He Has Risen: The Empty Tomb, the Angelic Announcement, Galilee Promise, and Trembling Witness

When the sabbath was past (διαγενομενου του σαββατου). Genitive absolute, the sabbath having come in between, and now over. For this sense of the verb (common from Demosthenes on) see Ac 25:13 ; 27:9 . It was therefore after sunset. Bought spices (ηγορασαν αρωματα). As Nicodemus did on the day of the burial ( Joh 19:40 ). Gould denies that the Jews were familiar with the embalming process of Egypt, but at any rate it was to be a reverential anointing (ινα αλειψωσιν) of the body of Jesus with spices.

They could buy them after sundown. Salome in the group again as in Mr 15:40 . See on Mt 28:1 for discussion of "late on the sabbath day" and the visit of the women to the tomb before sundown. They had returned from the tomb after the watching late Friday afternoon and had prepared spices ( Lu 23:56 ). Now they secured a fresh supply.

When the sun was risen (ανατειλαντος του ηλιου). Genitive absolute, aorist participle, though some manuscripts read ανατελλοντος, present participle. Lu 24:1 has it "at early dawn" (ορθρου βαθεος) and Joh 20:1 "while it was yet dark." It was some two miles from Bethany to the tomb. Mark himself gives both notes of time, "very early" (λιαν πρω), "when the sun was risen."

Probably they started while it was still dark and the sun was coming up when they arrived at the tomb. All three mention that it was on the first day of the week, our Sunday morning when the women arrive. The body of Jesus was buried late on Friday before the sabbath (our Saturday) which began at sunset. This is made clear as a bell by Lu 23:54 "and the sabbath drew on."

The women rested on the sabbath ( Luke 23:56 ). This visit of the women was in the early morning of our Sunday, the first day of the week. Some people are greatly disturbed over the fact that Jesus did not remain in the grave full seventy-two hours. But he repeatedly said that he would rise on the third day and that is precisely what happened. He was buried on Friday afternoon.

He was risen on Sunday morning. If he had really remained in the tomb full three days and then had risen after that, it would have been on the fourth day, not on the third day. The occasional phrase "after three days" is merely a vernacular idiom common in all languages and not meant to be exact and precise like "on the third day." We can readily understand "after three days" in the sense of "on the third day."

It is impossible to understand "on the third day" to be "on the fourth day." See my Harmony of the Gospels , pp. 289-91.

Who shall roll us away the stone? (Τις αποκυλισε ημιν τον λιθον;). Alone in Mark. The opposite of προσκυλιω in 15:46 . In verse 4 rolled back (ανεκεκυλιστα, perfect passive indicative) occurs also. Both verbs occur in Koine writers and in the papyri. Clearly the women have no hope of the resurrection of Jesus for they were raising the problem (ελεγον, imperfect) as they walked along.

Looking up they see (αναβλεψασα θεωρουσιν). With downcast eyes and heavy hearts (Bruce) they had been walking up the hill. Mark has his frequent vivid dramatic present "behold." Their problem is solved for the stone lies rolled back before their very eyes. Lu 24:2 has the usual aorist "found." For (γαρ). Mark explains by the size of the stone this sudden and surprising sight right before their eyes.

Entering into the tomb (εισελθουσα εις το μνημειον). Told also by Lu 24:3 , though not by Matthew. A young man (νεανισκον). An angel in Mt 28:5 , two men in Lu 24 . These and like variations in details show the independence of the narrative and strengthen the evidence for the general fact of the resurrection. The angel sat upon the stone ( Mt 28:2 ), probably at first.

Mark here speaks of the young man sitting on the right side (καθημενον εν τοις δεξιοις) inside the tomb. Luke has the two men standing by them on the inside ( Luke 24:4 ). Possibly different aspects and stages of the incident. Arrayed in a white robe (περιβεβλημενον στολην λευκην). Perfect passive participle with the accusative case of the thing retained (verb of clothing).

