{"commentary":{"id":"jamieson-fausset-brown","name":"Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary","website":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamieson-Fausset-Brown_Bible_Commentary","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"db3d4c8b3c1f32ef9d1430a57392e02bda3a17aac1f9bbe398461de021a3cb13","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":66,"totalNumberOfChapters":1187,"totalNumberOfVerses":17056,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"LUK","commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","name":"Luke","commonName":"Luke","introduction":"THE writer of this Gospel is universally allowed to have been Lucas (an abbreviated form of Lucanus, as Silas of Silvanus), though he is not expressly named either in the Gospel or in the Acts. From Col 4:14 we learn that he was a \"physician\"; and by comparing that verse with Col 4:10-11 --in which the apostle enumerates all those of the circumcision who were then with him, but does not mention Luke, though he immediately afterwards sends a salutation from him--we gather that Luke was not a born Jew. Some have thought he was a freed-man (libertinus), as the Romans devolved the healing art on persons of this class and on their slaves, as an occupation beneath themselves. His intimate acquaintance with Jewish customs, and his facility in Hebraic Greek, seem to show that he was an early convert to the Jewish faith; and this is curiously confirmed by Act 21:27-29, where we find the Jews enraged at Paul's supposed introduction of Greeks into the temple, because they had seen \"Trophimus the Ephesian\" with him; and as we know that Luke was with Paul on that occasion, it would seem that they had taken him for a Jew, as they made no mention of him. On the other hand, his fluency in classical Greek confirms his Gentile origin. The time when he joined Paul's company is clearly indicated in the Acts by his changing (at Act 16:10) from the third person singular (\"he\") to the first person plural (\"we\"). From that time he hardly ever left the apostle till near the period of his martyrdom (Ti2 4:11). EUSEBIUS makes him a native of Antioch. If so, he would have every advantage for cultivating the literature of Greece and such medical knowledge as was then possessed. That he died a natural death is generally agreed among the ancients; GREGORY NAZIANZEN alone affirming that he died a martyr.\n\nThe time and place of the publication of his Gospel are alike uncertain. But we can approximate to it. It must at any rate have been issued before the Acts, for there the 'Gospel' is expressly referred to as the same author's \"former treatise\" (Act 1:1). Now the Book of the Acts was not published for two whole years after Paul's arrival as a prisoner at Rome, for it concludes with a reference to this period; but probably it was published soon after that, which would appear to have been early in the year 63. Before that time, then, we have reason to believe that the Gospel of Luke was in circulation, though the majority of critics make it later. If we date it somewhere between A.D. 50 and 60, we shall probably be near the truth; but nearer it we cannot with any certainty come. Conjectures as to the place of publication are too uncertain to be mentioned here.\n\nThat it was addressed, in the first instance, to Gentile readers, is beyond doubt. This is no more, as DAVIDSON remarks [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 186], than was to have been expected from the companion of an \"apostle of the Gentiles,\" who had witnessed marvellous changes in the condition of many heathens by the reception of the Gospel. But the explanations in his Gospel of things known to every Jew, and which could only be intended for Gentile readers, make this quite plain--see Luk 1:26; Luk 4:31; Luk 8:26; Luk 21:37; Luk 22:1; Luk 24:13. A number of other minute particulars, both of things inserted and of things omitted, confirm the conclusion that it was Gentiles whom this Evangelist had in the first instance in view.\n\nWe have already adverted to the classical style of Greek which this Evangelist writes--just what might have been expected from an educated Greek and travelled physician. But we have also observed that along with this he shows a wonderful flexibility of style, so much so, that when he comes to relate transactions wholly Jewish, where the speakers and actors and incidents are all Jewish, he writes in such Jewish Greek as one would do who had never been out of Palestine or mixed with any but Jews. In DA COSTA'S'S Four Witnesses will be found some traces of \"the beloved physician\" in this Gospel. But far more striking and important are the traces in it of his intimate connection with the apostle of the Gentiles. That one who was so long and so constantly in the society of that master mind has in such a work as this shown no traces of that connection, no stamp of that mind, is hardly to be believed. Writers of Introductions seem not to see it, and take no notice of it. But those who look into the interior of it will soon discover evidences enough in it of a Pauline cast of mind. Referring for a number of details to DA COSTA, we notice here only two examples: In Co1 11:23, Paul ascribes to an express revelation from Christ Himself the account of the Institution of the Lord's Supper which he there gives. Now, if we find this account differing in small yet striking particulars from the accounts given by Matthew and Mark, but agreeing to the letter with Luke's account, it can hardly admit of a doubt that the one had it from the other; and in that case, of course, it was Luke that had it from Paul. Now Matthew and Mark both say of the Cup, \"This is my blood of the New Testament\"; while Paul and Luke say, in identical terms, \"This cup is the New Testament in My blood\" (Co1 11:25; Luk 22:20). Further, Luke says, \"Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,\" &c.; while Paul says, \"After the same manner He took the cup when He had supped, saying,\" &c.; whereas neither Matthew nor Mark mention that this was after supper. But still more striking is another point of coincidence in this case. Matthew and Mark both say of the Bread merely this: \"Take, eat; this is My body\" (Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22); whereas Paul says, \"Take, eat, this is My body, which is broken for you\" (Co1 11:24), and Luke, \"This is My body, which is given for you\" (Luk 22:19). And while Paul adds the precious clause, \"This do in remembrance of Me,\" Luke does the same, in identical terms. How can one who reflects on this resist the conviction of a Pauline stamp in this Gospel? The other proof of this to which we ask the reader's attention is in the fact that Paul, in enumerating the parties by whom Christ was seen after His resurrection, begins, singularly enough, with Peter--\"And that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve\" (Co1 15:4-5) --coupled with the remarkable fact, that Luke is the only one of the Evangelists who mentions that Christ appeared to Peter at all. When the disciples had returned from Emmaus to tell their brethren how the Lord had appeared to them in the way, and how He had made Himself known to them in the breaking of bread, they were met, as Luke relates, ere they had time to utter a word, with this wonderful piece of news, \"The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon\" (Luk 24:34).\n\nOther points connected with this Gospel will be adverted to in the Commentary. \n\n\n\nNext: Luke Chapter 1\n\n","order":42,"numberOfChapters":24,"sha256":"204b6ad5a3007ae03d59f0a3f250dc1a4fed154e78ef885292075f6de0b65757","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/LUK/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"LUK","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":24,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/LUK/24.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"LUK","chapter":24},"totalNumberOfVerses":596},"chapter":{"number":3,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":2,"content":["Annas and Caiaphas . . . high priests--the former, though deposed, retained much of his influence, and, probably, as sagan or deputy, exercised much of the power of the high priesthood along with Caiaphas (Joh 18:13; Act 4:6). Both Zadok and Abiathar acted as high priests in David's time (Sa2 15:35), and it seems to have become the fixed practice to have two (Kg2 25:18). (Also see on Mat 3:1.) \n\nword of God came unto John--Such formulas, of course, are never used when speaking of Jesus, because the divine nature manifested itself in Him not at certain isolated moments of His life. He was the one everlasting manifestation of the Godhead--THE WORD [OLSHAUSEN].\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":5,"content":["Every valley, &c.--levelling and smoothing, obvious figures, the sense of which is in the first words of the proclamation, \"Prepare ye the way of the Lord.\"\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":6,"content":["all flesh, &c.--(quoted literally from the Septuagint of Isa 40:5). The idea is that every obstruction shall be so removed as to reveal to the whole world the Salvation of God in Him whose name is the \"Saviour\" (compare Psa 98:3; Isa 11:10; Isa 49:6; Isa 52:10; Luk 2:31-32; Act 13:47).\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":10,"content":["What shall we do then?--to show the sincerity of our repentance. (Also see on Mat 3:10.)