An Aerial View of the New Testament - Part 1

PDF

Tonight, is going to be a little different because of what I hope to do. Tonight, we begin in the New Testament what we completed in the Old Testament—a flyover; a survey; a look at the contents of the New Testament from thirty thousand feet if you will. I want us to begin tonight, and you do need to buckle your seat belts because I have far more than I ever have hopes of covering, but I want to begin by looking at a historical timeline. I think it's important to sort of get the perspective of the New Testament. And of course, it starts with the birth of Jesus Christ.

If I ask the average person when Christ was born, the answer nine times out of ten would be (what?) zero or better between BC and AD, between BC meaning "before Christ" and AD, Latin Anno Domini, meaning "in the year of our Lord." But it's not quite as simple as it seems to attach times to the life of our Lord. In fact, it's a very difficult thing and it's difficult for three reasons. Now I'm going to include a lot of things I'm not going to comment on the slides. They're there because we're going to print them out for you who want them in the future to have them and so there will be things there that I'm not going to comment on tonight so don't worry if you notice that. That's okay. But I do want to comment on some things as we go through.

It's difficult to attach times to Christ for three basic reasons. First of all, in the New Testament era, there were a number of ways that eras were marked, the most common being, for example, the Roman Era. They rounded to January 1 of the year that they believed the city of Rome was founded January 1, what would be in our calendar 753 BC. There were other standards. The Greeks—July 1, 760/776 BC. So there were all of these varying eras that were represented in different calendars.

Secondly, there was no standard new years, but there were a variety of times in the ancient world when the New Year was begun depending on where you lived. In Egypt, it was August 29—again, in our calendar. Syro-Macedonian, it was October 1. The Jewish calendar compared to our September/October or perhaps March/April depending on which group of the Jews you're talking about. The Julian calendar—January 1. And so, you can begin to see immediately the problem of trying to draw times together.

Well, there's a third problem and that is the current calendar, the current approach of the Christian era that we have, BC and AD based on the birth of Christ, did not begin until AD 525—our calendar. It was the work of a man who did it in conjunction with the Easter tables and he says, and I quote there, "We have chosen to note the years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ" and it stuck. And so now, we have a calendar that is based on BC (before Christ) and Anno Domini (in the year of our Lord), but it wasn't framed up until 525. Because of the problems I've just shown you, he was a little wrong and we'll talk about how he's wrong.

Now the dates that I'm going to share with you I've adapted from several resources, and I encourage you if you're a serious student, you want to get some things, these would be great places to go. Primary resource would be Thomas and Gundry's Harmony of the Gospels. That's a great resource for any Christian. Basically, it takes the gospel accounts and sets them side by side chronologically so you can, and I've done this and enjoyed it very much, you can start with the very beginning of the New Testament information and read through the gospels, but they're all there side by side and chronological. Not all of the gospels report every incident, so you get sort of a flow of the life of Christ.

A second resource is the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. That's a pretty hefty, I think, four volume set. You may not want that. Zondervan Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia—also a four- or five-volume set. And John's study Bible, Macarthur Study Bible and the Macarthur Bible Handbook. Also helpful is a little book called Chronological Aspects in the Life of Christ by Harold Hoehner. Again, this is for those of you who are teaching, who are serious students, but he does argue for a slightly different timeline than the one I'm going to share with you tonight. The others are pretty much united in the approach they take.

So, let's begin with the birth of Christ. When was Christ born? Well, there are several clues that those who, that are scholars in this field look for in the gospels. The first one is the census that's spoken of the census of Quirinius in Luke 2. We can't be absolutely sure when that occurred, but we can put a window of time from 8 BC to AD 6 so that's not very helpful.

The star of the magi isn't helpful at all because it probably wasn't a star, an astronomical sort of display. Instead, more likely, it was the Shekinah, that glory cloud that led the children of Israel in the Old Testament because you remember, of course, that it came and stood over the house where the child was. So very likely it was not some event in space, but rather it was a display far more localized like the Shekinah, the display of the glory of God in the glory cloud. So that's not helpful at all.

