05.14. Introduction - The Fifth Gospel
II INTRODUCTION – THE FIFTH GOSPEL
In the preceding chapter we were considering the inspired histories of the life of our Lord. A reason for considering very particularly the Fifth Gospel, arises from a trend of modern thought, pregnant with menace. This trend is embodied in a method of treating the Bible, which appears to be concerted and systematic, and which comes in the garb of an angel of light with most attractive watchwords, and with the avowed object of best serving human interest by promoting a higher degree of morality. The slogan of this method is: "Back to Christ," meaning, "Back to Christ’s own words." The object of the method is to strip the Gospels of all inspired value in their statements of what Christ is, or what he did, and confine them to an application of what he actually said. It matters nothing to the leaders of this method that our knowledge of what he said is dependent on the trustworthiness of the very witnesses whose evidence they discredit concerning what he is and what he did.
But this is not all of the method. It arbitrarily limits the sources of what he said to the records of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, commonly called the Synoptic Gospels, rejecting the Gospel of John. Even with this limitation they claim the right to discredit all the reported sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels not in accord with their preconceived notions. But the limitation of Christ’s own words to the record of the Synoptic Gospels is, after all, not so much to eliminate John as to get rid of Paul, who is most in their way. Their misleading slogan, "Back to Christ," means simply "Back from Paul."
Unwittingly this method bears strong testimony to the clearness and value of Paul’s teaching. It is a virtual confession that if Paul stands they must fall. While this method is called modern, it is in fact only a revival of ancient error prevalent in Paul’s own day, and in later days.
In this connection we may recall a recent discussion in Congress on the advisability of printing what is called "Jefferson’s Bible" in connection with his other works. This socalled Bible is merely a patchwork of clippings from the Gospels of Christ’s own words – or so many of them as Mr. Jefferson approved, the object being to classify the ethical teachings of Christ and to eliminate all the supernatural settings. Not a few of the most alert and clear-eyed sentinels on our watchtowers, discern in this trend of thought a menacing sword to the unwary, and have diligently sounded a note of alarm. Articles, pamphlets, and books on the subject, pro and con, are being rapidly multiplied, some of them valuable, others worthless contributions to religious literature.
Two of the many may be noted. The most scholarly, perhaps, is by Dr. Bruce, Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the Free Church College, Glasgow, Scotland and is entitled Saint Paul’s Conception of Christianity. It was published in 1894. While very instructive throughout, some parts of this discussion are justly liable to adverse criticism. The other, not nearly so pretentious, is yet pure gold in its saneness and simplicity. It is by a plain but earnest and successful gospel preacher, Dr. Malcolm McGregor, of the Southern Baptist Convention, and is entitled The Divine Authority of Paul’s Writings. It was published in 1898. Dr. McGregor has classified the objections or objectors to Paul thus:
Some who profess to believe in the inspiration and authority of the Bible in vague general terms, but whose inherited or acquired dislike for certain of Paul’s teachings lead them, with great inconsistency, to evade, modify, and explain away their force.
Preconceptions of rationalistic philosophy, the blinding influence of unscriptural customs, the warping force of adventurous love of novelty, overweening self-conceit, and headstrong self-will, account very fully for most of this dangerous anti-Pauline drift.
To these classifications of Dr. McGregor we may add a graver cause. When we consider the garb, watchword, concert, system, and effect of this method, we are constrained to recognize back of the movement that mighty and malignant intelligence who, from the beginning, comes as an angel of light, and by beguiling seduces many good people to serve him, and renders tributary to his purpose all the objections and prejudices of the unregenerate. It is immaterial that the leaders of this trend of thought are unconscious of the satanic influence prompting them.
So far as this modern method relates to the Four Gospels, we may content ourselves with this double reply:
If we accept the testimony of the synoptic historians as to the sayings of Christ, then we must accept it as to his being and doings. The evidence is the same.
The argument which destroys the trustworthiness of John’s record of Christ’s sayings, will equally destroy the credibility of the record in the Synoptic Gospels.
But our present concern is with the effect of this method on another historian. There is a Fifth Gospel, quite distinct from the others, equally necessary and credible with the others. The same inspiration which gave us the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, gave us also the Gospel of Paul. No one of the five tells all the story; each one of the five contributes an important and indispensable part to the completeness of the history. Here and there two, three, four, or five, may bear testimony to the same particular event of this history, or to the same particular teaching. Even in that case we need all the testimony, as each brings to light some detail not noted by the others. But here and there also an incident or a teaching is dependent upon the testimony of only one of the five. Each one of the five makes special, peculiar, unique, and indispensable contributions. And in both of these respects we recognize God’s uniform method of inspiration: "God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son." And this speaking was recorded partly by Mark, partly by Matthew, partly by Luke, partly by John, and partly by Paul.
