Some Introductory Thoughts (11/4/03)

I wanted to put down some thoughts here, before going into the study in earnest. Actually, the study has already begun, but so be it. First, as my wife asked me recently, why? What's the point of trying to figure out how the four Gospels correlate, where is the spiritual fruit in that? This is a good question, one which fully deserves consideration and answer, for, if indeed I find this pursuit is no more than an intellectual exercise, then I am wasting time in pursuing it, I am no better than those liberal 'theologians' who seek a reason not to believe in picking apart the texts of Holy Scripture.

So, what answer can I give? To begin with, I will say that I believe God had a reason for having four separate witnesses record the history of His earthly ministry. I believe there is something to be learned by understanding the purpose each author had in mind as he wrote. I believe there is something to be learned from seeing what each author selected, and what he omitted. I believe there is great benefit in seeing the multiple views of events that multiple Gospels present.

None of these answers, though, speak directly to the question of why I would seek to correlate the texts. To that, I give two answers. The simplest answer is that study requires structure of some sort. If I'm going to look at four books as it were simultaneously, I must have some map to which text I am considering at which point. More importantly, though, I am hoping that by collating the texts into a single flow, by getting the pieces of the narratives more or less in sequence, I may perhaps find insights into the life and example of Christ that are not immediately evident when considering each Gospel in isolation.

Obviously, this cannot be an exact science. Even a cursory read of the Gospels reveals difficulties in trying to align the material, especially when John's text is brought into the picture. In many cases, it is not possible for me to determine with certainty where exactly events from John (and occasionally from Luke) fit into the general flow of the time of Jesus' earthly life and work. This is, however, not the primary focus of my effort. It is an interesting exercise to be sure, and I do feel there is potentially fruitful result to be had from such efforts. However, this is not the focus, it is but an aid to seeking deeper understanding, and to allowing the Truth of Scripture to have its full impact.

The thought of pursuing this particular study came as I was approaching the end of my study of Titus. The questions began to form in my mind, as to why it was God gave us four views instead of a single, authoritative record. What was it in each of these men that attracted the Holy Spirit to select them? How had God uniquely prepared them for the work? What could be seen in the multi-faceted view of events that could not be seen through a single lens?

As, in the course of time, it seemed more certain to me that this was the direction I would be heading in, an interesting event of God's Providence came along. It seems almost to the day that I had decided this would be the next effort I undertook, I had a letter from my Dad. An old friend of his, former pastor when I was very young, missionary to lands both far and near now retired and discovering another way to minister, was undertaking a study of Jesus as presented in the Gospels - all of the Gospels. This study was being e-mailed out to many whom this fine old Baptist had met during the years of his more direct service, and if I would care to join, drop a line. It is just so cool the way God moves to confirm things with us! Here was a pastor whom I hadn't known since I was maybe four or five years old. I know he was influential in steering my father towards ministry. I don't know what direct influence he has had on my own arrival at faith, but I know God's hand well enough to recognize that the influence was assuredly there. As the Spirit directs, I may well include some of the thoughts I have been receiving from this fine saint in amongst the other materials I gather.

Secondly, I think it exceedingly providential that God had me looking into Titus as the thought of pursuing this particular study were forming. Recognizing that a study such as this is bound to take years to complete, I remain hopeful that the admonitions Paul had for the Cretan church will remain fresh in my mind, a guard against vanity in the name of Bible study.

I have no intent, here, of falling into fruitless debate and controversy. Though I will, as always, make it a point to consider the meaning of the specific words of Scripture, I do not wish to get caught up in empty arguments over them. I am not aiming to pick apart the Scriptures and find their flaws. Neither am I, at this point, particularly concerned with offering an apologetic for the differences between the Gospel records. I may, perhaps, seek to understand how it is things fit together in spite of the differences. Let it be understood that I am beginning from a basic, foundational premise: God's Word is True and accurately recorded for us in Scripture. Where there appears to be falsity, the problem is more likely with my eyes than with the material presented to my eyes. Where there is the appearance of contradiction, the proper response is not skepticism, but prayer. He will lead us into all Truth. However, we must be willing to follow His lead.

In the last several years, as I have been studying Paul's letters, I have come to deeply appreciate the intricacy and beauty of sound doctrine. It presents me, though, with a paradox. Whenever I have come to look at a particular matter of doctrine, it seems that all the other particulars of doctrine must have their say. It is all so interwoven that one cannot hope to come to a real understanding of one tenet without considering the whole. Yet, at the same time the whole is too great for contemplation. It reminds me somewhat of my Grandmother's lessons in drawing: don't try to draw the whole picture at once, it's too big and you'll get it all wrong. Divide the picture into smaller pictures, little squares in which the level of detail is within your ability. Then simply pursue each little square in turn and soon you will have drawn the whole picture. As the old joke goes: How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

I sense, at the beginning of this effort, that the Gospel record is much the same, too big to contemplate all at once, and yet too important in its completeness to try and understand parts in isolation. That is the primary reason I want to do this, because I don't see how one can grasp the full Truth presented to us in the Gospels, the full impact of the Good News, without looking at the whole as well as the parts.

So, here are some things I am hoping might become clear as I pursue this study:

• Why these four and no others? (God's purpose)
  • Recall two or three witnesses. We get four from God, six if you count Son and Spirit
• What was each author's purpose, or alternatively what was God's purpose in each author?
• Why the choice of openings?
  • Son of man (Mt)
  • Son of God (Mk)
  • Truth (Lk)
  • Eternal Word (Jn)
• Why the order of presentation in each?

Gospels - Multi-Book Level (10/28/03-11/30/03)
Read the Books 1st Pass (Coarse Outlines) (10/28/03-11/1/03)

I pursued this particular effort more or less in conjunction with the next. Initially, I had tried to outline all four at once, but this proved somewhat untenable, so a quick course correction. Instead, I opted for outlining Mark first, followed in sequence by Matthew, Luke, and John. This allowed me to recognize some of the common material as I went, as well as recognizing some of the greater sections of material common to each. As I was going, I sought to note those places where locations or timeframes were specifically noted.

Read the Books 2nd Pass (Alignment) (11/2/03-11/13/03)

Having made it through the rough draft outlining, next comes the daunting task of trying to line everything up. Between Mark and Matthew, this has generally been an easy task, as the two follow much the same ordering of material. Luke becomes a bit challenging, as he covers so much material that the others do not, and often covers what at least appears to be the same material at different points in the narrative. This will bear further consideration. Then we come to John, and often, all we have to go on is his record of where things were happening. As usual, I'm going to put outlines elsewhere. In this case, however, there is need for multiple documents. So, for a first attempt, here is the table that comes out:

First Assessment

[11/14/03] What an experience this has been, trying to put some sort of organization to the above chart! Even now, I am quite certain that some of the order is off, especially when it comes to John's material. How I had hoped to see that it all lined up after all, that all the apparent reordering of materials could easily be explained. What unrealistic expectations! Surely, were it that easy it would long since have been done. For a while, I was simply leaving this document on screen, to make it easier to pick up at whatever moment I might choose to do so. But, in the end, I have learned to close it after all. Thus, when first I begin to return to study, I am greeted by a reminder to myself: Don't get lost in the technicalities! I'm not in this for some scholarly labor, not for the limited usefulness of satisfying intellectual curiosity. I'm here to learn about my Savior, and about my Father in heaven who sent Him to minister on this earth. How fitting, last night, to read in mail from a wise old Baptist pursuing a similar study, "from now on I cannot see any day after day events or situations but rather events as the writer recalls them and then includes them in his Gospel record." How well I can appreciate that having just tried to sift together four unique accounts into a single whole!

Still, I find need for some sort of framework in which to pursue this study. To that end, I will continue looking at a couple of other attempts to 'harmonize' at least the three Gospels, and will certainly seek a bit of information regarding the four authors as best we know them. Perhaps with an understanding of who wrote and when, we may gain some insight into why they have chosen their particular selection and ordering of events.

Read the Books 3rd Pass (Harmonic Comparisons) (11/14/03-11/16/03)

Calvin: (11/14/03-11/15/03)

Being as Calvin doesn't really put headings and sections on his breakdown, I'll have to satisfy myself with noting what divisions he makes. NOTE: I'm not actually reading his work, nor, for that matter, am I actually reading the Scriptures at this point, just skimming for the order he's following. As for his actual breakdown, a quick start suggests to me that to pursue that level of consideration would be a return to getting lost in the technicalities yet again.

Calvin's Ordering:

Nelson: (11/16/03)

Nelson's Ordering:

Read the Books 4th Pass (Final Alignment) (11/16/03-11/30/03)

[11/16/03] So, today, having had a fair amount of time to devote to this, I have made some minor adjustments to my original outline based on comparisons with Calvin, and with the Nelson book "Gospel Parallels." These two books have taken different approaches to the problem of trying to align the Synoptics, though both have given no attempt to bring John into the picture. Calvin appears to have done his utmost to determine which order was right at what points, never repeating mention of verses, but seeking to place each in its proper setting. In some cases I have wondered at his arrangement, for he does on occasion rearrange the order of a single author, even though no parallels are brought to bear on it. Nelson, on the other hand, seems to have taken an approach similar to my own, simply allowing each of the three narratives to follow its declared course, and noting parallels as they come up.

Of course, in the central sections of the Gospels, where the heart of Jesus' ministry is in view, the jumble is greatest. Here, it seems, there is greatest call to make a judgment and follow as seems best. I am not satisfied with the choices made surrounding Matthew's account of the Sermon on the Mount, although I'm not at all certain my choices are any better. One searches for clues in what things are said in regard to locations, which often reduce to no more than prominent geographical features; a mountain, the sea, a plain. It remains difficult, daunting even, to try and put a single order to the account. Adding John's account into the fray just seems to make it impossible. Where do the Jerusalem trips fit in? His account seems almost to have gone out of its way not to cover what others had already written of, as though John sought to fill in the gaps.

At present, I have gone through my original outline, highlighting sections to identify where all accounts proceed pretty much alongside each other (green), where there is disagreement in the accounts as far as whether these were consecutive events or not (yellow), and where the account is unique to one author (blue). In some cases, one finds multiple consecutive sequences which are tied together in one account, but become two distinct blocks in other accounts. My next step will be to consider the yellow zones, and attempt to identify the best position for them. Praying hard.

[11/17/03] This morning, I have gotten as far as the Sermon on the Mount. I find myself far more in agreement with the other outlines. The turning point has been the inclusion of the naming of the 12. I had been keying in on the mention of the mountain as tying Luke 6 in as an event prior to the sermon. This is also where Luke includes much of the material from that sermon. However, he also makes it the occasion of the naming, which seems a far more intimate event, not one at which the multitudes were likely to have been present. Can you imagine the uproar had Jesus stood amidst these thousands and started saying, 'You, you, you, and you. You da men!' No, I think I must join the others on this point, and equate Luke's mountain with a later time of retreat. Such a retreat would doubtless have been necessary for physical and mental well-being as well, after the efforts of ministry up to that point. Making oneself heard from the mountainside to thousands of people (who were doubtless not sitting silently) is work enough. Add to that the efforts of healing, and who wouldn't need some recharge time!

[11/30/03] Well, I think I have finally arranged this material as best I am able. The last few weeks have been spent by first completing the effort of laying out the material, then creating a copy of the four Gospels - paralleled where appropriate - with all book, chapter, and verse references removed. Having finished this latter effort, I continued onward by reading this dereferenced Gospel, which unearthed several spots where things felt out of place still. Thus, a second draft has been done, incorporating numerous relocations of material. These rearrangements have been reflected back into the table included here. [NOTE: Said table constitutes the index to all other studies in this set.]

I must say, here, that reading through some parts of this combined Gospel has been incredibly exciting. Now, my wife has questioned why I am doing this on a few occasions in the last couple of weeks. To me, reading through the resulting text has been absolutely worth the effort of trying to roll all four Gospels into one. Two things have shone through in this effort. First, it is encouraging, and perhaps even somewhat surprising from a purely intellectual stance, how little any particular book required rearranging to fit with the others. Secondly, it is almost astounding to realize how well the whole story flows together when it is read from all accounts at once. This is particularly true, I suppose, in the material covering the birth of Christ, and that chronicling His death and resurrection.

