A commentary, critical, expository, and practical, on the Gospel of Luke, for the use of ministers, theological students, private Christians, Bible classes, and Sabbath schools

Preface

The present volume, which constitutes the second of the Commen. taries on the four Gospels and the Acts, has been prepared and issued at as early a date as possible, in view of the daily official labors of the author. The commentary on John is in an advanced state of preparation, and will be published at no very distant period. The same general plan and style of annotation, which characterizes my commentary on Matthew and Mark, has been observed in the preparation of the present volume ; and I hope that no evidence will be furnished to the reader, tha^ I have passed over or evaded any difficulties either of an exegetical or practical nature, which need and with our limited powers are susceptible of explanation. I have sought also, as in the preceding volume, to avoid all technicalities, and abstruse terms, and to render the commentary easy of comprehension to the most plain and unlettered mind. At the same time, I would fain hope, that this element of plainness and perspicuity has not been secured at the sacrifice of thoroughness of exposition, and a full and free use of the canons of exegesis and laws of interpretation accepted by all scholars in every country.

It was my original design to have comprised the commentary on Luke and John in one volume. As I advanced, however, in the preparation of the notes, I became convinced that in thus doing, I should be obliged either to make a book of unwieldy and ungainly size, or so restrict my comments especially on John, as to make them little else than mere scholia, or results of philological reasoning, without reference to the manner in which these results were reached, or to the removal of difficulties and reply to objections, which are so often necessary to a full and enlightened view of a given passage. Through

IV PREFACE.

the liberal courtesy of my publishers, I therefore determined to issue these two gospels in separate volumes. This has enabled me to enlarge my commentary on Luke, and give more fulness to the notes on the parables and such other portions of his gospel as are peculiar to him.

Through an inadvertence which I can hardly account for, the word Saviour in my first volume was printed Savior. The orthography of the word is corrected in this volume.

The favor with which my commentary on Matthew and Mark has been received by ministers, editors, and private Christians of the various evangelical denominations, has given me great encouragement in the prosecution of my task. My hope is that the volume now offered to the Christian public, may be deserving of a like commendation. As has been before remarked, I have endeavored honestly to meet and explain to my best ability every passage ; and if I have failed, as I would not be so presumptive as to suppose I have not, in giving in every instance the mind of the Spirit, I would crave that indulgence, which is awarded to such as furnish evidence of having striven to the best of their ability to unfold the true meaning of the inspired "Word of God.

With these remarks, I commit this volume to my friends and the public, with the hope that it will furnish some assistance to the right understanding of the gospel of " the beloved physician," and render the reading of the same delightsome and profitable.

JOHN J. OWEN.

New Yobk, April 2, 1859.

PEEFACE TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

The Evangelist Luke is generally conceded to have been a native of Antioch in Syria, and to have been either a Jew by birth or by religion. It is the more probable supposition, that he was born a Pagan, and that he early became a Jewish proselyte, from which he was subsequently converted to Christianity. Prof. Stuart inclines to the belief, that he was of Jewish extraction, from his being a companion of Paul in many places, and particularly when he made his last visit at Jerusalem, previously to his being sent to Rome to be tried before Cesar. That Luke was Paul's companion in this most dangerous and critical period of his ministry, is quite evident from the fact that his narrative in this portion of the Acts, takes the form of the first person plural. But this is no proof that he was a Jew by birth ; and a reference to Col. 4 : 11, 14 would seem to place it beyond a question, that he did not belong to those who were of the circumcision. That he was of Gentile extraction seems clear also from his name Lucas, a shortened form for Lucanus, a name derived from the adjective Lucanian, of or belonging to the Lucani, an Italian people of Lower Italy.

The scope and structure of Luke's gospel, free on the one hand from those restricted local references, which mark Matthew's gospel as one particularly designed for the Jews, and on the other, from the special regard for Gentile readers, which characterize both Mark and John's gospel — this predominant feature of universality, as Alford well styles it, which characterizes his gospel — show very conclusively that if a Jew, he was as untrammelled by Jewish prejudices and local attachments to the land of his fathers, as was the great apostle to the Gentiles himself.

If he was a Gentile convert, it throws much light on his Preface to the gospel. It shows that he had experienced in his own case, the want of just such a free and untrammelled gospel, as he was preparing for his brethren the Gentile and Jewish converts, who resided at a distance from the scene of the events related in the life of Jesus.

VI PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

The argument drawn from Horn. 16 : 20, that he was the Lucius there mentioned, and if so, a Jew and related to the apostle, is hardly worth confutation. Lucius and Lucas are entirely different names, having not even an etymological affinity, the former being a Roman prcenomen or first name, the latter, a cognomen or surname.

