Why Four Gospels? By Arthur W. Pink. New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 2017, 176 pp.
[Originally published as: Why Four Gospels? By Arthur W. Pink. Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1921.]
The fundamentalist-modernist struggles of the 1910s and 1920s have increasingly fascinated me—this was the era during which the series, The Fundamentals, was published to combat theological liberalism, with contributions from R. A. Torrey, A. C. Dixon, James Orr, B. B. Warfield, and many others; J. Gresham Machen published his Christianity and Liberalism in 1923 and then later founded Westminster Theological Seminary; J. Oliver Buswell stepped into the presidency at Wheaton; C. I. Scofield was yet active; Lewis Sperry Chafer was co-founding Dallas Theological Seminary; and various conservative church associations were being formed as churches abandoned the increasingly liberal historic denominations. Central to the conflict was the nature of inspiration and the appropriate role of the Bible in informing Christian life. Among other issues, scholars of (so-called) higher criticism challenged the authorship, dating, and literary integrity of the writings of Moses, the prophets, the Gospels, etc. With respect to these issues, F. David Farnell has rightly warned that “what went wrong in American churches and institutions” during this era “is now happening in the twenty-first century,” as comparable unorthodox perspectives are being accommodated within the church and Christian academia, thereby undermining inerrancy, hermeneutical practice, the historicity of Genesis 1–11, the integrity of the Gospels, etc.1
In the midst of of this turbulence, A. W. Pink published his Why Four Gospels? Again, this was during an era in which the Scriptures, including the Gospels, were being undermined by the speculative theories of higher criticism. Accordingly, in reviewing this present work part of my interest is in assessing how Why Four Gospels? positioned itself relative to these issues.2 Otherwise, my aim is to generally illustrate Pink’s elaboration of the differences between the Gospels.
At a surface level, the book’s organization is straightforward, including a preface, introduction, chapters on each of the Gospels, and a conclusion. Plus, a brief biography has been added at the end of the 2017 edition. In the introduction, Pink recognizes that the Gospels do not offer “complete biographies of Christ.”3 But what then, he asks, are they?
The first answer must be, four books inspired, fully inspired, of God; four books written by men moved by the Holy Spirit; books that are true, flawless, perfect. The second answer is that, the four Gospels are so many books, each complete in itself, each of which is written with a distinctive design, and that which is included in its pages, and all that is left out, is strictly subordinated to that design, according to a principle of selection.4
In surveying their unique designs, Pink characterizes Matthew as presenting Christ “as the Son of David, the King of the Jews.”5 Whereas, Mark depicts Christ “as the Servant of Jehovah, as the One” who submitted himself as a servant, though being equal with God.6 Luke sets forth Christ “as the Son of Man, as connected with but contrasted from all the sons of men.”7 “Luke’s Gospel also reveals more fully than any of the others the fallen and depraved state of human nature.”8 John reveals Christ “as the Son of God, and everything in this fourth Gospel is made to illustrate and demonstrate this divine relationship.”9 Pink elaborates on how the content in each of the Gospels supports these thrusts. He also insightfully connects each of presentations of Christ to a specific OT passage: Jeremiah 23:5 (“I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign”); Zechariah 3:8 (“I will bring forth My Servant the Branch”); Zechariah 6:12 (“Behold the Man whose name is the Branch”); and Isaiah 4:2 (“the Branch of the Lord [shall] be beautiful and glorious”).10
The chapter on Matthew reiterates that the first Gospel presents “Christ as the fulfiller of the promises made to Israel and the prophecies which related to their Messiah”; accordingly, Matthew contains more OT quotations “than in the remaining three put together.”11 Jesus is not only King, but the “One who shall save his people from their sins.”12 Deference is given to the opening verse as defining the thrust of this Gospel.13 Pink describes Matthew as “the dispensational Gospel” and elaborates on its transitional character, with its connections to the OT and its Jewish focus.14 However, it is perhaps noteworthy that Pink is said to have transitioned from a dispensational theological view to a covenantal view over the following decade after writing this book—one wonders if he would have muted this “dispensational” language after his “conversion.”15 Chapter by chapter, Pink proceeds to work through the unique features of this Gospel.
