Project Work One

Introduction
It is obvious that the NT writers share a common core of Christian beliefs while there are
instances where their perspectives diverge on certain theological issues.
I. The theological difference between synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and John:
Christology (The Nature of Christ)
There is specific theological difference between the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
and Apostle John regarding Christology (The Nature of Christ).
 Synoptic Gospels: The Synoptic Gospels fully affirm Jesus's divinity; they tend to focus
more on His humanity, His earthly ministry, His miracles, and His teachings.
 John: John's presents a very high Christology, emphasizing Jesus's divine nature and pre-
existence as the Word (Logos) of God (John 1:1-14). He portrays Jesus as the unique Son
of God, fully divine and fully human.
The main theological difference between the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and
John regarding Christology lies in their understanding and presentation of the nature and identity
of Jesus Christ.
1. Synoptic Gospels
 Emphasis on Humanity: The Synoptics tend to emphasize the humanity of Jesus. They
present him as a teacher, healer, and prophet who is deeply connected to his Jewish
heritage. His actions and teachings are often portrayed in the context of his earthly
ministry (Matthew 4:23, Mark 10:45, Luke 19:10).
 Kingdom of God: They focus on the proclamation of the Kingdom of God (the main
theme of synoptic gospel) and the ethical teachings of Jesus, including parables and
miracles that illustrate his authority and mission (Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:15, Luke 8:1).
 Messianic Secret: Particularly in Mark, there is a theme known as the "Messianic Secret,"
where Jesus often instructs those he heals or his disciples not to reveal his identity as the
Messiah until the appropriate time (Mark 1:34, 8:30, 9:9).
2. Gospel of John
 Emphasis on Divinity: John presents a more developed Christology that emphasizes the
divine nature of Jesus. The prologue (John 1:1-14) explicitly states that "the Word was
God" and "the Word became flesh," highlighting the pre-existence of Christ and his
divine essence (John 1:1-14, 10:30, 8:58).
 Intimate Relationship with the Father: John's Gospel portrays a unique and intimate
relationship between Jesus and God the Father, often using phrases like "I am" to assert
his divine identity and authority (John 5:19, 14:9, 17:21).
 Focus on Spiritual Themes: The Gospel of John includes more theological reflection,
focusing on themes such as eternal life, light vs. darkness, and the role of the Holy Spirit.
It emphasizes belief in Jesus as essential for salvation (John 3:16, 8:12, 14:26).
II. Scholarly works: The specific theological difference between the synoptic gospels
(Matthew, Mark, Luke) and John regarding Christology (The Nature of Christ) have been a topic
of scholarly discussion. Here are some scholarly works that explore the theological differences
between the Synoptic gospels and John, particularly in terms of Christology:
1. "The Christology of the Synoptic Gospels" by William L. Lane
Lane examines how the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) present Jesus' identity and
mission. He argues that their Christology is grounded in Jewish tradition, emphasizing Jesus as
the Messiah who fulfills Old Testament prophecies. He highlights the Synoptics’ portrayal of
Jesus as a teacher and healer, focusing on his humanity and his role in establishing the Kingdom
of God. He contrasts this with John's more explicit claims about Jesus' divinity, suggesting that
the Synoptics provide a more accessible understanding of Jesus for their Jewish audience.
2. "The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary" by John A. T. Robinson
Robinson offers a detailed analysis of the Gospel of John, emphasizing its unique theological
perspective. He argues that John's Christology is high and explicitly portrays Jesus as divine,
using metaphors and discourses to convey deep spiritual truths. He discusses how John's
narrative structure and thematic development differ from the Synoptics, focusing on the pre-
existence of Christ and his intimate relationship with God the Father. He posits that John's gospel
addresses a broader audience, aiming to deepen understanding of Jesus’ divine nature.
3. "Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey" by Craig Blomberg
Blomberg provides an overview of the Synoptic Gospels and John, focusing on their distinctive
theological emphases and Christological perspectives. He notes that while the Synoptics present
a more historical account of Jesus' life and ministry, John's gospel emphasizes theological
reflection and spiritual significance. He highlights how John's use of "I am" statements reveals a
high Christology, contrasting with the Synoptics' more reserved approach to Jesus’ identity.
