Exploring the Gospels 7: Backgrounds of the Four Gospels

What we'll be talking about today is the background to the four Gospels. I did provide a handout. This will be a little bit different from most sermon formats in that I'm going to go through and read most of this word for word and comment on some parts of it. Because if we are going to understand some writings, it's very helpful to know, first of all, who wrote it, second of all, who the audience is that it's written to, and third, what the purpose or the point of the message is. All of these are important, as we'll see going through this handout today.

A number of these studies here on the Gospels, we'll do some of them in a classroom type format.

If you do have questions here, feel free to raise your hand. I'll try to answer that. There's, again, a lot of material. There may be some technical terms and so on in here or points that aren't fully spelled out or may not explain, so feel free to raise your hand and do that. We'll address that here. I'll repeat the question for the purposes of the recording and go through it that way.

Let's go ahead and launch right into that then. We'll start with the Gospel of Matthew. I'll also be projecting it here for the benefit of those on the webcast, but you can follow along in your handout here. Matthew's name means gift of God. In Hebrew, it's pronounced matat yahu. Matat yahu. Yahoo, yah, el are common forms of names of God that appear in the last names of a number of biblical characters like Ezekiel, Danielle, and so on. Isaiah has the name of God in it. Matat yahu has a form of the name of God in it. So that's fairly common among Hebrew names here. In Mark and Luke, he's called by his other name, Levi. Many biblical figures do have two names. We see that common among the disciples like Simon Peter, Shimon, his Hebrew name, Peter Petros' Greek name there. So that's fairly common, and Matthew is one of those. In Mark 2.14, we see that he is further identified as the son of Alphaeus. I might mention too that many Bible, that when it comes to naming among the Gospels that we see in there, that people at that time do not have last names, as we do today. So they just had one name. So there was typically an identifier attached to that, and that's why he is called the son of Alphaeus. There would have been a number of Mathews running around, but this distinguishes him by who he is the son of. Peter is called Simon Bar-Jonah, Simon the son of Jonah there, for instance. We see one of the, well, Judas Iscariot. Judas is Judah, as it would have been pronounced in Hebrew. Iscariot means man from Kara-yot. So he's identified by where he is from, Judas from Kara-yot. So if you've ever wondered about that, Mary Magdalene. Another one. Her last name wasn't Magdalene, she was from Magdala. So she is Mary of Magdala, is what Magdalene means. So if you've ever wondered about some of the naming there in the Bible, that's why it is. They didn't have last names, so typically there's an identifier of some kind attached to that. Matthew was a tax collector.

Many Bible translations, King James would use public in there, but it means a tax collector, who left his work to follow Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 9, 9-13. He resided at Capernaum on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. This was a lucrative spot for a tax collector because there was a considerable amount of fishing in the Sea of Galilee. Also a major road, the Via Morris, or Way of the Sea, ran from Babylon to Egypt, passing through Israel and very near Capernaum, just on the outskirts of Capernaum there. Throughout biblical history, this was a major route, both for commerce and military invasion. This is one reason why we see Israel caught in the crossfire of a number of wars and invasions from the Babylonians invading to fight the Egyptians, and the Egyptians invading to fight the Hittites, or the Syrians, or the Assyrians, or so on. So this route passed very near here. And we could compare the Via Morris to our interstate highway system today. Matthew was the chief tax collector in this particular city, making him a fairly wealthy man. So by being tax collector there, he was able to tax the catching of fish. Capernaum is one of about a dozen port towns on the Sea of Galilee that existed at that time. So he was able to tax that. He was also able to tax the agricultural produce around that area. It was a very fertile land for agriculture, for wheat and barley and grapes and pomegranates and things like that. And then also he was able to tax the traffic going past on the Via Morris there, kind of a toll road type situation. People would pay a tax to use that road. So this made him quite a wealthy man. We know that because after he is called, he has a banquet at his house. He owns his own home. It's big enough to have its own separate banquet facility there. So he's obviously quite a wealthy man, and he walks away from all of that to follow Jesus.

Although the first gospel, and for that matter all of the gospels, do not have a name attached to them originally, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. And that is actually very common among writings of the first several centuries BC and AD. They typically did not have the author's name attached to them. But we do know from internal evidence and testimony of early church writers that he was the author. The Jewish nature of Matthew's gospel may suggest that it was written in the Holy Land, though many think it may have originated in Syrian Antioch. The church in Antioch had a large Greek-speaking Jewish population, and was at the forefront of the mission to the Gentiles, a theme that Matthew emphasizes. For example, Matthew 28, 18-20, that's a commission to the church, go you therefore into all the world, preach the gospel unto every creature. So while he focuses primarily on a Jewish-Hebrew audience, he understands that part of Christ's mission is to go to the entire world. You might notice also I'm not talking about dates in here. I did cover that in a previous sermon about the Gospels, so I'm not going to discuss the dating of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I will, when we get to John, talk about dating there. Just so you know, that's why I'm not covering it today. It has been covered previously there.

Okay, recipients. Many elements in Matthew's gospel point to a Jewish or Jewish-Christian readership. And several things that indicate this. First bullet point, Matthew's concern with fulfillment. Many elements in Matthew's gospel point to a Jewish or Jewish-Christian readership.

We see that from Matthew's concern with fulfillment of the Old Testament. He has more quotations from and allusions to or references to the Old Testament than any other New Testament author. We see also his tracing of Jesus's descent from Abraham, as recorded in Matthew's genealogy in chapter 1, verses 1 through 17. We see his lack of explanation of Jewish customs, especially in contrast to Mark. What does that mean? Well, Jesus refers to various Jewish customs, but he doesn't give any explanation for them. He doesn't need to because he's writing to a predominantly Jewish-Hebrew audience, and they're familiar with the customs, so no need to explain them. Whereas Mark is writing to a more Gentile audience, and Mark goes through and explains those customs for his audience there. Matthew does not. He doesn't need to.

