Why Four Gospels?"

[Mark F]

Oh I see.

The subject though your OP quite deep I think if followed out. As with Christ in Scripture, inexhaustable is probably a better term.

The four gospels have been related to the colors of the "door" of the Tabernacle. They are said to represent these four aspects (for lack of better term) of Jesus character and nature.

Purple: Matthew, his royalty as King of the Jews.
Scarlet: Mark, for His shed blood.
White: Luke, for His perfect righteousness.
Blue: John, for His deity.


The one curtain, or "the door" in which all who enter must pass has woven though out all these colors representative of the Person and work of Jesus. We who have the risen Savoir, the completed canon have so much given to us, what a blessing!

[Sojourner55]

Oh I see.

The subject though your OP quite deep I think if followed out. As with Christ in Scripture, inexhaustable is probably a better term.

The four gospels have been related to the colors of the "door" of the Tabernacle. They are said to represent these four aspects (for lack of better term) of Jesus character and nature.

Purple: Matthew, his royalty as King of the Jews.
Scarlet: Mark, for His shed blood.
White: Luke, for His perfect righteousness.
Blue: John, for His deity.


The one curtain, or "the door" in which all who enter must pass has woven though out all these colors representative of the Person and work of Jesus. We who have the risen Savoir, the completed canon have so much given to us, what a blessing!

Students of the Word have also noted the similarity between the pictures of Jesus portrayed in each Gospel, and the four faces on the four living creatures around the throne of God, as portrayed in the book of Revelation:

The face of a lion................ Matthew: Jesus as the lion of the tribe of Judah
The face of calf................... Mark: Jesus as the hard-working servant
The face of a man................Luke: Jesus as the savior mankind, as well as the Jewish Messiah
The face of a flying eagle..... John: Jesus as the heavenly, eternal Word

And you're right, the depth of Scripture is such that it is an inexhaustible mine of truth and knowledge. The deeper we dig, the more precious the find. Hundreds of sermons have been built on one or two verses of Scripture. The Bible is as unfathomable as the starry heavens above us, and shines just as beautifully.

[Mark F]

Students of the Word have also noted the similarity between the pictures of Jesus portrayed in each Gospel, and the four faces on the four living creatures around the throne of God, as portrayed in the book of Revelation:

The face of a lion................ Matthew: Jesus as the lion of the tribe of Judah
The face of calf................... Mark: Jesus as the hard-working servant
The face of a man................Luke: Jesus as the savior mankind, as well as the Jewish Messiah
The face of a flying eagle..... John: Jesus as the heavenly, eternal Word

Yes, yes I forgot about that paralell, thank you.

[Mark F]

Students of the Word have also noted the similarity between the pictures of Jesus portrayed in each Gospel, and the four faces on the four living creatures around the throne of God, as portrayed in the book of Revelation:

The face of a lion................ Matthew: Jesus as the lion of the tribe of Judah
The face of calf................... Mark: Jesus as the hard-working servant
The face of a man................Luke: Jesus as the savior mankind, as well as the Jewish Messiah
The face of a flying eagle..... John: Jesus as the heavenly, eternal Word

And you're right, the depth of Scripture is such that it is an inexhaustible mine of truth and knowledge. The deeper we dig, the more precious the find. Hundreds of sermons have been built on one or two verses of Scripture. The Bible is as unfathomable as the starry heavens above us, and shines just as beautifully.

Yes, yes I forgot about that paralell, thank you.

And I remember the standards that stood for the four divisions of (army)tribes around the Levites in the camp in the wilderness. Numbers 2 has this but I cannot find where the four divisions of three tribes had a standard that had an ox, a man, an eagle, and a lion. I will look this evening.

[Kahtar]

Mark, I think you will find those represented, more or less, in the prophetic blessings giving to each by Jacob. The lion of the tribe of Judah is most clear.

[undelay]

Students of the Word have also noted the similarity between the pictures of Jesus portrayed in each Gospel, and the four faces on the four living creatures around the throne of God, as portrayed in the book of Revelation:

The face of a lion................ Matthew: Jesus as the lion of the tribe of Judah
The face of calf................... Mark: Jesus as the hard-working servant
The face of a man................Luke: Jesus as the savior mankind, as well as the Jewish Messiah
The face of a flying eagle..... John: Jesus as the heavenly, eternal Word

Stuff like this is why I came back after a hiatus.

[Gibberscrib]

I think that that's true, but I also think on top of that, the perspectives of the people who wrote the gospels should be taken into account: A tax collector, a young man, a doctor, and a...John's the hard one...friend, net mender, I don't know. I do think that a part of each of their personalities come out in the gospels.

[Gibberscrib]

Where does Mark emphasize Him as a servant?
What does an eagle have to do with a word?
...not trying to be contentious, just trying to get it and see if it really fits.
thanks.

[Sojourner55]

Where does Mark emphasize Him as a servant?
What does an eagle have to do with a word?
...not trying to be contentious, just trying to get it and see if it really fits.
thanks.

Hi Gibberscrib,

Welcome to the board. Let's see...if you compare Mark's Gospel to the other three, you'll notice that he makes no mention of the birth of Jesus--as in Matthew and Luke. And he certainly puts no focus on His preincarnate glory, with which John uniquely opens his Gospel.

