Why Are There Four Gospels in the New Testament?

I recently heard a sermon by John MacArthur of Grace Community Church, located in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles, in which he made a very interesting statement about how Bible study is modeled to a church by the Senior Pastor or Teaching Pastor of a particular church. Pastor MacArthur stated (and I am paraphrasing) that whatever a pastor is interested in will be what is preached from the pulpit. Well, I have personally witnessed this in a tweet form my old pastor. He tweeted the following on Nov. 5:

My topic 4 Sunday am. is act 2:42-47 Why do we Have only 4 Gosples? Becouse there is only 4 Learning Styles all part of the body of Christ!!

The reason why this is a topic is because the pastor finds this interesting. This is a pastor that has spent thousands of dollars traversing the country trying to find the fastest way to grow a church. During my time at this church, we went from the Willow Creek method to the Saddleback method, to the learning styles, to the dimensional method. All with no success. I say that because that while there was a growth spike, there was no real lasting fruit. the church continually hovers around 200 core attenders. I do not say members, because this church does not have a membership roll. What is never used is the clear blueprint that Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit to record. It was always Acts 2 plus something else.

Now I had two questions regarding this tweet. First, what relationship does the four "learning styles" and Acts 2:42-47 have to do with each other? Second, why do we have four gospels in the New Testament?

First, let me briefly deal with the first question. Absolutely nothing! Why? Very simply the four "learning styles"  are based on the teachings of Ray Zacharias, who is now retired from active teaching. In his seminar, he speaks of four learning styles: Innovative, Common Sense, Dynamic and Analytical learners (a more comprehensive summary can be found here). Mr. Zacharias, then links these for styles to the Gospels:

Matthew = Common Sense
Mark = Dynamic
Luke = Analytic
John = Innovative

The problem is that these four learning styles are not the only measure of human learning styles available. In fact, I would say that there are as many different learning styles as there are people. Now as a general rule, I do find that most people tend to fit into one of these four categories. Let me be clear I am not refuting this method.

So what is my issue? The linking of these learning styles to Acts chapter two. I am sure that the pastor in question will magically transport this late 20th century idea back to the 1st century church, and how it was a key to the growth of the church. That the apostles used this idea to help grow the church.

Well, there are a number of problems with this view, but I will limit myself to three.

First, the idea of learning styles would have been completely foreign to the 1st century Jewish mindset. I say this because this idea was invented in the mid-20th century. The general teaching method in the 1st century was oral, in which the rabbi spoke and the disciples listened. Some bright young Jew got the idea to write the teachings of a rabbi down, giving birth to the Midrash and the Talmud. As a general rule, however, teaching was spoken and recited and not written and read.

Second, this idea would have been even more foreign to the apostles. These were men who were not educated in the Jewish religious tradition. As I have presented above, this idea was foreign to them. If this idea was foreign to them, then it would be even more foreign to the "unlettered" apostles.

Third, the Holy Spirit gives us the actual reason for the growth of the Jerusalem church. The first, and most important reason was "the apostles' teaching". These men were teaching the words of God to the people of God first and foremost because that was, and is, the key to making disciples. These men taught the "uncut" Word of God. Their commitment to the teaching, please note that the church is to be taught and not preached to, was so strong that when problems regarding the dispersion of food came up, they assigned deacons to handle that issue so that they could maintain their devotion to teaching the people of God (Acts 6:1-6).

So it is clear that the apostles did not utilize anything other than the Word of God to grow the church. Likewise, modern pastors must focus on the teaching of the Word of God as the key to church growth and not the modern humanistic musings of man.

Now, why are there four gospel accounts of the life of Christ? Why not three, or five, or many more? The answer to that is because each of these Gospels are directed to one of four audiences that made up the then known world. Each Gospel answers a particular question that each of the audiences would have regarding the life of Christ. The Gospel;s were not written because there are only four learning styles. Now I do agree that there are parallels between the learning styles and the Gospels, but that was not the assertion that was made. The assertion that was made was that there are four Gospels because there are four learning styles. This is incorrect and must be refuted.

First, Matthew was written primarily to the Jews. Matthew answers the question, "What did Jesus say?" If you had an edition of the New Testament with the sayings of Jesus in red letters, and removed the red letters from it you would eviscerate the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew gives us a genealogy of Jesus that establishes His right to the throne of David. It contains the fullest record of the parables and preaching of Jesus. Matthew gives us the fullest accounts of the Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet Discourses. Further, Matthew is arranged thematically and not chronologically. The miracles, parables and sayings of Jesus are clustered around various themes. The key term in Matthew is "Kingdom of Heaven" which is evidence that this Gospel was written by a Jew to be read by Jews.

Mark's Gospel was written to Romans. It answers the question, "What did Jesus do?" It emphasizes the the deeds of Jesus. You find no genealogies in Mark. The reason is that the Romans did not care about who Jesus descended from. The Romans were interested in power. They needed to be convinced that Jesus was more powerful than Caesar. The key words in Mark are "immediately" and "authority". These words demonstrate Jesus' power. Mark also converted monetary units to lira.

