3. The birth and circumcision of John; the hymn of Zacharias; the youth of John 57-80
4. Christ's birth Luke 2:1-20 Christ's circumcision and name 21 Presentation in the temple 22-38 Country and growth 39, 40 II. The middle, when he was twelve years old and upward 41-52 III. The course of the history.
A. The introduction, wherein are described John the Baptist; Christ's baptism, and temptation Luke 3, 4:1-13
5. The earnestness of the people; our Lord's benignity; five thousand fed 11-17
C. The preparation for his passion,
a. A recapitulation of the doctrine concerning his person: his passion foretold 18-27
b. His transfiguration; the lunatic healed; his passion again foretold; humility enjoined 28-50
c. His last journey to Jerusalem, which we may divide into eighteen intervals,
1. The inhospitable Samaritans borne with 51-57
2. In the way, improper followers repelled, Proper ones pressed forward 58-62
3. Afterward the seventy sent; and received again Luke 10:1-24 And the scribe taught to love his neighbour, by the example of the good Samaritan 25-37
4. In Bethany, Mary preferred before Martha 38-42
5. In a certain place the disciples taught to pray Luke 11:1-13 A devil cast out, and the action defended 14-26 The acclamation of the woman corrected 27, 28 Those who desire a sign reproved 29-36
6. In a certain house, the scribes and Pharisees censured 37-54
7. Our Lord's discourse to his disciples Luke 12:1-12 To one that interrupts him 13-21 To his disciples again 22-40 To Peter 41-53 To the people 54-59
8. The necessity of repentance shown Luke 13:1-9 A woman healed on the Sabbath 10-21
9. The fewness of them that are saved 22-30
10. Herod termed a fox: Jerusalem reproved 31-35
11. In the Pharisee's house, he cures the dropsy on the Sabbath; and Luke 14:1-6 Teaches humility 7-11 Hospitality 12-14 The nature of the great supper 15-24 The necessity of self denial 25-35
12. Joy over repenting sinners defended, and Luke 15:1-10 Illustrated by the story of the prodigal son 11-32 The unjust steward, wise in his generation Luke 16:1-13 The Pharisees reproved; and 14-18 warned by the story of the rich man and Lazarus 19-31 Cautions against scandals Luke 17:1-4 The faith of the apostles increased 5-10
13. In the confines of Samaria and Galilee he heals ten lepers 11-19
14. Answers the question concerning the time when the kingdom of God should come 20-37 Commends constant prayer Luke 18:1-8 Recommends humility by the story of the Pharisee and publican 9-14
15. Blesses little children 15-17 Answers the rich young man 18-27 And Peter, asking what he should have 28-30
16. Foretells his passion a third time 31-34
17. Near Jericho, cures a blind man 35-42
18. In Jericho, brings salvation to Zaccheus Luke 19:1-10 Answers touching the sudden appearance of his kingdom 11-28 D. Transactions at Jerusalem,
a. The four first days of the great week,
1. His royal entry 29-44
2. The abuse of the temple corrected 45, 46 Its use restored, and 47,48 Vindicated Luke 20:1-8
3. His discourses in the temple,
1. The parable of the husbandmen 9-19
2. The answer concerning paying tribute 20-26 And the resurrection 27-40
3. The question concerning the Son of David 41-44
4. The disciples admonished 45-47
5. The poor widow's offering commended Luke 21:1-4
4. His prediction of the end of the temple, the city, and the world 5-38
5. Judas's agreement with the chief priests Luke 22:1-6 b. Thursday,
1. Peter and John prepare the passover 7-13
2. The Lord's Supper: discourse after it 14-23
3. The dispute, which of them was greatest 24-30
4. Peter, and the other apostles warned 31-38
5. On the mount of Olives,
1. Jesus prays; is in an agony; strengthened by an angel; wakes his disciples 39-46
2. Is betrayed; unseasonably defended 47-53
3. Carried to the high priest's house 54 Denied by Peter 55-62 Mocked 63-65
6. At Golgotha, where, The crucifixion itself, and Jesus's prayer 33,34 His garments parted 34 Scoffs: the inscription on the cross 35-39 The penitent thief 40-43 The prodigies, and the death of Jesus 44-46 The beholders of it 47-49
2. To the two going into the country, and to Peter 13-35
3. To the other apostles 36-45
f. The instructions given his apostles: his ascension 46-53
Adam Clarke
Preface to the Gospel According to St. Luke. With a Short Accou
CLA_LUK.PDF, source PDF p. 3
PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST.
LUKE. WITH A SHORT ACCOUNT OF HIS LIFE.
THERE is little certain known of this evangelist: from what is spoken in the Scriptures, and by the best informed of the primitive fathers, the following probable account is collected:-
Luke was, according to Dr. Lardner, a Jew by birth, and an early convert to Christianity; but Michaelis thinks he was a Gentile, and brings Colossians 4:10, 11, 14, in proof, where St. Paul distinguished Aristarchus, Marcus, and Jesus, who was called Justus, from Epaphras, Lucas, and Demas, who were of the circumcision, i.e. Jews. Some think he was one of our Lord’s seventy disciples. It is worthy of remark that he is the only evangelist who mentions the commission given by Christ to the seventy, Luke 10:1-20. It is likely he is the Lucius mentioned Romans 16:21, and if so he was related to the Apostle Paul, and that it is the same Lucius of Cyrene who is mentioned Acts 13:1, and in general with others, Acts 11:20. Some of the ancients, and some of the most learned and judicious among the moderns, think he was one of the two whom our Lord met on the way to Emmaus on the day of his resurrection, as related Luke 24:13-35; one of these was called Cleopas, Luke 24:18, the other is not mentioned, the evangelist, himself, being the person and the relator.
St. Paul styles him his fellow-labourer, Philemon 1:24. It is barely probable that he is the person mentioned, Colossians 4:14, Luke, the beloved physician. All the ancients of repute, such as Eusebius, Gregory Nyssen, Jerome, Paulinus, Euthalius, Euthymius, and others, agree that he was a physician, but where he was born, and where he exercised the duties of his profession, are not known. Many moderns have attributed to him the most profound skill in the science of painting, and that he made some pictures of the Virgin Mary. This is justly esteemed fabulous; nor is this science attributed to him by any writer previously to Nicephorus Callisti, in the fourteenth century, an author who scarcely deserves any credit, especially in relations not confirmed by others.
He accompanied St. Paul when he first went into Macedonia, Acts 16:8-40; 20:1ff;Acts 27:1ff;Acts 28:1ff. Whether he went with him constantly afterwards is not certain; but it is evident he accompanied him from Greece through Macedonia and Asia to Jerusalem, where he is supposed to have collected many particulars of the evangelic history: from Jerusalem he went with Paul to Rome, where he stayed with him the two years of his imprisonment in that city. This alone makes out the space of five years, and upwards. It is probable that he left St. Paul when he was set at liberty, and that he then went into Greece, where he finished and published this Gospel, and the book of the Acts, which he dedicated to Theophilus, an honourable Christian friend of his in that country. It is supposed that he died in peace about the eightieth or eighty-fourth year of his age. Some suppose he published this Gospel fifteen, others twenty-two years after the ascension of Christ.
See much on this subject in Lardner, Works, vol. vi. p. 104, &c., and in Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament.
Some learned men think that Luke has borrowed considerably from St. Matthew: collate Luke 3:7-9, 16, 17, with Matthew 3:7-12; also Luke 5:20-38, with Matthew 9:2-17; also Luke 6:1-5, with Matthew 12:1-5; Luke 7:22-28, with Matthew 11:4-11; also Luke 12:22-31, with Matthew 6:25-33. It is allowed that there is considerable diversity in the order of time between St Matthew and St. Luke, which is accounted for thus: Matthew deduces the facts related in his history in chronological order. Luke, on the contrary, appears to have paid little attention to this order, because he proposed to make a classification of events, referring each to its proper class, without paying any attention to chronological arrangement. Some critics divide this history into five distinct classes or sections, in the following manner:-
CLASS I. Comprehends all the details relative to the birth of Christ; with the preceding, concomitant, and immediately succeeding circumstances. Luke 1:1ff, and Luke 2:1-40.
CLASS II. Contains a description of our Lord’s infancy and bringing up; his visit to the temple when twelve years of age; and his going down to Nazareth and continuing under the government of his parents; Luke 2:41-52.
CLASS III. Contains the account of the preaching of John Baptist, and his success; the baptism of Christ, and his genealogy. Luke 3:1ff. CLASS IV. Comprehends the account of all our Lord’s transactions in Galilee, for the whole three years of his ministry, from Luke 4:1ff to Luke 9:1-50. This seems evident: for as soon as Luke had given the account of our Lord’s temptation in the deserts Luke 4:1-13, he represents him as immediately returning in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, Luke 4:14; mentions Nazareth, Luke 4:16; Capernaum, Luke 4:31; and the lake of Galilee, Luke 5:1; and thus, to Luke 9:50, goes on to describe the preaching, miracles, &c.; of our Lord in Galilee.
