Text -- Luke 13:33 (NET)

13:33 Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the next day, because it is impossible impossible that a prophet should be killed outside Jerusalem.’

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Luk 13:33

The day following ( tēi echomenēi ).

See note on Act 20:15. The same as the third day in Luk 13:32. A proverb.

Robertson: Luk 13:33

It cannot be ( ouk endechetai ).

It is not accepted, it is inadmissible. A severely ironical indictment of Jerusalem. The shadow of the Cross reaches Perea where Jesus now is as he starts toward Jerusalem.

Vincent: Luk 13:33

It cannot be ( οὐκ ἐνδέχεται )

The verb means to accept or admit; so that the sense is, " it is not admissible that." The expression is ironical and hyperbolical, with reference to Jerusalem as having a monopoly of such martyrdoms. " It would be contrary to use and wont, and, in a manner, to theocratic decorum, if such a prophet as I should perish elsewhere than in Jerusalem" (Godet).

Wesley: Luk 13:33

Which claims prescription for murdering the messengers of God. Such cruelty and malice cannot be found elsewhere.

JFB: Luk 13:33

"It would never do that," &c.--awful severity of satire this upon "the bloody city!" "He seeks to kill me, does he? Ah! I must be out of Herod's jurisdiction for that. Go tell him I neither fly from him nor fear him, but Jerusalem is the prophets' slaughter-house."

Clarke: Luk 13:33

I must walk, etc. - I must continue to work miracles and teach for a short time yet, and then I shall die in Jerusalem: therefore I cannot depart, according to the advice given me, (Luk 13:31), nor can a hair of my head fall to the ground till my work be all done

Clarke: Luk 13:33

To-day and to-morrow, etc. - Kypke contends that the proper translation of the original is, I must walk to-day and to-morrow In The Neighboring Coasts: and that εχομενη is often understood in this way: see Mar 1:38, and his notes there. That Christ was now in the jurisdiction of Herod, as he supposes, is evident from Luk 13:31; that he was on his last journey to Jerusalem, Luk 9:51; that he had just passed through Samaria, Luk 9:52, Luk 9:56; that as Samaria and Judea were under the Roman procurator, and Perea was subject to Herod Antipas, therefore he concludes that Christ was at this time in Perea; which agrees with Mat 19:1, and Mar 10:1, and Luk 17:11. He thinks, if the words be not understood in this way, they are contrary to Luk 13:32, which says that on it Christ is to die, while this says he is to live and act

Clarke: Luk 13:33

Perish out of Jerusalem - A man who professes to be a prophet can be tried on that ground only by the grand Sanhedrin, which always resides at Jerusalem; and as the Jews are about to put me to death, under the pretense of my being a false prophet, therefore my sentence must come from this city, and my death take place in it.

Calvin: Luk 13:33

33.It does not usually happen, etc He next adds, that it is an idle bugbear, which is held out by false and hypocritical advisers; because there is no danger of death anywhere else than at Jerusalem. In this second clause he sharply attacks the Pharisees. “Is it you, who — I foresee — will be my executioners, that advise me to beware of Herod? ” The reproof extends, indeed, much farther; for he says, not only that preparations had been made for his own death in Jerusalem, but that it might be said to have been, for a long period, a den of robbers, in which almost all the prophets had been murdered. Many had, no doubt, been slain in other places, and particularly at the time when that cruel fury, ²⁸² Jezebel, (1Kg 19:2,) raged against them; but because in no other place had the prophets, at any time, been fiercely tormented, Christ justly brings this reproach against the ungodly inhabitants of the holy city.

It usually happened that the prophets were slain there; because not only was it the source of all the ungodliness which spread over the whole of Judea, but it was also the field on which God trained his prophets. ²⁸³ We know that the more brightly the light of doctrine shines, so as to press more closely on wicked men, they are driven to a greater pitch of madness. What a dreadful example was it, that a place which had been chosen to be the sanctuary of divine worship, and the residence of the Law and of heavenly wisdom, should be polluted not by one or another murder,, but by a regular butchery of the prophets ! It undoubtedly shows how obstinate is the rebellion of the world in rejecting sound doctrine.

The exclamation which immediately follows in Luke, (Luk 13:34,) appears to be connected in such a manner, as if Christ had taken occasion from the present occurrence to inveigh, at this time, against Jerusalem But for my own part, I rather think, that Luke, having said that Jerusalem had been formerly stained by the blood of the prophets, nay, had been, through an uninterrupted succession of many ages, the slaughter-place, where the prophets were cruelly and wickedly put to death, immediately inserts, according to his custom, a statement which harmonized with that discourse. We have seen, on former occasions, that it is by no means unusual with him to introduce into one place a collection of Christ’s sayings, which were uttered at various times.

TSK: Luk 13:33

I must : Joh 4:34, Joh 9:4, Joh 11:54, Joh 12:35; Act 10:38

for : Luk 9:53; Mat 20:18; Act 13:27

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Luk 13:33

I must walk ... - I must remain here this short time. These three days I must do cures here, and then I shall depart, though not for fear of Herod. It will be because my time will have come, and I shall go up to Jerusalem to die.

For it cannot be that a prophet should perish out of Jerusalem - I have no fear that Herod will put me to death in Galilee. I shall not depart on that account. "Jerusalem"is the place where the prophets die, and where "I"am to die. I am not at all alarmed, therefore, at any threats of "Herod,"for my life is safe until I arrive at Jerusalem. Go and tell him, therefore, that I fear him not. I shall work here as long as it is proper, and shall then go up to Jerusalem to die. The reason why he said that a prophet could not perish elsewhere than in Jerusalem might be:

1.    That he knew that he would be tried on a charge of blasphemy, and no other court could have cognizance of that crime but the great council or Sanhedrin, and so he was not afraid of any threats of Herod.,

2.    It "had been"the fact that the prophets had been chiefly slain there. The meaning is, "It cannot easily be done elsewhere; it is not usually done. Prophets have generally perished there, and there I am to die. I am safe, therefore, from the fear of Herod, and shall not take the advice given and leave his territory."

Poole: Luk 13:31-33

Ver. 31-33. It is plain from this text, that our Saviour was at this time in Galilee, for that was the tetrarchy or province of Herod Antipas, who is the Herod here mentioned. Whether these Pharisees came of their own heads, or as sent by Herod, is not so plain, nor so well agreed by interpreters. If they came of their own heads, it is certain they came not out of kindness, for the whole history of the gospel lets us know, that the Pharisees had no kindness for Christ, but were his most implacable enemies, and continually consulting how to destroy him; but they either came to scare him out of Galilee, whose repute was so great, and who did them so much mischief there, or to drive him into the trap which they had laid for him in Judea. But it is most probable that they came as secretly sent by Herod, who though of himself he be reported to be of no bloody disposition, yet upon the Pharisees’ continual solicitations might be persuaded to send them on this errand, choosing rather cunningly to scare him out of his province, than by violence to fall upon him. This opinion looks more probable, because, Luk 13:32 , our Saviour sends them back with a message to Herod, Go ye, and tell that fox Herod had gained himself no reputation amongst the Jews, by his murdering John the Baptist, whom the Jews generally valued as a prophet; and probably seeing our Saviour exceeding him in popular applause, he was not willing to augment the odium which already lay upon him for that fact; yet, to gratify the Pharisees, (many of which were in his province), he was willing, if he could effect it cleverly, and without noise, to he quit of Christ, especially considering (as we before heard) he had an opinion that he was John the Baptist risen from the dead, or the soul of John the Baptist in another body; and possibly: he could not tell what might be the effect of his ghost so haunting his province. It is certain, that either he, or the Pharisees, or both, had a mind to have him gone some where else, to which purpose this message is brought to him. Our Saviour, either discerning Herod’ s craft in this thing, or having observed the craft he used in the whole management of his government, that he might keep favour both with the Roman emperor and with the Jews, bids them, Go and tell that fox . I do not much value their critical observation, who observe that it is not alwpeki eceinh , but, tauth , that is, this fox; from whence they would observe that our Saviour might mean the Pharisees, not Herod; nor is there any need of it to excuse our Saviour from the violation of that law of God, Exo 22:28 , Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people; which law Paul reflected on, Act 23:5 , and pleads ignorance for his calling Ananias a whited wall. For we shall observe that the prophets all along (being immediately sent from God) took a further liberty than any others, in severely reproving kings and princes. Elijah tells Ahab it was he that troubled Israel; the prophets call the rulers of the Jews, rulers of Sodom, and princes of Gomorrah, &c. But Christ may be allowed a liberty neither lawful nor decent for other persons, not though they were prophets. But what is the message which Christ sends by these Pharisees?

Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected Tell him, saith he, what I am doing; I am freeing his subjects from molestations by evil spirits, and the encumbrances of many diseases. What do I do worthy of death? I have but a little time to trouble him, for in a little time I must die, which is that which he means by being perfected: it is plain that those words today, and tomorrow, and the third day , must not be taken strictly, for Christ lived more than three days after this. If this will not satisfy him, tell him, saith our Saviour, that

I must walk today, and tomorrow, and the day following I know that, as to this thing, I am not under his command or power, I must walk, & c.; my days are not in his hands, and I know that he cannot kill me,

for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem Jerusalem is the place where I must die, not Galilee; the sanhedrim sits at Jerusalem, who alone can take cognizance of the case of false prophets, and Jerusalem is the place where the people must fill up the measure of their iniquities by spilling my blood. Upon this our Saviour breaketh out into a sad lamentation of the case of that once holy city, the praise of the whole earth.

Lightfoot: Luk 13:33

Nevertheless I must walk today, and tomorrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.   

[It cannot be that a prophet perish, etc.] "A tribe, nor false prophet, [such a one they accounted the holy Jesus,] nor a high priest, can be judged but by the bench of seventy-one." Rambam upon the place, as also the Gemara; "We know that a false prophet must be judged by the Sanhedrim, from the parity of the thing: for so is judged a rebellious judge."  

Now as to the judgment itself, these things are said: "They do not judge him to death in the court of judicature, that is, in his own city, nor in that that is at Jabneh; but they bring him to the great Consistory that is at Jerusalem, and reserve him to one of their feasts; and at their feast they execute him, as it is said, 'All Israel shall hear, and shall fear, and do no more so.'"

Haydock: Luk 13:33

Nevertheless I must walk, (i.e. labour in the mission, teaching, &c.) to-day, and to-morrow, &c. i.e. for a while. ---

It cannot be that a prophet, [1] &c. Not that all of the prophets suffered in Jerusalem, though many did; and it is rather to prophesy, that he himself, the great Prophet, and their Messias, should be put to death at Jerusalem. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Quia non capit prophetam, &c. Greek: ouk endechetai, non contingit.

====================

Gill: Luk 13:33

Nevertheless, I must walk,.... The Syriac version reads, "I must work", and so the Arabic: as going about doing good, casting out devils, and healing diseases:

today and tomorrow, and the day following: a few days more in Galilee, and towards Jerusalem: all the Oriental versions read, "the day following I shall depart"; either out of this world; or out of Galilee, and go to Jerusalem, and there suffer and die:

for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem; because the great sanhedrim only sat at Jerusalem, to whom it belonged to try and judge a prophet; and if found false, to condemn him, and put him to death; the rule is this ^e;

"they do not judge, neither a tribe, nor a false prophet, nor an high priest, but by the sanhedrim of seventy and one.''

Not but that prophets sometimes perished elsewhere, as John the Baptist in Galilee; but not according to a judicial process, in which way Christ the prophet was to be cut off, nor was it common; instances of this kind were rare, and always in a violent way; and even such as were sentenced to death by the lesser sanhedrim, were brought to Jerusalem, and publicly executed there, whose crimes were of another sort; for so runs the canon ^f;

"they do not put any one to death by the sanhedrim, which is in his city, nor by the sanhedrim in Jabneh; but they bring him to the great, sanhedrim in Jerusalem, and keep him till the feast, and put him to death on a feast day, as it is said Deu 17:13 "and all the people shall hear and fear."''

And since Jerusalem was the place where the prophets were usually put to death, it follows,

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Luk 13:33

¹ tn This is the frequent expression δεῖ (dei, “it is necessary”) that notes something that is a part of God’s plan.

² tn Or “unthinkable.” See L&N 71.4 for both possible meanings.

³ tn Or “should perish away from.”

⁴ sn Death in Jerusalem is another key theme in Luke’s material: 7:16, 34; 24:19; Acts 3:22-23. Notice that Jesus sees himself in the role of a prophet here. Jesus’ statement, it is impossible that a prophet should be killed outside Jerusalem, is filled with irony; Jesus, traveling about in Galilee (most likely), has nothing to fear from Herod; it is his own people living in the very center of Jewish religion and worship who present the greatest danger to his life. The underlying idea is that Jerusalem, though she stands at the very heart of the worship of God, often kills the prophets God sends to her (v. 34). In the end, Herod will be much less a threat than Jerusalem.

map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

Geneva Bible: Luk 13:33

^{( 10 )} Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the [day] following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

^{( 10 )} Nowhere else are there more cruel enemies of the godly than within the sanctuary and Church itself: but God sees it and will in his time have an account for it from them.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Luk 13:1-35

1 Christ preaches repentance upon the punishment of the Galilaeans and others.

6 The fruitless fig-tree may not stand.

10 He heals the crooked woman;

18 shows the powerful working of the word in the hearts of his chosen, by the parable of the grain of mustard seed, and of leaven;

22 exhorts to enter in at the strait gate;

31 and reproves Herod and Jerusalem.

Maclaren: Luk 13:32-33

Christ's Message To Herod

And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. 33. Nevertheless I must walk to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.'--Luke 13:32-33.

EVEN a lamb might be suspicious if wolves were to show themselves tenderly careful of its safety. Pharisees taking Christ's life under their protection were enough to suggest a trick. These men came to Christ desirous of posing as counter working Herod's intention to slay Him. Our Lord's answer, bidding them go and tell Herod what He immediately communicates to them, shows that He regarded them as in a plot with that crafty, capricious kinglet. And evidently there was an understanding between them. For some reason or other, best known to his own changeable and whimsical nature, the man who at one moment was eagerly desirous to see Jesus, was at the next as eagerly desirous to get Him out of his territories; just as he admired and murdered John the Baptist. The Pharisees, on the other hand, desired to draw Him to Jerusalem, where they would have Him in their power more completely than in the northern district. If they had spoken all their minds they would have said, Go hence, or else we cannot kill Thee.' So Christ answers the hidden schemes, and not the apparent solicitude, in the words that I have taken for my text. They unmask the plot, they calmly put aside the threats of danger. They declare that His course was influenced by far other considerations. They show that He clearly saw what it was towards which He was journeying. And then, with sad irony, they declare that it was, as it were, contrary to prophetic decorum and established usage that a prophet should be slain anywhere but in the streets of the bloody and sacred city.

There are many deep things in the words, which I cannot touch in the course of a single sermon; but I wish now, at all events, to skim their surface, and try to gather some of their obvious lessons.

I. First, Then, Note Christ's Clear Vision Of His Death.

There is some difficulty about the chronology of this period with which I need not trouble you. It is enough to note that the incident with which we are concerned occurred during that last journey of our Lord's towards Jerusalem and Calvary, which occupies so much of this Gospel of Luke. At what point in that fateful journey it occurred may be left undetermined. Nor need I enter upon the question as to whether the specification of time in our text, to-day, and to-morrow, and the third day,' is intended to be taken literally, as some commentators suppose, in which case it would be brought extremely near the goal of the journey; or whether, as seems more probable from the context, it is to be taken as a kind of proverbial expression for a definite but short period. That the latter is the proper interpretation seems to be largely confirmed by the fact that there is a slight variation in the application of the designation of time in the two verses of our text,' the third day' in the former verse being regarded as the period of the perfecting, whilst in the latter verse it is regarded as part of the period of the progress towards the perfecting. Such variation in the application is more congruous with the idea that we have here to deal with a kind of proverbial expression for a limited and short period. Our Lord is saying in effect, My time is not to be settled by Herod. It is definite, and it is short. It is needless for him to trouble himself; for in three days it will be all over. It is useless for him to trouble himself, or for you Pharisees to plot, for until the appointed days are past it will not be over, whatever you and he may do.' The course He had yet to run was plain before Him in this last journey, every step of which was taken with the Cross full in view.

Now the worst part of death is the anticipation of death; and it became Him who bore death for every man to drink to its dregs that cup of trembling which the fear of it puts to all human lips. We rightly regard it as a cruel aggravation of a criminal's doom if he is carried along a level, straight road with his gibbet in view at the end of the march. But so it was that Jesus Christ travelled through life.

My text comes at a comparatively late period of His history. A few months or weeks at the most inter-vexed between Him and the end. But the consciousness which is here so calmly expressed was not of recent origin. We know that from the period of His transfiguration He began to give His death a very prominent place in His teaching, but it had been present with Him long before He thus laid emphasis upon it in His communications with His disciples. For, if we accept John's Gospel as historical, we shall have to throw back His first public references to the end to the very beginning of His career. The cleansing of the Temple, at the very outset of His course, was vindicated by Him by the profound words, Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' During the same early visit to the capital city He said to Nicodemus, As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up.' So Christ's career was not like that of many a man who has begun, full of sanguine hope as a possible reformer and benefactor of his fellows, and by slow degrees has awakened to the consciousness that reformers and benefactors need to be martyrs ere their ideals can be realised. There was no disillusioning in Christ's experience. From the commencement He knew that He came, not only to minister, but also to give His life a ransom for the many.' And it was not a mother's eye, as a reverent modern painter has profoundly, and yet erroneously, shown us in his great work in our own city gallery--it was not a mother's eye that first saw the shadow of the Cross fall on her unconscious Son, but it was Himself that all through His earthly pilgrimage knew Himself to be the Lamb appointed for the sacrifice. This Isaac toiled up the hill, bearing the wood and the knife, and knew where and who was the Offering.

Brethren, I do not think that we sufficiently realise the importance of that element in our conceptions of the life of Jesus Christ. What a pathos it gives to it all! What a beauty it gives to His gentleness, to His ready interest in others, to His sympathy for all sorrow, and tenderness with all sin! How wonderfully it deepens the significance, the loveliness, and the pathos of the fact that the Son of Man came eating and drinking,' remembering everybody but Himself, and ready to enter into all the cares and the sorrows of other hearts, if we think that all the while there stood, grim and certain, before Him that Calvary with its Cross! Thus, through all His path, He knew to what He was journeying.

II. Our Lord's Own Estimate Of The Place Of His Death.

Then again, secondly, let me ask you to note here our Lord's own estimate of the place which His death holds in relation to His whole work.

Notice that remarkable variation in the expression in our text. The third day I shall be perfected… It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.' Then, somehow or other, the perishing' is perfecting.' There may be a doubt as to the precise rendering of the word translated by perfecting'; but it seems to me that the only meaning congruous with the context is that which is suggested by the translation of our Authorised Version, and that our Lord does not mean to say on the third day I shall complete My work of casting out devils and curing diseases,' but that He masses the whole of His work into two great portions --the one of which includes all His works and ministrations of miracles and of mercy; and the other of which contains one unique and transcendent fact, which outweighs and towers above all these others, and is the perfecting of His work, and the culmination of His obedience, service, and sacrifice.

Now, of course, I need not remind you that the perfecting' thus spoken of is not a perfecting of moral character or of individual nature, but that it is the same perfecting which the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks about when it says, Being made perfect, He became the Author of eternal salvation to all them which obey Him.' That is to say, it is His perfecting in regard to office, function, work for the world, and not the completion or elevation of His individual character. And this perfecting' is effected in His perishing.'

Now I want to know in what conceivable sense the death of Jesus Christ can be the culmination and crown of His work, without which it would be a torso, an incomplete fragment, a partial fulfilment of the Father's design, and of His own mission, unless it be that that death was, as I take it the New Testament with one voice in all its parts declares it to be, a sacrifice for the sins of the world. I know of no construing of the fact of the death on the Cross which can do justice to the plain words of my text, except the old-fashioned belief that therein He made atonement for sin, and thereby, as the Lamb of God, bore away the sins of the world.

Other great lives may be crowned by fair deaths, which henceforward become seals of faithful witness, and appeals to the sentiments of the heart, but there is no sense that I know of in which from Christ's death there can flow a mightier energy than from such a life, unless in the sense that the death is a sacrifice.

Now I know there has been harm done by the very desire to exalt Christ's great sacrifice on the Cross; when it has been so separated from His life as that the life has not been regarded as a sacrifice, nor the death as obedience. Rather the sacrificial element runs through His whole career, and began when He became flesh and tabernacled amongst us; but yet as being the apex of it all, without which it were all-imperfect, and in a special sense redeeming men from the power of death, that Cross is set forth by His own word. For Him to perish' was to be perfected.' As the ancient prophet long before had said, When His soul shall make an offering for sin,' then, paradoxical as it may seem, the dead Man shall see,' and shall see His seed.' Or, as He Himself said, If a corn of wheat fall into the ground it abideth alone, but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit.'

I do not want to insist upon any theories of Atonement. I do want to insist that Christ's own estimate of the significance and purpose and issue of His death shall not be slurred over, but that, recognising that He Himself regarded it as the perfecting of His work, we ask ourselves very earnestly how such a conception can be explained if we strike out of our Christianity the thought of the sacrifice for the sins of the world. Unless we take Paul's gospel, How that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures,' I for one do not believe that we shall ever get Paul's results, Old things are passed away; all things are become new.' If you strike the Cross off the dome of the temple, the fires on its altars will soon go out. A Christianity which has to say much about the life of Jesus, and knows not what to say about the death of Christ, will be a Christianity that will neither have much constraining power in our lives, nor be able to breathe a benediction of peace over our deaths. If we desire to be perfected in character, we must have faith in that sacrificial death which was the perfecting of Christ's work.

III. And So, Lastly, Notice Our Lord's Resolved Surrender To The Discerned Cross.

There is much in this aspect in the words of my text which I cannot touch upon now; but two or three points I may briefly notice.

Note then, I was going to say, the superb heroism of His calm indifference to threats and dangers. He will go hence, and relieve the tyrant's dominions of His presence; but He is careful to make it plain that His going has no connection with the futile threatenings by which they have sought to terrify Him. Nevertheless'--although I do not care at all for them or for him-- nevertheless I must journey to-day and tomorrow I But that is not because I fear death, but because I am going to My death; for the prophet must die in Jerusalem.' We are so accustomed to think of the gentle Jesus, meek and mild' that we forget the strong Son of God.' If we were talking about a man merely, we should point to this calm, dignified answer as being an instance of heroism, but we do not feel that that word fits Him. There are too many vulgar associations connected with it, to be adapted to the gentleness of His fixed purpose that blenched not, nor faltered, whatsoever came in the way.

Light is far more powerful than lightning. Meekness may be, and in Him was, wedded to a will like a bar of iron, and a heart that knew not how to fear. If ever there was an iron hand in a velvet glove it was the hand of Christ. And although the perspective of virtues which Christianity has introduced, and which Christ exhibited in His life, gives prominence to the meek and the gentle, let us not forget that it also enjoins the cultivation of the wrestling thews that throw the world.' Quit you like men; be strong; let all your deeds be done in charity.'

Then note, too, the solemn law that ruled His life. I must walk.' That is a very familiar expression upon His lips. From that early day when He said, Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business,' to that last when He said, The Son of Man must be lifted up,' there crops out, ever and anon, in the occasional glimpses that He allows us to have of His inmost spirit, this reference of all His actions to a necessity that was laid upon Him, and to which He ever consciously conformed. That necessity determined what He calls so frequently My time; My hour'; and influenced the trifles, as they are called, as well as the great crises, of His career. It was the Father's will which made the Son's must. Hence His unbroken communion and untroubled calm.

If we want to live near God, and if we want to have lives of peace amidst convulsions, we, too, must yield ourselves to that all encompassing sovereign necessity, which, like the great laws of the universe, shapes the planets and the suns in their courses and their stations; and holds together two grains of dust, or two motes that dance in the sunshine. To gravitation there is nothing great and nothing small. God's must covers all the ground of our lives, and should ever be responded to by our I will.'

And that brings me to the last point, and that is, our Lord's glad acceptance of the necessity and surrender of the Cross. What was it that made Him willing to take that must' as the law of His life? First, a Son's obedience; second, a Brother's love. There was no point in Christ's career, from the moment when in the desert He put away the temptation to win the kingdoms of the world by other than the God-appointed means, down to the last moment when on His dying ears there fell another form of the same temptation in the taunt, Let Him come down from the cross, and we will believe on Him'; when He could not, if He had chosen to abandon His mission, have saved Himself. No compulsion, no outward hand impelling Him, drove Him along that course which ended on Calvary; but only that He would save others, and therefore Himself He cannot save.'

True, there were natural human shrinkings, just as the weight and impetus of some tremendous billow buffeting the bows of the ship makes it quiver; but this never affected the firm hand on the rudder, and never deflected the vessel from its course. Christ's soul was troubled,' but His will was fixed, and it was fixed by His love to us. Like one of the men who in after ages died for His dear sake, He may be conceived as refusing to be bound to the stake by any bands, willing to stand there and be destroyed because He wills. Nothing fastened Him to the Cross but His resolve to save the world, in which world was included each of us sitting listening and standing speaking, now. Oh, brethren! shall not we, moved by such love, with like cheerfulness of surrender, give ourselves to Him who gave Himself for us?

MHCC: Luk 13:31-35

Christ, in calling Herod a fox, gave him his true character. The greatest of men were accountable to God, therefore it became him to call this proud king by his own name; but it is not an example for us. I know, said our Lord, that I must die very shortly; when I die, I shall be perfected, I shall have completed my undertaking. It is good for us to look upon the time we have before us as but little, that we may thereby be quickened to do the work of the day in its day. The wickedness of persons and places which more than others profess religion and relation to God, especially displeases and grieves the Lord Jesus. The judgment of the great day will convince unbelievers; but let us learn thankfully to welcome, and to profit by all who come in the name of the Lord, to call us to partake of his great salvation.

Matthew Henry: Luk 13:31-35

Here is, I. A suggestion to Christ of his danger from Herod, now that he was in Galilee, within Herod's jurisdiction (Luk 13:31): Certain of the Pharisees (for there were those of that sect dispersed all the nation over) came to Christ, pretending friendship and a concern for his safety, and said, Get thee out of this country, and depart hence, for otherwise Herod will kill thee, as he did John. Some think that these Pharisees had no ground at all for this, that Herod had not given out any words to this purport, but that they framed this lie, to drive him out of Galilee, where he had a great and growing interest, and to drive him into Judea, where they knew there were those that really sought his life. But, Christ's answer being directed to Herod himself, it should seem that the Pharisees had ground for what they said, and that Herod was enraged against Christ, and designed him a mischief, for the honourable testimony he had borne to John Baptist, and to the doctrine of repentance which John preached. Herod was willing to get rid of Christ out of his dominions; and, when he durst not put him to death, he hoped to frighten him away by sending him this threatening message.

II. His defiance of Herod's rage and the Pharisees' too; he fears neither the one nor the other: Go you, and tell that fox so, Luk 13:32. In calling him a fox, he gives him his true character; for he was subtle as a fox, noted for his craft, and treachery, and baseness, and preying (as they say of a fox) furthest from his own den. And, though it is a black and ugly character, yet it did not ill become Christ to give it to him, nor was it in him a violation of that law, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. For Christ was a prophet, and prophets always had a liberty of speech in reproving princes and great men. Nay, Christ was more than a prophet, he was a king, he was King of kings, and the greatest of men were accountable to him, and therefore it became him to call this proud king by his own name; but it is not to be drawn into an example by us. "Go, and tell that fox, yea, and this fox too"(for so it is in the original, tē alōpeki tautē ); " that Pharisee, whoever he is, that whispers this in my ear, let him know that I do not fear him, nor regard his menaces. For,"1. "I know that I must die, and must die shortly; I expect it, and count upon it, the third day, "that is, "very shortly; my hour is at hand."Note, It will help us very much above the fear of death, and of them that have the power of death, to make death familiar to us, to expect it, think of it, and converse with it, and see it at the door. "If Herod should kill me, he will not surprise me."2. "I know that death will be not only no prejudice to me, but that it will be my preferment; and therefore tell him I do not fear him; when I die, I shall be perfected. I shall then have finished the hardest part of my undertaking; I shall have completed my business;" teleioumai - I shall be consecrated. When Christ dies, he is said to have sanctified himself; he consecrated himself to his priestly office with his own blood. 3. "I know that neither he nor any one else can kill me till I have done my work. Go, and tell him that I value not his impotent rage. I will cast out devils, and do cures, today and tomorrow, "that is, "now and for some little space of time yet to come, in spite of him and all his threats. I must walk, I must go on in my intended journey, and it is not in his power to hinder me. I must go about, as I do, preaching and healing, today, and tomorrow, and the day following. "Note, It is good for us to look upon the time we have before us as but a little, two or three days perhaps may be the utmost, that we may thereby be quickened to do the work of the day in its day. And it is a comfort to us, in reference to the power and malice of our enemies, that they can have no power to take us off as long as God has any work for us to do. The witnesses were not slain till they had finished their testimony. 4. "I know that Herod can do me no harm, not only because my time is not yet come, but because the place appointed for my death is Jerusalem, which is not within his jurisdiction: It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem, "that is, "any where but at Jerusalem."If a true prophet was put to death, he was prosecuted as a false prophet. Now none undertook to try prophets, and to judge concerning them, but the great sanhedrim, which always sat at Jerusalem; it was a cause which the inferior courts did not take cognizance of, and therefore, if a prophet be put to death, it must be at Jerusalem.

III. His lamentation for Jerusalem, and his denunciation of wrath against that city, Luk 13:34, Luk 13:35. This we had Mat 23:37-39. Perhaps this was not said now in Galilee, but the evangelist, not designing to bring it in in its proper place, inserts it here, upon occasion of Christ's mentioning his being put to death at Jerusalem.

Note, 1. The wickedness of persons and places that more eminently than others profess religion and relation to God is in a particular manner provoking and grieving to the Lord Jesus. How pathetically does he speak of the sin and ruin of that holy city! O Jerusalem! Jerusalem! 2. Those that enjoy great plenty of the means of grace, if they are not profited by them, are often prejudiced against them. They that would not hearken to the prophets, nor welcome those whom God had sent to them, killed them, and stoned them. If men's corruptions are not conquered, they are provoked. 3. Jesus Christ has shown himself willing, freely willing, to receive and entertain poor souls that come to him, and put themselves under his protection: How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her brood under her wings, with such care and tenderness! 4. The reason why sinners are not protected and provided for by the Lord Jesus, as the chickens are by the hen, is because they will not: I would, I often would, and ye would not. Christ's willingness aggravates sinners' unwillingness, and leaves their blood upon their own heads. 5. The house that Christ leaves is left desolate. The temple, though richly adorned, though greatly frequented, is yet desolate if Christ has deserted it. He leaves it to them; they had made an idol of it, and let them take it to themselves, and make their best of it, Christ will trouble it no more. 6. Christ justly withdraws from those that drive him from them. They would not be gathered by him, and therefore, saith he, " You shall not see me, you shall not hear me, any more,"as Moses said to Pharaoh, when he forbade him his presence, Exo 10:28, Exo 10:29. 7. The judgment of the great day will effectually convince unbelievers that would not now be convinced: "Then you will say, Blessed is he that cometh, "that is, "you will be glad to be among those that say so, and will not see me to be the Messiah till then when it is too late."

Barclay: Luk 13:31-35

Because of the behind-the-scenes insight that it gives into the life of Jesus, this is one of the most interesting passages in Luke's gospel.

(i) It gives us the, at first sight, surprising information that not all the Pharisees were hostile to Jesus. Here we have some of them actually warning him that he was in danger, and advising him to seek safety. It is true that from the gospels we do get a one-sided picture of the Pharisees. The Jews themselves knew very well that there were good and bad Pharisees. They divided them into seven different classes.

(a) The Shoulder Pharisees. These wore their good deeds on their shoulder and performed them to be seen of men.

(b) The Wait-a-little Pharisees. They could always find a good excuse for putting off a good deed until tomorrow.

© The Bruised or Bleeding Pharisees. No Jewish Rabbi could be seen talking to any woman on the street, not even his wife or mother or sister. But certain of the Pharisees went further. They would not even look at a woman on the street; they even shut their eyes to avoid seeing a woman; they, therefore, knocked into walls and houses and bruised themselves; and then exhibited their bruises as special badges of extraordinary piety.

(d) The Pestle-and-Mortar or Hump-backed Pharisees. They walked bent double in a false and cringing humility; they were the Uriah Heeps of Jewish religion.

(e) The Ever-reckoning Pharisees. They were ever reckoning up their good deeds and, as it were, striking a balance-sheet of profit and loss with God.

(f) The Timid or Fearing Pharisees. They went ever in fear of the wrath of God. They were, as it was said of Burns, not helped but haunted by their religion.

(g) The God-loving Pharisees. They were copies of Abraham and lived in faith and charity.

There may have been six bad Pharisees for every good one; but this passage shows that even amongst the Pharisees there were those who admired and respected Jesus.

(ii) This passage shows us Jesus talking to Herod Antipas king of Galilee, who was out to stop him. To the Jew the fox was a symbol of three things. First it was regarded as the slyest of animals. Second, it was regarded as the most destructive of animals. Third, it was the symbol of a worthless and insignificant man.

It takes a brave man to call the reigning king a fox. Latimer was once preaching in Westminster Abbey when Henry the king was one of the congregation. In the pulpit he soliloquised, "Latimer! Latimer! Latimer! Be careful what you say. The king of England is here!" Then he went on, "Latimer! Latimer! Latimer! Be careful what you say. The King of Kings is here."

Jesus took his orders from God, and he would not shorten his work by one day to please or to escape any earthly king.

(iii) The lament over Jerusalem is most important, because it is another of the passages which shows how little we really know of Jesus' life. It is quite clear that Jesus could never have spoken like this, unless he had more than once gone with his offer of love to Jerusalem; but in the first three gospels there is no indication of any such visits. Once again it is made plain that in the gospels we have the merest sketch of Jesus' life.

Nothing hurts so much as to go to someone and offer love and have that offer spurned. It is life's bitterest tragedy to give one's heart to someone only to have it broken. That is what happened to Jesus in Jerusalem; and still he comes to men, and still men reject him. But the fact remains that to reject God's love is in the end to be in peril of his wrath.

Constable: Luk 9:51--19:28

V. Jesus' ministry on the way to Jerusalem 9:51--19:27

This large section of the Book of Luke has no counterpart in the other Gospels, but some of the material in it occurs in other parts of the Gospels. The section consists largely of instruction that Jesus gave His disciples with only brief references to geographic movements. We have already noticed that Luke had more interest in lessons than in details of geography and chronology. The skeletal references to Jesus' movements show a general shift from Galilee toward Jerusalem (e.g., 9:52; 10:38; 13:22, 32-33; 17:11; 18:31, 35; 19:1, 28-29). However, His journey was not direct (cf. 10:38; 17:11). Jesus visited Jerusalem more than once, but this section records Jesus leaving Galilee and arriving in Jerusalem for the last time before His passion.

The ministry of Jesus during this journey was not just different because of where it took place. It took on new characteristics. His ministry to the disciples seems to have occupied His primary attention, though Luke featured this less than Mark. We have noted a strong emphasis on Jesus' identity (Christology) in the previous chapters. Now the disciples' mission becomes the dominant theme. There are many words of warning to the rich and the complacent as well as to the Pharisees in this section. Many students of Luke and Acts have noticed the common emphasis on travel that characterizes both books and have pointed out some significant comparisons. Jerusalem was for Jesus the destination toward which He pressed as Rome was for Paul.

Constable: Luk 13:18--15:1

E. Instruction about the kingdom 13:18-14:35

The larger division of the Gospel that records Jesus' ministry on the way to Jerusalem and the Cross continues with teaching about the coming kingdom. The parables of the kingdom that begin this section (vv. 18-21) introduce this subject. The difference in Jesus' teaching in the present section is a matter of emphasis rather than a clear-cut change. The subtlety of this distinction is observable in that the commentators differ over where they believe the sections divide. Jesus' discipleship training also continues in this section.

Constable: Luk 13:31-35

3. Jesus' postponement of the kingdom 13:31-35

Another comment triggered teaching of a similar nature. The continuing theme is the messianic kingdom.

13:31 This incident followed the former one chronologically. Therefore it is probable that Jesus' words about Jews not entering the kingdom and Gentiles entering it had caused the Pharisees to gnash their teeth in anger against Him. Luke's presentation of the Pharisees has been consistently antagonistic, so it is reasonable to assume that their suggestion had a hidden motive. They wanted to scare Jesus into retreating rather than continuing on toward Jerusalem where Herod awaited Him.

Did Herod Antipas really want to kill Jesus? He kept trying to see Jesus (9:9), and when he finally did he was very glad for the opportunity hoping that Jesus would perform a miracle (23:8). However he proceeded to mock Jesus and to treat Him with contempt (23:11). It appears that the Pharisees were overstating Herod's hostility at this time. Their warning posed a temptation for Jesus to depart from His Father's will for Him, but He did not yield to it.

13:32-33 Jesus' reply to the Pharisees shows that He viewed them as Herod's messengers. They were as antagonistic to Him as they claimed Herod was. A fox is, of course, a proverbially dangerous and cunning animal that destroys and scavenges (cf. Lam. 5:17-18; Ezek. 13:4; 1 Enoch 89:10, 42-49, 55). In Jesus' day foxes were also insignificant animals (cf. Neh. 4:3; Song of Sol. 2:15). Jesus viewed Herod similarly.

Jesus explained that He would not run from Jerusalem but would continue moving toward it and ministering as usual as He went. He would reach Jerusalem in three days. This may have been a reference to three literal days. In this case it appears to refer to Jesus' second visit to Jerusalem rather than to His third and final visit.³²⁸ This seems unlikely in view of Jesus' statement about visiting Jerusalem in verse 35. Probably this was an idiomatic expression indicating a relatively short, limited period (cf. Hos. 6:2).³²⁹ In this case the days would refer to the time of present opportunity culminating in the end of that opportunity.³³⁰

Jesus spoke of the city as His goal because it would be in Jerusalem that He would reach the goal of His ministry, namely His passion. He acknowledged that He would die there. He viewed dying outside Jerusalem as inconsistent with the tradition of prophets who had died there at the hands of the Jews (1 Kings 18:4, 13; 19:10; Jer. 26:20-23; Neh. 9:26; cf. Acts 7:52). Jesus obviously did not mean that all the prophets died in Jerusalem. He meant that since Jerusalem had killed prophets it was appropriate for Him to die there too.

13:34-35 The double reference to Jerusalem, following as it does the name of the city at the end of verse 33, draws attention to it. It was the city of Jesus' destiny and the pathetic, unresponsive object of His love. Jesus' lament recalls Jeremiah's lamentation over Jerusalem's destruction by the Babylonians (cf. Jer. 12:7; 22:5; Lam.). The city was heading for a similar fate under the Romans for rejecting Jesus. The house left desolate is perhaps the temple (cf. 1 Kings 9:7-8), though this could be a reference to the nation as a whole, the city, or the Davidic dynasty.

"The great expectations in the birth narrative for the redemption of Israel and Jerusalem are not being realized in the anticipated way and with the anticipated fullness, because Jerusalem is failing to recognize the time of its visitation. The great expectations aroused at the beginning contribute to the tragic effect of this turn in the plot, for we feel the loss more keenly in contrast to these great hopes."³³¹

The city would not see Jesus until the Triumphal Entry (Ps. 118:26; Luke 19:38; 23:41-50). However the final and true fulfillment of the prophecy of the people of Jerusalem hailing the arrival of their Messiah is still future (Matt. 23:39). Jesus gave two predictions of the fulfillment of Psalm 118:26. The one here was fulfilled at the Triumphal Entry. The second one that He gave after the Triumphal Entry (Matt. 23:39) will be fulfilled at the Second Coming.

Jesus' lament constituted a formal rejection of Israel for her rejection of her Messiah (cf. Matt. 23:37-39). Jesus used Jerusalem figuratively (i.e., in metonymy) for the whole nation. However, Jesus rejected her with a broken heart. He continued to offer Himself to the nation, but its fate was now irrevocable.

College: Luk 13:1-35

LUKE 13

17. Repent or Perish (13:1-9)

¹ Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. ² Jesus answered, " Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? ³ I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. ⁴ Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them-do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? ⁵ I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

⁶ Then he told this parable: " A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. ⁷ So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

⁸" 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. ⁹ If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.'"

Jesus is told of a massacre of Jews in Jerusalem by the governor Pilate, which he takes as another opportunity to call his hearers to repentance (see 12:57-59). He mentions another tragedy in Jerusalem involving the deaths of innocent Jews (the collapse of the tower of Siloam) in the same vein. Even though these two groups were no more guilty than others, Jesus says that his hearers will perish in similar events if they do not repent. Perhaps Jesus' point is to suggest that if these things happen to the innocent, what will happen to the guilty?

Jesus finishes this whole section with the parable of the unfruitful fig tree, which teaches that God has already been more than patient with his unrepentant people. The deserved punishment must come soon. Jesus only hints here at what he will discuss plainly later. Jerusalem, the city which has repeatedly rejected those whom God has sent, will be destroyed. This time they will reject their own Messiah, and the result will be massacre by a foreign army and the collapse of walls and towers (see especially chapter 21). It is because these two events involve death and destruction in Jerusalem that Jesus uses them to speak of the coming destruction. They also involve Jews from Galilee and Jerusalem, two centers of Jewish population which were ravaged by the Romans in A.D. 66-70.

1. Nothing is known apart from this reference to the killing of a group of Galileans by the soldiers of Pilate while they were offering sacrifices . However, similar acts of Pilate have been recorded by the historian Josephus. This is the second mention of Pilate (see 3:1), who will appear again in an unfavorable light at the trial of Jesus.

2-3. Jesus' denial that these Galileans were worse sinners than others may be taken in either of two senses. The interpretation depends on whether or not Jesus means that these Galileans were innocent or that they were simply not worse sinners than others. (1) He may be saying that many innocent people will suffer along with the guilty in the coming catastrophe. (2) More likely he means that all are sinners, and that these former events are only a foretaste of the coming destruction. In other words, an interpretive translation of his words might read, " You are as sinful as these Galileans who died; you simply have not paid for your sins yet. But you will, if you do not repent."

4-5. The same may be said for those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them . The tower of Siloam was in Jerusalem, probably a part of the city wall near the pool of Siloam. This event, like that of verses 1-3, is also only recorded by Luke. These people were also no more guilty than others living in Jerusalem . Jesus' repetition of the statement in verse 3 has an ominous rhetorical effect. Unless there is repentance on a grand scale, all will perish .

6-9. Jesus' parable further illuminates the coming destruction. The fig tree was a common symbol for the nation of Israel, as seen in Jeremiah 24:1-10 and Hosea 9:10. After the fig tree had been given sufficient time ( three years ) to produce fruit, the owner of the vineyard wanted to cut it down . The caretaker asked him to give it one more year . These statements teach that Israel had been given sufficient opportunity to repent. They would be given one more opportunity, after which punishment was inevitable.

Luke's readers are meant to understand several important teachings as they read this prediction of the future punishment of the unrepentant Jews. First, they are reminded of their need to repent of any sin in their own lives. Second, they understand more clearly God's workings with regard to Jews and Gentiles. These Gentile readers understand that God has been faithful to his promises and that the failure of the Jews to accept Jesus as Messiah is the result of their refusal to respond to God's initiatives. From their perspective, the destruction of Jerusalem is either in the near future or (more likely) in the recent past. They are beginning to understand what Luke will make very clear in future chapters: the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans was (or will be) God's judgment for unfaithfulness.

18. A Crippled Woman Healed (13:10-17)

¹⁰ On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, ¹¹ and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. ¹² When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, " Woman, you are set free from your infirmity." ¹³ Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.

¹⁴ Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, " There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath."

¹⁵ The Lord answered him, " You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? ¹⁶ Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?"

¹⁷ When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing.

The previous warning of the coming devastation of Jerusalem is followed by the present example of the unfruitfulness of Jewish leadership and institutions. The synagogue ruler is seen to be obstinate and hypocritical in his refusal to approve Jesus' actions. Jesus is shown to understand the real meaning of the Sabbath command. The Sabbath is about release from oppression and bondage.

10-13. Jesus is once again in one of the synagogues , and he is once again rejected by the leadership, just as Paul will also later be rejected in many synagogues. The woman . . . had been crippled by a spirit . Demons in Luke's Gospel are associated with illness (9:37-40) and disability (the present story), as well as the occasional overwhelming influence (8:26-39). Luke implies that Jesus feels compassion for this woman who had for eighteen years been unable to straighten up at all . Without being asked (and this time with no hint of faith on the part of the one healed), Jesus heals her from her infirmity . The phrase he uses, " You are set free ," gives a hint regarding his view of the meaning of the Sabbath law. As he will explain, the Sabbath is a time of freedom.

14-16. The synagogue ruler becomes indignant and offers a response which is not completely devoid of logic: " There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days." The unenlightened reader might add, " Yes, especially since she has been this way for eighteen years. One more day will not hurt." Jesus will not accept this type of reasoning. He first offers an illustration and then an explanation. Even the Pharisees would untie an ox or donkey so that it could drink. Only hypocrites would be humane to animals while being insensitive to the plight of people in misery. Therefore this woman should certainly be released from Satan's bondage, and the Sabbath is precisely the day to do it. The informed reader would remember that the Sabbath law in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 links the rest on the Sabbath day to the release from slavery which God accomplished for Israel at the time of the Exodus. See the comments on 6:1-5 for more on the Sabbath.

17. The division over Jesus among the Jews is seen in this episode. The people are delighted with all the wonderful things Jesus does while his opponents reject him and are humiliated .

Luke's readers must also be delighted that Jesus cares about crippled women, Samaritans, demon-possessed children, tax collectors and sinners, and even Gentiles such as themselves. Furthermore, they learn that the Old Testament laws, even the Sabbath law, are for the good of oppressed people. Even though they do not observe the Sabbath day of rest, they live by the Sabbath principle Jesus teaches in this text.

19. Parables of Mustard Seed and Yeast (13:18-21)

¹⁸ Then Jesus asked, " What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? ¹⁹ It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air perched in its branches."

²⁰ Again he asked, " What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? ²¹ It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount ^a of flour until it worked all through the dough."

^a 21 Greek three satas (probably about ¹¼2 bushel or 22 liters)

The twin parables of the mustard seed and the yeast teach that the kingdom's apparently small beginnings will indeed grow into the worldwide kingdom of God. It is impossible to say just why this story follows the healing of the woman in the synagogue. Perhaps Jesus is suggesting that the coming of the kingdom is seen in just such small actions as the healing of oppressed people, and that it is in precisely such attention to the needs of people that the kingdom will attract the many who will join its ranks. The book of Acts will show the attractiveness of Jesus' disciples involved in the same type of ministry. Everywhere the kingdom spreads there will be " great joy" because " evil spirits" come " out of many," and " many paralytics and cripples" are healed (Acts 8:7-8).

18-19. The tiny mustard seed would typically grow to a height of ten to fifteen feet. The birds of the air which perched in its branches probably have no theological significance in the parable and are there to fill out the picture.

20-21. Having spoken of a man who planted a seed, Jesus now speaks of a woman who mixes yeast into her dough. The point is not the mysterious growth of the dough but rather the very large final result compared to the tiny beginning.

Most first-century Jews expected the kingdom of God to make a grand entrance into world history. The great battle in which the Jews would defeat their enemies and the inauguration of the new empire under the rule of the Messiah would be events known throughout the world. Jesus' approach to kingdom building (giving sight to the blind, curing lepers, and preaching to poor people) was hardly noticeable outside the villages he visited and the Jewish leadership which began to oppose him.

Once again it is in the book of Acts that Luke demonstrates the fulfillment of Jesus' words. For even though the kingdom does not reach its final culmination, by Acts 28 it has reached Rome, the capital of the empire, and it has " turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6, RSV).

B. JESUS JOURNEYS TOWARD JERUSALEM (13:22-17:10)

1. The Narrow Door (13:22-30)

²² Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. ²³ Someone asked him, " Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"

He said to them, ²⁴" Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. ²⁵ Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.'

" But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.'

²⁶" Then you will say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.'

²⁷" But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'

²⁸" There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. ²⁹ People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. ³⁰ Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last."

Luke begins a new section here, signaled by Jesus' going " through the towns and villages" on the way to Jerusalem. Yet he continues to narrate Jesus teaching on the theme of the nature of the kingdom of God. In response to a question concerning the number of people who will be saved, Jesus provides a three-part analogy. The answer to the man's question is, " Yes, only a few will be saved, and they may not be those you expect."

22-24. Luke notes that all these sayings take place on the way to Jerusalem , thus keeping the reader's eye on the final goal. The question, " Are only a few people going to be saved?" probably comes from one who understands that his prior teaching implies an affirmative response. Never one to give a direct response, Jesus uses another analogy. The narrow door is one which is difficult to get through, especially when many are attempting to enter it. The assumption here is that most people will take the wider of two doors. Jesus' point is that following him is far more difficult than the way most will choose (see 9:57-62). Only a few will choose to follow him.

25-27. In verse 25 Jesus continues to talk of the same narrow door of verse 24. Once the owner of the house . . . closes the door , no one else will be granted entrance. The teaching is that those who do not acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah before the day of judgment will be turned away at the time when all recognize that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. Their pleading and their recollection of having eaten with him and having heard him teach will mean nothing. He will reply, " I don't know you."

28-30. The third part of Jesus' answer to the man's question is Jesus' clearest teaching yet regarding the ethnic makeup of the kingdom. Outside the closed, narrow door, those who have been thrown out are weeping . . . and gnashing their teeth . The reason is that they can see inside where all the heroes of Scripture ( Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets ) are enjoying the messianic feast in the kingdom of God . Not only have these who expected to be there found themselves " thrown out," but they can also see that alongside the great heroes of ancient Israel are Gentiles ( people . . . from east and west and north and south ). This is one of the clear references to the kingdom of God in which Jesus is looking to the final consummation rather than the beginning stages, which he discusses so often. (See the supplemental study on the " Kingdom of God." )

Here Luke shows that Jesus foreknew and predicted one of the primary repeated events in the book of Acts. Many Jews will reject the kingdom, only to be jealous when the Gentiles respond favorably (see Acts 13:44-48). Luke's first Gentile readers were undoubtedly pleased to find that Jesus had predicted their entrance into the kingdom. Modern Gentile readers will also do well to reflect on their good fortune and their future blessings when they too will join Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the messianic feast.

2. Jesus' Sorrow for Jerusalem (13:31-35)

³¹ At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, " Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you."

³² He replied, " Go tell that fox, 'I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.' ³³ In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day-for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!

³⁴" O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! ³⁵ Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' ^a"

^a 35 Psalm 118:26

The reader cannot help but be surprised when some Pharisees warn Jesus of Herod's evil intentions. Jesus responds that even Herod, with all his power, cannot change his plans (and God's). He will continue his ministry and then be killed in Jerusalem. He then weeps over the sinful state of Jerusalem, regretting that they would not allow him to protect them from the coming disaster.

The last word of Luke about Pharisees was that they had begun " to oppose him fiercely" (11:53). Their advice to Jesus to leave the area to escape Herod's murderous plans illustrates the complexity of Luke's view of the Pharisees (see supplemental study on " Pharisees" ). Some Pharisees were not hostile to Jesus (Acts 5:34-40), and some in fact became his disciples (Acts 15:5; 23:9).

31-33. The Herod referred to is Herod Antipas , the ruler of Galilee who killed John the Baptist (3:1; 9:9). He will get his opportunity to see Jesus after Jesus is arrested (23:6-16). Jesus, unimpressed by Herod's power, tells these Pharisees to tell that fox that he is not worried about Herod's desire to kill him, for God has laid out the plan he is fulfilling. He will continue to drive out demons and heal people for a brief period ( today and tomorrow should not be taken literally), after which on the third day he will reach his goal . He is saying that he is well on his way to his death and resurrection (subtly alluded to by the phrase " the third day" ), and Herod can do nothing to stop him. The divine necessity (dei', dei ) is underscored again, as he says, " Surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem." Jerusalem had a history of refusing to heed the message of the prophets sent to her.

34-35a. Jesus expresses his sadness over the coming destruction and his wish that the people would repent. " How often I have longed to gather your children together, . . . but you were not willing." There can be no doubt about where the blame lies for the future devastation. Jesus' statement, " Your house is left to you desolate," is literally, " Your house is left to you." That is, God has abandoned Jerusalem, and the city will therefore be destroyed by the enemy.

35b. Jesus' prediction that they will not see him until they say, " Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord ," is difficult because the event to which he is looking forward is unclear. When will the people of Jerusalem see Jesus and say these words? On the one hand, Jesus is greeted with almost these exact words when he enters Jerusalem in 19:38. However, it is difficult to understand how this has to do with the context here, that of the coming destruction of Jerusalem. Also, the ones who cry out these words in 19:38 are Jesus' disciples, not the people of Jerusalem. For these reasons, the most plausible explanation for Jesus' prediction is that he knows Jerusalem is going to reject him and that the city will be destroyed. Therefore, after his death and resurrection, they will not see him until after the ravaging of Jerusalem, when he will come on the clouds for final judgment. That is the time that they will have to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and say, " Blessed is he who comes . . . ." Unfortunately, Jesus implies, it will be too late. They will " knock and plead," but he will answer, " I don't know you" (13:25).

