05.13. Introduction - The Four Gospels
I INTRODUCTION – THE FOUR GOSPELS The New Testament is the ultimate authority for the life of Christ. In that collection of books, this life is set forth in four distinct phases:
His eternal existence, essential Deity, relations and activities as pure spirit prior to all time and history.
His foreshadowing in time prior to his incarnation. This is done by an interpretation of the Old Testament.
His incarnation, or earth life, from his birth to his death. The glory life of his exalted humanity, from his resurrection to the end of time.
Usually, however, when men speak of the life of our Lord they mean his earth life from his birth to his death. Even in studying his earth life only, it is helpful to know well:
His human antecedents, as set forth in the Old Testament history of his people.
The history of that people in the 400 years interval between the close of the Old Testament and the opening of the New Testament.
The geography and topography of the land of Palestine, the scene of his life and labors, together with the political, religious, and social conditions of his people at the time of his birth and during his life.
The successful preacher or teacher must often repeat, or restate in new forms, what he has preached or taught before, because there is little remembrance of former things, and because there is constant change of hearers or students unfamiliar with his previous teaching or preaching; and because no one statement of any truth sufficiently fixes itself in the mind of the hearer or reader. Repeated hammering is needed to drive a nail to its head, and even then we need to clinch it.
On account of this necessity for repetition, we commence with definitions many times given before. Our English word, "scriptures," means, etymologically, any kind of writings as contrasted with oral statements. Our English words, "Holy Scriptures," mean "sacred writings," or inspired writings, as distinguished from profane writings. Our English word, "Bible," means a library, or collection of books. And hence, "Holy Bible," would mean a sacred library. This sacred library consists of two grand divisions, entitled "Old Testament" and "New Testament." The Old Testament consists of thirty-nine books, arranged in a threefold division of Law, Prophets, and Psalms. Likewise the New Testament consists of twenty-seven books, divided into three general classifications – that is, five books of history, twenty-one letters or books of doctrine and discipline, and one book of prophecy.
This classification, however, must not be strictly pressed, since the five books entitled histories contain letters, doctrines, and prophecies; and the twenty-one letters contain history, prophecy, and doctrines; and the one book of prophecy contains letters, history, and doctrines.
Of these New Testament books, Paul wrote fourteen; John, five; Luke and Peter, two each; Matthew, Mark, James, and Jude, one each. And since Paul influenced both of Luke’s books, a majority of the books, and more than half of the contents of the New Testament may be attributed directly or indirectly to Paul.
The English word, "testament," whether Old or New, was derived from the Latin, based on such passages as: Luke 22:14-20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; Hebrews 8:9-13; Hebrews 9:16-17, and is a misnomer, since the Greek word so rendered means "covenant," but in the Bible it is never applied to a collection of books. The word, indeed, has the meaning of a last will and testament in two instances only, of Biblical usage, both in the game connection, Hebrews 9:16-17. So used in that sense it simply points out one analogy between a covenant and a last will and testament, to wit: that the death of a victim ratifies a covenant, as the death of a testator precedes inheritance under his will. The mischievous effect of this rendering "testament" in other instances of usage not only obscures the connection of thought between the Old and New Covenants, but appears historically and particularly in the fact that one large and modern Christian denomination, popularly known as Campbellites, deduces the most distinguishing articles of their creed and practice from this incorrect rendering, together with their faulty interpretations of some other passages. Substantially, their argument is this:
The New Testament is God’s last will and testament.
Its provision of inheritance cannot be effective until after the death of the testator, Jesus Christ.
The chief blessing of the inheritance is the forgiveness of sins.
Sins under the Old Testament, and up to Christ’s death, were not actually forgiven, but only passed over until the coming and death of the Testator, quoting Romans 3:25.
Therefore, in determining the New Testament law of pardon, they contend that we must not consider the Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but must consult only the books concerning matters after his death. Hence they find the law of pardon in Acts 2:38, and contend that then was Christ’s kingdom set up, and then only was this law of pardon published, to wit: "Repent and be immersed in his name, in order to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Therefore, they make baptism a condition of salvation and of the reception of the Holy Spirit, and an essential part of regeneration.
