THE gospels have been the arena of difficulties with many Christians. Why were four Gospels written? and if such were needful, why do they differ so much both in their order and in their contents? These questions come with increased power to those who are not well established in the plenary inspiration of the scriptures, whereas those who firmly believe that all scripture is God-inspired, while they may have some difficulties, know that God has a wise reason for everything, whether they understand it or not.
On the other hand, where the doctrine of inspiration is loosely held, man and not God is ever before the eye-man may have done the best he could, but has not at all times been successful, and has not always avoided mistakes.
Any Christian who has ever written a book knows how careful he has been that that book should truly and faithfully give what he intended to say; and yet how strange that some who know this, and have been thus careful in their own works, should have no higher thought of God as an Author than to suppose that He has allowed His writers to say what He did not mean, omit what He would have had them say, and indeed make mistakes in various ways; and notwithstanding all this, yet to tell us that the scriptures are the word of God, and that all is God inspired. Indeed, God acknowledges that He is the Author of it all. We have looked a little at Verbal Inspiration elsewhere.
All sorts of questions have been started as to the origin of the gospels. Which gospel was first written? How far did the second writer copy from the first, or did he supplement it? Had the third writer a copy of both the first and second when he wrote his gospel, and what use did he make of them? Or was there one full record of events from which all made extracts? All this and much more is perplexing, for it is not at all agreed which gospel was written first.
Putting aside the Gospel of John, the other three have each been said to have been the first written.
These and many more such suppositions have arisen because God has been lost sight of as the Author, and man the instrument has alone, or almost alone, been considered. After some scheme has been supposed to be the true one, then it is admitted that the Holy Spirit aided in some way to lead the writers; but it is held by many that He did not prevent them making mistakes, omissions, &c. To what then are we to trust as the word of God? How tell truth from error?
Whereas if we begin with God's being the Author, such questions have no interest for us, and we therefore do not need any means of answering them. But, on the other hand, we shall be met with the cry, " The differences-the differences-how do you account for them if all are inspired?" The answer is very simple: the differences are as much inspired as the agreements; and the spiritual mind sees in them the marks of designed perfections, and a strong confirmation of the divine inspiration of the gospels.
Once assured of this, we can with interest inquire what light can be thrown upon why there are so many differences existing in the gospels?
This leads to another question: Why are there four gospels? If they were all alike, one would contain all and be sufficient, but God has been pleased in His wisdom to give us four distinct gospels. Surely it is right for us to seek to discover why four gospels are given, and why they differ.
These are questions that were of interest in the church from the earliest date, and in some way the four gospels were linked with the appearance of the four beasts, or living creatures, in the Revelation.
Irenmus (A.D. 120-200) contends that there must be four gospels and no more (there are some apocryphal gospels), because (I) there are four zones of the world, while the church is scattered throughout the world; (2) there are four cherubim in the Revelation; and (3) there have been four covenants given to the human race: one, under Adam, prior to the deluge; the second, from the deluge to Moses; the third, under the law; and the fourth, under the gospel.
Without endorsing much that we find in Irenmus, it may be noticed that the allusion to the four living creatures has often been adopted since, and old books gave along with a supposed portrait of Matthew, a man; along with Mark, a lion; with Luke, an ox; and with John, an eagle.
In Ezek. 1 also we have "the likeness of four living creatures," and with the same faces as the above, and in the same order. " They four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side; and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle." (Verse 10.) No doubt there is a reason why the order in Ezekiel differs from that in Rev. 4 In the former the prophet was " among the captives by the river of Chebar;" whereas, in the Revelation the living creatures are seen in heaven along with the four-and-twenty elders, who doubtless represent the redeemed. If there is any connection between the order of naming the living creatures and the gospels, it seems right to be that in the Revelation rather than that of Ezekiel. This would place the lion with Matthew, the ox with Mark, the man with Luke, and the eagle with John.
But if there be any seeming resemblance or connection, it might need greatly modifying when we carry out the figures used. For instance, in the cherubim, the lion would speak of " majesty " as an attribute of God; but in the gospel it would be an allusion to the "lion of the tribe of Judah," though this indeed was the royal tribe: " the scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come." (Gen. 49:10.)
