Foreword
It is now upwards of twelve years since the writer
first read Mr. Andrew Jukes’ book on the Gospels, wherein he so ably
outlined the various characters, in which the four Evangelists,
severally, present the Lord Jesus Christ. Since then we have continued,
with ever increasing delight, to trace out for ourself, the various
features which are peculiar to each Gospel.
It has been our privilege to give a series of Bible
readings on the design and scope of the Gospels, to various companies,
both in England and in this country; and many have been the requests
for us to publish them in book form. We have hesitated to do this,
because Mr. Jukes, fifty years ago, had already dealt with this subject
with better success than we could hope to achieve. Since his day, a
number of others have written upon the same theme, though not with the
same perspicuity and helpfulness. Really, Mr. Jukes covered the ground
so thoroughly (at least in its broad outlines) that for any later
writer who would present anything approaching a bird’s-eye view of the
four Gospels, is was well-nigh impossible to avoid going over much of
the ground covered by the original pioneer, and repeating much of what
he first, under God, set forth to such good effect. It is only because
Mr. Jukes’ work is unknown to many whom we hope to reach, that we now
present these studies to the Christian public. We have worked
diligently on the subject for ourself, and have sought to thoroughly
assimilate that which we received first from the writing of the above
mentioned, while adding, also, our own findings.
In sending forth this little book, much of which
has been gathered up from the labors of another, we are reminded of the
words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy, his son in the faith: “And the
things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the
same commit thou to faithful men” (2
Tim. 2:2). And again: “But continue thou in the things which
thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou
hast learned them” (2 Tim. 3:14).
We are fully assured that there is very much in the
four Gospels which manifest the Divine perfections and distinctive
beauties of each one, which has not yet been brought forth by those who
have sought to explore their inexhaustible depths; that there is here a
wide field for diligent research, and that those who will pursue this
study, prayerfully, for themselves, will be richly rewarded for their
pains. May it please God to stir up an increasing number of His people
to “search” this portion of His holy Word which reveal, as
nowhere else, the excellencies of His blessed Son, which were so
signally displayed by Him during the years that He tabernacled among
men.
Arthur
W. Pink,
Swengel, Pa.
1921
Introduction
Why four Gospels? It seems strange that such a
question needs to be asked at this late date. The New Testament has now
been in the hands of the Lord’s people for almost two thousand years,
and yet, comparatively few seem to grasp the character and scope of its
first four books. No part of the Scriptures has been studied more
widely than have the four Gospels: innumerable sermons have been
preached from them, and every two or three years sections from one of
the Gospels is assigned as the course for study in our Sunday Schools.
Yet, the fact remains, that the peculiar design and character of
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, is rarely perceived even by those most
familiar with their contents.
Why four Gospels? It does not seem to have occurred to
the minds of many to ask such a question. That we have four Gospels
which treat of the earthly ministry of Christ is universally accepted,
but as to why we have them, as to what they are
severally designed to teach, as to their peculiar characteristics, as
to their distinctive beauties—these are little discerned and even less
appreciated. It is true that each of the four Gospels has much in
common to all: each of them deals with the same period of history, each
sets forth the teaching and miracles of the Saviour, each describes His
death and resurrection. But while the four Evangelists have much in
common, each has much that is peculiar to himself, and it is in noting their
variations that we are brought to see their true meaning and scope
and to appreciate their perfections. Just as a course in architecture
enables the student to discern the subtle distinctions between the
Ionic, the Gothic, and the Corinthian styles—distinctions which are lost
upon the uninstructed; or, just as a musical training fits one to
appreciate the grandeur of a master-production, the loftiness of its
theme, the beauty of its chords, the variety of its parts, or its
rendition—all lost upon un-initiated; so the exquisite perfections of
the four Gospels are unnoticed and unknown by those who see in them
nothing more than four biographies of Christ.
In carefully reading through the four Gospels it soon
becomes apparent to any reflecting mind that in none of them, nor in
the four together, do we have anything approaching a complete
biography of our Saviour’s earthly ministry. There are great gaps
in His life which none of the Evangelists profess to fill in. After the
record of His infancy, nothing whatever is told us about Him till He
had reached the age of twelve, and after the brief record which Luke
gives of Christ as a boy in the Temple at Jerusalem, followed by the
statement that His parents went to Nazareth and that there He was
“subject unto them” (Luke 2),
nothing further is told us about Him until He had reached the age of
thirty. Even when we come to the accounts of His public ministry it is
clear that the records are but fragmentary; the Evangelists select only
portions of His teachings and describe in detail but a few of His
miracles. Concerning the full scope of all that was crowded into His
wonderful life, John gives us some idea when he says, “And there are also
many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written
every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the
books that should be written” (John
21:25).
If then the Gospels are not complete biographies of
Christ, what are they? The first answer must be, Four books inspired,
fully inspired, of God; four books written by men moved by the Holy
Spirit; books that are true, flawless, perfect. The second answer is
that, the four Gospels are so many books, each complete in itself, each
of which is written with a distinctive design, and that which
is included in its pages, and all that is left out, is strictly subordinated
to that design, according to a principle of selection. In other words,
nothing whatever is brought into any one of the Gospels save that which
was strictly relevant and pertinent to its peculiar theme and subject,
and all that was irrelevant and failed to illustrate and exemplify its
theme was excluded. The same plan of selection is noticeable in
every section of the Holy Scriptures.
Take Genesis as an example. Why is it that the first
two thousand years of history are briefly outlined in its first eleven
chapters, and that the next three hundred years is spread out over
thirty-nine chapters? Why is it that so very little is said about the
men who lived before the Flood, whereas the lives of Abraham
and Isaac, Jacob and Joseph are described in such fulness of detail?
Why is it that the Holy Spirit has seen well to depict at greater
length the experiences of Joseph in Egypt than He devoted to the
Account of Creation? Take, again, the later historical books. A great
deal is given us concerning the varied experiences of Abraham’s
descendants, but little notice is taken of the mighty Nations which
were contemporaneous with them. Why is it that Israel’s history
is described at such length, and that of the Egyptians, the Hittites,
the Babylonians, the Persians, and the Greeks, is almost entirely
ignored? The answer to all of these questions is that, the Holy Spirit selected
only that which served the purpose before Him. The purpose of
Genesis is to explain to us the origin of that Nation which
occupies so prominent a place in the Old Testament Scriptures, hence,
the Holy Spirit hurries over, as it were, the centuries before Abraham
was born, and then proceeds to describe in detail the lives of the
fathers from which the Chosen Nation sprang. The same principle obtains
in the other books of the Old Testament. Because the Holy Spirit is
there setting forth the dealings of God with Israel, the other
great nations of antiquity are largely ignored, and only come into view
at all as they directly concerned the Twelve-Tribed people. So
it is in the four Gospels: each of the Evangelists was guided by the
Spirit to record only that which served to set forth Christ in the
particular character in which He was there to be viewed, and that which
was not in keeping with that particular character was left out.
Our meaning will become clearer as the reader proceeds.
Why four Gospels? Because one or two was not
sufficient to give a perfect presentation of the varied glories
of our blessed Lord. Just as no one of the Old Testament typical
personages (such as Isaac or Joseph, Moses or David) give an exhaustive
foreshadowment of our Lord, so, no one of the four Gospels presents a complete
portrayal of Christ’s manifold excellencies. Just as no one or two of
the five great offerings appointed by God for Israel (see Lev. 1–6) could, by itself, represent
the many-sided sacrifice of Christ, so no one, or two, of the Gospels
could, by itself, display fully the varied relationships which the Lord
Jesus sustained when He was here upon earth. In a word, the four
Gospels set Christ before us as filling four distinct offices. We
might illustrate it thus. Suppose I was to visit a strange town in
which there was an imposing city-hall, and that I was anxious to convey
to my friends at home the best possible idea of it. What would I do? I
would use my camera to take four different pictures of it, one from
each side, and thus my friends would be able to obtain a complete
conception of its structure and beauty. Now that is exactly what we
have in the four Gospels. Speaking reverently, we may say that the Holy
Spirit has photographed the Lord Jesus from four different angles,
viewing Him in four different relationships, displaying Him as
perfectly discharging the responsibilities of four different offices.
And it is impossible to read the Gospels intelligently, to understand
their variations, to appreciate their details, to get out of them what
we ought, until the reader learns exactly from which angle each
separate Gospel is viewing Christ, which particular relationship
Matthew or Mark shows Him to be discharging, which office Luke or John
shows Him to be filling.
The four Gospels alike present to us the person and
work of our blessed Saviour, but each one views Him in a distinct
relationship, and only that which served to illustrate the separate
design which each Evangelist had before him found a place in his
Gospel; everything else which was not strictly germane to his immediate
purpose was omitted. To make this still more simple we will use another
illustration. Suppose that today four men should undertake to write a
“life” of ex-president Roosevelt, and that each one designed to present
him in a different character. Suppose that the first should
treat of his private and domestic life, the second deal with
him as a sportsman and hunter of big game, the third depict his
military prowess and the fourth traced his political and
presidential career. Now it will be seen at once that these four
biographers while writing of the life of the same man would,
nevertheless, view him in four entirely different
relationships. Moreover, it will be evident that these biographers
would be governed in the selection of their material by the particular
purpose each one had before him: each would include only that which
was germane to his own specific viewpoint, and for the same reason each
would omit that which was irrelevant. For instance: suppose it was
known that Mr. Roosevelt, as a boy, had excelled in gymnastics and
athletics which of his biographers would mention this fact?
Clearly, the second one, who was depicting him as a sportsman.
Suppose that as a boy Mr. Roosevelt had frequently engaged in fistic
encounters, which one would make mention of it? Evidently, the one who
was depicting his military career, for it would serve to
illustrate his fighting qualities. Again, suppose that when a
college-student Mr. R. had displayed an aptitude for debating, which
biographer would refer to it? The fourth, who was treating of his political
and presidential life. Finally, suppose that from youth upwards,
Mr. R. had manifested a marked fondness for children, which of his
biographers would refer to it? The first, for he is treating of the
ex-president’s private and domestic life.
