Bible Commentaries
Luke

III

INTRODUCTION – THE SEVERAL HISTORIANS

LUKE
This historian was a Gentile, and the only Gentile who was the author of a Bible book. He writes two volumes, his gospel, which is a history of our Lord’s earth life, and the Acts, which is a history of our Lord’s ascended life up to a certain date (Luke 1:1-3 and Acts 1:1). The title to his "Gospel according to Luke" contains his only direct use of his own name. He is the faithful companion of Paul who names him in three letters, Philemon 1:24, Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11. Paul declares him to be "the beloved physician," and that he was a medical practitioner we might infer from some peculiar expressions in his history.

His companionship with Paul, so far as he himself notices it, is indicated by the use of the personal pronoun. When in the Acts he uses the first person plural "we" or "us" to describe Paul’s movements, he is present. When he uses the third person "they" or "them," he is not with Paul. From this use of the pronoun we see that he joined Paul at Troas, on the second missionary tour of that book (Acts 16:10) accompanied him to Philippi, and was with him in the great meeting there. Here Luke remained several years, until Paul came back to that city at the conclusion of his third missionary tour and was about to return to Syria to carry the alms he had gathered in Macedonia and Achaia to the poor saints at Jerusalem. Luke is now with him throughout all the rest of the history from Acts 20:5 to the end.

So he shared with Paul four imprisonments: in Jerusalem; two years imprisonment in Caesarea; two years first imprisonment in Rome, and the last Roman imprisonment. The first Roman imprisonment ends Luke’s own account. Paul himself testifies to Luke’s presence in the first Roman imprisonment (Philemon 1:24; Colossians 4:14). He also testifies that Luke alone is with him in his last Roman imprisonment (2 Timothy 4:11).

Luke and Paul are the only scholarly men of the New Testament writers.

There are some indirect allusions which may inclusively refer to Luke, e.g., 2 Corinthians 8:11-12; 2 Corinthians 8:23, and Luke 24:13 f. Luke’s being a "beloved physician" may account, in a measure, for his close companionship with Paul, who, besides many physical infirmities, suffered serious afflictions in the body at the hands of relentless persecutors. He is not Lucius of Cyrene (Acts 12:1), nor the other Lucius (Romans 16:21), a kinsman of Paul. The name is different in Greek, Latin, and English.

QUESTIONS

13. Was Luke a Jew?

14. What Bible books were written by Gentiles?

15. What Luke’s occupation, and how do you know?

16. Was it probable on this account he was associated with Paul?

17. Show from Acts when Luke was with Paul, and how do you know?

18. What Luke’s greatest works?

19. How do you know that he was not the Lucius of Acts 13:2 and Romans 16:21?

20. Who of the New Testament authors were scholars?

21. Contrast the New Testament biographical details concerning John with those of other New Testament authors.

22. In what respects do they make him live before us?

23. Give the proofs that of all the apostles he was nearest and dearest to the Lord.

24. Show the several ways in which he was prominent among the twelve.

25. Give evidence that he stressed his mission as a witness.

26. How do you justify his title, "the theologian," and what other apostle may be so classed?

I

INTRODUCTION – THE FOUR GOSPELS

The New Testament is the ultimate authority for the life of Christ. In that collection of books, this life is set forth in four distinct phases:

His eternal existence, essential Deity, relations and activities as pure spirit prior to all time and history.

His foreshadowing in time prior to his incarnation. This is done by an interpretation of the Old Testament.

His incarnation, or earth life, from his birth to his death. The glory life of his exalted humanity, from his resurrection to the end of time.

Usually, however, when men speak of the life of our Lord they mean his earth life from his birth to his death. Even in studying his earth life only, it is helpful to know well:

His human antecedents, as set forth in the Old Testament history of his people.

The history of that people in the 400 years interval between the close of the Old Testament and the opening of the New Testament.

The geography and topography of the land of Palestine, the scene of his life and labors, together with the political, religious, and social conditions of his people at the time of his birth and during his life.

The successful preacher or teacher must often repeat, or restate in new forms, what he has preached or taught before, because there is little remembrance of former things, and because there is constant change of hearers or students unfamiliar with his previous teaching or preaching; and because no one statement of any truth sufficiently fixes itself in the mind of the hearer or reader. Repeated hammering is needed to drive a nail to its head, and even then we need to clinch it.

On account of this necessity for repetition, we commence with definitions many times given before. Our English word, "scriptures," means, etymologically, any kind of writings as contrasted with oral statements. Our English words, "Holy Scriptures," mean "sacred writings," or inspired writings, as distinguished from profane writings. Our English word, "Bible," means a library, or collection of books. And hence, "Holy Bible," would mean a sacred library. This sacred library consists of two grand divisions, entitled "Old Testament" and "New Testament." The Old Testament consists of thirty-nine books, arranged in a threefold division of Law, Prophets, and Psalms. Likewise the New Testament consists of twenty-seven books, divided into three general classifications – that is, five books of history, twenty-one letters or books of doctrine and discipline, and one book of prophecy.