Then, there are also points of parallelism which might go almost unnoticed if one stuck with reading the accounts in isolation. One such that comes to mind is Mark's exceedingly brief mention of Jesus appearing to two other disciples. I don't know that I had ever before equated this with the two men on the Emmaus road, but in laying out the whole story, this is clearly the case. One also finds points where what appears to be a parallel account must after all be describing a different event. It may be the similarity of accounts such as these that have thrown some skeptics off in their research. I suppose a prime example of this is the account of Jesus being anointed during a dinner. Luke, I believe, covers a separate event much earlier in the ministry, whereas the others cover an event happening in the home of Mary and Martha just days before Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

In all, there have been a number of flashes of insight, thoughts regarding things to consider when I reach particular sections of material that I must trust that the Holy Spirit will bring to mind once more at the appropriate season. For now, however, I think it is time to move forward, and to begin seeking the themes of the four books.

Gospels - Book Level (11/30/03-)

What Kind of Book? Gospels

Read the Book - 1^st Pass (Summary / Theme) (11/30/03-12/7/03)

[NOTE: I have dropped a fair amount of brief notes from here, and gone straight to the resulting thoughts.]

Matthew (11/30/03-12/2/03)

Matthew is clearly focused on showing how Jesus has fulfilled so much of the prophetic content of Scripture, as well as continuing such prophetic ministry Himself. There is an overall push to show that this is a matter of heaven. Throughout the record of Jesus birth, right up to the beginning of His ministry, we are shown heavenly hosts intervening on His behalf. Through the course of ministry, He is shown as bringing that heavenly intervention to bear in the lives of others, and His message is ever concerned with showing what the kingdom of heaven is like. There is also a clear motivation here to show that whereas Jesus' ministry clearly continues what the Scriptures have always declared, the religious orders of the day were off base and disconnected. They represented the old approach to righteousness, thoroughly incompatible with the new.

Mark (12/2/03-12/3/03)

Mark is far more interested in telling us of Jesus' deeds. The whole of his Gospel shouts out, 'Look what He has done!' One thing that Mark seems to focus on more than Matthew did is Jesus' seemingly constant attempts to keep things quiet. With almost every miracle He did, we see Him telling those who were benefited to tell nobody. The sole exception to this pattern seems to be the Gaderene demoniac, but even he was told to spread word not of what Jesus had done, but of what God had done. In his own way, Mark joins the list of those who were told to keep quiet about Him, but simply could not do so. Indeed, who can know the Lord's touch on their life and remain quiet about it!

When this tendency of message is combined with Mark's choice of messages to preserve, a strong focus on the kingdom of heaven emerges. The Sermon on the Mount is gone. Instead, we have the Sermon by the Sea, which is focused on showing Jesus' hearers what the kingdom is like, showing its great worth. The only other sermon preserved here is the Olivet Discourse, which is concerned with the final coming of that kingdom to the earth. With this added light, it seems that Jesus' constant insistence that nothing be said of Him was not some display of false humility. His point was more that He was not, in the end, what mattered, but the message He bore was of greatest import. All His miracles, as amazing as they were, were nothing if they did not draw those who witnessed them to the Father.

Luke (12/3/03-12/6/03)

In this gospel, great effort is taken to show the confluence of events, and indeed of ethos, that were wrapped up in Christ. Through the record of His birth, we see the intertwining historical notes regarding both Roman events (relatively current at the time), and Jewish events. This is further mixed with clear evidence of heavenly intervention in the whole matter. Great care is taken, also, to show that the Christ was ever obedient to the truth of Mosaic Law, though He was utterly unconcerned with religious traditions of the time. He is, then, shown in all ways legitimate. His place in history is real. His heavenly authority is real. His righteousness is real.

The healing aspect of His ministry comes to the forefront, in the choice of narrative. Also, there is an increased mention of the women who were part of His entourage. Peter, James and John are also perhaps more prominently displayed here than elsewhere.

I am told that Luke (the presumed author) is considered a particularly accurate historian for his time, that he likely based much of his accounting on testimony gathered from personal interviews with those who were there. In spite of that, it seems like much of the center narrative, that section considered Luke's special section, which stretches from the first noting of Jesus' determination to reach Jerusalem, to His actual approach, is a jumbled collection of disparate events. Much of what is found in that part of the Gospel appears also in the others, but in different settings. Perhaps, if Luke was indeed gathering such personal interviews, there was simply too much conflict in the stories to determine the real setting. The events themselves had clearly occurred, but where they fit in was not so clear. At any rate, that's the way I shall be treating that part. Where other gospels seem to give clear definition to the setting, I will follow their lead, the remainder will be considered as simply a collection of events, things worth preserving in the record even though their exact placement is unclear.

John (12/7/03)

The focus in John's gospel is on Son as the One, the Messiah, God incarnate. From the start, he makes this point clear. Along the way, he takes pains to show that John the Baptist knew for himself that he was not the one. This was likely done to counter the cult which had sprung up, claiming more for John than John claimed for himself. In dealing with the people, the author repeatedly points out that many believed, but also makes clear that many who believed at the moment did not truly believe. When looking at Jesus' teaching, this gospel more than any other focuses on the clarity of Jesus' claims as the Son of God. Over and over the point is made that He is of the Father. Where other gospels show Him seeking to hide this truth, John shows it boldly proclaimed.

One other aspect of this text is its depiction of the leadership. It is made evident that in spite of the official position of the temple authorities, many even among the officials believed. It is made clear that the reason acceptance was not more widespread was because of the threats issuing from those authorities. Indeed, in the scenes surrounding Jesus' trial, many are shown to have been swayed by threats. Peter's denial occurs in recognition that the one asking is the brother of the one he attacked. This could be trouble. Pilate is shown capitulating to Jewish demands under threat of being declared a traitor before Caesar. The believing Jews, in general, are wary of becoming known to the temple authorities, because of their threats. In all, those authorities are shown wholly corrupt.

A few other tendencies of this gospel are certainly worth noting. First, there is far more focus on what Jesus was doing in Jerusalem. So much of the narrative wraps itself around one or another of the Jewish feasts. It is from this that scholars have come to the conclusion that His ministry was only three years in duration. I'm not sure that the evidence is that conclusive, although it certainly indicates this as the minimum duration. The one other thing that seems clear is that the author seeks to fill in the gaps in the story, rather than rehashing what has already been recorded well enough elsewhere.

Read the Book - 2nd Pass (Background from content) (12/8/03-12/11/03)

Matthew (12/8/03)

Who wrote it?	No indication is given as to the author.
Who was it written to or for?	A few things about this Gospel suggest it was written for those to whom these were local events. Most specifically, there is the fact that Barabbas is named as the one released, with no further indication of who he was. To me, this suggests that the author felt certain his readers would be familiar with the man already. There is, added to this, the factor that no explanations are made of various Jewish rites and traditions.
Why was it written?	The intent, such as it is evident, seems to be to ensure the memory of what was said by the Messiah, as well as to show that this new Christian faith was but a fulfillment of what the prophets had long declared, that Jesus was indeed the Chosen One of God.
When was it written?	Again, there is no particular indication of the time of this writing, other than that it was clearly written after Christ's Ascension, and most likely after Mark's gospel. I'll base that last on the fact that the birth of Christ begins to be filled in by this author, whereas Mark moves almost immediately to the start of the actual ministry. Given the distinctly Jewish flavor of the message delivered, one could think that the time of this writing was not very long after the event. The record seems to be assumed still fairly fresh in the minds of the readers, and again, the targeting of the message to the Jewish community seems geared to bolster the Jerusalem church. With that in mind, we could probably cap the latest possibility for its writing as coming before the destruction of Jerusalem, which is not mentioned. This gives us perhaps a 30 year span of possibility, ranging from about 35 to 65 AD. Given the assumption that the Gospel of Mark had already been in circulation for a time, we could reasonably expect that this gospel comes later in that range.
What was happening in the world at that time?	Given the lack of placement for time and author, it would be difficult to answer these questions with any great accuracy. However, we can be certain that Rome remained the dominant force in Israel and the world at the time. Jerusalem doubtless remained a city in turmoil, as it seems to have done pretty constantly from the time of the Maccabeans on through its destruction by Rome.
What was happening to God's people at that time?	From the tone of the letter, it would seem that the foundling church in Jerusalem was still struggling for legitimacy in the eyes of the temple. The efforts to show the clear linkages between Scripture and the events of Jesus' life would argue for such a placement, certainly. This being the case, the persecution of the church in that city had not yet really begun. We would still be in that period where they were in the synagogues freely proclaiming the message, and in the temple praying. The church, then, was still seeking to remain part of the recognized system of Jewish religion, seeking to be an accepted sect of Jewish faith.
What was happening to the author at that time?	It seems entirely probable that the author was part of this early church, and that he was perhaps tasked with recording the events of the church's founding in a fashion suited to the arguments necessarily to be made in the synagogues. Clearly, the opposition of the temple officials did not stop with Jesus' death. Their attempts to cover up the truth of Jesus' resurrection, noted only in this text, suffice to show that this was the case. As to his being tasked with this effort, consider that literacy was not a commonplace in that day, as can be attested by the existence of the profession of scribe. Consider Paul's description of the church even in the later period when he was writing: not many were wise, not many greatly educated. Looking at the background we are given for the apostles, this was certainly the case. The majority were fishermen, and that, from what was essentially considered a backwater of Israel. These would not be likely candidates to write such a book as this. Of those for whom background is given us, only Matthew Levi stands out as one with talents in that area, which doubtless bolsters the argument suggesting him as the author. He was there, no doubt, and he had the ability, perhaps alone among those tasked with establishing the church. He would have been familiar, as such, both with what arguments were being faced as the new faith was put forward, and with what arguments would hold water with those who opposed them.

Mark (12/9/03)

Who wrote it?	There is nothing in the text to suggest who may have written it.
Who was it written to or for?	This also seems rather unclear from the text. More than most, the author offers translations for Aramaic terms, suggesting that he addresses somebody other than the Jewish community.
Why was it written?	There is a phrase found in the account of the paralytic which seems to sum up the author's purpose: "In order to know that the Son has authority…" Throughout, he seems focused on that idea, showing Jesus in displays of power and authority, and showing all other claimants to authority to be false claimants. The disciples are shown to be particularly fallible in this text, never quite understanding what was going on. Perhaps this was to counter tendencies to lift them higher in esteem than was right? The temple officialdom is also shown to be misguided in just about every encounter. Even demons recognize what they were blinded to! A defense against the Judaizers, perhaps?
When was it written?	Again, I think we can determine an earliest date which would have to have been after the Ascension. It is interesting to note how this account seems to follow the sequence of Matthew for a time, and then follows Luke. I know it has been argued that this is the oldest of the gospels, but it does make one wonder. If this was the foundation, then why the great differences in two texts supposedly founded on it? The shift in focus from the Jews to the Gentiles is suggestive of a later dating as well. (How quickly one's thinking on these matters can change.) One wonders whether the brevity of this text is due to its being first, or due to there being so many others out there that all the author felt was needed was to straighten out the order a bit. If one sees this as being the first text, then a fairly early date is necessary, but I would be inclined to put it later, probably well into the period of Paul's ministry. Certainly, this established the need for an explanation of events to those outside Israel, and we know that odd twistings of the true gospel were not long in following behind Paul's plantings.
What was happening in the world at that time?	It feels to me as though this book comes out of the time of Paul's ministry. Again, we are looking at a world firmly held by Rome. In essence, there is no other earthly power in that day.
What was happening to God's people at that time?	I would continue to suggest that by this time churches are being planted in Asia Minor and perhaps in Greece. The needs of such missionary journeys as were being undertaken at the time could also serve to explain the brevity of the text. A shorter book would be easier to carry and quicker to copy. The fundamental issue of Jesus' authority is sufficiently displayed, and there is enough of His teaching to lay a reasonable foundation. I would note, also, that of all the teaching passages, the author seems to focus mostly on those concerning the end times. Recalling that Paul had to deal with those who had been spreading misunderstandings regarding those times, it offers more support for the idea that this gospel was written for such a time.
What was happening to the author at that time?	If my suppositions are correct, it would seem the author was involved with, or at least familiar with what was happening among the young churches of the Gentiles. Again, the selection of material here seems more geared towards that, than towards defending the faith in Jerusalem. It would not be shocking to me to find that the book was written in Antioch, the base from which Paul, Barnabas, and Silas had been sent, and to which report doubtless came back regularly. In that place, the author would have known the need, and had the opportunity to serve the need. The apostles were not so very far away, if he needed to confer with them, and, if the temple persecutions were begun, which they must have if this is timed as I think it may be, there would have been plenty of early disciples present from whom facts could be gathered.

