Reading Four Books at Once: Using a Harmony of the Gospels

Reading Four Books at Once: Using a Harmony of the Gospels

by | Aug 27, 2017 | Bible Study

Picture

The Four Gospels are a focal part of the Bible for all Christians and one most of us spend a good deal of time in reading each year.  Although simply reading through the four accounts of the life of Jesus is certainly all we need to do to grasp their essential message, there are other ways we can occasionally approach these books for a fresh perspective and to help us see things we otherwise would have missed.

One of the best alternative ways of reading the Gospels is to use a “harmony” that arranges the material of the four books in such a way that we can read the different accounts of each event together.  The value of doing this has been understood for centuries. In fact, the earliest known harmony of the Gospels, the Diatessaron by the ancient Christian scholar Tatian, was compiled in the 2nd century – almost two thousand years ago! This work attempted to merge all four accounts of Christ’s life into one continuous story.  More refined variations of the Diatessaron using this or other techniques have continued to be made up to the present day, when we can now choose from among many print and online harmonies.

So what can we get out of using a harmony of the Gospels that we would not learn by simply reading through them separately?  Not only do we find all the information on a given event together in one place, but also a harmony makes it possible for us to see things that one Gospel account has that may not be mentioned in the others – unique details that may help us better understand the same story in the other Gospels. 

In addition to helping us to notice small but important details, harmonies also help us to get the larger overview – almost like merging photographs of a person taken from four different angles into one complete “three-dimensional” image. A harmony also often allows us to understand where stories which only appear in one of the Gospels fit into the overall flow of the others – to see them in their original setting.   Seeing what is unique in each Gospel helps us get a sense of what is important to each writer, what he is trying to focus on and what his particular message is.

For example, the birth of Jesus is described in two of the Gospels – Matthew and Luke.  The two accounts tell the same basic story, but when we put them side by side we find many details in Luke’s account that fill out Matthew’s story of the Nativity – such as the census that forced Mary and Joseph to go to Bethlehem and the story of the Annunciation to the shepherds.  Matthew, on the other hand, gives us details such as the story of the wise men, the flight into Egypt, and King Herod’s massacre of the children in his attempt to kill Jesus.  Both accounts tell us the essential story, but a harmony helps us to bring all the details together and in proper order. It also helps us to see that in many cases Luke focuses on the social background of the life of Jesus, while Matthew’s focus is more often on political aspects of the time that affected Jesus’ life.   While this is just a simple example, in cases where events are described in three or all four of the Gospels, a harmony can be even more useful in bringing all the facts together.  

Harmonies are usually of two types – “synthetic” or “parallel.”  Either they synthesize or merge the different accounts into one single story flow as Tatian’s original Diatessaron did, or (more commonly today) they use a format with the material from the Gospels placed side by side in parallel columns.  The parallel harmonies are often more useful because they help us to see what is not in a given Gospel as well as what is there so we get the clearest picture of what each author wanted to stress.

Making such a harmony is not simple, however. In the course of his ministry Jesus travelled around preaching in many of the cities and towns of ancient Galilee, Judea and their surrounding areas.  This makes it likely that he repeated the same messages at different times and in several places.  For example, both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke include Jesus’ instruction on how to pray – the Lord’s Prayer – but Matthew gives this as part of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:9-13), while Luke sets the prayer at a separate time after Jesus had been praying and his disciples asked him how to pray (Luke 11:2-4). This means that in some cases it might seem that material in a harmony is not in the correct place or is being duplicated, but most modern harmonies are constructed with careful scholarship that takes this situation into account.

Today there are many harmonies that you can consult or read through in your regular Bible study.  Some just compare the three similar or “synoptic” Gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke – while others also include John’s Gospel, which is sometimes difficult to mesh with the others, but which often adds much additional material, of course.

For a single column harmony with all the Gospels merged into one story, you can try the one online at:   https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/harmony/index.cfm
For an online multiple-column parallel harmony, you can look at the one here:    http://biblehub.com/parallelgospels/
You can also download a parallel harmony based on the NET Bible here:
https://tacticalchristianity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Peyton_GospelHarmony.pdf

Whether you choose to purchase a printed harmony for use in your study of the Gospels or elect to use one of the available free online versions such as those mentioned here, using a harmony can give you a fresh and often fascinating view of the story these books tell.  Whether you are a new student of the Bible or have read it for many years, using a harmony can enrich your study in ways that deepen your understanding of the gospel story and give you a much better knowledge of the unique and special emphasis of each verbal portrait of Christ. 

Who Was the “Prophet” Like Moses?

Who Was the “Prophet” Like Moses?

by | Aug 20, 2017 | Difficult Scriptures

Picture

Scripture in Focus:
​
Now this was John’s testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Christ.” They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No” (John 19-21).

