5. Is a Different Perspective Involved
Sometimes we can be sure of what verses say and confident that we understand what they mean – and also know that nothing changed between two accounts that might make them seem to be at variance – yet a conflict does still seem to exist. At this point we must look at the perspective involved in what is said. To do this we may have to look at the perspective of the person who is speaking in the account, the perspective of the writer who recorded the words, or even the perspective of the original readers of the biblical documents in which the difficult verses occur. In this chapter we will look at an example from the New Testament of each of these types of verse.
The Order of the Temptations
Our first example is a simple one: the story of the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, after his baptism. The story is found in two of the Gospels – Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13 – and although these accounts are in close agreement, some have claimed they are contradictory because they list the temptations in a different order. This has been said to show disagreement among the New Testament writers and to prove that their differing accounts could not have been inspired. Matthew records the temptations Jesus underwent as: 1. Turn stones into bread to satisfy his physical hunger, 2. Leap from the temple pinnacle to show his divine nature, 3. Worship Satan to receive great power. Luke changes the order of these temptations slightly to: 1. Turn stones into bread, 2. Worship Satan, 3. Leap from the temple pinnacle. However, there is a very likely reason for the different order given in Matthew's Gospel and that of Luke. We must remember that Matthew's
Gospel was written to a Jewish audience. Luke's Gospel, on the other hand, seems to have been written to a primarily Greek-speaking audience. Many of the differences between the two Gospels – for example, the genealogies of Jesus – are clearly as a result of the audiences addressed. The stories of the temptation of Jesus are no exception.
In Matthew, from a Jewish perspective, the temptations are arranged in an increasing order – from using God's power for personal needs, to taking a wrong path to fulfilling God's will, to finally placing another god before God himself. For a Jewish audience, all these temptations would seem serious, but there is no question that they would be seen as being in an increasing order.
In Luke, the order of the temptations is subtly but importantly changed. For a gentile Greek audience, the temptation to privately perform the miracle of changing stones to bread would not be as great as a temptation to receive great power and rulership in the world (through the worship of Satan), but that would itself not seem as great a temptation as publicly becoming like a god oneself (through being divinely lowered from the temple pinnacle). Luke's order of the temptations perfectly fits this gentile Greek perspective, as do so many of the details in his Gospel.
There is another point we should consider in looking at these accounts. Matthew's order of the temptations not only fits the Jewish perspective, but also seems to be in actual chronological order. We see this in the fact that Matthew uses chronological markers in his account – he writes "then" or some similar term before each of the temptations to show that one followed the other (Matthew 4:1, 5, 8, 11). Luke, however, uses no chronological markers and simply tells us what the temptations were – in an order that would more understandable to his own primarily non Jewish audience.
When we take into account the different cultural perspectives of the original readers of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels – and the exact wording of the accounts – we see there is no real contradiction between the two narratives at all.
Do the Resurrection Accounts Conflict?
It is common for some who reject Christianity to speak of the "clear contradictions" among the Gospel accounts of the resurrection (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20). The four accounts are frequently attacked as being inconsistent in terms of the witnesses to the event, its timing, and what the witnesses saw. We will look at these aspects individually and see how the issue of perspective affects them:
The Witnesses: Matthew 28:1 states that two women (Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary") came to the tomb of Jesus, whereas Mark 16:1 states that there were three women (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome). In Luke 24:10 we find three women named, but a different list of three than Mark gives (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Joanna); finally, John 20:1 mentions only Mary Magdalene. Clearly, a number of women went to the tomb that morning, but it is likely that each Gospel writer mentions the particular women that he had heard were there. The fact that there is so much agreement between the lists is, in fact, a point for their authenticity rather than some kind of contradiction. John mentions only Mary Magdalene, likely because she was either the first to arrive at the tomb or she was the leader of the group of women. But in each case the reporting perspective of the writer is all that is really different. Timing of the Event: John 20:1 states "it was still dark" when Mary arrived at the tomb, but Mark 16:2 states it was "just after sunrise" when the women arrived. Once again, perhaps Mary Magdalene (who alone is mentioned by John) arrived at the tomb a little earlier than the others. Thus, from John's perspective it was dark, whereas from the other writers' perspective it was now light when the other women arrived. What Was Witnessed: While Matthew 28:2 tells us "an angel" rolled away the stone sealing the tomb and sat upon it, Mark 16:5 says the women found "a young man" sitting by the tomb. Luke 24:4 says the women saw "two men," and in John 20:1 it is not recorded that Mary Magdalene saw anything other than the moved stone. But Matthew does not say there was only one angel, just that one moved the stone. The "young man" mentioned by Mark was clearly how the women had described the angel. The fact that John does not mention the two "men" does not mean that they were not there – his account is written from the perspective of Mary Magdalene and it is possible that when she arrived at the tomb – somewhat before the other women – no one else was present. So this is hardly a contradictory situation.
As the theologian N.T. Wright has written, "It is a commonplace among lawyers that eyewitnesses disagree, but that this doesn't mean nothing happened." (Surprised by Hope, Harper 2008, p. 33). Given four separate accounts of the same event, one would expect differences of detail to be remembered by the different witnesses, and differences in the stress placed on certain details by the four writers as they recorded the event from their own perspectives.
Did Jesus Say the End Would Come in That Generation or Not?
Some of the statements of Jesus have been interpreted as being contradictory regarding when the end times would occur. Scriptures that supposedly show this are found in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 where his disciples asked Jesus when the end would come and he replied "See that you are not alarmed … the end is not yet" (Matthew 24:6 ESV; and the parallels in the other Gospels). But in these same chapters Jesus is also recorded as saying: "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Matthew 24:34).
These verses only seem to be contradictory if we look at them from our own perspective, much later in history. When we look at them from the perspective of the original readers of the Gospels, we see there need be no problem. When Jesus spoke of the things that were due to take place before "this generation" passes away, he was speaking in response to a question asked by his disciples. They were impressed by the grandeur of the Jerusalem temple, but Jesus told them, "Do you see all these things? … Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down" (Matthew 24:2). This statement naturally aroused the disciples' curiosity and they asked Jesus what signs would indicate A) when the destruction would occur, and B) when Christ would return (Matthew 24:3).
It is known that the prophetic warnings that Jesus then gave regarding the disciples' first question – about the demolishing of the temple – were fulfilled in AD 70 with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. These were the events that were fulfilled within a generation (forty years by Jewish reckoning) of Christ's prediction. But other statements contained in his discourse on the Mount of Olives in the same chapters of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were in answer to the second question regarding his coming and have a clear setting in a distant future, as we see, for example, in the prophecies: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come" (Matthew
24:14), and "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now – and never to be equaled again" (Matthew 24:21) – neither of which was fulfilled in AD 70.
So, there is no real contradiction between statements of Jesus regarding signs that would be fulfilled within a generation of that time and others that would be fulfilled in some later, unspecified generation – of which Jesus clearly stated that "about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Matthew 24:36). Although this duality is clearly shown only by Matthew (who alone mentions both of the disciples' questions), there is no reason to believe it could not have been the perspective of the other Gospel writers and the readers of these accounts. The perspective of the original speakers, the writers, and the original readers of the Bible all must be taken into account in fully understanding the Scriptures. And when they are, many apparent contradictions disappear.