Perfection vs. Imperfection Page 4: The Synoptic Gospels and The Alleged Discrepancies

Now we come to the heart of our discussions. We will now discuss the "discrepancies" about the Gospel accounts. We must do so before we continue to discuss why Jesus coming for us when He did, where He did, etc. was so perfect. The reason we must do this is because we will base all of our information on Jesus’ coming on the Gospel accounts. After all, how would we know how He came, when He came, where He came, etc. if not for the Gospels? So in order to discuss Jesus’ coming and so forth we must first determine that the Gospels are accurate and trustworthy.

First, we already discussed the logical aspect of things. Why would God, who is perfect, create an account that is not perfect even if it is through person who is not always perfect? If He is going to create an account it only makes sense that it would be flawless. If He is going to make multiple accounts He would make sure that they are all accurate even if the medium He is using isn’t perfect. (Remember that although I say man is not perfect we did establish that this is a general statement about the condition of mankind. It is not to say that man cannot be perfect. It just means that men choose to not be perfect on a regular basis. They can be perfect, and therefore, when God uses them they are perfect. He makes them perfect.)  

So how do we know if an account about God is from God or just something a person makes up? After all, there are many accounts about the supernatural. How do we really know which is from the Almighty Creator of all things? How do we know it isn’t just something we imagined in our minds? Look at all of the accounts about gods and goddesses. Do we believe them to be true? No. We don’t. However, people who lived a long time ago did. So how do we truly know?

To know if we can trust the writings we must first know if we can trust the source of the writings. In other words, what type of people were the writers of these accounts? Were they liars and thieves? Were they governors or diplomats? Were they good men or evil? What were their intentions? Were they trying to help or hinder people? Were they trying to persuade or manipulate?

Therefore, we must examine the sources. As you will see in your lesson guide in Chapter 1 lesson 1 under "Its Origin" that the word synoptic comes from the Greek language. It means "seeing with or seeing together". The word "gospel" also comes from the Greek language and it means "good news." So together the term Synoptic Gospels stand for the accounts where the authors wrote "the good news alike or in the same way." This means that of the four gospel accounts only John’s account is not written in the same way.

So why are these accounts so similar? Check Chapter 1 lesson 2 for more on this. In short, the reason is that it is largely believed that Mark’s Gospel account was written prior to Matthew’s and Luke’s and that both Matthew and Luke heavily relied on Mark’s account in their writings. In fact, when one examines these three Gospels they will find that many of the same stories are related in each of them and many of these stories are almost identical in the way they are presented. Of these stories, some are even almost entirely word for word.

Besides Mark’s Gospel being in common with both Matthew and Luke, there are other elements of Matthew and Luke that are in common with one another that are not common with any other source. Therefore, it is believed that both Matthew and Luke spoke with a common other source to gain even more materials for their gospels. Therefore, we call this additional common source "quelle", which means "a source" in the language of German. Any material that is not common with any other gospels is simply believed to be Matthew’s and Luke’s own personal research and their choices of emphasis when recounting certain stories relating to the good news of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Regardless, however, of how they got the information, the true author of the Gospels is the Holy Spirit. Let us not forget this. Remember that we determined this already. God has inspired these writers to put into words that will last until the end of this age, and shall be forever immortalized in heavenly books – for we know that God has records of all peoples and He would have a record of all things in the Bible as well. Therefore, in spite of differences in the accounts we must not assume discrepancies but rather that One True Author wrote these accounts through three different humans. Yes, He may have inspired Mark’s first and then inspired Matthew and Luke to use Mark’s account for their own. Then He may have inspired Matthew and Luke to seek a common other source as well and then use their own personal research to complete their accounts, but regardless of how the information came to them, the Holy Spirit orchestrated the entire thing. This we determined, as I said, previously.

So how do we account for discrepancies that we find? How is it that One True Author wrote all three through three different people and yet there can be three seemingly different accounts of the same event? The answer is provided best in Chapter 12 lesson 2 of our guide. In this lesson it provides a perfect example of a "discrepancy" found in the three Synoptic Gospels. I will now present this example to you and will endeavor to explain how we can harmonize the three accounts successfully.

Let us look at the passages of Matthew 12:9-13, Mark 3:1-5 and Luke 6:6-10. It is the story of a man with a shriveled hand. Each Synoptic provides the same number of details and those that are in common with the others are almost identical. As the story goes, all three state that Jesus entered the synagogue on the Sabbath and he met there a man with a withered hand. The Pharisees were there and were trying to accuse Jesus of healing on the Sabbath.

Notice how each account differs a bit on the words that Christ spoke to the Pharisees when He discerned their intent. Is this a discrepancy? Did Christ say, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." This is found in Matthew’s account. Or did Christ say, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" This is found in Mark’s account. Or did Christ say, "I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?" This is Luke’s account.

