After healing the men who were possessed with demons on the east shore of the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 8:28-34), Jesus passed over to the other side and “came into his own city” (probably Capernaum—Matthew 9:1). Soon thereafter, a man by the name of Jairus, one of the rulers of the synagogue, fell at Jesus’ feet and worshipped Him saying, “My daughter has just died, but come and lay Your hand on her and she will live” (Matthew 9:18). Normally, we would continue telling this wonderful story and rehearse how Jesus raised the twelve-year-old girl from the dead. However, the purpose of this article is to answer the skeptics who claim that a contradiction exists between Matthew’s account of this story and the accounts recorded by Mark and Luke. Whereas Matthew records Jairus telling Jesus, “My daughter has just died” (Matthew 9:18, emp. added), the other two accounts indicate that his daughter was “at the point of death” (Mark 5:23, emp. added) and that “she was dying” (Luke 8:42, emp. added). Critics of the Bible’s inerrancy assert that the difference in these accounts represents a blatant contradiction.

Various Greek scholars and commentators have stated that there is not as much difference between Matthew’s arti eteleutesn (“has just died”; cf. Hebrews 11:22) and eschates echer (“is dying,” NIV) in Mark 5:23 as some would have us to think. According to Craig Blomberg, arti (“even now” or “just”) has some connotations that suggest not always a present reality, but an inevitable reality (cf. Matthew 3:15; 23:39; 1 Corinthians 4:13). Therefore, Blomberg concluded that it is possible Matthew was relating the inevitability and certainty of Jairus’ daughter dying, rather than making a statement about her current condition (1992, p. 160). Adam Clarke mentioned in his commentary on Matthew that 9:18 could be translated, “my daughter was just now dying” (1996). Albert Barnes agreed, saying:

> The Greek word, rendered “is even now dead,” does not of necessity mean, as our translation would express, that she had actually expired, but only that she was “dying” or about to die…. The passage [Matthew 9:18—EL] may be expressed thus: “My daughter was so sick that she must be dead by this time” (1997).

Therefore, the alleged contradiction may be a simple misunderstanding of what Matthew actually wrote about the dying child.

A better explanation to this alleged discrepancy is that Jairus uttered both statements: Mark and Luke mention her severe sickness, while Matthew speaks of her death. As in so many other places, each writer reported only a part of what occurred and what was said. Does Matthew’s omission of the coming of the messengers who tell Jairus that his daughter has just died mean that his account contradicts the others (Mark 5:35; Luke 8:49)? Certainly not! Nor do his additional details. R.C. Trench, in his classic work on the miracles of Jesus, made the following observation concerning the differences in the gospel writers’ accounts of what was said when Jairus approached Jesus:

> When the father left the child, she was at her last gasp; and he knew not whether to regard her now as dead or alive; and, yet having not received certain knowledge of her death, he was perplexed whether to speak of her as departed or not, expressing himself one moment in one language, and at the next in another. Strange that a circumstance like this, so drawn from life, so testifying of the things recorded, should be urged by some as a contradiction (1949, pp. 107-108, emp. added).

Strange indeed!

Skeptics who attack God’s Word with unsupported allegations will continue to fail. The Bible is and always has been the inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21). And based upon the evidence we have, it is reasonable to believe that Bible is inspired by God. There is no other book like it on the planet. Evidence to substantiate the Bible’s claims of its own inspiration can be drawn from such external evidence as the historical documentation of biblical people, places, and events, or archaeological artifacts that corroborate biblical statements or circumstances. The internal evidence includes the Bible’s unity, predictive prophecy, and scientific foreknowledge (to list just three examples). The Bible is unparalleled in human history and bears testimony to the fact that the very existence of it cannot be explained in any other way except to acknowledge that it is the result of an overriding, superintending, guiding Mind.

Matthew recorded that Jesus commanded demons to come out of two men (8:29). This account is recorded in all three of the synoptic gospel accounts, but with two different renderings of the name of the place where the miracles occurred. The Greek word commonly accepted in Mark 5:1 and Luke 8:26 as the basis for the name of the people who inhabited the place where Jesus and the disciples went is rendered Gerasenes in English (Metzger, 1975, pp. 84,145). The Greek word in Matthew 8:28, however, reveals that Jesus went to the country of the Gadarenes (p. 23). Were the writers of the synoptic gospel accounts confused about where Jesus was when He healed the men? Albert Barnes explained the difference between Gadara and Gerasa:

Gadara was a city not far from the Lake Gennesareth, one of the ten cities that were called Decapolis. Gergesa [probably a variation of “Gerasa”—CC] was a city about 12 miles to the south-east of Gadara, and about 20 miles to the east of the Jordan. There is no contradiction, therefore, in the evangelists. He came into the region in which the two cities were situated, and one evangelist mentioned one, and the other another. It shows that the writers had not agreed to impose on the world; for if they had, they would have mentioned the same city; and it shows, also, they were familiar with the country. No men would have written in this manner but those who were acquainted with the facts (1949, p. 91).

