Bible Difficulties (72 page)

said Jesus, "is not worthy of Me" (Matt. 10:37).

How can Matthew 8:28-34 (the maniacs of Gadara) be reconciled with Mark 5:1-20

and Luke 8:26-39 (the maniac of Gerasa)?

There are two principal variations between these two accounts (the Marcan and Lucan accounts are in essential agreement). The first is the location of the episode itself; was it Gadara, Gerasa, or Gergesa (as the Sinaiticus, the Coridethian, the Bohairic Coptic, and Family 1 of the minuscules read for his name)? An examination of the map for his region to the east of the Sea of Galilee reveals that Gerasa (now called Jerash) was far removed from the Sea of Galilee to the southeast, more than twenty miles east of the Jordan Valley. It is virtually impossible to relate Gerasa with an episode that seems to have taken place on the eastern shore of Gennesaret (the Sea of Galilee).

As for Gadara (which is the reading in most manuscripts of Matt. 8:28--although Washingtonensis, Family 1, Family 13 of the minuscules, and the Bohairic Coptic attest

"of the Gergesenes"), it was located about eight miles southeast of the southern tip of Gennesaret; so it is entirely possible that the political control of this region was centered in Gadara as the capital city. Hence it would be called "the land of the Gadarenes," even though Gadara itself lay south of the Yarmuk River. Although Mark and Luke both point to Gerasa (Alexandrinus, Washingtonensis, Family 13, and the Syriac Peshitta attest "of the Gadarenes" for Luke 8:26), the distinct preference should be given to Gadara because of its greater proximity to Genessaret.

None of the synoptic Gospels strongly supports Gergesa (despite the manuscripts cited above), though Gergesa enjoys the distinct advantage of being located right on the eastern shore of Gennesaret, about one-third of the way down from the northern end of the lake.

From the standpoint of location merely, it should receive the preference; but in view of the much stronger manuscript evidence, Gadara is more likely to have been the original reading in all three Synoptics, with scribal error substituting the name of Gerasa, possibly because at a later period the name of Gerasa had become more widely known than that of Gadara. Perhaps it is worthy noting that the shape of D (daleth) and the shape of R (resh) are very similar in the Hebrew alphabet; therefore if the name was being transcribed into Greek characters from the Hebrew/Aramaic alphabetical form, GaDaRa' might have been misread as GaRaRa[Da]. Gergesa also begins G-R--, which might have been misread from G-D--. But Gadara has the strongest claim to being the authentic, original spelling of the name in all three Gospels.

The second distinction between the Matthew account and that of Mark and Luke is that there were really two maniacs who came out to meet Jesus as He disembarked on the eastern shore of the lake, rather than just the one demoniac of Mark and Luke. How 328

serious a problem is this? If there were two of them, there was at least one, wasn't there?

Mark and Luke center attention on the more prominent and outspoken of the two, the one whose demonic occupants called themselves "Legion."

As a seminary professor I have occasionally had small elective courses containing only two students. In some cases I remember only one of them with any distinctness, simply because he was the more brilliant and articulate of the two. If I were to compose a set of memoirs and speak of only one of my two-student class, I could hardly be charged with contradicting the historical fact that there were actually two of them in the elective course. A similar case in the synoptic Gospels is found in the episode of the healing of Bartimaeus outside Jericho. Matthew 20:30 records that Bartimaeus actually had a companion with him who also was blind. Luke 18:35 does not give any names at all but refers to only one blind beggar. It is Mark 10:46 who spells out his name both in Aramaic (
Bar-Tim'ay
) and Greek (
huios Timaiou
) form. The reason for this emphasis on him, as over against his companion, was that he was the more articulate of the two.

Whatever the differing inclusions or omissions as between the various Synoptics, they all agree as to what became of the demonic occupants of the maniacs of Gadara: they were all sent into the nearby herd of swine, and thus permitted to carry out on these ceremonially unclean animals the full destruction of life that had at first been intended for their human victims. The hapless pigs dashed down the cliff into the waters of Gennesaret and were drowned (cf. Matt. 8:30-34; Mark 5:11-14; Luke 8:32-37.)
In Jesus' commissioning of the twelve disciples, were they or were they not to take a

"staff" (cf. Matt 10:10; Mark 6:8)?