Lu 24:4 has "in dazzling apparel." They were amazed (εξεθαμβηθησαν). They were utterly (εξ in composition) amazed. Lu 24:5 has it "affrighted." Mt 28:3 f. tells more of the raiment white as snow which made the watchers quake and become as dead men. But this was before the arrival of the women. Mark, like Matthew and Luke, does not mention the sudden departure of Mary Magdalene to tell Peter and John of the grave robbery as she supposed ( Joh 20:1-10 ).

Be not amazed (μη εκθαμβεισθε). The angel noted their amazement (verse 5 ) and urges the cessation of it using this very word. The Nazarene (τον Ναζαρηνον). Only in Mark, to identify "Jesus" to the women. The crucified one (τον εσταυρωμενον). This also in Mt 28:5 . This description of his shame has become his crown of glory, for Paul ( Gal 6:14 ), and for all who look to the Crucified and Risen Christ as Saviour and Lord.

He is risen (ηγερθη). First aorist passive indicative, the simple fact. In 1Co 15:4 Paul uses the perfect passive indicative εγηγερτα to emphasize the permanent state that Jesus remains risen. Behold the place (ιδε ο τοπος). Here ιδε is used as an interjection with no effect on the case (nominative). In Mt 28:6 ιδετε is the verb with the accusative. See Robertson, Grammar , p.

302.

And Peter (κα τω Πετρω). Only in Mark, showing that Peter remembered gratefully this special message from the Risen Christ. Later in the day Jesus will appear also to Peter, an event that changed doubt to certainty with the apostles ( Lu 24:34 ; 1Co 15:5 ). See on Mt 28:7 for discussion of promised meeting in Galilee.

Had come upon them (ειχεν αυτας). Imperfect tense, more exactly, held them, was holding them fast . Trembling and astonishment (τρομος κα εκστασις, trembling and ecstasy), Mark has it, while Mt 28:8 has "with fear and great joy" which see for discussion. Clearly and naturally their emotions were mixed. They said nothing to any one (ουδεν ουδεν ειπαν). This excitement was too great for ordinary conversation.

Mt 28:8 notes that they "ran to bring his disciples word." Hushed to silence their feet had wings as they flew on. For they were afraid (εφοβουντο γαρ). Imperfect tense. The continued fear explains their continued silence. At this point Aleph and B, the two oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, stop with this verse. Three Armenian MSS. also end here.

Some documents (cursive 274 and Old Latin k) have a shorter ending than the usual long one. The great mass of the documents have the long ending seen in the English versions. Some have both the long and the short endings, like L, Psi, 0112, 099, 579, two Bohairic MSS; the Harklean Syriac (long one in the text, short one in the Greek margin). One Armenian MS.

(at Edschmiadzin) gives the long ending and attributes it to Ariston (possibly the Aristion of Papias). W (the Washington Codex) has an additional verse in the long ending. So the facts are very complicated, but argue strongly against the genuineness of verses 9-20 of Mark 16 . There is little in these verses not in Mt 28 . It is difficult to believe that Mark ended his Gospel with verse 8 unless he was interrupted.

A leaf or column may have been torn off at the end of the papyrus roll. The loss of the ending was treated in various ways. Some documents left it alone. Some added one ending, some another, some added both. A full discussion of the facts is found in the last chapter of my Studies in Mark's Gospel and also in my Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament , pp.

214-16.

When he had risen early on the first day of the week (αναστας πρω πρωτη σαββατου). It is probable that this note of time goes with "risen" (αναστας), though it makes good sense with "appeared" (εφανη). Jesus is not mentioned by name here, though he is clearly the one meant. Mark uses μια in verse 2 , but πρωτη in 14:12 and the plural σαββατων in verse 2 , though the singular here.