The above example may serve to illustrate what we have
in the four Gospels. In Matthew, Christ is presented as the Son of
David, the King of the Jews, and everything in his narrative centers
around this truth. This explains why the first Gospel opens with a
setting forth of Christ’s royal genealogy, and why in the
second chapter mention is made of the journey of the wise men from the
East, who came to Jerusalem inquiring “Where is He that is born King
of the Jews?”, and why in chapters five to seven we have what is known
as “The Sermon on the Mount” but which, in reality, is the Manifesto of
the King, containing an enunciation of the Laws of His Kingdom.
In Mark, Christ is depicted as the Servant of Jehovah,
as the One who through equal with God made Himself of no reputation and
“took upon Him the form of a servant.” Everything in this second Gospel
contributes to this central theme, and everything foreign to it is
rigidly excluded. This explains why there is no genealogy
recorded in Mark, why Christ is introduced at the beginning of His
public ministry (nothing whatever being told us here of His earlier
life), and why there are more miracles (deeds of service) detailed here
than in any of the other Gospels.
In Luke, Christ is set forth as the Son of Man, as
connected with but contrasted from the sons of men, and everything in
the narrative serves to bring this out. This explains why the third
Gospel traces His genealogy back to Adam, the first man, (instead of to
Abraham only, as in Matthew), why as the perfect Man He is seen here so
frequently in prayer, and why the angels are seen ministering to Him,
instead of commanded by Him as they are in Matthew.
In John, Christ is revealed as the Son of God, and
everything in this fourth Gospel is made to illustrate and demonstrate
this Divine relationship. This explains why in the opening verse we are
carried back to a point before time began, and we are shown Christ as
the Word “in the beginning,” with God, and Himself expressly declared
to be God; why we get here so many of His Divine titles, as “The only
begotten of the Father,” the “Lamb of God,” the “Light of the world”
etc.; why we are told here that prayer should be made in His Name, and
why the Holy Spirit is here said to be sent from the Son as well as
from the Father.
It is a remarkable fact that this fourfold
presentation of Christ in the Gospels was specifically indicated
through the Old Testament seers. Conspicuous among the many prophecies
of the Old Testament are those which spoke of the coming Messiah under
the title of “the Branch.” From these we may select four which
correspond exactly with the manner in which the Lord Jesus is looked
at, respectively, in each of the four Gospels:—
In Jer. 23:5
we read, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto
DAVID a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper,
and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.” These words fit
the first Gospel as glove fits hand.
In Zech. 3:8
we read, “Behold, I will bring forth My Servant the Branch.”
These words might well be taken as a title for the second Gospel.
In Zech. 6:12
we read, “Behold the Man whose name is the Branch.” How
accurately this corresponds with Luke’s delineation of Christ needs not
to be pointed out.
In Isaiah 4:2 we
read, “In that day shall the Branch of the Lord be beautiful
and glorious.” Thus, this last quoted of these Messianic predictions,
which spoke of the Coming One under the figure of “the Branch,” tallies
exactly with the fourth Gospel, which portrays our Saviour as the Son
of God.
But, not only did Old Testament prophecy anticipate
the four chief relationships which Christ sustained on earth, the Old
Testament types also foreshadowed this fourfold division. In Gen. 2:10 we read “And a river
went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted,
and became into four heads.” Note carefully the words “from
thence.” In Eden itself “the river” was one, but “from thence” it “was parted”and
became into four heads. There must be some deeply hidden meaning to
this, for why tell us how many “heads” this river had? The mere
historical fact is without interest or value for us, and that the Holy
Spirit has condescended to record this detail prepares us to look
beneath the surface and seek for some mystical meaning. And surely that
is not far to seek. “Eden” suggests to us the Paradise above: the
“river” which “watered” it, tells of Christ who is the Light
and Joy of Heaven. Interpreting this mystic figure, then, we learn that
in Heaven Christ was seen in one character only—“The Lord of Glory”—but
just as when the “river” left Eden it was parted and became “four
heads” and as such thus watered the earth, so, too, the earthly
ministry of the Lord Jesus has been, by the Holy Spirit, “parted
into four heads” in the Four Gospels.
Another Old Testament type which anticipated the
fourfold division of Christ’s ministry as recorded in the four Gospels
may be seen in Ex. 26:31,
32, “And thou shalt make a vail
of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen of cunning
work: with cherubim shall it be made. And thou shalt hang it upon four
pillars of shittim wood overlaid with gold: their hooks shall be of
gold, upon the four sockets of silver.” From Heb. 10:19, 20 we learn that the “veil”
foreshadowed the Incarnation, God manifest in flesh—“through the veil,
that is to say, His flesh.” It is surely significant that this
“veil” was hung upon “four pillars of shittim wood overlaid
with gold:” the wood, again, speaking of His humanity, and the gold of
His Deity. Just as these “four pillars” served to display the
beautiful veil, so in the four Gospels we have made manifest the
perfections of the only-begotten of the Father tabernacling among men.
In connection with the Scripture last quoted, we may
observe one other feature—“with cherubim shall it be made.” The veil
was ornamented, apparently, with the “cherubim” embroidered upon it in
colors of blue, purple, and scarlet. In Ezek.
10:15, 17,
etc. the cherubim are termed “the living creature:” this enables us to
identify the “four beasts” of Rev. 4:6
for rendered literally the Greek reads “four living creatures.” These
“living creatures” or “cherubim” are also four in number, and
from the description which is furnished of them in Rev. 4:7 it will be found that they
correspond, most remarkably with the various characters in which the
Lord Jesus Christ is set forth in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
“And the first living creature was like a lion, and
the second living creature like a calf, and the third living creature
had a face as a man, and the fourth living creature was like a flying
eagle” (Rev. 4:7).
The first cherubim, then, was like “a lion” which reminds us at once of
the titles which are used of Christ in Rev. 5:5—“The
Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Root of David.” The lion, which is
the king among the beasts is an apt symbol for portraying Christ as He
is presented in Matthew’s Gospel. Note also that the Lion of the Tribe
of Judah is here termed “the Root of David.” Thus the description given
in Rev. 4:7 of the first “cherubim”
corresponds exactly with the character in which Christ is set forth in
the first Gospel, viz., as “the Son of David,” the “King of the Jews.”
The second cherubim was “like a calf” or “young ox.” The young ox aptly
symbolizes Christ as He is presented in Mark’s Gospel, for just as the
ox was the chief animal of service in Israel, so in the second Gospel
we have Christ presented in lowliness as the perfect “Servant of
Jehovah.” The third cherubim “had a face as a man,” which corresponds
with the third Gospel where our Lord’s Humanity is in view. The fourth
cherubim was “like a flying eagle:” how significant! The first
three—the lion, young ox, and man,—all belong to the earth, just as
each of the first three Gospels each set forth Christ in an earthly
relationship; but this fourth cherubim lifts us up above the earth, and
brings the heavens into view! The eagle is the bird that soars the
highest and symbolizes the character in which Christ is seen in John’s
Gospel, viz., as the Son of God. Incidentally we may observe how this
description of the four cherubim in Rev. 4:7
authenticates the arrangement of the four Gospels as we have
them in our Bibles, evidencing the fact that their present order is of
Divine arrangement as Rev. 4:7 confirms!
We would call attention to one other feature ere
closing this Introduction and turning to the Gospels themselves. Behold
the wisdom of God displayed in the selection of the four men whom He
employed to write the Gospels. In each one we may discern a peculiar
suitability and fitness for his task.
The instrumental selection by God to write this first
Gospel was singularly fitted for the task before him. Matthew is the
only one of the four Evangelists who presents Christ in an official
relationship, namely, as the Messiah and King of Israel, and Matthew
himself was the only one of the four who filled an official position;
for, unlike Luke, who was by profession a physician, or John who was a
fisherman, Matthew was a tax-gatherer in the employ of the Romans.
Again; Matthew presents Christ in Kingdom connections, as the One who
possessed the title to reign over Israel; how fitting, then, that
Matthew, who was an officer of and accustomed to look out over a vast
empire, should be the one selected for this task. Again; Matthew was a
publican. The Romans appointed officials whose duty it was to collect
the Jewish taxes. The tax-gatherers were hated by the Jews more
bitterly than the Romans themselves. Such a man was Matthew. How
feelingly, then, could he write of the One who was “hated without a
cause”! and set forth the Messiah-Saviour, as “despised and rejected”
by His own nation. Finally, in God appointing this man, who by calling
was connected with the Romans, we have a striking anticipation of the
grace of God reaching out to the despised Gentiles.
Mark’s Gospel sets before us the Servant of Jehovah,
God’s perfect Workman. And the instrument chosen to write this second
Gospel seems to have held an unique position which well fitted him for
his task. He was not himself one of the apostles, but was rather a
servant of an apostle. In 2 Tim. 4:11
we have a scripture which brings this out in a striking manner—“Take
Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the
ministry.” Thus the one who wrote of our Lord as the Servant of God,
was himself one who ministered to others!
Luke’s Gospel deals with our Lord’s Humanity, and
presents Him as the Son of Man related to but contrasted from the sons
of men. Luke’s Gospel is the one which gives us the fullest account of
the virgin-birth. Luke’s Gospel also reveals more fully than any of the
others the fallen and depraved state of human nature. Again; Luke’s
Gospel is far more international in its scope than the other three, and
is more Gentilish than Jewish—evidences of this will be presented when
we come to examine his Gospel in detail. Now observe the
appropriateness of the selection of Luke to write this Gospel. Who was
he? He was neither a fisherman nor a tax-gatherer, but a “physician”
(see Col. 4:14),
and as such, a student of human nature and a diagnostician of the human
frame. Moreover, there is good reason to believe that Luke himself was
not a Jew but a Gentile, and hence it was peculiarly fitting that he
should present Christ not as “the Son of David” but as “The Son of Man.”
