THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE
[Sidenote: The Author.]
The evidence for believing that the third Gospel was written by St.
Luke, the friend of St. Paul, is very strong. In the 2nd century both
this Gospel and Acts were attributed to him. St. Irenaeus, about A.D.
185, writes: "Luke, also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the
gospel preached by him." [1] A few years earlier the author of the
_Muratorian Fragment_ wrote the words, "The third book of the Gospel,
that according to Luke."
According to Eusebius and Jerome and an unknown writer of the 3rd
century, St. Luke was a native of Antioch in Syria. Of this we seem to
have confirmation in the full account given in Acts of the Church at
Antioch. It is shown by Col. iv. 14 that he was a Gentile, as there is
a distinction drawn between him and those "of the circumcision." From
the same passage we learn that he was a physician. Traces of his
profession have been discovered in the frequency with which he
describes the _healing_ wrought by Christ and His apostles (iv. 18, 23;
ix. 1, 2, 6; x. 9; xxii. 51), and the occasional use of terms which a
physician was more likely to employ than other people (iv. 38; v. 12;
vi. 19; xxii. 44). It is very possible that it is St. Luke who is
described (2 Cor. viii. 18) as "the brother whose praise in the gospel
is spread through all the Churches." This tradition can be traced as
far back as Origen. The fact that he was a dear friend of St. Paul is
{65} shown by the epithet "beloved" in Col. iv. 14; by the fact that he
is one of the "fellow-workers" who send greetings from Rome when St.
Paul, who was imprisoned there, wrote to Philemon; and by the touching
statement in 2 Tim. iv. 11, where St. Paul, as he awaits his death,
writes, "Only Luke is with me."
St. Luke's relations with St. Paul are further illustrated from Acts.
The literary resemblances between this Gospel and Acts are so numerous
and so subtle that the tradition which ascribes both books to one
author cannot reasonably be controverted. The passages in Acts which
contain the word "we" show that the writer of Acts accompanied St. Paul
from Troas to Philippi in A.D. 50, when the apostle made his first
missionary journey in Europe (Acts xvi. 10-17). The apostle left him
at Philippi. About six years afterwards St. Paul was again at
Philippi, and there met St. Luke, who travelled with him to Jerusalem
(Acts xx. 5-xxi. 18); he also was with the apostle when he made the
voyage to Rome, and was shipwrecked with him at Malta. A writer of the
3rd century (quoted in Wordsworth's _Vulgate_, p. 269) tells us that
St. Luke had neither wife nor children, and died in Bithynia at the age
of seventy-four. A writer of the 6th century asserts that St. Luke was
a painter, and attributes to him a certain picture of the Blessed
Virgin. Another such picture is preserved in the great church of S.
Maria Maggiore at Rome. The legend finds no support in early Christian
writers. At the same time, it bears witness to the fact that this
Gospel contains the elements of beauty in especial richness. It is the
work of St. Luke that inspired Fra Angelico's pictures of the
Annunciation, and the English hymn "Abide with me."
Although St. Irenaeus is the first writer who names St. Luke as the
author of the third Gospel, the Gospel is quoted by earlier writers.
Special mention must be made of (1) _Justin Martyr_. He records
several facts only found in this Gospel, _e.g._ Elisabeth as the mother
of John the Baptist, the census {66} under Quirinius, and the cry,
"Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit." (2) _Celsus_, the pagan
philosopher, who opposed Christianity. He refers to the genealogy
which narrates that Jesus was descended from the first man. (3) The
_Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne_, written in A.D. 177. (4)
_Marcion_. He endeavoured to found a system of theology which he
pretended to be in accordance with the teaching of St. Paul. He
rejected the Old Testament as the work of an evil god, and asserted
that St. Paul was the only apostle who was free from the taint of
Judaism. The only Gospel which he kept was that according to St. Luke,
which he retained as agreeing with the teaching of St. Paul. The
contents of Marcion's Gospel can be largely discovered in Tertullian.