This classification, however, must not be strictly pressed, since the five books entitled histories contain letters, doctrines, and prophecies; and the twenty-one letters contain history, prophecy, and doctrines; and the one book of prophecy contains letters, history, and doctrines.

Of these New Testament books, Paul wrote fourteen; John, five; Luke and Peter, two each; Matthew, Mark, James, and Jude, one each. And since Paul influenced both of Luke’s books, a majority of the books, and more than half of the contents of the New Testament may be attributed directly or indirectly to Paul.

The English word, "testament," whether Old or New, was derived from the Latin, based on such passages as: Luke 22:14-20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; Hebrews 8:9-13; Hebrews 9:16-17, and is a misnomer, since the Greek word so rendered means "covenant," but in the Bible it is never applied to a collection of books. The word, indeed, has the meaning of a last will and testament in two instances only, of Biblical usage, both in the game connection, Hebrews 9:16-17. So used in that sense it simply points out one analogy between a covenant and a last will and testament, to wit: that the death of a victim ratifies a covenant, as the death of a testator precedes inheritance under his will. The mischievous effect of this rendering "testament" in other instances of usage not only obscures the connection of thought between the Old and New Covenants, but appears historically and particularly in the fact that one large and modern Christian denomination, popularly known as Campbellites, deduces the most distinguishing articles of their creed and practice from this incorrect rendering, together with their faulty interpretations of some other passages. Substantially, their argument is this:

The New Testament is God’s last will and testament.

Its provision of inheritance cannot be effective until after the death of the testator, Jesus Christ.

The chief blessing of the inheritance is the forgiveness of sins.

Sins under the Old Testament, and up to Christ’s death, were not actually forgiven, but only passed over until the coming and death of the Testator, quoting Romans 3:25.

Therefore, in determining the New Testament law of pardon, they contend that we must not consider the Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but must consult only the books concerning matters after his death. Hence they find the law of pardon in Acts 2:38, and contend that then was Christ’s kingdom set up, and then only was this law of pardon published, to wit: "Repent and be immersed in his name, in order to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Therefore, they make baptism a condition of salvation and of the reception of the Holy Spirit, and an essential part of regeneration.

Their contention, based on this argument, is set forth elaborately in a book by Ezell, one of their teachers, entitled, The Great Inheritance. We defer until we come to Acts 2:38, the correction of their erroneous exegesis of that passage, and merely state now that the capital defect of the whole contention consists in confounding expiation toward God with remission of sins toward man. It is true that the expiation of sins toward God did not historically take place until Christ died, but it is utterly untrue that the remission of sins toward man did not precede this expiation, since remission came as truly in the Old Testament times as in the New Testament times, because of God’s acceptance of the pledge of expiation by his Son.

While we think it well to show the incorrectness and mischievous tendency of this misnomer, yet the term, "testament," is so fixed in our literature as applied to the two collections of books so styled, we accept the common usage, modified by this explanation.

In like manner the Greek word rendered "gospel" means, etymologically, good tidings of any kind, but in this collection of books it means the good tidings of salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord. Nowhere in New Testament usage does the word "gospel" mean a history, as when we say, "the Gospel according to Matthew." The word "gospel" occurs often alone, or with the article only; as "preach the gospel," or "believe the gospel." In connection with the Father we have the usage: "The Gospel of God," "The Gospel of the grace of God," "The Gospel of the glory of the happy God." In connection with the Son we have the usage: "The Gospel of the Son," "The Gospel of Christ," "The Gospel of Jesus Christ," "The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." It is also used with another modifying term, "The Gospel of the Kingdom," and it is used with reference to its purpose, "The Gospel of Salvation," and to its duration, "The Everlasting Gospel."

Our English word "gospel," however, is derived from the Anglo-Saxon, "godspell," meaning "a story of God." We employ the word in this narrative sense when we say, "Matthew’s Gospel " or "The Gospel according to Matthew." In this last sense, meaning a narrative, there have come down to us in writing five Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. Of these, Paul’s was first reduced to writing, and John’s, last. Three of these Gospels, in the sense of histories, are called synoptics: Matthew, Mark, and Luke, because they present a common view.

These five Gospels, or histories, must be considered as an independent and complete history of our Lord from each author’s viewpoint. They were written by different men, at different times, for different purposes – for different ends – and each, I repeat, must be considered as a complete view. That is to say, notwithstanding the multitude of books that have been written upon the subject, there is no satisfactory evidence that any one of them had before him, or was influenced by a copy of any other from which he consciously borrowed, or which he designedly abridged or enlarged or supplemented in any way. Nor is there any reliable evidence that any two or more of them had access to a common original written gospel now lost. There was, of course, before any writing, a common oral gospel, but mere human memory could not be relied upon to recall with accuracy the minute details such as we find in Mark, nor the very words of long discourses, such as we find in John and Matthew. We must look elsewhere for an adequate explanation of their agreements and differences. At the last analysis, the inspiration of each historian best accounts for the plan of his history, not only in the material he selects, but in what he omits, in his historical portrait of our Lord.

