《Unabridged Commentary Critical and Explanatory on Luke》(Robert Jamieson)
Commentator
At a time when the theological winds seem to change direction on a daily basis, the Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible is a welcome breath of fresh air from conservative and orthodox teachers of the Christian faith. This commentary has been a bestseller since its original publication in 1871 due to its scholarly rigor and devotional value. Robert Jamieson (1802-1880), Andrew Robert Fausset, and David Brown(1803-1897) have crafted a detailed, yet not overly technical, commentary of the Bible that holds to the historic teachings of orthodox Christianity. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible is based on a detailed exegesis of the scriptures in the original languages and is a "must have" for those who are interested in a deeper appreciation of the Biblical text
Published in 1878, this is the unabridged version of Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary. This version includes the Greek and Hebrew words, along with double the content of the abridged version. Most online versions of JFB are abridged and include only a fraction of what the authors said!
It is worth noting that in the printed version, errors in spelling, punctuation, numbering, cross references have followed throughout the printing history of this one-volume edition of the Commentary. This electronic edition, then, may represent the first corrected edition.
00 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 Colossians 4:14 we learn that he was a "physician"; and by comparing that verse with Colossians 4:10, Colossians 4:11 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 Acts 21:27-29 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 Acts 16:10 to the first person plural ("we"). From that time he hardly ever left the apostle till near the period of his martyrdom ( 2 Timothy 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.
The 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" ( Acts 1:1 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.
That 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 Luke 1:26; Luke 4:31; Luke 8:26; Luke 21:37; Luke 22:1; Luke 24:13 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.
We 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 1 Corinthians 11:23 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" ( 1 Corinthians 11:25 ; Luke 22:20 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" ( Matthew 26:26 ; Mark 14:22 which is broken for you" ( 1 Corinthians 11:24 which is given for you" ( Luke 22:19 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" ( 1 Corinthians 15:4, 1 Corinthians 15:5 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" ( Luke 24:34
Other points connected with this Gospel will be adverted to in the Commentary.
01 Chapter 1
Verse 1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration , [ epecheireesan (Greek #2021) anataxasthai (Greek #392) dieegeesin (Greek #1335)] - 'have undertaken to draw up a narrative,'
Of those things which are most surely believed, [ toon (G3588) pepleeroforeemenoon (G4135)] among us - not 'believed confidently,' but 'believed on sure grounds.' So the word "surely" is used by our translators in Proverbs 10:9, "He that walketh uprightly walketh surely."
Verse 2
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning [ ap' (Greek #575) archees (Greek #746) - that is, of Christ's ministry], were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word}, [ autoptai (Greek #845) kai (Greek #2532) hupeeretai (Greek #5257) tou (Greek #3588) logou (Greek #3056)]. Though it would not be strictly proper to understand "the word" here of Christ Himself-since only John applies to Him this exalted title, and He seems never to have been actually so denominated-yet since the term rendered "ministers" [ hupeeretai (Greek #5257)] denotes the servants of a person, it must refer to those apostles of the Lord Jesus, who, in proclaiming everywhere that word which they had heard from His own lips, acted as His servants.
Verse 3
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of [ pareekoloutheekoti (G3877) - rather, 'having closely followed,' or 'traced along'] all things from the very first , [ anoothen (Greek #509) pasin (Greek #3956) akriboos (Greek #199)] - 'all things with precision from the earliest;' referring particularly to the precious contents of his first two chapters, for which we are indebted to this Evangelist alone,
To write unto thee in order , [ kathexees (Greek #2517) = efexees] - i:e., consecutively; probably in contrast with the disjointed productions he had just referred to. But we need not take this as a claim to rigid chronological accuracy in the arrangement of his materials (as some able Harmonists insist that we should do); a claim which, on a comparison of this with the other Gospels, it would be difficult in every case to make good.
Most excellent, [ kratiste (G2903)] Theophilus. Since the term here applied to Theophilus was given to Felix and Festus, the Roman governors (Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3; Acts 26:25), he probably occupied some similar official position.
Verse 4
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
That thou mightest know - [`know thoroughly' epignoos (Greek #1921)] - the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed}, [ kateecheethees (Greek #2727)] - 'orally instructed;' i:e., as a catechumen, or candidate for Christian baptism.
Verse 5
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
There was, in the days of Herod the king of Judea (see the note at Matthew 2:1), a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia - or Abijah, the 8th of the 24 courses (orders) into which David divided the priests (1 Chronicles 24:1; 1 Chronicles 24:4; 1 Chronicles 24:10). Of these courses only 4 returned after the captivity (Ezra 2:36-39), which were again divided into 24 courses, retaining the ancient name and the original order; and each of these took the whole Temple-service for a week.
And his wife was of the daughters of Aaron. Though the priests, says Lightfoot, might marry into any tribe, it was most commendable of all to marry one of the priests' line.
And her name was Elizabeth.
Verse 6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
And they were both righteous - not merely virtuous before men, but righteous
Before God who searcheth the heart. What that comprehended is next explained.
Walking - a familiar Biblical term denoting the habitual tenor of one's life, (Psalms 1:1, etc.)
In all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord - the one denoting the moral, the other the ceremonial precepts of the law-a distinction which it is falsely alleged that the ancient Jews were strangers to (see the note at Mark 12:33; and see Ezekiel 11:20; Hebrews 9:1).
Blameless - irreproachable.
Verse 7
And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.
And they had no child, because that Elizabeth was barren; and they both were now well stricken in years. This quiet couple have one trial. Almost everyone has some crook in his lot; but here it was a link in the great chain of the divine purposes. As with Abraham and Sarah before Isaac was given; with Elkanah and Hannah before Samuel was granted them; and with Manoah and his wife before Samson was born; so here with Zacharias and Elizabeth before the Forerunner was bestowed-in each case, doubtless, to make the gift more prized, and raise high expectations from it.
Verse 8
And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,
And it came to pass, that, while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,
Verse 9
According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. According to the custom or the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple.