137505
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
ST. LUKE
REV. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
THE , INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON THE
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE
BY THE
REV. ALFRED PLUMMER, MA, D.D.
MAVlPtt M UfclVKMmr COLLEGE, DUHUAM
FORMERLY IPllOW AND WKNJOfc TUFOfi Of TRINITY COLLBGB, OXTORD
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER^S SONS
1920
PREFACE
THIS volume has no such ambitious aim as that of being a
final commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke.
The day is probably still far distant when any such com-
mentary can be written. One of the difficulties with which
the present commentator has had to contend is the im-
possibility of keeping abreast of all that is constantly
appearing respecting the Synoptic Gospels as a whole and
this or that detail in them. And the Third Gospel abounds
in details which have elicited special treatment at the hands
of a variety of scholars. Every quarter, indeed almost every
month, brings its list of new books, some of which the
writer wishes that he could have seen before his own words
were printed. But to wait is but to prolong, if not to
increase, one's difficulties : it is waiting dum dejluat amnis.
Notes written and rewritten three or four times must be
fixed in some form at last, if they are ever to be published,
And these notes are now offered to those who care to use
them, not as the last word on any one subject, but simply
as one more stage in the long process of eliciting from the
inexhaustible storehouse of the Gospel narrative some of
those things which it is intended to convey to us. They
will have done their work if they help someone who is far
better equipped entirely to supersede them.
The writer of this volume is well aware of some of
it* shortcomings. There are omissions which have been
knowingly tolerated for one or other of two adequate
reasons, (i) This series is to include a Commentary on
lii
If PREFACE
the Synopsis of fa Four Gospels by the Rev. Dr. Sanday,
Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and his dis-
tinguished pupil, the Rev. W. C Allen, Fellow and Lecturer
of Exeter College. Various questions, especially as regards
the relations of the Third Gospel to the First and Second,
which have been but slightly touched or entirely passed
over in this volume, can be more suitably treated, and will
be much more efficiently treated, by those who are to com-
ment on the Synopsis. (2) Economy of space has had to
be considered and rigorously enforced. It has been
thought undesirable to allow more than one volume to
any one book in the New Testament : and therefore sub-
jects, which might with propriety be discussed at some
length in a work on the Gospel of S. Luke, have of
necessity been handled very briefly or left entirely un-
touched Indeed, as editor of those New Testament
volumes which are written by British scholars, the present
writer has been obliged to strike out a good deal of what
he had written as contributor to this series. And it has
been with a view to economize space that the paraphrastic
summaries, which are so very valuable a feature in the
commentary on Romans, have been altogether omitted, as
being a luxury rather than a necessity in a commentary on
one of the Synoptic Gospels* For the same reason separate
headings to sections and to special notes have been used
very sparingly. The sub-sections have no separate head-
ings, but are preceded by an introductory paragraph, the
first sentence of which is equivalent to a heading,
The fact of the same person being both contributor
and editor has, in the case of this volume, produced short-
comings of another kind. Two heads are better than one,
and two pairs of eyes are better than one. Unintentional
and unnecessary omissions might have been avoided, and
questionable or erroneous statements might have been
amended, if the writer had had the advantage of another's
supervision. Even in the humble but important work of
PREFACE V
detecting misprints the gain of having a different reviser is
great Only those who have had the experience know how
easy it is for the same eye to pass the same mistakes again
and again.
If this commentary has any special features, they will
perhaps be found in the illustrations taken from Jewish
writings, in the abundance of references to the Septuagint
and to the Acts and other books of the New Testament, in
the frequent quotations of renderings in the Latin Versions,
and in the attention which has been paid, both in the
Introduction and throughout the Notes, to the marks of S.
Luke's style.
The illustrations from Jewish writings have been sup-
plied, not because the writer has made any special study
of them, but because it is becoming recognized that the
pseudepigraphical writings of the Jews and early Jewish,,
Christians are now among the most promising helps'
towards understanding the New Testament ; and because
these writings have of late years become much more
accessible than formerly, notably by the excellent editions
of the Book of Enoch by Mr. Charles, of the Psalms of
Solomon by Professor Ryle and Dr. James, and of the
Fourth Book of *ra by the late Professor Bensly and Dr.
James. 1
A very eminent scholar has said that the best com*
mentary on the New Testament is a good Concordance ;
and another venerable scholar is reported to have said that
the best commentary on the New Testament is the Vulgate.
There is truth in both these sayings : and, with regard to
the second of them, if the Vulgate by itself is helpful, d
fortiori the Vulgate side by side with the Latin Versions
which preceded it is likely to be helpful An effort has
1 For general information on these Jewish writings see Schtirer, Hist, of the
Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Edinburgh, 1886, Div. II. vol. lii.;
W. J. Deane, Pseudepigrapha, Edinburgh, 1891 ; J. Winter und A. Wttnsche,
Di* judisck* Ltoratur stit Absckfoss tits Kcaums % Trier : Part III, has just
appeared.
fl PREFACE
been made to render those who use this commentary to a
large extent independent of a Concordance, and to some
extent independent of the invaluable edition of the Vulgate
now being produced by the Bishop of Salisbury and Mr.
White. Great trouble has been taken with the numerous
references to the Septuagint, the books of the New Testa*
ment, and other writings. The large majority of them
have been verified at least twice. But the difficulty of
excluding error in such things is so great that the writer
cannot suppose that he has succeeded in doing so. It is
possible that a few references have accidentally escaped
verification. A very few have been knowingly admitted
without it, because the reference seemed to be of value,
the source was trustworthy, and verification was not easy.
Reasons are stated in the Introduction for regarding a
study of S. Luke's style as a matter of great interest and
importance ; and it is hoped that the analysis given of it
there will be found useful. A minute acquaintance with it
tells us something about the writer of the Third Gospel*
It proves to us that he is identical with the writer of the
Acts, and that the whole of both these books comes from
his hand. And it justifies us in accepting the unswerving
tradition of the first eight or nine centuries, that the writer
of these two books was Luke the beloved physician*
Dogma In the polemical sense is excluded from the plan
of these commentaries. It is not the business of the com-
mentator to advocate this or that belief. But dogma in the
historical sense must of necessity be conspicuous in a com*
mentary on any one of the Gospels. It is a primary duty
of a commentator to ascertain the convictions of the
writer whose statements he undertakes to explain. This
is specially true of the Third Gospel, whose author tells
us that he wrote for the very purpose of exhibiting the
historical basis of the Christian faith (i. 1-4). The
Evangelist assures Theophilus, and with him all other
Christians, that he knows, upon first-hand and carefully
PREFACE vil
investigated evidence, that at a definite point in the history
of the world, not far removed from his own time, a Prophet
of God once more appeared in Israel to herald the coming
of the Christ (iii. 1-6), and that his appearance was im-
mediately followed by that of the Christ Himself (iil 23,
iv. 14, 15), whose Ministry, Passion, Death, and Resur-
rection he then narrates in detail. On all these points
the student is again and again met by the question, What
does the Evangelist mean? And, although about this
or that word or sentence there may often be room for
discussion, about the meaning of the Gospel as a whole
there is no doubt If we ask what were "the things
wherein* Theophilus "was instructed " and of "the
certainty" concerning which he is assured, the answer is
not difficult We may take the Old Roman Creed as a
convenient summary of it
riumifo els 6c&K irorlpa irarrojcprfropa (L 37, ill 8, xL 24,
xii. 32, etc). Kal cts Xpurrdf *li]aouK, vi&v aurou T&K powycrij
(L 31, ii 21, 49> . 35, x. 21, 22, xriL 29, 70, xaciiL [33] 46:
comp, iv. 41, viil 28), T&K KU'PIOK f^w (L 43, ii. n, vii. 13, x. i,
xL 39, xii. 42, rvii 5, 6, xix. 8, 31, rxiL 61, xxiv. 3, 34) T&*
yewr\Qtm, IK irrerfpaTos Ayiou Kal Mapias -njs irapO^ou (131-35, 43
ii. 6, 7) 9 T&P i"A HoKTiou HiXdrou oraupoG^rra Kal Ta^rra (xxii.,
xxiiL), rf| ffh^ t)^p xviil 8). Kal cl$ wcufta fyov (L 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 26,
iv. I, 14, xl 13, xil 10, 12)' Ay^ *KicXt|aiai> (comp. L 74, 75,
ix. 1-6, 3L 1-16, xxiv. 49)- l+env Afiapriwr (L 77, ill 3, xxiv. 47)*
and that therefore Luke and Silas are the same person (Van
Vloten), looks like a caricature of critical ingenuity. ^ Equally grotesque is the
idea that Luke is the Aristion of Papias (Eus. H. . iii 39. 4, 6), because Nymphas for
Nymphodorus, Zenas for Zenodorus, and possibly Hennas for tfennodonis.