Luke (12/10/03)

Who wrote it?	There is every reason to believe that this was indeed written by Luke, companion of Paul during portions of his missionary journeys. However, that evidence comes not from this Gospel, but from its companion work, Acts. In fact, it seems entirely likely that Luke had the second book in mind even as he was finishing this first. I say that based on his noting of Jesus' telling them to wait for power, which foreshadows the events of Acts 2 quite clearly.
Who was it written to or for?	The text is addressed to one identified as 'most excellent Theophilus.' Whether this was indeed a particular person, or a message addressed to those who loved God is perhaps open to debate. In either case, though, the message is addressed to one already taught regarding Christian faith.
Why was it written?	As I said, the letter is addressed ton one who had been taught already. Luke also makes his purpose plain: to know the exact truth. One doesn't see the unvarnished efforts of countering error in his account, though. It's perhaps more a matter of trying to set the record straight. The presence of so many non-canonical variations on the gospel makes it pretty clear that any number of differing accounts had surfaced, many of which were highly suspect in nature. Luke, therefore, is seeking to define which accounts are accurate, what the real ordering of events were, and - it seems to me - seeking to preserve words which clearly came from the mouth of Jesus, though the occasion of their having been spoken is perhaps unclear.
When was it written?	Again, I would point out that, so I am informed, Luke was perhaps the first historian to actually make the effort to interview those 'at the scene.' The birth narrative makes it fairly clear he had talked to Mary, mother of Jesus. This being the case, it seems quite likely he also spoke at length with John, the one to whom Jesus had entrusted her care. Consider also that Luke was companion to Paul during his travels. It is quite likely, then, that he had been in Rome during some portion of Paul's stay there. This, it seems to me, makes it quite possible that he had had opportunity to speak with Peter as well. As to the time of its writing, I would think it likely came after the journeys with Paul. Perhaps, having learned so much from the apostles in Rome and Ephesus, and given some time to pursue information in Israel proper, Luke was familiar with the need for a definitive record, and knew himself to have the requisite knowledge and skill to do so. That would place it fairly late, perhaps mid to late 60's, possibly early 70's.
What was happening in the world at that time?	Rome is still in control. It seems quite likely that we are into the time of Nero. Major events in Roman history such as the fires in Rome, and the expulsion of the Jews had probably already occurred, given that Luke was with Paul, and we know that Priscilla and Aquila were among those affected by the expulsion. It is possible that the destruction of Jerusalem was either recent news or just over the horizon. Thus, we can assume that the situation in Israel at large is not good.
What was happening to God's people at that time?	The church is being planted throughout much of the Roman Empire. Paul has been hard at work in the regions of Asia Minor and Greece, and has probably reached Rome by this time. We also know from Luke's and Paul's writings that the church was being established on the southern shores of the Mediterranean (witness Apollos). However, given no record of his death in Acts, I would say he has not been killed yet, but is likely imprisoned there. (That would put us definitely in Nero's reign.) Peter is quite probably also in Rome. John may be in Ephesus, as is Mary. In Jerusalem, one can only imagine that things are getting bad. It was already a struggle for the church there earlier, necessitating (or giving opportunity for) Paul's mission of mercy from the Gentiles. Just how bad things had gotten there would depend a lot on the exact timing of this writing. Was Jerusalem fallen, or was it under siege? Had Rome already crushed the nation, or was that still the looming threat?
What was happening to the author at that time?	Whatever the situation in Rome and Jerusalem, it seems Luke was in a place of relative security, perhaps being far enough removed from both locales to be still at peace, or perhaps too minor a player from Rome's viewpoint to justify concern. One senses a distinct 'spiritual high' in Luke, a combination of experiences working with Paul, and, no doubt, the things he was learning as he dug up the facts from Jesus' companions and family. Luke would appear to be a Greek citizen by birth, giving him a unique perspective on the events of Jesus' life. This shows in his declared intent of discerning the 'exact truth.' He knows his own, perhaps more educated, upbringing, and he knows how those raised like himself think. Thus, he lays out a history of the Son of God which will make sense to the larger culture outside of Israel. I don't doubt that he was fully aware of the gospels of Matthew and Mark, more than likely as completed and distributed works. If one accepts the popular idea that Mark wrote from discussions with Peter, it is quite probable that Luke enjoyed many similar discussions with the same. But he went a step further, gathering material from others among the apostles, quite probably several of them. It is not unlikely that he interviewed Matthew somewhere along the way. As such, he was probably quite familiar with both of their accounts, and made use of their work wherever it showed itself indisputable. Where there may have been disagreement, or where other sources may have made settings suspect, it seems he chose to gather the reliable portions and jettison the suspect. This, I think, is what we find in his 'special section,' which appears to gather quite a bit of Jesus' teaching together with no real sense of order. Consider that this section is found between the bookends of a notice of Jesus' determination to head for Jerusalem, and his actual journey thence, and it seems all the more likely that these intervening chapters are preserving legitimate and certain words of our Lord and Christ, but not necessarily in chronologically accurate settings.

John (12/11/03)

Who wrote it?	In all fairness, it is not entirely evident who the author is. We are told that he is from among the disciples, and likely he is from among the first few called. Was it John? It is not unreasonable to think so, but from the text alone, we cannot be certain.
Who was it written to or for?	It would seem that the book was written for an audience that was already familiar with the other gospels. It also seems that the recipients were likely of Jewish origins, given what appears to be an assumption of familiarity with the religious festivals of their religion, and with some facets of Jerusalem itself.
Why was it written?	A few purposes are evident in this gospel. First, there is a clear effort on the author's part to counter efforts made by the Gnostic movements which were promoting John the Baptist as far more than he was. In this book, John the Baptist is repeatedly shown declaring himself to be no more than a messenger, and declaring Jesus as the Christ. Some of the phraseology used, especially in the opening portions of the book, also suggest something of Gnostic thinking. One could suspect that the writer was seeking to draw in those caught in such heresy, so that they could be faced with the facts of this most important issue. Another purpose the book appears to be designed to serve is to fill in the blanks in the narrative of the other gospels. So very little of what is contained here is mentioned by the other three books. Indeed, in reviewing the outlines once more, it struck me how little is said about any of the Galilean ministry of Jesus. It gets perhaps a sentence or two, and no more. The clear focus of the author is on what was happening around Jesus in Jerusalem. Perhaps, he seeks to display what the feasts of Israel were intended to symbolize, and how clearly the fulfillment had come.
When was it written?	It seems clear that this was the last of the gospels written. That would put it mid to late 70's at the earliest. Given life expectancies at that time, I would find it hard to believe it was much later than that.
What was happening in the world at that time?	Is it possible that the recent destruction of Jerusalem by Rome accounts for the author's focus on events in that city?
What was happening to God's people at that time?	If so, then the Jerusalem church quite probably is no more, given that Jerusalem, for the most part, is no more. What happened to that church, I wonder? What became of James, Andrew, and the others there? Did they heed the warnings Jesus issued out on Olivet?
What was happening to the author at that time?	If we assume John to be the author (and there's no real reason not to), he is probably an old man, physically and emotionally tried by his term of banishment on Patmos, yet exalted in thought by the revelation given to him there. He has seen the church spread from eleven scared individuals, into a thriving network of communities spreading throughout the Roman empire. He has learned the greatness of God's love, and learned to love greatly himself. In a way, it is as though he is writing out his own final reminiscences here. Perhaps, as he wrote, he had one or the other of the gospels before him, and wrote as the things recorded there brought memories to mind.

Read some Background - 3rd Pass (Add some authors) (12/11/03-12/20/03)

Harper's: (12/11/03)

Matthew (12/11/03)

Early church thinking accepted this book as being written by Matthew the tax-gatherer, also known as Levi. Various camps place the time of its writing either in the 60s or 80s. [Of course, Matthew would have to have been 100+ to write it in the 80s.] Amongst the early writers, this is the most often quoted Gospel. The text is clearly written from a Jew for Jews, with a focus on the connection of Judaism and the new Christian faith. The author collects the teaching of Jesus into several large groupings, suggesting that he may have been a teacher. Many things are grouped in sets of three, five or seven. Harper's suggests this was as a teaching aid. [One wonders if this is more to do with the numerical interests of the Jews.] This is the only Gospel to speak of the church as such, and has a marked emphasis on the conduct of the church body. There is also a focus on Jesus' teaching regarding the end times.

Mark (12/11/03)

This Gospel has been attributed to John Mark since the earliest known writings of the church. It may be that he is the one written of as having to escape naked from the scene in the garden. From other places in Scripture, we learn that John Mark was son of Mary of Jerusalem, and cousin to Barnabas. He was occasionally a coworker with Paul, and also with Peter in Rome. While not of the twelve, and perhaps not of those who accompanied Jesus in ministry, the account clearly displays firsthand knowledge, generally presumed to have come from Peter. This is considered the earliest written of the Gospels, being written somewhere in the 50s, or perhaps as late as 65 AD. It is a short and straight-forward account of Jesus' public ministry, with a full third of the text devoted to the last week in Jerusalem. The emphasis is on Jesus' acts. Jesus is displayed as the Son of God and the Son of Man, the suffering Servant.

Luke (12/11/03)

This Gospel has always been attributed to Luke, the only Gentile author included in the New Testament. From Acts, we know he was with Paul during the second mission trip, joining at Troas, and remaining with Paul until reaching Philippi. There he remained until Paul's return thence on his third mission, going to Jerusalem and Rome with Paul from that time. Some claim the book was written in the 80s, but others think it came before Jerusalem's fall in AD 70. Luke writes as a historian, concerned with the time and order of events. This is a joyful accounting of Jesus' life and work, which displays Jesus' prayer life more fully than the others. The universal nature of the message is emphasized, showing that the good news is for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Women play a prominent role throughout. As with Mark, the final journey to Jerusalem, and that last week fill much of the book.

John (12/11/03)

While the author identifies himself as a disciple, he does not do so by name. He is almost always noted in company with Peter, and when early writers discuss its authorship, they attribute it to John. Brother of James, partner to Peter and Andrew, he was likely the son of Salome. John was, along with Peter and James, one who was with Jesus in His most intimate moments. John's association with Peter continued as the church grew in Jerusalem, becoming known as one of the pillars of that church. Most think the letter to have been written in the 90s, although some suggest it was written in the 70s or later 60s. The book is written to declare Jesus' signs, to build firm belief that He is the Christ, Son of God, source of life. It seeks to answer the critical question of who Jesus is. Seven signs are recorded in the text, culminating with Lazarus' resurrection. Seven 'I AMs' are also recorded. Throughout the record of Jesus' ministry, there is the matter of 'the hour,' the moment of God's purpose accomplished.

Read some Background - 3rd Pass (Add some authors) (12/11/03-12/20/03)

Hebrew-Greek Key: (12/12/03)

Matthew (12/12/03)

While he is not specifically named, it is known that Mathew wrote this book. A tax-gatherer by trade, he was called by Jesus to be one of the twelve, and witnessed the whole of Jesus' ministry first-hand. [Not sure I accept that. Seems to me he came after much had already happened.] The date of the book's writing is uncertain, but it is clearly aimed at a Jewish audience, stressing the confirmation of Scriptures referring to the Messiah in Jesus' life and ministry. Matthew's theme: Jesus is Savior and King of the kingdom of God.

Mark (12/12/03)

This is the shortest account, and the vast majority of what is covered here is also found in the others. The author's emphasis is on Jesus' miraculous power - the Son of God in action. The book seems to be written for those outside of Jewish culture. Tradition places the authorship of this book with John Mark, cousin of Barnabas, son of Mary of Jerusalem, quite possibly a Levite by birth.

Luke (12/12/03)

Here we see Jesus the Messiah for whom the Jews had been waiting, but shown also as the Savior of all mankind. Jesus' care for the poor, the weak, and for women - in essence for all the underprivileged of the time - is displayed. Jesus is shown as the perfect Man, whose love and concern was impartial, given to all. Written for a Greek audience, the book is laid out in Greek fashion - orderly, logical, and complete. Luke is doubtless the author, the only Gentile author in the New Testament. From his writing, we can see that Luke was well-educated, the most cultured of the gospel writers.

John (12/12/03)

This text is concerned with Jesus' deity, which is displayed from the very first sentence, and there still in the concluding message of purpose: that you may believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The focus is more on Jesus' words than on His works, leading the reader on through a series of proofs of Jesus being the Son of God. Here, the focus is not on trying to present a cohesive, linear accounting of Jesus' ministry. Instead, we are presented with a series of vignettes. Constant in the text are sharply contrasted comparisons, and words of Jesus reflecting the symbols abounding in daily life. From this text, specifically from the Passover feasts mentioned, we deduce that Jesus' ministry was about 3-1/2 years in length. The author is less concerned with the historicity of Jesus, than with the significance of Jesus, the 'what does it mean?' The writer is John.