We also see Matthew's use of Jewish terminology. For example, Kingdom of Heaven, where heaven reveals the Jewish reverential reluctance to use the name of God, lest they violate the Third Commandment, against taking God's name in vain. Matthew nearly always refers to the Kingdom of God as the Kingdom of Heaven, whereas Mark and Luke and John use Kingdom of God. Again, the Jewish people that day would not use God's name. They would use a synonym for that. Instead of God, the Kingdom of God, Matthew writes, Kingdom of Heaven.

There are a number of synonyms that show up in the Gospels, like the power or something like that. The name, Hashem, the name, doesn't show up in the Gospels, but that's a common synonym for God that's used commonly even up to this day. Even in Jewish writings today, I read a fair amount of scholarly work by Jewish authors, their typical practice is to write capital G hyphen D. They won't spell out the name of God there. So it goes back to this practice. Many, many, many years. You might ask, does Matthew do this because Jesus uses the words Kingdom of Heaven? Or does Matthew do it because he's writing to a Jewish audience? Actually, I think it's both. I think Jesus himself does not do that because there are other places in the Gospels where Jesus will use a synonym for the name of God, which we don't see that in Luke and Mark's Gospels there. So I think it's both. I think Jesus is not using God's name, and I think Matthew also does not do it. Last bullet point here. Matthew's emphasis on Jesus's role as the son of David. We see a number of references there that you can look up or refer to there. Why would that be important to a Jewish audience? Well, because David was Israel's greatest king, his debut, he was their national poet, you might say, through the Psalms. He would have been kind of their George Washington and Abe Lincoln and George Patton all rolled into one there. So he continually emphasizes Jesus's role as the ultimate son of David, through whom many prophecies would be fulfilled. Last part here. He also has a working knowledge of Jewish interpretive debates and various Jewish customs. This does not mean, however, that Matthew restricts his gospel to Jews. He records the coming of the Magi, non-Jews, to worship the infant Jesus in chapter 2, verses 1-12, as well as Jesus's statement that the field is the world. Matthew 13.38. He also gives a full statement of the Great Commission, which I quoted a few minutes ago here. These passages show that although Matthew's gospel is Jewish, it has a universal outlook. So he does acknowledge that Gentiles are a part of God's plan as well, and call to salvation. So let's talk about the purpose now for Matthew's gospel. His main purpose is to confirm for his Jewish Christian readers that Jesus is their Messiah. He does this primarily by showing how Jesus, in his life and ministry, fulfill biblical prophecies of the Messiah. Again, he quotes the Old Testament more than any other writer of the New Testament. Although all the gospel writers quote the Old Testament, Matthew includes many proof texts unique to his gospel. And then there's a fairly long list of those to drive home his basic theme. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament predictions of the Messiah. Matthew even finds the history of God's people in the Old Testament recapitulated in some aspects of Jesus' life. See, for example, his quotation of Hosea 11 and verse 1, and Matthew 2 and verse 15.

I didn't look that up here, but I think that's a reference to Hosea's prophecy, "'Out of Egypt I have called my Son.' And Matthew, after Joseph and Mary and Jesus returned to the Holy Land from Egypt, he quotes this, "'Out of Egypt I have called my Son.'" Now, Hosea, that's not the context of that at all. But Matthew takes that and applies it to Jesus. So what Matthew is doing is, you might say, taking a phrase out of context from Hosea and applying it to Jesus Christ's life. And this is something that we see Matthew do a number of times. He'll take events from the history of Israel that don't directly apply to Jesus Christ's life, but he will do that. We'll see a number of examples as we get into that a little bit later on.

Continuing to accomplish his purpose, Matthew also emphasizes Jesus' Davidic lineage.

We saw that under recipients above. In addition, Jesus appears as a kind of second Moses in his Sermon on the Mount Discourse, recalling Moses' delivery of the words of God from Sinai.

Just talked about that a lot in my Gospels class at ABC this week. When we get there, there's a lot of fascinating parallels there.

Structure. This is quite unusual here. Matthew arranges his material, they should say, in a unique way. The auto-correct—I'm not sure how in the world it got artisan out of inn, but I meant to say inn there—in a unique way. The whole Gospel is woven around five great discourses or collections of sayings and teachings. The first one is chapters 5 through 7. That's the Sermon on the Mount, chapter 10, chapter 13, chapter 18, and chapters 24 and 25, the Olivet Prophecy. That this is deliberate is clear from the wording that concludes each discourse. When Jesus had finished saying these things, or something very similar, and we see that at the end of these five collections of sayings there. And then the narrative sections between these sections transition between those collections of sayings or teachings by Jesus. The Gospel has a fitting prologue, chapters 1 and 2, and a challenging epilogue, Matthew 28 verses 16 through 20, the Great Commission to the Church.

Some scholars suggest that there are two other discourses, Matthew 23, where Jesus condemns a religious hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees, and also Matthew 28, 16 through 20, where he gives the Great Commission to his disciples. The five-fold division these five collections of sayings may suggest that Matthew has modeled his book on the structure of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, written by Moses. He may also be presenting the Gospel as a new Torah or new commentary on the Torah, and Jesus as a new and greater Moses. Well, what's that saying? What this is, some scholars believe that Matthew is again deliberately drawing connections between Jesus and Moses by arranging his Gospel around five collections of Jesus' teachings as there are five books of Moses. He has five collections of Jesus' teachings to draw a connection between Moses, author of the five books of the Pentateuch, and Jesus with the five collections of sayings there. Matthew uses other structural features as well. Some, for example, think the phrase, quote, from that time on, end quote, marks three main sections of the book from Matthew 4 verse 17, Matthew 16, 21, and Matthew 26, 16. The outline below follows a geographic structure interspersed with the five main discourses. And I won't take the time to go through the outlines. They're fairly lengthy, and you're familiar with outlines anyway. I will just note the five collections of sayings that were referred to there. You'll see you'll see the first one there in the bottom section here, Discourse 1, the Sermon on the Mount, and then two lines below that, Discourse 2, the Commissioning of the Twelve Apostles in Chapter 3, and Discourse 3, the Parables of the Kingdom in Chapter 13. And then going forward from there, Discourse 4 at the last line of the second section there, the Discourse on Life in the Kingdom, and then finally in the middle of the next to last section, Discourse 5, the Olivet Discourse, or Olivet Prophecy, as we would commonly refer to it there. So that's there's the organization and outline of Matthew's Gospel. So any questions about any of that from anyone? And feel free to speak up. So that's what we're here for. Make sure we try to understand this. Okay, let's continue on now with Mark and read about Mark. As with Matthew, there is no direct internal evidence of authorship. So none of the Gospels say something like, I, Mark, sat down in the city of Rome in the year 61 A.D. and began writing this account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. None of them do that. And again, that is typical of biographical material of that day. However, it is the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. Here's another individual with two names, John Mark. Yohanan, a Hebrew name, Mark, would actually have been a Latin name, Marcus. And we see him referred to in that way in Acts 12, 12, and 25, and 1537.

The most important evidence about the authorship of Mark comes from Papias. Papias lived and wrote about A.D. 140, who quotes an even earlier source as saying that, 1. Mark was a close associate of the Apostle Peter, from whom he received the tradition of the things said and done by the Lord. See 1 Peter 5 and verse 13. And 2. This tradition did not come to Mark as a finished sequential account of the life of our Lord, but as the preaching of Peter directed to the needs of the early Christian communities. And 3. Mark accurately preserved this material. The conclusion drawn from this tradition is that the Gospel of Mark largely consists of the preaching of Peter arranged and shaped by Mark. Now, what is that telling us here?

What it's saying is that some scholars refer to the Gospel of Mark as Peter's gospel, because a material came from Peter, told to Mark, and then Mark worked it into a written form. But it didn't come from Peter in the form of Peter sitting down and dictating to Mark, and saying, OK, Mark, take notes, this is the life of Jesus. But rather that Mark compiled his gospel out of stories that Peter told, out of sermons that Peter gave, in which he used illustrations from the life of Christ. And that Mark wrote down these stories and then arranged it into a probably chronological order as near as we can tell. And that's what we have in the book of the Gospel of Mark, a collection of stories as related by Peter. And one indicator of this is a number of the stories include things where there are only three of the disciples present, Peter, James, and John. Because Peter, James, and John were kind of an inner core of the twelve apostles there. But there's a number of things like when Jesus prays in the garden before he's arrested, only three disciples are there, Peter, James, and John. When Jesus is transfigured on the mountain, only three of the disciples are there, the same three, Peter, James, and John. And there's a number of incidents like that, so it makes sense that Peter would have been the one relaying those stories to Mark to include there in his gospel.

Continuing on, a little bit of background information about John Mark's story as it appears in the New Testament. It's generally agreed that the Mark who is associated with Peter in the early non-biblical tradition is also the John Mark of the New Testament. The first mention of him is in connection with his mother, Mary. And there are a lot of Marys in the New Testament. There's Jesus' mother, Mary. There's John Mark's mother, Mary. There's Mary of Magdala, again. And their name comes from Maryam, the sister of Aaron and Moses. And it is the most popular Hebrew name for women by far in the first century there. We know that not just from the Gospels, where I think there's seven different Marys who are mentioned but also from other evidence. Letters, inscriptions, histories, and so on. Mary, the name Mary, just pops up again and again and again. Not just in biblical writings but in other writings of the time as well. Incidentally, this is interesting, but the distribution of names, the popularity of names in the Gospels is very closely paralleled by what we see in other archaeological evidence there. Which again shows the Gospels were indeed written and describe events from that time frame. So John Mark's mother, Mary, had a house in Jerusalem that served as a meeting place for believers, as recorded in Acts 12 and verse 12. When Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch from Jerusalem after the famine visit, Mark accompanied them, see Acts 12-25. Mark next appears as a helper to Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey, see Acts 13-5. But he deserted them at Perga in Pamphylia, this is up in Asia Minor, to return to Jerusalem, see Acts 13-13.

Paul must have been deeply disappointed with Mark's actions on this occasion because when Barnabas proposed taking Mark on the second journey, Paul flatly refused, a refusal that broke up their working relationship, see Acts 15-36-39. Barnabas, however, took Mark, who was his cousin, we see a reference there, Colossians 4 and verse 10, and departed for Cyprus. No further mention is made of either Barnabas or John Mark in the book of Acts.

So, the book of Acts goes on through the rest of Paul's life, or not through the end of his life, but through his being imprisoned there in Rome. They don't show up. However, Mark reappears in Paul's letter to the Colossians written from Rome. Paul sends greetings from Mark and adds, quote, you have received instructions about him. If he comes to you, welcome him. Colossians 4 and verse 10, and also reference in Philemon 24, written at about the same time. At this point, Mark was apparently beginning to win his way back into Paul's confidence. By the end of Paul's life, Mark had fully regained Paul's favor. We see that reflected in 2 Timothy 4 and verse 11. In other words, Mark screwed up big time to the point that Paul didn't want to have anything to do with him and flatly refused to allow him to go with Barnabas and Paul on another journey after he backed out and went back home to Jerusalem during the first one there. But finally, near the end of Paul's life in his letters from Rome, Mark had redeemed himself. Paul's sight had forgiven and accepted him back and is very highly complimentary toward him then. Interesting some of the backstories of some of the characters in the Bible that aren't directly spelled out in the Scriptures but putting together the hints and the clues, we can understand a bit of what happened there. It's an encouragement that you can totally mess up. People don't want to deal with you, don't want to talk to you anymore, but by being firm and strong and faithful and doing what you can, Mark was accepted back into Paul's fellowship and friendship and can be very highly valued by Paul.

