The Harmony of the Gospels 3.78–4.6

John, however, although he admits that he passed over many things that Jesus did, nevertheless chose to record also his third presentation to the disciples after the resurrection, at the sea of Tiberias, namely to seven disciples, Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two others whom he did not name, while they were fishing; when at his command they cast the nets on the right side and drew out a hundred and fifty-three large fish; when he also asked Peter three times whether he loved him, entrusted his sheep to him to feed, and foretold his own passion; and said of John himself, “I want him to remain thus until I come.” With this John ended his Gospel.

Now it must be asked when he was first seen by the disciples in Galilee, since what John narrates third also took place in Galilee, at the sea of Tiberias, as anyone easily sees who recalls that miracle of the five loaves, which the same John begins to narrate thus: “After this Jesus went away across the sea of Galilee, of Tiberias.” For where can it be thought he ought to have been seen first by the disciples after the resurrection but in Galilee, if one recalls the words of that angel who, according to Matthew, speaks thus to the women coming to the tomb: “Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified; he is not here, for he has risen, as he said; come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen; and behold, he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him. Behold, I have told you”; and likewise according to Mark, whether it is the same angel or another: “Do not be alarmed,” he says. “You seek Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here; behold the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you”? These words seem to sound as if Jesus was not going to show himself to the disciples after the resurrection except in Galilee. This manifestation Mark himself did not record either, who said that early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and she told it to the disciples who had been with him as they mourned and wept, but they did not believe; that after this he appeared to two of them going into the country, and they told the others, which happened, as Luke and John together attest, in Jerusalem on that very day of the resurrection, at the beginning of night; then he comes to that manifestation of his which he calls the last, to the eleven as they reclined; after this he says he was taken up into heaven, which we know happened on the Mount of Olives, not far from Jerusalem. Nowhere, then, does Mark record as fulfilled what he testifies was foretold by the angel. But Matthew says nothing else and records no other place at all, either before or after, where the disciples saw the Lord after he rose, except in Galilee, according to the angel's prediction. Indeed, when he had indicated what was said to the women by the angel, and, as they went away, had added what was done about the guards being bribed to lie, immediately, as if nothing else followed (because the angel had in fact said, “He has risen, and behold, he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him,” so that it seems nothing else ought to have followed), he says: “But the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you all days, until the consummation of the age.’” So Matthew closed his Gospel.

And so, if the narratives of the others, when considered, did not compel a more careful inquiry, we would think nothing else than that after the resurrection the Lord was first seen by the disciples nowhere but in Galilee. Likewise, if Mark had been silent about that prediction of the angel, someone could think that Matthew said the disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain, and worshiped the Lord there, so that what he himself had narrated as commanded and foretold through the angel might appear fulfilled. But as it is, both Luke and John, showing quite clearly that the Lord was seen by his disciples on the very day of his resurrection in Jerusalem, from which Galilee is so far away that he could not be seen by them in both places on one day, and Mark, narrating that prediction of the angel similarly but nowhere recording that the Lord was seen by the disciples in Galilee after the resurrection, strongly compel us to ask how it was said, “Behold, he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him.” For if Matthew himself did not say at all that the eleven disciples went away to the mountain in Galilee where Jesus had appointed them, and saw and worshiped him there, we would think nothing of this prediction fulfilled literally, but all foretold in a figurative meaning, like that in Luke, “Behold, today and tomorrow I cast out demons and perform cures, and on the third day I shall be finished,” which it is certain was not fulfilled literally. Likewise, if the angel had said, “He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him first,” or, “only there will you see him,” or, “nowhere but there will you see him,” Matthew would without doubt conflict with the other evangelists. But since it is said, “Behold, he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him,” and it is not stated when this would be, whether first, before he was seen by them elsewhere, or after they had seen him somewhere besides Galilee; and since what Matthew says, that the disciples went to the mountain in Galilee, does not state the day, nor does he so weave the order of narrative as to impose the necessity of understanding nothing else than that this happened first: he does not conflict with the narratives of the others, and gives room for understanding and receiving them. Yet the fact that the Lord commanded that he be seen not where he was first going to show himself but in Galilee, where he was necessarily seen afterward, both through the angel who said, “Behold, he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him,” and himself saying, “Go, tell my brothers to go into Galilee; there they will see me,” makes any believer intent on seeking in what mystery it is understood to have been said.

