The Gospels
The Gospels
Smith Bibens
The English word gospel is from the old Anglo-Saxon word godspell, from god “good” and spell “story.” This word is used to translate the Greek word euangelion, from eu “good” and angelia “message.” This Greek word appears seventy-seven times in the New Testament, with twelve of these occurrences in the Gospels. The verb, euangelizo, meaning “to preach the gospel,” appears fifty-four times in the New Testament, of which ten are in the Gospels. The gospel is the good news of what God has provided for man’s redemption. It includes all that a man must do to be saved; to live to the glory of God, and the benefit of his earthly neighbors (Matthew 5:16; 11:25-30; Mark 2:17; 8:34; Luke 5:32; John 3: 14-18).
According to the second, post-biblical usage of the term, a Gospel—usually capitalized as it refers to the title of a book and to distinguish it from the first usage—is one of the four books in which the gospel is authoritatively set forth. The testimony of the early church writers is unanimous in declaring that there are but four Gospels recognized as inspired by God.
The Heart of the Bible
The Gospels are the heart of the Bible. Without reference to the Gospels, every other part of the Bible is strangely incomplete. The Old Testament is an unfinished symphony; a book of unexplained ceremonies, unappeased longings, unachieved purposes, and unfulfilled prophecy. The whole thrust of the Old Testament is bound up in the exclamation:
Someone is coming! Someone who is God’s supply for man’s need. Far back in Genesis 3:15, it is promised that “the seed of the woman” will “bruise the head of the serpent.” The promise of the “seed” is renewed to Abraham, Isaac, and to Jacob (Genesis 12:1-3; 26:1-5). In all the succeeding books this fact is enlarged upon, until Isaiah brings the symphony of Messianic promises to its crescendo. Yet upon reaching Malachi; while empires have flourished and died, and centuries of time have filed off into antiquity, the seers lie in their graves, and the Promised One has not yet come. “Behold, He shall come!” exclaims Malachi, as he, the last of the prophets, recedes behind the misty curtain of time.
The Gospels are the foundation of the New Testament. Were it not for the Gospels; Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation would have no purpose. They would be a lock without a key, a superstructure without a foundation, and an end without a beginning. Opening to Acts two, one finds that man’s greatest need has been provided for. In the preaching of Peter, Jesus is met, a man “that God hath made…both Lord and Christ.” But where is the rest of the story? In the Gospels. Those who gladly received the apostolic message on Pentecost continued steadfastly in those things that they were taught. The Epistles contain that teaching.
The Writing of the Gospels
As the church developed and progressed under the direction of the Holy Spirit, certain conditions dictated that the gospel proclamation be written down. Expanding into new fields far removed from the original congregations in the eastern Mediterranean area, it was impractical for the Spirit-filled apostles and prophets to be everywhere the borders ofZionwere advancing. Add to this the looming persecution of the church, which would take many of these in martyrdom, and it became imperative that their proclamation be written down. As those “who had been with Jesus” were taken in death, the succeeding generations would need an authoritative source for their teaching. The evangelistic work of the church could go forward, and the teaching of Jesus would be saved for the instruction of the church (Matthew 28:20). Furthermore, a written proclamation would not be susceptible to alteration by heretics like a purely oral one might be. (This did not stop the heretics from trying. The second through fourth centuries saw many spurious “gospels” and bogus “epistles” circulated by heretics, in a vain effort to promulgate their false teaching.) Finally, it was not God’s will that the church be led by the direct revelation of the Spirit in perpetuity (1 Corinthians 13:8-12). Maturity in the natural realm is realized when the ability to procreate is possessed. In the childhood phase of the church God used miracles, signs, wonders, and direct revelation, to establish the church and the proclamation upon which it was founded (Mark 16:19-20; Hebrews 2:1-4). Once the proclamation was imperishably written down (1 Peter 1:24-25), the “seed” was in place (Luke 8:11), and the time of special gifts passed away.
Each of the Gospels bears the stamp of apostolic or prophetic origin. The apostolic and prophetic offices were the authoritative witnesses to God-inspired truth (1 Corinthians 12:7-11, 28). The affirmations of Paul, who can certainly be taken as representative, are numerous and well- known (1 Corinthians 14:37; Ephesians 3:1-8; Galatians 1:11-12, 20; 2 Thessalonians 2: 14-15; 3: 14). To this may be added the testimony of Peter, as respects his own writings (1 Peter 5: 12; 2 Peter 3: 1-2), and also in regards to Paul’s (2 Peter 3:15-16). Of the Gospels, Matthew and John were written by apostles who were eyewitnesses of what they recorded. (A detailed examination of the authorship of the Gospels will be found in future introductions to the various books, Lord willing.) John was particularly careful to affirm that his Gospel was a true eyewitness account (John 19:34ff; 21:24). Mark was a fellow-laborer of Paul (Colossians 4:10), and of Peter (1 Peter 5:13). Mark and his mother were residents ofJerusalem, and associates with the other apostles in the church there (Acts 12:12). Luke was also a fellow-laborer of Paul (Colossians 4: 14; Philemon 24). Luke specifically states that he consulted those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life (Luke 1: 1-4). Mark and Luke certainly had the knowledge required to write accurately, and it is virtually certain they had the prophetic gift to write authoritatively.
