Introduction
God has been pleased to give us four Gospels, not one. Yet man is
never satisfied with God’s provision and so there have always been
those who think that they know better than God and try to
‘harmonise’ the four into one. But God is wiser than man and says
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
ways” (Is. 55: 8). While the four Gospels present the same blessed
Person, they do so in four different lights. Matthew presents Him in
relation to Israel as their Messiah, the King; Mark as Jehovah’s
Servant, the Branch (see Zech. 3: 8); Luke in universal character as
Son of Man, ever prayerfully dependant; while John gives us God
manifest in flesh. Hence while some incidents occur in all four
Gospels, others are unique to just one.
God’s wisdom is also seen in His choice of human pen. Naturally,
Matthew was a very unsuited choice to address his nation, for the
Jewish tax–gatherers employed by Rome were the most despised and
hated in the nation—yet he was God’s choice. Mark was not an
apostle, had not witnessed the events of which he wrote and had
failed in service—yet again he was God’s choice to present the
perfect Servant. Luke was not an apostle, had never accompanied the
Lord on earth, some think that he was not even a Jew—yet God took up
this physician to present the Lord as the ever–dependant Man. And
John? The very converse of the educated Saul of Tarsus, a fisherman
of Galilee chosen to give us the unfathomable depth and wonder of
the One who was here as God in manhood’s form. Thus in the four
Gospels we have two pairs of extremes: in Matthew and Mark it is His
official positions as king and servant (for who can be higher than a
king or more lowly than a servant?); in Luke and John it is He who
is Man and God, extremes that need no comment.
Solomon wrote “Wisdom hath built her house, she hath hewn out her
seven pillars” (Prov. 9: 1). Seven is the number of completeness and
speaks of spiritual perfection. Now in the four Gospels there are
seven distinct and unique events—seven pillars on which everything
else rests and is supported. Each of these events is given or
omitted according to the writer’s presentation of the Lord. Luke
alone gives us all seven, John but two. It is these seven pillars of
wisdom that I want to briefly sketch for you.
His
Birth
Matthew records this since a royal birth is of great importance as
claiming the throne. Associated with that birth we have the Lord’s
genealogy traced through Joseph, His legal father, to Abraham and
David, establishing the Lord on both the line of promise and
royalty. His birth was of a virgin, a vital fact in regard to His
sacrificial death, and the fulfilment of Scripture (Matthew, more
than any other evangelist, records the fulfilment of OT Scriptures).
While Jerusalem and its king are troubled at His birth, Gentile
dignitaries from the East give the Lord His rightful royal place. In
sharp contrast, those in Luke’s record who are gathered to the lowly
manger are humble shepherds. There the Lord’s genealogy is given on
His mother’s side right back to Adam because Luke’s purpose is to
show Him as the Man amongst men. Mark is silent regarding the birth
of the Lord for, as another has said, ‘Who enquires into the
pedigree of a servant?’ John like Mark is also silent—but for a
different reason. The incarnation is embraced in the words “And the
Word became flesh” (John 1: 14).
How that occurred is
passed over. It was the One who is the expression of the mind of God
entering the condition of manhood. In John He is God manifest in
flesh (see 1 Tim. 3: 16) and the thought of the weakness and frailty
associated with birth would be out of place.
His
Baptism.
A careful reading of John 1: 29–34 establishes the fact that the
Lord’s baptism is absent from John’s record. Associated matters are
recorded but the actual event is not there and there is no voice
from heaven. It is John the Baptist himself who bears witness “that
this is the Son of God” (John 1: 34). The submission to authority,
inherent in baptism, would be out of keeping with the glory of Him
who is, and ever was God. However, it is this evangelist who gives
the reason for that baptism: “but that he might be manifested to
Israel, therefore have I come baptising with water” (John 1: 31).
Fittingly, Matthew’s description is the most detailed, for he
presents the Lord in relation to the nation of Israel. Against a
background of the sons of Israel coming to John’s baptism, God’s
voice is heard from heaven declaring “This is my beloved Son, in
whom I have found my delight” (Matt. 3: 17)—a declaration that goes
beyond the truth of the Christ of God. Mark, like most of his
Gospel, is brief and to the point (for the place of a servant is to
say no more than is essential)—but with one important difference.
The voice from heaven is presented, not as addressing the sons of
Israel, but the Lord himself: “Thou
art my beloved Son, in thee I have found my delight” (Mark 1: 11).
These words are identically recorded by Luke in his description of
the event (see Luke 3: 22). Their prime purpose is thus not one of
testimony to Israel but confirming to the perfect Servant and Man
that the lowly place He had taken in no way affected His position in
the divine affections.
His
Temptations
Immediately after God’s declaration of the Lord’s sonship at John’s
baptism, Satan put this to the test in the wilderness temptations.
