Knowable Word

Helping ordinary people learn to study the Bible

Copyright © 2012–2024 DiscipleMakers, except guest articles (copyright author). Used by permission.

You are here: Home / Archives for Harmonization

Catch the Differences

By

Earlier this week, I completed my 11th annual speed read of the Bible. This time, I used a detailed chronological reading order I’ve never used before, which enabled me to catch on to some things that have escaped my notice before. Of course, the purpose of reading large portions of Scripture is not to notice every detail. But the pathway you take through the Bible can certainly help to freshen up some things.

For example, read the following selections of Scripture, one right after the other, and see if anything jumps out at you, as it did for me.

And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.” 

Mark 10:32-34

And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”

Matthew 20:17-19

And taking the twelve, he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise.” But they understood none of these things. This saying was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said.

Luke 18:31-34
Can you spot the differences? Image by Dmitry Abramov from Pixabay

There are, of course, many differences in the accounts, from Mark’s narration of the disciples’ amazement and fear, to Matthew’s passive voice “he will be raised,” to Luke’s hiding of the saying such that they didn’t grasp it. Each of these differences provides a clue into the narrator’s unique intentions.

But what struck me the most this time around was the differences in how Jesus is “delivered over.” If you didn’t catch the difference, go back and read the passages again, paying special attention to whom Jesus is delivered over to, and in how many stages.

What does Luke’s distinct account suggest about his intentions in describing this passion prediction? How does this fit with Luke’s larger treatment of the Jews in both Luke and Acts?

The Final Days of Jesus

By

Despite the disruption and upheaval in the world, Easter is coming. Whether or not we can gather in person to worship, we will soon celebrate the resurrection of Jesus.

With that celebration in mind, I recently turned my attention to a book which has been on my shelf for a while: The Final Days of Jesus, by Andreas Köstenberger and Justin Taylor. The subtitle of the book says it all: “The Most Important Week of the Most Important Person Who Ever Lived.” (Be sure to read to the end of this article to see how to get a copy of this book for free, no strings attached.)

What’s Inside

In this book, the authors follow the chronology of Jesus’s final week on earth through the Biblical accounts. The book also includes several helpful aids, including maps, charts, and tables.

Each chapter of the book is devoted to a day of Jesus’s final week, and for each discrete scene or event, the authors first include the relevant Gospel texts. Consequently, a large portion of this book is simply Scripture. After the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and/or John we find related commentary. Sometimes this includes historical or cultural information to aid our understanding, and other times this includes an attempt to write a single narrative which is faithful to all of the available Gospel accounts. This is what is known as a harmonization. More on this in just a bit.

The book is simple in the best way. I did not get bogged down in technical textual study or overwhelmed by sophistated terms and phrases. Köstenberger and Taylor have executed well a straightforward mission: bring the reader along with Jesus in the final seven days of his life. The commentary is insightful and helpful, written for a lay audience.

Some of the more speculative or advanced scholarship is relegated to footnotes, and there is a generous reading list for those with deeper interests provided near the end of the book. The glossary and reference guide which close the book will also be helpful to a number of readers.

What About Harmonization?

My co-blogger Peter has written before about the dangers of harmonization. So, it’s worth asking: Do I recommend this book? Does it undermine the sort of Bible study we recommend and urge here at Knowable Word?

The authors of The Final Days of Jesus clearly value a unified account of Jesus’s journey to death and resurrection. But they also acknowledge the importance of each Gospel on its own. When addressing the question of why we have four accounts of Jesus’s life instead of just one, they write that the early church regarded these four accounts as four witnesses to one Gospel.

Like witnesses in the courtroom each recounting what they saw, using their own words and recalling events and statements from their unique perspective, the Gospel writers each tell us how they witnessed the unfolding story of Jesus (or in Mark’s and Luke’s case, how their firsthand sources did). This should in fact enhance our appreciation for the four biblical Gospels, not diminish it! Demonstrably, the four evangelists did not sanitize their accounts or somehow streamline them so as to make them artificially cohere; they were unafraid to tell the story of Jesus each in his own way, without fear of contradiction—because they were all witnessing to the one story of Jesus, the one gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. (The Final Days of Jesus, page 17)

Köstenberger and Taylor also urge us to read the Gospels “vertically” as well as “horizontally.” A vertical reading treats each account as a self-contained story.