Their contention, based on this argument, is set forth elaborately in a book by Ezell, one of their teachers, entitled, The Great Inheritance. We defer until we come to Acts 2:38, the correction of their erroneous exegesis of that passage, and merely state now that the capital defect of the whole contention consists in confounding expiation toward God with remission of sins toward man. It is true that the expiation of sins toward God did not historically take place until Christ died, but it is utterly untrue that the remission of sins toward man did not precede this expiation, since remission came as truly in the Old Testament times as in the New Testament times, because of God’s acceptance of the pledge of expiation by his Son.
While we think it well to show the incorrectness and mischievous tendency of this misnomer, yet the term, "testament," is so fixed in our literature as applied to the two collections of books so styled, we accept the common usage, modified by this explanation.
In like manner the Greek word rendered "gospel" means, etymologically, good tidings of any kind, but in this collection of books it means the good tidings of salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord. Nowhere in New Testament usage does the word "gospel" mean a history, as when we say, "the Gospel according to Matthew." The word "gospel" occurs often alone, or with the article only; as "preach the gospel," or "believe the gospel." In connection with the Father we have the usage: "The Gospel of God," "The Gospel of the grace of God," "The Gospel of the glory of the happy God." In connection with the Son we have the usage: "The Gospel of the Son," "The Gospel of Christ," "The Gospel of Jesus Christ," "The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." It is also used with another modifying term, "The Gospel of the Kingdom," and it is used with reference to its purpose, "The Gospel of Salvation," and to its duration, "The Everlasting Gospel."
Our English word "gospel," however, is derived from the Anglo-Saxon, "godspell," meaning "a story of God." We employ the word in this narrative sense when we say, "Matthew’s Gospel " or "The Gospel according to Matthew." In this last sense, meaning a narrative, there have come down to us in writing five Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. Of these, Paul’s was first reduced to writing, and John’s, last. Three of these Gospels, in the sense of histories, are called synoptics: Matthew, Mark, and Luke, because they present a common view.
These five Gospels, or histories, must be considered as an independent and complete history of our Lord from each author’s viewpoint. They were written by different men, at different times, for different purposes – for different ends – and each, I repeat, must be considered as a complete view. That is to say, notwithstanding the multitude of books that have been written upon the subject, there is no satisfactory evidence that any one of them had before him, or was influenced by a copy of any other from which he consciously borrowed, or which he designedly abridged or enlarged or supplemented in any way. Nor is there any reliable evidence that any two or more of them had access to a common original written gospel now lost. There was, of course, before any writing, a common oral gospel, but mere human memory could not be relied upon to recall with accuracy the minute details such as we find in Mark, nor the very words of long discourses, such as we find in John and Matthew. We must look elsewhere for an adequate explanation of their agreements and differences. At the last analysis, the inspiration of each historian best accounts for the plan of his history, not only in the material he selects, but in what he omits, in his historical portrait of our Lord.
Westcott in his introduction to the Gospels, cites the fact that three portraits of Charles I were painted, one giving the front view, the others the right and left profile views, and these three portraits were to enable a sculptor to carve a lifelike statue of him. The sculptor could not carve this statue with accuracy from a front view only, nor from either one of the two side views only. In the same way we have five complete historical portraits of our Lord, in order that we, in the study of them from their different angles of vision, may get a full view of our Lord and Saviour.
We have already said that the New Testament considers the life of our Lord in four distinct phases: his pre-existence, his Old Testament adumbration, his incarnation, and the glory life of his exalted humanity. Each historian considers only so much of these four phases as is essential to his plan. Mark, with very vivid details, considers the public ministry of our Lord, having little to do with either his pre-existence, his foreshadowing in the Old Testament, or his life after his ascension. Matthew and Luke alone treat of the infancy of our Lord. Matthew and Paul particularly consider the interpretation of the Old Testament, foreshadowing of our Lord. Luke, in a second volume, discusses much the exalted life of our Lord in the establishment of the churches. John and Paul both treat of his pre-existence, and both, of the activities of his exalted life. This John does in his second volume – Revelation.
We may profitably study these histories of our Lord in two ways:
Considering each history alone, in order to get before our minds the author’s complete view according to his plan. This study must not be omitted.
The harmonic study of our Lord, putting in parallel columns so much as each history has to say on a given point, and looking at the testimony of all the witnesses.
In the first method it is easy to see that Matthew writes for Jews, and his is the gospel of the King and of his kingdom, according to a correct interpretation of Old Testament foreshadowings. We find, therefore, in Matthew, many Old Testament quotations. He seeks to prove to the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. Paul unites with Matthew in making the same proof, but with reference to a larger purpose than the limitation of Matthew.