The differences which existed between Marcion's Gospel and our Luke can
be easily accounted for. Here, as in St. Paul's Epistles, he simply
altered the passages which did not agree with his own interpretation of
St. Paul's doctrine. For instance, in Luke xiii. 28, instead of
"Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob," he put "the righteous." The account
of our Lord's birth and infancy he omitted, because he did not believe
that our Lord's human body was thoroughly human and real. An
interesting modern parallel to Marcion's New Testament can be found in
England. At the beginning of the 19th century the English Unitarians
circulated large numbers of an English version of the New Testament in
which were altered all the passages in the English Authorised Version
which imply that Jesus is God. The translators of this Unitarian
version accepted the Gospels of the New Testament as genuine, although
they used unscrupulous methods to support their assertion that the New
Testament is Unitarian. In the same way Marcion, although he made
unscrupulous alterations in Luke in order to prove that it was really
Marcionite, obviously accepted it as a genuine work of the apostolic
age.
The Preface of the Gospel begins with a ceremonious dedication to a
person of high rank, named Theophilus. He is {67} called by the title
"most excellent," which ordinarily implies that the person so
designated is a member of the "equestrian order." The evangelist tells
Theophilus that many had taken in hand to draw up a narrative of those
things which are "most surely believed among us." The preface shows us
that many attempts to give an account in order of what our Lord did and
said had already been made. The literary activity of the earliest
Christians is thus demonstrated to us. The preface suggests to us that
substantial accuracy marked these early efforts, and, in a still higher
degree, St. Luke's own Gospel. He does not speak of the earlier works
as inaccurate, and he does distinctly give his reader to understand
that he possesses peculiar qualifications for his task. He asserts
that his information is derived from "eye-witnesses and ministers of
the Word," and that he has himself "traced the course of all things
accurately from the first." This preface certainly shows us that the
writer took real pains in writing, and that he had personally known men
who accompanied our Lord.
The date can hardly be later than A.D. 80, unless the evangelist wrote
in extreme old age. And the date must be earlier than Acts, as the
Gospel is referred to in that work (Acts i. 1, 2). Can we fix the date
more accurately than this? Many critics think that we can. They say
that it must be later than the fall of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. It is said
that the Gospel presupposes that Jerusalem was already destroyed. The
arguments for this are: (1) In Luke xxi. 20-24 the utter destruction of
Jerusalem is foretold with peculiar clearness. We have already seen
that a similar argument is employed by many in speaking of Matt., an
argument which seems to imply that our Lord did not foretell that
destruction because He could not. This argument must be dismissed.
(2) In Luke xxi. 20 there is no editorial note like that in Matt. xxiv.
15, to emphasize the necessity of paying peculiar attention to our
Lord's warning about the coming destruction, and in Luke xxi. 25 the
final judgment is not so {68} clearly connected with the fall of
Jerusalem as in Matt. xxiv. 29, where it is foretold as coming
"immediately, after the tribulation of those days." Moreover, xxi. 24
suggests that the writer was well aware that an interval must elapse
between the two great events. This is the only good argument for
placing Luke later than Matt., and it certainly deserves careful
attention. At the same time, we must observe the following facts: (a)
St. Luke probably did not know St. Matthew's Gospel, otherwise he would
not have given such very different, though not contradictory, accounts
of the infancy and the resurrection of our Lord; (b) St. Luke may
perhaps owe the superior accuracy of his report of the eschatological
discourse of Christ to persons whom he knew at Jerusalem in A.D. 56;
(c) St. Luke himself possibly thought that the end of the world would
follow soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, for in xxi. 32 he seems
to connect the final judgment with his own generation. But the
statement is not so strong as in Matt. and Mark. For St. Luke says,
"This generation shall not pass away till all be accomplished," while
Matt. and Mark say, "until all _these_ things be accomplished,"
evidently including the final judgment.
On the whole, it seems reasonable to date the Gospel according to St.
Luke soon after A.D. 70, but it contains so many primitive touches that
it may be rather earlier. It has been urged that both the Gospel and
Acts betray a knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus, and must
therefore be later than A.D. 94. This theory remains wholly unproved,
and the small evidence which can be brought to support it is far
outweighed by the early features which mark St. Luke's books.