In Matthew 10:5-6 Jesus commissioned His twelve disciples to go out on an Evangelistic tour of the cities of Israel, preaching the arrival of the kingdom of heaven, and healing the sick and the demon possessed. Then He cautioned them in regards to their equipment for this journey: "Do not acquire [
ktesesthe
] gold and silver or bronze for your money belts; or a bag [
peran
, "knapsack"] for your journey, or even two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support" (Matt. 10:9-10). The parallel in Luke 10 mentions other articles for the journey in Christ's commission to seventy, but this must have been a later episode. At any rate the word "staff" is not used at all. But in Mark 6:7-9, where His commission to the Twelve is likewise recorded, we read in vv. 8-9

"And He instructed them that they should take nothing [
meden airosin
] for their journey,
except a mere staff [ei me rabdon monon
]; no bread, no bag, no money in their belt; but to wear sandals; and he added, "Do not put on two tunics'" (NASB).

Both Matthew 10 and Mark 6 agree that Christ directed the disciple to take along no extra equipment of any kind for this journey but simply to go on their mission with what they already had. Luke 9:3 agrees in part with the wording of Mark 6:8, using the same verb
airo
("take"); but then, like Matthew, adds: "neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; do not even have two tunics apiece." But Matthew 10:10 includes what was apparently a further clarification: they were not to
acquire
a staff as a part of their special equipment for the tour. Mark 6:8 seems to indicate that this did not involve their 329

necessarily discarding or leaving behind even the walking stick they normally took with them wherever they went, while they were following Jesus during His teaching ministry.

As Lange (
Commentary on Mark
, p. 56) says, "They were to go forth with their staff, as they had it at the time; but they we not to seek one carefully, or make it a condition of their travelling." Lange then sums up the paragraph as follows: "The fundamental idea is this, that they were to go forth with the slightest provision, and in dependence upon being provided for by the way....We find in them [i.e., Mark's expressions] no other than a more express view of their pilgrimage state, burdened with the least possible encumbrance, and as free as might be from all care." So understood, there is no real discrepancy between the two passages.

On which day of the week was Christ crucified?

Matthew 12:40 states: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

If the general tradition--that Christ was crucified on Friday of Holy Week, died at 3:00

P.M. (the "ninth hour" of the day), and then rose again from the dead on Sunday at dawn-

-is correct, how can it be said that Jesus was three days and three nights in the grave? He was interred about 6:00 P.M., according to Luke 23:54. ("And it was the day of preparation [
hemera paraskeues
] and the Sabbath was coming on [
epephosken
].") This would mean that the period of interment was only from Friday night to Saturday night before the Resurrection on the dawn of Sunday; and it would also mean only one dawn-to-sunset day, namely Saturday, had passed. How do we get "three days and three nights"

out of two nights and one day? Must not the actual day of crucifixion have been Thursday or even Wednesday?

It is perfectly true that a Friday Crucifixion will not yield three full twenty-four-hour days. But neither will a Thursday afternoon Crucifixion, nor a Wednesday afternoon Crucifixion either. This results from the fact that Jesus died at 3:00 P.M. and rose at or about 6:00 A.M. The only way you can come out with three twenty-four-hour days is if He rose at the same hour (three days later, of course) that He was crucified, namely, 3:00

P.M. Actually, however, He rose "on the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4). Obviously, if He rose on the third day, He could not already have been buried for three whole nights and three whole days. That would have required His resurrection to be at the beginning of the fourth day.

What, then, is the meaning of the expression in Matthew 12:40: "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"? (NASB). This can only refer to three twenty-four-hour days in part or in whole. That is to say, Jesus expired at 3:00 P.M. near the close of Friday (according to the Hebrew method of reckoning each day as beginning at sundown), which would be one day. Then Friday 6:00 P.M. to Saturday 6:00 P.M. would be the second day, and Saturday 6:00 P.M. to Sunday 6:00 P.M. would constitute the third day--during which (i.e., Sunday 6:00 A.M. or a little before) Christ arose. Christ rested in hades (where paradise, or "Abraham's Bosom," still was, according to the indications of Luke 16:22-26; cf. Luke 23:43) for a portion of the three days: Friday, 330

Saturday, and Sunday. The same would be true, or course, if the Evangelists had been reckoning according to the Roman method, from midnight to midnight.

