WHY FOUR GOSPELS?
As everyone knows, there are four Gospels, but the
question at once arises, “Why four?” Why wouldn’t one straightforward, continuous
narrative have been enough? Would not this have been simpler and clear? Might
this not have saved us from some of the difficulties which have arisen in what
some have said are conflicting accounts?
The answer seems plain. Because one or two would not
have given us a portrayal of the life of Christ. There are four distinct offices
of Christ portrayed in the Gospels. He is presented as King in Matthews, Servant
in Mark, Son of man in Luke, Son of God in John.
It is true that each of the four gospels has much in
common with the others. Each deals with Christ’s earthly ministry, His death, and resurrection, His teachings, and miracles, but each gospel has its differences.
We at once see that each of the writers is trying to present a different
picture of our one lord.
Matthew deliberately adds to his account what Mark
omits. There is a lack of completeness as to His life history in any one of the
four Gospels. Hear what John says in 21:25: and
there are also many things which Jesus did,
the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world
itself could not contain the books that should be written.
There are deliberate gaps that none of the
evangelists professes to fill in. For instance, all omit any account of the
eighteen years of Christ’s life between the ages of twelve and thirty. Although
each Gospel is complete in itself, it is very selective; only a few of His
miracles are described and only a portion of His teachings are given. Each evangelist
has recorded that which is relevant and pertinent to his particular theme.
In the National Gallery in London, there are three representations on a single canvas of Charles I. In one his head is
turned to the right; in another, to the left; and in the center, we find the full-face
view. This is the story of this production. Van Dyck painted them for Bernini,
the Roman sculptor, that he might by their help make a bust of the king. By
combining the impressions so received, Bernini would be better able to produce
a “speaking” likeness. One view would not have been enough.
It may be true that the Gospels were intended to serve
the very purpose of this portrait. Each presents a different aspect of our
lord’s life on earth. Together we have the complete picture. He was a king, but
He was the perfect servant, too. He was the son of the man, but we must not
forget He was the son of God.
0 Comments