For other examples see Win. XVL 5, p, 127 ; Lft. on CoL iv, 15 ; Chandler,
Grk Accent. 34.
8 Marcion omitted these words, perhaps became he thought that an Evan-
gelist ought not to devote himself to anything so contemptible u the hmtnan
body ( Texte und Unten* viii 4, p, 40),
22.] S. LUKE THE EVANGELIST xix
separated from * ' those of the circumcision, " and therefore was a
Gentile Christian. 1 Hofmann, Tiele, and Wittichen have not suc-
ceeded in persuading many persons that the passage does not
necessarily imply this. Whether he was a Jewish proselyte before
he was a Christian must remain uncertain: his knowledge of
Jewish affairs and his frequent Hebraisms are no proof. That he
was originally a heathen may be regarded as certain. He is the
only one of the Evangelists who was of Gentile origin ; and, with
the exception of his companion S. Paul, and possibly of Apollos,
he was the only one among the first preachers of the Gospel who
had had scientific training.
If Luke was a Gentile, he cannot be identified with Lucius,
who sends a salutation from Corinth to Rome (Rom. xvL 21). This
Lucius was Paul's kinsman, and therefore a Jew. The identifica-
tion of Luke with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiiL i) is less impossible.
But there is no evidence, and we do not even know that Lucas
was ever used as an abbreviation of Lucius. In Apost. Const
vi. 1 8. 5 Luke is distinguished from Lucius. Nor can he be iden-
tified with Silas or Silvanus, who was evidently a Jew (Acts xv. 22).
Nor can a Gentile have been one of the Seventy, a tradition which
seems to have been adopted by those who made Lk. x. 1-7 the
Gospel for S. Luke's Day. The tradition probably is based solely
on the fact that Luke alone records the Mission of the Seventy
(Epiph. H&r. ii. 51. n, Migne, xli. 908). The same reason is fatal
to Theophylact's attractive guess, which still finds advocates, that
Lk. was the unnamed companion of Cleopas in the walk to
Emmaus (xxiv. 13), who was doubtless a Jew (vv. 27, 32). The
conjecture that Luke was one of the Greek proselytes who applied
to Philip to be introduced to Christ shortly before His Passion
(Jn. xii. 20) is another conjecture which is less impossible, but is
without evidence. In common with some of the preceding guesses
it is open to the objection that Luke, in the preface to his Gospel,
separates himself from those " who from the beginning were eye-
witnesses and ministers of the word " (i. 2). The Seventy, these
Greeks, and the companion of Cleopas were eye-witnesses, and
Lk. was not. In the two latter cases it is possible to evade this
objection by saying that Luke means that he was not an eye-witness
from the beginning, although at the end of Christ's ministry he
became such. But this is not satisfactory. He claims to be
believed because of the accuracy of his researches among the best
1 Of the six who send greetings, the first three (Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus
Justus) are doubly bracketed together : (i) as oi &T & reptro/n?*, (2) as p,6voi
trwtprfol efr rljr /ftwtXefcur roD 6eo0, i.e. the only Jewish converts in Home who
loyally supported S. Paul* The second three (Epaphras, Luke, Demas) are not
bracketed together. In Philem. 23 Epaphras is (ruvcux/wiXwrof, and Mark,
Aristarchui, Demas, and Luke are ol wvcpyoL ;iou, while Justus is not men-
tioned.
a THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ S.
authorities. Had he himself been an eye-witness of any portion,
would he not have let us know this ? Why did he not use the first
person, as in the "we" sections in the Acts? He belongs to the
second generation of Christians, not to the first
It is, however, possible that Chrysostom and the Collect for
S. Luke's Day are right in identifying "the brother whose praise
in the Gospel is spread through all the Churches" (2 Cor. viii, 18)
with SL Luke. But the conjectures respecting this unnamed
brother are endless ; and no more can be affirmed than that Luke
is a reasonable conjecture.
The attempt to show that the writer of the Thiid Gospel and the Acts is a
Jew is a failure ; and the suggestion that he is S. Paul is absurd. See below
( 5) for evidence that our Evangelist is a Gentile writing for Gentiles*
Besides the three passages in the Pauline Epistles and the
preface to the Gospel, there are three passages of Scripture which
tell us something about S. Luke, viz. the " we " sections. The first
of these (Acts xvi. 10-17) tells us that during the second missionary
journey Luke accompanied Paul from Troas to Philippi (A.D. 5 1 or
52), and thus brings the physician to the Apostle about the time
when his distressing malady (2 Cor. xii. 7) prostrated him in Galatia,
and thereby led to the conversion of the Galatians (Gal. iv. 13-15).
Even without this coincidence we might believe that the relation
of doctor to patient had something to do with drawing Luke to
the afflicted Apostle, and that in calling him " the physician, the
beloved one," the Apostle is not distinguishing him from some
other Luke, but indicating the way in which the Evangelist earned
his gratitude. The second section (xx. 5~xxi. 18) tells us that about
six years later (A.D. 58), during the third missionary journey, Luke
was again at Philippi l with Paul, and went with him to Jerusalem
to confer with James and the elders. And the third (xxvii. i-
xxviii. 1 6) shows that he was with him during the voyage and
shipwreck until the arrival in Rome.
With these meagre notices of him in the N.T. our knowledge
of Luke ends. We see him only when he is at the side of his
magister and illuminator (Tertull. Adv. Marcion. iv. 2)8. Paul.
That he was with the Apostle at other times also we can hardly
doubt, insepardbilisfuit a Paulo, says Irenseus : but how often he
was with him, and in each case for how long a time, we have no
means of knowing. Tertullian perhaps means us to understand
that Luke was converted to the Gospel by Paul, and this is in itself
probable enough. And it is not improbable that it was at Tarsus.
