Why is it we have four Gospels in the Bible? Why not just one complete account? And what are we to make of the differences between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
Richard Burridge (in Four Gospels, One Jesus? pp. 1-4) gives a helpful analogy. Imagine a tour of Sir Winston Churchill’s country home in Kent in southeast England. In the first room you notice a picture of the great statesman in conference with Roosevelt; the mood is sober, as the fate of the world rests on their shoulders. Around the corner you come to a painting done by Churchill himself showing the happy family at tea-time, undisturbed by the cares of the world. Along a corridor you notice a photo of the man at war—he rides in a camouflaged car and gives the “V” for victory salute to his loyal troops. The mood is upbeat and inspiring. Finally, you see a serene Churchill “on holiday” in 1946, relaxing in a basket chair overlooking Lac Léman in Switzerland.
“Four pictures—each with its own story evoking its own atmosphere and provoking its own response in the viewer—yet all are of one and the same man” (p. 2). Same with the Gospels. God so orchestrated his communication to the world that we’d see his Son from many angles and thus come to know him better than we would with just a single composite picture. Thank God for the differing perspectives and emphases of the Gospels, for they take us deep into fullness and wonder of the one and only Jesus Christ!
No comments:
Post a Comment