The numerical position which Luke occupies
in the Sacred Canon, supplies a sure key to its interpretation. It is the third
book in the New Testament, and the forty-second in the Bible as a whole. Each
of these numbers are profoundly significant and suggestive in this connection.
Three is the number of manifestation, and particularly, the
manifestation of God and His activities. It is in the Three Persons of the
Blessed Trinity that the one true and living God is fully revealed. Hence,
also, three is the number of resurrection, for resurrection is when life is
fully manifested. Appropriately, then, is Luke's Gospel the third book of the
New Testament, for here it is we are shown, as nowhere else so fully, God
manifest in flesh. But Luke's Gospel is also the forty-second book in the
Bible as a whole, and this is, if possible, even more significant, for 42 is 7
x 6, and seven stands for perfection while six is the number of man: putting
the two together we get the Perfect Man! And this is precisely what the
Holy Spirit brings before us in this forty-second book of the Bible. What an
evidence this is, not only of the Divine inspiration of Scripture but, that God
has unmistakably superintended the placing of the different books in the Sacred
Canon just as we now have them!
Luke's Gospel is concerned with the Humanity of
our Lord. In Matthew, Christ is seen testing Israel, and that is why his Gospel
has the first place in the New Testament, as being the necessary link with the
Old. In Mark, Christ appears as serving Israel, and that is why his Gospel is
given the second place. But in Luke, the writer's scope is enlarged: here
Christ is seen in racial connections as the Son of Man, contrasted from the
sons of men. In John, Christ's highest glory is revealed, for there He is
viewed as the Son of God, and, as connected not with Israel, not with men as
men, but with believers. Thus we may admire the Divine wisdom in the
arrangement of the four Gospels, and see the beautiful gradation in their
order. Matthew is designed specially for the Jews; Mark is peculiarly suited to
God's servants; Luke is adapted to men as men - all men; while John's is the
one wherein the Church has found its chief delight.
Luke's Gospel, then, is the Gospel of Christ's
Manhood. It shows us God manifest in flesh. It presents Christ as "The Son of
Man." It views the Lord of glory as having come down to our level, entering
into our conditions (sin excepted), subject to our circumstances, and living
His life on the same plane as ours is lived. Yet, while He is here seen
mingling with men, at every point He appears in sharp contrast from them. There
was as great a difference between Christ as the Son of Man, and any one of us
as a son of man, as there is now between Him as the Son of God, and any
believer as a son of God. That difference was not merely relative, but
absolute; not simply incidental, but essential; not one of degree, but of kind.
"The Son of Man" predicts the uniqueness of His humanity. The humanity of our
Lord was miraculously begotten, it was intrinsically holy in its nature, and
therefore, saw not corruption in death. As The Son of Man, He was born as none
other ever was, He lived as none other did, and He died as none other ever
could.
The humanity of Christ, like everything else
connected with His peerless person, needs to be discussed with profound
reverence and care. Speculation concerning it is profane. Rash conjectures
about it must not be allowed for a moment. All that we can know about it is
what has been revealed in the Scriptures. Had some of our theologians adhered
more rigidly to what the Holy Spirit has said on the subject, had they
exercised more care in "holding fast the form of sound words," much that has
been so dishonoring to our Lord had never been written. The person of the
God-Man is not presented to our view for intellectual analysis, but for the
worship of our hearts. It is not without good reason that we have been
expressly warned, "great is the Mystery of Godliness. God was manifest
in flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16).
As we prayerfully examine the written word it
will be found that Divine care has been taken to guard the perfections of our
Lord's humanity, and to bring out its holy character. This appears not only in
connection with the more direct references to His person, but also in the types
and prophecies of the Old Testament. The "lamb," which portrayed Him as the
appointed Sacrifice for sin, must be "without spot and blemish," and the very
houses wherein the lamb was eaten, must have all leven (emblem of evil)
carefully excluded from them. The "manna," which spoke of Christ as the Food
for God's people, is described as being "white" in color (Ex.16:31). The Meal
offering, which directly pointed to the Humanity of Christ, was to be only of
"fine flour" (Lev. 2:1), that is, flour without any grit or unevenness;
moreover, it was to be presented to the Lord accompanied with "oil" and
"frankincense," which were emblems of the Holy Spirit, and the fragrance of
Christ's person. Joseph, the most striking of all the personal types of the
Lord Jesus, was, we are told, "A goodly person, and well favored" (Gen.
39:6).
This same feature is noticeable in the prophecies
which referred to the humanity of the Coming One. It was a "virgin" in whose
womb He should be conceived (Is. 7:14). As the Incarnate One, God spake of Him
thus: "Behold My Servant, whom I uphold; Mine Elect, in whom My soul
delighteth; I have put My Spirit upon Him" (Is. 42:1). Touching the personal
excellencies of the Son of Man, the Spirit of prophecy exclaimed, "Thou art
farier than the children of men: grace is poured into Thy lips: therefore God
hath blessed Thee for ever" (Ps. 45:2). Concerning the Sinlessness of Him who
was cut off out of the land of the living, it was affirmed, "He hath done no
violence, neither was any deceit found in His mouth" (Is. 53:9). Looking
forward to the time when His humanity should pass through death without
corruption, it was said, "His leaf also shall not wither" (or, "fade," margin),
Ps. 1:3 - contrast with this, "We all do fade as a leaf" (Is. 64:6).
Coming now to the New Testament, we may observe
how carefully God has distinguished the Man Christ Jesus from all other men. In
1 Tim. 3:16 we read, "Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in
the flesh." It is remarkable that in the Greek there is no definite article
here: what the Holy Spirit really says is, "God was manifest in flesh."
Manifest in "flesh" He was, but not in the flesh, for that would point to
fallen human nature, shared by all the depraved descendants of Adam. Not in the
flesh, but in flesh, sinless and holy flesh, was God "manifest." O the
marvellous minute accuracy of Scripture! In like manner we read again
concerning the humanity of Christ, "What the law could not do in that it was
weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sin's flesh
(Greek): Rom. 8:3. The spotless and perfect humanity of the Saviour was not
sinful like ours, but only after its "likeness" or outward form. As Heb. 7:26
declares He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners."
Separate from sinners He was, both in the perfect life He lived here. He "knew
no sin" (2 Cor.5:21); He "did not sin" (1 Pet. 2:22); He was "without sin"
(Heb. 4:15); therefore could He say, "The prince of this world (Satan) cometh
and hath nothing in Me" (John 14:30).
In keeping with the theme of Luke's Gospel, it is
here we have the fullest particulars concerning the miraculous birth of the
Lord Jesus. Here we read, "In the sixth month (how significant is this number
here, for six is the number of man) the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a
city of Galilee, called Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was
Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary" (Luke 1:26,27).