John’s Gospel presents Christ in the loftiest
character of all, setting Him forth in Divine relationship, showing
that He was the Son of God. This was a task that called for a man of
high spirituality, one who was intimate with our Lord in a special
manner, one who was gifted with unusual spiritual discernment. And
surely John, who was nearer to the Saviour than any of the twelve,
surely John “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” was well chosen. How
fitting that the one who leaned on the Master’s bosom should be the
instrument to portray Christ as “The only-begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father”! Thus may we discern and admire the manifold
wisdom of God in equipping the four “Evangelists” for their honorous
work.
Ere closing this Introduction we would return once
more to our opening query—Why four Gospels? This time we shall give the
question a different emphasis. Thus far, we have considered, “Why four
Gospels? And we have seen that the answer is, In order to present the
person of Christ in four different characters. But we would now ask,
Why four Gospels? Why not have reduced them to two or three? Or, why
not have added a fifth? Why four? God has a wise reason for everything,
and we may be assured there is a Divine fitness in the number of the
Gospels.
In seeking to answer the question, Why four Gospels,
we are not left to the uncertainties of speculation or imagination.
Scripture is its own interpreter. A study of God’s Word reveals the
fact (as pointed out by others before us), that in it the numerals are
used with definite precision and meaning. “Four” is the number of the
earth. It is, therefore, also, the world number. We subjoin a few
illustrations of this. There are four points to earth’s compass—nor
the, east, south, and west. There are four seasons to earth’s
year—spring, summer, autumn, and winter. There are four elements
connected with our world—earth, air, fire, and water. There have been
four, and only four, great world-empires—the Babylonian, the
Medo-Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman. Scripture divides earth’s
inhabitants into four classes—“kindred, and tongue, and people, and
nation” (Rev. 5:9
etc.). In the Parable of the Sower, our Lord divided the field into
four kinds of soil, and later He said, “the field is the world.” The
fourth commandment has to do with rest from all earth’s labors. The
fourth clause in what is known as the Lord’s prayer is, “Thy will be
done on earth.” And so we might go on. Four is thus the earth number.
How fitting, then, that the Holy Spirit should have given us four
Gospels in which to set forth the earthly ministry of the Heavenly One.
The Gospel of Matthew
Matthew’s Gospel breaks the long silence that followed
the ministry of Malachi the last of the Old Testament prophets. This
silence extended for four hundred years, and during that time God was
hid from Israel’s view. Throughout this period there were no angelic
manifestations, no prophet spake for Jehovah, and, though the Chosen
People were sorely pressed, yet were there no Divine interpositions on
their behalf. For four centuries God shut His people up to His written
Word. Again and again had God promised to send the Messiah, and from
Malachi’s time and onwards the saints of the Lord anxiously awaited the
appearing of the predicted One. It is at this point Matthew’s Gospel is
to present Christ as the Fulfiller of the promises made to Israel and
the prophecies which related to their Messiah. This is why the word
“fulfilled” occurs in Matthew fifteen times, and why there are more
quotations from the Old Testament in this first Gospel than in the
remaining three put together.
The position which Matthew’s Gospel occupies in the
Sacred Canon indicates its scope: it follows immediately after the Old
Testament, and stands at the beginning of the New. It is therefore a
connecting link between them. Hence it is transitionary in its
character, and more Jewish than any other book in the New Testament.
Matthew reveals God appealing to and dealing with His Old Testament
people; presents the Lord Jesus as occupying a distinctively Jewish
relationship; and, is the only one of the four Evangelists that records
Messiah’s express declaration, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep
of the House of Israel” (15:24).
The numerical position given to Matthew’s Gospel in the Divine library
confirms what has been said, for, being the fortieth book it shows us
Israel in the place of probation, tested by the presence of Messiah in
their midst.
Matthew presents the Lord Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and
King, as well as the One who shall save His people from their sins. The
opening sentence gives the key to the book—“The book of the generation
of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.” Seven times the
Lord Jesus is addressed as “Son of David” in the Gospel, and ten times,
altogether, is this title found there. “Son of David” connects the
Saviour with Israel’s throne, “Son of Abraham” linking Him with
Israel’s land—Abraham being the one to whom Jehovah first gave the
land. But nowhere after the opening verse is this title “Son of
Abraham” applied to Christ, for the restoration of the land to Israel
is consequent upon their acceptance of Him as their Saviour—King, and
that which is made prominent in this first Gospel is the presentation
of Christ as King—twelve times over is this title here applied to
Christ.
Matthew is essentially the dispensational Gospel
and it is impossible to over-estimate its importance and value. Matthew
shows us Christ offered to the Jews, and the consequencesof
their rejection of Him, namely, the setting aside of Israel,
and God turning in grace to the Gentiles. Rom. 15:8,
9 summarizes the scope of
Matthew’s Gospel—“Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for
the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers; And
that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy.” Christ was not only
born of the Jews, but He was born, first, to the Jews, so that in the
language of their prophet they could exclaim, “Unto us a Child is born,
unto us a Son is given” (Isa. 9:6).
Matthew’s Gospel explains why Israel, in their later books of the New
Testament, is seen temporally cast off by God, and why He is now taking
out from the Gentiles a people for His name; in other words, it makes
known why, in the present dispensation, the Church has superseded the
Jewish theocracy. It supplies the key to God’s dealings with the earth
in this Age: without a workable knowledge of this first Gospel it is
well-nigh impossible to understand the remaining portions of the New
Testament. We turn now to consider some of the outstanding features and
peculiar characteristics of Matthew’s Gospel.
The first thing which arrests our attention is the
opening verse. God, in His tender grace, has hung the key right over
the entrance. The opening verse is that which unlocks the contents of
this Gospel—“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the Son of
David, the Son of Abraham.” The first five English words here are but
two in the Greek—“Biblos geneseos.” These two words indicate the
peculiarly Jewish character of the earlier portions of this
Gospel, for it is an Old Testament expression. It is noteworthy that
this expression which commences the New Testament is found almost at
the beginning of the first book in the Old Testament, for in Gen. 5:1 we read, “This is the book
of the generations of Adam.” We need hardly say that this word
“generation” signifies the history of.” These two “books”—the
book of the generation of Adam, and the book of the generation of Jesus
Christ—might well be termed the Book of Death and the Book of Life. Not
only does the whole Bible center around these two books, but the sum of
human destiny also. How strikingly this expression, found at the
beginning of Genesis and the beginning of Matthew, brings out the Unity
of the two Testaments!
In the book of Genesis we have eleven different
“generations” or histories enumerated, beginning with the “generations
of the heavens and the earth,” and closing with the “generations of
Jacob”—see 2:4; 5:1; 6:9;
11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9;
37:2—thus dividing the first book
of the Bible into twelve sections, twelve being the number of Divine
government, which is what is before us in Genesis—God in sovereign
government. From Exodus to Daniel we find government entrusted,
instrumentally, to Israel, and from Daniel onwards it is in the hands
of the Gentiles; but in Genesis we antedate the Jewish theocracy, and
there government is found directly in the hands of God, hence its
twelvefold division. Twice more, namely, in Num. 3:1 and Ruth 4:18, do we get this
expression “the generation of,” making in the Old Testament thirteen in
all, which is the number of apostasy, for that is all the Law
revealed! But, as we have seen, this expression occurs once more (and
there for the last time in Holy Writ) in the opening verse of the New
Testament, thus making fourteen in all, and the fourteenth is “the book
of the generation of Jesus Christ.” How profoundly significant
and suggestive this is! Fourteen is 2 x 7, and two signifies (among its
other meanings) contrast or difference, and seven is the number of
perfection and completeness—and what a complete difference the Coming
of Jesus Christ made!
“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son
of David, the Son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1).
These titles of our Saviour have, at least, a threefold significance.
In the first place, both of them connect Him with Israel: “Son of
David” linking Him with Israel’s Throne, and “Son of Abraham” with
Israel’s Land. In the second place, “Son of David” limits Him to
Israel, whereas “Son of Abraham” is wider in its scope, reaching forth
to the Gentiles, for God’s original promise was that in Abraham “shall
all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3).
In the third place, as Dr. W.L. Tucker has pointed out, these titles
correspond exactly with the twofold (structural) division of Matthew’s
Gospel.
Up to 4:16 all is Introductory, and 4:17 opens the first division of
the book, reading, “From that timeJesus began to preach, and to
say, Repent: for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This section treats
of the Official ministry of Christ and presents Him as “the Son of
David.” The second section commences at 16:21
and reads, “From that time forth Jesus began to show unto His
disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things
of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be
raised again the third day.” This section treats, primarily, of the
Sacrificial work of Christ, and views Him as “the Son of Abraham,”
typified, of old, by Isaac—laid on the altar.
Having dwelt at some length on the opening verse of our
Gospel, we may next notice that the remainder of the chapter down to
the end of verse 17 is
occupied with the Genealogy of Jesus Christ. The prime significance of
this is worthy of our closest attention, for it fixes with certainty
the character and dominant theme of this Gospel. The very first book of
the New Testament opens a long list of names! What a proof that no
un-inspired man composed it! But God’s thoughts and ways are ever
different from ours, and ever perfect too. The reason for this
Genealogy is not far to seek. As we have seen, the opening sentence of
Matthew contains the key to the book, intimating plainly that Christ is
here viewed, first, in a Jewish relationship, fully entitled to sit on
David’s Throne. How then is His title established? By showing that,
according to the flesh, He belonged to the royal tribe: by setting
forth His Kingly line of descent. A King’s title to occupy the throne
depends not on the public ballot, but lies in his blood rights.
Therefore, the first thing which the Holy Spirit does in this Gospel is
to give us the Royal Genealogy of the Messiah, showing that as a lineal
descendant of David He was fully entitled to Israel’s Throne.
