using Ῥαββεί as a form of address, but either διδάσκαλε or ἐπιστάτα;1 his comparatively sparing use of ἀμήν (seven times as against thirty in
Matthew), for which he sometimes substitutes ἀληθῶς (9:27, 12:44, 21:3) or ἐπʼ ἀληθείας (4:25, 22:59); his use of νομικός for γραμματεύς (7:30, 10:25, 11:45, 46, 52, 14:3); his adding ἀκάθαρτον as an epithet to
δαιμόνιον (4:33), for Gentiles believed in good δαιμόνια, whereas to a Jew all δαιμόνια were evil; his avoiding μετεμορφώθη (Mar 9:2 ; Mat 17:2) in his account of the Transfiguration (9:29), a word which might have
suggested the metamorphoses of heathen deities; his notice of the Roman Emperor (2:1), and using his reign as a date (3:1); his tracing the Saviour’s descent to Adam, the parent of Gentile as well as Jew (3:38). Although full honour is shown to the Mosaic Law as binding on Jews (2:21, 27, 39, 5:14, 10:26, 16:17, 29-31, 17:14, 18:20), yet there is not much appeal to it as of interest to his readers. Luke has no parallels to Mat 5:17, Mat 5:19, Mat 5:20, Mat 5:21, Mat 5:27, Mat 5:31, Mat 5:33, 12:Mat 5:5-7, Mat 5:17-20, 15:Mat 5:1-20. The quotations from the Old Testament are few as compared with Matthew, and they are found mostly in the sayings of Christ (4:4, 8, 12, 18, 19, 26, 6:4, 7:27, 8:10, 13:19, 28, 29, 35, 18:20, 19:46, 20:17, 37, 42, 43, 21:10, 24, 26, 27, 35, 22:37, 69, 23:30, 46) or of others (1:15, 17, 37, 46-55, 68-79, 2:30, 31, 32, 4:10, 11, 10:27, 20:28). Very little is said about the fulfilment of prophecy, which would not greatly interest Gentile readers (3:4, 4:21, 21:22, 22:37, 24:44); 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 reproductions, more or less conscious, of the words of Scripture; but the following are definitely given as citations:
2:23, 24, 3:4, 4:4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 7:27, 10:27, 18:20, 19:46, 20:17, 28, 37, 42, 43, 22:37 Excepting 7:27, they may all have come from LXX.1 And 7:27 does not agree with either the Hebrew or LXX of Mal 3:1, and is no evidence that the Evangelist knew Hebrew. But, excepting ἐγώ, it agrees verbatim with Mat 11:10, and we need not doubt that both Evangelists used the same source and copied it exactly. Add to these his command of the Greek language and his use of “Judæa” for the land of the Jews, i.e. the whole of Palestine (1:5, 4:44?, 7:17, 23:5 ; Act 2:9, Act 2:10:37, Act 2:11:1, Act 2:29). This combination of non-Jewish features would be extraordinary in a treatise written by a Jew or for Jews. It is thoroughly intelligible in one written by a Gentile for Gentiles.
In his desire to give further instruction to Theophilus and many others like him, it is evident that Luke aims at fulness. He desires to make his Gospel as complete as possible. This is clearly indicated in the prologue. He has
“traced up the course of all things accurately from the first” (ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν), in order that Theophilus may “know in full detail” (ἐπιγνῷς) the historic foundations of the faith. And it is equally clearly seen in the Gospel itself. Luke begins at the very beginning, far earlier than any other
Evangelist; not merely with the birth of the Christ, but with the promise of the birth of the Forerunner. And he goes on to the very end: not merely to the Resurrection but to the Ascension. Moreover his Gospel contains an immense proportion of material which is peculiar to himself. According to one calculation, if the contents of the Synoptic Gospels are divided into 172 sections, of these 172 Luke has 127 (3/4), Matthew 114 (2/3), and Mark 84 (1/2); and of these 172 Luke has 48 which are peculiar to himself (2/7), Matthew has 22 (1/8), and Mark has 5 (1/37). According to another calculation, if the total be divided into 124 sections, of these Lk. has 93, Matthew 78 and Mark 67; and of these 124 Luke has 38 peculiar to himself, Mat 17, and Mar 2:2 The portions of the Gospel narrative which Luke alone has preserved for us are among the most beautiful treasures which we
possess, and we owe them in a great measure to his desire to make his collection as full as possible.
