Wow. Now we have entered the realm of nitpicking to the nth degree. We have to move grains of sand one at a time with tweezers.

Was the curtain torn before or after Jesus breathed his last and died?

Since seekers or semi-friendly readers may need an explanation, let’s see what we can learn. (I don’t think I can convince hostile readers.)

For starters, I’m happy the Gutenberg Printing Press wasn’t invented until the mid-1400s. Now we can breathe the air of these stories being transmitted orally and eventually written down. To me, these differences seem authentic and follow biblical precedence in the OT.

Differences in Gospel Parallels = Differences in OT Parallels

The Synoptic writers did not intend to copy each other verbatim in every verse. They went their own way, in many cases.

I borrow heavily from respectful scholars because I learn many things from them and they respect the Bible. I place friendly scholars on the same or higher level than hostile critics. Hostile critics cannot claim objectivity compared to friendly scholars.

The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see other ones, please go to biblegateway.com. If you don’t read Greek, scroll past the bottom half of the table for the commentary.

Let’s begin.

When Was the Curtain Torn in Two?
Matthew 27:50-51	Mark 15:37-36	Luke 23:44-46
50 Jesus again cried out with a loud voice and released his spirit. 51 And look! The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom […]. (Matt. 27:50-51)	37 But Jesus, giving a loud cry, breathed his last. 38 And the curtain in the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.	44 And it was already the sixth hour, and darkness came on the whole land until the ninth hour 45 when the sun grew dark, and the curtain in the temple was torn in the middle,  46 Jesus cried out loudly and said, “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit!” [Ps. 31:6] On saying this, he expired.
50 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν κράξας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα. 51 Καὶ ἰδοὺ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη ἀπ’ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω εἰς δύο […].	37 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀφεὶς φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐξέπνευσεν. 38 Καὶ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη εἰς δύο ἀπ’ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω.	44 Καὶ ἦν ἤδη ὡσεὶ ὥρα ἕκτη καὶ σκότος ἐγένετο ἐφ’ ὅλην τὴν γῆν ἕως ὥρας ἐνάτης 45 τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος, ἐσχίσθη δὲ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ μέσον.  46 καὶ φωνήσας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου. τοῦτο δὲ εἰπὼν ἐξέπνευσεν.

First Look

So it looks like Matthew and Mark agree, while Luke goes his own way (as usual). It seems Matthew and Mark compressed their brief narratives, and Luke expanded his. This literary art–the art of theological story telling in the Gospels–may account for the differences. (For example, commentator Joseph Fitzmyer says Luke places the death after the tearing for dramatic effect, vol. 2, p. 1512).

Let’s see if we can build on this idea.

Replying to an Objection

First, let’s set aside the (surprising and silly) objection that if two (or more) accounts are in conflict, then the event did not happen at all.

Reply: It could be the case that one of the versions of the same event happened, though we, with our limited knowledge and the limited information available to us, may not know which one. But his death and the tearing of the curtain did happen–or Matthew, Mark and Luke believed that the tearing did. (Of course they believed that the Lord’s death happened, for sure.)

Answering the Controversy

Now what about the sequence of events? Did the curtain tear before or after Jesus breathed his last and died? Or were the two events coordinated, so that the curtain was torn around the time of his passing, during the process of dying?

The first thing to notice is that Luke has many time markers, in the entire passage. This is clear even in my translation. Therefore, when Matthew and Mark removed the time elements, they left the door open to Luke to adjust the sequence.

Recall that Luke probably borrowed from Mark in major portions of his Gospel, so he knew what he was doing when he wrote 23:44-46. He felt free to rewrite the sequence for more drama. If he was not worried about what hostile postmodern critics may say centuries later, then why should we fret about it? I follow his lead, not theirs.

Now let me explore a little Greek syntax (sentence structure) and grammar.

BDAG (a thick Greek lexicon) suggests that the conjunction kai (“and”) in Luke 23:44 is a coordination with time: “It is also a coordination rather than subordination when [kai] connects an expression of time with that which occurs in the time” (emphasis added). Then the editors reference classical and Hellenistic texts (p. 494, col. 2, bottom).

To me, this says that the sequence from vv. 44-46 (no doubt also coordinated with the previous verses) is to be taken as a whole. However, I can’t be sure whether the second kai at the beginning of v. 46 connects with the first kai at the beginning of v. 44. I note that the editors at UBS put a period at the end of v. 45. Yet, originally, the Greek did not have punctuation.