CLASS V. and last, commences at Luke 9:51, where the evangelist gives an account of our Lord’s last journey to Jerusalem: therefore this class contains, not only all the transactions of our Lord from that time to his crucifixion, but also, the account of his resurrection, his commission to his apostles, and his ascension to heaven. Luke 9:51, to Luke 24:53, inclusive.
A plan similar to this has been followed by Suetonius, ln his life of Augustus: he does not produce his facts in chronological order, but classifies them, as he himself professes, cap. 12, giving an account of all his wars, honours, legislative acts, discipline, domestic life, &c., &c. MATTHEW therefore, is to be consulted for the correct arrangement of facts in chronological order: Luke, for a classification of facts and events, without any attention to the order of time in which they occurred. Many eminent historians have conducted their narratives in the same way. See Rosenmuller. It must not, however, be forgotten, that this evangelist gives us some very valuable chronological data in several parts of the three first chapters. These shall be noticed in their proper places.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE.
-Usherian year of the World, 3999.
-Alexandrian year of the World, 5497.
-Antiochian year of the World, 5487.
-Constantinopolitan Æra of the World, 5503.
-Rabbinical year of the World, 3754.
-Year of the Julian Period, 4708.
-Æra of the Seleucidæ, 307.
-Year before the Christian Æra, 6.
-Year of the CXCIII. Olympiad, 3.
-Year of the building of Rome, 748.
-Year of the Julian Æra, 41.
-Year of the Cæsarean Æra of Antioch, 44.
-Year of the Spanish Æra, 34.
-Year of the Paschal Cycle or Dionysian Period, 529.
-Year of the Christian Lunar Cycle, or Golden Number, 15. -Year of the Rabbinical Lunar Cycle, 12.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 4.
-Dominical Letter, C.
-Epact, 4.
-Year of the Emperor Augustus, 25.
-Consuls, D. Lælius Balbus, and C. Antistius Vetus, from January 1 to July 1; and Imp. C. Julius Cæsar Octav. Augustus XII. and L. Cornelius Sulla, for the remainder of the year. The reason why two sets of Consuls appear in this Chronology is this: the Consuls were changed every year in July, therefore, taking in the whole year, four Consuls necessarily appear: two for the first six months, and two for the latter half of the year.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL6.PDF, source PDF p. 605
GOSPEL OF SAINT LUKE.
PREFACE
According to Eusebius and Jerome, this evangelist was a native of Antioch, in Syria; but of this there appears to be no certainty, nor whether he was by birth a Gentile or a Jew. From the circumstance, however, of his being Paul’s fellow-labourer in Judea, we may infer, that if he was originally a Gentile, he embraced the Jewish religion early in life; for, considering that apostle’s prudence, we may be sure he would have allowed no person to assist him in preaching the gospel in Judea who was not circumcised, (see Acts 16:3,) a ceremony which he forbade to the Gentile converts. It is true, in his epistle to the Colossians, (Colossians 4:10-14,) he appears to distinguish Luke from his fellow-labourers of the circumcision; but from this we can only infer, that Luke was not a Jew by birth; or rather, as Dr. Campbell observes, “He might have added the clause, who are of the circumcision, not to distinguish these persons from those after mentioned as not of the circumcision, but to give the Colossians particular information concerning those with whom, perhaps, they had not previously been acquainted. If they knew what Luke, Epaphras, and Demas, whether Jews or Gentiles, originally were, the information was quite unnecessary with regard to them.” That our evangelist was, with all the other writers of the New Testament, a convert to Christianity from Judaism, not from Gentilism, is, upon the whole, sufficiently evident from his style; in which, notwithstanding its greater copiousness and variety, there are as many Hebraisms as are found in the other evangelists, and such as could not be exemplified in any writer originally Gentile, unless his conversion to Judaism had taken place when he was young. Dr. Lardner thinks it also likely, that he is the Lucius mentioned Romans 16:21; and, if so, related to the Apostle Paul, and Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned Acts 13:1. Cave and Mill, with others, think it probable that Luke was converted to Christianity by Paul. But there are no hints of this either in the Acts or Epistles; neither are there any expressions used by Paul in speaking of him or to him, which denote peculiar affection, nor any particular demonstrations of gratitude from Luke toward Paul as a spiritual father; circumstances which render it highly probable that Luke was a Christian long before his acquaintance with Paul. Indeed Epiphanius, and after him many of the ancients, have supposed that both Mark and Luke were of the number of the seventy disciples; and many moderns have gone into the same opinion, particularly Whitby and Heuman: but others think that the preface to Luke’s gospel is inconsistent with this supposition. For he speaks of himself as writing according to the information of the eye-witnesses, which it is thought implies, that he was not one of the number himself. But, to remove this objection, Heuman observes, that Luke’s words imply no more than he was not one of the eye-witnesses “from the beginning;” that he may have been, nevertheless, a follower of Christ in the latter part of his ministry; and that, though he was an eye-witness of many things which he relates, he very properly places the authority of his history on the testimony of the apostles. It must be acknowledged, however, that the most ancient authors do not mention him as being of the seventy; nor is it likely that he should be of the number, unless he was both a Jew by birth, and had his residence in Galilee, from which country our Lord appears to have chosen not only his apostles, but the seventy also. It is remarkable, that he is the only evangelist who mentions the commission given by Christ to the seventy, Luke 10:1-20. It has been generally supposed, that this evangelist was a physician, and is the person intended Colossians 4:14, where the apostle says, “Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.” In this opinion, Eusebius, Gregory Nyssen, Jerome, Paulinus, Euthalius, Euthymius, and others, agree; and it is certainly strengthened by his being joined with Demas, because, in the other passages, where, according to the opinion of all, he is spoken of, he is mentioned in conjunction with the same Demas; and both are called Paul’s fellow-labourers, Philemon 24; 2 Timothy 4:10, 11. This argument is the more to be regarded, in that the epistle to the Colossians, in which Luke is styled the physician, was sent at the same time with that to Philemon, who was an inhabitant of Colosse.
What is certain concerning this evangelist, from his own history of the Acts, is, that he often attended Paul in his travels, and was his fellow-labourer in the gospel. The first time he speaks of himself as Paul’s companion, is Acts 16:10; where, using in his narration the first person plural, he intimates he was one of Paul’s company at Troas, before he took ship to go into Macedonia. He went with him, therefore, from Troas to Samothrace, then to Neapolis, and after that to Philippi. But it is observable, that, having finished his account of the transactions at Philippi, he changes his style from the first to the third person plural, Luke 17:1; nor does he any more speak of himself till Paul was departing from Greece with the collection for the saints in Judea, Acts 20:6. Here, therefore, he joined him again, accompanying him from Macedonia to Troas, and from thence to Jerusalem, where he abode with him. After this, Paul being sent prisoner from Cesarea to Rome, Luke was in the ship with him during the whole of the voyage, came with him to Rome, and there abode, ministering to him, as is plain from the salutations in the epistles which Paul wrote from that city. In all probability, therefore, Luke attended the apostle during the whole of his imprisonment; and as he published his history of the Acts before Paul’s release, it can hardly be doubted that he composed it in Rome under the apostle’s eye, while he waited on him. It is not certain, indeed, where he penned his gospel. Cave supposes he did it at Rome likewise. But Jerome seems to contradict this; for he tells us, that Luke, the third evangelist, published his gospel in the countries of Achaia and Bœotia. Grotius imagines, that when Paul was released, Luke went into Greece, and there wrote his gospel. Nevertheless, as this work came abroad before the Acts, it is more natural to suppose that Luke employed himself in collecting and digesting the materials of his gospel while he travelled with Paul in Greece and Judea, before the latter was seized upon by the Jews in the temple; that he finished it while Paul was imprisoned in Cæsarea, and then undertook his history of the Acts of the Apostles. Both these treatises Luke inscribed to one Theophilus, an intimate friend of his own, who from his name is supposed to have been a Greek. The epithet (κρατιστε) most excellent, wherewith he addressed him, shows him to be a person of distinction; for it was usually given to men in the highest stations, such as prefects and governors of provinces. Accordingly we find it thus applied by Lysias in his letter to Felix, by Tertullus in his speech to Felix, and by Paul in his speech to Festus.
