75. Were the last words that Jesus spook "Father into thy hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46), or "It is finished" (John 19:30)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

'What were the last words of Jesus before he died?' is the question asked by Shabbir in this supposed contradiction. This does not show a contradiction any more than two witnesses to an accident at an intersection will come up with two different scenarios of that accident, depending on where they stood. Neither witness would be incorrect, as they describe the event from a different perspective. Luke was not a witness to the event, and so is dependent on those who were there. John was a witness. What they are both relating, however, is that at the end Jesus gave himself up to death.

It could be said that Luke used the last words that he felt were necessary for his gospel account, which concentrated on the humanity of Christ (noted in the earlier question), while John, as well as quoting the last words of Jesus, was interested in the fulfilment of the salvific message, and so quoted the last phrase "it is finished".

John 17:4 records Jesus' prayer to the Father in the light of Christ's forthcoming crucifixion, stating that He had completed the work of revelation (John 1:18), and since revelation is a particular stress of the Gospel of John, and the cross is the consummation of that commission (John 3:16), it is natural that this Gospel should centre on tetelestai. At any rate, if Jesus said 'It is finished; Father into your hands I commit my spirit' or vice versa, it would be quite in order to record either clause of this sentence, his last words. Luke-Acts reaches its conclusion without any climax, because the continuing ministry of the exalted Christ through the Holy Spirit and the Church has no ending prior to the Parousia, and to record tetelestai might have undermined this emphasis, or it could have been taken the wrong way. At any rate, no contradiction is involved; purely a distinction of emphasis.

Do we have different and contradictory stories here? Before declaring error or contradiction, there are a number of issues of perspective to consider:

• What is the effect of oral tradition and/or literary selection?
• Could John know things the others did not because he was near the cross (John 19:25), and in a position at that time to hear things that people farther away - which would include perhaps Matthew, or people interviewed by Matthew and Luke - did not?
• Is John supplementing the Synoptics and therefore purposely reporting different things?
• What is each writers' purpose? Might they not have selected from a wide range of things Jesus said? If Jesus spoke from the cross at all it is hardly unlikely that he said more than one sentence.

Here is a sensible reconstruction:
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."

Jesus said, "I am thirsty." A jar of wine vinegar was there, so immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink / they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."

When he had received the drink Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. / And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice / Jesus called out with a loud voice "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last / gave up his spirit.

By reasonably equating John's "giving up" of the spirit with the total event of the final cry, the problem is resolved. We need only recognize that John is focusing on what Jesus said that was not shouted publicly - the plea of thirst, the statement of completion, and the turning over of responsibility for Jesus' mother to John. This fits in with his station at the foot of the cross.

Let's now consider some common objections.

Why would Jesus cry out that God had forsaken him and then just a few moments later say that he had committed his spirit to God?
This objection fails to grasp Jesus' purpose in alluding to Psalm 22. It is not a literal statement that God has forsaken Jesus, but an indication that Jesus is re-enacting Psalm 22, including the triumphant declaration of vindication at the end. In that sense, hearers who saw Jesus' crucifixion as a rejection would understand him to be saying that he would, rather, be vindicated. It is not a cry of dereliction, but of triumph.

Why would he say "It is finished" in climactic finality, but then say more later?
This interpretation fails to consider the surrounding context. The assumption is that what Jesus is saying is "finished" is, "all my speaking." The context of John 19 is such, however, that what is clearly meant is that prophetic fulfillment is finished:
> After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

It is a rigidly literal misapplication to restrict "it is finished" to the act of Jesus speaking.

Combining the Gospel accounts like this ruins the Gospel authors thematic motifs!
That it does. But this misses the obvious point that the Gospel authors created their motifs precisely by selecting from available material and discarding what did not fit their motif. Appealing to the idea of "different opinions," as though each writer simply made up things to suit their motifs, assumes the conclusion. In biographical reportage, one could easily assemble a variety of "motifs" by selection: depicting someone in a scholarly motif, or a domestic motif, simply by selecting various events of their day while ignoring others. Such an assumption imposes an artificially rigid framework onto biographical storytelling.

You say the Bible does not contradict itself but I have found several contradictions in the Bible. For example, in John 10:30 Jesus says that he and his father are one then in John 14:28 he says his father is greater than he. Did he change his mind?