And so my impression is that there is a flow in the whole passage in Luke, especially with the participle “while the sun was setting” (or “failing”) at the ninth hour (v. 45) and the curtain was torn (simple verb), and in v. 46 the second kai, the Son crying out, and breathing his last. Any writer is subject to a sequence the moment he places the words in order, one after another, but the process could be seen as a coordinate whole in vv. 44-46. So we should not obsess over precise sequencing in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Therefore, the kai in Matthew and Mark, going from one verse to the next is coordinate, which means they should not be seen in competition with Luke, but coordinated. The accounts complement each other.

Darrell L. Bock, NT professor at conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, writes of the sequencing and editorship of Luke:

Luke has this text [of tearing] earlier than the parallels in Matt. 27:51-53 = Mark 15:38, which mention the curtain rending after Jesus dies. Arndt (1956:473) regards the Lucan arrangement as topical so as to place all the cosmic portents together. Matthew and Mark speak of the curtain’s being torn from top to bottom. All the Synoptics use the same ambiguous term to refer to the veil. Luke omits any reference to speculation that Jesus called for Elijah. These stylistic and editorial differences allow the accounts to complement one another. (vol. 2, p. 1861; see Marshall, p. 874, who agrees)

All these differences, in other words, complement and coordinate with each other.

However, an objector may not accept this explanation because of the time markers in Luke. I offer the explanation as a suggestion after my look into BDAG. The sequence is coordinate (parataxis), not subordinate (hypotaxis), in all three Gospels.

Bottom line: The curtain was torn during the death of the Son of God. This is how to reasonably reconcile Matthew’s and Mark’s version with Luke’s. Therefore, let’s not obsess over the precise moment of the two things (the tearing and the passing). Let’s not make a big thing of the tiny difference.

The other commentaries I have available to me do not cover the differences in the sequence in Matthew and Mark on the one side, and Luke on the other. They are right to overlook it, for it is not significant enough to merit a discussion. Evidently they do not wish to move grains of sand one at a time with tweezers (nor do I).

An Earthquake

Now let’s look into a garbled account about an earthquake.

A small local earthquake happened, and apparently it was strong enough to tear the curtain in two. Commentator Craig Keener writes:

But some rabbinic sources may report a garbled account of a similar tradition, though the evidence is not clear. Josephus may know a related tradition about a heavy gate to the inner court opening by itself presaging Jerusalem’s destruction, though he or his source place it closer to the latter event (Jos. War 6:293-96); likewise, the priestly aristocracy would certainly not have publicized a rending of the inner veil at Jesus’s death (which they might regard as a coincidence … but early “leaks” to the Christians unconfirmed by the hierarchy would be possible (Acts 6:7). (p. 687)

The tearing of the curtain happened around the time of the evening sacrifice of the evening sacrifice (vv. 45-46), so it would be obvious to attending priests (p. 686). “The rending [tearing] could symbolize the departure of God’s presence that preceded God’s judgment against the temple. Perhaps the old veil was ‘rent’ because the new order would not fit it” (p. 686).

The most important reply to the criticism that the Gospels contradict each other and therefore the event could not have happened: the difference in sequence just does not matter. We know the central truth of what happened. The curtain was torn in two around the time of the evening sacrifice.

Theological Significance

So what is the theological significance of the event?

It is possible to interpret the tearing symbolically and theologically.

Mark Strauss in his commentary on Mark’s Gospel says that the verb for “torn in two” is found in Mark 1:10, where it says the sky was split open and the Father’s voice validates that Jesus is the Son of God. Strauss takes the statement that the curtain was torn in the temple to be symbolic.

As noted above, it looks like Keener may take the tearing symbolically, since he used the verb “symbolize.”

I’m not sure about the passage being symbolic, but let me build on the theology.

It is possible that the tearing of the curtain or veil relates to this teaching in Hebrews, which says that Christ entered the holy place in the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 9:23-28). This tearing symbolized that the Holy of Holies or the Most Holy Place was now accessible for Jesus’s followers, spiritually speaking. Jesus entered the heavenly tabernacle by means of his once-and-for-all sacrifice. Old Judaism was ending (Heb. 10:19-22). When Jesus ascended into heaven, he opened the curtain, so that we can have complete access to God. We can enter the Most Holy Place. We enter through the curtain, that is, through his body.

So the writer of Hebrews spiritualized the tearing and draws theological meaning from it. I see no reason why we cannot follow his lead and do the same.