1 Renan conjectures that Luke was a native of Philippi. Ramsays takes the
tame view, suggesting that the Macedonian whom S. Paul saw m a vision (Acts
xvi* 9) was Luke himself, whom he had just met for the first time at Treat
(& Paul the Traveller , p. 202)*
S. LUKE THE EVANGELIST XX)
where there was a school of philosophy and literature rivalling
those of Alexandria and Athens (Strabo, xiv. 5. 13), that they first
met. Luke may have studied medicine at Tarsus. Nowhere else
in Asia Minor could he obtain so good an education : faXoaroQiav
/cat T. aXkyv TOtSctav ey/cv/cXtov aira r<3 cnra'pav, ver. 5), But absence or scarcity of
Luke's characteristics is most common in those reports of dis-
courses which are common to him and Matthew : eg. iiu 7-9, 17 *
Mt. iii. 7-10, 12 ; vii. 6-9*=Mt viii. 8-10; ix, 57, s8*Mt viii. 19,
20 ; vii. 22-28 Mt. XL 4-11 ; vii. 31-35 = Mt xi, i6-X9. This last
passage is one of those which were excised by Marcion. As we
might expect, there is much more variation between the Gospels
in narrating the same facts than in reporting the same sayings;
THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL Xxvit
and the greater the variation, the greater the room for marks of
individual style. But we cannot doubt that an immense amount
of what Luke has in common with Matthew, or with both him
and Mark, was already in a Greek form before he adopted it
It is incredible that two or three independent translations should
agree quite or almost word for word.
It is very interesting to notice how, in narratives common to
all three, individual characteristics appear: e.g. viiL 22-s6 = Mk.
iv. 35-41, v. 1-43 = Mt TOO- 23-34, ix. 18-25. These narratives
swarm with marks of Luke's style, although he keeps closely to
the common material (see below, 6. ii.). Thus he has cla-ey irpos
avrovs, efl-ioTara, Seo/iat st Coin
(xv. i-io) ; and the Friend at Midnight (xi. 5) does not involve
the omission of the Unrighteous Judge (xviii. i). The exceptions
to the supposed principle are still more numerous in the shorter
sayings of Christ: viii. i6 = xi, 33; viii. i7 = xii. 2; viii. 18 *xi\".
26, ix. 23=xiv. 27; ix. 24 = xvii. 33; ix, 26-xiL o; x. 25 = xviii. 18;
xi. 43=* xx. 46; xii. n, iz xxi. 14, 15; xiv, n=- xviii. 14;
xix. 44 = xxi. 6; and comp. xvii. 31 with xxi, 21, and xxL 23
with xxiii. 29. These instances, which arc not exhaustive, suf-
fice to show that the Evangelist cannot have had any very
strong objection to recording duplicate instances of similar inci-
4L] TIME AND PLACE xxix
dents and sayings. Could more duplicates be found in any other
Gospel?
For recent (since 1885) discussions of the Synoptic problem see Badham,
The Formation of the Gospels , 1891 ; Blair, The Apostolic Gospel, 1896 ; Jolley,
The Synoptic Problem^ 1893 J Salmon, Historical Introduction to the Books oj
theN.T.) 5th ed. 1891 ; Wnght, The Composition of the Gospels, 1890; Synopsis
of the Gospels in Greek, 1896 ; Holsten, Die synopt. Evang. nach Form
%hres Inhalts dargestellt, 1886 ; Holtzmann, Emleitung in das N. T. 1892 ;
Jilhcher, Einl in das N.T* 1894 ; Nosgen, Geschichtejesu Christi, being Part
i. of Gesck. der N.T. Offenbarung, 1891; H. H. Wendt, Die Lehre unddas
Lebenjesu, 1885-1890. Other literature is mentioned on p. Ixxxv.
See especially Sanday in Book by Book, 1893, P- 345 #; &"* of the
Bible, 2nd ed. 1893, supplement to the article on " Gospels," pp. 1217-1243 ;
and in the Expositor^ 4th series, Feb. to June, 1891.
4. TIME AND PLACE.
(i.) It is a disappointment that Bishop Lightfoofs admirable
cle on the Acts (D.B? i. pp. 25-43) does not discuss the Date
The Bishop told the present writer that he regarded the question
of date as the province of the writer of the article on S. Luke, an
article which has not yet been rewritten. The want has, how-
ever, been to a large extent supplied in the Bampton Lectures for
1893 (Lect. vi.), and we may safely accept this guidance.
The main theories respecting the date of the Third Gospel
contend respectively for a time in or near the years A.D. 100, A.D.
80, and A.D. 63.
(a) The strongest argument used by those who advocate a
date near the close of the first century or early in the second * is
the hypothesis that the author of the Third Gospel and of the
Acts had read the Antiquities of Josephus, a work published about
A.D. 94. But this hypothesis, if not absolutely untenable, is highly
improbable. The coincidences between Luke and Josephus are
not greater than might accidentally occur in persons writing in-
dependently about the same facts; while the divergences are so
great as to render copying improbable. At any rate Josephus
must not be used both ways. If the resemblances are made to
prove that Luke copied Josephus, then the discrepancies should
not be employed to prove that Luke's statements are erroneous.
If Luke had a correct narrative to guide him, why did he diverge
from it only to make blunders? It is much more reasonable to
suppose that where Luke differs from the Antiquities he had in-
dependent knowledge, and that, he had never read Josephus.
Moreover, where the statements of either can be tested, it is Luke
who is commonly found to be accurate, whereas Josephus is often
1 Among these are Baur, Davidson, Hilgenfeld, Jacobsen, Pfleiderer, Over-
beck, Schwegler, Scholten, Volkmar, Weizsacker, Wittichen, and Zeller. The
more moderate of these suggest A.D. 95-105, the more extreme A.D. 120-135,
JOCK THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE
convicted of exaggeration and error. See the authorities cited bj
Lft. D.B? p. 39; by Holtzmann, EinL in d. N.T. p. 374, 1892,
and by Schanz, Comm. uber d. Evang. d. k. Lukas, p. 16, 1883.
The relation of Luke to Josephus has recently been rediscussed ; on the one
side by Clemen (Du Chronologic derpauhn. Brief e, Halle, 1893) and Krenkel
(Josephus und Lukes; der schriftstcllenschc Einfiuss dcs judischen Gesckickt-
schrabers oufden christlichen> Leipzig, 1894), who regard the use of Josephus
by Luke as certain; on the other by Belser (Theol Quartalschnft, Tubingen,
1895, 1896), who justly criticizes the arguments of these writers and especially
of Krenkel. 1 It is childish to point out that Luke, like Josephus, uses such
words as dffwrAXe^, d^tiwew-flcu, a&dveiv t iraidtov, r^Tfftv, vtXrj, x.r.X., in
their usual sense : and such phrases as irpo&cnrrev TQ tTij, j)
Tevvijo-aptru X. (B. J. ii. 20. 6, ui. 10. 7 ; Ant. xvih. 2. I ; Vita t 65), and other
vanations. Luke has rpo rots y6va in Achaise Bceotiseque
partibus volumen condidit (2 Cor. viii.), qu&dam altius repetens,
et ut ipse in pro&mio confitetur^ audita magis, quam visa descnbens
(Migne, xxvi. 18), where some MSS. have Bithynias, for B&oti&.
Some MSS. of the Peshitto give Alexandria as the place of com-
position, which looks like confusion with Mark. Modern guesses
vary much : Rome (Holtzmann, Hug, Keim, Lesebusch, Zeller),
Csesarea (Michaelis, Schott, Thiersch, Tholuck), Asia Minor
(Hilgenfeld, Oyerbeck), Ephesus (Kostlin), and Corinth (Godet),
There is no evidence for or against any of them.