So which did Jesus say? This is a perfect example that many of you have come to me with. If the Bible is 100% accurate then how could these three all be correct and yet different at the same time? As Chapter 12 lesson 2 states under "The Harmony of Miracles in the Gospels", it reads, "that each writer did not record everything Christ said on this occasion. Each chose the facts he felt were appropriate for his account, but there is no conflict in the facts. The writers then observe that after Jesus responded to those assembled, He commanded the needy man to stretch out his hand. They concur about the outcome: The man obeyed and was completely healed, leading the Pharisees to leave the place determined to find a way to kill Jesus."

Thus, we see that in truth several factors come into play when it comes to these "discrepancies". First, each writer did not record "everything Christ said" or everything that He did on each occasion where the accounts differ. Therefore, each could be telling of a different portion of Jesus’ response to the situation so that as we put each piece together it tells more of what He said during that occasion. After all, if you think logically, what writer truly details every little detail of every little thing that was said and done in each occasion that they write about? How long and boring that would be! Not only would it be dull but it would also distract from the point the writer was trying to make in regards to the story.

You see, each writer of the gospels was attempting to reach a certain audience with a certain point. They were not writing just to detail the story of Christ in every chronological way. They were attempting to tell the "good news" in their own way to reach their own audience for their own purpose. In Chapter 1 lesson 3 we find that Mark was Peter’s close assistant. He was like a son to Peter, as we see in Peter’s first letter chapter five and verse thirteen. Then, in lesson 4 of the same chapter we determine that Mark wanted to record Peter’s teachings about Christ prior to Peter’s death. We also see that Peter wanted to address a mostly Roman audience. Since Romans were more interested in action as opposed to teaching, Mark’s Gospel account is more action focused. Notice how his account of the man with the shriveled hand is right to the point and focuses more on the miracle and the events that occurred around it than on the teaching.

However, in Chapter 2 lesson 1 of the guide we notice that Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Therefore, his purpose was to show how Jesus fulfilled Old Testament scripture and on the teachings of Christ. Therefore, if you notice, his account of the man with the shriveled hand has a distinctly Jewish tone. By adding in his account the part about a sheep falling into a pit he is including something that Jews would be able to relate to. Therefore, Matthew solidifies the point to a Jewish audience.

Luke, as we see in lesson 2 of the same chapter, also wrote to a Gentile audience. However, his intention was to provide an account that "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" (Luke 1:3). This being the case, his account has a more action focus, but he also pays a bit more attention to certain details that a Gentile audience might be impacted by. In short, Luke’s Gospel is often similar to Mark’s in that he tends to focus on action points in Jesus’ life, but he also has a certain emphasis on providing a more detailed account of events than Mark. Luke also focuses a good deal more on how salvation includes all people.

So with this in mind, let’s take another example that has been provided in Chapter 12 lesson 2 that is a bit more tricky to explain. This is another "discrepancy" that we must deal with when reading these three accounts. This example is in regards to the account you have all read on "the healing of blind Bartimaeus". All three Gospels record a story of Jesus at the city of Jericho. While there he heals the blind who cry out to him, "Lord (Jesus), Son of David, have mercy on me (us)!" However, Matthew notes that "not one but two blind men sat by the roadside. Matthew also says Jesus healed the two blind men as He was "leaving" Jericho, and he does not name them. However, Mark mentions only one blind man and gives us his name. Like Matthew, Mark says Jesus healed Bartimaeus as He was "leaving" Jericho. Luke, in common with Mark, mentions only one man, whom he does not name, but Luke says this miracle occurred as Jesus "approached" Jericho."

Is this a discrepancy? Were there two blind men or one? Was Jesus approaching Jericho or leaving it? Is this the same account or is it two separate accounts that are very similar? Well, remember that just because a writer did not mention something doesn’t mean that it did not happen or that it makes the story not true or written in error. Each writer had a different purpose and each one may have left out details that he did not feel were necessary. (Or rather, I should say, the Holy Spirit, moving through these men, felt that certain details were not necessary for the purpose of the accounts.)

Now it is true that there is no definite answer to this "discrepancy". Scholars do not agree on a particular solution towards harmonizing the three accounts about "the healing of blind Bartimaeus". However, there are many explanations that show how we might harmonize these three accounts. Our lesson guide, Chapter 12 lesson 2 best explains this:
"Some scholars suggest that two blind men were present all the time, but Mark mentions only Bartimaeus because he was well known (his father’s name is mentioned). Others point out that in Christ’s day Jericho was a double city, including both the older Jewish city and the newer Roman city. Thus it is possible Matthew and Mark meant that Christ was leaving the old city and Luke referred to Christ’s entering the newer Roman Jericho. If the blind men were sitting beside the road between these two parts of Jericho (which were about a mile apart), this difficulty can be explained. Furthermore, it would not be unusual to mention only one man, especially since an aggressive, well-known person would be inclined to act as a spokesman and to ignore the second man. The fact that Mark and Luke mention only one man does not mean the second man was not there. Naturally, Matthew, who was present at the time of this miracle, would have added more details."



