The Harmony of the Gospels 2.43–2.60

Now let us look at that long sermon which, according to Matthew, the Lord gave on the mountain, to see whether the other evangelists seem in no way to conflict with it. Mark did not record it at all, nor did he say anything like it except some sayings, not in sequence but scattered, which the Lord repeated in other places. Yet he left a place in the course of his narrative where we may understand that this sermon was given but passed over by him: “And he was preaching,” he says, “in their synagogues and in all Galilee, and casting out demons.” In this preaching, which he says he carried on in all Galilee, is understood also that sermon given on the mountain which Matthew records. For the same Mark continues thus: “And a leper came to him, begging him, and kneeling down he said, ‘If you will, you can make me clean,’” and so on. He connects such things about this cleansed leper that he is understood to be the one whom Matthew records was cleansed when the Lord came down from the mountain after that sermon. For Matthew says thus: “When he had come down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. And behold, a leper came and worshiped him, saying, ‘Lord, if you will, you can make me clean,’” and so on.

Luke too mentions this leper, though certainly not in this order, but as things passed over are usually recalled, or things done later are anticipated, as the things they had known before and would later write down from memory were divinely suggested to them. Yet the same Luke also narrated a long sermon of the Lord, and he too began it in the same way as Matthew does here. For Matthew said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” and Luke, “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” Then many of the things that follow are similar in Luke's narrative too. And at the end of the sermon the very conclusion is found to be exactly the same, about the wise man who builds on the rock and the foolish man who builds on the sand, except that Luke says only that the river dashed against the house, not also the rain and the winds, as Matthew does. It could very easily be believed, then, that Luke too inserted the same sermon of the Lord, but passed over some sayings that Matthew included, likewise included others that Matthew did not give, and set out some, though not in the same words, in a similar way, with the integrity of the truth preserved.

This could very easily be believed, as I said, were it not troubling that Matthew says this sermon was given by the Lord sitting on the mountain, whereas Luke says it was given by the Lord standing on a level place. This difference makes it seem that the one was a different sermon from the other. For what would prevent Christ from repeating elsewhere some things he had already said before, or from doing again some things he had already done before? It is probably believed that these two sermons, of which Matthew inserted one and Luke the other, are not separated by a long interval of time, because both narrated some similar or identical things before and after, so that it is not absurd to think that the narratives of those who insert these sermons were concerned with the same places and days. For Matthew says thus: “And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan. And seeing the crowds, he went up the mountain, and when he had sat down, his disciples came to him. And opening his mouth he taught them, saying, ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,’” and so on. Here it can seem that he wished to avoid the great crowds and for this reason went up the mountain, as if withdrawing from the crowds, so as to speak to his disciples alone. Luke too seems to attest this, narrating thus: “It happened in those days that he went out to the mountain to pray, and he spent the night in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus and Simon who is called the Zealot, Judas son of James and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor. And coming down with them, he stood on a level place, with a crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon, who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. And those who were troubled by unclean spirits were cured. And the whole crowd sought to touch him, because power went out from him and healed them all. And lifting up his eyes on his disciples he said, ‘Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God,’” and so on. Here it can be understood that when on the mountain he chose from the larger number twelve disciples, whom he named apostles (which Matthew passed over), he then gave the sermon that Matthew inserted and Luke passed over, that is, on the mountain; and then, when he had come down, he gave another, similar one on the level place, about which Matthew is silent and Luke is not; and that both sermons were concluded in the same way.

As for what Matthew goes on to say when this sermon is ended, “And it happened, when Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at his teaching,” he can seem to have meant the crowds of disciples from whom he had chosen those twelve. And what he says next, “When he had come down from the mountain, great crowds followed him, and behold, a leper came and worshiped him,” can be understood to have happened after both sermons, not only the one Matthew inserts but also the one Luke inserts. For it does not appear how much time intervened after the descent from the mountain; Matthew wanted to signify only that after that descent there were great crowds with the Lord when he cleansed the leper, not how much time intervened; especially since Luke says that this same leper was cleansed when the Lord was already in a city, which Matthew did not trouble to say.