However, “God cannot be tempted by evil things” (James 1: 13) and so
the temptations are not recorded by the one who presents “God …
manifested in flesh” (1 Tim. 3: 16). Presenting the Lord as man, the
other three writers give the temptations but Mark, in keeping with
his general brevity, omits the detail. Each of them describe the
event in line with their presentation of the Lord. Matthew states
“Then Jesus was carried up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be
tempted of the devil” (Matt. 4: 1)—a king in the royal dignity of
his person is carried. Mark says “And immediately the Spirit drives
him out into the wilderness” (Mark 1: 12)—“driven” being fitting for
a servant. Luke says “But Jesus, full of [the] Holy Spirit … was led
by the Spirit in the wilderness forty days, tempted of the devil”
(Luke 4: 1, 2)—as man He is led. As to the detail, Matthew gives the
historical order, as it is in keeping with his presentation of the
Lord, culminating in the Devil displaying “all the kingdoms of the
world” (Matt. 4: 8). Unlike Matthew, there are no words that
indicate time in Luke’s version. With him we have, as is often the
case in his Gospel, the moral order and thus the three temptations
correspond to “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and
the pride of life” (1 John 2: 16).
His
Transfiguration
This event is described by Peter in 2 Pet. 1: 16–18. Here and in
the synoptic Gospel accounts we have the words “This is my beloved
Son”, clearly linking the transfiguration with the Lord’s baptism.
Just as His baptism prefigures His suffering and death, so the
transfiguration speaks of His power and kingdom glory. Strikingly,
John, although the only Gospel writer present, does not mention the
transfiguration. This is because it does not fit in with his
description of the Lord—for He takes up the Kingdom as man (see 1
Cor. 15: 24–28 etc.). All three synoptic writers describe the
occasion of the transfiguration but with variations. I will just
consider one difference: the way each writer describes the
transfigured Lord. Matthew having the Lord as King before him says
“his face shone as the sun” (Matt. 17: 2)—that regal body of light
that God made “to rule the day” (Gen. 1: 16). Mark’s words are “and
his garments became shining, exceeding white [as snow], such as
fuller on earth could not whiten [them]” (Mark 9: 3). The link with
the Lord’s service is there for flaying garments to make them clean
was hard labour. And Luke? His words are “And
as he prayed the fashion of his countenance became different and
his raiment white [and] effulgent” (Luke
9: 29, my emphasis). Luke, more than the other evangelists,
presents the Lord as praying.
His
Death
All the great sevens of Scripture divide into four and three, or
three and four. The first four pillars begin with the Lord’s birth;
the last three begin with His death. This stupendous event and the
resurrection is recorded by all four writers—for if we are to speak
of the most important of the seven pillars, surely His death and
resurrection can have no parallel.
While the differences we are noting are still there, they are
overshadowed by other distinctions because of the surpassing
magnitude of this event. Each of the four writers describes the
death in the light of one of the four great sacrificial offerings in
Leviticus: the burnt offering, the peace offering, the sin offering
and the trespass offering. Only in Matthew and Mark is the Lord is
forsaken of God in the three hours of darkness (see Matt. 27: 46;
Mark 15: 34), and there we have the trespass and sin offerings
respectively. As Matthew’s account is directed at Israel, a nation
under the law, I link Matthew with the trespass offering, for
trespass is impossible without law. Mark writes with a wider
audience than Israel in mind, for he alone on several occasions in
his Gospel gives the original Aramaic words uttered along with their
interpretation (see Mark 3: 17; 5: 41; 7: 11, 34). Mark’s universal
aspect suggests the sin offering. Now the trespass and sin offerings
were mandatory but the peace and burnt offerings were free–will
(voluntary). The burnt offering was entirely for God—man consumed no
part of it—but in the peace offering the offerer was able to
appreciate something of the excellence of the offering by eating of
it. Luke gives this side of fellowship with God (see 1 Cor. 10: 18)
for he alone recounts the voluntary testimony of the malefactor and
his appreciation of the crucified Christ (see Luke 23: 39–43; the
centurion’s testimony in Matt. 27: 54 was forced by events). In John
it is the burnt offering—what Christ was for God in His death. Among
the ordinary sacrifices the burnt offering had an unequalled place.
All others were more or less partaken of by man, but none ate of the
burnt offering. It was all for God. Thus in John there are no hours
of darkness, no plaintive cry to God, and no testimony from
malefactor or centurion. In this Gospel the Lord speaks rather of
going to the Father (see John 16: 17 etc.)—it is by way of His death
of course, but all is in relation to God.
Let us now consider the finer points of distinction regarding the
moment of the Lord’s death. From Matthew we have “And Jesus, having
again cried with a loud voice, gave up the ghost” (Matt. 27: 50).