First (πρωτον). Definite statement that Jesus appeared (εφανη) to Mary Magdalene first of all. The verb εφανη (second aorist passive of φαινω) is here alone of the Risen Christ (cf. Ελειας εφανη, Lu 9:8 ), the usual verb being ωφθη ( Lu 24:34 ; 1Co 15:5 ff. ). From whom (παρ' ης). Only instance of παρα with the casting out of demons, εκ being usual ( 1:25 , 26 ; 5:8 ; 7:26 , 29 ; 9:25 ).

Εκβεβληκε is past perfect indicative without augment. This description of Mary Magdalene is like that in Lu 8:2 and seems strange in Mark at this point, described as a new character here, though mentioned by Mark three times just before ( 15:40 , 47 ; 16:1 ). The appearance to Mary Magdalene is given in full by Joh 20:11-18 .

She (εκεινη). Only instance of this pronoun (=ιλλα) absolutely in Mark, though a good Greek idiom. (See Joh 19:35 .) See also verses 11 , 20 . Went (πορευθεισα). First aorist passive participle. Common word for going, but in Mark so far only in 9:30 in the uncompounded form. Here also in verses 12 , 15 . Them that had been with him (τοις μετ' αυτου γενομενοις).

This phrase for the disciples occurs here alone in Mark and the other Gospels if the disciples (μαθητα) are meant. All these items suggest another hand than Mark for this closing portion. As they mourned and wept (πενθουσιν κα κλαιουσιν). Present active participles in dative plural agreeing with τοις ... γενομενοις and describing the pathos of the disciples in their utter bereavement and woe.

Disbelieved (ηπιστησαν). This verb is common in the ancient Greek, but rare in the N.T. and here again verse 16 and nowhere else in Mark. The usual N.T. word is απειθεω. Lu 24:11 uses this verb (ηπιστουν) of the disbelief of the report of Mary Magdalene and the other women. The verb εθεαθη (from θεαωμα) occurs only here and in verse 14 in Mark.

After these things (μετα ταυτα). Only here in Mark. Luke tells us that it was on the same day ( Lu 24:13 ). In another form (εν ετερα μορφη). It was not a μεταμορφωσις or transfiguration like that described in 9:2 . Luke explains that their eyes were holden so that they could not recognize Jesus ( Lu 24:16 ). This matchless story appears in full in Lu 24:13-32 .

Neither believed they them (ουδε εκεινοις επιστευσαν). The men fared no better than the women. But Luke's report of the two on the way to Emmaus is to the effect that they met a hearty welcome by them in Jerusalem ( Lu 24:33-35 ). This shows the independence of the two narratives on this point. There was probably an element who still discredited all the resurrection stories as was true on the mountain in Galilee later when "some doubted" ( Mt 28:17 ).

To the eleven themselves (αυτοις τοις ενδεκα). Both terms, eleven and twelve ( Joh 20:24 ), occur after the death of Judas. There were others present on this first Sunday evening according to Lu 24:33 . Afterward (υστερον) is here alone in Mark, though common in Matthew. Upbraided (ωνειδισεν). They were guilty of unbelief (απιστιαν) and hardness of heart (σκληροκαρδιαν).

Doubt is not necessarily a mark of intellectual superiority. One must steer between credulity and doubt. That problem is a vital one today in all educated circles. Some of the highest men of science today are devout believers in the Risen Christ. Luke explains how the disciples were upset by the sudden appearance of Christ and were unable to believe the evidence of their own senses ( Lu 24:38-43 ).

To the whole creation (παση τη κτισε). This commission in Mark is probably another report of the missionary Magna Charta in Mt 28:16-20 spoken on the mountain in Galilee. One commission has already been given by Christ ( Joh 20:21-23 ). The third appears in Lu 24:44-49 ; Ac 1:3-8 .

And is baptized (κα βαπτισθεις). The omission of baptized with "disbelieveth" would seem to show that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on disbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. Baptism is merely the picture of the new life not the means of securing it. So serious a sacramental doctrine would need stronger support anyhow than this disputed portion of Mark.