Although this too could occur to one: that the Lord was first with the disciples alone on some higher part of the mountain, when he chose those twelve from among them; then came down with them, not from the mountain but from the very height of the mountain to a level place, that is, to some flat ground on the side of the mountain that could hold great crowds, and stood there until the crowds gathered to him; and afterward, when he had sat down, his disciples came nearer to him, and so, with them and the rest of the crowds present, he gave one sermon, which Matthew and Luke narrated in different manners of narration but with the same truth of the things and meanings that both told. For we have already given warning (and everyone should have seen it of his own accord even without warning) that if someone passes over something that another says, it is not a contradiction; nor if one says something in a different way from another, so long as the same truth of things and meanings is set out. So what Matthew says, “When he had come down from the mountain,” may be understood to include that level place too, which could have been on the side of the mountain. Then Matthew narrates the cleansing of the leper, as Mark and Luke do similarly.

After this Matthew continues and says: “And when he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking him and saying, ‘Lord, my servant lies at home paralyzed and is grievously tormented,’” and so on, up to where he says, “And the servant was healed in that hour.” Luke too records this about the centurion's servant, not, as Matthew does, after the cleansing of the leper, whom Luke recalled and recorded later, but after the end of that longer sermon, which he joins thus: “When he had completed all his words in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. And a certain centurion's slave, who was dear to him, was sick and about to die,” and so on, up to where he was healed. Here it must be understood that Christ entered Capernaum when he had indeed completed all his words in the hearing of the people, that is, that he did not enter before he had finished these words; but it is not stated after how long an interval of time, after he had finished these sermons, he entered Capernaum. In that interval that leper was cleansed, whom Matthew inserts in his place, while Luke recalls him later.

Now let us see whether Matthew and Luke agree with each other about this centurion's servant. For Matthew says, “A centurion came to him, asking him and saying, ‘My servant lies at home paralyzed.’” This seems to conflict with what Luke says: “And when he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and save his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they begged him earnestly, saying to him, ‘He is worthy that you should do this for him, for he loves our nation and himself built our synagogue for us.’ And Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying, ‘Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof; for this reason I did not think myself worthy to come to you; but say the word, and my servant will be healed.’” If it happened this way, how will what Matthew narrates be true, “A certain centurion came to him,” since he did not come himself but sent friends? Unless, paying careful attention, we understand that Matthew did not entirely abandon the usual manner of speaking. For we are accustomed to say not only that someone has approached, even before he reaches the place he is said to approach (hence we also say that he has approached a little or approached a great deal toward what he seeks to reach), but we also often say that the reaching itself, for the sake of which one approaches, has taken place, even if the one who reaches does not see the person he reaches, when he reaches someone whose favor he needs through a friend. Custom has held this so firmly that now even in common speech those are called “reachers” who, by the art of ambition, through the intervention of suitable persons, get through to the minds of any powerful people, minds as it were inaccessible. If, then, the reaching itself is commonly said to be done through others, how much more can approaching be done through others, which often falls short of reaching, when someone has been able to approach very near and yet has not been able to reach! It is not absurd, then, that Matthew, even in a way that could be commonly understood, wished to say briefly, of the centurion's approach to the Lord made through others, “A centurion came to him.”

Nevertheless, we must not carelessly overlook the depth of the holy evangelist's mystical manner of speech, according to which it is written in the psalm, “Approach him and be enlightened.” Accordingly, because the Lord himself so praised the centurion's faith, by which one truly approaches Jesus, as to say, “I have not found such faith in Israel,” the wise evangelist wanted to say that he himself approached Christ, rather than those through whom he had sent his words. Luke, on the other hand, laid open the whole of how it was done, so that from this we would be compelled to understand how another, who could not lie, said that he approached. For so too that woman who suffered from a flow of blood, although she held the fringe of his garment, nevertheless touched the Lord more than those crowds by whom he was being pressed. For as she touched the Lord the more, the more she believed, so too the centurion approached the Lord the more, the more he believed. The rest of the things in this chapter that one says and the other passes over it would be superfluous to treat, since by that rule laid down at the start they are found to contain nothing contradictory.

