Part 3
Mark
In my researches into this subject I have come across a very useful book, which appears to be the origin of many Christadelphian comments on the topic. It is “The differences of the Four Gospels” by Andrew Jukes (Pickering and Inglis 1858). Like so many books of its age, it is firmly convinced of the truth and value of the Scriptures, and being in favour of our theory of the Cherubim, it usefully states the case. Later Christadelphian authors seem to have leaned heavily upon this book for help.
In continuing our investigation a few points are worth re-emphasising. The aim of these articles is mainly to gather the evidence for the theory, so that we can look for further information for or against as we do our readings. But it is easy to see only those verses which support our view, especially if we are firmly convinced the theory is true. This is a tendency to guard against.
In this context it is worth repeating the view of one editor of this magazine, that notes should not be written in the Bibles we daily use, lest they channel our thinking along predetermined lines. It may be a good idea, for instance, to use a Gospel Parallels to make the notes on this topic, and this can be kept separate from our usual Bible. Another important point is that the Gospels are from God, and are deep in meaning.
If we should prove to our own satisfaction that the gospels do display Christ like the faces of the Cherubim, this does not exhaust the meaning they have to offer. Indeed, it must be a lifetime’s study and living of the gospel message which really gives us an insight into them. So if one writer includes a whole section of his own (eg. what the commentators call ‘Luke’s Special Section’ 9:51 – 18:14) this has not necessarily anything to do with our subject; it may be for entirely different purposes. We must not make our limited knowledge the judge of the intricacies of the Word of God.
Indeed, the fact that we can listen to different exhortations each week for a lifetime shows that we cannot plumb its depths. So let this study be interesting and useful to us just so far as it helps us to serve God the better.
Mark’s Record of the Servant
The mention of service leads us to the theme which Mark is said to portray; of Jesus as the ox, patiently serving his master. The ox is well known as a beast of service, as many scripture references show: Deut.5:14 “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work …. nor thine ox” Prov.14:4 “…. much increase is by the strength of the ox.” Thus, it is said, in Mark we see Jesus doing, obeying his Father’s will, patiently enduring even to sacrifice, rather than as a powerful Lord who gives laws. This means that in many ways Mark will be distinctive by omission; by what is not said. This is of course a scriptural principle; the Bible is deliberate in what is recorded, which is not always the whole picture.
So, for a famous example, we have Melchizedek, who, though he must have been a human and mortal like ourselves, has certain parts of his life unrecorded in Genesis, which the writer to the Hebrews sees as significant:
“Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.” (Heb 7:3)
So Melchizedek was not really like the Son of God in immortality, but his sudden appearance in Abraham’s life, and equally sudden disappearance, is significant. In the same way the Gospel writers emphasise by selection, including omission of some details, and this removes the problem of-discrepancies between gospels.
Before listing the omissions in Mark let me compare the three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke as analysed by the commentators on the basis of the verses. This reveals that Mark mostly records the doings of Jesus, and very fully too. Matthew and Luke have a great deal of this material also, but usually slightly more abbreviated. To it they add the ‘teaching’ of Jesus in varying amounts.
“One might almost say that the Markan material relates what Jesus did; the non-Markan material what Jesus taught.” (IVF Bible Dictionary p.486).
This fits well with our theme, because one who teaches has authority. If Matthew presents Jesus as the king, it is fitting that he should teach with his kingly authority, as in the Sermon on the Mount. If Mark presents him as a servant, it is right that he should be seen doing and obeying. If Luke presents him as the true man, though exhibiting at times man’s natural lowly state, he also shows man’s ultimate position in God’s plan, having dominion, and thus his teaching in Luke would be that of one who has power over the world. So on this basis Mark omits much of the teaching of Jesus, but what he records of the servant work of Jesus he records fully, and we see the full extent to which he obeyed.
Luke
As in previous articles, I shall start with a general point before getting down to consider the third gospel.
It is interesting that the order in which the four beasts (living creatures/ cherubim) are listed in Revelation is the same as the order we are proposing to fit to the four gospels:
“And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle” (Rev.4:7).
This would agree with Matthew (lion), Mark (ox), Luke (man), John (eagle). However, there may not be any significance in the order in which the Gospels appear in our Bible, although there certainly is significance in the order of the living creatures in Revelation.
