in chart on next page Whilst these translations all agree as to the sense conveyed by Luke’s Gospel, there is some slight divergence of view as to the exact meaning of the words in Matthew.

    Perhaps it is here that the solution to the difficulty lies. Jairus, as his daughter lies dying, leaves his house post-haste to seek Jesus. He has been assured that his only daughter is beyond all hope of recovery. He comes to Jesus, “My daughter is at the point of death, is even now dead, but come and she shall live.” He assumes that by the time he has reached Jesus his daughter will have died, yet he has faith to believe in Jesus’ healing power. When he left the house truly she lay a-dying, but his apprehensive fears for her whom he loved were such that by the time he reached Jesus he was sure that she was “even now dead !”

    Trench, in his book, Notes on the Miracles, writes “Thus they (Mark and Luke) make Jairus speak of her as dying when he came, which the latter facts of the history show to have been the more exact, Matthew as already dead. Yet these differences are not hard to adjust ; he left her at the last gasp ; he knew that life was ebbing so fast when he quitted her side that she could hardly be living now ; and yet having no certain notices of her death, he was perplexed whether to speak of her as departed or not, and thus at one moment expressed himself in one language, at the next moment in another ! It is singular enough that a circumstance like this, so taken from the life, so testi­fying of the reality of things recorded, should have been advanced by some as a contradiction between one Gospel and another.”

                          Matthew                      Luke
    Revised
    My daughter is even now dead. She lay dying
    Weymouth.
    My daughter is just dead. She was dying
    Moffat.
    My daughter is just dead. 20th Century New Testament. She was dying
    My daughter. has just died. His only daughter was dying
    Diaglott.
    My daughter is by this time dead. She was dying
    Ferrar Fenton.
    My daughter is almost dead. She was dying

    There are many cases in the Gospels where the same occasions are referred to, and yet identical words are not used (cf. the Demoniacs in the country of the Gad­arenes, the inscriptions on the Cross, the Woman with the issue of blood). Surely faith must rise triumphant over small inequalities, seeing the greater truths that lie behind. Faith sees the Gospel writers not as making records of the life of Christ, as a gramophone record might have done, but as making living pictures of the Master’s work and teaching, that we, through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. If it had not been so, one Gospel would have sufficed. W. J. Dransfield.

    Upon the same matter, but with special reference to the intermediate, or interrupting miracle, another reader writes :-

    If we follow F.B.’s line of reasoning, we are to believe that four separate miracles were performed ; yet a pair of these miracles was recorded by three evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, together, one interrupting the other in the selfsame place in each case. In each case also the woman had an issue of blood twelve years, and in each case touched Christ’s garments. There are further similarities, not only in this miracle, but also in the healing of the ruler’s daughter. In each case it is recorded that Jesus said to the woman, “Daughter, be of good comfort, thy faith hath made thee whole”, except in Mark’s account, where the words, “be of good comfort” are left out, and others are added after. In the case of the ruler’s daughter, in each case, Christ declared “The maid (in Mark, damsel) is not dead, but sleepeth”, and in each case it is recorded, “they laughed him to scorn.”

    It seems to me that with all these similarities, sound, unbiassed reasoning protests that there are only two miracles. Matthew has merely recorded the incidents in less detail. In answer to F.B.’s four points of dissimilarity in the case of the woman with an issue of blood, I suggest :—

    1. —There is no reason to suppose that Jesus spoke before the healing was effected (Matthew’s account) since he addressed the same words to her as are recorded in the other Gospels, namely, “thy faith hath made thee whole.”
    2. —The woman was healed without any query, in all the accounts, since she was healed directly she touched Christs’ garment. This is evident in the accounts by Mark and Luke, since virtue went from Jesus, and is implied in Matthew’s, since Jesus said. “Thy faith had made thee whole.
    3. —It is not certain that there was no multitude pressing upon Jesus. It is not specially recorded, as in the other Gospels, but Jesus’ disciples were with him, and it is quite likely that many of the people were there also.
    4. —The falling down of the woman is not recorded, because, as has been suggested before, Matthew’s version is a briefer account.

    With reference to the miracle which the one above interrupts, the only difference between Matthew’s account and that of the other two, decides the amount of detail which grows larger as we proceed from Matthew to Luke, is that in Matthew the ruler states, “My daughter is even now dead”, whereas in the other accounts she is only dying. But the ruler knew, when he left his house, that his daughter was on the point of death. Could not his words be understood to mean, “She must even now be dead”?

