SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

CATHOLIC INSTITUTE OF WEST AFRICA, PORT HARCOURT

RES. 212: THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
LESSON ONE
GOSPEL IN GENERAL
Introduction
Out of the 27 books of the New Testament, four are designated gospels,
namely, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Out of these four, three are so alike in
style and mode of presenting the sayings and ministry of Jesus Christ that they
can to be studied together and given the name, synoptic. In this course we shall
study the synoptic gospels. We shall begin with a general examination of the
term “gospel”, its use in the New Testament; the formation of the group of
works known as the gospel, then we shall comment briefly on the gospel genre.
We shall finally concentrate on the individual members of the synoptic gospels.
The Meaning of Gospel
The word “gospel” comes from a combination of two Anglo-Saxon words
“god” “spell” which means “good news” or “good tiding”. Its usage in Christian
context is based on the Greek word ευαγγελιον (euangelion). In the classical
Greek, the word is both a noun and an adjective and means what is proper to an
euangelos (bringer of good news), i.e. good news or the reward for it. Its
meaning was purely secular. It later came to be associated with news of victory.
With time, it came to acquire some religious aspect because the news was
sometimes followed by a sacrifice in thanksgiving to gods. In classical Greek it
means: joyful news, especially victory in war, reward given to the bringer of
good news and offering made to gods in thanksgiving for the news.
Euangelion acquired a more religious dimension in emperor cult,
especially within Roman Empire. This is because an emperor was seen as a
divine ruler, who controlled nature, brought healing and good fortune. For this,
things that pertained to him were regarded as euangelion beginning with his
birth, his coming of age and his ascension to throne. His messages were also
considered as euangelion because they were seen as things meant for the good
and betterment of the condition of the people.
The Septuagint (LXX) uses the term euangelia (plural of euangelion) to
translate the Hebrew word ‫ְשׂרה‬
ָ ‫( בּ‬besorah). Besorah (euangelia) which appeared
six times in the OT was used in two ways: first to mean good news (cf. 2 Sam
18:20, 25, 27 and 2 Kgs 7:9) and secondly, reward for good news (cf. 2 Sam
4:10; 18:22). The same word stands for the good news and the reward for

1
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

bringing the good news because the bringer of good news is always rewarded.
Initially its use was purely secular but later it acquired religious dimension.
The verb, euaggelizomai is the word the LXX used to translate the
Hebrew verb ‫( בָּשָׂ ר‬basar), which means “to bear good tiding”. In the OT, it
means “to proclaim good news” or “to bear good tiding” like the news of
victory in war (2 Sam 4:10). The use of the verb shows a gradual transition from
secular use as seen in 1 Kgs 1:42; Jer. 20:15) to religious one (1 Sam 31:9; Ps
40:9; 68:11; 96:2 and 96: 7. In the book of Isaiah, especially Deutero-Isaiah, the
verb is used exclusively in religious sense and it means to bear or proclaim good
news. It refers to the deeds or victory God accomplished or is about to
accomplish for his people. As the Israelites return from exile, Zion who is here
the bearer of good news is asked to climb the mountain to proclaim the good
news and the good news is the coming of the Lord God to save and gather his
people (Is 40:9). In Isaiah 52:7, the presence of the messenger of good news
who brings news of salvation brings joy (Is 52:7).
In the New Testament, the noun euangelion occurred about 76 times
while the verb appeared about 54 times. Both Matthew and Mark preferred the
noun, euangelion while Luke preferred the verb, euangelidzomai or
euangelidzesthai. The term gospel occurs eight times in Mark, four times in
Matthew, none in Luke who prefers its verbal form while its verbal form
appears nine times in Luke (1:19; 2:10; 4:18; 4:43; 7:22; 8:1; 9:9; 16:16; 20:1)
and once in Matthew (11:5). While the word euangelion always appeared in
plural form in the Septuagint (LXX), it is always used in singular form in the
New Testament. What informed its usage in New Testament is not the secular
Greek understanding but the OT usage, especially, as seen in Isaiah 40:9, 41:27
and 52:7. Here though it designates good tidings or good news of victory in
battle, it has an added meaning of victory accomplished by God or salvation
wrought by God.
In the NT literature, the word euangelion has different shades of meaning
which it gradually developed with time. First, it refers to the activities of Jesus
Christ: his proclamation and his ministry(Mark 1:14-15; Matt 4:23; 9:35; 11:5;
Luke 4:18; 7:22; 9:6; 20:1) Out of the eight times its noun form occurred in
Mark, six are in reference to the teachings or proclamation of Jesus (Mk 1:14;
8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; 16:15). Matthew uses the term with reference to the
ministry of Jesus: his teaching, healing, and proclamation (4:23; 9:35; 11:5).
According to the synoptic gospels, Jesus went about proclaiming the good news
of the kingdom (Mat 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:43; 8:1). By this is not only

2
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

meant oral proclamation but various activities by which Jesus brings about the
saving deeds of God to humanity.
Jesus sees himself as one who brings to fulfilment the messianic
prophecies of the OT, especially as indicated in the book of Isaiah, among
which is the bringing of the good news to the poor (Luke 4:18-19; Isa 61:1). In
his reply to the question of John the Baptist, Jesus describes his work as a
fulfilment of the OT prophecies, especially of Isaiah of bringing healing and
salvation to the people, especially, the oppressed (Matt 11:5; Luke 7:22). Jesus
in his teaching shows that through him God has intervened in human history to
bring salvation (cf. Luke 4:21; Mt 11:4-6; k 7:22). The proclamation of Jesus
was actually the announcement of salvation, a proclamation of God’s
intervention in human history. It is also proclamation which is effective and
performative because it brings about what it proclaims. For this, by gospel here
is meant the good news of God definite intervention in human history through
Jesus Christ in fulfilment of his promises.
Jesus in his messianic understanding of himself knows that he is not only
the bringer of good news but also that he himself is the euangelion. In other
words, it is not only his proclamation that constitutes the good news but
everything about him: his teachings, his miracles etc. Matthew summarizes the
entire ministry of Jesus in Matt 4:23 when he says: “Jesus went throughout
Galilee teaching in their synagogue and proclaiming the good news of the
kingdom and curing every disease and every sickness among people”. Luke
expresses the same idea but with the use of the verb, euangelizesthai, in
reference to the messages of the angels (1:19; 2:10), ministry of Jesus (4:18;
4:43; 7:22; 8:1; 9:6 and 20:1).
The proclamation of the good news is not limited to Jesus Christ. In Mark
13:10 Jesus indicated to his disciples that the good news must be proclaimed to
all nations while in Mark 16:15, he gave them specific instruction to proclaim
the good news to all creatures. After the resurrection of Jesus Christ, his
disciples proclaimed the good news. In the mouths of the apostle, the gospel
becomes the deeds and teachings of Jesus Christ as well as various events in his
life, especially his passion, death and resurrection. Jesus becomes the object and
content of the gospel. The gospel has to do with the salvific mission of Jesus
Christ, all that Jesus did in order to bring us salvation. Initially emphasis was
laid on his passion, death and resurrection but later his entire life, his birth,
teaching, miracles constitute the gospel. The evangelists bring this out clearly,
especially, Luke. For him, Jesus whole life proclaims the gospel: his birth (Luke

3
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

2:10), his proclamation (4:10; 4:43; 8:1), work (Luke 7:22), teaching (20:1)
death and resurrection (Luke 24:26-27). By extension, what is related to him:
the birth of his herald (John the Baptist) is part of the good news (1:19). It also
includes the coming of the kingdom of God or the establishment of the reign of
God on earth.
In the NT, it can be said that it was St Paul who popularised the use of the
term gospel in terms of the deeds of Christ (out of about 130 times it appeared
either as noun or verb, about 73 times are in Paul). The treatment of Gospel in
Pauline writings is a bit complex and for this we shall not go into details. Paul
often talks of the gospel of God (Rom 1:1), of Jesus Christ (Rom 1:16; 15:29),
of his Son (Rom 1:9). For him, the gospel is primarily about Jesus Christ (Rom
1:3) or what God accomplished through him. It is a mystery hidden for ages but
now revealed through him (Rom 16:25). Paul uses the term euangelion in three
major ways: to refer to the act of proclamation (see: 2 Cor 8:18; Phil 4:3, 15) as
well as the content of that proclamation (1 Cor 9:14) and the power inherent in
the gospel (Rom 1:16). Paul brings out these three dimensions in the opening of
his letter to the Romans (Rom 1:1-3,16). Paul is set apart for the gospel: its
proclamation while the gospel he preaches concerns son of God. The content of
the gospel is Christ: his life, passion and death and resurrection and its
implication for humanity. On account of this, Paul is not ashamed of
proclaiming the gospel because it is the power for salvation. It also brings
peace (Eph 6:15) and strength (Rom16:25) and reveals God’s justifying
righteousness (Rom 1:16-18). It is not an empty word for it affects what it says
(Rom 1:1). It is at work everywhere (Col. 1:5). Faith arises through it and is
directed towards it. It summons us to decision and claims our obedience (Rom
10:16) and we shall be judged by our attitude to it (2 Thess 1:18).
The gospel also means the act of proclamation or the activity of one who
proclaims the gospel. Paul sees himself as called and set apart for the gospel
(Rom 1:1) and for this he is not ashamed of the gospel (Rom 1:16). In fact
proclaiming the gospel is obligation laid on him and woe is he if he fails to do
that (1 Cor 9:16). Sometimes the great Apostle Paul talks of “my gospel” or the
gospel he preached as if it were a different gospel (Rom 2:16; 16:25). This does
not mean that he has a special gospel as he strongly believes that gospel is one
and strongly condemns anybody who tries to preach another gospel (Gal 1:11).
It is because understands himself as being entrusted with its proclamation. He is
its herald, servant, apostle and teacher. He is specially called and set apart to
proclaim it to the Gentiles (Gal 1:15; Rom 1:1; Acts 22:21).

4
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

St Mark’s use of the term brings a new meaning to it. He begins his own
account this way: “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (Mk 1:1). With
him, the meaning extends to include not only the proclamation of the kingdom
but also to an account of what Jesus did and said. By this he means the good
news of what God has done, which will now be proclaimed in and through Jesus
Christ to all the nations. This entails: the kingdom or the rule of God that is
made present in Jesus Christ through his forgiving of sins, healing the sick,
feeding the hungry, raising the dead etc. Both Matthew and Luke employed the
same term to refer to the deeds of Jesus while John employed a different word,
aggelia (angelia) which means message (John 1:5, 3:11).
Gospel first referred to the saving deeds of Jesus and the message he
proclaimed, and then the message and saving deeds of Jesus Christ as
proclaimed through the apostles. Later it came to be used in reference to the
record of this saving deeds as well as the record of his message and preaching.
The existence of more than one record gives rise to its use in plural. Since the
gospel is one but is recorded by different authors, a little qualification became
necessary, hence the use of the phrase “according to ....”. Sometimes the term
gospel was used to refer to early Christian writing that is not strictly gospel. We
find this more in apocryphal writings like the Gospel of Peter.
Today, the term gospel refers to the saving ministry and deeds of Jesus
Christ, his person and his entire life, death, resurrection and ascension, the
proclamation of these and the account or record of his person, life and saving
deeds either as a whole or part as are contained in the four written accounts of
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The term gospel can be used in terms of the
entire narrative as recorded by any of the four evangelists: Mark, Matthew,
Luke and John or to a portion of their work.
Formation of the Gospels
Some may think that the gospels as word of God have always been or that
they were handed down by Jesus. Jesus is the author of the good news or the
gospel in the sense that he brought the good news. Yet he never wrote anything
down. At his time, what was known as the Scripture and which he also cited
was the Old Testament comprising of the Law, the Prophets and the Writings.
The early Christians did not write during the lifetime of Jesus nor immediately
after his death and resurrection partly because they did not see the need. They
thought that Jesus would soon come back, and that the world was about to come
to an end. The earliest form of Christian writings were the Letters, especially
those of Paul which he used to maintain contact with those he evangelised and

5
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

to answer some of their questions. The writing of the gospels came much later.
Jesus lived out the good news, he preached the good news but never wrote
anything down. The good news was first lived out then preached and finally
written down. We can therefore distinguish three stages in the formation of the
gospel: the public ministry and activities of Jesus, the apostolic preaching and
the writing of the gospel.
The Public Ministry and Activities of Jesus
Jesus is a historical figure, a person who lived at a particular time in
history. He was born during the reign of Emperor Augustus and shortly before
the death of Herod the Great in 4 A.D. Very little is known about his infancy
and early youth. He began his ministry when he was about thirty years, during
the reign of Emperor Tiberius (15-37 A.D) and it lasted for about three years.
During this period, he did a lot of things and said a lot of things. His ministry
began with his baptism by John. In the course of that ministry he preached to a
great number of people, taught various things, especially about the kingdom of
God, performed various miracles, faced strong oppositions, especially from the
Jewish authority and towards the end of his public ministry he was arrested by
the Jewish authority, handed over to the Roman authority, tried by Pontus
Pilate and through the instigation of Jewish people, especially their leaders
condemned to death. He was crucified on the eve of Jewish great feast of
Passover and on the third day, some women who visited his tomb witnessed an
empty tomb, a sign of his resurrection.
During his ministry, many people witnessed his teachings, miracles etc,
but it is not as if all he did was left into the hands of anonymous followers, as
there were people he chose himself and there were also those who became very
close to him that they followed all through his ministry. This people he specially
chose (the apostles) and those who became his close and steady companions
(his disciples) became eyewitnesses of his ministry and life. Jesus as a great
teacher used methods suitable to his audience, like parables drawn from
different aspect of his people’s daily life like farming, fishing, trading, family
matters, social relations etc that people could easily recall. He also used short
sayings, teachings from the law etc. His specially chosen disciples and his
regular disciples witnessed greater part of his ministry up till his crucifixion and
death. All these became raw material for the gospel. One thing is worthy of
note: Jesus did all these but he never wrote anything down and so he left us with
no record of his saying and deed written by himself. However, some of his

6
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

sayings and deeds were remembered by his close companions and disciples who
became witnesses to these.
Apostolic preaching
Charismatic people usually have followers and disciples who are attracted
to their charisms and so did Jesus. From his numerous followers and admirers,
he called and selected his apostles. He had also other regular followers or
disciples. Most of them must have followed him for some personal reasons,
because they were attracted to his charism, his power of healing the sick, his
powerful preaching etc. Little did they know that they were called to share in
the same ministry of their master, or that they would be sent out to perform the
same task as their master or be called upon as eyewitnesses. If they had known
that the world would depend on their testimonies, may be, they would have
prepared themselves better. They followed Jesus, witnessed his miracles,
listened to his teachings, some they understood, others, they did not. Even their
knowledge of their master was vague. His passion and death were least
expected, and his resurrection was never imagined. His death and resurrection
gave them a new understanding of their master and of themselves.
After the resurrection, they looked back on the days they were with their
master, his sayings, and deeds, and tried to remember them and to reinterpret
them in the light of the overall event. From their deep reflection, they then
realised that Jesus was not an ordinary person, a miracle worker but the long-
awaited Messiah and redeemer, the saviour whom God sent to accomplish his
plan of salvation and indeed the Son of God. This understanding is evident in
the titles they used for him, like, Lord (a title exclusively reserved for God),
Messiah, and Son of David. They then believed that the person they have been
following was the Son of God. Their post resurrection faith illumined their
memories of what they have seen and heard of him during his pre-resurrection
time and this made them to proclaim his words and deeds with new
understanding. They then understood themselves as people who were called not
only to follow but also to witness and proclaim his deeds to others so that other
may believe, have fellowship with them and also be saved (John 20:31).
With this understanding of Jesus, they set out to proclaim him to the
people. Naturally, it was not possible for them to remember everything that
Jesus did or said in minute detail. Even from what they remembered, they
selected those ones that would help them achieve their purpose, namely to show
that Jesus is Lord and saviour, and to lead people to faith in him and fellowship
with them. It has to be noted that they never sat down to compile memoirs of

