part0017

What we have been exploring in this book so far have been the “searchable” riches of Christ, that is, those things revealed about Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures. In the previous chapter, we learned with 20/20 hindsight about what could have been searched out if the Jews had had eyes to see, or had known what we know and believe now. We are continuing to lay the foundation of these “searchable riches” so that when we begin to explore the Church Epistles, we will be able to appreciate the “unsearchable” things that are revealed there, things that not even hindsight into the Hebrew Scriptures could have revealed.

One of the most important sections of Scripture are the Four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These are the only books in the Bible that specifically record the events of the life of Jesus Christ. As such, they set forth the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies about Christ’s first coming. Therefore, the Four Gospels are actually a part of and the conclusion of the “Old Testament.”

According to 2 Timothy 3:16, the text of Scripture is “God-breathed .” This means that it has the very life of God in it, and was originally perfect in every detail. However, it has been “man-handled,” that is, man has added things to the Bible that often cause confusion. Perhaps one of the most confusing of these additions has been the page in the Bible between Malachi and Matthew that says “The New Testament.” Our experience among Christians is that almost all of them believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a part of the “New Testament.” This error has many significant and harmful ramifications.

The “New Testament” title page was placed there by Church councils and authorities long after the time of Christ and the first-century Church, because of the generally accepted distinction between Scriptures written in the Hebrew language and those written in Greek. This man-made title page actually had nothing to do with the “Testament” or “Covenant” of God. The word diatheke is the closest Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word for “covenant,” but it means something closer to “will” or “testament.” Thus, the New “Testament” would better be translated the New “Covenant,” in order to express its continuity with the Old “Covenant.” This fact is widely known and believed.[1]

There is much evidence to show that the New Covenant did not start in the Four Gospels, which begin with events before the birth of Christ. Just before his death, Christ said, “…This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20), so the New Covenant could not have started until at least the death of Christ. Actually, the greatest changes in God’s dealings with man took place on the Day of Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 2. The following examples make that clear: circumcision became unnecessary, not in the Four Gospels, but on the Day of Pentecost; Temple sacrifice became obsolete, not in the Four Gospels, but at Pentecost; all believers became “priests” and had access to God, not in the Four Gospels, but at Pentecost. The same is true with the Sabbath laws, keeping the feasts of the LORD and going up to Jerusalem three times a year, etc. Also, the gift of holy spirit was given to all believers, not in the Gospels, but on Pentecost.[2]

Exactly when the Four Gospels were written is unknown, and the subject is hotly debated. Most of the estimates range from 50 to 90 A.D. That means the Gospels were written during, or perhaps after, the time when the Apostle Paul was penning the Church Epistles. Nevertheless, the Gospels certainly were not written to take us back under the Old Testament law, but rather to show us the heart of our Savior.

Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels because “synoptic” literally means “to view together,” and these three books share a similar view of the Lord’s life and contain much overlapping information in their narrative accounts of the life of Jesus. John presents a unique and independent view of Christ with less than ten percent of its material paralleled in any of the Synoptics.

The basic synoptic witness of Christ is that Jesus was conceived by divine conception and born of Mary when she was still a virgin. He began his existence as a baby, and grew up in Nazareth of Galilee. At the age of 30, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist in the river Jordan to inaugurate his earthly ministry. On that occasion, the spirit of God descended on him in the form of a dove, and he went forth in the power of that spirit to the wilderness, to be tempted by the Devil. He successfully resisted those temptations, and went on to Galilee, where he announced his ministry, using the text of Isaiah 61:1 and 2 to describe his mission. He continually validated the Hebrew Scriptures as his standard of faith and practice, and encouraged others to do the same.

There is no mention in the Synoptic Gospels of anything that could be construed as a “pre- existence” or remembrance of a former life in heaven. Jesus is portrayed as a man who walked in the certainty of his unique Sonship and divine calling, displaying a remarkable intimacy with God, whom he referred to as his “Father.” No one had ever before presumed to have such an intimate relationship with God. He claimed to act and speak with divine authority and represented God as no one had ever done before. He also manifested the power of God like none before him, healing multitudes, feeding multitudes and casting out demons. He is portrayed as standing in God’s stead, doing and saying what God would do and say. He forgave sins and corrected the traditions that had been handed down (“You have heard it said, but I say…”). He asserted authority over the weather, and even the Sabbath. His miracles displayed God’s power on a scale that had never been seen before.

Yet he always gave God glory for everything he said and he did. He never claimed to be God, and was even very veiled in his use of Messianic language and claims. The only title he chose to apply to himself was “the Son of Man,” which was an ambiguous term that could refer either to the Messianic figure of Daniel 7:13 or it could mean, simply, “a certain one” in Aramaic.

He chose 12 Apostles, and taught them and the people using many stories and parables. He chose the company of common people and sinners rather than the religious leaders and the “righteous” Jews. Because of his many miracles and wonders among the people, he attracted the attention of the authorities, who considered him a false prophet and Messianic pretender. On a number of occasions they plotted to kill him, but because of his popularity with the people they had to await the right opportunity. Finally, one of his disciples betrayed him to the Temple authorities, who came late at night and arrested him apart from the crowds. His disciples mostly scattered and ran away.