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 apologetic treatises. It was his aim to show all Christians, and especially 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 Judaizing opponents; nor yet to reconcile the
Judaizers with the disciples of S. Paul. A Gospel which omits the severe rebuke incurred by Peter (Mat 16:23; Mar 8:33), the ambitious request of James and John (Mat 20:21; Mar 10:37), the boastful declaration of loyalty made by all the Twelve (Mat 26:35; Mar 14:31), and the subsequent flight
of all (Mat 26:56; Mar 14:50); which promises to the Twelve their
judgment-thrones (22:30), and trusts them with the conversion of “all the nations” (24:47), 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: 4:28, 29, 10:10, 11, 31, 32, 11:39, 40, 12:47, 13:1-5, 15, 16:15, 17:18, 18:10-14, 23:28-31 ; Act 2:23, Act 5:30, Act 7:51-53, 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 order” (καθεξῆς), 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. 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 arranging the additional material he followed chronology, where he had any chronological clue; and where he 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 καθεξῆς 8:1; Act 3:24, Act 9:4, Act 18:23.
That the whole Gospel is elaborately arranged to illustrate the development and connexion of certain theological ideas does not harmonize with the impression 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. 1:1, § 20, 21), McClellan (N.T. PP. 427 ff.), Oosterzee (Lange’s Comm. Int. §4), and Westcott (Int. to Gospels, ch. viii.
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 2 and 3, at or about 9:51 and 19:28, and between chapters 21 and 22. If we add the preface, we have six divisions to which the numerous 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 correctness. It may, however, be conducive to clearness, even if nothing of the kind is intended by S. Luk 1 The mark § indicates that this portion is found in Luke alone; ° that it is common to Luke and Mark; †that it is common to Luke and Matthew; * that it is common to all three.
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 some cases a strong one; e.g. 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; e.g. 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 a good deal may be said. And it would be rash to affirm that the few (p. 24) 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 mark § gives some idea of what we should have lost had S. Luke not been moved to write. And it must be remembered that in 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. 1:1-4. § The Preface. The Sources and Object of the Gospel.
II. 1:5-2:52. § 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).
3. 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 (2:1-20).
6. The Circumcision and Presentation of the Saviour (21-40).
7. The Boyhood of the Saviour (41-52).
III. 3:1-9:50. The Ministry, mainly in Galilee.
i. The External Preparation for the Ministry; The Preaching of the Baptist (3:1-22).
1. § The Date (1, 2).
2. * The New Prophet, his Preaching, Prophecy, and Death (3-20).
3. * He baptizes the Christ (21, 22).
§ The Genealogy of the Christ (23-38).
ii. The Internal Preparation for the Ministry; *The Temptation (4:1-13).
iii. The Ministry in Galilee (4:14-9:50).
1. Visit to Nazareth; °At Capernaum an unclean Demon cast out (4:14-44).
2. §* The Miraculous Draught and the Call of Simon, *Two Healings which provoke Controversy; *The Call of Levi; *Two Sabbath Incidents which provoke Controversy (5:1-6, 11).
3. * The Nomination of the Twelve; †The Sermon “on the Level Place”;
†The Centurion’s Servant §The Widow’s Son at Nain : †The 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
Tempest; *The Gerasene Demoniac; *The Woman with the Issue and the Daughter of Jairus (6:12-8:56)
4. * The 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 (9:1-50).
IV. 9:51-19:28. The Journeyings Towards Jerusalem: Ministry outside Galilee.
i. The departure from Galilee and First Period of the Journey (9:51-13:35).
1. § The Samaritan Village; †§Three Aspirants to Discipleship; §The Seventy: The Lawyer’s Questions and §the Good Samaritan; §Mary and Martha (9:51-10:42).
2. § Prayer; *Casting out Demons by Beelzebub; §True Blessedness; *The Demand for a Sign: §Denunciation of Pharisaism ; †Exhortation to
Sincerity; §The Avaricious Brother; §The Rich Fool; God’s Providential Care; § The Signs of the Times (9:1-12:59).
3. § Three Exhortations to Repentance; §The Woman with a Spirit of Infirmity; *The Mustard Seed; †The Leaven; The Number of the Saved;
§The Message to Antipas and †the Lament over Jerusalem (13:1-35).
ii. The Second Period of the Journey (14:1-17:10).
1. § The Dropsical Man; §Guests and Hosts; §The Great Supper; §The Conditions of Discipleship; †The Lost Sheep; §The Lost Coin; §The Lost Son (14:1-15:32).
