THE GOSPEL WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT – DO WE REALLY NEED 4 OF THEM?
What if we had simply 3 gospel writers, or just 2 of them, or only one gospel writer? What if Matthew was the only Gospel we had in the bible? Would that change our understanding of scripture? More importantly, would that change our appreciation of the Lord, His personality and Nature, and our knowledge?
I had an experience with someone whose thinking on a matter was influenced by one of the Gospels in isolation, and it was slanted because the synthesis of all the Gospels was not taken into account. It becomes a most interesting exercise to look carefully at the way the Gospels are written and the particular slant on the material presented by the Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.
All of us in our writing have a particular understanding and slant of the material we write. Just because what is written in the bible has been done so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that does not mean the biblical writers did not have their own personalities show through their writing. We see these marked differences in Paul and James and John, all with different styles.
The four Gospel writers saw certain things in the Lord Jesus Christ that caught their attention in a way that was different from another writer. These points come out in the scriptures. There is no contradiction as some try to affirm. There is no disharmony that the sceptics like to promote. The destructive critics use any false means to try to discredit the bible.
Just to illustrate that in a biblical way, Matthew said the inscription on the cross was “THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” Mark wrote the inscription as, “THE KING OF THE JEWS,” and Luke recorded it as “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” The Apostle John recorded it as “JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS.” The cynics like to make much of this in their mockery. (I am using descriptions from the NASB).
The inscription on the cross was not contradictory in the Gospels but complementary. When put together the full inscription was “THIS IS JESUS THE NAZARENE THE KING OF THE JEWS.” (The AV uses “Jesus of Nazareth”). How many of you know the poem called “THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT” by John Godfrey Saxe?
The parable or fable of the blind men and an elephant is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before, and who learn and imagine what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side, or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. The story is from India, and has come through Hinduism and is found also in two other faith groups in India.
THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT
It was six men of Indostan to learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant (though all of them were blind).
That each by observation might satisfy his mind.
==============================
The First approached the Elephant, and happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl:
"God bless me! But the Elephant is very like a WALL!"
==============================
The Second, feeling of the tusk, cried: "Ho! - what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp? To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant is very like a SPEAR!"
==============================
The Third approached the animal, and happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands, thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant is very like a SNAKE!"
==============================
The Fourth reached out his eager hand, and felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant is very like a TREE!"
==============================
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most; deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant is very like a FAN!"
==============================
The Sixth no sooner had begun about the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail that fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a ROPE!"
==============================
And so these men of Indostan disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!
==============================
Bible critics will strain their limited, logical thinking to do the devil’s work in attacking the scriptures but the unconverted man has no proper understanding of the scriptures, certainly no spiritual understanding. They argue what they know not, and are ignorant of their own ignorance.
NOTES ON THE FOUR GOSPELS
Matthew and John were disciples and were eyewitnesses and the accuracies were from personal experience. Mark got his information and material from Peter, this being confirmed by the early church father Papias in A.D.140. There was never any doubt about that in the early Church.
Luke was not one of the 12 disciples but the first Christian historian we know about. Luke is an interesting person, a physician, well experienced, having travelled with Paul and his companions on the missionary journeys. He was a man of careful accuracy as his preface to his Gospel points out in this passage when writing to Theophilus –
{{Luke 1:1-4 “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having INVESTIGATED EVERYTHING CAREFULLY from the beginning, to write it out for you IN CONSECUTIVE ORDER, most excellent Theophilus so that you might know THE EXACT TRUTH about the things you have been taught.”}}
That prologue of Luke is a fundamentally important one for the following reasons –
1. Luke had exact knowledge from eyewitnesses and reliable sources.
2. His investigation was thorough and as an educated and careful researcher, then he wrote only what was reliable.
3. He started at the beginning and proceeded in consecutive order. (That is so important when it comes to proper chronology).
4. In verse 4 the expression “the exact truth” is so important also.
I considered Luke to be so important to history, and many years ago I set out to examine this more carefully. I want to repeat what I said –
At the time Luke was moved by the Holy Spirit to pen the sacred text of his gospel, the publishing of historical and anecdotal records seems to have been widespread. So much in vogue would they have been, that numbers of these writings would have been extant by the time Luke and others were in the process of compilation. None of those productions is extant today. Only the three gospels exist from that historic time frame, the gospel of John having been written some 40 years later. It would be safe to assume that Luke was personally acquainted with some of those accounts, and the writers, and some of the disciples.
Luke makes it clear that his facts have been researched and all accounts investigated for their accuracy. As a genuine researcher and historian all his evidence would have needed collaboration. There would be no doubt that Luke would have rejected material that could not be confirmed or supported by parallel eyewitnesses. His prologue to the Acts of the Apostles in typical fashion gives indication to his thoroughness. The expression, “convincing proofs” of Acts 1:3 underlies his desire for ultimate honesty and totally confirmable material.