Westcott in his introduction to the Gospels, cites the fact that three portraits of Charles I were painted, one giving the front view, the others the right and left profile views, and these three portraits were to enable a sculptor to carve a lifelike statue of him. The sculptor could not carve this statue with accuracy from a front view only, nor from either one of the two side views only. In the same way we have five complete historical portraits of our Lord, in order that we, in the study of them from their different angles of vision, may get a full view of our Lord and Saviour.

We have already said that the New Testament considers the life of our Lord in four distinct phases: his pre-existence, his Old Testament adumbration, his incarnation, and the glory life of his exalted humanity. Each historian considers only so much of these four phases as is essential to his plan. Mark, with very vivid details, considers the public ministry of our Lord, having little to do with either his pre-existence, his foreshadowing in the Old Testament, or his life after his ascension. Matthew and Luke alone treat of the infancy of our Lord. Matthew and Paul particularly consider the interpretation of the Old Testament, foreshadowing of our Lord. Luke, in a second volume, discusses much the exalted life of our Lord in the establishment of the churches. John and Paul both treat of his pre-existence, and both, of the activities of his exalted life. This John does in his second volume – Revelation.

We may profitably study these histories of our Lord in two ways:

Considering each history alone, in order to get before our minds the author’s complete view according to his plan. This study must not be omitted.

The harmonic study of our Lord, putting in parallel columns so much as each history has to say on a given point, and looking at the testimony of all the witnesses.

In the first method it is easy to see that Matthew writes for Jews, and his is the gospel of the King and of his kingdom, according to a correct interpretation of Old Testament foreshadowings. We find, therefore, in Matthew, many Old Testament quotations. He seeks to prove to the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. Paul unites with Matthew in making the same proof, but with reference to a larger purpose than the limitation of Matthew.

Mark’s Gospel may be called the Gospel of deeds rather than of teachings. It is limited to the earth life of Jesus, and describes the mighty things which he did. It is most vivid and minute in details and has much of narrative. It is the "straightway" gospel. As only an eyewitness could give the vivid and minute details of gesture, posture, indeed the very look of the actors and observers, this has been called Peter’s Gospel. There is both external and internal evidence that Peter supplied most of the material of Mark’s Gospel. As Mark limits himself almost exclusively to one of the four phases of our Lord’s life and to only his public ministry, and as he makes but little special contribution to the sum of discourses, parables and miracles, we must find his most valuable contribution in his vivid and minute details, therein far surpassing all others. He surrounds his incidents with all the circumstances that make them impressive. We see the posture, gesture, look, and the effect. His particulars of person, number, time, and place are peculiar. His transitions are rapid, his tenses often are present not past, and we hear the very Aramaic words spoken, in direct quotation. It is more than a moving picture show, since we hear the very Aramaic words: "Boanerges," "Taitha cumi," "Corban," "Ephphatha," "abba."

Luke’s Gospel may be called the Gospel of the Saviour and of humanity, his purpose being not so much to convince the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah, as to show his relation to all mankind. Because Luke’s is the Gospel of the Saviour and of humanity, his genealogy extends back to Adam. Luke was not a Jew, and was the only Gentile who wrote a book of the Bible. His writings, Gospel and Acts, treat elaborately of the earth life of our Lord, and of his ascended life up to Paul’s first Roman imprisonment. Renan the infidel, calls Luke’s Gospel "the most beautiful book in the world." Speaking of them as masterpieces of human literature, Isaiah and Luke surpass all other books of the sacred library.

One cannot, in a few words, enumerate all the special contributions of Luke’s Gospel. We may note a few:

He alone gives an account of the birth and training of John the Baptist.

He alone gives us the five great hymns: The "Hail Mary," the "Benedictus" of Zacharias, the "Magnificat" of Mary, the "Gloria in Excelsis" of the angels, and the "Nunc Dimittis" of Simeon.

He recites more miracles and parables than any other historian, and of these at least six miracles and seventeen parables are not given elsewhere.

More than the others it is the Gospel to woman, to the poor, to the sick, the outcast, and the foreigner.

To him we are indebted more than to all the others for the incidents and teachings of our Lord’s ministry after the rejection in Galilee and up to the last week of that ministry.

It is more than the others the Gospel of prayers and thanksgiving in giving not only the occasions when our Lord prayed, and often the prayers themselves, but the lessons on prayer, taught to the disciples.

John’s Gospel may be called the Gospel of positive knowledge, assurance, and comfort. It is more the subjective than the objective history. He means, evidently, to give to every Christian absolute knowledge, and internal assurance of the certainty of that knowledge.