5. OBJECT AND PLAN.
(i.) The immediate Object is told us in the preface. It was
written to give Theophilus increased confidence in the faith which
he had adopted, by supplying him with further information
respecting its historical basis. That Theophilus is a real person,
and not a symbolical personage representing devout Christians in
general, 1 is scarcely doubtful, although Bishop Lightfoot, with
characteristic caution, has warned us not to be too confident of
this, A real person is intrinsically more probable. The name
was a very common one, fairly frequent among Jews, and very
frequent among Gentiles. It is thus quite unlike such obviously
made up names as Sophron and Neologus in a modern book,
or Philotheus, to whom Ken dedicates his Manual of Prayer for
Winchester scholars. Moreover, the epithet Kparurre is far more
likely to have been given to a real person than to a fictitious one.
It aoes not however necessarily imply high rank or authority (Acts
xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 25), and we must be content to be in ignor-
ance as to who Theophilus was and where he lived. But the tone
of the Gospel leads us to regard him as a representative Gentile
convert, who was anxious to know a good deal more than the few
fundamental facts which were taught to catechumens. The topo-
graphical statements mentioned above, and such remarks as "the
1 The idea that Theophilus may symbolize the true disciple is as old as
Origen {Horn. i. in Lu.) 9 and is adopted by Ambrose : serif turn est evangelinm
ad Theofhilum^ hoc est ad turn yuem Deus diligti (Comm. in Luc, i. 3).
Epiphamus regards the name's denoting rat foSfwros 6ed? d-yairwj' as a possible
alternative (&*r. ii. i. 51, Migne, xlL 900).
5cxxiT THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ 5.
feast of unleavened bread which is called the passover" (xxii. i),
would not have been required for a Jewish convert.
But, although Theophilus was almost certainly an actual person
well known to Luke, we need not suppose that the Evangelist had
only this one reader in view when he wrote. It is evident that he
writes for the instruction and encouragement of all Gentile con*
verts, and possibly Greek-speaking converts in particular. Theo-
philus is to be the patron of the book with a view to its
introduction to a larger circle of readers. Perhaps Luke hoped
that Theophilus would have it copied and disseminated, as he
probably did.
Among the many indications that the book is written by a
Gentile for Gentiles are the substitution of Greek for Hebrew names,
o ZyXurys for o e KavavaLOS (vi. 15; Acts i. 13), and Kpaviov for
FoXyoOG. (xxiii. 33) ; his never using 'Pa/?/?ei as a form of address,
but either StSduncoAe or en-io-Tara ; l his comparatively sparing use
of apty (seven times as against thirty in Matthew), for which he
sometimes substitutes aXyOfa (ix. 27, xii. 44, xxi. 3) or CTT' aXydefas
(iv. 25, xxiL 59); his use of vo/u/cos for ypa/tywxreus (vii. 30, x. 25,
xi. 45, 46, 52, xiv. 3) ; his adding axdOapTov as an epithet to
Scu/xdViov (iv. 33), for Gentiles believed in good Sat/tono, whereas
to a Jew all &u/*oVia were evil ; his avoiding /j,TpopvQi] (Mk.
ix. 2 ; Mt xvii. 2) in his account of the Transfiguration (ix. 29), a
word which might have suggested the metamorphoses of heathen
deities ; his notice of the Roman Emperor (ri. i), and using his
reign as a date (iii. i) ; his tracing the Saviour's descent to Adam,
the parent of Gentile as well as Jew (iii. 38). Although full
honour is shown to the Mosaic Law as binding on Jews (ii. 21,
27, 39, v. 14, x. 26, xvi. 17, 29-31, xvii. 14, xviii. 20), yet there it
not much appeal to it as of interest to his readers. Luke has no
parallels to Mt. v. 17, 19, 20, 21, 27, 31, 33, xii. 5-7, 17-^0,
xv. i-2o. The quotations from the Old Testament are few as
compared with Matthew, and they are found mostly in the sayings
of Christ (iv. 4, 8, 12, 18, 19, 26, vi. 4, vii 27, viiL 10, xiii. 19,
28, 29 3S> x' 20, xix. 46, xx. 17, 37, 42, 43, xxi 10, 24, 26, 27,
35> xxii- 37* 69, xxiii. 30, 46) or of others (i 15, 17, 37, 4&~SS>
68-79, & 3> 3 X > 3 2 > fo 10, "> x. 27, xx. 28). Very little is said
about the ftilfilment of prophecy, which would not greatly interest
Gentile readers (iii 4, iv. 21, xxi. 22, xxii, 37, xxiy. 44); and of
these five instances, all but the first occur in sayings of Christ
addressed to Jews. Many of the quotations noted above are mere
1 The following Hebrew or Aramaic words, which oxxur in the other Gospels,
are not found in Luke : 'Aa (Mk.), Boove/yyfc (Mk.), TaBpadci yn.),
'Eftoafcrf (Jn.), 'E/VKwovtfX (Mt.), *a6d (Mk*), K<^ (Mk.), Ko/>jWt
(Mt.), Mc et
wagis GTSBCOS litteras scisst quam Hebrews. Unde ct sermo ejus, tarn in Evan-
gelo quam in Acttbus Apostolorum^ td tst in utroque. volumzn* t&mptior est, et
stcularem rcdolettloquentiam, magisque ttstimoniis Grseds utiturquam ffebr&ts.
1 Six miracles are peculiar to Luke, three to Matthew, and two to Mark.
Eighteen parables are peculiar to Luke, ten to Matthew, and one to Mark.
See p. xli. For other interesting statistics respecting the relations between the
Synoptists see Westcott, Intr. U Gospels, pp. 194 ff.
xxxvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [5.
It is becoming more and more generally admitted that the old
view of the purpose of Gospel and Acts is not far off the truth. It
was Luke's intention to write history, and not polemical or apolo-
getic treatises. It was his aim to show all Christians, and especi-
ally Gentile Christians, on how firm a basis of fact their belief was
founded. The Saviour had come, and He had come to save the
whole human race. The work of the Christ and the work of His
Apostles proved this conclusively. In the Gospel we see the
Christ winning salvation for the whole world ; in the Acts we see
His Apostles carrying the good tidings of this salvation to the
whole world. Luke did not write to depreciate the Twelve in the
interests of S. Paul ; nor to vindicate S. Paul against the attacks of
Judaizmg opponents ; nor yet to reconcile the Judaizers with the
disciples of S. Paul. A Gospel which omits the severe rebuke
incurred by Peter (Mt. xvi. 23 ; Mk. viii. 33), the ambitious
request of James and John (Mt. xx. 21 ; Mk. x. 37), the boastful
declaration of loyalty made by all the Twelve (Mt xxvi. 35 ; Mk.
xiv. 31), and the subsequent flight of all (ML xxvi. 56 ; Mk.
xiv. 50) ; which promises to the Twelve their judgment-thrones
(xxii. 30), and trusts them with the conversion of " all the nations "
(xxiv. 47), cannot be regarded as hostile to the Twelve. And why
address a vindication of Paul to a representative Gentile ? Lastly,
how could Judaizers be conciliated by such stern judgments on
Judaism as Luke has recorded ? See, for instance, the following
passages, all of them from what is peculiar to Luke: iv. 28, 29,
x. 10, n, 31, 32, xi. 39, 40, xii. 47, xiii. 1-5, 15, xvi. 15, xvii. 18,
xviii. 10-14, xxiii. 28-31 ; Acts iL 23, v. 30, vii. 51-53, etc. It is
well that these theories as to the purpose of the Evangelist have
been propounded : the examination of them is most instructive*
But they do not stand the test of careful investigation. S. Luke
remains unconvicted of the charge of writing party pamphlets
under the cover of fictitious history.
