The gospels
A) OPENING DISCUSSION.
B) MATTHEW.
C) MARK.
D) LUKE.
E) JOHN.
A) OPENING DISCUSSION
First of all, one could argue that because of the added revelation of Jesus after He Came, the New Testament requirements are even more difficult than what was required in the Old Testament (“If you even look upon a woman. . .”). New Testament believers have been given an example of proper moral behavior in Jesus Christ. And He and no one else shows the pattern better as to what we are to follow. Consider: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in [not Moses, not Daniel, not David, not Solomon, not Enoch, not Deborah, not Elijah] Christ Jesus.” Philippians 2:5.
I’d like us to take a look at the differences of the Gospel writers. First, I find it interesting that even in the rendering of the teaching of how to pray, in other words, what is called, “The Lord’s Prayer,” Matthew, the tax collector, states, “forgive us our debts,” while Luke, the gentile, writes, “forgive us our sins.” Also, Matthew, when relating the account of the woman who had an issue of blood for 12 years (Matthew Ch. 9; Luke Ch. 8), who touched the hem of our Lord’s garment for healing, Matthew doesn’t even mention the physicians as being unable to heal her, yet Luke, being a physician himself, humbles his own industry by relating that the physicians could not even heal her.
In an interesting fact, the New Testament writers quote Isaiah more than all of the other Old Testament prophets combined. From the Books, 8T:286 and FLB:17, we learn, “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.”
Matthew emphasizes what Jesus said, while Mark focuses upon what Jesus did. And still Luke centers upon what Jesus felt, with John presenting Who Jesus was. Matthew emphasizes the Messianic role of Christ, Mark the Servant role, Luke, the humanity role, with John focusing upon His Divine role.
Let me support this a little bit. Matthew, being a devout Jew, wanting to support the Messianic role of Christ, starts off his Gospel with the Genealogy of Christ, from Abraham, notice, not from Adam like Luke does; Matthew thus supporting Christ’s human role. From the Jewish minded Abrahamic line, through king David, until now, Matthew sets up the credentials, if you will, of Jesus Christ. He sets up His role and authority as the Jewish Messiah.
Whereas Mark, wanting to support Christ’s servanthood, starts his Gospel off with Christ’s public ministry. So where does Luke start, being interested in Christ’s humanity? He starts off his Gospel with the nativity seen. He really dwells and concentrates upon the birth of Christ which none of the other Gospel writers do. His Gospel is directed more towards the Gentile audience than any of the others. Luke’s genealogic line, by tracing all the way back to Adam, certainly includes Gentiles; as opposed to Matthew’s lineage. By contrast, John starts off his Gospel, being focused upon the Deity of Christ, by stressing Christ’s pre-existence. “The Word” may have become flesh, but It was God before It became man.
There are many “Main Themes” that could be expressed. However, one our Lord seems to express consistently would be the “Kingdom Of God.” It occurs specifically 5 times in Matthew; 15 times in Mark; 32 times in Luke; and twicein John. However, if we look at all the specific references to “The Kingdom Of God,” discounting (not using references to) “Heaven,” we have a more realistic number of references:
Matthew = 55 Times;
Mark = 19 Times;
Luke = 43 Times;
John = 3 Times.
Therefore, in order to get to “The Kingdom Of God,” the “Main Theme,” as expressed throughout the Scriptures, is “Character.”
By contrast, a better main them would be our Messiah’s Own use of the phrase, “Son of Man,” which in essence our Lord is referring to Daniel 7:13, where Jesus is declaring that He is Divinity; in that there, God is seen in human form. Jesus is quoted as using this phrase 80 times in the Gospels.
B) MATTHEW
The Book of Matthew was evidently written a little before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The probability is that it was written between the years 60 and 65 A.D. Matthew was a Levite; and he was very Jewish in every sense of that term. The cast of thought and the forms of expressions employed by the writer show that this Gospel was written for Jewish Christians of Palestine.
Matthews great object is to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, and that in Him the ancient prophecies had their fulfillment. The Gospel is full of allusions to those passages of the Old Testament in which Christ is predicted and foreshadowed; as opposed to Marks Gospel, which was written mostly for a Gentile audience; and as such has little allusions to the Old Testament.