Tradition makes Luke to have been one of the Seventy sent forth by our Lord (Luke 10 : 1), but this rests on too slender authorit}^ and seems to be contradicted by what he says in his Preface, that he compiled his gospel from what had been delivered unto him from eye-witnesses and ministers of the word ; the implication of which is, that he was not of the number of those who had personal knowledge of the facts of the gospel which he had compiled and given to the world. The tradition that Luke belonged to the Seventy, may have arisen from the fact, that he alone reported the mission of that band of disciples. It is evident from Col. 4 : 14, that the worldly calling of Luke was that of a physician.

For a considerable period of time, this Evangelist was a companion of Paul, to whom he seems to have attached himself at Troas, during his second missionary tour (Acts 16 : 10). This he indicates by the employment of the first person plural in his narrative. From that place he accompanied Paul into Macedonia. He seems to have remained at Philippi (Acts 16 : 4), while the apostle performed his missionary tour through Greece (Acts 17 : 1 — -18 : 18), and Proconsular Asia (Acts 18 : 18 — 19 : 41). When Paul returned to Philippi, and was about to set sail for Troas (Acts 20 : 6), Luke again joined his company, as is shown by the resumption of the first person plural. From this time he seems to have shared his labors, privations and dangers, until the apostle, driven by the fierce and unremitted persecutions of his Jewish enemies, felt himself constrained to appeal to Cesar, and was therefore sent under guard to Rome. Thither also Luke accompanied him (Acts 27 : 1), and doubtless tarried with him some length of time, and probably composed there the book of the Acts. He must have left Rome, however, before Paul had a hearing at the imperial tribunal, or he would, doubtless have informed us of that event and its issue. It appears from 2 Tim. 4 : 11, that Luke was with the apostle when he was brought before Nero the second time. He probably returned with him from Asia Minor, whither the apostle probably repaired after his liberation from Rome on his first citation.

Almost every thing pertaining to his history is from this point very obscure, and depends mainly on that most uncertain of all sources of information, traditionary accounts. In regard to these, we will refer only to the two which relate to his death ; the one of which and most to be relied upon makes him to have died a natural death ; the other tradition is that he suffered martyrdom.

PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Vll

As it regards the time and place where Luke's gospel was written, there is some diversity of opinion. The fact that it preceded the composition and publication of the Acts, which latter work must have been composed anterior to the time when Paul made his first answer to Nero, since that event, as has been remarked, would have been recorded, must place its publication somewhere between the time when Luke first joined the company of Paul (A. D. 50), and when they set sail for Rome (A. D. GO). In this space of time there are only two intervals, during which Luke may be supposed to have had leisure and opportunity to collect the materials of his gospel. One of these was while he remained at Philippi, a space of nearly seven years, until he again attached himself to the company of Paul on his return from Ephesus. The other interval of time was the two years, in which Paul was detained a prisoner at Cesarea (Acts 24 : 27). So rare an opportunity at this time would be furnished for gathering the materials of his gospel from eye-witnesses to the great facts of our Lord's ministry, that I cannot withhold my belief, that this was the time when the gospel of Luke was composed, and that Cesarea was probably the place where it was first published. I know that Alford and others are disposed to make Philippi the place of its compilation and publication ; but they are obliged to adopt, in view of his preface to the gospel, the very improbable conjecture that during his long sojourn at Philippi, he sailed into Palestine and there collected the materials for his work. How much more natural to suppose it to have been composed in Cesarea, where Luke would have such ample opportunity and time to travel about in Palestine, and see and converse with those who were personally conversant with the facts to be narrated. There is a tradition that, the gospel was published in Achaia, whither it had been transmitted from Cesarea about A. D. 59. Webster and Wilkinson incline to the belief that it was published at Corinth A. D. 58, the materials having been collected at Cesarea.

There can be hardly a doubt that Luke intended his gospel principally for Gentile readers, yet not so exclusively so, as Mark and John. Its dedication to Theophilus, a noble Gentile convert, who lived out of Palestine, and had not the means at his command of knowing the certainty of the things in which he had been instructed, is strong evidence of this. The genealogy of Christ traced back to Adam, and in the line of our Lord's real ancestry, shows that his gospel was not prepared, as was that of Matthew, exclusively or mainly for Hebrew Christians. Many acts and sayings of our Saviour having reference either directly or more remotely to the Gentiles, and which are passed over by Matthew, are carefully related by Luke.

