Tradition represents him to have been by birth a Syrian of Antioch (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 3. 4; Jerome, Preface to Matt., and elsewhere), and a Jewish proselyte (Jerome, Quest. on Gen., chap. 46); and it adds various other legends which are not worth repeating.
27. The evangelist himself, in his dedicatory address to Theophilus (chap. 1:1-4), gives us clear and definite information respecting the _sources of his gospel_. He does not profess to have been himself an eye-witness, but has drawn his information from those "who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." His investigations have been accurate and thorough: "having accurately traced out all things from the beginning" (as the original words mean), he writes to Theophilus "in order;" that is, in an orderly and connected way. He proposes to give not some loose fragments, but a connected narrative; although, as we have seen above (No. 10), his order is not always that of strict chronological sequence. From the long and intimate connection of Luke with Paul it is reasonable to suppose that the latter must have exerted an influence on the composition of this gospel. Luke, however, did not draw the materials of his narrative from Paul (at least not princ.i.p.ally), but, as he expressly states, from those "who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." He did not write from Paul"s dictation, but in a free and independent way; though there is no reasonable ground for doubting that it was with Paul"s knowledge and approbation.
The "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word" are those who (1) were from the beginning eye-witnesses of our Lord"s public ministry; (2) were intrusted with the work of preaching the word; that is, the apostles and such of their a.s.sociates as had companied with them all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them. Acts 1:21. The words of Luke must not be strained; for he records some incidents of our Lord"s history _before_ his public appearance which could have been learned only from Mary and her circle.
The remarkable agreement between Luke"s account of the inst.i.tution of the Lord"s Supper (Luke 22:9, 20), and Paul"s (1 Cor. 11:28-25) has often been noticed. It is most naturally explained by the supposition that Luke recorded the transaction in the form in which he had often heard it from the lips of Paul. But there is nothing in the character of this gospel which can warrant the supposition that the apostle exercised a formal supervision over its composition. Such a procedure would be contrary to the spirit of the apostolic age. The apostle himself wrote by an amanuensis. But when one of his a.s.sociates in the ministry wrote, in whom he had full confidence, he left him to the free exercise of his judgment under the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
28. In respect to the _date_ of this gospel, if we a.s.sume that the Acts of the Apostles were written at Rome about A.D. 63-65 (Chap. 5, No. 5), it is reasonable to suppose that the gospel, which is dedicated to the same personage, was composed not very long before, perhaps even during the two years of Paul"s imprisonment at Rome, in which case Rome would also be the _place_ of its composition. Whether Luke wrote before or after Mark is a question that has been differently answered, and cannot be determined with certainty. The proof that all three of the first evangelists wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem has been already given. Chap. 3, No. 14.
29. Though Luke dedicates his gospel to Theophilus (chap, 1:1-4), it is not to be supposed that it was written for his use alone. He had a more _general end_ in view, and that is indicated by the form of our Lord"s genealogy as given by him. While Matthew traces the Saviour"s lineage through David to Abraham, in conformity with his design to show that he is the promised seed of Abraham and king of Israel, Luke traces it back through David and Abraham to Adam "the son of G.o.d." He identifies Jesus of Nazareth not with the Messiah alone of Abraham"s and David"s line, but with man as man. He is the second Adam, and as such the Saviour of the race. This _universal aspect_ of the gospel, as a gospel not for one nation but for all mankind, shines forth indeed in all the gospels, but it appears with wonderful sweetness and power in some of the parables which are peculiar to Luke, as those of the good Samaritan (chap.
10:30-37), the lost sheep (chap. 15:3-7), the lost pieces of silver (chap. 15:8-10), the prodigal son (chap. 15:11-32); in all which Jesus is set forth as the Saviour of suffering humanity.