4. "The Theology of the Gospel of John" by Andreas J. Köstenberger
Köstenberger explores the distinct theological themes in the gospel of John, particularly its
Christological focus. He examines how John's portrayal of Jesus shapes Christian belief and
practice. He argues that John's gospel presents Jesus as both fully human and fully divine,
emphasizing his role as the incarnate Word (Logos). He contrasts this with the Synoptic Gospels,
which he sees as focusing more on Jesus' earthly ministry and ethical teachings. This work
highlights the implications of John's high Christology for understanding Christian faith.
Summary: These scholarly works contribute to the understanding that synoptic gospels and the
Gospel of John complement rather contradict each other. They collectively contribute to a deeper
understanding of how the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John differ in their portrayal of
Christ, reflecting varied theological emphases and contextual concerns.
III. Contextualization: The EECF accept both perfective (synoptic gospels and John) but
generally aligns more closely with the Christological perspectives found in the synoptic gospels
(Matthew, Mark, and Luke) while also incorporating elements from the gospel of John.
Christology in the EECF Context
1. Emphasis on the Humanity of Christ: The Synoptic Gospels emphasize Jesus' humanity, His
teachings, and His role as a servant and teacher. This perspective resonates with many
evangelical traditions that focus on Jesus' earthly ministry and His compassionate engagement
with people.
2. Divine Nature of Christ: While the Synoptics present a human Jesus, they also affirm His
divinity, especially through His miracles and authority. The EECF recognizes this dual nature of
Christ—fully God and fully man—consistent with traditional Christian doctrine.
3. Incorporation of John's High Christology: The Gospel of John presents a high Christology that
emphasizes Jesus' divine identity, pre-existence, and the intimate relationship between Jesus and
the Father. The EECF acknowledges this aspect as well, particularly in discussions about
salvation, eternal life, and the nature of God.
Summary: While the EECF may draw from both the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John
in its teaching and understanding of Christology, it tends to place a strong emphasis on the
humanity of Christ as portrayed in the Synoptics, while also affirming His divinity as articulated
in John. The balance of these perspectives helps shape a comprehensive understanding of Jesus
as both Savior and Lord within the context of EECF. However, areas for potential correction in
the EECF may include a deeper engagement with the theological implications of Christ's dual
nature, fostering a more robust dialogue between the Synoptic and Johannine perspectives, and
addressing any doctrinal inconsistencies that may arise in practical applications of their
Christological beliefs.
IV. The reason of such difference: The differences between the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew,
Mark, and Luke) and John can be attributed to several factors, including their distinct theological
aims, historical contexts, audiences, and literary styles. Here’s a breakdown of these reasons:
1. Theological Intentions: The Synoptics aim to present a narrative of Jesus' life, ministry, death,
and resurrection. They focus on his teachings, parables, and actions, highlighting his role as the
Messiah and teacher within the Jewish tradition. Their theological emphasis is on the Kingdom
of God and ethical teachings. Whlie, John's gospel is more explicitly theological and reflective. It
seeks to affirm the divinity of Christ and the nature of his relationship with God the Father. It
addresses deeper spiritual themes and emphasizes belief in Jesus as central to eternal life.
2. Historical Context: Synoptic gospels were likely written in the context of early Christian
communities that were primarily Jewish or had strong ties to Judaism. Their narratives reflect
concerns relevant to these communities, such as understanding Jesus' fulfillment of Jewish
prophecy and law. While, Gospel of John written later (likely in the late first century), John
addresses a more diverse audience, including Gentiles. The context may include a growing
separation between early Christians and Jewish leaders, leading to a need for a clearer expression
of Jesus' divine identity.
3. Audience: The intended audience for the Synoptics seems to be primarily Jewish Christians or
those familiar with Jewish traditions. They often reference Jewish scripture and customs to
connect Jesus' mission with Jewish expectations of the Messiah. While, Gospel of John appears
to target a broader audience, including Gentiles and those outside traditional Jewish thought. His
writing aims to present Jesus in a way that go beyond cultural boundaries, emphasizing universal
themes of faith and salvation.
4. Literary Style: Synoptic gospels share a similar narrative structure and often use parables and
miracle stories as teaching tools. Their accounts are more straightforward and chronological,
focusing on Jesus' actions and interactions. While, gospel of John employs a more symbolic and
theological style, using metaphors (e.g., "I am the bread of life," "I am the light of the world")
and long discourses that delve into the meaning of Jesus' identity and mission. The narrative is
less focused on chronology and more on thematic development.
