Four Gospel records.

It was quite recently that I saw the question: "Why are there four Gospels?" My first response to that question is that there are not "four Gospels", but four accounts of the one Gospel - the Good News about Jesus, the Christ. However, the question is still a valid one: "Why are there four Gospel records?"

The simplest answer comes from the world of policing, where officers will endeavour to obtain as many witnesses as possible to any crime, or incident. Doing so ensures that they have as complete a picture as possible of what happened. Each witness will provide evidence that comes from a slightly different perspective than that of other witnesses.

Chronologically, Mark was the first to write the Gospel record, followed by Matthew, and then Luke. In these three records, known as the Synoptics, the emphasis is on the human nature of the Lord Jesus; in John, the last to be written, the emphasis is on His deity. However, we then discover that each was written for a different "audience"! Matthew wrote especially for Jews; Mark for Romans; Luke for Greeks; and John for disciples of Jesus. All four wrote for the whole world.

In Mark, the Lord Jesus is depicted as the Servant of God; in John as the Son of God (God the Son). In Matthew, He is portrayed as the Ruler of men; in Luke, as unique among men. Matthew and Mark provide the record of His official glories; Luke and John show His personal glories, as Son of Man and Son of God. The 19th century French philospher, historian, and writer, Ernest Rénan, described Matthew's account of the Gospel as "the most important boook ever written", and Luke's account as "the most beautiful book ever written." (although I would certainly not subscribe to many of Rénan's other views!)

Marks record may well be described as "the most concise book ever written"; while John's record surely deserves the description of "the most heavenly book ever written."!

I came across this, anonymous, poetic piece in one of my reference books:

"Matthew - Messiah, Israel's King, sets forth, by Israel slain;

but God decreed that Israel's loss should be the Gentiles' gain.

Mark tells us how, in patient love, this earth has once been trod

by one Who, in a Servant's form, wasyet the Son of God.

Luke, the  physician, writes of a more skilled Physician still, 

Who gave Himself, as Son of Man, to save us from all ill.

John, the beloved of Jesus, sees in Him the Father's Son,

the everlasting Word, made flesh, yet with the Father One."

Why are there four Gospel records? So that the fullest possible picture might be provided of the One Who came that you and I might have - if we choose to accept it - eternal life. Not "pie in the sky when you die", but the very life of the Creator of all that is, in you, here and now!

So the really important question is: "With all of that information, have you accepted His wonderful gift of salvation from sin, and a life so new that it is described as being "born again"? 

And, if not, why not?!

"A horse, a horse, my dinner is a horse"

Apologies to the English Bard and, if you are a vegetarian, you might wish to read something else!

I am, of course, making reference to the news that the Princess Royal has dared to even suggest that there may be nothing wrong with the human consumption of horse-meat!  I can only agree.  It was a few years ago, while my wife and I were on holiday in France, that we noticed that particular commodity on special offer at the local supermarket.  We knew that horse-meat was considered to be a delicacy by the Belgians, but had not realised that it is also eaten by the French.  It is somewhat expensive but, with the special offer, we decided to 'give it a go'.

It was delicious!  So much so, that we are forever looking out for a similar special offer, as we would be delighted to have it again.  Lean, tender, and full of flavour, I would recommend it to any human carnivore.

There is, of course, an element of controversy with regard to the human consumption of animal meat.  In Gen.9:3, we read these words of God to Noah, after the Flood: "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and, as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."   That seems clear enough.  The prohibition of certain animals (and fish, and fowl) came later and may be seen as very wise hygiene regulations as all of the creatures that were declared to be terefah (forbidden) are 'dirty eaters' that would, particularly in a nomadic, desert, culture, be more likely to carry bacteria that would be harmful to the human body.  However, there are those, even from within the Christian culture, who maintain that the next verse effectively forbids the eating of animal flesh.  It reads: "Only you shall not eat flesh with its blood."  It is true that meat that is totally cleared of blood would be somewhat insipid, and I have even read that this verse shows that the preceding verse actually refers to animals like lizards, and that Noah was being given permission to eat reptilian eggs!  This interpretation is based on the Hebrew word remes which does refer to reptiles - but which also refers to other creatures as well!   Lesson - don't use so-called 'proof texts'!

Jesus taught that it was permissible to eat all foods.  In Mark 7:19, the evangelist records His rebuke of certain Pharisees, and comments "Thus He declared all foods clean" (i.e. kosher = permitted).  Dr Luke tells us of a vision given to Peter, in which he was convinced that "What God has cleansed, you must not call common" (Acts 10:15).  Now this vision was not primarily a lesson on the acceptability of animal meat for food, but was preparing Peter for his visit to the Gentile centurion, Cornelius.  However, the lesson is implied that, under the New Covenant, all meat is available to us to eat.

So, when I have the opportunity to do so, I will enjoy some horse steak - and will give thanks to the One Who provides for all of my needs, and so much more besides!