Pink’s chapter on Mark highlights the Gospel’s presentation of Jesus “in his lowliness and meekness”; not “testing Israel” per Matthew, but “ministering to the chosen people.”16 Mark omits the genealogy and birth narrative, as these are of little interest to one who is a servant.17 The “manifesto of the king” in the Sermon on the Mount is omitted, as “a servant has no kingdom”; nor are parables retained which refer to kings, the hiring of laborers, etc.; nor does Jesus authoritatively pass judgement on the Pharisaic leaders of Israel (cf. Matt. 13).18 Indeed, Jesus is not identified as king, except in derision.19 Pink does not comment on this next observation, but consistent with his assessment it is noteworthy that the parable of the tenants has been modified, such that it is simply “a man” who planted a vineyard (Mark 12:1), rather than “a master of a house” (Matt. 21:33). Pink points out that Mark provides more miracles, as these “were a part of his active ministry.”20 However, one defect in Pink’s assessment is that he claims that Mark does not report Jesus as violently clearing the temple after triumphantly coming into Jerusalem (Mark 11:11), akin to Matthew’s account (Matt. 21:12); yet, in Mark’s account the temple clearing does still exist, a couple verses later (Mark 11:15–17).21
Luke’s Gospel “shows us God manifest in flesh,” as the “Son of Man.”22 Accordingly, Luke provides the most details of his miraculous yet humble birth.23 While both Matthew and Mark view Christ “in connection with Israel,” this Gospel has a wider range as the “Gentile Gospel.”24 Correspondingly, Pink contends that its author was a Gentile, noting that Luke’s name is twice found in Paul’s writings within lists of Gentiles (2 Tim 4:10–12; Phlm. 24).25 Commenting on the order of the temptations, Pink asserts that the temptations in Matthew are “arranged climactically” but chronologically in Luke, whereas Luke’s sequence also corresponds to “the order of temptation of the first man and his wife in Eden,” echoing the first couple’s failure, with regard to “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (cf. 1 John 2:16; Gen. 3:6).26 Luke’s unique inclusion of the Good Samaritan story “brings out the lawlessness, the avarice, the brutality, and the heartlessness of fallen human nature,” whereas the “grace of the Savior” appears in the actions of the Samaritan.27
For the sake of expediency, I am going to forego a review of highlights from the chapter on John. The conclusion subsequently reiterates the unique approach of each Gospel, followed by a survey of their distinctive treatments of various episodes that are found in multiple Gospels.
In reading Pink, I will admit to being somewhat uncomfortable with his speculative approach to typology. For example, he connects the river flowing out of Eden that splits into four rivers (Gen. 2:10) as representative of and ultimately substantiating that there are only to be four Gospels; likewise, with the “four pillars of shittim wood” in the tabernacle” (Exod. 26:31–32), the four points of the earth’s compass, and the four seasons, etc.28 I find this kind of logic to be off-putting. Nevertheless, one of his typological assertions was appealing, as he claims that the four cherubim in Revelation 4:7—those that appear like a lion, an ox, having the face of a man, and as a flying eagle—serve to authenticate the divine arrangement of the four Gospels, as organized in our modern Bibles.29 It is generally accepted that Revelation was written after the four Gospels, so perhaps this was the original intent behind the imagery.
Equally off-putting are Pink’s diversions into numerology. For example, he begins the chapter on Luke by asserting that “the numerical position that Luke occupies in the sacred Canon supplies a key to its interpretation.”30 He also finds it significant that Luke is the third book in the NT and the forty-second in the Bible. Further, the eighty-eight references in Luke to Jesus as the Son of Man is significant, as eight evidently signifies a new beginning.31 I won’t bother to elaborate on such things.
Overall, Why Four Gospels? is a worthy read. The elaboration on the distinctive design of each of the Gospels, in contrast to the others, is insightful. While the typological and numerological speculations were distractions, they were relatively segregated from other material and therefore did not interfere with the more meaningful content. Pink approached the four-fold Gospels with respect and reverence, and affirmed their divine origin, perfect character, and the importance of their distinct perspectives. Unfortunately, he did not get into issues of dating and publication sequence, which I would have enjoyed. He also didn’t generally address purported conflicts between the Gospels, in their sequencing and reporting of events. Regardless, I recommend the book to a broad audience. It is accessible, yet packed full of helpful analysis.
- F. David Farnell, “Early Twenty-First-Century Challenges to Inerrancy,” in Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate, ed. F. David Farnell (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2015), 162. ↩︎
- A few years earlier, Pink had published his work on the inspiration of the Bible, but it had not specifically looked at issues of Gospel origins. Arthur W. Pink, The Divine Inspiration of the Bible (Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1917). ↩︎
- Arthur W. Pink, Why Four Gospels? (New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 2017), 13. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- Ibid., 16–17. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- Ibid., 22. ↩︎
- Ibid., 16–17. ↩︎
- Ibid., 18. ↩︎
- Ibid., 28. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- Ibid., 29. ↩︎
- https://www.gotquestions.org/Arthur-Pink.html ↩︎
- Ibid., 59–60. ↩︎
- Ibid., 60. ↩︎
- Ibid., 47, 61–62. ↩︎
- Ibid., 63. ↩︎
- Ibid., 68–69. ↩︎
- Ibid., 62–63. ↩︎
- Ibid., 86. ↩︎
- Ibid., 89–90. ↩︎
- Ibid., 93. ↩︎
- Ibid., 94. Interestingly, Geldenhuys exclusively turns to Colossians 4:14 to assert that Luke was Gentile, because Luke is excluded from the list of those of the circumcision (Col. 4:10–11). Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1952), 19. Whereas, Garland disputes the utility of the Colossians passage, as the approach would also exclude Timothy as being Jewish. David E. Garland, Luke, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 23. ↩︎
- Ibid., 104. ↩︎
- Ibid., 108–09. ↩︎
- Ibid., 18–19, 23. Pink follows Irenaeus with these kind of speculations. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.11.8. ↩︎
- Ibid., 20–21. Personally, I speculate that the apostle John was responsible for collecting and sanctioning the fourfold Gospel before his death. I find the fact that John concluded his Gospel with the plural for books (biblia) when Matthew had begun with the singular form (biblos) to be very intriguing; especially, since there are potential links to the other Gospels in John’s Gospel. But this is a topic for another time. ↩︎
- Ibid., 85. ↩︎
- Ibid., 95. ↩︎
NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)