(ii.) The Plan of the Gospel is probably not elaborated. In
the preface Luke says that he means to write "in ordrr" (Wf>/v)
and this most naturally means in chronological order. Omitting
the first two chapters and the last chapter in each case, the
main features of the First and Third Gospels agree ; and in outline
their structure agrees to a large extent with that of the Second. 1
Luke perhaps took the tradition which underlies all three Gospels
as his chief guide, and inserted into it what he had gathered from
other sources. In ananging the additional material he followed
chronology, where fee had any chronological clue ; and where he
J regards order, to the first half the Second and Third Gospels commonly
while 4ve First varies. In the second half the First and Second com*
, while the Third varies. Matthew's additions to the common
mostly in the first half; Lulce's are mostly la the secood.
OBJECT AND PLAN xxxvii
had none (which perhaps was often the case), he placed similar
incidents or sayings in juxtaposition.
But a satisfactory solution of the perplexing phenomena has not yet been
found : for what explains one portion of them with enticing clearness cannot be
made to harmonize with another portion. We may assert with some confidence
that Luke generally aims at chronological order, and that on the whole he
attains it ; but that he sometimes prefers a different order, and that he often,
being ignorant himself, leaves us also in ignorance as to chronology. Perhaps
also some of his chronological arrangements are not correct.
The chronological sequence of the Acts cannot be doubted ; and this is
strong confirmation of the view that the Gospel is meant to be chronological in
arrangement Comp. the use of KaBe&js viii. I ; Acts iii. 24, xi. 4, rviii. 23.
That the whole Gospel is elaborately arranged to illustrate die development
and connexion of certain theological ideas does not harmonize with the im-
pression which it everywhere gives of transparent simplicity. That there was
connexion and development in the life and work of Christ need not be doubted ;
and the narrative which reports that life and work in its true order will illustrate
the connexion and development. But that is a very different thing from the
supposition that Luke first formed a scheme, and then arranged his materials to
illustrate it So far as there is " organic structure and dogmatic connexion " in
the Third Gospel, it is due to the materials rather than to the Evangelist
Attempts to trace this supposed dogmatic connexion are instructive in two
ways. They suggest a certain number of connexions, which (whether intended
or not) are illuminative* They also show, by their extraordinary divergences,
how far we are from anything conclusive in this direction. The student who
compares the schemes worked out by Ebrard (Gosp. Hist, I, i. I, 20, 21),
McClellan (N.T. pp. 427 ff.), Oosterzee (langfs Comm. Int 4), and West-
cott (Int. to Gospels, ch. vii. note G) will gather various suggestive ideas, but
will also doubt whether anything like any one of them was in the mind of the
Evangelist
The analysis which follows is obtained by separating the
different sections and grouping them under different heads. There
is seldom any doubt as to where one section ends and another
begins; and the grouping of the sections is avowedly tentative.
But most analyses recognize a break between chapters iL and iii,
at or about ix. 51 and xix. 28, and between chapters xxi. and xxiL
If we add the preface, we have six divisions to which the numer-
ous sections may be assigned In the two main central divisions,
which together occupy nearly seventeen chapters, some subsidiary
grouping has been attempted, but without confidence in its cor-
rectness. It may, however, be conducive to clearness, even if
nothing of the kind is intended by S. Luke. 1 The mark indicates
that this portion is found in Luke alone ; * that it is common to
Luke and Mark ; t that it is common to Luke and Matthew ; * that
it is common to all three.
1 The divisions and subdivisions of the Gospel In the text of WH. are most
Instructive. Note whether paragraphs and sentences have spaces between them
or not, and whether sentences begin with a capital letter or not The analysis
of the Gospel by Stnday in Book by Book, pp. 402-404 (Isbbter, 1893)1 ^iu be
found very helpruL
xxxviii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ 6*
There is a presumption that what is peculiar to Luke comes from some
source that was not used by Mark or Matthew ; and this presumption is in som
cases a strong one ; tf.^v the Examination of Christ before Herod, or the Walk
to Emmaus ; but all that we know is that Luke has preserved something which
they have not. Again there is a presumption that what is given by Luke and
Matthew, but omitted by Mark, comes from some source not employed by the
latter ; and this presumption is somewhat stronger when what is given by them,
but omitted by him, is not narrative but discourse ; eg. the Parable of the
Lost Sheep. Yet the book of *' Oracles," known to Matthew and Luke, but
not known to Mark, is nothing more than a convenient hypothesis for which &
good deal may be said. And it would be rash to affirm that the few (p. xxiv)
sections which are found in Mark and Luke, but not in Matthew, such as the
Widow's Mite, come from some source unknown to Matthew. The frequency
of the uiark gives some idea of what we should have lost had S. Luke not
been moved to write. And it must be remembered that hi the sections which
are -common to him and either or both of the others he often gives touches of
his own which are of the greatest value. Attention is frequently called to these
in the notes- They should be contrasted with the additions made to the
Canonical Gospels in the apocryphal gospels.
I. i. 1-4. THE PREPACK. THE SOURCES AND OBJECT or
THE GOSPEL.
II. i. 5~ii. 52. THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY.
1. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Forerunner (5-25)*
2. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Saviour (26-38).
j. The Visit of the Mother of the Saviour to the Mother of
the Forerunner (39-56).
4. The Birth of the Forerunner (57-80).
5. The Birth of the Saviour (ii. 1-20).
6. The Circumcision and Presentation of the Saviour
(21-40).
7. The Boyhood of the Saviour (41-52).
III. iii i-ix. 50. THE MINISTRY, MAINLY IN GAULBK.
L The External Preparation for the Ministry ; The Preach-
ing of the Baptist (iiL 1-22).
i. The Date (i, 2).
t. *The New Prophet, his Preaching, Prophecy, and
Death (3-20).
j. * He baptizes the Christ (21, 22).
The Genealogy of the Christ (23-38),
1L The Internal Preparation for the Ministry ; * Th* Tempta-
tion (iv. 1-13).
iiL The Ministry in Galilee (iv, 14-1x1 50).
i. Visit to Nazareth; *At Capernaum an unclean Demon
cast out (iv. 14-44).
t. *The Miraculous Draught and the Call of Simon;
*Two Healings which provoke Controversy; *Tha
Call of Levi; *Two Sabbath Incident* which
provoke Controversy (v. i-vi )*
(5.] OBJECT AND PLAN rod*
*The Nomination of the Twelve; fThe Sermon "on
the Level Place"; tThe Centurion's Servant;
The Widow's Son at Nain; tThe Message from
the Baptist; The Anointing by the Sinner; The
Ministering Women ; *The Parable of the Sower;
* The Relations of Jesus ; * The Stilling of the Tem-
pest ; * The Gerasene Demoniac ; *The Woman with
the Issue and the Daughter of Jairus (vi. i2~viiL 56).
4. *Tha Mission of the Twelve; *The Feeding of the
Five Thousand ; * Peter's Confession and the First
Prediction of the Passion; *The Transfiguration;
*The Demoniac Boy; *The Second Prediction of
the Passion; *Who is the greatest? 'Not against
us is for us (ix. 1-50).
IV. ix. 5i-rix. 28. THE JOURNBYINOS TOWARDS JERUSALEM :
MINISTRY OUTSIDE GALILEE.
i, The departure from Galilee and First Period of the
Journey (ix. SI-XUL 35).
i* The Samaritan Village; t Three Aspirants to Dis-
cipleship; The Seventy: The Lawyer's Questions
and the Good Samaritan; Mary and Martha
(ix. si-x. 42).