But though no certainty can be had about the precise time and place of the publication of this gospel, we have, in regard to the author, the same plea of the uniform testimony of Christian antiquity, which was pleaded in favour of the preceding evangelists, Matthew and Mark. Some indeed have thought that, as an evangelist, Luke has the testimony of Paul himself, being, as they supposed, “the brother whose praise is in the gospel,” mentioned in one of his epistles, 2 Corinthians 8:18. But admitting that Luke is the person there intended, another meaning may with greater plausibility be put on the expression, “in the gospel;” which rather denotes, in preaching the gospel, than in writing the history of its author. Lardner has taken notice of allusions to some passages in this gospel to be found in some of the apostolic fathers; and there are evident quotations from it, though without naming the author, in Justin Martyr, and the epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons. Of Tatian’s Harmony of the Gospels, composed a little after the middle of the second century, see the introduction to the gospels, p. 3. Irenæus, not long after, mentions all the evangelists by name, arranging them according to the order wherein they wrote, which is the same with that universally given them throughout the Christian world to this day; and, when speaking of Luke, he recites many particulars which are peculiar to that gospel. From that time downward the four evangelists are often mentioned; and whatever spurious narratives have from time to time appeared, they have not been able to bear a comparison with those, in respect either of antiquity, or of intrinsic excellence. Early in the third century, Ammonius also wrote a Harmony of the four Gospels. As these were at that time, and had been from their first publication, so they continue to this day, to be regarded as the great foundations of the Christian faith.
The gospel by Luke has supplied us with many interesting particulars, which had been omitted by both his predecessors, Matthew and Mark. From him we learn whatever relates to the birth of John the Baptist; the annunciation; and other important circumstances concerning the nativity, of the Messiah; the occasion of Joseph’s being then in Bethlehem; the vision granted to the shepherds; the early testimony of Simeon and Anna; the wonderful manifestation of our Lord’s proficiency in knowledge when only twelve years old; his age at the commencement of his ministry, connected with the year of the reigning emperor. He has given us, also, an account of several memorable incidents and cures which had been overlooked by the rest; the conversion of Zaccheus the publican; the cure of the woman who had been bowed down for eighteen years, and of the dropsical man; the cleansing of the ten lepers; the repulse he met with when about to enter a Samaritan city; and the instructive rebuke he gave on that occasion to two of his disciples, for their intemperate zeal; also, the affecting interview he had, after his resurrection, with two of his disciples, in the way to Emmaus, and at that village. Luke has likewise added many edifying parables to those which had been recorded by the other evangelists. Of this number are the parable of the creditor who had two debtors; of the rich fool who hoarded up his increase, and, when he had not one day to live, vainly exulted in the prospect of many happy years; of the rich man and Lazarus; of the reclaimed profligate; of the Pharisee and the publican praying in the temple; of the judge who was prevailed on by a widow’s importunity, though he feared not God, nor regarded man; of the barren fig-tree; of the compassionate Samaritan; and several others; most of which so early a writer as Irenæus has specified as peculiarly belonging to this gospel; and has thereby shown to all ages, without intending it, that it is, in every thing material, the same book which had ever been distinguished by the name of the evangelist till his day, and remains so distinguished to ours. In regard to Luke’s character as a writer it is evident, that, though the same general quality of style, an unaffected simplicity, predominates in all the evangelists, they are nevertheless distinguished from one another. Luke abounds in Hebraisms as much as any of them; yet it must be acknowledged, that there are also more Grecisms in his language than in that of any of the rest. The truth is, there is greater variety in his style, which is probably to be ascribed to this circumstance, — his having been more, and for a longer time, conversant among the Gentiles than any other evangelist. His ordinary place of abode, if not the place of his birth, appears to have been Antioch, the capital of Syria, the seat of government, where people of the first distinction of the province had their residence, and to which there was a great resort of strangers. Here the Greek language had long prevailed. Besides, Luke’s occupation, as a physician, may very probably have occasioned his greater intercourse with those of higher rank. Not that the profession itself was then in great esteem in that country; for it has been justly observed, that in Rome, as well as in Syria, slaves who gave early signs of quickness of parts and manual dexterity, were often instructed in physic, who, if they proved successful, were commonly rewarded with their freedom. That Luke himself, whatever may have been his early condition in life, was, when a Christian minister, a freeman and master of his time, is evident from his attendance on the Apostle Paul, in his peregrinations for the advancement of the gospel. But the profession of medicine and surgery (for these two were then commonly united) not only proved the occasion of a more general intercourse with society, but served as a strong inducement to employ some time in reading. This may sufficiently account for any superiority this evangelist may be thought to possess above the rest in point of language.
To conclude: though we have no reason to consider Luke as, upon the whole, more observant of the order of time than the other evangelists, he has been at more pains than any of them to ascertain the dates of some of the most memorable events, on which, in a great measure, depend the dates of all the rest. In some places, however, without regard to order, he gives a number of detached precepts and instructive lessons, one after another, which probably have not been spoken on the same occasion, but are introduced as they occurred to the writer’s memory, that nothing of moment might be forgotten. In regard to the latter part of the life, and to the death of this evangelist, antiquity has not furnished us with any accounts which can be relied on. See Macknight and Campbell.
Joseph Sutcliffe
The Gospel According to St. Luke.
SUT_VOL4.PDF, source PDF p. 212
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
ST. LUKE.
THE name of Luke is Roman. In the Greek and Latin it is Lucas, and has some affinity with Lucanus, a common name in Rome. St. Jerome, in his prologue to Luke’s gospel, speaks of him thus. “He was born at Antioch, and was by profession a physician, and learned in the Greek language, as is fully apparent from his writings. He was a disciple of St. Paul, and a beloved companion in all his travels. He wrote a volume of the gospel, and the testimonials of the author by this apostle are brief but full. To the Corinthians St. Paul says, I have sent with Titus, a brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches. 2 Corinthians 8:18. To the Colossians he says, Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you: chap. 4:14. To Timothy he says, only Luke is with me. 2 Timothy 4:11. [In another epistle he repeats, Lucas is my fellow labourer. Philemon 24.] These testimonials place Luke in the first class of evangelical men. St. Luke wrote another invaluable book, — The Acts of the apostles, and brought down the history to the two years which St. Paul remained a prisoner at Rome; that is to say, to the fourth year of Nero the emperor. By this we perceive, that the Acts of the apostles were written while Luke was at Rome.
With regard to the two other books ascribed to Luke, The travels of Paul and Thecla, the virgin, (διακονη, γυνη, or matron of the synagogue, a person essential in the churches of the east:) also the history of Leo, whom Paul had baptized, we reckon among the books called apochryphal; for strange it must be that Paul, who was always at Luke’s elbow, should be ignorant of those books. [Thecla, the abreviate of Theoclia, was a powerful preacher; and I might add, prophetess of the church. As Stephen is called the proto-martyr among men, so she is called the proto-martyr among women. This crown was conferred upon her at Seleucia in Isauria, where the emperor Zeno built a church to her memory, accompanied with many gifts. Hist. eccles. Evag. scholast. 50. 3. c. 8.]
Tertullian, who flourished nearer to that age, reports that a certain priest of Asia, being a great admirer of the apostle Paul, was convicted before John of being the author of that book, [Paul and Thecla] and that the priest confessed he had done it for the great affection and love he had for Paul; and that the book by some means had escaped out of his hands. Some writers are of opinion that whenever Paul in his epistles uses the phrase, according to my gospel, he has a special regard to the work written by Luke. Those writers add, that Luke not only speaks of Paul, who himself had not been conversant with the Lord in the flesh, but also of the other apostles, which Luke himself fully allows in the beginning of his own work, who with their eyes saw the miracles, and were the ministers of the things they declared. The Gospel he wrote as he had heard, but the Acts of the apostles he composed as he had seen. He attained the age of eighty four, having lived in celibacy. In the twentieth year of Constantius the emperor, his bones, with those of Andrew, were removed from Achaia for interment at Constantinople.”
Thus far is the prologue of Jerome; to which antiquity has little to add. Augustine complains of obscurity for want of books, few of the writings of the first christians having come down to his time. Though the posterior age contained innumerable small books, but never indeed accounted of equal excellence in every point with the most sacred canonical scriptures; yet there is found in them the same truth, though far from being of equal authority. In opusculis autem posteriorem, quæ libris innumerabilius continentur. — CONTRA FAUST.
It is a fact which cannot be denied, that the brethren in Jerusalem would commit to writing as well as they could, every gracious word of the Saviour, every parable he pronounced, every journey he travelled, and every miracle he performed. If otherwise, they must have been a body of men altogether different from others. It is a fact equally undeniable, that every apostle on leaving his country had his “parchments,” containing the gospel. Mark, when he wrote at Rome, had the gospel of Matthew always at hand. He omits many things in Matthew to avoid tautology, but illustrates many occurrences with relevant incidents and expletives. The four gospels, as they now stand, were admitted into the canon of the christian scriptures without opposition. They are cited by all the christian fathers; and Tatian of the second age, transposed them in what he calls Diatessaron, or the four in one; or to speak in modern language, the harmony of the four gospels.
The gospel of St. Luke comes before the church enriched with Egyptian gold, in regard of style, accuracy, and purity of diction. He presents us with the birth of John in full character, the laudable piety of his priestly parentage, the annunciation to the virgin Mary, and the ministry of holy angels, as attendants on the Redeemer. He shows us the entrance of the Lord into Jericho with healing powers, and the illustrious conversion of Zaccheus, unexampled in its fruits.