The word translated “gave up” is the same word that Matthew used
when the Lord “dismissed” the crowds (Matt. 13: 36). It carries
authority, the authority of Him who is King. Mark says simply “And
Jesus, having uttered a loud cry, expired” (Mark 15: 37). There is
no mention of the spirit. It is the simple terse fact that He
died—appropriate to a servant. Luke also states that the Lord
expired but adds more: “And Jesus, having cried with a loud voice,
said, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23: 46). It
is, as ever in Luke, the dependant man committing His spirit into
the Father’s hands. Finally, with John, the end is different again:
“When therefore Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, It is
finished; and having bowed his head, he delivered up his spirit”
(John 19: 30). Solomon said “There is no man who hath control over
the spirit to retain the spirit; and no one hath control over the
day of death (Eccl. 8: 8). The Lord was more than man so He
“delivered up his spirit” and, unique to John, He “bowed his head”.
There is no loud cry, just the simple action of One who is in
absolute control. As he had said regarding His life “No one takes it
from me, but I lay it down of myself” (John 10: 18).
His
Resurrection
All four evangelists record this event and all, as ever, are
different. The little details that cursory readers pass over as
insignificant are the very ones distinguishing the writer. Matthew
alone gives us the Lord’s meeting with the women as they hasten to
tell the disciples He was risen. It says “Jesus met them, saying,
Hail! And they coming up took him by the feet, and did him homage”
(Matt. 28: 9). This is the obeisance required for a king. The eleven
give Him the same homage in v17. As to what many call the Great
Commission, and use as the warrant for missionary service, while
indeed great, it has nothing to do with Christianity as such.
Matthew says not a word about preaching. The commission is one that
is yet to be effected. It is the royal command of Him who now has
all power invested in Himself, not only as Israel’s King but King of
Kings. All must be subject to Him when He takes the throne on earth.
Mark tells us that He appeared first to Mary of Magdala but leaves
the detail to John. However, Mark adds what no other records: “out
of whom he had cast seven demons” (Mark 16: 9)—a clear reference to
the Lord’s service to Mary. Likewise the angelic message states “go,
tell his disciples” and significantly adds “and Peter” (v7). Why is
Peter singled out? Because, like the writer, he had failed in
service. As to Mark’s commission, it is unique to his account. The
words “to all the creation” (v15) involve the widest service and
embrace signs that would be a continuation of the Lord’s own service
when here (see vs. 17, 18). Luke is different again. The Lord’s
manhood is still before us. Accordingly, he alone records “behold my
hands and my feet, that it is
I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones as
ye see me having” (Luke 24: 39). The grace and universal character
of the Son of Man is seen in the commission that Luke records: “and
that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name
to all the nations beginning at
Jerusalem” (v47, my emphasis). In John, the response of
Thomas is not just “My Lord” but “My Lord and my God” (John 20: 28).
No other gives this record. There is no commission in John but there
are incidents that only appear on John’s account. Read John 21: 1–14
carefully. Where did the cooked fishes come from (v9)? Not from the
disciples catch of 153! He who created the seas didn’t need to go
fishing to secure its fish. He was God manifest in flesh.
His
Ascension
This final pillar is given by Mark and Luke, spoken of by the Lord
in John, though the event itself is not recorded, and omitted
entirely by Matthew. Matthew presents the Lord primarily in relation
to God’s earthly
people
Israel, and their place is on earth and not in heaven—so
fittingly the final words are “I
am with you all the days, until the completion of the age” (Matt.
28: 20). Given Matthew’s Gospel alone, you would know nothing about
the ascension. The Lord’s present place in heaven has a vital
bearing in regard to the Church and thus is given by both Mark and
Luke. Each records the event in a way suitable to his presentation
of the Lord. A couple of details in regard to each: Mark says “The
Lord … was taken up into heaven” (Mark 16: 19) but Luke records that
moment as the Lord “was carried up into heaven” (Luke 24: 51). The
former is more appropriate to a servant, the latter to the dignity
of the Man. Again in Mark, His service continues even after His
ascension for we read “And they, going forth, preached everywhere,
the Lord working with [them]
…” (Mark 16: 20, my emphasis). The thought of blessing occurs in
Luke more than the other Gospels, and it is hence characteristically
“as he was blessing them, he was separated from them and was carried
up into heaven” (Luke 24: 51). But why no ascension scene in John?
The ascension is acknowledged with the record of the Lord’s words “I
ascend to my Father and your Father, and [to] my God and your God”
(John 20: 17). These words breathe divine dignity and power—no
thought of being taken or carried up—He ascends. It is not exactly
to heaven but to God: “he came out from God and was going to God”
(John 13: 3). The Lord speaks of His departure from this scene, not
as going to heaven, but as going to the Father (see John 14: 28; 16:
10, 16, 17, 28). John’s ministry is not to take man to God—that is
Paul—but rather to bring God to man and hence the ascension as an
event is absent from his writing.
Conclusions
To the one who loves the Lord, “the things concerning himself”
(Luke 24: 27) are there in all the Scriptures. Yet the Gospels
contain an intensity of detail with regard to Him that is unique in
the inspired record—so much so that we have four accounts and not
just one. These seven pillars were suggested to the writer when a
boy but it is only now some 60 years later that he has put pen to
paper. His only desire is that the reader may be encouraged to
search to see “if these things were so” (Acts 17: 11).
