One encouraging trend in conservative Presbyterian worship has been the increase in the length and selection of Bible readings in Lord’s day services. An unfortunate custom inherited from the past has been the practice of reading only the sermon text in the public assembly. A few went so far as to regard readings from scripture that were not preached upon as "dumb" readings. This was not the practice established at the Reformation. Calvin had faulted the medieval lectionary for the brevity of the passages read and for the lack of coherence between them. In its place Calvin advocated longer readings from both the Old and New Testaments. Given the frequency of public services in Geneva, such a practice provided for the reading of the most of the Bible over a period of a few years time. The Westminster Assembly continued this advocacy of lengthy readings. The Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God gives this instruction: "How large a portion be read at once, is left to the wisdom of the minister; but it is convenient, that ordinarily one chapter of each Testament be read at every meeting; and sometimes more, where the chapters be short, or the coherence of the matter requireth it. It is requisite that all the canonical books be read over in order, that the people may be better acquainted with the whole body of the scriptures; and ordinarily, where the reading in either Testament endeth on one’s Lord’s day, it is to begin the next. We commend also the more frequent reading of such scriptures as he that readeth shall think best for the edification of his hearers, as the book of Psalms, and such like."
Several things are evident from this citation. First, the Assembly, while not binding the ministers, strongly encourages them to read not less than two chapters at a meeting. The Directory allows for less but encourages more. Second, since the Westminister Assembly made no provision for annual church feasts, its Directory encouraged a continuous reading from the Old and New Testaments with each week’s reading beginning where the former week’s reading had ended. The Assembly also encouraged other readings on a more frequent cycle. The book of Psalms was offered as an example of material which might be read more often. Unfortunately the pattern advocated by the Assembly was largely replaced in American practice by reading only the text to be preached on. It is heartening, therefore, to see conservative Presbyterian Churches returning to something more along the lines of what the Directory for the Publick Worship of God inculcated. Longer readings, multiple reading and frequent responsive readings from the book of Psalms are becoming more and more the custom in Presbyterian circles. This is most appropriate for a church community that is committed to the principle of sola scriptura.
However, one aspect of the ancient church’s practice of scripture reading has completely disappeared from Presbyterian practice. This was the custom of reading each Lord’s day from the Gospels. The ancient and medieval lectionaries appointed a Gospel lesson for each Lord’s Day. John Calvin’s advocacy of continuous readings, instead of a lectionary based on the Church year, did not neglect the importance and centrality of the Gospels. Rather, it was Calvin’s practice to read from and preach upon the Gospels and Acts on Lord’s day. Sermons based on reading from the rest of scripture normally were assigned to the morning and evening services held throughout the week. The Genevan church held services morning and evening every day of the week in which the scriptures were read in continuous fashion. This allowed Calvin to ordinarily read from and preach upon the Gospels and Acts each Lord’s day. But such matters were left to the discretion of the ministers. This lack of any specific lectionary requirement combined with the rarity of such weekday services in most of the Reformed churches lead to the loss of the weekly Gospel lesson in most Reformed practice. The Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God makes no special provision for the reading of the Gospels. If we follow the advice of the Directory so that the weekly scripture readings are in canonical order, then there would be a long period of Gospel lessons each Lord’s day followed by an even longer period with no Gospel lessons at all.
There are 89 chapters in the four Gospels and 171 chapters in the rest of the New Testament. If we assume two services each Lord’s day with a Old Testament, Psalm and New Testament reading of one chapter each (most Presbyterian churches do less than this), then the congregation would hear the Gospels read for a little less than a year followed by almost two years before they would again hear a Gospel again. At the more common rate today of one chapter a week (most churches do not have such continuous readings in the evening service), it would take over three years till a Gospel began to be read. It seems to this writer self-evident that the church, which is body of Christ, should hear the words and deeds of Jesus her head every Lord’s day. If that is correct, then we need a better system than that advocated by the Westminster Assembly and commonly practiced today. While we heartily endorse the Westminster Assembly’s encouragement to read the Psalms on a more frequent basis, should this not be all the more true for the record of the words and deeds of our Lord?