A Place of Writing. According to early tradition, Mark was written in the regions of Italy.

We see that in the anti-Marcyonite prologue, a work possibly dating as early as the 2nd century AD, directed against the heretical views of Marcyon, or more specifically in Rome, as recorded by the early church writers Erineus and Clement of Alexandria. The same authors closely associate Mark's writing of the Gospel with the Apostle Peter. The above evidence is consistent with one, the historical probability that Peter was in Rome during the last days of his life, and was martyred there, and to the biblical evidence that Mark also was in Rome about the same time, and was closely associated with Peter. See 2 Timothy 4 and verse 11. Again, this is where Paul is highly complimentary about Mark and his work there, near the end of Paul's life. Therein, as he is imprisoned in Rome.

Recipients. So who did Mark write his Gospel to? Matthew, we saw, wrote his Gospel primarily to a Jewish slash Hebrew audience of converts to Christianity from the Jewish community.

Mark writes to a very different audience, as we see here. The evidence points to the church at Rome, or at least to Gentile readers. Mark explains Jewish customs, as recorded in Mark 7, 2-4, and 1542. He translates Aramaic words. When Jesus or others speak in Aramaic, Mark translates them into Greek, and seems to have a special interest in persecution and martyrdom, as recorded in Mark 8, 34-38, and Mark 13, 9-13.

These would have been subjects of special concern to Roman believers and to Peter as well. Mark also includes several Latin phrases that would have meant nothing to Jewish readers. So basically with this evidence, his Latin phrases, he's the only Gospel writer who includes a little bit of Latin in his Gospel. He translates Aramaic into Greek and talks a lot about persecution. Why would that be significant? Well, because at this time, the church in Rome, in particular, think of Nero, the church in Rome was undergoing a great deal of persecution after the fire at Rome, the burning of Rome there during the reign of Emperor Nero, and so on.

So you put these hints together. This indicates that he is writing to probably the church in Rome, but at least to Gentiles. A very different audience than the audience of Matthew. Continuing the occasion and purpose. Since Mark's Gospel is traditionally associated with Rome, it may have been occasioned by the persecutions of the Roman Church in the period of about AD 64 through 67. The famous fire of Rome in AD 64, probably set by Nero himself, but blamed on Christians, resulted in widespread persecution.

Even martyrdom was not unknown among Roman believers. Mark may be writing to prepare his readers for such suffering by placing before them the life of our Lord. There are many references, both explicit and veiled, to suffering and discipleship throughout Mark's Gospel. The point here is that the church members are suffering there in Rome, suffering persecution, but Mark emphasizes a lot of suffering that Jesus himself endured, and saying that we are called to the same kind of suffering that Jesus experienced here. His emphasis in Mark's Gospel, first bullet point, Jesus is the Son of God.

Mark emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, but also emphasizes that he is the Son of God. One of the ways he does this is by emphasizing miracles, of which 18 are included in his Gospel. So a lot of miracles there in Mark's Gospel. Here's a question that just popped into my mind, considering the audience, why would Jesus emphasize that Jesus is the Son of God? How would that have come across to a Roman audience? Well, in the Roman world, who were the gods? You had all kinds of gods and goddesses.

Jupiter, Minerva, Mars, just dozens of gods and goddesses of everything. But there was a new kind of god coming along at that time, and that was the emperors. The emperors, and in some cases their offspring typically became emperors themselves. They referred to themselves as gods and sons of gods or sons of the gods and so on. Mark is emphasizing who the real Son of God is, and it's only Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The Roman emperors are not gods. On their coins, you can see a lot of their coins, they'll have things like the inscription on the coin will say things like the divine Augustus or the divine Nero or the divine Vespasian and so on, meaning they are gods.

They are viewed as gods among the Roman peoples there. So Mark emphasizes there is one god and it ain't the emperor. He also emphasizes, next bullet point, the death of Jesus. He emphasizes that the Jewish leadership conspired to kill Jesus, but that this was also a divine necessity for him to die for the sins of mankind. He also emphasizes the teachings of Jesus. Although Mark records far fewer actual teachings of Jesus than the other gospel writers, there's a strong end to the teachings of Jesus. There's a strong emphasis on Jesus as teacher. The words teacher, teach, or teaching, and rabbi are applied to Jesus 39 times in the Gospel of Mark.

And last bullet point, he talks a great deal about what it means to be a disciple and follower of Jesus Christ and a number of references there to that. So those are the basic things that are emphasized there in Mark's Gospel.

And something that is unique about Mark's Gospel is he has an emphasis on action.

It is a simple but vivid account of Christ's ministry, emphasizing more what Jesus did than what he said. Why does Mark do this? Well, for two reasons that scholars put forth. First, is that Peter, who is the source of Mark's material, was a man of action. So it's only natural that Mark's Gospel would reflect that. And second, the Romans were a people of action. One thing that the Roman world would really appreciate was people who got things done. The Romans were great builders, or it should be of roads, cities, and an empire. They built things you can still see today all over Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Mark seems to include that in his Gospel because the Romans could identify with men of action. I want to elaborate a little bit on that point. In the King James Version, there is a word that pops up 20-something times in Mark's Gospel. It's called straightway. We don't use that word anymore in modern English, but most modern Bible translations will say, and immediately such and such happen. That's where the word straightway, the old King James word, with essentially the same meaning there. That's part of what is intended by scholars when they talk about Mark emphasizing action. So this happened, and immediately this happened, and then immediately this happened, and so on. And that is a consistent pattern throughout the Gospel of Mark. And essentially, I was listening to an online class about Mark a month or two ago, and the writer that the person giving this class talked about. And this too indicates that Mark is probably taking some of Peter's spoken sermons and kind of making notes, and that becomes the core of his Gospels. Because he says, in Mark, you have a lot of situations where it'll start out in the past tense, like, and Jesus did this, and he spoke to the multitudes, and so on, and then he traveled to another town there in Galilee, and then he starts into a story, and it transitions from past tense up to present tense. Let's just use it as an illustration, the feeding of the multitudes. So they'll say, and Jesus was walking through the countryside, and the multitudes began to follow him, and Jesus sees that the multitudes are hungry, and he switches from past to present tense, and he tells his disciples to tell the crowds to sit down and groups on the ground, and he takes the fish and the loaves, and he multiplies it into food that will feed all of the thousands of people there. So you can kind of see Peter starting off to tell a story in a sermon, and he starts off in past tense, relating it, and he gets so wrapped up in the moment that he shifts to present tense, as though he is seeing it and reliving it again right there. I'd never heard that before, but it's quite fascinating. And you see that in Peter's Gospel, but not in any of the other writers. And this too is why it's mentioned here that Peter's is a gospel of action. He just shifts into the present tense and starts describing things as they are happening right there in that moment. So kind of interesting there. Continuing on with the with the outline, we'll go ahead and skip over that. Here you can refer to it. Okay, any questions about anything there relative to Mark? Anyone? Okay, let's move right on to Luke then. Yes.

Okay, good question. The question is, the ages of the authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it was Mark a similar age. Most scholars believe that that Mark was considerably younger. He apparently inserts himself into the events of the arrest at Gethsemane that most scholars conclude, and I see no reason to doubt it, that he's the young man who is there with him. Somebody trying to arrest Jesus grabs his cloak. He's wearing his night shirt. Somebody grabs his cloak and he runs out of the cloak and runs away into the night naked. That's a very interesting indication that one interpretation of the timing I have read about that is that it gets along and involved. But Mark may have been in the same house where Jesus and the apostles are having their last Passover together, but he's not there at the table with him. But he may have been in the same house and saw that and then followed Jesus and the apostles over to Gethsemane.

He's younger. He's maybe in his early teens or something like that, follows them and gets caught up in these events. He never says that it's him, but he's apparently letting his readers know that, yes, I was there and here's what happened. It's embarrassing because he's not big and brave and stands to fight or anything like Peter does.

He runs away into the night naked. They're a pretty embarrassing situation. General consensus of scholars is that he's probably quite a bit younger than they are. We also see that with his immaturity with Paul and Barnabas. He goes off with them. He's old enough to and again, he's nephew of Barnabas or cousin of Barnabas and goes with them, but he lacks immaturity to stick it out. When things get tough, he turns around and heads back home to Jerusalem. Again, there's nothing specifically that tells us that, but the little hints and clues definitely seems to be a younger, more immature man. But he comes around when he's considerably older and matures and grows up and acts accordingly. Any other questions, anyone? Good question there.

By the way, when we get into the Gospels later on, ask me that question again, because there's a whole lot more, but it would take another half hour of our time today, and I don't have time to get into that, and I would want to have the references for that. Luke's Gospel The author. This Gospel is a companion volume to the book of Acts, and the language and structure of these two books indicate that both were written by the same person. They are addressed to the same individual Theophilus. Theophilus means the lover of God. We'll see in just a minute. It's a Greek name. And the second volume, Acts, refers to the first volume.

The Gospel of Luke. Certain sections in Acts use the pronoun we, showing that the author was with Paul when the events in these passages took place. By process of elimination, Paul's dear friend Luke, the doctor, as he's called in Colossians 4.14, and fellow worker, as he is called in 5.24, becomes the most likely candidate. Luke was probably a Gentile by birth, well-educated in Greek culture, a physician by profession, and had outstanding command of the Greek language. He was a companion of Paul at various times from his second missionary journey to his final imprisonment in Rome, and a loyal friend who remained with the apostle after others had deserted him. 2 Timothy 4 and verse 11 I'd also interject here that I think that a role that Luke is performing with traveling with Paul is that he becomes Paul's personal physician, because there are a number of references Paul makes to some physical condition he has, probably with his eyesight there that is causing him problems. And I think Luke is functioning as his personal physician there, because Luke is a physician by training and becomes a right-hand man to Paul in many ways. It's not spelled out in the Gospels, but I think there are hints enough to conclude that. Continuing, because Paul went largely to the Greek world, this is what Luke's Gospel seems oriented to. His Gospel is historical and detailed because he is trying to establish in the Greek world the history of Jesus Christ.

He writes to logically explain Jesus Christ because the Greek mind is oriented to logic. He also includes a great deal of detail in his Gospel in the book of Acts it has been verified by archaeology, such as individuals who held office in particular cities at a particular time. He included all this to prove his message then, and ironically it has allowed historians and archaeologists to prove his message today also. Okay, recipient and purpose.

The Gospel is specifically directed to Theophilus.