Matthew continues and says: “And when Jesus had come into Peter's house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and served them.” When this happened, that is, after what or before what, Matthew did not state. For it is not necessary that what is narrated after something be understood to have happened after it too. Clearly, however, he is understood to have recalled here what he had earlier omitted. For Mark narrates this before he records the cleansing of the leper, which he seems to have inserted after the sermon given on the mountain, about which he was silent. So Luke too narrates the incident of Peter's mother-in-law after the same event after which Mark does, and he too before the long sermon he inserted, which can seem to be the same one Matthew says was given on the mountain. But what does it matter who puts what in which place, whether he inserts something in order, or recalls something omitted, or anticipates something that happened later, so long as he does not contradict either himself or another narrating the same or other things? For since it is in no one's power, however well and faithfully he knows the facts, to choose the order in which he recalls them (for what comes to a person's mind first or later is not as we wish but as it is given), it is quite probable that each of the evangelists believed he ought to narrate in the order in which God had willed to suggest to his memory the very things he was narrating, at least in those matters whose order, whether this or that, takes nothing away from the authority and truth of the gospel.

Why the Holy Spirit, who distributes to each as he wills, and who therefore undoubtedly governed and ruled the minds of the saints as well in recalling what they would write, because their books were to be placed at so high a summit of authority, permitted one to arrange his narrative in one way and another in another, anyone who seeks with pious diligence will be able, with divine help, to discover. This, however, is not the task of the present work we have undertaken, which is only to show that the evangelists contradict neither themselves nor one another, in whatever order each of them could or would narrate either the same things or other deeds and sayings of Christ. Therefore, where the order of times does not appear, it should not concern us what order of narration any of them kept; but where it does appear, if anything troubles us as seeming to contradict itself or another, it must certainly be considered and untangled.

Matthew, then, continues, saying: “And when evening had come, they brought to him many who had demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word, and he cured all who were sick, so that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, ‘He himself took our infirmities and bore our diseases.’” That this belongs to the time of the same day he indicates clearly enough when he adds, “And when evening had come.” So too Mark, after saying of Peter's mother-in-law, when she was healed, “and she served them,” added this same thing: “And when evening had come, when the sun had set, they brought to him all who were sick and who had demons, and the whole city was gathered at the door. And he cured many who were troubled with various diseases, and cast out many demons, and he did not allow them to speak, because they knew him. And rising very early in the morning, he went out and departed to a desert place.” Mark seems here to have kept to the order, so that after saying, “And when evening had come,” he then said, “And rising very early in the morning.” Although it is not necessary, where it says “when evening had come,” to take it as the evening of the same day, nor, where it says “early in the morning,” the morning of the same night, still in any case the order of events can seem to have been kept here because of the orderly arrangement of times. Luke too, after narrating about Peter's mother-in-law, does not say “when evening had come,” yet he added something that means the same, saying: “And when the sun had set, all who had sick with various diseases brought them to him; and he, laying his hand on each of them, cured them. Demons too came out of many, crying out and saying, ‘You are the Son of God.’ And rebuking them, he did not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ. And when it was day he went out and went to a desert place.” Here too we see exactly the same order of times kept that we found in Mark. But Matthew, who seems to have recorded the incident of Peter's mother-in-law not in the order in which it happened but in the order in which he recalls what he passed over, after narrating what was done on that day when evening came, does not add the morning, but narrates thus: “And Jesus, seeing great crowds around him, commanded them to go across the sea.” This is now something else, not what Mark and Luke join on, who put the morning after the evening. So what is said here, “And Jesus, seeing great crowds around him, commanded them to go across the sea,” we must take as something else that he recalled and inserted: that on a certain day, when Jesus had seen great crowds around him, he commanded them to go across the sea.

