Why isn't the Bible in chronological order?

77 It is in vain to say, I can shew by the order of physical laws how it must have happened. Who made physical laws necessarily producing monstrosities? The sense that it is a monstrosity, moreover, is proof of the conscience of a universal order. Why then is a particular inexplicable difficulty adduced as an objection to revelation, and urged as a proof that the whole is false? There is but one reason. Revelation controls the passions, which creation does not. A judgment to come, sin, having to answer to God — these are what revelation treats of; and they are what man does not like. A God of providence he will have and reason about, because he wants Him, and he prides himself on having to say to the Almighty as he (man) likes to have to say to Him. But to be judged by Him, or even to own himself a sinner, and to be in so humble a condition as to be loved by Him and to need it — ah! that is another matter. The principle then on which the reasoning drawn from objections goes is a false and hollow one. Still, as they trouble the mind, I shall refer to them, without pretending to solve every difficulty that can be raised. That is merely a question of my competency, not of the truth of scripture. To judge of these we must advert to another principle which affects directly the whole force of any objection to any writing whatever, and that is the object of the writer. If my object is to shew the spirit and bearing of a course of action in which many isolated facts have the same moral force, I may neglect chronological order without anything being changed by it. If I were shewing the progress of an individual mind in them, chronological order would be everything. Again, if I am shewing that a person's public life had a given aim or object, I select the facts proving it, and neglect a multitude of others, without which, as a personal history, it would be necessarily imperfect and disconnected; but it is not incomplete in the view in which I have written it. If I were shewing the filial piety of the same person, and the way he kept up the ties of family to the end, only such parts of his public life would be related as might shew, that, in spite of its importance and activity, this tie was always felt and acted on. And so on.

Now, if God gives us a history, He must have an object. He cannot write a history even of His blessed Son merely to amuse man with a history of true facts. Hence He will, in a revelation, give what may be quite disconnected as a history. Thus, if God be unfolding the character of Christ as Son of man, He will select what does reveal Him in that character, not what presents Him simply as Messiah come on earth among the Jews. Consequently, in selecting the facts, large gaps may be found in the history. The connection will be the character of Son of man and facts really connected together historically in moral consequence, which are not in mere chronological order.

Internal evidences seem to show that most likely originally Matthew wrote the Gospel in Aramaeic, the Semitic dialect then spoken in Palestine . The Gospel was later translated into Greek. This, however, is certain, that the Gospel of Matthew is pre-eminently the Jewish Gospel. There are many passages in it, which in their fundamental meaning can only be correctly understood by one who is quite familiar with Jewish customs and the traditional teachings of the elders. Because it is the Jewish Gospel, it is dispensational throughout. It is safe to say that a person, no matter how learned or devoted, who does not hold the clearly revealed dispensational truths concerning the Jews, the Gentiles and the church of God will fail to understand Matthew. This is, alas, too much the case, and well it would be if it were not more than individual failure to understand; but it is more than that. Confusion, error, false doctrine is the final outcome, when the right key to any part of God's Word is lacking. If the dispensational character of Matthew were understood, no ethical teaching from the so-called Sermon on the Mount at the expense of the Atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ would be possible, nor would there be room for the subtle, modern delusion, so universal now, of a "social Christianity" which aims at lifting up the masses and the reformation of the world. How different matters would be in Christendom if its leading teachers and preachers, commentators and professors, had understood and would understand the meaning of the seven parables in Matthew 13, with its deep and solemn lessons. When we think how many of the leaders of religious thought reject and even oppose all dispensational teachings, and never learned how to divide the Word of truth rightly, it is not strange that so many of these men dare to stand up and say that the Gospel of Matthew as well as the other Gospels and the different parts of the New Testament contain numerous contradictions and errors. Out of this failure to discern dispensational truths has likewise arisen the attempt, by a very well meaning class, to harmonize the Gospel records and to arrange all the events in the life of our Lord in a chronological order, and thus produce a life of Jesus Christ, our Lord, as we have a descriptive life of Napoleon or other great men. The Holy Spirit has never undertaken to produce a life of Christ. That is very evident by the fact that the greater part of the life of our Lord is passed over in silence. Nor was it in the mind of the Spirit to report all the words and miracles and the movements of our Lord, or to record all the events which took place during His public ministry, and to arrange them in a chronological order. What presumption, then, in man to attempt to do that which the Holy Spirit never attempted! If the Holy Spirit never intended that the records of our Saviour should be strictly chronological, how vain and foolish then, if not more, the attempt to bring out a harmony of the different Gospels! One has correctly said, "The Holy Spirit is not a reporter, but an editor." This is well said. A reporter's business is to report events as they happen. The editor arranges the material in a way to suit himself, and leaves out or makes comment just as he thinks best. This the Holy Spirit has done in giving four Gospels, which are not a mechanical reporting of the doings of a person called Jesus of Nazareth, but the spiritual unfoldings of the blessed person and work of our Saviour and Lord, as King of the Jews, servant in obedience, Son of Man and the only begotten of the Father. We cannot enter more deeply into this now, but in the exposition of our Gospel we shall illustrate this fact.

