THEOSISAugustine of Hippo
1. Among all the divine testimonies contained in Holy Scripture, the Gospel is deservedly preeminent. What was foretold in the Law and the Prophets as future is shown in the Gospel as fulfilled and accomplished. The Apostles were the first evangelists, since they saw our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself abiding in the flesh. They not only remembered what they heard from His mouth, and what He did and proclaimed before their eyes. They were also able to inquire and receive from Him Himself, or from His parents, or from others, reliable information and certain testimonies concerning the wondrous and memorable events of His birth, infancy, and childhood, which took place before they became His close disciples.
Read more (1942 words)
Having received the command to preach the Gospel, they began zealously to proclaim it to the human race. Two of them, Matthew and John, considering it necessary to preserve written accounts of Him, each composed a book.
2. Let no one think that, with respect to preaching and reception, there is some difference between what is proclaimed by those who followed the Lord when He appeared here in the flesh as His disciples, and what is proclaimed by those who with full faith received what the former had revealed. By His divine providence, the Holy Spirit arranged that authority was given to certain followers of the first Apostles not only to preach the Gospel, but even to write a Gospel. Such were Mark and Luke. All others who attempted to write about the deeds of the Lord or the Apostles were not such that the Church could trust them and accept their writings as sacred books of canonical weight. Their impiety is not the reason that full trust cannot be placed in their accounts. Rather, it is the fact that they introduced some falsehood into their writings, condemned by the catholic and apostolic rule of faith and by true doctrine.
3. Thus the four Evangelists, known throughout the whole world, and perhaps there are four because there are four quarters of the world through which the Church of Christ is spread everywhere, clearly showed by the sacred meaning of their number that they wrote in the following order. Matthew was first, Mark second, Luke next, and John last. It follows that they succeed one another in one order in the acquisition of knowledge and in preaching, and in another order in writing. In knowledge and preaching, the first were certainly those who followed the incarnate Lord, heard His words, saw His deeds, and were sent by His mouth to preach the Gospel. Only two of them among the authors of the Gospels, and the command to write as one must believe was given them from above, belong to the number of those chosen by the Lord before His Passion. They stand in the first and last places: Matthew first, and John last. The remaining two, since they were not among the closest disciples but only accompanied them after Christ the preacher, ought to remain in their embrace as their sons. Therefore they stand in the middle and are protected on both sides as by a wall.
4. Of the four, Matthew alone, as ancient tradition relates, wrote in Hebrew, while the others wrote in Greek. On the one hand, all the Evangelists kept to their own manner of narration. On the other hand, none wished to write as though he knew nothing of his predecessors. Therefore some omitted, as though unknown, what had already been recorded by others. Yet they joined their own personal labor to what had already been written, according to the measure of revelation each had received. Matthew strove to depict the Incarnation of the Lord as that of a royal descendant, and recorded many of His sayings and deeds. Mark, who follows him, may be regarded as his imitator and abbreviator. He has nothing in common with John, very little of his own, and some things with Luke. For the most part he agrees with Matthew, though in his account of events he has much in common either with one Evangelist or with all together, very often in almost the same words. Luke, however, depicted chiefly the priestly origin and person of the Lord. Indeed, this also applies to David himself, if one follows not the royal line of ancestors, but the line through those who were not kings. Luke reached Nathan, the son of David, who was not a king. He does not depict as Matthew does, who, beginning with King Solomon, traced all the other kings in order, preserving the mystical number in their succession, about which we shall speak below.
5. Indeed, the Lord Jesus Christ, the one true King and the one true Priest, the first for ruling over us and the second for redeeming us, showed that these two offices, each foretold separately among the forefathers, were sealed in distinct sayings. First, in the inscription nailed to His Cross: "The King of the Jews." For this reason Pilate, by a mystical impulse, answered the Jews, "What I have written, I have written." For it had been foretold in the Psalms: "Destroy not the inscription of the name." Second, according to His priestly office, He taught us to offer and receive sacrifices. Therefore prophecy concerning Him was set forth beforehand, saying, "Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." In many other sacred records Christ appears as both King and Priest. David himself, whose son the Lord is often called, as He is also called the son of Abraham, revealed priestly dignity while being a king, when he ate the loaves of presentation, which only priests were permitted to eat. Matthew and Luke both included him in the genealogy. The first indicates the Lord's descent from David in a descending line through Solomon. The second leads Him back to David through Nathan. It is noteworthy that Luke alone says that Mary, who received the good tidings from the angel, was related to Elizabeth, the wife of the priest Zacharias. He specifies that Elizabeth was a daughter of Aaron, and therefore Zacharias's wife was from the priestly tribe.
