The Harmony of the Gospels 2.61–2.81

Now let us look at the words themselves that all three of these evangelists set down, whether those said to the Lord or those answered by him. Matthew: “And seeing this,” he says, “the Pharisees said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’” Mark says this too in almost the same number of words: “Why does your teacher eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” Matthew, then, passed over the “drink” that Mark added. But what does it matter, since the sense is complete in conveying that they were dining together? Luke, however, seems to have recorded this somewhat differently. “And the Pharisees and their scribes murmured,” he says, “saying to his disciples, ‘Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?’” Certainly he did not mean that their teacher should not be understood there, but indicated that this objection was made to all together, both to him and to his disciples, though it was said not to him but to them, so as to be taken of both him and them. For Luke himself certainly says that the Lord answered, “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance,” which he would not have answered them unless what they had said, “you eat and drink,” applied above all to him. That is why Matthew and Mark too narrated that this objection was made to his disciples about him, because, while it was said of the disciples, it was the master more who was being reproached, whom they imitated by following him. The sense, then, is one, and conveyed all the better for being varied in certain words while the truth remains. Likewise, as to what Matthew reports that the Lord answered, “It is not the healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous but sinners,” Mark and Luke too kept the same sense in almost the same words, except that both do not insert that testimony from the prophet, “I desire mercy rather than sacrifice.” Luke, however, when he had said, “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners,” added “to repentance,” which serves to explain the sense, lest anyone think that sinners are loved by Christ precisely because they are sinners; since the comparison of the sick too conveys well what God intends in calling sinners, like a physician calling the sick: namely, that they may be made whole from iniquity as from sickness, which comes about through repentance.

Likewise, as to what Matthew says, “Then John's disciples came to him, saying, ‘Why do we and the Pharisees fast often?’” Mark brought it in similarly, saying, “And John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, and they come and say to him, ‘Why do John's disciples and those of the Pharisees fast?’” except that Mark may be thought to have added the Pharisees as saying this together with John's disciples, whereas Matthew reports that only John's disciples said it. But the very words that are read in Mark as said by them indicate rather that some said this about others, that is, that the guests who were present came to Jesus because John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, and said this to him about them; so that when he says “they come,” he did not say it of those of whom he had inserted, “And John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting,” but that, while these were fasting, those who were troubled by this come and say to him, “Why do John's disciples and those of the Pharisees fast, but yours do not fast?” Luke expressed this more plainly, conveying the same thing thus, after he had said what the Lord answered them about calling sinners as if they were sick: “But they said to him,” he says, “‘Why do John's disciples fast often and make prayers, and likewise those of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink?’” So here too, like Mark, he narrated that some said this about others. Why, then, does Matthew say, “Then John's disciples came to him, saying, ‘Why do we and the Pharisees fast?’” unless because they too were present and all of them eagerly, each as he could, raised this objection; and their meaning is conveyed by the three evangelists in different manners of speaking, yet not foreign to the truth.

Likewise Matthew and Mark similarly inserted the saying about the sons of the bridegroom, that they will not fast as long as the bridegroom is with them, except that Mark called “sons of the wedding” those whom Matthew calls “sons of the bridegroom,” which makes no difference to the matter. For by sons of the wedding we understand not only those of the bridegroom but also those of the bride. It is the same plain meaning, then, not another, contrary one. Luke, however, does not say, “Can the sons of the bridegroom fast?” but says, “Can you make the sons of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them?” In this he too elegantly opened the same meaning so as to convey something further. For so it is understood that the very people who were speaking would be the ones to bring it about that the sons of the bridegroom would fast in mourning, since they themselves would kill the bridegroom. As for Matthew saying “mourn,” where Mark and Luke say “fast,” this is because Matthew too afterward says, “then they will fast,” not “then they will mourn.” But by that word he signified that the Lord spoke of the kind of fast that belongs to the humiliation of tribulation; while the other kind, which belongs to the joy of a mind lifted up toward spiritual things and therefore in a way estranged from bodily food, the Lord is understood to have signified by the later comparisons of the new cloth and the new wine, showing that this kind of fasting does not suit those who are natural and carnal, occupied with the body and for that reason still dragging along the old way of thinking. These comparisons the other two set out similarly. For it is now quite obvious that it is not a contradiction if one says what another passes over, whether of words or of facts, so long as there is no departure from the same meaning, or whatever different thing is perhaps set down does not conflict with the other.