7
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

what Jesus did and said, rather they fell back to their memory of him as the need
arose in the course of their preaching or teaching.
To aid their memory, they may have developed a schema which they
expanded in the course of their preaching. This is evident in some speeches of
Peter in the Acts of Apostle. A discernable schema is this: Jesus’ baptism by
John, his ministry in Galilee, his journey to Jerusalem, his passion and death in
Jerusalem. The preaching of the apostle must have dwelt more on his passion
and death and his resurrection. For this, the gospel is often times referred to a
passion narrative with an introduction.
With the growth in the number of early Christians and the entrance of
Gentiles and the expansion of the gospel to non-Jewish territories, there arose
need for adaptation of the gospel to non-Jews, i.e. preaching the gospel in the
ways that non-Jews can also understand. Even among the Jews, new situations
arose which again challenged them to adapt the gospel message to such
situations. In consideration to the needs of the audience, two forms of
preaching were developed: the kerygma and didache or catechesis. The first was
directed at non-Christians aimed at summoning them to conversion and faith in
Jesus Christ while the second was meant to deepen the faith and understanding
of those already converted. In all these, the apostles and preachers tried as
much as possible to remain faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ but that does
not mean exact reproduction of the words of Jesus or insisting on the original
contexts. In taking care of the needs of the community, sometimes, the words of
Jesus are taken from their contexts and used in another, provided they fit into
those contexts.
They apostles and preachers not only proclaimed their faith through their
preaching and teaching, they also did that through celebration and narration. In
other to internalise the message, the apostles also celebrate their faith. They
gather together to break bread in commemoration of the action of Jesus Christ
on his last supper with his disciples and to pray. By celebrating the event they
re-live the event and this helps those that never witnessed the event to become
part of it. The apostles also narrate their faith. Apart from giving short
summaries in their preaching, sometimes they give more details on the life and
teachings of Jesus. These narrations may have originated from the visit of some
of the important places in the life of Jesus. In visiting those areas, they try to
recount what happened there. They also recount some events in the life of Jesus
either to explain the origin or meaning of their present action or derive rule of
life from it. With time there developed short sayings, creeds that easily be

8
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

memorised, narrations, hymns that circulated. After some time, these were
gathered and they formed the raw material for the formation of the gospel.
Various communities used and reinterpreted these sayings and narrations to suit
their own situations.
The Writing of the Gospels:
As the Christian communities continued to grow, as the missionary
demand continued to increase and as the number of the original eyewitnesses
continue to decrease due to death and persecution, it became necessary to keep
record or account of certain things: their teachings and testimonies. Individuals
started to record and to compile the teachings of the apostles and to draw up
account of what took place among them (Luke 1:1). There were also certain
materials that circulated orally like the some parables of Jesus, some sayings
and some creeds which people easily memorised. All these became the
materials the evangelists later employed in their work.
The common view among the scholars today is that the evangelists were
real authors of their work. This means that they went about their work the usual
way any author goes about to gather and verify his materials and apply them to
his situations. This is very evident in the prologue of Luke’s gospel (cf. Luke
1:1-4). They must have depended on some sources both oral and written. We
have four canonical gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In
other words, two were attributed to the apostles, Matthew and John and two to
close companions of the apostles, Mark (close companion of Peter) and Luke
close companion of Paul. According to early Christian tradition, these gospels
were written by the above-named evangelists: Matthew was written by the
apostle, Mark by the companion of Peter, Luke by the companion of Paul and
John by the apostle John.
Today, some scholars raise questions on whether these gospels were
written by these evangelists. According to their arguments, evangelists
especially, Matthew and John are supposed to be eyewitnesses of the events
they narrated but it seems it is not the case. According to them, the evangelists
are not eyewitnesses of the events they narrated, or it will be very difficult to
explain their divergences. If they are eyewitnesses of the events, they would
have reported it the same way. Naturally, no two witnesses can report the same
event the same way. On the divergencies one notices on the gospels there is
need to take certain things into consideration. First, Jesus did not leave account
of his saying or a record of his ministry. Secondly, though the apostles and
some of the disciples witnessed some teachings and some aspects of his life and

9
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

ministry, it is very unlikely that any record was made during the ministry of
Jesus. Thirdly, the apostles in the course of their preaching relied on their
memories and witnesses of others rather than on any written record. Even from
what they remembered they selected what was appropriate at a particular time to
their preaching. They also adapted their preaching to the needs of the
community. Fourthly there was a reasonable gap between the time of the life
and ministry of Jesus and the writing of the gospels. The ministry of Jesus took
place in early 30’s of the first century while the writing of the gospels is
suggested to be between 60 to 90 A.D. Fifthly, it is more likely that the
evangelists depended more on the oral traditions in circulation at their time and
on available written documents than on their memories. Before the gospel was
written down, it was preached for some years in various places by the apostles
and disciples and even by those who were not eyewitnesses. As we have already
indicated, in the course of their preaching they adapted the gospel message to
different peoples and their various needs and in the course of this they may take
the word or teaching of Jesus Christ and use it in another context. For example,
while Matthew said that Jesus taught the Lord’s prayer in the course of his
teaching on the sermon on the mount, Luke said he did that at the request of his
disciples after observing him praying for some time. It is very likely that one of
them or even both may have taken the teaching of the Lord’s prayer from its
original context and used it in another. For one who does not understand how
the gospel came to be written, this amounts to inconsistencies, but this is not the
case.
Sixthly, the evangelists were not mere compilers and their primary aim
was not to arrange the materials they received chronologically but to use the
material to build a portrait of Jesus. On account or this, the evangelist arranges
his materials in a way that will help him to present his portrait of Jesus. For
example, Matthew wants to portray Jesus as a great teacher after the example of
Moses and therefore he often arranges his materials thematically. He collects
the teachings of Jesus together, his miracles, his parables as if Jesus devotes a
day to teaching, another to parable and another to miracle. Mark wants to
portray Jesus as Son of God who chooses to reveal himself not by name by
deeds. Luke wants to present Jesus as merciful Saviour of all humanity.
Finally, the evangelists adapted their writings to the needs of their
community. Each evangelist had a particular group of people in mind while
writing his gospel and this also affects the way he presents or even selects his
materials. Matthew has the Jews in mind and for this wrote his gospel in such a

10
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

way that it would be relevant to his people. For example, he cited the Old
Testament more than any other evangelist because he wants to portray Jesus as
the promised Messiah and as a teacher greater than Moses. On the other hand,
Luke writes to the gentiles and wants to show that Jesus came to save not only
the Jews but everybody. For this, some details that may be significant for
Matthew may not be significant for Luke and vice versa. For example, Matthew
presented the sermon of Jesus on the mountain because of the significance of
mountain for the Jews but Luke presented the sermon of Jesus on the
From all we have seen, the composition of the gospels is a more
complicated process that it may appear to a lay person. Gospel materials have
three layers of their formation: the life and ministry of Jesus, the preaching of
the apostles and the creativity of the evangelist. The reader may be considered
as the fourth in the chain of the transmission process. Luke indicates these
stages in the prologue of his gospel in Luke 1:1-4. First are the events in the life
of Jesus, second are as they were handed down to us by the eyewitness: the
apostles through their preaching, thirdly, the actual writing by evangelist and
fourthly the audience or reader: Theophilius. All these show that it would have
been very difficult for the evangelists to have reported the events and teachings
of Christ the same way. This then raises another question: How then do we
account for a lot of similarities in the gospels, especially in the first three
gospels?
LESSON THREE
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
The first three canonical gospels, namely, Matthew, Mark and Luke have
so much in common in style, content and organisation of the sayings and deeds
of Jesus Christ. In many instances, they are very close to one another in the way
the presented the words and deeds of Jesus that often they repeat one another
word by word. A simple reading of Jesus cure of a leper in Matt 8:1-4; Mark
1:40-45 and Luke 5:12-16 will make this clearer. Sometimes, they follow the
same pattern in arranging the events in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ
(compare Mark 1:40-2:22 with Luke 5:12-39). The relationship among the first
three canonical gospels is such that they can be placed side by side and viewed
together (syn-optically). They are therefore called synoptic gospels, from the
Greek word, syn-orao, syn-ophthos, to see together, seen together.
Sometimes, the differences among them are such that they almost
contradict one another (compare Matt 8:28-34 with Mark 5:1-20). On account
of this, scholars have wondered the causes of such similarities and differences

11
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

among the synoptic gospels. Many strongly believe that they must have been
some form of interdependence that existed in the composition of the gospel.
What exactly is the nature of this dependence is very difficult to explain. Could
it be that they all depended on the same material? Could it be that one wrote
first and others copied from him? Could it be that there were materials they
shared together and the ones they got independently? All these constitute what
is today known as synoptic problem. In other words, how can one, on one hand,
explain the close similarity or even word to word reproduction in the synoptic
gospel and on the other hand, their divergence?
Statistically, Mark has 661 verses, Matthew has 1,068 verses while Luke
has 1,149 verses. About 80 per cent of the verses found in Mark are also found
in Matthew and about 65 per cent of verses found in Mark are found in Luke.
To use the language of some scholars, 80 percent of Marcan materials are found
in Matthew and 65 percent found in Luke. There are about 220 verses that are
found in Matthew and Luke but are not in Mark. There are also verses that are
peculiar to each of the evangelists. For instance, only Matthew has the account
of the visit of the wise men from the east (2:1-12), the flight to Egypt (2:13-15)
and the massacre of the infants (2:16-18); only Luke has the birth of John the
Baptist (1:57-66), the Canticle of Zechariah (1:67-80), the angel’s message to
Mary (1:26-38), Mary visit of Elizabeth (1:39-45), the parable of the prodigal
son (15:11-32), etc.
Those verses or materials that are found in Mark, Matthew and Luke are
called Triple tradition while those materials found only in Matthew and Luke
are called Double tradition and those materials peculiar to each of the
evangelists are called single tradition. The Triple tradition is made up of 330
verses. This means that Mark, of his 661 verses, 330 verses he has in common
with Matthew and Luke, Matthew of his 1068 verse, he has 330 verses in
common with Mark and Luke and Luke, of his 1149 verses, he has 330 verses
in common with Mark and Matthew. Matthew and Luke have about 220 (or
230) verses in common. Mark’s single tradition is about 50 verses, that of
Matthew is about 330 verses while that Luke is about 550 or 600.
Scholars at different period have tried to explain the synoptic enigma:
how it was possible for the three evangelists in many instances to have reported
several incidents in the same way, sometimes following the same order and
using the same words. Different solutions offered can be grouped into three.
Oral Tradition: The first solution offered is that the similarity may have
been due to oral tradition. It is universally accepted that oral tradition is behind

12
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

the formation of the gospel. Before the gospel was written it was first preached
and it is assumed that the evangelists may have remembered some of the
sayings of Jesus. However, oral tradition cannot explain the type of similarity
found in the synoptic, it cannot explain the word-to-word resemblance of the
account and even the order in the account.
The existence of Proto-gospel: This is a hypothesis that was an earlier
gospel or what is called proto-gospel on which the three evangelists depended.
According to G.E. Lessing, there was an extant Aramaic gospel on which the
three evangelists depended. This view is a development of the view of J.
Eichhorn who is of the view that there must have existed a full account of the
life Jesus from which the evangelists developed the gospels. Some in this camp
suggest that there existed apocryphal gospel from which the canonical gospels
were composed. For some, this is the gospel of Thomas, for some, it is what is
called Secret Mark, for others it is the gospel of Peter. It is credited to Papias
that he said that Matthew arranged in order the sayings of the Lord in Hebrew
and others translated from it. For some, this is strong backing that there existed
such extant gospel from where the evangelists developed theirs.
Another hypothesis is that of interdependence among the gospels. This
hypothesis has three versions. The first holds that Matthew is the first gospel
and others, namely, Mark and Luke depended on him. This hypothesis dates
back to St Augustine in 4th century and has been the dominant view until mid
20th century when it was seriously challenged. According to this Augustinian
view, the order of the canonical gospel is also the order of dependence.
Matthew is the first gospel, Mark abbreviated the gospel of Matthew, Luke
depended on Mark and Matthew (while John depended on the three). Matthew
has always been taken as the first gospel following the order in the bible. What
remains a puzzle is why Mark should choose to abbreviate Matthew or rather
omit some very important episodes.
To explain this puzzle, in 1789, J.J. Griesbach came up with what is taken
the be the second version of this hypothesis. He maintained Matthew’s priority
but proposed that Luke followed Matthew while Mark copied Matthew and
Luke only where they are in agreement. In this way he tried to solve the
problem of the brevity of Mark. A close study of Matthew and Luke shows that
there are many places Matthew and Luke agree that are completely omitted in
Mark. How then do we account for this? What seem to support this view is that
there are few instances where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark, i.e. where
Matthew and Luke narrate things almost the same way while Mark narrates it

13
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

differently. If Luke depended on Matthew, how do we account for their

differences, even sometimes to the point of almost contradicting themselves.
For example, according to Matthew, after the birth of Jesus, his parents have to
flee to Egypt for safety (2:13-15) while Luke makes no mention of it, rather
gives the impression that Jesus remained in Jerusalem and from there to
Nazareth (2:21-40). Again, how do we account for all the cases where Matthew
and Luke narrate the same events which are not found in Mark or what is
known as double tradition.
The third version of this hypothesis is that Mark wrote first, and Matthew
and Luke depended on him. According to this hypothesis, Mark wrote first, and
Matthew and Luke depended on him. Matthew and Luke expanded the Marcan
materials, removing what they consider as unpleasant comments about Jesus,
Mary, or the apostles. This version seems to explain the brevity of Mark as well
as the apparent dependence of Matthew and Luke on the order set by Mark.
However, it fails to answer the source of large materials found in Matthew and
Luke which are not in Mark. To solve this lacuna, this version was later
modified to include another source known as Q and today, it is known as Two-
Source theory. In other words, Matthew and Luke did not depend only on Mark,
there was another material which for lack of better name is called Quelle, a
German word for source which both Matthew and Luke depended on. This
Quelle explains the agreement of Matthew and Luke in those areas that are
completely lacking in Mark. According to this view, Matthew and Luke use this
source independently.
No hypothesis seems to explain all the puzzles in synoptic gospels, but
the third hypothesis seems to provide more answers than others. It explains
more the triple tradition, how the three gospels come to report certain events in
the same way and sometimes with the same word. The natural tendency in
dealing with a source is to expand rather than to abbreviate. Mark’s gospel is
the shortest. It is more likely that Matthew and Luke expanded materials gotten
from Mark. They may have enlarged their gospel from the material they got
from another source. If Mark had depended on Matthew or Luke, it would have
been very difficult to understand why Mark would have deliberately omitted
some very important materials reported in Matthew or Luke, like the sermon on
the mount. Mark may have omitted it because he had no access to source
material. This hypothesis explains better the internal arrangement of the
gospels. Matthew and Luke seem to follow the order set by Mark. A literary
critical study of the synoptic shows that Matthew and Luke seem to follow the

14
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

order set by Mark. Whenever Matthew disagrees with Mark in terms of order,
Luke supports Mark and whenever Luke disagrees with Mark in terms of order,
Matthew supports Mark. Hardly does one see where Matthew and Luke agree in
terms of order against Mark. This basic order is this:
Matthew Mark Luke
Preliminaries 3:1-4:11 1:1-13 3:1-4;13
Galilian Ministry 4:12-18:35 1:14-9:50 4:14-9:50
Journey to Jerusalem 19-20 10 9:51-19:28
Ministry in Jerusalem 21-25 11-13 19:9-21:38
Passion 26-27 14-15 22-23
Resurrection 28 16 24

When one compares the three gospels from the point of the arrangement
of materials, one realises that Matthew agrees more to Mark than to Luke and
Luke almost followed the order of Mark. When one compares the order
followed by Mark with that of Matthew, one realises that Matt 3:1-4:22 follow
exactly the same order as Mark 1:1-20. The order is: John the Baptist (Matt 3:1-
12; Mark 1:1-8), Baptism of Jesus (Matt 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11); temptation,
(Matt 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-12); preaching in Galilee (4:12-17; Mark 1:14-15); call
of the first disciple, (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20). Matthew and Mark follow
the same order in Matt 14:1 till end and Mark 6:14-16:8, though with some
minor changes. In Matt 4:23-13:58 and Mark 1:26-6:13 there are some
disagreements in order. Luke on the order followed the order of Mark. The only
difference is that sometimes he inserts his own material in-between but even at
that he still maintains the order of Mark.
Mark Luke Luke’s addition
1:1-15 3:1-4:15 4:16-30
1:21-39 4:31-44 5:1-11
1:40-3:19 5:12-6:19 6:20-8:3
3:31-9:40 8:4-9:50 9:51-18:14
10:13-52 18:15-43 19:1-28
11:1-13:37 19:29-21:38
14:1-16:8 22:1-24:12
The changes in order in Matthew and Luke can be understood as
redaction based on the theological intention of the author. For example,
Matthew gathers the sayings of Jesus in one place in order to present him as a
new Moses.

