« PreviousContinue »
shall they cast out devils; they shall | lay hands on the sick, and they speak’ with new tongues ;
shall recover. 18 They shall take up serpents; 19 [ So then 4 after the Lord and if they drink any deadly thing, had spoken unto them, he was it shall not hurt them; they3 shall received up into heaven, and sat
5 on the right hand of God. 1 Acts ii. 4; X. 46. 1 Cor. xii. 10,
2 Luke x. 19. Acte xxviii. 5. 20 And they went forth, and * Acts v. 15, 16; xxviii. 8. 1 Cor. xii. Jas. V.
4 Acts i. 2, 3. Luke xxiv. 51. 5 Psa. cx. 1. 14, 15.
1 Pet. iii. 22. Rev. iii. 21.
power that I would use in such cases if See Acts i. 9. | The right hand of God. bodily present. This was done: and in this We are not to suppose that God has they differed essentially from the manner hands, or that Jesus sits in any particular in which Jesus himself wrought miracles. direction from God. This phrase is taken He did it in his own name. He did it as from the manner of speaking among men, possessing original, underived authority. and means that he was exalted to honour See the account of his stilling the sea, and power in the heavens. Matt. viii. 26, 27; of his healing the sick, esteemed the place of the highest honour Matt. ix. 5, 6; of his raising Lazarus, to be seated at the right hand of a prince. John xi. The prophets spoke in the So, to be seated at the right hand of God, name of the Lord. The apostles did so means only that Jesus is exalted to the likewise. Acts iji. 6-11. There was, there- highest honour of the universe. Compare fore, an important difference between Eph. i. 20—22. Jezus and all the other messengers that 20. They went forth. The apostles. God has sent into the world. He acted in | 9 Every where. In all parts of the world. his own name, they in the name of another. See the account in the Acts and the He wielded his own power; they were the Epistles. I The Lord working with them. instruments by which God put forth the By miracles ; by removing obstacles ; omnipotence of his arm to save. He was, by supporting them, and by giving the therefore, God; they were men of like gospel success, and making it effectual to passions as other men. Acts xiv. 15. saving men. | Confirming the word.
Shall they cast out devils. See Note Showing it to be the word of God, or a on Matt, iv. 24. Compare Acts xvi. / revelation from heaven. 9 By signs 16-18. Shall speak with new tongues. following. By attending miracles. By Shall speak other languages than their raising the dead, healing the sick, &c., native language. This was remarkably as signs that God was with them, and fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. Acts ii. had sent them forth to preach. Amen. All. This miraculous speaking of Truly, verily. So be it. This word here other languages existed also, afterwards. is of no authority. There is no reason See 1 Cor. xii, 10.
to think that it was added by Mark. 18. They shall take up serpents. Mark is more concise than any other of When it is necessary for the sake of the evangelists. In most instances he establishing religion, they shall handle coincides with Matthew, though he has poisonous reptiles without injury : thus added some circumstances which Matshowing that God was with them, to keep thew had omitted. There is no evidence, them from harm. This was literally ful- however, that he copied from Matthew. filled when Paul shook the viper from his The last chapter in Mark contains some hand. See Acts xxviii. 5, 6. 4 Any dead-things omitted in Matthew, and some ly thing. Any poison usually causing things of fearful import. We learn from death. I shall not hurt them. There it that the gospel is to be preached to all is a similar promise in Isa. xliii. 2. mankind. Eternal life is to be offered to
They shall lay hands on the sick, &c. every man, and he who rejects it does so See instances of this in the Acts of the at his peril. The condition of the man Apostles, ch. ii. 6, 7 ; v. 15, 16.
who will not believe is fearfully awful. 19. He was received up into heaven. The Son of God has so solemnly declared In a cloud from the mount of Olives. that he shall be damned. He will judge
preached everywhere, the Lord | ing the word with signs following. working with them, and confirm- Amen.
1 Acts iv. 30; v. 12; viii. 46; xiv. 3, 8-10.
Hob. ii. 4.
the world ; and there is none that can condition of him who has no confidence deliver out of his hand. No excuse will in Jesus, and who has never looked to be allowed for not believing. Uniess a him for eternal life. And how important man has faith, he must be lost for ever. that without delay he should make his This is the solemn assurance of the whole peace with God, and possess that faith Bible, and in view of this awful declaration which is connected with eternal life' of the merciful Redeemer, how sad is the
In speaking of the characteristics of Mark's gospel, p. 351, it was observed that the difference between Mark and Matthew is that betwcen a narrative designed to convey information simply, and one designed to sustain a particular argument. The gospel of Luke differs from both, though in some respects it more nearly resembles Mark than Matthew. It also is a narrative, properly speaking, a history; some have spoken of it as the only gospel history we have; Mark's being regarded as a personal memoir, the materials of which were furnished by one of the apostles, whereas Luke had avowedly many accounts or narratives before him which probably were a guide to his thoughts and pen as he wrote. He was not an apostle, nor did he derive his knowledge as Mark did from companionship with one of Christ's chosen apostles who had attended him during his life in our world, still he had gained “perfect understanding of all things from the very first.” He addresses his gospel to Theophilus, of whom we know nothing more than his name, and that probably he was a man of rank; but a writing $0 addressed carries on its very face the indications of its verity; besides that as Luke himself says, it was composed that Theophilus might know the certainty of the things wherein he had been instructed, ch. i. 4.
