Buried under 63 other books of the Bible are three books which defy human understanding
in terms of their origins.
They are referred to as the synoptic Gospels, from a word which means 'looking the same'.
Literally dozens of stories and quotations appear in each of these books
which are identical or almost identical to accounts which appear in one or both of the other two Gospels.
And yet they are not simply copies of the same book; they are each different.
Different to the extent that they each contain whole stories
which do not appear in either of the other Gospels.
And even in the same stories, they each contain details which are unique to themselves.
The evidence suggests, on the one hand, that they have each independently
put together their own account of the life and the teachings of Jesus the Christ
and on the other hand, that they have each copied
from the others, to have come up with such an incredible consistency in most of what they say.
There is a principle which runs as a theme throughout the Bible
that is summed up with the words, "two or three witnesses."
One person speaking on their own may well be telling the truth
but in very important matters it is far safer to err on the side of caution
unless one can produce two or three independent witnesses to verify the truth of the matter.
This was the case with legal issues in the Old Testament.
A criminal could not be executed on the testimony of only one witness.
Jesus also promised that he would be present in our midst
only when there are two or more of us united in service to him.
And the Revelation predicts that there will be not one
but two witnesses who will prepare the world for the second coming of Jesus.
When there is something of great importance, with so much resting on its authenticity
we are not just allowed, but we're more or less required to hold out for a second or a third witness.
Such must be the case with regard to the absolutely incredible things that this itinerant preacher
the carpenter's son from Nazareth, had the audacity to say.
In those three Gospels Jesus said that he had been sent here to Earth
to reveal the will of the creator of the universe.
He said that he could forgive sins, and that he could offer eternal life
to as many people as he might choose to give such a gift.
All we need to do is show by our actions that we believe him when he tells us such amazing things.
He went further and instructed his followers to give up everything that we own
leave our families, quit our jobs, and go into all the world
preaching the good news of such a heavenly kingdom of faith and love.
He had the cheek to tell us that we should be prepared to literally
suffer torture and death in obedience to him.
Surely, such claims require evidence that they really are coming from the most reliable of all reliable sources
from God himself.
In those three books--the synoptic Gospels
there are accounts of this man, Jesus, healing people miraculously
walking on water, feeding thousands of people from just a few loaves of bread and a few fish
raising the dead and then returning from the dead himself.
But, anyone can write a book making such claims.
It would not be all that hard to get three people to conspire together to write such a book.
So how can we be certain that this particular message has really come from God?
Well, one of the claims I've made numerous times on this channel
is that we need only experiment with the teachings ourselves
to see God's provision, feeding us and clothing us as we step out in faith.
That's the ultimate proof.
But today I want to examine more closely the miracle of the origins of those three books
as further evidence of God's stamp of authority on them.
In another book, Jesus is quoted as having said that he would return to us like a ghost
for the express purpose of bringing to our remembrance
whatever he had said to his first followers, when he walked the earth.
Now, that's the express purpose for the coming of this holy miraculous ghost
to remind us--supernaturally if necessary--of everything that Jesus taught.
We have that remembrance in the most objective and demonstrable way, in these three synoptic Gospels.
Three independent witnesses, in unbelievable agreement
reminding us almost word-for-word of all that Jesus said.
But the wonder of this has been largely unnoticed for centuries
mostly through false assumptions which have not been well thought out.
What most of us assume is that these three writers all more or less had access to the same material
from which some chose certain stories and others chose others.
We imagine three men seated at the table, discussing which stories
and which details to leave out and which ones to leave in.
Mostly they agree, but they each disagreed too; Luke, for example, included the story of the Good Samaritan
and the prodigal son, while Matthew and Mark preferred to leave that out.
And Matthew tells about the sheep and the goats, the parable of the ten virgins
the cursing of the fig tree, the workers in the vineyard, the coin in the fish's mouth, Jesus
walking on water, and much more that Luke apparently took no interest in.
Now, why would any of them do that?
Sitting down together and exchanging notes, is not how it would have happened
nor indeed, it is not how it could have happened.
If these three brothers in Christ had set at the table working together on such a project
they would have certainly come up with a single document
which combined the memories of each of them
the most complete collection of the events
and the teachings and the life of Jesus that they could possibly come up with.
For that is obviously what each of them independently sought.
There would be no need to have three different versions.
Such a situation would have only caused confusion.
On the other hand, if their disagreements had been based on distrust of the others
strong and specific arguments against the veracity of the other two
then they would have almost certainly had to say so, and they would not have tried so hard to copy
word-for-word, what the others--they're supposed opponents--had said in the stories on which they agreed.
This is the basis of the mystery surrounding those three Gospels
their incredible unity, and yet they're equally obvious independence.
Experts agree that they could not have had so much divergence of what they wrote
if they had worked together; they must have written independently.