Read some Background - 3rd Pass (Add some authors) (12/11/03-12/20/03)

Calvin: (12/12/03-12/13/03)

Dedication Letter to the Harmony (12/12/03)

The four divinely appointed witnesses who wrote the Gospels are as a chariot drawn by four horses. "For by this appropriate and just harmony God appears to have expressly prepared for His Son a triumphal chariot, from which He may make a magnificent display to the whole body of believers, and in which, with rapid progress, He may review the world."

Matthew, Mark, and Luke (12/12/03-12/13/03)

If we are to understand the writings in these books, we must first understand the significance of what they are: Gospels, so named by the authors rather than by tradition. From Paul's letter to the Romans we get the clearest definition. (Ro 1:2-4 - It is that which the prophets promised, the matter of His Son, born to David's line in the flesh, but pronounced the Son of God most powerfully, by His resurrection from death. It is a matter declared by the Spirit of Holiness, regarding Jesus Christ our Lord.) So then, it is a declaration of accomplished promises - the announcement that salvation, for which we had need to cling by hope, is now done. It is the open display of God's righteousness, that which all of the Old Testament had foretold and foreshadowed (Ro 3:21), a message offered daily to a world in need, that the reconciliation which is its need is accomplished in the death of Christ, if they would but take hold of it. He is not only the pledge of all blessings, but the fulfillment of the same (2Co 1:20). "Righteousness, and salvation, and perfect happiness, are founded on His resurrection."

The Gospel, then, is the joyful message of the Son of God, come in the flesh to deliver the world, and restore life to dead men. (1Ti 3:16 - It is admitted by all that godliness is a mystery great indeed. It consists in Him who was shown to us in the flesh, vouched for by the Spirit of God, looked upon by angels, and declared amongst all nations. He was believed on in the world, and taken up from the world in glory.) It seeks the reign of God, our deliverance from fleshly corruption, our Spirit-fed renewal, and our presence in heavenly glory. This is the blessed life of those who dwell in the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God, the kingdom for which Joseph of Arimathea waited (Mk 15:43). Those who seek to include the prophets as ministers of the Gospel miss the unique standing of the New Testament. Jesus Himself tells us that the prophets and the law led up to John's ministry, but that from that point forward something new had come, the preaching of the kingdom of God (Lk 16:16). This term, Gospel, has been given to those four texts which concern themselves with the birth, death, and resurrection of the Christ, thereby relating to us the whole matter of our salvation. They are rightfully known as the Four Evangelists, for they place before us the Christ, sent by the Father to be received by faith as the Author of all life.

His power we may see more clearly in other books of the New Testament, John among them. These three, however, are more concerned with declaring the Christ as the Son of God, the promised Redeemer. Certainly, we find the doctrines of His office, His grace, and His purpose weaved throughout that message, but the fundamental purpose of the authors remains to show God's promise fulfilled in the person of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God. There is no refutation of the older Law nor of the message of the prophets here. Indeed, we are invited to find in the Christ all the promises of which the prophets spoke. "The full profit and advantage, therefore, to be derived from the reading of the Gospel will only be obtained when we learn to connect it with the ancient promises."

Regarding the authorship of these three: Matthew we know from the accounts themselves. Mark is generally accepted as being a friend of Peter's. Indeed, it is believed by most that Peter dictated that gospel, with Mark as amanuensis. Whether author or clerk, it suffices to know that he was qualified, indeed appointed from on high, to provide witness as the Holy Spirit directed. Jerome asserted that Mark was but a condensed form of Matthew, but that is unfounded, for Mark does not always follow Matthew's order. Furthermore, his perspective on the events, his presentation, is of a different flavor from the outset. Far more likely that Mark had never seen Matthew's text when he wrote. Neither was Luke working from a copy of one or the other texts. No, each sought to give an honest record of what they knew as certainty, doing so as seemed best to themselves under the direction of Divine Providence. This Spirit-led diversity of record displays a surprising harmony, evidence sufficient in itself to aver their veracity, but we have other reasons to accept the texts. Luke, we know from other places, was assuredly with Paul, but those who would make Paul the author of that Gospel are foolishly taking one comment of his completely out of context (2Ti 2:8-9 - Bear in mind Jesus the Christ, risen from death, born of David's line, according to my gospel. It is for this that I accept the suffering of hardship, even of imprisonment as though I were a criminal. Oh! But the word of God is not imprisoned!) His imprisonment was not for writing a book, but for living and preaching the sound doctrine of Christ.

As for seeking to display the aforementioned harmony, take no affront. It ought to be plain that one cannot present one of the Evangelists without being required to display the other two for comparison. To follow the three through all their various paths is an effort which takes time for any who seek to preach the Gospel, and may prove beyond the strength of those of ordinary ability. This is presented, then, as a saving of their labors, a tool in their work of declaring the Christ, by which the diverse harmonies of the three may be seen at a glance. Nothing of what they have written will be left out, nor will it be repeated. This is by no means the first text to attempt this harmony, indeed great men of God have done so before, laying a solid groundwork on which to build, although Calvin reserves, and uses, the right to differ with their ordering.

John (12/13/03)

The word Gospel speaks of the glad message of grace exhibited in Christ, to instruct us to despise the world, and embrace wholly that blessed grace. The message proclaimed in the Gospel serves to correct our inborn desire for the things of the world by reminding us that in Christ is our true happiness found, Him being all that is needful for 'the perfection of a happy life.' While it is true that even the prophets, and other writers of the Old Testament surely exhibit Christ whenever they declare God's word of reconciliation, yet the Holy Spirit declares that the Gospel was first proclaimed in the coming of the Christ, and with Him we must concur. Thus is the Gospel the power of god to save (Ro 1:16), the means by which God reconciles men to himself (2Co 5:20). So it is that the word has come to indicate those histories which relate the Christ come in the flesh, dying in the flesh, raised from that death, and risen to heaven. However, history alone will not save a man, and so it is that the Evangelists not only relate His story, but also declare its meaning. Of them all, John dwells far more on the doctrine of His office as the Christ, and on the power of His death and resurrection. This is not to say that the others neglect meaning and doctrine, but only that John puts it far more plainly in sight. "The three former display His body, if we may be permitted to use the expression, but John exhibits His soul." That makes this Gospel the key to understanding the others, for only when we understand the power of Christ will the details of the Redeemer's life be of use to us.

It is held that John's purpose was primarily to uphold the divinity of Christ against blasphemous attacks. Yet, God had in mind far greater benefits from His writing. It is He who 'dictated to the Four Evangelists what they should write,' that their separate parts should constitute one body. We, to whom the Gospels have been given must endeavor to so study them as 'to be taught by all of them, as by one mouth.' John was given the last place in Scripture because of the later date of his writing, but in studying we would do well to learn first from John the purpose of His manifestation before turning to the others.

Read some Background - 3rd Pass (Add some authors) (12/11/03-12/20/03)

Matthew Henry: (12/13/03-12/15/03)

New Testament Introduction (12/13/03)

This book opens the New Testament, also rightly called the New Covenant. Yet, when it refers to the record of Christ's acts, Testament is more proper, 'for He is the Testator.' By His death, the covenant comes into force, granted by the free and good will of the Testator (Heb 9:16-17 - A covenant must be instituted by the death of the one who makes it, valid only when he is dead, never in power while its maker yet lives.) All the grace of the Book is due solely to our Lord and Savior. "Unless we consent to Him as our Lord, we cannot expect any benefit by Him as our Savior." It is new, as being different than the Mosaic covenant. It is new in that it will always be new, never becoming outdated. More than just an exposition upon the grace which appeared to all men, the New Testament also declares the legal means by which grace is conveyed to the believer. We find pleasure in hearing ourselves named in the will of a friend, for it declares his love for us. How much moreso, to hear the will and testament of our blessed Savior, and to know our names contained therein! Though written by others, it was at His dictation, a book signed and sealed by Him at the Last Supper, though they were not written until years later. The content was settled from the time of His death. What Luke writes of was well known before he wrote, yet his writing set aside oral tradition in favor of a written repository. The New Testament is 'the whole counsel of God concerning our salvation.' (Ac 20:27 - I did not shrink from declaring the whole purpose of God to you.) The Gospel is perfect, and nothing is to be added to it.

Gospel Introduction (12/13/03)

The Gospels in particular are the glad tidings of the Christ come into the world to dave sinners, the best news ever, so declared by an angel (Lk 2:10 - The angel declared that he bore good news, joyful news, for all the people. Isa 52:7 - The bearer of good news, who declares peace and happiness and announces salvation, is most welcome. He comes declaring, 'Your God reigns!' Isa 61:1 - The Spirit of the LORD has commissioned me to bring good news to the afflicted. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to tell the captives of liberty, and to free the imprisoned.) What Isaiah proclaims is the joyful tidings which would be proclaimed at Messiah's coming. 'Gospel' is a Saxon word meaning God's word, and God is good. Ergo, it is a good word. It is that which calms the spirit and raises up love from within us. "The whole of the New Testament is the Gospel," which Paul declared his own. May we likewise make it our own by our subjection to it. Still, the first four books, we have come to call the Gospels, and their writers, the Evangelists. Yet, the evangelist was one among several offices of ministry (Eph 4:11 - He gave us apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers.) The doctrine of Christ cannot but be founded upon the life, death, and resurrection of the Christ, in which it is most clearly displayed. "The most happy discoveries are those which take rise from the certain representations of matters of fact." "Sacred history [is] the most proper and grateful vehicle of sacred truth."

From earliest times, it was attested that there were precisely four Gospels delivered to the church, which Tatian early sought to harmonize as one. Other forgeries appeared in the 3rd and 4th centuries, but never gained acceptance. Tradition is never sufficient cause to preserve a record. Assuredly, there is more which Jesus said and did than remains in the record given us, but we must abide by that which God would have us to abide. (Jn 20:30 - The disciples witnessed many other signs from Jesus, but they are not written of here. Jn 21:25 - Were one to attempt to detail all that Jesus did, the world would not suffice to hold the books written.)

Matthew (12/14/03)

Matthew, born a Jew, employed as a tax-collector until Jesus called him away, was with Jesus throughout His earthly ministry (Ac 1:21-1:22 - Any new apostle would have to have been with us throughout the time that Jesus was here, from His baptism right through to the day He was taken up. Only such a one would be fit to become His witness along with us.) So, clearly, Matthew is a fit witness to what he records. It is suggested that he wrote about eight years after the Ascension. It was thought to have been written in Hebrew, or perhaps Syriac, but now is believed to have been written in Greek, although there is the possibility that Matthew made copies in both languages.

Mark (12/14/03)

"The second living creature saith, 'Come, and see.'" Mark was a common Roman name, yet the author was quite likely born a Jew. There is the John Mark we know of from Paul's story, cousin of Barnabas, he was eventually sent for by Paul to be an assistant, one profitable for ministry (2Ti 4:11). There is also Marcus, spiritual son to Peter. (1Pe 5:13 - The chosen in Babylon greet you, as does my son, Mark.) These may be one in the same man, and, whether one or two, it is not certain that either was the writer of this Gospel. Tradition holds that Mark wrote under Peter's direction, as Tertullian indicates. Yet, is there call to appeal to Peter for approval, when there were so many who were with the apostles throughout that ministry time? (Ac 1:21 - We must choose from those who have been with us throughout the time of Jesus' work. Lk 10:19 - I give you authority to walk even upon snakes and scorpions, over all power of the enemy. Nothing will injure you. Mk 16:18 - They will pick up serpents and drink poisons without harm. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover. Ac 1:15 - At this time Peter rose up to speak. There were around one hundred and twenty present at the time. Ac 2:1-4 - They were all there on the day of Pentecost, when there came a sudden noise from heaven, like a rushing wind, and that noise filled the whole house. Then, there appeared to them what looked like tongues of fire, spreading out and resting on each one there. At that point, they were filled with the Holy Spirit. They began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit moved upon them to speak.) Note that through none of this were the twelve alone. Were Mark to have written from his own experience, the witness is in no way diminished. Jerome suggests that Mark went to Egypt after writing this book, planting the Alexandrian church.

The book itself if much shorter than that of Matthew, focusing mostly on the miracles of Jesus, rather than His preaching. Few new stories are found here, but quite often the stories that are here give added details, as compared to Matthew's account. In Law, witnesses must each recount their testimony in their own words. This is not considered tedium, but a necessity, giving validity to the witness delivered. So it is with this book, serving to stir up our minds by way of remembrance. It is fitting to have the record repeated, because we are so prone to miss things, or forget them. Though written in Rome, the text was written in Greek, as Greek was, at the time, the more universal language.