Paul, less than the others, treats of the details of the earth life, discussing more the purposes of that life than its historical facts. It is interesting in comparing Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul to note each one’s special contribution to the complete history of our Lord. No mere human historian would have omitted from his history what any one of them omits. We cannot account in a mere human way, for the omission of the early Judean ministry by the Synoptic Gospels, nor for John’s omission of the bulk of the Galilean ministry. A careful student of the several histories of our Lord cannot fail to be impressed that no one of them alone, nor all of them together, intend anything like a complete biography like we find in the human history of a man. Each employs only that material essential to his plan, designedly leaving out everything not necessary to his purpose. John, at the close of his Gospel, rightly says, "Many other signs, therefore, did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in his name." A similar statement could well have been made by every historian. What is true with reference to the facts of his history, is also true with reference to his teachings. No one of them gives all of his teachings, or intended to do it, but only so much of the teachings as is necessary to his plan of history.

Indeed, Luke, in his second volume entitled "The Acts of the Apostles," says that his Gospel is an account of what Jesus began to do and to teach, implying that his second volume will tell of what Jesus continued to do and to teach in his exalted life. It is interesting as well as profitable to collect together the incidents, miracles, parables, and discourses given by each historian alone.

For example, Matthew alone gives the miracle of the healing of the two blind men, in Matthew 9, and of the finding of the stater in the fish’s mouth. Matthew alone gives ten of the great parables – the tares, the hidden treasure, the pearl of great price, the drawnet, the unmerciful servant, the laborers in the vineyard, the two sons, the marriage of the king’s son, the ten virgins, and the talents. Matthew alone gives a somewhat full account of the great Sermon on the Mount, and the great discourses on the rejection of the Jews, and our Lord’s great prophecy extending from Matthew 21-25 of his book. He alone gives us certain incidents of the life of our Lord – the coming of the Wise Men, the massacre of the innocents, the flight into Egypt, the return to Nazareth, the covenant of Judas for thirty pieces of silver, his repentance and his end, the dream of Pilate’s wife, the appearance of the saints in Jerusalem in connection with Christ’s resurrection, the watch placed at the sepulcher, the bribing of these watchmen to spread false reports, and the earthquake.

It is in John alone that we find the early Judean ministry, the Samaritan ministry, the great discourse on the bread of life in Capernaum, the discourse of the Good Shepherd, and particularly the great discourse after the Lord’s Supper, as embodied in John 14-17. These four chapters of John constitute the New Testament book of comfort, Isaiah 39-66 constitutes the Old Testament book of comfort.

Of course these examples of special contributions are samples only, not exhaustive.

It is in Paul’s history alone that we find an addition to Luke’s genealogy, that is, from the first Adam to the Second Adam. But as four of these Gospels are continuous histories, and as Paul’s, the Fifth Gospel, is scattered throughout his many letters, we will consider in the next chapter the Fifth Gospel.

QUESTIONS

1. In what distinct phases does the New Testament set forth the life of our Lord?

2. What things are helpful to know, even when we study only the earth life of our Lord?

3. What is the meaning of our English word, "scriptures"?

4. Meaning of "Holy Scriptures"?

5. Meaning of "Bible"?

6. Meaning of "Holy Bible"?

7. What are the two grand divisions of our Holy Bible, of what does each consist and what the three subdivisions of each?

8. Why may we not strictly press the three general classifications of the New Testament books?

9. Who were the authors of the New Testament books, and how many did each write?

10. What is the proportion, of Paul’s contribution to the New Testament?

11. Give derivation and meaning of our English word, "testament," and show how it is a misnomer when applied to our collection of sacred books.

12. In what two instances only in Bible usage may the Greek word, diatheke, be rendered "testament"? And in those instances show the one point of analogy between a "covenant" and a last will and testament.

13. Cite a notable historic instance of the mischief of confusing "covenant" and "testament."

14. What of the Campbellite argument based on this contention and in what book is it elaborated?

15. What is the radical defect of the argument?

16. Meaning of the Greek word rendered "gospel" in the New Testament? And in the New Testament, does it ever mean a narrative?

17. What are the uses in the New Testament of the word rendered "gospel" with the article only? In connection with the Father? With the Son? With the kingdom? With salvation?

18. What is the derivation and meaning of our English word, "gospel"?

19. In the sense of a narrative, how many gospels have come down to us in writing, which first reduced to writing, and which last?

20. Which are called Synoptics, and why?

21. In accounting for these several written histories, were any two or more based on any written history now lost?

22. Is there any reliable evidence that any one of the historians had before him a copy of any one of the other four histories, from which he consciously borrowed material, which he designedly condensed, elaborated or supplemented in any way?