[Sidenote: Literary Style.]
The style is marked by great delicacy and power. It is in better Greek
than the other Synoptic Gospels, and the evangelist seems to
deliberately avoid some of the racy, popular words which are employed
by St. Mark. But the beginner should be warned that this Gospel is not
very easy to translate, for it contains a good {69} many words with
which he is not likely to be familiar. The language of St. Luke
contains many proofs that he is writing as a Gentile for Gentiles.
Thus he calls the Apostle Simon, who belonged to the fanatically devout
party known as the "Cananaeans," by the corresponding Greek name
"Zealot" (vi. 15); he seldom uses the Hebrew word "Amen," and he never
uses the word "Rabbi" as a form of address. He adds the word "unclean"
before the word "devil" (iv. 33), as the Greeks believed that some
devils were good and kind, while the Jews believed all devils to be
evil. He also substitutes the word "lawyer" for "scribe." But while
the preface is written in what is perhaps the best Greek in the New
Testament, the evangelist allows his language to be penetrated by his
visions of Jewish scenes. Partly from his study of the Old Testament,
partly from his knowledge of the books and the lives in which he found
a testimony to Jesus, he acquired the art of breathing into his Greek
the simple manner and the sweet tone of a Hebrew story. There is
nothing in all literature more perfectly told than the story of the
walk to Emmaus. Nothing can be better than the delineation of
character which is suggested to us in the story of Zacharias, or of
Anna, or of Zacchaeus. There is always a freshness to remind us that
the Gospel is "good tidings of great joy" (ii. 10), and the Magnificat
(i. 46-55), the Benedictus (i. 68-79), the Gloria in Excelsis (ii. 14),
and the Nunc Dimittis (ii. 29-32), have become for ever part of the
praises of the Christian Church. More often than in any other Gospel
we find such expressions as "glorifying God," "praising God," "blessing
God." Again, St. Luke, in choosing incidents from the life of home,
and more especially in choosing incidents in which women are prominent,
gives a new solemnity to a life which men had hitherto despised. We
always think of the Blessed Virgin as "highly favoured," of Martha
"cumbered about much serving" (x. 40), of the widow with the two mites,
of the daughters of Jerusalem weeping on the way of the cross (xxiii.
28), of the double joy of Elisabeth {70} to bear a son in her old age
and to be visited by the mother of her Lord (i. 43); and we think all
this because St. Luke has told us their story. These passages with
their smiles and tears, their simplicity and their depth, are a divine
contrast to the grotesque passage in the Jewish liturgy, where the men
thank God that they are not women.
The last point in St. Luke's literary style is his use of phrases which
resemble phrases in St. Paul's Epistles. He writes as a man who has
lived in familiar intercourse with St. Paul. There is a striking
similarity between the words attributed to our Lord in _the institution
of the Eucharist_ (xxii. 19, 20) and those in 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25, a
similarity which is probably to be accounted for by the fact that St.
Luke must often have heard the apostle use these words in celebrating
this Sacrament. Besides this, there are phrases which are parallel
with phrases in every Epistle of St. Paul. A few instances are--Luke
vi. 36 (2 Cor. i. 3); Luke vi. 39 (Rom. ii. 19); Luke viii. 13 (1
Thess. i. 6); Luke x. 20 (Phil. iv. 3); Luke xii. 35 (Eph. vi. 14);
Luke xxi. 24 (Rom. xi. 25); Luke xxii. 53 (Col. i. 13).
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
It has been well said that St. Matthew's Gospel is in a peculiar sense
_Messianic_, St. Mark's is in a peculiar sense _realistic_, and St.
Luke's is in a peculiar sense _Catholic_. And while St. Matthew takes
pains to connect Christianity with the religion of the past, and St.