Now of these Five Gospels by far the most extensive, the most comprehensive and the most important, is the Gospel by Paul. We are so accustomed to the thought of only Four Gospels that we compare them to the four rivers which watered the garden of Eden.
Before considering in detail the merits of the Fifth Gospel, let us first consider an antecedent matter – the nature and qualifications of the apostolic office. This office was extraordinary. It was limited to the times of the institution of the Christian system. There was no provision for its perpetuity in the church, though some of our Baptist brethren of Virginia once ventured to elect an apostle. Upon certain persons appointed by our Lord’ himself as ambassadors were conferred plenipotentiary powers to act for him in the matters entrusted to them. They were, primarily, witnesses of his resurrection from the dead. Indeed, one could not be an apostle who had not seen the risen Lord. They were inspired revelators of his will, and infallible judges and expounders of the doctrines and discipline he inculcated. They were also the executors of penal judgment, when necessary, as when Peter smote with instant death Ananias and Sapphira, and when Paul smote Elymas with blindness. They were accredited by miraculous signs, as when men were healed by the shadow of Peter, and others afar off by contact with a handkerchief that Paul had touched. They were immune from deadly poisons, and could, by the laying on of their hands, impart the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit. There were two classes of these apostles – twelve to the Jews, and one to the Gentiles. In the case of an apostle to the Jews, it was necessary that he should have companied with Jesus all the time of his Jewish ministry, from the baptism by John to the ascension into heaven. In the case of the Apostle to the Gentiles, it was necessary that he had personally seen the risen Lord, been put into office by him, and had received directly from him the gospel he preached.
Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. He had seen the Lord, was directly commissioned and accredited by him, and by direct revelation received his whole wonderful gospel. It was not of man, nor by man. His knowledge of the gospel was entirely independent of any teaching, preaching, or writing of the other men. For example: Matthew wrote of the institution of the Lord’s Supper as he saw it, Mark and Luke as they received the story of the testimony of eyewitnesses, but Paul wrote of it as the Lord Jesus Christ himself reported it to him, and to Paul are we indebted for more knowledge of the institution and meaning of this ordinance than to all other sources put together. The other apostles could tell it as they saw it, but Paul tells it as Jesus saw it. He commences his account of it by saying, “For I received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you." In like manner, when summarizing his gospel, he says, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised from the dead on the third day, according to the scriptures."
In every way possible he not only emphasizes that his gospel was independent of any human source of information, but makes the reception of it as from God a test of the claims of others: "For if any man thinketh himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandments of the Lord." In this plenipotentiary power he ordained decrees for all the churches; he commanded, restricted, enjoined with all authority. The content of his gospel is marvelous in its fulness, clearness and comprehensiveness. On the pro-existence, original glory and activities of the Son of God, he surpasses John; on the foreshadowing of the coming Messiah in the Old Testament he surpasses Matthew; on his assumption of human nature and the reasons therefore, on his offices as prophet, king, sacrifice, priest, and judge he surpasses all. He alone reveals the termination of the kingdom of God. On the plan of salvation, and on the connecting links of the whole chain of its doctrines, he stands alone. From him, certainly as to its fulness, come the revelation of the universality of the gospel, and the marvelous wisdom of God in the election of Israel, the stumbling of Israel, the call of the Gentiles and the restoration of Israel. The doctrines of the nature, universality and cure of sin, the nature, scope, and purpose of the law, the resurrection of the dead are mainly derived from Paul’s Gospel. Concerning the church, not only as an institution, and not only as an ideal to be realized hereafter, but as a working business body, and concerning its officers, ordinances, discipline and commission, Paul’s Gospel reveals more than all the rest of the Bible. From his gospel also we get the truest and clearest teachings concerning the person, offices, and gifts of the Holy Spirit. There is yet a point touching his gospel of transcendent importance. I refer particularly to the offices and activities of the ascended and exalted Lord. Where is our Lord now? What is his employment there? How long will he remain there, or when will he return to earth again? And why will he come again, and to do what? And what the outcome of that return? Luke, indeed, devotes an entire volume, the Acts of the Apostles, to the activities of the ascended Lord up to a definite time, and so John devotes another book, Revelation, to the same matter projected to the end of time, but certainly it is in Paul’s Gospel that we find most clearly set forth the present reign of Christ on the heavenly throne, the giving and dispensation of the Holy Spirit and the dispensation of the churches.
In this connection I desire to commend with great earnestness to all readers a modern book entitled, The Ascended Christ. It is by H. B. Sweet, and was published in 1910, by the Macmillan Company. There are interpretations of some passages of Scripture in this book that I deem faulty, but on the whole it is a marvelous contribution to the literature concerning our ascended Lord.
