Luke

Tyndale New Testament Commentary

Leon Morris

• Publisher: IVP
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN:
  9781783593132
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christianity

The Gospel of Luke presents many unique pictures of Jesus. We see him in his Father's house as a child, we see him deliberately associating with the poor and the disreputable, and we see him in communion with the Holy Spirit. But we also see the larger picture of Jesus setting out resolutely for Jerusalem in order to fulfil God's plan for the world. With a critical awareness of scholarly discussions and a practical attentiveness to both the text and the reader, Leon Morris carefully places the themes of Luke's Gospel within the context of God's plan for all people.This classic commentary has been completely retypeset and presented in a fresh, vibrant new large paperback format, with new global branding.

Commentary

Preface (1:1–4)

The opening paragraph is one sentence in good Greek style, with classical vocabulary, rhythm and balance. Luke has a feeling for style and clearly he sees a somewhat Semitic accent as right for the kind of book he is writing. But this excellently rounded sentence is equally right for a literary opening. And a literary opening, of course, implies that what follows was meant for circulation. Some of our oldest MSS, incidentally, give the book the simple title: ‘According to Luke’.

1. Luke begins by drawing attention to many who had written before him. Many ancient writers begin by criticizing their predecessors. Not Luke. He is out to convey certainty (v. 4), but he does not disparage others. They had set out to compose a narrative, a general term which leaves it open whether they had written gospels or some other kind of narrative. He does not say who they were but most agree that Mark was one of them. The verb accomplished can be used of being fully persuaded (AV, ‘most surely believed’), but this meaning is unlikely here. The word has about it the air of fulfilment (cf. 2 Tim. 4:5) and Luke may be hinting at the working out of God’s purpose, a thought which will be so much with him throughout his Gospel and its sequel.1

2. Luke has good authority for what he writes. He was not himself an eyewitness, but had consulted others who were. Some have thought the reference to eyewitnesses to be nothing more than conventional, but, as Creed says, ‘an ancient writer would no more claim the authority of eye-witnesses without expecting his statement to be believed than a modern’. The eyewitnesses were also ministers of the word. This unusual expression (found nowhere else in the New Testament) appears to mean ‘men who preached the Christian gospel’. But we should not overlook the facts that John speaks of Jesus as ‘the Word’ (John 1:1) and that elsewhere Luke seems to regard preaching Jesus and preaching the word as much the same thing (Acts 8:4; 9:20; cf. also Acts 10:36ff.). He is approaching John’s thought, for these men were servants of the Word as well as of the word. He is also implying that his authorities were not so much academic historians as men who knew and lived by the word they preached. From the beginning takes us back to the ministry of John the Baptist. Luke was not missing out on anything essential but going back to the very roots of the Christian movement. Delivered is wide enough to cover both oral and written tradition; Luke may well have both in mind.

3. He claims to have followed all things closely. Some (e.g. Cadbury) hold that this means that he was personally present (as he was at some of the events in Acts). But this seems to read too much into his verb. We should take it rather in the sense ‘track down’, ‘investigate’, for, on his own admission, Luke was not an eyewitness of some at least of what he narrates. MM think that the verb implies, not that Luke had ‘investigated’ all his facts afresh, but that he had acquired such familiarity with them and had so kept in touch with them ‘that his witness is practically contemporary witness’. He claims to have followed the events ‘accurately’ (as mg., rather than closely). He is saying that his information is good; he knows what he is writing about. He goes on to say that he has traced the story from its beginning (for some time past should rather be ‘from the very first’ as AV). There has been a good deal of discussion of the word translated orderly (kathexēs), used by Luke alone in the New Testament. The view that it means ‘in chronological order’ seems to be reading too much into it. Geldenhuys, while not overlooking the chronological possibilities, sees in the word ‘logical and artistic arrangement’ and some such view is probably correct. Theophilus (= ‘lover of God’) is unlikely to be a symbolic name; it points to a real person who would probably, as Luke’s patron, have met the costs of publishing the book. The epithet most excellent probably indicates a person of rank (cf. Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25), though the possibility remains that it is no more than a courtesy title.