His statement in verse 2, “in consecutive order” is very interesting. The first two chapters which serve as the introduction, demonstrate this chronological arrangement that Luke has undertaken and there is no logical reason to doubt that the whole book is designed in this fashion. All the discourses and miracles would be arranged in this same consecutive sequence. Therefore it is correct to conclude that Luke is the most chronological of the gospels and is correct in historical sequence.
Matthew’s approach by contrast is most interesting. In his strong endeavour to portray Jesus as the King of the Jews, more emphasis is given to the “Royal” passages and various incidents support that. Thus you have the largest gospel account of the Sermon on the Mount because in it there are ground rules for life in the kingdom where Jesus Messiah is King. That is not to say that Matthew writes in an ad hoc fashion. The comparison of his gospel with Luke’s indicates he largely follows a chronological sequence. This would be expected as Matthew was an eyewitness to the majority of Jesus’ ministry.
By the time John had written his Gospel around A.D. 90 to 96, Jerusalem had already been destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. and the Apostle lived in times of Gnosticism when the divine character of Jesus was distorted. His gospel reflects that.
======================================================
MATTHEW’S GOSPEL – THE GOSPEL OF THE KING
Matthew has a strong emphasis in his gospel on the Kingship of Jesus and this is portrayed in his Gospel. The King of the Jews is the theme. The Gospel opens with a genealogy, that of Mary, and is partial going back to Abraham but it contains the kingly line. The Sermon on the Mount would be the behaviour in Messiah’s Kingdom so Matthew details it in full. Chapter 13 contains seven parables of the Kingdom and are a magnificent study we can’t do today. Chapters 24 and 25 are very much in the eschatology teaching and relate to the King who comes after the Tribulation described in chapter 24.
MARK’S GOSPEL – THE GOSPEL OF THE SERVANT
Mark’s portrayal of Jesus was that of a servant, always about the master’s business. Servants don’t have rank so there is no genealogy in Mark. We can only conjecture that the picture Peter gave Mark was about this servant ministry of the Saviour. After the introduction in the first half of chapter 1, Jesus is seen as constantly occupied with service. The key word in Mark is “immediately” (NASB) or “straightway” (AV) for the servant obeys immediately. The word “immediately” is used 40 times in the Gospel, 10 times in Chapter 1. It represents the One always busy about the Father’s business.
LUKE’S GOSPEL – THE GOSPEL OF THE PERFECT MAN
Luke’s portrayal of Jesus is that of a perfect man with all the human emotions and care and compassion coming out. It is the most “human” of the Gospels and one can find many examples of that. As the Son of Man, the genealogy is traced back to Adam, the first man.
JOHN’S GOSPEL – THE GOSPEL WHERE FULL DIVINITY IS ON DISPLAY
There, right at the start of the Gospel we have, “In the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Divinity shouts out loud and clear. There are 8 “I AM’S” in the Gospel and I have these in the Sermon Series on SermonCentral. https://www.sermoncentral.com/sermon-series/the-quot-i-ams-quot-of-john-39-s-gospel-sermon-series-from-ron-ferguson-22874?_gl=1*659tec*_ga*MjYwMTc0OTI3LjE2NzE2NDA1ODM.*_ga_TRT0ERDR3P*MTY5NTU4ODIzMS4xODguMS4xNjk1NTg4MzMzLjMxLjAuMA..&_ga=2.42054563.749219145.1695327977-260174927.1671640583
There is no genealogy in John for if there was, it would be utterly out of place. The Almighty God does not have a genealogy. The great discourses are in John and it may be a bit surprising that the other Gospels don’t cover those.
The Synoptic Gospels (the first 3) have many similarities but distinctly follow the writers’ flavour. I want to restate the opening paragraph – “What if we had simply 3 gospel writers, or just 2 of them, or only one gospel writer? Would that change our understanding of scripture? More importantly, would that change our appreciation of the Lord, His personality and Nature and our knowledge?”
The answer would be “Yes”. If we had only Matthew, we would agree that Jesus is the King of the Jews but would probably miss the fact that He is a Servant, and that He is God the Son, in perfect divinity. We would miss examples of His compassionate human nature seen in Luke. A similar conclusion could be made about the other Gospels. If just one of the Gospels was missing we would suffer a great loss. I like to say there are five Gospels, and include Romans that I sometimes call, “The Gospel according to Paul.” God ONLY EVER MEANT there to be 4 Gospels.
Yes, there were only meant to be four Gospels. There are great parallels in scripture. I will deal with two of these and will call the section “FACES AND BRANCHES.”
FACES AND BRANCHES AND THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE FOUR GOSPELS
What can faces and branches teach us? Open your Bible at Ezekiel, to this passage –
{{Ezekiel 1:5-10 “Within it there were figures resembling FOUR LIVING BEINGS and this was their appearance: they had human form. EACH OF THEM HAD FOUR FACES and four wings, and their legs were straight and their feet were like a calf’s hoof, and they gleamed like burnished bronze. Under their wings on their four sides were human hands. As for the faces and wings of the four of them, their wings touched one another. Their faces did not turn when they moved, each went straight forward. As for the form of their faces, EACH HAD THE FACE OF A MAN, ALL FOUR HAD THE FACE OF A LION ON THE RIGHT AND THE FACE OF A BULL ON THE LEFT, AND ALL FOUR HAD THE FACE OF AN EAGLE.”}}
These four living beings are always in association with God’s throne and are cherubim which resound with the attributes of God. The forms of the faces correspond with the four Gospels.