Then you have the course of Abijah. You remember that the priests served in rotations based on various families. Zechariah, John the Baptist's father, heard about his birth, remember, while he was in the temple. Well, you can sort of calculate from that. And we've found with the Qumran Dead Sea scrolls a six-year almanac that tells us that this annual rotation began on Tishri the first. I know that's very exciting to you, but when you put it all together and here's where you land. Based on when Zechariah and his family served in the temple, and then you figure Jesus, the annunciation to Mary and so forth and here's what you land on. The annunciation to Mary would've been in the spring and Jesus' birth around the time of the winter solstice.

Now as far as the month and the day of the birth of Christ, we cannot be sure, but there is an ancient tradition. That ancient tradition in the Eastern church has His birth on January 6 and in the Western church on December 25. Disregard those years. I'll come back to that, but just look at the month and the day—the Eastern church January 6, the Western church December 25.

And by the way, I understand all about the pagan celebrations and all of that. I've read all of the information, so you don't need to give me any more of that, but according to an ancient document, this date, the December 25, was held to be Christ's birth date in the second century BC. As you know, the more ancient a tradition, the more likely there is some validity to it. We can't be sure. This began to be observed during the time of Constantine, but it was recognized before that.

By the way, a major argument against Jesus being born in December or January, which is when it appears He was born, is the shepherds were tending their flock at night. Well, that's not really a strong or valid argument against it. It's not a serious problem. You can read Harold Hoehner's book, and you'll have a number of good answers or responses to that.

But the main way we can date the birth of Christ is by the death of Herod. Herod, we know from the Scripture, was alive when Jesus was born. We know that Herod ordered the death of the infants in Bethlehem in response to the arrival of the magi. Herod died, we know this from secular history, he died somewhere between March 29 and April 4 of 4 BC. So that means Jesus was born no later than the winter of 4 BC—like January/February—and no later than 6 BC. Why do we know that? Well, remember Herod had the children killed how old? Two and under—he was probably giving himself a margin of error. He wouldn't have wanted to allow the rival king to live. And so, when you put all of that together, you land with the reality that Jesus was born no later than the winter of 4, or no earlier rather, and no later than 6 BC—so somewhere between 4 and 6 BC. And we'll come back to that a little later—actually next week.

What about His ministry? When did His ministry begin? If He was born between 4 and 6 BC, when did His ministry begin? Well again, there are three major points of Biblical reference that help us. One is we're told in Luke 3 when He begins His ministry that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. We have a little problem because the rule of Tiberius Caesar had two beginnings—one when he was the sole ruler at his father's death and then you add fifteen years to that, you get AD 28/29 or when he became co-regent with his father while his father was still living. You add fifteen years to that, and you get AD 26/27. That earlier date is more likely as you'll see in a moment.

The second clue we get is that Jesus, we're told in Luke 3:23, was about thirty years of age. Now about thirty would imply somewhere probably between 28 and 32. We can't be sure, but that's sort of a normal window if you say someone is about thirty. And that means if He was born in 5 BC let's say, which is what I'm going to argue for, you will see in a little bit, that means He was thirty in the year AD 26.

A third sort of reference point for the beginning of His ministry was we're told in John 2:20 that the temple had been in process of being remodeled for forty-six years. Now it wasn't complete until many years later—in fact, just before it was destroyed in AD 70. So, but this statement was made at Jesus' first Passover, at the first Passover of His ministry. And we know that Herod began the work back in 20 or 19 BC. So, if you take 20 or 19 BC, you add forty-six years, you end up with the year AD 26/27. So, you see that when you look at the evidence, it sort of comes down on Jesus' ministry beginning in that window of time, the 26/27.

What about the length of His ministry? How long did His ministry go on? Well, there are a variety of views on this as well ranging from one year—I don't understand how anyone could say based on the Biblical data that Jesus' ministry was only one year long, but there are those who write and defend that position—up to four years. There are a few who say that His ministry was four years. But the most widely held view based on the evidence is that His ministry was a little over three years and here's why. It's based on the apostle John's chronology and particularly that John identifies at least three Passovers in Jesus' ministry. They're in John 2:13, John 6:4 and John 11:55.