Luke (12/15/03)

Jerome tells us that Luke was born in Antioch. He was a Gentile, a proselyte of the Jewish faith converted to Christianity by Paul's ministry there. As employment, he pursued the work of a physician. Some consider it probable that he was among the seventy whom Christ sent out, but this would run counter to his being a Gentile converted by Paul. Both Origen and Epiphanius hold to this latter view. It is often suggested that he wrote his Gospel with direction coming from Paul. Was he the brother Paul wrote of? (2Co 8:18 - We have sent along the brother famous in the gospel, known through all the churches.) If so, perhaps this is the gospel Paul speaks of as his own. (Ro 2:16 - On that day, according to my gospel, God will judge all of men's secrets through Christ Jesus.) All that aside, the suggestion seems groundless, given the quality of writing and the essential 'Greekness' of his writing, when compared to the others. He provides more detail on most events than do the others, his focus on the role of the Christ in His office of High Priest.

Some place the writing of this book in Achaia during travels with Paul, placing it some seventeen to twenty-two years after the Ascension. Others place the writing in Rome, shortly before Acts was written, again in Paul's company, but now, with Paul a prisoner. Certainly as companion to Paul in that situation, he would have had time to compile these two histories. If this is the case, the writing occurs about twenty-seven years post-Ascension, in the fourth year of Nero's rule.

Jerome tells us the writer lived to be eighty-four, and remained unwed. Other writers claim martyrdom for Luke, but there is no record of place or time of this event. In the end, one cannot place much trust in the traditions that built up around the authors of Scripture, whether Old or New.

John (12/15/03)

Inquiries into the place and time at which this book was written are not edifying. It suffices to know with certainty that the book was given by God's inspiration, and written by John the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve, indeed one of the three primary disciples to whom Jesus entrusted his most private moments. It is said of old that John was the last to die, and the only apostle to die of natural causes. These suggest that the book was written in Ephesus, pursuant to requests from many of the churches in Asia, to be used in countering the Corinthian and Ebionite heresies which held that Jesus was but a man. Likely, it was written before his banishment, given that Revelation seems intended as the close of Scripture. Others would have it that the Gospel was written during, or after, that exile, after Jerusalem's destruction. They would have it that John was in his nineties, or older, when he wrote.

However, Mr. Henry does not hold to this idea of such a late writing, only that it was clearly the last of the Gospels to be written. This conclusion is based on the fact that so much that John relates was omitted in other accounts. John focuses on the mystery, where the others were concerned with the history. The factual had to be settled before the deeper meaning could be examined. What He did and taught had been sufficiently attested by two or three witnesses (Lk 1:1 - Many have compiled accounts of what was accomplished among us [note the 'us.'] Ac 1:1 - I wrote the first account to cover all that Jesus did and taught. Heb 6:1 - Now, we leave behind the basic learning about the Christ and move on towards maturity. The foundation has been laid already: repentance from dead works, and establishing of faith towards God. It need not be laid again.) Just so, John chooses not to revisit the basics. He moves from the bodily, physical facts of Jesus' ministry to the spiritual life and soul of His ministry, making this book peculiarly the key to understanding all of the Evangelists, the open door. Those who find in John's image of the four living creatures a symbol of the Evangelists themselves, make John out to be the eagle, flying higher and therefore seeing the divine more clearly.

Read some Background - 3rd Pass (Add some authors) (12/11/03-12/20/03)

ISBE: (12/16/03-12/20/03)

Matthew (12/16/03)

The ancient church was unanimous in declaring this text to have been written by Matthew, nor is there any viable reason to believe the book has been cobbled together from various materials. Those who claim a sequence of revisions released over time through the Church are shown baseless in their theories. The book was accepted without question by the early church, declared by Origen as one of the four Gospels, the only Gospels accepted by the Church of God. Very early on, we see record of the church treating the Gospels as Scripture. Such usages abound from Barnabas' writings, right through to Iranaeus and Clement.

A series of church fathers, starting with Papias, declare Matthew as the author, telling us also that he wrote in Hebrew. Eusebius indicates that in later years, Matthew went to nations outside of Israel, and left behind him the Gospel written in their own language. So, if the original were in Hebrew, why then was it the Greek that was preserved? It seems clear that Matthew as we have it today is not simply a translation of an Aramaic text, for it is not particularly Hebraistic in thought. Modern critics think that the text referred to by Papias was a collection only of the sayings of Jesus (the 'Q' document). It is by this that they seek to explain the similarities between Matthew and Luke. However, there is no particular reason to accept this theory.

The book breaks into three topical sections, covering in turn the birth of Jesus, His ministry in Galilee, and His ministry and passion in Judea, particularly Jerusalem. Clearly, the text gives us only a selected showing from the material available regarding the life and ministry of Christ. Indeed, there was doubtless far more that was common knowledge to the early Christian church, which was not included herein. Thus, the author has chosen his inclusions to a purpose. What he has chosen, he has arranged less in chronological order than according to similarity of subject matter, especially where the preaching of Jesus is concerned. Matthew does not declare his purpose directly, yet he is clearly concerned with showing Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah. This shows in the number of proof texts Matthew brings forward and compares to the details of Jesus' life.

Most likely, the book was written during the period when the Christian 'church' was still situated within the Jewish temple. We see the Jewish focus of Matthew from the outset, tracing the paternal line of Jesus ancestry, and only pursuing it back through Abraham, father of Israel. Whereas many take the Sermon on the Mount, as presented here, to be the charter of the new Kingdom, it was really a declaration of the true meaning of the Law as compared to the Pharisaism of the day, which was of particular pertinence to a Jewish audience. This same issue of countering the teaching of the Pharisees is also a constant thread through the book. The author is keen to show the true Messiah, and the true principles of God's kingdom. It is to this same end that we see the growing hostility between Jesus and the officials of Jewish religion.

As regards debates over the nature of the Synoptics, the prevailing 'Q' theory is only that. There is no particular reason to think that the Gospels had any dependency either on each other, or on some other common text as a starting point. Matthew would have had his own experience to draw on, as well as the established oral history and catechism of the early church. This would provide sufficient common ground to explain similarities between the three accounts.

Earliest tradition indicates Matthew as the first account written of those we accept today. According to Irenaeus, it was written at a time when both Peter and Paul were in Rome, a time at which Eusebius indicates that Matthew had gone to preach outside Israel. It seems clear that the text was written before Jerusalem's destruction. It seems likely that the text was written in 60s, given what we are told. Attempts to place the writing of the Greek version in 85 AD are probably baseless.

Mark (12/17/03-12/19/03)

In the ancient writings, one finds a variety of orderings of the four Gospels. That which we know today seeks to order the four by order of their writing. Others sought to organize them with the Apostles first, or occasionally in order of length of text. Mark, in particular, takes us from the Baptist's ministry to the Resurrection. If the final twelve verses be accepted, there is also some coverage of the period from the Resurrection to the Ascension. The focus is almost exclusively on either the Galilean ministry, or the final week in Jerusalem. There is sufficient material unique to Mark to show that the author was not merely working from another's text. While less explicit than Matthew in pointing out the prophetic fulfillments found in Jesus, the Old Testament is still quoted quite often, showing perhaps more passively that this 'new' Christian faith is firmly founded on the Old.

"Mark is a Gospel of deeds." This focus on deeds as an expression of the character of Christ are perhaps another evidence of Mark's connection with Peter. Still, Jesus is brought to us as a preacher in this text, one enlarging on John's message. In this presentation, Jesus is put forth as particularly original and popular, a teacher without parallel, and the miracles He performed, we are told, were performed so as to instruct. "His works prepare for His words rather than His words for His works." The author works a fair amount of 'visuals' into the text, making the history come alive, and suggesting that one who was eyewitness to the events was on hand at the writing, if not writing himself. The author also displays familiarity with Israel at large, and particularly with Jerusalem proper.

The final verses of Mark are of debated origins. Some think that Mark composed them from his own experience, whereas the rest of the text had been following Peter's recollections. Others would have it that any concluding section Mark may have written is lost to us, and that which we have now was added at a later date. One manuscript has been found attributing this text to a presbyter thought to be one of John's disciples, perhaps the same one Papias writes of. Thus, the text, although not from Mark's hand, is yet authentic and authoritative, still carrying the apostolic witness.

Mark writes in common Greek, the language of the land at that time. The author shows indications of having Aramaic roots to his thinking, but there are also strong overtones of Latin thought to be found in the text. This gives some credence to traditional thought regarding authorship of the book. It seems clear enough that Greek is the original language of this text, although some claims exist for a Latin original. Claims of an Aramaic original seem to be wholly nullified by the presence of explanations of such Aramaic words as are found in the text.

Papias attributed the text to Mark, who wrote of things which Peter recollected. He also points out that these recollections were not laid out in chronological order. Irenaeus also indicates that Mark worked from material gathered during Peter's preaching in Rome. Clement says this was done at the behest of others who had sat under Peter's ministry, for Mark had been there longer, and had better recollection of what had been taught as the Gospel by Peter. After writing this text, Peter sent him to Egypt to minister, becoming eventually the first bishop of Alexandria. It is interesting to note, in this, that the same fathers of the church who testify that Mark wrote, but Peter spoke what is recorded in this book, also labeled the manuscript as 'of Mark,' not 'of Peter.' This bolsters claims for Matthew as author of the gospel they labeled as 'of Matthew.'

At any rate, the detail provided in the text makes clear that some witness to the events was behind what is written. The inclusion of mention of what Peter was thinking, as well as of details he was perhaps most likely to be aware of argue for Peter being that witness. There are also small points, such as the order in which the multitudes are listed in following Jesus. There, Galilee gets first mention, unlikely for any but a Galilean. In Mark's account, there is more notice paid to the three who were Jesus' closest companions. (A note here suggests that James, on similar basis, may have been Luke's source on these matters.) The focus on the acts of Jesus also reflects one of Peter's impulsive character. There are some indications from the text itself that would seem to indicate John Mark as the author. There is the fact that he feels it necessary to identify John as the brother of James. There is the relating of the man who escaped the garden naked, which seems out of place until one considers that it is the author's own recollection. This also brings up the probability that the Last Supper occurred in his house, making the upper room of that event the same room mentioned when Herod imprisoned Peter (Ac 12).

Jesus displayed a focus on teaching, rather than preaching, and it seems quite likely that He would often repeat His lessons for His disciples, especially given that even the inner circle found them difficult. This was and is fairly typical practice for Eastern teaching. His teaching was 'intensive rather than extensive,' quite focused on the subject of God's kingdom. His uniqueness was not in approach to teaching, but in the content taught, and the authority with which it was taught, not to mention the miracles. He was not concerned with being found original. "He was concerned about teaching them the truth so effectively that they would be prepared by intellectual clearness, as well as spiritual sympathy, to make it known to others." Whether one or more of the disciples were taking notes during His teaching or not, the fact is that His teaching was firmly lodged in their minds. Even without a written record, mutual discussion after the fact would quickly settle in the minds of all what the events were and what they meant. It should not shock us that more than one writer was required. None is so great as to understand the whole of what the Master taught. Best, then, that we are given several views, the better to see the whole. Note also the Teacher returning for forty days, to explain the significance of His own death and resurrection from Scripture. And even with that, they would be given Another to help bring to remembrance what He had said. Note that the apostles remained together in Jerusalem for quite some time - very likely right through to the settling of the issue of Gentile circumcision. Given their devotion to Christ, they would surely be quick to counter any misrepresentation of His message, and we can be quite certain that they conferred often with each other as they sought to resolve issues in the young church.

Among the apostles, Peter quickly arose as the preeminent teacher, as we can see from Luke's account. Several attempts were apparently made to capture the substance of his teaching, of which we find Luke giving us a brief summary, and Mark giving us a pretty full accounting. This article assumes the presence of the 'Q' source, attributing it to Matthew. With that in mind, the suggestion is that this source reflected more of the ethical or legal side of Jesus' teaching, and therefore, it is posited, Mark presents more in regards to the Gospel side, as a compliment or supplement to what was already in writing. A further suggestion is that Matthew was writing his Gospel about the same time, using the same 'Q' source for the ethical portion while folding in the gospel portion.