\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":11,"content":["two coats--directed against the reigning avarice. (Also see on Mat 3:10.)\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":12,"content":["publicans, &c. (Also see on Mat 3:10.)\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":13,"content":["Exact no more, &c.--directed against that extortion which made the publicans a byword. (See on Luk 19:2; Luk 19:8). (Also see on Mat 3:10.)\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":14,"content":["soldiers . . . Do violence to none--The word signifies to \"shake thoroughly,\" and so to \"intimidate,\" probably in order to extort money or other property. (Also see on Mat 3:10.) \n\naccuse . . . falsely--acting as informers vexatiously, on frivolous or false grounds. \n\ncontent with your wages--\"rations.\" We may take this as a warning against mutiny, which the officers attempted to suppress by largesses and donations [WEBSTER and WILKINSON]. And thus the \"fruits\" which would evidence their repentance were just resistance to the reigning sins, particularly of the class to which the penitent belonged, and the manifestation of an opposite spirit.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":15,"content":["whether he were the Christ--showing both how successful he had been in awakening the expectation of Messiah's immediate appearing, and the high estimation, and even reverence, which his own character commanded. (Also see on Mat 3:10.)\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":16,"content":["John answered--either to the deputation from Jerusalem (see Joh 1:19, &c.), or on some other occasion, simply to remove impressions derogatory to his blessed Master which he knew to be taking hold of the popular mind. (Also see on Mat 3:10.) \n\nsaying unto them all--in solemn protestation. So far from entertaining such a thought as laying claim to the honors of Messiahship, the meanest services I can render to that \"Mightier than I that is coming after me,\" are too high an honor for me. Beautiful spirit, distinguishing this servant of Christ throughout! \n\none mightier than I--\"the Mighter than I.\"\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":18,"content":["many other things, &c.--such as we read in Joh 1:29, Joh 1:33-34; Joh 3:27-36. (Also see on Mat 3:12.)\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":19,"content":["But Herod, &c.--See on Mar 6:14, &c. (Also see on Mat 3:12.) \n\nand for all the evils which Herod had done--important fact here only mentioned, showing how thoroughgoing was the fidelity of the Baptist to his royal hearer, and how strong must have been the workings of conscience in that slave of passion when, notwithstanding such plainness, he \"did many things and heard John gladly\" (Mar 6:20, Mar 6:26).\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":20,"content":["Added yet, &c.--(Also see on Mat 3:12).\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":21,"content":["BAPTISM OF AND DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT UPON JESUS. (Luk 3:21-22)\n\nwhen all the people were baptized--that He might not seem to be merely one of the crowd. Thus, as He rode into Jerusalem upon an ass, \"whereon yet never man sat\" (Luk 19:30), and lay in a sepulchre \"wherein was never man yet laid\" (Joh 19:41), so in His baptism He would be \"separate from sinners.\"\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":23,"content":["GENEALOGY OF JESUS. (Luke 3:23-38)\n\nhe began to be about thirty--that is, \"was about entering on His thirtieth year.\" So our translators have taken the word (and so CALVIN, BEZA, BLOOMFIELD, WEBSTER and WILKINSON, &c.): but \"was about thirty years of age when He began [His ministry],\" makes better Greek, and is probably the true sense [BENGEL, OLSHAUSEN, DE WETTE, MEYER, ALFORD, &c.]. At this age the priests entered on their office (Num 4:3). \n\nbeing, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, &c.--Have we in this genealogy, as well as in Matthew's, the line of Joseph? or is this the line of Mary?