4. The verb informed is often used of the instruction of Christian converts or inquirers (katēcheō; see Acts 18:25; 1 Cor. 14:19, etc.). Some deduce that Theophilus was a believer, and support this with the contention that he was unlikely to have been Luke’s literary patron if he was not. But against this it is urged that he would probably have been called ‘brother’ if he was. In any case the verb may be used of a report both hostile and wrong (e.g. Acts 21:21, 24), so we must keep open the possibility that he was no more than an interested outsider. He certainly knew something about the Christian faith and Luke wants him to know the truth (Hendriksen ‘exact truth’; the word means ‘certainty’ and it is in an emphatic position) about it. Ned B. Stonehouse sees truth as specially important here. The ‘main impact’ of the Prologue is ‘that Christianity is true and is capable of confirmation by appeal to what had happened’.2

1. THE INFANCY NARRATIVES (1:5–2:52)

In this section (peculiar to Luke) we have our only information about the origins of John the Baptist and some unique information about the birth of Jesus. There are some notable parallels between the two birth stories. In both the angel Gabriel brought news of what was to happen, in both the circumstances of the birth and circumcision are narrated, and in both this is followed by prophetic utterances. Luke is bringing out the wonder of the Messianic age. Prophecy had ceased at the close of the Old Testament period; but now God was sending his Messiah and the prophetic gift was renewed. John is shown to have a special place in the Messianic happenings. There is no possibility of confusing him with the Messiah in Luke’s account, for he is but the forerunner (1:17). But there is no possibility either of missing his true greatness.

Both the language and the ideas of these chapters reflect a Semitic background. Luke may be translating a Hebrew or Aramaic document, or writing in imitation of the style of the Septuagint. On the whole it seems likely that he is reflecting his sources and that these came from Palestine.

A. The birth of John foretold (1:5–25)

5–7. Luke dates his narrative from the reign of Herod the Great (37–4 BC). What he describes comes somewhere near the end of that reign. He tells of Zechariah, a priest from the country (39f.), who took his turn in ministering in the temple. There were many priests, but only one temple. So they served on a roster (1 Chr. 24:1–6). The priests were divided into twenty-four divisions of which that of Abijah was the eighth (1 Chr. 24:10). Only four divisions returned from the Exile (Ezra 2:36–39), but the four were subdivided to make up twenty-four again with the old names. Each division was on duty twice a year, for a week on each occasion. Zechariah was married to Elizabeth, a priest’s daughter. A priest was required to marry an Israelite virgin (Lev. 21:14), but not necessarily one of a priestly family. To have a wife of priestly stock was a special blessing for a priest. The piety of this couple is brought out with the adjectives righteous and blameless. This means, of course, that they served God faithfully, not that they were sinless. It made their childless state hard for them to understand, for people believed that God would bless faithful servants by giving them children. The mention of their age is probably to make it clear that they could expect no change in the situation. Zechariah may have been very old, for there was no retiring age for priests (as there was for Levites).

8–10. There were many priests and not enough sacred duties for them all, so lots were cast to see who would perform each function. The offering of incense was regarded as a great privilege. A priest could not offer incense more than once in his entire lifetime (Mishnah, Tamid 5:2), and some priests never did receive the privilege. Thus the time when Zechariah offered the incense was the most important moment in his whole life. Luke does not say whether he offered at the morning or the evening sacrifice. In either case he would go into the holy place with other priests, but they would retire, leaving him alone. When the signal was given he would offer the incense. The worshippers waited in the outer court until the priest discharged this duty (10).

11–12. Luke gives us no description of the angel. He simply tells us that the heavenly visitor stood on the right side of the altar of incense. As directions are often given in the Bible from the standpoint of someone facing east, this probably means the south side. The angel would then be standing between the altar of incense and the golden candlestick.

13. The angel first reassured Zechariah: Do not be afraid. Then he went on, your prayer is heard. The aorist tense seems to indicate prayer on one specific occasion, rather than habitual prayer. If so, it will surely be the prayer Zechariah offered at the time of the incense. Our first thought is that he had prayed for a child. But, even allowing for the lack of faith with which we so often pray, Zechariah’s blank incredulity when told he would have a son is hard to reconcile with this. Moreover a priest might well have thought it unseemly to make his private concern the object of prayer at such a moment. It is more likely that he prayed for the redemption of Israel. Now he was told that this prayer would be granted. But that was not all: in addition he would have a son. The child’s name was to be John (= ‘The Lord is gracious’).

14–17. In a poetic passage the angel speaks first of the joy that would come to Zechariah and many others at the birth of the child, and then of the destiny the boy would fulfil. That Zechariah would have joy and gladness was only to be expected. But this child would be great before the Lord, so that others would be happy as well. Like Samson’s mother (Judg. 13:4), he was to abstain from wine and strong drink (= any alcoholic drink apart from wine). Some deduce that he would be a life-long Nazirite (Num. 6:1–8; so Fitzmyer); but this is never said, and the absence of a reference to the hair (a Nazirite’s hair was never cut) is against it. It may be better to see John as having a unique position, neither Nazirite nor priest, though with points of connection with both. The most important thing is that from the very first John was to be filled with the Holy Spirit,1 without whose help God’s work cannot be done effectively. John is the only person said in the New Testament to be filled with the Spirit from his mother’s womb; this emphasizes the fact that God chose him and equipped him from the very beginning. For the contrast between the stimulation caused by wine and that of the Spirit cf. Ephesians 5:18.