Then Matthew continues, still keeping the order of times: “While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came and worshiped him, saying, ‘My daughter has just died; but come, lay your hand on her, and she will live,’” and so on, up to where he says, “And the girl arose. And this report went out into all that land.” The other two, Mark and Luke, tell this too, but they now depart from this order. For they recall and insert it elsewhere, namely at the place where he returns by crossing over from the region of the Gerasenes after the demons were cast out and sent into the pigs. For Mark joins it thus after that event among the Gerasenes: “And when Jesus had crossed over again in the boat to the other side,” he says, “a great crowd gathered to him, and he was by the sea. And one of the rulers of the synagogue, named Jairus, came, and seeing him fell at his feet,” and so on. And so it must be understood that this concerning the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue did indeed happen after Jesus had crossed over again in the boat to the other side, but how long after does not appear. For if there had not been an interval, there would have been no time for what Matthew has just narrated, at the feast in his own house. He narrated, as if of someone else, in the manner of the evangelists, what was done concerning himself and in his own house, after which event nothing else immediately follows but this concerning the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue. For he so links it that the transition itself plainly indicates that what is narrated next also happened next, since, having recorded above what Jesus said about the new cloth and the new wine, he immediately added, “While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came.” And so, if he came while he was saying these things, nothing else of his deeds and sayings was inserted in between. In Mark's narrative, however, there is an open place where other things could have been inserted, as we have already shown. Likewise Luke, when after narrating the miracle among the Gerasenes he passes on to narrate about the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, does not pass on in such a way as to resist Matthew, who shows that this happened after those comparisons of the cloth and wine by saying, “while he was saying these things.” For Luke, when he had finished narrating what happened among the Gerasenes, passes on to something else in this way: “And it happened, when Jesus returned, the crowd welcomed him, for they were all waiting for him. And behold, a man whose name was Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue, fell at Jesus' feet,” and so on. So it is understood that the crowd did indeed welcome the Lord immediately, since it was waiting for him to return; but what he added, “And behold, a man whose name was Jairus,” is not to be taken as happening immediately, but first that feast with the tax collectors, as Matthew narrates, to which he so joins this that no other event can be understood to have come between.

In this narrative, then, which we have now undertaken to consider, all three of these evangelists agree without any question about the woman who suffered from a flow of blood. For it makes no difference to the truth of the matter that something passed over by one is told by another, nor that Mark says, “Who touched my garments?” and Luke, “Who touched me?” For the one spoke in the usual way, the other literally, but both expressed the same meaning. For we say more usually, “You are tearing me,” than, “You are tearing my clothes,” though it is plain what we want to be understood.

But since Matthew narrates that the ruler of the synagogue reported to the Lord that his daughter was not about to die, or dying, or at the point of death, but altogether dead, while the other two say she was near death but not yet dead, so much so that they say that others came afterward to report that she was dead and that therefore the teacher should no longer be troubled, as if he were coming so as to keep her from dying by laying on his hand, not as one who could raise her when dead, we must consider this so that it does not seem to conflict. And it must be understood that for the sake of brevity Matthew preferred to say that the Lord was asked to do what it is clear he did, namely to raise her when dead. For he attends not to the father's words about his daughter but, what matters most, to his will, and set down such words as his will was. For he had so despaired that he rather wanted her to come back to life, not believing that she could be found alive whom he had left dying. So the two set down what Jairus said, and Matthew what he willed and thought. Both, then, were asked of the Lord: either to save her while dying or to raise her when dead. But since Matthew had set out to tell the whole briefly, he indicated that the father in his request said what it is certain he willed and what Christ did. Certainly, if those two, or either of them, had recorded that the father himself said what those coming from his house had said, that Jesus should no longer be troubled because the girl was dead, the words would conflict with his thought as Matthew set it down. But as it is, when his people reported this and tried to keep the teacher from coming any further, it is not read that he agreed. And so too what the Lord said to him, “Do not fear, only believe, and she will be saved,” does not rebuke one who distrusted but strengthened one who believed more firmly. For his faith was such as was in the man who said, “I believe, Lord; help my unbelief.”

