Which of the four gospels is best for children?

[Rebecki]

I want to do nightly bible readings with my 11 year old son and I think that he needs an understanding of Jesus first before we tackle any of the other books of scripture.

So I was wondering what book of the gospel you thought would be good for an 11 year old boy? I was thinking of John, but I'm not sure.

Any ideas or advice would be appreciated. Thanks! :):

[Patty T]

I would recommend John. He had a very intimate relatioship with Jesus and his account really shows the tremendous amount of love our Savior has for us. I think it's Beth Moore who has a book called "The Beloved Disciple" which is about John's gospel and relationship with Jesus. Very, very good.

[Rebecki]

Thanks Patty! :thumb

Any other thoughts?

:bump

[coffeehubby]

I was just going to say the same thing because John emphasizes grace and how we get saved.

[blitzkreig]

John.

The Synoptics are history but not doctrine. The book of John is the most published of all of the books of the Bible. It starts where the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke leave off ....

[zeal4thelord]

All of the Gospels are good in different ways. But my opinion would be that John might be better for people of a more mature understanding; it is a more poetic or mystical book than the others, to my mind. I have come to appreciate it more as I have become a more mature believer.
Personally I have a soft spot for Mark's gospel; it was while reading Mark that my eyes were first opened, and I believed. It was a very moving experience, while I was reading the account of the leper who was made clean. As I read Jesus' words, 'be clean', I suddenly saw.
I like Mark's directness, his to-the-point narration; he gets right to the action, with John the Baptist baptizing Jesus, and then on to Jesus' ministry. Very terse and straightforward.
Luke's gospel is the more colorful, with the scenes of the birth of John, the annunciation to Mary and her song, etc. And of course the account of Jesus' birth in Luke 2 (I think) is the one most of us remember the best.
They all provide slightly different perspectives and God gave us all of them for a reason, but I would choose Luke first if I were to read it with a child.

[FollowTheLamb]

I am currently going through Genesis with my 7-year-old. It's full of stories and easy enough for him to follow. He's also hearing the stories that are left out of the typical children's Bibles and Sunday school lessons. He has no problem sitting through two chapters at a time. So I would suggest you go through Matthew, Mark and Luke because they are full of action, which is important for a young boy. You can stop and highlight something of Jesus's character or teachings any time. If you are going to do this on a regular basis, you can read an Old Testament book in between the Gospels, such as Genesis, Esther, and selections from the Psalms and Proverbs. Your goal is to make the Bible interesting reading, and pray that the Lord help you to impart the spiritual truth appropriate for his age.

[Old 33]

The Synoptics are history but not doctrine. :confused

[A_AmericanSaint]

I like all of em, but John has a special flare to it. I'd recommend watching 'The Gospel of John' as well. Word for Word faithful recreation of the Gospel. Really good. I also like the OT books, like Jonah and such. Children have such vivid imaginations.

Saint

[Daniel4:3]

I'd go with Mark.

It's the shortest, yet tells the full story of Jesus' life.

Then, as you go through the other Gospels, you can refer back to Mark by saying, "here's the expanded version of (whatever section you're reading)"

John is the more intellectual, and I'd make sure a new reader is familiar with the Synoptics before getting them into the deeper stuff.

[Old 33]

If you start with John, your child may have a question as to why there's no Last Supper/Communion, when they know from church that there is.

[ehbowen]

The Gospel which most stuck in my mind as a child was Luke, especially the Christmas story.

[blitzkreig]

If you start with John, your child may have a question as to why there's no Last Supper/Communion, when they know from church that there is.The below is cut and then edited from a "Synopsis of the New Testament" by Charles Baker ...

There is a vast difference, dispensationally, between John and the Synoptic Gospels. It is not that John belongs to or records a different dispensation of things, but rather the Synoptics begin with Jesus announcing the kingdom to Israel, John begins with Israel's rejection of the kingdom.

John sums up the Synoptics, as it were, in this statment:

"He came unto His own and His own received Him not (1:11)".

He then proceeds to tell us:

But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name, which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Whereas in the Synoptics we have one or two statements of the fact the Jews were going to put Christ to death (compare Luke 18:31-34), His death is never related to believing and to eternal life.

Just the opposite is true in John.

I like comparing and contrasting. The word "believe" is used ninety-nine times in John and only eleven times in Matthew, fifteen in Mark, and nine in Luke. The word "life" is used thirty-six times in John and only seven times in Matthew, four in Mark, and six in Luke. The word "world" is used seventy-nine times in John and only nine times in Matthew, three in Mark, and three in Luke.

There are several references in John to believing and to receiving eternal life. What is it that is to be believed? There is no intimation in the synoptics that believing in the death and resurrection of Christ is the basis for Salvation. Even these very facts were hidden from the disciples, we are told.