Yet it is not self-evident to many that the Gospels should be read weekly to the assembly. If it were self-evident, then the practice would be commonplace since the readings are at the discretion of the local pastor. There are two reasons for this neglect of the Gospels. First of all, a wrong implication has been drawn from a right doctrine. The right doctrine is that the whole of the Bible is equally inspired and is equally "Word of God." The wrong implication is that the meaning, therefore, is flat and even throughout. In the Old Covenant the prophets are built upon and depend on the books of Moses. The Prophets are no less Word of God than the Pentateuch. But the Old Covenant is established by the great redemptive event (the exodus) and great covenant institution (giving of the law) narrated in the books of Moses. It is commonplace, therefore, in Reformed circles to understand the Prophets in terms of the Law of Moses. The Prophets act as God’s prosecuting attorneys accusing the nation of violating the terms of the covenant and pronouncing God’s sanctions threatened in the law of Moses. The Prophets themselves were self-conscious of their subordination to the law given through Moses. As Isaiah said, "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn (Isaiah 8:20)." While the Law and the Prophets are equally Word of God, they are not interchangeable Word of God. The historical order (Law then Prophets) and the inner meaning (Covenant institution then Covenant explication) places the Law as the center. The Prophets do not "add to" the Law but explicate its meaning and apply it to varying situations. To use a building metaphor, the Law is the foundation and the Prophets are the structure built on that foundation. This relationship is inherent in the historical nature of the Law over against the Prophets. It is recognized so within the texts themselves. According to the Law of Moses, all prophets are to be judged by their faithfulness to the Law. Likewise, the Prophets appeal to the Law as their basis. So it was that the Law was to written on the heart, spoken about around the table, and meditated on in the night. When the Prophets see the future triumph of the kingdom of God what they see is the law going forth from Zion.
We believe a similar pattern belongs to very nature of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is established by the great redemptive event of Christ incarnate, ministering, crucified and risen that is narrated in the Gospels. As with the Law and the Prophets, there is fundamental historical order in which God speaks to us by his Son, and then that speaking is confirmed to us by those who heard him. The Gospels correspond to the books of Moses, Acts to the former Prophets (Joshua, Samuel, Kings), and the Epistles to the latter Prophets (Isaiah, et al). Acts records the historical explication and application of the words and deeds of Jesus in the life of the early church. The Epistles are literary explications and applications addressed to specific people in specific situations. Acts and the Epistles are dependent upon the content in the Gospels, just as the former and latter Prophets depend upon the content in the Law of Moses.
Let us not be mislead by the plural form of the word "Gospels." There are not, properly speaking, four Gospels, but four accounts of the one gospel. The gospel is the good news of the birth, life, deeds, teachings, sufferings, death and resurrection of Jesus. This good news of God’s acts in Jesus are narrated for us in four documents we have come to call seriatim the Gospel according to Matthew, the Gospel according to Mark, etc. In other words, the Gospels are the gospel. In contrast, the Epistles are not gospel in their literary form. They are not the story of Jesus’ birth, ministry, teachings, sufferings, death, burial and resurrection. To be sure the Epistles include brief recitations of the gospel as we can see in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5. But as to their literary form, they do not so much tell the gospel as they explain and apply the gospel to a variety of situations and problems. The Epistles presume the content of the words and deeds of Jesus. That content is recorded for us in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The Gospels can stand alone, literarily speaking. We are not suggesting that the Gospels are intended to stand alone from the Epistles as a sufficient rule of faith and life. We are discussing is their literary form. A reader does not need to know the content of the Epistles in order to make sense of the Gospels. The Gospels, because they are complete narratives, have a literary independence that in not true of the Epistles. The Gospels tell the story of Jesus from beginning to end. Because the Gospels tell the story of Jesus, they are the gospel per se. In contrast, the Epistles presume their readers know the content found in the Gospels. This is certainly the case for some of the Epistles that contain no "gospel summaries," that is, no recitation of the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus.
The letters of Philemon, James, Second and Third John and Jude contain no explicit references either to the death or the resurrection of Jesus. This is not to find fault with those letters. The writers were not intending to summarize or proclaim the gospel. Rather, presuming that the readers indeed believed in Jesus crucified and risen as the Christ, the writers were free to address the specific issues evident in those letters. Yet those brief letters assume their intended readers know and believe the good news of Jesus. In James the phrase "our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" functions to call to mind the gospel of Jesus crucified and risen. The glory of Jesus is that he who was crucified, was also raised again on the third day. Much the same can be seen in the other letters.