When the Jewish religious leaders questioned John the Baptist about his identity, he told them he was not the Messiah (the Christ), Elijah, or “the Prophet.”  These were three figures mentioned in the Scriptures who the Jews believed would be revealed in the end time: the longed for Messiah (Isaiah 11:1-10, etc.), a second “Elijah” (Malachi 4:5-6), and a great prophet “like Moses” (Deuteronomy 18:15).   From our perspective as Christians today, we know the Messiah was, of course, Jesus. 

We also know that just as Elijah was a forerunner of his successor Elisha, John the Baptist was a forerunner of Jesus (Isaiah 40:3, John 3:30); and in that way and others, John fulfilled the role of a second Elijah (Matthew 11:7–14, Luke 1:17).  But the prophecy of the second Elijah could also be applied to Jesus himself, who did many of the same signs as Elijah in his ministry (2 Kings 2:11, etc.).

But that leaves the expected “Prophet.” Was that individual a second Jeremiah or other Old Testament prophet, as many of the Jews of Christ’s time thought?  Or could the prophecy relate to some modern day spiritual leader, as some religious groups have claimed – or even the prophet Mohammed, as many Muslims claim?

There was certainly confusion as to the identity of “the prophet” in the time of Jesus. The Jews knew that Moses had told their ancestors “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him” (Deuteronomy 18:15). But some thought that prophet would be synonymous with the Messiah, while others thought he would be a different individual. Some understood the words “God will raise up” a prophet to mean that God would resurrect one of the Old Testament prophets such as Isaiah or Jeremiah, which is why we read in Matthew’s Gospel that when Jesus asked his disciples who people thought he was, they replied, “…Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets” (Matthew 16:14).

However, the New Testament clearly shows that the prophet spoken of by Moses was not one of the individuals active in Old Testament times (much less some more recent or modern individual), but Jesus Christ himself.  Jesus plainly stated that Moses wrote about him: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me” (John 5:46).  The disciple Philip told Nathaniel: “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law ..” (John 1:45).

If we believe what the Scriptures say regarding the eventual appearance of another prophet like Moses, we must also believe what the Bible says in telling us who that prophet was.  In his great Pentecost sermon the apostle Peter confirmed that the prophet was Christ himself:

“… that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people’”(Acts 3:20-23).

So the New Testament makes it clear that the prophet to come was neither one of the Old Testament prophets nor any individual after the time of Jesus.  The Messiah, the Elijah, and the Prophet like Moses are all clearly identified in the New Testament.   In some ways, Jesus Christ fulfilled the promised roles of all these individuals, though we have seen that John the Baptist did fulfill at least a partial role as a second Elijah.
​
Interestingly, in the transfiguration of Jesus before his chief disciples (Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36), Jesus appeared in a glorified state along with Elijah and Moses.  The vision of these three individuals is not coincidental and reflects the Jewish expectation and longing for the Messiah, a second Elijah, and the Prophet like Moses. When we understand this, we realize that the transfiguration revealed Jesus not only as being with Elijah and Moses, but also as a manifestation of the Messiah, the Elijah, and the Prophet like Moses.

On Not Running Ahead

On Not Running Ahead

by | Aug 13, 2017 | Obedience

Picture

The idea of “running” the Christian “race” is a motif frequently found in the New Testament to describe the successful Christian life. 

​The apostle Paul uses the metaphor a number of times, for example describing his own running (“Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly…” – 1 Corinthians 9:26) and urging others to run with care (“You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth?” – Galatians  5:7).  Likewise the Book of Hebrews urges believers:  “… let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us” (Hebrews 12:1).

Countless articles have been written and sermons preached on this concept of “running the race marked out for us,” but one scripture that is rarely quoted in this context is found in the second epistle of John:

“Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 1:9, emphasis added).

This verse is not often quoted, as it is not as easy to understand as most scriptures that use the analogy of running.  What does John mean in saying that we must not “run ahead”?  Even some modern versions of the Bible seem to have had difficulty understanding the verse, as they translate the expression “whoever sins” rather than “whoever runs ahead.”  But it is clear that John wrote “runs ahead,” and we need to understand what he meant by this if we are to understand what the sin is.

While it is possible that John meant that everyone who sets himself forward as a leader – putting himself “ahead” of others – is doing wrong, this does not fit the context of the verse very well.  It is far more likely, considering the overall message of John’s letter, that the apostle was warning his readers against going ahead of or beyond the truth of the Gospel that had been delivered to them.   This meaning seems to be clear, in fact, in the second half of 2 John 1:9 which says: “… whoever continues in the teaching.…” This does not directly apply to those who advance their own positions, but it does apply to those who somehow distort the teaching of Christianity.

If this is John’s meaning, his admonition that we should not “run ahead” is clear, because his letters continually argue against those who were adding to the original gospel message.  False Christians who were forerunners of the Gnostic philosophers of that age considered themselves to be advanced in their thinking and to be in possession of “higher” knowledge.  John shows that these individuals lured many Christians away from the original truth that they had been given (1 John 2:24, 26). 