In the ox it would be plodding industry as a type of the ever-active providence of God.
In the man it is intelligence.
In the eagle the soaring above all earthly influence.
Now as these four figures are needed to set forth the active interference of God in government, may not four gospels be needed to set forth at least four of the principal characters of Christ, when He came to earth to work out redemption for man? This we believe is the key to the four gospels, and accounts for very many of the differences found in them, without saying that the gospels agree with the faces of the cherubim. In scripture four is the number of complete display on earth-earthly perfection.
But amid the many titles and characters of the Lord what four can be chosen to be there represented? The first that seems essential is Christ as the Son of God. No redemption can be accomplished without this. The next that presents itself is Christ as Son of man. This also is needful to accomplish redemption. A third is Christ as the Messiah, the Son of David and King, to fulfill the many prophecies given to Israel. These seem essential, but what can be named for a fourth? We believe it is Christ as Prophet and Servant, which is also needful to fulfill prophecy.
Now if the four gospels are characterized by representing Christ in the above aspects, might we not naturally expect that chronological order would not be always followed? a moral order is often better for such a purpose.
This has been illustrated by the various lives that might be written of any great man-say of the Duke of Wellington. One biographer might mainly dwell on his character as a general in the army; another as a statesman; another as a philanthropist; and another give his character in social life. We can easily see that none of these would bind the authors to a strictly chronological order; but facts and traits of character would be associated in their moral order.
So it is in the gospels: historical order has not been always followed, because, to carry out the design in each, it was necessary that certain of Christ's acts, His words and ways, should be grouped together as we find them; or some line of teaching was the better brought out by such grouping. We may not be able at all times to discover the design, but if we adhere to the truth that God is the author of all, we are then sure there is wisdom in events or teaching being placed in one gospel in a different order from what they are in another.
From this it follows that those who have labored to cut up the gospels, and place them all in one chronological order to form what is called a harmony of the gospels have made a great mistake. God intended them to he separate, and has so given us them. To make them into one is to lose the beauty of each, and to spoil them as a whole.
Our next question is, If the before-named four characters of Christ are the true ones, to which of the gospels does each belong? Is there anything in the gospels themselves that plainly guides us in this? Let us see.
In two of the gospels we have genealogies of Christ. The one in Matthew traces it up to " the son of David, the son of Abraham." The one in Luke up to "the son of Adam." This at once seems to point out that in Matthew we shall find Christ as the Messiah, the Son of David; and in Luke, Christ as the Son of man. We shall see presently whether these things are confirmed by further details.
Almost instinctively the introduction to the Gospel of John, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," tells us that in this gospel Christ is emphatically the Son of God.
This leaves Christ as the Prophet or Servant for the Gospel of Mark, though we may not be able to see immediately any marks of this.
In placing any one of these characters of Christ with a particular gospel, it is not meant that it is to the exclusion of the other characters; but that in each the character named is the prominent thing brought out.
Now let us look at a few of the details of each.
Matthew.
The very opening words of Matthew, as we have seen, stamp its character, " The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the Son of Abraham." We should naturally expect that this gospel would be especially a testimony to Israel, and would contain more quotations from the Old Testament than the other gospels; and it is a fact that it does so. In Matthew there are 36; in Mark, 17; in Luke, 19; and in John, 15. It was to prove that Jesus was the true MESSIAH spoken of in the Old Testament, leaving the Jews without an excuse.
It is the only gospel that gives the name of Christ as Emmanuel, quoting the prophecy from Isaiah that such should be the name of the Virgin's Son. He had been prophesied of in their own scriptures, and now He was amongst them, exactly answering the prophecy.
Here only we have the wise men asking in Jerusalem, " Where is he that is born King of the Jews? " Surely we must see how exactly this agrees with the character of this gospel.
Here only the term " kingdom of heaven " occurs: in the other gospels it is "the kingdom of God." John the Baptist preached, saying, " Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand: " in the other gospels he preached " the baptism of repentance for remission of sins." A kingdom was what the Jews were looking for, and one should be proclaimed to them; but it must be of heaven first before it could be on earth.
