The Harmony of the Gospels 2.82–2.95

Matthew, then, continues, narrating thus: “And when he had passed on from there, he came into their synagogue. And behold, a man having a withered hand,” and so on, up to where he says, “And it was restored to health like the other.” Mark and Luke are not silent either about this man with the withered hand who was healed. It could be thought that the incident of the grain and this healing happened on the same day, since the Sabbath is mentioned here too, had not Luke made it clear that the healing of the withered hand happened on another Sabbath. Accordingly, as to Matthew saying, “And when he had passed on from there, he came into their synagogue,” he did not come until he had passed on from there; but after how many days he came into their synagogue after passing from that grainfield, or whether he went straight there immediately, is not stated. And so there is room for Luke's narrative, which says this man's hand was healed on another Sabbath. But it can trouble someone how Matthew said that they asked the Lord whether it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath, wishing to find an occasion to accuse him, and that he put to them the comparison of the sheep, saying, “Which of you will be the man who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out? How much better is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath,” whereas Mark and Luke report rather that they were asked by the Lord: “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or evil? To save life or to destroy it?” It must be understood, then, that they first asked the Lord whether it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath; that then, understanding the thoughts of those seeking an opening for accusation, he set in the middle the man he was going to heal and asked what Mark and Luke record that he asked; and that then, when they were silent, he put forward the comparison of the sheep and concluded that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath; and finally, having looked around at them with anger, as Mark says, grieved at the blindness of their hearts, he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” Matthew continues, composing his narrative thus: “But the Pharisees went out and took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.”

“But Jesus, knowing it, withdrew from there, and many followed him, and he healed them all, and he ordered them not to make him known, so that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, saying,” and so on, up to where he says, “And in his name the nations will hope.” Matthew alone records this; the other two went on to other things. Mark seems to have kept somewhat to the order of the event, saying that Jesus, knowing the malicious plotting of the Jews against him, withdrew to the sea with his disciples, and the crowds flocked to him, and he healed very many. But where he began to go on to something else, not what followed in order, scarcely appears, whether where he says the crowds gathered to him (for this could have happened at another time too) or where he says, “He went up the mountain.” Luke too seems to record this, saying, “And it happened in those days that he went out to the mountain to pray”; for by saying “in those days” he shows clearly enough that it did not happen immediately.

Matthew, then, continues and says: “Then a demoniac who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he cured him, so that he spoke and saw.” Luke records this not in this order but after many other things, and says only that he was mute, not also blind. But he is not to be thought to speak of another man because he is silent about something; for he too joins on the same things that follow as Matthew does.

Matthew continues, saying: “And all the crowds were amazed and said, ‘Can this be the son of David?’ But the Pharisees, hearing it, said, ‘This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons.’ But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said to them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste,’” and so on, up to where he says, “By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Mark does not add the saying about Jesus casting out demons by Beelzebul on the occasion of that mute man, but joins it on after certain other things that he alone records, either recalling it in another place and attaching it, or passing over something and then returning to this order. Luke, however, says this in almost the same words as Matthew; and in calling the Spirit of God the finger of God he does not depart from the same sense, but rather teaches us something besides, so that we may know how to understand the finger of God wherever we read it in the Scriptures. In the other things that Mark and Luke do not say here there is no controversy, nor in those they say somewhat differently, because the meaning is the same.

Matthew continues and says: “Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, ‘Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you,’” and so on, up to where he says, “So will it be also with this most wicked generation.” Luke too narrates these things, indeed in that place, but in a somewhat different order. For the request for a sign from heaven made to the Lord he recorded above, after that miracle of the mute man, and did not report there what the Lord answered them on this; but afterward, when the crowds had flocked together, he says this answer was given to those whom he gives us to understand he had recorded above, who were seeking a sign from heaven; and he attaches this after inserting the woman who said to the Lord, “Blessed is the womb that bore you.” And he inserts this woman after recording, from the Lord's discourse, that the unclean spirit going out from a man returns and finds the house cleaned. After that woman, then, when he says that the crowds were answered about the sign they sought from heaven, the comparison of Jonah the prophet being inserted, then, continuing the Lord's own discourse, he records what was said of the queen of the South and of the Ninevites. So he recorded something that Matthew passed over rather than passing over any of the things Matthew narrated in this place. And who does not see that it is superfluous to ask in what order the Lord said these things, since by the most excellent authority of the evangelists we ought to learn this too: that it is not a lie if someone does not arrange another's discourse in the order in which it came from the speaker, since the order itself makes no difference to the matter, whether it is this way or that? Moreover, Luke indicates that this discourse of the Lord was longer, and records in it some things like those Matthew gives in that sermon given on the mountain, which we understand were said twice, both there and here. When this discourse is finished, Luke goes on to something else, in which it is uncertain whether he has kept the order of events. For he connects it thus: “And while he was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him.” He does not say, “while he was saying these things,” but “while he was speaking.” For if he had said “while he was saying these things,” he would necessarily compel us to understand that these things were not only narrated by him in this order but also done by the Lord in it.

