To structure a lesson on undesigned coincidences, you can use the following slide-by-slide outline derived from the sources. This approach uses historical logic, forensic analogies, and specific biblical puzzles to demonstrate the reliability of the Gospels.

Example 1

What is the point of asking Jesus to Prophesy?

Example 2

Why in the following trials was Jesus and His disciples never charged?

Continued

Why would a Roman governor find a man "not guilty" after he admitted to being a rival king?

Example 3

Why would a powerful ruler discuss his private theological fears with low-level servants? And how would the disciples know what Herod said in the privacy of his own palace?

Luke is not trying to explain Matthew’s account; he is simply listing Jesus’ supporters. However, the fact that the wife of Herod’s top administrator was a disciple provides the perfect "bridge" for information to flow from Herod's court to the followers of Jesus.

Historical note
The Jewish historian Josephus provides a complementary account, stating that Herod Antipas feared John's "great influence over the people," which might lead to an insurrection or uprising. Josephus records that John was sent in chains to the fortress of Machaerus and executed there

Now some of the Jews thought that Herod's army had been destroyed by God, and that it was a very just penalty to avenge John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had killed him, though he was a good man, who bade the Jews practice virtue, be just one to another and pious toward God, and come together in baptism.' He taught that baptism was acceptable to God provided that they underwent it not to procure remission of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, if the soul had already been purified by righteousness. And when the others gathered round him (for they were greatly moved when they heard his words), Herod feared that his persuasive power over men, being so great, might lead to a rising, as they seemed ready to follow his counsel in everything. So he thought it much better to seize him and kill him before he caused any tumult, than to have to repent of falling into such trouble later on, after a revolt had taken place. Because of this suspicion of Herod, John was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fortress which we mentioned above, and there put to death. The Jews believed that it was to avenge him that the disaster fell upon the army, God wishing to bring evil upon Herod.'

• Onomastic (Naming) Patterns: Scholars have tested the popularity of names in the Gospels against thousands of contemporary Palestinian names found on ossuaries and in the writings of Josephus. The Gospels match the proportion and frequency of names like Simon, Mary, and Joseph found on the ground in first-century Palestine, a pattern not found in later apocryphal gospels or historical novels like Ben-Hur.

Slide 3: Historical Foundations

• William Paley (18th Century): Coined the term "undesigned coincidence" and applied it to Acts and Paul’s Epistles.
• J.J. Blunt (19th Century): Popularized the argument, applying it to both the Old and New Testaments.
• Lydia McGrew (21st Century): Revived the argument for modern apologetics, emphasizing its cumulative power against the "legendary development" theory.

Slide 4: Example 1—The "Inside Man" at Herod’s Court

• The Puzzle (Matthew 14:1-2): Matthew specifies that King Herod spoke to his servants about his fear that Jesus was John the Baptist. How did Matthew know what Herod said privately to his staff?.
• The Answer (Luke 8:1-3): Luke lists the women who supported Jesus’ ministry, casually mentioning Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager.
• Conclusion: Luke never mentions Herod’s private conversation, and Matthew never mentions Joanna. The two accounts interlock to explain how the disciples had an "inside informant" in Herod’s palace.

Slide 5: Example 2—Philip and the Bread Problem

• The Question (John 6:5): Before the feeding of the 5,000, Jesus asks Philip specifically, "Where are we to buy bread?" Why Philip? He is a minor character and not the treasurer (Judas).
• The Answer (Luke 9:10 / John 1:44): Luke tells us the miracle happened near Bethsaida. John (in an unrelated chapter) mentions that Philip was from Bethsaida.
• Conclusion: Jesus asked the local guy where the shops were. John gives the question and the hometown; Luke gives the location of the miracle. They fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.

Slide 6: Example 3—The Green Grass and the Crowds

• The Observation (Mark 6:31, 39): Mark mentions that "many were coming and going" and Jesus commanded the people to sit on "green grass".
• The Context (John 6:4): John mentions that the Passover was at hand. This explains both details: Passover is in the spring (the only time grass is green in Israel) and is a major festival involving thousands of traveling pilgrims.

Slide 7: Example 4—The "Servant" at the Last Supper

• The Claim (Luke 22:27): Jesus tells the disciples, "I am among you as the one who serves," but Luke records no specific act of service on that night.
• The Action (John 13:4-5): John records Jesus washing the disciples’ feet, but does not record the "I am among you as the one who serves" quote.
• The Occasion (Luke 22:24): Luke explains the why: the disciples were arguing about who was the greatest, which prompted Jesus’ lesson in humility.

Slide 8: Example 5—Malchus’s Ear and Pilate’s Verdict

• The Puzzle (John 18:36): Jesus tells Pilate his servants won't fight to prevent his arrest. However, Peter had just cut off Malchus’s ear in the garden. Why didn't Pilate use this physical evidence of an attack to convict Jesus of insurrection?.
• The Answer (Luke 22:51): Luke alone records that Jesus healed the ear. There was no remaining physical evidence of a struggle for the authorities to use.

Slide 9: Cumulative Case vs. "Dumb Luck"

• Weak Objection: "Maybe these are just coincidences.".
• The Response: One coincidence might be an accident, but dozens of these interlockings crisscrossing all four Gospels and the Book of Acts create a web of connectivity.
• Reliability: This pattern is exactly what we expect from honest reporters of actual history, and exactly what we find lacking in second-century forgeries or fictional "Lost Gospels".

