The Inspiration
of the Scriptures

We should not know from the first evangelist [Matthew] of any interval in either case; nor could we learn from either the first or the third [Luke] but that the cleansing of the temple occurred on His earlier visit.

• But we know from Mark, who sets forth an exact account of the two days, that in neither case was all done at once.

• This is the more remarkable because, in the instances of the two demoniacs, Mark, like Luke, speaks only of one.

Nothing can account for such phenomena but design;

• and the more so as there is no ground to assume that each succeeding evangelist was kept in ignorance of his predecessor's account of our Lord.

It is evident that Matthew compresses in one the two acts about the temple, as well as about the fig tree.

• His scope excluded such details, and I am persuaded, rightly so, according to the mind of God's Spirit.

• It may render it all the more striking when one observes that Matthew was there and Mark was not.

He who actually saw these transactions, and who therefore, had he been a mere acting human witness, would peculiarly have dwelt on them; he too, who had been a personal companion of the Lord,

• and therefore had it been only a question of treasuring all up as one that loved the Lord, would, naturally speaking, have been the one of the three to have presented the amplest and minutest picture of the ircumstance, is just the one who does nothing of the kind.

Mark, as confessedly not being an eye-witness, might have been supposed to content himself with the general view.

• The reverse is the fact unquestionably. This is a notable feature, and not here alone, but elsewhere also.

To me it proves that the Gospels are the fruit of divine purpose in all, distinctively in each.

• It establishes the principle that, while God condescended to employ eye-witness, He never confined Himself to it, but, on the contrary, took full and particular care to show that He is above all creature means of information.

Thus it is in Mark and Luke we find some of the most important details; not in Matthew and John, though Matthew and John were eye-witnesses, Mark and Luke not.

• A double proof of this appears in what has just been advanced.

To Matthew, acting according to what was given him of the Spirit, there was no sufficient reason to enter into points which did not bear dispensationally on Israel.

• He therefore, as often elsewhere, presents the entrance into the temple in its completeness, as being the sole matter important to his aim.

• Any thoughtful mind must allow, if I do not greatly err, that entrance into detail would rather detract from the augustness of the act.

The minute account has its just place, on the other hand, if it be a question of the Lord's method and bearing in His service and testimony.

• Here I want to know the particulars; there every trace and shade are full of instruction to me.

If I have to serve Him, I do well to learn and ponder His every word and way; and in this the style and mode of Mark's Gospel is invaluable.

• Who but feels that the movements, the pauses, the sighs, the groans, the very looks of the Lord, are fraught with blessing to the soul?

But if, as with Matthew, the object be the great change of dispensation consequent on the rejection of the divine Messiah (particularly if the point, as here, be not the opening out of the coming mercy, but, on the contrary, a solemn and stern judgment on Israel),

• the Spirit of God contents Himself with a general notice of the painful scene, without indulging in any circumstantial account of it.

• To this I attribute the palpable difference in this place of Matthew as compared with Mark, and with Luke also, who omits the cursed fig tree altogether, and gives the barest mention of the temple's cleansing (chap. 19: 45).

The notion of some men, especially a few men of learning, that the difference is due to ignorance on the part of one or other or all the evangelists,

• is of all explanations the worst, and even the least reasonable (to take the lowest ground); it is in plain truth the proof of their own ignorance, and effect of positive unbelief.

• What I have ventured to suggest I believe to be a motive, and an adequate motive, and remember that divine wisdom has depths of aim infinitely beyond our ability to sound.

God may be pleased to vouchsafe us a perception of what is in His mind, if we be lowly, and diligent, and dependent on Him; or He may leave us ignorant of much, where we are careless or self-confident;

• but sure I am that the very points men ordinarily fix on as blots and imperfections in the inspired word are, when understood, among the strongest proofs of the admirable guidance of the Holy Spirit of God.

