Matthew – Andrew – Luke – John
The four narratives, Matthew, Andrew (aka Mark – see my notes why Mark did not write the second narrative), Luke, and John are not gospels as classically understood. The classic understanding is that the documents were primarily written as perpetual evangelistic instruments. The term gospels, with this meaning, was imposed on these documents by the patristic fathers in the second century. In Matthew, Andrew, and Luke the word is used of the proclamation of the good message of the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God - all grounded in Jesus Christ. The word gospel does not appear in John. I will talk more about why that is later in these notes.
If they are not primarily tools for ongoing evangelism, then what are they?
Matthew
Matthew was the first written narrative, and was written to Israel to declare Jesus Christ to be the fulfillment of the appointed King of Israel, the fulfillment of the line of David, the Messiah, and the fulfillment of all the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Matthew includes the very non-Jewish position that this same Jesus would save and redeem the world of the gentiles, too. He would soon bring the whole world into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Andrew
Andrew wrote second in time. He wrote to the Roman empire and modifies his message with gentiles primarily in view. His main theme is found embedded in his opening line. Jesus, not Augustus, is the divine savior of the world.
These two narratives had nations in view; Matthew, the nation of Israel, first in God’s agenda, and Andrew, the Roman nation with its territorial nationalities, second in God’s plan. The Roman nation, therefore, stands in lieu of the world.
Luke
Luke was not a document with nations or any particular groups of people in mind. Those characteristics were placed upon Luke by the patristic fathers and have been maintained by the great mass of their theological step-children ever since. Luke was written to an individual to convince him to remain steadfast in the faith of disciples of Jesus. It is my opinion that Luke found its way into the church canon by way of accidental identification. We greatly benefit by it being included, but originally it was a private narration. Luke is the only non-apostle whose narrative is included in the “gospel canon” of the church.
John
John is altogether different in nature and scope than Matthew, Andrew, and Luke. John has a few things unique to it. I’m convinced that it is the only document written by apostles or their delegates after the end of the Mosaic age. It is a polemic against first century Gnosticism, which was the real power that was corrupting the pure faith of the sons of the recently arrived Kingdom of God. Like Luke, it was restricted in its scope. It was directed against the Gnostic heresy. And like Luke, it probably was included in the church canon by way of misidentification. Again, we highly benefit by its inclusion. It was written as a defense of the faith. John was not seeking to uphold the good news of the coming kingdom like Matthew and Andrew had done. For when he wrote, that kingdom had come. He was seeking to refute the external teaching that inherently carried corruption. Those who held that teaching were seeking inroads into the present Kingdom of God.
A word is appropriate here about Luke and John being included in the canon as being beneficial for believers. Although very early in the kingdom authoritative men put these works in the canon through misidentification grounded in patristic definitions and myths, God allowed and directed these bad reasonings for His own providential purposes. This has been the case with many things from the beginning. God is not obligated to endorse or correct the erroneous positions of church authorities after the fulfillment of His purposes. He has established all things. It is mankind’s duty to conform.