Twice over is it here recorded that Mary was a "virgin." Continuing, we read,
"And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou art highly favored, the
Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." This troubled Mary, for she
wondered at this strange salutation. The angel continued, "Fear not, Mary, for
thou hast found favor with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb,
and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name Jesus." In reply, Mary asked,
"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" And the angel answered, "The Holy
Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be
called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).
The coming of the Holy Spirit "upon" a person is
always, in Scripture, to effect a supernatural, a Divine work. The promise of
the angel to Mary that the power of the Highest should "overshadow" her,
suggests a double thought: she should be protected by God Himself, and how this
promise was fulfilled Matt. 1:19,20 informs us; while it is also a warning that
the modus operandi of this miracle is hidden from us. The words of the angel to
Mary "that holy thing which shall be born of thee," have been a sore puzzle to
the commentators. Yet the meaning of this expression is very simple. It refers
not, concretely, to our Lord's person, but instead, abstractly, to His
humanity. It calls attention to the uniqueness of His humanity. It is in
pointed contrast from ours. Put these words of Luke 1:35 over against another
expression in Is. 64:6 and their meaning will be clear - We are all as an
unclean thing." Our human nature, looked at abstractly, (that is, apart from
its personnel acts) is, essentially, "unclean," whereas that which the Son of
God took unto Himself, when He became incarnate, was incapable of sinning
(which is merely a negative affirmation), but it was inherently and positively
"holy." Therein the humanity of Christ differed from that of Adam. Adam, in his
unfallen state, was merely innocent (a negative quality again), but Christ was
holy. Perhaps it may be well for us to offer a few remarks at this point
concerning the Saviour's "temptation."
We are frequently hearing of preachers making the
statement that our Lord could have yielded to the solicitations of Satan, and
that to affirm He could not is to rob the account of His conflict with the
Devil of all meaning. But this is not only a mistake, it is a serious error. It
dishonors the person of our blessed Lord. It denies His impeccability. It
impeaches His own declaration that Satan had "nothing" in Him - nothing to
which he could appeal. If there had been a possibility of the Saviour yielding
to the Devil that season in the wilderness, then for forty days the salvation
of all God's elect (to say nothing of the outworking of God's eternal purpose)
was in jeopardy; and surely that is unthinkable. But, it is asked, If there was
no possibility of Christ yielding, wherein lay the force of the Temptation? If
He could not sin, was it not a meaningless performance to allow Satan to tempt
Christ at all? Such questions only betray the deplorable ignorance of those who
ask them.
It ought to be well understood that the word
"tempt" has a double significance, a primary and secondary meaning, and it is
the application of the secondary meaning of the term as it is used in Matthew 4
and the parallel passages, which had led so many into error on this point. The
word "tempt" literally means "to stretch out" so as to try the strength of
anything. It comes from the Latin word "tendo" - to stretch. Our English word
attempt, meaning to try, brings out its significance. "Tempt," then, primarily
signifies "to try, test, put to the proof." It is only in its secondary meaning
that it has come to signify "to solicit to evil." In Gen. 22:1 we read, "And it
came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." But God did not
solicit Abraham to evil, for, "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither
tempteth He (in this sense) any man" (Jas. 1:13). So, too, we read, "Then was
Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil"
(Matt. 4:1). The purpose of this Temptation was not to discover whether or not
the Saviour would yield to Satan, but to demonstrate that He could not. Its
design was to display His impeccability, to show forth the fact that there was
"nothing" in Him to which Satan could appeal. It was in order that Christ might
be tried and proven: just as the more you crush a rose, the more its fragrance
is evidenced, so the assaults of the Devil upon the God-Man only served the
more to bring out His perfections, and thus reveal Him as fully qualified to be
the Saviour of sinners.
That the Saviour could not sin, does not rob the
Temptation of its meaning, it only helps us discern its true meaning. It is
because He was the Holy One of God that He felt the force of Satan's fiery
darts as no sinful man ever could. It is impossible to find an analogy in the
human realm for the Lord Jesus was absolutely unique. But let us attempt to
illustrate the principle which is here involved. Is it true that in proportion
as a man is weak morally that he feels the force of a temptation? Surely not.
It is the man who is strong morally that feels the force of it. A man who is
weakened in his moral fiber by sin, is weakened in his sensitiveness in the
presence of temptation. Why does the young believer ask, "How is it that since
I became a Christian I am tempted to do wrong a hundred times more than I was
formerly?" The correct answer is, he is not; but the life of Christ within him
has made him keener, quicker, more sensitive to the force of temptation. The
illustration fails, we know; but seek to elevate the principle to an infinite
height, and apply it to Christ, and then instead of saying that because He had
no sin and could not sin His temptation, therefore, was meaningless, you will
perhaps discover a far deeper meaning in it, and appreciate as never before the
force of the words, "He Himself hath suffered, being tempted" (Heb. 2:18).
Should it be asked further: But does not this rob the Saviour of the capacity
to sympathize with me when I am tempted? The answer is, A thousand times No!
But it is to be feared that this last question is really an evasion. Does not
the questioner, deep down in his heart, really mean, Can Christ sympathize with
me when I yield to temptation? The question has only to be stated thus to
answer it. Being holy, Christ never sympathizes with sin or sinning. Here then
is the vital difference: when Christ was tempted He "suffered," but when we are
drawn away by temptation we enjoy it. If, however, we seek grace to sustain us
while we are under temptation, and are not drawn away by it, then shall we
suffer too, but then we also have a merciful and faithful High Priest who is
able, not only to sympathize with us but to, "succor them that are tempted"
(Heb. 2:18). Our digression has been rather a lengthy one, but necessary,
perhaps, in a consideration of the Humanity of Christ, one postulate of which
is His impeccability.
As previously stated, Luke's Gospel is wider in
its range than either of the two which precede it, in both of which Christ is
viewed in connection with Israel. But here there are no national limitations.
The "Son of David" of the first Gospel, widens out into the "Son of Man" in the
third Gospel. As "Son of Man" He is the Catholic Man. He is linked with, though
separated from, the whole human race. Luke's Gospel, therefore, is in a special
sense the Gentile Gospel, as Matthew's is the Jewish Gospel. It is not
surprising to find, then, that the writer of it was himself, in all
probability, a Gentile - the only one in all the Bible. It is generally
conceded by scholars that Luke is an abbreviation of the Latin "Lucanus" or
"Lucius." His name is twice found in the Pauline Epistles in a list of Gentile
names, see 2 Tim. 4:10-12 and Philemon 24. It is also noteworthy that this
third Gospel is addressed, not to a Jew, but to a Gentile, by name
"Theophilus," which means "Beloved of God." It is in this Gentile Gospel, and
nowhere else, that Christ is presented as the good "Samaritan." Obviously, this
would have been quite out of place in Matthew's Gospel, but how thoroughly
accordant is it here! So, too, it is only here that we are told that "Jerusalem
shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be
fulfilled" (Luke 21:24). And again, it is in this Gospel that, in describing
End-time conditions, we learn that Christ spake to His disciples this parable:
"Behold the fig tree, and all the trees" (21:29). Matthew mentions the former
(24:32), as the `fig tree' is the well known symbol of Israel, but Luke, alone,
adds "and all the trees," thus bringing out the international scope of his
Gospel. Other illustrations of this same feature will be discovered by the
careful student.
