The Life of Christ
The Four Gospels (Part 1 of 2)
by
Rev. Mark Perkins, Pastor
Denver Bible Church
326 E. Colorado Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80210
E-Mail:
To: Life
of Christ Main Menu
To: Grace
Notes Home Page
General Introduction.
In the middle of the 6th decade of the first century, Christianity
had reached a crisis. Nero had begun his persecutions, and the
Romans had begun to suppress the open rebellion of the zealot
Jews in Palestine.
The church had been well established throughout the Roman Empire,
and many doctrinal epistles had been written in support of the
church.
Paul was in prison; many of the great believers of the eyewitness
generation had died from natural causes and violent persecution.
It appeared as though the prophecy of Christ about the destruction
of the Temple was about to come to pass due to the hopeless war
in the Holy Land.
It was because of these intense adversities that God the Holy
Spirit inspired three men in three different cities to write
gospels - records of the life of Christ.
The three locations of writing were widely and evenly distributed.
Mark recorded Peter's gospel in Rome.
Luke wrote his gospel somewhere in Greece, probably in Achaia.
Matthew wrote from Antioch in Syria.
These three gospels were written for various reasons. Matthew
wrote to Jews, in order to convince them of the Messiahship of
Jesus. He hoped to convert them before the folly of the Zealot
movement resulted in their persecution and destruction. Already
war was begun in Palestine.
Luke wrote to Greeks in order to provide an accurate history
of the events of the incarnation. His second work, the book of
Acts, is the accurate history of the early church.
Mark wrote to record the life of Christ as told by Peter. It
is likely that Peter was in prison and close to martyrdom when
he dictated the story of Christ's life. Peter no doubt thought
it imperative that the story get out. The abbreviated nature
of the narrative reveals both Peter's nature and that he was
in a hurry.
These three gospels, although very similar in their record of
events, arose from independent sources.
Peter told the story to Mark as he remembered it.
Luke had apparently interviewed a number of people over the years
and put these materials together to form his gospel.
Matthew had already written quite a lot of material in Aramaic,
which had to do with the prophecies concerning the life of Christ.
He used this material to form the basis for a number of his passages,
and filled in the rest from memory.
There was no written source on which these three are all based.
The Q hypothesis is pure bunk, thought up by arrogant German
scholars who had nothing better to do because they had rejected
the inspired nature of the Word.
These three gospels are often called the synoptic gospels, because
they have roughly the same record of events. Synoptic means to
'see together'.
These synoptic gospels were all written within a year or two
from one another. It is therefore doubtful that they could have
relied on one another. The times of writing are as follows (all
dates approximate).
Mark - 65 A.D.
Matthew and Luke - 66 A.D.
Notice that in the time of crisis it was important from the Spirit's
point of view to provide knowledge of the life of Christ! Remember,
the Spirit chose when to inspire these works. The gospel of John
is very similar in that it is inspired during a time of great
adversity for the church. John wrote his gospel in the eighties,
most likely the late eighties.
The problems of harmonizing the gospels
Critics of the gospels have been very skeptical about the accuracy
of the gospel accounts because even the synoptic gospels do not
appear (at least on the surface) to harmonize well.
However when the gospels are analyzed and then harmonized by
those whose work goes beyond just a surface appraisal, things
work out quite well. One such harmony is Dr. Thomas' A Harmony
of the Gospels, which was written together with Dr. Gundry.
Dr. Thomas lists the following as problems with harmonization
on page 302 of his book.
Accounts of Christ's words sometimes differ. One evangelist's
report of the same conversation, saying, or discourse may be
more less complete than another's. Differences may occur in grammatical
construction. Synonyms may be substituted, verb voice or tense
changed, or nouns replaced by pronouns. There may be differences
in the order of discussion.
Sometimes the differences in details reported even involve what
appear to be contradictions.
Occasionally, the same or similar statements will be found in
contexts which appear to reflect different situations.
Somewhat similar events occur in different situations.
Sometimes what really appears to be the same event will be reported
in a different order in another gospel.
Sometimes diverse descriptive details are given for what appears
to be the same event; sometimes these details may have the appearance
of discrepancy.
The gospel writers do not always report the same events.
The big issue is this: Do these problems undermine the historical
integrity of the gospels? If they do, then they undermine the
inspired nature of the word.
