(Text and Audio)
Title: Contradiction, and Cold Case Christianity
Today, we enter the final Chapter of the book of the Gospel of Matthew! (And if my calculations are correct, we will finish Matthew sometime in the Fall of 2023!)
(Read/Pray)
Matthew 28:1-4
Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.
(READ/PRAY)
Parallel Study:
Mark 16:1-5
Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
- We now know that “the other Mary” referred to in Matthew is Mary the Mother of James.
- Salome was also with the two Mary’s.
- Who was Salome?
The righteous Salome was the wife of Zebedee (Matthew 27:56), the mother of the disciples James and John, and a female follower of Jesus. This Salome was the one who came to Jesus with the request that her sons sit in places of honor in the kingdom (Matthew 20:20–21). She was also one of the women “looking on from a distance” when Jesus was being crucified—with her were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph and James (Mark 15:40). These same women were together on the third day after that, bringing spices to Jesus’ tomb to anoint Him. When they encountered the angel, who told them that Jesus was risen, they ran to tell the disciples the good news (Mark 16:1–8). Mark’s Gospel is the only one that mentions Salome by name.
Luke 24:1-7
Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. Then, as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the earth, they said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’”
- What is the HUGE question that pops up after reading Luke?
- Were there TWO men, as Luke suggests, or ONE, as Matthew and Mark suggest? (This is THE question of today’s sermon, and it also involves the Gospel of John, so let’s read his account before proceeding.)
John 20:1-2
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”
So the big question we face this morning is this: Were there two angels at the Tomb or one.
More importantly: Are the Gospels contradicting themselves here?
First of all, is why is this such an important question to be able to answer, what is really at stake here? (Take answers)
I will admit to all of you freely this morning that I am not intimidated by these types of questions. In fact, I rather like them. They provide an opportunity to sharpen my apologetic skills, and generally, I love a good debate, especially with a skeptic.
So at first my response when preparing this message was, “Ben, you got this, you love this stuff, you have explained answers to questions like this for years. You have taught classes on this, you have read countless books and articles on this, and you have debated both believers and non-believers on issues of the trustworthiness of Scripture for years. You could teach this in your sleep.”
Then I heard another voice, one that wasn’t my own, that said, “Ok hotshot. Maybe you should just do a little bit of reading and research, as a service to your congregation, and see if maybe, possibly, you might find something that does an even better job than you of explaining these concepts.
I am so glad I listened to that suggestion from the Spirit. Because I came across a new website, and I want to share a bit of what I found with you.
Some thoughts from J. Warner Wallace
(give some background on Wallace as a homicide detective)
In the many supplemental interview reports I’ve read over the years as a cold case detective, I’ve come to learn an important principle: Eyewitness accounts are largely dependent upon the questions asked by the interviewer.
I’ll never forget one example of this. In a case from 1981, I reviewed three reports written by three different detectives who interviewed three separate witnesses. Two of these detectives had since passed away, so I couldn’t ask them about their interview process.
But I observed an apparent contradiction in the witness accounts. One of the witnesses mentioned nothing about an important detail of the crime. It seemed to be a glaring discrepancy. When I located the witness and re-interviewed her, I asked her about her old observations and she immediately included the missing component. I then asked her why she hadn’t told this to the original detective who interviewed her. She had a simple answer: “He never asked me!” The first detective never specifically asked about the issue, so the witness never offered the information. Eyewitness testimony is often shaped by the kinds of questions asked by the interviewer.
Each (Gospel) author appears to be answering a different question, and the question under consideration guides the response, especially when it comes to the number of angels present at the tomb.
Let’s begin here with a simple observation made by Norm Geisler in his book, When Critics Ask:
“Matthew does not say there was only one angel. John [and Luke] say there were two, and wherever there are two there is always one; it never fails!” This simple truth must be kept in mind before we examine the details. In order for there to be a true contradiction here, Matthew or Mark would have to say there was only one angel. This was, of course, not the case. There were two angels at the tomb of Jesus, and neither account said there was only one.
But why is there a difference at all? As I described earlier, it comes down to the questions each author was trying to address.
Matthew and Mark addressed one question while Luke and John addressed another. Each was focused on a particular issue and this guided their decision about what they reported.
Matthew and Mark addressed the issue of the earthquake and the removal of the stone. Matthew wrote, “And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.” What caused the earthquake? An angel came and rolled away the stone. From this point on, Matthew was singularly focused on this angel and what he told the women. Mark was similarly focused. He reported the women “…were saying to one another, ‘Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?’ Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed.” Once again the question under examination was: who rolled away the stone. The answer? One angel, and this angel became the focus of Matthew and Mark’s account.
Luke and John was addressing different concerns, however. While Luke, for example, also mentioned the rolling of the stone, he focused on the concerns the women had about the missing body: “And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing.” What were the women perplexed about? The fact they could not find the body of Jesus. Then they see two angels and the rest of the narrative was centered on their interaction with these angels.
John was similarly fixated. John’s account is much less concerned with the interaction between the angels and the women. Instead it moves quickly from the grave scene to the report the women make to the disciples. But look at what the women reportedly said: “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” Once again they addressed the issue of how Jesus was assisted out of the tomb, and once again the description of the angels was plural.
When describing who rolled away the stone, the Gospel authors reported only one angel. When describing who helped Jesus from the tomb, the Gospel authors reported two angels.
If I still had access to the eyewitnesses or their interviewers, I would definitely ask them to talk about the stone removal and the missing body in a more unified, consistent way, but like many of my cold cases, witnesses or interviewers are no longer available. But if I could ask why a particular element is missing (either a description of who rolled the stone or who helped Jesus from the tomb), I suspect the witness’ answer would be something akin to: “He never asked me!”
Each author addressed different questions and didn’t see a need to unify their description to match the others. This lack of effort to make the accounts match is yet another evidence, in my view, of their reliability.
As I said in my last post, when people have the opportunity to align their statements, yet still refuse to do so, I know I am getting the nuanced observations I need to properly investigate the case.
The Gospel authors (and the early Church) certainly had the opportunity to change the descriptions to make sure they matched, but they refused to do so. As a result, we can have even more confidence in the reliability of these accounts. They display the level of variation I would expect to see if they were true, reliable eyewitness descriptions.
Closing Exercise:
Q: By what power did Christ rise?
A: God the Father made this happen.
Q: Why is it essential that Christ did not rise through any power (supernatural or otherwise) of His own?
A: If He had, He was never really dead.
Q: What then, does it suggest about Jesus’s mission, that the Father brought him out of the grave?
A: That the Father approved. That Jesus’s message of being a PERFECT savior was a success. The resurrection confirms that.