Since this is so, through such varied but not contradictory expressions of the evangelists we learn something plainly most useful and very necessary: that we ought to look in anyone's words for nothing but the will, which the words ought to serve; and that no one lies if he says in other words what someone willed whose words he does not repeat; so that wretched word-catchers may not think that truth must be bound, as it were, to the strokes of letters, since certainly not only in words but in all other signs of minds too nothing is to be sought but the mind itself.

As for what some manuscripts of Matthew have, “For the woman is not dead but sleeps,” although Mark and Luke testify that she was a girl of twelve, you may understand that Matthew spoke in the Hebrew manner. For in other places of Scripture too it is found that not only those who have known a husband, but women in general, even untouched and chaste ones, are called women, as it is written of Eve herself, “He formed her into a woman,” and that passage in the book of Numbers where it is commanded that the women who have not known lying with a male, that is, virgins, should be kept alive and not killed; by which manner of speaking Paul too says that Christ himself was made of a woman. For we understand this better than to believe that the girl of twelve was already married or had known a man.

Matthew continues and says: “And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying out and saying, ‘Have mercy on us, son of David,’” and so on, up to where he says, “But the Pharisees said, ‘By the prince of demons he casts out demons.’” Matthew alone sets down this about the two blind men and the mute demoniac. For those two blind men of whom the others also tell are not these; yet a similar thing was done, so that if Matthew himself had not also recorded that other event, it could have been thought that what he narrates now was also told by the other two. We ought carefully to commit to memory that there are some similar events, which is proved when the same evangelist records both, so that if ever we find such events, one in one evangelist and one in another, and something contradictory in them that cannot be solved, it may occur to us that this is not the same event but another similar one, or one done in a similar way.

From here on, certainly, the order of events does not appear. For after these two events about the blind men and the mute demoniac Matthew continues thus: “And Jesus went around all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and curing every disease and every infirmity. And seeing the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and lying like sheep without a shepherd. Then he says to his disciples, ‘The harvest is great, but the laborers are few; ask, then, the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.’ And calling together his twelve disciples, he gave them authority over unclean spirits,” and so on, up to where he says, “Truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.” In this whole passage that we have now recalled, he gave his disciples many instructions; but whether Matthew added it in order, or his own recollection was his order of narrating, as has been said, does not appear. Mark seems to have touched on this passage briefly, and entered on it thus: “And he went around the villages in the circuit, teaching. And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over unclean spirits,” and so on, up to where he says, “Shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony to them.” But before narrating this, Mark first narrated, after the raising of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, the event in which they marveled at the Lord in his own country, where he got such wisdom and mighty works, since they knew his kindred; which Matthew records after this instruction of the disciples and after many other things. So it is uncertain whether Matthew recalled this event in his own country after omitting it, or Mark recalled and anticipated it; which of them kept the order of the event and which that of his own recollection. Luke, however, immediately after the raising of Jairus's daughter adds this passage about the authority given to the disciples and their instruction, as briefly as Mark, and he too not in such a way that it appears to follow also in the order of events. As for the names of the disciples, Luke, who names them by another name when they are first chosen on the mountain, does not differ from Matthew except in the name of Judas son of James, whom Matthew calls Thaddaeus, though some manuscripts have Lebbaeus. But who would ever forbid one man to be called by two or three names?

It is also often asked how Matthew and Luke recorded that the Lord told the disciples not to carry even a staff, when Mark says, “And he commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staff only,” and he too goes on, “no bag, no bread, no money in the belt,” showing that his narrative is concerned with the same place as that of those who said that not even a staff was to be carried. This is solved by understanding that the staff which according to Mark is to be carried is meant in one sense, and the one which according to Matthew and Luke is not to be carried in another; just as temptation is understood in one sense where it is said, “God tempts no one,” and in another where it is said, “The Lord your God tempts you, to know whether you love him.” The former is the temptation of seduction, the latter of proving. So too judgment is taken in one way where it is said, “Those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment,” and in another where it is said, “Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from an unholy nation.” For the former is the judgment of condemnation, the latter of discernment.