They shall speak with new tongues (γλωσσαις λαλησουσιν [καιναισ]). Westcott and Hort put καιναις (new) in the margin. Casting out demons we have seen in the ministry of Jesus. Speaking with tongues comes in the apostolic era ( Ac 2:3 f.; 10:46 ; 19:6 ; 1Co 12:28 ; 14 ).

They shall take up serpents (οφεις αρουσιν). Jesus had said something like this in Lu 10:19 and Paul was unharmed by the serpent in Malta ( Ac 28:3 f. ). If they drink any deadly thing (κ'αν θανασιμον τ πιωσιν). This is the only N. T. instance of the old Greek word θανασιμος (deadly). Jas 3:8 has θανατηφορος, deathbearing. Bruce considers these verses in Mark "a great lapse from the high level of Matthew's version of the farewell words of Jesus" and holds that "taking up venomous serpents and drinking deadly poison seem to introduce us into the twilight of apocryphal story."

The great doubt concerning the genuineness of these verses (fairly conclusive proof against them in my opinion) renders it unwise to take these verses as the foundation for doctrine or practice unless supported by other and genuine portions of the N. T.

Was received up into heaven (ανελημπθη εις τον ουρανον). First aorist passive indicative. Luke gives the fact of the Ascension twice in Gospel ( Lu 24:50 f. ) and Ac 1:9-11 . The Ascension in Mark took place after Jesus spoke to the disciples, not in Galilee ( 16:15-18 ), nor on the first or second Sunday evening in Jerusalem. We should not know when it took place nor where but for Luke who locates it on Olivet ( Lu 24:50 ) at the close of the forty days ( Ac 1:3 ) and so after the return from Galilee ( Mt 28:16 ).

Sat down at the right hand of God (εκαθισεν εκ δεξιων του θεου). Swete notes that the author "passes beyond the field of history into that of theology," an early and most cherished belief ( Ac 7:55 f. ; Ro 8:34 ; Eph 1:20 ; Col 3:1 ; Heb 1:3 ; 8:1 ; 10:12 ; 12:2 ; 1Pe 3:22 ; Re 3:21 ).

The Lord working with them (του κυριου συνεργουντος). Genitive absolute. This participle not in Gospels elsewhere nor is βεβαιουντος nor the compound επακολουθουντων, all in Paul's Epistles. Πανταχου once in Luke. Westcott and Hort give the alternative ending found in L: "And they announced briefly to Peter and those around him all the things enjoined. And after these things Jesus himself also sent forth through them from the east even unto the west the holy and incorruptible proclamation of the eternal salvation."

There is not room here for a full discussion of all the interesting problems raised by Luke as the author of the Gospel and Acts. One can find them ably handled in the Introduction to Plummer's volume on Luke's Gospel in the International and Critical Commentary , in the Introduction to Ragg's volume on Luke's Gospel in the Westminster Commentaries , in the Introduction to Easton's Gospel According to St.

Luke , Hayes' Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts , Ramsay's Luke the Physician , Harnack's Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels , Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake's Beginnings of Christianity , Carpenter's Christianity According to St. Luke , Cadbury's The Making of Luke-Acts , McLachlan's St. Luke: The Man and His Work , Robertson's Luke the Historian in the Light of Research , to go no further.

It is a fascinating subject that appeals to scholars of all shades of opinion. THE SAME AUTHOR FOR GOSPEL AND ACTS The author of Acts refers to the Gospel specifically as "the first treatise," τον πρÂωτον λογον, ( Ac 1:1 ) and both are addressed to Theophilus ( Lu 1:3 ; Ac 1:1 ). He speaks of himself in both books as "me" (καμο, Lu 1:3 ) and I made (εποιÂησαμÂην, Ac 1:1 ).

He refers to himself with others as "we" and "us" as in Ac 16:10 , the "we" sections of Acts. The unity of Acts is here assumed until the authorship of Acts is discussed in Volume III. The same style appears in Gospel and Acts, so that the presumption is strongly in support of the author's statement. It is quite possible that the formal Introduction to the Gospel ( Lu 1:1-4 ) was intended to apply to the Acts also which has only an introductory clause.