30. As it respects the _character and plan_ of Luke"s gospel, the following particulars are to be noticed. In the distribution of matter between the narration of events and the recital of our Lord"s discourses it holds a position between the first and the second gospel; being less full in the latter respect than Matthew, but far more full than Mark. In the narrative part there is an easy and graceful style which charms every reader. In the introduction of minute incidents he goes beyond Matthew, though he has not the circ.u.mstantial exactness of Mark. The agreement of Luke"s gospel with the two preceding in its general plan is recognized at once by every reader. Like them it is mainly occupied with our Lord"s Galilean ministry. In regard to the Saviour"s infancy he is more full than Matthew, the matter of the first three chapters being in a great measure peculiar to him. He omits a long series of events recorded by the first two evangelists. Matt. 14:22-16:12; Mark 6:45-8:26. On the other hand he introduces (chap. 9:43-18:30) "a remarkable series of acts and discourses which are grouped together in connection with the last journey to Jerusalem. Some of the incidents occur in different connections in the other evangelists; and the whole section proves, by the absence of historical data and the unity of its general import, that a moral and not a temporal sequence is the law of the gospels." Westcott, Introduct. to Gospel, chap. 7. Very much of the matter in this remarkable section is peculiar to Luke, and contains pa.s.sages of wonderful beauty and sweetness which would have been lost to the church but for the record of this gospel. Among these are the mission of the seventy, several miracles, some striking lessons of instruction from pa.s.sing incidents, and no less than twelve parables: the good Samaritan, the unfortunate friend, the unclean spirit, the rich fool, the barren fig-tree, the lost sheep, the lost pieces of silver, the prodigal son, the unfaithful steward, the rich man and Lazarus, the unjust judge, the Pharisee and publican. While the attentive reader perceives the very near relationship of the third gospel to the first and second, he notices also the fact that it differs from both of them more than they do from each other.
"If the total contents of the several gospels be represented by 100, the following table is obtained:
Peculiarities. Concordances.
St. Mark,.........................7........................93 St. Matthew,.....................42........................58 St. Luke,........................59........................41 St. John,........................92.........................8
"From this it appears that the several gospels bear almost exactly an inverse relation to one another, St. Mark and St.
John occupying the extreme positions, the proportion of original pa.s.sages in one balancing the coincident pa.s.sages in the other.
If again the extent of all the coincidences be represented by 100, their proportionate distribution will be:
St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, . . . . . . . . 53 St. Matthew, St. Luke, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 St. Matthew, St. Mark, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 St. Mark, St. Luke, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 "
[Westcott, after Stroud and Norton.]
Of absolutely new matter in Mark a striking example is the beautiful parable, chap. 4:26-29. The two miracles peculiar to him (chap. 7:31-37; 8:22-26) are both of a very striking character, and related with circ.u.mstantial minuteness of detail.
Where his narratives coincide with those of the other evangelists, they are characterized by the addition of details, which, as already remarked, add much to the vivedness and graphic power of his descriptions.
31. The _integrity_ of the third gospel has been recently a.s.sailed in Germany in the way of attempting to show that the gospel of Luke, as we now have it, is corrupted by interpolations, and that Marcion had it in its true form. See Chap. 2, No. 12. But the result of a voluminous discussion is that Marcion"s gospel is now acknowledged to have been a mutilated form of the canonical gospel, in accordance with the testimony of the ancient fathers.
On the relation to each other of the two genealogies of our Lord given by Matthew and Luke respectively, and the different modes of bringing them into harmony with each other, many volumes have been written. Two different principles of interpretation are proposed. According to the _first_, the genealogies of both Matthew and Luke are those of _Joseph_, the legal father of Jesus, and the only one that could be known in this relation in the public registers. The _second_ view is that Matthew gives the genealogy of _Joseph_, and Luke that of _Mary_, Joseph being called the son of Heli, in the sense of _son-in-law_; and being perhaps also legal heir to Heli through Mary in the absence of brothers. The reader will find statements of these two views, the former in Smith"s Bible Diet., the latter in Alexander"s Kitto, Art. Genealogy of Jesus Christ; also in the commentaries generally. We only add that though we may not be able to determine with certainty _what_ is the true solution of the difficulty, no one can show that such a solution is impossible.