So, when you put the evidence together, this is a flow of the life of Christ. And we'll come back to this, but I want you to see the big picture. Period one was several months lasting from His baptism probably in mid-year in the summer to His first Passover. And this is in Galilee and Judea. Period two begins with His first full year between Passovers and this ends with a Passover that's not in the Biblical record, but there are a couple of clues there that I've given you, John 4:35 and John 5:1, that tell us there was probably a Passover in there. And this ministry was in Judea and Galilee. The third period was the second full year between Passovers. It ended with the Passover of John 6:4. This period was mostly in Galilee. And then the fourth period was the final year between Passovers around Galilee, Judea and Perea and it ended with the Passover of His death in John 11:55 and following. So, His ministry, as you can see, was three full years plus a few months at the beginning.

What about the day of His death? Well, there's thorough Biblical evidence on this one. It was on Friday. I've read the views, have heard them defended of Wednesday and Thursday, but Friday is the clear winner biblically. It's called the day of preparation in a number of passages throughout the gospels. That is always Friday. In fact, the Greek word for "preparation" is still the word used in Greek language for Friday. It was on the fourteenth of Nisan which was Passover. And I'm not going to get into the details of all of this, but basically the Sadducees and John used a sunset-to-sunset calculation of the day and so it was on the fourteenth that Jesus died. The Pharisees and Matthew, Mark and Luke used a sunrise-to-sunrise calculation of a day and so Jesus was on the fifteenth, but you get the idea.

And by the way, that explains why Jesus and His disciples eat the Passover on the night before His crucifixion, but on the day He's crucified, the Sadducean leaders say they had not eaten the Passover even though Jesus and His disciples had. It's because they reckoned the days differently—some from sunrise to sunrise, others from sunset to sunset.

What about the year of His death? Well, He was crucified we know during the governorship of Pontius Pilate, and we know the dates of that—AD 26 to AD 36. Nisan 14 fell only on Friday two years that will work during that timeframe and they are April 7, AD 30 and April 3, AD 33. And based on everything else I've shared with you, we end up with an AD 30 crucifixion date. His ministry began in the 26 range. It was three, a little over three years. We end up with His being crucified on April 7, AD 30.

So let me give you a summary timeline of the life of Christ. Here it is. Let me just walk you through it. Probably around 5 BC, Jesus is born. 4 BC, Herod the Great dies. Fast forward to AD 26 and sometime in the spring of that year, John the Baptist begins his ministry. In the summer, Jesus is baptized. In the fall, you have the temptation, remember, over a forty-day period of time. AD 27, with the winter, you have the end of John's ministry and the beginning of Christ's. Through the spring, you have His first Passover. You skip ahead to AD 28—the twelve disciples are called probably in the January/February timeframe of AD 28. They had been with Him, you remember, but then He called them to Himself as the twelve at that point. The summer was His great Galilean ministry. The fall—the first public rejection and His ministry of parables begins.

You go to AD 29, you have His final Galilean campaign, His Judean ministry. And then AD 30, of course, is the culmination of His ministry. In the winter, you have His ministry in and around Perea. April is the Passion Week. April 7 is the crucifixion. April 9 is the resurrection. May—you have, forty days after the resurrection is the ascension. And then also in May, fifty days after the feast of Passover is Pentecost when Peter preaches, and three thousand people come to faith in Christ there in the city of Jerusalem and from other places because of the feast. So that gives you sort of a timeline of the life of Christ.

That's important. You need to kind of plug that away. We'll print these out so you can have them, but it gives you a little bit of an idea as you read the gospel accounts where it fits. We're going to look at the ministry of Jesus in more detail and give you some idea of what He did when in coming weeks, but I just want to give you that sort of overview as we begin.

Now I want us to move from that timeline to a sort of special introduction to the gospels. The first four books of the New Testament are entitled The Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The English word "gospel" comes from an old Anglo-Saxon word "godspell." which means "a good story." It's translated actually from a Greek word euangelion and that word literally means "a good message or good news." In secular Greek, it was used to speak of a report about an important event. So, the four gospels are reports of the most important event in all of human history. And I put it this way—the gospel is the announcement that God has made to men of the pardon of sin, the restoration to His favor, the renovation of their nature, eternal life, all received freely by grace alone through faith alone based on the person and work of Jesus Christ alone. That is the good news.

So technically, we do not have four gospels. We have one gospel told from four different viewpoints. Why? Why do we need four? Well, there are two reasons I think that stand out. No single account can adequately exhaust the life and character of Jesus Christ. John finishes his gospel with these words: "There are many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." There's no way one writer can exhaust the person of Jesus Christ. Four can't, but four at least can give us different viewpoints that allow us to see the beauty of Christ. Think of it this way: It's as if God gave us four accounts so that we could hold the life of Christ up as a beautiful diamond and, with each turn, see a different facet. That's what the gospel writers allow us to do—to see different facets of the beauty and wonder of Jesus Christ.