--a point on which there has been great difference of opinion and much acute discussion. Those who take the former opinion contend that it is the natural sense of this verse, and that no other would have been thought of but for its supposed improbability and the uncertainty which it seems to throw over our Lord's real descent. But it is liable to another difficulty; namely, that in this case Matthew makes Jacob, while Luke makes \"Heli,\" to be Joseph's father; and though the same man had often more than one name, we ought not to resort to that supposition, in such a case as this, without necessity. And then, though the descent of Mary from David would be liable to no real doubt, even though we had no table of her line preserved to us (see, for example, Luke 1:2-32, and see on Luk 2:5), still it does seem unlikely--we say not incredible--that two genealogies of our Lord should be preserved to us, neither of which gives his real descent. Those who take the latter opinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph--here His real, there His reputed line--explain the statement about Joseph, that he was \"the son of Hell,\" to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Rut 1:11-12), and believe that Joseph's name is only introduced instead of Mary's, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported. However we decide, it is a satisfaction to know that not a doubt was thrown out by the bitterest of the early enemies of Christianity as to our Lord's real descent from David. On comparing the two genealogies, it will be found that Matthew, writing more immediately for Jews, deemed it enough to show that the Saviour was sprung from Abraham and David; whereas Luke, writing more immediately for Gentiles, traces the descent back to Adam, the parent stock of the whole human family, thus showing Him to be the promised \"Seed of the woman.\" \"The possibility of constructing such a table, comprising a period of thousands of years, in an uninterrupted line from father to son, of a family that dwelt for a long time in the utmost retirement, would be inexplicable, had not the members of this line been endowed with a thread by which they could extricate themselves from the many families into which every tribe and branch was again subdivided, and thus hold fast and know the member that was destined to continue the lineage. This thread was the hope that Messiah would be born of the race of Abraham and David. The ardent desire to behold Him and be partakers of His mercy and glory suffered not the attention to be exhausted through a period embracing thousands of years. Thus the member destined to continue the lineage, whenever doubtful, became easily distinguishable, awakening the hope of a final fulfilment, and keeping it alive until it was consummated\" [OLSHAUSEN].\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":24,"content":["son of Matthat, &c.--(See on Mat 1:13-15). In Luk 3:27, Salathiel is called the son, while in Mat 1:12, he is called the father of Zerubbabel. But they are probably different persons.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":38,"content":["son of God--Compare Act 17:28.\n\n\n\n\nNext: Luke Chapter 4\n\n"]}],"introduction":"PREACHING, BAPTISM, AND IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN. (Luke 3:1-20)\n\nHere the curtain of the New Testament is, as it were, drawn up, and the greatest of all epochs of the Church commences. Even our Lord's own age (Luk 3:23) is determined by it [BENGEL]. No such elaborate chronological precision is to be found elsewhere in the New Testament, and it comes fitly from him who claims it as the peculiar recommendation of his Gospel, that he had \"accurately traced down all things from the first\" (Luk 1:3). Here, evidently, commences his proper narrative. Also see on Mat 3:1. \n\nthe fifteenth year of Tiberius--reckoning from the period when he was admitted, three years before Augustus' death, to a share of the empire [WEBSTER and WILKINSON], about the end of the year of Rome 779, or about four years before the usual reckoning. \n\nPilate . . . governor of Judea--His proper title was Procurator, but with more than the usual powers of that office. After holding it about ten years he was ordered to Rome, to answer to charges brought against him, but ere he arrived Tiberius died (A.D. 35), and soon after Pilate committed suicide. \n\nHerod--(See on Mar 6:14). \n\nPhilip--a different and very superior Philip to the one whose wife Herodias went to live with Herod Antipas. (See Mar 6:17). \n\nIturea--to the northeast of Palestine; so called from Ishmael's son Itur or Jetur (Ch1 1:31), and anciently belonging to the half tribe of Manasseh. \n\nTrachonitis--farther to the northeast, between Iturea and Damascus; a rocky district, infested by robbers, and committed by Augustus to Herod the Great to keep in order. \n\nAbilene--still more to the northeast, so called from Abila, eighteen miles from Damascus [ROBINSON].\n\n"},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/LUK/3.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"LUK","chapter":3},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/LUK/4.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"LUK","chapter":4},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/LUK/2.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"LUK","chapter":2},"numberOfVerses":17}