The one aim pervading the entire Book of Matthew is to show that Jesus is He “of Whom Moses in the Law and the prophets did write.” This Gospel contains no fewer than sixty-five references to the Old Testament, forty-three of these being direct verbal citations. Thus, he greatly outnumbers those found in the other Gospel writers. The main feature of this Gospel may be expressed in the key phrase that Matthew uses, which is “that it might be fulfilled by the prophet” so and so. In fact, this statement is used no less than 38 times in his Gospel. Thus, a student of the Old Testament would do well to start off with the Book of Matthew, whereas, a non-student of the Old Testament can learn a lot about it from the Book of Matthew. Staying with this main theme, Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of quite a few of the Old Testament prophecies, using the term “fulfilled” 82 times.
It is believed that evidently Matthew recorded the discourses of our Lord verbatim. And the reason he was able to accomplish that was because, as a “publican [tax collector],” he was a “tachygrapher.” Or, in other words, he, due to his occupation, learned the art of “shorthand.” Therefore, the reason Matthew’s Gospel is so much longer than Mark’s is the fact that he includes Jesus’ extensive discourses, such as the Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet Discourse. Without these discourses, Mark’s Gospel would actually be longer than Matthew’s.
Many scholars now believe that the Gospels were written before Paul’s first imprisonment in 57-60 A.D., and that virtually all of the New Testament Books were written before Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 A.D. The reason is that there is no hint in the New Testament of Nero’s persecutions after 64 A.D., nor in the Gospels, of the execution of James, our Lord’s brother, in 62 A.D. There is also not the slightest mention of the Jewish revolt against the Romans, which began in 66 A.D. These historic events would have been irresistible not to mention in the making of the many arguments in the New Testament documents.
“The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes. The stamps of minds are different. All do not understand expressions and statements alike. Some understand the statements of the Scriptures to suit their own particular minds and cases. Prepossessions, prejudices, and passions have a strong influence to darken the understanding and confuse the mind even in reading the words of Holy Writ.” 1SM:20. This is one of the reasons I believe that there are four Gospel writers. Some will relate better to Mark, while others may relate better to Luke, etcetera.
According to Westcott and Hort’s, “The New Testament in Greek,” they state that references to the Old Testament in Matthew are 100, in Mark 58, in Luke 86, in John 21, and in Acts 107. Matthew’s rendering of the Seven Kingdom Parables in Chapter 13, are remarkably parallel to the Letters to the Seven Churches in the Book of Revelation, Chapters 2 and 3.
As quoted by Eusebius in “Hist. Eccl.” 3.39, Papias states: “Matthew put together the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” Textual evidence suggests that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. In hundreds of places the Greek sentence structure betrays a Semitic influence and implies a translation from the Hebrew. Jesus’ teachings in the Book of Matthew contain significant numbers of Hebrew/Aramaic puns, alliterations, and word connections. Even more, the Gospel of Matthew is the most specifically Jewish Gospel of all the four and is clearly written for a Jewish audience, with a focus on Jesus as the Messiah in fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures.
In 1994, a segment of the Greek text of Matthew’s Gospel appears to now have been dated before 66 A.D. Known as the “Magdalen Papyrus,” or “P64,” it contains segments of Matthew 26:23, and 26:31, on both sides of three fragments. Carsten Peter Thiede, then Director of “The Institute for Basic Epistemological Research,” in Paderborn, did the examination on the “Magdalen Papyrus.” Using a scanning laser microscope, in order to provide physical evidence that the Gospel according to Matthew was indeed written by Matthew. He then published his findings in “The Times of London,” December 24 1994, determining, “that the Gospel according to Matthew is an eyewitness account written by contemporaries of Christ.”