5. Christological Focus: Synoptic gospels recognize Jesus as the Messiah, they often portray him
in a more human light, emphasizing his role as a teacher and healer who fulfills Old Testament
prophecies. While, gospel of John emphasizes Jesus’ pre-existence, divinity, and intimate
relationship with the Father. The Christology presented here is high; it asserts Jesus not only as
Messiah but as the eternal Word (Logos) through whom all things were created.
Summary: These differences arise from varying theological goals, historical circumstances,
intended audiences, literary styles, and focuses on Christology. Each gospel contributes uniquely
to the understanding of Jesus Christ within the Christian tradition.
 The Project Work Two
I. The theological difference between Matthew and Luke: Baptism
There is theological difference between the Apostle Matthew and Luke regarding baptism.
• Matthew: Commands baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit" (a Trinitarian formula).
• Acts: Instructs baptism to be done "in the name of Jesus Christ."
Scripture text references
Matthew 28:19-20 (The Great Commission): "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching
them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very
end of the age.” NIV
Acts 2:38 (Peter's Sermon at Pentecost): Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of
you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit." NIV
The differences between Matthew 28:19-20 and Acts 2:38 regarding baptism reflect differing
emphases on the nature and significance of the act within the early Christian community.
Matthew 28:19-20 (The Great Commission): In this passage, Jesus instructs His disciples to:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This verse emphasizes:
• Trinitarian Baptism: The formula includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, indicating a
baptism that acknowledges the full Christian understanding of God as a Trinity.
• Discipleship: The command to “make disciples” suggests that baptism is part of a larger
process of teaching and nurturing new believers in their faith. It highlights the importance
of not just baptizing but also teaching obedience to Christ's commands.
• Universal Mission: The directive to baptize "all nations" emphasizes the inclusivity of the
Gospel message and the mission to spread Christianity beyond Jewish communities.
Acts 2:38 (Peter’s Sermon at Pentecost): In this passage, Peter responds to the crowd after his
sermon by saying: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins." This verse emphasizes:
• Repentance: The call to repentance is crucial here, indicating that baptism is closely
associated with turning away from sin and turning toward God.
• Baptism for Forgiveness: The phrase "for the forgiveness of your sins" suggests that
baptism is directly linked to the act of receiving forgiveness, implying a more immediate
connection between baptism and salvation.
• Name of Jesus: The focus on being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" highlights the
authority and significance of Jesus in the act of baptism, which can be seen as an
emphasis on His role as the Messiah.
II. Scholarly works: The theological differences between the Apostle Matthew and Luke
regarding baptism have been a topic of scholarly discussion. Here are four scholarly works that
explore the theological differences between them:
1. "The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew" by Ulrich Luz
Luz's work provides an in-depth analysis of the theological themes present in the Gospel of
Matthew, including its understanding of baptism. He discusses Matthew 28:19, which contains
the Great Commission and emphasizes the Trinitarian formula for baptism. Luz contrasts this
with the more simplistic baptismal call found in Acts 2:38, where Peter urges repentance and
baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Luz argues that Matthew's emphasis on the Trinitarian
formula reflects a more developed understanding of the Christian identity and mission, while
Luke's approach in Acts highlights the immediate necessity of repentance and communal identity
within the early church.
2. "The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary" by Joseph
A. Fitzmyer
Fitzmyer's commentary on Acts provides detailed insights into the theological significance of
baptism in the early Christian community as depicted in Acts 2:38. He examines how Luke
presents baptism as an essential response to the proclamation of the gospel and a means of
entering into the community of believers. Fitzmyer suggests that Luke’s focus on baptism in
Acts emphasizes the communal aspect of faith and repentance, contrasting with Matthew's more
individualistic and formalized approach to baptism as part of a broader commission.
3. "Baptism in the New Testament" by William L. Lane
Lane's work examines the different baptismal practices and theological understandings presented
in the New Testament, including those in Matthew and Acts. He analyzes Matthew 28:19 in light
of its context within the Gospel and compares it to the account in Acts, focusing on the
implications for early Christian identity and practice. Lane posits that Matthew’s Great
Commission indicates a universal mission that transcends ethnic boundaries, while Luke’s
portrayal in Acts emphasizes a more immediate response to the gospel message, reflecting the
urgency of conversion and inclusion in the early church.