• Nor do I speak with such assurance because of the least satisfaction in any attainments, but because every lesson I have learnt and do learn from God's word brings with it the ever accumulating conviction that Scripture is perfect.

For the question in hand, it is enough to produce sufficient evidence that it was not in ignorance, but with full knowledge, that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote as they have done;

• I go no farther, and say it was divine intention, rather than, as I conceive, any determinate plan of each evangelist, who may not have had before his mind the full scope of what the Holy Ghost gave him to write about it.

• There is no necessity to suppose that Matthew deliberately designed the result we have in this Gospel.

How God brought it all to pass is another question, which of course, it is not for us to answer. But the fact is,

• that the evangelist, who was present, he who was consequently an eye-witness of the details, did not give them;

• while one who was not there states them with the greatest particularity – thoroughly harmonious with the account of him who was there, but, nevertheless, with the differences as marked as their mutual corroborations.

If we might rightly use, in this case, the word originality, then originality is stamped upon the account of the second.

• I affirm, then, in the strictest sense, that design is stamped upon each, and that consistency of purpose is found everywhere in the Gospels.

The Lord then goes straight to the sanctuary. The kingly Son of David, destined to sit as Priest upon His throne, the head of all things sacred as well as pertaining to the polity of Israel, –

• we can understand why Matthew should describe such an One visiting the temple of Jerusalem; and why, instead of stopping, like Mark, to narrate that which attests His patient service, the whole scene should be given here without a break.

We have seen that a similar principle accounts for the massing of the facts of His ministry in the end of the fourth chapter, and also for giving as a continuous whole the Sermon on the Mount,

• although, if we enquired into details, we might find many and considerable intervals; for, as undoubtedly those facts were grouped, so I believe also it was between the parts of that sermon.

• It fell in, however, with the object of Matthew's Gospel to pass by all notice of these interstices, and so the Spirit of God has been pleased to interweave the whole into a beautiful web of the first Gospel.

In this way, as I believe, we may and should account for the difference between Matthew and Mark in this particular, without in the smallest degree casting the shadow of imperfection upon one any more than the other; while the fact, already pressed, that eye-witnessing while employed as a servant, is never allowed to govern in the composition of the Gospels, bespeaks loudly that men forget their true Author in searching into the writers He employed, and that the only key to all the difficulties is the simple but weighty truth that it was God communicating His mind about Jesus, as by Matthew so by Mark.

W. Kelly
'Lectures on the Gospels',
pages 88-93 on Matthew 21: 12.

John's gospel is thought to be the latest of the New Testament Scriptures.It was probably written about 98 AD, when the gospel had spread widely among the Gentiles.

• John's audience would be generally unfamiliar with Jewish terminology. This is attested by the explanations he gives at chapter 2: 6; 3: 25; 4: 9; 5: 1, which would be unnecessary for a Jewish audience.

• As we do, he therefore uses Roman civil time in which the day begins at midnight. The sixth hour of the day would therefore be 6:00 am.

Jesus was arrested at night, on trial at night and then taken before Pilate first thing in the morning after the coming day had been heralded by the cock crowing. See: John 13: 28-30; 18: 3, 27-28; Mark 14: 72 – 15: 1.

• After Pilate's initial examination it would therefore be "about the sixth hour" or 6:00 am according to John's account.

The three hours between 6:00 am and 9:00 am (Mark's third hour) included several events not recorded by either Mark or Luke:

• the message sent to Pilate by his wife, Matthew 27: 19;
• the sending of Jesus to Herod, Luke 23: 5-12;
• a further examination by Pilate,
• accusations by the Jews
• and the journey to the cross.

The traditional view that Jesus was crucified on a Friday is based on identifying the special sabbath of the passover with the regular weekly sabbath (John 19: 31).

An alternative view that commends itself, based on a careful study, suggests that Jesus probably celebrated the passover in advance – our Tuesday evening – and therefore was crucified on the Wednesday.