So what were Jesus’ last words? Well Matthew, Luke and John seem to have all heard something different. In Matthew 27:46,50 Jesus said my god my god why has thou forsaken me then died but in Luke 23:46 he claims Jesus said father unto thy hands I commit thy spirit then died and finally in John 19:30 he claims that Jesus said it is finished then died. Well which one is it? These are just a few of many. Why would someone say the Bible doesn’t contradict itself when if you have read the words in its pages it does not take a genius to see all the falsities within.

Consider how easily these questions can be answered simply by remembering two basic rules of interpretation.

First, supplementation is not equivalent to a contradiction. For example, suppose you tell a friend about your trip to Disney World. You mention that you went to Magic Kingdom on Monday. Later, you state that you went to Hollywood Studios on Monday. Have you lied? Are these two contradictory statements? Not necessarily. It could be that you visited both Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios on the same day. Similarly, the seven statements the gospel writers recorded that Jesus made from the cross (including the three aforementioned statements—Matthew 27:46; Luke 23:46; John 19:30) all supplement one another. Nothing is said about Jesus making only one of these statements. What’s more, silence does not negate supplementation. Simply because John wrote that our suffering Savior said, “‘It is finished!’ And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit” (John 19:30), does not mean that Jesus could not also have said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit” after He had cried out, “It is finished,” and before His death (Luke 23:46). Nothing in John 19:30, Luke 23:46, or Matthew 27:46,50 is contradictory. We simply have three different statements that Jesus made at three different moments during His crucifixion.

Second, when comparing two or more Bible passages, one must also remember to consider the sense in which a word or phrase is used. Scripture repeatedly testifies that Jesus was more than a mere man—He was God in the flesh (John 1:1,14,17; 9:38; 10:30,33; 20:28). But how could Jesus truthfully say, “My Father is greater than I,” if Jesus was really deity? Though Jesus was and is God, while on Earth Jesus willingly humbled Himself, taking the form of a suffering servant in order to save mankind from the consequences of sin. Jesus was not denying His deity in John 14:28; He was professing His submission to the Father while in human form. John 14:28 must be understood in light of what Paul wrote to the church at Philippi concerning Jesus’ self-limitation during His time on Earth. Christ,

being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation [He “emptied Himself”—NASB], taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 2:6-8).

While on Earth in the form of a man, Jesus was voluntarily in a subordinate position to the Father. Christ “emptied Himself” (Philippians 2:7; He “made Himself nothing”—NIV). Unlike Adam and Eve, who attempted to seize equality with God (Genesis 3:5), Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:47), humbled Himself, and obediently accepted the role of a servant. Jesus’ earthly limitations (cf. Mark 13:32), however, “were not the consequence of a less-than-God nature; rather, they were the result of a self-imposed submission reflecting the exercise of His sovereign will” (Jackson, 1995, emp. added). While on Earth, Jesus assumed a position of complete subjection to the Father, and exercised His divine attributes only at the Father’s bidding (Wycliffe, 1985; cf. John 8:26,28-29). As A.H. Strong similarly commented, Jesus “resigned not the possession, nor yet entirely the use, but rather the independent exercise, of the divine attributes” (1907, p. 703).

The aforementioned Bible critic who recently wrote our offices alleged that she had found “several contradictions in the Bible” (including the two discussed in this article), and then concluded “it does not take a genius to see all the falsities within.” The truth is, however, it does not take a genius to see these “contradictions” for what they really are: unproven accusations. If a person merely gave the Bible writers the same measure of respect and benefit of the doubt he shows others with whom he communicates on a daily basis, he would quickly find that the only “falsities” are within the baseless and biased accusations made against Scripture, and not Scripture itself.

John 20:17—If Jesus had not yet ascended to the Father, how could He have committed His Spirit to the Father?

Problem: Jesus said here “I have not yet ascended to My Father.” But earlier on the cross He said, “Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit” (Luke 23:46). If He was already with the Father, then why did He say that He had not yet ascended to Him?

Solution: The day He died, Jesus’ spirit went to be with the Father (as Luke 23:43, 46 records). So His spirit had been with the Father, but His body had not yet ascended into heaven when He spoke to Mary. The bodily ascension took place some 40 days later (cf. Acts 1:3, 9–10).