Why chronology of events are not important in Gospels

I was meditating on mark and Matthew yesterday and I came across three events.

  1. Matthew 8:34 ( after sending demons into
    People implored Jesus to leave their region

  2. Matthew 9:17 Jesus was talking about new wine in old wineskins
    And Mathew says as he was saying these things

  3. a synagogue official came and asked healing for her little daughter

But in marks gospel

In 5:17 we see Jesus sending demons into swines

2:22 Jesus talking about new wine in old wineskins parable

And later in 5:23 we see that official asked for healing for his daughter.

Matthew says while he was talking about new wine into old wineskins that official came
But mark notes that in 2:22 (new wineskins parable) and after so many events or after few days we see this official came and asked for healing in 5:23

Honestly I don’t see any contradiction in Jesus response in all these 3 events
But why these things are noted down in chronological order to avoid confusion.

Best Regards


Why these events are not* noted down in order to avoid confusion.

1 Like

Thank you for posting this question to Connect. I have been reading through the bible each year chronologically through the YouVersion app. I have wondered this myself for a long time.

Something I heard, and unfortunately I cannot remember the source is the following. Imagine if you and three of your friends went to a wedding. Lots happened before the wedding, during the ceremony and then at the after party. Imagine now somebody asks each of you individually to tell them about the wedding. You would have four people recalling the same event. They may all be recalling it accurately but there would no doubt be some differences in the way the story is told. You might straight away start talking about the after party, while I might be focused on the beautiful clothing.

This really helped me to understand how the gospels were written. Matthew a disciple of Jesus, Luke a doctor who was around at the time and Mark another early believer. Then John another disciple who says Jesus loved him the most :grinning: Three very different people, telling the same story, inspired by Holy Ghost, but still telling it in their way.

I hope this helps to answer your question, a bit. What I am getting at is that the books were written by different individuals with different personalities and different styles.


Thank you for replying it was helpful
Weeding thought was realistic… And it convinces me
Thank you once again.


I am delighted it was helpful @Kiran. Have a great day brother :facepunch:

1 Like

Hi Kiran @Kiran, an insightful question. Brian @brianlalor is definitely on the right track regarding different perspectives of the same event. Author J. Warner Wallace has written a few books that can help your understanding from this viewpoint. Two such books are “Cold-Case Christianity” and “Forensic Faith”. Mr. Wallace was a former LA cold-case detective who was an atheist but came to faith because he could see tools he used in being a detective demonstrated in the same ways throughout the Gospels. In fact, he said if he had four witnesses to a crime who all told the same story without variation, he would be suspect because people see things differently. What’s important is that they still are giving evidence to the same event. So, the fact that the event occurred is the main point.
So, the first thing to focus on is the event over the various versions. Also, keep in mind that the Gospels were not written at the time they were happening. They weren’t written until much later as the Holy Spirit guided the writers. In the case of the “Book of Mark”, Mark was a close relative or associate of Peter. So, his gospel is one told to him by Peter. As was mentioned by Brian, Luke was also not an apostle, but a doctor who paid close attention to detail because that characteristic was indicative of the profession. He opens the Book of Luke explaining why and how he wrote his epistle.
Another reason is that each of the Gospels have a focus. For instance, Matthew was writing to Jews, and his emphasis was on the validity of Jesus as Messiah. Mark focuses on Jesus’ works and miracles. Luke’s version is most “orderly” and has a more historical accounting of Jesus and the fact that Jesus loved all people–Luke, himself, being a gentile. (He also wrote the Book of Acts and accompanied Paul on his journeys). John’s focus is on the love of Christ and specifically states that he wrote his account that people would believe in Christ (John 20:31).
However, having said all this, it is important to study the timing and placement of the events in each account. For instance, a favorite “contradiction” skeptics like to point out is the feeding of the 5000 vs 4000. Yet, these are two separate events. Without going into all the research here, you can glean this information. In fact, Mark tells of the two separate accounts in his gospel (Mark 6:30-44; Mark 8:1-13).
I recently did a personal study of Jesus’ raising of Lazarus. The chronology and locations were very important when putting the story together to make sense of the timing recorded in that account.
So, we have to look at each book separately and concentrate on their themes and emphasis. Then, it might behoove one to do some research to put the chronology together to help convey the logical timing in order for the various accounts to make sense, remembering that the eyewitness accounts are from different perspectives.
Keep in mind that timing in some cases in Scripture isn’t as crucial as the message being conveyed. Think of them being told as you would if you returned from a mission trip. The stories you would have to tell may not be in the correct order, but as they came to mind and you wanted to relay them. Yet, a good Bible “detective” can often work out the correct chronology with some research. If not, is it really important to the message?