About the Book
Table of Contents
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
|
Part II: The Necessity of the Four
Gospels
Chapter 3
The Basis of a "True" Harmony
THAT THE three
Synoptic Gospels were divinely inspired to appeal uniquely to
three different classes of readers has been recognized from the
earliest Christian times. Many are the clues to be found in each
Gospel which reveal to the eye of faith the particular group
of people for whom the record is specially intended.
It is usually held that Matthew
wrote for the Jewish people, Mark for the Romans, and Luke for
the Greeks. John wrote for all men. I am sure this is an essential
part of the truth. But I believe there is an even more distinct
and special kind of directive in each of the three Synoptic Gospels
which I want to explore briefly now
According to Genesis 9 and 10,
Noah had three sons. The first, Shem, was the father of the Semitic
people of whom the Arabs and the Hebrew people of the Old Testament
formed the most permanent part, although the Assyrians and Babylonians
and some others had their roots here also. Shem was also the
father, therefore, of the Jewish nation in the time of our Lord's
earthly ministry. Ham was the second son, according to Genesis
9:18, and he became the father of a very widely dispersed and
diversified segment of the world's population who, for one reason
or another, are considered to be distinct from both Semites and
Indo-Europeans. It is not customary today to group them together
in the way Indo-Europeans are, but I am persuaded that Scripture
views them all as representatives of the family of Ham. (15) The third son listed was
Japheth, and I do not think that anyone is likely to quarrel
with the statement that his descendants are today essentially
represented by the Indo-European people.
15. "A study of the Names in Genesis 10," Part
II in Noah's Three Sons, vol.1 in The Doorway Papers Series,
Zondervan Publishing Company.
pg
1 of 9
These
three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, are listed in this order
in Genesis 10:1, where their descendants are shown, and these
three families of descendants seem to have been preserved as
distinct entities in the purposes of God throughout history in
several unique ways. For example, we know that Abraham had three
wives. The first of these was Sarah, a daughter of Shem: the
second was Hagar, a daughter of Ham (being an Egyptian): and
the third was Keturah, who according to Jewish tradition was
a daughter of Japheth. (16)
Three groups of people came specifically
looking for the Lord. The first group comprised the shepherds,
who obviously represented the family of Shem. The third group
are introduced into the Gospel story rather unexpectedly: they
were Greeks who said, "Sir, we would see Jesus" (John
12:21). They represented the family of Japheth with particular
appropriateness, since the Greeks traditionally trace themselves
back to an ancestor whom they called "Japetos." There
is no question that Japetos and Japheth are the same individual.
One other group came looking for Jesus, and this group comprised
the wise men. That these wise men were of the family of Ham can
be demonstrated, I believe, with a measure of certainty. This
is done in Volume I of the Doorway Papers, Part
I, entitled, "The Part Played by Shem, Ham, and Japheth
in Subsequent World History." As in every other instance
where this trilogy is found, the order is always the same --
Shem, Ham, Japheth.
Each branch of the race took a
specific part in the Crucifixion. The moral responsibility was
accepted by Israel (Matthew 27:25); the physical burden of carrying
the cross was imposed upon a Cyrenian, a child of Ham (Luke 23:26);
the executive responsibility was assumed by Japheth, who was
represented by the Romans since they alone could perform it (Matthew
27:26). There is substantial evidence that Simon of Cyrene was
the same individual referred to in Acts 13:1 as bearing the same
name "Niger," i.e., "black man." F. F. Bruce
considers that in this passage in Acts both Lucius and Simon
Niger are intended to be of Cyrene. (17) As a black, Simon or Simeon of Cyrene belongs within
the family of Ham.
And finally, the Gospel was preached
first to Shem, then to Ham, and lastly to Japheth: to Shem in
Acts 2:22 ("Ye men
16. Keturah a Japhethite: see Reubeni Jalkut,
remarking upon Genesis 26:2 and 36, quoting a Midrash to the
effect that Keturah was a daughter of Japheth (see Louis Ginsberg,
The Legends of the Jews, Jewish Publ. Soc. of Amer., Philadelphia,
Vol. 5, 1955, p. 265, note 309).
17. Bruce, F. F., The Spreading Flame, Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids, 1953, p.102.
pg.2
of 9
of Israel"), to
an Ethiopian of the family of Ham in Acts 8:35, and to the centurion
Cornelius of the family of Japheth in Acts 10.
History shows that from within
the family of Shem has sprung the world's spiritual and religious
insight, both true and false. From the Hamites have sprung the
great civilizations which formed the foundation of the modern
world, as well as its basic technology in every field of human
endeavor. From the Japhethites the world has received its great
philosophical systems. The contribution of Shem combined with
that of Japheth led to theology, and the contribution of Ham
combined with that of Japheth led to the development of science,
for the first results when philosophy is applied to religious
truth and the second when philosophy is applied to technology.