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Luk 13:22-35

LXXXIX.
THE STRAIT GATE. WARNED AGAINST HEROD.
(Peræa.)
^cLUKE XIII. 22-35.

   ^c22 And he went on his way through cities and villages, teaching, and journeying on unto Jerusalem. [This verse probably refers back to Luk 13:10, and indicates that Jesus resumed his journey after the brief rest on the Sabbath day when he healed the woman with the curvature of the spine.]  23 And one said unto him, Lord, are they few that are saved? [It is likely that this question was asked by a Jew, and that the two parables illustrating the smallness of the kingdom's beginning suggested it to him. The Jews extended their exclusive spirit even to their ideals of a world to come, so that they believed none but the chosen race would behold its glories. The circumstances attending to the conversion of Cornelius, recorded in Acts, show how this exclusiveness survived even among Jewish Christians. The questioner wished Jesus to commit himself to this narrow Jewish spirit, or else to take a position which would subject him to the charge of being unpatriotic.] And he said unto them,  24 Strive [literally, agonize] to enter in by the narrow door: for many, I say unto [488] you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able. [Jesus answers that many shall be excluded from the kingdom, and that the questioner, and all others who hear, need to exercise themselves and give the matter their own personal attention lest they be among that many. The passage should be compared with that in Matthew, Mat 19:30, Mat 20:10), to be interpreted by such passages as Mat 21:31, Rom 9:30, Rom 9:31. The Jew who thought the Gentile had no hope at all, and that he himself was sure of salvation, would be surprised to find that his opinion was the very reverse of the real fact as time developed it.]  31 In that very hour there came certain Pharisees, saying to him, Get thee out, and go hence: for Herod would fain kill thee. [This shows that Jesus was in the territory of Herod Antipas, and hence probably in Peræa. The Pharisees, no doubt, wished to scare Jesus that they might exult over his fright. We might suppose, too, that their words were untrue, were it not that Jesus sends a reply to Herod. Herod long desired to see Jesus (Luk 9:9, Luk 23:8), but it was not likely that he desired to put him to death. He was, doubtless, glad enough to get Jesus out of his territory, lest he might foment an uprising, and to this end he employed this strategy of sending messengers to warn Jesus under the guise of friendship.]  32 And he said unto them, Go and say to that fox [i.e., say to that crafty, sly fellow. The fox is a type of craftiness and treachery. We have no other instance where Jesus used such a contemptuous expression; but Herod richly merited it. An Idumæan by his father, a Samaritan by his mother, a Jew by profession, and a heathen by practice, he had need to be foxy by nature. And he was even now playing the fox by sending these messengers], Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I am perfected.  33 Nevertheless [although I know what lies before me] I must go on my way to-day and to-morrow and the day following: for [490] it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. [Wieseler, Meyer, Alford, and other able commentators think that the days mentioned in this difficult passage are literal days. If the language is to be thus construed, the saying amounts to a promise to leave Herod's territory in three days. Such construction, however, is not consistent with the elevation of the sentiment and the solemnity of its repetition. Three days are thus sometimes used proverbially to designate a short time (Hos 6:2), and they are unquestionably so used here. The meaning then is this: "For a little while I liberate and heal and abide in your territory to disturb your peace. But in a few days I shall be perfected in my office as a liberator and healer, after which I shall be seen no more in your territory. And though I understand these plots against me, I must fill up my time and go on my course till I suffer martyrdom at Jerusalem, which has the gruesome honor of being the prophet-slaying city." This word "perfected" in this passage finds its complement in the "It is finished" of Joh 19:30. Both the verbs are derived from the Greek word telos, which means end or completion. Compare also 2Co 12:9, Phi 3:12, Heb 2:10, Heb 5:8, Heb 5:9, Heb 11:40. John the Baptist having perished at Machærus in Peræa is regarded as an exception to this rule and the prophets die at Jerusalem. The exception does not disprove the rule, if it be a true exception; which may be questioned, since John died at the hands of Herod and Herodias, neither of whom were, properly speaking Jews. John, therefore, died as a prophet to foreigners rather than as a prophet to the Jewish people.]  34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children [inhabitants] together, even as a hen gathereth her own brood under her wings, and ye would not! [Jesus repeated these words again as recorded in Mat 23:37-39. With such beautiful imagery does Jesus set forth his tender love for the people of that city which he knew would soon compass his death.]  35 Behold, your house [temple] is left unto [491] you desolate [he was about to withdraw from the temple, which for centuries to come was to be visited by no heavenly messenger whatever]: and I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. [It is hardly possible that these words can refer to the triumphal entry for their fulfillment (Mat 21:9). The use of them on that occasion may have had no reference to his prediction. They undoubtedly refer to the Parousia, or second coming of the Lord in his glory, before which time the Jews must turn and believe (Rom 11:25-27). Not until they were thus prepared would they again see him without whom they were now rejecting.]

[FFG 488-492]

Lapide: Luk 13:1-35

CHAPTER 13

Ver. 1.— Whose blood Pilate mingled. That is, whom while they were sacrificing in Mount Gerizim in Samaria, Pilate slew. He slew them that their blood might be mingled with the blood of their victims. Josephus relates the whole at length ( Antiq., book xviii. chap. 7), as also does Hegesippus on the destruction of Jerusalem. Josephus says, "A certain impostor incited the people to assemble on Mount Gerizim, a mountain which they held very sacred, by the promise of shewing them certain vessels which Moses had deposited there and he had dug up. They credulously took arms and occupied the village Tirathaba, awaiting the arrival of others that they might ascend the mountain in force. But Pilate seized it before them, and held it with cavalry and foot soldiers. These attacked the Samaritans in the village, killing some and putting the rest to flight. He also took many prisoners, the chief and most powerful of whom he put to death."

It may be said, "Josephus asserts them to have been Samaritans; how then does Christ call them Galileans?" The answer is, "They were called Samaritans from their country and nation, but Galileans from their sect and heresy." So says Baronius. To explain the matter, observe that Judas of Galilee, as St. Luke says, Acts v. 37, was the author of the sect of Galileans who rebelled against Cæsar, saying that it was not lawful for the Jews, who were a faithful people, and worshipped the true God, to be subject to Caesar, a Gentile, and an idolater, and to give him tribute; for they ought to acknowledge and obey no other lord but God. So S. Cyril in the Catena, Theophylact, Euthymius, and Titus. Hence Pilate sent a force and destroyed them. This sect arose about the time of Christ. Hence Christ and the Apostles, being Galileans by nation, were accused of the same, and they therefore carefully taught in opposition that tribute ought to be given to kings and to Cæsar, even if Gentiles. Francis Lucas thinks that these Galileans were slain by Pilate in Jerusalem, when they were sacrificing in the Temple, because Pilate was Procurator of Judæa and not of Samaria. But Josephus plainly says that they were killed in Mount Gerizim, which is in Samaria. The Samaritans, moreover, were a schism from the Jews, and would not go into the Temple at Jerusalem, but built another in their own power on mount Gerizim, as we find from S. Joh 4:20. Pilate therefore attacked these Samaritans as rebels, and put them to death in Samaria, as open enemies to Cæsar. When the slaughter of the Samaritans was frequently repeated, there were different opinions on the subject, many affirming that they were wicked men and hated by God; their sacrifices not only being rejected but also mixed with their blood. They related this to Christ and asked His opinion of the matter, but, Christ made a wise use of this occasion, and drew from it an argument to rouse them to repentance, lest a similar vengeance should fall upon them. The preacher should follow this example, and when public slaughter, pest, famine, or wars befall, exhort his people to repentance, that they may escape such inflictions and, with them, the torments of Gehenna.

Ver. 2.— And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye, &c. They did suppose this, but wrongly, for God often corrects those who sin less heavily, to make them an example and a terror to others, and so incite them to penitence. So Bede, Titus, and others.

Ver. 3.— I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. "Likewise"—that is, by a similar death, none excepted, says Maldonatus; and so Wisdom vi 8: "He hath made the small and great, and careth for all alike. For He cares for all without exception, though for some more and for others less." Secondly, and more simply, You shall equally perish, though by another kind of death, by an eternal instead of a temporal one, or even by a temporal. Thirdly, and properly, Jansenius says, "By a similar death; the destruction and vengeance of God." For the Jews were besieged by Titus at the time of the Passover, when they were sacrificing; and, when the city was taken, many were slain in the temple, where they were sacrificing, and accustomed to sacrifice. So Euthymius,  S. Thomas, Hugo, N. de Lyra, S. Cyril in the Catena.

Observe that Christ here teaches us, in like calamities, to give our minds to the thought of our sins, and to repentance, that we fall not into the like punishments of God.

Symbolically, Bede says that Pilate means, the mouth of the hammerer, (os malleatoris) that is, the Devil, who is always ready to destroy. "Blood"—that is, sin and concupiscence. The sacrifices are good actions which the Devil, either for the delight of the flesh, or from the ambition of human praise, or some other evil motive, pollutes.

Ver. 4.— Or of those eighteen upon whom the tower of Siloam fell. There was a fountain, or rather pool, near Jerusalem of which Isaiah speaks, "This people refuses the waters of Shiloah that go softly," Isa 8:6. Near this fountain was a tower also called Siloë, from it, which in the time of Christ fell down, either from the force of the wind, or from lightning, or an earthquake, or some other like cause, and destroyed eighteen persons who were either in it, or standing near. This, if we only regard secondary causes, may have happened by chance; but if we consider the one primary one, that is, God, it was done by His appointed Providence, who determines to punish some and to terrify others. For with God nothing is fortuitous, but everything is certainly foreseen and prepared, that nothing in His Kingdom should, as Boethius says, be ascribed to chance or temerity. God, then, orders these events for the chastisement and correction of man, that others, seeing their neighbours killed by the fall of a tower or some other sudden accident, may fear lest something similar happen to themselves, and so may repent and reconcile themselves to God, lest they be overwhelmed by His judgments and condemned to Gehenna. This is what God said by the prophet Amos, "Shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?" Isa 3:6; and by Isaiah, "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil" Isa  45:7. The poets and philosophers saw the same through a shade:

—0 qui res hominumque Deumque,

Æternis regis imperiis, et fulmine terres. "0 Thou who dost the affairs

Of men and gods, by laws eternal rule,

And by thy lightning fierce dost terrify."

And Plutarch ( In Moral.), "As if a blind man should fall against a person, and call that person blind for not avoiding him, so we make Fortune blind, whereas we stumble against her from our own want of sight. For this very 'Fortuna fortunans,' which is, in truth, no other than God Himself, and the Providence of God is most keen of sight, and has many more eyes than Argus."

Symbolically. "The tower," says Bede, "is Christ, Siloë, that is, He who is sent by the Father into the world, and who crushes to powder all the wicked upon whom He falls, through the sentence of His condemnation."

Think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? "Sinners"—the Arabic has culpabiles; the Chaldaic, chare bim, i.e. debtors (for a debtor owes his soul, that is 10,000 talents, S. Matt. xviii. 24, to God). Christ shows clearly that these eighteen who were killed by the fall of the tower of Siloam, were sinners, though not, perhaps, the worst and greatest that were in Jerusalem.

Ver. 5.— I tell you, Nay; but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. "This shows," says S. Chrysostom, "that these eighteen were appointed as an example and terror to the others; though each was punished for his own sins. This was made wholesome matter for others, that the fool might be made wiser by the event. For God does not punish all here, but He leaves a time for repentance. Again, he does not leave all for a future punishment, lest many should deny His Providence."

Verses 6, 7.— He spake also this parable. "Cumbereth"—the Greek is κατάζγει, that is, loads with a useless burthen, nay, renders the ground barren and fruitless, as well by its shade as by its roots, which keep the earth's moisture from the other trees. The Syriac says, "keeps it idle;" for άζγον, is idle, inert, devoid of strength.

In the letter the fig-tree represents the synagogue of the Jews, which God planted through Moses; to which Christ came by the Incarnation, to cultivate it by His preaching. Christ, therefore, is the keeper of the vine, that is, of the synagogue, to whom God said, "Cut it down, for now for three years in which Thou hast preached to it, I have looked for the fruit of faith and good works, and I find none, from the unbelief, perverseness, and malice of the Jews." Christ intercedes for it, that the Father would allow Him to tend it by His preaching for one year more, or, at least, for half an one; and then, if it gave no fruit, it might be cut down. So it came to pass: for the Jews, in the fourth year of Christ's preaching, at the Passover, adding sin to sin, and becoming more and more perverse, crucified Him; so that, a few years after, Titus was sent by God as His avenger, and took Jerusalem, and destroyed all Judæa. What remains are additions belonging to the finish of the parable, which it is unnecessary to apply to what is signified by it.

S. Ambrose observes, that the fig-tree is an apt symbol of the Synagogue: first, because it was a tree with abundance of leaves, but which disappointed its owner in his hope of fruit. Secondly, while the doctors of the Synagogue were fruitless of good works and boasted only of words like redundant leaves, the vain shadow of the law flourished exuberantly, but the false hope of the expected produce deceived the prayers of the people.

Secondly, as the fig puts out a green, that is an immature, fig (grossum) instead of blossoms, which soon falls, and then produces a savoury and solid fruit, so the Synagogue firstly put forth the Jews, like green and evanescent fruit, and then, through Christ, gave Christians, like mature and savoury figs. So Pliny, viii 7, "Figs are produced late, if the green fruit, when exceeding the size of a bean, are taken away, for then are produced figs that ripen later."

Tropologically. The fig is any individual person, especially a believer; the gardener is Christ, the Apostles, and the like; the Lord is God the Father, or the Holy Trinity. Our own Salmeron (tom. vii., tract 21), gives various reasons and analogies, why the faithful are compared to a fig. 1. The fig produces sweet fruit, which seems to be purses of honey and sugar, and the righteous produce the like. 2. As the fig tree increases little in height but is always short, so the righteous cast themselves down, and humble themselves. 3. The fig, instead of blossoms, gives fruit, and that twice; namely, the early ripe in the summer, and in the autumn the later—for the fig bears twice a year, as the righteous is ever plentifully bringing forth the fruit of good works. 4. As the fig makes a shade with its ample leaves, so the righteous defends and protects others by his charity. 5. The fig is never grafted, into another tree, because of its exceeding sweetness, which cannot leave it. So the righteous rests in no man, but in God alone and his own conscience. 6. The, fig tree, if stripped of its bark, gives no fruit, but withers away; and.the righteous, unless protected by the bark of honest conversation, modesty, and outward decency, will bring no fruit with his neighbours. 7. The fig has medical properties, and heals diseases, as Isaiah healed Hezekiah by means of a fig (Isa. xxxviii. 21). Pliny also says that the fig alone, of trees, has medical virtues. So the righteous, because he is perfect and mature in virtue, ministers to the infirmities of others, by teaching, advising, and living holily. He adds that lopping and pruning it remedies its too great luxuriousness; as the righteous by circumcising and cutting off the desire of honour above, and the appetites of the senses below, by meditations on death and burial, is rendered fruitful in virtue and good works, and converts many of his neighbours to God.

Behold these three years I come seeking fruit. This alludes to the nature of the fig tree, which sometimes gives fruit in its third year. If not then, it commonly does not give it at all.

Symbolically, these three years, according to Euthymius, signify the three policies or political status of the Jews, under the judges, Kings, and the High Priests, namely the Maccabees. St. Ambrose says "He came to Abraham, He came to Moses, He came to Mary; that is, He came in circumcision, He came in the Law, He came in the body. We acknowledge His Advent from His benefits to us. In the first, Purification; in the second, Sanctification; in the third, justification—Circumcision purified, the Law sanctified, Grace justified—one in all, and all in one; no one can he cleansed but one who fears God: no one deserves to receive the Law but one who is purified from sin: no one comes to Grace but he who knows the Law." So also St. Cyril: "God sought the nature of the human race before the Law, under the Law, and under Grace by waiting, admonishing, visiting; but some are not corrected by the natural law, nor taught by precept, nor converted by miracle."

Tropologically, these three years, says Theophylact, are the three ages of man—childhood; full manhood; and old age. For every one ought at all times to bring forth the fruits of virtue to God, as is fitting and proportionate to every age. God, who would have no age of man idle, requires these of every one.

And He, namely, the dresser of the Vine, Christ and the Apostles, answering said unto him. Christ and the Apostles, says the Interlineator, knowing that some of the Jews could be saved, pray God to delay the avenging of the Lord's cross, that is, the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

And if it bear fruit. Understand, "It shall be well, it shall be safe, and it shall be saved." It is an aposiopesis. The Arabic adds, "For it has brought forth fruit." The Synagogue formerly gave fruit under Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and others.

And if not, then after that thou shall cut it down. As God cut down the Jews by the Romans.

Mystically, S. Augustine ( De Verb. Dom.) says: "He who intercedes is all holy; who, within the Church, prays for those who are without." To dig about the conscience is to teach humility and patience, and to engraft on the mind the consideration of heaven and heavenly things, lest, as S. Ambrose says, the heap overwhelm the root of earthly wisdom and of earthly desires and hide it from view.

And dung it. This is, as S. Ambrose says, the feeling of humility, and S. Augustine ( De Verb. Dom.): "Dung is filth, but it causes fruitfulness. The filth of the vine-dresser is the grief of the sinner." And S. Gregory, "Dung is the sins of the flesh, from which the mind is roused to good works."

Ver. 10 . — And He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was a festival on which the Jews came to the synagogue to hear the Law and its interpretation, as Christians on the Lord's day come together to hear mass and the sermon. Christ chose this time and place for the following miracle, that it might be public, and that He might confute and instruct the Pharisees, when speaking against it on account of the Sabbath.

Ver. 11 . — And behold there was a woman. "The spirit of infirmity, that is, an infirmity sent by the evil one," says de Lyra. Euthymius, "The devil of weakness not suffering her to live." The Arabic reads, "With whom was a spirit of infirmity for eighteen years, and she was bowed together and was not able to stand up by any means." This infirmity was a curving and bending of the whole body, so that the woman was compelled always to walk bent and stooping. Observe that diseases are often sent by the devils, through the permission of God, for sins of other reasons. Ver. 16 shows the cause of this infirmity, "This daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound," Thus the devil afflicted Job with various diseases, chap. ii. The same is seen in Psa 78:49, and Mat 9:23. The devil, therefore, made this woman crooked and bent, to compel her always to look down upon the earth.

Eighteen years. It was, therefore, an inveterate and incurable disease, and as such could not be healed by the physicians.

And was bowed together. Looking towards the ground, (cernua) crooked, with her head and back bent downwards—nay, she was less able even than a beast to look up at the sun and heavens, but must always look down at the rocks and the earth. For at the creation (Gen. i.)

Os homini sublime dedit, cœlumque

   tueri

Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere

  vultus,-

"God gave to man a lofty countenance,

And to regard the heavens commanded him.

Bade him to lift his form erect, and gaze

Upon the starry host,"—

that he might look up at the sun and the heavens, and, by a heavenly life, journey towards God on high, and be received, into heaven and there enjoy the blessedness of the divine vision; for, as S. Basil says in the Catena, "We should seek heavenly things, and rise above those of earth." The devil, then, to turn men from heaven, makes them look downwards, so that they see, love, and pursue only earthly things.

Ver. 12 . — And when Jesus saw her (the Arabic has "Jesus looked upon her;" with the eyes, that is, of both body and mind; with the eyes of grace, pity, and mercy), He called her to Him, and said to her, Woman, thou art loosed, &c. "Loosed," that is, thou shalt be dismissed; thou art healed; healed by Me, through the laying on of My hands, as followed. For Christ seems to have done two things at the same time: to have laid His hands upon her, and so healed her, and to have said, Thou art loosed. He said, "Thou art loosed," and not "I loose thee," to sharpen the woman's faith. For Christ often ascribes healing and salvation to His touch, to show the virtue of His word and contact, for in the same moment in which He touched this woman, He healed her. "There was a divine virtue," says S. Cyril in the Catena, "in the flesh of Christ, by which in an instant He worked great and wonderful miracles. As when He said 'This is My Body,' He transmuted the bread into His Body, as He transubstantiates it daily in the Mass. For, to have said, This is My body, is to have made it so; as in the words, 'He spake and it was done.'" Hence, Titus, "By a word, assuredly most divine, and by a most perfect heavenly power, He removed the infirmity of this woman." Lastly, the words "Thou art loosed," that is, thou art freed, shows that the woman had been bound by Satan, constrained, kept down, as by a chain, so that her head appeared fixed to her knees and thighs. This bond Christ loosed, and thus made her erect. For Christ came to destroy the works of the devil.

Ver. 13 . — And He laid His hands on her. The hands signify the power of Christ, His authority, rule over diseases and devils; and equally His loving-kindness and beneficence, by which He conferred the benefit of healing upon the woman, through the beneficence of His touch.

Ver. 14.— And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation. With indignation, because he envied Jesus the glory of a miracle by which He had shown Himself, before the whole synagogue and people, to be greater than the ruler. This man made religion and zeal for the observation of the Sabbath the cloak of his feeling. He is therefore called a hypocrite by Christ. So S. Cyril in the Catena, "When the ruler of this ungrateful synagogue saw the woman made suddenly erect by a mere touch, and celebrating the great acts of God, he sullied his zeal for the glory of the Lord with envy, and censured the miracle as if he would show himself solicitous for the Sabbath." Observe the word "ungrateful." He ought to have been grateful to Christ and to have given Him thanks for having honoured himself and the synagogue, and distinguished it by this miracle. But envy had so blinded him, that he thought the glory of Christ his own dishonour and disgrace, for he was unable to perform such and so great acts, himself. So Saul ought to have given thanks to David for slaying Goliath, the dread of himself and of all Israel. But envy made him so perverse that he thought the glory of David his own ignominy, imagining that David was preferred to himself, and that he himself, though the king, was placed below him. This is the living image of envy—the mask of religion—veiled and cloaked.

Ver. 15 . — The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite. Hypocrites who feign sanctity abroad, when within they are full of envy and malice. S. Chrysostom in the Catena : "Christ rightly called him a hypocrite, because he had the face of one who observed the law carefully, but the mind of cunning and envy. He was not disturbed for the Sabbath and its violation, but because of Christ, because He obtained glory." I have treated the subject at length, Ecclus. 1: 37, on the words ne fueris, and Ecclus 2:14, Væ duplici.

This daughter of Abraham. The argument of Christ is most applicable and forcible, showing that the healing was not a servile act, but one liberal and divine, and therefore, not only not unworthy, but rather most worthy, of the Sabbath—for the Sabbath, nay, even God Himself, the author of it, was wonderfully sanctified and made glorious, as S. Irenæus shows when he says that, "Christ, in healing the sick on the Sabbath day, acted not contrarily but according to the law." Christ then compares, opposes, and prefers the bond and release of the woman to the bond and release of the ox and ass.

Again, every word contains a pregnant antithesis. In the first Christ compares, and prefers the woman, as a daughter of Abraham, to the ox or ass. 2. He compares and prefers the spiritual bond and deliverance of the woman to those of the ox and ass. 3. The woman had suffered this bondage for eighteen years. The ox had borne its tether, and therefore its thirst, only an hour or two. 4. The setting of the ox free was a long and troublesome work, but the healing of the woman was the act of a moment, in which the obligation of the Sabbath could in no way be violated. 5. By this release the woman was restored to perfect health and sanctity, but the ox only drank a little draught of water. Lastly, He convicts the ruler and the Pharisees of inhumanity, because, in the words of Bede, "he postponed the healing of a human being to care of cattle."

The glorious things that were done by Him. The Syraic—In all the miracles which were done by His hand.

Ver. 18.— Then said He. The word "then" is illative, as is shown by what precedes and follows. Christ saw that He had silenced His enemies, the Pharisees, by His wisdom, and that the people rejoiced and praised both Himself and His word. When He saw them thus rightly disposed, He proposed to them the parable of the kingdom of heaven; for He saw that the way was now prepared for proclaiming this, and for His preaching—that He might incite all to attempt its attainment, and therefore to receive His evangelical doctrine and life. I have explained the parable on S. Mat 13:31.

Ver. 23.— Then said one unto Him, Lord, are there few that be saved? Christ answered in the affirmative that few should be saved, as S. Luke signifies and S. Matt. plainly states, Mat 7:14. Isaiah speaks to the same effect, Isa 10:22; Isa 24:13. Understand "few" by a comparison of all the inhabitants of the whole world; or of the faithful with the unbelieving, for all the latter are condemned for their unbelief, and equally many of the faithful for their wicked lives. The faithful alone are saved, and not all of these. But whether the greater number of them are saved or lost is the question. Some think that the greater number are saved, through the holy sacraments (which very many of them only receive at the end of their lives). Others think that most are lost because they live in a state of mortal sin. The rule of S. Augustine is that as men have lived, so they die. Of these opinions I have shown which is the true one, on S. Jam 2:13, on the words "Mercy rejoiceth against judgment." The judgment of S. Chrysostom, Homily xl. to the Antiochenes, who numbered 100,000 or more, is formidable. "In our city," he says, "among so many thousands, scarcely can 100 be found who will be saved, for in the youngers is great wickedness, and in the elders deadness." And S. Augustine (Bk. iv. ch. 53, against Dresconius) compares the Church to a threshing-floor, on which there is much more chaff than grain, i.e. more reprobate than elect.

Ver 31.— The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying, Herod will kill Thee, as he slew John Thy forerunner. Christ seems not to have preached in Galilee at this time, as He had previously left it (Matt. xix.), but in Peræa in Judæa, for Herod ruled over Peræa as well as Galilee. So thinks F. Lucas. Maldonatus and others, however, suppose that these things were done in Galilee, that S. Luke may now insert by recapitulation what had been done there previously, as we find in ver. 24 and Luk 9:51.

Moreover the Pharisees, by this falsehood, pretended that Herod was hostile to Christ; that they might banish Him from among them, or at least that they might test His freedom and conscience and depress Him by implanting in his mind the fear of Herod, and might thus drive Him out of their country. "Lest," says Euthymius, "by His presence and miracles He might gain fame and attract a multitude." And perhaps, when going from Peræa to Judæa, He might fall into the hands of the chief Priests, whom they knew to be contriving His death, as is plain from S. Joh 7:20. Joh 7:25. Herod, indeed, was not opposed to Christ, for he desired to see Him and His miracles, as in chap. ix. 9; nay, he would not condemn Christ when Christ was sent to him by Pilate, but sent Him back to Pilate clad in a white (alba, Vulg., λάμπζος, Greek) robe, as if He were worthy of ridicule and not death, chap. xxiii. So Jansenius, Maldonatus, F. Lucas and others.

Ver.32.— And He said to them. Christ answered the Pharisees freely and loftily when they brought up the fear of Herod. He said that He feared neither Herod, nor the Pharisees, nor the rulers, but He would continue to preach, though against the will of them all, until the day appointed by the Father for His death. He called Herod "a fox," because he was cunning, crafty, (versipellis) and false, for he killed John the Baptist by fraud and falsehood. Such are heretics the type of whom was Herod, for they seek to kill those who believe, in Christ.

But Christ here rather addresses the Pharisees, and calls them all foxes because they would have instilled a false fear of Herod into His mind, that in flying from Judæa He might be taken by the rulers and put to death. Titus says that "He appears, as some think, to direct the whole force of His words against Herod alone, but He turns them against the wickedness of the Pharisees rather than Herod, for He did not say 'that fox,' but 'this fox.'" In fact, to show that the Pharisees resembled foxes by their pretended fraud, He carefully used a middle term, and, as S. Theophylact says, "with intention," for by saying "fox" in the singular He, made them think that He meant Herod, but by the addition of the demonstrative pronoun "this," He signified that they themselves were the crafty ones.

Thus Emmanuel Sà: "The word 'that' may apply either to Herod or to him who invented the falsehood that Herod wished to kill Christ; and who must have been one of the Pharisees, the enemies of Christ. The meaning then is, You Pharisees, like crafty and deceitful foxes, would fill Me with the fear of Herod, that I may no longer preach among you; but I forewarn you that I fear neither you nor Herod, nor will I, for any reason, cease to preach; for I am sure that my Father will not suffer Me to be taken and put to death before the day appointed by Him shall have arrived."

Behold, I cast out devils— I proceed to perform my work against the will not only of Herod but of you—to-day and to-morrow, that is, for some time yet, and the third day, that is, in a short time, when I shall have finished my ministry and preaching, I shall be perfected, i.e. "I shall receive my consummation in a glorious death on the cross, undergone by me willingly and courageously for the salvation of men," as the Apostle says, Hebrews xi.

Observe the Hebraism by which an indefinite time is put for a definite, as in Hosea vi. 2. So S. Cyril and Theophylact. Euthymius says, "To-day; and therefore to-morrow; that is, for some time yet, though a short one, that is about three months," for Christ appears to have said this a little before the Feast of Dedication, which is kept upon the 25th of the month Casleu, which answers to part of our November and December, and He was crucified in the following March.

Christ therefore boldly said this to the Pharisees to show, 1. That He feared not death but sought it. 2. To show His Divine Power, by which He would live among men, and teach them, even against their will, as long as the Father and Himself pleased and determined. 3. To increase the vexation of the perverse Pharisees, for they already wished for His destruction.

Christ also calls His death "a consummation," because in it and by it He consummated the whole œconomy of His Incarnation, and the whole work of the mission on which He was sent by the Father, that is, the expiation of all sins, the redemption of the human race, the salvation of the elect; as in Heb 10:14.

Ver. 33.— Nevertheless I must walk. "Must," says S. Bonaventure, "not from compulsion but from Divine decree." So S. Cyril, and Titus. Christ repeats this (which He had said in the preceding verse) to show that He was constant in fearing neither Herod nor the Pharisees, and in His determination to preach, against their will, for a short time still, to the day appointed by the Father. The meaning is: "To-day and to-morrow, and the third day following I must walk in the towns and villages, and preach, and on that third day following, that is soon after, be perfected by death on the cross, as I have already said. I now add that on the third day I shall do the same, for although I shall be perfected on this day, yet on this day also I must walk. All the time of my life, even to my death, I must walk in this country, and preach, and work cures, and cast out devils, because I have consecrated my whole life to holy actions, and my death to generous suffering; for I have offered myself to God as a holocaust." ln Hebrew "to walk" is taken for "to work;" S. Joh 8:12., Joh 23:35; Psa 1:1, and elsewhere. The Syriac has, "I must walk to-day and to-morrow, and on the third day I shall make my journey," i.e. I shall set out to Jerusalem to my death, and thence to Heaven from which I came.

Morally, the faithful, and especially the apostolic man, may learn to labour strenuously in the Lord's vineyard even to death and martyrdom, like SS. Peter, Paul, Chrysostom, Athanasius and others. So our own Father Canisius, though worn out by many and great labours, yet ceased not from them until his seventy-seventh year, when he was released at once from them and from his life.

These were his words. "To the soldiers of Christ," their term of service ( stipendia ) is not finished till the end of their lives. When they have ended then they begin: death alone gives them their discharge. There is one abode for those who have merited it, heaven. So our own Sacchinus in Bk. iii. of his life: "Let us labour therefore even to death, that after death we may rest for ever in a blessed felicity; for earth is the course (stadium) of a little labour, heaven is the seat of eternal repose."

For it cannot be that a prophet should perish out of Jerusalem. In the Greek ου̉κ ὲνδέχεται ; that is, it is not fitting, it does not happen. "It cannot be done" is read by the Syriac. It is a hyperbole. It means, "Such is the wickedness and barbarity of Jerusalem, that it seems proper to her that the prophets should be killed by herself, nay, she will not suffer this to be done by any other, but takes it amiss if it be. I do not fear Herod therefore, whom you cast up to Me, because I shall not be put to death by him now in Galilee, but some months hence in Jerusalem, the murderess of the prophets, where, not by Herod, but by yourselves, 0 Pharisees, I shall be crucified and slain." "For they were accustomed," says S. Theophylact, "to pour out the blood of the servants, even as they poured out that of the Lord Himself." So Titus, Jansenius, Maldonatus, and F. Lucas. The last named says: "It cannot be that a prophet should be slain outside Jerusalem, he must be slain within it; not because none were slain outside, for Jezebel slew many in Samaria, 1Ki 8:13, 1Ki 12:10, but as it was most usual for their slaughter to take place within the walls. For the kings had their abode there, and the rulers, the nobles, the scribes, the wise men, and the Pharisees, holy in their own eyes, who, like the people, would not endure the rebukes and admonitions of the prophets; so that the city was changed from the house of God, into the slaughter-house of the prophets, and professed to be, as it were, their place of torture. We read,

2Ki 21:16, "Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another."

In like manner at Rome, in various places, and especially at the Ursus Pileatus, where is now the Church of S. Bibiana, a great number of Christians were slain by the unbelieving Emperors: so that the place obtained the vulgar name of "The Shambles of the Martyrs." Thus it might then have been said with truth, "It is not possible that a Pope should be killed out of Rome, for almost all the Popes, from S. Peter to Silvester, for 300 years, were put to death by the Emperors at Rome for the faith of Christ."

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Luke (Book Introduction)

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

By Way of Introduction

There is not room here for a full discussion of all the interesting problems raised by Luke as the author of the Gospel and Acts. One can find them ably handled in the Introduction to Plummer’s volume on Luke’s Gospel in the International and Critical Commentary , in the Introduction to Ragg’s volume on Luke’s Gospel in the Westminster Commentaries , in the Introduction to Easton’s Gospel According to St. Luke , Hayes’ Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts , Ramsay’s Luke the Physician , Harnack’s Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels , Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake’s Beginnings of Christianity , Carpenter’s Christianity According to St. Luke , Cadbury’s The Making of Luke-Acts , McLachlan’s St. Luke: The Man and His Work , Robertson’s Luke the Historian in the Light of Research , to go no further. It is a fascinating subject that appeals to scholars of all shades of opinion.

The Same Author for Gospel and Acts

The author of Acts refers to the Gospel specifically as " the first treatise," ton prōton logon , (Act_1:1) and both are addressed to Theophilus (Luk_1:3; Act_1:1). He speaks of himself in both books as " me" ( kamoi , Luk_1:3) and I made ( epoiēsamēn , Act_1:1). He refers to himself with others as " we" and " us" as in Act_16:10, the " we" sections of Acts. The unity of Acts is here assumed until the authorship of Acts is discussed in Volume III. The same style appears in Gospel and Acts, so that the presumption is strongly in support of the author’s statement. It is quite possible that the formal Introduction to the Gospel (Luk_1:1-4) was intended to apply to the Acts also which has only an introductory clause. Plummer argues that to suppose that the author of Acts imitated the Gospel purposely is to suppose a literary miracle. Even Cadbury, who is not convinced of the Lucan authorship, says: " In my study of Luke and Acts, their unity is a fundamental and illuminating axiom." He adds: " They are not merely two independent writings from the same pen; they are a single continuous work. Acts is neither an appendix nor an afterthought. It is probably an integral part of the author’s original plan and purpose."

The Author of Acts a Companion of Paul

The proof of this position belongs to the treatment of Acts, but a word is needed here. The use of " we" and " us" in Act_16:10 and from Act_20:6 to the end of chapter Acts 28 shows it beyond controversy if the same man wrote the " we" sections and the rest of the Acts. This proof Harnack has produced with painstaking detail in his Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels and in his volume The Acts of the Apostles and in his Luke the Physician .

This Companion of Paul A Physician

The argument for this position lies in the use of medical terms throughout the Gospel and the Acts. Hobart in his Medical Language of St. Luke proves that the author of both Gospel and Acts shows a fondness for medical terms best explained by the fact that he was a physician. Like most enthusiasts he overdid it and some of his proof does not stand the actual test of sifting. Harnack and Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae have picked out the most pertinent items which will stand. Cadbury in his Style and Literary Method of Luke denies that Luke uses Greek medical words more frequently in proportion than Josephus, Philo, Plutarch, or Lucian. It is to miss the point about Luke merely to count words. It is mainly the interest in medical things shown in Luke and Acts. The proof that Luke is the author of the books does not turn on this fact. It is merely confirmatory. Paul calls Luke " the beloved physician" ( ho iatros ho agapētos , Col_4:14), " my beloved physician." Together they worked in the Island of Malta (Act_28:8-10) where many were healed and Luke shared with Paul in the appreciation of the natives who " came and were healed ( etherapeuonto ) who also honoured us with many honours." The implication there is that Paul wrought miracles of healing ( iasato ), while Luke practised his medical art also. Other notes of the physician’s interest will be indicated in the discussion of details like his omitting Mark’s apparent discredit of physicians (Mar_5:26) by a milder and more general statement of a chronic case (Luk_8:43).

This Companion and Author Luke

All the Greek manuscripts credit the Gospel to Luke in the title. We should know that Luke wrote these two books if there was no evidence from early writers. Irenaeus definitely ascribes the Gospel to Luke as does Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Fragment. Plummer holds that the authorship of the four great Epistles of Paul (I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) which even Baur accepted, is scarcely more certain than the Lukan authorship of the Gospel. Even Renan says: " There is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the author of the Gospel which bears his name."

A Sketch of Luke

His name is not a common one, and is probably a shortened form of Lukios and Lukanos . Some of the manuscripts of the Gospel actually have as the title Kata Lukanon . Dean Plumptre suggests that the Latin poet Lucanus was named after Luke who probably was the family physician when he was born. That is conjecture as well as the notion of Hayes that, since the brothers Gallio and Seneca were uncles of Lucanus they were influenced by Luke to be friendly toward Paul both in Corinth and in Rome. It is probable that Luke was a Greek, certainly a Gentile, possibly a freedman. So this man who wrote more than one-fourth of the New Testament was not a Jew. It is not certain whether his home was in Antioch or in Philippi. It is also uncertain whether he was already converted when Paul met him at Troas. The Codex Bezae has a " we" passage after Act_11:27 which, if genuine, would bring Luke in contact with Paul before Troas. Hayes thinks that he was a slave boy in the family of Theophilus at Antioch, several conjectures in one. We do not know that Theophilus lived at Antioch. It may have been Rome. But, whether one of Paul’s converts or not, he was a loyal friend to Paul. If he lived at Antioch, he could have studied medicine there and the great medical temple of Aesculapius was at Aegae, not far away. As a Greek physician, Luke was a university man and in touch with the science of his day. Greek medicine is the beginning of the science of medicine as it is known today. Tradition calls him a painter, but of that we know nothing. Certainly he was a humanist and a man of culture and broad sympathies and personal charm. He was the first genuine scientist who faced the problem of Christ and of Christianity. It must be said of him that he wrote his books with open mind and not as a credulous enthusiast.

The Date of the Gospel

There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in Act_1:1. Unfortunately the precise date of both termini is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the Antiquities of Josephus and so is after a.d. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luk_21:20.), which is interpreted as a prophecy post eventum instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul’s later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about a.d. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in Luk_1:1-4. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between a.d. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark’s Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark’s Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by a.d. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before a.d. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as a.d. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae , by Sanday and others in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem , by Streeter in his The Four Gospels , by Hayes in his The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts , by Harnack in his Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels , by Stanton in his The Gospels as Historical Documents , and by many others. My own views are given at length in my Studies in Mark’s Gospel and in Luke the Historian in the Light of Research .

The Sources of the Gospel

In his Preface or Prologue (Luk_1:1-4) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark’s Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke’s Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of " many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from " eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? shows the likelihood of Luke’s contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.

The Character of the Book

Literary charm is here beyond dispute. It is a book that only a man with genuine culture and literary genius could write. It has all the simple grace of Mark and Matthew plus an indefinable quality not in these wonderful books. There is a delicate finish of detail and proportion of parts that give the balance and poise that come only from full knowledge of the subject, the chief element in a good style according to Dr. James Stalker. This scientific physician, this man of the schools, this converted Gentile, this devoted friend of Paul, comes to the study of the life of Christ with a trained intellect, with an historian’s method of research, with a physician’s care in diagnosis and discrimination, with a charm of style all his own, with reverence for and loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. One could not afford to give up either of the Four Gospels. They each supplement the other in a wonderful way. John’s Gospel is the greatest book in all the world, reaching the highest heights of all. But if we had only Luke’s Gospel, we should have an adequate portrait of Jesus Christ as Son of God and Son of Man. If Mark’s is the Gospel for the Romans and Matthew’s for the Jews, the Gospel of Luke is for the Gentile world. He shows the sympathy of Jesus for the poor and the outcast. Luke understands women and children and so is the universal Gospel of mankind in all phases and conditions. It is often called the Gospel of womanhood, of infancy, of prayer, of praise. We have in Luke the first Christian hymns. With Luke we catch some glimpses of the child Jesus for which we are grateful. Luke was a friend and follower of Paul, and verbal parallels with Paul’s Epistles do occur, but there is no Pauline propaganda in the Gospel as Moffatt clearly shows ( Intr. to Lit. of the N.T. , p. 281). The Prologue is in literary Koiné and deserves comparison with those in any Greek and Latin writers. His style is versatile and is often coloured by his source. He was a great reader of the Septuagint as is shown by occasional Hebraisms evidently due to reading that translation Greek. He has graciousness and a sense of humour as McLachlan and Ragg show. Every really great man has a saving sense of humour as Jesus himself had. Ramsay dares to call Luke, as shown by the Gospel and Acts, the greatest of all historians not even excepting Thucydides. Ramsay has done much to restore Luke to his rightful place in the estimation of modern scholars. Some German critics used to cite Luk_2:1-7 as a passage containing more historical blunders than any similar passage in any historian. The story of how papyri and inscriptions have fully justified Luke in every statement here made is carefully worked out by Ramsay in his various books, especially in The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament . The main feature of this proof appears also in my Luke the Historian in the Light of Research . So many items, where Luke once stood alone, have been confirmed by recent discoveries that the burden of proof now rests on those who challenge Luke in those cases where he still stands alone.

JFB: Luke (Book Introduction)

THE writer of this Gospel is universally allowed to have been Lucas (an abbreviated form of Lucanus, as Silas of Silvanus), though he is not expressly named either in the Gospel or in the Acts. From Col 4:14 we learn that he was a "physician"; and by comparing that verse with Col 4:10-11 --in which the apostle enumerates all those of the circumcision who were then with him, but does not mention Luke, though he immediately afterwards sends a salutation from him--we gather that Luke was not a born Jew. Some have thought he was a freed-man (libertinus), as the Romans devolved the healing art on persons of this class and on their slaves, as an occupation beneath themselves. His intimate acquaintance with Jewish customs, and his facility in Hebraic Greek, seem to show that he was an early convert to the Jewish faith; and this is curiously confirmed by Act 21:27-29, where we find the Jews enraged at Paul's supposed introduction of Greeks into the temple, because they had seen "Trophimus the Ephesian" with him; and as we know that Luke was with Paul on that occasion, it would seem that they had taken him for a Jew, as they made no mention of him. On the other hand, his fluency in classical Greek confirms his Gentile origin. The time when he joined Paul's company is clearly indicated in the Acts by his changing (at Act 16:10) from the third person singular ("he") to the first person plural ("we"). From that time he hardly ever left the apostle till near the period of his martyrdom (2Ti 4:11). EUSEBIUS makes him a native of Antioch. If so, he would have every advantage for cultivating the literature of Greece and such medical knowledge as was then possessed. That he died a natural death is generally agreed among the ancients; GREGORY NAZIANZEN alone affirming that he died a martyr.

The time and place of the publication of his Gospel are alike uncertain. But we can approximate to it. It must at any rate have been issued before the Acts, for there the 'Gospel' is expressly referred to as the same author's "former treatise" (Act 1:1). Now the Book of the Acts was not published for two whole years after Paul's arrival as a prisoner at Rome, for it concludes with a reference to this period; but probably it was published soon after that, which would appear to have been early in the year 63. Before that time, then, we have reason to believe that the Gospel of Luke was in circulation, though the majority of critics make it later. If we date it somewhere between A.D. 50 and 60, we shall probably be near the truth; but nearer it we cannot with any certainty come. Conjectures as to the place of publication are too uncertain to be mentioned here.

That it was addressed, in the first instance, to Gentile readers, is beyond doubt. This is no more, as DAVIDSON remarks [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 186], than was to have been expected from the companion of an "apostle of the Gentiles," who had witnessed marvellous changes in the condition of many heathens by the reception of the Gospel. But the explanations in his Gospel of things known to every Jew, and which could only be intended for Gentile readers, make this quite plain--see Luk 1:26; Luk 4:31; Luk 8:26; Luk 21:37; Luk 22:1; Luk 24:13. A number of other minute particulars, both of things inserted and of things omitted, confirm the conclusion that it was Gentiles whom this Evangelist had in the first instance in view.

We have already adverted to the classical style of Greek which this Evangelist writes--just what might have been expected from an educated Greek and travelled physician. But we have also observed that along with this he shows a wonderful flexibility of style, so much so, that when he comes to relate transactions wholly Jewish, where the speakers and actors and incidents are all Jewish, he writes in such Jewish Greek as one would do who had never been out of Palestine or mixed with any but Jews. In DA COSTA'S'S Four Witnesses will be found some traces of "the beloved physician" in this Gospel. But far more striking and important are the traces in it of his intimate connection with the apostle of the Gentiles. That one who was so long and so constantly in the society of that master mind has in such a work as this shown no traces of that connection, no stamp of that mind, is hardly to be believed. Writers of Introductions seem not to see it, and take no notice of it. But those who look into the interior of it will soon discover evidences enough in it of a Pauline cast of mind. Referring for a number of details to DA COSTA, we notice here only two examples: In 1Co 11:23, Paul ascribes to an express revelation from Christ Himself the account of the Institution of the Lord's Supper which he there gives. Now, if we find this account differing in small yet striking particulars from the accounts given by Matthew and Mark, but agreeing to the letter with Luke's account, it can hardly admit of a doubt that the one had it from the other; and in that case, of course, it was Luke that had it from Paul. Now Matthew and Mark both say of the Cup, "This is my blood of the New Testament"; while Paul and Luke say, in identical terms, "This cup is the New Testament in My blood" (1Co 11:25; Luk 22:20). Further, Luke says, "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying," &c.; while Paul says, "After the same manner He took the cup when He had supped, saying," &c.; whereas neither Matthew nor Mark mention that this was after supper. But still more striking is another point of coincidence in this case. Matthew and Mark both say of the Bread merely this: "Take, eat; this is My body" (Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22); whereas Paul says, "Take, eat, this is My body, which is broken for you" (1Co 11:24), and Luke, "This is My body, which is given for you" (Luk 22:19). And while Paul adds the precious clause, "This do in remembrance of Me," Luke does the same, in identical terms. How can one who reflects on this resist the conviction of a Pauline stamp in this Gospel? The other proof of this to which we ask the reader's attention is in the fact that Paul, in enumerating the parties by whom Christ was seen after His resurrection, begins, singularly enough, with Peter--"And that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve" (1Co 15:4-5) --coupled with the remarkable fact, that Luke is the only one of the Evangelists who mentions that Christ appeared to Peter at all. When the disciples had returned from Emmaus to tell their brethren how the Lord had appeared to them in the way, and how He had made Himself known to them in the breaking of bread, they were met, as Luke relates, ere they had time to utter a word, with this wonderful piece of news, "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon" (Luk 24:34).

Other points connected with this Gospel will be adverted to in the Commentary.

JFB: Luke (Outline)

• ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE FORERUNNER. (Luke 1:5-25)
• ANNUNCIATION OF CHRIST. (Luk 1:26-38)
• VISIT OF MARY TO ELISABETH. (Luke 1:39-56)
• BIRTH AND CIRCUMCISION OF JOHN--SONG OF ZACHARIAS AND PROGRESS OF THE CHILD. (Luke 1:57-80)
• BIRTH OF CHRIST. (Luk 2:1-7)
• ANGELIC ANNUNCIATION TO THE SHEPHERDS--THEIR VISIT TO THE NEWBORN BABE. (Luk 2:8-20)
• PURIFICATION OF THE VIRGIN--PRESENTATION OF THE BABE IN THE TEMPLE-SCENE THERE WITH SIMEON AND ANNA. (Luke 2:22-40)
• FIRST CONSCIOUS VISIT TO JERUSALEM. (Luk 2:41-52)
• PREACHING, BAPTISM, AND IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN. (Luke 3:1-20) Here the curtain of the New Testament is, as it were, drawn up, and the greatest of all epochs of the Church commences. Even our Lord's own age (Luk 3:23) is determined by it [BENGEL]. No such elaborate chronological precision is to be found elsewhere in the New Testament, and it comes fitly from him who claims it as the peculiar recommendation of his Gospel, that he had "accurately traced down all things from the first" (Luk 1:3). Here, evidently, commences his proper narrative. Also see on Mat 3:1.
• BAPTISM OF AND DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT UPON JESUS. (Luk 3:21-22)
• GENEALOGY OF JESUS. (Luke 3:23-38)
• JESUS ENTERING ON HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY, MAKES A CIRCUIT OF GALILEE--REJECTION AT NAZARETH. (Luke 4:14-32)
• DEMONIAC HEALED. (Luk 4:33-37)
• PETER'S MOTHER-IN-LAW AND MANY OTHERS, HEALED. (Luk 4:38-41)
• JESUS SOUGHT OUT AT MORNING PRAYER, AND ENTREATED TO STAY, DECLINES FROM THE URGENCY OF HIS WORK. (Luk 4:42-44)
• MIRACULOUS DRAUGHT OF FISHES--CALL OF PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN. (Luk 5:1-11)
• LEPER HEALED. (Luk 5:12-16)
• PARALYTIC HEALED. (Luk 5:17-26)
• LEVI'S CALL AND FEAST. (Luk 5:27-32)
• PLUCKING CORN-EARS ON THE SABBATH. (Luk 6:1-5)
• WITHERED HAND HEALED. (Luk 6:6-11)
• THE TWELVE APOSTLES CHOSEN--GATHERING MULTITUDES--GLORIOUS HEALING. (Luke 6:12-49)
• CENTURION'S SERVANT HEALED. (Luk 7:1-10)
• WIDOW OF NAIN'S SON RAISED TO LIFE. (In Luke only). (Luk 7:11-17)
• THE BAPTIST'S MESSAGE THE REPLY, AND CONSEQUENT DISCOURSE. (Luke 7:18-35)
• CHRIST'S FEET WASHED WITH TEARS. (Luk 7:36-50)
• A GALILEAN CIRCUIT, WITH THE TWELVE AND CERTAIN MINISTERING WOMEN. (In Luke only). (Luk 8:1-3)
• PARABLE OF THE SOWER. (Luk 8:4-18)
• JESUS CROSSING THE LAKE, STILLS THE STORM. (Luk 8:22-25)
• JAIRUS' DAUGHTER RAISED AND ISSUE OF BLOOD HEALED. (Luke 8:40-56)
• MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. (Luk 9:1-6)
• HEROD TROUBLED AT WHAT HE HEARS OF CHRIST DESIRES TO SEE HIM. (Luk 9:7-9)
• PETER'S CONFESSION OF CHRIST--OUR LORD'S FIRST EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH, AND WARNINGS ARISING OUT OF IT. (Luk 9:18-27)
• JESUS TRANSFIGURED. (Luk 9:28-36)
• DEMONIAC AND LUNATIC BOY HEALED--CHRIST'S SECOND EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION. (Luk 9:37-45)
• STRIFE AMONG THE TWELVE WHO SHOULD BE GREATEST--JOHN REBUKED FOR EXCLUSIVENESS. (Luk 9:46-48) (See on Mat 18:1-5).
• THE PERIOD OF HIS ASSUMPTION APPROACHING CHRIST TAKES HIS LAST LEAVE OF GALILEE--THE SAMARITANS REFUSE TO RECEIVE HIM. (Luk 9:51-56)
• INCIDENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF DISCIPLESHIP. (Luk 9:57-62)
• MISSION OF THE SEVENTY DISCIPLES, AND THEIR RETURN. (Luke 10:1-24)
• QUESTION OF A LAWYER AND PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN. (Luk 10:25-37)
• MARTHA AND MARY. (Luk 10:38-42)
• THE DISCIPLES TAUGHT TO PRAY. (Luk 11:1-13)
• BLIND AND DUMB DEMONIAC HEALED--CHARGE OF BEING IN LEAGUE WITH HELL, AND REPLY--DEMAND OF A SIGN, AND REPLY. (Luke 11:14-36)
• DENUNCIATION OF THE PHARISEES. (Luke 11:37-54)
• WARNING AGAINST HYPOCRISY. (Luk 12:1-12)
• COVETOUSNESS--WATCHFULNESS--SUPERIORITY TO EARTHLY TIES. (Luke 12:13-53)
• NOT DISCERNING THE SIGNS OF THE TIME. (Luk 12:54-59)
• THE LESSON, "REPENT OR PERISH," SUGGESTED BY TWO RECENT INCIDENTS, AND ILLUSTRATED BY THE PARABLE OF THE BARREN FIG TREE. (Luk 13:1-9)
• WOMAN OF EIGHTEEN YEAR'S INFIRMITY HEALED ON THE SABBATH. (Luk 13:10-17)
• MISCELLANEOUS TEACHINGS. (Luk 13:18-30)
• MESSAGE TO HEROD. (Luk 13:31-35)
• HEALING OF A DROPSICAL MAN, AND MANIFOLD TEACHINGS AT A SABBATH FEAST. (Luke 14:1-24)
• ADDRESS TO GREAT MULTITUDES TRAVELLING WITH HIM. (Luk 14:25-35)
• PUBLICANS AND SINNERS WELCOMED BY CHRIST--THREE PARABLES TO EXPLAIN THIS. (Luke 15:1-32)
• I. THE LOST SHEEP. (Luk 15:3-7) Occurring again (Mat 18:12-14); but there to show how precious one of His sheep is to the Good Shepherd; here, to show that the shepherd, though the sheep stray never so widely, will seek it out, and when he hath found, will rejoice over it.
• II. THE LOST COIN. (Luk 15:8-10)
• III. THE PRODIGAL SON. (Luke 15:11-32)
• PARABLES OF THE UNJUST STEWARD AND OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS, OR, THE RIGHT USE OF MONEY. (Luke 16:1-31)
• OFFENSES--FAITH--HUMILITY. (Luk 17:1-10) (See Mat 18:6-7).
• TEN LEPERS CLEANSED. (Luk 17:11-19)
• COMING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND OF THE SON OF MAN. (Luke 17:20-37)
• PARABLE OF THE IMPORTUNATE WIDOW. (Luk 18:1-8)
• PARABLE OF THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN. (Luk 18:9-14)
• LITTLE CHILDREN BROUGHT TO CHRIST. (Luk 18:15-17)
• THE RICH YOUNG RULER AND DISCOURSE THEREON. (Luk 18:18-30)
• FULLER ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH AND RESURRECTION. (Luk 18:31-34)
• BLIND MAN HEALED. (Luk 18:35-43)
• ZACCHEUS THE PUBLICAN. (Luk 19:1-10)
• PARABLE OF THE POUNDS. (Luke 19:11-27)
• SECOND CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE AND SUBSEQUENT TEACHING. (Luk 19:45-48) As the first cleansing was on His first visit to Jerusalem (Joh 2:13-22), so this second cleansing was on His last.
• THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS QUESTIONED, AND HIS REPLY--PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN. (Luke 20:1-19)
• ENTANGLING QUESTIONS ABOUT TRIBUTE AND THE RESURRECTION--THE REPLIES. (Luke 20:20-40)
• CHRIST BAFFLES THE PHARISEES BY A QUESTION ABOUT DAVID AND MESSIAH, AND DENOUNCES THE SCRIBES. (Luk 20:41-47)
• THE WIDOW'S TWO MITES. (Luk 21:1-4)
• CHRIST'S PROPHECY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND WARNINGS TO PREPARE FOR HIS SECOND COMING, SUGGESTED BY IT--HIS DAYS AND NIGHTS DURING HIS LAST WEEK. (Luke 21:5-38) (See on Mat 24:1-3.)
• CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES TO PUT JESUS TO DEATH--COMPACT WITH JUDAS. (Luk 22:1-6) (See on Mat 26:1-5.)
• LAST PASSOVER--INSTITUTION OF THE SUPPER--DISCOURSE AT THE TABLE. (Luke 22:7-38)
• AGONY IN THE GARDEN. (Luk 22:39-46)
• JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS--FALL OF PETER. (Luk 22:55-62)
• JESUS BEFORE HEROD. (Luk 23:6-12)
• JESUS AGAIN BEFORE PILATE--DELIVERED UP--LED AWAY TO BE CRUCIFIED. (Luke 23:13-38)
• THE TWO THIEVES. (Luk 23:39-43)
• ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE WOMEN THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--PETER'S VISIT TO THE EMPTY SEPULCHRE. (Luk 24:1-12)
• CHRIST APPEARS TO THE TWO GOING TO EMMAUS. (Luke 24:13-35)
• JESUS APPEARS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES--HIS ASCENSION. (Luke 24:36-53)

TSK: Luke (Book Introduction)

Luke, to whom this Gospel has been uniformly attributed from the earliest ages of the Christian church, is generally allowed to have been " the beloved physician" mentioned by Paul (Col 4:14); and as he was the companion of that apostle, in all his labours and sufferings, for many years (Act 16:12; Act 20:1-6; Act 27:1, Act 27:2; Act 28:13-16. 2Ti 4:11. Phm 1:24), and wrote " the Acts of the Apostles," which conclude with a brief account of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, we may be assured that he had the Apostle’s sanction to what he did; and probably this Gospel was written some time before that event, about ad 63 or 64, as is generally supposed. He would appear, from Col 4:10, Col 4:11, and his intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, as well as from his Greek name Λουκας [Strong’s 3065], to have been of Gentile extraction; and according to Eusebius and others, he was a native of Antioch. But, from the Hebraisms occurring in his writings, and especially from his accurate knowledge of the Jewish rites, ceremonies, and custom, it is highly probable that he was a Jewish proselyte, and afterwards converted to Christianity. Though he may not have been, as some have affirmed, one of the seventy disciples, and an eye-witness of our Saviour’s miracles, yet his intercourse with the apostles, and those who were eye-witnesses of the works and ear witnesses of the words of Christ, renders him an unexceptional witness, if considered merely as an historian; and the early and unanimous reception of his Gospel as divinely inspired is sufficient to satisfy every reasonable person.

TSK: Luke 13 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Luk 13:1, Christ preaches repentance upon the punishment of the Galilaeans and others; Luk 13:6, The fruitless fig-tree may not stand; Luk 13:10, He heals the crooked woman; Luk 13:18, shows the powerful working of the word in the hearts of his chosen, by the parable of the grain of mustard seed, and of leaven; Luk 13:22, exhorts to enter in at the strait gate; Luk 13:31, and reproves Herod and Jerusalem.

Poole: Luke 13 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 13

MHCC: Luke (Book Introduction)

This evangelist is generally supposed to have been a physician, and a companion of the apostle Paul. The style of his writings, and his acquaintance with the Jewish rites and usages, sufficiently show that he was a Jew, while his knowledge of the Greek language and his name, speak his Gentile origin. He is first mentioned Act 16:10, Act 16:11, as with Paul at Troas, whence he attended him to Jerusalem, and was with him in his voyage, and in his imprisonment at Rome. This Gospel appears to be designed to supersede many defective and unauthentic narratives in circulation, and to give a genuine and inspired account of the life, miracles, and doctrines of our Lord, learned from those who heard and witnessed his discourses and miracles.

MHCC: Luke 13 (Chapter Introduction)

(Luk 13:1-5) Christ exhorts to repentance from the case of the Galileans and others.

(Luk 13:6-9) Parable of the barren fig-tree.

(Luk 13:10-17) The infirm woman strengthened.

(Luk 13:18-22) The parables of the mustard seed, and leaven.

(Luk 13:23-30) Exhortation to enter at the strait gate.

(Luk 13:31-35) Christ's reproof to Herod, and to the people of Jerusalem.

Matthew Henry: Luke (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Luke

We are now entering into the labours of another evangelist; his name Luke, which some take to be a contraction of Lucilius; born at Antioch, so St. Jerome. Some think that he was the only one of all the penmen of the scripture that was not of the seed of Israel. He was a Jewish proselyte, and, as some conjecture, converted to Christianity by the ministry of St. Paul at Antioch; and after his coming into Macedonia (Act 16:10) he was his constant companion. He had employed himself in the study and practice of physic; hence, Paul calls him Luke the beloved Physician, Col 4:14. Some of the pretended ancients tell you that he was a painter, and drew a picture of the virgin Mary. But Dr. Whitby thinks that there is nothing certain to the contrary, and that therefore it is probable that he was one of the seventy disciples, and a follower of Christ when he was here upon earth; and, if so, he was a native Israelite. I see not what can be objected against this, except some uncertain traditions of the ancients, which we can build nothing upon, and against which may be opposed the testimonies of Origen and Epiphanius, who both say that he was one of the seventy disciples. He is supposed to have written this gospel when he was associated with St. Paul in his travels, and by direction from him: and some think that this is the brother whom Paul speaks of (2Co 8:18), whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches of Christ; as if the meaning of it were, that he was celebrated in all the churches for writing this gospel; and that St. Paul means this when he speaks sometimes of his gospel, as Rom 2:16. But there is no ground at all for this. Dr. Cave observes that his way and manner of writing are accurate and exact, his style polite and elegant, sublime and lofty, yet perspicuous; and that he expresses himself in a vein of purer Greek than is to be found in the other writers of the holy story. Thus he relates divers things more copiously than the other evangelists; and thus he especially treats of those things which relate to the priestly office of Christ. It is uncertain when, or about what time, this gospel was written. Some think that it was written in Achaia, during his travels with Paul, seventeen years (twenty-two years, say others) after Christ's ascension; others, that it was written at Rome, a little before he wrote his history of the Acts of the Apostles (which is a continuation of this), when he was there with Paul, while he was a prisoner, and preaching in his own hired house, with which the history of the Acts concludes; and then Paul saith that only Luke was with him, 2Ti 4:11. When he was under that voluntary confinement with Paul, he had leisure to compile these two histories (and many excellent writings the church has been indebted to a prison for): if so, it was written about twenty-seven years after Christ's ascension, and about the fourth year of Nero. Jerome says, He died when he was eighty-four years of age, and was never married. Some write that he suffered martyrdom; but, if he did, where and when is uncertain. Nor indeed is there much more credit to be given to the Christian traditions concerning the writers of the New Testament than to the Jewish traditions concerning those of the Old Testament.

Matthew Henry: Luke 13 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter we have, I. The good improvement Christ made of a piece of news that was brought him concerning some Galileans, that were lately massacred by Pilate, as they were sacrificing in the temple at Jerusalem (Luk 13:1-5). II. The parable of the fruitless fig-tree, by which we are warned to bring forth fruits meet for that repentance to which he had in the foregoing passage called us (Luk 13:6-9). III. Christ's healing a poor infirm woman on the sabbath day, and justifying himself in it (Luk 13:11-17). IV. A repetition of the parables of the grain of mustard-seed and the leaven (Luk 13:18-22). V. His answer to the question concerning the number of the saved (Luk 13:23-30). VI. The slight he put upon Herod's malice and menaces, and the doom of Jerusalem read (Luk 13:31-35).

Barclay: Luke (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT LUKE

A Lovely Book And Its Author

The gospel according to St. Luke has been called the loveliest book in the world. When once an American asked him if he could recommend a good life of Christ, Denney answered, "Have you tried the one that Luke wrote?" There is a legend that Luke was a skilled painter; there is even a painting of Mary in a Spanish cathedral to this day which purports to be by him. Certainly he had an eye for vivid things. It would not be far wrong to say that the third gospel is the best life of Christ ever written. Tradition has always believed that Luke was the author and we need have no qualms in accepting that tradition. In the ancient world it was the regular thing to attach books to famous names; no one thought it wrong. But Luke was never one of the famous figures of the early Church. If he had not written the gospel no one would have attached it to his name.

Luke was a gentile; and he has the unique distinction of being the only New Testament writer who was not a Jew. He was a doctor by profession (Col_4:14 ) and maybe that very fact gave him the wide sympathy he possessed. It has been said that a minister sees men at their best; a lawyer sees men at their worst; and a doctor sees men as they are. Luke saw men and loved them all.

The book was written to a man called Theophilus. He is called most excellent Theophilus and the title given him is the normal title for a high official in the Roman government. No doubt Luke wrote it to tell an earnest inquirer more about Jesus; and he succeeded in giving Theophilus a picture which must have thrilled his heart closer to the Jesus of whom he had heard.

The Symbols Of The Gospels

Every one of the four gospels was written from a certain point of view. Very often on stained glass windows the writers of the gospels are pictured; and usually to each there is attached a symbol. The symbols vary but one of the commonest allocations is this.

The emblem of Mark is a man. Mark is the simplest and most straightforward of the gospels. It has been well said that its characteristic is realism. It is the nearest to being a report of Jesusife.

The emblem of Matthew is a lion. Matthew was a Jew writing for Jews and he saw in Jesus the Messiah, the lion of the tribe of Judah, the one whom all the prophets had predicted.

The emblem of John is the eagle. The eagle can fly higher than any other bird. It is said that of all creatures only the eagle can look straight into the sun. John is the theological gospel; its flights of thought are higher than those of any of the others. It is the gospel where the philosopher can find themes to think about for a lifetime and to solve only in eternity.

The symbol of Luke is the calf The calf is the animal for sacrifice; and Luke saw in Jesus the sacrifice for all the world. In Luke above all, the barriers are broken down and Jesus is for Jew and gentile, saint and sinner alike. He is the saviour of the world. Keeping that in mind, let us now set down the characteristics of this gospel.

An HistorianCare

First and foremost, Lukegospel is an exceedingly careful bit of work. His Greek is notably good. The first four verses are well-nigh the best Greek in the New Testament. In them he claims that his work is the product of the most careful research. His opportunities were ample and his sources must have been good. As the trusted companion of Paul he must have known all the great figures of the church, and we may be sure that he had them tell their stories to him. For two years he was Paulcompanion in imprisonment in Caesarea. In those long days he had every opportunity for study and research and he must have used them well.

An example of Lukecare is the way in which he dates the emergence of John the Baptist. He does so by no fewer than six contemporary datings. "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (1), Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea (2), Herod being tetrarch of Galilee (3), and his brother Philip being tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis (4), and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene (5) in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas (6), the word of God came to John" (Luk_3:1-2 ). Here is a man who is writing with care and who will be as accurate as it is possible for him to be.

The Gospel For The Gentiles

It is clear that Luke wrote mainly for gentiles. Theophilus was a gentile, as was Luke himself, and there is nothing in the gospel that a gentile could not grasp and understand. (a) As we have seen, Luke begins his dating from the reigning Roman emperor and the current Roman governor. The Roman date comes first. (b) Unlike Matthew, he is not greatly interested in the life of Jesus as the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. (c) He very seldom quotes the Old Testament at all. (d) He has a habit of giving Hebrew words in their Greek equivalent so that a Greek would understand. Simon the Cananaean becomes Simon the Zealot. (compare Luk_6:15 and Mat_10:4 ). Calvary is called not by its Hebrew name, Golgotha (compare H1538 and H1556), but by its Greek name, Kranion (G2898). Both mean the place of a skull. He never uses the Jewish term Rabbi (H7227) of Jesus but always a Greek word meaning Master. When he is tracing the descent of Jesus, he traces it not to Abraham, the founder of the Jewish race, as Matthew does, but to Adam, the founder of the human race. (compare Mat_1:2 and Luk_3:38 ).

Because of this Luke is the easiest of all the gospels to read. He was writing, not for Jews, but for people very like ourselves.

The Gospel Of Prayer

Lukegospel is specially the gospel of prayer. At all the great moments of his life, Luke shows us Jesus at prayer. He prayed at his baptism (Luk_3:21 ); before his first collision with the Pharisees (Luk_5:16 ); before he chose the Twelve (Luk_6:12 ); before he questioned his disciples as to who they thought he was; before his first prediction of his own death (Luk_9:18 ); at the Transfiguration (Luk_9:29 ); and upon the Cross (Luk_23:46 ). Only Luke tells us that Jesus prayed for Peter in his hour of testing (Luk_22:32 ). Only he tells us the prayer parables of the Friend at Midnight (Luk_11:5-13 ) and the Unjust Judge (Luk_18:1-8 ). To Luke the unclosed door of prayer was one of the most precious in all the world.

The Gospel Of Women

In Palestine the place of women was low. In the Jewish morning prayer a man thanks God that he has not made him "a gentile, a slave or a woman." But Luke gives a very special place to women. The birth narrative is told from Marypoint of view. It is in Luke that we read of Elizabeth, of Anna, of the widow at Nain, of the woman who anointed Jesuseet in the house of Simon the Pharisee. It is Luke who makes vivid the pictures of Martha and Mary and of Mary Magdalene. It is very likely that Luke was a native of Macedonia where women held a more emancipated position than anywhere else; and that may have something to do with it.

The Gospel Of Praise

In Luke the phrase "praising God" occurs oftener than in all the rest of the New Testament put together. This praise reaches its peak in the three great hymns that the church has sung throughout all her generations--the Magnificat (Luk_1:46-55 ); the Benediclus (Luk_1:68-79 ); and the Nunc Dimittis (Luk_2:29-32 ). There is a radiance in Lukegospel which is a lovely thing, as if the sheen of heaven had touched the things of earth.

The Universal Gospel

But the outstanding characteristic of Luke is that it is the universal gospel. All the barriers are down; Jesus Christ is for all men without distinction.

(a) The kingdom of heaven is not shut to the Samaritans (Luk_9:51-56 ). Luke alone tells the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luk_10:30-37 ). The one grateful leper is a Samaritan (Luk_17:11-19 ). John can record a saying that the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans (Joh_4:9 ). But Luke refuses to shut the door on any man.

(b) Luke shows Jesus speaking with approval of gentiles whom the orthodox Jew would have considered unclean. He shows us Jesus citing the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian as shining examples (Luk_4:25-27 ). The Roman centurion is praised for the greatness of his faith (Luk_7:9 ). Luke tells us of that great word of Jesus, "Men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at the table in the kingdom of God" (Luk_13:29 ).

(c) Luke is supremely interested in the poor. When Mary brings the offering for her purification it is the offering of the poor (Luk_2:24 ). When Jesus is, as it were, setting out his credentials to the emissaries of John, the climax is, "The poor have good news preached to them" (Luk_7:22 ). He alone tells the parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man (Luk_16:19-31 ). In Lukeaccount of the Beatitudes the saying of Jesus runs, not, as in Matthew (Mat_5:3 ), "Blessed are the poor in spirit," but simply, "Blessed are you poor" (Luk_6:20 ). Lukegospel has been called "the gospel of the underdog." His heart runs out to everyone for whom life is an unequal struggle.

(d) Above all Luke shows Jesus as the friend of outcasts and sinners. He alone tells of the woman who anointed Jesuseet and bathed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luk_7:36-50 ); of Zacchaeus, the quisling tax-gatherer (Luk_19:1-10 ); of the Penitent Thief (Luk_23:43 ); and he alone has the immortal story of the prodigal son and the loving father (Luk_15:11-32 ). When Matthew tells how Jesus sent his disciples out to preach, he says that Jesus told them not to go to the Samaritans or the gentiles (Mat_10:5 ); but Luke omits that altogether. All four gospel writers quote from Isa 40 when they give the message of John the Baptist, "Prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God"; but only Luke continues the quotation to its triumphant conclusion, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Isa_40:3-5 ; Mat_3:3 ; Mar_1:3 ; Joh_1:23 ; Luk_3:4 , Luk_3:6 ). Luke of all the gospel writers sees no limits to the love of God.

The Book Beautiful

As we study this book we must look for these characteristics. Somehow of all the gospel writers one would have liked to meet Luke best of all, for this gentile doctor with the tremendous vision of the infinite sweep of the love of God must have been a lovely soul. Faber wrote the lines,

Therea wideness in Godmercy,

Like the wideness of the sea;

Therea kindness in his justice,

Which is more than liberty.

For the love of God is broader

Than the measures of manmind;

And the heart of the Eternal

Is most wonderfully kind.

Lukegospel is the demonstration that this is true.

Barclay: Luke 13 (Chapter Introduction)

Suffering And Sin (Luk_13:1-5)

Gospel Of The Other Chance And Threat Of The Last Chance (Luk_13:6-9)

Mercy More Than Law (Luk_13:10-17)

The Empire Of Christ (Luk_13:18-19)

The Leaven Of The Kingdom (Luk_13:20-21)

The Risk Of Being Shut Out (Luk_13:22-30)

Courage And Tenderness (Luk_13:31-35)

Constable: Luke (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

Several factors indicate that the writer of this Gospel was the same person who wrote the Book of Acts. First, a man named Theophilus was the recipient of both books (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). Second, Acts refers to a previous work by the same writer. Third, both books have several common themes some of which do not receive the same emphasis elsewhere in the New Testament. Fourth, there are general structural and stylistic similarities including the use of chiasms and the tendency to focus on specific individuals.

The writer also acquired his knowledge of Jesus' life and ministry from research rather than from eyewitness observations (Luke 1:1-4). Therefore he was not one of the disciples who travelled with Jesus.

The early church identified the writer as Luke. The heretic Marcion is the earliest witness we have to Luke's authorship (c. 135 A.D.). The Muratorian Canon (c. 180 A.D.) mentioned Luke as the writer too. It described him as the physician who accompanied Paul on his journey (cf. Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16; Col. 4:14; Phile. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11). Irenaeus (c. 180-185 A.D.) also believed Luke wrote this Gospel and called him the "inseparable" companion of Paul.¹ Later church fathers referred to Luke as the writer of this Gospel. Luke was evidently a Gentile (cf. Col. 4:10-14).² Church tradition identified Antioch of Syria as Luke's hometown, but this is impossible to validate.

Distinctive Features

The main doctrines of systematic theology that Luke stressed were Christology, soteriology, pneumatology, and eschatology. There is much emphasis on the glory of God, prayer, miracles, the divine plan that Jesus fulfilled, Israel, believing, discipleship, forgiveness, and God's Word.³

Luke stressed Jesus' concern for all people, especially for individuals that society of His day despised such as the poor, women, children, and "sinners." He used the Greek term nomikos, which means "lawyer," rather than the Hebrew term grammateus, meaning "scribe." He emphasized Jesus' practical teachings, such as what He taught about money (cf. chs. 12 and 16).

"In terms of its worldview, its theology, and its practical presentation of principles, this Gospel explains how we can serve God better."⁴

Luke showed interest in purpose, fulfillment, and accomplishment. He documented the joy that resulted from Jesus' saving and healing works. He stressed Jesus' call for people to become His disciples. He portrayed Jesus as dependent on the Holy Spirit and on the Father through prayer. Finally, Luke recorded many examples of Jesus' power.

"Luke's Gospel gives a reader a more comprehensive grasp of the history of the period than the other Gospels. He presented more facts about the earthly life of Jesus than did Matthew, Mark, or John."⁵

This is the longest book in the New Testament. Together with Acts it comprises about 27% of the Greek New Testament.⁶ Luke is the longest book in the New Testament, Matthew is second, and Acts is third, but only slightly shorter than Matthew.

Purposes

The Gospel of Luke is one of the books of the Bible that states the purpose of the writer. Luke said that he wrote to inform Theophilus about the truthfulness of the gospel that he had heard (1:4). In Acts, Luke said he had written previously about the things that Jesus began to do and teach before His ascension (Acts 1:1-2). He then proceeded to record the things Jesus continued to do and teach after His ascension through His apostles in Acts. Presumably Luke wrote both his Gospel and Acts with a larger audience than just Theophilus in view.

The distinctive emphases of the Gospel help us to identify secondary purposes. Luke demonstrated a zeal to convince his readers of the reliability of the facts that he recorded so they would believe in Jesus and become Christians. This concern is also clear in Acts.⁷ Obviously he wrote to preserve the record of events that happened during Jesus' earthly ministry, but few ancient writers wrote simply to narrate a chronicle of events.⁸ They wrote to convince their readers of something, and they used history to do that. Notwithstanding historical accuracy was important to them.⁹ We believe that Luke's Gospel is an accurate continuation of biblical history that God preserved in Scripture. This Gospel constitutes an apologetic for Christianity that would have been of special interest to Greeks because of Luke's selection of material, vocabulary, and style.¹⁰

Original Audience

Evidently Theophilus was a real person.¹¹ His name is Greek and means "friend of God." He appears to have been a fairly recent convert to Christianity from Greek paganism. Consequently it appears that Luke wrote for people such as Theophilus originally. Before his conversion, Theophilus may have been one of the Gentile God-fearers to which Luke referred several times in Acts. The God-fearers were Gentiles who had a certain respect for and who wanted to learn more about the God of the Jews. They came to the Jewish synagogues and listened to the Jewish Scriptures read there. Luke's orientation of his Gospel to the secular world and his references to Judaism also suggest that he wrote his Gospel with these people in mind. His use of the Septuagint version and his interest in the God-fearers suggest this too. The God-fearers had turned from Greek polytheism to Jewish monotheism, but many of them were not familiar with Palestinian geography and culture. Luke clarified these matters for his readers when necessary. The God-fearers were the Gentiles whom Paul found to be the most receptive soil for the gospel seed. Luke himself may have been one of this group, though there is no way to prove or to disprove that possibility.

"[Luke] writes to reassure the Christians of his day that their faith in Jesus is no aberration, but the authentic goal towards which God's ancient dealings with Israel were driving."¹²

By the first century most of the pagan Greeks had stopped believing in the gods and goddesses of their mythology and had abandoned fatalism. Many of them were following Eastern "mystery" religions that competed with Christianity for their allegiance. Both beliefs offered saviors, but the Savior of Christianity was a personal resurrected Lord whereas the savior of the mystery religions was impersonal and ideal. Luke evidently wrote to persuade these people to believe in Jesus and to give them a solid factual basis for their faith.

"That he wrote for an urban church community in the Hellenistic world is fairly certain."¹³

Literary Characteristics

Experts in Greek literary styles acknowledge Luke's style and structure as superb.¹⁴ No one knows Luke's educational background, but clearly he had training in Greek composition as well as medicine and a talent for writing. Luke used many words that the other Gospel writers did not, and many of them show a wide literary background. He also used several medical and theological terms that are unique. Luke's use of Semiticisms shows that he knew the Hebrew Old Testament well. However, his preference for the Septuagint suggests that it was the version his readers used most. Probably Luke was a Gentile who had much exposure to Semitic idioms from Paul and other Jews. He was a skillful enough writer to use chiasms as a major structural device.¹⁵ Chiasms were both Jewish and Greek literary devices that gave unity to a composition or section of text. Acts also contains them. Luke also repeated similar stories with variations (cf. 1:80; 2:40; 2:52). This literary device aids learning while giving additional new insights. He also tended to use a particular term frequently in one or more passages and then rarely or never after that. This makes the term stand out and calls attention to it where it occurs.¹⁶

Date

Practically all scholars believe that Luke wrote his Gospel before he wrote Acts. Many conservative scholars hold that he wrote Acts during Paul's first Roman imprisonment during which the book ends (60-62 A.D.). Luke accompanied Paul during much of that apostle's missionary ministry. At times Luke was not with Paul, but he was ministering as Paul's representative in one or another of the churches that Paul had founded. Evidently Paul was Luke's primary source of information for his Gospel and Acts as Peter was Mark's primary source for the second Gospel. Luke may have written his Gospel during Paul's first imprisonment in Rome along with Acts. However, it seems more likely in view of how Luke introduced these two books that he wrote the Gospel sometime earlier than Acts. Luke had the most time to write this Gospel during Paul's Caesarean imprisonment (57-59 A.D., cf. Acts 24:1-26:32). This seems to me to be the most probable date of writing.¹⁷

Message¹⁸

The first Gospel presented Jesus as the King. The second Gospel presented Him as the Servant. The third Gospel presents Him as the perfect Man. Matthew wrote to Jews about their King. Mark wrote to Romans about a Servant. Luke wrote to Greeks about the ideal Man. The title "Messiah" is most fitting for Jesus in Matthew. The title "Suffering Servant" is most appropriate in Mark. "Son of Man" is the title most characteristic of Luke's presentation of Jesus.

Luke stressed the saving work of Jesus in His Gospel. He presented Jesus as the Savior of mankind. He also proclaimed Jesus' work of providing salvation for mankind. Let us consider first the Savior that Luke presents and then the salvation that the Savior came to provide.

Luke presented Jesus as the Savior in three different relationships. He presented Him as the first-born of a new race. Second, He presented Him as the older brother in a new family. Third, He presented Him as the redeemer of a lost humanity.

Let us consider first Luke's concept of Jesus as the first-born of a new race. Luke's genealogy reveals how the writer wanted the reader to regard Jesus. Matthew traced Jesus' lineage back to David and Abraham in his genealogy to show His right to rule as Israel's Messiah. Luke traced Jesus' ancestry back to Adam. He did this to show Jesus' humanity.

However, Luke went back even farther than that to God. This indicates that Jesus was not just like other humans who descended from Adam. He was, as the Apostle Paul called Him, the "Last Adam." The first Adam that God placed on this earth failed and plunged his race into sin and death. The last Adam that God placed on the earth did not fail but saved His race from sin and brought it new life. The first man begins the Old Testament, but the "Second Man," to use another Pauline title, begins the New Testament. As Adam headed one race, so Jesus heads a new race. Both Adams were real men. Thus both men head real races of mankind. Luke viewed Jesus as succeeding where Adam failed, as atoning for Adam's transgression.

For Jesus to undue the consequences of Adam's fall, He had to be more than just a good man. He had to be a perfect man, a sinless man. Therefore Luke stressed Jesus' sinlessness. He did this primarily in his account of Jesus' birth. Luke stressed the virgin conception of Jesus. The Holy Spirit, not a sinful human, fathered Jesus. God regards the male as responsible in the human family. Husbands are responsible for their wives. Fathers are responsible for their children. God held Adam, not Eve, responsible for his descendants.

Human beings are sinners for three separate reasons. First, we are sinners because we commit acts of sin. However even if we never committed one act of sin we would still be sinners because we, second, inherited a sinful human nature. This nature apparently comes through our fathers (cf. Heb. 7:9-10).¹⁹ Third, we are sinners because God has imputed the guilt of Adam's sin to us because he is the head of the race to which we belong.

Jesus was not a sinner. He did not commit any acts of sin. Second, He did not inherit a sinful nature from His human father because God was His real Father. Third, God did not impute Adam's sin to Jesus because Jesus was the direct descendant of God and therefore the head of a new race. God gave the first Adam life by breathing the breath of life into the body that He had created. Likewise God gave the second Adam life by implanting His divine life into a body that He had created, namely Mary's body.

The doctrine of the virgin birth is extremely important because it establishes the sinlessness of Jesus in two of the three ways whereby people become sinners. If a virgin did not conceive Jesus, then He was a sinner. If Jesus was a sinner, then He cannot be the Savior.

The third way a person becomes a sinner is by committing acts of sin. Luke showed that Jesus did not do this in his account of Jesus' temptations.

In the wilderness Satan subjected Jesus to the strongest temptations that humans face. Satan directed Jesus' three tests at the three areas of human personality that constitute the totality of human existence. These areas are doing (the lust of the flesh), having (the lust of the eyes), and being (the pride of life). These are the same three areas in which Satan attacked Eve.

The first man fell in a garden, an environment conducive to withstanding temptation. The Second Man overcame temptation in a wilderness, an environment conducive to yielding to temptation. Rather than showing at every turn in Jesus' life that He did not sin, Luke showed that in the supreme test of His life Jesus did not sin. However, he continued to note Jesus' conflict with Satan, demons, and sin throughout His life. Luke's record of these encounters also demonstrates Jesus' sinlessness.

At the Transfiguration, God declared His Son acceptable to Him. This meant that He was sinless.

Second, Luke presented Jesus as the older brother in a new family. Since Jesus was the head of a new race we might think that Luke would have presented Jesus as a father. Jesus was the first and therefore the source of all that follow in the race that He established. Nevertheless Luke stressed Jesus' likeness with those in the new race. He is as an elder brother to us who have new life through Him. This is not to deny His deity. In one sense Jesus is completely different from us since He is God. However, Luke stressed the sense in which He is like us, namely in His humanity. He is one of us, fully human.

Luke presented Jesus as a man among men. He of all the Gospel writers wanted his readers to appreciate the fact that Jesus was a real person. There are many small indications of this throughout this Gospel that I have tried to identify in the notes. Luke did this because he was evidently writing to Greeks. Greeks had a background in polytheism and mythology. Because of their cultural background they tended to think of gods as superhumans. They were not real people, but they had the characteristics of people expanded into superhuman proportions. Luke wanted his readers to realize that Jesus was not that type of god. He was fully human, but He was also sinless. He had superhuman powers, but He was not the type of superman that the Greeks imagined.

Jesus was a fellow human being albeit sinless. This is very hard for us to imagine. Therefore Luke put much in his Gospel that helps us understand Jesus, from His birth announcements to His ascension into heaven.

Third, Luke presented Jesus as the redeemer of a lost humanity. Since he was writing to Greeks, Luke did not identify many allusions to the Old Testament or to Jewish life and history. These allusions are in the text, but Luke did not draw attention to them. One of the outstanding concepts in Israelite life that Luke did not identify as such, but which overshadows his portrait of Jesus, is the kinsman redeemer. His presentation of Jesus fits the image of the Jewish kinsman redeemer remarkably.

The kinsman redeemer had to be the next of kin to the person he redeemed. Luke presented Jesus as qualifying as our redeemer in this respect. He was a man as we are. Therefore He could provide redemption for His needy brothers.

The kinsman redeemer also had to accept personal responsibility for those he purposed to save from their miserable estate. Luke presented Jesus as taking personal responsibility for lost sinners. He recorded Jesus saying that He had to go to the Cross. He viewed the salvation of mankind as something that He needed to accomplish because He had made a personal commitment to do so. That commitment began in heaven but continued on earth throughout Jesus' life.

The kinsman redeemer had to overcome those who opposed his brethren. Luke presented Jesus as conflicting with Satan and his hosts. He showed Him interceding for the Father's help for His tempted brethren, Peter in particular. Jesus won the victory over mankind's great enemy for His brethren.

The kinsman redeemer had to create an opportunity for his brother's redemption. Luke presented Jesus as doing this. Luke's distinctive presentation of Jerusalem as Jesus' city of destiny contributes to this theme. Jesus deliberately advanced toward Jerusalem and the Cross because He was creating an opportunity for mankind's redemption.

The kinsman redeemer turned his back on his personal rights and privileges to provide redemption for his brother. Luke presented Jesus doing this as well. Jesus modeled this strongly for His disciples in this Gospel. He also taught the importance of disciples doing this so we can bring salvation to our brothers.

These themes are very strong in Luke. Jesus is the head of an entirely new race of people, the redeemed. He is the elder brother who provides an example for His brethren to follow. He is the Savior who has come "to seek and to save the lost."

We have considered how Luke presents Jesus as the Savior. Now let us turn to what he revealed about salvation. The key verse in the Gospel is 19:10: "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save the lost." We have been looking at the Son of Man. Now let us look as seeking and saving the lost.

Luke reveals that the Son of Man has redeemed mankind. This Gospel is a record of God's redeeming work in Jesus Christ. Jesus' work on the Cross is the climax of this Gospel as it is the climax of all the Gospels and history itself. Jesus was born to die. By His death Jesus purchased mankind's freedom at the cost of His own life. Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper so His disciples would always keep the memory of the significance of His death freshly before them. The Christian mission is to tell the world about this redemption.

Through redemption God regenerates those who are dead in sin. This is the second step in God's plan of seeking and saving the lost. Believers receive new life when they believe on Jesus. Comprehending what this new life involves, learning how to live in view of its reality, and appreciating its great potential are all things that Luke stressed in this Gospel. Jesus' disciples struggled with learning this as we do. Luke recorded many of Jesus' teachings that are helpful in understanding and appreciating regeneration.

Through regeneration God brings believers into relationship with Himself. This is the third step in this great salvation process. Luke helps the reader understand the difference between trusting for salvation and working for rewards. What is our relationship to Jesus as His followers? What are our privileges and our responsibilities? How does prayer enter into our relationship? Luke has more to say to disciples about our relationship to the Father and the Son than any other Gospel evangelist.

Then through relationship with Himself, God prepares believers for life after death as members of a new race. Luke recorded much that is of great help for us as readers here too. What is the next phase of our life with God going to be like? How should we prepare for it? What is ahead in the future? Luke teaches us what it means to be a member of the new redeemed race of humanity.

In addition to the central teaching of this Gospel let me also point out what I believe are the reasons for its abiding appeal. These are two: the personality of Jesus and the presentation of discipleship.

The personality of Jesus as Luke presents Him in this Gospel is very appealing. Possibly three things make Him so.

First, we feel that we can identify with the Jesus of Luke's Gospel. This is probably because Luke presented Him as a real man. It may be harder to identify with a King or with a Suffering Servant to say nothing about God, John's emphasis. Even though He is perfect He is someone with whom we feel a natural kinship because we share humanity together. Jesus faced what we do yet He was pleasing to God. This is very encouraging.

Second, the Jesus of Luke's Gospel is attractive because He is different from us. Even though we are of the same kind, He holds a fascination for us because He was the personification of ideal humanity. He was everything that God intended man to be. It is thrilling to view someone like that since we all fall so far short of what we should be.

Third, this Jesus is attractive because He was so sympathetic. One of the characteristic features of Luke's Gospel is the many references it contains to Jesus' concern for the needy including women, the poor, the sick, and outcasts of society. We read of the social outcasts of Jesus' day flocking to Him and feeling at home in His presence. We see Him welcoming children, and we feel ourselves drawn to Him.

Another reason for the appeal of this book is its presentation of discipleship. It contains some of the most straight talk and challenging demands for followers of Jesus that the New Testament holds. We read Jesus telling us that unless we hate our family members we cannot be His disciples, (14:26). He taught that we have to deny ourselves (14:27). We have to renounce all that we have (14:33). Interestingly these three conditions correspond to the three things that we mentioned earlier that Luke pointed out about Jesus.

Jesus calls us to sever our connections with our old race because we have become members of a new race. Jesus taught that our spiritual relations are really closer than our physical relations. Therefore we should let these old relations go if they interfere with our participation in the affairs of our new race.

Jesus calls us to accept the same responsibility that He accepted since we are now brothers. He denied Himself and took up His cross for us. Now we are brothers so we need to do the same for Him. Brothers sacrifice for each other.

Jesus also calls us to give up everything for Him. Having received the benefits of redemption because of the work of our Kinsman Redeemer who paid a great price for us, we need to pay a great price too. The price He calls us to pay is not to earn redemption. He has given that to us as a gift. It is to express our gratitude to Him for His grace and to advance the mission that He has given us to fulfill. He had a mission from God, and He gave up everything to fulfill it. We, too, have a mission from God, and we need to give up everything to fulfill it.

Finally this Gospel has a two-fold application, to the church and to the world.

To the church Luke says, "Be witnesses" (24:48).

We are to be such in view of the relationship that we now enjoy with the Son of Man. We should be such for three reasons. We have experienced redemption. We enjoy His fellowship. We have a future as members of a new race.

We are to be His witnesses also in view of the lost condition of mankind. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost. Our fellowship with Jesus requires participation in His mission to seek and to save the lost. We can do this for three reasons. He has transformed our lives. He will open people's eyes with His Word. He has empowered us with His Spirit (cf. ch. 24).

To the world Luke says, "You are lost, but the Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost." A Redeemer has come. A brother is available. A new life is possible. Behold the Man! He understands you. Yet He is different from you. But He will receive you.

Constable: Luke (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-4

II. The birth and childhood of Jesus 1:5-2:52

A. The announcement of John the Baptist's birth 1:5-25

1. The introduction of John's parents 1:5-7

2. The angel's announcement to Zechariah 1:8-23

3. The pregnancy of Elizabeth 1:24-25

B. The announcement of Jesus' birth 1:26-56

1. The introduction of Mary and Joseph 1:26-27

2. The angel's announcement to Mary 1:28-38

3. Mary's visit to Elizabeth 1:39-56

C. The birth and early life of John the Baptist 1:57-80

1. The naming of John 1:57-66

2. Zechariah's song of praise 1:67-79

3. The preparation of John 1:80

D. The birth and early life of Jesus ch. 2

1. The setting of Jesus' birth 2:1-7

2. The announcement to the shepherds 2:8-20

3. Jesus' circumcision 2:21

4. Jesus' presentation in the temple 2:22-38

5. Jesus' development in Nazareth 2:39-40

6. Jesus' visit to the temple as a boy 2:41-50

7. Jesus' continuing growth 2:51-52

III. The preparation for Jesus' ministry 3:1-4:13

A. The ministry of John the Baptist 3:1-20

1. The beginning of John's ministry 3:1-6

2. John's preaching 3:7-18

3. The end of John's ministry 3:19-20

B. The baptism of Jesus 3:21-22

C. The genealogy of Jesus 3:23-38

D. The temptation of Jesus 4:1-13

IV. Jesus' ministry in and around Galilee 4:14-9:50

A. Jesus' teaching ministry and the response to it 4:14-5:11

1. An introduction to Jesus' Galilean ministry 4:14-15

2. Jesus' teaching in Nazareth 4:16-30

3. Jesus' ministry in and around Capernaum 4:31-44

4. The call of Peter, James, and John 5:1-11

B. The beginning of controversy with the Pharisees 5:12-6:11

1. Jesus' cleansing of a leprous Jew 5:12-16

2. Jesus' authority to forgive sins 5:17-26

3. Jesus' attitude toward sinners 5:27-32

4. Jesus' attitude toward fasting 5:33-39

5. Jesus' authority over the Sabbath 6:1-5

6. Jesus' attitude toward the Sabbath 6:6-11

C. Jesus' teaching of His disciples 6:12-49

1. The selection of 12 disciples 6:12-16

2. The assembling of the people 6:17-19

3. The Sermon on the Mount 6:20-49

D. Jesus' compassion for people ch. 7

1. The healing of a centurion's servant 7:1-10

2. The raising of a widow's son 7:11-17

3. The confusion about Jesus' identity 7:18-35

4. The anointing by a sinful woman 7:36-50

E. Jesus' teaching in parables 8:1-21

1. The companions and supporters of Jesus 8:1-3

2. The parable of the soils 8:4-15

3. The parable of the lamp 8:16-18

4. The true family of Jesus 8:19-21

F. Jesus' mighty works 8:22-56

1. The stilling of the storm 8:22-25

2. The deliverance of a demoniac in Gadara 8:26-39

3. The healing of a woman with a hemorrhage and the raising of Jairus' daughter 8:40-56

G. Jesus' preparation of the Twelve 9:1-50

1. The mission of the Twelve to Israel 9:1-6

2. Herod's question about Jesus' identity 9:7-9

3. The feeding of the 5000 9:10-17

4. Peter's confession of faith 9:18-27

5. The Transfiguration 9:28-36

6. The exorcism of an epileptic boy 9:37-43a

7. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 9:43b-45

8. The pride of the disciples 9:46-50

V. Jesus' ministry on the way to Jerusalem 9:51-19:27

A. The responsibilities and rewards of discipleship 9:51-10:24

1. The importance of toleration 9:51-56

2. The importance of self-denial 9:57-62

3. The importance of participation 10:1-16

4. The joy of participation 10:17-20

5. The joy of comprehension 10:21-24

B. The relationships of disciples 10:25-11:13

1. The relation of disciples to their neighbors 10:25-37

2. The relation of disciples to Jesus 10:38-42

3. The relation of disciples to God the Father 11:1-13

C. The results of popular opposition 11:14-54

1. The Beelzebul controversy 11:14-26

2. The importance of observing God's Word 11:27-28

3. The sign of Jonah 11:29-32

4. The importance of responding to the light 11:33-36

5. The climax of Pharisaic opposition 11:37-54

D. The instruction of the disciples in view of Jesus' rejection 12:1-13:17

1. The importance of fearless confession 12:1-12

2. The importance of the eternal perspective 12:13-21

3. God's provisions for disciples 12:22-34

4. The coming of the Son of 12:35-48

5. The coming crisis 12:49-59

6. A call to repentance 13:1-9

7. A sign of Jesus' ability to affect change 13:10-17

E. Instruction about the kingdom 13:18-14:35

1. Parables of the kingdom 13:18-21

2. Entrance into the kingdom 13:22-30

3. Jesus' postponement of the kingdom 13:31-35

4. Participants in the kingdom 14:1-24

5. The cost of discipleship 14:25-35

F. God's attitude toward sinners ch. 15

1. The setting for Jesus' teaching 15:1-2

2. The parable of the lost sheep 15:3-7

3. The parable of the lost coin 15:8-10

4. The parable of the lost son 15:11-32

G. Jesus' warnings about riches ch. 16

1. Discipleship as stewardship 16:1-13

2. Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees for their greed 16:14-31

H. Jesus' warning about disciples' actions and attitudes 17:1-19

1. The prevention of sin and the restoration of sinners 17:1-4

2. The disciples' attitude toward their duty 17:5-10

3. The importance of gratitude 17:11-19

I. Jesus' teaching about His return 17:20-18:8

1. A short lesson for the Pharisees 17:20-21

2. A longer explanation for the disciples 17:22-37

3. The parable of the persistent widow 18:1-8

J. The recipients of salvation 18:9-19:27

1. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector 18:9-14

2. An illustration of humility 18:15-17

3. The handicap of wealth 18:18-30

4. Jesus' passion announcement and the disciples' lack of perception 18:31-34

5. The healing of a blind man near Jericho 18:35-43

6. Zaccheus' ideal response to Jesus 19:1-10

7. The parable of the minas 19:11-27

VI. Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem 19:28-21:38

A. The Triumphal Entry 19:28-40

B. The beginning of Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem 19:41-48

1. Jesus' sorrow over Jerusalem 19:42-44

2. Jesus' cleansing of the temple 19:45-46

3. A synopsis of Jesus' teaching in the temple 19:47-48

C. Jesus' teachings in the temple 20:1-21:4

1. The controversy over authority 20:1-8

2. The parable of the wicked tenant farmers 20:9-19

3. The question of tribute to Caesar 20:20-26

4. The problem of the resurrection 20:27-40

5. Jesus' question about David's son 20:41-44

6. Jesus' condemnation of the scribes 20:45-47

7. Jesus' commendation of a widow 21:1-4

D. Jesus' teaching about the destruction of the temple 21:5-36

1. The setting and the warning about being misled 21:5-9

2. The need for faithful perseverance 21:10-19

3. The judgment coming on Jerusalem 21:20-24

4. The second coming of the Son of 21:25-28

5. The certainty of these events 21:29-33

6. The concluding exhortation to watchfulness 21:34-36

E. A summary of Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem 21:37-38

VII. Jesus' passion, resurrection, and ascension 22:1-24:53

A. The plot to arrest Jesus 22:1-6

1. The leaders' desire 22:1-2

2. Judas' offer 22:3-6

B. The preparations for the Passover 22:7-13

C. Events in the upper room 22:14-38

1. The Passover meal 22:14-18

2. The institution of the Lord's Supper 22:19-20

3. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 22:21-23

4. Teaching about the disciples' service 22:24-30

5. Jesus' announcement of Peter's denial 22:31-34

6. The opposition to come 22:35-38

D. The arrest of Jesus 22:39-53

1. Jesus' preparation in Gethsemane 22:39-46

2. Judas' betrayal 22:47-53

E. The trials of Jesus 22:54-23:25

1. Peter's denial of Jesus 22:54-62

2. The mockery of the soldiers 22:63-65

3. Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin 22:66-71

4. Jesus' first appearance before Pilate 23:1-7

5. Jesus' appearance before Herod 23:8-12

6. Jesus' second appearance before Pilate 23:13-25

F. The crucifixion of Jesus 23:26-49

1. Events on the way to Golgotha 23:26-32

2. Jesus' death 23:33-49

G. The burial of Jesus 23:50-56

H. The resurrection of Jesus 24:1-12

I. The post-resurrection appearances of Jesus 24:13-49

1. The appearance to the disciples walking to Emmaus 24:13-35

2. The appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem 24:36-49

J. The ascension of Jesus 24:50-53

Constable: Luke

Luke

Bibliography

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. New ed. 4 vols. London: Rivingtons, 1880.

Bailey, Kenneth E. Poet and Peasant: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.

Bishop, Eric F. F. Jesus of Palestine: The Local Background to the Gospel Documents. London: Lutterworth, 1955.

Bock, Darrell L. Luke. The NIV Application Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

_____. "A Theology of Luke-Acts." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 87-166. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Boslooper, Thomas. The Virgin Birth. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962.

Bowman, John. "The Parable of the Good Samaritan." Expository Times 59 (1947-48):151-53, 248-49.

Brown, R. E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City: Doubleday, 1977.

_____. The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurection of Jesus. New York: Paulist Press, 1973.

Brown, Schuyler. Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969.

Brown, William E. "The New Testament Concept of the Believer's Inheritance." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984.

Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

_____. "Justification by Faith in the non-Pauline Writings of the New Testament." Evangelical Quarterly 24 (1952):66-77.

Burrows, Millar. "Levirate Marriage in Israel." Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940):23-33.

_____. "The Marriage of Boaz and Ruth." Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940):445-54.

Cadbury, Henry J. The Style and Literary Method of Luke. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1920.

Cairns, Earle E. "Luke As a Historian." Bibliotheca Sacra 122:487 (July-September 1965):220-26.

Carson, Donald A. "Matthew." In Matthew--Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Cave, C. H. "Lazarus and the Lucan Deuteronomy." New Testament Studies 15 (1968-67):319-25.

Constable, Thomas L. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

Creed, J. M. The Gospel According to St. Luke. A Commentary on the Third Gospel. London: Macmillan and Co., 1930.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956.

Danker, Frederick W. Jesus and the New Age. Proclamation Commentaries series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Davis, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

Deatrick, Eugene P. "Salt, Soil, Savor." Biblical Archaeologist 25 (1962):41-48.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Church's Relationship to the New Covenant." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305; 608 (October-December 1995):431-56.

Deere, Jack. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. "Eating up the Houses of Widows': Jesus's Comment on Lawyers?" Novum Testamentum 14 (1972):1-9.

_____. "Fresh Light on St Luke xvi. II. Dives and Lazarus and the preceding Sayings." New Testament Studies, 7 (1960-61):364-80.

_____. Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970.

_____. "Law in the New Testament: The Palm Sunday Colt." Novum Testamentum 13 (1971):241-58.

_____. "Law in the New Testament: The Unjust Judge." New Testament Studies 18 (1071-72):178-91.

_____. "Take thy Bond . . . and Write Fifty' (Luke xvi. 6) The nature of the Bond." Journal of New Testament Studies NS23 (1972):438-40.

_____. "You Build the Tombs of the Prophets' [Luke 11:47-51; Matt. 23:29-31]." Studia Evangelica 4 (1968):187-93.

Dillon, Richard J. From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24. Analecta Biblica 82. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.

_____. "Previewing Luke's Project from His Prologue (Luke 1:1-4)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981):205-27.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Doeve, J. W. Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954.

Doriani, Daniel. "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.

Easton, Burton Scott. The Gospel according to St. Luke. International Critical Commentaries series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1926.

Edwards, James R. "The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1994):217-33.

Ellis, Earle E. The Gospel of Luke. New Century Bible series. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1966.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Erickson, Richard J. "The Jailing of John and the Baptism of Jesus: Luke 3:19-21." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:4 (December 1993):455-66.

Findlay, J. A. "Luke." In Abingdon Bible Commentary, pp. 1022-59. Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1929.

Finegan, Jack. The Archaeology of the New Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.

_____. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971.

_____. The Gospel according to Luke I--IX. Anchor Bible series. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1981.

_____. "The Story of the Dishonest Manager." Theological Studies 25 (1964):23-42.

Flender, Helmut. St Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History. London: SPCK, 1967.

Foakes-Jackson, F. J., and Lake, Kirsopp, eds. The Beginnings of Christianity. 5 vols. London: Macmillan and Co., 1920-33.

Forbes, Greg. "Repentance and Conflict in the Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:2 (June 1999):211-229.

Ford, J. Massingbyrde. "The Meaning of Virgin.'" New Testament Studies 12:3 (1966):293-99.

France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. London: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.

Freyne, Sean. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, Inc. and Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, Cal.: Ariel Ministries Press, 1989.

Gaston, Lloyd. Horae Synopticae Electonicae; Word Statistics of the Synoptic Gospels. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973.

Geldenhuys, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1950.

Gerhardsson, Birger.The Testing of God's Son. Coniectanea Biblica New Testament series 2:1. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1966.

Geyser, A. S. "The Youth of John the Baptist." Novum Testamentum 1 (1956):70-75.

Goodspeed, E. J. "Some Greek Notes: I. Was Theophilus Luke's Publisher?" Journal of Biblical Literature 73 (1954):84.

Gromacki, Robert. The Virgin Birth: Doctrine of Deity. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1974.

Han, Kyu Sam. "Theology of Prayer in the Gospel of Luke." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:4 (December 2000):675-93.

Harvey, A. E. The New English Bible: Companion to the New Testament. Cambridge: Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Hawkins, John Caesas. Horae Synopticae; Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem. 1909. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.

Helyer, Larry R. "Luke and the Restoration of Israel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:3 (September 1993):317-29.

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. "The Blind Men at Jericho." Bibliotheca Sacra 122:488 (October-December 1965):319-30.

_____. "The Centurion's Faith in Matthew and Luke." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484 (October-December 1964):321-32.

_____. "Stop and Think! (Luke 14:13-14), Rewardable Hospitality." The KERUGMA Message 3:1 (Spring 1993):1, 3.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Inrig, Gary. The Parables: Understanding What Jesus Meant. Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers, 1991.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1986 ed. Edited by Geoffrey E. Bromiley. S.v. "money," by H. W. Perkin.

Jellicoe, S. "St Luke and the Seventy-two." New Testament Studies 6 (1960):319-21.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. New Testament Library series. 3rd ed. Revised. London: SCM Press, 1966.

_____. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Rev. ed. Translated by S. H. Hooke. New York: Scribner, 1963.

_____. New Testament Theology. New York: Scribners, 1971.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1963.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Keck, Leander E. "The Spirit and the Dove." New Testament Studies 17 (1970-71):41-67.

Keck, Leander, and Martyn, J. Louis, eds. Studies in Luke-Acts. New York: Abingdon Press, 1966.

Larkin, William J., Jr. "The Recovery of Luke-Acts as Grand Narrative' for the Church's Evangelistic and Edification Tasks in a Postmodern Age." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):405-15.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel. 1946. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lewis, Clive Staples. The Screwtape Letters. New York: Macmillan Co., 1959.

Liefeld, Walter L. "Luke." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

_____. "Theological Motifs in the Transfiguration Narrative." In New Dimensions in New Testament Study, pp. 162-79. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Lindsey, F. Duane. "Lucan Theology in Contemporary Perspective." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500 (October-December 1968):346-51.

Longenecker, Richard N. The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity. Studies in Biblical Theology, Second series 17. London: SCM, 1970.

Lövestam, E. Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament. Lund: Gleerup, 1963.

Luce, H. K. The Gospel according to S. Luke. Cambridge Greek Testament series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Machen, J. Greshem. The Virgin Birth of Christ. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Maddox, Robert. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1982.

Malick, David E. "A Literary Approach to the Birth Narratives in Luke 1-2." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 93-107. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Manek, J. "The New Exodus in the Books of Luke." Novum Testamentum 2 (1955):8-23.

_____. "On the Mount - on the Plain (Mt. V. 1 - Lk. VI. 17)." Novum Testamentum 9 (1967):124-31.

Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1949.

Marshall, I. Howard. "The Divine Sonship of Jesus." Interpretation 21 (1967):87-103.

_____. The Gospel of Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1978.

_____. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971.

Martin, John A. "Luke." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 199-265. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Martin, R. P. Colossians: The Church's Lord and the Christian's Liberty. Exeter, Eng.: Paternoster Press, 1972.

Mason, Steve. "Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees and Sanhedrin in Acts." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 115-77. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Mathewson, Dave L. "The Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13): A Reexamination of the Traditional View in Light of Recent Challenges." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):29-39.

Mattill, A. J., Jr. "Representative Universalism and the Conquest of Canaan." Concordia Theological Monthly 35:1 (1967):8-17.

McGee, J. Vernon. Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee. 5 vols. Pasadena, Cal.: Thru the Bible Radio, 1983.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Remembering: A Central Theme in Biblical Worship." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 2000):27-36.

Mills, Montague Stephen. "A Comparison of the Genesis and Lukan Genealogies (The Case for Cainan)." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978.

Minear, P. S. "A Note on Luke xxii. 36." Novum Testamentum 7 (1964):128-34.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Moore, Thomas S. "The Lucan Great Commission and the Isaianic Servant." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:613 (January-March 1997):47-60.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Mosley, A. W. "Historical Reporting in the Ancient World." New Testament Studies 12 (1965-66):10-26.

Neil, William, The Acts of the Apostles. New Century Bible Commentary series. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1973; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1981.

The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. S.v. "Genealogy of Jesus Christ," by F. F. Bruce.

_____. S.v. "Quirinius," by F. F. Bruce.

Oliver, H. H. "The Lucan Birth Stories and the Purpose of Luke-Acts." New Testaments Studies 10 (1963-64):215-26.

O'Neill, J. C. "The Six Amen Sayings in Luke." Journal of Theological Studies NS10 (1959):1-9.

Orr, James. The Virgin Birth of Christ. New York: Scribner's, 1907.

Overstreet, R. Larry "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Packer, J. I. "The Comfort of Conservatism." In Power Religion, pp. 283-99. Edited by Michael Scott Horton. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Pagenkemper, Karl E. "Rejection Imagery in the Synoptic Parables." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:610 (April-June 1996):179-98; 611 (July-September 1996):308-31.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Biblical Covenants and the Birth Narratives." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 257-70. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

_____. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Reicke, Bo. "Jesus in Nazareth -- Lk 4, 14-30." In Das Wort und die Wörter, pp. 47-55. Edited by H. Balz and S. Schulz. Stuttgart: n. p., 1973.

Roberts, C. H. "The Kingdom of Heaven (Lk. xvii. 21)." Harvard Theological Review 41 (1948):1-8.

Robinson, J. A. T. Twelve New Testament Studies. Studies in Biblical Theology No. 14. London: SCM Press, 1962.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Schurer, Emil. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. Clark's Foreign Theological Library series. 6 vols. Translated by John Macpherson. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895-1905.

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, N.J.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Sneed, R. J. "The Kingdom of God is within you' (Lk. 17, 21)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 24 (1962):363-82.

Stanton, G. N. Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 27. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Storms, C. Samuel. Reaching God's Ear. Wheaton, Il.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988.

Strugnell, J. "Amen I say unto you' in the Sayings of Jesus and in Early Christian Literature." Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974):177-90.

Summers, Ray. Commentary on Luke. Waco: Word Books, 1972.

Talbert, Charles H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 20. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974.

_____. "The Lukan Presentation of Jesus' Ministry in Galilee." Review and Expositor 64 (1967):485-97.

_____. "Prophecies of Future Greatness: The Contribution of Greco-Roman Biographies to an Understanding of Luke 1:5-4:15." In The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God's Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman, pp. 129-41. Edited by James L. Crenshaw and Samuel Sandmel. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1980.

_____. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel. New York: Crossroad Publishing Co., 1982.

Tannehill, Robert C. "Israel in Luke-Acts: A Tragic Story." Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985):69-85.

_____. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Vol. 1: The Gospel according to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

Tenney, Merrill C. "Historical Verities in the Gospel of Luke." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):126-38.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittle. S.v. "daimon," by W. Foerster.

_____. S.v. "hepta," by K. H. Rengstorf.

_____. S.v. "makarios," by F. Hauck and G. Bertram.

_____. S.v. "nestis," by J. Behm.

_____. S.v. "pais," by Albrecht Oepke.

_____. S.v. "paristemi, paristano," by Bo Reicke.

_____. S.v. "pascha," by Joachim Jeremias.

_____. S.v. "stole," by Ulrich Wilckens.

Thompson, G. H. P. "Called -- Proved -- Obedient." Journal of Theological Studies NS11 (1960):1-12.

_____. St. Luke. New Clarendon Bible series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Turner, Nigel. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1966.

van Ommeren, Nicholas M. "Was Luke an Accurate Historian?" Bibliotheca Sacra 148:589 (January-March 1991):57-71.

Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew. London: Collins, 1973.

Walls, A. F. "In the Presence of the Angels' (Luke xv. 10)." Novum Testamentum 3 (1959):314-16.

Walvoord, John F. "The Times of the Gentiles." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):3-9.

Wenham, John. "The Identification of Luke." Evangelical Quarterly 63:1 (1991):3-44.

Wilkinson, J. "The Case of the Bent Woman in Luke 13:10-17." Evangelical Quarterly 49 (1977):195-205.

Wink, Walter. John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Winter, P. "Nazareth' and Jerusalem' in Luke chs. 1 and 2." New Testament Studies 3 (1956-57):136-42.

Witherington, Ben III. Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus' Attitudes to Women and Their Roles as Reflected in His Earthly Life. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "The Daily Bread Motif in Antiquity." Westminster Theological Journal 28 (1965-66):147-56.

Yancey, Philip. Disappointment with God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Yates, Gary. "The Use of Isaiah 61:1 (and 58:6) in Luke 4:18-19." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):13-27.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Coins," by Gleason L. Archer.

_____. S.v. "Demon, Demoniac, Demonology," by R. K. Harrison.

_____. S.v. "Diseases of the Bible," by R. H. Pousma.

_____. S.v. "Samaritans," by J. L. Kelso.

_____. S.v. "Quirinius," by E. M. Blaiklock.

Zuck, Roy B. "How Jesus Responded to Questions." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 108-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p42luk-1@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p42luk-2@

Haydock: Luke (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE.

INTRODUCTION

St. Luke was a physician, a native of Antioch, the metropolis of Syria, and well skilled in the Greek language, as his writings sufficiently evince. In some ancient manuscripts, he is called Lucius, and Lucanus. Some conjecture that he was at first a Gentile and a pagan, and was converted by the preaching of St. Paul, at Antioch; others, that he was originally a Jew, and one of the seventy-two disciples. Sts. Hippolitus and Epiphanius say, that hearing from our Lord these words, he that eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood, is not worthy of me, he withdrew, and quitted our Saviour, but returned to the faith at the preaching of St. Paul. But to leave what is uncertain, St. Luke was the disciple, travelling companion, and fellow-labourer of St. Paul. Of him St. Paul is supposed to speak: (2 Corinthians viii. 18.) We have sent also with him (Titus) the brother, whose praise is in the gospel, through all churches: and again, Luke, the most dear physician, saluteth you: (Colossians iv.) and, only Luke is with me. (2 Timothy iv.) Some are of opinion that as often as St. Paul, in his Epistles, says according to my gospel, he speaks of the Gospel of St. Luke. This evangelist did not learn his gospel from St. Paul only, (who had never been with our Lord in the flesh) but from the other apostles also, as himself informs us in the beginning of his gospel, when he says, according as they have delivered them unto us; who, from the beginning, were eye-witnesses, ( Greek: autoptai ) and ministers of the word. His gospel, therefore, he wrote as he heard it; but the Acts of the Apostles, from his own observations; and both, as some believe, about the same time in which his history of the Acts finishes, towards the year of Christ 63. But the received opinion now is, that St. Luke wrote his gospel in Achaia, in the year 53, ten years previously to his writing of the Acts, purposely to counteract the fabulous relations concerning Jesus Christ, which several persons had endeavoured to palm upon the world. It does not appear, as Calmet observes, that he had ever read the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. ... He chiefly insists in his gospel, upon what relates to Christ's priestly office; hence the ancients gave, of the four symbolical representations, mentioned in Ezechiel, that of the ox, or calf, to St. Luke, as an emblem of sacrifices. He lived 84 years in the state of celibacy, was crucified at Elœa, in Peloponnesus, near Achaia, and was buried in the church of the apostles, at Constantinople, to which city his remains were translated, together with those of St. Andrew and St. Timothy, in the year 357, by order of the emperor Constantius. When this church was repaired, by an order of Justinian, the masons found three wooden chests, in which the bodies of these saints were interred. Baronius mentions, that the head of St. Luke was brought by St. Gregory from Constantinople to Rome, in the year of Christ 586. St. Luke writes purer Greek than any of the other hagiographers; yet many Syriac words, and turns of expressions, occur in both his gospel and Acts of the Apostles; some also that imitate the genius of the Latin tongue. He cites Scripture according to the Septuagint, and not after the Hebrew text. St. Paul, in his Epistles, generally quotes the gospel in a manner the most conformable to St. Luke, as may be seen in the following instances; 1 Corinthians xi. 23. and 24. chap. xv. 5. The Marcionites would only receive the gospel of St. Luke, and from this they retrenched the first two chapters, with regard the birth of Jesus Christ, and only admitted ten of St. Paul's Epistles, as Tertullian and St. Epiphanius have remarked. Marcion embraced the errors of Cerdon: to these he added others, the offspring of his own brain. He began to disseminate his novel opinions at Rome, about the year of Christ 144. He could not bring himself to believe how a spirit, such as the human soul, could be shut up in a body, be subject to ignorance, to weakness, to pain; nor in what manner, or for what end, the great and good Lord, the Creator of spirits, could have thus degraded them. Revelation, which teaches us the fall of the first man, did not appear to the Marcionites, to solve the difficulty, since the first man was composed of a spiritual soul and a terrestrial body; they, moreover, imagined that an all-good, an all-powerful God, ought to have prevented the fall of man. No wonder then, that they refused to adopt the first two chapters of St. Luke, which contain the miraculous births of Jesus and his precursor [John the Baptist]; as also sundry texts of the very scanty portions of holy Scriptures which their party chose to retain. But what does this shew? that tradition, in the first instance, must be admitted, to inform us what is authentic scripture; and, secondly, an infallible Church-authority, to inform us what is the genuine interpretation of the genuine text. Without the assistance of apostolical tradition and Church-authority, could any Seeker (even with the assistance of Brown's Self-interpreting Bible, in 2 vols. 4to.) rest secure, that he properly understood the disputed points of holy writ; that his, and no other interpretation, was the genuine sense of these mysterious words, when he was informed that by far the greater part of learned societies, and learned individuals, gave a widely different interpretation to the same texts. This freedom of expounding Scripture, by unassisted reason and private spirit, was the first germ of the daily increasing spread of sects and heresies; this is the nucleus, which, after enveloping itself like the comet, in much nebulous obscurity, terminates in a fiery tail, of portentous magnitude, the ruinous effects of which can only be prevented by a speedy return to first principles, apostolical tradition, and Church-authority.

====================

Gill: Luke (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO LUKE

The writer of this Gospel, Luke, has been, by some, thought, as Origen ^a relates, to be the same with Lucius, mentioned in Rom 16:21, but he seems rather to be, and without doubt is, Luke the beloved physician, who was a companion of the Apostle Paul in great part of his travels in the Gentile world: he came with him to Jerusalem, and from thence accompanied him to Rome, and continued with him when in prison, and was with him to the last; see Act 16:10, &c. Col 4:14. Jerom ^b, and others, say, he was a physician of Antioch in Syria; where it may be the Apostle Paul met with him, and might be the happy instrument of his conversion; so that he seems to be, by nation, a Syrian, as Jerom ^c calls him. Grotius thinks his name is Roman, and that it is the contraction of Lucilius. It is not an Hebrew name, but might be in common use in Syria; for though the Jews reckon owqwl, "Lukus", among foreign names, yet say ^d a it was a very illustrious one, and well known to them, as it may well be thought to be if Syriac, the language being spoke by them: and many Jews lived in Syria, and particularly in Antioch. Some say that this Gospel was written by the advice, and assistance, and under the direction of the Apostle Paul, as the Gospel according to Mark was by that of Peter; though the following preface does not seem so well to accord with this. Eusebius says ^e that it was the sense of the ancients, that whenever the Apostle Paul makes mention of his Gospel, he intends this according to Luke. The time of the writing of it is not certain; some say it was written in the fifteenth year after the ascension of our Lord; others in the twenty second; and others in the twenty seventh. It is commonly thought to have been written after the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, according to the order in which it stands; but this is rejected by some learned men, who rather think that Luke wrote first of all: and indeed, there are some things in his preface which look as if there had not, as yet, been any authentic account published, at least which was come to the knowledge of this evangelist. The place where he wrote it is also uncertain. Jerom says ^f, he wrote it in the parts of Achaia, perhaps at Corinth: according to the titles prefixed to the Syriac and Persic versions, he wrote it in Alexandria: the former of these runs thus;

"the Gospel of Luke, the Evangelist, which he spake and published in Greek in Alexandria the great.''

And the latter thus;

"the Gospel of Luke, which he wrote in the Greek tongue in Alexandria of Egypt.''

However, it is agreed on all hands, that it is genuine, and of divine inspiration. Eusebius ^g relates, that it was affirmed by some, that this Gospel, together with those of Matthew and Mark, were brought to the Apostle John, who approved of them, and bore witness to the truth in them.

College: Luke (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

"Many have undertaken" to write commentaries on the Gospel of Luke, and a large number of these are very good. "It seemed good also to me" to attempt to place in the hands of a popular audience the best of recent scholarship in an easily readable form. My prayer will have been answered if those without specialized training are able to come to a deeper understanding of Luke's message as a result of these efforts.

My debt to those who have written before me will be demonstrated throughout the commentary. I am equally indebted to many who have spent hours reading and making suggestions which have vastly improved my work. To my student assistant, Meg Grandstaff; to my mother, Peggy Black; and to my colleagues, Terry Briley, Brandon Fredenburg, and Gary Holloway, I can only say, "Thank you" and "I owe you one." I must also thank Lipscomb University for the Faculty Summer Grant which gave me the summer of 1996 to work on the book.

My greatest gratitude goes to Margo, Sara, Jessica, and Allison, who have tolerated too many hours taken away from them. They fill all my days with joy, and I must ask with Elizabeth (Luke 1:43), "Why am I so favored" to be their husband and father?

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

TABLE OF

SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES

Anti-Semitism 371

Baptism 84

Destruction of Jerusalem and End of Time 336

Forgiveness and Grace 163

Fulfillment of Scripture 42

Holy Spirit 93

Kingdom of God 112

Law 69

Messiah 88

Miracles and Sign-Seeking 107

Outcasts and Untouchables 127

Parables 167

Pharisees 120

Poor and Rich 142

Prayer 92

Prophet Theme 60

Repentance 83

Sadducees 327

Samaritans 200

Son of Man 124

Table Fellowship 126

Tax Collectors 87

Women 50

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THIS COMMENTARY

This commentary is written for serious students of the New Testament, including Bible class teachers, preachers, college students, and other motivated readers. The reader need not be acquainted with the Greek language or scholarly tools and methodology. The single goal of the present commentary is to place modern readers into the shoes of the first readers of Luke's Gospel. Two questions have been constantly asked: What did Luke want his readers to grasp as he penned each section? And what did he want them to believe and to do after they had read the whole? My assumption is that the Gospel of Luke was written for us but not directly to us. Since it was originally written for a people of a different culture almost two thousand years ago, we must attempt to understand it as they understood it in order to be faithful to Luke's intent.

Luke wrote in order to encourage active faith in Jesus, and he did so through the use of narrative literature. To put it differently, Luke has written to tell his readers what to believe, what reasons there are for believing, and what it means to live as a believer. To make his case he has chosen to tell a story, a literary form with few imperatives and exhortations directly to the reader. Since narratives teach indirectly, the reader must learn to "read between the lines" in order to grasp the message.

I have therefore taken a literary and theological approach in this commentary. I believe that Luke has given many clues regarding his intent and that a proper reading will discover that intent. Put simply, his method is to tell the story of Jesus, highlighting those aspects of the story which his readers need most to hear. He has woven many themes into the plot which begins with the birth and ends with the death and resurrection of Jesus. To understand his message, then, the reader must read the whole, paying close attention to the plot and the characters and to the many repeated themes. Therefore I am more concerned with Luke's message in any given story than I am with the attempt to discover how his source(s) told the story. Similarly, I am more concerned with the reasons for Luke's references to various events than I am with our ability to confirm the historicity of those events.

For each episode or section in Luke's Gospel, we will be concerned first with any terms, customs, institutions, places, and beliefs which might be unfamiliar to the modern reader. We will therefore offer brief introductions to Herod Antipas, first-century eating customs, messianic beliefs, and dozens of other matters with which Luke's readers would already be familiar. Our second and most important concern will be to discover the function of each section in the larger story. Does it further the plot, teach a lesson on what it means to be a disciple, encourage deeper faith, or function in some other way?

A third feature of the present commentary is the attempt to summarize Luke's teaching on a variety of topics. Luke had several areas of special concern, evidenced by his dealing with them again and again. The reader will find in the table of contents a list of one- or two-page treatments of special topics such as women, the poor, the Law, the Holy Spirit, prayer, the kingdom of God, and many others.

A final special interest (to be explained further in the introduction below) is the effort to relate the Gospel of Luke to its companion volume, the book of Acts. The reader gains inspired insight into what Luke thinks about the teachings of Jesus when he or she sees Jesus' disciples in Acts carrying out those teachings. We will regularly look ahead to Acts to understand what Jesus means in the Gospel of Luke.

I am greatly indebted to the fine commentaries on Luke's Gospel by Johnson, Nolland, Stein, and Tiede. These works, which have different purposes and perspectives, have been tremendously helpful in my writing. I have tried to footnote them when appropriate. However, having used them for several years, I am no longer sure whether many ideas are my own or borrowed from them. I recommend these four commentaries to the reader who wants more than I have provided herein. I have directed the reader to Stein's work more than the others, because his will prove easiest to understand for the nonspecialist.

AUTHORSHIP

The Gospel of Luke is anonymous. Like the other three Gospels, it makes no claim regarding authorship. However, from the late second century until the 19th, no one seems to have questioned that Luke the physician wrote Luke and Acts.

The Third Gospel was known as "The Gospel of Luke" by at least the late second century in order to distinguish it from the other three. It is impossible to know just why the early church attributed the book to Luke. Some would argue that he indeed wrote the book, and that his name was therefore associated with it from the beginning. Others argue that early Christians derived its authorship from evidence within the book of Acts (to be discussed below).

Supporting this early tradition are the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170-180), Irenaeus (late 2nd century), the earliest actual copy of the Gospel (Bodmer Papyrus XIV, 175-225), an ancient Prologue to the Gospel written against the heretic Marcion (late 2nd), Tertullian (207-208), and later Origen (254), Eusebius (303), and Jerome (398). Such is the external evidence for Lukan authorship, and it is quite strong.

The internal evidence is also strong, and it comes from volume two, the book of Acts. There the author uses the first person plural pronoun ("we") in narrating the events in the life of Paul on three occasions (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16; often called the "we-passages" of Acts). These sections imply that the author was with Paul in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Judea, on the Mediterranean, and in Rome.

This of course does not point directly to Luke, but it does encourage some detective work on the part of the reader. Who was with Paul during these times? Paul's letters and Acts suggest a number of traveling companions (see the relevant portions of Acts and especially Col 4, Phlm, and 2 Tim 4). When one eliminates those whom the author mentions by name in Acts, and if one assumes that the author of Luke-Acts was a Gentile (see below), Luke emerges as the most likely author, given the strong weight of tradition.

Given strong external and internal evidence for Lukan authorship, one may wonder why much of contemporary scholarship rejects the notion entirely. The answer is based on internal evidence which is said to disallow Lukan authorship. Quite simply, the book of Acts presents a view of Paul the Christian who appears to be quite different from the Paul who wrote the letters, especially Galatians. The book of Acts does not cite or even mention Paul's letters. More significantly, it is argued that the theological portrait of Paul in Acts could not have been painted by a companion of Paul. Luke's portrait is especially problematic with regard to Paul's stance on keeping the Law. We must admit that it is somewhat surprising when Paul, who wrote that, "All who rely on observing the Law are under a curse," (Gal 3:10), consistently upholds the Law in Acts. Most notably, James in Acts 21:24 encourages Paul to help the four men under a vow in order to show that "you yourself are living in obedience to the Law."

At the risk of oversimplifying a very complex discussion, several points should be noted. First, we should admit and not apologize for the fact that Luke and Paul have very different agendas in writing their works. This has necessarily influenced which events they narrate and what they emphasize theologically. Paul is writing for churches in crises and tends to address only those areas where the church in question needs instruction. Luke on the other hand writes in order to show the unity within the early church and therefore stresses that which all churches shared. So Paul in Galatians writes against Judaizers (those who want Gentiles to keep the Law), whereas Luke writes to Gentiles who may not have enough understanding or appreciation of the Jewish heritage of Christianity. The difference may well be one of audience and perspective rather than theological position. One should remember that Paul in his letters does write that his policy is, "To the Jews I became like a Jew," and, "To those under the Law I became like one under the Law" (1 Cor 9). In other words, Luke in Acts may be showing a side of Paul that the letters largely do not show: Paul customarily lived as a Jew, especially around Jews.

Efforts to argue that the Third Gospel demonstrates that its author was a doctor have been abandoned today. Hobart argued that the sheer number of healing stories and the vocabulary demonstrated that Luke was a physician. However, Cadbury later refuted these claims by proving that Luke showed no more "medical" language than other educated writers of his day. Of course, the healing stories and "medical" vocabulary are consistent with authorship by a physician. They simply do not prove it.

While it can never be proven absolutely, I have taken the view that Luke, the companion of Paul, wrote Luke and Acts. This is largely because I accept the "we-sections" at face value. The author intended to represent himself as a companion of Paul, and the best candidate is Luke. However, we still know very little about our author, because the New Testament says little about Luke. What can be known about this author other than that he was a companion of Paul (Acts 16-28), a physician (Col 4:14), and a Gentile (Col 4:11)?

We actually learn more about Luke from his writing than from other sources. First, he was not an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus (1:1-4). He got his information from "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." Second, he was a man of some education, as is clearly evidenced by his learned Greek (see esp. 1:1-4) and his ability to imitate the style of the Greek Old Testament. Third, he does appear to have been a Gentile. While this cannot be proven with certainty, his references to "the Jews" probably imply that he was not one of them, especially the reference to "their language" in Acts 1:19. This is, of course, consistent with the statement of Colossians 4:14 (which implies that Luke was a Gentile). Fourth, he was thoroughly conversant with the Scriptures. Although he has been called a Gentile writing to Gentiles, we must not overlook his constant references to every section of the Old Testament (esp. Psalms), his overriding fulfillment theme, and his great concern to show that all of his Jewish characters continue to observe the Law of Moses (even those who become Christians). This Gentile, for example, is the only Gospel writer who tells us of Jesus' circumcision on the eighth day, of Mary's purification on the fortieth day, of the disciples' observance of the Sabbath "according to the commandment" after the death of Jesus (24:1), and of Paul's taking vows (18:18) and participating in the sacrificial system long after becoming a Christian (Acts 21). Perhaps Luke had for some time been a "God-fearer," a Gentile who worshiped God, appreciated Judaism, and attended the synagogue. God-fearers are an important group in Acts who very often become Christians (see 13:16; 16:14; 18:7).

Fortunately, we need not know the author's name to interpret his narrative. In fact, the narrative tells us much more about the author than any theory about the author tells us about the narrative.

DATE

It is fortunate also that the interpreter need not know the date of Luke's writing, because no one knows exactly when it was written. Though some argue that Luke wrote his Gospel long before he wrote Acts, there are many reasons to think the two volumes were written at the same time. If so, the Gospel was written after A.D. 60-62, the date of Paul's imprisonment in Acts 28. Thus the earliest possible date for Luke's Gospel is 62. A few scholars argue that Luke must have written at that time, and that this accounts for the abrupt and frustrating (did Paul live or die?) ending of Acts. Most, however, believe that Luke had other reasons than lack of information for ending Acts as he did. I concur with those who think Luke had simply accomplished his purpose in Acts 28. He wrote to give an account of the spread of the gospel from Jews (only) in Jerusalem to Gentiles (predominantly) in Rome. He did not intend to give a biography of Paul.

Most argue that Luke had to have been written after Mark, because, in their opinions, Luke used Mark's Gospel in writing his own. However, this opinion is not universally accepted; and even if it were, one then has to answer the equally difficult question, When was Mark written? On the other hand, Luke 1:1 does suggest that Luke was probably written relatively late among early Gospels.

Many would argue that the earliest date of writing must be at least A.D. 70 on the basis of likely allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course, Jesus alludes to the coming destruction of Jerusalem in the first two Gospels as well as in Luke. However, in Luke Jesus says, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies," (21:20) instead of, "When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong," (Mark 13:14). Many believe that this more specific language suggests that Luke was looking back at the destruction and interpreting for his audience the meaning of Jesus' statement. This is likely, but it is far from certain.

The latest possible date for the writing of Luke's Gospel would be the first allusion to it in other literature. But even that is difficult to determine because allusions are notoriously difficult to ascertain. It could be 1 Clement (95-96), Ignatius (110), Polycarp (135), or 2 Clement (clear allusion but uncertain date, anywhere from 120-170).

The evidence tends to point to the period of A.D. 65-85 for the composition of the Gospel of Luke. Some might like to be more exact, but it matters little for the interpretation of Luke's work.

AUDIENCE

As suggested above, the Gospel of Luke appears to be addressed to Gentile Christians. Though Theophilus is the named recipient and was certainly an intended reader, Luke undoubtedly wrote for a much larger audience. Just as modern "letters to the editor" are meant for the larger public, so was Luke's work. Numerous hints within the work point to a larger audience which is predominantly Gentile. The most important are these: (1) He relates his work to a Greco-Roman literary tradition (1:1-4). (2) He dedicates the work to Theophilus, most likely a Gentile. (3) He is profoundly interested in the Gentile mission. (4) He uses Greek and Roman terms when other Gospel writers use Hebrew ("teacher" for "rabbi;" "lawyer" for "scribe;" "Skull" for "Golgotha"). (5) He refers to the Jews in the third person.

Most agree that the original readers were Christian and that Luke-Acts is intended to build up faith rather than help create it. This is perhaps more difficult to prove, but two factors seem to lead in this direction. First, it appears that the named reader, Theophilus, had already heard the story (1:4). Second, there are simply too many matters left unexplained which would have been far too confusing for the non-Christian. Almost every episode assumes that Luke's readers had a basic knowledge about Jesus and that Luke writes to provide certainty and various additional details.

PURPOSE

Luke tells us his purpose in Luke 1:4: he wants Theophilus to have "certainty" regarding the things he has been taught. This statement is at the same time helpful and ambiguous. On the one hand, it suggests that Luke is written with a quasi-apologetic motive. What it does not tell us, on the other hand, is in what area(s) his readers needed certainty. Did they simply need to be assured of the historicity of the events narrated? Or is it possible that they needed certainty regarding their own position before God? Or could it be that they needed certainty that God was behind all of the events they had heard about and witnessed? Might it even mean that they needed certainty about the proper response to the gospel message?

Luke's purpose has been called apologetic (to defend Christianity to Rome, or, in another sense, to defend God's actions), evangelistic (to engender faith among non-Christians), anti-heretical (to combat Gnosticism), and didactic (to teach Christians what to believe and how to act), to name only the most commonly suggested. In light of the many credible suggestions offered by scholars, we should be very careful about settling upon one purpose. The question of Luke's purpose must be answered by looking not only at Luke's Gospel but also at the Acts of the Apostles, and it can only be answered with reference to the themes which keep recurring throughout both volumes.

Perhaps it is best to suggest that Luke-Acts was written primarily for Gentiles who needed "assurance" in a number of areas, both historical and theological. Perhaps they did need the account of a careful and educated historian to give them confidence that events they heard about had actually occurred. There also may have been some among them who had not yet decided to become Christians. Most likely those who were Christians needed Luke to explain how God had kept his promises to the Jews in light of the fact that there seemed to be fewer and fewer Jews among those being converted. Probably these same Gentile Christians simply needed to understand better their own place in God's plan. And surely these readers, whoever they were, needed to be reminded that being Christian meant sharing possessions, undergoing persecution, welcoming the outcast, serving one another, and generally walking as Jesus walked.

LUKE AND ACTS

Eighteen hundred fifty years ago it was apparent that Luke's first volume was very much like the works of Matthew and Mark. At that time the Gospel was placed beside its peers in the New Testament. John, assumed to be the last Gospel written, was placed between Luke and Acts, and the two works by Luke have been separated ever since. While everyone acknowledges that one author wrote both, few have truly noted the import of that fact. Luke wrote not two independent documents, but a two-volume story, as he well explains.

When Luke is read along with Acts, Acts reads quite differently. No longer do we have the self-contained story of the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem Jews to Roman Gentiles. We have nothing less than the story of Jesus, from his ministry in Galilee to his death and resurrection in Jerusalem to his continuing ministry in the Mediterranean world.

In the tradition of the Restoration Movement it has long been argued that the book of Acts provides a pattern for the later church. My thesis is that there is indeed an intended pattern in Acts, but the pattern is not rooted primarily in the practice of the early church. The pattern is that established by Jesus. Quite simply, the early church does what Jesus did and what Jesus commanded it to do. In fact, Luke insists that it is still Jesus who is carrying out his ministry through the church. In Acts 1:1 when Luke writes of the former book in which he "wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach," what he implies is that Acts will narrate what Jesus continues to do and to teach.

This is especially clear in certain passages: it is Jesus himself who calls Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. Later in that chapter Peter says, "Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you." In Acts 16:7 Paul and his companions attempt to enter Bithynia, "but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them." And in 18:9 Jesus himself speaks to Paul, encouraging him to have no fear. It should also be noted that Jesus had already said in Luke 21:15, "I will give you words and a wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand." It is clear, of course, that in Acts Jesus is at the right hand of God, but he is active and very much in control as he directs the new movement through his Spirit. Jesus is so bound up with his church that he can tell Paul in 9:5, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting."

Consider the following parallels or "patterns" in the ministry of Jesus and that of the early church:

(1) Luke shows Jesus praying at nearly every major event (baptism, choosing disciples, confession, transfiguration, Gethsemane, and on the cross). The early church does the same (waiting before Pentecost, choosing Matthias, Peter before going to Cornelius, sending Paul, healing, and many others).

(2) In Luke Jesus is empowered when the Holy Spirit descends upon him at his baptism. Only then does he begin his ministry of preaching and healing (3:22; see 1:35; 4:1). In Acts the apostles are told to wait until they are baptized with the Holy Spirit (1:5, 8). After the Spirit descends upon them (2:4), they also do signs and wonders and preach, just as did Jesus. All the major characters in Acts, like Jesus, are said to be filled with the Holy Spirit (Peter - 4:8; Stephen - 6:5; Paul - 13:9, and dozens of other references to the guidance of the Spirit).

(3) In Luke Jesus performs various miracles as part of his ministry. The church leaders in Acts not only perform miracles - they perform miracles which are remarkably similar to those of Jesus. For example, just as Jesus heals the mother-in-law of Peter who had a fever (Luke 4:38), Paul heals the father of Publius, who also had a fever (Acts 28:8). Just as Jesus casts out unclean spirits (Luke 4:36; 6:18, etc.), so do Peter (Acts 5:16), Philip (8:7), and Paul (16:18; 19:13). Jesus heals the lame (Luke 7:22), as do Peter and John (Acts 3:2), Philip (8:7), and Paul (14:8-10).

(4) The message of Jesus and that of the leaders in Acts is the same, emphasizing the kingdom of God (30 times in Luke; see Acts 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23), repentance, and forgiveness of sins. Jesus and the apostles on occasion even use the same Old Testament texts, such as Psalm 110 (Luke 20:42; Acts 2:34).

