Why Do We Have Four Gospels?
Watchman Nee

The four Gospels were written by the Evangelists whose Gospels bear their names. Matthew was an evangelist, and hence the Gospel according to Matthew was the particular gospel he preached. These four Evangelists presented all the things concerning the Lord without any reservation or consideration. What, especially, Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote is more or less the same. Why, then, were there these three Gospels instead of just one? For it would appear as though there is much repetition in these three books. Yet, with John’s Gospel, we have four separate Gospel narratives. And what John recorded in his narrative turns out to be quite different from the others. Although the first three Gospel accounts might record the same historical facts, God has nonetheless ordained to have all three. It is therefore clear that God’s decision was not based on historical facts but on something else.

Many, in studying these three Gospels, pay attention to the similarities and dissimilarities among them. Yet this is going about it in the wrong way, for the purpose of these three accounts is not grounded upon history. The history in them may be the same, the story may be alike, but God still desired to have all three. If the reason lies not in history, it probably rests in the Lord himself. For the history — the story — is the Lord’s. Therefore, it will be wise to pay attention to the Lord, to turn our thought towards Him. The Lord Jesus is not a simple person: He is a multi-faceted Man: consequently, it requires a multi-faceted Gospel presentation to understand this special One. And hence, these three Gospel narratives present different facets of this Man’s personality.

Each book has its own special emphasis. All four Gospels speak of the life of the Lord Jesus. God’s life has two essential qualities: one is light, the other is love. So that the life of the Lord Jesus likewise has these two fundamental essences. We may therefore say that the Gospel according to John exhibits the life of the Lord as love, while Matthew, Mark and Luke disclose His life as light. In John, the Lord declares God himself, who is love. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, He exposes all things, since “everything that is made manifest is light” (Eph. 5.13 b). In addition, it needs to be pointed out that Matthew reveals the Lord as king; Mark, as servant or bond slave; Luke, as man or priest before God; and John, as deity. These four aspects are the main presentation of the Lord on earth.

At the very threshold of the New Testament, we see the four Gospels as four pillars. The lack of any one of the four considerably reduces our knowledge of Him. The glorious King, the lowly Servant, the perfect Man and the perfect God are the four aspects of Him that we must comprehend. We are told in Ezekiel that the cherubim have four faces. We note in Revelation that there are four living creatures with faces, respectively, of a lion, a calf, a man and a flying eagle. Three are on earth, and one is in heaven. A lion is the king of the beasts. A calf is a most serving of animals. Man bears a heavy burden from year in to year out. And an eagle flies high, symbolic of God.

In Leviticus we find that there are five offerings: four are blood-shedding in nature; but one of them, the oblation, is non-blood-shedding. Ignoring for the moment the oblation, the other four offerings can be designated as the burnt offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, and the trespass offering.

These four have their representations in the four Gospels. For example, the characteristic of the burnt offering is to obtain full acceptance of God: it is an offering of consecration: and hence, the Gospel according to John addresses the Lord as the beloved Son who satisfies God’s heart. The Gospel according to Luke features the Lord as a Man who is in perfect harmony with God, and it stands therefore as the representation of the peace offering. Mark presents Christ as the sin offering, whereas Matthew depicts Him as the trespass offering. In Mark, Christ’s death is primarily for the sake of atoning for sin. But in Matthew, His death is to satisfy the righteous demand of God. In their accounts, both Matthew and Mark record the word: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (27.46b, 15.34c), since these two books are for dealing with the matter of atonement. Luke and John, on the other hand, do not include this word, since they are not principally concerned with atonement. According to Leviticus the offerings were divided into two different kinds: sweet savor and non-sweet savor. Both the sin offering and the trespass offering are non-sweet savor in character. Matthew is different from Mark in that its emphasis is on "debt" - such, for example, as: "forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" (6.12). In the same so-called Lord’s Prayer, Luke uses the word "sins" instead of "debt" (see 11.4). In Matthew there are many parables on debt, because sins in this Gospel are viewed as trespasses. The sins people commit offend God, and hence there is a need for trespass offering. The death of the Lord as viewed in Matthew is to satisfy God’s sense of having been offended. In the trespass offering, therefore, not only forgiveness is asked for but also restitution is made: our Lord as presented in Matthew died to repay our debts. From all this, then, we can see that the history may be quite similar in these three or four narratives, yet the historical Person is multi-faceted.

Source: Interpreting Matthew, by Watchman Nee