*. Prayer; * Casting out Demons by Beelzebub ; True
Blessedness; * The Demand for a Sign: Denuncia-
tion of Pharisaism ; t Exhortation to Sincerity ;
The Avaricious Brother; The Rich Fool; God's
Providential Care ; The Signs of the Times (XL i-
xiL 59).
3. Three Exhortations to Repentance; The Woman
with a Spirit of Infirmity; *The Mustard Seed;
tThe Leaven; The Number of the Saved; The
Message to Andpas and fthe Lament over Jeru-
salem (xui 1*35).
iL The Second Period of the Journey (xiv. i-xviL 10).
i. The Dropsical Man; Guests and Hosts; The
Great Supper; The Conditions of Disciple&hip }
tThe Lost Sheep; The Lost Coin; The Lost
Son (xiv. i-xv. 32).
t. The Unrighteous Steward; t Short Sayings; The
Rich Man and Lazarus ; Four Sayings on * Offences,
Forgiveness, t Faith, Works (xvi i-xvii. 10),
tC. The Third Period of the Journey (rsil n-xix. 28),
i. The Ten Lepers; *The coming of the Kingdom;
The Unrighteous Judge; The Pharisee and the
Publican (xvii. n-xviiL 14).
3d THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ 5.
2. * Little Children; *The Rich Young Ruler; *The
Third Prediction of the Passion; *The Blind Man
at Jericho; Zacchseus; The Pounds (xviii. 15-
xix. 28).
V. xix. 29-xxi. 38. LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING:
MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM.
I. * The Triumphal Procession and Predictive Lament-
atiqn; *The Cleansing of the Temple (xix. 29-48).
t . The Day of Questions. * Christ's Authority and John's
Baptism; *The Wicked Husbandmen; * Tribute;
* The Woman with Seven Husbands ; * David's Son
and Lord; *The Scribes; 'The Widow's Mite;
* Apocalyptic Discourse (xx. i-xxi. 38).
VI. rrii.-xxiv. THE PASSION AND THE RESURRECTION.
L The Passion (xxii. i-xxiii. 56).
1. *The Treachery of Judas (xxii. r-6).
2. *The Paschal Supper and Institution of the Eucharist;
*The Strife about Priority; The New Conditions
(xxii. 7-38).
3. *The Agony; *The Arrest,; * Peter's Denials; The
Ecclesiastical Trial; *The Civil Trial; Jesus
sent to Herod; * Sentence; * Simon of Cyrene;
The Daughters of Jerusalem , * The Crucifixion ;
The Two Robbers; *The Death {xxii. 39-
xxiii. 49).
4. * The Burial (xxiii. 50-56),
li. The Resurrection and the Ascension (xxfo) t
i. *The Women at the Tomb (i-u).
a. [Peter at the Tomb (12}.]
3. The Walk to Emmaus (13-32),
4. The Appearance to the Eleven (33-43)1
5. Christ's Farewell Instructions (44-49).
6. The Departure (50-53)*
Note that each of the three divisions of the Ministry begins
with scenes which are typical of Christ's rejection by His people:
the Ministry in Galilee with the attempt on His life at Nazareth
(iv. 28-30); the Ministry outside Galilee with the refusal of
Samaritans to entertain Him (ix. 51-56); and that in Jerusalem
with the Lament over the city (xix 41-44). In the first and last
case the tragic rejection is heightened by being preceded by a
momentary welcome.
It will be rueful to collect for separate conddentkn tfa Mirmcka nd tb
Fumbles which are i
g 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE id*
* Unclean Demon cast out
* Peter's Wife's Mother healed.
Miraculous Draught of Fish.
* Leper cleansed*
* Palsyed healed*
* Withered Hand restored*
t Centurion's Servant healed.
Widow's Son raised.
* Tempest stilled.
* Gerasene Demoniac.
* Woman with the Issue*
* Tairus' Daughter raised*
* Five Thousand fed.
* Demoniac Boy.
f Dumb Demon cast out*
Spirit of Infirmity.
Dropsical Man.
fTen Lepers cleansed*
Blind Man at Jericho*
| Malchus' ear.
PARABUM*
I Two Debtors*
1 Sower.
Good Samaritan*
Friend at midnight
Rich Fool.
Watchful Servant*.
i Barren Fig-tree.
Mustard Seed.
f Leaven,
f Chief Seats.
Great Supper.
Rash Builder,
Rash King,
t Lost Sheep.
5 Lost Coin.
| Lost Son.
I Unrighteous Steward*
| Dives and Lazarus.
Unprofitable Servants*
I Unrighteous Judge.
Pharisee and Publican*
Pounds.
Wicked Husbandmen.
Thus, out of twenty miracles recorded by Luke, six are peculiar to him ;
while, out of twenty-three parables, all but five are peculiar to him. And he
omits only eleven, ten peculiar to Matthew, and one peculiar to Mark (iv. 26-29).
Whence did Luke obtain the eighteen parables which he alone records? And
whence did Matthew obtain the ten parables which he alone records ? If the
" Oracles " contained them all, why does each Evangelist omit so many ? If
S. Luke knew our Matthew, why does he omit all these ten, especially the
Two Sons (Mt. xri. 28-32), which points to the obedience of the Gentiles (see
p. xxiv). In illustration of the met that the material common to all three
Gospels consists mainly of narratives rather than discourses, it should be noticed
that most of the twenty miracles in Luke are in the other two also, whereas
only three of the twenty-three parables in Luke are also in Matthew and Mark.
It is specially worthy of note that the eleven miracles recorded by all three
occur in the same order in each of the Gospels ; and the same is true of the
three parables which are common to all three. Moreover, if we add to these the
three miraculous occurrences which attest the Divinity of Christ, these also are
in the same order in each. The Descent of the Spirit with the Voice from
Heaven at the Baptism precedes all. The Transfiguration is placed between
the feeding of the 5000 and the healing of the demoniac boy. The Resurrection
closes alL Evidently the order had already been fixed in the material which all
three Evangelists employ.
6. CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE.
(i.) It has already been pointed out (p. xxxv) that Luke aims at
falness and completeness, (a) Comprehensiveness is a charac-
teristic of his Gospel. His Gospel is the nearest approach to a
biography; and his object seems to have been to give his readers
xlii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ 6.
as full a picture as he could of the life of Jesus Christ, in all the
portions of it infancy, boyhood, manhood respecting which he
had information.
But there is a comprehensiveness of a more important kind
which is equally characteristic of him : and for the sake of a
different epithet we may say that the Gospel of S. Luke is in a
special sense the universal Gospel All four Evangelists tell us
that the good tidings are sent to "all the nations " (Mt. xxviii. 19 ;
ML xiii. 10 ; Lk. xxiv. 47) independently of birth (Jn. i. 12, 13).
But no one teaches this so fully and persistently as S. Luke. He
gives us, not so much the Messiah of the O.T., as the Saviour of
all mankind and the Satisfier of all human needs. Again and
again he shows us that forgiveness and salvation are offered to all,
and offered freely, independently of privileges of birth or legal
observances. Righteousness of heart is the passport to the King-
dom of God, and this is open to everyone; to the Samaritan
(ix. 51*56, x. 30-37, xvii. 11-19) and the Gentile (ii. 32, ill 6, 38,
iv. 25-27, vil 9, x. i, xiii. 29, xxi. 24, xxiv. 47) as well as to the
Jew (i. 33, 54, 68-79, ii. 10); to publicans, sinners, and outcasts
(iii. 12, 13, v. 27-32, vii. 37-50, xv. i, 2, 11-32, xviii. 9-14, xix.