Then notice what John says in the very familiar John 3:16 ...

.

[Old 33]

I flatly reject this argument that the Synoptics are "history" but not doctrine. Each of the four gospels is history; each of the four gospels is doctrine.

One has to recognize who the gospels were written for. John was written to the Jews, to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah...hence, all of the tie-backs to the OT and to fulfilling the Word.

Luke, on the other hand, is a personal letter to a Gentile, setting out the story and wonders of Jesus.

Each of the gospels contains an historical account of the life, ministry of Jesus, and of his death and resurrection. Each also contains doctrine, written in their own way (the synoptics choose to put it more in Jesus' own words, John chooses to describe it like a sermon).

[Big Daddy]

I want to do nightly bible readings with my 11 year old son and I think that he needs an understanding of Jesus first before we tackle any of the other books of scripture.

So I was wondering what book of the gospel you thought would be good for an 11 year old boy? I was thinking of John, but I'm not sure.

Any ideas or advice would be appreciated. Thanks! :):

Start at the beginning, Mathew.
I agree with Old in the previous post too.

I tend to think that there is a reason the Gospels are in the order they are in.
It's the way God wanted them.

[JLM-223]

I want to do nightly bible readings with my 11 year old son and I think that he needs an understanding of Jesus first before we tackle any of the other books of scripture.

So I was wondering what book of the gospel you thought would be good for an 11 year old boy? I was thinking of John, but I'm not sure.

Any ideas or advice would be appreciated. Thanks! :):
To be honest with you, I don’t think you can go wrong with any of the four Gospels!

Having said that, I guess it all depends on your son. If he’s the type who believes actions are more important than words and gets bored with lectures, then Mark might be the best choice since very few of Jesus’s parables are recorded here, focusing instead on what He actually did during His time here on earth. OTOH, if you prefer the parables, then Luke might be a better choice, since it describes Christ’s actions and teachings throughout. Matthew I would recommend if you feel your son can appreciate Jesus’s Jewish background, since it was the Jews that it was originally written for. Finally, if your son tends to be the more philosophical or meditative type, then John might be the best place to start since his Gospel covers a lot of Jesus’s discourses regarding salvation, while discussing fewer of the actual events of His life.

See what you think and go from there!

[blitzkreig]

I flatly reject this argument that the Synoptics are "history" but not doctrine. Each of the four gospels is history; each of the four gospels is doctrine.Sorry I may have over simplified.

The Synoptics are not exactly rife with a lot of doctrine which is applicable to the Church today which is the Body of Christ ... Jesus does mention the "Church" but doesn't actually say what it is in the Synoptics.

But everyone has their own personal favourites for their own personal reasons ... not eveyone has to agree with me :lol

I happen to favour the Book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament. Most folks count that strange enough ... :B:

[Rebecki]

Well, we started with John, and he was confused about the first part from John 1:1-14, and I didn't have the right words to explain it.

Perhaps Mark would be the best one to begin with.

I like the idea of reading an OT book after a gospel book. One of my favorites is Genesis, so maybe we'll do that one next.

[blitzkreig]

The actual books are kinda wordy for an 11 years old. What translation are you using (if you don't mind me asking)? We bought our kids one of those "picture on one page and text on the other" books which weren't even really a translation ... for the first run readings.

If he is past that I would be tempted to use something with a very contemporary language. Perhaps even in parallel with a commentary. Something which can be quickly referred to, that would be an assist to explaining something if you yourself gets stumped.

.

[Daniel4:3]

I tend to think that there is a reason the Gospels are in the order they are in.
DISCLAIMER: Not asserting this is true, I haven't studied it, but what I've heard from a few friends:

The synoptic Gospels were put in the order they were written, though contemporary scholars think Mark actually came first, but that by the time this became the more common thought, it had been in the current order for hundred of years, so they just left it.

There is a theoretical document called Quelle (or more commonly Q) that was basically a pamphlet of Jesus' teachings and parables, made and reproduced during his ministry. There are no known copies of this around today (either because they were cheaply made, or because they never existed).

There is one theory that Mark was written, then Matthew, using Mark and Q as a refresher (just as you might look through photos of someone who went on a vacation with you to refresh your own memory), then Luke, using Mark, Matthew and Q as refreshers.

The other main theory is basically the same as above, but without Q.

According to one friend, the odd thing is that most American studies on it have led towards there being a Q, regardless of the denomination studying it, while most European studies, regardless of denomination have said there was not.

Again, I have no idea as to how truthful these claims are, but I have heard them from 3 or 4 independant sources. Still, take this with a grain of salt.

[blitzkreig]

Why is it every time I hear about someone potentially finding "Q" I get an suspicious thought or two ... that they need to check to make sure that it doesn't say "Jack Chick Publications" or "Wyatt Archaeological Research" on the bottom ... ;):


:lol