It appears that within five years after the death and resurrection of Christ, most of our Lord’s Words and deeds had been committed to a simple written Hebrew form. And Matthew is, of course, assumed to be part of this compilation. Within a decade, this corpus would have been translated into a Greek version for Church requirements. This body of information is often called the “Q-document” (for German, “quelle,” means “source”). Around the year 50 A.D., the original material was developed into written Greek form and as such, the “Synoptic Gospels” were composed; probably since the persecutions were imminent. The key point is that eyewitnesses were still around to verify the details. In other words, any false details would have been pointed out and scratched.
C) MARK
The Book of Mark was probably written about 65-70 A.D. (or 40 A.D. read further). It is the current and apparently well-founded tradition that John Mark derived his information mainly from the discourses of the Apostle Peter and the other apostles and their coadjutors. In his mother’s house he would have abundant opportunities of obtaining information from them.
Marcus, (see Col. 4:10 and others) was his Roman name, which gradually came to supersede his Jewish name, John. He is called John in Acts 13:5 & 13; while he is called Mark in Acts 15:39; Second Timothy 4:11; Philemon. 1:24; etcetera. He was the son of Mary, a woman apparently of some means and influence, and was probably born in Jerusalem, because that is where his mother resided (Acts 12:12).
Mark’s most prominent style comes forward, in that he employs as the phrase most characteristic of his Gospel the Greek word, “eutheoos,” meaning and translated as, “straightway,” or, “immediately,” 41 times.
It is most probable that he was converted by Peter, who calls him his “son,” First Peter 5:13. Peter’s name and presence are mentioned on occasions where apparently there is no reason for it; bringing many to the conclusion that Mark herein wished to bring the Apostle forward as his authority; thus giving him credit for the Gospel instead of himself (see Mark 1:36; 5:37; 11:20-26; 13:3). There are indications of the author as having been a Galilean, which Peter was, but Mark not thought to be. He styled such things as Herod the tetrarch being a “king.” Also, while other authors would call it a “lake,” such as Luke did in Luke 8:22, Mark calling it, “the sea of Galilee,” Mark 5:1. Another identifying feature would be the term of dignity used by Mark, i.e., “apostle,” as found in Mark 6:30.
In a style not unlike the Apostle John and others, it is probable that he also used the third person to conceal his identity, meaning the “young man,” spoken of in Mark 14:51-52, who was Mark himself. He is first mentioned in Acts 12:25, and was with Paul in his first imprisonment at Rome (Col. 4:10; Phm. 1:24). Later on, we find him with Peter in Babylon (1Pe. 5:13). And he was with Timothy in Ephesus when Paul wrote him during his second imprisonment (2Ti. 4:11). He then disappears from view.
The “Sinaiticus,” and “Vaticanus Manuscripts,” omit Mark, Chapter 16, verses 9-20. By contrast, the “Alexandrinus,” “Beza,” and “Paris Manuscripts,” and even the “Latin Vulgate,” support them; as well, the historian Irenaeus (see iii. 10, sec. 6) quotes from them. In fact, most Manuscripts contain these verses, and just because a manuscript is “older” than another, does not make it more accurate than the other. See my Bible Study: “BIBLE, VERSION WRITTEN AFTER 1881 A.D.”
Matters peculiar to Mark are found in Mark 4:26-29 (the seed growing secretly); and Mark 3:21 (his kindred’s fear); along with Mark 7:32-37 (the deaf and dumb man); compare also Mark 8:22-26 (the blind man); and Mark 13:33-37(the householder and the exhortation to watch); including Mark 14:51 (the young man who escaped).
Also, the following miracles are recorded by Mark: the unclean spirit (Mark 1:21-28), the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12), the withered hand (Mark 3:1-5), the storm stilled (Mark 4:35-41), the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:1-17), Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:22), the woman with the issue (Mark 5:25-34), feeding the 5,000 (Mark 6:35-44), feeding the 4,000 (Mark 8:1-10), walking on the water (Mark 6:48); the Syrophoenician’s daughter (Mark 7:24-30), the deaf mute (Mark 7:31-37), the blind man (Mark 8:22-26), the demoniac boy (Mark 9:14), blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46-52), the fig tree withered (Mark 11:20), the resurrection (Mark 16:1).
