Can the various resurrection accounts from the four Gospels be harmonized?

But we speak here more particularly of what are called "harmonies." This has been a favorite method of study by Bible students, and quite an account could be given of the various harmonies compiled, from the first diatessaron to the latest "Harmonies of the four Gospels." While these have very much that is in common, and indeed we may say that the general outlines of the Gospel narratives are not so difficult of recognition, yet there is sufficient divergence in the details which indicates that it is very difficult, not to say impossible, to arrange every portion of the four narratives so as to blend them in one smoothly connected whole.

This is not because there are contradictions, but simply that this was not the object of the Spirit of God in giving us the four-fold record. It is difficult for us to divest ourselves of a certain external exactitude which is really not a proof of the highest kind of accuracy. Probably all of us have passed through, if we are not still in it, the stage in which our idea of harmony means that we can piece together the four narratives so completely as to leave no gaps. \ This might be possible, if, for instance, Matthew or any one of the other Evangelists had written. four Gospels instead of one, with but the one object. In doing this, he could dwell, in one, upon certain features, making provision for the addition of other features which could be taken from a second or a third narrative. When, however, we have four different Evangelists, with four different objects in view, as we have said, this becomes impracticable. The entire method of treatment is different.

But we speak here more particularly of what are called "harmonies." This has been a favorite method of study by Bible students, and quite an account could be given of the various harmonies compiled from the first diatessaron to the latest harmonies of the four Gospels. While these have very much that is in common, and indeed we may say that the general outlines of the Gospel narratives are not so difficult of recognition, yet there is sufficient divergence in the details which indicates that it is very difficult, not to say impossible, to arrange every portion of the four narratives so as to blend them in one smoothly-connected whole. This is not because there are contradictions, but simply that this was not the object of the Spirit of God in giving us the fourfold record.

It is difficult for us to divest ourselves of a certain external exactitude,which is really not a proof of the highest kind of accuracy. Probably all of us have passed through — if we are not still in it — the stage in which our idea of harmony means that we can piece together the four narratives so completely as to leave no gaps. This might be possible, if, for instance, Matthew or any one of the other Evangelists had written four Gospels instead of one, with but the one object. In doing this, he could dwell in one upon certain features, making provision for the addition of other features which could be taken from a second or a third narrative. When, however, we have four different Evangelists with four different objects in view, as we have said, this becomes impracticable. The entire method of treatment is different.

On consideration of these points of diversity it must be admitted that in no instance are they such as to render the narratives incompatible one with another. Luke does not contradict Matthew and Mark, nor do they him. It must further be admitted that in no one of the accounts, nor in all of them taken together, have we the whole of the details of the incident. This is unnecessary, and would indeed be impossible (John 21:25). Details not essential to the purpose of the Gospel are omitted. And while these omissions may sometimes prevent us from piecing together the four narratives into one "harmonious" whole, we are not, in consequence, the losers. On the contrary, the Gospels, as we have them, present the truth exactly as it was intended by the Divine Author that they should. It is only shallow-minded man who regards it as a defect in inspiration that one Evangelist does not supply the historical omissions of his predecessor. He would have arranged them so, because they would then form a series of Sunday school exercises to fit the four one with another like parts of a dissected map. What a poor idea of inspiration is in the minds of many!

It has been asserted that the accounts given of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus in the gospels are discordant and irreconcilable. This is not the case: it has been overlooked that Luke 23:54-56 refers to Friday evening, before the Sabbath, and Matt. 28:1 refers to Saturday evening, after the Sabbath: the women return after viewing the sepulchre and finish their preparations, according to Mark 16:1.

I have brought the facts together from the different Gospels, so that you may see that there is no contradiction. Though the differences are striking, yet how beautifully do the accounts agree.

But in the case of the sacred record regarding the resurrection of our Lord we have two things to point out. First that the four historians, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, do not furnish us with the same incidents and details as to the resurrection of our Lord, showing that it is no put-up job; and, second, seeing the records are inspired, God-breathed, of discrepancies and contradictions there are none.

Many have been the attempts to harmonize the four gospels but it is well to see that each evangelist writes from a particular standpoint, and not with the idea of harmonizing with the other writers, nor even of supplementing what they wrote.

At the same time there is no contradiction in any of their records, and each is intended to fill out our knowledge of the life and death and resurrection of the Lord.

The two Marys had seen the Lord's body placed in the tomb, and the stone rolled to the door (Mark 15:46). All had left the spot on the evening of the Crucifixion. Joseph and Nicodemus had done their appointed work. The women re-entered the holy city, to make ready for their service on the first day of the week, by preparing spices before the Sabbath began (Luke 23:56). During the first night after the Crucifixion, the garden, a precious spot to the women, was deserted, and quietness reigned round the tomb. On the next day, which was the Sabbath, Pilate was visited by the chief priests and Pharisees to request him to put a guard around it, lest, as they said, the disciples, under cover of the next night, should steal the body, and then assert that He was risen. An uneasy feeling evidently possessed them. The guard was set; the tomb was watched. That did not, however, prevent the resurrection. It only attested it. How the enemy outwits himself!*

Meanwhile, on the evening after the guard had been posted, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary visited the tomb (Matt. 28:1). All was quiet. All seemed secure. That body, so precious to them, still lay where it had been placed twenty-four hours previously. Hoping, therefore, to anoint it on the following morning, these two, in common with Salome and others, bought sweet spices for their expected service (Mark 16:1). These movements of the women John passes over, and hastens to tell us of that which befell Mary Magdalene. Visiting the tomb in the early morning, her quick sight discovered that the stone, which she had seen in its place on the previous evening, was rolled away. Had the tomb been rifled? That could not have been done. Had the disciples eluded the watchfulness of the soldiers, and stolen the body? She knew that had not been the case. Had the authorities surreptitiously removed it? That, she might think, was possible. In her excitement she ran for Peter and John, exclaiming, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him" (John 20:2). "We know not," she said, indicating, we believe, that other women had been with her, as we should gather from the Synoptic Gospels. Very likely Mary from a distance discerned the opened door, and ran at once to the two Apostles, whilst the other women went forward for a closer inspection of the tomb.