These are a few of the things that may be truthfully said concerning the scope and value of the Fifth Gospel. Why is it, then, that harmonies ignore the Fifth Gospel, Great indeed will be the victory of Satan if, by the catchy phrase, "Back to Christ," he can succeed in backing us away from the Gospel of Paul. Though an angel from heaven bring another gospel, let him be accursed. It is an objection to all harmonies extant that they either slightly recognize the Fifth Gospel, or utterly disregard its correlative material, thus giving the student an imperfect view of OUT Lord’s nature, person, offices, and teachings.
It is frankly conceded that the correlation of very much of the material of the Fifth Gospel with the records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, is on many accounts a matter of serious difficulty. Not the least of these difficulties lies in the fact that while the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are mainly historical, each one being in some form a continuous story of our Lord’s life on earth, the Fifth Gospel is mainly doctrinal, and is not in one continuous statement, but widely scattered in many letters, the revelations coming, moreover, from our Lord in heaven. Another difficulty consists in knowing how to limit the amount of the material used and just where to place it in a given case. To some minds a yet graver difficulty would consist in determining just what books of the New Testament contain the Fifth, or Pauline, Gospel. This need not be a difficulty when we accept as certain from Paul the thirteen letters usually ascribed to him, and while some dissent, we count the letter to the Hebrews as Paul’s. In any event, whether Apollos wrote it, as many erroneously claim, or Luke wrote it, as some conjecture, embodying a sermon by Paul, it is immaterial to our purpose and use. It is unquestionably Pauline in its origin and doctrine. Let us not forget that all harmonies of even the first three or four gospels are human, imperfect, obnoxious to objections, and attended with considerable difficulties. The obvious difficulties necessitate imperfection in any human attempt at perfect correlation of the material of the five gospels. But notwithstanding the difficulties, confessedly great, and the objections, confessedly forceful, and the imperfections of the work when done, frankly conceded, it is profoundly believed that by harmonic use of much of the material of the Fifth Gospel the result will be manifold and great, and so justify the effort.
Somewhat is gained at least by fixing the fact in the Bible student’s mind that there are five gospels, equal in authority, and all indispensable parts of a complete revelation of our Lord’s person, nature, offices, relations, and teachings in the four phases of his life already named. The mere fixing of this fact in the mind helpfully serves to check the current of semi infidelity in many schools which seek to discredit Paul by magnifying Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Wherein are their credentials, as reporters of our Lord’s person, doings and teachings, superior to Paul’s? Moreover, the inclusion of the matter of the Fifth Gospel in the correlation will make more apparent the important fact that the Pauline doctrines considered by objectors as most obnoxious or as innovations, will be shown to be in perfect harmony with the very words of our Lord as reported by the other historians, to wit: the doctrines of his essential deity, of the vicarious expiation, justification by faith, election, and eternal punishment.
Yet again, this method affords to the student, on one canvass, a more nearly complete portrait of our Lord, and in one view a more comprehensive summary of his teachings. It is a signal merit of harmony of Dr. John A. Broadus that he includes Paul’s testimony concerning the institution of the Supper and the appearances of our Lord after his resurrection. Why not equally meritorious to correlate Paul’s testimony of Christ’s pre-existence, and his assumption of human nature, with the corresponding records in the other gospels? Certainly to Paul was revealed many most important facts concerning the incarnation and its objects, which belong properly to our Lord’s earthly life, and hence may harmonize with other histories of that life.
Just here we may restate the terminals of the several gospels.
Mark’s Gospel is the gospel of Christ’s deeds, written for Romans, and so he leaves to others the report of all antecedent matters, commences with the public ministry of our Lord, abruptly plunges into the heart of his subject, and as abruptly closes with some evidence of the resurrection. The scope of Mark’s history is like the survey of a small section of a mighty river, which takes no account of the whence, and but little of the whither. He finds it a river, but far from the source, and leaves it a river, far from the sea. The baptism and resurrection of Jesus are the terminal points of his history.
Matthew, who gives the gospel of the King and of the kingdom, writing for Jews to convince them of the messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth, goes back 2,000 years beyond Mark to find a starting point in Abraham, and closes with the Great Commission.
Luke, who writes the gospel of the Saviour, recognizing Christ’s broader relation to humanity, goes back of the Jewish limitations of Matthew’s view another 2,000 years, and starting from the first man, projects his history, including the Acts, into the triumphant years of world evangelization by the apostles. Commencing with Adam, he ends in Paul’s hired house at Rome. But even he strikes the stream at only its human source, or appearance in the realm of time, and leaves it flowing, yet far from the sea.