Returning to the central theme of this Gospel, we
may observe that "the Son of Man" links Christ with the earth. It is the title
by which Christ most frequently referred to Himself. Not once did any one else
ever address Him by this name. The first occurrence of this title is found in
the Old Testament, in the 8th Psalm, where we read, "What is man that Thou art
mindful of Him? and the Son of Man that Thou visitest him? For Thou hast made
him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor.
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all
things under his feet" (vv. 4-6). The immediate reference is to Adam, in his
unfallen condition, and refers to his Headship over all the lower orders of
creation. It speaks of earthly dominion, for "Have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth
upon the earth" (Gen. 1:28), is what God said to our first parent in the day
that he was created. But from this position of "dominion" Adam fell, and it was
(among other things, to recover the dominion that Adam had lost, that our Lord
became incarnate. Thus the eighth Psalm, as is evident from its quotation in
Hebrews 2, finds its ultimate fulfillment in "the Second Man." But, before this
Second Man could be "crowned with glory and honor," He must first humble
Himself and pass through the portals of death. Thus the "Son of Man" title
speaks first of humiliation, and ultimately of dominion and glory.
"The Son of Man" occurs 88 times in the New
Testament (which is a very significant number, for 8 signifies a new beginning,
and it is by the Second Man the beginning of the new "Dominion" will be
established), and it is deeply interesting and instructive to trace out the
connections in which it occurs. It is found for the first time in the New
Testament in Matt. 8:20, where the Saviour says, "The foxes have holes, and the
birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His
head." Here attention is called to the depths of humiliation into which the
Beloved of the Father had entered: the One who shall yet have complete dominion
over all the earth, when here before, was but a homeless Stranger. The second
occurrence of this title helps to define its scope - "The Son of Man hath power
on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6). The last time it is found in Matthew's
Gospel is in 26:64 - "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the
right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Here we are carried
forward to the time when the Lord Jesus shall return to these scenes, not in
weakness and humiliation, but in power and glory. In John 3:13 there is a
statement made which proves that the Son of Man was God as well, "And no man
hath ascended up to Heaven, but He that came down from Heaven, even the Son
of Man which is in Heaven." Nowhere in the Epistles (save in Heb. 2 where
Ps. 8 is quoted) is this title found, for the Church has a heavenly calling and
destiny, and is linked to the Son of God in Heaven, and not to the Son of Man
as He is related to the earth. The last time this title occurs in Scripture is
in Rev. 14:14, where we read, "And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon
the cloud One sat like unto the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown."
What a contrast is this from the first mention of this title in the New
Testament where we read of Him not having where to lay "His head"!
It is now high time for us to turn from these
generalizings and consider some features of Luke's Gospel in more detail. To
begin with, we may observe, as others have noticed, how distinctive and
characteristic is the Preface to this third Gospel: "For as much as many have
taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are
most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from
the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the Word: It seemed good to
me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first to
write unto thee, in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know
the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed" (1:1-4).
What a contrast is this from what we have at the
commencement of the other Gospels. Here more pronouncedly than elsewhere, we
see the human element in the communication of God's revelation to us. The human
instrument is brought plainly before us. Luke speaks of his personal knowledge
of that of which he is about to treat. He refers to what others had done before
him in this direction, but feels the need of a more orderly and full setting
forth of those things which were most surely believed. But apparently he was
quite unconscious of the fact, as he sat down to write to his friend
Theophilus, that he was being "moved" (better, "borne along") by the Holy
Spirit, or that he was about to communicate that which should be of lasting
value to the whole Church of God. Instead, the Divine Inspirer is hidden here,
and only the human penman is seen. Strikingly appropriate is this in the Gospel
which treats not of the official glories of Christ, nor of His Deity, but of
His Manhood. There is a marvellous analogy between the written Word of God and
the Incarnate Word, the details of which are capable of being extended
indefinitely. Just as Christ was the God-Man, Divine yet human, so the Holy
Scriptures though given "by inspiration of God" were, nevertheless,
communicated through human channels; but, just as Christ in becoming Man did so
without being contaminated by sin, so God's revelation has come to us through
human medium without being defiled by any of their imperfections. Moreover,
just as it is here in Luke's Gospel that our Lord's humanity is brought so
prominently before us, so it is here that the human element in the giving of
the Holy Scriptures is most plainly to be seen.
There are many other things of interest and
importance to be found in this first chapter of Luke which we cannot now
consider in detail, but we would point out, in passing, how the human element
prevails throughout. We may notice, for instance, how that here God is seen on
more intimate terms with those whom He addresses than in Matt. 1. There, when
communicating with Joseph, He did so in "dreams," but here, when sending a
message to Zacharias, it is by an angel, who speaks to the father of the
Baptist face to face. Still more intimate is God's communication to Mary, for
here the angel speaks not to the mother of our Lord in the temple, but more
familiarly, in the home - an intimation of how near God was about to come to
men in His marvellous grace. Again; far more is told us of Mary here than
elsewhere, and Luke is the only one who records her song of joy which followed
the great Annunciation, as he alone records the prophecy of Zacharias, uttered
on the occasion of the naming of his illustrious son. Thus, the emotions of the
human heart are here manifested as they were expressed in song and praise.
The opening verses of Luke 2 are equally
characteristic and distinctive. Here we are told, "And it came to pass in those
days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world
should be taxed. And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of
Syria. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also
went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of
David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of
David: to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife" (Luke 2:1-5). We shall look in
vain for anything like this in the other Gospels. Here the Lord of glory is
contemplated not as the One who had come to reign, but instead, as One who had
descended to the level of other men, as One whose mother and legal father were
subject to the common taxation. This would have been altogether out of keeping
with the theme and scope of Matthew's Gospel, and a point of no interest in
Mark, but how thoroughly in accord with the character of Luke's Gospel!
"And she brought forth her firstborn son, and
wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger; because there was
no room for them in the inn" (Luke 2:7). Luke is the only one of the four
evangelists who tells us of this - a point of touching interest concerning His
humanity, and one that is worthy of our reverent contemplation. Why was it the
Father suffered His blessed Son, now incarnate, to be born in a stable? Why
were the cattle of the field His first companions? What spiritual lessons are
we intended to learn from His being placed in a manger? Weighty questions are
these admitting, perhaps, of at least a sevenfold answer.