The other way to read the Gospels is horizontally, that is, how each relates to the others, as complementary accounts and witnesses to the same historical reality and set of statements and events. Refusing to supplement our vertical reading of the individual Gospels with a horizontal reading is tantamount to the ostrich policy of refusing to acknowledge that while the Gospels tell the same story, they don’t do so in exactly the same way. (The Final Days of Jesus, page 19)

Köstenberger and Taylor land with more emphasis on a horizontal reading than I would, but that does not diminish the value of their work. Their book shows that there are solid, reasonable answers to every question of contradiction that arises from comparing one Gospel to another.

This book will only undermine personal Bible study if you use it in a way it is not intended. The authors are not out to create a master text which will be studied instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. This book contains a lot of Scripture, but we should always take our study and our questions back to the Bible itself. Each Gospel author had a specific perspective, message, and audience in mind, and they included and excluded certain details and events accordingly. It is best to study the final week of Jesus’s life in the context of one of the four Gospels.

Get Yourself a Copy

At the time of this writing, Crossway has made the ebook of The Final Days of Jesus free to download. If you prefer a paperback version, you can visit Amazon or Westminster Bookstore. Crossway also has a free study guide and a free devotional guide available to accompany this book.

I recommend this book for anyone who wants to take a sustained look at Jesus’s final week. This work will show you that the four Gospels complement rather than contradict each other. The Bible gives a trustworthy, historical account of the central events of the Christian faith.

Disclosure: This post contains affiliate links, which means that the blog may receive a small amount of money/credit if you make a purchase after following that link.

New and Old Garments

By

There are parts of the Bible I’ve read so many times that I’m prone to mistake familiarity with them for understanding of them. But once in a while, when I set my familiarity aside, I can take a look at what’s actually there. This happened to me recently in a study of Luke 5.

Image by Mabel Amber, still incognito… from Pixabay

At the end of the chapter, the Pharisees get upset with Jesus and his disciples for not fasting like either John or the Pharisees themselves. Part of Jesus’ response is a straightforward parable:

He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. (Luke 5:36)

The issue (the problem with my familiarity) is that I’ve spent years of my life studying Mark’s version of this story. This is the first time I’ve taken a close enough look at Luke’s account to realize that Luke is saying something quite different from Mark. Check out Mark’s version:

No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. (Mark 2:21)

And just for the sake of completeness, here is Matthew’s version:

No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. (Matt 9:16)

Observe the Difference

Matthew and Mark are very similar. They talk about cutting an “unshrunk” garment to make a patch for an old garment. The problem is that the new patch will subsequently shrink and tear away from the torn garment, making the original tear far worse.

But Luke is using the same cast of characters to tell a completely different story. He speaks of ripping up a new garment to fix an old one. The problem here is twofold: 1) You’ve ruined a perfectly good (and new) garment, and 2) the fix won’t even match the original.

Why does this matter? What really is the difference between them?

Matthew and Mark are concerned with the damage to the old garment, while Luke is more concerned with the damage to the new garment.

Why Does This Matter?

The epiphany for me was simply to realize I was assuming Luke was telling the same parable as Mark. I needed a jolt to actually look at the text and observe the bare facts of Luke’s presentation. It is so easy to assume I know what a story says. And the unfortunate result of that assumption is that I stop looking!

As for how this affects interpretation: I’m not exactly sure yet, but perhaps you have some ideas. It’s surely related to the extra line Luke adds, which is not found in any other gospel: “And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’ (Luke 5:39).” The problem here is that the new thing is damaged to the point of being perceived as undesirable in comparison to the old thing. And this is a little different from the way Matthew and Mark present the situation.

Perhaps you’re already more familiar with Luke’s version, and it’s difficult for you to see what Mark/Matthew has to say. Either way, it’s another example of the danger of hasty harmonization. Let’s make sure to grasp the particular point each author seeks to make, and not lump them together, presuming they’re communicating the same thing!

Thanks for visiting Knowable Word! If you like this article, you might be interested in receiving regular updates from us. You can sign up for our email list (enter your address in the box on the upper right of this page), follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or subscribe to our RSS feed. 

What We Lose When We Collapse the Four Gospels Into One

By

Petar Nenadov has a very thoughtful post at the Gospel Coalition, entitled “What We Lose When We Collapse the Four Gospels Into One.”

Consider this:

As a father, I see how most resources for young children don’t teach them to read entire books of the Bible, especially when it comes to the Gospels. Children’s books about Jesus tell stories without saying which Gospel account they come from. Books that helpfully summarize the whole Bible, such as The Jesus Storybook Bible or The Biggest Story, collapse the four Gospel accounts into one as well. They don’t explain how Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John differ from and complement one another.

So what do we lose when we collapse the four Gospels into one? I believe we lose at least three things: the author’s unique perspective, the artistry of the story, and the apologetic of the life of Jesus.