They are listed in the order of the first four Seals (Rev.6:1,3,5,7) and can be shown to give us the directions from which the four horses came (see ‘Trumpet and Seal Patterns’, Apocalypse Magazine Vol.4 pp.90-102). All through the Bible, the Cherubim appear in the same north, south, east, west layout, as drawn at the head of this article, which shows Ezekiel’s view as he looked north (Ez.1:4,10). The cherubic layout of the camp of Israel was the same (Num.2, and ‘Bible Student’ No.4 Noe”, p.24). So although Revelation lists the Cherubim in a different order from Ezekiel, we find no discrepancy in their actual position; a fact. which helps to confirm our confidence in the Bible.
The Gospel of the Man
The genealogy in Luke’s Gospel takes the ancestry of Jesus right back to Adam (Luke 3:38), and so emphasises his origin as a man. Although Luke is the third of the ‘Synoptic Gospels’, and so contains much of the same materials as Matthew and Mark, the way he treats that material, and what he emphasises and leaves out, give us clues to his purpose in writing.
The theme of the man, or Son of Man, indicates that Jesus was born of our mortal stock, but there is another side to it. For God had a plan with man when he was created, and that is eventually to exalt man to a position of rulership over the earth. This great theme is stated as God’s object in making man:
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Gen.1:26).
Although the first man Adam failed in this high calling, the second Adam succeeded, and passages like Psalm 8 and Philippians 2:5-11 clearly indicate this, with many allusions back to the early chapters of Genesis.
So in Luke we look for the theme of one who was truly man, yet a perfect man, The Man, who is to be ruler over the whole world. This leads us to expect a more universal outlook in Luke, with more references to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the purpose of God, in comparison with Matthew’s Jewish emphasis.
Characteristics of Luke’s Gospel
As was mentioned in the previous article, the opening chapters are very distinctive. Beginning with a dedication to a human friend (Luke 1:14), he gives the most detailed of the birth narratives of the four gospels. It starts with a simple story, of human interest: “There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest…” (1:5). Here we have human reactions to God’s intervention, such as the incredulity of Zacharias (1:18), the happiness and meekness of Mary and Elisabeth (1:24-25,29,38,39,41,46), the problem of naming the new baby (1:59-64), and the response of the neighbours (1:58,65-66). The birth and early life of Jesus are here put in the most human terms.
His lowly birth, when there was no room in the inn (2:7), his treatment like any other baby, wrapped in swaddling clothes (2:12), Mary’s personal thoughts (2:19), his showing to lowly shepherds (2:20), his subjection to the Law and the cleansing necessary after birth (2:22-24), and above all, Luke’s unique glimpse of the early home life of Jesus, where he was a good child, subject to his parents, and increasing in favour with God and man (2:40,51-52).
Even when he is seen with the doctors in the temple we are shown the way in which he was, despite the need to be about his father’s business, concerned for his mother (2:48-51). Of course, while saying that this all shows the human side of Jesus, what we really mean to say is that it shows how human life ought to be lived – it shows the perfect Man as he grew up.
Turning back again to the first two chapters from another point of view, we can see the universal scope of Luke’s Gospel, appropriate because as the true Man, Jesus was to be Lord of all creation. So the mention of the Gentiles is common in Luke:
| 1:54-55 | The mercy to Abraham (which was a promise of worldwide blessing). |
| 1:72-75 | The same blessing referred to again. |
| 2:1 | “All the world” to be taxed (i.e. the Roman world). |
| 2:10 | “…good tidings of great joy – which shall be to all people.” |
| 2:30-32 | “…thy salvation – which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles…” |
Compare those words of the angels to the shepherds, with the Wise Men of the Matthew account, who came seeking “he that is born king of the Jews” (Matt.2:2).
Then we move on to the opening of the public ministry, first of John, then of Jesus. The first thing Luke does is to set the scene for us in the greatest detail, mentioning the set-up of the world into which Jesus came, and listing its rulers: Caesar, Pilate, Herod, Philip and Lysanias (3:1). What a worldly picture! A world that one day the Son of Man will rule. An And even in mentioning the high priests, Luke manages to convey a worldly image of them, for instead of one high priest, they had somehow distorted the Law to produce two, and no doubt cornered a nice market in lucrative income for themselves at the same time, from people who were squeezed of taxes that God had never intended that they should bear (3:2).
