What is the harmony of the Gospels?

Instead, therefore, of regarding the four gospels as the writings merely of four biographers however true, and trying, as people say, to study "the harmonies of the gospel," we find that each writer had a distinct and definite line of truth to convey, in no wise contradictory of each other, but each gospel written with a definite object. This, when seen, enhances each of the four gospels immensely, and our interest in them becomes largely intensified. It is intelligible enough that four architects might give us the plans of a square building, each taking a separate side; and although they were all of them different in some particulars, so that no one could understand them till he knew that each represented a different side of the same building, yet then, and not till then, would he get the true idea of what the building really was. So with the Gospels. Matthew clearly sets forth the Messiah in relation to God's ancient people, the Jews; Mark, the Son of God as a perfect Servant; Luke, Son of God born of Mary, yet Son of Man; and John, the Son who came forth from the Father, came into the world, and went back to the Father.

Let me, before I enter on this, a little notice Mr. Jowett's conclusions from the statement I have quoted above: — (1.) There is no necessity to reconcile inconsistent narratives — the harmony of the gospels only means the parallelism of words. Now I object totally to all harmonies, as such; but the remark is unfounded. A certain number of passages are parallel in words; but, as to a vast quantity of the materials, it is not the case. A harmony is merely an attempt at chronological order.

1864 46 I object totally to all harmonies of the gospels, as such; because they are the confusion of accounts which are each written with a distinct divine object. The facts are put together by the Holy Ghost with an evident purpose, each gospel presenting both Christ and the ways of God in a different light. To throw them all together is to destroy this purpose, and obscure the intelligence of the gospels.

Having noted these important differences, let us now proceed to inquire what their significance may be. And in the first place it will be evident that the meaning of the variations in the records must, in each case, lie in close relation to the main purpose of the inspired Evangelist. For, be it observed, the "harmony" of the Gospels is not to be sought, as is frequently done, by the construction of a single continuous narrative, composed by combining the accounts of the four writers to the utter destruction of the individuality of each of them. On the contrary, the true "harmony," using the word now in the sense of the consistency of the Gospel with itself, will be discerned by the discovery of the manner in which the various historical episodes are disposed by each of the four biographers in order to set forth his special design. Hence it is that in this particular inquiry the differences in the several narratives are of greater importance than the resemblances. These differences then are the subject of our present study.

Mark, who accompanied Paul and Barnabas, might, like others, prove himself a failing servant, yet, such is the way of grace, he is the one used of God to show us the unfailing Servant, the Son of God, sounding out the sweet and joyful tidings of mercy and grace. Matthew, guided by the Holy Spirit, sounds the high soprano note of the kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ; Mark, the dulcet alto note of the Service of Christ; Luke, the sweet, strong, inspiring tenor note of His perfect Manhood; and John, as he sounds the full, deep bass note of His Deity, striking back into the depths of eternity, begins, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD.” Each note of the four gospels is distinct in its precious meaning; yet, in sweet harmonious chords their rich and heavenly music sounds out in divinest tones the name of JESUS; the name of the One whose praises we shall sing for ever. This is the true harmony of the gospels. The believer can sing even now in faith

In a general way, these are four parallel narratives of the life, works, teachings, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. They were written by four different individuals, and while narrating many things that are common to all or most of them, there are omissions and additions in each which even from a human standpoint would mark them out as four distinct and, we will add, independent narratives.

There are differences of style in language, method of treatment, arrangement of subjects, and other features which prove this. These will occupy us later when we come to take up the distinctive differences of the four Gospels. We merely mention here what the most casual reader will observe. We are, however, not looking at the four Gospels as human productions, but as a part of that perfect word of God inspired by the Spirit, where nothing is lacking and nothing is superfluous. The Spirit of God would never give

The four Gospels are coincident testimonies to the Lord Jesus Christ, and valuable as such. But we are not to read them as merely explanatory or supplemental. We get a complete view of our Lord Jesus Christ only by discerning their distinctness in character and purpose.