If you’re looking for a children’s resource that does not do this, you may find Mark’s Marvellous Book by Alan Mann a great place to start.

Nenadov’s post has much useful insight. Check it out!

Embrace the Tension

By

Jim Elliff makes an important point. To read Scripture rightly, we must be willing to allow each author, in each text, to make the point he wants to make. We must not be quick to harmonize its teaching with the rest of the Bible, lest we dilute or overturn the point at hand.

Elliff writes:

For instance, a man may read that he is to exert diligence in pursuing truths from God, but, on the other side his mind flies to passages that say God alone grants that understanding and unless God opens the heart, he is helpless to obtain any benefit from his diligence. So, the mind patches together a way both things are really one thing. But now you’ve ripped something away that the author intended to emphasize. He makes one point, but he purposely did not make the other point. He wasn’t writing a systematic theology, but was driving a truth home.


In some odd cases, the meaning of the first statement is turned on its head and all the potency is excised from the text by our propensity to blend all seemingly contrary thoughts together. As we read, we say, “Christ does not really mean we are to give up our possessions because in this place He says that some believers are wealthy.” So as we read we are denying the statement before we let it say anything to us. And, without intending to do so, we are telling ourselves and perhaps others that it would have been better if Jesus would have said something much more benign.

This does not mean that harmonizing, or creating a systematic theology is wrong; on the contrary, it is critical that we do this! But not at the expense of what the Holy Spirit aims to teach in a particular passage.

For further explanation from Elliff, check it out!

HT: Elizabeth Hankins

Consider the Resurrection Anew this Easter

By

Next week, we once again give our focused attention to the suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. This sequence of events marks the center of history and the cornerstone of our faith.

And why is this so? What is so critical about these events?

In a short series of posts last year, Ryan and I narrowed this question even further to only the resurrection. Why did Jesus rise from the dead? While there are many theological answers we could give to this question, our concern was with the gospel accounts themselves. What reasons did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have for recording Jesus’ resurrection?

Observe carefully, and let the text speak for itself! Don’t assume you know the answer, or you may grow too familiar with these beloved passages to see the true point. If you’d like a fun study during Holy Week, consider revisiting the four resurrection accounts once more, and try to discern what each author had to say about the risen Christ. Was he the proven king, renewing his world? Or was he the vindicated sacrifice for all the world? Was he truly the divine Son who gives life? Or was he God’s gracious authority for the Jewish people?

Don’t assume they’re all saying the same thing. Don’t rush into an unhelpful form of harmonization. And perhaps our posts can assist you as you examine each account once more:

Why Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?

By

No matter how you gather the essentials of the Christian faith, the resurrection of Jesus is on that list. Many scholars have written many pages on this topic, in no small part because the biblical authors give it such weight and importance.

James Emery (2007), Creative Commons License

Peter speaks about the resurrection prominently in his first sermon (Acts 2:24, 31–32). Paul writes that the resurrection “declared” that Jesus was the Son of God (Romans 1:4). Later in that same letter, we read that our justification is tied to Jesus’s resurrection (Romans 4:25) and that Jesus’s new life gives us newness of life (Romans 6:4). Paul considered the resurrection a central belief needed for salvation (Romans 10:9), so much so that if Jesus had not been raised from the dead, our faith is futile (1 Corinthians 15:17–19). Jesus is the “firstborn from the dead,” so those who believe in him will follow him in bodily resurrection (Colossians 1:18).

But what about the writers of the Gospels? These men who wrote first-hand accounts of the life of Jesus—what did they think of his resurrection? What did Jesus’s resurrection say about his work and his identity, and what did it mean for his followers?

Let the Gospel Writers Speak

Over the next six weeks, we’ll try to answer these questions here at Knowable Word. Peter and I (Ryan) will each be looking at two of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection and trying to understand the authors’ intentions.

We have published a series like this in the past on the feeding of the 5000. In that series, Peter discussed the themes of each Gospel before placing the feeding of the 5000 within the structure of each book. We will be referring back to those posts in this series on the resurrection, so I’ve collected links to them here for your reference: The Feeding of the 5000 according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Peter also wrote a summary article to tie that series together.

Against Harmonization

Because the resurrection of Jesus is essential to the gospel message, some Christians are eager to see the different accounts of this event reconciled. They want one, definitive story—a narrative timeline that weaves together the details offered by each of the original writers. This is called a harmonization of the Gospels.

While there is a place for understanding the chronology of this historical event, a harmonization is not what we are attempting. In fact, we are attempting just the opposite.