There's a second reason we need four and that's because each account of His life and death has been written with a particular audience and a particular purpose in mind. These aren't sort of aimless historical accounts. These are purposeful. They were written to a particular audience for a particular reason. And so, each writer then chose the deeds and words of Christ that would best communicate his main objective and so it's important that we understand that.

With that in mind, I want to briefly introduce you to each of the gospel writers and their purpose for writing tonight. That will take the remainder of our time. And I want to do this in some detail because this is the foundation of our faith. Jesus Christ is our faith, and the information we have of Him comes from the gospel accounts. And unfortunately, men who are critics, who are liberals, who attack the faith of Christianity have tried to undermine the historicity and validity of the gospel writers and their accounts. So, my goal tonight is to sort of unload on you with the evidence for the gospels that we have in our Bibles. And the weight of the evidence is absolutely overwhelming, and it crushes every critic and I want you to see that. I'm not even going to tell you everything, but I think when we're done tonight, you'll get a feel for how overwhelmingly documented these gospel accounts are. They are more documented; they are more well-documented than any ancient writing. Anything you studied in school, I don't care what it is, I can promise you, I can guarantee you there is far more historical manuscript evidence and supporting and corroborative evidence for the gospels than for any other ancient document you've ever studied. The reason they're attacked is not because they don't have proper ground and support, but because of what they claim.

So, let's, with that in mind, let's move first to the gospel of Matthew—Matthew. And I want us to go through these in some bit of order beginning with the author. Who was it that wrote the gospel of Matthew? You say, well that seems pretty obvious. Well, yes and no—it doesn't begin by saying that "I, Matthew, am writing you this account of the life of Christ." So how do we know that it's Matthew? Well, there's a number of external pieces of evidence that support Matthew as the author of the first gospel. Papias, writing in the second century AD, said that Matthew wrote his oracles in the Aramaic dialect and that every man interpreted them as he was able. Irenaeus, also writing in the third century, indicated that Matthew wrote his gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome. Origen, the same basic time period, acknowledged that tradition taught that Matthew wrote the first gospel. All of the evidence from that early on uniformly supports the authorship of Matthew. No other author has ever been suggested for the gospel of Matthew.

A brief biography of Matthew—his name means "gift of God." He was also called Levi. You know that he was a tax collector before Christ called him. He would have been hated by the Jews. The tax collectors were people typically who were considered to be traitors against their own people because they would buy tax franchises from the Romans and they would not only charge what the Romans demanded, but they would extort additional money for their own financial benefit. They were hated. They were considered the lowest of the low, and yet Jesus calls this man to be one of His disciples and he ends up, by transformation, being one of the gospel writers.

All of the synoptics record his call. He's really not a major player in the New Testament. In fact, he's mentioned only in connection with his call as an apostle and included with the list of twelve. That's all we know about this man apart from the gospel that he wrote. He's last mentioned in the New Testament when he was in the upper room waiting for Pentecost and for the coming of the Spirit in Acts 1. Tradition gives us a lot of different details about his life and ministry. We can't be definite about any of them, but some say he went as far as India ministering.

As far as when he wrote his gospel, there really are two versions of Matthew. There is the Aramaic Matthew—a number of the early writers comment on this. He originally wrote in the language that was spoken in Israel in the time of the first century and if so, then that was written about AD 50. And then we have the Greek Matthew, which he wrote in the probably early 60's. Josephus talks about the fact that Matthew originally wrote in Aramaic, was translated into Greek, and that only the Greek remains so somewhere in the early 60's probably for the Greek version of Matthew that we have today.

The audience for Matthew was the Jewish people. A number of the early church fathers testify that it was written for Jewish believers living in the land of Palestine. Origen, for example, says "it was prepared for the converts from Judaism." Eusebius says, "Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other people, committed his gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence."