The Genealogy recorded in Matt. 1
gives us not merely the human ancestry of Christ, but, particularly,
His royal line of descent, this being one of the essential features
which differentiates it from the Genealogy recorded in Luke 3. The fundamental design of Matt. 1:1–17 is to prove
Christ’s right to reign as King of the Jews. This is why the genealogy
is traced no further back than Abraham, he being the father of the
Hebrew people. This is why, in the opening verse, the order is “Jesus
Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham,” instead of “the Son of
Abraham, the Son of David” as might be expected from the order which
immediately follows, for there we start with Abraham and work up to
David. Why, then, is this order reversed in the opening verse? The
answer must be that David comes first because it is the Kingly line
which is here being emphasised! This also explains why, in verse 2 we read “Abraham begat Isaac;
and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren.” Why
should Judah alone be here singled out for mention from the twelve sons
of Jacob? Why not have said “Jacob begat Reuben and his brethren”? for
he was Jacob’s firstborn.” If it be objected that the birthright was
transferred from Reuben to Joseph, then we ask, why not have said
“Jacob begat Joseph”? especially as Joseph was his favorite son. The
answer is, Because Judah was the royal tribe, and it is the Kingly
line which is here before us. Again: in verse 6 we read, “And Jesse begat David the
King: and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the
wife of Uriah.” Of all those who reigned over Israel whose names are
here recorded in Matthew 1,
David is the only one that is denominated “King,” and he, twice over in
the same verse! Why is this, except to bring David into special
prominence, and thus show us the significance of the title given to our
Lord in the opening verse—“the Son of David.”
There are many interesting features of this Genealogy
which we must now pass over, but its numerical arrangement calls for a
few brief comments. The Genealogy is divided into three parts: the
first section, running from Abraham to David, may be termed the period
of Preparation; the second section running from Solomon to the
Babylonian captivity, may be called the period of Degeneration; while
the third period, running from the Babylonian captivity till the Birth
of Christ, may be named the period of Expectation. The numeral three
signifies, in Scripture, manifestation, and how appropriate this
arrangement was here, for not until Christ appears is God’s purpose
concerning Abraham and his seed fully manifested. Each of these three
sections in the Royal Genealogy contains fourteen generations, which is
2 x 7, two signifying (among its slightly varied meanings) testimony or
competent witness, and seven standing for perfection. Again we may
admire the consonancy of these numerals in this genealogy of Christ,
for only in Him do we get perfect testimony—the “Faithful and True
Witness.” Finally, be it observed, that 14 x 3 gives us 42 generations
in all from Abraham to Christ, or 7 x 6, seven signifying perfection,
and six being the number of man, so that Christ—the forty-second from
Abraham—brings us to the Perfect Man!! How microscopically perfect is
the Word of God!
“And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (Matt.
1:16). Matthew does not connect Joseph and Jesus as father
and son, but departs from the usual phraseology of the genealogy so as
to indicate the peculiarity, the uniqueness, of the Saviour’s birth.
Abraham might begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, but Joseph the
husband of Mary did not begat Jesus, instead, we read, “Now the birth
of Jesus Christ was on this wise: when as His mother Mary was espoused
to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child
of the Holy Spirit” (1:18). As
Isaiah had foretold (7:14) seven
hundred years before, Messiah was to be born of “the virgin.” But a
virgin had no right to Israel’s throne, but Joseph had this right,
being a direct descendant of David, and so through Joseph, His legal
father (for be it remembered that betrothal was as binding with the
Jews as marriage is with us) the Lord Jesus secured His rights,
according to the flesh, to be King of the Jews.
Coming now to Matt. 2 we
may observe that we have in this chapter an incident recorded which is
entirely passed over by the other Evangelists, but which is peculiarly
appropriate in this first Gospel. This incident is the visit of the
wise men who came from the East to honor and worship the Christ Child.
The details which the Holy Spirit gives us of this visit strikingly
illustrate the distinctive character and scope of Matthew’s Gospel.
This chapter opens as follows, “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of
Judea in the days of Herod the King, behold, there came wise men from
the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is He that is born King of the
Jews? for we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship
Him.” Notice, these wise men came not inquiring, “Where is He that is
born the Saviour of the world?”, nor, “Where is the Word now
incarnate?”, but instead, “Where is He that is born King of the Jews?”
The fact that Mark, Luke and John are entirely silent about this, and
the fact that Matthew’s Gospel does record it, is surely proof positive
that this First Gospel presents Christ in a distinctively Jewish
relationship. The evidence for this is cumulative: there is first the
peculiar expression with which Matthew opens—“the book of the
generation of,” which is an Old Testament expression, and met with
nowhere else in the New Testament; there is the first title which is
given to Christ in this Gospel—“Son of David;” there is the Royal
Genealogy which immediately follows; and now there is the record of the
visit of the wise men, saying, “Where is He that is born King of the
Jews?” Thus has the Spirit of God made so plain and prominent the
peculiarly Jewish character of the opening chapters of Matthew’s Gospel
that none save those who are blinded by prejudice can fail to see its
true dispensational place. Thus, too, has He rendered excuseless the
foolish agitation which is now, in certain quarters, being raised, and
which tends only to confuse and confound.
But there is far more in Matt. 2
than the recognition of Christ as the rightful King of the Jews. The
incident therein narrated contains a foreshadowment of the reception
which Christ was to meet with here in the world, anticipating the end
from the beginning. What we find here in Matt. 2
is really a prophetic outline of the whole course of Matthew’s Gospel.
First, we have the affirmation that the Lord Jesus was born “King of
the Jews;” then we have the fact that Christ is found not in Jerusalem,
the royal city, but outside of it; then we have the blindness and
indifference of the Jews to the presence of David’s Son in their
midst—seen in the fact that, first, His own people were unaware that
the Messiah was now there among them, and second, in their failure to
accompany the wise men as they left Jerusalem seeking the young Child;
then we are shown strangers from a far-distant land with a heart for
the Saviour, seeking Him out and worshipping Him; finally, we learn of
the civil ruler filled with hatred and seeking His life. Thus, the
incident as a whole marvellously foreshadowed Christ’s rejection by the
Jews and His acceptance by the Gentiles. Thus do we find epitomized
here the whole burden of Matthew’s Gospel, the special purpose of which
is to show Christ presenting Himself to Israel, Israel’s rejection of
Him, with the consequent result of God setting Israel aside for a
season, and reaching out in grace to the despised Gentiles.
Next we read, “And when they were departed, behold the
angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and
take the young Child and His mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou
there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young Child to
destroy Him” (2:13).
Observe that it is Joseph and not Mary that figures so prominently in
the first two chapters of Matthew, for it was not through His mother,
but through His legal father that the Lord Jesus acquired His title to
David’s throne—compare Matt. 1:20,
where Joseph is termed “son of David”! It should also be pointed out
that Matthew is, again, the only one of the four Evangelists to record
this journey into Egypt, and the subsequent return to Palestine. This
is profoundly suggestive, and strikingly in accord with the special
design of this First Gospel, for it shows how Israel’s Messiah took the
very same place as where Israel’s history as a Nation began!
“But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord
appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, Saying, Arise, and take the
young Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they
are dead which sought the young Child’s life. And he arose, and took
the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel” (2:19–21). Once more we
discover another line which brings out the peculiarly Jewish character
of Matthew’s delineation of Christ. This is the only place in the New
Testament where Palestine is termed “the land of Israel,” and it is
significantly proclaimed as such here in connection with Israel’s King,
for it is not until He shall set up His Throne in Jerusalem that
Palestine shall become in fact, as it has so long been in promise, “the
Land of Israel.” Yet how tragically suggestive is the statement that
immediately follows here, and which closes Matt. 2.
No sooner do we read of “the land of Israel” than we find “But” as the
very next word, and in Scripture, “but” almost always points a
contrast. Here we read, “But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in
Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither:
notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into
the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth:
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall
be called a Nazarene” (2:21–23).
Nazareth was the most despised place in that despised province of
Galilee, and thus we see how early the Messiah took the place of the
despised One, again foreshadowing His rejection by the Jews—but mention
of “Nazareth” follows, be it observed, mention of “the land of Israel.”
Matthew 3
opens by bringing before us a most striking character: “In those
days”—that is, while the Lord Jesus still dwelt in despised Nazareth of
Galilee—“came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea.”
He was the predicted forerunner of Israel’s Messiah. He was the one of
whom Isaiah had said should prepare the way for the Lord, and this by
preparing a people to receive Him by such time as He should appear to
the public view. He came “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), to do a work similar
in character to that of the yet future mission of the Tisbite (Matt. 4:5, 6).
John addressed himself to the Covenant people, and
restricted himself to the land of Judea. He preached not in Jerusalem
but in the wilderness. The reason for this is obvious: God would not
own the degenerate system of Judaism, but stationed His messenger
outside all the religious circles of that day. The “wilderness” but
symbolized the barrenness and desolation of Israel’s spiritual
condition.
The message of John was simple and to the point—“Repent
ye.” It was a call for Israel to judge themselves. It was a word which
demanded that the Jews take their proper place before God, confessing
their sins. Only thus could a people be made ready for the Lord, the
Messiah. The Call to Repentance was enforced by a timely
warning—“Repent ye, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” Observe,
“Repent ye” not because “the Saviour is at hand,” not because “God
incarnate is now in your midst,” and not because “A new Dispensation
has dawned;” but because “the Kingdom of Heaven” was “at hand.” What
would John’s hearers understand by this expression? What meaning could
those Jews attach to his words? Surely the Baptist did not employ
language which, in the nature of the case, it was impossible for them
to grasp. And yet we are asked to believe that John was here
introducing Christianity! A wilder and more ridiculous theory it would
be hard to imagine. If by the “Kingdom of Heaven” John signified the
Christian dispension, then he addressed those Jewish hearers in an
unknown tongue. We say it with calm deliberation, that if John bade his
auditors repent because the Christian dispensation was then being
inaugurated, he mocked them, by employing a term which not only must
have been entirely un-intelligible to them, but utterly mis-leading. To
charge God’s messenger with doing that is perilously near committing a
sin which we shrink from naming.
