You’re waiting for the
light to turn green and for the car in front of you to go. The next things you experience
are the sounds of screeching tires, and the unsettling vision of steel clashing
and grinding against steel. You are suddenly eye witness to a collision right
in the middle of the intersection. Broken glass, crumpled automobiles, and
steaming radiators (not to mention steaming tempers) are not thirty feet in
front of you, and you saw it all unfold right before your eyes.
The investigating officer wants to hear your version
of events, but not just yours. He wants to hear from as many witnesses, from as
many different perspectives as possible. He wants to compare your version with
that bystander’s, who also saw it all, but from the sidewalk ninety degrees
from where you were sitting in your car. And he wants to compare those
perspectives with the driver of the car that was sitting in the mirror-opposite
direction of where you were sitting, but not because he believes anyone is
lying. None of these witnesses has anything to gain or lose by lying about the
chain of events leading up to, and involved in this accident. It’s just that
the serious investigator will get a clearer picture of what actually happened
by seeing it from the varying angles of the three witnesses.
Matthew,
Mark, and Luke are such witnesses. I used to be amazed that three people could
observe and write about the ministry of Jesus, and have similar yet completely
different perspectives about the work of Christ. A couple of these witnesses
even “caught” things the others apparently missed, or perhaps just ignored!
Mark,
as I understand it, was the first to write about the life and times of Jesus,
followed by Matthew’s version of events some twenty years later. Finally Luke,
by his own testimony in Luke 1:1-4, having apparently read and studied
Matthew’s and Mark’s versions of events and interviewing “eyewitnesses” to the
life of Christ, decided he needed to fill-in some blanks.
The
skeptic might view what I call perspectives as contradictions, but not the true
investigator, who hopes to see and understand the big picture. The true
investigator will take Mark’s first, rather hurried version, compare it to
Matthew’s very Jewish perspective, and finally compare all of that to Dr.
Luke’s more verbose, physician’s perspective, thus gaining a much clearer
picture of Jesus, His purpose, and His ministry.
The
skeptic will claim such so-called contradictions are evidence that the Bible
isn’t the inspired Word of God at all, but simply a collection of interesting
anecdotes; however, the true investigator will see that the story tellers are
guided by the invisible hand of God Himself, in order that we mere mortals
might understand His purposes more clearly.
I can
imagine Matthew reading what we’ve come to know as Mark’s Gospel and thinking,
“Are you serious, Mark? How could you possibly have missed so many of the Old
Testament prophesies that have been fulfilled in Christ? Kids! They get in such
a hurry.” (Mark was the youngest of the Gospel writers.)
I can
also imagine Dr. Luke, the physician, reading both Mark’s and Luke’s Gospels
and thinking, “Oh my, these guys are just going to confuse my dear friend,
Theophilus. I need to write “an orderly account” (Luke 1:3 NKJV), so the
detailed doctor takes Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospels, and “completes” them, in
his mind at least, by his research.
To the
skeptic, and perhaps even to the witnesses themselves, this has the makings of
controversy and confusion; but the skilled investigator, honestly seeking the
truth, sees the invisible hand of God at work in these three, very different
personalities, having seen things from very different perspectives. God smiles
at the frustrations of the three witnesses who, unknowingly and imperfectly,
are doing His perfect work.
This
is why I pray, every day, “Lord, help me to see things from your perspective.”
After
all, isn’t it ultimately His perspective that really matters?
