I am preparing to teach a course on Jesus and the Gospels. One of the key issues with which the course deals is the way in which we approach these four very different portraits of Jesus. Do we try to harmonize these different accounts, or do we understand each of them as unique accounts of this one Man, Jesus? This course encourages us not to try to harmonize the Gospels, but rather, to take each of them seriously on its own terms. I agree with this approach for several reasons.
First, if God inspired all the Gospels, does it really honor any of them to make them one story? Trying to make everything fit with our modern ideas of consistency is a time-consuming and time-wasting practice.
Second, even regular people are worthy of more than one portrayal. If four different people wrote my story or yours, they would not include the same things or tell the story in the same way. One story would not necessarily be more accurate than another. They might all be very accurate but include (or leave out) different things, or they might be emphasizing different things. Jesus is worthy of many ways of telling his story.
Third, different ways of telling the Jesus story appeals to different people. I have a friend who tends to live in the Gospel according to Mark. And why wouldn’t he? Tim is a man of action, and that is the way Jesus is portrayed in Mark.
Sometimes combining things is a helpful approach. I’m glad that Reece’s Cups combines chocolate and peanut butter. But too much combination is not always so delicious. Sometimes, combining things just leads to a mess.
Recent Comments