We see the forbearance of the Saviour when solicited to punish the Samaritans, who had rejected his ministry; we see the lepers healed ten at a time, men most abjectly excluded from their families, and prohibited entering into the city. We see him great in the house of Simon the pharisee, convincing his host, and converting a weeping offender of the city. He confounded the bigotry of the priest and the levite, by the generosity of the good Samaritan. He visited Bethany, and confirmed the faith of Lazarus’s house, the best of families. After his resurrection we hear him expounding the prophecies to two of his distressed disciples, going to carry their griefs to Galilee. He did this in disguise, in a familiar conversation, that the truth of prophecy might be their strong support. — Thus Luke is introduced to the church loaded with evangelical excellence.
Richard Watson
Introduction
WAT_EXPO.PDF, source PDF p. 630
THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE.
INTRODUCTION
THE author of this gospel was the companion of St. Paul in his evangelical labours, accompanied him to Rome after he had appealed unto Cesar, and there continued with him. He is generally supposed to be “the beloved physician” mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians. His name does not occur in the gospels; but it has been a matter of dispute whether he was not one of the seventy disciples. Some have thought him a Syrian early proselyted to the Jewish religion, with which he shows a perfect familiarity; others, that he was a Jew born at Antioch. The notion that St. Luke descended from Gentile parents is grounded upon his being spoken of in Colossians 4:14, distinctly from other friends and fellow labourers of St. Paul, who are characterized as of the circumcision; but the argument from this is far from being conclusive. He is supposed, after the termination of St. Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, to have returned to Greece.
St. Luke’s qualifications for his great work of writing his gospel were first and chiefly that inspiration which he, as well as the apostles, received; for the special gifts of the Holy Spirit were not, at their effusion on the day of pentecost, confined to the apostles; and by them they were afterward conferred upon others not then present. The strong probability is, that St. Luke, who professes an accurate acquaintance with the facts of his history, was among the disciples of our Lord during his life, and was present at the first great effusion of the Spirit. Of his inspiration, however, there can be no doubt. From their first publication, both the gospels of Mark and Luke, though the writers were not apostles, were received as of equal authority with those of Matthew and John; and they were thus distinguished from all others of those numerous accounts of the same events, which, we know, from the introduction of St. Luke’s gospel, were in existence and circulation; some of which, at least, were, as far as they went, correct relations. It is true that Mark’s gospel might derive authority from the general belief that it was written under the eye of St. Peter himself; but St. Luke’s gospel could have no such recommendation; for though he was the companion of St. Paul, yet that apostle had not been an eye witness of the events of our Lord’s life. Certainly the intercourse which St. Luke must have had with several apostles would give a powerful sanction to his history, which was published during their lifetime; but several of those who had written gospels which have long perished, and those early ones, against whose truth nothing was alleged, had intercourse also with apostles, and derived, no doubt, in many instances, their information from them, while yet their writings were never received in the primitive Church as having authority, nor, like the four gospels, were ever read in Christian assemblies, as portions of HOLY SCRIPTURE. This seems a sufficient answer to those who, like Michaelis, hesitate to place the gospels of Mark and Luke on a level with those of Matthew and John, under the notion that inspiration was confined to apostles only, which is a gratuitous assumption. If the writings of Mark and Luke were not recognized as inspired writings by the apostles, in whose lifetime they were published, it is utterly impossible to account for that sanction under which they were received in the earliest times, to the exclusion of so many other writings of the same kind. Only as being accounted INSPIRED writings could they have obtained the authority they had in the primitive Church, and on that point that Church had the best, nay, infallible means of judging. The gifts of the Holy Spirit were in it; and those who possessed them could “try” all other “spirits, whether they were of God.”
The testimonies of the earlier fathers to this gospel are as follows: — IRENÆUS asserts “that Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him.” Again he says, “Luke was not only a companion, but a fellow labourer of the apostles, especially of Paul.” He calls him “a disciple and fellow labourer of the apostles.” “The apostles,” says he, “envying none, plainly delivered to all, the things which they had heard from the Lord. So likewise Luke, envying no man, has delivered to us what he learned from them, as he says, ‘Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of his word.’” EUSEBIUS informs us that CLEMENT of Alexandria bore a large testimony to this, as well as to the other gospels; and he mentions a tradition concerning the order of the gospels, which Clement had received from presbyters of more ancient times, — “that the gospels containing the genealogies were written first.” TERTULLIAN speaks of Matthew and John as disciples of Christ; of Mark and Luke as disciples of the apostles; however, he ascribes the same authority to the gospels written by them as to the others. “The gospel,” says he, “which Mark published, may be said to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was: and Luke’s digest is often ascribed to Paul. And indeed it is easy to take that for the master’s which the disciples published.” Again: “Moreover, Luke was not an apostle, but an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple: certainly less than his master; certainly so much later, as he is a follower of Paul, the last of the apostles.” ORIGEN mentions the gospels in the order commonly received. “The third,” says he, “is that according to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, published for the sake of the Gentile converts.” In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, which we now have in a Latin version only, he writes, “Some say Lucius is Lucas, the evangelist, as indeed it is not uncommon to write names, sometimes according to the original form, sometimes according to the Greek and Roman termination.” EUSEBIUS has left us the following testimony concerning Luke the evangelist: “And Luke, who was of Antioch, and by profession a physician, for the most part a companion of Paul, who had, likewise, more than a slight acquaintance with the other apostles, has left us, in two books, divinely inspired, evidences of the art of healing souls, which he had learned from them. One of them is the gospel which he professeth to have written as they delivered it to him, who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of his word;” with all whom, he says, he had been perfectly acquainted from the first. And in another place, he adds, “Luke hath delivered in his gospel a certain account of such things as he had been assured of by his intimate acquaintance and familiarity with Paul, and his conversation with the other apostles.” In the Synopsis ascribed to ATHANASIUS, it is said “that the gospel of Luke was dictated by the Apostle Paul, and written and published by the blessed apostle and physician Luke.” GREGORY NAZIANZEN says “that Luke wrote for the Greeks;” and GREGORY NYSSEN, “that Luke was as much a physician for the soul as the body.” The testimony of JEROME concerning Luke is as follows: “Luke, who was of Antioch, and by profession a physician, not unskilful in the Greek language, a disciple of the Apostle Paul, and the constant companion of his travels, wrote a gospel and another excellent volume, entitled, The Acts of the Apostles. It is supposed that Luke did not learn his gospel from the Apostle Paul only, who had not conversed with the Lord in the flesh, but also from other apostles; which likewise he owns at the beginning of his volume, saying, ‘Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of the word.’ Therefore he wrote the gospel from the information of others; but the Acts he composed from his own knowledge.” The same writer, in the preface to his Commentary on St. Matthew, says, “The third evangelist is Luke, the physician, a Syrian of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostle Paul, and published his gospel in the countries of Achaia and Bœotia.” In another place he observes “that some said that Luke had been a proselyte to Judaism, before his conversion to Christianity.” CHRYSOSTOM, in his first Homily on the Gospel of Matthew, has this remark: “Luke had the fluency of Paul, Mark the conciseness of Peter, both learning of their masters.”
The style of St. Luke is more classical than that of the other evangelists, but still strongly impressed, like theirs, with the Hebrew idiom. The majority of critics assign the date to A.D. 63, some earlier. Whether St. Luke wrote before or subsequently to St. Mark has been largely disputed; but nothing of consequence seems to depend upon the determination of the question, especially as it cannot be proved that any of the three first evangelists saw each other’s gospels previously to the composition of their own. St. Luke clearly wrote for the benefit of the Gentile converts. This appears from internal evidence, as well as from the unanimous voice of antiquity. Though he has many things in common with the other gospels, his additions are numerous, and of the most weighty and interesting character. He has, however, less regard to chronological order than Matthew and Mark, and rather classifies the events, than narrates them in a series, — a method of composing history not uncommon with the writers of antiquity. He commences his work with an elegant preface, in which he briefly sets forth his motives for writing it, and inscribes it to Theophilus, who was probably a Greek convert of eminence.
John Wesley
Notes on the Gospel According to St. Luke.
WES_NTN1.PDF, source PDF p. 180
NOTES ON THE GOSPEL
ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE.
HEREIN WE MAY OBSERVE,
I. The beginning: and therein.
1. The conception of John Luke 1:5-25
2. The conception of Christ 26-56
3. The birth and circumcision of John; the hymn of Zacharias; the youth of John 57-80
4. Christ's birth Luke 2:1-20 Christ's circumcision and name 21 Presentation in the temple 22-38 Country and growth 39, 40 II. The middle, when he was twelve years old and upward 41-52 III. The course of the history.
