Why Give Prominence to the Synoptic Teachings?

The major reason is that the synoptic gospels were written, at very least, twenty years earlier than John’s gospel, and all three are based on a much earlier source document which scholars call ‘Q’. Scholars estimate that Q was written within a very few years of Jesus’ departure from the scene, some would say as little as a year or two later. In contrast, John’s Gospel seems to be based entirely on the memory of the writer and is variously dated between 75 and 105 CE. Most Bible scholars will date it at around 90 CE. This is at least fifty years later than the likely date of the Q material! Long enough for even the most inspired memory to fade somewhat.

The rules of historical process rightly regard as most reliable those eye-witness accounts written closest to the events being described. That being the case, the earlier dated synoptic gospels must stand as the final judge and interpreter of the much later John’s gospel. Virtually all scholars, evangelicals included, recognise that there are major differences between the synoptics and John’s gospel, to do with the timing of key events and the contents of some of Christ’s teaching. The vast majority of lay church goers would have no knowledge of this fact, as few pastors ever point it out.

Wherever such differences occur, it is always the synoptic gospels’ version that must be seen as the more reliable. To make John’s version of salvation theology the basis on which the rest of the Bible, and especially the synoptic gospels, is judged and interpreted, is not merely poor scholarship but a potentially dangerous method of trying to arrive at truth. Just how dangerous is shown by this next point.

Evangelicals have unwittingly become followers of the Apostles before they are followers of Jesus Christ. In terms of their salvation doctrine, most evangelicals are, for all practical purposes, followers of Paul and John rather than being firstly followers of Jesus!

Let us put it even more starkly. Although entirely unconscious of their attitude, most evangelicals treat the teachings of the Apostles as, at very least, just as inspired as the teaching of Jesus Christ! In fact, at a practical level, it is as though many regard the Apostles’ teachings as even more inspired than those of Jesus. This is demonstrated by the fact that in any debate over the broadness of salvation exclusivist evangelicals will base their arguments almost solely on Paul, Peter or John and will tend to avoid both the synoptic salvation teachings of Jesus and the similar approach to salvation presented in the book of James, Jesus’ brother. In fact, Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation and great champion of all things Pauline, went so far as to state that the book of James should be removed from the Bible as it laid too much emphasis on ‘good works’ as a means of salvation.

BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE GENEROSITY OF GOD

The Bible teaches a far broader and more generous basis for valid Divine-human relationship than is traditionally imagined. This broadness and generosity is seen clearly in the Old Testament scriptures, but it is at its most radical in the teachings and example of Jesus Christ as recorded in the synoptic gospels.

The Generosity of God in the Old Testament

"For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro across the whole earth to show himself strong on behalf of those whose hearts are hard after and committed to him." 2 Chronicles 16.9

For both Jew and gentile, Divine relationship in the Old Testament revolved around the state of a person’s heart and their commitment to costly genuine goodness. It had little, if anything, to do with the accuracy of any individual’s theological beliefs, which even among Jews, could be very mixed at the best of times. Even when, in the case of the Jews, the sacrificial system was emphasised, it was seen to be pleasing to God only when performed out of a sincere heart by a person who was striving to live an ethical God-committed life.

It is essential to really appreciate just how widely diverse would have been the beliefs and ‘theologies’ of those in the Old Testament to whom God related favourably. Melchizedek, for example, was the Canaanite priest of a god called El Elyon, or God Most High. Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, was a pagan priest of Midian. The list goes on and includes the likes of Noah, Enoch, Balaam and Job, none of them in the covenant of Abraham. Then there are the pagan kings like Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar, who are described by God as ‘my friend, or my servant’.

It is clear that, despite their obviously mixed and often undoubtedly false theological understandings, God was happy to accept all of these individuals and to relate with them to the level each could manage. In every instance God shows himself to be flexible and accommodating. How different he is from the petty, pedantic tyrant God of evangelical theology who willingly consigns millions to hell for failing to grasp and accept the at times highly contradictory, confusing and badly explained version of ‘good news’, such as the one presented to Dorothy so starkly yet accurately by the Christian woman, and shared in the story which opens this article.