But this example of all four gospels covering one event is not typical. When studying the Bible, we find that Matthew, Mark, and Luke will often report an incident while John makes no mention of it. Or we find the reverse. John will report an incident, but Matthew, Mark, and Luke will ignore the event completely. For this reason, Bible scholars call Matthew, Mark, and Luke the Synoptic Gospels. Synoptic comes from the word synonymous, meaning the same. The Synoptic Gospels are very similar in structure, in contrast with John, which is usually quite different. Let's look at an example of how the Synoptic Gospels are different from John by examining the story of Jesus' baptism in the Jordan River. We find that Matthew, Mark, and Luke relate the incident but John makes no mention of it. John sometimes provides information that is omitted in the Synoptic Gospels. John 1:1 is a verse which tells how Christ has existed from the beginning of time--long before His physical birth in Bethlehem. This passage tells us about His pre-existence in great detail. Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not mention it at all. There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether or not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were really the authors of the four gospels which bear their names. This conjecture is a reasonable possibility. It must be remembered that: -
In reading each Gospel, you will find that it does not clearly identify the author. Nowhere do you find a phrase in the Gospels which says, "This book was written by the Apostle Ernie, or Sam or Fred." -
The punctuation in the Bible is not part of the inspired text. That is why churches run into a problem of where the thief on the cross is today. If we were to move the comma in Luke 23:43, it would give us a whole new meaning. This also applies to the names of the books of the Bible. The names which appear in our King James Bibles, our Revised Standard Version Bibles, our New International Version Bibles, etc. are NOT part of the inspired text. In the Old Testament, the correct title of each book is the first words of that book. For example, the name of the first book in the Bible is correctly called "Genesis" because Genesis means "beginning." The first words in that took are "In the Beginning" or "In a Beginning." The correct title for the book of Exodus, however, is "These the Names." The correct title for the book of Leviticus is "And the Lord Called." Like punctuation, the titles of the books in the Bible were added later. Thus, we cannot say with 100% certainty that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the authors of the Gospels, although they probably were. But it really does not matter who wrote these books--they are still part of the inspired Word of God. Now that we have discussed the Gospels as a whole, let's briefly look at them individually to see what unique characteristics each one offers us. The Gospel of Mark Why are we covering Mark first? Isn't Mark the second book of the New Testament.? Therefore, shouldn't it be discussed after Matthew? We look at Mark first because it was most likely written before the other three Gospels, probably in the early 60s AD. It may have even been composed earlier, which brings us to an interesting point. If the first Gospel was not written until around 60 AD, what did the church read from the time it was formed on Pentecost in 31 AD until that time? That is almost a 30 year time span. The early church, besides using the Old Testament which they had in written form, relied heavily on oral accounts of the life of Jesus. At that time, they could listen to first-hand accounts of people who actually saw Jesus and talked to Him. Many had touched Him and had been healed by Him. There were hundreds who saw Him after the resurrection. The early church was blessed with many eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. For this reason, the Gospels were not as important to the early church as they are to us today. For centuries Protestant churches advocated the "primacy of the Gospel of Mark"; that is, the Gospel of Mark was written before the other three and Mark had preeminence over the other two Synoptic Gospels . They believed that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark. The Catholic church, on the other hand, claimed that the book of Matthew should have preeminence over the other Gospels. They based their assertion on tradition. They said, "Since the Gospels have always been published with Matthew first, then Matthew should have preeminence." Actually, the principle used in the arrangement of the books of the New Testament has never been fully understood. We do not know why the Gospels are in the order they are. Even so, the placement of one book before another does nothing to diminish the worth of the former or the latter. Is the book of Hebrews of any less value than the two books of Corinthians? Would the book of Revelation be of any more value to us if it were placed earlier in the New Testament? No. No one can say that a single Gospel has preeminence over the others. Of Mark's 661 verses, about. 200 deal with miracles. Scholars feel it was probably written under Peter's influence. One half of Mark's Gospel is devoted to the last. few weeks of Jesus' life. Mark heightened the dramatic mood of his account by using the present tense and repeating his favorite word "immediately." Mark tells us about the human traits of Jesus: He wonders, hungers, pities, groans, fears, prays and grows angry and fatigued. Although Mark is the least polished in literary form, of the Gospels it is the most concerned with laying out the everyday fabric of Jesus' human existence. Finally, a word about Mark himself. Colossians 4:10 tells us that he was a blood relative of Barnabas--very likely his first cousin or nephew. The Gospel of Matthew The book of Matthew was probably written somewhere between 65 AD and 74 AD. Some feel it is placed first because its genealogy fits nicely with that of 2 Chronicles. Most. historians believe that the last book of the Old Testament was not Malachi, but 2 Chronicles. If this supposition is correct, then the opening genealogy of Matthew follows perfectly behind the closing genealogy of the second book of Chronicles. Just as the book of Hebrews was a book written by a Jew for the Jews, the Gospel of Matthew is a book written to appeal to the Jews of the first century. It places much emphasis on the Old Testament. It shows that Jesus can trace His lineage back to David--and anyone who could do that in the days of Christ, was considered to be of some importance. Matthew goes to great lengths to show the Jews that Jesus' life followed a pattern set by the Old Testament scriptures. Many times Matthew uses the phrase, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying..." When looking at Christ through Matthew's eyes, we see Him as the fulfillment of the promises of the Hebrew Scriptures--the Messiah of Israel. In fact, Matthew's Gospel was probably written in the Hebrew dialect of Aramaic and later translated into Greek. If Sgt. Friday of Dragnet (Television program of the 1950's in the USA) were to write a Gospel, it might be much