In Volume I, Part V, "The Framework of History" explores
the concrete evidence for these things as they have slowly become
apparent from the study of a very substantial body of historical
data. Part IV of Volume I, combined with Part V, traces back
to their Hamitic origin some three hundred basic technological
processes or techniques or inventions upon which our modern civilization
rests. There is no field of technology that cannot ultimately
be traced back to this extraordinary watershed.
I believe that the three Synoptic
Gospels were written in a special way for these three families:
Matthew for the family of Shem, Mark for the family of Ham, and
Luke for the family of Japheth. Let us look at the evidence for
this. As we do so, it will help to bear in mind that the family
of Ham has served mankind in an essentially practical manner,
just as Shem has served in a spiritual capacity and Japheth
in a philosophical or intellectual capacity. Shem has
cared for the needs of man's spirit, Ham for the needs of his
body, and Japheth for the needs of his intellect.
We have already
seen something of the evidence that Matthew wrote for the Jewish
people. We do not know for certain that the author was Matthew,
but tradition is strongly in favor of this view and there is
also internal evidence which seems to support it. It is virtually
certain that the Levi of Mark 2:14f. and Luke 5:29 is none other
than Matthew. This man invited the Lord to a meal, as Matthew
himself records (Matt. 9:9,10). Now, when recording this incident,
both Mark and Luke state that Levi invited the Lord to his
house; but Matthew, in his account of Levi's invitation,
does not say that Jesus came to his house but simply to
the house. In other words, the writer, Matthew, invited
the Lord "home." It is generally felt that this simple
but important little clue confirms the tradition that
pg.3
of 9
Matthew and Levi are
one and the same person, the author of the Gospel which bears
Matthew's name.
Tradition also tells us, as we
have already noted in chapter I of this paper, that Matthew wrote
his Gospel first for the Hebrew Christians who were scattered
abroad, many of whom had been saved at the time of Pentecost
and many more probably by the testimony of those who first came
thus to know the Lord in Jerusalem. Subsequently Matthew rewrote
his Gospel, still under inspiration as I believe, in Greek. Both
these editions are known in one way or another, the Greek being
of course the one which we have recognized in the Western world.
Because Matthew was directing his
words primarily to Israel, his Gospel is characterized by many
observations of special interest to that people. To begin with,
Matthew traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ back to Abraham,
and no further. Moreover, he traces the line through Joseph because
it was through Joseph that the legal status of Jesus as the Promised
Seed, the Son of David, and the coming King was established.
Although Jesus was not the son of Joseph strictly speaking, yet
Joseph fulfilled according to the law the two essential requirements
for the establishment of his legal paternity by giving to Jesus
His name and by teaching Him a trade.
This aspect of Matthew's Gospel
contrasts notably with the genealogy given by Luke, for Luke
does not stop at Abraham but traces the line right back to Adam--the
father equally of Jew and Gentile. (18) Again, both these Gospels contrast with Mark, who
gives no genealogy whatever and does not even provide his readers
with any information as to Jesus' birth and family origin. Remembering
that Mark was writing with the object of presenting a picture
of Jesus as the "Servant par excellence" it is only
in keeping with this object that he passed over any detail which
did not contribute directly to that role. It is not important
to know the genealogy of a servant....
Mark plays a significant part in
the events of those days and is mentioned on a number of occasions
in Acts and in Paul's Epistles. It would appear that Mark himself
-- called "John Mark" -- became a servant to the leaders
of the early church (Acts 13:5 and II Tim. 4:11), and as though
he felt this to be his special calling, he alone (Mark 1:20)
of the Gospel writers mentions that there were also servants
in the little ship from which James and John, the sons of Zebedee,
were called to follow the Lord. Similarly, as though it was from
this word of the Lord that he received his commission, it is
he
18. "The Genealogies of the Bible," Part
VI in Hidden Things of God's Revelation, vol 7, The Doorway
Papers Series, Zondervan Publishing Company.