Mark allows his interest in the past and the future to be overshadowed
by his resolve to speak of Jesus as actually working marvels, St. Luke
seems, like St. Paul, to be essentially progressive and to have a wider
horizon than his predecessors. He does not manifest the least
antipathy towards Judaism. He has none of that intolerance which so
often marks the men who advertise their own breadth of view. He
represents our Lord as fulfilling the Law, as quoting the Old
Testament, and declaring that "it is easier for heaven and earth to
pass away than for one tittle of the Law to fail" (xvi. 17). But he
writes as a representative Gentile {71} convert. He takes pleasure in
recording all that can attract to Christ that Gentile world which was
beginning to learn of the new religion. We may note the following
points which illustrate this fact: (1) Luke traces the genealogy of our
Lord, not like Matt. by the legal line to Abraham, the father of the
Jews, but by the natural line to _Adam_, the father of humanity (iii.
38), thus showing Jesus to be the elder Brother and the Redeemer of
every human being. (2) While the true Godhead of our Lord is taught
throughout, His true _manhood_ is brought into prominence with peculiar
pathos. We note His condescension in passing through the various
stages of a child's life (ii. 4-7, 21, 22, 40, 42, 51, 52), the
continuance of His temptations during His ministry (xxii. 28), His
constant recourse to prayer in the great crises of His life, His deep
_sobbing_ over Jerusalem (xix. 41), His sweat like drops of blood
during His agony in Gethsemane (xxii. 44), a fact recorded by none of
the other evangelists. St. Luke seems to be filled with a sense of the
divine compassion of Jesus, and thus he relates the facts which prove
the reality of the grace, the undeserved lovingkindness, of God to man.
Rightly did the poet Dante call him "the scribe of the gentleness of
Christ." (3) Corresponding with this human character of the incarnate
Son of God, we find the offer of _universal salvation_. St. Luke
alone--for the words are wrongly inserted in Matt.--records the tender
words of Jesus, "The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was
lost" (xix. 10). St. Paul knew no distinction between Jew and Greek,
rich and poor, but taught that to be justified by God is a privilege
which can be claimed not by birth but by faith; and what St. Paul
enforces by stern arguments which convince our minds, St. Luke instils
by the sweet parables and stories which convince our hearts. It is
here that we find kindness shown to the _Gentile_ (iv. 25-27; xiii. 28,
29), and the _Samaritan_ (ix. 51-56; xvii. 11-19); here we are told of
the publican who was "justified" rather than the Pharisee (xviii. 9),
the story of the penitent {72} thief who had no time to produce the
good works which his faith would have prompted (xxiii. 43), of the good
Samaritan who, schismatic though he was, showed the spirit of a child
of God (x. 30). Last, and best, there is the parable of the Prodigal
Son (xv. 11), and the story of the woman who was a sinner (vii. 37).
To her Christ says, "Thy faith hath saved thee," and to His host He
says, "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved
much"--words which no one but the Son of God could dare to say of any
"woman who was in the city, a sinner." In recording these words, St.
Luke proves that Jesus Christ Himself taught the Pauline doctrine that
man is saved by faith; and yet not by an empty faith, but by "faith
working through love" (Gal. v. 6). In this Gospel Jesus is especially
the Refuge of sinners, and the teaching of our Lord may be best
described by the happy phrase which records His address in the
synagogue of Nazareth: "words of grace."
It is important to notice that in no Gospel do we find such an especial
sympathy shown for the poor. The poverty of the holy family (ii. 7, 8,
24); the beatitude on the poor[2] (vi. 20), with the corresponding woes
pronounced upon the rich (vi. 24 ff.); the parable of Dives and Lazarus
(xvi. 19), the invitation of the poor to the supper of the King (xiv.
21), show this sympathy. In consequence of this, St. Luke's Gospel has
been said to show an _Ebionite_ tendency. But the word is misleading.
It is possible that some early Christians may have called themselves by
the name _Ebionim_, a Hebrew word which designated the poor and
oppressed servants of God. And it is known that in the 2nd century and
afterwards there was a heretical semi-Christian Jewish sect of that
name. But St. Luke's Gospel is utterly opposed to the main tenets of
these heretics, which were a repudiation of Christ's real Divinity and
an insistence upon the necessity of circumcision for all Christians.
{73}
Perhaps it is the gentleness of the evangelist, and his preference for
all that is tender and gracious, which causes his account of the twelve
apostles to differ considerably from that in Mark. Their slowness,
their weakness of faith, their rivalries, are set in a subdued light.
He does not tell us that Christ once called St. Peter "Satan," or that
Peter cursed and swore when he denied Christ. He omits the rebuke
administered to the disciples in the conversation concerning the leaven
(Mark viii. 17), the ambitious request of the two sons of Zebedee, and
the indignation of the disciples at Mary's costly gift of ointment
(Matt xxvi. 8). When St. Mark speaks of the failure of the disciples
to keep awake while their Master was in Gethsemane, he says that they
were asleep, "for their eyes were heavy" (xiv. 40). When St. Luke
speaks of it, he says that they were "sleeping for _sorrow_" (xxii.
45). Doubtless both accounts are true, and we can reverently wonder
both at the rugged honesty with which St. Peter must have told St. Mark
about the faults of himself and his friends, and at the consideration
shown by St. Luke towards the twelve in spite of the fact that he was
more closely connected with St. Paul than with them.
About one-third of this Gospel is peculiar to itself, consisting mainly
of the large section, ix. 51-xviii. 14. St. Luke here seems to have
used an Aramaic document; the beginning of the section is full of
Aramaic idioms. In places where St. Luke records the same facts as the
other Synoptists, he sometimes adds slight but significant touches.
The withered hand restored on the sabbath is the _right_ hand (vi. 6);
the centurion's servant is one _dear_ to him (vii. 2); and the daughter
of Jairus an _only_ daughter (viii. 42; cf. the son of the widow at
Nain, an _only_ son, vii. 12). Among the remarkable omissions in this
Gospel we may notice two sayings which are found in Matt. and Mark, and
which seem to us to have been peculiarly appropriate for St. Luke's
general purpose. The first is the saying of Christ that He had come
"not to be ministered unto, {74} but to minister, and to give His life
a ransom for many" (Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45). The second is the
statement that the Gospel "shall be preached in the whole world" (Matt.
xxvi. 13; Mark xiv. 9). With the omission of these sayings we may
compare the omission of any record of the visit of the Gentile wise men
to the cradle of the infant Saviour of the world--an incident which
would probably have appealed most strongly to the heart of St. Luke, if
he had known it. Its absence from this Gospel is one of the many
proofs that St. Luke was not familiar with the Gospel according to St.
Matthew.
We have already noticed that much of the freshness of this Gospel is
due to its being in a peculiar sense the Gospel of praise and
thanksgiving. It is also peculiarly the Gospel of _prayer_. All the
three Synoptists record that Christ prayed in Gethsemane. But on seven
occasions St. Luke is alone in recording prayers which Jesus offered at
the crises of His life: at His baptism (iii. 21); before His first
conflict with the Pharisees and scribes (v. 16); before choosing the
Twelve (vi. 12); before the first prediction of His Passion (ix. 18);
at the Transfiguration (ix. 29); before teaching the Lord's Prayer (xi.
1); and on the Cross (xxiii. 34, 46). St. Luke mentions His insistence
on the duty of prayer in two parables which no other evangelist has
recorded (xi. 5-13; xviii. 1-8). He alone relates the declaration of
Jesus that He had made supplication for Peter, and His charge to the
Twelve, "Pray that ye enter not into temptation" (xxii. 32, 40).
As the Gospel according to St. Luke is more rich in parables than any
other Gospel, we may conclude by giving a few words of explanation
concerning our Lord's parables. The word "parable" means a
"comparison," or, more strictly, "a placing of one thing beside another
with a view to comparing them." In the Gospels the word is generally
applied to a particular form of teaching. That is to say, it means a
story about earthly things told in such a manner as to teach a {75}
spiritual truth. The Jews were familiar with parables. There are some
in the Old Testament, the Book of Isaiah containing two (v. 1-6;
xxviii. 24-28). The rabbinical writings of the Jews are full of them.
But the Jewish parable was only an illustration of a truth which had
already been made known. The parables of our Lord are often means of
conveying truths which were not known. They must be distinguished from
(a) fables, (b) allegories, (c) myths. A fable teaches worldly wisdom
and prudence, not spiritual wisdom, and it is put into somewhat
childish forms in which foxes and birds converse together. An allegory
puts the story and its interpretation side by side, and each part of
the story usually has some special significance. A myth takes the form
of history, but it relates things which happened before the dawn of
history, as they appear to the child-mind of primitive men.