A. The introduction, wherein are described John the Baptist; Christ's baptism, and temptation Luke 3, 4:1-13
B. The acceptable year in Galilee,
a. Proposed at Nazareth 14-30
b. Actually exhibited,
I. At Capernaum and near it; here we may observe,
1. Actions not censured, while Jesus
1. Teaches with authority 31, 32
2. Casts out a devil 33-37
3. Heals many sick 38-41
4. Teaches every where 42-44
5. Calls Peter; then James and John Luke 5:1-11
6. Cleanses the leper 12-16
2. Actions censured, more and more severally, here occur,
1. The healing the paralytic 17-26
2. The calling of Levi; eating with publicans and sinners 27-32
3. The question concerning fasting 33-39
4. The plucking the ears of corn Luke 6:1-5
5. The withered hand restored; snares laid 6-11
3. Actions having various effects on various persons,
1. Upon the apostles 12-16
2. Upon other hearers 17-40
3. Upon the centurion Luke 7:1-10
4. Upon the disciples of John, The occasion: the young man raised 11-17 The message and answer 18-23 The reproof of them that believed not John 24-35
5. Upon Simon and the penitent sinner 36-50
6. Upon the woman who ministered to him Luke 8:1-3
7. Upon the people 4-18 Upon his mother and brethren 19-21 II. On the sea, and 22-26 Beyond it 27-39
III. On this side again.
1. Jairus and the flux of blood 40-55
2. The apostles sent Luke 9:1-6
3. Herod's doubting 7-9
4. The relation of the apostles 10
5. The earnestness of the people; our Lord's benignity; five thousand fed 11-17
C. The preparation for his passion,
a. A recapitulation of the doctrine concerning his person: his passion foretold 18-27
b. His transfiguration; the lunatic healed; his passion again foretold; humility enjoined 28-50
c. His last journey to Jerusalem, which we may divide into eighteen intervals,
1. The inhospitable Samaritans borne with 51-57
2. In the way, improper followers repelled, Proper ones pressed forward 58-62
3. Afterward the seventy sent; and received again Luke 10:1-24 And the scribe taught to love his neighbour, by the example of the good Samaritan 25-37
4. In Bethany, Mary preferred before Martha 38-42
5. In a certain place the disciples taught to pray Luke 11:1-13 A devil cast out, and the action defended 14-26 The acclamation of the woman corrected 27, 28 Those who desire a sign reproved 29-36
6. In a certain house, the scribes and Pharisees censured 37-54
7. Our Lord's discourse to his disciples Luke 12:1-12 To one that interrupts him 13-21 To his disciples again 22-40 To Peter 41-53 To the people 54-59
8. The necessity of repentance shown Luke 13:1-9 A woman healed on the Sabbath 10-21
9. The fewness of them that are saved 22-30
10. Herod termed a fox: Jerusalem reproved 31-35
11. In the Pharisee's house, he cures the dropsy on the Sabbath; and Luke 14:1-6 Teaches humility 7-11 Hospitality 12-14 The nature of the great supper 15-24 The necessity of self denial 25-35
12. Joy over repenting sinners defended, and Luke 15:1-10 Illustrated by the story of the prodigal son 11-32 The unjust steward, wise in his generation Luke 16:1-13 The Pharisees reproved; and 14-18 warned by the story of the rich man and Lazarus 19-31 Cautions against scandals Luke 17:1-4 The faith of the apostles increased 5-10
13. In the confines of Samaria and Galilee he heals ten lepers 11-19
14. Answers the question concerning the time when the kingdom of God should come 20-37 Commends constant prayer Luke 18:1-8 Recommends humility by the story of the Pharisee and publican 9-14
15. Blesses little children 15-17 Answers the rich young man 18-27 And Peter, asking what he should have 28-30
16. Foretells his passion a third time 31-34
17. Near Jericho, cures a blind man 35-42
18. In Jericho, brings salvation to Zaccheus Luke 19:1-10 Answers touching the sudden appearance of his kingdom 11-28 D. Transactions at Jerusalem,
a. The four first days of the great week,
1. His royal entry 29-44
2. The abuse of the temple corrected 45, 46 Its use restored, and 47,48 Vindicated Luke 20:1-8
3. His discourses in the temple,
1. The parable of the husbandmen 9-19
2. The answer concerning paying tribute 20-26 And the resurrection 27-40
3. The question concerning the Son of David 41-44
4. The disciples admonished 45-47
5. The poor widow's offering commended Luke 21:1-4
4. His prediction of the end of the temple, the city, and the world 5-38
5. Judas's agreement with the chief priests Luke 22:1-6 b. Thursday,
1. Peter and John prepare the passover 7-13
2. The Lord's Supper: discourse after it 14-23
3. The dispute, which of them was greatest 24-30
4. Peter, and the other apostles warned 31-38
5. On the mount of Olives,
1. Jesus prays; is in an agony; strengthened by an angel; wakes his disciples 39-46
2. Is betrayed; unseasonably defended 47-53
3. Carried to the high priest's house 54 Denied by Peter 55-62 Mocked 63-65
c. Friday,
1. His passion and death: transactions,
1. In the council 66-71
2. With Pilate Luke 23:1-5
3. With Herod 6-12
4. With Pilate again 13-25
5. In the way 26-32
6. At Golgotha, where, The crucifixion itself, and Jesus's prayer 33,34 His garments parted 34 Scoffs: the inscription on the cross 35-39 The penitent thief 40-43 The prodigies, and the death of Jesus 44-46 The beholders of it 47-49
2. His burial 50-53
d. Friday evening and Saturday 54-56
e. His resurrection made known,
1. To the women Luke 24:1-12
2. To the two going into the country, and to Peter 13-35
3. To the other apostles 36-45
f. The instructions given his apostles: his ascension 46-53
Adam Clarke
Preface to the Gospel According to St. Luke. With a Short Accou
CLA_LUK.PDF, source PDF p. 3
PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST.
LUKE. WITH A SHORT ACCOUNT OF HIS LIFE.
THERE is little certain known of this evangelist: from what is spoken in the Scriptures, and by the best informed of the primitive fathers, the following probable account is collected:-
Luke was, according to Dr. Lardner, a Jew by birth, and an early convert to Christianity; but Michaelis thinks he was a Gentile, and brings Colossians 4:10, 11, 14, in proof, where St. Paul distinguished Aristarchus, Marcus, and Jesus, who was called Justus, from Epaphras, Lucas, and Demas, who were of the circumcision, i.e. Jews. Some think he was one of our Lord’s seventy disciples. It is worthy of remark that he is the only evangelist who mentions the commission given by Christ to the seventy, Luke 10:1-20. It is likely he is the Lucius mentioned Romans 16:21, and if so he was related to the Apostle Paul, and that it is the same Lucius of Cyrene who is mentioned Acts 13:1, and in general with others, Acts 11:20. Some of the ancients, and some of the most learned and judicious among the moderns, think he was one of the two whom our Lord met on the way to Emmaus on the day of his resurrection, as related Luke 24:13-35; one of these was called Cleopas, Luke 24:18, the other is not mentioned, the evangelist, himself, being the person and the relator.
St. Paul styles him his fellow-labourer, Philemon 1:24. It is barely probable that he is the person mentioned, Colossians 4:14, Luke, the beloved physician. All the ancients of repute, such as Eusebius, Gregory Nyssen, Jerome, Paulinus, Euthalius, Euthymius, and others, agree that he was a physician, but where he was born, and where he exercised the duties of his profession, are not known. Many moderns have attributed to him the most profound skill in the science of painting, and that he made some pictures of the Virgin Mary. This is justly esteemed fabulous; nor is this science attributed to him by any writer previously to Nicephorus Callisti, in the fourteenth century, an author who scarcely deserves any credit, especially in relations not confirmed by others.
He accompanied St. Paul when he first went into Macedonia, Acts 16:8-40; 20:1ff;Acts 27:1ff;Acts 28:1ff. Whether he went with him constantly afterwards is not certain; but it is evident he accompanied him from Greece through Macedonia and Asia to Jerusalem, where he is supposed to have collected many particulars of the evangelic history: from Jerusalem he went with Paul to Rome, where he stayed with him the two years of his imprisonment in that city. This alone makes out the space of five years, and upwards. It is probable that he left St. Paul when he was set at liberty, and that he then went into Greece, where he finished and published this Gospel, and the book of the Acts, which he dedicated to Theophilus, an honourable Christian friend of his in that country. It is supposed that he died in peace about the eightieth or eighty-fourth year of his age. Some suppose he published this Gospel fifteen, others twenty-two years after the ascension of Christ.
See much on this subject in Lardner, Works, vol. vi. p. 104, &c., and in Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament.
Some learned men think that Luke has borrowed considerably from St. Matthew: collate Luke 3:7-9, 16, 17, with Matthew 3:7-12; also Luke 5:20-38, with Matthew 9:2-17; also Luke 6:1-5, with Matthew 12:1-5; Luke 7:22-28, with Matthew 11:4-11; also Luke 12:22-31, with Matthew 6:25-33. It is allowed that there is considerable diversity in the order of time between St Matthew and St. Luke, which is accounted for thus: Matthew deduces the facts related in his history in chronological order. Luke, on the contrary, appears to have paid little attention to this order, because he proposed to make a classification of events, referring each to its proper class, without paying any attention to chronological arrangement. Some critics divide this history into five distinct classes or sections, in the following manner:-
CLASS I. Comprehends all the details relative to the birth of Christ; with the preceding, concomitant, and immediately succeeding circumstances. Luke 1:1ff, and Luke 2:1-40.