Matthew, Mark, and Luke were writing of the same general area. The Roman city Gerasa was a famous city that would have been familiar to a Gentile audience, but Gadara, as the capital city of the Roman province of Perea, was the chief of the ten cities in Decapolis (Lenski, 1946, p. 205; Coffman, 1975, p. 85; Youngblood, 1995, p. 468), so even those who lived in Gerasa could have been called Gadarenes. The stamp of a ship on Gadarene coins suggests that the region called Gadara probably extended to Galilee (McGarvey, n.d., p. 344; McClintock and Strong, 1969, 3: 706). The New Testament writers chose to refer to the area in different ways.

It is also a possibility that in the handing down of New Testament manuscripts over many years, slightly different readings of the same word have developed. Some have suggested that the words “Gergesenes” and “Gerasenes” are not words referring to people from a city other than Gadara, but merely different variations of the word “Gadarenes” (Youngblood, p. 468; McGarvey, p. 344).

It is clear that Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not contradict each other—in fact, they complemented each other. The writers were not confused about Palestinian geography. In this instance, each writer intended to draw attention to an area close to the Sea of Galilee. The precise place where the miracle occurred is not as essential to our understanding of the narrative as is the realization that Christ has control over the spiritual realm (Lenski, 1946, p. 205).

Luke 8:26–39
—How many demoniacs were there? Where was the demoniac healed?
(See discussion on
Matt. 8:28–34
.)

Matthew 8:28–34 (cf. Mark 5:1–20; Luke 8:26–39)—Where were the demoniacs healed?

Problem: The first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) each give an account of Jesus healing demoniacs. Matthew states that the place where the healing took place was the country of the Gadarenes. However, Mark and Luke say it was in the country of the Gerasenes.

Solution: There is a textual problem here. The critical text of the Greek NT (Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies) renders Mark and Luke the same as Matthew, namely, in the country of the “Gadarenes.” However, some manuscripts give the name of the country as the Gerasenes. It is possible to account for the variant reading in these manuscripts as a scribal error. Gadara may have been the capital of the region, and Matthew therefore referred to the area as the “country of the Gadarenes” because the people of that region, whether they lived in Gadara or not, were identified as Gadarenes. Mark and Luke were perhaps giving a more general reference to the country of the Gerasenes, which was the wider area in which the incident occurred. However, a scribe, confusing the reference in Matthew as a reference to the town instead of the people of the region, may have attempted to correct the manuscripts and altered the references to make them uniform. It seems that the best textual evidence is in favor of Gadara, although there are varying opinions among commentators. There is no contradiction or error here, because the problem developed as a result of transcription, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that there was a conflict in the original manuscripts.

---

Problem: Matthew reports that two demoniacs came to Jesus, while Mark and Luke say that only one demoniac approached Him. This appears to be a contradiction.

Solution: There is a very fundamental mathematical law that reconciles this apparent contradiction—wherever there are two, there is always one. There are no exceptions! There were actually two demoniacs that came to Jesus. Perhaps Mark and Luke mentioned the one because he was more noticeable or prominent for some reason. However, the fact that Mark and Luke only mention one does not negate the fact that there were two as Matthew said. For wherever there is two, there is always one. It never fails. If Mark or Luke had said there was only one, then that would be a contradiction. But, the word “only” is not in the text. The critic has to change the text to make it contradict, in which case the problem is not with the Bible, but with the critic.

Problem: The first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) each give an account of Jesus healing demoniacs. Matthew states that the place where the healing took place was the country of the Gadarenes. However, Mark and Luke say it was in the country of the Gerasenes.

Solution: There is a textual problem here. The critical text of the Greek NT (Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies) renders Mark and Luke the same as Matthew, namely, in the country of the “Gadarenes.” However, some manuscripts give the name of the country as the Gerasenes. It is possible to account for the variant reading in these manuscripts as a scribal error. Gadara may have been the capital of the region, and Matthew therefore referred to the area as the “country of the Gadarenes” because the people of that region, whether they lived in Gadara or not, were identified as Gadarenes. Mark and Luke were perhaps giving a more general reference to the country of the Gerasenes, which was the wider area in which the incident occurred. However, a scribe, confusing the reference in Matthew as a reference to the town instead of the people of the region, may have attempted to correct the manuscripts and altered the references to make them uniform. It seems that the best textual evidence is in favor of Gadara, although there are varying opinions among commentators. There is no contradiction or error here, because the problem developed as a result of transcription, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that there was a conflict in the original manuscripts.