Therefore, in conclusion of this matter, we see that these three accounts CAN be easily harmonized and no discrepancies found when we are finished. This may or may not have been the actual situation for this account of the story of blind Bartimaeus, but that is not the point. The point is that just because we do not necessarily understand why there is a "discrepancy" doesn’t mean that it is a "discrepancy". So many people try to say that the scriptures are full of error because of situations like this. However, just because we cannot explain something doesn’t mean that it isn’t the truth.

Let me give you a few logical arguments about this very same thing. Let’s say you were in a room with 5 people. There is a woman and four men besides yourself. Let’s say you are a woman as well. The woman in the room pulls out a mirror and examines herself in it. One of the men comes up to her and says, "Would you like to dance?" Another man says, "Can I get you a drink?" The woman replies, "I don’t feel like dancing, but I will take a drink." This is your account of the story:

"There were five people in the room that night. One of them, a woman, pulled out a mirror and examined herself carefully. As she did so, a gentleman approached and asked, "Would you like to dance?" Seeing this man taking an interest in the woman, another man approached and asked, "Can I get you a drink?" The woman replied, "I don’t feel like dancing, but I will take a drink." The two then headed over to the table with the drinks."

Now another account of the story surfaces. This account reads, "Six people were in a room. There were two women and four men. One of the women, Angela, was standing by a stage and another by the door. The woman by the door seemed bored and got herself a drink. She seemed to be watching everyone with a miserable demeanor. Angela was asked to dance. She refused, but she agreed to have a drink from another gentleman, his name was Carl, who asked if she’d wanted a drink. Then the two moved towards the table with the drinks to stand close to the other woman in the room."

Finally, one more account is told. This account reads, "That night Angela was approached by two men. One wanted to dance and the other wanted to buy her a drink. Angela refused to dance and instead went with Mike, the guy who wanted to buy her a drink."

So who’s account was right? All three were correct, were they not? Although one said there were only 5 people in the room and another said 6, both were right because the first did not include in the count the person telling the story. In other words, there were still 6 people in the first account if you include yourself in the number. Was the first account wrong because it did not include Angela’s or Carl’s names? No. It was still accurate. It just left out that detail. Was the second account wrong because it did not include Mike’s name? No. It just left out that detail.

Although it may seem like these three stories may seem to have discrepancies, it does not mean that they do actually have discrepancies. It just means that they all focused on different aspects of the night that was discussed. Notice how the purpose of the last account seems to have been to tell a brief summary of the important events. This person doesn’t even mention that there two women in the room. It doesn’t mention four men. It just mentions Angela and her two suitors. Does this mean that it is wrong? No, the purpose of the account was to write a brief summary. It was not to give a full detailed account. Thus it is with the Gospels. Each wrote for a different reason and focused on different details.

Now for the final argument about the "discrepancies". Logically speaking, just because you don’t understand how something works, does it mean that it is wrong? In other words, just because you cannot explain something in scripture, does it mean that we should throw it out as being incorrect? It doesn’t make sense to you, so it is not the truth. Imagine for a moment if you applied this concept to everything in your life. You don’t understand how the computer works. How does it display images on your screen at your command or when you hit a button? Why doesn’t it always do what you ask it to? Is that a discrepancy? What is the computer doing? Then someone explains to you that the computer is actually made up of line upon line of commands. When you don’t enter a command that it recognizes it will not respond.

But you don’t understand. How can the computer do this? With the line of logic people use on scriptures, since it doesn’t make sense to you the computer must not really be made up of line upon line of commands. Therefore, you just make up for yourself a truth instead of listening to what the professional told you. You then say, "It is just magic pictures that flash up on your screen as you desire them to flash up on your screen."

That example seems silly, but think about what it is saying. It is saying that just because you can’t explain how scriptures harmonize together to form one accurate, error-free story, doesn’t mean that the stories CAN’T be harmonized. Likewise, it is saying that just because you can’t explain the meaning of a particular passage in light of other passages doesn’t mean that the meaning CAN’T be understood in light of other passages. In other words, the only reason people say there are discrepancies at all in the Holy Scriptures is because THEY can’t figure out how the scriptures relate perfectly to one another. If they would just take the time and effort to really study them they would begin to see that scriptures line up one with another perfectly. They do not contradict nor destroy one another. This is because a perfect God created a perfect, single account, from different points of view to write a perfect story so that mankind would have a perfect reference book to totally rely on in order to know just how, without a doubt, they might find redemption and be restored themselves to the perfection that they were meant to live in; the perfection of having a perfect relationship with their Creator, the Almighty Perfect God.