But first it must be considered when he could have been seen bodily in Galilee, as Matthew says, “But the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain where the Lord had appointed them, and seeing him they worshiped him; but some doubted.” That it was not on the very day on which he rose is clear; for that he was seen in Jerusalem on that day at the beginning of night Luke and John agree most plainly, Mark not plainly. When, then, did they see the Lord in Galilee? Not in what John says, at the sea of Tiberias (for then there were seven, and they were found fishing), but in what Matthew says, where there were eleven on the mountain, to which Jesus had gone before them according to the angel's prediction. For he plainly narrates that they found him there, since he had certainly gone before them according to the appointment. Not, then, on the very day on which he rose, nor in the following eight days, after which John says the Lord appeared to the disciples, when Thomas first saw him, who had not seen him on the day of his resurrection. For certainly, if within those same eight days those eleven had already seen him on the mountain in Galilee, how did Thomas, who had been among those eleven, see him for the first time after eight days? Unless someone says that there were eleven there, not those eleven who were already then called apostles, but disciples from the great number of disciples. For only those eleven were as yet called apostles, but they were not the only disciples. It may be, then, that not all but some of them were there, with other disciples along with them so as to make up eleven, and so Thomas was not there, who first saw the Lord after those eight days. For Mark, when he mentioned the eleven, did not say “eleven” loosely, but “he appeared,” he says, “to the eleven.” Luke too: “They returned,” he says, “to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered and those who were with them.” He too shows that those eleven were the apostles. For when he added, “and those who were with them,” he certainly declared clearly enough that those eleven were named as more eminent, with whom the others were, and so they are understood as those who were already called apostles. Accordingly it could happen that eleven disciples were made up from the number of the apostles and other disciples, who saw Jesus on the mountain in Galilee within those eight days.

But something else comes up that stands in the way. For John, when he recorded that the Lord was seen not on the mountain by eleven but at the sea of Tiberias by seven fishing, said, “This was now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples after he had risen from the dead.” But if we take it that within those eight days, before Thomas had seen him, the Lord was seen by some eleven disciples, this at the sea of Tiberias will not be the third manifestation but the fourth. We must indeed take care lest anyone think John said “the third time” as if only three manifestations of him had taken place; rather, he must be understood to have referred to the number of days, not to the number of the manifestations themselves, nor of consecutive days, but at intervals, as he himself testifies. For first, on the very day of his resurrection, apart from his being seen by the women, that is, as is clear in the gospel, he manifested himself three times: once to Peter, again to those two of whom one was Cleopas, a third time to a larger number talking about these things at nightfall; but John, referring all this to one day, counts it once. Again, that is, on another day, when Thomas too saw him; and a third time at the sea of Tiberias, that is, on the third day of his manifestation, not at the third manifestation. And so we are compelled to understand that after all these things there took place what Matthew records, that the eleven disciples saw him on the mountain in Galilee, where he had gone before them according to the appointment, so that what he had foretold both through the angel and himself was fulfilled even literally.

We find, then, in the four evangelists that the Lord is recorded as seen by people after the resurrection ten times: once by the women at the tomb; again by the same women on the way as they returned from the tomb; third by Peter; fourth by the two going into the country; fifth by many in Jerusalem, when Thomas was not there; sixth when Thomas saw him; seventh at the sea of Tiberias; eighth on the mountain in Galilee, according to Matthew; ninth, which Mark mentions, “last of all,” as they reclined, since they were no longer going to eat with him on earth; tenth on that very day, no longer on earth but lifted up in a cloud as he ascended into heaven, which Mark and Luke record. Mark, indeed, after his appearing to them as they reclined, continues so as to say, “And the Lord, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven”; while Luke, passing over all that could have been done by him with the disciples through forty days, silently joins to that first day of his resurrection, when he appeared to many in Jerusalem, the last day on which he ascended into heaven, narrating thus: “And he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. And it happened, while he was blessing them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.” So they saw him, besides what they had seen on earth, also when he was being carried into heaven. So many times, then, is he recorded in the gospel books to have been seen by people before he ascended into heaven: nine times, that is, on earth, and once in the air as he ascended.

But not everything has been written, as John admits. For his company with them was frequent during forty days before he ascended into heaven. Yet he had not appeared to them on all forty days continuously. For John says that after the first day of his resurrection another eight days intervened, after which he appeared to them again, and a third time at the sea of Tiberias, perhaps on the next day immediately (for nothing conflicts), and then when he willed, appointing for them, as he had also foretold before, that he would go before them to the mountain in Galilee; and altogether, through those forty days, as often as he willed, to whom he willed, as he willed. As Peter says, when he was preaching him to Cornelius and those who were with him: “We who ate and drank with him,” he says, “after he rose from the dead, for forty days”; not that they ate and drank with him every day for forty days; for this would conflict with John, who put in between those eight days in which he was not seen by them, so that the third manifestation was at the sea of Tiberias. From then on, even if he was seen by them and ate with them every day, nothing conflicts. And perhaps it is said “for forty days,” which are four times ten, in the mystery either of the whole world or of the whole temporal age, because those first ten days too, among which were those eight days, can, in the manner of the Scriptures, be reckoned without disagreement as the whole from a part.