Plummer argues that to suppose that the author of Acts imitated the Gospel purposely is to suppose a literary miracle. Even Cadbury, who is not convinced of the Lucan authorship, says: "In my study of Luke and Acts, their unity is a fundamental and illuminating axiom." He adds: "They are not merely two independent writings from the same pen; they are a single continuous work.

Acts is neither an appendix nor an afterthought. It is probably an integral part of the author's original plan and purpose." THE AUTHOR OF ACTS A COMPANION OF PAUL The proof of this position belongs to the treatment of Acts, but a word is needed here. The use of "we" and "us" in Ac 16:10 and from Ac 20:6 to the end of chapter Ac 28 shows it beyond controversy if the same man wrote the "we" sections and the rest of the Acts.

This proof Harnack has produced with painstaking detail in his Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels and in his volume The Acts of the Apostles and in his Luke the Physician . THIS COMPANION OF PAUL A PHYSICIAN The argument for this position lies in the use of medical terms throughout the Gospel and the Acts. Hobart in his Medical Language of St. Luke proves that the author of both Gospel and Acts shows a fondness for medical terms best explained by the fact that he was a physician.

Like most enthusiasts he overdid it and some of his proof does not stand the actual test of sifting. Harnack and Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae have picked out the most pertinent items which will stand. Cadbury in his Style and Literary Method of Luke denies that Luke uses Greek medical words more frequently in proportion than Josephus, Philo, Plutarch, or Lucian.

It is to miss the point about Luke merely to count words. It is mainly the interest in medical things shown in Luke and Acts. The proof that Luke is the author of the books does not turn on this fact. It is merely confirmatory. Paul calls Luke "the beloved physician" (ο ιατρος ο αγαπÂητος, Col 4:14 ), "my beloved physician." Together they worked in the Island of Malta ( Ac 28:8-10 ) where many were healed and Luke shared with Paul in the appreciation of the natives who "came and were healed (εθεραπευοντο) who also honoured us with many honours."

The implication there is that Paul wrought miracles of healing (ιασατο), while Luke practised his medical art also. Other notes of the physician's interest will be indicated in the discussion of details like his omitting Mark's apparent discredit of physicians ( Mr 5:26 ) by a milder and more general statement of a chronic case ( Lu 8:43 ). THIS COMPANION AND AUTHOR LUKE All the Greek manuscripts credit the Gospel to Luke in the title.

We should know that Luke wrote these two books if there was no evidence from early writers. Irenaeus definitely ascribes the Gospel to Luke as does Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Fragment. Plummer holds that the authorship of the four great Epistles of Paul (I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) which even Baur accepted, is scarcely more certain than the Lukan authorship of the Gospel.

Even Renan says: "There is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the author of the Gospel which bears his name." His name is not a common one, and is probably a shortened form of Λυκιος and Λυκανος. Some of the manuscripts of the Gospel actually have as the title Κατα Λυκανον. Dean Plumptre suggests that the Latin poet Lucanus was named after Luke who probably was the family physician when he was born.

That is conjecture as well as the notion of Hayes that, since the brothers Gallio and Seneca were uncles of Lucanus they were influenced by Luke to be friendly toward Paul both in Corinth and in Rome. It is probable that Luke was a Greek, certainly a Gentile, possibly a freedman. So this man who wrote more than one-fourth of the New Testament was not a Jew. It is not certain whether his home was in Antioch or in Philippi.

It is also uncertain whether he was already converted when Paul met him at Troas. The Codex Bezae has a "we" passage after Ac 11:27 which, if genuine, would bring Luke in contact with Paul before Troas. Hayes thinks that he was a slave boy in the family of Theophilus at Antioch, several conjectures in one. We do not know that Theophilus lived at Antioch. It may have been Rome.