An individual whose name means one who loves God or lover of God. The use of Most Excellent It is written to Most Excellent Theophilus. With the name indicates that this was an individual and supports the idea that Theophilus may have been a Roman official, or at least someone of high position and wealth. We see that same title show up in other letters and writings of that time. Someone will write to Most Excellent Marcus or something like that, using that same title, that same phrasing there. He was possibly Luke's patron, supporting Luke while he devoted his time and energy to writing these two books. Patronage is discussed in the Grace booklet. A patron is somebody who supports someone else with money. This was fairly common. Josephus, the famous Jewish writer of the first century, a Jewish historian, was a patron of the Flavian dynasty of Rome, the Emperor Titus and his successors there. They supported Josephus while he wrote boy, I don't recall how many books he wrote the antiquities of the Jews, wrote the Jewish Wars, wrote Against Apion, which is an argument between pagans and Jews, and wrote at least one other book. And they're massive, massive works, thousands upon thousands of words, which took him probably decades, so he was actually supported. This is a patronage system where somebody will support someone as a writer. Apparently, Theophilus supports Luke, pays his rent, pays for his food, and so on, during the time that he is researching and writing the Gospel of Luke in the book of Acts. Such a dedication to the publisher was common at that time. The fact that the Gospel was initially directed to Theophilus does not narrow or limit its purpose. It was written to strengthen the faith of all believers and to answer the attacks of unbelievers. Theophilus, however, was more than a patron. The message of this Gospel was intended for his own instruction, as well as for the instruction of those among whom the book would be circulated. Luke wanted to show that the place of Gentile Christians in God's kingdom is based on the teachings of Jesus. He wanted to command the preaching of the Gospel to the whole world.

Luke was not an eyewitness, and neither was Mark, I'll add. He spoke to those who were eyewitnesses. He spent a lot of time with the Apostle Paul, so obviously Paul was one of those sources.

Luke begins his Gospel with, inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, delivered them to us, and then he spells out his purpose in writing his Gospel. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things, from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed. So Luke tells us several things here. He says others have already written down accounts of Christ's life.

He may be referring to Matthew and Mark, but there are other accounts that were not preserved for us, because God did not choose to have those accounts preserved. There are other false Gospels that have been found, but they date to many years later, and are usually Gnostic writings that are contrary to true Biblical teaching. They are definitely not inspired and not true. Luke then says that he determined to write an orderly account based on what he knew of these events.

How did he know about them? He talked to people who were eyewitnesses. For example, he includes a lot of details about Mary and the angelic appearances to her and to Joseph. How did Luke know these details? He obviously learned them from talking with Mary or other members of Jesus's family. He obviously talked to other apostles who had been with Jesus during his ministry. He was also a companion of Paul, and Paul may have shared with Luke things that Jesus had told him.

During the three years, Paul was personally taught by Jesus in the desert. So, a lot of detail. I mentioned Mary here because there are times in Luke's gospel where he describes what Mary is thinking. Mary kept these things in her heart, what she was feeling.

These aren't necessarily things that Mary would have told other people at the time, or even told other family members, but she tells them to Luke. Luke includes them in his gospel. So, it's pretty obvious to me that Mary had to be a source of the early chapters of Luke's gospel there, and what she is thinking and feeling and experiencing.

As she is told, she's going to give birth to the Messiah, and so on. Okay, the place of writing was probably Rome by its detailed designations of places in the Holy Land. The gospel seems to be intended for readers who are unfamiliar with that land. Why do we assume the place of writing was Rome? Well, because again, he is Paul's traveling companion. I mentioned this in a sermon a month or two ago.

He probably, in my view, in the view of a number of scholars, writes the gospel of Luke while Paul is locked up at Caesarea Maritima because he has appealed to Caesar. So, he's there in the dungeon of Felix and Festus, and then goes by ship to Rome and gets shipwrecked along the way, and so on. And he's locked up there for two years, and my guess, considering the timing of everything and Luke is his traveling companion, what's Luke doing during that time?

My guess is that's probably when he is interviewing the other eyewitnesses of Christ's life, including Mary, and writes his gospel of Luke, or at least gets most of the work done on it during that period. And then Paul goes to Rome, gets shipwrecked, is under house arrest there.

Again, Paul's not traveling. Luke is his traveling companion, but Paul's not traveling, so what's Luke doing? My guess is during that two years that Luke is writing the book of Acts, because it ends there in Rome with Paul still under house arrest waiting to be seen and have his case heard by Caesar. So it makes perfect sense that the book of Acts would have been written by Rome. And possibly the gospel of Luke was finished up there in Rome as well, because there isn't an indication it was finished before he goes to Rome.

So that makes sense. Style. Luke had outstanding command of the Greek language. His vocabulary is extensive and rich, and his style at times approaches that of classical Greek, as in the preface verses 1-4, while at other times it is quite Semitic, or more Jewish Hebrew, in its approach, often like the Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament.

So Luke is probably a native Greek speaker, unlike the apostles who are native Hebrew or Aramaic speakers there. So he writes better Greek than the other writers do, because that's his native language. He probably learns Hebrew at some point in the story which we don't know.

Characteristics of Luke's Gospel. Luke's Gospel presents the works and teachings of Jesus that are especially important for understanding the way of salvation. He covers the entire story from the birth of Jesus to his ascension to heaven, and in the book of Acts continues the story of the early church. His writing appeals to both Jews and Gentiles. It is characterized by literary excellence, historical detail, and warm, sensitive understanding of Jesus and those around him. He has a tender heart with a special emphasis on women, children, the family, and the poor. As we see from the stories and parables he includes, he recognizes the place of Gentiles as well as Jews in God's plan. So he includes things the other Gospel writers don't talk about, Jesus' interaction with women, interaction with Gentiles there that the other Gospel writers don't include. So he is a Gentile, so he includes, he identifies more with him. Also, with his medical background, he includes other details about some of the healings that others don't, other Gospel writers don't. Continuing, since the synoptic Gospels report many of the same episodes in Jesus' life, one would expect much similarity in their accounts. The dissimilarities, the differences, reveal the distinctive emphases of the separate writers. Luke's characteristic themes include one, universality, and recognition of Gentiles as well as Jews in God's plan. And give some examples of that. An emphasis on prayer, point two, especially Jesus is praying before important occasions.

Three, joy at the announcement of the Gospel, or good news. Four, special concern for the role of women. Five, special interest in the poor and in issues of social justice. Six, concern for sinners. Jesus was viewed as a friend of sinners and tax collectors. Seven, stress on the family circle. Jesus' activity included men, women, and children, with a setting frequently in the home.

Eight, emphasis on the Holy Spirit. Nine, inclusion of more parables than any other Gospel. And ten, emphasis on praising God. Sources. Luke tells us that many others had written of Jesus' life, in Luke 1.1, but he went beyond this for his own writing. He used personal investigation and arrangement, based on testimony from, quote, eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. So we see some were eyewitnesses, some were among the apostles, the ministers of the Word, as it's worded in chapter 1, verse 2, including the preaching and oral accounts of the apostles. His sections of distinctive material, and enlist several of those sections, indicate independent work that doesn't appear in Matthew or Mark, though we obviously use some of the same sources as Matthew and Mark.

Structure. And this is a little bit different. Luke has told us he wrote an orderly account, but in what order? He tells us, or we see, that Luke basically covers Jesus' ministry geographically.

Geographically, the first part of his Gospel covers events that occurred in and around Galilee, from chapter 4 through chapter 9, verse 50. Then those that took place in Judea and Peraea, chapter 9, verse 51 through 1927. Judea is the area around Jerusalem on the west side of the Jordan River. Peraea is the area on the east side of the Jordan River, in the southern part there.

And three, those of the final week in Jerusalem, from chapter 1928 through 2453.

So Matthew arranged his Gospel around Jesus' collections of sayings. Luke arranges his Gospel geographically, moving from Galilee south to the culmination of events there in Jerusalem. Very different way than how we would write a biography, but that's the way they did it. Luke's uniqueness is especially seen in the amount of material devoted to Jesus' closing ministry in Judea and Peraea, a section often called Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem, or the Travel Narrative. This material is predominantly made up of accounts of Jesus' discourses. Of the 28 parables that occur in Luke, 21 are found in chapters 10, verses 30 through 1927. Of the 20 miracles recorded in Luke, only five appear in chapters 951 through 1927. The main theme of the teaching parables and stories in this section is God's love for the lost, for sinners, outcasts, Samaritans, and people of low social status. Already in Luke 951, Jesus is seen anticipating his final appearance in Jerusalem and his crucifixion. The main theme of the Gospel is the nature of Jesus' Messiahship and mission, and a key verse is Luke 19.10, for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Outline follows. We won't spend time on that, although if you read through it, you can see the geographic organization starting up north and moving down south toward the final events there in Jerusalem. Any questions about Luke? You see, he's writing to a very different audience than Matthew, organizes his Gospel very differently, and emphasizes different things than Matthew or Mark. Okay, now we come to John.

Let's talk about the background of John. The author is the Apostle John, quote, the disciple whom Jesus loved, end quote. John, Hebrew, Yohanan, meaning God is a gracious giver, is the brother of another Apostle, James, the two of them being the sons of Zebedee, the fisherman. John is also known as the Apostle of Love. You'll find that word often in John's Gospel and often in his letters, 1, 2, and 3 John. James and John are at first in the Gospels called the Sons of Thunder. They were the ones who want to bring fire down out of heaven to burn up a Samaritan village that won't allow Jesus in. To which Christ responded, you do not know of what spirit you are, but John changed, became converted through God's Spirit. He became a good example of a man who was very deeply converted. He had the love of Christ, so much so that Jesus, when he was dying, looked at John and told him to take care of his mother, Mary. That's when he says, Mother, behold your son as he's being crucified. Mother, behold your son, telling Mary, John is now your son, and son, behold your mother, tells John to take care of his mother from that point forward. Jesus is the firstborn son, and the firstborn's responsibility was to take care of the parents. But he's not going to be there anymore, so he turns that responsibility over to John, who incidentally is his cousin as well.

John was a cousin of Jesus Christ. We don't have space to go into the evidence for that here, but you can read about it in the booklet, Jesus Christ, the Real Story.

John knew Jewish life well. We see this from references to popular messianic speculations.

To the hostility between Jews and Samaritans. This is the woman at the well there in John 4, verse 9, and a Jewish custom, such as the duty of circumcision on the eighth day, taking precedence over the prohibition of working on the Sabbath. John knew the geography of the Holy Land, mentioning Bethany being about two miles from Jerusalem, and mentioning Kana, a village not referred to in any earlier writings known to us.

See John 2.1 and 21.2. The Gospel of John has many touches that appear to reflect the recollections of an eyewitness, such as the house at Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar when Mary anointed Jesus before his death, as recorded in John 12 and verse 3. This is describing where Mary opens, breaks this perfume jar to anoint Jesus for his death, and John writes that the smell filled the whole room. Now, if you're fabricating a story like that, that's not a detail you would include. But John is writing about this decades after the fact, and it's like something, some memory we have from childhood or whatever, where we remember the smells when that happened. And we see that reflected in John's Gospel. He remembers the room being filled with the smell of this ointment by which Jesus is anointed before his death.

John was prominent in the early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel, which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise.

A date of John's Gospel. Most scholars believe John's Gospel was written much later, probably in the 90s, to supplement the accounts found in the other Gospels, and a useful metaphor for John. To me, it's obvious that John is writing much later that he has read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and John has so much unique material that it's obvious he's going in and filling in stories that Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not include. There's very little overlap in their material, so it's obvious he's putting in material that the others left out. He doesn't need to repeat what they've said because they already wrote it.

