Comparison of the Role of Miracles in the Synoptic Gospels and in John - Term Paper Example

223459 Compare the role of miracles in the synoptic gospels and in John. What can we learn from how the gospel writes understood the miracles of Jesus that will help us understand the role of miracles today? The following discussion will have the objective of comparing the role of the miracles featured in the synoptic gospels and also those found in the gospel of John. It is a sound idea to actively compare the role of miracles in the three synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke with the miracles as described in the gospel according to John. The purpose of comparing the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke with the gospel of John is to explain the differences in approach of these gospel writers. The intention of the following evaluation is that by learning from how the gospel writers understood the miracles of Jesus how that will subsequently help us understand the role of miracles in the present day world. The synoptic gospels are those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and they are called synoptic because they share common sources of information about the life and the teaching of Jesus that makes them very similar in content if not so much in their style.1 Mark, Matthew, and Luke wrote their gospels to spread the good news about Jesus Christ, his life, his death and subsequent resurrection. Without the gospels being completed it is doubtful that the early church could have expanded as it did, let alone have survived into today’s modern world. Arguably the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke can teach modern readers what miracles can mean in today’s world. The synoptic gospels by Mark, Matthew, and Luke were written so the majority of biblical research shows in close proximity of each other in terms of the time period.2 Although the synoptic gospels by Mark, Matthew, and Luke have slightly different styles and content from each other their similarities are far more noticeable than their differences.3 The over all purpose of the synoptic gospels being written was the same, Mark, Matthew and Luke wanted to convince people that Jesus Christ had been the long awaited Messiah. Mark, Matthew, and Luke had decided to write the synoptic gospels as a written record of Jesus Christ life in order to convince people into joining the Christian religion. The synoptic gospels were also written at that time as the number of people that could tell of their first hand experiences of Jesus Christ, what he said, and he did, such as performing miracles were dying out.4 The other factor in writing the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John was to make the Christian religion more coherent and also more appealing to non-Jewish audiences especially the Greeks and the Romans. For the writers of the synoptic gospels attracting non-Jewish audiences was considered vital for the spread of the good news about Jesus Christ, as it became increasingly unlikely that a substantial number of converts would be gained from out of existing Jewish communities.5 The early church was keen to reach as far as Rome and the synoptic gospels with their sermons, parables, and tales of miracles were seen as fundamental in spreading Christianity across the Western world. The strategy of Peter and Paul in spreading the Christian religion to Rome would eventually succeed beyond their greatest expectations and the synoptic gospels as well as the gospel according to John were fundamental components of that success.6 The synoptic gospels placed a great deal of emphasis on demonstrating that Jesus Christ had been the Messiah, and the miracles he performed were a central part of that proof. The gospel of John certainly has a more pronounced theological perspective and correspondingly has less biographical content about Jesus Christ. Ironically enough many biblical scholars have believed that the accounts of miracles in the gospel of John are more likely to be factually accurate than the three synoptic gospels.7 The synoptic gospels have caused a great deal of debate amongst academics, biblical students, and Christian theologians mainly about the sources they were based upon. All that is relevant here for this evaluation is that Mark was written first, most probably followed by Matthew, and then finally the gospel of Luke. Mark, Matthew and Luke were undoubtedly keen to include the miracles that Jesus Christ and some of his followers performed during his brief ministry as it performed the role of convincing people that Jesus Christ had indeed been the Messiah. The writers of the synoptic gospels were probably aware that the Old Testament had plenty of references to miracles being performed by prophets and other leading Jewish figures. The performance of miracles was widely regarded as being an outward sign of Gods approval for what they said and what they actually did. Indeed miracles were an outward sign of Gods approval just as surely as plagues, disasters, and pestilence were symbolic of divine disapproval. Mark included the examples the examples of Jesus Christ performing miracles to show that he was carrying out Gods plan and that he was also divine himself. Miracles were therefore an outward sign that God had kept his Old Testament promises to the Jewish people.8 Mark being the shortest of the synoptic gospels does not go into as much as much detail as Matt and also Luke do when describing the miracles that Jesus Christ performing during his ministry. The writer of the gospel of Mark in the interests of both speed and also conciseness decided to put in the miracles that he thought were the most important in presenting a short yet highly persuasive account of the life as well as the achievements of Jesus Christ.9 As the first of the synoptic gospels, the gospel of Mark uses the miracles depicted within it to show the greatness as well as the goodness of Jesus Christ. Mark sets the tone for the other two synoptic gospels in the use of miracles to spread the good news about Jesus Christ. For Mark places a high degree of emphasis upon the miracles of the feeding of the 5000 and also the feeding of the 4000 as a sign of Jesus’ role as the Messiah. The miracles of the feeding of the 5000 and also