After a mockery of a trial and several episodes of beating and torture, he was taken before the Roman authorities, Herod and Pilate. Though there was no evidence of his having committed a capital crime worthy of death, the Roman procurator Pilate finally gave cowardly consent to his crucifixion, blaming the angry mob. Thus, he died on a tree in the midst of four criminals, on Wednesday, the 14th of Nisan, 28 A.D. [3] One of his disciples, Joseph of Arimathea, received permission from Pilate to take Jesus’ body and bury it in a tomb near the place of crucifixion. Three days and three nights passed, and finally, early Sunday morning, Mary Magdalene discovered that the tomb was empty. Shortly thereafter, she spoke with the resurrected Lord. She then told the other disciples, who eventually believed. Jesus made various appearances to his disciples during the next 40 days, made certain promises, gave them some instructions, and then ascended into heaven.

The gospel of John generally agrees with the above account, but it handles so much unique material written in such a different style that it paints a picture of Jesus Christ significantly different from that of the Synoptic Gospels. This is so much the case that we will handle it separately in Chapters 8 and 9, after we focus on the Synoptic perspective of Jesus as a veiled Messiah in Chapter 7.

About ninety percent of Mark is found in Matthew and fifty percent in Luke. Ninety-five percent of Mark is paralleled in either Matthew or Luke or both. Sixty-five percent of Matthew is paralleled in either Mark or Luke or both; and fifty-three percent of Luke is paralleled in either Matthew or Mark or both. What this appears to mean is that each of the three Gospels shares most of its material with one or both of the other two. This is why these three Gospels are called the Synoptic Gospels. This also accounts for what is called “the Synoptic problem.” The Interpreter’s Bible outlines their view of this “problem.”

How did it happen that out of all the remembered deeds and sayings of Jesus these three gospel authors chose much the same material and presented it in much the same order and to a considerable extent in much the same wording—a wording that comes to us, not in the Aramaic in which Jesus regularly spoke, but in Greek? The same problem can be stated from the other side: How did it happen that these authors of the first-century Church, dealing with the Gospel story, with material of the utmost importance to every Christian, continually show striking agreements and tantalizing differences in material selected, order used and wording? This combination of similarities and differences is called the Synoptic problem.[4]

To solve this “problem,” New Testament scholars have hypothesized that there was a common source of historical information about Jesus that was drawn upon in the writing of all three Gospels. The theory is that Matthew, Mark and Luke each started with this historical source and added their own material to it. This hypothetical source, called “Q ” after the German word for source (Quelle ), has never been found, and in our opinion, never will be. Why? Because there was no such source . “Q ” is in reality “G ,” as in “GOD ,” who inspired each of the Four Gospels according to His own purpose and design, and who is the true “source” for each one. This is the simple and elegant solution to the so-called “Synoptic problem.” We will now proceed to explore the evidence as to why there are Four Gospels, each written as it is.

Why are there Four Gospels? The best answer we have is twofold. First, the existence of Jesus Christ required written records attesting to the events of his life, death and resurrection. Had Jesus written an autobiography, his critics would have immediately dismissed it as self-promotion. In accordance with the ancient Jewish method of authentication, wherein “two or three witnesses” were required to establish credibility (Deut. 17:6, 19:15; Matt. 18:16; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28, et al. ), the record of his life had to come from others . Although Mark and Luke may not have been “eyewitnesses,” as were the Apostles Matthew and John, their accounts have been recognized by most Christians not only as authentic historical documents, but also as God-inspired records of the life of Christ. For those with eyes to see, faith in the integrity of God’s Word and understanding of some of the things we will share in this chapter, these four accounts harmonize perfectly and speak loudly of their divine inspiration. Not only do they fit with each other, they fulfill many aspects of the prophetic portrait of the Messiah that we have been looking at in the previous chapters. As the Christian Apostles and disciples went forth to preach in the book of Acts, they proved from Scripture that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the Promised Messiah.

But, alas, many serious Bible students and scholars do not believe that the Gospel records are inspired of God. In fact, from our experience we would have to say that the vast majority of Bible scholars have given up the idea of the full inspiration of Scripture, and particularly the Gospels. They believe that the Four Gospels are full of inaccuracies and fictitious sayings that are attributed to Jesus but which are really things made up by later Christians.[5] They have also given up on the idea that the contents of the Gospels can actually be harmonized without contradictions. In our opinion, they have done so in ignorance of the role of faith and trust in the handling of Scripture. They have figuratively analyzed the text to death—not the death of the indestructible text itself, but rather its “death” in their own lives.

Like the secrets of nature, the beauty and order of God’s Word is opened up to those who approach it with respect, reverence and humility. As Richard Hays says in Christianity Today , a “hermeneutic of trust” must replace the cloud of suspicion that surrounds the New Testament, particularly the Four Gospels.[6] We agree with E. W. Bullinger when he writes: “The Four Gospels are treated in the “Companion Bible” not as four culprits brought up on a charge of fraud, but as four witnesses whose testimony is to be received.”[7]

Luke begins with a personal testimony about how he wrote his Gospel. We think it is important to quote, because it applies not only to the Four Gospel writers, but to all those who were inspired to write Scripture.