Why did he write? If he was writing to the Jewish people, what was his purpose for writing? And we'll look at this in coming weeks in more detail but let me just give it to you in summary. His purpose was to present Jesus as the Messiah and her King, or we could put it differently—to present Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messianic promise and the rightful heir to the throne of David. Matthew quotes more than sixty Old Testament prophecies to show that Christ is the fulfillment of all of those Old Testament promises. So, Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, uses the Old Testament to prove that Jesus is her Messiah and her King.

Let's move on to Mark. Mark's name doesn't appear within the book itself, but the unanimous testimony of the early church was that Mark was in fact the author. Again, we have evidence that he wrote this book from Papias. His evidence came directly from the apostle John, he claims. He says that Mark was an interpreter of Peter, that he wrote down accurately, though not in exact order, the things that Christ did and said. You'll see this theme of Mark being an interpreter for Peter over and over again. Justin Martyr says Mark wrote the memoirs of Peter. Irenaeus: Peter and Paul went to Rome to preach the gospel, and after their exodus (and we don't know exactly what that means), Mark preserved what Peter preached. Clement of Alexandria—again, you'll notice that all of these are very soon after the death of the apostles—says that after Peter had preached in Rome, those who heard him asked Mark to write out the messages and that's what you have in the gospel of Mark. Tertullian simply said that Mark's gospel was in fact Peter's gospel. In other words, John Mark was a sort of amanuensis of sorts for the apostle Peter. Origen: Mark wrote his gospel as Peter guided him. So over and over again, you come up with the conclusion that from the earliest days of the church, Mark was accepted as the author of the second gospel, he was a close companion of Peter, and he received his material from Peter and was directed by what Peter instructed him.

A brief biography of this young man—he's called John Mark, John whose surname was Mark. He was not a disciple, but he was completely acquainted with many of the activities from the life of Christ. It is possible Peter led him to Christ. He calls him in 1 Peter 5 "my son." He's a cousin of Barnabas. His home in Jerusalem was a center of church activity. He accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey, but you remember he went with him, but he quickly returned home. And when it came time for the second journey, that became a real source of conflict because on the second missionary journey, Barnabas determined to take John Mark again and there was a sharp disagreement between them so that they parted ways. Paul took Silas and Barnabas took John Mark. But apparently, there was a reconciliation between Paul and Mark because in two other New Testament passages, Paul refers to Mark as his helper, his fellow worker—in Colossians 4 and in Philemon verse 24.

It's possible that Mark remained in Rome after Paul left and joined with Peter when he arrived. He's last mentioned, and I love this—after all of that that happened in the life of Paul, Paul finds himself in his second Roman imprisonment facing death. He's going to be executed soon. He ends his last New Testament letter, 2 Timothy 4:11, with these words: "Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service." So here was a young man who struggled, didn't start out well, but who by God's grace ended well and we have a gospel under the inspiration of the Spirit written by him.

When did he write? Well, we can't be absolutely certain, but it was probably in the AD 50's. To whom did he write? Well, he wrote to the Romans, and we know that for a number of reasons. Matthew wrote to the Jewish Christians. Mark wrote to a Roman audience. And there are a number of ways we know that. First of all, there are more Latin expressions that he uses instead of Greek ones. He translates Aramaic expressions. Now remember, Aramaic was spoken by the Jews in Palestine, but he translates it into Greek to make sure they understand it. He wouldn't have needed to do that if he was writing to a Jewish audience that spoke Aramaic. He omits a number of Jewish elements and makes very few references to the Old Testament. He also uses the Roman system of time as he writes his gospel.

And it's interesting. At the crucifixion, he identifies Simon, the one who bore the cross for Christ, as the father of Alexander and Rufus, possibly for the benefit of Roman Christians because they're referred to at the end of the book of Romans—Romans 16:13. He explains things that no Jew would need explained to him so he's obviously not writing to the Jews. And it's interesting because he's writing to the Romans—you know, Romans, they didn't care where you were from, what your background was. What they wanted to know is, were you a person that could get things done. So, there's no genealogy in Mark. The Romans didn't care about your genealogy. They wanted to know, what could you do? And so, the gospel of Mark is a gospel of action. And in fact, forty-one times in the gospel of Mark you find the word "immediately"—Jesus doing something again and again, immediately—more than the other gospels combined. And so, Mark is giving us this sense of energy in the life of Christ.