15
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

LESSON THREE
The Q Source:
There are about 220 to 235verses which appear in Matthew and Luke
either in full or in part but are not found in Mark. The verses or the passages are
so similar, sometimes agree word to word that it is very likely that there is a
source which Matthew and Luke used. However, it is more likely that they used
the source independently. This material is given the German name for source,
Quelle. A good example of this is Matt 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9. Some scholars,
especially those who try to defend the position of Griesbach are of the view that
Q is unnecessary. According to them, the agreement of Matthew and Luke in
those areas that are omitted in Mark can be explained on the dependence of
Luke on Matthew. According to them, it is possible that Matthew depended on
Mark and Luke depended on Mark and Matthew.
This view has been criticised on a number of grounds. According to the
critics, Luke seems to have the tradition of maintaining the order of the work he
depends on. When one compares Mark and Luke with respect to the order of
materials in the triple tradition, one realizes that Luke follows carefully the
order of Mark in triple tradition. However, when one compares Matthew and
Luke with respect to the order of materials in double tradition, one notices a
huge difference. Why then does Luke not follow the order of Matthew in double
tradition if it is true that he depends on it? Again, hardly do Luke and Matthew
agree against Mark in triple tradition, but more often Luke and Mark agree
against Matthew. If Luke depends on Matthew, why does Luke agree always
with Mark and omit modification or additions made by Matthew. For example,
both Matthew and Luke have infancy narrative but there is no sign that Luke
has any knowledge of the infancy narrative of Matthew because the two account
almost contract themselves at different points. Luke rather does not betray any
knowledge of Matthew.
In some cases within double tradition Luke rather than depending on
Matthew seems to be in possession of an earlier version of the same source he
shared with Matthew, like in the beatitude, and Our Lord’s prayer. The more
likely thing is that both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark, and Matthew and
Luke work independently on those materials they get from Q. It is likely that
Matthew and Luke had access to Q but they used it independently.
Whereas most scholars agree in the existence of Q, many caution on the
extent of this document. Since Matthew and Luke sometimes independently
omit materials from Mark, it is also possible that sometimes they independently

16
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

omit material from Q. In other words, they used the material where it suited
their purpose. Since again in borrowing from Mark, they sometimes rearrange
materials borrowed from Mark, it is also possible they may have rearranged
materials borrowed from Q. When Luke and Matthew are compared in their use
of materials borrowed from Mark, it shows that Luke as much as possible
maintain the order he found in Mark while Matthew often rearranges this order.
For this, Brown suggests that the order followed by Luke in the use of Q is
likely to be the order in which the materials in it are arranged.
Q is very likely to be a written document rather than oral document
because only written document can guaranty such word-to-word agreement
found in Matthew and Luke in reference to Q. Its content consists mainly of the
sayings of Jesus and some parable. While Matthew brings these sayings
together and turn them into long sermon or instructions as we have in the
sermon on the mount (5:1-7:28), missionary discourse (10:1-11:30), Luke
scattered them in different parts of his gospel, especially in Jesus’ teaching on
his way to Jerusalem (9:1-19:27).
Some of the Q materials include: warning of John the Baptist (Matt 3:7-
12; Luke 3:7-9, 16-17); Temptations of Jesus (Matt 4:2b-11a; Luke 4:2-13)
speck in your brother’s eye (Matt 7:3-5; Luke 6: 41-42), message of John the
Baptist to Jesus and Jesus’ reaction (Matt 11:2-11; Luke 7:18-28), the Lord’s
prayer (Matt 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4), manner of prayer (Matt 7:7-11; Luke 11:9-
13) seeking of sign (Matt 12:38-42; Luke 11:29-32) parable of talents/pounds
(Matt 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-17) and many others. For comprehensive list, see
R. Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, 118-119.
The Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John
When we compare the synoptic gospels with that of John, we notice
obvious difference. The synoptic gospels differ from the gospel of John in style
and manner of presenting the sayings of Jesus and in organization of material.
First from the point of view of style, whereas in the synoptic gospels the greater
part of the sayings of Jesus are presented in form of teaching where Jesus talks
and his audience listens without interruption, in the gospel of John, the greater
part of the sayings of Jesus are presented in form of dialogue where Jesus
argues out what he is saying with frequent interruption. Whereas in the Synoptic
gospels, the sayings and teaching of Jesus centre on the kingdom of God, in the
Gospel of John it dwells on his relationship with the Father. Whereas in the
synoptic gospel Jesus very often speaks in parables and proverbs (see Mat 13:1-
53; Mark 4:1-20; Luke 8:4-15), in John he speaks in symbolic language (see

17
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

John 15:1-17). While in the Synoptics more time is giving to the teachings of
Jesus (see Mat (5-7), in John’s gospel more time is giving to Jesus’ dialogue
and argument with his opponents, especially, the Jews (John 8:12-59).
A number of episodes and saying found in the synoptic gospels are totally
lacking in the gospel of John. All the Parables and the casting of demons we
find in the synoptic gospels are totally lacking in John. Infancy narratives
(found in Luke and Matthew), the temptation, the sermon on the mount, the
mission of the apostles, eschatological discourse, all sayings against the scribes
and Pharisees and the institution of the Eucharist are all lacking in the gospel of
John.
Again from the point of view of organization of ministry of Jesus Christ,
while the synoptic gospels present the ministry of Jesus as taken place mainly in
Galilee and later in Jerusalem – in fact the Synoptics give the impression that
Jesus performed most of his ministry in Galilee and travelled to Jerusalem to
suffer and die; John presents the ministry of Jesus as taken place alternatively in
Galilee and Jerusalem. For John, Jesus shuttles between Galilee and Judea and
in fact spent more time in Judea than in Galilee (see John 2:1-12; 113-25).
While the Synoptics present the ministry of Jesus as if it all took place in a year
because only one Passover was mentioned, John makes it clear that it lasted for
three years, because he indicated that Jesus witnessed three Passovers in the
course of his ministry and passion (2:13; 6:4; 13:1).
On the other hand, John included many episodes that are not found in the
synoptic gospels: the discourse on the Word (John 1:1-18), the wedding feast at
Cana in Galilee (2:1-11), the dialogue with Nichodemus (3:1-21), the dialogue
with the Samaritan woman (chapt 4), the cure at the pool of Bethzatha (5:1-9),
the discourse on the bread of life (John 6), the cure of the man born blind (chapt
9), the raising of Lazarus (ch, 11), the washing of the disciples’ feet (ch. 13), the
discourse on the vine (John 15) the Priestly prayer (John 17) etc. Often the
chronology of John is different from that of the synoptic, like the time of the
cleansing of the temple, the ending of the ministry of John the Baptist, the
chronology of the passion.
Despite all these, there are still similarities: the ministry of John the
Baptist feature in John and in the synoptic, the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:9-11;
Matt 3:13-17; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34), the cleansing of the temple (John
2:13-22; Matt 21:10-17; Mark 11:11-17; Luke 19:45-46); the feeding of the
multitude in John (6:1-15; Matt 14:13-21; Mark 6:32-44; Luke 9:10-17),
walking on the water (Mark 6:45-52; Matt 14:22-33; John 6:15-21), Jesus’ entry

18
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

into Jerusalem in John (12:12-19 is close to Matt 21:1-9; Mark 11:1-10; Luke
19:28-40) There are a lot of similarities in the passion narratives.
Some stories which John has in common with the synoptic are re-
arranged either from the point of time it took place or difference in order and
details. For example, the cleansing of the temple happened almost at the
beginning of the mystery of Jesus in John but towards the end of the ministry of
Jesus in the Synoptic. The order of the call of the disciples in the synoptic is
different from that in John. The account of the anointing of Jesus is different in
the synoptic and John (compare Mark 14:3-9; Matt 26:6-13 with John 12:1-8).
To explain the similarities, some scholars are of the view that John may have
had knowledge of Mark or one of the synoptic gospels. Some are of the view
that both John and the synoptics may have shared the same oral tradition. It is
unlikely that John had access to any of the gospels, but he may have had access
to some tradition which the synoptic used either in oral form or in written form.
LESSON FOUR
THE GOSPEL OF MARK
The gospel of Mark is the second canonical gospel in the New Testament
coming after the gospel of Matthew. In the Patristic and Mediaeval periods, not
much emphasis was given to it because it was seen as an abridgement of
Matthew. However, since 19th century on account of two source theory, it has
become prominent and very important in the study of the Gospels, especially
the Synoptic gospels. It is literary simple but captivating in the way he narrates
his stories. In this Study, we shall briefly consider the issues of authorship, date
and destination. We shall also look into the structure of the gospel and its
principal theological themes.
The Authorship
The second canonical gospel does not indicate its author. The title, “the
gospel of Mark” is believed to be latter addition. However, early Christian
tradition that dates back to second century is unanimous in attributing the
Gospel to Mark. The earliest testimony is Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis.
According to Eusebius in his History of the Church, Papias quoted Elder (likely
John the Elder) as saying: “Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote
down carefully all that he remembered of the things said and done by the Lord
but not however in order”1 . According to Papias, Mark did not hear nor follow
Jesus, but having being a companion of Peter, he wrote down carefully what he
heard from Peter in his preaching. There are other witnesses to Mark’s

1
Eusebius, Historia Ecclesia cited in W.J. Harrington, Record of Fulfilment, 114.
19
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

authorship. According to Anti-Marcionite Prologues2 (160 to 180 A.D), Mark

who was called stump-fingered was interpreter of Peter. After the death of
Peter, he wrote down this same gospel in the region of Italy. Another strong
witness was Irenaeus. According to him, after the death of Peter and Paul, Mark
the disciple and interpreter of Peter also transmitted to us in writing the things
preached by Peter. In fact the testimony of the early Christians was unanimous
in affirming that Mark was the author of the gospel. Summarising this view, a
modern scholar, V. Taylor writes: “There can be no doubt that the author of the
gospel was Mark the attendant of Peter. This is the unbroken testimony of the
earliest Christian opinion from Papias onwards”3. According to him, in the age
when the tendency was to assign the gospel to the apostles, Mark was not likely
to have been named unless there was a good reason for that claim.
But who is Mark? Mark was a common name just like Peter and John
today. The common opinion is that by Mark here is meant the Mark mentioned
several times in the NT. He was the son of Mary who resided in Jerusalem (Acts
12:13), the cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10), the companion of Paul and Barnabas
in their first missionary journey but who dropped on the way at Perga in
Pamphylia (Acts 13:5-13). He was the cause of separation between Paul and
Barnabas in their second missionary journey (Acts 15:37). He may have later
restored relationship with Paul because the latter referred to him as “fellow
worker” in Philemon 24. He was with Paul in Rome (Col 4:10). He was also
companion of Peter who called him “my son” 1 Peter 5:13. When Peter was
released from prison, he went straight to their house (Acts 12:12-17). He was
also known as John or John Mark.
Though early Christian tradition is unanimous in naming Mark, the
interpreter of Peter as the author of the gospel, some modern scholars are
sceptical about this. For G. Kummel, the author is anonymous and therefore
unknown. Some of the reasons he gave are: that the testimony of Papias may
not be reliable because the composition of the gospel seem to be more
complicated than mere dependence on the preaching of Peter. Secondly, there
are indications within the gospel the author’s knowledge of the geography of
Palestine is poor since he thought that Sidon is in the south of Tyre (Mark 7:31),
coupled with the fact that he has good knowledge of Greek. On the basis of this,
he argues that the author may not have grown up in Palestine. In his opinion,
2
The Anti-Marconite Prologues were prefaces attached to the Gospels in order to defend
their authenticity against the attacks of the heretic Marcion who accepted only canonical
Luke and ten letters of Paul.
3
V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St Mark, 26.
20
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

even if the name of the author is Mark, it may not necessarily be the one
mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. R. Brown shares some of the views of
Kummel but he leaves room for the possibility of the author being Mark. For
John L. McKenzie, although it is impossible to verify the information of either
Papias or his source, John the Elder, most modern critics find his account so
much in harmanoy with the internal evidence of the Gospel itself that they
accept it (Dictionary of the Bible, 543). Some scholars have wondered why the
gospel would have been attributed to Mark who was not an apostle if not that he
was the author. Since the gospel was attributed to Mark who was not all that
well known or apostle since second century, it is very likely it has something to
do with Mark. Even if he is not the author in modern sense, he may have been
an authority behind the gospel.
In summary, for the early Christian tradition, Mark also known as John,
the cousin of Barnabas is the author of the second canonical gospel. This is the
official view of the church today. However, for some scholars, the author is
likely to be Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, for some, it may be another person
whose name is Mark while still for others, the author is unknown.
Destination
Though the gospel was written for all Christians, the author may have had
a particular group in mind while composing it. However, this is not indicated in
the gospel. In the first place, the gospel was organised and written in such a way
as to accommodate and give the Gentiles a sense of belonging. This is evident
in the two account of the multiplication of loaves. While the first one took place
within the Jewish territory, the second took place within Gentile territory. The
accounts have been seen as invitation to Eucharistic banquet. The second
account shows that Gentiles are also invited to the Eucharistic banquet. Another
account that was presented to give a sense of belonging to the Gentiles is what
Jesus said at the cleansing of the temple. According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus
said: My house shall be called a house of prayer but you are making it a den of
robbers (Matt. 21:13; Luke 19:46 but Mark wrote: My house shall be called a
house of prayer for all the nations but you have made it a den of robners (Mark
11:17). Secondly in it we find the explanation of some Aramaic expressions like
boarneges (sons of thunder, 3:17), talitha cum (little girl, get up, 5:41),
ephphatha: be open (7:34), Golgotha: place of skull (15:22), Eloi, Eloi, lema
sabachtani: My God, My God, why did you abandon me? (15:34) and the
explanation of some Jewish customs (cf. 7:3f; 14:12; 15:42). All these go to
support the view that the gospel may have been directed to those who may not