The reverent believer will quietly wait for more light, if it shall please G.o.d to give it; otherwise he will be content to remain without it.
V. JOHN.
32. Though the writer of the fourth gospel everywhere refrains from mentioning his own name, he clearly indicates himself as the "bosom disciple." When he speaks of two disciples that followed Jesus, afterwards adding that "one of the two" "was Andrew, Simon Peter"s brother" (chap. 1:37, 40); of "one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved"
(chap. 13:23; 21:7, 20); and of "another disciple" in company with Simon Peter (chap. 18:15, 16; 20:2-8), the only natural explanation of these circ.u.mlocutions is that he refers to himself. Even if we suppose, with some, that the two closing verses of chapter 21 (the former of which ascribes this gospel directly to John) are a subscription by another hand, their authenticity is unquestionable, sustained as it is by the uniform testimony of antiquity, and by the internal character of the gospel.
33. The Scriptural notices of John are few and simple. He was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of Bethsaida on the Western sh.o.r.e of the sea of Galilee not far from Capernaum. Matt. 4:21; Mark 1:19, 20; Luke 5:10, 11. His mother"s name was Salome. Matt. 27:56 compared with Mark 15:40.
His parents seem to have been possessed of some property, since Zebedee had hired servants (Mark 1:20), and Salome was one of the women who followed Jesus in Galilee, and ministered to him. Mark 15:40, 41. From the order in which he and his brother James are mentioned--James and John, except Luke 9:28--he is thought to have been the younger of the two. Early in our Lord"s ministry he was called to be one of his followers; was one of the three who were admitted to special intimacy with him, they alone being permitted to witness the raising of Jairus"
daughter, the transfiguration, and the agony of Gethsemane (Matt 17:1; 26:37; Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; Luke 8:51; 9:28); and of the three was, though not first in place, first in the Lord"s love and confidence--"the disciple whom Jesus loved," and to whose tender care he committed his mother as he was about to expire on the cross. By his natural endowments, as well as by his loving and confidential intercourse with the Saviour, he was prepared to receive and afterwards to publish to the world, those deep and spiritual views of Christ"s person and office which so remarkably characterize his gospel.
So far as we have any notices of John in the Acts of the Apostles and epistles of Paul, his residence after our Lord"s ascension was at Jerusalem. But, according to the unanimous testimony of antiquity, he spent the latter part of his life in Ephesus, where he died at a very advanced age, not far from the close of the first century. The subject of his banishment to the isle of Patmos will come up in connection with the Apocalypse.
There is a ma.s.s of traditions respecting the latter years of this apostle, which are, however, of a very uncertain character.
Among the more striking of these are: his being taken to Rome during the persecution under Domitian, and there thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, whence he escaped unhurt; his refusal to remain under the same roof with the heretic Cerinthus, lest it should fall upon him and crush him; his successful journey on horseback into the midst of a band of robbers to reclaim a fallen member of the church who had become their leader; and especially, that during the last days of his life, he was customarily carried into the a.s.sembly of the church, where he simply repeated the words: "Little children, love one another."
34. The arguments for the _late composition_ of this gospel--after the destruction of Jerusalem--have already been given. Chap. 2, No. 14. If we say between A.D. 70 and 100, it will be as near an approximation to the time as we can make. The _place_, according to Irenaeus (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5. 8) was Ephesus, with which statement all that we know of his later life is in harmony.