In the last century, the German scholars saw these problems and
failed to account for them. Instead, they arrogantly denied the
inspired nature of the Word, and the ministers and the people
followed. The result was two world wars, both started by a nation
full of people who called themselves Christians. We stand on
the brink of the same possibility in our own nation.
Do not fear, however, for responsible scholarship more than accounts
for these problems without compromising the historical integrity
and inspired nature of these documents.
The general solutions are as follows:
Jesus spoke three languages: Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The
gospels were all written in Greek. Therefore, by necessity many
of the gospel accounts of Jesus' words are translations. In translation,
there is plenty of room of variance without losing meaning.
Sometimes the words are translated quite literally, but even
so the use of synonyms is quite acceptable. Sometimes the words
are translated more loosely in order to emphasize the impact
of the words. This is also perfectly acceptable.
In modern language we have many punctuation marks to indicate
what is a direct quote and what is not; what is a clarification
by the author, and what is a clarification by the original speaker;
even footnotes are employed to refer to source materials. None
of these things were available to the ancient writer.
Because of this it is difficult to tell when the writer is doing
one of these things in his translation of Jesus' words (even
if he is translating). Suffice it to say that God the Holy Spirit
is the supernatural director of all translations of Jesus' words,
and He ensured their accuracy.
When there are differences in translation, we can use them to
amplify all the translations.
Dr. Thomas summarizes this principle in this way: "What
one does expect to be reproduced in ordinary discussion are the
striking or important statements, the leading thoughts, the major
divisions or topics, and the general drift of discussion including
transitions from one topic to another. While different reports
are expected to agree on these matters, it is also expected that
there will be differences on details such as changes of person,
substitution of pronouns for nouns or vice versa, changes in
tense, voice, or mood of the verbs, and substitution of synonyms
are too trivial to be taken as serious objections to a reporter's
accuracy in ordinary discussion.
"While wording is important, meaning can be conveyed in
a variety of ways. Verbal inspiration does not imply that truth
can be accurately communicated in only one way. Rather, it means
that the manner in which the Holy Spirit did speak through the
human agents is inspired and hence accurate, word for word.".
The people of the ancient world, especially the Jewish people,
had highly trained memories. They were often required to memorize
long passages of the Old Testament, and even in a language that
was not their native tongue.
This, together with the ministry of the Holy Spirit led to tremendous
accuracy with reference to the meaning of the translation.
When a translation is direct from the Greek, we can expect greater
accuracy in the quotation of Jesus' words, but even so, one writer
for his own reason may add or subtract from the quotation without
a violation of the principle of inspiration.
Also, Christ no doubt repeated many of His words over the course
of His ministry; this does not mean that He said the exact same
thing every time. Even during the same sermon it is likely that
He repeated Himself. One gospel writer may have recorded one
part, while another different parts with slightly different wording.
Differences in the details of what appear to be the same event
may in fact be a record of two quite different occurrences.
Sometimes, a writer will arrange his material according to subject
and therefore take things out of chronological order. This too
is acceptable, and does not corrupt the inspired nature of the
text.
The conclusion is this: that harmonizing the gospels presents
no major problems with reference to inspiration. The accounts
do harmonize well, and the problems that go with a harmony are
easily and rationally accounted for.
The Gospel of Matthew
For each gospel, we will follow this order:
Author
Circumstances of writing
Target readership
Purpose of writing, and
Characteristics of the gospel.
The Author
Matthew - God used an outcast. His name is a transliteration
of the Aramaic word which means "gift of God."
In his own Gospel, Matthew uses his regular name. In other gospels,
the name Levi is used. It is likely that Matthew became his name
after his conversion.
Matthew was a Jewish tax collector. It is likely that he was
fairly well off financially because of his profession. This makes
his decision to follow Christ all the more remarkable, because
he left it all behind - Luke 5:28. It is likely that he worked
at the toll house in Capernaum.
When he decided to follow our Lord, he threw a big party, and
invited all his friends. His decision to follow Christ was immediate.
As a tax collector, Matthew was an outcast in Jewish society.
He apparently had no friends who were devout in the Jewish faith
for at his party there were only other tax collectors and sinners.
The Roman tax collectors were hated by the Jews because the Roman
taxes were in addition to the Jewish taxes.