23. How, then, must these five histories be regarded, and what the only common original?

24. How alone may we account for their agreements and differences?

25. Why five Gospels? Cite and apply the illustration found in Westcott’s "Introduction."

26. Show, in the case of each historian, what phases of our Lord’s life are treated – his pre-existence, his Old Testament foreshadowing, his earth life, his ascended life.

27. In what two ways may we profitably study these histories?

28. How may we characterize Matthew’s Gospel, what is his chief design and what are the more important of his special contributions to the history?

29. How characterize Luke’s Gospel, what is his chief design and what are some of his special contributions?

30. How characterize John’s Gospel, what is his chief design and what are some of the most important of his special contributions?

31. What chapters of John constitute the New Testament book of comfort?

32. As Mark limits himself almost exclusively to only one of’ the four phases, that is, the earth life of our Lord, and to his public ministry only, and as he contributes little to the sum of the parables, miracles and discourses, what is, in the main, his special contribution to the story of our Lord?

II

INTRODUCTION – THE FIFTH GOSPEL

In the preceding chapter we were considering the inspired histories of the life of our Lord. A reason for considering very particularly the Fifth Gospel, arises from a trend of modern thought, pregnant with menace. This trend is embodied in a method of treating the Bible, which appears to be concerted and systematic, and which comes in the garb of an angel of light with most attractive watchwords, and with the avowed object of best serving human interest by promoting a higher degree of morality. The slogan of this method is: "Back to Christ," meaning, "Back to Christ’s own words." The object of the method is to strip the Gospels of all inspired value in their statements of what Christ is, or what he did, and confine them to an application of what he actually said. It matters nothing to the leaders of this method that our knowledge of what he said is dependent on the trustworthiness of the very witnesses whose evidence they discredit concerning what he is and what he did.

But this is not all of the method. It arbitrarily limits the sources of what he said to the records of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, commonly called the Synoptic Gospels, rejecting the Gospel of John. Even with this limitation they claim the right to discredit all the reported sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels not in accord with their preconceived notions. But the limitation of Christ’s own words to the record of the Synoptic Gospels is, after all, not so much to eliminate John as to get rid of Paul, who is most in their way. Their misleading slogan, "Back to Christ," means simply "Back from Paul."

Unwittingly this method bears strong testimony to the clearness and value of Paul’s teaching. It is a virtual confession that if Paul stands they must fall. While this method is called modern, it is in fact only a revival of ancient error prevalent in Paul’s own day, and in later days.

In this connection we may recall a recent discussion in Congress on the advisability of printing what is called "Jefferson’s Bible" in connection with his other works. This socalled Bible is merely a patchwork of clippings from the Gospels of Christ’s own words – or so many of them as Mr. Jefferson approved, the object being to classify the ethical teachings of Christ and to eliminate all the supernatural settings. Not a few of the most alert and clear-eyed sentinels on our watchtowers, discern in this trend of thought a menacing sword to the unwary, and have diligently sounded a note of alarm. Articles, pamphlets, and books on the subject, pro and con, are being rapidly multiplied, some of them valuable, others worthless contributions to religious literature.

Two of the many may be noted. The most scholarly, perhaps, is by Dr. Bruce, Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the Free Church College, Glasgow, Scotland and is entitled Saint Paul’s Conception of Christianity. It was published in 1894. While very instructive throughout, some parts of this discussion are justly liable to adverse criticism. The other, not nearly so pretentious, is yet pure gold in its saneness and simplicity. It is by a plain but earnest and successful gospel preacher, Dr. Malcolm McGregor, of the Southern Baptist Convention, and is entitled The Divine Authority of Paul’s Writings. It was published in 1898. Dr. McGregor has classified the objections or objectors to Paul thus:

Some who profess to believe in the inspiration and authority of the Bible in vague general terms, but whose inherited or acquired dislike for certain of Paul’s teachings lead them, with great inconsistency, to evade, modify, and explain away their force.

Preconceptions of rationalistic philosophy, the blinding influence of unscriptural customs, the warping force of adventurous love of novelty, overweening self-conceit, and headstrong self-will, account very fully for most of this dangerous anti-Pauline drift.

To these classifications of Dr. McGregor we may add a graver cause. When we consider the garb, watchword, concert, system, and effect of this method, we are constrained to recognize back of the movement that mighty and malignant intelligence who, from the beginning, comes as an angel of light, and by beguiling seduces many good people to serve him, and renders tributary to his purpose all the objections and prejudices of the unregenerate. It is immaterial that the leaders of this trend of thought are unconscious of the satanic influence prompting them.

So far as this modern method relates to the Four Gospels, we may content ourselves with this double reply:

If we accept the testimony of the synoptic historians as to the sayings of Christ, then we must accept it as to his being and doings. The evidence is the same.

The argument which destroys the trustworthiness of John’s record of Christ’s sayings, will equally destroy the credibility of the record in the Synoptic Gospels.