As to the location in which this Gospel was written, the weight of testimony is uniformly in favor of the belief that Mark’s Gospel was written and published at Rome. In this Clement, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, all agree. As to the language in which it was written, there never has been any reasonable doubt that it was written in Greek.
Mark makes no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.; hence it must have been written before that event, probably about 65 A.D. The place where it was written was probably Rome. Some have supposed Antioch (compare Mark 15:21 with Acts 11:20).
The Book may have been intended primarily for the Romans. Why? Because Mark does not deal with the Messianic role of Jesus, as does say Matthew. Instead, he deals with the Servanthood role of our Lord. This concept appears probable when it is considered that Mark makes no reference to the Jewish Law; and that the writer takes care to interpret words which, unless interpreted, a Gentile would be likely to misunderstand, such as, “Boanerges,” Mark 3:17; “Talitha cumi,” Mark 5:41; “Corban,” Mark 7:11; “Bartimaeus,” Mark 10:46; “Abba,” Mark 14:36; “Eloi,” Mark 15:34; etcetera. Jewish usages are also explained (Mark 7:3; 14:3; 14:12; 15:42). Mark also uses certain Latin words not found in any of the other Gospels, such as “spekoulator,” translated as “executioner,” Mark 6:27; “xestes,” a corruption of “sextarius,” which is rendered “pots,” in Mark 7:4 & 8; “quadrans,” in Mark 12:42, is rendered, “a farthing;” and “kenturion,” which is a “centurion,” Mark 15:39 & 44-45.
Mark only twice quotes from the Old Testament (Mark 1:2 & 15:28). In regards to the possible 40 A.D. date for the writing of this Book, Mark never mentions the name of the High Priest (see Chapter 14), which makes us assume that he doesn’t give this information because his audience would have known who it was, thus making his writing around or even before 40 A.D., mainly because Caiaphas (see John 11:49) was still living until about this time. The phrase, “and straightway,” occurs 42 times in this Gospel; while in Luke’s Gospel, which is much longer, it is used only seven times. John’s Gospel only mentions it four times. In other words, Mark is explicit that we should do everything for Christ immediately.
Mark writes in a style that Bible Commentators call, “The Historical Present Tense.” In other words, even though the event happened a long time ago, Mark writes as though it is happening in the “Present Tense,” or right now. He does this 150 times. Examples are: “Jesus comes,” “Jesus says,” “Jesus heals,” etcetera; speaking as though it is happening right now.
There are more miracles recorded in the Book of Mark than of the other three Gospels; even though it appears to be the shortest of the Gospels. However, if you consider that Matthews Gospel (seeming to be the longest) records many of Christ’s discourses verbatim, Matthew’s Gospel would actually be shorter than that of Mark’s if you take those out or shorten them. As an example of Mark’s style and coverage of many events, in Chapter One alone, Mark describes the ministry of John the Baptist, Jesus’ Baptism, Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, and the call of Jesus’ Disciples, all crammed into 20 little verses.
Mark’s purpose was to write down the Gospel, as Peter had presented it, to the Romans (so say the Bible Fathers; and internal evidence supports them). That the Gospel was for Gentiles can be seen:
1) From the translation of the Aramaic expressions as “Boanerges,” Mark 3:17, “Talitha cumi,” Mark 5:41, “Corban,” Mark 7:11, “Bartimaeus,” Mark 10:46, ”Abba,” Mark 14:36, and “Golgotha,” Mark 15:22;
2) In the explanation of Jewish customs (Mark 14:12; 15:42);
3) From the fact that the Law is not mentioned and the Old Testament is only twice quoted in Mark’s own narrative;
4) The Gentile sections, especially in Mark, Chapters 6 through 8.
That this Gospel was for Romans specifically can be seen in:
1) The explanation of a Greek term by a Latin term in Mark 12:42;
2) The preponderance of works of power, the emphasis on authority (Mark 2:10), patience and heroic endurance (Mark 10:17);
3) Highlighting the forbidding of a practice that was not Jewish but Roman (Mark 10:12).