Matthew, then, continues and says: “While he was still speaking to the crowds, behold, his mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak to him,” and so on, up to where he says, “For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother.” This we must undoubtedly understand as having happened next in sequence. For when he passed on to narrate it, he put first, “While he was still speaking to the crowds.” And what does “still” mean, if not what he was saying? For he did not say, “And while he was speaking to the crowds, behold, his mother and brothers”; but when he says, “while he was still speaking,” he compels us to understand “while he was saying these things” that he had indicated above. For Mark too, after reporting what the Lord said about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, says, “And his mother and brothers come,” passing over certain things which, in the same course of the Lord's discourse, Matthew gave at greater length than Mark and Luke at greater length than Matthew. Luke, however, did not keep the order of this event, but anticipated it and narrated it earlier as he recalled it. Indeed, he inserted it in such a way that it appears detached from the connection with both what precedes and what follows. For after recording certain parables of the Lord, he inserted this about his mother and brothers, as he recalled it, thus: “And his mother and his brothers came to him,” he says, “and could not reach him because of the crowd”; he did not state when they came to him. And again, when he passes on from there, he speaks thus: “And it happened on one of the days that he got into a boat, and his disciples.” And here certainly, when he says, “It happened on one of the days,” he indicates clearly enough that it need not be understood as this day on which this happened, or the one that immediately followed. So what Matthew narrates about the Lord's mother and brothers has no conflict with the other two, either in the Lord's words or in the very order of events.

Matthew continues: “On that day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. And great crowds gathered to him, so that he got into a boat and sat down, and the whole crowd stood on the shore. And he spoke to them many things in parables, saying,” and so on, up to where he says, “Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old.” That this happened immediately after what was narrated about the Lord's mother and brothers, and that Matthew kept that order in narrating too, the matter itself indicates, because when he passed to it he joined it on so as to say, “On that day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea, and great crowds gathered to him.” For when he says “on that day” (unless perhaps “day,” in the manner of the Scriptures, signifies a time), he indicates clearly enough either that this happened next or that not much could have come in between, especially since Mark too keeps that order. Luke, after what he narrates about the Lord's mother and brothers, passes on to something else and makes no connection in that transition that would seem to conflict with this order. Of all these things, then, that Matthew narrated that the Lord said, those that Mark and Luke reported with him raise no question of conflict; and those that he alone reported are all the more without controversy. Nor in the order itself, although one keeps a somewhat different order from another, partly of the events, partly of his own recollection, do I see what anyone contradicts, or whom.

Matthew, then, continues: “And it happened, when Jesus had finished these parables, he went on from there. And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogues,” and so on, up to where he says, “And he did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.” He passes from the preceding discourse of parables in such a way as not to show that it necessarily followed in order; especially since Mark, going on from these parables not to what Matthew does but to something else, to which Luke too joins his narrative, makes it more credible that what those two attach in sequence happened next: namely, the boat in which Jesus slept, and that miracle of the demons cast out among the Gerasenes, both of which Matthew, recalling them, had already inserted earlier. Now, then, let us see whether what the Lord said in his own country, or what was said to him, agrees with the other two, Mark and Luke. For John records, in widely different and dissimilar places of his narrative, that such things were said to the Lord or that he said such things as the other three recall in this place.

