Issues Among Brethren - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE AND JOHN

In an effort to defend the unlawful marriages of some it is being taught that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are books of the Old Testament. Advocates of this doctrine would have us believe that such verses as Mt.5:32 and Mt.19:9, being part of the Old Testament, were nailed to the cross and taken out of the way, Col.2:14. Being nailed to the cross and taken out of the way these verses, and all other verses of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, contain not one command or instruction that lost sinners of today are obligated to follow. The teachers of this doctrine declare that "the law of the Lord went forth from Jerusalem, Isa. 2:3, and was fulfilled, in Acts 2. Therefore no part of the New Testament is recorded before Acts 2." In this article we will consider this idea.

If this idea be true, then indeed, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are to be treated as Old Testament books and have nothing to do with the gospel of Christ. On that basis what purpose does the record of Jesus' encounter with Nicodemus serve, Jn.3? The "new birth"is surely no part of the Old Testament! If not connected with the gospel and being no part of the Law of Moses why would the Holy Spirit inspire John to include this event in his book? Is it there simply to occupy space?

And what about the Lord's meeting with the Samaritan woman at the well, Jn. 4 .Was Jesus simply explaining to her the Law of Moses that she might better understand the Law? She wasn't even a full-blooded Jew. She and her people were no longer following the Law. In teaching her about "living water" Jesus was not making a "fuller" explanation of Moses' law. He taught her things that the apostles were later to go into all the world and teach.

Many other events, recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, could be added to the above but space does not allow their inclusion.

Sensing the difficulty of making the "new birth" and "living water" part of Old Testament doctrine some defend their teaching by saying that these subjects were "prophecies of Jesus, an Old Testament prophet." Such a defense is a dodging of the issue. Why not be honest and admit that the "new birth" and "living water" are part of that which is taught in the gospel and that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are books of the New Testament? Actually, trying to classify these accounts as simply "prophecies" is a clear admission that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John do include teachings that apply to all lost sinners.

Next, let's notice a few verses that show, without doubt, that some of the things which Jesus taught before the cross apply to all accountable beings today. Look at the "Great Commission," as we refer to it. After telling the apostles to go and teach all nations Jesus continued, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world," Mt.28:20. Here is positive proof that the Lord wanted the apostles to later teach all things which He had previously taught them. If Jesus only taught them things connected with the Law of Moses, His apostles could not continue to teach those things after Jesus died and nailed them to the cross. Referring to the gospel of Christ the Hebrew writer says, "which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him," Heb.2:3. These words state plainly that Jesus was the first to teach about the gospel. This is a problem for those who teach that while in the flesh Jesus taught Jews only about the Law of Moses. If Jesus, before His death, confined His teaching to the Law of Moses, when, and where, did He teach about the gospel? The answer of some is that He taught the apostles about the gospel during the 40 days between His resurrection and ascension. Again, they prove inconsistent because their doctrine says that no part of the New Testament is recorded before Acts 2. Also, their doctrine proves to be false doctrine and contrary to inspired truth. Let all beware of it! - Wendell Watts