D) LUKE
In regards to the Book of Luke, the date of its composition is uncertain. It must have been written before the Book of Acts, the date of the composition generally being fixed at about 63 or 64 A.D. This Gospel was written, therefore, probably about 60 or 63 A.D., when Luke may have been at Caesarea in attendance with Paul, who was then a prisoner. Others have conjectured that it was written at Rome during Paul’s imprisonment there. That It was definitely written before the Book of Acts is found in the Acts 1:1 statement that Luke had written a “former account” before the Book of Acts.
However, many other scholars believe that the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are merely the legal documents that preceded Paul to Rome. These documents were the legally required documentation of the circumstances that lead to the defendant’s purpose for asking for or requiring a trial under Roman law procedures. The reason for this conclusion is that as you read Luke’s narrative you find that Luke goes out of his way to identify and discuss things of Roman concern. For example, when Luke points out all the uprisings that Paul was accused of or involved in, Luke is careful to point out that it was the Jewish contingent that caused the uprisings; careful to exclude any Roman wrong doing. Also, all through Luke’s writings the centurions are always the good guys. Such as at Capernaum, Luke points out that the centurion built the Synagogue there (see Luke 7:5). Thus, the Book of Luke can be considered as Part 1, while the Book of Acts as Part 2, for his legal representation to the Roman court in defense of Paul.
That Luke is the author of this Book, see Colossians 4:14, where Luke is with Paul and known as his traveling companion in Second Timothy 4:11 (see also Phm. 1:24). And just as Luke is writing to Theophilus in Luke 1:3, so he is writing to “Theophilus,” in Acts 1:1, the opening of both Books. When combining the two Books of Luke and Acts, we find that they comprise 27 percent of the entire New Testament, making Luke the largest contributor. And since Paul refers to Luke as a Gentile coworker (see Col. 4:11, where these “are of the circumcision,” and Col. 4:14, where Luke is not), Luke is the only non-Jewish author of the New Testament.
Out of a total of 1151 verses, the Book of Luke has 389 in common with Matthew and Mark. Luke has 176 in common with Matthew alone, 41 in common with Mark alone, leaving 544 which are peculiar to himself. In many instances, all three use identical language. Luke uses a few Latin words (Luke 7:41; 8:30; 11:33; 12:6; 19:20), but no Syriac or Hebrew words, with the exception of “sikera,” in Luke 1:15, which comes from the Hebrew, “shaker,” meaning of the intoxicating kind (see Lev. 10:9). It has never been doubted that the Gospel was written in Greek, whilst “Hebraisms” are frequent. Classical idioms and Greek compound words abound, for which there is classical authority.
Luke, being a Gentile, is interested not in Jewish things per se, but focuses upon the humanity of Christ, presenting Him to us as “The Son of Man.” The only other instances of this title appears in Daniel 7:13, Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:56, and in Revelation 1:13 & 14:14. The title appears more than 80 times in the Gospels, with 25 of those appearances in the Book of Luke alone. But the other Gospel writers use the term mostly as our Savior’s way of self-designation. Whereas Luke uses the term more as His title.
However, Luke does get specific that this Humanity of Christ is also Divine, by stating in Luke 6:5: “That the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath,” and in Luke 5:24, “that the Son of Man hath power upon earth to forgive sins.” Notice the inclusion of “upon earth,” which keeps with Luke’s emphasis of Christ’s Humanity; clothed in Divinity of course. For in Luke 9:56 & 19:10, Luke states that “The Son of Man” came to seek and save the lost. But first, this Humanity, this “Son of Man,” must suffer many things and be rejected and be killed in Luke 9:22. Finally, Luke sees the “Son of Man” in His glorified Human form in Luke 9:26; 12:4; 17:24 & 26 & 30; 21:36; 22:69, returning to the earth to reward His saints and finalize the Great Controversy.
There are seventeen of our Lord’s parables which are particular to this Gospel. Luke also records seven of our Lord’s miracles, which are omitted by Matthew and Mark. Luke’s key phrase, making his Gospel read more like a novel, emphasizing again the Humanity of Christ, states, “now it came to pass.” He uses this phrase no less than 40 times. You can almost walk through Luke’s Book as if you are living and breathing with Jesus in His Humanity.