21
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

understand some Aramaic terms and Jewish customs. Mark accommodates the
Gentiles and shows that they also share in the salvation brought by Christ. In the
organisation of his work, he devoted a section to Jesus’ ministry in the territory
of the Gentiles. Apart from Jesus healing in the territory of the Gentiles, he also
multiplied bread which is an indication that the Gentiles also share in the
Eucharistic banquet. It then means that the gospel may have been written for the
Gentile Christians.
According to early Christian tradition, the gospel was written in Rome. A
number of Latin expressions in it go to buttress this. We find such expression as
preatorium (15:16) for the interior of the palace, denarius, letra for Jewish
coins, legion (5:9). Sometimes, Latin word is used to translate Greek word like
lepta to explain Jewish quadrans (Mk 12:42), kensos (latin: census) for tax
(12:14), kenturion (Latin: centurio) for centurion (15:39). All these suggest that
the Gospel may have been written in Rome. According to Origen and Clement
of Alexandria, the gospel was written in Rome. However, John Chrysostom is
the view that it may have been written in Egypt.
The Date of Writing
There is nowhere within the Gospel where any indication was made with
reference to the date of the writing of the gospel. However, early Christian
tradition has it that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of the apostles Peter
and Paul. According to Irenaeus, after the death of Peter and Paul, Mark put into
writing what Peter preached. If 64 A.D. is taken as the year of the martyrdom of
the apostles Peter and Paul, then he must have written after 64 A.D. How soon
after their death is not clear. Since Synoptic Gospels were already cited by the
middle of the second century, it means that they must have been written before
then. Again, since from two source theory, Matthew and Luke depended on
Mark, it means that Mark was written earlier than Matthew and Luke. Today,
many scholars date Matthew and Luke in 80’s. It therefore means that Mark
must have been written earlier, likely before 80’s.
Many scholars today have indicated that the destruction of Jerusalem is
important in determining the date of the Synoptic Gospels. The argument is that
any direct reference to the incident is an indication that the work is written after
it while absence of it will be an indication that it was written before. Some
scholars have noted slight differences in the eschatological discourse of the
three synoptic gospels, especially as it concerns the destruction of Jerusalem.
While the description given in Mark and Matthew about destruction of the
temple is a bit general, that in Luke is more specific and direct. Luke account

22
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

gives indication of someone writing after the event had happened. Apart from
this, both Matthew and Luke have incidents where direct references were made
with respect to the destruction of Jerusalem. None of such is found in Mark.
This is taken as indication that the gospel of Mark may have been written before
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. If he had written after
the destruction of Jerusalem, he would have added more details to his
eschatological discourse especially as it concerns that event of the destruction of
Jerusalem. Whatever is the case, the common opinion among scholars is that the
gospel may have been written between 60 and 70 AD and more likely after the
death of Peter (64 A.D). A more likely date is shortly after the death of Peter
which is about 65 to 67 A.D.
The Structure of the Gospel
When we talk of the structure of the Gospel of Mark, we mean how
different parts of the gospel is organised along some central ideas. Although the
Gospel of Mark appears easy and simple, its structure is not. On account of this,
some have seen from the point of view of different locations Jesus carried out
his ministry, while some see it from the point of view of the nature of ministry
of Jesus and people’s response to it while some combine locations with
responses to Jesus’ ministry. Here we follow the first perspective which follows
the traditional pattern of the kerygma and will combine it with reactions to the
ministry of Jesus where necessary. The preliminary part deals with the ministry
of John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, his temptation and the beginning of his
ministry. This is followed by his ministry in Galilee, then beyond Galilee, his
journey to Jerusalem, his ministry in Jerusalem, his passion, death and
resurrection. On the broad divisions of the gospel, while some scholars propose
two part division, others maintain three part division. For those who divided it
into two parts including the introductory section, 1:1-8:26 is ministry in Galilee
and its environs while 8:27-16:20 is journey to and ministry in Jerusalem. For
those who divide it into three parts, excluding the introduction:1:1-13 is the
Introduction; 1:14-8:26 is ministry in Galilee and its environs 8:27-10:52 is
journey to Jerusalem while 11:1-16:20 is ministry in Jerusalem, Passion, death
and resurrection. We shall follow a modified two-part division as follows:
Introduction: 1:1-13
Part One: Ministry in Galilee and its environs: 1:14-8:26
I. Initial days of Galilean Ministry: Jesus reveals his Authority and
Power amidst opposition: 1:14-3:6

23
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

II. The height of Galilean Ministry: Jesus further reveals himself

through teaching and Mighty Deeds amidst rising opposition: 3:7-
6:6a
III. The close of the Galilean Ministry: the Twelve share in the
Ministry of Jesus: 6:6b-7:23
IV. Jesus’ Ministry in the environs of Galilee: 7:24-8:26
Part Two: Journey to Jerusalem, Ministry, Passion, Death and
Resurrection in Jerusalem: 8:27-16:20
I. Journey to Jerusalem: 8:27-10:52
II. Ministry in Jerusalem: 11:1-13:37
III. Passion, Death and Resurrection: 14:1-16:20 (W. Harrington,
Record of Fulfilment, p. 118-119).
Some scholars are of the view that the gospel may have ended in 16:8. This is
because 16:9-20 is not found in some of early manuscripts. Those who argue in
favour of the longer ending wonder whether Mark would have ended his
account so abruptly, with the women coming out of the tomb terrified. The
ending does not narrate any of the resurrection appearances and they wondered
where the promise of 16:7 is fulfilled in the gospel. According to this line of
thought, 16:9-20 is missing in some manuscripts because it was torn away but it
was there in original manuscripts and those that retained it are those faithful to
the original manuscripts. Those who argue in favour of the shorter ending
believe the evangelist purposely ended the gospel that way. According this
view, 16:9-20 is copyist attempt to add what might be missing in the account
and this explains the three different endings of the gospel found in three
manuscripts.
Literary characteristics of Mark’s Gospel
The gospel of Mark has literary characteristics that distinguish it from the
other synoptic gospel which will not take a critical observer time to detect
especially after reading Matthew and Luke. Marcan language and style are very
simple oftentimes unrefined. This is more noticeable in the original language
where almost every paragraph begins with “kai” (and). Close to this is what
scholars often call parataxa or the coordination of several sentences with each
other through the use of the conjunction kai. No evangelist made so much use of
the conjunction kai in linking periscopes like Mark. For example, Mark’s gospel
may be divided into 88 pericopes, 80 of these began with kai. Scholars have
attributed this to heavy influence of semitic language (Aramaic and Hebrew)
where most often sentences begin with “and”. He thinks in Aramaic or Hebrew

24
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

and writes in Greek. Of the gospels, it has the most limited number of
vocabularies. Despite its simplicity Marks language does not lack its charm and
beauty.
Another characteristic of Mark is its vividness of expression and its love
for concrete things. He does not simply tell story but sees and visualizes the
person and things he narrates. No wonder some scholars see him as an artist. On
account of this, though his gospel is the shortest, yet his account of some
miracles of Jesus is longer than that of other synoptics; for example, the account
of the healing of the woman suffering from haemorrhage.
Mark prefers to allow events in the life of Jesus to speak for themselves.
He generally refrains from interpreting events but rather arranges them in such a
way that they speak for themselves. In Mark, Jesus reveals himself not through
long teaching or discourse but through his deeds. He presents the deeds of Jesus
in a very vivid way so as to bring the reader into immediate contact with the
person of Jesus whom he tries to portray. In this way, he not only makes the
reader to understand what happened but to make him or her to feel it. In other
words, he recreates the event for the reader.
Another aspect of this liveliness and vividness of Mark is that he does not
try to embellish the deeds and words of Jesus but presents them just as they
happened, unlike Matthew and Luke who embellished some of these incidence
or story especially those they feel may sound offensive to their readers. For
example, Eloi Eloi, lama sabachtheni: My God, My God why have you
forsaken me or some of his rebuke of the apostles (8;17-21).
It is most Aramaic. Of all the gospels, Mark’s gospel is most Aramaic
both in language and style. It preserved some of the original word of Jesus like
Talitha koum (5:41) Boanerges (3:7), Ephphetha (3:34), Korban (7:11), Abba
(14:36) and Eloi Eloi, lama sabachthani (15:34). His Aramaism is also evident
in his often avoidance of conjunctions (see 1:22, 45; 2:3, 18; 5:35; 6:14 etc) and
his frequent use of indefinite article.
LESSON FIVE
THEOLOGICAL THEMES
Mark succinctly presented his theological perspective in the beginning of
his gospel thus: “The good news of Jesus Christ, Son of God”. With this, Mark
indicates that what he is about to set before his readers is the good news of Jesus
Christ. The content of that good news is Jesus Christ, whose person, actions and
deeds constitute the good news and who also proclaims the good news. The
theological concern of Mark is primarily Christological. He sets out to answer

25
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

the question: who is Jesus? For Mark, Jesus is Son of God, the Christ or
Messiah, who chose to be known as Son of Man. He came to inaugurate the
kingdom of God through his teaching, miracles and more especially through his
suffering, death and resurrection and to make people partakers of that kingdom.
Three themes stand out clearly in the gospel: Christology, Kingdom of God and
Discipleship.
Mark’s Christology is Christology at initial and developing stage.
According to J. Kudasiewicz, in Mark one can see on one hand an echo of
Peter’s and early church catechesis and, on the other hand, a new theological
development4. As a scholar observed, it is a Christology from apostolic
experience free from dogmatic reflection. Mark battles to come to terms with
two seemingly opposing realities: the humanity of Christ and his divinity. On
one hand, he so much presented the humanity of Christ that later evangelists
could not do that without either some commentary or modification. Under
Christology, we shall consider the following Christological titles: Son of God,
Christ and Son of Man.
Son of God
For Mark, Jesus is first and foremost, the Son of God. He shows the
centrality of this by using it both at the beginning of his gospel (1:1), and at its
close in the confession of the centurion (15:39). The title also appears in a
number of places within the gospel (1:11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 12:6; 13:32; 14:61).
But when Mark calls Jesus Son of God, what does he mean? The title “son of
God” can be understood in different ways. In Greek culture, it can be used as a
title of honour. A hero or a king can be referred to as son of god. In the OT, it is
can be used for angels or heavenly beings (Gen 6:2), the people of Israel (cf.
Hosea 11:1; Exod 4:22, Deut 32:6; Jer 3:4) to indicate God’s special and
covenantal relationship with the people of Israel. It can be used for Davidic
kings, kings from King David’s linage. Its origin goes back to God’s promise to
David in 2 Sam 7:5-16). Such a king is an adoptive son of God. Its plural, sons
of God is used for angelic or heavenly beings (cf. Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8; Job
1:6; 2:1; 38:7) as well as for the people of Israel (Deut 14:1). However, Mark is
not using the title in any of the senses above.
Mark, reflecting the faith of the post-paschal Church understands Jesus as
a divine Son. By that he implies that Jesus is God. Jesus is not an adopted son
of God but real Son of God. God calls him, “my beloved Son, on whom I am
well pleased”.

4
Joseph Kudasiewicz, The Synoptic Gospels Today, 125.
26
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The title, Son of God reveals the person of Jesus Christ. He is Son of God
and therefore he is God. The greatest witness to this identity of Jesus is God
himself who affirmed this twice - during his baptism 5 and during his
transfiguration – that Jesus is his beloved Son (1:11; 9:7). It also reveals the
intimate relationship between Jesus and the Father. The demons also recognize
and proclaim him as Son of God (Mark 3:11; 5:7). However, Jesus intends his
true identity to be kept secret and rebukes the demons who try to reveal him
(Mark 1:25) and charges his disciples to keep the knowledge of his true identity
secret (Mk 8:30; 9:9).
In Mark, Jesus gradually and indirectly reveals himself, not through
lengthy discourse or directly as in the gospel of John (see John 1:36-39), or
through citation of Old Testament as in Matthew but mostly through his deeds.
First through his teaching, -His teaching made deep impression on the people,
because unlike the scribes and Pharisees, he teaches with authority. Also
through his parables, especially that of the wicked tenants (12:1-12). Through
this parable, Jesus indirectly tells the Jewish authority that they will kill him as
they killed the prophets of old. Thirdly, through his miracles. His miracles had
epiphanal character: God together with his power was revealed through his
miracles. This is evident in the reactions of the people. After the healing of the
paralytic carried by four persons, the people were amazed and glorified God
saying: “We have never seen anything like this” (2:12). At the raising of Jairus
daughter, the people were overcome with amazement (5:42). Fourthly and most
importantly Jesus reveals himself through his death and resurrection. The
centurion identified Jesus as Son of God only after his death on the cross
signifying that Jesus can better be understood as son of God only in the light of
the cross. John shared the same view in his gospel when he said: “when I am
lifted up from the earth, you will know that I am he” (John 8:28).
Christ
Another title applied to Jesus in the gospel of Mark is Christ (Christos).
Although it is not used many times in the Gospel of Mark, its important is
shown in its usage at strategic points. It occurred seven times (1:1; 8:29; 9:41;
12:35; 13:21; 14:61 and 15:32), out of which six is in reference to Jesus. The
5
However, Paul J. Acthtemeier is of the opinion that what happened at baptism, especially
the testimony of the Father may be understood as enthronement. Usually at an enthronement
of a king, psalm 2 is recited, especially verse 7 that says: “you are my son, today I have
begotten you”. Through this rite, the king becomes an adopted son of God. In other words, he
is of the view that what happened at baptism was the declaration of Jesus as a King or
Messiah and as an adopted son of God. This is very unlikely because the rite of
enthronement is done publically, but at baptism only Jesus heard the voice.
27
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

term comes from the Greek verb criō (chrio) which means to anoint, (especially
in the figurative sense of anointing by God, setting someone apart for a special
mission under the direction of God). In the OT three sets of people were
anointed: the kings (1 Sam 10:1; 16:13), the priests (Lev 8:12) and the prophets
(1 Kgs 19:16) and could be called the anointed (christos). However, the
expression, “the anointed” is used more often in reference to kings. The term
Messiah is the English rendition of the Hebrew Mašiaḥ, which in Greek is
Christos. For Mark, by the title, Christ, he means first and foremost the
Messiah. According to J. Kudasiewicz, Messiah at the time of Jesus was
understood as a king from the family of David, who would close the succession
of kings at the end of time and establish the kingdom of God on earth and who
will be gifted with extraordinary gifts and his reign will have religious and
universal character6. The understanding has both national and political
overtones. By Christ, Mark means the Messiah. This is clearly indicated in the
confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi (8:30) and in his tendency to replace
Christ with Messiah. In 8:30 Peter addressed him as Messiah. In 12:35, Jesus
wondered why he (Messiah) should be regarded as David’s son while in 14:61
he responded in affirmative when asked if he the Messiah (Christ).
However, Jesus’ concept of Messiah is different from that of his
contemporaries. He links his own messiah with suffering. This is why after the
confession of Peter, he goes on to explain to them that he will suffer and be
rejected. His strong rebuke of Peter shows that his disciples fail to understand
his concept of Messiah. Peter’s insistence that he would not suffer is strongly
rejected and considered as coming from Satan.
The titles, Christ, Messiah and King are closely related. For Mark, the
title Christ and Messiah mean the same thing and can be used interchangeably.
As Christ and Messiah, Jesus is king. He is the expected and long awaited King
from the lineage of David. Jesus never claimed the title for himself but accepted
it indirectly when he mounted mule and entered Jerusalem. He openly affirmed
that when he was questioned by the High Priest (14:61-62). Again when Pilate
asked him whether he was the king of Jews he simply said: “you said it”(15:2).
Jesus is king but not in the way his contemporaries understood the term. He
came not to be served but to serve and give his life as ransom for many. For
Mark, though Jesus is Christ, Messiah and King, he prefers to keep it, secret.
This leads us to an important aspect of Mark’s theology known as Messianic
Secret.

6
J. Kudasiewicz, The Synoptic Gospels Today, New York: Alba House, 1996,128.
28
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Messianic Secret
Jesus is the Son of God affirmed by God and even by demons and he is
the Messiah and yet he wants it to remain secret. After Peter confessed him as
Christ, he charged him and other apostle to keep the knowledge secret (8:29-
30). At the transfiguration, the voice was heard that affirmed him as son of God.
Again Jesus warned them to keep it secret (9:9). Jesus calls for silence and
secrecy after notable miracles, for example, after raising Jairus’ daughter (Mark
5:35-43), after curing a leper (Mark 1:40-44). Sometimes Jesus calls for secrecy
when its observance will be almost impossible, like the case of a leper and the
raising of Jairus daughter. Why must Jesus want his identity to remain hidden?
The answer lies in the conflict between Jesus’ self understanding of his
messiahship and the people’s false notion of messiah. Jesus understands himself
as Messiah but his notion is quite different from that of the people. For the
people, a messiah is a king, a royal figure after the example of David who rules
by the force of arms and who is victorious in battle through the use of force of
arms. Jesus knows that he is Messiah but not the type the people expect. He is
Messiah who brings victory through self sacrifice and death, the Messiah that
suffers and dies for his people. Jesus understands his messiahship not as a
matter of status but of service. He is Messiah in his works of healing, in his
victory over Satanic powers, and through his suffering and death. He knows that
his type of messiah will be unacceptable to the people. To avoid unnecessary
misunderstanding that will hinder his work, he decides to keep his messiahship
secret. Jesus wants his messiahship to be revealed through his works and more
especially through his death and resurrection.
LESSON SIX
Son of Man
Jesus chose for himself the title, Son of Man. The expression, son of man
is not a new title or expression. It is a common expression in the Old Testament.
Both in Hebrew and Aramaic, it has the same meaning. The Hebrew expression
ben adam and Aramaic expression, bar enash simply mean man. It means man
in a generic sense, man as distinct from God, man as mortal and finite. This is
evident in its use in some OT text. For example in Number 23:19 and Psalm
8:4 it is used synonymously with human being (see also Job 25:6; Is 51:12;
56:2; Jer 49:18; 50:40). Ezekiel used the expression over ninety times to mean
human being or mortal in contrast to the glory and majesty of God (2:1, 3, 6, 8;
3:1, 3, 4, 10 etc). The book of Daniel also used the expression in a way that
has been open to various interpretations. In Daniel 7, Daniel in his vision saw

29
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

rising from the sea four kingdoms that appeared to him in form of beast (first
like lion, second like bear, third like leopard and fourth indescribably ferocious)
and one after the other they were all destroyed and there finally came one that
appeared like son of man. The vision shows that these kingdoms as well as their
kings are bestial in nature because of the way they terrorize and destroy people.
After them, came a reign that would be humane.
In the NT, the expression, Son of Man, was used frequently in reference
to Jesus. Of all the titles, this is the one the Evangelist makes us understand that
Jesus uses to identify himself. It occurs 30 times in Matthew, 25 times in Luke ,
14 times in Mark and 13 times in John. The way the expression is used in the
synoptic gospels is essentially the same while its use in John is slightly different
and merits to be treated separately. The expression, Son of Man in the synoptic
gospels clusters around three areas: the earthly activities of Jesus; his suffering
and his future glory cum judgement. On his earthly activities and works: Jesus
has authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:10; Matt 9:6; Luke 5:24), he is Lord of the
Sabbath (Mk 2:28; Luke 6:5; Matt 12:8), he has nowhere to lay his head (Matt
8:20; Luke 6:22). On his suffering: the expression Son of man occurs several
times in reference to the suffering of Jesus, especially, in predictions of his
suffering (see Mark 9:12-13; Matt 17:9, Mark 9:9; Luke 11:20). O his future
glory: the expression Son of man occurs also in reference to the future coming
of Jesus and in reference to his future duty as a judge of the universe (see Mark
8:38; 14:62).
Jesus’ application of the term to himself as seen in the synoptic gospel
may have been derived from the book of Daniel 7:13f. Daniel in his vision saw
“one like the son of Man”. Son of man is therefore a heavenly figure who
receives everlasting kingdom and dominion from God. This figure is believed to
be Messianic in later Judaism. The character concealed in that title/figure in the
book of Daniel has multiple meaning and its multiple meaning makes it a title
appealing to Jesus. The expression son of man is an expression for human
being. In this context of Dan 7, the son of man comes from the clouds and
therefore is heavenly and he comes to the Ancient One, i.e. God and is given
dominion and kingship and part of his kingly duty is judgement. With this title,
Mark depicts Jesus as King who comes from above (from the Father) and who
has been given dominion and therefore as one whose kingdom has been
inaugurated. He also depicts him as the eschatological judge and king. This is
evident in his reply to the high priest, “you will see the son of man seated at the
right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven”. What is not evident

30
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

in the context of Daniel 7 is the issue of suffering which is seen as inseparable

part of his mission as king.
By using the title in the context of suffering, he links it with the Isaian
suffering servant. This is evident because Jesus often uses this title when he
predicts his passion, death and resurrection (8:31; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 14:12,
41). Jesus also understands himself as one who through his suffering and death
will save humanity. Jesus, like the Isaiah suffering servant came to give his life
as ransom for many (10:45). By the title of Son of Man, Jesus sees himself, on
one hand, as the heavenly figure who receives everlasting dominion and
kingdom, i.e. as the Messiah and, on the other hand, as the suffering servant of
God who through his suffering and death will redeem humanity. Mark’s
theological ingenuity is clearly manifested here. With the title, Son of Man, a
very unassuming title Jesus reveals himself as long awaited Messiah, who
comes from God and who also received kingship and dominion from God and
whose kingship is everlasting and yet a king who saves through suffering and
death and who will also judge all at the end of time. He therefore links the
messianic qualities with that of Isaian Suffering Servant. By choice of this title
Jesus indirectly reveals himself as a king (Messiah) with an everlasting
kingdom, who conquers not through force of arms but through self-sacrifice and
yet without attracting undue attention to himself.
The Kingdom of God
Another important theme in the gospel of Mark is the kingdom of God.
This theme has OT background. Though the expression, Kingdom of God is not
found in the OT, the idea is very common in it. By kingdom is meant the reign
or rule of God. God has always been seen as the king of the universe but in a
special way, as the king of Israel. This goes back to the promise God made to
Abraham of the gift of nation and land and also to the Sinaitic covenant by
which God became their God and they, his people. The Israelite recognised the
kingship of God first through his saving acts. The ruling power of God was
manifested in exodus when God liberated the Israelites from the hands of the
Egyptians and destroyed their enemies. With this, it has always been the firm
belief of the Israelites that God, as their God will always fight their battles and
liberate them from their enemies. Israelite subsequent request and enthronement
of earthly king did not diminish the fact that God remained their king as earthly
kings were like agents of God in performing his kingly rule. With the
destruction of the northern kingdom in 722 B.C. and that of the south in 586
B.C. Israel lost both the kingdom and their human king. From this period, Israel

31
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

looked forward to the restoration of kingdom to Israel, to a time God will

demonstrate his ruling power by liberating them from their enemies and
establishing Israel as his nation. This expectation is clearly manifested in the
OT messianic prophecies (Isaiah 11:1-10; Micah 5:2-5), especially in Daniel
2:44 that states: “The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be
destroyed nor shall this kingdom be left for another people”. The people of
Israel have always awaited the arrival of this kingdom, when God will take his
rightful position and when Israel as the favoured nation will stand out in the
comity of the nations.
With this background and understanding, when Jesus began his ministry
and started talking about the kingdom of God, the people immediately
understood what he meant, such that the expression needed no definition.
According to D. Harrington, in Judaism of Jesus time, kingdom of God referred
to the definitive manifestation of God’s Lordship at the end of history and its
recognition by all creation7. For Mark, the coming of Jesus marks a new phase
in the reign of God, a time when God intervenes in a special way through Jesus
Christ to establish his reign and to bring that reign into the awareness and
consciousness of the people. Jesus began his ministry by inviting all to repent
because the kingdom of God is at hand (1:15). Jesus came to proclaim the
gospel of the kingdom of God and through his coming and in his person the
kingdom of God has drawn near. Accepting his work, his exorcism and healing
is accepting the kingdom of God because it is equivalent to accepting what God
is doing through him.
The theme of the kingdom of God is a complex one. Sometimes the
evangelist gives the impression that it is a future reality, at another time he
presents it as something already in process, a present reality. The saying of
Jesus that the kingdom is near is a saying loaded with meaning. It has both
present and futuristic or eschatological dimensions. The kingdom is near in the
sense that it is already present in hidden and mysterious manner and it can only
be felt by those inside but on the other hand, it is still futuristic because it is yet
to be fully realised. Jesus has inaugurated a new phase in the history of kingdom
of God. In Jesus, God has intervened in human history in the way that he has
never done before; Jesus has initiated the salvation of man and inaugurated the
kingdom of God. The saving promises of God are coming to fulfilment. The
process has started but it completion and fulfilment or consummation remains in
the future. It will be fully realised at the second coming of Christ, “when they

7
D. Harrington, “The Gospel according to Mark”, NJBC, 597
32
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

will see the son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. Then he
will send out the angels to gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of
the earth to the end of the heaven (13:26-27). The inauguration of the kingdom
is anticipated by the ministry of John the Baptist and established by the teaching
and ministry of Jesus Christ and by his death and resurrection. The kingdom of
God also entails the definitive defeat of the enemies of God, especially Satan
and his angels and the liberation of the children of God. This defeat is already
indicated in the miracles of Jesus, especially his exorcism.
Because the mystery of the kingdom is a complex reality, Jesus presents
it in different ways: through his teaching especially his parables, through his
deeds especially and through his suffering and death. The secrets of the
mysteries of the kingdom of God are revealed through the parables (Mark 4:11).
As a complex reality, each parable highlights some aspect of the mystery. The
parable of the sower (Mark 4:3-8, 26-29) tells us how different people could
respond to the message of the kingdom while the parable of mustard seed (Mark
4:30-32) shows that the kingdom has a humble beginning and grows
unnoticeable and mysteriously like seed sown in the field. For Mark, the
suffering, death and resurrection of Christ mark the climax of the inauguration
of the kingdom while the second coming of Jesus Christ will mark the full
realisation of the kingdom.
Membership of the kingdom or what Mark often refers to as receiving or
entering the kingdom demands conforming to a particular way of life. It calls
for total openness to the direction and guidance of God as exemplified in the
lives of children (10:14) and not trusting in oneself or one’s wealth as seen in
the case of a rich young man (10:24). It calls for sacrifice and doing away with
the things that are inconsistent with the kingdom no matter how precious they
may be to the person (9:47). It calls for discipleship which is living in
consonance with the teachings of Christ.
Discipleship
The person of Jesus Christ, his ministry, his suffering, death and
resurrection elicit response. Jesus teaches people about God and the kingdom of
God; he heals people their infirmity and liberated those under the possession of
the devil. In response to his teaching and ministry, people followed him. We
may distinguish three groups of people: the crowd that followed him, they
mainly followed him to obtain one favour or the other and can be called
temporary disciples. The second are more regular group who follow him
wherever he goes and listen to his teaching, while the third are the apostles who

33
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

are his twelve close companions, who are mostly with him and to whom he
explains certain things in private. The second and the third may be properly
called disciples. Discipleship is part of the nearness of the kingdom of God
because it entails disposition to accept the person and teaching of Jesus Christ.
The call of Jesus demanded a total break with the past: Peter and Andrew
abandoned their fishing and became fishers of men, and so with James and
John. Levi abandoned his tax office. It calls for repentance and a break with
one’s old way of life. It calls for a new way of understanding life and relating
with others. Greatness does not come through dominance and lording it over
others and occupying positions of honour but through service. It requires a more
intimate and lifelong relationship with Jesus. A disciple is like a servant waiting
for his master’s return, and this calls for vigilance.
For Mark, a disciple is basically one who walks behind his master. He is
the one who follows the footsteps of the Master or rather one who follows the
footprint of the Master. A disciple should aim to be like his master and should
be ready to share the fate of his master. In the first part of the gospel, he
presented a disciple as one who shares in the mission of the Master: the
preaching of the gospel, the healing of the sick, the casting of demons etc (Mk
6:12-13). In the second part of the gospel, the mission of the disciples was to
share in the fate of the master. Jesus made this very clear when he says: if any
one wants to be a follower of mine, let him or her renounce himself/herself and
take up his or her cross and follow him. A true disciple is one who combines
both. Hence J. Kudasiewicz says: “The true and authentic disciples of Jesus
imitate the Master, not only in announcing the Kingdom of God, casting out evil
spirits and healing the sick but also in carrying the cross and in suffering.”8
One element that characterises discipleship in Mark is the inability of the
followers of Jesus to understand his person and mission. Peter confessed him at
Caesarea Philippi and Son of God and Christ but fails to reconcile his being
Christ with suffering. While Jesus was telling his disciples about his coming
passion, James and John son of Zebedee were busy seeking positions of honour
in his kingdom. The disciples were more busy arguing who was the greatest
among them rather than listening to Jesus as he predicted his passion. Though
Jesus remained close to his disciples, especially the twelve, they show culpable
ignorance of his person and mission. They show shallowness of faith and
dullness in understanding him.
LESSON SEVEN

8
J. Kudasiewicz, The Synoptic Gospels Today, 135.
34
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

MATTHEW
The gospel of Matthew opens the New Testament literature and comes
first among the four canonical gospels. The way the gospel is organised,
especially the sayings and deeds of Jesus, like the sermon on the mount, the
missionary discourse, and the parables as well as its presentation of the great
confession of Peter in response to which Jesus establishes the church on the
rock of Peter makes the book one of the favourite gospels of the church – often
referred to as the church’s gospel (see W.G. Kummel, Introduction to the New
Testament, 121). Its infancy narrative especially the visit of the magi has
remained the most widely known image of the birth of Jesus Christ while its
sermon on the mount and the Lord’s prayer are among the most widely read
gospel passages.
Authorship
The gospel is attributed to Matthew, the apostle. Scholars believe that its
title is a latter addition. However, early Christian tradition is unanimous that
Matthew the apostle is the author. The earliest witness is that of Papias.
According to Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, “Matthew indeed composed the
sayings (logia) in Hebrew language (habraidi dialekto); and each one
interpreted them to the best of his ability (HE 3.39.16)” 9. Scholars have tried to
understand this statement of Papias, whether by “the sayings”, he meant that
Matthew only gathered the sayings of Jesus together or that by the sayings he
meant both the sayings and the deeds of Jesus, i.e. the gospel. By Hebrew
language some scholars are of the view that he may have meant Hebrew dialect
and at the time of Jesus, the Hebrew dialect used then was Aramaic.
Another testimony to Matthew’s authorship was Irenaeus. According to
Irenaeus, “Matthew wrote and published a Gospel (graphe euangelio) for the
Hebrews in their native tongue when Peter and Paul preached the Gospel and
established the Church in Rome”. The testimony of Irenaeus buttresses that of
Papias and makes it clear that what Matthew composed was a gospel and not
just a collection of the sayings of Jesus. He also gives us an indication when it
was written. The views of Papias and Irenaeus are further supported by that of
Origen who claimed to have learnt from tradition about the four gospels and
that a certain tax collector and later an apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew wrote
the first of these gospels and published it for the faithful of Jewish origin and
that he wrote it in Hebrew language. Eusebius the historian further strengthen