6. Therefore, when Matthew emphasizes the royal dignity of Jesus Christ, and Luke the priestly dignity, in both cases the subject is the humanity of Christ. For Christ was appointed King and Priest as man. God gave Him the throne of David His father, so that of His Kingdom there would be no end, and so that the man Christ might be mediator between God and men, interceding for us. But Luke did not have an abbreviator as Matthew had in Mark. Perhaps this too is not without a certain mystical meaning. Royal persons are not accustomed to remain without an escort. Therefore he who took upon himself the depiction of Christ's royal dignity also had an accompanying companion, who followed in his footsteps. But since the high priest entered the holy of holies alone, Luke, whose attention was concentrated on the priesthood, had no follower and assistant to abbreviate his account.
7. The three Evangelists named above dwelt chiefly on the deeds that Christ performed in human flesh. John, however, concentrated his attention on the Lord's divinity, according to which He is equal to the Father, and he strove carefully to depict precisely this. He soared much higher than the first three. When one sees them, as it were, moving on earth with Christ as man, John, having passed beyond the veil of clouds lying thick upon the earth, ascended to the pure heaven. From there, with piercing and firm sharpness of mind, he contemplated in the beginning the Word, God with God, by whom all things were made. He proclaimed that He became flesh in order to dwell among us, that He received flesh but was not changed in the flesh. If the divine nature had not remained unchanged in the taking of flesh, it would not have been said, "I and the Father are one," since the Father and flesh are not one. John alone gives this testimony of the Lord concerning Himself, as also the following: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," and, "I am in the Father and the Father in Me," and, "That they may be one, as We are one. " and, "Whatever He does, the Son also does likewise." If we know anything else of this kind, so surely pointing us to the Godhead of Christ according to which He is equal to the Father, John alone reported it in his Gospel. As though from the breast of the Lord Himself, on which he customarily reclined at the Mystical Supper, he drank abundantly, as the closest intimate, the mystery of the Godhead.
8. Two virtues lie before the soul of man: one active, the other contemplative. The first imparts movement, the second grants understanding. By the first, one acts in order to purify the heart for the contemplation of God. By the second, one is set free and contemplates. The first is in the commandments and laws of this temporal life. The second is in the teaching about eternal life. The first acts, the second rests. For the first is manifested in the purification of sinners, and the second in the illumination of the purified. In this temporal life, the first appears in works of good conduct. The second appears chiefly in faith, and, in very few, in a certain vision of unchangeable truth, as through a dark glass, in riddles, and only in part. These two powers are represented in the image of Jacob's two wives. I spoke of them as well as I could in refuting the teaching of the Manichaean Faustus. Leah is understood as the one who labors, and Rachel as the beginning of contemplation. Thus it is made clear that the three Evangelists, investigating with great care the earthly deeds of the Lord and His words that chiefly serve the edification of morals in the present life, remained in the active power. John, who narrates little about the Lord's deeds and gathers with greater care and detail His sayings that raise the mind to the Trinity of the Godhead and the blessedness of eternal life, fixed his attention and preaching on praises of the contemplative power.
9. Therefore, in applying the four living creatures from Revelation to the Evangelists, those judged more rightly who assigned the lion to Matthew, the man to Mark, the calf to Luke, and the eagle to John, than those who assigned the man to Matthew, the eagle to Mark, and the lion to John. The latter sought their basis in the opening words of the books, not in the whole direction of thought, which alone ought to have been examined. It is far more fitting to designate by the lion the one who chiefly depicted the royal person of Christ. In Revelation, the lion is mentioned together with the royal tribe, when it is said, "The Lion of the tribe of Judah has prevailed." In Matthew, the Magi came from the East to worship the King, whose birth had been shown to them by a star. Herod fears the royal Offspring, and in order to kill Him he kills all the infants.
No one has doubted that Luke is designated by the calf, because of the supreme sacrifice of the High Priest. It is not by chance that the Evangelist begins his narrative with the high priest Zacharias, notes the kinship of Mary and Elizabeth, and tells of the first priestly rite performed over the infant Christ. Many more examples can be brought forward of Luke's attention to what is connected with the priesthood. Mark, however, did not set out to narrate either the royal lineage or the priestly kinship and ministry. He concentrated primarily on the human deeds. Therefore, of the four images named above, the man suited him most. But these three, the man, the lion, and the calf, live on earth. The three Evangelists named are occupied chiefly with what Christ did in the flesh, and with the commandments He gave to those who bear flesh, so that they might lead a pious mortal life. John, however, soars like an eagle above the darkness of human infirmity and contemplates the light of unchangeable truth with his sharpest and strongest eyes.