The last notice of Luke, the “beloved physician,” is in Second Timothy 4:11. It should be noted why this Gospel was written in the first place and how we should also take note of It, “That thou [Theophilus / place yourself here] mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed,” Luke 1:4. The ancient opinion that Luke wrote his Gospel under the influence of Paul and for Paul’s defense, rests on the authority of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius.
From MH:140-141 we read: “[140] Luke, the writer of the Gospel that bears his name, was a medical missionary. In the Scriptures he is called ’the beloved physician.’ Colossians 4:14. The apostle Paul heard of his skill as a physician, and sought him out as one to whom the Lord had entrusted a special work. He secured his co-operation, and for some time Luke accompanied him in his travels [141] from place to place. After a time, Paul left Luke at Philippi, in Macedonia. Here he continued to labor for several years, both as a physician and as a teacher of the gospel. In his work as a physician he ministered to the sick, and then prayed for the healing power of God to rest upon the afflicted ones. Thus the way was opened for the Gospel message. Luke’s success as a physician gained for him many opportunities for preaching Christ among the heathen. It is the Divine plan that we shall work as the disciples worked.”
E) JOHN
The Book of John was written about 90-100 A.D. Why then no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.? Worldly things obviously were of no concern to John; only the Divinity of Messiah. Which could be why the Apostle John was selected to write out the vision of the Book of Revelation.
His audience is very Jewish in design and in its conceptions. Even though John is very Jewish, he does not focus upon the Messianic role of Jesus in the classical sense. In fact, John, by his own admission in Chapter 20, does his best to present to the world Jesus as, “The Son of God.” So John focuses upon the Deity of Christ, whereas Luke focuses more upon the Humanity of Christ and His miracles. According to Luke 4:4 (see also Mat. 9:29 & 30; 20:34; Mark 1:29-31; 9:25-27; Luke 7:14 & 15; 13:13) Jesus’ normal method for healing is the touch.
By contrast, in the Book of John we find Jesus deploying His spoken Word as the normal means for healing (see John 2:1-11; 4:46-54; 5:1-15; 11:1-44). What is interesting about the Book of John, is that it is very different from the other three Gospels. In fact, the other three Gospels are referred to as the “Synoptic Gospels” for this very reason. That’s just another way of saying that there is a lot of commonality between the other Gospels; while John’s Gospel is very different.
What is interesting about John’s, is when we go to the Book of Revelation, we find that the number 7 is used extensively. Therefore, when we look at the Book of John, we find seven miracles, which give rise to seven discourses about those miracles that culminate in seven “I Am” statements. John’s key phrase is “verily, verily,” used 24 times, which places emphasis upon Christ’s Deity, in the places it was used, giving power and authority behind the statement, “verily, verily.”
John’s Gospel has justly been described as having two parts: “The Book of the Signs,” and, “The Book of the Passion,” since John spends an almost equal amount of time on each. The design of John in writing this Gospel is stated by himself in John 20:31. In an interesting statement found in Acts 13:5, we note that the Church was happy to have such an “eye witness” present with them.
A Church tradition describes the apostle John as an old man living in Ephesus. Because of his feeble condition, his followers had to carry him to Church. As they met together, his only spoken words were, “Little children, love one another.” His followers tired of hearing John repeat the same thing all the time asked, “Master, why do you always say this?” “It is the Lord’s Command,” he replied. “And if this alone be done, it is enough!” Whether true or not, this story captures the essence of this “son of thunder,” Mark 3:17, who was eventually transformed into a son of love and grace. John’s fatherly tone in addressing his readers as “little children,” John 13:33, implies it was written in his old age; perhaps 90 A.D., or that he follows his Lord’s normal address (see Mat. 19:14 as an example).
Rarely are we given a direct answer to a direct question. In Matthew 19:16; Mark 10:19; Luke 10:25; 18:18 a direct question is given, with a direct answer in Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:19; Luke 10:26 & 28; 18:20. Therefore, when we have one from our Lord we should sit up and take notice. Here in the Book of John we have one (John 6:28) with its direct answer (John 6:29).