As regards the time and place of the writing, there is debate as to whether it occurred quite early, perhaps as early as 40 AD or later. The early date suggests that Mark was writing not for the church in Rome itself, but for a Roman community in the Palestine region, perhaps Antioch. The latter date is based on the understanding the he wrote right around the time of Peter's execution. The suggestion here is that Antioch is the likely spot, and that the occasion that spurred the writing was Paul's confrontation of the leadership on their treatment of the Gentiles. This would place the writing no earlier than 50 AD. The writer here sees the omission of Lazarus' resurrection from the synoptics as another possible argument for an early date, when the family would still be present, and perhaps dealing with familial pain. However, if we join the theorists that insist Mark was first, his text must have been written before Luke's which must have been written before Acts, which is generally dated around 62 AD. This would also argue for Mark having been written in the 50s. Arguments seeking to date Matthew and Mark in the 70s are based on the theorists' insistence that there be no prophetic word, which requires that they date the material after Jerusalem's destruction, but this is a foolish position for a Christian to take.

In regards to critical attempts on the historical accuracy of the Gospels, the attempts are baseless, and show only that the attackers have made up their mind before ever starting to 'examine.' The evangelists, we must consider, 'had opportunities to know the facts such as we have not.' "If we cannot trust them for the facts, there is little hope of ever getting at the facts at all."

Mark clearly writes for a Gentile audience, as shown by the translation of Jewish terms and the explanation of Jewish custom. We can narrow it down to a Roman audience based on the fact that certain Greek terms are also explained by Latin. The emphasis on power and authority also fits the Roman mindset. Yet, whereas Matthew shows us the King, Mark seems to put on display the Servant, humble yet powerful. This is a fitting image of the Christ as Peter, and perhaps John Mark would be inclined to identify with Him, and is an image that would be particularly fascinating to the Roman mind. This Servant motif also explains some of what is not in the Gospel, such as any mention of His life prior to service, the focus on deeds, and other such issues.

Primary doctrinal concerns are that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, the unique Son of God, and Son of Man. The Trinity is also plainly displayed in Mark. These are followed by doctrines of Salvation, and of the end times as the concerns touched on by Mark's gospel.

Luke (12/19/03-12/20/03)

In spite of various theories arguing the point, it seems quite clear that Luke, disciple of Paul, was indeed the author of the text. Evidence of earlier heretics, such as Marcion, having 'mutilated this Gospel to suit his theology,' also lend credence to its having been an accepted Gospel in the orthodox church at that time. So much of early church writing indicates four and only four accepted Gospels, and Luke is in the lists. One of the primary objections raised against Luke as author is the particularly Jewish flavor of some of his material, however, if one recognizes that this material came from Jewish sources, then one finds Luke simply doing an excellent job of preserving the tone and flavor of those sources in his own writing.

Luke tells us outright that he writes as an historian, although one with clear interest in the events he covers. He has investigated the matter before writing, as a true historian will. More than the others, he is concerned with showing the development of Jesus' life and work over the course of time. Luke stands as a man of culture, looking upon a phenomenon which had swept through much of the Roman Empire, and seeks to understand how such events sprang from such origins as they did. While not an eyewitness himself, he clearly had access to those who were, including a two year period working with Paul. Many of Jesus' followers were also quite alive at the time. These, he could combine with those prior accounts known to him and others at the time he wrote. It seems fairly clear that Luke turned to private sources for the material regarding Jesus' infancy, quite possibly Mary herself, or close friends of hers. The Hebrew flavor of the narrative argues for its validity, given that Luke was Greek. It is a first display of the work he claims to have done as an historian.

Another thing we can be sure of is that Luke and John Mark knew each other. They had clearly met in Rome, and may perhaps also have been together in Palestine for a time. It seems quite likely that Mark's Gospel was present as a source for Luke, given that he follows Mark more closely than does Matthew, the topical organizer. Luke himself tells us that he has not simply put down every event and detail that he came across in his investigations, but selected those which served his purpose, the compiling of a 'coherent and progressive narrative.' Whether or not there was another text from which Luke gathered his material, the so-called 'Q' source, is far more debatable. If such a source indeed existed, it remains clear that Luke did not simply copy this material, any more than he did the material from Mark. It seems to have taken rather a long time, but the critics and theorists on Synoptic matters seem finally to recognize that the authors of the Gospels, like any other authors of that period, have cast the words of their subjects in their own words, they have delivered their histories with their own styles and flavorings.

As regards the center section of Luke's Gospel, it seems that one ought to accept Luke's own claim of an orderly accounting, unless one has solid proof to the contrary. It is quite possible that a traveling preacher such as Jesus will know many similar events in his ministry, and will perhaps teach the same general lessons repeatedly. Overall, the tenor of this section seems to show much of the spirit of Paul's ministry without doing any less to preserve the spirit of Jesus.

Overall, critical thought has occasionally considered Luke's accuracy suspect, but he seems to be vindicated by further study, even by those critics. They attack the birth record as legend. They attacked the census which Luke records as a non-historical event. Yet, later historical study has vindicated Luke's account as accurate, and suggests the census he makes note of likely was instituted by Caesar in 8 BC. In the provinces, there could very well have been some significant delay in implementing such a census. "Luke's credit as a historical writer is now very high among those qualified to know the facts."

Luke displays great breadth of ability and interest in his writing. In early chapters we are presented some of the finest Greek in the Bible, and almost immediately thereafter some of the most Hebrew-flavored narrative. He writes with the technical and emotional understanding of a trained physician of his time, and displays appreciation for the great richness of Jesus' earthly life without in any way denying His Divinity. He shows, also, a penchant for the poetic. He shows us more of Jesus' prayer life than the others, as well as constantly noting Jesus' behavior with women and children. "He comes to the interpretation of Jesus from a world-standpoint and does not have to overcome the Pharisaic limitations incident to one reared in Palestine." John, also, displays that he rose above that limited viewpoint, but for him it was a rising to a more spiritual plain, where for Luke, it is an expansion to a more world-wide plain.

We can be certain that the writing of Luke preceded that of Acts, and the closing of Acts seems indicative that it was finished in Rome with Paul still there. If we take these facts to be true, it would place the writing of Acts somewhere in the early 70s, although some still argue for a date in the 80s based on Luke's stated searching out of the facts before writing. Yet all the materials he is supposed to have drawn from could easily have been in circulation by the mid 50s. Another argument for a later date of writing is based on Luke's mention of armies surrounding Jerusalem as a sign of the end. Yet, he does not also note the place of fleeing being Pella, where Christians actually fled to. Also, the lack of reference to Paul's letters in Acts argues for an earlier dating of that book, so in the end the earlier dating appears more likely, placing the location of its writing quite probably in Caesarea, although this is far from certain.

John (12/20/03)

Style, attitude, and content all mark this Gospel as unique amongst the books of the New Testament. Some attempts have been made to attribute the closing chapter to one of the author's own disciples, but there is no cause for this. The final attestation appears to be made by those who knew who the author was at a time when said author was still alive.

The majority opinion holds that this text did not arise until sometime in the early second century, perhaps a compilation made by a particular school, perhaps representative of the evolved state of Pauline doctrine. Without regard for the debate regarding source, the date seems solidly settled at or near the end of the first century. With the date settled, the attention turns to settling matters of its authenticity.

Critics are split as to whether or not John wrote the book. However, one must note that the Gospel of John was accepted by the church quite early on, and was ascribed to John by those who accepted it. Irenaeus, linked to the Apostolic age via Polycarp, is positioned to give trustworthy testimony with regards to the acceptance of this Gospel. Theophilus as well, a writer dated around 170 AD, attests to John as author. Jerome tells us this same Theophilus had composed a harmony of the four Gospels. Tatian's harmony of the Gospels, from about the same period, opens and closes with the opening and closing verses of John's Gospel, himself being a pupil of Justin Martyr. It seems likely that Justin also knew the fourth Gospel, which would show it to have been available by 130 AD. However, in the writings of Ignatius, we have evidence of the Gospel at an even earlier date, around 110 AD. There is not sufficient ground to doubt the traditional view that John, son of Zebedee, was the author, nor that he wrote it while in Ephesus. It is rare to find a book's influence displayed so soon after its writing, yet we have numerous signs of this Gospel very close to the date of its writing, not only in the writings of the orthodox, but also amongst Gnostic writings of the time.

Arguments against the validity of this Gospel hinge on its contrast to the Synoptics, its lack of 'progress,' and the uniqueness of doctrine. Arguments for its validity point out the many ways in which the author reveals himself as one familiar with Israel and Jerusalem, that he identifies himself as a disciple present with Jesus, and to the attestation to his authenticity included in the Gospel itself. Modern attacks on the Gospel consider it to be a Hellenization of the Gospel reflecting the impact of Pauline thought and the Gentile primacy in the church by the end of the 1st century. Others think the Gospel was largely a defense to or attack upon the Jews, but the writing of Justin Martyr regarding Christian / Jewish discussion indicate that their debates centered on the Old Testament, not on matters presented in John. Another, rather far-fetched theory, suggests the Gospel as defense of the sacraments as means of salvation, but this is baseless. Those who claim this as a Gospel for the Gentiles are equally baseless, as shown by the frequency with which the Gentile authors quote Matthew, rather than any other Gospel.

If, however, we accept the Gospel's own statement of purpose: that you may believe, many surprising things become evident. Aside from the final week, there are but three common connections with the Synoptics, yet critics insist that the Synoptics lie at the base of all the author writes. Clearly, the author was quite aware of the other three, and chose not to recover ground that was already well documented. Instead, he selects those details that serve his stated purpose. Surprising, perhaps, is the degree to which the Gospel focuses on the single day of Jesus' betrayal, which occupies over one third of the record. Neither does he choose to focus on the period of post-resurrection ministry, except as it serves his purpose. Here, also, we learn, despite the minimal coverage of Jesus' ministry, that it covered a period of three years or so. We get detailed accountings of passing time, and yet little is covered within those periods, perhaps a single event. The story of the adulteress is presumed not to be a valid part of the Gospel. Clearly, completeness of account was not the author's purpose, as he covers perhaps 20 days of the thousand days we can attribute to Jesus' ministry by this same account.

The author says that he beheld Jesus' glory. Each of the scenes he presents to us is an occasion in which he so beheld it. He sees that glory in the simple human facts of Jesus, His weariness, the simple means by which He healed, His sorrows and agonies. The book is clearly the reflection of one who was there, and one who had time to ponder the significance of the events he writes of. Where exactly the author shifts from narrative to reflection is not always clear. He stresses, however, the witness of one present at the events he writes of. In John, "sublime mysticism and open-eyed practical sense meet." "All his spiritual meanings have a historical basis." As we follow the tale John tells, we can see into the blooming of his own faith and love. At one and the same time, the Gospel tells of the unique life of the unique Son of God, and of the progress of faith in one of his disciples, the trials he surmounted which left him with the keys to the mystery of Jesus.

As with any who remember an event, the event is remembered in wholeness of detail, but only the artless relate the event with every detail intact. In this, John shows himself quite artful. Even so, there are a number of details that come out in the narratives which have no particular significance to the message. They are, however, evidence, of intimate knowledge of the events, knowledge of one in attendance. They are, then, scenes from real life, drawn from real memory. Those who see no clear sequence in the progress of the Gospel fail to understand the progress which John seeks to make clear - not a chronological sequence, but a sequence of growing faith.

Against these claims of no progression, one can hold out the simple fact that Jesus' glory is manifested more and more completely as the text progresses. And with it, the faith of the faithful, and the unbelief of the unbelievers grow more fixed. To those who argue a lack of development in Jesus' character, the response is that the author's selection of events displays Jesus' insight, power, command of the elements, and supremacy of authority over man and creation alike. The crises of recognition of purpose are also present, in spite of claims to the contrary. Nor is Jesus claimed to have declared His Divinity from the start in this Gospel, any more than the others. Others complain that the Gospel displays Jesus as seeming aloof, above the influence of opinion. This is no more than to say He behaves as one with authority, as He does in all of the Gospels. All four Gospels are equally unanimous on Jesus' self-recognized subordination to the Father. "In all the Gospels it is one consistent, gracious Figure who appears." A further complaint is that one who had experienced the Man could not possibly have come to this point of recalling only a companion who was the Divine Logos. Yet, "If Christianity is credible, the Fourth Gospel adds nothing to the difficulty of faith; rather it gives an additional ground for a rational faith."

