Craig Gaunt
Gospels & Acts
After taking a look at these passages, the first small difference comes in the form of Jesus’ audiences in the gospels. Mark says that both the disciples and a larger audience were listening to Jesus while Matthew only notes the former and Luke the later. Mark’s account is the most-likely scenario. Matthew’s Jewish readers would have expected Jesus to be talking to his disciples as was the practice of rabbis in the ancient world. Luke, wanting his story to appeal to a more universal audience so he writes that Jesus’ words are applicable to everyone.
One of the most blatant similarities is that all three gospels are nearly identical when Jesus talks about what it means to be his true followers: they must put aside their own desires, endure a life of suffering for Jesus’ sake, and follow Him always even though it would mean death. In the actual words of Jesus in these three verses (Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23), there was only one inconsequential difference; it was Luke’s addition of the word “daily”. This small variation was explained in class as Matthew and Mark stress martyrdom in their accounts while Luke is emphasizing the daily practice of taking up one’s cross and “dying” to self. Both are in harmony with the rest Jesus’ teachings throughout the gospels overall.
The next verse in each gospel is also very similar but there are some noticeable alterations. Mark adds that those who will ultimately save their lives are those who lose theirs Jesus’ sake and the gospel’s, while Matthew and Luke both omit this final add-on. The fact that Mark is tying to put into written form the apostle Peter’s preaching could explain the difference. Peter is simply trying to drive home the point that it is not enough to die “in the name of Jesus” like a religious terrorist and expect to have a reward. It comes from obedience to His teachings and living the gospel in the world. However, this is only simple speculation. Another inconsequential difference in this verse is that Mark and Luke say that whoever loses life as Jesus’ follower will “save” it while Matthew says they will “find” it.
In the subsequent section, Mark includes the most material, and Matthew and Luke selecting certain bits to include in each of their gospels. This is only a moderate difference in that it does not present conflicting material within the three accounts. In Mark 8:37a, Jesus is reiterating the point that a person cannot give anything to save their life from the emptiness that comes from not knowing the gospel. Matthew includes this reiteration in his writing, but Luke does not. On the other hand, Mark goes further in writing that Jesus warns against those treating him with shame in this life because Jesus will regard with shame before the Father those same people; Luke pens this in his gospel while Matthew disregards it. Finally, Mark is alone when he quotes Jesus as adding “in this adulterous and sinful generation.” This last difference could be viewed as significant if Jesus is saying that only those in His generation have something to fear if they are ashamed of Him. However, this final addition in Mark could also be timeless and applicable to any generation because each has had its fair share of sinners and adulterers.
One final obvious difference that is not simply a rearranging of word order is that Matthew adds that the Son of man will “repay every man for what he has done” (16:27b). At first glance, this fits with Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus as the Supreme Judge as seen in other verses, even when being confronted with the Sanhedrin at His trial (25:31; 26:34). Later, in Matthew 16:28 he records Jesus calling Himself the Son of man and saying that the kingdom of God is His kingdom, while Mark and Luke both leave this out. This is a moderate difference in that, while focusing on “Jesus as judge”, Matthew still does not blatantly contradict either of the other two gospel accounts. Again, Matthew is remembering his audience as he writes. More of this difference is touched on below.
Commentaries: Significant Difference #1
One of the most significant differences at first glance of these accounts has already been mentioned above: the addition of Mark when he records Jesus’ warning about being ashamed of Him in “this adulterous and sinful generation”. While Mark is alone in that neither of the other two synoptic gospels include these words in their corresponding accounts, Mark does echo Matthew who records Jesus as saying this generation is “ripe for judgment” (11:16; 17:17; 23:29-36).[1] In an immediate sense, Jesus is not only referring to many Pharisees and others who were outright hostile to Him, but also those who ran after Him without taking seriously His words.[2] They either thought these teachings to be too difficult to obey (as see in other gospel accounts) or they only followed Jesus or watched Him out of simply wanting to be on the next bandwagon of charismatic religious figures, similar to those who would come out the see Jeremiah or Ezekiel for strict entertainment. By calling the generation “adulterous”, Jesus brings to mind the charge of several Old Testament prophets (Isa. 57:3-13; Ezek. 16:32-41; Hos. 2:2-6).[3] Their charge against the nation of Israel was that they had broken their marital covenant with God and had committed spiritual adultery with idols and all the sinful practices along with it.[4] Jesus also calls this generation “sinful” and it is the same Greek word as used in John 9:24, 25; it is not talking about sin that is inherent in human nature but the sin of disobeying and rejecting God when He has come to you.[5] In both the Old and New Testament, we can see this in both Jews and Gentiles rejecting God when He comes to them.
This generation also has a timeless aspect to it. Jesus says His warning in such a way that, similar to Mark 8:12, this generation is not one of time but of a unifying characteristic.[6] Those belonging to this group are anyone who is in rebellion against God and His chosen One, Jesus.[7] Jesus is saying that these people (and humanity in general) are lost and the only way to know God is if God reveals Himself to them, yet when He does so in Jesus Christ, they scoff at Him.[8] Thus, Jesus puts this phrase as universal to all chronological generations as those who feel safe “in the crowd” and will not take a stand for Him. Mark could also stress upon non-believers how vital it is to worship Jesus as Lord because the rest of v. 38 does not focus on the disciples needing to be faithful to Christ before the lost, but rather upon insisting that the lost not allow shame to get in the way of following Jesus.[9] Quite simply, Mark is asking the reader, “Who will you follow, Jesus or the crowd? Because you better make sure you are on the right side.”
