This week at MPC, we'll look at the story of the two demon-possessed men from Matthew chapter 8. Many will note that the other gospel writers only describe one man in their accounts (Mark 5 for instance). For some, this seems to be a contradiction. "Was it one or two?" they ask, "Can't these authors get their story straight?"
This may seem like a picky question, but it's relevant. After all, if the gospel writers can't agree on something THIS basic, how do we know they got other things right? If they're wrong about something simple like this, couldn't they be wrong about something life-changing--say, like the resurrection of Jesus for instance?!
Other "synoptic problems" occur in the gospels as well. Normally, it's little things like the order of events or the name of a city/town. Still, the same question comes-up a lot--if we can't "count on" Matthew, Mark, Luke or John for the little details, how can we count on their written record at all?
There's a foundational principle of biblical interpretation that not only answers these questions, but helps us understand and apply other scriptural passages as well. It's the principle of context and perspective. If we start with the premise that the Bible IS inspired and thus infallible (a perspective we at Mill Pond embrace), then the seeming contradictions like how many demoniacs did Jesus encounter in the region of the Gadarenes, becomes clear.
For example, let's consider Matthew, the only author who mentions both men in his account. Who was Matthew and who was he writing to? Matthew was a Jew and a tax collector. He wrote primarily to a Jewish audience. While the other authors wrote from different perspectives and different audiences, their common goal in telling this particular story was to focus on the MOST oppressed man, the one with a legion of demons (at least 6,000). That man was obviously, the one who spoke and was clearly the lead in the destruction that took place. The other man was, to most gospel writers, almost invisible and inconsequential in terms of the outcome of the account.
So why did Matthew mention him?
We can only speculate, but let me give it a try. First, the Jewish people knew that the law required two witnesses to give credibility to an account (Deut 19:15, etc.). Mark makes it clear that many heard about Jesus and presumably came to believe in Him as a result of the testimony of the most afflicted man (Mark 5:20). Jewish readers would discount the claims of one man...but Matthew is sure to point out that there were two. Also, while most of Jesus' ministry was to Jews, the region of the Gadarenes was populated by Gentiles. This is clear from the fact that they were keeping a herd of 2,000 pigs--something Jews were forbidden to do. Yet, Jesus goes there and heals these two men. Is it possible that one was Jewish and the other was not? We don't know...but it's an interesting possibility since Jesus is hereby "bridging the gap" and showing his Messianic role over all men. Finally, there's just the fact of Matthew's occupation--he was a tax collector. He was a man of numbers. Who more likely to "be precise" in terms of mentioning the other man--making sure to point out that there wasn't only the one--more oppressed and vocal man--but actually, two.
The bottom line is that the Bible IS reliable. It is accurate and flawless in its original form. The differences sometimes seen are simply different perspective, not contradictions. One more reason to read it--all of it--as often as possible!
In Jesus,
Pastor Joel