pg.4
of 9
alone (Mark 9:35) who
adds the phrase, "and servant of all" to the Lord's
rebuke of the disciples who were disputing who should be greatest
when the Lord came into His own. In his Gospel, unlike the other
Gospels, Mark records only twice that Jesus was directly addressed
as Lord, and even one of these (Mark 9:24) is considered of doubtful
authenticity
Again, in Mark 13:32, after the
statement of Jesus, "...no man knoweth," he adds the
words, "not even the Son." Perhaps this addition struck
a chord in Mark's mind because though He were a Son, yet He is
here being presented as a Servant, and elsewhere this Servant
had said, "The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth"
(John 15:15). Mark contains no arraignment of the nations, no
woes pronounced with the authority of a judge, no simple parable
where Jesus' lordship is revealed, and no saying about the twelve
legions of angels which the Lord might have commanded by His
authority to come to His assistance. These examples of omissions
are every bit as significant as those statements which are uniquely
included. And just before His ascension into heaven, where Matthew
has recorded the words "All power is given unto Me,"
Mark simply says, "Go ye into all the world." Even
here he is not satisfied until he has completed the picture of
this One who fulfilled the role of the perfect Servant by noting
that they went forth and preached everywhere "the Lord working
with them" (Mark 16:20).
Matthew's Gospel is filled with
back references to fulfilled prophecies that validate the claims
of Jesus as the promised Messiah of Israel. The number of such
prophecies to which reference is made has been estimated as anywhere
from forty to sixty, depending on how one makes the count. (19) Certainly there are far
more such fulfillments to which the reader's attention is drawn
here than in the other Gospels. And Matthew alone uses a unique
phrase in this connection, namely, "that it might be fulfilled
which was written. . . ."
Similarly Matthew refers to the
Holy City and the Holy Place, whereas Luke refers only to Jerusalem
or the temple. Interestingly enough, not only in view of Matthew's
profession as a tax gatherer but in view also of the subsequent
history of the Jewish people down through the centuries, Matthew
goes out of his way to deal with matters of money or of precious
stones or treasures hid in a field or pearls of great price (13:44-46),
all of them forms of portable wealth. Matthew alone refers to
the story of the tribute money found in
19. McIntyre, D. M., ref. 8, p.123.
pg.5
of 9
the fish's mouth (17:24-27).
Matthew alone supplies details of the financial resources which
the Lord assured the disciples they need not concern themselves
about (10:9). And it seems that even in the matter of loans,
he had a special interest, for only he records the parable of
the unforgiving servant (18:23-34).
Luke's Gospel contrasts with the
other two in a number of striking ways. At the beginning he gives
us the three Songs of Praise at the time of Jesus' presentation,
and all three refer to blessing to come to Gentiles as well as
to Jews. Even in recording the song of the angelic hosts, Luke
gives a more complete account of their words: "Unto you
[Israel]...and to all people..." (2:10,11). Again, in reporting
John the Baptist's call to repentance, Luke alone adds John's
words, "All flesh shall see the salvation of God" (3:6).
At the close of his account, only Luke records the circumstance
of the penitent thief. Perhaps Matthew could not appropriately
record this, because to the Jewish mind anyone who was crucified
was condemned eternally without hope.
Both Matthew and Luke record the
circumstances relating to the virgin birth of Christ. The records
differ in a significant way. It is generally held that Matthew
records the course of events from Joseph's point of view, whereas
Luke records the course of events from Mary's point of view.
This seems completely appropriate, since Matthew, being a tax
collector, by traditional training would also be a lawyer. In
fact, his other name, "Levi," may simply have been
his title, "Lawyer." Perhaps Matthew was the legal
member of the "team" as Judas was the financial one.
Thus it would not be unnatural for Joseph, who was more concerned
with the legal aspects of Jesus' birth, to have discussed his
own experiences with Matthew.
It is sometimes argued that Joseph
was dead before Matthew had become a disciple, and on this account
it is felt unlikely that Joseph would have spoken to Matthew
about the matter at all. (20) I am inclined to think that the opposite is more
likely to be true: namely, that Joseph might very well have discussed
the matter with Matthew as one not belonging to the circle of
believers. In matters of this kind, Matthew might well have given
Joseph a much more patient and understanding hearing, and have
been far less ready to judge or condemn than some of the other
disciples. The non-Christian
20. Matthew's pre-Christian experience: the
incident of the healing of the paralytic (Matt 9:1-8) took place
before his call, as all three Synoptic Gospels agree, in Capernaum
where Matthew's home and business were, and there were many people
present. Perhaps he shared the emotions of the crowd who were
very much moved by the incident (v. 8). At any rate, it was an
event that immediately preceded his call.
pg.6
of 9
non-Christian lawyer
sometimes proves to be wiser in his judgments upon moral issues
that touch Christian life than the Christian lawyer is. At any
rate, there is no reason at all why Joseph may not have gone
to Matthew as a man to his friend, regardless of religious convictions:
and it is not impossible that Matthew's knowledge of the circumstances
may actually have prepared his mind, as he saw the Lord's wonderful
work, to accept the Lord's call the moment it came to him and
apparently without question.
By contrast, since Mary was naturally
more concerned from a woman's point of view, she would be more
likely to share her experience with a physician, namely, Luke.
