Introduction
The Personality of the Gospel Writer
The Origin of the Gospel according to Luke
The Occasion and Purpose, Place and Time of Writing the Gospel
On the Authenticity and Integrity of the Gospel according to Luke
The Content of the Gospel
The Plan of the Gospel
The Personality of the Gospel Writer
The evangelist Luke, according to accounts preserved by certain ancient Church writers (Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, and others), was born in Antioch. His name is, in all probability, a shortened form of the Roman name Lucilius. Was he by origin a Jew or a pagan? To this question is answered by that passage from the Letter to the Colossians, where the apostle Paul distinguishes Luke from those of the circumcision (Col 4:11-14) and consequently testifies that Luke was of pagan origin. One can confidently presume that before he entered the Church of Christ, Luke was a Jewish proselyte, since he was very well acquainted with Jewish customs. By his civil profession Luke was a physician (Col 4:14), and Church tradition, though rather late, says that he was also engaged in painting (Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulus, “Ecclesiastical History”). When and how he converted to Christ is unknown. The tradition that he belonged to the number of the 70 apostles of Christ (Epiphanius, Adversus haereses, LI, 12, and others) cannot be considered trustworthy in light of Luke’s own clear statement, in which he does not include himself among the witnesses of Christ’s life (Luke 1:1 and following). He appeared for the first time as companion and helper of the apostle Paul during Paul’s second missionary journey. This took place in Troas, where Luke may have been living previously (Acts 16:8 and following). Then he was with Paul in Macedonia (Acts 16:10 and following) and during the third journey in Troas, Miletus, and other places (Acts 24:23; Col 4:14; Phlm 1:24). He accompanied Paul to Rome (Acts 27:1-28; compare 2 Tim 4:10). After that, information about him ceases in the New Testament writings, and only comparatively late tradition (Gregory the Theologian) reports of his martyr’s death; his relics, according to the testimony of Jerome (“De viris illustribus”, VII), were transferred under the emperor Constantius from Achaia to Constantinople.
The Origin of the Gospel according to Luke
According to the testimony of the evangelist himself (Luke 1:1-4), he composed his Gospel on the basis of the tradition of eyewitnesses and the study of written attempts at setting forth this tradition, striving to give a comparatively detailed and properly arranged account of the events of Gospel history. The works with which the evangelist Luke made use were compiled on the basis of apostolic tradition, but nevertheless they seemed to him insufficient for the purpose he had when composing his Gospel. One of such sources, and perhaps even the main source, was the Gospel according to Mark. It is even said that a huge part of Luke’s Gospel is in literary dependence on Mark’s Gospel (this is what Weiss precisely demonstrated in his work on Mark’s Gospel through comparison of the texts of both Gospels).
Some critics have attempted to place Luke’s Gospel in dependence on Matthew’s Gospel, but these attempts proved extremely unsuccessful, and nowadays are almost never repeated. If anything can be said with certainty, it is that in certain places the evangelist Luke uses a source that agrees with Matthew’s Gospel. This must be said primarily about the history of the childhood of Jesus Christ. The character of the presentation of this history, and the very speech of the Gospel in this section, strongly reminiscent of Jewish literary works, compel one to suppose that Luke here used a Jewish source that stood quite close to the history of the childhood of Jesus Christ as recounted in Matthew’s Gospel.
Finally, even in ancient times it was suggested that the evangelist Luke, as a companion of the apostle Paul, set forth the “Gospel” of that very apostle (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, III, 1, 7; Eusebius of Caesarea, “Ecclesiastical History”, II, 22, 5). Although this suggestion is very probable and agrees with the character of Luke’s Gospel, which apparently deliberately selected those narratives that could demonstrate the general and fundamental idea of Paul’s Gospel about the salvation of the Gentiles, nevertheless Luke’s own statement (Luke 1:1 and following) does not point to this source.