We shall dwell a little more upon the three temptations, if the Lord will, as to their intrinsic moral import, when we come to the consideration of Luke. I content myself now with giving what appears to me the true reason why the Spirit of God here adheres to the order of the facts. It is well, however, to remark, that the departure from such an order is precisely what indicates the consummate hand of God, and for a simple reason. To one who knew the facts in a human way, nothing would be more natural than to put them down just as they occurred. To depart from the historical order, more particularly when one had previously given them that order, is what never would be thought of, unless there were some mighty preponderant reason in the mind of him who did so. But this is no uncommon thing. There are cases where an author necessarily departs from the mere order in which the facts took place. Supposing you are describing a certain character; you put together striking traits from the whole course of his life; you do not restrain yourself to the bare dates at which they occurred. If you were only chronicling the events of a year, you keep to the order in which they happened; but whenever you rise to the higher task of bringing out moral features, you may be frequently obliged to abandon the consecutive order of events as they occurred.

Their Place in the Hebrew Canon.

Thus, while as history these books fill their place, and are (except, for a plain reason, Chronicles,) in necessary chronological order, the five divisions into which they fall are confirmed and explained by the numerical structure, which, in common with all Scripture, they thus exhibit. But we cannot pass on until we have fairly looked at and answered as we may the objection that will be raised on the ground of the different arrangement of the Hebrew canon. Is this authoritative? and if not, is there any that is so?

A reader of our English Bible finds one invariable arrangement of the books throughout, and is naturally apt to think this as much inspired as are the books themselves; but this is only the result of such a uniformity of copies as has been brought about by printing. The order in our books is, in general, as to the Old Testament, the order of the Septuagint, the Greek translation, which was in general use in our Lord's time among those that spoke Greek. But this is very naturally spoiled, for many, by the introduction of apocryphal books among the canonical ones. The Hebrew has also, as being such, quite intelligibly, the preference in the minds of most. In the Hebrew arrangement, there is a classification of books under three heads, — "the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings." Here, the Prophets come next to the Law, — i.e., the five books of Moses; but the four historical books — Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, — these, and no more than these, — are counted among these as "former prophets," clearly upon the ground of their being presumed to be written by such. The rest of these are referred to the Kethubim, or "Writings," as well as Daniel and Lamentations from the Prophets; and the "Writings" fall thus into three divisions: first, the Psalms, Proverbs, Job; secondly, the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther; thirdly, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

We must look at the arrangement of the books before we can go further. And first, have we any authoritative arrangement of the books? The question may seem strange to not a few of us. A reader simply of the English Bible finds, in these days of printing and uniformity of copies, one invariable order of books, which he naturally supposes, therefore, has been from the beginning. He would be very likely to consider any interference with this an act of rashness and an infringement upon the sacred character of the book. On the other hand, the reader of the Hebrew Bible finds an order different in many respects. The Septuagint has another, although in most respects similar to the English one, which is derived from it. This, of course, affects only the Old Testament. But in the New Testament also the Greek copies show, as is well known, many minor variations in order, although these are confined to the epistles.

Perhaps; but the only thing they leave plain is that the later arrangement of books differs from the earlier, that at any time perhaps arrangements differed; that that of the "five rolls" is simply a more or less recent one for liturgical purposes; and that we have no recognized divine one at all, save only that of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, which the Lord recognized in the last chapter of Luke.

Such is the distinct object of the Holy Spirit in Matthew — such is His marked design. This He pursues throughout with unswerving faithfulness. To this end everything is made subservient. With a view to this He culls, groups and arranges His materials. For this, chronological order is set aside without hesitation and without apology. Scenes and circumstances, separated by many months, are grouped together by the skillful hand of the Holy Spirit for the specific purpose of presenting His subject in perfect keeping with the scope and design of the entire Gospel, from which He never diverges the breadth of a hair. In a word, Matthew groups for dispensational ends what we may call the great dispensational Gospel.

We now enter on a series of prophetic threatenings against various nations, beginning with Egypt and going through with the neighbouring foes of the Jews, and ending with the utter destruction of Babylon; for the last chapter is an appendix, inspired but not Jeremiah's, though (I doubt not) rightly winding all up with the ruin of Zedekiah, and of the temple, and of the poor captives of Judah, among whom we see the royal son of David the pensioner of Evil-merodach king of Babylon. It is a complete picture of the then woes on the guilty people of Jehovah with judgment on their enemies. Israel had as yet wrought no deliverance in the earth. I do not doubt that the order of the Hebrew, followed by the Authorized Version and most others, is put in moral order by God, and that a mere chronological sequence would defeat this intention. Our business is not to arrange but believe.

These prophecies, in our English Bibles, as also in the Hebrew, are arranged (by whom we cannot tell, probably by Ezra) without regard to chronological order. But whoever was the editor of Jeremiah's weeping prophecies, for almost "every letter is written with a tear, and every word is the sound of a broken heart" — especially so of the Lamentations — must have been divinely directed; for the moral order, and connection of the various prophecies to each other are evidently of God. In the Septuagint they are arranged chronologically. The last verse of the fifty-first chapter ends with "Thus far are the words of Jeremiah." The last chapter of the book is not written by Jeremiah, but is an historical appendix substantially the same as 2 Kings 24:18-20, 25; and equally given by inspiration of God, and needful in its place. The predictions of the prophet respecting Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, were fulfilled to the letter, as this historical appendix, probably written by Ezra, conclusively prove. It is only in this book, so far as we know, that the duration of the Chaldean kingdom is given, as also the duration of Judah's captivity in Babylon (Jer. 25:9-14; Jer. 29:10). Daniel was a devout student of these very prophecies, especially of those portions just referred to (Dan. 9:2). We may observe that Jer. 10:11 contains a message to the heathen written in their own language — the Aramean or Syriac.