Even in the histories of men we may perceive this. One biographer may give us the man in his domestic, another in his political, life; but in order to our being fully acquainted with him, we must see him in both of these, and perhaps in many other connections. And one of such biographers will not only select particular facts, but notice distinct circumstances in the same facts. The same thing we see in the four Gospels. And if we know, if not the necessity, at least the desirability, of this, when a mere man is the theme, how much more may we expect to find it so when we have rehearsed to us the ways of One Who fills such a blessed variety of relationships, both to God and man, as the Lord Jesus Christ.

These two historical books of the Old Testament bear a relation one toward another somewhat similar to that existing between the four Gospels of the New. In the latter we have a quartet of evangelical biographers, all giving glimpses of that manifested Life, no two in just the same way, or even recording harmoniously any single event of that marvelous life of God incarnate, or reporting verbatim any discourse of the divine "Master of assemblies." The Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are somewhat like the four parts in some sublime musical composition. Each part differs, the one from the other, yet together they form a most perfect harmony, because arranged by one master musician. Each part is perfect in itself, yet requires the others to give the fulness intended. The one part expresses sweetness; the other, strength; another, pathos; and still another, profundity; and each several part is essential to the proper expression of the other three; and it is in the combination of the four that we have the full, grand harmony. So the four Gospels, though differing, are all the compositions of one Author — the Holy Spirit. Each, also, is in itself perfect, yet requires what the others contain to give to the fourfold record that surpassing beauty which every anointed eye beholds in the four Evangelists: each record being perfectly proportioned to the others, they together produce that sublime anthem of praise to "Heaven's beloved One" of whom they speak.

But we speak here more particularly of what are called "harmonies." This has been a favorite method of study by Bible students, and quite an account could be given of the various harmonies compiled from the first diatessaron to the latest harmonies of the four Gospels. While these have very much that is in common, and indeed we may say that the general outlines of the Gospel narratives are not so difficult of recognition, yet there is sufficient divergence in the details which indicates that it is very difficult, not to say impossible, to arrange every portion of the four narratives so as to blend them in one smoothly-connected whole. This is not because there are contradictions, but simply that this was not the object of the Spirit of God in giving us the fourfold record.

It is difficult for us to divest ourselves of a certain external exactitude,which is really not a proof of the highest kind of accuracy. Probably all of us have passed through — if we are not still in it — the stage in which our idea of harmony means that we can piece together the four narratives so completely as to leave no gaps. This might be possible, if, for instance, Matthew or any one of the other Evangelists had written four Gospels instead of one, with but the one object. In doing this, he could dwell in one upon certain features, making provision for the addition of other features which could be taken from a second or a third narrative. When, however, we have four different Evangelists with four different objects in view, as we have said, this becomes impracticable. The entire method of treatment is different.

But we speak here more particularly of what are called "harmonies." This has been a favorite method of study by Bible students, and quite an account could be given of the various harmonies compiled, from the first diatessaron to the latest "Harmonies of the four Gospels." While these have very much that is in common, and indeed we may say that the general outlines of the Gospel narratives are not so difficult of recognition, yet there is sufficient divergence in the details which indicates that it is very difficult, not to say impossible, to arrange every portion of the four narratives so as to blend them in one smoothly connected whole.

This is not because there are contradictions, but simply that this was not the object of the Spirit of God in giving us the four-fold record. It is difficult for us to divest ourselves of a certain external exactitude which is really not a proof of the highest kind of accuracy. Probably all of us have passed through, if we are not still in it, the stage in which our idea of harmony means that we can piece together the four narratives so completely as to leave no gaps. \ This might be possible, if, for instance, Matthew or any one of the other Evangelists had written. four Gospels instead of one, with but the one object. In doing this, he could dwell, in one, upon certain features, making provision for the addition of other features which could be taken from a second or a third narrative. When, however, we have four different Evangelists, with four different objects in view, as we have said, this becomes impracticable. The entire method of treatment is different.