Slide 10: Summary—The Ring of Truth

• Undesigned coincidences demonstrate that the Gospel authors were scrupulous, habitually honest, and close up to the facts.
• They confirm that the unique material in each Gospel (like John’s specific details) is rooted in historical memory, not theological fan-fiction.

Analogy for Understanding: Think of the four Gospels like four different photos taken of the same scene from different angles. One photo might show a person reaching for a glass, and another might show the glass is empty. Neither photo "designed" the connection, but when you lay them side-by-side, the empty glass explains why the person was reaching for it. This confirms that both photos were taken of the same real room at the same time.

Unique Purpose and Audience: Each Gospel writer had a specific reason for writing and a specific audience in mind. For example, when describing the destruction of the Temple, both Matthew (Matt 24:15) and Mark (Mark 13:14) use the term “abomination of desolation,” drawing on Hebrew prophecy and assuming the reader understands the reference. Luke (Luke 21:20), writing for a Gentile audience, skips the prophetic term and speaks plainly, warning that it will be the Roman armies to watch for. This shows how each writer tailored the account to the needs and background of their readers.

Literary Standards of the Ancient World: The Gospels were written as ancient Greco-Roman biographies (bioi), a genre that allowed for great flexibility. Unlike modern "photographic" reporting, ancient biographers often used "spotlighting," where they focused attention on a specific individual while neglecting to mention others who were also involved. This explains why one Gospel might mention one angel at the tomb while another mentions two; whenever there are two, there is also at least one.

These works were typically written in continuous prose narrative. While they often followed a basic chronological progression—beginning with the subject's birth or the start of their public career and ending with their death—authors frequently arranged material topically or topographically to emphasize certain themes

Focus on the Climax: It was standard practice to allocate a disproportionate amount of space to the subject’s trial and death. This was because the manner in which a person faced their end was seen as the ultimate illustration of their character and "exemplary" life.

Prologues and Genealogy: Ancient biographies often featured opening prologues or prefaces. Some, like those of Plutarch or Cornelius Nepos, might begin with a genealogy to establish the subject’s lineage

Greco-Roman Biographies (Bioi)

Greco-Roman biographies, or bioi, were written to portray the life and character of a historical individual. Greco-Roman biographies, or bioi, aimed to portray the life and character of a historical individual. Unlike modern biographies that try to record every detail, bioi focused on revealing a person’s virtues and philosophy through their words and actions.

Spotlighting (Focusing on one person, omitting others)
Ancient writers often highlighted one character while leaving others in the background. For example, in Plutarch’s Life of Julius Caesar, many conspirators are wounded, but in Life of Brutus he focuses only on Brutus. Similarly, in Life of Cato Minor, Cato is spotlighted for saving Cicero, while Life of Cicero only highlights Cicero. The Gospels do the same: Matthew and Mark mention a single angel at the tomb, while Luke and John note two.

Telescoping and Compression (Condensing time)
Historians often collapsed events to streamline the narrative. Plutarch compresses events in Life of Cato Minor while giving more detail in Life of Lucullus. He also conflates events in Life of Pompey and Life of Caesar to simplify the story. Other authors like Sallust, Lucian, Cicero, Quintilian, and Suetonius used similar techniques. The Gospels likewise condense sequences, focusing on meaning rather than minute-by-minute chronology.

Paraphrasing Speeches (Preserving the gist)
Ancient historians prioritized the overall meaning of speeches rather than exact words. Thucydides, Tacitus, and Diodorus explicitly explain that reconstructed speeches must capture the “total opinion” of the speaker. Plutarch illustrates this in Life of Caesar vs. Life of Brutus, recording the same graffiti with slightly different wording. The Gospels reflect this too, translating Jesus’ Aramaic words into Greek and emphasizing meaning over verbatim quotation.

Internal Anonymity and Third-Person Reference
Authors often omitted themselves from the text. Xenophon, Polybius, Diodorus, Josephus, Philo, and Plutarch all leave themselves unnamed; Julius Caesar wrote entirely in third person. The Gospel writers similarly maintain focus on Jesus and His story rather than inserting themselves, consistent with ancient norms.

Arguments from Silence
A failure to mention certain events does not reduce credibility. Herodotus and Thucydides omit Rome, Pliny leaves out Pompeii and Herculaneum, and Josephus and Philo omit the Jewish expulsion from Rome. The Gospels’ selective details fit the same pattern: they report what is significant for their purpose without inventing events.

Key Features:

• Narrative Framework: Continuous prose, usually roughly chronological, but often arranged topically or by theme to emphasize important points.

• Focus on the Climax: A disproportionate amount of space was devoted to trials or death, seen as the ultimate test of character.

• Prologues and Genealogy: Many opened with a prologue or lineage to establish background.

Compositional Devices:

• Spotlighting: Highlighting one person while ignoring others present.

• Telescoping/Compression: Condensing sequences of events for clarity.

• Displacement and Conflation: Moving or combining events to improve narrative flow.

• Paraphrasing Speeches: Preserving the gist rather than exact words.

Authorship Norms:

• Internal Anonymity: Authors rarely named themselves in the text; titles or external attribution identified them.

• Third-Person Reference: Even participants often referred to themselves formally in third person.

Purpose:
The goal was to teach, entertain, and provide moral guidance while remaining historically accurate. Think of a bioi as an oil painting: details might be adjusted to highlight the subject’s character, but the person remains recognizable and true to history.