Luke's gospel has much in it which is found recorded by no other Evangelist. The circumstances connected with the birth of Jesus

Vlll PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.

and that of his Forerunner, are given in the first and second chapters with great minuteness. Indeed almost all that we learn of the birth and childhood of Jesus is obtained from Luke. From 9 : 51 to 18 : 14, comprising the incidents and instructions of our Lord's final journey to Jerusalem, the whole narrative with a few trifling exceptions is peculiar to Luke. The parables of the lost sheep, the piece of silver, the prodigal son, the unjust steward, the rich man and Lazarus, the importunate widow, the Pharisee and publican, the fig-tree in the vineyard, the Good Samaritan, the creditor with two debtors, the visit to Zaccheus, the touching story of the walk to Emmaus, are recorded only by Luke and form a striking feature of his gospel.

The style in which this gospel is written bespeaks the man of ed- .ucation and accurate research. It was most unquestionably composed in Greek, and has fewer Hebraisms, and a freer range of Greek compounds and idiomatic forms of construction than the other gospels. Alford remarks : " The composition of the sentences is more studied and elaborate than in Matthew and Mark ; the Evangelist appears more frequently in the narrative, delivering his own estimation of men and things; — e. g. 7 : 29, 30 ; 16 : 14; 19 : 11, and in other places ; — he seems to love to recount instances of our Lord's tender compassion and mercy ; and in the report of his parables, e. g. in chap. XV., is particularly simple in diction, and calculated to attract and retain the attention of his readers." Olshausen also remarks, that Luke gives not so much the discourses, as the observations and occasional sayings of our Lord, with the replies of those who were present. This is evinced in those chapters pertaining to his last journey from Perea to Jerusalem. In addition to this it may be remarked that Luke's gospel takes a wider range and a more complete survey of our Lord's life and ministry than any of the others, beginning as it does with the circumstances attending the conception and birth of his Forerunner, and bringing down the narrative to the return of the disciples to the city after their Lord had ascended from Mount Olivet. In the synoptic portions of his gospel he is, however, generally less full than Matthew or Mark ; but even there his sketches are bold, striking, and graphic, so that the great features of the transactions recorded are brought out and impressed forcibly upon the mind of the reader.

On the whole, as I have remarked in my Preface to Matthew's gospel, the gospel of Luke may be regarded as supplementary to that of Matthew, and gives marked prominence to all those points which would be particularly instructive to a Gentile reader, living away from Palestine, and therefore being ignorant of many things which would be well known to those who dwelt in the country which was the honored scene of our Lord's earthly presence and ministry.

THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO LUKE.

CHAPTER I. FORASMUCH as many have taken in hand to set forth

CHAPTER I.

1-4. These verses contain the Preface to Luke's Gospel, addressed to Theophilus. Its brevity and somewhat artificial construction have invested it with some difficulties, which are not such, however, as to affect the general sense lying clearly discernible on the face of the passage. These difficulties and slight obscurities will be referred to in their proper place.

1. Forasmuch (or since now) introduces what follows, as the reason why Luke resolved to write his gospel. The statement of this is contained in vs. 1, 2. The conclusion to which he came in view of these considerations, is given in vs. 3, 4. Many. Reference is had to the authors of these narrations of the acts and sayings of Jesus, compiled with good intent, and doubtless containing much that was useful in the early days of the church, when oral communication was the main vehicle by which the facts of the gospel were spread' abroad and perpetuated. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark could not have been here referred to by Luke, inasmuch as the former was written by one who was an eye-witness, and Mark drew his materials directly from Peter, if he did not write, as is quite probable, under his immediate supervision. It is also quite doubtful whether Luke had seen these gospels at the time when he composed his own. Equally certain is it, that what are denominated the Apocryphal Gospels cannot be intended, for they were the offspring of a later age ; nor could such puerilities, as constitute the greater portion of these gospels, be classed with the narratives spoken of here by Luke in terms of high commendation.

in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Have taken in hand, i. e. have undertaken. The failure of these persons in the execution of their task, is thought to be hinted at in this form of expression. But this is an unwarrantable inference. Nothing more is meant than the simple undertaking of the task, without reference to its failure or success. The whole scope of the preface, however, shows that in Luke's estimation these disjointed and fragmentary narratives did not supply the wants of the church, and especially of such persons as Theophilus, who, living at a distance from the scene of the events, would be more likely to be imposed upon by fallacious statements, or confused and perplexed by contradictions and inconsistencies, than others having better opportunities for arriving at the truth, by their intimacy with those who had themselves seen our Lord, or had become well acquainted with the facts of his history from persons who had enjoyed that privilege. To set forth in order a declaration; more literally, to arrange or compose a history. The verb implies an arrangement of facts from materials already prepared to one's hand. These materials were supplied from the accounts given by the apostles and others who had been with Jesus. Histories composed however in this way, were in danger of being fragmentary and confused, and such, it is intimated, were those referred to in this verse. For with these desultory and disconnected accounts is contrasted Luke's gospel, drawn up with a perfect understanding of all things from the very first, and written with an orderly arrangement of all the essential facts of our Lord's ministry. It is well remarked by 01s-