The Occasion and Purpose, Place and Time of Writing the Gospel
The Gospel according to Luke (and the Book of Acts) was written for a certain Theophilus, to give him the opportunity to be convinced that the Christian teaching transmitted to him rests on solid foundations. Many conjectures were made about the origin, profession, and place of residence of this Theophilus, but all these conjectures do not have sufficient basis. One can only say that Theophilus was a man of rank, since Luke calls him “most excellent” (κράτιστε [Luke 1:3] literally means “mightiest.” – Editor’s note), and from the character of the Gospel, standing close to the character of the teaching of the apostle Paul, it naturally follows that Theophilus was converted to Christianity by the apostle Paul and probably was previously a pagan. One can also accept the testimony of the “Clementine Recognitions” (a writing attributed to Clement of Rome, X, 71) that Theophilus was a resident of Antioch. Finally, from the fact that in the Book of Acts, written for the same Theophilus, Luke does not explain the places mentioned in the story of the apostle Paul’s journey to Rome (Acts 28:12-13), one can conclude that Theophilus was well acquainted with these places and probably had traveled to Rome more than once himself. But there is no doubt that Luke wrote the Gospel not for Theophilus alone, but for all Christians who found it important to become familiar with the history of Christ’s life in such a systematic and verified form as is presented in Luke’s Gospel.
That the Gospel according to Luke was in any case written for a Christian or, more accurately, for Christians from among the Gentiles, is clearly seen from the fact that the evangelist nowhere presents Jesus Christ as the Messiah expected by the Jews and does not aim at showing in Christ’s activity and teaching the fulfillment of messianic prophecies. Instead we find in the third Gospel repeated indications that Christ is the Redeemer of all mankind and that the Gospel is intended for all peoples. Such a thought is expressed already by the righteous elder Simeon (II, 31 and following), and then runs through the genealogy of Christ, which in the evangelist Luke’s account is traced back to Adam, the progenitor of all humanity, and which consequently shows that Christ belongs not to the Jewish people alone, but to all humanity. Then, when beginning to depict Christ’s activity in Galilee, the evangelist Luke places in the foreground the rejection of Christ by his fellow citizens—the inhabitants of Nazareth, in which the Lord indicated a characteristic trait of the attitude of the Jews toward the prophets in general—an attitude by which the prophets departed from the Jewish land to the Gentiles or showed their favor to the Gentiles (Elijah and Elisha—Luke 4:25-27). In the Sermon on the Mount the evangelist Luke does not cite Christ’s sayings about his relation to the law (Luke 6:20-49) and Pharisaic righteousness, but in his instruction to the apostles omits the prohibition to the apostles to preach to the Gentiles and Samaritans (Luke 9:1-6). On the contrary, he alone tells of the grateful Samaritan, of the merciful Samaritan, of Christ’s disapproval of the immoderate irritation of the disciples against the Samaritans who did not receive Christ. To this also belong various parables and sayings of Christ, in which there is great similarity with that teaching about righteousness by faith which the apostle Paul proclaimed in his Epistles written to churches composed chiefly of Gentiles.
The influence of the apostle Paul and the desire to explain the universality of the salvation brought by Christ undoubtedly had great influence on the choice of material for the composition of the Gospel according to Luke. However, there is not the slightest reason to suppose that the writer conducted purely subjective views in his work and departed from historical truth. On the contrary, we see that he gives place in his Gospel to such narratives as undoubtedly arose in the Jewish-Christian circle (the history of Christ’s childhood). It is therefore in vain that critics attribute to him the desire to adapt Jewish ideas about the Messiah to the views of the apostle Paul (Zeller) or the desire to exalt Paul before the twelve apostles and Paul’s teaching before Jewish Christianity (Baur, Hilgenfeld). This supposition is contradicted by the content of the Gospel, which contains many sections that go counter to such supposed desire of Luke (this is first of all the history of the nativity of Christ and His childhood, and then Luke 4:16-30 and following, Luke 13:1-5 and others). To reconcile his supposition with the existence of such sections in Luke’s Gospel, Baur had to resort to a new supposition, that in its present form Luke’s Gospel is the work of some person living later (an editor). Holsten, seeing in Luke’s Gospel a union of Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels, supposes that Luke intended to unite the Jewish-Christian and Pauline views, excluding from them the Judaistic and extreme Pauline elements. This same view of Luke’s Gospel, as a work pursuing purely conciliatory aims of two warring directions in the Early Church, continues to exist in the newest criticism of apostolic writings. Joh. Weiss in his preface to the commentary on Luke’s Gospel (2nd ed. 1907) concludes that this Gospel cannot by any means be recognized as pursuing the aim of elevating Paulinism. Luke displays his complete “impartiality”, and if there are frequent agreements in his thoughts and expressions with the Epistles of the apostle Paul, this is explained only by the fact that by the time Luke wrote his Gospel, these Epistles were already widely circulated in all churches. The love of Christ for sinners, on whose manifestations the evangelist Luke so often dwells, is not something particularly characterizing Paul’s conception of Christ; on the contrary, all Christian tradition represented Christ as being precisely this kind, loving sinners...