What was his purpose? Well, the key verse is Mark 10:45. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." Jesus is presented to the Romans as the servant of the Lord who is also the Son of God. It begins that way, in Mark's gospel chapter 1, verse 1. D. Edmund Hiebert writes: "What He did proved who He was [that's how Mark writes—what Jesus did proved who He was]. What He wrought authenticated what He taught." And so, Mark constantly tells you what Jesus did as the servant, as the slave of the Lord. And as the servant of the Lord suffered, so the Roman Christians, the slaves of Christ now to whom this gospel was written, could find comfort in their suffering as they read it.

Let's move on to the gospel of Luke. How do we know Luke wrote Luke's gospel? Well, first of all, look at the external evidence and I won't go through all of this, but again you see from early church history an overwhelming weight of evidence. Muratorian fragment represents the views of those who were in Rome: "The third book of the gospels [it says] Luke compiled in his own name." Irenaeus says, "Luke put down in his book the gospel which Paul preached." And by the way, he quotes almost every chapter of Luke in his writings—writing in the AD 100's Tertullian says that Matthew and John were written by apostles and the other two gospels were written by companions of the apostles and the reading of the gospel of Luke is an established practice in the churches. Origen: "The third gospel according to Luke was written for the converts from the Gentiles." So, the testimony of the early church was absolutely unanimous.

But you also can see this evidence internally. And I'm not going to work my way all through this, but the way you argue for who wrote Luke is by going to Acts because they were written by the same person. You go to Acts and you look at the sections where "we" is mentioned—we went here, and we did this. What that implies is that the author was one of Paul's travelling companions on his journey. The rest of the book was written by the author of the "we" sections— same vocabulary and style. So, you reason through, and you can see the reasoning here, but in the end, you rule out everybody but Luke. The author of Acts and the third gospel are the same. You can look at the vocabulary and know that. So, you see how you reason backward to Luke. And the medical language of Luke and Acts may confirm that Luke was the writer. Again, there's a lot more to be argued there, but I'll keep moving because I don't think you really want me to do that anyway, but I want you to see the evidence.

Let me give you a brief biography of Luke. The Greek is Loukas, probably an abbreviation of Loukanos. He only appears three times by name in the New Testament. He, of course, permeates the book of Acts in those "we" passages. He's a Gentile. Paul makes that clear in Colossians. That means except for Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4, he's the only Gentile author of Scripture. He was well-educated in the Greek culture and language. Most believe that he was from Syrian Antioch. He joins Paul on his second missionary journey and stays in Philippi until Paul comes through on the third journey. After that, they travel everywhere together. He was a physician by profession, Colossians 4:14 says.

What's interesting is that in the ancient world, there were three educational centers. There was Athens, Alexandria, Egypt, and Tarsus where Paul grew up. We can't prove this, but many hypothesize and it's possible that Luke and Paul met while Luke was attending university in Tarsus. In 2 Timothy, Paul identifies Luke as his only companion during his second and final imprisonment before his execution—faithful to the end. And a Latin writer claims that Luke never married. He was married to the gospel ministry, and he died at the age of seventy-four. Again, we can't be sure of that.

He wrote probably in AD 60 to 61 He may have researched his book during the two years in Caesarea that Paul was imprisoned there in AD 57 to 59 and then wrote the book during Paul's first Roman imprisonment when they finally made it to Rome, you read at the end of Acts, in AD 60 to 62.

His audience was a very interesting one. Luke does things that the other gospel writers don't do. He consistently shows the wider implications of the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles. You get little clues of this throughout his book. For example, the angel's message at the birth of Christ is to everybody, to all men. Simeon foretells that Christ is going to be a light for the Gentiles, you remember, when Jesus as a baby is brought to the temple. All flesh is to see the salvation of God. The great commission is to all the nations. And so, you see this sort of emphasis.

He also takes a special interest in social outcasts. He presents stories that aren't in other gospels: the immoral woman of chapter 7; the transformation of Zaccheus in chapter 19; the robber and his repentance on the cross; the thief in chapter 23; the prodigal in chapter 16; the publican (and that should be 15); and the publican in chapter 18; the Samaritans are represented as being equal to the Jews. These are very uncommon things, but he was a Gentile writing to Gentiles.

He also elevates the role of women in an amazing way. Women are mentioned forty-three times in his gospel, only forty-nine times in Matthew and Mark combined. He presents, for example, Christ's birth from Mary's perspective. It's the only gospel writer that does. Matthew does from Joseph's perspective. And he has these other women figures. Women figure prominently at the birth of Christ and the resurrection narratives.