What then, we ask again, would John’s hearers
understand him to mean when he said, “Repent ye, for the Kingdom of
Heaven is at hand”? Addressing, as he was, a people who were familiar
with the Old Testament Scriptures, they could place but one meaning
upon his words, namely, that he was referring to the Kingdom spoken of
again and again by their prophets—the Messianic Kingdom. That which
should distinguish Messiah’s Kingdom from all the kingdoms that have
preceded it, is this: all the kingdoms of this world have been ruled
over by Satan and his hosts, whereas, when Messiah’s Kingdom is
established, it shall be a rule of the Heavens over the earth.
The question has been raised as to why Israel refused
the Kingdom on which their hearts were set. Did not the establishing of
Messiah’s Kingdom mean an end of the Roman dominion? and was not that
the one thing they desired above all others? In reply to such questions
several things must be insisted upon. In the first place, it is a
mistake to say that Israel “refused” the Kingdom, for, in strict
accuracy of language, the Kingdom was never “offered” to them—rather
was the Kingdom heralded or proclaimed. The Kingdom was “at hand”
because the Heir to David’s throne was about to present Himself to
them. In the second place, before the Kingdom could be set up, Israel
must first “Repent,” but this, as is well known, is just what they, as
a nation, steadily refused to do. As we are expressly told in Luke 7:29, 30. “And all the people that
heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the
baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of
God against themselves, being not baptized of him.” In the third place,
the reader will, perhaps, see our meaning clearer if we illustrate by
an analogy: the world today is eagerly longing for the Golden Age. A
millennium of peace and rest is the great desideratum among diplomats
and politicians. But they want it on their own terms. They desire to
bring it about by their own efforts. They have no desire for a
Millennium brought about by the personal return to earth of the Lord
Jesus Christ. Exactly so was it with Israel in the days of John the
Baptist. True, they desired to be delivered from the Roman dominion.
True, they wished to be freed for ever from the Gentile yoke. True,
they longed for a millennium of undisturbed prosperity in a restored
Palestine, but they did not want it in GOD’s terms.
The ministry of John the Baptist is referred to at
greater or shorter length in each of the four Gospels, but Matthew is
the only one who records this utterance “Repent ye, for the Kingdom of
heaven is at hand.” To ignore this fact is to fail in “rightly dividing
the Word of truth.” It is to lose sight of the characteristic
distinctions which the Holy Spirit has been pleased to make in the four
Gospels. It is to reduce those four independent delineations of
Christ’s person and ministry to a meaningless jumble. It is to lay bare
the incompetency of a would-be-teacher of Scripture as one who is not a
“scribe who is instructed unto the Kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 13:52).
John’s baptism confirmed his preaching. He baptized
“unto repentance,” and in Jordan, the river of death. Those who were
baptized “confessed their sins” (Mark 1:5),
of which death was the just due, the “wages” earned. But Christian
baptism is entirely different from this: there, we take not the place
of those who deserve death, but of those who show forth the fact that
they have, already, died with Christ.
It is beyond our present purpose to attempt a detailed
exposition of this entire Gospel, rather shall we single out those
features which are characteristic of and peculiar to this first Gospel.
Accordingly, we may notice an expression found in 3:11, and which occurs nowhere
else in the New Testament outside of the four Gospels, and this is the
more remarkable because a portion of this very verse is quoted in the
Acts. Speaking to the Pharisees and Sadducees who had “come to his
baptism,” but whom the Lord’s forerunner quickly discerned were not in
any condition to be baptized; who had been warned to flee from the
wrath to come, and therefore were in urgent need of bringing forth
“fruit meet for repentance” (in their case, humbling themselves before
God, abandoning their lofty pretensions and self righteousness, and
taking their place as genuine self-confessed sinners), and to whom John
had said, “Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our
father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise
up children unto (not God, be it noted, but) Abraham” (v. 9); to them John announced: but he
that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to
bear: He shall baptize you with the Spirit and fire.”
In Acts 1, where
we behold the risen Lord in the midst of His disciples, we read, “And,
being assembled together with them, commended them that they should not
depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which,
saith He, ye have heard of Me. For John truly baptized with water: but
ye shall e baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence” (vv. 4, 5).
His forerunner had declared that Christ should baptize Israel with “the
Holy Spirit and fire,” yet, here, the Lord speaks only of the disciples
being baptized with the Holy Spirit. Why is this? Why did the Lord
Jesus omit the words “and fire”? The simple answer is that in Scripture
“fire” is, invariably, connected with Divine judgment. Thus, the reason
is obvious why the Lord omits “and fire” from His utterance recorded in
Acts 1. He was about to deal, not in
judgment but, in grace! It is equally evident why the words “and fire”
are recorded by Matthew, for his Gospel, deals, essentially with
Dispensational relationships, and makes known much concerning End-time
conditions. God is yet to “baptize” recreant Israel “with fire,” the
reference being to the tribulation judgments, during the time of
“Jacob’s Trouble.” Then will the winnowing fan be held by the hand of
the rejected Messiah, and then “He will thoroughly purge His floor, and
gather His wheat into the darner: but He will burn up the chaff with
unquenchable fire” (Matt. 3:12).
How manifestly do the words last quoted define for us the baptism of
“fire”!
The silence of the risen Lord as to the “fire” when
speaking to the disciples about “the baptism of the Spirit,” has added
force and significance when we find that Mark’s Gospel gives the
substance of what Matthew records of the Baptist’s utterance, while
omitting the words “and fire”—“There cometh One mightier than I after
me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and
unloose. I indeed have baptized you with water: but He shall baptize
you with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:7, 8). Why is this? Because, as we
have pointed out, “fire” is the well-known symbol of God’s judgment
(often displayed in literal fire), and Mark, who is presenting
Christ as the Servant of Jehovah, was most obviously led of the Spirit
to leave out the words “and fire,” for as Servant He does not
execute judgment. The words “and with fire” are found, though, in Luke,
and this, again, is most significant. For, Luke is presenting Christ as
“The Son of Man,” and in John 5 we
read, “And hath given Him authority to execute judgment also because
He is the Son of Man” (v. 27).
How strikingly, then, does the inclusion of the words “and fire” in
Matthew and Luke, and their omission in Mark, bring out the verbal
inspiration of Scripture over the instruments He employed in the
writing of God’s Word!
The closing verses of Matt. 3
show us the Lord Jesus, in marvellous grace, taking His place with the
believing remnant of Israel: “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan
unto John, to be baptized of him” (3:13).
John was so startled that, at first, he refused to baptize Him—so
little do the best of men enter into the meaning of the things of
God—“But John forbad Him, saying, I have need to be baptized by Thee,
and comest Thou to me?” (3:14).
Observe once more, that Matthew is the only one of the Evangelists
which mentions this shrinking of the Baptist from baptizing the Lord
Jesus. Appropriately does it find a place here, for it brings out the
royal dignity and majesty of Israel’s Messiah. As to the meaning and
significance of the Saviour’s baptism we do not now enter at length,
suffice it here to say that it revealed Christ as the One who had come
down from heaven to act as the Substitute of His people, to die in
their stead, and thus at the beginning of His public ministry He
identifies Himself with those whom He represented, taking His place
alongside of them in that which spoke of death. The descent of the Holy
Spirit upon Him attested Him, indeed, as the true Messiah, the Anointed
One (see Acts 10:38),
and the audible testimony of the Father witnessed to His perfections,
and fitness for the Work He was to do.
The first half of Matt. 4
records our Lord’s Temptation, into which we do not now enter. The next
thing we are told is, “Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into
prison, He departed into Galilee; And leaving Nazareth, He came and
dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of
Zebulon and Naphtali” (4:12, 13), and this in order that a
prophecy of Isaiah’s might be fulfilled. And then we read, “From that
time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the Kingdom of
heaven is at hand” (4:17). It
would seem that the words “from that time” refer to the casting of the
Baptist into prison. John’s message had been, “Repent ye, for the
Kingdom of heaven is at hand” (3:2), and
now that His forerunner had been incarcerated, the Messiah Himself
takes up identically the same message—the proclamation of the Kingdom.
In keeping with this, we read, “And Jesus went about all Galilee
teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Gospel (not, be it
noted, the “Gospel of the Grace of God”—Acts
20:24; nor “the Gospel of Peace”—Eph.
6:15; but “the Gospel”) of the Kingdom, and healing
all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people” (4:23).
Our Lord’s miracles of healing were not simply
exhibitions of power, or manifestations of mercy, they were also a
supplement of His preaching and teaching, and their prime value was
evidential. These miracles, which are frequently termed “signs,” formed
an essential part of Messiahs credentials. This is established,
unequivocally, by what we read in Matt. 11.
When John the Baptist was cast into prison, his faith as to the
Messiahship of Jesus wavered, and so he sent two of His disciples unto
Him, asking, “Art Thou He that should come, or do we look for another?”
(11:2). Notice, carefully, the
Lord’s reply, “Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and
see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are
cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have
the Gospel preached to them” (11:4, 5). Appeal was made to two
things: His teaching and His miracles of healing. The two are linked
together, again, in 9:35—“And
Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their
synagogues, and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, and healing
every sickness, and every disease among the people.” And, again,
when the Lord sent forth, the Twelve, “But go rather to the lost sheep
of the House of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The Kingdom of
heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out
demons; freely ye have received, freely give” (10:6–8). Miracles of
healing, then, were inseparately connected with the Kingdom testimony.