Mark’s Gospel may be called the Gospel of deeds rather than of teachings. It is limited to the earth life of Jesus, and describes the mighty things which he did. It is most vivid and minute in details and has much of narrative. It is the "straightway" gospel. As only an eyewitness could give the vivid and minute details of gesture, posture, indeed the very look of the actors and observers, this has been called Peter’s Gospel. There is both external and internal evidence that Peter supplied most of the material of Mark’s Gospel. As Mark limits himself almost exclusively to one of the four phases of our Lord’s life and to only his public ministry, and as he makes but little special contribution to the sum of discourses, parables and miracles, we must find his most valuable contribution in his vivid and minute details, therein far surpassing all others. He surrounds his incidents with all the circumstances that make them impressive. We see the posture, gesture, look, and the effect. His particulars of person, number, time, and place are peculiar. His transitions are rapid, his tenses often are present not past, and we hear the very Aramaic words spoken, in direct quotation. It is more than a moving picture show, since we hear the very Aramaic words: "Boanerges," "Taitha cumi," "Corban," "Ephphatha," "abba."
Luke’s Gospel may be called the Gospel of the Saviour and of humanity, his purpose being not so much to convince the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah, as to show his relation to all mankind. Because Luke’s is the Gospel of the Saviour and of humanity, his genealogy extends back to Adam. Luke was not a Jew, and was the only Gentile who wrote a book of the Bible. His writings, Gospel and Acts, treat elaborately of the earth life of our Lord, and of his ascended life up to Paul’s first Roman imprisonment. Renan the infidel, calls Luke’s Gospel "the most beautiful book in the world." Speaking of them as masterpieces of human literature, Isaiah and Luke surpass all other books of the sacred library.
One cannot, in a few words, enumerate all the special contributions of Luke’s Gospel. We may note a few:
He alone gives an account of the birth and training of John the Baptist.
He alone gives us the five great hymns: The "Hail Mary," the "Benedictus" of Zacharias, the "Magnificat" of Mary, the "Gloria in Excelsis" of the angels, and the "Nunc Dimittis" of Simeon.
He recites more miracles and parables than any other historian, and of these at least six miracles and seventeen parables are not given elsewhere.
More than the others it is the Gospel to woman, to the poor, to the sick, the outcast, and the foreigner.
To him we are indebted more than to all the others for the incidents and teachings of our Lord’s ministry after the rejection in Galilee and up to the last week of that ministry.
It is more than the others the Gospel of prayers and thanksgiving in giving not only the occasions when our Lord prayed, and often the prayers themselves, but the lessons on prayer, taught to the disciples.
John’s Gospel may be called the Gospel of positive knowledge, assurance, and comfort. It is more the subjective than the objective history. He means, evidently, to give to every Christian absolute knowledge, and internal assurance of the certainty of that knowledge.
Paul, less than the others, treats of the details of the earth life, discussing more the purposes of that life than its historical facts. It is interesting in comparing Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul to note each one’s special contribution to the complete history of our Lord. No mere human historian would have omitted from his history what any one of them omits. We cannot account in a mere human way, for the omission of the early Judean ministry by the Synoptic Gospels, nor for John’s omission of the bulk of the Galilean ministry. A careful student of the several histories of our Lord cannot fail to be impressed that no one of them alone, nor all of them together, intend anything like a complete biography like we find in the human history of a man. Each employs only that material essential to his plan, designedly leaving out everything not necessary to his purpose. John, at the close of his Gospel, rightly says, "Many other signs, therefore, did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in his name." A similar statement could well have been made by every historian. What is true with reference to the facts of his history, is also true with reference to his teachings. No one of them gives all of his teachings, or intended to do it, but only so much of the teachings as is necessary to his plan of history.
Indeed, Luke, in his second volume entitled "The Acts of the Apostles," says that his Gospel is an account of what Jesus began to do and to teach, implying that his second volume will tell of what Jesus continued to do and to teach in his exalted life. It is interesting as well as profitable to collect together the incidents, miracles, parables, and discourses given by each historian alone.