Significant Difference #2
Another prominent difference that was also mentioned earlier but worth exploring is that Matthew is the only gospel that contains the words “then he [Jesus] will repay every man for what he has done.” While some may take a look at the other synoptic gospel passages here and argue that Jesus is the advocate who will (or will not) plead the case of the individual before God the ultimate judge, Matthew here is clearly stating that Jesus is that judge. If Matthew is having a Jewish audience in mind while writing this, this role of judging according to works would have been reminiscent of Ps. 62:12 and Prov. 24:12.[10] Matthew’s point is clear: Jesus is God, and He takes on the roles that only God has the right to claim, including judge. “Every man” means that everyone will come into judgment under Jesus (Col. 3:23-25).[11] The end of this verse is not the only place we see Matthew trying to show that Jesus is God. When Jesus says that the Son of Man will come “in the glory of his Father,” this points to the oneness of the Father and the Son.[12] In the language of the day, Jesus is claiming deity, and for Matthew’s Jewish audience, this would have resonated powerfully.[13]
The judgment emphasized here is not primarily meant to scare belief in Jesus into unbelievers (though it not only stresses importance but urgency for one cannot afford to wait on following Him).[14] It was also had purpose to comfort believers who were faithfully serving Jesus and were being persecuted for it. While the wicked would certainly be punished for trying to preserve their own lives and denying Christ his proper lordship within them, those who have surrendered to Jesus will be rewarded with eternal joy for their temporary suffering when He comes to judge the world. Stuwart Weber says it well, “Now he has come as the sacrificial Son of Abraham; then he will come as the sovereign Son of David.”[15]
This judging is also part of a larger point to which Matthew is trying to bring attention. In 16:27-28, Jesus says that there is a future judgment, but in the event that readers begin to doubt his words, he says that some of his contemporaries will not die before “they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”. While scholars have certainly debated exactly what Jesus meant by this, the majority consensus is that it is referring to Jesus’ transfiguration in the next chapter because it happened only days later while the other possible ideas (i.e. his resurrection, Pentecost, etc.) happened much later.[16] Hence, Jesus shows his glory now to some of the disciples, linking it to the future judgment and giving them proof that He is the Son of God, which God himself confirms in His words on the mountain.[17] While space is constrained here, Keener goes on to portray the similarities between Moses and Elijah on Mt. Horeb seeing God’s glory and the disciples on the mountain seeing Jesus’ glory.[18] It is no surprise then, that these three disciples see both Moses and Elijah on the mountain. This last edition of Matthew does not contradict the other synoptics but actually clarifies one of the aspects of the “Son of man” that is mentioned in all three gospels. Mark and Luke were writing to churches that were primarily Gentile, while Matthew’s Jewish audience would have seen in these further proof that Jesus was who He said He was: the long-awaited Messiah.
At the beginning of this project, I was very concerned that my study of the synoptic gospels may stir up doubts within me as I had (wrongly) been taught that even the slightest differences in gospel material meant that none of it could be trusted, that the authors were so blatantly biased that they made up history recklessly. Nothing could be further from the truth. While each gospel author had an agenda, it does not discount their historicity because every single author has an agenda, even if it is to tell the truth as accurately as they can, which I believe the gospel authors did. However, more important is that each writer wants to tell the readers about this man who came into their lives and turned everything completely upside down, especially what it means to suffer and die. Therefore, these former teachers of mine (and myself for awhile) could not see the forest through the trees. We could not see how much similarity there was between the gospel accounts. They do not at all contradict one another; they simply paint a different, corresponding picture of the same wonderful figure. Throughout this research I could find absolutely no “third-category” difference that show conflicting historical data. I now approach these writings with deeper appreciation and enthusiasm to see what nuances they emphasize regarding the historical Jesus Christ, and this causes me to go deeper in my faith.
[1] France, R.T. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing House, 2002. pg. 342
[2] Lenski, R.C.H. Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1946. pg. 353
[3] Edwards, James K. The Gospel According to Mark. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing House, 2002 pg. 258
[4] France, pg. 342
[5] Lenski, pg. 353
[6] Grant, Frederic C. The Gospel of Mark. New York: Harper & Brothers Pub., 1952. pg. 42, 44
[7] France, pg. 342
[8] Edwards, pg. 258
[9] Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1993. pg. 438
[10] Blomberg, Craig. Matthew: The New American Commentary. vol. 22, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992. pg. 261
[11] Weber, Stuart K, Holman New Testament Commentary: Matthew. Max Anders Gen Editor. Nashville: Holman Reference, 2000. pg. 257
[12] Moris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1992. pg. 433
[13] Carson, D.A. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew 13-28. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub., 1995. pg. 379
[14] Hagner, Donald A. World Biblical Commentary: Matthew. Vol. 33b, Dallas: Word Books Pub., 1995 pg. 485
[15] Weber, pg. 257
[16] Turner, David L. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. pg. 412-413
[17] Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1999 pg. 436
[18] Ibid.