The author clearly has struggled to make clear the significance of this Master he so loved, first for himself, and then also for those about him. "What Jesus really was, and what were His relations to God, to man, and to the world, John endeavors to make known in his prologue." He was more than met the eye, even the eye of His disciples. In endeavoring to show this, John always takes the historical first, only coming to the meaning second. The Logos motif is John's effort to find words which will explain the truth he has already grasped. Others sought a theory to explain the universe. John already had the explanation. He sought merely to find the words to express that great truth. "The prologue represents what John had come to see as the meaning of the personality he had historically known. He sets if forth once for all in the prologue, and never once in the Gospel does he refer to it again." This representation is not at all far removed from Paul's views as expressed in his prison epistles. The events John describes are incomprehensible if viewed merely as illustrations of a Logos philosophy. However, the Logos doctrine is quite understandable when we recognize the glory of the Christ revealed in those events leading to the doctrine. He presents the details of a concrete, historical life, and attempts to explain the significance.

Some argue that Jesus is acknowledged as Messiah too early in John's record, but those acknowledgements come from single individuals impacted by a singular meeting with Jesus. John the Baptist's acknowledgement is quite in line with his self-understanding, taken from the passage of Isaiah in which he found his own purpose stated. Those who complain of no developing faith in the disciples, one might point out that there is but the one word to describe faith and belief, whether it be weak or strong. Growth is seen in them, through tests Jesus himself put them to. Consider the message regarding the bread of life. Many left at that point, but the disciples had grown in faith. The last supper also reveals a faith not fully grown in His disciples. Only after His resurrection do we see their faith made full.

As for unbelief, there is just as much an evolutionary nature to the tale. His family is unsure of His claims. The Jews as a whole are of mixed opinion. Only those few whose confessions we read had found such intimate knowledge of Him as led to acceptance. The complaint of the Jews at the feast of Dedication, asking Him to make plain whether He was the Christ shows clearly enough that no such statement had come from Him to that point. He leaves them to think it out for themselves. And even with all He had done, there were those who would not believe. Yet, many did not see the signs, and still they believed.

Read the Book - 4^th Pass (Resolve background info) (12/20/03-12/23/03)

Matthew (12/20/03-12/21/03)

So, we have those who think Mark came first, those that think Q came first, and the testimony of men closer to the events that Matthew came first. We have a range of dates starting as early as 8 years after the Ascension, and ending as late as 85 AD. The later date seems a bit absurd, given life expectancies in that era. The focus on matters pertinent to the Jews as opposed to those which would concern the Gentiles would seem to push for an earlier dating, but could also be the result of a particular mission. Yet, if it were a mission specifically to Jews, why would a book written by a Jew not be written in Jewish? What cause for switching to Greek if both author and audience shared Aramaic as native tongue? If his profession led to greater proficiency in another language, one might expect it to be Latin, the language of the rulers, or had they so fully switched to Greek by that time? We know it happened eventually.

In all, I am inclined to hold to an earlier dating, although not, perhaps to the earliest suggested. Matthew's approach of collecting material together in easily memorized categories could stem from his own need to recollect. Associations are a convenient recall mechanism. This would certainly account for his organization of material, and if indeed he was actively teaching others, it would make for a convenient tool of training. Think of Psalm 119, and other pieces of Scripture organized on the Hebrew alphabet as a means for memorization. This approach is not dissimilar, holding together various sayings of Jesus as He related upon a particular theme.

Nothing seems to argue against Matthew as author. In fact, this seems to be the least debated of the Gospels, from what I can see. The only question appears to be whether he came first. Again, given the testimony of those closer to the events, what basis do we have to argue against his being first?

As to purpose, he seems clearly to be striving to show the connection between historic Jewish belief and Christianity as prophecy fulfilled. The thought that he was particularly concerned with showing the reality of faith as opposed to Pharisaic teaching seems relevant as well.

The last small think I wanted to make note of concerns the Four Evangelists as they are displayed to us in Celtic tradition. That tradition, more than most others, seems to have locked on to certain key aspects of the mystery of Christ, the connectedness of the Messiah to the Old Testament as displayed in the very nature of the Gospels themselves. Here is developed a link between The four Gospels and the four living creatures of Revelation (Rv 4:6-8 - A sea of glass or crystal lay before the throne, and four living creatures were around that throne, each having eyes both in front and behind. The first was like a lion, the second like a calf. The third had the face of a man, and the fourth seemed like a flying eagle. Each of the four had six wings, and they each have eyes both around and within. They speak ceaselessly, this one thing: "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, He who was and is and is to come.") By this same imagery, they draw us to a connection with the vision of Ezekiel. (Ez 1:5-11 - Within the bright cloud were four living beings, human in form, but each with four faces and four wings. They were straight-legged with feet not unlike a calf's hoof, and they shown like polished metal. They had the hands of humans, and their wings touched each other's. No, and their faces did not turn as they moved. Regarding the faces, each had the face of a man, with a lion's face to the right and a bull's to the left. The final face was that of an eagle. As for the wings, one pair spread out above them, touching on either side another of the beings. The remaining pair covered their bodies.) As applied to the Evangelists, to Matthew was given the symbol of the man, for he endeavors to show us the Man, the humanity of God in the One who is God made flesh. By this, we are also shown that indeed we are made in His image.

Mark (12/21/03)

When all is said and done, I am inclined to disagree with those who think this text was written in Rome, and favor still the idea that perhaps Antioch was the location of its writing. It is comforting to note that I am not alone in this thinking. I see no reason to think the author any other than John Mark. He, we know was an occasional coworker with Paul. He, we know, was a relative of Barnabas. He was quite possibly also companion to Peter in Rome.

There are some other suggestions that come out of the background material which provide us with a plausible line of development. It is suggested that John Mark may have lived in the house chosen by Jesus for the Last Supper. Whether he had been involved in Jesus' ministry prior to that point, one cannot say, but can you imagine the impact of this example of Holy Providence! Remember that Jewish culture trained a youth to knowledge of Scripture from an early age. Add to that the suggestion that John Mark may well have been a Levite, and he had all the more reason to be quite familiar with the God of Israel such as He was revealed to man at that time. His training would have had him in tune with heavenly matters, but perhaps low enough in the ranks, as it were, to have avoided the political aspirations which seem to have prevented the Sadducees and Pharisees from recognizing the One who had come.

So, this One arranges to partake of the Passover in the upper room of the family house. And notice the arrangements made, as recounted in Mark's Gospel! Follow a certain man, and when he gets to his house, ask him where My room is. Think that might make an impression? I doubt whether John Mark was actually at the dinner itself, but imagine the impact as events rapidly unfolded around this Man who had singled out his home. One brief encounter can change so much! Over and over again, we see those who only met Jesus most briefly, and yet their lives were never the same. And so it continues today.

Let me continue with this idea a bit. It seems entirely possible that John Mark, considering the wonder of this meeting at his door, was inclined to follow after that party as they returned to Olivet for the night. It seems entirely possible that he was witness to Jesus' arrest, that perhaps, as has been suggested, he was that one who escaped only by losing his cloak. The strength of this Man's impression grows. This would give another reason, outside the simple importance of the events, for Mark's focus on the events in Jerusalem. Here, he had not only the testimony of the apostles, he had his own recollections to work from. Here were the events that had so quickly changed the course of his own life.

The same theory that places the Last Supper in his house, also suggests this as the upper room of which we read in Acts, when Peter was imprisoned. Peter, it seems clear, was the prominent speaker in those first years after Jesus' Ascension. It has been suggested, based on the testimony of the early fathers of the church, that John Mark recorded for us in large part what it was that Peter preached. We are pointed to the brief sketches of Peter's message as we find them in Acts, and shown that what Mark has recorded amplifies that basic outline. In all this, we find John Mark being uniquely prepared, singled out by Divine Providence for a role specifically designed for him. He had heard Peter, the impetuous Galilean fisherman cum preacher. Yet, he was also a denizen of more cosmopolitan Jerusalem. That Latin surname suggests the possibility that he was more familiar with Roman ways, perhaps, than the apostles were likely to have been.

The lack of coverage of the Judean ministry, it is suggested, is further evidence of Peter's involvement - a bit of local pride unconsciously (or consciously) displayed in the choice of what events he related. The intensity of action, as we find it in this Gospel is also suggested as revealing Peter's impetuous character behind the writing. Quite likely, this is true. Certainly, it is the attestation of the ancients. There is also that in the writing which suggests that the book was written with the Romans in mind. There are occasional explanations of Greek terms, as well as the explanations of Hebrew particulars. We are told that the particular way in which Jesus is presented here would also be of particular interest to the Roman mind, as it would not be to Greek or Jewish thought. The Romans were a people of power. Jesus is here displayed as a man of power, although at one and the same time, He is shown as the humble Servant. He is introduced with no history, and He departs with no record of legacy. He does His assigned task in full, and par excellence. Then, His work complete, He removes from the scene.

Again, I cannot help but stand in awe of the working out of God's Providential plan here. From that one chance meeting, He has prepared a man to write the message in terms understandable to the Empire into which the Church was to spread. How this holds true for each of the Evangelists! Matthew, who carefully displayed the Messiah to the Jews in their own terms, Mark showing a Man of powerful obedience to a Roman culture to which power and obedience were everything, Luke bringing the cultured touch to this humble message and putting it in terms a Greek could appreciate, and John casting the whole with eternal meaning and significance that we all might understand!

Returning to Mark's story: He has rapidly become an associate of the Apostles in Jerusalem, if our theories hold. With that, would it be surprising to find him part of that Christian exodus when Saul began terrorizing the young church? Could he not have found himself in Antioch, where the seeds of mission were planted? Can you imagine his reaction to finding Paul so wholly converted? He would need a Barnabas to smooth the introductions no less than those who remained in Jerusalem. Thanks be to God for his helpful cousin! So, he was in place as the plans formed to bear the Gospel to the world; there, and uniquely qualified to provide the written message.

Was he before or after Matthew? Does it really matter? His purpose was different, his preparation was different. I would suspect, at any rate, that whether they leaned on each others' work or not, they were aware of each other. The church was small, and doubtless in contact. With the foundling church meeting in his house, he would have been present as various details and controversies were worked out by the Apostles. Surely, they spent much time in recollecting the events of that brief ministry of our Lord, and pondering the significance of events. Just as surely, as the church grew, so also grew the need to correct erroneous rumors, and to establish the truth of what had passed. The stakes were too great, and the opposition from the religious establishment too stiff, to allow anything but the truth of the matter to stand. It would seem quite likely that this occupied a goodly portion of the early teaching of the apostles. It would seem quite likely that one attendant upon so much of their discussions and teaching would recognize the importance of seeing to it that the record was put in writing, even though the apostles themselves might have been satisfied to keep to an oral tradition as the means of transmission.

Returning to things from the Celtic tradition, Mark and his Gospel are given the role of the lion. The lion is ever symbolic of the king, and in his Gospel we are presented the King of kings, the Messiah coming to announce His kingdom. I should probably remember to note here that this Celtic tradition is reflected in what is called the Book of Kells, which is an illuminated manuscript of Jerome's harmony of the four Gospels. No, I have read neither of these, and caught only the briefest glimpse of the former, yet, for reasons I don't even understand myself, I find myself drawn to things Celtic. As I noted earlier, that culture just seems to be more closely in touch with the mysteries of the Godhead than most. At any rate, they give us this identification. Matthew Henry seems to echo that in his introductory notes to Mark: "The second living creature saith, 'Come, and see.'" Pilate, we are told by John, brought out Jesus, and said to the waiting Jews, "Behold the Man" (Jn 19:5). Mark's Gospel invites us to behold the King.

Luke (12/22/03-12/23/03)

Once, the debate focused on the accuracy of Luke's writing, only to vindicate his acumen as a historian in the end. Never, so far as can be seen, was there a question as regards his being the author, so those who seek by their 'investigative efforts' to undermine the Scriptures in the name of religion have had to pursue other avenues. His accuracy, as I said, has been found reliable, so that avenue of attack is closed. All that seems to remain for the debaters to debate is when he wrote, where he wrote, and whether or not he relied on prior documents. None of these, I should think, hold any sway over the validity of what he wrote. Quite frankly, I find most of the controversy around the origins and accuracy of the Scriptural account to be as uninteresting as it is disingenuous. It seems to be little more than men seeking self-aggrandizement, wolves in sheepskins convinced of unbelief from the outset, and seeking under cover of their diplomas to destroy belief wherever it may be found. They forget that God shows the wisdom of this world to be foolishness, and in the end wind up proving His point.

There are, however, some interesting things we learn about our author, or can at least posit. I am, for instance, intrigued to find mention of his being from Antioch. Once again, the city from which the Gentile mission went forth seems to have been uniquely salted and prepared for that work. Another man is put into the proper place and time by the God of all creation. If we can hold to the theory I laid out for Mark's history, then it becomes quite probable that these two were familiar with each other. Tradition holds that Luke was a convert of Paul's in that very city. There, also, were the missions planned, and John Mark was companion on the first of those. There, it seems quite likely, John Mark first composed his own Gospel. So, it would seem quite improbable that Luke would be unaware or unfamiliar with the text.

