10
and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways
shall be made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God' (Luke 3:1-6).
Compare the casual dating of Matthew's account with the precision of Luke's. See also, once again, how Luke
views things from the Gentile stand-point. He does not call Herod a King, but simply a Tetrarch, a subordinate
ruler. Then observe what is said of John the Baptist: both records tell us that he preached `repentance', but it is
Matthew's account which stresses the `kingdom', and Luke's which stresses `remission of sins'. Again, both
records quote a passage from Isaiah; Matthew's quotation is brief, Luke's is longer. Why? Surely it is in order to
include the words `all flesh', which had no essential bearing upon Matthew's purpose. Once again, it must be
obvious that a definite, selective, process is at work governing the writing of these two accounts.
(4)
The opening of the Lord's ministry (Matt. 4. and Luke 4):
`Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil ... From that time Jesus began
to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' (Matt. 4:1,17).
`And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
being forty days tempted of the devil ... He hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor ... many widows
were in Israel in the days of Elias ... but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon,
unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of
them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian' (Luke 4:1,2,18,25-27).
Look at the extraordinary differences here. We have purposely included the references to the temptation, so that
it shall be clear that in both quotations the same period is in view, yet Matthew selects the moment when the Lord
stressed the `kingdom', while Luke passes that by and selects the words that angered the assembly in the synagogue
of Nazareth. Again, Luke is seen using every opportunity to announce the news that the Gentile was to have a place
in the kingdom ministry.
While but four items have been compared, the searcher will find numerous others, down to the precision of small
phrases and even words. For example, let him compare Matthew 24 with Luke 21, and say why Luke alone gives
any record of the `times of the Gentiles' (verse 24). One other most important piece of contributory evidence of the
purpose of Luke's Gospel is the parables peculiar to that Gospel. Luke alone speaks of the good Samaritan, at the
expense of the Jewish Priest and Levite, who could do nothing. Luke alone gives the pearl of parables, The Prodigal
Son, where the prodigal is seen to advantage over against his elder brother. Again, Luke alone gives that
anticipation of the epistle to the Romans in the parable of the Pharisee and Publican, introducing, as it does, the
doctrine of justification. Once more, Luke alone reveals that Israel were like Unjust Stewards, and, finally, it is
Luke alone who recounts the parable that speaks of the Lord's absence under the figure of `a certain Nobleman
(who) went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return' (Luke 19:12), thus checking the idea
that `the kingdom of God should immediately appear' (verse 11).
We have not felt it necessary to set out these parables in detail. The full force of their bearing upon Luke's
purpose can only be felt by those who ponder them prayerfully and carefully.
Let us set out what we have seen:
Matthew
Luke
The Subjects
King and kingdom, with the Jew
Sin and salvation, with the
prominent, is the theme.
Gentile in view, is the theme.
The Genealogies
Abraham and David.
Adam.
The witness at the Birth