Purpose of the Gospels
The entire contents of the Gospels, from first to last, revolve around Jesus of Nazareth. However, it is manifestly not the purpose of the Gospel writers to present a “Life of Christ” or full-fledged biography. For example, Matthew says nothing about Christ’s ascension, although he was a witness to it (Acts 1:1-13). None of the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark or Luke) say anything about what was surely Jesus’ most astounding miracle, the raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-46). John speaks of many signs that were not written (John 20:30), and further adds that many things about Jesus were left unwritten (John 2 1:25). The fragmentary nature of the Gospel narratives is seen in the fact that, with the exception of the infancy of Jesus, his first Passover, and the trip to Jerusalem with his parents when he was twelve (Luke 2:40, 50-52), the Gospels have nothing to say about thirty of Jesus’ thirty-three years of life on earth.
The true purpose of the Gospels is succinctly stated by John in 20:30-31:
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Here is found all that the apostles gave witness to in their oral proclamation of the gospel. When men heard their preaching, they were “pricked in their heart” (Acts 2:37). If men are to be convicted of sin, and believe in Jesus, it will be through reading or hearing of those things contained in these four books.
A second, and equally important purpose for the Gospels, is found in the Great Commission of Matthew 28: 19-20. Jesus commanded that after disciples were made through preaching and conversion, they were to be taught “all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Except for a few brief quotations in Acts, and a few passages in Revelation, all the teaching of Jesus is found in the Gospels. In his teaching, Jesus laid down the moral, ethical and spiritual precepts of his kingdom, the church.
Unity and Diversity
Taking up the Gospels for study, the reader quickly realizes that there are amazing similarities, and equally amazing differences between the Gospels. How should one account for this? The modernist theorizes that the individual writers borrowed from each other and/or used independent “sources” for their writing. While Luke and Mark used testimony from eyewitnesses and even earlier writings (Luke 1 : 1-4), to frame their Gospels, the role of the Holy Spirit must not be forgotten. The problem is not one of “sources” but of design.
The wisdom of God has given four Gospels, not just one. Early efforts were made to combine the four in a united account. Tatian (c. 160 AD) did so in his Diatessaron. He was perhaps the first harmonist of the Gospels. Yet his work never achieved a wide circulation. This of course is just as well, for God so designed the Gospels to complement each other, and yet their designs and emphases are different.
The first three Gospels are the most similar, and are called the Synoptic Gospels (from the Greek sunopsis, “to see together”). John is markedly different from the other three, for reasons that shall shortly become apparent.
Matthew wrote his Gospel with a Jewish audience in mind. This does not mean that his Gospel holds little interest to a twentieth-century American. Virtually all of the books of the Bible were written with a distinct purpose and audience in mind. Paul wrote to the Corinthians about some of their problems, to the Thessalonians, and so forth. Yet each is applicable to today, as they are an integral part of the timeless Word of God (1 Peter 1:25; 2 Timothy 3: 16-17). So it is easily observed that Matthew wrote with the Jew in mind. The book begins with the genealogy of Jesus back through David to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah. This was to convince the Jewish reader that Jesus came through the right family to be the Messiah. That is the main thrust of Matthew’s Gospel. Jesus is the long awaited Messiah of the Old Testament. Of the 330 citations and allusions to the Old Testament in the Gospels, 128 of them are in Matthew. Over and over again Matthew points out where Jesus fulfilled some prophecy of the Old Testament regarding the Messiah. The term Messiah means “Anointed One.” Under the Old Testament economy, there were three classes of men consecrated to their offices by anointing with oil: prophets, priests, and kings. In the death of Jesus, Matthew presents Jesus as God’s High Priest offering himself as the sinless sacrifice for humanity’s sins. In the discourses of Jesus, Matthew portrays him in his prophetic office. Matthew is often called “the Gospel of Discourse,” because a larger portion of it is devoted to Jesus’ teaching than Mark or Luke. The words of Jesus make up 644 of Matthew’s 1068 verses, or about three-fifths of the whole. Matthew is most noted for the emphasis on Jesus’ kingship and kingdom. Matthew uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven” thirty-three times. In Matthew, the kingdom is connected with the church (Matthew 16: 16-19). In fact, of all the Gospels, the word “church” only appears in Matthew. As Matthew closes, the king is commanding his servants (Matthew 28:19-20).