Mark, indeed, records here nearly everything that Matthew does, except that he says the Lord was called by his fellow citizens “the carpenter, the son of Mary,” not, as Matthew has, “the carpenter's son.” Nor is this surprising, since both could have been said; for they believed him a carpenter for the same reason they believed him a carpenter's son. Luke, however, sets out the same event more fully and records more there; and he inserts it not long after his baptism and temptation, undoubtedly anticipating what happened later, after many other things had intervened. From this anyone can notice something that is most necessary for this great question, which with God's help we have undertaken to untangle concerning the agreement of the evangelists: that they kept rather another order, that of their recollection, not because they were ignorant that they had passed something over, or ignorant of how the order of events stood. This can be understood most evidently from this place: before narrating anything the Lord did in Capernaum, Luke anticipated this passage which we are now considering, where his fellow citizens were amazed at the power of his mighty works in him and despised the lowliness of his family. For he says that he said to them, “Surely you will say to me, ‘Physician, heal yourself: what great things we have heard were done in Capernaum, do here too in your own country,’” when according to Luke's own narrative he is not yet read to have done anything in Capernaum. Because it is not long and is very easy and very necessary, we insert the whole, from where and how he came to narrate this. After indicating that the Lord was baptized and tempted, he continues thus: “And when every temptation was finished, the devil departed from him until a time. And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report about him went out through the whole region. And he taught in their synagogues and was glorified by all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and entered the synagogue on the Sabbath day according to his custom, and stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. And when he unrolled the book, he found the place where it was written: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and sight to the blind, to set at liberty the broken, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of recompense. And when he had rolled up the book, he gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, ‘Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your ears.’ And all bore him witness and marveled at the words of grace that came from his mouth, and they said, ‘Is not this the son of Joseph?’ And he said to them, ‘Surely you will say to me this proverb: Physician, heal yourself; what great things we have heard were done in Capernaum, do here too in your own country,’” and so on, until he completes the whole of that passage of his narrative. What, then, is more evident than that he knowingly anticipated this in his narrative, since he himself knew that great things had already been done by him in Capernaum and himself recalls things he certainly knows he has not yet narrated? For he had not gone so far from his baptism that he could be thought to have forgotten that he had not yet recorded anything of what had been done in Capernaum; for he had only just begun, after the baptism, to narrate something about the Lord.

Matthew continues: “At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the report about Jesus and said to his servants, ‘This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead, and therefore mighty powers are at work in him.’” Mark says the same in the same way, but not in the same order. For after the Lord sent out the disciples, telling them to carry nothing on the journey except a staff only, when that discourse was finished, as far as he recorded it, he added this too, yet without creating any necessity that would compel us to understand that this happened next. Nor does Matthew; for he said “at that time,” not “on that day” or “in that hour.” Except that Mark says not that Herod said it, but, “They were saying,” he says, “that John the Baptist has risen from the dead,” whereas Matthew says of Herod himself, “He said to his servants.” Luke too, keeping the same order of narrating as Mark, and himself certainly not compelling belief that the order of events was the same, records the same thing thus: “Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was being done by him and was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had risen from the dead, by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the old prophets had risen. And Herod said, ‘John I beheaded; but who is this about whom I hear such things?’ And he sought to see him.” In these words Luke too attests Mark's account, at least so far as that others, not Herod, said that John had risen from the dead. But since he recorded Herod as perplexed and afterward set down his words as saying, “John I beheaded; but who is this about whom I hear such things?” it must be understood either that after this perplexity he confirmed in his own mind what was being said by others, when he said to his servants, as Matthew narrates, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead, and therefore mighty powers are at work in him”; or these words must be pronounced so as to indicate that he was still perplexed. For if he said, “Is this perhaps…?” or, “Can this perhaps be John the Baptist?” there would be no need to say anything about the pronunciation by which he is understood to be doubting and perplexed. But as it is, since those words are lacking, it can be pronounced either way, so that we take it either that he said it confirmed and believing from the words of others, or still perplexed, as Luke records; especially since Mark too, who had said above that it was said by others that John had risen from the dead, nevertheless does not pass over at the end that Herod himself said, “John, whom I beheaded, he has risen from the dead.” These words too can be pronounced in two ways, so as to be understood as either affirming or doubting. And while Luke, after recording this, passes on to something else, the other two, Matthew and Mark, on this occasion narrate how John was killed by Herod.

Matthew, then, continues and says: “For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother's wife,” and so on, up to where he says, “And his disciples came and took his body and buried it, and they came and told Jesus.” Mark narrates this similarly. Luke, however, does not recall it in the same order, but around the very baptism with which the Lord was baptized. Hence he too is understood to have anticipated it, taking the occasion to narrate there what happened much later. For when he had recorded John's words about the Lord, that his winnowing fan is in his hand and he will cleanse his threshing floor, store the grain in his barn, but burn the chaff with unquenchable fire, he immediately added what did not happen immediately, as John the evangelist most plainly sets out when he records that after Jesus was baptized he went into Galilee, when he made wine from water, and from there, after a stay of a few days in Capernaum, returned to the land of Judea and baptized many there around the Jordan, before John was put in prison. But who, if less learned in these writings, would not think that Herod was offended by John immediately after those words about the winnowing fan and the cleansed threshing floor and sent him to prison? Yet we have already proved elsewhere that these things were not narrated in the order in which they happened, and in this very place not someone else but Luke himself proves it. For if John was put in prison immediately after those words, how, according to Luke's own narrative, was Jesus baptized after the very record of John's being put in prison? So it is clear that, taking the occasion, he recalled and anticipated it, and set this anticipated event first in his narrative before many things that he was going to narrate as done before this happened to John. But neither did those two, Matthew and Mark, place John's imprisonment in their narrative in the order of events in which it is shown, even in their own writings, to have happened. For they too said that after John was handed over the Lord went into Galilee, and after many things that he did in Galilee they come to Herod's being prompted, or perplexed, that John, whom he beheaded, had risen from the dead; and on this occasion they narrate all that befell John when imprisoned and killed.