9
Eusebius, Historia Ecclesia, cited in W.J. Harrington, Record of Fulfilment, 140.
35
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

this view when he writes: Thus Matthew first preached the teaching to the Jews
and then, when he was about to go other nations, he wrote his Gospel in his
native tongue, so that he could replace with his writing what they whom he was
leaving were losing because of his absence10.
There is no doubt that there are strong testimonies in support of
Matthew’s authorship of the first canonical gospel. However, some modern
scholars and critics have doubted the reliability of these testimonies. They are of
the view that all these testimonies may have been based on that of Papias. Some
of them doubted the reliability of the testimony of Papias. W.G. Kummel
disagreed with the saying of Papias in these: “we must concede that the report
that Mt (Matthew) was written by Matthew “in Hebrew language” is utterly
false, however it may have arisen” (Kummel, Introduction to the New
Testament, 120). However, R. Brown cautions against such easy dismissal of
the testimony of Papias: “It is not prudent for scholarship 1900 years later to
dismiss too facilely as complete fiction or ignorance the affirmation of Papias,
an ancient spokesman living within four decades of the composition of
canonical Matthew” (Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, 211).
To resolve this issue, scholars have searched for clues from the gospel
itself, i.e. internal evidence. The question they raised is this: Could one after
reading the gospel say that it was written by Matthew, a tax collector and an
apostle of Jesus Christ and that it was written in Hebrew or Aramaic language?
A critical literary analysis of the gospel shows that it must have been written by
a Jew for the Jews. First, it has numerous references to OT, about 61 of such,
showing that the author sees in Jesus the fulfilment of Israelite expectations.
Secondly, it has a number of terms which scholars believed are typically Judeo-
Palestinian like mamona (6:4), hosanna (21:9), kingdom of heaven, the Holy
City to mean Jerusalem, weeping and grinding of teeth etc. Again the disciples
are sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. From the gospel, it is clear
that a Jew, very likely of Palestinian origin is writing to Jewish Christians,
likely in Palestine. Some even suggest that the author may have been a Jewish
rabbi or teacher.
However, scholars maintain that there is no evidence that it was originally
composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. According to them, the language and style is
Greek and so uniform that a translator could not have achieved that. The
citations used are closer to Septuagint than to Hebrew OT. Secondly, scholars
doubt whether Matthew an apostle of Jesus Christ would have composed it

10
Eusebius, Historia Ecclessia III, 24,6.
36
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

since it lacks that immediacy of an eyewitness. As an apostle and disciple of

Jesus who had witnessed the life and ministry of Jesus, he would have written a
lot from his recollection which should be characterised by some personal touch
and emotional engagement but these are lacking in the gospel. Thirdly, if the
two-source theory which has gained wide acceptance among scholars is taken, it
means that Matthew depended on Mark. It is not conceivable that Matthew the
apostle and an eyewitness of the events of Jesus life would depend on Mark
who was not an eyewitness. If the author of the gospel of Matthew depended on
Mark as the critical literary studies show, then he cannot be Matthew the
apostle. R. Brown articulated the views of greater number of scholars in these
words: “By way of overall judgement on the “Matthew” issue, it is best to
accept the common position that the canonical Matthew was originally written
in Greek by a non-eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended
on sources like Mark and Q” (Brown 210-211). However, a good number of
scholars are not ready to dismiss the testimony of Papias so easily. For this, they
are of the view that Matthew the apostle may have been the author of the
Aramaic Matthew but not the Greek Matthew. It may be that Matthew the
apostle collected the sayings of the Lord as Papias said and that collection
became one of the sources used by the evangelists especially Matthew.
According to W. Harrington, the Greek and Aramaic Matthew are substantially
identical in the sense that the Greek gospel incorporates the material of the
Aramaic gospel (cf. W. J. Harrington, Record of Fulfilment, 141).
The Date of Writing
If we accept that Matthew is dependent of Mark, then it could only be
written after the gospel of Mark had been written. It could not have been written
earlier than 65 A.D. Some scholars believe the gospel may have been written
after 70 A.D. Among the reason adduced for this is the reference in the parable
to the king who went abroad to receive royal power and who on his coming
back because of the unreceptive attitude of his people ordered the destruction of
their city (Matt 22:7). The conclusion of the parable sounds awkward and seems
to have been a later addition the evangelist. Scholars see in this addition (only
made by Matthew) a veiled reference to the destruction of Jerusalem which took
place in 70 A.D. If that parable actually refers to that incident, it must have been
written after the incident. In terms of theological development, the use of triadic
formula (in the name of Father, and of the son and of the Holy Spirit) in baptism
seems to be later development in theology of the church. In the area of
eschatology, the emphasis earlier seems to be on the immediate coming back of

37
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Jesus while the gospel seems to lay more emphasis on the abiding presence of
the risen Lord rather than on his immediate coming back. For Kummel, on the
basis of Matthew’s dependence on Mark, a date before 70 A.D is excluded and
on the basis that Ignatius of Antioch cited Matthew, a date after 100 is equally
excluded. For this he suggests a date between 80 and 100 A.D. For Brown, 80-
90 is the most plausible date. Most scholars favour a date between 80 to 90 A.D.

The Place of Writing

The place of the gospel is not indicated in the gospel and no clue was
given to help one in finding this. If the gospel is written before 70 A.D.,
Jerusalem will be a likely place. For scholars who argue that the gospel was
written after 70 A.D., some suggest Syria while others suggest Antioch.

The Literary Characteristic of the Gospel of Matthew

Though the Gospel of Matthew shows evidence of dependence on the
Gospel of Mark, it has certain literary characteristics that set it apart both from
the Gospel of Mark and that of Luke. The first most visible literary
characteristic of the first canonical Gospel is the thematic organisation of the
sayings of Jesus as well as the narratives. Matthew organises the saying or
teachings of Jesus thematically, according to themes and not according to the
order in which they happened. This is why he brings together similar teachings
of Jesus and makes them appear like one long sermon like his sermon on the
mount, the same is evident on the missionary discourse of chapters 10 and 11. A
comparison with the gospel of Luke makes this evident. Matthew brings
together the parables of Jesus in chapter 13 as if Jesus set out a day for teaching
on parables. As a result of this systematization, Matthew often takes a saying or
event out of its original context and assigns it another context. Though it is
really difficult to detect the original context of any saying, the thematic
arrangement often requires giving a saying another context. For example, while
Luke gives the praying of Jesus as well as the subsequent request of the apostles
that Jesus teach them how to pray as the context for the Lord’s prayer, Matthew
inserted it in his long discourse on prayer (compare Luke 11:1-4 with Mt 6:7-
13).
His love of systematization is also evident in his organisation of his work
according to certain numbers. Matthew likes grouping his work according to
certain numbers. The numbers are seven, five and three. For example there are
seven petitions in his own version of Our Father (6:9-13), seven parables in

38
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

chapter 13, seven woes against the Pharisees (23:13-29), seven loaves of bread
and seven basket (15:32-39), and forgiveness has to be not seven times but
seventy-seven times. His another favourite number is five: the infancy narrative
is made up of five episodes, each supported with a scripture citation (1:22-23;
2:5-6; 2:15; 2:17-18;2:23), five thousand fed with five loaves (14:13-21), the
five wise virgins and five foolish ones (25:1-13), the five talents etc11. Another
number he chooses in organizing his work is three: the genealogy of Jesus is
made up of three sets of fourteen generations (1:1-17), the temptations of Jesus
are three (4:1-11), the predictions of the passion are three, three times Jesus
prayed at Gethsemane, Peter denied him three times.
Another characteristic of Matthew is the shortening and simplification of
his narratives. Matthew is fond of abbreviating or shortening his narrative and
removing some details he considers unnecessary. A comparison of Matthew’s
account of some events or narratives with that of Mark or even Luke makes this
evident (compare Mat 8:14-15 with Mark 1:29-31; Mat 8:1-4 with Mark 1:40-
45; Mat 9:20-22 with Mark 5:24-34 etc). Often by shortening the story Matthew
makes the story less vivid and colourful. However, Matthew has his theological
reason for this. By shortening the story often he concentrates on the person of
Jesus and what he does thereby making Jesus the centre of the story. He avoids
what he feels that may distract the attention of his readers from the person of
Jesus.
Another literary characteristic of Matthew is his love of doublets. Apart
from the fact that Matthew likes repeating some saying or events, like repent the
kingdom of God is close at hand (3:2; 4:17), the issue of divorce (5:31-32; 19:3-
9) etc, in a number of places where Mark and Luke indicated one item or
person, Matthew indicated two. For example while Mark and Luke narrated
how Jesus cured a man possessed by evil spirit, in Matthew’s version it was two
demoniacs (see Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39 with Mat 8:28-9:1), in Mat 9:27-31
reported the healing of two blind men; in his triumphal entry into Jerusalem
while Mark and Luke indicated that Jesus requested for a donkey, Matthew
maintained that Jesus requested for a donkey and a colt (Mark 11:1-10; Luke
19:28-40; Mat 21:1-11).
Another characteristic of Matthew is that he likes tying his work together
with a summary. These summaries especially at the end of his discourse is part
of his organisation and systematization and helps in grouping his work (cf. Mat
7:28-29; 13:51-53). Similar literary character is his use of inclusio which is

11
J. Kudasiewicz, The Synoptic Gospels Today, 156.
39
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

bracketing a unit with a similar words or phrases at its beginning and its end
(16:6-11).

Structure of Matthew’s Gospel

Matthew has been described as great literary architect who carefully
constructed his gospel with many finely fitted interlocking stones (summaries)
that form inclusion of the section. These summaries help to indicate where a
section begins and where it ends. This makes the structuring of the gospel
easier. The gospel has been structured into five sections with introduction and
conclusion. The infancy narrative forms the introduction while the passion is the
conclusion. It can therefore be structured as follows:
Introduction: Birth and infancy of Jesus: 1-2
I. The Promulgation of the gospel of the Kingdom 3-7
(a) Narrative Section 3-4
(b) Evangelical discourse (sermon on the mount) 5-7
II. The Preaching of the Kingdom of Heaven (8-10)
a. Narrative Section (ten miracles) 8-9
b. Apostolic discourse 10
III. The Mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven: 11-13
a. Narrative section: 11-12
b. Discourse: seven parables (13:1-52)
IV. The Church, first fruit of the kingdom: 13:53-18:35
a. Narrative section: 13:53-17:27
b. Ecclesiological discourse: 18:1-35
V. Near Advent of the Kingdom of Heaven: 19-25
a. Narrative section: 19-22
b. Eschatological discourse: 23-25
Conclusion: Passion and Resurrection: 26-28.
With the exclusion of introduction and conclusion, the work is made up
of five sections and each section has two parts: the narrative section and
the discourse section.
LESSON EIGHT
Theological themes
The gospel of Matthew is so arranged and organised as to portray its
theological outlook. Though the gospel treats a number of theological issues,
the following may be considered most basic: Jesus is the promised Messiah who
came to establish God’s kingdom and to draw people into that kingdom. We can

40
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

therefore detect three theological themes on which other themes cohere: the
Promised Messiah, Kingdom of Heaven and the New People of God: the
church.
The theological outlook of the Gospel of Matthew, like other gospels, is
primarily Christological. However, what gives it its own distinctiveness is its
unique perspective of Jesus. Most scholars together agree that Matthew’s basic
perception of Jesus is messianic. He sees Jesus as the Messiah promised in the
Old Testament, eagerly awaited by his people but who on his coming was
rejected by his people. Matthew’s primary concern is to prove to his people that
Jesus is the Messiah promised and prophesied in the Old Testament. He
therefore sets out to show that Jesus, his person, life, teaching and work are
fulfilment of the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament.
He does this through many citations of the Old Testament. In this way, he
shows that the person of Jesus and the many events in his life are in fulfilment
of the Scripture. He was born by a virgin (Mat 1:22ff ; Isa 7:14), in Bethlehem
the city of David (Mat 2:1-6, in fulfilment of Mic 5:2), he took refuge in Egypt
(2:13-15 in fulfilment of Hos 11:1), he later lived in Nazareth (2:19-23) he
settled in Capernaum in Galilee during his ministry (Mat 4:12-14 in fulfilment
of Isa 8:23, 9:1), as the Isaian suffering servant he took upon himself the
sickness of the people (Mat 8:16-17; Isa 53:4) and was sold for 30 pieces of
silver in accordance with the prophecy of Jeremiah (Mat 27:9-10).
According to J. Kudasiewicz, by connecting the life of Jesus with OT
prophecies, Matthews sets out to achieve two purposes: the first being
apologetic and the second theological. Apologetically he wants to prove to his
readers and audience who are primarily Jews that Jesus was indeed the Messiah
foretold in the Old Testament, the one they have been expecting. It also implies
that their non acceptance of him leaves them with nothing but guilt.
Theologically, he wants to indicate that the history or life of Jesus especially as
seen from the Old Testament shows that his life is not an ordinary event but the
climax of the history of salvation12.
In line with his messianic perception of Jesus Christ, Matthew laid
emphasis on these messianic titles of Jesus: Son of David, Son of God, Son of
Man and New Moses.

Son of David

12
J. Kudasiewicz, The Synoptic Gospels Today, 168.
41
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Matthew used this title in reference to Jesus at least nine times (and once
in reference to Joseph) unlike Mark and Luke that used it twice. Among the
Jews, the title has messianic significance. Its origin goes back to God’s promise
to David in 2 Sam 7:14 that his son will always sit on the throne of the kingdom
of Israel. In pre-exilic period, it was used in reference to the King of Davidic
lineage while during and after exile, it refers to the future king who will restore
the glory of Israel. By using the title for Jesus Matthew indicates that he is that
Messiah awaited by the people of Israel. Matthew both in the genealogy (1:1)
and infancy narrative wants to indicate that Jesus is son of David because he
came from the linage of David (1:20) and was born in the city of David (2:1).
The people recognised Jesus as Son of David: the two blind men whom he
healed (9:27), a Canaanite woman whose daughter was possessed by evil spirit
(15:22), the multitudes (12:23; 21:9; 21:15), especially during his triumphant
entry into Jerusalem.
The use of this title in the mouth of the people is primarily messianic.
They see in Jesus the fulfilment of the expected messiah, an understanding
coloured by Isaiah’s prophecies (is 40:5-11; 49:8-13; 61:1-3). They therefore
regard Jesus as that person who will bring new era of salvation in line with the
prophecies of Isaiah. In other words, they do not simply consider Jesus as a
descendant of David but as that descendant who will usher in a new era of
salvation. For this, the people call on him for help: the two blind men and even
a Canaanite woman (15:22). Matthew even went further to show that Jesus as
Son of David is even greater than David because David called him Lord
(22:42). By this he tries to show that even though Jesus is regarded as Son of
David because he is Messiah, he is even greater than that because he is God and
divine.

Son of God
Another messianic title Matthew uses for Jesus is Son of God. As we
have earlier noted, the title, Son of God can be used in different ways. In the
OT, it is can be used for angels (Gen 6:2, Job 2:1). It can be used collectively
for the people of Israel (cf. Hos 11:1). It can as well be used for Israelite king of
Davidic linage. A king is an adoptive son of God (2Sam 7: 5-16).
Matthew uses it first and foremost in messianic sense to show that Jesus
is the Messiah, the expected king of Israel. This is the sense in which it is used
in Mat 14:33 when Jesus calmed the sea and those in boat with him said: “Truly
you are the Son of God”. This is also the sense in which it is used in Mat 16:16

42
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

when Peter confessed and said: “You are Christ (Messiah) the Son of the Living
God”. Matthew also uses the title to reveal Jesus as obedient servant who
recapitulates true Israel. Matthew sees in Jesus what Israel is supposed to be
before God, a beloved son and servant who does the will of the Father. Jesus is
an obedient son who faithfully obeys his father even unto death. He is God’s
beloved son in whom he is pleased (3:17; 17:5).
For Matthew, Jesus is not simple the Messiah or obedient servant, he is
truly the Son of God. By Son of God, he means that Jesus is divine and he uses
the title to indicate Jesus’ direct origin from God and his filial relationship to
him. His birth is a result of divine intervention. He was conceived through the
power of the Holy Spirit in fulfilment of the Isaian prophecy that a virgin will
conceive and give birth to a son who shall be named Emmanuel (Mt 1:18-23).
God bears witness that Jesus is his son both at his baptism and at his
transfiguration. Unlike Mark, this knowledge is not meant to be kept secret. At
baptism, God proclaims Jesus his son even to the audition of others. At
Caesarea Philippi, through divine revelation Peter was able to confess Jesus as
Christ and son of God.

