Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 10.djvu/832

Rh arities of 808 xxiii. 7). It has been shown above that the latter form is son1e- l films used geographically by writers who use the former rhetori- cally or historically ; but it is certainly remarkable that in ii. 2:! and 41 the tire forms should be used, apparently in the same sense, dvﬁyayov ailrbv sis 'Iepoa'¢5)u,u.a and e’1ropei'1ovro. . . sis ‘lepuu¢ra)u’;p.. Many other test vords might be mentioned, the converging evidence of which, added to the internal evidence of thought (aud perhaps corroborated by the evidence of special forms, c.g., 'i))au for ﬁltﬂov), may possibly hereafter enable future critics to distinguish with certainty between the ditlerent strata of Luke's narrative. But no certainty is possible in the present condition of _ the evidence. There has been abundant labour but insufficient classiﬁcation of evidence, and no attempt at all to represent it in a concentrated form. Passing now to the consideration of Luke’s additional subject matter, and reserving the supernatural element to the last, we will speak ﬁrst of the doctrine. The key-note is struck in the song of Zacharias, and repeated in the ﬁrst sermon of Jesus in Nazareth. The object of the messenger of Jesus is (i. 77) “to give us knowledge of salvation” by “the remission of sins,” by reason of “the tender mercy of our God, whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us to give light to them that sit in darkness ;” and the object of Jesus Himself (iv. 18) is “to preach the gospel to the poor,” to “heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind.” All through the Gospel -(or at least the parts peculiar to Lake) there appears to a greater degree than in the First or Second Gospel the con- trast between light and darkness, God and Satan, sin and remission of sins, culminating in the triumph of forgiveness and mercy; so that in the very last words of Jesus to His disciples (xxiv. 47) the proclamation of “repentance and remission of sins ” is made the prospect of the future gospel to all nations. The law of Moses appears at ﬁrst sight inconsistently magniﬁed, almost in an Ebionitic spirit, throughout the ﬁrst two introductory chapters of the Gospel, and afterwards put aside. But there is no inconsistency. Paul himself says that the Saviour placed Himself at His birth “under the law,” and hence it is that Luke, with an almost anxious elaboration, details the exact fulﬁlments of the law not only by the parents of Jesus, but also by those of His messenger. Hence also it is that in a single chapter of the introduction the word “law ” occurs more often than in all the rest of the Gospel put together. For when Jesus attained to manhood, He was no longer under the bondage of the old law, which had now attained its fulﬁlment in the new law of the remission of sins through love. Yet the law is not trampled on, but only superseded by development; it was only “until John ;” yet not “one tittle ” of it can fail (xvi. 16, 17).‘ True to its principle of contrast, this book gives Satan a prominent position. V'hen Satan departs from J esus, he departs only “for a time” (iv. 13) ; Sat-in causes diseases and binds a daughter of Abraham ;'-’ Satan is beheld by Jesus in a vision cast down from heaven 3 he enters into Judas (xxii. 3, not mentioned by Matthew or Mark) ; he demands the Twelve that he may “sift” them; see above (16), (32), (46), (73). But this need not denote (as is thought by Keim) an Ebionitic source; the same recognition of the Etfovo-i'a 1-oi} o'K(i1'ov9 appears in the Acts i and the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, which no one suspects of Ebionitic tendencies (Lu. xxii. 53 ; Acts xxvi. l8; Eph. ii. 2; vi. 12; C01. i. 13). Something more than the principle of contrast may, however, be re- quired to explain the sharp demarcation between rich and poor. 'e do not ﬁnd in Luke that qualiﬁcation of the 1 Compare the strong language of Luke xvi. 16, and the contrast there between the “law ” and the “ kingdom," with the similar but much weaker language in Matt. xi. 12, 13, where the contrast is almost lost. 2 Note that Luke alone in the description of the cure of Sirnon’s GOSPELS mother-in-law (iv 39) tells us that Jesus rebuked the fever. [sv.'or'r1c. L. epithet “poor” which Matthew (v. 3) inserts, “the poor in spirit.” He enforces the hampering disadvantages cf wealth, pronouncing a woe upon them that are rich ,' gently rebukes the “cumbered” Martha 5 exhorts the rich to entertain the poor ; and dooms the rich fool to a sudden and disappointing death, while Dives is consigned tonn- alterable torment,—(:21), (34), (46), (:31), (57). But if this seems to savour of Ebionitic thought_. let it be re- membcrcd that the principle of contrast is even more systematically applied to illustrate the power of the genuine Pauline faith in the parables of forgiveness. As Lazarus is contrasted with Dives, and the grateful Samaritan with the ungrateful Jewish lepers, and the merciful Samaritan with the heartless priest and Levite, and even the trivial anxieties of Martha with the simple devotion of Ill-ary,—so in the stories of forgiveness, the publican ﬁnds his foil in the Pharisee who prays by his side ; the woman “which was a sinner,” and who “loved much,” contrasts with Simon, the churlish host, who loved little; the prodigal younger son with the envious elder son; and the penitent thief on the right with the impenitent thief on the left. All these stories, as well as the tale of Zacchzeus, and the lost piece of silver, and the lost sheep (peculiar to Luke in language, though the same subject is found in Matthew), magnify the power of forgiveness, and repentance, and faith, for the most part “ without works ”-——contrasting the instantaneous and complete victories of emotional faith with the inferior results of a long life of ordinary and prudent respectability,——(27), (54), (55), (81), (66), (64). The universality of the Gospel is more marked in Luke than in Matthew or Mark. The seventy missionaries appear to be emblematic of the preaching of the gospel to the seventy (or seventy-two, see Westcott’s f)zz‘.I‘0r]zI.c(io)I, p. 374) nations of the earth. The preference of the Gentiles to the Jews would seem to be indicated at the very outset of the public life of Jesus in the sermon at Nazareth (iv. 16-30), if we could accept this as chronologically and historically accurate. Besides the statement of Jesus in the Triple Tradition, that His kinsmen were those that heard the word of God and did it (Luke prefers this expression to that of Matthew and Mark, “ doing the will of God”), Luke gives us another assurance that God’s special blessing is re- served, not for the mother of the Saviour, but for those who do the word of God. The inclusiveness of the author breaks down the barrier between Jesus and the Samaritans : the sons of Zebedee are rebuked for desiring to call down fire on a Samaritan village; a just Samaritan shames both priest and Levite; and a grateful Samaritan puts nine Jewish lepers to the blush,—see (31), (17), 39), (29), (33), (59). In connexion with this, the gentler and more inclusive side of the gospel teaching, it may be mentioned that Luke lays especial stress on the part played by women alike in discerning the providence of God, in ministering to Jesus, and in eliciting some of His most helpful utterances. The songs of Mary and of Elisabeth, and the testimony of the prophetess Anna, are found nowhere but in the Third Gospel ; in Luke, for the first time, the mother of the Lord beoins to assume a wider province,—~she it is, and not Joseph, that ponders in her heart the words of her divine Son, and her sufferings are made the subject of inspired prophecy (ii. 35). Luke alone thinks it worth while to record at some length the names of those women who accom- panied Jesus and contributed to His support,‘ he alone knows of the devoted faith of tlary and the domestic anxieties of Martha; he alone records the cure of the afflicted “daughter of Abraham,” the truth-eliciting exclama- tion of the woman who invoked a blessing upon the womb that bare Him, the story of the woman who “loved much,” and the parable of the woman rejoicing over the lost piece