• See: 'The Day of the Crucifixion', pages 569-77, in 'A Guide to the Gospels' by W. G. Scroggie, Fleming H. Revell Co., Old Tappan, N.J., 1962.

Jesus appeared to His own both in Jerusalem and in Galilee. Guided by the Spirit, each evangelist selected only the specific incidents and/or details which related to the unique purpose and perspective of his account.

• Luke does not mention Galilee. He is concerned with the continuity of Jesus' ministry in the Spirit's power, and with links with temple and Jerusalem.
  • Luke 2: 22-52; 24: 49-53; Acts 1: 4, 8; 2: 46 – 3: 1; 5: 42, etc.

• Mark groups details from several of Jesus' appearances, omitting references to time and place.
  • In accord with the Spirit's objective in his gospel, he hastens on to the Lord's place at the right hand of God and the continuation of His service through His servants here.

• Matthew omits the ascension altogether, stopping at the commission in "Galilee of the nations" to "make disciples of all nations"
  • in harmony with his theme, Jesus as King and the extension of the kingdom. Matt. 4: 13-17; 28: 19.

Rather than seeing contradictions, I discern the Spirit's superintendence.

Altogether aside from inspiration, it cannot be believed that such an accurate and conscientious historian as Luke. would deliberately or carelessly contradict himself.

• Doubtless already having in mind a sequel to his "first discourse" to Theophilus when completing the gospel,
  • Luke understandably omits the details of the forty days as not being material to his immediate stated purpose. Luke 1: 3-4; Acts 1: 1-4.

• To have included the details would have only raised points which could not have been satisfactorily covered without extending his gospel beyond its original intended scope.

• Therefore Luke reserved the details, which provided the theme for his subsequent account. Acts 1: 6-9.

Again, I can only see and rejoice in the evidence of divine inspiration.

Here is a summary of the events.

• After his conversion Saul was "with the disciples who were in Damascus certain days", Acts 9: 18-21 – a very short period of time.

• From Damascus "immediately" – i.e., after the "certain days" – he "went to Arabia and again returned to Damascus", Galatians 1: 15-17.

• As a result of his time alone in Arabia, Saul "increased the more in power" but "after many days (or "three years", Galatians 1: 18) were fulfilled" he fled from Damascus to evade a murderous plot. Acts 9: 22-25.
  • The equivalence of "many days" to "three years" is indisputable: "And Shimei dwelt in Jerusalem many days. And it came to pass at the end of three years", 1 Kings 2: 38-39.

• Paul had been in Damascus the second time for "three years" before going to Jerusalem. Because of his infamous reputation in that city as a persecutor of the saints he was viewed with suspicion. But Barnabas "brought him to the apostles".
  • Most of them were apparently away from Jerusalem, in their apostolic service, so that he only met Peter, staying with him for fifteen days, as well as James the brother of the Lord.

• He spoke boldly in the Name of the Lord at Jerusalem, but had to be sent away because of the hostility of the Hellenists.
  • The brethren sent him away to Tarsus – his birthplace – which was in the Roman province of Cilicia for his own safety. Acts 9: 26-30; 22: 3; Galatians 1: 18-24.

  • His shortened visit would not allow an opportunity for the assemblies in Judea to meet him personally – travel was not as easy as in our days – but they heard reports of his ministry.

• The news of the work of God among the nations in Antioch resulted in Barnabas going there. Seeing the need of help in teaching, he went to nearby Tarsus to seek out Saul who was still there. Barnabas brought Saul to Antioch where they laboured together for a whole year.

• From Antioch, Barnabas and Saul went to Jerusalem with famine relief for the saints. Acts 11: 22-30. At that time, James and Peter and John recognized the special ministry of Saul and Barnabas to the nations. Galatians 2: 1-10.
  • This second visit to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and Titus also, was "after a lapse of fourteen years".

  • Whether the "fourteen years" was counted from his conversion or his first visit to Jerusalem is unclear and, as far as the continuity of the account is concerned, immaterial.

• Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem to Antioch, accompanied by Mark, remaining there until sent out by the Holy Spirit. Acts 12: 25-13: 3. Their mission fulfilled, they returned and "stayed no little time with the disciples", Acts 14: 26-28.

• Subsequently, "Peter came to Antioch", and when he gave way before those of the Judaizing party who arrived later from Jerusalem, Paul had to withstand him to the face. Galatians 2: 11-14.
  • The epistle to the Galatians was probably written shortly after this, as a result of reports of the spread of Judaizing teachings among the assemblies which were the fruit of Paul's earlier labours. Acts 13: 13-14: 26.

  • The discussions and decisions at Jerusalem had not yet taken place, otherwise Paul would undoubtedly have cited them in the epistle.

• As a result of the activities of the Judaizing teachers in Antioch, Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders. Peter had by then thrown off the influence of the Judaizers, and the Holy Spirit brought about a landmark decision which Paul and Barnabas took back from Jerusalem to Antioch. Acts 15: 1-35.

Inspiration does not override individual distinctions. In giving an overall account of the Spirit's operations in the spread of the gospel,

• Luke, as an historian, has a somewhat different viewpoint than Paul has in recounting his personal involvement in certain situations.

Luke was with Paul for a considerable time during several periods, and would have had firsthand reports from Paul.

• However, Paul would relate and emphasize details as they related to the issue of the Judaizing teaching with which he was dealing in his letter to the Galatians.

• See the so-called "we" sections for the times when Luke was with Paul. Acts 16: 10-17; 20: 5-21: 18; 27: 1-28: 16; also, Colossians 4: 14; 2 Timothy 4: 11.

There is no real contradiction between the accounts of Luke and Paul – only variety in the details selected and the omission of time references which were not relevant in the context. The two accounts fit together; if needed, this is another proof of inspiration.

And having arrived at Jerusalem he essayed to join himself to the disciples, and all were afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles, and related to them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that He had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. and speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. And he spoke and discussed with the Hellenists; but they sought to kill him. And the brethren knowing it, brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus. Acts 9: 26-30.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Peter, and I remained with him fifteen days; But I saw none other of the apostles, but James the brother of the Lord. Now what I write to you, behold, before God, I do not lie. Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. But I was unknown personally to the assemblies of Judea which are in Christ; only they were hearing that he who persecuted us formerly now announces the glad tidings of the faith which formerly he ravaged: and they glorified God in me. Galatians 1: 18-24.

The next two passages are parallel.

And the report concerning them reached the ears of the assembly which was in Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabas to go through as far as Antioch: who, having arrived and seeing the grace of God, rejoiced, and exhorted all with purpose of heart to abide with the Lord; for he was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith; and a large crowd of people were added to the Lord. And he went away to Tarsus to seek out Saul. And having found him, he brought him to Antioch. And so it was with them that for a whole year they were gathered together in the assembly and taught a large crowd; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. Now in these days prophets went down from Jerusalem to Antioch; and one from among them, by name Agabus, rose up and signified by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine over all the inhabited earth, which also came to pass under Claudius. And they determined, according as any one of the disciples was well off, each of them to send to the brethren who dwelt in Judea, to minister to them; which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul. Acts 11: 22-30.

Then after a lapse of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me; and I went up according to revelation, and I laid before them the glad tidings which I preach among the nations, but privately to those conspicuous among them, lest in any way I run or had run in vain; (but neither was Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, compelled to be circumcised;) and it was on account of the false brethren brought in surreptitiously, who came in surreptitiously to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage; to whom we yielded in subjection not even for an hour, that the truth of the glad tidings might remain with you. But from these who were conspicuous as being somewhat – whatsoever they were, it makes no difference to me: God does not accept man's person; for to me those who were conspicuous communicated nothing; but, on the contrary, seeing that the glad tidings of the uncircumcision were confided to me, even as to Peter that of the circumcision, (for he that wrought in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought also in me toward the Gentiles,) and recognizing the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were conspicuous as being pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the nations, and they to the circumcision; only that we should remember the poor, which same thing also I was diligent to do. Galatians 2: 1-10.