But, whether one of Paul's converts or not, he was a loyal friend to Paul. If he lived at Antioch, he could have studied medicine there and the great medical temple of Aesculapius was at Aegae, not far away. As a Greek physician, Luke was a university man and in touch with the science of his day. Greek medicine is the beginning of the science of medicine as it is known today.

Tradition calls him a painter, but of that we know nothing. Certainly he was a humanist and a man of culture and broad sympathies and personal charm. He was the first genuine scientist who faced the problem of Christ and of Christianity. It must be said of him that he wrote his books with open mind and not as a credulous enthusiast. THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke.

It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in Ac 1:1 . Unfortunately the precise date of both termini is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the Antiquities of Josephus and so is after A. D. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached.

Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event ( Lu 21:20 f. ), which is interpreted as a prophecy post eventum instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke.

I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul's later career.

There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about A. D. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in Lu 1:1-4 .

In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between A. D. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark's Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I.

There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark's Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by A. D. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before A. D. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as A.

D. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae , by Sanday and others in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem , by Streeter in his The Four Gospels , by Hayes in his The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts , by Harnack in his Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels , by Stanton in his The Gospels as Historical Documents , and by many others.

My own views are given at length in my Studies in Mark's Gospel and in Luke the Historian in the Light of Research . THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL In his Preface or Prologue ( Lu 1:1-4 ) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark's Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says).

Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark.

This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke's Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L.

There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of "many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command.

This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?

shows the likelihood of Luke's contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world. THE CHARACTER OF THE BOOK Literary charm is here beyond dispute. It is a book that only a man with genuine culture and literary genius could write.

It has all the simple grace of Mark and Matthew plus an indefinable quality not in these wonderful books. There is a delicate finish of detail and proportion of parts that give the balance and poise that come only from full knowledge of the subject, the chief element in a good style according to Dr. James Stalker. This scientific physician, this man of the schools, this converted Gentile, this devoted friend of Paul, comes to the study of the life of Christ with a trained intellect, with an historian's method of research, with a physician's care in diagnosis and discrimination, with a charm of style all his own, with reverence for and loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

One could not afford to give up either of the Four Gospels. They each supplement the other in a wonderful way. John's Gospel is the greatest book in all the world, reaching the highest heights of all. But if we had only Luke's Gospel, we should have an adequate portrait of Jesus Christ as Son of God and Son of Man. If Mark's is the Gospel for the Romans and Matthew's for the Jews, the Gospel of Luke is for the Gentile world.

He shows the sympathy of Jesus for the poor and the outcast. Luke understands women and children and so is the universal Gospel of mankind in all phases and conditions. It is often called the Gospel of womanhood, of infancy, of prayer, of praise. We have in Luke the first Christian hymns. With Luke we catch some glimpses of the child Jesus for which we are grateful.

Luke was a friend and follower of Paul, and verbal parallels with Paul's Epistles do occur, but there is no Pauline propaganda in the Gospel as Moffatt clearly shows ( Intr. to Lit. of the N. T. , p. 281). The Prologue is in literary Koine and deserves comparison with those in any Greek and Latin writers. His style is versatile and is often coloured by his source.

He was a great reader of the Septuagint as is shown by occasional Hebraisms evidently due to reading that translation Greek. He has graciousness and a sense of humour as McLachlan and Ragg show. Every really great man has a saving sense of humour as Jesus himself had. Ramsay dares to call Luke, as shown by the Gospel and Acts, the greatest of all historians not even excepting Thucydides.

Ramsay has done much to restore Luke to his rightful place in the estimation of modern scholars. Some German critics used to cite Lu 2:1-7 as a passage containing more historical blunders than any similar passage in any historian. The story of how papyri and inscriptions have fully justified Luke in every statement here made is carefully worked out by Ramsay in his various books, especially in The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament .

The main feature of this proof appears also in my Luke the Historian in the Light of Research . So many items, where Luke once stood alone, have been confirmed by recent discoveries that the burden of proof now rests on those who challenge Luke in those cases where he still stands alone.