2-10, xxiil 43) as well as to the respectable (vii. 36, xi. 37, xiv. i) ;
to the poor (L 53, ii. 7, 8, 24, iv. 18, yi. 20, 21, vii 22, xiv. 13, 21,
xvi. 20, 23) as well as to the rich (xix. 2, xxiii. 50). And hence
Dante calls S. Luke "the writer of the story of the gentleness of
Christ," scriba mansuctudinis Christi (De MonarMd, L 16 [18],
ed. Witte, 1874, p. 33; Church, p. 210). It cannot be mere
accident that the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal
Son, the Great Supper, the Pharisee and the Publican, the rebukes
to intolerance, and the incidents of the sinner in the house of
Simon, arid of the penitent robber are peculiar to this Gospel Nor
yet that it omits Mt vii. 6, x. 5, 6, xx. 16, xxiL 14, which might be
regarded as hostile to the Gentiles. S. Luke at the opening of the
ministry shows this universal character of it by continuing the
great prophecy from Is. xL 3 ff. (which all four Evangelists quote)
till he reaches the words "All flesh shall see the salvation of God "
(iii. 6). ^ And at the close of it he alone records the gracious
declaration that " the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that
which was lost" (xix. 10; interpolated Mt xviii iij). 1
It is a detail, but an important one, in the universality of the
Third Gospel, that it is in an especial sense the Gospel for women.
Jew and Gentile alike looked down on women. 2 But all through
this Gospel they are allowed a prominent place, and many typei
1 Comp. also the dose of the Acts, esp> xxviii. 28 j and the **t (Lk.
xvL 16), which is not in Mt (xL M).
1 In the Jewish liturgy the men thank God that they bar* not been mh
6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xlin
of womanhood are placed before us : Elizabeth, the Virgin Mary,
the prophetess Anna, the widow at Nain, the nameless sinner in
the house of Simon, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, the woman
with the issue, Martha and Mary, the widow with the two mites,
the "daughters of Jerusalem," and the women at the tomb. A
Gospel with this marked antipathy to exdusiveness and intolerance
appropriately carries the pedigree of the Saviour past David and
Abraham to the parent of the whole human race (iii. 38). It is
possible that Luke simply copied the genealogy as he found it, or
that his extending it to Adam is part of his love of completeness ;
but the thought of the father of all mankind is likely to have been
present also.
It is this all-embracing love and forgiveness, as proclaimed in
the Third Gospel, which is meant, or ought to be meant, when it
is spoken of as the " Gospel ofS. Paul." The tone of the Gospel
is Pauline. It exhibits the liberal and spiritual nature of Chris-
tianity. It advocates faith and repentance apart from the works
of the Law, and tells abundantly of God's grace and mercy and the
work of the Holy Spirit. In the Pauline Epistles these topics and
expressions are constant
The word ir/rla>p, once in Mt, twice in Mk., not in Jru, is found thrice in Lk. and
five times in Acts ; and the expression " Holy Spirit, 91 which is found five times
in Mt, four in Mk., four in Jn., occurs twelve times in Lk. and forty-one in
Acts. See on L 15.
It is characteristic that rfoa fitffQ&w fgcre (Mt v. 46) becomes oJa d/u?
%dpit t 39 M Wiwui ru\bt
HvQpurbt ttfu fab
viii. 12. TUTTffaayrtt ffuQQffir.
viii. 13. perk %a/)af ^orrat r.
S PAUL.
I Cor. ii. 4. 6 \6yos pan
2 Cor. i. 3. 4 Tarty) rwv o/jcrcp^wr.
Rom. ii. 19.
vi. 48,
vii. 8.
1 Cor. lii. 10. 0cfi\toy
Rom. xiu. I. Ifoua-lcu?
1 Cor. i. 21. ffd
Rom. i. 1 6. tfr
Tturrl r.
lThes.16.
x. 7. 4u>f 7^p o ipydnjt rov fUff$oQ
a^roO.
x. 8. Iffdlcrt rd TapaTiBtptra. jJ/u>.
I Tim. v. 18. tof
aurou.
I Cor. x. 27. Tar T^
x. 16. 5 d^ercoy v/tas i/J& ddere?' a
i ^ dfferuv d0er rov droffretXew^rd
x. 2O,
& rots ofywou.
xi. 7.
xi. 29.
fret
xi. 41. jca2 /9oi> rdrra
r^.
xii. 35. &rrva
. lrrr.28).
Gal. vi. 17* x6xovf
rw.
1 Cor. i. 22.
Tit i 15. Tdira ifa^a/)d row
T?.
Eph. vi. 14.
xiii. 27. dir&JTTTre dr*
pydrat d5iray (Ps. vi. 8).
x:vm. I. 5<
. xi. 5).
1 Cor. iv. 2. ^rmrcu fr
Atots ?va mortis rts e^pr^J.
2 Tim. ii. 19. dirotrrTTT
iros 6 ovofjuifbjy rd 5vo/i A.
Col. 1, 3 ^dxrore irpoat i^^rvot.
2 Thes. i. 1 1. 7rp jf/juit Kafcra/x Rom. xui 7. farddwe vaffir rdf
06/jo^ Soui/ai ^ otf ; d-65ore r& Kafcra- tfeiMs, T$ rbv tfpov r&v $6pov.
pos Kaly^ ry I Thes. LU 1 6.
Xay rotJry. ij ^p^ e/y r^Xoj.
xxi. 24. dxpi o5 TXijpw5cD5tps a <ourl 84 (ff. E. ui. 4, 8) and by Jerome with quidam- JKJ-
puantur (JDe mr. ittus. \oi.), that wherever S. Paul speaks of "my Gospel"
(Rom. ii 1 6, xvi. 25 ; 2 Tim. IL 8) he means the Gospel of S. Luke, still
finds advocates. And the supposition that the Third Gospel is actually quoted
I Tim. v. 18 is incredible. The words \yi ^ 7pa^ refer to the first sentence
only, which comes from Deut. xxv. 4. "What follows, " the labourer is worthy
of his hire," is a popular saying, adopted first by Chnst (Lk. x. 7 ; Mt r. 10)
and then by S. PauL Had S. Paul quoted the saying as an utterance of Christ,
he would not have said Xyet -f) ypav rov Kvplov 'lycrov Sri atirbs \4yei (Acts xx. 35), or
vo/xryyAXet d /o/ptos (I Cor. vii IO, 12), or /Aepvytdvoi rwr X6ywy roi; Kvplov
'Iijtrovy oQs AdXi}0-eF (Clem. Rom. Cor. xui I ; comp. xlvi 7), or simply eZarcr
6 jctfpiot (Polyc* vii 2). Comp. I Thes. iv. 15 ; I Cor. ix. 14, xi 23,
(S) More than any of the other Evangelists S. Luke brings
before his readers the subject of Prayer ; and that in two ways,
(i) by the example of Christ, and (2) by direct instruction. All
three Synoptists record that Christ prayed in Gethsemane (Mt
xxvL 39 ; ML xiv. 35 ; Lk. xxii. 41) ; Mark (i. 35) mentions His
retirement for prayer after healing multitudes at Capernaum, where
Luke (iv. 42) merely mentions the retirement: and Matthew
(xiv. 23) and Mark (vi. 46) relate His retirement for prayer after
the feeding of the 5000, where Luke (ix. 17) relates neither. But
on seven occasions Luke is alone in recording that Jesus prayed :
at His Baptism (iii. 21) ; before His first collision with the hierarchy
(v. 1 6); before choosing the Twelve (vi. 12); before the first
prediction of the Passion (ix. 18) ; at the Transfiguration (ix. 29);
before teaching the Lord's Prayer (xL i); and on the Cross (xxiiL
[34], 46). Moreover, Luke alone relates the declaration of Jesus
that He had made supplication for Peter, and His charge to the
Twelve, "Pray that ye enter not into temptation w (xxii 32, 40).
xlvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE
It was out of the fulness of His own experience that Jesus said,
"Ask, and it shall be given you" (xi. 9). Again, Luke alone re-
cords the parables which enjoin persistence in prayer, the Friend
at Midnight (xi. 5-13) and the Unrighteous Judge (xviil 1-8);
and to the charge to " watch " (Mt xxv. 13 ; ML xiii. 33) He adds
"at eveiy season, making supplication, that ye may prevail," etc.