The above translation of verse 3 (“after investigating everything carefully”) places the emphasis entirely on Luke’s own personal diligence to ensure that what he is writing is accurate. We have no doubt that God moved Luke, the “holy man of God” that he was, to gather eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life as a part of his being moved by holy spirit to write Scripture (2 Pet. 1:21). But Luke recorded many long discourses, prayers and events that happened 40 years prior, and even “eyewitnesses” begin to forget details in just a few years. We are hardpressed to find real comfort in the accurate recollections of people 40 years after the fact. Obviously, we need to look deeper for the answer to how Luke could be so sure that what he was writing was not only accurate, but that it would minister certainty to “Theophilus.”

The key is in the Greek word anothen , translated in verse three above as “from the very first.” Though this is one possible lexical translation, Greek lexicons give the first meaning for anothen as “from above,” or “from a higher place.”[8] It is used of the rending of the veil of the Temple “from the top” to the bottom when Jesus died. This word has a poetic overlay of meaning that is perfectly appropriate to this passage. Luke received his information “from above” at the same time he was investigating the eyewitness accounts of events of “the beginning.” He did his best to acquire accurate information, but God gave him the final, inspired account to write, one with the life of God in every word. This is the faith that we must have as we study the text, that the men who penned it were invisibly and powerfully guided to write what God inspired them to write—the truth—for His purposes and from the right perspective. The closer you look, the better it looks.

The second reason there are Four Gospels is that each is written from a different perspective, and together they comprise a very profound, prophetic and precise fourfold pattern for who the Messiah would be that had already been foreshadowed long before by the Old Testament prophets. It is very sad that this truth appears to have been stolen from both the scholar and the average Christian. We hope that this book helps restore confidence in the veracity and integrity of these Gospel records, upon which a large measure of our faith depends.

Indeed, our very salvation depends in large part upon the reliability of these four historical records of the birth, life, death and especially the resurrection of Jesus Christ. A deeply held belief in the resurrection as a fact of history is a vital element for our eternal salvation. The closest thing we have to a “formula” for salvation in the New Testament, Romans 10:9, asserts: “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead , you will be saved.” Are we not trifling with the bedrock of our salvation when we entertain doubts about the integrity and accuracy of any part of Scripture? But most crucial are those parts that make historical claims upon which our salvation depends!

As mentioned, the second reason there are Four Gospels is that there is a fourfold pattern or paradigm in Scripture regarding the “searchable riches” of Christ, one that has its roots in an important prophetic Hebrew term, the tsemach . Tsemach means “sprout” or “offspring,” and often is translated “Branch.” Tsemach paints a mental picture of a new sprout or shoot coming up out of a dead-looking stump, and in the Hebrew Scriptures it is used five times in direct prophetic reference to the Messiah and aspects of his life. We saw in the previous chapter that “the branch” was a common term for the Messiah, but five Old Testament verses in particular lay out a fourfold prophetic pattern describing the Messiah’s existence to the very end of his redemptive work. The first two verses portray the “Branch” as the King, the third verse as a servant, the fourth as a man, and the fifth as “the Branch of the Lord,” i.e., one directly from the LORD .

These four terms establish a definitive paradigm or a pattern for the person and work of the coming Redeemer. Of all the terms that we looked at in the last chapter that could have been used to define the life and ministry of the Messiah, it is these four that are singled out and built upon in the Four Gospels. It behooves us as lovers of Christ and students of the Bible to search out the richness of their meaning, both as individual terms and as they relate to one another. They will prove to be a fertile source of insight.

The first thing we see is that they subdivide according to one of the most basic distinctions we can make about any person: who he is and what he does . That is, there is an important distinction between a person and his work or function. The same is true of “the offspring,” the promised Redeemer. Two of the four terms refer to his person —Son and man , while the other two relate to his work —King and servant . The designation Son defines his role in relationship to his Father. Man defines him as being a member of the class homo sapiens , which says a lot about who he is as a person. King describes his function in terms of his position and authority, and servant describes his attitude toward the work that he does. Both kings and servants are almost entirely defined by their function or work. Whoever he is as a person, the king derives his authority from his position or function as the sovereign of his realm. The servant’s life is entirely defined by his work, which he performs for another person. The purer the servant, the less his personal life is relevant.