Let what the apostle Paul says, then, also be compared, to see whether it raises any question. “He rose,” he says, “on the third day according to the Scriptures, and appeared to Cephas.” He did not say, “He appeared first to Cephas,” for that would be contrary to what is read in the gospel, that he appeared first to the women. “Then,” he says, “to the twelve,” whoever they were, at whatever hour, yet on the very day of the resurrection. “Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once,” whether these were gathered with those eleven behind shut doors for fear of the Jews, from where Thomas had gone out when Jesus came to them, or at any time after those eight days; this has nothing contrary. “Then,” he says, “he appeared to James”; but we should not take it that he was seen by James for the first time then, but in some special, individual manifestation. “Then to all the apostles”; not to them for the first time then either, but now so as to live with them more familiarly until the day of his ascension. “And last of all,” he says, “as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me”; but this was from heaven, no short time after his ascension.

Now let us see what we had put off: for the sake of what mystery the risen Lord, according to Matthew and Mark, gave the command, “I will go before you into Galilee; there you will see me.” Although this was fulfilled, it was fulfilled after many things, whereas it was commanded in such a way (though without prejudging necessity) that one would expect either this alone or this first to have to happen. Without doubt, then, since this is the voice not of the evangelist narrating that it happened so, but of the angel at the Lord's command, and afterward of the Lord himself (the evangelist narrating, rather, that it was so said by the angel and by the Lord), it must be taken as spoken prophetically. For Galilee means either “passing over” or “revelation.” First, then, according to the meaning “passing over,” what else comes to mind to be understood by “He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him,” but that the grace of Christ was going to pass over from the people of Israel to the nations? To them the apostles preaching the gospel would in no way be believed, unless the Lord himself prepared the way for them in the hearts of men; and this is understood by “He is going before you into Galilee.” And that they would joyfully marvel, when difficulties were broken through and overcome, that a door was opened to them in the Lord through the enlightening of believers, this is understood by “There you will see him,” that is, there you will find his members, there you will recognize his living body in those who receive you. But according to the meaning of Galilee as “revelation,” it is to be understood no longer in the form of a servant, but in that form in which he is equal to the Father, which he promised in John to those who love him, when he said, “And I will love him and will show myself to him”; not, certainly, as they were already seeing him, and as even after rising he showed himself with his scars, not only to be seen but also to be touched, but according to that ineffable light by which he enlightens every man coming into this world, by which he shines in the darkness and the darkness does not comprehend him. There he has gone before us, from where, coming to us, he did not withdraw, and to where, going before us, he did not desert us. That will be the revelation, as the true Galilee, when we shall be like him; there we shall see him as he is. That will also be the more blessed passing over from this world into that eternity, if we so embrace his precepts that we deserve to be set apart at his right hand. For then those on the left will go into eternal burning, but the righteous into eternal life. From here they will pass over to there, and there they will see him as the ungodly do not see him. For “the ungodly will be taken away, so that he does not see the glory of the Lord,” and “the ungodly will not see the light.” “And this,” he says, “is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent,” as he is known in that eternity, to which he will lead his servants through the form of a servant, so that, as free men, they may contemplate the form of the Lord.

Now, since by considering Matthew's narrative in sequence and comparing the other three with it to the end we have shown that they in nothing contradict either themselves or one another, let us look at Mark similarly, so that, apart from the things he said together with Matthew, about which we have already settled what seemed worth discussing, the rest of his account, when examined and compared, may be shown to contradict none of them, up to the Lord's supper. For from there on we have already considered and treated to the end how all things of all four agree with one another.

Mark, then, begins thus: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,” and so on, up to where he says, “And they enter Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath, entering the synagogue, he taught them.” In this whole section everything before has been considered along with Matthew. This, however, that, having entered Capernaum, he taught them on the Sabbath in their synagogue, Mark said together with Luke; but it raises no question.

Mark continues and says: “And they were amazed at his teaching; for he was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, saying, ‘What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?’” and so on, up to where he says, “And he was preaching in their synagogues and in all Galilee and casting out demons.” In this whole passage too, although there are some things that he said together with Luke alone, they have already been treated when we were following Matthew's continuous narrative, because they had so fallen into that order that I did not think they should be passed over. But Luke says of the unclean spirit that it went out of the man without harming him at all. Mark, however: “And the unclean spirit,” he says, “tearing him and crying out with a loud voice, came out of him.” This can seem contradictory: for how did it tear him, or, as some manuscripts have, convulse him, whom, according to Luke, it did not harm at all? But Luke himself also says, “And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst, it came out of him without harming him at all.” Hence it is understood that Mark said “convulsing him” for what Luke said, “when it had thrown him down in the midst,” so that what Luke goes on to say, “without harming him at all,” is understood to mean that this tossing and convulsing of his limbs did not weaken him, as demons commonly go out leaving some limbs crushed even after the convulsion has stopped.