What unique advantage Luke comes to us with. Here we have a man, quite probably secure in his finances, given his profession, flush with the ardor of the newly converted. Considering the ardor of the one at whose hands he had learned of this Christ, one can imagine that his own zeal was perhaps greater than we generally experience today. So, he had the fire, and he had the means to pursue. He had also the native curiosity of the Greek, the intellectual desires of those trained in classical fashion. And with all these preparations, he steps into a time when most, if not all of the apostles were accessible. Indeed, we know of his personal access to Paul, the great theologian of the group. We can safely surmise that he had time to associate with Peter, the heart of the group. It has been suggested that perhaps James was his primary source. I don't see any particular reason to think this way, but I think we can be certain that he took the time and effort to visit Jerusalem, and speak to the apostles that remained there.

I would fully expect that, in his effort to seek out the facts, he not only interviewed all or most of the apostles, I am certain he also took pains to seek out whatever written records were extent at the time. This would undoubtedly include Matthew's and Mark's accounts - accounts he had reason to trust. Clearly, from his own introduction, it also included many more, although they were perhaps of less unassailable pedigree. It also becomes quite clear that his research did not stop these sources. Others who had personal involvement in the events were heard from as well; certainly Mary, mother of Jesus (and with her, doubtless, John), quite probably others among the ladies he notes as having been of particular note in the ministry of Jesus. Also, there were any number of witnesses available outside the circle we generally know at this late date, the bit players, as it were, not in the forefront, but every ounce as important to God.

The ISBE also points out another way in which Luke was prepared for use by God. "He comes to the interpretation of Jesus from a world-standpoint and does not have to overcome the Pharisaic limitations incident to one reared in Palestine." He comes, also, with an intellectual honesty. He has been trained, most particularly by Paul, but he is not one to make his stand solely upon one man's testimony. One can imagine that he has found himself exposed to these numerous accounts of what had led to this new religion springing up, and found them contradictory. The reality of faith was not in question for him, as it seems to be amongst so many theological circles in recent centuries. The faith was settled, what remained was to dig out the truth from the fiction in the account. Thus, in his Gospel, I suspect we already have what the Jesus Seminar claims to seek: the historical Jesus. We have the accurate account, and in that account, I think we have also sufficient proof of the validity of the two preceding Gospels, for it is quite clear that he accepts a great deal of what he finds there.

Now, if we accept that Luke wrote during Paul's ministry, which I think we must, then we have a fairly narrow window in which to place the writing of Luke. We can be, I think, fairly certain that both Luke and Acts were complete before Paul's death, and quite likely before Jerusalem's fall. At least one source, here, has suggested that this places the writing in or about the fourth year of Nero's reign. This would set the date of completion at AD 58, far earlier than I thought. From other sources, I note that the date for the writing of Romans is also placed in that year, with Paul in Corinth. I am inclined, therefore, to find the setting quite probably correct, but the date a bit off. I would maintain that there are at least hints that Acts was well in mind for Luke at the time this Gospel was written. Perhaps his original intent was to write them both as a single text, but the size and scope of the project got away from him, and he found it better (or perhaps physically necessary, given the materials at hand) to split the account.

Once more, then, I turn to a brief note regarding the Celtic sense of Luke's place among the Four Evangelists. Luke is given the symbol of the calf, or, if we look at the Ezekiel vision, the bull. What has this to do with 'the beloved physician?' The connection comes in an understanding of what was accomplished in Jesus' great sacrifice, for the calf or bull was one of the main offerings ordained for sacrifice. The connection lies in the great compassion shown by Him who sacrificed Himself for us, who died that we might live. This was the greatest healing of all! Luke the physician was naturally attracted to matters of healing. He was skilled himself in issues of a physical nature, but no doubt had seen the torment of mental disease and of demonic possession and known not how to help. The true physician cannot but be troubled at his incapacity in such a case. Think how much it hurts us when we see a loved one in pain and know ourselves powerless to fix the problem. For the physician, this compassion is amplified. For the creator of man, the Son of Man, the compassion reaches a crescendo. But, praise be to God, in Him that compassion is not powerless, but all-powerful. He is not only willing to heal the afflictions of man, He is able, able as no other is able. He alone can heal the heart, the mind, the soul, and unless these be healed, the repairing of the body is nothing. Is it any wonder, then, that Luke, who knew too well the futility of bodily healing when the body must inevitably cease and decay, would follow this One in Whom was life eternal, would follow the greatest Healer of all?

John (12/23/03)

We come to the last of the Gospels, last in the order in which we have received the books of Scripture, and last, most assuredly, to be written, perhaps even the last book of Scripture to be written. This is a place generally given to Revelation, and perhaps this is true. But it is said of old that John survived that exile to serve many years more in Ephesus. It may be that both the Gospel and the Revelation were written at that time, and the ordering cannot be determined. Yet, I would find it hard to believe that John, shown what he had been shown, and told to record the vision by his Lord, would pursue any other task, no matter how it might serve the church, before obeying the express command of God. It seems to me that the inclination to seal the whole of Scripture by the final message of the closing book is, as it were, our own addition. I feel certain that as John penned that warning, he sought to apply it to nothing more than the vision he was recording. Important enough that the vision should remain free of any tampering.

That aside, at least one commentator, and him perhaps recent than others, feels with certainty that the Gospel before us was written no earlier than the final decade of the first century. Yes, there was that comment Jesus made regarding John remaining, yet he makes clear that the mythology that had arisen around that comment was no more than a misunderstanding. Now, if John was a youth when Jesus was ministering, perhaps in his early teens, he would have been pushing ninety by the time they tell us the book was written. All things are most assuredly possible with God, but this seems a shockingly old age for one who had suffered exposure on an island. If it is accepted that the other Gospels were already written and distributed when John wrote, I think it has to be accepted that he wrote after Jerusalem's fall, although just how long after would be hard to say. It still seems to me that the events of that fall were fresh in his mind as he wrote.

As to content, it is quite noticeable that John's focus in selection tends towards events in Jerusalem. If we are indeed considering the writings of an old man, it is surely not surprising that the memories he recalls would tend to surround the jarring thought of Jerusalem's destruction. I am, at present, receiving letters from an elderly pastor and missionary who is pursuing a course of study not unlike this one, although his approach doubtless differs greatly. Interlaced with letters focused on a study of Jesus as seen in the Gospels come letters of recollection, things remembered from a life of service. I recall in one such letter, he commented to the effect that the memories were all still there, but as the years progressed, it required the trigger of some more current event to bring the memories to the surface. Here is a man of similar age and passion to the one who wrote this Scripture, and I think we might suppose that John's situation was not far different. The mind is still incredibly keen, the life is still shaped by Purpose, the passion for God's kingdom, the flames of compassion, still burn fiercely in the heart. But memories sometimes need a trigger to come to the surface. The Holy Spirit, we are taught, will bring to mind those things that Jesus said. This, He clearly did for John as John set down the words of this book.

There are several things that seem quite clear in John's purpose for writing. Some suggest it was a request from the churches in Asia which led him to write. I think it is far more probable that his own perception of the issues plaguing the church led him to it of his own accord. Counterfeits were not long in coming where the seeds of Truth had been planted. These needed addressing, and most immediately. That John was countering claims made by the followers of John the Baptist seems clear. Beyond that, there were other heresies claiming that Jesus was just a man (hello, Jesus Seminar!) To these misled individuals, John clearly displays the Son of God, Jesus the Christ in His office as Messiah, and in His power as God. John makes his purpose clear, albeit at the end of the book. He writes that we might believe. Unbelief was creeping in, and John, who so shared Jesus' heart of compassion, could not bear to see those he tended falling away from real Life. So, he sets out such events as will create faith. It is suggested that he chose the same events which had created faith in his own life. This would make sense. It is through the events of life that God prepares us for His purpose. How better to help others to find what we have found than to show them how we found it!

There is another aspect of John's writing brought out by the ISBE which deserves consideration. The writer in the article on this Gospel notes from John's introduction his declaration that he beheld Jesus' glory. Apart from the clear evidence of his being eyewitness to the events he writes of, the article notes that every event of which John writes from that point onward is displaying to us a scene in which he had beheld that glory. It is not just in the power displayed. The power is noted to show Jesus as God. But it is as much in the humble events of Jesus the man that John sees that glory as in the signs and wonders. How glorious that God, our Creator, would willingly set aside His ineffable majesty to come to children in need. How glorious that He who is above all would stoop down to our level that we might be lifted up where He is!

One other, somewhat curious note to make regarding the content. It is pointed out that seven primary signs performed by Jesus are covered in John's Gospel. Also, we find seven of Jesus' 'I AM' declarations therein. This is interesting in that, once more, there are these odd numerical mysteries, if you will, lying beneath the Gospels. Matthew, recall, seems terribly concerned with showing fourteen generations in the three phases of his genealogy. John, focused on the task of giving proof of the Son as God, seems almost unconsciously to have built into his argument the number associated with perfection in Hebraic thought. Was this indeed an unconscious thing, a natural flow of thought for one who was, after all, a Jew? Perhaps. Was it, maybe, another means of drawing in those who were slipping into Gnostic ways of thinking? The introduction seems designed to capture the attention of those who were insisting on hidden knowledge and mystery. Such a mindset would be inclined to notice these hidden features, such as the seven signs and seven sayings. By such gentle and clever means, could it be, that our loving Shepherd, through the hand of His beloved disciple, was reaching out to bring the stray sheep back to the fold?

With that, I'd like to turn to God's purpose in this Gospel, if I might be so bold. There is something John Calvin writes which I think most fitting to quote here. "The three former display His body, if we may be permitted to use the expression, but John exhibits His soul." History alone will not save. The facts are important, critical even, but the facts in themselves will not change us. It requires a grasp on the meaning of those facts for hearts to be turned to God. John provides the meaning, meaning arrived at through a lifetime of experiencing the facts of the Gospel. He did not need to have the historicity of the Gospel narrative established for him, he had lived the historicity of the events! He had also had time, as no other, to ponder what it all meant. He had been given visions beyond all imagining to cement that meaning in his mind. He had outlasted all the other apostles. He had doubtless heard much of what Paul was teaching, as well, and had, as no other, managed to bring the whole message into one unified view in his own thoughts. I think that, proofs and recollections aside, this is what God is setting before us here. He provides us with the Gospel of the heart, so that we can understand the Gospels of the mind, for, as Calvin notes, only when we understand the power of Christ will the details of the Redeemer's life be of use to us.

As I have worked through these initial efforts of preparation to study the Gospel, I have sat in wonder at the way in which the four Gospels, given their due respect, interlace with each other. Truly, it is one magnificent whole when it is seen in its unity. The ISBE tells us of their united witness: "In all the Gospels it is one consistent, gracious Figure who appears." He is seen from many vantage points, He is shown to us in a fullness of image that no single perspective could give. Behold, then, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world! Rejoice in the birth of your King! Come, and see a Man who has told us everything about ourselves! Read of His life that you might know and believe. From my Celtic source, I read that the eagle was chosen to represent John, "and also the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. It was thought that the Eagle, alone of all living creatures, could look into the sun and not be dazzled." In his own way, John looks into the Son but is not bedazzled by the brightness of His glory. No. He comes away from that sight with vision intact, and puts it down for us in words we might comprehend.

One final note here - more of a diary entry than a direct comment on this subject: One complaint leveled against John's Gospel by those who simply cannot stand to find authenticity in the message of God on earth, is that there is no 'development' in the lives of Christ or of his disciples. I find it interesting that in this conjunction, development is looked for in crises. For Jesus, it is found in crises of recognition, as He comes to ever greater awareness of His purpose, the Father's purpose. For the disciples, as well, development - the growth of faith - comes in crises. It is in the hard places that faith grows. When the message is easy, nothing much comes of it. We simply go on with our daily lives unchanged and unimpressed, perhaps entertained at best. But in the Scriptural record, we see those points where the disciples were left thinking, "this is a hard saying. Who can accept it?" Frankly, as I've read through the Gospels in this study, I've found that almost everything Jesus said was a 'hard saying.' When I was studying the Cross, I noted the crisis connection, the inevitable crossroads to which the Christian walk will bring us. Yet, those crises are never without purpose. They serve to bring growth in us, to develop us to full maturity. They serve to grow is into the fullness of the image of Him who is our Brother, our Advocate, and our Lord. May we, may I, as this study progresses, find growth in the crises of those 'hard sayings.'