And there are many other words that do not have a single meaning, but, placed fittingly in different places, are understood in different ways, and are sometimes said with an explanation, as in this: “Do not become children in understanding, but in malice be little ones, so that in understanding you may be mature.” For this could have been said in a brief, compressed sentence: “Do not be children, but be children.” And this: “If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this age, let him become foolish, so that he may be wise.” What else did he say but, “Let him not be wise, so that he may be wise”? But sometimes things are said in a compressed way so as to exercise the inquirer, as in what he says to the Galatians: “Bear one another's burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ. For whoever thinks he is something when he is nothing deceives himself. But let each one test his own work, and then he will have glory in himself and not in another. For each one will carry his own burden.” Unless you take the word “burden” in different senses, you will undoubtedly think that he contradicts himself in speaking, and that in one passage with the words placed so close together, since a little before he said, “Bear one another's burdens,” and afterward said, “Each one will carry his own burden.” But the burdens of sharing in weakness are one thing, the burdens of rendering account to God for our actions another; the former are shared with our brothers to be borne together, the latter are carried by each one as his own. So too a staff is understood spiritually, of which the apostle said, “Shall I come to you with a rod?” and bodily, which we use for a horse or for whatever other purpose there is need, to pass over for now other figurative meanings of this word.

Both, then, must be taken as said by the Lord to the apostles: that they should not carry even a staff, and that they should carry nothing but a staff. For when, according to Matthew, he said to them, “Do not possess gold or silver or money in your belts, no bag for the journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff,” he immediately added, “For the laborer is worthy of his food.” By this he showed clearly enough why he did not want them to possess and carry these things: not because they are not necessary for sustaining this life, but because he was sending them in such a way as to show that these things were owed to them by the very people to whom they announced the gospel, if they believed, like pay to soldiers, like the fruit of the vineyard to those who planted it, like the milk of the flock to the shepherds. Hence Paul says, “Who ever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who tends a flock and does not get some of the milk of the flock?” For he was speaking here of the things that are necessary for the preachers of the gospel. Hence a little later he says, “If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? If others share this right over you, do not we still more? But we have not used this right.” From this it appears that the Lord did not command these things as though the preachers of the gospel ought not to live from any other source than what is provided by those to whom they announce the gospel (otherwise the same apostle acted against this command, since he made his living by the labor of his own hands so as not to be a burden to anyone), but that he gave them a right, by which they might know that these things were owed to them. Now when something is commanded by the Lord, not doing it is the fault of disobedience; but when a right is given, anyone may choose not to use it and, as it were, waive his own entitlement. In saying these things to the disciples, then, the Lord was doing what the apostle himself explains more plainly a little later thus: “Do you not know that those who work in the temple eat what comes from the temple? Those who serve at the altar share with the altar? So too the Lord ordained that those who announce the gospel should live by the gospel. But I have used none of these things.” Since, then, he says that the Lord so ordained but that he himself did not use it, he certainly shows that a right of using was given, not a necessity of compliance imposed.

So when the Lord ordained what the apostle says he ordained, that those who announce the gospel should live by the gospel, he said those things to the apostles so that they might, free from care, neither possess nor carry the necessities of this life, either great or very small. That is why he put “not even a staff,” showing that everything is owed by his faithful to his ministers, who seek nothing superfluous. And so by adding, “For the laborer is worthy of his food,” he made entirely plain and clear where these sayings came from and why. This right, then, he signified by the name of a staff when he said that they should take nothing for the journey except a staff only. For it could also have been said briefly thus: “Take with you none of the necessities, not even a staff, except a staff only”; so that “not even a staff” is understood to mean not even the smallest things, while the added “except a staff only” is understood to mean that, through the right received from the Lord, which is signified by the name of a staff, even what is not carried will not be lacking. The Lord, then, said both. But because no one evangelist recorded both, the one who said that a staff, taken in one sense, was to be taken is thought to contradict the one who said that a staff, meaning something else, was not to be taken. But now that the reason has been given, let it not be thought so.