CLASS II. Contains a description of our Lord’s infancy and bringing up; his visit to the temple when twelve years of age; and his going down to Nazareth and continuing under the government of his parents; Luke 2:41-52.
CLASS III. Contains the account of the preaching of John Baptist, and his success; the baptism of Christ, and his genealogy. Luke 3:1ff. CLASS IV. Comprehends the account of all our Lord’s transactions in Galilee, for the whole three years of his ministry, from Luke 4:1ff to Luke 9:1-50. This seems evident: for as soon as Luke had given the account of our Lord’s temptation in the deserts Luke 4:1-13, he represents him as immediately returning in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, Luke 4:14; mentions Nazareth, Luke 4:16; Capernaum, Luke 4:31; and the lake of Galilee, Luke 5:1; and thus, to Luke 9:50, goes on to describe the preaching, miracles, &c.; of our Lord in Galilee.
CLASS V. and last, commences at Luke 9:51, where the evangelist gives an account of our Lord’s last journey to Jerusalem: therefore this class contains, not only all the transactions of our Lord from that time to his crucifixion, but also, the account of his resurrection, his commission to his apostles, and his ascension to heaven. Luke 9:51, to Luke 24:53, inclusive.
A plan similar to this has been followed by Suetonius, ln his life of Augustus: he does not produce his facts in chronological order, but classifies them, as he himself professes, cap. 12, giving an account of all his wars, honours, legislative acts, discipline, domestic life, &c., &c. MATTHEW therefore, is to be consulted for the correct arrangement of facts in chronological order: Luke, for a classification of facts and events, without any attention to the order of time in which they occurred. Many eminent historians have conducted their narratives in the same way. See Rosenmuller. It must not, however, be forgotten, that this evangelist gives us some very valuable chronological data in several parts of the three first chapters. These shall be noticed in their proper places.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE.
-Usherian year of the World, 3999.
-Alexandrian year of the World, 5497.
-Antiochian year of the World, 5487.
-Constantinopolitan Æra of the World, 5503.
-Rabbinical year of the World, 3754.
-Year of the Julian Period, 4708.
-Æra of the Seleucidæ, 307.
-Year before the Christian Æra, 6.
-Year of the CXCIII. Olympiad, 3.
-Year of the building of Rome, 748.
-Year of the Julian Æra, 41.
-Year of the Cæsarean Æra of Antioch, 44.
-Year of the Spanish Æra, 34.
-Year of the Paschal Cycle or Dionysian Period, 529.
-Year of the Christian Lunar Cycle, or Golden Number, 15. -Year of the Rabbinical Lunar Cycle, 12.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 4.
-Dominical Letter, C.
-Epact, 4.
-Year of the Emperor Augustus, 25.
-Consuls, D. Lælius Balbus, and C. Antistius Vetus, from January 1 to July 1; and Imp. C. Julius Cæsar Octav. Augustus XII. and L. Cornelius Sulla, for the remainder of the year. The reason why two sets of Consuls appear in this Chronology is this: the Consuls were changed every year in July, therefore, taking in the whole year, four Consuls necessarily appear: two for the first six months, and two for the latter half of the year.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL6.PDF, source PDF p. 605
GOSPEL OF SAINT LUKE.
PREFACE
According to Eusebius and Jerome, this evangelist was a native of Antioch, in Syria; but of this there appears to be no certainty, nor whether he was by birth a Gentile or a Jew. From the circumstance, however, of his being Paul’s fellow-labourer in Judea, we may infer, that if he was originally a Gentile, he embraced the Jewish religion early in life; for, considering that apostle’s prudence, we may be sure he would have allowed no person to assist him in preaching the gospel in Judea who was not circumcised, (see Acts 16:3,) a ceremony which he forbade to the Gentile converts. It is true, in his epistle to the Colossians, (Colossians 4:10-14,) he appears to distinguish Luke from his fellow-labourers of the circumcision; but from this we can only infer, that Luke was not a Jew by birth; or rather, as Dr. Campbell observes, “He might have added the clause, who are of the circumcision, not to distinguish these persons from those after mentioned as not of the circumcision, but to give the Colossians particular information concerning those with whom, perhaps, they had not previously been acquainted. If they knew what Luke, Epaphras, and Demas, whether Jews or Gentiles, originally were, the information was quite unnecessary with regard to them.” That our evangelist was, with all the other writers of the New Testament, a convert to Christianity from Judaism, not from Gentilism, is, upon the whole, sufficiently evident from his style; in which, notwithstanding its greater copiousness and variety, there are as many Hebraisms as are found in the other evangelists, and such as could not be exemplified in any writer originally Gentile, unless his conversion to Judaism had taken place when he was young. Dr. Lardner thinks it also likely, that he is the Lucius mentioned Romans 16:21; and, if so, related to the Apostle Paul, and Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned Acts 13:1. Cave and Mill, with others, think it probable that Luke was converted to Christianity by Paul. But there are no hints of this either in the Acts or Epistles; neither are there any expressions used by Paul in speaking of him or to him, which denote peculiar affection, nor any particular demonstrations of gratitude from Luke toward Paul as a spiritual father; circumstances which render it highly probable that Luke was a Christian long before his acquaintance with Paul. Indeed Epiphanius, and after him many of the ancients, have supposed that both Mark and Luke were of the number of the seventy disciples; and many moderns have gone into the same opinion, particularly Whitby and Heuman: but others think that the preface to Luke’s gospel is inconsistent with this supposition. For he speaks of himself as writing according to the information of the eye-witnesses, which it is thought implies, that he was not one of the number himself. But, to remove this objection, Heuman observes, that Luke’s words imply no more than he was not one of the eye-witnesses “from the beginning;” that he may have been, nevertheless, a follower of Christ in the latter part of his ministry; and that, though he was an eye-witness of many things which he relates, he very properly places the authority of his history on the testimony of the apostles. It must be acknowledged, however, that the most ancient authors do not mention him as being of the seventy; nor is it likely that he should be of the number, unless he was both a Jew by birth, and had his residence in Galilee, from which country our Lord appears to have chosen not only his apostles, but the seventy also. It is remarkable, that he is the only evangelist who mentions the commission given by Christ to the seventy, Luke 10:1-20. It has been generally supposed, that this evangelist was a physician, and is the person intended Colossians 4:14, where the apostle says, “Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.” In this opinion, Eusebius, Gregory Nyssen, Jerome, Paulinus, Euthalius, Euthymius, and others, agree; and it is certainly strengthened by his being joined with Demas, because, in the other passages, where, according to the opinion of all, he is spoken of, he is mentioned in conjunction with the same Demas; and both are called Paul’s fellow-labourers, Philemon 24; 2 Timothy 4:10, 11. This argument is the more to be regarded, in that the epistle to the Colossians, in which Luke is styled the physician, was sent at the same time with that to Philemon, who was an inhabitant of Colosse.
What is certain concerning this evangelist, from his own history of the Acts, is, that he often attended Paul in his travels, and was his fellow-labourer in the gospel. The first time he speaks of himself as Paul’s companion, is Acts 16:10; where, using in his narration the first person plural, he intimates he was one of Paul’s company at Troas, before he took ship to go into Macedonia. He went with him, therefore, from Troas to Samothrace, then to Neapolis, and after that to Philippi. But it is observable, that, having finished his account of the transactions at Philippi, he changes his style from the first to the third person plural, Luke 17:1; nor does he any more speak of himself till Paul was departing from Greece with the collection for the saints in Judea, Acts 20:6. Here, therefore, he joined him again, accompanying him from Macedonia to Troas, and from thence to Jerusalem, where he abode with him. After this, Paul being sent prisoner from Cesarea to Rome, Luke was in the ship with him during the whole of the voyage, came with him to Rome, and there abode, ministering to him, as is plain from the salutations in the epistles which Paul wrote from that city. In all probability, therefore, Luke attended the apostle during the whole of his imprisonment; and as he published his history of the Acts before Paul’s release, it can hardly be doubted that he composed it in Rome under the apostle’s eye, while he waited on him. It is not certain, indeed, where he penned his gospel. Cave supposes he did it at Rome likewise. But Jerome seems to contradict this; for he tells us, that Luke, the third evangelist, published his gospel in the countries of Achaia and Bœotia. Grotius imagines, that when Paul was released, Luke went into Greece, and there wrote his gospel. Nevertheless, as this work came abroad before the Acts, it is more natural to suppose that Luke employed himself in collecting and digesting the materials of his gospel while he travelled with Paul in Greece and Judea, before the latter was seized upon by the Jews in the temple; that he finished it while Paul was imprisoned in Cæsarea, and then undertook his history of the Acts of the Apostles. Both these treatises Luke inscribed to one Theophilus, an intimate friend of his own, who from his name is supposed to have been a Greek. The epithet (κρατιστε) most excellent, wherewith he addressed him, shows him to be a person of distinction; for it was usually given to men in the highest stations, such as prefects and governors of provinces. Accordingly we find it thus applied by Lysias in his letter to Felix, by Tertullus in his speech to Felix, and by Paul in his speech to Festus.