The same Mark continues: “And a leper came to him, begging him, and kneeling down he said, ‘If you will, you can make me clean,’” and so on, up to where he says, “And they cried out, saying, ‘You are the Son of God.’ And he strictly warned them not to make him known.” Luke too says something similar to this last thing we have put, but without any question of conflict. Mark continues: “And going up the mountain he called to himself those whom he himself wanted, and they came to him. And he appointed twelve to be with him and to send them out to preach, and he gave them authority to cure diseases and cast out demons. And he gave Simon the name Peter,” and so on, up to where he says, “And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and all marveled.” About the names of the disciples I know that I spoke before too, when I was following Matthew's order; and here again I warn that no one should think that Simon now received the name of being called Peter, and so think it contrary to John, who records that it was said to him long before, “You shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.” For John recorded the very words of the Lord by which he gave him the name; but Mark recorded it here by recapitulation when he says, “And he gave Simon the name Peter.” For when he wanted to enumerate the names of the twelve apostles and had to say “Peter,” he wished to indicate briefly that he was not called this before, but that the Lord gave him this name, not then, but when John records the Lord's very words. The rest conflicts in nothing and has already been treated.

Mark continues: “And when Jesus had crossed over again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered to him, and he was by the sea,” and so on, up to where he says, “And the apostles, gathering to Jesus, reported to him all that they had done and taught.” This last he said together with Luke, in no way disagreeing; the rest has already been treated. Mark continues: “And he said to them, ‘Come apart into a desert place and rest a little,’” and so on, up to where he says, “But the more he charged them, the more they proclaimed it, and they were astonished all the more, saying, ‘He has done all things well; he makes both the deaf hear and the mute speak.’” In these there is nothing in which Mark seems to conflict with Luke, and everything before we have already considered when comparing them with Matthew. But we must take care lest anyone think that this which I have put last from Mark's Gospel conflicts with all those who show by many other deeds and sayings of his that he knew what went on in human beings, that is, that their thoughts and wills could not be hidden from him, as John says most plainly: “But Jesus himself did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness about man; for he himself knew what was in man.” And what wonder if he saw people's present wills, who even foretold to Peter his future will, which he certainly did not have then, when he presumed that he was ready to die for him or with him? This being so, how is what Mark says not contrary to this great knowledge and foreknowledge of his: “He charged them to tell no one; but the more he charged them, the more they proclaimed it”? For if he knew, as one who knew people's present and future wills, that they would proclaim it the more, the more he charged them not to proclaim it, why did he charge them so, except that he wanted to show the slothful how much more eagerly and fervently those whom he commands to preach ought to proclaim him, when those who were forbidden could not keep silent?

Mark continues: “In those days, when again there was a great crowd and they had nothing to eat,” and so on, up to where he says, “John answered him, saying, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name who does not follow with us, and we forbade him.’ But Jesus said, ‘Do not forbid him; for there is no one who does a mighty work in my name and can soon speak evil of me; for whoever is not against you is for you.’” Luke narrates this similarly, except that he does not say, “There is no one who does a mighty work in my name and can soon speak evil of me.” So there is no question of any conflict between them. But we must see that this is not thought contrary to that saying of the Lord where he says, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” For how was that man not against him who was not with him, about whom John suggested that he did not follow him with them, if he who is not with him is against him? Or if he was against him, how does he say to the disciples, “Do not forbid him, for whoever is not against you is for you”? Or will someone say there is this difference, that here he says to the disciples, “Whoever is not against you is for you,” while there he spoke of himself, “Whoever is not with me is against me”? As if anyone could not be with him who is joined to his disciples as to his members! Otherwise how will this be true: “Whoever receives you receives me,” and, “When you did it to one of the least of mine, you did it to me”? Or can anyone not be against him who is against his disciples? For where then will be this: “Whoever rejects you rejects me,” and, “When you did not do it to one of the least of mine, you did not do it to me,” and, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” when he was persecuting his disciples? But clearly he wants it to be understood that someone is not with him in so far as he is against him, and is not against him in so far as he is with him. For example, that very man who did mighty works in the name of Christ and was not in the fellowship of Christ's disciples was, in so far as he worked mighty works in that name, with them and not against them; but in so far as he did not cleave to their fellowship, he was not with them and was against them. But because they forbade him to do that in which he was with them, the Lord said to them, “Do not forbid him.” For they ought to have forbidden what was outside their fellowship, so as to persuade him to the unity of the church, not that in which he was with them, namely commending the name of their master and Lord in the casting out of demons. Just as the catholic church does, not disapproving in heretics the sacraments held in common; for in these they are with us and are not against us. But it disapproves and forbids division and separation, or any opinion opposed to peace and truth; for in this they are against us, because in this they are not with us and do not gather with us, and therefore scatter.