The time of writing the Gospel according to Luke among some ancient writers was referred to a very early period in the history of Christianity—even to the time of the activity of the apostle Paul, but the newest commentators in most cases assert that Luke’s Gospel was written not long before the destruction of Jerusalem: at the time when the two-year sojourn of the apostle Paul in Roman imprisonment came to an end. There is, however, an opinion supported by rather authoritative scholars (for example, B. Weiss) that the Gospel according to Luke was written after the year 70, that is, after the destruction of Jerusalem. This opinion attempts to find its basis, principally in the 21st chapter of Luke’s Gospel (Luke 21:24 and following), where the destruction of Jerusalem is supposedly regarded as an event already accomplished. And apparently in agreement with this is the idea Luke has of the condition of the Christian Church as being in a very oppressed state (compare Luke 6:20 and following). However, according to Weiss’s own conviction, one cannot place the origin of the Gospel and further back than the 70s (as do, for example, Baur and Zeller, who place the origin of Luke’s Gospel in 110–130 AD, or as Hilgenfeld, Keim, Volkmar—in 100 AD). Regarding this opinion of Weiss one can say that it contains nothing improbable and indeed may possibly find basis in the testimony of the holy bishop Irenaeus, who says that the Gospel according to Luke was written after the death of the apostles Peter and Paul (“Against Heresies”, III, 1).
Where the Gospel according to Luke was written—nothing definite is known about this from tradition. According to some it was Achaia, according to others—Alexandria or Caesarea. Some point to Corinth, others—to Rome, as the place of writing the Gospel, but all this is merely conjecture.
On the Authenticity and Integrity of the Gospel according to Luke
The writer of the Gospel does not name himself, but ancient Church tradition unanimously names the apostle Luke as the writer of the third Gospel (Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, III, 1, 1; Origen in Eusebius, “Ecclesiastical History”, VI, 25, and others. See also the Muratorian Canon). In the Gospel itself there is nothing that would prevent accepting this testimony of tradition. If opponents of authenticity point out that the apostolic fathers do not cite passages from it at all, this circumstance can be explained by the fact that among the apostolic fathers it was customary to be guided more by oral tradition about the life of Christ than by writings about him. Moreover, the Gospel of Luke, as having, judging by its title, first of all a private purpose, could precisely be regarded by the apostolic fathers as a private document. Only later did it acquire the significance of a general guide for the study of Gospel history. The newest criticism still does not agree with the testimony of tradition and does not recognize Luke as the writer of the Gospel. The basis for doubting the authenticity of Luke’s Gospel for critics (for example, for Joh. Weiss) is the circumstance that the author of the Gospel must necessarily be recognized as the one who compiled the Acts of the Apostles: this is shown not only by the title of the Acts (Acts 1:1), but also by the style of both books. Meanwhile criticism asserts that the Book of Acts was not written by Luke himself or in general not by a companion of the apostle Paul, but by a person living considerably later, who uses in the second part of the book only records that remained from a companion of the apostle Paul (see, for example, Acts 16:10: we...). Evidently this supposition put forward by Weiss arises with the question about the authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles and therefore cannot be discussed here. As regards the integrity of Luke’s Gospel, critics have long held the view that not all of Luke’s Gospel comes from this writer, but that there are sections in it inserted by a later hand. They therefore sought to distinguish the so-called “Proto-Luke” (Scholten). But the majority of new commentators maintain that Luke’s Gospel all, in its complete form, represents the work of Luke. The objections raised by Johann Weiss in his commentary on Luke’s Gospel can hardly shake the conviction in a rational person that Luke’s Gospel in all its sections represents a completely unified work of one author. (Some of these objections will be discussed in the commentary on Luke’s Gospel.)