Our Evangelist, about to relate the Lord's first appearance that day, which was to Mary Magdalene and in the garden, necessarily occupies us with a relation of her movements, to explain how it was that she was alone, when the Lord made Himself known to her. At the tomb early, and other women then with her, she had left it for Peter and John, and returned with them to it. The Apostles, after entering the tomb, left it, and she was now there alone. To harmonise fully the different accounts of the movements of that morning seems quite impossible. No Evangelist has done that, so we must leave it as a task beyond our powers to accomplish. Doubtless the four historians of the Resurrection could have done it, if so minded; but each had a purpose of his own, and followed that out. Should these differences in the accounts trouble any, and weaken confidence in the authenticity of the narratives? Quite the contrary. Impostors would have sought to harmonise the accounts. The sacred writers, however, assured of the truthfulness of their statements, leave that unattempted. On one fact, however, Mark and John are agreed. The first appearance was made to Mary (Mark 16:9; John 20:11-16), and with that the son of Zebedee begins his account of that ever-memorable morning, but how it came about John is our only informant.

Pilate tells the chief priests and elders to take care of the matter themselves. Is there not the ring of irony and doubt in his words when he tells them, "make it as sure as ye can?" For he had seen such spiritual power in the Lord Jesus in contrast to the chief priests that he evidently despised their precautions. They however seal the stone and set a watch, that is, four soldiers of the Sanhedrin in turn, around the clock. They defeat their own ends in doing so, for the watch was there to witness the startling events attending His resurrection.The Sabbath coming to an end, the two Mary's arrive at the grave early in the morning. Some have thought that Mary Magdalene came twice, though this does not seem clear, except that she evidently returned after she told Peter and John of the absence of the Lord's body (John 20:1-11). It is difficult to determine how the four accounts of the Gospel writers fit together in place, and the writer is not aware of any satisfactory explanation of this. But we know that each account is inspired of God and perfectly true: to value each in its place is our wisdom.

But time with them was short. The day declined. Evening shades of the approaching Sabbath were advancing over the earth (Luke 23:54). Embalmment could not take place that night. All therefore was done that could be within the limited time, and the stone that formed the door of the tomb was then rolled into its place, and the aperture closed. With what interest must the angels have watched those two men intent on their work! But not angels only were spectators (though surely they were) for women which had come with the Lord from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the tomb, and how His body was laid. Luke is general in his statement. Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, mention but two: Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses. Two men to bury, two women looking on, mourners in the truest sense — these only can we name as present at the funeral of the Lord Jesus Christ.

To make provision for the proper embalming of the body on the day after the Sabbath was all that remained for loving hearts to do, ministering to Him as they had done probably often in life. One last service, ere the form of the One they loved would be hidden from their sight, they could, and they desired to, perform. Resting on the Sabbath according to the commandment, Mary Magdalene, Mark tells us (16:1), and Mary the mother of James, and Salome the Virgin's sister, when the Sabbath was past — i.e., in the evening — bought sweet spices that they might be ready to anoint Him. And not content with that, those two Marys had likewise on that same evening visited the tomb, and had seen that all was secure. Of this visit Matthew tells us (28:1), fixing the time of it, as his words imply, viz., late in the evening, when the Sabbath was past. But, of course, evening would not have been a suited time to begin the process of embalmment. All arrangements were, however, then completed that they might carry out their purpose early in the morning. The hours of night passed, and at early dawn they went forth on their errand, carrying the spices which they had prepared. It seems to have been essentially woman's work. They had no man with them, nor apparently had they asked any to meet them in the garden. In what follows we shall not attempt to harmonise the different accounts of the visit paid on that morning to the tomb, content to follow Luke's history, who treats of this in a very general way. The names of certain women he does give — viz., Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James — and the words of the angels to them at the tomb he narrates, leaving it to John (20) to specify Mary Magdalene's movements, and to Matthew (28:9-10) to record the Lord's appearance to some of the women on their way back to the city.

Angelic Communication. — Reaching the spot dear to them, they found the stone rolled away, so they entered the tomb expecting to find the body as Joseph and Nicodemus had left it. But it was not there. Safe in the tomb the previous evening and guarded by the soldiers, it was there no longer. Was it stolen? Who would steal it? Besides, the linen clothes in which it had been enwrapped were there. Very unlikely that any one should have taken the body and left the shroud. Where were the guards? They had, it would seem, already disappeared, frightened, terribly frightened, by the appearance of the angel (Matt. 28:4). No human being was about to explain the unexpected occurrence. Perplexed they were, and no wonder. Their suspense, however, was not of long duration. For two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. Perplexity now gave way to fright, and with their faces bowed down to the earth they listened to the communication of these heavenly beings. At the birth of the Lord angels had spoken (Luke 2:13-14); at His resurrection they again opened their mouths. "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake to you when He was yet 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" (Luke 24:5-7). That, which none of them had previously taken in, they began to apprehend. The Lord had told them of it beforehand, and the angels just remind them of the Lord's prophetic announcement. They now remembered His words. Interest in that tomb must cease. The Lord was not there. They left it, perhaps spices and all, to tell the eleven and all the rest.