4. "The Gospel According to Luke" by N. T. Wright
In his commentary on Luke, Wright explores the themes of baptism and initiation into the
Christian faith. He discusses Acts 2:38 within the context of Peter's sermon at Pentecost and how
it frames baptism as a response to Jesus' resurrection and lordship. Wright argues that Luke's
approach to baptism highlights its role as a transformative act that incorporates believers into a
new community defined by repentance and faith. This contrasts with Matthew’s commission,
which emphasizes a structured initiation into a Trinitarian faith.
Summary: These scholarly works contribute to the understanding that Matthew and Luke
complement rather contradict each other. They collectively illustrate how Matthew and Luke
present differing theological perspectives on baptism, reflecting their unique emphases on
community, identity, and mission within early Christianity.
III. Contextualization: The EECF have Matthew perspectives than that of Luke because they
emphasizes the Trinitarian formula found in Matthew 28:19, which instructs believers to baptize
"in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This verse is central to their
understanding of baptism as it reflects the nature of God as a Trinity. The act of baptizing in this
manner underscores the belief that salvation and new life in Christ are rooted in the work of all
three persons of the Godhead.
IV. The reason of such difference: The theological differences between Matthew and Luke can
be attributed to several factors, including audience, purpose, and theological focus. Here are
some reasons for these differences:
1. Audience: The gospel of Matthew is often seen as directed toward a Jewish audience familiar
with the Old Testament. Its emphasis on the Trinitarian formula in baptism reflects a desire to
connect Jesus' mission to the broader narrative of God's covenant with Israel. While, the book of
Acts, authored by Luke, targets a more diverse audience, including Gentiles. Peter’s emphasis on
baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" resonates with a community that is coming to understand
Jesus' role in salvation.
2. Theological Emphasis: The Great Commission highlights the authority of Jesus and the
importance of the Trinity, suggesting a comprehensive understanding of God's nature. This
reflects an early Christian understanding of God as a relational being, which is foundational for
the community of believers. While, the focus on Jesus' name in Acts emphasizes His authority as
the Messiah and Savior. This reflects an early Christian belief in the power of Jesus’ name for
salvation and the immediate response required from individuals.
3. Purpose of Writing: The purpose of Matthew's gospel includes establishing Jesus' authority
and identity as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. The Trinitarian baptismal formula
underscores this authority and the new covenant established through Christ. While, the purpose
of Acts includes documenting the early church's growth and the spread of the gospel. Peter's call
to baptism emphasizes personal repentance and faith in Jesus, showcasing the transformative
power of the gospel message.
4. Cultural Context: In a predominantly Jewish context, the command to baptize in the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may serve to affirm continuity with Jewish traditions while also
introducing a new understanding of God. While, In a Greco-Roman context, baptism "in the
name of Jesus" could resonate more strongly with individuals who were accustomed to
associating names with authority and identity, making it a compelling call to action.
5. Historical Development: The early church experienced theological development as it grew and
encountered diverse populations. The differences in emphasis reflect an evolving understanding
of baptism's significance in relation to community identity (Matthew) versus individual
conversion (Luke).
Summary: These differences in emphasis regarding baptism between Matthew and Luke arise
from their distinct audiences, theological focuses, purposes for writing, cultural contexts, and
historical developments within early Christianity. Each perspective enriches our understanding
of baptism's role in the life of believers and the early church.
Reference
Blomberg, C. (1997). Jesus and the Gospels: An introduction and survey. Broadman Holman
Publishers.
Fitzmyer, J. A. (1998). The Acts of the Apostles: A new translation with introduction and
commentary. Yale University Press.
Köstenberger, A. J. (2009). The theology of the Gospel of John. Zondervan.
Lane, W. L. (1974). Baptism in the New Testament. New Testament Studies, 20(2), 148-162.
Lane, W. L. (1996). The Christology of the synoptic gospels. Cambridge University Press.
Luz, U. (2005). The theology of the Gospel of Matthew (J. M. Robinson, Trans.). Cambridge
University Press.
Morris Leon. (1990). New Testament theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academic Books,
Zondervan Publishing House.
Robinson, J. A. T. (1985). The gospel of John: A theological commentary. Fortress Press.
Wright, N. T. (2008). The gospel according to Luke. The New Testament for Everyone series.
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.