So, how do we explain the consistencies?
One theory, which works to a point, is that Mark wrote first.
Then Matthew and Luke later took what he had written, and they each added to it, based on their own memories.
This would explain why Mark left out so much that the others included.
He simply forgot to mention a lot of other stories.
Then Matthew and Luke came along, much later, to improve on what Mark wrote.
They still give no explanation for why they left out a few things.
Amongst other things
Matthew refused to tell the story of the demon-possessed man in the synagogue at Capernaum
and he chose to leave out any mention of Jesus ascending into heaven.
While Luke, he removed any reference to John the Baptist being beheaded by Herod
and he made no mention of Jesus walking on water or cursing the fig tree.
There are several other miracles that neither of them felt worthy to include in their records
even though Mark included them in his.
But this is not nearly as much as what Mark had left out of their writings.
So, it is easier to gloss over the snub that Matthew and Luke
apparently gave to things that Mark wrote, and hope the people will not question it.
And there is a much bigger problem with the next step in this theory
the theory about Mark never having seen what Matthew and Luke wrote
because he wrote so many years before they wrote--and here is the problem.
Even if you can excuse the others leaving so much that Mark wrote out of their own longer narrations
it is not possible to justify Matthew and Luke having so many more differences between themselves.
And just saying that one or the other of Matthew and Luke wrote last, does not solve the problem.
There is as much evidence to say
that Matthew wrote his gospel last, as there is to say that Luke wrote his last.
For in each case, they--all three of them in fact--include material that evidence would suggest
they copied from the other two, in order for it to have been so consistent.
But by the same token
there is equal evidence that they could not have seen everything that the others wrote
and still have left so much powerfully significant material out of their own version.
In short, each of them appear to have only limited knowledge of what the others wrote
and yet what they do share in common comes out so perfectly consistent with what the others wrote
that it just could not have happened by coincidence.
There is this common unifying thread which defies all the evidence of them having each written independently
and that thread is the remarkable consistency in what they say.
Now, what I would say is the most obvious explanation is this
the Holy Spirit moved each of them as they each independently wrote what they could remember.
The Holy Spirit moved them to be precisely consistent with the other two.
Not so consistent as to have come up with exact copies
but close enough that it was clear that there is a miraculous authority behind what they said.
Every word was being established in the mouth of, "two or three witnesses."
God did not deprive them of their will, nor did he give them superhuman memories
but working with what they did recall, he gave them each the same words
to such a degree that there can be nothing to deny that this is miraculous.
Yes, a miracle of biblical proportions, in the biggest possible way.
And he did it for the express purpose of putting his stamp of approval on what those three men wrote
that far exceeds the evidence of authenticity that we have for any other incident or passage in the entire Bible.
I'll leave you with just this one illustration of the many passages that these three men recalled verbatim
assured that this one, in particular, testifies to the eternal significance of those three synoptic Gospels
over anything else that has ever been written.
They have each declared that Jesus said, "Heaven and Earth may pass away
"but my words shall never pass away."
Praise God! How true, how true.
We cannot but stand in total amazement at the evidence that the creator of the universe has given us
in what he brought to the remembrance of those three men.
Now, if I may just add a little postscript: there will be two arguments given
to counter what I just said here, so I may as well deal with them now.
One is that it is possible that Matthew and Luke both worked
from some other missing and imaginary documents, which includes some of what the others wrote
but not the rest.
So, that is why they each missed some important information.
My response to that is that we come right back to where we started.
Where did those imaginary manuscripts come from, and how is it that they were so close to word perfect as well?
The other argument is that all three of them were simply putting into writing great slabs of Scripture
which had been memorized over the intervening years between the day of Pentecost
and whenever it was that the three Gospels were written.
It's quite likely that the early Christians had, in fact, memorized much of what Jesus said and did
and they passed it on through oral repetition.
But that too fails to answer the question of how it is that all of those stories were remembered so word perfectly
albeit with some churches leaving out bits and pieces that other churches included.
Where did they get the words from to begin with?
And if whole stories could have been left out because of flaws in the memories of various congregations
then how were the exact words retained so flawlessly.
Do you see how the same problem exists in all three theories?
The same mystery surrounds other manuscripts, oral tradition, and the three gospel writers themselves.
How could they have been so different, and at the same time
have been so identical in what they each did include?
This mystery can only be explained through intervention by the Holy Spirit
the one who Jesus promised would do exactly that.
He would bring to our remembrance all that Jesus began to both do and speak.
Praise God for such powerful evidence of his role in giving us these three books.
Now, there's only one question left to answer.
What are you going to do was such a great miracle
performed by God himself, in order to deliver that great message to you?
Please, fall on the rock of Christ's teachings today and let them break you, before they fall on you
and grind you to powder when he returns.
For Heaven and Earth may pass away, but his words shall never pass away.
Amen.