So, Luke's target audience is much broader than Matthew's: It's Gentile; It's Greek; It's men and women; and it crosses all socioeconomic groups. But why did he write? Turn with me to Luke chapter 1 because Luke tells us exactly why he wrote. We don't have to guess in his case. He explains it very clearly—Luke chapter 1, verse 1. He says:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us [there have been other accounts, he said], just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word [that's apostles, so he says the apostles handed down to us information, many have written accounts, but for me, verse 3], it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning [Luke is a historian, he investigated everything and he decided], to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus.

We don't know who this man was. We know that this book and Acts were written to this same person. "Most Excellent" is a title that's used in the book of Acts for Roman officials. It's very possible this man was one of those who came to faith even in Caesar's household. We don't know and there's a lot of conjecture, but he was a Greek. We can tell by his name. And he receives this account (verse 4) "so that [here we go, here's the reason, in order that] you may know the exact truth about the things you have been catechized in [is literally what it says]." You have been taught the truth and now I'm going to give it to you in consecutive order. I've researched it carefully. Here is the information you have been taught. That's Luke's purpose. He is presenting a historical reference to Christ.

But he emphasizes in presenting that historical record the perfect humanity of Jesus Christ. He does that in a variety of ways. In the genealogy for example, Matthew just goes back to Abraham, which the Jews would be interested in. Luke goes back to Adam. He provides more information on the humanity of Christ than any of the other gospel records—on the birth, that's the longest account. That's why we always read it at Christmas time. The infancy—he gives us more information as we'll see next week on the infancy and youth of Christ than any other writer. The normal human development—all of those things are unusual. More than any other writer, he presents Christ as the perfect man. Christ has a hometown. He shared a common social life in a number of passages in Luke. Luke wants his Greek readers to see Christ as the perfect, ideal man which the Greeks were always looking for. Jesus was the answer to that pursuit.

That brings us to the gospel of John. Very interesting to compare John with the synoptics—get used to the word "synoptics." It's a word that simply means to see together. It speaks of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Those are the synoptic gospels because they have much of the same material—Matthew, Mark and Luke. John is the odd man out. When you compare them, you have several interesting comparisons. The synoptics emphasize the humanity of Christ, John the deity of Christ. The synoptics begin with the human genealogy or at least human relationships. The gospel of John begins with the divine relationship: "the Word was with God, the Word was God." The synoptics record the public discourses, the gospel of John, primarily private discourses. So, there are some interesting comparisons in John and the synoptics.

We know that John wrote this gospel through a stream of external evidence. It was universally accepted by the entire church. Eusebius, writing in 325, says "his gospel must be acknowledged as genuine. . . The writings of John have been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times." Irenaeus names John as the author of the book. By the way, Irenaeus informs us that John lived in the region of Ephesus until the time of Emperor Trajan near the end of the first century. And Irenaeus, here's what's interesting to me, Irenaeus says that he had known Polycarp and insisted that he could recall the teachings of Polycarp. Now why is that important? Because Polycarp was a disciple, a personal disciple of the apostle John. Polycarp had been a Christian for eighty-six years when he was martyred in 155 and he frequently reminisced about his conversations with the apostle John and with others who had actually seen the Lord, so he was a tie to Irenaeus. So, a number of other references that lead us to support externally John as the author.

But internally, we can see it as well. The fourth gospel is anonymous—that is, it doesn't say that John wrote it, but there is sufficient evidence inside the book of John to know that he's the author. This is a line of evidence that was presented originally by B. F. Westcott, Bishop Westcott, and most today writing about John take this line of argument. And I won't give you all the supporting verses. I'll just sort of lead you through the big picture. It's clear the author was Jewish by what he says and what he writes. He was a Palestinian Jew because he knows the details of Palestine. He was an eyewitness. You have little details like the name of the high priest's servant who lost his ear. You remember when Peter got a little rambunctious at the arrest?

The author was an apostle. He was a member of the inner circle and here's what's very interesting. In the synoptics, the inner circle is three people. Who are they? Peter, James, and John. In John, John is never mentioned by name. That's odd, don't you think? But notice the end of John. Flip over to John 21. John 21 and look at verse 20. You remember this little encounter after the resurrection?

Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who had leaned back on His bosom at the supper [so he was in that intimate circle with Christ] and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" So Peter seeing him [seeing this disciple whom Jesus loved] said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this [guy]?" Jesus said, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" [That's his story, not your story]. Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

So, it's very clear that the one whom Jesus especially loved in that inner circle who was next to Christ at the Last Supper is the one who wrote this fourth gospel. So, the gospel had to be written by the apostle John.

Who was this man? So many things we could say about him, and I won't mention all of these. We know he was a fisherman. We know that he was from a fairly wealthy family since his father had servants. We know that he was a follower of John the Baptist and was pointed to Jesus by John. Jesus chose him as one of the twelve and as one of the inner circle. He was the youngest disciple and Peter, the oldest. We know that he was banished to Patmos according to Revelation 1 because of his testimony of faith in Christ. According to tradition, he later returned to Ephesus where he spent the rest of his life and died around the end of the first century.

When did he write his gospel? Well, we have no evidence to absolutely determine it, but we know when he lived, and we know that he wrote after the other gospels so we have a window of AD 70 to AD 98. Most would say it was in the AD 90's when this gospel was written. He wrote, unlike Matthew to the Jews, unlike Mark to the Romans, Luke to the Greeks, he wrote to the entire world.

What was his purpose? I love the gospel of John. Leon Morris says: "The fourth gospel is a pool in which a child can wade and an elephant can swim." Hiebert says: "This striking character is something which the simplest reader is conscious of, yet the ablest scholar cannot fully explain." He wrote his letter at the request of the Ephesian elders, we're told in church history. And he wrote partially to preserve the unique stories from the life of Christ. This is interesting. Matthew has approximately thirty-five percent unique material. It's unique to him, not in the other gospels—Mark, seven percent; Luke about fifty percent. John has ninety-three percent unique material. In fact, he deliberately chose material that was not in the synoptic gospels even though they had already been written and he was familiar with them. Prior to the Passion Week, there are only two incidents that he mentions that are in the other three gospels—the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the water.

John includes no more than twenty days from the entire life of Jesus Christ and seven chapters of his gospel, chapters 13 to 19, are for one twenty-four-hour period. It's very clear that John wrote with one specific purpose, and he chose carefully the events that he wanted to include. He tells us why he wrote his gospel in John 20, verse 30: "Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life in His name." John says, "I'm writing really with two purposes—one, to strengthen the faith that you already have in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God and that believing in Him you can have life in His name and evangelistically, I'm writing to those who have not believed that you would come to embrace these realities." That's why I often refer people to the gospel of John who say they aren't believers because John makes it clear that unlike the other gospels that were primarily written to believers, he wrote to unbelievers.

So, when you step back and you look at the four gospels, this is what you get: Matthew to Jewish believers representing Jesus as Messiah and King; Mark to the Romans, probably believers and other Gentiles—Jesus as servant; Luke to the Greeks, believing Greeks and other Gentile— Jesus as the perfect man; and John to the entire world—Jesus as the unique Son of God. You see how God raised up these four men from totally different backgrounds, writing with totally different purposes in mind, to give us different facets of the wonder and beauty and glory of Jesus Christ. And next week, Lord willing, we'll begin to look at their record. Let's pray together.

Father, I pray that You would take our discussions tonight which have really been more like a classroom, I pray that You would use them to bolster and strengthen the faith of Your people. Father, that we all would see the wonder of Your plan, the glory of Jesus Christ as we see Him from the pens of these four men whom You inspired to record this account. Lord, we thank You for the life of Christ and we realize that if everything were written that could be written, the world itself would not contain the books as the apostle John said. And yet, these have been written with these very specific stories and these very specific accounts and very specific messages. And Lord, I pray that You would help us as Your people to sink our roots deep into Jesus Christ, into the four gospel accounts that give us that glorious picture of who He is.

Lord, may we see Him as Israel's Messiah and King, the rightful heir to the throne of David. Father, may we see Him as the great servant suffering in order to bring salvation and ransom to us, serving us. Father, may we see Him as the perfect man in perfect humanity—everything we ought to be, but aren't. And Father, may we see Him as the unique Son of God who gave Himself for us. And Father, may we seeing have life in His name. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.