But though no certainty can be had about the precise time and place of the publication of this gospel, we have, in regard to the author, the same plea of the uniform testimony of Christian antiquity, which was pleaded in favour of the preceding evangelists, Matthew and Mark. Some indeed have thought that, as an evangelist, Luke has the testimony of Paul himself, being, as they supposed, “the brother whose praise is in the gospel,” mentioned in one of his epistles, 2 Corinthians 8:18. But admitting that Luke is the person there intended, another meaning may with greater plausibility be put on the expression, “in the gospel;” which rather denotes, in preaching the gospel, than in writing the history of its author. Lardner has taken notice of allusions to some passages in this gospel to be found in some of the apostolic fathers; and there are evident quotations from it, though without naming the author, in Justin Martyr, and the epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons. Of Tatian’s Harmony of the Gospels, composed a little after the middle of the second century, see the introduction to the gospels, p. 3. Irenæus, not long after, mentions all the evangelists by name, arranging them according to the order wherein they wrote, which is the same with that universally given them throughout the Christian world to this day; and, when speaking of Luke, he recites many particulars which are peculiar to that gospel. From that time downward the four evangelists are often mentioned; and whatever spurious narratives have from time to time appeared, they have not been able to bear a comparison with those, in respect either of antiquity, or of intrinsic excellence. Early in the third century, Ammonius also wrote a Harmony of the four Gospels. As these were at that time, and had been from their first publication, so they continue to this day, to be regarded as the great foundations of the Christian faith.
The gospel by Luke has supplied us with many interesting particulars, which had been omitted by both his predecessors, Matthew and Mark. From him we learn whatever relates to the birth of John the Baptist; the annunciation; and other important circumstances concerning the nativity, of the Messiah; the occasion of Joseph’s being then in Bethlehem; the vision granted to the shepherds; the early testimony of Simeon and Anna; the wonderful manifestation of our Lord’s proficiency in knowledge when only twelve years old; his age at the commencement of his ministry, connected with the year of the reigning emperor. He has given us, also, an account of several memorable incidents and cures which had been overlooked by the rest; the conversion of Zaccheus the publican; the cure of the woman who had been bowed down for eighteen years, and of the dropsical man; the cleansing of the ten lepers; the repulse he met with when about to enter a Samaritan city; and the instructive rebuke he gave on that occasion to two of his disciples, for their intemperate zeal; also, the affecting interview he had, after his resurrection, with two of his disciples, in the way to Emmaus, and at that village. Luke has likewise added many edifying parables to those which had been recorded by the other evangelists. Of this number are the parable of the creditor who had two debtors; of the rich fool who hoarded up his increase, and, when he had not one day to live, vainly exulted in the prospect of many happy years; of the rich man and Lazarus; of the reclaimed profligate; of the Pharisee and the publican praying in the temple; of the judge who was prevailed on by a widow’s importunity, though he feared not God, nor regarded man; of the barren fig-tree; of the compassionate Samaritan; and several others; most of which so early a writer as Irenæus has specified as peculiarly belonging to this gospel; and has thereby shown to all ages, without intending it, that it is, in every thing material, the same book which had ever been distinguished by the name of the evangelist till his day, and remains so distinguished to ours. In regard to Luke’s character as a writer it is evident, that, though the same general quality of style, an unaffected simplicity, predominates in all the evangelists, they are nevertheless distinguished from one another. Luke abounds in Hebraisms as much as any of them; yet it must be acknowledged, that there are also more Grecisms in his language than in that of any of the rest. The truth is, there is greater variety in his style, which is probably to be ascribed to this circumstance, — his having been more, and for a longer time, conversant among the Gentiles than any other evangelist. His ordinary place of abode, if not the place of his birth, appears to have been Antioch, the capital of Syria, the seat of government, where people of the first distinction of the province had their residence, and to which there was a great resort of strangers. Here the Greek language had long prevailed. Besides, Luke’s occupation, as a physician, may very probably have occasioned his greater intercourse with those of higher rank. Not that the profession itself was then in great esteem in that country; for it has been justly observed, that in Rome, as well as in Syria, slaves who gave early signs of quickness of parts and manual dexterity, were often instructed in physic, who, if they proved successful, were commonly rewarded with their freedom. That Luke himself, whatever may have been his early condition in life, was, when a Christian minister, a freeman and master of his time, is evident from his attendance on the Apostle Paul, in his peregrinations for the advancement of the gospel. But the profession of medicine and surgery (for these two were then commonly united) not only proved the occasion of a more general intercourse with society, but served as a strong inducement to employ some time in reading. This may sufficiently account for any superiority this evangelist may be thought to possess above the rest in point of language.
To conclude: though we have no reason to consider Luke as, upon the whole, more observant of the order of time than the other evangelists, he has been at more pains than any of them to ascertain the dates of some of the most memorable events, on which, in a great measure, depend the dates of all the rest. In some places, however, without regard to order, he gives a number of detached precepts and instructive lessons, one after another, which probably have not been spoken on the same occasion, but are introduced as they occurred to the writer’s memory, that nothing of moment might be forgotten. In regard to the latter part of the life, and to the death of this evangelist, antiquity has not furnished us with any accounts which can be relied on. See Macknight and Campbell.
Joseph Sutcliffe
The Gospel According to St. Luke.
SUT_VOL4.PDF, source PDF p. 212
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
ST. LUKE.
THE name of Luke is Roman. In the Greek and Latin it is Lucas, and has some affinity with Lucanus, a common name in Rome. St. Jerome, in his prologue to Luke’s gospel, speaks of him thus. “He was born at Antioch, and was by profession a physician, and learned in the Greek language, as is fully apparent from his writings. He was a disciple of St. Paul, and a beloved companion in all his travels. He wrote a volume of the gospel, and the testimonials of the author by this apostle are brief but full. To the Corinthians St. Paul says, I have sent with Titus, a brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches. 2 Corinthians 8:18. To the Colossians he says, Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you: chap. 4:14. To Timothy he says, only Luke is with me. 2 Timothy 4:11. [In another epistle he repeats, Lucas is my fellow labourer. Philemon 24.] These testimonials place Luke in the first class of evangelical men. St. Luke wrote another invaluable book, — The Acts of the apostles, and brought down the history to the two years which St. Paul remained a prisoner at Rome; that is to say, to the fourth year of Nero the emperor. By this we perceive, that the Acts of the apostles were written while Luke was at Rome.
With regard to the two other books ascribed to Luke, The travels of Paul and Thecla, the virgin, (διακονη, γυνη, or matron of the synagogue, a person essential in the churches of the east:) also the history of Leo, whom Paul had baptized, we reckon among the books called apochryphal; for strange it must be that Paul, who was always at Luke’s elbow, should be ignorant of those books. [Thecla, the abreviate of Theoclia, was a powerful preacher; and I might add, prophetess of the church. As Stephen is called the proto-martyr among men, so she is called the proto-martyr among women. This crown was conferred upon her at Seleucia in Isauria, where the emperor Zeno built a church to her memory, accompanied with many gifts. Hist. eccles. Evag. scholast. 50. 3. c. 8.]
Tertullian, who flourished nearer to that age, reports that a certain priest of Asia, being a great admirer of the apostle Paul, was convicted before John of being the author of that book, [Paul and Thecla] and that the priest confessed he had done it for the great affection and love he had for Paul; and that the book by some means had escaped out of his hands. Some writers are of opinion that whenever Paul in his epistles uses the phrase, according to my gospel, he has a special regard to the work written by Luke. Those writers add, that Luke not only speaks of Paul, who himself had not been conversant with the Lord in the flesh, but also of the other apostles, which Luke himself fully allows in the beginning of his own work, who with their eyes saw the miracles, and were the ministers of the things they declared. The Gospel he wrote as he had heard, but the Acts of the apostles he composed as he had seen. He attained the age of eighty four, having lived in celibacy. In the twentieth year of Constantius the emperor, his bones, with those of Andrew, were removed from Achaia for interment at Constantinople.”
Thus far is the prologue of Jerome; to which antiquity has little to add. Augustine complains of obscurity for want of books, few of the writings of the first christians having come down to his time. Though the posterior age contained innumerable small books, but never indeed accounted of equal excellence in every point with the most sacred canonical scriptures; yet there is found in them the same truth, though far from being of equal authority. In opusculis autem posteriorem, quæ libris innumerabilius continentur. — CONTRA FAUST.