The parables of our Lord were intended to teach the secrets of the
kingdom of God (see p. 44). They unfold these secrets and at the same
time veil them in the illustrations which are employed. These
illustrations attract the attention and inquiry of those who are
spiritually receptive. On the other hand, those who are unworthy or
hardened do not recognize the truth. Nevertheless, the parables were
such miracles of simplicity and power, were so easy to remember, and so
closely connected with everyday objects, that even the dullest man
would awake to the truth if he retained a spark of life. It is
difficult to divide the parables into separate groups. But they may
perhaps be divided into two groups. The first group is drawn from
man's relations with the world of nature and from his simpler
experiences, and the second is drawn from man's relations with his
fellow-men, relations which involve more complicated experiences. The
parables of the second group were sometimes spoken in answer to
questions addressed to our Lord in private; such is the parable of the
good Samaritan, and that of the rich fool. If we desire to study the
parables in special relation to the kingdom of God, {76} we can divide
them into three groups. The first consists of those collected in Matt.
xiii., delivered in and near Capernaum, and referring to the kingdom of
God as a whole. The second consists of those collected in Luke
x.-xviii., delivered on Christ's journeys from Galilee to Jerusalem,
and referring to the character of the individual members of the
kingdom. The third consists of parables spoken during our Lord's last
days at Jerusalem, and referring to the judgment of members of the
kingdom.
It is difficult to decide whether some of the shorter parables ought to
be regarded as parables or not, but the number is usually estimated at
about thirty, of which eighteen are peculiar to Luke. In John there
are no parables, strictly so called, and St. John never uses the word
"parable." But he uses the word _paroimia_, or "proverb," and records
several proverbial sayings of our Lord which are rather like parables
(John iv. 34; x. i-3; xii. 24; xv. 1-6; xvi. 21).
ANALYSIS
The infancy of our Lord: i. 1-ii. 52.--Similarity and contrast between
the predictions of the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus, and also
between their birth. The circumcision, the visit of Jesus to the
temple in boyhood.
A.
Winter A.D. 26 till after Pentecost 27.
The preparation for the ministry: iii. 1-iv. 13.--The ministry of John
the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus, the genealogy from Adam, the
threefold temptation.
B.
Pentecost A.D. 27 till before Passover 28.
Missionary work of Jesus in Galilee: iv. 14-ix. 6.--Jesus preaches, is
rejected at Nazareth, goes to Capernaum, various miracles (iv.). Call
of Simon, leper cleansed, five {77} grounds of offence against Jesus
(v.-vi. 11). Appointment of the twelve, the sermon (vi.). The
centurion's servant, the widow's son, Christ's description of John and
of the age, the penitent (vii.). Parables, Christ's relation to His
mother and brethren, various miracles (viii.). The mission of the
twelve (ix. 1-6).
[Perplexity of Herod, ix. 7-9.]
C.
Passover A.D. 28 till before Tabernacles 28.
Climax of missionary work in Galilee: ix. 10-50.--Christ feeds the
multitude, Peter's confession, Christ's first prediction of His death,
transfiguration, lunatic boy cured, second prediction of death, two
rebukes to apostles.
D.
Tabernacles, September A.D. 28 until early 29.
Later ministry, chiefly in Peraea: ix. 51-xix. 28.--Jesus rejected by
Samaritans, discouragements (ix.). Mission of the seventy, lament over
cities of Galilee, the good Samaritan, Mary and Martha (x.). Prayer
and the Lord's Prayer, Jesus accused of alliance with Beelzebub, His
saying about His mother, denunciation of a generation which will not
believe without signs, and of the Pharisees and lawyers (xi.). The
leaven of the Pharisees, confidence in God, warnings against
covetousness, anxiety and lack of watchfulness, Christ's coming
"baptism," signs of the times (xii.). The meaning of calamities,
parable of the fig tree, cure on the sabbath, the mustard seed and the
leaven, Gentiles to replace Jews, the Pharisees try to persuade Jesus
to leave the dominions of Herod, Christ's first lament over Jerusalem
(xiii.).