Matthew, then, after saying that it was reported to Christ that John had been killed, continues and composes his narrative thus: “When Jesus heard it,” he says, “he withdrew from there in a boat to a desert place apart. And when the crowds heard it, they followed him on foot from the cities. And going out he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on it and healed their sick.” He records that this happened immediately after John's passion. Hence the things narrated first, by which Herod was moved to say, “John I beheaded,” happened after these. For those later things must be understood as what report carried to Herod, so that he was moved and perplexed as to who this could be about whom he heard such things, since he himself had killed John. Mark, however, after narrating John's passion, records that the disciples who had been sent returned to Jesus and reported to him all that they had done and taught, and that the Lord (which he alone records) told them to rest a little in the desert, and went up with them into a boat and went, and the crowds, seeing this, got there before them; that the Lord, having compassion on them, taught them many things; and that, as the hour was already advancing, it came about that all who were present were fed from five loaves and two fish. This miracle all four evangelists recorded. Luke too, who had narrated John's passion much earlier, on the occasion we have mentioned, now, after recording that perplexity of Herod as to who the Lord was, immediately adds what Mark does: that the apostles returned to him and told him whatever they had done, and that he took them and withdrew to a desert place, and the crowds followed him there, and he spoke about the kingdom of God and healed those who needed care. And from there he too records, as the day was declining, the miracle done with the five loaves.

But John, who differs much from those three evangelists in that he dwells more on the discourses the Lord gave than on the deeds he wonderfully did, after recording that he left Judea and went away again into Galilee (which is understood to have happened at the time when the other evangelists say he went into Galilee after John was handed over), after recording this, then, John joins to his narrative the many things he said on his way through Samaria on the occasion of that Samaritan woman whom he found at the well; and after two days he says that he went out from there into Galilee, then came to Cana of Galilee, where he had made wine from water, and healed the son of a certain official. But the other things that the others said he did and said in Galilee, John passes over; yet he does say, what they passed over, that he went up to Jerusalem at a festival and did there that miracle on the man who had been in his infirmity thirty-eight years and had no one to put him into the pool in which those afflicted with various ailments were healed; and he records that on this occasion he said many things. After this he says he went away across the sea of Galilee, which is that of Tiberias, and a great multitude followed; then he went away to the mountain and sat there with his disciples, when the Passover, the festival of the Jews, was near; then, lifting up his eyes and seeing a very great multitude, he fed it with five loaves and two fish, as the other evangelists also say. And so it is certain that he passed over what they narrated in coming to the record of this miracle; yet, as if by another road of narration, since they too had passed over what he said, those three, who walked almost together, and he, who, pursuing the deep things of the Lord's discourses, had in a way flown around by other things that they passed over, met each other at this miracle of the five loaves, to record it together; and soon afterward he would fly back up again from them into higher things.

Matthew, then, continues and brings his narrative in order to the event of the five loaves thus: “When evening had come, his disciples came to him, saying, ‘The place is desert and the hour is already past; send the crowds away, so that they may go into the villages and buy food for themselves.’ But Jesus said to them, ‘They do not need to go; you give them something to eat,’” and so on, up to where he says, “And the number of those who ate was five thousand men, besides women and children.” This miracle, then, which all four evangelists record and in which they are thought to disagree somewhat among themselves, must be considered and examined, so that from it rules of expression may be learned for other similar cases too, by which, in such different expressions, the same meaning is nevertheless kept and the same truth of events preserved. And the consideration should begin not with Matthew, according to the order of the evangelists, but rather with John, by whom this narrative is set out in such a way that he even gives the names of the disciples with whom the Lord spoke about this matter. For he says thus: “When Jesus, then, had lifted up his eyes and seen that a very great multitude was coming to him, he said to Philip, ‘Where shall we buy bread, so that these may eat?’ But he said this to test him; for he himself knew what he was going to do. Philip answered him, ‘Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not enough for them, for each to receive a little.’ One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him, ‘There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are these among so many?’ Jesus then said, ‘Make the people recline.’ Now there was much grass in the place. So the men reclined, about five thousand in number. Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those reclining; likewise also of the fish, as much as they wanted. And when they were filled, he said to his disciples, ‘Gather up the fragments left over, so that nothing may be lost.’ So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, which were left over by those who had eaten.”