35. From the beginning of our Lord"s ministry John was, as we have seen, admitted to his intimate companionship and friendship. He was not therefore, dependent on tradition. His gospel is the testimony of what he had himself seen and heard. Yet it covers only a _part_ of the Saviour"s ministry; and the question remains why, with the exception of the closing scenes of our Lord"s life on earth, that part should be to so remarkable an extent precisely _what the earlier evangelists have omitted_. In answer to this question it might be said that those actions and discourses of our Lord which John selected most clearly exhibit his person and office as the son of G.o.d; and that these were especially, (1) his encounters with the Jewish rulers at Jerusalem, (2) his private confidential intercourse with his disciples. Whatever weight we may allow to this consideration, it cannot be regarded as a full explanation of the difference between John and the other evangelists in the selection of materials. With the exception of the miracle of the loaves and fishes and the incidents connected with it (chap. 6:1-21) his notices of our Lord"s ministry in Galilee relate almost entirely to incidents and discourses omitted by the other evangelists. It is altogether probable that, although John did not write his gospel simply as supplementary to the earlier gospels, he yet had reference to them in the selection of his materials. His own statement: "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of G.o.d, and that believing ye might have life through his name" (chap. 20:30, 31), is not inconsistent with such a supposition. The "many other signs" he may have omitted, in part at least, because he judged that a sufficient account of them had been given by the earlier evangelists, of whose writings, when we consider the time that in all probability intervened between their composition and that of his gospel, we cannot suppose him to have been ignorant.
Such a reference to these writings does not in any way exclude the general design which he had, in common with the earlier evangelists, to show "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of G.o.d," through faith in whose name eternal life is received.
Ancient tradition represents, in a variety of forms, that John intended to complete the evangelical history, as given by the other evangelists, in the way of furnishing additional events and discourses omitted by them. The citations may be seen in Davidson"s Introduct. to New Test., vol. 1, pp. 320-22. Though the statements of the fathers on this point cannot be accepted without qualification, there is no valid ground for denying the general reference above a.s.sumed.
36. In writing his gospel John had not a polemical, but a _general end_ in view. It was not his immediate aim to refute the errors and heresies of his day; but, as he tells us, to show that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of G.o.d, in order that men, through faith in his name, may have eternal life. Yet, like every wise and practical writer, he must have had regard to the state of the churches in his day and the forms of error by which they were a.s.sailed. In the latter part of the apostolic age the seeds of those heresies which in the following century yielded such a rank and poisonous harvest, had already begun to be sown. Like all the heresies which have troubled the Christian church to the present day, they consisted essentially in false views respecting our Saviour"s person and office. The beloved disciple who followed Jesus through the whole of his ministry and leaned on his bosom at the last supper, has given us an authentic record of the Redeemer"s words and works, in which, as in a bright untarnished mirror, we see both the divine dignity of his person and the true nature of his office as the Redeemer of the world. Such a record was especially adapted to refute the errors of his day, as it is those of the present day. It is preeminently the gospel of our Lord"s person. It opens with an account of his divine nature and eternal coexistence with the Father; his general office as the creator of all things, and the source of light and life to all men and his special office as "the word made flesh," whom the Father sent for the salvation of the world, and by whom alone the Father is revealed to men.
Equality with the Father in nature, subordination to the Father in office, union with human nature in the work of redeeming and judging men, and in all these perfect union with the Father in counsel and will--such are the great doctrines that run through our Lord"s discussions with the unbelieving Jews, as recorded by this evangelist.
In the same discussions, but more especially in his private confidential intercourse with his disciples, he adds deep views of his relation to the world, as the only revealer of G.o.d"s truth, the only source of spiritual life, and the only way of access to the Father; and to believers, as the true vine, through vital union with which they have life, nourishment, and fruitfulness. He unfolds also more fully than the other evangelists the office of the Comforter, whom the Father shall send to make good to the church the loss of his personal presence. Thus the gospel of John becomes at once an inexhaustible storehouse of spiritual food for the nourishment of the believer"s own soul, and a divine armory, whence he may draw polished shafts in his warfare against error. This last record of our Lord"s life and teachings owes its present form, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, partly to the peculiar character of the writer, and partly to the lateness of the period when it was composed. In both these respects we ought devoutly to recognize the superintending providence of him who sees the end from the beginning.
VI. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
37. The author of the Acts of the Apostles is identical with that of the third gospel, as we learn from the dedication to the same Theophilus.
Chap. 1:1. Both are ascribed to Luke by the unanimous testimony of the ancient church. The genuineness of this book, its credibility, and the time of its composition--about A.D. 63-65--have been already shown.
Chap. 5, Nos. 2-5. It remains to consider its _plan_ and its _office_ in the system of revelation.