Lawfulness of healing on the sabbath, humility, inviting the poor, the
King's supper, counting the cost (xiv.). Parables to {78} illustrate
Christ's care for the lost (xv.). The use and abuse of money (xvi.).
Occasions of stumbling, the increase of faith, the truth that we cannot
purchase God's favour by doing more than He commands, the ten lepers,
the coming of the Son of man (xvii.). Answer to prayer, the Pharisee
and publican, little children, the rich young man, Christ's third
prediction of His death, the blind beggar at Jericho (xviii.).
Zacchaeus, the parable of the pounds (xix. 1-28).
E.
Passover A.D. 29.
Last days at Jerusalem, and afterwards: xix. 29-xxiv. 53.--Entry into
Jerusalem, Christ's second lament over Jerusalem, cleansing of the
temple (xix. 29-xx.). Christ challenged, parable of the vineyard, two
questions to entrap Christ, His question (xx.). The widow's mites,
predictions of the destruction of the temple, siege of Jerusalem, the
second coming (xxi.). Judas' bargain, the Passover, agony on the mount
of Olives, the betrayal, Peter's denial, Jesus tried before the elders
(xxii.). Jesus before Pilate, Herod, Pilate again, Simon of Cyrene,
the daughters of Jerusalem, the crucifixion, burial by Joseph of
Arimathaea (xxiii.).
The women at the sepulchre, and Peter, the walk to Emmaus, Jesus
appears to the disciples and eats, His commission, the Ascension
(xxiv.).
The Date of our Lord's Birth.--It is fairly well known that the dates
of our Lord's Birth and of His Death are both, in all probability,
misrepresented in popular chronology. The best ancient chronology
fixes the date of the Crucifixion in A.D. 29. The Birth was probably
about six years before the commencement of our present era. Various
reasons make this date probable, including the fact that there was at
that time a conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars, which must have
presented a most brilliant appearance in the sky, and would {79}
certainly have attracted the star-loving sages of the East. The great
astronomer Kepler was of opinion that this conjunction was followed by
the brief appearance of a new star, which is the star mentioned in
Matt. ii. 2. This is of importance in considering the statements of
St. Luke. Several objections have been made to his account of the
census held under Quirinius. (1) It is said that Quirinius was not
governor of Syria when Jesus was born; his administration was from A.D.
6 to A.D. 9, and Quinctilius Varus was governor in A.D. 1. But St.
Luke cannot be proved to say that Quirinius was governor; he describes
his office by a participle which may mean "acting as leader," and there
is proof that Quirinius was engaged in a military command in the time
of Herod, and also proof that some high official twice governed Syria
in the time of Augustus. St. Luke's expression might fit either of
these two facts. (2) It is said that Herod was reigning as king in
Palestine, and that his subjects would not be included in a Roman
census. But in the year 8-7 B.C. Augustus wrote to Herod, saying that
he would henceforth treat him as a subject. His dominions must
henceforth have been treated like the rest of the dominions of
Augustus. (3) It is said that no census took place at that time, and
that if there had been a census, it would have been carried out by
households, according to Roman custom, and not by families. But there
seems to have been a census in Egypt and Syria in B.C. 8, and after
Augustus determined to put Herod under his authority, the census would
naturally be extended to Judaea. Herod would probably be allowed to
carry out the census on his own lines, so long as it was really carried
out. And he would plainly prefer to do it in the Jewish fashion, so as
to irritate the Jews as little as might be.
The question is still involved in some obscurity, but St. Luke's
accuracy has not been in the least disproved by the controversy. He is
the only evangelist who connects his narrative with the history of
Syria and of the Roman empire, and we have every reason to believe that
he did his work with care as well as sympathy.
[1] _Adv. Har._ iii. 1.
[2] Matt. v. 3 has "poor in spirit." The same Aramaic word might be
used for both "poor" and "poor in spirit."
{80}