The Content of the Gospel
As regards the selection and arrangement of Gospel events, the evangelist Luke, like Matthew and Mark, divides these events into two groups, one of which comprises Christ’s activity in Galilee, and the other His activity in Jerusalem. Moreover Luke greatly abbreviates some of the accounts contained in the first two Gospels, while presenting many accounts that are not found in those Gospels at all. Finally, even those accounts in his Gospel that are a reproduction of what is found in the first two Gospels, he groups and modifies according to his own fashion.
Like the evangelist Matthew, Luke begins his Gospel with the very first moments of New Testament revelation. In the first three chapters he depicts:
a) the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the birth and circumcision of John the Baptist and the circumstances that accompanied them (Luke 1);
b) the history of the birth, circumcision, and presentation of Christ in the temple, and then Christ’s appearance in the temple when He was a 12-year-old boy (Luke 2);
c) the appearance of John the Baptist as the Forerunner of the Messiah, the descent of the Holy Spirit on Christ at the time of His baptism, the age of Christ at that time, and His genealogy (Luke 3).
The depiction of the messianic activity of Christ is divided in Luke’s Gospel quite clearly into three parts as well. The first part comprises Christ’s activity in Galilee (Luke 4:1-9:50), the second contains Christ’s speeches and miracles during His prolonged journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51-19:27), and the third contains the history of the completion of Christ’s messianic ministry in Jerusalem (Luke 19:28-24:53).
In the first part, where the evangelist Luke follows the evangelist Mark both in the choice and sequence of events, several omissions from Mark’s account are made. Specifically omitted are: Mark 3:20-30—the malicious judgments of the Pharisees about Christ’s casting out of demons; Mark 6:17-29—the account of the Baptist being thrown into prison and put to death and then everything that Mark presents (as also Matthew) from the history of Christ’s activity in northern Galilee and Perea (Mark 6:44-8:27 and following). Directly after the miracle of feeding the people (Luke 9:10-17) is attached the account of Peter’s confession and the first prediction by the Lord of His sufferings (Luke 9:18 and following). On the other hand, the evangelist Luke instead of the account of the calling of Simon and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee to follow Christ (Mark 1:16-20; compare Matt 4:18-22) tells of the miraculous catch of fish, as a result of which Peter and his companions left their occupation to follow Christ constantly (Luke 5:1-11), and instead of the account of Christ’s rejection in Nazareth (Mark 6:1-6; compare Matt 13:54-58) he places an account of the same content when describing Christ’s first visit as the Messiah to His native city (Luke 4:16-30). Further, after the calling of the 12 apostles Luke places in his Gospel the following sections not found in Mark’s Gospel: the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:20-49), but in a briefer form than it is presented in Matthew’s Gospel, the Baptist’s question to the Lord about His messiahship (Luke 7:18-35), and inserted between these two sections the account of the raising of the young man of Nain (Luke 7:11-17), then the history of Christ being anointed at a meal in the house of the Pharisee Simon (Luke 7:36-50), and the names of the Galilean women who served Christ with their property (Luke 8:1-3).
Such closeness of Luke’s Gospel to Mark’s Gospel is undoubtedly explained by the fact that both evangelists wrote their Gospels for Christians from among the Gentiles. Both evangelists also show a striving to depict Gospel events not in their exact chronological sequence, but to give as complete and clear a presentation as possible of Christ as the founder of the Messianic Kingdom. Luke’s deviations from Mark can be explained by his desire to give more space to those accounts that Luke borrows from tradition, as well as by his striving to group and present the facts communicated to Luke by eyewitnesses, so that his Gospel presents not only a picture of Christ, His life and deeds, but also His teaching about the Kingdom of God, expressed in His speeches and conversations both with His disciples and with His opponents.
To carry out systematically such an intention the evangelist Luke places between the two, primarily historical parts of his Gospel—the first and the third—a middle part (Luke 9:51-19:27), in which conversations and speeches predominate, and in this part he presents speeches and events that according to other Gospels took place at a different time. Some commentators (for example, Meyer, Godet) see in this section an exact chronological arrangement of events, basing themselves on the words of the evangelist Luke himself, who promised to present everything “in order” (καθ´ ἑξῆς—Luke 1:3). But such a supposition is hardly sound. Although the evangelist Luke says that he wants to write “in order,” this does not at all mean that he wants to give in his Gospel only a chronicle of Christ’s life. On the contrary, he set as his goal to give Theophilus through an accurate presentation of Gospel history complete confidence in the truthfulness of the teachings in which he had been instructed. The evangelist Luke did preserve the general consecutive order of events: Gospel history in his account begins with the birth of Christ and even with the birth of His Forerunner, then comes the depiction of Christ’s public ministry, with moments indicated when Christ’s teaching about Himself as the Messiah is revealed, and finally the entire history ends with the presentation of the events of the last days of Christ’s sojourn on earth. But there was no need to list in consecutive order everything that Christ accomplished from His baptism to His ascension—for the purpose Luke had, it was sufficient to present the events of Gospel history in a certain grouping. This intention of the evangelist Luke is evidenced also by the fact that the majority of the sections of the second part are connected to one another not by exact chronological indications, but by simple transitional formulas: “it happened” (Luke 11:1), “and it came to pass” (Luke 10:38), “and behold” (Luke 10:25), “and he said” (Luke 12:54), and others, or by simple connectives: “and,” “moreover” (δέ—Luke 11:29). These transitions were made clearly not to determine the time of events, but only their setting. One cannot fail to note also that the evangelist describes here events that occurred sometimes in Samaria (Luke 9:52), sometimes in Bethany, not far from Jerusalem (Luke 10:38), and sometimes again somewhere far from Jerusalem (Luke 13:31), in Galilee—in a word, these are events of different times, not only those that occurred during Christ’s last journey to Jerusalem at Passover of the passion.
Finally, in the third section as well (Luke 19:28-24:53) the evangelist Luke sometimes departs from the chronological order of events in the interest of his grouping of facts (for example, he places Peter’s denial before the trial of Christ before the high priest). Here the evangelist Luke again follows Mark’s Gospel as the source of his narratives, supplementing his account with information drawn from another, unknown to us source.
The Plan of the Gospel
According to the purpose he had outlined—to provide a basis for faith in the teaching that had already been transmitted to Theophilus, the evangelist Luke planned all the content of his Gospel in such a way that it indeed leads the reader to the conviction that the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished the salvation of all mankind, that He fulfilled all the promises of the Old Testament about the Messiah as the Savior not only of the Jewish people, but of all peoples. Naturally, to achieve the goal he set before him, it was not necessary for the evangelist Luke to give his Gospel the appearance of a chronicle of Gospel events, but rather to group all events in such a way as to produce the desired impression on the reader.
The plan of the evangelist becomes evident already in the introduction to the history of the messianic ministry of Christ (Luke 1-3). In the account of the conception and birth of Christ it is mentioned that an Angel announced to the All-Holy Virgin the birth of a Son, whom She would conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit and who would therefore be the Son of God, and by flesh—the Son of David, who would forever occupy the throne of his father David. The birth of Christ as the birth of the promised Redeemer is proclaimed by an Angel to the shepherds. At the presentation of Christ-the-infant in the temple His high dignity is testified to by the Spirit-inspired elder Simeon and the prophetess Anna. Jesus Himself, still a 12-year-old boy, already declares that He must be in the temple as in the house of His Father. At Christ’s baptism in the Jordan He receives heavenly testimony that He is the beloved Son of God, having received the full measure of gifts of the Holy Spirit for His messianic ministry. Finally, His genealogy presented in chapter 3, tracing back to Adam and God, testifies that He is the progenitor of new humanity, born from God through the Holy Spirit.