The kingdom of David was to continue forever as in Psa. 89:3,4: "I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations." In agreement with this, Matthew does not record the ascension, but closes with Christ still alive on earth. As has been pointed out, Matthew was present at the ascension, and yet omitted to name it. Is it not clear that he did so because it would not have been in character with his gospel? The kingdom will run on after the church has been taken from the earth.
Many differences might be named. See for instance the entrance of Christ into Jerusalem. All the four gospels record this event, but Matthew alone records his being called " son of David: " the children even cried out " Hosanna to the son of David." (Chapter 21:9,15.) Surely this is not accidental, but shows God as the author of all.
We repeat that all that is meant is that Christ as Messiah is the leading thought in Matthew's gospel: other characters also shine out. Christ came to His own, and His own received Him not. This rejection is noted, and then Christ foretells of his church (chap 16.) which is not named in the other gospels.
Mark.
The gospel commences with the words, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God," and we might at first suppose that the leading characteristic was Christ as Son of God. But that character belongs to the gospel by John. As we have said, we believe that Christ is here represented as the PROPHET and faithful SERVANT.
As a master says to his servant, " As soon as you have done that, do this," or " do this at once, immediately; " so we find that the Greek word translated "immediately," " straightway," " forthwith," " anon," &c., occurs forty-two times. In Mark alone we read, " And they had no leisure so much as to eat " (chap. 6:31): how like a busy servant!
We do not find in Mark that the principles of the kingdom are laid down as in Matthew, nor the " Woe unto you " pronounced on the leaders of the people. Only in Mark do we get the words " neither the Son " added to the sentence, " Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Chapter 13:32.) A servant knows not what his master doeth.
In Mark we do not find Christ saying that He had power to call twelve legions of angels; nor does He here say, " All power is given to me in heaven and in earth."
It is to be noted also that in this gospel Christ does not address God as His Father, except in the agony in the garden when His service of love was ended: nor do the disciples ever call Him " Lord."
Surely all these things, and many more might be added, are not accidental, nor the mere style of the writer; but are designed, and are in beautiful harmony with Christ having taken the character of Servant.
Luke.
—Here Christ is as SON OF MAN. His genealogy does not stop at Abraham as in Matthew, but goes back to Adam. Here alone we get the few incidents of the early life of Christ. He was subject to His parents, and He increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man. Here His manhood shines out.
This Gospel takes a wider range than Matthew. In agreement with this see the quotation from Isa. 40 Matthew quotes, " The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight," and then stops; but Luke continues the quotation, " Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God." In like manner in Luke, when the twelve apostles are sent forth they are not charged (as in Matthew) " Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not." See also the wider commission to the seventy.
In this gospel only we get the parable of the Good Samaritan, which teaches that all men are our neighbors. Here only we have the parable of the lost sheep, the lost piece of money, and the prodigal son: God seeking the lost.
Surely all this is in beautiful harmony with Christ as the Son of man for man.
John.
—In this gospel Christ is seen as SON OF GOD. We have already alluded to the opening of the gospel, and towards the close its object is distinctly stated-that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing they might have life through his name.
Here we have no genealogy, and no early life; but we hear of Him being with God before creation, and of making all things. " We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
Here alone we have the raising of Lazarus from the dead, with the declaration, " I am the resurrection and the life."
Here Christ is represented as sending the Holy Spirit, " whom I will send unto you from the Father."
Here alone is omitted the agony in the garden, and the saying, If it be possible, let this cup pass from me." And when they came to arrest Him here alone we read that when he said, " I am he, they went backward and fell to the ground."
Here alone Christ told Pilate, " Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above." All this is consistent with the fact that Christ is Son of God, which is characteristic of the Gospel by John.
Thus, then, we believe that the four gospels are of God, and that the differences are designed by Him not only to bring out the varied characters of Christ, but that each may have its own peculiar line of teaching in agreement with that character. Instead of trying to harmonize the gospels and thus destroy those differences, it is for us to notice them, and seek wisdom from above to understand why they were made, and to learn the lessons intended by God.