Then what he adds, “And a scribe came and said to him, ‘Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go,’” up to where he says, “Let the dead bury their own dead,” Luke narrates similarly. But he does so after many other things, and he too without stating the order of time, but in the manner of one recalling, so that it is uncertain whether he recalled something he had omitted earlier or anticipated something that happened even later than the things that follow. For he says thus: “And it happened, as they were walking on the road, someone said to him, ‘I will follow you wherever you go.’” And the Lord answered him exactly what Matthew records. As for Matthew saying that this happened when he commanded them to go across the sea, and Luke, “as they were walking on the road,” it is not contradictory, because they were certainly walking on the road to come to the sea. And about the one who asked first to bury his father, Matthew and Luke agree completely. For that Matthew first put the words of the man making this request on account of his father and then the Lord saying, “Follow me,” while Luke put first the Lord saying, “Follow me,” and then the man making this request, makes no difference to the sense. Luke recorded that another also said, “I will follow you, Lord, but first let me say farewell to those at home,” about whom Matthew is silent. From there Luke went on to something else, not to what followed in the order of time: “After these things,” he says, “the Lord appointed seventy-two others as well.” “After these things,” clearly; but after how long an interval of time the Lord did this does not appear. In that very interval, however, takes place what Matthew next adds. For the same Matthew still keeps the order of times, narrating thus:

“And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. And behold, a great storm arose on the sea,” up to where he says, “And he came into his own city.” These two events that Matthew narrates in succession, about the calming of the sea after Jesus, roused from sleep, commanded the winds, and about those who had a fierce demon and, breaking their chains, were driven into the desert, Mark and Luke narrate similarly. Certain meanings are expressed in different words by one and another, yet they are not different meanings. For example, what Matthew says he said, “Why are you fearful, you of little faith?” Mark says thus: “Why are you fearful? Do you not yet have faith?” that is, that perfect faith which is like a grain of mustard seed. This, then, is what Matthew too says: “of little faith.” Luke, however: “Where is your faith?” And the whole could have been said: “Why are you fearful? Where is your faith? You of little faith!” Hence one records one part and another another. And what they said when they woke him, Matthew gives thus: “Lord, save us, we are perishing”; Mark: “Teacher, does it not concern you that we are perishing?”; Luke: “Master, we are perishing.” It is one and the same meaning of those waking the Lord and wishing to be saved; and there is no need to ask which of these was rather said to Christ. For whether they said one of these three, or other words that none of the evangelists recorded but which had just the same force for the same true meaning, what difference does it make? Although it could also have happened that, with several waking him at once, all these things were said, one by one and another by another. Likewise, as to what they said when the storm was calmed, according to Matthew, “What kind of man is this, that the winds and the sea obey him?”; according to Mark, “Who, do you think, is this, that the wind and the sea obey him?”; according to Luke, “Who, do you think, is this, that he commands both the winds and the sea, and they obey him?”: who does not see that the meaning is one? For “Who, do you think, is this?” has exactly the same force as “What kind of man is this?” And where “he commands” is not said, it is certainly understood by consequence, since one who commands is obeyed.

As for Matthew saying that there were two who were suffering from that legion of demons that was permitted to go into the pigs, while Mark and Luke record one, you may understand that one of them was a person of some note and fame, for whom that region grieved most and for whose recovery it was most concerned. Wishing to signify this, the two evangelists judged that only he should be recorded, about whom the report of this deed had spread more widely and more famously. Nor does it raise any scruple that the words of the demons are given differently by the evangelists, since they can either be reduced to one meaning or all be understood as spoken. Nor that in Matthew it speaks in the plural, while in the others in the singular, since they too narrate that when asked what he was called he answered that he was Legion, because the demons were many. Nor is there any conflict in Mark saying that the herd of pigs was around the mountain, while Luke says on the mountain. For the herd of pigs was so large that part of it was on the mountain and part around the mountain; for there were two thousand pigs, as Mark stated.

From here, then, Matthew continues, still keeping the order of times, and composes his narrative thus: “And getting into a boat he crossed over and came into his own city. And behold, they brought to him a paralytic lying on a bed,” and so on, up to where he says, “When the crowds saw it, they were afraid and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.” Mark and Luke too spoke of this paralytic. As for Matthew saying that the Lord said, “Take courage, son, your sins are forgiven you,” while Luke said not “son” but “man,” this serves to convey the Lord's meaning more expressly, because the sins were being forgiven to a man, who by the very fact that he was a man could not say, “I have not sinned,” and also so that he who forgave the man might be understood to be God. Mark said what Matthew did, but did not say “Take courage.” It could indeed have been said thus: “Take courage, man, your sins are forgiven you, son,” or, “Take courage, son, your sins are forgiven you, man,” or in any other suitable order of words.