Moreover, because Luke is writing for the Gentiles by contrast
with Matthew writing for the descendants of Shem, it was not
unnatural for him to place the emphasis upon those circumstances
which showed that Jesus was the Son of man by His birth in a
unique way rather than the Son of Abraham in a legal sense. Although
the title "Son of man" is by no means unique with Luke,
it is certainly a summary of his emphasis just as the title "Son
of God" summarizes the emphasis in John's Gospel, and "Son
of David" in Matthew's Gospel. In Mark the emphasis is not
upon the Son, but upon the Servant.
In keeping with John's portrayal
of Jesus in His divine nature, it is appropriate that we do not
have a genealogy comparable to that of either Matthew or Luke
but neither is a genealogy entirely lacking as it is in Mark.
John takes us back into eternity and traces the Lord Jesus in
His divine preexistence with the Father.
Thus we have Jesus presented to
us in four distinct portraits: as the Promised King, as the Servant
of the Lord, as the Son of man, and as God Incarnate. In the
symbolism of the Old Testament we meet these four figures under
the guise of the cherubim. These "living ones" are
described in Ezekiel 1:10 as having four faces. the face of a
man, the face of a lion, the face of an ox, and the face of an
eagle. The first of these symbols is clearly the picture that
Luke provides, the lion is the King of Matthew's Gospel, the
ox is the servant of Mark, and the eagle is the One from heaven
of John's Gospel. There are four interesting exclamations, as
it were, in the Old Testament that bear out this same fourfold
portraiture: "Behold thy King" (Zechariah 9:9); "Behold
My servant" (Isaiah 42:1) "Behold the man" (Zechariah
6:12); and "Behold your God" (Isaiah 10:9). The context
of each exclamation underscores the significance of the wording
used.
Considered in this light the Gospels
portray in one person four completely contradictory types, as
contradictory as one could possibly imagine. On the one hand
we have a conquering King whose
pg.7
of 9
presence is so overpowering
that His bitterest enemies were afraid to lay their hands on
Him. His most devoted followers cast themselves at His feet with
a sense of utter unworthiness. And even a condemned criminal
in the agonies of his dying turned to Him--marred almost beyond
recognition by all that He had suffered in the preceding hours
� and acknowledged Him as Lord. Yet this same King is presented
to us as a Servant without pedigree. Nowhere is He said to have
assumed a superior position. Everything He did was a service,
and Mark's record is characterized as are none of the others
by a certain sense of immediacy. Again and again Mark uses the
words straightway, immediately, forthwith, at once--terms
that must have been drilled into the mind of every slave. How
extraordinary to portray One who was "every inch" a
King as One who at the same time was the perfect Servant, and
do so without apparent contradiction!
But perhaps the greatest mystery
of all is how in one person could be combined both man and God.
Logically it is impossible. Man is not God by reason of his very
limitations: and God is not man because there are no limitations
with God. How, then, can they be combined? Yet they were. Many
books have been written on this tremendous problem, and it does
not appear to me that it is possible to produce a logical reconciliation.
One volume which comes to mind that seems to approach as nearly
as we may hope is titled One Christ. In this work by Frank
Weston, (21) the
basic solution which the author seeks to explore in depth may
be summed up, perhaps, as follows: The Lord Jesus Christ, being
God made Man, had infinite power. He never surrendered this power
while He walked on earth. Rather, He used that infinite power
to suppress the very use of it wherever its use would have been
inappropriate to the assumption of perfect manhood.
One thing is certain, and this
is that the figure who appears before us in Luke's Gospel is
the perfect man: not man made God, but man as God intended man
to be. The wonder is that in John's Gospel we are clearly in
the presence of the very One who, having already been set forth
successively as King and Servant and perfect Man, now is preeminently
set forth as God Himself.
Even the order in which these records
have been preserved for us seems to have been appropriately arranged,
so that opposites come together. The King is followed by the
Servant; Man is followed by God. One might suppose it would be
more appropriate for literary
21. Weston, Frank, One Christ, Longmans
Green, New York, 1907.
pg.8
of 9
balance, since the King
precedes the Servant, to have God precede Man. But the three
Synoptic Gospels appear together in the order in which they do,
seemingly to reflect the fact that the human race has been viewed
throughout Scripture as constituted of three families derived
respectively from the sons of Noah in the order in which they
were born.
It seems to me that when we contemplate
such a revelation as the Incarnation, our comprehension is so
limited, so circumscribed, that it could only be presented to
us in contradictory terms. Because of our very limitations, contradictions
became a necessary element of revelation.
pg.9
of 9
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White.
All rights reserved
Previous Chapter Next Chapter
|