(a) He was laid in a manger because there was no
room in the inn. How solemnly this brings out the world's estimate of the
Christ of God. There was no appreciation of His amazing condescension. He was
not wanted. It is so still. There is no room for Him in the schools, in
society, in the business world, among the great throngs of pleasure seekers, in
the political realm, in the newspapers, nor in many of the churches. It is only
history repeating itself. All that the world gave the Saviour, was a stable for
His cradle, a cross on which to die, and a borrowed grave to receive His
murdered body.
(b) He was laid in a manger to demonstrate the
extent of His poverty. "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that,
though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His
poverty might be rich" (2 Cor. 8:9). How "poor" He became, was thus manifested
at the beginning. The One who, afterwards, had not where to lay His head, who
had to ask for a penny when He would reply to His critics about the question of
tribute, and who had to use another man's house when instituting the Holy
Supper, was, from the first, a homeless Stranger here. And the "manger" was the
earliest evidence of this.
(c) He was laid in a manger in order to be
Accessible to all. Had He been in a palace, or in some room in the Temple, few
could have reached Him without the formality of first gaining permission from
those who would have been in attendance at such places. But none would have any
difficulty in obtaining access to a stable; there He would be within easy reach
of poor and rich alike. Thus, from the beginning, He was easy to approach. No
intermediaries had first to be passed in order to reach Him. No priest had to
be interviewed before entre could be obtained to His presence. Thus it
was then; and so it is now, thank God.
(d) He was laid in a manger so as to foreshadow
the Character of those among whom He had come. The stable was the place
for beasts of the field, and it was into their midst the newly-born Saviour
came. And how well did they symbolize the moral character of men! The beasts of
the field are devoid of any spiritual life, and so have no knowledge of God.
Such, too, was the condition of both Jews and Gentiles. And how beastlike in
character were those into whose midst the Saviour came: stupid and stubborn as
the ass or mule, cunning and cruel as the fox, grovelling and filthy as the
swine, and ever thirsting for His blood as the more savage of the animals.
Fittingly, then, was He placed amid the beasts of the field at His birth.
(e) He was laid in a manger to show His
contempt for Worldly riches and pomp. We had thought it more fitting for
the Christ of God to be born in a palace, and laid in a cradle of gold, lined
with costly silks. Ah, but as He Himself reminds us in this same Gospel, "that
which is highly esteemed among men, is abomination in the sight of God" (Luke
16:15). And what an exemplification of this truth was given when the infant
Saviour was placed, not in a cradle of gold but, in an humble manger.
(f) He was laid in a manger to mark His
identification with human suffering and wretchedness. The One born was "The
Son of Man." He had left the heights of Heaven's glory and had descended to our
level, and here we behold Him entering the human lot at its lowest point. Adam
was first placed in a garden, surrounded by the exquisite beauties of Nature as
it left the hands of the Creator. But sin had come in, and with sin all its sad
consequences of suffering and wretchedness. Therefore, does the One who had
come here to recover and restore what the first man lost, appear first, in
surroundings which spoke of abject need and wretchedness; just as a little
later we find Him taken down into Egypt, in order that God might call His Son
from the same place as where His people Israel commenced their national history
in misery and wretchedness. Thus did the Man of Sorrows identify Himself with
human suffering.
(g) He was laid in a manger because such was
the place of Sacrifice. The manger was the place where vegetable life
was sacrificed to sustain animal life. Fitting place was this, then, for Him
who had come to be the great Sacrifice, laying down His life for His people,
that we might through His death be made alive. Remarkably suggestive,
therefore, and full of emblematic design, was the place appointed by God to
receive the infant body of the incarnate Saviour.
It is only in Luke's Gospel that we read of the
shepherds who kept watch over their flocks by night, and to whom the angel of
the Lord appeared, saying, "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of
great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the
city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" (2:10,11). Note that the One
born is here spoken of not as "The King of the Jews," but as "a Saviour, which
is Christ the Lord" - titles which reach out beyond the confines of Israel, and
take in the Gentiles too.
Again, it is only here in Luke that we behold the
Saviour as a Boy of twelve going up to Jerusalem, and being found in the Temple
"sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them
questions" (2:46). How intensely human is this! Yet side by side with it there
is a strong hint given that he was more than human, for we read, "And all that
heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers." So, too, it is
only here that we are told, "And He went down with them (His parents), and was
subject unto them" (2:51). How this brings out the excellencies of His
humanity, perfectly discharging the responsibilities of every relationship
which He sustained to men as well as to God! And how strikingly appropriate is
the closing verse of this chapter - "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature
and in favor with God and man"! There is nothing like this in any of the other
Gospels; but Luke's would have been incomplete without it. What proofs are
these that Luke, as the others, was guided by the Spirit of God in the
selection of his materials!
Luke 3 opens by presenting to us the person and
mission of John the Baptist. Matthew and Mark have both referred to this, but
Luke adds to the picture his own characteristic lines. Only here do we read
that it was "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius
Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his
brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis, and
Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilena, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests,
the Word of God came unto John, the son of Zacharias in the wilderness" (3:1,2)
- points of historic interest in connection with these human relationships. So,
too, it is only here that we read of other human relationships of "the people"
who asked John "What shall we do?" (3:10), of the "publicans" who asked him the
same question (3:12), and of "the soldiers" is also to be noted, that only here
is the Lord Jesus directly linked with "all the people" when He was baptized,
for we read, "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus
also being baptized" (3:21), thus showing Him as the One who had come down to
the common level. And again, it is only here we are told of the age of the
Saviour when He entered upon His public ministry (3:23), this being another
point of interest in connection with His humanity.
Luke 3 closes with a record of the Genealogy of
the Son of Man, and noticeable are the differences between what we have here,
and what is found in Matt. 1. There, it is the royal genealogy of the Son of
David, here it is His strictly personal genealogy. There, it is His line of
descent through Joseph which is given, here it is His ancestry through Mary.
There, His genealogy is traced forwards from Abraham, here it is followed
backwards to Adam. This is very striking, and brings out in an unmistakable
manner the respective character and scope of each Gospel. Matthew is showing
Christ's relation to Israel, and therefore he goes back no farther than to
Abraham, the father of the Jewish people; but here, it is His connection with
the human race that is before us, and hence his genealogy in Luke is traced
right back to Adam, the father of the human family. But notice, particularly,
that at the close it is said, "Adam was the son of God" (3:38). Thus the
humanity of Christ is here traced not merely back to Adam, but through Adam
directly to God Himself. How marvellously this agrees with the words of the
Lord Jesus as found in Heb. 10:5 - "A body hast Thou prepared Me"!