It is a fact which cannot be denied, that the brethren in Jerusalem would commit to writing as well as they could, every gracious word of the Saviour, every parable he pronounced, every journey he travelled, and every miracle he performed. If otherwise, they must have been a body of men altogether different from others. It is a fact equally undeniable, that every apostle on leaving his country had his “parchments,” containing the gospel. Mark, when he wrote at Rome, had the gospel of Matthew always at hand. He omits many things in Matthew to avoid tautology, but illustrates many occurrences with relevant incidents and expletives. The four gospels, as they now stand, were admitted into the canon of the christian scriptures without opposition. They are cited by all the christian fathers; and Tatian of the second age, transposed them in what he calls Diatessaron, or the four in one; or to speak in modern language, the harmony of the four gospels.
The gospel of St. Luke comes before the church enriched with Egyptian gold, in regard of style, accuracy, and purity of diction. He presents us with the birth of John in full character, the laudable piety of his priestly parentage, the annunciation to the virgin Mary, and the ministry of holy angels, as attendants on the Redeemer. He shows us the entrance of the Lord into Jericho with healing powers, and the illustrious conversion of Zaccheus, unexampled in its fruits.
We see the forbearance of the Saviour when solicited to punish the Samaritans, who had rejected his ministry; we see the lepers healed ten at a time, men most abjectly excluded from their families, and prohibited entering into the city. We see him great in the house of Simon the pharisee, convincing his host, and converting a weeping offender of the city. He confounded the bigotry of the priest and the levite, by the generosity of the good Samaritan. He visited Bethany, and confirmed the faith of Lazarus’s house, the best of families. After his resurrection we hear him expounding the prophecies to two of his distressed disciples, going to carry their griefs to Galilee. He did this in disguise, in a familiar conversation, that the truth of prophecy might be their strong support. — Thus Luke is introduced to the church loaded with evangelical excellence.
Richard Watson
Introduction
WAT_EXPO.PDF, source PDF p. 630
THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE.
INTRODUCTION
THE author of this gospel was the companion of St. Paul in his evangelical labours, accompanied him to Rome after he had appealed unto Cesar, and there continued with him. He is generally supposed to be “the beloved physician” mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians. His name does not occur in the gospels; but it has been a matter of dispute whether he was not one of the seventy disciples. Some have thought him a Syrian early proselyted to the Jewish religion, with which he shows a perfect familiarity; others, that he was a Jew born at Antioch. The notion that St. Luke descended from Gentile parents is grounded upon his being spoken of in Colossians 4:14, distinctly from other friends and fellow labourers of St. Paul, who are characterized as of the circumcision; but the argument from this is far from being conclusive. He is supposed, after the termination of St. Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, to have returned to Greece.
St. Luke’s qualifications for his great work of writing his gospel were first and chiefly that inspiration which he, as well as the apostles, received; for the special gifts of the Holy Spirit were not, at their effusion on the day of pentecost, confined to the apostles; and by them they were afterward conferred upon others not then present. The strong probability is, that St. Luke, who professes an accurate acquaintance with the facts of his history, was among the disciples of our Lord during his life, and was present at the first great effusion of the Spirit. Of his inspiration, however, there can be no doubt. From their first publication, both the gospels of Mark and Luke, though the writers were not apostles, were received as of equal authority with those of Matthew and John; and they were thus distinguished from all others of those numerous accounts of the same events, which, we know, from the introduction of St. Luke’s gospel, were in existence and circulation; some of which, at least, were, as far as they went, correct relations. It is true that Mark’s gospel might derive authority from the general belief that it was written under the eye of St. Peter himself; but St. Luke’s gospel could have no such recommendation; for though he was the companion of St. Paul, yet that apostle had not been an eye witness of the events of our Lord’s life. Certainly the intercourse which St. Luke must have had with several apostles would give a powerful sanction to his history, which was published during their lifetime; but several of those who had written gospels which have long perished, and those early ones, against whose truth nothing was alleged, had intercourse also with apostles, and derived, no doubt, in many instances, their information from them, while yet their writings were never received in the primitive Church as having authority, nor, like the four gospels, were ever read in Christian assemblies, as portions of HOLY SCRIPTURE. This seems a sufficient answer to those who, like Michaelis, hesitate to place the gospels of Mark and Luke on a level with those of Matthew and John, under the notion that inspiration was confined to apostles only, which is a gratuitous assumption. If the writings of Mark and Luke were not recognized as inspired writings by the apostles, in whose lifetime they were published, it is utterly impossible to account for that sanction under which they were received in the earliest times, to the exclusion of so many other writings of the same kind. Only as being accounted INSPIRED writings could they have obtained the authority they had in the primitive Church, and on that point that Church had the best, nay, infallible means of judging. The gifts of the Holy Spirit were in it; and those who possessed them could “try” all other “spirits, whether they were of God.”
The testimonies of the earlier fathers to this gospel are as follows: — IRENÆUS asserts “that Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him.” Again he says, “Luke was not only a companion, but a fellow labourer of the apostles, especially of Paul.” He calls him “a disciple and fellow labourer of the apostles.” “The apostles,” says he, “envying none, plainly delivered to all, the things which they had heard from the Lord. So likewise Luke, envying no man, has delivered to us what he learned from them, as he says, ‘Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of his word.’” EUSEBIUS informs us that CLEMENT of Alexandria bore a large testimony to this, as well as to the other gospels; and he mentions a tradition concerning the order of the gospels, which Clement had received from presbyters of more ancient times, — “that the gospels containing the genealogies were written first.” TERTULLIAN speaks of Matthew and John as disciples of Christ; of Mark and Luke as disciples of the apostles; however, he ascribes the same authority to the gospels written by them as to the others. “The gospel,” says he, “which Mark published, may be said to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was: and Luke’s digest is often ascribed to Paul. And indeed it is easy to take that for the master’s which the disciples published.” Again: “Moreover, Luke was not an apostle, but an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple: certainly less than his master; certainly so much later, as he is a follower of Paul, the last of the apostles.” ORIGEN mentions the gospels in the order commonly received. “The third,” says he, “is that according to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, published for the sake of the Gentile converts.” In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, which we now have in a Latin version only, he writes, “Some say Lucius is Lucas, the evangelist, as indeed it is not uncommon to write names, sometimes according to the original form, sometimes according to the Greek and Roman termination.” EUSEBIUS has left us the following testimony concerning Luke the evangelist: “And Luke, who was of Antioch, and by profession a physician, for the most part a companion of Paul, who had, likewise, more than a slight acquaintance with the other apostles, has left us, in two books, divinely inspired, evidences of the art of healing souls, which he had learned from them. One of them is the gospel which he professeth to have written as they delivered it to him, who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of his word;” with all whom, he says, he had been perfectly acquainted from the first. And in another place, he adds, “Luke hath delivered in his gospel a certain account of such things as he had been assured of by his intimate acquaintance and familiarity with Paul, and his conversation with the other apostles.” In the Synopsis ascribed to ATHANASIUS, it is said “that the gospel of Luke was dictated by the Apostle Paul, and written and published by the blessed apostle and physician Luke.” GREGORY NAZIANZEN says “that Luke wrote for the Greeks;” and GREGORY NYSSEN, “that Luke was as much a physician for the soul as the body.” The testimony of JEROME concerning Luke is as follows: “Luke, who was of Antioch, and by profession a physician, not unskilful in the Greek language, a disciple of the Apostle Paul, and the constant companion of his travels, wrote a gospel and another excellent volume, entitled, The Acts of the Apostles. It is supposed that Luke did not learn his gospel from the Apostle Paul only, who had not conversed with the Lord in the flesh, but also from other apostles; which likewise he owns at the beginning of his volume, saying, ‘Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of the word.’ Therefore he wrote the gospel from the information of others; but the Acts he composed from his own knowledge.” The same writer, in the preface to his Commentary on St. Matthew, says, “The third evangelist is Luke, the physician, a Syrian of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostle Paul, and published his gospel in the countries of Achaia and Bœotia.” In another place he observes “that some said that Luke had been a proselyte to Judaism, before his conversion to Christianity.” CHRYSOSTOM, in his first Homily on the Gospel of Matthew, has this remark: “Luke had the fluency of Paul, Mark the conciseness of Peter, both learning of their masters.”
The style of St. Luke is more classical than that of the other evangelists, but still strongly impressed, like theirs, with the Hebrew idiom. The majority of critics assign the date to A.D. 63, some earlier. Whether St. Luke wrote before or subsequently to St. Mark has been largely disputed; but nothing of consequence seems to depend upon the determination of the question, especially as it cannot be proved that any of the three first evangelists saw each other’s gospels previously to the composition of their own. St. Luke clearly wrote for the benefit of the Gentile converts. This appears from internal evidence, as well as from the unanimous voice of antiquity. Though he has many things in common with the other gospels, his additions are numerous, and of the most weighty and interesting character. He has, however, less regard to chronological order than Matthew and Mark, and rather classifies the events, than narrates them in a series, — a method of composing history not uncommon with the writers of antiquity. He commences his work with an elegant preface, in which he briefly sets forth his motives for writing it, and inscribes it to Theophilus, who was probably a Greek convert of eminence.