They were among the most important of “The Signs of the times”
concerning which the Messiah reproached the Pharisees and Sadducees for
their failure to discern (see Matt. 16:1–3). Similar
miracles of healing shall be repeated when the Messiah returns to the
earth, for we read in Is. 35:4–6,
“Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold,
your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompense; He will
come and save you (i.e., the godly Jewish remnant of the tribulation
period). Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the
ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as a
hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing.” It should be diligently
observed that Matthew, once more, is the only one of the four
Evangelists that makes mention of the Lord Jesus going forth and
preaching “The Gospel of the Kingdom,” as he is the only one that
informs us of the Twelve being sent out with the message to the lost
sheep of the House of Israel, “The Kingdom of heaven is at hand.” How
significant this is! and how it indicates, again, the peculiarly Jewish
character of these opening chapters of the New Testament!
As the result of these miracles of healing Messiah’s
fame went abroad throughout the length and breadth of the Land, and
great multitudes followed Him. It is at this stage, we read, “And
seeing the multitudes, He went up into a mountain: and when He was set,
His disciples came unto Him: and He opened His mouth, and taught them” (5:1, 2).
We are tempted to pause here, and enter into a detailed examination of
this important, but much misunderstood portion of Scripture—the “Sermon
on the Mount.” But we must not depart from the central design of this
book, hence a few words by way of summary is all we shall now attempt.
The first thing to be remarked is that “the Sermon on
the Mount” recorded in Matt. 5 to 7 is peculiar to this first Gospel,
no mention of it being made in the other three. This, together with the
fact that in Matthew the “Sermon on the Mount” is found in the first
section of the book, is sufficient to indicate its dispensational
bearings. Secondly, the place from whence this “Sermon” was delivered
affords another key to its scope. It was delivered from a “mountain.”
When the Saviour ascended the mount He was elevated above the common
level, and did, in symbolic action, take His place upon the Throne.
With Matt. 5:1 should be compared 17:1—it was upon a mountain that
the Messiah was “transfigured,” and in that wonderous scene we behold a
miniature and spectacular setting forth of “the Son of Man coming in
His Kingdom” (see 16:28).
Again, in 24:3, we
find that it was upon a mountain that Christ gave that wondrous
prophecy (recorded in 24 and 25) which describes the conditions
which are to prevail just before the Kingdom of Christ is set up, and
which goes on to tell of what shall transpire when He sits upon the
Throne of His glory. With these passages should be compared two others
in the Old Testament which clinch what we have just said. In Zech. 14:4 we read, “And His feet
shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives,” the
reference being to the return of Christ to the earth to set up His
Kingdom. Again, in Psalm 2 we read
that God shall yet say, in reply to the concerted attempt of earth’s
rulers to prevent it, “Yet have I set My King upon My holy Hill
of Zion.”
The “Sermon on the Mount” sets forth the Manifesto
of the King. It contains the “Constitution” of His Kingdom. It
defines the character of those who shall enter into it. It tells of the
experiences through which they pass while being fitted for that
Kingdom. It enunciates the laws which are to govern their conduct. Theauthority
of the King is evidences by His “I say unto you,” repeated no less than
fourteen times in this “Sermon.” The effect this had upon those who
heard Him is apparent from the closing verses, “And it came to pass,
when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at His
doctrine: for He taught them as One having authority, and not
as the scribes” (7:28, 29).
Another line of evidence which brings out Christ’s authority
(ever the most prominent characteristic in connection with a King),
which is very pronounced in this Gospel, is seen in His command over
the angels. One thing found in connection with kings is the many
servants they have to wait upon them and do their bidding. So we find
here in connection with “the Son of David.” In Matt. 13:41 we read, “The Son of
man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His
Kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity.” Observe
that here these celestial servants are termed not “the angels,” but,
specifically, “His angels,” that is, Messiah’s angels, and that they
are sent forth in connection with “His Kingdom.” Again, in 24:30, 31 we read, “And they shall see
the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great
glory (this, at His return to earth to establish His Kingdom). And He
shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall
gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven
to the other.” And, again in 26:53,
“Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to (better, “ask”) My Father, and
He shall presently (immediately) give Me more than twelve legions of
angels?” Matthew, be it particularly noted, is the only one that brings
out this feature.
Still another line of evidence of the Kingly majesty of
Christ should be pointed out. As it is well known, kings are honored by
the homage paid them by their subjects. We need not be surprised, then,
to find in this Gospel, which depicts the Saviour as “the Son of
David,” that Christ is frequently seen as the One before whom men
prostrated themselves. Only once each in Mark, Luke, and John, do we
read of Him receiving worship, but here in Matthew no less than ten
times! See 2:2, 8, 11;
8:2; 9:18;
14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:9, 17.
Coming now to Matt. 10
(in 8 and 9
we have the Authentication of the King by the special miracles which He
wrought), in the opening verses we have an incident which is recorded
in each of the first three Gospels, namely, the selection and sending
forth of the Twelve. But in Matthew’s account there are several
characteristic lines found nowhere else. For instance, only here do we
learn that when the Lord sent them forth, He commanded them, saying,
“Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the
Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the House
of Israel” (10:5, 6). Perfectly appropriate is this
here, but it would have been altogether out of place in any of the
others. Notice, also, that the Lord added, “And as ye go, preach,
saying, The Kingdom of heaven is at hand.” How the connection in which
this expression is found defines for us its dispensational scope! It
was only to “the lost sheep of the House of Israel” they were to say
“The Kingdom of heaven is at hand”!
In Matt. 12 we
have recorded the most remarkable miracle the Messiah performed before
His break with Israel. It was the healing of a man possessed of a
demon, and who, in addition, was both dumb and blind. Luke, also,
records the same miracle, but in describing the effects this wonder had
upon the people who witnessed it, Matthew mentions something which Luke
omits, something which strikingly illustrates the special design of his
Gospel. In the parallel passage in Luke
11:14 we read, “And He was casting out a demon, and it was
dumb. And it came to pass, when the demon was gone out, the dumb spake;
and the people wondered,” and there the beloved physician stops. But
Matthew says, “And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not
this the Son of David?” (12:23).
Thus we see, again, how that the bringing out of the Kingship of Christ
is the particular object which Matthew, under the Holy Spirit, had
before him.
In Matt. 13 we
find the seven parables of the Kingdom (in its “mystery” form), the
first of which is the well known parable of the Sower, the Seed, and
the Soils. Both Mark and Luke also record it, but with characteristic
differences of detail. We call attention to one point in Christ’s
interpretation of it. Mark reads, “The Sower soweth the Word” (4:14). Luke says, “Now the
parable is this: the Seed is the Word of God” (8:11). But Matthew, in harmony
with his theme says, “Hear ye therefore the parable of the Sower. When
anyone heareth the Word of the Kingdom” etc. (13:18, 19). This is but a minor point,
but how it brings out the perfections of the Holy Writ, down to the
minutest detail! How evident it is that no mere man, or number of men,
composed this Book of books! Well many we sing, “How firm a foundation,
ye saints of the Lord, is laid for your faith in His excellent Word.”
In Matt. 15 we
have the well known incident of the Cananitish woman coming to Christ
on the behalf of her demon-distressed daughter. Mark also mentions the
same, but omits several of the distinguishing features noted by
Matthew. We quote first Mark’s account, and then Matthew’s, placing in
italics the expressions which show forth the special design of his
Gospel. “A certain woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit,
heard of Him, and came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Greek, a
Syrophenician by nation; and she besought Him that He would cast forth
the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said unto her, Let the
children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s
bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. And she answered and said unto
Him, Yes, Lord; yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s
crumbs. And He said unto her, For this saying go thy way: the demon is
gone out of thy daughter” (Mk.
7:25–29). “Behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same
coasts, and cried unto Him saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, Thou
Son of David: my daughter is grievously vexed with a demon. But
He answered her not a word (for, as a Gentile, she had no claim
upon Him as the “Son of David”). And His disciples came and besought
Him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But He answered
and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of
Israel. Then came she and worshipped Him, saying Lord, help me. But
He answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and
to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord; yet the dogs eat of the
crumbs, which fall from their master’s table. Then Jesus answered and
said unto her, O woman great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou
wilt” (Matt.
15:22–28).
In the opening verse of Matt. 16
we read of how the Pharisees and Sadducees came to Christ tempting Him,
and desiring that He would show them a sign from heaven. Mark and Luke
both refer to this, but neither of them record that part of our Lord’s
reply which is found here in verse 2
and 3—“He answered and said unto
them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky
is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky
is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the
sky; but can ye not discern the Signs of the Times?” The “signs
of the times” were the fulfillment of the Old Testament predictions
concerning the Messiah. Every proof had been given to Israel that He
was, indeed, the promised One. He had been born of a “virgin,” in
Bethlehem, the appointed place; a forerunner had prepared His way,
exactly as Isaiah had foretold; and, in addition, there had been His
mighty works, just as prophecy had fore-announced. But the Jews were
blinded by their pride and self-righteousness. That Matthew alone makes
mention of the Messiah’s reference to these “Signs of the Times” is
still another evidence of the distinctively Jewish character of his
Gospel.
In Matt. 16:18
and 18:17
the “church” is twice referred to, and Matthew is the only one of the
four Evangelists which makes any direct mention of it. This has puzzled
many, but the explanation is quite simple. As previously pointed out,
the great purpose of this first Gospel is to show how Christ presented
Himself to the Jews, how they rejected Him as their Messiah, and what
were the consequences of this, namely, the setting aside of Israel by
God for a season, and His visiting the Gentiles in sovereign grace to
take out of them a people for His name. Thus, are we here shown how
that, and why, the Church has, in this dispensation, superseded the
Jewish theocracy.
In Matt. 20 we
have recorded the parable of the Householder, who went out and hired
laborers for His vineyard, agreeing to pay them one penny for the day.