Luke 4 opens by telling us "And Jesus being full
of the Holy Spirit returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the
wilderness, being tempted forty days of the Devil." Only here do we learn that
the Saviour was "full of the Holy Spirit" as He returned from the Jordan. Then
follows the account of the Temptation. It will be observed by the close student
that between Matthew and Luke there is a difference in the order of mention of
Satan's three attacks upon Christ. In Matthew the order is, first the asking of
the Lord Jesus to turn the stones into bread, second the bidding Him cast
Himself down from the pinnacle of the Temple, and third the offer to Him of all
the kingdoms of this world on the condition of worshipping Satan. But here in
Luke we have first the request to make the stones into bread, second the offer
of the kingdoms of the world, and third the challenge for Him to cast Himself
down from the pinnacle of the temple. The reason for this variation is not hard
to find. In Matthew, the order is arranged climactically, so as to make
Rulership over all the kingdoms of the world the final bait which the Devil
dangled before the Son of David. But in Luke we have, no doubt, the
chronological order, the order in which they actually occurred, and these
correspond with the order of temptation of the first man and his wife in Eden,
where the appeal was made, as here in Luke, to the lust of the flesh, the lust
of the eyes, and the pride of life - see 1 John 2:16 and compare Gen. 3:6. We
may also note that Luke is the only one to tell us that "Jesus returned in the
power of the Spirit into Galilee" (4:14), showing that the old Serpent had
utterly failed to disturb the perfect fellowship which existed between the
incarnate Son of God upon earth and His Father in Heaven. After the horrible
conflict was over, the Lord Jesus returned to Galilee in the unabated "power of
the Spirit."
Following the account of the Temptation, Luke
next tells us, "And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up: and, as
His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for
to read" (4:16). Luke again, is the only one that mentions this, it being
another point of interest in connection with our Lord's Manhood, informing us,
as it does, of the place where He had been "brought up," and showing us how He
had there been wont to occupy Himself on each Sabbath day. In the words that
follow there is a small line in the picture which is very significant and
suggestive: "And there was delivered unto Him the book of the prophet Isaiah.
And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written, The
Spirit of the Lord is upon Me" etc. The book, be it noted, did not open
magically at the page He desired to read from, but, like any other, the Son of
Man turned the pages until He had "found the place" required!
Others have called attention to another thing
which occurred on this occasion and which was profoundly suggestive. There in
the synagogue at Nazareth the Saviour read from the opening words of Isaiah 61,
and it will be found by comparing the record of the prophet with the Lord's
reading as recorded in Luke 4, that He stopped at a most significant point.
Isaiah says the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him to "preach" good tidings unto
the meek to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance
of our God;" but in Luke 4 we find the Saviour read that the Spirit of the Lord
was upon Him to "preach" the gospel to the poor to proclaim the acceptable year
of the Lord," and there He stopped, for immediately following we are told, "He
closed the book." He ceased His reading from Isaiah in the midst of a sentence;
He concluded at a comma! Why was it that He did not complete the verse, and
add, "The Day of Vengeance of our God"? The answer is, Because such did not
fall within the scope of His mission at His first Advent. The "Day of
Vengeance" is yet future. The Lord Jesus was setting us an example of "rightly
dividing the Word of Truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). As the Saviour closed the book that
day in Nazareth's synagogue, He declared, "This day is this Scripture fulfilled
in your ears" (Luke 4:21), and that which was then "fulfilled" was the portion
He had read to them from Isaiah 61:1,2; the remainder of Is. 61:2 was not then
fulfilled, for it has to do with that which is yet future: hence, He read it
not. It should be added that the next time we find the Lord Jesus with a "book"
in His hands is in Rev. 5:7, and there we read of Him opening it - see Rev. 6:1
etc. - and the striking thing is that when the Lord opens that book the Day of
God's Vengeance, so long delayed, then commences! These points have been
brought out by others before us, but we have not seen it intimated that Luke is
the only one of the four Evangelists to refer to this incident. Not only was
there a dispensational reason why the Lord Jesus read not the whole of Is. 61:2
in the Nazareth synagogue that day, but it was peculiarly fitting that the one
whose happy task it was to present the human perfections of Christ, should note
our Lord's silence concerning the Day of God "vengeance"!
It is beyond our present purpose to attempt even
a running exposition of each chapter of this third Evangel. We are not seeking
to be exhaustive, but simply suggestive, calling attention to some of the more
outstanding features of Luke's Gospel. There is so much here that is not found
in the other three Gospels, that to examine in detail every distinctive feature
would call for a large volume. As this would defeat our object, we shall be
content to single out a few things here and there.
Luke 7 records the raising of the widow of Nain's
son. None of the others mention this. There are several lines in this picture
which serve to bring out that which is central in Luke's Gospel, namely, human
need, human relationships, and human sympathies. Thus we may note that the one
here raised by Christ was "the only son of his mother" and that she was a
"widow;" that when the Lord saw her "weep not"; that before He commanded the
dead to "Arise," He first "came and touched the bier," and that after the dead
one was restored to life, the Saviour "delivered him to his mother."
In Luke 8:2,3 we are told, "And certain women
which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene,
out of whom went seven demons, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward,
and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto Him of their substance."
How this shows us the place which our blessed Lord had taken as the Son of Man!
Nothing like this is found in the other Gospels, and that for a very good
reason. It would have been beneath the dignity of the King of the Jews to be
"ministered unto" with the substance of women; it would be out of place in
Mark's Gospel, for there the Holy Spirit shows us that the Servant must look to
God only for the supply of His every need; while John, of course, would not
mention it, for he sets forth the Divine glories of our Lord. But it is
perfectly appropriate, and illuminative too, in the Gospel which treats of
Christ's humanity.
Above we have noted that Luke informs us the one
raised from death by Christ at Nain was a widow's "only son," and we may now
notice two other examples from this Gospel where the same feature is
mentioned. The first is in connection with the daughter of Jairus. Matthew
says, "While He spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain
ruler, and worshipped Him saying, My daughter is even now dead" (9: 18). Mark
tells us, "Behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by
name; and when he saw Him, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of
death" (5:22,23). But Luke gives additional information, "And, behold, there
came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue: and he fell down
at Jesus' feet, and besought Him that He would come into his house: for he had
one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying" (8:41,42).
The second example is in connection with the demon possessed child, whose
father sought relief at the hands of Christ's disciples. Matthew says, "And
when they were come to the multitude, there came to Him a certain man, kneeling
down to Him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatic, and
sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. And
I brought him to Thy disciples, and they could not cure him" (17:14-16). But
Luke tells us, "And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I
beseech Thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child. And, lo, a spirit
taketh him, and he suddenly crieth out; and it teareth him that he foameth
again, and bruising him hardly departeth from him. And I besought Thy disciples
to cast him out; and they could not" (9:38-40). Thus in each case Luke calls
attention to the fact that it was an "only child" that was healed, thereby
appealing to human sympathies.
Luke is the only one who records the exquisite
story of the Good Samaritan ministering to the wounded traveller, and there are
many lines in the picture of this incident which bring out, strikingly, the
distinctive character of this third Gospel. First, we are shown the traveller
himself falling among thieves, who strip him of his raiment, wound him, and
depart, leaving him half dead. How this brings out the lawlessness, the
avarice, the brutality, and the heartlessness of fallen human nature! Next, we
hear of the priest who saw the pitiable state of the wounded traveller, lying
helpless by the road, yet did he "pass by on the other side." The priest was
followed by a Levite who, though he "came and looked on" on the poor man that
was in such sore need of help, also "passed by on the other side." Thus we
behold the selfishness, the callousness, the cruel indifference of even
religious men toward one who had such a claim upon their sympathies. In blessed
contrast from these, we are shown the grace of the Saviour who, under the
figure of a "Samaritan," is here seen moved "with compassion" as He came to
where the poor traveller lay. Instead of passing by on the other side, He goes
to him, binds up his wounds, sets him on His own beast, and brings him to an
inn, where full provision is made for him. So does this incident, summarize as
it were, the scope of this entire Gospel, by showing the infinite contrast that
existed between the perfect Son of Man and the fallen and depraved sons of
men.
In Luke 11 we read of the unclean spirit who goes
out of a man, and later, returns to his house, to find it "swept and
garnished." Then, we are told, this unclean spirit takes with him seven other
spirits more wicked than himself, and they "enter in and dwell there; and the
last state of that man is worse than the first" (11:24-26). Matthew also refers
to this in 12:43-45 in almost identical language, but it is very significant to
observe that Luke omits a sentence with which Matthew closes his narrative.
There in Matt. 12 we find the Lord applied the incident to the Jewish nation by
saying, "Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation" (or "race").
This was the dispensational application, which limits it to Israel. But
appropriately does Luke omit these qualifying words, for in his Gospel this
incident has a wider application, a moral application, representing the
condition of a more extensive class, namely, those who hear the Gospel, and
reform, but who are never regenerated. Such may clean up their houses, but
though they are "swept and garnished," yet they are still empty - the Spirit of
God does not indwell them! They are like the foolish virgins, who, though they
mingled with the wise virgins and carried the lamp of public profession, yet
had they no oil (emblem of the Holy Spirit) in their vessels. Such cases of
reformation though at first they appear to be genuine instances of
regeneration, ultimately prove to be but counterfeits, and at the last their
condition is worse than it was at the beginning - they have been deceived by
their own treacherous hearts and deluded and blinded by Satan, and in
consequence, are far harder to reach with the Truth of God.
In Luke 12 we have an incident recorded which is
similar in principle to Luke's notice of our Lord's omission of the closing
words of Is. 61:2 when reading from this scripture in the synagogue at
Nazareth. Here we find that a certain man came to Christ and said, "Master,
speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me" (12:13). But the
Master refused to grant this request and said, "Man, who made Me a judge or a
divider over you?" The reason why Luke is the only one to mention this is
easily seen. It would have been incongruous for Matthew to have referred to an
incident wherein the Lord Jesus declined to occupy the place of authority and
act as the administrator, of an inheritance; as it would have been equally out
of place for Mark to have noticed this case where one should have asked the
Servant to officiate as "judge and divider." But it is fitting it should have
found a place in this Third Gospel, for the words of Christ on this occasion,
"Who made Me a judge or a divider over you?" only show us, once more, the lowly
place which He had taken as "The Son of Man."
In Luke 14 there is recorded a parable which is
found nowhere else: "And He put forth a parable to those which were bidden,
when He marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, When thou
art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room, lest a
more honorable man than thou be bidden of him; And he that bade thee and him
come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take
the lowest room. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room;
that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher:
then shalt thou have worship (or "glory") in the presence of them that sit at
meat with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that
humbleth himself shall be exalted" (vv. 7-11). How thoroughly is this parable
in accord with the character and scope of Luke's Gospel! First, it ministers a
much needed rebuke upon the general tendency of fallen human nature to seek out
the best places and aim at positions of honor and glory. Secondly, it
inculcates the spirit of meekness and modesty, admonishing us to take the lowly
place. And thirdly, it is an obvious shadowing forth of that which the Lord of
glory had done Himself, leaving as He had, the position of dignity and glory in
Heaven, and taking the "lowest" place of all down here.
In accordance with the fact that Luke's Gospel is
the third book of the New Testament (the number which stands for
manifestation), we may notice that in the fifteenth chapter we have a parable
which reveals to us the Three Persons of the Godhead, each actively engaged in
the salvation of a sinner. It is very striking that it is one parable in three
parts which, taken together, makes fully manifest the One true God in the
Person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Luke 15 may well be entitled, God seeking and
saving the lost. In the third part of this parable, which deals with the
"prodigal Son," we are shown the sinner actually coming into the presence of
the Father, and there receiving a cordial welcome, being suitably clothed, and
given a place at His table in happy fellowship. In what precedes we learn of
that which was necessary on the part of God before the sinner could thus be
reconciled. The second part of the parable brings before us the work of the
Holy Spirit, going after the one dead in sins and illuminating him, and
this under the figure of a woman who, with a light in her hand (emblematic of
the Lamp of God's Word), seeks diligently till she finds that which was lost.
Notice, particularly, that her work was inside the house, just as the Holy
Spirit works within the sinner. In the first part of the parable we are shown
that which preceded the present work of God's Spirit. The ministry of the
Spirit is the complement to the Work of Christ, hence, at the beginning of the
chapter, the Saviour Himself is before us, under the figure of the Shepherd,
who went forth to seek and to save the sheep that was lost. Thus, the first
part of the parable tells of God's Work for us, as the second tells of God's
work in us, the third part making known the blessed result and happy sequel.
So, in this one parable in three parts, we have revealed the One God in the
Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, fully manifested in the work of seeking and
saving the lost.
In full accord with what has just been before us
in Luke 15, though in marked and solemn contrast, we find that in the next
chapter the Lord Jesus makes fully manifest the state of the lost after death.
Nowhere else in the four Gospels do we find, as here, the lifting of the veil
which separates and hides from us the condition of those who have passed into
the next world. Here the Lord gives us a specimen case of the present torments
of the lost, in the experiences of the "rich man" after death. We read "In hell
he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus
in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send
Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for
I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy
lifetime receivest thy good things, and Lazarus evil things: but now he is
comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you
there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you
cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence" (vv.23-26).
Here we learn that the damned, even now, are in a place of suffering; that they
are "in torments;" that the misery of their awful lot is accentuated by being
enabled to "see" the happy portion of the redeemed; that there is, however, an
impassible gulf fixed between the saved and the lost, which makes it impossible
for the one to go to the other; that memory is still active in those that are
in Hell, so that they are reminded of the opportunities wasted, while they were
upon earth; that they cry for mercy and beg for water to allay their fiery
sufferings, but that this is denied them. Unspeakably solemn is this, and a
most pointed warning to all still upon earth to "flee from the wrath to come"
and to take refuge in the only One who can deliver from it.
