137. Appendix 2 Chronological Outline of the Life of Christ

Appendix 2 Chronological Outline of the Life of Christ A Study of the Four Gospel Records to Ascertain the Sequence of Events in the Life of Our Lord

It is not an easy matter, to arrange the events of Jesus’ ministry in the order in which they occurred. This is because each of the four Gospel narratives was written independently: each records a great many incidents not reported by the others; none declares or makes clear that he is reporting all the incidents in the exact order of time. Luke declares that he has written “in orderly fashion” (Luke 1:3), but this does not absolutely bind him to a chronological order. To arrange biographical material in a topical fashion, grouping sermons and then miracles together, is as legitimate a biographical method as to present every detail in the order of time. Matthew uses this topical method, as is quite evident from a careful comparison of the four accounts. John gives us more chronological notes than any of the writers, although none of them attempts a strict biography. The four evangelists were not writing an exhaustive life of Christ: they were telling the gospel — “the good news” from heaven — portraying the most stirring, tragic, momentous account ever given to man. The narration is not hobbled by tiresome and methodical citation of dates. When we come to the closing week of Jesus’ ministry, we can he pretty sure about the order of events, although even here we face difficulties as to when the anointing by Mary occurred or as to whether Judas was present at the Lord’s Supper or whether he left the fellowship of our Lord and the apostles before the Lord’s Supper was instituted.

Attempting to outline each event of the entire ministry forces us at times to make a purely conjectural, not to say arbitrary, choice. It is, however, a task worth the effort, for it helps to give us a view of all the details recorded by all four writers. A chart and outline are presented in this essay, and constant reference to these will assist in clarifying the problems discussed.

Although nearly every Bible student would readily declare that the ministry of Jesus lasted three and one-half years, not many would be able to offer data to prove this assertion. In fact, it can not be absolutely proved. It is not a matter of vital importance to Christian faith, else dates and figures would have swarmed through the narratives. A glance at the chart will show that the vital proof is to be found in the brief, incidental notations of various feasts in the Gospel of John. Counting four Passovers makes plain the passing of three years of Jesus’ ministry, and only the time which followed the last Passover and preceded the first in His ministry needs to be added. The Passover came in the spring — about April — and the mention of these Passover feasts not only enables us to estimate the length of Jesus’ ministry, but it makes clear the season of the year when many of the important events occurred. The only questionable feature of this evidence is the second Passover (John 5:1), which is called simply “a feast” (many manuscripts have the reading “the feast,” which would immediately mean the Passover). A study of the narrative, however, shows that it was December when Jesus talked with the Samaritan woman, and the extent of the account of events recorded before and after the feast mentioned in John 5:1 leads us to conclude it was the Passover. The only other feast it could have been is Purim, which came in February, was not commanded in the Old Testament, was a hilarious affair like our Halloween, and would not have afforded a suitable atmosphere for a campaign in Jerusalem. The fact that the length of time between the resurrection and the ascension is not stated in the Gospel accounts is another indication of how the writers concentrated on the dramatic relation of the divine story of the cross rather than a meticulous recitation of dates and figures. In the Book of Acts, Luke declares incidentally that Jesus appeared to His disciples after the resurrection “by the space of forty days.” Thus we have forty-three days included after the final Passover. Those who would make much of “sacred numbers” might emphasize the fact that forty days of the temptation and the three days noted in the winning of the first disciples by the Jordan (John 2:1) present a striking parallel of forty-three days at the start of Jesus’ ministry, but the period of time preceding the first Passover is much longer than that, as is indicated by the wedding feast at Cana, the change of residence from Nazareth to Capernaum and the statement that Jesus abode at Capernaum “not many days,” with the account of the first Passover immediately following. Thus it is impossible to tell exactly how much more than three years is included in Jesus’ ministry. It is usually estimated at about three years and six months. Where only one evangelist records a long series of events, as is notably true in nine chapters of Luke and in much of John, there is no problem as to how these events are to be arranged in order of time, since we have no further information concerning them. Nevertheless there is, even here, the problem as to how these events are to be fitted into the framework of a chronological narrative. This “new material” in Luke is found in chapters 9-18. Notice in the outline how events recorded only by John have to be arranged into a chronological record of this period of Jesus’ ministry.