What can certainly trouble someone is that Matthew narrates thus about this paralytic: “And getting into a boat he crossed over and came into his own city. And behold, they brought to him a paralytic lying on a bed,” while Mark says this happened not in his city, which is called Nazareth, but in Capernaum, narrating thus: “And again he entered Capernaum after some days, and it was heard that he was in the house, and many gathered, so that there was no room even at the door; and he was speaking the word to them. And they came bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four. And when they could not bring him to him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was and, opening it, let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. And when Jesus saw their faith,” and so on. Luke, however, does not record in what place it happened, but says thus: “And it happened on one of the days that he was sitting teaching, and there were Pharisees sitting and teachers of the law, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was there to heal them. And behold, men carrying on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they sought to bring him in and lay him before him. And not finding where to bring him in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down through the tiles with the bed into the middle before Jesus. When he saw their faith, he said, ‘Man, your sins are forgiven you,’” and so on. The question therefore remains between Mark and Matthew, that Matthew writes as though it happened in the Lord's own city, while Mark says Capernaum. This would be harder to solve if Matthew also named Nazareth. But as it is, Galilee itself could be called Christ's city, because Nazareth was in Galilee, just as the whole empire, made up of so many cities, is called the Roman city; and since there is a city, set among so many nations, of which it is written, “Glorious things are spoken of you, city of God”; and since the earlier people of God itself, living in so many cities, was also called one house, the house of Israel: who would doubt that Jesus did this in his own city when he did it in the city of Capernaum, a city of Galilee, to which he had returned by crossing over from the region of the Gerasenes, so that, coming into Galilee, he was rightly said to have come into his own city, in whatever town of Galilee he was? Especially since Capernaum itself was so eminent in Galilee that it was held as a kind of metropolis. But if it were entirely impermissible to take as Christ's city either Galilee itself, in which Nazareth was, or Capernaum itself, which stood out among the cities as the head of Galilee, we would say that Matthew passed over what was done after Jesus came into his own city until he came to Capernaum, and added this about the healed paralytic, as they do in many places, passing over what is in between, as if what they add without any sign of their omission followed immediately.

From here Matthew continues, saying: “And as Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man sitting at the tax office, named Matthew, and said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he rose and followed him.” Mark narrates this thus, himself too keeping the same order, after the healing of that paralytic: “And he went out,” he says, “to the sea, and the whole crowd came to him, and he taught them. And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office and said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he rose and followed him.” Nothing conflicts here, for Matthew is the same as Levi. Luke too adds this after the healing of the same paralytic thus: “And after this he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the tax office and said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And leaving everything, he rose and followed him.” From this, however, it seems more probable that Matthew records these things, which he had passed over, by recollection, because it must certainly be believed that Matthew was called before that sermon given on the mountain. For on that mountain Luke records that all twelve were then chosen from the many disciples, whom he also named apostles.

Matthew, then, continues and says: “And it happened, as he reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and reclined with Jesus and his disciples,” and so on, up to where he says, “But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” Here Matthew did not state in whose house Jesus reclined with tax collectors and sinners. So it could seem that he did not add this in order, but recalled and inserted something that happened at another time, were it not that Mark and Luke, who narrate this in an entirely similar way, make clear that Jesus reclined in the house of Levi, that is, Matthew, and that all the sayings that follow were said there. For Mark says the same thing thus, keeping the same order: “And it happened, as he reclined in his house, many tax collectors and sinners reclined together with Jesus.” When he says “in his house,” then, he certainly indicates the one he was speaking of above, that is, Levi. So too Luke, after saying, “He said to him, ‘Follow me,’ and leaving everything he rose and followed him,” immediately added, “And Levi made a great feast for him in his house, and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and others who were reclining with them.” It is clear, then, in whose house these things were done.