|
Introduction:
I have recently been in an e-mail discussion with a friend of one
of our members who questions the reliability of the Bible. It has
been an enlightening study. One of his most recent questions has
essentially been how do I deal with all the contradictions in the
gospels (specifically he asked about contradictions regarding the
post-resurrection issues). For instance, Matthew
28:1 says Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the
grave of Jesus. Mark
16:1 says it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James
and Salome. Luke
24:10 says it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary the
mother of James. John
20:1 only tells about Mary Magdalene. On the surface it
seems the gospels do not agree. Why the difference? What do we do
about it? Some strongly assert the gospels contradict one another.
Is that true? How do we deal with that? Discussion: I.
We must understand what the gospels are. A.
Many people mistakenly believe the gospels are the
biography of Jesus. That is not the case. John provides the most
succinct definition of what the gospels are. “Many other signs
Jesus also performed in the presence of His disciples, which are
not written in this book; but these have been written so that you
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that
believing you may have life in His name” (John
20:31). B.
The gospels were not written to provide a detailed moment
by moment chronicle of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Each
author was pursuing this same goal—demonstrate Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God that we might believe and have life.
Therefore, we must not expect the gospels or any part of them to
be absolute, chronological, detailed accounts of the events of
Jesus’ life, death, burial or resurrection. Rather, we must see
these as thematic presentations, grouping together events and
expounding specific details because each author, guided by the
Holy Spirit, thought the details and events he included most
helped him accomplish his purpose with the particular audience he
was striving to reach. Depending on their purpose, theme and
audience each author includes different events and details and
even places them in different orders. If these books were written
to be day by day and moment by moment biographies, the critics
might have a point. But that is not so. C.
Considering the above, we make a mistake when we believe
the most important question we can ask is how these accounts
harmonize, trying to develop some kind of chronological biography
of Jesus. That is not the purpose of any one of the gospels, nor
is it the purpose of the gospels taken together. While answering
that question may be beneficial, the more important question in
understanding the gospels is not how they coincide, but why each
author chose the events, details and perspective he included. The
reality is we want some kind of super-gospel with every detail in
chronological order so we can know what and how things really
happened. The gospels provide us the necessary details in the
necessary order so we can know who Jesus really is. II.
We must further understand the nature of storytelling. A.
People often hold the gospels to unreasonable standards,
standards different than those that govern any set of stories.
Think for a moment about when you tell a story, when you describe
your day to someone, when you describe a movie or a book or when
you are telling about a series of events in your life. There are
three devices used in storytelling that especially come into play
in the gospels. B.
Telescoping: This is covering huge events or lengthy periods of time with summary
statements. According to Acts
1:3, we know Jesus appeared to the disciples over a 40 day
period after His resurrection. Therefore, when we read Matthew
28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20-21
they are summarizing the important parts of 40 days. Many wonder
how Jesus can see His disciples in Jerusalem (Luke
24:33-36) and
Galilee (Matthew
28:16) in one day. We have to understand it wasn’t just
one day. While implementing this device, storytellers, including
the writers of the gospels, will often summarize what someone has
said. Haven’t you ever done that? Have you ever told a story and
just summarized someone’s words but still said, “So and so
said…” No one believes you are lying, why should we believe
the gospels are? The statements of Jesus in some of these stories
are not necessarily direct quotes but summaries of what He taught
over that entire period. At the same time, Telescoping is a device
which often simplifies the story providing the highlights and not
every detail. For instance, Matthew,
Mark and Luke just talk about what happened regarding the women following the
resurrection in general and do not get into the details of when
Mary Magdalene left the women before they entered the tomb. C.
Selection:
In telling any story, a person has to select which events and
details he is going to actually include in the story. We should
not be surprised that four different authors selected different
events and different details. After all, if they were all going to
say just the same thing, we would only need one of them. These
events and details will be selected based on the author’s
perspective, the purpose of the story and the audience receiving
the story. Matthew was writing as an eye-witness to convince Jews
Jesus was their promised Messiah. Mark, who is traditionally
considered to be writing on behalf of Peter, is writing to
convince the Romans Jesus is God. Luke, who investigated the
details by talking to numerous witnesses and is considered to be
writing on behalf of Paul, was writing to convince the Greeks that
Jesus is the Son of God. John, an apostle, writing as an
eye-witness, was writing a more philosophical approach to Jesus’
life to combat Gnosticism and convince Christians of all races
that Jesus was the Word of God who actually came in the flesh.