For example, Matthew alone gives the miracle of the healing of the two blind men, in Matthew 9:1-38, and of the finding of the stater in the fish’s mouth. Matthew alone gives ten of the great parables – the tares, the hidden treasure, the pearl of great price, the drawnet, the unmerciful servant, the laborers in the vineyard, the two sons, the marriage of the king’s son, the ten virgins, and the talents. Matthew alone gives a somewhat full account of the great Sermon on the Mount, and the great discourses on the rejection of the Jews, and our Lord’s great prophecy extending from Matthew 21:1-46, Matthew 22:1-46, Matthew 23:1-39, Matthew 24:1-51, Matthew 25:1-46 of his book. He alone gives us certain incidents of the life of our Lord – the coming of the Wise Men, the massacre of the innocents, the flight into Egypt, the return to Nazareth, the covenant of Judas for thirty pieces of silver, his repentance and his end, the dream of Pilate’s wife, the appearance of the saints in Jerusalem in connection with Christ’s resurrection, the watch placed at the sepulcher, the bribing of these watchmen to spread false reports, and the earthquake.
It is in John alone that we find the early Judean ministry, the Samaritan ministry, the great discourse on the bread of life in Capernaum, the discourse of the Good Shepherd, and particularly the great discourse after the Lord’s Supper, as embodied in John 14:1-31, John 15:1-27, John 16:1-33, John 17:1-26. These four chapters of John constitute the New Testament book of comfort, Isaiah 39-66 constitutes the Old Testament book of comfort.
Of course these examples of special contributions are samples only, not exhaustive.
It is in Paul’s history alone that we find an addition to Luke’s genealogy, that is, from the first Adam to the Second Adam. But as four of these Gospels are continuous histories, and as Paul’s, the Fifth Gospel, is scattered throughout his many letters, we will consider in the next chapter the Fifth Gospel.
QUESTIONS 1. In what distinct phases does the New Testament set forth the life of our Lord?
2. What things are helpful to know, even when we study only the earth life of our Lord?
3. What is the meaning of our English word, "scriptures"?
4. Meaning of "Holy Scriptures"?
5. Meaning of "Bible"?
6. Meaning of "Holy Bible"?
7. What are the two grand divisions of our Holy Bible, of what does each consist and what the three subdivisions of each?
8. Why may we not strictly press the three general classifications of the New Testament books?
9. Who were the authors of the New Testament books, and how many did each write?
10. What is the proportion, of Paul’s contribution to the New Testament?
11. Give derivation and meaning of our English word, "testament," and show how it is a misnomer when applied to our collection of sacred books.
12. In what two instances only in Bible usage may the Greek word, diatheke, be rendered "testament"? And in those instances show the one point of analogy between a "covenant" and a last will and testament.
13. Cite a notable historic instance of the mischief of confusing "covenant" and "testament."
14. What of the Campbellite argument based on this contention and in what book is it elaborated?
15. What is the radical defect of the argument?
16. Meaning of the Greek word rendered "gospel" in the New Testament? And in the New Testament, does it ever mean a narrative?
17. What are the uses in the New Testament of the word rendered "gospel" with the article only? In connection with the Father? With the Son? With the kingdom? With salvation?
18. What is the derivation and meaning of our English word, "gospel"?
19. In the sense of a narrative, how many gospels have come down to us in writing, which first reduced to writing, and which last?
20. Which are called Synoptics, and why?
21. In accounting for these several written histories, were any two or more based on any written history now lost?
22. Is there any reliable evidence that any one of the historians had before him a copy of any one of the other four histories, from which he consciously borrowed material, which he designedly condensed, elaborated or supplemented in any way?
23. How, then, must these five histories be regarded, and what the only common original?
24. How alone may we account for their agreements and differences?
25. Why five Gospels? Cite and apply the illustration found in Westcott’s "Introduction."
26. Show, in the case of each historian, what phases of our Lord’s life are treated – his pre-existence, his Old Testament foreshadowing, his earth life, his ascended life.
27. In what two ways may we profitably study these histories?
28. How may we characterize Matthew’s Gospel, what is his chief design and what are the more important of his special contributions to the history?
29. How characterize Luke’s Gospel, what is his chief design and what are some of his special contributions?
30. How characterize John’s Gospel, what is his chief design and what are some of the most important of his special contributions?
31. What chapters of John constitute the New Testament book of comfort?
32. As Mark limits himself almost exclusively to only one of’ the four phases, that is, the earth life of our Lord, and to his public ministry only, and as he contributes little to the sum of the parables, miracles and discourses, what is, in the main, his special contribution to the story of our Lord?