    I do not know how much the theory of two miracles can be upheld by the assertion of two rulers and the differing ages of the daughters, but unless these points can be definitely established, there is little to back the theory.

    It was not important to the record of the event, whether the man’s daughter died at this or that moment of time ; the man had faith that Jesus could raise his daughter, and according to his faith, it was unto him. C. G. Baseby.

    As we go to press, yet another study of this subject reaches us from Canada. The writer says, in substance:—

    The article by F.B. in the March issue, in answer to J.B., is unique in that he proposes a new line of defence against the “critic” who attacks the authenticity of the Scriptures and the harmony of the Gospels. Usually the “critic” is answered by proving that the discrepancy he alleges does not in reality exist. F.B. prefers to get rid of the alleged discrep­ancy in the Gospel accounts by increasing the number of miracles. Truly, if we could be satisfied that Matthew in this case is recording one miracle and Luke another, though a similar one, there would be no scope for argument.

    Luke’s account, however, of the ruler’s daughter is not a record of a different miracle from that of Matthew’s account, and surely there is no need for so ingenious an explanation as that supplied. In Matthew we read of the ruler saying “My daughter is even now dead.” In Luke we have Luke’s own report of the occurrence stating that at this stage “she lay a-dying.” Later on, however, we read that the daughter now “was dead.” Apparently, as in the case of Lazarus, it suited the Master to permit death to intervene before displaying his marvelous resurrection powers. Here is no discrepancy but only such difference in reporting as can be easily understood.

    Matthew, the eye witness of the miracle, confines himself to the facts of the death of the maiden, and her resurrection to life by Jesus. Luke, the physician, who wrote later, and from data supplied from authentic sources, gives a more detailed account, as perhaps might be expected from a medical doctor. He introduces the miracle of a dead person being restored to life by recording the detail that this rulers’ daughter was a very sick maiden ; in fact he writes “she lay a-dying”, and so prepares us for the news which came later (brought to the ruler by someone from his house), “Thy daughter is dead ; trouble not the Master.” It is interesting to notice, now, the way Matthew reports this matter ; “My daughter is even now dead”, as though Matthew, too, knew of the two stages reported by Luke ; first, that previously “she lay a-dying”………………….. but now, “she was even now dead.” Even Mark in his Gospel records the ruler as saying “my little thaughter lieth at the point of death.”

    Then again, F.B. has to invent a new office ; that of a “civil magistrate”, in addition to that of the ruler of the Synagogue. Surely the ruler of the Synagogue could be described as a civil magistrate. The fact that Luke uses a different term (8 :49) from Matthew (9 :18) can be explained without resorting to the expediency used. In developing his argument F.B. here refers to the Greek originals. Reference to Young’s Analytical Concordance discloses these facts :—

    1. —Matthew 9 :18—”archon” is translated as “ruler”.
    2. —Luke 8 :41 —”archon” is translated “ruler of the Synagogue”. (In the Greek, Matthew and Luke use the same word “archon” in these verses.)
    3. —Luke 8: 49 — where reference is made to the same ruler, the Greek word is “archisun”.
    4. —Mark 5 :22, 35,36—the Greek word is also “archisun”.

     

    If Young be an authority upon which one can rely, then F.B.’s conclusions are certainty not sustained.

    Again in Matthew’s account we have the terms “daughter” and “maid” used interchangeably (Matt. 9: 18, 24, 25). But Luke in his fuller or more circumstantial account mentions also the daughter’s age as being 12 years and that she was the ruler’s only daughter. That a physician should have discovered by inquiry the “age” of a patient should not surprise us, and Luke describes her variously as “daughter”, “maiden”, and “maid”. I do not think that Matthew would have found any fault with Luke’s account of the same occurrence, if by any chance he had read it. I find myself, therefore, endorsing J.B. : “A closer examination of the immediate events destroys the whole line of reasoning, etc.”

    In attempts to harmonize Scripture with Scripture or in dealing with Scripture in an explanatory or exegetical way, let us not merely keep our eye on the “enemy” and resort to such tactics as might in our opinion best serve to defeat him, but let us also consider how these methods may react. To dispose of the critic by the evasive device of increasing the number of recorded miracles may savour somewhat to some of casuistry, and I would regret the intrusion of this element.

    (J. Price)