John, who writes for the Christian the gospel of positive knowledge, assurance, and comfort, and from a more subjective point of view than that of the others, goes back beyond all time, even leaving far behind the initial sentence of Moses: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and starts with the ultima thule of revelation in one direction: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Thus fastening one end of the chain of his story on this altitude of eternity, he swoops far down to the history of creation by Moses, floods it with light, enters into the earth life of our Lord and projects his history, including Revelation, beyond the second coming and the Judgment, into the antitypical paradise. But the river has not yet reached the sea.
Paul, writing for all men, with the broadest view, commences indeed with John, for none can go beyond him in that direction, parallels his course through time, with him entering into the antitypical paradise, and finds the other ultima thule of Revelation in this termination: "Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; . . And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him, that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).
Thus eternity speaks across all time to eternity, and thus we have the four phases of the life of our Lord: his preexistence and essential deity; his adumbration in the Old Testament history; his incarnation, that is, his earth life; his life and activities after ascension and exaltation at the right hand of God.
This is the life we are to study. As stress was laid upon the thorough study of the Genesis of Moses, how much more the study of this Genesis! My father impressed upon the minds of his boys this great principle: In erecting a building, never try to economize on site, foundation, or roof. A good building on a faulty location is a waste; a big house cannot stand on a flimsy foundation; and a faulty roof is a ceaseless eye-sore, abomination, and expense. We should, therefore, take time and exercise the patience necessary to root our faith deep down and ground it solidly on these beginnings and endings in eternity. If we start right we go on well. If we make a pitiful start we drag an ever weightier chain on to the end, and can never answer the supreme questions – who is our Saviour? or, "What think ye of Christ?" They can never be answered if we leave out any of these four phases of his life. Before we consider Mark’s grown man, Luke’s infant, or Matthew’s Jew, we must follow John and Paul back to the real beginning and on to the real end.
Then will we know whom we have believed, whom we worship. Then, when the question is asked in the words of our Lord, "Who say ye that I am?" not as an Arian, not as a Socinian, not as a Sabellian, not as an Unitarian, not any kindred folk, we find the truer answer that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son and Christ of God, the God-man appointed to be prophet, priest, sacrifice, king, and judge.
We are not to understand that all of these five gospels together give a complete biography of Christ as judged by the standard of human historians. Only such matter as is pertinent to the plan of each writer is used. Near the close of John’s Gospel he says, "Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book, but these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in his name." And later he adds the more remarkable words: "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."
A harmony is an orderly correlation in parallel columns of the matter of several independent historians, or the testimony of several independent witnesses.
Having now considered somewhat the inspired histories of the life of Christ, I name some of the many human histories of that life. While many more could be named, those that are named have been carefully examined upon every point set forth in our discussion of the life of our Lord. They are: Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; Farrar’s Story of a Beautiful Life; Noah K. Davis’ Story of the Nazarene; Stalker’s Life of Christ; Deems’ The Light of the Nations; Young’s The Christ of History; David Smith’s In the Days of His Flesh; Sweet’s The Ascended Christ; McLear’s New Testament History; that infidel’s romance, Renan’s Life of Jesus; Henry Ward Beecher’s Life of Christ; Fleetwood’s Life of Christ; and the following parts of Josephus: Antiquities, books 14-18, War of the Jews, from Book I, chapter 10, to Book 2, chapter 9.
Of all these human lives of our Lord, it is a matter of surprise to find Beecher’s the weakest and poorest.
QUESTIONS 1. How many gospels are there?
2. What evil trend of modern thought necessitates special emphasis on the Fifth Gospel?
3. What is its garb and slogan?
4. What is the limit and effect of its method?
5. What is the real meaning of its slogan, "Back to Christ"?
6. Name and estimate two valuable books called forth by this discussion.
7. How does Dr. McGregor classify the objections to Paul’s Gospel?
8. Who is the real person back of the whole movement against Paul?
9. What is the nature, limitation, and qualifications of the apostolic office?
10. What two classes of apostles?
11. In what respect does Paul’s knowledge of his gospel differ from Matthew’s and John’s, from Mark’s and Luke’s and illustrate by the account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper by Matthew, by Mark and Luke, and by Paul.
12. Set forth the merits and superiorities of Paul’s Gospel.
13. What are the difficulties of correlating Paul’s Gospel in a harmony with the other four?
14. Notwithstanding the difficulties, what is the gain?
15. What two items only of Paul’s Gospel does Dr. Broadus include in his harmony?
16. What are terminals of each of the Five Gospels?
17. What is a harmony?
18. What books covering the life of our Lord are named, and what parts of Josephus are recommended for reading?