Each Gospel author wrote at a specific time to specific people for a specific purpose. Divinely inspired, these men made choices about what details and events and conversations to include and exclude. They aimed to persuade and teach their audience something specific about Jesus, but the Gospels are all different. This is one reason God has preserved four distinct Gospels for 2000 years; the context in which each author lived and into which each author wrote makes each perspective unique and important. We hear slightly different messages about Jesus in each Gospel. In our series, we hope to connect each author’s account of the resurrection with his purpose in writing his book.

How to Prepare

We hope you’ll enjoy this series, and as you find it valuable we hope you’ll share it with your friends at church and around the internet. We plan to model good Bible study practices and focus our attention on Jesus.

You can prepare for our future articles by reading and studying the relevant passages: Matthew 28:1–10, Mark 16:1–8, Luke 24:1–12, and John 20:1–18. As you read, consider what the writer was intending to communicate through his account of the resurrection. That intention will likely align with the writer’s purpose in writing his Gospel.

Finally, here’s one note regarding observation. Technically, none of the Gospel authors wrote an account of the resurrection. That miracle happened behind the stone, inside the tomb. The Gospels record the discovery of the resurrection!

Over the next six weeks, let’s read the text carefully and discover why Jesus rose from the dead.

Beware Unpleasant Harmony

By

Have you ever tried singing unaccompanied hymns with a group of tone-deaf people? It presents a unique challenge: Can we hold the tune? Will we end in the same key in which we began? Is the melody recognizable, or would an eavesdropper assume we’re trying one of those new-fangled old-hymn-with-new-music arrangements (and one that wasn’t done very well)?

Vancouver 125 (2011), Creative Commons

Vancouver 125 (2011), Creative Commons

With such a group, you’ve accomplished something special if you’ve gotten the group to sing in unison. Usually, you get harmony whether you want it or not. But the harmony is unpleasant if the original tune isn’t clear.

Biblical Harmonization

I just finished a series of Bible studies on the feeding of the 5,000. My goal has been to show that the Gospels recount the same event, but each with a different point. Last week, I summarized the unique intentions of each Gospel’s account.

In this final post, I’ll step back from the study’s content to reflect on the methodology behind it. In particular, I’d like to make explicit what was implicit all along: the dangers of harmonization.

Harmonization is the process of taking multiple accounts of the same event and combining them into a unified whole. So, we harmonize when we teach a lesson on “The Feeding of the 5,000” without looking at a specific passage.

Harmonization is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s very helpful when we’re reconstructing a historical event or building general biblical literacy. For example, most children’s Bibles won’t have a separate chapter for each of the four feeding accounts. They combine the accounts into a single chapter to help children become familiar with the event itself.

But harmonization can be unhelpful when it clouds the text’s message.

Some Dangers

While harmonization is not always bad, here are some dangers of not doing it carefully:

1. Divorcing the event from the text.

We’ll think of the event as a historical abstraction, which can lead to the second danger.

2. Assigning our own meaning to the event.

In the absence of a particular text (with a particular main point), we might assign any point we want to the event. Such abstraction can lead people to use the Bible to prove anything they want to prove. This approach is not submissive to either the text handed down to us or the divine Author who handed it down .

3. Dulling observation

We think of the little boy’s lunch as being central to any discussion of the feeding. We fail to notice that only John mentions this boy. Similarly, only Luke mentions the disciples’ concern with not only food but lodging for the multitude.

4. Hindering interpretation

Why does only John mention the little boy’s lunch? Why does only Luke mention the disciples’ concern to find the people not only food but lodging? Such questions simply don’t matter if we harmonize the accounts.

5. Flattening application

If I harmonize the feeding accounts, I might always land on the same application (probably something about giving up what little I have and trusting Jesus to multiply it). I’ll lose the rich variety of applications that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John make to different audiences.

A Way Forward

Let’s hear the text—each text within its context. Once there’s a clear tune, we can see how it fits together with others.

The key is to learn to sing before you try to harmonize.

Four Reasons Why Jesus Fed the 5,000

By

Jill M (2007), Creative Commons

Jill M (2007), Creative Commons

Other than Jesus’ resurrection, the feeding of the 5,000 is the only miracle to occur in all four Gospels. This repetition gives it a high degree of importance.

We commonly consider an event like this feeding independent of its literary context. We piece together the historical details from the various accounts, and then we boil the message down to an abstract theological or practical message divorced from any specific text.

Those with a practical bent see the feeding’s message as “give Jesus whatever you have, and let him multiply it into something great.” Those with a more theological bent see the feeding’s message along the lines of “Jesus is God’s true representative, providing life to the world.” Others delight in all the ways Jesus is better than Moses or Elisha.