They were also hated because they represented the occupying forces
of the Roman Empire.
The tax collectors made their living by inflating the Roman taxes.
They essentially worked on commission.
Tax collectors were wealthy, but hated by their own society.
They had to live with a tremendous amount of prejudice.
Because of this prejudice their social options were severely
limited. They could only socialize with others who were outcasts.
It was easy for Matthew to follow Christ, considering his personal
circumstances. Social isolation does not make it easy to enjoy
personal wealth. No doubt he knew of the supernatural essence
of Christ's ministry, and he may have even heard Him speak. It
is often the outcast that finds it easiest to follow Christ.
The Circumstances Surrounding the Writing of the Matthew
Of the circumstances of the writing of this gospel we know very
little. What little we can draw comes from inside the book.
The Target Readership for Matthew
The target readership for Matthew's gospel was most likely Jewish
believers in Palestine. A secondary audience may be found in
Jewish audiences everywhere. His was the most read of all the
gospels in the first century. This popularity is a good testimony
to its arrangement.
The Purpose of the Gospel of Matthew
The purpose of this gospel was generally to awaken and establish
faith in Jesus Christ.
That this gospel was written primarily with a Jewish audience
in mind brings a more specific purpose: To establish Christ as
the Messiah and to answer the attacks of Jewish critics on the
issue of the person of Christ.
It was also intended as a tool for use in evangelism for other
believers.
Finally, it was probably intended as a last ditch effort to stem
the tide of destruction which was descending upon the Jews in
Palestine.
The Jews were their own worst enemies. They were extremely self-destructive,
and especially so since their rejection of Christ as Messiah.
Their self-destructive tendencies culminated in a great number
of them choosing the way of the zealot - armed resistance without
virtue.
The way of the zealot could only result in the destruction of
the Jews in the land, and of Jerusalem. The Romans' method of
warfare was far superior to that of the zealots. Anyone with
common sense could see the inevitable destruction of the Jewish
armies.
Therefore, Matthew wrote his gospel as a last-ditch effort to
stem the tide of destruction that had welled up among the Jews
in Palestine.
Matthew wrote just as the zealots began their armed revolt in
66 A.D.
General Characteristics of Matthew
The most striking of the characteristics of this gospel is its
emphasis on Christ as the Messianic King promised by the Old
Testament prophets. Time and again Matthew points out some event
in Christ's life, or one of His characteristics as being a fulfillment
of a prophecy. He especially concentrates on Christ as the fulfillment
of the Davidic covenant.
Matthew also concentrates on the kingdom of the Messianic king.
He uses the term, "the kingdom of heaven" 32 times,
but it is not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture. He stresses both
the spiritual and political aspects of the kingdom. Matthew records
ten parables about the kingdom which are found in none of the
other gospels. His is the gospel of the New Covenant for Israel.
Matthew's gospel has a very Jewish flavor, yet at the same time
he often takes the opportunity to denounce the Pharisees and
their incorrect practices and perceptions of the Messiah. The
latter is probably due to Matthew's social isolation. No doubt
he was often victimized by the Pharisees for being a tax collector.
Like so many who are the victims of prejudice, Matthew has special
insight into those who perpetuate such sins.
However, Matthew does not exclude the Gentiles. Matthew was emotionally
a Gentile because of his social isolation. He makes sure his
readers understand that once the Jews have completely rejected
Christ, the kingdom would be transferred to the Gentiles.
Matthew is the one who arranges his material by subject, and
aside from the passion week he does not follow the chronological
order of events. Matthew, more than any other gospel writer,
has an ax to grind. It is a righteous ax, and so he arranges
his material to suit the grinding.
In spite of Matthew's choice of arrangement, his gospel retains
a great unity and order. This reveals the mind of a tax collector.
The order of numbers and accounts lead naturally to literary
order. There is great continuity in the order of the subjects,
and excellent literary transition.
There is no charge for Grace Notes Materials. You can help further this work by your prayer and by sending a contribution to:
Grace Notes
% Warren Doud wdoud@bga.com
1705 Aggie Lane
Austin, Texas 78757
Grace Notes Web site: http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/
Anonymous FTP site: ftp://ftp.bga.com/vendors/wdoud/
Grace Notes is a ministry of Village
Missions International.