(xxi. 36). In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican the
difference between real and unreal prayer is illustrated (xviiL
11-13).
(c) The Third Gospel is also remarkable for the prominence
which it gives to Praise and Thanksgiving. It begins and ends
with worship in the temple (i. 9, xxiv. 53). Luke alone has pre-
served for us those hymns which centuries ago passed from his
Gospel into the daily worship of the Church: the Gloria in
Excels^ or Song of the Angels (ii. 14) ; the Magnificat^ or Song
of the blessed Virgin Mary (i. 46-55) ; the Benedictus^ or Song of
Zacharias (L 68-79) > *&& & Q Nunc Dimittis^ or Song of Symeon
(ii. 29-32). Far more often than in any other Gospel are we told
that those who received special benefits "glorified God" (Sootx
TOV @>eov) for them (ii. 20, v. 25, 26, vii. 16, xiii. 13, xvii. 15,
xviii- 43)- Comp. Mt ix. 8, xv. 31; Mk. ii, 12. The expression
"praising God" (aivtiv rbv <5>eoV) is almost peculiar to Luke in
N.T. (ii. 13, 20, xix. 37, xxiv. 53?; Acts ii. 47, iii. 8, 9). "Bless-
ing God" (aJAoysiv TOT/ eoi>) is almost peculiar to Luke (i. 64,
ii. 28, xxiv. 53 ?) : elsewhere only Jas. iii. 9. " Give praise (alvov
StSorai) to God" occurs Luke xviii. 43 only. So also x a W ty *
which occurs eight times in Matthew and Mark, occurs nineteen
times in Luke and Acts ; x a P* seven times in Matthew and Mark,
thirteen times in Luke and Acts.
(et) The Gospel of S. Luke^is rightly styled "the most literary
of the Gospels " (Renan, Les Evangiles^ ch. xiii.). " S. Luke has
more literary ambition than his fellows " (Sanday, Book by Book^
p. 401). He possesses the art of composition. He knows not
only how to tell a tale truthfully, but how to tell it with effect He
can feel contrasts and harmonies, and reproduce them for his
readers. The way in which he tells the stories of the widow's son
at Nain, the sinner in Simon's house, Martha and Mary at
Bethany, and the walk to Emmaus, is quite exquisite. And one
might go on giving other illustrations of his power, until one had
mentioned nearly the whole Gospel. The sixth century was not
far from the truth when it called him a painter, and said that he
had painted the portrait of the Virgin. There is no picture of her
so complete as his. How lifelike are his sketches of Zacharias,
Anna, Zacchseus, Herod Antipas ' And with how few touches Js
tach done ! As a rule Luke puts in fewer descriptive details than
Mark. In his description of the Baptist he omits the strange attire
6,] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xlvii
and food (Mk. i. 6 ; Mt iii, 4). In the healing of Simon's wife's
mother he omits the taking of her hand (Mk. i. 31 ; Mt viii. 15)*
In that of the palsied he omits the crowding at the door (Mk. ii. 2).
And there are plenty of such cases. But at other times we have
an illuminating addition which is all his own (iii. 15, 21, iv. 13, 15,
40, 42, v. i, 12, 15, r 6, vi. 12, viii. 47, etc.). His contrasts are
not confined to personal traits, such as the unbelieving priest and
the believing maiden (i. 18, 38), the self-abasing woman and the
self-satisfied Pharisee (vii. 37 ff.), the thankless Jews and the thank-
ful Samaritan (xvii. 17), the practical Martha and the contemplative
Mary (x. 38-42), the hostile hierarchy and the attentive people
(xix. 47, 48), and the like; the fundamental antithesis between
Christ's work and Satan's 1 (iv. 13, x. 17-20, xiii. 16, xxii. 3,
3 r 53)> often exhibited in the opposition of the scribes and
Pharisees to His work (XL 52, xiL i, xiii. 14, 31, xv. 2, xvi 14,
xix- 39> 47> xx. 20), is brought out with special clearness. The
development of the hostility of the Pharisees is one of the main
threads in the narrative. It is this rare combination of descriptive
power with simplicity and dignity, this insight into the lights and
shadows of charactei and the conflict between spiritual forces,
which makes this Gospel much more than a fulfilment of its
original purpose (i. 4). There is no rhetoric, no polemics, no
sectarian bitterness. It is by turns joyous and sad ; but even where
it is most tragic it is almost always serene. 2 As the fine literary
taste of Renan affirms, it is the most beautiful book in the world
(e) S. Luke is the only Evangelist who writes history as distinct
from memoirs. He aims at writing "in order," which probably
means in chronological order (i. 5, 26, 36, 56, 59, ii. 42, iiL 23,
ix. 28, 37, 51, xxii. i, 7), and he alone connects his narrative with
the history of Syria and of the Roman Empire (ii i, iii. i^. The
sixfold date (iii. i) is specially remarkable : and it is possible that
both it and ii. i were inserted as finishing touches to the narra-
tive. The words 2ro$ (ff ) and fwjv (V*) occur more often in his
writings than in the rest of N.T. : and this fact points to a special
fondness for exactitude as regards time. Where he gives no date,
probably because he found none in his authorities, he fre-
quently lets us know what incidents are connected together,
although he does not know in what year or time of year to place
the group (iv. i, 38, 40, vii. i, 18, 24, viii. i, x i, 21, XL 37, xii. i,
xiii. i, 31, xix. ii, 28, 41, xxii. 66, xxiv. 13). He is very much
1 Both in Mark (i. 21-28) and in Luke (iv. 31-37) the miracle of healing the
demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum is perhaps placed first as being
typical of Christ's whole work. But there is no evidence of any special
"demonology" in Luke. With the doubtful exception of the "spirit of
infirmity'* (xiii. 10) there is no miracle of casting out demons which he alone
records.
* A marked guccptkro is the violent toeng so graphically dftcribod zL Cfl. C|i
dviii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE
less definite than Josephus or Tacitus ; but that is only what we
ought to expect He had not their opportunities of consulting
public records, and he was much less interested in chronology than
they were. Yet it has been noticed that the Agricola of Tacitus
contains no chronology until the last chapter is reached. The
value of Christ's words and works was quite independent of dates.
Such remarks as he makes xvi. 14, xviii. i, 9, xix. n throw far
more light upon what follows than an exact note of time would
have done. Here and there he seems to be giving us his own
estimate of the situation, as an historian or biographer might do
(ii. 50, iiL 15, viii. 30, xx. 20, xxii. 3, xxiiL 12;: and the notes,
whether they come from himself or his sources, are helpful. If
chronology even in his Gospel is meagre, yet there is a continuity
and development which may be taken as evidence of the true
historic spirit 1 -He follows the Saviour through the stages, not
only of His ministry, but of His physical and moral growth (ii. 40,
42, 51, 52, iii.