the feeding of the 4000 demonstrated that Jesus Christ could literally feed people in thousands besides being the Son of God and also feeding their spiritual needs.10 The feeding of the 5000 and also the feeding of the 4000 were included in the gospel of Mark to compare the achievements of Jesus Christ with those of the Old Testament prophets and leaders. Alongside a comparison with the prophets and leaders, attention was turned as well in the way in which God had fed the Jewish people after Moses had taken them into the wilderness. For Mark and the writers of the other synoptic gospels Jesus was performing the same role as Moses had done in the Old Testament, leading God’s Chosen People to the promised land. As the majority of the Jewish people had rejected Jesus Christ then Mark and the writers of the other synoptic gospels of Matthew and Luke argued that the new Christian and its members were the new Chosen people of God.11 However the gospel of Mark also included descriptions of miracles that Jesus Christ performed upon a smaller scale. For instance the gospel of Mark uses examples of Jesus Christ curing people with medical conditions and exorcised those that had been possessed by the Devil or evil spirits. The gospel of Mark highlights that Jesus Christ did not perform miracles by using magic spells or spectacular gimmicks. Instead Jesus Christ cured people by saying a few simple words, giving orders, or touching them in the afflicted parts of their bodies. Mark stressed that Jesus Christ was able to perform miracles either through his own power, or the faith of the people that were cured or assisted by him. Whilst Mark took care to describe the miracles by Jesus Christ he did not place them in any kind of chronological order.12 The other synoptic gospels of Matthew and Luke did attempt to place the miracles, the parables, the sermons, and the ministry of Jesus Christ into a greater semblance of chronological order. Matthew uses the description of miracles that Jesus Christ and his followers were capable of healing the sick as well as driving out evil spirits. Matthew acknowledges that other people could perform miracles apart from Jesus Christ himself. Matthew again stressed that the miracles were outward signs of the power of God, the role of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and the power of faith in God to make the impossible possible.13 The gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke all stress that the greatest miracle of them was the fact that Jesus Christ himself came back from the dead. The death and the subsequent resurrection of Jesus were the greatest miracle of all time, and also the gospel of John also makes that point.14 Mark, Matthew, and Luke could teach us to understand important things about the role of miracles today, in a world where the majority of people would not believe in the possiblity of miracles happening in the first place. The synoptic gospels could be used to argue that the role of miracles today is the same as it was 2000 years ago. Faith, hope, and love can make anything possible, whilst religious events do not have to follow the laws of science. The role of miracles today can be dismissed by many people without any religious belief as simply not being true or if they do occur to be explained by scientific explanations. Those people that doubt whether or not miracles happened as described in the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John can point to scientific explanations. For instance Jesus Christ was able to make the lame walk again because he made them believe that they could walk again. There are little in the way of scientific explanations that could explain how Jesus himself came back from the dead, apart from he had only been in a coma in the first place.15 The role of miracles today cannot completely be dismissed through the use of scientific explanations. For instance faith healers being able to cure people with terminal diseases when there is no logical reason for their recovery.16 Thus to conclude miracles were an outward sign of Gods approval just as surely as plagues, disasters, and pestilence were symbolic of divine disapproval. Mark included the examples the examples of Jesus Christ performing miracles to show that he was carrying out Gods plan and that he was also divine himself. The writers of the synoptic gospels, Mark, Matthew, and Luke wanted to convince people that Jesus Christ had been the long awaited Messiah. Mark, Matthew, and Luke had decided to write the synoptic gospels as a written record of Jesus Christ life in order to convince people of the validity of claims regarding the divine nature of Christ himself. Miracles were therefore an outward sign that God had kept his Old Testament promises to the Jewish people. The miracles were outward signs of the power of God, the role of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and the power of faith in God to make the impossible possible. The death and the subsequent resurrection of Jesus were the greatest miracle of all time according to the synoptic gospels, and the gospel of John also makes that point. The synoptic gospels could be used to argue that the role of miracles today is the same as it was 2000 years ago, an outward display of the impossible made possible as well as real by the grace or the will of God. Faith, hope, and love can make anything possible. The role of miracles today can be dismissed by many people without any religious belief as simply not being true or if they do occur to be explained by scientific explanations. Those people that doubt whether or not miracles happened as described in the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John can point to scientific explanations. For instance Jesus Christ was able to make the lame walk again because he made them believe that they could walk again. Bibliography Browning W, (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford Lane Fox R, (2005) The Classical World – An epic history of Greece and Rome, Penguin, London & New York Lenman B P (2004) Chambers Dictionary of World History 2nd edition, Chambers, Edinburgh Pattison G, (2005) A short course in Christian Doctrine, Canterbury Press, London Rogerson J, (1999) An introduction to the Bible, Penguin, London & New York Read More