Then in the first part of the Gospel is given a depiction of Christ’s messianic ministry, which is accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in Christ (Luke 4:1). By the power of the Holy Spirit Christ gains victory over the devil in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-13), and then appears in this “power of the Spirit” in Galilee, and in Nazareth, His native city, declares Himself to be the Anointed One and Redeemer, of whom the prophets of the Old Testament had foretold. Not finding faith in Himself there, He reminds His unbelieving fellow citizens that God had already in the Old Testament prepared the reception of prophets among the Gentiles (Luke 4:14-30). After this event, which had significance as a foretoken of the future attitude of the Jews toward Christ, there follows a series of deeds accomplished by Christ in Capernaum and its surroundings: healing a demon-possessed person by the power of Christ’s word in the synagogue, healing Simon’s mother-in-law and other sick and demon-possessed people who were brought and brought to Christ (Luke 4:31-44), a miraculous catch of fish, healing a leper. All this is depicted as events that caused the spread of reports about Christ and the arrival at Christ of whole masses of people who came to hear Christ’s teaching and brought with them their sick in the hope that Christ would heal them (Luke 5:1-16). Then follows a group of incidents that provoked opposition to Christ from the Pharisees and scribes: the forgiveness of sins of the healed paralytic (Luke 5:17-26), the declaration at a meal with a tax collector that Christ came to save not the righteous, but sinners (Luke 5:27-32), the vindication of Christ’s disciples for not observing fasts, based on the fact that the Bridegroom-Messiah is with them (Luke 5:33-39), and in the violation of the Sabbath, based on the fact that Christ is the lord of the Sabbath, and confirmed by a miracle that Christ performed on the Sabbath over the man with the withered hand (Luke 6:1-11). But while these deeds and declarations of Christ irritated His opponents to the point that they began thinking about how to seize Him, He chose from among His disciples 12 to be apostles (Luke 6:12-16), proclaimed from the mountain aloud to all the people following Him the fundamental principles upon which the Kingdom of God that He was establishing should be built (Luke 6:17-49), and after descending from the mountain, not only fulfilled the request of a pagan centurion for the healing of his servant, because the centurion showed such faith in Christ as Christ had not found even in Israel (Luke 7:1-10), but also raised the son of the widow of Nain, after which all the people who followed the funeral procession glorified him as a prophet sent by God to the chosen people (Luke 7:11-17).
An embassy from John the Baptist to Christ with the question whether He is the Messiah impelled Christ to point to His deeds as testimony to His Messianic dignity and at the same time to rebuke the people for their distrust of John the Baptist and of Him, Christ. In doing this Christ makes a distinction between those listeners who desire to hear from Him an indication of the way to salvation, and those who are a huge multitude and who do not believe in Him (Luke 7:18-35). The subsequent sections, in accordance with the evangelist’s intention to show the difference among the Jews who listened to Christ, present a series of facts that illustrate such a division in the people and together the attitude of Christ toward the people, toward its different parts, in accordance with their attitude toward Christ, namely: the anointing of Christ by a repentant sinful woman and the behavior of the Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50), mention of the Galilean women who served Christ with their property (Luke 8:1-3), the parable of the different qualities of the field on which sowing is done with an indication of the hardening of the people (Luke 8:4-18), Christ’s relation to His own family (Luke 8:19-21), the crossing to the land of the Gadarenes, in which the little faith of the disciples was revealed, and the healing of a demon-possessed person, with a contrast marked between the dull indifference shown by the Gadarenes toward the miracle accomplished by Christ and the gratitude of the healed person (Luke 8:22-39), the healing of the woman with a flow of blood and the raising of the daughter of Jairus, because both the woman and Jairus showed their faith in Christ (Luke 8:40-56). Then follow the events told in chapter 9, which had as their aim the strengthening of Christ’s disciples in faith: the empowerment of the disciples to cast out demons and heal the sick together with instructions about how they should act during their preaching journey (Luke 9:1-6), indicating how the tetrarch Herod understood the activity of Jesus (Luke 9:7-9), the feeding of five thousand, by which Christ showed the apostles returning from their journey His power to render help in every need (Luke 9:10-17), the question of Christ about whom the people and the disciples consider Him to be, with Peter’s confession on behalf of all the apostles: “You are the Christ of God,” and then Christ’s prediction of His rejection by the representatives of the people and His death and resurrection, as well as an exhortation directed to the disciples to imitate Him in self-sacrifice, for which He will reward them at His second glorious coming (Luke 9:18-27), the transfiguration of Christ, which gave His disciples the ability to gaze with their eyes into His future glorification (Luke 9:28-36), the healing of a demon-possessed lunatic boy—whom Christ’s disciples could not heal because of the weakness of their faith—which resulted in the people’s joyful glorification of God. At this point, however, Christ once again pointed out to His disciples the fate awaiting Him, and they proved lacking in understanding regarding such a clear statement made by Christ (Luke 9:37-45).
