Hidden in Plain View:
Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts
By Lydia McGrew
DeWard Publishing
March 1, 2017
Most Bible “Harmonies” bring together large blocks of material from different parts of the Scriptures (such as parallel accounts found in the four gospels) to show the whole story together in one place (see “Using a Harmony of the Gospels” on our sister site, here). But Lydia McGrew’s 2017 book Hidden in Plain View deals with harmonies of a much more subtle kind – parallels between small details found in different biblical accounts that might not normally be noticed but which, when we see them, help confirm the veracity of the accounts in which they are found.
For example, McGrew shows how, according to the Gospel of John, during the Last Supper, on the night in which Jesus was betrayed, he did something unusual: He washed his disciples’ feet. John is the only Gospel writer who records this fact, but he does not mention the reason for this action and we might be left to presume that this was simply a demonstration of humility that the other Gospels do not record. But as McGrew points out, if we look carefully, the New Testament does incidentally show why Jesus washed the disciples’ feet. Luke’s Gospel records that during the Supper:
A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. (Luke 22:24-27).
Clearly this lesson (notice especially vs. 27 in which Jesus contrasts those seated at the table and those who – like himself – serve them) is the background that explains why Jesus washed the disciples feet and instituted this as a rite that his followers should continue to observe (Luke 22;19).
While this example may be a fairly obvious one, many of the parallel details that Hidden in Plain Sight brings together are not obvious at all. For example, Mark’s Gospel begins the story of the feeding of the five thousand by stating “For many were coming and going…” (Mark 6.30– 31). We may presume this simply referred to the crowds following Jesus, but John’s Gospel adds the detail that “ …the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand” (John 6.4). The area in which Jesus was teaching was one which was on a main Roman road to Jerusalem and this would explain the many people “coming and going” especially at the time of the festival. Similarly, in John’s Gospel, Jesus asks the disciple Philip where to buy bread just before the feeding of the five thousand (John 6:5). John does not explain why Philip is singled out and asked, but elsewhere John happens to mention that Philip was from Bethsaida. As McGrew points out, there appears no obvious connection between these two pieces of information until one turns to the Gospel of Luke where Luke mentions that the feeding of the 5,000 actually occurred near Bethsaida (Luke 9:10). Jesus obviously asked Philip where to buy bread because he was from that area.
These, and many other examples brought out in this book are of far more than just casual interest. They represent what have been termed by Christian apologists as “undesigned coincidences” – a term used since the 18th century. McGrew defines an undesigned coincidence as “… a notable connection between two or more accounts or texts that doesn’t seem to have been planned by the person or people giving the accounts. Despite their apparent independence, the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle.” This kind of linkage between biblical accounts is tremendously important for the Christian faith in a number of ways.
1) Finding and being aware of harmonizing details in the different Gospels (and in other areas of Scripture) can add substantially to our knowledge of the background to the stories the Bible relates. The connections enable deeper understanding of one account through the linking of another.
2) Details that may be linked between one story and another increase the likelihood that both accounts are based on the same underlying historical event or truth.
3) The many interlocking very small details of the same events indicate they were not written down long after the events took place as some skeptics claim.
4) Differing details in different biblical stories indicate the unlikelihood that later accounts simply copied earlier accounts. For example, although, as McGrew points out, John’s story of Jesus is universally regarded as being the last gospel written, it contains more details than any other gospel that explain details in other gospels.
5) The many differing details in different accounts of the same events indicate that they were not the result of collusion between the authors who were trying to simply tell the same story. McGrew nicely backs this up with the work of J. Warner Wallace, a pioneering cold-case homicide detective, whose work showed that true, reliable eyewitness accounts are never completely parallel and identical.
6) The undesigned coincidences are subtle enough that it does not make sense that a fabricator somehow made them up hoping that readers would somehow notice them. It is far more plausible that their occurrence is a result of the fact that the various authors were carefully recording what they individually remembered of actual events.
7) The great number of connections that can be found between different biblical accounts has a cumulative effect. Although agreement between two individual details from different areas of Scripture could possibly be coincidental, the combined weight of all the connections is considerable. When, in instance after instance, different accounts fit together at even the smallest level, there is a strong case for the veracity of the documents.
8) The many undesigned coincidences that can be found in Scripture show that many biblical stories harmonize and fit together perfectly with an agreement that goes far beyond the level often proclaimed by those who feel the Gospel accounts do not agree with one another.
The value of Hidden in Plain View is then, multifaceted. Additionally, although this review has only utilized a few examples of connections McGrew’s book underlines between accounts in the four Gospels, it book also looks at similar connections between the Book of Acts and the epistles of Paul. The same principles can be applied, of course, anywhere in the Bible that we find multiple accounts that intersect or connect in some way. A good example in the Old Testament would be the parallel accounts in 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles, or in 1 and 2 Samuel and the Book of Psalms. McGrew’s book is so eminently valuable and worthwhile it is hoped that she will consider following it up with another study considering some of the Old Testament’s interconnected details that represent “undesigned coincidences.”
Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts
By Lydia McGrew
DeWard Publishing
March 1, 2017
Most Bible “Harmonies” bring together large blocks of material from different parts of the Scriptures (such as parallel accounts found in the four gospels) to show the whole story together in one place (see “Using a Harmony of the Gospels” on our sister site, here). But Lydia McGrew’s 2017 book Hidden in Plain View deals with harmonies of a much more subtle kind – parallels between small details found in different biblical accounts that might not normally be noticed but which, when we see them, help confirm the veracity of the accounts in which they are found.
For example, McGrew shows how, according to the Gospel of John, during the Last Supper, on the night in which Jesus was betrayed, he did something unusual: He washed his disciples’ feet. John is the only Gospel writer who records this fact, but he does not mention the reason for this action and we might be left to presume that this was simply a demonstration of humility that the other Gospels do not record. But as McGrew points out, if we look carefully, the New Testament does incidentally show why Jesus washed the disciples’ feet. Luke’s Gospel records that during the Supper:
A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. (Luke 22:24-27).
Clearly this lesson (notice especially vs. 27 in which Jesus contrasts those seated at the table and those who – like himself – serve them) is the background that explains why Jesus washed the disciples feet and instituted this as a rite that his followers should continue to observe (Luke 22;19).
While this example may be a fairly obvious one, many of the parallel details that Hidden in Plain Sight brings together are not obvious at all. For example, Mark’s Gospel begins the story of the feeding of the five thousand by stating “For many were coming and going…” (Mark 6.30– 31). We may presume this simply referred to the crowds following Jesus, but John’s Gospel adds the detail that “ …the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand” (John 6.4). The area in which Jesus was teaching was one which was on a main Roman road to Jerusalem and this would explain the many people “coming and going” especially at the time of the festival. Similarly, in John’s Gospel, Jesus asks the disciple Philip where to buy bread just before the feeding of the five thousand (John 6:5). John does not explain why Philip is singled out and asked, but elsewhere John happens to mention that Philip was from Bethsaida. As McGrew points out, there appears no obvious connection between these two pieces of information until one turns to the Gospel of Luke where Luke mentions that the feeding of the 5,000 actually occurred near Bethsaida (Luke 9:10). Jesus obviously asked Philip where to buy bread because he was from that area.
These, and many other examples brought out in this book are of far more than just casual interest. They represent what have been termed by Christian apologists as “undesigned coincidences” – a term used since the 18th century. McGrew defines an undesigned coincidence as “… a notable connection between two or more accounts or texts that doesn’t seem to have been planned by the person or people giving the accounts. Despite their apparent independence, the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle.” This kind of linkage between biblical accounts is tremendously important for the Christian faith in a number of ways.
1) Finding and being aware of harmonizing details in the different Gospels (and in other areas of Scripture) can add substantially to our knowledge of the background to the stories the Bible relates. The connections enable deeper understanding of one account through the linking of another.
2) Details that may be linked between one story and another increase the likelihood that both accounts are based on the same underlying historical event or truth.
3) The many interlocking very small details of the same events indicate they were not written down long after the events took place as some skeptics claim.
4) Differing details in different biblical stories indicate the unlikelihood that later accounts simply copied earlier accounts. For example, although, as McGrew points out, John’s story of Jesus is universally regarded as being the last gospel written, it contains more details than any other gospel that explain details in other gospels.
5) The many differing details in different accounts of the same events indicate that they were not the result of collusion between the authors who were trying to simply tell the same story. McGrew nicely backs this up with the work of J. Warner Wallace, a pioneering cold-case homicide detective, whose work showed that true, reliable eyewitness accounts are never completely parallel and identical.
6) The undesigned coincidences are subtle enough that it does not make sense that a fabricator somehow made them up hoping that readers would somehow notice them. It is far more plausible that their occurrence is a result of the fact that the various authors were carefully recording what they individually remembered of actual events.
7) The great number of connections that can be found between different biblical accounts has a cumulative effect. Although agreement between two individual details from different areas of Scripture could possibly be coincidental, the combined weight of all the connections is considerable. When, in instance after instance, different accounts fit together at even the smallest level, there is a strong case for the veracity of the documents.
8) The many undesigned coincidences that can be found in Scripture show that many biblical stories harmonize and fit together perfectly with an agreement that goes far beyond the level often proclaimed by those who feel the Gospel accounts do not agree with one another.
The value of Hidden in Plain View is then, multifaceted. Additionally, although this review has only utilized a few examples of connections McGrew’s book underlines between accounts in the four Gospels, it book also looks at similar connections between the Book of Acts and the epistles of Paul. The same principles can be applied, of course, anywhere in the Bible that we find multiple accounts that intersect or connect in some way. A good example in the Old Testament would be the parallel accounts in 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles, or in 1 and 2 Samuel and the Book of Psalms. McGrew’s book is so eminently valuable and worthwhile it is hoped that she will consider following it up with another study considering some of the Old Testament’s interconnected details that represent “undesigned coincidences.”