FACES – What they can mean?
• SINGLE FACED:- personal and resolute.
• DOUBLE FACED:- either like Janus or false and deceitful.
• TRIPLE FACED:- Don’t think I can find an example.
• QUAD FACED:- Let us read from Ezekiel
{{Ezekiel 1:10 “As for the form of their faces, each had the face of a MAN, all four had the face of a LION on the right and the face of a BULL on the left, and all four had the face of an EAGLE.”}}
There you have 4 faces:-
1. Man
2. Lion
3. Bull (ox)
4. Eagle
What is the significance here of these faces? We shall leave this go for now and come back to it.
NOW FOR THE GOSPEL OF LUKE – JESUS THE MAN – THE BRANCH
{{Zechariah 6:12 “Then say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Behold, A MAN WHOSE NAME IS BRANCH, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD.”}}
[FACT]. This will be a MAN. Also known as BRANCH.
NOW FOR THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW – JESUS THE KING – THE RIGHTEOUS BRANCH
{{Jeremiah 23:5 “Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will raise unto David a RIGHTEOUS BRANCH, and a KING shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.”}}
[FACT]. This will be a KING. Also known as a RIGHTEOUS BRANCH.
{{Isaiah 4:2 “In that day shall the BRANCH of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.”}} (It means Jesus will be King and rule over the earth. Jesus the descendant of David).
{{Isaiah 11:1 “Then a shoot will spring from the stem of JESSE, and A BRANCH from his roots will bear fruit.”}}
NOW FOR THE GOSPEL OF MARK – JESUS THE SERVANT – THE BRANCH
{{Zechariah 3:8 “Now listen, Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who are sitting in front of you — indeed they are men who are a symbol, for behold, I am going to bring in MY SERVANT THE BRANCH.”}}
[FACT]. This is the SERVANT. Also THE BRANCH
NOW FOR THE GOSPEL OF JOHN – JESUS THE LORD GOD – THE BRANCH
{{Jeremiah 23:6 “In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is His name by which He will be called, ‘THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.’”}} That is the next verse after the declaration of the Branch, the King in Jeremiah 26:5 and is still referring to the BRANCH.
[FACT]. This is the LORD GOD. Also THE BRANCH
This is the righteous Branch, and a King - The LORD our Righteousness.
{{Jeremiah 33:15 “In those days and at that time I will cause A RIGHTEOUS BRANCH OF DAVID to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth.”}} Jesus is the divine Son of God who is coming to reign as messiah over the whole earth in the Millennium.
===================================================
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
** It is the Lord Jesus who is represented here as THE BRANCH.
** Each title and position belongs to Him in His position and character.
** THE BRANCH also represent 4 different portrayals of Him.
** Those portrayals are the 4 Gospels. King, Servant, Man, God the Son.
NOW RETURNING TO THE FOUR FACES OF THE CHERUBIM
“EACH HAD THE FACE OF A MAN, ALL FOUR HAD THE FACE OF A LION ON THE RIGHT AND THE FACE OF A BULL ON THE LEFT, AND ALL FOUR HAD THE FACE OF AN EAGLE.”
[A]. GOSPEL OF LUKE
MAN – The Man the Branch. Gospel of Luke. Luke portrays Jesus as the perfect Man. Key phrase is “Son of Man”. This represents the face of a Man the cherubim displayed.
[B]. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
KING – Face of a LION. Branch and a King. Gospel of Matthew. Matthew portrays Jesus as the King of Israel who came, was presented, rejected and crucified.
[C]. THE GOSPEL OF MARK
SERVANT – BULL/OX. Branch and Servant. Gospel of Mark. The ox is man’s servant, the load bearer, the worker. Jesus is portrayed as the Servant. The key word is “immediately” and “straight away” (obedient servants). The face of a bull.
[D]. THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
LORD – EAGLE. The LORD, the Branch. Gospel of John. John portrays Jesus over and over again as the LORD God. Divinity established all through. “Before Abraham was, I AM.” The eagle is the bird of the heavens. Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth.
Thus we have seen the harmony of the Bible. The Gospels related to the One they portray. The Living Creatures representing the attributes and character of God, all point to Jesus. The Branch of the Old Testament is the Lord of the New Testament with the same portrayal. Jesus is KING -SERVANT – MAN - GOD. To this, the Gospels testify.
CONCLUSION
There were only ever going to be 4 Gospels.
Each writer uses his own style but it was all crafted from the Holy Spirit’s inspiration.
If just one Gospel was removed then the harmony of scripture would suffer.
When considered together, we have a perfect picture of our Lord Jesus Christ.
ronaldf@aapt.net.au