The child would turn many Israelites to the Lord their God (which makes it clear that they had gone away from him). His ministry is likened to that of Elijah (cf. Mark 9:13) and the prophecy of Malachi 3:1; 4:5f. is invoked. This brings out both John’s greatness and his subordinate place. The fulfilment of prophecy and the comparison with Elijah emphasize the greatness of the man. But on the other hand he was no more than a forerunner, one who would prepare for the coming of the Lord. The meaning of to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children is not immediately obvious. It may be that John was to remedy disunity in families (so Marshall). This may mean awakening fathers to perform their parental responsibilities (cf. the failures of Eli, Samuel and David to discipline their sons) or awakening disobedient sons to change their way of life so that their fathers come to approve of them. Or the fathers may mean the patriarchs, the great ancestors of the present sinners. From their vantage-point in the next world they looked at their descendants and were displeased. But John would bring about such a change that the fathers would come to look with favour on Israel (cf. Isa. 29:22f. for a similar thought). Similarly John would change the disobedient so that they accepted the wisdom of the just (cf. Prov. 4). The result would be a people prepared for the Lord.

18. Zechariah refused point blank to believe the angel. His question is identical with that asked by Abraham centuries before (Gen. 15:8), but it is asked in a different spirit. It amounts to a demand for a sign. Gideon and Hezekiah, it is true, asked for signs (Judg. 6:36–39; 2 Kgs 20:8), but again in a very different spirit. Zechariah speaks from unbelief as he reminds the angel that both he and his wife are old (his I is emphatic). Babies are not born to people like them.

19–20. The angel retorts with an emphatic I of his own as he discloses his name. Gabriel means ‘man of God’. His place in the presence of God shows something of his dignity. Zechariah would be in no doubt about the importance of his informant. And this great Gabriel was sent (i.e. by God) to bring good news to the old priest. Luke emphasizes the point by employing a verb later to be used characteristically for preaching the good news of the gospel. Zechariah’s refusal to believe must be seen in the light of God’s condescension in sending such a messenger with such a message. To reject him was serious and it would have its consequences. Zechariah would get his sign all right, though not the kind of sign he wanted. He would be silent, quite unable to speak until such time as Gabriel’s words were fulfilled. Gabriel leaves no room for uncertainty. What God has said will come to pass.

21–22. It did not take long to offer the incense, and priests normally came out quickly from the holy place (lest they be punished for some act of presumption). The people had no way of knowing what was keeping Zechariah so long beyond the normal time, and they wondered at his delay. Temple would be better translated ‘sanctuary’. People and priests were all in one part or other of the temple, but Zechariah was ministering in the holy place. When he came out he should have joined the other officiating priests in pronouncing the benediction (Mishnah, Tamid 7:2). His making of signs and remaining dumb made it evident that something unusual had happened in the sanctuary. The people could not know exactly what it was, but they concluded that he had seen a vision.

23–25. Zechariah evidently remained at the temple until the end of his week of service, then went home. In due course Elizabeth conceived, thus affording him evidence of the truth of what Gabriel had said. It is not clear why Elizabeth hid herself for five months. But during this time her pregnancy would not have been noticeable. It may be that she did not want to be seen until it was obvious to all that the Lord had looked on her to take away her reproach (cf. Gen. 30:23). Childlessness was usually considered a punishment from God, and Elizabeth had evidently had to put up with reproaches from people who did not recognize her piety (6). Now she would know this no more.

B. The birth of Jesus foretold (1:26–38)

The virgin birth is a distinctive Christian doctrine. There is no Jewish parallel, but attention is sometimes drawn to birth stories among Greek legends. The suggestion is made that Christian apologists produced the story in a spirit of ‘Anything they can do we can do better!’ But none of the parallels adduced is really relevant. They usually tell of a divine person having sexual intercourse with a human (usually a god with a woman). A truly virgin birth is unique. Marshall emphasizes the Jewish character of the narrative; it is unlikely to derive from pagan sources. Ellis notes that the subj...

Table of contents

• Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
• Luke
• Contents
• General preface
• Author’s preface
• Chief Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Analysis
• Commentary
• 1. THE INFANCY NARRATIVES (1:5–2:52)
• 2. THE MINISTRY OF JOHN THE BAPTIST (3:1–20)
• 3. THE BEGINNING OF JESUS’ MINISTRY (3:21–4:13)
• 4. Jesus in Galilee (4:14–9:50)
• 5. FROM GALILEE TO JERUSALEM (9:51–19:44)
• 6. JESUS IN JERUSALEM (19:45–21:38)
• 7. THE CRUCIFIXION (22:1–23:56)
• 8. THE RESURRECTION (24:1–53)