Matthew, Mark and Luke see things together (which is why they are often called The Synoptics), John seems to write from ‘Heaven down’ beginning with Christ’s deity and choosing an almost completely different selection of stories to prove his point. Add all four Gospel accounts together and we have a fully-rounded view of the Saviour, his ministry and his message.

Three minutes to go and it was 2-2. As the forward went past the defender, down he went! A moment’s silence then the referee blew his whistle and pointed to the spot. The home side had a penalty to win the game with just seconds remaining! Stood on the terrace behind the goal I was convinced it wasn’t a penalty and went home sure that the three points were undeserved.
Two days later I came across internet footage from the same moment. This time the camera angle was different, taken from the television tower on the side. Now I saw it from a completely different view and the contact was clear. It was a definite penalty! Seeing the incident from a different viewpoint meant spotting things I’d missed first time around.
In one sense it’s a little like that with reading the four Gospels; the written, historical records of the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ upon earth. Almost uniquely in terms of the Scriptures we have four accounts which cover much of the same material. That gives us possibilities but also challenges if we are to read them to maximum benefit.
Reading Them Together
What difference does having four accounts make? The four Gospels have many things in common as well as different features that distinguish them. They are all written collections of accounts of the life, ministry, teaching, death and resurrection of the Saviour. All four spend a disproportionately large section (between a quarter and a half) on the events following Palm Sunday, the last week of the life of Jesus. That means they are not biographies as such. They all point us to the centrality of Calvary and of the empty tomb. We do well to read every verse of the Gospels with that in view.
All four are written to point us to who Jesus is – not just an ordinary man, not even just a great prophet or leader like those we have already seen throughout the Old Testament. The titles that are given to him by the Gospel writer himself, from the lips of those whose stories each Gospel records, or even within Jesus’s words themselves, are building up a picture for us so that we might see who he is and believe in him ourselves. It is here that we will see how different writers bring different themes to prominence.
In the first few verses of Luke’s Gospel and the last few of John’s we are assured not only of the reliability of the records in front of us, but also of the purpose for which they were written.
Read More
Related Posts:

Because of his electing love, God effectually called us to himself through the gospel (Jude 1, “those who were called”). In doing so, he imparted his very life to us (regeneration), enabling us to exercise our repentance and “most holy faith” (Jude 20; cf. Acts 11:18; Heb 6:1). Whereas we had been stained by the flesh and could only expect the Lord to execute his judgment on us one day (Jude 14–15, 23), we were shown mercy, saved, and snatched from the fire (Jude 22). 

Jude’s purpose in his letter for his readers is clear: “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
It’s funny that, even though Jude clarified that he wanted to write about our common salvation but wrote about something else (contending for the faith against false teachers), he did end up saying a bit about salvation along the way. There is actually much of the ordo salutis to be found in this short letter.
First, we see ourselves described as “beloved in God the Father” (Jude 1). This love in the Father goes back to eternity past, a love that moved him in his sovereign grace to choose us unto salvation and all of its blessings (Eph 1:4–5). Here we see our election.
Read More
Related Posts:

The church’s independence is inferred from the nature of its early operations, its instructions from Christ and the apostles, and from its unique nature as God’s chosen people on Earth. At no point did Christ or his disciples ever say anything to the effect of ‘and when you select elders to rule your churches, remember to consult with the local rabbis and pagan priests as to whom to select, and be sure to allow the local Roman magistrate to select at least one.’ That the church would select its officers from its own midst (Acts 1:21-26; 6:1-6) and according to its own divinely-given criteria (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:6-9) is taken for granted.

In a previous article I asserted that the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)’s internal affairs are none of the business of political entities, whether parties or the formers of opinion. A correspondent wrote to the effect that my defense of the church’s independence was so strong as to suggest that she may go about acting as if she is above all criticism. He sets against my assertion of the church’s independence a commitment to transparency, fearing lest the church hold its privacy so highly that she effectively isolate herself from the public view entirely, and in so doing foster a climate in which she might be tempted to cover her inevitable faults.
Such a leap from what I actually said in arguing that the church’s internal matters be kept internal to its perceived implications is a bit much of a transmogrification to my mind, but fearing lest others should similarly misunderstand, I present the following clarifications of the church’s independence.