(5) Jesus suffers at the hands of his own people and the Gentiles, and so do the disciples. Of course, Jesus predicted that they would (12:11-12; 21:12-14). Jesus teaches in the synagogue at Nazareth and is rejected and almost killed. The same will happen on numerous occasions in Acts, as Paul enters synagogue after synagogue, only to be eventually rejected. Suffering is especially the lot of Paul, whose story Luke parallels in detail with that of Jesus. The journeys to Jerusalem and treatment there of both Jesus and Paul occupy the large final sections of Luke and Acts. In 18:32 Jesus announces that he "will be delivered to the Gentiles." In Acts 21:11, speaking of Paul the prophet Agabus predicts that the Jews will "deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." Of Jesus, Luke later records that the people "all cried out together, 'Away with this man,'" and of Paul Luke writes, "for the mob of the people followed, crying, 'Away with him!'" Both Jesus and Paul face Jewish accusers, including the High Priest; both appear before Herodian princes as well as Roman procurators; and both are said to be innocent by the Roman leaders.

The Jesus/Stephen parallels are even more obvious. Both are full of the Holy Spirit; both are recipients of wisdom, grace and power; both do signs and wonders; both are led to the council, the eyes of whose members are fixed on them; both are cast outside the city; both pray that God will forgive their accusers; both commit their spirits to God; both are killed; and both are buried by devout persons.

(6) There are also many examples of the apostles obeying the directives of Jesus (Luke 6:22-23: "rejoice [when people persecute you] in that day and leap for joy"- see Acts 5:41; Luke 9:5: "shake the dust off your feet . . . as a testimony against them"- see Acts 13:51; 18:6). In fact, the entire plan of Acts was commanded by the risen Jesus in Acts 1:8, where he says, "You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

One of the most important areas in which the church in Acts carries out the teaching of Jesus is that related to wealth and poverty. In Luke as in no other Gospel Jesus encourages the sharing of possessions and condemns the greedy and selfish. Many of these stories and sayings appear only in Luke: Zacchaeus; the rich man and Lazarus; "blessed are you poor;" the parables about inviting the poor, lame, maimed, and blind; the dishonest steward; and the command to all of the disciples, "sell your possessions and give alms." It is not surprising, then, that Acts contains many examples, both positive and negative, of the use of possessions in the early church: the selling of possessions for the needy in chapters 2 and 4; the generosity of Barnabas, Dorcas, Paul, and the Antioch church; and the negative examples of Ananias and Sapphira, Simon the Sorcerer, Felix, and Judas (who bought a field with his money (1:18), over against Barnabas, who sold a field in Acts 4:36).

Having argued this case, it would be a mistake to suggest that Luke had no notion of the church of his day being like the church which he writes about - he surely did. But the goal is not to replicate the church of the earliest decades; it is rather to be like Jesus, and the picture of a church that looked like Jesus could only further that goal. The intent may be very much like that of Paul, who tells the churches, "Imitate me as I imitate Christ." Paul knows the advantage of giving his readers an example which is easily grasped and will lead them toward the goal. Yet he also knows quite well that he has not yet reached the goal (Phil 3:12-13), and he never makes the imitation of himself the primary goal. Luke seems to have the same intent in Acts: the early church is well worthy of imitation, insofar as its members imitate Christ.

This commentary will be written from this perspective. The best commentary on Acts is the Gospel of Luke. And conversely, Luke has made clear what Jesus' statements mean in a later generation. Therefore, to read Acts is to read an inspired commentary on the Gospel of Luke. We will refer to Luke's two-volume work as "Luke-Acts."

HISTORY AND THEOLOGY

Luke has been accused often of being careless as a historian, at least by modern standards. His treatment of the census under Quirinius (Luke 2), the rebellion under Theudas (Acts 5), and several other matters have led many to argue that Luke is a better theologian than historian. While the present commentary cannot look in detail at these matters (there will be brief comments in the appropriate sections), one should keep in mind several things. First, there are many matters about which we will never have enough information to make a final judgment. However, the silence of extrabiblical sources should never be taken as proof that an event never occurred. Secondly, each passage must be evaluated independently. The number of cases in which Luke is clearly out of step with other ancient sources is very small, and those sources always had their own agenda, just as did Luke. Thirdly, most would concede that Luke proves to be accurate when there is sufficient evidence with which to compare his writing. Luke has obviously gone to great lengths in order to have accurate information on John the Baptist and on rulers in Judea and Galilee. Considering the large number of events and people in his narrative, the surprising thing is that there are not more alleged historical inaccuracies. There can be little doubt that Luke went to much trouble to ensure accuracy. Luke is both historian and theologian.

SOURCES

Luke got his information from various sources, as he tells us in 1:1-4. However, we do not know for certain the identity of any of these. Most scholars think that Luke (and Matthew) are somehow dependent on the Gospel of Mark. I have made no such assumption in this commentary. While there is undoubtedly some advantage in knowing any writer's sources, there is no final proof for any theory regarding the relationships between the Gospels. I have, however, made two assumptions about Luke's Gospel. First, I believe it to be inspired and thus completely reliable. Second, I believe that Luke had a great deal of information about Jesus from which to choose and that we gain a great deal by simply comparing what Luke wrote to what other Gospel writers wrote. In other words, Luke has selected and adapted his material, and while we do not have access to all the information he had at his disposal, we will learn a great deal through a comparative reading.

THEMES

There may be no clearer insight into Luke's purpose than that gained by examining those themes which recur with some frequency in Luke-Acts. Narrative writers express what their readers need most by returning to a point again and again. When looked at from this perspective, Luke has many concerns. It is clear that he has much to tell his readers, and there can be no more effective way for them to hear it than from the lips of Jesus. The following list is far from exhaustive, but it at least will steer the reader into some of those areas which apparently were close to Luke's heart. The following topics receive special attention in the commentary at the place where Luke first mentions them (see p. 11 for page numbers). They are listed here in order to give the reader a preview of some of Luke's major themes and in order to show the reader where to look in the commentary for more information.

Anti-Semitism Parables Baptism Pharisees Destruction of Jerusalem Poor and Rich and End of Time Prayer Forgiveness and Grace Prophet Theme Fulfillment of Scripture Repentance Holy Spirit Sadducees Kingdom of God Samaritans Law Son of Man Messiah Table Fellowship Miracles and Sign-Seeking Tax Collectors Outcasts and Untouchables Women

A FINAL WORD ABOUT

INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS

Traditional introductory questions are being given less attention today than they were a generation ago. The reason is twofold. First, it is very difficult to give "sure" answers to many questions of introduction. The evidence is often insufficient to offer more than probabilities, and what is "probable" is evaluated differently by every scholar. Second, the interpretation of many New Testament works and especially the Gospels is not significantly aided by having answers to most of these questions. For example, knowing that the author of Luke was the companion of Paul does not change the understanding of any passage in the Gospel. Similarly, knowing the date aids interpretation very little. The following commentary does not assume sure answers to any of these questions for its interpretation.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha , 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1983, 1985.

Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah . Trans. from the Hebrew with Introductory and Brief Explanatory Notes. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Epstein, I., ed. The Babylonian Talmud . London: Soncino Press, 1935-48.

Freedman, H., and Maurice Simon, eds. Midrash Rabbah . London: Soncino Press, 1939-.

Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann.

Martínez, Florentino García. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English . Trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson. Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, 1994.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Bock, Darrell. Luke . Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995-96.

Craddock, Fred B. Luke . Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1990.

Danker, F.W. Luke . Proclamation Commentaries, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Ellis, E.E. The Gospel of Luke . New Century Bible, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Evans, Craig A. Luke . New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel according to Luke . Anchor Bible 28, 28A. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981, 1985.

Green, Joel B., and Scot McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.

Jervell, Jacob. Luke and the People of God . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972.

Johnson, Luke T. The Gospel of Luke . Sacra Pagina 3. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text . The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

. Luke: Historian and Theologian . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.

Morris, Leon. Luke . Revised edition. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Nolland, John. Luke . Word Biblical Commentary, vols. 35A, 35B, 35C. Dallas: Word Books, 1989, 1993.

O'Toole, Robert F. The Unity of Luke's Theology: An Analysis of Luke-Acts . Good News Studies 9. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984.

Stein, Robert H. Luke . The New American Commentary 24. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation . Vol. I: The Gospel According to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Tiede, David L. Luke . Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

LXX Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament)

NIV New International Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

RSV Revised Standard Version

Main Biblical Manuscript Texts:

Codex Sinaiticus (4th century A.D.)

A Codex Alexandrinus (5th century A.D.)

B Codex Vaticanus (4th century A.D.)

D Codex Bezae (5th-6th century A.D.)

⁶⁹ Papyrus 69 (3rd century A.D.)

⁷⁵ Papyrus 75 (early 3rd century A.D.)

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Luke (Outline)

OUTLINE

There is general agreement among serious students of Luke's Gospel regarding its structure.

I. Prologue Luke 1:1-4

II. Infancy Narrative 1:5-2:52

III. The Preparation for Jesus' Ministry 3:1-4:13

IV. Jesus' Ministry in Galilee 4:14-9:50

V. Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem 9:51-19:27

VI. Jesus' Ministry in Jerusalem 19:28-21:38

VII. Jesus' Suffering and Death 22:1-23:56

VIII. Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension 24:1-53

(The Book of Acts)

IX. From Easter to Pentecost (Acts 1)

X. From Jerusalem to Samaria (Acts 2-9)

XI. From Judea to Rome (Acts 10-28)

Those who are familiar with the other Gospels notice immediately several similarities and differences. Like Matthew, Luke begins with birth stories (although Luke's are very different than Matthew's). Like Matthew and Mark, Luke includes Jesus' temptation and baptism and has a large section in which Jesus teaches and heals in Galilee. And like all three other Gospels, Luke has Jesus go to Jerusalem for the final week and ends the Gospel with the trial, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

What is most distinctive about the Gospel of Luke, however, is section V in the above outline, the journey to Jerusalem. It is the largest section in Luke's Gospel and contains a great number of stories found only in Luke. Luke uses this long journey to Jerusalem primarily to teach what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. It means doing what Jesus does: teaching, healing, serving, suffering, and dying to self. In other words, it means following Jesus - all the way to Jerusalem.

Finally, the greatest difference between Luke's writing and that of Matthew, Mark, and John is that Luke continues the story. The book of Acts tells how Jesus continues to teach and heal as he leads the growing kingdom throughout the Mediterranean world.

DETAILED OUTLINE

(Episode Titles Based on NIV Headings)

I. Prologue Luke - 1:1-4

II. Infancy Narrative - 1:5-2:52

A. The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold - 1:5-25

B. The Birth of Jesus Foretold - 1:26-38

C. Mary Visits Elizabeth - 1:39-45

D. Mary's Song - 1:46-56

E. The Birth of John the Baptist - 1:57-66

F. Zechariah's Song - 1:67-80

G. The Birth of Jesus - 2:1-7

H. The Shepherds and the Angels - 2:8-20

I. Jesus Presented in the Temple - 2:21-40

J. The Boy Jesus at the Temple - 2:41-52

III. The Preparation for Jesus' Ministry - 3:1-4:13

A. John the Baptist Prepares the Way - 3:1-20

B. The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus - 3:21-38

C. The Temptation of Jesus - 4:1-13

IV. Jesus' Ministry in Galilee - 4:14-9:50

A. Jesus Rejected at Nazareth - 4:14-30

B. Jesus' Ministry in Capernaum - 4:31-44

1. Jesus Drives Out an Evil Spirit - 4:31-37

2. Jesus Heals Many - 4:38-44

C. The Calling of the First Disciples - 5:1-11

D. The Man with Leprosy - 5:12-16

E. The Beginning of Conflict - 5:17-6:11

1. Jesus Heals a Paralytic - 5:17-26

2. The Calling of Levi - 5:27-32

3. Jesus Questioned About Fasting - 5:33-39

4. Lord of the Sabbath - 6:1-11

F. The Sermon on the Plain - 6:12-49

1. The Twelve Apostles - 6:12-16

2. Blessings and Woes - 6:17-26

3. Love for Enemies - 6:27-36

4. Judging Others - 6:37-42

5. A Tree and Its Fruit - 6:43-45

6. The Wise and Foolish Builders - 6:46-49

G. Jesus the Prophet - 7:1-50

1. The Faith of the Centurion - 7:1-10

2. Jesus Raises a Widow's Son - 7:11-17

3. Jesus and John the Baptist - 7:18-35

4. Jesus Anointed by a Sinful Woman - 7:36-50

H. Jesus Teaches in Parables - 8:1-21

1. The Parable of the Sower - 8:1-15

2. A Lamp on a Stand - 8:16-18

3. Jesus' Mother and Brothers - 8:19-21

I. Jesus Shows His Divine Power - 8:22-56

1. Jesus Calms a Storm - 8:22-25

2. The Healing of a Demoniac - 8:26-39

3. A Dead Girl and a Sick Woman - 8:40-56

J. Jesus and His Apostles - 9:1-50

1. Jesus Sends Out the Twelve - 9:1-6

2. Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand - 9:7-17

3. Peter's Confession of Christ - 9:18-27

4. The Transfiguration - 9:28-36

5. The Healing of a Boy with a Demon - 9:37-45

6. Who Will Be the Greatest? - 9:46-50

V. Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem - 9:51-19:27

A. Jesus Faces Toward Jerusalem - 9:51-13:21

1. Samaritan Opposition - 9:51-56

2. The Cost of Following Jesus - 9:57-62

3. Jesus Sends Out the Seventy-Two - 10:1-24

4. The Parable of the Good Samaritan - 10:25-37

5. At the Home of Mary and Martha - 10:38-42

6. Jesus' Teaching on Prayer - 11:1-13

7. Jesus and Beelzebub - 11:14-28

8. The Sign of Jonah - 11:29-32

9. The Lamp of the Body - 11:33-36

10. Six Woes - 11:37-54

11. Warnings and Encouragements - 12:1-12

12. The Parable of the Rich Fool - 12:13-21

13. Do Not Worry - 12:22-34

14. Watchfulness - 12:35-48

15. Not Peace but Division - 12:49-53

16. Interpreting the Times - 12:54-59

17. Repent or Perish - 13:1-9

18. A Crippled Woman Healed - 13:10-17

19. Parables of Mustard Seed and Yeast - 13:18-21

B. Jesus Journeys Toward Jerusalem - 13:22-17:10

1. The Narrow Door - 13:22-30

2. Jesus' Sorrow for Jerusalem - 13:31-35

3. Jesus at a Pharisee's House - 14:1-14

4. The Parable of the Great Banquet - 14:15-24

5. The Cost of Being a Disciple - 14:25-35

6. The Parable of the Lost Sheep - 15:1-7

7. The Parable of the Lost Coin - 15:8-10

8. The Parable of the Lost Son - 15:11-32

9. The Parable of the Shrewd Manager - 16:1-15

10. Teachings on the Law and Divorce - 16:16-18

11. The Rich Man and Lazarus - 16:19-31

12. Sin, Faith, Duty - 17:1-10

C. Jesus Approaches Jerusalem - 17:11-19:27

1. Ten Healed of Leprosy - 17:11-19

2. The Coming of the Kingdom of God - 17:20-37

3. The Parable of the Persistent Widow - 18:1-8

4. The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector - 18:9-14

5. The Little Children and Jesus - 18:15-17

6. The Rich Ruler - 18:18-30

7. Jesus Again Predicts His Death - 18:31-34

8. A Blind Beggar Receives His Sight - 18:35-43

9. Zacchaeus the Tax Collector - 19:1-10

10. The Parable of the Ten Minas - 19:11-27

VI. Jesus' Ministry in Jerusalem - 19:28-21:38

A. The Triumphal Entry - 19:28-34

B. Jesus at the Temple - 19:45-48

C. The Authority of Jesus Questioned - 20:1-8

D. The Parable of the Tenants - 20:9-19

E. Paying Taxes to Caesar - 20:20-26

F. The Resurrection and Marriage - 20:27-40

G. Whose Son Is the Christ? - 20:41-47

H. The Widow's Offering - 21:1-4

I. Signs of the End of the Age - 21:5-38

VII. Jesus' Suffering and Death - 22:1-23:56

A. Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus - 22:1-6

B. The Last Supper - 22:7-38

C. Jesus Prays on the Mount of Olives - 22:39-46

D. Jesus Arrested - 22:47-53

E. Peter Disowns Jesus - 22:54-62

F. The Guards Mock Jesus - 22:63-65

G. Jesus Before Pilate and Herod - 22:66-23:25

H. The Crucifixion - 23:26-43

I. Jesus' Death - 23:44-49

J. Jesus' Burial - 23:50-56

VIII. Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension - 24:1-53

A. The Resurrection - 24:1-12

B. On the Road to Emmaus - 24:13-35

C. Jesus Appears to the Disciples - 24:36-49

D. The Ascension - 24:50-53

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: Luke (Book Introduction)

S. LUKE'S GOSPEL

Third Edition

JOHN HODGES,

AGAR STREET, CHARING CROSS, LONDON.

1892.

INTRODUCTION.

——o——

THE Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to S. Luke , that is, the Holy Evangelical History of the words and acts of Jesus, as described by S. Luke. The Arabic says, "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God, the Gospel of the Excellent Father, Luke the Evangelist, the laying open of the glorious Gospel." The Syraic, "In the name of the Lord and our God, we Jeschua Mescicho, sign the Gospel, the holy message of Luke the Evangelist, which he spoke and proclaimed in Greek, in Alexandria." From this diversity, it is clear that the above title or inscription was prefixed to the Gospel, not by S. Luke himself, but by the Church which, in like manner, inscribed one Gospel "According to S. Matthew," one "According to S. John," and another "According to S. Mark." Nay, as regards the faith of the future, this title would have been added to no purpose by S. Luke himself, unless the Church had declared his Gospel to be genuine and not supposititious, and had handed it down as such. This speaks for Tradition against the heretics, for why is the Gospel, bearing the name of S. Luke, to be received as truly his, whilst that with the title of "Matthew and Thomas" is not to be considered theirs? Or again, why is the Gospel of S. Luke more canonical than that of Apelles or Basilides? No other reason can be given but the proof, declaration, and tradition of the Church. For we accept it, not because it is written in the sacred books, but because it has been so handed down by the Church. For instance, we believe this to be the Gospel of S. Luke and canonical, not because he wrote it, but because the Church so delivers and teaches. For although its own authority pertains to this Gospel, as to the others, yet this authority would not be plain to us, but for the declaration of the Church. The same is, a pari , to be said of the sense of Scripture. For the true sense of Scripture is not what appears to you or me, for this would be uncertain and doubtful, for Calvin affirms one sense to be the true one, Luther another, and others another, but that which is taught and received by the Church, whose office it is to deliver as well what is the true Scripture as what is its true meaning. For Holy Scripture consists not in the bark (cortice) of letters or words, but in their genuine meaning. So the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, and the Fathers everywhere, especially Tertullian (B. iv. cap. 5 against Marcion). See what I have said on S. Matthew i. 1.

Observe: I. S. Matthew was the first in order of the Evangelists. He wrote in Hebrew to the Jews in Judæa. S. Mark was the second. He wrote in Greek and Latin to the Romans in Italy; then S. Luke wrote to the Greeks in Greek; and S. John last of all, also in Greek; but S. Luke wrote the more elegantly, because he was the more perfect master of Greek. Hear S. Jerome (Ep. 84 to Paulinus): "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the quadriga of the Lord, and true Cherubim (which is interpreted, the 'multitude of knowledge'), through their whole body they are 'full of eyes,' sparks shine from them, lightnings flash forth, their feet are 'straight,' and point upwards, their backs are winged, and they fly hither and thither. They hold themselves mutually one with another, and are 'enfolded' with one another, and are rolled together, like a wheel, and they go wherever the influence of the Holy Spirit directs them." See Ezekiel i. 9, x. 12; Revelation iv. 6-8.

Moreover, among the faces or forms of the four Cherubim, the third, that of the ox, is ascribed to S. Luke, as well because he begins from the priesthood of Zachariah, whose chief sacrifice was an ox, as because he underwent the labours of an ox in the Gospel, and bore about continually in his own body the mortification of the Cross for the honour of the name of Christ, as the Church sings of him. See what has been said on Revelation iv. 7, and Ezekiel i. 10.

II. S. Luke wrote his Gospel against certain gaping, ignorant, perhaps even false Evangelists, who had written, in Syria or Greece, an imperfect, it may be a lying Gospel, as S. Luke himself signifies in the beginning of his work. So say Origen, S. Ambrose, Theophylact, and S. Epiphanius ( Her . l. i), who, however, when he adds that S. Luke wrote against Cerinthus and Meritus, does not seem to speak correctly. For these two, and especially Basilides, were later than S. Luke, as is clear from Eusebius (Hist. B. iii. ch. 32). Theophylact and Bede think, with more truth, that S. Luke wrote against the Apocryphal Gospels of others, such as pass under the names of "Thomas, Matthew, and the Twelve Apostles."

III. S. Luke was not one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, as Euthymius and S. Gregory in his preface on Job, chap. i. think, on the authority of Origen; for S. Luke never saw Christ in the flesh, but he wrote what he had heard of Him from the Apostles, as he says himself, i. 2. Hence the Fathers call S. Luke "the disciple of the Apostles," and S. Paul mentions him by name, as his "fellow-labourer." So S. Jerome, on the 65th chapter of Isaiah, and preface to S. Matthew; where he says, "The third" (evangelist) is Luke the physician, by nation a Syrian, of Antioch, whose praise is in the Gospel (2 Cor. viii. 18 and 22), who himself was a disciple of S. Paul. He wrote his Gospel in the neighbourhood of Achaia and Bœotia, relating some things from the beginning, as he says himself, and describing rather what he heard than what he saw. St. Irenæus says the same, i. 20; Theodoret, on the Lives of the holy Fathers; Baronius, and others. Tertullian, also (Book iv. against Marcion, chap. 5), thinks this Gospel not so much S. Luke's as S. Paul's, because S. Luke wrote from the dictation of S. Paul, as S. Mark from that of S. Peter. For he says, "what S. Mark wrote may be ascribed to S. Peter, whose interpreter S. Mark was. And so the Gospel of S. Luke is generally given to S. Paul, for the productions of the disciples began to be ascribed to the masters."

S. Jerome also states that "S. Luke, in the Gospel and Acts, performed the duties of a physician of souls, as he had before done of bodies" (Ep. 103 to Paulinus); and again (in that to Philom). "Luke the physician left in his Gospel, and the book of the Acts of the Apostles to the Churches, how the Apostles from fishers of fish became fishers of men, and from the bodies of men became concerned with their souls, whose Gospel, as often as it is read in the churches, fails not of its medicine."

IV. Baronius thinks that S. Luke wrote in the companionship of S. Paul, anno 58, because S. Jerome says that he wrote his Gospel that year in Achaia and Bœotia, where S. Paul was. Others, however, are of opinion that S. Luke wrote earlier, as we must certainly admit, if we agree with S. Jerome ( Lib. de Scrip. Eccl. in Luc. ), Tertullian (Book iv. against Marcion, c. 5), Primasius, Anselm, and others, on 2 Cor. viii 18, that by, "the brother whose praise is in the Gospel" S. Paul meant S. Luke—as S. Ignatius, his fellow-citizen and contemporary, plainly asserts in his letter to the Ephesians: "As Luke bears witness, whose praise is in the Gospel." For the Second Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians was written in the year 58, so that if the praise of S. Luke was in the Gospel at that time, we must necessarily say that it (the Gospel) had been published previously. Hence Euthymius, and Theophylact in his Preface to S. Luke, say that he wrote fifteen years after the ascension of Christ, that is, about the year 49. But S. Luke had not then joined S. Paul, for he came to him in the Troad in the year 51, as Baronius rightly concludes from Acts xvi. 10. It appears, therefore, that S. Luke wrote subsequently to the year 51, but some years before 58, for, as S. Paul says, in that year he was well known and celebrated.

V.  S. Luke, after he had joined S. Paul, passed some time away from him, having been sent by him to other places (as I have shown on Acts xvi. 10), until S. Paul, when he had passed through other countries, came to Greece, thence to Syria, and so to Rome. Acts xx. 3, 4. For S. Paul, with other companions of his voyage, who are named in that verse, took S. Luke also, as S Luke himself states, verses 5, 15. From that time S. Luke became the "diligent" companion of S. Paul, even up to the time of S. Paul's first imprisonment, which was in the second year of Nero, when S. Luke finished the Acts of the Apostles, and, especially, those of S. Paul. Then, as S. Epiphanius says, S. Luke left S. Paul in prison, and went into Dalmatia, Gaul, Italy, and Macedonia, and preached the gospel everywhere till he came to Patara, a city of Achaia, where, in his eighty-fourth year, he was crowned with a glorious martyrdom in the year of Christ 61, the fifth of Nero, and the seventeenth of the session of S. Peter at Rome. So Baronius says, from S. Gregory Nazianzen, Paulinus, Gaudentius, Glyca, Nicephorus and others.

Lastly, who S. Luke was—of what rank and ability, I have described at length in the Book of Acts, where I have said that he appears to be the same as Lucius, whom S. Paul calls his kinsman, Rom xvi. 21. But he seems different to Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned in Acts xiii. 3. For S. Luke was of Antioch, not Cyrene. Again, the Roman Martyrology, on April 22, says that Lucius was among the first disciples of Christ, which cannot be said of S. Luke.

VI. The reason of S. Luke's having written a Gospel after SS. Matthew and Mark, was twofold. 1. To confute the false gospels that were then being published in Syria and Greece, as I have said before. 2. To write at length those words and acts of Christ which had been passed over by the other Evangelists, and especially His Infancy and Childhood, the Annunciation of His forerunner John the Baptist, His Conception, Nativity, Presentation in the Temple, Presence among the Doctors, the Conversion of St. Mary Magdalene, Zacchæus, the thief on the cross, the appearance to the two Disciples at Emmaus, the Parables of the Pharisee and Publican, the Good Samaritan, the Strayed Sheep, the Lost Piece of Money, the Prodigal Son, Lazarus and the Rich Glutton, and others; which show the mercy and pity of Christ to sinners and the miserable. See S. Irenæus, iii. 4, who recounts each. S. Luke also relates, more fully than the others, the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension.

Lastly, S. Peter Damianus, in his Sermon on S. Matthew, says, "S. Luke observes the proper method and order when he describes the priestly stock of the Lord and His Person, and, with this object and intent, proceeds to describe at length every part of the Temple and the priests, to the end of the history. For, as the Mediator between God and man in His human nature, He pleased to be King and Priest in one, that through His kingly power He might rule, and, by His office of Priest, atone for us. These two "Personæ" of Christ are especially praised by the Fathers, for to Him principally and by singular prerogative God gave the seat of His Father David, that there might be no end of His Kingdom, and that He might be a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedek."

S. Anselm again, on Colos. iv., gives two reasons why S. Luke, more than the others, should speak of the mercy of Christ. 1. S. Luke was a physician of bodies; then, when he turned to Christ, he was made a physician of souls. Hence he speaks, more than the other Evangelists, of the mercies of the Redeemer, by which the weaknesses of sins are driven away. 2. In Christ, he describes the person of a Priest, making intercession for the sins of the whole world

Lastly, our own John de la Haye, in his Oparat. Evangel. chap. 68, recounts the twenty-five privileges granted to S. Luke, where, among other things, from S. Jerome, Bede, and Ado, he says that S. Luke never committed mortal sin, but passed a strict life of continual mortification; that he also preserved his virginity to the end, and was therefore beloved by the Blessed Virgin especially and before all others.

S. Ambrose and Titus of Bostra have commented especially on S. Luke. And Tertullian, in his whole work against Marcion (who had declared the Gospel of S. Luke, though adulterated, to be his own), treats of and explains many passages of this Gospel. Cardinal Toletus, also, wrote at length, and with exactness, on the first twelve chapters.