This inability of the disciples, despite their confession of Christ’s Messiahship, to understand His prophecy about His death and resurrection, had its basis in the fact that they still remained in those conceptions about the Messiah’s Kingdom that had developed among Jewish scribes, who understood the messianic Kingdom as an earthly, political kingdom, and at the same time testified to how weak was still their knowledge about the nature of the Kingdom of God and its spiritual blessings. Therefore, according to Luke’s Gospel, Christ devoted the remaining time until His solemn entry into Jerusalem to teaching His disciples precisely these most important truths about the nature of the Kingdom of God, about its kind and spread (the second part), about what is required to attain eternal life, and warnings not to be led astray by the teaching of the Pharisees and the views of His enemies, whom He will come to judge in time as the King of this Kingdom of God (Luke 9:51-19:27).
Finally, in the third part the evangelist shows how Christ by His sufferings, death, and resurrection proved that He is indeed the promised Savior and the Messiah anointed by the Holy Spirit, King of the Kingdom of God. In depicting the solemn entry of the Lord into Jerusalem, the evangelist Luke speaks not only of the people’s amazement, about which other evangelists also report, but also about Christ proclaiming judgment upon the city that did not obey Him (Luke 19:28-44) and then, in agreement with Mark and Matthew, about how He shamed His enemies in the temple (Luke 20:1-47), and then, pointing out the superiority of a poor widow’s offering to the temple over the contributions of the rich, He foretold to His disciples the fate of Jerusalem and His followers (Luke 21:1-36).
In the description of Christ’s sufferings and death (Luke 22-23) it is shown that Satan prompted Judas to betray Christ (Luke 22:3), and then Christ’s assurance is brought forward that He will eat the supper with His disciples in the Kingdom of God and that the Old Testament Passover shall now be replaced by the Eucharist He is instituting (Luke 22:15-23). The evangelist also mentions that at the Last Supper Christ, calling His disciples to serve rather than to rule, nevertheless promised them dominion in His Kingdom (Luke 22:24-30). Then follows the account of three moments of Christ’s final hours: Christ’s promise to pray for Peter in view of his imminent fall (Luke 22:31-34), the call to the disciples to struggle against temptations (Luke 22:35-38), and Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane, in which an Angel from heaven strengthened Him (Luke 22:39-46). Then the evangelist speaks of the taking of Christ and Christ’s healing of the servant wounded by Peter (Luke 22:51) and His reproach to the high priests who came with soldiers (Luke 22:53). All these details clearly show that Christ went to sufferings and death willingly, in the consciousness of their necessity so that the salvation of humanity could be accomplished.
In the depiction of Christ’s actual sufferings Peter’s denial is presented in the evangelist Luke as a testimony that even during His own sufferings Christ had pity on His weak disciple (Luke 22:54-62). Then follows a description of Christ’s great sufferings in the following three parts:
1) the denial of Christ’s high dignity partly by soldiers who mocked Christ in the courtyard of the high priest (Luke 22:63-65), but mainly by members of the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:66-71),
2) Christ’s declaration as a visionary at the trial before Pilate and Herod (Luke 23:1-12), and
3) the people’s preference of Barabbas, a robber, to Christ, and the condemnation of Christ to death by crucifixion (Luke 23:13-25).
After depicting the depth of Christ’s suffering the evangelist notes such features of this suffering as clearly testified that Christ even in His torments remained the King of the Kingdom of God. The evangelist relates that the Condemned One:
1) as judge addressed the women who wept for Him (Luke 23:26-31) and asked His Father for His enemies who were committing a crime against Him unknowingly (Luke 23:32-34);
2) gave place in paradise to the repentant robber, as having the right to do so (Luke 23:35-43);
3) was conscious that, in dying, He was committing His spirit to His Father (Luke 23:44-46);
4) was recognized as righteous by the centurion and aroused repentance in the people by His death (Luke 23:47-48), and
5) was honored with an especially solemn burial (Luke 23:49-56).
Finally, in the history of Christ’s resurrection the evangelist presents such events as clearly proved the greatness of Christ and served to clarify the work of salvation He had accomplished. Namely: the testimony of Angels that Christ conquered death, according to His predictions about this (Luke 24:1-12), then the appearance of Christ Himself to the travelers on the road to Emmaus, to whom Christ showed from Scripture the necessity of His sufferings in order that He might enter into His glory (Luke 24:13-35), the appearance of Christ to all the apostles, to whom He also explained the prophecies that spoke of Him and entrusted them to preach in His name the message of forgiveness of sins to all peoples of the earth, promising the apostles to send them the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:36-49). Finally, briefly depicting Christ’s ascension into heaven (Luke 24:50-53), the evangelist Luke concluded his Gospel, which indeed became a confirmation of all the Christian teaching transmitted to Theophilus and other Christians from among the Gentiles: Christ is depicted here indeed as the promised Messiah, as the Son of God and King of the Kingdom of God.
Among the patristic commentaries on the Gospel according to Luke the most thorough are the writings of the blessed Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus. Among our Russian commentators first place should be given to Bishop Michael (Gospel Commentary), then to D. P. Bogolepov who compiled a textbook for reading the Four Gospels; B. I. Gladkov, who wrote “Gospel Commentary,” and Professor of the Kazan Theological Academy M. Bogolovskii, who compiled the books: 1) The Childhood of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Forerunner, According to the Gospels of the Holy Apostles Matthew and Luke. Kazan, 1893 and 2) The Public Ministry of Our Lord Jesus Christ According to the Accounts of the Holy Evangelists. Issue 1. Kazan, 1908.
Among writings on the Gospel according to Luke we have only the dissertation of Protopriest Polotelbnov “Holy Gospel According to Luke. Orthodox Critical-Exegetical Research Against F. Ch. Baur.” Moscow, 1873.
Among foreign commentaries we mention the commentaries of Keil (1879), Meyer edited by B. Weiss (1885), Joh. Weiss (1907), Trench “Exposition of the Parables of Our Lord Jesus Christ” (1888, in Russian) and “Miracles of Our Lord Jesus Christ” (1883, in Russian), and Merx (1905).
We also cite the following works: Geikie “Life and Teaching of Christ,” trans. by Archbishop M. Filevsky, 1894; Edersheim “Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,” trans. by Archbishop M. Filevsky, Vol. I, 1900; Revillé A. “Jesus the Nazarene,” trans. Zelinsky, Vol. I-II, 1909, and some articles from theological journals.
* * *
Some commentators, in order to preserve chronological order in this section, tried to find in it references to two journeys of Christ to Jerusalem—to the feast of dedication and the feast of the final Passover (Schleiermacher, Olshausen, Neander), or even to three, which John mentions in his Gospel (Wieseler). But, not to mention that there is no clear reference here to different journeys, it is clearly stated in a passage of Luke’s Gospel against such a supposition, where it is definitely said that the evangelist wants to describe in this section only the Lord’s last journey to Jerusalem—to the Passover of the passion. In Luke 9:51 it is said: “And it came to pass, when the days were come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.” See commentaries to chapter 9.
Thus, Luke alone has accounts of the tax collector Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), of the dispute of the disciples at the performance of the Eucharist (Luke 22:24-30), of the trial of Christ before Herod (Luke 23:4-12), of the women who wept for Christ at his journey to Golgotha (Luke 23:27-31), the conversation with the robber on the cross (Luke 23:39-43), the appearance to the Emmaus travelers (Luke 24:13-35), and certain other accounts which represent a supplement to Mark’s narrative.