Undesigned Coincidences In The Gospels

The truth of the Gospels has been questioned and disparaged ever since their creation two thousand years ago. Attacks regularly emerge from man’s determination to either discredit the gospel accounts or argue they can’t be known to be reliable. However, this assumption, that it is impossible to have a justified conviction for the truth of the Gospel accounts merely because we do not have access to the original witnesses, is surely wrongheaded. We accept many truths from the preponderance of evidence, of which spoken and written testimony plays a significant role.

There are countless historical truths in our world that cannot be known with absolute certainty, but we gain confidence in those truths from a combination of witness testimony, supporting evidence, and coinciding details. When we find an abundance of interlocking details, it builds a strong case for the believability of the historical claims set before us. And as a general rule, we accept the truth, not because we witnessed the event ourselves, but because the sum of the evidence creates a whole argument, the force of which is difficult to resist.

This same ‘shadowing’ of truth is what we find in the Gospels! If truth is the sun, these evidences are the shadows it casts. Undesigned coincidences are one such evidence. In the Gospels we see a variety of both insignificant and significant details, by multiple authors, that fit together in such a way that when taken collectively, demonstrate the historical accuracy of their claims. These ‘hand in glove’ details have been noticed over time, building a collection of coincidences that do not directly prove the gospels to be true, but rather provide a unique bolstering of the argument for it.

Lydia McGrew, in her book “Hidden in Plain View”, defines an undesigned coincidence as “a notable connection between two accounts or two texts that does not seem to have been planned by the people giving the accounts. Despite their apparent independence, the two accounts fit together like a piece of a puzzle.”

Throughout the Gospels we find many seemingly insignificant details that we most likely would skim over without a second thought. At best, we might pause and wonder why such a detail was even included. But it is in these details that we find a variety of wonderfully ‘undesigned coincidences’. In the accounts of the feeding of the five thousand we find several examples of this. The feeding of the five thousand is reported by all four authors of the Gospels, each sharing some details the others did not. We read in Mark 6:31 that because there were “so many people coming and going…” the apostles and Jesus had no time to eat and so withdrew to a quiet place. There is no context in Mark’s account for why there were so many people, but John tells us that it was near the time of the Jewish Passover feast, which would provide a simple explanation for this unusually large crowd. An even smaller detail is mentioned in Mark 6:39, as he shares that the grass was green. John likewise comments there was “plenty of grass.” Green grass was uncommon for most of the year, but this historical detail is justified by learning there is a short, rainy season preceding the Jewish Passover.

We also see that Jesus turns to Philip in John 6:5 and asks him where they should buy bread. Why Philip? Philip is only mentioned eight times in the Bible, compared to John who is mentioned 131 times. But we find in Luke 9:10 that the location of the feeding of the five thousand was in the town of Bethsaida. The pieces start to fit together when we see in John 1:44 that Philip was from this same town. This small detail given by John makes perfect sense of why Jesus would turn and ask Philip where to buy food, as he had local knowledge. As each writer shares their account of the feeding of the five thousand, numerous casual details fit together -- each question raised receiving its corresponding answer in another account. This peculiar synchronization of details creates a subtle but strong case to the veracity of each report.

There is another sort of undesigned coincidence related to the personalities of characters in the gospel accounts. A single statement about a particular character will not carry much weight. But if multiple witnesses painted a picture of the subject, all pointing to similar personality strengths or weaknesses, whether by direct statements or stories alluding to those traits, we would begin to form a consistent, reliable understanding of the subject. An example of this form of undesigned coincidence is in the accounts involving Martha and Mary. Our introduction to these sisters comes in Luke 10 when Jesus visits Martha’s home. We are immediately told that Mary sits at Jesus’s feet as Martha gets ‘distracted by all the preparations.’ Martha is surprisingly bold enough to express her frustrations with Jesus, asking him to tell Mary to help her. Jesus’ response is in favor of Mary’s choice to sit at his feet and listen to his words.

John then shares a different account of these two sisters after the death of their brother Lazarus. In John 11:20 we see Martha running to meet Jesus when she learns he is coming, but Mary stays home. Martha, bold yet again, confronts Jesus because he had not come sooner. When Mary comes to Jesus, she makes a similar statement, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” However, we are told that Mary was weeping and that her grief moved Jesus. After weeping with her, he orders the stone to be removed. Martha jumps in, pointing out that there would be a bad odor after four days and we again see her inclination to focus on the practical. Our final account is in John 12 where a dinner is being given in Jesus’ honor. We read, “Martha served…Then Mary took about a pint of nard, an expensive perfume; and she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair.”

We are presented with a consistent pattern of practicality, boldness, and action in Martha while we find Mary to be quieter, worshipful, and tender. As these various authors share their accounts, they paint an incredibly clear picture of each of these women’s characters. The consistency of these character portrayals, specifically in the way minor details combine to form a unified character, points to the historicity of the accounts.

Examples of undesigned coincidences in the Gospels could be multiplied, but these two serve as a sampling of the riches to be found. Though different in type, they have the same effect: the Gospels, in their minor details, interlock in such a way that only accurate reporting of real history can account for. While each individual undesigned coincidence on its own isn’t enough to prove the Gospels are trustworthy, when added together they form a very powerful cumulative case. It is, as it were, death by a thousand paper cuts. The existence of these interlocking details should not only give Christians more confidence in the Gospels, but should cause us to study them more, with the expectation of finding additional evidence for their reliability.

If you would like to take a deeper dive on this topic, check out the following resources:

Hidden In Plain View by Lydia McGrew

Undesigned Coincidences by JJ Blunt

Horae Paulinae by William Paley