I like R. T. France’s summary of Mark’s possible reason to include the tearing of the curtain. It is the final event in the Gospel writer’s three-act drama against the temple:

But Mark’s reason for including this apparent digression is clearly not to record a fact interesting for its own sake, but to illuminate the significance of the death of Jesus. Many suggestions have been made as to just what its symbolism was, and in the absence of any indication from Mark they are all necessarily speculative, but something along the lines suggested above seems best to fit into the ‘temple theology’ which we have seen developing throughout Act Three of Mark’s drama, and finds both patristic and modern support. (Comment on 15:38)

Robert Stein offers his opinion on Luke’s theology of the torn curtain:

The tearing of the curtain has been interpreted as (1) a portent of the judgment of Jerusalem in [A.D.] 70 (Luke 23:28–29); eclipses were frequently interpreted in the ancient world as portents of destruction and doom); (2) the opening of salvation to all through the death of God’s Son (cf. Heb 9:6–28; 10:19–22; Matt 27:51–53); (3) the ending of the ceremonial and ritual laws of the old covenant; (4) the replacement of the temple by the body of Christ. (The latter does not appear to be correct, however, for in Acts the early church continues to worship in the temple.) Exactly how Luke understood this event is uncertain, but either the first or second interpretation seems more likely. (Comment on 23:45)

I don’t believe the commentators quoted above interpret the torn curtain only symbolically, as if it did not happen, for Matthew, Mark, and Luke appear to believe that it really did tear. However, the commentators are on the right path. They teach us to shift our focus over to the theological significance, and not obsess over the literal, minute by minute, second by second sequence of events.

Conclusion and Recommendation

It is hard to convey to many American Christians the fact that the Gospel writers felt free to rearrange the events in small ways (and sometimes big ways) to fit their theological purposes. They were following ancient Greek and Roman biographies, and even the Old Testament.

Differences in Gospel Parallels = Differences in OT Parallels

They wrote their true and historically reliable Gospels for theological purposes. Call it the narrative art of the story teller, particularly the story teller who has his own theology and other purposes in mind about the most significant story in history: the life of Christ.

To be more precise, call the Gospel writers theological story tellers of true events and not story tellers of pious fictions. Being reasonable like this still places you in orthodox Christianity.

Thus, this rearrangement does not mean that the event never happened. The curtain was torn in two, and it was a sign of God’s judgment and a new path of salvation. It is not as if the Gospels are unreliable, just because the tearing happened within a few seconds before Jesus died or a few seconds afterwards. I noted above that to reasonably reconcile Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the two events happened in coordination of each other, the tearing happened during the process of Jesus dying. Matthew and Mark simply compressed their narratives, while Luke expanded his.

Or perhaps you will conclude that the torn curtain was symbolic. This option does not place you outside of orthodoxy.

The hostile critics of such tiny matters in the Scriptures show themselves to be unreasonable, especially if one of them says that a discrepancy means that the event could not have happened at all. No. It simply means that we may not be able to figure out which version is the correct one, if indeed the accounts are sequential and not coordinate and complementary of each other.

On the other side, fiery fundamentalists or more restrictive Christian philosophers and theologians put too many unrealistic demands on Scripture. They seem to believe that “if the sequence is switched, then the whole Bible is flawed and unreliable!” That’s an overreaction.

The Bible is not brittle, and nor should our faith be. We can still learn wonderful truths from the Bible about God and his redemptive plan of salvation in Christ, from Genesis to Revelation,  and how we can live our lives in him. We can learn great things about the life and ministry and resurrection and exaltation of Christ. The American church of the more restrictive variety needs to relax a lot more.

For the Christian reader, go for the gist of the story when differences emerge, beyond our ability to figure them out. To find the gist, place the three accounts side by side and look for common elements. That’s the gist

A significant event actually happened in the temple, an event that has higher theological significance. Once again, it is the art of the inerrant and inspired theological story teller, whom God permitted to arrange the author’s storyline for his own purposes.

Ignore the hyper-critics of the Gospels. They have drunk too deeply of the Postmodern Age. Now they eagerly work hard at finding these differences and scaring uninformed readers. In many of the critics I detect a sneer, a vice that also belongs to Postmodernism. The hostile readers seem to believe that the Gospel writers compete with each other, as if they are postmodern neo-Marxists who advocate chaos and struggle. Hostile critics may be those things, but not the ancient writers. No competition, but coordination and complementarity.

What Is Postmodernism?

The Skeptical Sneering Age

Don’t drink too deeply of Postmodernism. Keep your faith in Christ intact, when these differences in the Gospels appear. There are answers, and the most common one is to see the differences as complementary.

Recommendation

My view of Scripture: It’s very high, but I don’t believe in “total inerrancy” or “hyper-inerrancy” (my term):

‘Total’ Inerrancy and Infallibility or Just Infallibility?

Begin a series on the reliability of the Gospels. Start with the Conclusion which has quick summaries and links back to the other parts:

15. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Conclusion

See this part in the series that puts differences in perspective:

13. Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?

The Gospels have a massive number of agreements in their storylines:

14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels

Celebrate them and don’t get bogged down in the differences.

SOURCES

For the bibliography of each Gospel, click on these links and scroll down to the very bottom:

Matthew 27

Mark 15

Luke 23