The church’s independence is not absolute (Mk. 12:17). Her property insurance company can require her to maintain working smoke detectors. The government can require her to obey legitimate laws (e.g., respecting building codes), provided said laws are evenly applied and not a pretext for discrimination. Her ministers and members are not immune from criminal or civil liability. That last point seems strange, but priestly (or clerical) immunity has historically been a grievous evil and a nuisance to civil harmony. The church is subordinate to the state in those matters like civil justice and order in which God has ordained the state to be an earthly authority (Rom. 13:1-7).
The church’s independence is negative, not positive. That independence means freedom from undue command or interference by others, not power over them. This sets it against the errors of both Erastianism (the belief that the government of both church and state belongs to the civil ruler [magistrate]) and the historic belief of the papists that the state is properly subordinate to the church.[1]
The church’s independence is a part of ‘sphere sovereignty.’ The church has no right to command the state or to take its proper sphere of responsibilities to itself. It may not appoint its officers to the offices of the state or exercise the functions of the government such as raising taxes, making war, granting patents, coining money, etc. But neither may the state appoint the church’s leaders, establish or alter her constitution, conduct her affairs, or otherwise intrude upon her sphere of authority and responsibility. And neither government nor church should deign to undertake the responsibilities of the family, except where it freely consents to either to act in loco parentis (e.g., in education).[2]
The church’s independence includes privacy and confidentiality, but does not mean it is a secret club or a cult free from all outside observation. There are occasions where others may forcibly inquire into our affairs (e.g., fire warden inspections), and there are cases where we should voluntarily share them: if First Pres. Anytown’s pastor is charged with a sex crime, the church would do well to publicly acknowledge the offense and state what it is doing to redress the wrong and prevent future occurrences. Actually much of our activity (worship services, works of mercy, outreach) is or ought to be public, except where persecution mandates secrecy. As my correspondent rightly noted, we are to let our light shine before men (Matt. 5:16). But as all human life requires a measure of privacy, so also does that of the church. Its internal government and affairs are often not hidden from public view, but there are occasions where they are; and even when they are not, it does not follow that outsiders may freely comment on them as if they are their own business. This reservation of privacy is by no means unique to the church: most companies are far more confidential in their business operations than we.
The church’s independence means she governs herself and has a right to be free from unwarranted interference by others. The church selects her own officers, runs her own agencies and programs, raises her own revenue, and handles her own administrative and judicial affairs. If Calvary Presbytery ordains Mr. Prolix to the office of teaching elder and the state house passes a resolution demanding the rescission of his ordination, the church’s independence is thereby infringed; but it would be similarly infringed if a private entity (as a company, chamber of commerce, or think tank) made similar protest of Mr. Prolix’s ordination.
The church’s independence is imperfectly realized. Many are ignorant of the doctrine or malign or modify it. Many deny it in part or whole, or adhere to it selectively. This doctrine, though important and immensely helpful, is not accounted a matter of orthodoxy. Faithful believers (as those in established churches) who do not adhere to it are not to be deemed heretics. In this world truth appears in fits as its rays break through sin’s dark clouds.
The church’s independence is inferred from the nature of its early operations, its instructions from Christ and the apostles, and from its unique nature as God’s chosen people on Earth. At no point did Christ or his disciples ever say anything to the effect of ‘and when you select elders to rule your churches, remember to consult with the local rabbis and pagan priests as to whom to select, and be sure to allow the local Roman magistrate to select at least one.’ That the church would select its officers from its own midst (Acts 1:21-26; 6:1-6) and according to its own divinely-given criteria (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:6-9) is taken for granted. And when outsiders presumed to command the church contrary to God’s will they were openly resisted as having no right to do so (Acts 4:13-20; 5:27-29). So also does Christ’s statement to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mk. 12:17) presuppose different spheres of God-given authority and responsibility, of which one is represented in the church, which is God’s institution for ruling and teaching his people (Eph. 4:11-16). When some of the Corinthians brought disputes before the civil magistrates (1 Cor. 6), Paul rebuked them on the ground that the church will judge the world and angels at the Last Day, and he ends his argument by saying (v. 3) that if they are to be fit to make such momentous judgments, “how much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!” The obvious corollary would be that the world/unbelievers judging the Corinthians would be an inversion of the proper order, even now when the Corinthians’ final conformity to Christ’s image (and accompanying fitness to judge in righteousness) is not yet complete. And if unbelievers are not to even judge disputes between individual believers, how much less should they have any say in the government of the entire church itself. It is therefore to be accounted independent viz. such outside entities, and as responsible for its own government, answering only to God.

Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks/Simpsonville (Greenville Co.), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation. 

[1] See the end of p. 448 and the beginning of 449 of William Cunningham’s Historical Theology at Monergism here.
[2] How many spheres of responsibility and authority there are is a question I do not answer here. One might argue society is a fourth sphere alongside family, church, and state.

Related Posts: