Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 10.djvu/833

Rh IN1‘ERN.~L Ev1Di:Nc.i~:.] of silver. Luke alone holds up the fate of Lot’s wife as a warning; nor do we ﬁnd in any other Gospel the touching utterance of Jesus to the weeping “daughters of Jerusalem.” The other synoptists concur with Luke in pronouncing a blessing on the man who gives up father or mother or lands or houses for Christ’s sake. and the sense of ﬁtness has induced the scribes of several MSS. to insert in Matthew and Mark the word “ wife” as well as “mother”; but it has no legitimate place except in the version of Luke. It is true indeed that Luke, so far from giving to women the prominent part assigned to them by Matthew and the interpolated Mark, and even by the Fourth Gospel, in attesting the resurrection of Jesus, carefully places their evidence in the background; but the evidence of impression- able witnesses might naturally be subordinated by a writer (perhaps a physician too) who was collecting the traditions of the church into an historical narrative. In any case, it is noteworthy that the word “ woman ” occurs in Luke almost as many times as in Matthew and Mark put together. Probably the most perplexing part of Luke’s doctrine is found in the parables of the unjust steward, the unjust judge, and the friend perisuaded by importunity. In the last two of these the argument appears to be,—“ If an un- just or indolent man can be goaded by importunity into granting requests, much more will assiduous prayer prevail with the Father in heaven;” in the first, “If the fraudulent show forethought in providing for their earthly future, much more should the children of light show forethought for their eternal future." Although it is quite possible that our Lord drewa contrast (with something of irony) between the single-mindedness of earthly ambition and the scattered energies of those whose aim is righteousness, yet it is diﬂi- enlt to believe that IIe uttered these parables in their pre- sent shape, or that they are entirely free from misunderstand- ing. The last two of these three parables (as they stand) seem at variance with His teaching in prayer, which bids us remember that the Father knoweth what things we need before we ask them; and the right moral to be drawn from the unjust judge would seem to be, “ Although the unjust judge may be won by iinportunity, do not suppose that iinportunity can prevail with the just Judge.” It is to be observed, however, that the language and style of these parables (differing from that of the Triple Tradition) make it somewhat improbable that we h:1ve here in Luke’s narrative the exact words of Jesus; see (36), (56), (62). As regards the great day and the coming of the Lord, Luke appears to distinguish (more than Matthew and Mark) between the ultimate coming and the fall of Jerusalem, which was to precede it. As Luke distributes the dis- courses which Matthew connects with the twelve into two parts,—one connected with the twelve and the other with the seventy, —so he distributes the discourse on the coming (which Matthew reports as one continuous discourse uttered at Jerusalem) into two parts,—one uttered at Jerusalem, and dealing principally with the fall of Jerusalem (xxi. 6-38), the other uttered on the way to Jerusalem, and expressed in more general terms (xvii. 20-37). As a preparation for the coming, Luke lays stress on constancy and directness of pur- pose. No man who puts his hand on the plough must look back (30); better not to begin the tower than leave the tower unfinished (53); remember Lot’s wife (61). The coming spoken of as possible at any moment—suddenly and without observation (60) ; and the disciples are exhorted to wait as servants for their master, with their loins girded (41 and 4-2), avoiding surfeit and drunkenness (71). When the master or king returns, ignorant disobedience will be less severely punished than the disobedience of knowledge (42); and those who have not increased the “ mina” or pound intrusted to them, will be less severely punished than the rebels (65), who will be slain. GOSPELS 809 Luke (like Matthew and Mark) predicts a time of trouble ; but he sees somewhat clearly, beyond it, the dawn which is to precede the rise of the kingdom. Destruction falls, not by chance, but on all that do not repent (45); all must strive to enter the strait gate (47), for not those that were first called shall enter in Much more clearly than in Matthew and in Mark is the future fall of Jerusalem described, as the result of a siege and capture; and the slaughter of the citizens, the scattering of the nation, and trampling down of the city are mentioned, with details for which we vainly look in the first two Gospels (59). It is not concealed that the disciples have much tribulation in store, and that they must use all prudence to protect them- selves (74). Buta term is set for all these troubles; Luke (omitting the remarkable saying of Matthew and Mark that the Son Himself knoweth not “ the hour ") declares that the trampling down of Jerusalem will be only till “the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Then will come a time of “ dis- tress,” not, however, now for Israel but for the Gentiles (G9) ; and amidst convulsions of nature the Son of Man will come. In the hope of this coming, the disciples are to lift up their heads (70), remembering that not a hair of their heads will be injured (68). Certainly the compara- tively cheerful tone of the discourse on the coming, com- bined with the joyful and triumphant tone of the ﬁrst two chapters of Luke’s Gospel, indicates an author writing at a time when the fall of Jerusalem was an accepted fact, and the establishment of a new and spiritual Jerusalem recog- nized as a sufficient consolation,—a time when the church, not yet troubled by systematic persecution or by serious desertion (Keim, Jesus of Nazara, Engl. ed., vol. i. p. 96), was still sanguinely looking forward to the moment when the times of the Gentiles should be fulﬁlled, and the Son of Man should suddenly come. The supernatural narratives peculiar to Luke, and found in the main body of his treatise, are the miraculous draught of ﬁshes, the raising of the widow’s son at Nain, tl:e healing of the woman bound by Satan, the cure of the dropsical man, and the appearance of the angel strengthen- ing Jesus,——(l8), (25), (46), (49), (75). The ﬁrst two suggest to many minds a symbolical interpretation, and raise the question whether they (and possibly some of the other miracles) may be einbleinatical rather than historical. This question cannot suitably be discussed in these pages; but one or two observations may be made. That Jesus wrought instantaneous cures cannot be contradicted, being proved by the whole texture of the Triple Tradition, as well as by the indirect testimony of Paul. That He also had the power of raising the dead no Jew could well doubt or dispute. Elijah had raised a child from the dead; still more notably Elisha, even when dead himself; some interpreting the prophet literally) said that Ezekiel (Ez. xxxvii. 7) had done the same. But whatever the inferior prophets had done He who was at once the Prophet and Messiah could not fail to do. Still less could heathen converts suppose that Jesus was inferior in power to ﬂisculapius. It was therefore certain that, whether the traditions and books of the church contained or omitted any record of a raising from the dead, the church would believe from the first that Jesus possessed and employed this power. Diﬂerent readers will give different weight to the considerations for and against the authenticity of Luke’s narrative of the raising of the widow’s son. Many will be so far inﬂuenced by the extreme beauty of the story (and perhaps by the fact that the custom of early burial among the Jews might reduce this, like the case of Jairus’s daughter, to the level of natural though marvellous events) as to believe that in it we have, not legend, but history ; but no one who can weigh evidence at all will maintain that the evidence for this miracle is equal to the evidence for the X. —— I02