Matthew is the only of the Evangelists that refers to this parable, and
the pertinency of its place in his Gospel is clear on the surface. It
brings out a characteristic of the Kingdom of Christ. The parable tells
of how, at the end of the day, when the workers came to receive their
wages, there was complaining among them, because those hired at the
eleventh hour received the same as those who had toiled all through the
day—verily, there is nothing new under the sun, the dis-satisfaction of
Labor being seen here in the first century! The Owner of the vineyard
vindicated Himself by reminding the dis-contented workers that He paid
to each what they had agreed to accept, and then inquired, “Is it not
lawful for Me to do what I will with Mine own?” Thus did He, as
Sovereign, insist on His rights to pay what He pleased, no one being
wronged thereby.
In Matt. 22 we
have the parable of the wedding feast of the King’s Son. A parable that
is very similar to this one is found in Luke’s Gospel, and while there
are many points of resemblance between them, yet are there some
striking variations. In Luke 14:16
we read, “Then said He unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and
bade many.” Whereas, in Matt. 22:2
we are told, “The Kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain King, which
made a marriage for His Son.” At the close of this parable in Matthew
there is something which finds no parallel whatever in Luke. Here we
read, “And when the King came in to see the guests, He saw there a
guest which had not on a wedding garment: And He saith unto him,
Friend, how comest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he
was speechless. Then said the King to His servants, Bind him hand and
foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness: there shall
be weeping, and gnashing of teeth” (22:11–13). How this
brings out the authority of the King needs scarcely to be pointed out.
The whole of Matt. 25 is
peculiar to this first Gospel. We cannot now dwell upon the contents of
this interesting chapter, but would call attention to what is recorded
in verses 31 to 46. That the contents of these
verses is found nowhere else in the four Gospels, and its presence here
is another proof of the design and scope of Matthew’s. These verses
portray the Son of man seated upon the throne of His glory, and before
Him are gathered all nations, these being divided into two classes, and
stationed on His right and left hand, respectively. In addressing each
class we read, “Then shall the King say” etc. (see verses 34 and 40).
There are a number of items concerning the Passion of
the Lord Jesus recorded only by Matthew. In 26:59, 60 we read, “Now the chief
priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witnesses
against Jesus, to put Him to death. But found none. At the last came
two false witnesses”—two, because that was the minimum number required
by the law, in order that the truth might be established. It is
interesting to note how frequently the two witnesses are found in
Matthew. In 8:28 we
read, “And when He was come to the other side into the country of the
Gergesenes, there met Him two possessed with demons”—compare Mark 5:1, 2, where only one of these men is
referred to. Again in 9:27 we
read, “And when Jesus departed thence two blind men followed Him”
etc.—compare Mark 10:46.
In 11:2 we are told, “When John had
heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples.”
Finally, in 27:24
we find Pilate’s testimony to the fact that Christ was a “just man,”
but in 27:19
we also read, “His wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do
with that just man.” And this, as well as the others cited above, is
found only in Matthew. Again, in 26:63,
64 we find a characteristic word
omitted and said unto Him, I adjure thee by the living God, that Thou
tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said unto
him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye
see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in
the clouds of heaven.” Here only are we told that the guilty Jews
cried, “His blood be on us, and on our children” (27:25). And again, Matthew is
the only one that informs us of the enmity of Israel pursuing their
Messiah even after His death—see 27:62–64.
The closing chapter of this Gospel is equally striking.
No mention is made by Matthew of the Ascension of Christ. This, too, is
in perfect accord with the theme and scope of this Gospel. The curtain
falls here with the Messiah still on earth, for it is on earth, and not
in heaven, that the Son of David shall yet reign in glory. Here only is
recorded the Lord’s word, “All power is given unto Me in heaven and in
earth” (28:18)—for
“power” is the outstanding mark of a king. Finally, the closing verses
form a fitting conclusion, for they view Christ, on a “mountain,”commanding
and commissioning His servants to go forth and disciple the
nations, ending with the comforting assurance, “Lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the Age.”
The Gospel of Mark
Mark’s Gospel differs widely from Matthew’s, both in
character and scope. The contrasts between them are marked and many.
Matthew has twenty-eight chapters, Mark but sixteen. Matthew abounds in
parables, Mark records but few. Matthew portrays Christ as the Son of
David, Mark delineates Him as the humble but perfect Servant of
Jehovah. Matthew is designed particularly (not exclusively) for the
Jew, whereas Mark is specially appropriate for Christian workers.
Matthew sets forth the Kingly dignity and authority of Christ, Mark
views Him in His lowliness and meekness. Matthew depicts Him as testing
Israel, Marks shows Him ministering to the Chosen People. This is one
reason why, no doubt, that Mark’s Gospel is the second book in the New
Testament—like Matthew’s, it views Him in connection with the Old
Testament people of God. Luke’s Gospel, has a wider scope, looking at
Christ in relation to the human race. While in John, He is shown to be
the Son of God, spiritually related to the household of faith. In
turning now to look at the contents of this second Gospel in some
detail, we would notice,
I.
Things Omitted from Mark’s Gospel.
1. Just as the skill of a master artist is discovered
in the objects which he leaves out of his picture (the amateur crowding
in everything on to the canvass for which he can find room), so the
discerning eye at once detects the handiwork of the Holy Spirit in the
various things which are included and omitted from different parts of
the Word. Notably is this the case with Mark’s Gospel. Here we find no
Genealogy at the commencement, as in Matthew; the miraculous Conception
is omitted, and there is no mention made of His birth. Fancy a whole
Gospel written and yet no reference to the Saviour’s birth in it! At
first glance this is puzzling, but a little reflection assures one of
the Divine wisdom which directed Mark to say nothing about it. Once we
see what is the special design of each separate Gospel, we are the
better enabled to appreciate their individual perfections. The birth of
Christ did not fall within the compass of this second Gospel, nor did
the record of His genealogy. Mark is presenting Christ as the Servant
of Jehovah, and in connection with a servant a genealogy or particulars
of birth are scarcely points of interest or importance. But how this
demonstrates the Divine Authorship of the books of the Bible! Suppose
the Genealogy had been omitted by Matthew, and inserted by Mark, then,
the unity of each Gospel would have been destroyed. But just as the
Creator placed each organ of the body in the wisest possible place, so
the Holy Spirit guided in the placing of each book in the Bible (each
member in this Living Organism), and each detail of each book. For the
same reason as the Genealogy is omitted, nothing is said by Mark of the
visit of the wise men, for a “servant” is not one that receives homage!
Mark also passes over what Luke tells us of Christ as a boy of twelve
in the temple of Jerusalem, and His subsequent return to Nazareth,
where He continued in subjection to His parents, for, while these are
points of interest in connection with His humanity, they were
irrelevant to a setting forth of His Servanthood.
2. In Mark’s Gospel we find no Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew devotes three whole chapters to it, but Mark records it not,
though some of its teachings are found in other connections in this
second Gospel. Why, then, we may ask, is this important utterance of
Christ omitted by Mark? The answer must be sought in the character and
design of the “Sermon.” As we have pointed out, the Sermon on the Mount
contains the King’s Manifesto. It sets forth the laws of His Kingdom,
and describes the character of those who are to be its subjects. But
Mark is presenting Christ as the perfect Workman of God, and a servant
has no “Kingdom,” and frames no “laws.” Hence the appropriateness of
the “Sermon” in Matthew, and the Divine wisdom in its exclusion from
Mark.
3. Mark records fewer Parables than Matthew. In Mark
there are but four all told, whereas in Matthew there are at least
fourteen. Mark says nothing about the Householder hiring laborers for
His vineyard, claiming the right to do as He wills with that which is
His own; for, as God’s Servant, He is seen in the place of the Laborer,
instead of in the position where He hires others. Mark omits all
reference to the parable of the Marriage of the King’s Son, at the
close of which He is seen giving orders for the man without the
wedding-garment to be bound and cast into the outer darkness—such is
not the prerogative of a Servant. All reference to the parable of the
Talents is omitted by Mark, for as God’s Servant He neither gives
talents nor rewards for the use of them. Each of these parables, and
many others all found in Matthew, are excluded by Mark, and their
omission only serves to bring out the minute perfections of each Gospel.
4. In Mark nothing whatever is said of Christ’s
command over angels, and His right to send them forth to do His
bidding; instead we find here “the angels ministered unto Him” (1:13).
5. Here there is no arraignment of Israel, and no
sentence is passed upon Jerusalem as in the other Gospels. Again, in Matt. 23 the “Son of David” utters
a most solemn sevenfold “Woe”—“Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites,” “Woe unto you, ye blind guides” etc., He says there; but
not a word of this is found in Mark. The reason for this is obvious. It
is not the part of the Servant to pass judgment on others, but “to be
gentle unto all, apt to teach, patient” (2
Tim. 2:24). We have another striking illustration of this
same characteristic in connection with our Lord cleansing the Temple.
In Matt. 21:12
we read, “And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them
that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the
money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves,” and immediately
following this we are told, “And He left them, and went out of the city
into Bethany; and He lodged there” (21:17).
But in Mark it is simply said, “And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and
into the temple: and when He had looked round about upon all things,
and now the eventide was come, He went out unto Bethany with the
twelve” (11:11).
Mark is clearly writing of the same incident. He refers to the Lord
entering the temple, but says nothing about Him casting out those who
bought and sold there, nor of Him overthrowing the tables. How striking
is this omission. As the Messiah and King it was fitting that He should
cleanse the defiled Temple, but in His character of Servant it would
have been incongruous!
6. The omission of so many of the Divine titles from
this second Gospel is most significant. In Mark, He is never owned as
“King” save in derision. In Mark, we do not read, as in Matthew, “They
shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us,”
and only once is He here termed “the Son of David.” It is very striking
to observe how the Holy Spirit has avoided this in the second Gospel.
In connection with the “Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem,” when
recording the acclamations of the people, Matthew says, “And the
multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna
to the Son of David: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord;
Hosanna in the highest” (21:9).