John counsels us not to “run ahead of” or add to the truth we have been given in any way. It is a message he repeats elsewhere in his writings: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll …” (Revelation 22:18).   Taking away from the teaching God gives us is an equally serious problem (Revelation 22:18), but John makes it clear that adding to what God instructs us is not only an error but also a sign that we “… do not have God” (2 John 1:9).

We need not be openly mixing pagan philosophy with the teachings of Christianity – as the ancient Gnostics did – to “add to” the word of God. We can add to the truth God gives us more subtly by basing what we believe and do on human traditions  rather than on what the Bible actually teaches (Matthew 15:9), for example, or we can break the principle of not adding  to the word of God by accepting the pronouncements of astrology as a guide in our lives.

We can even “add to” the word of God by excusing things in our behavior through carefully selected “proof scriptures” that do not give the whole biblical picture and therefore create a meaning different  from what the Bible intends overall.  The principle that John stresses can apply to us in many ways, and it is one we might think about to ensure that it does not.  John’s words remind us that we are called to run, but we are also cautioned not to “run ahead.”

What Being the “Salt of the Earth” Means

What Being the “Salt of the Earth” Means

by | Aug 6, 2017 | Discipleship

Picture

Every Christian knows Jesus’ words that his followers were to be the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-16).  Being the light of the world seems easy to understand – it clearly involves the responsibility to “illuminate” the world through the witness of our lives and, of course, to reflect the light of the God who himself can be described as “Light.”

​But what about the salt – what exactly does that represent?  Salt was used for many different purposes in the Middle East during the 1st century, so there are a number of possibilities regarding what Jesus intended. We should consider all of the most likely meanings.

1. Perhaps the most obvious possibility is that Jesus’ reference to our being “salt” has to do with the use of salt as a flavor enhancer (Job 6:6) –  that we are to make the world more pleasing or “palatable” to God (Romans 8:8).

2. Salt was also widely used to preserve food, especially meat which would spoil quickly in the heat of the Palestinian desert environment.   The sense of long-lasting preservation is seen in the biblical expression “a covenant of salt” (2 Chronicles 13:5).

3. Salt was utilized to purify things such as offerings made in the tabernacle or temple (Leviticus 2:13).  This is the meaning behind Jesus’ words “For everyone will be salted with fire …” (Mark 9:49) and Paul’s words “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6).

4. On the other hand, the ability of large quantities of salt to kill vegetation and render land unusable led to salt being used metaphorically for the concept of emptiness and destruction (Job 39:6, Ezekiel 16:4, etc.).

5. Despite the fact that large quantities of salt kill all plants, much smaller quantities were used as the world’s oldest chemical fertilizer.  In fact, after vegetation has been killed by a heavy application of salt, the plants often eventually come back more profusely.  Because the word “earth” in Jesus’ expression “you are the salt of the earth” can mean “soil,” some commentators feel that he may have meant his followers were to bring new life to the world, like a little salt to soil; but the likelihood of this meaning is certainly unsure in this context.

6. Ancient peoples also often put salt on the wicks of oil lamps to cut smoke and increase their brightness.  This meaning seems attractive as the use of salt in this sense would then be parallel with light, in believers being both “salt and light.”  But in Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:13-16, salt is discussed before light is mentioned, indicating he probably had a more common use of salt in mind.

Many other meanings have been claimed for Jesus’ words based on other uses or characteristics of salt. For example, some have claimed that just like salt, believers can make the world thirsty for God’s truth.  But this and similar ideas are somewhat fanciful and would not have been understandable in the context of what Jesus said without explanation. Likewise, it is commonly thought that Roman soldiers were paid in salt (hence the word “salary”), so that salt might have been a symbol of the disciples’ “worth,” but in fact the Empire’s soldiers were paid in normal money (or not at all), but not with salt.

Because Jesus did not explain which aspect of salt he intended in using the metaphor, we must presume that he had the most basic aspect in mind, which would mean that either or both meanings 1 and 3 above – salt as a flavor enhancer or a purifier – are most likely what he had in mind and how his hearers would have understood the expression. Understood in either of these ways, being the “salt” of the earth would certainly mean that we represent the world to God, just as in being the light of the world we represent God to humanity (Matthew 5:16).

But Jesus’ words also hold some practical aspects in his use of salt as a metaphor. After saying “you are the salt of the earth,” Jesus proceeded to say “But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men” (Matthew 5:13). This is interesting as salt cannot actually lose its saltiness unless it is diluted by water or mixed with other substances. Salt spoiled in such a way might often have simply been thrown out on the street, and it is also possible that such low grade salt was spread on Roman roads to inhibit vegetation growth. In either case it would be “trampled by men,” but the lesson would be that our belief and behavior must not be diluted by things of the world around us.

There is another way that spiritually we might lose our “saltiness.”  Jesus also told his disciples “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other” (Mark 9:50, emphasis added). This suggests that our saltiness can be lost through a lack of peace with one another, and that we may cease to fulfill our function of making the world more acceptable to God by our “saltiness” either being diluted, as we saw above, or by not living peaceably with others.   These obstacles to successful discipleship are both worth thinking about.