2. § The Unrighteous Steward; §†Short Sayings; §The Rich Man and
Lazarus ; Four Sayings on *Offences, §Forgiveness, †Faith, §Works (16:1- 17:10).
iii. The Third Period of the Journey (17:2-19:28).
1. § The Ten Lepers; §*The coming of the Kingdom; §The Unrighteous Judge; §The Pharisee and the Publican (17:2-18:14).
2. * Little Children; *The Rich Young Ruler; *The Third Prediction of the Passion; *The Blind Man at Jericho ; §Zacchæus; §The Pounds (18:15- 19:28).
V. 19:29-21:38. Last Days of Public Teaching: Ministry in Jerusalem.
1. * The Triumphal Procession and §Predictive Lamentation; *The Cleansing of the Temple (19:29-48).
2. 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 (20:1-21:38).
VI. 22-24. The Passion and the Resurrection.
i. The Passion (22:1-23:56).
1. * The Treachery of Judas (22:1-6).
2. * The Paschal Supper and Institution of the Eucharist; *The Strife about Priority; §The New Conditions (22:7-38).
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 (22:39-23:49).
4. * The Burial (23:50-56).
ii. The Resurrection and the Ascension (24.).
1. *§ The Women at the Tomb (1-11).
2. § [Peter at the Tomb (12).]
3. § The Walk to Emmaus (13-32).
4. § The Appearance to the Eleven (33-43) 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(4:28-30); the Ministry outside
Galilee with the refusal of Samaritans to entertain Him (9:51-56); and that in Jerusalem with the Lament over the city (19:41-44). In the first and last
case the tragic rejection is heightened by being preceded by a momentary welcome.
It will be useful to collect for separate consideration the Miracles and the Parables which are recorded by S. Luke.
Miracles Parables.
* Unclean Demon east out. §Two Debtors.
* Peter’s Wife’s Mother healed. * Sower.
§ Miraculous Draught of Fish. § Good Samaritan.
* Leper cleansed. § Friend at midnight.
* Palsied healed. § Rich Fool.
* Withered Hand restored. § Watchful Servants.
† Centurion’s Servant healed. § Barren Fig-tree.
§ Widow’s Son raised. * Mustard Seed.
* Tempest stilled. † Leaven.
* Gerasene Demoniac. § Chief Seats.
* Woman with the Issue. § Great Supper.
* Jairus’ Daughter raised. § Rash Builder.
* Five Thousand fed. § Rash King.
* Demoniac Boy. † Lost Sheep.
† Dumb Demon cast out. § Lost Coin.
§ Spirit of Infirmity. § Lost Son.
§ Dropsical Man. § Unrighteous Steward.
§ Ten Lepers cleansed. § Dives and Lazarus.
* Blind Man at Jericho. § Unprofitable Servants.
§ Malchus’ ear. § 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 (4:26- 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 (Mat 21:28-32), which points to the obedience of the Gentiles (see p. xxiv). In illustration of the fact 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 fulness and completeness. (a) Comprehensiveness is a characteristic of his Gospel. His Gospel is the nearest approach to a biography; and his object seems to have been to give his readers 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” (Mat 28:19; Mar 13:10; Luk 24:47) independently of birth (Joh 1:12, Joh 1:13).
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 Kingdom of God, and this is open to everyone; to the Samaritan (9:51-56, 10:30-37, 17:11-19) and the Gentile (2:32, 3:6, 38, 4:25-27, 7:9, 10:1, 13:29, 21:24, 24:47) as well as to the Jew (1:33, 54, 68- 79, 2:10); to publicans, sinners, and outcasts (3:12, 13, 5:27-32, 7:37-50, 15:1, 2, 11-32, 18:9-14, 19:2-10, 23:43) as well as to the respectable (7:36, 11:37, 14:1); to the poor (1:53, 2:7, 8, 24, 4:18, 6:20, 21, 7:22, 14:13, 21, 16:20, 23) as well as to the rich (19:2, 23:50). And hence Dante calls S.
Luke “the writer of the story of the gentleness of Christ,” scriba
mansuetudinis Christi (De Monarchiâ, i. 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, and of the penitent robber are peculiar to this Gospel. Nor yet that it omits Mat 7:6, Mat 7:10:5, .Mat 7:6, Mat 7:20:16, Mat 7:22:14, which might be regarded as hostile to the Gentiles. S. Luke at the opening