Why then are three portions of day referred to in Matthew 12:40 as "three days and three nights"? The simple answer is that the only way "day" in the sense of dawn-to-dusk sunlight could be distinguished from the full twenty-four-hour cycle sense of "day" was to speak of the latter as "a night and a day" (i.e., an interval between 6:00 P.M. and 6:00

P.M. of the day following). In other words Friday as a twenty-four-hour unit began on Thursday 6:00 P.M. and lasted until Friday 6:00 P.M. Correspondingly, Sunday began at 6:00 P.M. Saturday, according to Hebrew reckoning (but 12:00 P.M. Saturday according to Roman reckoning). According to ancient parlance, then, when you wished to refer to three separate twenty-four-hour days, you said, "Three days and three nights"--even though only a portion of the first and third days might be involved.

A similar usage is apparent from the narrative in 1 Samuel 30:12, where "he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights" is equated in v.13 with
hayyom se losah
("three days ago")--which could only mean "day before yesterday." But if the Egyptian slave fell ill on the day before yesterday (with relationship to the day on which David found him), then he could not have remained without food or water for three entire twenty-four-hour days. We simply have to get used to slightly different ways of expressing time intervals. ("Similarly the Feast of Pentecost was originally called the

"Feast of Weeks" because it fell on the forty-ninth day after the offering of the wave sheaf on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Yet it was known actually as the
Fiftieth
Day--
Pentecoste
in Greek.)

Is the mustard seed really the smallest of all seeds?

In Matthew 13:31-32 Jesus describes the mustard seed (
kokkos sinapeos
) as being

"smaller than all the seeds." The question arises as to whether this statement could be supported by a knowledgeable botanist, or did Christ make a mistake in His rating of the comparative size of the mustard seed? In all probability, He was referring to the black mustard
Brassica nigra
; cf. W.E. Shewell-Cooper, "Mustard," in Tenney,
Zondervan
Pictorial Encyclopedia
, 4:324-25). J.C. Trever (Buttrick,
Interpreter's Dictionary
, 3:477) suggests that the orchid seed is even smaller than the seed of the black mustard. But it is highly questionable whether Jesus was discussing all plant life on planet Earth when He made this statement. No one yet has proved that ancient Palestinians planted anything that bore a smaller seed than that of the black mustard, and that was the framework within which Jesus was speaking. There is no record of the orchid ever being cultivated in Palestine.

As for Jesus' description of the growth of the black mustard, there seems to be divergence of opinion. Trever states that the
Brassica nigra
does not grow to tree size, nor are its branches large enough to make nests in. But Shewell-Cooper quotes L.H.

Bailey as stating that some mustard plants grow to a height of ten feet; if so, its branches would certainly be suited for smaller birds to nest in.

331

In Matthew 16:28, did Jesus mean that He would come again in the lifetime of His
disciples?

After speaking of His second advent in great power and glory to judge the world in righteousness (Matt. 16:27), Jesus added, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (v.28, NASB). By this He apparently referred to a preliminary phrase of His coming, rather than to the final and climactic phrase, when He will be accompanied by His glorious angels. This preliminary manifestation would take place before the death of some of those who were then listening to His voice. There are three possible fulfillments of v.28.

The first possible fulfillment would have been the glorious Transfiguration up on the high mountain referred to in Matthew 17:1-8, where Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus and discussed with Him His approaching death and resurrection (cf. Luke 9:31). In a certain sense Christ appeared to Peter, James, and John in His heavenly glory as the Founder of the messianic kingdom of God. But since the principal emphasis was laid on His "departure" (
exodos
, v.31) rather than on His return, this could hardly have been the fulfillment our Lord had in mind.