LUKE,

2 a Even as they delivered tnem unto ns, which *from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word ; oHe.2:3; lPe.5:l; 2Pe.l:16; 1 John 1:1.

hausen, that, " as this Preface must be viewed as introductory to Luke's whole work (the Acts of the apostles being regarded as a second part of the Gospel), the expression, things fully believed among us, applies to more than the period of our Lord's earthly sojourn, embracing also the progress of the church up to the time when Luke wrote." Which are most surely believed among us ; literally, of the things fully established among us (or in our estimation). The belief in these reported acts and sayings of Jesus, is represented as based on the surest evidence, and the implication is that such evidence is of the highest necessity from the otherwise incredible nature of our Lord's miracles. It is here positively asserted, that the great facts of Christ's life, as given in the compilations referred to, were fully believed by Luke and his fellow- Christians.

2. This verse is closely connected with the preceding, as denoting the ground of the confidence entertained by Luke and others in the narratives referred to. Even. A better translation would be inasmuch as, since the adverb introduces this clause, as furnishing a reason for the belief just spoken of. Delivered orally and in writing. The relative which does not refer to us, but to they, i. e. the apostles who were eye-witnesses to the great facts of the gospel, and others also who were actors in the establishment of the Christian Church, and many of whom had seen and conversed with our Lord. These were the vouchers to the truth of the things reported abroad and believed by the Christians of those days. From the beginning, i. e. from the very birth and childhood of Jesus. Some erroneously limit this to the commencement of Christ's public ministry. But the sense in which Luke employs the expression, may be gathered from the commence-

3 c It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, ment of his own gospel, with the birth and childhood of Jesus and John the Baptist. Eye-witnesses, however, can refer to the apostles and disciples of Jesus, only in relation to those events which took place in the time of our Lord's public ministry, the previous occurrences, especially those which related to the birth and childhood of Jesus and John, being known from Mary and others conversant with them. Ministers of the word (i. e. of the gospel), refers here to the apostles, and perhaps to the evangelists or apostolic assistants. See Acts 13: 5. Some take word here in the sense of the Eternal Word or Logos, but this specific and peculiar use of the term is confined to John's writings.

3. Jr seemed good, &c. The effect produced upon Luke's mind by these defective narratives is here given. He was incited thereby himself to write on this subject, having, as he claimed, peculiar qualifications and facilities for the task, from the perfect knowledge of all the things relating thereto, to which he had attained. To me also. " Luke by this classes himself with the 'many,' and shows that he intended no disparagement nor blame to them, and was going to construct his history from similar sources." Alford. Having had 'perfect understanding ; literally, have traced or followed along accurately, so as to be fully acquainted with the subject. This verb is employed both of one who is personally acquainted with the things related, and one who has received accurate information of them from others. From the very first, i. e. from the very beginning or source. This is a different word from the one in v. 2, translated from the beginning, being more emphatic, and denoting in this respect a superiority in Luke's narrative over the one previously referred to. From its literal signification, from

CHAPTER I.

to -write unto thee rf in order, e most excellent Tlieopliilus, above, it is referred by some critics to the divine inspiration of Luke's gospel. But such a use of the word here is inapposite, and overlooks the antithesis between this and the words, from the beginning, in v. 2. The word all things, refers to all things of importance, such as Luke deemed essential to his narrative. Perfect in our common version is an adjective, but in the original is an adverb, signifying with strict exactness, accurately. The word in order, refers to the arrangement of the facts of the history in a connected form, not so much chronologically, however, as in reference to the general plan or outline of the work. Luke, like the other evangelists, often disregards the order of time, and groups together his incidents from their general resemblance, or to produce a given effect on the mind of his reader. Olshausen says that the word refers only to the chronology, which Luke intended to observe in the main, but from which in minute details he deviated. But chronological order is not the only or principal signification of the word, and such a meaning ought not to be forced upon this passage, the whole narrative showing, as it docs, a disregard, on the part of Luke, for the order of time. An orderly arrangement of the facts is all that is intended, and this stands opposed to the fragmentary and disjointed character of the narratives referred to in vs. 1, 2. Most excellent, not necessarily in a moral sense, since the epithet is applied to both Felix and Festus (Acts 23 : 26 ; 24 : 3 ; 26 : 25). It refers rather to official dignity, and is applied to any person of rank and authority. In this instance, however, it is expressive also of the moral excellence of Theophilus. As to who this person was, we have no means of knowing. He was doubtless some person of rank and distinction, who lived out of Palestine, and had become a convert to Christianity. Olshausen conjectures

4 -'That thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.

that he was a resident of Rome, but others, with more reason, refer his abode to Greece or Proconsular Asia. The name signifies a lover of God, or beloved of God ; and hence it was regarded by some of the old interpreters as a mere appellative, under which the gospel was dedicated to all in every place, who loved and were beloved of God. But this opinion is now generally given up. The epithet, most excellent, is of itself sufficient to condemn such an interpretation.

4. Luke here assigns the reason for the composition of his gospel. It was that Theophilus, and by implication all others, who would inform themselves in regard to the origin of Christianity, and the facts and principles on which it was based, might have the means and opportunity thus to do. Mightest know. The original is intensive ; mightest know thoroughly, reach the full knowledge of It implies that from the imperfect narratives referred to in vs. 1, 2, no one could get an accurate and connected view of Christ's life and ministry. The certainty, i. e. the whole truth. Hast been instructed. The etymology of the verb refers it to oral instruction, from which is derived our words catechism, catcchist, and to catechize. Copies of written works were so few and expensive, that oral instruction was the principal means of disseminating truth. Especially was this true, before the gospels were composed and given to the church. In this way had Theophilus been instructed in Christianity. He had received its rudiments as a catechumen. But the knowledge which he and others had thus received, was necessarily limited and imperfect. Oral teaching was the great instrument of diffusing the knowledge of Christ in the early days of the church. But had not the gospels been fully and accurately committed to Avriting, as great and abiding landmarks, oral instruction would have been found inadequate to

LUKE.

5 f npHEKE was ' in the days

1 of Herod the king of

Judea, a certain priest named

Zacharias, h of the course of Abia :

preserve the truth unadulterated and consistent, as the times were more and more remote from the age in which Jesus lived and suffered.

We learn from this Preface to Luke's gospel, that inspiration does not suspend the use and exercise of the mental powers. Luke was not a mere amanuensis, for he tells us that he has accurately traced down from their very source the truths he had written. In this investigation he was, however, under the guiding, superintending influence of God's Spirit, so that he made just such a selection and arrangement of facts, as best subserved the purpose for which the gospel was written. His general style, his choice of words, and the plan and arrangement of the work, were his own, and yet so interpenetrated were they by the Spirit, that it must be said of him, in the words of Peter (2 Pet. I : 21), that " he spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost."

6-25. An Angel appears to Zacharias in the Temple. Jerusalem. Here properly commences Luke's gospel, the preceding verses constituting what may be called the Preface. The reader will perceive at once, an alteration in the style, the construction being more simple, and abounding to a greater or less extent in Hebraisms. The whole gospel, however, bears marks of a careful and scholarly writer, and redeems the promise of accurate research and orderly arrangement made in the preface.

5. In the days, &c. See N. on Matt. 2 : 1. Eras in the Old and New Testament, are marked by the life or times of some principal man. Thus in 4: 25, "in the days of Elias ; " and v. 27, "in the time of Eliseus." A certain priest. Some expositors think that Zacharias was, at this time, the high priest. But and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

6 And they were both r right-

the epithet certain, forbids this, as also does the fact, that he belonged to one of the ordinary courses of priests doing temple service. Zacharias : whom Jehovah remembers. So Elisabeth : God her oath, or, my God hath sworn. The significancy of these names, borne by persons so intimately related to the Messianic times, is worthy of note. Hie course of Abia was the eighth in order of the twenty-four classes, into which David (1 Chron. 24: 1, 2) divided the posterity of Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron. Only four of these classes returned from the captivity, but from these was instituted the full number of classes, and their ancient order and names were retained. See Ezra 2 : 36-39 ; Neh. 1 : 39-42 ; 1 2 : 1. The word rendered course, literally signifies, daily service, and hence was naturally transferred to the order or class of priests who officiated, of which courses, as has been remarked, there were twenty-four. "Each course attended two sabbaths and the six intervening days ; so that on the Sabbath two courses officiated." Webster and Wilkinson. And his wife, &c. Luke is careful to show that both Zacharias and his wife were of the priestly line. Thus the family of John, as well as that of our Lord, was shown to be of illustrious origin. Josephus (Life, § 1) remarks, that to be of sacerdotal dignity, was with the Jews an indication of the splendor of a family.