Son of Man
This is another Christological title which Matthew very much shared with other
synoptic. The title has two basic meaning: First, a lowly but powerful servant of
God who through his suffering and death will save many. Secondly, it stands for
a judge who will take his rightful position on the last day to judge all nations.
(For its full treatment, see its treatment in the Gospel of Mark).

New Moses: Though the gospel never directly called Jesus new Moses, but
there are clear indications in the gospel that Matthew wants to present Jesus as
the new Moses. This is very clear in the way Matthew presented Jesus. In the
first place, he depicts him as a great teacher. Jesus is often called Rabbi, teacher
(Mt 8:19; 9:11; 12:38; 19:16; 22:16; 22:24). Unlike the scribes and Pharisees,
he teaches with authority (Mt 7:29). In the Sermon on the Mount, he compared
Jesus the Great Teacher with Moses the Lawgiver. By locating that teaching on
the mountain unlike Luke who located it on the plain, Matthew depicts Jesus as
new Moses who gives the new commandment.
Jesus is a teacher in line with Moses. He came not to abolish the law but
to give clearer meaning of it and fulfil it. Matthew is not content with
comparing Jesus with Moses, he rather sees Jesus as greater than Moses. He

43
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

gives a clear meaning to the Law. This is clearer in the discourse on the Sermon
on the Mount, especially, in those areas where Jesus modifies laws given by
Moses: “you heard that it was said: you shall not ... but now I say to you...”
(Matt 5:27-45) Jesus gives the original meaning of the Law. On the issue of
divorce, he makes it clear that it was not the intention of the law that there
should be divorce but rather it was a temporary concession given by Moses
because of the hardness of the heart of the people. He explains the purpose of
the Law. For example, the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the
Sabbath.
His words are loaded with power (Matt 8:27). He gives order to things
and they obey him. He teaches by example and not like the Pharisees who say
one thing and do the other (Matt 23:1-4). He is a teacher greater than Moses.
For Matthew, though Jesus can be called Rabbi, he is more than one. He is
rather the Lord who comes to give the true meaning of the law. He is the Lord
even of the Sabbath.

Kingdom of Heaven
Kingdom of heaven is one of the central themes in the gospel of Matthew.
In fact the gospel of Matthew has often been seen as the gospel of the unfolding
of the kingdom of heaven, while some scholars see the seven structural
divisions of the gospel as seven steps in the realisation of the kingdom of
heaven. Unlike Mark and Luke, Matthew uses more the expression ‘kingdom of
heaven’ (occurring 32 times) instead of ‘kingdom of God’ which only occurs
four times in the gospel (6:33; 12:28; 19:24; 21:31). Most scholars today
believe that both expressions mean the same thing, only that heaven is Semitic
respectful circumlocution to avoid the use of the divine name. This is further
supported by the way the evangelist uses the two expression sometimes
interchangeably in one periscope (Mt 19:23-24). However, J. Pennington is of
the view the kingdom of heaven is not used by Matthew as a substitute for
kingdom of God but rather it has its own meaning.
According to him, when Matthew uses heaven in singular and alone, he
often means sky. When he uses it in plural (heavens), he often means divine
realm. When he uses it in singular with earth (heaven and earth), it either means
the whole of universe or heaven in contrast to earth. In this latter use, heaven is
seen as divine and different from the earth. In the expression, Kingdom of
heaven, he uses it in the last sense. Matthew uses the expression, kingdom of
heaven, to indicate that God’s kingdom is from above and is therefore different

44
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

from the earthly one. Whatever is the case, what is clear is that Matthew uses
the two expressions in a similar way to indicate the kingdom that comes from
God, the kingdom different from earthly one.
Matthew’s understanding of the kingdom of heaven is not substantially
different from Mark’s kingdom of God. Though the expression kingdom of
heaven is not found in the OT, the idea has always been there. It has to do with
the reign of God earlier visibly demonstrated in Exodus through the destruction
of the Egyptians and liberation of the Israelites. Israelite kings acted as viceroy
to God, the king of Israel and universe. However, when the Israelites during the
exile lost their kingship and their land, their desire for the kingdom of God
became sharpened and they looked forward to a time the kingdom would be
restored to them. Ever since then, they have always awaited the arrival of the
kingdom of God, when God will take his rightful position and when Israel as
the favoured nation will stand out in the comity of the nations as well as when
her enemies would be defeated (Dan 2:44).
The expression, kingdom of God/heaven needed no explanation because
it was a concept well known to the people at the time of Jesus. What was not
known was how it would be realised. Before Jesus came to the scene, many had
proposed how the kingdom would be realised. The Qumran community and the
Pharisees had advocated strict observation of the Mosaic Law. The Sadducees
believed it could be achieved through some compromise with the pagan
(Roman) government while the Zealots were of the view that the only way was
through violent revolts like cases of Judas the Galilean, Teudas etc.
The Kingdom of Heaven occupies a central place in the teaching of Jesus
in the synoptic, especially in Matthew. Jesus begins his ministry by inviting all
to repent because the kingdom of heaven is at hand (4:17). Jesus in his teaching
shows that the kingdom will be realised not through violence or strict
observation of the Mosaic Law but through repentance and turning to God and
through acceptance of his person and teaching. Jesus comes to proclaim the
gospel of the kingdom of heaven. Through his coming and in his person the
kingdom of heaven has drawn near. Accepting his work, his exorcism and
healing is accepting the kingdom of heaven because it is equivalent to accepting
what God is doing through him.
The kingdom of heaven has to do with the reign of God: the reign of God
in the present and the reign of God in the future. It has to do not simply with the
reign of God as people had always understood it because as Psalm 93:1 states:
“God reigns” but with the absolute and total reign of God. Jesus comes to

45
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

inaugurate the reign of God characterized by the realization of the salvific

promises of God, an era that will blossom into a total and absolute reign of God.
These promises are articulated in the texts of Second Isaiah (Isaiah 61:1-3). No
wonder Jesus challenged the Pharisees who accused him of casting out demon
through the power of Beelzebul that if they acknowledge that it is through the
power of God that he casts out demons, then it shows that the kingdom of God
has come among them (12:22-32).
The kingdom of heaven comes through the salvific works of Jesus Christ
but human response to it is very important. Acceptance of the teaching and
person of Jesus Christ is very important in the realisation of the kingdom in
one’s life. God reigns but he reigns more in the hearts of those who accept him.
The mission of Jesus Christ is not only to make people witness of the saving
work of God but also to make them members of the kingdom of God. And
people become the members of the kingdom by doing the will of God as taught
by Jesus Christ. Hence in the Lord’s prayer he teaches: your kingdom come,
your will be done on earth as in heaven.
The kingdom of heaven is a complex reality, a reality that has dawned but
awaits its full realization and consummation. Jesus talks often of the kingdom of
heaven in future. For example, “Blessed are the poor in spirit for thiers is the
kingdom of heaven” (5:3). Those who confess the Son of Man will be
acknowledged by the Son of Man when he comes to his kingdom (10:32) or
other references of when the Son of Man comes to his kingdom (16:28; 25:34).
Sometimes Jesus talks of the kingdom in the present: “the kingdom of God is
among you” (Mat 12:28). It means that in the person of Jesus the messianic
promises of God are being realised: the blind see, the lame walk and the good
news preached to the poor (Mat 11:5). However the fullness of the kingdom
remains in the future.
The secrets of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are revealed
through the parables (13:11). As a complex reality, each parable highlights
some aspect of the mystery. The parable of the sower tells us how different
people could respond to the message of the kingdom and shows that the power
of the kingdom comes from the word of God, and creates life and fruitfulness.
The parable of mustard seed shows that the kingdom has a humble beginning
and grows unnoticeable and mysteriously like seed sown in the field. This is
meant to correct the notion of those who think the kingdom will come instantly
or even violently. The kingdom is yet to come to its perfect stage as it is
presently made up of the good and the bad, as shown in the parable of the wheat

46
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

and weeds as well as the parable of the dragnet cast into the sea. However a
time will come when the bad will be separated from the good and when the just
will shine in the kingdom of their father. Membership of the kingdom demands
conforming to a particular way of life. It calls for discipleship which is living in
consonance with the teachings of Christ. One’s righteousness has to go beyond
that of scribes and Pharisees and one should accept the message of the kingdom
like a child.
The kingdom of heaven refers generally to the reign of God. God reigns
always over all creatures. However the coming of Jesus marks a new dawn in
the reign of God. It marks a special period in the realisation of God absolute
reign, when God intervenes to take his rightful position and when his enemies
will be defeated. It also marks the realisation of the promises of God, the
messianic promises of God. With the coming Jesus, that period has started but
has not being fully realised. It will be realised on the parousia when God will as
judge separate the good from the bad and give each its rightful position.

LESSON NINE
The Ecclesiology
The Ecclesiology of the Gospel of Matthew is closely linked to its
Christology. In other words, its understanding of Church is closely related to its
understanding of Christ. Christ as the Messiah and King should have his people
and his people according to Matthew is the Church, seen as the new People of
God. Though the term, church (ekklēsia) appeared about three times in Matthew
(16:18; 18:17) and only in Matthew in the gospel, yet the idea runs through the
gospel.
Matthew presents the church as the new People of God, the new Israel.
He does this in two stages. First he argues that the Old People of God, the Old
Israel has been replaced because of their unfaithfulness, pride and
overconfidence. Secondly, he shows that the church is the new people of God.
Matthew illustrated this through the use of parables, especially the parable of
the unfaithful tenants (21:33-46). Through this parable, he shows that God
entrusted them with his vineyard, just like a steward entrusted with the
household of his master. However, when the master demanded the fruits of the
vineyard: love, righteousness and justice, what he got was further
unrighteousness: the killing of the servants and the brutalization of others. Even
when the Son was finally sent, he was killed. On account of this the owner of
the vineyard says: the kingdom will be taken away from you and given to

47
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

another people who will produce its fruits (21:43). It is worthy of note that the
word used here for people is ethnos and not ethnē, the former is a neutral word
while the later is a term used to refer to the Gentiles. It is also remarkable that
Peter in his Letter used the same word, ethnos in reference to Christians (1 Pet
2:9). In other words, the kingdom will be taken away from the Israelites and be
given to another people, not specifically gentiles or a people marked by race but
a people characterised by faith, a religious people.
According to Matthew, since the old people of Israel have been rejected,
Jesus in the course of his ministry builds up a new people of God. The new
people are structured to resemble the old people in some aspect. While the old
people are based on the twelve sons of Jacob, the new people are based on the
twelve apostles chosen by Jesus. Jesus entrusted them with authority not
entrusted to those of old: loosing and binding and even seating in judgement
over others on the last day. More than other gospels Matthew emphasized the
unique role of Simon whom he gave the name Peter (Petros) which means rock
and promised to build his church upon the rock that is Peter. He also entrusted
him with the keys of the kingdom signifying being in-charge. No other gospel
emphasized this unique role of Peter as the leader of the church.
The old people of God were formerly established on Mount Sinai.
Though they had existed for some years, it was on that day that they were
formerly established through the Sinaitic covenant. The new people of God
were formerly established through the paschal mystery. On the last supper of
Jesus with his disciples which was celebrated within the context Jewish
Passover meal, Jesus gave them bread and said: take this and eat this is my
body. He gave them a cup of wine and said: take this and drink, this is my
blood, the blood of new and everlasting covenant. By this gesture, he indicates
that what he gives them is not bread or wine but his body and blood to be
sacrificed the following day for remission of sin and which will replace the
sacrifice of the old covenant. Jesus therefore inaugurated the new people
through his suffering and death.
The church as the new people of God owes her primary allegiance to
God. Correct relationship with God is of primary importance. Appropriate
relationship with God demands humility and trust. Whoever comes to God
should humble himself or herself like a child and should have a childlike trust in
God. Secondly, God is the model for the members of the church. They should
aim to love like the Father, forgive like the Father and be perfect like the Father.
Closely associated with the Father in everything about the Church is Jesus

48
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Christ. He is the model for the members of the church in their relationship with
the father and with one another. He is model of humility, obedience and love.
He is always in the midst of the church because as he said: I am with you till the
end of time.
The relationship among the members of the church should be
characterised with the knowledge that they have only one Father and one Master
while all of them are brothers and sisters; they have only one Teacher and all of
them are disciples. Therefore none should arrogate to himself or herself the
position of Master or Lord or teacher. Secondly, humility and service should be
the hallmark of their relationship. Those who aspire to be leaders should not
lord it over others rather they should learn to be servants of others just like their
master. Thirdly, compassion and forgiveness should characterise their
relationship with one another.
The Kingdom of heaven and the Church are closely related but they are
not exactly the same. A good number of things Jesus said about the kingdom
can apply to the church especially on the parables of the kingdom. The kingdom
of heaven deals with the reign of God, the reign already in existence, the reign
inaugurated by Jesus Christ through his saving work but a reign which will
come to its fullness at the end of time. The church is a concrete community and
a place of unique reign of God. The church as a place of God’s reign remains
imperfect just as God’s reign on earth remains imperfect. However the reign of
God transcends the church and includes not only the triumphant church but
entire creation.

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

The gospel of Luke is the longest of the gospels and is placed third
among the canonical gospels. It is a sincere attempt to adapt the message of the
gospel to non-Jewish culture. The gospel of Luke is unique in the NT because it
has its continuation in the Acts of the Apostles such that the two volume work
gives a more comprehensive account not only of the foundation of Christianity
laid through the teachings, deeds and life of Jesus Christ but also its spread in
the then Roman empire. Through the pen of Luke, we have such highly
cherished narratives and hymns like the birth of John the Baptist , the birth of
Jesus, the song of Mary or Magnificat, the benedictus of Zachariah, the nunc
dimitis of Simeon, the parable of the good Samaritan, the parable of the prodigal
son etc.

49
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Authorship
Early Christian tradition strongly affirms that Luke is the author of the
third gospel. According to Irenaeus “Luke, the companion of Paul wrote the
latter’s gospel in a book”13. Anti-Marconite Prologue has this to say: “ Luke, a
Syrian of Antioch, a doctor by profession, was the disciples of the Apostles. At
a later date he was the disciple of Paul until the death of latter. ...As gospels had
already been written by Matthew in Judaea and Mark in Italy, Luke, under the
impulse of the Holy Spirit, wrote his gospel in the region of Achaia” 14. The
Muratorian Canon (written around end of second century) attests that Luke, a
doctor and companion of Paul wrote the third gospel. St Jerome testifies to the
Lucan authorship as follows: “Luke the physician, by nation a Syrian of
Antioch, whose praise is in the gospel and who himself was a disciple of
Apostle Paul, wrote in the region of Achaia and Boeotia” 15. The majority of
modern scholars agree that Luke the physician and companion of Paul the
Apostle wrote the third gospel.
But who is Luke? As has already been indicated in the testimony of the
early Christian tradition, he was a native of Antioch in Syria. He was a
physician by profession. He was disciple of the apostles, especially Paul whom
he followed in his second and third missionary journey. He was mentioned three
times in Pauline letters: in Col 4:14 as Luke the beloved physician, in Philemon
as Paul’s fellow worker and in 2 Tim 4:11 as the only companion that remained
with Paul. It is generally agreed that Luke is also the author of the Acts of
Apostles which is taken as the second volume to the gospel. The “we” passages
in Acts are taken to be areas where Luke joined in the journey (Acts 16:10-17,
20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16).