Passing on now to the nineteenth chapter we may
observe how Luke there records something that is absent from the other Gospels.
"And when He was come near, He beheld the city, and weep over it,
Saying, If thou hadst known, which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid
from thine eyes" (vv.41,42). How this brings out the human sympathies of the
Saviour! As He looked upon Jerusalem, and foresaw the miseries which were
shortly to be its portion, the Son of Man wept. He was no stoic, but One whose
heart was full of compassion for the sufferers of earth.
In drawing to a close, we would notice seven
features which are particularly prominent in this Gospel, and which are in
striking accord with its particular theme and scope: -
1. The full description here given of fallen
human nature.
Luke's is the Gospel of our Lord's Manhood, and,
as He is the true Light shining amid the darkness, it is here also that the
characteristics of our corrupt human nature are shown up as nowhere else.
Luke's special design is to present the Lord Jesus as the Son of Man
contrasted from the sons of men. Hence it is that the depravity, the
impotency, the degradation and the spiritual deadness of all the members of
Adam's fallen race is brought out here with such fullness and clearness. It is
here, and here only, we read that, until the miracle-working power of God
intervened, the mother of John the Baptist was barren - apt symbol of fallen
human nature with its total absence of spiritual fruit; and that his father,
though a priest, was filled with unbelief when God's messenger announced to him
the forth-coming miracle. It is only here that we read of all the world being
"taxed" (Luke 2:1), which tells, in suggestive symbol, of the burdens imposed
by Satan on his captive subjects. It is only here that we read that when Mary
brought forth her Son, there was "no room for them in the inn," signifying the
world's rejection of the Saviour from the beginning. It is only here we are
told that when the Lord Jesus came to Nazareth and read in the synagogue from
the prophet Isaiah, adding a comment of His own, that "All they in the
synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up,
and thrust Him out of the city, and led Him unto the brow of the hill whereon
their city was built, that they might cast Him down headlong" (4:28,29): thus
did those who ought to have known Him the best, manifest the terrible enmity of
the carnal mind against God and His Christ. It is only here that we read, "And
it came to pass, when He was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy:
who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought Him, saying Lord, if Thou wilt,
Thou canst make me clean" (5:12). In the other Gospels reference is made to
this same incident, but Luke alone tells us that the subject of this miracle
was full of leprosy. "Leprosy" is the well known figure of sin, and it is only
in Luke that man's total depravity is fully revealed. It is only in Luke that
we hear of the disciples of Christ asking permission to call down fire from
Heaven to consume those who received not the Saviour (9:51-55). It is only here
that Christ, in the well known parable of the Good Samaritan, portrays the
abject condition of the natural man, under the figure of the one who, having
fallen among thieves, had been stript of his raiment, sorely wounded, and left
by the wayside half dead. It is only here that we read of the Rich Fool who
declared, "I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many
years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry" (12:19), for such is the
invariable tendency of the boastful human heart. So, too, it is only here that
in Luke 15 the sinner is likened unto a lost sheep - an animal so senseless
that once it is lost, it only continues to stray farther and farther away from
the fold. It is only here that we find the Saviour drawing that matchless
picture of the Prodigal Son, who so accurately depicts the sinner away from
God, having wasted his substance in riotous living, and who, reduced to want,
finds nothing in the far country to feed upon, except the husks which the swine
did eat. It is only here that we learn of the heartless indifference of the
rich man who neglected the poor wretch that lay at his gate full of sores. It
is only here that the self-righteousness of man is fully disclosed in the
person of the Pharisee in the Temple (Luke 18). And so we might go on. But
sufficient has been said to prove our statement at the head of this
paragraph.
2. The Manner in which Luke introduces his
Parables, etc.
In perfect accord with the character and scope of
His Gospel, we find that Luke introduces most of his parables, also various
incidents narrated by him, as well as certain portions of our Lord's teachings,
in a way quite peculiar to himself. By comparing the parallel passages in the
other Gospels, and by noting the words we now place in italics, this will be
apparent to the reader.
In Luke 5:12, we are told, that "a man
full of leprosy" came to Christ to be healed, whereas Matthew, when describing
the same incident, merely says, "there came a leper" to Him (8:2).
Again, in 8:27 we read, "When He went forth to land, there met Him out of the
city, a certain man, which had demons a long time, and ware no clothes,
neither abode in any house, but in the tombs;" whereas Matt. 8:28 reads, "And
when He was come to the other side into the country of the Gergessenes, there
met Him (not "two men," but) two possessed with demons coming out of the
tombs" etc. Again, in 8:41 we read, "There came a man named Jairus, and
he was a ruler of the synagogue: and he fell down at Jesus' feet," whereas Mark
5:22 says, "There cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name;
and when he saw Him, he fell at His feet." In Luke 9:57 we read, "And it came
to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto Him,
Lord, I will follow Thee whithersoever Thou goest," whereas Matt. 8:19 reads,
"And a certain scribe came, and said unto Him, Master, I will follow
Thee whithersoever Thou goest." In Luke 9:62 we find that the Lord said, "No
man (not "disciple," be it noted), having put his hand to the plough,
and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." In 19:35 we read, "As He was
come nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the wayside begging,"
but in Mark 10:46 we are told, "As He went out of Jericho with His disciples
and a great number of people, blinded Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus,
sat by the wayside begging."
Coming now to the parables, note the striking way
in which they are introduced here: "And He spake also a parable unto them: No
man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old" etc. (5:36). "A
certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves"
etc. (10:30). "And He spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a
certain rich man brought forth plentifully" etc. (12:16). "He spake also
this parable: A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard" etc.
(13:6). "Then said He unto him, A certain man made a great supper" etc.
(14:16). "And He spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you,
having a hundred sheep" etc. (15:3,4). "And He said, A certain man had
two sons" etc. (15:11). "And He said also unto His disciples, There was a
certain rich man, which had a steward" etc. (16:1). "There was a certain
rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen" etc. (16:19). "And
He spake a parable to them to this end, that men (not "believers") ought
always to pray, and not to faint" etc. (18:1). "Then began He to speak to the
people of this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard" etc. (20:9).
"And He spake also this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that
they were righteous, and despised others. Two men went up into the
Temple to pray" etc. (18:9,10). Thus we see how the human element is
emphasized here.
3. The references to Christ as "The Son of
Man."
It is only in this Gospel we read that the
Saviour said to the Pharisees, "The days will come, when ye shall desire to see
one of the days of the Son of Man, and ye shall not see it" (17:22). It
is only in this Gospel we find that the Saviour put the question, "When the
Son of Man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" (18:8). It is only in
this Gospel we find that the Saviour said to His followers, "Watch ye
therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these
things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man"
(21:36). And it is only in this Gospel we find that the Saviour said to Judas
in the garden, "Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?" (22:14).
