Perspectives of the Empty Tomb

One of the greatest criticisms leveled against the events of the Resurrection are the perceived “inconsistencies” that exist in the four Gospel accounts. Unbelievers love to point out the fact that each of the Gospel writers capture the events of that Sunday morning a little differently than the others. They say these “inconsistencies” invalidate the veracity of the events. Is there merit to such criticism? And if so, what are we to make of it?
Well, let me begin by saying this: There are absolutely no inconsistencies in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John’s accounts of the Resurrection. Yes, it is true that each of them writes a slightly different version of events, but these versions don’t contradict each other, they complement one another. And this is arguably the greatest argument that can be made to their veracity, namely that four writers contribute details to the event that the others don’t. This collective testimony serves to make the retelling more sound, not less. Let me elaborate.
Imagine you are standing on a street corner, and you witness an automobile accident. Depending on your point of view, you’re going to retell the events to the police officer as you saw them unfold. Now, imagine there was another person on the other side of the intersection that saw something you didn’t. Further, there are the testimonies of those who were driving the cars, and there are the testimonies of those who saw everything from inside a building. Everyone will have retellings of the same event based on point of view. They are not wrong in themselves because they are simply being perceived from a limited perspective. Collectively, however, they give the officer a very solid account of exactly what happened. The officer, then, can have certainty in drawing conclusions.
The same is true for the Gospel writers. Remember, each of them had a different perspective of the Resurrection events. For example, none of them were there initially – only the women were there; and depending on who these women talked to after the fact determined what ultimately ended up in each writers’ account. Additionally, John was the only Gospel writer who was personally on the ground that morning. Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not there. This, then, explains why John’s account includes much more vivid details than the others. Lastly, Mark got his information from Peter (who was at the tomb) so that explains why his account says what it does. All of this to say that, together, the four accounts give us a solid account of the events as they happened, from differing perspectives. Together, they help us form a solid conclusion – just like the police officer who is collecting evidence to draw his/her conclusion.
This isn’t Gospel inconsistency, it’s Gospel veracity. And aside from these alleged “inconsistencies”, each of the Gospels ends the same way: with an empty tomb! Skeptics and critics don’t care to address that, though. All they want to do is draw everyone’s attention away from the empty grave and toward something that doesn’t exist.
Sunday, we will all celebrate an empty tomb! We will gather to celebrate that God has power over the grave and has extended that same power to us through salvation. We will celebrate how Jesus’s victory over death was the first time in human history that such a thing became possible and that we no longer have to fear it. Death is defeated – it is dead – thanks to the wonderful work of God the Father (He initiated it), God the Son (He accomplished it) and God the Spirit (He empowered it). We will celebrate what the Scriptures say concerning all this, and we will celebrate, by faith, that Christ has overcome death for us as well. He is alive!

Blessings,
Bro. Ben