like the book of Matthew. The Gospel takes a "Just the facts" approach with very little editorializing. Matthew is very business-like in his retelling of the life of Jesus. The book of Matthew puts the parables together. It groups his healings and then places Jesus' teachings together. These groupings have been made with a disregard for chronology. Nevertheless, it is the easiest of the four Gospels to read in the English language. Without the book of Matthew, we would not know the story of the royal political intrigue involved in the birth of Christ. History portrays King Herod as a civilized man--educated at the Roman court. Matthew shows him to be a blood-thirsty baby killer. Without the book of Matthew, we would not know of the thousands of children slaughtered shortly after the birth of Jesus. No other biblical or extra-biblical source provides us with this information. The book of Matthew is most often used by anti-Semitics attempting to show that the Jews were not only responsible for the murder of Christ, but that their universal persecution was brought on by their own actions. After Pilate says he does not want to have anything to do with the crucifixion of Jesus, the Jews say, "Let his blood be on us and our children" (Matthew 27:25). Several Christian denominations have taught that this is the reason why the Jews have suffered so much over the last 2,000 years. Scripture, of course, does not bear this out. Without the book of Matthew, we would not learn of the following incidents: -
Joseph's refusal to scandalize Mary even though she was pregnant and unmarried. -
The Magi visiting Jesus in His house when He was at least a year old or older. -
The sermon on the Mount where Christ said, "I have not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it." -
Christ's admonition, "Don't blow the trumpet like the Pharisees when you give; do it privately." -
Jesus' prophecy that the only sign of His Messiahship was that He would be in the earth for three days and three nights, like Jonah was in the belly of the whale. All this and more would be lost if we did not have the book of Matthew. The Gospel of Luke The book of Luke was probably written around 65-70 AD. If movie director Cecil B. de Mille were to write a Gospel, he would probably use Luke's methods. Luke's version is poetic and urbane. It features angelic choirs, astonished shepherds and country landscapes-- all illuminated by heavenly light. The special effects are great. Furthermore, as Mark's Gospel was probably written under the guidance of Peter, Luke's Gospel may have been written under the guidance of Paul. Bible scholars feel that the author of Luke was probably the same person who wrote Acts, the book which goes into great detail about Paul's life. In fact, they believe that Luke and Acts are two volumes of the same set, with the Gospel of Luke being volume I and Acts being volume II. The Gospel of Luke is very Hellenistic in approach. Many Jews at that time were impressed by the Greek culture and tried to emulate it. This writer seemed to follow the writing style of Hellenist authors. The author of this Gospel was a well-educated person. Remember that Luke had been a physician prior to his conversion. By today's standards, it would be like a surgeon giving up his practice so that he could preach. The church would have the benefit of a highly intelligent man. Such was the case of Luke. Luke's command of the Greek language is impeccable. But when he needs to discuss a Hebraic matter, he very easily switches to a Hebrew style of writing. Luke places special emphasis on the fact that salvation is available to everyone. No one is excluded because of race, sex, or merit. Luke talks about salvation for Samaritans and pagans. He tells us salvation is for women, outcasts, publicans, and sinners--even the poor. Again, all of this has the flavor of the apostle Paul. No other gospel gives such a comprehensive history of Jesus' life. Luke is very complete--almost like a professor in medical school discussing a procedure from A to Z with every detail in between. If we did not have the book of Luke, we would miss the following important events: The promise of the birth of John the Baptist. The story of the shepherds in the fields when Jesus was born. Jesus' visit to the temple when He was 12. John the Baptist's imprisonment. The parable of the good Samaritan. The parable of Martha and Mary. The parable of the rich fool The prodigal son. The Gospel of John John's gospel was probably written around 90 AD. Most likely all of the original disciples (except for John) had been martyred by this time. The book of John stands out because of its uniqueness. John tells us that Christ has always existed. John probably included this passage to combat the teachings of a sect called the Gnostics, who taught that Jesus did not exist until he was born in Bethlehem. No demons are mentioned in John. John always points to Christ. He never points to men. In the book of John, men are made to look weak and fallible. But Christ is referred to as: - The Son of God.
- The I AM.
- The Way.
- The Truth.
- The Resurrection.
- The Door
- The Shepherd.
- The Wine.
- The Temple
- The Lamb.
John goes to great lengths to point the reader away from man and toward Christ. Even John the Baptist is played down. In this gospel, the Baptizer says, "I'm not worthy to even touch His sandals." We know that the apostle John was the one of Jesus' mother after the crucifixion, yet John does not even mention her name! He only refers to her as the "mother of Jesus" and refers to her only twice. This omission was probably made to combat the already growing worship of Mary that had developed in the Roman church. John does not. hesitate to mention the name "Mary," but he uses it in referring to the other Marys, such as Mary Magdalen. John refuses to use the word "apostle," probably to combat the misuse of that, office, which was beginning even then. The primacy of Peter would never fit into the pages of the Gospel of John; in fact, there is very little of Peter in John's narrative. Again, John points us toward Christ and away from men. The grammar is very simple but the thoughts are profound, probably more profound than in any other New Testament book. The Gospels Don't Tell Everything Hopefully, the reader can now better understand the dynamics and the unique qualities of each of these four great books we call the Gospels. At this point, one could be tempted to ask, "Since each writer left out key events which had to be covered by one of the other three writers, have other dramatic events and teachings been lost simply because none of the four Gospel writers recorded them?" The answer is yes. What we have in these four Gospels is only the tip of the iceberg. Much more was lost than was retained. "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen" (John 21:25) We have a record of only a fraction of the things done by our Lord and Savior. But this information has not been lost forever, has it? We know that we will have the opportunity to hear about all of the events of His life from Jesus Himself when He returns to rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. May God speed that day! | 