Intrinsic to these terms is another important distinction in the life of the Messiah: he is humbled and he is exalted, that is, both “sufferings” and “glory” will characterize his life. Most men drift in the “misty flats” of mediocrity, but this man will be either loved or hated, on top or on the bottom. How accurately the Word of God delineates his experience even before he was born! We will now illustrate the interrelationship of these four roles using a matrix to see the patterns emerge more clearly:

Understanding these four aspects of the life and ministry of the Redeemer is absolutely crucial to accurately handling the information contained in the Four Gospel records. Without this insight, cutting the cornerstone squarely would be nearly impossible. In fact, it is significant that there would be four sides to his life, considering that he is called the cornerstone . A “square” is defined in geometry as a plane figure having four equal straight-line sides, with each adjacent pair forming a right angle. There is a metaphorical richness to this word “square” that is very relevant to this study. When we do not want to do the work required in a particular job, we are tempted to “cut corners.” An accountant squares accounts to bring them into a state of even balance of debits and credits; a square bank statement leaves no remainder unaccounted for, but is in perfect balance with one’s checkbook. A carpenter uses a square to check for straightness or perpendicularity. In logic or rhetoric, a square statement is an unequivocal statement, the words it employs being clearly defined and consistent in their use throughout an argument or speech. In our study of the identity of Christ, we want our conclusions to square with all the biblical information and harmonize without any remainder. And because we want to build upon the rock of Christ, we want to make sure we are cutting the cornerstone as accurately as the Bible does.[9]

Each of the Four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—views the person and work of Christ from one of these four different perspectives: King, Servant, Man and Son. As we begin to view each of these Gospels, we see that this paradigm is reflected right away in the varied handling of Jesus’ genealogy. Each genealogy supports the theme of the Gospel in which it appears in a way that speaks powerfully of God’s inspiration to those with eyes to see. We will now present some highlights of this remarkable example of scriptural precision, but we encourage the reader to study this subject in further detail in order to see the pattern for himself.

Matthew, which presents Jesus as a King from the line of David, starts out with the “…record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David…” and then gives the genealogy from Abraham, the one who was promised the land, through King David, who was promised the kingdom in a covenant of salt with God (2 Chron. 13:5). Mark, which portrays Jesus as the servant of God, has no genealogy, which makes sense because a servant’s genealogy is not relevant. The gospel of Luke, which portrays Christ as a man , has a genealogy that traces Jesus back to Adam, the first man. John, which portrays Christ as the Son of God, starts out by saying that God, in the beginning, had a plan, purpose or wisdom (the logos ) that became flesh, that is, the Son “comes from” the Father. The Old Syriac translates John 1:18 this way: “the only begotten Son who is from the bosom of the Father.” This is a very short genealogy: the Father had a Son, an only begotten Son. Thus, we see that the genealogy in each gospel fits the purpose of that gospel.

As we continue to explore each gospel in depth, we find more and more evidence that each gospel represents just one particular aspect of this fourfold paradigm. This goes a long way toward explaining the supposed “discrepancies” and “contradictions” between and among them.[10] Matthew has a number of unique characteristics that point to Christ as King. The phrase, “the kingdom of heaven” is associated with the specific reign of the Messiah on earth. It occurs more than 30 times in the gospel of Matthew, but not once in any of the other Gospels, which use the phrase, “kingdom of God.” Matthew is the only gospel that records the visit of the Magi, who came to Jerusalem and asked, “…Where is the one who has been born king…?”(Matt. 2:2).

The title, “Son of David,” occurs ten times in Matthew and only six times in all the other Gospels combined. There are a number of parables of the Kingdom that are unique to Matthew, and only Matthew records the “sheep and goat judgment,” when the king lets the righteous into his kingdom but excludes the unrighteous (Matt. 25). We should note that outside of the Four Gospels there are only a few other places in the New Testament that refer to Christ as a “King.”[11] However, the title “King” is amplified to “King of kings” in 1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14 and 19:16.[12] Yet where he is not specifically called “King,” he may still be referred to as being positionally exalted, as in his titles or functions “Lord” or “Head.”

The gospel of Mark is short, simple and forceful, emphasizing Christ’s works more than his words. Commentators have long noticed that Mark focuses more on what Jesus did than what he said , which makes sense because obedient action is the sign of a good servant. Mark also moves quickly from one event to another. Even the vocabulary reflects this pattern. The Greek word eutheos (“immediately”) occurs 40 times in Mark but only 27 times in all the other Gospels combined. That statistic is made even more vivid when one realizes that there are only 16 chapters in Mark, but 73 chapters in the other three Gospels combined. A valued servant is humble, and quick to obey. In describing Christ’s servanthood, Philippians 2:8 says that he “…humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross.” Appropriately, more than a third of Mark takes place in the last week of Jesus’ life placing special emphasis on his obedience and personal sacrifice.

Luke presents the Messiah and his relationships in a way that highlights his humanity as the Last Adam. Luke opens with information on the parents and birth of John the Baptist, giving information we would expect to find in a “human interest” story. It gives details about the birth of Christ and his presentation at the Temple that show that Jesus was subject to the same laws and regulations as every other Jewish child. The gospel of Luke portrays two particularly poignant scenes from his infanthood: the aged believer Simeon living long enough to take the child up in his arms and prophesy over him; and the 84-year-old prophetess Anna who prayed faithfully day and night in the Temple, being blessed by God to see her longed-for Redeemer.

Luke clearly portrays Jesus’ great love for all mankind, and describes him as a warm and loving person. Commentators note that the book of Luke portrays Jesus’ special concern for the poor, sinners, women and the family more clearly than any other gospel. Uniquely emphasized in Luke is Christ sympathetically acknowledging the Gentiles. It emphasizes forgiveness and also highlights Jesus’ prayer life, as well as the value of prayer itself.