Destination and Date

The gospel of Luke was dedicated to a certain Theophilus. Some scholars
are of the view that Theophilus may be a close friend and an influential person
who may have assisted Luke financially in the writing of the gospel. Since the
name Theophilus means “lover of God”, some scholars argue that the name may
not be referring to anybody in particular but to Christians in general whom Luke
refer to as lover of God (Theophilus).
Luke addressed his gospel to Gentile Christians. This becomes evident
when one examines his literary style. He consistently avoided many matters
13
Iranaeus, cited in W.H. Harrington, Record of Fulfilment, 168.
14
Anti-Marcionite Prologue, cited in W. H. Harrington, Record of Fulfilment, 168.
15
St Jerome cited in W. H. Harrington, Record of Fulfilment, 169.
50
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

which might appear specifically Jewish (see Mk 7:1-23; Mk 9:9113). He often

omits or plays down passages which might shock his Gentile Christian readers,
like the ignorance of Jesus about the end of time (Mk 13:32), the cry from the
cross “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me” (Mk 15:34). He plays
down or omits completely such sentiments as anger, indignation and sorrow in
the attitude of Jesus (compare Mk3:5 with Luke 6:10; Luke 19:45 with Mk
11:15-17). He also either omits or moderates details that seem to discredit the
apostles like Mk 4:13; 8:22f; 9:10. Compare also Luke 8:24 with Mk 4:38. Luke
may have done these in order not to create problem for his Gentile readers.
Some scholars date the gospel of Luke between 60 and 62 A.D. Their
primary reason is that since the gospel preceded Acts, it must have been written
before Acts. Secondly, since the Acts does not contain the story of the death of
Paul, it must have been written before that incident. Since Paul was martyred in
Rome in 64 A.D. and given time for the composition of Acts, Luke’s gospel
may have been written between 60 and 62 A.D. The major obstacle to this
hypothesis is two-source theory. If Luke depended on Mark as many scholars
tend to agree today, it must not have been written before Mark. The writing of
Mark has been placed between 63 and 65 A.D. Some scholars have refuted the
use of the ending of Acts of Apostle to determine the date of the writing of the
gospel. According to this opinion, that the Acts ends without including the
martyrdom of Paul does not mean that it was written before the death of Paul.
According this line of thought, the Acts ends where the author intended it to end
and which is in line with the purpose of the work. The author wants to show
how the gospel was carried from Jerusalem to Rome, which is the centre of the
then understood world. Some scholars date the gospel 65 to 70 A.D, while
others suggest between 70 and 80 A.D. No one can say with certainty the date
of the gospel, but a good number of scholars favour 65 to 70 A.D. date.

LESSON TEN
Literary Style
Luke is a great writer. In fact, some scholars regard him as a great artist
because of the way he arranged and organised his gospel. Some prefer to call
him a poet. Among the evangelists, Luke had the best Greek. He no doubt
depended on other writers and sources as he clearly attested (see Luke 1:1-4).
Most scholars believe he depended on Mark and Q. Luke’s literary greatness is
manifested in the way he used these sources. His handling of his sources can be

51
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

classified into four: (a) Omission, (b) Addition, (c) Retouching (d)
Transposition.
Omision: Luke deliberately omitted some passages from his sources. A
comparison with the gospel of Mark makes this evident. First, he omitted
passages that may not be understood by his readers. This includes materials that
are specifically Jewish (like Mark 7:1-23; 9:9-13; 10:1-12); passages which may
raise difficulties for his readers like those ones which occur in another contexts
in his own gospel (compare Mk 1:16-20 with Luke 5:1-11; Mark 3:22-30 with
Luke 11:14-23; Mark 4:30-32 with Luke 13:18-21). Secondly he avoids
repetition of closely related narratives like Jesus walking on the water (Mark
6:45-52), the second multiplication of loaves (Mark 8:1-10) and the anointing at
Bethany (Mark 14:3-9). Thirdly, some omissions are based on reverence on
Jesus and the apostles. He omitted passages that tend to diminish the person of
Jesus – like that his knowledge is limited (Mark 13:32), his cry on the cross:
“my God, my God who have you forsaken me?” He also omitted passages that
seem to degrade the apostles (see Mark 4:13, 38; 5:31; 9:10; 10:35-45).
Fourthly, he omitted some unessential details, especially as seen in Mark
(compare Mark 5:24-34 with Luke 8:42-48).
Additions: Luke makes some additions motivated by his desire for clarity. Some
additions are made to supply geographical data: Luke 4:31; 5:1; 8:24; 19:37;
23:51. Some are made to explain some foreign word, 6:15. Others are made in
order to include some favourite themes (5:25; 18:43; 19:37 on praise; 3:6f cf.
Mk 1:3 on universalism etc. He also corrected some of the information gotten
from his sources. He uses Lake of Gennesaret rather than sea of Galilee (Luke
5:1, compare with Mark 1:16).
Transpositions: Luke sometimes re-arranges what he got from others for
different reasons. Sometimes he places an account where he thinks it is better
suited. For example, he places the account of the call of the first disciples after
the account of miracles at Capernaum. This may better explain their response.
The expulsion of Jesus at Nazareth placed at the beginning of his ministry
shows his rejection by his people and may explain his choice of Capernaum for
his ministry. Luke has the habit of rounding up one story before beginning
another. For example he finishes the story of the visit of Mary before narrating
the birth of John the Baptist. This does not necessarily mean that Mary had left
before John was born.

Theology of Luke

52
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

According to J. McKenzie, while Matthew and Mark are no doubt

theological in the presentation of their gospel, Luke may be considered the most
theological16. Though Luke shares a lot in common with Matthew and Mark, he
distinguishes himself by the way he arranged and interpreted his materials.
Luke in his prologue made it clear that his intention for writing is to set an
orderly account of the events so that the truth concerning them may be known.
In this way he reveals one of the theological perspectives of his gospel: to
present a history of the saving mission of Christ and to determine its place in the
entire salvation history. For this, we shall briefly examine Luke’s
understanding of salvation history as well as the role of Jesus Christ in it.

History of Salvation
As Luke indicated in his prologue, he sets out to write an orderly account
of what happened. He intends to write not a secular but a religious history and
his goal is not only to be a historian but also a witness and a theologian. At the
centre of this history is Jesus Christ while the author of the history is God who
directs and guides it to his successful end.
Luke makes it clear that the events in the life of Jesus are real and
historical events and therefore, are not religious myth and legend fabricated to
elicit faith response from people. For this, he locates these events within secular
historical period. For example, in the birth narrative of Jesus, he gives a precise
time when it happened: during the reign of Emperor Augustus, when Quinirius
was the governor of Syria. To make it more precise, he pointed out an
outstanding event: during census and this census happens to be first since
Quinirius was appointed as the governor of Syria (2:2ff). With these facts, any
good historian can trace the time of the birth of Christ. Again Luke gives us the
exact time of the beginning of the ministry of Jesus Christ. According to him, it
was in the fifteen year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius when Pontius Pilate was
the governor of Judea and Herod the ruler of Galilee, Philip the brother of
Herod was the ruler of Ituria and Trachonitus (3:1f).
Luke is not merely concerned with indicating that these things actually
happened but he tries to find their deeper meaning. For him, history is not
merely sequence of events or a blind course but an ordered course that is guided
from one end to another. What he narrates is part of the overall history that
began sometimes in the past and is moving towards its goal. In this history,
Jesus occupies a very central role while God is the executor of the history who

16
J.L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible, 525.
53
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

guides it to its goal. In Jesus the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament
find their fulfilment. Jesus made this clear to two disciples on their way to
Emmaus that all that is written in the Law and prophets about him has to be
fulfilled (24:25-27).
Luke divided salvation history into phases. Here scholars do not agree:
while some like Conzelmann could detect three main phases, others like
Kudasciewicz could discern two. According to H. Conzelmann, Luke divided
the history of salvation into three phases. The first is the age of Israel which
spans from the time of Abraham to the coming of John the Baptist. It is the time
of the prophecies and the preparation of the fullness of salvation. The second is
the period of the messianic activities which corresponds to the time of Christ.
The third is the period of the church which comes after the time of Christ.
Others argue that Luke presented only two phases, the period of promises and
prophecies which correspond with the period of Israel until the time of John the
Baptist and the period of fulfilment which embraces the period of Christ and the
church. Both views have some merits. Luke views history as made up two main
periods: the period of promise and prophecies and that of fulfilment. The first
period corresponds to the period of Israel till the time John the Baptist while the
second includes the time of Christ and his Church. The period of fulfilment can
still be subdivided into two: the period of Christ and that of the church.
In this salvation history, Jerusalem plays a very important role as the
main theatre on which the major events of salvation history takes place. He
arranges his gospel so that the ministry of Jesus gradually moves to Jerusalem.
It is not only the place of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus, it is
equally the place from which the church as the witness to the saving death and
resurrection of Christ will spread to the ends of the world.
Luke, like other synoptic evangelists, sees history as matching towards
parousia as its terminus. However, unlike other synoptic evangelists, Luke
does not emphasize the imminence of the parousia. When one compares the
ascension account of Luke with that of Matthew, one notices that Luke does not
stress the immediate return of Jesus. While Matthew narrated how two angels
appeared to the apostles and assured them of the coming back of Jesus, Luke
account ended by saying that as Jesus ascended, the apostles worshipped him
and later returned to Jerusalem. He rather de-escalated eschatology. For
example, in what other evangelists treated as a clear sign of the coming of an
end in the eschatological discourse, Luke sees it as a time of trial and temptation
which will include the destruction of Jerusalem but he does not see it as the

54
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

coming to the end of history. This may be on account of the outlook he has of
history, that after the death and resurrection of Christ, gospel will be proclaimed
not only in Jerusalem and Judea but to the ends of the earth and it is only then
that the end will come.

Christology
Jesus occupies a central place in the theology of Luke who sees him as
the Saviour, the Prophet and the Lord. For Luke, Jesus Christ is the saviour who
came to bring salvation to all mankind. This is evident is his frequent use of the
word “saviour”, “salvation” and the verb “ to save”. The word “saviour”
appears four times in Luke-Acts (1:47; 2:11; Acts 5:31; 13:23), unlike in
Matthew and Mark where it does not appear at all. The word “salvation”
appears six times in the gospel of Luke alone (1:69, 71, 77; 2:30; 3:6; 19:9)
while the verb “to save” occurs seventeen times in the same gospel. Jesus is the
saviour who comes to bring to fulfilment God’s promises of the past. Zachariah
in his prayer of thanksgiving after the birth of John the Baptist prophesied that
God has raised “a mighty saviour for us in the house of David” (1:69).
Delivering the good news to the shepherds, the angels said to them: “I bring you
good news of great joy; to you is born this day in the city of David, a saviour
who is the Messiah, the Lord” (2:10-11). The Prophetess Anna talked about
Jesus to all who looked forward to the redemption of Jerusalem (2:38) while
Simeon sees Jesus as the salvation which the Lord has prepared in the sight of
the nations (2:30-31).
In the Old Testament, the term Saviour was used exclusively for God
(Deut 32:15; Is 12:2; 17:10; 25:9; 45:15; Ps 23:5). The author of the Third
Gospel by applying the same word to Jesus implies the divinity of Jesus Christ.
The saving works of Jesus are indicated in his manifesto read at the beginning
of his ministry in Luke 4:18ff, namely: the liberation of the captives, restoration
of sight to the blind etc. His saving mission becomes evident in his miracles, the
healing of the sick, the restoration of sight to the blind, the casting out of
demons from the possessed and the raising up of the dead etc. Like God in the
Old Testament, his salvation consists in total liberation of the people from all
forms of slavery and captivity.
For Luke, salvation is universal and comprehensive. Luke presents Jesus
as saviour who comes for the salvation of all. From the beginning, the gospel
makes it clear that the mission of Jesus has a universal dimension. Jesus comes
not simply for the Jews but for all people. Luke traces his genealogy back to

55
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Adam, the father of all people (3:23-38). His birth brings peace to all who with
whom God is pleased (2:14). Simeon saw in him a light to enlighten the
Gentiles (2:38). John the Baptist in his preaching stressed that all flesh shall see
salvation of God (Luke 3:6). The charge not to go to the area of the Gentiles or
the Samaritans recorded by Matthew is not found in Luke, rather a Samaritan
was among the ten lepers healed by Jesus and he was the only one that returned
to give thanks (17:11-19). Jesus is the saviour of all people, especially the poor,
the oppressed, the sinners. Jesus readily welcomes all especially the
marginalised, especially the poor and women, the social outcasts and public
sinners like Zacchaeus (19:1-10), the Samaritans and the repentant thief (23:40-
43).
He also shows that salvation is comprehensive. Jesus comes to save
humanity from all forms of enslavements: physical like all forms illness,
spiritual like all forms of demonic possessions and sin, social from all forms of
discrimination based either on gender or race. Jesus comes to seek out and save
the lost. And there is great joy in heaven over a repentant sinner (15:10).
In Jesus, the love and mercy of God is revealed. Luke presents Jesus as a
compassionate saviour. He touches and heals the ear of the slave of the high
priest, he turns and looks at Peter even after denying him three times, he
converses and consoles women who mourned for him and promises salvation to
repentant thief. He allows the sinful women to wet his feet and wipe with her
hear. He welcome Zacchaeus the chief tax collector and dinned in his house.
He also showed the depth of the love and mercy of God. He does this through
his emphasis on the forgiveness of God. The three parables on forgiveness: the
lost sheep, the lost coin and the prodigal son are found in this gospel. Jesus
forgave the repentant thief and even those who crucified him.

Prophet and Messiah

Another way the Third Gospel perceives Jesus is as both prophet and
messiah. The gospel uses the term prophet seven times in reference to Jesus.
According to Luke, Jesus identified himself as prophet (4:24; 13:33), his
disciples and the crowd also recognised him as prophet (7:16, 39; 24:19). All
the prophetic characteristics are found in him: he was called, anointed by the
Holy Spirit and sent by God to bring liberation and good news to the people,
especially to the poor and the marginalized and those in captivity. Luke sees
Jesus as a great prophet like Moses and Elijah, a prophet powerful in action and

56
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

speech (24:21) and who is indeed greater than them. It may be for this reason
that Luke did not identify John the Baptist with Elijah.
According to Luke, Jesus is the prophet-martyr who through his passion,
death and resurrection accomplishes divine plan of salvation. The ministry of
Jesus like that of great prophets was characterised by opposition and rejection.
At his inaugural speech in his home town, he was not only rejected by his
people but was nearly killed. Jesus made it clear that it was not fitting for a
prophet like him to die any other place outside Jerusalem (13:33).
Jesus is messiah prophet. His words are eschatological fulfilment of the
words of the Scripture.

Books of Reference
Brown, R.E. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York/London:
Doubleday, 1997.
Brown, R.E. J.A. Fitzmyer, R.E. Murphy, eds., The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968, 1989.
Farmer, W.R., et al. The International Bible Commentary: A Catholic and
Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century. Collegeville: The
Liturgical Press, 1998.
Harrington, W.J. Record of Fulfilment: The New Testament. Illinois: Priory
Press, 1965.
Kudasiewicz, J. The Synoptic Gospels Today. trans., Sergius Wroblewski. New
York: Alba House, 1996.
Schreiner, T.R. New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Course Lecturer: Rev. Fr. Dr. Peter Onwuka.

57