But in Mark’s account we read, “And they that went before, and they
that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna: Blessed is He that cometh in the
name of the Lord: Blessed be the Kingdom of our father David, that
cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest” (11:9, 10). Thus it will be seen that
the Servant of God was not hailed here as “the Son of David.” Side by
side with this, should be placed the words used by our Lord when
announcing, a week beforehand, His “transfiguration.” In Matthew’s
account, we read that He told His disciples, “Verily I say unto you,
There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they
see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.” But, here in Mark, we are
told that He said to the disciples, “Verily I say unto you, That there
be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till
they have seen the Kingdom of God come with power” (9:1). How significant this is!
Here it is simply the “Kingdom of God” that is spoken of, instead of
Christ’s own Kingdom!
But that which is most noteworthy here in connection
with the titles of Christ, is the fact that He is so frequently
addressed as “Master,” when, in the parallel passages in the other
Gospels, He is owned as “Lord.” For example: in Matt. 8:25 we read, “And His
disciples came to Him, and awoke Him, saying Lord, save us; we
perish;” but in Mark, “And they awake Him, and say unto Him, Master,
carest Thou not that we perish?” (4:38).
Following the announcement of His coming death, Matthew tells us, “Then
Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying, Be it far from Thee,
Lord: this shall not be unto Thee” (16:22).
But in Mark it reads, “And Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him” (8:32), and there it stops. On the
Mount of Transfiguration, Peter said, “Lord, it is good for us
to be here” (17:4);
but Mark says, “And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master,
it is good for us to be here” (9:5).
When the Saviour announced that one of the Twelve would betray Him,
Matthew tells us, “And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every
one of them to say unto Him, Lord, is it I?” (26:22); but Mark tells us, “And
they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto Him, one by one, “Is is I?”
(14:19). These are but a few of
the examples which might be adduced, but sufficient have been given to
bring out this striking and most appropriate feature of Mark’s Gospel.
7. It is deeply interesting and instructive to note
the various circumstances and events connected with our Lord’s
sufferings which are omitted from Mark. Here, as He entered the awful
darkness of Gethsemane, He says to the three disciples, “Tarry ye here,
and watch” (14:34),
not “watch with Me,” as in Matthew, for as the Servant He turns only to
God for comfort; and here, nothing is said at the close, of an angel
from Heaven appearing and “strengthening” Him, for as Servant He draws
strength from God alone. No mention is made by Mark of Pilate’s “I find
no fault in Him,” nor are we told of Pilate’s wife counselling her
husband to have nothing to do with “this Just Man,” nor do we read here
of Judas returning to the priests, and saying, “I have betrayed
innocent blood;” all of these are omitted by Mark, for the Servant must
look to God alone for vindication. Nothing is said in Mark of the women
following Christ as He was led to the place of execution, “bewailing
and lamenting Him” (Luke 23:27),
for sometimes the suffering Servant of God is denied the sympathy of
others. The words of the dying thief, “Lord, remember me when Thou
comest into Thy Kingdom” are here omitted, for in this Gospel, Christ
is neither presented as “Lord” nor as One having a “Kingdom.” The
Saviour’s triumphant cry from the Cross, “It is finished” is also
omitted. At first sight this seems strange, but a little reflection
will discover the Divine wisdom for its exclusion. It is not for the
Servant to say when his work is finished—that is for God to decide! We
pass on now to notice
II.
Things Which are Characteristic of Mark.
1. Mark’s Gospel opens in a manner quite different
from the others. In Matthew, Luke and John, there is what may be termed
a lengthy Introduction, but in Mark it is quite otherwise. Matthew
records Christ’s genealogy, His birth, the visit and homage of the wise
men, the flight into Egypt, and subsequent return and sojourn in
Nazareth; describes at length both His baptism and temptation, and not
till we reach the end of the fourth chapter do we arrive at His public
ministry. Luke opens with some interesting details concerning the
parentage of John the Baptist, describes at length the interview
between the angel and the Saviour’s mother previous to His birth,
records her beautiful Song, tells of the angelic visitation to the
Bethlehem shepherds at Christ’s birth, pictures the presentation of the
Child in the temple, and refers to many other things; and not until we
reach the fourth chapter do we come to the public ministry of the
Redeemer. So, too, in John. There is first a lengthy Prologue, in which
is set forth the Divine glories of the One who became flesh; then
follows the testimony of His forerunner to the Divine dignity of the
One he had come to herald; then we have described a visit to John of a
delegation sent from Jerusalem to inquire as to who he was; finally,
there is the witness of the Baptist to Christ as the Lamb of God: and
all this before we here read of Him calling His first disciples. But
how entirely different is the opening of the second Gospel. Here there
is but a brief notice of the Baptist and his testimony, a few words
concerning Christ’s baptism and His temptation, and then, in the
fourteenth verse of the first chapter we read, “Now after that John was
put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the
Kingdom of God.” The first thirty years of His life here on earth are
passed over in silence, and Mark at once introduces Christ at the
beginning of His public ministry. Mark presents Christ actually
serving.
2. The opening verse of Mark is very striking: “The
beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Observe, it
is not here “the Gospel of the Kingdom” (as in Matthew), but “the
Gospel of Jesus Christ.” How significant that it is added “the Gospel
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Thus has the Holy Spirit guarded His
Divine glory in the very place where His lowliness as the “Servant” is
set forth. It is also to be remarked that this word “Gospel” is found
much more frequently in Mark than in any of the other Gospels. The term
“Gospel” occurs twelve times in all in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
and no less than eight of these are found in Mark, so that the word
“Gospel” is found twice as often in Mark as in the other three added
together! The reason for this is obvious: as the Servant of Jehovah,
the Lord Jesus was the Bearer of good news, the Herald of glad tidings!
What a lesson to be taken to heart by all of the servants of God to-day!
3. Another characteristic term which occurs with even
greater frequency in this second Gospel is the Greek word “Eutheos,”
which is variously translated “forthwith, straightway, immediately”
etc. Notice a few of the occurrences of this word in the first chapter
alone: “And straightway coming up out of the water, He saw the
heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him” (v. 10). “And immediately the
Spirit driveth Him into the wilderness” (v. 12).
“And when He had gone a little further thence, He saw James the son of
Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their
nets, And straightway He called them” (vv. 19, 20).
“And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath
day He entered into the synagogue, and taught” (v. 21). “And forthwith when
they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of
Simon” (v. 29). “And
He came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up, and immediately
the fever left her” (v. 31). “And
He straightly charged him, and forthwith sent him away” (v. 43). In all, this word is found
no less than forty times in Mark’s Gospel. It is a most suggestive and
expressive term, bringing out the perfections of God’s Servant by
showing us how He served. There was no tardiness about Christ’s
service, but “straightway” He was ever about His “Father’s business.”
There was no delay, but “forthwith” He performed the work given Him to
do. This word tells of the promptitude of His service and the urgency
of His mission. There was no holding back, no reluctance, no slackness,
but a blessed “immediateness” about all His work. Well may we learn
from this perfect example which He has left us.
4. The way in which so many of the chapters open in
this second Gospel is worthy of our close attention. Turn to the first
verse of chapter 2, “And again
He entered into Capernaum after some days.” Again, the first verse of
chapter 3, “And He
entered again into the synagogue.” So in 4:1,
“And He began again to teach by the seaside.” So in 5:1, “And they came over unto the
other side of the sea.” This is seemingly a trivial point, and yet, how
unique! It is now more than ten years since the writer first observed
this feature of Mark’s Gospel, and since then, many hundreds of books,
of various sorts, have been read by him, but never once has he seen a
single book of human authorship which had in it one chapter that
commenced with the word “And.” Test this, reader, by your own library.
Yet here in Mark’s Gospel no less than twelve of its chapters begun
with “And”!
“And,” as we know, is a conjunction joining together
two other parts of speech; it is that which links two or more things
together. The service of Christ, then, was characterized by that which
“And” signifies. In other words, His service was one complete and
perfect whole, with no breaks in it. Ah, how unlike ours! Yours
and mine is so disjointed. We serve God for a time, and then there
comes a slackening up, a pause, a break, which is followed by a period
of inactivity, before we begin again. But not so with Christ. His
service was a series of perfect acts, fitly joined together, without a
break or blemish. “And,” then as characterizing the service of Christ,
tells of ceaseless activity. It speaks of the continuity of His labors.
It shows us how He was “instant in season and out of season.” It
reveals how He never grew weary of well doing. May God’s grace cause
the “And” to have a more prominent place in our service for Him.
5. In the former section we have pointed out how that
Mark records fewer parables than Matthew, and we may add, fewer than
Luke too. But, on the other hand, Mark describes more miracles. This,
also, is in keeping with the design and scope of this second Gospel.
Parables contained our Lord’s teachings, whereas the miracles were a
part of His active ministry. Service consists more of deeds than
teaching, doing rather than speaking. How often our service is more
with our lips than our hands. We are big talkers and little doers!
Mark records just four parables, and it is a most
significant thing that each of them has to do, directly, with service.
The first is the parable of the Sower, and this views the Saviour as
going forth with the Word (4:3–20). The second
parable is that of the Seed cast into the ground, which sprang up and
grew, and brought forth first the blade, then the ear, after that the
full corn in the ear, and finally was harvested (4:26–29). The third
parable is that of the Mustard-seed (4:30–32). The fourth is
that of the Wicked Husbandmen who mistreated the Owner’s servants, and
ended by killing His well-beloved Son (12:1–9). Thus it will
be seen, that each has to do with ministry or service: the first three
with sowing Seed, and the last with the Servant going forth “that He
might receive of the husbandman of the fruit of the vineyard.”
6. In Mark’s Gospel, the hand of Christ is frequently
mentioned, and this is peculiarly appropriate in the Gospel which
treats of His service. It might well be termed, the Ministry of the
Hand. How prominent this feature is here may be seen by consulting
the following passages. “And He came and took her by the hand,
and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her” (1:31). “And Jesus, moved with
compassion, put forth His hand, and touched him, and saith unto
him, I will; be thou clean” (1:41.
“And He took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi: which
is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise” (5:41). “And they bring unto Him
one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they
beseech