John the Baptist is referred to as “a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord,’” (3:4). It’s a bit unusual to for someone to be referred to as “a voice.” I suppose if you were a sports announcer, say for the Atlanta Braves, then you might be known as the voice of the Braves. I guess the same thing could be true for a well-known podcaster or singer. But for most of us, that’s not the way people are going to refer to us.
And yet, a person’s voice is just like their fingerprints—it is an absolutely unique aspect of who they are. No one has a voiceprint exactly like someone else. This helps to explain why we’re able to recognize all sorts of people simply by the sound of their voice.
There are also some voices that are more important than others. Two of the most important voices are those of our mother and father. When we were younger, they dominated our lives, but even as we get older and are less dependent upon them, they remain an important voice. And when they are no longer around, one of the things we miss the most is the sound of their voice.
Our readings this week were in John 1 and Luke 1, so I thought it would be helpful for us to look more closely at the voices of John and Luke as they speak to us through their gospel accounts of Jesus. These two men were quite different. John was Jewish with connections to the high priest; Luke was a Gentile. John was an apostle and part of Jesus’ inner circle; Luke never met Him. John was a fisherman; Luke was a physician. You can’t get much different than that. Yet God used both these men in a powerful way to bear witness to Jesus.
With two such different men, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the story they tell of Jesus is very different. You can think of them like I-85/65 and HWY 280. Both these routes will get you to Birmingham, but they will do it in very different ways. Let’s examine some of these differences.
John was written to a community; Luke is written to an individual. While John never identifies his audience, most scholars believe he wrote to a community of believers, probably in Asia. On the other hand, Luke wrote his gospel for someone named “Theophilus” (1:3). There are all sorts of ideas about who Theophilus was—from Paul’s lawyer, to a high priest, to simply someone who loved God (“Theophilus” literally means “lover/friend of God”). Since the phrase “most excellent” is used elsewhere in reference to Roman officials (Acts 23:26 (NASB), 24:3, 26:25), it seems likely that Theophilus was a Roman official who was a disciple of Jesus.
John is an apologetic targeting Gnosticism; Luke is a historical document reinforcing what Theophilus had been taught. Gnosticism was a late first century teaching that was unable to reconcile the material and the spiritual. Because it held that all material things were evil, and all spiritual things were good—it denied that Jesus could have been the Son of God since He came in the flesh and flesh was evil. Of course, if Christ didn’t come in the flesh, that means no incarnation, no cross, and no resurrection! So, John will quickly refute the basic tenet of Gnosticism by telling his readers how “the Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us” (1:14). He also tells us how Thomas came to believe as a result of seeing the resurrected Jesus with His pierced side and hands. John’s gospel was a death blow to Gnosticism.
Luke’s gospel has no such concerns. It was written to Theophilus to provide him an account of “all that Jesus began to do and to teach” until His ascension (Acts 1:1). Luke provided this to Theophilus because he wanted him to “know the certainty of the things” he had been taught (Luke 1:4).
John is self-contained, but Luke is Vol 1 of a two-volume work. John’s gospel has a beginning and an end. Luke’s gospel is but the first part of “all that Jesus began to do and to teach” (Acts 1:1). The implication is that the book of Acts is a continuation of Jesus’ works and teaching through His body, the church.
We can see from this, that John and Luke are quite different—just like 1 65 and HWY 280 are different roads. They are different and we are blessed by these differences.
We see Jesus from different perspectives. John writes from a cosmic, big picture perspective. He doesn’t begin with John the Baptist or the birth of Jesus—that’s not good enough for his purposes. He wants to go all the way back to the beginning of everything and let us know that “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God” (1:1). In keeping with this, Jesus is presented in sweeping, universal terms: He is The Way, The Truth, The Light, The Life, etc. He’s more than a Jewish Savior; He is the Savior of the world (3:16-18). John will show the Gnostics that not only is He fully God (and He is), but He is also completely human as he shows us Jesus when he was tired, hungry, and thirsty.
Luke, on the other hand, doesn’t write from the perspective of eternity but from the vantage point of first century history. In telling us about Jesus’ birth, he presents it in the context of Caesar Augustus’ rule, Quirinius governorship of Syria, and a decree from Augustus that a census be taken (2:1-2). He does the same kind of thing in introducing Jesus’ ministry at thirty years of age (3:1-2). In writing from a physician’s perspective, he has an eye for those who lived on the margins of life. Before the wise men visited Jesus, Luke lets us know that shepherds (who in the first century were regarded as the polar opposite of the wise men), came to visit him. Lepers were touched by Jesus, an unclean woman was made whole, a tax collector was invited to eat with Him., a criminal dying of the cross was promised a place in paradise with Jesus. Jesus is the Messiah with the outreach to the unreached.
This offers us a deeper look and greater understanding of Jesus.
We do we take multiple pictures of people we love? Why are we not satisfied with a single shot? Different pictures offer different perspectives and deepen our appreciation and understanding. One picture highlights their eyes, another their smile, and still in another their personality shines through.
And so it is with Christ. It’s a real mistake to try to look at the four gospels as just one picture of Christ with a few deviations that we can airbrush out. No! We have four different pictures emphasizing different aspects and truths and we should treat them that way.
It helps us share Christ with others.
Not only does this help us personally in the sense of providing us with a richer understanding of Jesus, but it can also be beneficial in sharing the story of Jesus with others. Look at it this way, why did God feel the need to inspire John to write his gospel? After all, Matthew, Mark, and Luke had already written theirs. We didn’t He just have John write a letter to his community in Asia and tell them to read one of those accounts? For that matter, why didn’t Luke tell Theophilus to read Mark? After all, it contained the story of Jesus. For both John’s community and Theophilus the answer was that the accounts written by John and Luke would resonate would more with them.
I think the wisdom we need to learn from that is that in sharing Christ with others, a lot of times it can be much less confusing to stick with one gospel than to be moving in and out of four different accounts. Give the biblical writer the opportunity to tell their story. If you’re working with someone and you want to show them that Jesus is the fulfillment of O.T. prophecy, Matthew is your gospel. Someone who is historically inclined? Luke’s your man. Someone who’s philosophical? John’s gospel is the one. The point is to take advantage of the resources God has given to us in reaching out to others.
May we use these voices (along with our own) to know God and make Him known.
A Taste of Grace with Bruce Green 