All of these angles on the message are true, but we run into trouble when we grow too familiar with the story. If we don’t observe each Gospel account carefully, we’ll presume they all mean the same thing. Whichever angle makes the most sense to us is the one we’ll land on every time we read or teach the story.

In other words, we harmonize the texts and generalize the purpose. Then we miss the clues signaling each author’s intent.

Over the last few weeks, I explained each account in its context. Now I’ll bring them together and ask some application questions.

Why Did Jesus Feed the 5,000?

According to John: Jesus is the very Messiah Israel has waited for.

  • Do you believe he has the life you’re looking for?
  • Where else do you look for life?
  • How can you help others to expose false sources of life?
  • How can you help others to find their life in Jesus?

According to Matthew: Jesus’ followers must learn to identify good soil when they see it, and upon seeing it, they must be ready to proclaim the word of the kingdom to hungry souls.

  • What opportunities do you have to sow the seed of the word? Are there any right in front of you?
  • How can you be ready to lead hungry souls to Jesus?
  • What do you think needy people most need?
  • How can you trust Jesus more, as he uses you to provide that need on his behalf?

According to Luke: Jesus’ followers, on mission from their master, must learn not only to accept hospitality but give it in Jesus’ name.

  • What sort of people do you expect to enter God’s kingdom?
  • What sort of person were you when you entered God’s kingdom?
  • How can you grow at not only preaching the gospel, but demonstrating it visibly through your generosity and hospitality?
  • How can you train others to live out the gospel?

According to Mark: When Jesus is your king, he will transform your selfish faithlessness into compassionate self-sacrifice.

  • When you prove incapable of preaching the word and demonstrating it visibly as you ought, where is your hope?
  • How have you avoided your Christian responsibility out of fear of inadequacy?
  • How have you brought glory to yourself even as you ministered to others?
  • How would you like to see Jesus change you in these areas?

One Event, Four Points

All four accounts describe the same event. We can compare the accounts to show that there is no historical discrepancy.

But four Spirit-inspired writers had four points to make. Let’s not squelch their voices.

  1. John wants you to know Jesus so you can have eternal life.
  2. Matthew wants to equip you to preach the gospel boldly.
  3. Luke wants to equip you to practice the gospel daily.
  4. Mark wants you to know that Jesus will complete his work in you, despite your sin and failure.

Next time you study or teach the feeding of the 5,000, which point will you land on? And can you show how you reached it?

Why Did Jesus Feed the 5,000?

By

This short series illustrates both the importance of context and the danger of harmonization.

Context is the literary or historical situation surrounding a passage of Scripture. Harmonization is the process of combining different accounts of the same event into a single story. Without careful observation of a passage, we can easily miss the context and unintentionally harmonize narratives, tricking ourselves into thinking we understand the story.

For example, you may have heard of the “rich young ruler,” but you won’t find him in the Bible. Matthew 19:16-22 speaks of a rich young man. Mark 10:17-22 calls him a rich man. Luke 18:18-30 calls him a rich ruler. We think of him as the “rich young ruler” only because we’ve harmonized all three accounts.

This harmless example affects only minor details in the story, but what happens when our tendency toward harmonization (apart from the context) affects how we understand the meaning of a passage?

Jill M (2007), Creative Commons

Jill M (2007), Creative Commons

To answer that question, we’ll look at the feeding of the 5,000. But before we dive into it, I need your help.

This miracle is the only one (other than the resurrection) to appear in all four Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all considered it a necessary part of their narrative portraits of Jesus. Thus, it’s rightly familiar to us. If you’ve been a Christian for any amount of time, you’ve probably heard this story multiple times.

Here’s how you can help: Would you be willing to take a moment to answer the following question in the comments below?

Key question: Why did Jesus feed the 5,000?

Why do you think the Gospels tell this story? What is the point of the story? What did Jesus hope to do or communicate by this miracle?

Here’s another way to think of the question: If you were teaching this story in Sunday School or to an unbeliever (and you had to make it plain and simple), what would be the main takeaway you’d want people to get out of it?

I’ll come clean with you about my intentions. I don’t want you to feel like I’m setting you up to give a wrong answer so I can jump out from behind my virtual candid camera and shout, “Gotcha!” No traps here; I promise.

My point (over the next few weeks) will be this: Each of the Gospels has a different reason for telling the story. They all recount the same event for a different purpose. And I think many people unconsciously harmonize the four accounts and so flatten the unique intentions of each Gospel writer.

But before I unpack those four different points, I’d like to hear what you think “the point of the story” is. That way, I’ll gain an idea as to which of the four Gospels has been most influential for most people.

You can find the other posts on the Feeding of the 5000 here: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.