The gospel of John presents Jesus as the “only begotten” Son of God, and we will be exploring this aspect of his life and ministry in more detail in Chapter 8. Suffice it to say here that Christ’s intimacy with his Father is uniquely portrayed in that gospel, as would be predicted of a literary portrait with the theme of Jesus as the Son of God. For example, the word “father” occurs as many times in John as in all the other Gospels combined. Theologians have long noticed that John is different from the other Gospels and truly unique. This fits with our expectations, because, as “the only begotten Son of God,” Jesus is truly unique.

It should be clear from this brief examination of the evidence that this paradigm is powerfully stamped upon the Four Gospels, and provides powerful evidence of their inspiration. There is absolutely no evidence that these four writers collaborated on their writing to produce this remarkable result. Like all the different writers of the Bible, they each wrote independently of one another, separated by both time and space.

But there is even more evidence of a divine stamp on this fourfold paradigm. It proves to be a consistent pattern throughout the entire Bible. We will point out a few of the most noteworthy examples. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the Tabernacle was a detailed physical representation of the coming Messiah, and had four colors in its scheme: blue, white, crimson and purple (Exod. 25:4). Purple represented royalty, or Kingship. Crimson represented the shedding of his blood as a Servant. Blue represented his humanity, and white reflected the sinless purity and glory of his divine Sonship.[13]

Also related to the Messiah are the four creatures of Revelation 4:6 and 7, which are the same as the four cherubim of Ezekiel 1:10: lion, ox, man and eagle.[14] The lion is “the king of the beasts,” and hence represents the Messiah as King . Christ is also referred to as the “lion of Judah” in Revelation 5:5. The ox is a beast of burden and is therefore man’s Servant (see Deut. 5:14). The man is obviously the Messiah as Man . The eagle represents Christ as the Son of God , because the eagle is the most majestic of all fowl, soaring high in the heavens. It also has the loftiest perspective and the best eyesight of any animal.[15] This truth relates powerfully to the glorious perspective of Jesus Christ adopted by the gospel of John, as will be seen in Chapter 8.

Even the elements and combinations of the name of Jesus Christ can be analyzed in terms of this fourfold pattern. There are four permutations of the name “Jesus Christ”: “Jesus,” “Christ,” “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus.” The many occurrences of these four terms sort themselves into the same four categories we are studying, with only a few exceptions. “Jesus ” of Nazareth is the man from Galilee. This is the name given him by an angel before he was born, and represents him as a person without supplemental descriptions or titles.[16] In general, the term “Jesus” refers to his earthly life from birth to his being raised from the dead. But we must remember that it is his given name, and therefore it continues to be used throughout the New Testament.

“Christ ” is equivalent to the term “Messiah,” and relates to his work of service . In the Greek language, chrio means “to anoint,” and the English word “Christ” comes from chrio . The Hebrew word “to anoint” is mashach , and “anointed” is mashiach . The word “messiah” is from mashiach and means “the anointed one.” Thus, the “Messiah” and “Christ” both mean the same thing, “the anointed one,” “Messiah” coming from the Hebrew, and “Christ” coming from the Greek.[17]

All through the Hebrew Scriptures, “anointing” had great significance. Priests, prophets and kings were all anointed with oil (Exod. 40:13; 1 Sam. 10:1, 16:13; 1 Kings 19:15 and 16), in recognition of the fact that the important work set before them would require divine guidance and help. On occasion, even objects used in the service of God were anointed (Gen. 28:18; Lev. 8:11).

The words “the anointed” thus emphasize the work, function or task for which the person or object was anointed. Acts 10:38 clearly relates his being anointed to the Messianic work for which Jesus of Nazareth was called.

Another way to understand the distinction between person and function is this: “Christ” relates to the job that needed doing and “Jesus” is the person who did the job.[18] This means that Jesus did not actually become “Christ,” i.e., “the anointed one,” until he was anointed at his baptism at the age of 30. That is why Peter said that God “made this Jesus…both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). Logically, he would have been made “Christ” (i.e., empowered to be the Christ) when he was anointed, but was declared to be Christ categorically and conclusively at his resurrection when the earthly phase of his Messianic work, and therefore his “sufferings,” was finished.

We consider it an inescapable conclusion that “Jesus” would have been unable to do the work of “Christ” had he not been anointed with holy spirit and power, despite being the Son of God by birth. Thus, the term “Christ” rather strictly relates to the work that he was called upon to do and highlights the humility with which he would approach it. This is why the Synoptic Gospels portray him as the graciously-enabled adult servant rather than the privileged Son (predictably, the baptism of Jesus by John is not included in the gospel of John—See Chapter 8).

“Jesus Christ ” is the combination of his name that is used most commonly in conjunction with “the Father,” and hence it relates to his role as the Son . God is “the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ ,” never the “Father of the Lord Christ,” or “the Father of our Lord Jesus,” etc. Generally, “Jesus Christ” is the person who is the Son of God seated at the right hand of God with whom we are personally connected. It is “Jesus Christ” with whom we have personal fellowship (1 John 1:3; 1 Cor. 1:9). It is he who gave personal revelation to Paul (Gal. 1:11 and 12). Putting “Jesus” before “Christ” places the emphasis on his person, and therefore his relationships with his Father and his family. Though he is the exalted Lord seated at the right hand of God, he is personally acquainted with every member of his Body, who are his brothers and sisters in the family of God (Heb. 2:11).