The Gospel of Luke was written to the Greeks. Greeks were not interested in what Jesus said or how much power Jesus had. They were interested in who followed Jesus. Luke answers that question by emphasizing the followers of Jesus, e.g., Simeon (2:22-35), Anna (2:36-38) and Mary (2:51). Luke interviewed the eyewitnesses (1:3). He gives us more detail than any other Evangelist. Why were the followers of Jesus so important to the Greeks? Because Jesus needed to be shown as a universal Savior.

The last Gospel is John's account of the life of Christ. This book was written to Christians. It answers the question, "Who was Jesus?" It emphasizes the deity of Jesus. The seven "I Am" statements are found in John. In John you find Jesus being called God explicitly, by both His friends and His enemies. I can go further, but that would go beyond the realm of my argument.

In conclusion, it must be repeated that the reason why there is four Gospels is because of the four core audiences in the world at the time of the writing of the Gospels. The learning styles were not an idea that even existed at in the 1st century in Jewish thought and by extension early Christian thought. The reason is that the learning styles were not invented until the mid 20th century. The learning styles has no place in building the church. Acts chapter two gives us the blueprint for that. Since the Holy Spirit authored that, and the Pentecostal movement is so big on the work of the Holy Spirit, then they should be the first to reject humanistic methods of growing a church. Lastly, the reason why there are four Gospels is because they answer four essential questions as to the identity of Jesus of Nazareth. I hope and pray that this educates people as to why the Holy Spirit gave us four gospels and how the Holy Spirit intends the church to be grown.

Touching Not God's Anointed?

Recently I have posted on my personal Facebook account some very critical statements of recent sermons from the church I used to attend. It has led to some people "unfriending" me in some cases and being critical of me in others. Now, let me be perfectly clear: I have no ax to grind with that pastor. I left his church for a number of reasons, which I will enumerate in a future post. None of them are personal, they are all based on biblical grounds, but that is for another post.

The point I wish to address in this post is whether or not a pastor is exempt from criticism based on Matthew 18:15-18, which says,

¹⁵ "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. ¹⁶But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. ¹⁷If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. ¹⁸Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

It is interesting that while I had planned on dealing with this particular scripture as part of the "Scripture Twisting" series, God has forced me to deal with this issue over the past few weeks. God is totally sovereign in how He directs the actions of man, even with this insignificant blog. Now there are a number of teachers and pastors (and their congregants) that believe they should never receive any public criticism for any publicly spoken preaching. Instead any correction should be done in private, or in my case, not on my Facebook account, according to these scriptures. Is this the case with this particular passage?

First, what is the context of this verse? The context on Matthew 18 deals with the ethics and morals of those that are following Jesus and not biblical doctrine. If a believer falls in the areas of ethics and morals, then there is loving private confrontation in hopes of restoring the believer. If the believer fails to respond to the correction, then the confrontation is escalated.

Second, the New Testament illustrates how false doctrine, when spoken in public, should be handled. Paul confronted Peter when Peter was acting in a hypocritical manner (Galatians 2:11-14). Paul publicly rebuked Hymenaus and Alexander regarding their blasphemy (1 Timothy 1:20). Paul publicly addressed the harmful actions of Alexander the copper-smith (2 Tim. 4;14). John publicly rebuked Diotrephes over his false doctrine and his failure to submit to John's leadership and the authority of others (3 John 9).

Third, there are many well intentioned Christians who have told me that this sort of public criticism give non-believers the impression that there is no love or unity among Christians. While there is to be love and unity among Christians, it is important to note that Christianity is not based on love or unity. Rather Christianity is based on truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Christians are to fight for the faith (Jude 3). Believers are to examine everything spoken from the pulpit carefully and to hold on to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Lastly, Christians should be following the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11. Here these people who were hearing the preaching of the Apostle Paul actually had the temerity to verify what they were being taught by actually comparing what they were taught to the Scriptures! They were actually verifying the teaching of a truly  anointed Apostle of Christ, not a self-proclaimed one. All of these examples showed a commitment to truth. Without a commitment to truth there can be no true love or unity within the church.

Lastly, my criticisms are rooted in love. I do not look for opportunities to be critical of others. These issues are brought to my attention by others that are concerned by what they are being taught. They come to me. I do not go to the church's streaming video and look for issues. I do not attend that church any more, and I really don't want to hear the preaching from that pastor. It is my love, however, for the people that are concerned, and those that are not sophisticated enough to understand that they do not have to believe everything they are taught without being critical, that motivates me. These people have not been taught how to root through a sermon, discarding the bad and treasuring the good. Which is what I had to do for many years while attending that church.

True love an unity is exemplified by the pastor's love of truth, and not his adherence to his particular false teaching. True love and unity is exemplified by how followers of Christ adhere to the truth of the scriptures. That is why I write this blog; to help you, the reader, understand the truth and to fight for it.