Why repeat that? He adds, for the most part, overwhelmingly new material there. The more developed theology of John's Gospel and its counterarguments to Gnosticism also indicates that it originated later in the first century, when Gnostic thought was more widespread in influencing the Church. Let's see, I'll comment on that a little bit later in the next section here, the purpose and emphases. John's Gospel is quite different from the other three. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called Synoptic Gospels, Optic, referring to viewing or seeing. Sin, SYN, means the same or together, as in synonymous or synchronized. So, Synoptic means having the same view or the view that is together. They are very similar, giving a similar view and generally covering the same material.

John's Gospel is totally different. He gives a view of Christ that is quite different from the others. He highlights matters that the other Gospels don't. There is very little overlap between what John covers and what we find in the Synoptic Gospels. The literary style of this Gospel is also unique among the Gospels. The Gospel of John has no parables in it. His focus is on the signs of Jesus' identity and mission, and on deep, detailed theological discussions.

He goes into, like, chapter 5 is a very deep, detailed discussion of the relationship between him and God the Father. So, John does a lot of this. And I think it's partly because John, the Apostle John, experienced those things, and he writes about it 60 years later, approximately. And he's been thinking about these things for six decades. And he's kind of finally put all the pieces together in his mind and what it all means. And now he writes about it and discusses things like John 1-1, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God.

In other words, Jesus Christ existed before his human birth with God the Father. You don't see that in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. John's had 60 years to think about that and now puts it down in writing. I like the metaphor that John's gospel, the four gospels, are like looking across a snow-covered field. And you have three tracks that are parallel, going right across the field. It's Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And then there's this other set of tracks that goes way out here and over here and over here and only occasionally crosses the other set of tracks. And that's John. He's just very different, covers different material from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

He doesn't need to cover that. They've already talked about it. So he talks about different things and gets into deep, deep theological dives in that. So to me, that's a very helpful way to view John's gospel and his purpose there.

His purpose, next paragraph, John states his main purpose clearly in John 20 and verse 31, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. And now we get into Gnosticism. John is also combating Gnosticism. Gnosticism taught that anything physical was evil and created by an evil power, and anything that is spiritual is good and from God. We see this reflected in the epistle to the Colossians in particular. Paul has to regularly combat Gnosticism. And this is a movement that is growing from, we don't know exactly when it started, but Paul is obviously combating it in the 50s AD, and John even more so when he writes his epistles there in the late 80s, early 90s AD, and in his gospel of John.

Because the Gnostics thought that anything physical was evil, so therefore Jesus was never a physical human being. He's an apparition. He's a spirit. It only looks like he's human, and it only looked like he was crucified on the cross, but actually he was just a spirit there, or an illusion there. He didn't really die.

And continuing on, John emphasizes that Jesus was God who came in the flesh. Gnostics would deny that Jesus was the Messiah because he was physical. He's a physical human being, so in Gnostic thought, he couldn't have been the Messiah or God. So John spends a lot of time countering such thought in his gospel and his letters. This is a primary reason many date John's gospel to the 90s AD, because Gnosticism is just corrupting and destroying a lot of the early church at that time.

John talks a lot about Jesus' humanity. He shows that Jesus was a human being who got tired, who grew thirsty, and was troubled, emotionally distressed. He wept, John records, which none of the other gospel writers mention. He shows that Jesus truly loved people, truly cared for them. All of these were diametrically opposed to what Gnosticism taught. John begins with a profound announcement that Jesus is the divine Word of self-revelation, who existed with God from the beginning and through whom God created all things. Jesus the Word, logos, became embodied or incarnated as a human being to be the light of life for the world. After this comes the proclamation that this Jesus is the Son of God sent from the Father to finish the Father's work in the world. God's own glory was made visible in Jesus. Jesus says, "...anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." John 14, verse 9. And what Jesus does glorifies the Father. In Him the full grace and truth of God have shown themselves. Strikingly, a series of, quote, I AM, end quote, claims on Jesus' lips, echo God's naming of Himself in Exodus 3 and verse 14 at the burning bush, further strengthening the link between the Father and the Son and then gives numerous examples of that. He also places Jesus at many important Jewish festivals, for example, Feast of Tabernacles, Feast of Dedication, also called Hanukkah, and three separate Passovers. I might point out here, too, John is writing these late 80s, early 90s AD. If Jesus had done away with the Holy Days and Feasts 60 years before, why would John emphasize them so much in his timing and chronology? That just makes no sense if they were done away. Obviously, they are still important for Christians.

At the same time, he sometimes refers to the crowds, often translated, quote, the Jews, end quote, as the enemies of Jesus. We'll go into that more when we get into John's Gospel, who he's talking about there. Generally, he uses that term as kind of a shorthand to refer to the Jewish religious establishment who were opposed to Jesus and plotting from very early on to have him murdered, killed, get rid of him because he's a threat to them. John's Gospel has been used to support anti-Semitic ideas at various times in church history, primarily because of this term, the Jews. Traditional Christianity has at times been extremely anti-Semitic, blaming the entire Jewish people. For Christ's death, when the reality is many of the Jews supported Jesus, the early church was 100% Jewish.

But the Jews, that term applies to the Jews who were plotting to have him killed, not to the entirety of the Jewish peoples. This should be balanced with the fact that all of Jesus' followers were Jewish, one of whom was a prominent Pharisee. It's referring to Nicodemus, chapter 3, verse 1, and Jesus' own words that salvation is from the Jews. With that said, John's vision of the Gospel includes both Jews and Gentiles. And then there is the outline of that, which again contains very, very different material from the other Gospel writers.

So, any questions about that? Any of that? Okay, well, if not, we will conclude services then. Again, reminder, be out by 1 o'clock. If you can help with the takedown of the stage screen and so on, that would help out as well. So, okay, we will wrap it up there and be led in another hymn, and that will conclude our service for today.