But our present concern is with the effect of this method on another historian. There is a Fifth Gospel, quite distinct from the others, equally necessary and credible with the others. The same inspiration which gave us the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, gave us also the Gospel of Paul. No one of the five tells all the story; each one of the five contributes an important and indispensable part to the completeness of the history. Here and there two, three, four, or five, may bear testimony to the same particular event of this history, or to the same particular teaching. Even in that case we need all the testimony, as each brings to light some detail not noted by the others. But here and there also an incident or a teaching is dependent upon the testimony of only one of the five. Each one of the five makes special, peculiar, unique, and indispensable contributions. And in both of these respects we recognize God’s uniform method of inspiration: "God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son." And this speaking was recorded partly by Mark, partly by Matthew, partly by Luke, partly by John, and partly by Paul.

Now of these Five Gospels by far the most extensive, the most comprehensive and the most important, is the Gospel by Paul. We are so accustomed to the thought of only Four Gospels that we compare them to the four rivers which watered the garden of Eden.

Before considering in detail the merits of the Fifth Gospel, let us first consider an antecedent matter – the nature and qualifications of the apostolic office. This office was extraordinary. It was limited to the times of the institution of the Christian system. There was no provision for its perpetuity in the church, though some of our Baptist brethren of Virginia once ventured to elect an apostle. Upon certain persons appointed by our Lord’ himself as ambassadors were conferred plenipotentiary powers to act for him in the matters entrusted to them. They were, primarily, witnesses of his resurrection from the dead. Indeed, one could not be an apostle who had not seen the risen Lord. They were inspired revelators of his will, and infallible judges and expounders of the doctrines and discipline he inculcated. They were also the executors of penal judgment, when necessary, as when Peter smote with instant death Ananias and Sapphira, and when Paul smote Elymas with blindness. They were accredited by miraculous signs, as when men were healed by the shadow of Peter, and others afar off by contact with a handkerchief that Paul had touched. They were immune from deadly poisons, and could, by the laying on of their hands, impart the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit. There were two classes of these apostles – twelve to the Jews, and one to the Gentiles. In the case of an apostle to the Jews, it was necessary that he should have companied with Jesus all the time of his Jewish ministry, from the baptism by John to the ascension into heaven. In the case of the Apostle to the Gentiles, it was necessary that he had personally seen the risen Lord, been put into office by him, and had received directly from him the gospel he preached.

Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. He had seen the Lord, was directly commissioned and accredited by him, and by direct revelation received his whole wonderful gospel. It was not of man, nor by man. His knowledge of the gospel was entirely independent of any teaching, preaching, or writing of the other men. For example: Matthew wrote of the institution of the Lord’s Supper as he saw it, Mark and Luke as they received the story of the testimony of eyewitnesses, but Paul wrote of it as the Lord Jesus Christ himself reported it to him, and to Paul are we indebted for more knowledge of the institution and meaning of this ordinance than to all other sources put together. The other apostles could tell it as they saw it, but Paul tells it as Jesus saw it. He commences his account of it by saying, “For I received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you." In like manner, when summarizing his gospel, he says, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised from the dead on the third day, according to the scriptures."

In every way possible he not only emphasizes that his gospel was independent of any human source of information, but makes the reception of it as from God a test of the claims of others: "For if any man thinketh himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandments of the Lord." In this plenipotentiary power he ordained decrees for all the churches; he commanded, restricted, enjoined with all authority. The content of his gospel is marvelous in its fulness, clearness and comprehensiveness. On the pro-existence, original glory and activities of the Son of God, he surpasses John; on the foreshadowing of the coming Messiah in the Old Testament he surpasses Matthew; on his assumption of human nature and the reasons therefore, on his offices as prophet, king, sacrifice, priest, and judge he surpasses all. He alone reveals the termination of the kingdom of God. On the plan of salvation, and on the connecting links of the whole chain of its doctrines, he stands alone. From him, certainly as to its fulness, come the revelation of the universality of the gospel, and the marvelous wisdom of God in the election of Israel, the stumbling of Israel, the call of the Gentiles and the restoration of Israel. The doctrines of the nature, universality and cure of sin, the nature, scope, and purpose of the law, the resurrection of the dead are mainly derived from Paul’s Gospel. Concerning the church, not only as an institution, and not only as an ideal to be realized hereafter, but as a working business body, and concerning its officers, ordinances, discipline and commission, Paul’s Gospel reveals more than all the rest of the Bible. From his gospel also we get the truest and clearest teachings concerning the person, offices, and gifts of the Holy Spirit. There is yet a point touching his gospel of transcendent importance. I refer particularly to the offices and activities of the ascended and exalted Lord. Where is our Lord now? What is his employment there? How long will he remain there, or when will he return to earth again? And why will he come again, and to do what? And what the outcome of that return? Luke, indeed, devotes an entire volume, the Acts of the Apostles, to the activities of the ascended Lord up to a definite time, and so John devotes another book, Revelation, to the same matter projected to the end of time, but certainly it is in Paul’s Gospel that we find most clearly set forth the present reign of Christ on the heavenly throne, the giving and dispensation of the Holy Spirit and the dispensation of the churches.