Whereas Matthew and Luke both dedicate their first two chapters describing the events and circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth, Mark (after a brief reference to Jesus being the fulfillment of Elijah's prophecy), begins describing Jesus' selection of the Apostles, and beginning of ministry by verse 14!

This focus on His works and service effectively emphasizes Jesus' servitude, rather than His other attributes, as showcased in the other narratives. These are just a few things off the top of my head, but there are other points. Check out Pink's book for the others--then do some study on your own. God bless

[Gibberscrib]

That sort of makes sense. I guess I just don't see the revelation of who Jesus is in a gospel based on what it doesn't have. I've just read Mark several times and have never seen Him as a servant in it, and John 13 seems to explicitly reveals Him as Servant, but, probably not the whole gospel of John. I understand that the different gospels emphasize different things, I just really want to get at the true intentions of the authors--with the Holy Spirit of course. Yes, I'll do some studying on this...thanks for your input...

[Sojourner55]

That sort of makes sense. I guess I just don't see the revelation of who Jesus is in a gospel based on what it doesn't have. I've just read Mark several times and have never seen Him as a servant in it, and John 13 seems to explicitly reveals Him as Servant, but, probably not the whole gospel of John. I understand that the different gospels emphasize different things, I just really want to get at the true intentions of the authors--with the Holy Spirit of course. Yes, I'll do some studying on this...thanks for your input...

Mark's Gospel doesn't represent Jesus as a servant because of specific references to the word "servant." Rather, it is seen in the comparative emphasis on Jesus' servitude, compared to the other Gospels. Matthew and Luke detail the birth, infancy and lineage of Jesus. John starts his narrative with the preincarnate Jesus in heaven, and shows more of Jesus' heavenly relationship, as in John 14-17. Mark, on the other hand, begins with the actual ministry of Jesus--the labors of Jesus as the hard-working Servant of God. Hence, the the symbol of the calf, which is a beast of burden. The distinction in attributes is inherent in both the introduction and general emphasis shown in each Gospel.

The four Gospels are like four pictures of the same house, each depicting one side. In each picture, you will see elements common to all four (general structure, windows, bricks/siding, etc.), and in each picture you will see elements unique to that picture (doors, porches, electrical/telephone wires, etc.). With the Gospels, we see four different perspectives of the same Jesus, with parallel passages depicting the same events, yet also things unique to each Gospel. As with the pictures of the house, the four Gospels together, form a complete composite picture of Jesus, showing all His attributes.

I believe one of the main reasons we have four Gospels is seen in the standard for confirming the truth of testimony: corroboration by 2 or 3 witnesses--established under the law for capital offenses (Deut 17:6; 19:15), but expanded for purposes of general testimony in the the NT (Matt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1). Two or three witnesses were required, but the Lord went one better by giving four witnesses, testifying to the truth about Jesus.

[Camellia]

One of the first Bible-based books I read as new Christian was a tiny little tome entitled, "Why Four Gospels?" by Arthur W. Pink. I was amazed at the way Pink demonstrated the Gospels' undeniable divine inspiration by pointing out how God's Spirit had guided the writers to add or omit details from each Gospel, to form a perfect composite of Jesus. Pink presents the four Gopels as a composite portrait of Jesus--like a photo taken of each side of a house: each photo portrays the same house, while depicting details common to all four sides, and unique details not seen in the others. Pink points out the distinguishing characteristics of Jesus specific to each Gospel, as well as those which dovetail precisely into a harmonized narrative of the life and ministry of Jesus.
I've owned a copy of "Why Four Gospels?" for some 30 years, and have garnered insight from it, into the meticulous guidance of the Holy Spirit in the formation of the Gospels--both in choosing who would record the words, how they were worded, and what was included or omitted in each one. And I learned also that, Pink only scratched the surface with regard to his observations. Like finding the surface streaks of gold in a mine, the promise of even greater riches lie below for those willing to dig for it. I was thrilled to find that the text is now freely available on the internet. I highly recommend it as an asset for the diligent workman who does not already have it in his library:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/4_gospels/index.htm

I have just found this post. I have only read the Introduction so far, but already I have learned so much! I am a new Christian and this looks ideal for me. I am looking forward to reading the book about Genesis, which others have mentioned.

But, please could someone tell me what are the faults in Pink's doctrine, so that I can avoid them?

Thank you so much for the link.

[Sojourner55]

Hi Camellia, welcome to the board! What most differ with Pink on, really amounts to a matter of opinion. None of his beliefs would be considered Biblically unsound, so you can feel free to benefit from the depth of his insight and observations in the Scriptures, without worrying about false teachings or anything. Still, it's important for new Christians to be firmly grounded in the truths of the Bible before they start reading books about the Bible.

[Kahtar]

But, please could someone tell me what are the faults in Pink's doctrine, so that I can avoid them?

He is very much dispensational. Some are okay with that, others not. And as was common in his time, very much anti-Roman Catholic. Those are the two glaring points I've noticed that I personally don't agree with. But the rest I find quite valuable.

[Sojourner55]

He is very much dispensational. Some are okay with that, others not. And as was common in his time, very much anti-Roman Catholic. Those are the two glaring points I've noticed that I personally don't agree with. But the rest I find quite valuable.

Yeah, that's the only point of contention I have with Pink also. However, what many are unaware of is, he changed his views about that perspective in his later years.