End of the parallel passages.

And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark. Acts 12: 25.

Now there were in Antioch, in the assembly that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius the Cyrenian, and Manaen, foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them. Then having fasted and prayed, and having laid their hands on them, they let them go. Acts 13: 1-3.

And thence they sailed away to Antioch, whence they had been committed to the grace of God for the work which they had fulfilled. And having arrived, and having brought together the assembly, they related to them all that God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith to the nations. And they stayed no little time with the disciples. Acts 14: 26-28.

The next two passages are parallel.

End of the parallel passages.

They therefore, having been sent on their way by the assembly, passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, relating the conversion of those of the nations. And they caused great joy to all the brethren. And being arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the assembly, and the apostles, and the elders, and related all that God had wrought with them. Acts 15: 3-4.

If you had professed the faith for many years you would have to be considered as an opposer of the truth.

• As it is, you are younger, isolated and apparently confused.

If you look for contradictions you will be sure to find what you judge to be so,

• but if you look to "the Spirit of truth, He shall guide you into all the truth", John 16: 13.

Bow in repentance, before a holy God, that you allowed Satan to cause you to distrust the Holy Scriptures.

• He will not only forgive but He will open your eyes to see the beauties of Christ and wondrous things in the Scriptures. 1 John 2: 1-2; Psalms 27: 4; 119: 18.

Yours in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.

We dislocate the whole purposed contexture of the gospels in trying to put them into common continuous order.

• It may be in some respects interesting to search it out, but quite subordinate to the general purpose for which they are written.

• I have tried to arrange them, and I have not found the thing impossible; but I have found it takes the passages quite out of the order in which they were meant to stand.

Besides, we have a very limited portion indeed of the facts of the history, which enormously increases the difficulty of putting it together; because the links which connect the facts historically are often wholly wanting.

• There may be six months between two facts mentioned in one verse, in the same sentence, if these two facts refer to one subject;

• and these two facts may be dispersed amongst a number of others in quite different connection elsewhere,

• and if one be morally important on a particular subject, it may be put after one chronologically subsequent, without a note of time.

This is actually the case; because the object of the Holy Ghost is to give us certain moral pictures of Christ as Son of David, Son of man, and as Son of God, a Divine Person, and of God's ways with men in Him – not to make out a full biography. Such alone, I am bold to say, could have been God's way of dealing.

I put a case, to shew how easily the omission of a fact seems to produce a contradiction, if the fact be not known.

• A person, desirous of shewing my kindness and condescension states that I accompanied him from Reading to Oxford on foot, though it was almost more than my strength permitted, and unfolded my mind to him, all the way, enlarging on what I said.

• Another has a point to prove, namely, That it was on a certain day (which is this selfsame day) he was with me, and that I had informed him of a certain event; and he states that he overtook me on the Oxford road going to Reading. This was just half an hour before the other spoke of walking with me.

• A third states positively that I only arrived in Oxford that day, and never left it afterwards.

Now there seems a contradiction here; for how could I have been overtaken on the Oxford road to Reading, and never have left Oxford that day, and have, on the contrary, gone from Reading to Oxford, not having even strength to go more than one way?

Yet one fact makes all easy, which was immaterial to all the parties who had spoken of it.

• I had forgotten my pocket-book, and had turned back again after two miles' walk, and was overtaken a few minutes afterwards going to Reading, and then set out again.

• And, so far from being a contradiction, I should never have met the person I walked to Oxford with had I not been back to Reading.

• Now, this is a simple and obvious case; I refer to it to illustrate the danger of reasoning from such apparent difficulties.

J.N.D.