38. In respect to _plan_ this book naturally falls into two main divisions, the former embracing the first twelve chapters, the latter the remainder of the work. The _first_ division contains the history of the apostolic labors after the ascension, _in Jerusalem and from Jerusalem as a centre_. Here, if we except the events connected with the martyrdom of Stephen (chs. 6, 7), the conversion of Saul (chap. 9:1-31), and the Ethiopian eunuch (chap. 8:26-40), _Peter_ everywhere appears as the chief speaker and actor, being first among the twelve, though possessing no official authority over them. It is he that proposes the choice of one to supply the place of Judas, and that is the foremost speaker on the day of Pentecost, at the gate of the temple, before the Jewish Sanhedrim, and in the a.s.sembly of the church. Chaps. 1:15-22; 2:14-40; 3:4-26; 4:8-12; 5:3-11, 29-32. a.s.sociated with him we often find the apostle John. Chaps. 3:1; 4:13, 19; 8:14. When the Samaritans are to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, Peter and John are sent to them from Jerusalem. Chap. 8:14-25. When the gospel is to be carried for the first time to the Gentiles, Peter is sent by the Holy Ghost to the house of Cornelius in Cesarea (chap. 10), for which mission he afterwards vindicates himself before the brethren at Jerusalem. Chap.
11:1-18. Further notices of Peter we have in chaps. 9:32-43; 12:3-19. We know that the other apostles must have been actively and successfully employed in prayer and the ministry of the word (chap. 6:4), but it does not come within the plan of this narrative to give a particular account of their labors.
The _second_ division is occupied with the history of _Paul"s missionary labors among the Gentiles, from Antioch as a centre_. He had already been sent from that city with Barnabas to carry alms to the brethren in Jerusalem and Judea (chaps. 11:27-30; 12:25), when "the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them;" and they were sent, with fasting and prayer and the solemn laying on of hands, on their great mission to the Gentiles. Chap. 13:1-3.
Thenceforward the narrative is occupied with an account of the labors of Paul among the Gentiles. The fifteenth chapter is no exception; for the convocation of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem was occasioned by the missionary labors of Paul, and had especial reference to them.
Two cities are mentioned in the New Testament which have the name of _Antioch_--_Antioch_ of _Pisidia_ so-called, though situated in the southern part of Phrygia near the border of Pisidia (Acts 13:14; 14:19, 21; 2 Tim. 3:11); and _Antioch_ of _Syria_, situated on the southern bank of the Orontes about fifteen miles from its mouth. Acts 11:19-27; 13:1; 14:26; 15:22-35; 18:22; Gal. 2:11. The latter city was the centre of Gentile Christianity. It was the metropolis of Syria, the residence of the Syrian kings, and afterwards the capital of the Roman provinces in Asia. Here the first Gentile church was gathered, and the disciples first received the name of _Christians_. Acts 11:19-26. Hence Barnabas and Saul were sent to Jerusalem to bear alms (Acts 11:29, 30; 12:25); and afterwards to consult the apostles and elders at Jerusalem on the question of imposing the Mosaic law on the Gentile converts.
From this city also the apostle started on his three missionary journeys, and to it he returned from his first and second journey. Acts 13:1-3; 14:26; 15:36, 40; 18:22, 23. From the time that Barnabas first brought the apostle to Antioch (Acts 11:26) to that of his seizure at Jerusalem and subsequent imprisonment, most of his time not occupied in missionary journeys was spent at Antioch. Acts 11:26; 12:25; 14:26-28; 15:30, 35; 18:22, 23.
As _Jerusalem_ was the centre for the apostles of the circ.u.mcision, so was _Antioch_ in Syria for the apostle of the Gentiles.