We might expect from the structure of the two gospels, Mark's and Luke's, that they would present more agreement in the events exhibited and in the succession of those events, than to be looked for between either of those writers and Matthew; and this expectation corresponds with the fact. Take, for example, the two tours of Christ in Galilee, as recorded by Luke and Mark, their respective circumstances very nearly agree. In the first tour, Mark mentions Jesus as going to Capernaum ; as entering Simon's house ; and as healing a leper. Luke mentions the same things, introducing between the second and the third, Christ's betaking himself also to Simon's ship or boat. In the second tour, both evangelists correspond in the principal erents, viz., the healing of the palsied man who was brought to Jesus to be healed; the call of Levi; the fasting of John's disciples ; and the passing of Jesus and his followers through the corn-fields.
Luke's minuter attention to accuracy is, however, evident in slight departures from Mark, and in numerous additions to him. Mark has united the parables of the sower and the grain of mustard seed; Luke separates them. Mark says nothing about an occurrence mentioned by Matthew, ch. viii. 19; Luke gives time and place, ch. ix. 51–58. In Matthew and Mark, ch. xvii. 1, ix. 2, mention is made of six days; Luke makes the time eight days, ch. ix. 27, 28. In Luke xxi. 39—43, we find one malefactor rebuking the other for reviling Jesus, whereas Matthew and Mark say the malefactors were thus guilty. Luke tells us of two angels at the sepulchre, thus differing apparently from both Mark and Matthew. Jolin sustains him. Here the maxiin of Leclerc, already given in our observations on the gospel of Mark, holds true.
The accuracy for which Luke is distinguished must, however, be regarded as manifested rather in the minuteness and correctness of his facts, than in their chronological order.
Luke, probably, was the most learned of all the four evangelists. The introduction to his gospel, ch. i. 1—4, is written in pure classical Greek, differing greatly from the Hellenistic Greek which they employed, and which he himself used in his gospel generally. This difference in the style of Luke between his introduction and gospel generally has been explained by the supposition that in the introduction he adopts his own natural mode of writing as a man of letters, while in the gospel he followed the style of the writers and witnesses from whom he gathered his materials. In the Acts of the Apostles (another writing from Luke's pen) a similar difference is discernible in portions that narrate what he himself saw and had a share in, as distinguished from other portions which narrate what he must have received from the testimony of others. This, by the way, may be regarded as proof of the truthfulness and integrity of Luke. His superior learning influenced his style of writing generally. For instance, he records, as a professional man, the nature and symptoms of diseases with greater minuteness than the other evangelists, ch. is. 38; v. 12; he mentions miracles not referred to by Matthew and Mark, to which his professional inclinations would lead him, ch. xii. 11–13; xiv. 2—4; xvii. 12–14; and occasionally he uses technical expressions such as are found in the earliest medical works. The waters of Gennesareth, styled by the other evangelists a sea, are more correctly designated by Luke a lake. He was besides, as Tholuck truly observes, “explicit and learned on antiquarian, historical, and geographical subjects.”
The value of this gospel is greatly enhanced by its preserving many accounts which none of the other evangelists bas given; for instance, there are the particulars respecting the childhood of Jesus ; the beautiful parables in ch. xv. and ch. xvi. ; the narrative of Christ's appearance after his resurrection, to Cleopas and his companion in their way to Emmaus, and many other particulars included in the history from ch. ix. 51, to xix. 27. With the last journey to Jerusalem, commencing ch. ix. 51, circumstances are mingled which, as appears from other evangelists, belong to previous journeys.
It has been thought that greater historical accuracy belongs to Luke than to Matthew ; but besides that this notion affects the inspiration of Matthew, and probably that of Luke also, a closer comparison of these reports makes it difficult to indicate which of the evangelists is the more correct, and which enjoyed the greater degree of independent and original information. Luke may be the clearer writer, but in many particulars, especially in the discourses of Christ, Matthew is the more precise. Still, this remark is not without exception, since Luke sometimes states with more precision than Matthew the circumstances under which some of those discourses were delivered. Chronological notices are also occasionally given with greater minuteness by Luke than by either Matthew or Mark, yet, " the distinguishing feature of this gospel, compared with the two preceding,” as Dr. Bloomfield remarks in his Greek Testament, “is that while those relate the facts they record chronologically, this narrates them according to a classification of the events of our Saviour's life and actions. Class I. contains the narration of the birth of Christ, introduced by the circumstances that preceded, accompanied, or followed it, ch. i., ii. 1-4. Class II. comprehends his infancy and youth, ch. ii. 41–52. Class III. comprises the preaching of John and the baptism of Christ, with his genealogy, ch. iii. Class IV. comprehends the discourses, miracles, and actions of Christ during the whole of his ministry, ch. iv.-ix. 50. Class V. contains an account of our Lord's last journey to Jerusalem, together with every thing relative to his passion, death, resurrection, and ascension, ch. ix. 51–62, 1.- xxiv."