“Christ Jesus ” emphasizes his exalted position at the right hand of God, and is related to the aspect of Messiah as one who functions in an exalted position of authority as King . The king has authority not from his personal qualities but from his position . Anyone can serve as a king and have authority, even if he is a buffoon. “Christ Jesus” also emphasizes the objective aspect of the Messiah’s work and accomplishments. The term “Christ” preceding “Jesus” places the emphasis on the legal rights, privileges and responsibilities of believers that have resulted from his finished work. This compound form of his name is used most often with “in” and “by,” again emphasizing not his person but his exalted position. We “rejoice in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:3 - KJV), meaning in this case that the source of our joy is his completed work on our behalf. This is not to say that having a personal relationship with him is not a source of joy, only that the term “Christ Jesus” does not have that emphasis.

We will conclude this study of the fourfold paradigm by quoting an old, familiar passage in light of what we have just learned. Knowing the extensive biblical depth of this paradigm and what each term means helps us properly interpret a passage such as this:

Through the years, we have heard many people who do not believe in the death and resurrection of Christ call the Bible “a good book” or say that it “contains moral lessons.” However, if Christ did not do the miracles the Bible says he did, nor rise from the dead, and if his disciples and the writers of the Bible foisted a huge hoax on mankind by saying he was alive when he wasn’t, then the Bible is neither good nor moral. The Four Gospels are the history and account of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They testify to what Christ said and did. They also claim to be an authoritative record of his identity: the only-begotten Son of God who died, but was raised from death, and who now sits as Lord of lords at the right hand of God.

Aside from the accuracy of the narrative account of his life, we have many specific prophecies that the Gospels claim are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The fact that he fulfilled prophecy after prophecy is powerfully persuasive evidence of his Messiahship. As prophesied, he was a descendant of Adam and David. He was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, spent part of his life in Egypt, grew up in Nazareth, etc. In The Signature of God , Grant Jeffrey gives the odds of one person being able to fulfill just 17 of all the prophecies that Christ fulfilled. It is: 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1.

That huge number is really impossible to conceive of, so Jeffrey gives it in the following analogy: imagine that every star and planet in the entire Milky Way galaxy is made of sand, just sand. That would not be as many grains of sand as the above number indicates. So one person trying to fulfill all those prophecies would be like someone having one guess to find one specific grain of sand in an entire galaxy of sand.[19] Good luck!

There is much more reason than just prophecy to consider the Gospel records reliable, however. Scripture records that after his resurrection, Jesus “…gave many convincing proofs that he was alive…” (Acts 1:3). That is the reason why Christianity is around today. Had Jesus not shown himself alive, his disciples would have scattered and there would be no Christianity. This was already starting to happen, as evidenced by the two disappointed disciples who were walking away from Jerusalem when he appeared to them and convinced them he was alive (Luke 24). Mary Magdalene, upon seeing the empty tomb, did not conclude from this fact that there had been a resurrection; instead she thought someone had carried off Jesus’ dead body (John 20:10–16). But she, too, was convinced when Jesus personally appeared to her. After Jesus appeared to these disciples, they were convinced of the resurrection but were unable to convince the other disciples. The Apostles were only convinced by Jesus himself, who “appeared to the eleven as they were eating: he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen” (Mark 16:14).

It was Jesus’ personal appearance to the Apostles and to the others that convinced them that he was alive and thus was worth living and dying for. Jesus had been unable to convince the Jews to believe in him, and yet Peter, less than two months after the last time Jesus himself had entered the Temple and taught the people, stood up on the Day of Pentecost and addressed many of the same people who had recently shouted, “Crucify him.” Peter boldly told the people that they had crucified their Messiah, but that God had raised him from the dead and made him “Lord.” The resurrection was not a question in Peter’s mind. Standing there with the other Apostles, he told the crowd, “… we are all witnesses of the fact” (Acts 2:32). Of course, the talk of people seeing Jesus alive after his death had gotten around, and on the Day of Pentecost about 3000 people believed. That was a good start, and Christianity spread rapidly after that.

The Bible is a “good book” (actually, it is the best book!) and it is a “moral book.” It is not built on a hoax or a lie. Jesus is the Promised Messiah, and he died for the sins of all of us just as was foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures, clearly portrayed in the Four Gospels and recounted and expanded upon in Acts and the Epistles. Christianity spread rapidly after the resurrection, and it is still spreading. If Christianity has spread to you, and you are a Christian, we thank God for your salvation and encourage you to continue in the grace of God. Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing…” (John 14:12). The Gospels clearly portray what Jesus Christ did. Now we can honor him and his Father by going and doing the same things.

If it has not “spread” to you yet, we urge you to honestly consider the evidence and make the decision to believe it. A person is saved when he personally confesses and believes what Scripture clearly says: “…if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9).