39. This brief survey of the plan of this book gives us also an insight into its _office_. First of all it gives us a fresh and vivid portraiture of the apostolic labors and the spirit of the apostolic church, as pervaded and quickened by the presence of the promised Comforter. On the side of the apostles, we see a boldness and ardor that no persecution can check, united with simplicity and G.o.dly sincerity. On the side of the brethren, we see a whole-hearted devotion to the Saviour, under the mighty impulse of faith and love, which opens their hearts in liberality and causes them to have all things in common. On the side of both the apostles and the brethren, we see untiring activity and patient endurance in the Master"s service, such as make the primitive church a bright ill.u.s.tration of the promise: "Thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not. And they that be of thee shall build the old waste places." Isa.
58:11,12. On the side of the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles, on the contrary, we behold, as ever since, a series of unsuccessful efforts to hinder the work of G.o.d; the very ringleader of the persecutors being called, in the midst of his heat and fury against Christianity, to be the "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." Such an authentic record of apostolic times is of immense value to the church in all ages. It gives the true standard of enlightened Christian zeal and activity, and the true exhibition of what const.i.tutes the real strength and prosperity of the Christian church.
The Acts of the Apostles give also a cursory view of the inauguration of the Christian church, by the descent of the Holy Spirit in his plenary influences (chap. 2), by the appointment of deacons (chap. 6), and the ordination of elders, though these last are only mentioned incidentally (chaps. 14:23; 20:17), the office being understood of itself from the usages of the Jewish Synagogue. The scantiness of the information which we have on this matter of church organization is a part of the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, and is full of instruction to the church in all ages.
Once more, the Acts of the Apostles give a most interesting and instructive account of the way in which "the middle wall of part.i.tion"
between Jews and Gentiles was gradually broken down. The full import of the Saviour"s last command: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," seems to have been at first but dimly apprehended by the apostles. For some time their labors were restricted to their own countrymen. But when, upon the dispersion of the disciples in the persecution that arose in connection with Stephen"s martyrdom, the gospel had been preached to the Samaritans, the apostles Peter and John were sent to them, and they in common with the Jews received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Chap. 8:5-25. This was an intermediate step.
Afterwards Peter was sent among the Gentiles proper, and they also received the Holy Spirit, to the astonishment of the Jewish brethren who had accompanied Peter. Chap. 10. The same thing happened also at Antioch (chap. 11:20), where the true reading is _h.e.l.lenas_, _Greeks_, that is, _Gentiles_, not _h.e.l.lenistas_, _h.e.l.lenists_. But the work was not yet finished. It remained that the believing Gentiles should be, by the solemn and formal judgment of the a.s.sembled apostles and elders, released from the yoke of the Jewish law. Of this we have an account in the fifteenth chapter. Thus was the demolition of the middle wall of part.i.tion completed. Of the greatness of this work and the formidable difficulties by which it was beset--difficulties having their ground in the exclusive spirit of Judaism in connection with the false idea that the Mosaic law was to remain in force under the Messiah"s reign--we who live so many centuries after its accomplishment can form but a feeble conception.
40. Brief and imperfect as is the sketch which Luke has given us, it is sufficient for the instruction of the churches in subsequent ages. G.o.d deals with them not as with children, to whom the command, "Touch not, taste not, handle not," must continually be repeated; but as with full-grown men, who need general principles rather than specific and minute directions. The facts recorded in the Acts of the Apostles are of a _representative_ character. They embody the spirit of apostolic times, and the great principles upon which the cause of Christ must ever be conducted. Fuller information in respect to details might gratify our curiosity, but it is not necessary for our edification.
CHAPTER x.x.x.
THE EPISTLES OF PAUL.
1. The apostolic epistles are a natural sequence of the office and work committed by the Saviour to the apostles. They were the primitive preachers of the gospel, and, under Christ, the founders of the Christian church. From the necessity of the case they had a general supervision of all the local churches, and their authority in them was supreme in matters of both faith and practice. It was to be expected, therefore, that they should teach by writing, as well as by oral instruction. It does not appear, however, that epistolary correspondence entered originally into their plan of labor. Their great Master taught by word of mouth only, and they followed his example. "We," said the twelve, "will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." Acts 6:4. It was only when circ.u.mstances made it necessary, that some of them took up the pen to write to the churches.