Sometimes two of the writers record what appears to he the same event in an entirely different period of Jesus’ ministry, Since none of the writers declare that they are offering an account arranged in order of time, there is not the slightest basis for any charge of inaccuracy against the evangelists. When we attempt to make such an arrangement, however, such differences prove perplexing obstacles and compel one in the end to confess that his arrangement is, in certain particulars, purely tentative.

Various attempts have been made through the centuries to furnish a harmony of the Gospel narratives, and they will all he found to differ in some respects. These efforts reach clear back to the second century, when Tatian published in Syriac his Diatessaron (“by four” — the attempt to give a unified record of the life of Christ by combining the four accounts). It will not be possible within the brief compass of this essay to defend the particular arrangement made of the events which are hard to place. One or two illustrations will suggest the nature of the difficulties.

Luke alone offers an introductory statement, and this must he placed first. John is the only one who discusses the pre-existence of Jesus in a lengthy discussion, and this naturally follows. Matthew opens with his genealogy of Christ. Luke places his genealogy hater at the opening of Jesus’ ministry. Either arrangement is appropriate and it is purely a matter of taste as to whether a harmony should move the genealogy of Luke forward to parallel the account of Matthew concerning the birth of Jesus, or vice versa. The historical material which Luke offers then proceeds readily until we face the problem of fitting the visit of the Wise-men into the narrative. Since the flight into Egypt succeeded immediately the arrival of the Wise-men, such events as the presentation in the temple, recorded by Luke, must have preceded it. A careful study of the details thoroughly confirms his choice. As one moves over into the opening of Jesus’ ministry, we find John our sole source of information, with a steady sequence of events; while in comparing the accounts of the Galilean ministry, it becomes apparent that Mark and Luke are proceeding in what amounts to a chronological arrangement, which is in a quite different order from the topical arrangement of material in Matthew. When this is seen, then the choice of placing the eleventh chapter of Matthew before the tenth chapter in order of time is not so difficult as one studies the sequence of events at this point offered by Luke and also discerns that Matthew 11:1 belongs with Matthew 10:1-42 and that Matthew 11:2 begins a separate account not asserted to have occurred at this particular time. This does not necessarily mean, however, that Luke’s recording of events is necessarily chronological or to be followed at all times rather than that of Matthew.

One of the most difficult choices is that of placing in time the conversation of Jesus with the men who offered to follow Him, but were warned that “the Son of man hath no place to lay his head”; “let the dead bury their own dead”; “No man having put his hand to the plow Both Matthew and Luke record this incident; each offers the record in a very appropriate setting: Matthew, early in the Galilean ministry, just before the stilling of the tempest; Luke, very much later as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem through Samaria. Most of the harmonies follow the order of Luke here, but in the outline offered in this essay. the event is placed as in Matthew. It is a hard choice to make, but it is a significant fact that Luke begins at this point the narration of nine chapters of new material in his Gospel and he may have introduced this event here out of order of time so as to include it at the opening of these chapters. A similarly difficult and very famous problem is offered when we attempt to decide whether Judas was driven from the upper room before the Lord’s Supper was instituted. Matthew and Mark record the events in this order; Luke does not tell how Jesus drove Judas out, but he introduces a general statement of the warning which Jesus issued in the upper room concerning the traitor, and he introduces it at the close of the record of the Lord’s Supper. Only in case a person has determined that the order of Luke is chronological at every point does he feel that Luke means to say that Judas was present at the supper. The account of the quarrel among the disciples, which Luke next introduces incidentally as another exciting feature of the experience in the upper room, is shown by John’s account to have occurred early in the evening and before the revelation of Judas’ treachery. For these reasons it seems best to follow the order of Matthew and Mark at this point.

Such questions, however, are hard to decide and our decisions should plainly be held as tentative conclusions. in spite of such occasional difficulties, the main current of the events in Jesus’ ministry is clear, and a study of such an arrangement of the narratives throws much light upon the life of Christ.