Mark was written primarily to the Romans. They were unacquainted with Hebrew Scripture and prophecy. Of the Synoptics, Mark makes the fewest citations and allusions to the Old Testament, only sixty-three. Mark wrote to teach the Romans about a God who was different from any they had ever heard about. Instead of the gods of the pantheon of Rome, who were subject to all the vices and vicissitudes of humanity, Mark wrote of the Son of God who humbled himself and became a Servant (Mark 1:1 ; 10:45). Mark’s Gospel is a terse account of the actions and deeds of Jesus, a narrative of the One who “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38). Mark is full of Latin terms, apparently using them because they would be more familiar to his audience. Mark makes scant mention of Jewish customs, and when mentioned, explains them. Mark gives more space to the miracles than any of the other Gospels. For this reason, Mark is sometimes called “The Gospel of Power;” yet it was power expressed in humble and merciful service. The Romans, then masters of the world, respected power (furthermore, they needed to learn to wield it aright). At the close of Mark’s Gospel, the Servant is found working with his servants.
Luke was written for the Greek mind. Luke addresses his Gospel to “most excellent Theophilus.” The name Theophilus means “lover of God.” The title, “most excellent,” indicates the recipient of Luke’s account was a person of high rank in theRoman Empire. There has been some question as to whether this Theophilus was a real individual or not. Some scholars have suggested that the name Theophilus is simply Luke’s denomination of all those who are “lovers of God,” that is, Christians. The literary device of addressing a multitude as one man is not unknown among the Greek writers of antiquity. It may well have been Luke’s purpose to address an audience of Greek believers about Jesus’ life, so that they might know “the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed” (Luke 1:1-4). Luke, being Greek and writing to Greeks, exhibits the fullest Greek vocabulary of the Synoptics. The Greeks were idealistic, believing that a man could ennoble himself through philosophy. They were always striving for perfection in their philosophies. To the Greeks then, Luke presents Jesus as the perfect Son of Man. In the genealogy in Luke three, Jesus’ lineage is traced back to Adam, the original man (Cf. with Paul’s discourse in Acts 17). Luke’s emphasis upon the perfect humanity of Jesus, leads him to emphasize Jesus’ tender compassion upon those who were underprivileged, sick, out-casts, and all who were oppressed by sin (Luke 1:48; 2:7-8,24,36; 3:6; 4:18; 6:20; 7:2,6,12,37; 8:42; 10:38; 13:11; 14:13,23; 17:16; 18:3,15; 21:3; 24:47). At the close of Jesus’ earthly sojourn (Luke 24:46-47; Acts 1, also written by Luke), the perfect Son of Man is charging his servants to prepare to preach salvation to imperfect man.
John is markedly different from the first three. The first three were written in the period before the destruction of Jerusalem, for all three record Jesus’ prophecies against it (Matthew 24: 1-28; Mark 13: 1-23; Luke 21:5-24). John was written late in the first century, and long after the Synoptics had become well known within the church. Therefore, what John wrote is supplementary in nature. There is no need to cover the ground that was amply treated by the earlier writers. Over 92 percent of the material in John is unique to that Gospel. Contrast that with 42 percent for Matthew, 59 percent for Luke, and only 7 percent for Mark. Of thirty-five miracles, John only records eight, but six of these are not found in the Synoptics. Most of the narrative in the Synoptics is set inGalilee. In John, most is set inJudea.
John is sometimes called the “Gospel of Conversations,” for in it are found twenty-four different conversations with seventeen different people. John reflects more on the individuality of Jesus in his interviews with private persons. Like Matthew, John contains a great deal of Jesus’ own words. Of 879 verses, 419 are the words of the Lord. Also, the Gospel of John is primarily concerned with the last days of Jesus. Over half the events and sayings in the book are from the last days before the crucifixion. Like Mark and Luke, John took pains to explain Jewish customs to his readers, when they came up at all (1:38,41; 51-2; 7:2; 19:40). This indicates he was not writing to a primarily Jewish audience. The key passage in John is 20:30-31. John wrote to set forth Jesus as the Son of God, and Lord of all mankind. There is no genealogy given for Jesus. He existed before the world was, and all the world was created by him (1 : 1-3). As John closes his Gospel, he muses on the impossibility of writing all that might be written about the deathless, eternal Son of God.
Conclusion
The Gospels present the most wonderful story, the most enthralling life, the most important subject in the world. Even men who are irreligious agree that the Gospels are the greatest pieces of literature in the world. Little wonder, for they are the core of the greatest book in the world. Edward Channing, an American historian, said, “The sages and heroes of history are receding from us, and history contracts the record of their deeds into a narrower and narrower page. But time has no power over the name and words and deeds of Jesus Christ.” Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “If the gospel of Jesus Christ had been preached as purely as it came from his lips, the whole world would be Christian at this very hour.” Goethe, the famed German writer, and a man far above suspicion for religious inclinations, looking in the late years of his life over the field of history, was constrained to confess that, “the human mind, no matter how far it may advance in every other department, will never transcend the height and moral culture of Christianity as it shines and glows in the gospels.” For centuries, scholars and theologians have scoured the dictionaries, trying to find enough superlatives to describe Jesus’ life. Numerous skilled writers have taken pen in hand, in an effort to capture the beauty of that life. Farrar, Edersheim, Spurgeon—the list goes on—have produced weighty tomes. But they are as the moon to the sun in comparison with the four small books, hardly more than tracts, that man has in the Gospels.