The longer letters of the New Testament also presume and depend upon a knowledge of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, that is to say, on the content that we have in the four Gospels. The resurrection of Jesus is implied but is never stated in First John. Jesus is said to be "eternal life" (1:2) thus implying he is alive though he was dead since he "laid down his life for us" (3:16). That he actually arose from the dead in the body in which he died is nowhere stated in First John. A similar literary pattern can be found in the Book of Hebrews which presumes Jesus arose from the dead since he now sits at the right hand of majesty in heaven, but it never says so in so many words. These writing presume the readers know what we know from the Gospels.
Paul’s letters contain the most and the fullest gospel summaries on all the Epistles. Yet even here the reader is presumed to already know the good news, and to know it in fuller detail than the brief gospel summaries Paul includes. Paul’s reference to Jesus as "born of woman, born under the law" presumes that the Galatians know that Jesus was born of Mary, a woman of the lineage of David, and hence "born under the law." That Jesus is both "born of a woman" and yet the "Son of God" implies but does not state the Jesus was born of a virgin who conceived, not by a husband, but by the Holy Spirit. Paul’s discussion of divorce refers to but does not cite the words of Jesus concerning divorce. Paul presumes his readers know the words of Jesus.
This is evident in Paul’s discussion of the Lord’s supper. Paul begins by reminding his readers that he had already taught them the account of the last supper. Paul says, "for what I received from the Lord, I also passed on to you." Paul received from the Lord (almost certainly through Peter and John) an account of his last supper with his disciples. This historical information Paul had previous taught to the Corinthians. He now reminds them of this. In this passage there is a recitation of part of the gospel, not as the literary purpose of the letter, but as a brief reminder so that Paul can deal with a problem at Corinth. Paul shows that he taught the content we have in the Gospels and that his readers learned that content. In fact that gospel content was the ultimate authority for Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians regarding their conduct in the Christian assembly. In other words, Paul’s letter is an explication and application of the gospel.
In a similar way, Paul draws out the implications of Jesus’ words about divorce. Yet he does so in a way in which he distinguishes the words of Jesus from his own word. This does not mean that Paul thought his words lacked authority. His words were of the Spirit and were commands of the Lord. But they rested upon and were subordinate to the words Jesus himself had spoken. For both Paul and his readers the whole discussion of divorce depended upon knowing the words Jesus spoke although Paul nowhere quotes those words in his writings. In fact, Paul only includes three citations of the words of Jesus in the corpus of his writings. Yet he presumes his readers know much more. His advice is explication and application of what Jesus said.
We believe, therefore, that we are justified in attributing to the Gospels a centrality and foundational character parallel to that held by the Law of Moses in the Old Covenant. Therefore, we ought in the Christian assembly to hear what Jesus said and did, and then also the words and deeds of those whom Christ appointed as his witnesses. As the writer of the Hebrews expressed it, "For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will." This historical reality the Lord himself spoke, and what he said and did was confirmed by those who saw and heard him is reflected in the literary difference between the Gospels (what Jesus said and did) and the Epistles (what those who heard confirmed and explained to us).
An objection to this analysis is that in scholarly circles the Pauline Epistles are held to predate the Gospels in composition. But even if we adopt such a dating scheme, the content in the Gospels undeniable predates the composition of Paul’s letters. Even in critical scholarship the content of Gospels in oral form is widely accept as belonging to the earliest layer of the apostolic age. On the other hand, there are good reasons to question this traditional dating scheme, but that is a matter to far afield for our concern here.
So then, what we are urging in not a neglect of the reading of the Epistles, but rather a special prominence be given to the Gospels. Let us continue each Lord’s day to read from the Old Covenant scriptures and the New Covenant scriptures, but let us insist that each Lord’s day there be a reading from the Gospels. In practice it is a very simply matter to have three lessons, Old Testament, Epistle and Gospel. Let it be that when we gather as the Lord’s assembly in the presence of the Lord, we listen to the account of the words and deeds of the Lord.
Earlier we mentioned that there was a second reason for the neglect of the Gospel lessons. As a result of several factors, there is an uncomfortableness with the Gospels. This is especially the case with the Synoptics. Deep down we are not sure how "gospel" the Gospels are. So what is needed is not merely a more frequent reading of the Gospels but a more adequate understanding of how the Gospels are the gospel.
Dr. Jack Kinneer