Make Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior, because he is the promised Messiah. His life stands at the very crossroads of eternity. It is he before whom every person who has ever walked the earth must one day stand and acknowledge as Lord. It is he for whom Christians labor, bearing the Good News of his coming to the ends of the earth, that every man would know how to answer the Lord’s question: “…who do you say that I am?”

The Gospels are part of the Old Covenant even though they were written after it had come to a close. It is important to realize that a portion of Scripture written during one administration or covenant can be about another administration or covenant. Since all Scripture is “God breathed,” an accurate account of events can be given either before an administration (prophetically, such as the information about the New Heaven and Earth given in the Old Testament) or after it. The “Old Covenant” (and the Law Administration) was started when God and Israel made a covenant together at Mt. Sinai. This was around 1450 B.C. , about 2500 years after Adam. There at Mt. Sinai God gave the Ten Commandments and other laws by which Israel was to govern their lives and society (Exodus chapters 21–23). These were written in a book called, “The Book of the Covenant” (Exod. 24:7). Moses gathered the people, killed sacrifices and sprinkled one-half of the blood on the altar of the Tabernacle, which represented God. Then he read the Book of the Covenant to the people of Israel. They all agreed to obey it, so Moses sprinkled the remaining half of the blood from the sacrifices onto the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:8). Thus what we know as the “Old Covenant” was born. This establishment of the “first covenant” (Heb. 8:7; 9:1, 15 and 18) between Israel and God is noted in Hebrews 9:16–22. Although we commonly speak of Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, etc., being a part of the Old Covenant, technically they are not, since they predate the making of that covenant. Thus Moses wrote about the Original Paradise, Conscience and Patriarchal administrations after they had come to a close, just as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the four Gospels after the “Old Covenant” had come to a close. We would not think that Noah was under the Old Covenant and the Law simply because Moses was the one who wrote down the record about Noah. Similarly, we should not be confused into thinking that the Gospels are somehow part of the Grace Administration simply because they were written down during the Grace Administration.

[2 ]. The Day of Pentecost initiated an administration (often called a “dispensation”) of God called “the administration of God’s grace” (Eph. 3:2), which was a “Sacred Secret” (“Sacred Secret” is a better translation of the Greek musterion , translated “mystery” in Eph. 3:4, 5 and 9; Col. 1:26 and 27) in the past, but revealed by God to the Apostle Paul (Eph. 3:2–13). For more information on this entire subject, we refer you to our website: www.TLTF.org, click Bible teachings/articles/Administrations. Under Bible Teachings you can also click on audio and listen to: “Administrations in Scripture ” and “The Purpose Of The Ages. ”

[3 ]. There are many details about the crucifixion that we believe are misunderstood by most Christians. In op. cit., The Companion Bible, Appendix 164, Bullinger does an admirable job of describing why Scripture testifies that there were actually four men, rather than two, crucified with Christ, and other scholars have also attested to this fact. The 28 A.D. date for the death of Jesus Christ has long been a qualified candidate, and we feel it is the proper one. It can also be shown from Scripture that Christ died on a Wednesday, not a Friday, thus giving time for the “three days and three nights” in the grave of Matthew 12:40.

[6 ]. “The New Theologians,” Christianity Today , Feb. 8, 1999, p. 30. Richard Hays (Professor of New Testament at the Divinity School of Duke University) presented a paper at the 1996 conference of the Society of Biblical Literature in which he called for a “hermeneutic of trust” to replace the suspicious view of Scripture that is the cornerstone of much modern scholarship. In his paper, Hays called for, “nothing less than a reverent, humble, Christian reading of the Bible—a stance that is rarely, if ever, articulated in American universities.”

[9 ]. Because the gospel of John was written late and was a late addition to the New Testament canon, there was some controversy over its acceptance. F. F. Bruce comments on how this Gospel came to be accepted as canonical by the early church “fathers”: To Irenaeus the fourfold character of the gospels is as axiomatic as the four quarters of the world or the four principal winds. (Irenaeus’ Against Heresies , 3.11.11, cited in F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John , William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1983), p. 11.

[13 ]. White is associated with sinlessness. Revelation 7:14 describes the garments of those who endure through the Tribulation, being washed white in the blood of the Lamb. Normal blood will stain fabric permanently, but the Lamb’s blood cleanses and turns the fabric white. This is due to the sinlessness of his blood (cp. Isa. 1:18). White garments are also associated with glorious angelic visitations (Dan. 7:9; Matt. 28:3; Rev. 15:6 - KJV). In the Transfiguration, Jesus is glorified and is seen in brilliant white garments (Matt. 17:2). White is used also in a pejorative sense associated with religious leaders attempting to cover their own sinfulness (Matt. 23:27; Acts 23:3). Blue is associated with the Law, which was necessary for the proper governance of man’s life. Crimson and purple are customarily associated with blood and royalty, respectively, in both the Bible and secular literature.