In this connection I desire to commend with great earnestness to all readers a modern book entitled, The Ascended Christ. It is by H. B. Sweet, and was published in 1910, by the Macmillan Company. There are interpretations of some passages of Scripture in this book that I deem faulty, but on the whole it is a marvelous contribution to the literature concerning our ascended Lord.

These are a few of the things that may be truthfully said concerning the scope and value of the Fifth Gospel. Why is it, then, that harmonies ignore the Fifth Gospel, Great indeed will be the victory of Satan if, by the catchy phrase, "Back to Christ," he can succeed in backing us away from the Gospel of Paul. Though an angel from heaven bring another gospel, let him be accursed. It is an objection to all harmonies extant that they either slightly recognize the Fifth Gospel, or utterly disregard its correlative material, thus giving the student an imperfect view of OUT Lord’s nature, person, offices, and teachings.

It is frankly conceded that the correlation of very much of the material of the Fifth Gospel with the records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, is on many accounts a matter of serious difficulty. Not the least of these difficulties lies in the fact that while the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are mainly historical, each one being in some form a continuous story of our Lord’s life on earth, the Fifth Gospel is mainly doctrinal, and is not in one continuous statement, but widely scattered in many letters, the revelations coming, moreover, from our Lord in heaven. Another difficulty consists in knowing how to limit the amount of the material used and just where to place it in a given case. To some minds a yet graver difficulty would consist in determining just what books of the New Testament contain the Fifth, or Pauline, Gospel. This need not be a difficulty when we accept as certain from Paul the thirteen letters usually ascribed to him, and while some dissent, we count the letter to the Hebrews as Paul’s. In any event, whether Apollos wrote it, as many erroneously claim, or Luke wrote it, as some conjecture, embodying a sermon by Paul, it is immaterial to our purpose and use. It is unquestionably Pauline in its origin and doctrine. Let us not forget that all harmonies of even the first three or four gospels are human, imperfect, obnoxious to objections, and attended with considerable difficulties. The obvious difficulties necessitate imperfection in any human attempt at perfect correlation of the material of the five gospels. But notwithstanding the difficulties, confessedly great, and the objections, confessedly forceful, and the imperfections of the work when done, frankly conceded, it is profoundly believed that by harmonic use of much of the material of the Fifth Gospel the result will be manifold and great, and so justify the effort.

Somewhat is gained at least by fixing the fact in the Bible student’s mind that there are five gospels, equal in authority, and all indispensable parts of a complete revelation of our Lord’s person, nature, offices, relations, and teachings in the four phases of his life already named. The mere fixing of this fact in the mind helpfully serves to check the current of semi infidelity in many schools which seek to discredit Paul by magnifying Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Wherein are their credentials, as reporters of our Lord’s person, doings and teachings, superior to Paul’s? Moreover, the inclusion of the matter of the Fifth Gospel in the correlation will make more apparent the important fact that the Pauline doctrines considered by objectors as most obnoxious or as innovations, will be shown to be in perfect harmony with the very words of our Lord as reported by the other historians, to wit: the doctrines of his essential deity, of the vicarious expiation, justification by faith, election, and eternal punishment.

Yet again, this method affords to the student, on one canvass, a more nearly complete portrait of our Lord, and in one view a more comprehensive summary of his teachings. It is a signal merit of harmony of Dr. John A. Broadus that he includes Paul’s testimony concerning the institution of the Supper and the appearances of our Lord after his resurrection. Why not equally meritorious to correlate Paul’s testimony of Christ’s pre-existence, and his assumption of human nature, with the corresponding records in the other gospels? Certainly to Paul was revealed many most important facts concerning the incarnation and its objects, which belong properly to our Lord’s earthly life, and hence may harmonize with other histories of that life.

Just here we may restate the terminals of the several gospels.

Mark’s Gospel is the gospel of Christ’s deeds, written for Romans, and so he leaves to others the report of all antecedent matters, commences with the public ministry of our Lord, abruptly plunges into the heart of his subject, and as abruptly closes with some evidence of the resurrection. The scope of Mark’s history is like the survey of a small section of a mighty river, which takes no account of the whence, and but little of the whither. He finds it a river, but far from the source, and leaves it a river, far from the sea. The baptism and resurrection of Jesus are the terminal points of his history.

Matthew, who gives the gospel of the King and of the kingdom, writing for Jews to convince them of the messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth, goes back 2,000 years beyond Mark to find a starting point in Abraham, and closes with the Great Commission.

Luke, who writes the gospel of the Saviour, recognizing Christ’s broader relation to humanity, goes back of the Jewish limitations of Matthew’s view another 2,000 years, and starting from the first man, projects his history, including the Acts, into the triumphant years of world evangelization by the apostles. Commencing with Adam, he ends in Paul’s hired house at Rome. But even he strikes the stream at only its human source, or appearance in the realm of time, and leaves it flowing, yet far from the sea.

John, who writes for the Christian the gospel of positive knowledge, assurance, and comfort, and from a more subjective point of view than that of the others, goes back beyond all time, even leaving far behind the initial sentence of Moses: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and starts with the ultima thule of revelation in one direction: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Thus fastening one end of the chain of his story on this altitude of eternity, he swoops far down to the history of creation by Moses, floods it with light, enters into the earth life of our Lord and projects his history, including Revelation, beyond the second coming and the Judgment, into the antitypical paradise. But the river has not yet reached the sea.

Paul, writing for all men, with the broadest view, commences indeed with John, for none can go beyond him in that direction, parallels his course through time, with him entering into the antitypical paradise, and finds the other ultima thule of Revelation in this termination: "Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; . . And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him, that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).

Thus eternity speaks across all time to eternity, and thus we have the four phases of the life of our Lord: his preexistence and essential deity; his adumbration in the Old Testament history; his incarnation, that is, his earth life; his life and activities after ascension and exaltation at the right hand of God.

This is the life we are to study. As stress was laid upon the thorough study of the Genesis of Moses, how much more the study of this Genesis! My father impressed upon the minds of his boys this great principle: In erecting a building, never try to economize on site, foundation, or roof. A good building on a faulty location is a waste; a big house cannot stand on a flimsy foundation; and a faulty roof is a ceaseless eye-sore, abomination, and expense. We should, therefore, take time and exercise the patience necessary to root our faith deep down and ground it solidly on these beginnings and endings in eternity. If we start right we go on well. If we make a pitiful start we drag an ever weightier chain on to the end, and can never answer the supreme questions – who is our Saviour? or, "What think ye of Christ?" They can never be answered if we leave out any of these four phases of his life. Before we consider Mark’s grown man, Luke’s infant, or Matthew’s Jew, we must follow John and Paul back to the real beginning and on to the real end.

Then will we know whom we have believed, whom we worship. Then, when the question is asked in the words of our Lord, "Who say ye that I am?" not as an Arian, not as a Socinian, not as a Sabellian, not as an Unitarian, not any kindred folk, we find the truer answer that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son and Christ of God, the God-man appointed to be prophet, priest, sacrifice, king, and judge.

We are not to understand that all of these five gospels together give a complete biography of Christ as judged by the standard of human historians. Only such matter as is pertinent to the plan of each writer is used. Near the close of John’s Gospel he says, "Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book, but these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in his name." And later he adds the more remarkable words: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."

A harmony is an orderly correlation in parallel columns of the matter of several independent historians, or the testimony of several independent witnesses.

Having now considered somewhat the inspired histories of the life of Christ, I name some of the many human histories of that life. While many more could be named, those that are named have been carefully examined upon every point set forth in our discussion of the life of our Lord. They are: Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; Farrar’s Story of a Beautiful Life; Noah K. Davis’ Story of the Nazarene; Stalker’s Life of Christ; Deems’ The Light of the Nations; Young’s The Christ of History; David Smith’s In the Days of His Flesh; Sweet’s The Ascended Christ; McLear’s New Testament History; that infidel’s romance, Renan’s Life of Jesus; Henry Ward Beecher’s Life of Christ; Fleetwood’s Life of Christ; and the following parts of Josephus: Antiquities, books 14-18, War of the Jews, from Book I, chapter 10, to Book 2, chapter 9.

Of all these human lives of our Lord, it is a matter of surprise to find Beecher’s the weakest and poorest.

QUESTIONS

1. How many gospels are there?

2. What evil trend of modern thought necessitates special emphasis on the Fifth Gospel?

3. What is its garb and slogan?

4. What is the limit and effect of its method?

5. What is the real meaning of its slogan, "Back to Christ"?

6. Name and estimate two valuable books called forth by this discussion.

7. How does Dr. McGregor classify the objections to Paul’s Gospel?

8. Who is the real person back of the whole movement against Paul?

9. What is the nature, limitation, and qualifications of the apostolic office?

10. What two classes of apostles?

11. In what respect does Paul’s knowledge of his gospel differ from Matthew’s and John’s, from Mark’s and Luke’s and illustrate by the account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper by Matthew, by Mark and Luke, and by Paul.

12. Set forth the merits and superiorities of Paul’s Gospel.

13. What are the difficulties of correlating Paul’s Gospel in a harmony with the other four?

14. Notwithstanding the difficulties, what is the gain?

15. What two items only of Paul’s Gospel does Dr. Broadus include in his harmony?

16. What are terminals of each of the Five Gospels?

17. What is a harmony?

18. What books covering the life of our Lord are named, and what parts of Josephus are recommended for reading?