 |  |
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 standpoint. 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
Matt. 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 Steward, 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".