[14 ]. Cherubim are associated with epochal events in the unfolding of redemption history. Lucifer was “anointed as a guardian cherub” (Ezek. 28:14), but fell, making the redemption of creation necessary. Cherubim guarded the east side of Eden, preventing Adam and Eve from eating fruit from the tree of life (Gen. 3:24). Images of cherubim are incorporated into the very design of the mercy seat in the holy of holies in both the Tabernacle and the Temple. In Ezekiel 10 and 41 we see the glory of the LORD leaving and returning to Israel accompanied by the cherubim. Finally, the cherubim are referred to as the “four living creatures” of Revelation 4:6–8, 5:8–14, 6:1–7, 7:11, 14:3, 15:7 and 19:4, and are associated with the intense worship of God and the restoration of Paradise. In some sense, these cherubim point to the Christ and his complete and ultimate destruction of Lucifer, who was once a cherub himself. Biblically, a cherub is a spirit being of great power and majesty, representing the presence and authority of God. It is no accident that the image of a “cherub” in modern times has degenerated into a chubby little Cupid-like creature who is the spiritual equivalent of the Pillsbury® doughboy. The Devil demeans and ridicules what he himself once was.

[15 ]. God’s creation is replete with examples of minerals, plants and animals that illustrate biblical truths, in this case shedding light on who the Messiah was to be. This phenomenon is not a circumstantial accident, but by deliberate design. For instance, the Devil is called a serpent because he is crafty, stealthy, and highly poisonous. One day, the Messiah will crush his head, the best way to kill a Serpent. Those who embrace an evolutionary model of the origin of life can see “nature” only as an accidental combination and recombination of molecules, and they miss out on the enriched perspective of the natural world as the work of an intelligent Designer, the same one who is the also the Author of the Bible.

[16 ]. The use of the unadorned name of “Jesus” is particularly significant in Philippians 2:10 where we see that every knee must bow at the name Jesus —this one who started out as a baby but who is now the highly exalted Lord. Some, like E. W. Bullinger, have correctly noted that nowhere in the New Testament is he ever called only “Jesus” when directly addressed by his followers, and that it is his enemies (John 18:5 and 7, 19:19; Acts 4:18, 5:40, 6:14, 26:9) and demons (Mark 1:24, 5:7) who refer to him as “Jesus” in direct discourse. Some have concluded from this that his followers should never refer to him as “Jesus,” either in direct address or otherwise. We regard this teaching as very impractical and legalistic. We have seen firsthand the verbal paranoia that can be generated among those who are exposed to this teaching. One becomes uncomfortable even uttering a verbally naked “Jesus” in any context, and must always quickly clothe it with one of his titles—Christ, Lord, etc.

We cannot imagine that Jesus himself would want his brothers and sisters feeling uncomfortable every time they say his name without any adornment. First of all, there is no biblical injunction against such use of the name “Jesus.” It is, after all, his God-given name , as distinct from a title or appellation. Second, the resurrected and glorified Lord still identified himself as “Jesus” when appearing to Paul in Acts 9:5 (we suppose he did so because it continues to be his name ). The angel at his ascension referred to him as “Jesus,” and Peter uses his simple name three times in his sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2:22, 32 and 36). The disciples refer to “Jesus” when praying to God in Acts 4:27 and 30 (and they weren’t struck by lightning). Finally, Paul uses an unadorned “Jesus” throughout his Epistles with a precision and power commensurate with his being a holy man inspired to write Holy Writ (See 2 Cor. 4:11; Eph. 4:21; 1 Thess. 1:10, 2:15, 4:14). Having thus made our point, all we can say is Praise JESUS! Thank you, JESUS! We love you, JESUS!

If he was not called “Jesus” by his followers in direct address, what was he called? The most common term was “lord,” a title of respect at least equivalent to “Sir,” but with a meaning ranging from “Sir” to “master” or “owner” (See Appendix B). Sometimes he was called “Rabbi,” mostly in John (8x), a title that was keenly desired by the Pharisees (Matt. 23:7), and equivalent to “Teacher.” Against this backdrop of Pharisaical arrogance, Jesus taught his disciples about the use of titles for the purpose of personal elevation. He expressly discouraged them from referring to themselves as “Rabbi,” because they were all brothers, and they had only one “Teacher,” namely he. In that same context, he also forbade the use of the titles “Father,” because there is only one Father (our heavenly Father), and “Master,” because he was their only Master. This latter title (Gk. kathegetes ) was never used of him, and since this is the only use of this word in the New Testament, we cannot be certain of precisely the way Jesus used it since it has a wide range of secular usage. Though he discouraged their use of titles for themselves by identifying himself as their Teacher and Master, he did not seem to expect them to refer to him as such. They continued to refer to him primarily as Kurios , and he made no attempt to correct them. The bottom line of this discussion about titles, however, is that they ought not to be used to elevate oneself. Humility must be the mark of Christ’s followers (Matt. 23:8–10).

[17 ]. The astute reader will have picked up on the fact that since many people in the Bible were anointed, there were many “Messiahs” or many “Christs.” When David said that he would not kill King Saul because he would not “…lay a hand on the LORD ’s anointed…” (1 Sam. 26:9), the Hebrew text reads “the LORD ’s mashiach ,” or Messiah. Thus, in the Bible there were many messiahs, but only one true Messiah, just as there are many saviors, but only one true Savior. For more on the use of Savior, see Appendix A (Luke 1:47).