“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.
- Jesus turned him about and “saw her” speaking probably before the healing was effected. (v. 22).
- He voluntarily healed her without any query. (v. 22).
- There was no multitude pressing him on this occasion and of necessity no comment from the disciples on this head.
- 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 :
- Jesus did not see her and did not speak to her till after the healing was effected. (v. 48).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
The Solution