In keeping with the theme that Luke is showing, we have man’s need of salvation expressed very often. Thus John the Baptist comes “preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (3:3), in contrast to his preaching of the “kingdom of heaven” in Matthew (Matt.3:2), and he quotes Isaiah to show that “all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (Luke 3:6)
Only in Matthew and Luke do we read of Jesus’ baptism. In Luke it is fitting for a member of the human race, who needs salvation, and in Matthew it is the way by which we become part of the seed of Abraham, and part of the promise. Luke adds the human touch, noted so often in his gospel, that Jesus was praying (Luke 3:21). He then adds that Jesus was “about thirty years of age”(3:23), which is interesting because it was the age at which priests entered service (Numbers 4:3).
In Luke we see the priestly work of Jesus; one who, taken from among men, can intercede for them, but in the case of Jesus that work was made completely effective by his one offering of himself. Thus the theme of intercession and of sacrifice is important in Luke, and this may explain why the other common cherubim link sometimes made is of Luke with the ox, typifying service.
However, while seeing the reason for this, I would think that the man is a better link, and this can still encompass the theme of priesthood.
The genealogy already mentioned (3:23-38) gives Jesus’ descent on his mother’s side, the human side of his nature, from Adam. Yet Adam is described as “the son of God”, just as each one in the list has been son of his particular father. God wanted to show he was son of God by his behaviour and obedience, and Jesus was the one in wham this quality finally showed itself.
Jesus began his ministry “where he had been brought up” (4:16), and quoting Isaiah 61 shows he has come to help men, to heal them, to release them, and to tend to their needs. He stops short of judgment, which would have been more in line with, the role of the king, and in any case, in this early part of his ministry he was not come to judge, but to minister, and to give himself. Service comes before exaltation – that was the lesson Adam had to learn.
However, Jesus’ worldwide power is seen as he speaks of Gentiles who responded to the gospel: the widow of Sarepta, and Naaman the Syrian, while implying that he would be rejected by Jews (4:24-27). In the mission of the twelve, we note that while in Matthew they are told “Go not into the way of the Gentiles” (Matt.10:5-7), in Luke they simply “departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing everywhere” (Luke 5:1-10).
As befits a man desiring to obey God, there is constant mention of prayer throughout the gospel:
| 3:21 | At his baptism he was praying. |
| 5:12-16 | After cleansing the leper “he withdrew…and prayed.” |
| 6:12-13 | He chose the twelve after a night of prayer. |
| 9:18-20 | It was as he was praying alone that Peter’s confession was made. |
| 9:29-31 | The transfiguration took place as he was praying. |
| 11:1-2 | It was after he ceased praying that the disciples asked him to teach them to pray. |
| 22:32 | Jesus told Peter “I have prayed for thee.” |
All the above incidents are mentioned also in other gospels, but only Luke adds the comments about prayer.Jesus’ human compassion is noted by Luke: at Nain the one who had died “was the only son of his mother”, who “was a widow”. Jesus “had compassion on her”, and having raised the boy, “delivered him to his mother” (7:11-15). Jairus’ daughter was his “only daughter” (8:42), and the man near the mount said, “Look upon my son: for he is mine only child” (9:38).
Again, Jesus is often mentioned as sitting down to eat, being social with other men, but always adding to the meal his own distinctive message and character (eg.7:36,11:37,14:1,19:7 – all mentioned only by Luke).The parables of Luke are often set in a different way from Matthew’s, A common opening is, “A certain man…”, as if Jesus was thinking of men in general in their needs, rather than of parables of the kingdom as in Matthew (e.g. Luke 10:30, 13:6, 14:16, 15:4,8,11, 16:1,19, 18:10).
In the Olivet prophecy, only in Luke do we read of “the times of the Gentiles” (21:24), of “Jerusalem…trodden down of the Gentiles”, and “led away captive into all nations.” Here only the shooting forth of the fig tree “and all the trees” (21:29).Finally, in Jesus’ crucifixion, only in Luke do we find the Gentile word “Calvary” (23:33), an angel strengthening Jesus (22:43), the sweat as of blood (22:44), “this was a righteous man” (23:47), Jesus commending his spirit to God (23:46).
After his resurrection, Jesus eats with his disciples, to show he is still man, although now glorified (24;41-43).All these are characteristics of Luke which seem to support the theme of the perfect man. However, there is much more in Luke. The problem is to see whether the other material is sufficiently like the other gospels to take away the force of the peculiarities. This is indeed the problem with each gospel.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One