It is, perhaps even more striking to notice that
Luke records a number of instances where our Lord referred to Himself as "The
Son of Man" where, in the parallel passages in the other Gospels this title is
omitted. For example, in Matt. 16:21 we read, "From that time forth began Jesus
to show unto His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many
things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be
raised again the third day;" whereas, in Luke 9:22 we learn that He said unto
His disciples, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected
of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the
third day." Again; in Matt. 5:11 the Lord said to His disciples, "Blessed are
ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of
evil against you falsely, for My sake;" whereas, in the parallel passage
in Luke we read, "Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall
separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name
as evil, for the Son of Man's sake" (6:22). Again; in Matt. 10:32 we
read, "But whatsoever shall confess Me before men, him will I confess
before My Father which is in Heaven;" whereas in Luke 12:8 we are told,
"Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him shall the Son of Man confess
before the angels of God." Once more; in John 3:17 we are told, "For God sent
not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world
through Him might be saved;" whereas, in Luke 9:56 we read, "For the Son of
Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." How these
examples bring out the verbal perfections of Holy Writ!
4. The Lord is referred to as "the Friend" of
publicans and sinners.
It is only Luke who tells us, "And Levi
made Him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of
publicans and of others that sat down with them" (5:29). It is only here we
learn that Christ said to the querulous Jews, "For John the Baptist came
neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and ye say, He hath a demon. The Son of
Man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a
winebidder, a Friend of publicans and sinners!" (7:33,34). It is only in
this Gospel we find that the Saviour's critics openly murmured, and said, "This
Man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them" (15:2). And it is only here
we are told that because Zaccheus had joyfully received the Saviour into his
house "they all murmured, saying, That He was gone to be guest with a man
that is a sinner" (19:7).
It is beautiful to notice the graduation pointed
by the Holy Spirit in the last three passages quoted above. In 7:34 Christ is
simply "The Friend of publicans and sinners." In 15:2 it was said, "This Man
receiveth sinners and eateth with them." But in 19:7 we are told, "He was gone
to be guest with a man that is a sinner"! Thus did God make even the wrath of
man to praise Him.
5. The Lord is here portrayed as a Man of
Prayer.
It is indeed striking to see how often the
Saviour is seen engaged in prayer in this Gospel. The following passages bring
this out: "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus
also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened" (3:21). "And He
withdrew Himself into the wilderness, and prayed" (5:16). "And it came
to pass in those days, that He went out into a mountain to pray, and
continued all night in prayer to God" (6:12). "And it came to pass about
an eight days after these sayings, He took Peter and John and James, and went
up into a mountain to pray. And as He prayed, the fashion of His
countenance was altered" (9:28,29). "And it came to pass, that, as He was
praying in a certain place, when He ceased, one of His disciples said
unto Him, Lord, teach us to pray" (11:1). "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon,
behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I
have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not" (22:31,32). "And He was
withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed.
And being in an agony He prayed more earnestly" (22:41,44). "Then said
Jesus, Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" (23:34): only here
do we find Him praying thus for His murderers. Add to these examples the fact
that Luke alone records our Lord's teaching on Prayer which is found in 11:5-8,
that he only tells us of His parable on Importunity in prayer (18:1-7), and
that he alone tells us of the two men who went up to the Temple to pray, and it
will be seen what a prominent place prayer has in Luke's Gospel.
6. Christ is frequently seen here Eating
food.
"And one of the Pharisees desired Him that
He would eat with him. And He went into the Pharisee's house and sat down to
meat" (7:36). "And as He spake, a certain Pharisee besought Him to dine
with him: and He went in, and sat down to meat" (11:37). "And it came to
pass, as He went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread
on the Sabbath day, they watched Him" (14:1). "And when they say it, they
all murmured, saying, That He was gone to be guest with a man that is a
sinner" (19:7). "And it came to pass, as He sat at meat with them, He
took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them" (24:30). "And they
gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He took it, and
did eat before them" (24:42,43). It scarcely needs to be pointed out that
these examples demonstrated the reality of His Manhood.
7. The Circumstances connected with His Death
and Resurrection.
The awful hour spent in Gethsemane is
described in this third Gospel with a fullness of detail which is not found in
the others. Luke is the only one that tells us, "And there appeared an angel
unto Him from heaven, strengthening Him;" as he is the only one to say, "And
being in agony He prayed more earnestly: and His sweat was as it were great
drops of blood falling down to the ground" (22:43,44). Then followed the
Arrest, and as they were all leaving the Garden, we read, "And one of them
smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. And Jesus answered
and said, Suffer ye thus far, and He touched his ear, and healed him"
(22:50,51). The other Evangelists record this incident of the smiting of the
high priest's servant, but only Luke shows us the tenderness of the Saviour,
full of compassion toward the suffering of others, right to the last.
Luke is the only one to tell us, "And there
followed Him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and
lamented Him. But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep
not for Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children" (23:27,28).
Appropriately, does this find a place here, bringing out, as it does, human
emotions and sympathies. Luke is the only one to designate the place where the
Saviour was crucified by its Gentile name - "And when they were come to the
place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified Him" (23:33). And, again,
Luke tells us, "A superscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek,
and Latin, and Hebrew, This is the King of the Jews" (23:38). How this hints at
the international scope of this third Gospel! Matthew and Mark give no hint of
the "superscription" being written in the world-languages of the day; though
John does, for he, again, presents Christ in connection with "the world." Luke
is the only one to describe the conversion of the dying robber, and to record
his witness to the Human perfections of the Lord Jesus: "This Man hath done
nothing amiss" (23:41). So, too, it is only here we find a similar testimony
borne by the Roman centurion: "Now when the centurion saw what was done, he
glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous Man" (23:47).
After His resurrection from the dead, it is only
Luke who mentions that long walk of the Saviour with the two disciples, and of
the familiar intercourse which they had together as they journeyed to Emmaus.
And Luke is the only one who presents the Lord to our view as eating food after
He had risen in triumph from the grave.
It only remains to add a brief word concerning
the characteristic manner in which this third Gospel closes. Luke alone tells
us, "And He led them out as far as to Bethany, and He lifted up His hands, and
blessed them" (24:50) - a beautiful touch is this! Then we are told, "And it
came to pass, while He blessed them, He was parted from them, and carried up
into Heaven" (24:51). Note, particularly, that Luke says that the Son of Man
was "carried up into Heaven," not that He ascended! And then the curtain falls
to the strains of the expressions of human joy and praise: "And they worshipped
Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: and were continually in the
Temple, praising and blessing God. Amen" (24:52,53).