So too when Matthew says that sandals are not to be carried on the journey, he forbids the anxiety that makes people think they must carry them so as not to be without. This must also be understood of the two tunics: that none of them should anxiously think he must carry another besides the one he had on, lest he need it, since he could receive it by virtue of that right. Accordingly, Mark, in saying that they were to be shod with sandals or soles, reminds us that this footwear has some mystical meaning: that the foot is neither covered nor bare to the ground, that is, that the gospel is neither hidden nor leaning on earthly advantages. And in forbidding not that two tunics be carried or possessed, but, more expressly, that they be worn, saying, “and that they should not wear two tunics,” what does he warn them of, if not to walk not doubly but simply?

It is in no way to be doubted that the Lord said all these things, partly literally, partly figuratively, but that the evangelists put some into their writings and others other things, while two or three of them, any two or three, or all four, set down some of the same things; and that even so not everything that was said or done by him has been written down. Whoever thinks that the Lord could not set down some expressions figuratively and some literally in one discourse, let him look at his other discourses; he will see how rashly and ignorantly he judges this. For such a person (to mention one thing that occurs to my mind for now) might think, since he warns that the left hand should not know what the right hand is doing, that the almsgiving itself and whatever else he commands there must be taken figuratively.

I certainly remind the reader again of something he ought to remember, so that he does not need such a reminder very often: that the Lord repeated in various places in his discourses many things he had said elsewhere, so that, if the order of these places does not agree with that in another evangelist, no one should think this a contradiction in any of them, since he ought to understand that what had already been said in one place is said again in another. And this must be observed not only of sayings but also of deeds. For nothing prevents us from believing that the same thing was done again. But to slander the gospel by refusing to believe that something was done again, when no one proves that it could not have been done again, is a sacrilegious vanity.

Matthew continues and says: “And it happened, when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in their cities. Now when John had heard in prison the works of Christ, sending two of his disciples he said to him, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or do we look for another?’” and so on, up to where he says, “And wisdom is justified by her children.” This whole passage about John the Baptist, that he sent to Jesus, what kind of answer those he sent received, and whatever the Lord said about John after their departure, Luke too inserts, not indeed in the same order; but which of them keeps here the order of his recollection and which the order of the events themselves does not appear.

Matthew continues and says: “Then he began to reproach the cities in which most of his mighty works had been done, because they had not repented,” and so on, up to where he says, “It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” Luke too records this, joining these words too from the Lord's own mouth to a continuous discourse of the Lord. Hence he seems rather to record them in the order in which they were spoken by the Lord, while Matthew kept the order of his recollection. Or, if Matthew's words, “Then he began to reproach the cities,” are thought to be taken so that he is believed to have meant by “then” the very point of time, not the somewhat wider time in which these many things were being done and said, whoever believes this, let him believe also that this was said twice. For since even in one evangelist there are found some things the Lord said twice, as in Luke himself about not taking a bag on the journey, which is found said by the Lord in two places, and likewise other things, what wonder if something else too, said twice, is reported singly by each in the order in which it was said, and therefore a different order appears in each, because it was said both at the time when the one records it and at the time when the other does?

Matthew continues: “At that time Jesus answered and said, ‘I confess to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent,’” and so on, up to where he says, “For my yoke is easy and my burden light.” Luke too mentions this passage, but in part. For he does not say, “Come to me, all you who labor,” and the other things that follow. But it is credible that this was said once by the Lord, and that Luke did not record the whole of what was said. For Matthew says, “At that time Jesus answered and said,” after he reproached the cities; while Luke, after that reproach of the cities, inserts certain things, though not many, and then adds this: “In that very hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said.” Hence, even if Matthew said not “at that time” but “in that very hour,” Luke inserts so few things in between that it does not seem absurd that it was said even in the same hour.

Matthew continues and says: “At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and his disciples, being hungry, began to pluck ears of grain and eat,” and so on, up to where he says, “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” This too is recorded without any question of contradiction by both Mark and Luke; but they do not say “at that time.” So perhaps Matthew kept here the order of the event, while they kept that of their recollection; unless “at that time” is taken more broadly, that is, the time in which these many and varied things were being done.