With their different perspectives, different audiences and
distinct purposes, each author selected different events and
details to include in their story. For instance, John included the
details of Mary Magdalene’s first sighting of Jesus—after all,
from his perspective Mary was the one who first let him know of
the empty tomb and the risen Savior. D.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch: This is a device in story telling that will follow one
series of events or one series of thoughts to a chronological or
logical end and then back up and tell what else happened at the
same time. Have you ever told a story and then got a point where
you had to say, “Alright now before I tell you the next part you
have to know what was happening over here at the same time.”
That is the meanwhile, back
at the ranch principle. Matthew
28:11 is an example of this. III.
There are no contradictions. A.
While each gospel includes different details regarding the
events of the trial, crucifixion, burial, resurrection and
post-resurrection, there are no exclusive contradictions. None of
the gospels makes a statement which denies a statement in one of
the other gospels. Allow me to illustrate the concept. Last Sunday
when I traveled to our Bible classes and worship assemblies, Max
and Lee Dawson road with my family and me. Let’s pretend for a
moment that both Max and I were journaling the day’s events and
2000 years later someone came across our memoirs. He saw my
journal entry for January 1, 2006 said, “I drove Max and Lee
Dawson and my wife and three children to the Franklin church’s
assembly today.” Then he came across Max’s journal that said,
“I rode with Edwin Crozier to worship today.” By the standards
of modern Bible critics, those two statements are contradictory.
My journal claimed there were seven people riding together,
Max’s only revealed two. However, does Max’s statement deny
mine? Does mine deny his? No. These statements are not exclusively
contradictory of each other. Rather, they explain what each of us
thought was important about the day’s events. B.
Many modern critics try to make hay asking what Jesus’
last statement on the cross was. They read Matthew
27:46-50; Mark 15:34-37; Luke 23:44-46 and John
19:29-30 and say, “See, these guys can’t even agree
what Jesus’ last words were.” Which one of the gospels said,
“Here were Jesus’ last words”? None of them did. There
certainly weren’t two accounts saying “Here are Jesus’ last
words” that contradict each other. In our modern fascination
with last words, these critics assume each gospel writer would
record what those last words were. But remember, the gospels were
not written to provide those kinds of details. They were written
to demonstrate that Jesus was the Christ to different audiences.
As such, each author included the statements on the cross that
they felt best suited their purposes. IV.
Keep in mind when these gospels were written. A.
While modern liberal critics disagree with this and there
is no accounting for their dishonest bias, these gospels were
written within the lifetimes of people who witnessed the events
described within them. When these were first read and readers came
across differences they thought might be contradictions, they
could actually ask the authors or witnesses of the events. We are
not able to do this. The fact that those who could question
accepted the books is strong evidence in favor of them. B.
What this means is even when we can only provide reasonable
possibilities and not absolute answers to a dilemma, we can rest
assured the people who were able to question the authors were able
to get their answers. We must not assume that it took more than a
thousand years for someone to come along and say, “Hey, wait a
minute, I see some differences here.” That is modern arrogance
at its highest. C.
By way of illustration consider the two journals I
mentioned a moment ago. If any of you found those two journals
from Max and myself about how we made it to the assembly last
Sunday and thought there was a contradiction, you could talk to
me, call Max or both. You could find out the right solution to the
seeming contradiction. On the other hand, a hundred years from now
if someone came across that they could make a stab at
possibilities. They could think, “One possibility is there were
seven people in the car but Max only mentioned two of them.”
Another might think, “One possibility is that we know they had
two assemblies on each Sunday, perhaps these refer to the
different assemblies.” Another might think, “How do we know
these are talking about the same Edwin Crozier and Max Dawson.”
(although I know you hope there is only one Edwin Crozier in the
world). The point is, today’s readers could ask the authors and
find the exact answer to the question. Future readers could
consider plausible possibilities and yet not be able to pinpoint
which one is that actual fact. That doesn’t make the accounts
false. It is just the nature of studying historical documents. Conclusion: As we conclude, some may still wonder why God chose this approach. I believe two passages help us understand why. The first is II Timothy 2:15: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed…” God expects us to be workmen, not spoon fed children. He wants us to work at knowing Him and understanding His will. The second is Matthew 13:1-17. While this passage deals with parables, it demonstrates a principle of teaching which God follows. He does not teach just to explain. He teaches to divide. He wants to divide between those will see and hear, questioning and learning and those who are satisfied discounting and ignoring. The conclusion of this matter then is not to throw up our hands and quit our faith. The conclusion is that we need to see with our eyes, hear with our ears and be workmen who are unashamed.
Glory
to God in the church by Christ Jesus
|
||||||||||
